```

[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 237 (Tuesday, December 10, 2024)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 99085-99105]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-28315]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Mine Safety and Health Administration

30 CFR Parts 18 and 74

[Docket No. MSHA-2020-0018]
RIN 1219-AB93

Testing, Evaluation, and Approval of Electric Motor-Driven Mine 
Equipment and Accessories

AGENCY: Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA), Department of 
Labor.

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) is revising 
its regulations that set out the testing, evaluation, and approval 
requirements for electric motor-driven mine equipment and accessories 
intended for use in gassy mines. Under this final rule, MSHA 
incorporates by reference

[[Page 99086]]

eight ANSI-approved voluntary consensus standards that are suitable for 
gassy mining environments to protect against fire or explosion hazards, 
and accepts them as alternatives to the existing testing, evaluation, 
and approval requirements for electric motor-driven mine equipment and 
accessories. This final rule offers more flexibility in the testing, 
evaluation, and approval requirements that product designers and 
manufacturers must meet in seeking MSHA approvals. This final rule will 
promote the use of innovative and advanced technologies that lead to 
improvements in mine safety and health.

DATES: 
    Effective date: January 9, 2025.
    Incorporation by reference date: The incorporation by reference of 
the publications listed in the rule is approved by the Director of the 
Federal Register as of January 9, 2025.

ADDRESSES: 
    Docket: Access rulemaking documents electronically at www.msha.gov/regsinfo.htm or www.regulations.gov [Docket No. MSHA-2020-0018]. Obtain 
a copy of a rulemaking document from the Office of Standards, 
Regulations, and Variances, MSHA, 201 12th Street South, Arlington, 
Virginia 22202-5452, by request to (202) 693-9440 (voice) or (202) 693-
9441 (facsimile). These are not toll-free numbers.
    Email Notification: To subscribe to receive email notification when 
the Agency publishes rulemaking documents in the Federal Register, go 
to www.msha.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: S. Aromie Noe, Director, Office of 
Standards, Regulations, and Variances, MSHA, at [email protected] 
(email), (202) 693-9440 (voice); or (202) 693-9441 (facsimile). These 
are not toll-free numbers.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Executive Summary
    A. Purpose of the Final Rule
    B. Summary of Major Provisions
    1. Accept and Use Voluntary Consensus Standards
    2. Incorporate by Reference Voluntary Consensus Standards
    3. Review and Update the Voluntary Consensus Standards
II. Legal Authority for Regulatory Action
III. Rulemaking History
IV. Background
    A. Product Approval Authority
    B. Product Approval Process
    C. Voluntary Consensus Standards
    1. Voluntary Consensus Standards in the Proposed Rule
V. Comments Received on the Proposed Rule
VI. Section-by-Section Analysis
    A. Section 18.2--Definitions
    B. Section 18.6--Applications
    C. Section 18.15--Changes After Approval or Certification
    D. Subpart F--Voluntary Consensus Standards
    1. Section 18.101--Acceptance and Use of Voluntary Consensus 
Standards
    2. Section 18.102--Approved (Incorporated by Reference) 
Voluntary Consensus Standards
    3. Section 18.103--Review and Update of Applicable Voluntary 
Consensus Standards
    E. Conforming Amendments
VII. Regulatory Impact Analysis
    A. Executive Orders 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review, as 
Amended by E.O. 14094: Modernizing Regulatory Review, and 13563: 
Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
VIII. Feasibility
IX. Regulatory Flexibility Act; Small Business Regulatory 
Enforcement Fairness Act; and Executive Order 13272
X. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
XI. Other Regulatory Considerations
    A. National Environmental Policy Act
    B. The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
    C. The Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act of 
1999: Assessment of Federal Regulations and Policies on Families
    D. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
    E. Executive Order 12630: Government Actions and Interference 
With Constitutionally Protected Property Rights
    F. Executive Order 12988: Civil Justice Reform
    G. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With 
Indian Tribal Governments
    H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
    I. Executive Order 13985: Advancing Racial Equity and Support 
for Underserved Communities Through the Federal Government
    J. Congressional Review Act
    K. Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2023
    L. Incorporation by Reference
XII. References

I. Executive Summary

    This final rule revises MSHA's regulations under title 30, Code of 
Federal Regulations (CFR) part 18 (Part 18), concerning testing, 
evaluation, and approval specifications and requirements for electric 
motor-driven mine equipment and accessories intended for use in 
hazardous atmospheres encountered in gassy mines. While this final rule 
does not change MSHA's approval process, it offers more flexibility in 
the testing, evaluation, and approval requirements that product 
designers and manufacturers must meet in seeking MSHA approvals. Under 
the final rule, manufacturers that design and build electric motor-
driven equipment and accessories conforming to voluntary consensus 
standards (VCS) may obtain MSHA approval without having to redesign or 
modify the equipment to meet MSHA-unique requirements.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ MSHA's approval regulations (30 CFR parts 6, 7, 18, 19, 20, 
22, 23, 27, and 28) govern the process through which manufacturers 
may obtain MSHA approval, certification, extension, or acceptance of 
certain electrical products for use in underground mines. Each of 
these separate approval actions has specific application procedures 
and technical requirements for testing and evaluation. Along with 
``approval,'' the terms ``certification,'' ``extension,'' and 
``acceptance'' also denote MSHA approval.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This final rule incorporates by reference eight VCS approved by the 
American National Standards Institute (ANSI) and allows applicants 
seeking MSHA approvals to follow either Part 18 requirements that are 
unique to MSHA or the ANSI-approved VCS. While adding flexibility for 
product designers and manufacturers, this final rule maintains the 
safety measures associated with the Agency's testing, evaluation, and 
approval requirements for equipment used in gassy mines.

A. Purpose of the Final Rule

    This final rule will promote the use of innovative and advanced 
technologies for electrical equipment used in gassy mines, leading to 
improvements in mine safety and health. Until now, the introduction of 
innovative and advanced electrical equipment in U.S. mines may have 
been limited by the need to meet MSHA-unique requirements for approval. 
The final rule will allow manufacturers that design and build electric 
motor-driven equipment and accessories (hereafter referred to as 
electrical equipment) conforming to the VCS listed in Part 18 to obtain 
MSHA approval without having to redesign or modify the equipment to 
meet MSHA-unique requirements. The use of VCS will make the approval 
process more efficient for applicants seeking MSHA approval for their 
products. As a result, MSHA's acceptance and use of VCS will make 
technologically advanced equipment available for use in U.S. mines more 
quickly and cost-effectively than is possible under existing MSHA-
unique requirements, without sacrificing the safety measures associated 
with MSHA approvals.
    Additionally, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-
119, entitled ``Federal Participation in the Development and Use of 
Voluntary Consensus Standards and in Conformity Assessment 
Activities.'' (Jan. 27, 2016 (81 FR 4673)) directs agencies to use VCS 
in lieu of

[[Page 99087]]

government-unique standards except where doing so would be inconsistent 
with law or otherwise impractical. In response to Circular A-119 and 
stakeholder comments, MSHA is incorporating the use of VCS in this 
final rule. The VCS included in the final rule are suitable for gassy 
mining environments and provide protection against fire or explosion 
hazards.

B. Summary of Major Provisions

    The final rule has three major provisions: accepting and using VCS; 
incorporating by reference eight ANSI-approved VCS while also allowing 
the use of existing Part 18 requirements for MSHA approvals; and 
reviewing more recent versions of the approved VCS as well as other VCS 
for use in Part 18. Below is a summary of each of the three major 
provisions.
1. Accept and Use Voluntary Consensus Standards
    MSHA is accepting the use of VCS in lieu of existing Part 18 
requirements in its approval process for products to be used in gassy 
mines. Specifically, MSHA is accepting VCS that the Agency has 
incorporated by reference and determined are suitable for gassy mining 
environments and that provide protection against fire or explosion, if 
used in their entirety and without modification, as alternatives to the 
requirements in subparts B through E in Part 18. Using and accepting 
VCS is also consistent with the principles and policies in Circular A-
119.
2. Incorporate by Reference Voluntary Consensus Standards
    This final rule is incorporating by reference eight ANSI-approved 
VCS in their entirety and without modification. These eight VCS are 
ANSI 60079 series standards for explosive atmospheres. When product 
designers or manufacturers seek MSHA approval under Part 18, the 
specifications of these eight ANSI-approved VCS can be used, as 
applicable.
    The final rule is not incorporating by reference the six VCS from 
the International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) that were included 
in the proposed rule. This change was made due to concerns that the IEC 
standards may not provide sufficient protection against fire or 
explosions when used for electric motor-driven mine equipment and 
accessories in U.S. mines because the IEC standards do not contain 
certain U.S.-specific electrical and safety requirements that are 
included in the ANSI-approved VCS.
    Also, unlike the proposed rule, the final rule is not restricting 
applicants to use only VCS after a transition period of 12 months. The 
final rule allows product designers and manufacturers to choose either 
existing Part 18 requirements or the ANSI-approved VCS when they seek 
approval for new products or for modification to MSHA-approved 
products. This change was made in response to public comments 
requesting more time for product designers and manufacturers to adapt 
their designs and equipment to the VCS specifications, as well as 
raising the concern that the mandatory transition to VCS would be 
problematic for some product manufacturers. The final rule provides 
more flexibility to both new applicants for product approval and 
current approval holders seeking product modifications.
3. Review and Update the Voluntary Consensus Standards
    Under this final rule, MSHA will review, in the future, more recent 
editions of the VCS listed in Part 18 to determine whether they can be 
used in their entirety and without modification for MSHA approval. 
Also, MSHA may review VCS not listed in Part 18 for possible future 
adoption.

II. Legal Authority for Regulatory Action

    This final rule is issued under section 508 of the Federal Mine 
Safety and Health Act of 1977 (Mine Act), as amended. 30 U.S.C. 957. 
Section 508 of the Mine Act gives the Secretary the authority to issue 
regulations to carry out any provision of the Mine Act.

III. Rulemaking History

    In 2018, MSHA sought stakeholders' assistance in identifying 
regulations that could be repealed, replaced, or modified without 
reducing miners' safety or health. As a result of this solicitation, 
MSHA received recommendations for the Agency's product approval 
regulations. Specifically, stakeholders recommended that MSHA replace 
Part 18 requirements with VCS to provide a clearer and timelier path 
for approval of new technologies that could improve the health and 
safety of miners.
    On November 19, 2020, MSHA published in the Federal Register a 
notice of proposed rulemaking that would revise the existing testing, 
evaluation, and approval requirements for electric motor-driven mine 
equipment and accessories intended for use in gassy mines to include 
VCS (85 FR 73656). MSHA proposed to incorporate by reference 14 VCS (8 
approved by ANSI and 6 by IEC) in their entirety and without 
modification to replace, as applicable, existing approval requirements 
in Part 18.
    During the comment period, MSHA received 20 comments from product 
manufacturers, safety certification companies, industry associations, a 
representative of a voluntary consensus standards body, the National 
Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), and private 
citizens. All of the public comments are available at MSHA's website at 
www.msha.gov and at www.regulations.gov.

IV. Background

A. Product Approval Authority

    The Mine Act requires MSHA to establish requirements for the 
technical design, construction, and testing of electrical products and 
to approve as ``permissible'' electrical equipment that meets MSHA's 
specifications. 30 U.S.C. 865. MSHA's requirements for product approval 
ensure that electrical equipment will not cause a fire or explosion if 
operated in hazardous atmospheres encountered in gassy mines, where, 
for example, methane-air mixtures are present. Before electrical 
equipment can be used in a gassy mine in the U.S., the equipment must 
first be approved for such use by MSHA. MSHA-approved equipment is 
affixed with an MSHA approval plate to indicate that the equipment is 
permitted for use in gassy mines.
    MSHA approval requirements for mining or related equipment are 
organized by the type of equipment and are listed in different parts of 
30 CFR.\2\ Part 18 specifies the procedures and requirements for 
obtaining MSHA approval, certification, extension, or acceptance of 
electric motor-driven mine equipment and accessories intended for use 
in gassy mines. Examples of this equipment include remote control units 
for mining machinery, longwall mining systems, portable oxygen 
detectors, miner-wearable components for proximity detection systems, 
and powered air-purifying respirators (PAPRs).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ For example, 30 CFR part 19 covers electric cap lamps, 30 
CFR part 20 covers electric mine lamps other than standard cap 
lamps, 30 CFR part 22 covers portable methane detectors, 30 CFR part 
23 covers telephones and signaling devices, and 30 CFR part 27 
covers methane-monitoring systems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To avoid a fire or an explosion, Part 18 requires electrical 
equipment to be designed in one of two ways. One method is to design 
intrinsically safe electrical equipment, which cannot produce a spark 
strong enough or temperatures sufficient to ignite hazardous gasses 
such as flammable methane-air mixtures. The other method

[[Page 99088]]

is to house electrical equipment in an explosion-proof or flameproof 
enclosure that will withstand internal explosions of methane-air 
mixtures, without damage to or excessive distortion of its walls or 
covers and will prevent ignition of surrounding methane-air mixtures.

B. Product Approval Process

    To market electrical equipment for use in U.S. gassy mines, product 
designers and manufacturers must obtain MSHA approval for these 
products. To obtain that approval, applicants must submit a sample of 
the completely assembled electrical machine or accessory, drawings and 
specifications of the product components, and any product-testing 
documentation, if available.
    When MSHA receives an application for approval of a completely 
assembled electrical machine or accessory for use in gassy mines, MSHA 
reviews the application using the following general steps. MSHA first 
determines whether the applicant has met the technical requirements of 
Part 18 by examining the documents in the application package, which 
may include drawings, specifications, or photographs. These technical 
requirements, as described under subpart B of Part 18 (entitled 
Construction and Design Requirements), address design and construction 
specifications (e.g., quality of material, workmanship and design, 
electrical clearances, design of enclosures, and electrical protection 
of circuits and equipment). MSHA also checks the product or parts of 
the product against the technical requirements of Part 18, which may 
require disassembling and examining parts of the product for conformity 
to the submitted drawings and specifications.
    As part of the product approval process, the product must also 
undergo testing and evaluation, which may include testing for 
explosion-proof characteristics of an enclosure and impact tests. 
Testing and evaluation can be conducted by MSHA or an independent 
laboratory, pursuant to 30 CFR 6.10, Use of independent 
laboratories.\3\ If the applicant chooses MSHA to conduct the testing 
and evaluation of the product, then MSHA tests and evaluates the 
applicant's product to determine whether it performs according to the 
safety and testing requirements. Alternatively, if the applicant 
chooses an independent laboratory to conduct the testing and 
evaluation, then MSHA reviews the testing and evaluation results from 
the independent laboratory to determine whether the product performs 
according to the safety and testing requirements. MSHA will also verify 
the laboratory's independence and accreditation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ An independent laboratory is defined in 30 CFR 6.2 as a 
laboratory that: (1) has been recognized by a laboratory accrediting 
organization to test and evaluate products to a product safety 
standard, and (2) is free from commercial, financial, and other 
pressures that may influence the results of the testing and 
evaluation process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Once MSHA determines that the product meets all the approval 
requirements under Part 18 and is safe for use in gassy mines, the 
Agency issues an approval. The applicant then becomes an approval 
holder and must place an MSHA approval plate on the product to indicate 
that the product is permissible for use in gassy mines.
    The use of the MSHA approval plate obligates the approval holder to 
maintain the quality of the completely assembled product according to 
the requirements upon which the approval was based. If an approval 
holder wants to modify an approved product and maintain its approval, 
then the approval holder must submit the proposed changes to MSHA. If 
the proposed changes are approved, MSHA issues either an extension of 
approval or a notice of acceptance of the modified product to the 
approval holder.

C. Voluntary Consensus Standards

    The VCS that MSHA proposed to incorporate by reference were 
developed or approved by voluntary consensus standards bodies through 
the use of voluntary consensus standards development processes with the 
attributes described in OMB Circular A-119. According to Circular A-
119, the VCS development process includes the following attributes or 
elements: openness; balance of interest; due process; appeals process; 
and consensus. Each of the 14 VCS considered by MSHA demonstrates these 
attributes because they were developed by standard-setting bodies 
through a transparent, open, and consensus-based process.
    Of the 14 VCS that MSHA considered, 6 were developed by the 
International Electrotechnical Commission and 8 were approved by the 
American National Standards Institute. This final rule refers to these 
as IEC VCS (or non-ANSI approved VCS) and ANSI-approved VCS. Below the 
two VCS bodies and their standard-development processes are discussed.
International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC)
    IEC is a global, not-for-profit membership organization that 
administers conformity assessment systems and publishes international 
standards used in testing and certification of devices, systems, 
installations, and services. IEC's international standards reflect the 
global consensus of technical experts who are delegated by their 
countries to participate in the IEC. Members are technical committee 
representatives, as well as experts nominated by their home countries' 
national committees in the areas of concern.
    IEC generally develops a standard in the following manner. A 
proposal for a new or revised standard is generally driven by needs of 
specific stakeholder groups in one or several countries. During the 
preparatory stage, a working draft of the standard or revision is 
developed by an IEC committee (IEC, 2024b). The committee draft is 
submitted to all IEC members, including those who participate actively 
in IEC work, and those who have observer status only for comment and 
approval. Each national committee can submit its comments and then the 
committee members work together to reach a consensus on the technical 
content. Once consensus is reached among the committee members, the 
standard is published as an IEC international standard (IEC, 2024b).
American National Standards Institute (ANSI)
    ANSI is a non-profit organization that administers and coordinates 
the U.S. voluntary standards and conformity assessment system by 
working in close collaboration with stakeholders from industry and 
government to identify and develop American National Standards (ANSI, 
2024b). ANSI accredits the procedures of VCS bodies including UL 
Solutions (UL), formerly Underwriters Laboratories, and the 
International Society of Automation (ISA) (ANSI, 2024c). ANSI 
accreditation ensures that standards developed by the VCS bodies meet 
the standard-development process requirements for openness, balance, 
consensus, and due process, and adhere to neutral oversight set by 
ANSI. The accredited VCS bodies are allowed to submit individual 
standards for approval as an American National Standard (ANSI, 2024d). 
For a standard to become ANSI-approved, its submission and review 
process must have met ANSI's requirements, and the standard must have 
achieved consensus (ANSI, 2024d). For example, those standards that are 
submitted by an ANSI-accredited VCS body like UL or ISA and are later 
approved by ANSI are classified as ANSI-approved standards and labeled 
as ANSI/UL or ANSI/ISA.

[[Page 99089]]

1. Voluntary Consensus Standards in the Proposed Rule
    In the notice of proposed rulemaking, MSHA proposed to incorporate 
by reference eight ANSI-approved and six IEC VCS in their entirety and 
without modification, to replace existing approval criteria in Part 18 
for products covered by the VCS. These VCS included:

 ANSI/UL 60079-0 Ed. 7-2019, Explosive Atmospheres--Part 0: 
Equipment-General Requirements (Group I)
 ANSI/UL 60079-1 Ed. 7-2015, Standard for Explosive 
Atmospheres--Part 1: Equipment Protection by Flameproof Enclosures 
``d'' (Group I, Level of Protection `da')
 ANSI/ISA 60079-11 (12.02.01)-2014 Standard for Explosive 
Atmospheres--Part 11: Equipment Protection by Intrinsic Safety ``i'' 
(Group I, Level of Protection `ia')
 ANSI/UL 60079-11 Ed. 6-2013, Standard for Explosive 
Atmospheres--Part 11: Equipment Protection by Intrinsic Safety ``i'' 
(Group I, Level of Protection `ia')
 ANSI/UL 60079-18, Ed. 4-2015, Standard for Explosive 
Atmospheres--Part 18: Equipment Protection by Encapsulation `m' (Group 
I, Level of Protection `ma')
 ANSI/ISA 60079-25 (12.02.05)-2011 Standard for Explosive 
Atmospheres--Part 25: Intrinsically Safe Electrical Systems (Group I, 
Level of Protection `ia')
 ANSI/UL 60079-25 Ed. 2-2011, Standard for Explosive 
Atmospheres--Part 25: Intrinsically Safe Electrical Systems (Group I, 
Level of Protection `ia')
 ANSI/UL 60079-28 Ed. 2-2017, Standard for Explosive 
Atmospheres--Part 28: Protection of Equipment and Transmission Systems 
Using Optical Radiation (Group I, Equipment Protection Level `Ma')
 IEC 60079-0, Ed. 7, Explosive atmospheres--Part 0: Equipment--
General requirements (Group I)
 IEC 60079-1 Ed. 7, Standard for Explosive Atmospheres--Part 1: 
Equipment Protection by Flameproof Enclosures ``d'' (Group I, Level of 
Protection `da')
 IEC 60079-11, Ed. 6, Explosive Atmospheres--Part 11: Equipment 
Protection by Intrinsic Safety ``i'' (Group I, Level of Protection 
`ia')
 IEC 60079-18, Ed. 4.1, Explosive Atmospheres--Part 18: 
Equipment Protection by Encapsulation `m' (Group I, Level of Protection 
`ma')
 IEC 60079-25 Ed. 2, Explosive Atmospheres--Part 25: 
Intrinsically Safe Electrical Systems (Group I, Level of Protection 
`ia')
 IEC 60079-28 Ed. 2, Standard for Explosive Atmospheres--Part 
28: Protection of Equipment and Transmission Systems Using Optical 
Radiation (Group I, Equipment Protection Level `Ma')

    The ANSI standards are based on the similarly numbered IEC 
standards. The ANSI standards include modifications of the IEC 
standards to account for U.S.-specific requirements (U.S. deviations). 
The U.S. deviations are developed by nationally recognized and vetted 
experts and are approved as American National Standards.
    Both the IEC and ANSI 60079 series standards listed above cover a 
wide array of topics concerning explosive atmosphere standards. The 
ANSI 60079 series standards are generally based on the IEC 60079 series 
standards but include U.S.-specific requirements to make them 
compatible or consistent with U.S. safety and industry specifications 
or practices.

V. Comments Received on the Proposed Rule

    During the comment period of the notice of proposed rulemaking, 
MSHA received 20 comments from product manufacturers, safety 
certification companies, industry associations, a representative of a 
voluntary consensus standards body, NIOSH, and private citizens. This 
section presents public comments that are general in nature or 
crosscutting because they span multiple provisions of the proposed 
rule. Those comments that are specific and directly related to 
individual provisions are addressed in section VI, Section-by-Section 
Analysis.
    Generally, most commenters supported MSHA's acceptance of VCS in 
its approval process. Some commenters, including NIOSH, Komatsu, 
Rosebud Mining Company, National Mining Association (NMA), Fletcher, 
and Alliance Coal, agreed with MSHA that adopting VCS in Part 18 would 
promote the use of innovative and advanced technologies that lead to 
improvements in mine safety and health (Document ID 0015; 0013; 0012; 
0020; 0019; 0027).\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ This and all subsequent parenthetical citations of this form 
provide a reference for public comments located in the docket of 
this MSHA rulemaking (Docket No. MSHA-2020-0018) maintained at 
Regulations.gov. The four digit document ID number in the 
parenthetical citation refers to the last four digits of the 
document ID number in the docket. For example, ``Document ID 0015'' 
refers to document ID ``MSHA-2020-0018-0015'' in Docket No. MSHA-
2020-0018 for this rulemaking. When multiple public comments are 
being cited, each public comment is separately listed within the 
citation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Several other commenters stated that MSHA should expand the use of 
VCS beyond Part 18. MSHA received comments from NIOSH, Dr[auml]ger, and 
an individual that the Agency should use VCS for part 22 of title 30 of 
the CFR, which concerns portable methane detectors (Document ID 0015; 
0023; 0016). NIOSH further suggested that MSHA consider adopting VCS 
for various types of electrical equipment approved for use in mines. 
Examples include electric cap lamps under 30 CFR part 19, electric mine 
lamps other than standard cap lamps under 30 CFR part 20, telephones 
and signaling devices under 30 CFR part 23, and methane-monitoring 
systems under 30 CFR part 27 (Document ID 0015).
    Any changes to other parts of title 30 are outside the scope of 
this rulemaking because the proposed rule addressed the use of VCS for 
product approvals only under Part 18 requirements. In future 
rulemakings, MSHA may address the expanded use of VCS that would be 
appropriate for other product approvals.
    The Essential Minerals Association (EMA, formerly the Industrial 
Minerals Association--North America, IMA-NA) encouraged MSHA to 
participate actively in the VCS development processes at various VCS 
bodies so that the Agency can persuade other participants in the 
standard-setting bodies to propose changes in a standard and have those 
proposed changes thoroughly studied by experts and adopted if justified 
(Document ID 0018). MSHA agrees that active participation in a 
standards development process is useful and will consider participating 
in appropriate standards-development processes.
    MSHA also received comments disapproving of MSHA's use of VCS in 
general and of specific non-ANSI-approved VCS for Part 18. A private 
citizen stated that MSHA should not use VCS because of concerns about 
the lack of public participation and oversight in the VCS development 
process (Document ID 0026). The VCS in MSHA's proposed rule, the 
commenter argued, were developed and set mostly by manufacturers, 
including entities outside of the U.S. and outside of the U.S. mining 
industry. In this commenter's view, these entities change and modify 
the VCS without any cost-benefit analysis and with little or no regard 
for the impact on public safety. In addition, the commenter raised a 
concern about limited public access to the VCS because the VCS are not 
free of charge. Consol Energy, Inc. (Consol)

[[Page 99090]]

stated that MSHA should make copies of standards available to operators 
by negotiating licensing agreements with the VCS bodies since there may 
be copyright issues with providing copies (Document ID 0014).
    In response, MSHA points out that, as discussed earlier, all VCS 
listed above were developed and approved by voluntary consensus 
standards bodies through transparent, open, and consensus-based 
processes. The standard-development processes meet the attributes 
described in Circular A-119--openness, balance of interest, due 
process, an appeals process, and consensus. Regarding VCS being updated 
without any cost-benefit analysis, MSHA notes that final section 18.102 
incorporates by reference eight voluntary consensus standards and 
identifies the specific edition of each VCS. Additionally, as indicated 
in final section 18.103, MSHA will review updated editions of the VCS 
and other VCS to determine whether they can be used to provide 
protection against fire or explosion. Following such review and 
determination, MSHA will use the appropriate rulemaking process. The 
rulemakings that MSHA conducts will include the assessment of potential 
impacts including societal costs and benefits, as required by Executive 
Order (E.O.) 12866, as amended by E.O. 14094, and E.O. 13563. Regarding 
public access to the VCS, MSHA notes that the VCS being incorporated by 
reference in the final rule will be available to the public for review 
at MSHA headquarters and at MSHA's Approval and Certification Center. 
More information on the availability of the VCS incorporated by 
reference in the final rule is presented in section XI.L, Incorporation 
by Reference.
    UL opposed MSHA's proposal to accept non-ANSI standards, such as 
the IEC 60079 series (Document ID 0021). This commenter stated that the 
non-ANSI-approved standards do not include key explosion safety 
requirements specific to the U.S. One example UL cited was that the IEC 
60079 series permit ``less robust'' electrical writing methods 
(Document ID 0021).
    After careful consideration of this comment and further review of 
the VCS concerning explosive atmospheres, MSHA has determined that the 
final rule will accept the eight ANSI-approved VCS only. In the 
proposed rule, given that many products conforming to the ANSI-approved 
and IEC VCS are broadly recognized across various industries and in 
other countries, MSHA considered that both ANSI-approved and IEC VCS 
provide an appropriate level of safety for miners and others in work 
environments with hazards similar to those encountered in the mining 
industry. However, recognizing and agreeing with the commenter that the 
IEC VCS do not reflect U.S. explosion safety requirements, MSHA 
concluded that the six IEC VCS will not provide adequate protection 
against fire or explosion if used in their entirety and without 
modification. More discussion on this point is included in section VI, 
Section-by Section Analysis, of this preamble.
    Finally, MSHA received multiple comments regarding the Agency's 
approval process. Those comments generally concerned the following: (1) 
how the Agency's proposed acceptance of VCS affects the approval 
process; (2) whether the Agency should approve as ``permissible'' 
products that are tested by third-party entities, such as Nationally 
Recognized Test Laboratories (NRTLs) or other product-certification 
bodies; (3) whether the Agency should forgo the MSHA approval process 
and automatically accept products that are certified under VCS, and (4) 
whether the Agency should mandate third-party certification.
    First, commenters questioned how the Agency's acceptance of VCS 
would affect the approval process. NIOSH, Fletcher, Matrix Design Group 
(hereafter referred to as ``Matrix''), and KH Controls requested 
clarification on how MSHA's proposed incorporation by reference of the 
VCS would affect the Agency's product approval process (Document ID 
0015; 0019; 0024; 0025). Additionally, a private citizen expressed 
concern that this rulemaking would remove the MSHA approval process 
(Document ID 0026). Consol stated that they believe the rule does not 
address protracted delays caused by the current approval process and 
that under the proposed rule the approval will continue to follow the 
same approval process which results in delays and discourages 
manufacturers from seeking approval (Document ID 0014).
    MSHA clarifies that the final rule does not remove the MSHA 
approval process. MSHA will continue to review and approve as 
``permissible'' all electrical equipment used in gassy mines. As 
explained above, MSHA's approval process (as described in section IV, 
Background, of this preamble) will remain unchanged under the final 
rule and will continue to ensure that electrical equipment used in 
gassy mines can be safely operated by miners in hazardous environments. 
This means that, under the final rule, all product designers and 
manufacturers seeking MSHA approval must submit their application 
package for product approval, as specified in 30 CFR part 18. MSHA will 
continue to determine whether the electrical equipment is safe for use 
in gassy mines.
    Second, MSHA received comments regarding whether to approve 
products that are tested by third-party entities, such as NRTLs or 
other product-certification bodies (Document ID 0010; 0015). 
Specifically, NIOSH commented that while MSHA must approve equipment, 
the mining community has expressed a strong preference for MSHA to 
accept testing and certification of equipment by NRTLs as the basis for 
the approval (Document ID 0015).\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ A Nationally Recognized Testing Laboratory (NRTL) is a 
private-sector organization that OSHA has recognized as meeting the 
legal requirements in 29 CFR 1910.7 to perform testing and 
certification of products using consensus-based test standards. To 
receive OSHA's recognition as an NRTL, an organization must have the 
necessary capability both as a product safety testing laboratory and 
as a product certification body (OSHA, 2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    MSHA notes that the Agency already accepts testing and evaluation 
by independent laboratories, including NRTLs, under its existing 
standards and approval process. As stated in section IV, Background, of 
this preamble, MSHA's existing approval process includes product 
testing and evaluation by either MSHA or an independent laboratory 
chosen by the applicant. Under 30 CFR 6.10, Use of independent 
laboratories, the Agency accepts testing and evaluation performed by an 
independent laboratory for purposes of MSHA product approval, provided 
that MSHA receives the information required by the application. 
Applicants that choose to use an independent laboratory for testing or 
evaluation must submit the test or evaluation results to MSHA for 
review, along with written evidence of the laboratory's independence 
and current recognition by an accrediting organization. MSHA will 
continue to accept, as part of a complete approval application under 
Part 18, testing and evaluation results from NRTLs or other independent 
laboratories.
    Third, some commenters recommended that the Agency forgo the MSHA 
approval process when products are already certified under VCS 
(Document ID 0019; 0025; 0013). Fletcher expressed the opinion that 
certification to a listed VCS should be sufficient for MSHA approval 
(Document ID 0019). Matrix and Komatsu discussed the IEC Standards 
Relating to Equipment for Use in Explosive Atmospheres (IECEx) and the 
associated IEC certification system (IECEx System) (Document ID 0025,

[[Page 99091]]

0013).\6\ Matrix recommended that MSHA accept an approval certificate 
from accredited, independent IECEx Certification Bodies (ExCBs), under 
the IECEx System (Document ID 0025). Komatsu commented that, when more 
confidence is obtained in the IECEx scheme, MSHA should consider 
acceptance of the IECEx certification, removing the need for additional 
MSHA approvals (Document ID 0013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The IECEx System is a conformity assessment system 
facilitated by the IEC and comprises the following: the IECEx 
Certified Equipment Scheme, the IECEx Certified Service Facilities 
Scheme, the IECEx Conformity Mark Licensing System, and the IECEx 
Certification of Personnel Competencies. www.iecex.com/information/about-iecex/ (last accessed August 16, 2024).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    MSHA does not automatically approve products that have laboratory 
approval certificates from certifying laboratories. Under the Mine Act, 
MSHA is responsible for safety standards for the protection of life and 
prevention of injuries in coal and other mines. 30 U.S.C. 811. To 
ensure safety, MSHA maintains oversight of the approval process. After 
MSHA determines that the product meets all the approval requirements 
and determines that the product is safe for use in gassy mines, the 
Agency will issue an approval and authorize the use of an MSHA approval 
plate.
    Fourth, MSHA received a comment regarding whether to mandate third-
party certification. A private citizen stated that the typical costs of 
obtaining VCS certification, depending on the complexity of the 
component or machine, is extremely excessive, and therefore, MSHA 
should not require VCS certification for approval (Document ID 0026).
    MSHA does not and will not require VCS certification by a third-
party laboratory for approvals. MSHA understands that some 
manufacturers have no intention to sell their products outside the U.S. 
mining industry or may be concerned with the costs of VCS certification 
in addition to the costs associated with MSHA approval. Under the final 
rule, when an application relies on the incorporated VCS as the basis 
for approval, VCS certification by a third-party laboratory is not 
mandated.

VI. Section-by-Section Analysis

A. Section 18.2--Definitions.

    One definition is modified and two new definitions are added in 
final Sec.  18.2, as in the proposed rule. MSHA received no comments on 
the three proposed definitions: permissible equipment, voluntary 
consensus standard, and voluntary consensus standards body.
    Under the final rule, the term permissible equipment is modified to 
mean ``a completely assembled electrical machine or accessory for which 
an approval has been issued.'' The reference to the Mining Enforcement 
and Safety Administration (MESA) is removed from the existing 
definition. Because MESA and all of its responsibilities were 
transferred to MSHA in 1978 under the Mine Act, the reference to MESA 
is no longer necessary (43 FR 12314, March 24, 1978).
    Under the final rule, the new term voluntary consensus standard 
means ``a safety standard that:
    (1) Is developed or adopted by a voluntary consensus standards 
body; and
    (2) Prescribes safety requirements applicable to equipment for 
which applicants are seeking approval, certification, extension, or 
acceptance under Part 18.''
    Under the final rule, the new term voluntary consensus standards 
body means ``a domestic or international organization that plans, 
develops, establishes, or coordinates voluntary consensus standards 
using agreed-upon procedures that are consistent with the National 
Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 3710) and 
the Office of Management and Budget's Circular A-119 (Jan. 27, 2016).'' 
Under Circular A-119, a voluntary consensus standards body plans, 
develops, establishes, or coordinates voluntary consensus standards 
using a voluntary consensus standards development process that includes 
the following attributes or elements: openness, balance of interest, 
due process, appeals process, and consensus. This type of standards 
body typically adopts, publishes, and makes the VCS it adopts available 
to the public. Lastly, the voluntary consensus standards body must 
maintain each voluntary consensus standard through a schedule of 
review.

B. Section 18.6--Applications

    Final paragraph (e) of Sec.  18.6 removes the existing requirement 
that each drawing an applicant submits under Part 18 include a warning 
stating that any changes in design must be authorized by MSHA before 
the changes are made to approved equipment. Final paragraph (e) of 
Sec.  18.6 is unchanged from the proposal. MSHA did not receive any 
comments on this proposed change.
    MSHA has determined that the warning on each drawing is unnecessary 
since MSHA notifies successful applicants in its approval letters that 
approval holders cannot make changes to designs without MSHA approval. 
Furthermore, the Agency communicates with applicants during the 
approval process and ensures that they fully understand approval 
holders' responsibility to notify MSHA of changes to approved 
equipment.

C. Section 18.15--Changes After Approval or Certification

    Under the final rule, paragraph (c) of Sec.  18.15 is revised to 
clarify the requirements for an application for a formal extension of 
approval or certification, or modification of an existing approval. In 
the proposed rule, MSHA would issue an approval if the changes in the 
equipment or component met: (1) the requirements applied to the last 
approval, certification, or formal extension; or (2) the VCS 
requirements listed in Part 18, as applicable. Under the proposed rule, 
any approval holder who chose to use VCS requirements for modifications 
of an existing approval could no longer go back and use the 
requirements in subparts B through E of Part 18 for future 
modifications. However, the final rule allows the approval holder to 
choose either existing Part 18 requirements or VCS requirements for 
each modification of an existing approval, irrespective of the last 
approval, certification, or formal extension. This means that under the 
final rule, for any modification of an existing approval, approval 
holders can choose either the existing Part 18 requirements or VCS 
requirements.
    MSHA received two comments on this proposed rule language relating 
to the timing of the approval. The NMA and Matrix recommended that MSHA 
approve applications for a formal extension of approval or 
certification, or for modifications of an existing approval, within 30 
days (Document ID 0020, 0025).
    As stated previously, MSHA's approval process will remain unchanged 
under the final rule and will continue to ensure that electrical 
equipment used in gassy mines can be safely operated by miners in 
hazardous environments. However, MSHA revised the final Sec.  18.15 
language to conform with the final rule, which allows the approval 
holder to choose either existing Part 18 requirements or VCS 
requirements for each modification of an existing approval.

D. Subpart F--Voluntary Consensus Standards

    Like the proposed rule, the final rule adds a new subpart entitled 
``subpart F Voluntary Consensus Standards.'' The new subpart F, 
consisting of three

[[Page 99092]]

sections--Sec. Sec.  18.101 through 18.103--lays out how MSHA will 
generally accept, use, review, and update VCS, along with a list of 
specific VCS incorporated by reference in this final rule.
1. Section 18.101--Acceptance and Use of Voluntary Consensus Standards
    Final Sec.  18.101 is changed from the proposal to allow product 
designers and manufacturers to choose either existing Part 18 
requirements or the listed VCS requirements. Section 18.101 sets forth 
how MSHA will accept and use VCS. In the proposed rule, paragraph (a) 
included MSHA's intent to replace the requirements in subparts B 
through E of Part 18 with VCS in their entirety and without 
modification. In proposed paragraph (b), a transition period of 12 
months was provided, during which product designers and manufacturers 
seeking MSHA approval would be allowed to use either existing Part 18 
requirements or VCS requirements. Once the transition period ended, the 
use of VCS would have been required under proposed paragraph (c).
    In the final rule, final paragraphs (a) and (b) differ from the 
proposed rule to allow the use of either the VCS or the existing Part 
18 requirements. Consequently, there is no 12-month transition period 
to using VCS only, so proposed paragraph (c) is not included in the 
final rule. Under the final rule, product designers and manufacturers 
can choose either existing Part 18 requirements or VCS requirements for 
MSHA approval because the final rule includes no requirement to 
transition to the use of only VCS for MSHA approvals. Under the final 
rule, the use of VCS is not and will not be mandatory.
    As described in section V, Comments Received on the Proposed Rule, 
most commenters supported MSHA's acceptance of VCS in its approval 
process. Commenters, including NIOSH, Komatsu, Rosebud Mining Company, 
NMA, Fletcher, and Alliance Coal, agreed with MSHA that adopting VCS in 
Part 18 would promote the use of innovative and advanced technologies 
that lead to improvements in mine safety and health (Document ID 0015; 
0013; 0012; 0020; 0019; 0027). MSHA agrees with these commenters.
    Under final paragraph (a) of Sec.  18.101, the VCS that the Agency 
incorporates by reference and determines are suitable for gassy mining 
environments and provide protection against fire or explosion may be 
used as alternatives to the requirements in subparts B through E in 
Part 18 if used in their entirety and without modification. Using VCS 
is consistent with the principles and policies in Circular A-119. 
MSHA's acceptance of VCS will provide more mining product choices to 
mine operators and miners.
    Final paragraph (b) of Sec.  18.101 allows manufacturers to choose 
between the requirements in subpart B through E or the requirements of 
the listed VCS as the basis for approvals at all times. By contrast, 
the proposed rule allowed manufacturers to choose between the 
requirements of the last approval or the listed VCS requirements only 
during a limited transition period of 12 months from the effective 
date, after which the use of listed VCS was mandatory for new MSHA 
approval applications.
    Several commenters, including Consol Energy, Inc. (Consol), NIOSH, 
and NMA, stated that the proposed 1-year transition period from Part 18 
requirements to VCS for new applications should be extended (Document 
ID 0014; 0015; 0020). KH Controls recommended that the transition 
period be extended to 3 years (Document ID 0024). NIOSH suggested that 
MSHA consider accepting either the listed VCS or Part 18 requirements 
for 5 years or more for new applications, and indefinitely for 
modifications (Document ID 0015). NIOSH stated that the 1-year 
transition period to mandatory use of the listed VCS may be problematic 
for some manufacturers and that businesses involved in rebuilding and 
overhauling equipment could be harmed (Document ID 0015). NIOSH further 
commented that a potential issue arises when a small manufacturer needs 
to make changes to a product due to component obsolescence (Document ID 
0015). If the changes are extensive, they may prefer to submit a new 
design. However, if the manufacturer already understands and builds 
their equipment to the Part 18 requirements, they may not have the 
resources or the willingness to fully transition their product 
engineering to the listed VCS and potentially redesign their products 
for such limited applications (Document ID 0015).
    Consol, with agreement by NMA, expressed concern that after the 1-
year transition period, some manufacturers may be forced to leave the 
mining market because they do not believe it is economically feasible 
to change-over the equipment to comply with the listed VCS (Document ID 
0014; 0020). The commenter stated that there are too few manufacturers 
in the market already and believes that the proposed rule should be 
modified to permit use of the previous approval requirements after the 
transition period (Document ID 0014).
    MSHA agrees with the commenters who stated that the mandatory 
transition to the VCS-only requirements could be problematic for 
certain manufacturers and product developers. Under the proposal, some 
product developers would have to rebuild and overhaul equipment to meet 
the listed VCS only, while other manufacturers may not have sufficient 
resources to transition their engineering to the listed VCS only. In 
response to these concerns, final paragraph (b) allows manufacturers to 
choose between the requirements in subparts B through E or the 
requirements of the listed VCS, if the listed VCS apply, as the basis 
for approvals starting on the effective date. Allowing both the 
existing Part 18 and VCS requirements eliminates the need for a 
mandatory transition period. Under the final rule, there is no 
transition period and manufacturers can decide which requirements, the 
requirements in subparts B through E or the requirements of the listed 
VCS, would best fit their business needs.
    Under final paragraph (b), new applications for approval may meet 
either subparts B through E requirements, or the requirements of the 
VCS listed in Sec.  18.102. Also, applications for a modification of an 
existing approval or certification may meet either subparts B through E 
requirements, or the requirements of the VCS listed in Sec.  18.102.
    Final paragraph (b)(2) contains non-substantive changes from the 
proposal. It includes the specific Group and Levels of Protection 
provisions, which are unchanged from proposed paragraphs 18.102(b)(2) 
and (b)(3). The specified Group and Levels of Protection to be used 
from each of the VCS listed in final paragraph 18.102 are suitable for 
gassy mining environments and will protect against fire or explosion 
hazards. MSHA has determined that the VCS which the Agency has 
incorporated by reference with the Group and Levels of Protection for 
hazardous locations designated as Group I, Zone 0, and highest Levels 
of Protection, ``ma,'' ``da,'' and ``ia,'' listed in final paragraph 
(b)(2) can be used as alternatives to requirements in subparts B 
through E of Part 18. The Groups and Zones for hazardous locations and 
Levels of Protection in the VCS are explained in the following 
paragraphs.
    Several commenters, including manufacturers, NIOSH, a safety 
testing laboratory, and a coal mine operator stated that the Group and 
Levels of Protection for the VCS proposed by MSHA should be expanded to 
include other Group designations and Levels of Protection in addition 
to hazardous

[[Page 99093]]

locations designated as Group I, Zone 0, and highest Levels of 
Protection, ``ma,'' ``da,'' and ``ia'' (Document ID 0005; 0011; 0013; 
0015; 0017; 0024; 0025; 0027).
    In the U.S., the hazardous location classification system is 
defined by the National Fire Protection Association[supreg] 
(NFPA[supreg]) 70[supreg], NEC[supreg] (2023). The NFPA 70[supreg] 
NEC[supreg] Hazardous Locations Groups defines Group I as mines 
susceptible to firedamp (i.e., flammable mixture of gases naturally 
occurring in a mine). Also, NFPA 70[supreg] NEC[supreg] Hazardous 
Locations defines Zone 0 as an area where ignitable concentrations of 
flammable gases or vapors are present continuously or for long periods 
of time (NFPA[supreg], 2023). In each instance, the Group I mines and 
Zone 0 areas are designated as the most hazardous when measuring 
explosive atmospheres.
    The ``ma'' designation is the highest Level of Protection against 
explosion protection for encapsulation (ANSI/UL, 2015b). Encapsulation 
of electrical equipment is a protection principle that encloses the 
equipment to prevent the potentially explosive atmosphere from reaching 
the ignition source (ANSI/UL 2015a).
    The ``da'' designation is the highest Level of Protection for a 
flameproof enclosure (ANSI, 2015b). The flameproof classification is a 
type of protection in which the machine parts or components that can 
ignite in an explosive atmosphere are placed within an enclosure that 
can withstand the force created and pressure developed during an 
internal explosion (NFPA[supreg], 2023). Therefore, if an explosion 
should occur inside of the enclosure, it will either be contained 
within, or have a flame path that will arrest the propagation of the 
explosion. This reduces the risk of igniting an external explosive 
atmosphere.
    The ``ia'' designation offers the highest Level of Protection for 
intrinsic safety and is generally considered as being adequately safe 
for use in the most hazardous locations (Zone 0) because the 
possibility of two ``faults'' is in the safety assessment (ANSI, 2013). 
Intrinsic safety is an explosion protection concept in which the 
electrical energy within the equipment is restricted to a level which 
is below what may cause an ignition or to limit the heating of the 
surface of the hazardous area equipment (NFPA[supreg], 2023).
    Eickhoff Bergbautechnik and NIOSH both noted that the highest 
Levels of Protection are usually only applied to intrinsically safe 
methane monitors, cap lamps, and other equipment which need to be 
operated even in the presence of an explosive methane atmosphere 
(Document ID 0011; 0015). Eickhoff Bergbautechnik also noted that a 
typical intrinsically safe product intended for use in underground 
mining has the middle Level of Protection, ``ib,'' and must be switched 
off when an explosive atmosphere arises (Document ID 0011). Matrix 
stated that underground coal mines do not operate continuously in Zone 
0 atmospheres and noted that mines are more likely described as Zone 1 
or sometimes Zone 2 (Document ID 0025).\7\ Matrix also suggested that, 
in addition to Zone 1, requiring middle Levels of Protection, MSHA 
should also include Zone 2, requiring the lowest Levels of Protection 
for some of the VCS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The NFPA 70[supreg] NEC[supreg] Hazardous Locations defines 
Zone 1 as a place in which an explosive atmosphere consisting of a 
mixture with air of flammable substances in the form of gas, vapor, 
or mist is likely to occur in normal operation occasionally (2023). 
Zone 2 is defined as a place in which an explosive atmosphere 
consisting of a mixture with air of flammable substances in the form 
of gas, vapor, or mist is not likely to occur in normal operation 
but, if it does occur, persists for a short period only 
(NFPA[supreg], 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response to the commenters above, MSHA believes that ``ma,'' 
``da,'' and ``ia'' Levels of Protection, which are suitable for Group 
I, Zone 0 hazardous areas, for the listed VCS are appropriate. MSHA has 
determined, based on NIOSH research, that to provide at least the same 
degree of protection as the existing Part 18 requirements, Group I, 
Zone 0 required Levels of Protection are suitable and will not result 
in a diminution of safety. As discussed in the proposed rule, 
researchers at NIOSH presented a paper to the Institute of Electrical 
and Electronics Engineers' (IEEE) Industry Applications Society titled 
``Intrinsically Safe Systems: Equivalency of International Standards 
Compared to U.S. Mining Approval Criteria.'' \8\ The researchers 
concluded that the relative Levels of Protection afforded to miners by 
the application of the ANSI/ISA 60079 two-fault Intrinsically Safe (IS) 
standard is a safe alternative to MSHA's requirements when such 
electrical equipment is installed in mines.\9\ They also concluded that 
the use of such equipment would provide at least an equivalent level of 
safety as that provided by equipment approved under MSHA criteria.\10\ 
MSHA believes that Levels of Protection consistent with Zones 1 and 2 
provide less protection than the existing Part 18 requirements. 
Therefore, in this final rule, MSHA is allowing the use of the ANSI-
approved VCS with the Group I, Zone 0 required Levels of Protection for 
intrinsic safety, as proposed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ William Calder, David P. Snyder, John F. Burr, Intrinsically 
Safe Systems: Equivalency of International Standards Compared to 
U.S. Mining Approval Criteria, DOI 10.1109/TIA.2018.2804322, IEEE 
Transactions on Industry Applications.
    \9\ Ibid.
    \10\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Komatsu proposed extending the adoption of the 60079-1 standard for 
flameproof enclosures to include equipment ``db,'' suitable for Zone 1 
(Document ID 0013). The commenter stated flameproof equipment currently 
approved to MSHA standards would not meet the criteria to operate in 
Zone 0. The commenter also stated that accepting Level of Protection 
``db'' would not compromise safety compared to what is currently 
enforced. The commenter explained that 30 CFR 27.24 requires that all 
equipment shut down automatically at a methane concentration of 2.0 
volume percent and at all higher concentrations of methane. The 
commenter stated that this ensures that equipment will not be operating 
in a Zone 0 environment with methane present for an extended period.
    MSHA considered the commenter's statement that flameproof equipment 
currently approved to MSHA standards would not meet the criteria to 
operate in Zone 0, thus allowing Level of Protection ``db''; however, 
such flameproof enclosures are beyond the scope of this rulemaking. In 
2006, MSHA evaluated a comparison of enclosures certified as flameproof 
under IEC 60079-0, Fourth Edition, 2004-01, and IEC 60079-1, Fifth 
Edition, 2003-11, versus MSHA certified and approved explosion-proof 
products (71 FR 28581). (See 30 CFR 6.30). MSHA determined that 
flameproof equipment approved to IEC 60079-0 and IEC 60079-1 ``db'' 
must be modified to provide the same Level of Protection as the MSHA 
flameproof equipment. This equipment must meet additional requirements 
such as design requirements limiting the length of an enclosure and 
external surface temperature limits in 30 CFR 7.10(c)(1) for motors and 
in 30 CFR 18.6(a)(3) for enclosures. Accordingly, MSHA is not including 
Levels of Protection ``db'' and ``dc'' in this rule. The Agency will 
consider flameproof enclosures meeting the listed VCS using the Zone 0, 
``da'' Level of Protection as providing at least an equivalent level of 
safety as that provided by equipment approved under the MSHA criteria 
in Part 18. Level of Protection ``da'' is only applicable to catalytic 
sensors of portable combustible gas detectors (Intertek, 2020).
    NIOSH stated that MSHA should consider including language in the 
rule that states that the middle Levels of Protection for VCS are 
acceptable,

[[Page 99094]]

subject to additional ventilation monitoring with integrated power 
cutoff or other supplementary safety measures acceptable to MSHA 
(Document ID 0015). NIOSH further recommended that the additional 
measures should be included in the MSHA-approved ventilation plan.
    In response to NIOSH suggesting that Zone 1 Levels of Protection 
may be appropriate under certain circumstances, and that Zone 1 Levels 
of Protection for certain machinery would only be appropriate if 
changes to mines' ventilation plans were made and that additional 
conditions of use would be required for the machinery, MSHA believes 
that implementing NIOSH's recommendations would require changes to 30 
CFR part 75 and possibly other MSHA standards, which is outside the 
scope of this rulemaking. Therefore, MSHA will continue to require the 
highest Levels of Protection, ``ma,'' ``da,'' and ``ia'' for the VCS 
incorporated by reference in Part 18.
    Paragraph (c) of Sec.  18.101 of the proposed rule is removed. To 
provide manufacturers flexibility to choose the best option for their 
needs, this final rule removes mandatory use of listed VCS for 
applicable components. As a result, paragraph (c) of Sec.  18.101 is no 
longer necessary and is removed.
2. Section 18.102--Approved Voluntary Consensus Standards
    Final Sec.  18.102 incorporates by reference eight ANSI-approved 
VCS. MSHA determined that the VCS listed in Sec.  18.102 are suitable 
for gassy mining environments and provide protection against fire or 
explosion hazards if used in their entirety and without modification, 
in lieu of the requirements in subparts B through E of this part. The 
non-ANSI-approved VCS in the proposal are excluded.
    Final paragraphs (a)(1) through (b)(6) contain non-substantive 
edits to the titles of the ANSI-approved VCS and clarify that the VCS 
must be used in in accordance with the Types of Protection and Levels 
of Protection in Sec.  18.101. In this IBR section, each standard name 
is shown exactly as it appears on the cover of the standard.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ The Agency refers to the ANSI/UL standards in many of the 
regulatory text sections, but it does not do so in this IBR section.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Also, final paragraph (b) lists the name ``UL Solutions'' instead 
of ``UL LLC,'' which was in the proposed rule. This change is made to 
reflect the company's name change in 2022. Proposed paragraph (b)(4) 
has been redesignated as final Note 1 to Sec.  18.102 and edited for 
clarity from the proposal because it only provides the public with 
information on obtaining copies of the listed VCS from ANSI. ANSI is an 
additional source for obtaining copies of the VCS in Part 18.
    MSHA received multiple comments related to the use of and 
differences between ANSI-approved VCS and non-ANSI-approved VCS (i.e., 
IEC VCS). Some commenters, including manufacturers, mine operators, a 
trade association, and a private citizen, supported MSHA's proposal to 
incorporate by reference both ANSI-approved and IEC VCS (Document ID 
0011; 0012; 0014; 0020; 0023; 0022; 0027). Eickhoff Bergbautechnik 
stated that by accepting these established standards, MSHA could 
enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of its approval process 
(Document ID 0011). Rosebud Mining Company stated that many companies 
have equipment approved under ANSI or IEC standards that would meet the 
hazard rating for use in underground coal mines but currently are not 
able to be used in mines due to the lack of MSHA approval under 30 CFR 
(Document ID 0012). They also stated that, with MSHA's acceptance of 
the proposed VCS (both ANSI and IEC standards), a significantly larger 
amount of equipment and technologies would be available for use in 
underground mining (Document ID 0012). Consol stated that manufacturers 
have become increasingly reluctant to seek approval of equipment 
because of the cost of MSHA's approval process (Document ID 0014). The 
NMA stated that it is likely that devices manufactured to be 
intrinsically safe under both MSHA-unique standards and VCS would incur 
additional costs because the manufacturing process would have to 
accommodate both designs. These costs would be avoided if a common 
standard were used (Document ID 0020).
    The NMA stated that Australia, New Zealand, Canada, and South 
Africa allow miners and mine operators to use devices and equipment not 
currently approved in the U.S. but that have been evaluated as safe for 
use in underground gassy mines in those countries using the IEC 
standards (Document ID 0020). NMA gave an example that miners working 
at operations outside the U.S. are currently using PAPRs evaluated 
under VCS from IEC, ANSI, UL, and ATEX, and because of this MSHA should 
accept IEC VCS so that U.S. miners may use these PAPRs as well 
(Document ID 0020).\12\ Dr[auml]ger stated that its products are 
currently used in coal mining operations outside of the U.S., all of 
which recognize the proposed VCS (Document ID 0023). This commenter 
stated that they are unaware of a product-related incident due to any 
gap in the protection stipulated by the proposed VCS (Document ID 
0023). Dr[auml]ger further stated that, due to the nature of its 
products' use in mining and other hazardous applications such as 
firefighting, and the products' unique approval requirements, they have 
extensive experience with different types of explosion protection 
including intrinsic safety. Based on this experience, Dr[auml]ger 
agreed that the proposed VCS would offer an equal level of safety and 
protection to MSHA's requirements, since the VCS undergo regular 
revision cycles, as well as new requirements based on technological 
advancements (Document ID 0023). A private citizen supported the use of 
the proposed VCS if the VCS are equally safe compared to existing MSHA 
requirements (Document ID 0022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ ATEX is an abbreviation from the French, atmosphere 
explosible (or explosive atmospheres, translated into English). ATEX 
certification is given to equipment that has gone through testing 
outlined by European Union (EU) directives and have been proved safe 
to use in specific environments with explosive atmospheres. ATEX 
certification ensures the free movement of goods throughout the EU 
by harmonizing compliance procedures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    However, a commenter from UL, which publishes the ANSI/UL 60079 
series of VCS, stated that they do not support MSHA's inclusion of non-
ANSI standards, such as the IEC 60079 series (Document ID 0021). The 
commenter stated that the non-ANSI-approved standards under the IECEx 
System do not reflect key U.S. explosion safety requirements such as:
    (1) The applicable requirements related to risk of fire, electric 
shock, and injury to persons: the IEC 60079 series permits self-
declaration to these requirements, while the ANSI/UL 60079 series 
requires third-party declaration;
    (2) Wiring methods: the IEC 60079 series permits less robust wiring 
methods compared to the ANSI/UL 60079 series; and
    (3) Production control: the IEC 60079 series permits production 
control at a frequency of only every 18 months compared to the ANSI/UL 
60079 series, which requires more frequent production control.
    For UL's comment on non-ANSI-approved standards and their first 
example regarding declaration to the requirements of risk of fire, 
electric shock, and injury to persons, MSHA agrees that several of the 
IEC standards do not require third-party verification of compliance 
with relevant industrial standards. The ANSI versions require third-
party verification of compliance,

[[Page 99095]]

which MSHA believes is a key explosion safety requirement.
    Regarding UL's second example about wiring methods, MSHA also 
agrees with the commenter, and found that most national differences 
between the ANSI/UL 60079 series and the IEC 60079 series are based on 
`national regulations,' where the IEC lacks alignment with specific 
requirements of the National Electrical Code[supreg], ANSI/NFPA[supreg] 
70 (NEC[supreg]), which is a U.S. standard for safe electrical design, 
installation, and inspection to protect people and property from 
electrical hazards. The IEC 60079 series wiring methods does not align 
with NEC[supreg] requirements.
    Regarding UL's third example about production control, MSHA agrees 
that the IECEx scheme, which uses the IEC standards, mandates quality 
audits every 18 months, while the OSHA NRTL program, which specifies 
the ANSI standards, requires ``no fewer than four (4) factory 
surveillance visits per year at manufacturing facilities.'' MSHA will 
continue to apply the Quality Assurance requirements mandated in 30 CFR 
parts 6 and 18 for MSHA-approved equipment that is evaluated to the 
VCS.
    The final rule supports the introduction of existing equipment that 
manufacturers have already designed to acceptable VCS without 
redesigning those products to meet certain MSHA-unique requirements in 
Part 18. The Agency also accepts testing and evaluation performed by an 
independent laboratory for purposes of MSHA product approval through 
existing regulations under Sec.  6.10. Consequently, MSHA agrees with 
commenters that stated both the ANSI-approved and the non-ANSI-approved 
VCS offer advantages such as enhancing the efficiency and effectiveness 
of the approval process, as well as allowing a greater amount of 
equipment and technologies to be available for use in U.S. gassy mining 
environments. However, MSHA also agrees with UL that the non-ANSI-
approved standards do not reflect certain U.S. explosion safety 
requirements, since the development and approval of IEC standards 
differ from that of ANSI standards. The 60079 series ANSI-approved 
standards are based on IEC-developed standards; however, unlike the IEC 
standards, the 60079 series ANSI-approved standards include U.S.-
specific adaptations to make them compatible with U.S. safety and 
industry practices. The IEC standards do not completely align with U.S. 
electrical safety practices. ANSI-approved standards are domestic VCS 
that establish quality and performance specifications for products, 
processes, personnel, and systems, and also typically include design 
and build requirements to ensure consistency of equipment from various 
manufacturers for specific use in the U.S.
    Electrical testing and ratings between ANSI and IEC generally are 
not the same or equivalent. IEC equipment may not pass the equivalent 
ANSI test, and vice versa, due to these differences. For example, ANSI 
and IEC differ in their approach to temperature rise testing, with 
higher or lower temperature restrictions required between ANSI and the 
IEC standards. Another example is enclosure types that do not compare 
among ANSI and IEC standards. The enclosure ratings used with ANSI 
standards do not compare directly to Ingress Protection ratings in IEC 
standards.
    MSHA recognizes that there can be safety and compatibility issues 
between ANSI-approved and non-ANSI-approved standards (BSEE, 2018). 
MSHA has not found such safety and compatibility issues between the 
existing Part 18 approval requirements and the ANSI-approved VCS 
included in this final rule. For instance, ANSI-approved electrical 
standards include general compliance with NEC[supreg] requirements, as 
described in the scope of the standards. The ANSI-approved standards 
dictate how the equipment must be installed, based on the NEC[supreg]. 
In comparison, installation of equipment and components meeting non-
ANSI-approved IEC standards must be performed in accordance with IEC 
60079-14, which is not based on the NEC[supreg]. U.S. mine electricians 
work with the NEC[supreg], American Wire Gauge (AWG) sizing (the 
accepted standard in North America to denote electrically conducting 
wire sizes), and U.S. electrical system compatible components. U.S. 
mine electricians may not have sufficient electrotechnical knowledge 
and training on the non-ANSI-approved standards. However, the Part 18 
approval for a machine or system will dictate the interconnection of 
certified components that mine electricians must follow.
    Another example is that non-ANSI-approved standards use metric/
European wire gauges with compatible circuit breakers, which are not 
the same as U.S.-based AWG wire sizing and circuit breakers. MSHA is 
aware that mixing different wire gauges and circuit breakers could lead 
to inadequate overcurrent protection and increase the risk of a mine 
fire or explosion (Fowler and Miles, 2009). Some ANSI-approved 
standards have allowable temperature rises that are higher or lower 
than the non-ANSI-approved standards for different types of electrical 
contacts, leading to compatibility issues (Fuhrmann et al., 2014; Sim, 
J.H., 2007). Consequently, interconnecting components approved to ANSI-
approved and non-ANSI-approved standards may create an electrical or 
fire hazard. A mine electrician may believe that they are connecting 
compatible components; however, one component could meet the testing 
requirements of an ANSI-approved VCS and an interconnected component 
could meet the testing requirements of a non-ANSI-approved VCS. In this 
example, it is possible for one or both of the components to fail 
because of issues with compatibility, causing fire, explosion, or 
electric shock hazards for miners.
    Based on these issues, MSHA agrees with UL that the IEC standards 
do not consider U.S. explosion safety requirements, and thus do not 
provide adequate protection if used in their entirety and without 
modification in U.S. mining environments.
    In addition, NIOSH recommended that MSHA accept the US-adopted 
version of the IEC standard as an alternative to the MSHA criteria for 
2-fault intrinsic safety (Document ID 0015). MSHA understands NIOSH's 
reference to ``US-adopted version of the IEC standard'' to mean the 
ANSI 60079 series of VCS. Therefore, MSHA agrees with NIOSH that the 
US-adopted version of the IEC standard should be accepted as an 
alternative to the MSHA criteria for 2-fault intrinsic safety because 
it provides an equivalent Level of Protection.
    In agreement with UL and NIOSH, MSHA will only accept the ANSI-
approved VCS in this final rule. The list of VCS that MSHA is 
incorporating by reference in final paragraphs (a) and (b) of Sec.  
18.102 does not include the IEC VCS that was in the proposed rule.
    MSHA received comments from manufacturers and EMA regarding other 
standards that the Agency should consider as a VCS for incorporation by 
reference (Document ID 0010; 0013; 0016; 0019; 0018; 0020; 0023). MSA 
Safety, a manufacturer of safety products, recommended that the gas 
detection performance standards, such as ANSI/UL 60079-29-1, ANSI/FM 
60079-29-1, IEC 60079-29-1, and ANSI/UL 121303, be added to the VCS 
list in Sec.  18.102 (Document ID 0010). Komatsu recommended that MSHA 
consider adopting IEC 60079-7 and UL 60079-7 (Document ID 0013). 
Fletcher and NMA suggested that MSHA accept ATEX certified equipment 
and components (Document ID 0019; 0020).

[[Page 99096]]

EMA requested that Factory Mutual (FM), an insurance company and 
testing laboratory for electrical equipment, be considered as a VCS, 
especially for the following testing standards: FM 3600, 3610, 3611, 
3613 and 3615 (Document ID 0018).
    MSHA has determined that some of these VCS, such as the gas 
detection performance standards in ANSI/FM 60079-29-1 and the ANSI/UL 
121303 standards, are outside the scope of this final rule because the 
VCS are not applicable to Part 18 product approvals; they are related 
to 30 CFR parts 22 and 75. As discussed in section VI.D.3, Section 
18.103--Review and update of applicable voluntary consensus standards, 
MSHA may consider incorporating by reference other VCS applicable to 
other MSHA product approval parts in future rulemakings.
    MSHA analyzed IEC 60079-7 and UL 60079-7 and determined that these 
standards provide a Level of Protection for hazardous atmospheres 
encountered in gassy mines that is less protective than the Levels of 
Protection the Agency requires for VCS. The 60079-7 standard, 
``Increased Safety,'' is for products in which electrical arcs and 
sparks do not occur in normal service (and in specific abnormal 
conditions) and in which surface temperatures are controlled below 
incendive values. Increased Safety is achieved by enhancing insulation 
values and creepage and clearance distances above those required for 
normal service, thus providing a safety factor against accidental 
breakdown. This protection is not as rigorous as the protection 
techniques that MSHA currently accepts; the enclosures are not as 
robust as MSHA-certified explosion-proof enclosures with circuits not 
considered as intrinsically safe. Furthermore, the final rule includes 
VCS that provide the highest level of protection (e.g., ``ia'', ``da'', 
and ``ma''); Increased Safety is not one of those techniques. The 
Levels of Protection required by the VCS are discussed in Sec.  18.101. 
TIEC 60079-7 and UL 60079-7 do not meet the Levels of Protection 
required by Part 18.
    MSHA understands that FM is a third-party global testing and 
certification agency focused on property loss prevention for use in 
commercial and industrial facilities. FM 3600, FM 3610, FM 3611, FM 
3613, and FM 3615 do not appear to address the level of protection 
suitable for gassy mining environments for U.S. mines. The Scope of 
each of these documents note that they are intended for equipment for 
use in ``Classes I, II & III, Division 1 hazardous (classified) 
locations as defined in Article 500 of the NEC[supreg].'' Areas where 
permissibility is required in gassy underground mines are not included 
in those locations.
    MSHA also understands that ATEX is a mandatory directive that 
requires products used in hazardous atmospheres to comply with 
specified requirements within the European Union (Health and Safety 
Executive, n.d.). ATEX is intended for use in the European Union. MSHA 
has determined that it would not be applicable to U.S.-based product 
approvals because it does not address U.S. national standards.
3. Section 18.103--Review and Update of Applicable Voluntary Consensus 
Standards
    In final Sec.  18.103, MSHA will review more recent editions of VCS 
and additional VCS that could lead to the use of innovative and 
advanced technologies in U.S. mines. Final Sec.  18.103 is similar to 
the proposed rule, with minor changes in paragraphs (a) through (c) to 
align with Sec.  18.101. The language in paragraphs (a) and (b) are 
revised because the final rule does not replace the Part 18 
requirements in subparts B through E with VCS.
    Consol supported proposed Sec.  18.103 concerning the Agency's 
commitment to review, update, and possibly expand the list of VCS in 
Sec.  18.102 (Document ID 0014). EMA stated that for updates of 
applicable VCS, MSHA should do so in a rulemaking process with notice 
and comment rulemaking procedures equivalent to the procedures utilized 
to implement the original incorporation by reference. The commenter 
stated that stakeholders may not have participated in the development 
of an updated VCS and the MSHA rulemaking procedure may be the only 
opportunity they have to provide input on a proposed incorporation by 
reference (Document ID 0018).
    MSHA is aware that manufacturers of approved products currently 
used in mines may wish to design and manufacture products to more 
recent versions of MSHA-accepted VCS to keep products up-to-date for 
improvements and marketability. Under final paragraph (a) of Sec.  
18.103, MSHA will review more recent editions of the listed VCS and 
determine whether to use them to ensure timely updating of the VCS 
listed in Sec.  18.102. Under final paragraph (b) of Sec.  18.103, MSHA 
will review other VCS that are not listed in Sec.  18.102 and determine 
whether they are suitable for gassy mining environments and provide 
protection against fire and explosion hazards. Under final paragraph 
(c) of Sec.  18.103, MSHA will use the appropriate rulemaking process 
to update the list of VCS approved for incorporation by reference in 
lieu of approval requirements in subparts B through E in Part 18. MSHA 
may also remove a standard from the list in final Sec.  18.102 if it is 
withdrawn by a voluntary consensus standards body or for other reasons.

E. Conforming Amendments

Part 74--Coal Mine Dust Sampling Devices
    Under the final rule, paragraph (b) of Sec.  74.5 and paragraph (d) 
of Sec.  74.11 are unchanged from the proposal. In the proposal, MSHA 
proposed conforming amendments to Coal Mine Dust Sampling Devices in 
existing part 74 based on the proposed changes in Part 18. 
Specifically, MSHA proposed to change cross-references in existing 
paragraph (b) of Sec.  74.5 and paragraph (d) of Sec.  74.11 for 
evaluation and testing for permissibility of Coal Mine Dust Sampling 
Devices from Sec.  18.68 of Part 18. This change in part 74 would 
conform to the proposed changes in Part 18 and would allow the use of 
MSHA-designated VCS for the approval of coal mine dust sampling 
devices.
    MSHA received no comments on the proposed changes. The final rule 
makes technical changes to 30 CFR part 74 regarding the approval 
requirements for Coal Mine Dust Sampling Devices to conform to the 
proposed changes in Part 18, which will allow the use of MSHA-
designated VCS for the approval of coal mine dust sampling devices.

VII. Regulatory Impact Analysis

A. Executive Orders 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review, as Amended 
by E.O. 14094: Modernizing Regulatory Review, and 13563: Improving 
Regulation and Regulatory Review

    MSHA's Regulatory Impact Analysis assesses the costs and benefits 
of this final rule. Executive Order (E.O.) 12866, as amended by E.O. 
14094, and E.O. 13563 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits 
of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, 
to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including 
potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, 
distributive impacts, and equity).\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Executive Order 12866 of September 30, 1993: Regulatory 
Planning and Review. 58 FR 51735. October 4, 1993. www.archives.gov/files/federal-register/executive-orders/pdf/12866.pdf (last accessed 
May 17, 2024).
    Executive Order 14094 of April 6, 2023: Modernizing Regulatory 
Review. 88 FR 21879. April 11, 2023. www.federalregister.gov/documents/2023/04/11/2023-07760/modernizing-regulatory-review (last 
accessed May 17, 2024).
    Executive Order 13563 of January 18, 2011: Improving Regulation 
and Regulatory Review. January 18, 2011. www.regulations.gov/document/EPA-HQ-OA-2018-0259-0005 (last accessed May 17, 2024).

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 99097]]

    Under E.O. 12866, OMB's Office of Information and Regulatory 
Affairs (OIRA) determines whether a regulatory action is significant 
and, therefore, subject to the requirements of the E.O. and review by 
OMB. As amended by E.O. 14094, section 3(f) of E.O. 12866 defines a 
``significant regulatory action'' as a regulatory action that is likely 
to result in a rule that may: (1) have an annual effect on the economy 
of $200 million or more; or adversely affect in a material way the 
economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the 
environment, public health or safety, or state, local, territorial, or 
tribal governments or communities; (2) create a serious inconsistency 
or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another 
agency; (3) materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, 
grants, user fees or loan programs or the rights and obligations of 
recipients thereof; or (4) raise legal or policy issues for which 
centralized review would meaningfully further the President's 
priorities or the principles set forth in the E.O. OIRA has determined 
that this final rule is not a ``significant regulatory action.'' OMB 
has reviewed the final rule. Pursuant to Subtitle E of the Small 
Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, also known as the 
Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.), OIRA has determined 
that this rule does not meet the criteria set forth in 5 U.S.C. 804(2) 
for major rules.
    E.O. 13563 recognizes that some benefits and costs are difficult to 
quantify and provides that, where appropriate and permitted by law, 
agencies may consider and discuss qualitative values that are difficult 
or impossible to quantify, including equity, human dignity, fairness, 
and distributive impacts. E.O. 13563 also emphasizes the importance of 
reducing costs, harmonizing rules, and promoting flexibility.
    This final rule incorporates by reference eight VCS, accepts those 
eight VCS requirements for MSHA approvals, and commits MSHA to 
reviewing and updating VCS provisions. The testing and evaluation of 
electrical equipment for which applicants seek MSHA approval for use in 
gassy mines is conducted by either MSHA or an independent laboratory. 
For new approvals, the final rule will allow applicants to use one of 
the following: (1) existing Part 18 requirements, or (2) listed VCS. 
Product designers and manufacturers holding MSHA approvals are allowed 
to market such equipment to mine operators as ``MSHA approved'' for use 
in gassy mines.
    The benefits of this final rule include:
    (1) enhanced health and/or safety of miners through the 
introduction of innovative and modern electrical equipment as a result 
of the additional equipment and technologies that will be made 
available for use in U.S. gassy mining environments; and
    (2) reduced burden for manufacturers applying for the approval to 
use electrical equipment in gassy mines, because manufacturers of 
equipment that already meet VCS requirements will not have to redesign 
those products to meet MSHA requirements.
    Under MSHA's current Part 18 regulations, existing manufacturer 
compliance costs include:
    (1) the time for manufacturers to go through an approval process, 
including filling out applications;
    (2) the costs of testing and evaluations of equipment by MSHA or 
independent laboratory pursuant to 30 CFR 6.10; and
    (3) fees paid by manufacturers to MSHA to have their applications 
reviewed.
    MSHA did not receive any public comments regarding direct costs. 
MSHA has determined that manufacturers will not incur any new direct 
costs from using the final rule for product approvals.

Benefits

    The final rule will provide societal benefits to manufacturers of 
electric motor-driven mine equipment and accessories and the consumers 
of those products (mine operators and miners). MSHA is not able to 
quantify the benefits due to a lack of access to proprietary product 
information and uncertainty about the type and amount of new electrical 
equipment that will be approved as a result of this final rule. MSHA 
expects that allowing for the use of VCS standards for electrical 
equipment will improve the safety and health of miners, through 
expanded product choices and lower cost burden of designing, building, 
and testing.
    Currently, some products that use modern technologies are not being 
introduced by manufacturers into the U.S. mining market. One reason may 
be that technical requirements set by MSHA for products for gassy mines 
differ from those which are marketed in other industries. MSHA's 
specific technical requirements could influence or impact 
manufacturers' decisions to apply for product approvals that would 
allow for introduction of new technologies in U.S. mines. This final 
rule promotes the introduction of additional products and technologies 
through the expansion of approval requirements to include VCS and 
lowering technical barriers to entry.
    Several commenters, including Komatsu, Consol, and NIOSH, suggested 
that this rule will allow mine operators to take advantage of all 
available safety and health technologies (Document ID 0013; 0014; 
0015). They also commented that this rule will allow a greater variety 
of electrical equipment to be introduced into gassy mines, thereby 
giving miners and mine operators additional equipment options, 
including options that might be better suited to their unique mining 
conditions.
    Rosebud Mining Company stated that innovation in the underground 
coal mining sector is currently inhibited by the testing and evaluation 
provisions covering all equipment that must be approved under the 
current MSHA standards (Document ID 0012). The commenter said that many 
manufacturers have equipment that have been approved under ANSI or IEC 
standards, and that this rule would therefore expand the types of 
equipment allowed into gassy mines, thereby providing additional 
product options for mine operators and miners that would further the 
health and safety of miners.
    The final rule will allow manufacturers to choose to use either the 
applicable listed VCS or MSHA's existing approval requirements in 
subparts B through E for Part 18 approval. This will allow 
manufacturers to make a choice that minimizes the time and resource 
costs to them while still ensuring the same level of health and safety 
to miners using their equipment.
    In summary, MSHA expects to see two primary qualitative benefits as 
a result of this rule. First, the health and safety of miners will be 
improved because of the ability of mine operators and miners to choose 
from more innovative and technologically advanced equipment that works 
best for their unique mining conditions. Second, MSHA expects the rule 
to decrease the compliance burden for manufacturers through enhanced 
efficiency and effectiveness in the application process, because 
applicants will now have the option of using either existing MSHA 
requirements or VCS requirements for approval of their equipment.

Costs

    The current regulations impose compliance costs on manufacturers of 
motor-driven mine electrical equipment and accessories. Manufacturers 
have to spend time to go through an approval

[[Page 99098]]

process, spend money for the testing and evaluations of equipment, and 
pay fees to MSHA to review their applications as part of the approval 
process.
    MSHA understands that many products with MSHA approval are also 
accepted for other industries with similar safety standards where VCS 
certification is required, such as the oil and gas extraction industry. 
In order to market to a wide range of industries, equipment 
manufacturers with MSHA approval currently have to maintain two 
versions of the same product: one version for the U.S. mining industry 
and one version for other industries with similar safety standards. 
Under the final rule, these manufacturers submitting new product 
applications for MSHA approval will likely experience lower approval 
costs, because their products have already met the VCS requirements and 
will no longer need to meet MSHA-unique requirements. As a result, many 
applicants will not be required to submit additional technical 
drawings, documentation, and testing beyond the materials submitted 
elsewhere for VCS certification.
    The final rule allows manufacturers and mine operators to continue 
to sell or purchase all currently approved equipment. Currently 
approved equipment will still be allowed and in compliance based on its 
most recent approval. If, at a future date, a current approval holder 
wishes to make any modifications to a piece of approved equipment, the 
approval holder submitting an application for a modification would not 
incur substantive costs. Applicants will have the option of using the 
existing Part 18 requirements or the VCS requirements.
    MSHA does not anticipate additional compliance costs for new 
approvals in terms of time spent on the approval process. Based on 
MSHA's experience providing compliance assistance to manufacturers, 
MSHA believes that its own standards are generally more burdensome than 
VCS. Manufacturers going through the VCS process can therefore expect, 
on average, less time to prepare application materials than they face 
before the adoption of this rule. Many electrical machines and 
components that comply with the listed VCS requirements are readily 
available, since VCS are widely accepted in the U.S. In contrast, many 
electrical machines and components that meet existing Part 18 
requirements are not widely available since the requirements are 
specific to underground gassy mines in the U.S. Therefore, MSHA expects 
no extra costs associated with this final rule because many products 
are already in use in markets outside of the U.S. mining industry. 
Furthermore, applicants whose products already meet the VCS 
requirements will likely experience cost reductions due to the expanded 
list of acceptable standards.
    Applicants will still have the option of using either MSHA or an 
independent laboratory for testing and evaluation of their electrical 
equipment, which means that costs related to this item will remain 
unchanged. Other costs, including fees paid by manufacturers to MSHA to 
review their applications, are not expected to be significantly 
affected by the final rule.
    MSHA has determined that the use of the listed VCS in addition to 
existing Part 18 requirements will not introduce additional direct 
costs for manufacturers; on the contrary, manufacturers introducing new 
technologies may experience fewer barriers for product entry into the 
mining industry, without any adverse impacts on safety. MSHA's 
acceptance of the listed VCS will provide more mining product choices 
to mine operators and miners.
    Under the final rule, current approval holders will not be required 
to alter equipment or incur any new costs. New applicants may choose 
the standards most beneficial to them. Overall, no substantive costs 
are expected to be incurred (they are likely to fall instead) because 
many approval holders and applicants already design and build products 
that meet the VCS requirements.

VIII. Feasibility

    Commenters, such as NMA and Dr[auml]ger, noted that manufacturers 
of products for mining already successfully use VCS outside of the U.S. 
(Document ID 0020; 0023). The final rule will provide mining equipment 
manufacturers increased flexibility for approval of existing or new 
equipment for use in gassy mines through the allowance of the listed 
VCS as an alternative to the MSHA-unique requirements in Part 18. 
Additionally, the final rule allows manufacturers to continue to apply 
for approvals based on the existing MSHA-unique requirements in Part 
18. Thus, the final rule does not require different technologies than 
those acceptable under existing requirements. MSHA concludes that the 
requirements of the final rule are technologically feasible.
    As discussed in the Regulatory Impact Analysis, MSHA determines 
that manufacturers will not incur any new substantive direct costs to 
meet the requirements of the final rule. For approved products, 
manufacturers have the option of continuing to use the requirements in 
subparts B through E of Part 18 or to start using listed VCS 
requirements. For new products, MSHA approval requires that an 
electrical machine or component be designed, built, and tested to 
existing MSHA-unique requirements in Part 18 or to the listed VCS, 
which results in no cost change if using existing MSHA requirements or 
a decrease in application costs from simplified application materials 
if the manufacturer chooses to meet VCS requirements. MSHA concludes 
that the requirements of the final rule are economically feasible.

IX. Regulatory Flexibility Act; Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 
Fairness Act; and Executive Order 13272

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended by the Small 
Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, hereafter jointly 
referred to as the RFA, requires that an agency consider the economic 
impact that a final rulemaking will have on small entities. E.O. 13272 
requires Federal agencies to assess the economic impacts of a rule on 
small businesses, small governmental jurisdictions, and small 
organizations.
    NIOSH and an individual noted that switching from MSHA-unique 
technical requirements to the listed VCS could negatively affect small 
to medium companies (Document ID 0015; 0026). After considering the 
comments, MSHA has decided to allow manufacturers to use the existing 
requirements or the VCS for product approval. MSHA has determined that 
manufacturers will not incur any incremental direct compliance costs to 
meet the requirements of the final rule, and no small entities that are 
current approval holders will be required to make a product change due 
to the final rule. Therefore, MSHA certifies that the final rule will 
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities.

X. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    The Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521) 
provides for the Federal Government's collection, use, and 
dissemination of information. The goals of the PRA include minimizing 
paperwork and reporting burdens and ensuring the maximum possible 
utility from the information that is collected under 5 CFR part 1320. 
The PRA requires Federal agencies to obtain approval from OMB before 
requesting or requiring ``a collection of information'' from the 
public.

[[Page 99099]]

    As part of the PRA process, MSHA solicited comments on the proposed 
rule, including information collection requirements, and provided an 
opportunity for comments to be sent directly to OMB, as required in 44 
U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A). MSHA did not receive any comments regarding the 
necessity or burden related to information collection.
    Information collection costs associated with current MSHA-unique 
technical requirements are captured in the currently approved 
information collection request under OMB Control Number 1219-0066. 
Under this information collection request, MSHA collects information 
from mine operators regarding electric motor-driven mine equipment and 
accessories, including the following:
     application for and extension of approval,
     application for and extension of acceptance,
     application for field modification of approved permissible 
equipment,
     application for and extension of certification,
     application for permit to use experimental electric face 
equipment in a gassy mine or tunnel,
     application for and extension of simplified certification, 
and
     application for Revised Approval Modification Program 
(RAMP).
    As discussed in the Regulatory Impact Analysis, MSHA has determined 
that manufacturers will not incur any incremental direct costs to meet 
the requirements of the final rule. Hence, there is no new information 
collection associated with this final rule.

XI. Other Regulatory Considerations

A. National Environmental Policy Act

    The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 
4321 et seq.), requires each Federal agency to consider the 
environmental effects of final actions and to prepare an environmental 
impact statement on major actions significantly affecting the quality 
of the environment. MSHA has reviewed the final rule in accordance with 
NEPA requirements, the regulations of the Council on Environmental 
Quality (40 CFR part 1500), and the Department of Labor's NEPA 
procedures (29 CFR part 11). As a result of this review, MSHA has 
determined that this final rule will not have a significant 
environmental impact. Accordingly, MSHA has not conducted an 
environmental assessment nor provided an environmental impact 
statement.

B. The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    MSHA has determined that this final rule does not include any 
Federal mandate that will result in increased expenditures by State, 
local, or tribal governments under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 
1995 (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.). Since the final rule does not have any 
costs, the rule is not a major rule under the Unfunded Mandates Reform 
Act of 1995. Accordingly, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 
requires no further Agency action or analysis.

C. The Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act of 1999: 
Assessment of Federal Regulations and Policies on Families

    Section 654 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations 
Act of 1999 (5 U.S.C. 601 note) requires agencies to assess the impact 
of Agency action on family well-being. MSHA has determined that the 
final rule will have no effect on family stability or safety, marital 
commitment, parental rights and authority, or income or poverty of 
families and children, as defined in the Act. The final rule impacts 
the mining industry and does not impose requirements on states or 
families. Accordingly, MSHA certifies that this final rule will not 
impact family well-being, as defined in the Act.

D. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    The final rule does not have ``federalism implications'' because it 
will not ``have substantial direct effects on the States, on the 
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the 
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of 
government.'' Accordingly, under E.O. 13132, no further Agency action 
or analysis is required.

E. Executive Order 12630: Government Actions and Interference With 
Constitutionally Protected Property Rights

    The final rule does not implement a policy with takings 
implications. Accordingly, under E.O. 12630, no further Agency action 
or analysis is required.

F. Executive Order 12988: Civil Justice Reform

    The final rule was written to provide a clear legal standard for 
affected conduct and was carefully reviewed to eliminate drafting 
errors and ambiguities, to minimize litigation and undue burden on the 
Federal court system. Accordingly, the rule meets the applicable 
standards provided in section 3 of E.O. 12988, Civil Justice Reform.

G. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian 
Tribal Governments

    This final rule does not have ``tribal implications'' because it 
will not ``have substantial direct effects on one or more Indian 
tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian 
tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between 
the Federal Government and Indian tribes.'' Accordingly, under E.O. 
13175, no further Agency action or analysis is required.

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use

    E.O. 13211 requires agencies to publish a statement of energy 
effects when a rule has a significant energy action that adversely 
affects energy supply, distribution, or use. MSHA has reviewed this 
final rule for its energy effects. There are no costs associated with 
this final rule. For the energy analysis, this final rule will not 
exceed the relevant criteria for adverse impact.

I. Executive Order 13985: Advancing Racial Equity and Support for 
Underserved Communities Through the Federal Government

    E.O. 13985 provides ``that the Federal Government should pursue a 
comprehensive approach to advancing equity for all, including people of 
color and others who have been historically underserved, marginalized, 
and adversely affected by persistent poverty and inequality.'' E.O. 
13985 defines ``equity'' as ``consistent and systematic fair, just, and 
impartial treatment of all individuals, including individuals who 
belong to underserved communities that have been denied such treatment, 
such as Black, Latino, and Indigenous and Native American persons, 
Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders and other persons of color; 
members of religious minorities; lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, 
and queer (LGBTQ+) persons; persons with disabilities; persons who live 
in rural areas; and persons otherwise adversely affected by persistent 
poverty or inequality.'' To assess the impact of the final rule on 
equity, MSHA considered two factors: (1) the racial/ethnic distribution 
in mining in NAICS 212 (which does not include oil and gas extraction) 
compared to the racial/ethnic distribution of the U.S. workforce (Table 
XI-1), and (2) the extent to which

[[Page 99100]]

mining may be concentrated within general mining communities (Table XI-
2).
    In 2008, NIOSH conducted a survey of mines, which entailed sending 
a survey packet to 2,321 mining operations to collect a wide range of 
information, including demographic information on miners. NIOSH's 2012 
report, entitled ``National Survey of the Mining Population: Part I: 
Employees'' reported the findings of this survey (NIOSH, 2012a). Race 
and ethnicity information about U.S. mine workers is presented in Table 
XI-1. Of all mine workers, including miners as well as administrative 
employees at mines, 93.4 percent of mine workers were white, compared 
to 80.6 percent of all U.S workers.\14\ There were larger percentages 
of American Indian or Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian or Other 
Pacific Islander people in the mining industry compared to all U.S. 
workers, while there were smaller percentages of Asian, Black or 
African American, and Hispanic/Latino people in the mining industry 
compared to all U.S. workers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ National data on workers by race were not available for the 
year 2008; comparable data for 2012 are provided for comparison 
under the assumption that there would not be major differences in 
distributions between these two years.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Table XI-2 shows that there are 22 mining communities, defined as 
counties where at least 2 percent of the population is working in the 
mining industry.\15\ Although the total population in this table 
represents only 0.15 percent of the U.S. population, it represents 12.0 
percent of all mine workers. The average per capita income in these 
communities in 2020, $47,977,\16\ was lower than the U.S. average, 
$59,510, representing 80.6 percent of the U.S. average. However, each 
county's average per capita income varied substantially, ranging from 
56.4 percent of the U.S. average to 146.8 percent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Although 2 percent may appear to be a small number for 
identifying a mining community, one might consider that if the 
average household with one parent working as a miner has five 
members in total, then approximately 10 percent of households in the 
area would be directly associated with mining. While 10 percent may 
also appear small, this refers to the county. There are likely 
particular areas that have a heavier concentration of mining 
households.
    \16\ This is a simple average rather than a weighted average by 
population.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    MSHA determined that the final rule would not impose costs that 
would influence the mining industry's demand of labor, and therefore, 
the rule would have no impact on mining employment in underserved 
communities. MSHA determined that the final rule is consistent with the 
goals of E.O. 13985 and would support the advancement of equity for all 
workers at mines, including those who are historically underserved and 
marginalized.

                         Table XI-1--Racial and Ethnic Distribution of Mine Workers \1\
                                                     [2012]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                             As a percent of
                                                             Number of          total mine       Percent of all
                                                         workers in mining  workers who self-    workers in the
                                                          (except oil and     identified in    United States for
                                                          gas) (NAICS code  these  categories      comparison
                                                                212)         (latest data for     (latest data
                                                                                  2008)            2012) \4\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ethnicity:
    Hispanic/Latino....................................             26,622               12.1               15.0
    Non-Hispanic or Latino.............................            192,839               87.9               85.0
                                                        --------------------------------------------------------
        Total..........................................            219,461              100.0              100.0
Race: \2\
    American Indian or Alaska Native \3\...............              4,050                1.9                0.8
    Asian..............................................                183                0.1                5.4
    Black or African American..........................              8,893                4.3               13.0
    Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander..........                634                0.3                0.2
    White..............................................            194,016               93.4               80.6
                                                        --------------------------------------------------------
        Total..........................................            207,776              100.0              100.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Mine workers includes miners and other workers at mines such as administrative employees.
\2\ Does not include mine workers who did not self-report in one of these categories. Some of the surveyed mine
  workers may not have self-reported in one of these categories if they are affiliated with more than one race,
  or if they chose not to respond to this survey question.
\3\ Includes mine workers who self-identified as an American Indian or Alaskan Native as a single race, not in
  combination with any other races. No other data on mine workers in this racial group were available from this
  source. In other employment statistics often reported on American Indians and Alaska Natives, their population
  is based on self-reporting as being American Indian or Alaska Native in combination with any other race, which
  has resulted in the reporting of much higher employment levels. See Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), Monthly
  Labor Review, ``Alternative Measurements of Indian Country: Understanding Their Implications for Economic,
  Statistical, and Policy Analysis,'' www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2021/article/alternative-measurements-of-indian-country.htm.
\4\ More recent data from the 2020 Decennial Census were not available in September 2022.
Sources: National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH). 2012a. National Survey of the Mining
  Population Mining Publication: Part 1: Employees, DHHS (NIOSH) Pub. No. 2012-152, June 2012; U.S. Census
  Bureau, 2012 American Community Survey (ACS).

                     Table XI-2--Mining Counties--Counties in the United States With Relatively High Concentrations of Mine Workers
                                                      [At least 2 percent of the county population]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                                Estimated percent of
              No.                            County                Number of mine workers     Population of county (latest     population who are mine
                                                                    (first quarter 2022)              data in 2021)                    workers
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1..............................  White Pine County, Nevada....                         1,288                         9,182                          14.0

[[Page 99101]]

 
2..............................  Pershing County, Nevada......                           771                         6,741                          11.4
3..............................  Humboldt County, Nevada......                         1,549                        17,648                           8.8
4..............................  Campbell County, Wyoming.....                         3,547                        46,401                           7.6
5..............................  Winkler County, Texas........                           513                         7,415                           6.9
6..............................  Mercer County, North Dakota..                           555                         8,323                           6.7
7..............................  Chase County, Kansas.........                           166                         2,598                           6.4
8..............................  Shoshone County, Idaho.......                           723                        13,612                           5.3
9..............................  Logan County, West Virginia..                         1,643                        31,909                           5.1
10.............................  Sweetwater County, Wyoming...                         2,050                        41,614                           4.9
11.............................  Glasscock County, Texas......                            56                         1,149                           4.9
12.............................  Livingston County, Kentucky..                           431                         8,959                           4.8
13.............................  Buchanan County, Virginia....                           946                        19,816                           4.8
14.............................  McDowell County, West                                   660                        18,363                           3.6
                                  Virginia.
15.............................  Big Horn County, Wyoming.....                           413                        11,632                           3.6
16.............................  Sevier County, Utah..........                           601                        21,906                           2.7
17.............................  Boone County, West Virginia..                           582                        21,312                           2.7
18.............................  Moffat County, Colorado......                           349                        13,185                           2.6
19.............................  Nye County, Nevada...........                         1,062                        43,946                           2.4
20.............................  Raleigh County, West Virginia                         1,647                        73,771                           2.2
21.............................  Wyoming County, West Virginia                           456                        21,051                           2.2
22.............................  Elko County, Nevada..........                         1,090                        53,915                           2.0
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total..........................  .............................                        20,963                       494,448                           4.2
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All U.S. Counties..............  .............................                       174,387                   331,893,745  ............................
Mine Workers in Mining Counties  .............................                         12.0%
 as a Percent of All U.S. Mine
 Workers.
Population of Mine Counties as   .............................  ............................                         0.15%
 a Percent of U.S. Population.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: BLS, Quarterly Employment and Wages First Quarter 2022 (2022); Bureau of Economic Analysis, Personal Income by County, Metro, and Other Areas
  2020 (2020); U.S. Census Bureau, ``Annual Estimates of the Resident Population for Counties: April 1, 2020 to July 1, 2021 (CO-EST2021-POP).''
  available at: www.census.gov/data/tables/time-series/demo/popest/2020s-counties-total.html (last accessed Jan. 11, 2024); U.S. Census Bureau, Quick
  Facts, available at: www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/US/PST045221 (last accessed Jan. 11, 2024).

J. Congressional Review Act

    Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.), 
this final rule is not a ``major rule,'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

K. Pay-As-You-Go-Act of 2023

    In accordance with the Administrative Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2023 
(Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023, Pub. L. 118-5, div.B, title III) 
and OMB Memorandum (M-23-21) dated September 1, 2023, MSHA has 
determined that this final rule is exempt from the Act because this 
rule only affects discretionary funding. Therefore, no further Agency 
action or analysis is required.

L. Incorporation by Reference

    The Office of the Federal Register (OFR) has regulations concerning 
incorporation by reference. In accordance with the OFR's requirements 
(1 CFR part 51), the following discussion summarizes briefly the VCS 
that MSHA incorporates by reference and the availability of each VCS.
International Society of Automation (ISA)
    The two ISA standards being incorporated by reference in this final 
rule are summarized in this section below. ISA provides free online 
public access to view read-only copies of ISA standards that are 
incorporated into Federal regulations through an agreement with ANSI. 
These standards

[[Page 99102]]

are available to the public for free viewing online in the ANSI 
Incorporated by Reference Portal website at: https://ibr.ansi.org/Standards/isa.aspx. In addition to the free online availability of 
these standards for viewing on the ANSI website, hardcopies and 
printable versions are available for purchase from ISA. The ISA website 
address to purchase standards is: www.isa.org/standards-and-publications/isa-standards/find-isa-standards-in-numerical-order. 
Interested persons may also contact ISA directly at International 
Society of Automation (ISA), 67 T.W. Alexander Drive, P.O. Box 12277, 
Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, Tel: (919) 549-8411. In addition, 
upon finalization of this rule, ISA standards will be available for 
review free of charge at MSHA headquarters at 201 12th Street South, 
Arlington, VA 22202-5450 (202-693-9440) and at MSHA's Approval and 
Certification Center (A&CC) at 765 Technology Drive, Triadelphia, WV 
26059 (304-547-0400).
    ANSI/ISA 60079-11 (12.02.01)--2014 Standard for Explosive 
Atmospheres--Part 11: Equipment Protection by Intrinsic Safety ``i'' 
(Group I, Level of Protection `ia'), dated March 28, 2014, specifies 
the construction and testing of intrinsically safe apparatus intended 
for use in an explosive atmosphere and for associated apparatus that is 
intended for connection to intrinsically safe circuits which enter such 
atmospheres. This standard is also applicable to electrical equipment 
or parts of electrical equipment located outside the explosive 
atmosphere or protected where the intrinsic safety of the electrical 
circuits in the explosive atmosphere may depend upon the design and 
construction of such electrical equipment or parts of such electrical 
equipment. The electrical circuits exposed to the explosive atmosphere 
are evaluated for use in such an atmosphere by applying this standard.
    ANSI/ISA 60079-25 (12.02.05)--2011 Standard for Explosive 
Atmospheres--Part 25: Intrinsically Safe Electrical Systems (Group I, 
Level of Protection `ia'), dated December 2, 2011, contains the 
specific requirements for construction and assessment of intrinsically 
safe electrical systems, type of protection ``i,'' intended for use, as 
a whole or in part, in Class I, Zone 0, 1, or 2, or Zone 20, 21, or 22 
hazardous (classified) locations as defined by the NEC[supreg], ANSI/
NFPA 70[supreg].
UL
    The six UL standards being incorporated by reference in this final 
rule are summarized in this section below. UL provides free online 
public access to view read-only copies of UL standards that are 
incorporated into Federal regulations. These standards are available to 
the public for free viewing online on UL's website at: 
www.ulstandards.com/IBR/logon.aspx. In addition to the free online 
availability of these standards for viewing on UL's website, hardcopies 
and printable versions are available for purchase from UL. The UL 
website address to purchase standards is: www.shopulstandards.com. 
Interested persons may also contact UL directly at UL Solutions, Comm 
2000, 151 Eastern Avenue, Bensenville, IL 60106, Tel: (888) 853-3503. 
In addition, upon finalization of this rule, UL standards will be 
available for review free of charge at MSHA headquarters at 201 12th 
Street South, Arlington, VA 22202-5450 (202-693-9440) and at MSHA's 
A&CC at 765 Technology Drive, Triadelphia, WV 26059 (304-547-0400).
    ANSI/UL 60079-0 Ed. 7-2019, Standard for Explosive Atmospheres--
Part 0: Equipment-General Requirements (Group I), dated March 26, 2019, 
specifies the general requirements for construction, testing and 
marking of Ex Equipment and Ex Components intended for use in explosive 
atmospheres. This standard is an adoption of IEC 60079-0, Explosive 
atmospheres--Part 0: Equipment--General requirements, (seventh edition 
issued by IEC December 2017) as a new IEC-based UL standard with U.S. 
national differences.
    ANSI/UL 60079-1 Ed. 7-2015, Standard for Explosive Atmospheres--
Part 1: Equipment Protection by Flameproof Enclosures ``d'' (Group I, 
Level of Protection `da'), dated September 18, 2015, contains specific 
requirements for the construction and testing of electrical equipment 
with the type of protection flameproof enclosure ``d'', intended for 
use in explosive gas atmospheres. This standard is an adoption of IEC 
60079-1, Explosive Atmospheres--Part 1: Equipment Protection by 
Flameproof Enclosures ``d'' (seventh edition, issued June 2014) with 
U.S. national differences.
    ANSI/UL 60079-11 Ed. 6-2013, Standard for Explosive Atmospheres--
Part 11: Equipment Protection by Intrinsic Safety ``i'' (Group I, Level 
of Protection `ia'), dated February 15, 2013, specifies the 
construction and testing of intrinsically safe apparatus intended for 
use in an explosive atmosphere and for associated apparatus, which is 
intended for connection to intrinsically safe circuits which enter such 
atmospheres. This standard is also applicable to electrical equipment 
or parts of electrical equipment located outside the explosive 
atmosphere or protected where the intrinsic safety of the electrical 
circuits in the explosive atmosphere may depend upon the design and 
construction of such electrical equipment or parts of such electrical 
equipment. The electrical circuits exposed to the explosive atmosphere 
are evaluated for use in such an atmosphere by applying this standard. 
This standard incorporates all of the U.S. national differences for UL 
60079-11 and is based on IEC 60079-11, Edition 6, published in 2011.
    ANSI/UL 60079-18, Ed. 4-2015, Standard for Explosive Atmospheres--
Part 18: Equipment Protection by Encapsulation ``m'' (Group I, Level of 
Protection `ma'), dated December 14, 2015, provides the specific 
requirements for the construction, testing and marking of electrical 
equipment, parts of electrical equipment and Ex components with the 
type of protection encapsulation ``m'' intended for use in explosive 
gas atmospheres or explosive dust atmospheres. This standard applies 
only for encapsulated electrical equipment, encapsulated parts of 
electrical equipment, and encapsulated Ex components where the rated 
voltage does not exceed 11 kV. This standard incorporates all of the 
U.S. national differences and is based on IEC 60079-18, Explosive 
Atmospheres--Part 18: Equipment Protection by Encapsulation ``m'', 
(fourth edition issued December 2014).
    ANSI/UL 60079-25 Ed. 2-2011, Standard for Explosive Atmospheres--
Part 25: Intrinsically Safe Electrical Systems (Group I, Level of 
Protection 'ia'), dated December 2, 2011, contains the specific 
requirements for construction and assessment of intrinsically safe 
electrical systems, type of protection ``i,'' intended for use, as a 
whole or in part, in Class I, Zone 0, 1, or 2 hazardous (classified) 
locations as defined by the NEC[supreg], ANSI/NFPA 70[supreg]. This 
standard is an adoption of ANSI/ISA 60079-25, Standard for Explosive 
Atmospheres--Part 25: Intrinsically Safe Electrical Systems.
    ANSI/UL 60079-28 Ed. 2-2017, Standard for Explosive Atmospheres--
Part 28: Protection of Equipment and Transmission Systems Using Optical 
Radiation (Group I, Equipment Protection Level `Ma'), dated September 
15, 2017, specifies the requirements, testing and marking of equipment 
emitting optical radiation intended for use in explosive atmospheres. 
It also covers equipment located outside the explosive atmosphere or 
protected, but which generates optical radiation that is intended to 
enter an explosive

[[Page 99103]]

atmosphere. This standard incorporates all of the U.S. national 
differences for UL 60079-28 and is based on IEC 60079-28, Edition 2.0 
published May 2015.

XII. References

American National Standard Institute (ANSI). 2024a. IBR Standards 
portal. Standards incorporated by reference. Accessed May 29, 2024. 
Retrieved from: https://ibr.ansi.org/.
American National Standard Institute (ANSI). 2024b. Introduction. 
Accessed May 31, 2024. Retrieved from: www.ansi.org/about/introduction.
American National Standard Institute (ANSI). 2024c. Roles. Accessed 
May 31, 2024. Retrieved from: www.ansi.org/about/roles.
American National Standard Institute (ANSI). 2024d. Submitting 
standards for approval AS ANS. Accessed May 31, 2024. Retrieved 
from: www.ansi.org/american-national-standards/info-for-standards-developers/ans-approval.
ANSI/ISA. 2014. 60079-11 (12.02.01)--Standard for Explosive 
Atmospheres--Part 11: Equipment Protection by Intrinsic Safety ``i'' 
(Group I, Level of Protection `ia')
ANSI/ISA. 2011a. 60079-25 (12.02.05)--Standard for Explosive 
Atmospheres--Part 25: Intrinsically Safe Electrical Systems (Group 
I, Level of Protection `ia')
ANSI/UL. 2019. 60079-0 Ed. 7--. Standard for Explosive Atmospheres--
Part 0: Equipment-General Requirements (Group I)
ANSI/UL. 2015b. 60079-1 Ed. 7--. Standard for Explosive 
Atmospheres--Part 1: Equipment Protection by Flameproof Enclosures 
``d'' (Group I, Level of Protection `da')
ANSI/UL. 2013. 60079-11 Ed. 6--. Standard for Explosive 
Atmospheres--Part 11: Equipment Protection by Intrinsic Safety ``i'' 
(Group I, Level of Protection `ia')
ANSI/UL. 2015a. 60079-18, Ed. 4.Standard for Explosive Atmospheres--
Part 18: Equipment Protection by Encapsulation ``m'' (Group I, Level 
of Protection `ma')
ANSI/UL. 2011b. 60079-25 Ed. 2 Standard for Explosive Atmospheres--
Part 25: Intrinsically Safe Electrical Systems (Group I, Level of 
Protection `ia')
ANSI/UL. 2017. 60079-28 Ed. 2. Standard for Explosive Atmospheres--
Part 28: Protection of Equipment and Transmission Systems Using 
Optical Radiation (Group I, Equipment Protection Level `Ma')
Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). 2021. ``Alternative Measurements 
of Indian Country: Understanding Their Implications for Economic, 
Statistical, and Policy Analysis'' Monthly Labor Review. Accessed 
May 31, 2024. Retrieved from: www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2021/article/alternative-measurements-of-indian-country.htm.
Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). 2022. Quarterly Employment and 
Wages First Quarter 2022.Accessed May 31, 2024. Retrieved from: 
www.bls.gov/cew/publications/employment-and-wages-annual-averages/2022/home.htm
Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE). 2018. 
``Comparative Assessment of Electrical Standards and Practices: 
Final Report.'' Accessed June 14, 2024. Retrieved from: 
www.bsee.gov/sites/bsee.gov/files/782aa.pdf.
Calder, W., Snyder, D.P. and Burr, J.F., 2018. Intrinsically safe 
systems: equivalency of international standards compared to US 
mining approval criteria. IEEE transactions on industry 
applications, 54(3), pp.2975-2980
Congressional Review of Agency Rulemaking 5 U.S.C. 801. Retrieved 
from: https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?path=/prelim@title5/part1/chapter8&edition=prelim
International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC). 2024a. 
Understanding standards. Accessed May 31, 2024. Retrieved from: 
www.iec.ch/understanding-standards
International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC). 2024b. Standards 
development stages. Accessed May 31, 2024. Retrieved from: 
www.iec.ch/standards-development/stages
Intertek. 2020. Standards update notice (SUN). Accessed May 31, 
2024. Retrieved from: UL 60079-1 Rev 9-18-2015 ED 10-1-2020 
(intertek.com)
Executive Order 12866 of September 30, 1993: Regulatory Planning and 
Review. 58 FR 51735. October 4, 1993. Accessed January 5, 2023. 
Retrieved from: https://www.archives.gov/files/federal-register/executive-orders/pdf/12866.pdf.
Executive Order 13272 of August 13, 2002: Proper Consideration of 
Small Entities in Agency Rulemaking. August 13, 2002. Accessed May 
17, 2024. Retrieved from: www.federalregister.gov/documents/2002/08/16/02-21056/proper-consideration-of-small-entities-in-agency-rulemaking
Executive Order 13563 of January 18, 2011: Improving Regulation and 
Regulatory Review. January 18, 2011. Accessed May 17, 2024. 
Retrieved from: www.regulations.gov/document/EPA-HQ-OA-2018-0259-0005
Executive Order 14094 of April 6, 2023: Modernizing Regulatory 
Review. 88 FR 21879. April 11, 2023. Accessed May 17, 2024. 
Retrieved from: www.federalregister.gov/documents/2023/04/11/2023-07760/modernizing-regulatory-review
Fowler, T.W. and Miles, K.K. 2009. Electrical safety. Safety and 
health for electrical trades. Student manual. National Institute of 
Occupational Safety and Health.
Fuhrmann, T., Schlegel, S., Grobmann, S., Hoidis, M.. 2014. 
Investigations on stationary electrical joints with a bare and a 
silver or nickel coated contact partner regarding the permissible 
temperature limit according to ANSI IEE and IEO. IEEE 60th Holm 
Conference on Electrical Contacts (HOLM), New Orleans, LA. 1-8.
Health and Safety Executive. N.d. ATEX and explosive atmospheres. 
Accessed May 31, 2024. Retrieved from: www.hse.gov.uk/
fireandexplosion/atex.htm#whatatex
Mine Safety and Health Administration. 1978. Technical, 
Nonsubstantive Revisions and Miscellaneous Amendments. 43 FR 12314
National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH). 
2012a. National Survey of the Mining Population Mining Publication: 
Part 1: Employees, DHHS (NIOSH) Pub. No. 2012-152, June 2012. 
www.cdc.gov/niosh/mining/UserFiles/works/pdfs/2012-152.pdf
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995. 15 U.S.C. 
3710. www.congress.gov/bill/104th-congress/house-bill/2196/text
National Fire Protection Association[supreg]. 2023. NFPA 70[supreg]: 
National Electric Code[supreg]. International electrical code 
series.
Office of Management and Budget's (OMB). 2017. Circular A-119 
Revised. Accessed May 31, 2024. Retrieved from: www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/Circular-119-1.pdf.
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). 2019. NRTL 
Program policies, procedures, and guidelines. CPL-01-00-0004. 
Accessed May 31, 2024. Retrieved from: www.osha.gov/sites/default/files/enforcement/directives/CPL_019-00-004.pdf
Sim, H.J. 2007. Comparisons of standards- ANSI/IEEE and IEC. 
Waukesha electrical systems. Accessed July 5, 2024. Retrieved from: 
https://grouper.ieee.org/groups/transformers/subcommittees/STNP/private/IEEE_IEC_Comparison-OLD.pdf
U.S. Census Bureau. 2012 American Community Survey (ACS).Accessed 
May 31, 2024. Retrieved from: www.census.gov/programs-surveys/acs/data.html
U.S. Census Bureau. ``Annual Estimates of the Resident Population 
for Counties: April 1, 2020 to July 1, 2021 (CO-EST2021-POP).'' 
Accessed January 11, 2024 Retrieved from: www.census.gov/data/tables/time-series/demo/popest/2020s-counties-total.html

List of Subjects

30 CFR Part 18

    Incorporation by reference, Mine safety and health, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements.

30 CFR Part 74

    Mine safety and health, Occupational safety and health.

Christopher J. Williamson,
Assistant Secretary of Labor for Mine Safety and Health.

    For the reasons set out in the preamble, and under the authority of 
the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977, as amended, the Mine 
Safety and Health Administration amends chapter I of title 30 of the 
Code of Federal Regulations as follows:

[[Page 99104]]

PART 18--ELECTRIC MOTOR-DRIVEN MINE EQUIPMENT AND ACCESSORIES

0
1. The authority citation for part 18 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  30 U.S.C. 957, 961.

0
2. Amend Sec.  18.2 by:
0
a. Revising the definition for ``Permissible equipment''; and
0
b. Adding in alphabetical order the definitions for ``Voluntary 
consensus standard'' and ``Voluntary consensus standards body''.
    The revision and additions read as follows:

Sec.  18.2  Definitions.

* * * * *
    Permissible equipment means a completely assembled electrical 
machine or accessory for which an approval has been issued.
* * * * *
    Voluntary consensus standard means a safety standard that:
    (1) Is developed or adopted by a voluntary consensus standards 
body; and
    (2) Prescribes safety requirements applicable to equipment for 
which applicants are seeking approval, certification, extension, or 
acceptance under this part.
    Voluntary consensus standards body means a domestic or 
international organization that plans, develops, establishes, or 
coordinates voluntary consensus standards using agreed-upon procedures 
that are consistent with the National Technology Transfer and 
Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 3710) and the Office of Management 
and Budget's Circular A-119 (Jan. 27, 2016).

Sec.  18.6  [Amended]

0
3. Amend Sec.  18.6 by removing the third sentence in paragraph (e).

0
4. Amend Sec.  18.15 by revising paragraph (c) to read as follows:

Sec.  18.15  Changes after approval or certification.

* * * * *
    (c) An application for a formal extension of approval or 
certification must have a list of new or revised drawings, 
specifications, and information related to the changes to be added to 
those already on file for the original approval or certification. MSHA 
will issue a formal extension of approval or certification to a 
completely assembled electrical machine or accessory, if each component 
of such electrical machine or accessory:
    (1) Meets the requirements in subparts B through E of this part; or
    (2) Meets the requirements in approved voluntary consensus 
standards (see Sec.  18.101).
* * * * *

0
5. Add subpart F, consisting of Sec. Sec.  18.101 through 18.103, to 
read as follows:

Subpart F--Voluntary Consensus Standards

Sec.
18.101 Acceptance and use of voluntary consensus standards.
18.102 Approved voluntary consensus standards.
18.103 Review and update of applicable voluntary consensus 
standards.

Sec.  18.101  Acceptance and use of voluntary consensus standards.

    (a) Voluntary consensus standards that are suitable for gassy 
mining environments and that provide protection against fire or 
explosion, if used in their entirety and without modification, may be 
used in lieu of the requirements in subparts B through E of this part, 
if MSHA has incorporated those standards by reference.
    (b) For applications submitted on or after January 9, 2025, an 
approval will be issued in accordance with subpart A of this part for a 
completely assembled electrical machine or accessory, if each component 
of such electrical machine or accessory:
    (1) Meets the requirements in subparts B through E of this part; or
    (2) Meets the Group I requirements in the following voluntary 
consensus standards (incorporated by reference, see Sec.  18.102), as 
well as the associated Level of Protection, if specified, that apply to 
those components:
    (i) ANSI/ISA 60079-11 (Level of Protection `ia');
    (ii) ANSI/ISA 60079-25 (Level of Protection `ia');
    (iii) ANSI/UL 60079-0;
    (iv) ANSI/UL 60079-1 (Level of Protection `da');
    (v) ANSI/UL 60079-11 (Level of Protection `ia');
    (vi) ANSI/UL 60079-18 (Level of Protection `ma');
    (vii) ANSI/UL 60079-25 (Level of Protection `ia'); and
    (viii) ANSI/UL 60079-28 (Equipment Protection Level `Ma').

Sec.  18.102  Approved (incorporated by reference) voluntary consensus 
standards.

    Certain material is incorporated by reference into this section 
with the approval of the Director of the Federal Register under 5 
U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. All approved incorporation by 
reference (IBR) material is available for inspection at U.S. Department 
of Labor, Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) and at the 
National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). Contact MSHA at: 
765 Technology Drive, Triadelphia, WV 26059, phone: (304) 547-0400; 
www.msha.gov/compliance-and-enforcement/equipment-approval-certification. For information on the availability of this material at 
NARA, visit www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations or 
email [email protected]. The material is available as follows:
    (a) International Society of Automation (ISA), 67 T.W. Alexander 
Drive, P.O. Box 12277, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709; phone: (919) 
549-8411; website: www.isa.org.
    (1) ANSI/ISA 60079-11 (12.02.01)-2014, American National Standard 
for Explosive Atmospheres--Part 11: Equipment protection by intrinsic 
safety ``i'', Edition 6.2, Approved March 28, 2014; into Sec.  18.101
    (2) ANSI/ISA 60079-25 (12.02.05)-2011, American National Standard 
for Explosive Atmospheres--Part 25: Intrinsically safe electrical 
systems, Approved December 2, 2011; into Sec.  18.101.
    (b) UL Solutions, Comm 2000, 151 Eastern Avenue, Bensenville, IL 
60106; phone: (888) 853-3503; website: www.ul.com.
    (1) UL 60079-0, Standard for Safety for Explosive Atmospheres--Part 
0: Equipment--General Requirements, Seventh Edition, Dated March 26, 
2019, including revisions through April 15, 2020 (ANSI/UL 60079-0); 
into Sec.  18.101.
    (2) UL 60079-1, Standard for Safety for Explosive Atmospheres--Part 
1: Equipment Protection by Flameproof Enclosures ``d'', Seventh 
Edition, Dated September 18, 2015, including revisions through January 
23, 2020 (ANSI/UL 60079-1); into Sec.  18.101.
    (3) UL 60079-11, Standard for Safety for Explosive Atmospheres--
Part 11: Equipment Protection by Intrinsic Safety ``i'', Sixth Edition, 
Dated February 15, 2013, including revisions through September 14, 2018 
(ANSI/UL 60079-11); into Sec.  18.101.
    (4) UL 60079-18, Standard for Safety for Explosive Atmospheres--
Part 18: Equipment Protection by Encapsulation ``m'', Fourth Edition, 
Dated December 14, 2015, including revisions through February 7, 2019 
(ANSI/UL 60079-18); into Sec.  18.101.
    (5) UL 60079-25, Standard for Safety for Explosive Atmospheres--
Part 25: Intrinsically Safe Electrical Systems, Second Edition, Dated 
December 2, 2011, including revisions through June 12, 2020 (ANSI/UL 
60079-25); into Sec.  18.101.

[[Page 99105]]

    (6) UL 60079-28, Standard for Safety for Explosive Atmospheres--
Part 28: Protection of Equipment and Transmission Systems Using Optical 
Radiation, Second Edition, Dated September 15, 2017, including 
revisions through December 7, 2021 (ANSI/UL 60079-28); into Sec.  
18.101.

    Note 1 to Sec.  18.102:  The voluntary consensus standards 
listed in this section may also be obtained from the American 
National Standards Institute (ANSI), 1899 L Street NW, 11th Floor, 
Washington, DC 20036, phone: (202) 293-8020; website: www.ansi.org.

Sec.  18.103  Review and update of applicable voluntary consensus 
standards.

    (a) MSHA will review more recent editions of voluntary consensus 
standards listed in Sec.  18.102 to determine whether they can be used 
in their entirety and without modification, in lieu of the requirements 
in subparts B through E of this part.
    (b) MSHA may review voluntary consensus standards not approved for 
incorporation by reference (IBR) in Sec.  18.102 to determine whether 
such standards are suitable for gassy mining environments and whether 
they provide protection against fire or explosion, if substituted in 
their entirety and without modification, in lieu of the requirements in 
subparts B through E of this part.
    (c) Following such review and determination, MSHA will use the 
appropriate rulemaking process to amend the list of voluntary consensus 
standards approved for IBR in lieu of the requirements in subparts B 
through E of this part.

PART 740--COAL MINE DUST SAMPLING DEVICES

0
6. The authority citation for part 74 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 30 U.S.C. 957.

Sec.  Sec.  74.5 and 74.11  [Amended]

0
7. In Sec. Sec.  74.5(b) and 74.11(d), remove ``30 CFR 18.68'' and add 
in its place the term ``30 CFR part 18.''

[FR Doc. 2024-28315 Filed 12-9-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4520-43-P
```