Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 237 / Tuesday, December 10, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 99085 

president, secretary, partner, member, 

treasurer, general counsel) who has been 

empowered by the intended registrant to 

sign such documents; and 

(2) Include documentation that 

demonstrates the registrant is 

incorporated or otherwise authorized to 

do business in the United States. 

(b) Statement of Registration 

Certification. The Statement of 

Registration of the intended registrant 

shall include a certification by an 

authorized senior officer of the 

following: 

(1) Whether the intended registrant or 

its parent, subsidiary, or other affiliate 

listed in the Statement of Registration, 

or any of its chief executive officers, 

presidents, vice presidents, secretaries, 

partners, members, other senior officers 

or officials (e.g., comptroller, treasurer, 

general counsel), or any member of the 

board of directors of the intended 

registrant, or of any parent, subsidiary, 

or other affiliate listed in the Statement 

of Registration: 

(i) Has ever been indicted or 

otherwise charged (e.g., charged by 

criminal information in lieu of 

indictment) for or has been convicted of 

violating any U.S. criminal statutes 

enumerated in § 120.6 of this subchapter 

or violating a foreign criminal law on 

exportation of defense articles where 

conviction of such law carries a 

minimum term of imprisonment of 

greater than 1 year; or (ii) Is ineligible 

to contract with, or to receive a license 

or other approval to import defense 

articles or defense services from, or to 

receive an export license or other 

approval from, any agency of the U.S. 

Government; and 

(2) Whether the intended registrant is 

foreign owned or foreign controlled (see 

§ 120.65 of this subchapter). If the 

intended registrant is foreign owned or 

foreign controlled, the certification shall 

include an explanation of such 

ownership or control, including the 

identities of the foreign person or 

persons who ultimately own or control 

the registrant. This requirement applies 

to a registrant who is a U.S. person and 

is owned or controlled by a foreign 

person. It also applies to a registrant 

who is a foreign person and is owned or 

controlled by a foreign person from the 

same country or a foreign person from 

another country. 

(c) Incomplete registration 

submission. The Directorate of Defense 

Trade Controls will notify the registrant 

if the Statement of Registration is 

incomplete either by notifying the 

registrant of what information is 

required or through the return of the 

entire registration package. 

(d) Frequency. A person who is 

required to register and pay a 

registration fee must renew the 

registration and pay a registration fee on 

an annual basis after initial registration. 

(e) Renewal of registration. A 

registrant must submit its request for 

registration renewal at least 30 days but 

no earlier than 60 days prior to the 

expiration date. Notice of the fee due for 

the next year’s registration will be sent 

to the registrant of record at least 60 

days prior to its expiration date. 

(f) Lapse in registration. A registrant 

who fails to renew a registration and, 

after an intervening period, seeks to 

register again must pay registration fees 

for any part of such intervening period 

during which the registrant engaged in 

the business of manufacturing or 

exporting defense articles or defense 

services. 

■ 4. Revise § 122.3 to read as follows: 

§ 122.3 Registration fees. 

(a) Registration fee. A person who is 

required to register must submit 

payment of a fee following the payment 

guidelines available on the Directorate 

of Defense Trade Controls website at 

www.pmddtc.state.gov. The fee to be 

paid shall be one of the following: 

(1) Tier 1. The first tier is a set fee of 

$3,000 per year. This applies to new 

registrants. It also applies to those who 

are renewing their registrations and for 

whom the Department did not issue a 

favorable determination on a license 

application or other request for 

authorization during the 12-month 

period ending 90 days prior to the 

expiration of the current registration. 

(2) Tier 2. The second tier is a set fee 

of $4,000 for registrants renewing their 

registrations who have submitted 

license applications or other requests for 

authorization and received five or fewer 

favorable determinations during the 12- 

month period ending 90 days prior to 

the expiration of their current 

registration. 

(3) Tier 3. The third tier is a 

calculated fee for registrants who have 

submitted license applications or other 

requests for authorization and received 

more than five favorable determinations 

during the 12-month period ending 90 

days prior to the expiration of their 

current registration. For these 

registrants, the fee calculation is $4,000 

plus $1,100 times the total number of 

favorable determinations over five. 

(b) Website, discounts, and further 

guidance. Information on certain 

discounts for registrants who are wholly 

exempt from income tax pursuant to 26 

U.S.C. 501(c)(3), and for Tier 3 

registrants who are low-value exporters 

or temporary importers are available on 

the Directorate of Defense Trade 

Controls website at 

www.pmddtc.state.gov by selecting 

‘‘Conduct Business’’ on the top heading 

bar, then selecting ‘‘Registration’’ from 

the left menu bar, and finally selecting 

‘‘Payment of Registration’’ from the 

subsequent left menu bar. Other 

guidance and information relevant to 

the payment of registration fees is also 

available on the website. 

PART 129—REGISTRATION AND 

LICENSING OF BROKERS 

■ 5. The authority citation for part 129 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: Section 38, Pub. L. 104–164, 

110 Stat. 1437, (22 U.S.C. 2778); E.O. 13637, 

78 FR 16129. 

§ 129.8 [Amended] 

6. Amend § 129.8, in the first sentence 

of paragraph (b)(1), by removing the text 

‘‘and a fee following the fee guidelines 

available on the Directorate of Defense 

Trade Controls website at 

www.pmddtc.state.gov.’’ and adding in 

its place ‘‘and the Tier 1 fee specified in 

§ 122.3(a)(1) of this subchapter, 

regardless of how many favorable 

determinations the person received 

during the 12-month period ending 90 

days prior to the expiration of their 

current registration.’’ 

Stanley L. Brown, 

Acting Assistant Secretary, Bureau of 

Political-Military Affairs, Department of 

State. 

[FR Doc. 2024–29032 Filed 12–6–24; 4:15 pm] 

BILLING CODE 4710–25–P 

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 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES
99086 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 237 / Tuesday, December 10, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

1MSHA’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. 

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 Noe.Song-Ae.A@dol.gov 

(email), (202) 693–9440 (voice); or (202) 

693–9441 (facsimile). These are not tollfree 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

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 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 237 / Tuesday, December 10, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 99087 

2For 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. 

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 ANSIapproved 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 MSHAapproved 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, minerwearable components for proximity 

detection systems, and powered airpurifying respirators (PAPRs). 

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 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES
99088 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 237 / Tuesday, December 10, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

3An 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. 

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. 

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 nonANSI approved VCS) and ANSIapproved 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. 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 237 / Tuesday, December 10, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 99089 

4This 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. 

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-bySection 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

Several other commenters stated that 

MSHA should expand the use of VCS 

beyond Part 18. MSHA received 

comments from NIOSH, Dra ̈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-ANSIapproved 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 costbenefit 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) 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES
99090 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 237 / Tuesday, December 10, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

5A 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). 

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 nonANSI-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 ANSIapproved 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, Sectionby 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 productcertification 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

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, 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 237 / Tuesday, December 10, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 99091 

6The 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). 

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). 

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 thirdparty 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 

§ 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 § 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 § 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 

§ 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 § 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 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES
99092 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 237 / Tuesday, December 10, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

sections—§§ 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 § 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 § 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 § 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 § 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 § 18.102. 

Final paragraph (b)(2) contains nonsubstantive 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 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 237 / Tuesday, December 10, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 99093 

7The NFPA 70® NEC® 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®, 2023). 

8William 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. 

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®

(NFPA®) 70®, NEC® (2023). The NFPA 

70® NEC® 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® NEC® 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®, 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®, 

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®, 

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. 

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. 

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, 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES
99094 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 237 / Tuesday, December 10, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

11The Agency refers to the ANSI/UL standards in 

many of the regulatory text sections, but it does not 

do so in this IBR section. 

12ATEX 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. 

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 § 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 § 18.101 is no 

longer necessary and is removed. 

2. Section 18.102—Approved Voluntary 

Consensus Standards 

Final § 18.102 incorporates by 

reference eight ANSI-approved VCS. 

MSHA determined that the VCS listed 

in § 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 § 18.101. In 

this IBR section, each standard name is 

shown exactly as it appears on the cover 

of the standard.11

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 § 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 nonANSI-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 ANSIapproved 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 MSHAunique 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 Dra ̈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). 

Dra ̈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, Dra ̈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). 

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-ANSIapproved 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, 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 237 / Tuesday, December 10, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 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®, ANSI/ 

NFPA® 70 (NEC®), 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®

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 MSHAunique 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 § 6.10. 

Consequently, MSHA agrees with 

commenters that stated both the ANSIapproved 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 ANSIapproved standards are based on IECdeveloped 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-ANSIapproved 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, ANSIapproved electrical standards include 

general compliance with NEC®

requirements, as described in the scope 

of the standards. The ANSI-approved 

standards dictate how the equipment 

must be installed, based on the NEC®. 

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®. U.S. mine electricians work with 

the NEC®, 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 nonANSI-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-ANSIapproved 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 ANSIapproved 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-ANSIapproved 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 ANSIapproved VCS in this final rule. The list 

of VCS that MSHA is incorporating by 

reference in final paragraphs (a) and (b) 

of § 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 § 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). 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES
99096 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 237 / Tuesday, December 10, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

13Executive Order 12866 of September 30, 1993: 

Regulatory Planning and Review. 58 FR 51735. 

October 4, 1993. www.archives.gov/files/federalregister/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-regulatoryreview (last accessed May 17, 2024). 

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 § 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 thirdparty 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®.’’ 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 § 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 

§ 18.103 is similar to the proposed rule, 

with minor changes in paragraphs (a) 

through (c) to align with § 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 § 18.103 

concerning the Agency’s commitment to 

review, update, and possibly expand the 

list of VCS in § 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 § 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 § 18.102. Under final paragraph 

(b) of § 18.103, MSHA will review other 

VCS that are not listed in § 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 

§ 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 

§ 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 

§ 74.5 and paragraph (d) of § 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 § 74.5 and paragraph (d) 

of § 74.11 for evaluation and testing for 

permissibility of Coal Mine Dust 

Sampling Devices from § 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 MSHAdesignated 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 MSHAdesignated 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


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 237 / Tuesday, December 10, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 99097 

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). 

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 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES
99098 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 237 / Tuesday, December 10, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

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 MSHAunique 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 

Dra ̈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 MSHAunique 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. 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 237 / Tuesday, December 10, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 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 motordriven 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 wellbeing, 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 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES
99100 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 237 / Tuesday, December 10, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

14National 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. 

15Although 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. 

16This is a simple average rather than a weighted 

average by population. 

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. 

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. 

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] 

Number of 

workers in mining 

(except oil and 

gas) 

(NAICS code 212) 

As a percent of 

total mine workers 

who self-identified 

in these 

categories 

(latest data for 

2008) 

Percent of all 

workers in the 

United States for 

comparison 

(latest data 

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] 

No. County Number of mine workers 

(first quarter 2022) 

Population of county 

(latest data in 2021) 

Estimated percent of 

population who are mine 

workers 

1 ................... White Pine County, Nevada 1,288 9,182 14.0 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 237 / Tuesday, December 10, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 99101 

TABLE XI–2—MINING COUNTIES—COUNTIES IN THE UNITED STATES WITH RELATIVELY HIGH CONCENTRATIONS OF MINE

WORKERS—Continued 

[At least 2 percent of the county population] 

No. County Number of mine workers 

(first quarter 2022) 

Population of county 

(latest data in 2021) 

Estimated percent of 

population who are mine 

workers 

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 Virginia.660 18,363 3.6 

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 as 

a Percent 

of All U.S. 

Mine Workers.

.............................................. 12.0% 

Population of 

Mine Counties as a 

Percent of 

U.S. Population.

.............................................. .................................................. 0.15% 

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 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES
99102 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 237 / Tuesday, December 10, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

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/isastandards/find-isa-standards-innumerical-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®, ANSI/NFPA 70®. 

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®, ANSI/NFPA 70®. 

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 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 237 / Tuesday, December 10, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 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-forstandards-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-measurementsof-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-wagesannual-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/standardsdevelopment/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/properconsideration-of-small-entities-inagency-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/EPAHQ-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/modernizingregulatory-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/104thcongress/house-bill/2196/text 

National Fire Protection Association®. 2023. 

NFPA 70®: National Electric Code®. 

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 standardsANSI/IEEE and IEC. Waukesha electrical 

systems. Accessed July 5, 2024. 

Retrieved from: https://grouper.ieee.org/ 

groups/transformers/subcommittees/ 

STNP/private/IEEE_IEC_ComparisonOLD.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: 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES
99104 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 237 / Tuesday, December 10, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

PART 18—ELECTRIC MOTOR-DRIVEN 

MINE EQUIPMENT AND 

ACCESSORIES 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 18 

continues to read as follows: 

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

■ 2. Amend § 18.2 by: 

■ a. Revising the definition for 

‘‘Permissible equipment’’; and 

■ b. Adding in alphabetical order the 

definitions for ‘‘Voluntary consensus 

standard’’ and ‘‘Voluntary consensus 

standards body’’. 

The revision and additions read as 

follows: 

§ 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). 

§ 18.6 [Amended] 

■ 3. Amend § 18.6 by removing the third 

sentence in paragraph (e). 

■ 4. Amend § 18.15 by revising 

paragraph (c) to read as follows: 

§ 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 § 18.101). 

* * * * * 

■ 5. Add subpart F, consisting of 

§§ 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. 

§ 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 § 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’). 

§ 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-andenforcement/equipment-approvalcertification. For information on the 

availability of this material at NARA, 

visit www.archives.gov/federal-register/ 

cfr/ibr-locations or email fr.inspection@

nara.gov. 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 § 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 

§ 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 § 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 § 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 § 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 § 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 

§ 18.101. 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 237 / Tuesday, December 10, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 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 § 18.101. 

Note 1 to § 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. 

§ 18.103 Review and update of applicable 

voluntary consensus standards. 

(a) MSHA will review more recent 

editions of voluntary consensus 

standards listed in § 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 

§ 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 

■ 6. The authority citation for part 74 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 30 U.S.C. 957. 

§ § 74.5 and 74.11 [Amended] 

■ 7. In §§ 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 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Parts 52, 75, 78, and 97 

[EPA–HQ–OAR–2021–0668; FRL–8670.5– 

02–OAR] 

RIN 2060–AW47 

Federal ‘‘Good Neighbor Plan’’ for the 

2015 Ozone National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards; Notice on Remand 

of the Record of the Good Neighbor 

Plan To Respond to Certain Comments 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Notice; supplemental response 

to comments. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is addressing certain 

comments that were submitted on the 

proposed Good Neighbor Plan that the 

Supreme Court of the United States 

concluded the EPA had likely not 

sufficiently addressed in the final Good 

Neighbor Plan. The EPA is providing a 

fuller explanation of its reasoning at the 

time of its action in response to these 

comments. The Good Neighbor Plan 

addressed 23 states’ obligations to 

eliminate significant contribution to 

nonattainment or interference with 

maintenance of the 2015 ozone national 

ambient air quality standards (NAAQS), 

pursuant to the ‘‘good neighbor’’ 

provision of the Clean Air Act (CAA or 

Act). On September 12, 2024, the D.C. 

Circuit Court of Appeals remanded the 

record of the Good Neighbor Plan to the 

EPA to permit the Agency to further 

respond to comments related to the 

Good Neighbor Plan’s operation if one 

or more upwind States were no longer 

participating. In this document, the EPA 

responds to the comments by more fully 

explaining why the Good Neighbor Plan 

appropriately defines each state’s 

obligations, regardless of the status of 

the rule in other states, and can be 

implemented without modification in 

any individual state or combination of 

states covered by the rule. 

DATES: December 10, 2024. 

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a 

docket for this document under Docket 

ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2021–0668. All 

documents in the docket are listed on 

the https://www.regulations.gov 

website. Although listed in the index, 

some information is not publicly 

available, e.g., Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, is not placed on 

the internet and will be publicly 

available only in hard copy form. 

Publicly available docket materials are 

available electronically through https:// 

www.regulations.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Gwyndolyn Sofka, OAQPS–AQPD 

(C541–04), Environmental Protection 

Agency, 109 TW Alexander Dr, 

Research Triangle Park, NC 27711; 

telephone number: (919)–541–5121; 

email address: sofka.gwyndolyn@

epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document ‘‘we,’’ 

‘‘us,’’ and ‘‘our’’ refer to the EPA. 

I. General Information 

The EPA is responding to a set of 

comments that together raise a question 

regarding the method by which the 

Agency developed the Good Neighbor 

Plan (88 FR 36654; June 5, 2023). 

Namely: would the conclusions the EPA 

reached regarding states’ obligations 

under CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for 

the 2015 ozone NAAQS have been 

different, had the rule been promulgated 

for, or if it covered, a smaller or 

different group of states than the 23 

states that were included in that the 

rule? In short, for reasons that are 

provided in the record of the Good 

Neighbor Plan itself and elaborated 

upon in this document, the answer to 

that question is no. The EPA applied its 

4-step interstate transport analytical 

framework in the Good Neighbor Plan to 

determine each included state’s 

obligations. That framework, which 

accounts for the multistate ‘‘collective 

contribution’’ nature of ozone problems 

throughout the United States, 

nonetheless defines the amount of 

emissions from each state that 

constitutes ‘‘significant contribution to 

nonattainment or interference with 

maintenance’’ of the NAAQS in other 

states and implements programs to 

prohibit those emissions through federal 

implementation plans (FIPs) 

promulgated for each state accordingly. 

As the Good Neighbor Plan itself 

indicated, the EPA’s methodology is 

designed to be applicable in any state 

that may become subject to a federal 

plan to address its ‘‘significant 

contribution’’ to other states’ ozone 

problems for the 2015 ozone NAAQS; it 

provides an equitable and efficient 

solution to a ‘‘thorny causation 

problem,’’ EME Homer City, 572 U.S. 

489, 514 (2014), by holding any linked 

state’s largest industrial NOX-emitting 

sources to widely achievable emissions 

levels, and ensures fairness among 

states by not being dependent on the 

order in which they are addressed. 

By issuing this document, the Agency 

is addressing a particular issue that the 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES