Testing, Evaluation, and Approval of Electric Motor-Driven Mine Equipment and Accessories, 73656-73667 [2020-22589]
Download as PDF
73656
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 224 / Thursday, November 19, 2020 / Proposed Rules
at the office of the Eastern Service
Center, Federal Aviation
Administration, Room 350, 1701
Columbia Avenue, College Park, GA
30337.
Availability and Summary of
Documents for Incorporation by
Reference
This document proposes to amend
FAA Order 7400.11E, Airspace
Designations and Reporting Points,
dated July 21, 2020, and effective
September 15, 2020. FAA Order
7400.11E is publicly available as listed
in the ADDRESSES section of this
document. FAA Order 7400.11E lists
Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas,
air traffic service routes, and reporting
points.
The Proposal
The FAA is proposing an amendment
to Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations
(14 CFR part 71) by amending the Class
E airspace extending upward from 700
feet above the surface at Billy Free
Municipal Airport, Dumas, AR, by
removing the Monticello VOR and
associated extension from the airspace
legal description; and removing the city
associated with the airport to comply
with changes to FAA Order 7400.2M,
Procedures for Handling Airspace
Matters.
This action is the result of airspace
reviews caused by the decommissioning
of the Monticello VOR, which provided
navigation information for the
instrument procedures this airport, as
part of the VOR MON Program.
Class E airspace designations are
published in paragraph 6005 of FAA
Order 7400.11E, dated July 21, 2020,
and effective September 15, 2020, which
is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR
71.1. The Class E airspace designations
listed in this document will be
published subsequently in the Order.
FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace
Designations and Reporting Points, is
published yearly and effective on
September 15.
Regulatory Notices and Analyses
The FAA has determined that this
proposed regulation only involves an
established body of technical
regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to
keep them operationally current. It,
therefore: (1) Is not a ‘‘significant
regulatory action’’ under Executive
Order 12866; (2) is not a ‘‘significant
rule’’ under DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February
26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant
preparation of a Regulatory Evaluation
as the anticipated impact is so minimal.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:55 Nov 18, 2020
Jkt 253001
Since this is a routine matter that will
only affect air traffic procedures and air
navigation, it is certified that this
proposed rule, when promulgated, will
not have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities
under the criteria of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act.
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Environmental Review
Testing, Evaluation, and Approval of
Electric Motor-Driven Mine Equipment
and Accessories
This proposal will be subject to an
environmental analysis in accordance
with FAA Order 1050.1F,
‘‘Environmental Impacts: Policies and
Procedures’’ prior to any FAA final
regulatory action.
Lists of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71
Airspace, Incorporation by reference,
Navigation (air).
The Proposed Amendment
In consideration of the foregoing, the
Federal Aviation Administration
proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as
follows:
PART 71—DESIGNATION OF CLASS A,
B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR
TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND
REPORTING POINTS
1. The authority citation for part 71
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103,
40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR,
1959–1963 Comp., p. 389.
§ 71.1
[Amended]
2. The incorporation by reference in
14 CFR 71.1 of Federal Aviation
Administration Order 7400.11E,
Airspace Designations and Reporting
Points, dated July 21, 2020, and
effective September 15, 2020, is
amended as follows:
■
Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Areas
Extending Upward From 700 Feet or More
Above the Surface of the Earth.
*
*
*
ASW AR E5
*
*
Dumas, AR [Amended]
Billy Free Municipal Airport, AR
(Lat. 33°53′04″ N, long. 91°32′03″ W)
That airspace extending upward from 700
feet above the surface within a 6.5-mile
radius of Billy Free Municipal Airport.
Issued in College Park, Georgia, on
November 13, 2020.
Matthew N. Cathcart,
Manager, Airspace & Procedures Team North,
Eastern Service Center, Air Traffic
Organization.
[FR Doc. 2020–25481 Filed 11–18–20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–13–P
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Mine Safety and Health Administration
30 CFR Parts 18 and 74
[Docket No. MSHA–2020–0018]
RIN 1219–AB93
Mine Safety and Health
Administration, Labor.
ACTION: Proposed rule; request for
comments.
AGENCY:
The Mine Safety and Health
Administration (MSHA) proposes to
revise its regulations that sets out the
testing, evaluation, and approval
requirements for electric motor-driven
mine equipment and accessories
intended for use in gassy mines. Under
this proposal, MSHA will accept
voluntary consensus standards (VCS)
that are suitable for gassy mining
environments and that provide
protection against fire or explosion
dangers, to replace approval
requirements in its regulations. This
proposal is intended to promote the use
of innovative and advanced
technologies that lead to improvements
in mine safety and health and to
improve the efficiency and effectiveness
of MSHA’s approval process.
DATES: Comment date: Comments must
be received or postmarked by midnight
Eastern Daylight Savings Time on
December 21, 2020.
ADDRESSES: Submit comments and
informational materials, identified by
RIN 1219–AB93 or Docket No. MSHA–
2020–0018, by one of the following
methods:
• Federal E-Rulemaking Portal:
https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the
online instructions for submitting
comments.
• Email: zzMSHA-comments@
dol.gov. Include RIN 1219–AB93 or
Docket No. MSHA–2020–0018 in the
subject line of the message.
• Mail: MSHA, Office of Standards,
Regulations, and Variances, 201 12th
Street South, Suite 4E401, Arlington,
Virginia 22202–5452.
• Hand Delivery or Courier: MSHA,
201 12th Street South, Suite 4E401,
Arlington, Virginia, between 9:00 a.m.
and 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. Sign in at the
receptionist’s desk on the 4th Floor East.
• Fax: (202) 693–9441.
Instructions: All submissions must
include RIN 1219–AB93 or Docket No.
MSHA–2020–0018. Do not include
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\19NOP1.SGM
19NOP1
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 224 / Thursday, November 19, 2020 / Proposed Rules
personal information that you do not
want publicly disclosed; MSHA will
post all comments without change,
including any personal information
provided, to https://www.regulations.gov
and on MSHA’s website at https://
www.msha.gov/regulations/rulemaking.
Docket: For access to the docket to
read comments received, go to https://
www.regulations.gov or https://
www.msha.gov/currentcomments.asp.
To read background documents, go to
https://www.regulations.gov. Review
comments and background documents
in person at the Office of Standards,
Regulations, and Variances, 201 12th
Street South, Suite 4E401, Arlington,
Virginia 22202–5452. Sign in at the
receptionist’s desk on the 4th Floor East,
Suite 4E401.
Email Notification: To subscribe to
receive email notification when MSHA
publishes rulemaking documents in the
Federal Register, go to https://
public.govdelivery.com/accounts/
USDOL/subscriber/new.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Roslyn B. Fontaine, Deputy Director,
Office of Standards, Regulations, and
Variances, MSHA, at fontaine.roslyn@
dol.gov (email), (202) 693–9440 (voice);
or (202) 693–9441 (facsimile). These are
not toll-free numbers.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
The Federal Mine Safety and Health
Act of 1977 (30 U.S.C. 801) (Mine Act)
requires the Mine Safety and Health
Administration (MSHA) to establish
requirements for the technical design,
construction, and testing of electrical
products that must be approved by
MSHA prior to use in gassy mines.
These regulations are divided into
separate parts based on equipment type.
Title 30 CFR part 18 (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.1 Examples of this equipment
include portable two-way radios, remote
control units for mining machinery,
longwall mining systems, portable
oxygen detectors, miner-wearable
components for proximity detection
systems, and powered air-purifying
1 MSHA’s approval regulations (30 CFR parts 6,
7, 18, 19, 20, 22, 23, 27, and 28) govern the process
through which manufacturers may obtain MSHA
approval, certification, extension, or acceptance of
certain electrical products for use in underground
mines. Each of these separate approval actions has
specific application procedures and technical
requirements for testing and evaluation. Along with
‘‘approval,’’ the terms ‘‘certification,’’ ‘‘extension,’’
and ‘‘acceptance’’ also denote MSHA approval.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:55 Nov 18, 2020
Jkt 253001
respirators (PAPRs). MSHA approves, as
‘‘permissible,’’ completely assembled
electrical equipment, components of
electrical equipment, and electrical
accessories that manufacturers design,
construct, and install to meet MSHA’s
requirements.
Requirements in part 18, including
associated tests, are to ensure that such
equipment will not cause a fire or
explosion (30 CFR 18.4). Applicants
must design electrical equipment so that
it will not cause a fire or explosion,
using at least one of two recognized
methods. One way is to design
equipment so that it cannot produce a
spark strong enough, or temperatures
sufficient, to ignite a hazardous gas such
as flammable methane-air mixtures.
Alternatively, applicants may house the
equipment in enclosures that will
withstand internal explosions of
methane-air mixtures without damage
to, or excessive distortion of, its walls or
covers, and without ignition of
surrounding methane-air mixtures or
discharge of flame from inside to
outside the enclosure.
Before electric motor-driven
equipment or accessories can be used in
gassy mines in the U.S., they must first
have been approved for such use by
MSHA. Those seeking MSHA approval
(applicants) are typically product
designers and manufacturers of the
equipment or accessories. MSHA’s
approval process includes testing and
evaluation of the products, either by
MSHA or by an independent laboratory.
Applicants that use an independent
laboratory to conduct testing or
evaluation must submit the results to
MSHA for review, along with written
evidence of the laboratory’s
independence and current recognition
by a laboratory accrediting organization.
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 steps.
First, MSHA examines the documents in
the application to determine whether
the applicant has met the technical
requirements of the provisions of part
18. MSHA also checks each drawing
and specification in the application
against these requirements and, for
some products, samples of the product
or parts of the product. MSHA may
disassemble and examine parts of the
product for conformity to the drawings
and specifications. Second, after MSHA
verifies that an applicant’s product
complies with the design and
construction requirements, MSHA tests
the product to determine whether it
performs according to the approval
requirements. MSHA issues an approval
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
73657
if the product passes the tests and meets
all of MSHA’s technical and safety
requirements.
Once a product is approved, the
applicant is becomes an approval holder
and must place an MSHA approval
marking on the product to indicate that
the product is approved for use in gassy
mines.
The use of the MSHA approval
marking obligates the approval holder to
maintain the quality of the completely
assembled product according to the
technical requirements upon which its
approval was based. If an approval
holder wants to modify an approved
product and maintain its approval, then
the approval holder must submit its
proposed changes to MSHA. If MSHA
approves the changes, the Agency issues
either an extension of approval or a
notice of acceptance of the modified
product to the approval holder.
II. Regulatory Review and Reform
Comments
In 2018, the Agency announced its
intent to review existing regulations to
assess compliance costs and reduce
regulatory burden. As part of this
review, MSHA sought stakeholders’
assistance in identifying those
regulations that could be repealed,
replaced, or modified without reducing
miners’ safety or health. MSHA
published on its website (https://
www.msha.gov/provide-or-viewcomments-msha-regulations-repealreplace-or-modify) a notice that the
Agency is seeking assistance in
identifying regulations for review. All
comments are posted on the Agency’s
website.
As a result of this solicitation, MSHA
received a number of recommendations
regarding MSHA’s product approval
regulations. One commenter
recommended that MSHA replace part
18 with a modified set of regulations to
provide a clearer and timelier path for
approval of new technologies that will
improve the health and safety of miners.
The commenter noted that many
products approved for use under
international consensus standards in
other countries could not be approved
for use by MSHA under part 18. The
commenter stated that international coal
companies outside the United States
may use products designed and
manufactured to these international
consensus standards, and thus may have
access to the latest health and safety
technology in their mining operations.
MSHA acknowledges the benefits of
using VCS and proposes that VCS
replace existing MSHA requirements as
discussed below.
E:\FR\FM\19NOP1.SGM
19NOP1
73658
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 224 / Thursday, November 19, 2020 / Proposed Rules
Two commenters suggested that
MSHA adopt the International
Electrotechnical Commission (IEC)
60079 standards for use in approvals of
electrical mining equipment, including
methane detectors. These IEC standards
address the safety of equipment used in
explosive gaseous atmospheres. One
commenter stated that the IEC series of
standards has been adopted by many
other countries for use in approving
electrical mining equipment for use in
explosive atmospheres. For example,
Australia uses the IEC 60079 standards
with national deviations that are called
the ANZEx 60079 standards. For
approvals issued under part 18, MSHA
agrees and is proposing to adopt VCS
that provide protection against fire and
explosion dangers.
One commenter suggested that MSHA
provide clearly-defined requirements in
part 18 for equipment approvals and
certifications based on standards that
are maintained and updated by industry
experts and technical committees. The
commenter stated that regularly
updating the standards would improve
the safety of electrical mining
equipment and that allowing the
standards to keep pace with technology
(through more recent versions of the
standards) would improve the safety
and health of miners in the U.S.
MSHA agrees with these comments
and would use the appropriate
rulemaking process with solicitation of
public comment to adopt VCS
developed by standard-setting bodies
that plan, develop, establish, or
coordinate standards through agreedupon, transparent, and deliberate
procedures. MSHA further agrees that
continuing to adopt VCS as they are
maintained and updated through the
agreed-upon, transparent, and deliberate
procedures, can promote the availability
of technologically advanced equipment
for use in U.S. mines, thus improving
mine safety and health.
III. Discussion of Proposed Rule
A. Voluntary Consensus Standards
MSHA proposes to incorporate by
reference 14 VCS—8 American National
Standards Institute (ANSI) approved
and 6 IEC approved—in their entirety
and without modification, to replace
existing approval criteria in part 18 for
products covered by the incorporated
VCS.2 MSHA has determined that these
VCS (1) are suitable for gassy mining
environments and (2) will provide
protection against fire or explosion
dangers, if substituted in their entirety
for MSHA approval requirements
specified in part 18, subparts B through
E. The existing MSHA subparts B
through E requirements would continue
to apply to those electrical components
not covered by one of the 14 VCS.
Table 1 below lists the U.S. and
international VCS that MSHA proposes
to incorporate by reference in part 18.
As discussed below in the section-bysection analysis, the ANSI standards are
based on the similarly-numbered IEC
standards. The ANSI and IEC standards
on particular topics are generally similar
but not identical, as the ANSI standards
include modifications of the IEC
standards and U.S.-specific
requirements (U.S. deviations). IEC
standards are prepared and maintained
by subject matter experts, using a
rigorous and well-defined process.
Similarly, the U.S. deviations are
developed by nationally-recognized and
vetted experts and are approved as
American National Standards only if the
appropriate procedures are followed.
MSHA believes this approach would
promote in U.S. mines the availability of
technologically advanced equipment
that protects miners against the risk of
fire or explosion dangers. Many
products conforming to these VCS are
broadly recognized across various
industries and in other countries as
providing an appropriate level of safety
for miners and others in work
environments with hazards similar to
those encountered in the mining
industry. The proposed changes would
allow the introduction of products that
further mine safety but that MSHA
could not otherwise approve because
they do not conform to the existing
requirements in part 18.
This proposal is also consistent with
the Office of Management and Budget’s
(OMB) Circular A–119 (Jan. 27, 2016 (81
FR 4673)), which establishes policy
guidance for Federal agencies. Circular
A–119, based on the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 3701 et seq.)
(Transfer Act), section 12(d), directs
Federal agencies to use technical
standards developed or adopted by VCS
bodies to carry out policies or activities.
Additionally, Circular A–119 directs
agencies to use VCS in lieu of
government-unique standards, except
where inconsistent with law or
otherwise impractical. The intent of the
policy guidance in Circular A–119 is to
minimize agency reliance on
government-unique standards to
decrease the burden of complying with
agency regulations and promote
efficiency and economic competition
through harmonization of standards.
(See https://www.whitehouse.gov/wpcontent/uploads/2017/11/Circular-1191.pdf). Consistent with Circular A–119,
the use of VCS would streamline the
MSHA approval process and make it
more effective and efficient for
applicants by decreasing the reliance on
government-unique standards.
While this proposal lists 14 VCS for
MSHA to incorporate by reference, the
Agency is interested in whether the
proposal should be expanded to include
other VCS. Please provide rationale,
with definitive data and explanation of
how this would improve safety, for your
position.
The VCS are summarized in the
discussion related to § 18.102.
TABLE 1—VOLUNTARY CONSENSUS STANDARDS
ANSI/UL 60079–0 Ed. 7, Explosive Atmospheres—Part 0: Equipment—General Requirements (Group I) (2019). This standard provides the general requirements for the construction, testing, and marking of electrical equipment intended for use in explosive atmospheres.
ANSI/UL 60079–1 Ed. 7, Standard for Explosive Atmospheres—Part 1: Equipment Protection by Flameproof Enclosures ‘‘d’’ (Group I, Level of
Protection ‘da’) (2015). This standard contains specific requirements for the construction and testing of electrical equipment, with the Type of
Protection flameproof (FP) enclosure designated ‘‘d’’ intended for use in explosive gas atmospheres.
ANSI/ISA 60079–11 1 (12.02.01)—2014 Standard for Explosive Atmospheres—Part 11: Equipment Protection by Intrinsic Safety ‘‘i’’ (Group I,
Level of Protection ‘ia’) (2014). This standard 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 that may enter such
atmospheres. This type of protection is applicable to electrical equipment in which the electrical circuits themselves are incapable of causing
an explosion in the surrounding explosive atmospheres.
2 MSHA has participated on Technical Advisory
Groups to the U.S. National Committee (USNC) of
the IEC for the past several years. The USNC of the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:55 Nov 18, 2020
Jkt 253001
IEC is an integrated body of ANSI. MSHA staff have
provided comments on proposed changes to IEC
standards for electrical equipment for use in
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
hazardous locations. This includes standards for
intrinsic safety, flameproof enclosures, and
encapsulated assemblies.
E:\FR\FM\19NOP1.SGM
19NOP1
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 224 / Thursday, November 19, 2020 / Proposed Rules
73659
TABLE 1—VOLUNTARY CONSENSUS STANDARDS—Continued
60079–11 1
ANSI/UL
Ed. 6, Standard for Explosive Atmospheres—Part 11: Equipment Protection by Intrinsic Safety ‘‘i’’ (Group I, Level of Protection ‘ia’) (2013). This standard 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 that may enter such atmospheres. This type
of protection is applicable to electrical equipment in which the electrical circuits themselves are incapable of causing an explosion in the surrounding explosive atmospheres.
ANSI/UL 60079–18, Ed. 4, Standard for Explosive Atmospheres—Part 18: Equipment Protection by Encapsulation ‘m’ (Group I, Level of Protection ‘ma’) (2015). This standard provides the specific requirements for the construction, testing, and marking of electrical equipment, parts of
electrical equipment, and components not intended to be used alone, with the Type of Protection encapsulation ‘‘m’’ intended for use in explosive gas atmospheres or explosive dust atmospheres.
ANSI/ISA 60079–25 1 (12.02.05)–2011 Standard for Explosive Atmospheres—Part 25: Intrinsically Safe Electrical Systems (Group I, Level of
Protection ‘ia’) (2011). This standard contains the specific requirements for construction and assessment of intrinsically safe electrical systems, intended for use, as a whole or in part, in hazardous locations. A system approved under this standard is comprised of equipment or
components approved to the 60079–11 standard, interconnected to form a system.
ANSI/UL 60079–25 1 Ed. 2, Standard for Explosive Atmospheres—Part 25: Intrinsically Safe Electrical Systems (Group I, Level of Protection ‘ia’)
(2011). This standard contains the specific requirements for construction and assessment of intrinsically safe electrical systems, intended for
use, as a whole or in part, in hazardous locations. A system approved under this standard is comprised of equipment or components approved to the 60079–11 standard, interconnected to form a system.
ANSI/UL 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’) (2017). This standard contains the requirements and testing of equipment emitting optical radiation intended for use in explosive atmospheres. It also covers equipment located outside the explosive atmosphere but which generates optical radiation that is intended to enter an explosive atmosphere.
IEC 60079–0, Ed. 7, Explosive atmospheres—Part 0: Equipment—General requirements (Group I) (2017). This standard provides the general
requirements for the construction, testing, and marking of electrical equipment intended for use in explosive atmospheres.
IEC 60079–1 Ed. 7, Standard for Explosive Atmospheres—Part 1: Equipment Protection by Flameproof Enclosures ‘‘d’’ (Group I, Level of Protection ‘da’) (2014). This standard contains specific requirements for the construction and testing of electrical equipment, with the Type of Protection flameproof (FP) enclosure designated ‘‘d’’ intended for use in explosive gas atmospheres.
IEC 60079–11, Ed. 6, Explosive Atmospheres—Part 11: Equipment Protection by Intrinsic Safety ‘‘i’’ (Group I, Level of Protection ‘ia’) (2011).
This standard 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 that may enter such atmospheres. This type of protection is applicable to electrical equipment in which the electrical circuits themselves are incapable of causing an explosion in the surrounding explosive
atmospheres.
IEC 60079–18, Ed. 4.1, Explosive Atmospheres—Part 18: Equipment Protection by Encapsulation ‘m’ (Group I, Level of Protection ‘ma’) (2017).
This standard provides the specific requirements for the construction, testing, and marking of electrical equipment, parts of electrical equipment, and components not intended to be used alone, with the Type of Protection encapsulation ‘‘m’’ intended for use in explosive gas
atmospheres or explosive dust atmospheres.
IEC 60079–25 Ed. 3, Explosive Atmospheres—Part 25: Intrinsically Safe Electrical Systems (Group I, Level of Protection ‘ia’) (2020). This
standard contains the specific requirements for construction and assessment of intrinsically safe electrical systems, intended for use, as a
whole or in part, in hazardous locations. A system approved under this standard is comprised of equipment or components approved to the
60079–11 standard, interconnected to form a system.
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’) (2015). This standard contains the requirements and testing of equipment emitting optical radiation intended for use in explosive atmospheres. It also covers equipment located outside the explosive atmosphere but which generates
optical radiation that is intended to enter an explosive atmosphere.
1 For VCS that begin with ANSI/UL and ANSI/ISA and follow with a common number, the versions are identical (co-sponsored and co-published by UL LLC (UL) and the International Society of Automation (ISA)).
B. Availability of Voluntary Consensus
Standards To Be Incorporated by
Reference
The 14 VCS to be incorporated by
reference are publicly available and
below is the availability information. A
copy of each standard proposed to be
incorporated by reference is available
for inspection at MSHA, Office of
Standards, Regulations, and Variances,
201 12th Street South, Suite 4E401,
Arlington, Virginia 22202–5452 and at
MSHA, Approval and Certification
Center, 765 Technology Drive,
Triadelphia, WV 26059.
Copies of standards produced by IEC
may be obtained from the International
Electrotechnical Commission (IEC), 3
rue de Varembe´, 1st Floor, P.O. Box 131,
CH–1211 Geneva 20, Switzerland, Tel:
+41 22 919 0211, and are available for
purchase at the IEC website
(www.iec.ch).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:55 Nov 18, 2020
Jkt 253001
Copies of standards produced by the
ISA, may be obtained from the
International Society of Automation
(ISA), 67 T.W. Alexander Drive, P.O.
Box 12277, Research Triangle Park, NC
27709, Tel: (919) 549–8411, and are also
available for purchase at the ISA
website (www.isa.org).
Copies of standards produced by UL,
may be obtained from UL LLC (UL),
Comm 2000, 151 Eastern Avenue,
Bensenville, IL 60106, Tel: (888) 853–
3503, and are also available for purchase
at the UL website (www.ul.com).
Copies of each of the 14 VCS may also
be obtained from ANSI at the American
National Standards Institute (ANSI),
1899 L Street NW, 11th Floor,
Washington, DC 20036, Tel: (202) 293–
8020, and online at ANSI’s website
(www.ansi.org).
Additionally, during the public
comment period of this proposed rule,
a free, read-only copy of each of the VCS
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
is available for public inspection on
ANSI’s Standards Connect portal, which
is accessible to anyone who registers at
https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/
DQVJYMK.
C. Implementation Dates for Voluntary
Consensus Standards
MSHA proposes the following dates
for the implementation of the voluntary
consensus standard requirements under
part 18, also referenced in Table 2
below.
For the period that starts on [effective
date of the final rule] and ends on [12
months after the effective date of the
final rule]:
• New applications for approval may
meet either subparts B through E
requirements, or the requirements of the
VCS listed in this part;
• Applications for approval in
process may meet either subparts B
through E requirements, or the
E:\FR\FM\19NOP1.SGM
19NOP1
73660
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 224 / Thursday, November 19, 2020 / Proposed Rules
requirements of the VCS listed in this
part.
Starting on [date 12 months after the
effective date of the final rule]:
• New applications for approval must
meet the requirements of the VCS listed
in this part unless no VCS listed in this
part apply; and
requirements of the VCS listed in this
part; 3 and
• Applications for formal extensions
of approval or certification may meet
the requirements under which the last
approval, certification, or formal
extension was issued by MSHA, or the
• Applications for formal extensions
of approval or certification may meet
the requirements under which the last
approval, certification, or formal
extension was issued by MSHA, or meet
the requirements of the VCS listed in
this part.
TABLE 2—IMPLEMENTATION DATES FOR VCS
Implementation date
Types of applications
Requirements to be used
For a 12-month period starting on [effective date of final rule].
New applications for approval ...............
Either part 18, subparts B through E, or voluntary consensus standards.
Either part 18, subparts B through E, or voluntary consensus standards.
Requirements under which the last approval, certification,
or formal extension was issued by MSHA, or voluntary
consensus standards.
Voluntary consensus standards, and part 18, subparts B
through E, if no listed voluntary consensus standard applies.
Requirements under which the last approval, certification,
or formal extension was issued by MSHA, or voluntary
consensus standards.
Applications for approval in process .....
Applications for changes to existing approved equipment.
Starting on [date 12 months after the effective date of the final rule].
New applications for approval ...............
Applications for changes to existing approved equipment.
D. Conforming Changes
The proposed rule also makes
technical changes to 30 CFR part 74
(part 74) regarding the approval
requirements for Coal Mine Dust
Sampling Devices to conform to the
proposed changes in part 18.
IV. Section-by-Section Analysis
A. Section 18.2—Definitions
The proposed rule would revise the
definition for ‘‘permissible equipment.’’
The proposed rule also would add
definitions for ‘‘voluntary consensus
standard’’ and ‘‘voluntary consensus
standards body.’’
The definition for ‘‘permissible
equipment’’ would be revised to remove
the reference to the Mining Enforcement
and Safety Administration (MESA).
MESA and all 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).
The proposed rule would add two
new terms and definitions to § 18.2. One
is ‘‘voluntary consensus standard’’ that
references a safety standard developed
or adopted by a standard-setting
organization. Another is ‘‘voluntary
consensus standards body’’ that means
a domestic or international standardsetting organization that plans,
develops, establishes, or coordinates
VCS using agreed-upon procedures that
are consistent with the Transfer Act and
Circular A–119.
3 Applicants whose applications for approval use
subparts B through E requirements and are under
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:55 Nov 18, 2020
Jkt 253001
Under Circular A–119, a voluntary
consensus standards body is recognized
if it develops VCS in accordance with
the following attributes: Openness,
balance of interest, due process, an
appeals process, and consensus. This
standards body also must adopt,
publish, and make available to the
public the VCS it adopts. Lastly, the
voluntary consensus standards body
must maintain each voluntary
consensus standard through a schedule
of review. As a Federal agency, MSHA
relies upon OMB guidance in
determining whether to incorporate by
reference a voluntary consensus
standard.
B. Section 18.6—Applications
Currently, § 18.6(e) requires that each
drawing an applicant submits as part of
the approval application under part 18
include a warning stating that changes
in design must be authorized by MSHA
before they are applied to approved
equipment. This assures that all
approval holders understand the
importance of the approval for
equipment safety and the impact any
changes, made by any parties, have on
the approval. MSHA proposes to remove
this requirement because MSHA
specifies in the approval letter sent to
applicants that approval holders cannot
make changes to designs without MSHA
approval. The Agency has determined
that the drawing-warning requirement is
unnecessary because MSHA ensures
throughout the approval process that
MSHA review at the time the final rule becomes
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
approval holders are aware of their
responsibility to notify MSHA of
changes to approved equipment.
C. Section 18.15—Changes After
Approval or Certification
Currently, § 18.15 requires approval
holders to submit an application to
extend an approval if they want to
change any feature of approved
equipment or a certified component.
Under § 18.15(c), MSHA proposes to
add new paragraphs (c)(1) and (2).
Proposed paragraph (c)(1) would
allow the application for a change after
approval or certification to be made
based on the requirements in subparts B
through E or the VCS, whichever of
these requirements applied to the last
approval, certification, or formal
extension issued by MSHA. Proposed
paragraph (c)(2) would allow an
application for a change after approval
or certification to be made using the
VCS listed in proposed § 18.102 that
apply to those components if the
applicant chooses to use the VCS
requirements even though the last
approval, certification, or formal
extension issued by MSHA was based
on subparts B through E requirements.
If no VCS requirements listed in this
part apply to a component, then
subparts B through E requirements
would apply.
Thus, under these proposed changes,
approval holders would have the option
to make changes based on either the last
approval, certification, or formal
effective may resubmit their applications using the
VCS if they so choose.
E:\FR\FM\19NOP1.SGM
19NOP1
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 224 / Thursday, November 19, 2020 / Proposed Rules
extension issued by MSHA, or the VCS
listed in this part, so that they could
make a decision that suits them best.
MSHA solicits comments on this aspect
of the proposal.
D. Section 18.101—Acceptance and Use
of Voluntary Consensus Standards
MSHA proposes to add a new subpart
F, Voluntary Consensus Standards,
consisting of proposed §§ 18.101
through 18.103.
Proposed § 18.101 is a new section
that allows applicants to seek approval
under part 18 for designs of electrical
machines, accessories, or components
that conform to the requirements in the
VCS listed in proposed § 18.102. The
VCS listed in proposed § 18.102 would
apply to many of the components of the
completely assembled equipment.
Under this proposal, applications for
approval would require specifications to
meet the VCS listed in this part, or
existing subparts B through E
requirements, or both, depending on the
types of components in the fully
assembled machines and accessories.
Powered air-purifying respirators are
examples of fully assembled machines
that may be approved using only VCS
requirements. However, certain
completely assembled equipment such
as longwall mining systems, continuous
mining machines, shuttle cars, and roofbolters, would not be covered entirely
by any VCS of which MSHA is aware.
For example, a continuous mining
machine is made up of several
components such as motors, lights,
explosion proof enclosures, and other
types of electrical components that are
parts of the completely assembled
machine. For this type of machine, some
components will be subject to VCS
requirements and other components
will be subject to the subparts B through
E requirements for MSHA approval.
Under proposed § 18.101(a), MSHA
would replace the requirements
specified in subparts B through E for
components, accessories, and
completely assembled electrical
machines with applicable VCS that are
suitable for gassy mining environments
and that provide protection against fire
or explosion dangers.
In proposed paragraph (b), MSHA is
providing a transition period for the
optional use of VCS for an applicant
who submits an application within the
first 12 months after the final rule
becomes effective. In proposed
paragraphs (b)(1) and (2), the applicant
may choose to use either the subparts B
through E requirements for any
components or the VCS listed in
proposed § 18.102 for components to
which the listed VCS apply.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:55 Nov 18, 2020
Jkt 253001
In proposed paragraph (c), once the
12-month transition period ends, MSHA
would require the use of VCS in new
applications for approval. Proposed
paragraph (c)(1) would require
applicants to use the VCS listed in
proposed § 18.102 for components to
which the listed VCS apply. In proposed
paragraph (c)(2), MSHA would allow
applicants to use subparts B through E
requirements for a component to which
no VCS listed in proposed § 18.102
would apply.
MSHA believes that a 12-month
transition period will provide
manufacturers, approval holders, and
applicants enough time to make design
and build changes necessary to meet the
required specifications of the VCS for
new applications.
MSHA requires marking requirements
to indicate that a product is approved
for use in gassy mines under § 18.11,
subpart A. MSHA recognizes that the
proposed VCS include non-technical
requirements, such as marking
requirements. Some of the markings
required under § 18.11 may overlap
with some of the markings required by
the VCS; however, required VCS
markings are not necessary for an
approval. MSHA will provide the
applicant with the required markings
upon approval of an application.
Therefore, the MSHA marking
requirements in § 18.11, subpart A,
would still apply to approved products.
The MSHA marking on an approved
product would continue to signify to the
end users that the product is safe for use
in gassy mines.
MSHA believes that the use of VCS
under proposed § 18.101 will promote
the use of innovative and advanced
technologies that lead to improvements
in mine safety and health. MSHA
expects that the use of VCS would
provide applicants and manufacturers
with additional product design options
for products and equipment with
potential use in the mining industry
without sacrificing the safety assurances
associated with approvals. The use of
VCS may also provide applicants and
manufacturers access to other markets
for products and equipment they
currently only sell to the U.S. mining
industry. Given the small U.S. market
for products that the mining industry
uses, designing products to meet
MSHA-specific approval criteria can be
costly, and in some cases may be
financially prohibitive, for
manufacturers who produce products
for broader commercial use. The
proposed changes would allow the
introduction of products that conform to
the VCS requirements and that further
mine safety, but that MSHA could not
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
73661
otherwise approve because the Agency
does not currently recognize VCS
requirements.
Further, MSHA has determined the
VCS that the Agency proposes to
incorporate by reference are developed
in accordance with the following
attributes: Openness, balance of interest,
due process, an appeals process, and
consensus. The use of VCS would make
technologically advanced equipment
available for use in U.S. mines in a
quicker and more cost-effective manner,
which could improve miner safety and
health.
E. Section 18.102—Approved Voluntary
Consensus Standards
Proposed § 18.102 is a new section.
Proposed paragraph (a) establishes that
MSHA has determined that the list in
proposed paragraph (b) is suitable for
gassy mining environments and will
provide the protection against fire or
explosion dangers if used in their
entirety to replace MSHA approval
requirements specified in subparts B
through E.
The design of the electrically operated
equipment must comply with the Types
of Protection and Levels of Protection in
the relevant VCS, as specified in
proposed paragraph (b).
In proposed paragraph (b), MSHA
would incorporate by reference the VCS
listed in this section.
Proposed paragraphs (b)(1) through
(3) include the VCS and specify the
category of equipment (Group) and
Level of Protection applicable to
approvals.
These standards are from three
sources. For the IEC standards listed in
proposed paragraph (b)(1), the source is
the International Electrotechnical
Commission. For American National
Standards listed in proposed paragraphs
(b)(2) and (3), the two sources are the
International Society for Automation
(ISA) and UL LLC (UL). The IEC
approves and publishes consensusbased International Standards and
manages conformity assessment systems
for electric and electronic products,
systems and services, collectively
known as electrotechnology. ANSI
approves the American National
Standards and supports the U.S.
voluntary standards and conformity
assessment system. In the case of the
standards that begin with ANSI/ISA or
ANSI/UL and follow with a common
number, the ISA and UL versions are
identical (co-sponsored and copublished). For example, ANSI/ISA
60079–11 and ANSI/UL 60079–11 refer
to the same voluntary consensus
standard with the specified Types of
E:\FR\FM\19NOP1.SGM
19NOP1
73662
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 224 / Thursday, November 19, 2020 / Proposed Rules
Protection and Levels of Protection
indicated.
Either ANSI or the IEC has approved
all of the standards listed in proposed
§ 18.102. In the discussion below,
‘‘60079–0,’’ ‘‘60079–1,’’ ‘‘60079–11,’’
‘‘60079–18,’’ ‘‘60079–25,’’ and ‘‘60079–
28’’ refer to all three numbered versions
of the VCS established by IEC, ISA, and
UL.
Typically, the voluntary consensus
standard-setting bodies base the ANSI
standards on similarly-numbered
International IEC standards. The ANSI
standards are modifications of the IEC
standards and include U.S. deviations
and encompass both additional and
deleted information. Experts prepare
and maintain IEC standards using a
rigorous and well-defined process.
Similarly, the U.S. deviations are
developed by nationally-recognized and
vetted experts and are approved as
American National Standards only if the
appropriate procedures are followed.
The listed ANSI standards are
interdependent with each other and
with the NEC. Also, the listed IEC
standards are interdependent with each
other. For intrinsically safe devices, for
example, 60079–0 provides the general
requirements, and 60079–11
supplements and modifies the general
requirements of 60079–0 (with
documented exceptions). Similarly, for
intrinsically safe systems, the 60079–25
standard supplements and modifies the
general requirements of 60079–0 and
the intrinsic safety standard 60079–11.
For encapsulated electrical equipment,
the 60079–18 standard also
supplements and modifies the general
requirements of 60079–0. For
equipment and transmission systems
using optical radiation, the 60079–28
standard also supplements and modifies
the general requirements of 60079–0.
The 60079–0 standard provides the
general requirements for the
construction, testing, and marking of
electrical equipment intended for use in
explosive atmospheres.
The 60079–1 standard contains
specific requirements for the
construction and testing of electrical
equipment, with the Type of Protection
flameproof (FP) enclosure designated
‘‘d’’ intended for use in explosive gas
atmospheres.
Similarly, 60079–11 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
that may enter such atmospheres.
Also, 60079–18 provides the specific
requirements for the construction,
testing, and marking of electrical
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:55 Nov 18, 2020
Jkt 253001
equipment, parts of electrical
equipment, and components not
intended to be used alone, with the
Type of Protection encapsulation ‘‘m’’
intended for use in explosive gas
atmospheres or explosive dust
atmospheres.
The 60079–25 standard contains the
specific requirements for construction
and assessment of intrinsically safe
electrical systems, intended for use, as
a whole or in part, in hazardous
locations. A system approved under this
standard is comprised of equipment or
components approved to the 60079–11
standard, interconnected to form a
system.
Finally, 60079–28 contains the
requirements of equipment emitting
optical radiation intended for use in
explosive atmospheres. It also covers
equipment located outside the explosive
atmosphere but which generates optical
radiation that is intended to enter an
explosive atmosphere.
The listed standards apply to
equipment for use in all explosive
atmospheres and locations that are
likely to include those hazardous
atmospheres. For the risk of ignition
associated with gas concentrations,
electrical equipment is divided into two
broad categories: Group I and Group II.
Group I electrical equipment is
intended for use in mines susceptible to
firedamp, a flammable gas found in coal
mines. Group II electrical equipment is
intended for use in places with an
explosive gas atmosphere, other than
mines susceptible to firedamp. Both the
ANSI and IEC standards note that
firedamp consists mainly of methane,
but also contains small quantities of
other gases, such as nitrogen, carbon
dioxide, and hydrogen, and sometimes
ethane and carbon monoxide. The terms
‘‘firedamp’’ and ‘‘methane’’ are used
frequently in mining practice as
synonyms. In further discussions below,
only the term ‘‘methane’’ will be used
for simplicity.
The protections in these standards for
Group I electrical equipment account for
the ignition of both methane and coal
dust, along with enhanced physical
protection for equipment used
underground. Thus, in this proposed
rulemaking, MSHA proposes to use the
requirements associated for Group I
equipment in the listed standards.
As explained above, Group II
electrical equipment is intended for use
in places with an explosive gas
atmosphere other than mines
susceptible to methane. Also, Group II
electrical equipment is subdivided
according to the nature of the explosive
gas atmosphere for which it is intended.
Group II subdivisions are as follows:
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
IIA, a typical gas is propane; IIB, a
typical gas is ethylene; and IIC, a typical
gas is hydrogen. Because gassy mines
where coal dust is commonly present
may vary from the environments in
which Group II electrical equipment is
intended to operate, this proposed rule
does not allow the use of Group II
requirements in the listed standards.
The standards further define various
‘‘Types of Protection,’’ such as intrinsic
safety. These ‘‘Types of Protection’’ are
subdivided into ‘‘Levels of Protection’’
that differentiate the likelihood of the
equipment becoming a source of
ignition. For example, Type of
Protection ‘‘intrinsic safety i’’ is defined
by National Fire Protection Association
(NFPA) 70, National Electrical Code
(NEC), as Type of Protection where any
spark or thermal effect is incapable of
causing ignition of a mixture of
flammable or combustible material in
air under prescribed test conditions. In
U.S. industries other than mining, and
in mines internationally, the required
Level of Protection is defined by the
exposure to the hazard. These
hazardous locations are divided into
Zones, based on the level of exposure to
the hazard. There are three such Zones
defined in the NFPA 70, NEC, which is
based on international standards. For
explosive gases, for example, a Zone 0
location has ignitable concentrations of
flammable gases or vapors either
continuously present or present for long
periods of time. A Zone 0 location, by
definition, requires the highest
protection levels against fire or
explosion for equipment when used in
Zone 0 atmospheres. The likelihood of
exposure to flammable gases or vapors
is lower in Zone 1 locations, and is
further reduced in Zone 2 locations.
Therefore, Zones 1 and 2 locations have
reduced Levels of Protection
requirements for equipment used in
these locations compared to the Level of
Protection for equipment used in Zone
0 locations. The NFPA 70, NEC
subdivides Type of Protection ‘‘intrinsic
safety i’’ into Levels of Protection ‘‘ia,’’
‘‘ib,’’ and ‘‘ic’’ and designates that Level
of Protection ‘‘ia’’ is appropriate for
Zone 0, ‘‘ib’’ is appropriate for Zone 1,
and ‘‘ic’’ is appropriate for Zone 2.
Thus, Level of Protection ‘‘ia’’ is the
highest Level of Protection.
To simplify the selection of electrical
equipment for a given purpose, the
standards also incorporate ‘‘Equipment
Protection Levels,’’ or EPLs. These EPLs
are assigned to equipment based on its
likelihood of becoming a source of
ignition and distinguishing the
differences between explosive
atmosphere types. For example, EPL G
is intended for explosive gas
E:\FR\FM\19NOP1.SGM
19NOP1
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 224 / Thursday, November 19, 2020 / Proposed Rules
atmospheres, EPL D is intended for
explosive dust atmospheres, and EPL M
is intended for explosive atmospheres in
mines susceptible to methane. The EPLs
are further subdivided into protection
levels Ga, Da, and Ma for very high
protection suitable for a two-fault
scenario; Gb, Db, and Mb for high
protection suitable for a single fault
scenario; and Gc and Dc for enhanced
protection to minimize ignition risk.
Thus, EPLs Ga, Da, and Ma are the
highest protection levels for explosive
gas atmospheres, dust atmospheres, and
mine atmospheres susceptible to
methane, respectively.
In 2018, researchers at the National
Institute for Occupational Safety and
Health (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.’’ 4 The researchers
concluded that the relative Level of
Protection afforded miners by the
application of the ANSI/ISA 60079 twofault intrinsically safe (IS) standard is a
safe alternative to MSHA’s requirements
when such electrical equipment is
installed in mines. 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. MSHA
is proposing to allow the use of the
latest versions of the ANSI and IEC
intrinsic safety standards.
The ‘‘two-fault IS standard’’ to which
the NIOSH researchers refer above is the
60079–11 standard, Level of Protection
‘‘ia.’’ This means that the researchers
concluded, for intrinsically safe
equipment and associated apparatuses,
Level of Protection ‘‘ia’’ in the 60079–
0, 60079–11, and 60079–25 standards
provide miners with protection against
fire and explosion dangers. The
researchers subsequently concluded that
the use of such equipment would
provide at least an equivalent level of
safety as that provided by equipment
approved to MSHA criteria.5 MSHA
agrees with this conclusion. Thus,
because the NIOSH researchers have
determined that Level of Protection ‘‘ia’’
provides miners with protection against
fire and explosion, MSHA is proposing
to require that manufacturers seeking
approval using the incorporated VCS
4 William Calder, David P. Snyder, John F. Burr,
Intrinsically Safe Systems: Equivalency of
International Standards Compared to U.S. Mining
Approval Criteria, DOI 10.1109/TIA.2018.2804322,
IEEE Transactions on Industry Applications.
5 Ibid.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:55 Nov 18, 2020
Jkt 253001
conform to the ‘‘ia’’ Level of Protection
where designated in this proposal.
Further, as discussed above, NFPA 70,
NEC notes that intrinsic safety is the
designated Type of Protection ‘‘ia’’
(intrinsic safety) for use in Zone 0
locations. The only other types of
protection that NFPA 70, NEC allows for
use in Zone 0 is Type of Protection ‘‘da’’
(flameproof enclosures) as defined in
60079–1 and Type of Protection ‘‘ma’’
(encapsulation) as defined in the 60079–
18 standard. MSHA believes that ‘‘ia,’’
‘‘da,’’ and ‘‘ma’’ will provide the
necessary Level of Protection for miners
because the NEC allows ‘‘ia,’’ ‘‘da,’’ and
‘‘ma’’ for use in Zone 0. MSHA has
allowed encapsulated assemblies to be
approved under part 18, since 2009, as
noted in MSHA’s Encapsulation
Criteria, ACRI2010.6 ACRI2010 was
based, in part, on the requirements of
60079–18 in place at the time it was
created. MSHA has received no reports
that encapsulated assemblies tested and
evaluated to ACRI2010 have failed to
provide the intended protection.
MSHA is proposing to include the
60079–1 standard for FP enclosures, but
only Level of Protection ‘‘da’’ which is
suitable for use in Zone 0 locations.
Level of Protection ‘‘da’’ is applicable
only to catalytic sensors of portable
combustible gas detectors. Levels of
Protection ‘‘db’’ and ‘‘dc’’ are not being
included because they do not provide
miners with suitable protection against
fire and explosion in gassy mines.
MSHA proposes to include the
60079–18 standard (Level of Protection
‘‘ma’’) based on the following: (1)
MSHA’s experience with ACRI2010 and
(2) the fact that the hazardous locations
community allows the use of ‘‘ma’’
equipment in Zone 0, coupled with the
determination by NIOSH researchers
that the only other Level of Protection
allowed in Zone 0 (‘‘ia’’) provides
miners protection against fire and
explosion. Similarly, the 60079–28
standard (Equipment Protection Level
Ma) is included based on the same
factors.
In conclusion, the proposed rule
would allow for the use of the latest
versions of the ANSI and IEC standards
for intrinsic safety (‘‘ia’’), flameproof
catalytic sensors (‘‘da’’), and
encapsulation (‘‘ma’’) as they apply to
Group I (Zone 0) (mining) equipment.
MSHA is interested in whether the
proposal should be expanded to include
other VCS. Please provide the rationale,
with definitive data and explanation, for
your position.
6 https://arlweb.msha.gov/techsupp/acc/
application/acri2010.pdf.
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
73663
In summary, MSHA proposes to
incorporate by reference the IEC
standards in proposed paragraph (b)(1)
and the ANSI standards in proposed
paragraphs (b)(2) and (3), which are
appropriate for use in Zone 0 locations.
MSHA has determined that the VCS in
proposed § 18.102 would provide
protection against fire or explosion if
used in their entirety to replace MSHA
approval requirements specified in
subparts B through E. However, the
marking requirements in subpart A of
this part would not be superseded by
the requirements specified in the
proposed VCS. The marking
requirement in the existing rule would
be included in the approval marking
requirements as specified in § 18.11,
subpart A.
F. Section 18.103—Review and Update
of Applicable Voluntary Consensus
Standards
Proposed § 18.103 is a new section
about updating the existing list of VCS.
To ensure timely updating of the list in
§ 18.102, MSHA would review more
recent editions of the listed VCS and
determine whether to accept them. Also,
MSHA may 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
dangers. After such thorough reviews,
MSHA would use the appropriate
rulemaking process to publish an
updated list of VCS that the Agency
would accept to replace approval
requirements in subparts B through E in
part 18. MSHA also may remove a
standard from the list in § 18.102 if it is
withdrawn by a voluntary consensus
standards body or for other reasons.
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 proposed § 18.103, MSHA
would consider updates and alternatives
to existing standards that promote the
efficiency and effectiveness of the
MSHA approval process, which could
lead to the use of innovative and
advanced technologies in U.S. mines
and to improvements in mine safety and
health.
Conforming Amendments
This proposal would require
conforming amendments to Coal Mine
Dust Sampling Devices in existing part
74 based on the proposed changes in
part 18.
E:\FR\FM\19NOP1.SGM
19NOP1
73664
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 224 / Thursday, November 19, 2020 / Proposed Rules
Part 74—Coal Mine Dust Sampling
Devices
MSHA proposes to change crossreferences in §§ 74.5(b) and 74.11(d) for
evaluation and testing for permissibility
of Coal Mine Dust Sampling Devices
from § 18.68 to part 18. This change in
part 74 would conform to the proposed
changes in part 18 and would allow the
use of MSHA-designated VCS for the
approval of coal mine dust sampling
devices.
V. Regulatory Economic Analysis
A. Executive Orders 12866: Regulatory
Planning and Review, and 13563:
Improving Regulation and Regulatory
Review
Executive Orders (E.O.s) 12866 and
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). E.O. 13563 emphasizes the
importance of quantifying both costs
and benefits, of reducing costs, of
harmonizing rules, and of promoting
flexibility.
Currently, MSHA or an independent
laboratory conducts the testing and
evaluation of electrical products for
which applicants seek MSHA approval
for use in gassy mines. For new
approval applications, this proposal
would allow applicants to use either
existing MSHA requirements or VCS for
the first 12 months after the final rule
becomes effective. After 12 months,
MSHA will require new applicants to
(1) use VCS requirements that apply to
the components of the electrical
machine or accessory and (2) use
existing MSHA requirements for the
components of the electrical machine or
accessory to which no listed VCS apply.
Under current regulations, costs to
approve equipment are defined as
transfers and not E.O. 12866 costs. In
this case, costs represent MSHA’s costs
recovered from approval applicants via
a fee.
Under the proposed rule, it is unlikely
that the number of approval requests
will change much. Based on discussions
with past applicants, MSHA
understands that many products
submitted to MSHA for approval have
been accepted using VCS for mining
outside the U.S. or for other industries
(e.g., oil and gas extraction) that have
similar safety standards. Applicants
submitting these types of products for
MSHA approval would likely
experience substantially lower approval
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:55 Nov 18, 2020
Jkt 253001
costs. Because their products already
meet VCS listed in this proposed rule
and would no longer need to meet
MSHA-specific requirements, no
additional technical drawings,
documentation, and testing would be
necessary beyond that submitted
elsewhere for VCS approval.
Some current approval holders may
incur costs because of the requirement
to use VCS after the 12-month transition
period.7 For those requesting new
approvals, the costs would be mostly
attributable to the approval holder
having to create new design and build
specifications using VCS requirements
instead of using already existing design
and build specifications based on part
18, subparts B through E, requirements.
By contrast, current approval holders
that are requesting only a minor
modification of an approval should not
incur costs, because they would be
allowed to choose to use the
requirements (either part 18, subparts B
through E, or VCS) under which the last
approval, certification, or formal
extension was issued by MSHA. Based
on discussions between MSHA and
applicants during past approvals,
MSHA concludes that a small number of
current approval holders may decide
not to stay in the mining market.
This proposed rule will provide
benefits to both manufacturers of
electrical products and the consumers of
those products—mine operators and
miners. Currently, some products that
use modern technologies that could
improve the safety and health of miners
are not being introduced into the U.S.
mining market. One reason may be that
technical requirements set by MSHA
differ from those that apply in other
countries. These MSHA-specific
technical requirements may slow, or
even prevent, these new technologies
from being implemented in U.S.
underground mines. Use of VCS to
replace MSHA-specific requirements
would likely reduce the overall design
and approval costs for many
manufacturers; as a result,
manufacturers introducing new
technologies may experience fewer
barriers for product market entry into
the mining industry.
This proposed rule would not affect
currently approved equipment, as it
would allow manufacturers and mine
operators to continue to sell or purchase
all currently approved equipment. If at
a future date, a current approval holder
wishes to alter approved equipment, the
7 Applicants may choose to use VCS for new
approvals for the first 12 months after the effective
date of the final rule. After 12 months, new
applications for approval must use VCS, if
applicable.
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
application could comply with the
requirements on which the approval
was based or with the VCS requirements
listed in this part.
Therefore, MSHA does not anticipate
that manufacturers will have difficulties
in meeting these requirements. MSHA’s
acceptance of VCS would provide more
choices of mining products to mine
operators and miners, as these VCS are
used by the broader market. MSHA does
not anticipate problems in
manufacturing or purchasing products
that meet VCS, as such products are
already in use in markets outside of U.S.
mining.
In summary, under this proposal,
approval holders would not be required
to alter equipment or incur any new
costs for existing approvals. New
applicants may choose the standards
most beneficial to them during the 12month transition period. For those
applicants whose products already meet
VCS requirements, they would likely
experience either no new costs, or cost
reductions. Overall, net costs are more
likely to go down than up.
The Agency is interested in whether
the proposal to include VCS may result
in cost differences for applicants due to
the proposal to eliminate subparts B
through E requirements for new
approvals. Please provide the rationale,
with definitive data and explanation, for
your position.
Under E.O. 12866, a significant
regulatory action is one meeting any of
a number of specified conditions,
including the following:
• Having an annual effect on the
economy of $100 million or more;
• Creating a serious inconsistency or
interfering with an action of another
agency;
• Materially altering the budgetary
impact of entitlements or the rights of
entitlement recipients; or
• Raising novel legal or policy issues.
MSHA has determined that this is a
not a significant regulatory action under
E.O. 12866.
B. E.O. 13771: Reducing Regulation and
Controlling Regulatory Costs, and E.O.
13924: Regulatory Relief To Support
Economic Recovery
This proposed rule is not expected to
be an E.O. 13771 regulatory action,
because this proposed rule is not
significant under E.O. 12866. As
discussed above, the proposed use of
VCS would have minimal total costs,
but it would have the benefit of
streamlining product approval and
providing greater flexibility to potential
market entrants and therefore MSHA
believes it will be deregulatory.
E:\FR\FM\19NOP1.SGM
19NOP1
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 224 / Thursday, November 19, 2020 / Proposed Rules
MSHA also believes the proposal
meets policy goals of E.O. 13924: It
reflects the efforts of businesses to
comply with often-complex approval
regulations, and it provides businesses
with the confidence that requesting
approvals covered by this proposal will
allow them to meet a single set of
standards as they plan product
development for global markets.
VI. Feasibility
Economic feasibility is related to an
entire industry rather than individual
firms. In the E.O. 12866 and E.O. 13563
section above, MSHA discussed that
global manufacturers of products for
mining already successfully use the VCS
for mining outside the U.S. The
proposal would provide MSHA and
most manufacturers increased flexibility
for approval of existing or new
equipment for use in gassy mines.
Although some businesses might choose
not to seek new approvals, MSHA could
not identify any product that would
likely leave the U.S. market without the
availability of an alternative. MSHA has
concluded that the requirements of the
proposed rule would be both
technologically and economically
feasible.
MSHA has analyzed the overall
compliance cost impact of the proposed
rule on small entities. No current
approval holder would be required to
make a product change due to this
proposal. A small entity would make
application for an extension or new
approval only if the financial benefit
outweighs new costs. For new product
approvals, the existing MSHA approval
requirement costs would be replaced by
compliance costs of the VCS. Because
MSHA cannot know what products
would be submitted for approval, it is
not possible to quantify how much
different the costs would be. Based on
the discussions between MSHA and
applicants described previously, MSHA
believes the MSHA standards to be more
burdensome, and the Agency projects
cost reductions for some small entities.
For E.O. 13272 considerations of the
applicable statutes, there are no new
mandated direct costs of this proposed
rule. MSHA proposes to certify that the
rule would not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. Therefore, the
Agency is not required to develop an
initial regulatory flexibility analysis.
17:55 Nov 18, 2020
Jkt 253001
The Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
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 (44 U.S.C.
3501). There are no new information
collections associated with this
proposed rule.
IX. Other Regulatory Considerations
A. The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
of 1995
MSHA has reviewed the proposed
rule under the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1501 et
seq.). MSHA has determined that this
proposed rule does not include any
Federal mandate that may result in
increased expenditures by State, local,
or tribal governments. Since the
proposed 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.
B. E.O. 13132: Federalism
VII. Regulatory Flexibility Act; Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act; and E.O. 13272
VerDate Sep<11>2014
VIII. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
The proposed rule does not have
‘‘federalism implications’’ because it
would 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.
C. E.O. 12630: Government Actions and
Interference With Constitutionally
Protected Property Rights
The proposed rule does not
implement a policy with takings
implications. Accordingly, under E.O.
12630, no further Agency action or
analysis is required.
D. E.O. 12988: Civil Justice Reform
The proposed 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.
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
73665
E. E.O. 13175: Consultation and
Coordination With Indian Tribal
Governments
This proposed rule does not have
‘‘tribal implications’’ because it would
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.
F. E.O. 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 proposed rule for its
energy effects. There are no costs
associated with this proposed rule. For
the energy analysis, this rule would not
exceed the relevant criteria for adverse
impact.
G. Congressional Review Act
Pursuant to the Congressional Review
Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.), this proposed
rule is not a ‘‘major rule,’’ as defined by
5 U.S.C. 804(2).
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.
For the reasons set out in the
preamble, and under the authority of the
Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of
1977, as amended by the Mine
Improvement and New Emergency
Response Act of 2006, MSHA proposes
to amend chapter I of title 30 of the
Code of Federal Regulations as follows:
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
■
■
E:\FR\FM\19NOP1.SGM
19NOP1
73666
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 224 / Thursday, November 19, 2020 / Proposed Rules
standard’’ and ‘‘Voluntary consensus
standards body.’’
The revision and additions read as
follows:
§ 18.2
Subpart F—Voluntary Consensus
Standards
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 applied to
the last approval, certification, or
extension thereof; or
(2) Meets voluntary consensus
standard requirements listed in this part
that apply to those components if the
applicant chooses to use the
requirements of the voluntary consensus
standards.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 5. Add subpart F, consisting of
§§ 18.101 through 18.103, to read as
follows:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:55 Nov 18, 2020
Jkt 253001
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) MSHA will accept 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 to replace the
requirements in subparts B through E of
this part.
(b) For applications submitted on or
after [effective date of final rule] until
[date 12 months after the effective date
of final rule], 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 voluntary consensus
standard requirements listed in this part
that apply to those components.
(c) For applications submitted on or
after [date 12 months after the effective
date of the final rule], an approval will
be issued in accordance with subpart A
of this part for a completely assembled
electrical machine or accessory, if the
components of such machine or
accessory:
(1) Meet the requirements of the
voluntary consensus standards listed in
this part that apply to those
components; and
(2) Meet the requirements of subparts
B through E of this part that apply to
components if no voluntary consensus
standard listed in this part applies.
§ 18.102 Approved voluntary consensus
standards.
(a) MSHA has determined that the
provisions associated with the Group
and Levels of Protection provisions of
the voluntary consensus standards
listed in paragraph (b) of this section are
suitable for gassy mining environments
and will provide the protection for
against fire or explosion if used in their
entirety and without modification to
replace the requirements in subparts B
through E of this part.
(b) 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 material is
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
available for inspection at U.S.
Department of Labor, Mine Safety and
Health Administration, 765 Technology
Drive, Triadelphia, WV 26059, Tel:
(304) 547–0400, and is available from
the sources indicated in this paragraph
(b). It is also available for inspection at
the National Archives and Records
Administration (NARA). For
information on the availability of this
material at NARA, email fedreg.legal@
nara.gov or go to www.archives.gov/
federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.
(1) International Electrotechnical
Commission (IEC), 3 rue de Varembe´,
1st Floor, P.O. Box 131, CH–1211
Geneva 20, Switzerland, Tel: +41 22 919
0211 (https://www.iec.ch/).
(i) IEC 60079–0, Ed. 7, Explosive
atmospheres—Part 0: Equipment—
General requirements (Group I), dated
December 13, 2017;
(ii) IEC 60079–1 Ed. 7, Standard for
Explosive Atmospheres—Part 1:
Equipment Protection by Flameproof
Enclosures ‘‘d’’ (Group I, Level of
Protection ‘da’), dated June 27, 2014;
(iii) IEC 60079–11, Ed. 6, Explosive
Atmospheres—Part 11: Equipment
Protection by Intrinsic Safety ‘‘i’’ (Group
I, Level of Protection ‘ia’), dated June 30,
2011;
(iv) IEC 60079–18, Ed. 4.1, Explosive
Atmospheres—Part 18: Equipment
Protection by Encapsulation ‘‘m’’
(Group I, Level of Protection ‘ma’),
dated August 25, 2017;
(v) IEC 60079–25 Ed. 3, Explosive
Atmospheres—Part 25: Intrinsically Safe
Electrical Systems (Group I, Level of
Protection ‘ia’), dated June 26, 2020; and
(vi) 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’), dated May 27,
2015.
(2) International Society of
Automation (ISA), 67 T.W. Alexander
Drive, P.O. Box 12277, Research
Triangle Park, NC 27709, Tel: (919) 549–
8411 (https://www.isa.org).
(i) 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; and
(ii) 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.
(3) UL LLC, Comm 2000, 151 Eastern
Avenue, Bensenville, IL 60106, Tel:
(888) 853–3503 (https://www.ul.com).
(i) ANSI/UL 60079–0 Ed. 7, Explosive
Atmospheres—Part 0: Equipment—
E:\FR\FM\19NOP1.SGM
19NOP1
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 224 / Thursday, November 19, 2020 / Proposed Rules
General Requirements (Group I), dated
March 26, 2019;
(ii) ANSI/UL 60079–1 Ed. 7, Standard
for Explosive Atmospheres—Part 1:
Equipment Protection by Flameproof
Enclosures ‘‘d’’ (Group I, Level of
Protection ‘da’), dated September 18,
2015;
(iii) ANSI/UL 60079–11 Ed. 6,
Standard for Explosive Atmospheres—
Part 11: Equipment Protection by
Intrinsic Safety ‘‘i’’ (Group I, Level of
Protection ‘ia’), dated February 15, 2013;
(iv) ANSI/UL 60079–18, Ed. 4,
Standard for Explosive Atmospheres—
Part 18: Equipment Protection by
Encapsulation ‘‘m’’ (Group I, Level of
Protection ‘ma’), dated December 14,
2015;
(v) ANSI/UL 60079–25 Ed. 2,
Standard for Explosive Atmospheres—
Part 25: Intrinsically Safe Electrical
Systems (Group I, Level of Protection
‘ia’), dated December 2, 2011; and
(vi) ANSI/UL 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’), dated September
15, 2017.
(4) The voluntary consensus
standards listed in this paragraph (b)
may also be obtained from the American
National Standards Institute, 1899 L
Street NW, 11th Floor, Washington, DC
20036, Tel: (202) 293–8020 (https://
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 to
replace the requirements in subparts B
through E of this part.
(b) MSHA may review voluntary
consensus standards not listed 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 to replace the
requirements in subparts B through E of
this part.
(c) Following such review and
determination, MSHA will use the
appropriate rulemaking process to
publish a list of voluntary consensus
standards that it accepts in lieu of the
requirements in subparts B through E of
this part.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:55 Nov 18, 2020
Jkt 253001
I. Table of Abbreviations
PART 74—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
73667
[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.’’
■
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
NJDOT New Jersey Department of
Transportation
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
OMB Office of Management and Budget
NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
(Advance, Supplemental)
§ Section
U.S.C. United States Code
The Coast Guard is proposing
to modify the operating schedules that
govern the new Route 7 Bridge, mile 3.1,
crossing the Hackensack River, at Jersey
City, NJ. The bridge owner, the New
Jersey Department of Transportation
(NJDOT), submitted a request to allow
the bridge to require four hours advance
notice for bridge openings. It is expected
that this change to the regulations will
create efficiency in drawbridge
operations and better serve the needs of
the community while continuing to
meet the reasonable needs of navigation.
DATES: Comments and related material
must reach the Coast Guard on or before
January 19, 2021.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments
identified by docket number USCG–
2020–0603 using the Federal
eRulemaking Portal at https://
www.regulations.gov.
See the ‘‘Public Participation and
Request for Comments’’ portion of the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section
below for instructions on submitting
comments.
II. Background, Purpose and Legal
Basis
The new Route 7 Bridge at mile 3.1
over the Hackensack River at Jersey
City, New Jersey, is currently under
construction and will have a vertical
clearance of 70 feet at mean high water
in the closed position and 135 feet at
mean high water in the open position.
Horizontal clearance is approximately
158 feet. The existing Route 7 Bridge
over the Hackensack River has a vertical
clearance of 35 feet at mean high water
in the closed position and 135 feet at
mean high water in the open position.
Horizontal clearance is approximately
158 feet.
The waterway users include
recreational and commercial vessels
including tugboat/barge combinations.
The existing regulation, 33 CFR
117.723(k) published under Federal
Register 85 FR 8747, effective April 19,
2020, requires the existing bridge open
on signal; except that, from 11 p.m. to
7 a.m., the draw shall open on signal if
at least two hours advance notice is
given by calling the number posted at
the bridge.
In August of 2020, the owner of the
bridge, NJDOT, requested a change to
the drawbridge operation regulations to
the new bridge anticipating lower
volume of bridge openings given that
the new bridge vertical clearance in the
closed position will be double the
clearance of the existing bridge.
Under this proposed rule the new
draw would open on signal if at least
four hours advance notice is given by
calling the number posted at the bridge.
This rule change will allow for more
efficient and economic operation of the
bridge while meeting the reasonable
needs of navigation. The Coast Guard is
proposing this rulemaking under
authority in 33 U.S.C. 499.
NJDOT reached out to the maritime
stakeholders with the requested change
proposed and received no objections.
If
you have questions on this proposed
rule, call or email Judy Leung-Yee,
Project Officer, First Coast Guard
District; telephone 212–514–4336, email
Judy.K.Leung-Yee@uscg.mil.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
III. Discussion of Proposed Rule
The bridge logs show that the Route
7 Bridge had 16 openings in 2018, 10
openings in 2019, and 6 openings in
2020 (through 6/19/2020). The Coast
Guard proposes to permanently modify
the operating regulation.
David G. Zatezalo,
Assistant Secretary of Labor for Mine Safety
and Health.
[FR Doc. 2020–22589 Filed 11–18–20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4520–43–P
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 117
[Docket No. USCG–2020–0603]
RIN 1625–AA09
Drawbridge Operation Regulation;
Hackensack River, Jersey City, NJ
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
SUMMARY:
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\19NOP1.SGM
19NOP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 224 (Thursday, November 19, 2020)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 73656-73667]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-22589]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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, Labor.
ACTION: Proposed rule; request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) proposes to
revise its regulations that sets out the testing, evaluation, and
approval requirements for electric motor-driven mine equipment and
accessories intended for use in gassy mines. Under this proposal, MSHA
will accept voluntary consensus standards (VCS) that are suitable for
gassy mining environments and that provide protection against fire or
explosion dangers, to replace approval requirements in its regulations.
This proposal is intended to promote the use of innovative and advanced
technologies that lead to improvements in mine safety and health and to
improve the efficiency and effectiveness of MSHA's approval process.
DATES: Comment date: Comments must be received or postmarked by
midnight Eastern Daylight Savings Time on December 21, 2020.
ADDRESSES: Submit comments and informational materials, identified by
RIN 1219-AB93 or Docket No. MSHA-2020-0018, by one of the following
methods:
Federal E-Rulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments.
Email: [email protected]. Include RIN 1219-AB93 or
Docket No. MSHA-2020-0018 in the subject line of the message.
Mail: MSHA, Office of Standards, Regulations, and
Variances, 201 12th Street South, Suite 4E401, Arlington, Virginia
22202-5452.
Hand Delivery or Courier: MSHA, 201 12th Street South,
Suite 4E401, Arlington, Virginia, between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m.
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Sign in at the
receptionist's desk on the 4th Floor East.
Fax: (202) 693-9441.
Instructions: All submissions must include RIN 1219-AB93 or Docket
No. MSHA-2020-0018. Do not include
[[Page 73657]]
personal information that you do not want publicly disclosed; MSHA will
post all comments without change, including any personal information
provided, to https://www.regulations.gov and on MSHA's website at
https://www.msha.gov/regulations/rulemaking.
Docket: For access to the docket to read comments received, go to
https://www.regulations.gov or https://www.msha.gov/currentcomments.asp.
To read background documents, go to https://www.regulations.gov. Review
comments and background documents in person at the Office of Standards,
Regulations, and Variances, 201 12th Street South, Suite 4E401,
Arlington, Virginia 22202-5452. Sign in at the receptionist's desk on
the 4th Floor East, Suite 4E401.
Email Notification: To subscribe to receive email notification when
MSHA publishes rulemaking documents in the Federal Register, go to
https://public.govdelivery.com/accounts/USDOL/subscriber/new.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Roslyn B. Fontaine, Deputy Director,
Office of Standards, Regulations, and Variances, MSHA, at
[email protected] (email), (202) 693-9440 (voice); or (202) 693-
9441 (facsimile). These are not toll-free numbers.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
The Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977 (30 U.S.C. 801)
(Mine Act) requires the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) to
establish requirements for the technical design, construction, and
testing of electrical products that must be approved by MSHA prior to
use in gassy mines. These regulations are divided into separate parts
based on equipment type. Title 30 CFR part 18 (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.\1\ Examples of this
equipment include portable two-way radios, remote control units for
mining machinery, longwall mining systems, portable oxygen detectors,
miner-wearable components for proximity detection systems, and powered
air-purifying respirators (PAPRs). MSHA approves, as ``permissible,''
completely assembled electrical equipment, components of electrical
equipment, and electrical accessories that manufacturers design,
construct, and install to meet MSHA's requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ MSHA's approval regulations (30 CFR parts 6, 7, 18, 19, 20,
22, 23, 27, and 28) govern the process through which manufacturers
may obtain MSHA approval, certification, extension, or acceptance of
certain electrical products for use in underground mines. Each of
these separate approval actions has specific application procedures
and technical requirements for testing and evaluation. Along with
``approval,'' the terms ``certification,'' ``extension,'' and
``acceptance'' also denote MSHA approval.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Requirements in part 18, including associated tests, are to ensure
that such equipment will not cause a fire or explosion (30 CFR 18.4).
Applicants must design electrical equipment so that it will not cause a
fire or explosion, using at least one of two recognized methods. One
way is to design equipment so that it cannot produce a spark strong
enough, or temperatures sufficient, to ignite a hazardous gas such as
flammable methane-air mixtures. Alternatively, applicants may house the
equipment in enclosures that will withstand internal explosions of
methane-air mixtures without damage to, or excessive distortion of, its
walls or covers, and without ignition of surrounding methane-air
mixtures or discharge of flame from inside to outside the enclosure.
Before electric motor-driven equipment or accessories can be used
in gassy mines in the U.S., they must first have been approved for such
use by MSHA. Those seeking MSHA approval (applicants) are typically
product designers and manufacturers of the equipment or accessories.
MSHA's approval process includes testing and evaluation of the
products, either by MSHA or by an independent laboratory. Applicants
that use an independent laboratory to conduct testing or evaluation
must submit the results to MSHA for review, along with written evidence
of the laboratory's independence and current recognition by a
laboratory accrediting organization.
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 steps. First, MSHA examines
the documents in the application to determine whether the applicant has
met the technical requirements of the provisions of part 18. MSHA also
checks each drawing and specification in the application against these
requirements and, for some products, samples of the product or parts of
the product. MSHA may disassemble and examine parts of the product for
conformity to the drawings and specifications. Second, after MSHA
verifies that an applicant's product complies with the design and
construction requirements, MSHA tests the product to determine whether
it performs according to the approval requirements. MSHA issues an
approval if the product passes the tests and meets all of MSHA's
technical and safety requirements.
Once a product is approved, the applicant is becomes an approval
holder and must place an MSHA approval marking on the product to
indicate that the product is approved for use in gassy mines.
The use of the MSHA approval marking obligates the approval holder
to maintain the quality of the completely assembled product according
to the technical requirements upon which its approval was based. If an
approval holder wants to modify an approved product and maintain its
approval, then the approval holder must submit its proposed changes to
MSHA. If MSHA approves the changes, the Agency issues either an
extension of approval or a notice of acceptance of the modified product
to the approval holder.
II. Regulatory Review and Reform Comments
In 2018, the Agency announced its intent to review existing
regulations to assess compliance costs and reduce regulatory burden. As
part of this review, MSHA sought stakeholders' assistance in
identifying those regulations that could be repealed, replaced, or
modified without reducing miners' safety or health. MSHA published on
its website (https://www.msha.gov/provide-or-view-comments-msha-regulations-repeal-replace-or-modify) a notice that the Agency is
seeking assistance in identifying regulations for review. All comments
are posted on the Agency's website.
As a result of this solicitation, MSHA received a number of
recommendations regarding MSHA's product approval regulations. One
commenter recommended that MSHA replace part 18 with a modified set of
regulations to provide a clearer and timelier path for approval of new
technologies that will improve the health and safety of miners. The
commenter noted that many products approved for use under international
consensus standards in other countries could not be approved for use by
MSHA under part 18. The commenter stated that international coal
companies outside the United States may use products designed and
manufactured to these international consensus standards, and thus may
have access to the latest health and safety technology in their mining
operations.
MSHA acknowledges the benefits of using VCS and proposes that VCS
replace existing MSHA requirements as discussed below.
[[Page 73658]]
Two commenters suggested that MSHA adopt the International
Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) 60079 standards for use in approvals
of electrical mining equipment, including methane detectors. These IEC
standards address the safety of equipment used in explosive gaseous
atmospheres. One commenter stated that the IEC series of standards has
been adopted by many other countries for use in approving electrical
mining equipment for use in explosive atmospheres. For example,
Australia uses the IEC 60079 standards with national deviations that
are called the ANZEx 60079 standards. For approvals issued under part
18, MSHA agrees and is proposing to adopt VCS that provide protection
against fire and explosion dangers.
One commenter suggested that MSHA provide clearly-defined
requirements in part 18 for equipment approvals and certifications
based on standards that are maintained and updated by industry experts
and technical committees. The commenter stated that regularly updating
the standards would improve the safety of electrical mining equipment
and that allowing the standards to keep pace with technology (through
more recent versions of the standards) would improve the safety and
health of miners in the U.S.
MSHA agrees with these comments and would use the appropriate
rulemaking process with solicitation of public comment to adopt VCS
developed by standard-setting bodies that plan, develop, establish, or
coordinate standards through agreed-upon, transparent, and deliberate
procedures. MSHA further agrees that continuing to adopt VCS as they
are maintained and updated through the agreed-upon, transparent, and
deliberate procedures, can promote the availability of technologically
advanced equipment for use in U.S. mines, thus improving mine safety
and health.
III. Discussion of Proposed Rule
A. Voluntary Consensus Standards
MSHA proposes to incorporate by reference 14 VCS--8 American
National Standards Institute (ANSI) approved and 6 IEC approved--in
their entirety and without modification, to replace existing approval
criteria in part 18 for products covered by the incorporated VCS.\2\
MSHA has determined that these VCS (1) are suitable for gassy mining
environments and (2) will provide protection against fire or explosion
dangers, if substituted in their entirety for MSHA approval
requirements specified in part 18, subparts B through E. The existing
MSHA subparts B through E requirements would continue to apply to those
electrical components not covered by one of the 14 VCS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ MSHA has participated on Technical Advisory Groups to the
U.S. National Committee (USNC) of the IEC for the past several
years. The USNC of the IEC is an integrated body of ANSI. MSHA staff
have provided comments on proposed changes to IEC standards for
electrical equipment for use in hazardous locations. This includes
standards for intrinsic safety, flameproof enclosures, and
encapsulated assemblies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 1 below lists the U.S. and international VCS that MSHA
proposes to incorporate by reference in part 18. As discussed below in
the section-by-section analysis, the ANSI standards are based on the
similarly-numbered IEC standards. The ANSI and IEC standards on
particular topics are generally similar but not identical, as the ANSI
standards include modifications of the IEC standards and U.S.-specific
requirements (U.S. deviations). IEC standards are prepared and
maintained by subject matter experts, using a rigorous and well-defined
process. Similarly, the U.S. deviations are developed by nationally-
recognized and vetted experts and are approved as American National
Standards only if the appropriate procedures are followed.
MSHA believes this approach would promote in U.S. mines the
availability of technologically advanced equipment that protects miners
against the risk of fire or explosion dangers. Many products conforming
to these VCS are broadly recognized across various industries and in
other countries as providing an appropriate level of safety for miners
and others in work environments with hazards similar to those
encountered in the mining industry. The proposed changes would allow
the introduction of products that further mine safety but that MSHA
could not otherwise approve because they do not conform to the existing
requirements in part 18.
This proposal is also consistent with the Office of Management and
Budget's (OMB) Circular A-119 (Jan. 27, 2016 (81 FR 4673)), which
establishes policy guidance for Federal agencies. Circular A-119, based
on the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15
U.S.C. 3701 et seq.) (Transfer Act), section 12(d), directs Federal
agencies to use technical standards developed or adopted by VCS bodies
to carry out policies or activities. Additionally, Circular A-119
directs agencies to use VCS in lieu of government-unique standards,
except where inconsistent with law or otherwise impractical. The intent
of the policy guidance in Circular A-119 is to minimize agency reliance
on government-unique standards to decrease the burden of complying with
agency regulations and promote efficiency and economic competition
through harmonization of standards. (See https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/Circular-119-1.pdf). Consistent with Circular
A-119, the use of VCS would streamline the MSHA approval process and
make it more effective and efficient for applicants by decreasing the
reliance on government-unique standards.
While this proposal lists 14 VCS for MSHA to incorporate by
reference, the Agency is interested in whether the proposal should be
expanded to include other VCS. Please provide rationale, with
definitive data and explanation of how this would improve safety, for
your position.
The VCS are summarized in the discussion related to Sec. 18.102.
Table 1--Voluntary Consensus Standards
------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
ANSI/UL 60079-0 Ed. 7, Explosive Atmospheres--Part 0: Equipment--General
Requirements (Group I) (2019). This standard provides the general
requirements for the construction, testing, and marking of electrical
equipment intended for use in explosive atmospheres.
ANSI/UL 60079-1 Ed. 7, Standard for Explosive Atmospheres--Part 1:
Equipment Protection by Flameproof Enclosures ``d'' (Group I, Level of
Protection `da') (2015). This standard contains specific requirements
for the construction and testing of electrical equipment, with the Type
of Protection flameproof (FP) enclosure designated ``d'' intended for
use in explosive gas atmospheres.
ANSI/ISA 60079-11 \1\ (12.02.01)--2014 Standard for Explosive
Atmospheres--Part 11: Equipment Protection by Intrinsic Safety ``i''
(Group I, Level of Protection `ia') (2014). This standard 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 that may enter
such atmospheres. This type of protection is applicable to electrical
equipment in which the electrical circuits themselves are incapable of
causing an explosion in the surrounding explosive atmospheres.
[[Page 73659]]
ANSI/UL 60079-11 \1\ Ed. 6, Standard for Explosive Atmospheres--Part 11:
Equipment Protection by Intrinsic Safety ``i'' (Group I, Level of
Protection `ia') (2013). This standard 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 that may enter such
atmospheres. This type of protection is applicable to electrical
equipment in which the electrical circuits themselves are incapable of
causing an explosion in the surrounding explosive atmospheres.
ANSI/UL 60079-18, Ed. 4, Standard for Explosive Atmospheres--Part 18:
Equipment Protection by Encapsulation `m' (Group I, Level of Protection
`ma') (2015). This standard provides the specific requirements for the
construction, testing, and marking of electrical equipment, parts of
electrical equipment, and components not intended to be used alone,
with the Type of Protection encapsulation ``m'' intended for use in
explosive gas atmospheres or explosive dust atmospheres.
ANSI/ISA 60079-25 \1\ (12.02.05)-2011 Standard for Explosive
Atmospheres--Part 25: Intrinsically Safe Electrical Systems (Group I,
Level of Protection `ia') (2011). This standard contains the specific
requirements for construction and assessment of intrinsically safe
electrical systems, intended for use, as a whole or in part, in
hazardous locations. A system approved under this standard is comprised
of equipment or components approved to the 60079-11 standard,
interconnected to form a system.
ANSI/UL 60079-25 \1\ Ed. 2, Standard for Explosive Atmospheres--Part 25:
Intrinsically Safe Electrical Systems (Group I, Level of Protection
`ia') (2011). This standard contains the specific requirements for
construction and assessment of intrinsically safe electrical systems,
intended for use, as a whole or in part, in hazardous locations. A
system approved under this standard is comprised of equipment or
components approved to the 60079-11 standard, interconnected to form a
system.
ANSI/UL 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') (2017). This
standard contains the requirements and testing of equipment emitting
optical radiation intended for use in explosive atmospheres. It also
covers equipment located outside the explosive atmosphere but which
generates optical radiation that is intended to enter an explosive
atmosphere.
IEC 60079-0, Ed. 7, Explosive atmospheres--Part 0: Equipment--General
requirements (Group I) (2017). This standard provides the general
requirements for the construction, testing, and marking of electrical
equipment intended for use in explosive atmospheres.
IEC 60079-1 Ed. 7, Standard for Explosive Atmospheres--Part 1: Equipment
Protection by Flameproof Enclosures ``d'' (Group I, Level of Protection
`da') (2014). This standard contains specific requirements for the
construction and testing of electrical equipment, with the Type of
Protection flameproof (FP) enclosure designated ``d'' intended for use
in explosive gas atmospheres.
IEC 60079-11, Ed. 6, Explosive Atmospheres--Part 11: Equipment
Protection by Intrinsic Safety ``i'' (Group I, Level of Protection
`ia') (2011). This standard 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 that may enter such
atmospheres. This type of protection is applicable to electrical
equipment in which the electrical circuits themselves are incapable of
causing an explosion in the surrounding explosive atmospheres.
IEC 60079-18, Ed. 4.1, Explosive Atmospheres--Part 18: Equipment
Protection by Encapsulation `m' (Group I, Level of Protection `ma')
(2017). This standard provides the specific requirements for the
construction, testing, and marking of electrical equipment, parts of
electrical equipment, and components not intended to be used alone,
with the Type of Protection encapsulation ``m'' intended for use in
explosive gas atmospheres or explosive dust atmospheres.
IEC 60079-25 Ed. 3, Explosive Atmospheres--Part 25: Intrinsically Safe
Electrical Systems (Group I, Level of Protection `ia') (2020). This
standard contains the specific requirements for construction and
assessment of intrinsically safe electrical systems, intended for use,
as a whole or in part, in hazardous locations. A system approved under
this standard is comprised of equipment or components approved to the
60079-11 standard, interconnected to form a system.
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') (2015). This
standard contains the requirements and testing of equipment emitting
optical radiation intended for use in explosive atmospheres. It also
covers equipment located outside the explosive atmosphere but which
generates optical radiation that is intended to enter an explosive
atmosphere.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ For VCS that begin with ANSI/UL and ANSI/ISA and follow with a
common number, the versions are identical (co-sponsored and co-
published by UL LLC (UL) and the International Society of Automation
(ISA)).
B. Availability of Voluntary Consensus Standards To Be Incorporated by
Reference
The 14 VCS to be incorporated by reference are publicly available
and below is the availability information. A copy of each standard
proposed to be incorporated by reference is available for inspection at
MSHA, Office of Standards, Regulations, and Variances, 201 12th Street
South, Suite 4E401, Arlington, Virginia 22202-5452 and at MSHA,
Approval and Certification Center, 765 Technology Drive, Triadelphia,
WV 26059.
Copies of standards produced by IEC may be obtained from the
International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC), 3 rue de
Varemb[eacute], 1st Floor, P.O. Box 131, CH-1211 Geneva 20,
Switzerland, Tel: +41 22 919 0211, and are available for purchase at
the IEC website (www.iec.ch).
Copies of standards produced by the ISA, may be obtained from the
International Society of Automation (ISA), 67 T.W. Alexander Drive,
P.O. Box 12277, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, Tel: (919) 549-8411,
and are also available for purchase at the ISA website (www.isa.org).
Copies of standards produced by UL, may be obtained from UL LLC
(UL), Comm 2000, 151 Eastern Avenue, Bensenville, IL 60106, Tel: (888)
853-3503, and are also available for purchase at the UL website
(www.ul.com).
Copies of each of the 14 VCS may also be obtained from ANSI at the
American National Standards Institute (ANSI), 1899 L Street NW, 11th
Floor, Washington, DC 20036, Tel: (202) 293-8020, and online at ANSI's
website (www.ansi.org).
Additionally, during the public comment period of this proposed
rule, a free, read-only copy of each of the VCS is available for public
inspection on ANSI's Standards Connect portal, which is accessible to
anyone who registers at https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/DQVJYMK.
C. Implementation Dates for Voluntary Consensus Standards
MSHA proposes the following dates for the implementation of the
voluntary consensus standard requirements under part 18, also
referenced in Table 2 below.
For the period that starts on [effective date of the final rule]
and ends on [12 months after the effective date of the final rule]:
New applications for approval may meet either subparts B
through E requirements, or the requirements of the VCS listed in this
part;
Applications for approval in process may meet either
subparts B through E requirements, or the
[[Page 73660]]
requirements of the VCS listed in this part; \3\ and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Applicants whose applications for approval use subparts B
through E requirements and are under MSHA review at the time the
final rule becomes effective may resubmit their applications using
the VCS if they so choose.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Applications for formal extensions of approval or
certification may meet the requirements under which the last approval,
certification, or formal extension was issued by MSHA, or the
requirements of the VCS listed in this part.
Starting on [date 12 months after the effective date of the final
rule]:
New applications for approval must meet the requirements
of the VCS listed in this part unless no VCS listed in this part apply;
and
Applications for formal extensions of approval or
certification may meet the requirements under which the last approval,
certification, or formal extension was issued by MSHA, or meet the
requirements of the VCS listed in this part.
Table 2--Implementation Dates for VCS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Implementation date Types of applications Requirements to be used
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For a 12-month period starting on New applications for approval. Either part 18, subparts B through E, or
[effective date of final rule]. voluntary consensus standards.
Applications for approval in Either part 18, subparts B through E, or
process. voluntary consensus standards.
Applications for changes to Requirements under which the last
existing approved equipment. approval, certification, or formal
extension was issued by MSHA, or
voluntary consensus standards.
Starting on [date 12 months after the New applications for approval. Voluntary consensus standards, and part
effective date of the final rule]. 18, subparts B through E, if no listed
voluntary consensus standard applies.
Applications for changes to Requirements under which the last
existing approved equipment. approval, certification, or formal
extension was issued by MSHA, or
voluntary consensus standards.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
D. Conforming Changes
The proposed rule also makes technical changes to 30 CFR part 74
(part 74) regarding the approval requirements for Coal Mine Dust
Sampling Devices to conform to the proposed changes in part 18.
IV. Section-by-Section Analysis
A. Section 18.2--Definitions
The proposed rule would revise the definition for ``permissible
equipment.'' The proposed rule also would add definitions for
``voluntary consensus standard'' and ``voluntary consensus standards
body.''
The definition for ``permissible equipment'' would be revised to
remove the reference to the Mining Enforcement and Safety
Administration (MESA). MESA and all 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).
The proposed rule would add two new terms and definitions to Sec.
18.2. One is ``voluntary consensus standard'' that references a safety
standard developed or adopted by a standard-setting organization.
Another is ``voluntary consensus standards body'' that means a domestic
or international standard-setting organization that plans, develops,
establishes, or coordinates VCS using agreed-upon procedures that are
consistent with the Transfer Act and Circular A-119.
Under Circular A-119, a voluntary consensus standards body is
recognized if it develops VCS in accordance with the following
attributes: Openness, balance of interest, due process, an appeals
process, and consensus. This standards body also must adopt, publish,
and make available to the public the VCS it adopts. Lastly, the
voluntary consensus standards body must maintain each voluntary
consensus standard through a schedule of review. As a Federal agency,
MSHA relies upon OMB guidance in determining whether to incorporate by
reference a voluntary consensus standard.
B. Section 18.6--Applications
Currently, Sec. 18.6(e) requires that each drawing an applicant
submits as part of the approval application under part 18 include a
warning stating that changes in design must be authorized by MSHA
before they are applied to approved equipment. This assures that all
approval holders understand the importance of the approval for
equipment safety and the impact any changes, made by any parties, have
on the approval. MSHA proposes to remove this requirement because MSHA
specifies in the approval letter sent to applicants that approval
holders cannot make changes to designs without MSHA approval. The
Agency has determined that the drawing-warning requirement is
unnecessary because MSHA ensures throughout the approval process that
approval holders are aware of their responsibility to notify MSHA of
changes to approved equipment.
C. Section 18.15--Changes After Approval or Certification
Currently, Sec. 18.15 requires approval holders to submit an
application to extend an approval if they want to change any feature of
approved equipment or a certified component. Under Sec. 18.15(c), MSHA
proposes to add new paragraphs (c)(1) and (2).
Proposed paragraph (c)(1) would allow the application for a change
after approval or certification to be made based on the requirements in
subparts B through E or the VCS, whichever of these requirements
applied to the last approval, certification, or formal extension issued
by MSHA. Proposed paragraph (c)(2) would allow an application for a
change after approval or certification to be made using the VCS listed
in proposed Sec. 18.102 that apply to those components if the
applicant chooses to use the VCS requirements even though the last
approval, certification, or formal extension issued by MSHA was based
on subparts B through E requirements. If no VCS requirements listed in
this part apply to a component, then subparts B through E requirements
would apply.
Thus, under these proposed changes, approval holders would have the
option to make changes based on either the last approval,
certification, or formal
[[Page 73661]]
extension issued by MSHA, or the VCS listed in this part, so that they
could make a decision that suits them best. MSHA solicits comments on
this aspect of the proposal.
D. Section 18.101--Acceptance and Use of Voluntary Consensus Standards
MSHA proposes to add a new subpart F, Voluntary Consensus
Standards, consisting of proposed Sec. Sec. 18.101 through 18.103.
Proposed Sec. 18.101 is a new section that allows applicants to
seek approval under part 18 for designs of electrical machines,
accessories, or components that conform to the requirements in the VCS
listed in proposed Sec. 18.102. The VCS listed in proposed Sec.
18.102 would apply to many of the components of the completely
assembled equipment.
Under this proposal, applications for approval would require
specifications to meet the VCS listed in this part, or existing
subparts B through E requirements, or both, depending on the types of
components in the fully assembled machines and accessories. Powered
air-purifying respirators are examples of fully assembled machines that
may be approved using only VCS requirements. However, certain
completely assembled equipment such as longwall mining systems,
continuous mining machines, shuttle cars, and roof-bolters, would not
be covered entirely by any VCS of which MSHA is aware. For example, a
continuous mining machine is made up of several components such as
motors, lights, explosion proof enclosures, and other types of
electrical components that are parts of the completely assembled
machine. For this type of machine, some components will be subject to
VCS requirements and other components will be subject to the subparts B
through E requirements for MSHA approval.
Under proposed Sec. 18.101(a), MSHA would replace the requirements
specified in subparts B through E for components, accessories, and
completely assembled electrical machines with applicable VCS that are
suitable for gassy mining environments and that provide protection
against fire or explosion dangers.
In proposed paragraph (b), MSHA is providing a transition period
for the optional use of VCS for an applicant who submits an application
within the first 12 months after the final rule becomes effective. In
proposed paragraphs (b)(1) and (2), the applicant may choose to use
either the subparts B through E requirements for any components or the
VCS listed in proposed Sec. 18.102 for components to which the listed
VCS apply.
In proposed paragraph (c), once the 12-month transition period
ends, MSHA would require the use of VCS in new applications for
approval. Proposed paragraph (c)(1) would require applicants to use the
VCS listed in proposed Sec. 18.102 for components to which the listed
VCS apply. In proposed paragraph (c)(2), MSHA would allow applicants to
use subparts B through E requirements for a component to which no VCS
listed in proposed Sec. 18.102 would apply.
MSHA believes that a 12-month transition period will provide
manufacturers, approval holders, and applicants enough time to make
design and build changes necessary to meet the required specifications
of the VCS for new applications.
MSHA requires marking requirements to indicate that a product is
approved for use in gassy mines under Sec. 18.11, subpart A. MSHA
recognizes that the proposed VCS include non-technical requirements,
such as marking requirements. Some of the markings required under Sec.
18.11 may overlap with some of the markings required by the VCS;
however, required VCS markings are not necessary for an approval. MSHA
will provide the applicant with the required markings upon approval of
an application. Therefore, the MSHA marking requirements in Sec.
18.11, subpart A, would still apply to approved products. The MSHA
marking on an approved product would continue to signify to the end
users that the product is safe for use in gassy mines.
MSHA believes that the use of VCS under proposed Sec. 18.101 will
promote the use of innovative and advanced technologies that lead to
improvements in mine safety and health. MSHA expects that the use of
VCS would provide applicants and manufacturers with additional product
design options for products and equipment with potential use in the
mining industry without sacrificing the safety assurances associated
with approvals. The use of VCS may also provide applicants and
manufacturers access to other markets for products and equipment they
currently only sell to the U.S. mining industry. Given the small U.S.
market for products that the mining industry uses, designing products
to meet MSHA-specific approval criteria can be costly, and in some
cases may be financially prohibitive, for manufacturers who produce
products for broader commercial use. The proposed changes would allow
the introduction of products that conform to the VCS requirements and
that further mine safety, but that MSHA could not otherwise approve
because the Agency does not currently recognize VCS requirements.
Further, MSHA has determined the VCS that the Agency proposes to
incorporate by reference are developed in accordance with the following
attributes: Openness, balance of interest, due process, an appeals
process, and consensus. The use of VCS would make technologically
advanced equipment available for use in U.S. mines in a quicker and
more cost-effective manner, which could improve miner safety and
health.
E. Section 18.102--Approved Voluntary Consensus Standards
Proposed Sec. 18.102 is a new section. Proposed paragraph (a)
establishes that MSHA has determined that the list in proposed
paragraph (b) is suitable for gassy mining environments and will
provide the protection against fire or explosion dangers if used in
their entirety to replace MSHA approval requirements specified in
subparts B through E.
The design of the electrically operated equipment must comply with
the Types of Protection and Levels of Protection in the relevant VCS,
as specified in proposed paragraph (b).
In proposed paragraph (b), MSHA would incorporate by reference the
VCS listed in this section.
Proposed paragraphs (b)(1) through (3) include the VCS and specify
the category of equipment (Group) and Level of Protection applicable to
approvals.
These standards are from three sources. For the IEC standards
listed in proposed paragraph (b)(1), the source is the International
Electrotechnical Commission. For American National Standards listed in
proposed paragraphs (b)(2) and (3), the two sources are the
International Society for Automation (ISA) and UL LLC (UL). The IEC
approves and publishes consensus-based International Standards and
manages conformity assessment systems for electric and electronic
products, systems and services, collectively known as
electrotechnology. ANSI approves the American National Standards and
supports the U.S. voluntary standards and conformity assessment system.
In the case of the standards that begin with ANSI/ISA or ANSI/UL and
follow with a common number, the ISA and UL versions are identical (co-
sponsored and co-published). For example, ANSI/ISA 60079-11 and ANSI/UL
60079-11 refer to the same voluntary consensus standard with the
specified Types of
[[Page 73662]]
Protection and Levels of Protection indicated.
Either ANSI or the IEC has approved all of the standards listed in
proposed Sec. 18.102. In the discussion below, ``60079-0,'' ``60079-
1,'' ``60079-11,'' ``60079-18,'' ``60079-25,'' and ``60079-28'' refer
to all three numbered versions of the VCS established by IEC, ISA, and
UL.
Typically, the voluntary consensus standard-setting bodies base the
ANSI standards on similarly-numbered International IEC standards. The
ANSI standards are modifications of the IEC standards and include U.S.
deviations and encompass both additional and deleted information.
Experts prepare and maintain IEC standards using a rigorous and well-
defined process. Similarly, the U.S. deviations are developed by
nationally-recognized and vetted experts and are approved as American
National Standards only if the appropriate procedures are followed.
The listed ANSI standards are interdependent with each other and
with the NEC. Also, the listed IEC standards are interdependent with
each other. For intrinsically safe devices, for example, 60079-0
provides the general requirements, and 60079-11 supplements and
modifies the general requirements of 60079-0 (with documented
exceptions). Similarly, for intrinsically safe systems, the 60079-25
standard supplements and modifies the general requirements of 60079-0
and the intrinsic safety standard 60079-11. For encapsulated electrical
equipment, the 60079-18 standard also supplements and modifies the
general requirements of 60079-0. For equipment and transmission systems
using optical radiation, the 60079-28 standard also supplements and
modifies the general requirements of 60079-0.
The 60079-0 standard provides the general requirements for the
construction, testing, and marking of electrical equipment intended for
use in explosive atmospheres.
The 60079-1 standard contains specific requirements for the
construction and testing of electrical equipment, with the Type of
Protection flameproof (FP) enclosure designated ``d'' intended for use
in explosive gas atmospheres.
Similarly, 60079-11 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 that may enter such
atmospheres.
Also, 60079-18 provides the specific requirements for the
construction, testing, and marking of electrical equipment, parts of
electrical equipment, and components not intended to be used alone,
with the Type of Protection encapsulation ``m'' intended for use in
explosive gas atmospheres or explosive dust atmospheres.
The 60079-25 standard contains the specific requirements for
construction and assessment of intrinsically safe electrical systems,
intended for use, as a whole or in part, in hazardous locations. A
system approved under this standard is comprised of equipment or
components approved to the 60079-11 standard, interconnected to form a
system.
Finally, 60079-28 contains the requirements of equipment emitting
optical radiation intended for use in explosive atmospheres. It also
covers equipment located outside the explosive atmosphere but which
generates optical radiation that is intended to enter an explosive
atmosphere.
The listed standards apply to equipment for use in all explosive
atmospheres and locations that are likely to include those hazardous
atmospheres. For the risk of ignition associated with gas
concentrations, electrical equipment is divided into two broad
categories: Group I and Group II.
Group I electrical equipment is intended for use in mines
susceptible to firedamp, a flammable gas found in coal mines. Group II
electrical equipment is intended for use in places with an explosive
gas atmosphere, other than mines susceptible to firedamp. Both the ANSI
and IEC standards note that firedamp consists mainly of methane, but
also contains small quantities of other gases, such as nitrogen, carbon
dioxide, and hydrogen, and sometimes ethane and carbon monoxide. The
terms ``firedamp'' and ``methane'' are used frequently in mining
practice as synonyms. In further discussions below, only the term
``methane'' will be used for simplicity.
The protections in these standards for Group I electrical equipment
account for the ignition of both methane and coal dust, along with
enhanced physical protection for equipment used underground. Thus, in
this proposed rulemaking, MSHA proposes to use the requirements
associated for Group I equipment in the listed standards.
As explained above, Group II electrical equipment is intended for
use in places with an explosive gas atmosphere other than mines
susceptible to methane. Also, Group II electrical equipment is
subdivided according to the nature of the explosive gas atmosphere for
which it is intended. Group II subdivisions are as follows: IIA, a
typical gas is propane; IIB, a typical gas is ethylene; and IIC, a
typical gas is hydrogen. Because gassy mines where coal dust is
commonly present may vary from the environments in which Group II
electrical equipment is intended to operate, this proposed rule does
not allow the use of Group II requirements in the listed standards.
The standards further define various ``Types of Protection,'' such
as intrinsic safety. These ``Types of Protection'' are subdivided into
``Levels of Protection'' that differentiate the likelihood of the
equipment becoming a source of ignition. For example, Type of
Protection ``intrinsic safety i'' is defined by National Fire
Protection Association (NFPA) 70, National Electrical Code (NEC), as
Type of Protection where any spark or thermal effect is incapable of
causing ignition of a mixture of flammable or combustible material in
air under prescribed test conditions. In U.S. industries other than
mining, and in mines internationally, the required Level of Protection
is defined by the exposure to the hazard. These hazardous locations are
divided into Zones, based on the level of exposure to the hazard. There
are three such Zones defined in the NFPA 70, NEC, which is based on
international standards. For explosive gases, for example, a Zone 0
location has ignitable concentrations of flammable gases or vapors
either continuously present or present for long periods of time. A Zone
0 location, by definition, requires the highest protection levels
against fire or explosion for equipment when used in Zone 0
atmospheres. The likelihood of exposure to flammable gases or vapors is
lower in Zone 1 locations, and is further reduced in Zone 2 locations.
Therefore, Zones 1 and 2 locations have reduced Levels of Protection
requirements for equipment used in these locations compared to the
Level of Protection for equipment used in Zone 0 locations. The NFPA
70, NEC subdivides Type of Protection ``intrinsic safety i'' into
Levels of Protection ``ia,'' ``ib,'' and ``ic'' and designates that
Level of Protection ``ia'' is appropriate for Zone 0, ``ib'' is
appropriate for Zone 1, and ``ic'' is appropriate for Zone 2. Thus,
Level of Protection ``ia'' is the highest Level of Protection.
To simplify the selection of electrical equipment for a given
purpose, the standards also incorporate ``Equipment Protection
Levels,'' or EPLs. These EPLs are assigned to equipment based on its
likelihood of becoming a source of ignition and distinguishing the
differences between explosive atmosphere types. For example, EPL G is
intended for explosive gas
[[Page 73663]]
atmospheres, EPL D is intended for explosive dust atmospheres, and EPL
M is intended for explosive atmospheres in mines susceptible to
methane. The EPLs are further subdivided into protection levels Ga, Da,
and Ma for very high protection suitable for a two-fault scenario; Gb,
Db, and Mb for high protection suitable for a single fault scenario;
and Gc and Dc for enhanced protection to minimize ignition risk. Thus,
EPLs Ga, Da, and Ma are the highest protection levels for explosive gas
atmospheres, dust atmospheres, and mine atmospheres susceptible to
methane, respectively.
In 2018, researchers at the National Institute for Occupational
Safety and Health (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.''
\4\ The researchers concluded that the relative Level of Protection
afforded 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. 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. MSHA is proposing to allow the use of the latest
versions of the ANSI and IEC intrinsic safety standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ William Calder, David P. Snyder, John F. Burr, Intrinsically
Safe Systems: Equivalency of International Standards Compared to
U.S. Mining Approval Criteria, DOI 10.1109/TIA.2018.2804322, IEEE
Transactions on Industry Applications.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The ``two-fault IS standard'' to which the NIOSH researchers refer
above is the 60079-11 standard, Level of Protection ``ia.'' This means
that the researchers concluded, for intrinsically safe equipment and
associated apparatuses, Level of Protection ``ia'' in the 60079-0,
60079-11, and 60079-25 standards provide miners with protection against
fire and explosion dangers. The researchers subsequently concluded that
the use of such equipment would provide at least an equivalent level of
safety as that provided by equipment approved to MSHA criteria.\5\ MSHA
agrees with this conclusion. Thus, because the NIOSH researchers have
determined that Level of Protection ``ia'' provides miners with
protection against fire and explosion, MSHA is proposing to require
that manufacturers seeking approval using the incorporated VCS conform
to the ``ia'' Level of Protection where designated in this proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Further, as discussed above, NFPA 70, NEC notes that intrinsic
safety is the designated Type of Protection ``ia'' (intrinsic safety)
for use in Zone 0 locations. The only other types of protection that
NFPA 70, NEC allows for use in Zone 0 is Type of Protection ``da''
(flameproof enclosures) as defined in 60079-1 and Type of Protection
``ma'' (encapsulation) as defined in the 60079-18 standard. MSHA
believes that ``ia,'' ``da,'' and ``ma'' will provide the necessary
Level of Protection for miners because the NEC allows ``ia,'' ``da,''
and ``ma'' for use in Zone 0. MSHA has allowed encapsulated assemblies
to be approved under part 18, since 2009, as noted in MSHA's
Encapsulation Criteria, ACRI2010.\6\ ACRI2010 was based, in part, on
the requirements of 60079-18 in place at the time it was created. MSHA
has received no reports that encapsulated assemblies tested and
evaluated to ACRI2010 have failed to provide the intended protection.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ https://arlweb.msha.gov/techsupp/acc/application/acri2010.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
MSHA is proposing to include the 60079-1 standard for FP
enclosures, but only Level of Protection ``da'' which is suitable for
use in Zone 0 locations. Level of Protection ``da'' is applicable only
to catalytic sensors of portable combustible gas detectors. Levels of
Protection ``db'' and ``dc'' are not being included because they do not
provide miners with suitable protection against fire and explosion in
gassy mines.
MSHA proposes to include the 60079-18 standard (Level of Protection
``ma'') based on the following: (1) MSHA's experience with ACRI2010 and
(2) the fact that the hazardous locations community allows the use of
``ma'' equipment in Zone 0, coupled with the determination by NIOSH
researchers that the only other Level of Protection allowed in Zone 0
(``ia'') provides miners protection against fire and explosion.
Similarly, the 60079-28 standard (Equipment Protection Level Ma) is
included based on the same factors.
In conclusion, the proposed rule would allow for the use of the
latest versions of the ANSI and IEC standards for intrinsic safety
(``ia''), flameproof catalytic sensors (``da''), and encapsulation
(``ma'') as they apply to Group I (Zone 0) (mining) equipment.
MSHA is interested in whether the proposal should be expanded to
include other VCS. Please provide the rationale, with definitive data
and explanation, for your position.
In summary, MSHA proposes to incorporate by reference the IEC
standards in proposed paragraph (b)(1) and the ANSI standards in
proposed paragraphs (b)(2) and (3), which are appropriate for use in
Zone 0 locations. MSHA has determined that the VCS in proposed Sec.
18.102 would provide protection against fire or explosion if used in
their entirety to replace MSHA approval requirements specified in
subparts B through E. However, the marking requirements in subpart A of
this part would not be superseded by the requirements specified in the
proposed VCS. The marking requirement in the existing rule would be
included in the approval marking requirements as specified in Sec.
18.11, subpart A.
F. Section 18.103--Review and Update of Applicable Voluntary Consensus
Standards
Proposed Sec. 18.103 is a new section about updating the existing
list of VCS. To ensure timely updating of the list in Sec. 18.102,
MSHA would review more recent editions of the listed VCS and determine
whether to accept them. Also, MSHA may review other VCS that are not
listed in Sec. 18.102 and determine whether they are suitable for
gassy mining environments and provide protection against fire and
explosion dangers. After such thorough reviews, MSHA would use the
appropriate rulemaking process to publish an updated list of VCS that
the Agency would accept to replace approval requirements in subparts B
through E in part 18. MSHA also may remove a standard from the list in
Sec. 18.102 if it is withdrawn by a voluntary consensus standards body
or for other reasons.
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 proposed Sec. 18.103, MSHA would consider updates and
alternatives to existing standards that promote the efficiency and
effectiveness of the MSHA approval process, which could lead to the use
of innovative and advanced technologies in U.S. mines and to
improvements in mine safety and health.
Conforming Amendments
This proposal would require conforming amendments to Coal Mine Dust
Sampling Devices in existing part 74 based on the proposed changes in
part 18.
[[Page 73664]]
Part 74--Coal Mine Dust Sampling Devices
MSHA proposes to change cross-references in Sec. Sec. 74.5(b) and
74.11(d) for evaluation and testing for permissibility of Coal Mine
Dust Sampling Devices from Sec. 18.68 to part 18. This change in part
74 would conform to the proposed changes in part 18 and would allow the
use of MSHA-designated VCS for the approval of coal mine dust sampling
devices.
V. Regulatory Economic Analysis
A. Executive Orders 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review, and 13563:
Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
Executive Orders (E.O.s) 12866 and 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). E.O.
13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits,
of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility.
Currently, MSHA or an independent laboratory conducts the testing
and evaluation of electrical products for which applicants seek MSHA
approval for use in gassy mines. For new approval applications, this
proposal would allow applicants to use either existing MSHA
requirements or VCS for the first 12 months after the final rule
becomes effective. After 12 months, MSHA will require new applicants to
(1) use VCS requirements that apply to the components of the electrical
machine or accessory and (2) use existing MSHA requirements for the
components of the electrical machine or accessory to which no listed
VCS apply. Under current regulations, costs to approve equipment are
defined as transfers and not E.O. 12866 costs. In this case, costs
represent MSHA's costs recovered from approval applicants via a fee.
Under the proposed rule, it is unlikely that the number of approval
requests will change much. Based on discussions with past applicants,
MSHA understands that many products submitted to MSHA for approval have
been accepted using VCS for mining outside the U.S. or for other
industries (e.g., oil and gas extraction) that have similar safety
standards. Applicants submitting these types of products for MSHA
approval would likely experience substantially lower approval costs.
Because their products already meet VCS listed in this proposed rule
and would no longer need to meet MSHA-specific requirements, no
additional technical drawings, documentation, and testing would be
necessary beyond that submitted elsewhere for VCS approval.
Some current approval holders may incur costs because of the
requirement to use VCS after the 12-month transition period.\7\ For
those requesting new approvals, the costs would be mostly attributable
to the approval holder having to create new design and build
specifications using VCS requirements instead of using already existing
design and build specifications based on part 18, subparts B through E,
requirements. By contrast, current approval holders that are requesting
only a minor modification of an approval should not incur costs,
because they would be allowed to choose to use the requirements (either
part 18, subparts B through E, or VCS) under which the last approval,
certification, or formal extension was issued by MSHA. Based on
discussions between MSHA and applicants during past approvals, MSHA
concludes that a small number of current approval holders may decide
not to stay in the mining market.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Applicants may choose to use VCS for new approvals for the
first 12 months after the effective date of the final rule. After 12
months, new applications for approval must use VCS, if applicable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This proposed rule will provide benefits to both manufacturers of
electrical products and the consumers of those products--mine operators
and miners. Currently, some products that use modern technologies that
could improve the safety and health of miners are not being introduced
into the U.S. mining market. One reason may be that technical
requirements set by MSHA differ from those that apply in other
countries. These MSHA-specific technical requirements may slow, or even
prevent, these new technologies from being implemented in U.S.
underground mines. Use of VCS to replace MSHA-specific requirements
would likely reduce the overall design and approval costs for many
manufacturers; as a result, manufacturers introducing new technologies
may experience fewer barriers for product market entry into the mining
industry.
This proposed rule would not affect currently approved equipment,
as it would allow manufacturers and mine operators to continue to sell
or purchase all currently approved equipment. If at a future date, a
current approval holder wishes to alter approved equipment, the
application could comply with the requirements on which the approval
was based or with the VCS requirements listed in this part.
Therefore, MSHA does not anticipate that manufacturers will have
difficulties in meeting these requirements. MSHA's acceptance of VCS
would provide more choices of mining products to mine operators and
miners, as these VCS are used by the broader market. MSHA does not
anticipate problems in manufacturing or purchasing products that meet
VCS, as such products are already in use in markets outside of U.S.
mining.
In summary, under this proposal, approval holders would not be
required to alter equipment or incur any new costs for existing
approvals. New applicants may choose the standards most beneficial to
them during the 12-month transition period. For those applicants whose
products already meet VCS requirements, they would likely experience
either no new costs, or cost reductions. Overall, net costs are more
likely to go down than up.
The Agency is interested in whether the proposal to include VCS may
result in cost differences for applicants due to the proposal to
eliminate subparts B through E requirements for new approvals. Please
provide the rationale, with definitive data and explanation, for your
position.
Under E.O. 12866, a significant regulatory action is one meeting
any of a number of specified conditions, including the following:
Having an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or
more;
Creating a serious inconsistency or interfering with an
action of another agency;
Materially altering the budgetary impact of entitlements
or the rights of entitlement recipients; or
Raising novel legal or policy issues.
MSHA has determined that this is a not a significant regulatory
action under E.O. 12866.
B. E.O. 13771: Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs,
and E.O. 13924: Regulatory Relief To Support Economic Recovery
This proposed rule is not expected to be an E.O. 13771 regulatory
action, because this proposed rule is not significant under E.O. 12866.
As discussed above, the proposed use of VCS would have minimal total
costs, but it would have the benefit of streamlining product approval
and providing greater flexibility to potential market entrants and
therefore MSHA believes it will be deregulatory.
[[Page 73665]]
MSHA also believes the proposal meets policy goals of E.O. 13924:
It reflects the efforts of businesses to comply with often-complex
approval regulations, and it provides businesses with the confidence
that requesting approvals covered by this proposal will allow them to
meet a single set of standards as they plan product development for
global markets.
VI. Feasibility
Economic feasibility is related to an entire industry rather than
individual firms. In the E.O. 12866 and E.O. 13563 section above, MSHA
discussed that global manufacturers of products for mining already
successfully use the VCS for mining outside the U.S. The proposal would
provide MSHA and most manufacturers increased flexibility for approval
of existing or new equipment for use in gassy mines. Although some
businesses might choose not to seek new approvals, MSHA could not
identify any product that would likely leave the U.S. market without
the availability of an alternative. MSHA has concluded that the
requirements of the proposed rule would be both technologically and
economically feasible.
VII. Regulatory Flexibility Act; Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act; and E.O. 13272
MSHA has analyzed the overall compliance cost impact of the
proposed rule on small entities. No current approval holder would be
required to make a product change due to this proposal. A small entity
would make application for an extension or new approval only if the
financial benefit outweighs new costs. For new product approvals, the
existing MSHA approval requirement costs would be replaced by
compliance costs of the VCS. Because MSHA cannot know what products
would be submitted for approval, it is not possible to quantify how
much different the costs would be. Based on the discussions between
MSHA and applicants described previously, MSHA believes the MSHA
standards to be more burdensome, and the Agency projects cost
reductions for some small entities. For E.O. 13272 considerations of
the applicable statutes, there are no new mandated direct costs of this
proposed rule. MSHA proposes to certify that the rule would not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Therefore, the Agency is not required to develop an initial regulatory
flexibility analysis.
VIII. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
The Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) 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 (44 U.S.C. 3501). There are no new information collections
associated with this proposed rule.
IX. Other Regulatory Considerations
A. The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
MSHA has reviewed the proposed rule under the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.). MSHA has determined that
this proposed rule does not include any Federal mandate that may result
in increased expenditures by State, local, or tribal governments. Since
the proposed 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.
B. E.O. 13132: Federalism
The proposed rule does not have ``federalism implications'' because
it would 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.
C. E.O. 12630: Government Actions and Interference With
Constitutionally Protected Property Rights
The proposed rule does not implement a policy with takings
implications. Accordingly, under E.O. 12630, no further Agency action
or analysis is required.
D. E.O. 12988: Civil Justice Reform
The proposed 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.
E. E.O. 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal
Governments
This proposed rule does not have ``tribal implications'' because it
would 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.
F. E.O. 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
proposed rule for its energy effects. There are no costs associated
with this proposed rule. For the energy analysis, this rule would not
exceed the relevant criteria for adverse impact.
G. Congressional Review Act
Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.),
this proposed rule is not a ``major rule,'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
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.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, and under the authority of
the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977, as amended by the Mine
Improvement and New Emergency Response Act of 2006, MSHA proposes to
amend chapter I of title 30 of the Code of Federal Regulations as
follows:
PART 18--ELECTRIC MOTOR-DRIVEN MINE EQUIPMENT AND ACCESSORIES
0
1. The authority citation for part 18 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 30 U.S.C. 957, 961.
0
2. Amend Sec. 18.2 by:
0
a. Revising the definition for ``Permissible equipment''; and
0
b. Adding in alphabetical order the definitions for ``Voluntary
consensus
[[Page 73666]]
standard'' and ``Voluntary consensus standards body.''
The revision and additions read as follows:
Sec. 18.2 Definitions.
* * * * *
Permissible equipment means a completely assembled electrical
machine or accessory for which an approval has been issued.
* * * * *
Voluntary consensus standard means a safety standard that:
(1) Is developed or adopted by a voluntary consensus standards
body; and
(2) Prescribes safety requirements applicable to equipment for
which applicants are seeking approval, certification, extension, or
acceptance under this part.
Voluntary consensus standards body means a domestic or
international organization that plans, develops, establishes, or
coordinates voluntary consensus standards using agreed-upon procedures
that are consistent with the National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 3710) and the Office of Management
and Budget's Circular A-119 (Jan. 27, 2016).
Sec. 18.6 [Amended]
0
3. Amend Sec. 18.6 by removing the third sentence in paragraph (e).
0
4. Amend Sec. 18.15 by revising paragraph (c) to read as follows:
Sec. 18.15 Changes after approval or certification.
* * * * *
(c) An application for a formal extension of approval or
certification must have a list of new or revised drawings,
specifications, and information related to the changes to be added to
those already on file for the original approval or certification. MSHA
will issue a formal extension of approval or certification to a
completely assembled electrical machine or accessory, if each component
of such electrical machine or accessory:
(1) Meets the requirements applied to the last approval,
certification, or extension thereof; or
(2) Meets voluntary consensus standard requirements listed in this
part that apply to those components if the applicant chooses to use the
requirements of the voluntary consensus standards.
* * * * *
0
5. Add subpart F, consisting of Sec. Sec. 18.101 through 18.103, to
read as follows:
Subpart F--Voluntary Consensus Standards
Sec.
18.101 Acceptance and use of voluntary consensus standards.
18.102 Approved voluntary consensus standards.
18.103 Review and update of applicable voluntary consensus
standards.
Sec. 18.101 Acceptance and use of voluntary consensus standards.
(a) MSHA will accept 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 to replace the requirements in subparts B through E of
this part.
(b) For applications submitted on or after [effective date of final
rule] until [date 12 months after the effective date of final rule], 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 voluntary consensus standard requirements listed in this
part that apply to those components.
(c) For applications submitted on or after [date 12 months after
the effective date of the final rule], an approval will be issued in
accordance with subpart A of this part for a completely assembled
electrical machine or accessory, if the components of such machine or
accessory:
(1) Meet the requirements of the voluntary consensus standards
listed in this part that apply to those components; and
(2) Meet the requirements of subparts B through E of this part that
apply to components if no voluntary consensus standard listed in this
part applies.
Sec. 18.102 Approved voluntary consensus standards.
(a) MSHA has determined that the provisions associated with the
Group and Levels of Protection provisions of the voluntary consensus
standards listed in paragraph (b) of this section are suitable for
gassy mining environments and will provide the protection for against
fire or explosion if used in their entirety and without modification to
replace the requirements in subparts B through E of this part.
(b) 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 material is available for
inspection at U.S. Department of Labor, Mine Safety and Health
Administration, 765 Technology Drive, Triadelphia, WV 26059, Tel: (304)
547-0400, and is available from the sources indicated in this paragraph
(b). It is also available for inspection at the National Archives and
Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of
this material at NARA, email [email protected] or go to
www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.
(1) International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC), 3 rue de
Varemb[eacute], 1st Floor, P.O. Box 131, CH-1211 Geneva 20,
Switzerland, Tel: +41 22 919 0211 (https://www.iec.ch/).
(i) IEC 60079-0, Ed. 7, Explosive atmospheres--Part 0: Equipment--
General requirements (Group I), dated December 13, 2017;
(ii) IEC 60079-1 Ed. 7, Standard for Explosive Atmospheres--Part 1:
Equipment Protection by Flameproof Enclosures ``d'' (Group I, Level of
Protection `da'), dated June 27, 2014;
(iii) IEC 60079-11, Ed. 6, Explosive Atmospheres--Part 11:
Equipment Protection by Intrinsic Safety ``i'' (Group I, Level of
Protection `ia'), dated June 30, 2011;
(iv) IEC 60079-18, Ed. 4.1, Explosive Atmospheres--Part 18:
Equipment Protection by Encapsulation ``m'' (Group I, Level of
Protection `ma'), dated August 25, 2017;
(v) IEC 60079-25 Ed. 3, Explosive Atmospheres--Part 25:
Intrinsically Safe Electrical Systems (Group I, Level of Protection
`ia'), dated June 26, 2020; and
(vi) 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'), dated May 27,
2015.
(2) International Society of Automation (ISA), 67 T.W. Alexander
Drive, P.O. Box 12277, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, Tel: (919)
549-8411 (https://www.isa.org).
(i) 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; and
(ii) 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.
(3) UL LLC, Comm 2000, 151 Eastern Avenue, Bensenville, IL 60106,
Tel: (888) 853-3503 (https://www.ul.com).
(i) ANSI/UL 60079-0 Ed. 7, Explosive Atmospheres--Part 0:
Equipment--
[[Page 73667]]
General Requirements (Group I), dated March 26, 2019;
(ii) ANSI/UL 60079-1 Ed. 7, Standard for Explosive Atmospheres--
Part 1: Equipment Protection by Flameproof Enclosures ``d'' (Group I,
Level of Protection `da'), dated September 18, 2015;
(iii) ANSI/UL 60079-11 Ed. 6, Standard for Explosive Atmospheres--
Part 11: Equipment Protection by Intrinsic Safety ``i'' (Group I, Level
of Protection `ia'), dated February 15, 2013;
(iv) ANSI/UL 60079-18, Ed. 4, Standard for Explosive Atmospheres--
Part 18: Equipment Protection by Encapsulation ``m'' (Group I, Level of
Protection `ma'), dated December 14, 2015;
(v) ANSI/UL 60079-25 Ed. 2, Standard for Explosive Atmospheres--
Part 25: Intrinsically Safe Electrical Systems (Group I, Level of
Protection `ia'), dated December 2, 2011; and
(vi) ANSI/UL 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'), dated September
15, 2017.
(4) The voluntary consensus standards listed in this paragraph (b)
may also be obtained from the American National Standards Institute,
1899 L Street NW, 11th Floor, Washington, DC 20036, Tel: (202) 293-8020
(https://www.ansi.org).
Sec. 18.103 Review and update of applicable voluntary consensus
standards.
(a) MSHA will review more recent editions of voluntary consensus
standards listed in Sec. 18.102 to determine whether they can be used
in their entirety and without modification to replace the requirements
in subparts B through E of this part.
(b) MSHA may review voluntary consensus standards not listed in
Sec. 18.102 to determine whether such standards are suitable for gassy
mining environments and whether they provide protection against fire or
explosion, if substituted in their entirety and without modification to
replace the requirements in subparts B through E of this part.
(c) Following such review and determination, MSHA will use the
appropriate rulemaking process to publish a list of voluntary consensus
standards that it accepts in lieu of the requirements in subparts B
through E of this part.
PART 74--COAL MINE DUST SAMPLING DEVICES
0
6. The authority citation for part 74 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 30 U.S.C. 957.
Sec. Sec. 74.5 and 74.11 [Amended]
0
7. In Sec. Sec. 74.5(b) and 74.11(d), remove ``30 CFR 18.68'' and add
in its place the term ``30 CFR part 18.''
David G. Zatezalo,
Assistant Secretary of Labor for Mine Safety and Health.
[FR Doc. 2020-22589 Filed 11-18-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4520-43-P