Mine Safety and Health Administration
Protecting Miners' Safety and Health Since 1978
|
U.S. Department of Labor Mine Safety and Health Administration Protecting Miners' Safety and Health Since 1978 |
|
 |
www.msha.gov |  |
|
|
|
SUPPORTING STATEMENT FOR PAPERWORK
REDUCTION ACT SUBMISSIONS Proposed Rule: Testing and
Evaluation by Independent Laboratories and Non-MSHA Product Safety Standards NOTE:
This paperwork package addresses the proposed procedures for testing and
evaluation of MSHA approved products for use in underground mining. It would
give manufacturers of certain products who seek MSHA approval the option of
using MSHA or an independent laboratory to perform testing and evaluation for
MSHA product approval. In addition, it would also permit manufacturers to have
their products approved based upon non-MSHA product safety standards, provided
that MSHA has determined that the non-MSHA standards are equivalent to MSHA's
requirements or can be modified to provide at least the same measure of
protection for the miner. The paperwork requirements for applications for
approval by MSHA of products and equipment under 30 CFR parts 18, 19, 20, 22,
23, 27, 33, 35, and 36 are cleared under OMB Control Number 1219-0066. A. JUSTIFICATION 1.
Explain the circumstances
that make the collection of information necessary. Identify any legal or administrative requirements that
necessitate the collection. Attach a
copy of the appropriate section of each statute and of each regulation mandating
or authorizing the collection of information. Under the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of
1977 (Pub. L. 91-173 as amended by Pub. L. 95-164) (Mine Act)), the Mine Safety
and Health Administration (MSHA) is required to approve certain products and equipment
for use in underground mines. This
approval indicates that MSHA's specifications and tests, designed to ensure
that a product will not present a fire, explosion, or other specific safety
hazard related to its use, have been met.
This proposed rule would establish alternate requirements for testing
and evaluation of products MSHA approves for use in gassy underground
mines. It would permit manufacturers of
certain products, who seek MSHA approval, to use an independent laboratory to
perform, in whole or part, the necessary testing and/or evaluation for
approval, if they choose to do so. The
proposed rule also would permit manufacturers to have their products approved
based on non-MSHA product safety standards, if they desired. This would only occur after MSHA has
determined that such standards are equivalent to its applicable product
approval requirements or can be modified to provide at least the same degree of
protection as those MSHA requirements.
The proposed rule should increase the availability of a wider variety of
mining products having enhanced safety features by reducing costs and
broadening the market for mining equipment. Section 6.10(a)(1) through (a)(3); 6.10(d) and
6.10(f) contain paperwork requirements.
Under § 6.10, applicants seeking MSHA product approval would have
to provide the information stated in paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(4) for MSHA
to accept testing and evaluation performed by an independent laboratory. Currently, applications require only
information requested in paragraph (a)(4). Paragraph (a)(1) would require “written evidence of
the laboratory’s independence and current recognition by a laboratory
accrediting organization.”
Paragraph (a)(2) would require “a complete technical explanation of
how the product complies with each requirement in the applicable MSHA product
approval requirements.”
Paragraph (a)(3) would require “identification of components or
features of the product that are critical to the safety of the product.” The information in paragraphs (a)(1) through
(a)(3) would be completed by the independent laboratory and supplied to the
applicant, who would then send it to MSHA as part of its application. Information requested in paragraphs (a)(1)
through (a)(3) is needed for the proposed rule because MSHA would no longer be
performing all the tests and evaluations associated with the approval
application. It is important to know
that the laboratory has the independence to ensure the objectivity and accuracy
of any testing and evaluation performed.
It is also crucial that the laboratory be recognized by a laboratory
accrediting organization to ensure the laboratory has the competence,
resources, and personnel capable of performing the necessary testing and
evaluation. In addition, the
information in paragraphs (a)(2) and (a)(3) is needed to determine if the
product complies with the applicable approval requirements. Certain test and evaluation requirements in product
safety standards used by independent laboratories are similar to MSHA’s current
approval requirements. Applicants
routinely have such tests and evaluations performed by an independent
laboratory when seeking a non-MSHA approval or listing. Generally, under the circumstances of this
proposed rule, some applicants, before requesting an MSHA product approval
either based on MSHA’s approval requirements or non-MSHA product safety
standards that are equivalent to MSHA’s approval requirements, may already have
had an independent laboratory perform some portion of the tests and evaluations
that are also needed to obtain an MSHA product approval. It is with regard to these test and
evaluation results that MSHA would require the data requested in paragraphs
(a)(1) through (a)(3). The costs of the
tests and evaluations performed by an independent laboratory would have already
occurred before the applicant files an MSHA product approval application. Therefore, the only costs to applicants
associated with §6.10(a)(1) through (a)(3) would be those related to
passing on the information required in these provisions to MSHA that the
applicant has received from the independent laboratory. Section 6.10(a)(2)
Compliance Costs Associated with § 6.10(d): If an independent laboratory conducts any
additional or repeat testing, then the applicant would have to send the test
results to MSHA. This is true even if
MSHA observes the testing performed by the independent laboratory. However, if MSHA performs additional or
repeat testing itself, then it is not necessary for the applicant to send in
the test results to MSHA. Sending
additional or repeat testing results to MSHA is covered under
§ 6.10(a)(2). Information
concerning § 6.10(a)(1) and (a)(3) that was sent to MSHA with the original
approval application would not have to be sent again as a result of any
additional or repeat testing. Section 6.10(f): Paragraph (f) of § 6.10 would require
that, once the product is approved, the approval holder must notify MSHA of all
product defects of which the approval holder is aware. MSHA expects that such defects would occur
and be reported very infrequently. 2. Indicate how, by whom, and for what purpose
the information is to be used. Except
for a new collection, indicate the actual use the agency has made of the
information received from the current collection. The respondents for the paperwork provisions of
this revised proposed rule are manufacturers applying to MSHA for product
approvals. The information would be
used by staff at our Approval and Certification Center to analyze approval
applications to determine if they comply with the approval regulations. The information would show whether the tests
and examinations were properly conducted, whether the laboratory was
independent and competent to perform the testing and evaluation, and whether
the approval requirements were met. 3. Describe whether, and to what extent, the
collection of information involves the use of automated, electronic,
mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of
information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses,
and the basis for the decision for adopting this means of collection. Also describe any consideration of using
information technology to reduce burden. N/A- No improved information technology has been
identified that would reduce the burden. 4. Describe efforts to identify
duplication. Show specifically why any
similar information already available cannot be used or modified for use for
the purpose(s) described in 2 above. MSHA’s Approval and Certification Center is the
only Center in the country which is authorized to approve equipment and certain
products for use in mines. Therefore,
it is unlikely that there would be a duplication because of this unique
function. 5. If the collection of information impacts
small businesses or other small entities (Item 5 of OMB Form 83-I), describe
any methods used to minimize burden. It should be noted that MSHA’s approval regulations
apply equally to all manufacturers regardless of size to ensure that miners are
protected from products that could cause a fire or explosion or other safety
hazard related to use. The information
collection requirements of the revised proposed rule would only apply if an
applicant for product approval chooses to use an independent laboratory to
perform any other testing and evaluation required under the applicable approval
regulations. The applicant would only
need to pass on to MSHA information which the independent laboratory would
generally already have available. 6. Describe the consequence to Federal program
or policy activities if the collection is not conducted or is conducted less
frequently, as well as any technical or legal obstacles to reducing burden. It is important to emphasize that MSHA-approved
products for use underground are designed to meet technical requirements so
they do not cause a fire or explosion or other safety hazard related to
use. This is one way in which the
health and safety of the mining industry’s “most precious resource - the miner”
is protected from such hazards. (See
Section 2 of the 1977 Mine Act). If the
proposed information collections discussed in question 1 were not conducted,
the consequences would be severe. The
integrity of MSHA’s product approvals would be adversely affected and unsafe
products could be introduced into the mines.
Once a product is approved, the approval-holder is authorized to place a
MSHA approval marking on the product which identifies it as approved for use
underground. Use of the marking
obligates the manufacturer to maintain the quality of the product. The MSHA marking indicates to the mining
community that the product meets the technical requirements and has been
manufactured according to the drawings and specifications approved. If MSHA were unable to obtain from
approval-holders products for audit and information regarding product defects,
it would hamper efforts to enforce manufacturers’ obligation to maintain
quality assurance of their products.
Moreover, it would be difficult to effectively assure the mining
community that products required to be approved for use underground are in fact
safe for use. 7. Explain any special circumstances that would
cause an information collection to be conducted in a manner: $
requiring respondents to
report information to the agency more often than quarterly; $
requiring respondents to
prepare a written response to a collection of information in fewer than 30 days
after receipt of it; $
requiring respondents to
submit more than an original and two copies of any document; $
requiring respondents to
retain records, other than health, medical, government contract, rant-in-aid,
or tax records for more than three years; $
in connection with a
statistical survey, that is not designed to produce valid and reliable results
that can be generalized to the universe of study; $
requiring the use of a
statistical data classification that has not been reviewed and approved by OMB; $
that includes a pledge of
confidentiality that is not supported by authority established in statute or
regulation, that is not supported by disclosure and data security policies that
are consistent with the pledge, or which unnecessarily impedes sharing of data
with other agencies for compatible confidential use; or $
requiring respondents to
submit proprietary trade secret, or other confidential information unless the
agency can demonstrate that it has instituted procedures to protect the
information's confidentiality to the extent permitted by law. Proposed collection of information is consistent
with the guidelines in 5 CFR 1320.5. 8. If applicable, provide a copy and identify
the data and page number of publication in the Federal Register of the agency's
notice, required by 5 CFR 1320.8(d), soliciting comments on the information
collection prior to submission to OMB. Summarize public comments received in
response to that notice and describe actions taken by the agency in response to
these comments. Specifically address comments received on cost and hour burden.
Describe efforts to consult with persons outside the agency to obtain their
views on the availability of data, frequency of collection, the clarity of
instructions and recordkeeping, disclosure, or reporting format (if any), and
on the data elements to be recorded, disclosed, or reported. Consultation with representatives of those
from whom information is to be obtained or those who must compile records
should occur at least once every 3 years -- even if the collection of
information activity is the same as in prior periods. There may be
circumstances that may preclude consultation in a specific situation. These
circumstances should be explained. MSHA will publish the information collection
requirements in the Federal Register, notifying the public that these
information collection requirements are being reviewed in accordance with the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, and giving interested persons 60 days to
submit comments. 9. Explain any decision to provide any payment
or gift to respondents, other than remuneration of contractors or grantees. MSHA has not provided payments or gifts to the
respondents. 10. Describe any assurance of confidentiality
provided to respondents and the basis for the assurance in statute, regulation,
or agency policy. MSHA considers information submitted as part of
applications for product approval, especially information regarding product’s
specifications and performance, as proprietary. See for example, 30 CFR 15.9, 18.9, and 36.9. Product approval applications are kept at
the Approval and Certification Center in a restricted area that is accessible
only to supervisors and Center employees responsible for handling these
records. This is a secured area in
which proprietary and confidential information is safeguarded against
violations of 18 U.S.C. 1905 and 5 CFR 552(b)(4). The Center maintains a high level of security on entering the
building which houses mine operators’ documents. All visitors entering the building are required to wear badges
that are easily visible on a person's outer clothing. These badges identify persons as visitors to the Center, which
facilitates control within secure areas.
Employees are issued DOL identification cards that are required to be
shown to security guards upon request. 11. Provide additional justification for any
questions of a sensitive nature, such as sexual behavior and attitudes,
religious beliefs, and other matters that are commonly considered private. This justification should include the
reasons why the agency considers the questions necessary, the specific uses to
be made of the information, the explanation to be given to persons form whom
the information is requested, and any steps to be taken to obtain their
consent. NA - There are no questions of a sensitive
nature. 12. Provide estimates of the hour burden of the
collection of information. The statement should: $
Indicate the number of
respondents, frequency of response, annual hour
burden, and an explanation of how the burden was estimated. Unless directed to
do so, agencies should not conduct special surveys to obtain information on
which to base hour burden estimates. Consultation with a sample (fewer than 10)
of potential respondents is desirable. If the hour burden on respondents is
expected to vary widely because of differences in activity, size, or
complexity, show the range of estimated hour burden, and explain the reasons
for the variance. Generally, estimates should not include burden hours for
customary and usual business practices. $
If this request for
approval covers more than one form, provide separate hour burden estimates for
each form and aggregate the hour burdens in Item 13 of OMB Form 83-I. $
Provide estimates of
annualized cost to respondents for the hour burdens for collections of
information, identifying and using appropriate wage rate categories. The cost
of contracting out or paying outside parties for information collection
activities should not be included here. Instead, this cost should be included
in Item 13. The Table below summarizes
the total annual burden hours and costs associated with the part 6 revised
proposal. Annually the revised proposal
would impose 29 paperwork burden hours, with associated costs of $645. Applicants seeking MSHA product approval
that employ 500 or fewer workers would incur 16 paperwork burden hours and
related costs of $344. Applicants
seeking MSHA product approval that employ more than 500 workers would incur 13
paperwork burden hours and related costs of $301.
1See
Calculation No. 1
2See
Calculation No. 2
3See Calculation No. 3 Note
that in some cases below our estimates may appear to deviate slightly from the
sum or product of their component factors, but that is only because the
component factors have been rounded for the purpose of readability. Under §6.10, applicants
seeking MSHA product approval would have to provide the information stated in
paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(4) for MSHA to accept testing and evaluation
performed by an independent laboratory.
Currently, applications require only information requested in paragraph
(a)(4). Information requested in
paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(3) is needed for the revised proposal because
MSHA would no longer be performing all the tests and evaluations associated
with the approval application. Paragraph (a)(1) would
require “written evidence of the laboratory’s independence and current
recognition by a laboratory accrediting organization.” Paragraph (a)(2) would require “a
complete technical explanation of how the product complies with each requirement
in the applicable MSHA product approval requirements.” Paragraph (a)(3) would require
“identification of components or features of the product that are critical to
the safety of the product.” The
information in paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(3) would be completed by the
independent laboratory and supplied to the applicant, who would then send it to
MSHA. Certain test and evaluation
requirements required under non‑MSHA product safety standards used by
independent laboratories are similar to MSHA’s current approval
requirements. Applicants routinely have
such tests and evaluations performed by an independent laboratory when seeking
a non-MSHA approval or listing.
Generally, under the circumstances of this revised proposal, before
requesting an MSHA product approval either based on MSHA’s approval
requirements or non-MSHA product safety standards that are equivalent to MSHA’s
approval requirements, applicants would already have had an independent
laboratory perform some portion of the tests and evaluations that are also
needed to obtain an MSHA product approval.
It is with regard to these test and evaluation results that MSHA would
require the data requested in paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(3). The costs of the tests and evaluations
performed by an independent laboratory would have already occurred before the
applicant files an MSHA product approval application. Therefore, the only costs to applicants associated with
§610(a)(1) through (a)(3) would be those related to passing on the information
required in these provisions to MSHA that the applicant has received from the
independent laboratory. Table IV-3 of the
Preliminary Regulatory Economic Analysis (PREA) shows a total of 16
applications annually (10 applications for those employing 500 or fewer workers
and six applications for those employing more than 500 workers) for which
applicants would be expected to file under part 6 requesting an MSHA approval
based on independent laboratory testing and evaluation to MSHA approval
requirements. Tables IV-4 through IV-9
of the PREA show a total of 79 applications (40 applications for those
employing 500 or fewer workers and 39 applications for those employing more
than 500 workers) for which applicants would be expected to file annually under
part 6 seeking an MSHA approval based on non-MSHA approval requirements that
are equivalent to MSHA’s approval requirements. Therefore, there would be an annual total of 95 anticipated
applications, 50 (40 + 10) applications associated with applicants
employing 500 or fewer workers and 45 (39 + 6) applications associated with
applicants employing more than 500 workers, for which the information requested
in paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(3) must be sent by the applicant to MSHA. MSHA estimates that a
clerical worker, earning $19.26 per hour, would take 15 minutes
(0.25 hours) per application to prepare and send the data requested in
paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(3). Calculation No. 1 lists
applicants annual burden hours and related costs to provide information
requested in §6.10 paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(3). Calculation No. 1:
Estimated Burden Hours < 500 workers: 50 applications x .25 hours = 12.5 hours > 500 workers: 45 applications x .25 hours = 11.25 hours Total estimated burden hours = 23.75 hours Burden Hour Cost 23.75
hours x $19.26/hours = $457.43 Section 6.10(a)(2)
Compliance Costs Associated with §6.10(d) If an independent
laboratory conducts any additional or repeat testing, then the applicant would
have to send the test results to MSHA.
This is true even if MSHA observes the testing performed by the
independent laboratory. However, if
MSHA would perform additional or repeat testing itself, then it would not be
necessary for the applicant to send in the test results to MSHA. Sending additional or repeat testing results
to MSHA is covered under §6.10(a)(2).
Information concerning §6.10(a)(1) and (a)(3) that was sent to MSHA with
the original approval application would not have to be sent again as a result
of any additional or repeat testing. For applicants employing
500 or fewer workers, Table IV-11(A) of the PREA shows 16 applications that
would involve additional or repeat testing.
Of these 16 applications, MSHA estimates that six applications would
involve testing performed by an independent laboratory. For applicants employing
more than 500 worker, Table IV-11(B) of the PREA shows 11 applications that
would involve additional or repeat testing.
Of these 11 applications, MSHA estimates that two applications would
involve testing performed by an independent laboratory. MSHA estimates that a
clerical worker, earning $19.26 per hour, would take 15 minutes
(0.25 hours) per application to prepare and send the test results
requested in §6.10(a)(2). Calculation No. 2 shows
applicants’ annual burden hours and related costs to provide the information
requested in §6.10(a)(2) for the additional or repeat testing required under
§6.10(d). Calculation No. 2: Estimated Burden Hours < 500
workers: 6 applications x
.25 hours = 1.5 hours > 500 workers: 2
applications x .25 hours =
0.5 hours Total
estimated burden hours = 2 hours Burden Hour Cost 2 hours x $19.26/hours = $38.52 Section 6.10(f) Notification of Defective Products Paragraph (f) of §6.10
would require that, once the product is approved, the approval holder would
have to notify MSHA of all product defects of which the approval holder is
aware. MSHA expects that such defects
would occur and be reported very infrequently.
MSHA estimates that annually one applicant employing 500 or fewer
workers and one applicant employing more than 500 workers would notify MSHA of
a defective approved product. A
supervisor earning $49.68 per hour is estimated to take 1.5 hours to notify
MSHA in writing about a product defect. Calculation No. 3 shows the
annual costs for applicants to notify MSHA of product defects required by
§6.10(f). Calculation No. 3:
Estimated Burden Hours < 500 workers: 1applicant x 1.5 hours =
1.5
hours > 500 workers: 1 applicant x 1.5 hours =
1.5
hours Total estimated burden hours = 3.0 hours Burden Hour Cost 3.0
hours x $49.68/hours = $149.04 13.
Provide an estimate of the
total annual cost burden to respondents or recordkeepers resulting from the
collection of information. (Do not include the cost of any hour burden shown in
Items 13 and 15.) ·
The cost estimate should be
split into two components: (a) a total capital and start-up cost component
(annualized over its expected useful life); and (b) a total operation and
maintenance and purchase of services component. The estimates should take into
account costs associated with generating, maintaining, and disclosing or
providing the information. Include descriptions of methods used to estimate
major cost factors including system and technology acquisition, expected useful
life of capital equipment, the discount rate(s), and the time period over which
costs will be incurred. Capital and start-up costs include, among other items,
preparations for collecting information such as purchasing computers and
software; monitoring, sampling, drilling and testing equipment; and record
storage facilities. ·
If cost estimates are
expected to vary widely, agencies should present ranges of cost burdens and
explain the reasons for the variance. The cost of purchasing or contracting out
information collection services should be a part of this cost burden estimate.
In developing cost burden estimates, agencies may consult with a sample of
respondents (fewer than 10), utilize the 60-day pre-OMB submission public
comment process and use existing economic or regulatory impact analysis
associated with the rulemaking containing the information collection, as appropriate. ·
Generally, estimates should
not include purchases of equipment or services, or portions thereof, made: (1)
prior to October 1, 1995, (2) to achieve regulatory compliance with
requirements not associated with the information collection, (3) for reasons
other than to provide information or keep records for the government, or (4) as
part of customary and usual business or private practices. Section 6.10(d) Compliance costs Paragraph (d) would
require, after review of the information submitted under paragraphs (a)(1)
through (a)(4), that MSHA notify the applicant if additional information and/or
testing is needed. Either MSHA or an
independent laboratory would conduct the additional or repeated tests. In either case, the applicant would have to
assume the expense. In addition, if an
independent laboratory were to conduct the tests, MSHA would have the option of
observing the tests. No matter who does
the additional or repeat testing the applicant would assume the expense. If MSHA chooses to observe an additional or
repeat test performed by an independent laboratory the applicant would have to
pay for MSHA’s travel and lodging expenses. For applicants employing
500 or fewer workers, MSHA estimates 16 applications annually would involve
additional or repeat testing. The 16
applications consist of: 10 Part 18 Intrinsically Safe (IS) applications; 2
Part 18 Conveyor Belt Flame-Resistant Material (FRM) applications; and 1
application each for Parts 18 Explosion-Proof (XP), 22, 23, and 35. Of these applications, MSHA estimates that
six applications annually would involve MSHA’s’ observing additional or repeat
testing: two part 18 Flame-Resistant Material (FRM) applications and one
application each for parts 18(XP), 18(IS), 22, and 35. Part 18(XP) testing costs
are estimated to be between $4,000 to $5,000 per application, for an average
cost of $4,500. Part 22 testing costs are estimated to be $2,000 per
application. Part 18 (FRM) testing
costs are estimated to be $1,000. Parts
18(IS), 23, and 35 each have testing costs estimated to be $500. Travel costs are estimated to be between
$1,000 and $2,000, for an average of $1,500. The table below shows
annual costs for additional testing that would be required by §6.10 paragraph
(d) for applicants employing 500 or fewer workers.
|