1219-0066 Final

1219-0066 Final.pdf

Permissible Equipment Testing

OMB: 1219-0066

⚠️ Notice: This form may be outdated. More recent filings and information on OMB 1219-0066 can be found here:

Document [pdf]

Download: pdf | pdf

1219-0066

SUPPORTING STATEMENT
Testing, Evaluation, and Approval of Mining Products, 30 CFR
Subchapter B - Parts 6 through 36
Part 6 (§§ 6.10(a), (d),)

Testing and Evaluation by
Independent Laboratories and NonMSHA Product Safety Standards

Part 7 (§§ 7.3, 7.4, 7.6, 7.7,
7.23, 7.27, 7.28, 7.43,
7.46, 7.47, 7.48, 7.49, 7.51,
7.63, 7.69, 7.71, 7.83, 7.90,
7.97, 7.105, 7.108, 7.303,
7.306, 7.309, 7.311, 7.403,
7.407, 7.408, 7.409, 7.411)
Testing by Applicant or Third
Party:
Subpart A
General
Subpart B
Brattice Cloth and Ventilation
Tubing;
Subpart C
Battery Assemblies;
Subpart D
Multiple-Shot Blasting Units;
Subpart E
Diesel Engines Intended for Use in
Underground Coal Mines;
Subpart F
Diesel Power Packages Intended for
Use in Areas of Underground Coal
Mines Where Permissible Electric
Equipment is Required;
Subpart J
Electric Motor Assemblies;
Subpart K
Electric Cables, Signaling Cables,
and Cable Splice Kits
Part 15 (§§ 15.4, 15.8)

Part 18 (§§ 18.6, 18.15,
18.53(h), 18.81,18.82,
18.93, 18.94)

Part 19 (§§ 19.3, 19.13)

Requirements for Approval of
Explosives and Sheathed Explosive
Units

Electrical Motor Driven Mine
Equipment and Accessories
Electric Cap Lamps

June 2008
1

1219-0066
Part 20 (§§ 20.3, 20.14)

Part 22 (§§ 22.4, 22.8,
22.11)

Electric Mine Lamps Other
Than Standard Cap Lamps

Portable Methane Detectors

Part 23 (§§ 23.3, 23.7, 23.10,
23.12, 23.14)
Telephones and Signaling
Devices
Part 27 (§§ 27.4, 27.6,
27.11)
Part 28 (§§ 28.10, 28.23,
28.25, 28.30, 28.31)

Part 33 (§§ 33.6, 33.12)

Part 35 (§§ 35.6, 35.10,
35.12)

Part 36 (§§ 36.6, 36.12)

Methane-Monitoring Systems

Fuses for Use with Direct
Current in Providing Short-Circuit
Protection for Trailing Cables in
Coal Mines
Dust Collectors for Use In
Connection with Rock
Drilling In Coal Mines

Fire-Resistant Hydraulic
Fluids
Approval Requirements for
Permissible Mobile Diesel-Powered
Transportation Equipment

June 2008
2

1219-0066

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 regulation mandating
or authorizing the collection of information.

Under section 508 of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act
of 1977 (Mine Act), the Mine Safety and Health Administration
(MSHA) is authorized to regulate mining equipment or other
products necessary for use in mines to protect the safety and
health of miners. For example, section 305(a)(1) requires that
all junction or distribution boxes, handheld electric drills,
blower and exhaust fans, and other electrical equipment used at
the face of an underground gassy mine shall be "permissible."
The Mine Act in sections 318(c) and 318(i) defines
"permissible" to mean explosives or equipment including
electrically operated, whether used at the face or not, in which
the Secretary requires an approval plate, label, or other device
to be attached. For this approval, the equipment must meet the
Secretary's specifications for construction, maintenance, design,
or other specifications as prescribed by MSHA to assure that the
equipment will not cause a mine explosion or a mine fire.
Explosives also must meet MSHA specifications. MSHA also may
prescribe the use of explosives and equipment in this approval.
In addition, section 101(a)(7) of the Mine Act requires MSHA
to prescribe the use of labels or other necessary forms to
provide miners information that will protect their safety and
health.
The mining products that MSHA approves range from extremely
small electronic devices to very large complex mining systems.
The Agency's approval regulations are contained in 30 CFR parts
6, 7, 15, 18, 19, 20, 22, 23, 27, 28, 33, 35, and 36. MSHA
evaluates and tests these mining products and issues approvals,
certifications, or acceptances. An approval is issued to a
completely assembled machine or system, or to an explosive; a
certification is issued to a component or subsystem of a
completely assembled machine or system; and an acceptance is
issued for materials and certain other products.
An approval1 of a mining product constitutes a license
1 Approval will be used to represent MSHA granting an approval,
certification, or acceptance because the general application processes are

June 2008
3

1219-0066
authorizing the approval-holder to build and distribute the
product for use in underground mines, to display an MSHA marking
with an approval number, and to advertise the product as "MSHAapproved." The approval-holder accepts the responsibility for
constructing or formulating the product in exact accordance with
drawings, specifications, and use that accompanies the approval
letter.
MSHA regulations at 30 C.F.R. parts 6 through 36 contain
application, testing and inspection procedures, and quality
control procedures for the approval of mining equipment or
explosives used in both underground and surface coal, metal, and
nonmetal mines. Except for parts 6 and 7, MSHA conducts most of
the testing and evaluation of products for a fee paid by the
applicant; although some regulations require the manufacturer to
pretest the product. Upon MSHA approval, the manufacturer must
ensure that the product continues to conform to the
specifications and design evaluated and approved by MSHA. In
some instances, as part of the approval process, manufacturers
are required to have a quality control or assurance plan. In
addition, some parts provide for product and manufacturing audits
as well as the reporting of problems with products approved.
Title 30 C.F.R. §§ 15.4, 18.6, 18.81, 18.82, 18.93, 18.94,
19.3, 19.10, 20.3, 20.11, 22.4, 22.8, 23.3, 23.10, 27.4, 27.6,
28.10, 33.6, 35.6, and 36.6 require applicants seeking product
approval to submit an application that includes all the
specifications, drawings, and other information needed for the
approval. This information is crucial for MSHA to evaluate,
test, and possibly approve products in mines that do not cause a
fire or explosion risk in a mine.
Some products have separate requirements for applications
for extensions of approvals: §§ 18.15, 19.13, 20.14, 22.11,
23.14, 27.11, 28.25, 33.12, 35.12, and 36.12. For extension of
approvals, the applicant is not required to resubmit
documentation duplicative or previously submitted for the
approval. Only information related to changes in the previously
approved product is required, avoiding unnecessary paperwork.
An extension of approval is required for minor changes to
the approvals. If manufacturers make design changes to approved
similar.

June 2008
4

1219-0066
products, they must submit a new application. MSHA realized that
this may duplicate past efforts on both manufacturers and MSHA's;
therefore, MSHA created the Revised Approval Modification Program
(RAMP) Application Procedure. RAMP instructs approval-holders
how to apply for MSHA acceptance of proposed changes to the
design of their approved product.
For the approval of explosives and fuses, MSHA has required
an applicant once approved to have a quality assurance or control
plan. Under § 15.8(b), MSHA requires the approval holder to
report any knowledge of explosives distributed that do not meet
the specifications of the approval. Under §§ 28.10(d), 28.30,
and 28.31, MSHA requires the applicant to submit a quality
control plan for approval to assure that each fuse is
manufactured to have the short-circuit protection as required by
the approval. A quality assurance or quality control plan for
approved products provides substantial protection against the
distribution of defective products which could harm miners'
safety and health. The reporting of a defective product to MSHA
would come from the approval-holder's internal audits, reports
from users, or other sources, further enhances the safety of
miners because MSHA would work with the approval-holder to take
corrective action.
For high-voltage longwall mining systems, § 18.53(h), an
applicant must submit an "available fault current" study to MSHA
to justify circuit breaker settings to provide protection for the
size and length of the longwall motor and shearer cable used.
Proper electrical protection is essential in preventing a fire,
explosion or shock hazard resulting from inadequate sizing of
electrical cables.
For certain products which are dependent on proper use and
maintenance, MSHA requires the manufacturers to provide
additional information on the approval marking or instructions to
be included with the product. Under §§ 23.7(e), 23.12(a)(2),
28.23, and 35.10, MSHA requires this additional information for
the proper use of telephone and signaling systems, fuses, and
hydraulic fluids.
Title 30 C.F.R., parts 6 and 7 allow other parties to
perform product testing under certain circumstances. MSHA
retains the responsibility for evaluating the test results and
issuing the approval for all products tested under parts 6 and 7.
Part 6 permits authorized independent laboratories to
June 2008
5

1219-0066
perform in whole or part the necessary testing and/or evaluation
for MSHA product approval. Thus, 30 CFR part 6 increases the
availability of mining products with enhanced safety features by
reducing costs and broadening the market for mining equipment.
MSHA will accept testing and evaluation performed by an
independent laboratory for purposes of MSHA product approval
provided that MSHA receives as part of the application (§
6.10(a)(1) through (a)(4)) the following information:
•

“written evidence of the laboratory’s independence
and current recognition by a laboratory accrediting
organization;”

•

“a complete technical explanation of how the product
complies with each requirement in the applicable
MSHA product approval requirements;”

•

“identification of components or features of the
product that are critical to the safety of the
product;” and

•

“all documentation, including drawings and
specifications, as submitted to the independent
laboratory by the applicant… .”

This information would be completed by the independent
laboratory and supplied to the applicant, who would then send it
to MSHA as part of its application. The information requested
above is needed 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 the above paragraphs
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
June 2008
6

1219-0066
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) of § 6.10. 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 the
applicant passing the required information received from the
independent laboratory to MSHA.
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.
No approvals will be issued under part 6. Instead, any
approval issued based on part 6 provisions will continue to be
approved under the applicable MSHA-product approval parts. (30
C.F.R. parts 7 through 36). This above language was published as
a conforming part in the application procedures for each approval
part. The burden costs included as part 6 are the additional
costs not associated with applications under parts 7 through 36.
Only § 6.10(a)(4) are burden costs associated with the other
application packages.
Part 7:
Part 7 provides procedures whereby approved products are
tested by the applicant or a third party. Applicants are
required to maintain records of test results and procedures used
in testing for three years after completion of testing.
June 2008
7

1219-0066
Applicants must also maintain records of the distribution of each
product bearing an approval marking. MSHA retains the authority
to conduct post-approval audits of approved products for the
purpose of determining conformity with the technical requirements
upon which the approval was based.
The general requirements for the Part 7 approval process are
set out in Subpart A and the technical requirements for the
design and performance of particular products are set out in
subsequent subparts. Section 7.3 sets out the general procedures
and requirements an applicant is required to meet for MSHA
approval of a product. These application procedures set out the
original application, an application for similar products, and an
extension of approval. The technical documents required for
different products is specified in §§ 7.23, 7.43, 7.63, 7.83,
7.97, 7.303, and 7.403.
Under §§ 7.4, 7.27(a)(8), 7.28(a)(7), 7.46(a)(3),
7.47(a)(6), 7.48(a)(3), 7.407(a)(11)-(a)(12), 7.408(a)(7)-(a)(8)
records of test results and procedures must be retained for three
years. Retaining these records for three years will assist MSHA
in determining the possible cause of any problems which may be
detected during post-approval product audits.
Under § 7.6, applicants are required to maintain records on
the distribution of each unit with an approval marking. This is
necessary so that deficient products which may present a hazard
to miners can be traced and withdrawn from use until the
appropriate corrective action may be taken.
Under § 7.7(d), MSHA requires applicants to report to MSHA
any knowledge of a product distributed that is not in accord with
the approval.
Sections 7.51, 7.71, 7.108, and 7.311 require the applicant
to include an approval checklist with each product sold. These
checklists are important because they include a description of
what is necessary for users to maintain products in approved
condition.
Under §§ 7.69(c), (e), and (f), 7.90, 7.105, 7.306(d),
7.309, and 7.409, MSHA requires that additional information for
the proper use and maintenance be provided. Certain products
require more information for proper use and maintenance, so MSHA
requires the manufacturers to provide additional information on
June 2008
8

1219-0066
the approval marking or instructions to be included with the
product.
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.

Under 30 C.F.R. parts 6 through 36, MSHA investigates and
when applicable, tests all equipment or explosives for which
manufacturers submit an application, with the prescribed drawings
and specifications, for approval of equipment or explosives to be
used in mines. MSHA engineers and scientists use this
information to evaluate the design, construction, manufacture,
quality control, and other requirements to protect the safety and
health of miners prior to approval for use in mines.
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.

MSHA accepts approval applications and other correspondence
or information electronically via the Internet or e-mail.
Approval applicants are able to upload engineering drawings
(images) and files directly to the Arlington FTP (File Transfer
Protocol) site server or via the [email protected] e-mail account.
Applicants have been electronically submitting applications to
MSHA for over 8 years. Out of the 690 applications received at
MSHA in FY 2007, 560 of those were electronically submitted.
Since the way the applications are submitted (mail, fax, or email), not the preparation of the applications, there is only an
insignificant reduction of burden hours.
4. Describe efforts to identify duplication. Show specifically why any similar
information already available cannot be used or modified for use for the purposes
described in Item 2 above.

The applications, consisting of design specifications and
drawings and related correspondence, are usually unique for each
piece of equipment or product and any change in circuitry or
component may result in an unsafe condition. Therefore, any
similar information already available cannot be used to evaluate
and approve another instrument, machine, electric face equipment,
June 2008
9

1219-0066
non-electric face equipment or product used in mine operations.
MSHA is the only place in the country authorized to approve
equipment and certain products for use in mines. Therefore, it
is unlikely that there would be duplication because of this
unique function.
When MSHA permits third parties or manufacturers to test the
equipment or products, MSHA retains the responsibility for
evaluating the test results and issuing the approval for all
products tested under parts 6 and 7.
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.

The standards apply to all manufacturers of mining equipment
regardless of size. In order to determine if the device or
equipment meets the standards, MSHA needs the same information
from all manufacturers. Therefore, this information collection
does not have a significant impact on a substantial number of
small entities.
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. If the 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 in a mine. 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 are in fact safe for use. Without this information, MSHA
June 2008
10

1219-0066
would not be able to protect the safety and health of miners, the
primary purpose of the Mine Act.
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, grant-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.

There are no special circumstances that require the
collection to be conducted in a manner inconsistent with 5 C.F.R.
§ 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 C.F.R.
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

June 2008
11

1219-0066
may be circumstances that may preclude consultation in a specific situation.
These circumstances should be explained.

MSHA published a 60-day preclearance Federal Register notice
on April 21, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 77, Pages 21377-21378),
soliciting public comments regarding the extension of this
information collection. No comments were received.
9. Explain any decision to provide any payment or gift to respondents, other than
remuneration of contractors or grantees.

MSHA does not provide payments or gifts to 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. Manufacturers'
applications, drawings and specifications kept at MSHA are stored
electronically or in a restricted records storage area both
accessible only to supervisors and employees responsible for
handling these records. These methods safeguard proprietary
information against violations of 18 U.S.C. § 1905, 5 U.S.C. §
552(b)(4), and the confidentiality provisions of 30 C.F.R. parts
6 through 36. MSHA maintains a high level of security. Access
to each building is restricted and controlled with electronic
security gates. A guardhouse is located on the property and all
visitors entering the buildings are required to wear badges that
are easily visible on a person's outer clothing. These badges
identify persons as visitors to these facilities, which
facilitates control within secure areas. Employees are issued a
security gate access card and a Department of Labor
identification card 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 from whom the information
is requested, and any steps to be taken to obtain their consent.

There are no questions of a sensitive nature.
12. Provide estimates of the hour burden of the collection of information.
statement should:

June 2008
12

The

1219-0066
·

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
14.

The following calculations for the existing requirements are
based on the actual number of applications received during Fiscal
Year 2007 and the hours per response which represent the
estimated time required by the manufacturer to prepare and submit
applications, which may include drawings and specifications, for
approval and certification of their products.
In this information collection request, instances where MSHA did
not receive any applications, an estimate of one application will
be used.
Salary figures used are based on data obtained from the U.S. Coal
Mine Salaries, Wages, & Benefits - 2006 Survey Results
PART 6 TESTING AND EVALUATION BY INDEPENDENT LABORATORIES AND
NON-MSHA PRODUCT SAFETY STANDARDS:
Under §6.10, Paragraph (a)(1) applicants are required to provide
“written evidence of the laboratory’s independence and current
recognition by a laboratory accrediting organization.”
Paragraph (a)(2) requires “a complete technical explanation of
how the product complies with each requirement in the applicable
MSHA product approval requirements.” Paragraph (a)(3) requires
“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) will be completed by the
June 2008
13

1219-0066
independent laboratory and supplied to the applicant, who will
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 the final rule,
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 will
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 will require the data requested in
paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(3). The costs of the tests and
evaluations performed by an independent laboratory will 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) will be those related
to the applicant passing the required information received from
the independent laboratory to MSHA.
In FY 2007, MSHA received 1 new application under Part 6.
MSHA estimates that a clerical worker, earning $26 per hour, will
take 15 minutes (0.25 hours) per application to prepare and send
the data requested in Paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(3).
Estimated Burden Hours
1 application x .25 hours
Total estimated burden hours

.25 hours

$6.50

Burden Hour Cost
.25 hours x $26 per hour

Section 6.10(a)(2) Compliance Costs Associated with § 6.10(d)

June 2008
14

1219-0066
If an independent laboratory conducts any additional or repeat
testing, then the applicant will 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 will 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 will not have to be sent again as a result of any
additional or repeat testing.
In FY 2007, MSHA received 1 new application under Part 6.
MSHA estimates that a clerical worker, earning $26 per hour, will
take 15 minutes (0.25 hours) per application to prepare and send
the test results requested in §6.10(a)(2).
Estimated Burden Hours
1 application x .25 hours
Total estimated burden hours

.25 hours

Burden Hour Cost
.25 hours x $26 per hour

TOTAL PART 6 BURDEN HOURS:
TOTAL PART 6 BURDEN COST:

=
=

$6.50

0.5
13

PART 7 TESTING BY APPLICANT OR THIRD PARTY (§§ 7.3, 7.4, 7.6,
7.7, 7.23, 7.27, 7.28 7.43, 7.46, 7.47, 7.48, 7.51, 7.63, 7.69,
7.71, 7.83, 7.90, 7.97, 7.105, 7.108, 7.303, 7.306, 7.309, 7.311,
7.403,7.407, 7.408, 7.409)
Subpart A
The general requirements for the Part 7 approval process are set
out in Subpart A and the technical requirements for the design
and performance of particular products are set out in subsequent
subparts. Section 7.3 sets out the general procedures and
requirements an applicant is required for MSHA approval a
June 2008
15

1219-0066
product. Because the technical requirements are set out in the
particular subparts for approval of the products, MSHA has
provided the burden hours and costs under those subparts for
application of the products.
Also, under this Subpart, applicants are required to maintain
records of testing procedures and results for the products they
submit to MSHA for approval for 3 years. MSHA believes that the
only burden on the applicant in keeping the records is the use of
storage space. MSHA views this burden as minimal, and therefore,
no cost burden has been assigned. In addition, applicants must
maintain records of the initial sale of each unit having an
approval marking. The record retention period must be at least
the expected shelf life and service life of the product.
Manufacturers already keep records of sales, and MSHA believes
that manufacturers will use existing record systems to fulfill
this requirement. Therefore, no cost burden has been assigned.
Under Subpart A, MSHA is authorized to conduct periodic postapproval audits of approved products. No more than once a year
except for cause, the approval holder, at MSHA's request, must
make an approved product available at no cost to MSHA for an
audit to be conducted at a mutually agreeable site and time. The
burden costs to approval holders for providing products for audit
are detailed under the appropriate Subparts in Item 13.
Subpart B
In FY 2007, MSHA received 12 new applications and 3 applications
for extension for brattice cloth and ventilation tubing under
Subpart B. According to manufacturers' estimates, it requires
approximately 5.0 hours to complete the application package and
5.0 hours to complete an application for extension package.
Burden Hours
12 applications x 5.0 hour/application
3 applications for extension x
5.0 hours/application

60 hours

15 hours

=
=

$4,200
$1,050

Burden Hour Cost
60 hours x $70 per hour (average salary and
benefits of an engineer)
15 hours x $70 per hour
June 2008
16

1219-0066
Approval holders are required to report to MSHA any knowledge of
a product distributed with critical characteristics not in
accordance with the approval specifications. MSHA estimates that
1 manufacturer of brattice cloth or ventilation tubing may need
to make such a report once a year at most, and that each
manufacturer would require approximately 15 minutes (0.25 hours)
to make a report by telephone or letter. This is considered to
be an insignificant cost.

Subpart B:

Total Burden Hours
Total Burden Hour Cost

=
=

75 hours
$5,250

Subpart C
In FY 2007, MSHA received 13 new applications, 1 application for
extension, and 6 Revised Approval Modification Programs (RAMP)
for battery assemblies, under Subpart C. According to
manufacturers' estimates, it requires approximately 4.0 hours to
complete an application, 4.0 hours to complete an application for
extension, and 2.0 hours to complete a RAMP.
An extension of an approval is
from the documentation on file
requirements under Subpart C.
such that any change in design
evaluation.

any change in the approved product
at MSHA that affects the technical
These technical requirements are
most often requires a complete re-

Burden Hours
13 application x 4.0 hours/application
1 application for extension x
4.0 hours/application
6 RAMP applications x 2.0 hours/application

52 hours

=
=

4 hours
12 hours

Burden Hour Cost
52 hours x $70 per hour
4 hours x $70 per hour
12 hours x $70 per hour

=
=
=

$3,640
$ 280
$ 840

1219-0066
1 manufacturer of battery assemblies may need to make such a
report on the average of 1 time per year, and that each
manufacturer would require approximately 15 minutes (0.25 hours)
to make a report by telephone or letter. This is considered to
be an insignificant cost.
Manufacturers of battery assemblies are required to include an
approval checklist with each assembly sold. MSHA estimates that
it will take approximately 2 hours to develop the checklist.
Burden Hours
13 new applications x 1 checklist x 2 hours

26 hours

$1,820

Burden Hour Cost
26 hours x $70 per hour

MSHA estimates that it will take only a few seconds to insert a
copy of the checklist for every battery assembly sold.
Therefore, the cost will be insignificant relative to the cost of
developing the checklist.
Subpart C:

Total Burden Hours
Total Burden Hour Cost

=
=

94 hours
$6,580

Subpart D
MSHA has received no applications since 1988 and does not
anticipate receiving any through the current fiscal year.
However, if MSHA were to receive an application, it estimates
that it would take an applicant approximately 4 hours to prepare
a new application package and 2 hours to prepare an application
for extension.
Burden Hours
1 new application x 4 hours
1 application for extension x 2 hours

=
=

4 hours
2 hours

Burden Hour Cost
4 hours x $70 per hour
2 hours x $70 per hour

=
=

June 2008
18

$
$

280
140

1219-0066
Approval holders are required to report to MSHA any knowledge of
a product distributed with critical characteristics not in
accordance with the approval specifications. MSHA estimates that
an approval holder may need to make such a report once a year,
and that it would require approximately 15 minutes (0.25 hours)
to make a report by telephone or letter. This is considered to
be an insignificant cost.
Manufacturers of blasting units are required to include an
approval checklist with each unit sold. MSHA estimates that it
will take approximately 2 hours to develop the checklist.
Burden Hours
1 new application x 1 checklist x 2 hours

2 hours

Burden Hour Cost
2 hours x $70 per hour

140

MSHA estimates that it will take only a few seconds to insert a
copy of the checklist for a blasting unit; therefore, the cost
will be insignificant relative to the cost of developing the
checklist.
Subpart D:

Total Burden Hours
Total Burden Hour Cost

=
=

8 hours
$ 560

MSHA has assigned no cost burden to the requirements of the
warning statement and the notice requiring replacement battery
types and other additional information appearing on the MSHAapproval marking, because they will be minimal costs associated
with identifying this marking. (Section 7.69)

Subpart E
In FY 2007, MSHA received 2 new applications, 0 applications for
extension, and 0 RAMP applications for approval of new
permissible engine models, under Subpart E. The maximum fuel/air
ratio tests are performed under §7.87 and the gaseous ventilation
tests are performed under §7.88. MSHA estimates that it takes
about 43.0 hours, including preparation of an approval checklist,
at a cost of $70 per hour for manufacturers to prepare and submit
the application related to the maximum fuel/air ratio test and
June 2008
19

1219-0066
the gaseous ventilation rate test for a new permissible engine
model.
Burden Hours
2 new applications x 43.0 hours/application
1 application for extensions x
43.0 hours/application
1 RAMP applications x 43.0 hours/application

86 hours

=
=

43 hours
43 hours

=
=
=

$6,020
$3,010
$3,010

Burden Hour Cost
86 hours x $70 per hour
43 hours x $70 per hour
43 hours x $70 per hour

New permissible engine models approved under part 7, subpart E,
will need an additional test to determine the particulate index
of the engine model. MSHA estimates that an additional 30 minutes
(0.5 hours) is needed to record particulate test information on
the application. The rate per hour to record such information is
estimated to be $70.
Burden Hours
2 new applications x 0.5 hours/application

1 hour

Burden Hour Cost
1 hour x $70 per hour

In FY 2007, MSHA received 7 new applications, 2 applications for
extension, and 6 RAMP applications for approval of new nonpermissible engine models, under Subpart E. This new nonpermissible engine model will incur burden hours for an
application to be filed related to tests for a maximum fuel/air
ratio (required by § 7.87 of the rule), a gaseous ventilation
rate (required by § 7.88 of the rule), and a particulate index
(required by § 7.89 of the rule).
MSHA estimates that it takes about 34.5 burden hours, including
preparation of an approval checklist, at a cost of $70 per hour
for a manufacturer to prepare and submit the approval application
related to all three tests for a new non-permissible engine
June 2008
20

1219-0066
model.
Burden Hours
7 new applications x 34.5 hours/application
2 application for extensions x
34.5 hours/application
6 RAMP applications x 34.5 hours/application

242 hours

=
=

69
207

hours
hours

Burden Hour Cost
241.5 hours x $70 per hour
69.0 hours x $70 per hour
207.0 hours x $70 per hour

=
=
=

$16,905
$ 4,830
$14,490

Total Burden Hours
Total Burden Hour Cost

=
=

691 hours
$48,335

Subpart F
In FY 2007, MSHA received 1 new application, 1 application for
extension, and 6 RAMP applications for approval of a power
package for a permissible engine model under Subpart F. Tests
are required by § 7.100 - Explosion test; § 7.101 - Surface
temperature test; § 7.102 - Exhaust gas cooling efficiency test;
§ 7.103 - Safety system control test; and § 7.104 - Internal
static pressure test.
MSHA estimates that it takes about 43 burden hours including
preparation of an approval checklist, at a cost of $70 per hour
for manufacturers to prepare and submit the application for
approval of a power package for a permissible engine model.
Burden Hours
1 new applications x 43.0 hours/application
1 application for extensions x
June 2008
21

43 hours

1219-0066
43.0 hours/application
6 RAMP applications x 43.0 hours/application

=
=

43 hours
258 hours

=
=
=

$ 3,010
$ 3,010
$18,060

Burden Hour Cost
43 hours x $70 per hour
43 hours x $70 per hour
258 hours x $70 per hour

Total Burden Hours
Total Burden Hour Cost

=
=

344 hours
$24,080

MSHA has assigned no cost burden to the requirements of the grade
limitation for the engine on the approval marking, because they
will be minimal costs associated with identifying this marking.

Subpart J
In FY 2007, MSHA received 8 new applications, 0 applications for
extensions, and 16 RAMP applications for approval of motor
assemblies, under Subpart J. According to manufacturers’
estimates, it requires approximately 8.0 hours on the preparation
of a new application package, 6 hours to prepare an application
for extension, and 2 hours to prepare a RAMP application.
Burden Hours
8 new applications x 8.0 hours/application
1 applications for extensions x
6.0 hours/application
16 RAMP applications x 2.0 hours/application
Burden Hour Cost
June 2008
22

64 hours

=
=

6 hours
32 hours

1219-0066
64 hours x $70 per hour
6 hours x $70 per hour
32 hours x $70 per hour

=
=
=

$4,480
$ 420
$2,240

Approval holders are required to report to MSHA any knowledge of
a product distributed with critical characteristics not in
accordance with the approval specifications. MSHA estimates that
an approval holder may need to make such a report once a year,
and that it would require approximately 15 minutes (0.25 hours)
to make a report by telephone or letter. This is considered to
be an insignificant cost.
Manufacturers of electric motor assemblies are required to
include an approval checklist with each assembly sold. MSHA
estimates that it will take approximately 2 hours to develop the
checklist.
Burden Hours
8 new applications x 1 checklist x 2 hours

16 hours

Burden Hour Cost
16 hours x $70 per hour

$ 1,120

MSHA estimates that it will take only a few seconds to insert a
copy of the checklist for every motor sold. Therefore, the cost
will be insignificant relative to the cost of developing the
checklist.
Subpart J:

Total Burden Hours
Total Burden Hour Cost

=
=

118 hours
$8,260

Subpart K
In FY 2007, MSHA received 31 new applications and 13 applications
for extensions for approval of electric, signaling, fiber optic,
and coaxial cables under Subpart K. MSHA estimates that a cable
manufacturer would spend 6.0 hours preparing an initial
application and 4.0 hours to prepare an application for
extension.
MSHA has assigned no cost burden to the approval marking on
cables because there will be minimal costs associated with
identifying this marking.
June 2008
23

1219-0066
Burden Hours
31 new applications x 6.0 hour/application
13 applications for extension x
6.0 hours/application

186 hours

78 hours

Burden Hour Cost
186 hours x $70 per hour
78 hours x $70 per hour

=
=

$13,020
$ 5,460

In FY 2007, MSHA received 1 new application and 0 applications
for extensions for approval of cable splice kits under Subpart K.
MSHA estimates that a cable manufacturer would spend 6.0 hours
preparing an initial application and 4.0 hours to prepare an
application for extension.
Burden Hours
1 new applications x 6.0 hour/application
1 applications for extension x
4.0 hour/application

6 hours

4 hours

Burden Hour Cost
6 hours x $70 per hour
4 hours x $70 per hour

=
=

$
$

420
280

Total Burden Hours
Total Burden Hour Cost

TOTAL PART 7 BURDEN HOURS:
TOTAL PART 7 BURDEN COST:

=
=
=
=

274 hours
$19,180
1,604
$112,245

PART 15 REQUIREMENTS FOR APPROVAL OF EXPLOSIVES AND SHEATHED
June 2008
24

1219-0066
EXPLOSIVES UNITS: (§§ 15.4, 15.8)
In FY 2007, MSHA received no new approvals and 2 applications for
approval extension for Approval of Explosives and Sheathed
Explosives Units. According to manufacturers' estimates, it
requires approximately 5 hours to complete the application
package. A Part 15 approval is a document issued for explosives
meeting requirements as permissible for use in underground coal
and other gassy mines as confirmed by test and evaluation. A
Part 15 approval extension is a document issued when a previously
approved explosive is modified by the manufacturer and, as
modified, continues to meet requirements.
Burden hours
1 acceptance x 5.0 hours/application
2 acceptance extension x 5.0 hours/application

=
=

5 hours
10 hours

Burden hour cost
5 hours x $70 per hour
10 hours x $70 per hour

=
=

$350
$700

Approval holders are required to report to MSHA any knowledge of
a product distributed with critical characteristics not in
accordance with the approval specifications. MSHA estimates that
an approval holder may need to make such a report once a year,
and that it would require approximately 15 minutes (0.25 hours)
to make a report by telephone or letter. This is considered to
be an insignificant cost.
TOTAL PART 15 BURDEN HOURS:
TOTAL PART 15 BURDEN COST:

=
=

15
$1,050

PART 18 - ELECTRICAL MOTOR DRIVEN MINE EQUIPMENT AND ACCESSORIES:
(§§18.6, 18.15, 18.53(h), 18.81, 18.82, 18.93, 18.94)
Salary figures used are based on data obtained from the U.S. Coal
Mine Salaries, Wages, & Benefits - 2006 Survey Results.
Estimated Burden hours
51 approval applications x 14 hours
11 approval extensions x 5 hours
33 field modification applications x 5 hours
(burden includes 11 minutes for Form 2000-38)
11 certification applications x 14 hours
2 certification extensions x 5 hours
June 2008
25

=
=

714 hours
55 hours

=
=
=

165 hours
154 hours
10 hours

1219-0066
3
11
1
332

permit application x 5 hours
simplified certifications x 7 hours
simplified cert extensions x 2.5 hours
RAMP applications x 1 hour
Total estimated burden hours

=
=
=
=

15
77
3
332

hours
hours
hours
hours

= 1,525 hours

Burden hour cost
1,525 hours x $70 per hour

= $106,750

Section 18.53(h) requires that a study (to determine the minimum
available fault current to ensure adequate protection for the
length and conductor size of the longwall motor, shearer and
trailing cables) be submitted to MSHA. This study is routinely
included with the approval application, and is included in the
above approval applications burden hours.
PART 19 - ELECTRIC CAP LAMPS: (§§ 19.3, 19.13)
Salary figures used are based on data obtained from the U.S. Coal
Mine Salaries, Wages, & Benefits - 2006 Survey Results.
Estimated burden hours
1 approval application x 14 hours
1 approval extensions x 5 hours
2 RAMP applications x 1 hour
Total estimated burden hours

=
=
=

14 hours
5 hours
2 hours

21 hours

$1,470

Burden hour cost
21 hours x $70 per hour

PART 20 - ELECTRIC MINE LAMPS OTHER THAN STANDARD CAP LAMPS: (§§
20.3, 20.14)
Salary figures used are based on data obtained from the U.S. Coal
Mine Salaries, Wages, & Benefits - 2006 Survey Results.
Estimated Burden hours
1 approval applications x 14 hours
1 approval extensions x 5 hours
June 2008
26

=
=

14 hours
5 hours

1219-0066
1 RAMP applications x 1 hour
Total estimated burden hours

1 hours

20 hours

$1,400

Burden hour cost
20 hours x $70 per hour

PART 22 - PORTABLE METHANE DETECTOR: (§§22.4, 22.11)
Salary figures used are based on data obtained from the U.S. Coal
Mine Salaries, Wages, & Benefits - 2003 Survey Results.
Estimated burden hours
3 approval applications x 14 hours
1 approval extension x 5 hours
13 RAMP applications x 1 hour
Total estimated burden hours

=
=
=

42 hours
5 hours
13 hours

60 hours

Burden hour cost
60 hours x $70 per hour

$4,200

PART 23 - TELEPHONES AND SIGNALING DEVICES: (§§ 23.3, 23.14)
Salary figures used are based on data obtained from the U.S. Coal
Mine Salaries, Wages, & Benefits - 2006 Survey Results.
Estimated burden hours
37 approval applications x 14 hours
1 approval extension x 5 hours
10 RAMP applications x 1 hour
Total estimated burden hours

=
=
=

518 hours
5 hours
10 hours

533 hours

$37,310

Burden hour cost
533 hours x $70 per hour

Under § 23.7(e), the manufacturer is required to provide the user
with instruction to properly use and maintain the signaling
June 2008
27

1219-0066
system. Under § 23.12(a)(2), MSHA may have required the
manufacturer to issue a caution statement. These costs are
minimal and therefore are included with the overall application
costs.
PART 27 - METHANE MONITORING SYSTEMS: (§§ 27.4, 27.6, 27.11)
Salary figures used are based on data obtained from the U.S. Coal
Mine Salaries, Wages, & Benefits - 2006 Survey Results.
Estimated burden hours
1 certification application x 14 hours
1 certification extensions x 5 hours
2 RAMP applications x 1 hour
Total estimated burden hours

=
=
=

14 hours
5 hours
2 hours

21 hours

Burden hour cost
21 hours x $70 per hour

$1,470

PART 28 - FUSES FOR USE WITH DIRECT CURRENT: (§§ 28.10, 28.25,
28.30, 28.31)
Salary figures used are based on data obtained from the U.S. Coal
Mine Salaries, Wages, & Benefits - 2006 Survey Results.
Estimated burden hours
1 approval application x 14 hours
1 approval extension x 5 hours
1 RAMP application x 1 hour
Total estimated burden hours

=
=
=

14 hours
5 hours
1 hour

20 hours

Under § 28.23(b)-(c), the manufacturer is required to provide the
user with instruction to properly install, use, and maintain the
fuse as well as additional labels besides the approval markings.
These costs are minimal and therefore are included with the
overall application costs.
Burden hour cost
20 hours x $70 per hour
June 2008

=
28

$1,400

1219-0066

PART 33 - DUST COLLECTORS FOR USE IN CONNECTION WITH ROCK
DRILLING IN COAL MINES: (§§ 33.6, 33.12)
Salary figures used are based on data obtained from the U.S. Coal
Mine Salaries, Wages, & Benefits - 2006 Survey Results.
Estimated burden hours
13 approval applications x 14 hours
1 approval extension x 5 hours
1 RAMP applications x 1 hours
Total estimated burden hours

=
=
=

182 hours
5 hours
1 hour

188 hours

Under § 35.10(c)-(d), the manufacturer is required to provide the
user with instruction to properly install, use, and maintain the
fuse as well as additional labels besides the approval markings.
These costs are minimal and therefore are included with the
overall application costs.
Burden hour cost
188 hours x $70 per hour

$13,160

PART 35 - FIRE RESISTANT HYDRAULIC FLUIDS: (§§ 35.6, 35.12)
Salary figures used are based on data obtained from the U.S. Coal
Mine Salaries, Wages, & Benefits - 2006 Survey Results.
Estimated burden hours
6 approval applications x 24 hours
2 approval extension x 24 hours

=
=

144 hours
48 hours

Total estimated burden hours

192 hours

$13,440

Burden hour cost
192 hours x $70 per hour

PART 36 - APPROVAL REQUIREMENTS FOR PERMISSIBLE MOBILE DIESELPOWERED TRANSPORTATION EQUIPMENT: (§§ 36.6, 36.12)
June 2008
29

1219-0066
Salary figures used are based on data obtained from the U.S. Coal
Mine Salaries, Wages, & Benefits - 2006 Survey Results:
Estimated burden hours
6 approval application x 14 hours
*1 approval extension x 5 hours
2 safety component certifications
x 5 hours
3 RAMP application x 1 hours
Total estimated burden hours

=
=

84 hours
5 hours

=
=

10 hours
3 hour

102 hours

$7,140

Burden hour cost
102 hours x $70 per hour
Cite
Reference

Total
Respondents Frequency

Total
Responses

Burden
Hours

Part 6

1 On Occasion

Part 7

63 On Occasion

159

1,604

Part 15

1 On Occasion

Part 18

133 On Occasion

455

1,525

Part 19

3 On Occasion

Part 20

3 On Occasion

Part 22

6 On Occasion

Part 23

33 On Occasion

533

Part 27

3 On Occasion

Part 28

1 On Occasion

June 2008
30

1219-0066

Part 33

3 On Occasion

188

Part 35

3 On Occasion

192

Part 36
Totals

9 On Occasion
262

12
733

102
4,301.5

PARTS 6 THROUGH 36 GRAND TOTAL BURDEN HOURS
=
4,301.5
PARTS 6 THROUGH 36 GRAND TOTAL BURDEN COST
= $301,048

13. Provide an estimate of the total annual cost burden to respondents or record
keepers resulting from the collection of information. (Do not include the cost of
any hour burden shown in Items 12 and 14).

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

June 2008
31

1219-0066
part of customary and usual business or private practices.

30 C.F.R. part 5 - Fees for Testing, Evaluation, and Approval of
Mining Products: § 5.10 states “This part establishes a system
under which MSHA charges a fee for services provided under this
subchapter. This part includes the management and calculation of
these fees.” These fees apply to all parts and subparts
mentioned in this report.
Under the 2007 fee schedule issued pursuant to 30 C.F.R. Part 5,
MSHA charges $80 per hour to evaluate applications for approval.
The fee for testing, evaluation and approval of a product is
based on the costs of the services provided. Each service
provided for a group of similar products is assessed an hourly
rate to cover direct and indirect costs. Direct costs are based
on current compensation and benefit costs for technical and
support personnel directly involved in providing the service.
Indirect costs are based on a proportionate share of the cost of
activities which support the approval service, including
management and administration of the MSHA, facility operating
costs and amortization and depreciation of facilities and
equipment. MSHA also includes a support factor when determining
costs to account for support personnel (computer tracking,
clerical, records control, document filing and retrieval).
Support hours are prorated over investigative hours for each
specific program area to derive a multiplication factor for that
program area (1.590, 1.703, or 1.690).
PART 6 TESTING AND EVALUATION BY INDEPENDENT LABORATORIES AND
NON-MSHA PRODUCT SAFETY STANDARDS:
In FY 2007, MSHA received one application to be evaluated under
Part 6 requirements. This application was processed under Part
18. Therefore, the cost to the applicant for MSHA’s evaluation
is included under Part 18 in this document.
PART 7 TESTING BY APPLICANT OR THIRD PARTY:
Subpart B
In order to determine costs under this section, MSHA calculated
the average number of hours spent processing brattice cloth and
ventilation tubing investigations in FY 2007. The cost to
applicants for MSHA’s evaluation of their applications for
approval is calculated as follows:
June 2008
32

1219-0066
12 new applications x 4 hours x $80 per hour x 1.690
3 application for extension x 2 hours x $80 per hour
x 1.690

= $6,490
= $

811

In FY 2007, MSHA surveyed 9 manufactures and conducted 41
brattice cloth and 2 ventilation tubing audits. The samples are
destroyed during the testing process. The estimated cost to the
approval holders for providing these products is as follows:
41 brattice cloth samples x $25 per sample
2 ventilation tubing samples x $100 per sample

= $1,025
= $ 200

Subpart C
In order to determine costs under this section, MSHA calculated
the average number of hours spent processing battery assembly
investigations in FY 2007. The cost to applicants for MSHA's
evaluation of their applications for approval is calculated as
follows:
13 new applications x 8.0 hours x $80 per hour x 1.590 =$13,229
1 extension x 6.0 hours x $80 per hour x 1.590
=$
763
6 RAMP applications x 3.0 x $80 per hour x 1.590
=$ 2,290
MSHA has assigned no cost burden to the auditing of battery
assemblies because the audits are performed at the manufacturing
site or a distribution center with no cost to the applicant. It
is not necessary to destroy a battery assembly in order to audit
it.
Subpart D
MSHA has not received any applications for blasting units for
several years and although MSHA does not expect to receive any in
the coming year, there is a chance of receiving one at some time
in the future. Instances where MSHA did not receive any
applications, an estimate of one application will be used and the
hours will be taken from a similar program. The cost to
applicants for MSHA's evaluation of their applications for
approval is calculated as follows:
1 new application x 8.0 hours x $80 per hour x 1.590
1 extension x 6.0 hours x $80 per hour x 1.590

June 2008
33

= $1,018
= $ 763

1219-0066
MSHA has assigned no cost burden to the auditing of blasting
units because the audits are performed at the manufacturing site
or a distribution center. It is not necessary to destroy a
blasting unit in order to audit it.
Subpart E
(PERMISSIBLE ENGINE MODELS)
In order to determine costs under this section, MSHA calculated
the average number of hours spent processing permissible engine
investigations in FY 2007. The cost to applicants for MSHA's
evaluation of their applications for approval is calculated as
follows:
2 new applications x 30.2 hours x $80 x 1.703
1 extension x 16.0 hours x $80 x 1.703
1 RAMP applications x 4.0 x $80 per hour x 1.703

= $ 8,229
= $ 2,180
= $
545

MSHA estimates the cost for these tests on a new permissible
engine model to be about $25,000. (Note: This is not a new cost
incurred by manufacturers under part 7, subpart E, because these
tests were formerly performed under existing part 36.)
2 applications per year x $25,000

= $50,000

MSHA estimates that a particulate index test for a new
permissible engine model that is already set up to run a maximum
fuel/air ratio test and gaseous ventilation test will cost about
$7,500.
2 application per year x $7,500

= $15,000

MSHA has assigned no cost burden to the auditing of permissible
engines because the audits are performed at the manufacturing
site or a distribution center. It is not necessary to destroy a
permissible engine in order to audit it.
Subpart E
(NON-PERMISSIBLE ENGINE MODELS)
In order to determine costs under this section, MSHA calculated
the average number of hours spent processing non-permissible
engine investigations in FY 2007. The cost to applicants for
June 2008
34

1219-0066
MSHA's evaluation of their applications for approval is
calculated as follows:
7 new applications x 30.2 hours x $80 x 1.703
2 extension x 16.0 hours x $80 x 1.703
6 RAMP applications x 4.0 x $80 per hour x 1.703

= $28,801
= $ 4,360
= $ 3,270

Non-permissible engines are required to have a maximum fuel/air
ratio test (required by § 7.87), a gaseous ventilation test
(required by § 7.88), and a particulate index test (required by
§ 7.89).
A manufacturer can have all three tests for a new non-permissible
engine model performed by a third party. MSHA estimates that the
cost to conduct all three tests is $30,000.
7 applications per year x $30,000

= $210,000

MSHA has assigned no cost burden to the auditing of nonpermissible engines because the audits are performed at the
manufacturing site or a distribution center. It is not necessary
to destroy a non-permissible engine in order to audit it.

Subpart F
(DIESEL PERMISSIBLE POWER PACKAGES)
In order to determine costs under this section, MSHA calculated
the average number of hours spent processing non-permissible
engine investigations in FY 2007. The cost to applicants for
MSHA's evaluation of their applications for approval is
calculated as follows:
1 new applications x 67.2 hours x $80 x 1.703
1 extension x 16.0 hours x $80 x 1.703
6 RAMP applications x 3.0 x $80 per hour x 1.703

= $ 9,155
= $ 2,180
= $ 2,452

Tests on power packages for new permissible engine models may be
performed by a third party. These tests will be done under
§ 7.100 - Explosion test; § 7.101 - Surface temperature test;
§ 7.102 - Exhaust gas cooling efficiency test; § 7.103 - Safety
system control test; and § 7.104 - Internal static pressure test.
MSHA estimates that the cost to have these tests done on a power
June 2008
35

1219-0066
package for a new permissible engine model to be about $35,000.
1 applications per year x $35,000

= $35,000

MSHA has assigned no cost burden to the auditing of permissible
power packages because the audits are performed at the
manufacturing site or a distribution center. It is not necessary
to destroy a blasting unit in order to audit it.
Subpart J
In order to determine costs under this section, MSHA calculated
the average number of hours spent processing motor assembly
investigations in FY 2007. The cost to applicants for MSHA's
evaluations of their applications for approval is calculated as
follows:
8 new applications x 21.7 hours x $80 per hour x 1.590 = $22,082
1 extension x 5.0 hours x $80 per hour x 1.590
= $
636
16 RAMP applications x 3.0 hours x $80 per hour x 1.590 = $ 6,106
MSHA has assigned no cost burden to the auditing of motor
assemblies because the audits are performed at the manufacturing
site or distribution center with no cost to the applicant. It is
not necessary to destroy the motor assembly in order to audit it.
Subpart K
In order to determine costs under this section, MSHA calculated
the average number of hours spent processing cable investigations
in FY 2007. The cost to applicants for MSHA's evaluations of
their applications for approval is calculated as follows:
31 new applications x 3.3 hours x $80 x 1.690
13 extensions x 3.9 hours x $80 x 1.690

= $13,831
= $ 6,855

Tests on cables may be performed by a third party. MSHA
estimates that the cost to have these tests done to be about
$750.
31 new applications x $750
13 extensions x $750

= $23,250
= $ 9,750

In order to determine costs under this section, MSHA calculated
the average number of hours spent processing splice kit
June 2008
36

1219-0066
investigations in FY 2007. The cost to applicants for MSHA's
evaluation of their applications for approval is calculated as
follows:
1 new application x 3.3 hours x $80 per hour x 1.690
1 extensions x 3.9 hours x $80 per hour x 1.690

= $
= $

446
527

Tests on splice kits may be performed by a third party. MSHA
estimates that the cost to have these tests done to be about
$750.
1 new applications x $750
1 extensions x $750

= $
= $

750
750

In FY 2007, MSHA conducted 55 cable or splice kit audits. The
estimated cost to the approval holders for providing these
products to MSHA is as follows:
25 cable samples x $150 per sample
10 splice kit sample x $150 per sample
20 signaling cable samples x $150 per sample
PART 7 TOTAL COST BURDEN

= $
= $
= $

3,750
1,500
3,000

= $490,994

PART 15 REQUIREMENTS FOR APPROVAL OF EXPLOSIVES AND SHEATHED
EXPLOSIVES UNITS:
In FY 2007, MSHA received 0 new approvals and 2 applications for
approval extension for Approval of Explosives and Sheathed
Explosives Units. MSHA estimates that it takes approximately 5
hours to evaluate an initial application for approval and 2 hours
to evaluate an application for extension.
1 new applications x 56.9 hours x $80 x 1.690
2 acceptance extension x 2.5 hours x $80 x 1.690

= $ 7,693
= $
676

Under Part 15, Subpart A, MSHA is authorized to conduct periodic
post-approval audits of approved products. No more than once a
year except for cause, the approval holder, at MSHA's request,
must make an approved product available at no cost to MSHA for an
audit to be conducted at a mutually agreeable site and time.
In FY 2007, MSHA conducted no explosives or sheathed explosives
units audits. If audits were performed, the samples would be
June 2008
37

1219-0066
destroyed during the testing process.
1 Explosives x $25 per sample
1 Sheathed Explosives units x $100 per sample
PART 15 TOTAL COST BURDEN

= $
= $

25
100

= $ 8,494

PART 18 - ELECTRICAL MOTOR DRIVEN MINE EQUIPMENT AND ACCESSORIES:
In order to determine costs under this section, MSHA has
estimated the number of hours it would take to review the
relevant documents, i.e., applications, etc. The actual
calculation uses takes in account the number of documents, the
number of hours it takes to review each document, a decimal
figure determined by MSHA to account for overhead costs, and the
hourly rate charged by MSHA to review the documents.
Destructive testing is often required during the evaluation of
the mining equipment and materials covered under this part.
However, the cost of the samples subjected to destructive testing
is insignificant and a customary and usual business practice.
(Unlike Item 12, the following approvals and acceptances are
broken out because they are processed by different program areas
with different support factors.)
33 approval applications x 60.78 hours
x $80 x 1.590
18 acceptance applications x 4.7 hours
x $80 x 1.690
1 approval extension x 11.0 hours
x $80 x 1.590
10 acceptance extensions x 3.0 hours
x $80 x 1.690
33 field modification applications x 6.7 hours
x $80 x 1.590
11 certification application x 45.0 hours
x $80 x 1.590
2 certification extensions x 6.7 hours
x $80 x 1.590
3 permit application x 11.0 hours x $80 x 1.590
11 simplified certification applications
x 29.9 hours x $80 x 1.590
1 simplified certification extension
x 13.5 hours x $80 x 1.590
332 RAMP applications x 4.9 hours x $80
June 2008
38

= $255,130
= $ 11,438
= $

1,399

= $

4,056

= $ 28,124
= $ 62,964
= $
= $

1,705
4,198

= $ 41,836
= $

1,717

1219-0066
x 1.590

= $206,929
PART 18 TOTAL COST BURDEN

= $619,496

PART 19 - ELECTRIC CAP LAMPS:
In order to determine costs under this section, MSHA has
estimated the number of hours it would take to review the
relevant documents, i.e., applications, etc. The actual
calculation used takes in account the number of documents, the
number of hours it takes to review each document, a decimal
figure determined by MSHA to account for overhead costs, and the
hourly rate charged by MSHA to review the documents.
Destructive testing is often required during the evaluation of
the mining equipment and materials covered under this part.
However, the cost of the samples subjected to destructive testing
is insignificant and a customary and usual business practice.
1 approval application x 54.3 hours x $80
x 1.590
1 approval extension x 54.3 hours x $80
x 1.590
2 RAMP applications x 32.4 hours x $80
x 1.590
PART 19 TOTAL COST BURDEN

= $

6,907

= $

6,907

= $

8,243

= $ 22,057

PART 20 - ELECTRIC MINE LAMPS OTHER THAN STANDARD CAP LAMPS:
In order to determine costs under this section, MSHA has
estimated the number of hours it would take to review the
relevant documents, i.e., applications, etc. The actual
calculation used takes in account the number of documents, the
number of hours it takes to review each document, a decimal
figure determined by MSHA to account for overhead costs, and the
hourly rate charged by MSHA to review the documents.
Destructive testing is often required during the evaluation of
the mining equipment and materials covered under this part.
However, the cost of the samples subjected to destructive testing
is insignificant and a customary and usual business practice.
1 approval applications x 33.9 hours x $80
x 1.590
June 2008
39

= $

4,312

1219-0066
1 approval extension x 5.9 hours x $80
x 1.590

= $

751

1 RAMP applications x 2.0 hours x $80
x 1.590

= $

254

= $

5,317

PART 20 TOTAL COST BURDEN
PART 22 - PORTABLE METHANE DETECTORS:

In order to determine costs under this section, MSHA has
estimated the number of hours it would take to review the
relevant documents, i.e., applications, etc. The actual
calculation used takes in account the number of documents, the
number of hours it takes to review each document, a decimal
figure determined by MSHA to account for overhead costs, and the
hourly rate charged by MSHA to review the documents.
Destructive testing is often required during the evaluation of
the mining equipment and materials covered under this part.
However, the cost of the samples subjected to destructive testing
is insignificant and a customary and usual business practice.
3 approval applications x 175.6 hours x $80
x 1.590
1 approval extension x 175.6 hours x $80
x 1.590
13 RAMP applications x 7.2 hours x $80
x 1.590
PART 22 TOTAL COST BURDEN

= $ 67,009
= $ 22,336
= $ 11,906
= $101,251

PART 23 - TELEPHONES AND SIGNALING DEVICES:
In order to determine costs under this section, MSHA has
estimated the number of hours it would take to review the
relevant documents, i.e., applications, etc. The actual
calculation used takes in account the number of documents, the
number of hours it takes to review each document, a decimal
figure determined by MSHA to account for overhead costs, and the
hourly rate charged by MSHA to review the documents.
Destructive testing is often required during the evaluation of
the mining equipment and materials covered under this part.
However, the cost of the samples subjected to destructive testing
is insignificant and a customary and usual business practice.
June 2008
40

1219-0066
37 approval applications x 57.4 hours x $80
x 1.590
1 extension application x 14.0 hours x $80
x 1.590
10 RAMP applications x 15.3 hours x $80
x 1.590
PART 23 TOTAL COST BURDEN

= $270,147
= $

1,781

= $ 19,462
= $291,390

PART 27 - METHANE MONITORING SYSTEMS
In order to determine costs under this section, MSHA has
estimated the number of hours it would take to review the
relevant documents, i.e., applications, etc. The actual
calculation used takes in account the number of documents, the
number of hours it takes to review each document, a decimal
figure determined by MSHA to account for overhead costs, and the
hourly rate charged by MSHA to review the documents.
Destructive testing is often required during the evaluation of
the mining equipment and materials covered under this part.
However, the cost of the samples subjected to destructive testing
is insignificant and a customary and usual business practice.
1 certification application x 66.8 hours x $80
x 1.590
1 certification extension x 27.0 hours x $80
x 1.590
2 RAMP applications x 27.0 hours x $80 x 1.590
PART 27 TOTAL COST BURDEN

= $

8,497

= $
= $

3,434
6,869

= $ 18,800

PART 28 - FUSES FOR USE WITH DIRECT CURRENT:
In order to determine costs under this section, MSHA has
estimated the number of hours it would take to review the
relevant documents, i.e., applications, etc. The actual
calculation used takes in account the number of documents, the
number of hours it takes to review each document, travel time, a
decimal figure determined by MSHA to account for overhead costs,
and the hourly rate charged by MSHA to review the documents.
1 approval application x 71.0 hours x $80 x 1.590
1 extension application x 40.0 hours x $80 x 1.590

= $
= $

MSHA does not have the facilities necessary to perform the
June 2008
41

9,031
5,088

1219-0066
destructive testing required in this part.
burden includes the following:

Therefore, the cost

Travel cost to witness testing
Test facility rental (1.5 days @ 10,000/day)
PART 28 TOTAL COST BURDEN

= $ 1,000
= $ 15,000
= $ 30,119

PART 33 - DUST COLLECTORS FOR USE IN CONNECTION WITH ROCK
DRILLING IN COAL MINES:
In order to determine costs under this section, MSHA has
estimated the number of hours it would take to review the
relevant documents, i.e., applications, etc. The actual
calculation used takes in account the number of documents, the
number of hours it takes to review each document, a decimal
figure determined by MSHA to account for overhead costs, and the
hourly rate charged by MSHA to review the documents.
13 approval applications x 3.0 hours x $80 x 1.703
1 approval extension x 3.0 hours x $80 x 1.703
1 RAMP applications x 2.0 hours x $80 x 1.703

= $ 5,313
= $
409
= $
273

The testing required under this part is done at a mine site.
cost burden includes the travel cost to witness the testing.
Travel cost to witness testing
PART 33 TOTAL COST BURDEN

= $

The
1,000

= $ 6,995

PART 35 FIRE RESISTANT HYDRAULIC FLUIDS:
In order to determine costs under this section, MSHA has
estimated the number of hours it would take to review the
relevant documents, i.e., applications, etc. The actual
calculation used takes in account the number of documents, the
number of hours it takes to review each document, a decimal
figure determined by MSHA to account for overhead costs, and the
hourly rate charged by MSHA to review the documents.
Destructive testing is required under this part. However, the
cost of the samples subjected to destructive testing is
insignificant and a customary and usual business practice.
6 approval applications x 15.8 hours x $80 x 1.690
2 approval extension x 7.5 hours x $80 x 1.690
June 2008
42

= $ 12,817
= $ 2,028

1219-0066
PART 35 TOTAL COST BURDEN

= $ 14,845

PART 36 - APPROVAL REQUIREMENTS FOR PERMISSIBLE MOBILE DIESELPOWERED TRANSPORTATION EQUIPMENT:
In order to determine costs under this section, MSHA has
estimated the number of hours it would take to review the
relevant documents, i.e., applications, etc. The actual
calculation used takes in account the number of documents, the
number of hours it takes to review each document, a decimal
figure determined by MSHA to account for overhead costs, and the
hourly rate charged by MSHA to review the documents.
6 approval application x 66.3 hours x $80 x 1.703
1 extension application x 18.5 x $80 x 1.703
2 safety component certification applications
x 10.0 hours x $80 x 1.703
3 RAMP application x 6.0 hours x $80 x 1.703
PART 36 TOTAL COST BURDEN

Cite/
Reference
Part 6
Part 7
Part 15
Part 18
Part 19
Part 20
Part 22
Part 23
Part 27
Part 28
Part 33
Part 35
Part 36
TOTALS

= $ 54,196
= $ 2,250
= $
= $

2,725
2,452

= $ 61,623

Burden Costs
-0$490,994
8,494
619,496
22,057
5,317
101,251
291,390
18,800
30,119
6,995
14,845
61,623
$1,671,381

GRAND TOTAL COST BURDEN

= $1,671,381

June 2008
43

1219-0066
14. Provide estimates of annualized cost to the Federal government. Also,
provide a description of the method used to estimate cost, which should include
quantification of hours, operational expenses (such as equipment, overhead,
printing, and support staff), and any other expense that would not have been
incurred without this collection of information. Agencies also may aggregate cost
estimates from Items 12, 13, and 14 in a single table.

The only costs to MSHA under 30 C.F.R. Part 6 through 36 are
those related to post-approval audits. These audits are
conducted in MSHA laboratories by lab personnel or at mine
warehouses, or manufacturing or distribution sites by Mining
Equipment Compliance Specialists. The costs to conduct these
audits are as follows.
MSHA estimates that its cost to have a Mining Equipment
Compliance Specialist travel to a mine, manufacturing or
distribution site and perform a post-approval audit in FY 2007 on
permissible equipment was $95,683 or about $95 per audit. This
includes both salary and travel expenses. In FY 2007, MSHA
conducted 736 post-approval audits in the field on permissible
equipment. These post-approval audits are broken out according
to Title 30, C.F.R. Parts 7 through 36. There were an additional
127 audits performed in-house (labor cost, associated testing,
and follow-up; without any travel costs). Any or all follow-up
activity related to the completion of the audit is included in
this estimate.
Many audits are performed in the laboratory on samples provided
by the approval holder. MSHA estimates the salary expense for a
laboratory technician or a Mine Equipment compliance Specialist
to be $34 per hour.
Part 7, Subpart B – Brattice Cloth and Ventilation Tubing:
MSHA estimates that it would take a laboratory technician
approximately 4.7 hours to test a sample of brattice cloth and
4.7 hours to test a sample of ventilation tubing.
41 brattice cloth samples x 4.7 hours per sample
x $34 per hour
2 ventilation tubing samples x 4.7 hours per sample
x $34 per hour
Part 7, Subpart C – Battery Assemblies:
June 2008
44

= $ 6,552

= $

320

1219-0066
1 audit x 3.0 hours x $34 per hour

= $

102

= $

306

Part 7, Subpart D – Multiple-Shot Blasting Units:
None were performed in FY2007.
Part 7, Subpart E – Diesel Engines:
Permissible Diesel Engines
3 audits x 3.0 hours x $34 per hour
Non-Permissible Diesel Engines
28 audits x 3.0 hours x $34 per hour

= $ 2,856

Part 7, Subpart F – Diesel Power Packages:
1 audit x 3.0 hours x $34 per hour

= $

102

Part 7, Subpart J – Electric Motor Assemblies:
MSHA estimates that its cost to have a Mining Equipment
Compliance Specialist travel to a manufacturing or distribution
site and perform a post-approval audit on a motor assembly is
$100. This includes both salary and travel expenses. Motor
assembly audits require significantly more time than other field
audits.
7 motor assembly audits x 6 hours per audit
x $34 per hour + 7 x $100 per audit

= $ 2,128

Part 7, Subpart K – Electric Cables, Signaling Cables, and Cable
Splice Kits:
25 cable samples x 4.7 hours per sample
x $34 per hour

= $ 3,995

10 splice kit samples x 4.7 hours per sample
x $34 per hour

= $ 1,598

20 signaling cable samples x 4.7 hours per sample
x $34 per hour

= $ 3,196

June 2008
45

1219-0066
Part 18 Electrical Motor Driven Mine Equipment and Accessories:
524 audits x $100

= $52,400

Part 19 Electric Cap Lamps:
1 audit x $100

= $

100

= $

100

Part 22 Portable Methane Detectors:
1 audit x $100
Part 23 Telephones and Signaling Devices:
165 audits x $100

= $16,500

Part 27 Methane Monitoring Systems:
7 audits x $100

= $

700

Part 28 Fuses:
5 audits x 8.4 hours per audit x $34 per hour

= $ 1,428

Part 36 Mobile Diesel Powered Transportation Equipment for Gassy
Non-coal Mines and Tunnels:
33 audits x $100

= $ 3,300

TOTAL COST TO FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
FOR ALL ONGOING PRODUCT AUDIT PROGRAMS:

= $95,683

15. Explain the reasons for any program changes or adjustments reporting in Items
13 or 14 of the OMB Form 83-I.

There was an increase of 1,514 burden hours (2,788 to 4,302).
The increase is due to the increase of approval applications
received in FY2007.
There was an increase of 171 responses (563 to 734) and an
increase of 72 respondents (190 to 262); again, this is due to
the increase of approval applications submitted in FY2007.
The increase in applications has also resulted in an increase of
$507,221 burden cost ($1,164,160 to $1,671,381).
16.

For collections of information whose results will be published, outline plans

June 2008
46

1219-0066
for tabulation, and publication. Address any complex analytical techniques that
will be used. Provide the time schedule for the entire project, including
beginning and ending dates of the collection of information, completion of report,
publication dates, and other actions.

MSHA does not intend to publish the results of this information
collection.
17. If seeking approval to not display the expiration date for OMB approval of
the information collection, explain the reasons that display would be
inappropriate.

MSHA is not seeking approval to not display the expiration date
for OMB approval of this information collection.
18. Explain each exception to the certification statement identified in Item 19,
"Certification for Paperwork Reduction Act Submission," of OMB 83-I.

There are no exceptions to the certification statement.

Collection of Information Employment Statistical
Methods

The agency should be prepared to justify its decision not to use statistical
methods in any case where such methods might reduce burden or improve accuracy of
results. When Item 17 on the Form OMB 83-I is checked "Yes", the following
documentation should be included in the Supporting Statement to the extent that it
applies to the methods proposed:
1. Describe (including a numerical estimate) the potential respondent universe
and any sampling or other respondent selection methods to be used. Data on the
number of entities (e.g., establishments, State and local government units,
households, or persons) in the universe covered by the collection and in the
corresponding sample are to be provided in tabular form for the universe as a
whole and for each of the strata in the proposed sample. Indicate expected
response rates for the collection as a whole. If the collection had been
conducted previously, include the actual response rate achieved during the last
collection.
2.

Describe the procedures for the collection of information including:

•
•
•
•
•
3.

Statistical methodology for stratification and sample selection,
Estimation procedure,
Degree of accuracy needed for the purpose described in the
justification,
Unusual problems requiring specialized sampling procedures, and
Any use of periodic (less frequently than annual) data collection
cycles to reduce burden.

Describe methods to maximize response rates and to deal with issues of non-

June 2008
47

1219-0066
response. The accuracy and reliability of information collected must be shown to
be adequate for intended uses. For collections based on sampling, a special
justification must be provided for any collection that will not yield "reliable"
data that can be generalized to the universe studied.
4. Describe any tests of procedures or methods to be undertaken. Testing is
encouraged as an effective means of refining collections of information to
minimize burden and improve utility. Tests must be approved if they call for
answers to identical questions from 10 or more respondents. A proposed test or
set of tests may be submitted for approval separately or in combination with the
main collection of information.
5. Provide the name and telephone number of individuals consulted on statistical
aspects of the design and the name of the agency unit, contractor(s), grantee(s),
or other person(s) who will actually collect and/or analyze the information for
the agency.

As statistical analysis is not required by the regulation,
questions 1 through 5 do not apply.

June 2008
48

1219-0066
Federal Mine Safety & Health Act of 1977,
Public Law 91-173,
as amended by Public Law 95-164*

An Act
SEC. 318. For the purpose of this title and title II of this Act, the term-(c) "permissible" as applied to-(1) equipment used in the operation of a coal mine, means equipment, other than
permissible electric face equipment, to which an approval plate, label, or other
device is attached as authorized by the Secretary and which meets specifications
which are prescribed by the Secretary for the construction and maintenance of
such equipment and are designed to assure that such equipment will not cause a
mine explosion or a mine fire,
(2) explosives, shot firing units, or blasting devices used in such mine, means
explosives, shot firing units, or blasting devices which meet specifications which
are prescribed by the Secretary, and
(3) the manner of use of equipment or explosives, shot firing units, and blasting
devices, means the manner of use prescribed by the Secretary;

(i) "permissible" as applied to electric face equipment means all electrically operated
equipment taken into or used inby the last open crosscut of an entry or a room of any coal
mine the electrical parts of which, including, but not limited to, associated electrical
equipment, components, and accessories, are designed, constructed, and installed, in
accordance with the specifications of the Secretary, to assure that such equipment will
not cause a mine explosion or mine fire, and the other features of which are designed and
constructed, in accordance with the specifications of the Secretary, to prevent, to the
greatest extent possible, other accidents in the use of such equipment; and the regulations
of the Secretary or the Director of the Bureau of Mines in effect on the operative date of
this title relating to the requirements for investigation, testing, approval, certification, and
acceptance of such equipment as permissible shall continue in effect until modified or
superseded by the Secretary, except that the Secretary shall provide procedures,
including, where feasible, testing, approval, certification, and acceptance in the field by
an authorized representative of the Secretary, to facilitate compliance by an operator with
the requirements of section 305(a) of this title within the periods prescribed therein;

June 2008
49

1219-0066
[Code of Federal Regulations]
[Title 30, Volume 1]
[Revised as of July 1, 2007]
From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access
[CITE: 30CFR6.10]
TITLE 30--MINERAL RESOURCES
CHAPTER I--MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH ADMINISTRATION, DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
PART 6_TESTING AND EVALUATION BY INDEPENDENT LABORATORIES AND NON-MSHA
PRODUCT SAFETY STANDARDS--Table of Contents
Sec. 6.10

Use of independent laboratories.

(a) MSHA will accept testing and evaluation performed by an
independent laboratory for purposes of MSHA product approval provided
that MSHA receives as part of the application:
(1) Written evidence of the laboratory's independence and current
recognition by a laboratory accrediting organization;
(2) Complete technical explanation of how the product complies with
each requirement in the applicable MSHA product approval requirements;
(3) Identification of components or features of the product that are
critical to the safety of the product; and
(4) All documentation, including drawings and specifications, as
submitted to the independent laboratory by the applicant and as required
by the applicable part under this chapter.
(b) Product testing and evaluation performed by independent
laboratories for purposes of MSHA approval must comply with the
applicable MSHA product approval requirements.
(c) Product testing and evaluation must be conducted or witnessed by
the laboratory's personnel.
(d) After review of the information required under paragraphs (a)(1)
through (a)(4) of this section, MSHA will notify the applicant if
additional information or testing is required. The applicant must
provide this information, arrange any additional or repeat tests and
notify MSHA of the location, date, and time of the test(s). MSHA may
observe any additional testing conducted by an independent laboratory.
Further, MSHA may decide to conduct the additional or repeated tests at
the applicant's expense. The applicant must supply any additional
components necessary for testing and evaluation.
(e) Upon request by MSHA, but not more than once a year, except for
cause, approval holders of products approved based on independent
laboratory testing and evaluation must make such products available for
post-approval audit at a mutually agreeable site at no cost to MSHA.
(f) Once the product is approved, the approval holder must notify
MSHA of all product defects of which they become aware.

June 2008
50

1219-0066
PART 7_TESTING BY APPLICANT OR THIRD PARTY--Table of Contents
Subpart B_Brattice Cloth and Ventilation Tubing
Sec. 7.23

Application requirements.

(a) Brattice cloth. A single application may address two or more
products if the products differ only in: weight of the finished product;
weight or weave of the same fabric or scrim; or thickness or layers of
the same film. Applications shall include the following information:
(1) Trade name.
(2) Product designations (for example, style and code number).
(3) Color.
(4) Type of brattice (for example, plastic or jute).
(5) Weight of finished product.
(6) Film: type, weight, thickness, supplier, supplier's stock number
or designation, and percent of finished product by weight.
(7) Scrim: Type, denier, weight, weave, the supplier, supplier's
stock number or designation, and percent of finished product by weight.
(8) Adhesive: type, supplier, supplier's stock number or
designation, and percent of finished product by weight.
(b) Flexible ventilation tubing. Applications shall include the
product description information in paragraph (a) of this section and
list the type of supporting structure, if applicable; inside diameters;
and configurations.
(c) Rigid ventilation tubing. A single application may address two
or more products if the products differ only in diameters, lengths,
configuration, or average wall thickness. Applications shall include the
following information:
(1) Trade name.
(2) Product designations (for example, style and code numbers).
(3) Color.
(4) Type of ventilation tubing (for example, fiberglass, plastic, or
polyethylene).
(5) Inside diameter, configuration, and average wall thickness.
(6) Suspension system (for example, metal hooks).
(7) Base material: type, supplier, the supplier's stock number, and
percent of finished product by weight.
(8) Resin: type, supplier, the supplier's stock number, and percent
of finished product by weight.
(9) Flame retardant, if added during manufacturing: type, supplier,
the supplier's stock number, and percent of finished product by weight.
Sec. 7.27

Test for flame resistance of brattice cloth.

(a) Test procedures. (1) Prepare 6 samples of brattice cloth 40
inches wide by 48 inches long.
(2) Prior to testing, condition each sample for a minimum of 24
hours at a temperature of 70File Type application/pdf
File Title 1219-0066
Author ferraro-debbie
File Modified 2008-07-11
File Created 2008-07-11

File Type	application/pdf
File Title	1219-0066
Author	ferraro-debbie
File Modified	2008-07-11
File Created	2008-07-11