SS_State Plan Information (2008final)

SUPPORTING STATEMENT FOR
THE INFORMATION-COLLECTION REQUIREMENTS FOR
OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH STATE PLANS
UNDER THE PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT
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 regulation mandating or authorizing the collection
of information.

Section 18 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (the Act) encourages the
States to assume responsibility for the development and enforcement of State
occupational safety and health standards through the vehicle of an approved State plan.
Absent a plan approved by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA),
States are preempted from asserting jurisdiction over any occupational safety and health
issue with respect to which a Federal standard has been promulgated. Section 18
establishes the basic criteria for State plan approval; provides for the discretionary
exercise of concurrent Federal enforcement jurisdiction after initial plan approval until
such time as the State has demonstrated that it is meeting the approval criteria in actual
operation (final State Plan approval), at which point Federal enforcement jurisdiction
may be relinquished; provides that State standards and enforcement must be, and
continue to be, “at least as effective” as the Federal program including any changes
thereto; and requires OSHA to make a continuing evaluation of the manner in which the
State is implementing its program and to take action to withdraw plan approval should
there be a failure to substantially comply with any provision of the State plan.
OSHA promulgated a series of regulations between 1970 and 1977 implementing the
provisions of Section 18 of the Act. 29 CFR 1953 was revised in 2002.
29 CFR Part 1902, State Plans for the Development and Enforcement of State Standards
29 CFR Part 1952, Approved State Plans for Enforcement of State Standards
29 CFR Part 1953, Changes to State Plans
29 CFR Part 1954, Procedures for the Evaluation and Monitoring of Approved State Plans
29 CFR Part 1955, Procedures for Withdrawal of Approval of State Plans
29 CFR Part 1956, State Plans for the Development and Enforcement of State Standards
Applicable to State and Local Government Employees in States without Approved Private
Employee Plans

1

Pursuant to the Act and regulations, the States with approved State plans operate
programs that are parallel to Federal OSHA; they operate under authority of State law,
not a delegation of Federal authority. They have primary responsibility for occupational
safety and health with regard to all private sector employees and employers within their
defined area of jurisdiction. They also must extend coverage to State and local
government employees - workers not otherwise covered by OSHA. Under the OSH Act,
implementation of a State plan is voluntary on the State’s part. The States develop and
enact State occupational safety and health legislation which provides State legal authority
over matters of workplace safety and health, and promulgate occupational safety and
health standards and regulations through the regulatory procedures provided under State
law, in the usual and customary manner required to implement any State governmental
program. In carrying out their State plans, States conduct workplace inspections, issue
citations, propose penalties, and adjudicate contested cases and maintain records on these
activities in much the same manner, and through the same data systems, as Federal
OSHA. These functions are “investigatory” in nature and the documentation and activity
data collected is the “usual and customary” information that any State agency would
collect as part of its routine operation, management and accountability. Thus there is no
OSHA-imposed paperwork burden associated with the day-to-day operation of an
OSHA-approved State plan. (The State programs operate in much the same manner as
Federal OSHA and their standards and enforcement paperwork and data collection
activities parallel that approved for OSHA.) 1
However, in order to fulfill its responsibilities under the Act - to grant initial and
continued approval and assure program effectiveness - OSHA, through its State Plan
regulations, requires the States to provide specific documentation describing how their
programs are, and continue to be, “at least as effective” as the Federal program in
structure and in operation. It is these State plan document development and maintenance
requirements, including the negotiations between OSHA and the State as to content and
1

It should be noted that the Information Collection analysis prepared for each new OSHA
standard includes in its calculations the workplace paperwork burden associated with the parallel
standard, including, where relevant, extension to State and local government employees, as adopted by
States operating OSHA-approved State plans, especially where the standard is identical to the Federal.
That information is not included in this collection. Information collection requirements associated with
State standards which differ from the Federal are not subject to the provisions of the Paperwork
Reduction Act.

2

requirements that constitute information collections for which approval of the associated
paperwork burdens is sought.
a.

29 CFR Part 1902, State Plans for the Development and Enforcement of
State Standards; 29 CFR Part 1956, Subpart A-C, State Plans for the
Development and Enforcement of State Standards Applicable to State and
Local Government Employees in States without Approved Private Employee
Plans; 29 CFR 1952, Subpart A, Approved State Plans for Enforcement of
State Standards: State opportunity/obligation to submit a State Plan document
that meets the criteria and indices of effectiveness for State submission and
OSHA approval.

Requirement: These regulations establish the conditions that must be met by any State
seeking OSHA approval either of a complete State plan, covering both the private sector
and State and local government employees (Part 1902) or a State plan limited in scope to
State and local government employees only (Part 1956). The State plan is a one-time
submission which begins with the Governor’s letter designating a State agency
responsible for the plan and indicating the State’s intent to seek Federal approval to
assume State responsibility for occupational safety and health enforcement in that State.
The regulations establish the criteria for State plans, the procedures for initial State plan
approval or rejection, and the procedures for final State plan approval, in the case of a
complete State plan, and in Part 1956 document the submission and approval process for
Public Employee Only State Plans. These regulations establish Federal procedural
requirements. The State plan document contains copies of State enabling legislation as
well as all standards, regulations, policies and procedures- either in final adopted form or
as a proposal with a future commitment to implement within a three (3) year
developmental period. In addition to submission of the plan document, the State must
publish public notice throughout the State when OSHA seeks public comment on
proposed State plan approval.
There are currently 26 approved State Plans. All except two were approved during the
1970's. The New York Public Employee Only State Plan was approved in 1984; the New
Jersey Public Employee Only State plan was approved in January 2001. Currently,
Illinois is working toward the development of a State Plan while Washington D.C. and
Pennsylvania have recently expressed interest in the development of a State Plan. It has
been estimated that on average the development of a State Plan requires approximately
2000 burden hours (A new State Plan cannot be approved until the necessary funds are
made available in OSHA’s budget to support 50% of the required program operational
costs.) Based on recent history, OSHA estimates that in an average year one state may be
actively pursuing the development of a State Plan.
b.

29 CFR Part 1952, Subparts B -FF, Approved State Plans for Enforcement
of State Standards; 29 CFR Part 1956, Subparts E-H, State Plans for the
Development and Enforcement of State Standards Applicable to State and
3

Local Government Employees in States without Approved Private Employee
Plans. Documents the Federal approval of each State plan and describes its
content and status, including any additions or revisions thereto.
Requirement: There are no State information collection requirements associated with
these rules; it is a Federal responsibility to codify the approval of various State
submissions under 29 CFR 1902, 1956, and 1953.

c.

29 CFR 1953, Changes to State Plans: State obligation to inform OSHA of
structural changes to its program, whether self-initiated or in response to changes
in the Federal program, and submit documentation on those changes which are of
significant program impact, for Federal approval.

Requirement: State Plans are initially approved if they contain sufficient documentation,
in the form of statute(s), regulations, standards, policy and procedures, to demonstrate
that the program will be “at least as effective as” the Federal program. The State plan
may be incomplete at time of initial approval but must adopt and submit all necessary
structural components within three years of plan approval (developmental plan changes).
Any subsequent changes that are made to the State’s program or practice by legislation,
regulation, administrative or budgetary action, on its own initiative, must be documented
(state initiated change). When changes are made to the Federal program by legislation,
regulation, administrative or budgetary action, which would render the State program no
longer “at least as effective” as the Federal program were a parallel change not made, the
States must adopt and submit appropriate documentation of a parallel State change for
approval (federal program changes). Where Federal monitoring and evaluation of a
State’s program results in a determination that State legislation, regulation, policy,
procedure or practice, administrative or budgetary action renders the program “not at
least as effective” as the Federal program, documentation of appropriate corrective action
must be submitted for approval (evaluation plan change). State occupational safety and
health standards constitute a subset of “state initiated” and “federal program changes”
and must be submitted with appropriate documentation.
State plan change documents are submitted for approval and serve to modify the
approved State plan. Formal Federal approval of the most significant changes is codified
in the appropriate State-specific section of 29 CFR 1952. (Because OSHA-approved
State plans operate under authority of State law, all program modifications take effect
upon State adoption and remain in effect unless rejected by OSHA through a formal
adjudicatory process.) On September 15, 2002 OSHA promulgated amendments to these
regulations that significantly reduced the number of required submissions, as long as the
State maintains appropriate policy documentation which is available to OSHA for review
upon request. The revision also streamlined the process for submission, review and
approval of plan supplements. In addition a web-based system of automated State
responses and tracking of plan changes contribute to a reduction in burden hours. As part
4

of an effort to make information on State Plan standards and policies/directives more
readily accessible, OSHA and the Occupational Safety and Health State Plan Association
(OSHSPA) have developed a system for displaying the State Plans’ responses to Federal
standards and directives issued after May 2006 on OSHA’s website. States are now
required to either post on their State website or submit a copy to OSHA of any response
to a non-mandatory program change that adopts policy or procedures not identical to the
Federal. This has only slightly increased burden hours.
As part of its effort to be responsive to issues and events, OSHA periodically seeks
summary information from the States, by e-mail, phone, or memorandum, on specific
provisions of their programs and/or activities. States usually respond by e-mail with the
requested information, providing copies of relevant documents, usually electronically.
This information is consolidated for all State Plans into a reference document. The
information sought relates to specific aspects of the States’ operations that is already
reflected in State plan documentation. States are not asked to create new information in
this process nor to query outside entities. For example, OSHA may need to display
which of the approved State Plans have a State standard that differs from the Federal and
what those differences are. In the interest of accuracy and timeliness, the States are asked
to provide summary information.

d..

29 CFR 1954, Procedures for the Evaluation and Monitoring of Approved
State Plans: State obligation to participate with OSHA in the monitoring and
evaluation of its State program through analysis of data, investigation of
complaints about State performance, response to recommendations, and
documentation of corrective action, as appropriate.

Requirement: OSHA’s monitoring obligation and implementation procedures for
evaluating State plan effectiveness remain essentially the same throughout the life of a
State’s program (initial approval and developmental period, final approval, continued
approval) and are essentially a Federal responsibility. The monitoring procedures are
conducted on a fiscal year basis with regular quarterly review of State-supplied and
computer generated information, and result in annual Federal evaluation reports on State
effectiveness. The focus of OSHA’s monitoring is on State progress in achieving
approved performance goals and on meeting mandated requirements of the OSH Act and
regulations. States establish and document their goals in periodically updated five (5)
year Strategic Plans and annual Performance Plans which are included in the narrative
portion of the State Plan’s annual grant submission.
On a quarterly basis, OSHA Regional staff have discussions with State officials on their
progress in meeting goals and their performance on mandated program activities. States
have primary responsibility for providing information on performance goal progress
through State tracking systems or participation in OSHA’s performance measurement
system. States participate in OSHA’s Integrated Management Information System
5

(IMIS), providing data on program activities in the same manner as a Federal office.
Thus, complete data on the usual and customary activities of the States’ enforcement,
compliance assistance, and non-discrimination programs are available to OSHA. Data
needed to evaluate State performance are produced through Federally developed and
generated reports using agreed upon measures. Federal officials conduct performance
analysis and prepare annual evaluation reports, although States participate to varying
degrees in assessing information, and prepare formal annual self-assessments of their
performance as well as responses to Federal reports, including commitments for any
needed corrective action. Similarly, any Complaint About State Program Administration
(CASPA) is investigated Federally with State opportunity for input and response. Where
necessary and appropriate, Federal review of case files, accompanied inspections and
staff interviews may be conducted with State opportunity to participate and respond,
formally and informally.
For information and/or data not part of a currently established electronic data system, the
States on occasion may be asked to provide copies of specific action items, such as
variances granted or significant review board decisions for review and monitoring.

e..

29 CFR 1955, Procedures for Withdrawal of Approval of State Plans: Federal
obligation to bring formal adjudicatory action, document and prove that specific
State Plan performance no longer warrants Federal approval.

Requirement: If a State chooses to challenge action brought by Federal OSHA to
withdraw plan approval, it must participate in a formal adjudicatory process through
filing of briefs, motions, et al. There are no State information collection requirements
associated with this regulation.
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 requirements for State submissions on the structure and performance of their OSHAapproved State Plan, as established by the various State Plan regulations, are necessary to
provide OSHA with sufficient information to assure that the State plan provides a
program of standards and enforcement and voluntary compliance to employers and
employees in that State that is “at least as effective” as the Federal OSHA program and
thus warrants continued Federal approval and funding. Clearance is requested for three
categories of information as set forth in the current regulations; two of the regulations
establish only Federal responsibilities and have no information collection requirements.
a.

The State Plan (29 CFR 1902, 1956, Subparts A-C, and 1952, Subpart A). The
State Plan document as approved provides information to the public, affected
employers and employees and to OSHA on the structural components of the State
6

OSHA program. It includes underlying legal documentation on the authority for
the State plan and its intended methods of operation. As regularly updated
through State plan changes (see following category), it has become a voluminous
document, the components of which are more readily accessible through other
sources, such as State websites. It is used primarily for historical reference when
questions of State authority or performance arise. There is currently one State
which has submitted a draft Public Employee Only plan to OSHA for review.
Several others are seeking the legislative authority necessary to pursue the
development of a State Plan.
b.

Plan Approval (29 CFR 1952, Subparts B-FF, and 1956, Subparts E-G). There
are no additional information collection requirements imposed on the States
associated with codifying the approval of the plan and its changes. This is a
Federal responsibility.

c.

State Plan Changes (29 CFR 1953). Formal changes to a State Plan are submitted
to document and allow OSHA to assure continued program effectiveness by
reflecting changes to authority and procedures, including legislation, regulations
and standards. States must also have operating procedures equivalent to those in
the Federal program, but must submit them only as weblinks or copies, and only
if State procedures differ from the Federal. The information is used for
comparison to the Federal program, to determine continued plan approvability,
and to respond to questions from the public, employers and employees, the
Congress and other oversight agencies with regard to one or multiple States’
authority, procedures, and practices. Summary information is posted on OSHA’s
website. States are also periodically asked to respond to requests, both formally
and informally, for information on the structural components or operational
practices of their programs. The information is used to demonstrate that the State
Plan is providing an “at least as effective” State program to its employers and
employees, to respond to specific questions, and to assemble consolidated
information on all State plans.

d.

Monitoring and Evaluation (29 CFR 1954). Most information and data collected
for monitoring and evaluation is developed Federally or as a part of the States’
routine program operation. Where information is not captured electronically, the
States are required to submit copies of relevant actions for monitoring oversight,
including Strategic and Annual Performance Plans, which also serve funding
application purposes. States must provide formal responses to program
performance complaint investigations, evaluation reports, and special monitoring
studies, including corrective action plans, as appropriate. This information is
used by OSHA to establish whether there are program deficiencies and, if so,
assure their correction. This information is also of interest to the public, the
Congress, and employers and employees as a means of external assessment of
program satisfaction.
7

e.

3.

Plan Withdrawal (29 CFR 1955). The information collection associated with this
regulation is adjudicatory in nature. Any action to withdraw plan approval is
initiated Federally. The State may choose to oppose the action, in which case it
would prepare the usual and customary documents required in a legal proceeding.

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 the burden.

Data on State plan day-to-day activity is collected electronically through a unified
Federal/State data system. (This data is part of the “usual and customary” information
that any State agency would collect as part of its routine operation, management and
accountability functions and deal with matters that are investigatory in nature.) OSHA
has developed the system and provided it to the States without cost. The necessary
computer and network equipment is purchased by the States using available grant
funding. States actively participate in the design and modification of new and improved
systems and OSHA regularly negotiates with the States to assure that computer services
meet State needs.
In recent years, Plan Changes and the newest State Plan have been submitted
electronically through e-mail and have been posted on State and Federal websites.
OSHA deployed an automated system for tracking the submission and review of plan
changes in FY 2003. Activities associated with monitoring are arranged and negotiated
through electronic means. Annual State Plan Grant applications under section 23(g) are
now submitted electronically through grants.gov. Although electronic submission is
mandatory with the FY2009 applications, only two forms are completed online. All other
documents are submitted as scanned documents resulting in minimal to no change in
preparation time and burden hours.
4

Describe efforts to identify duplication. Show specifically why any similar information
already available cannot be used or modified for use of the purpose described in item 2
above.

Efforts to reduce the submission of multiple copies of documents through electronic
transmittal have been largely successful. All information developed is specific to the
OSHA program and there is no similar information available.
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 the burden.

These information collections relate solely to participating State agencies. There is no
8

impact on small businesses or other small entities.
6.

Describe the consequences 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 the burden.

The information must be collected to fulfill OSHA’s statutory responsibility to assure
that State Programs are “at least as effective” as the Federal program in structure and
performance, and continue to be so, as the Federal program changes. Regulation changes
have been made to allow State certification of various actions with documentation
retained and available within the State if identical to the federal. It is essential to the
process that States be afforded the opportunity to provide input, explanations and
comment on monitoring findings or other critiques of their performance as they impact
on continued authority to operate a State plan.
7. Explain 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 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 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 for information collection.
8.

If applicable, provide a copy and identify the data and page number of publication in the

9

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 record keeping,
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 three 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.

As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), OSHA
published a notice in the Federal Register on October 3, 2008 (73 FR 57685, Docket No.
OSHA-2008-0037) requesting public comment on its proposal to extend the Office of
Management and Budget’s (OMB) approval on the information collection requirements
associated with Federal regulations governing OSHA-approved State plans (29 CFR
Parts 1902, 1952, 1953, 1954, 1955, and 1956). The Agency received no comments in
response to this notice.
9.

Explain any decision to provide any payment or gift to respondents, other than
remuneration of contractors or grantees.

OSHA will not provide payments or gifts to the respondents, other than grant funding as
authorized by law.
10.

Describe any assurance of confidentiality provided to respondents and the basis for the
assurance in statute, regulation, or agency policy.

The respondents in this information collection activity are State government agencies
which do not require assurance of confidentiality.
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
as 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 persons from whom the information is requested, and any steps to be taken to obtain
their consent.

No information of a sensitive nature or other matters that are commonly considered
private are associated with these information collections. (As a condition of funding,
States are required to provide required assurances of nondiscrimination in their operation
and with regard to their employees.)
10

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 estimates. Consultation with a sample (fewer than ten) 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.

•

Provides estimates of annualized costs 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.

11

Information Collection

Number of
Respondents

State Plan

1

Plan Changes
-Developmental
-State Initiated
-Federal Program
-Evaluation
-Different Standards
- Requests for Summary
Information
Total

26
1
15
26
5
4
26

Frequency of
Response

one-time

15 (x 5 hours)
5 (x 5 hours)
8 (x 1 hour)
2 (x 6 hours)
4 (x 10 hours)
20 (x .5 hour)

2

Annual
Burden
Hours

Costs

2,000

$55,405

75
375
208
60
160
260
$ 31,525
1,138

Monitoring Activities
-Quarterly Meetings
-Strategic Plan
-Performance Plan/Grant
Application Narrative
-State Reports
-State activities
-Other Reports/Responses

26
26
26

4 (x 8 hours)
.2 (x120 hours)
1 (x 80 hours)

832
624
2,080

26
26
26

1 (x 65 hours)
4 (x 2 hours)
10 (x 8 hours)

1,690
208
2,080
$208,157

Total

7,514

Total

27

1,417

10,652

$ 295,087

State Plan
One State, Illinois, is currently developing a State Plan for Public Employees Only. It is
estimated that the burden hours associated with the process to develop and submit a State
Plan document, a one-time only event, is a total of 6,000 hours (3 FTE) over a period of
at least 3 years, or 2,000 hours additional annual burden. (State plan approval cannot be
completed until Federal grant funds are added to OSHA’s budget.) At the estimated
professional and clerical hourly rates (see footnote 2), the burden hour cost would be
2

The cost estimate is based on the average salary of a State Plan administrative professional - $65,603 or
$31.54 hourly rate, and the average salary of State clerical staff - $33,675 or $16.19 hourly rate. It is assumed that
75% of the information collection is performed by professional staff and 25% by clerical. Source: Bureau of Labor
Statistics News Release, June 11, 2008; Table 4: State and local government employer costs per hour worked.

12

$55,405.
State Plan Changes
Plan change estimates are based on type of submission and the burden is that associated
solely with the preparation of the documentation for submission to OSHA. The effort
required to accomplish the action - promulgate a standard, adopt a regulation - are all a
necessary part of the routine operation of the program. The only burden is the
submission.
Developmental changes: It is possible that Illinois’ State Plan may be approved in FY
2009, after which they will begin making developmental changes. Illinois is expected to
submit up to 15 developmental plan changes during each year of its three year
developmental period. It is estimated that each change requires 5 hours of staff effort to
prepare for submission.
State-Initiated changes: It is estimated that 15 of the 25 approved State plans (New Jersey
is not included as its parallel changes would be considered Developmental) submit as
many as 5 plan modifications on their own initiative each year. It is estimated that each
change requires 5 hours of staff effort to prepare for submission.
Federal Program changes: All 26 States are required to respond to an average of 8
changes in the Federal program each year – 3 of which require submission of a full plan
change. The remainder require submission by weblink or copy, only if the policy
adopted differs from the Federal. It is estimated that each change requires 1 hour of staff
effort to prepare for submission.
Evaluation changes: It is estimated that as many as 5 States may have to make 1-2
changes to their plans per year based on issues discovered during monitoring and
evaluation. Each change requires up to 6 hours of staff effort to prepare for submission.
Different State Standards: A State may adopt a State standard different from the Federal
either on its own initiative or in response to a Federal standard. Such standards require
submission of a detailed comparison to the Federal and justification of the differences.
(Again, the time spent developing and promulgating the standard is not part of the
Federal burden.) It is estimated that on average 4 States per year develop 4 different
State standards which require 10 hours per submission.
Requests for Summary Information: Periodically OSHA needs to assemble information
on how specific issues are dealt with in each of the 26 States with approved State Plans.
This information is gathered almost exclusively through informal electronic (e-mail)
means, although phone calls and memoranda (transmitted electronically) are sometimes
used . States are not asked to create new information in this process nor to query outside
entities. It is estimated that there are twenty such requests each year which require up to
13

one-half (.5) hour per response. Information on State plan change submissions is
available in an electronic data system with the implementation of an automated log
tracking system.
Monitoring Activities
On a five year cycle all 26 States establish long range strategic goals (120 hours). On an
annual basis 26 States prepare performance plans with annualized goals (80 hours) and
submit year-end reports on goal progress (65 hours). The performance plans also serve a
dual purpose as the narratives for the annual State funding/grant applications and are
now scanned and submitted electronically at Grants.gov. On a quarterly basis, 26 States
provide interim reports on their goal progress in discussions/ meetings with Regional
staff (8 hours per meeting). On a quarterly basis the 26 States provide other information
and/or data which are not part of a currently established electronic data system, including
copies of specific action items, such as variances granted or significant review board
decisions (2 hours). All 26 States provide responses to various Federal reports and
assessments including responses to Complaints about State Program Administration
(CASPAs). It is estimated that this occurs up to 10 times a year.
OSHA estimates a total of 10,652 burden hours for the States to comply with the information
collection and reporting requirements of 29 CFR 1902, 1952, 1953, 1954, 1955, and 1956.
Total Burden Hour Cost to the States: $295,087
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 hour burden
shown in Items 12 and 14.)
•

The cost estimate should be split into two components: (a) a total capital and startup 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 on 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 variance. The cost of purchasing or
contracting out information collection services should be 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

14

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.

All costs associated with this collection are included in Item 12 above.
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 the collection of
information. Agencies also may aggregate cost estimates from Items 12, 13, and 14 in a
single table.

The cost to the Federal government is for the review and analysis of the various plan
documents and monitoring information submitted by the States. A professional staff of 7
Program Analysts in the Directorate of Cooperative and State Programs, Office of State
Programs in Washington, D.C. (average grade GS-13 with a salary of $82,961) spends
30% of its time tracking and reviewing the subject information collection at a cost of
$174,218 per year. Each of the 10 Regions has an average of 2 FTE, (average grade GS13, with a salary of $68,625) who devote 25% of their time to these functions ($343,125).
Average salaries have decreased since 2005 through turnover and retirement. Therefore,
the total Federal review cost is: $517,343.
15.

Explain the reasons for any program changes or adjustments.

The Agency is requesting an adjustment increase of 130 hours, from 10,522 burden hour
to 10,652, reflect that States may respond to an average of eight instead of three changes
in the Federal program each year.
16.

For collection of information whose results will be published, outline plans 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.

OSHA will not publish this information. Results are publicly available upon request and
some summaries are posted on OSHA’s website.

17.

If seeking approval not to display the expiration date for OMB approval of the information
collection, explain the reasons that display would be inappropriate

OSHA is not seeking such approval.
15

18.

Explain each exception to the certification statement in ROCIS.

OSHA is not requesting an exception to the certification statement in Item 19.
B.

COLLECTION OF INFORMATION EMPLOYING STATISTICAL METHODS

The agency should be prepared to justify its decision not to use statistical methods in any case
where such methods might reduce the burden or improve accuracy of results. When Item 17 on
From OMB 83-I is checked “Yes,” the following documentation should be included in 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:
•

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 the burden.

3.

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

16

This section is not applicable.

17