Source: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2003/06/17/03-15006/testing-and-evaluation-by-independent-laboratories-and-non-msha-product-safety-standards
Timestamp: 2018-02-22 09:18:13
Document Index: 36642666

Matched Legal Cases: ['§\u20096', '§\u20096', '§\u20096', '§\u20096', 'art 7', 'art 7', 'art 7', 'art 7', 'art 7', 'art 7', 'art 7', 'art 7', 'art 7', '§\u20096', 'art 18', '§\u20096', '§\u20096', '§\u20096', '§\u20096', '§\u20096', '§\u20096', '§\u20096', '§\u20096', '§\u20096', 'art 18', '§\u20096', '§\u20096', 'art 6', '§\u20096', '§\u20096', 'art 18', 'art 7', '§\u20096', '§\u20097', 'art 7', '§\u20096', 'art 6', '§\u20097', '§\u20096', '§\u20097', '§\u20097', '§\u20097', '§\u20097', 'art 7', 'art 7', '§\u20097', '§\u20097', '§\u20097', 'art 7', '§\u20096', 'arts 18', '§\u20096', '§\u20096', '§\u20096', '§\u20096', '§\u20096', '§\u20096', '§\u20097', '§\u20097', 'art 7', '§\u200918', '§\u20096', 'art.\n8', '§\u200918', '§\u200919', '§\u20096', 'art.\n11', '§\u200919', 'art 6', '§\u200920', '§\u200920', '§\u200922', '§\u200923', '§\u200923', '§\u200927', '§\u20096', '§\u200933', '§\u200933', '§\u200935', '§\u200935', '§\u200936', '§\u200936', '§\u200936']

Federal Register :: Testing and Evaluation by Independent Laboratories and Non-MSHA Product Safety Standards
A Rule by the Mine Safety and Health Administration on 06/17/2003
This regulation is effective August 18, 2003.
36407-36423 (17 pages)
1219-AA87
§ 6.1 Purpose and Effective Date
§ 6.2 Definitions
§ 6.10 Use of Independent Laboratories
§ 6.20 MSHA Acceptance of Equivalent Non-MSHA Product Safety Standards
Section 7.10 MSHA Acceptance of Equivalent Non-MSHA Product Safety Standards
https://www.federalregister.gov/d/03-15006 https://www.federalregister.gov/d/03-15006
Start Preamble Start Printed Page 36408
This final rule establishes alternate requirements for testing and evaluation of products that MSHA approves for use in gassy underground mines. It is being published in response to comments received as the result of a 1994 proposed rule and an October 17, 2002, revised proposed rule on the same subject. It allows manufacturers of certain products, who seek MSHA approval under Title 30 of the Code of Federal Regulations (30 CFR), the option of using an independent laboratory to perform, in whole or part, the necessary testing and evaluation for approval which MSHA would normally perform so that such products can be used in gassy mines in the United States. Testing and evaluation as used in this final rule means testing, evaluation, or both. This final rule also permits manufacturers to have their products approved based on non-MSHA product safety standards. This will occur only after MSHA has determined that such standards are equivalent to its applicable product approval requirements or can be modified to provide at least the same degree of protection as those MSHA requirements. The final rule should increase the availability of a wider variety of mining products having enhanced safety features by reducing costs and broadening the market for mining equipment.
Under part 7, all product testing is conducted according to MSHA-specified tests and procedures, using calibrated and accurate instruments. Moreover, the product testing is subject to Agency observation. Part 7 is not a self-certification program. The part 7 concept shifts only the testing of certain Start Printed Page 36409products to the applicant or a third party. The evaluation of the test results and the issuance of the approval remain the responsibility of the Agency. This final rule will not affect the testing aspects of part 7. Part 7, unlike the other approval parts, will continue to permit testing by the applicant or by third party laboratories that are not necessarily independent from the manufacturer.
In 1993, MSHA initiated a further review of its approval and certification activities, including its part 7 applicant or third-party testing program. Based on this review, the Agency reaffirmed the objectives of the part 7 concept to increase post-approval product audits and direct more resources to evaluation of safety and technological improvements in products for use underground. However, MSHA determined that while the part 7 program was a step in the right direction, the limited scope of that program did not free up sufficient resources to allow MSHA to fully redirect its efforts to meet those objectives. After considering how best to accomplish those goals, the Agency decided to initiate rulemaking to modify MSHA's approval program in two ways, which it did in 1994. Under a 1994 proposed rule titled “Testing and Evaluation by Nationally Recognized Testing Laboratories and Use of Equivalent Testing and Evaluation Requirements,” applicants seeking MSHA product approval would have been required to use independent laboratories recognized by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) under its Nationally-Recognized Testing Laboratories (NRTL) program for the required testing and evaluation. This would have been in place of MSHA testing and evaluation of products. As with the part 7 program, however, MSHA would have continued to verify that approval requirements were met and would have retained full responsibility for issuing the product approval. Thus, the 1994 proposed rule would not have constituted a self-certification program. Second, MSHA or appropriately recognized independent laboratories would have been permitted, upon an applicant's request, to test and evaluate a product for approval based on approval requirements other than the Agency's, as long as those requirements provided an equal or a greater degree of protection. This would have allowed MSHA to approve a product meeting the International Electrotechnical Commission's (IEC) approval standards, or some other approval requirements different from those specified in MSHA's regulations, provided that MSHA first had determined that those requirements were equivalent or could be modified to provide protection equivalent to that afforded by products tested and evaluated according to MSHA approval requirements. In this way, the Agency could have taken advantage of revisions to product safety standards developed by other countries or standards development organizations to address technological advances or improvements in product safety. Such an approach would have permitted the introduction of a wider variety of improved products into U.S. mines more quickly than if the Agency had to undertake rulemaking to address each technological advancement or improvement in product safety, capability, and performance.
First, the revised proposal would be voluntary. Manufacturers could choose to use independent laboratories to perform all or part of the testing and evaluation necessary for approval, or could elect to have MSHA perform the necessary testing and evaluation. Second, applicants would not have to use only independent laboratories that were National Recognized Testing Laboratories under OSHA's program, but could choose an independent laboratory recognized by other laboratory accreditation programs, such as that of the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) or the International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC). Third, only MSHA would conduct required post-approval product audits. Audits conducted by independent laboratories would not be required under the revised proposal. Fourth, only the MSHA mark would be required on MSHA-approved products, not both the MSHA and independent laboratory mark. Finally, the revised proposal would allow public input into the process of making equivalency determinations of non-MSHA product safety standards. MSHA would notify the public through publication in the Federal Register of MSHA's intent to review a particular non-MSHA standard for equivalency and provide an opportunity for public input on that issue.
MSHA is aware of certain instruments that are currently listed (approved) by independent laboratories for use in hazardous gas and dust atmospheres that may also be suitable for use in the Start Printed Page 36410mine environment. These instruments include: Portable methane detectors, air sampling pumps, oxygen deficiency meters, air velocity meters, carbon monoxide detectors, hydrogen sulfide detectors, powered respirators and accessories, toxic gas detectors, portable two-way radios, laser surveying instruments, mine rescue communications systems, photometers, temperature sensing devices, personal audible and visual alarms, heat detection systems, voice amplifiers, position sensing devices, tape recorders, pressure sensing devices, data recording instruments, electrical diagnostic test instruments, sound level meters, sound level calibrators, audio dosimeters, and cable fault detectors.
One commenter expressed its support for the revised proposed rule indicating that “* * * the Revised Proposed Rule contained language which addressed all of our concerns.” The commenter was in agreement with allowing manufacturers to utilize independent laboratory testing facilities while maintaining the test facility at MSHA. It agreed that requiring the use of OSHA's Nationally Recognized Testing Laboratories (NRTLs) which must conduct semi-annual audits was unnecessary since MSHA conducts its own audits. The commenter was also supportive of MSHA's proposal to approve equipment designed to non-MSHA product safety standards, particularly international standards, once MSHA has determined that they provide at least the same degree of protection, in their original or modified form, as MSHA's product approval requirements. The commenter indicated that the proposed provision on equivalency would assist in maintaining a single product line for use in multiple countries. This commenter also urged MSHA to “pursue working toward harmonizing with the world in regard to globalized standards,” specifically suggesting that MSHA join the IECEx scheme that permits one global standard and allows member countries to accept the certification issued by other member countries.
The second commenter expressed its concern regarding the competency of independent laboratories when compared with that of MSHA's own testing and evaluation capabilities. It indicated that MSHA and its predecessors have almost a century of experience and developed knowledge regarding the evaluation of mining products. The commenter recognized that independent laboratories may have the appropriate expertise to test to MSHA requirements, but asserted that the lack of mining-specific knowledge would reduce the industry's confidence in the test and evaluation results. This commenter was further concerned about the potential for “institutional atrophy” that could occur within MSHA with the reduction in testing and evaluation experience. The commenter expressed concern with a potential conflict of interest that could result from an independent laboratory being hired by a manufacturer. The commenter expressed similar concerns that a laboratory could be influenced to “gloss over negative aspects of a mining product” in an effort to keep the manufacturer as a customer.
MSHA has carefully evaluated the concern expressed about accepting third party testing results. Under this final rule, before an independent laboratory's test and evaluation results will be considered, the manufacturer must provide evidence to MSHA that the Start Printed Page 36411laboratory is independent from outside influences and has been accredited by a laboratory accrediting organization to test to the particular standard. Test and evaluation results from an outside laboratory will be scrutinized by MSHA. The results, required by the final rule to be submitted to MSHA, will include the complete report which outlines the conduct of each test. The test and evaluation results will be used by MSHA to determine compliance with the applicable product approval requirements on which the MSHA approval is based. MSHA will have the option to require the independent laboratory to repeat or conduct additional tests if there is any reason to question the supplied test data. MSHA will also have the option of performing the repeat or additional tests. In addition, MSHA's post-approval product audit program will ensure that approved products are produced in compliance with all approval requirements.
This section explains that the purpose of this final rule is to establish an alternate program for testing and evaluation of products MSHA approves for use in gassy underground mines. It permits manufacturers of certain products who seek MSHA approval to use an independent laboratory to perform, in whole or in part, the necessary testing and evaluation for approval. It also permits manufacturers to request to have their products approved based on non-MSHA product safety standards once MSHA has determined that the non-MSHA product safety standards are equivalent to MSHA's applicable product approval requirements or can be modified to provide at least the same degree of protection as MSHA's requirements. No comments on the specific language in § 6.1 were received. Therefore, the final language remains unchanged from the revised proposed rule.
Approval. This term is used to describe a written document issued by MSHA which states that a product has met the applicable requirements of part 18, 19, 20, 22, 23, 27, 33, 35, or 36. The definition is based on the existing definitions of “approval” in the parts specified above. It is expanded to include “certification” and “acceptance” because these terms are also used to denote MSHA approval.
No comments on the specific language of the proposed definitions in § 6.2 were received. Therefore, the language in each of the definitions in the final rule remains unchanged from the revised proposed rule.
Also, under this final rule, if independent laboratories are used, applicants need to submit, as part of the approval application, four items set out in paragraphs (a)(1), (2), (3), and (4) of § 6.10. They include 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, which are required by the applicable approval part under this chapter.
The Agency determined that it is essential for the laboratories performing testing and evaluation to be recognized by a laboratory accrediting organization. These organizations determine the qualifications of laboratories. Several competent laboratory accrediting programs exist including, but not limited to, those operated by OSHA; the American National Standards Institute Start Printed Page 36412(ANSI); and the International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC).
MSHA recognizes that some foreign laboratories meet the criteria for independent laboratories. Therefore, a manufacturer could choose to use a foreign laboratory as long as it is free from commercial, financial and other pressures that could influence the testing and evaluation process and has been accredited by a recognized accrediting organization such as the IEC to perform testing and evaluation to MSHA's requirements. Guide 17025 of the International Organization for Standardization (ISO)/IEC “General requirements for the competence of testing and calibration laboratories” and ISO/IEC Guide 65 “General requirements for bodies operating product certification systems” are the main documents used both nationally and internationally by organizations which accredit laboratories. Moreover, the United States is a member of the World Trade Organization (WTO). The Technical Barriers to Trade Agreement applies to members of the WTO and requires members to ensure that technical regulations are not prepared, adopted, or applied with a view to or with the effect of creating unnecessary obstacles to international trade. This means that, under the agreement, standards could not be promulgated that discriminate between foreign and domestic manufacturers and laboratories.
MSHA emphasizes that it will continue to test and evaluate products at the manufacturers' request. It also needs to retain testing and evaluation capability for the purposes of post-approval product audits, accident investigations, and for purposes of technical assistance. In addition, as discussed later in § 6.20 of this final rule, MSHA will be evaluating other non-MSHA product safety standards to determine equivalency, increasing its testing and evaluation expertise.
The final rule allows the optional use of a wide network of independent laboratories, eliminating the concern about monopolies. It also provides manufacturers the option to have MSHA perform some or all of the testing and evaluation necessary for approval. MSHA believes that assessing other non-MSHA product safety standards' equivalency to MSHA's approval requirements and continuing its responsibility for product audits will maintain MSHA's expertise in mine equipment safety. Under this final rule, the Agency will continue to be involved in direct product testing and evaluation if manufacturers choose to submit their products to MSHA for testing and evaluation. No comments on the specific language in § 6.10(a) were received. Therefore, the final language remains unchanged from the revised proposed rule.
Paragraph (b) of this section requires that product testing and evaluation performed by independent laboratories for purposes of MSHA approval comply with MSHA product approval requirements. The final rule does not permit an independent laboratory to change a testing standard or any elements incorporated into the standard. This is due to the critical nature of the testing and evaluation of products to be used in a potentially hazardous underground mining environment. No comments on the specific language in § 6.10(b) were received. Therefore, the final language remains unchanged from the revised proposed rule.
Paragraph (c) of this section requires product testing to be conducted or witnessed by the independent laboratory's personnel. No comments on the specific language in § 6.10(c) were received. Therefore, the final language remains unchanged from the revised proposed rule.
After determining that an application package is complete, MSHA will initiate a technical review to ensure that the independent laboratory's testing and evaluation results were both reasonable and appropriate for the particular product. If the technical review of the package indicates deficiencies resulting from inadequate data, illogical or unreasonable testing or evaluation results, or the omission of required information, the applicant will be notified of the discrepancy and given a reasonable period of time to provide the needed information and correct the apparent deficiency. If MSHA determines that additional or repeat testing is required, the applicant will have to arrange for any additional or repeat tests and notify MSHA of the location, date and time of the test(s). MSHA could elect to observe additional testing conducted by an independent laboratory or MSHA could conduct the additional or repeat tests at the applicant's expense. The applicant will need to supply any additional components necessary for testing and evaluation. No comments on the specific language in § 6.10(d) were received. Therefore, the final language remains unchanged from the revised proposed rule.
The final rule does not require that manufacturers use the mark of the independent laboratory that tested and evaluated the product or its components. However, nothing in this Start Printed Page 36413final rule prohibits a manufacturer from using the mark of an independent laboratory if it chooses to do so, as long as it carries the MSHA mark as well.
This final rule provision for post-approval product audits will allow MSHA to more effectively determine whether products are, in fact, being manufactured as approved. MSHA, not the manufacturer, will select the product. MSHA also will continue to obtain approved products from sources other than the manufacturer. This approach is particularly useful for products that are “one of a kind” or of limited distribution. Because these products are not readily found at mine suppliers or distributors, they are difficult to locate without the assistance of the approval holder.
Based on MSHA's experience, the Agency anticipates few instances in which more than one approved product will be required to be audited “for cause” from any one manufacturer in any one year. There are circumstances or causes, however, under which additional products for audit may be necessary to ascertain compliance with the technical requirements upon which an approval is based. Examples of such circumstances include verified complaints about the safety of an approved product, evidence of product changes that have not been approved, audit test results that warrant further testing to determine compliance, and evaluation of corrective action taken by an approval holder. Under these circumstances, the approval holder will have to provide, at no cost to MSHA, additional approved products so the Agency could ensure that the approval holder is meeting its obligation to manufacture the product as approved.
When discrepancies are found during MSHA audits of approved products, MSHA will require that the manufacturer take all necessary corrective actions. These actions could include, but are not limited to, the approval holder recalling or retrofitting the approved product involved, and issuing notices of such action to users. Revocation of the approval by MSHA may result when discrepancies in approved products are not corrected. No comments on the specific language in § 6.10(e) were received. Therefore, the final language remains unchanged from the revised proposed rule.
Because the use of products with defects could create hazards underground, immediate notification should be made by expedient means, such as by telephone, e-mail, or fax. The telephone notification should be followed-up in writing. The oral and written notification should include a description of the nature and extent of the problem. No comments on the specific language in § 6.10(f) were received. Therefore, the final language remains unchanged from the revised proposed rule.
Section 6.20(a) of this section states that MSHA will accept non-MSHA product safety standards, or groups of standards, as equivalent after determining that they: (1) Provide at least the same degree of protection as MSHA's product approval requirements set forth for the product in other parts of this chapter; or (2) can be modified to provide at least the same degree of protection as those MSHA requirements.
Non-MSHA product safety standards will be considered equivalent when MSHA determines that, in their original or modified form, they provide at least the same degree of protection as MSHA's product approval requirements in part 18, 19, 20, 22, 23, 27, 33, 35 or 36 of this chapter. No comments on the specific language in § 6.20(a) were received. Therefore, the final language remains unchanged from the revised proposed rule.
Paragraph (b) provides that MSHA will publish its intent to review any non-MSHA product safety standard for equivalency in the Federal Register for the purpose of soliciting public input. MSHA encourages public input in the equivalency process. It will solicit such Start Printed Page 36414input through a Federal Register notice once it decides to evaluate a particular standard or group of standards for equivalency. Because MSHA is solely responsible for the approval of mining products under the Mine Act, MSHA will retain the ultimate decision on equivalency. No comments on the specific language in § 6.20(b) were received. Therefore, the final language remains unchanged from the revised proposed rule.
Paragraph (c) requires that MSHA publish a listing of all final equivalency determinations in this part 6 and the applicable approval parts. The listing will state whether MSHA accepts the non-MSHA product safety standards in their original form, or will require modifications to demonstrate equivalency. If modifications are required, they will also be provided in the listing. MSHA will notify the public of each equivalency determination and will publish a summary of the basis for its determination in the Federal Register. MSHA's Approval and Certification Center will provide complete equivalency determination reports upon request. No comments on the specific language in § 6.20(c) were received. Therefore, the final language remains unchanged from the revised proposed rule.
Paragraph (d) requires that after MSHA has determined that non-MSHA product safety standards are equivalent and has notified the public of such determinations in the Federal Register, applicants can seek MSHA product approval based on such non-MSHA product safety standards. No comments on the specific language in § 6.20(d) were received. Therefore, the final language remains unchanged from the revised proposed rule.
The Agency believes that this final rule will encourage a more rapid introduction of mining products embodying new technology with enhanced safety features. In addition, testing and evaluation to “equivalent” standards, that provide at least the same degree of protection to miners as those in the various MSHA product approval regulations could achieve multiple objectives. These include metric conversion, greater compatibility with international standards, and a more competitive posture for U.S. products in the international market.
Under this final rule, when MSHA evaluates a product safety standard to determine equivalency, the Agency will be looking at the standard as a whole and whether it meets the objectives of MSHA's applicable product approval requirements. The Agency recognizes that some non-MSHA product safety standards may have more stringent provisions than MSHA's comparable approval requirements. However, it is not the Agency's intention to require more stringent protections where a non-MSHA product safety standard may afford them. MSHA intends to require modifications only where the non-MSHA standard does not provide equivalent protection. For manufacturers who choose to design products to more stringent standards, for purposes other than MSHA approval, this final rule provides the vehicle for them to obtain MSHA approval even if their products were not designed specifically to MSHA's approval requirements. It is not the Agency's intention to develop a “hybrid” regulation, choosing the most stringent requirements from both the MSHA requirements and non-MSHA standards. This final rule requires modifications to provide at least the same degree of protection as MSHA's product approval requirements.
Because this final rule permits approval of mining equipment intended to compete in multiple market areas with differing approval requirements, the approved product design will incorporate the highest level of safety required by any of the intended market areas. For example, if the target areas Start Printed Page 36415include mining and non-mining markets, and the non-mining market has a product safety standard with more stringent approval requirements than MSHA for a specific product, MSHA could, at the request of the applicant, issue an approval based on the more stringent requirements. The approval documentation will state that the product fulfills both the applicable approval requirements in the non-mining standard and MSHA's approval requirements. In this case, the approved product sold in mining markets will provide a greater degree of protection than that specified by MSHA under existing requirements. Should the non-mining market have product safety standards which are, in some aspects, less stringent than those of MSHA, the applicant will be required to fulfill the non-mining standards' requirements and, in addition, all other requirements deemed necessary to ensure that the product provides at least the same degree of protection demanded by the MSHA approval requirements. In this situation, the approved product will exceed the safety requirements of the non-mining standard and meet those of MSHA. The same analysis will apply if the targeted areas were foreign and domestic markets.
The following example illustrates how MSHA will evaluate non-MSHA product safety standards to determine if they provide at least the same degree of protection as MSHA's product approval requirements. MSHA's approval regulation under 30 CFR part 18 requires explosion testing of explosion-proof enclosures using a methane-in-air mixture. The IEC explosion-proof enclosure standard (IEC 60079-1) requires the use of more sensitive test gases. That standard specifies the use of methane to determine “reference pressures” and uses a hydrogen/methane fuel mixture to test for flame propagation. The tests used in both MSHA requirements and the IEC standard produce higher pressures/temperatures than occur during normal operation.
One obvious difference in the two test protocols is MSHA's criterion to observe for the “discharge of flame” (hot glowing gases) during any of the tests. The IEC standard does not have this requirement. The reason for this difference is that MSHA tests enclosures “as manufactured” without any intentional gaps and, unlike the IEC, does not require flamepath gaps to be enlarged to the maximum specified by design. Therefore, during MSHA testing, flamepaths are not forced open to any appreciable amount, unless there are defects or weaknesses in the enclosure. This is important because MSHA's requirements do not contain provisions for regular prototype pressure testing to supplement the explosion tests, as do the IEC requirements. Such pressure testing is specifically designed to identify faulty products over a broader range of pressures than can be achieved by the MSHA explosion testing protocol.
This same process will be applied to all non-MSHA product safety standards that will be evaluated for equivalency. For example, MSHA requires that a component in an intrinsically safe circuit be tested to determine that it will not overheat under fault conditions and ignite a layer of coal dust. UL requires the product to be marked with a maximum temperature rating (also called a “T-Code”) or tested using a different ignitable dust or gas. MSHA will determine if the temperature rating is below the minimum ignition temperature of a coal dust layer or if the specified dust layer (e.g., grain dust) used in the test has a lower ignition temperature than a coal dust layer currently used in MSHA tests. If equivalency could not be determined, MSHA will require an additional test using a layer of a specified type and size of coal dust to ensure at least the same degree of protection is provided.
As is the case with existing MSHA approval regulations, this final rule will not discriminate between U.S. and foreign manufacturers. Any manufacturer, either domestic or Start Printed Page 36416foreign, wishing to acquire an MSHA product approval will be able to take advantage of this “equivalency” program.
Under the final rule, an equivalency provision is provided in part 7 which will operate like the provision for equivalency in § 6.20.
Under this provision, § 7.2 will be amended by adding a definition of “equivalent non-MSHA product safety standards.” This term is used to describe a non-MSHA product safety standard, or group of standards, that is determined by MSHA to provide at least the same degree of protection as the applicable MSHA technical requirements in the subparts of part 7. This definition is essentially the same as that in § 6.2 of part 6. No comments on the specific language in § 7.2 were received. Therefore, the final language remains unchanged from the revised proposed rule.
Section 7.10(a) is similar to § 6.20(a) and provides that MSHA will accept non-MSHA product safety standards, or group of standards, as equivalent after determining that they: (1) Provide at least the same degree of protection as MSHA's technical requirements for the products in other subparts of this part; or (2) can be modified to provide at least the same degree of protection as those MSHA requirements. No comments on the specific language of § 7.10(a) were received. Therefore, the final language remains unchanged from the revised proposed rule.
Paragraph (b) of § 7.10 provides that MSHA publish its intent to review any non-MSHA product safety standard for equivalency in the Federal Register for the purpose of soliciting public input. No comments on the specific language in § 7.10(b) were received. Therefore, the final language remains unchanged from the revised proposed rule.
Paragraph (c) of § 7.10 provides that MSHA publish a listing of all equivalency determinations for this part 7. The listing will state whether MSHA accepts the non-MSHA product safety standards in their original form, or will require modifications to demonstrate equivalency. If modifications are required, they will also be included in this listing for part 7. MSHA will notify the public of each equivalency determination and will publish a summary of the basis for its determination in the Federal Register. MSHA's Approval and Certification Center will provide complete equivalency determination reports upon request. No comments on the specific language in § 7.10(c) were received. Therefore, the final language remains unchanged from the revised proposed rule.
Paragraph (d) of § 7.10 provides that after MSHA has determined that non-MSHA product safety standards are equivalent and has notified the public of such determinations, applicants can seek MSHA product approval based on such non-MSHA product safety standards. No comments on the specific language in § 7.10(d) were received. Therefore, the final language remains unchanged from the revised proposed rule.
MSHA intends to operate its equivalency program under part 7, the same as previously described in the discussion of § 6.20 on equivalency.
This final rule will result in a total of approximately 29 burden hours and $654 dollars of related costs. A breakdown of the burden hours and related costs by provision and by applicant size can be found in Chapter VII of the Regulatory Economic Analysis (REA) supporting this final rule. The REA is located on our Web site at http://www.msha.gov/​regsinfo.htm.
This rule contains no substantive changes to the paperwork requirements contained in parts 18, 19, 20, 22, 23, 27, 33, 35, and 36 which are currently approved under OMB Control Number 1219-0066. The paperwork requirements contained in § 6.10 have been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review under 44 U.S.C. 3504(h) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, as amended. Persons are not obligated to comply with them until approved by OMB.
Under § 6.10 applicants will have to provide information stated in paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(4) for MSHA to accept testing and evaluation performed by an independent laboratory. Currently, applicants must submit only information requested in paragraph (a)(4). If applicants choose to use independent laboratories, information requested in paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(3) will be needed because MSHA will no longer be performing all the testing and evaluation associated with the approval application. Providing the information under § 6.10(a)(1) through (a)(3) will result in a total of approximately 24 burden hours and $458 of associated costs.
Section 6.10(d) states that after review of the information required under paragraph (a)(1) through (a)(4), MSHA will notify the applicant if additional information and testing are required. If an independent laboratory conducts any additional or repeat testing, then the applicant will have to send the test results to MSHA. Sending any additional or repeat testing results to MSHA under § 6.10(d) will result in a total of 2 burden hours and $39 of associated costs.
Section 6.10(f) states that, once the product is approved, the approval holder will have to notify MSHA of all product defects of which the approval holder is aware. Notification is assumed to be in the form of a letter to MSHA. Notifying MSHA of product defects under § 6.10(f) will result in a total of 3 burden hours and $157 of associated costs.
The final rule will result in an annual net cost savings of about $1.5 million. Applicants seeking MSHA product approval employing 500 or fewer workers will realize a net cost savings of $0.66 million. Applicants employing more than 500 workers will realize a net cost savings of $0.86 million. Start Printed Page 36417
For the mining industry, SBA defines “small” as a mine with 500 or fewer workers. In addition, most applicants (manufacturers) that file for an MSHA approval for their products operate in industries such as those involved in measurement, analysis, controlling instruments, photographic instruments, commercial and industrial lighting fixtures, and conveyors. SBA considers the small business size standard for such industries to be 500 or fewer employees. To ensure that this final rule conforms to the RFA, MSHA analyzed the economic impact of the final rule on small entities that are defined as those employing 500 or fewer workers.
MSHA has reviewed this final rule in accordance with Executive Order 13132 regarding federalism, and has determined that it will not have “federalism implications.” The final rule will not “have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.” MSHA is not aware of any State or local governments which manufacture products applicable to mining.
Use of independent laboratories.
§ 6.10
4. Amend § 7.2 by adding a new definition to read as follows:
5. Amend subpart A by adding a new § 7.10 to read as follows:
(b) MSHA will publish its intent to review any non-MSHA product safety standard for equivalency in the Federal Register for the purpose of soliciting public input. Start Printed Page 36419
(c) A listing of all equivalency determinations will be published in this part 7. The listing will state whether MSHA accepts the non-MSHA product safety standards in their original form, or whether MSHA will require modifications to demonstrate equivalency. If modifications are required, they will be provided in the listing. MSHA will notify the public of each equivalency determination and will publish a summary of the basis for its determination. MSHA will provide equivalency determination reports to the public upon request to the Approval and Certification Center.
7. Amend § 18.6 by revising paragraph (a) to read as follows:
(3) An applicant may request testing and evaluation to non-MSHA product safety standards which have been determined by MSHA to be equivalent, under § 6.20 of this chapter, to MSHA's product approval requirements under this part.
8. Amend § 18.15 by revising paragraph (a) to read as follows:
Changes after approval or certification.
10. Revise § 19.3 to read as follows:
(a) Before MSHA will undertake the active investigation leading to approval of any lamp, the manufacturer shall make application by letter for an investigation leading to approval of its lamp. This application, accompanied by a check, bank draft, or money order, payable to U.S. Mine Safety and Health Administration, to cover all the necessary fees, shall be sent to Approval and Certification Center, Rural Route #1, Box 251, Industrial Park Road, Triadelphia, WV 26059, together with the required drawings, one complete lamp, and instructions for its operation.
(c) An applicant may request testing and evaluation to non-MSHA product safety standards which have been determined by MSHA to be equivalent, under § 6.20 of this chapter, to MSHA's product approval requirements under this part.
11. Amend § 19.13 by revising paragraph (a) to read as follows:
(a)(1) The manufacturer shall write to the Approval and Certification Center, Rural Route #1, Box 251, Industrial Park Road, Triadelphia, WV 26059, requesting an extension of the original approval and stating the change or changes desired. With this letter the manufacturer should submit a revised drawing or drawings showing the changes in detail, and one of each of the changed lamp parts.
(2) Where the applicant for approval has used an independent laboratory under part 6 of this chapter to perform, in whole or in part, the necessary testing and evaluation for approval of changes to an approved product under this part, the applicant must provide to MSHA as part of the approval application: Start Printed Page 36420
13. Revise § 20.3 to read as follows:
(a) Before MSHA will undertake the active investigation leading to approval of any lamp, the manufacturer shall make application by letter for an investigation of the lamp. This application, accompanied by a check, bank draft, or money order, payable to the U.S. Mine Safety and Health Administration, to cover all the necessary fees, shall be sent to the Approval and Certification Center, Rural Route #1, Box 251, Industrial Park Road, Triadelphia, WV 26059, together with the required drawings, one complete lamp, and instructions for its operation.
14. Amend § 20.14 by revising paragraph (a) to read as follows:
(a)(1) The manufacturer shall write to the Approval and Certification Center, Rural Route #1, Box 251, Industrial Park Road, Triadelphia, WV 26059, requesting an extension of the original approval and describing the change or changes proposed. With this letter the manufacturer should submit a revised drawing or drawings showing the changes in detail, and one of each of the changed lamp parts.
16. Revise § 22.4 to read as follows:
(a) Before MSHA will undertake the active investigation leading to approval of any methane detector, the manufacturer shall make application by letter for an investigation leading to approval of the detector. This application, accompanied by a check, bank draft, or money order, payable to the U.S. Mine Safety and Health Administration, to cover all the necessary fees, shall be sent to the Approval and Certification Center, Rural Route #1, Box 251, Industrial Park Road, Triadelphia, WV 26059, together with the required drawings, one complete detector, and instructions for its operation.
(a)(1) The manufacturer must write to the Approval and Certification Center, Rural Route #1, Box 251, Industrial Park Road, Triadelphia, WV 26059, requesting an extension of the original approval and stating the change or changes desired. With this request, the manufacturer should submit a revised drawing or drawings showing changes in detail, together with one of each of the parts affected.
(ii) Complete technical explanation of how the product complies with each Start Printed Page 36421requirement in the applicable MSHA product approval requirements;
19. Revise § 23.3 to read as follows:
(a) Before MSHA will undertake the active investigation leading to approval of any telephone or signaling device, the manufacturer shall make application by letter for an investigation leading to approval of the device. This application, accompanied by a check, bank draft, or money order, payable to the U.S. Mine Safety and Health Administration, to cover all the necessary fees, shall be sent to the Approval and Certification Center, Rural Route #1, Box 251, Industrial Park Road, Triadelphia, WV 26059, together with the required drawings, one complete telephone or signaling device, and instructions for its operation.
20. Amend § 23.14 by revising paragraph (a) to read as follows:
(a)(1) The manufacturer shall write to the Approval and Certification Center, Rural Route #1, Box 251, Industrial Park Road, Triadelphia, WV 26059, requesting an extension of the original approval and stating the change or changes desired. With this request, the manufacturer should submit a revised drawing or drawings showing the changes in detail, together with one of each of the parts affected.
22. Amend § 27.4 by revising paragraph (a) to read as follows:
(3) An applicant may request testing and evaluation to non-MSHA product safety standards which have been determined by MSHA to be equivalent, under § 6.20 of this chapter, to the product approval requirements under this part.
Extension of certification.
Start Part Start Printed Page 36422
25. Amend § 33.6 by revising paragraph (a) to read as follows:
(a)(1) No investigation or testing will be undertaken by MSHA except pursuant to a written application (except as otherwise provided in paragraph (e) of this section), accompanied by a check, bank draft, or money order, payable to the U.S. Mine Safety and Health Administration, to cover the fees; and all prescribed drawings, specifications, and all related materials. The application and all related matters and all correspondence concerning it shall be sent to the Approval and Certification Center, Rural Route #1, Box 251, Industrial Park Road, Triadelphia, WV 26059.
26. Amend § 33.12 by revising paragraph (a) to read as follows:
28. Amend § 35.6 by revising paragraph (a) to read as follows:
(a)(1) No investigation or testing will be undertaken by MSHA except pursuant to a written application, accompanied by a check, bank draft, or money order, payable to the U.S. Mine Safety and Health Administration, to cover the fees; and all descriptions, specifications, test samples, and related materials. The application and all related matters and correspondence concerning it shall be sent to the Approval and Certification Center, Rural Route #1, Box 251, Industrial Park Road, Triadelphia, WV 26059.
29. Amend § 35.12 by revising paragraph (a) to read as follows:
31. Amend § 36.6 by revising paragraph (a) to read as follows:
(a)(1) No investigation or testing will be undertaken by MSHA except Start Printed Page 36423pursuant to a written application, accompanied by a check, bank draft, or money order, payable to the U.S. Mine Safety and Health Administration, to cover the fees; and all descriptions, specifications, test samples, and related materials. The application and all related matters and correspondence concerning it shall be sent to the Approval and Certification Center, Rural Route #1, Box 251, Industrial Park Road, Triadelphia, WV 26059.
32. Amend § 36.12 by revising paragraph (a) to read as follows:
§ 36.12