FR 2021-00698

The document in question is a notice from the Department of Labor's Mining Safety and Health Administration (MSHA), which seeks approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for conducting an information collection under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. This collection concerns the certification and qualification of individuals to perform crucial safety-related tasks in the coal mining industry, such as operating hoists and testing for hazardous conditions. Public comments regarding this initiative are welcomed until February 16, 2021, as part of an effort to gather input on the necessity, utility, and burden of the information collection.

Summary and Purpose

The primary goal of the information collection is to ensure that only those who are qualified undertake vital safety-related activities in coal mines, thereby enhancing the safety and health of miners. The process involves standardized forms that applicants must submit to demonstrate their qualifications for specific certifications.

Significant Issues and Concerns

One notable issue with the document is the lack of specific cost details related to the implementation of this information collection request (ICR). This absence may lead to apprehensions about potential inefficient spending. Additionally, the language and instructions provided for the public to comment on and access information concerning the proposed collection are somewhat unclear, particularly regarding navigation on the designated website. This could hinder participation from those less familiar with navigating government online platforms.

The document also makes assumptions about the reader's familiarity with specific sections of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). For those not versed in these regulations, the document may be challenging to fully understand. Furthermore, the estimates provided for the number of respondents, responses, and the time burden do not come with detailed justifications, making the estimations appear less transparent.

There is also a lack of clarification regarding the distribution or purpose of the estimated $56 annual other costs burden, which could lead to questions about the transparency and clarity in costing details.

Impact on the Public

Broadly, the public might experience increased safety in mines, a factor that benefits workers, their families, and the communities surrounding mining operations. Ensuring that only qualified individuals carry out safety-related duties could reduce accidents and fatalities in mines, leading to stronger confidence in public and worker safety standards.

Impact on Specific Stakeholders

Coal mine operators and their workers are the primary stakeholders affected by this document. While this initiative aims to enhance safety, the operators may experience an increase in administrative responsibilities due to the need to maintain updated records of certified personnel.

On the other hand, miners who are qualified or seek qualification could find increased job security and recognition, as the certification process would formalize their skills and experience. This could also lead to employment advantages, as having a recognized certification might be valued by employers and industry stakeholders.

In conclusion, while the document sets out to improve safety and formalize the qualifications of certain coal mine workers, it leaves some areas of ambiguity, particularly in cost transparency and accessibility for public participation. Addressing these issues could enhance the efficacy and public receptivity of the proposed actions.

The Federal Register document makes some specific references to financial aspects, notably within the context of an information collection request (ICR) submitted by the Department of Labor (DOL) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).

The document states a "Total Estimated Annual Other Costs Burden" of $56. This figure appears to relate to the expenses associated with respondents complying with the information collection requirements. However, there is limited information provided about what this cost encompasses. It lacks clarity on whether this nominal sum covers administrative expenses, material costs, or other specific items necessary for compliance.

Such minimal financial transparency poses potential challenges for stakeholders who might be concerned about the adequacy of cost estimation and distribution. It is unclear how this $56 burden is calculated and whether it effectively represents the true cost borne by the respondents. This gap in explanation ties into the broader issue noted within the document that there is no explicit breakdown or justification provided for these figures.

Moreover, in terms of public spending review, there is no elaboration on whether this financial burden provides an efficient mechanism for the intended tasks under the ICR. This absence of detailed financial information might be perceived as limiting the stakeholders' ability to understand potential financial liabilities or check for wastefulness in spending.

In conclusion, while the document provides a specific financial reference, the lack of accompanying details and transparency regarding these financial allocations or burdens can raise questions about its sufficiency and effectiveness in addressing concerns over administrative and compliance costs.