FR 2024-28164

The document from the Federal Register details a notice from the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) under the Department of Labor, requesting public comments on their information collection practices regarding explosive materials and blasting units in certain mines. This initiative focuses specifically on Category III metal and nonmetal mines, which are considered potentially gassy due to the risk of explosive methane concentrations. By collecting data on the use of explosive materials, MSHA aims to ensure safety and minimize the burden posed by these information requirements.

General Summary

MSHA's notice invites the public to comment on the information gathered concerning the safety of explosive materials and blasting units in particular mining categories. This request is part of a broader effort to streamline paperwork while ensuring that the data collected by MSHA is useful and not overly burdensome for respondents. The comments solicited aim to evaluate the necessity and utility of the information collected and explore ways to improve data clarity and reduce respondent inconvenience.

Significant Issues or Concerns

One significant issue with the document is the lack of context regarding why only one response is anticipated annually. This seems unusual and may perplex readers unfamiliar with the historical data collection process. Furthermore, the notice mentions a nominal estimated cost of $6 associated with the information collection but doesn't elaborate on what this figure represents, raising questions about whether it encompasses all possible respondent expenses.

Additionally, while MSHA describes this initiative as an extension of a currently approved collection, there is no comparison between the previous and current collections. Stakeholders may find it challenging to understand what has changed or remained constant. Finally, although there is a call for public input, the document does not provide a schedule outlining when new guidelines might be implemented, which could leave stakeholders uncertain about the timeline for potential changes.

Public Impact

This document's potential effects on the public are multidimensional. On one hand, the effort to minimize paperwork and streamline data collection processes could ultimately lead to more accessible and efficient regulatory practices, which may benefit all parties involved. However, without detailed information regarding costs and procedures, stakeholders may find it challenging to assess how these changes might directly impact them.

Stakeholder Impact

For businesses, especially those operating in mining, the proposed data collection could signify a reduced administrative burden if managed effectively. Streamlined procedures that do not compromise safety and operational efficiency would be advantageous. Nonetheless, the absence of clear cost explanations might create apprehension among these stakeholders regarding actual financial impacts.

For regulators, maintaining high safety standards while reducing unnecessary paperwork is crucial, particularly in potentially hazardous operations such as mining. This balance is essential for fulfilling regulatory duties without imposing undue constraints on businesses. However, the lack of detailed comparisons with previous collections makes it difficult to gauge progress in achieving these objectives.

In summary, while the intention behind MSHA's information collection notice is clear and well-meaning, there are areas where further clarification could enhance understanding and participation among stakeholders. More detailed information on the rationale behind estimates and the overall process could help build confidence and encourage informed feedback from the public.

In this Federal Register document, the financial references primarily revolve around the burdens and costs associated with the information collection request related to Explosive Materials and Blasting Units in Category III Metal and Nonmetal Mines Deemed to Be Gassy.

Annual Financial Burden Cost

The document states that the annual other burden costs associated with this information collection effort amount to $6. This monetary figure appears strikingly low, especially considering that the collection pertains to regulations concerning explosive materials and safety in mines, which are typically complex and resource-intensive areas. The document does not provide detailed insight into what this cost includes or omits, leading to potential questions from stakeholders about the comprehensiveness of the cost assessment.

The extremely low cost estimate might relate to an identified issue where the document does not elaborate on why there's an expectation of only one annual response. This single response could signify that the information collection's scope is minimal or narrowly targeted, leading to negligible administrative costs beyond the primary activity of submitting the response.

Relation to Identified Issues

The document refers to efforts to reduce paperwork and respondent burden under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. However, the low financial burden reported — only $6 — raises questions. It is unclear whether and how this effort effectively translates into cost savings or greater efficiency, as the document does not offer an analysis or quantify potential economic impacts.

Moreover, the absence of more detailed financial reasoning behind the $6 burden cost could be seen as a lack of transparency. Without further disclosure, it remains ambiguous as to why this specific amount represents an adequate estimation of costs incurred by respondents. This can lead to skepticism concerning whether these figures genuinely reflect the entire financial scope of complying with the information collection requirement or if other hidden costs might arise during implementation.

In conclusion, while the document sets a remarkably low financial burden cost, the lack of accompanying detail prompts significant questions about its comprehensiveness and rationale. This financial aspect, combined with the minimal expected response frequency, hints at a narrowly defined scope that may not fully capture the costs and resources involved in such regulatory compliance efforts.