Overview
Title
Submission to the Office of Management and Budget for Review and Approval; Bond and Insurance Requirements for Surface Coal Mining and Reclamation Operations Under Regulatory Programs
Agencies
ELI5 AI
The Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement wants to collect some information about the rules for keeping land safe and clean after coal is taken out of the ground, and they are asking for people's ideas to make sure the process is good and doesn't take too long. They want people to tell them if there's anything confusing or if they should protect personal information better.
Summary AI
The Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, part of the Interior Department, has announced a proposal to renew an information collection under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. This collection concerns the bond and insurance requirements for companies involved in surface coal mining and reclamation operations. They are seeking public comments on aspects such as the necessity, timeliness, and accuracy of this collection process. Interested parties are encouraged to submit their feedback by February 4, 2025.
Abstract
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, we, the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSMRE), are proposing to renew an information collection.
Keywords AI
Sources
AnalysisAI
The document from the Federal Register, titled "Submission to the Office of Management and Budget for Review and Approval; Bond and Insurance Requirements for Surface Coal Mining and Reclamation Operations Under Regulatory Programs," addresses a proposal by the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSMRE). As part of the Interior Department, OSMRE seeks to renew information collection relating to bonds and insurance for surface coal mining. The overarching purpose is to ensure that mining companies fulfill their obligations regarding land reclamation.
General Summary
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this document invites public comments on the information collection proposal. The collection process involves businesses and state governments providing details related to bond posting and insurance for surface coal mining operations. The process aims to ensure the companies can carry out reclamation activities effectively. The public is encouraged to provide feedback by February 4, 2025, focusing on the necessity, timeliness, and accuracy of the collection process.
Significant Issues or Concerns
A notable point of concern is the estimated completion time per response, which ranges significantly from 2 to 35 hours. This broad range indicates potential ambiguity in the estimation process, which could lead to confusion among respondents. It is important to clarify how these estimates are calculated to ensure transparency and credibility.
Another concern is the lack of concrete steps detailed in the document about minimizing the public's reporting burden through technology. The text suggests such reductions are possible but fails to specify measures in place to achieve them, which could be an opportunity for improvement.
The notice also mentions public access to submitted comments and indicates that personal information might not be entirely protected. This disclosure might deter public participation due to privacy concerns. More secure frameworks should be developed to protect respondents' information.
Lastly, various legal references are included without adequate explanation for individuals unfamiliar with them. Educating the public about these regulatory frameworks would be beneficial for broader understanding.
Public Impact
For the general public, particularly those involved in or affected by surface coal mining, this document ensures that reclamation operations adhere to environmental and legal standards. By upholding bond and insurance requirements, the proposal seeks to safeguard that companies fulfill their reclamation responsibilities, thus protecting public lands and communities.
Impact on Stakeholders
For businesses in the mining industry, complying with these information collection requirements signifies a necessary step in ensuring operational legitimacy. However, the process could be seen as burdensome, especially if clarifications on time estimates and procedural transparency are not provided.
State governments may face similar challenges regarding the time and resources needed to comply with these queries. Yet, maintaining stringent reclamation standards ultimately benefits broader ecosystem sustainability and community welfare.
While the renewal of information collection is crucial for maintaining operational oversight, ensuring transparency, minimizing burdens, and safeguarding personal information remain top priorities. Providing specific details and justifications can greatly enhance the public's trust and participation in this regulatory process.
Financial Assessment
The document under review is a notice from the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSMRE), part of the Interior Department. It discusses the renewal of an information collection request under the Paperwork Reduction Act related to bond and insurance requirements for surface coal mining and reclamation operations. A specific financial aspect highlighted in the document is the Total Estimated Annual Nonhour Burden Cost of $521,735.
This financial estimate appears to cover the costs associated with complying with the information collection but does not go into detail on what these costs entail. The absence of a breakdown of this figure can lead to ambiguity. Understanding what constitutes these costs would not only enhance transparency but also help in evaluating whether the financial estimates are appropriate or require adjustments. Breaking down the expenses into further categories like administrative costs, technological requirements, or other logistical expenditures would provide more clarity.
Additionally, there is an issue highlighted in the document regarding the estimated completion time per response, which varies significantly from 2 to 35 hours. This wide range could indicate inconsistent estimations of the time required, which in turn affects the financial burden on respondents. Given the significant variation in time, a deeper examination into what specific elements of the collection process demand these hours—and consequently incur the estimated costs—would be beneficial. Transparency in how these figures are derived could shed light on why the nonhour cost is calculated as $521,735.
Furthermore, the document refers to minimizing the public's reporting burden, particularly through the use of information technology. Yet, it does not provide details on how technology is being utilized to reduce costs or reporting time. If technology could be leveraged effectively, it might lower both the time burden on respondents and the associated nonhour costs.
Finally, addressing the concern for personal information security, which is not directly a financial issue, still indirectly ties into potential financial concerns since inadequate protection measures might necessitate spending on enhanced security frameworks. These additional costs could further influence the overall estimated nonhour burden cost.
In conclusion, while the document states a substantial nonhour burden cost of $521,735, a lack of detailed explanation invites scrutiny and suggests a need for more transparency and clarification. A more thorough breakdown of these costs, integrated with a discussion on how technology might reduce this burden, would be helpful for both the agency and the public in evaluating the effectiveness and necessity of the information collection efforts.
Issues
• The completion time estimate per response varies widely from 2 to 35 hours, which could indicate a lack of clarity on how these estimates were derived. More transparency in how these numbers were calculated might be necessary to ensure accuracy and understandability.
• The notice mentions attempts to minimize the public's reporting burden but does not specify any concrete steps or measures that have been put in place to achieve this reduction, particularly through the use of information technology.
• The phrase 'might the agency enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected' appears vague. It would be beneficial to provide specific examples or suggestions of how quality and clarity could be enhanced.
• The document states that 'we cannot guarantee that we will be able to' withhold personal identifying information from public review, which could be concerning to respondents. More secure measures to protect personal information should be detailed.
• The document includes several legal and regulatory references (such as 30 CFR part 800, § 509, § 519, etc.) without providing a succinct summary or explanation of their implications for those who might not be familiar with such references.
• The publication does not explain why there is an estimated nonhour burden cost of $521,735. This seemingly large figure could benefit from a detailed breakdown or justification to enhance transparency.
• The abstract provided in the metadata does not adequately summarize key elements such as estimated costs and respondent obligations, which are important for public awareness and understanding.