FR 2024-28997

The document from the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSMRE) seeks public comments on renewing an information collection requirement related to coal mining, specifically under the exemption criteria within the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977. This action aligns with the mandates of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 and involves collecting data from state and tribal governments. Public comments are welcomed until February 10, 2025.

General Summary

The publication concerns a proposal to continue a specific paper-based information collection effort. This collection revolves around the regulatory exemption for extracting a minimal amount of coal incidental to mining other minerals. The aim is to ensure that the involved governments comply with these exemptions, allowing the extraction to proceed within regulated boundaries. By seeking comments, OSMRE emphasizes its commitment to transparency and public engagement in rulemaking and oversight processes.

Significant Issues and Concerns

A notable concern is the lack of a detailed rationale for why renewing this information collection is crucial beyond fulfilling regulatory obligations. The document briefly mentions its necessity, but it does not thoroughly justify the investment of effort and resources required.

Moreover, the document does not clarify the methodology behind the estimated nonhour burden cost of $800. This lack of transparency in cost estimation might lead to skepticism about the accuracy or adequacy of the projected expenses related to the initiative.

Another issue is the broad range in the estimated completion time per response, varying from 1 to 30 hours. This disparity suggests inefficiencies or potential confusion regarding the requirements, which could impose an unnecessary burden on the entities involved in providing the data.

The document also leaves unanswered questions on how the collected data will be processed and used efficiently. Without clear processes or timelines, there is a risk of delays that could hamper timely regulatory oversight or corrective actions concerning mining activities.

Impact on the Public

For the general public, this document primarily illustrates an administrative procedure linked to environmental and regulatory management. While it does not directly affect individual citizens, it highlights ongoing efforts to balance mineral extraction activities with regulatory oversight.

Impact on Specific Stakeholders

For state and tribal governments—the primary respondents to this information collection—the document suggests a potential administrative burden. These entities must allocate resources to fulfill the requirements, and the variability in response time may necessitate further clarification or training to streamline their efforts.

On the positive side, ensuring compliance with regulatory exemptions can lead to better environmental stewardship and resource management by creating clear guidelines for coal extraction activities. However, without leveraging information technology to ease this process, stakeholders could miss opportunities for efficiency and reduced burdens.

In conclusion, while the proposal aims to maintain regulatory oversight for certain mining activities, it raises questions about efficiency and resource allocation. Addressing these issues through a detailed explanation and embracing technological advancements could lead to a more effective and less burdensome process for all involved parties.

The document contains specific financial data related to the information collection described. The Total Estimated Annual Nonhour Burden Cost is noted as $800. This figure represents the costs associated with the administrative or indirect time and resource expenditures needed to comply with this information collection, outside of direct labor hours.

The financial reference, while clearly stated, lacks transparency in its derivation. The document does not provide details on how this $800 figure was calculated. Without this information, it might raise concerns about the accuracy of the estimated burden. This lack of detail could create skepticism about whether this financial estimate accurately reflects the true costs borne by the respondents participating in the information collection process.

Furthermore, the reference to the Total Estimated Annual Nonhour Burden Cost intersects with issues regarding potential inefficiencies in the process. The document notes that completion times for responses can vary significantly, ranging from 1 to 30 hours. Such variation suggests that the process could be streamlined or more clearly defined to reduce time and potentially save costs, including the $800 in nonhour burdens.

Moreover, in the context of the issues identified, the document does not elaborate on how information technology might reduce these costs. Utilizing technology effectively could potentially lower nonhour burdens by making the process more efficient and cutting down unnecessary expenditures, possibly even impacting the $800 burden positively.

In summary, while the $800 nonhour burden cost is the sole financial figure provided, the lack of detailed explanation and analysis of this figure suggests a need for more transparency. Addressing these gaps could help alleviate concerns regarding cost estimation and efficiency, ensuring that resources allocated for compliance are used judiciously.