FR 2024-31341

The document under discussion is a notice from the Department of Labor (DOL), inviting public comments on an information collection request (ICR). This request seeks approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to gather data on employees' average weekly wages. The information is crucial for determining compensation benefits under the Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act. Public comments are sought, particularly on the necessity, efficiency, and burden of this data collection. Comments are to be submitted by January 29, 2025, via an online portal.

Significant Issues or Concerns

There are several notable issues within this document that merit attention:

• Date Error: The reference to "September 40, 2024," in the supplementary information section is incorrect, as there are only 30 days in September. Such errors should be corrected to avoid confusion.

• Cost and Time Estimates: The document lists an estimated annual cost burden of just $3.00 and a total time burden of 25 hours. These figures appear unusually low for a data collection effort involving 100 respondents, raising questions about the methodology behind these calculations.

• Clarity and Accessibility: The language used in some sections, particularly when discussing the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) and OMB Control Numbers, may be complex for those unfamiliar with federal regulations. Simplifying the language would make the document more accessible to the general public.

Impact on the Public

The information collection has potential impacts, both broadly and on specific groups:

• General Public: For most, this document has relatively limited immediate impact. However, public input is invited and considered crucial for effective policymaking. By participating, citizens can ensure that the data collection is necessary and minimally burdensome.

• Affected Individuals or Households: For the estimated 100 respondents, the collection might involve providing detailed earnings information, potentially necessitating time and effort. However, if the processes are effective, it should minimize inconvenience.

Impact on Stakeholders

• Positive Impacts: If successfully implemented, the assurance of accurate wage data collection can better facilitate compensation determination under the Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act, benefitting eligible workers by ensuring they receive appropriate benefits.

• Negative Impacts: Conversely, unclear procedures and underestimated burdens could lead to complications for respondents. Simplified processes and clear communication can mitigate these issues, supporting compliance and reducing efforts required.

In summary, while this notice serves as a procedural necessity under the Paperwork Reduction Act, its efficacy depends greatly on transparency and the accurate estimation of burdens it imposes. The involvement of public comments will play a key role in refining the process to meet both regulatory standards and public convenience.

The Federal Register document from the Department of Labor (DOL) references the financial aspects associated with the Request for Earnings Information Report, a part of the Office of Workers' Compensation Programs (OWCP). This commentary will focus exclusively on the financial elements, notably how money is allocated and communicated in the context of this information collection activity.

Summary of Financial References

The document provides a specific figure related to the monetary burden of this information collection. The Total Estimated Annual Other Costs Burden is reported to be $3.00. This seemingly minimal amount is allocated for costs associated with the gathering of earnings information necessary for determining compensation benefits under the Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act.

Analysis of Financial References

The listed costs directly relate to one of the identified issues: the $3.00 figure appears extremely low. Such a minimal cost could raise questions about its accuracy or comprehensiveness in covering potential expenses tied to the information collection process. It is unconventional for a federal information collection endeavor to incur such a nominal cost, suggesting that either the costs are indeed minimal or that additional explanations are warranted to clarify how this figure was determined.

Moreover, the document does not provide a detailed breakdown or justification for this financial estimate, leading to potential ambiguity. Highlighting this lack of detailed explanation, the readers are left without insights into what expenses, if any, contribute to the $3.00 estimate. This could lead to assumptions that either administrative efficiencies or technological solutions have minimized costs, yet these options are not elaborated upon within the document.

By focusing on the monetary aspects and their contextual implications, the commentary reveals a need for further clarity and transparency in how the DOL arrived at such a modest cost estimation. Greater detail would assist in understanding whether the financial figures accurately represent the economic realities of conducting this information collection.