FR 2025-01523

Overview

Title

Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Ventilation Plans, Tests, and Examinations in Underground Coal Mines

Agencies

ELI5 AI

The people in charge of keeping workers safe want to know how people keep air clean in underground places where they dig for coal. They are asking others to tell them what they think about their plan to check and record how air moves to keep it safe.

Summary AI

The Department of Labor is seeking public comments on a proposed information collection related to ventilation in underground coal mines. This request is being reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget as part of the Paperwork Reduction Act. The safety and health standards aim to ensure proper ventilation to protect miners from harmful gases and dust. The proposal includes tests and recordkeeping requirements to maintain and adjust ventilation systems, ensuring miner safety in harsh underground conditions.

Abstract

The Department of Labor (DOL) is submitting this Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA)-sponsored information collection request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA). Public comments on the ICR are invited.

Type: Notice
Citation: 90 FR 8160
Document #: 2025-01523
Date:
Volume: 90
Pages: 8160-8161

AnalysisAI

The document titled "Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Ventilation Plans, Tests, and Examinations in Underground Coal Mines" is a notice from the Department of Labor (DOL), specifically involving the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA). It requests public comments on a proposed information collection related to underground coal mine ventilation systems. This request is part of the standard review process under the Paperwork Reduction Act, overseen by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).

General Summary

The notice discusses the importance of ventilation in underground coal mines, emphasizing the dire need for good air quality to prevent fatalities from asphyxiation and explosions. The document outlines the requirements for maintenance, testing, and recordkeeping of ventilation systems to ensure miner safety. It seeks public input on the necessity and utility of collecting this information and the accuracy of the estimated burden on businesses.

Significant Issues and Concerns

One of the primary issues in the document is the complexity and technical nature of the language used. It details sections of the Mine Safety and Health Act and uses technical terms that may not be easily understood by the general public. This can create a barrier for those wishing to participate in the public comment process. Furthermore, the document does not clearly specify the types of businesses or organizations that would be considered part of the affected public. This lack of specificity might lead to concerns about whether certain groups face an unfair burden or benefit.

Additionally, there is no detailed explanation of how the estimates for the annual burden hours and associated costs were derived. Without a clear methodology, the accuracy of these estimates could be questioned by stakeholders. The absence of information on how the OMB will assess the comments and the potential outcomes of this process might leave interested parties uncertain about their role in shaping policy.

Broader Impact on the Public

The proposed information collection activities aim to enhance miner safety by ensuring proper ventilation in underground coal mines. This is a crucial effort as it addresses public safety concerns and mitigates risks associated with mining operations. Adequate ventilation in mines prevents hazardous conditions that could endanger miners' lives.

From a broader perspective, the general public may perceive this action as a necessary regulatory step toward improving workplace safety in the mining industry. It also reflects the government's ongoing commitment to revising and enhancing safety standards.

Impact on Specific Stakeholders

For businesses involved in mining operations, particularly underground coal mines, the document suggests potential regulatory and operational changes. New or modified ventilation standards could require adjustments in practices, potentially leading to financial implications due to the need for additional resources to comply with testing and recordkeeping requirements.

Stakeholders in the mining sector who prioritize safety compliance will likely view these measures as beneficial, aligning with their ongoing efforts to maintain a safe working environment. On the other hand, businesses concerned with the costs associated with implementing these standards may feel an increased burden, especially if the estimates of time and expense are perceived as inaccurate.

Overall, this document represents a pivotal step in the regulatory process, providing an opportunity for public engagement and dialogue regarding important safety measures in the mining industry. However, it highlights the need for more accessible communication of technical regulations to ensure transparency and understanding among all stakeholders involved.

Financial Assessment

The document includes a financial reference to the Total Estimated Annual Other Costs Burden of $69,865. This amount is associated with the information collection requirements concerning ventilation plans, tests, and examinations in underground coal mines as overseen by the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) under the Department of Labor (DOL). This cost reflects the additional financial responsibility that businesses or entities operating in the coal mining industry might incur as a result of complying with these regulatory requirements.

One of the critical issues identified in the document is the absence of specific details regarding the businesses or entities that comprise the "affected public." This lack of specification could potentially raise questions about whether certain groups within the coal mining industry are disproportionately bearing these costs. Without clarity on who is specifically impacted, it is challenging to assess whether the financial burden is equitably distributed among the various stakeholders involved.

Additionally, the document outlines a substantial annual burden in terms of hours, noted as 150,674 hours, but does not provide a detailed breakdown of how this labor effort translates into the cost burden of $69,865. The absence of a clear methodology explaining these estimates raises questions about their accuracy and reliability. Understanding how these hours and costs were calculated could have provided greater clarity and reassurance regarding the fairness and necessity of the imposed financial burden.

Another significant point relates to the complexity and technicality of the document's language, which could make understanding the financial references difficult for the general public. The use of terms and abbreviations without adequate explanation could deter meaningful public engagement, thus potentially affecting contributions during the comment period regarding the fairness or appropriateness of the financial burden placed on the affected businesses.

In conclusion, while the document provides a financial reference regarding the impact of regulatory compliance, the clarity and detailed breakdown of these financial allocations are lacking. There would be a benefit in providing more comprehensive information on the methodology used for such estimates and specifying the affected businesses to enable better understanding and evaluation of the financial implications detailed in the notice.

Issues

  • • The document does not specify the names or types of businesses or organizations that comprise the affected public, which could lead to questions about whether specific groups are unfairly burdened or benefited.

  • • The section detailing the purpose and necessity of the information collection is somewhat complex and technical, making it challenging for a general audience to fully understand the rationale behind the specific requirements.

  • • There is no clear explanation or breakdown of the methodology used for estimating the annual burden hours and other costs, which could raise concerns about the accuracy of these estimates.

  • • The language used to describe the regulatory requirements and the sections of the Mine Safety and Health Act referenced is technical and may be difficult for those not familiar with regulatory or mining terminology to understand.

  • • No information is provided about the criteria used by the OMB to assess comments or the expected outcome of the public comment process.

  • • The prominent use of legal references and abbreviations may be confusing to readers who are not well-versed in legal documents, reducing accessibility. For example, abbreviations like CFR and MSHA could be better explained or expanded upon.

Statistics

Size

Pages: 2
Words: 1,036
Sentences: 38
Entities: 62

Language

Nouns: 315
Verbs: 73
Adjectives: 66
Adverbs: 15
Numbers: 51

Complexity

Average Token Length:
5.23
Average Sentence Length:
27.26
Token Entropy:
5.34
Readability (ARI):
20.54

Reading Time

about 3 minutes