FR 2025-01895

The document is a notice from the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSMRE), a division of the United States Department of the Interior. It announces a public request for comments on the renewal of an information collection process. This process requires state and tribal governments to fill out a form when nominating individuals for OSMRE's National Technical Training Courses. The form is integral for planning and resource allocation needed to deliver these training courses. This call for comments is in line with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, which aims to minimize the paperwork burden on the public and ensure that information collection activities are efficient and necessary.

Summary of the Document

The primary purpose of the document is to seek public feedback on the proposed renewal of an information collection. Specifically, it is about the "Nomination and Request for Payment Form" used by state and tribal governments. The feedback requested includes insights on its necessity, efficiency, clarity, and any potential burdens on respondents. OSMRE also seeks comments on how information technology could reduce the administrative burden. Interested parties have until March 31, 2025, to provide their input.

Significant Issues or Concerns

While the document is comprehensive in its request for public commentary, there are several noteworthy issues and areas lacking clarity:

• Financial Implications: The document does not mention anticipated financial costs associated with the renewal of this information collection. This omission might hinder stakeholders' understanding of the financial impact on both OSMRE and the respondents.

• Rationale for Renewal: There is little explanation provided for the need to renew the current OMB control number. The absence of this justification leaves stakeholders without understanding why continuation of the form is necessary.

• Utilization of Collected Data: Although the document notes that the collected information will enhance job performance, it fails to specify how this enhancement is supposed to be achieved. More detailed explanations could assure respondents of the tangible benefits of their participation.

• Obligations and Consequences: The document does not elaborate on potential consequences or penalties for respondents who fail to provide the requested information. This lack of information might leave respondents uncertain about their obligations and the importance of compliance.

• Data Privacy and Security: While it is mentioned that personal information could become publicly available, there is minimal information on what measures will be taken to safeguard respondents’ privacy. Greater transparency on data protection strategies would likely increase public confidence in participating.

Impact on the Public

Broadly, this document might serve as an assurance to the public that OSMRE is committed to evaluating its information collection in order to be more efficient and reduce unnecessary burdens. By opening up for public comments, there is an opportunity for stakeholders to influence how these processes are executed and potentially improve agency transparency and accountability.

Impact on Specific Stakeholders

For state and tribal governments, which are directly affected stakeholders, this document presents both opportunities and challenges. On the positive side, they have a platform to voice concerns or suggest improvements based on their experiences, potentially making the process more streamlined. On the downside, if stakeholders find the information collection process burdensome or poorly justified, it could detract from its effectiveness and create frustration.

In conclusion, while the document takes commendable steps by involving public participation in the review process, addressing the outlined issues would enhance understanding and facilitate more meaningful feedback. This would, in turn, improve the overall effectiveness of OSMRE's training program and its impact on the involved stakeholders.

The document from the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement provides insights into the renewal of an information collection under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. One key financial reference in the document is the "Total Estimated Annual Nonhour Burden Cost," which is stated to be $0. This suggests that there are no additional costs expected beyond the time commitment required for respondents to complete the form.

Financial Summary

The document highlights that participating in this information collection should not impose any financial burdens on respondents beyond the time needed to fill out the form. The "Total Estimated Number of Annual Burden Hours" is projected to be 67 hours based on an estimated completion time of 5 minutes per response for 800 respondents. This indicates that the process is designed to be minimally disruptive and cost-free in terms of out-of-pocket expenses.

Relation to Identified Issues

While the document specifies that there are no extra nonhour financial burdens, one of the identified issues is the absence of a detailed explanation of why the OMB Control Number needs renewal. This financial detail—or lack thereof—might be more comprehensible if there were more emphasis on any expected future financial impacts tied to the information collected. Understanding these potential financial implications could make the rationale for renewal clearer.

Moreover, although there is no direct financial cost identified for respondents, another concern raised is that the document does not comprehensively explain how the collected information will enhance job performance. Clarifying this could provide indirect financial benefits or savings that result from improved job efficiency or effectiveness due to technical training.

Additional issues arise from the incomplete detailing of personal information safeguards. While there is no direct monetary cost for providing personal information, a clearer assurance of data security could enhance participation and trust, indirectly affecting the perceived value of the contributions individuals make without out-of-pocket expenses.

In conclusion, while the document effectively communicates that there are no additional financial burdens for respondents, further elaboration on the renewal’s purpose and the advantages of the information collected could provide a more comprehensive understanding of non-financial impacts and indirectly influence perceived financial effectiveness.