Overview
Title
Information Collection Request to Office of Management and Budget; OMB Control Number: 1625-0101
Agencies
ELI5 AI
The U.S. Coast Guard wants to make sure old ships are still safe, so they're asking people if they should keep checking these ships in the same way as before. They want people to share their thoughts and ideas to help make this process better and easier.
Summary AI
The U.S. Coast Guard is requesting public comments on its Information Collection Request (ICR), which seeks an extension of approval for regulations concerning the structural integrity of tank vessels over 30 years old. The request involves periodic gauging and engineering analyses required by the Oil Pollution Act of 1990. Interested parties have until May 9, 2025, to submit their comments on the necessity, practicality, and burden of the collection. The Coast Guard welcomes suggestions on enhancing and minimizing the burden of this information gathering.
Abstract
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the U.S. Coast Guard intends to submit an Information Collection Request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), requesting an extension of its approval for the following collection of information: 1625-0101, Periodic Gauging and Engineering Analyses for Certain Tank Vessels Over 30 Years Old; without change. Our ICR describes the information we seek to collect from the public. Before submitting this ICR to OIRA, the Coast Guard is inviting comments as described below.
Keywords AI
Sources
AnalysisAI
The document is a notice from the U.S. Coast Guard, part of the Homeland Security Department, indicating its intent to submit an Information Collection Request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). This request relates to regulations requiring periodic gauging and engineering analyses to ensure the structural integrity of tank vessels over 30 years old, a requirement stemming from the Oil Pollution Act of 1990. The Coast Guard is seeking public comments on whether to extend the approval for these requirements. Comments must be submitted by May 9, 2025.
General Summary
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the U.S. Coast Guard plans to seek an extension for an existing regulation involving the structural integrity of older tank vessels. This regulation mandates periodic checks on vessels over 30 years old to ensure their continued safety and efficacy in preventing oil pollution. The Coast Guard invites public input on the utility, accuracy, and potential burden of this data collection.
Significant Issues and Concerns
The document's use of technical language might pose understanding challenges for the general public. Terms like "Information Collection Request" and legal references to the Oil Pollution Act and U.S. Code may not be familiar to many readers. Additionally, while the document provides detailed instructions for submitting comments, these steps may seem complex or daunting to individuals unfamiliar with governmental processes.
Another concern arises from the document's reference to an increased burden estimate of 3,306 hours per year. The document indicates this increase results from more annual responses but lacks specific details on how these figures were calculated. This absence of clarity could lead to questions regarding the efficiency or necessity of the process.
Furthermore, the document does not address how the Coast Guard plans to ensure equitable access to information and compliance among all tank vessel owners and operators. There is a risk that smaller organizations with less access to resources may find it more challenging to comply compared to larger entities.
Impact on the Public
Broadly, the document indicates a continued commitment to vessel safety and environmental protection, which aligns with public interest, particularly concerning oil spill prevention. However, the complexity and technical nature of the notice may limit public engagement, as individuals may feel ill-equipped to contribute meaningful feedback without further clarification or context.
Impact on Specific Stakeholders
For stakeholders like tank vessel owners and operators, this notice presents both a regulatory responsibility and an opportunity to influence future requirements. Larger companies may have the resources to manage the data collection and analysis required under the regulation smoothly, benefiting from standardization and potential safety improvements.
Smaller stakeholders, however, might view this as a burden due to the specified increase in annual hours required for compliance. They might also experience difficulties navigating the comment submission process due to its complexity. Thus, the document presents a mixed impact: fostering increased safety on the one hand, while potentially imposing a significant time and resource commitment on businesses.
By welcoming comments, the Coast Guard offers a participatory role in shaping these regulations, an opportunity best utilized if stakeholders can navigate the technical intricacies and effectively communicate their feedback.
Issues
• The language used in the document is technical and may be difficult for the general public to fully understand, especially regarding specifics of the Information Collection Request (ICR) and legal references.
• The instructions for submitting comments are somewhat extensive and might be perceived as complicated by the intended audience if they are not familiar with the process.
• The estimated burden of 3,306 hours per year for compliance might be seen as high, but the document does not explain in detail how this burden was calculated, which could raise concerns about wasteful or inefficient processes.
• There is no specific mention of any efforts to ensure equitable access to all owners and operators of tank vessels who might need to comply with or respond to this collection, potentially raising issues about whether this will favor those with greater resources.
• The document lacks detailed justification for why the increase in estimated annual number of responses led to an increased burden estimate, which could lead to queries about the necessity of the change.
• There is no explanation or example given for the type of public comments that would be useful or desired, which might lead to confusion or deter participation.
• The document assumes the reader understands the context and importance of periodic gauging and engineering analyses for tank vessels over 30 years old, which might not be clear to all parties.