Overview
Title
Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Safety Standards for Roof Bolts in Metal and Nonmetal Mines and Underground Coal Mines
Agencies
ELI5 AI
The Department of Labor wants people to help them decide how to make sure that special sticks called roof bolts are safe to use in mines so that roofs don’t fall down and hurt people. They’re asking everyone for ideas on how to do this better and cheaper by April 21, 2025.
Summary AI
The Department of Labor is asking the public for comments on a new information collection about safety standards for roof bolts used in mines. This request is part of an effort to prevent injuries and deaths from accidents like roof falls in underground and surface mines. People have until April 21, 2025, to provide their feedback, and this process is part of a legal requirement to ensure public involvement and transparency. The department wants ideas on everything from the usefulness of this information collection to ways that it could be improved while reducing costs.
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.
Keywords AI
Sources
AnalysisAI
The document titled "Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Safety Standards for Roof Bolts in Metal and Nonmetal Mines and Underground Coal Mines," issued by the Department of Labor, reflects a procedural step under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). It seeks public input on a proposed information collection concerning safety standards for roof bolts used in mines. This feedback loop is integral to ensuring that these safety measures are relevant, efficient, and cost-effective, eventually aiding in the prevention of mining accidents caused by roof falls. Comments are welcome until April 21, 2025, as part of a federal commitment to transparency and public participation.
General Summary
The document outlines a request for comments on behalf of the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA), a branch of the Department of Labor. It centers on an information collection request (ICR) concerning the safety standards for roof bolts in mines. It briefly explains the background of mining accidents and how roof bolts play a key role in preventing these incidents. The Department is also seeking ideas on the practical utility of the data collected, the accuracy of burden estimates, and possible improvements or cost-reducing measures. The public's involvement is encouraged as a step towards informed decision-making.
Significant Issues and Concerns
Several concerns arise from the document's contents:
Technical Advancements: The text mentions recent technological advancements in roof bolts, yet fails to expound on how these technologies have quantitatively reduced hazards. This omission weakens the case for the effectiveness of current safety measures.
Methodology Transparency: There is mention of burden and cost estimates related to the information collection, but details on how these figures are derived are absent, possibly diminishing trust and clarity regarding these assertions.
Reference to Past Notices: A preceding notice from October 2024 is cited as a source of additional information, but is neither summarized nor linked, potentially leaving interested parties without a clear pathway to further insights.
Failure of Collection Approval: While the documentation extensively covers how the PRA demands public feedback for information collection, it does not outline potential consequences if the effort is not sanctioned by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
Guidance on Feedback: There's a clear invitation for comments, yet no specific guidance is provided on what constitutes meaningful feedback, which could discourage public participation.
Technical Jargon: The material assumes the reader is familiar with specialized terms without explanation, which could alienate those not versed in bureaucratic or technical language, limiting broader engagement.
Automation and Technology Use: The document hints at reducing burdens through technology but falls short of proposing current or new methods to achieve this, missing an opportunity to streamline response processes.
Impact on the Public
The broader public may initially see this as another layer of bureaucratic paperwork. However, the implications are significant—every individual working in or impacted by the mining industry stands to benefit from improved safety standards. By encouraging input, the Department of Labor ensures policies remain grounded in practical realities and reflect the concerns of those directly affected.
Impact on Specific Stakeholders
For miners and their families, the direct implication is increased safety in one of the most hazardous professions. Ensuring effective roof bolt standards can potentially prevent injuries and save lives. Meanwhile, business owners and operators in the mining sector might see updated regulations as a double-edged sword—while beneficial for workforce safety, they may fear increased compliance costs unless new methods or technologies provide economic benefits.
In conclusion, the document signifies an ongoing effort to marry safety with practical implementation in the mining industry. While the intent to include public opinion is clear, the effectiveness of this initiative might be enhanced with more detailed explanations, clearer guidance, and concerted efforts to involve stakeholders at every level comprehensively.
Financial Assessment
The document in question discusses a submission for review and approval of an information collection request related to safety standards for roof bolts in mines. Within this notice, there are specific financial references that merit further examination to understand their implications and how they connect to the content's broader issues.
Summary of Financial References
The document explicitly mentions that the Total Estimated Annual Other Costs Burden for the information collection is $0. This indicates that beyond the time-related costs associated with the burden hours, no additional financial expenses are anticipated for this collection.
Relation to Identified Issues
Transparency and Methodology: One of the key issues identified is the lack of detailed explanation regarding the methodology and assumptions used for estimating the burden and cost of the information collection. While the document states that the other costs burden is $0, the absence of an explanation leaves it unclear why there are no additional costs. This might include costs related to new technology implementations or training for compliance, which are not considered here.
Implications for Technology Advancements: The document points out that advancements in technology have contributed to reducing hazards associated with roof falls in mines. However, it does not elaborate on whether adopting these technologies imposes any financial burden or requires monetary investment. This omission is somewhat connected to the $0 other costs burden, suggesting either these costs are absorbed in another way or potentially overlooked.
Guidance for Public Comments: While inviting public comments, the document might benefit from more detailed financial guidance. Specifically, it could provide examples or clarify what constitutes a cost-effective information collection system. Knowing the annual cost burden is $0 might lead to confusion if respondents feel otherwise, particularly in implementing required technologies or systems.
Overall, while the financial reference suggests no additional costs, the document might better serve its audience by providing clarity on how this figure is derived and if it indeed reflects all aspects of implementing the safety standards effectively.
Issues
• The document does not provide detailed information on how advancements in technology have specifically reduced the hazards associated with roof falls, making it difficult to assess the effectiveness of such technologies.
• The methodology and assumptions used for estimating the burden and cost of the information collection are mentioned but not explained in detail, which may affect the transparency and understanding of these estimates.
• The document references a related notice published on October 23, 2024, but does not provide a summary or link to the specific details in that notice, which could improve context for readers.
• The document refers to the PRA requirements about information collection approval but does not summarize the potential consequences or next steps if the collection is not approved.
• While the comment invitation is clear, there is no description or examples of what might constitute practical utility or improvements in the quality of information collection, which could guide the public in formulating their feedback.
• The document assumes the audience is familiar with terms like OMB Control Number, PRA, or CFR without providing definitions or descriptions, which may limit understanding for lay readers.
• The section on minimizing burden includes a reference to using 'automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology' but lacks specific suggestions or options currently available to respondents.