Overview
Title
Proposed Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment Request
Agencies
ELI5 AI
The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) wants to hear what people think about their plans to collect information about train noise rules, so they can make sure the rules are still good and not too hard to follow. They're asking for ideas on how to make the rules easier and better for everyone.
Summary AI
The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) is requesting public feedback on its Information Collection Request (ICR) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. This involves compliance with noise emission regulations for locomotives. The FRA is evaluating the necessity, accuracy, and burden of these activities and exploring ways to improve and minimize reporting burdens. Comments must be submitted by June 30, 2025, and will be considered before the FRA submits the ICR for approval to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
Abstract
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) and its implementing regulations, FRA seeks approval of the Information Collection Request (ICR) summarized below. Before submitting this ICR to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for approval, FRA is soliciting public comment on specific aspects of the activities identified in the ICR.
Keywords AI
Sources
AnalysisAI
The document titled "Proposed Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment Request," released by the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), requests public feedback regarding its Information Collection Request (ICR) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. Centered on the compliance of locomotives with noise emission regulations, the aim is to establish whether such information collection is necessary and practical. The FRA is also assessing the burden of these activities on the public and exploring ways to streamline and improve them. The public is invited to submit comments by June 30, 2025, before the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) considers approval.
Significant Issues and Concerns
One concern is the complexity of the language used in the document, which may be challenging for those unfamiliar with bureaucratic jargon. Terms like "Paperwork Reduction Act," "Office of Management and Budget," and "OMB Control Number" may obscure understanding for the general public. Similarly, the document's discussion of the Noise Control Act, noise emission standards, and other technical regulations might be difficult to comprehend without additional context or simplification.
The document does not clearly articulate any changes in the burdens associated with information collection from previous submissions. This lack of clarity could lead to questions about whether current practices represent an improvement over past procedures or if they merely mirror them.
Furthermore, the document does not provide a clear explanation of how public comments will be used to influence or modify existing processes. This might result in uncertainty about the extent of public influence over the decisions arising from this notice.
Broad Public Impact
For the general public, especially those living near railroad lines, understanding and compliance with noise emission standards can have a significant impact on quality of life. Ensuring that noise levels are kept within regulatory limits helps maintain public health and welfare. However, the dense language and complexities of the document might deter meaningful public participation, limiting opportunities for community members to voice their concerns or suggestions.
Impact on Specific Stakeholders
Businesses, particularly locomotive manufacturers, are directly impacted by this notice. The requirement to test and certify locomotives for noise compliance places both a financial and operational burden on these entities. They may need to invest in specific testing facilities or allocate resources to ensure compliance with FRA standards.
While the administrative burden is described in minimal terms (two hours), questions remain about the justification for the estimated annual burden dollar cost of $178.26. This figure, absent a transparent breakdown, could raise questions among stakeholders regarding its derivation and implications.
Conclusion
Overall, the FRA's notice seeks to balance regulatory requirements with practical considerations by inviting public comment. However, the document's complex language, lack of clarity regarding the impact of public input, and ambiguity in changes to reporting burdens and cost justifications may limit its effectiveness. For stakeholders, particularly in the community and business sectors, engaging with these processes will require navigating a complicated bureaucratic landscape, highlighting the need for clearer communication and greater transparency in regulatory practices.
Financial Assessment
The Federal Register document titled "Proposed Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment Request" issued by the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) under the Department of Transportation, outlines the request for public comment on an Information Collection Request (ICR). This document includes several references to financial aspects which are critical to understand within the context of governmental procedures and budget allocations.
Summary of Financial References
The document specifically mentions a "Total Estimated Annual Burden Hour Dollar Cost Equivalent" of $178.26. This figure represents the expected annual financial burden associated with the information collection activities conducted by the FRA. The cost estimation is derived from labor costs calculated using data from the 2023 Surface Transportation Board's Full Year Wage A & B data series. The hourly wage rate used in this calculation for professional administrative staff, categorized under employee group 200, is $50.93, which increases to a total burden wage rate of $89.13 when accounting for straight time plus 75% overtime.
Relation to Identified Issues
Lack of Clarity in Justification: One of the identified issues is the lack of clarity in explaining why the annual burden cost is $178.26. Understanding how this figure is derived is crucial for ensuring transparency and accountability in public spending, yet the document does not provide a detailed breakdown beyond the wage rate calculation. This could be seen as a potential shortcoming in financial transparency, a point where clearer explanations could foster greater public trust.
Complexity of Language: The technical language used when discussing the Noise Control Act, noise emission standards, and related regulatory details could alienate those unfamiliar with these procedures, making it difficult for the general public to comprehend financial implications. Simplifying these descriptions could enhance public understanding, particularly regarding how these costs are computed and justified.
Public Comments and Financial Impact: The document seeks public comments, yet it does not elucidate how these comments might influence financial decisions or changes in the process. While public input is solicited, the pathway from commentary to potential alteration of fiscal approaches remains obscure, possibly diminishing public engagement.
In summary, while the financial references within the document provide a framework for understanding the monetary impacts of FRA's information collection activities, the complexity and lack of detailed financial justifications in some areas highlight opportunities for improving transparency and fostering more informed public participation. By addressing these areas, the FRA could enhance its commitment to accountability in government spending.
Issues
• The document is a notice of information collection and does not directly indicate any specific spending details, potentially limiting the ability to audit for wasteful spending.
• The Notice of Information Collection Requests public comments on the information collection process, which may not explicitly highlight if any particular organizations or individuals are favored by the process.
• The language regarding information collection, such as terms like 'Paperwork Reduction Act', 'Office of Management and Budget', 'OMB Control Number', and related procedural descriptions, may be complex for individuals unfamiliar with governmental processes.
• The summary of the burden does not clearly elaborate on what changes, if any, have occurred in burdens from previous submissions, potentially leaving ambiguity regarding the impact of current practices versus prior practices.
• The use of technical language regarding the Noise Control Act, noise emission standards, and related regulatory details may be difficult for the general public to fully understand without additional context or simplification.
• The document does not provide clear justification for why the estimated annual burden hour dollar cost equivalent is $178.26, which might be a cause for potential concern regarding financial transparency.
• The document lacks clarity in describing how public comments will be utilized or assessed in altering or maintaining current procedures, which might hinder understanding of public influence on the process.