Overview
Title
Proposed Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment Request
Agencies
ELI5 AI
The Federal Railroad Administration wants people to tell them if the way they collect information is good or if it can be made easier. They want to make sure they're not asking too much work from people when checking train safety rules.
Summary AI
The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) is seeking public comments on its Information Collection Request (ICR) under the Paperwork Reduction Act. The FRA has identified specific information collection activities related to disqualification proceedings in railroads and aims to gather public input on the necessity, accuracy, and ways to reduce the burden of these collections. Interested individuals can submit their comments by June 30, 2025, ensuring their views help streamline information gathering while maintaining essential oversight functions.
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 from the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), under the Department of Transportation, is a call for public comments on its proposed Information Collection Request (ICR). This notice seeks feedback regarding information gathering as part of the FRA's oversight on railroad operations, specifically disqualification procedures. The request is under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), which mandates that federal agencies actively attempt to minimize paperwork burdens on the public. The FRA is reaching out to individuals to provide input on the necessity and accuracy of current data collection practices and any possible improvements.
General Overview
The FRA's notice is structured under the legal framework of the Paperwork Reduction Act, which ensures that governmental responsibilities do not unduly burden the public with paperwork and administrative tasks. This particular notice concerns procedures related to individuals who the FRA proposes to disqualify from sensitive safety roles in the railroad industry, aiming to maintain safety and regulatory compliance. Comments from the public will be accepted until June 30, 2025, allowing individuals and organizations to voice their views on whether these information collection activities are warranted, useful, and efficiently managed.
Key Issues and Concerns
Several essential considerations arise from this document. Firstly, there is an emphasis on reducing the paperwork burden. Stakeholders need to review whether the current methods are cumbersome and whether there is room for improvement, potentially through advancements in information technology.
Secondly, the document employs legal jargon and references specific legal texts and regulations. This may pose a comprehension challenge for individuals not versed in such language or practices, potentially limiting public engagement. The need for a clearer explanation of costs associated with burden hours, which reference wage data, also stands out. These costs, while accurately framed, may require further clarification for transparent understanding by a general audience.
The reduction in estimated burden from 41 hours to 2 hours, also noted, reflects significant procedural adjustments but might not be immediately apparent without access to earlier documents referenced.
Impact on the Public
On a broad scale, this notice aims to enhance efficiencies in information collection while safeguarding public interests and safety in railroad operations. By inviting public comment, the FRA opens a dialogue that could improve regulatory practices affecting thousands of industry professionals and stakeholders.
Impact on Specific Stakeholders
For specific groups such as railroad companies and employees, this notice focuses on disqualification procedures, a crucial aspect of safety oversight. Railroads, employing over 181,000 individuals, may find the proposed changes beneficial if they reduce unnecessary administrative load, potentially allowing resources to focus more on operational safety and efficiency. Conversely, should the process be seen as insufficiently rigorous, there could be concerns over safety standards.
Overall, while the document primarily addresses administrative procedures, its impacts reach the heart of railroad safety and efficiency, affecting a critical sector of transport infrastructure. Public feedback resulting from this notice will play a crucial role in shaping future regulatory practices, making the participation of affected individuals and organizations immensely valuable.
Financial Assessment
In the document, the financial references primarily revolve around the calculation of costs associated with the burden of information collection activities by the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). These calculations provide an understanding of the economic implications of collecting, processing, and utilizing information for regulatory purposes.
Financial Summary and Cost Calculations
The document highlights that the Total Estimated Annual Burden Hour Dollar Cost Equivalent of complying with the information collection requirements is $178.26. This figure finds its basis in the wage data from the 2023 Surface Transportation Board's Full Year Wage A&B data series. Specifically, it uses an hourly wage rate of $50.93 for the category of "Professional & Administrative" employees. To account for additional costs associated with these burden hours, the document applies a formula to arrive at a total burden wage rate, calculated as $89.13 per hour. This is derived by multiplying the base wage of $50.93 by a factor of 1.75, which reflects both straight time and an additional percentage to cover all potential expenditures.
Relation to Identified Issues
One of the issues identified in the document pertains to the complexity of the legal and financial language that might be challenging for those unfamiliar with regulatory and economic terms. The specifics of calculating wage rates and their application to estimate the overall financial burden are inherently technical. For readers without a financial or regulatory background, understanding how these costs are calculated might require further simplification or explanation.
Moreover, the document attempts to make the process of information collection more efficient by soliciting public comments. This practice is aimed at reducing unnecessary spending, notably in terms of time and administrative efforts. The reduction in estimated burden hours from 41 to 2 hours, and in the number of responses from 22 to 4, reflects an ongoing initiative to streamline processes. However, without the context of prior documents, these changes may not be fully appreciated, an issue that could be addressed by providing additional explanatory notes within the document.
Conclusion
In essence, the document's financial focus is on assessing and communicating the economic impact of regulatory compliance associated with information collection by the FRA. While these financial references are not indicative of direct spending or resource allocation, they highlight potential areas for cost-saving through improved efficiency. The clarity of these financial calculations could be improved to ensure transparency and understanding for all stakeholders. This might include offering a more detailed breakdown or explanation of the methods used to arrive at these calculations, making them more accessible to a general audience.
Issues
• The document contains no specific indication of wasteful spending, but it references administrative and paperwork burdens, highlighting an opportunity to streamline processes.
• There's no evidence of spending that favors particular organizations or individuals, as the document focuses on public comments and information collection regulations.
• The language surrounding the PRA and CFR citations might be complex for readers unfamiliar with legal jargon or regulatory processes.
• Some procedural elements, such as the specific reductions in burden hours and responses, are technical and might be difficult for a general audience to fully appreciate without further context.
• Specific figures related to costs, like the dollar equivalent cost of burden hours, use references to wage data which might need clearer explanation for transparency.
• The document changes in burden estimates may not be fully clear without access to prior documents referenced in footnotes.