FR 2025-07762

The document in question is a notice from the Department of Labor (DOL), focusing on the collection of information related to the posting of emergency telephone numbers and floor load limits at construction sites. This procedure is part of the Occupational Safety & Health Administration (OSHA) compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The public is invited to comment on the necessity and effectiveness of this information collection, with a comment period open until June 4, 2025.

General Summary

The notice details an information collection request (ICR) that OSHA is submitting to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for approval. This request is centered around construction standards that require the posting of emergency telephone numbers at worksites lacking 911 service and indicating maximum floor load limits in certain storage areas. Public feedback is sought to evaluate the need, utility, and burden of these requirements, and the ICR is subject to a maximum three-year authorization period by the OMB.

Significant Issues and Concerns

Several issues may arise from this notice. Firstly, the repeated mention of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 could be confusing for individuals unfamiliar with legal jargon. Although this act is crucial for regulating information requirements by federal agencies, a brief explanation of its purpose would enhance comprehension.

Another point of potential confusion stems from the comment submission process. The instructions provided may not be straightforward for all users, particularly those unfamiliar with using government websites. This could deter public participation.

Furthermore, the document mentions exploring automated techniques to alleviate the information collection burden but does not specify what these might entail. Providing examples could facilitate better understanding and potentially encourage innovation in data collection methods.

Lastly, the document states an estimated annual other costs burden of $0, which could appear misleading. Clarification of how costs are offset or why they are negligible is necessary to allay any suspicion.

Impact on the Public

Broadly, the document aims to improve workplace safety by ensuring that workers have access to critical safety information, thereby potentially reducing accidents and injuries. The call for public comments provides an opportunity for individuals and businesses to express concerns, suggest improvements, and ensure that the regulation is beneficial and the burdens are justified.

Impact on Specific Stakeholders

Businesses in the construction sector are directly impacted by these regulations, as they are responsible for complying with the standards and bearing any associated costs with implementing the necessary postings. Therefore, participation in the comment process is crucial for these stakeholders to voice their experiences and concerns.

For the public, particularly construction workers, the requirements could significantly enhance safety by ensuring the availability of emergency contacts and load information. While the document assumes these regulations pose no considerable financial burden, further elaboration on cost computation might encourage acceptance and compliance.

In conclusion, this notice marks an essential step in maintaining workplace safety standards while balancing regulatory compliance with operational feasibility. However, more clarity could help demystify the process for stakeholders and lead to meaningful public engagement.

In reviewing the document, it's notable that the financial section is very concise. The only monetary reference highlighted in this document is the Total Estimated Annual Other Costs Burden, which is listed as $0. This figure might raise questions or even skepticism among readers because it implies that there are no additional financial burdens associated with this information collection process.

The document relates to an Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) information collection request concerning emergency telephone numbers and floor load limits. Although it outlines the number of respondents, responses, and the estimated time burden related to this process, the estimate of $0 for other annual costs may appear paradoxical to those unfamiliar with administrative processes.

Such a financial assumption suggests that there are no direct expenses incurred by businesses or individuals outside of their existing operations concerning the compliance with these reporting requirements. However, clarity on how these figures are estimated could address potential misunderstandings and enhance trust in the information presented.

Given that one of the issues identified is the document's complexity, particularly with legal jargon and procedural instructions, a brief explanation of why and how the cost remains zero could improve transparency. Adding context could help assure stakeholders that these information collection requirements are designed to minimize financial pressures on businesses, which is a core purpose of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

Another related consideration is the use of automated collection techniques mentioned to minimize burdens, which may contribute to the zero-cost estimate. However, without specific examples, the rationale behind this aspect might remain vague. Clear examples or scenarios demonstrating how automation mitigates costs could provide a more comprehensive understanding for readers.

Essentially, while the document states no additional financial burdens, additional context on the computation of these costs, combined with explanations of the methodology used, would enrich the reader's comprehension of the financial implications of adhering to these standards.