Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 193 / Wednesday, October 7, 2009 / Notices 51605 

The notices are available for 

immediate inspection at the Federal 

Reserve Bank indicated. The notices 

also will be available for inspection at 

the office of the Board of Governors. 

Interested persons may express their 

views in writing to the Reserve Bank 

indicated for that notice or to the offices 

of the Board of Governors. Comments 

must be received not later than October 

21, 2009. 

A. Federal Reserve Bank of 

Minneapolis (Jacqueline G. King, 

Community Affairs Officer) 90 

Hennepin Avenue, Minneapolis, 

Minnesota 55480-0291: 

1. Craig E. Scherber, Mound, 

Minnesota; to acquire 10 percent or 

more of the shares of American Eagle 

Financial Corporation, Otsego, 

Minnesota, and thereby indirectly gain 

control of Riverview Community Bank, 

Otsego, Minnesota. 

Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve 

System, October 2, 2009. 

Robert deV. Frierson, 

Deputy Secretary of the Board. 

[FR Doc. E9–24140 Filed 10–6–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6210–01–S 

FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION 

Notice of Agreements Filed 

The Commission hereby gives notice 

of the filing of the following agreements 

under the Shipping Act of 1984. 

Interested parties may submit comments 

on the agreements to the Secretary, 

Federal Maritime Commission, 

Washington, DC 20573, within ten days 

of the date this notice appears in the 

Federal Register. Copies of the 

agreements are available through the 

Commission’s Web site (http:// 

www.fmc.gov) or by contacting the 

Office of Agreements at (202)–523–5793 

or tradeanalysis@fmc.gov. 

Agreement No.: 010071–036. 

Title: Cruise Lines International 

Association Agreement. 

Parties: AMA Waterways; American 

Cruise Lines, Inc.; Azamara Cruises; 

Carnival Cruise Lines; Celebrity Cruises, 

Inc.; Costa Cruise Lines; Crystal Cruises; 

Cunard Line; Disney Cruise Line; 

Holland America Line; Hurtigruten, 

Inc.; Majestic America Line; MSC 

Cruises; NCL Corporation; Oceania 

Cruises; Orient Lines; Princess Cruises; 

Regent Seven Seas Cruises; Royal 

Caribbean International; Seabourn 

Cruise Line; SeaDream Yacht Club; 

Silversea Cruises, Ltd.; Uniworld River 

Cruises, Inc.; and Windstar Cruises. 

Filing Party: Terry Dale, President; 

Cruise Lines International Association, 

Inc., 910 SE. 17th Street, Suite 400, Fort 

Lauderdale, FL 33316. 

Synopsis: This corrects an earlier 

notice that appeared on September 23, 

2009, to reflect Pearl Seas Cruises as an 

additional party to the agreement. 

Agreement No.: 010982–047. 

Title: Florida-Bahamas Shipowners 

and Operators Association. 

Parties: Bernuth Lines, Ltd.; Crowley 

Caribbean Services LLC/Crowley Liner 

Services, Inc.; Seaboard Marine, Ltd.; 

and Seafreight Line, Ltd. 

Filing Party: Wayne R. Rohde, Esq., 

Sher & Blackwell LLP, 1850 M Street, 

NW., Suite 900, Washington, DC 20036. 

Synopsis: The amendment removes 

Atlantic Caribbean Line, Inc. as a party 

to the agreement. 

Dated: October 2, 2009. 

By Order of the Federal Maritime 

Commission. 

Karen V. Gregory, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. E9–24238 Filed 10–6–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE P 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION 

Public Workshops and Roundtables: 

From Town Crier to Bloggers: How Will 

Journalism Survive the Internet Age? 

AGENCY: Federal Trade Commission. 

ACTION: Notice Announcing Public 

Workshops and Opportunity for 

Comment. 

SUMMARY: The Federal Trade 

Commission (‘‘FTC’’ or ‘‘Commission’’) 

announces that it will hold two days of 

public workshops on December 1 and 2, 

2009, to examine the Internet’s impact 

on journalism in newspapers, 

magazines, broadcast television and 

radio, and cable television. The Internet 

has changed how many consumers 

receive news and altered the advertising 

landscape. Low entry barriers on the 

Internet have allowed new voices of 

journalism to emerge; the Internetenabled links from one web site to 

another have given consumers easy 

access to all types of news; efficiencies 

available through the Internet have 

substantially reduced advertising costs. 

These and other changes related to the 

Internet have benefitted consumers 

greatly. 

At the same time, however, lower 

online advertising costs have reduced 

advertising revenues to news 

organizations that rely on those 

revenues for the majority of their 

funding. The explosion in the number 

and types of web sites has increased the 

supply of advertising locations. As that 

supply has increased, advertisers now 

pay less for online advertising, and 

some advertising has moved from print, 

television, or radio to online sites. In 

addition, most online news is offered 

free, so online readers of news 

frequently do not contribute 

subscription revenues to news media. 

These developments are challenging 

the ability of news organizations to fund 

journalism. The workshops will 

consider a wide range of issues, 

including: (1) the economics of 

journalism on the Internet and in more 

traditional media; (2) how the business 

models of different types of news 

organizations may evolve in response to 

the challenges associated with the 

Internet; (3) innovative forms of 

journalism that have emerged on the 

Internet; (4) how competition may 

evolve in markets for journalism and 

advertising; and (5) changes in 

governmental policies that have been 

proposed as ways to support journalism. 

The Commission seeks the views of 

the news media and the legal, academic, 

consumer, and business communities 

on the issues to be explored at the 

hearings. This notice poses a series of 

questions on which the Commission 

seeks comment. 

DATES: The dates for the workshops are 

December 1 and 2, 2009. Comments 

must be received by November 6, 2009, 

to be considered in preparing for the 

workshops. 

ADDRESSES: The workshops will be held 

at the FTC’s Conference Center located 

at 601 New Jersey Ave., N.W., 

Washington, D.C. 20001. Those who 

plan to attend are encouraged to preregister by sending an email to 

(newsmediaworkshop@ftc.gov). This 

information will be used for planning 

purposes only. Interested parties are 

invited to submit written comments 

electronically or in paper form, by 

following the instructions in the 

Instructions For Filing Comments part 

of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

section below. Comments filed in 

electronic form should be submitted by 

using the following weblink: (http:// 

public.commentworks.com/ftc/ 

newsmediaworkshop) and following the 

instructions on the web-based form. 

Comments in paper form should be 

mailed or delivered to the following 

address: Federal Trade Commission, 

Office of the Secretary, Room H-135 

(Annex F), 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, 

NW, Washington, DC 20580, in the 

manner detailed in the SUPPLEMENTARY

INFORMATION section below. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Jessica Hoke, Office of Policy Planning, 

FTC, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with NOTICES
51606 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 193 / Wednesday, October 7, 2009 / Notices 

1 E.g., Will Skowronski, Investigative Teem: New 

nonprofit centers aim to fill the gap in state and 

local investigations, Am. Journalism Rev. (Feb./Mar. 

2009) (describing new nonprofit centers dedicated 

to investigative journalism as a result of concern 

that news organizations have declining revenues for 

investigative reporting), available at (http:// 

www.ajr.org/Article.asp?id=4693). 

2Matthew Gentzkow & Jesse Shapiro, Competition 

and Truth in the Market for News, 22 J. Econ. 

Perspectives 133, 146 (2008) (‘‘As Downs (1957), 

Coase (1974), Posner (1986), and others have 

pointed out, when it comes to the kind of 

information that the First Amendment is most 

concerned with, there may be large social gains that 

consumers do not internalize. Consumers will 

prefer to free-ride and let others invest in casting 

informed votes.’’ (citations omitted)). See also 

James t. Hamilton, all the News That’s Fit to Sell: 

How the Market Transforms Information into News 

(Princeton Univ. Press 2004) at 13 (‘‘The point here 

is that since individuals do not calculate the full 

benefit to society of their learning about politics, 

they will express less than optimal levels of interest 

in public affairs coverage and generate less than 

desirable demands for news about government.’’). 

3 See n. 1 supra. 

4Governmental policies supporting news 

organizations are not new. In the nineteenth 

century, newspapers were often distributed through 

the mail with no charge for postage. Radio and 

television benefitted from the government’s 

licensing of spectrum without competitive bidding. 

The Newspaper Preservation Act of 1970 provided 

ways for newspapers to collaborate on operations 

costs, exempt from the antitrust laws, while 

continuing to compete on content. Copyright laws 

protect original news content, with exceptions for 

‘‘fair use.’’ 

Washington, D.C. 20580; telephone 

(202) 326-3291; e-mail: 

(newsmediaworkshop@ftc.gov). Detailed 

agendas for the workshops will be made 

available at the workshop webpage, 

which will be accessible from the FTC 

Home Page (http://www.ftc.gov). 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

Internet has given consumers access to 

an unprecedented number of 

information sources. The Internet’s low 

entry barriers, in comparison to 

traditional media, have created new 

publication opportunities resulting in 

multiple innovative forms of journalism. 

Websites run by citizen journalists and 

bloggers, for instance, provide 

information, analysis, and opinion on a 

wide variety of topics. In addition, 

websites have been created that 

aggregate stories from many different 

publications, so a particular news story 

may be seen at multiple locations on the 

Internet. These changes have benefitted 

consumers in a wide variety of ways. 

At the same time, changes associated 

with Internet technology pose 

fundamental financial challenges to 

many news organizations. To a large 

extent, these challenges reflect changes 

in the business of advertising. News 

organizations traditionally have 

provided valuable venues through 

which advertisers can reach consumers, 

and advertising revenues – not 

consumer purchases – have funded 

most of the costs of producing and 

distributing the news. Now this 

business model is under stress. Online 

websites provide an almost limitless 

supply of advertising venues – a fact 

that has reduced advertising revenues to 

many traditional forms of news media. 

Particularly in the case of classified 

advertising, much lower costs combined 

with a much larger network of potential 

purchasers and sellers have encouraged 

advertisers to move online to a 

significant extent, eliminating a 

substantial portion of the advertising 

revenues that newspapers rely on. 

Other developments raise additional 

issues. Consumers are using ‘‘news 

aggregator’’ websites, which collect and 

link to stories produced by news 

organizations. Aggregators generally do 

not pay for that content, claiming that 

they help news organizations by 

enabling readers to link back to the 

original news story, thereby driving 

traffic to the news organization’s 

website and the advertising located 

there. News organizations respond that 

some aggregators not only link to the 

original news story, but also post a 

substantial portion of the original news 

story at the aggregators’ sites. This 

diminishes the value of advertising at 

the original news story’s website, they 

claim, by decreasing the likelihood that 

a reader will visit the complete story at 

the news organization’s website. There 

are currently various proposals to 

address this issue, including possible 

amendments to copyright laws. 

These financial challenges have 

prompted cost-cutting measures at many 

news organizations. Additionally, a 

recession, bursting real estate bubble, 

and automobile industry crisis also have 

reduced advertising sales and revenues. 

In this economic context, the debt 

burdens from heavily leveraged 

purchases of news organizations, 

combined with other factors, have 

forced several large daily newspapers to 

declare bankruptcy and others to 

impose significant cuts in staff and 

other expenditures to lower costs. 

The reduction in news staffs raises 

questions over whether certain types of 

news are receiving less coverage as a 

result. Many have expressed concern 

that investigative journalism will 

suffer.1 Some economists believe that 

public affairs reporting may indeed be 

particularly subject to market failure.2

Non-profit organizations, some 

associated with universities or 

supported by foundations, have 

developed to provide investigative 

journalism,3 and proposals exist to 

amend tax rules to make it easier for 

foundations to support such news 

organizations. 

There are also concerns about the 

extent to which local journalism will 

continue to thrive. New websites run by 

citizen journalists, which generate local 

and hyperlocal news (covering 

neighborhoods of just a few blocks), 

provide alternative sources of local 

news. For the most part, however, these 

new journalism models have not yet 

proven profitable. Various tax proposals 

seek to make it easier for foundations 

and other low-profit ventures to support 

local journalism. 

The FTC’s workshops will bring 

competition, consumer welfare, and 

First Amendment perspectives to 

analyze (1) the financial challenges 

facing news organizations in the 

Internet age, and (2) the potential for 

new opportunities for sustainable 

journalism. Workshop participants will 

discuss, among other things: 

∑ Internet-related changes in 

advertising that affect news 

organizations, and ideas for potential 

responses to those changes; 

∑ Internet-related changes in ways 

that consumers obtain news, and ideas 

for potential responses to those changes; 

∑ Ideas for reducing the costs of 

providing the news and restructuring 

news organizations to become more 

efficient (without sacrificing quality); 

∑ Potential profit and non-profit 

models for journalism, including 

innovative forms of journalism; and 

∑ Potential evolution in competition 

among news organizations. 

The FTC workshops will also explore 

whether recent changes in the news 

industry require consideration of 

additional or alternative governmental 

policies to ensure that journalism 

provides news of value to consumers.4

Workshop participants will discuss, 

among other things: 

∑ Proposals for new tax treatment for 

news organizations; 

∑ Proposals for changes in copyright 

law and doctrine, including the ‘‘fair 

use’’ of news stories; 

∑ Proposals for an antitrust exemption 

applied to certain conduct of news 

organizations; and 

∑ Proposals for greater public funding 

of public affairs news. 

Other relevant topics for the 

workshops may be proposed as well. An 

agenda for the December 1 and 2, 2009, 

workshops will be circulated at a later 

time. Participants will include 

journalists, editors, owners, and other 

representatives of news organizations, 

online advertisers, new media 

representatives (such as bloggers and 

local news web sites), consumer 

advocates, academics, economists, and 

government representatives. 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 193 / Wednesday, October 7, 2009 / Notices 51607 

5The comment must be accompanied by an 

explicit request for confidential treatment, 

including the factual and legal basis for the request, 

and must identify the specific portions of the 

comment to be withheld from the public record. 

The request will be granted or denied by the 

Commission’s General Counsel, consistent with 

applicable law and the public interest. See FTC 

Rule 4.9(c), 16 CFR 4.9(c). 

The Commission seeks public 

comment on the questions posed below 

or any issue raised by this notice. 

Comments may address the issues 

raised in these questions or other issues 

relevant to the topics to be addressed at 

the workshops. Any interested person 

may submit written comments. In 

preparing for the workshop, the 

Commission will consider comments 

received by November 6, 2009. Later 

comments will be accepted as well. 

Changes Driven by Technology 

∑ How is the Internet changing the 

way consumers access news? What 

further changes are forecast? What are 

the consequences of those changes for 

consumers and for news organizations? 

∑ How is the Internet changing 

advertising expenditures? What further 

changes are forecast? For which types of 

advertising will news organizations 

likely remain preferred venues? What is 

the likely role of targeted advertising in 

the future, both by news organizations 

and other entities? 

∑ How is the Internet changing the 

way news organizations and others 

research, write, edit, produce, and 

distribute news? How could the Internet 

be useful in reducing those costs? What 

would be the likely consequences of any 

changes? 

∑ What innovative forms of 

journalism have emerged due to the 

Internet? What types of journalism are 

produced? 

∑ What are the business models, 

including the revenue sources, for new 

models of journalism on the Internet? 

Are they profitable? What are the 

prospects for future profitability? 

∑ What new forms of journalism and 

new business models may become more 

prevalent in the future? How might new 

or improved technologies drive the 

evolution of the news media in the 

future? 

Economic Challenges of News 

Organizations 

∑ What economic challenges do news 

organizations face today? What is the 

source of these challenges? 

∑ What alternative cost-cutting 

measures have news organizations 

considered? Which have they adopted? 

What further measures are under 

consideration? 

∑ How have cost-cutting measures 

affected the provision of news to 

consumers? What types of news are no 

longer being covered? What types of 

news receive less coverage than before? 

What are the long-term consequences of 

such reduced news coverage for 

consumers? What are the long-term 

consequences of such reduced news 

coverage for ensuring an educated 

citizenry? 

∑ How might the business models of 

news organizations evolve in response 

to these challenges? What would be the 

effect of new business models on the 

type, quality, and quantity of journalism 

available both off and online? 

∑ How are news organizations likely 

to compete for readers and advertising 

in the future? What is the value that 

particular news organizations can offer 

to persuade advertisers to choose them 

over different venues for advertising? 

What is the value that particular news 

organizations can offer that might 

persuade consumers to pay for their 

content? How will those values differ 

depending on characteristics of the 

news organizations (e.g., local, regional, 

or national news; specialized or broad 

coverage; weekly or monthly news)? 

Government Policies 

∑ Are new or changed government 

policies needed to support optimal 

amounts and types of journalism, 

including public affairs coverage? Why 

or why not? Could new or changed 

government policies encourage more 

competition among news organizations? 

∑ Should the tax code be modified to 

provide special status or tax breaks to 

all or certain types of news 

organizations? Why or why not? If yes, 

in what ways? What would be the likely 

effects for consumers? For news 

organizations? What strategic behavior 

or unintended consequences might 

special tax treatment engender? 

∑ Do the protections for original news 

content under current copyright law 

provide sufficient incentives to create 

that content? If not, should copyright 

law be altered? What is the role of the 

‘‘fair use’’ doctrine in allowing use of 

original news content by news 

aggregators and others? Should the ‘‘fair 

use’’ doctrine be modified? What would 

be the effects of any changes in 

copyright law or doctrine on consumers 

and news organizations? What strategic 

behavior or unintended consequences 

might changes in copyright law or 

doctrine engender? 

∑ What joint actions, if any, are news 

organizations considering to address the 

financial challenges they face as a result 

of changes brought about by the 

Internet? Are there any joint actions for 

which an antitrust immunity arguably 

would be required? If so, have joint 

actions been tried first that do not 

require antitrust immunity? Under what 

circumstances, if any, could an antitrust 

immunity for certain joint conduct be 

justified? In what ways, if any, would 

antitrust immunity be preferable to 

innovation to address new challenges? 

∑ Should the federal government 

provide additional funding for news 

organizations? Why or why not? If yes, 

should only current recipients of federal 

funding receive increased funding? 

What methods have other countries 

used to provide government funding for 

the news, while retaining journalistic 

integrity? What would be the costs and 

potential consequences of increased 

federal funding for the news? What 

strategic behavior or unintended 

consequences might increased federal 

funding engender? 

Interested parties are invited to 

submit written comments electronically 

or in paper form. Comments should 

refer to ‘‘News Media Workshop 

Comment, Project No. P091200’’ to 

facilitate the organization of comments. 

Please note that your comment – 

including your name and your state – 

will be placed on the public record of 

this proceeding, including on the 

publicly accessible FTC website, at 

(http://www.ftc.gov/os/ 

publiccomments.shtm). 

Because comments will be made 

public, they should not include any 

sensitive personal information, such as 

any individual’s Social Security 

Number; date of birth; driver’s license 

number or other state identification 

number, or foreign country equivalent; 

passport number; financial account 

number; or credit or debit card number. 

Comments also should not include any 

sensitive health information, such as 

medical records or other individually 

identifiable health information. In 

addition, comments should not include 

any ‘‘[t]rade secret or any commercial or 

financial information which is obtained 

from any person and which is privileged 

or confidential. . . ,’’ as provided in 

Section 6(f) of the Federal Trade 

Commission Act (‘‘FTC Act’’), 15 U.S.C. 

46(f), and FTC Rule 4.10(a)(2), 16 CFR 

4.10(a)(2). Comments containing 

material for which confidential 

treatment is requested must be filed in 

paper form, must be clearly labeled 

‘‘Confidential,’’ and must comply with 

FTC Rule 4.9(c), 16 CFR 4.9(c).5

Because paper mail addressed to the 

FTC is subject to delay due to 

heightened security screening, please 

consider submitting your comments in 

electronic form. Comments filed in 

electronic form should be submitted by 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with NOTICES
51608 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 193 / Wednesday, October 7, 2009 / Notices 

using the following weblink: (https:// 

public.commentworks.com/ftc/ 

newsmediaworkshop) (and following 

the instructions on the web-based form). 

To ensure that the Commission 

considers an electronic comment, you 

must file it on the web-based form at the 

weblink (https:// 

public.commentworks.com/ftc/ 

newsmediaworkshop). If this document 

appears at (http://www.regulations.gov/ 

search/Regs/home.html#home), you 

may also file an electronic comment 

through that website. The Commission 

will consider all comments that 

regulations.gov forwards to it. You may 

also visit the FTC Website at (http:// 

www.ftc.gov) to read the document and 

the news release describing it. 

A comment filed in paper form 

should include the ‘‘News Media 

Workshop Comment, Project No. 

P091200’’ reference both in the text and 

on the envelope, and should be mailed 

or delivered to the following address: 

Federal Trade Commission, Office of the 

Secretary, Room H-135 (Annex F), 600 

Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, 

DC 20580. The FTC is requesting that 

any comment filed in paper form be sent 

by courier or overnight service, if 

possible, because U.S. postal mail in the 

Washington area and at the Commission 

is subject to delay due to heightened 

security precautions. 

The FTC Act and other laws the 

Commission administers permit the 

collection of public comments to 

consider and use in this proceeding as 

appropriate. The Commission will 

consider all timely and responsive 

public comments that it receives, 

whether filed in paper or electronic 

form. Comments received will be 

available to the public on the FTC 

website, to the extent practicable, at 

(http://www.ftc.gov/os/ 

publiccomments.shtm). As a matter of 

discretion, the Commission makes every 

effort to remove home contact 

information for individuals from the 

public comments it receives before 

placing those comments on the FTC 

Website. More information, including 

routine uses permitted by the Privacy 

Act may be found in the FTC’s privacy 

policy, at (http://www.ftc.gov/ftc/ 

privacy.shtm). 

By direction of the Commission. 

Donald S. Clark, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. E9–24197 Filed 10–6–09; 12:23 pm] 

BILLING CODE 6750–01–S 

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES 

Centers for Disease Control and 

Prevention 

[60Day–09–08BG] 

Proposed Data Collections Submitted 

for Public Comment and 

Recommendations 

In compliance with the requirement 

of Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 for 

opportunity for public comment on 

proposed data collection projects, the 

Centers for Disease Control and 

Prevention (CDC) will publish periodic 

summaries of proposed projects. To 

request more information on the 

proposed projects or to obtain a copy of 

the data collection plans and 

instruments, call 404–639–5960 and 

send comments to Maryam I. Daneshvar, 

CDC Acting Reports Clearance Officer, 

1600 Clifton Road, MS–D74, Atlanta, 

GA 30333 or send an e-mail to 

omb@cdc.gov. 

Comments are invited on: (a) Whether 

the proposed collection of information 

is necessary for the proper performance 

of the functions of the agency, including 

whether the information shall have 

practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the 

agency’s estimate of the burden of the 

proposed collection of information; (c) 

ways to enhance the quality, utility, and 

clarity of the information to be 

collected; and (d) ways to minimize the 

burden of the collection of information 

on respondents, including through the 

use of automated collection techniques 

or other forms of information 

technology. Written comments should 

be received within 60 days of this 

notice. 

Proposed Project 

Survey of Coal Mine Safety 

Interventions—NEW—National Institute 

for Occupational Safety and Health 

(NIOSH), Centers for Disease Control 

and Prevention (CDC). 

Background and Brief Description 

Since its establishment in 1970 by the 

Occupational Safety and Health Act, the 

National Institute for Occupational 

Safety and Health (NIOSH) has been at 

the forefront of research and innovation 

on methods to help eliminate workplace 

injuries, illnesses and exposures. At 

Mine Safety and Health Research 

laboratories in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 

and Spokane, Washington, NIOSH 

employs engineers and scientists with 

experience and expertise in mine safety 

and health issues. These laboratories 

and their researchers have gained an 

international reputation for innovative 

solutions to many mining safety and 

health problems. 

Although the NIOSH Mining Program 

widely disseminates and publicizes 

research results, recommendations, 

techniques and products that emerge 

from the work of these laboratories, the 

agency has limited knowledge about the 

extent to which their innovations in 

mine safety and health have been 

implemented by individual mine 

operators. This is particularly true of 

methods and practices that are not 

mandated by formal regulations. The 

overarching goal of the proposed survey 

of NIOSH Recommended Safety and 

Health Practices for Coal Mines is to 

gather data from working coal mines on 

the adoption and implementation of 

NIOSH practices to mitigate safety and 

occupational hazards (e.g., explosions, 

falls of ground). The information from 

this survey will be used by NIOSH to 

evaluate the implementation of safety 

and health interventions (including best 

practices and barriers to 

implementation) in areas such as 

respirable coal dust control, explosion 

prevention, roof support, and 

emergency response planning and 

training. Survey results will provide 

NIOSH with knowledge about which 

recommended practices, tools and 

methods have been most widely 

embraced by the industry, which have 

not been adopted, and why. The survey 

results will provide needed insight from 

the perspective of mine operators on the 

practical barriers that may prevent 

wider adoption of NIOSH 

recommendations and practices 

designed to safeguard mine workers. 

In the spring of 2007, NIOSH 

conducted a pretest of the survey 

questionnaire with nine underground 

coal mine operators. The pretest 

instrument contained 81 questions, 

including five questions which 

measured the respondents’ impressions 

of the clarity, burden level and 

relevance of the survey. The pretest 

served several important functions, 

including gaining feedback on the flow 

of items and their relevance to the 

respondents’ experience, assessing the 

effectiveness of the questionnaire 

instructions, and obtaining 

recommendations for improving the 

questions. Data captured in the pretest 

were used to identify areas for 

questionnaire improvement and 

recommendations for maximizing the 

performance of the full survey. 

The proposed survey will be based 

upon a probability sample of 300 of the 

approximately 665 underground coal 

mines in the United States. A stratified 

random sample of mines will be drawn 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with NOTICES