Overview
Title
Notice of Request for Revision to and Extension of Approval of an Information Collection; Approval of Laboratories for Conducting Aquatic Animal Tests for Export Health Certificates
Agencies
ELI5 AI
The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service wants to keep checking that special laboratories are doing a good job testing fish and other water animals so they can be safely sold and sent to other countries. They are asking people to say if they think this checking process is needed and if it takes too much time.
Summary AI
The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) is seeking to revise and extend the approval of an information collection related to certifying laboratories that conduct aquatic animal testing for export activities. This process, while not currently regulated by APHIS, is essential for ensuring that U.S. exports meet the import health requirements of other countries. APHIS is inviting public comments on the necessity, practicality, and burden of this information collection process. The document describes the activities involved, estimates the public burden of these requirements, and outlines how often these procedures occur.
Abstract
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice announces the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service's intention to request a revision to and extension of approval of an information collection associated with its efforts to certify certain laboratories that conduct aquatic animal testing for export activities.
Keywords AI
Sources
AnalysisAI
General Summary
The document in question is a notice from the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), a part of the U.S. Department of Agriculture. This notice relates to the extension and revision of an information collection process involving the certification of laboratories conducting aquatic animal testing for export purposes. In essence, this effort aims to ensure that U.S. exports of aquaculture animals meet the health requirements set by importing countries. APHIS is asking for public input on this information collection process to assess its necessity, efficiency, and any burdens it may impose.
Significant Issues and Concerns
Several issues arise from the document. First, it does not specify the costs involved in these information collection activities or their funding source. Without this financial transparency, assessing potential wastefulness becomes challenging. Furthermore, the criteria for APHIS's approval of laboratories are not explicitly defined, which could leave room for perceived bias or favoritism. The estimated average burden per response is stated to be 11.4 hours, a figure that may appear excessive without further justification or cost-benefit analysis. Technical references, such as the "OIE diagnostic manual," may not be easily understood by everyone, suggesting the need for more accessible explanations. Finally, while the document assures that all comments will become public record, it does not address potential privacy concerns or explain how confidential business information will be handled.
Broad Public Impact
This document's impact on the public is chiefly related to maintaining the health standards of exported aquatic animals, which can indirectly affect consumer confidence and trade relations. Ensuring strong export health certifications could bolster the U.S.'s international reputation for safely exporting aquaculture products, potentially benefiting the national economy.
Impact on Specific Stakeholders
Specific stakeholders, such as state, university, and private laboratory personnel, may face increased administrative tasks due to this information collection. With an estimated burden of 11.4 hours per response and 70 responses expected per respondent annually, this could result in substantial time commitments. However, laboratories that successfully gain APHIS approval might find themselves in a favorable position to offer testing services required by international markets, which could open new business opportunities.
Moreover, U.S. exporters of aquatic animals could experience either positive or negative impacts depending on the efficiency and fairness of the certification process. Clear and accessible guidelines are necessary to prevent unnecessary obstacles and ensure a level playing field for all stakeholders involved.
Issues
• The document does not provide specific information on the cost or funding source for the information collection activities, which makes it difficult to assess potential wasteful spending.
• There is no mention of specific criteria for APHIS approval of laboratories, which could lead to ambiguity or perceived favoritism.
• The average burden per response is estimated at 11.4 hours, which may seem high without clear justification or cost-benefit analysis.
• Technical terms and references, such as 'OIE diagnostic manual', may be unclear to a general audience without additional context or explanation.
• The document mentions that all comments received will be a matter of public record but does not specify how privacy concerns or confidential business information will be handled.