Overview
Title
Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request
Agencies
ELI5 AI
The Department of Agriculture wants to find out how many animals are being processed for meat every day and they are asking people to share this information. They promise to listen to everyone’s ideas about how to make the process easy and fair, but they haven’t said exactly how or how much it will cost.
Summary AI
The Department of Agriculture is seeking public comments on a proposed information collection related to estimating daily livestock slaughter under federal inspection. This request is part of the Paperwork Reduction Act process and comments are due by March 1, 2021. The information helps the Agricultural Marketing Service make market outlook projections and maintain statistical data. The data collected from businesses, individuals, and farms is important for making informed marketing decisions, especially because the government is a significant purchaser of meat.
Keywords AI
Sources
AnalysisAI
Summary of the Document
The document is a notice from the Department of Agriculture announcing a public request for comments on a proposed information collection initiative. This initiative aims to gather data on daily livestock slaughter under federal inspection, which is essential for creating market outlook projections and maintaining statistical data. The comments on this proposal, included in the Paperwork Reduction Act process, help ensure the collection's efficiency, utility, and minimal burden on respondents. The deadline for public comments is March 1, 2021.
Significant Issues and Concerns
Several notable concerns arise from this notice:
Lack of Specific Technological Solutions: While the document emphasizes minimizing respondents' burden using technological methods, it does not specify any particular tools or strategies. This vagueness might leave stakeholders uncertain about how the collection process will be streamlined and might limit the effectiveness of the feedback.
Transparency in Costs: The notice does not detail the estimated costs associated with this information collection process. This omission could lead to questions regarding the transparency and fiscal responsibility of the initiative, raising concerns among taxpayers about how their money is being utilized.
Ambiguity in Standards: Phrases such as "timely exchange" and "accurate and unbiased information" are used without further explanation. This lack of detail can make it difficult for stakeholders to understand how these standards will be maintained, potentially affecting trust in the process's reliability.
Frequency of Responses: The document states an unclear frequency for responses as "Weekly; Other: Daily." This lack of clarity might confuse individuals and entities expected to comply, making it challenging to plan and execute necessary actions correctly.
Unclear Calculation of Burden Hours: There is little explanation of what constitutes a "burden hour" or how the total of 519 burden hours was calculated. A more detailed methodology would improve understanding and transparency, helping respondents grasp the actual time and effort they might need to commit.
Broader Public Impact
Broadly, the document reflects a government effort to refine and improve data collection processes that directly influence market dynamics. Accurate and timely information can enhance the entire agricultural market system, affecting prices and market behaviors that trickle down to consumer levels. Thus, this initiative has the potential to maintain fairness and efficiency in the marketplace, ultimately benefiting the general public through more stable meat pricing and supply.
Specific Stakeholder Impact
Positive Impacts:
Government Agencies and Policymakers: By obtaining reliable data, policymakers can make informed decisions on agriculture and market regulation, potentially improving governmental purchasing strategies and policy implementation.
Market Participants (Buyers and Sellers): Both producers and purchasers may experience a level playing field with access to unbiased data, aiding in more balanced negotiations and informed decision-making.
Negative Impacts:
Respondents (Businesses, Individuals, Farms): These groups may face increased administrative work without sufficient clarification on technological assistance, leading to possible frustrations or burdens. Additionally, a lack of clarity on cost and effort involved could discourage feedback participation, detracting from the initiative's effectiveness.
Taxpayers: Without transparent cost accounting, taxpayers might question the responsible use of funds, potentially leading to skepticism regarding government spending on such initiatives.
In summary, while this document outlines necessary steps for improving market-related data collection, addressing the highlighted concerns is essential to ensure the initiative's success and positive reception from all involved parties.
Issues
• The document mentions the need to minimize the burden of information collection on respondents using technological techniques, but it does not provide specific examples or suggestions, which could make the guidelines clearer and more actionable.
• The document does not specify the total estimated cost of the information collection process, which could raise concerns about the transparency of spending in relation to this initiative.
• The summary section uses terms like 'timely exchange' and 'accurate and unbiased information' without detailed explanations on how these standards are upheld and verified, potentially leading to ambiguity in understanding the effectiveness and reliability of the process.
• The frequency of responses is listed as 'Weekly; Other: Daily' which might be confusing. It could be clearer if the specific activities required at these intervals were better defined.
• The 'Total Burden Hours' section lacks contextual information on what constitutes a 'burden hour' and how this figure was calculated. More detailed methodology could improve clarity and transparency.