Overview
Title
Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request
Agencies
ELI5 AI
The Department of Agriculture wants to check if it's gathering the right information about food safety rules, like meat and eggs, and they want people to say if it's helpful or not by January 21, 2025.
Summary AI
The Department of Agriculture has submitted a request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to review its information collection requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act. The focus is on whether the information collection is necessary for the agency's functions, how accurate their burden estimates are, and ways to improve data quality while reducing respondent burden. Specific attention is given to the Food Safety and Inspection Service's need to collect information from businesses about petitions for rule changes related to meat, poultry, and egg product inspections. The public has until January 21, 2025, to provide comments on this request.
Keywords AI
Sources
AnalysisAI
The document titled "Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request" from the Department of Agriculture outlines a proposal submitted for review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), concerning information collection requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act. This document specifically focuses on the Food Safety and Inspection Service's (FSIS) intentions to gather information about petitions for rulemaking in the meat, poultry, and egg sectors. It invites public commentary until January 21, 2025, particularly on the necessity and efficiency of the information collection, as well as methods to ease respondent burden.
General Summary
The Department of Agriculture seeks feedback on its plan to collect information from businesses regarding the petitioning for rule changes in its inspection processes. This is part of their responsibility under notable acts such as the Federal Meat Inspection Act, the Poultry Products Inspection Act, and the Egg Product Inspection Act. The aim is to ensure these products are safe and correctly labeled. This review is a standard procedure meant to streamline the collection process and ensure compliance with the Administrative Procedures Act, which grants agencies the ability to modify rules based on public petitions.
Significant Issues and Concerns
Several issues arise from the document's contents. The description of the specific information that the Department intends to collect is not provided, thereby creating ambiguity about what exactly is required from respondents. Moreover, the methodology and assumptions behind the estimated 400 total burden hours are not clarified, which might lead stakeholders to question the accuracy of these estimates.
There's also an outdated reference to the use of “mechanical” techniques in information collection, a term that does not reflect modern technological practices. Furthermore, the document omits any projected costs associated with the information collection, a factor that could be vital in evaluating the cost-effectiveness of this process. Lastly, the designation of respondents as “Business or other for-profit” lacks specificity regarding business type or size, making it challenging to gauge the scope and range of impacts on different stakeholders.
Impact on the Public
Broadly, this document affects businesses involved in the processing and sale of meat, poultry, and egg products. While it aims to streamline and improve regulatory practices, it also demands engagement from the public to refine its approach. This public participation is crucial as it directs the formulation or alteration of regulations that ensure food safety and compliance.
Impact on Specific Stakeholders
For stakeholders such as businesses in the meat, poultry, and egg industries, the call for comments provides an opportunity to voice their opinions on potential regulatory changes that could affect their operations. While this poses a chance to influence policy to better suit their operations, the lack of clarity in the document might make it difficult for them to provide comprehensive feedback.
Additionally, if the proposal for information collection is seen as overly burdensome or inefficient, it may place an unnecessary strain on businesses, especially smaller enterprises that might not have the resources to handle extensive paperwork efficiently. Conversely, a well-executed collection process could enhance regulatory effectiveness, thereby benefiting the public through improved food safety standards.
In conclusion, while the document sets out a necessary administrative process, it leaves room for clarification and improvement, particularly in defining expectations and assessing impacts on consumers and businesses alike.
Issues
• The document does not provide a clear description of the specific information that will be collected from the respondents, which could lead to ambiguity regarding what is expected from them.
• There is no detailed explanation of the methodology and assumptions used for the burden estimate, which might raise questions about the validity of the estimated total burden hours.
• The term 'mechanical' in the context of collection techniques is outdated and potentially unclear, as it might not reflect current data collection technologies.
• The document does not provide an estimated cost associated with the collection of information, which could help in assessing the cost-effectiveness of the process.
• The description of the respondents is vague, merely stating 'Business or other for-profit' without specifying the type or size of the businesses involved, which might affect the understanding of the scope of the collection.