Overview
Title
Request for Extension and Revision of a Currently Approved Information Collection
Agencies
ELI5 AI
The Agricultural Marketing Service wants permission to keep collecting information about grain standards to make sure everyone is following the rules. They’re asking people to share their thoughts on whether this is a good idea or not.
Summary AI
The Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) is asking the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to approve an extension of their current information collection regarding the United States Grain Standards Act (USGSA) and the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 (AMA). This extension, required by the Paperwork Reduction Act, ensures the continued collection and recordkeeping needed for inspecting and certifying various agricultural products. The public is invited to comment on the necessity and efficiency of this information collection before February 21, 2025. The collection helps maintain quality standards in agricultural trade and affects grain producers, buyers, sellers, and inspection agencies.
Abstract
This notice announces the Agricultural Marketing Service's (AMS) intention to request that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approve a 3-year extension of a currently approved information collection for the "Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements under the United States Grain Standards Act (USGSA) and under the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 (AMA)." This approval is required under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA).
Keywords AI
Sources
AnalysisAI
The document from the Federal Register highlights an important step taken by the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS), a division of the USDA. The AMS is seeking a three-year extension for the information collection process related to the United States Grain Standards Act (USGSA) and the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 (AMA). This request is essential for maintaining the standards and procedures for inspecting and certifying various agricultural products. The extension ensures compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, which aims to minimize the paperwork burden for individuals, businesses, and governmental bodies.
General Summary
The document serves as a notice from AMS regarding its intention to keep collecting data necessary for assessing grain and related agricultural products. The AMS is responsible for setting standards that guide the quality and measurement of such products. This process ensures uniform inspection and weighing standards both for domestic and export markets. Stakeholders, including grain producers, buyers, sellers, and inspection agencies, are indirectly impacted by these procedures, which support fair trade and quality control.
Significant Issues and Concerns
One issue in the document is the lack of specific financial details regarding the costs imposed on respondents by the information collection process. While the burden is estimated in hours, no financial implications are outlined. This omission may create a perception of non-transparency, and additional context regarding potential costs could improve stakeholder understanding.
Furthermore, the document is peppered with technical terminology such as "USGSA," "AMA," and "Class X or Class Y weighing services," which might not be clear to a lay audience. A glossary or simpler explanations could make the document more accessible.
The request for public comments appears somewhat general and could be more effective if it included specific types of feedback the agency is seeking. More targeted questions or examples of input might encourage more robust participation and useful insights.
Lastly, the explanation regarding how the collected information would enhance agency functions is minimal. This may lead to skepticism about the practical utility of the data being collected and how it genuinely benefits the stakeholders and the broader public.
Impact on the Public and Specific Stakeholders
For the general public, especially those engaged in agricultural trade, this extension signifies continued adherence to standardized practices that ensure product quality and fair trading. These standard practices are crucial for maintaining consumer trust and fostering equitable trading conditions in both domestic and international markets.
Specific stakeholders, such as grain producers and inspection agencies, may experience mixed impacts. On the positive side, standardization can facilitate smoother, more predictable trade operations, potentially improving market opportunities. On the negative side, fulfilling the information collection requirements could represent a burden in terms of time and resources if not effectively managed.
In conclusion, while the efforts to maintain a structured approach to agricultural standards are evident, addressing communication barriers and providing clearer guidance on involvement could enhance stakeholder engagement. This would ultimately support the goal of improving agricultural trade processes in the United States.
Issues
• The notice does not specify the cost to respondents or the total financial impact of the information collection, which could be perceived as non-transparent regarding financial implications.
• The estimate of the burden is presented in terms of hours only; it might be helpful to provide additional context, like the perceived monetary or operational impact this time burden has on respondents.
• The document uses technical and legal terminology (e.g., 'USGSA', 'AMA', 'FGIS', 'Class X or Class Y weighing services') that may not be easily understood by the general public without additional explanation or a glossary of terms.
• The request for comments is somewhat generic and could benefit from more specific examples of the types of feedback the agency is seeking from stakeholders, which might encourage more targeted and useful responses.
• Details regarding how the collected information will be used to enhance agency functions are minimal, which might lead to questions about the practical utility of the data being collected.