FR 2024-30672

The document in question details a submission by the Department of Labor (DOL) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), seeking approval for an information collection request related to the National Agricultural Workers Survey (NAWS). This survey is designed to gather important data on the demographics, employment, and occupational health of hired crop workers in the United States. The public is invited to provide comments on the necessity, accuracy, and ways to improve this information collection before January 27, 2025. According to the document, nearly 3,600 respondents are expected, with a total estimated annual time burden of 1,280 hours.

Significant Issues and Concerns

Several issues and concerns arise from the document. Firstly, the document lacks specific budgetary information or monetary allocations, which could make it challenging for stakeholders to assess potential financial implications or inefficiencies. Additionally, the formatting of the address section, which instructs readers on how to send comments, appears inconsistent and potentially confusing.

The document's language, steeped in bureaucratic jargon and legal references, may not be easily digestible for the general public. For instance, the statements regarding the compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) and related regulations could be cryptic to those unfamiliar with federal procedures. Furthermore, the document does not elaborate on the implications of the survey data on respondents nor clearly describe how the collected information will be used or protected. This omission could leave the survey's objectives ambiguous and raise concerns about data privacy.

Public and Stakeholder Impact

For the general public, the document represents a typical bureaucratic process that might seem distant or irrelevant unless one is directly affected or involved in agriculture. However, the survey is actually critical, as it contributes to understanding the workforce that underpins a significant sector of the economy—the agricultural industry. Good data collection can lead to better-informed policies that ultimately benefit both workers and the industry as a whole.

Specific stakeholders, namely agricultural workers and private sector entities related to agriculture, might be positively or negatively affected by this survey. On the positive side, collecting accurate data can spotlight areas needing policy attention or improvement, such as worker health, safety, and employment conditions. On the negative side, those tasked with responding might feel burdened by this requirement, especially given the document's estimation of the annual time burden. Additionally, without clear assurances about data protection, respondents might be concerned about how their personal information will be used or shared.

In conclusion, while the intentions behind the NAWS appear to support beneficial outcomes for the agricultural sector, the document could be more effective if it provided clearer, jargon-free explanations and addressed concerns related to data privacy and the specific impact on stakeholders.

The Federal Register document concerning the National Agricultural Workers Survey mentions financial references in a very limited context. In the section detailing monetary implications associated with the survey, it is noted that there is a "Total Estimated Annual Other Costs Burden" of $0. This implies that this particular aspect of data collection, beyond the time burden estimated at 1,280 hours annually, does not incur additional costs to the public or the government.

Summary of Financial References

The document explicitly states that the annual other costs burden related to the survey is estimated to be $0. This suggests that implementing this survey does not require extra financial resources aside from the time investment accounted for respondents.

Financial Implications Relating to Issues

Despite the clarity on the absence of additional financial burdens, several issues relate indirectly to financial matters:

1. Lack of Budget Details: The document does not provide specific financial allocations or budget details for the survey's implementation. This absence of detailed information could hinder public assessment of potential financial inefficiencies or waste.

2. Abstract Monetary Implications: The notation of a $0 costs burden might be misleading without context. While it suggests no extra financial burden on the public, the document does not elaborate on the costs accrued by the managing department such as salaries for analysts, logistical expenses, or data storage and protection costs that could have budgetary implications.

Conclusion

The limited mention of financial aspects in the survey document highlights an area that could benefit from increased transparency. While the $0 cost burden might reflect well on managing public resources effectively, it does not provide a comprehensive view of how financial elements integrate with the survey's operational execution. Greater detail on fiscal responsibilities and potential benefits of the survey could aid in addressing public queries and concerns regarding efficient use of government funds.