FR 2024-31053

Overview

Title

Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

Agencies

ELI5 AI

The Department of Agriculture wants to ask people what they think about collecting new data to help farmers buy special maps. People can say what they think until January 29, and the process should take about 16 minutes.

Summary AI

The Department of Agriculture has submitted a request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for approval of a new information collection requirement related to geospatial products and services. The purpose is to gather feedback on whether this data collection is necessary for the agency's functions and to improve its quality and usability. Interested parties can provide comments until January 29, 2025. The collection involves farmers, ranchers, and other customers who are interested in purchasing geospatial imagery products, and it's estimated to take about 16 minutes to respond.

Type: Notice
Citation: 89 FR 106412
Document #: 2024-31053
Date:
Volume: 89
Pages: 106412-106413

AnalysisAI

The Federal Register document submitted by the Department of Agriculture involves a new request for collecting information related to geospatial products and services. This request is under review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) as part of the compliance process set out by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. It specifically targets farmers, ranchers, and other customers who may be interested in purchasing geospatial imagery products. Public comments on this collection can be submitted until January 29, 2025.

General Summary of the Document

The document provides an overview of an information collection request submitted by the Department of Agriculture. The primary goal of collecting this information is to assess its necessity and utility for the agency's functions, particularly regarding the administration of Geospatial and Aerial Photography Programs. The Department is seeking input on several fronts, including the need for the information, the methodology of collection, and ways to reduce the burden on respondents.

Significant Issues or Concerns

A few issues arise from the document that might concern the public and stakeholders:

  • Clarity on the Collection Purpose: The document mentions the collection of information but refers to it in a seemingly incomplete manner, using “the” without fully explaining what follows. This may confuse readers about the precise purpose of the data collection effort.

  • Impact of Public Comments: There is no outlined process indicating how public comments will influence the information collection, which might leave stakeholders unsure about the value of their participation.

  • Consistency in Time Estimates: The document presents an inconsistency in how the average time per response is communicated. It states the time as both 16 minutes and 0.303 hours. However, 0.303 hours equates to approximately 18.18 minutes, not 16 minutes, potentially confusing respondents about the time commitment required.

  • Rationale for New Request: While the document states that some forms are obsolete, it does not provide a comprehensive explanation of what changes led to the new request, which may leave readers wondering about the necessity of this update.

  • Burden Hour Calculations: The reduction in burden hours is noted but lacks detail on how this was achieved beyond stating that two forms have been made obsolete. More detailed methodology would be beneficial for transparency.

  • Technical Complexity: The use of technical language, particularly regarding burden calculations and OMB control numbers, might limit public engagement due to potential complexity for individuals without specialized knowledge.

Impact on the Public Broadly

For the general public, particularly those in rural and agricultural communities, the document signifies a potential change in how geospatial data and products are accessed. The collection of this data intends to improve service delivery and product offerings, yet it also requires input from these communities. The lack of clarity on some issues could lead to confusion or hesitance in participation.

Impact on Specific Stakeholders

Farmers and Ranchers: This group is directly affected as they are primary users of geospatial imagery products. The changes could lead to more efficient ways to request and receive these products. However, they might also face challenges in understanding the new system due to the issues mentioned above.

Government and Regulatory Bodies: For the Agriculture Department and other regulatory agencies, this collection effort is a step towards refining processes and ensuring they are compliant with federal standards. Successfully gathering comments and feedback could lead to improved operations and better service quality for stakeholders.

In summary, while the intention behind the information collection request may be in the public interest, clarification on various fronts would likely enhance public understanding and participation. Engaging stakeholders effectively could lead to more meaningful improvements in how the Department of Agriculture offers its geospatial services.

Issues

  • • The document contains unclear language regarding the exact purpose of the information collection, as it mentions 'the' with a seemingly missing continuation.

  • • There's no specific action or process outlined for how comments will affect the information collection process, which may lead to confusion about the impact of public participation.

  • • The average time per response is mentioned in both fraction (0.303) and minutes (16 minutes), which could lead to misunderstanding. Conversion might be inconsistent; clarity is needed that 0.303 hours correlate to 18.18 minutes, not 16 minutes.

  • • The summary of the collection states a new information collection request but does not explain any previous data or comparison other than mentioning obsolete forms, leaving unclear what changes were made and why that necessitate this new request.

  • • There's no detail on how the burden hours were calculated and reduced, except mentioning the cancellation of two forms, without giving insight into the methodology or assumptions.

  • • The information provided is technical and may be complex for the general public, especially the sections related to the burden calculations and OMB control numbers, potentially limiting public engagement.

Statistics

Size

Pages: 2
Words: 699
Sentences: 28
Entities: 40

Language

Nouns: 251
Verbs: 62
Adjectives: 38
Adverbs: 5
Numbers: 24

Complexity

Average Token Length:
5.65
Average Sentence Length:
24.96
Token Entropy:
5.07
Readability (ARI):
21.45

Reading Time

about 2 minutes