FR 2025-01610

The Federal Register document in question involves an announcement by the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). It outlines the agency's intent to extend an existing information collection process related to the Agritourism Directory. This directory is aimed at helping small and medium-sized farmers improve their market access by listing farms and ranches that offer educational and recreational activities. The information from this collection not only supports the engagement of local communities but also aids in populating the USDA's National Local Food Directories, which connect consumers and buyers with local food sources.

Summary of the Document

The primary purpose of the announcement is to seek public comments as the AMS moves to extend the existing information collection associated with the Agritourism Directory. Under this effort, details of agritourism operations, along with information on on-farm markets, CSA enterprises, and food hubs, will be collected. Essentially, this initiative is expected to benefit farmers by enhancing their presence in local food directories, making it easier for consumers and buyers to locate fresh, local produce.

Significant Issues or Concerns

There are several noticeable issues with the document that warrant attention:

1. Lack of Clarity in Respondent and Response Numbers: The document lists an estimated number of potential respondents (15,000) but contrasts this with a significantly lower estimated total annual responses (500). This disparity raises questions about the sampling or survey method that will be employed.

2. Vagueness in Reporting Burden Description: While the public reporting burden is stated to be '5 minutes per entry,' it is unclear what constitutes an 'entry.' This ambiguity can cause confusion regarding the extent of the data submission required from participants.

3. Unexplained Methodology and Assumptions: There is an absence of detailed explanation concerning the methodology and assumptions used to estimate the reporting burden. This lack of transparency can lead to skepticism about the reliability and accuracy of these estimates.

4. Use of Technical Terminology: Terms like 'agritourism operation,' 'on-farm market,' 'CSA enterprise,' and 'food hub' may not be easily understood by all readers. Providing simplified definitions or additional context would improve comprehensibility.

5. Unclear Purpose and Impact of Public Comments: Although the document invites public feedback, it does not clarify how such comments will be utilized or influence procedural changes, creating uncertainty regarding the purpose and impact of stakeholder input.

Public Impact

The document presents the potential for significant benefits to the general public by encouraging the availability and awareness of local food sources. With well-curated directories, consumers can more easily find and support local food producers, potentially leading to healthier food choices and stronger community ties. However, the complexity and lack of clarity in the document may deter effective participation and understanding, limiting the potential positive outcomes.

Impact on Specific Stakeholders

For farmers and local food producers, the Agritourism Directory could offer increased visibility and market access, translating to potentially higher sales and customer engagement. However, the unclear respondent expectations and the burdensome reporting requirements might pose challenges in participation, especially for small-scale operators with limited resources.

Conversely, consumers and wholesale buyers stand to benefit from accessing detailed and diverse local food directories, enhancing their options for sourcing fresh produce. Nonetheless, the success of such directories largely depends on the comprehensive participation of local farmers and producers—a factor that might be hindered by the noted document shortcomings.

In conclusion, while the intention behind the extension of the Agritourism Directory and its related information collection is well-meaning, practical challenges and ambiguities persist. Addressing these concerns would ensure stronger participation and maximize the positive impacts for all involved stakeholders.

In this notice from the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) regarding the extension of the Agritourism Directory, there are limited direct references to financial allocations or spending. However, the notice indirectly touches upon financial aspects relevant to producers and consumers within the agritourism sector.

One notable financial reference is the idea that agritourism operations can capture a larger share of consumers' food dollars. This implies that farmers and agritours can potentially enhance their revenue streams by participating in these marketing channels. By making their operations more visible through directories such as the USDA's National Local Food Directories, small and medium-sized farmers might attract more customers, thereby increasing their income from agricultural products and experiences offered directly on the farm.

The notice hints at broader financial implications for the agritourism industry. The involvement in organized directories could lead to economic benefits not only for individual farms but also for the local economy. This approach can help diversify income for farmers by moving beyond traditional farming practices to incorporate tourism, thus capturing consumer spending that might otherwise go to non-local entertainment or food sources.

In addressing financial themes, one issue evident in the document is the lack of clarity on how these economic benefits are systematically measured or forecasted. While the notice provides an estimated number of potential respondents and the time burden for reporting, it does not articulate how this participation connects to financial outcomes or efficiency. This gap may cause uncertainty amongst stakeholders who weigh the potential economic advantages against the time and effort invested in participating in such information collections.

Moreover, the document includes technical terms without extensively explaining their economic context or financial impact. Words such as "agritourism operation," "on-farm market," "CSA enterprise," and "food hub" are used without detailing how different types of operations might financially benefit from being included in the directory or how customers' spending patterns differ across these categories. Providing these details would enrich understanding of how these terms link to the financial underpinning of the agritourism sector.

Finally, while the notice invites public commentary on its usefulness and methodology, it does not specify how the feedback could lead to changes that might affect the financial aspects of the program. Understanding how responses could influence policy or procedural revisions to ensure more efficient financial outcomes would be beneficial to potential respondents and interested parties.