FR 2025-03088

The document is a notice from the Department of Agriculture seeking public input on information collection requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. It details the data collection needs for two specific programs operated by the Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) and invites comments from the public on these requirements. The primary goal is to assess whether collecting this information is necessary for the agency's functions and whether the methods and assumptions used are valid.

Summary of the Document

The Department of Agriculture intends to gather public feedback regarding the collection of information for two programs managed by the FSIS. The first program focuses on accrediting laboratories to ensure compliance with federal standards for meat and poultry product safety and labeling. Laboratories wishing to participate must submit an application, and currently, the number of respondents is very low, with only two expected to participate. The second program mandates that businesses which grind raw beef must maintain comprehensive records of sourcing and handling to ensure food safety and traceability. This program has a significantly larger anticipated participation, involving 65,911 respondents and requiring extensive recordkeeping responsibilities.

Significant Issues and Concerns

Several issues with the document warrant attention:

1. Duration of Reinstatement: The document does not specify how long the reinstatement for the Paperwork Reduction Act will last, which can lead to confusion about the commitment period required from respondents.

2. Low Response in Accredited Laboratories Program: The forecast of only two respondents for the Accredited Laboratories program and the very short total burden of 1 hour seem unexpectedly low, suggesting a potential underestimation of the program's scope or reach.

3. Complexity of Language: The discussion regarding the use and necessity of OMB control numbers is somewhat technical and could be more accessible to ensure wider comprehension.

4. Disparity in Burden Hours: There is a stark contrast between the burden hours allocated to the two programs (1 hour versus 1,658,650 hours), which could raise concerns over the fairness and resource allocation, especially without a comprehensive explanation.

5. Outdated Practices: The document makes no mention of integrating modern technologies to alleviate the respondents' workload, hinting at potentially outdated collection methods.

Impact on the Public

Broadly, this document invites public participation and transparency regarding governmental processes that might affect meat and poultry safety, which is crucial for public health. However, the lack of clarity on several issues may diminish the effectiveness of public involvement, as individuals might find it difficult to assess the document's full implications or relevance.

Impact on Stakeholders

For laboratories seeking accreditation, the low estimated number of respondents suggests limited opportunities, possibly affecting labs' willingness or ability to participate. Conversely, for businesses involved in grinding raw beef, the recordkeeping requirements demand substantial time and resources, which might disproportionately affect smaller enterprises. These businesses must invest in systems to adequately manage records and ensure compliance, potentially defining their operational costs.

In conclusion, while the document's intention to foster public dialogue on vital safety issues is commendable, certain ambiguities and disparities within may hinder meaningful stakeholder engagement and optimal implementation of the proposed requirements.