FR 2021-00027

The document from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) serves to introduce a new information collection effort related to the Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities (BRIC) program. This effort is taking place alongside existing collections for the Flood Mitigation Assistance (FMA) and Pre-Disaster Mitigation (PDM) programs. FEMA's initiative includes employing a form designed to gather interest from volunteers willing to participate in reviewing grant applications under the BRIC program.

Summary of the Document

FEMA’s initiative aims to improve preparedness for disasters by funding projects that effectively reduce risks. Additionally, FEMA encourages participation from state, local, tribal, and territorial entities in the process of reviewing BRIC grant applications. The public has been invited to provide feedback on this proposal until February 8, 2021.

Significant Issues and Concerns

There are several concerns that arise from the document. Firstly, it lacks clarity on how panel members for the BRIC program are chosen. This omission might lead to perceptions of favoritism or bias, as it is unclear whether the selection process is transparent and fair. Secondly, the document states that panelists will not receive compensation for their participation but does not explain the reasoning behind this decision. This lack of compensation could potentially affect the diversity of panelists and the availability of qualified individuals willing to volunteer their time.

The use of formal and legal jargon throughout the document could make it challenging for general readers to completely understand the outlined processes and implications. Additionally, while FEMA provides an estimated cost to the Federal Government amounting to $7,586,635, the document does not include a breakdown of this sum. This absence of details could lead to questions about what expenses are covered under this figure.

Furthermore, the methodology for estimating the cost burden on respondents is mentioned without sufficient detail or justification, leaving its accuracy open to scrutiny. There is also an indication that only a single comment was received during a prior public comment period, but the document lacks specific details on how this feedback influenced FEMA's final decisions or processes.

Finally, the document's description of the criteria and scoring for BRIC applications might confuse individuals unfamiliar with FEMA's methods, potentially hindering effective participation in the program.

Impact on the Public and Stakeholders

Broad Public Impact:
The document has the potential to impact the public by facilitating projects that enhance community resilience to natural disasters, thus potentially reducing future losses and the need for disaster relief funding. However, the opacity in processes and terminology may hinder public understanding and engagement.

Impact on Specific Stakeholders:
Stakeholders such as local, state, tribal, and territorial governments stand to benefit significantly through capacity-building and improvements in mitigating risks associated with natural hazards. However, the lack of compensation and clarity in selecting panelists could deter broad participation and diversity among panel reviewers, possibly limiting the effectiveness of these programs.

In summary, while FEMA's initiative aims to enhance community resilience and disaster preparedness through the BRIC program, certain details regarding transparency, compensation, and communication remain vague, potentially impacting the participation and effectiveness of the program negatively.

The document from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) includes specific mentions of financial figures primarily related to the costs incurred by respondents and the federal government concerning the application process for grant programs like Flood Mitigation Assistance (FMA) and Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities (BRIC).

FEMA estimates that the Total Annual Respondent Cost is $3,324,211. This figure implies the collective cost burden on individuals, households, and governmental bodies participating in or responding to the information collection process. However, the document lacks a detailed breakdown of how this figure was reached. This omission may raise questions about the assumptions and methodologies used to derive this amount. Stakeholders, particularly those with significant financial involvement, might find the lack of transparency regarding these costs concerning.

Moreover, the Estimated Total Annual Cost to the Federal Government is stated as $7,586,635. This figure represents the government's expense in administering and managing the information collection activities related to FEMA's grant programs. Once again, there is no detailed breakdown of what these costs cover, which creates uncertainties. For example, readers might wonder if this figure includes personnel wages, material costs, or other logistical expenses.

The lack of detailed financial explanations ties into one of the identified issues in the document: the estimation and presentation of costs. Without a breakdown of these expenses, stakeholders may find it difficult to assess the efficiency and necessity of the proposed costs. This opacity in financial reporting may lead to public concern over the potential inefficiency or misallocation of government funds.

Furthermore, while the document notes that panelists reviewing the BRIC applications will not be compensated, it does not clarify the rationale behind this decision. This could be financially significant because it might limit the pool of available and willing experts who can afford to participate without compensation. Thus, these financial choices could inadvertently influence the diversity and breadth of expertise in panel membership, potentially affecting the program’s credibility and effectiveness.

Overall, the financial allocations in the document highlight the need for clarity and transparency in government processes, ensuring both the participants and the taxpayers understand how funds are utilized and justified in federal initiatives.