FR 2021-01065

The document at hand is a notice from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regarding an Information Collection Request (ICR) for the Brownfields Program—Accomplishment Reporting. Submitted for review and approval to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), this request is part of a broader requirement under the Paperwork Reduction Act. The core purpose of this document is to seek an extension of the ICR, which is due to expire by January 31, 2021, and to invite additional public comments over a 30-day period.

General Summary

The EPA's Brownfields Program focuses on the cleanup and redevelopment of what are known as brownfields sites—properties that might be complicated by the presence of hazardous materials. The document outlines the process by which the EPA manages and tracks funds distributed as grants to eligible entities, including state, tribal, and local governments. These entities use the funds for environmental assessments and cleanup operations at these potentially contaminated sites. The program’s extension aims to continue this important work beyond its current approval date.

Significant Issues or Concerns

Several issues arise within the document that could be challenging for general audiences:

• Technical Language: The document uses acronyms and terms like ICR, CERCLA, and BUILD Act, which may not be familiar to all readers. Such jargon can hinder understanding unless additional context is provided.

• Cost and Burden Estimates: It mentions a total estimated cost of $712,108 per year without a detailed breakdown. Although it states there are no annualized capital or operation and maintenance costs, the lack of clarity might cause confusion about how the costs are calculated.

• Legal References: It references legal codes (e.g., 2 CFR part 1500), which could be inaccessible to individuals without legal expertise, making it difficult to understand the statutory requirements fully.

Impact on the Public

For the broader public, this program plays a crucial role in improving environmental safety and promoting the revitalization of communities. However, the complexity and technical nature of the document may limit widespread engagement or understanding among citizens who are not directly involved with or affected by brownfields.

Impact on Specific Stakeholders

• State, Tribal, and Local Governments: These entities stand to benefit significantly from the program. They receive funding to manage environmental hazards and can aid in the economic redevelopment of contaminated lands, thus improving local economies and public health.

• Non-Profits and Community Organizations: These groups might utilize the data and resources provided by the EPA to enhance their efforts in community education and advocacy for better environmental practices.

On the other hand, the document’s complexity and the process for submitting comments may deter some stakeholders from fully engaging with the process. Accessing government portals and navigating through legal language can be a substantial barrier for those not accustomed to such procedures.

Conclusion

While the intent behind the ICR for the Brownfields Program is both positive and necessary, greater effort is needed to make such documents accessible and comprehensible to the general public. Simplifying the language and providing clearer breakdowns of costs and legal references could facilitate broader public participation and understanding, ultimately enhancing the effectiveness and support of such government initiatives.

The document outlines financial information related to the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Brownfields Program, specifically regarding an Information Collection Request (ICR) submitted for review and approval. The primary financial focus of the document is the total estimated cost of $712,108 per year, which encompasses all expenses associated with this program. Interestingly, this figure is noted to include $0 in annualized capital or operation & maintenance costs, suggesting that the entire budget is dedicated to other program expenses rather than long-term physical or operational investments.

Financial Allocation Summary

The document specifies that the $712,108 yearly cost is required for the administrative tasks associated with the collection of information from entities involved in the Brownfields Program. This encompasses identifying the funding uses and accomplishments linked to brownfields activities sponsored by the EPA. Such activities include managing and tracking how program funds are spent, evaluating the performance of cleanup and revitalization efforts, and fulfilling the EPA’s obligations for stewardship and reporting to Congress and stakeholders.

Relation to Identified Issues

1. Complexity of Financial Terms: The document's financial references might seem obscure to some readers due to the use of jargon like "ICR" and "OMB Control Number." These terms can mask the significance and impact of the expenditures unless broken down into simpler language. Understanding how this financial allocation fits into broader environmental initiatives might require clarification not provided in the text.

2. Cost and Burden Transparency: While the estimated annual cost is highlighted, the lack of breakdown for this amount could confuse readers. The document mentions no capital or maintenance costs, yet it doesn't specify other expenses comprising the $712,108. This could imply that readers might not fully grasp the financial allocations' nuances or the direct relationship between this funding and program outputs, such as the specific activities or staffing costs covered.

3. Awareness of ‘Brownfields’ Funding: The document briefly describes 'brownfields,' a term that might not be intuitive for all readers. Without fully understanding 'brownfields,' readers might struggle to appreciate the costs attributed to their cleanup and revitalization. The mention of zero capital costs might suggest that the funding is heavily administrative or programmatic, rather than infrastructural.

4. Commenting and Involvement Process: The procedural details regarding public commentary might deter participation from individuals with less technical understanding, thus limiting the public's ability to engage with and influence financial decisions around the program. As financial stewardship is a public concern, ensuring the commenting process is clear might enhance accountability.

In conclusion, while the document provides a specific monetary figure related to the EPA's Brownfields Program, the lack of detailed financial breakdowns, coupled with the use of complex terminology, may obfuscate the understanding of how these funds are utilized and their broader impact on environmental cleanup and revitalization efforts.