Overview
Title
Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Fire Management Assistance Grant Program
Agencies
ELI5 AI
FEMA wants to hear what people think about a special program that helps pay for fighting big scary fires. They're asking everyone for ideas on how to make the program better and to check if the paperwork is too much for people.
Summary AI
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is seeking public comments on the continuation of an information collection for the Fire Management Assistance Grant (FMAG) Program. This program provides assistance to state, tribal, and local governments for managing fires that pose a major disaster threat. The information helps FEMA determine grant eligibility and manage the grants effectively. Public comments are invited to evaluate the necessity, accuracy, quality, and burden of the data collection. Comments can be submitted online until April 26, 2021.
Abstract
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public to take this opportunity to comment on an extension, without change, of a currently approved information collection. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice seeks comments concerning the Fire Management Assistance Grant (FMAG) Program.
Keywords AI
Sources
AnalysisAI
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), part of the Department of Homeland Security, is inviting public comments regarding the Fire Management Assistance Grant (FMAG) Program. This initiative allows state, tribal, and local governments access to assistance for managing fires that pose a threat of escalating into major disasters. Feedback is sought to evaluate the necessity and effectiveness of the information collection process associated with grant applications.
General Overview
The notice seeks an extension of the currently approved information collection process, giving the public until April 26, 2021, to submit comments. The collection aids in determining grant eligibility and assists with the compliance management of grants. Specifically implemented under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, the FMAG Program ensures preparedness and response capabilities for severe fire incidents on forest and grasslands.
Significant Issues
Several issues arise from the notice that warrant attention:
Transparency Concerns: The document does not elucidate how the costs to respondents ($66,437) and to the federal government ($635,322) are determined. This lack of detail might raise concerns about financial transparency and the allocation of budget resources.
Unclear Burden Estimates: Without a detailed explanation of how the total annual burden hours (810.5 hours) are calculated, stakeholders may question the accuracy of these estimates.
Impact of Public Comments: The notice could be clearer about how public feedback will influence final decisions, specifically regarding potential amendments to the information collection methods or requirements.
Eligibility Criteria: The document could be more descriptive regarding the factors and criteria used in determining eligibility for the grants, helping potential applicants understand the evaluation process.
Efficiency and Technology: While electronic submission is mentioned, there is little information on other potential technological strategies that might minimize the information collection burden.
Cost Clarification: The mention of "no annual costs to respondents' operations and maintenance costs for technical services" lacks clarity about what this entails, leading to possible confusion among respondents.
Public Impact
For the general public, particularly those in regions susceptible to fires, this notice is significant as it pertains to their safety and preparedness. The information collection process directly influences the assistance available for effective fire management, potentially mitigating disaster risks.
Impact on Stakeholders
Positive Impacts:
State, Tribal, and Local Governments: These entities gain financial and resource support crucial for managing and mitigating significant fire risks.
Emergency Preparedness and Response Communities: Improved data collection methods might enhance the overall efficiency and effectiveness of response strategies.
Negative Impacts:
Potential Applicants: Due to unclear descriptions regarding application evaluation criteria, potential applicants might face uncertainty in meeting eligibility requirements.
Budget Transparency Concerns: Without adequate transparency on cost estimations, stakeholders may find it challenging to hold relevant parties accountable for resource allocation.
Careful consideration of the issues brought forth could improve the clarity and effectiveness of the document, driving a more targeted and inclusive response from stakeholders.
Financial Assessment
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has issued a notice concerning the extension of an existing information collection process related to the Fire Management Assistance Grant Program (FMAGP). Financial references within the document highlight two main cost estimates associated with this program, which are important for both potential respondents and the general public to understand.
Overview of Financial Allocations
The notice outlines an estimated annual cost of $66,437 for respondents concerning the hour burden associated with providing necessary information for grant eligibility. This cost reflects the time and resources that state, tribal, or local governments might need to spend in order to participate in the FMAGP.
Additionally, the document details an overall cost to the Federal Government of $635,322 for managing this information collection process. This allocation covers administrative and operational expenses to ensure the proper functioning of the grant program.
Relation to Identified Issues
Several issues arise from these financial references, primarily centering on transparency and the methodology used to arrive at these estimates. The document fails to clearly define how the estimated annual cost to respondents of $66,437 and the federal cost of $635,322 are calculated. This lack of clarity could raise concerns about the transparency of the budget allocations and whether these figures accurately reflect the resources and expenses involved.
Further, while the document states there are no annual costs to respondents for operations and maintenance of technical services, there is no explanation provided on what specific expenses are included or excluded from this category. Understanding these distinctions could significantly affect how respondents view the financial implications of participating in the FMAGP.
Finally, suggestions for minimizing the financial and time burdens on respondents, such as improved technological methods aside from electronic submissions, are notably absent. This gap presents an opportunity to explore more comprehensive strategies for efficiency improvements, potentially reducing the overall costs incurred by both respondents and the federal government.
In summary, while the financial allocations presented are straightforward, the accompanying lack of detailed justifications or methodologies may prompt further inquiry and adjustments to ensure transparency and efficiency within the FMAGP.
Issues
• The document does not specify how the estimated annual cost to respondents ($66,437) and the cost to the Federal Government ($635,322) are calculated, which may lead to concerns about transparency in budget allocations.
• The document does not provide a detailed methodology or rationale for the estimated total annual burden hours (810.5 hours), which could lead to questions about the accuracy of these estimates.
• The language regarding how comments are solicited and used could be more clear about the impact of public comments on the final decision-making process, particularly in terms of addressing potential changes to the compendium collection methods or requirements.
• The document could elaborate on what specific factors and criteria are used in the grant eligibility determinations to better inform potential respondents about how their applications will be assessed.
• There is no explanation of potential technological methods to minimize the burden of information collection beyond mentioning electronic submissions, which suggests a need for more comprehensive strategies for efficiency improvements.
• The mention of 'no annual costs to respondents' operations and maintenance costs for technical services' could be clarified to explain what is included or excluded from this category of expenses.