Overview
Title
Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB Review, Comment Request; Administrative Plan for the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program
Agencies
ELI5 AI
FEMA wants people to tell them what they think about how states, territories, or tribal groups plan to use grant money to keep places safe before bad things like floods happen. They’re asking for more thoughts to make sure the plan works well for everyone who can use it.
Summary AI
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is requesting public comments on the extension of a currently approved information collection related to the State Administrative Plan for the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP). This plan is a guide detailing how states, territories, or tribal governments will manage the grant funds. The purpose is to ensure these governments have a FEMA-approved plan in place before receiving HMGP funds. The information was previously shared for public comment, and FEMA now invites further input on it before January 10, 2025.
Abstract
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) will submit the information collection abstracted below to the Office of Management and Budget for review and clearance in accordance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. FEMA invites the general public to take this opportunity to comment on an extension of a currently approved information collection. In accordance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice seeks comments concerning the State Administrative Plan for the procedural guide that details how the State will administer the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP).
Keywords AI
Sources
AnalysisAI
The document from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is a notice inviting public commentary on an extension for an existing information collection concerning the State Administrative Plan for the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP). This procedural guide is required for states, territories, or tribal governments to receive grant funds aimed at mitigating hazards. Public comments are being solicited until January 10, 2025, to ensure that these entities have an established, FEMA-approved plan.
General Summary
FEMA is extending its request for public input on its guidelines for states, territories, and tribal governments on how to manage HMGP funds. This plan must be approved by FEMA before any funds are disbursed. Previously, a call for comment was issued, receiving minimal feedback, with the agency currently seeking further insights. Details regarding estimated costs for stakeholders involved in this process, as well as for the federal government, are also provided within the document.
Significant Issues or Concerns
A few issues are apparent within this document:
Lack of Clarity: Terminology such as "Administrative Plan" is used interchangeably with "State Administrative Plan," which could result in confusion. The document seems to assume understanding, leaving those not familiar with specific reform terms or regulatory references (e.g., 44 CFR 206.437) potentially perplexed.
Cost Estimates: Although the document provides figures for the cost and burden associated with this data collection, these estimates lack detailed justification or breakdown, making it difficult for readers to assess their reasonableness.
Public Comment Summary: Of the three public comments previously received, the document summarizes only one and dismisses the others as not germane. A more thorough explanation as to why two comments were not relevant could enhance transparency and understanding.
Impacts on the Public
The direct impact on the general public may be limited as this document primarily concerns government entities. However, these plans indirectly affect how effectively states and tribal governments can manage disaster relief and mitigation projects, ultimately impacting public safety and preparedness.
Impacts on Specific Stakeholders
State and Tribal Governments: They are the primary recipients addressed here, and they must navigate these guidelines to effectively access HMGP funds. Clear, detailed procedures and estimations would enable better preparation and compliance.
Non-profit and Advocacy Groups: These entities, interested in disaster management and mitigation, may find opportunities to comment or collaborate. However, without clear elaboration of the public's previous comments or feedback processes, their engagement might be hindered.
This document highlights a specific administrative aspect of governmental disaster management but could benefit from clearer language and explanations to facilitate greater understanding and engagement from all stakeholders involved.
Financial Assessment
The document from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) discusses an information collection related to the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP). It provides several financial estimates in relation to this program, highlighting both costs to respondents and the federal government. Below is a commentary on these financial references.
Financial Estimates Summary
The document includes several key financial figures related to the administration of the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program:
Estimated Total Annual Respondent Cost: The cost for entities that must respond to this information collection is estimated to be $37,257 annually. This figure likely encompasses expenses such as labor costs associated with the preparation and submission of required documentation.
Estimated Respondents' Operation and Maintenance Costs: This cost is estimated at $0, implying that there are no additional ongoing operational or maintenance expenses required for respondents beyond the initial information collection effort.
Estimated Respondents' Capital and Start-Up Costs: Similarly, these costs are also noted as $0, indicating that there are no significant initial investments or capital expenditures necessary for participation in the information collection.
Estimated Total Annual Cost to the Federal Government: The federal government is expected to incur costs of about $26,581 annually. These costs would typically relate to the processing, reviewing, and management of collected data as part of the administration of the grant program.
Relationship to Identified Issues
The financial references relate to several issues outlined in the document:
Lack of Detailed Breakdown: While the document provides aggregate figures for both respondent costs and federal government costs, it lacks a detailed breakdown or justification for these numbers. A more granular explanation could assist readers in understanding how these costs were calculated and assess their reasonableness. This transparency is critical for stakeholders to evaluate the administrative processes realistically.
Clarification of Cost Figures: As the document uses terminologies such as "Administrative Plan," it does not differentiate clearly between "State Administrative Plan" and "Tribal Administrative Plan." This could potentially lead to confusion around which entities these costs apply, especially given the zero capital and start-up costs. Clarifying these applications would be beneficial in ensuring that all potential recipients understand their financial responsibilities under this regulation.
Public Comments and Transparency: The document received three public comments, but only one is noted in support, and the other two are mentioned vaguely. More context around these comments, particularly if they relate to the financial aspects, could have provided useful insights into the perceived burdens or challenges associated with the information collection, enhancing transparency.
In summary, the outlined financial estimates provide an initial sense of the economic impact of the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program's administrative requirements. However, greater detail and transparency in these financial references would enhance stakeholder understanding and facilitate more informed feedback from the public.
Issues
• The document refers to an 'Administrative Plan for the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program' but does not clearly differentiate between the 'State Administrative Plan' and the 'Tribal Administrative Plan,' which could lead to confusion over which entities the plan applies to specifically.
• The document lists various estimated costs and burdens (e.g., respondent cost, federal government cost) but does not provide a detailed breakdown or justification for these figures, which could help readers evaluate their reasonableness.
• The use of 'State, territorial, or Tribal government' as recipients could be clarified in terms of specific eligibility criteria, as the language might be too broad without specifying any nuances or particular requirements.
• Some of the regulatory references (e.g., 44 CFR 206.437) are mentioned without a brief explanation, which could be confusing for readers who are not familiar with these references.
• The document indicates three public comments were received but only vaguely mentions the nature of two comments as irrelevant. Further explanation on why they were considered not germane or a summary of their content could enhance transparency.
• The document uses bureaucratic language such as 'OMB Number: 1660-0026' and 'Uniform Administrative Requirements' without further explanation, which could be difficult for individuals not familiar with these terms.
• There could be an issue of transparency as the document uses terms like 'Administrative Plan' interchangeably with 'State Administrative Plan' without clear distinctions, possibly causing interpretation issues for stakeholders.