Overview
Title
Agency Information Collection Activities: Request for Comments for a New Information Collection
Agencies
ELI5 AI
The Federal Highway Administration wants to collect information from states about bridge projects to decide which ones to fund. They are asking people to share thoughts on this plan, especially about how much work it will take to fill out the forms and how they can make it easier, by January 30, 2025.
Summary AI
The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) is seeking comments on a new information collection for the Competitive Highway Bridge Program (CHBP) as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. This program offers funding to state transportation departments for bridge projects in certain states with low population density and specific bridge conditions. The FHWA estimates that each application will take around 100 hours to complete and that the total annual burden for all respondents will be about 3,780 hours. Comments are invited on the necessity of the collection, accuracy of estimated burdens, and ways to minimize the burden while maintaining data quality, with a deadline for comments set for January 30, 2025.
Abstract
The FHWA has forwarded the information collection request described in this notice to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to approve a new information collection. We are required to publish this notice in the Federal Register by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Keywords AI
Sources
AnalysisAI
The document published by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) outlines a request for public comments on a new information collection related to the Competitive Highway Bridge Program (CHBP). This initiative, shaped by the regulations of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, is designed to channel funds into bridge replacement or rehabilitation projects in states with low population density and specific bridge conditions. Interested parties are encouraged to submit their feedback by January 30, 2025.
Summary of the Document
The FHWA has put forth a proposal to gather information from eligible State Departments of Transportation (DOTs) as part of the CHBP. The program allocates $250 million for the improvement of highway bridges in states that meet certain criteria relating to population density and bridge conditions. The document details the process and requirements for applying, estimating that each grant application will take about 100 hours to complete. The total annual burden hours for all participating entities are estimated to be approximately 3,780 hours.
Significant Issues and Concerns
Several areas within the document raise potential concerns. Firstly, the criteria for determining whether a project meets the CHBP merit requirements are not clearly defined, which could introduce ambiguity in the evaluation process. Furthermore, the conditions for state eligibility, such as having "less than 26% of bridges in good condition" or "greater than or 5.2% classified in poor condition," are presented without much context, leaving their relevance and necessity unexplained.
Another point of concern is the requirement for post-construction project monitoring. While necessary for accountability, the details regarding the duration and nature of these monitoring obligations remain vague. This could potentially result in ongoing reporting responsibilities spanning several years without a clear endpoint.
Additionally, the stipulation that only State DOTs can apply directly, with non-State DOT entities requiring indirect application through the State DOT, lacks a provided rationale. This may unnecessarily restrict potential applicants.
The document suggests that eligible states may submit up to three applications per year, a condition that isn't fully justified and could impose an additional burden on State DOTs.
Impact on the Public
The proposed information collection stands to impact the public by potentially improving infrastructure in states that meet the eligibility criteria. Enhanced bridges can lead to safer travel conditions and potentially stimulate local economies by improving transportation efficiency.
However, the lack of clarity in specific sections of the report may lead to confusion among stakeholders, possibly causing delays or misallocation of resources if unsuitable projects are mistakenly included.
Impact on Stakeholders
On a positive note, state transportation departments that receive funding stand to gain significantly, with potential improvements in transportation infrastructure. This can particularly benefit states with high percentages of poor-condition bridges.
Conversely, the burden of lengthy application processes and post-project reporting might strain the resources of these departments, especially if the projected estimates for burden hours are inaccurate or understated. Additionally, smaller states with less staff capacity may find it challenging to manage three applications per year, as well as the extended period of project oversight and monitoring that follows.
Furthermore, non-State DOT entities potentially face barriers due to the restriction that they must apply through their State DOT, possibly limiting their input or contribution to proposed projects.
In conclusion, while the document's proposals offer promise through infrastructural improvements in eligible states, the efficacy of these efforts could be undermined by the vagueness and potential burdens identified within the outlined processes. As such, stakeholders — both public and private — should carefully review and respond to the invitation for comments to address these concerns effectively.
Financial Assessment
The Federal Register notice describes a financial allocation provided under the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2024, where $250 million is designated for the Competitive Highway Bridge Program (CHBP). This amount is directed by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) to support projects involving the replacement or rehabilitation of highway bridges on public roads.
Spending and Allocations
The notice outlines that the $250 million will be distributed among eligible State Departments of Transportation (State DOTs) based on specific conditions related to population density and the condition of bridges within the state. Key eligibility factors include having a population density of less than 115 individuals per square mile and certain percentages of bridges classified in poor or good condition. Some states are specified to receive no less than $32,500,000 if they meet specific criteria. The states identified to receive this minimum allocation include Iowa, Maine, South Dakota, and West Virginia.
Financial References and Identified Issues
While the financial allocations are clear in terms of amounts, several related issues arise from the criteria and context of these allocations. For example, the notice specifies that states with greater than 14% of total bridges classified as in poor condition are eligible for the $32,500,000 minimum funding. However, the document does not provide sufficient explanation or justification for the criteria of having "less than 26% of total bridges classified as in good condition" or "greater than or equal to 5.2% of total bridges classified in poor condition." This lack of clarity could impact the understanding of financial eligibility and distribution.
Additionally, the requirement for project monitoring post-construction involves financial implications, as reported hours of work are expected. However, the notice lacks detail on these monitoring requirements, leading to uncertainty about the true financial and administrative burden on state recipients. The financial estimation of 3,780 total annual burden hours is mentioned, but the basis for these estimates is not thoroughly explained, casting doubt on the accuracy of the anticipated costs and time commitments.
Finally, the document allows for up to three applications per eligible state but does not clarify the necessity of such provisions or their financial implications, causing concerns about potential resource strain on State DOTs.
Overall, the financial references in the notice are significant but are accompanied by issues that could benefit from further explanation to ensure transparency and understanding of the monetary impacts.
Issues
• The document does not specify the criteria or metrics for evaluating whether an eligible State DOT's project meets the CHBP merit criteria. This could lead to ambiguity during application evaluation.
• The requirement for eligible states to have 'less than 26% of total bridges classified as in good condition' or 'greater than or equal to 5.2% of total bridges classified in poor condition' needs more context or justification to understand its necessity or relevance.
• The details of project monitoring requirements post-construction (up to several years) are vague, potentially imposing indefinite reporting obligations.
• The document outlines that non-State DOT entities must apply through the State DOT without providing a rationale or explanation for this restriction.
• While the purpose of the information collection is stated, the necessity for requiring up to three applications per eligible State per year isn't justified, raising questions about the potential burden on State DOTs.
• Language regarding the calculation of population density (based on decennial census) is not linked explicitly to its relevance or how it impacts funding decisions, which may lead to confusion.
• The document outlines an 'estimated total annual burden hours' but does not clarify on what basis these estimates are derived, questioning their accuracy.
• Public comments are invited on several topics but there's no structured way indicated for categorizing or systematically analyzing feedback, which could affect transparency or accountability in acknowledging respondents' concerns.