FR 2024-31491

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has announced its intent to submit a revised Information Collection Request (ICR) concerning several important grant programs aimed at reducing emissions from mobile sources. This notice, found in the Federal Register, invites public feedback on proposed revisions to the ICR. The target programs—Diesel Emission Reduction Act (DERA), Clean School Bus (CSB), Clean Heavy Duty Vehicles (CHDV), and Clean Ports—are part of the EPA's efforts to promote cleaner transportation technology and infrastructure.

General Overview

The document reveals EPA's plans to refine the data collection templates used in these grant programs. The new reporting requirements are designed to align with updated program specifications and incorporate feedback from prior applicants and awardees. The EPA hopes these changes will streamline application processes and improve data quality, ultimately reducing the reporting burden and associated costs for grant recipients. Public comments are invited up until March 3, 2025.

Significant Issues and Concerns

One notable issue is the complexity and density of the language used throughout the document. Terms and acronyms like EPA, OMB, DERA, CHDV, and CSB appear frequently, sometimes without comprehensive initial explanations. This reliance on jargon could hinder understanding for stakeholders less familiar with environmental policy or grant management.

Additionally, while the document indicates a reduction in both the estimated time and cost burden by 38% and 33%, respectively, it does not provide a detailed justification for these reductions. Readers are left without clear insight into how these savings will be achieved or what specific elements have been streamlined.

The document also lacks detailed information on how the funds will be equitably distributed among regions or entities under the various North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes referenced. This omission raises questions about potential disparities in fund allocation, which could impact stakeholders differently depending on their geographical or industrial context.

Impact on the Public and Stakeholders

Broadly, these revisions signify EPA's recognition of the need to improve efficiency in its grant programs. By reducing administrative burdens and costs, they aim to make these programs more accessible and appealing to potential applicants. However, the use of technical language and limited transparency about financial considerations may obscure these benefits for the general public.

For potential applicants such as school districts, transportation companies, and local governments, these changes could positively streamline funding opportunities. Reduced costs and easier application processes might allow more entities to pursue shifts toward cleaner technologies, aligning with broader public health and environmental goals.

On the flip side, the lack of detailed allocation strategies might affect equitable access to these grants. If certain demographics or regions unintentionally receive less support, this could foster inequalities in adopting cleaner transportation solutions. Furthermore, the absence of detailed compliance strategies raises questions about how the EPA intends to uphold standards as prescribed by the Paperwork Reduction Act.

The EPA's notice is a small yet critical step in enhancing its environmental grant programs. These efforts, if adequately refined and implemented, hold the potential to foster significant advancements in reducing emissions from mobile sources, benefiting both the environment and various stakeholders involved in such initiatives. However, the agency might consider addressing the highlighted issues to maximize clarity and impact moving forward.

The document being analyzed relates to the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) plans to revise an information collection request (ICR) covering several grant programs aimed at reducing emissions from mobile sources. It highlights financial aspects of these programs but does so with limited clarity and depth.

The primary financial reference in this document notes the total estimated cost associated with the grant programs. Specifically, the document states a projected $552,072 per year and $1,656,217 over the ICR period, with $0 annualized capital or operation & maintenance costs. This reflects an overall budget framework but lacks detailed insight into how these funds are allocated across the various programs, such as the Diesel Emission Reduction Act (DERA) Grant Program, Clean School Bus (CSB) Grant Program, Clean Heavy-Duty Vehicles (CHDV) Grant Program, and Clean Ports Grant Program.

Summary of Financial Allocations

The estimated costs seem to encompass the combined financial commitment needed to manage all four grant programs under the revised ICR. However, what remains unclear is the breakdown of these costs. The document does not specify how resources are precisely divided among each of the individual programs, nor does it explain whether certain initiatives receive priority over others within this budget.

Relationship with Identified Issues

The document highlights a decrease in the original estimated temporal burden and cost burden. While it notes a 38% reduction in the temporal burden and a 33% decrease in cost, there is no accompanying rationale for these reductions. This absence raises questions about the efficiency improvements expected to precipitate these cost savings or whether program scopes have been adjusted.

Additionally, while financial figures are presented, the document does not provide measures or policies to ensure equitable fund distribution among potential grantees across different geographic locations or entities within the specified industries (NAICS codes). The lack of a financial breakdown contributes to the document's identified issues, such as the complexity of language and the potential for misinterpretation by stakeholders unfamiliar with the bureaucratic terminology or procedural specifics of federal grants.

In summary, while the document offers a top-line view of the financial implications of these grant programs, its lack of detailed financial allocations and justifications leaves several questions unanswered. Stakeholders and potential grantees might benefit from additional clarification or further explanatory documents to better understand how these funds will be utilized and managed.