Overview
Title
Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to the Office of Management and Budget for Review and Approval; Comment Request; Environmental Justice Collaborative Problem Solving and Government to Government Programs: Progress and Final Reporting Information Collections (New)
Agencies
ELI5 AI
The EPA wants to check how well some programs are helping people with environmental problems by asking for reports. They also want to hear what people think about this plan until February 18, 2025.
Summary AI
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has requested approval from the Office of Management and Budget for a new information collection related to its Environmental Justice Collaborative Problem Solving (EJCPS) and Government to Government (EJG2G) programs. These programs aim to support projects that address environmental and public health challenges by collaborating with community-based organizations and local governments, especially in underserved communities. The EPA plans to collect progress and final reports from grant recipients to evaluate project effectiveness and equity. Public comments on this information collection are open until February 18, 2025.
Abstract
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has submitted an information collection request (ICR), Environmental Justice CPS and G2G Programs: Progress and Final Reporting Information Collections (EPA ICR Number 2807.01, OMB Control Number 2035-NEW) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act. This is a request for approval of a new collection. Public comments were previously requested via the Federal Register on February 21, 2024 during a 60-day comment period. This notice allows for an additional 30 days for public comments.
Keywords AI
Sources
AnalysisAI
The document from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) outlines a new initiative for collecting information related to specific programs aimed at addressing environmental justice. These programs, namely the Environmental Justice Collaborative Problem Solving (EJCPS) and Government to Government (EJG2G) initiatives, are designed to support projects that tackle environmental and public health issues. By awarding financial assistance to community-based organizations and local governments, the EPA seeks to foster collaboration and ensure that resources reach the most underserved and overburdened communities.
Summary of the Document
The document notifies the public that the EPA has submitted a request for approval to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for a new information collection system. This system aims to gather reports from grant recipients regarding the progress and final outcomes of their projects. The purpose is to evaluate the effectiveness, efficiency, and equity of these initiatives. The EPA highlights that the information collected will aid in managing the programs and ensuring effective use of public funds.
Significant Issues and Concerns
One significant issue with the document is that it lacks specificity regarding which community-based organizations or government entities will receive the financial assistance. This absence of clarity might raise concerns about fairness in the allocation process. Additionally, the language used to describe the recipients' obligation to respond may be confusing to those who aren't familiar with regulatory terminology, indicating a need for clearer communication.
Moreover, the document provides web addresses for public comment submission but does not offer detailed instructions on navigating these platforms. This might pose a challenge to those unaccustomed to using government websites. Additionally, while the document mentions an estimated annual burden of 17,360 hours and a cost of $994,554, it does not provide a breakdown of these figures, which could appear non-transparent to the public.
Impact on the Public Broadly
This document opens a communication channel between the EPA and the public, inviting comments that can influence the decision-making process related to environmental justice programs. By allowing for public input, the EPA demonstrates a commitment to transparency and responsiveness. However, the complexity and technicality of the document might limit the public's effective participation, potentially impacting the inclusivity of the process.
Impact on Specific Stakeholders
Positively, stakeholders in underserved communities might benefit significantly from these programs as they aim to address inequities in environmental and public health challenges. Organizations involved in collaborative efforts could see enhanced support and resources, enabling them to make a bigger impact.
Conversely, negatively, if the process of awarding financial assistance lacks transparency or fairness, some stakeholders might feel marginalized or overlooked. Furthermore, the administrative burden imposed by the reporting requirements could be significant for smaller organizations, potentially detracting from their capacity to focus on project implementation.
Overall, while the initiative holds promise for advancing environmental justice, careful consideration of its implementation and communication will be essential to address these concerns and ensure broad, equitable impact.
Financial Assessment
The document outlines a request by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to gather information under the new Environmental Justice Collaborative Problem Solving (EJCPS) and Environmental Justice Government to Government (EJG2G) Programs. These programs are designed to support projects that address environmental, public health, and energy challenges, specifically targeting overburdened communities. A key aspect of the document involves financial allocations to facilitate these initiatives.
Financial Summary
The document indicates that the total estimated cost associated with this information collection request is $994,554 per year. This amount does not include any annualized capital or operation & maintenance costs, indicating that it primarily represents the operational burden associated with tracking and reporting the progress and outcomes of financial assistance awards. This figure is tied to a total estimated burden of 17,360 hours per year, which corresponds to the time recipients are expected to spend on compiling and submitting the required reports.
Relation to Identified Issues
A significant issue identified in the document concerns the lack of transparency regarding how funds are allocated—specifically, which community-based organizations and governments will receive the assistance. Understanding the distribution and utilization of the $994,554 annual budget is crucial for ensuring fairness and effectiveness. Without detailed breakdowns or justifications of these estimated financial commitments and burdens, stakeholders may question how these funds are being divided among different recipients or projects.
Additionally, the document's language regarding the obligation to respond to the financial assistance program, characterized as "mandatory for recipients of financial awards," is linked to recipients' compliance with rules under relevant regulations (2 CFR parts 200 and 1500). This creates an implicit cost associated with non-compliance, which, albeit not directly specified, adds an operational burden for recipients to ensure transparency and accountability in spending.
Conclusion
The financial references in the document primarily revolve around estimating the cost and burden of the new reporting requirements under the EPA's environmental justice programs. While the document quantifies these elements, it lacks transparent detail in both the allocation process of the financial assistance and the justification of these estimated costs and efforts. Achieving transparency and clarity regarding these financial aspects is crucial for fostering trust and ensuring that the funds effectively reach and benefit the intended communities.
Issues
• The document does not specify which community-based organizations or state, local, territorial, and tribal governments will receive the financial assistance awards, raising potential concerns about fairness and clarity in the allocation process.
• The language describing the obligation to respond ('Mandatory for recipients of financial awards to obtain or retain a benefit') may be unclear to some readers who are unfamiliar with the relevant regulations (2 CFR parts 200 and 1500).
• The document's description of the methods for submitting comments ('www.regulations.gov' and 'www.reginfo.gov') could be confusing to those unaccustomed to navigating government websites; more explicit instructions or a direct hyperlink could be beneficial.
• The document mentions a significant estimated annual burden of 17,360 hours and an estimated cost of $994,554 but does not provide detailed breakdowns or justifications for these figures, which could be perceived as lacking transparency.