FR 2025-06595

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has published a notice seeking public comments on the reinstatement and modification of information collection requirements for its Transit Security Grant Program (TSGP) and Intercity Bus Security Grant Program (IBSGP). These programs are part of FEMA's efforts to enhance the security of the nation's critical transportation infrastructure against threats such as terrorism and natural disasters. The agency is inviting feedback specifically on whether the ongoing data collection is necessary and how it might be improved. The public is encouraged to submit their comments by May 16, 2025.

General Overview

This notice is part of FEMA's compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, a law designed to ensure that government agencies gather necessary information in an efficient and non-burdensome manner. These grant programs focus on providing financial resources to public transportation systems and private bus operators to upgrade their security measures. The announcement specifies that the reinstated information collection will include new instruments for easier management and better transparency.

Significant Issues and Concerns

There are several issues within the document that may raise questions. Firstly, the notice is vague regarding the specific changes made during the reinstatement of the information collection, leaving stakeholders in the dark about what adjustments have occurred. Additionally, the methodology behind the estimated costs for respondents and the federal government lacks detail, making it difficult for the public to assess the accuracy and fairness of these calculations.

The absence of a detailed explanation on the allocation of funds might lead to concerns about potential biases in the grant awarding process. Stakeholders may wonder how FEMA will ensure equitable distribution among eligible applicants. Furthermore, while the notice states that there are no start-up or maintenance costs for respondents, it does not explain why these costs are absent. Given the nature of upgrades and improvements suggested by these programs, stakeholders could find this information important.

Public and Stakeholder Impact

For the general public, ensuring the security of transit systems is a significant concern, as it relates directly to personal safety during daily commutes and travel. By inviting comments, FEMA is attempting to gather insights that could lead to more efficient and effective security measures.

Specific stakeholders, including business entities and state and local governments, may be directly affected by the funds provided through these grants. Positive impacts include potential access to federal resources to enhance security measures that might otherwise be financially out of reach. However, the lack of transparency regarding the grant allocation process and the estimated cost calculations could generate mistrust or dissatisfaction among these stakeholders.

In conclusion, while the document outlines FEMA's initiative for reinstating data collection to support transportation security, the issues regarding clarity and transparency suggest areas where further improvement and communication are necessary. These efforts are pivotal in safeguarding transportation systems, potentially benefiting millions of Americans, providing the process is equitable and transparent.

The Federal Register document discusses a financial plan related to the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) grant programs, specifically the Transit Security Grant Program (TSGP) and the Intercity Bus Security Grant Program (IBSGP). Both programs are integral to protecting the nation’s transportation infrastructure, but the document reveals several financial references and issues that warrant attention.

The Estimated Total Annual Respondent Cost is noted as $1,537,792. This figure represents the cost to entities such as businesses and state or local governments for participating in these grant programs. Understanding how this amount is calculated is crucial for stakeholders, yet the document does not provide a detailed explanation of these calculations, which could hinder proper evaluation.

Meanwhile, the document states that there are $0 in both Estimated Respondents' Operation and Maintenance Costs and Estimated Respondents' Capital and Start-Up Costs. This oversight suggests an assumption that the participants will not incur any maintenance or startup costs, yet this might not be the whole picture. Additional clarification on the logic or data supporting these estimates would help mitigate potential misunderstandings. Without this information, it could appear misleading or overly optimistic, especially if participants traditionally incur such costs.

From the federal government's perspective, the Estimated Total Annual Cost is given as $1,188,925. This is the cost the government expects to spend in managing these grant programs. However, the notice lacks detail about the method used to determine this figure, making it challenging to assess its accuracy. Furthermore, no clarification is provided on the allocation of these funds among grant recipients, which could raise concerns about fairness or transparency in the grant distribution process.

Overall, while the document provides broad financial figures, the lack of detailed analysis or methodology for determining these numbers presents issues. Stakeholders would benefit from a more comprehensive breakdown of costs, which would aid in making informed decisions about participating in or evaluating the grant programs. A detailed understanding of how funds are allocated, both to governmental management and to grant recipients, would enhance transparency and confidence in the programs' financial management.