Overview
Title
Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission to OMB for Review and Approval; Public Comment Request; Environmental Information and Documentation (EID), OMB No. 0915-0324, Extension
Agencies
ELI5 AI
The Health Resources and Services Administration wants to make sure their projects don’t hurt the environment, so they’re asking people to share their opinions on a special checklist. This checklist helps them follow important rules before moving forward with projects.
Summary AI
The Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), part of the Department of Health and Human Services, has submitted an Information Collection Request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review. This action is in compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. HRSA is seeking to extend the approval of the Environmental Information and Documentation (EID) checklist, which helps ensure that projects funded by HRSA comply with environmental laws like the National Environmental Policy Act. The public can comment on this proposal until February 18, 2025, and these comments will assist OMB in its decision-making process.
Abstract
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, HRSA submitted an Information Collection Request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval. Comments submitted during the first public review of this ICR will be provided to OMB. OMB will accept further comments from the public during the review and approval period. OMB may act on HRSA's ICR only after the 30-day comment period for this notice has closed. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Keywords AI
Sources
AnalysisAI
This document, issued by the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) within the Department of Health and Human Services, serves as a formal announcement of an Information Collection Request (ICR) submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval. This process is part of HRSA's compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The main focus of the ICR is the renewal of an Environmental Information and Documentation (EID) checklist. This checklist plays a crucial role in ensuring that projects funded by HRSA adhere to environmental regulations, particularly the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).
General Summary
The notice provides details on the process for submitting comments regarding the ICR, due by February 18, 2025. The checklist in question requires applicants seeking HRSA funds for construction or projects with potential environmental impacts to provide specific information. This information is used by HRSA to ensure compliance with NEPA and other related laws throughout the project lifecycle, from the pre-award stage to after changes in projects are made.
Significant Issues or Concerns
One key concern with the document is its use of complex bureaucratic language, which can be difficult for the general public to decipher. This complexity may impede the public's understanding of the regulatory processes and compliance requirements related to NEPA. Furthermore, the statement detailing the "burden" of the required activities is quite technical and could benefit from simplification and the inclusion of straightforward examples to better inform potential applicants.
Another issue is the lack of discussion regarding the absence of public comments in response to a previous notice. This silence raises questions about the effectiveness of outreach and public engagement efforts. Additionally, there is insufficient detail on the criteria HRSA uses to evaluate NEPA compliance, leaving the decision-making process somewhat opaque. The document also does not specify how the environmental impacts of projects are assessed, which could lead to inconsistencies.
A critical omission is the absence of information on potential consequences for failing to adhere to the EID checklist requirements. This could lead to uncertainty and confusion among applicants regarding the significance of compliance.
Impact on the Public
For the general public, particularly those with a stake in environmental conservation, this document highlights HRSA's procedural steps to ensure environmental protection in federally funded projects. Public engagement through comments on the ICR offers an opportunity for civic participation, allowing individuals to voice concerns or support for the proposed information collection process.
Impact on Specific Stakeholders
Applicants for HRSA funding, including entities involved in construction and capital improvement projects, are primary stakeholders affected by this notice. The checklist's requirements represent additional administrative tasks that could impact the timeline and resources needed for project planning and implementation. Clear understanding and compliance are essential to secure funding and proceed with projects.
Environmental regulators and advocacy groups might view this document as a positive step toward ensuring that federally funded projects adequately consider environmental impacts, aligning with broader environmental protection goals. However, the lack of specificity regarding assessment criteria and compliance checks could pose challenges for consistent enforcement.
Overall, while the document outlines a necessary regulatory process, improvements in clarity and engagement might enhance its utility and effectiveness for all stakeholders involved.
Issues
• The document uses complex bureaucratic language that may be challenging for laypersons to understand, particularly regarding the regulatory processes and requirements related to NEPA compliance.
• The burden statement could be elaborated with clearer examples of what constitutes 'burden' to provide better understanding for applicants.
• The document does not address why there were no public comments in response to the previous notice, which might indicate a communication gap or lack of engagement with the potentially affected parties.
• The document lacks any mention of specific measures or criteria used by HRSA to evaluate compliance with NEPA, leaving ambiguity in the decision-making process.
• The language does not specify how potential environmental impacts of projects will be quantitatively or qualitatively assessed, possibly leading to variable interpretations.
• There is no mention of potential consequences for failing to comply with the EID checklist requirements, which can lead to uncertainty among applicants about the importance of these requirements.