United States Office of Policy, Economics EPA 240-R-00-005
Environmental Protection and Innovation December 2000
Agency Washington DC 20460 www.epa.gov/stakeholders
Engaging the American People
A Review of EPA's Public Participation
Policy and Regulations
with Recommendations for Action
Prepared for the EPA Administrator
by
the EPA Public Participation Policy
Review Workgroup
December 2000
-------
"In all its programs, EPA must provide for the most extensive public participation
possible in decision-making. This requires that we remain open to all points of
view and take affirmative steps to solicit input from those who will be affected by
decisions. Our willingness to remain open to new ideas from our constituents,
and to incorporate them where appropriate, is absolutely essential to the
execution of our mission. At the same time, we must not accord privileged
status to any special interest, nor accept any recommendation or proposal
without careful, critical examination."
Carol M. Browner, August 1993 memo to all employees
-------
Engaging the American People
A Review of EPA's Public Participation
Policy and Regulations with Recommendations
for Action
Prepared for the EPA Administrator by
the EPA Public Participation Policy Review
Workgroup
-------
Engaging the American People
"Democracy is not a matter of entertainment, it's a matter of engagement.'
John Hebers and James McCartney in American Journalism Review
-------
EPA Public Participation Policy Review Workgroup
Table of Contents
Executive Summary v
EPA's Public Participation Terminology vii
1. Introduction 1
2. The Review Process 3
3. Summary of Workgroup Activities 4
3.1 Evaluation of the 1981 Public Participation Policy and Part 25 Regulations 4
3.2 Inventory and Cross-walk Review of Statutes, Regulations,
Executive Orders, and EPA Policies Concerning Public Participation 5
3.3 Summary Analysis of Public Comments 10
3.4 Review of Sample Public Participation Experiences and "Lessons Learned" 12
4. Overall Conclusions 18
5. Overall Recommendations 18
5.1 Short-term Recommendations (3-12 months) 18
5.2 Long-term Recommendation (1-3 years) 22
6. Suggested Actions for Implementing Recommendations 25
Appendices
Appendix A: Charts of Public Participation Requirements in Key Agency Programs
TableA-1: Public Participation Requirements for Air Programs
Table A-2: Public Participation Requirements for Statutes Affecting Programs of the
Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances
Table A-3: Public Participation Requirements by Associated Regulations Affecting
Programs of the Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances
Table A-4: Public Participation Requirements Affecting the Superfund Program
Table A-5: Public Participation Requirements by Policies Issued by the Office of
Regulatory Enforcement in the Office of Enforcement and Compliance
Assurance
Table A-6: Public Participation Requirements by Policies Issued by the Office of
Federal Activities in the Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
Appendix B: ListofCommenters
Appendix C: List of Public Participation Policy Workgroup Members
Appendix D: Existing Public Participation Policy and Regulations
Appendix D-1: EPA's 1981 Policy on Public Participation
Appendix D-2: Title 40 Part 25 of the Code of Federal Regulations
-------
Engaging the American People
"Thomas Jefferson once pointed out that if the people appeared not enlightened enough to exercise
their control of government, the solution was not to take away the control but to "inform their
discretion by education." The cooperative processes that are springing up around the country are
doing just that, giving to large numbers of citizens a new comprehension of the complexity involved in
government decisions, out of which has got to come a heightened appreciation of, and tolerance for,
the necessary work of government. If these processes work, if they spread, if they become an
indispensable part of government at all levels, we may take it as a sign that we, as a people, have
moved up a grade in democracy's school. It holds out the hope that, eventually, the United States will
be ready for self-government."
William Doyle Ruckelshaus, "Restoring Public Trust in Government: A Prescription for Restoration"
(November 15, 1996, Webb Lecture, National Association of Public Administration)
-------
EPA Public Participation Policy Review Workgroup
XECUTIVE SUMMARY
Engaging the American People is the product of
a cross-program EPA Workgroup, and creates
the framework for a Strategic Plan for Public
Participation. The Workgroup evaluated existing
public participation practices and policies and
provided recommendations.
In October 1999 EPA formed the Public
Participation Policy Review Workgroup to
evaluate the Agency's public participation
policies and regulations in light of current
practices, relevant statutes, regulations, and
Executive Orders. The Workgroup consisted of
individuals representing major EPA program
offices and regions. The Workgroup chose to
conduct four primary activities:
1. Evaluate the Agency's 1981 Public
Participation Policy and the 40 CFR Part 25
Regulations;
2. Conduct a cross-walk analysis of Agency
statutes, regulations, Executive Orders, and
relevant policies;
3. Request and evaluate public comment on the
need for and interest in revising/updating the
1981 Policy, and
4. Review Agency practices and activities that
have occurred in the last 20 years to identify
successful practices, new techniques, and
new technologies that the Agency may want
to follow formally in a new or revised Policy.
Based on its review, the Workgroup reached five
conclusions:
1. The 1981 Policy and Part 25 Regulations are
still valid but do not incorporate new statutes
or public participation innovations.
2. The 1981 Policy and the Part 25 Regulations
have not been adequately publicized
internally or externally; EPA and its co-
regulators have not consistently implemented
them. Across the Agency and among co-
regulators there are opportunities to improve
consistency.
3. New participation techniques and information
technologies provide the Agency with
opportunities to involve the public and
challenges to reach both those who have and
those who lack Internet access.
4. Few centralized tools or resources are
available to aid EPA staff and Agency
partners in engaging the public.
5. Streamlining decision-making should not
preclude meaningful public participation.
These conclusions led to the following five
recommendations:
Short-term: 3-12 months:
1 a. Revise the 1981 Public Participation
Policy to reflect the additional statutes
EPA now administers, technological
changes, and procedural advances since
1981.
b. Have EPA Administrator: issue a draft
version of the Policy for comment and
send a memo to EPA senior managers
and staff reaffirming the importance of
the new Policy, Part 25 Regulations, and
other statutory and regulatory public
participation requirements, and directing
that they:
• give increased attention to
implementing and enforcing
associated procedures and
requirements;
• use the Draft 2000 Policy as guidance
pending final action following public
review and comment;
• ensure that the Part 25 Regulations
and other statutory and regulatory
public participation requirements are
being fully implemented;
• measure progress; and
• evaluate the effectiveness of public
participation programs.
2. Enhance EPA's Regulatory Agenda as
posted on the Agency's web site; explore
ways to make the Regulatory Agenda a
better tool for public participation; provide an
-------
Engaging the American People
Internet gateway to public participation
information useful to EPA's regulatory
partners and potential and current
stakeholders; develop tools to help overcome
barriers to the use of computer technology in
under-served communities.
3. Develop database and list tools:
a. Develop a prototype stakeholder
database for Agency use;
b. Maintain a centralized, shareable "key
national stakeholders" database for
Agency use;
c. Explore options for developing a secure,
Web-facilitated process for qualified
stakeholders to "sign-up" for the
centralized list; and
d. Streamline process for centralized sign-
on to Agency listserves.
4. Issue and promote the "Public Involvement in
Environmental Permits: A Reference Guide"
and the "Better Decisions Through
Consultation and Collaboration Manual";
provide and promote training to support them
and to better prepare communities to
participate in environmental decision-making.
Long-term: 1-3 years:
5. The Administrator should charge the
Reinvention Action Council, through a cross-
agency workgroup, with developing a
Strategic Plan in 2001. That Plan should be
designed to:
a. Ensure full implementation of the revised
Public Involvement Policy,
b. Enhance Agency-wide public
participation;
c. Track and report progress to the Agency
and to the public; and
d. Ensure that actions recommended in
this strategy are consistent with, and
complement, the Public Access
Strategy.
The Strategic Plan should reflect progress in five
critical activities:
• Build public participation skills in EPA staff,
co-regulators and stakeholders through
training, greater access to and wider
distribution of existing and new materials on
public participation and decision-making,
with particular emphasis on core processes
such as permitting.
• Improve public participation in delegated
programs, with particular emphasis on core
processes such as permitting, through work
in program offices, and with states, tribes
and other co-regulators.
• Decide whether to update/modernize the Part
25 Regulations or repeal them and rely on
other program related regulations and the
2000 Policy.
• Coordinate dissemination of equipment and
training to enable under-served communities
to have access to, and receive benefits from,
EPA web-based information.
• Using the Public Access Strategy (in
development at release of this document) as
a guide, enhance public participation through
public access to environmental information.
-------
EPA Public Participation Policy Review Workgroup
EPA's Public Participation Terminology
In the course of their review of the Agency's
public participation practices, EPA Public
Participation Policy Review Workgroup
developed the following definition of public
participation, viewed as a progression of actions
involving the public.
"Publicparticipation" encompasses the full
range of actions that EPA uses to engage the
American people in the Agency's work.
Every person living in the United States is a
potential customer
of the Agency, and
all are ultimate
beneficiaries'ofour
actions to protect
public health and
the environment.
The American People and
Potential Customers
Only those who
are dependenton
the Agency for or
choose to use our
products, services
and processes are
direct customers
of the Agency.
- Direct Customers
potentially affected party. EPA's outreach
activities serve and engage these people.
Information exchange is the next step. Here,
EPA staff and management and members of the
public share data, options, issues and ideas.
In the next step of the progression, individuals
and groups collaborate with each other and the
Agency to provide EPA with recommendations
for action. Some continue on to engage with
EPA management in reaching agreement by
consensus. Access to information is crucial
throughout the progression. As individuals and
groups move through the steps in the
progression, they seek more detailed
information, increased
access to decision
makers, and more
influence on the
ultimate decisions.
Stakeholders
-Affected Parties
Some of these direct customers are
stakeholders, people who have a strong interest
in the Agency's work and policies.
Stakeholders may interact with EPA on behalf of
another person or group, and may seek to
influence the Agency's future direction.
Some stakeholders are also affected parties,
individuals or groups who feel the impact of EPA
policies or decisions.
Public participation, as EPA envisions it, is a
progression. It starts with outreach and
information exchange, and progresses through
collaboration and recommendation to agreement
and decision-making. The process begins when
people seek information from EPA about a topic
or issue, or when they receive information from
EPA because the Agency identifies them as a
Not everyone will
choose to be an
active participant in
policy or regulatory
decisions of the
Agency. EPA's goal
is to provide
opportunities for
people to engage at
every point along the
progression.
Individuals and groups decide for themselves
whether, when and how to participate.
For the individual or group who takes part in the
outreach phase of the progression, EPA
provides or makes information available through:
hot lines, web sites, newsletters, e-mail list
servers, distribution lists, Federal Register
notices, exhibits, documents, electronic bulletin
boards, fact sheets, brochures, briefings, formal
public meetings, news releases, radio or '
television public service announcements, news
conferences and press kits, visitor centers,
libraries, cooperating organizations, and more.
The purpose of information exchange activities
is to build and share a broad set of knowledge of
all interested parties' interests and needs.
Examples of information exchange activities
-------
Engaging the American People
The Participation Progression
Outreach
Information
Exchange
Collaboration &
Recommendation
Agreement
include: workshops, forums, small interactive
public meetings, round tables, focus groups,
question and answer sessions, and availability/
listening sessions; surveys, polls, interviews and
door-to-door canvassing; joint fact finding; on-
line dialogues; and interactive radio and
television talk shows.
Recommendation activities consist of
stakeholders either individually or collectively
urging specific actions for the Agency to pursue.
Stakeholders can submit recommendations
through formal written comments or through
collaboration, which involves a smaller number
of individuals who work with each other and with
Agency staff to reach consensus on a set of
recommendations. Though recommendations
are made to EPA (many times through an
advisory committee established under the
Federal Advisory Committee Act [FACA]), EPA
is not bound to implement them nor are the
parties necessarily bound to accept them.
Examples of recommendation activities stem
from most FACA committees, external technical
committees such as committees of the
American Society for Testing and Materials, and
many citizens advisory groups or citizens
advisory panels.
Agreement activities involve EPA management
and stakeholder representatives actually
reaching an agreement by consensus to which
all parties agree. Examples of agreement
activities include negotiated rulemaking
committee efforts, settlement agreements,
mediated agreements, and memoranda of
understanding. Many enforcement activities
also result in agreements such as consent
orders and consent decrees. In some cases,
parties other than those involved in the
enforcement action may have an opportunity to
provide input to these types of agreements.
Successful agreement or recommendation
processes occur only with significant information
access, exchange and outreach. Progressing to
a recommendation process or agreement
process is not necessary, practical or affordable
in all decision-making processes. The
importance of access to information and
decision makers increases from one level of the
progression to the next.
Another way to look at the levels of engagement
is to outline the purpose of the person or group
that chooses to participate and that of the
Agency at each level (with credit to Sherry
Arnstein for her 1969 concept "the ladder of
participation").
Phase i Participant Objective EPA Objective !
Agreement
Recommendation
Information Exchange
Outreach
Help determine decision
Influence decision
Provide input to decision
Learn; become informed enough
to determine whether to take
more active interest or personal
action (such as recycle)
Achieve mission and implementable decision
Make a fully informed decision
Understand more about issues, problems,
values, perceptions; gather new information
and data; better identify affected parties and
their needs
Build public awareness of environmental issues;
provide materials that meet the needs of
individuals and organizations
-------
INTRODUCTION
In September 1994 EPA identified the American
people as our primary customer and issued the
following policy statement: "We are committed
to providing the best customer service possible.
We aim to achieve this through increased public
participation, increased access to information,
and more effectively responding to customer
needs." In "Putting Customers First: EPA's
Customer Service Plan" (EPA publication
number 230-B-95-004), the Agency adopted
three principles as the foundation for implement-
ing its policy:
• Encourage Public Participation: Increase
customer involvement in EPA's policy and
decision-making processes. Improve our
understanding of what motivates customers
and how we can best provide the environmen-
tal products, services and information they
value. Use public roundtables, focus groups,
and formal surveys to listen to what our
customers think about, the, quality and-value
of the products and services we provide.
• Provide Access to Information: [Recognizing
budgetary constraints] Make sure our
customers can obtain the kinds of informa-
tion they need. Provide our customers with
reliable environmental information to make a
wider variety of decisions - including regula-
tory, inv^tment and health decisions.
• Respond to our Customers' Needs: Make
timely, appropriate changes to our products,
services and processes to respond to the
comments and suggestions of our custom-
ers, without compromising environmental
outcomes.
The link is clear: Only when we listen to the
American people - our primary customers - and
understand what they tell us, can we engage
them in environmental decision-making and
thereby better accomplish our mission.
One way EPA listens to the American people is
through public participation. Active public
EPA Public Participation Policy Review Workgroup
participation in EPA decision-making processes
is critical to ensuring that the Agency bases its
decisions on the most pertinent information and
creates workable long-term solutions for affected
communities, industries, public health and the
environment.
EPA will continue to seek the public's input as
we adapt our systems of environmental
protection to the needs of the 21st century.
Though traditional command and control
approaches still have their place, the issues are
getting ever more complex (e.g., cross-media
and cross-border issues, runoff, global warming,
environmental justice). While enforcement
remains an important and vital tool, full and
meaningful public participation can also help
achieve environmental objectives through both
regulatory and voluntary means.
To engage the public in this new century, EPA
will need to reach out to a more diverse society,
enhance participation practices, and work
closely with our co-regulators. EPA must
strengthen and build partnerships in order to
increase focus on the equity of environmental
burdens. By using more collaborative pro-
cesses we can form new partnerships and
enable stakeholder groups and the public to
leverage expertise and resources. EPA has
delegated many programs to tribes, states and
local governments, so we rely on these partners
to deliver our programs, including public
participation, and we rely on the public to
participate in their decision processes.
EPA recognized the importance of public
participation in our decisions, policies and
procedures as early as 1979, when we
promulgated regulations at 40 CFR Part 251
(referred to in this document as Part 25
Regulations) governing public participation in the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA), the Clean Water Act (CWA), and the
Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA). EPA then
began developing a public participation policy
which was first published for comment in the
Federal Register in April 1980.
1The 40 CFR part 25 (Code of Federal Regulations), initially proposed in 1979, provide public participation requirements and
suggestions for EPA in implementing water and waste management programs under the Clean Water Act, the Safe Drinking
Water Act, and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act.
-------
Engaging the American People
The Agency actively sought public input on the
public participation policy, sending copies of the
policy to a nationwide list of diverse interest
groups, individuals and the media. EPA regions
also distributed the policy extensively to their
constituent lists and the Agency held ten public
meetings. On January 19, 1981, we issued the
EPA's Public Participation Policy2 (referred to in
this document as the 1981 Policy). Plans to
publicize and implement the 1981 Policy,
including training EPA staff and staff of our
regulatory partners, were not carried out
following the transition to a new administration.
Even though the 7987 Po//cy was not empha-
sized, the Agency and its co-regulators (state,
local, and tribal governments) implemented the
spirit and intent of the Part 25 Regulations to
varying degrees. During the intervening years,
knowledge of the 1981 Policy diminished
externally and even within the Agency until
1999.
In July 1999, the EPA Innovations Task Force
issued "Aiming for Excellence: Actions to
Encourage Stewardship and Accelerate
Environmental Progress (EPA 10O-R-99-006)."
In this report, EPA pledged to evaluate its public
participation policies and regulations in light of
current practices, relevant statutes, regulations,
and Executive Orders.
In October 1999, the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency's Office of Policy and
Reinvention formed a cross-agency Public
Participation Policy Review Workgroup
(hereafter referred to as the Workgroup). The
Workgroup's task was to support implementa-
tion of Action 9 of the Action Plan in "Aiming for
Excellence."
Action 9 states: "Build leadership capacity in
communities to participate in local environmen-
tal problem solving." Task 5 of Action 9, reads:
"Evaluate and update EPA's public participation
requirements. We will assess how well our
regulations and policies ensure public participa-
tion in decision-making. We will report on what
we find and develop an action plan to upgrade
requirements and fill gaps."
2 46 FR, page 5736, January 19, 1981.
The Workgroup's assessment focused on
reviewing EPA's 1981 Policy on Public
Participation and the Part 25 regulations. These
documents have been the basis for many of
EPA's public participation requirements and
therefore were crucial to evaluating and updating
EPA's public participation requirements. Since
the Agency has significantly changed since the
early 1980s, the Workgroup also compared
many of the numerous statutes and regulations
enacted or revised in the last two decades.
Engaging the American People is the resulting
report from the Workgroup. In addition to the
review of existing public participation mecha-
nisms, it contains recommendations for further
actions to enhance public participation in the
Agency's decisions.
The field of public participation, in its infancy in
1981, has greatly expanded in activities and
techniques. Many academic studies and real-
world experiences demonstrate the value of
engaging and collaborating with the public and
segments of it. Studies and experience of the
past twenty years show that a "one size fits all"
approach to public participation can limit the
ability of many groups to participate fully in the
decision-making process. For public participa-
tion to be meaningful, we must recognize and
address differences among knowledge, cultures,
experience, and technical and financial
resources.
According to most experts, the "information"
revolution is still in its early stages. EPA can
take advantage of this technology to increase
public participation and information access and
enhance the role of the public in Agency actions
and decision-making. For example, through the
Internet EPA can provide very timely information
to the public. The Internet can also enable the
Agency to obtain information and opinions
related to programs and policies. In the future,
more citizens will use the Internet and other
electronic communications (e.g., Envirofax,
public access television, Web-TV, etc.) to
interact on both a professional and personal
level.
-------
EPA Public Participation Policy Review Workgroup
Significant change has occurred both within the Agency and within the country in the nearly two
decades since 1981. Specifically, two key factors drove the changes: 1) new statutes and
regulations; and 2) an increased awareness and understanding of the processes associated with
engaging the public. For example, in the nearly 20 years since the 1981 Policy, EPA has
acquired a better understanding of matters associated with environmental justice; of the distinct
nuances associated with protecting children's health as compared with adults' health; and of the
need to recognize and value other differences associated with culture, economic, and educational
factors. In addition, new statutes and executive orders have emphasized EPA's working
relationship with state, local, and tribal governments, as well as with small businesses.
Furthermore, since 1979 most programs have adopted more specific and extensive public
participation practices for major functions such as permitting, and these, rather than the Part 25
Regulations, now govern Agency activity.
Though EPA will continue to identify methods for
using such technologies, the Agency also must
recognize that for nearly half the population
Internet access is limited. Even as these
advances create new opportunities to obtain
information and data for those with access to
the technology, many communities have neither
the equipment nor the training to take advantage
of it. Unless EPA, in conjunction with other
federal, state and private sector partners, takes
proactive steps to increase access to training
and the new technology, these communities will
fall further behind in the capacity to participate in
decision-making processes just as others
become more fully involved. The "digital divide"
that separates those with Internet access from
those without it could widen, and environmental
and health consequences could follow. Such
opportunities and needs did not exist in the
early 1980s, when personal computers were just
coming into use. EPA's Public Access Strategy
will address this topic.
The Workgroup considered these societal
changes and influences in their effort to identify
methods for enhancing public participation.
THE REVIEW PROCESS
The Workgroup completed the following
activities, which are described in more detail in
section 3 of this report:
Activity 1: Review, analyze, and com-
pare the 1981 Public Participation Policy
and the 40 C.F.R. Part 25 Regulations:
1. determine the applicability of the 1981
Policy and the Part 25 Regulations;
2. identify areas that could be clarified or
expanded; and
3. determine if the Po//cyand Regulations
need to be updated.
Activity 2: Inventory and conduct a cross-
walk review of all statutes, regulations,
Executive Orders, and relevant policies
that influence EPA actions to identify
public participation requirements,
recommendations, and obligations:
1. identify requirements that are different
from those established in the 1981
Policy and the Part 25 Regulations; and
2. identify similarities and differences
among the varying statutes, regulations,
Executive Orders, and policies; and
assess how these similarities and
differences affect the ability of the
Agency to involve the public.
Activity 3: Solicit and analyze public
comments on the 1981 Policy to:
1. identify opinions from the public about
what is working and public concerns
regarding participation in EPA decision-
making;
2. gather new and innovative ideas to
assist the Agency in improving methods
for engaging the public; and
3. enable the public to provide input on
-------
Engaging the American People
policy that will directly affect their
relationship with the Agency.
Activity 4: Examine sample public
participation experiences and lessons
learned from them to capture EPA's
"successful practices" and innovative meth-
ods that may support the Workgroup's
efforts.
Activity 5: Compare information gener-
ated and evaluated during the first four
activities and identify opportunities for
improvements and, based on this com-
parison, develop a series of recommen-
dations and an action plan for the
Administrator's consideration.
SUMMARY OF WORKGROUP
ACTIVITIES
The following sections describe each of the
Workgroup's activities in more detail.
3.1 Activity 1: Evaluation of the 1981 Public
Participation Policy and the Part 25
Regulations
Purpose of the 1981 Policy:
"To strengthen EPA's commitment to public
participation and to establish uniform
procedures for participation by the public in
EPA's decision-making process. This in turn
will assist EPA in carrying out its mission by
giving a better understanding of the public's
viewpoints, concerns and preferences. It
should also make the Agency's decisions
more acceptable to those who are most
concerned and affected by them."
the 1981 document is a policy, and as such, it
does not impose any binding legal requirements
or establish any rights under law.
The 1981 Policy also provides a process for
engaging the public by identifying five "proce-
dures," or activities, for EPA, states or tribes3 to
follow when making decisions or implementing
EPA programs that impact the public. These
five procedures are:
• Identification — Determining who needs to or
should be informed, interested, or affected by
a forthcoming action and performing associ-
ated actions;
• Outreach — Conducting activities to provide
information to the public;
• Dialogue — Ensuring opportunities for the
public to provide input, comment, ideas,
opinions, and information and to obtain
feedback and information from the Agency on
a forthcoming action, decision, or other
matter that may have an impact;
• Assimilation — Ensuring that public con-
cerns and opinions have an impact on the
decisions made by the Agency; and
• Feedback — Providing explanations of
decisions and how the Agency (or delegated
program organization) used public input in
the decision-making process.
The 1981 Policy assigns responsibility for its
implementation to EPA managers in headquar-
ters and regions. The Policy also suggests (but
does not require) that the Agency (or states or
tribes, in implementing an EPA program)
develop public participation work plans for each
activity identified under the scope of the Po//cy.
For the most part, the Policy remains applicable
today (see Activity 3).
EPA designed its 1981 Policy
to provide public officials who
manage and conduct EPA
programs with guidance and
direction on reasonable and
effective means to involve the
public in program decisions. It
is important to recognize that
3 While the 1981 Policy does not specifically mention tribes, it mentions delegated programs. Tribes are now eligible for delegated programs.
"Public participation lies at the heart of the Agency's
credibility with the public. It affords the best tested recipe
for citizens to influence government decisions that affect
their lives and pocketbooks."
Responsiveness Summary and Preamble on Public
Participation Policy,
Federal Register Notice, January 19, 1981
-------
EPA Public Participation Policy Review Workgroup
Purpose of the 1979 Part 25 Regulations
EPA promulgated Part 25 to provide the basic
requirements and recommendations for public
participation in programs under the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), the
Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), and the Clean
Water Act (CWA). Today they also form the
foundations that program offices use to
implement programs under other statutes. Part
25 specifies the objectives that should be
achieved through public participation:
1. To ensure that the public has the
opportunity to understand official pro-
grams and proposed actions, and that
the government fully considers the
public's concerns;
2. To ensure that the government does not
make any significant decision on any
activity covered by Part 25 Regulations
without consulting interested and
affected segments of the public;
3. To ensure that government action is as
responsive as possible to public con-
cerns;
4. To encourage public participation in
implementing environmental statutes;
5. To keep the public informed about
significant issues and proposed project
or program changes as they arise;
6. To foster a spirit of openness and mutual
trust among EPA, states, tribal, and
local agencies and the public; and
(7) To use all feasible means to create
opportunities for public participation, and
to stimulate and support participation.
Part 25 covers procedures that the Agency (or
state, tribe, etc.) should or must follow. Like the
1981 Policy, these procedures include matters
associated with information, notification,
consultation responsibilities, public hearings,
public meetings, advisory committees,
responsiveness summaries, permit enforcement,
rulemakings, and work elements in financial
assistance agreements.
In its review, the Workgroup found that most
EPA programs have developed their own
regulations for public participation in their
activities and decisions. These program-specific
regulations and procedures are generally used in
the place of Part 25.
3.2 Activity 2: Inventory and Cross-walk
Review of Statutes, Regulations,
Executive Orders, and EPA Policies
Concerning Public Participation
EPA made a conscious effort to ensure
compatibility between the 1981 Policy and the
Part 25 Regulations, and, if there were
inconsistencies between the two, the Part 25
Regulations were to prevail. Based on its
review, the Workgroup generally agreed that
essential aspects of the 1981 Policy and the
Part 25 Regulations are consistent and
summarized them in Exhibit 1.
Exhibit 1:
Similarities Between 1981 Policyand Part 25 Regulations
Under both the 1981 Policy and the Part 25 Regulation the Agency is to:
• Provide for and encourage public participation programs;
• Notify the public of upcoming meetings or hearings, generally at least 30 days prior to
the meeting;
• Establish processes for convening advisory groups when necessary to provide a forum
for the public to assist in providing recommendations to EPA;
• Prepare Responsiveness Summaries to provide feedback to the public on comments
received on specific issues or activities;
• Prepare public participation work plans that summarize how the Agency will provide for
public involvement; and
• Provide for the evaluation by EPA of its compliance with public participation programs.
-------
Engaging the American People
In addition to reviewing -.the 7987 Policy and the
Part 25 Regulations, the Workgroup also
conducted a cross-walk analysis of statutes,
regulations, Executive Orders, and other relevant
policies concerning public participation. The
Workgroup reviewed twenty-two separate Acts
and their corresponding regulations, and
analyzed six Executive Orders to identify public
participation requirements. Exhibit 2 presents a
list of those statutes and Executive Orders. The
list is not comprehensive.
Based on their review of the statutes and
executive orders, the Workgroup identified six
general categories of notice and public
participation activities:
• Public Notification Providing information to
the public about a decision or action that will
be or has been made or performed;
• Public Comment Providing methods to
enable the public to provide opinions, infor-
mation, or positions;
Exhibit 2
List of Statutes (and Corresponding Regulations) and Executive Orders
Reviewed for Public Participation Implications*
Statutes! and Corresponding Regulations
Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) (1996)
Regulatory Flexibility Act as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act (SBREFA) (1996)
Administrative Dispute Resolution Act of 1996 (ADRA)
Negotiated Rulemaking Act of 1990 (NRA)
Pollution Prevention Act (PPA) (1990)
Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA)
Emergency Planning and Community Right-To-Know Act (EPCRA) (1986)
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) (1980)
as amended by Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA) (1986)
Clean Water Act (CWA) (1977)
Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) (1976)
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) (1976)
Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) (1974)
Endangered Species Act (ESA) (1973)
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) (1972)
Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) (1972)
Clean-Air Act (CAA) (1970)
Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA) (1970)
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA)
Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) (1966)
Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (1946)
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) (1938)
Executive Orders
12856: Federal Compliance with Right-to-Know Laws and Pollution
Prevention Requirements
12862: Setting Customer Service Standards
12866: Regulatory and Planning Review
12875: Enhancing the Intergovernmental Process
12898: Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and
Low-Income Populations
13045: Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
* This list is not comprehensive; it merely notes the items reviewed.
-------
EPA Public Participation Policy Review Workgroup
• Public Meetings Providing the public the
opportunity to meet with EPA, state, tribal,
local, or other officials to discuss issues;
raise questions, opinions and positions;
provide input into the decision-making
process; and request information and
explanations;
• Public Access to Information Providing
information through a wide range of media,
such as through dockets, reports, outreach
materials, and electronic media (via CD-
ROM, Internet, etc.);
• Advisory Groups Requiring or recommend-
ing the establishment of advisory groups; and
• Public Assistance/Other Providing access
to grants, funding, technical/expert advice or
the ability to take civil/legal or alternative
dispute resolution actions based on EPA's
decisions.
While specifics varied, virtually all of the
reviewed documents required or recommended
the above actions. For example, of the 22
statutes reviewed, 18 had some requirement to
provide public notification, although the
acceptable forms of notification varied.
Likewise, 16 statutes provided for public
comment, though the minimum number of days
varied from one regulation to another.
The Workgroup recognizes that other statutes
and Executive Orders also need to be reviewed,
either because of changes since the initial
review (e.g., Executive Order 12875 has been
replaced by Executive Order 13132: Federal-
ism), or because they were not part of the initial
list of items for review. This inventory and
review should continue.
Over the past 20 years, EPA's Administrators
have underscored the need for public participa-
tion. Administrator Carol M. Browner's August
1993 memo to all employees stressed the
increasing importance of public participation in
rulemaking efforts. This memo encouraged staff
to solicit views from the broadest possible
spectrum of interested parties in arriving at final
rules and urged that all interests have equal
opportunity to meet with EPA. The memo
noted that: "In rulemaking proceedings under the
Administrative Procedures Act, the basis for
decisions must appear in the public record.
Therefore, after a rule is proposed, be certain
that: 1) All written comments received from
people outside the Agency (whether during or
after the comment period) are entered in the
public record of the rulemaking; and, 2) A brief
memorandum summarizing any significant new
data or information likely to affect the final
decision that is received during a meeting or
other conversation is placed in the public
record."
Appendix A describes the extensive required
and voluntary actions the Agency performs to
involve the public in its decision and rulemaking
processes. Since rulemaking is a central
function of the Agency, Exhibit 3 contains
summaries of the most important statutes and
executive orders affecting public participation.
In 1998 Ellen Levin, a graduate student from
the University of Wisconsin working as an
intern for the Consensus and Dispute
Resolution Program of the Office of Policy,
conducted a study of the use of stakeholder
participation processes used in rulemaking at
EPA. Using the Regulatory Agenda as a
source of rules under development or recently
proposed, Ms. Levin interviewed more than 70
chairs of rulemaking workgroups and classified
the activities conducted into one or more of the
following categories: outreach, information
exchange, advisory recommendations or
negotiations. She found that more than 90% of
rulewriters conducted significant outreach
activities such as distributing fact sheets,
providing information on web sites, and making
presentations. More than 70% conducted
additional information exchange activities such
as workshops, joint fact finding, conference
calls and public meetings. Most of these
activities were conducted significantly prior to
publication of the Notice of Proposed Rule
which initiates a mandatory formal notice and
comment period. She also found that the use
of a stakeholder involvement process to build
consensus recommendations or agreements
was much less frequent.
-------
Engaging the American People
Exhibit 3
Summaries of Administrative Statutes and Executive Orders Affecting
Public Participation in EPA Rulemaking
The Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) governs the establishment of and procedures for
advisory committees that provide advice or recommendations to the federal government. When EPA
establishes or utilizes a committee for advice or recommendations, the Agency must charter the
committee with approval from the Office of Management and Budget, notify the public of meetings via
a notice in the Federal Register, allow public participation in the meetings, appoint public representa-
tives on FACA committees, and allow the public access to all committee documents and reports.
[Note: Several exemptions are applicable. For example, when the Agency seeks the advice of
individual meeting participants without seeking consensus, the gathering is not subject to FACA.]
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforce-
ment Fairness Act (SBREFA), generally requires agencies to assess the impacts on small entities,
including small businesses, small governmental jurisdictions, and small organizations, of rules
subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements. For rules that may impose significant
economic impacts on a substantial number of small entities (SISNOSE), agencies must prepare a
regulatory flexibility analysis of the potential adverse economic impacts on small entities, participate
in a Small Business Advocacy Review Panel (a proposed rule stage), and prepare a Small Entity
Compliance Guide (a final rule stage). For rules that may impose a SISNOSE, public participation
requirements include: opportunity for public comment on the agency's initial regulatory flexibility
analysis; opportunity for participation by small entities through the reasonable use of techniques
including, among other things, open conferences, public hearings, and solicitation and receipt of
comments over computer networks; and solicitation of advice and recommendations from small entity
representatives identified by the agency after consultation with the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the
Small Business Administration.
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) generally requires agencies to assess the
effects on state, local, and tribal governments and the private sector of rules subject to notice and
comment rulemaking requirements. Public participation requirements include: for rules containing
significant federal intergovernmental mandates, agencies must develop an effective process to allow
elected officers of state, local and tribal governments (or their designated, authorized employees) to
provide meaningful and timely input in the development of the regulatory proposal; and for rules that
may significantly or uniquely affect small governments, agencies must develop a small government
agency plan that provides for notifying potentially affected small governments, enabling officials of
affected small governments to have meaningful and timely input in the development of regulatory
proposals with significant federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and advising
small governments on compliance with regulatory requirements.
Executive Order 12898, "Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority
Populations and Low-Income Populations," generally requires each federal agency, to the
greatest extent practicable and permitted by law, to make achieving environmental justice part of its
mission by ensuring meaningful public participation of minority and low-income populations, including
identifying potential effects and mitigation measures, and improving accessibility of public meetings,
documents, and notices to affected communities.
-------
EPA Public Participation Policy Review Workgroup
Executive Order 13175, "Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments,"
requires most federal agencies to develop and utilize an effective process that allows elected officials
and other representatives of Indian tribal governments to provide meaningful and timely input on
regulations, legislative comments, proposed legislation, and policies that have substantial direct
effects upon one or more Indian tribes, and to appoint a federal official to oversee the implementation
of that process.
Executive Order 13132, "Federalism," generally requires agencies to develop an accountable
process to ensure meaningful and timely input by state and local elected officials or their
representative national organizations in the development of regulatory policies that have federalism
implications. "Policies that have federalism implications" is defined in the Executive Order to include
regulations that have "substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the
national government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the
various levels of government."
Executive Order 12866, "Regulatory Planning and Review" says that wherever feasible,
agencies shall seek views of appropriate state, local, and tribal officials before imposing regulatory
requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect those governmental entities. Each agency
shall assess the effects of federal regulations on state, local, and tribal governments, including
specifically the availability of resources to carry out those mandates, and seek to minimize those
burdens that uniquely or significantly affect such governmental entities, consistent with achieving
regulatory objectives. In addition, as appropriate, agencies shall seek to harmonize federal regulatory
actions with related state, local, and tribal regulatory and other governmental functions.
Executive Order 13166, "Improving Access to Services for Persons with Limited English
Proficiency" requires each federal agency to examine the services it provides, and then identify,
develop and implement a system by which limited-English-proficient persons can meaningfully
access those services consistent with, and without unduly burdening, the fundamental mission of the
agency. The order also requires that each federal agency draft guidance pursuant to Title VI of the
Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, to ensure that recipients of federal financial assistance take
reasonable steps to provide meaningful access to their programs and activities.
The Administrative Procedure Act (APA) standardizes administrative procedures for all
government agencies. For actions subject to the APA's informal rulemaking requirements (most EPA
rulemakings), the APA generally requires agencies to publish a general notice of proposed
rulemaking in the Federal Register, and to give interested persons an opportunity to participate
through submission of written data, views, or arguments. For actions subject to the APA's formal
rulemaking or formal adjudication requirements, the APA prescribes additional procedures for agency
hearings, which include, among other things, requirements for notice and an opportunity for interested
parties to submit facts and arguments, proposed findings and conclusions, or exceptions to agency
decisions.
-------
Engaging the American People
3.3 Activity 3: Summary Analysis of Public
Comments
On November 30, 1999, EPA published a
Federal Register notice requesting public
comment on trie 1981 Public Participation
Policy. By January 13, 2000, the Workgroup
had received and reviewed 25 comments from
federal and local government organizations;
businesses; environmental, trade, policy, and
advocacy organizations; and private citizens.
Complete comments are available at the web
site [http://www.epa.gov/stakeholders].
Appendix B lists the commenters.
Several commenters stated that EPA, as a
whole, is a leader in the federal government in
supporting public participation. However,
comments overall suggest that there are varying
levels of implementation, compliance, and
resource provision for public participation
programs across the Agency and through
delegated programs. Some programs or
activities appear to be proactive in using
innovative approaches and techniques to engage
the public, focusing not only on what is required,
but also on what works for all involved. Others
meet only the baseline requirements established
in statutes, regulations, or policies. Comments
suggest that in some cases baseline require-
ments of the Policy and Regulations may not be
achieved. Commenters stated that the following
items in the 1981 Policy and the Part 25
Regulations are not implemented consistently:
early notice and participation of the public, use
of plain language or appropriate languages other
than English, stakeholder identification, and
adequate length of public comment periods.
The Federal Register notice requested
comments on two sets of questions. The first
set of questions asked: What changes need to
be made to the 1981 Policy on Public
Participation? What is working well, and how
does the experience of the past nineteen years
suggest the need for improvements in the
general procedures for involving the public in
EPA programs and decisions? Responses
focused on the following:
Just Do It! - Several commenters stated that
while the 1981 Policy can be updated and
improved, it is basically sound and workable.
However, commenters urged EPA to improve
consistency in the implementation of the
1981 Policy at EPA national and regional
levels, and within programs delegated to
states, tribes and local government units.
Comments encouraged EPA to focus not just
on what is required, but what works for all
parties involved.
Increase efforts to identify groups or
individuals interested in or affected by
an issue and who represent a balance of
views — Commenters suggested: make it
easier for individuals and organizations to be
placed on EPA contact lists; work with
county and city public health officials; use
cable TV and radio to distribute information
and reach interested groups and individuals;
post notices in newspapers and magazines,
and in supermarkets, malls, community
centers, churches, and laundromats if that is
where interested and/or affected people are
likely to see it.
Provide notices and outreach materials
in plain language ("Plain English") —
Distribute easy-to-understand materials in
other languages when appropriate.
Listen for, seek to understand, and
involve special interest groups in issues
of critical importance to them — Specific
comments suggested that EPA involve the
animal welfare community in matters which
involve the potential use of animals in testing,
and include the National Association of
Home Builders on contact lists for water
issues. Animal protection organizations
suggested that EPA publish a notice of every
meeting held with people outside the Execu-
tive Branch of the federal government.
Match the forum to the fuss — Help
Agency personnel learn to select the most
appropriate intensity of, and mechanisms for,
public participation in any specific circum-
stance. Early planning is vital. Public
-------
EPA Public Participation Policy Review Workgroup
hearings are often not good forums for
constructive dialogue.
Incorporate Environmental Justice (EJ)
considerations in public participation
activities — Use the National Environmental
Justice Advisory Council Model Plan for
Public Participation (http://es.epa.gov/oeca/
oej/nejac/pdf/modelbk.pdf); fully implement
Executive Order #12898; present web site
data and materials in formats and languages
relevant to those at the local level; provide
resources for community technical assis-
tance; and use Environmental Justice grants
for Clean Air Act Title V permitting.
Inform and involve the public earlier —
Early involvement creates opportunities to
provide technical information, consider locally
relevant information, address key community
concerns, help build trust, and sometimes
broaden the range of options to be consid-
ered.
Lengthen public comment periods —
Allow the public sufficient time to conduct
their own review of the issue and provide
comments to the Agency. [Note: Executive
Order 12866 requires 60 day comment
periods which EPA adheres to unless
statutory or other deadlines preclude such
notice.]
Use the Internet — Develop electronic list
services; establish electronic mechanisms
for posting comments and ongoing bulletin
boards for on-line dialogue on permitting and
regulatory proposals; post Title V documents
relating to individual facilities; establish on-
line dockets; and encourage/help public
libraries and community centers to get and
expand Internet access services, particularly
in rural, remote or low-income areas.
Think in broad environmental concepts
(holistically) and act collaboratively-
Rather than just focusing on specific issues
(e.g., a facility's effluent discharge permit),
the Agency should think broadly about the
environmental issues in an area (e.g., a
watershed) and how all stakeholders can
work together to reach consensus solutions,
whenever possible (e.g., plan together to
attain or exceed the water quality standards
for the watershed, and be accountable for the
results). One example: the National Gover-
nors' Association's "Enlibra: A New Shared
Doctrine for Environmental Management,"
which is a set of eight principles for collabo-
rative environmental management.
Advance the concept of stewardship —
Emphasize that environmental protection is
everyone's job, from government organiza-
tions that set standards, to businesses and
citizens who make daily choices. (The EPA
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Plan for Public Involvement in the Title V
(permitting) Program embodies this concept.)
Evaluate EPA public participation poli-
cies and practices — The Environmental
Law Institute, Resources for the Future and
the Sierra Club Great Lakes Program
evaluate public participation programs. [Note:
In the Responsiveness Summary of the 1981
Policy, EPA committed to evaluating the
Policy for such matters as the effectiveness
of the requirements, public reaction, reporting
requirements, resource expenditures,
alternative methods and enforceability. EPA
did not perform such an evaluation of the
7987 Policy and does not regularly examine
the Agency's public participation processes.]
The second set of Federal Register ques-
tions asked: How can we further engage the
public in the effort to revise the 1981 Policy
and other EPA regulations and policies which
may need to be updated in regard to public
participation? What are suggested elements
of a strategy to further engage the public in
updating requirements and filling gaps in
EPA's regulations and policies concerning
public participation? While only a few of the
25 public comments addressed this question
directly, specific suggestions include:
Hold focus groups — in each region or
state with members of the public who have
had experience working with the Agency.
-------
Engaging the American People
• Allow oral comments — over a toll-free
line.
• Have trained local environmental ana-
lysts — available to collaborate with local
residents on interpreting scientific data and
environmental statutes and regulations.
• Establish public access ombudsmen in
each regional Office — to perform research
and assist those who inquire to the Agency
about participation processes.
• Use the National Association of County
and City Health Officials' Protocol for
Assessing Community Excellence in
Environmental Health — to learn more
about a community's environmental health
concerns and inform residents about opportu-
nities for participation in EPA decision-
making.
• Create a zip code data base — to enable
interested individuals and organizations to
leam about potential environmental actions
affecting their respective areas.
3.4 Activity 4: Review of Sample Public
Participation Experiences and
"Lessons Learned"
Summary of Review
The Workgroup examined gristing public
participation practices across the Agency, and
found that in most EPA programs and projects,
the decision currently is how and when, not if, to
involve the public. The need to involve
stakeholders and the public to help address
today's complex and controversial environmental
issues is growing increasingly apparent. When
EPA increases meaningful public participation
opportunities, the public can better leverage
expertise and resources to help the Agency and
its partners formulate solutions to environmental
problems.
The Workgroup found that for public participation
to be meaningful, the public needs to have an
opportunity to:
• obtain easily accessible, understandable
background information;
• review proposed actions both early in deci-
sion-making processes and at other critical
decision points when their input can be
useful;
• understand how the decision-making pro-
cesses work;
• understand how their comments will be used
in the decision process;
• learn, after the decisions are made, how their
input was used; and
• understand their real potential to influence
decisions.
Public participation at EPA is no longer defined
as a single process. Most experts now see it
as a range of participation techniques, from
those that simply inform to those meant to
reach a joint agreement. In the course of
conducting its review of public participation
practices at EPA, the Workgroup identified four
categories of activities that should be used to
involve stakeholders in environmental decision-
making: outreach, information exchange,
collaboration and recommendations, and
agreements. (See EPA's Public Participation
Terminology, page vi.) These activities do not
stand alone. They are part of a communications
and participation progression that can and
should be used as a systematic approach to
accomplishing the Agency's work.
EPA staff use outreach activities to identify
people who are interested or potentially affected
by the Agency's actions and to keep them
informed about what we are planning, what we
are doing and why. Through information
exchange, EPA staff and management share
data, options, issues and ideas with the affected
public in an interactive way in order to gather
information and learn from them. Recommen-
dation activities involve a smaller number of
stakeholder representatives who collaborate with
each other and with Agency staff to reach
consensus on a set of recommendations for
action. Through agreement activities, EPA
management works with stakeholder representa-
tives to reach an agreement by consensus to
which all parties agree. Successful agreement
-------
EPA Public Participation Policy Review Workgroup
or recommendation processes occur only with
significant information access, exchange and
outreach. Progressing to a recommendation or
agreement process is not necessary, practical
or affordable for all decision-making processes.
The importance of access to information and to
decision makers increases from one level of the
progression ladder to the next.
New and emerging technologies enable the
Agency to develop added ways to carry out the
public participation progression. Communica-
tions avenues such as Internet chat rooms,
virtual meetings, the use of E-mail and the
Internet were not available when the Agency
adopted the 1981 Policy. In addition, the field of
consensus and dispute resolution, often called
alternative dispute resolution (ADR), provides
new ways to engage the public in addressing
and resolving issues.
As a result of these new methods and
techniques, the Agency has enhanced public
participation opportunities. Some EPA offices
and programs use alternative dispute resolution
practices to expedite decisions and reduce the
costs of compliance. Other offices use chat
rooms, electronic message/bulletin boards, and
computer accessible databases to enable
citizens and stakeholders to provide input or
obtain information. Most offices provide for
electronic submissions of comments on
proposed rules. Some offices and programs
have tailored outreach programs to address
differences in culture, economics, age, and
education among target audiences.
Through its assessment of existing practices,
the Workgroup found that many of the Agency's
public participation advances have not been
prompted by legislative changes. Instead, EPA
programs and regions had the necessary
flexibility to take actions, develop projects, and
make innovations to promote and encourage
public participation, thus enabling staff to work
more efficiently and effectively. Lessons learned
from the Agency's experiences in customizing
public participation processes to meet the
needs of particular circumstances provide a
potential framework for enhancing the existing
Policy or for developing a new one.
Some Examples of Innovative Approaches
Negotiated Rulemaking — In 1983 EPA
piloted a procedure recommended by the
Administrative Conference of the U.S. called
"negotiated rulemaking" or "regulatory negotia-
tion" - reg neg for short. During a reg neg, the
Agency establishes a Federal Advisory
Committee of interested and affected stakehold-
ers who negotiate either the outline or the text of
a proposed rule. While such negotiations are
difficult and time consuming, EPA conducted
reg negs on 20 rules from 1983 to 2000. Most
of the committees were able to reach full or
substantial agreement on the outline or text of a
rule. EPA found that the rules resulting from
reg negs are more practical and implementable
and less likely to be challenged in court than
those developed through traditional means. The
U.S. Congress passed the Negotiated
Rulemaking Act in 1990 and renewed it
indefinitely in 1996. The Act is based heavily on
EPA's experiences and procedures from the first
seven reg negs it conducted. More information
is available at [http://www.epa.gov/stakeholders/
factsrn.htm].
Professional Facilitation of Stakeholder
Involvement Activities — The Agency obtains
professional facilitation and mediation support
for public participation, consensus building and
dispute resolution activities via contracts with
outside organizations. These include Superfund
support contracts and various program office
mission support contracts. Since 1986, a
series of contracts managed by the Consensus
and Dispute Resolution Program has been a
primary source of consensus and dispute
resolution assistance. Demand for these
services has grown exponentially. The first
contract in 1986 had four work assignments; the
third, which expired in 1999, had 206 over a five-
year period. The current five-year contract has
a ceiling of more than $41 million. These figures
reflect the changes in EPA's attitude about
stakeholder involvement over the past 20 years
- from very few activities to numerous activities
in every program and regional office.
Community-Based Environmental Protection
(CBEP)— Between 1995 and 2000, the Agency
-------
Engaging the American People
built partnerships with more than 200 communi-
ties and their state and tribal government
partners to integrate approaches that protect
and restore local natural resources in ways that
help ensure long-term ecological, economic,
social, and human health benefits for ourselves
and future generations. CBEP's goals are to:
• Achieve environmental results consistent
with EPA's mission and base program goals,
as stated in EPA's authorizing statutes and
Strategic Plan;
• Address environmental concerns not
amenable to traditional federal regulatory
approaches, such as urban sprawl, urban
and agricultural runoff, and loss of biological
diversity;
• Help communities develop the tools and
capacity necessary to be stewards of their
human and natural resources; and
• Coordinate and integrate EPA's programs
and activities to increase the Agency's
effectiveness in supporting sound community
environmental decision-making.
Additional information on CBEP is available
at [http://www.epa.gov/ecocommunity/].
The Common Sense Initiative — This was a
four-year experiment to address environmental
management by industrial sector rather than by
environmental medium (air, water, land). Using a
Federal Advisory Committee structure, EPA
brought together representatives from industry,
environmental, environmental justice and labor
organizations, and federal, state, and local
governments to address environmental issues
facing six industry sectors. The stakeholders
provided more than two dozen consensus
recommendations on industry-specific issues.
In response to concerns raised by the printing
sector subcommittee and other stakeholders,
the CSI Council formed a workgroup in
November 1997 to address concerns about
Agency-wide stakeholder involvement issues.
The resulting Report included three recommen-
dations concerning needs to: develop common
understanding of the goals and roles of
stakeholder involvement processes: do early
planning of these processes, and build internal
and external capacity to participate effectively in
these processes. In response to these
recommendations, in December 1998, the
Agency developed a 20-point Action Plan for
Improving Stakeholder Involvement. The Agency
has made substantial progress in implementing
this plan. The two documents noted above, as
well as a progress report on the 20 action items,
are available at [http://www.epa.gov/stakehold-
ers]. One of the action items was creating this
web site. Another action item notes the
development of program-specific tools such as
the Project XL Process Improvements that
provide the latest information regarding
stakeholder involvement in XL (Excellence and
Leadership) projects, and the "Constructive
Engagement Resource Guide: Practical Advice
for Dialogue Among Facilities, Workers,
Communities, and Regulators" ([http://
www.epa.gov/stakeholders/pdf/resolve1.pdf];
EPA 745-B-99-008).
National Community Involvement Confer-
ence — Since 1998, EPA program offices
collaboratively organized and held the annual
conferences. These events enable community
involvement practitioners, managers, and
policymakers at EPA and partners in federal,
state, tribal, and local agencies to share their
successes and expertise in public participation
activities. Presentations emphasize the broad
range of EPA's community involvement efforts.
Nationally recognized experts in such areas as
cross-cultural issues, conflict resolution and
negotiation skills, crisis communications, public
meeting planning and facilitation, media
relations, and other community and public
participation skills or approaches offer training.
Superfund Public Participation Support
The Superfund program has succeeded in
increasing public participation in cleanup
decision-making through a variety of techniques
and approaches. At 53 sites, EPA used
Community Advisory Groups (CAGs), which
provide community members with a forum for
learning about and assessing cleanup
alternatives and giving input to site managers.
Technical Assistance Grants (TAGs) provide
money to community nonprofit groups so that
-------
EPA Public Participation Policy Review Workgroup
they can obtain technical assistance in
interpreting information about their Superfund
sites. This assistance enables the groups, and
the community as a whole, to participate more
effectively in site decision-making. EPA has
awarded 210 TAGs since the inception of this
program. The Technical Outreach Services to
Communities project has provided independent
university-based scientific and engineering
expertise to 115 communities dealing with
hazardous substance contamination questions.
Additional information about these Superfund
programs and resources is available at [http://
www.epa.gov/superfund/tools/cag/resource.htm].
Increased Transparency of Stakeholder
Involvement in Pesticide Decisions — Based
on advice obtained from many outside groups
through the Tolerance Reassessment Advisory
Committee (TRAC) meetings held during 1998
and 1999, EPA created more opportunities for
information sharing and public involvement in its
development of risk assessments and risk
management decisions for the organophosphate
pesticides (OPs). By obtaining and including
real-world information from a variety of outside
interests and groups, EPA hopes to arrive at the
fairest and most informed decisions possible for
the OPs. To provide ample opportunity for public
participation in these reassessments, EPA
piloted a more extensive, inclusive, public review
and comment process. On March 15, 2000 (65
FR 14199), EPA proposed to expand the pilot by
establishing a similar public participation
process for pesticide tolerance reassessments
and reregistrations. This process should
increase the transparency of, and stakeholder
involvement in, the development of pesticide risk
assessments and risk management documents
and decisions. Additional information is
available at [http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/op/
involve.htm].
Public Involvement in Permitting —
Stemming from the Second Generation of
Environmental Permitting Action Plan, the Office
of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
(OSWER) guided an Agency workgroup to
improve public participation in all the permitting
programs in the Agency. The first product is
"Public Involvement in Environmental Permits: A
Reference Guide" ([http://www.epa.gov/permits/
publicguide.htm]; EPA 500-R-00-007) The
Guide, which describes the current permitting
processes and the opportunities for public
participation for all permitting programs, is an
excellent tool for the public, permitted facilities,
and the regulating agency (EPA/states/tribes/
local governments). The primary audience is the
state, tribal and local governments that are
permitting authorities. The Guide is intended to
be their toolkit of resources and best practices
in public involvement. The public and industry
will also be able to use this document as an
educational resource to help them fully
understand their opportunities for participation in
each permitting program.
The Model Plan for Public Participation of
the National Environmental Justice Advisory
Council (NEJAC) — The Council, a federal
advisory committee to EPA, developed .a model
plan for conducting effective public meetings,
"The Model Plan for Public Participation," ([http:/
/es.epa.gov/oeca/oej/nejac/pdf/modelbk.pdf];
EPA publication number 300-K-96-003). Plan
principles now appear in various public
participation guidances and documents
including the RCRA Public Participation
Guidance and Project XL guidance. In addition,
the Agency used the Model Plan in preparation
and facilitation of meetings involving the use of
federal facilities. Further, state and tribal
agencies, industry, and community organiza-
tions have endorsed and use the Model Plan in
conducting public participation activities.
Recently, the International Association of Public
Participation endorsed the plan and encouraged
its members (over 1000 individuals and
organizations) to use it. The State of
Louisiana's Department of Environmental Quality
modeled a public participation process after the
plan. The NEJAC also recently developed a
draft "Guide on Consultation and Collaboration
with Indian Tribal Governments and the Public
Participation of Indigenous Groups and Tribal
Citizens." It explains how EPA, and other
environmental justice stakeholders, can more
effectively work with tribes and tribal communi-
ties to address their environmental justice
-------
Engaging the American People
concerns. A final draft-Js expected to be
completed by December, 2000.
Federal Core. Water Quality Standards in
Indian Country — The Office of Water (OW) is
considering establishing federal core water
quality standards in Indian country. OW
organized extensive outreach, held initial
discussions, and used formal consultation. OW
promoted meetings and met with different
groups to explain the rationale for these
standards, to explain what they might look like,
and to solicit initial reactions. This included
meetings with EPA's Tribal Operations
Committee, tribal organizations such as the
National Tribal Environmental Committee, EPA
regional Tribal Operations Committees, and
regional meetings with tribes. Using their input,
OW drafted a concept paper which it used
during a formal three-month consultation period.
The process included the Regional Administra-
tors' sending a letter to each federally-
recognized tribe seeking each tribe's reactions
to the proposal. Additionally, EPA regions
sponsored forums, meetings, and conference
calls with tribes in their regions to discuss the
standards and again solicit tribal feedback. OW
staff and senior managers participated in many
of the regional meetings. EPA had extensive
dialogue with over 200 tribes during the formal
consultation period. The ideas and concerns
expressed during this time are being considered
in EPA's approach to setting federal water
quality core standards in Indian country.
Improved Federal Advisory Committee
Activities — The Office of Cooperative
Environmental Management (OCEM) provides
policy, oversight, and national program
management for EPA's Federal Advisory
Committees (FACAs). EPA has 23 FACAs, with
38 subcommittees using 1,355 citizen
volunteers. These committees give EPA expert
advice and citizens' perspectives in developing a
wide variety of environmental policies and
programs, and are an essential part of the
Agency's public participation effort. OCEM has
been working to build the capacity of both the
Designated Federal Officials (DFOs) who run the
FACAs, and the general public. For the DFOs,
capacity building efforts include: a week of
public participation training; monthly meetings
with speakers addressing elements of public
participation; development of a directory of
contacts within and outside the Agency that will
find diverse committee members, and surveying
DFOs to find out their needs relative to public
participation. The major initiatives to help the
public prepare to be members of EPA's FACAs
include: developing an OCEM website that is a
"one stop shop" for information on all EPA's
federal advisory committees, and partnering with
the General Services Administration to include
extensive information on EPA's FACAs to GSA's
government-wide, web-based federal advisory
committee data base. Committees are
exchanging information with each other so they
can better advise the Agency.
Scientific Advisory Panel on the Federal
Insecticides, Fungicides and Rodenticides
Act (FIFRA) — The Panel provides independent
scientific advice regarding the impact on human
health and the environment of proposed
regulatory actions concerning pesticides and
pesticide-related issues. The Administrator
solicits from the Panel advice, evaluations, and
comments for operating guidelines to improve
the effectiveness and quality of staff scientific
analyses that are the bases for regulatory
decisions. The Administrator also asks the
panel to provide peer review of major scientific
studies.
Brownfields Initiative — EPA launched the
Brownfields Initiative to help state, local and
tribal governments, communities, and other
stakeholders work together to assess, clean up,
and reuse brownfields. Brownfields are
abandoned, idled, or under-used industrial and
commercial facilities where real or perceived
environmental contamination complicates
expansion or redevelopment. EPA is building
partnerships with states, tribes, cities, and
community representatives, and among federal
agencies, to develop strategies for promoting
public participation and community involvement
in Brownfields revitalization projects. Additional
information is available at [http://www.epa.gov/
swerosps/bf/].
-------
EPA Public Participation Policy Review Workgroup
Environmental Monitoring for Public Access
and Community Tracking (EMPACT) —The
EMPACT Program specifically addresses the
lack of current and reliable local environmental
information that is available to people. EMPACT
helps communities provide their residents with
current and accurate information about local
environmental conditions. Local governmental
agencies are key partners in all EMPACT
projects, which also include partners from many
levels of government, the private sector and
academia. The 34 projects in 84 cities had over
225 partners as of January 2000. The program
funds projects that provide people with the local
environmental information they want, requires
local governmental agencies to be full partners
in every funded project, and requires projects to
develop and implement strategies for local
stakeholder participation in every project.
EMPACT also fosters public participation by
engaging local partners in all technical meetings
and by convening meetings specifically focused
on their needs. Additional information is
available at [http://www.epa.gov/empact/
index.htm].
Four recently initiated activities have the
potential to improve the Agency's public
participation efforts:
Community Involvement University — The
EPA Superfund program is one of the Agency's
programs that has regional staff who work
directly with citizens in communities. The
growing sophistication of communities around
Superfund sites challenges the skills of these
staff members every day. If they have difficulty
communicating and establishing positive
relationships with the communities, the fallout
can be very stressful for all concerned, affecting
not only a community's views of EPA, but also
the cost and pace of clean-up. To develop a
more coordinated and comprehensive approach
to training community involvement staff
members, the Superfund program is establishing
"Community Involvement University" (CIU) to
provide EPA Superfund staff with meaningful,
professional training in the art and science of
working with communities. The curriculum will
include building and enhancing skills in such
areas as communications/outreach, organizing/
conducting/facilitating public meetings, dealing
with difficult people, establishing rapport,
working with diverse populations, negotiating,
and a variety of technical topics. This program
should ensure that community involvement staff
members nationwide have the same opportuni-
ties to develop and enhance their community
involvement related skills as they do to increase
their technical knowledge. The two skills sets
will enable them to better explain technical
issues to the public and should improve
participation opportunities for the public.
Science in Environmental Decision-Making
— Because members recognized the Agency's
increased emphasis on stakeholder involvement
in decision-making, the Executive Committee of
EPA's Science Advisory Board (SAB) is
currently conducting a series of workshops to
learn how science can best be used in
stakeholder involvement processes. The Board
also is examining whether the Agency is
providing the infrastructure to support needed
science. The workshops feature reports on
recent uses of science in stakeholder processes
and structured discussions with Agency staff
and members of the public about how science is
actually reviewed and used in stakeholder
processes. Based on the workshops and their
experience, the SAB may provide the Adminis-
trator with a report identifying best practices and
research needs associated with the use of
science in stakeholder decision processes.
Community Risk Assessment Workshops —
The Office of Research and Development's
Office of Science Policy continues to hold
workshops designed to bring together scientists,
community practitioners, and EPA risk
assessors to discuss complex multi-source
assessments conducted in community settings,
such as urban environments. The workshops
provide an opportunity (1) to develop a better
understanding of how community assessments
are different from traditional risk assessments;
(2) to identify existing Agency experience
through case studies and scientific tools and
databases that support community assess-
ments; and (3) to preliminarily outline where
-------
Engaging the American People
improvements could be made. Three workshops
have been conducted since March 1999. The
first examined Agency experiences to identify
and clarify community assessment issues, i.e.,
questions asked in a community. The second
workshop inventoried and evaluated existing
Agency tools and methodologies that might be
used to address the questions in community
assessments. The third explored focusing the
tools to serve communities and evaluated
potential Community Assessment products.
Based on information gathered in the work-
shops, the steering committee is now develop-
ing products to help integrate science to support
community risk assessments.
Information Products Bulletin (IPB) — In May
2000, a workgroup began developing a list of
upcoming significant information products in
development at EPA - the IPB. The workgroup
includes representatives from major program
offices, regions and the states. The workgroup's
task is to ensure that EPA information products
are useful, that data are incorporated into these
products and those data are presented in an
appropriate context. The IPB will provide pre-
publication notification of information products,
and, in some cases, identify opportunities for
stakeholder involvement.
OVERALL CONCLUSIONS
After conducting its review, the Workgroup
developed five general conclusions:
1. The 1981 Policy and Part 25 Regulations are
still valid but do not incorporate new statutes
or public participation innovations
2. The 1981 Policy and the Part 25 Regulations
have not been adequately publicized inter-
nally or externally; EPA and its co-
implementors have not consistently
implemented them. Across the Agency and
among co-implementors there are opportuni-
ties to improve consistency.
3. New participation techniques and information
technologies provide the Agency with
opportunities to involve the public and
challenges to reach both those who have and
those who lack Internet access.
4. Few centralized tools or resources are
available to aid EPA staff and Agency
partners in engaging the public.
5. Streamlining decision-making should not
preclude meaningful public participation.
These conclusions led to a series of recommen-
dations which are the basis for a list of
suggested actions. The recommendations and
suggested actions are described in the following
two sections.
OVERALL RECOMMENDATIONS
The Workgroup identified five recommendations
for Agency consideration. Some of the
recommendations are resource-dependent.
With continued reductions in budgets, the
Agency will need to consider whether the
recommendations are viable within today's fiscal
realities, and with the availability of management
and staff to design, implement, and manage
projects or programs. The conclusions listed
above and the recommendations provided below
do not have a "one-to-one" correlation. Several
recommendations address numerous issues/
observations listed in the conclusions. A
description of associated benefits follows each
recommendation.
5.1 Short-Term Recommendations
(3-12 months)
1a. Revise the 1981 Policy to reflect the
additional statutes EPA now
administers, technological changes,
and procedural advances
The Policy should reference statutes and
recognize the new technological and participa-
tion techniques now available. It should also
address more explicitly the issue of "matching
the forum to the fuss" by incorporating the range
of public participation processes and stressing
the importance of early notification and good
-------
EPA Public Participation Policy Review Workgroup
planning for public participation programs. A
key element to making the Policy viable will be
to structure the text so that managers and
officials have the flexibility to encourage
stewardship, promote voluntary and incentive-
based efforts, use reward-based compliance,
and encourage public participation during all
phases of a decision, from the beginning stages
to project close out.
1b. When issuing the Draft 2000 Public
Involvement Policy for comment, the
Administrator should direct that all
offices and regions begin immediately
to:
1. give increased attention to implementing
and enforcing associated procedures and
requirements;
2. use the Draft 2000 Policy as guidance
pending final action following public
review and comment;
3. ensure that the Part 25 Regulations, and
other statutory and regulatory public
participation requirements are being fully
implemented;
4, develop means to track and measure
progress; and
5. evaluate the effectiveness of public
participation activities.
EPA can enhance public participation by raising
awareness of the details within the Policy, Part
25 and other regulations, and making greater
efforts to ensure that the procedures contained
within these documents are followed. The EPA
as a whole, and each program office, needs to
establish performance measures for public
participation activities and evaluate performance.
They should also take additional steps, if
necessary, to assure compliance with
associated procedures and requirements.
The Administrator should underscore the
Policy's importance by regularly highlighting
participation activities during senior staff
sessions. The Administrator's 2000 Draft
Public Involvement Policy transmittal memo to
EPA senior managers and staff should:
• direct that each region and office with
programs requiring public participation
establish measures and evaluate perfor-
mance against those measures at least
annually, beginning September 30, 2001;
• encourage National Program Managers to
include public participation measures in
Memoranda of Agreements with regions and
to discuss with regions how to encourage
delegated program officials (states, tribes
and local governments) to implement public
participation requirements;
• establish responsibility in the Office of
Policy, Economics and Innovation for gather-
ing information and annually reporting
implementation of the Po//cyand Regulations
to the Deputy Administrator, beginning
October 31, 2001, to ensure tracking of the
public participation activities;
• be copied to all employees via electronic
mail.
Benefits: Having a revised Policy presents the
opportunity to stress the expectations for and
importance of public participation in future
environmental and public health decisions.
These actions would reinforce the Agency's
commitment to public access and participation
and ongoing improvements, and enable the
Administrator to demonstrate a personal
investment in promoting effective public
participation. Successes can be documented
and applied to GPRA requirements.
l_ead Office: Office of Policy, Economics and
Innovation in cooperation with the Genera!
Counsel's Conflict Prevention and Resolution
Center and the public access organizations
within the Office of Environmental Information.
2. Enhance EPA's Regulatory Agenda on
the Agency's web site; explore ways
to improve it so it becomes a better
tool for public participation; provide
an Internet gateway to participation
information useful to EPA's regulatory
partners and potential and current
stakeholders.
The Regulatory Agenda is the Agency's primary
communications tool for informing the public
-------
Engaging the American People
about regulations which are under development
in the near term. Some people feel it is a
difficult tool for citizens groups, small busi-
nesses and less Internet-knowledgeable
stakeholders to access and understand. The
entries in the Agenda do not inform the public
about what type of public participation the
Agency might be considering or when that
process would occur. The Office of Manage-
ment and Budget controls the content and
format of the bulk of the Agenda which is now
posted on EPA's web site in a searchable
format. [http://yosemite1 .epa.gov/smallbus.nsf]
EPA prepares a preamble to part of the Federal
Regulatory Agenda. The Office of Policy,
Economics and Innovation can use the preamble
to explain to stakeholders how best to read and
understand the Regulatory Agenda. The
preamble should help the public understand how
to identify those rules that are likely to:
• have the most significant impact nationwide
(i.e., be most costly to implement);
• have the most significant impact on small
entities (i.e., impose a significant impact
on a substantial number of small entities);
• impact specific industrial sectors in a direct
way; and
• impact state, local, and tribal governments.
The preamble can note that annually the
Regulatory Agenda includes the Agency's
Regulatory Plan which provides more detail
regarding economically significant (i.e., rules
anticipated to have an annual impact in excess
of $100 million) and other priority rules, including
a discussion of risks, alternatives under
consideration, and the costs and benefits of the
rules in the Plan. This action could also provide
better opportunity for early resource planning
and research on the part of stakeholder groups.
Those exploring how they might become
involved in environmental decision-making in
EPA programs, state or local decisions have no
centralized place to start their search.
Enhancing the [http://www.epa.gov/stakehold-
ers] website to become a gateway to participa-
tion related information would serve the public's
need for a road map to point them to appropriate
opportunities and contacts for the specific
issues of interest.
Benefits: These improvements would make it
easier for the public to understand the rules
under development and which of those rules are
the most significant or important to them. The
public could then communicate with the program
contacts to obtain information about specific
rules and to identify appropriate opportunities for
involvement. These actions would demonstrate
EPA's leadership and initiative in providing useful
information to the interested and directly
affected public. A well-publicized Internet
gateway site to environmental and public health
data and information and participation tools of
federal, state and tribal agencies would enhance
stakeholders' ability to participate in related
decisions.
Lead Office: Office of Policy, Economics and
Innovation.
3. Develop database and list tools: a)
create a prototype stakeholder
database for Agency use; b) maintain
a centralized, shareable "key national
stakeholders" database for Agency
use; c) explore options for developing
a secure, Web-facilitated process for
qualified stakeholders to "sign-up" for
the centralized list; d) develop process
for centralized sign on to Agency
listserves.
a. Create a prototype stakeholder database
for Agency use - A frequent complaint of
commenters was that the Agency does
not have a centralized means of
accessing key national stakeholders for
a variety of public participation efforts.
Agency technical staff have limited time,
expertise and resources for identifying
stakeholders without such a list. A
centralized database that can be
accessed Agency-wide is a proposed
solution. Access to the database could
be limited to ensure compliance with the
Privacy Act and related concerns. The
Office of Communications, Education
-------
EPA Public Participation Policy Review Workgroup
and Media Relations (OCEMR) is
currently developing such a database.
b. Maintain a centralized, shareable "key
national stakeholders" database for
Agency use - OCEMR, which
incorporates public liaison functions for
the Office of the Administrator, is the
appropriate organization to maintain and
assure appropriate internal access to a
centralized national key stakeholder
database. At the same time, each
program office and region will need to
continue to maintain the specialized lists
of stakeholders and contacts appropriate
to their functions and responsibilities.
However, to facilitate list sharing and
merging on a case by case basis, list
owners would be encouraged to use the
database program developed centrally.
c. Explore options for developing a secure,
Web-facilitated process for qualified
stakeholders to "sign-up" for centralized
list - To ensure that the Agency's
stakeholder lists are current, broad and
inclusive, EPA should provide an
opportunity on EPA's website for
organizations to sign-up. For example,
on the website applicants might see a
note informing them that inclusion on the
list is not automatic- there will be a
verification process after sign-up to
ensure that the information provided is
complete and correct and to ensure that
the organization represented by this
individual is a stakeholder in the issues
indicated. It may also be possible to
enable organizations to access their
information for "updating" purposes. If an
appropriate process can be established,
the list could include self-identified
stakeholders who might otherwise be
overlooked. Those listed could share
some of the burden for keeping the list
current.
d. Streamline process for centralized sign
on to Agency listserves - The Agency
maintains an impressive array of
newsletters and listserves on a host of
critical topics. To ensure that all
appropriate parties know about these
information venues, they will be
prominently listed on the Agency Web
pages with a clear and simple
explanation or form for applying to
receive the desired information.
Benefits: Agency personnel would be able to
quickly identify stakeholder organizations to
inform, contact or involve in Agency grants,
projects, decisions or actions. Centralized lists
could enable staff to speed participation process
planning. Stakeholder organizations would more
easily find the information and opportunities for
participation that they desire and be able to
register their interest(s) easily in one place on-
line.
Lead Office: Website content and database
maintenance: Office of Communications,
Education and Media Relations; List Serve &
Newsletters updates in all appropriate program/
regions with list serves.
4. Issue and promote "Public
Involvement in Environmental Permits:
A Reference Guide" and The "Better
Decisions Through Consultation and
Collaboration Manual;" provide and
promote training to support them and
to better prepare communities to
participate in environmental decision-
making.
Commenters and EPA Workgroup members
noted the need for consistency in implementing
the 2000 Policy and Part 25 Regulations. These
new tools should be widely distributed, shared
on the Internet, and used as the basis for
training both staff and delegated program
partners. They can then move EPA and its
program partners toward more consistent
processes and clearer understanding of what is
required and what is optional in public participa-
tion. Establishing a train-the-trainer effort to
share the information in the two new manuals
could speed delivery to staff across the Agency,
and simplify delivery to delegated programs'
staff.
-------
Engaging the American People
Benefits: EPA staff and delegated program
partners would understand that a wide array of
options is available for involving the public, know
more about how to "match the forum to the
fuss," and know when public participation is
required and when it is not. The training would
enhance the Agency's (and partners') capabili-
ties, timeliness, effectiveness, and efficiency
when engaging the public. Stakeholders and
the public at large would have more consistent
opportunities to participate nationwide.
lead Offices: Office of the General Counsel's
Conflict Prevention and Resolution Center/Office
of Policy, Economics and Innovation, in
cooperation with permits staff in all media
programs and regions.
5.2 Long-Term Recommendations
(1-3 years)
5 . The Administrator should charge the
Reinvention Action Council (RAC),
through a cross-agency workgroup,
with developing a Strategic Plan in
2001, and leading its implementation.
That Plan should be designed to:
• ensure full implementation of the revised
Public Involvement Policy;
• enhance Agency-wide public
• participation;
• track and report progress to the Agency
and to the public; and
• ensure that actions recommended in this
strategy are consistent with and
complement the Agency's Public Access
Strategy.
This document provides suggested actions that
the group should consider and recommenda-
tions that the group's Plan should carry out.
Benefits: Having an in-place infrastructure that
encourages and supports effective public access
to and participation in the Agency's decision-
making processes will build and reinforce public
trust in those decisions. It will also reduce time,
staff and budget resources needed to resolve
confusion, complaints, disputes and litigation.
Lead Office: Supporting the RAC's workgroup -
Office of Policy, Economics and Innovation
Additional Information for the RAC's Workgroup:
a. During development of the Strategic Plan for
Public Participation, specific and critical
cross-agency services and program-based
activities will continue as resources allow.
The status of the following activities should
be reflected in the Plan:
1. maintaining and promoting Agency-wide
access to a network of trained neutral
parties to assist in dispute resolution
and public participation facilitation (Office
of the General Counsel's Conflict
Prevention and Resolution Center lead);
2. building and implementing a coordinated
program for EPA and delegated program
staff development in public participation
awareness, tools and techniques, using
current training services and materials
and, if required, developing new materials
and enlisting new services;
3. continuing support for research and pilot
testing of innovative participation
techniques and sharing results of such
research (Office of Policy, Economics
and Innovation lead);
4. developing or expanding mechanisms
and using technology to build the
capacity of organizations, individuals and
communities (particularly low income
and minority) to effectively participate in
EPA decision-making processes (Office
of Environmental Justice lead);
5. establishing and maintaining
mechanisms for EPA staff to share
participation information, success
stories, training opportunities, research
on new or improved techniques and
generally provide assistance to one
another;
-------
EPA Public Participation Policy Review Workgroup
6. implementing current and planned public
participation activities; and
7. supporting implementation of the Public
Access Strategy.
b. The RAC's cross-agency workgroup
developing the Strategic Plan for Public
Participation should ensure that the Plan
addresses continuing actions to:
1. Build capacity in public participation
skills in EPA staff, co-regulators and
stakeholders through training, greater
access and wider distribution of existing
and new materials on public participation
and decision-making.
While the RAC's workgroup develops the
Strategic Plan, all practicable internal and
external capacity building activities should
continue. Ideally, specific public participation
skills training can be offered widely to EPA and
co-regulators' staff. The Agency and its
partners would learn how to work more
effectively with the public and use public input to
promote environmental well-being and equity.
However, since resources are scarce for this
type of activity, the RAC's workgroup should
work with the originating offices to promote and
distribute existing and newly developed training
materials (such as the "Public Involvement in
Environmental Permits: A Reference Guide" the
"Better Decisions Through Consultation and
Collaboration Manual," and "The Constructive
Engagement Resource Guide"), case studies,
lessons learned, guidances and resource
materials to Agency training programs (the
National Enforcement Training Institute, the
Watershed Academy, Community Involvement
University, the Environmental Justice Training
Collaborative, and other EPA and co-regulator
training programs) and to EPA, state, local and
tribal partners. The RAC's workgroup can work
across EPA to help promote and coordinate
training offerings and to improve access to these
informational materials within EPA, its co-
regulators and stakeholders. In 1999 the Office
of Policy and Reinvention established a
"Stakeholders" page on EPA's Internet and
Intranet sites to provide information to Agency
employees and the public. These sites can be
used to provide all available training materials
directly or through links to other sites, (also see
recommendation 3).
To expand individual and community capacity,
EPA could assist local libraries and others
serving rural, remote, or low-income communi-
ties by providing expanded access to EPA web-
based materials and publicizing the
stakeholders website. In September 2000,
EPA's Office of Policy, Economics and
Innovation sponsored an online dialogue to
examine whether and how partnerships with
libraries might serve to improve communities'
and individuals' access to and use of web-based
environmental information for related decision-
making. The "conversations " that occurred
during this event will remain accessible at [http:/
/www.network-democracy.org/epa] and the
results will be shared across the Agency.
Lead Office: Office of Policy, Economics and
Innovation in cooperation with the Office of the
General Counsel's Conflict Prevention and
Resolution Center, Office of Environmental
Justice, and the Office of Environmental
Information.
2. Work in program offices, and with
states, tribes and other co-regulators to
improve public participation in delegated
programs, with particular emphasis on
core processes such as permitting.
As the RAC's workgroup develops the Strategic
Plan, EPA media programs should urge and
assist delegated programs to implement public
participation requirements of the Agency
consistently. Better coordination and a more
consistently applied policy will result in across-
the-board improvements in environmental
decision-making as a result of good public
participation. EPA must continue to identify
methods and opportunities for enhancing
participation and ensuring greater consistency
among those managing Agency programs.
Release of "Public Involvement in Environmental
-------
Engaging the American People
Permits: A Reference Guide" late in the summer
of 2000 provided an opportunity to develop pilot
projects involving states, tribes, and local
governments with delegated permitting authority
in efforts to improve public participation.
The Permitting Action Plan commits the Agency
to evaluating public participation procedures
related to permits, and to assessing the need for
changes in related policies, procedures, rules
and statutes. Pilot projects with partners in
permitting would inform the assessment/
evaluation. The Agency needs to identify and
use performance measures which encourage
collaboration with the public. The Offices of
Intergovernmental Activities, General Counsel
and Inspector General, as well as representa-
tives of delegated programs should participate in
methods and measures development and
piloting. To enhance accountability for public
participation, EPA should share the agreed-upon
performance measures with all programs,
regions, co-regulators and the public. Such
efforts will need funding and will require strong
management support to gain and retain the
cooperation of co-regulators to fully implement
public participation.
Lead Office: Office of Policy, Economics and
Innovation with the Office of The General
Counsel's Conflict Prevention and Resolution
Center and the Office of Regional Operations.
3. Determine whether to update/modernize
Part 25 Regulations or repeal them and
rely on the 2000 Policy.
The Part 25 Regulations are procedures, not
regulations in the true sense. New statutes and
changes to existing statutes have been adopted
since EPA issued Part 25 in 1979. Today, many
programs rely on other program-specific public
participation rules for many of their activities.
Likewise, new procedures, programs, and tools
have become available to the Agency that may
need to be captured as requirements or
suggested actions to create a consistent but
flexible process for engaging the public across
all EPA programs. The RAC's workgroup and
Regulatory Steering Committee should jointly
determine whether having the 2000 Policy and
new capacity building efforts in place will
preclude need for Part 25 revision. (The "Next
Generation in Permitting" action plan commits
the Agency to such an evaluation of procedures,
policies, rules and statues related to permits.)
If the workgroup and Committee determine that
revision is necessary, they should work to obtain
the staff and funds necessary to support a
workgroup charged with thoroughly reviewing the
regulations and determining whether each of the
statutes since 1979 should be covered by the
Part 25 Regulations. Based on these more
detailed analyses, the Agency may conclude
that other regulations and policies shou.a be
revised or amended, as necessary and
appropriate, to provide consistency with the Part
25 Regulations. The status and schedule for
Part 25 related actions should be reflected in the
Strategic Plan.
Lead Office: Office of Policy, Economics and
Innovation in cooperation with the Office of the
General Counsel and its Conflict Prevention and
Resolution Center.
4. Coordinate dissemination of equipment
and training to enable under-served
communities to have access to, and
receive benefits from, EPA web-based
information.
If EPA develops and continues to extend web-
based information technology and capacity to
participate without addressing technology
deficits in low-income and/or minority communi-
ties, then these communities will find them-
selves at an even greater information
disadvantage while others move ahead.
Increasing the availability of equipment, on-line
and other training, and information to stakehold-
ers would leverage existing Agency and other
federal resources, improve opportunities for
communities to participate in the decision-
making process, and help close the digital
divide. The workgroup may be able to explore
new means to coordinate the process of
surplussing equipment to schools and libraries.
Further, the workgroup may be able to build on
-------
EPA Public Participation Policy Review Workgroup
the efforts of the Environmental Justice Training
Collaborative (EJTC), a national network of EPA
staff working in partnership with stakeholders to
develop environmental justice education tools,
meet critical information needs, and facilitate
dialogue to advance environmental justice.
During the Strategy development process, it
may be possible to explore means to develop
and establish a program of volunteer assistance
by EPA computer-literate employees. These
employees could volunteer to provide training in
the use of surplussed computers, EPA web-
based materials, and other environmental/public
participation-focused software in libraries and
schools in low income and/or minority
communities and for tribes. Another option
would be to seek private sector partners that
develop, distribute or maintain computer
hardware and software systems to work with
such communities and tribes.
Lead Office: Office of Environmental Justice with
the Office of Policy, Economics and Innovation.
5. Through the Public Access Strategy
(once released), improve public access
to environmental information and
enhance public participation.
In the Public Access Strategy, the Agency will
be defining approaches for identifying stakehold-
ers and gathering feedback from them as crucial
elements of public access. The Strategy will
identify major issues associated with impedi-
ments to timely and open public access (e.g.,
data security and confidentiality, data quality,
technology capabilities and the "digital divide")
and guide the Agency in approaching these
issues. Outlined within the Strategy will be the
internal roles and responsibilities on public
access and methods for coordinating cross-
Agency efforts. Implementing the Public
Access Strategy will be an important Agency-
wide effort requiring cooperation and leveraging
of available resources. A clear and innovative
Public Access Strategy will be a strong
foundation on which to build the Public
Participation Strategy recommended in this
report.
Lead Office: Office of Environmental Information.
SUGGESTED ACTIONS FOR IMPLE-
MENTING THE RECOMMENDATIONS
To ensure coordinated action and the ability to
leverage that action across the Agency, it is
critical that the Administrator charge the
Reinvention Action Council, through a cross-
agency workgroup, with developing a Strategic
Plan for Public Participation. Through that group
the following specific actions should be
considered for inclusion in the Strategic Plan:
a. building and implementing a coordinated
program for staff development in public
participation awareness, tools and
techniques, using current training outlets
(NETI, Watershed Academy, Learning
Institute) and materials ("Better Decisions
Through Consultation and Collaboration
Manual,"" Public Involvement in
Environmental Permits: A Reference Guide,"
"The Constructive Engagement Resource
Guide," Suggested Actions in Report to the
Administrator on Public Participation, fact
sheets/tips, etc) and, if required, developing
new outlets and materials;
b. making such staff development training
available to delegated program partners;
c. providing clarification for staff and the
American people on when public participation
in EPA decision-making is a requirement and
when it is at the Agency's discretion
(completion of summaries of all statutes,
regulations, executive orders, and associated
materials - OGC lead);
d. providing clarification for state, tribal and
local government partners and the American
people on when public participation in EPA's
delegated programs' decision-making is a
requirement and when it is at the partners'
discretion (OGC lead);
e. if necessary after revising the Policy and
expanding training in its implementation,
-------
Engaging the American People
coordinating revision, of the Part 25
Regulations to reflect technology
improvements, the enhancement of
participation tools and programs, and the
expansion of EPA's regulatory authority
(OGC/OPEI led workgroup);
f. advocating the benefits of early, clearly
defined, and easily accessed participation
opportunities for stakeholders and interested
citizens (OPEI lead);
g. establishing and maintaining a network of
internal and external public participation
practitioners and delegated program partners
through:
1. centrally updating internal and external
network lists on a continuing basis
(OCEMR and OGC/CPRC leads);
2. convening annual meetings of the
network, with rotating lead responsibility,
through the EPA Community Involvement
Conference;
3. documenting successful practices and
procedures, and sharing them through
the Stakeholder web site;
4. sharing participation tools developed in
any EPA program with all programs
through the EPA Intranet and, as
appropriate, the Internet (OGC-CPRC/
OPEI lead);
h. maintaining and promoting appropriate
Agency-wide access to a network of trained
neutral parties to assist in dispute resolution
and early involvement facilitation through a
contract (OGC-CPRC);
i. maintaining for internal use, a centralized
and searchable database of organizations
and individuals involved in EPA public
participation activities (OPEI/OCEMR/OGC
lead);
j. continuing to support testing of innovative
participation techniques and sharing results
of such research (OPEI lead);
k. establishing a public participation innovations
award to be given at the National Awards
Ceremony only when an office or region
meets rigid criteria;
I. developing a plain language handbook to
serve as a road map for the public on how to
participate in EPA decision-making, including
statutory and regulatory provisions that
specifically address public participation, as
well as the various other ways in which
someone could get involved in an Agency
decision-making process;
m.developing a public participation "tool-kit" to
help ensure full implementation and
compliance of the Public Involvement Policy,
Part 25 Regulations and other requirements
for EPA staff and co-regulators;
n. developing or expanding mechanisms to
build the capacity of organizations,
individuals and communities to effectively
participate in EPA decision-making
processes through:
1. cataloging and sharing both internally
and externally the in-place mechanisms
(EMPACT, TAG model, XL communities
model, CBEP, tribal multimedia grants,
sustainable development, National
Estuary Programs, etc.) and funding for
capacity building;
2. ensuring that criteria and processes for
obtaining technical assistance or funding
are in plain language and made available
in a variety of formats (electronic, fax,
print by written or toll-free telephone
request);
3. increasing opportunities for low-income
and/or minority communities and tribes
to benefit from EPA web-based
information by:
• exploring ways to surplus equipment
so that one-half of all EPA
deaccessioned computers (meeting
set specifications) can be serviced,
donated, and delivered to schools/
libraries or nonprofit organizations that
serve such communities and tribes;
• enabling the Office of Environmental
Justice to coordinate with other federal
-------
EPA Public Participation Policy Review Workgroup
, agencies, including the Departments of
Agriculture, Interior, ComrnerSe and
Education, and private entities to
provide Internet access to communities
and tribes and to enhance participation
in environmental decision-making;
• encouraging EPA program and re-
gional office staff who are computer-
literate to volunteer to provide and/or
develop appropriate training in the use
of computers, EPA web-based mate-
rial, and other environment/public
participation focused software and
curricula in libraries and schools in low
income and/or minority communities
and tribes; and
• assisting in the development of
partnership agreements with leading
private sector software and computing
equipment companies for providing
technical assistance to enhance
training and equipment surplussing and
maintenance.
4. providing written summaries of
participation options and making them
available on the web site, through
partners, public libraries and direct
requests, and in other languages, when
appropriate (e.g., in linguistically isolated
populations, neighborhoods where
English is not the dominant language, or
when there is an imminent health or
environmental hazard.);
5. providing communities with tools to
assess their own environmental and
public health needs, and to access and
analyze EPA decision-making processes
to determine those which may assist
them and how to effectively participate in
those processes;
6. establishing a national award to be given
to an organization or community for
effective public participation that makes
a difference in EPA decision-making
(criteria to be developed);
7. highlighting results of an on-line dialog
with librarians, community organizations
and others to determine the potential for
libraries to become partners in
information provision on environmental
decision-making (OPEI lead - September
18-29, 2000);
8. supporting pilot projects in communities
that wish to test the EPA-libraries
partnership envisioned in (7) (OPEI lead)
o. compiling and reviewing past evaluations of
EPA initiatives that have included significant •
public participation/stakeholder involvement
components to determine:
1. what the Agency has been doing
effectively;
2. what the Agency should be doing more
of; and
3. the special issues various program
offices should consider before developing
or revising.public participation/
stakeholder involvement initiatives.
p. enhancing the Stakeholder website so it will,
become a gateway to information that can
assist individuals and organizations to
participate in environmental decision-making
by providing links to:
1. EPA program and information resource
sites;
2. glossaries of environmental terminology;
3. data sites with local information (such
as TRI, Airlinks, Surf Your Watershed);
4. state environmental and health
agencies;
5. other federal sites with data or
information;
6. Federal Register Notices and Regulatory
Agenda;
7. EPA and other environmental education
materials;
8. federal government's local governments
gateway and nonprofit gateway.
q. review and evaluate the effects of
streamlining and reinvention efforts on public
participation.
-------
Engaging the American People
The challenge for watershed planning efforts and community
based environmental protection is to invigorate local support by
addressing local problems, but doing so in a coordinated manner
that enhances mutual benefits and makes progress on regional
problems."
Thomas Webler, Social and Environmental Research Institute
-------
Appendix A
-------
Engaging the American People
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
-------
EPA Public Participation Policy Review Workgroup
Appendix A
Charts of Public Participation Requirements
in Key Agency Programs
The following tables provide a summary of public participation requirements for select programs
managed by the Agency. The Appendix does not list every regulation for every program; however, as
examples, the tables demonstrate both a) the diverse range of requirements implemented by program
offices, and b) how different laws and regulations are often interwoven within programs to establish
broad opportunities for public engagement.
Because the programs are diverse, the following tables do not provide information in a consistent
manner. Rather, each table reflects the specific requirement, by statute, as appropriately contained
in corresponding regulations. For the Clean Water Act and the Safe Drinking Water Act, the Office of
Water fully implements the Part 25 Regulations. (See Appendix D).
-------
2
c-
^
i
a1
c
o
•s
C5
.2-
'3
1
rt
CL,
3
ft,
Ul
~
«
3
e
e
c.
in
Ct
-"8-L
3 .2 .e
a « —
a. Z o
= M g
.2 .£ |
3 |
8 1
< s
•- a
A C
3 "^
I.
2 11
III
C«
u c
.« U
11
CL. g
U
s
_o
s c3
ja u
3 C
a. —
o
Z
'Si ">>
if
Q«
CJ
Ct
3
•f
"u
-3n
Air Pro]
c
.2 c
"•3 O
•§ ''S
OB «•
^
Clean Air Ac
Section
1
1
„,
>•
0
Z
o
Z
1
ID
1103 Research
Activities
0
*
„,
>•
0
Z
0
.8
u
104 Research
Related to Fuels
and Vehicles
>
o
n
>•
0
Z
0
^
w
CO
g
£.b'^
•*• 3 J2
S <- D.-O
C O e J- en
2 C .2 c E
0 S.J3 8 e
S §-=5"§ 2
— • w d< rt Q<
O
Z
>-
,„
>•
^
1
.g
H
ffl
1107 Air Quality
Control Regions
o
o
Z
>
^
o
Z
8
OJ
108 Air Quality
Criteria and
Control
Techniques
N
1
o
o,
§"
- Q
O
I
o
H
H
o
a
a
>,
^
o
Cb
LU
_
-------
c a
o 3
r S
•- =
35 o
jg
Q.
O
c
(0
o §•
5 tc
O) £«
= a
111 CO
V)
3
VI
e
o
a.
S
o>
CJ
U ° T_
is 1 1
3 ^ —
0 .S e
'5 12 Sj
o
S |
H "S
< S
3 c
a.
c> ~
t3 *^
""^ « ££1
.H o s
1 « a
£ -« 4)
S
55
S
*M ft*
2 =
£ I-
O
c
0
u *^
w a
3 IS
IS
Z
-K £>
M
04
.Si '
;>
i
a
Air Progr
! j
"3 5
^ U
Clean Air Act
Section
o
1
.8
8
"""
8
>•
a
109 National
Primary and
Secondary
Ambient Air
Quality Standards
o
Z
8
1
1
8
•>"
8
>•
b
_f
on"
of
W5 SO
03
C- 00
y £
§ ?
C
po
3
2 g
2 S
OC •
1
1
8
8.
>•
H
of
[if
•R Parts 60,
1, and 49
S "^
o
1
1
J3
SB
>"
u.
j
H
orf
a"
•R Parts 61,
1, 63, and
O Cs" OO
T -rj- so
1.12 Hazardous
Air Pollutants
o
Z
1
>
8
8
^*
t-
oJ
«
CU u-i
0 g
o —
TT u-i
113 Federal
Enforcement
•c
o
I
C
3
O
Cw
a.
o
O
o
"03
.5
H
H
s"
5
J]
S
on
£
I
u.
<
a
Cd
2
Q
-------
c a
o
a.
2
LLJ
u
a.
o
0)
Q.
C
•g)
CA
|o
"w
e
e
Q.
-
•2 _
"3
••= i «
3 tS 5
B. -a o
C M g
0 .= C
PI
0
a §
o •—
II
3 ~
CU
u
l||
_i^i >C tS
•S o o
al -^ cj
^^ CQ ^J
GO
CJ S
.« u
3 g
CU S
u
c
_o
15 CQ
*3 IS
cu -
e
Z
it
a;
CA
O
*>
T3
2
^j
5
c
e c
— 0
R *^
•3 «
|C
y
Clean Air A
Section
o
2:
o
£
o
Z
o
o
Z
H"
GO"
(if
oC
| J
o — " o"
•3- m oo
•O "* ,-n
£• c g)
Iff If
o
Z
o
Z
1
0
o
Z
o
Z
u.
cu
.a
o
GJ
115 Internation
Air Pollution
>,
83
>
1
1
0
Z
0
Z
M
.a
0
117 Advisory
Committees
o
0
Z
0
o
Z
o
Z
o
Z
H
.ct."
GO"
a"
3
w
C
<£
£00
&"
0 c
•^- «
118 Federal
Facilities
o
Z
o
Z
83
o
Z
83
83
H
GO"
w"
^
•*r
i
§5
o S
•*r .
83
>.
H
GO"
ta"
vO
en
as 5
U- C
^j ca
o t-~"
m
120
Noncomplianci
Penalty
o
Z
S3
o
0
o
Z
0
Z
_J
H
GO"
CD"
-
*2
1
gs
0^
^r oj
c
o
121 Consultati
.o
3
a.
Q
*
o
s
o
;
O
fc,
-------
C
O
'
Q.
3
'•S S
II
O .0
3 "5
3 a.
a.
Hi
_
a.
S
a.
I
D> £v
.£ ra
ra P
™ c
oi E
C 2
UJ (O
U9
CJ
_ •
^
e
o
c.
as
35^
CMg
a B e
•2 I s
Access to
rmation
= <2
J= C
3 •"
O M
•s 2 a.
•—SB
= 1 s
0" « M
u S
.M «J
"• C
3 g
O
o
o 3
— eQ
e. '~
o
Z
3 _
'Z >.
11
8!
CA
^
CJ
Air Progran
o e
» 0
"3 -2
Clean Air Act
Section
o
1
8
&
>
va
>•
1
a.
w"
1
'o
111
o
Z
s
8
tn
>-
CO
>•
1
H
ca"
£
C/l
40 CFR P
and 49
125 Economic
Disruption
o
S
>•
0)
>
tfi
>
1
UJ
j"
co"
8
o
126 Interstate
Pollution
^.
o
8
o
o
Z
S
H
co"
0
News pap
127 Public
Notification
5r
0
1
8
y]
>-
cn
>•
1
UJ
o
<&
en
40 CFR P
and 62
129 Solid Waste
Combustion
0
o
%
o
Z
o
Z
0
UJ
1
130 Emission
Factors
0
1
8
j/J
>-
OT
>«
>
H
1
•c.
40 CFR P
and 49
163 PSD
Increments
0
f
8
M
>-
1
CO
—
C
c_
§1
164 Area
Redesignation
I
O
1
I
o
"S e
1 I
O
6
9
S
H
"e5
o
5
CO
1/1
o
Ss.
-------
_
a.
o
S.
,
o
O.
a.
o
1
a
-------
C Q.
O 3
1 2
ff
O .0
S '"5
3 Q.
a.
ra
o
*
J o
^ Q.
O v
£ Q;
B) £v
.£ TO
« 1
D) E
C 3
LJJ CO
•""
V9
.—
«
IS
1
CJ
u % -u
3 Ifl -M
a, *a o
CA
C OJD u
.2 .5 g
.52 *"^ 3
|l|
o
% o
« 1
< =
u
y O
3 c
3 —
c.
SJ H
-a 2 3»
•— o e
1 ||
Public
Comment
e
_o
11
3 e
'o
z
ty
|1
C£
2
•
1
2
OJO
a.
(U
c
s e
'S e
^a rs
3 2
Clean Air Act
Section
o
z
!>*
Ju
ft
>
S
1
H
c/f
—
eft
1
b 5
O c
•<3* ca
175 A
Maintenance Plans
o
Z
>*
J*J
•
^
O
Z
S
1
u.
Elf
.8
0
1 179 Sanctions
0
Z
o
Z
,&
O
Z
o
1
E-
t/f
Elf
.a •
0
181 Classifications
and Attainment
Dates
0
Z
«3j
^
«
^
?
1
_J
en
in
ca
cu
go;
T C3
182 Plan
Submissions and
Requirements
0
Z
i—
*^f
W
"
JL.
1
cu
0
ea
C.
EL.
o
183 Federal Ozone
Measures
c
3
O
D.
O.
O
O
,D
S
3
c«
>;
LLl
Ed
e
-------
c a
o 3
II
S "5
3 a.
a
tfl
O
is
tfl
c
o
a.
CA
C£
= 1 «
3 t/j ••—
a. -a o
i u 8
e c e
1 «l
2
S _e
a ''i
II
S e
3 —
c.
"3 2 M
3 •§ 3
£li
CO
ti ^3
« C)
S E
= 1
0- 0
0
e
_o
IS 'a
"§ G
3
Z
-3 -
'5 >>
|i
u
VI
^CJ
[?
<
g
2
a.
(L.
C
.s =
^w O
CB !5
"3 5
Clean Air Act
Section
o
Z
>
>
1
CO
>-
„
>•
0,
8
0
184 Control of
interstate ozone
air pollution
o
o
Z
>
o
o
Z
8
>•
UJ
.§
o
186 Classification
and Attainment
Dates - CO
o
>
>
£
yi
>"
8
_J
CO
E-"
MM
r
EX
^ cd
187 Plan
Requirements
o
Z
o
1
0
o
Z
8
>
UJ
.§
o
188 Classification
and Attainment
Dates - PM
o
Z
>
>
>
co
£~
8
>
eo
—
CO
ed
CL,
O C
•a- a
189 Plan
Requirements
o
Z
>
$
>
CO
s-
CO
>-
_1
CO"
E-"
^^
t
ed
a.
04
u.
0
o
191 Plan deadlines
NOx, lead, and
SOx
o
Z
>
1
1
CO
s*
8
>"
U.
uf
oo
CO
cd
Q.
04
U. —
O o
O Os"
•* 00
202 Emission
Standards for New
Motor Vehicles
o
IS
3
C,
O
a
o
w
1
2
a
E- e
3
on
1
-------
c a
O 3
= o
a. o^
if
f 5
ra S
a.
u
^£
a.
^
UJ
ra
u
O) £>
.E n
« 1
o) E
C 3
UJ V)
CA
4J
^
.0
c
o
a.
tf
"3
« S TU
S 1 «
3 V3 *-
a,|0
Decision-
Making
Influence
o
« e
V] 9
If
JS C
3 —
,_
-a 2 So
•g "§ *£
iS
a. o
U
e
0
ii
e
Z
*55 ">»
11
§
;>
u
S
n
k,
DJD
2
a.
u
e e
— 0
n !S
"32
g"y
ll
2 <»
u
0
S
1
83
£
>•
£
0)
as"
2 CM
C OS
£5
LL. o
Tj- CO
s
1
6
s
CM
O
1
1
w
1
1
U3
OO
1 s.
U. 0
CJ OS
O OS
•-3- oo
g "g .2
'§> S, B
M .£ S
vo "35 "C
CM £ U
O
1
1
S
S
1
CD
oo
CU 0
t^) OS
•q- oo
o
Compliance
chicles in u
CM J3
O
O
83
o
Z
0
0
UJ
R Parts 85,
,90,91,92
U. OS
u °°
t^i ^^
•a- oo
Information
ection
0 0
CM O
0
S
Sfi
«
1
1
CD
Os"
00
•c
C. CM
at °\
CL. —
CJ <^
O O
-a- os
a -3
S S3
CO -0
8s
CM on
S
o
Z
1
o
Z
o
I
a.
01
at
u.
O
o
State Grant
0
CM
0
ft
£
V)
1
1
H
c/f
(if
R Parts 69,
, 92, and
[X. O
^3 OS OS
TT [^ -^l-
c*.
a
,o
a>
Oi en
CM tL,
0
1
1
<2
i
83
UJ
Os"
oo
en
1^
CL. —
O 0
?S"
p
111
Sll
50
c
•5
c
3
tL.
o
3 S
1 a2
CM 1
.D
r
•K
1
Q
1/3
>i
g
o
.c
O
U.
-------
c a
o 3
II
It
O P
in
a.
^
UJ
a.
o
S.
_o
1«
< ai
o 5r
5 K
B) >•
r- !s
•S> c
ll
UJ OT
v>
•s
jg
tfl
c
e
a.
£i
U CJ -
is « 1
= .2 -
flu w O
(«
§ e1 «
o c c
;s 2 §
U ™ g;
0
a g
11
_U o
3 e
3 —
c.
u
-a S "M
— ° .£
"§ « 'S
.a 1
^j C
£ 1
o
c
o
o 3
» CQ
•ss
a. •£
o
Z
3 _
'K >>
e ~
g. ,§
a
trt
.M
*>
<
2
Oil
s
e.
e
o e
— o
A *ZI
•3 2
en »•
Clean Air Act
Section
o
o
Z
S
0
Z
o
Z
o
UJ
2 «
o eb
c. c
u o
d 0
12 14PM from
Motor Vehicles
o
Z
1
8
CA
tn
>•
1
UJ
oC
oo
en
^ S
o S
o o"
(11
215HighAltitudi
Adjustments
o
Z
S
8
en
y?
>
>
uj
2 19 Urban bus
Standards
-
o
Z
*
8
8
cn
>
1
UJ
r-
00
CQ
Q_
a*
X
u
0
_
231 Establishmen
of Aircraft
Emission
Standards
o
Z
1
8
eg
CO
>•
8
u.
of
232 Enforcement
of Emission
Standards
o
Z
S
5
8
Cft
>•
8
w
00
00
ca
a.
UL.
U
o
242 Clean Fuel
Vehicles
o
Z
1
S
s
OT
>"
8
UJ
oo
00
C
c_
a.
U
o
rf
243 Standards foi
light-duty clean
fuel vehicles
•g
I
O
a
o
s a
u CN
CJ ^-H
.a ,
o
H e
i «9
H S
J
a
a
C/3
i
W
>l
g
c-
UJ
Ed
-------
<= 4
o sT
a o
it
t 5
5
.o
S
LU
§•
S.
I
'C
0)
|o
« &
£ a:
.
« I
a> E
C«
CJ
1£
*2
c
o
c-
<0
Q!
u | T.
Ill
a. -a o
.2 .B s
o
ll
< E
•- a
S s
3 "•
a.
CJ M
-a 2 3)
— ° .S
*" -2 S
g
.» u
11
a. g
U
e
_o
s ts
a. —
o
Z
°c« ^>
§1
§•£
tt
3
•<
S
2
2
c.
s
o e
— o
es '^
•3 2
Clean Air Ac
Section
o
Z
1
1
1
|j
8
tu
en
"2 >^
1 1
U-, « IS
^! i)
8
a
00
00
C
40 CFR Pi
246 Centrally
Fueled Fleets
0
f
1
8
^
8
m
247 Vehicle
Conversions
0
1
>
>
$•
8
UJ
E
249 California
Pi lot Test Progn
8
8
1
>
1
.8
u
0
ca
40 CFR P
to 99
301
Administration
8
8
>
1
8
1
H
oo"
uf
TJ-
•e
40 CFR P
and 49
C/3
304 Citizen Suit
o
Z
o
1
o
o
Z
o
ia
0 eg
"C °
II
312 Economic
Impact
Analyses
0
1
>
>
8
1
a)
S
1
e3 o
11
317 Economic
Impact
Assessment
•a
c
3
o
15
P
a.
I
O
O
O
.
_j
j
if
S
on
oo
>;
S
u
<
15
•8
£
LU
|<
z
2
o
-------
r
TO
0- >
O P
•-—
S o
a a.
a
LU
c/l
•£
«
(A
S
e
Q.
V]
tt
,
i>
u u -
.« C *•
3 « _g
3 c/i *_.
a. -a o
1 cj
§ r^
1-1
0
1.1
1 1
S £
a e
3 —
a.
o «
.— ^ c
3 -s 'S
•S u e5
a_ ^ a
2 IS
M
u ^
:= a
3 £
&• o
0
B
_0
— a
e. -s
o
Z
|_ ^
D. =
1
t/J
u
<
2
e
.S c
«Z O
p
Clean Air Act
Section
o
Z
f
S
•§
JJ2
$
>H
w
00
nj
0.
ai
U.
(J
o
13 19 Air Quality
Monitoring
0
Z
1
.g
>
>
S
•*
ffl
1
S
320 Standardized
Air Quality
Modeling
0
Z
1 '
S
•^
J~
53
^*
u
RS
a,
U.
0
o
325 Exemptions
for certain
territories
o
Z
S
I
^
;>•
8
"^
H
c/f
U."
(if
CO
1
IL. g
ol
^" C3
328 Outer
Continental Shelf
Activities
0
Z
*
S
>
^
8
^
ffl
c
_o
a""*
1
1402 Noise
Abatement
0
Z
1
>
^
^
83
>"
u
i'l
u. •«•"
CJ r-
§ P
ill t—
1403 Sulfur Dioxidi
allowance Progran
o
Z
1
S
^
^
8
>"
CD
S f^
ed
BM ^O
OS ^
tt. •*
U r-_
O f^i
^- r^-
404 Phase I
sulfur dioxide
requirements
I
JD
a,
,P
o
a.
a.
o
•S O
"
e
2
o
b
p-
td
-------
§ §•
1 2
a o>
f
•E 5
ra 3
3
3 0-
Q.
UJ
ea
•8
O)
as
D) E
C 3
UJ (/}
.g
3
0
a.
OS
o
3 _
a ! -t.
Ill
C SI g
0 = C
•a 2 «
'3 n (2
w S
3 .2
u 2
.u o
A C
3 — '
C-
211
! •§ 'i
55
u §
3 £,
3 =
& 0
CJ
s
S
— "a
3 e
CU '•£
0
Z
•a £>
0. =
a:
3
*>
<
Air Program
e e
— o
s8 ys
"3 5
Clean Air Act
Section
o
.*
8
>
8
8
^M
8
^M
M
pco
C r^
CU *O*
04 ^.
u. •^•
CJ ^
O r*l
405 Phase 11 sulfur
dioxide
requirements
o
Z
1
S
8
8
^«
8
^H
ta
cfgS
S f:
KJ
o« ^o
01 ".
tt. •«•
CJ f~
o m
Tf r^
406 Allowances
for States with
emissions rates at
or below .8
Ibs/mmBtu
0
8
8
1
8
>
8
^*-
UJ
pfS
en t —
CJ <-
o m
407 Nitrogen
oxides emission
reduction program
0
t
8
>
1
8
^-i
8
^i
UJ
rf=S
(£ vo"
o: ""„
0 ^~
O ro
1408 Acid Rain
Permits Program
o
Z
S
8
^
1
8
^•<
8
^«
UJ
P"
CFR Parts
74, 76, 77
O r^l
409 Repowered
Sources
o
Z
>
8
>•
1
8
^«
,
8
>•
(d
p??2
VI f~~
•C r-
«
CL, •*
O r~
o m
4 10 Election of
Additional Sources
-§
o.
o
0.
Q.
O
a
Q
e
Q
0.
UJ
Ed
-------
§§
« §
3
a Q.
Q.
UJ
§•
0)
Q.
ro ,
111 CO
Ifl
^CJ
la
c
o
c*
(/)
CJ
& 1 t
111
£ -a o
i a 1
!5 2 s
I I
u 2
_0 o
3 "•
O.
sit
2 js a
5 -^ «
"•as
en
ti 'S
• M U
2 S
3 S
Q. o
0
e
0
u '^3
2 2
a e
£1* *^
c
Z
"33 £»
**" V5
& a
s
C/l
»•
• M
*-S
u
*<
E
£
c-
L.
e
.o s
eg ^
2 5
2? U
Ctf
Clean Air Act
Section
0
f
w
>
>
S3
8
^
Cxi
iK
CU ^
C^
Ex. •*"
U r-
0 ro"
•^- r-
1411 Excess
Emissions Penalt;
o
Z
1
SQ
>
$
S3
8
^
EX]
cs"
en vrT
•C r=-
Rt
Cd
tt. •*" OO
(j p- r-~
O ro" t-~"
•«r r~ r-
412 Monitoring
Reporting and
Record Keeping
Requirements
0
1
§3
>
1
8
8
^
EX]
r- t"'_
CS
at r"
Ex. ^
O "-
0 m
•^r t—
415 Clean Coal
Technology
regulatory
incentives
0
1
8
8
8
8
^«
EX]
« t*-"
C r-
ed
a, -o
oi t~:
EX, TT
O f~
0 m"
1416 Allowance
Auctions
0
1
1 23
>
8
8
8
^-i
j
E-"
Exf
o"
r-
QH C
c£ ^
Ex. oC
O "I"
0 — "
502 Operating
Permit Programs
o
f
S3
>
8
8
8
>-
H
t/f
Exf
^"^
^ t^
Cd
fT- ^
CJ
o oC
507 Small
Business
Assistance
0
1
S3
>
8
23
S
^H
UJ
CM
OO
cd
ex.
c^
[I*
CJ
o
•a-
602 Listing of
Class I and 11
Substances
•c
o
•a
c
_Q
O,
.2
>%
2
a
5
H
"e3
5
tu
-------
S 2.
o. S1!
o •£
•-E5
« 3
°-
•- =
!a o
3 Q.
a.
UJ
a
o
<£
c
(0
_o
Q)
E '
il
25
C 2
UJ CO
ws
»jj
!5
E
o
o.
CA
U
ct
"3
u *•* "L
A -2 .C
3 CA 4-1
°- a 9
1 = 1
|l|
a s 5
0
CA O
11
•- 5
2 C
3 ~
e.
U «
•a 2 a
— e c
ll'i
a* •* u
IS
u S
i s
= s
&• o
O
e
o
t« *-*3
2 S
s c
0. V=
e
Z
3 _
|1
a:
.
•J-
•j*
'•5
u
"<
S
08
L.
1
•2 i
ja s
"2 2
2» r^
ft!
Clean Air Ac
Section
o
Z
1
8
s
8
>•
8
^H
u
(N
CO
C
CI3
0.
&£
X
O
o
603 Monitoring
and Reporting
Requirements
0
8
8
|>
8
8
^"
u
(N
CO
1
oi
CU
O
o
•a-
u- S3
604 Phase-out o
production and
consumption of
Class I substanci
0
.g
8
g
8
8
^
ua
01
CO
1
Q/
u.
O
o
,,_
605 Phase-out o
Class II
substances
0
1
8
>
8
8
^*
u
C-l
CO
1
g£
u.
O
o
1606 Accelerated
Schedule
o
Z
1
8
s
23
^
8
^
tu
•
8
^M
U
^j. o
I ?
^ I
C/3
C/3
&1
LU
Ed
-------
1 1
.s- j?
p
0- >>
u ^J
lo
3 O.
o.
UJ
.£
§•
i
•
< i.
i^
f ^
D1
C 3
HI CO
Cfl
.(U
5
e
o
0.
(A
O
Oi
CJ
3 _
•3
u c* -
3 .2 J:
a vi *«
^l0
1 £>
§ if!
2 1 s
0
«!
CJ *"*
u g
"u i
3 "5
3 "•
C.
ail
«o *S **
3 *> S^
*• « 3
o S
is i
£ 1-
o
e
_o
— 'S
3 G
S. —
0
Z
•s >>
ll
£
V)
.«
*w
.i
1
Air Prograir
c
0 C
" .2
•3 S
DJO •"
^ W
Clean Air Act
Section
o
1
W
>
o^
^
83
>
S
^H
UJ
cs
OO
1
Oi
u.
O
o
610 Nonessential
products
containing CFC
o
>
OT
>•
!>•
"^
8
•*"
S
^«
UJ
tN
00
C
a.
fT
0
0
.£
O
•§
Co
0
>"
V)
>
£
*
S
"*"
s
^t
u.
al
(N
OO
CQ
a.
U-
0
°
1612 Safe
Alternatives
o
>
S
>•
>•
s
>«
8
>•
UJ
CM
OO
1
LL.
O
O
1613 Federal
Procurement
o
>
VJ
>•
^
S
>'
S3
>>
UJ
CM
00
s
a.
u.
CJ
o
6 1 5 Authority of
Administrator to
control other
ozone depleting
substances
Z
>
?fi
>"
0
Z
8
•^
S
^«
UJ
(N
OO
1
Oi
u.
O
o
61 6 Transfers
among parties to
Montreal Protocol
o
J=
I
CO
c
TJ
JO
S.
O
o,
a.
o
o
o
o
es
Q
-------
C Q.
O 3
12
Q. g>
'o •£
•-E 5
« >
^ >,
•- =
a o
3 O.
Q.
0.
Ill
_C>
a
c
03
U
it
< °
il
s$
D) £
ra 5
ra E
C 3
UJ (/)
O
H
•9
C5
s
a.
2
Cu
0)
u
o
VI
C3
en
o
Ck
SD
-------
a, o»
'
B
S
L.
CU
u
O
u
ctl
en
£
CM
en
u
,«
en
O
I
I
Ctf
02
en
cu
cu
'IS
f
OL
i
u
u
E £
< s.
0) 0)
II
DI E
ro E
D) E
iS W
•§
4J •—
.— *X
"
_
•S «
vS 31
H (2
Cft
•w
15
*35
B
O
O.
VI
&
"3
, u L
CJ fi t*
• M ^ fl\
3 S js
£ *a o
Cft
1 4)
s en u
.2 .S e
.22 -^ 3
8 I 1
0 * 5
B
0
u eft '-S
.S ift 55
•fi u O £
^ < ~ ,1
s
eft
_U **
3 '£
£3 ^
°" £
^
u o
3 £
a C
e* 5
U
B
e
.H '^
"§ e
Cu "-C
e
Z
3 _
It
w (ad
o
ca
OPPTS Program Areas
~
U
o
•M
y
u
••g
I
o
U
•o
ts
en
3
Q
o
o
fa
"ca
•o
S
S
S
S
M
O
CO
C
_O
ta
a
u
IU
ll
o 2
s
s
s
w ,
IS ^^
1 s
."2 o
> 3^
~a .c
C w
S
s
ffl
Ǥ s?
to ^
(2 ^
.1 a
$•§
•—i «
-O u
O X
s
S
S
u
Procedures for Setting
Tolerances for Pesticides in
Food (40 CFR 180)
^
fa
fa
u
cu
denticid
o
•a
a
«T
j Federal Insecticide, FungicuJ
S
UQ
Certification of Pesticide
Applicators (40 CFR 171)
S
S
LU
1 Emergency Use Exemptions
(40 CFR 166)
S
S
s
u.
uf
1 Endangered Species Program
O
O
S §
'
eo
<
O
ti.
Ed
o 01
*
-------
C 0.
O 3
.
o i:
r 5
« 3
Q.
2
111
C '
ra
u
1 1
< °
it
II
C 3
111 CO
W)
2
•«
3
E
o
C.
Eff
OS
"a3
u
•S e aJ
If s
I 4)
S M u
.2" .i c
*U n r*>
** 3 "S
Q 2 JS
S
o
u v} ^3
2 8 o £
s o ** £
*• < £
s
u So
M C
3 "5
s
E
.a «»
S E
s s
D- 5
U
e
^0
is "«
3 '—
e. -s
0
Z
3 ^
1 I"?
II
OPPTS Program Areas
S
S
Experimental Use Permits (40
CFR 172)
S
S
S
u
Hearings - Procedural Rule (40
CFR 164)
S
S
Pesticide Registration and
Classification Procedures (40
CFR 152 & 153)
S
S
s
s
u
o
Procedures for Rescission of
State Primary Enforcement
Responsibility (40 CFR 173)
f
S
S
S
s
to
Registration Standards -
Docketing and Public
Participation Procedures (40
CFR 155)
S
S
S
s
aa
o
^r,
w
§
•o
u
o
2
C-,
.u
1^
— l/->
CO —
l£
oo U
s
S
S
UJ
State Registration of Pesticides
to Meet Special Local Needs
(40 CFR 162)
O
o
if *
U CD
3 a
•J o
S §
3 CM
o
'o
O
"8 S
- Q
I
-------
VI
«
'S
"35
O
c.
CA
u
0
.y B
3 -2 js
a- ~ O
en
1 0)
C5 _ft y
.2 .S e
!5 •** =
U ^3 PM
0, 5; C
Q * 5
s
o
•- «" °ii
3 g o g
8-1 •< £
s
CA
(J M
~ e
3 «
^ ^
e
CJ o
"i g
cu 5
U
s
o
u ~
u: «
•§ G
{X "-S
o
Z
e '-3
3>&il
O)
OS
OPPTS Program Areas
S
S
S
C/3
uT
[if
Worker Protection Standards
(40 CFR 170)
^•f
0,
[Pollution Prevention Act (P
S
S
S
s
a
Pollution Prevention Grant
Program
S
S
s
s
u
- Environmental Justice
Through Pollution Prevention
S
S
s
s
u
- Pollution Prevention
Information Network
S
S
S
s
ffl
- Pollution Prevention
Incentive for States (PPIS)
£j>
rS
JU
H
a
^
^,
u
M
O
^;
S
o
U
'e
{Residential Lead-Based Pai
S
S
S
s
s
Cl4
[if
•vf
r~
a!
LL,
U
o
S
eo
£
B.
•o
-------
c a
O 3
••s g
.o. 5>
01
a.
(0
•S
I
.I1 1
« I
ra E
c 3
LU (/}
V3
i
IS
VI
s
0
a.
to
S
s
s
s
s
s
_J
H"
orf
TT |
^
w
- Asbestos in Schools
Program
S
S
s
s
s
s
J
£-"
l/f
ft
u
- Asbestos Model
Accreditation Program
S
S
S
s
s
s
, "]
H
V)
^
w
- Asbestos Worker
Protection Program
S
S
S
s
s
s
tq
tL,
CJ
Data Reimbursement (40
791)
Chemical Information
Reporting Rules
o
o
i"
=0.
<
2
Q
o
o
I
O
c.
M
a
-------
c a
O 3
« g,
tt
11
_
P
a.
o
•c
'S
!§
"en
O
a.
en
o
fit
"s3
u ,
.y s
is 2 ^
•3 c/l •*•»
ft" '^ - ®
1 Q)
0 S fi
"35 *3 «J
— « r± 3
W ** i-«
-j M CM
Q ^ a
a
0
u en S
•-2! 08
5 8 « E
a o ** £
ft" •< £
e
en
U tO
S O
c- 5
2
U CU
i s
3 c
ft« o
U
e
o
u ~
M d
ja u
a e
CU '-C
o
Z
1 b
||
O
a;
OPPTS Program Areas
tin
[if
00
c
- Recordkeeping & Reporti
(40 CFR 704)
S
S
S
s
s
tL,
uf
- Preliminary Information
(PAIR) (40 CFR 7 12)
S
S
s
s
s
a
o
3
Q
u r-
=5 *
• tu
U
S
S
s
u
o
oo
CO5
1
3
C
to ^^
so r-
0) —
— r-
U
S
S
s
u
oo'
t_
c
ta
i "3
en
j Chemical Specific Regulation
S
S
S
s
s
s
td
- Metalworking Fluids (40
CFR 747)
S
CD.
uq
1- Water Treatment
Chemicals (40 CFR 749)
S
S
s
s
s
s
a
t~~
C4
tL,
f'
en
O
'Q
S
s
s
s
s
s
a
1
S
o
I
a §
'3 r~-
C tL,
'-3 o
u S
S
s
s
s
s
u.
[if
Export and Import
Requirements (40 CFR 707)
'§
o
CO ^
I I
f 8
a *
-------
c a
o 2
*3 O
.
o •£
r 5
ra 3
Q- ^>.
^
s o
3 Q.
Q.
ai
JOJ
§•
S.
c
TO
U
< o
Q.
O fl>
£ o:
O) £.
.S ra
oi P
ra S
D) E
c 3
HI CO
CA
_0>
15
e
• o
S BJD ej
OSS
«2S
8 1 1
Q —
e
o
• •• V) < n"J
S « 5 1
3 U ** £
a- -< |
C
1/3
U &£
•O *-C
s u
a- «
s
.a 1
1 1 '
0
S
s
s
s
s
s
u.
03
vo
u.
o
CO
60
O
£
CQ
CQ
U
c_
s
s
s
s
s
s
03
2
£
o
5
CQ
U
CU
s
S
S
s
s
s
03
.0
1
<
u
VI
CQ £
o 2
Cu so
• 2
CU
s
2
60
2
CU
Z
Cu
S
s
s
s
s
03
o
o
02
c/3
s
s
s
s
S.
tu
QA
U,
U
V3
C
o
1
-------
§§-
y^ O
Of O)
ll
Q. g,
i o
3 a.
a.
a.
uj
CD
n.
o
S.
i
1
E «
1 &
IS
Engaging
Summary
en
(U
•M
S
"ws
e
Q.
C/3
O
ft!
"3
.H s u
3 .2 j=
3 =2 i;
CH £ O
C/5
S SO u
o e e
•2 1 3
QS5
s
o
y Cfl *.S
s S «*
•S 8 S I
6-< ,0
c
Cfl
= .=
3 ^»
fcl
•M
C
U u
i E
3 S
a, §
U
e
e
u '.S
s a
3 e
a, 's
e
Z
*3> j5>
11
Ctf
G3
U
E
2
so
2
i
eu
O
S
S
S
s
s
w
CO
—
00
1
S
s
s
s
s
s
tu
uf
1
•a
u
u
Is
^o [Q
1 ^
-------
c a
S i
ro £,
tt
- >,
o .o
S "5
3 a.
a.
UJ
_
§•
c
CO
a> a)
5 OS
« 1
D) E
c s
UJ W
S
a-
a>
a,
O)
on
'S
u
.§
cr
.£•
'o
cu
VI
O)
•JS
a
0
a.
o
Z
w1
& b
o c^
*S c
n
a! <
o
Z
o
Z
0
g
wa
£
c
.2?
'co
Q
g
JJ
JS
'oS
<^
<&
o
Z
o
o
0
Z
o
0
t3
2
bM
CO
C
O
CJ
o
Z
0
Z
£T
£• 8
O ^
II
ai <
g
00
o
Z
en
"O
0
g
¥
1
5
"3
Q
TO
Q
1
•S
o
S v ~5 „
n. 55 oi a. c2
ai oa D ca CQ
n il II n II
S § g £ S
-------
§§•
1 2
£-0)
o •£
rS
n 3
Q- >,
.9 —
[^ O
3 EL
o.
Q.
UJ
3
&
£
ii
< s.
is
|> £•
D) £
CO ^
D) E
C 3
UI CO
u
S
O
0)
Ci
O
S
a
2
n
to
S
O
TJ
cu
en
en
f M
<*«l HN
I9-
C cu
£ g
'i 2
cr 3
« w
BJ ^
Is
3 o,
'€ S
5J ^3
II
cu "e
i ^
• • I
5^
21
•2 w
c* «*•
H o
111 f
C Di > O
o _ ra cx
public notice
cy was place
economic be
cipation as
Cu
8
ailabl
s.
JD en
in
« c al
gite
'i o-^
S % H
D- c
S^ o eo
ORE
partici
OEC
o
o
O
S
Q
-------
C Q.
O 3
'•& Q
a. g>
[o •£
II
.a I"
3 o
1°-
Q.
S
a.
a>
P
0) Q)
BJ £<
'!" i
Co p
o E
C 3
111 CO
O
a:
I
o
I
td
o
on
u
E
o
C/l
J3 S
™ O
W
=
_o
2 w
3 e
a. •£
9
Z
3
1 f
vi bJ
i>
ORE Policies and Regulations Containing
Public Participation Requirements
S
S
s
s
s
w
"Guidance on the Use and Issuance of
Administrative Orders Under Section
7003 of RCRA"
S
S
S
s
s
s
UJ
"Supplemental Environmental Projects
Policy"
S
S
S
s
s
CD
40 CFR §22.45- Supplemental rules
governing public notice and comment
in
proceedings under sections 309(g) and
311(b)(6)(B)(ii)oftheClean
Water Act and section 1423(c) of the
Safe Drinking Water Act.
o
o
o
CM
O
O
5
a
CL.
LU
td
-------
c a
11
Q, Ol
S "S
II
Si?
A O
3 a.
a.
a.
Ul
Engaging the American People
Summary Report
CM
O
«
u
0
5
s
£
•5
/-s
CE,
O
c/j
*rf
"3
L.
T3
O)
o
o>
u
E
o
5
A
•o
3
"•*
.—
'3
2
^
"° ^
wi r^
"S y
ju Q
S '*••''
b 1^
'3 e
O" C8
« J-
ft^ 3
•** va
c ^2
o ^*
-^ Qd
Table A-6: Public Participa
Enforcement and Complianc
0
o
.s
;S
en
s
§
1
w
<
UH
0
IM
•a
§
M
1
S-
'3
cr
The following table provides re
CA
.2
^
ja
e
a.
V)
IS
•s
W W L«
32^
3 w> *-
a. M O
V}
1 CJ
CMS
o e c
1 i =
s
o .0
fl. u £
CA
U BO
r: =
gl .
S 1
2 S
£ 1
U
e
e
.« '•*•*
"s e
'S
£ -
'« ^>
M
CS!
i
cs
M)
£
EU
en
u
en
^^
3
"S
ry?
X
X
X
X
w
If
C3 ^J
C in-l
S ™
§9
|u
g CO
2 =
CS CN
O ^_^
*p ^J
C3 O
Z <
X
X
X
X
X
w
=3 ^ >,
8 , ^1
li § 15
°^1 1<§1
^O QJ — C
^ "-S «5 (D rrl
Qd G O G "3
ft S £3 S §
"^ S '^ '§ 0
? J3 E [§ 2 <
O
00
I
•a
(2
J
O
a
o
'JN
o 0|
'u
O
5
a
-------
Appendix B
-------
Engaging the American People
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
-------
EPA Public Participation Policy Review Workgroup
Appendix B: List of Commenters
Below is a list of stakeholders that provided comments on the Federal Register Notice, dated
November 30, 1999. To view all of the comments, please visit the stakeholders website at http://
www.epa.gov/stakeholders/public/comment.htm.
I Name Organization i
Renette Anderson
Thomas T. Traceski
Douglas I. Greenhaus
Jim J. Tozzi
Keri N. Powell
Michael Luzier
Paul Orum
Halina Caravello
Brigid D. Klein
Sanford Lewis
Thomas C. Beierle
Emery Graham
Lenny Seigel
Beth Resnick
Hope C. Taylor
Chris Trepal
Joe Gentile
John J. Wislocki
H. van Schreven
Emily Green
Joel S. Hirschhorn
Sarah Cahill
Dave Seglin
Jim Colston
David Matusow
Lorene L. Sigal
Jessica T. Sandier
Lisa Brown
Marva King
Candace Carraway
Utah State Department of Environmental Quality
Department of Energy
National Automobile Dealers Association
Multinational Business Services, Inc.
New York Public Interest Research Group
National Association of Home Builders
Working Group on Community Right-To-Know
HSE/Q&RA
Chemical Specialties Manufacturers Association
Good Neighbor Project
Resources for The Future
City of Wilmington, DE
Center for Public Environmental Oversight
National Association of County and City Health Officials
Clean Water Fund, NC
Earth Day Coalition (provided comments in two separate documents)
Affiliation not provided
Affiliation not provided
Affiliation not provided
Sierra Club Great Lakes Program
National Governors' Association
Resources for The Future
Chicago Department of Transportation
Orange County Sanitation District, CA
Affiliation not provided
Affiliation not provided
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals
EPA
EPA
EPA
-------
Engaging the American People
"...citizens now face the daunting task of determining what should occur in their backyards -
what kinds of activity are productive, yet acceptably sustainable. Second, they must
transform their traditionally antagonistic relationships with experts into partnerships for
environmental protection; to determine what the tolerable activities are, given continuous
change in the nature of risks and our understanding of how to respond to them, they need to
fuse the broad experience of professional practitioners with the contextual intelligence that
only citizens possess....Within broad limits local units set their own environmental
performance targets and devise the means to achieve them. In return, they provide detailed
reports on actual performance and possible improvements to public authorities."
Charles Sabel, Archon Fung, and Bradley Karkkainen
"Beyond Backyard Environmentalism - How communities are quietly refashioning
environmental regulation"
-------
Appendix C
-------
Engaging the American People
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
-------
EPA Public Participation Policy Review Workgroup
Appendix C:List of Public Participation Policy Workgroup Members
Kathleen Bailey (Co-chair)
Deborah Dalton (Co-chair)
Patricia Bonner
(editor/post 3/2000 lead)
Shirley Bruce
Charlotte Cottrill
Bruce Engelbert
Jayne Fontenot
Danny Gogal
Mary Henigin
Angela Hofmann
Marjorie Jones
David Nicholas
Angela Nugent
Wendy Oatis
Heidi Paulsen
Sonya Pennock
Christine Psyk
Deb Ross
Robert Shippen
Jan Shubert
Nicholas Targ
Theresa Trainor
Claudia Walters
Cynthia Wolf
Office of Policy, Economics & Innovation
Office of the General Counsel/Conflict Prevention and Resolution Center
Office of Policy, Economics & Innovation
Region 6
Office of Environmental Information
Office of Emergency and Remedial Response
Region 6
Office of Enforcement & Compliance Assurance/ Environmental Justice
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Office of Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances
Office of Water
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Science Advisory Board
Office of General Counsel
Office of Pesticide Programs
Region 8
Region 10
Office of Cooperative Environmental Management
Office of Water
Office of Emergency and Remedial Response
Office of Enforcement & Compliance Assurance/ Environmental Justice
Office of Sustainable Ecosystems and Communities
Office of Research & Development
Region 6
-------
Engaging the American People
"Government programs are improved and civic trust is substantially elevated when
government agencies reach out to engage citizens directly in agenda setting, program
development and policy implementation. Agencies that do this soon learn that citizens
have much to add, that they are important repositories of experience and ideas. Citizens
benefit as well from the opportunities to see problems from broader perspectives and
from the enhanced civic skills that come from working with trained government
professionals and other citizens in problem-solving activities."
National Academy of Public Administration Panel on Civic Trust and Citizen
Responsibility, June 1999
-------
Appendix D
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's 1981 Policy on
Public Participation and Title 40 Part 25 of the Code of Federal
Regulations —Public Participation in Programs Under the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act, and
the Clean Water Act
-------
Engaging the American People
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
-------
EPA Public Participation Policy Review Workgroup
Appendix D
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's 1981 Policy on Public Participation and Title 40 Part 25 of
the Code of Federal Regulations—Public Participation in Programs Under the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act, and the Clean Water Act
This Appendix provides the text for two of the key documents that define Agency policies, processes-,
and procedures for engaging the public in decision making and program implementation. The Policy,
published in 1981, establishes the objectives of public participation in EPA programs, outlines
essential elements that must be incorporated in any public participation effort, discusses a number of
public participation mechanisms with ground rules for their effective use, and assigns responsibility
for planning, managing, funding, and carrying out public participation activities to EPA managers. The
intent of the Policy is to ensure that managers plan in advance needed public involvement in their
programs, that they consult with the public on issues where public comment can be truly helpful, that
they use methods of consultation that will be effective both for program purposes and for the
members of the public who take part, and finally that they are able to apply what they have learned
from the public in their final program decisions.
The Part 25 regulations set forth minimum requirements and suggested program elements for public
participation in activities under the Clean Water Act (Pub. L. 95-217), the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act (Pub. L. 94-580), and the Safe Drinking Water Act (Pub. L. 93-523). These
regulations have also been used as the foundation for public participation for other EPA programs not
associated with these acts.
-------
Engaging the American People
APPENDIX D-1: EPA'S 1981 POLICY ON PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Responsiveness Summary and Preamble on Public Participation Policy
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency
ACTION: Policy
SUMMARY: This Policy is designed to provide guidance and direction to public officials who manage
and conduct EPA programs on reasonable and effective means of involving the public in program
decisions. The Policy applies to programs under the Clean Air Act (Pub. L. 95-95), Quiet
Communities Act (Pub. L. 95-609) Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (Pub. L. 94-580), Toxic
Substances Control Act (Pub. L. 94-469), Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (Pub.
L 95-396) Safe Drinking Water Act (Pub. L. 95-190), and the Clean Water Act (Pub. L. 95-217).
The Policy establishes the objectives of public participation in EPA programs, outlines essential
elements that must be incorporated in any public participation effort, discusses a number of public
participation mechanisms with ground rules for their effective use, and assigns responsibility for
planning, managing, funding, and carrying out public participation activities to EPA managers. The
intent of the Policy is to ensure that managers plan in advance needed public involvement in their
programs, that they consult with the public on issues where public comment can be truly helpful, that
they use methods of consultation that will be effective both for program purposes and for the
members of the public who take part, and finally that they are able to apply what they have learned
from the public in their final program decisions.
The Policy provides a uniform set of guidelines and requirements applicable to all EPA programs,
thus assuring a consistent base level of effort. The Policy applies to all EPA activities as well as to
State and local activities funded or delegated by EPA. EPA will develop work plans as part of the
annual budget development cycle, and amend program regulations as needed to incorporate the
Policy. Affected programs are listed in the Appendix to the Policy.
DATES: The Policy is effective on January 19, 1981.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sharon F. Francis, Special Assistant for Public
Participation, Office of the Administrator (A-100). Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street,
SW, Washington, D.C. 20460, telephone 202/245-3066.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Policy which takes effect with this publication is the result
of long and careful consideration on the part of EPA, State and local agencies, and the diverse public
that are actively concerned with EPA programs. EPA already enjoys a substantial amount of
involvement from an active and interested public. Indeed, to that public goes substantial credit for
progress made in cleaning up environmental pollution over the last 10 years. There has been
recognition, however, both inside and outside the Agency, that new steps need to be taken to ensure
that members of the public affected by EPA programs are given an earlier and better opportunity to be
heard in EPA decision making.
EPA has received a significant volume of thoughtful criticism of its performance in implementing its
legally mandated public participation activities and its more general responsibility to involve the public
-------
EPA Public Participation Policy Review Workgroup
in governmental decisions. The desire of the public to have a stronger role in shaping government
programs which affect their lives, businesses, and communities, and also the growing need for
governmental units at all levels to participate in the programs of other governmental entities has
stimulated this criticism. Government decision-makers have become increasingly aware of the
capability of the public to make constructive use of opportunities for involvement. This new awareness
has been accompanied by increased practical experience in using a variety of techniques to facilitate
public involvement.
For these reasons, EPA has recognized the need to improve public involvement in governmental
decisions by clarifying the rights and responsibilities of potential participants and those responsible
for administering public participation programs. This will lead to better decisions, more satisfactory
opportunities for the public to pursue their goals through government, and greater public confidence in
government because decisions will be made with participation by interested and affected members of
the public.
Both EPA and members of the public have more demands on their scarce time and resources than
can be filled, and need to use them where the results can be most effective. This Policy's common
objectives, procedures and emphasis on results will benefit the entire Agency, and will give the public
new confirmation that EPA intends to be as responsive as possible to public questions, concerns and
preferences.
This Policy is the result of analysis and reforms instituted at the Administrator's direction by the
Agency Task Force on Public Participation. The Policy was initially proposed in the Federal Register
on April 30, 1980. In order to ensure that the proposed Policy received attention from the various
sectors of the public active in EPA's programs, the Agency mailed copies of the proposal to a
nationwide mailing list that included business and industry, labor organizations, professional and
trade associations, news media, consumer and women's organizations, environmental and public
interest groups, Black, Hispanic, and Native American organizations, scientific, public health, legal
and planning societies, and State agencies.
Additionally, each of EPA's ten regional offices received copies of the Policy for distribution to their
constituent lists at the regional, State and local level. A number of regional offices wrote and
distributed summaries of the proposed Policy, as well as held meetings to give members of the public
opportunity to raise questions and express their views. Public meetings were held in Boston,
Chicago, Columbus, Minneapolis, Denver, Seattle, Portland, Boise, Anchorage, and Washington. As
a result of these outreach efforts, close to 500 members of the public took part in discussions and
offered comment on the proposal.
The following analysis of the comments received, in terms of the affiliation of the person commenting,
provides insight on the expectations and needs of various sectors of the public.
Written comments were received from people in forty-two States, with the largest number of
comments coming from States where EPA's regional offices had also stimulated public meetings,
namely Massachusetts, Connecticut, Minnesota, Ohio and Washington.
Written comments were in almost every case substantive and extensive, often running many pages in
length. In almost all cases, the people who wrote had been involved with EPA programs either as
public participants or program managers, and their comments reflected this reservoir of practical
experience.
-------
Engaging the American People
The largest section of the public who commented were public interest groups, including
environmental, consumer, and local civic groups. They provided 30% of the comments received and
were closely followed by economic interests, including industries, business, and trade association
with 27%. Additionally, 15% of comments came from State agencies, 10% from citizens-at-large,
10% from local officials, 6% from other federal agencies, and 2% from academic institutions.
Over 420 issues were addressed, and of these, the ones that drew the greatest amount of discussion
were the following: the composition of advisory groups; whether to provide financial assistance to the
participating public, and under what criteria; whether to apply the. Policy to State agencies carrying
out EPA programs; and the content and use of Responsiveness Summaries.
Eighty-five percent of those who commented supported a final Policy as strong as or stronger than
the one the Agency proposed in late April, and this support came from all sectors of the public. In
the case of State agencies, for example, only 7 of the 44 who commented were negative about EPA's
emphasis on public participation or wanted to see it weakened. The other 37 agencies all wanted a
Policy and wanted it even stronger than EPA proposed. Economic interests expressed opinions on
both sides of the issue, but 20% wanted it stronger and 50% supported the Policy as proposed.
Those who opposed the proposed Policy said that EPA should not be in the business of stimulating
participation. People who are really concerned, they said, will come forth and participate on their
own. This assumes, however, that people on their own will know that environmental decisions are
about to be made, that these decisions will affect them, and that they will have enough background
information to be able to contribute to what is usually a technical and complex discussion.
The Agency agrees that public participation must not be a contrived exercise, nor should it be
undertaken with the purpose of manipulating the public into agreement with a governmental position.
EPA recognized its responsibility to give affected sectors of the public a fair opportunity to know of
forthcoming governmental decisions and to be heard when those decisions are made. Clear
requirements will make public involvement more cost-effective, both for EPA management and for the
various sectors of the public.
It is clear from widespread support for an effective policy that EPA's emphasis on public participation
struck a responsive chord in all sectors of the public. The public's thoughtfully reasoned statements
for amplifying or strengthening aspects of the Proposed Policy have convinced us of the merit of a
number of changes. EPA fecognizes the commitment it is now making to more open and effective
consultation with the public. This policy will provide a strong and practical framework to guide our
interactions in the months and years ahead.
Summary of Response to Public Comment
The following sections respond to major points raised in comments made by the public.
1. Objectives of EPA's Policy: There was support from all sectors for the objectives stated in the
proposed Policy, but a number of people called for additions as well. These include the role of the
public in identifying and selecting among alternatives, the importance of early and continuing
involvement, the significant opportunity that public participation affords for anticipating and reducing
conflicts, and the need to create equal access to the regulatory process. Commenters also pointed
out that objectives need to be comprehensive since they provide the yardstick for evaluation. All of
these suggestions have merit and EPA has added them to the final Policy.
-------
EPA Public Participation Policy Review Workgroup
2. Application of the Policy to EPA Programs Under State Administration: Most of the laws
administered by EPA designate certain programs which can be administered by a State, instead of
by EPA, if the State Program meets statutory and regulatory criteria. The proposed Policy required
EPA to provide for public participation in the process of deciding to approve such State programs. It
also provided that, after approval, the State would assume responsibility for meeting the public
participation requirements.
In the preamble to the proposed Policy, EPA drew attention to this matter, and specifically asked for
comment on whether the Agency should apply the Policy to EPA programs when conducted by
States. A major proportion of commenters from all categories preferred the option as proposed, on
the grounds that participation is needed and beneficial to program decisions regardless of who
administers the program. A much smaller number of commenters favored permitting States to
achieve substantially equivalent results to EPA's Policy; however, none responded to EPA's request
for "specific suggestions for wording and evaluation criteria" since "substantially equivalent provisions
have a history of being easy to espouse but difficult to demonstrate." After reading all the comments,
EPA concluded that the Policy, as proposed, has sufficient flexibility within a context of practical
requirements that it will be beneficial to State program administration.
Two years ago, when EPA proposed its regulation for public participation in Clean Water, Drinking
Water and Solid Waste programs (40 CFR Part 25), the question of applying the requirements to
States was intensely controversial. Now, with more than a year of experience in those programs, the
worst apprehensions have not materialized and public participation has begun to prove its
constructive role. Most State agencies, therefore, were not troubled by the proposal. In view of the
comments received and the discussion above, EPA finds no need to alter this aspect of the Policy.
3. Consistency with Part 25 Regulations for Public Participation in Water and Waste Management
Programs: In Proposing the Policy, EPA made conscious effort to ensure compatibility between its
provision and those of the earlier Part 25 regulation for programs under the Clean Water Act, Safe
Drinking Water Act, and Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. Two additions that EPA is now
making to the Policy will further remove the differences between the two documents and bring the
Policy into closer alignment with Part 25. One change is the requirement that EPA review and require
further efforts as needed to achieve the balanced membership requirement for advisory groups. The
other change is that EPA may require corrective action on the part of State program grantees to
ensure compliance with the Policy. While differences in wording remain between the two documents,
EPA holds that 40 CFR Part 25 fulfills the intent and requirements of the Policy in the procedural
areas (Section D. of Policy) of common subject matter. If differences remain between Part 25 and the
Policy, Part 25 will control. The sections of the Policy on work plan, assistance to the public, and
authority and responsibility augment the requirements contained in 40 CFR Part 25, and apply to all
programs of the Agency.
4. How to Identify the Public Who Should Participate: Many of those who commented on the
Identification section of the Policy liked our emphasis on developing a contact list of interested or
affected members of the public at the outset of a participation opportunity. Several pointed out,
however, that contact lists need frequent updating, especially on lengthy projects. This change we
are incorporating. A number of those who commented on this section requested that the Policy
indicate the uses of a contact list, and we have revised the Policy to do so.
5. Ways to Inform and Reach the Public: The majority of comments asked for amplification of the
Outreach section. Commenters sent many valuable suggestions, many of which the final Policy
incorporates. Some general areas of concern with which we agree, and have responded to in the final
-------
Engaging the American People
Policy, include the following: (1) public access to information is critical to successful public
participate programs; (2) information must be translated from "technical" language into language
understandable to the lay public; (3) outreach activities should be emphasized as ongoing activities
so the public can be kept up to date on matters of concern; and (4) the uninterested but impacted
publics' views need to be solicited in some manner.
Specific comments addressed each of the major sections of Outreach. Under Methods, commenters
suggested further use of a variety of techniques, many of which we have added to the final version.
Under Content, it was suggested that materials be prepared in clear, concise language to inform the
public of triggering events which initiate a proposed action, and provide details on supporting research
analysis and methodology. These suggestions, along with the availability of Environmental Impact
Statements, were included in the final Policy. Under Notification, the major concerns were that
notices should inform the public about the initiation of a decision-making process and that we should
describe the type of media notice required. In the Depositories section, commenters suggested
public and university libraries as appropriate locations, and that consideration ought to be given to
accessibility, travel time, parking, and availability during off-work hours. We agreed with these
suggestions and included them in the final Policy.
6. Public Notification of Financial Assistance Awards: We received complaints from the public that
often they never hear about EPA funded projects that provide participation opportunities in programs
of State, substate, and local governments. They suggested that we incorporate some type of
requirement that notice be given either at the time EPA receives applications, or after award
acceptances. After careful consideration, and with a conscious effort to keep the Policy consistent
with 40 CFR Part 25 regulations, we have added a section under Timing that the recipient give public
notice within 45 days of award acceptance.
7. Methods to Improve Communication Between EPA and the Public: Many commenters were
dissatisfied with the Dialogue and Hearing section. They felt we placed too much emphasis on
describing hearing requirements, and did not give enough attention to other methods of ensuring
communication between EPA and the public. We responded to these concerns by amplifying the
Dialogue section to include these suggestions and listing other methods of soliciting and using public
input. These methods include review groups, workshops, conferences, personal correspondence and
conversations, meetings, and citizen panels.
8. Suggestions for Improvement of Hearing Format: All sectors of the public responding felt that
hearing procedures needed to move away from rigid rituals and be more attuned to listening and
responding to the public's views. We agree that public hearings can be more successful if they are
conducted in a non-intimidating manner, and if the public has been informed of the issues and has
access to pertinent information prior to the hearing. Those who commented on the Content of Notice
section stressed the importance of early and clear discussion of the issues and alternatives the
public is asked to comment upon. Under Conduct of Hearing, many commenters asked for more
informality and opportunity for questions and answers in the hearing. People also commented that
hearings are often located too far from the affected area. We have revised the Policy to incorporate
these ideas.
9. 45-Day Notice Prior to Hearings: Although some commenters felt that a 45-day notice prior to the
date of a hearing was a needless delay of time and would slow down the process, others felt that 45
days was much too short a time to expect individuals or groups to prepare adequately for a hearing,
and some said that a 60 or 90-day notice would be more appropriate for proper preparation.
Approximately 30% of the respondents favored a 30-day or less notice period, with the remaining
-------
EPA Public Participation Policy Review Workgroup
70% favoring a 45-day or longer period. However, the bulk of the comments favored keeping the
hearing notice requirement at 45 days'. The major reasons for the 45-day notice period include: (1)
there is little control over mail deliveries, and often the interested public receives information too late
to prepare effectively for hearings; (2) many groups meet once a month and need time to meet and
discuss the notice to decide on a course of action; (3) travel time over long distances is often involved
to acquire and review material; and (4) the review material is often complex and requires time for
research.
Additionally, we received comments concerning the discretion given to Assistant Administrators and
Regional Administrators to waive the 45-day requirement to 30 days or less in emergency situations,
or if the issues are not complex or controversial. Some commenters objected to the waiver saying it
gives the Assistant Administrators and Regional Administrators too much discretionary power, and
feared they may use the waiver more often than necessary. We feel some flexibility must be
maintained here, and that the Assistant Administrators and Regional Administrators would be able to
make exceptions they feel are warranted. However, we have stated that those objecting to a waiver
may appeal to the Administrator of EPA.
10. Composition of Advisory Groups: One of the subjects most widely discussed in the proposed
Policy has been the composition of advisory group's. Almost all who commented on this subject
believed EPA was fair and used good judgment to prescribe a balance of backgrounds among
advisory group members; however, a great many commenters believed certain categories
sympathetic to their own viewpoints should be given added weight, or others of contrasting views
should be prohibited.
Overall, commenters favored EPA's proposal balance of categories two-to-one, and we intend to
retain this provision, with two important additions: tribal officials have been added as another category
of public official, and we have made clear that elected public officials should not be from the decision-
making body the group is advising. Several people wanted "citizens with economic interests" and
"organizations with economic interests" as two separate categories, but we do not agree with this
proposal. We prefer to leave the citizen-at-large category unencumbered so appointing officials can
have room to select a variety of individuals with potentially worthwhile contributions.
11. Proof of Effort to Achieve Advisory Group Composition: A number of those who commented were
concerned that the balanced membership of advisory groups could be manipulated if there is not
some degree of oversight by EPA. They also pointed out that the 40 CFR Part 25 regulation has a
section calling for demonstration of "proof of effort," and this section had given valuable oversight to
agencies with advisory groups. We agree that federal guidance may be valuable in this area and
consequently have added a section that requires advice, assistance, review, and approval by EPA.
12. Use of Advisory Group Recommendations: A number of people experienced with advisory groups
reported their frustration with instances when the group felt their recommendations were being
suppressed by the agencies they advised. Since a major purpose of this Policy is to improve
openness on the part of governmental entities, we have added a short section to the Policy which
makes it clear that advisory group recommendations should be publicly available.
13. The Frequency and Use of Responsiveness Summaries: The great majority of those who
commented on the subject of Responsiveness Summaries supported EPA's requirement, and thought
these summaries would provide an important addition to decision-making. A few people pointed out,
however, that our emphasis should not be on documenting public views as much as it should be on
using them. We agree with these comments and have added some language to reflect this
-------
Engaging the American People
emphasis. Additionally, there was a certain amount of misunderstanding that Responsiveness
Summaries would be required after every hearing or meeting. This is not our intent, but rather it is
that Responsiveness Summaries be prepared at "key decision points." These will be identified in
public participation work plans, as well as in program regulations where they are being revised to
incorporate provisions of this Policy.
14. How Much Feedback Should Be Provided to the Public on the Results of its Participation!:
EPA's proposal that feedback be provided received strong support from all sectors of the public. A
number of commenters wanted to see feedback provided within a time limit, such as 60 days, though
others recognized the burden that such acknowledgments would place on the Agency's staff.
Throughout the comments on this section was the desire on the part of participants to know
substantively why their suggestions were or were not accepted. EPA does not have the staff
resources to be able to commit itself to interim replies of a substantive nature, especially when the
number of comments on may issues run into the thousands. We do, however, recognize a serious
commitment to providing feedback and thus are revising the policy to state that all "participants in a
particular activity (must) receive feedback," not just "have access" to it as stated in our earlier
proposal.
15. The Use of Work Plans: In EPA's initial proposal, public participation work plans were
contemplated for two reasons: first, good publicfparticipation needs to be carefully planned, and
second, the resource outlays needed for public participation should be built into program operating
budgets. Many members of the public, as well as State and substate officials who commented on the
Policy, supported EPA's emphasis upon work plans. In fact, several said work plans should be
discussed earlier in the Policy, a suggestion we have taken. Additionally, we have added some
clarifying and strengthening language on the content of work plans and the timing of their preparation.
Work plans will be developed at both the program and project levels, and EPA will provide guidance
on the content of these documents.
16. The Use of Public Funds to Assist the Participating Public: To a large extent the debate over
financial assistance to members of the public or public organizations focused on the use of such
funds in regulatory or adjudicatory proceedings. The debate was rendered moot by Congress in its
action on EPA's 1981 appropriation which prohibited use of EPA funds for that purpose. The final
Policy reflects the removal of this controversial aspect. Other types of public participation funding
(e.g. travel expenses for witnesses at public hearings on hazardous waste disposal siting) proved
uncontroversial and occasioned little comment. It is the Agency's intention to continue to fund such
non-regulatory, non-adjudicatory participation.
17. The Responsibility of EPA Officials for Implementing the Policy: Many people who commented
on the Policy liked the Agency's proposal which outlined the authority and responsibility of various
Agency officials for ensuring the Policy's implementation. Several pointed out, however, that the
language was confusing and duplicative. Therefore, we have rewritten that section with separate
duties identified for Regional Administrators, Associate Administrators, the Director of the Office of
Public Awareness, and the Administrator. These sections should clarify the previous ambiguities.
18. Ensuring Compliance with the Policy: A large proportion of commenters wanted reassurance that
this Policy is more than a collection of good intentions, and that EPA will stand behind its provisions
and enforce them. They were particularly concerned with State and substate assistance recipients,
and urged EPA to develop enforcement sanctions. While we hope that sanctions will not be
necessary, we have amended the Policy with a section on sanctions that gives greater emphasis to
Policy enforcement.
-------
EPA Public Participation Policy Review Workgroup
19. Relationship Between Public Participation Policy and Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)
Process: Several people noted that the proposed Policy was silent on how the Policy fits with the
Agency's EIS procedures. EISs are undertaken primarily for grants for wastewater treatment plans,
new source National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits, and certain major
regulations. Many of the goals of this public participation Policy and EPA's EIS programs are similar.
The requirements of the new Policy will serve to reinforce, and in some cases, supplement existing
EIS procedures. In revising the Policy, we have added a number of references to EISs to emphasize
this relationship.
20. Overall Evaluation of Effectiveness: Several commenters from Federal or State government
agencies, as well as several citizens with years of experience as active participants, drew attention
to the importance of evaluating the Policy. They said this should be done both to oversee how well its
provisions are being followed and to identify, where possible, the results of improved public
involvement on Agency decisions and program implementation. EPA is committed to evaluating this
Policy within three years from the date of publication. This will be done under the direction of the
Administrator's Special Assistant for Public Participation. This evaluation will include such matters
as effectiveness of requirements, enforceability, resource expenditures, alternative public participation
methods, public reaction, and reporting requirements.
Conclusion
EPA has made a number of additions and improvements to the proposed Policy on the basis of what
it learned from the public during the comment period. Indeed, the revised Policy itself is a good
example of how public involvement augments the Agency's work. The overwhelming proportion of
statements came from people with long experience in public policy. All reflected a similar outlook:
they, like EPA, want to make the system work better. Among many interesting statements, a few
examples indicate the challenge of the public's expectations.
A planning board chairman from a small New England town spoke of the resentment that the public
has come to feel toward the work of bureaucrats. From his experience in marshaling talent to
address local problems, he suggested that EPA consider recruiting broad based citizen task forces
or advisory groups to develop all the Agency's regulations and other major policy items. They should
be given a deadline, and only if they failed to produce, should EPA step in and do the work. "That
would be real participation," he said.
A major national chemical manufacturer opened its statement by saying the Policy is not needed,
since the company believes it duplicates existing procedures. The company continued, however, to
urge substantial reform of EPA practices in order to give the public a much earlier opportunity for
participation before the bureaucratic momentum becomes too great to accept any changes. They
also advocated genuine responsiveness to the public, not just a "superficial consideration of
comments."
A citizen group that has been working for years to reduce adverse environmental consequences from
two oil refineries cited a series of disappointing interactions with EPA; delays in obtaining requested
material for review prior to hearings; difficulties in seeing pertinent material even when they visited
State offices; the high costs of reproducing documents; and a feeling that government agencies were
giving substantial amount of time and assistance to industrial applicants, but were not even willing to
answer the questions of opponents, let alone assist them more substantially. The group also had the
impression that EPA had its mind made up at the time of a public hearing, and the citizens felt their
-------
Engaging the American People
own efforts were wasted.
Statements such as these reveal the frustration that many members of the public have
experienced when trying to work with the Agency, and they also point to the motivation and high
hopes that the public continues to hold about participating in environmental protection issues. Public
participation lies at the heart of the Agency's credibility with the public. It affords the best tested
recipe for citizens to influence the governmental decisions that affect their lives and pocketbooks.
This Policy takes an important step in defining when EPA will undertake public participation, and in
saying that when we do it, we intend to do it right.
Members of the public who wish to obtain the background Compilation of Issues with their
disposition and List of Commenters on this Policy may do so by contacting: Sharon F. Francis,
Special Assistant for Public Participation, Office of the Administrator (A-100), Environmental
Protection Agency, 401 M Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20460, telephone 202/245-3066. Dated:
January 13, 1981.
Douglas M. Costle,
Administrator.
Final EPA Policy on Public Participation
This Policy addresses participation by the public in decision-making, ruiemaking, and program
implementation by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and other governmental entities
carrying out EPA programs. The term, "the public" as it is used here, means the people as a whole,
the general population. There are a number of identifiable "segments of the public" who may have a
particular interest or who may be affected one way or another by a given program or decision. In
addition to private citizens, "the public" includes, among others, representatives or consumer,
environmental, and minority groups; the business and industrial communities; trade, industrial,
agricultural, and labor organizations; public health, scientific, and professional societies; civic
associations; universities, educational, and governmental associations: and public officials, both
elected and appointed.
"Public participation" is that part of the agency's decision-making process that provides opportunity
and encouragement for the public to express their views to the agency, and assures that the agency
will give due consideration to public concerns, values, and preferences when decisions are made.
A. Scope
The requirements and procedures contained in this Policy applies to the Environmental Protection
Agency and other governmental entities carrying out EPA programs (referred to herein as "agency").
The activities covered by this Policy are:
EPA ruiemaking, when regulations are classified as significant, (under terms of Executive Order
12044);
The administration of permit programs as delineated in applicable permit program regulations;
Program activities supported by EPA financial assistance (grants and cooperative agreements) to
State and substate governments:
-------
EPA Public Participation Policy Review Workgroup
-The process leading to a determination of approval of State administration of a program in lieu of
Federal administration;
-Major policy decisions, as determined by the Administrator, appropriate Associate
Administrator, Regional Administrator, or Deputy Assistant Administrator, in view of EPA's
responsibility to involve the public in important decisions.
When covered activities are governed by EPA regulations or program guidance, the provisions of the
Policy shall be included at appropriate points in these documents. Before those changes are made,
the provisions of the existing regulations or program guidance shall govern.
B. Purpose
The purpose of this Policy is to strengthen EPA's commitment to public participation and
establish uniform procedures for participation by the public in EPA's decision-making process. A
strong policy and consistent procedures will make it easier for the public to become involved and
affect the outcome of the agency's decisions.
This in turn will assist EPA in carrying out its mission, by giving a better understanding of the public's
viewpoints, concerns, and preferences. It should also make the agency's decisions more acceptable
to those who are most concerned and affected by them.
Agency officials will provide for, encourage, and assist participation by the public. Officials
should strive to communicate with and listen to all sectors of the public. Where appropriate, this will
require them to give extra encouragement and assistance to some sectors, such as minorities, that
may have fewer opportunities or resources.
The Policy identifies those actions which are required and others that are discretionary, on the part
of agency managers. The Policy assumes, however, that agency employees will strive to do more
than the minimum required, and is not intended to create barriers to more substantial or more
significant participation. The Policy recognizes the agency's need to set priorities for its use of
resources, and emphasizes participation by the public in decisions where options are available and
alternatives must be weighed, or where substantial agreement is needed from the public if a program
is to be carried out.
£>
Public participation must begin early in the decision-making process and continue throughout the
process as necessary. The agency must set forth options and alternatives beforehand, and seek the
public's opinion on them. Merely conferring with the public after a decision is made does not achieve
this purpose.
Agency officials must avoid advocacy and precommitment to any particular alterative prior to
decision-making. The role of agency officials is to plan and conduct public participation activities that
provide equal opportunity for all individuals and groups to be heard. Officials should actively seek to
facilitate resolution of issues among disagreeing interests whenever possible.
Decision makers are aware that issues which are not resolved to the satisfaction of the
concerned public may ultimately face time-consuming review. If the objectives of EPA's public
participation program are achieved, delays to accommodate litigation should be reduced.
-------
Engaging the American People
C. Objectives
In establishing a policy on public participation, EPA has the following objectives:
• To use all feasible means to create early and continuing opportunity for public participation in
agency decisions;
• To promote the public's involvement in implementing environmental protection laws;
• To make sure that the public understands official programs and the implications of potential
alternative courses of action;
• To solicit assistance from the public in identifying alternatives to be studied, and in selecting
among alternatives considered;
• To keep the public informed about significant issues and changes in proposed programs or
projects, as they arise;
• To create equal and open access for the interested and affected parties to the regulatory process;
• To make sure that the government understands public goals and concerns, and is responsive to
them;
• To demonstrate that the agency consults with interested or affected segments of the public and
takes public viewpoints into consideration when decisions are made;
• To anticipate conflicts and encourage early discussions of differences among affected parties;
• To foster a spirit of mutual trust, confidence, and openness between public agencies and the
public.
D. General Procedures for All Programs
Each Assistant Administrator, Office Director, or Regional Administrator shall determine
forthcoming decisions or activities to which this Policy should be applied, and take the steps needed
to assure that adequate public participation measures are developed and implemented.
To ensure effective public participation in any decision or activity, the agency must carry out five basic
functions: Identification, Outreach, Dialogue, Assimilation, and Feedback.
1. Identification. It is necessary to identify groups or members of the public who may be
interested in, or affected by, a forthcoming action. This may be done by a variety of means:
developing a contact list of persons and organizations who may have expressed an interest in, may
by the nature of their purposes or activities be affected by or have an interest in forthcoming activity;
requesting from others in the agency or from key public groups, the names of interested and affected
individuals to include; using questionnaires or surveys to find out levels of awareness; or by other
means. If EPA is required to file an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), the scoping process can
be used to identify interested parties.
-------
EPA Public Participation Policy Review Workgroup
*
The responsible official(s) shall develop a contact list for each program or project, and add to the list
whenever members of the public request it. The list should be updated frequently, and it will be most
useful if subdivided by category of interest or geographic area.
The contact list shall be used to send announcements of participation opportunities, notices of
meetings, hearings, field trips and other events, notices of available reports and documents, and for
identifying members of the public who may be considered for advisory group membership and other
activities.
2. Outreach. The public can contribute effectively to agency programs only if it is provided
with accurate, understandable, pertinent and timely information on issues and decisions. The agency
shall make sure that adequate, timely information concerning forthcoming action or decision reaches
the public. The agency shall provide policy, program, and technical information at the earliest
practical times, and at places easily accessible to interested and affected persons and
organizations, so they can make informed and constructive contributions to decision-making.
Information and educational programs shall be developed so that all levels of government and the
public have an opportunity to become familiar with the issues and the technical data from which they
emerge. Informational materials shall highlight significant issues that will be the subject of decision-
making. Special efforts shall be made to summarize complex technical materials for the public.
a. Methods. The objective of the agency's public outreach program is to insure that the public
understands the significance of the technical data so that rational public choices can be
made. Outreach programs require the use of appropriate communication tools, and should be
tailored to start at the public's level of familiarity with the subject.
The following, among other approaches, may be used for this purpose:
(1) publications, fact sheets, technical summaries, bibliographies;
(2) questionnaires, surveys, interviews;
(3) public service announcements, and news releases;
(4) educational activities carried out by public organizations.
b. Content. Outreach materials must include background information (e.g. statutory basis,
rationale, or the triggering event of the action); a timetable of proposed actions; summaries of
lengthy documents or technical material where relevant; a delineation of issues; alternative
courses of action or tentative determination which the agency may have made; whether an
EIS is, or will be, available; specific encouragement to stimulate active participation by the
public; and the name of an individual to contact for further information.
Whenever possible, the social, economic, and environmental consequences of proposed decision
and alternative should be clearly stated in outreach material. Technical evidence and research
methodology should be explained. Summaries of technical documents should be footnoted to refer to
the original data. Fact sheets, news releases, summaries, and similar publications may be used to
provide notice of availability of materials and to facilitate public understanding of more complex
documents, but should not be a substitute for public access to the complete documents.
-------
Engaging the American People
c. Notification. The agency must notify all parties on the contact list and the media of
opportunities to participate and provide appropriate information, as described in the first
paragraph of Section 2.b. above. Printed legal notices are often required by program
regulations, but do not substitute for the broader notice of the media and contact list required
by this section.
d. Timing. Notification (above) must take place well enough in advance of the agency's action to
permit the public to respond. Generally, it should take place not less than 30 days before the
proposed action, or 45 days in the case of public hearings (exceptions in the case of public
hearings are discussed under Dialogue, below).
Where complex issues or lengthy documents are presented for public comment, the comment period
should allow enough time for interested parties to conduct their review. This period generally should
be no less than 60 days. Where participation opportunities are to be provided in programs of State,
substate, and local governments supported by EPA financial assistance, notice shall be given by the
recipient to the public within 45 days after award acceptance.
e. Fees for Copying. Whenever possible, the agency should provide copies of relevant
documents, free of charge. Free copies may be reserved for private citizens and public
interest organizations with limited funds. Any charges must be consistent with requirements
under the Freedom of Information Act as set forth in 40 CFR Part 2.
f. Depositories. The agency shall provide one or more central collections of documents,
reports, studies, plans, etc. relating to controversial issues or significant decisions in a
location or locations convenient to the public. Depository arrangements should be made
when possible with public libraries and university libraries. Consideration must be given to
accessibility, travel time, parking, transit, and to availability during off-work hours. Copying
facilities, at reasonable charges, should be available at depositories.
3. Dialogue. There must be dialogue between officials responsible for the forthcoming action or
decision and the interested and affected members of the public. This involves exchange of views and
open exploration of issues, alternatives, and consequences.
Public consultation must be preceded by timely distribution of information and must occur
sufficiently in advance of decision-making to make sure that the public's options are not foreclosed,
and to permit response to public views prior to agency action. Opportunities for dialogue shall be
provided at times and places which, to the maximum extent feasible, facilitate attendance or
participation by the public. Whenever possible, public meetings should be held during non-work
hours, such as evenings or weekends, and at locations accessible to public transportation.
Dialogue may take a variety of forms, depending upon the issues to be addressed and the public
whose involvement is sought. Public hearings are the most familiar forum for dialogue and often are
legally required, but their use should not serve as the only forum for citizen input. When used,
hearings should be at the end of a process that has given the public earlier opportunity for becoming
informed and involved. Often other techniques may serve a broader purpose:
• Review groups or ad hoc committees may confer on the development of a policy or written
materials;
• Workshops may be used to discuss the consequences of various alternatives, or to negotiate
differences among diverse parties;
-------
EPA Public Participation Policy Review Workgroup
Conferences provide an important way to develop consensus for changing a program or the
momentum to undertake new directions;
Task forces can give concentrated and experienced attention to an issue;
Personal conversations and personal correspondence gives the individualized attention that
some issues require;
Meetings offer a good opportunity for diverse individuals and groups to express their
questions or preferences;
A series of meetings may be the best way to address a long and complex agenda of topics;
Toll-free lines can aid dialogue, especially when many questions can be anticipated or time is
short;
A hearing panel compiled of persons from representative public groups may be used in non-
adjudicatory hearings to listen to presentations and review the hearing summary.
This list is not exhaustive, but it indicates the importance for program managers in being flexible and
choosing the right techniques for the right occasions.
a. Requirements for public hearings.
(1) Timing of Notice. Notices must be well publicized and mailed to all interested and affected
parties on the contact list (see 1. above) and to the media at least 45 days prior to the date
of the hearing. However, when the Assistant Administrator or Regional Administrator find that
no review of substantial documents is necessary for effective participation and there are no
complex or controversial matters to be addressed, the notice requirement may be reduced to
no less than 30 days in advance of the hearing. Additionally, in permit programs, notice
requirements will be governed by permit regulations and will be no less than 30 days. Notice
for EISs are covered by EIS regulation which calls for a 45-day review period, with an optional
15-day extension. Notice of the EIS hearing is generally contained in the Draft EIS. Hearings
on EISs are usually held before the end of the EIS review period, but no earlier than 30 days
after the EIS notice. Assistant Administrators or Regional Administrators may further reduce
or waive the requirements for advance notice of a hearing in emergency situations where
there is imminent danger to public health and safety or in situations where there is a legally
mandated timetable. Assistant Administrators may also reduce this requirement if they
determine that all affected parties would benefit from a shorter time period.
Members of the public who object to a waiver may appeal to the Administrator, stating their reasons
in detail.
(2) Content of Notice. The notice must identify the matters to be discussed at the hearing and
must include or be accompanied by: (a) a discussion of alternatives the public is being asked
to comment upon and the agency's tentative conclusions on major issues (if any): (b)
information on the availability of an EIS and bibliography of other relevant materials (if
appropriate), (c) procedures and contact for obtaining further information; and (d) information
which the agency particularly solicits from the public.
_
-------
Engaging the American People
(3) Provision of Information. All reports, EISs and other documents and data relevant to the
discussions at the public hearings must be available to the public on request after the notice,
as soon as they become available to agency staff. Background information should be
provided no later than 30 days prior to the hearing.
(4) Conduct of Hearing. The agency conducting the hearing must inform the audience of the
issues involved in the decision to be made, the considerations the agency will take into
account under law and regulations, the agency's tentative conclusions (if any), and the
information which the agency particularly solicits from the public. Whenever possible, the
hearing room should be set up informally. The agency should allocate time for presentations,
questions and answers, as well as formal commentary on the record. When needed, a pre-
hearing meeting to discuss the issues should be held. Procedures must not inhibit free
expression of views. When the subject of a hearing addresses conditions in a specific
geographic area, the hearing itself should be held in that general area.
(5) Record of Hearing. The hearing record must be left open for at least ten days to receive
additional comment, including any from those unable to attend in person, and may be kept
open longer, at the discretion of the hearing officer. The agency must prepare a transcript or
record of the hearing itself and add additional comments to the complete record of the
proceeding. This must be available for public inspection and copying at cost at convenient
locations. Alternatively, copies shall be provided free. If tapes are used, they should be
available for use and copying on conventional equipment. When a Responsiveness Summary
(see Assimilation below) is prepared after a hearing, it must be provided to those who
testified at or attended the hearing, as well as anyone who requests it.
b. Requirements for advisory groups. Formation of an advisory group is one of the methods
that can be chosen to gain sustained advice from a representative group of citizens.
The primary function of an advisory group is to assist elected or appointed officials by making
recommendations to them on issues which the decision making body and the advisory group
consider relevant. These issues may include policy development, project alternatives, financial
assistance applications, work plans, major contracts, interagency agreements, budget submissions,
among others.
Advisory groups can provide a forum for addressing issues, promote constructive dialogue among the
various interests represented on the group, and enhance community understanding of the agency's
action.
(1) Requirements for Federal EPA Advisory Committees: When EPA establishes an advisory
group, provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463) and General
Service Administration (GSA) Regulations on Federal Advisory Committee Management must
be followed.
(2) Requirements for State and Substate and Local Advisory Committees: (Explanatory Note:
The following guidelines do not apply to advisory committees, as defined by the Federal
Advisory Committee Act, which are established or utilized by EPA.) In instances where
regulations, program guidance, or the public participation work plans of State, substate, or
local agencies call for advisory groups, the following special requirements will apply:
(a) Composition of Advisory Groups. Agencies must try to constitute advisory groups so that
-------
EPA Public Participation Policy Review Workgroup
the membership includes the major affected parties, reflects a balance of interests, and
consists of substantially equivalent proportibns of the following groups:
• Private citizens. This portion of the advisory group would not include anyone who is likely
to incur a financial gain or loss greater than that of an average homeowner, taxpayer, or
consumer as a result of any action that is likely to be taken by the managing agency;
Individual citizens or representatives of organizations that have substantial economic
interests in the plan or project;
• Federal, State, local, and tribal officials. These may be both elected and policy-level
appointed officials, so long as the elected officials do not come from the decision-making
body the group is advising;
• Representatives of public interest groups. A "public interest group" is an organization
which has a general civic, social, recreational, environmental, or public health perspective in
the area, and which does not directly reflect the economic interests of its membership.
Generally, where an activity has a particular geographic focus, the advisory group should be
composed of persons from that geographic area, unless issues involved are of wider application.
Where problems in meeting the membership composition arise, the agency should request advice
and assistance from EPA or the State in the case of a delegated program. EPA shall review the
agency's efforts to comply, and approve the advisory group composition, or, if the agency's efforts
were inadequate, require additional actions.
(b) Resources for Advisory Groups. To the extent possible, agencies shall identify
professional and clerical staff time which the advisory group may depend upon for assistance,
and provide the advisory group with an operating budget which may be used for mailing,
duplicating, technical assistance, and other purposes the advisory group and the agency
have agreed upon. The agency should establish a system for reimbursing advisory group
members for reasonable out-of-pocket expenses that relate to their participation on the
advisory group.
(3) Advisory Group Recommendations: Recommendations, including minority reports and the
minutes of all meetings of an advisory group, are matters of public information. As soon as
these become available to agency staff, the agency must provide them to the public on
request and distribute them to relevant public agencies. Advisory groups may communicate
with EPA or the public as needed, or request EPA to perform an evaluation of the assisted
agency's compliance with the requirements of this part.
4. Assimilation. The heart of public participation lies in the degree to which it informs and influences
final agency decisions. Assimilating public viewpoints and preferences into final conclusions involves
examining and analyzing public comments, considering how to incorporate them into final program
decisions, and making or modifying decisions according to carefully considered public views. The
agency must then demonstrate, in its decisions and actions, that it has understood and fully
considered public concerns. Assimilation of public views must include the following three elements:
a. Documentation. The agency must briefly and clearly document consideration of the public's
views in Responsiveness Summaries, regulatory preambles, EISs or other appropriate forms.
-------
Engaging the American People
This should be done at key decision points specified in program guidance or in work for
public participation.
b. Content. Each Responsiveness Summary (or similar document) must:
- explain briefly the type of public participation activity that was conducted;
- \ dentify or summarize those who participated and their affiliation;
- describe the matters on which the public was consulted;
- summarize the public's views, important comments, criticisms and suggestions;
- disclose the agency's logic in developing decisions; and
-set forth the agency's specific responses, in terms of modifying the proposed action, or
explaining why the agency rejected proposals made by the public.
c. Use. The agency must use Responsiveness Summaries in its decision-making. In
addition, final Responsiveness Summaries that are prepared by an agency receiving financial
assistance from EPA must also include that agency's (and where applicable, its advisory
group's) evaluation of its public participation program.
5. Feedback. The agency must provide feedback to participants and interested parties
concerning the outcome of the public's involvement. Feedback may be in the form of personal letters
or phone calls, if the number of participants is small. Alternatively, the agency may mail a
Responsiveness Summary to those on the contact list, or may publish it.
a. Content. The feedback that the agency gives must include a statement of the action that
was taken, and must indicate the effect the public's comments had on that action.
b. Availability. Agency officials must take the initiative in giving appropriate feedback, and
must assure that all public participants in a particular activity are provided that feedback. As
Responsiveness Summaries are prepared, their availability should be announced to the
public. When regulations are developed, reprints of Preambles and final regulations must be
provided to all who commented.
E. Work Plans
A work plan is a written document used for planning a public participation program. It may be an
element of regulatory development plans or program plans. Each work plan should include the
following elements: objectives, schedules, techniques, audiences and resources requirements. Work
plans should be completed on both a program and project level or for each activity identified under
Scope of the Policy.
Public participation work plans, undertaken by EPA or by applicants for EPA financial
assistance, shall set forth, at a minimum:
-------
EPA Public Participation Policy Review Workgroup
1. Key decisions subject to public participation;
2. Staff contacts and budget resources to be allocated to public participation;
3. Segments of the public targeted for involvement;
4. Proposed schedule for public participation activities to impact program decisions;
S.Mechanism to apply the five basic functions - Identification, Outreach, Dialogue, Assimilation, and
Feedback - outlined in Section D of this Policy.
Reasonable costs of public participation incurred by assisted agencies, including advisory group
expenses, and identified in an approved public participation work plan, will be eligible for financial
assistance, subject to statutory or regulatory limitations. Assistant Administrators and Regional
Administrators will ensure that program work plans are developed in a timely manner for use in the
annual budget planning process. Work plans will be reviewed by the Special Assistant for Public
Participation, who will work with program and regional managers to ensure that work plans
adequately carry out this Policy. Work plans may be used as public information documents.
F. Assistance to the Public
EPA recognizes that responsible participation by the various elements of the public in some of the
highly technical and complex issues addressed by the agency requires substantial commitments of
time, study, research analysis, and discussion. While the Agency needs the perspectives and ideas
that citizens bring, it cannot always expect the public to contribute its efforts on a voluntary basis.
Assistant Administrators, office Directors, and Regional Administrators can provide funds to outside
organizations and individuals for public participation activities which they, as EPA managers, deem
appropriate and essential for achieving program goals, and which clearly do not involve rulemaking or
adjudicative activities.
Participation Funding Cr/teria-Any financial assistance awarded by the Agency for
non-regulatory or non-adjudicatory participation should be based on the following criteria:
(1) whether the activity proposed will further the objectives of this Policy:
(2) whether the activity proposed will result in the participation of interests not adequately
represented;
(3) whether the applicant does not otherwise have adequate resources to participate; and
(4) whether the applicant is qualified to accomplish the work.
These are the primary tests for public participation financial assistance. From among those who meet
these tests, the Agency will make special efforts to provide assistance to groups who may have had
fewer opportunities or insufficient resources to participate.
-------
Engaging the American People
G. Authority and Responsibility
Public participation has an integral part in the accomplishment of any program. It should
routinely be included in decision-making and not be treated as an independent function. Managers
shall assure that personnel are properly trained, and that funding needs are incorporated in their
specific budgets.
Responsibility and accountability for the adequacy of public participation programs belong
primarily to the Regional Administrators and the Assistant Administrators, under the overall direction
of the Administrator.
1. The Administrator maintains overall direction and responsibility for the Agency's public
participation activities. Specifically, the Administrator, aided by the Special Assistant for Public
Participation, will:
(a) establish policy direction and guidance for all EPA public participation programs;
(b) review public participation program work plans, including resource allocation;
(c) coordinate public participation funding to outside groups to ensure the most economical
expenditures;
(d) provide technical advice and assistance as appropriate;
(e) develop guidance and training needed to ensure that program personnel are equipped to
implement the Policy;
(f) provide incentives to agency personnel to ensure commitment and competence; and
(g) evaluate at least annually the adequacy of public participation activities conducted under this
Policy, and the appropriateness and results of public participation expenditures.
2. Assistant Administrators have the following responsibilities:
(a) identify and address those activities where application of this Policy is required;
(b) identify and address those forthcoming major policy decisions where the Policy should be
applied;
(c) ensure that program work plans are developed annually to provide for adequate public
participation in the above decisions and activities;
(d) implement approved work plans for public information and public participation activities;
(e) ensure that, as regulations for the programs cited in the Appendix of the Policy are
amended, they incorporate the Policy's provisions;
(0 evaluate the appropriateness of public participation expenditures and activities under their
jurisdiction, revising and improving them as necessary;
(g) encourage coordination of public participation activities;
-------
EPA Public Participation Policy Review Workgroup
(h) provide guidance and assistance to support regional office activities;
(i) seek public participation in decisions to modify or develop major national policies, at their
discretion;
(j) consider funding authorized pilot and/or innovative demonstration projects;
(k) consider measures to ensure Policy implementation in appropriate managers' performance
standards;
(I) provide financial assistance, as appropriate and available, for authorized public participation
activities at the national level.
3. Regional Administrators have the following responsibilities:
(a) identify and address those EPA and EPA-assisted activities where application of this Policy
is required;
(b) identify and address those forthcoming EPA and EPA-assisted major policy decisions where
the Policy should be applied;
(c) ensure that work plans are developed annually by the programs and recipients to provide for
adequate public participation in the above decisions and activities;
(d) implement approved work plans for public information and public participation activities;
(e) ensure that public participation is included by applicants in the development of program
funding applications to EPA, and in other decisions as identified by this Policy;
(f) provide guidance and technical assistance to recipients on the conduct of public participation
activities;
(g) evaluate annually public participation activities of State, substate, or local entities, revising
andeimproving them as necessary;
(h) encourage coordination of public participation activities;
(i) support and assist the public participation activities of Headquarters;
(j) ensure that Regional staff are trained, and resources allocated for public participation
program;
(k) incorporate measures to ensure Policy implementation in managers' performance standards;
(I) provide small grants to representative public groups for needed public participation work;
(m) evaluate the appropriateness of public participation expenditures and activities, revising and
improving them as necessary.
-------
Engaging the American People
4. The Director, Office of Public Awareness has an important role in the development and support of
Agency public participation activities. The Director will:
(a) assist Headquarters and regional programs in identifying interested and affected members of
the public in compiling project contacts lists;
(b) support Headquarters and regional program in development and distribution of outreach
materials to inform and educate the public about environmental programs and issues, and
participation opportunities;
(c) develop annual public awareness/participation support plans to complement public
participation work plans and identify resources requirements.
H. Compliance
Assistant Administrators, Office Directors, and Regional Administrators are responsible for making
certain that, for the activities under their jurisdiction, all those concerned comply with the public
participation requirements set forth in this Policy.
Regional Administrators will evaluate compliance with public participation requirements in appropriate
State and substate programs supported by EPA financial assistance. This will be done during the
annual review of the States' program(s) which is required by grant provisions, and during any other
program audit or review.
If the Regional Administrator is not satisfied that this Policy is being carried out, he or she should
defer the grant award until these conditions can be met where that course is legally permissible. A
Regional Administrator may grant a waiver from specific requirements in this Policy upon a showing
by the agency that proposed action will result in substantially greater public participation than would
be provided by the Policy.
The Administrator of EPA has final authority and responsibility for ensuring compliance. Citizens with
information concerning apparent failures to comply with these public participation requirements
should first notify the appropriate Regional Administrator or Assistant Administrator, and then if
necessary, the Administrator. The Regional Administrator, Assistant Administrator, or Administrator
will make certain that instances of alleged noncompliance are promptly investigated and that
corrective action is taken where necessary.
Appendix—List of Citations Covering Program Grants, Delegations, or Permits to States and
Substate Governments
The Public Participation Policy will be incorporated in program regulations that cover financial
assistance or delegations of authority to State or substate governments or approval of State
programs. Where consolidated awards exist under these provisions, they also will be covered.
Programs under the Clean Water Act, Safe Drinking Water Act, and the Resource Conservation
Recovery Act are already covered by this Policy insofar as they have been amended, or will be
amended, to incorporate 40 CFR, Part, 25. Consolidated permit programs are covered by 40 CFR
Parts 122, 123, and 124. Regulations that refer to existing programs now covered by the Policy will
have to be amended to incorporate its provisions. Where programs regulations are not yet written, the
Policy shall be incorporated.
-------
EPA Public Participation Policy Review Workgroup
Clean Air Act (Pub. 195-95)
Air Pollution Control Program Grants
Sec. 105-Grants to State and local air pollution control agencies for support of air pollution
planning and control programs. (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance No.66001.)
Sec. 106-Grants to interstate air quality agencies and commissions to develop implementation plans
for interstate air quality agencies and commissions to develop implementation plans for interstate air
quality control regions. [When funded].
Urban Mass Transportation Technical Studies Grants (DOT)
Sec. 175-Grants to organizations of local elected officials with transportation or air quality
maintenance responsibilities for air quality maintenance planning. (CFDA No. 20.505)
Sec. 210-Grants to State agencies for developing and maintaining effective vehicle emission devices
and systems inspection and emission testing and control programs. [When funded].
Quiet Communities Act (Pub. L. 95-609)
Quiet Communities—State and Local Capacity Building Assistance
Sec. 14(c)-Grants to State and substate governments and regional planning agencies for planning,
developing, evaluating, and demonstrating techniques for quiet communities. (CFDA No. 66.031.)
Toxic Substances Control Act (Pub. L. 94-469)
State Toxic Substance Control Projects
Sec. 28-Grants to State for establishing and operating programs to complete EPA efforts in
preventing or eliminating risks to health or environment from chemicals. (CFDA No. 66.800.)
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (Publ. L. 95-398) Pesticides Enforcement
Program Grant
Sec. 23(a)-Funding to States/Indian tribes through cooperative agreements for enforcement and
applicator training and certification. (CFDA No. 66-700.)
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (Pub. L. 94-580)
Sec. 3005(a)-lssuance of permits for treatment, storage and disposal of hazardous waste.
Sec. 3006-Delegation of authority to administer and enforce hazardous waste program.
Sec. 4002-State Planning Guidelines. Solid and Hazardous Waste Management Program Support
Grants
Sec. 4007-Approval for State, local, and regional authorities to implement State or Regional Solid
Waste Plans and be eligible for Federal assistance. (CFDA No. 66.451)
-------
Engaging the American People
Sec 4008-Grants to State and substate agencies for solid waste management, resource recovery and
conservation, and hazardous waste management. (CFDA No. 66.451.)
Sec. 4009-Grants to States for rural areas solid waste management facilities. (CFDA No. 66.451.)
Solid Waste Management Demonstration Grants
Sec. 8006-Grants to State, municipal, interstate or intermunicipal agency for resource recovery
systems or improved solid waste disposal facilities. (CFDA No. 66.452.)
Solid Waste Management Training Grants
Section 7007-Grants or contracts for States, interstate agency, municipality and other organizations
for training personnel in occupations related to solid waste management and resource recovery
(CFDA No 66.453.)
Safe Drinking Water Act (Pub. L 95-190)
Sec. 1421(b)-lssuance of permits for underground injection control programs.
State Public Water System Supervision Program Grants
Sec. 1443(a)-Grants to States for public water system supervision. (CFDA 66.432.)
State Underground Water Source Protection-Program Grants
Sec. 1443(b)-Grants to States for underground water source protection proqrams
(CFDA66.433.)
Clean Water Act (Pub. L 95-217)
Construction Grants for Wastewater Treatment Works
Sec. 201-Grants to State, Municipality, or intermunicipal agencies for construction of wastewater
treatment works. (CFDA 66.418.)
Water Pollution Control-State and Interstate Program Grants
Sec. 106-Grants to State and Interstate agencies for water pollution control administration
(CFDA 66.419.)
Water Pollution Control-State and Area-wide Water Quality Management Planning Agency
Sec. 205(g)-Delegation of management of construction grants programs to State designated
agency(ies). (CFDA 66.438.)
Sec. 208-Grants for State and area-wide waste treatment management planning. (CFDA 66.426.)
Water Pollution Control-Lake Restoration Demonstration Grants
-------
EPA Public Participation Policy Review Workgroup
Sec. 314-Clean Lakes Program.
Sec. 402(a)-lssuance of permits under National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System.
Sec. 404-lssuance of permits for disposal of dredge and fill materials.
Pub. L. 94-580, Sections 3005 & 3006;
Pub. L 95-190, Sections 1421-1423;
Pub. L 95-217, Section 402;
Pub. L 95-217, Section 404;
Pub. L. 95-95, Section 165;
Proposed consolidated permit regulations, covering; Hazardous Waste Program under RCRA; UIC
Program under SDWA. NPDES and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, and the PSD Program
under the Clean Air Act.
APPENDIX D-2: TITLE 40 PART 25 OF THE CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS
Environmental Protection Agency § 25.2
PART 25—PUBLIC PARTICIPATION IN PROGRAMS UNDER THE RE-SOURCE CONSERVATION
AND RECOVERY ACT, THE SAFE DRINKING WATER ACT, AND THE CLEAN WATER ACT
Sec.
25.1 Introduction.
25.2 Scope.
25.3 Policy and objectives.
25.4 Information, notification, and consultation responsibilities.
25.5 Public hearings.
25.6 Public meetings.
25.7 Advisory groups.
25.8 Responsiveness summaries.
25.9 Permit enforcement.
25.10 Rulemaking.
25.11 Work elements in financial assistance agreements.
25.12 Assuring compliance with public participation requirements.
25.13 Coordination and non-duplication.
25.14 Termination of reporting requirements.
AUTHORITY: Sec. 101(e), Clean Water Act, as amended (33 U.S.C. 1251(e)); sec. 7004(b),
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (42 U.S.C. 6974(b)); sec. 1450(a)(1), Safe Drinking
Water Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 300J-9).
SOURCE: 44 FR 10292, Feb. 16, 1979, unless otherwise noted.
-------
Engaging the American People
§ 25.1 Introduction.
This part sets forth minimum requirements and suggested program elements for public participation .
in activities under the Clean Water Act (Pub. L. 95-217), the Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act (Pub. L. 94-580), and the Safe. Drinking Water Act (Pub. L. 93-523). The applicability of the
requirements of this part is as follows:
(a) Basic requirements and suggested program elements for public information, public notification,
and public consultation are set forth in § 25.4. These requirements are intended to foster public
awareness and open processes of government decision making. They are applicable to all covered
activities and programs described in § 25.2(a).
(b) Requirements and suggested program elements which govern the structure of particular public
participation mechanisms (for example, advisory groups and responsiveness summaries) are set forth
in
§§ 25.5, 25.6, 25.7, and 25.8. This part does not mandate the use of these public participation
mechanisms. It does, however, set requirements which those responsible for implementing the
mechanisms must follow if the mechanisms are required elsewhere in this chapter.
(c) Requirements which apply to Federal financial assistance programs (grants and cooperative
agreements) under the three acts are set forth in §§ 25.10 and 25.12(a).
(d) Requirements for public involvement which apply to specific activities are set forth in § 25.9
(Permit enforcement), § 25.10 (Rulemaking), and § 25.12 (Assuring compliance with requirements).
§ 25.2 Scope.
(a) The activities under the three Acts which are covered by this part are:
(1) EPA rulemaking, except non-policy rulemaking (for example publication of funding allotments
under statutory formulas); and State rulemaking under the Clean Water Act and Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act;
(2) EPA issuance and modification of permits, and enforcement of permits as delineated by § 25.9;
(3) Development by EPA of major informational materials, such as citizen guides or handbooks,
which are expected to be used over several years and which are intended to be widely distributed to
the public;
(4) Development by EPA of strategy and policy guidance memoranda when a Deputy Assistant
Administrator determines it to be appropriate;
(5) Development and implementation of plans, programs, standards, construction, and other activities
supported with EPA financial assistance (grants and cooperative agreements) to State, interstate,
regional and local agencies (herein after referred to as "State, interstate, and substate agencies");
(6) The process by which EPA makes a determination regarding approval of State administration of
the Construction Grants program in lieu of Federal administration; and the administration of the
Construction Grants Program by the State after EPA approval;
-------
EPA Public Participation Policy Review Workgroup
(7) The process by which EPA makes a determination regarding approval of State administration of
the following programs in lieu of Federal administration: The State Hazardous Waste Program; the
NPDES Permit Program; the Dredge and Fill Permit Program; and the Underground Injection Control
Program;
(8) Other activities which the Assistant Administrator for Water and Waste Management, the
Assistant Administrator for Enforcement, or any EPA Regional Administrator deems appropriate in
view of the Agency's responsibility to involve the public in significant decisions.
(b) Activities which are not covered by this part, except as otherwise provided under (a)(8) or (c) of
this section, are activities under parts 33 (Subagreements), 39 (Loan Guarantees for Construction of
Treatment Works), 40 (Research and Development Grants), 45 (Training Grants and Manpower
Forecasting) and 46 (Fellowships) of this chapter.
(c) Some programs covered by these regulations contain further provisions concerning public
participation. These are found elsewhere in this chapter in provisions which apply to the program of
interest. Regulations which govern the use and release of public information are set forth in part 2 of
this chapter.
(d) Specific provisions of court orders which conflict with requirements of this part, such as court-
established timetables, shall take precedence over the provisions in this part.
(e) Where the State undertakes functions in the construction grants program, the State shall be
responsible for meeting these requirements for public participation, and any applicable public
participation requirements found elsewhere in this chapter, to the same extent as EPA.
(f) Where the State undertakes functions in those programs specifically cited in § 25.2(a)(7), the
State shall be responsible for meeting the requirements for public participation included in the
applicable regulations governing those State programs. The requirements for public participation in
State Hazardous Waste Programs, Dredge and Fill Permit programs, Underground Injection Control
programs and NPDES permit programs are found in part 123 of this chapter. These regulations
embody the substantive requirements of this part.
(g) These regulations apply to the activities of all agencies receiving EPA financial assistance which
is awarded after [the effective date of final regulations], and to all other covered activities of EPA,
State, interstate, and substate agencies which occur after that date. These regulations will apply to
ongoing grants or other covered activities upon any significant change in the activity (for example,
upon a significant proposed increase in project scope of a construction grant). Parts 105 (Public
Participation in Water Pollution Control) and 249 (Public Participation in Solid Waste Management)
will no longer appear in the Code of Federal Regulations; however, they will remain applicable, in
uncodified form, to grants awarded prior to the effective date of this part and to all other ongoing
activities.
§ 25.3 Policy and objectives.
(a) EPA, State, interstate, and substate agencies carrying out activities described in §25.2(a) shall
provide for, encourage, and assist the participation of the public. The term, "the public" in the
broadest sense means the people as a whole, the general populace. There are a number of
identifiable "segments of the public" which may have a particular interest in a given program or
decision. Interested and affected segments of the public may be affected directly by a decision,
-------
Engaging the American People
either beneficially or adversely; they may be affected indirectly; or they may have some other concern
about the decision. In addition to private citizens, the public may include, among others,
representatives of consumer, environmental, and minority associations; trade, industrial, agricultural,
and labor organizations; public health, scientific, and professional societies; civic associations; public
officials; and governmental and educational associations.
(b) Public participation is that part of the decision-making process through which responsible officials
become aware of public attitudes by providing ample opportunity for interested and affected parties to
communicate their views. Public participation includes providing access to the decision-making
process, seeking input from and conducting dialogue with the public, assimilating public viewpoints
and preferences, and demonstrating that those viewpoints and preferences have been considered by
the decision-making official. Disagreement on significant issues is to be expected among government
agencies and the diverse groups interested in and affected by public policy decisions. Public
agencies should encourage full presentation of issues at an early stage so that they can be resolved
and timely decisions can be made. In the course of this process, responsible officials should make
special efforts to encourage and assist participation by citizens representing themselves and by
others whose resources and access to decision-making may be relatively limited.
(c) The following are the objectives of EPA, State, interstate, and substate agencies in carrying out
activities covered by this part:
(1) To assure that the public has the opportunity to understand official programs and proposed
actions, and that the government fully considers the public's concerns;
(2) To assure that the government does not make any significant decision on any activity covered by
this part without consulting interested and affected segments of the public;
(3) To assure that government action is as responsive as possible to public concerns;
(4) To encourage public involvement in implementing environmental laws;
(5) To keep the public informed about significant issues and proposed project or program changes as
they arise;
(6) To foster a spirit of openness and mutual trust among EPA, States, substate agencies and the
public; and
(7) To use all feasible means to create opportunities for public participation, and to stimulate and
support participation.
§ 25.4 Information, notification, and consultation responsibilities.
(a) General. EPA, State, interstate, and substate agencies shall conduct a continuing program for
public information and participation in the development and implementation of activities covered by
this part. This program shall meet the following requirements:
(b) Information and assistance requirements.
-------
EPA Public Participation Policy Review Workgroup
(1) Providing information to the public is a necessary prerequisite to meaningful, active public
involvement. Agencies shall design informational activities to encourage and facilitate the public's
participation in all significant decisions covered by § 25.2(a), particularly where alternative courses of
action are proposed.
(2) Each agency shall provide the public with continuing policy, program, and technical information
and assistance beginning at the earliest practicable time. Informational materials shall highlight
significant issues that will be the subject of decision-making. Whenever possible, consistent with
applicable statutory requirements, the social, economic, and environmental consequences of
proposed decisions shall be clearly stated in such material. Each agency shall identify segments of
the public likely to be affected by agency decisions and should consider targeting informational
materials toward them (in addition to the materials directed toward the general public). Lengthy
documents and complex technical materials that relate to significant decisions should be
summarizedjor public and media uses. Fact sheets, news releases, newsletters, and other similar
publications may be used to provide notice that materials are available and to facilitate public
understanding of more complex documents, but shall not be a substitute for public access to the full
documents.
(3) Each agency shall provide one or more central collections of reports, studies, plans, and other
documents relating to controversial issues or significant decisions in a convenient location or
locations, for example, in public libraries. Examples of such documents are catalogs of documents
available from the agency, grant applications, fact sheets on permits and permit applications,
permits, effluent discharge information, and compliance schedule reports. Copying facilities at
reasonable cost should be available at the depositories.
(4) Whenever possible, agencies shall provide copies of documents of interest to the public free of
charge. Charges for copies should not exceed prevailing commercial copying costs. EPA
requirements governing charges for information and documents provided to the public in response to
requests made under the Freedom of Information Act are set forth in part 2 of this chapter.
Consistent with the objectives of §25.3(b), agencies may reserve their supply of free copies for private
citizens and others whose resources are limited. (5) Each agency shall develop and maintain a list of
persons and organizations who have expressed an interest in or may, by the nature of their purposes,
activities or members, be affected by or have an interest in any covered activity. Generally, this list
will be most useful where subdivided by area of interest or geographic area. Whenever possible, the
list should include representatives of the several categories of interests listed under § 25.3(a). Those
on the list, or relevant portions if the list is subdivided, shall receive timely and periodic notification of
the availability of materials under § 25.4(b)(2).
(c) Public notification. Each agency shall notify interested and affected parties, including appropriate
portions of the list required by paragraph (b)(5) of this section, and the media in advance of times at
which major decisions not covered by notice requirements for public meetings or public hearings are
being considered. Generally, notices should include the timetable in which a decision will be reached,
the issues under consideration, any alternative courses of action or tentative determinations which
the agency has made, a brief listing of the applicable laws or regulations, the location where relevant
documents may be reviewed or obtained, identification of any associated public participation
opportunities such as workshops or meetings, the name of an individual to contact for additional
information, and any other appropriate information. All advance notifications under this paragraph
must be provided far enough in advance of agency action to permit time for public response; generally
this should not be less than 30 days.
-------
Engaging the American People
(d) Public consultation. For the purposes of this part, "public consultatiorT'means an exchange of
views between governmental agencies and interested or affected persons and organizations in order
to meet the objectives set forth in § 25.3. Requirements for three common forms of public
consultation (public hearings, public meetings, and advisory groups) are set forth in §§ 25.5, 25.6,
and 25.7. Other less formal consultation mechanisms may include but are not limited to review
groups, ad hoc committees, task forces, workshops, seminars and informal personal
communications with individuals and groups. Public consultation must be preceded by timely
distribution of information and must occur sufficiently in advance of decision-making to allow the
agency to assimilate public views into agency action. EPA, State, interstate, and substate agencies
shall provide for early and continuing public consultation in any significant action covered by this part.
Merely conferring with the public after an agency decision does not meet this requirement. In addition
to holding hearings and meetings as specifically required in this chapter, a hearing or meeting shall
be held if EPA, the State, interstate, or substate agency determines that there is significant public
interest or that a hearing or meeting would be useful.
(e) Public Information concerning legal proceedings. EPA, State, interstate, and substate agencies
shall provide full and open information on legal proceedings to the extent not inconsistent with court
requirements, and where such disclosure would not prejudice the conduct of the litigation. EPA
actions with regard to affording opportunities for public comment before the Department of Justice
consents to a proposed judgment in an action to enjoin discharges of pollutants into the environment
shall be consistent with the Statement of Policy issued by the Department of Justice (see title 28,
CFR, chapter 1, § 50.7).
§ 25.5 Public hearings.
(a) Applicability. Any non-adjudicatory public hearing, whether mandatory or discretionary, under the
three Acts shall meet the following minimum requirements. These requirements are subordinate to
any more stringent requirements found elsewhere in this chapter or otherwise imposed by EPA,
State, interstate, or substate agencies. Procedures developed for adjudicatory hearings required by
this chapter shall be consistent with the public participation objectives of this part, to the extent
practicable.
(b) Notice. A notice of each hearing shall be well publicized, and shall also be mailed to the
appropriate portions of the list of interested and affected parties required by § 25.4(b)(5). Except as
otherwise specifically provided elsewhere in this chapter, these actions must occur at least 45 days
prior to the date of the hearing. However, where EPA determines that there are no substantial
documents which must be reviewed for effective hearing participation and that there are no complex
or controversial matters to be addressed by the hearing, the notice requirement may be reduced to
no less than 30 days. EPA may further reduce or waive the hearing notice requirement in emergency
situations where EPA determines that there is an imminent danger to public health. To the extent not
duplicative, the agency holding the hearing shall also provide informal notice to all interested persons
or organizations that request it. The notice shall identify the matters to be discussed at the hearing
and shall include or be accompanied by a discussion of the agency's tentative determination on
major issues (if any), information on the availability of a bibliography of relevant materials (if deemed
appropriate), and procedures for obtaining further information. Reports, documents and data relevant
to the discussion at the public hearing shall be available to the public at least 30 days before the
hearing. Earlier availability of materials relevant to the hearing will further assist public participation
and is encouraged where possible.
-------
EPA Public Participation Policy Review Workgroup
(c) Locations and time. Hearings must be held at times and places which, to the maximum extent
feasible, facilitate attendance by the public. Accessibility of public transportation, and use of evening
and weekend hearings, should be considered. In the case of actions with Statewide interest, holding
more than one hearing should be considered.
(d) Scheduling presentations. The agency holding the hearing shall schedule witnesses in advance,
when necessary, to ensure maximum participation and allotment of adequate time for all speakers.
However, the agency shall reserve some time for unscheduled testimony and may consider reserving
blocks of time for major categories of witnesses.
(e) Conduct of hearing. The agency holding the hearing shall inform the audience of the issues
involved in the decision to be made, the considerations the agency will take into account, the
agency's tentative determinations (if any), and the information which is particularly solicited from the
public. The agency should consider allowing a question and answer period. Procedures shall not
unduly inhibit free expression of views (for example, by onerous written statement requirements or
qualification of witnesses beyond minimum identification).
(f) Record. The agency holding the hearing shall prepare a transcript, recording or other complete
record of public hearing proceedings and make it available at no more than cost to anyone who
requests it. A copy of the record shall be available for public review.
§ 25.6 Public meetings.
Public meetings are any assemblies or gathering, (such as conferences, informational sessions,
seminars, workshops, or other activities) which the responsible agency intends to be open to anyone
wishing to attend. Public meetings are less formal than public hearings. They do not require formal
presentations, scheduling of presentations and a record of proceedings. The requirements of § 25.5
(b) and (c) are applicable to public meetings, except that the agency holding the meeting may reduce
the notice to not less than 30 days if there is good reason that longer notice cannot be provided.
§ 25.7 Advisory groups.
(a) Applicability. The requirements of this section on advisory groups shall be met whenever
provisions 6f this chapter require use of an advisory group by State, interstate, or substate agencies
involved in activities supported by EPA financial assistance under any of the three Acts.
(b) Role. Primary responsibility for decision-making in environmental programs is vested by law in the
elected and appointed officials who serve on public bodies and agencies at various levels of
government. However, all segments of the public must have the opportunity to participate in
environmental quality planning. Accordingly, where EPA identifies a need for continued attention of an
informed core group of citizens in relation to activities conducted with EPA financial assistance,
program regulations elsewhere in this chapter will require an advisory group to be appointed by the
financially assisted agency. Such advisory groups will not be the sole mechanism for public
participation, but will complement other mechanisms. They are intended to assist elected or
appointed officials with final decision-making responsibility by making recommendations to such
officials on important issues. In addition, advisory groups should foster a constructive interchange
among the various interests present on the group and enhance the prospect of community
acceptance of agency action.
-------
Engaging the American People
(c) Membership.
(1) The agency receiving financial assistance shall assure that the advisory group reflects a balance
of interests in the affected area. In order to meet this requirement, the assisted agency shall take
positive action, in accordance with paragraph (c)(3) of this section, to establish an advisory board
group which consists of substantially equivalent proportions of the following four groups:
(i) Private citizens. No person may be included in this portion of the advisory group who is likely
to incur a financial gain or loss greater than that of an average homeowner, taxpayer or
consumer as a result of any action likely to be taken by the assisted agency.
(ii) Representatives of public interest groups. A "public interest group" is an organization which
reflects a general civic, social, recreational, environmental or public health perspective in the
area and which does not directly reflect the economic interests of its membership.
(Hi) Public officials.
(iv) Citizens or representatives of organizations with substantial economic interests in the plan or
project.
(2) Generally, where the activity has a particular geographic focus, the advisory group shall be made
up of persons who are residents of that geographic area.
(3) In order to meet the advisory group membership requirements of paragraph (c)(1) of this section,
the assisted agency shall:
(i) Identify public interest groups, economic interests, and public officials who are interested in
or affected by the assisted activity.
(ii) Make active efforts to inform citizens in the affected area, and the persons or groups
identified unqer paragraph (c)(3)(i) of this section, of this opportunity for participation on the
advisory group. This may include such actions as placing notices or announcements in the
newspapers or other media, mailing written notices to interested parties, contacting
organizations or individuals directly, requesting organizations to notify their members through
meetings, newsletters, or other means.
(iii) Where the membership composition set forth in paragraph (c)(1) of this section is not met
after the above actions, the assisted agency shall identify the causative problems and make
additional efforts to overcome such problems. For example, the agency should make
personal contact with prospective participants to invite their participation.
(iv) Where problems in meeting the membership composition arise, the agency should request
advice and assistance from EPA.
(d) The assisted agency shall record the names and mailing addresses of each member of the
advisory group, with the attributes of each in relation to the membership requirements set forth in
paragraph (c)(1) of this section, provide a copy to EPA, and make the list available to the public. In
the event that the membership requirements set forth in paragraph (c)(1) of this section are not met,
the assisted agency shall append to the list a description of its efforts to comply with those
requirements and an explanation of the problems which prevented compliance. EPA shall review the
-------
EPA Public Participation Policy Review Workgroup
agency's efforts to comply and approve the advisory group composition or, if the agency's efforts were
inadequate, require additional actions to achieve the required membership composition.
(e) Responsibilities of the assisted agency.
(1) The assisted agency shall designate a staff contact who will be responsible for day-to-day
coordination among the advisory group, the agency, and any agency contractors or consultants. The
financial assistance agreement shall include a budget item for this staff contact. Where substantial
portions of the assisted agency's responsibilities will be met under contract, the agency shall require
a similar designation, and budget specification, of its contractor. In the latter event, the assisted
agency does not have to designate a separate staff contact on its own staff, if the Regional
Administrator determines that the contractor's designation will result in adequate coordination. The
staff contact shall be located in the project area.
(2) The assisted agency has such responsibilities as providing the advisory group with information,
identifying issues for the advisory group's consideration, consulting with the advisory group
throughout the project, requesting the advisory group's recommendations prior to major decisions,
transmitting advisory group recommendations to decision-making officials, and making written
responses to any formal recommendation by the advisory group. The agency shall make any such
written responses available to the public. To the maximum extent feasible, the assisted agency shall
involve the advisory group in the development of the public participation program.
(3) The assisted agency shall identify professional and clerical staff time which the advisory group
may depend upon for assistance, and provide the advisory group with an operating budget which may
be used for technical assistance and other purposes agreed upon between the advisory group and
the agency. (4) The assisted agency shall establish a system to make costs of reasonable out-of-
pocket expenses of advisory group participation available to group members. Time away from work
need not be reimbursed; however, assisted agencies are encouraged to schedule meetings at times
and places which will not require members to leave their jobs to attend.
(f) Advisory group responsibilities and duties. The advisory group may select its own chairperson,
adopt its own rules of order, and schedule and conduct its own meetings. Advisory group meetings
shall be announced well in advance and shall be open to the public. At all meetings, the advisory
group shall provide opportunity for public comment. Any minutes of advisory group meetings and
recommendations to the assisted agency shall be available to the public. The advisory group should
monitor the progress of the project and become familiar with issues relevant to project development.
In the event the assisted agency and the advisory group agree that the advisory group will assume
public participation responsibilities, the group should undertake those responsibilities promptly. The
advisory group should make written recommendations directly to the assisted agency and to
responsible decision-making officials on major decisions (including approval of the public participation
program) and respond to any requests from the agency or decision-making officials for
recommendations. The advisory group should remain aware of community attitudes and responses
to issues as they arise. As part of this effort, the advisory group may, within the limitations of
available resources, conduct public participation activities in conjunction with the assisted agency;
solicit outside advice; and establish, in conjunction with the assisted agency, subcommittees, ad hoc
groups, or task forces to investigate and develop recommendations on particular issues as they
arise. The advisory group should undertake its responsibilities fully and promptly in accordance with
the policies and requirements of this part. Nothing shall preclude the right of the advisory group from
requesting EPA to perform an evaluation of the assisted agency's compliance with the requirements
of this part.
-------
Engaging the American People
(g) Training and assistance. EPA will promptly provide appropriate written guidance and project
information to the newly formed advisory group and may provide advice and assistance to the group
throughout the life of the project. EPA will develop and, in conjunction with the State or assisted
agency, carry out a program to provide a training session for the advisory group, and appropriate
assisted agency representatives, promptly after the advisory group is formed. The assisted agency
shall provide additional needed information or assistance to the advisory group.
§ 25.8 Responsiveness summaries.
Each agency which conducts any activities required under this part shall prepare a Responsiveness
Summary at specific decision points as specified in program regulations or in the approved public
participation work plan. Responsiveness Summaries are also required for rulemaking activities under
§25.10. Each Responsiveness Summary shall identify the public participation activity conducted;
describe the matters on which the public was consulted; summarize the public's views, significant
comments, criticisms and suggestions; and set forth the agency's specific responses in terms of
modifications of the proposed action or an explanation for rejection of proposals made by the public.
Responsiveness Summaries prepared by agencies receiving EPA financial assistance shall also
include evaluations by the agency of the effectiveness of the public participation program. Assisted
agencies shall request such evaluations from any advisory group and provide an opportunity for other
participating members of the public to contribute to the evaluation. (In the case of programs with
multiple responsiveness summary requirements, these analyses need only be prepared and
submitted with the final summary required.) Responsiveness summaries shall be forwarded to the
appropriate decision-making official and shall be made available to the public. Responsiveness
Summaries shall be used as part of evaluations required under this part or elsewhere in this chapter.
§ 25.9 Permit enforcement.
Each agency administering a permit program shall develop internal procedures for receiving evidence
submitted by citizens about permit violations and ensuring that it is properly considered. Public effort
in reporting violations shall be encouraged, and the agency shall make available information on
reporting procedures. The agency shall investigate alleged violations promptly.
§ 25.10 Rulemaking.
x>
(a) EPA shall invite and consider written comments on proposed and interim regulations from any
interested or affected persons and organizations. All such comments shall be part of the public
record, and a copy of each comment shall be available for public inspection. EPA will maintain a
docket of comments received and any Agency responses. Notices of proposed and interim
rulemaking, as well as final rules and regulations, shall be distributed in accordance with § 25.4(c) to
interested or affected persons promptly after publication. Each notice shall include information as to
the availability of the full texts of rules and regulations (where these are not set forth in the notice
itself) and places where copying facilities are available at reasonable cost to the public. Under
Executive Order 12044 (March 23, 1978), further EPA guidance will be issued concerning public
participation in EPA rulemaking.
A Responsiveness Summary shall be published as part of the preamble to interim and final
regulations. In addition to providing opportunity for written comments on proposed and interim
regulations, EPA may choose to hold a public hearing.
-------
EPA Public Participation Policy Review Workgroup
(b) State rulemaking specified in §25.2(a)(1) shall be in accord with the requirements of paragraph (a)
of this section or with the State's administrative procedures act, if one exists. However, in the event of
conflict between a provision of paragraph (a) of this section and a provision of a State's administrative
procedures act, the State's law shall apply.
§ 25.11 Work elements in financial assistance agreements.
(a) This section is applicable to activities under § 25.2(a)(5) except as otherwise provided in parts 30
or 35.
(b) Each applicant for EPA financial assistance shall set forth in the application a public participation
work plan or work element which reflects how public participation will be provided for, encouraged,
and assisted in accordance with this part. This work plan or element shall cover the project period.
At a minimum, the work plan or element shall include:
(1) Staff contacts and budget resources to be devoted to public participation by category;
(2) A proposed schedule for public participation activities to impact major decisions, including
consultation points where responsiveness summaries will be prepared;
(3) An identification of consultation and information mechanisms to be used;
(4) The segments of the public targeted for involvement.
(c) All reasonable costs of public participation incurred by assisted agencies which are identified in
an approved public participation work plan or element, or which are otherwise approved by EPA, shall
be eligible for financial assistance.
(d) The work plan or element may be revised as necessary throughout the project period with approval
of the Regional Administrator.
§ 25.12 Assuring compliance with public participation requirements.
(a) Financial assistance programs—
(1) Applications. EPA shall review the public participation work plan (or, if no work plan is required by
this chapter for the particular financial assistance agreement, the public participation element)
included in the application to determine consistency with all policies and requirements of this part.
No financial assistance shall be awarded unless EPA is satisfied that the public participation policies
and requirements of this part and, any applicable public participation requirements found elsewhere in
this chapter, will be met.
(2) Compliance—
(i) Evaluation. EPA shall evaluate compliance with public participation requirements using the work
plan, responsiveness summary, and other available information. EPA will judge the adequacy of the
public participation effort in relation to the objectives and requirements of § 25.3 and § 25.4 and other
applicable requirements. In conducting this evaluation, EPA may request additional information from
the assisted agency, including records of hearings and meetings, and may invite public comment on
the agency's performance. The evaluation will be undertaken as part of any mid-project review
required in various programs under this chapter; where no such review is required the review shall be
-------
Engaging the American People
conducted at an approximate mid-point in continuing EPA oversight activity. EPA may, however,
undertake such evaluation at any point in the project period, and will do so whenever it believes that
an assisted agency may have failed to meet public participation requirements.
(ii) Remedial actions. Whenever EPA determines that an assisted agency has not fully met public
participation requirements, EPA shall take actions which it deems appropriate to mitigate the adverse
effects of the failure and assure that the failure is not repeated. For ongoing projects, that action
shall include, at a minimum, imposing more stringent requirements on the assisted agency for the
next budget period or other period of the project (including such actions as more specific output
requirements and milestone schedules for output achievement; interim EPA review of public
participation activities and materials prepared by the agency, and phased release of funds based on
compliance with milestone schedules.) EPA may terminate or suspend part or all financial
assistance for noncompliance with public participation requirements, and may take any further
actions that it determines to be appropriate in accordance with parts 30 and 35 of this chapter (see,
in particular, § 30.340, Noncompliance and 30.615-3, Withholding of Payments, and subpart H of
part 30, Modification, Suspension, and Termination).
(b) State programs approved in lieu of Federal programs. State compliance with applicable public
participation requirements in programs specified in § 25.2(a) (6) and (7) and administered by approved
States shall be monitored by EPA during the annual review of the State's program, and during any
financial or program audit or review of these programs. EPA may withdraw an approved program from
a State for failure to comply with applicable public participation requirements.
(c) Other covered programs. Assuring compliance with these public participation requirements for
programs not covered by paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section is the responsibility of the
Administrator of EPA. Citizens with information concerning alleged failures to comply with the public
participation requirements should notify the Administrator. The Administrator will assure that
instances of alleged noncompliance are promptly investigated and that corrective action is taken
where necessary.
§ 25.13 Coordination and Non-duplication.
The public participation activities and materials that are required under this part should be
coordinated or combined with those of closely related programs or activities wherever this will
enhance the economy, the effectiveness, or the timeliness of the effort; enhance the clarity of the
issue; and not be detrimental to participation by the widest possible public. Hearings and meetings
on the same matter may be held jointly by more than one agency where this does not conflict with
the policy of this paragraph. Special efforts shall be made to coordinate public participation
procedures under this part and applicable regulations elsewhere in this chapter with environmental
assessment and analysis procedures under 40 CFR part 6. EPA encourages interstate agencies in
particular to develop combined proceedings for the States concerned.
§ 25.14 Termination of reporting requirements.
All reporting requirements specifically established by this part will terminate on (5 years from date of
publication) unless EPA acts to extend the requirements beyond that date.
-------
Feedback Inventory
The act of receiving and measuring customer feedback* is also a way to measure success in a
customer service driven program. Since EPA has a high dependency on the cooperation of
others to accomplish its mission, it must be customer service driven to accomplish its mission.
Without it, customer cooperation becomes difficult. Customer service driven does not mean that
its mission is to do what each customer wants nor does it mean to disrespect environmental laws
and rules. The mission and laws are established by congress where we have customers. When
there is a conflict between service and laws, laws must be enforced. Even so, most elements of
customer service such as courtesy and respect for individual rights and human dignity can be
upheld. Measuring feedback may even be more important in enforcement programs where the
cooperation of "vulnerable customers" is crucial and can be more difficult to attain than with
other types of customers.
However, just measuring feedback will not create improvements. Feedback needs to be acted on
and shared with others. An inventory of customer satisfaction feedback and the improvements
made from the feedback will help the entire agency if it is shared:
• It will provide insights for different offices to use for improvements.
• It will provide contacts to help other offices to perform similar feedback.
• It will provide courage through examples to offices that are squeamish about asking
important questions.
• It will make it easier for other offices to not have to reinvent the wheel.
• It will help managers allocate funds
• It will help office worker moral.
« It will help improve customer trust and reduce (further) complaints.
• It will reduce "Congressionals."by giving insights to patterns of concerns.
Other
The inventory should include a data base, hard copies of information about feedback, and an
internet site for posting them.
A good initial plan will save time and energy. Here are some elements of a good plan.
Planning:
Initial discussions with CSP about the process and objectives.(Daria and I met about a
month ago and had some initial discussions)
Review of the customer satisfaction ICR and discuss with Sandy Farmer how to:
o Develop a current list of cantacts and to obtain information about cs survey plans and
submittals. The ICR document and CSP program have lists, but they need to be updated
and better organized.
o Have a clear understanding of the parameters of cs surveys. Customer service surveys
differ from programmatic surveys. It is important to be able to differentiate between
programmatic questions and customer service questions.
o Have a clear picture of the overall magnitude of the inventory. It is not clear at this
time as to how many CS surveys there are, but we think that there are around 50 (plus or
minus 10) out there that are not in our old inventory but we may be off.
o Other insights into accomplishing the inventory-
-------
oReview the CSP files for old surveys and the last inventory performed several years ago.
oReview the FARMS inventory to see how cs feedback fits into the overall scheme of
this computer program.
o Contact program offices and regions to
o find out what cs feedback has been initiated or is planned during the coming year.
o collect copies (electronic or hard copies) of the feedback information -surveys and
subsequent correspondence/reports that indicate actions taken from the survey.
oEvaluate the feedback information collected and develop a report which
o evaluates feedback in terms of ideas and processes presented in the feedback guidelines
o presents a plan to maintain the inventory annually
Share the feedback information
oEstablish Intranet site and dissemination lists foor providing survey information to
survey contacts.
o Update inventory quarterly or biannually.
Other feedback to consider-when customer service inventory is completed:
o Investigate if cs is a significant component of programmatic surveys.
o Find out how many other types of surveys are being completed and characterize before
expanding the inventory
Note the term customer is meant to include a host of federal terms for various types of people
that EPA contacts such as partners, grantees, permittees, nonprofit and for profit organizations,
state agencies, other federal agencies, public participants in EPA meetings and others (see
feedback guidelines fact sheet number 1).
------- |