REGION n GUIDE
to
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
WASTEWATER FACILITIES PLANNING
DESIGN and CONSTRUCTION
SEPTEMBER 138
-------
Region II Guide to Public Participation in
Wastewater Facilities Planning, Design and Construction
-------
PREFACE
In September 1979, ten months after the publication of public participation
regulations for programs under the Clean Water Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act and
the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, Region II published an interim guide to
interpret the regulations. The guide was designed to identify measures and criteria
that would be used by the Regional office in determining the level of citizen
participation programs mandated by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
regulations. The regulations leave much to the discretion of the Regional
Administrator as to what constitutes an acceptable program. Recognizing that it is
important for grantees, consultants, state and regional staff to make the same
determination on a given project, given the same facts, a set of measures of
significance were established for use by all parties.
Since the interim guide was published, numerous comments have been provided to
EPA on the criteria and on other aspects of the document. Furthermore, on April 30,
1980 EPA published in the Federal Register a proposed public participation policy
which clarified the agency's objectives in integrating public participation into its
programs. Both the comments and the national policy have been important in the
reshaping of the guide.
In addition to making revisions to the interim guide we have developed a Part II a
collection of materials designed to help grantees and consultants carry out public
participation programs in accordance with regional policy. These materials are
provided as examples to assist the grantee in the development of programs tailored to
the needs of project areas. They are not intended as rigid formats to be used
indiscriminately.
-------
Table of Contents
Part 1
fage
I. Introduction 1
A. Background 1
B. Goals and Objectivies 1
C. Regional Policy 2
D. Quality Assurance 3
E. Costs 3
II. Step I grants for Facilities Planning 3
A. Criteria *
1. Exempt Programs 4
2. Basic Programs 5
3. Full-Scale Programs 5
B. Procedures 1
1. Exempt Programs 8
2. Basic Programs &
3. Full-Scale Programs 18
III. Step II and Step III 21
IV. User Charge and Industrial Cost Recovery 22
V- Pretreatment 22
11
-------
Part 2 Page
I. Summaries of Regional II Guidance
A. Region II Guidance for Public Participation in 27
Facilities Construction Projects Summary
B. Public Participation Procedures Region II Guidance 29
II. Checklists and Procedural Guidance
A. Checklist for Plan of Study 30
B. Checklist for Determining Appropriate level of 31
Public Participation Program for Construction
Grants Projects
C. Checklist for Work Plan Element in Construction 33
Grants Public Participation
D. Region II Water Division Public Participation 34
Work Plans
E. Checklist for Fact Sheet Elements 36
F. Sample Notice of Intent to Waive Public Partication 37
Appendix 38
How to Write a Public Notice:
a collection of examples
HI. Advisory Group Training Modules 39
IV. Contact Persons 41
V- Senior Environmental Employment Program 42
Part 3
I. National Policy and Regulations
A. State and Local Assistance Grants for Construction of
Treatment Works - Feb. 16, 1979
B. Public Participation in Programs under the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, the
Safe Drinking Water Act and the Clean Water
Act - February 16, 1979
C. Environmental Protection Agency Proposed Policy on
Public Participation
ui
-------
I. Introduction
A. Background
The regulations published by the Environmental Protection Agency in the Federal
Register (40 CFR 25) on February 16, 1979 expanded the Agency's commitment to
provide for meaningful public input to programs carried out under the three Acts. To
supplement these regulations EPA also published specific requirements for some of
these programs. The regulations which apply to the construction grants program (40
CFR 35) affect all new grants awarded after February 16, 1979 and some ongoing
projects which have changed significantly since the grant was awarded. They provide
opportunities for public interest groups, private citizens, elected officials and
members of the business community to become involved extensively in the decision-
making process during the planning stage, and to a lesser extent at the design and
construction stages. They also afford an opportunity to grantees to develop an
interested and informed public to be able to participate in the whole spectrum of
water-related programs. Both the general public participation regulations and their
application in the construction grants regulations specify the activities required for
an approvable Public Participation Program.
B. Goals and Objectives
The goal of public participation in wastewater treatment programs is to assist in the
development of sound, well-conceived solutions which are accepted by the affected
parties. If this goal is met, localities will make decisions which respond to and satisfy
community needs. Delays caused by opposition to the project will be reduced or
eliminated.
The objective of public participation is to assure the identification of interested and
affected people, outreach to the public, dialogue between the grantee and the public,
assimilation of advice given by the public and feedback from the grantee describing
the public's influence on the program plan. An advisory committee can be one of the
best resources available to grantees for meeting these objectives.
-------
C. Regional Policy
This regional guidance is provided to explain how the region views and will enforce
public participation regulations for the construction grants programs. Potential
grantees will have a specialized, easy to read document to help them evaluate their
own public participation needs and program design. The guidance describes
regulatory requirements as well as regional interpretation and policy related to the
regulations.
The regulations (40 CFR 35) assign the authority to Regional Administrators to
determine what level of public participation is necessary and acceptable for each
EPA funded wastewater treatment project. The Region II Administrator will exercise
his discretion by using criteria published in the regulations and interpreted here, to
determine how extensive the Public Participation Program must be to satisfy our
requirements. The criteria established in this guide, which trigger full-scale Public
Participation Programs provide guidelines for uniform decision making by regulatory
personnel. The specific needs of the service area are reflected by the choice of the
criteria which form the basis of the Regional Administrator's decision on the
appropriate level of the public participation. He will be guided by the premise that
certain decisions related to a wastewater treatment project are so critical to the
economic and environmental health of a community that they should not be made
without significant public input.
EPA staff assistance will be made available to provide guidance on all aspects of the
Public Participation Program if problems arise during facility planning. The regional
policy described here will become part of the delegation agreement when public
participation in the construction grants program is delegated to the States by
subagreement. At that time, grantees will receive assistance from State staffs.
-------
D. Quality Assurance
The new regulations and the regional guidance attempt to increase the effectiveness
of public participation. They mandate more activities which provide opportunities for
public comment on proposed projects early in the decision-making process and before
alternatives are selected. They also attempt to improve the quality of public
participation by assuring that public involvement begin prior to the Step I stage when
the potential grantee undertakes a plan of study. Past ambiguities will be avoided by
defining specific public participation activities. Under these new regulations:
1. the consolidation of program-related public participation activities will be
encouraged;
2. citizens will receive critical information well before meetings and hearings;
3. meetings will be publicized with prominent and frequent advertisement;
k. citizen views will be assimilated throughout the project period; and
5. appropriate public participation activities will be funded.
E. Costs
Public participation activities in Step I vary greatly from project to project. While
it is not necessarily true that full-scale programs will cost more than basic programs,
we recognize that costs associated with extra public meetings, staff coordination and
Citizen Advisory Committees (CACs) will account for slightly higher budgets. All
reasonable costs are grant eligible. Projects budgets will be reviewed individually
by the EPA staff.
II. Step I Grants For Facilities Planning
Just as facility planning varies in complexity according to the needs of local
communities, the extent of public participation will vary according to the complexity
of the facility planning. The Regional Administrator's exercise of his discretion will
be most critical at or before the Step I grant award when he determines the level of
public participation a project will require. He will evaluate and rate the projects
according to a three tiered public participation strategy:
-------
1. exemption for certain minor projects;
2. a Basic Program for "iess complex projects with only moderate community
impacts;" and
3. a Full Scale Program "for more complex projects with potentially significant
community impacts."
However, as new information becomes available to the Regional Administrator during
Step I planning, he has the option to change the scope of the Public Participation
Program. The mid-project review will include a public participation evaluation with
the grantee and the consultant which could result in an agreed to change in the scope
of the Public Participation Program. If a grant amendment is required, preparation
time would be grant eligible. The selection of a particular level of program will
depend on the extent to which the project has potential for social, economic or
environmental impact on the community.
A. Criteria for the Determination of Public Participation Level
The following guidelines will be used to determine the level of Public Participation
Program needed to satisfy the goals and objectives of public participation.
1. Exempt Programs
A project will be declared Exempt from Public Participation Programs if only "minor
upgrading of treatment works or minor sewer rehabilitation is anticipated according
to the State Project Priority List" (CFR 35.917 5(d)). The project is not eligible for
Exempt status if any new planning, design or construction features are planned. If
public comments indicate community interest, or a potential for community
controversy even in the case of minor upgrading or rehabilitation, exemption will be
denied. Few projects will qualify for Exempt status because of the high potential for
public concern with most projects.
-------
2. Basic Public Participation Programs
All projects not found to be either Exempt or requiring Full-Scale Participation
Programs will undertake a Basic Public Participation Program.
3. Full-Scale Public Participation Programs
A Full-Scale Program will automatically be required if an Environmental Impact
Statement is required, or, if during the development of the plan of study, existing
water quality standards or permit requirements point to the construction of an
advanced waste treatment facility (as defined in PRM #79-7). If it becomes evident
later during the facility planning process that an advanced waste treatment facility
might be required, the grantee must contact the state and/or EPA to obtain a change
in the scope of the program to up-grade the Public Participation Program to Full-
Scale. If a pretreatment study is undertaken at the time of the Step 1 grant award, a
Full-Scale Program will be required. Other pretreatment programs will be integrated
with a Special Public Participation Program for Pretreatment (see page 22ff.).
A Full-Scale program will also be required if the Regional Administrator determines
that more active public participation in decision-making is needed because of the
possibility of particularly significant effects on matters of citizen concern. The
regulations 40 CFR 35.917-5(c) iii provide six conditions (a-f) which trigger Full Scale
Public Participation Programs. All the conditions are based on how significant or
substantial the effects of the proposed project will be. For each condition stated in
the regulations, the Region has provided guidance on how significance will be
measured.
-------
Condition A - There is a: Significant change in land use or
impact on environmentally
sensitive areas
if proposed projects would affect or diminish local, state or federal parklands or
sanctuaries; or if more than 25% of the study area is an environmentally sensitive
area, e.g., floodplains, wetlands, habitats of endangered or threatened species
(proposed or on list), unique or rare flora, aquifer recharge areas, wellfields and
watershed areas, headwater areas, stream corridors, steep slopes (15% or greater) or
highly credible soils, shallow depth bedrock, seasonally high water table, habitat for
rare and endangered species, unique or rare flora, prime agricultural land or lands in
active agriculture use (defined in the EPA agricultural land policy statement) or
archeological, paleontological and historic sites (properties eligible for, or on
National Register of Historic Places):
Condition B - There is a: Significant increase in the capacity
of treatment facilities or
interceptors, significant increase in
sewered area or construction of
wholly new treatment and
conveyance systems
if the projected design capacity is at least 1 1/2 times the existing capacity of a
regional or areawide wastewater treatment system; or the facility plan proposes a
new wastewater treatment plant, or proposes to sewer 20% more homes than are
currently sewered.
Condition C - There is a: Substantial total cost to the
community or substantial increased
cost to users (i.e., cost not
reimbursed under the grant)
if the total cost to the average user in any political jurisdiction within the study area
including debt service and operation and maintenance costs will exceed the following
percentages of annual household median incomes: 1.5% per household where the
median income is below $6,000, 2.0% where the median income is between $6,000 and
$10,000 and 2.5% where the median income is over $10,000, or if the annual user
charge increase is at least 50% per household.
-------
Condition D - There is a: Significant public controversy
if there is evidence in EPA records of public interest in similar prior projects or
projects in similar project areas; or an undercurrent of opposition or interest in the
development of the project becomes apparent during the development of a plan of
study, or if comments are received from one or more citizens groups or organizations
representing the affected community. Even if comments are received after the Step
I grant award, the Public Participation Program will be up-graded to a Full-Scale
Program during the Step I planning process.
Condition £ - There is a: Significant impact on local
population growth or economic
growth
if the anticipated population growth will exceed 10% in five years over the project
period in any political jurisdiction in the study area or any change occurs that could
affect 5% of a community's jobs or remove 10% of taxed properties from the tax
rolls.
Condition F - There is a: Substantial opportunity for
implementation of innovative or
alternative waste water treatment
technologies or systems
if areas lend themselves to innovative or alternative technology such as septic tanks
or land treatment because they have population densities below 10 persons per acre,
are primarily agricultural, or have existing sewage treatment plants with limited
room for expansion, or are areas which have potental for co-disposal of waste, energy
generation, etc.
B. Procedures for Implementation of Public Participation Programs
The following procedures will be used to implement the programs at appropriate
levels as determined by the Regional Administrator based on the above criteria.
*Italics represent 40 CFR 35 regulations
-------
1. Exempt Programs
Exemption must be requested by the grantee in writing before the Regional
Administrator can grant Exempt status based on the criteria listed above. Grantees
receiving approval of the request for Exempt status are required to hold a public
hearing prior to the final adoption of the facilities plan 35.917-5(c)(3)(viii). As
referenced in PRM 76-3, Presentation of Local Government Cost of Wastewater
Treatment Works in Facility Plans, a full disclosure of costs is required. As with any
public hearing, it may be held jointly with a public hearing for another purpose, but a
primary purpose of the hearing must be to receive input from the public on the
project with which EPA is involved.
Whenever the EPA considers granting an exemption, it will issue a notice of intent
and allow 30 days for comment. The notice will include a brief, clearly worded
statement (see page 37) to be published in a local newspaper as a press release and as
a prominent advertisement. It will be mailed to local boards, especially those
concerned with health and environment, and to interested or affected citizens. Every
effort will be made to include the notification in local newsletters. In order to
achieve proper distribution of the notice, the grantee requesting exempt status must
supply EPA with an appropriate mailing list after the request is approved.
2. Basic Programs
Basic Public Participation Programs will be required in 201 projects not requiring a
full-scale program or qualifying for an exemption. During the Step I process the
grantee must:
a. Notify and consult with the public during the preparation of the plan of
study about the nature and scope of the project. The grantee is also
encouraged to consult with the public on the choice of professional
consulting engineer. Consultation is a technique which provides for the
exchange of information and ideas. The methods of consultation with the
public are usually informal and will vary from project to project. They
might include:
-------
1. grantee staff attendance at meetings of various organizations to make
presentations and receive comments.
2. a meeting with various interest groups and citizens in the grantee's
office; and,
3. telephone calls to key citizens.
The grantee is encouraged to make use of other planned meetings such as
regularly scheduled town council meetings and sewer authority meetings to
present information on the proposal and to solicit public input.
Documentation of consultation techniques and public comments must be
submitted as part of the grant application/plan of study. Documentation of
consultation might include newspaper articles, specially scheduled meetings,
transcripts of meetings, notes on conversations held in person and by
telephone and correspondence between the grantee and representatives of
the public.
b. Outline the Public Participation Program for inclusion in the Plan of
Study/Step I grant application. The outline shall include a proposed schedule
of activities, projected staff and budget resources, methods of distributing
information (e.g., attendance at meetings, use of mailing lists, media
advertising and news releases) and the names of groups, individuals, public
officials and industry representatives expected to become involved.
The grantee may wish to develop a complete work plan at this stage to avoid
duplication of effort and the constraint of a 45 day submittal period
following grant acceptance. Another benefit of early work plan
development is the assurance of an early review of the work plan which may
save time later on.
The regulations outline public participation programs which will develop in
synchrony with the facility plan. Major decision points which correspond
with public participation activities are: submission of a Plan of Study,
acceptance of the grant award, assessment of project needs, identification
of alternative solutions, selection of the best alternative, and completion of
a draft facility plan.
-------
c. Submit the work plan for the Public Participation Program to EPA within 45
days of grant acceptance (see page 34).
1. Consultation with the public or its representatives on a Citizen's
Advisory Committee during the preparation of the work plan is
recommended.
2. The work plan must expand on the content of the outline in the Plan of
Study and also describe how the grantee's Public Participation Program
will coordinate with and be consistent with the areawide Water Quality
Management Public Participation Program.
3. It should describe how information will be developed and distributed on
all aspects of facilities planning including alternative treatment
technologies, water conservation, multiple use, alternative locations for
facilities, and potential social, economic, fiscal and environmental
impacts.
4. The work plan will explain information techniques to be used during the
planning period.
5. It will describe consultative mechanisms used during the planning
period.
6. The work plan will describe budget and staff resource commitments in
greater detail than the Plan of Study/Step I application. The budget
must be broken down into the various categories of labor, hours, cost
per hour and expenses for each Public Participation activity.
7. The work plan will include a schedule of activities describing their
relationship to major decision points.
10
-------
d. Conduct an on-going, active public information program, including the
development and use of mailing lists.
1. The mailing list should include public interest groups (e.g.,
environmental, cultural and neighborhood organizations), private
citizens representing diverse interests, elected and appointed officials
from areas affected by the facility plan and adjacent areas and local
business and industries. A copy of all project related public mailings
should be sent to the appropriate EPA Chief of Water Programs and the
appropriate state agency (see page 40), so that an on-going review of
the public participation effort can take place.
The mailing list will be used to distribute meeting and hearing notices,
all responsiveness summaries, and pertinent information, especially
brief fact sheets on issues related to facilities planning.
2. The quality of the material mailed throughout the Public Participation
Program will be a factor in the evaluation of the program by EPA. All
materials should be written in non-technical language. For example
terminology used to describe the chemistry of the receiving waters or
the toxicity of the sewage sludge, etc. should be explained so as to be
understood by the general public. Material should be timely and
presented in a readable format.
3. Information should be distributed in ways appropriate to the particular
service area, e.g., notices and advertisements in public transportation
vehicles, busy commercial areas, schools, libraries and other public
buildings, radio and television, newsletters, newspapers, slide lectures,
etc. Central depositories must be established and reasonable cost
copies made available on request. The public must be informed about
the materials available and the location of the depository.
11
-------
e. Submit a fact sheet to EPA with the work plan and distribute it to the
public. In addition to submitting the public participation work plan to EPA,
the grantee must distribute it widely to groups and individuals (e.g., those
identified on the mailing list) along with the fact sheet. The fact sheet must
describe the nature, scope, and location of the project, the consulting
engineer, the name and telephone number of a contact person for public
participation information, a range of estimated project costs for identifiable
alternatives, the corresponding estimated user charges to each affected
household, and the issues which the public will be expected to comment on.
In recognition of the fact that project costs are difficult to estimate, a
range of costs for projects in similar service areas may be used.
f. Consult with the public early in the facilities planning process while
assessing needs and problems and screening and identifying alternatives.
Following the consultation, the grantee must prepare and distribute a
responsiveness summary to the citizens and groups on the mailing list.
1. Eligible costs for grantees having Basic Programs will include the cost
of consultation with the public in a formal meeting as well as costs
which might be incurred in casual or informal consultation.
2. Consultation with various segments of the public can be as or more
effective than public meetings because of the potential for working
with the public in small groups and establishing personal contacts with
interested individuals and groups. Personal communication is an
effective public participation tool for involving citizens in projects.
Consultative techniques include advisory groups, task forces, workshops,
conferences and discussions with interested citizens and public interest
groups, public meetings and hearings.
12
-------
g. EPA will conduct a mid-project evaluation of the Public Participation
Program using the region's stated public participation objectives, the
grantees work plan, the responsiveness summary from the public
consultation, and other available information such as meeting records and
public comments on grantee performance at public participation activities.
The review will take place after the first public consultation when
alternatives have been identified, but before the public meeting.
If the Public Participation Program is ineffective, EPA staff will work with
the grantee to develop a quality program. If the grantee has not complied
with requirements, the Regional Administrator will ask for more specific
public participation activities, schedules for conducting required activities,
additional EPA review of the Public Participation Program and phased
release of grant funds based on compliance. In extreme cases, he may
suspend or terminate part or all of the grant.
h. Hold a public meeting to describe all alternative plans before any one plan
has been selected.
1. The meeting must be announced at least 45 days prior to the scheduled
date and, as for public hearings, must be widely advertised so that
citizens will have ample time to prepare comments. Reminder notices
may be published closer to the meeting date.
2. A public meeting dealing with alternative plans will be considered
widely advertised if notice is published in prominent newspaper
advertisements (which may include maps of the study area), news
releases, mailings to persons on a representative mailing list, spot
advertisements on radio and/or television and notices posted in public
buildings, libraries and schools. An effective combination of techniques
will vary from project to project. The use of legal notices alone will
not be accepted.
3. The public meetings must be held at times and places which will
facilitate attendance by both employed and unemployed residents. A
combination of daytime and early evening hours are recommended, as
are large comfortable meeting places in safe locations accessible by
public transportation and/or having ample parking space.
13
-------
4. Relevant materials must be available to the public 30 days before the
meeting. All materials to be discussed at the meeting will be
considered relevant materials. These materials should be organized in
such a way that information is accessible to interested segments of the
public.
5. A responsiveness summary must be prepared and distributed as in Item
j. below.
i. Hold a public hearing before the final adoption of the facilities plan. The
hearing should address the question of how much public participation is
desirable at Step II and Step HI (see below).
1. The hearing must be announced 45 days prior to the scheduled date and
meet all the notification requirements of the public meeting.*
2. Public hearings must be publicized to an even greater extent than public
meetings utilizing resources at the grantee's disposal including an
effective combination of radio and television, prominent advertisements
in the local papers, news releases, invitations to press representatives,
press briefings, mailings to those persons identified on the mailing list,
and posters placed in public transportation vehicles and public buildings
such as libraries and schools.
3. The announcements must call immediate attention to the hearings;
clearly describe the purpose and content of the hearing; provide
information on what relevant informative materials are available,
where and when specific materials will be made available and ways to
obtain them and provide information on how and when to make
comments.
4. As with public meetings, hearings must be held at times and locations
which will encourage attendance.
The 40 CFR 25 regulations supercede earlier regulations on all aspects of public
participation which relate to the Clean Water Act, Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act and the Safe Drinking Water Act.
-------
5. These materials must be available at least 30 days before the hearing.
The announcement should also explain that the hearing record will
remain open for 10 days following the hearing (unless a reason for
extending it comes to the attention of the Regional Administrator) to
allow additional submittals by the public.
6. Participants at hearings may be scheduled and given appointments in
advance, if necessary, to assure time for all speakers. Extra time must
be allowed for unscheduled speakers.
7. At each hearing a grantee or his representative should explain the key
issues involved in the project, the agency's thinking on the issues to date
and the kind of information sought from the public.
8. Question and answer periods are recommended and participants should
be encouraged to make oral presentations.
9. Written statements may be encouraged as a supplement to oral
presentations but should not be mandatory.
10. Finally, a responsiveness summary must be prepared as discussed in
Item j. below
11. The EPA has the authority to reduce the notice requirements for public
hearings to 30 days (instead of 45 days) in special cases where neither
new documents nor complex or controversial material is to be
presented. The requirement may be waived or further reduced in
emergency situations at the discretion of the Regional Administrator if,
for example, a community health hazard is involved. However, this is a
formal process and must have the prior written approval of the Regional
Administrator.
15
-------
Prepare responsiveness summaries. These documents prepared by the
grantee at important decision points (e.g., immediately after public
meetings and hearings) include public comments received, the grantee's
responses at public meetings and hearings and an explanation of how the
comments were assimilated. These responsiveness summaries prepared after
the final Step I hearing must include a summary of the Public Participation
Program and comments received throughout the planning process.
1. They must identify the method of public participation, the matters on
which the public was consulted and an explanation of the impact of
public comments on the decisions made or an explanation for the
rejection of a suggestion.
2. The final responsiveness summary must also include the grantee's
evaluation of the effectiveness of the Public Participation Program.
Criteria for the evaluation should include:
i. the number and effectiveness of meetings, mailings, hearings by
which the public was exposed to information about the project,
e.g., were meetings held only at major decision points or was the
public involved at other times?
ii. the numbers and kinds of diverse interests in the community
which were involved in the project e.g., what organizations and
special interest groups provided input to the project?
iii. the extent to which citizens' views were taken into account in
decision-making e.g., were comments used or rejected? why?
iv. the specific changes, if any, in project design and/or scope of the
project e.g., what kind of changes occurred as a result of citizen
input.
v. the cost and cost effectiveness of the public participation
program.
16
-------
The grantee will develop responsiveness summaries from transcripts or
recordings of public hearings or notes taken at public meetings, during
informal consultations and throughout the course of facility planning.
Summaries must be forwarded to the appropriate EPA Chief of Water
Programs, the appropriate state agency, (see page 41) and made available to
the public by mailing them to hearing or meeting attendees and persons on
the mailing list. Other distribution techniques available to the grantee may
also be used.
A more complex aspect of the process is evaluating public input and
modifying the project. Controversial points must be weighed and decided
upon in light of past experience and potential future problems. The public
participation coordinator hired or designated by the grantee might, for
example, categorize the questions and assign them to the scientists and
engineers planning and designing the project. The comments must be used to
modify the plan or be rejected with an explanation to the public of why the
comments were helpful or inappropriate.
k. Facility Plan Review
The EPA will evaluate grantee compliance with public participation
requirements and the effectiveness of the Public Participation Program by
reviewing the final responsiveness summary. If the grantee has not
complied with the requirements, the Regional Administrator will ask for
more specific public participation activities, schedules for conducting
required activities and additional EPA review of the public participation
program. In extreme cases, he may suspend or terminate part or all of the
grant.
17
-------
3. Full-Scale Public Participation Programs
Grantees undertaking a Full-Scale Public Participation Program will amplify the
procedure for the Basic Program by the addition of the following:
A. Grantees must consult with the public when assessing existing and future
situations by convening a public meeting which is scheduled and conducted
according to the public participation regulations 40 CFR 25.6. (Those
grantees found to require only the Basic Program may consult with the
public simply by contacting groups or individuals and recording and
responding to comments (see above) ). In either case, the purpose of the
consultation is to provide information and consult early in the planning
process before alternatives are identified.
b. Grantees must hire or designate a Public Participation Coordinator. The
coordinator should have a familiarity with the area covered by the facilities
plan as well as knowledge of the facility planning process. The coordinator
may be hired especially for the project or designated from existing grantee
or consultant staff on a full or part time basis as required. In all cases, the
coordinator will administer public participation activities but the grantee is
ultimately responsible for all Step I work including public participation.
Discrete public participation tasks may be subcontracted to local residents
or organizations. Subcontracting must be done in accordance with EPA
procurement regulations (35.936,937), and may be used to satisfy part of the
minority or women's business enterprise requirements. EPA encourages the
hiring of qualified senior citizens through a Senior Environmental
Employment Program. Candidates for public participation positions may be
identified by calling the Senior Environmental Program office in Washington
(see page 42). In all cases, the coordinator will administer public
participation activities. Desirable qualifications for the coordinator include:
1. familiarity with, and ability to relate to, groups and individuals in the
community (including public officials, union representatives, the
elderly, special interest groups, business interests and the EPA),
18
-------
2. a working knowledge of the programs and agency decision-making
structures,
3. experience in public relations (including work with media and strong
writing, editing and public speaking skills),
^. a good public image,
5. strong organizational abilities,
6. experience and/or training in community action organizations and
7. ability to be receptive to a variety of points of view.
c. Grantees must establish an Advisory Committee upon acceptance of the
grant award. To the extent feasible, the committee must be made up of a
cross-section of members of the community and include equal numbers of
private citizens (e.g., retired persons, housewives interested in community
work, volunteers for other community organizations, including people of
various ethnic/cultural backgrounds), representatives of public interest
groups, (e.g., environmental or civic groups), elected and appointed public
officials and citizens or representatives of organizations, preferably within
the grantee's jurisdiction, which stand to lose or gain economically according
to the way decisions are made. A list with short biographies of potential
members should be compiled and maintained for filling vacancies. The list
of potential Advisory Committee members must be available for EPA
review.
Every effort must be made to encourage advisory group participation (40 CFR 25: (C)
(3) (ii) . Suggested techniques include advertising the opportunity for membership in
newspapers and other media, by direct mailings to organizations and individuals and
by asking organizations to notify members. Public interest in advisory committee
membership may temporarily cause an imbalance in the categories of membership
representation. It is the responsibility of the agency to correct that imbalance by
adding appropriate members or changing the composition or the committee, in so far
as it is possible without offending or discouraging interested citizens. If the grantee
is unable to achieve the required membership balance, the Regional Administrator
will either approve of the committee's membership or ask the grantee to make
additional efforts to involve the necessary groups.
19
-------
The advisory group, once constituted, may select its own chairperson, adopt its
own rules of order, and schedule and conduct meetings which are announced to
and open to the public. The regulations do not specify Advisory Committee size.
EPA recommends an Advisory Committee of between 8 and 20 members.
IVlembers who do not attend meetings and participate in the activities of the
advisory group should be replaced in order to assure consistant public
participation.
As members of the advisory committee, citizens will:
1. become knowledgeable about all aspects of the project,
2. make recommendations to the agency,
3. be aware that they represent community attitudes,
4. conduct public participation activities where appropriate, and
5. investigate and develop recommendations on issues as they arise.
Advisory Committee training is being made available to grantees through the
appropriate State agencies (see pages 39, 40). EPA has developed a
comprehensive information program for Citizens Advisory Groups which
currently consists of eighteen units containing instructor and citizen handbooks
and audio-visual materials on major issues related to wastewater treatment
planning.
The grantee will provide training, staff assistance and information and make
advisory group recommendations known to the public and to decision-making
individuals. Advisory Committee expenses such as mailing, duplicating, and pre-
approved technical assistance costs are grant eligible. The grantee must
establish a system for reimbursing committee members. Members may be
reimbursed for certain out of pocket expenses such as mileage and babysitting.
Meal costs will only be eligible in special instances where meetings last more
than four hours.
20
-------
III. Step II and Step III
If the Plan of Study was approved and a Step I grant awarded after February 16, 1979,
the grantee must consult with the public and with the Advisory Committee, if one
exists, prior to submitting a Step II and Step III application to determine how much
input the public should have beyond Step I. An appropriate time for this consultation
is during the final public hearing prior to the adoption of the facilities plan.
If the grantee determines that additional activities are necessary because comments
have been received from individuals or established local organizations, or consultation
with individuals has indicated that there is opportunity for significant controversy a
public participation work plan can be submitted for funding. The EPA supports
continuing work by the Advisory Committee at Steps II and III, but the Public
Participation Program should be creatively tailored to the specific needs of the
project and the community. Any or all of the public participation activities described
in this guide may be used and grantees may suggest other methods in the public
participation work plan.
If the public becomes involved in Step II of the process, it may only consult on
matters which relate to project design. Step I concerns are not legitimate subjects
for further public participation. Desirable and valuable topics for discussion at the
Step II phase include the physical layout of the site, landscaping and aesthetics.
Step III public participation should focus on subjects such as dust, traffic and site
restoration. The benefits of public involvement at this state might minimize the
disruptive effects of construction.
21
-------
While the regulations do not differentiate between levels of public participation
programs at Steps II and III, public participation is encouraged because of the long
time span (often 4 years between the adoption of the Facility Plan and the completion
of Step III) and the comparatively high cost of design and construction. During that
period special interest groups might raise issues which had not been previously dealt
with at earlier phases. As community attitudes and conditions change, the project
should reflect those changes. The EPA strongly encourages the grantee to provide
information to the public on a regular basis throughout the process, to keep it
informed about the work being done and to receive the public's suggestions on how to
complete the work efficiently. Such information may pave the way for acceptance of
increased operating and maintenance costs and assure that the benefits of community
involvement in Step I will not be reduced or lost.
It is definitely not the intention of EPA to slow down the grant process at Steps II and
III, but rather to provide opportunity for public involvement when it is desired.
IV. User Charges and Industrial Cost Recovery
Consultation with the public is required before the adoption of the user charge (UC)
and industrial cost recovery (ICR) systems. Such consultation may be accomplished in
a variety of ways. For example, a regularly scheduled town meeting or meeting of
the sewerage authority with its consultant might be advertised as an opportunity for
the public to comment on either system. The meeting at which UC/ICR systems are
considered should be publicized in the same manner as all public meetings and
hearings and should also be advertised by a direct mailing to all industrial clients in
the service area.
V. Pretreatment Programs
Public participation in pretreatment programs is based on four assumptions:
1. When a community undertakes a pretreatment study there is a potential
for controversy and objection to the program.
22
-------
2. Providing an opportunity for the public to be involved at the beginning
of the pretreatment study will encourage the development of a
constituency which supports the program later on.
3. The public participation program will develop in synchrony with the
pretreatment program. That is, it will increase in depth and complexity
as planning progresses.
4. If a pretreatment grant application is submitted, the existing
pretreatment program does not meet the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) requirements.
A. Pretreatment Program in relation to Facility Planning. The type of public
participation program assigned will depend on the timing relationship
between the pretreatment program and the Step I grant. If a pretreatment
program is undertaken at the time a Step I grant is awarded, the Step I
public participation program will be Full Scale and incorporate pretreatment
issues.
If a pretreatment program is out of phase with the Step I grant, a SPECIAL
PRETREATMENT PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PROGRAM (see below) will be
integrated with the pretreatment program. (There may be extenuating
circumstances in specific cases where the grantee may submit a written
request to the Regional Administrator for a waiver of certain of the public
participation activities.)
B. Six Stages of Pretreatment Program Development. The six stages and their
regulatory references are described below:
Stage 1. Initial information collection and evaluation (includes all items
required by 40 CFR 35.907(d)(D (d)(2) and
23
-------
35.907 (d) Development of an approvable
municipal pretreatment program under
part 403 of this chapter shall include:
dfl) An industrial survey as required by
403.8 of this chapter including
identification of system users, the
character and volume of pollutants
discharged, type of industry, location
(see paragraph (f) of this section);
d(2) An evaluation of legal authority,
including adequacy of enabling
legislation, and selection of
mechanisms to be used for control and
enforcement (e.g., ordinance, joint
powers agreement, contact);
d(4) A determination of technical
information necessary to support
development of an industrial waste
ordinance or other means of enforcing
pretreatment standards;
Stage 2. Identification and assessment of options or alternatives for
pretreatment facilities.
Stage *3. Continued information collection and evaluation (includes all
items required by 40 CFR 35.907 (d)(3) (d)(5) (d)(6) (d)(7) (d)(8)
and (d)(9))
d(3) An evaluation of financial programs
and revenue sources to insure adequate
funding to carry out the pretreatment
program;
d(5) Design of a monitoring enforcement
program;
d(6) A determination of pollutant removals
in existing treatment works;
d(7) A determination of the treatment
•works tolerance to pollutants which
interfere with its operation, sludge
use, or disposal;
d(8) A determination of required
monitoring equipment for the
municipal treatment works;
*Note: This phase may overlap with phases 2 or 4.
-------
d(9) A determination of municipal facilities
to be constructed for monitoring or
analysis of industrial waste.
Stage 4. Conduct a residuals inventory based on alternatives for
pretreatment facilities.
Stage 3. Identification and assessment of alternatives for management
of residuals.
Stage 6. Selection of integrated pretreatment and residuals management
program including draft ordinances for control of industrial
waste discharges and residuals based on alternatives identified
for pretreatment of wastes and disposal of residuals.
C. Special Pretreatment Public procedures.
Stage 1 Initial Information Collection and Evaluation.
The grantee must make an active effort to inform the public
about the six stages of the pretreatment program, the steps
being undertaken in Stage 1 and the opportunities that will be
available for public input.
As part of the information campaign, a mailing list must
be developed.
A fact sheet must be sent to mailing list names.
A tear sheet must be provided asking if a public workshop/
meeting is desired to further explain the program.
If a workshop is requested by citizens, the grantee must
schedule one and respond to questions.
-------
Stage 2. Identification and assessment of options and alternatives for
pretreatment facilities
A CAC will be established at the beginning of Stage 2 to
work with the grantee in identifying and assessing
alternatives for pretreatment facilities.
A public meeting will be held to discuss the alternatives.
Stage 3. Continued information collection and evaluation
The CAC will meet at least once prior to the
determination of the equipment and facilities needed for
monitoring or analysis of industrial waste.
Stage 4. Residuals inventory based on alternatives for pretreatment
facilities
The CAC will meet on an as needed basis during the
residuals inventory.
Stage 5. Identification and assessment of alternatives for management
of residuals
The CAC will work with the grantees to identify and
assess alternatives for residuals management.
A public meeting will be held to discuss the alternatives.
Stage 6. Selection of an integrated pretreatment and residuals
management program.
The CAC will assist the grantee in the selection of
alternative pretreatment facilities and residuals
management systems.
A public hearing will be held on the selected alternatives.
26
-------
Region II Guidance for Public Participation
in
Facilities Construction Projects Summary
Public Participation Activity
1, Develop a comprehensive mailing
list as part of an agressive
Public Relations Program.
2.* Conduct Public consultation
during preparation of plan
of study on nature and scope
of project and choice of
consulting engineer.
3.* Outline a Public Participation
Program including budget and
Staff requirements for inclusion
in Step I grant application.
4. Submit a Public Participation
work plan 4-5 days after acceptance
of Step I Grant describing coordination
and consistancy with areawide Water
Quality Management Planning and
estimated costs to users.
Exempt Program
Basic Program
X
Full - Scale Program
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
* not grant eligible since it precedes Step I Grant Award.
-------
Public Participation Activity
Exempt Program
Basic Prograin
Full- Scale Program
5. Consult with public to assess
needs and identify alternatives.
Follow-up with responsiveness
summary.
6. Hold a public meeting to describe
alternative plans and receive
comments.
Informal
Consultation
or
Public Meeting
Public meeting
X
OO
7. Hold a public hearing before final
adoption of the facilities plan.
Discuss public participation needs
at Step II and Step III.
8. Prepare responsiveness summaries
after each consultation with the
public. Include comments received,
grantee's responses and action taken.
The final Responsiveness Summary
should include an evaluation of
the public participation program by
the grantee.
X
X
X
X
9. Hire or designate a Public Participation
Coordinator.
Name contact
Person
X
10. Establish an Advisory Group immediately
upon acceptance of Step I grant award.
Encouraged
X
-------
Public Participation Procedures
Region II Guidance
Pre-Step I
I
Basic Program
I
Name contact person handling public
participation activities.
Consider establishing an Advisory Committee.
Develop an aggressive public relations program
including a comprehensive mailing list.
Within 45 days of acceptance of Step I grant
award, submit a work plan to EPA which
expands outline of Public Participation
Program. Submit a fact sheet on project.
Submit a strategy for coordination with
areawide WG\M Public Participation Program.
Consult informally with public while assessing
needs and identifying alternatives. Prepare and
distribute responsiveness summary. (May sub-
stitute Public Meeting for informal consul-
tation).
Conduct a Public Meeting to describe, after a
preliminary screening, possible alternative plans
and receive public input. Prepare responsiveness
summary.
Conduct a Public Hearing with proper 45 day
notification after selection of the best alter-
native plan but before final adoption of the
facilities plan. Discuss public participation
needs for Steps II, III. Notify public on user
charges, industrial cost recovery systems.
Prepare responsiveness summary which in-
cludes evaluation of Public Participation
Program.
Grant applicant consults with public during preparation
of Plan of Study about nature and scope of project
and choice of consulting engineer.
Plan of Study briefly outlines public participation
program for Step I grant application.
Plan of Study/Application submitted to EPA.
Application reviewed by EPA/Regional Administrator
decides whether project is Exempt from further pub-
lic participation, requires a Basic Program or requires
a Full-Scale Program.
Plan of Study/Application Approved
Acceptance of Step I Grant.
Step I
If Regional Administrator contemplates granting an
exemption, EPA will issue a notice of intent and allow
30 days for comment.
Exempt Program
Conduct a Public Hearing with proper 45 day
notification after selection of the best alterna-
tive plan but before final adoption of the facil-
ities plan. Discuss public participation needs for
Steps II, III. Notify public on user charges, in-
dustrial cost recovery systems. Prepare respon-
siveness summary.
Step II, Step III
Regular consultation with public recommended.
Industrial Cost Recovery Systems and User
Charges.
Consult with public prior to adoption of industrial
cost recovery and user charge systems.
1
Full-Scale Program
Hire or designate a Public Participation
Coordinator.
Establish an Advisory Committee.
Develop an aggressive public relations
program including a comprehensive
mailing list.
_L
Within 45 days of acceptance of Step I
grant award, submit a work plan to EPA
which expands outline of Public Partici-
pation Program. Submit a fact sheet on
project. Submit a strategy for coordina-
tion with areawide WQM Public Partici-
pation Program.
Conduct a Public Meeting with proper 45
day notification to consult with public on
assessing needs and identifying alternatives.
Prepare and distribute responsiveness summary.
Conduct a Public Meeting to describe, after a
preliminary screening, possible alternative
plans and receive public input. Prepare re-
sponsiveness summary.
Conduct a Public Hearing with proper 45 day
notification after selection of best alternative
plan but before final adoption of the facilities
plan. Discuss public participation needs for
Steps II, III. Notify public on user charges.
industrial cost recovery systems. Prepare re-
sponsiveness summary which includes evalu-
ation of Public Participation Program.
-------
Public Participation Activity Exempt Program Basic Program Full- Scale Program
-------
Checklist for Plan of Study
YES NO
Does the Plan of Study contain a Public Participation Outline? ( ) ( )
Does the outline include:
1. A list of consultation techniques to be used (public input)? ( ) ( )
2. A list of information techniques to be used (information ( ) ( )
given to the public)?
3. A list of the segments of the public to be targeted? ( ) ( )
b. A proposed schedule for public participation activities? ( ) ( )
5. A projected public participation staff and budget? ( ) ( )
6. Documentation of Consultation with the public during the ( ) ( )
preparation of the plan of study?
7. Documentation of consultation with the public on the ( ) ( )
choice of consulting engineer? Note: Optional.
If any of these elements are not included, the Plan of Study is not in compliance
and must be returned to the grantee.
30
-------
Checklist For Determining Appropriate
Level of Public Participation Program
For Construction Grants Projects
YES NO
1. Might an environmental impact statement be required? ( ) ( )
2. Might a pretreatment study be made? ( ) ( )
3. Might an advanced waste treatment facility be constructed? ( ) ( )
4. Might 15% of the prime agricultural lands/agricultural ( ) ( )
districts/actively farmed land in a project be converted to
residential or industrial use?
5. Might local, state or federal park lands or sanctuaries be ( ) ( )
adversely affected or diminished?
6. Is more than 25% of the study area in environmentally ( ) ( )
sensitive areas such as flood plains or wetlands?
7. Is the design capacity at least 1 1/2 times the existing flow ( ) ( )
for a regional or areawide wastewater treatment system?
8. Is a new wastewater treatment plant likely to be proposed? ( ) ( )
9. Might 20% or more homes be sewered than are Currently ( ) ( )
sewered?
10. Will the total cost to the average user in any political
jurisdiction within the study area, including debt service
and operation and maintenance costs, exceed a) 1.5% of in-
come per household where the median income is below $6000 ( ) ( )
b) 2.0% of income where the median income is between $6,000
& 10,000 and ( ) ( )
c) 2.5% of income where the median income is over 10,000. ( ) ( )
11. Will annual user charges increase by at least 50% per household? ( ) ( )
12. Is there evidence of public controversy in similar prior ( ) ( )
projects or project areas?
13. Is there any indication of an undercurrent of opposition ( ) ( )
or interest in the development at the project?
14. Have comments been received from citizens groups or ( ) ( )
organizations representing the affected community?
15. Is the population expected to grow more than 10% in five years ( ) ( )
over the project period in any political jurisdiction in the
study area?
16. What is the anticipated total Step I cost?
31
-------
17. Will any change occur as a result of the project that ( ) ( )
could affect 5% of a community's jobs or remove 10%
of taxed properties from the tax rolls.
18. Does the study area lend itself to innovative or alter- ( ) ( )
native technology such as septic tanks or land treatment
because it has a population density below 10 persons per
acre, or is primarily agricultural, or has
potential for co-disposal of waste and energy generation?
If the answer is yes to any of the questions above, a Full-Scale
Public Participation Program must be required.
1. Is only minor upgrading of treatment works expected? ( ) ( )
2. Is only minor sewer rehabilitation anticipated? ( ) ( )
If the answer to either or both of these questions is yes your project may be
exempt from either the Full-Scale or Basic Public Participation Program.
If your project does not appear to fit into either category Basic Program will
be required.
32
-------
Checklist for Work Plan Elements in Construction Grants
Public Participation (PP)
YES NO
Was the work plan submitted to EPA within 45 days of
grant acceptance? ( ) ( )
Does the work plan include:
1. Identification of consultation mechanisms or techniques? ( ) ( )
2. Identification of information techniques to be used? ( ) ( )
a. If project is Full-Scale are there arrangements for
Advisory Group Training.
3. Identification of segments of the public to be targeted? ( ) ( )
4. Schedule of public participation activities? ( ) ( )
5. Staff and budget by category showing direct and indirect
costs for public participation? ( ) ( )
a. If project is Full-Scale, a budget for the
Advisory Group?
6. Information on how 201 will coordinate with other EPA
funded projects e.g. 208? ( ) ( )
7. Information on how public participation activities
will coordinate with technical activities? ( ) ( )
8. Information on when responsiveness summaries will
be prepared? ( ) ( )
9. Methods of distribution of work plan, fact sheet
and future material ( ) ( )
10. An attached fact sheet? ( ) ( )
11. Methods of consultation with the public during the
preparation of work plan? (Note: Optional)
12. All required activities for the appropriate level of
Public Participation? ( ) ( )
If the answer to any of these questions is no, the work plan is
not in compliance and must be revised.
33
-------
Region II Water Division
Public Participation Work Plans
The goal of any public participation program is to assist in the development of
well-conceived solutions to environmental problems that reflect the special needs
of the affected community. These needs can be best identified if a spirit of
openness and mutual trust is established among the public, the grantee and the
agency. The basis of trust is an attitude of respect and sincerity, the commitment
to thinking through all suggestions and objections and the willingness to modify
plans,
A successful public participation program should be carefully planned with the help
of the public early in the technical study. It will be developed in the form of a
work plan which can be distributed to the public as a separate document. It may,
as some programs require, be accompanied by a project fact sheet.
Each public participation work plan will include mechanisms which assure the
identification of interested and affected people, outreach by the agency, dialogue
between the agency and the public, assimilation of advice given by the public and
feedback from the agency describing the public's influence on the program plan.
An acceptable public participation work plan will include the following sections:
1) A description of the proposed project and the reason for its proposal.
2) A list of issues to addressed by the public.
3) A list of segments of the public to be targeted by the public participation
program. This list will include government representatives, private citizens,
public interest groups, people with an economic interest in the proposed
project. The target public must include people who reflect the character and
the make-up of the community in the study area.
4) A list of information mechanisms. (This list might include, but not be limited
to, notices, field trips, pamphlets, brochures, newletters, radio and T.V.
announcements, news releases, sound track announcements, posters, fliers,
lectures, etc. - anything which informs and educates the public).
5) A list of consultative mechanisms. (This list might include, but not be limited
to, Citizen Advisory Committees (CACs), meeting workshops, questionnaires,
interviews, telephone polls, meetings, hearings, responsiveness summaries,
etc.).
6) A description of staff resources assigned to public participation and the name
and telephone number of a contact person.
7) A budget, detailed by category, for public participation activities, (Activities
include but are not limited to, public meetings, public hearings, CAC
meetings, CAC training, newsletters, mailing, etc. - any of the items listed
under consultative and informal mechanisms).
-------
8) A month-by-month schedule of activities showing which mechanisms will be
used at which points in the technical planning process.
9) A description of how this program relates to other Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) funded programs e.g. any appropriate program under the Clean
Water Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act or the Resource Conservation, and
Recovery Act.
35
-------
Checklist for Fact Sheet Elements
YES NO
Was a fact sheet prepared for submittal with the work plan ( ) ( )
to EPA and distribution with the work plan to target seg-
ments of the public?
Does the fact sheet contain:
1. A description of the nature of the project? ( ) ( )
2. A description of the scope of the project? ( ) ( )
3. The issues which the public will be asked to comment on? ( ) ( )
4. The location of the project? ( ) ( )
5. The name of the consulting engineer? ( ) ( )
6. The name and telephone number of a contact person ( ) ( )
for public participation information on the grantee's staff?
7. A preliminary estimate of project costs? ( ) ( )
8. Estimated user charges to each affected household? ( ) ( )
If the answer to any of these questions is no, the fact sheet is not
in compliance and must be revised.
\« *V.
36
-------
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region II
Issues
A NOTICE OF INTENT TO WAIVE THE PUBLIC
PARTICIPATION REQUIREMENTS FOR THE
TOWN OF
FACILITY PLANNING PROJECT
^(Description of project)
A request has been received from
to waive public participation requirements for this project which meets EPA's
criteria for exemption as specified in 40 CFR Part 35.917-5(d). A public hearing
will still be required as will public disclosure of costs. The public is invited to
comment on this proposed waiver within 30 days of the date of this notice. If
no significant public controversy exists, this exemption will be in effect shortly
after the 30 day comment period. Please direct your comment to:
Project Officer
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region II
26 Federal Plaza
New York, New York 10278
Telephone (212) 264-
* A brief description of the project, including anticipated costs to the individual
and the project area will be included here.
DATE OF NOTICE"
37
-------
APPENDIX
How to Write a Public Notice:
A Collection of Examples
38
-------
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Water
Programs Operations (WH-546)
Washington DC 20460
December 1979
How to Write
a Public Notice:
A Collection
of Examples
>.«
BT
w
•^
-------
How to Write
a Public Notice
A Collection
of Examples.
Prepared by
Barry H. Jordan
Consultant to the
Facility Requirements Division
Office of Water Program Operations
-------
Public
Notices
Public
Notification
and "Public
Notices"
One of the most common com-
plaints voiced by agency staff
and citizens is that public notices
of hearings and meetings rarely
generate public interest or atten-
dance. Even when considerable
agency resources are devoted to
the task, hearings and meetings
often may not be well attended.
This booklet has been developed
to provide a few principles
regarding public notices, a public
notice checklist, examples which
have been used in environmental
programs, and commentary on
these examples which highlights
their strong and weak points.
This brief guide is for agency
and grantee staff in the waste-
water treatment construction
grants program who have little
or no experience in writing infor-
mation for the public or working
with the media. It is hoped, that
the information and suggestions
in the booklet will enable EPA,
state agencies and local grantees
to get the most out of the
money spent on public notifica-
tion.
The assistance received from the
following people is gratefully
appreciated: EPA regional staff
for useful comments and several
notice examples; staff of Head-
quarters Office of Water and
Waste Management and Office of
Water Program Operations for
overall support and guidance; and
Headquarters Office of Public
Awareness staff for helpful ideas
and graphics support.
Issuing "public notices" is one
important aspect of public notifi-
cation. It is certainly not the only
thing an agency can do to stimu-
late interest in an upcoming
event. Indeed, informal notifica-
tion which uses the many exist-
ing communication "networks"
in the public and private sectors
is often the most effective way
to spread the word. The fact
remains, however, that agencies
generally rely most heavily on
the "public notice."
-------
Why Do People
Stay Away?
Ineffective
Public Notices
At the outset it should be noted
that poor public notice is only
one reason why people seem to
avoid public meetings and hear-
ings. Public apathy and wide-
spread citizen suspicion of
government programs is certainly
a factor. There are at least six
more specific reasons:
• The meeting or hearing is not
preceded by a strong public
information program; therefore
the public is unaware of signifi-
cant issues, decisions and im-
pacts to be discussed.
• The meeting or hearing is not
really important: there are no
significant issues; no decisions
to be made; and the agency pro-
gram has little or no effect on
anyone.
• The meeting or hearing is held
at a time which conflicts with
other equally important activities.
• The meeting or hearing is held
at a time and place which is not
convenient for the public.
• Widespread cynicism regarding
government and public agencies
causes many citizens to feel their
participation in the meeting or
hearing will accomplish very
little.
• Based on past experience,
citizens expect that, although the
sponsoring agency is well-
intended, the agency will not
take adequate steps to explain
complex issues or define difficult
technical words and phrases.
If none of the above conditions
exist, lack of attendance is often
due to a poor job of public
notification.
It is a relatively simple job to
determine whether an agency's
public notices are contributing to
empty meeting rooms. This is
because ineffective public notices
exhibit one or more of the fol-
lowing characteristics:
• The notice is issued in such a
way that few people see it, let
alone read it.
• The notice does not give any
reasons to attend the meeting or
hearing: it does not highlight the
issues to be covered at the meet-
ing or hearing, particularly
economic and environmental
impacts; does not indicate what
decisions will be made as a result
of the meeting or hearing; and
does not state the potential
effects of these decisions.
• The notice does not indicate
that those who attend the meet-
ing or hearing will have any
effect on subsequent decisions.
• The notice is written by some-
one with little or no experience
in writing information for the
public; i.e., the notice is merely
a limp collection of confusing
jargon which no one under-
stands.
• The sponsoring agency relies
primarily on the narrow "legal
notice" use of the print media
for public notification.
If one or more of the above are
true, the sponsoring agency has
an ironclad guarantee that the
janitors will not be working over-
time as a result of the meeting or
hearing. The only exception to
this is when the meeting or hear-
ing will deal with an extremely
controversial program or issue
which has already enraged or
polarized a significant number of
people. In this case, the room
will be filled no matter how bad
the notice. In such a situation,
where the "event" turns out to
be a violent shouting match or
perhaps even an old fashioned
lynching, the sponsoring agency
has more serious public partici-
pation problems than putting
together a good public notice.
\ -&>\JP
Notice. MIGHT
ENOUGH.*
-------
Five Principles
of a Good
Public Notice
Turning the above negative char-
acteristics around into a positive
framework results in the five
basic principles of effective public
notice:
• The notice must be issued so
that it is highly visible to the
potential "audience" well in ad-
vance of the meeting or hearing.
• The notice must be brief and
to the point: it must highlight
economic and environmental
issues and decisions of concern
to the public, as well as the
implications of these issues and
decisions.
• The notice must indicate how
participation at the meeting or
hearing will relate to subsequent
decisions and the resolution of
issues.
• The notice should be devel-
oped, or at least reviewed, by
someone with experience in
writing public information.
• The notice must be distributed
through direct mailing to organi-
zations and individuals, in addi-
tion to prominent media cover-
age. Direct contact such as
phone call "networking," per-
sonal letters, or other "word of
mouth" measures are often the
most effective means of public
notification. The phone call "net-
work," using paid or volunteer
staff has usually proven to be
the best way to spread the word
about a project or upcoming
event. This is especially true in
small community or neighbor-
hood projects.
-------
The Goal
Public Notice
Checklist
Finally, the sponsoring agency
should remember that the goal
of public notification is not
merely to fill the meeting room.
It is, rather to reach the people
who are likely to be affected by
agency actions and decisions
with the kind of information that
will convince and enable a good
cross-section of "interests" and
individuals to participate con-
structively in the agency pro-
gram.
The following checklist is in-
cluded as a brief reminder of the
basic principles of a good public
notice.
The examples and commentary
in the final section are provided
to illustrate all of the above
points.
After assuring yourself that the
event you are sponsoring is ful-
filling a specific requirement or
has some significance, and after
scheduling the event for a con-
venient time and place, measure
the public notice you are about
to release against the following
checklist;
• Will the notice be displayed
prominently in the media and
posted so as to be highly visible
sufficiently in advance of the
event? Will a press release
accompany the notice? Are other
media contacts planned (press
conference, reporters' briefing,
feature article)?
• Does the notice emphasize
why the event is being held? i.e.,
issues, decisions, effects?
• Does the notice also stress the
importance of citizen attendance
by stating how participation will
affect decisions?
• Has someone with public
information skills prepared or
reviewed the notice so that irrel-
evancies and jargon are avoided
and so that the notice is brief,
easy to read, informative, and
appealing? If meeting posters are
used in addition to written
notices, do these posters contain
wording and graphics which will
grab the viewers' attention?
• Will the notice be mailed
directly to appropriate individuals
and organizations? Is any other
direct contact to be used to
notify the public? Does the
notice give a staff contact who
can provide more detailed infor-
mation on request?
TO WfiAT You MAY HAV& HEARP, WE
U- NOT BE GIVING- AWAY FREE- Tl£KeT5 TO
HAWAII IbNlGHT, NCW, THE BoAf^P Wouup LIKETZ)
-me.
-------
Type
Good
Features
Areas Needing
Improvement
This is an example of a notice
which is mailed to interested citi-
zens on an agency mailing list.
Legal references are relegated to
the end of the notice.
Capitalization and underlining are
used to highlight important points
and to break up gray paragraphs
of type.
The language of the notice is
closer to plain English than most
"official" notices.
The notice could be improved by
using a better title (such as "A
Chance to be Heard About Air
Pollution Limits of Open Burning
of Cropland"; "Upper Limits on
Experimental Field Burning"
could serve as a sub-title) and by
using a word such as "persons"
instead of "parties."
Department of Environmental Quality
522 S.W. 5th AVENUE, P.O. BOX 17'60, PORTLAND, OREGON 97207 PHONE (503) 229- 5353
Prepared: April 13, 1979
Hearing Date: May 25, 1979
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
A CHANCE TO BE HEARD ABOUT;
RULE REVISIONS AFFECTING EXPERIMENTAL AGRICULTURAL OPEN
FIELD BURNING DURING THE 1979 FIELD BURNING SEASON
The Department of Environmental Quality is proposing to amend existing
field burning rules to identify the acreage to be burned under the
experimental field burning program during the 1979 field burning season.
This revision is necessary due to an administrative error which did not
establish an upper acreage limit for 1979 when the field burnim rules
were adopted on December 15, 1978. The proposed revision may be sub-
mitted to the Environmental Protection Agency as part of the State Clpan
Air Act Implementation Plan. A hearir.g on this matter will be held before
the Environmental Quality Commission in Portland on May 25, 1079. The
Commission nay also consider adoption of the rule at the r.eetina.
vn-IAT IS THE PEP PROPOSING?
Interested parties should request a copy of the complete proposed rule
package. The highlight is:
** The proposed upper limit for experimental field burning acreage to
be burned during the 1979 field burning season is 7,500 acres.
WHO IS AFFECTED BY THIS PROPOSAL:
Grass seed farmers and the citizens of the eight Willamette Valley counties
where field burning occurs.
HOM TO PROVIDE YOUR IIIFORMATION:
••.'ritten comments should be sent to the Departrsnt of Environmental Tualitv,
Air Quality Division, P.O. Box 1750, Portland, Oregon 97207, and should h»
received by May 23, 1979.
Oral and written comments may be offered at the following public heariro:
City Tine Data Location
Portland 9s 30 rers
1220 S.'.J. Fifth
-------
Notice of Public Hearing
Page 2
WHERE TO OBTAIN ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
Copies of the proposed rules may be obtained fron:
Marianne Fitzgerald Scott Freeburn
DEO. Air Quality Division DEQ Field Burning Office
P.O. Box 1760 16 Oakway Mall
Portland, Oregon 97207 Eugene, Oregon 97401
(503) 229-5353 (503) €86-7601
DEt> Willamette Valley Regional Office
1095 25th Street S.E.
Salem, Oregon 97310
(503) 378-8240
LEGAt REFERENCES FOR THIS PROPOSAL;
This prooosal amends OAR 340-26-013(6). This revision is proposed undar
authority of ORS 465.490.
This proposal dees not affect land use.
FURTHER PROCEEDINGS;
After public hearing the Corranission may adopt rule amendments identical to
the proposed amendments, adopt modified rule amendments on the same subject
matter, or decline to act. The adopted regulations mav be submitted to the
Environmental Protection Agency as part of the State Clean Air Act Implemen-
tation Plan. The Commission's deliberation should come on May 25, 1979 as
part of the agenda of a regularly scheduled Commission meeting.
-------
Type
Good
Features
Areas Needing
Improvement
This is an excellent example of a
meeting notice/mailer.
The cover calls immediate atten-
tion to the hearings.
The information is clearly
presented.
A phone contact is given.
Many depositories are listed, and
the availability of a plan summary
is noted.
Information on how and when to
make comments is given.
The public has three options for
commenting: hearing testimony
(evening and weekend sessions
included), telephone comments,
or written statements.
The notice informs the public of
informational meetings being
held prior to the formal comment
period.
The notice would be improved
by a better title ("208 Public Par-
ticipation Bulletin" is not very
exciting) and with a better sec-
tion on plan contents which
highlights major issues of public
concern.
I oubfc participation
PUBLIC INFORMATION MEETINGS ALSO
SCHEDULED
To help you interpret the clean water proposal
prior to the hearings, NIPC will hold a series of public
information meetings.
In Chicago, at the NIPC offices (400 W. Madison
St.), beginning at 1:30 p.m. on the following dates,
these parts of the clean water proposal will be dis
cussed:
Tuesday, May 30 — Agricultural and septic system
pollution control.
Tuesday, June 6 — Urban stormwater run-off and
combined sewer pollution
control.
Tuesday, June 13 — Wastewater treatment plant and
other point source pollution
control.
Tuesday, June 20 — Management systems, costs, and
financing of water pollution
control.
In the suburbs, beginning at 7:30 p.m., on the fol-
lowing dates, there will be a general presentation of
the clean water plan followed by discussion of topics
of interest to those in attendance.
Wednesday, May 31 - Lake Forest Village Hall;
220 E. Deerpath Rd.
Wednesday, June 7 — Naperville Municipal Center;
175 W.Jackson St.
Wednesday, June 14 - Barrington Public Safety Bldg.,
121 W. Station St.
Wednesday, June 21 — Frankfort Township Office;
Rt. 30 east of Wolf Rd.
LIBRARIES AT WHICH COPIES OF THE DRAFT
CLEAN WATER PLAN ARE ON RESERVE
Chicago
Main Library-425 N. Michigan
Social Science & History Div.
Science Division
Business & Industry Division
Cultural Center-78 E.Washington
Brighton Pk. - 4314 S. Archer
Jefferson Pk.-5363W. Lawrence
Woodson-9525S. Halstcd
Woodlawn - 6247 S. Kimbark
Hild-4S36N. Lincoln
Legler-115S. Pulaski
Suburban Cook County —
South
Chicago Heights
Harvey
Palos Hills
Park Forest
iney ar
DuPage County Lake County
Addison Antioch
Bensenville Barrington
Glen Ellyn Fox Lake
Lombard Grayslake
Oak Brook Highland Park
Naperville Lake Forest
Roselle Lake Villa
Villa Park Libertyville
Westmont Round Lake
Wheaton Wauconda
Winfield Waukegan
Wood Dale
Kane County Will County
Dundee Bolingbrook
Elgin Joliet
Geneva Lockport
Hampshire New Lenox
St. Charles Peotone
Sugar Grove Romeoville
Wilmington
Suburban Cook County-
North
Arlington Heights
Evanston
Glenview
Mt. Prospect
Northbrook
Palatine
Park Ridge
Schaumburg
Skokie
Streamwood
Wheeling
Winnetka
Suburban Cook County-
Wen
Bel (wood
LaGrange Park
Oak Park
Schiller Park
McHenry County
Algonquin
Gary
Crystal Lake
Fox River Grove
Harvard
Marengo
McHenry
McHenry-Nunda
Richmond
Woodstock
8
-------
public participation
bulletin —
areawide
clean water
planning
PUBLIC HEARINGS ON DRAFT CLEAN WATER
PLAN ANNOUNCED
The Northeastern Illinois Planning Commission
has scheduled eight public hearings on its proposed
Areawide Water Quality Management Plan for the six-
county metropolitan area. This draft plan suggests
strategies for solving the region's water pollution
problems and a management system for getting the
job done. The proposal also describes the ways in
which this multi-billion dollar program can be financ-
ed. A clean water plan must be adopted in order to
qualify this region for state and federal grants for
many wastewater treatment system improvements
and water pollution control projects already planned.
This plan will be a blueprint for public and private
action in water pollution control for years to come.
Hearing dates and locations are as follows:
Saturday, June 24 - Chicago; NIPC office,
400 W. Madison St.
Monday, June 26 - Des Plaines Civic Center
1420 Miner St.
Geneva; Kane Co. Gov't Center
719 Batavia Ave.
Tuesday, June 27 - Crystal Lake
North Union High School
170 N. Oak St.
Hinsdale Village Hall,
19 E. Chicago Ave.
Joliet; Will Co. Courthouse,
14 W. Jefferson St.
Wednesday, June 28 - Libertyvilte Village Hall,
200 E. Cook Ave.
Hazel Crest Village Hall,
1818 W. 170th St.
All hearings will remain in session for a minimum
of one hour after they are convened. The Saturday
hearing in Chicago will begin at 10 a.m. The seven
hearings in suburban communities will have an after-
noon session beginning at 3 p.m., and an evening ses-
sion at 7:30 p.m. Procedures for registering for the
hearing, and for the conduct of the hearing are avail-
able, and they should be requested from NIPC if you
plan to make a statement. Call Larry Aggens, Mike
Chapin, or Marty Moser (312) 454-0400, for a copy
of the procedures or for any additional information.
CLEAN WATER PROPOSAL AVAILABLE FOR
REVIEW AT 350 LOCATIONS
The complete draft clean water plan is more than
1,000 pages long. Copies are being placed on reserve
for public review in each municipal building, and in
each county planning office. Copies are also available
for inspection in the NIPC office, the offices of four
intercommunity councils, and in 75 libraries listed in
this bulletin. Officials of agencies designated for plan
implementation, and members of the Local Steering
Committees and Areawide Advisory Committee will
also have copies of the complete draft plan.
A 45-page summary of the draft plan will be sent
to all clean water planning advisors and to persons
who have been active in the basin planning process.
Summaries will be sent to others who request a copy
at no charge.
HOW YOU CAN GIVE US YOUR COMMENTS AND
SUGGESTIONS
NIPC has tried to make it as easy as possible for
you to tell us what you think about the draft plan.
You may make a statement at one of the eight public
hearings. As an alternative, you may submit a state-
ment by mail, until July 8; or you may telephone a
statement to NIPC between 10 a.m. and 4 p.m., dur-
ing the week of June 26th. Telephone statements will
be transcribed in the hearing record, or summarized
there if they are longer than five minutes. Written
statements will be reproduced in the hearing record in
the form in which they are received.
northeastern Illinois planning commission
400 West Madison Street, Chicago Illinois 60606 (312)454-0400
-------
Type
Good
Features
Areas Needing
Improvement
This is an example of an alter-
native "legal" or "official"
newspaper notice.
This format is an improvement
over the usual obituary column
associated with most hearings,
and a fact sheet is offered to the
public.
The notice would be improved
by a more definitive or descrip-
tive title, at least a listing of
potential issues, and a telephone
contact for more information.
Notice of Public Hearings on
Proposed Areawide Waste
Treatment Management Plan
These hearings are being conducted for the purpose of
obtaining public advice on the Proposed Areawide
Waste Treatment Management Plan, prepared in accor-
dance with the provisions of Section 208 of P.L.
92-500, the Federal Water Pollution Control Act
Amendments of 1972. The presentation will include the
designation of management agencies for waste treat-
ment and the determination of priorities for construc-
tion of treatment facilities in Barry, Branch, Calhoun,
Kalamazoo and St. Joseph Counties.
Official public hearings will be held
Thursday, July 28, 1977
Thursday, Aug. 4. 1977
Thureday, Aug. 11 1977
Thursday, Aug. 18, 1977
Thursday, Aug. 25, 1977
7:30 p.m.
7:30 p.m.
7:30 p.m.
7:30 p.m.
7:30 p.m.
Barry County Courthouse, Courtroom
Kalamazoo Center, Room A
Kellogg Comm. College, Davidson Auditorium
Branch County Courthouse, Commissioners' Room
Glen Oaks Community College, Nora Hagen Theatre
Hastings
Kalamazoo
Battle Creek
Cold water
South of M-86,
East of Centreville
Interested persons and representatives of local governments and organizations are invited to present their
views and comments in writing, or in person, at these hearings. Oral comments should be limited to five
15) minutes. Written statements of any length also may be mailed to Richard Simms, P.E., Water Quality
Director, Southcentral Michigan Planning Council, Connors Hall, Nazareth College at Kalamazoo,
Nazareth, Michigan 49074, until August 26, 1977.
Copies of Volume I, which includes the Proposed Areawide Waste Treatment Management Plan, have
been provided for public inspection at each unit of local government in the S.M.P.C. five-county area.
Copies of both Volume I and Volume II (the technical appendices) may be examined at the S.M.P.C.
office, at the address given above, and at the following libraries:
Barry County: Hastings Public Library.
Branch County: Branch County Public Library, Coldwater Public Library
Calhoun County: Albion College Library, Kellogg Community College Learning Resource Center, Marshall
Public Library, Willard Library (Battle Creek)
Kalamazoo County: Kalamazoo College Library, Kalamazoo Valley Community College Learning Resource
Canter, Western Michigan University Libraries (Archives, Waldo Library), Nazareth College Library,
Portage Public Library.
St. Joseph County: Sturgis Public Library, Three Rivers Public Library,
A fact sheet discussing the development of the plan and the philosophy behind it is available on request
from the S.M.P.C. office. Some additional copies of Volume I, which includes the Proposed Areawide
Waste Treatment Management Plan, are also available.
Please bring this notice to the attention of any persons you feel would be interested in this matter.
SOUTHCENTRAL MICHIGAN PLANNING COUNCIL
Water Quality Commission
Merle Wood (Mayor, City or Parchment), Chairperson
Jerry R. Hubbard (Supervisor, Union Township, Branch County), Vice Chairperson
Richard G. Simms, P.E., Water Quality Director
Time Rniea Commrcal. Thrw Rivera Ml 6/27/77
-------
Type
Good
Features
Areas Needing
Improvement
This is an example of a poster/
mailer notice.
The notice emphasizes the alter-
natives for specific locations in
the community.
PUBLIC HEARING
on the
Wastewater Management Plan
for the
Town of New Field
... to discuss the alternative solutions and the recom-
mended plan for the Boomis Heights, Plain Meadow,
West End Pond areas, and the Sewage Treatment Plant.
Boomis Heights
• Community septic system, alternatives 1 & 2
• Subsurface sand filter • Land application
• Conventional sewering, alternatives 1 & 2
• Abandonment of dwellings
Plain Meadow
• No build • Lateral sewer program
West End Pond
• No build • Sewer to New Hartfield STP
• Sewer to Windsted STP
Sewage Treatment Plant
• Land application • Extended aeration
• Rotating biological contactors
• Two-stage trickling filters
The Date: Monday, April 5, 1978 Time: 7:30 P.M.
The Place: The New Field Town Hall
There is no mention of major
issues of public concern.
There is also too much technical
jargon; e.g., lateral sewer pro-
gram, extended aeration, rotating
biological contactors, two-stage
trickling filters, etc.
In short, the writer is assuming
too much knowledge about the
project in the community. Even
in a well-publicized and/or con-
troversial project, this is a
dangerous assumption.
The notice should include a con-
tact for more information.
11
-------
Type
Good
Features
Areas Needing
Improvement
This invitation/hearing notice
was prepared by a consultant for
an EPA training session. Even
though it is for a hypothetical
situation, the notice exhibits
several important features.
The notice could stand by itself,
as a newspaper ad, poster or
mailer.
The format is not particularly
distinguished, but the notice
contains essential information
which must be included in any
effective notice:
• Outline of issues in promiment
location;
• A list of technical alternatives;
• Information on where and
when to review documents;
• Information on how and when
to make formal comments;
• Name and phone number of
project contact person;
• The date, time and location of
the hearing, a central, easily
reached location at a time when
most people can attend.
In this example a letter, co-signed
by a local official, is sent to an
extensive mailing list, in addition
to publication of the notice in
the local newspaper and posting
in prominent locations in the
community. This extra step is
taken because those responsible
for the project are aware of a
very important fact regarding
meeting or hearing notification:
most people who attend meetings
or hearings do so because they
have been contacted directly,
either by phone, through the
mail or in person, not because of
a formal notice, newspaper arti-
cle or paid ad; This fact has
been verified in surveys and is
borne out by actual experience
every day. This fact must be
taken into account by those con-
ducting the hearing or meeting.
Existing communications net-
works such as newsletters
should be used, as well as some
form of direct contact. In most
cases, reliance solely on the
"media" will be insufficient.
The elected official also indicates
in the letter that views expressed
at the hearing will be used in
decision-making.
The notice does not mention the
availability of a technical sum-
mary or fact sheet. While not
directly related to notice content
and form, such a summary is an
essential part of any project. If
one is available, it certainly
should be mentioned in the
notice.
For the most part, the notice
avoids jargon; however, "collec-
tion system," "mgd," and
"secondary treatment" are not
everyday terms.
Board of Selectmen
PUBLIC HEARING
on Water Pollution Control
12
-------
Dear Mythical Citizen,
We would like to extend an invitation to you to participate in a public hearing to help
select among alternative waste treatment proposals for Town of Mythical. The hearing
will take place on Wednesday, February 16, 1977 at 7:30 p.m. at the Mythical Senior
High School Auditorium.
The different proposals for handling the current and expected wastewater flows have
highlighted a number of significant issues, including:
. should the sewer service district be expanded?
. should the capacity of the treatment plant be expanded?
. should Mythical join with adjacent Makebleeve and construct
a regional treatment facility, phasing out Mythical's
current plant?
. what would be the land use impacts of an expanded facility?
Each of the proposals entails different environmental and monetary costs and benefits,
and we are seeking the advice and ideas of you and other citizens to help in making
the choice between them. We hope you will join us on February 16. Please refer to
the enclosed hearing notices for further details.
Sincerely,
Ima C. Leckman
Chairman,
Mythical Board of Selectmen
Board of Selectmen
PUBLIC HEARING
on Water Pollution Control
PUBLIC OPINION WILL BE SOUGHT ON ALTERNATIVE WASTE TREATMENT PROPOSALS
FOR THE TOWN OF MYTHICAL
TIME: WEDNESDAV. FEBRUARY 16, 1977, BEGINNING AT 7:30 P.M.
PLACE: MYTHICAL SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL AUDITORIUM
ISSUES Should me sewer service district be expanded?
Should the capacity of the treatment plant be expanded?
Should Mythical and Makebleeve join in building a regional treatment facility?
What would be the land use Lipacts of an expanded or regional facility?
ALTERNATIVES TO BE DISCUSSED: 1.) secondary treatment at existing plant with no
expansion of present capacity 1.7 mgdi;
2.) secondary treatment with expansion of capacity
(,9 mgd) and collection system (see map);
3.) new regional treatment facility with Makebleeve,
with 1.0 mgd capacity and expanded collection
system (map);
4.) new regional plant with Makebleeve with 1.2 mgd
capacity and expanded collection system (map),
DETAILED PLANS AND ANALYSIS OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS FOR EACH ALTERNA-
TIVE may be examined at the Mythical Town Hall (9:00 A.M. to 4:00 P.M. Monday through
Friday except legal holidays), the Mythical Public Library 19:00 A.M. to 9:00 P.M. Monday
through Friday and 9:00 A.M. TO 2:00 P.M on Saturday), or in the Auditorium prior to the
hearing (starting ai 6:30 P.M.).
A SIMILAR PUBLIC HEARING will also be held in thfi MAKEBLEEVE 7"OWW HALL on Thurs-
day, March 10. 1977, beginning at 7:30 P.M. Plans and analyses are available ai Town Hall
(9:00 A.M. to 4:00 P.M., Monday through Friday except legal holidays). A separate announce-
ment lor this hearing will also be published.
If you are unable to attend the hearing or would prefec to submit your comments in writing.
signed written comments wilt be accepted up to midnight of the seventh calendar day after the
hearing and will be entered as part of the hearing record. Signed statements received prior to
the close of the hearing will be read at the hearing. Comments should be addressed to the
Board of Selectmen.
this hearing is being held in response to the National Environmental Policy Act, the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act Amendments Of 1972, and Regulations promulgated theteunder.
On the basis of expressed public opinion and the environmental effects, monetary costs,
feasibility, resource and energy use, and reliability of the various, proposals, a "selected alter-
native" will be chosen and 75% federal/15% state funding will be sought.
For more information, call Sue Erltne, Community Liaison Officer for Dezine and Specks Inc.,
Engineering Consultants, at 967 1234.
13
-------
Type
Good
Features
Points to
Consider
This is an example of a simple
newspaper ad used to attract
public attention prior to a public
hearing.
The ad generated several phone
calls for more information for
two reasons: the ad was placed
in a prominent location in a
widely circulated newspaper, and
the ad highlights a few dramatic
issues related to the hearing.
BOSTON HARBOR
• "NO SWIMMING" in Charles & Mystic Rivers
• "SHELLFISHING BANNED" in Inner Harbor
• 400,000 pounds of partially treated sewage & toxic
waste flow into Boston Harbor daily
Does it have to be this way? Are you responsible?
What do you want done for a clean Boston Harbor?
Let the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency know
at a public hearing on:
Monday, November 20, 1978
Faneuil Hall, Boston
1:30-5:30 P.M. and 7:00-10:00 P.M.
At the hearing EPA will hear your comments on its
recommendations for cleaning up the Harbor and its
tributaries. The EPA recommendations include:
• a $770 million water pollution control project with
waste water treatment at Deer Island
• environmentally sound sludge disposal
For more information contact EPA's Office of Public
Awareness at 223-7223.
The use of .such an ad should be
carefully considered.
There is no question that a well
done, well-placed ad will attract
attention; however, caution must
be used to avoid overstatement.
The cost of such an ad is usually
much higher than the cost of a
legal notice, particularly in large
metropolitan newspapers.
It is not possible to tell a news-
paper where to put a legal notice.
Certain locations can be requested
for display ads.
14
-------
Type
Things to
Consider
This is an example of a public
notice designed to reach a speci-
fic audience.
In many instances writing a
notice that can be read and
understood by the affected
public means taking the extra
step of writing the notice in a
language other than plain
English.
When this extra step is taken, it
is advisable not to give a literal
translation of an English language
notice. The notice should be
actually written by someone with
a good knowledge of the idiom
and nuances of the other lan-
guage. It may be advisable to
seek assistance and advice from
a member of the community.
Of course, the principles regard-
ing content and distribution also
apply to these types of notices.
BJEfl:
* as A.
« ft* a.
&£*** .#s
I .«-* it *-+* * * * . *T K
•I 'ft, A«t *f.««/
'« ft
*• »
it * '<-• «t it* m -f f
*«« «4 WHS '
H + *• «. il i .-" -
*R ** it f * *• «• »Tt Aiti'l . tt+t ****««.»» 4 'tit it
'
H5f t
... .
it •* *• A /^ (t . i*. I- »t * •* •*- 1 L - « *« * x* «- ;e
,o- * x.* /iKM-Al t «L •* v»* *t »•
. ,
**.
st * *H >«i ».'»* H-tft f..«l K *'* '* « *
w.. •
* ft *«-i»i :S-»»*l J « tt »«-« « JT/t «nM» «.<•*£ K M MA
ti jti) «. * «• i «l * i «( if ft ft J. **,-» * It it. A i. * fe. HI x.K.
iiif J*HI.
>* t* rtatift . *
**i». it#Af*.!g
rt- «#
..
Ht i>| »,!•) f-n-^t'l i-gtft
*«*»*t,A«. *«
A * *«
-------
Type
Things to
Consider
This is an example of an all-too-
typical government hearing notice
which is usually posted in public
buildings and mailed to persons
on special agency mailing lists.
This example is taken almost
word for word from an actual
EPA notice.
When stacked up against the
five basic principles of a good
notice and the checklist provided
in this guidance, it can be easily
seen that this type of notice
because it is so "governmental"
in tone and appearance cannot
be relied upon to stimulate public
interest.
Even though three issues are
hinted at in the notice, the
layout of the notice, as well as a
fair amount of governmentese
deaden its effect.
This type of notice should be
avoided if at all possible.
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Region XI
11 Main Street
Anytown, Anystate 20002
NOTICE OP PUBLIC HEARING
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM, SOME TOWN, Anystate
TO: All Interested Government Agencies, Public Groups and Individuals
In accordance with the provisions of the National Environmental
Policy Act, this notice is to inform you that the Region XI Office of the
Environmental Protection Agency intends to hold a public hearing for the
proposed'agency action described below:
Approval of a Wastewater Treatment Facility Plan for a new sewer
interceptor, lagoons and rapid infiltration basins for Some
town, Anystate.
EPA approval of this plan and EIS will mean 75 percent and up to
85 percent of all eligible costs will be made available to Some Town
under provisions of Public Law 92-500. EPA recognizes that the approval
of the sewage interceptor line in East End could have significant effects
upon the environmental quality of this area. In particular, the following
areas are likely to be affected: water quality in Carp Creek, ground
water quality near the infiltration basins, and land use patterns In East
End.
The final EIS is now available in limited quantities either from
Some Town or the EPA Regional Office. The forty-five day comment
period ends June 28, 1979.
If you wish to express your views regarding the proposed project
please attend the public hearing or address your written comments to the
Regional Administrator.
COME TO THE PUBLIC HEARING — BRING A CONCERNED FRIEND
PUBLIC HEARING
SOME TOWN'S WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM
THURSDAY JUNE 21, 1979 7:30 P.M.
County Courthouse Basement
141 Lament Street
Some Town, Anystate
16
-------
Type
Good
Features
Areas Needing
Improvement
This is an example of a simple, This notice goes right to the A telephone contact for more
yet effective, public notice/ heart of a very specific issue: the information should be given.
poster.* quality of a local lake.
''This notice was used as a poster and it The issue is presented in very
was afep mated to a carefully selected sjmp|e terms and stresses
;rifirrt^rx ™**™«* and economic
identify this "public." Concerns.
The notice is direct, visually
appealing and easy to read.
Are You Concerned?
Lake Hollingsworth is Dying . . .
As a close neighbor, you will want to learn how to save your lake.
While it isn't dead yet, it is heading toward this end.
So, pay your respects to this beautiful body of water while it is still alive.
Some dedicated people are working to save it now. They are having a special
meeting to tell you about it.
Come learn what is being done and how you can help. This affects your property
value.
Who wants to live near a dead lake?
Sponsored by: Central Florida Regional Planning Council
Location - The Sump, Park Opposite Florida Southern College
(in case of rain: Branscomb Room 202)
Date — Saturday, February 25, 1978 •
Time - 10:00 A.M.
central florida regional planning council
polk, hardee, desoto, highlands & okeechobee counties
-------
Type
Good
Features
This is an example of a mailer/
notice, including a response
form. This notice is used to
announce the beginning of a
planning process, not a specific
event.
Th« Hill Cra«h BMln CIS
ZZZZXZZZZZZZ'ZZZZSZZl Can You Think Ol Any Ottwr
"r^-^r^T^1—"rrrr QU»*««»* «*»'=« should *•
il Your Vole* B* H»rd
MILL CREEK BASIN
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
DO VOL' LIVE OR WORK IN THIS PART
OF JEFFERSON COUNTY? IF SO.
THIS NOTICE MAY BE OF VITAL CONCERN
TO YOU.
Now Thai You Hn« DK!I
To H*lp, Wh.t
T- ftoil?
The notice is appealing and easy
to read with a simple map outlin-
ing the study area.
A response form is included as
well as the name of a person to
contact for more information.
The notice basically takes into
account all of the essential ingre-
dients of an effective notice. If
the notice is properly distributed,
it should generate public interest
and response.
vvEPA
t
Louisville
SMvely
Study Boundary |
MILL CREEK BASIN
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
DO YOU LIVE OR WORK IN THIS PART
OF JEFFERSON COUNTY? IF SO,
THIS NOTICE MAY BE OF VITAL CONCERN
TO YOU.
18
-------
You Can Help
Environment*! imped Statement! ire popularly known
M EIS1* The pUfpOttof an EIS IB tomaketheappropriate
Federal. MMt end local government agencies and the.
public aware of the beneficial and adverse impacts 0< *
proposed action and to disclose all reasonable alternative
•ctionilhal have been considered The EIS process affords
me public an opportunity to participate m Federal
Oeciuons that may affect the human environment
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) need* your
help to make the beet decisions on important issues
concerning waatawatar treatment and dvpoaaf which may
•fleet you and your community.
The Mill Creek Basin EIS
The Louisville Wastewataf Facilities Ptan w« prepared m
1174 to addnus the waatewater treatment needs lor a 20
year period In the Louisville and Jefferson County area
The plan proposed • comprehensive sewer system EPA
performed a review of the plan 10 determine if significant
environmental enacts would result. Baaed upon this review
and concerns raised by local citizens. EPA determined that
me Mill Creek Bwin portion of the plan would cause
significant Impacts and that an EIS should be prepared as
required by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
The Mill Creek Basin EIS will involve an investigation ot
•listing ind future groundwiter quality and enisling/
potential uses of groondwater resource in order to
determine the need for Federal funding for sewers in this
Basin. Alternatives to and the impacts ol providing sewer
service to me Rhrerport Industrial P«rk. which is located In
southwest Jefferson County, will also be evaluated
Let Your Voice Be Heard
You, as an individual o* Bta member ol a group having an
'merest m the area where the EIS will be conducted (see
map), can tsk* part in the citizen participation portion ol
Ins EIS process An extensive citizen participation effort n
plumed, it win be an important pen of the Mill Creek
Environmental Impact Statement's development Specific
Hfmi include ffte dewstfopment of a citizen review
committee, workshops, news bnefi and public hearing*
Enclosed with Ims brochure is a form which you may fill out
•Ad return to EPA By tilling out this form, you will indicate
to us me degree to which you or your organization would
"Ike lo participate in the Mill Cnje* EIS
EPA's Role
Controversy over the Waatewater FactUtiee Plan tor the
LouisvWe area he* existed ever since it was announced that
a wasteweter treatment study was going to be developed
The Plan haa been investigated by state legislative
commrttees. pretested by neighborhood groups and weed
as s basis for legal actton.
The Region IV office of the- EPA has the authority to grant
the Metropolitan Sewer EMstrtct 75* of the fund* necessary
to construct the elements of the Plan, Inordertontsdvetn*
issues that have been identified, EPA will conduct a
detailed, impartial analysis The spacif>c auaetiona me EIS
will answer include.
1. What is the beet alternative eveilsbte lo meet the
communities' wastewaler needs, bom now and in the
future'
2 Whal environmental and social impacts will result
from the selected protect?
3. Whal economic impacts will the selected protect have
on area residents, including those on fixed incomes''
4. Whai is the suitability of septic tanks seepage pits or
other individual on-lot disposal systems and how great a
threat do they present for polluting groundwsier supplies?
5 Is on lot-disposal of waste a permanent or ihon term
solution to wssle disposal in the Mill Creek Basin")
*. What is Ihe current quality of the groundwater?
7 How can industrial wastes be handled1* Who pays lor
treating or preheating these industrial wastes''
Can You Think Of Any Other
Questions Which Should Be
Answered?
The EPA feels thsl these are importeni queshons thai
require the joint efforts of government agencies and
concerned citizens m order to be adequately addressed
The EPA hopes the! you. BBS citizen, will provide your mpul
to enable EPA to msk* better decisioni concerning
wasiewater treatment and disposal
Now That You Have Decided
To Help, What Happens
Next?
Citizen workshops and a formal public hearing will be
held to keep you informed of EPA i progresi. lo sniwer
your questions, and to give you an opportunity lo raise
issues which you would iik« to se« addressed
Look tor announcement* Of proftci Itnamtrki in you'
local newspspaer or (ill out Ihe enclosed form and ind
-------
Type
Good
Feature
Areas Needing
Improvement
This is an example of a mailer/
poster.
The notice is brief, direct and
easy to read.
Simple graphics and layout, as
well as the title catch the reader's
attention.
The notice would have more
effect if specific economic and
environmental impacts were
listed.
A contact for more information
should be given.
The Clean
Wafer
People
are having
a meeting
If you are from the
Vandalia area, and if
you are aware that
cleaning up our rivers
and streams involves
your homes, your jobs,
your money. . .
You want to be there!
Thursday, July 13, 1978
7:00 P.M.
Troy High School Auditorium
151 West Staunton Road
Troy, Ohio
sponsored by the Miami Valley
Regional Planning Commission
7-12-78 Vandalia Chronicle
A U. S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE •- I960 63<"-a
20
-------
wexr
rne Move £ervveeN EPA
THE.
-------
Advisory Group Training Modules
The Information Program for Citizen Advisory Groups consists of 18 information
units based on key issues related to water quality and wastewater treatment planning.
The program is specially designed for citizens and local officials involved in this
planning.
Each unit contains an Audiovisual Presentation (slide/tape or 16 mm film), a Citizen
Handbook to be given to each advisory group member, and includes a brief Information
Session presented by a trained and qualified individual. The audiovisual presentations
highlight major issues and important aspects of each topic. The citizen handbook
elaborates on these points and provides additional, more detailed information.
The information sessions include guided discussions of local topics, and some problem-
solving exercises.
Unit 1
Role of Advisory Groups
Unit 2
Public Participation
Unit 3
Facility Planning
in the Construction
Grants Program
Unit *
Municipal Wastewater
Processes: Overview
Unit 5
Municipal Wastewater
Processes: Details
Unit 6
Small Systems
Unit 7
Innovative and
Alternative Technologies
Unit 8
Water Conservation
and Reuse
Unit 9
Land Treatment
Unit 10
Cost-Effectiveness
Analysis
Unit 11
Environmental Assessment
Unit 12
Financial Management
Unit 13
Multiple Use
Unit 14
Industrial Pretreatment
Unit 15
Wastewater Facilities Operation
and Management
Unit 16
Urban Stormwater Runoff
Unit 17
Nonpoint Source
Pollution: Agriculture, Forestry
and Mining
Unit 18
Groundwater Contamination
39
-------
Grantees may arrange for the training of advisory groups in any of the areas listed
below by calling the appropriate state agencies.
In New York:
Mr. Richard Rhindress, Community Projects Coordinator
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
50 Wolf Road
Albany, New York 12233
(518) 457-3720
In New Jersey;
Ms. Susan Goetz, Public Participation Coordinator
New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection
P.O. Box CN-029
Trenton, New Jersey 08625
(609) 292-1637
In Puerto Rico;
Mr. Salvatore Nolfo, Small Communities Coordinator
Puerto Rico Aquaduct and Sewer Authority
P.O. Box 7066
Barrio Obrero Station
Santurce, Puerto Rico 00916
-------
CONTACT PERSONS
Environmental Protection Agency
Mr. James DeLaura, Chief
New York Water Programs Branch
USEPA - Region II
26 Federal Plaza
New York, New York 10278
Mr. Mark Savedoff, Chief
New Jersey/Caribbean Water Programs Branch
USEPA - Region II
26 Federal Plaza
New York, New York 10278
State Agencies
Mr. Donald Francois, Director
Division of Natural Resource Management
Department of Conservation «5c Cultural Affairs
P.O. Box 4340
St. Thomas, Virgin Islands 00801
Mr. Arnold Schiffman, Director
Division of Water Resources
New Jersey Department of
Environmental Protection
P.O. BoxCN-029
Trenton, New Jersey 08625
Mr. Eugene Seebald, Director
Division of Water
New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation
50 Wolf Road
Albany, NewYork 12233
Mr. Carl Soderberg, Director
Water Quality Bureau
Environmental Quality Board
P.O. Box 11488
Santurce, Puerto Rico 00910
-------
Senior Environmental
Employment Program
Ms. Pat Powers, Special Projects Officer
Senior Environmental Employment Program
1909 K Street, N.W-
Washington, D.C. 20049
(202) 246-8882
-------
PART III
Policy and Regulations
-43-
-------
FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 16,1979
PART VI
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
STATE AND LOCAL
ASSISTANCE
Grants for Construction of
Treatment Works
-------
10300
RULES AND REGULATIONS
[ 6560-0 1-M]
TiHe 40 — Protection of Environment
CHAPTER I— ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY
1041-1A]
PART 35— STATE AND LOCAL
ASSISTANCE
Subpart E — Grants for Construction of
Treatment Works
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency
ACTION: Rule
SUMMARY: These regulations are in-
tended to encourage, provide for, and
assist public participation in the Mu-
nicipal Wastewater Treatment Works
Construction Grants Program carried
out under the Clean Water Act. The
regulations specify that public partici-
pation in that program applies to de-
velopment of the State priority system
and annual list of projects designated
for Federal funding, to development of
plans for wastewater treatment facili-
ties, to development of user charge
and industrial cost recovery systems,
and to the delegation of administra-
tive responsibilities for the Construc-
tion Grants Program to the States.
The regulations establish a two-tier
program of participation in the facili-
ty planning process. This allows EPA,
States, and grantees to focus their re-
sources and energies, and those of par-
ticipating citizens, on the minority of
projects which have the greatest fi-
nancial environmental impacts and
which will benefit most from active
community involvement. The regula-
tions contain fewer public participa-
tion requirements for the large major-
ity of projects expected to- be less-
costly or to have less significant im-
pacts. The regulations permit the ex-
emption of projects which involve only
minor upgrading of treatment works
or minor sewer rehabilitation from
many of the public participation re-
quirements of these regulations.
DATES: These regulations are effec-
tive on February 16, 1979.
ADDRESSES: Comments submitted
on these regulations may be inspected
at the Public Information Reference
Unit, EPA Headquarters, Room 2922,
Waterside Mall. 401 "M" Street, S.W..
Washington, D.C. between 8:00 a.m.
and 4:30 p.m. on business days.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT:
Michael B. Cook. Acting Director,
Facility Requirements Division (WH
595), Environmental Protection
Agency, 401 "M" Street, S.W.. Room
1137ET. Washington, D.C. 20460.
telephone 202/426-9404.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
The regulations for public participa-
tion in the Construction Grants Pro-
gram were proposed in the FEDERAL
REGISTER on August 7, 1978, along
with overall public participation regu-
lations which would cover programs
under the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act and the Safe Drinking
Water Act. as well as the Clean Water
Act (40 CFR Part 25). The Part 25 reg-
ulations are being published in final
form in the same issue of the FEDERAL
REGISTER as the regulations specific to
the Construction Grants Program.
The preamble to the overall Part 25
regulations includes a complete discus-
sion of public participation activities
conducted by EPA in the development
of the overall regulations and the Con-
struction Grants Program public par-
ticipation regulations.
RESPONSE To PUBLIC COMMENT
A large volume of comment was re-
ceived on the overall Part, 25 regula-
tions and on the regulations specific to
the grants program. Many general
comments were relevant to the grants
program regulations as well as to
other programs under the three cov-
ered Acts. A full discussion of these
general issues is included in the pre-
amble to 40 CFR Part 2.5. They In-
clude consistency of public participa-
tion requirements, discretion and
flexibility in the requirements, role of
elected officials, composition and use
of advisory groups, advance notice of
public hearings and meetings, and
others. The sections which follows de-
scribe EPA's response to those more
specific issues and comments which
pertain to the Construction Grants
Program:
1. Delay of Wastewater Treatment
Projects. Many commenters, especially
some State and local governments, ex-
pressed sincere concern that the new
requirements would delay the con-
struction of much needed treatment
facilities. They cited the requirements
for additional meetings and public
consultation, the need for earlier
public notice, the additional reporting
requirements, the additional demands
on their staffs, and additional over-
sight and review functions as potential
sources of delay during the Step 1,
facilities planning stage.
Some citizens and public interest
groups who commented on this issue,
however, noted that the most serious
delays came not during the planning,
but during the design and construc-
tion stages. Often it was not until
these later stages that individual citi-
zens and local groups realized signifi-
cant fiscal and growth impacts of ex-
pensive, oversized treatment facilities.
It is the Agency's position that this
is an environmental, not a public
works, program where the fiscal integ-
rity and sound environmental manage-
ment of the program are paramount.
Delays, if any. in facilities planning
due to increased public participation
are anticipated to -be more than com-
pensated for by the selection of more
appropriate treatment systems and
more rapid progress in the design and
construction stages.
2. Resources. Federal, State and sub-
state agencies responsible for the Con-
struction Grants Program were seri-
ously concerned about the resource
Implications of these requirements.
They were especially concerned about
increased demand for monies and staff
time.
The Agency acknowledges the need
for some additional resources to ade-
quately Implement public participa-
tion in the program. All efforts have
been made to minimize these demands
while maintaining the integrity of the
program. The distribution of the
public participation work plan and the
responsiveness summaries will reduce
the need for EPA monitoring by fos-
tering cooperation between grantees
and citizens to ensure high quality
program outputs. Also, the Agency has
conducted a detailed resource analysis
that indicated that the most resource
intensive activity for the States and
EPA is attendance by staff at public
meetings and hearings; the regulations
do not require such attendance,
making this activity strictly discretion-
ary. Since the Full-Scale Public Par-
ticipation Program is more resource
intensive than the Basic Public Par-
ticipation Program, EPA expects that
the Full-Scale Public Participation
Program will be required of approxi-
mately 30 percent of projects.
The Agency is also making new re-
sources available. State management
assistance funds, under section 205(g)
of the Act, and construction grants
funds, under section 201, can be used
by the States and grantees, respective-
ly, to cover public participation costs.
Furthermore, EPA is designating staff
in its regional offices to assist in carry-
ing out these requirements.
3. Criteria for Full-Scale Public Par-
ticipation Program. The Agency re-
ceived a number of comments on the
criteria proposed for use by the Re-
gional Administrator in determining
which projects should have the Full-
Scale Public Participation Program.
Some commenters urged that the cri-
teria be made less flexible by the addi-
tion of specific population size and
project cost criteria. The Agency has
decided to continue to allow the Re-
gional Administrators a high level of
discretion in determining which pro-
jects are likely to need additional
public involvement based upon their
assessment of cost, complexity and po-
tential impacts. In the proposed regu-
lations the Full-Scale Program was
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 44, NO. 34— FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 16, 1979
-------
mandatory only when it was deter-
mined early in the facilities planning
process stage that an Environmental
Impact Statement would be required,
under 40 CFR Part 6. Recognizing the
public and Congressional concern over
the cost of advanced wastewater treat-
ment (AWT) facilities that require
very stringent wastewater treatment,
the Agency has included AWT as a
mandatory criterion for the Full-Scale
Program. This will enable communi-
ties to give more careful consideration
to less-costly systems and alternative
treatment processes, such as land
treatment.
Other than the EIS and AWT man-
datory criteria, the Regional Adminis-
trator will require the Pull-Scale Pro-
gram only after a project meets two
tests. The Regional Administrator
must determine (1) that the project
has the potential for community
impact, as suggested by criteria listed
in §35.917-5(c)(l)(iii), and (2) that the
existing local decisionmaking process
would benefit from increased opportu-
nities for public involvement. The Re-
gional Administrator will exercise this
discretion in light of the Agency ex-
pectation that approximately 30 per-
cent of the Step 1 projects will be re-
quired to conduct a Full-Scale Pro-
gram.
4. Content of Full-Scale Public Par-
ticipation Program. Generally, citi-
zens and public interest groups, as well
as some government agencies, gave
strong support to the content of the
Full-Scale Program. They particularly
supported the opportunities for public
Involvement and consultation early in
facilities planning, the public partici-
pation coordinator, and the advisory
group. Some cOmmenters requested
more discretion in using the advisory
groups. They urged that they be en-
couraged, but not required.
The Agency has decided to retain
the Full-Scale Program, as initially
proposed. Since it will only apply to
those projects of high complexity or
controversy, the presence of a core
group of informed citizens—the advi-
sory group—is considered particularly
essential. It must be pointed out that
the Basic Program, which will cover
the large majority of projects, does
not require the advisory group; howev-
er, grantees are at libertry to establish
One at their discretion. The Part 25
regulations have been revised to pro-
vide grantees with significant addi-
tional flexibility in composing the
membership of advisory groups.
5. Small Community Impacts. A
number of commenters expressed con-
cern over the impact of the regulation
on small communities. They suggested
automatic exemptions for small com-
munities form the Full-Scale Program.
and even the Basic Program.
RULES AND REGULATIONS
The regulations allow the Regional
Administrator extensive discretion in
determining which projects should
have a Full-Scale Program. First, the
Regional Administrator must deter-
mine that one of the criteria suggest-
ing community impact is likely to be
present and second, having made that
determination, the Regional Adminis-
trator must determine that more
active public participation in the form
of the Full-Scale Program would be of
benefit in the particular community.
In making this second case-by-case de-
termination, the Regional Administra-
tor is free to take into consideration
the size and nature of the community
where facility planning will occur.
In many cases documented by EPA,
the cost and other impacts of
wastewater treatment facilities are
most severe in small, rural communi-
ties. The evaluation of less-costly,
more acceptable alternatives may
therefore require more, not less, active
public participation. In many in-
stances this will be best accomplished
by the attention of a core group of in-
terested citizens, with staff support,
which is the cardinal feature of the
Full-Scale Program. This decision will
be made on a case-by-case basis by the
Regional Administrator.
6. Early Public Involvement. Many
citizens and public interest groups
urged the Agency to require additional
early public involvement, especially
before the Step 1 grant is awarded and
in the selection of the consulting engi-
neer. Since pre-Step 1 activities are
not grant eligible, the Agency has de-
cided not to impose additional require-
ments beyond the performance stand-
ard for public information and consul-
tation in the development of the plan
of study.
Many private citizens and public in-
terest groups urged EPA to require
public participation in the selection of
the consulting engineer. These com-
menters argued that this would en-
courage the selection of a consultant
able to communicate effectively with
the public and would lead to greater
public confidence and support for the
planning process. EPA agrees in part
with this concept, but does not believe
it is feasible to make consultation in
engineer selection a requirement. Ac-
cordingly, the regulations encourage,
but do not require, public consultation
in the selection of the consulting engi-
neer.
To help stimulate early public inter-
est, the final regulations require the
grantee to provide the public with an
estimate of the additional per house-
hold cost of the proposed facilities.
This cost can be calculated from the
cost and population estimates in the
biennial Needs Survey if more precise
data are not available.
10301
7. Coordination With Other Pro-
grams. Many commenters stressed the
importance of coordinating the public
participation activities in the Con-
struction Grants Program with public
participation in other programs, espe-
cially the Water Quality Management
Program under 40 CFR Part 35, Sub-
part G.
The Agency concurs and has modi-
fied the requirement by encouraging
coordination of facility planning
public participation activities with
those associated with other related en-
vironmental programs in the project
area.
8. Public Participation in Step 2 and
3. Some local agencies and many
public interest groups expressed ap-
proval of the language in the regula-
tions which indicated that public par-
ticipation activities in Step 2 (design)
and Step 3 (construction) were grant
eligible. Some commenters called for
mandatory public participation re-
quirements in Steps 2 and 3. With the
exception of requirements to inform
and consult with the public in the de-
velopment and adoption of the user
charge and industrial cost recovery
systems, EPA will not impose public
participation requirements in Steps 2
and 3. However, public participation
activities at these stages are grant eli-
gible provided they are included in a
public participation work plan submit-
ted by the grantee and approved by
EPA.
9. Training. Many citizens and
public interest groups supported the
requirement that EPA train advisory
groups established under the Full-
Scale Program. Some States and local
governments pointed out that they
should have a role in training advisory
groups because of their familiarity
with local Issues. EPA agrees. The
final regulations require EPA to devel-
op training materials but indicate that
training would be done in cooperation
with the State or grantee.
10. EPA Technical Assistance to Im-
plement the Regulations. Many com-
menters, representing a variety of in-
terests, urged the Agency to provide
technical assistance to implement the
public participation regulations.
The Agency concurs and has taken
the following actions to aid States and
grantees to implement their regula-
tions:
—Made public participation activi-
ties grant eligible for construction
grant funds (section 201) and State
management assistance funds (sec-
tion 205(g)).
—Begun development of a modular
technical training program on
wastewater treatment facilities
planning f antees and their ad-
visory groups.
—Begun development of training
courses on how to conduct and
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 44, NO. 34— FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 16, 1979
-------
10302
RULES AND REGULATIONS
evaluate public participation activ-
ities for staff from EPA, State and
substate agencies.
—Initiated the development of addi-
tional guidance on the public par-
ticipation regulations, including a
citizen handbook.
—Assigned staff persons in each
EPA regional office with the re-
sponsibility for overseeing public
participation activities.
—Funded five wastewater treatment
facilities planning institutes, one
in each of Regions I, II. Ill, V, and
VI, to train local citizen decision-
makers.
—Included an expanded presenta-
tion on the public participation
regulations in the Facilities Plan-
ning Training Course available to
State and grantee, staff, consulting
engineers and the public.
—Produced and made available a
wide variety of technical publica-
tions on all aspects of wastewater
treatment.
—Entered into an interagency agree-
ment with the Department of
Labor to provide technical assist-
ance to small, rural communities.
NOTE: The Environmental Protection
Agency has determined that this document
does not contain a major proposal requiring
preparation of an Economic Impact Analy-
sis Statement under Executive Orders
11821. 11949. and 12044 and OMB Circular
A-107
Dated: February 8, 1978.
DOUGLAS M. COSTLE.
Administrator.
1. 40 CFR Part 35 Subpart E is
amended by revising § 35.903(o) to
read as follows:
§ 35.903 Summary of Construction Grants
Program.
(o) The Act requires EPA and the
States to provide for, encourage and
assist public participation in the Con-
struction Grants Program. This re-
quirement for public participation ap-
plies to the development of the State
water pollution control strategy, the
State project priority system, and the
State project priority list, under
§35.915; to the development of user
charge and industrial cost recovery
systems, under §§ 35.925.11. 35.928. and
35.929; and to the delegation of admin-
istrative responsibilities for the Con-
struction Grants Program under Sub-
part F of this Chapter.
2. 40 CFR Part 35 Subpart E is
amended by revising §35.917-l(g) to
read as follows:
§ .15.917-1 Content of facilities plans.
(g) A final responsiveness summary,
consistent with 40 CFR 25.8 and
§ 35.917-5.
3. 40 CFR Part 35 Subpart E Is
amended by revising § 35.917-5 to read
as follows:
§ 35.917-5 Public participation.
(a) General. Consistent with section
101(e) of the Clean Water Act and 40
CFR Part 25, EPA, the States, and
grantees shall provide for, encourage,
and assist public participation in the
facilities planning process and shall
provide citizens with information
about and opportunities to become in-
volved in the following:
(1) The assessment o-f local water
quality problems and needs;
(2) The identification and evaluation
of locations for wastewater treatment
facilities and of alternative treatment
technologies and systems including
those which recycle and reuse
wastewater (including sludge), use
land treatment, reduce wastewater
volume, and encourage multiple use of
facilities;
(3) The evaluation of social, econom-
ic, fiscal, and environmental impacts:
and
(4) The resolution of other signifi-
cant facilities planning issues and deci-
sions.
(b) Basic Public Participation Pro-
gram. Since wastewater treatment
facilities vary in complexity and
impact upon the community, these
public participation requirements in-
stitute a two-tier public participation
program for facilities planning consist-
ing of a Basic Public Participation
Program, suitable for less complex
projects with only moderate communi-
ty impacts, and a Full-Scale Public
Participation Program, for more com-
plex projects with potentially signifi-
cant community impacts. All facilities
planning projects, except those that
qualify for the Full-Scale Public Par-
ticipation Program under paragraph
(c) of this section and those exempt
under paragraph (d) of this section, re-
quire the Basic Public Participation
Program. In conducting the Basic
Public Participation Program, the
grantee shall at a minimum:
(1) Institute, and maintain through-
out the facilities planning process, a
public information program (including
the development and use of a mailing
list of interested and affected mem-
bers of the public). In accordance with
40 CFR 25.4 and | 35.917-5(a),
(2) Notify and consult with the
public, during the preparation of the
plan of study, about the nature and
scope of the proposed facilities plan-
ning project. EPA encourages the
grantee to consult with the public in
the selection of the professional con-
sulting engineer.
(3) Include In the plan of study, sub-
mitted with the Step 1 grant applica^
tion, a brief outline of the public par-
ticipation program, noting the project-
ed staff and budget resources which
will be devoted to public participation,
a proposed schedule for public partici-
pation activities, the types of consulta-
tion and informational mechanisms
that will be used, and the segments of
the public that the grantee has target-
ed for involvement.
(4) Submit to EPA, within 45 days
after the date of acceptance of the
Step 1 grant award, a brief Public Par-
ticipation Work Plan. In addition to
meeting the requirements of 40 CFR
25.11. the Work Plan shall describe
the method of coordination between
the appropriate Water Quality Man-
agement public participation program
under Subpart G of this part and the
grantee's public participation program
as required by 40 CFR 35.917-5(e).
The grantee shall distribute the Work
Plan, accompanied by a fact sheet on
the project, to groups and individuals
who may be Interested in or affected
by the project. The fact sheet shall de-
scribe the nature, scope and location
of the project; identify the consulting
engineer and grantee staff contact;
and include a preliminary estimate of
the total costs of the project, includ-
ing debt service and operation and
maintenance, and of the resulting
charges to each affected household.
(5) Consult with the public, in ac-
cordance with 40 CFR 25.4, early in
the facilities planning process when
assessing the existing and future situa-
tions and identifying and screening al-
ternatives, but before selecting alter-
natives for evaluation according to the
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Guidelines
(see Appendix A, Cost-Effectiveness
Analysis Guidelines, paragraph 5).
After consultatlng with the public, the
grantee shall prepare and distribute a
responsiveness summary, in accord-
ance .with 40 CFR 25.8.
(6) Hold a meeting to consult with
the public, in accordance with 40 CFR
25.6, when alternatives are largely de-
veloped but before an alternative or
plan has been selected and then pre-
pare and distribute a responsiveness
summary, in accordance with 40 CFR
25.8.
(7) Hold a public hearing before
final adoption of the facilities plan, in
accordance with 40 CFR 25.5.
(8) Include in the final facilities plan
a final responsiveness summary. In ac-
cordance with 40 CFR 25.8.
(c) Full-scale Public Participation
Program. (1) The Regional Adminis-
trator shall require a Full-Scale Public
Participation Program for all Step 1
facilities planning projects that fulfill
one or more of the following three
conditions:
FEDERAL REGISTER. VOL. 44, NO. 34—FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 16, 1979
-------
(i) Where EPA prepares or requires
the preparation of an Environmental
Impact Statement during facilities
planning under 40 CFR 6; or
(il) Where advanced wastewater
treatment (AWT) levels, as defined in
EPA guidance, may be required; or
(iii) Where the Regional Administra-
tor determines that more active public
participation in decision-making is
needed because of the possibility of
particularly significant effects on mat'"
ters of citizen concern, as indicated by
one or more of the following:
(A) Significant change in land use or
impact on environmentally sensitive
areas;
(B) Significant increase in the capac-
ity of treatment facilities or intercep-
tors, significant increase in sewered
area, or construction of wholly new
treatment and conveyance systems;
(C) Substantial total cost to the
community or substantial increased
cost to users (i.e.. cost not reimbursed
under the grant);
(D) Significant public controversy;
(E) Significant impact on local popu-
lation growth or economic growth;
(F) Substantial opportunity for im-
plementation of innovative or alterna-
tive wastewater treatment technol-
ogies or systems.
(2) The grantee shall initiate a Pull-
Scale Public Participation Program as
soon as the determination in para-
graph (c)(l) of this section is made.
Generally, the determination should
be made before or at the time of
award of the Step 1 grant. However, if
the Regional Administrator's determi-
nation under paragraph (c)(l) of this
section to require a Full-Scale Public
Participation Program occurs after ini-
tiation of facilities planning because of
newly discovered circumstances, the
grantee shall Initiate and expanded
public participation program at that
point. The Regional Administrator
shall assure that the expanded pro-
gram Is at least as inclusive as a
normal Full-Scale Public Participation
Program, except for constraints im-
posed by facilities planning activities
that have already been completed. If
the project is segmented, the Regional
Administrator shall look at the project
as a whole when considering whether
to require a Full-Scale Public Partici-
pation Program.
(3) In conducting the Full-Scale
Public Participation Program, the
grantee shall at a minimum;
(i) Institute and maintain, through-
out the facilities planning process, a
public information program, in accord-
ance with 40 CFR 25.4 and §35.917-
5(a>;
(ii) Notify and consult with the
public, during the development of the
plan ot study, about the nature and
scope of the proposed facilities plan-
ning project. EPA encourages the
RULES AND REGULATIONS
grantee to consult with the public in
the selection of the professional con-
sulting engineer,
(iii) Include, in the plan of study
submitted with the Step 1 grant appli-
cation, brief outline of the public par-
ticipation program, noting the project-
ed staff and budget resources which
will be devoted to public participation.
a proposed schedule for public partici-
pation activities, types of information
and consultation mechanisms that will
be used, and the segments of the
public that the grantee has targeted
for involvement:
(iv) Designate or hire a public par-
ticipation coordinator and establish an
advisory group, in accordance with 40
CFR 25.7. immediately upon accept-
ance of the Step 1 grant award.
<"v) Submit to EPA, within 45 days
after the date of acceptance of the
step 1 grant award and after consulta-
tion with the advisory group, a brief
Public Participation Work Plan. In ad-
dition to meeting the requirements of
40 CFR 25.11. the Work Plan shall de-
scribe the method for coordination be-
tween the appropriate Water Quality
Management agency public participa-
tion program under Subpart G of this
part, and the grantee's public partici-
pation program as required by 40 CFR
35.917-5(e). The grantee shall distrib-
ute the Work Plan, accompanied by a
fact sheet on the project, to groups
and individuals who may be interested
in or affected by the project. The fact
sheet shall describe the nature, scope
and location of the project; identify
the consulting engineer and grantee
staff contact; and include a prelimi-
nary estimate of the total costs of the
project, including debt service and op-
eration and maintenance, and of the
resulting costs to each affected house-
hold:
(vi) Hold a public meeting to consult
with the public, in accordance with 40
CFR 25.6. early in the facilities plan-
ning process when assessing the exist-
ing and future situations, and identify-
ing and screening alternatives, but
before selection of alternatives for
evaluation according to the Cost-Ef-
fectiveness Analysis Guidelines (see
Appendix A, Cost-Effectiveness Analy-
sis Guidelines, paragraph 5). Follow-
ing the public meeting, the grantee
shall prepare and distribute a respon-
siveness summary, in accordance with
40 CFR 25.8:
(vli) Hold a public meeting to con-
iult with the public, in accordance
with 40 CFR 25.6, when alternatives
are largely developed but before an al-
ternative or plan has been selected,
and then prepare and circulate a re-
sponsiveness summary, in accordance
with 40 CFR 25.8;
(viii) Hold a public hearing prior to
final adoption of the facilities plan, in
accordance with 40 CFR 25.5. This
10303
public hearing may be held in conjunc-
tion with the public hearing on the
draft Environmental Impact State-
ment under 40 CFR 6.
(ix) Include, in the final facilities
plan, a final responsiveness summary,
in accordance with 40 CFR 25.8.
(d) Exemptions from public partici-
pation requirements. (1) Upon written
request of the grantee, the Regional
Administrator may exempt projects in
which only minor upgrading of treat-
ment works or minor sewer rehabilita-
tion is anticipated according to the
State Project Priority List from the re-
quirements of the Basic and Full-Scale
Public Participation Programs under
paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section,
except for the public hearing and
public disclosure of costs. Before
granting any exemption, the Regional
Administrator shall issue a public
notice of intent to waive the above re-
quirements containing the facts of the
situation and shall allow 30 days for
response. If responses indicate that se-
rious local issues exist, then' the Re-
gional Administrator shall deny the
exemption request.
(2) During the facilities planning
process, if the Regional Administrator
determines that the project no longer
meets the exemption criteria stated
above, the grantee, in consultation
with the Regional Administrator, shall
undertake public participation activi-
ties commensurate with the appropri-
ate public participation program but
adjusted for constraints imposed by
facilities planning activities that have
already been completed.
(3) If a project is segmented, the Re-
gional Administrator shall look at the
project as a whole when considering
any petition for exemption.
(e) Relationship between facilities
planning and other environmental
protection programs. Where possible,
the grantee shall further the integra-
tion of facilities planning and related
environmental protection programs by
coordinating the facilities planning
public participation program with
public participation activities carried
out under other programs. At a mini-
mum, the grantee shall provide for a
formal liaison between the facilities
planning advisory group (or the grant-
ee, where there is no advisory group)
and any areawide advisory group es-
tablished under Subpart G of this
part. The Regional Administrator may
request review of the facilities plan by
any appropriate State or areawide ad-
visory group in association with the
facilities plan review required by 40
CFR 35.152*2.
(D Mid-project evaluation. In ac-
cordance with 40 CFR 25.12(a)(2),
EPA shall, in conjunction with other
regular oversight responsibilities, con-
duct a mid-project review of compli-
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 44, NO. 34—FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 16, 1979
-------
10304
RULES AND REGULATIONS
ance with public participation require-
ments.
4. 40 CPR Part 35 Subpart E is
amended by revising §35.920-3(a)(l),
and by adding a new subparagraph
(10) to § 35.920-3(b), and by adding a
new subparagraph (5) to §35.920-3(0
to read as follows:
§ 35.920*3 Contents of application.
(a)* ' •
(DA plan of study presenting—
(i) The proposed planning area;
(ii) An identification of the entity or
entities that will be conducting the
planning;
(iii) The nature and scope of the
proposed Step 1 project and public
participation program, including a
schedule for the completion of specific
tasks;
(iv) An itemized description of the
estimated costs for the project; and
(v) Any significant public comments
received.
(b>* * *
(10) A public participation work
plan, in accordance with § 35.917-5(g),
if the grantee, after consultation with
the public and its advisory group (if
one exists), determines that additional
public participation activities are nec-
essary.
(c) • • *
(5) A public participation work plan,
in accordance with § 35.917-5(g), If the
grantee determines,.after consultation
with the public, that additional public
participation activities are necessary.
5. 40 CFR Part 35 Subpart E is
amended by revising §35.928-l(l)
-------
FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 16,1979
PARTY
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION IN
PROGRAMS UNDER THE
RESOURCE
CONSERVATION AND
RECOVERY ACT, THE
SAFE DRINKING WATER
ACT AND THE CLEAN
WATER ACT
Final Regulations
-------
10286
RULES AND REGULATIONS
Title 40—Protection of Environment
CHAPTER I—ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY
[FRL 1041 1]
PART 25—PUBLIC PARTICIPATION IN
PROGRAMS UNDER THE RESOURCE
CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY
ACT, THE SAFE DRINKING WATER
ACT, AND THE CLEAN WATER ACT
Final Regulations
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency.
ACTION: Rule.
SUMMARY: These regulations are in-
tended to encourage, provide for, and
assist public participation under the
Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act, and
the Clean Water Act. They replace ex-
isting regulations for public participa-
tion in water programs and interim
final regulations for public participa-
tion in solid waste management. The
regulations include general provisions
which require open processes of gov-
ernment and efforts to promote public
awareness in the course of making de-
cisions in programs and activities
under the three Acts. Also included
are requirements which apply to spe-
cific public participation mechanisms,
such as public hearings and advisory
groups. These regulations do not re-
quire the use of the specific mecha-
nisms. The mechanisms must be used
only if they are required in program
regulations. Public participation regu-
lations for one covered program are
being promulgated simultaneously
with these regulations. They are regu-
lations governing public participation
in the Municipal Wastewater Treat-
ment Facility Construction Grants
Program under the Clean Water Act.
These regulations appear elsewhere in
this issue of the FEDERAL REGISTER.
DATES: These regulations are effec-
tive on February 16, 1979, except as
otherwise specified in § 25.2.
ADDRESSES: Comments submitted
on these regulations may be inspected
at the Public Information Reference
Unit, EPA Headquarters, Room 2922,
Waterside Mall, 401 M Street, SW.,
Washington, D.C. between 8:00 a.m.
and 4:30 p.m. on business days.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT:
Lee Daneker, Office of Water and
Waste Management (WH 556), Envi-
ronmental Protection Agency, 401 M
Street, S.W., Washington, D.C.
20460, telephone 202-755-7638.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
EPA has received a significant volume
of thoughtful criticism of its perform-
ance in implementing its legal public
participation mandates and its more
general responsibility to involve the
public in significant governmental de-
cisions. This criticism has been stimu-
lated in part by the desire of citizens
to be active in shaping government
programs which affect their lives and
also by the growing need for govern-
mental units at all levels to participate
in the programs of other governmen-
tal entities. Government decision-
makers have become increasingly
aware of the capability of citizens to
make constructive use of opportunities
for involvement. This new awareness
hp.s been accompanied by increased
practical experience in using ap-
proaches and techniques to facilitate
citizen involvement.
In response to the circumstances dis-
cussed briefly above, the EPA per-
ceived a new opportunity to better
define public participation require-
ments, to eliminate unnecessary re-
quirements, and to assure consistency
of requirements under the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act, the
Safe Drinking Water Act, and the
Clean Water Act. This effort is intend-
ed to foster improved public imvolve-
ment in governmental decisions by
clarifying the rights and responsibil-
ities of potential participants and
those responsible for administering
public participation programs. This
will lead to better decisions, more sat-
isfactory opportunities for citizens to
encourage economy in government,
and greater public confidence in gov-
ernment because decisions have been
made with participation by interested
citizens. It will also encourage better
relations among units of government
which often find themselves in a dual
role of participating in programs of
other agencies as well as administering
participation programs of their own.
EPA developed a set of concept
papers for improved public participa-
tion requirements under the three
Acts and made them public in early
March 1978. These concept papers
were circulated to approximately 7,000
interested parties including more than
3,000 who were mailed draft Construc-
tion Grants Program regulations
dated March 3, 1978. The Agency held
two public meetings to receive com-
ment on the concept papers, met with
EPA staff in all ten EPA regions, re-
ceived numerous verbal comments
telephoned to the Agency, and met
with several outside interest groups in-
cluding representatives of several
States and municipalities and with
representatives of the Association of
State and Interstate Water Pollution
Control Agencies.
As a result of these outreach activi-
ties, the EPA received more than 300
written comments on the concept
papers. After considering all com-
ments, EPA revised the concept
papers, and published them in the
FEDERAL REGISTER on August 7, 1978,
as proposed regulations. The Agency
provided 60 days for public comment,
held a public meeting to receive com-
ments in San Francisco on September
21, 1978, held a public hearing on the
proposed regulations in Washington,
D.C. on September 26, and provided 56
hours of toll-free telephone time to fa-
cilitate the submission of comments
from individuals from all parts of the
Nation.
EPA instituted the toll-free line for
submitting comments as an alternative
to holding hearings or meetings on the
proposed regulations in other parts of
the country. Many commenters ex-
pressed strong approval of the toll-
free line, especially those who lacked
the resources to travel readily and
therefore would have been unlikely to
attend hearings in other cities. Some
criticism of our failure to hold hear-
ings throughout the country was also
expressed.
EPA received more than 300 com-
ments by October 6, 1978, the date on
which the official record closed. Ap-
proximately 125 of these were received
over the toll-free line. Fifteen wit-
nesses testified at the September 26
public hearing. Additional comments
received after October resulted in a
total of more than 500 comments. A
review of the comments by affiliation
indicates that the public involvement
effort succeeded in stimulating a bal-
anced and diverse record. Major seg-
ments of the public which were well
represented include States, substate
agencies and units of government, eco-
nomic interests, planners, engineers,
private citizens, public interest groups,
and environmental groups.
All comments, including those re-
ceived shortly after October 6, were
reviewed and considered In developing
the final regulation.
Virtually all commenters supported
the intent of the EPA effort and the
objectives of the regulations. In gener-
al, those who commented primarily
from the perspective of former, cur-
rent or prospective participants in
EPA programs were supportive of the
proposed regulations but critical of
the Agency for relaxing the regula-
tions relative to the March concept
papers. In many cases these com-
menters called for a return to the
more stringent approach of the con-
cept papers, for more specificity and
additional requirements, and for limi-
tations on discretion and flexibility.
Many of these commenters cited prob-f
lems which they had experienced with'
the public participation performance
of EPA and units of government at
other levels. They pointed out that
the establishment Of clear, firm re-
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 44, NO. 34—FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 16, 1979
-------
quirements would be one of the most
effective actions which EPA could
take to generate public interest and
participation. In contrast, many, al-
though not all, of those commenting
as representatives of implementing
agencies expressed concern that the
regulations were too rigid and detailed
and would offer too many opportuni-
ties to stop projects or to take legal
action on minor procedural issues.
These commenters called for a further
relaxation of requirements, elimina-
tion of detail, and provision of addi-
tional flexibility. In many instances,
these commenters recognized the
flexibility which had been introduced
relative to the March concept papers,
but indicated that the changes were
not sufficient. Some commenters
called for EPA to eliminate all require-
ments and instead to limit itself to set-
ting objectives ("performance stand-
ards") which could be fulfilled
through a variety of mechanisms. In
support of performance standards,
many elected officials or their repre-
sentatives commented that the more
general performance standard ap-
proach would maintain and protect
the authority of State and local offi-
cials from Federal encroachment.
EPA agrees that the regulations
should provide maximum flexibility
and discretion to implementing agen-
cies and should not infringe improper-
ly upon the authority of other govern-
mental units. The Agency is also sensi-
tive to those who accurately pointed
out the strong positive relationship be-
tween firm requirements, credible
public participation efforts, and the
willingness of the public to partici-
pate. In revising the proposed Part 25,
EPA has attempted to provide flexibil-
ity wherever it would not interfere
with public involvement. In a limited
number of instances where it appeared
necessary and justified, EPA has opted
for more specific requirements. In gen-
eral, the final Part 25 moves in the di-
rection of fewer specific requirements
than the proposed version. The follow-
ing is a list of changes in the final reg-
ulation which have provided increased
flexibility and discretion relative to
the proposed Part 25, existing Part 105
(Public Participation in Water Pro-
grams) and interim final Part 249
(Public Participation in Solid Waste
Management):
1. EPA non-policy rulemaking was
covered in proposed Part 25. It is spe-
cifically excluded from final Part 25.
2. Activities covered by Part 105 but
excluded, except as discretionary ele-
ments, from the public participation
requirements of final Part 25 are as
follows: 40 CFR Part 33 (Subagree-
ments). Part 39 (Loan Guarantees for
Construction of Treatment Works),
Part 40 (Research and Development
Grants), Part 45 (Training Grants and
RULES AND REGULATIONS
Manpower Forecasting) and Part 46
(Fellowships).
3. Final Part 25 eliminates the
annual State report on public partici-
pation required by Part 105.3.
4. Part 105.3 (a) and (c) require that
informational materials be mailed di-
rectly to persons on each agency's
mailing list. Part 249.4 (b) and (c) re-
quired periodic dissemination of infor-
mational materials. Final Part 25.4(b)
requires only that notice of the avail-
ability of materials be mailed, rather
than the materials themselves or sum-
maries of the materials.
5. Part 105.4(d), Part 249.4(e) and
proposed Part 25.3(c) required notices
and informational materials to be sent
to the entire agency mailing list. Final
Part 25.4(b)(5) permits segmenting of
the list and mailing notices of events
(or of availability of materials) only to
appropriate portions of the list.
6. The requirement of Part 105.4(b)
and Part 249.4(d), for each agency to
have "standing arrangements" for con-
sultation with the public, is deleted
from final Part 25; although Part 25
continues to require consultation on
significant decisions.
7. The requirement of Part 105.4(e),
that copying facilities be available at
information depositories, is changed to
a recommendation in final Part
25.4(b)(3). Part 249.4 (f) and (i) re-
quired that information on the avail-
ability of copying facilities at conve-
nient locations and at reasonable cost
to the public be available. This re-
quirement is deleted.
8. The recommendation in proposed
Part 25.3(b), that agencies target in-
formational materials to specific seg-
ments of the public, is changed in
final Part 25.4(b)(2) to a recommenda-
tion to consider preparing targeted
materials.
9. Proposed Part 25.3(b) required
that "relevant" documents be placed
in information depositories. Part
249(f) required that agencies shall pro-
vide, either directly or through others,
in convenient locations, one or more
public collections of Solid and Hazard-
ous Waste Management reports perti-
nent to the geographic area. Final
Part 25.4(b)(3) limits the documents
that must be placed in depositories to
those relating to significant decisions.
10. The requirement of Part
105.7(d), that public meeting notices
be mailed as soon as the meeting is
scheduled, is deleted from the final
Part 25.
11. The requirement of Part 105.7(d)
and Part 249.7(d), that public hearing
notices be mailed as soon as the hear-
ing is scheduled, is deleted from the
final Part 25.
12. The requirement of Part 105.7(g)
and Part 249.7(g) to publish the hear-
ing agenda in the public hearing
10287
notice is deleted from the final Part
25.
13. Part 105.7(c) requires that cases
of doubt over whether to hold a public1
hearing be resolved in favor of holding
a hearing. Part 249.7(c) requires that a
hearing be held if there is any public
interest. These requirements are de-
leted from the final Part 25.
14. Final Part 25.5(b) gives Regional
Administrators the authority to waive
public hearing notice requirements in
emergency situations.
15. Final Part 25.5(c) permits the
agency holding a public hearing to
prepare a tape recording or other com-
plete record of the hearing instead of
a transcript and make it available to
the public.
16. The requirement for financial
disclosure by advisory group members,
proposed Part 25.3(d)(iii)(D), is de-
leted from the final Part 25.
17. Final Part 25.7(c) provides new
flexibility in advisory group member-
ship requirements and permits EPA to
waive those requirements for grantees
which cannot meet the requirements
after making active, good faith efforts
to do so. Proposed Part 25 included a
less flexible membership requirement
and made no provision for a waiver.
18. Final Part 25.10 permits modifi-
cation of the public participation work
plan with the agreement of the Re-
gional Administrator. No provision for
modifying the work plan was included
in the proposed Part 25.
19. Public Participation Summaries
are deleted from the final Part 25 in
favor of Responsiveness Summaries
(see final Part 25.11).
20. Final Part 25.7(e) provides an in-
creased State and local agency role in
advisory group training. No State and
local rule was provided in proposed
Part 25.
EPA believes the balance which the
final regulations achieve between
flexibility and specificity recognizes
the public's expressed desire for firm
requirements yet responds effectively
to the legitimate concern of potential
implementing agencies that they have
the freedom to tailor their programs
to specific local, regional or Statewide
needs.
SUMMARY OF RESPONSE TO PUBLIC
COMMENT
The following sections respond to
other major points raised in comments
by the public made in writing, over the
toll-free line, at the public meeting,
and at the public hearing.
1. Application of proposed Part 25 to
all EPA programs. In the preamble to
the proposed regulations, EPA ques-
tioned whether they should be applied
to all programs administered by EPA.
Public response to this was strongly in
favor of consistent requirements for
the entire Agency. Comments indicat-
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 44, NO. 34—FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 16, 1979
-------
10288
ed that inconsistent requirements
were a significant factor impeding
public involvement in Agency pro-
grams. EPA is responding to this by
the development of an Agency-wide
policy on public participation. This
policy will require each program to de-
velop regulations or guidance imple-
menting it. The Agency will monitor
program performance under this ap-
proach to determine whether it is suc-
cessful in achieving consistent public
participation requirements and oppor-
tunities for those seeking to become
involved in Agency programs.
2. Requirements will not guarantee a
successful public participation effort.
Many commenters stated that require-
ments were not sufficient to assure ef-
fective public involvement. Some com-
menting agencies further stated that,
since requirements would not in them-
selves be effective, EPA appeared to be
depending too heavily upon them.
EPA recognizes that requirements,
while necessary, are only one part of
making public participation successful.
Equally important is the conduct of
effective programs of public education
as well as the attitude, energy, and
creativity with which implementing
agencies, including EPA, undertake
their public participation responsibil-
ities. Another significant factor is the
availability of agency staff knowledge-
able about public participation tech-
niques. EPA is taking action to meet
this last need by developing and carry-
ing out a training program in public
participation to enhance the capabili-
ties of EPA, State and local agency
staff.
3. Relationship of Part 25 to pro-
gram regulations and guidance. Many
commenters indicated their belief that
Part 25 established new requirements
that advisory groups be formed and
public hearings held. This is not the
case. As explained in the new intro-
ductory section 25.1, Part 25 estab-
lishes general requirements for open
processes of government through
public information, public notification,
and public consultation prior to sig-
nificant decisions, but it does not man-
date the use of specific public partici-
pation mechanisms, such as advisory
groups, meetings, and hearings. These
are required only when mandated in
program regulations or specified at
the discretion of a responsible official.
The final section of this preamble in-
cludes a listing of other EPA regula-
tions which have been or will be re-
vised to implement the requirements
of Part 25.
The role of program regulations, or
EPA policy guidance memoranda, in
implementing the Part 25 regulations
is to emphasize the applicability of the
general Part 25 public information, no-
tification and consultation require-
ments to significant decisions in the
RULES AND REGULATIONS
affected programs, In some instances
program regulations or guidance will
also identify significant decisions or
processes where specific requirements
will apply (e.g., holding a public meet-
ing or hearing). The use of additional
specific mechanisms at these decision
points or at other decisions not refer-
enced by EPA requirements is discre-
tionary with the implementing agency.
If public participation is carried out
under EPA grant, all reasonable costs
will be grant eligible if identified in a
public participation work plan or oth-
erwise approved by EPA.
Other EPA "guidance" will be in the
form of handbooks or manuals for im-
plementing agency staff or for the
participating public. These are intend-
ed to assist the public and implement-
ing agency staff by providing sugges-
tions for ways to meet requirements,
samples or models of work which
meets requirements, and examples of
successful public participation efforts.
4, Application of Part 25 to pro-
grams under the Safe Drinking Water
Act. The public participation regula-
tions are intended to encourage public
involvement in the decision-making
process in programs under the Re-
source Conservation and Recovery
Act, the Clean Water Act, and the
Safe Drinking Water Act. However,
not all sections are relevant to every
program. For instance, several States'
comments reflected a concern that the
advisory group requirements in the
proposed regulations would require
the establishment of such committees
in programs under the Safe Drinking
Water Act. This concern is unfounded.
The advisory group section applies
only where committees are required in
program regulations. No requirement
for such committees appears in the
regulations implementing the Safe
Drinking Water Act; nor is such a re-
quirement contemplated.
The regulations allow flexibility and
discretion in implementation within
each covered program. The guidance
and regulation which will be developed
by the drinking water program, and
other programs, will reflect options
which are compatible with each pro-
gram's capabilities and the opportuni-
ties within the program for meaning-
ful public participation.
5. Application to approved State pro-
grams. Each of the three Acts desig-
nates certain programs which can be
administered by a State, instead of by
EPA, if the State program meets crite-
ria established in the law and EPA
regulations. The proposed Part 25 in-
dicated that EPA was required to pro-
vide for public participation in the
process of making a determination to
approve such State programs. It also
provided that, after approval, the
State would be responsible for meeting
the public participation requirements
which had been the responsibility of
EPA. Like the proposed regulations,
final Part 25 requires EPA to provide
for public involvement in the process
of making its determination regarding
approval of all State programs. How-
ever, the final Part 25 indicates that
public participation requirements for
the NPDES Permit Program, the
State Hazardous Waste Program, the
Dredge and Pill Permit Program, and
the Underground Injection Control
Program are contained in the Consoli-
dated Permit Program regulations (40
CFR Part 123). These regulations
embody the requirements of Part 25.
Public participation requirements for
the Construction Grants Program are
found in 40 CFR Part 35, Subparts E
and F. States which undertake Con-
struction Grants Program functions
after approval by EPA are responsible
for meeting applicable public partici-
pation requirements of these regula-
tions, including requirements of Part
25 which are incorporated by refer-
ence.
One State expressed concern that
the regulations would apply to all
State activities which were adminis-
tered under the annual State program
administration grants authorized
under section 106 of the Clean Water
Act, including State-initiated activities
which are not required by the Clean
Water Act, which are not delegated to
the State by EPA, and which are not
funded by "EPA grant. While public
participation in purely State activities
of this type may be desirable, such
participation is at the discretion of the
State and would not be required by
these regulations.
6. Public participation objectives.
Virtually all commenters supported
the public participation objectives of
the proposed Part 25; however, several
commenters felt that promoting sup-
port for environmental laws was not a
proper role for administrative agen-
cies. EPA agrees and has changed this
objective to read, "to encourage public
involvement in implementing environ-
mental laws."
7. Public information requirements.
Most commenters recognized and sup-
ported the need for public information
as a prerequisite to effective public
participation; however, many stated
that the proposed requirements were
not clear and, in some cases, were po-
tentially burdensome. In response to
comments of this nature, EPA has
made the following modifications to
the public information provisions of
the regulations: permitted segmenting
mailing lists by geographic or interest
area and specified that only the appro-
priate portion of the list need receive
agency mailings; specified that only
summaries and notices of availability
need be sent to the list (or appropriate
segment) rather than entire docu-
FEDERAl REGISTER, VOL. 44, NO. 34—FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 16, 1979
-------
men Is; specified that documents avail-
able in depositories need include only
those relating to significant or coniro-
versial issues; clarified the term "rea-
sonable costs" of copying charges by
reference to prevailing commercial
rates.
8. Public hearing notice require-
ments. Comment on the proposed
public hearing notice requirements
was sharply divided between State and
local agencies which generally opposed
any increase in the 30 days required
by existing regulations and potential
participants (including private citi-
zens, public interest groups, and eco-
nomic interests) which supported the
45 day notice requirement included in
the proposed regulations. The record
of citizen comment indicates clearly
that 30 days has often been inad-
equate to allow notices to be circulat-
ed, documents obtained and reviewed,
and testimony prepared. Accordingly,
the final regulations retain 45 days as
the standard public hearing notice re-
quirement; however. EPA has respond-
ed to the comment by State and local
agencies by including a provision to
reduce the notice requirement, to not
less than 30 days, where EPA finds
that the longer notice is not needed to
encourage public participation in a
particular hearing.
9. Emphasis on advisory groups.
Many commenters expressed concern
that the regulations placed excessive
emphasis on the use of advisory
groups. We do not believe this concern
is justified. Part 25 does not require
the formation of any advisory groups.
Such groups must be formed only
when required by program regula-
tions. Advisory groups have been a re-
quirement in the Water Quality Man-
agement (section 208) program for sev-
eral years. New program regulations
for the Construction Grants Program
will require advisory groups, but in
only 30 percent of facilities plans. No
advisory group requirements are con-
templated for the Clean Lakes Pro-
gram, Underground Injection Control
Program, Public Water Supply Pro-
gram, Siate Hazardous Waste Pro-
gram, or the NPDES Permit Program.
The question of whether they would
be required under State Solid Waste
Management Program grants is still
open. Given this record, we do not
agree that the Agency places excessive
emphasis on the use of advisory
groups.
10. Role of advisory groups. The pro-
posed regulations stated that advisory
groups were intended to provide advice
and recommendations to elected deci
sionmakers and to encourage an inter-
change among the interests represent-
ed on the group. Some commenters
felt that the final decision-making role
of elected officials should be empha-
sized more strongly. We agree, and
RULES AND REGULATIONS
have added language to the advisory
group section further emphasizing this
point.
11. Advisory group -membership.
Comments from most State and local
agencies and public officials indicated
that the advisory group membership
requirements of proposed Part 25 pro-
vided them too little flexibility in con-
stituting such groups. They expressed
particular objection to the require-
ment that a majority of advisory
group members be private citizens and
public interest group members who
had no substantial economic interest
in the grant activity. Some agencies in-
dicated that they would be unable to
locate many individuals without an
economic interest in the grant acitiv-
ity who would be willing to serve on
advisory groups. Some commenting
agencies arid public officials indicated
that no single segment of the public
should constitute a majority on the
advisory group. Other commenting
agencies arid officials expressed ap-
proval of the changes in the advisory
group requirements that had been
made relative to the March concept
papers—especially the increased em-
phasis on the role of public officials
and the change allowing economic in-
terests to be represented on advisory
groups. Some of these commenters in-
dicated that, with these changes, the
advisory group membership require-
ments were satisfactory. Others indi-
cated that the requirements were still
too demanding and inflexible, stated
that they couid not meet them, and
called for additional changes and in-
creased flexibility.
A large majority of private citizen
and public interest group commenters
expressed approval of the advisory
group membership requirements of
proposed Part 25. Many of these com-
menters described their experiences
indicating that non-economic interests
were under-represented on advisory
groups. These commenters supported
carefully structured advisory group
membership requirements, especially
the proposed requirement for a major-
ity of private citizens and public inter-
est group members. Most of these
•eommenters indicated that this meas-
ure would go far to remedy the prob-
lem of under representation for non-
economic interests. However, some
called upon EPA to require an even
longer proportion of individuals who
were interested in the grant supported
activity solely from an environmental
or taxpayer perspective.
EPA agrees that there must be flexi-
bility in the requirements for advisory
group membership. The final regula-
tions require that the advisory group
be composed of four segments in sub-
stantially equal proportion. These are
private citizens, public interest group
members, economic interests, and
10289
public officials. In response to com-
menters who requested EPA to ex-
plain the term "private citizen," the
regulations indicate that this term
refers to individuals with no greater
interest in the grant activity than an
average taxpayer, ratepayer, or con-
sumer.
The provision that segments need be
only "substantially equal" in propor-
tion is intended to provide grantees
with flexibility to implement the regu-
lations while at the same time re-
sponding to those commenters who
called upon EPA to carefully specify
the balance of interests on the group.
This language allows some imbalance
among the categories of membership.
For example, on a 20 person advisory
group, the requirements would be met
if two categories had only four mem-
bers while the other two had six mem-
bers. However, if one or more catego-
ries had only three members while
others had six or seven, the require-
ment that the categories be in sub-
stantially equivalent proportions
would not be met.
Many agency commenters expressed
concern that they could not meet advi-
sory group requirements because they
could not locate private citizens or
public interest group representatives
who would be willing to serve on advi-
sory groups. To respond to these com-
menters, the final regulations provide
that grantees who have carried out an
aggressive effort to recruit members to
meet the requirements but cannot do
so will be considered in compliance
with the regulations. In a case such as
this, EPA will approve the advisory
group composition which has resulted
from the grantee's recruitment efforts
provided EPA is satisfied that those
efforts meet the performance standard
set forth in the regulations.
12. Financial disclosure by advisory •
group members. Many commenters in-
dicated that a financial disclosure re-
quirement would discourage participa-
tion of many prospective advisory
group members. We agree, and accord-
ingly we have deleted the financial dis-
closure requirements from the final
regulations. We do, however, believe it
is useful for advisory group members
to know, in general, the type of inter-
est which each member has in a plan
or project under development. For ex-
ample, individuals on the advisory
group should indicate to one another
whether they are representing envi-
ronmental interests; economic inter-
ests such as agriculture, silvaculture,
or real estate; recreational interests;
consumer interests or others.
13. Grantee and advisory group re-
sponsibilities. Many commenters indi-
cated the responsibilities of the adviso-
ry groups should be stated in detail in
the final regulations. In support of
this recommendation, these com-
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 44, NO. 34—FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 16, 1979
-------
10290
RULES AND REGULATIONS
menters cited examples of advisory
groups that were formed but not uti-
lized effectively. EPA does not believe
it is proper to include a detailed dis-
cussion of the responsibilities of gran-
tees and advisory groups in the regula-
tions, it is, however, appropriate to
expand somewhat upon the descrip-
tion of responsibilities and authorities
included in the proposed regulations,
and this has been done in the final
regulations.
14. Use of existing advisory groups
to meet public participation require-
ments. Some State and substate agen-
cies which have established advisory
groups, boards or commissions ques-
tioned whether these groups could be
used to satisfy the advisory group re-
quirements. EPA wishes to encourage
coordination of public participation re-
quirements and activities wherever
possible. This is clearly stated in
§ 25.13, Coordination and nonduplica-
tiori. Consistent with this, existing ad-
visory groups may be used if they
meet the requirements of § 25.7 or are
modified to meet those requirements.
15. Support for advisory group par-
ticipation. In the preamble to the pro-
posed regulations, EPA questioned
whether reimbursement of advisory
group out-of-pocket expenses would be
helpful in encouraging public partici-
pation and whether it would pose an
administrative burden to grantees.
Many comments were received on this
issue as well as other matters pertain-
ing to advisory group logistics, such as
budget and staff for advisory groups.
Many commenters indicated that re-
imbursement of out-of-pocket ex-
penses would encourage participation.
Several public interest groups suggest-
ed that citizens should be paid for the
time they devote to advisory group
participation; others urged a more
cautious approach emphasizing volun-
teerism. Several commenting agencies
indicated they already operate reim-
bursement programs for normal out-
of-pocket expenses, but would be op-
posed to extending reimbursement to
additional expenses such as payment
for time expended in participation.
Since many agencies are already
conducting reimbursement programs
and since many commenters agree
that reimbursement does encourage
participation, EPA has determined
that grantees shall make reasonable
out-of-pocket costs of participation
available to advisory group members.
EPA will provide information on reim-
bursement systems to assist any
agency which needs to establish a
system.
Some commenters recommended
that reimbursement be available only
to private citizens and other advisory
group members who do not represent
economic interests. In fairness, we be-
lieve that reimbursement of reason-
able out-of-pocket expenses should be
available to all group members; howev-
er, we recognize that many advisory
group members are eligible for reim-
bursement from the interests which
they represent. In the interest of econ-
omy, we encourage those advisory
group members to consider not re-
questing reimbursement from the
grantee. In accord with OMB Circular
74-4, travel costs of elected officials
are not currently eligible for reim-
bursement.
Many commenters indicated that ad-
visory groups probably would be
unable to carry out their responsibil-
ities without their own staff and
budget. Most agencies objected that
requiring an independent staff for the
advisory group conflicted with their
status as advisors and could duplicate
the efforts of the agency staff. Many
agencies indicated that their staff was
available to assist the advisory group
where needed.
EPA recognizes the need for staff to
assist advisory groups. But we agree
that providing staff assistance should
be the responsibility of the grantee.
The final regulations require the
grantee to inform the advisory group
of staff available to assist it. The regu-
lations also require the grantee to pro-
vide the advisory group with an oper-
ating budget which can be used to
carry out their liaison with the gener-
al public and to assist the group in un-
derstanding the activity carried out
under grant. The budget may be used
for mailing, expert advice and other
functions as agreed upon between the
advisory groups and the grantee.
• 16. Public participation program
staff. Many private citizens and public
interest groups recommended that
EPA require grantees to contract with
local citizen groups to carry out public
participation functions. Comments
from agencies on the wisdom of this
approach were mixed; however, agen-
cies felt strongly that this decision
should be discretionary. We agree,
and, as a result, no such requirement
appears in the final regulations. How-
ever, grantees are free to use this ap-
proach if they believe it will be the
most effective in their situation.
Several commenters indicated that
EPA should establish the qualifica-
tions of public participation staff in
regulations. In general, we believe that
the following characteristics will con-
tribute to successful accomplishment
of public participation responsibilities:
familiarity with the affected area;
knowledge of at least some of the par-
ties likely to be Interested or affected;
experience in the skills needed to
carry out a public participation pro-
gram including organizing meetings,
providing staff support to advisory
groups, and other skills; and sufficient
knowledge of the technical and proce-
dural aspects of the grant activity to
be able to explain them to the adviso-
ry group and other members of the
public. EPA believes that these needed
characteristics will be apparent to
grantees. They will be stated in EPA
guidance. However, we do not believe
they should be specified in regulation.
Accordingly, the final regulation does
not specify the qualifications of public
participation staff.
One State questioned whether the
public participation staff contact for
statewide activities could be located in
the State agency office. The answer to
this question is yes.
17. Advisory group training. A
number of State and substate agencies
indicated that EPA should conduct ad-
visory group training in cooperation
with the grantee. We agree, and the
regulations have been modified to in-
dicate that advisory group training
should be carried out cooperatively by
EPA, the State, and any applicable
substate agency.
Several agencies commented that
training should be provided for their
staff as well as for advisory group
members. Again we agree. The regula-
tions indicate that agencies may in-
clude members of their staff in the
training sessions for advisory group.
18. Advisory group subcommittees
and technical advisory groups. Many
commenting agencies questioned
whether the advisory group require-
ments applied to other advisory
bodies, such as groups of technical ex-
perts. Other agencies questioned
whether subcommittees established by
advisory groups need have the same
composition as the primary advisory
group. The regulations do not inhibit
agencies from establishing technical
panels or similar groups; however it is
recommended that these groups be es-
tablished as subcommittees of the pri-
mary advisory group or at least coordi-
nated closely with that group. Any
recommendations of technical groups
should be reviewed by the primary ad-
visory group, and any comments made
by the advisory group should be for-
warded to the grantee or decisionmak-
ing officials along with the technical
group's recommendations.
Several public interest group com-
menters indicated that any subcom-
mittees should.be required to have the
same membership composition as the
primary advisory group. EPA believes
this would be unnecessarily restrictive.
An agricultural subcommittee would
logically be composed largely of indi-
viduals earning a living through farm-
ing, ranching, or related activities. A
"severely affected parties" subcommit-
tee might be composed almost entirely
of individuals residing within a short
distance of the proposed construction
site. Even in cases where subcommit-
tees have sharply focused areas of in-
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 44, NO. 34—FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 16, 1979
-------
RULES AND REGULATIONS
10291
terest, efforts should be made to in-
clude individuals who can express
other, more general, points of view.
Generally subcommittees should con-
tain some members of the full adviso-
ry group, but not all subcommittee
members need be members of the pri-
mary advisory group. Reimbursement
need not be made available for sub-
committee participation; although this
may be done at the discretion of the
responsible agency.
19. Paperwork—Public participation
work plans for grant activities. The
proposed regulations specified the in-
formation about planned public par-
ticipation activities which should be
included in grant applications. Com-
ment on this section was generally fa-
vorable; although some agencies felt
that the public participation work
plans were not needed. Final Part 25
indicates the information which
should be included in a public partici-
pation work plan. These plans should
be brief. They are needed by EPA as a
basis for award of funds for public par-
ticipation activities.
The submission of this type of infor-
mation with grant applications is not a
new requirement. It is already re-
quired for the Construction Grants
Program (under 40 CFR 35.917-5), for
grant funded activities under the Re-
source Conservation and Recovery Act
(under 40 CFR 249.5) and in the water
Quality Management Program by
guidance. The final regulation merely
standardizes this requirement and em-
phasizes the brief nature of the re-
quired information.
Some agency commenters pointed
out that there was no provision for re-
vising the work plan. They expressed
concern that this would place them in
technical violation if they departed
from the schedule in the work plan in
even minor respects. We agree. Minor
departures from the schedule would
not be a violation of requirements. If
more substantial changes are expect-
ed, the work plan should be revised.
Provision for revision is included in
the final regulations.
20. Paperwork—Responsiveness Sum-
maries (modified) and Public Partici
pation Summaries (deleted). Many
commenters indicated that the pro-
posed regulations, although an im-
provement over the concept papers,
still failed to distinguish adequately
between the use and content of Re-
sponsiveness Summaries and Public
Participation Summaries. Some com-
menters expressed the opinion that
the two requirements were duplicative.
We agree, and we have eliminated
Public Participation Summaries from
the final regulation. The requirements
for Responsiveness Summaries are
more clearly stated.
Responsiveness Summaries are in-
tended to appear immediately after
specific decision points to indicate
briefly to the public how decision-
makers have responded to their par-
ticipation. They must be prepared for
rulemaking and where required by
program regulations or by an ap-
proved public participation work plan.
Responsiveness Summaries were
strongly endorsed by many com-
menters as a major step forward in
fostering responsive government,
public understanding of governmental
decisions, and public confidence in
government. In many instances where
a Responsiveness Summary is required
in program regulations, it replaces the
existing public participation reporting
requirements of Part 105.5 or Part
249.5.
Part 25 requires no new reports. Ex-
isting Part 105 calls for an annual
public participation report by all agen-
cies carrying out responsibilities under
the Clean Water Act, including EPA
Headquarters program offices and di-
visions, EPA regional offices, States
and interstate agencies. All of these
annual reporting requirements are
eliminated by final Part 25.
Parts 105.5 and 249.5 contained re-
quirements for reports associated with
particular activities, such as the sub-
mission of applications for financial
assistance and the submission of plans
prepared with such assistance. All of
these requirements are eliminated
from the new Part 25. In some cases,
the better defined, briefer, and more
useful public participation work plans
or Responsiveness Summaries will be
required in program regulations at
comparable activity points. The net re-
porting requirements are thereby re-
duced while making the remaining re-
ports briefer and more sharply focused
on important decisions.
21. Assuring compliance with public
participation requirements. Many
public interest group and private citi-
zen commenters objected to the dele-
tion from the proposed regulations of
the description of optional sanctions
which EPA could apply where the Re-
gional Administrator determined that
grantees had not carried out public
participation requirements as reflected
in their approved public participation
work plans. Other commenters called
for stronger mandatory action in in-
stances of noncompliance. Many com-
menting agencies expressed concern
that minor technical violations beyond
the control of their agencies would be
cause for action by EPA.
EPA deleted the descriptions of the
optional sanctions in favor of refer-
ences to the sections of the regula-
tions which provide EPA authority to
enforce grant agreements. The Agency
believes that to state the full text of
these sections in the public participa-
tion regulations would be redundant
and unnecessary. However, for the
sake of clarity and in order to be con-
sistent with the practice followed else-
where in final Part 25, the titles of the
cited sections have been included in
the regulation.
As indicated above, we have included
provision for modifying the work plan
to reflect major changes. Grantees
may make minor departures from the
work plan schedule at their discretion
provided they do not infringe upon re-
quired periods of document availabil-
ity or public notice.
We do not agree with those com-
menters who called for more stringent,
mandatory sanctions. Accordingly,
mandatory EPA action upon a finding
of noncompliance remains the same as
in the proposed regulations—more
careful monitoring 'of future public
participation performance.
PUBLIC EDUCATION AND ASSISTANCE
UNDER RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND
RECOVERY ACT
Section 8003 of the Resource Con-
servation and Recovery Act requires
EPA to develop information on a com-
prehensive list of topics pertaining to
environmental protection through
solid waste management. Interim final
40 CFR Part 249.4(c) indicated that
EPA would assist State and substate
agencies in carrying out their public
information and education responsibil-
ities under the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act by making these
agencies among the first recipients of
information developed by EPA to meet
the requirements of section 8003. Al-
though interim final Part 249 will be
deleted from the Code of Federal Reg-
ulations with the promulgation of the
new Part 25, EPA will meet the com-
mitment, stated in Part 249.4(c), to
assist State agencies by providing
them with informational materials.
Section 249.4(c) also indicated that
each EPA Regional Office would des-
ignate a public participation officer to
coordinate public participation activi-
ties relating to solid waste manage-
ment within EPA and to assist State
and substate agencies with their
public participation responsibilities
under the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act. The requirement to des-
ignate regional public participation of-
ficers and the commitment to assist
other agencies with their public par-
ticipation programs remains in effect
although Part 249 will be deleted from
the Code of Federal Regulations.
AGENCY EVALUATION AND "SUNSET"
POLICY FOR REPORTING REQUIREMENTS
EPA is committed to evaluating this
regulation within three years from the
date of publication. This will be done
by the Office of Water and Waste
Management in conjunction with the
Office of Public Awareness and the
Administrator's Public Participation
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 44, NO. 34-FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 16, 1979
-------
10292
Task Force. The evaluation will in-
clude such factors as effectiveness of
requirements, enforceability, resource
expenditure, alternative public partici-
pation methods, public reaction, and
reporting requirements. The evalua-
tion will also address the issue of
whether the increased flexibility in-
troduced into the regulations has had
a positive or a negative effect on
public participation performance.
Under EPA's new "sunset" policy for
reporting requirements in regulations,
the reporting requirements in this reg-
ulation will automatically expire on
(five years from the date of promulga-
tion) unless EPA takes action to
extend them. A new provision (§ 25.14)
has been added to the regulation
which automatically terminates the
reporting requirements at that time.
REVISION or PROGRAM REGULATIONS
FOR CONSISTENCY WITH PART 25
The following paragraphs identify
specific program regulations which
have been or will be revised to bring
them into conf ormance with Part 25.
CLEAN WATER ACT
1. Amendments to Municipal
Wastewater Treatment Works Con-
struction Grants Program regulations
<40 CFR Part 35, Subpart E) which im-
plement the requirements of Part 25
are promulgated in this issue of the
FEDERAL REGISTER.
2. Revised regulations (40 CFR Part
35, Subpart G) implementing water
quality planning and management
under sections 106 and 208, and re-
flecting the provisions of proposed
Part 25 were published in the FEDERAL
REGISTER for comment on September
12, 1978. The final regulations, includ-
ing changes made in response to public
comment and revisions to Part 25, will
be promulgated early in 1979.
3. Revised regulations implementing
the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System Permit Program
requirements of section 402, and re-
flecting the provisions of proposed
Part 25, were published for comment
on August 21, 1978. The final regula-
tions, including changes made in re-
sponse to public comment and the re-
visions to proposed Part 25, will be
promulgated early in 1979.
4. Regulations implementing the
Clean Lakes Program under section
314 and reflecting the provisions of
Part 25 will be proposed in February
1979. EPA will accept public comment
on the proposed regulations for 60
days following the proposal date.
Those wishing to receive additional in-
formation or a copy of the proposed
regulations should write to Kenneth
Mackenthun, Director, Criteria and
Standards Division (WH 585), United
States Environmental Protection
RULES AND REGULATIONS
Agency, 401 M Street, SW., Washing-
ton, D.C. 20460.
RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY
ACT
1. State Solid Waste Management
Plan Guidelines (40 CFR Part 256)
under section 4002(b) were proposed
for comments on August 28, 1978. The
proposed regulations included .provi-
sions implementing the requirements
of proposed Part 25. EPA will revise
the proposed regulations to respond to
public comments and changes in Part
25 and promulgate final regulations in
June 1979.
2. Regulations for State Programs
for Hazardous Waste under section
3006 were proposed for comment on
February 1, 1978. EPA will revise these
regulations in response to public com-
ment and the requirements of Part 25,
repropose them in early 1979, and pro-
vide 60 days for public comment.
Those who wish to receive additional
information or a copy of the proposed
regulations should contact Geraldine
Wyer, Office of Solid Waste (WH 562).
United States Environmental Protec-
tion Agency. 401 M Street, SW.. Wash-
ington, D.C. 20460.
3. Regulations for Permit Programs
for Hazardous Waste under section
3005 will be proposed in February
1979. EPA will accept public comment
on the regulation for 60 days following
the date of proposal. The proposed
regulations will reflect the provisions
of Part 25. Those who wish to receive
additional information or a copy of
the regulations should contact Geral-
dine Wyer, Office of Solid Waste (WH
562), United States Environmental
Protection Agency, 401 M Street, SW.,
Washington, D.C. 20460.
SAFE DRINKING WATER ACT
1. Regulations for grants to States
for implementing Underground Water
Source Protection Programs (40 CFR
Part 35.650 through 35.680) were pro-
posed for comment on August 31,1976.
Final regulations, reflecting public
comment and the provisions of Part
25, will be promulgated in 1979.
NOTE.—The Environmental Protection
Agency has determined that this document
does not contain a. major proposal requiring
preparation of an Economic Impact Analy-
sis Statement under Executive Orders
11821, 11949, and 12044 and OMB circular
A-107.
Dated: February 8, 1979.
DOUGLAS M. COSTLE,
Administrator.
(Sec. 101(e> of the Clean Water Act, as
amended, 33 U.S.C. 1251(e); section 7004(b)
of the Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act, 42 U.S.C. 6974 of the
Safe Drinking Water Act. as amended, 42
U.S.C. 300J9.)
1. 40 CFR is amended by adding a
new Part 25 reading as follows:
PART 25—PUBLIC PARTICIPATION IN
PROGRAMS UNDER THE RESOURCE
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 consul-
tation 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 par-
ticipation requirements.
25.13 Coordination and non-duplication.
25.14 Termination of reporting require-
ments.
AUTHORITY: Sec. 101(e) of the Clean
Water Act, as amended, 33 U.S.C. 1251(e);
sec. 7004(b) of the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act, 42 U.S.C. 6974(bX sec.
1450(aXl) of the Safe Drinking Water Act.
as amended, 42 U.S.C. 300J9.
§ 25.1 Introduction.
This part sets forth minimum re-
quirements and suggested program
elements for public participation in ac-
tivities under the Clean Water Act
(Pub. L. 95-217), the Resource Conser-
vation 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 fol-
lows:
(a) Basic requirements and suggest-
ed program elements for public infor-
mation, public notification, and public
consultation are set forth in §25.4.
These requirements are intended to
foster public awareness and open proc-
esses of government decisionmaking.
They are applicable to all covered ac-
tivities and programs described in
§ 25.2(a).
(b) Requirements and suggested pro-
gram elements which govern the struc-
ture 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 mech-
anisms. It does, however, set require-
ments which those responsible for im-
plementing 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).
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 44, NO. 34—FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 1*, 19T9
-------
(d) Requirements for public involve-
ment which apply to specific activities
are set forth in § 25.9 (Permit enforce-
ment), §25,10 (Rulemaking), and
§25.12 (Assuring compliance with re-
quirements).
§ 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 publi-
cation of funding allotments under
statutory formulas); and State rule-
making under the Clean Water Act
and Resource Conservation and Re-
covery 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 citi-
zen 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 de-
termines it to be appropriate:
(5) Development and implementa-
tion of plans, programs, standards,
construction, and other activities sup-
ported with EPA financial assistance
(grants and cooperative agreements)
to State, interstate, regional and local
agencies (herein after referred to as
"State, interstate, and subslate agen-
cies" );
(6) The process by which EPA makes
a determination regarding approval of
State administration of the Construc-
tion Grants program in lieu of Federal
administration: and the administra-
tion of the Construction Grants Pro-
gram by the State after EPA approval;
(7) The process by which EPA makes
a determination regarding approval of
State administration of the following
programs in lieu of Federal adminis-
tration; The State Hazardous Waste
Program; the NPDES Permit Pro-
gram; the Dredge and Fill Permit Pro-
gram: and the Underground Injection
Control Program;
(8) Other activities which the Assist-
ant Administrator for Water and
Waste Management, the Assistant Ad-
ministrator for Enforcement, or any
EPA Regional Administrator deems
appropriate in view of the Agency's re-
sponsibility to involve- the public in
.significant decisions.
(b) Activities which are not covered
by this part, except as otherwise pro-
vided under .;{ Policy and objertivrs.
(a) EPA, State, interstate, and sub-
state 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 popu-
lace. There arc a number of identifi-
able -'segments of the public" which
may have a particular interest in a
10293
given program or decision. Interested
and affected segments of the public
may be affected directly by a decision,
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 con-
sumer, environmental, and minority
associations; trade, industrial, agricul-
tural, and labor organizations; public
health, scientific, and professional so-
cieties; civic associations; public offi-
cials; and governmental and educa-
tional 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 inter-
ested and affected parties to communi-
cate their views. Public participation
includes providing access to the deci-
sion-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 sig
nificant 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 repre-
senting themselves and by others
whose resources and access to deci-
sion-making may be relatively limited.
(c) The following are the objectives
of EPA, State, interstate, and substate
agencies in carrying out activities cov-
ered by this part:
(1) To assure 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 assure that the government
does not make any significant decision
on any activity covered by this part
without consulting interested and af-
fected 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, sub-
stale agencies and the public: and
(7) To use all feasible means to
create opportunities for public partici-
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 44, NO. 34—FRIDAY. FEBRUARY 16, 1979
-------
10294
RULES AND REGULATIONS
pation. and to stimulate and support
participation.
§ 25.4 Information, notification, and con-
sultation responsibilities.
(a) General. EPA. State, interstate.
and substate agencies shall conduct a
continuing program for public infor-
mation and participation in the devel-
opment and implementation of activi-
ties covered by this part. This program
shall meet the following requirements:
(b) Information and assistance re-
quirements. (1) Providing information
to the public is a necessary prerequi-
site to meaningful, active public in-
volvement. Agencies shall design infor-
mational activities to encourage and
facilitate the public's participation in
all significant decisions covered by
§ 25.2(a), particularly where alterna-
tive courses of action are proposed.
(2) Each agency shall provide the
public with continuing policy, pro-
gram, and technical information and
assistance beginning at the earliest
practicable time. Informational mate-
rials shall highlight significant issues
that will be the subject of decision-
making. Whenever possible, consistent
with applicable statutory require-
ments, the social, economic, and envi-
ronmental consequences of proposed
decisions shall be clearly stated In
such material. Each agency shall iden-
tify segments of the public likely to be
affected by agency decisions and
should consider targeting information-
al 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 summarized for public and media
uses. Pact sheets, news releases, news-
letters, and other similar publications
may be used to provide notice that ma-
terials are available and to facilitate
public understanding of more complex
documents, but shall not be a substi-
tute for public access to the full docu-
ments.
(3) Each agency shall provide one or
more central collections of reports,
studies, plans, and other documents
relating to controversial issues or sig-
nificant decisions in a convenient loca-
tion or locations, for example, in
publir libraries. Examples of such doc-
uments are catalogs of documents
available from the agency, grant appli-
cations, 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 inter-
est to the public free of charge.
Charges for copies should not exceed
prevailing commercial copying costs.
EPA requirements governing charges
for Information and documents pro-
vided to the public in response to re-
quests made under the Freedom of In-
formation Act are set forth In Part 2
of this chapter. Consistent with the
objectives of § 25.3(b), agencies may re-
serve their supply of free copies for
private citizens and others whose re-
sources are limited.
(5) Each agency shall develop and
maintain a list of persons and organi-
zations who have expressed an interest
in or may, by the nature of their pur-
poses, activities or members, be affect-
ed by or have an interest in any cov-
ered activity. Generally, this list will
be most useful where subdivided by
area of interest or geographic area.
Whenever possible, the list should in-
clude 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 notifica-
tion 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 deci-
sions not covered by notice require-
ments for public meetings or public
hearings are being considered. Gener-
ally, notices should include the timeta-
ble in which a decision will be reached,
the issues under consideration, any al-
ternative courses of action or tentative
determinations which the agency has
made, a brief listing o'f the applicable
laws or regulations, the location where
relevant documents may be reviewed
or obtained, identification of any asso-
ciated public participation opportuni-
ties such as workshops or meetings,
the name of an individual to contact
for additional information, and any
other appropriate information. All ad-
vance notifications under this para-
graph 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.
(d) Public consultation. For the pur-
poses of this part, "public consulta-
tion" means an exchange of veiws be-
tween governmental agencies and in-
terested or affected persons and orga-
nizations in order to meet the objec-
tives set forth in § 25.3. Requirements
for three common forms of public con-
sultation (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 infor-
mal personal communications with in-
dividuals and groups. Public consulta-
tion must be preceded by timely distri-
bution of information and must occur
sufficiently In advance of decision-
making to allow the agency to assimi-
late public views into agency action.
EPA. State, interstate, and substate
agencies shall provide for early and
continuing public consultation in any
siginificant 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 sig-
nificant public interest or that a hear-
ing or meeting would be useful.
(e) Public information concerning
legal proceedings. EPA, State, inter-
state, and substate agencies shall pro-
vide full and open information on
legal proceedings to the extent not in-
consistent 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 con-
sents to a proposed judgment in an
action to enjoin discharges of pollut-
ants into the environment shall be
consistent with the Statement of
Policy issued by the Department of
Justice (see Title 28, Code of Federal
Regulations, Chapter 1, § 50.7).
§ 25.5 Public hearings.
(a) Applicability. Any non-adjudica-
tory public hearing, whether manda-
tory or discretionary, under the three
Acts shall meet the following mini-
mum requirements. These require-
ments are subordinate'~to any more
stringent requirements found else-
where in this chapter or otherwise im-
posed by EPA, State, interstate, or
substate agencies. Procedures devel-
oped for adjudicatory hearings re-
quired by this chapter shall be consist-
ent with the public participation ob-
jectives 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 else-
where 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 par-
ticipation and that there are no com-
plex or controversial matters to be ad-
dressed by the hearing, the notice re-
quirement may be reduced to no less
than 30 days. EPA may further reduce
or waive the hearing notice require-
ment in emergency situations where
EPA determines that there is an immi-
nent danger to public health. To the
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 44. NO. 34—FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 16, 1979
-------
extent not duplicative, the agency
holding the hearing shall also provide
informal notice to all interested per-
sons 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 de-
termination on major issues (if any),
information on the availability of a
bibliography of relevant materials (if
deemed appropriate), and procedures
for obtaining further information. Re-
ports, 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.
(c) Locations and time. Hearings
must be held at times and places
which, to the maximum extent feasi-
ble, facilitate attendance by the
public. Accessibility of public transpor-
tation, and use of evening and week-
end hearings, should be considered. In
the case of actions with Statewide in-
terest, 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 partici-
pation and allotment of adequate time
for all speakers. However, the agency
shall reserve some time for unsched-
uled testimony and may consider re-
serving blocks of time for major cate-
gories 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 consider-
ations the agency will take into ac-
count, the agency's tentative determi-
nations (if any), and the information
which is particularly solicited from
the public. The agency should consid-
er allowing a question and answer
period. Procedures shall not unduly in-
hibit free expression of views (for ex-
ample, by onerous written statement
requirements or qualification of wit-
nesses beyond minimum identifica-
tion).
(f) Record. The agency holding the
hearing shall prepare a transcript, re-
. cording 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, in-
formational sessions, seminars, work-
shops, or other activities) which the
responsible agency intends to be open
to anyone wishing to attend. Public
RULES AND REGULATIONS
meetings are less formal than public
hearings. They do not require formal
presentations, scheduling of presenta-
tions 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 of
this chapter require use of an advisory
group by State, interstate, or substate
agencies involved in activities support-
ed by EPA financial assistance under
any of the three Acts.
(b) Role. Primary responsibility for
decision-making in environmental pro-
grams is vested by law in the elected
and appointed officials who serve on
public bodies and agencies at various
levels of government. However, all seg-
ments of the public must have the op-
portunity to participate in environ-
mental quality planning. Accordingly,
where EPA identifies a need for con-
tinued attention of an informed core
group of citizens in relation to activi-
ties conducted with EPA financial as-
sistance, program regulations else-
where jn this chapter will require an
advisory group to be appointed by the
financially assisted agency. Such advi-
sory groups will not be the sole mecha-
nism for public participation, but will
complement other mechanisms. They
are intended to assist elected or ap-
pointed officials with final decision-
making responsibility by making rec-
ommendations to such officials on im-
portant issues. In addition, advisory
groups should foster a constructive in-
terchange among the various interests
present on the group and enhance the
prospect of community acceptance of
agency action.
(c) Membership. (1) The agency re-
ceiving financial assistance shall
assure that the advisory group reflects
a balance of interests in the affected
area. In order to meet this require-
ment, the assisted agency shall take
positive" action, in accordance with
paragraph (c)(3), to establish an advi-
sory group which consists of substan-
tially equivalent proportions of the
following four groups:
(i) Private citizens. No person may
be included in this portion of the advi-
sory group who is likely to incur a fi-
nancial 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, environmen-
10295
tal or public health perspective in the
area and which does not directly re-
flect the economic Interests of its
membership.
(iii) Public officials.
(iv) Citizens or representatives of or-
ganizations with substantial economic
interests in the plan or project.
(2) Generally, where the activity has
a particular geographic focus, the ad-
visory group shall be made up of per-
sons who are residents of that geo-
graphic area.
(3) In order to meet the advisory
group membership requirements of
paragraph (c)(l), 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 under
paragraph (cXSXi), of this opportuni-
ty 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 in-
dividuals directly, requesting organiza-
tions to notify their members through
meetings, newsletters, or other means.
(iii) Where the membership compo-
sition set forth in paragraph (c)(l) is
not met after the above actions, the
assisted agency shall identify the cau-
sative problems and make additional
efforts to overcome such problems.
For example, the agency should make
personal contact with prospective par-
ticipants to invite their participation.
(iv) Where problems in meeting the
membership composition arise, the
agency should request advice and as-
sistance 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 (cXl), provide a
copy to EPA, and make the list availa-
ble to the public. In the event that the
membership requirements set forth in
paragraph (c)(l) are not met, the as-
sisted agency shall append to the list a
description of its efforts to comply
with those requirements and an expla-
nation of the problems which prevent-
ed compliance. EPA shall review the
agency's efforts to comply and ap-
prove the advisory group composition
or, if the agency's efforts were inad-
equate, require additional actions to
achieve the required membership com-
position.
(e) Responsibilities of the assisted
agency. (1) The assisted agency shall
designate a staff contact who will be
responsible for day-to-day coordina-
tion among the advisory group, the
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 44, NO. 34—FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 16, 1979
-------
10296
RULES AND REGULATIONS
agency, and any agency contractors or
consultants. The financial assistance
agreement shall include a budget item
for this staff contact. Where substan-
tial portions of the assisted agency's
responsibilities will be met under con-
tract, the agency shall require a simi-
lar designation, and budget specifica-
tion, of its contractor. In the latter
event, the assisted agency does not
have to designate a separate staff con-
tact on its own staff, if the Regional
Administrator determines that the
contractor's designation will result in
adequate coordination. The staff con-
tact shall be located in the project
area.
(2) The assisted agency has such re-
sponsibilities as providing the advisory
group with information, identifying
issues for the advisory group's consid-
eration, consulting with the advisory
group throughout the project, request-
ing the advisory group's recommenda-
tions prior to major decisions, trans-
mitting advisory group recommenda-
tions to decision-making officials, and
making written responses to any
formal recommendation by the adviso-
ry group. The agency shall make any
such written responses available to the
public. To the maximum extent feasi-
ble, the assisted agency shall involve
the advisory group in the development
of the public participation program.
(3) The assisted agency shall identi-
fy 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 techni-
cal assistance and other purposes
agreed upon between the advisory
group and the agency.
(4) The assisted agency shall estab-
lish a system to make costs of reason-
able out-of-pocket expenses of adviso-
ry group participation available to
group members. Time away from work
need not be reimbursed; however, as-
sisted agencies are encouraged to
schedule meetings at times and places
which will not require members to
leave their jobs to attend.
Cf) 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 adviso-
ry group shall provide opportunity for
public comment. Any minutes of advi-
sory group meetings and recommenda-
tions 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 ad-
visory group will assume public par-
ticipation responsibilities, the group
should undertake those responsibil-
ities 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 at-
titudes and responses to issues aS. they
arise. As part of this effort, the adviso-
ry group may, within the limitations
of available resources, conduct public
participation activities in conjunction
with the assisted agency; solicit out-
side advice; and establish, in conjunc-
tion with the assisted agency, subcom-
mittees, ad hoc groups, or task forces
to investigate and develop recommen-
dations on particular issues as they
arise. The advisory group should un-
dertake its responsibilities fully and
promptly in accordance with the poli-
cies 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.
(g) Training and assistance. EPA
will promptly provide appropriate
written guidance and project informa-
tion to the newly formed advisory
group and may provide advice and as-
sistance 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 assist-
ed agency representatives, promptly
after the advisory group is formed.
The assisted agency shall provide addi-
tional needed information or assist-
ance to the advisory group.
§ 25.8 Responsiveness summaries.
Each agency which conducts any ac-
tivities required under this part shall
prepare a Responsiveness Summary at
specific decision points as specified in
program regulations or in the ap-
proved public participation work plan.
Responsiveness Summaries are also re-
quired for rulemaking activities under
§25.10. Each Responsiveness Sum-
mary shall identify the public partici-
pation activity conducted; describe the
matters on which the public was con-
sulted; summarize the public's views,
significant comments, criticisms and
suggestions; and set forth the agency's
specific responses in terms of modifi-
cations of the proposed action or an
explanation for rejection of proposals
made by the public. Responsiveness
Summaries prepared by agencies re-
ceiving EPA financial assistance shall
also include evaluations by the agency
of the effectiveness of the public par-
ticipation program. Assisted agencies
shall request such evaluations from
any advisory group and provide an op-
portunity for other participating mem-
bers 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.) Respon-
siveness summaries shall be forwarded
to the appropriate decision-making of-
ficial and shall be made available to
the public. Responsiveness Summaries
shall be used as part of evaluations re-
quired under this part or elsewhere in
this chapter.
§ 25.9 Permit enforcement.
Each agency administering a permit
program shall develop internal proce-
dures 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.
(a) EPA shall invite and consider
written comments on proposed and in-
terim regulations from any interested
or affected persons and organizations.
All such comments shall be part of the
public record, and a copy of each com-
ment shall be available for public in-
spection. EPA will maintain a docket
of comments received and any Agency
responses. Notices of proposed and in-
terim 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 concern-
ing public participation in EPA rule- .
making. A Responsiveness Summary
shall be published as part of the pre-
amble 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.
(b) State rulemaking specified in
§ 25.2(a)(l) shall be in accord with the
requirements of subparagraph (a) of
this paragraph or with the State's ad
minlstrative procedures act, if one
exists. However, in the event of con-
flict between a provision of paragrapl
(a) and a provision of a State's admin-
istrative procedures act, the State'
law shall apply.
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 44, NO. 34—FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 16, 1979
-------
§25.11 Work elements in financial assist-
ance agreements.
(a) This section is applicable to ac-
tivities 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 appli-
cation a public participation work plan
or work element which reflects how
public participation will be provided
for. encouraged, and assisted in ac-
cordance with this paxt. 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 re-
sources to be devoted to public partici-
pation by category;
(2) A proposed schedule for public
participation activities to impact
major decisions, including consultation
points where responsiveness summar-
ies will be prepared;
(3) An identification of consultation
and information mechanisms to be
used;
(4) The segments of the public tar-
geted for involvement.
(c) All reasonable costs of public par-
ticipation incurred by assisted agen-
cies which are identified in an ap-
proved public participation work plan
or element, or which are otherwise ap-
proved by EPA, shall be eligible for fi-
nancial 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 chap-
ter for the particular financial assist-
ance agreement, the public participa-
tion element) included in the applica-
tion to determine consistency with all
policies and requirements of this part.
No financial assistance shall be award-
ed unless EPA is satisfied that the
public participation policies and re-
quirements of this part and, wiy appli-
cable public participation require-
ments 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.
RULES AND REGULATIONS
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 re-
quirements. In conducting this evalua-
tion, EPA may request additional in-
formation from the assisted agency,
including records of hearings and
meetings, and may invite public com-
ment on the agency's performance.
The evaluation will be undertaken as
part of any mid-project review re-
quired in various programs under this
chapter; where no such review is re-
quired the review shall be conducted
at an approximate mid-point in con-
tinuing EPA oversight activity. EPA
may, however, undertake such evalua-
tion 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 re-
quirements.
(ii) Remedial actions. Whenever
EPA determines that an assisted
agency has not fully met public par-
ticipation requirements, EPA shall
take actions which it deems appropri-
ate 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 mini-
mum, imposing more stringent re-
quirements 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 ma-
terials prepared by the agency, and
phased release of funds based on com-
pliance with milestone schedules.)
EPA may terminate or suspend part or
all financial assistance for non-compli-
ance with public participation require-
ments, and may take any further ac-
tions that it determines to be appro-
priate in accordance with Parts 30 and
35 of this chapter (see, in particular,
§§ 30.340, Noncompliance and 30.615-3.
Withholding of Payments, and Sub-
part H of Part 30, Modification, Sus-
pension, and Termination).
(b) State programs approved in lieu
of Federal programs. State compliance
with applicable public participation re-
quirements in programs specified in
sections 25.2(a) (6) and (7) and admin-
istered by approved States shall be
monitored by EPA during the annual
10297
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 appli-
cable public participation require-
ments.
(c) Other covered programs. Assuring
compliance with these public partici-
pation 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 fail-
ures to comply with the public partici-
pation requirements should notify the
Administrator. The Administrator will
assure that instances of alleged non-
compliance are promptly investigated
and that corrective action is taken
where necessary,
§ 25.1::i Coordination and nun-dupliosition.
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 effec-
tiveness, or the timeliness of the
effort; enhance the clarity of the
issue; and not be detrimental to par-
ticipation by the widest possible
pubiic. Hearings and meetings on the
same matter may be held jointly by
more than one agency whore this does
not conflict with the policy of this
paragraph. Special efforts shall be
made to coordinate public participa-
tion procedures under this part and
applicable regulations elsewhere in
this chapter with environmental as-
sessment and analysis procedures
under 40 CFR Part 6. EPA encourages
interstate agencies in particular to de-
velop combined proceedings for the
States concerned.
§25.14 Termination of reporting require-
ments.
All reporting requirements specifi-
cally established by this part will ter-
minate on (5 years from dat.e of publi-
cation) unless EPA acts to extend the
requirements beyond that date.
PART 105 [REVOKED]
PART 249 [REVOKED]
2. 40 CFR is amended by deleting
Parts 105 and 249.
[FR Doc. 79-5017 Filed 2-15-79: 8:45 am]
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 44, NO. 34—FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 16, 1979
-------
Wednesday
April 30, 1980
Part HI
Environmental
Protection Agency
Proposed Policy on Public Participation
-------
28912
Federal Register / Vol. 45, No. 85 / Wednesday, April 30,1980 / Notices
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
[FRL1360-4]
Office of the Administrator
Proposed Policy on Public Participation
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.
ACTION: Notice of Proposed Policy on Public Participation.
SUMMARY: In order to enhance the ability of the
Environmental Protection Agency to manage programs and
make decisions in the public interest, the Agency is
proposing a formal policy for public participation. Advice
and comment from the public is sought at this stage so that
when the Agency writes a final policy, it can have the
benefit of the public's experience and judgment. An Agency
policy will strengthen the hand of the public and make clear
to all concerned that public involvement in Agency decision-
making is welcome and needed. A degree of standardization
in procedures will make it easier for citizens to know what
they can expect when they deal with the Agency. The policy
will also clarify the responsibility of Agency officials by
giving them the mandate to develop public participation
measures in the context of program decision-making.
DATES: Public comments are invited and should be submitted
by June 30,1980.
ADDRESSES: Please submit comments to, or for further
information call:
Sharon F. Francis, Special Assistant for Public Participation,
Office of the Administrator (A-100), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. 20460, Telephone:
(202) 245-3066
Public Meetings:
A meeting to discuss and receive comment on the
proposed policy will be held in Washington, D.C. on May 28,
1980,9:00 am—12 noon; 1:00 pm—4:00 pm, at E.P.A.
Headquarters, Room 3906, 401 "M" Street. S.W. Those who
plan on submitting comments at the meeting should, if
possible, inform the Office of the Special Assistant to the
Administrator for Public Participation, (202) 245-3066, so that
presentations and discussion can be scheduled for
everyone's convenience.
Regions will be conducting meetings and/or other
activities to promote discussion and receive comment on the
policy. For information about meetings and other activities,
contact your regional coordinator:
Region I
David Pickman, (617) 223-0967, Office of Public Awareness,
Room 2203, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, John F.
Kennedy Federal Building, Boston, Massachusetts 02203
Region II
Ray Pfortner (212) 264-4536, Director, Public Affairs Division,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 26 Federal Plaza,
New York, New York 10007
Region III
George Bochansky, Jr. (215) 597-9370, Chief, Office of Public
Awareness, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Curtis
Building, 6th & Walnut Streets, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
19106
Region IV
Gordon Kenna (404) 881-2013, Office of Public Awareness,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 345 Courtland Street,
N.E., Atlanta, Georgia 30308
*
Region V
Jane Kennealy (312) 353-2072, External Affairs, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 230 South Dearborn
Street, Chicago, Illinois 60604
Region VI
Rick Gentry (214) 767-2630, Public Participation Coordinator,
6-AP, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, First
International Building, 1201 Elm Street, Dallas, Texas 75270
Region VII
Betty Harris (818) 374-5894, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 1735 Baltimore Street, Kansas City, Missouri 64108
Region VIII
Stuart McDonald (303) 327-5927, Public Awareness &
Intergovernmental Relations, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 1860 Lincoln Street, Denver, Colorado 80295
Region IX
Ida Lawson (415) S56-2320, Office of the Regional
Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 215
Fremont Street, San Francisco, California 94105
Region X
Don Bliss (206) 442-1203, Director, Office of External Affairs,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 6th Avenue,
Seattle, Washington 98101
SUPPLEMENTARY IMPORTATION: Public participation is not a
new concept at EPA. Indeed the Agency confers extensively
with a wide range of members of the public in almost all of
its programs. The diversity of this experience, however, has
brought the Agency to its current position of recognizing the
need to build on the best of what has been learned and to
institute common objectives and procedures to aid the entire
Agency.
EPA recognizes that all Federal programs are intended to
serve the public interest, and all government agencies are, by
definition, public servants. EPA's programs directly and
indirectly affect the lives of all citizens. These citizens have
the right to share in program decisions, and public servants
who implement Federal environmental statutes have the -
responsibility to seek out and be responsive to the concerns
of the public in their decisions.
Congress and the President have increasingly directed
EPA and other federal agencies to reform traditional
governmental practices by providing a greater degree of
participation by the public. Through its efforts to improve
public participation, EPA is seeking an earlier and
potentially more constructive dialogue with the public so
that Agency decisions can better reflect the experience and
preferences of those who are more affected and thereby
improve the Agency's ability to carry out its mandates.
BACKGROUND
In April 1978, the Administrator and Deputy Administrator
appointed a Special Assistant for Public Participation and
asked that person to chair a Task Force whose aim was to
recommend ways to strengthen public participation
throughout the Agency. One of the first steps by the Task
Force was an assessment of EPA's experience to date and an
analysis of the Agency's public participation
accomplishments. This assessment pinpointed a lack of
clear-cut objectives and resources identified for public
participation in most programs'. It also found that the Agency
does a much better job of reaching out to the public,
informing it of Agency activities, and creating opportunities
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 45, No. 85 / Wednesday, April 30, 1980 / Notices
28913
to participate, than it does of assimilating and meaningfully
using the results of public involvement.
During the period when the Task Force was completing its
assessment, two other significant public participation efforts
were underway. First, in response to President Carter's
Executive Order 12044 on regulatory reform, the Agency
refined and expanded its opportunities for citizen
consultation in the regulatory development process.
Secondly, a working group within the Office of Water and
Waste Management (OWWM) had been developing revised
regulations to improve public participation for its areas of
responsibility. This group worked closely with interested
sectors of the public and received extensive comment from
groups including State and local government officials,
economic interests, public interest groups, and private
citizens.
When regulations for public participation in OWWM
programs were proposed in the Federal Register, August 7,
1978, one of the questions on which EPA invited comment
was whether the proposed OWWM regulations should be
limited to OWWM or apply to all EPA activities. There was
extensive comment from all sectors of the public in favor of
an agencywide public participation measure.
The Public Participation Task Force analysed the
alternatives of developing a policy or a regulation. It decided
that development of a policy would be administratively
simpler, and thus, the Task Force recommended to the
Administrator that the Agency undertake the development of
this proposed policy.
The draft policy has been under development for the last
several months. In addition to consultation within the
Agency, an early version was circulated to a sampling of
active participants from various sectors of the pubic and
their comments were incorporated in the current draft.
Additionally, a meeting was held between the Public
Participation Task Force and representatives of various
public group and public officials so that their comments
could also be added at the earliest stages.
POLICY INTENT
Several considerations have guided the drafting of this
proposed policy. We are seeking a public participation
policy that will be viewed as legitimate and meaningful. The
public, when it participates, wants to see the effects of its
involvement in final decisions. Yet program administrators
who need citizen advice also work in a context of tight
timetables, and cannot allow public discussion to drift. This,
this policy 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." By taking this
selective approach, the public has the best opportunity to be
effective, and contribute positively to program management.
The policy provides an overall framework of purpose,
objectives, procedures, and responsibilities, and outlines the
general scope of activities to which it will be applied. It
leaves considerable discretion to Assistant Administrators,
Regional Administrators, and Deputy Assistant
Administrators to develop more specific program guidance
and to determine the extent of the decisions which will be
covered by the policy. This flexibility provides room for the
unique differences between programs and assures that the
programs themselves will have a key role in decisions about
public participation.
The policy is designed to set a basic "floor" for public
participation activities, but certainly not a "ceiling." In
developing their own guidance or implementing regulations,
programs will be able to go farther than the basic provisions
of the policy. OWWM has already promulgated public
participation regulations (40 CFR Parts 25 and 35) which
conform with this policy. In some areas, the OWWM
regulations are more specific than is the proposed policy.
MAJOR ISSUES
As Task Force members have worked to draft this
proposed policy in consultation with colleagues hi the
various programs and offices, several significant issues have
arisen which merit wider discussion. In several cases there
are optional approaches that might be taken to carry otil
aspects of the policy, and the experience and viewpoints of
participants themselves are necessary to assure that the
Agency reaches the fairest and most feasible course of
action.
These issues are summarized in the paragraphs below.
Public comment is especially invited on these issues since
they are the most difficult and potentially controversial
aspects of the policy. In addition, public comment on any
other aspects of the policy is welcomed and encouraged.
1. Scope of Applicability.
This policy, as proposed, applies to programs carried out
by EPA; however, since 80% of the Agency's total budget is
spent by State, regional, and local levels of government, the
policy also directs Assistant and Regional Administrator* to
assure that provisions of the policy are incorporated in
program regulations and guidance that cover grants to State
and local governments, or delegations of authority to other
governmental entities.
A major question concerning the implementation of a
public participation policy is whether it should apply solely
to EPA or also include State and substate agencies when
they are carrying out EPA programs. In some instances,
States and localities may have established public
participation policie's and may not welcome the
contradiction or confusion that might result from a new
federal policy. State and substate entities may also believe
that their practices are better than EPA's. It is also true,
however, that some State and substate entities have very
poor public participation or none at all. Some believe none is
necessary. A national policy that reaches to the State and
local levels will enable EPA's public participation efforts to
be consistent throughout the country. This will promote
wider public understanding of when, where, and how
citizens can participate in environmental programs.
There are several approaches that might be taken on the
scope of activity to which the policy is applied: one option
would be to confine the policy only to activities directly
carried out by EPA. A second option would be to require that
state, regional and local governments carrying out EPA
programs achieve substantially equivalent results, but
without specifying any procedural requirements which they
must follow. The third option is the one we propose, which is
to specify that the policy be incorporated in guidance,
program grant regulations and delegations of authority to
other governmental entities.
In asking for advice on preferences among these options,
we hope that commentors will refer to specific experiences
or examples wherever possible. Those who prefer the option
of substantially equivalent results on the part of state,
regional and local governments are especially requested to
offer specific suggestions for wording and evaluation
criteria. We make this request because substantially
equivalent provisions have a history of being easy to
espouse but difficult to demonstrate.
-------
28914
Federal Register / Vol. 45, No. 85 / Wednesday, April 30, 1980 / Notices
2. Flexibility.
This draft policy provides for flexibility in two ways. First,
Assistant Administrators, Regional Administrators, and
Deputy Assistant Administrators are given considerable
discretion in identifying major policy actions to which this
policy will apply. Second, many parts of the policy are
phrased with verbs that imply latitude such as "may,"
"should," "can," as contrasted with the firm requirements of
"must," "shall," and "will."
Those who favor strong requirements believe that
managers who want to avoid public participation will do so
unless they are given specific guidelines to follow. Public
participation is a sufficiently new enterprise in government
that many program managers will not know how to carry it
out unless given clear and firm direction. On the other side,
advocates of more general requirements believe that strict
guidelines will inhibit innovation and stifle the spirit of what
EPA is trying to accomplish.
The Agency is asking reviewers of the policy whether the
qualifying language that is proposed includes sufficient
flexibility for program managers, whether effective
participation will be too readily compromised, whether any
of the mandatory procedures, should be made optional, or
any of the flexible provisions made requisite.
3. Adequacy of Hearings.
Hearings are legally required in a large number of
programs. In many instances they have been one of the few,
if not the only, public participation activities undertaken. All
too often the pubic has complained that hearings were
unsatisfactory because they did not have the time or
resources to prepare for them, or because the agency
apparently had already "made up its mind." These
deficiencies have led to poor participation, with agency
officials criticizing hearings because only a handful of people
came, or testimony was too general.
Several aspects of this proposed policy will address
questions about the adequacy of hearings: contact lists of the
interested and affected public will be used on projects;
background information will address issues and will be
designed to facilitate better publaic understanding;
participation will be sought when options and alternatives
exist, not after a decision is made; Responsiveness
Summaries will document how public preferences were
incorporated in a decision.
In addition to these general requirements of the policy,
there are a number of specific provisions to strengthen the
usefulness of hearings themselves; notice of forthcoming
hearings will be given 45 days in advance, except under
certain circumstances when 30 days will be permissible;
background information will be available to the public as
early as possible; hearing notices will specify the
information that is sought from the public, officials who
conduct hearings will outline issues to be addressed; and
finally hearing records will be conveniently available.
There are several questions about hearing adequacy which
we would like to emphasize for comment:
a. Timing of Notice.
Is 45 days advance notice necessary, or is it adequate, to
allow for mail delays and still give the public sufficient time
to prepare for a hearing? Are the exceptions to this
requirement we have cited hi the draft policy sufficient?
Have established 30 day requirements been adequate?
b. Availability of Information.
Does the proposed policy give the public understandable
background information and access to documents
sufficiently in advance to be useful in developing hearing
testimony? Or will this requirement lead to time consuming
delays and unnecessary paperwork?
c. Responsiveness.
Are the measures proposed in the policy for conducting
hearings and providing a record of hearings adequate to
assure that the agency holding the hearing is responsive to
public testimony? We have not specifically required that
Responsiveness Summaries be prepared after every hearing,
because they are to be done at key decision points, and a
decision may not be made immediately after a hearing but
rather a number of months later. Would there be benefit in
having Responsiveness Summaries done after each hearing
anyway? Or should a summary of the hearing testimony be
prepared and forwarded to the appropriate decisionmaking
official? Should decision-making officials be required to
certify that they have reviewed hearing testimony, and been
responsive to it in making their decision? Should any specific
feedback be provided to those who testified at a hearing?
It will be especially helpful to EPA if comrnentors can
provide examples or experience to augment their views on
these questions aboaut adequacy of hearings.
4. Advisory Group Membership.
In a number of instances, EPA program regulations call
upon state or substate agencies to form advisory groups to
assist in program planning or implementation. These groups
assist elected and appointed decision-making officials by
becoming familiar with plans and programs funded by
Federal grants, making recommendations to decision-making
officials, and encouraging interchange and mutual education
among the interests represented on the group.
Substantial experience with advisory groups on the part of
this Agency demonstrates that the kinds of people selected
for advisory committee membership determines the kinds of
advice given, and therefore, that a conscious effort to
achieve balanced membership among interests is necessary
to achieve balanced advice. Too often advisory committees
are dominated by only one of the varied interests. Therefore,
EPA is proposing in this policy that any advisory group
required by EPA of State or substate grantees be comprised
of "substantially equivalent proportions of four groups:
private citizens, representatives of public interest groups,
citizens or representatives of organizations with substantial
economic interest in the matter under study, and public
officials. This requirement has been the center of a great
deal of discussion and debate. Some see the requirement as
unnecessary or overly complex, while others see it as
completely necessary to achieve a fair balance among
interests.
In addition to this proposed option, the Agency would like
to invite comment on several alternative approaches to the
question of advisory committee membership. Should officials
responsible for selecting advisory groups demonstrate "proof
of effort" in finding a balanced group? Should membership
be required to be equal among the four categories, rather
than "substantially equivalent?" Should we delete specific
descriptions of the four major groups and only specify that
advisory committees be "equitably representative?" Should
each program be directed to develop its own advisory
committee requirements as OWWM has already done? If the
policy specifies that public officials be included, should it
specify elected public officials, or should it be flexible about
both elected and administrative members?
The experience of commentors will be helpful to EPA in
the final development of policy on this issue.
-------
Federal Register / VoL 45, No. 85 / Wednesday, April 30, 1980 / Notices
28915
5. Compliance.
This policy proposes that Assistant Administrators, Office
Directors and Regional Administrators are responsible for
assuring compliance with the its provisions. They are not
directed to report on their results because of the paperwork
burdens that would occur.
We are asking reviewers of this policy to consider the
most effective means for ensuring its enforcement.
Some believe that little can be accomplished unless
specified action can be taken against those who do not
comply with the policy. Others feel results in public
participation can only be realized through "good faith" effort
and the results of training and experience. They argue that
imposing sanctions would cause resentment in program
managers, who as a result would follow the letter of the
policy, but perhaps ignore its intent.
6. Resource Implications.
By itself the policy is not going to impose significant new
expenses on the Agency or its state and substate grantees. It
will, instead, guide the planning for expenses and give this
planning a purpose and a clear relationship to improved
decision-making. Already EPA programs are allocating
resources to public outreach and involvement activities, and
it can be expected that these policy requirements will serve
to refocus some existing allocations. The extent to which
reallocations or new budgeting will be required to carry out
the policy will be determined by the individual programs.
Some increase in resource requirements can be forseen in
the staff time that will be needed to prepare Responsiveness
Summaries. The policy also will result in increased
expenditures for mailings, preparation of fact sheets, and
other informational materials, and for the expenses of
advisory committees. The pilot projects for providing
compensation to citizens for participation in rulemaking will
also entail new expenditures.
The increased expenditures that may be needed to carry
out this policy cannot properly be identified until the
program and regional offices have identified the actions and
decisions to which the policy will apply and developed the
appropriate public participation work plans. Any new
resource requirements will become part of the budget
development process of the Agency. Implicit in the policy is
the assumption that priorities must be selected and scarce
funds allocated prudently. The public should not develop
unreasonably high hopes that there will be new funds
available.
The increased sums that may be to be necessary to
strengthen public participation in EPA programs need to be
weighed, in part, against the savings to the Agency that
greater public involvement may buy. Citizens are good
watchdogs of the public purse, and will speak up against
wasteful practices, if they are aware of them. Further, their
involvement may save the public the high costs of litigation,
and the wasted expense of plans that cannot be
implemented or projects that cannot be completed for lack of
public support. One of the principal reasons why EPA is
expanding its public participation efforts by proposing this
policy at this time is the belief that greater citizen
involvement will lead to real savings and better programs for
the Agency.
Dated April 9,1980.
Douglas M. Costle,
Administrator,
PROPOSED E.P.A. POLICY ON PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
This policy addresses participation by the public in
decision-making and rulemaking by the Environmental
Protection Agency. The term, "the public" as it is used here,
means the people as a whole, the general populace. There
are a number of identifiable "segment 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 of consumer, environmental and minority
groups, trade, industrial, agricultural, and labor
organizations; public health, scientific, and professional
societies; civic associations; universities, educational and
governmental associations; and public officials.
"Public participation" is that part of the Agency's decision-
making process which 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.
The requirements and procedures contained in this policy
apply to the Environmental Protection Agency. The activities
covered by this policy are:
—EPA rulemaking, when regulations are classified as
significant;
—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;
—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 Assistant Administrator,
Regional Administrator, or Deputy Assistant Administrator,
in view of the Agency'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.
A. 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. This
will require them to give extra envouragement and
assistance to some sectors, such as minorities, that may have
fewer opportunities or resources.
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 before-hand, and seek the public's opinion on
them. Merely conferring with the public after a decision is
made does not achieve this purpose.
The policy identifies those requirements which are
mandatory and others which are discretionary on the part of
-------
28916
Federal Register / Vol. 45, No. 85 / Wednesday. April 30. 1980 / Notices
Agency administrators. The policy assumes, however, that
agency employees will strive to do more than the minimum
required. 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.
B. OBJECTIVES
In establishing a policy on public participation, EPA has
the following objectives:
—To promote the public's involvement in implementing
environmental laws;
—To make sure that the public understands official
programs and proposed actions;
—To keep the public informed about significant issues and
changes in proposed programs or projects, as they arise;
—To make sure that the government understands public
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 foster a spirit of mutual trust and openness between
public agencies and the public.
C. GENERAL PROCEDURES FOR ALL PROGRAMS
Each Assistant Administrator, Office Director or Regional
Administrator shall determine those 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, the Agency must
carry out these five basic functions: Identification, Outreach,
Dialogue, Assimilation and Feedback.
1. Identification.
It is important to identify those groups or members of the
public who may be interested in, or affected by, a
forthcoming action. This may be done by developing mailing
lists, requesting names of individuals to include from others
in the Agency or from key public groups, using
questionnaires or surveys to find out levels of awareness, or
by other means.
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.
2. Outreach.
The public and contribute effectively to agency programs
only if they are provided with accurate, understandable,
pertinent and timely information on issues and decisions.
The Agency must make sure that the information concerning
a forthcoming action or decision reaches the public. This can
be accomplished through mailings, personal communication
by telephone, public service announcements, media ads,
depositories, and other means. The key aspects of an
outreach program are:
a. Content.
This must include background information, a timetable of
proposed action, summaries of lengthy documents or
technical material where relevant, a delineation of issues,
and specific encouragement to stimulate active participation
by the public.
Whenever possible, the social, economic and
environmental consequences of proposed decisions should
be clearly stated in outreach material. Fact sheets, news
releases, newsletters 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.
b. Notification.
The Agency must notify all parties on the contact list of
opportunities to participate and provide appropriate
information. The media must also be notified.
c. Timing.
Notification (above) must take place will 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.]
of. 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.
e. 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.
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. Dialogue may take several forms such as
meetings, workshops, hearings, personal correspondence,
and may include establishment of special groups such as
advisory committees or task forces.
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
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.
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 finds mat no
reviews 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
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 45, No. 85 / Wednesday, April 30, 1980 / Notices
28917
governed by permit regulations and will be no less than 30
days. Assistant Administrators or Regional Administrators
may further reduce or waive the requirement 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.
(2) Content of Notice. The notice must identify the matters
to be discussed at the hearing and must include or be
accompanied by a discussion of the agency's tentative
conclusions on major issues (if any), information on the
availability of a bibliography of relevant materials (if
appropriate), procedures for obtaining further information,
and information which the Agency particularly solicits from
the public.
(3) Provision of Information. All reports, documents and
data relevant to the discussions at public hearings must be
available to the public on request as soon as 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. The hearing
officer should consider holding a question and answer period
to clarify information. Procedures must not unduly inhibit
free expression of views.
(5) Record of Hearing. The hearing record must be left
open for at least ten days to receive additional comment,
and may be kept open longer, at the discretion of the hearing
officer. The Agency must prepare a transcript or other
complete record of the proceeding and it must be available
at an adequate number of locations. Copies should be
provided at cost. 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.
When EPA establishes an advisory group, provisions of
the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463) and
OMB Circular A-63 must be followed.
The primary function of an advisory group is to assist
elected or appointed officials by making recommendations to
them on relevant issues. These issues may include policy
development, project alternatives, grant 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 undestanding of the agency's action.
In instances where advisory committees are called for in
program guidance, regulations, or the public participation
work plans of State, substate, or local agencies, the following
special requirements will apply:
(1) Composition of Advisory Groups. Agencies must try to
constitute advisory groups so that the membership reflects a
balance of interests, and consists of substantially equivalent
proportions of the following groups:
• Private citizens. This portion of the advisory group
should 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.
• 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.
• Federal, State and local officials.
• Citizens or representatives of organizations that have
substantial economic interests in the plan or project.
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
national application.
(2) 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.
4. Assimilation.
Assimilating public viewpoints and preferences into final
conclusions involves putting together the results of
"Outreach" and "Dialogue." 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:
o. Documentation.
The agency must briefly and clearly document
consideration of the public's views in Responsiveness
Summaries, regulatory preambles, or other appropriate
forms. This should be done at decision points that have been
specified in program guidance or in work plans for public
participation.
b. Content.
Each Responsiveness Summary (or similar document)
must:
—explain briefly the type of public participation activity
that was conducted;
—identify those who participated;
—describe the matters on which the public was consulted;
—summarize the public's views, important comments,
criticisms and suggestions; 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.
Feedback must contain the following elements:
-------
28918 Federal Register / Vol. 45, No. 85 / Wednesday, April 30. 1880 / Notices
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 have access to 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.
D. ASSISTANCE TO THE PUBLIC
Assistant Administrators, Office Directors, and Regional
Administrators will provide funds to outside organizations
and individuals for public participation activities which EPA
managers deem appropriate and essential for achieving
program goals and which do not involve rulemaking
activities. These activities may be funded through contracts,
grants and cooperative agreements, or direct compensation
for expenses.
Assistant Administrators, Office Directors and Regional
Administrators will encourage and provide whenever
possible, small grants to state, regional and local
organizations to facilitate informed participation in
forthcoming decisions and activities. Projects having
national impact as well as those promoting coordination and
integration across program lines may also be supported.
Notices of the availability of funds will indicate the criteria
by which EPA will evaluate the proposals. A panel is to be
established for evaluation of proposals where funding is
expected to exceed $50,000.
In the area of funding participation in regulatory activities,
the Agency will conduct a small number of pilot projects
involving compensation for rulemaking during Fiscal Year
1980. EPA will evaluate these pilot projects to determine
what changes in the requirements, if any, are necessary to
enhance the effectiveness of this activity.
Business Opportunities.
The policy of EPA is to encourage increased business
opportunities for both minorities and women. This policy is
currently applied to three programs under the Clean Water
Act. It is the intention of Jhe Agency to expand the scope of
its MBE (Minority Business Enterprise] and WBE (Women's
Business Enterprise] goals to include other areas of Agency
activities. Funds devoted to public participation will be
included in this process.
Participation Funding.
Any financial assistance awarded by the Agency should
be based on the criteria: (1) is the potential recipient of funds
an interested or affected party who is likely to contribute to
a better process or a better decision; and (2) would that
party be unlikely to participate effectively in the absence of
funding? These are the primary tests for public participation
financial assistance. From the pool of those who meet these
two tests, the Agency will make special efforts to provide
assistance to groups—particularly the disadvantaged,
minorities and women—who may have had fewer
opportunities or insufficient resources to participate.
E. AUTHORITY AND RESPONSIBILITY
1. EPA Assistant Administrators, Office Directors and
Regional Administrators will be responsible for determining
the need for public involvement in activities under their
jurisdiction, and for meeting that need. The responsible
Agency official must address those activities where
application of this policy is required, and identify
forthcoming major policy decisions where it should also be
applied. They must set priorities, amend regulations as
necessary, develop appropriate guidance, and undertake
development of work plans for public participation. The
Assistant Administrator, Regional Administrator, or Director
must allocate resources—including qualified personnel and
the necessary funds—to public information and participation
activities, and must see to it that there are assistance and
incentive programs to support grant regulations or
delegations of authority to other governmental entities. They
must ensure that public participation is included by grantees
in the development of program funding applications to EPA
and at other significant decision points.
Assistant Administrators and Regional Administrators
will develop initial public participation work plans within 30
days after this policy becomes effective and do so annually
thereafter. They must also evaluate public participation
activities as necessary.
2. At Headquarters Assistant Administrators and Office
Directors shall provide guidance and resources for carrying
out this policy in program areas under their jurisdictions,
conduct public awareness activities to facilitate
participation in agency decisions, conduct public
participation in national policy development, fund pilot or
demonstration projects, provide advice and assistance to
support regional office activities, and coordinate and
evaluate regional office activities.
3. Regional Administrators shall support and assist the
public participation activities of Headquarters. They must
also assist State, regional and local agencies conducting
public participation activities with EPA grant money, and
evaluate those activities. They should encourage
consolidation of public participation activities when
appropriate. Where EPA programs are delegated to a State,
regional, or local entity, Regional Administrators will review
the public participation activities conducted by that entity.
F. WORK PLANS
Public participation work plans, undertaken by EPA or by
applicants for EPA financial assistance shall set forth, at a
minimum:
1. Staff contacts and budget resources to be allocated to
public participation;
2, Segments of the public targeted for involvement;
3. Proposed schedule for public participation activities to
impact program decisions;
4. Identification of mechanisms to apply the five basic
functions—Identification, Outreach, Dialogue, Assimilation
and Feedback—outlined in Section C of this Policy.
All reasonable costs of public participation incurred by
assisted agencies and identified in an approved public
participation work plan will be eligible for financial
assistance.
EPA program offices and regions will also develop work
plans that will match public participation resources to
program priorities and major decisions, as appropriate, to
carry out this policy. Work plans will be reviewed by the
Special Assistant for Public Participation and by the Public
Participation Task Force and the results of this analysis will
be forwarded to the Administrator for appropriate action.
G. COMPLIANCE
Assistant Administrators, Office Directors and Regional
Administrators are responsible for making certain that, for
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 45, No. 85 / Wednesday, April 30, 1980 / Notices
28919
the activities under their jurisdiction, all those concerned
comply with the public participation requirements set forth
in this policy.
EPA will evaluate compliance with public participation
requirements in approved State programs. This will be done
during the annual review of the State's program(s) which is
required by grant provisions, and during any other program
audit or review of the State's program(s).
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
non-compliance are promptly investigated and that
corrective action is taken where necessary.
APPENDIX—LIST OF CITATIONS COVERING PROGRAM GRANTS
OR DELEGATIONS TO STATE AND SUBSTATE GOVERNMENTS
The Public Participation Policy will be applied to program
regulations that cover grants or delegations of authority to State or
substate governments or approval of State programs. Where
consolidated grants exist under these provisions, they also will be
covered. Programs under CWA, SOW A, and RCRA 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. We are
citing the statutes because some of the programs are not yet in
place, and therefore have not generated regulations. Regulations that
refer to existing programs covered by the Policy will have to be
amended to reflect the Policy upon its implementation.
Clean Air Act (Pub. L. 95-95)
Sec. 105—Grants to State and local air pollution control agencies for
support of air pollution planning and control programs.
Sec. 106—Grants to interstate air quality agencies and commissions
to develop implementation plans for interstate air quality
control regions. [When funded].
Sec. 175—Grants to organizations of local elected officials with
transportation or air quality maintenance responsibilities for air
quality maintenance planning.
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)
Sec. 14(c)—Grants to State and substate governments and regional
planning agencies for planning, developing, evaluating, and
demonstrating techniques for quiet communities.
Toxic Substances Control Act (Pub. L. 94-469)
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.
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (Pub. L. 95-396)
Sec. 23{a)—Funding to States/Indian tribes through cooperative
agreements for enforcement and applicator training and
certification.
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (Pub. L. 94-580)
Sec. 3005(a)—Issuance 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.
Sec, 4007—Approval for State, local, and regional authorities to
implement State or Regional Solid Waste Plans and be eligible
for Federal assistance.
Sec. 4008—Grants to State and substate agen'cies for solid waste
management, resource recovery and conservation, and
hazardous waste management.
Sec. 4009—Grants to States for rural areas' solid waste management
facilities.
Sec. 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.
Sec. 8008—Grants to State, municipal, interstate or intermunicipal
agency for resource recovery systems or improved solid waste
disposal facilities.
Safe Drinking Water Act (Pub. L. 95-190)
Sec. 1421(b)—Issuance of permits for underground injection control
programs.
Sec. 1443(a)—Grants to States for public water system supervision
Sec. 1443(b)—Grants to States for underground water source
protection programs.
Clean Water Act (P.L. 95-217)
Sec. 106—Grants to State and interstate agencies for water pollution
control administration.
Sec. 201—Grants to State, municipality, or intermunicipal agencies
for construction of wastewater treatment works.
Sec. 208—Delegation of management of construction grants
programs to State designated agency(ies), grants for areawide
waste treatment management planning.
Sec. 314—Clean Lakes Program.
Sec. 402(a)—Issuance of permits under National Pollution Discharge
Elimination System.
Sec. 404—Issuance 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.
[FR Doc. 80-13095 Filed 4-29-80; 8:45 am]
BILLINQ CODE 6560-01-M
------- |