EPA Must Provide Staff and Resources for Providing Technical Assistance to the Public Guild Law Center and Michigan Environmental Justice Coalition: In addition, we believe that the EPA must focus more energy on finding funding for technical and direct financial assistance. For example, the Draft Policy states that the EPA may provide technical assistance through "[ a] ccess to Agency experts or contractors to obtain information and analyses as resources allow." Draft Policy, 65 Fed. Reg. at 82339. The EPA must, at minimum, ensure that its own staff has the time and resources to provide technical information and advice to concerned members of the affected public. As discussed earlier in the Draft EPA's Response to Comments on the 2000 Draft Public Involvement Policy 39 Policy, the EPA's budgetary planning documents should reflect support for public participation and, in particular, the need to make agency officials, as well as agency experts and consultants, available to affected members of the public. Response: EPA agrees that Agency staff should have the time and resources to respond to the public's requests for general and technical information. See new language in the " Plan and budget for public involvement activities." section ( in bold italics): " When preparing budget and planning documents for regulatory and non regulatory programs, Agency officials should make provision for: resources and staff time dedicated to public involvement activities; time for conducting and evaluating public involvement activities; and staff and resources to provide technical assistance to the involved public where appropriate ( see the Policy's Step 3, " Consider providing technical or financial assistance to the public")."

Fund " How to" Manuals that Help the Public Participate in Specific Regulatory Activities Guild Law Center and Michigan Environmental Justice Coalition: In addition, we believe that the EPA should set aside funding for broader methods of providing expertise to the general public. For example, we suggest that the EPA specifically commit to developing " how to" or " self help" manuals, such as The Proof is in the Permit, a handbook developed by the New York Public Interest Research Group Fund, Inc. and the Earth Day Coalition, Inc., that guides communities through reviewing and commenting on Title V permits under the Clean Air Act. Such resources can provide assistance and guidance to a large number of people at a relatively low cost. Response: This comment is outside of the scope of the Policy. Decisions to fund such projects are office and region specific. EPA agrees that such resources can be helpful, and EPA's web site contains links to the above mentioned handbook, as well as other EPA and external resources, at http:// www. epa. govshared with/ involvework. htm# manuals.

Create a Database that Describes Information Resources for the Public Guild Law Center and Michigan Environmental Justice Coalition: We also suggest that the EPA's commitment to "[ c] ollection and dissemination of information on outside sources of funding or technical assistance" and to "[ c] ollaboration with nongovernmental organizations and other information brokers" explicitly include a commitment to developing an easily accessible database of information resources. Although these resources should include EPA experts, we believe that the primary focus should be on outside expertise and resources, such as experts within other federal, state and local agencies, within university research centers, and within non governmental agencies. While we recognize that the EPA itself contains a great deal of expertise, we believe that environmental justice communities are likely to be wary of bias within the agency and to find outside experts more credible. Response: EPA agrees that making information of this kind more accessible is a desirable goal. The Policy's " Consider providing technical or financial assistance" section suggests several examples of methods which may be used to provide assistance to the public; the two activities mentioned in the comment are part of that list of suggestions. In addition, the EPA web site contains helpful information on funding sources such as a link to the catalog of federal assistance programs at http:// www. cfda. gov/ . The EPA web site also contains a tutorial on the grant application process at http:// www. epa. gov/ seahome/ grants. html . General information and EPA's Response to Comments on the 2000 Draft Public Involvement Policy 40 forms are located at: http:// www. epa. gov/ ogd/ grants/ how_ to_ apply. htm . This site also includes links to each of the Regional Offices' grants web pages. Superfund grants are listed at http:// www. epa. gov/ superfund/ resources/ assistance/ index. htm . The handbook at the following web site explains how to apply for a Superfund Technical Assistance Grant http:// www. epa. gov/ oerrpage/ superfund/ tools/ tag/ download/ book1. pdf The following site explains how to manage these Superfund grants http:// www. epa. gov/ oerrpage/ superfund/ tools/ tag/ download/ book4. pdf. For environmental justice related grants, see http:// es. epa. gov/ oeca/ main/ ej/ grants. html Create Hotlines that Help the Public Find and Use EPA Information OMB Watch: Training and technical assistance hot lines. EPA should maintain telephone hot lines to assist the public in finding, obtaining, and using EPA information holdings. Response: This comment is outside of the scope of the Policy. EPA maintains many topicspecific and regional office telephone hotlines, and also uses short term hotlines for geographically focused and area limited calling. A list of these hotlines can be seen at http:// www. epa. gov/ epahome/ hotline. htm This comment was shared with EPA's Office of Environmental Information.

Create Hotlines that Advise the Regulated Community on Compliance Issues OMB Watch: Hot lines should also provide advice to the regulated community on compliance with federal regulations and required information submissions. Response: This comment is outside of the scope of the Policy. EPA maintains over 30 virtual compliance assistance centers for specific industrial sectors through the National Compliance Assistance Clearinghouse. This clearinghouse is on the EPA web page at http:// cfpub. epa. gov/ clearinghouse/ preview. cfm? ResourceID= 23. The EPA's telephone hotlines provide information; however, contract employees operate many EPA hotlines and cannot provide advice on compliance issues.

Oppose Financial Assistance  EPA Should Not Give Preferential Treatment City of Austin, Texas, Water and Wastewater Utility: On Page 82339 ( 65 FR 82339) of the Federal Register, the Policy states ". . . Assistant and Associate Administrators, Regional Administrators and Office Directors may have authority to provide funds to outside organizations and individuals for public involvement activities associated with rules under development." This is alarming because it raises serious ethical issues that will bias regulatory development. Taxpayer dollars should not be used to finance one set of stakeholders at the exclusion of others. When the EPA funds public involvement, it should do so through the Federal Advisory Committee process where all stakeholders are treated ( funded) equally.

American Water Works Association: EPA's Response to Comments on the 2000 Draft Public Involvement Policy 41 Funding for organizations: This is especially alarming when many advocacy groups are as wellfunded as any other organization. Many advocacy groups choose to spend their funds on media relations and public relations efforts rather than funding their members to travel for public involvement processes. This is alarming because it raises serious ethical issues that will bias regulatory development. Taxpayer dollars should not be used to finance one set of stakeholders at the exclusion of others. When EPA decides to fund public involvement, it should do so through the Federal Advisory Committee ( FACA) process where all stakeholders are treated ( and funded) equally.

National Association Of Home Builders: NAHB members frequently feel they are at a decided disadvantage in the regulatory process when EPA actively assists groups who oppose NAHB members' goals. In the new proposal, for instance, EPA plans to provide " technical and financial assistance" to various groups. However, this financial " assistance" may well translate into preferential treatment for groups who share EPA's position on a particular issue. Likewise, EPA's efforts at " outreach" are often viewed by industry as an attempt to stir up supporters for EPA's viewpoint and to " stack the deck" against industry groups. This despite the fact that many of these so called " public spirited" environmental groups are in fact powerful special interest groups with large financial resources. NAHB members feel that EPA's support for these groups means that industry will never get a fair opportunity to participate in a meaningful way, and NAHB opposes such powerful and unaccountable discretion at the hands of the agency. NAHB believes that any such assistance should be closely monitored or the effect of the policy will be the continued deterioration in public confidence in the agency and a further sense of frustration, distrust, and dissatisfaction with governmental actions. NAHB is concerned that EPA's policy will be used to provide financial and technical support for various groups whose ideas could not otherwise succeed in the marketplace of ideas. The policy appears aimed more at empowering environmental groups than in promoting responsible economic growth and development policies. Response to above three comments: EPA cannot and does not promote certain groups over others, but works to ensure that all interested parties can participate and provide input. In some cases, this may lead to EPA funding of community groups, some public interest groups, local governments or others that otherwise do not have the staff or resources to effectively participate in EPA's decision making processes. Although EPA uses FACA committees to obtain collective or group advice and recommendations on numerous issues, EPA does not seek group advice on most decisions.

Support Financial Assistance  Amount Should be Equivalent to Private Parties' Expenditures Golden Gate University, Environmental Law and Justice Clinic: ... we believe that some form of public participation grant is absolutely essential to facilitate adequate citizen involvement. This funding should be equivalent to what interested private parties spend in the process. Response: EPA agrees that, to the extent that funding is available, financial assistance grants are useful. However, EPA disagrees that the amount should be equivalent to private parties' expenditures. EPA's Response to Comments on the 2000 Draft Public Involvement Policy 42 Support Financial Assistance  Provide Scholarships to Attend Meetings Citizen # 5: The public must be able to attend public stakeholder meetings. EPA should provide significant advance notice of public stakeholder meetings, and should do its best to make sure the affected public is invited to the meeting. This includes advertising the meeting in public spaces ( other than just the Federal Register notice), providing scholarships for the public to attend these meetings, and possibly holding meetings in " the field" as opposed to Headquarters or regional EPA offices. Response: EPA appreciates the comment. These ideas are included in the Policy.

Provide Grants to Organizations to Increase Civic Capacity/ Work with Political Scientists to Implement Such Grants Georgetown University, Government Department: ... you can expand and more strongly commit yourself to one of the suggested responsibilities for Regional Administrators ( last section of draft document  focusing on who is responsible for implementing this policy  suggestion " j")  " Provide small grants to representative public groups for needed public involvement work; where feasible and appropriate." I would argue that grants can and should be provided to organizations whose sole/ main purpose is to increase " civic capacity," i. e., the ability of people to communicate with public officials and help to govern their own lives. This small grant program could be expanded to include both small and medium size grants ( i. e., any where from $ 5000 to $ 100,000) for work on building civic capacity. Who could help you with such implementation? I would also argue that there are political scientists in each of the ten EPA regions that have expert knowledge about citizen participation ( about who participates, who doesn't, and why). Furthermore, many of these political scientists have the skills to help EPA develop such programs, tailoring the " Civic Capacity Grants" somewhat to the particular concerns in any given region. For a further idea of how such a program could be structured, you may want to look into an innovative program being done at the local level in Arlington County, Virginia. The program, " The Arlington Neighborhood College," attempts to encourage underserved members of Arlington to become a part of the larger group of citizens actively involved in civic matters here in their community  by giving these citizens skills through training exercises in small group and large group settings. Response: EPA appreciates this suggestion, and added a second goal to this section of the Policy: " To use such assistance to help build capacity to understand complex technical issues and enable people to participate substantively in EPA's decision making processes." Capacity building beyond participation in EPA activities is outside of the scope of the Policy. Small grant funds for participating in EPA decision making processes are highly limited.

Clarify that Some States are Prohibited from Providing Financial Assistance Association of State and Territorial Solid Waste Management Officials: ... the description of function number 3, " Consider Providing Technical or Financial Assistance to the Public to Facilitate Involvement" at page 82339 includes items sometimes specifically excluded by State statutes such as compensated advisory committees. The Agency should EPA's Response to Comments on the 2000 Draft Public Involvement Policy 43 revise this language to be clear that this listing is exclusively one of federal program support, and that State and other governments should be expected to address these resources intensive vehicles on the basis of State priorities and laws. Response: This policy provides guidance to EPA; EPA does not and cannot require states or other governmental agencies to follow these guidelines.

EPA Should Notify State Agencies of Any Grants Given by EPA Iowa Department of Natural Resources, Water Supply Section: financial assistance  The State primacy agency for a given program, such as the drinking water program, must be notified of grants EPA provides to various agencies within their state, to avoid funding duplicate programs or redundant training courses. There have been instances where both the State and the EPA Region was unaware of the projects paid for by the federal grants. Response: EPA appreciates this comment, but it is outside of the scope of the Policy. This comment was referred to the EPA Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water and Office of Grants and Debarment.

EPA Needs to Define Implementation Criteria for Providing Assistance Minnesota Pollution Control Agency: It sets goals where the Policy admits no implementation criteria yet exist. For example, it suggests the need to provide financial assistance to facilitate more public involvement and the need to budget for this   but lacks specifics. The MPCA believes that anticipating participation levels, proving financial hardship of interested parties, then providing assistance to these parties would be extremely difficult. Response: EPA agrees that decisions regarding selection of groups for funding are not easy. The Policy provides suggested criteria for providing financial assistance; however, it does not include detailed screening mechanisms.

Assistance Criteria Should Include Residency in Environmental Justice Community as a Factor Guild Law Center and Michigan Environmental Justice Coalition: Believe that technical assistance and expert advice is the key to effective citizen input in environmental decision making, particularly in environmental justice communities. For that reason, we urge the EPA to include, as one factor in determining whether financial assistance should be awarded to a particular applicant, whether an applicant is a resident of an environmental justice community. Response: EPA agrees that technical assistance is important, especially in environmental justice communities. The Policy's " Consider providing technical or financial assistance" section includes suggested criteria for providing financial assistance, and also states ( new language in bold italics): " In general, the Agency should make special efforts to provide assistance to groups that may have fewer opportunities or insufficient resources to participate." Environmental Justice related grants are listed at http:// es. epa. gov/ oeca/ main/ ej/ grants. html. For information about EJ small grants, see http:// es. epa. gov/ oeca/ oej/ grlink1. html .

Financial Assistance Criteria Should Include Local Governments as Eligible EPA's Response to Comments on the 2000 Draft Public Involvement Policy 44 City of Phoenix, Arizona, Office of Environmental Programs: If EPA is considering criteria for providing formal assistance to facilitate public involvement, mechanisms should exist for providing community involvement/ technical resources and grants to local governments. Local governments have had a much more difficult time accessing grants because EPA seems to give preference to community groups and activist organizations. Even the " Fees for Copying" Section singles out private citizens, public interest organizations or small businesses as being worthy of having fees waived, but not small communities which should also be included in this category. Further, grants such as Technical Assistance Grants ( TAGs) should also be available for local governments, which are often the first information resource for citizens. Response: EPA agrees that some local governments may need assistance to facilitate their involvement in EPA's decision making processes, and added new language to the Policy's " Consider providing technical or financial assistance to the public to facilitate involvement" section ( new language in bold italics): " There are numerous ways to assist members of the public and small local governments who lack the ability..." Another change was made in the section on " Purposes, goals and objectives": " Where appropriate, Agency officials should give extra encouragement and consider providing assistance to some sectors, such as minorities and low income populations, small businesses, and local governments, to ensure they have full opportunity to be heard..." Please note that statutory and regulatory requirements may affect the availability of funding; for example, Technical Assistance Grants under § 117 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act ( CERCLA) cannot be awarded to local governments; see 40 CFR 35.4020( b)( 5)( 2001). This comment was shared with the EPA Superfund Program and the Office of Congressional and Intergovernmental Relations. Further, please note updated language: " Fees for Copying: In responding to a request for records, the Agency will follow its regulations implementing the Freedom of Information Act (" FOIA") at 40 CFR Part 2. The Agency may waive the fees associated with a FOIA request, pursuant to the criteria listed at 40 CFR 2.107( l), if disclosure would contribute to public understanding of government operations and is not primarily in the commercial interest of the requester."

8. FUNCTION ( NOW STEP) 4. PROVIDE INFORMATION AND OUTREACH TO THE PUBLIC Environmental Justice Outreach New York State Department of Health, Center for Environmental Health: As stated in our " General Comments Attachment", we concur with the draft Policy statement that EPA should " ensure that the public understands the legal requirements for Agency action ". We feel that in minority, low income and under served communities that special emphasis should be given to this. EPA should determine initially what the community knows EPA's Response to Comments on the 2000 Draft Public Involvement Policy 45 about EPA. Do they know what the agency does? Do they know what the agency can and cannot do with regards to the program/ project? Clarify any misconceptions and clearly state the policy/ program goals and objectives emphasizing how this affects the community. Continue to use the Internet. This means of disseminating and gathering information will continue to grow.

Shoshone Natural Resources Coalition: The EPA can improve involvement opportunities for minority, low income and the under served population through early awareness and simplified explanations. Often times the general public is unaware of the potential effects the decisions made by the EPA will have on their community. These potential effects need to be expressed when meeting notices are announced. This needs to be done through all available options including newspapers, radio, flyers etc. If more of the general public were aware of what could happen to the community, they would show a greater interest in being involved. They need to know how these decisions will affect them personally. Response to above two comments: The Policy includes these suggestions in several sections. For instance, the " Provide information and outreach" section recommends that EPA information concerning a public involvement process should contain background information on the action's " statutory basis, rationale, specific goal( s) of involvement activities, or the triggering event of the action." That section also recommends that EPA: " summarize complex technical materials for the public; write information and outreach documents in plain language that the public will easily understand, and write engineering and technical documents as clearly and concisely as possible." In addition, the Policy's " Conduct public consultation and involvement activities" section recommends: " Provide guidance, resources, training, and professional assistance to Agency staff and interested delegated program partners, when feasible, to assist them in conducting or participating in public consultation and involvement activities in an effective and credible manner ( This includes providing the technical, scientific, and background information in a manner that allows the involved public to understand the relevant science for the issues under discussion.) This section also recommends that EPA describe " Information on the social, economic, and environmental consequences of proposed decisions and alternatives that has been prepared in connection with the proposed decision." EPA intends to seek to emphasize in public involvement training the need for clear and concise communications and effective outreach.

Guild Law Center and Michigan Environmental Justice Coalition: GLC and the MEJC believe that the Draft Policy must specify that more aggressive outreach and notification efforts are needed when a proposed action or decision may adversely affect an environmental justice community. In such circumstances, we believe the EPA should consider holding a public meeting just before or just after the beginning of the comment period to ensure that these communities are aware of the proposed action, its possible effect and their right to comment on the decision. The EPA could work with churches, community centers and social service organizations to plan and publicize these meetings. Response: For local or site specific community projects, EPA agrees that enhanced outreach in environmental justice communities is appropriate. New language in the goals section of the Policy suggests that EPA should partner with local community organizations for outreach: " Develop and work in partnership with state, local and tribal governments, community groups, associations, and other organizations to enhance and promote public EPA's Response to Comments on the 2000 Draft Public Involvement Policy 46 involvement." The Policy complements EPA's environmental justice activities. EPA intends to seek to include the comment's suggestions in EPA public involvement training materials.

Create Documents that are Clear and Concise Citizen # 4: There is one aspect of this public involvement thing that I would like to comment on, and that is the actual public notice itself ( e. g., Federal Register). The notices are frequently just too lengthy  this particular notice being a case in point. I was especially frustrated by a recent Final Rule on the Risk Management Program ( RMP) for the release of OCA data. That particular notice was extremely lengthy, yet still failed to communicate in any understandable way in language that anyone could understand, that the public can visit a reading room to view the RMP/ OCA data, can take notes by hand, but cannot print, photocopy or download any of the data.

California Association of Resource Conservation Districts: One does not usually know the Federal Register number and that system at best is confusing, burdensome, overly complicated and uses advanced language skills that many folks don't possess. This language must be simplified with executive summaries in plain English, at about the 6th grade level, so an average person can read and understand the issues and facts... The essence of public involvement is to give stakeholders something that is clearly stated and readable without spending hours and hours and hours to do so. I'm sorry the rules makers have to create such complex documents.

Golden Gate University, Environmental Law and Justice Clinic: ..... in reference to the notion of making the process more accessible to public, circulating materials in " plain English" and making them available in other languages, in addition to large print and Braille would be an important step. It would also be helpful if in tandem with this approach, the documents were streamlined so as not to be to be redundant, or dense with nonessential information. I must admit that even in reviewing this policy that is geared towards inclusivity, it took me an enormous amount of effort to sort through.

WPI: The plain language concern is related to the complexity of most decision making processes. They are so long and full of drafts after draft report that a person on a citizen advisory committee can be easily overwhelmed. Summarizing, paraphrasing and otherwise simplifying the reading and other procedural information would help to attract and maintain public participation. Response to above five comments: EPA appreciates the comments. While the material that EPA typically includes in the public notice frequently results in lengthy notices, EPA recognizes the need for notices to be understandable. The Policy's " Provide information and outreach to the public" section recommends that EPA ( new language in bold italics): " summarize complex technical materials for the public", " Write information and outreach documents in plain language that the public will easily understand" and " Write engineering and technical documents as clearly and concisely as possible."

EPA plans to emphasize the need for clear and concise communications in training. EPA is working to improve public notices and provides training on writing in plain language. The Agency EPA's Response to Comments on the 2000 Draft Public Involvement Policy 47 also has several internal guidance documents that provide detailed guidelines and examples about the use of plain language for staff.

Los Angeles County Sanitation District: LACSD would ask that EPA consider a short introduction to rulemaking language published in the Federal Register that incorporates the essence of the voter's pamphlet: a concise summary of the issues followed by pro/ con arguments from identified proponents/ opponents ( perhaps followed by EPA's traditional text explaining how you got where you are going). Response: EPA notices already contain a summary or short introduction at the beginning of the notice and EPA agrees that such a summary is helpful. EPA, however, does not agree that pro/ con arguments from identified proponents/ opponents of a rulemaking should be included in the notice as this would provide some members of the public a greater voice than others. EPA is working to improve public notices and provides training on writing notices in plain English.

Provide Guidance on Plain Language vs. Legally Defensible Language Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources: The policy contains language that Agency officials should write documents in " plain language that the public will easily understand". This is a laudable goal, but how does this affect engineering and technical documents? In many cases, less understandable but more " legally defensible" language is required by EPA staff and EPA and state agency attorneys. EPA should provide guidance on how to resolve this apparent conflict of needs. Response: Legal requirements are outside the scope of the Policy. However, EPA has made some changes to the Policy to address the concern regarding engineering and technical documents. See new language in the " Provide information and outreach to the public" section: " Write engineering and technical documents as clearly and concisely as possible" See also the revised statement in the same section of the Policy: " Write information and outreach documents in plain language that the public will easily understand." The Policy also recommends providing summaries of technical information. EPA is working to improve the use of plain English in public notices and other documents and provides training on how to write documents in plain English.

Translate Documents to Other Languages Guild Law Center and Michigan Environmental Justice Coalition: To ensure that these [ technical documents] materials are truly accessible, we also suggest that the EPA commit to translating these documents upon request and publicize the availability of that service. Response: EPA intends to publish proposed policy guidance on Title VI's prohibition against national origin discrimination as it affects limited English proficient ( LEP) persons, as required by Executive Order 13166. The proposed guidance suggests a general framework that EPAassisted and EPA conducted programs and activities can use to provide meaningful access to LEP persons. The draft LEP guidance also discusses an individualized assessment for EPAassisted and EPA conducted programs that balances factors to ensure meaningful access by LEP persons to critical services and vital written materials while not imposing undue burdens. Whether or not a document ( or the information it disseminates or solicits) is " vital" may depend upon the importance of the program, information, encounter, or service involved, and the EPA's Response to Comments on the 2000 Draft Public Involvement Policy 48 consequence to the LEP person if the information in question is not provided accurately or in a timely manner.

St. Regis Mohawk Tribe, Environment Division: I don't think it can be understated how important it is to write documents in plain language and when appropriate in other languages, as well. Response: EPA agrees documents should be written in plain English and in other languages where appropriate. See above response. The Policy's " Provide information and outreach to the public" section recommends: " Consider whether EPA should provide documents in languages in addition to English in order to reach the affected public or interested parties..." EPA intends to emphasize the need for clear and concise communications in public involvement training for EPA staff. EPA is working to improve the use of plain English in public notices and other documents and provides training on how to write documents in plain English. EPA is also working to expand its capacity to provide translations.

Recommendations for Outreach to Non English Speaking Communities Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources: What is the requirement or guidance of the policy regarding translation issues and outreach through nontraditional government channels such as churches and cultural organizations? Both of these are very labor intensive, requiring personal contacts. As written, " by using other comprehensive or creative means" to consider languages spoken, local communications preferences and location, the language implies that a thorough, comprehensive effort ( e. g., multi media campaigns in languages other than English) should be made for every action or activity. Often, smaller and more targeted efforts are more effective. Response: The Policy does not suggest that comprehensive communication efforts as described in the comment should be used for every action or activity. Rather, the Policy contains various suggestions for involving the public, including, in the " Provide information and outreach to the public" section: " Consider whether EPA should provide documents in languages in addition to English in order to reach the affected public or interested parties..." The Policy contains no requirements, but the " What Are the Purposes, Goals and Objectives of This Policy" section recommends using appropriate public involvement techniques to " Make every effort to tailor public involvement programs to the complexity and potential for controversy of the issue, the segments of the public affected, the time frame for decision making and the desired outcome."

EPA intends to soon publish proposed policy guidance on Title VI's prohibition against national origin discrimination as it affects limited English proficient ( LEP) persons, as required by Executive Order 13166. The proposed guidance suggests a general framework that EPAassisted and EPA conducted programs and activities can use to provide meaningful access to LEP persons. The draft LEP guidance also discusses an individualized assessment for recipients that balances factors to ensure meaningful access by LEP persons to critical services while not imposing undue burdens on small businesses, small local governments, or small nonprofits.

Pollution Posse: EPA's Response to Comments on the 2000 Draft Public Involvement Policy 49 The discussion is limited to only people who speak English. From my experience, EPA employed so many people that were very hard to understand, and many times it appeared that they hid behind the language barrier when hard questions were asked of them, but on the other hand people who were affected by pollution that spoke Spanish ( for example), had no way to understand what was going on. On many occasions, I asked for an interpreter, and when a public meeting was held EPA's answer to me was.... " The Spanish speaking people didn't come, so we didn't need a interpreter," On this occasion EPA also held the meeting outside of the community, further hindering public participation. If there is a large population of any race or ethnic background, EPA should provide people who can communicate to them. A site in Missouri where there is a large population of Slavic, etc., residents, the polluting company is smart enough to have hired a man who has a Slavic name, and practices the same religion as many people living there.

Bison Land Resource Center: In our area, one of the greatest barriers is a language barrier, as our largest minority group is the Lakota/ Dakota ( Sioux). When events are held in English without translation, many members of this group are effectively excluded. Similarly, when local reservation publications and Lakotalanguage radio stations are not provided full information for public involvement, these populations are excluded. For the public to truly be involved, the general public must be notified of environment related activities in a time frame and in a manner that makes input not only possible, but likely. Response to above two comments: EPA appreciates the comment. See above response. In addition, the Policy's Conduct public consultation and involvement activities also recommends, "... consult or involve the affected public to ensure that the approaches selected consider and, if appropriate, accommodate the potentially affected parties' needs, preferences." EPA intends to incorporate these ideas in public involvement training materials and a data base of public involvement best practices for use by EPA staff.

Unitarian Universalist Fellowship, Falmouth, Massachusetts: All of the major ethnic and cultural communities have their publications of their own that can be helpful to the Environmental Protection Agency. Cable television and radio stations can be useful in calling attention to environmental concerns. If the EPA is trying to work with Portugese speaking people on Cape Cod or in the New Bedford, there are editors and station managers willing to be helpful. In regions where many individuals speak Spanish, or other languages, there are other journalists and community leaders to contact. Please don't overlook " minority publications." They're very important for an increasing number of Americans. Response: EPA agrees that " minority publications" and news media can be helpful in reaching particular populations. EPA intends to include these ideas in training materials and incorporate them into a data base of public involvement best practices for use by EPA staff.

Environmental Defense: These should be advertised on TV, radio and newspapers and should not be excessively technical and should be understandable to the whole public, and when necessary, should be done in various languages. Response: EPA agrees that notices to the public should be understandable and not overly technical. This position is stated in the Policy. Also, see above response. EPA's Response to Comments on the 2000 Draft Public Involvement Policy 50 Provide Guidance for Multi Lingual Outreach American Water Works Association: The importance that EPA places on translating information for people that do not speak English is reflected in its drinking water program requirements for Consumer Confidence Reports and Public Notification. AWWA encourages EPA to assume the same level of responsibility for informing non English speaking people that it has recommended for drinking water utilities. For example, in its Public Notification Handbook ( EPA 816 R 00 010, June 2000) EPA recommends that utilities consider a " threshold of ten percent of the population or 1,000 people whichever is less for providing multilingual information" ( page 13). In addressing this issue, AWWA also recommends that EPA develop specific guidance for determining what constitutes a large proportion of non English speaking people and the process and data to be used in such a determination. Response: EPA appreciates this comment, however, the Policy is not the appropriate vehicle for such guidance. Also see above section responses.

Recommend Regular Communication with Interested Public Citizens for Responsible Water Management: Might the EPA do more to ensure that persons who have shown interest in its operations are kept fully informed?

National Association Of Home Builders: NAHB also recommends that EPA program officers should maintain an ongoing dialogue with industry, trade associations, and other interested groups so that no proposals issued by EPA will take any seriously interested group by surprise. Response to above two comments: EPA agrees that efforts should be made to keep interested persons informed. Staffing and resource constraints affect the Agency's ability to do so, however. See new language in the " Provide information and outreach to the public." section of the Policy, under " Actions: " To the extent possible, maintain ongoing communication and outreach with the interested and involved public on particular EPA activities through periodic newsletters, list serves or other means."

Recommendations for Better Involving " General Public"

New York State Department of Health, Center for Environmental Health: At some EPA stakeholders meetings the " general public" is brought in to be part of the meetings. Unfortunately, many of the people are not fully briefed on the issue and cannot contribute much to the process. EPA needs to find a better way to involve the public in these issues. Possibly, conducting some sort of briefing/ issue discussion prior to involving the " general public" in the stakeholder meetings would help. Response: EPA agrees that the general public should be educated on the particular issues under discussion in order to effectively participate in meetings. EPA intends to include this idea in training materials and in a database of public involvement best practices for use by EPA staff.

Long term Outreach Needed for Contaminated Sites EPA's Response to Comments on the 2000 Draft Public Involvement Policy 51 Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, Rocky Flats Oversight Unit, Hazardous Materials and Waste Management Division:: One area where the proposed policy seems deficient relates to sites where long term actions are included in the remedy. .... The policy can incorporate these long term considerations... On page 15 0f 40, the Goal 1 recommended action could specify that EPA request funds for continuing public involvement activities at sites whose remedies include long term actions. Goal 3 on page 18 of 40 could also include funds for stakeholders to maintain involvement at these sites. Specifically, TAGs could be provided to allow stakeholders to maintain data bases and files on these sites. Goal 4 on page 20 of 40 could specify outreach for post ROD decisions selecting and implementing long term actions and controls, including site delisting and five year reviews. Response: This suggestion was referred to the EPA Superfund program.

Allow Public Comment at Each Stage of Cleanup Process Washington State Department of Ecology, Toxics Cleanup Program: Public comment is not required during each stage of cleanup on EPA projects. This should be changed to reflect the goal of early and meaningful public participation. Comment should be held on each significant stage of cleanup ( i. e., Remedial Investigation, Feasibility Study, Proposed Plan, etc.) Response: EPA agrees that the public should be involved in decision making processes as early as practicable. According to the Superfund Program, last fall it issued a memorandum focused on improving early and meaningful community involvement. This document ( OSWER Directive 9230.0 39) can be found on the web at: http:// www. epa. gov/ superfund/ resources/ early. pdf Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, Rocky Flats Oversight Unit, Hazardous Materials and Waste Management Division: One area where the proposed policy seems deficient relates to sites where long term actions are included in the remedy. EPA has recently issued guidance on the use of Institutional Controls under RCRA and CERCLA. The emphasis in this document is on the need for effective long term actions and the necessity of meaningful five year reviews. As described in the policy, the focus of organized public involvement is on EPA decision making, and has traditionally addressed the project scoping and RI/ FS phases through the ROD. The policy has the opportunity to provide some leadership about post remedy phases of the project, where delays and fewer activities create a lower profile for the project with the public. Current EPA decisions may include specification of long term activities, including institutional controls. However, most often these long term attributes are merely noted in the remedy selection and ROD, and actual definition is deferred until some future O& M Plan ( or similar document), which is usually not provided to the stakeholders for public review. In fact, community involvement at the site is essentially ignored after the ROD or Remedial Design stage. In addition, EPA is driven to remove sites from the National Priorities List once the remedy is implemented. If the remedy has long term features, such as monitoring, maintenance, or institutional controls, the site can still be delisted regardless of the degree of risk management required at the site. This delisting could occur years after the ROD or RD, when no site specific public involvement mechanisms are in place. EPA's Response to Comments on the 2000 Draft Public Involvement Policy 52 Similar flaws exist for five year reviews, which are required for sites with remaining contamination. EPA does not create or maintain mechanisms for involving the concerned stakeholders in these latter activities. Response: EPA agrees that public involvement opportunities should be available throughout the course of an EPA action, including long term actions. According to the Superfund Program, EPA recently issued Superfund guidance ( OSWER Directive 9355.7 03B P) establishing expectations for public involvement during the five year review process. This guidance can be found at: http:// www. epa. gov/ superfund/ resources/ 5year/ index. htm Moreover, the Superfund program has explicit requirements for public participation during the delisting process, including a 30 day comment period, to ensure the public knows about and can express any concerns about the proposed action. Accordingly, EPA has added a new third bullet to Step 5 " Conduct public consultation and involvement activities.", section " a. Actions", which reads ( new text in bold italics): " For site specific activities, start public involvement efforts early in the action and continue them, as appropriate, until all work is completed".

Support Public Involvement in Developing Significant Information Products American Chemistry Council: In discussing its applicability, the draft policy fails to mention " significant information products" such as websites and reports. EPA's Office of Environmental Information has led the Agency in recognizing that information based initiatives can, like rules and cleanup plans, have significant effects on members of the public. Their development can likewise benefit from early public involvement. The Agency's draft framework for its Information Products Bulletin ( IPB) ( 65 FR 71314, Nov. 30, 2000) explains these points well. The final public involvement policy should explicitly mention public involvement products and reference the IPB. Response: EPA agrees that the development of significant information products can benefit from early public involvement, and has added among the items listed for particular consideration of public involvement: " The development of significant information products ( as the Office of Environmental Information has defined them in Appendix 2: Definitions)." The Office of Environmental Information developed the Information Products Bulletin ( IPB) to provide the public with advance notice of EPA's and some states' products under development. It also provides information about public involvement opportunities during those products' development. The Policy refers to significant information products and references the IPB. For further information about the IPB, see http:// www. epa. gov/ ipbpages/

Inform the Public about EPA Meetings with Stakeholders People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals and Earth Island Institute: [ Recommend that] The EPA provide, via its web site, public notice of meetings between agency management and staff with stakeholder organizations. We do not believe that the development of a simple electronic " meeting calendar" on the EPA web site would result in the harms which have been suggested. Indeed, we believe that this approach is the only means of ensuring that all stakeholders are properly notified of EPA meetings that are relevant to their mandate.

Citizen # 6: EPA's Response to Comments on the 2000 Draft Public Involvement Policy 53 The fact that you do not want to disclose to the general public the business groups and front organizations you regularly meet with is evidence enough of whom you really serve in these decisions. ....... If the attempt to obtain public input into " Draft 2000 Public Involvement Policy" is legitimate, which is dubious to many of us who have watched the scheming of big businesses aggressively pushing their agenda for so long, then there is only one way to start to clean up the corruption. If this is indeed not just another public relations ploy instigated by the well   compensated front groups of big business, then the best service you could do the American people is to publish regularly ( annually or semiannually) a list of organizations that meet with the Environmental Protection Agency. An added service to the public would be to possibly include a main issue or topic under discussion with each group. ...... Such a policy would require little effort, result in a huge benefit to the public at large ( since we could actually track corruption for a change), and actually move your agency in the direction of its stated purpose.

Citizen # 54: I want a public involvement policy that informs the public of any connections with special interests contrary to the environment which might be influencing environmental policies ( such as big business).

Citizens for Responsible Water Management: The EPA would receive more aid from concerned citizens if it informed the public more fully of the multitude of pressures exerted on individuals in government. Response to above four comments: EPA has an area of its Web site dedicated to informing the public about its public meetings. Please see http:// www. epa. gov/ epahome/ announce. htm to view these listings. This site can be accessed from the EPA Newsroom site. It contains lists of upcoming public meetings, conferences, workshops, & symposia, enforcement actions, & announcements from several EPA Regional offices ( near the bottom of the page). EPA welcomes suggestions on how to improve this presentation of meeting information.

EPA does not agree that public notice should be given of all meetings between agency management and staff and stakeholder organizations, or that it should adopt a general policy against meeting with individual stakeholders and groups without others present. In many cases, such meetings will be more candid and provide more information to the Agency. It is EPA's policy, however, to provide the fullest possible participation in Agency decision making, and in rulemaking to ensure that new data or information provided in meetings are placed in the rulemaking docket. One of the goals of the Policy is to " foster a spirit of mutual trust, confidence, and openness between the Agency and the public." The Public Involvement Policy is meant to promote an " even playing field" for all.

Present New Outreach Activities in Context of Existing Efforts Doctoral Student, Washington State University, Department of Geography: Outreach is another one of those tricky words. When an agency finds outreach necessary, in the minds of many citizens, it's because they aren't " there" or involved in the first place. Said another way, presenting outreach as a new thing to do, communicates it hasn't ever been done and it's the first time anyone ever stopped to think about it. Presented as ways to expand or improve current outreach strategies, and discussing/ delineating the new and old strategies, may EPA's Response to Comments on the 2000 Draft Public Involvement Policy 54 be more successful in building public trust. If it is a new thing, be honest about it, e. g., " in response to our inadequate outreach efforts of the past, we will........" Response: In the Policy, EPA is not presenting outreach as a " new thing." The 1981 Policy was clear about the necessity of providing solid outreach programs ( see http:// www. epa. gov/ publicinvolvement/ pdf/ Frn2. pdf ). Though the updated 2002 Policy has an expanded outreach section, it is not because of non performance, it is because the Agency has broadened its experience over the past twenty two years.

Partner with Local Organizations for Outreach Guild Law Center and Michigan Environmental Justice Coalition: The EPA could work with churches, community centers and social service organizations to plan and publicize these meetings.

ACES, Inc.: Could EPA fashion a program to use, for example, COA ( Coalition for Aging) and/ or AARP groups to locate retired persons willing to work in their community on environmental problems? I think COA's are a natural for this approach since they frequently have seniors with professional talents. Many retired people are waiting to be asked for their help; COA's also are organized with a staff. The COA could be the buffer between EPA and possible seniors and handle any financial matters through a grant.

Washington State Department of Ecology, Toxics Cleanup Program: A way to improve outreach is to assign a public involvement specialist to get to know the communities. Attend church meetings and link messages through ministers where these minorities already have trust developed. Go door to door in these communities with someone they already trust to give out the messages. Recruit one or two leaders from each group to attend EPA meetings and provide input from their perspective, etc. Make them part of the process.

Washington State Department of Ecology, Toxics Cleanup Program:: There is a list of ideas on how to meet with the public. What's missing is the idea of going to them. Not everyone has the time or desire to attend every meeting. Offering to take the message to already organized and planned meetings ( in addition to holding the " required meeting") gives organized groups more context to hear our message and has often been more productive. Asking the community what they want is a good way to begin.

New York State Department of Health, Center for Environmental Health: Work with church leaders and leaders of local civic groups to determine what are the best ways to disseminate information and the format of the information ( both written and verbal). Schools, churches, community centers, etc. could be asked to get involved in mobilizing the community to participate in EPA activities.

Environmental Defense: The Agency can also use local community groups   not just environmental but also other locallybased groups   to help organize and publicize public meetings; these groups can reach a larger EPA's Response to Comments on the 2000 Draft Public Involvement Policy 55 and more diverse population than EPA often can... Finally, EPA can forge partnerships with local grassroots groups to reach different segments of the population. Response to above six comments: EPA agrees that it is important to work with local community organizations. See new language added at the end of the Goals section: " Develop and work in partnership with state, local and tribal governments, community groups, associations, and other organizations to enhance and promote public involvement," Also see in the methods portion of " Identify interested and affected public," participating in the events of others and reaching the members of organizations through their publications. EPA will seek to include these suggestions in EPA training materials. Resource and staffing constraints will, of course, affect EPA's ability to utilize all of these suggestions.

Michigan Environmental Council: EPA regional leadership should develop and maintain lists of consistent strategic partners who can serve as conduits for public involvement opportunities and announcements. Each list should include state agencies, trade organizations, non governmental organizations, corporate interests and private citizens. These groups should understand that they are partners in the effort to build public awareness of pending EPA decisions. Partners should be provided with notification of processes about to begin and basic instructional materials regarding the public participation methods for dissemination to their constituents. Particular attention should be paid to the development of partners representing and including minority and low income populations. These cross project associates will help generate consistent participation from under served communities and enhance the EPA's list of concerned citizens.

The Groundwater Foundation: I would also like to suggest that along with formal frameworks for public input such committee work, and stakeholder meetings, EPA should consider partnerships with groups like the Groundwater Foundation in reaching stakeholder groups that may not be able or experienced in contacting the government directly. Some groups are hesitant about this even after a specific invitation is extended yet these individuals and groups can prove to be very helpful. .... The Groundwater Foundation has found that local teams are in an excellent position to develop innovative solutions and address local problems with local resources. These experiences can provide a wealth of data and on the ground solutions to EPA as the agency seeks broad public involvement. Response to above two comments: EPA agrees that it is important to work with local community organizations. See new language added at the end of the Goals section: " Develop and work in partnership with state, local and tribal governments, community groups, associations, and other organizations to enhance and promote public involvement," Also see in the methods portion of " Identify interested and affected public," participating in the events of others and reaching the members of organizations through their publications. EPA will seek to include these suggestions in EPA training materials.

Partner with Conservation Districts California Association of Resource Conservation Districts: Conservation districts, some 3000 strong across the United States, are the backbone of local involvement and should be recognized by your agency and your regional offices as such. These EPA's Response to Comments on the 2000 Draft Public Involvement Policy 56 locally led districts work with local stakeholders on various environmental issues and could be your key to successful and meaningful outreach. ....... I would recommend you consider full time liaisons to agriculture, producers, and conservation districts in EVERY state or region, to validate the concept of Stewardship and Outreach that you are pursuing. Response: EPA agrees that this partnership should be further explored; however, EPA does not have sufficient staff or funding to assign liaisons in every state or region. It is not EPA's primary function to provide localized information and assistance delivery, but conservation districts are very helpful collaborators in our community based efforts.

Conduct Cross Border Outreach Citizen # 8: It's very important that, with questions which involve issues that cross borders, connections are sought with citizens, as well as governments, across those borders. This may be best facilitated by including non governmental organizations, especially those with members in both countries. Response: EPA agrees, and routinely implements this suggestion. EPA US/ Mexico Border Offices facilitate such exchanges with NGOs and work with EPA Regions 7 and 9. Regional offices also work with Carribean organizations and governments. With Canada, EPA Regions 2, 3, 5, 8 and 10 work with the appropriate Canadian provinces and regional organizations, Canadian federal agencies and national organizations, and with the US Canada International Joint Commission. EPA Headquarters Office of International Activities leads EPA's international efforts.

Clarify the Public Involvement Process for the Public Sierra Club, Committee on Environmental Justice: The decision making process on rule making, creating guidance, implementation or application of rules, regulations, or guidance, is frequently very difficult for various stakeholders to understand. Once they are firmly established, by statute or by agreement, agencies should provide easily understandable " ground rules" at the outset of any public participation process informing the public as to how their input will be used, what their role in the decision making process will be, any statutory or regulatory requirements which must be satisfied by any agency action under consideration, any review process which will involve other agencies or governmental entities, and any rights of administrative appeal open to public participants. Response: EPA agrees that materials should be provided at the beginning of any public participation process outlining the process that will be used. The Policy recommends such materials to be developed and disseminated. EPA will seek to include these ideas in training materials and in a data base of public involvement best practices for use by EPA staff.

Sierra Club, Committee on Environmental Justice: The public needs to be informed as to the minimum criteria which must be met to conform with applicable international, federal, state, or local law or regulation so that they understand the " bottom line." In some states, state regulatory requirements may not be more stringent than federal requirements. Public participants must be informed that any recommendations which they make to the state agency to address local concerns which are more stringent than federal requirements will be dismissed out of hand at the state level. On the other hand, some states EPA's Response to Comments on the 2000 Draft Public Involvement Policy 57 may offer more procedural options, for example, and that such options are available must be clear. Response: EPA agrees that the public should be informed of the federal statutory and/ or regulatory requirements that may constrain the action or decision. In the Policy's " Provide information and outreach to the public." section, under " a. Actions" the Policy sets out several recommendations to address these concerns. This Policy is not binding on states, and each state must make its own decision on how it believes these matters should be expressed to members of the public.

Sierra Club, Committee on Environmental Justice: Agencies should not change the ground rules well into the public participation process unless the public welfare is being undermined. When the public participation process is abused, the process of developing and implementing public policy can break down. Response: EPA agrees that the ground rules for public participation should be changed only in limited circumstances. EPA will seek to address this issue in EPA public involvement training.

City and County of Denver, Department of Environmental Health: The Policy Must be More Cohesive, and Bring Together All the EPA's Public Participation Programs. Currently a hodge podge of public participation requirements and programs exists which is confusing to both EPA staff and the public. Even sophisticated participants in EPA activities have a hard time understanding the various public participation programs, what types of participation are available under which circumstances, and whether public participation is mandated or simply discretionary in a particular instance. The average person has no chance of understanding the system. DEH staff suggest that as part of the new policy, the EPA prepare a checklist of both required and recommended public involvement activities, along with sample forms reflecting the requirements for each statute or program where differing requirements exist. This will enable all involved to know which requirements exist in a particular situation. The checklist should clearly specify the role of the general public, state governments, local governments, and tribes so EPA staff and all others involved will know what is expected and what is required. Response: EPA appreciates the comment, and agrees with the goal of attempting to make public involvement requirements more cohesive. EPA will seek to improve the public's understanding of public involvement requirements through training and resources such as EPA's " Public Involvement in Environmental Permits: A Reference Guide" ( http:// www. epa. gov/ permits/ publicguide. htm). The document " Engaging the American People: A Review of EPA's Public Participation Policy and Regulations with Recommendations for Action " which can be found at [ http:// www. epa. gov/ publicinvolvement/ policy. htm# engaging] provides a listing of public participation requirements under EPA's various environmental programs. Such detail is appropriate to and may be reflected in training materials.

New York State Department of Health, Center for Environmental Health: The draft Policy states that EPA should " ensure that the public understands the legal requirements for Agency action ". We concur with this statement. We would like EPA to strongly emphasize with communities it is working with what it can and cannot do, what EPA can commit to and EPA's goals and objectives for the project. Establishing this foundation at the beginning of a project/ program is helpful for all involved parties. EPA's Response to Comments on the 2000 Draft Public Involvement Policy 58 California Department of Toxic Substance Control: We believe efforts should be made to ensure the public is involved as early as possible in the process, that agency staff make every effort to explain the process, and that our regulatory authority be understood by all affected parties. This may prevent creation of an unrealistic expectation that the process will address issues outside the agency's regulatory authority, and ultimately lay the foundation for trust in our decisions.

Association of State Drinking Water Administrators: First of all, the Agency should include a time line with its meeting announcements and feedback requests that relate to the public how the input fits into the overall agenda of the issue or policy that is up for comment ( i. e., how far along are they in the decision making process? How soon before the public knows the result of their comments?) Response to above three comments: EPA agrees that ground rules setting out goals and objectives, as well as legal constraints, should be established and disseminated to the public at the beginning of the public involvement process. The Policy suggests that this information should be clearly stated. EPA added the following new language to the " Plan and budget" section of the Policy, especially the bullets such as, " Proposed schedule for public involvement activities that is consistent with the timing of the decision process" listed under section " a. Actions:". Also see new language in section 5( c) under " Conduct public consultation and involvement activities" ( shown in bold italics): Agency officials should clearly identify the issues for discussion, negotiation or decision prior to and during a public involvement process, so that participants understand on which issues they should comment. EPA officials should describe clearly the type of public involvement process planned, the schedule, EPA's expectations for the outcomes of the process and the timing and type of feedback that EPA will provide. If possible, the public should be involved in determining the design of the processes.

Use Additional Communication Tools to Reach the Public Delaware Nature Society: The Society applauds the Agency's recognition that the Federal Register and legal notices are not enough to alert the public of EPA actions/ activities. For those members of the public that are technically aware, the EPA website will continue to provide much information. However, for those technologically challenged, efforts to inform the public beyond the website are needed and appreciated.

Columbia River Crab Fisherman's Association: Federal Register is a poor way to get notice or information to the average citizen.

St. Regis Mohawk Tribe, Environment Division: Certainly, utilizing creative means to get intended messages across is paramount in smaller communities where technical and electronic information may be limited or unavailable. EPA will need to make a more concerted effort in reaching out to those minority, low income communities whose voices may not be heard in favor of more populated areas. Response to above three comments: EPA agrees that information dissemination should not be limited to the Federal Register and/ or the Internet. The Agency will continue to provide information through multiple sources. See new language added at the end of the Goals section: EPA's Response to Comments on the 2000 Draft Public Involvement Policy 59 " Develop and work in partnership with state, local and tribal governments, community groups, associations, and other organizations to enhance and promote public involvement." Also see in the methods portion of " Identify interested and affected public," participating in the events of others and reaching the members of organizations through their publications.

New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services: EPA's Draft Policy is also commendable for containing a series of practical guidelines for its implementation. These guidelines, including those on page 82340 setting forth specific methods for effectively providing information to the public, should indeed prove helpful to EPA staff in carrying out their various outreach activities. Response: EPA appreciates this comment, and agrees that providing practical guidelines should be helpful.

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Office of Administration: Although we recognize ( p. 82340) that seminars, print media, the Internet and other electronic media do provide notice of availability of materials and facilitate public understanding of more complex documents, we underscore the importance of " when practical, information should be provided in formats and locations that match the public's needs." Careful assessment of these needs should be included in EPA program planning. Response: EPA agrees that the Agency should assess the public's information needs regarding formats and accessible locations during program planning. EPA will seek to include these suggestions in public involvement training materials for EPA staff.

Use Local Media to Reach the Public Shoshone Natural Resources Coalition: These potential effects need to be expressed when meeting notices are announced. This needs to be done through all available options including newspapers, radio, flyers etc.

Michigan Environmental Council: Television and radio are the primary sources of information for most citizens. As such, the EPA should make use of these media for a major announcement. The Agency should consider developing cooperative arrangements with local community cable access systems to publicize public participation opportunities.

Guild Law Center and Michigan Environmental Justice Coalition: In particular, we commend the EPA for recognizing that public notices must be distributed through a wide variety of sources, including non traditional venues such as community and religious publications; radio, television and cable outlets; and the Internet. Wide dissemination of public notices through sources that community members already rely on for community news is crucial to ensuring that public participation is adequate.

Environmental Defense: EPA's public meetings and comment periods can also be publicized more widely. Few people read the Federal Register, and email and web postings may not reach the population most EPA's Response to Comments on the 2000 Draft Public Involvement Policy 60 affected by EPA's decisions ( such as inner city or low income populations). EPA can engage a wider segment of the public by placing ads and notices in newspapers and on TV and radio.

Environmental Defense: EPA should also revise its advertising strategies when planning public meetings and comment periods. These should be advertised on TV, radio and newspapers and should not be excessively technical and should be understandable to the whole public, and when necessary, should be done in various languages.

Citizen # 5: EPA should post public notices in a LOCAL paper. Often posting in just statewide papers does not get to local populations that are truly affected.

Citizen # 9: This seems like a good program but the public will be still unaware unless you let it be known on, say, public television.

Unitarian Universalist Fellowship, Falmouth, Massachusetts: In order to inform the public about public hearings, try to use the avenues for communication that are important to community people. Religious leaders, such as myself, can assist in notifying the public about important meetings. Response to above eight comments: EPA agrees that media sources should be used to disseminate information to the public. EPA has expanded the language in the " Provide information and outreach" section " b. Methods:" of the Policy to include this suggestion ( see new language in bold italics): " Public service announcements, articles and news releases through local newspapers, radio, and other media sources that reach the interested and affected public." EPA does send notices to media, particularly local media, when dealing with local issues. However, the Agency generally cannot buy media space and/ or time for national issues.

Local partners can assist in raising awareness by helping the media understand the issues and the importance of getting information to their communities. See new language added at the end of the Goals section: " Develop and work in partnership with state, local and tribal governments, community groups, associations, and other organizations to enhance and promote public involvement." Also see in the methods portion of " Identify interested and affected public," participating in the events of others and reaching the members of organizations through their publications. EPA will seek to include a discussion of expanded methods for public notice and outreach in public involvement training for EPA staff.

Recommendations for Other Specific Communication Methods in Communities New York State Department of Health, Center for Environmental Health: Use phone surveys to reach people who will not come to meetings. Response: EPA appreciates the comment. The Policy's " Provide Information and Outreach to the public.", section " b. Methods:" recommends using " questionnaires, surveys, and interviews " as communication tools. Such surveys are subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act. EPA's Response to Comments on the 2000 Draft Public Involvement Policy 61 National Farm* A* Syst: The Outreach methods section might be revised to specifically identify support for organization of peer to peer education and outreach activities, and/ or community dialogues and study circles. This could fall under 5) Educational publications, programs or activities; but people tend to think of education using the " vessel" metaphor where the educator " fills up" the student, rather than using the reciprocity model where we're all teachers and all students. Outreach " materials" could include direct dialogue, focus groups, study circles etc. I see that these kinds of activities are included under 5. Conduct public consultation and involvement activities. However, a focus group for public consultation is a different beast from a peer to peer education program where, for example, local youths are trained to take action oriented material door to door in their neighborhoods. Or where neighborhood " eco teams" gather to educate each other on " green lifestyle" issues. These and other strategies may be much more effective ways of providing information and outreach to the public than printing brochures or even holding public forums. Response: EPA appreciates the comment. The Policy's " Provide Information and Outreach to the public.", section " b. Methods:" states ( new language in bold italics): " Participation in conferences, workshops, meetings, community dialogues or local study groups."

Environmental Defense: To improve its outreach activities, the Agency needs to work on the ground with stakeholders. EPA can use facilitators who are sensitive to the local needs and concerns and train employees to effectively communicate with stakeholders. Response: EPA appreciates the comment. The Policy includes these ideas in the " Conduct public consultation and involvement activities.", section " a. Actions: Provide guidance, resources, training, and professional assistance to Agency staff and interested delegated program partners, when feasible, to assist them in conducting or participating in public consultation and involvement activities in an effective and credible manner. This includes providing the technical, scientific, and background information in a manner that allows the involved public to understand the relevant science for the issues under discussion" and " Consider the appropriate use of third parties ( neutral facilitators or mediators) in the development and implementation of programs, projects and activities". A third party or neutral party can act as a facilitator providing professional assistance for the process.

Citizens for Responsible Water Management: The EPA has a broad range of documents in wide circulation relating to every aspect of its operations. While these constitute earnest effort to involve the public, I've noted that concerned citizens are often at a loss to find clearly briefly colorfully illustrated information helping them to comment on particular items. Has the EPA done all it can to insert information into schools, libraries, government offices, newspapers, and waiting rooms of hospitals  clinics  churches  dental offices when matters of unusual importance are involved? Has it worked with fast food chains to install bulletin boards that can be regularly updated? Response: EPA appreciates the comment. In some cases in which an activity affects a specific geographic area or population, EPA attempts to make information accessible in places such as those mentioned in the comment. The Agency has also worked with several fast food EPA's Response to Comments on the 2000 Draft Public Involvement Policy 62 chains to provide information. If resources were available to do so, EPA could create and maintain bulletin boards in places where EPA staff are stationed or where EPA works with local partners to help with the task. EPA will seek to include these suggestions in EPA public involvement training.

National Association Of Home Builders: NAHB identified a number of additional methods of outreach that could be used by EPA to inform our membership of new and ongoing activities. These included the publication of notices in local and regional newspapers, additional public forums, expanding the number of sites for locating public documents, and better contact lists. Response: EPA appreciates the comment. These suggestions are included in the Policy's sections on " Provide information and outreach to the public" and " Identify the interested and affected public."

Require that EPA Effectively Notify the Public Sierra Club, Committee on Environmental Justice: ...... the Club applauds the Policy for stating the obvious: " agency officials should not assume that the general public reads printed legal notices of Federal Register notices which are often required by statute or regulation." Yet the Policy, in the very next sentence, makes additional notification efforts merely optional. The Policy should require that the standard for notice be such that it would be reasonably likely that a person with an interest in the proposed action have actual notice of the public participation opportunity. If such notice requires more extensive media efforts, or if it requires more one on one outreach, the agencies need to be prepared to do what is required.

Guild Law Center and Michigan Environmental Justice Coalition: The Draft Policy also focuses on notification methods in this section [ consultation section]. Again, we applaud the EPA's recognition that bare legal notice is often not effective in actually providing notice to the affected community. However, we believe that the Draft Policy should take a stronger stance on this issue. Specifically, we suggest that the Draft Policy presume that bare legal notice is insufficient and mandate that agency officials use other, less formal notification methods ( such as publication in community newspapers, church or social service organization newsletters; radio announcements or cable/ television ads). Agency officials should be required to justify any decision to provide notice only through the Federal Register and/ or printed legal notices. Response to above two comments: EPA agrees that it is desirable to provide more extensive outreach than is mandated by regulation. The Policy is not a rule and, therefore, cannot impose binding requirements that EPA staff must follow. Furthermore, public involvement needs are so varied that EPA does not believe it would be appropriate to mandate a specific approach. The Policy does contain guidance for effective public involvement in EPA decision making processes. In particular, the Policy's " Provide information and outreach to the public" section provides a long list of recommended mechanisms to ensure that people with an interest in the proposed action receive notice.

Public Notice and Requests for Comment must be Placed in Federal Register EPA's Response to Comments on the 2000 Draft Public Involvement Policy 63 Color Pigments Manufacturers Association, Inc.: In particular, the CPMA is concerned about the EPA's use of the Internet and informal guidance documents instead of appropriate rulemaking procedures. The 1981 public participation policy, which would be replaced by the Draft Policy, may require updating to reflect current rulemaking procedures, changes in statutes, executive orders and communication technology. However, the fundamental manner in which EPA goes about its rulemaking activities, as described in the Administrative Procedures Act, and relevant regulations, should not change. Whatever manner EPA may choose to communicate with the public now and in the future, notice and substantive information sufficient to allow the public to respond must be provided in the Federal Register... While it is important for the EPA to know, at a minimum, who the interested parties are and how best to provide them notice, 64 Fed. Reg. 82339, notice of EPA activities and rulemaking should be provided in the Federal Register. We agree with EPA's use of contact lists for notification of interested parties. Such activities cannot, however, replace appropriate notice in the Federal Register. If EPA seeks comment on a document or report, whenever possible that document should be reproduced in the Federal Register. In the event that a subject document is not published in the Federal Register, that document should be carefully and completely summarized in the Federal Register to enable readers to provide comment on the proposal. There must be one central publication which the interested public can monitor in order to follow EPA activities, rulemaking, policy and guidance. That central publication is the Federal Register... We are not in favor of EPA using the Internet instead of appropriate notice in the Federal Register. Likewise, the use of " electronic communications such as web pages, chat rooms, online dialogues and list servers" 65 Fed. Reg. 82340 as an alternative to the Federal Register, are not appropriate vehicles for notice to the public or primary methods of communicating with the notified or interested public... There is an important need to preserve the process of publication, comment, review of comments, and finalization, all conducted in a deliberative and formal public manner. This testing in the crucible of public scrutiny should be augmented by other means, but certainly not replaced. Response: EPA appreciates the comment. This Public Involvement Policy is not intended to and does not change the APA notice and comment publication requirements or the Agency's practice of publishing notices of the availability of important documents in the Federal Register. EPA agrees that the Federal Register should be used in conjunction with additional communication methods in order to reach the public.

Use Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Process to Achieve Early Involvement Color Pigments Manufacturers Association, Inc.: Many of these goals [ in the draft Public Involvement Policy] can be achieved by EPA making much more frequent use of the Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (" ANPR") process. The ANPR seeks preliminary comment on issues and options before a new rule is proposed in the Federal Register... The ANPR process provides the public, and particularly stakeholders, with an opportunity to provide comment on proposals and options before the EPA invests a vast amount of time and valuable administrative resources on a particular approach or option in a formal proposed rule. Invariably, when the ANPR process is not used, the EPA is compelled to defend " substantiated" EPA's Response to Comments on the 2000 Draft Public Involvement Policy 64 proposed rules in the comment period which follows the publication of a proposed rule. This lack of flexibility created by investing excessive resources in one particular option before the public and knowledgeable stakeholders have had an opportunity to comment often produces unworkable final rules. The final rules produced without early public comment in a fair and open ANPR process often fail to consider the costs of the rule adequately and fail to compare those costs to the benefits anticipated from the rule. Final rules prepared without early public comment are far more likely to create unnecessary or redundant administrative and paperwork requirements. Finally, final rules of this type are far more likely to result in expensive litigation and ultimately require revision. Certainly, using ANPR procedures would comply in almost every case with EPA's recommended action to " provide program and technical information to the affected public and interested parties at the earliest practicable times to enable those potentially affected... to make informed and constructive contributions". 65 Fed. Reg. 82340. Response: This comment is outside of the scope of the Policy and was shared with the EPA Office of Regulatory Management.

Disagree with RCRA Radio Spot Requirement Minnesota Pollution Control Agency: The MPCA has found that the single spot radio ad announcement required under Part 124 for RCRA Permit Notices is not a practical use of public participation resources. Response: EPA appreciates the comment. The Policy, however, cannot alter the minimum requirements as set out in the RCRA regulations. Section 124.31( d) of the RCRA regulations requires the applicant to provide three different kinds of public notice regarding the preapplication meeting. One of these must be a broadcast media notice. It is up to the applicant to decide whether radio or TV is the best way to fulfill this requirement. EPA expects that the prospective applicant will broadcast the notice at a time and on a station that will effectively disseminate the notice.

SUPPORT ONLINE INFORMATION Improve Internet/ Electronic Communication Technical Problems New York State Department of Health, Center for Environmental Health: Ensure that the visually impaired and others with handicaps can use the Internet pages. Specifically make sure:  pages do not " hang up" any " screen reader" ( programs that convert text to speech);  pictures are identified in the background by descriptive text and not just code; and  the page and web site can be navigated entirely by text, entirely by graphics, or through a combination. Response: This comment is outside of the scope of the Policy. However, it should be noted that EPA is working to ensure that all web pages and electronic information technology ( EIT) designed, procured, used, and maintained after June 21, 2001 comply with the 1998 amendment ( Section 508) of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. This comment was referred to EPA's Office of Environmental Information.

Minnesota Pollution Control Agency: EPA's Response to Comments on the 2000 Draft Public Involvement Policy 65 The Policy should direct EPA to make electronic documents available in multiple or moreuniversally readable formats ( i. e., ASCII, Rich Text, HTML or PDF); to use conventional filename protocols and extensions ( e. g., filename. rtf, pdf, txt, or htm), and to provide the version of the format used ( e. g., Word 2000, WordPerfect 6.0) in order to improve usability. EPA needs to consider the technical capability of its target audience. EPA commonly posts or distributes electronic documents to wide audiences using a single format. This poses communication barriers to many in the target audience. Even when possible to convert a file, the steps involved are multiplied by numerous users and can hamper communication. Busy readers may skip or delay reading a time sensitive message rather than leaping the hurdles or seeking needed help. Improving communication is consistent with the federal GPRA goals. Individual conversion hurdles may appear small, but the issue is significant when taken in aggregate across all users. EPA needs to consider the varied technical abilities and support available to its target audience.

Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Division of Water Resource Management: We recommend that documents distributed to the public in an electronic format be in a format that can be opened by everyone. At a minimum that should include a PDF option and, if possible, also a WORD and WordPerfect version. Although many now have Internet access, not everyone may be familiar with how to open different formats. It would be constructive to include text on how to copy PDF documents into Word or WP ( or provide guidance towards the instructions on the ADOBE web site).

U. S. Army Center for Health Promotion & Preventive Medicine: Communications Technology: Beware of specialized fonts in public release materials and on web pages. Some computers will not recognize them, causing confusion and preventing the intended communication. Response to above three comments: These comments are outside of the scope of the Policy. However the Agency appreciates them and is committed to improving public access through the use of multiple formats. EPA currently provides its documents in both HTML and PDF formats. HTML is the universal language of the Web and PDF is readily available through Adobe Acrobat reader, which is free to all. An Agency wide workgroup is currently working on how to improve access to PDF documents. Agency guidance discourages the use of proprietary formats, such as MS Word and WordPerfect, because many users do not have access to the necessary software for these. These comments were provided to those offices the Office of Environmental Information and the Office of Public Affairs. These offices are responsible for web standards, internal communication, product review guidelines, and internal information product development guidance.

Center for Public Environmental Oversight: The increasing use of the World Wide Web to disseminate information should be specifically addressed. Though the Web is an important communications tool, the use of which should be expanded, EPA should not use the Web to shift printing costs to readers. More important, EPA web sites should be tested so that people who use modems, as opposed to high speed Internet connections, or who use software and hardware that is not the most recent version, should still have reasonable access to information. Extraneous graphics that slow downloading should be avoided. Web sites should not demand the installation of new browser software, some of which demands new hardware. EPA's Response to Comments on the 2000 Draft Public Involvement Policy 66 Bison Land Resource Center: Another major problem in the last several years has been the move toward printing fewer copies of Draft Environmental Impact Statements. This seems like a great idea from an environmental angle, and at first I avidly ordered my CD ROMs for NEPA documents. The problem is that CD ROMs are not useful for those who want to do more than take a leisurely stroll through a few pages of Executive Summary. One cannot compare maps and the pages describing them, look at the main text and supporting appendices, or cross check information from section to section without essentially printing out their own copy from the disk   which is unrealistic and, in some cases, impossible. Some CD ROMs, such as the one for the Dakota, Minnesota, and Eastern Railroad ( DM& E) project, are so slow as to be unusable. Electronic access may be present for those with computers, but in this case it was also so slow as to be unusable to members of the public. Only those whose sole life focus was reading the DEIS were able to access larger portions of the document electronically. What's worse, when people discovered that their CD ROMs were unusable and websites for the documents were useless, they were not able to get a paper copy of the DEIS. The Surface Transportation Board would not send a second DEIS in any form to someone who had already received one. This makes sense in terms of conserving agency resources and tax dollars in most situations. But in a case where public involvement is the law of the land, it does not make sense, after all. Response to above two comments: This comment is outside of the scope of the Policy. It was shared with the EPA Office of Environmental Information, which manages EPA's Web site and develops internal Web and information product development guidance.

Improve Content of EPA Internet Material ACES, Inc.: ACES has used the Internet extensively in our search for environmental information appropriate for the problems we face; our advantage is that we have seniors with computer backgrounds. However, many citizen groups lack these abilities often even if they access the Internet, the plethora of information becomes overwhelming. These citizens need help. ACES is currently proposing one solution to this problem with MADEP; the attached letter and proposal will best explain our approach. Perhaps EPA could borrow this concept since your web page has a tremendous amount of valuable information. Even experienced web browser like ACES has available find it difficult to locate specific information, or just understand the extent of EPA's web page content. Response: This comment is outside of the scope of the Policy. It was shared with the EPA Office of Environmental Information and the Office of Public Affairs. EPA is working to improve content coordination and search capabilities of its web site, including reorganizing it along topical lines to make it easier for users to find material quickly. In addition, EPA continues to improve the user friendliness of its Web site by conducting Web site usability testing.

ACES, Inc.: [ proposal originally submitted to Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection, to be considered by EPA as well]: The DEP web page already provides excellent resources of help; your Site Map page provides numerous choices of factual material in a number of areas. EPA's Response to Comments on the 2000 Draft Public Involvement Policy 67 However, for the concerned first time citizen user there is minimum guidance on the path to take for help with their problem. [ recommend that web page easily show citizens how to find information]: A new subheading on the Site Map entitled something like " Citizen and Community Aids" This subsection might contain a series of case studies of what citizens can and should do when a local environmental problem arises. These local activities would involve educating citizens on potential causes of the problem, and adverse public health effects. In addition, learn about potential legislative aids available to citizens. Techniques for finding and using the above information would be described in the new subsection of the web page; actual case studies could be a prime source of help. In addition, some descriptive material would provide the web page links to lead one from the type of environmental problem to associated resources. Response: This comment is outside of the scope of the Policy. These comments were shared with EPA's Office of Environmental Information. However, it should be noted that EPA's home page has a section called " Where You Live." From that heading the user goes to a page where, by entering a zip code, numerous data bases are accessible that provide information and maps specific to that zip code. In addition, on that web page the user can access key issues for " Concerned Citizen Resources." Case studies and citizen aids are not provided centrally on the web page. However, EPA's home page has a section called " Laws and Regulations" which provides useful information.

Environmental Defense: One of the best ways to provide a wide array of information to the public is through the Internet. It is absolutely important that EPA follow up on the Draft Policy's goal to " fully implement the goals of the Agency's Public Access Strategy...( to provide the public with integrated, online, user friendly access to environmental data and information) ." Much of the currently available data has many gaps, is poorly integrated, and does not tell a complete " story" about the environmental conditions...

Environmental Defense: High up on EPA's list should be integrating and consolidating EPA's databases so it is easier for both the public and EPA employees to use the data. For example, the different EPA databases currently all use their own number systems for facilities, making it virtually impossible and laborintensive to understand a facility's total environmental impact or to compare among facilities in the same industry. An upfront facility ID is needed to ensure consistent, higher quality data submittals the first time. In addition, there needs to be a multi media approach to information collection: facilities and people affect the air, water and land, and information should be collected and presented to reflect this. Integrating information in this way reduces the burden on both the public and EPA employees in obtaining and using environmental information. Response to above two comments: These comments are outside of the scope of the Policy. EPA notes that it is working to improve data and information available on its web site. These comments were shared with the EPA Office of Environmental Information ( OEI), which leads the development of EPA's Target Enterprise Architecture, the Agency's core applications architecture framework, and the System of Access, which are intended to, upon completion, provide access to all of the Agency's fully integrated electronic information resources. EPA's Response to Comments on the 2000 Draft Public Involvement Policy 68 OEI also leads the development of data standards that help to improve users' ability to integrate data for their own use. Specifically, OEI maintains several electronic application systems to accomplish this. One is the EPA Facility Registry System ( FRS), a centrally managed database of comprehensive information on facilities subject to environmental regulations or of particular environmental interest. Another is Envirofacts, which provides the public access to this information. When fully implemented, Central Data Exchange ( CDX) registrations will also be used to validate high quality, accurate, and authoritative facility identification records. The quality of these records is intended to be assured through rigorous verification and management procedures.

Environmental Defense: The Internet can also serve as a useful tool to get feedback from the public on various issues. EPA can use this to get feedback on its website's user friendliness and data availability. The current site is much improved from the old one, but EPA needs to keep up with the rising expectations of users. Response: This comment is outside of the scope of the Policy. However, EPA has numerous optional surveys on its web site to collect user feedback. Further, EPA received approval from the Office of Management and Budget for a " generic" web survey which any office or region can use, so the public can expect to see more requests for user feedback. In addition, EPA continues to improve its web site by conducting site usability testing and focus groups. EPA has also created an online EPA Dockets ( EDOCKET) system to further encourage and enable public involvement in a variety of EPA actions. For more information about E docket, please visit http:// cascade. epa. gov/ RightSite/ dk_ public_ home. htm Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, Policy Office: Publicizing proposals in the Federal Register is a good way to distribute information, but the average person may not read the Federal Register or know how to sort through the abundance of information. DEP developed an electronic Public Participation Center on our website which provides access to every DEP proposal open for comment. From this website, documents can be printed and comments can be submitted electronically on any proposal. There are links on the website where the public can learn about DEP public meetings, plans for future regulations, the status of current regulations, and read the Pennsylvania Bulletin and codified regulations. We invite you to visit the Center at http:// www. dep. state. pa. us/ dep/ subject/ pub_ par_ cen. html. DEP believes the public should be able to rely on a central location on the EPA website where one can easily find all regulations and policies that are open for comment.

California Association of Resource Conservation Districts: However, the largest major drawback to public participation: the EPA web page and information on it. It simply does not disseminate, in a usable form, forms, facts or links that enable one to comment easily. If you truly seek public input, you must put active, hot links on the EPA home page that indicates where people can click to comment on topics such as Arsenic, AFO/ CAFO, etc... this should include email addresses, snail mail addresses, etc. It would say something like " Comments on Proposed Regulations" and link to pages that have TITLES on various topics as mentioned above. Certainly such links should also clearly state the cut off dates for comments. The system used now, to refer one to the Federal Register, is dinosauric and appears as an obvious ploy to keep the average person from finding the information needed in order to form a comment. EPA's Response to Comments on the 2000 Draft Public Involvement Policy 69 Response to above two comments: This comment is outside of the scope of the Policy. It was shared with EPA's Office of Regulatory Management, EPA's Office of Environmental Information, and with EPA's Office of Public Affairs .

Minnesota Pollution Control Agency: EPA should consider broadcasting public service announcements and notices via a single, wellformatted Web page menu. Response: This comment is outside of the scope of the Policy. It was shared with the Office of Environmental Information and the Office of Public Affairs .

Support Electronic Access to EPA Information by Local Governments Local Government Advisory Committee: LGAC supports the ongoing development of the Local Government Environmental Assistance Network ( LGEAN). Enhanced utilization of LGEAN and similar information sites represents an opportunity to make EPA more accessible. Moreover, further development of other interactive technology could provide additional and productive access for local government to EPA's policymaking and program development efforts. Response: This comment is outside of the scope of the Policy. However, it should be noted that EPA agrees that LGEAN is a helpful resource for local governments, and shared this comment with EPA's Office of Congressional and Intergovernmental Relations.

Recommend Increased Use of Electronic Communication New York State Department of Health, Center for Environmental Health: Continue to use the Internet. This means of disseminating and gathering information will continue to grow.

Environmental Council of the States: The Internet and increased availability of computers has also made it easier for many individuals to provide input through that avenue rather than attendance at meetings; both US EPA and the states need to expand use of this means of communication. Response to above two comments: EPA agrees that the Internet should continue to be a useful tool, and the Agency plans to expand its use.

Citizen # 7: Are there Internet or e mail based methods of gathering public comment? Response: There are Internet and e mail based methods for gathering public comment, and EPA is working to use them more broadly.

Doctoral Student, University of Washington Geography Department: I am also disappointed by the failure of the policy to mention or explore opportunities for collecting information and feedback from the public that makes use of Internet technology. While I certainly appreciate being able to provide these comments on email, there are many additional Internet based approaches that could be used to interact with the public, such as list serves, EPA's Response to Comments on the 2000 Draft Public Involvement Policy 70 Internet surveys, etc. I would like to see some recommendations about these types of feedback tools included in the final policy. I would never argue that Internet interactions should be the ONLY form of communication with the public too many people still do not have access to computers. However, the country is becoming more and more computer savvy every day. Mechanisms of interacting with the public through the Internet allow a wider range of individuals to access and interact with information when it is convenient for them than do some of the more traditional mechanisms of public involvement  such as a formal meeting. Internet technology provides a different flavor of public involvement that should be more fully explored. Response: EPA agrees that the Agency should expand its use of the Internet and added new language in the section on " Conduct public consultation and involvement activities" section " b. Methods:", list common examples of information exchange including " internet based dialogues" and in " Provide information and outreach to the public" section " b. Methods:" cites " Electronic communications such as Web pages, chat rooms, on line dialogues, and list serves..." as effective mechanisms to gain information. Also, the Agency now has EDOCKET (( electronic docket) and has numerous optional surveys on its web pages to collect user feedback. Further, EPA has approval from the Office of Management and Budget for a " generic" web survey which any office or region can use, so the public can expect to see more requests for user feedback. In July 2001 EPA sponsored a two week Internet based Dialogue that generated a multitude of ideas for implementing the Policy. Results are at http:// www. network democracy. org/ epa pip.

California Department of Toxic Substance Control: We also fully support the concept that the policy should be more reflective of the shift toward egovernment with the emphasis on re examining outreach efforts that do not reflect the improvements in communications technology. Also, the policy should proactively encourage efforts to provide electronic communication with communities that in the past may have been disempowered due to a lack of technology. Response: EPA agrees that the Policy should promote e government tools, and that EPA should work with local organizations to encourage electronic access for disempowered communities. The Policy includes these suggestions in the " Provide information and outreach" and " Consider providing technical or financial assistance" sections. EPA will also seek to include these suggestions in public involvement training for EPA staff.

Create Electronic Notification Systems Michigan Environmental Council The EPA website should offer an opportunity for citizens to register to receive notification of hearings, meetings and decisions, either electronically or by mail. Registrations should include an option to specifically identify a project, generically identify a policy area, or identify a geographic region. MEC acknowledges the associated expense of direct mail communications of this nature, but believes that the current fees should be waived for community based organizations or individuals who can demonstrate a financial hardship. Electronic communications can be automated to the point that no fee should be warranted. Response: EPA appreciates the comment. EPA has a list of newsletters and listservs and other resources accessible from the EPA home page by clicking on " Information Resources." Instructions for signing up as well as descriptions of the listservs are available by clicking on EPA's Response to Comments on the 2000 Draft Public Involvement Policy 71 " Listservs;" however, EPA does not have a central sign up system for " generic," project specific, or geographic registrations. There are no fees for electronic information. This comment was shared with the EPA Office of Environmental Information, which developed EPA's Public Access Strategy and with EPA's Office of Public Affairs .

Reichold, Inc.: When new policies are developed requiring public involvement, the EPA can e mail us and numerous other stakeholders with the EPA URL address where the policy can be reviewed and commented on. The Internet, as it ever grows, should enable the EPA to reach the broad range of US citizens as targeted in the policy. The Internet is also a paperless option to comply with the reduction in paperwork series of laws. Response: EPA agrees that the Internet will enable the Agency to reach a broad range of citizens. Many EPA programs compile e mail contact lists that they use to provide information to the interested public. See also new language in the section on " Conduct public consultation and involvement activities" in section " b Methods:" ( new language in bold italics0: " Interactive methods that provide participants with opportunities to discuss the issues and their input with the Agency through public meetings, listening sessions, workshops, availability sessions, open houses, interviews, focus groups or surveys, Internet based dialogues and other methods ( Note: Some of these types of exchange activities, including surveys and Internet dialogues, potentially are subject to provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act and security and privacy constraints)".

Local Government Advisory Committee: LGAC supports enhanced utilization by EPA of listservers to enhance timely input from local government officials. EPA should develop procedures to utilize list servers at the earliest stages of program and policy development. Response: See above response. This comment was shared with the EPA Office of Environmental Information, EPA's Office of Public Affairs and with the Office of Congressional and Intergovernmental Relations.

Environmental Defense: First of all, EPA should improve the management of its listserves so the Agency's feedback notices better reflect the interests of the listserves and its members. Response: This comment is outside of the scope of the Policy. It was shared with EPA's offices that are working on public access issues.

National Association Of Home Builders: We now add to that list the prospect of more effective Internet based contact lists where members of the public could sign up to be contacted on various issues and be able to amend the contact information to keep it accurate and up to date. These improved databases would ensure better notice and the opportunity to participate in EPA regulatory activities. Response: EPA appreciates the comment. EPA has considered the use of such a database, however, it has not been implemented because issues of security and the requirements of the Privacy Act constrain such efforts.

New York State Department of Health, Center for Environmental Health: EPA's Response to Comments on the 2000 Draft Public Involvement Policy 72 Ensure that public announcements are available on the Internet as well as distributed by the press. If you are working with a community that has hearing or visually impaired people, develop an e mail mailing list, and include additional assistance, if necessary, for those who may not easily understand announcement content. Response: EPA agrees that the Agency should post public announcements on the EPA web page and send them to the media. EPA also agrees that the Agency should attempt to ensure that the interested and affected public have access to and understand the information, subject to EPA's budgetary constraints.

Create Electronic Docket for Documents Environmental Defense: EPA should also improve its Internet docket. For example, the Department of Transportation's Dockets are all available via a search engine. Instead, EPA's dockets are not all available online and require people to either travel to Washington, DC or to request for them to be mailed to them. Having the documents available online can save EPA and the public time and resources. Response: In April, 2002, EPA launched the EPA Docket System ( EDOCKET). This is an online regulatory and non regulatory tracking system that allows users to search for docket information, as well as allowing on line public comment. For more information about EDOCKET please visit http:// cascade. epa. gov/ RightSite/ dk_ public_ home. htm Iowa Department of Natural Resources, Water Supply Section: Any government document referred to in a rule should be available on the Internet for easy access. Response: EPA agrees that important background documents should be available on EPA's web page, and has added new language in the " Provide information and outreach" section of the Policy ( new language in bold italics): " Publications, fact sheets, technical summaries, bibliographies, resource guides, relevant supporting documents and other printed and electronic materials which may be made available through the mail, on the EPA web site and at information depositories..."

Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, Policy Office: DEP suggests that EPA emphasize electronic access to documents and decisions as the preferred method for publicizing information and accepting comment. DEP encourages EPA to update the policy to emphasize and centralize electronic access to all proposals open for comment. Response: EPA agrees that the Agency should increase electronic access to documents and decisions. However, the suggestion to centralize electronic access to proposals is outside the scope of the Policy. This comment was referred to the Office of Environmental Information. The new EPA Docket System ( EDOCKET), launched by EPA in April, 2002, allows the public to view and comment on environmental policy development, as well as other key Agency decisionmaking processes.

TRI TAC: The Draft Policy specifically refers to " Depositories or dockets" as central collections of documents, reports, studies, plans, etc. It also states that these should be located in places that EPA's Response to Comments on the 2000 Draft Public Involvement Policy 73 are convenient to the public and suggests using " electronic depositories that take advantage of the Internet to reach directly into homes, libraries, and other facilities throughout a community and across the nation." Tri TAC strongly endorses this approach, and also encourages EPA to post publicly submitted comments along with other relevant documents. Although not all documents are submitted to EPA in electronic format, those that are should be placed on the Internet for easier access. EPA may want to encourage interested parties to submit comments in acceptable electronic formats for wider accessibility. Response: EPA agrees that the Agency should enhance electronic access to information, and is making more of its documents available on the Web and including URLs in its public notices. This comment was shared with the EPA Office of Environmental Information, EPA's Office of Public Affairs and with the Office of Regulatory Management. The Office of Environmental Information ( OEI), in partnership with various EPA Programs, has launched a new electronic docket system ( EPA Dockets  EDOCKET). EDOCKET allows public participation through two methods: tracking of regulatory development, and the opportunity to submit comments directly to EPA via the web. EDOCKET will hold all public comments, whether submitted by email or regular mail, and makes them available on line. For more information about EDOCKET please visit http:// cascade. epa. gov/ RightSite/ dk_ public_ home. htm Guild Law Center and Michigan Environmental Justice Coalition: The Draft Policy envisions making these [ technical] documents available at central repositories or through the mail. However, given the wide availability of Internet access, the GLC and the MEJC recommend that the EPA set a default policy that all documents available at " information depositories" or through the mail should also be made available on line; EPA officials should be required to justify any decision not to create an electronic document repository. Response: EPA agrees that the Agency should make greater use of electronic depositories. The Policy's section on " Provide information and outreach to the public" recommends that " Agency officials are encouraged to determine the accessibility to the interested public and feasibility of electronic repositories that take advantage of the Internet to reach directly into homes, libraries and other facilities throughout a community and across the nation." This comment was shared with the Office of Environmental Information, which develops internal Agency Web and information product guidance. This comment was shared with the Office of Environmental Information, which developed EPA's Public Access Strategy. Electronic access is necessary and is quickly becoming the way EPA does business. However, EPA does not have the resources to locate all past publications and make them available on the Web.

California Association of Resource Conservation Districts: I must commend you, however, for having the proposed policy available on the web. All proposed policies should be published on the web; today the average person has no true access to libraries, water districts or city hall, at least in California. We are computer literate out here believe electronic communication is vital to adequate outreach efforts. Response: EPA agrees that the Agency should post proposed policies that are open for public comment on the EPA web page. The Policy recommends using a variety of methods to ensure EPA's Response to Comments on the 2000 Draft Public Involvement Policy 74 that the interested public has access to information, including both electronic and traditional methods to accommodate those without access to the Internet.

Address Digital Divide Limitations National Environmental Justice Advisory Committee, Enforcement Subcommittee: There is a danger of creating an over dependence on technology to reach the public  for example, depending on the web site as a means of getting out information about opportunities for public participation. Most communities that I work with do not own computers or have access to a library with such resources, placing them at a disadvantage when it comes to information gathering and utilizing databases such as the TRI. Keep this in mind when putting a substantial amount of resources into web site and links [ and the document notes the reality of the " digital divide"].

Sierra Club, Committee on Environmental Justice: ... the Sierra Club recognizes the power and convenience and possibilities for participation presented by the Internet, but we believe that until the issue of the " digital divide" relating to Internet access in poor communities is resolved, the Internet cannot substitute for more rigorous and traditional forms of outreach and participation.

Delaware Nature Society: The Society applauds the Agency's recognition that the Federal Register and legal notices are not enough to alert the public of EPA actions/ activities. For those members of the public that are technically aware, the EPA website will continue to provide much information. However, for those technologically challenged, efforts to inform the public beyond the website are needed and appreciated. Response to above three comments: EPA agrees that it should make information available to people who do not have electronic access. The Policy recommends using a variety of methods to ensure that the interested public has access to information, including both electronic and traditional methods to accommodate those without access to the Internet.

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources: ... posting documents on the web can save substantial printing and copying costs, however, only 50% of the population has access to the web. The draft policy recognizes that Internet availability should not be a " substitute for public access to the complete documents." However, it does not give guidance on how much agencies can rely on the Internet for distributing materials. It would be helpful to have further guidance on how should agencies address the limitations of web access in a way that is efficient and cost effective for all parties. Response: This comment is outside of the scope of the Policy. It was shared with the Office of Environmental Information, which develops internal Agency Web and information product guidance.

IMPROVE CONTENT OF OUTREACH MATERIALS Include More Information in EPA Meeting Notices Environmental Defense: EPA's Response to Comments on the 2000 Draft Public Involvement Policy 75 Advertisements should also have alternative contact information for people who cannot attend the meetings. Response: EPA agrees that advertisements should contain contact information. The Policy contains the following language in the " Provide information and outreach to the public" section that describes recommended content of outreach materials: " The name and contact information ( address, e mail address, telephone and telefax numbers) to reach EPA staff for further information". EPA will seek to include this suggestion in public involvement training for EPA staff.

Minnesota Pollution Control Agency: The MPCA has experienced difficulty participating in EPA sponsored meetings due to poor advance notice and poor communication about meeting details. The Policy should direct EPA to provide clear, advance notices when inviting guests to meetings.... The invitation should clearly say who is invited and why, meeting details and agenda, availability of funding for travel, when attendees are expected to arrive and leave, and where to stay. Response: EPA agrees that the Agency should provide clear advance notice of public meetings. The " Conduct public consultation and involvement activities" section of the Policy recommends that " Agency officials should provide early advance notice of public involvement processes..." EPA will seek to address these concerns in public involvement training materials for EPA staff.

Include Key Issues of Interest to the Public in Outreach Materials Shoshone Natural Resources Coalition: The EPA can improve involvement opportunities for minority, low income and the under served population through early awareness and simplified explanations. Often times the general public is unaware of the potential effects the decisions made by the EPA will have on their community. These potential effects need to be expressed when meeting notices are announced. This needs to be done through all available options including newspapers, radio, flyers etc. If more of the general public were aware of what could happen to the community, they would show a greater interest in being involved. They need to know how these decisions will affect them personally. Response: EPA agrees that outreach materials should contain information on potential effects when possible. The Policy's " Provide information and outreach to the public" recommends in section " c. Content:" that outreach materials contain information on the " social, economic, and environmental consequences of proposed decisions and alternatives" as well as other background and summary information. This section also outlines many suggested methods for ensuring that the information reaches the public, including those suggested in the comment.

Iowa Department of Natural Resources, Water Supply Section: We have found through several years of public participation efforts in the drinking water program that unless there is a significant fee issue or contamination problem that affects the general public, there will be little public participation from the general public, regardless of socioeconomic status. ... The public must first perceive that there is a problem that directly affects them, over which they may have some control if they do make the effort to comment, before that effort will be made. EPA's Response to Comments on the 2000 Draft Public Involvement Policy 76 Response: EPA agrees that outreach materials should encourage public involvement. The Policy's section on " Provide information and outreach to the public" suggests in " c. Content" that EPA clearly describe the issue, including information in the above response, and also suggests that EPA provide " Specific encouragement to stimulate active involvement by the public, including describing the nature of its influence, roles and potential impact on the decisions."

Citizen # 10: There should be materials available aimed at ordinary people, discussing key environmental issues, not just for scientists or politicians, and the policy of involving the public should be consistent throughout the agency. I believe that an educated public will be your best ally. Response: EPA agrees that outreach materials should be understandable to the public. The Policy's section on " Provide information and outreach to the public" suggests that EPA " Summarize complex technical materials for the public" and " Provide policy, program, and technical information to the affected public and interested parties at the earliest practicable times, to enable those potentially affected or interested persons to make informed and constructive contributions to decision making". One of the purposes of the Policy is to " Establish clear and effective guidance for conducting public involvement activities in EPA's decision making processes."