RECOMMENDATIONS  ADVISORY COMMITTEES Distinguish Military Convened Advisory Boards from EPA Advisory Boards Washington State Department of Ecology, Toxics Cleanup Program: Restoration Advisory Boards for Federal Facilities are called together by the federal facility  usually with EPA and the state the Federal Facility resides in. The Federal Facility is required to follow the IRP ( Installation Restoration Plan), which requires it to follow CERCLA. It seems these advisory boards may not be required to follow the same guidelines as other advisory boards since the lead agency is the military. However it's not clear. Is it worth noting that advisory boards that provide advice to EPA but are not called together primarily by EPA exist and are beyond the scope of the requirements for Federal EPA Advisory Committees? Response: The Federal Advisory Committee Act ( FACA) applies to any group established or utilized by the Federal government to obtain advice and recommendations, regardless of which federal agency is the lead agency. It is the responsibility of the lead agency to determine whether FACA applies to the group. EPA intends to ensure that any group providing EPA with advice and recommendations does so in compliance with FACA.

EPA Should Support Evaluation of The Federal Advisory Committee Act International Association for Public Participation: The Federal Advisory Committee Act ( FACA) was enacted with good intentions, but it has proved incomplete as a guide to balancing input, dialogue, participation, accountability, openness, technical analysis, and quality decision making. IAP2 is working with the National Academy for Public Administration to evaluate FACA and recommend amendments to the Congress that will enhance the implementation of the Act for all parties. EPA support in this effort would be welcomed. Response: Changes to the Federal Advisory Committee Act fall outside of the scope of the Policy. This comment has been shared with EPA's Office of Cooperative Environmental Management, which oversees EPA's FACA committees.

Support for Federal Advisory Committees EPA's Response to Comments on the 2000 Draft Public Involvement Policy 114 The Groundwater Foundation: Specifically, we would like to commend the agency for renewing its commitment to the Federal Advisory Committee structure and process. I know that my participation on FACA groups has brought increased depth and effectiveness to Groundwater Foundation programs. One of the greatest benefits is from the relationships this participation builds. These relationships continue to inform and improve our work even after the formal committee work or terms of service are complete. Response: EPA appreciates this comment, and agrees that FACA committees are beneficial in many ways. The Policy recognizes the role of FACAs in the Methods section of Consultation: "... EPA should work to maximize the use of existing institutional resources as vehicles for consultation and involvement processes. The more than twenty EPA Federal Advisory Committees are such an institutional resource. EPA established each of them to provide advice on a different aspect of environmental policy or management. These committees are part of the Executive Branch decision making process and include members who are scientists, public health officials, businessmen, private citizens, and officials at all levels of government. Approximately 1,400 citizens sit on FACA committees, bringing a variety of perspectives and expertise to the environmental consensus building process."

Support for Advisory Groups with Financial Assistance from EPA Guild Law Center and Michigan Environmental Justice Coalition: On the other hand, creation of a citizen advisory group or technical assistance group, particularly where financial assistance is available to purchase or develop expertise on the issue under consideration, can be a powerful tool for a previously unorganized area or an environmental justice community. Response: EPA agrees that advisory groups that are given assistance and that develop expertise can be very effective. The Policy's section on " Consider providing technical or financial assistance" supports this suggestion.

Support for Additional Small Business Panels, Beyond Requirements U. S. House of Representatives, Committee on Small Business ( Rep. Manzullo): The Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act's panel process provides an already existing tool to obtain small entity input. I strongly urge that EPA modify its public participation policy by voluntarily utilizing the panel process even if the agency determines that it is not directly regulating small entities. EPA voluntarily should ignore the D. C. Circuit rulings that approve its certification of regulations that only affect states. Instead, EPA should assume that such regulations will have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, perform an initial regulatory flexibility analysis, and convene a panel to obtain the input of potentially affected small entities. Response: EPA appreciates the comment, but does not agree that it should expand the use of the Small Business Advocacy Review Panel ( the Panel) process to obtain small entity input on rules not subject to the Regulatory Flexibility Act as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act ( SBREFA). Over the history of the SBREFA program EPA has convened roughly five Panels a year. In some cases, the Agency could have certified the rule as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act ( RFA) but chose to convene a Panel because certain characteristics of the rule rendered the Panel procedure advisable as a matter of policy judgment. To avoid EPA's Response to Comments on the 2000 Draft Public Involvement Policy 115 unnecessary delay and expense, EPA reserves the use of Panels to those relatively few cases in which they are either required by the RFA, or similarly advisable for policy reasons. To supplement the Panel process, EPA manages its rulemaking procedures under the so called " Any/ Any" policy, which calls for outreach regarding the analysis of small business issues in any rule that imposes any burden on small businesses subject to the rule. EPA believes this policy encourages reasonable flexibility for small businesses, while reserving the full Panel process for those few rules that warrant the substantial time and expense required to plan and support the Panel process.

The comment also suggests that EPA " should ignore" D. C. Circuit rulings upholding EPA certifications of rules that do not directly impose any regulatory requirements on small entities. EPA does not believe that it would be appropriate to ignore these rulings. Regulations issued pursuant to the Clean Air Act require the States to fashion regulatory programs that will meet ambient air standards rather than impose requirements on small entities. Given that these rules do not establish requirements applicable to small entities, they do not afford an opportunity for EPA to consider or fashion regulatory alternatives for small entities. Notwithstanding these difficulties and consistent with EPA's policy to minimize burdens on small entities to the extent feasible, EPA has attempted to address potential small entity concerns in the context of these rules by working with small entity representatives and States to provide information and guidance on how States could address small entity concerns. For example, EPA convened outreach meetings modeled on the Panel process to solicit small entities' concerns with EPA's proposed standards and to convey those concerns to the States. EPA also has undertaken a number of activities to encourage States to be sensitive to small entity impacts as they develop and implement their regulatory programs.

FACILITATORS/ ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION Use Neutral Facilitators Harvey M. Sheldon, P. C: I do think the Policy should explicitly indicate that EPA will undertake the use of neutral facilitators on specific projects where there may be benefit from attempting to define and refine the concerns of various constituencies on an issue early on. The result could be a specific suggestion to the EPA of a preferred approach or regulation that respects the needs of a diverse public, including, e. g. business, local government, environmental justice and the environmental action communities. Without such an affirmative program to facilitate development of ideas, EPA will too often be left with the strictures of " notice and comment" procedures... and the better mousetrap will never be invented. Response: The " Conduct public consultation and involvement activities" section of the Policy recommends the use of neutral facilitators or third parties ( new language in bold italics): " Consider the appropriate use of third parties ( neutral facilitators or mediators) in the development and implementation of programs, projects and activities." This section of the Policy also discusses the use of facilitation and Alternative Dispute Resolution, " Facilitation and Alternative Dispute Resolution ( ADR) are tools that the Agency may use to convene and conduct activities or to seek to resolve differences among various stakeholders during information exchange and collaborative processes. For ADR, EPA obtains the services of neutral, trained facilitators and mediators who manage discussions between the Agency and a set of well defined stakeholders. ADR is most effective when there are a few highly involved and informed stakeholder groups who agree to participate in a dialogue through which they raise their concerns and seek to resolve a particular issue EPA's Response to Comments on the 2000 Draft Public Involvement Policy 116 by consensus." Groups that EPA establishes or utilizes to obtain advice and recommendations are subject to the Federal Advisory Committee Act requirements.

Recommend Appropriate Use of Alternative Dispute Resolution Sierra Club, Committee on Environmental Justice: Finally, the Club's other specific comments within this section must include a simple suggestion that ADR should not be a substitute for serious scrutiny and judicial review. Response: The Policy does not consider Alternative Dispute Resolution as a substitute for serious scrutiny and judicial review. In all cases EPA should follow standard administrative procedures through which decisions are subjected to scrutiny by the Agency and the public, and decisions are still potentially subject to judicial review.

Guild Law Center and Michigan Environmental Justice Coalition: For example, alternative dispute resolution (" ADR") may be appropriate where the agency is considering issuing a permit or approving a remediation plan in a community that is active and has already organized itself around and informed itself about the proposed action; ADR would not be appropriate where the community has only recently learned of the environmental issue being considered, is split on the appropriate resolution of the issue or is simply not organized. Response: EPA agrees the Agency should use alternative dispute resolution only in appropriate situations, and will strive to include such considerations in public involvement training for EPA staff.

Support Use of Alternative Dispute Resolution St. Regis Mohawk Tribe, Environment Division: One of the more important tools included in the draft policy was ADR. In my experience, ADR can create and maintain a dialogue between parties who disagree on a controversial issue. It can also cut down on courts costs and be a quicker instrument in reaching consensus, or at the least, understanding of the other sides' perspectives. Response: EPA agrees that the use of alternative dispute resolution can promote dialogue and understanding, reduce court costs and result in general agreement.

Don't Overemphasize Alternative Dispute Resolution Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources: ... under Methods ( p. 82341 82342), why has EPA put alternative dispute resolution ( ADR) up front? Public involvement strives to avoid entrenched disputes through early involvement of all interests. ADR is one method of getting to agreements and should appear in the list of agreement activities ( bottom of column one on p. 82342) as one consultation technique as opposed to being highlighted in the beginning of the methods discussion.

International Association for Public Participation: We are perplexed that your discussion of public consultation and involvement methods begins with Alternative Dispute Resolution. While ADR and its techniques can be useful in policy development or conflict resolution, it is not the same as public participation nor is it sufficient. In fact, many processes such as regulatory negotiation and policy dialogues, while extremely valuable in the right context, do not normally involve " the public" at all. They are representative collaborative processes that are seldom utilized. ( Many would argue that they should be used EPA's Response to Comments on the 2000 Draft Public Involvement Policy 117 more!) The placement of the paragraph on ADR in your Policy should be changed in recognition that it is a policy about public participation, not ADR. Response to above two comments: EPA agrees, and changed that section of the Policy to indicate that ADR is clearly one tool among many that EPA may use.

AGREEMENT  CONSENSUS DECISION MAKING Use Existing Consensus Based Projects as Public Involvement Baseline Environmental Defense: Consensus building is more likely to occur in local projects because all the sectors and stakeholders can feel the direct impacts of the decision and outcomes. EPA should look at its existing consensus based projects, which can be used as a baseline for developing public participation activities. Response: Such a baseline study is outlined in EPA's evaluation strategy presented in the Agency's Framework for Implementing EPA's Public Involvement Policy, released in conjunction with the Policy. See http:// www. epa. gov/ publicinvolvement/ framework. pdf to view the document.

Clarify Binding Nature of Consensus Agreements Sierra Club, Committee on Environmental Justice: Some governmental stakeholder processes move towards achieving consensus and the agreements made among the stakeholders at the table may produce binding interim guidance, final guidance, or draft rules or regulations to be proposed by the agency for formal adoption as long as they conform with statutory requirements. The binding nature of the negotiated agreements made at the table must be clear to all participants. Response: The operating ground rules of Negotiated Rulemaking Committees and Policy Dialogue Committees have a section which discusses ( 1) the way decisions will be made ( consensus, voting etc), and ( 2) the promises ( if any) that EPA makes with regard to use of the results of the negotiation, ( 3) the promises ( if any) that the outside public members make with regard to support of the results of the negotiation ( what the agency expects of the parties to the negotiation with regard to signing an agreement, with regard to commenting on a regulation or filing lawsuits on a regulation.) For a discussion of groundrules, see " Best Practices for Government Agencies: Guidelines for Using Collaborative Agreement Seeking Processes," 1997, Association for Conflict Resolution, Washington, DC. ( Appendix 3) ( now available on their website at http:// www. acresolution. org/ research. nsf/ articles/ 83896A1F61068A6B85256B73005D9954 .

Facilitators and agency representatives at the table discuss what is and is not possible. All of the members of the committee discuss and approve the ground rules before starting the negotiations. It is not unusual for members of a committee to seek clarification of the ground rules as the committee approaches completion of its work.

The Policy's " Conduct public consultation and involvement activities" section recommends that EPA clarify the following ( new language 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 EPA's Response to Comments on the 2000 Draft Public Involvement Policy 118 and type of feedback that EPA will provide." If possible, the public should be involved in determining the design of the processes." In step 5, Consultation, the Policy states under the purposes of Agreement processes: " To reach a mutually acceptable decision between EPA and selected stakeholder representatives, in a written agreement. In some cases, such agreements are not legally enforceable, but do represent a good faith commitment by EPA and the other parties."

Support Collaborative Methods for Land Use Decisions Michigan Environmental Council: Especially in the area of land use decision making, we feel that the agency should adopt more collaborative methods for securing public input. Citizens should be directly involved in evaluating the problems as well as formulating creative solutions. This should reach beyond traditional hearings and meetings, providing competing interests  for example developers and environmentalists  the opportunity to deepen their mutual understanding. Often collaborative methods result in win win solutions where the interests of each party are substantively addressed. Response: EPA agrees that collaborative methods can be very effective, and the Policy supports these ideas.

Science in Decisions and Peer Review Idaho Cattle Association: ICA supports decisions based upon sound science and not a " one size fits all" approach to implementing regulations.

National Cattlemen's Beef Association: NCBA supports decisions based upon sound science and not a " one size fits all" approach to implementing regulations.

American Chemistry Council: Consideration of Scientific Information. In EPA's September 2000 Strategic Plan, the Agency notes: " Science is the foundation that supports all of EPA's work, providing us with knowledge and technologies to detect, abate, and avoid environmental problems."( p7) As the Agency increasingly relies on science as the foundation of its decisions, the question of how best to make sure science is sufficiently represented in stakeholder processes has emerged as a vital issue. Recognizing this fact, EPA's Science Advisory Board ( SAB) last year initiated an evaluation of how best to promote " a full and careful consideration of all available science" in stakeholder based environmental decisions. We strongly urge EPA to address in the draft policy the need for assuring the use of scientific information, underscoring the fundamental place of science in EPA decision making. As noted by the SAB in its Oct. 7, 1999, letter to then Administrator Carol Browner, the concept of the general public interest " lies at the heart of many of our most cherished democratic institutions," and the Agency would best serve this interest when it carefully considers all available science as well as addressing stakeholder needs and interests. We strongly second this SAB position, and urge the Office of Policy, Economics, and Innovation to incorporate both the Oct. 7 letter and any SAB findings on the subject in its final policy. The Public Involvement Policy should clearly describe the importance of credible scientific information in Agency deliberations and provide the best guidance possible on how to ensure that such science plays EPA's Response to Comments on the 2000 Draft Public Involvement Policy 119 an appropriate role in stakeholder involvement processes. The Council fully understands that uncertainty will always be part of the scientific process and that science alone cannot provide definitive, unambiguous answers to the complex decisions EPA faces. Nevertheless, as the Agency itself has indicated in its Strategic Plan, and as Congress has recognized in numerous environmental statutes, scientific information is an indispensable foundation for defining environmental problems and crafting effective solutions. Scientific uncertainty cannot be eliminated from many Agency decisions, but it should not be an excuse either for needless delays in addressing real problems or for overly hasty ( as well as costly and misdirected) regulatory actions motivated by what former EPA Administrator William Reilly characterized as a " Ready, Fire, Aim" mentality. Addressing scientific uncertainty, and diligently working to reduce it through research and the use of all available data, must be a central component of Agency decision making. Informing stakeholders as accurately as possible about what the Agency knows, does not know, and assumes in the face of limited data must be central to its public outreach efforts... The Agency must strictly adhere to a policy of using the best available science in its decision making. Science reflects society's best understanding of how the world is   not how some wish it to be. Response to above three comments: The Public Involvement Policy is not the appropriate vehicle for addressing the Agency's use of sound science in its deliberations. However, EPA agrees public participants should have full access to and understanding of the relevant scientific issues that are integral to EPA's decision making. Please see the following new language in the Policy ( in bold italics): 1. In the " Plan and budget for public involvement" section: " Opportunities that help participants gain an adequate understanding of relevant scientific, financial and technical information relevant to the decision". 2. In the section on " Provide information and outreach to the public: " To the extent practicable, develop information and educational programs so that all levels of government and the public have an opportunity to become familiar with the issues, technical data and relevant science behind the issues". 3. In the section on " Conduct public consultation and involvement activities: " 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".

Consultants in Toxicology, Risk Assessment and Product Safety: EPA needs to decide whether the external scientific community is part of the " public" and what role the external scientific community should play in developing science based regulations and policies. Unless EPA wants to pretend that Agency scientists can credibly review their own work products, external peer review of these products seems advisable. EPA occasionally uses its own Science Advisory Board ( SAB) or panels of the National Research Council to obtain peer reviews, while independently soliciting public comments. CTRAPS agrees that this practice is worthwhile. Some consider it essential. ( See the National Environmental Policy Institute's Enhancing the Quality of Science in the Regulatory Process, 1998 and Enhancing the Integrity and Transparency of Science in the Regulatory Process, 1996). More recently, EPA has extensively used Agency funded, contractor run peer reviews. CTRAPS disagrees that these Agency funded, contractor run peer reviews are worthwhile. In particular, these reviews are poor substitutes for SAB reviews. EPA's Response to Comments on the 2000 Draft Public Involvement Policy 120 Problems remain, even with Agency organized and controlled peer reviews, namely that EPA controls the selection of the SAB or National Research Council experts who participate, either directly or indirectly. Other scientists, who EPA does not want on its panels, still have opportunities to comment on the same scientific support documents, when EPA allows for public comments. Even so, if a National Research Council or an Agency funded, contractor run peer review does not allow for public participation, public observation, and public access to the documents used in the reviews, external scientists who seek to use the public comment process will face an impediment. While EPA controlled peer reviews are worthwhile, limiting external comments to selected, if highly credentialed, experts seems questionable. So, the Agency should open the review process to any scientist wishing to comment. To do so effectively, EPA needs to develop better ways to notify the scientific community. Few scientists read the Federal Register. While publication there does discharge a legal obligation, the Agency should develop additional communication channels through widely read scientific journals. EPA's peer review process has improved since the 1981 Public Participation Policy. Since June 7, 1994, EPA has had a formal Peer Review Policy, by which Administrator Browner required peer reviews of all scientific work products related to major decisions. In response to Congressional and General Accounting Office prodding, the Agency has extended peer reviews of scientific work products to programs that previously did not understand this process or its desirability. [ See General Accounting Office, Federal Advisory Committee Act: Views of Committee Members and Agencies on Federal Advisory Committee Issues. ( GAO/ GGD 98 147) Washington, DC ( 1998)]. EPA officials less frequently confuse notice and comment with scientific peer review. The Office of Research and Development ( ORD) now provides a mechanism for Agency wide coordination, oversight and planning of peer reviews. ORD's Science Policy Council has generated a Peer Review Handbook, which provides guidance to Agency officials... EPA needs to decide whether meetings with external scientific experts for purposes of soliciting advice ( peer reviews) fall within the scope of the Federal Advisory Committee Act ( FACA) and whether FACA meetings improve public participation. If so, the Agency needs to seek reversal of a Clinton administration policy that limited the number of FACA meetings each year... Both President Bush and Administrator Whitman have recently called for more emphasis on sound science in federal regulations and policies. CTRAPS strongly supports this call. [ See Daniel M. Byrd and C. Richard Cothern, Introduction to Risk Analysis: A Systematic Approach to Science Based Decision Making. ( ISBN 0 86587 696 7) Government Institutes, Dallas, TX ( 2000)]. However, for it to succeed, EPA must engage the external scientific community through the public comment process, apply FACA to meetings with external scientists, and use normative scientific procedures of peer review and communication. In particular, EPA staff must explain to President Bush and Administrator Whitman that they need to overturn Clinton administration policies to improve participation of the external scientific community in peer reviews... Response: Comments relating to the use of sound science and peer review are outside of the scope of the Policy except as noted in the previous response. These comments were shared with the Science Advisory Board, the EPA Office of Research and Development, and the EPA Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water. The Policy's definition of " the public" includes scientific and professional representatives and societies; as well as research, university, education, and governmental organizations and associations. As also noted in the Policy's " Identify the interested and affected public" section, EPA uses mailing lists of interested members of the public as a means of reaching people and supplementing Federal Register EPA's Response to Comments on the 2000 Draft Public Involvement Policy 121 notices.

American Chemistry Council: As a related matter, we believe that EPA must ensure the integrity of the scientific peer review process as a function that is distinct from stakeholder involvement processes. As the name suggests, peer review is a process whereby those with technical expertise critique the technical soundness of scientific analysis and conclusions. While public comments are an established part of scientific advisory board deliberations, the technical quality of comments and review is the focus of scientific peer review and should remain so. Council members were disturbed by a Nov. 1 2, 2000, SAB meeting during which activist stakeholders sought to intimidate dioxin peer review panelists by taking their photographs and holding up accusatory signs when panelists tried to speak. While some might characterize this incident as a " mild disturbance" brought on by a stakeholder group exercising its right to protest, the Council regards it as an inappropriate attempt to intimidate and disrupt scientists conducting peer review. A sound public involvement process must ensure that all participants can make their case without intimidation, and a sound peer review process must ensure that science   not the protest activities of ideologues   is the final arbiter of whether a scientific conclusion is technically well founded or not. Whether in a stakeholder process or a peer review process, basic ground rules of respect for others' rights to express their views must be observed, and those ground rules should be explicitly articulated in the Agency's draft policy. Response: The peer review process is not within the scope of the Policy. EPA, however, agrees that during any public participation process participants should be able to state their concerns, views, etc. without intimidation. The Policy supports this position and encourages EPA staff to develop and use procedures that allow everyone an equal opportunity to participate. See the above two responses.

Improve Data Quality/ Implement New Requirements National Association Of Home Builders: In addition, NAHB recommends that EPA endeavor to make data more accessible to the public at large. For example, EPA should ensure that highly technical data are presented in understandable form so that the broadest possible public involvement in regulatory decision making is allowed. Impediments to data access such as the inadequate explanation of background and technical materials, inadequate meeting summaries, and overwhelming amounts of reading materials should also be minimized in order to maximize public participation and reduce frustration in the process.

National Association Of Home Builders: EPA Must Ensure Data Quality, Access, and Credibility. Data quality, access, and credibility are the cornerstones of public trust for EPA actions, and no amount of public involvement will overcome a perception that a given regulation is based on deficient science or faulty technical analysis. Congress recently enacted a new data quality law that will bolster the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 by adding new data quality requirements on EPA. Under the new data quality provisions, EPA will be required to promulgate regulations that define data " quality," " objectivity," " utility," and " integrity" as well to set thresholds on how information can be used and disseminated. NAHB believes this new data quality requirement will have a significant impact on public participation and recommends that EPA takes this upcoming process very seriously. NAHB believes this will be a significant opportunity to improve regulatory process and instill EPA's Response to Comments on the 2000 Draft Public Involvement Policy 122 confidence in the credibility of data being used as the foundation of governmental regulation. Response to above two comments: EPA agrees with the commenter's assertion that there is a relationship between public participation and information quality. EPA recently finalized Guidelines for Ensuring and Maximizing the Quality, Objectivity, Utility, and Integrity of Information Disseminated by the Environmental Protection Agency http:// www. epa. gov/ oei/ qualityguidelines/. The Guidelines articulate the Agency's policy and procedural guidance for ensuring quality and hearing from the public about the quality of information disseminated by EPA.

10. FUNCTION ( NOW STEP) 6. REVIEW AND USE INPUT, AND PROVIDE FEEDBACK TO THE PUBLIC WEIGHT GIVEN TO STAKEHOLDER INPUT Public Should be Equal Stakeholder in Decisions ACES, Inc.: The importance of including the public as an equal stockholder in discussing environmental matters is not only fundamentally sound, but vital to obtaining satisfactory and common sense solutions.

CLEANUP: The only technique we would recommend to create public involvement in agency decisions is; to treat concerned citizens with as much respect and interest as EPA gives a polluting entity.

Association of State Drinking Water Administrators: Some stakeholder groups may not reflect the interests of the public at large. Their agendas for change may advocate a much narrower perspective. The Federal program for public involvement seems to provide these groups with a disproportionate voice in the development of new regulations.

Environmental Defense: The Agency needs to ensure that it pays equal attention to all comments, and not to let only the loudest or best connected interests guide its decisions. Response to above four comments: EPA agrees that public input is vitally important to good decision making, and the Policy supports fairness and equal access. The " What Are the Purposes, Goals and Objectives of This Policy" section of the Policy states: " foster, to the extent possible, equal and open access to the regulatory process for all interested and affected parties" and strive to: identify, communicate with and listen to all affected sectors of the public ( Agency officials should plan and conduct public involvement activities that provide equal opportunity for all individuals and groups to be heard". One overarching goal of the Policy is: " To foster a spirit of mutual trust, confidence, and openness between the Agency and the public." EPA intends to reinforce this issue in public involvement training for EPA staff.

Give Greater Weight to State Input Association of State Drinking Water Administrators: ASDWA recommends that the proposed policy expand on the definition of " public" to reflect the EPA's Response to Comments on the 2000 Draft Public Involvement Policy 123 unique role of state governments and to correct the missperception that state input into the regulatory decision making process carries no greater weight or value than other interested parties. Response: EPA agrees that the Policy needs to clarify the role of state governments and their input into the regulatory decision making process. See new language in " What are the Roles of States, Tribes and Local Governments?" This section states: " State agencies, tribes and some local governments have unique roles regarding EPA's programs and decisions: 1. State agencies, tribes and some local governments may be co regulators with EPA. In some cases, they implement authorized, approved or delegated Federal programs. In other cases, they run independent, but closely related programs. In both cases they work closely with EPA as regulatory partners. In addition, they may have expertise that can be valuable to EPA in designing public involvement activities. 2. State agencies, tribes and local governments also may be regulated parties when they undertake activities that are subject to Federal laws and regulations. As regulated parties, they are also members of the community of regulated stakeholders. 3. Whether they are partners helping EPA implement a program or members of the regulated community affected by EPA regulations, state agencies, tribes and local governments often play an active role in making recommendations on policy, rules, plans and recommendations under development, and providing input on EPA's decisions."

Give Greater Weight to Environmental and Public Health Advocates' Input Golden Gate University, Environmental Law and Justice Clinic: Therefore it would seem that those members of the public that are advocating on behalf of the environment and public health concerns, should receive increased deference, even as the EPA " remain[ s] open to all points of view." Response: EPA disagrees. The Policy promotes equal access and opportunity for involvement. For instance, in the " What Are the Purposes, Goals and Objectives of the Policy?" section, the Policy states:" foster, to the extent possible, equal and open access to the regulatory process for all interested and affected parties" and strive to: identify, communicate with and listen to all affected sectors of the public ( Agency officials should plan and conduct public involvement activities that provide equal opportunity for all individuals and groups to be heard".

Give Appropriate Weight to Trade Associations' Input Idaho Cattle Association: The Agency should give appropriate weight to comments from trade associations like ICA and NCBA that represent affected individuals. Response: EPA agrees that all comments should be given appropriate consideration. However, EPA does not believe that more weight should be given to comments of particular groups.

FEEDBACK TO PARTICIPANTS Explain EPA's Final Decisions to Commenters Los Angeles County Sanitation District: EPA's Response to Comments on the 2000 Draft Public Involvement Policy 124 In particular we believe that a follow up conference call should be scheduled by the staff or EPA consultants in the situation where detailed comment letters have been prepared. During this conference call, EPA should state the issue as they believe it is framed in the comment letter and then describe the agency's logic in developing decisions, explaining the effect the comments had on the Agency's decision and why the Agency either accepted, or rejected all or part of the proposal or position. Response: Because of the volume of comments that EPA generally receives on its proposals, EPA does not respond to each one individually. However, the suggestion to consider follow up with those providing detailed comments can be included as a recommendation in EPA's best practices data base and public involvement training. See new language in the Policy's " Conduct public consultation and involvement activities" section ( new language 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."

U. S. Department of Interior, Office of Surface Mining: On page 82338 of the draft document, EPA lists six basic functions for effective public involvement in any decision or activity, including the need to " assimilate information and provide feedback to the public." Then, on page 82343, EPA describes the key elements of good agency summaries of public participation. Elsewhere in the document, EPA refers to the importance of sound agency analyses. EPA may want to consider linking references to sound analytical methods with the importance of using good science in evaluating information and providing feedback to the public. Such an approach helps to validate agency determinations about the effect of a proposed action on public health or environmental quality. Response: EPA appreciates this suggestion. See new language in the Policy's " Review and use input, and provide feedback to the public" section ( new language in bold italics): " Gathering and using public viewpoints and preferences involves examining and analyzing public input in relation to scientific and other information relevant to the decision, considering if and how to incorporate that input into final program decisions, and carefully considering public views when making or modifying decisions."

Association of State Drinking Water Administrators: Later, EPA should get back to the community ( both people who solicited comments and the public at large) explaining how the public comments affected the policy or project and how it is helping to improve the ( local) environment. The feedback should be widely accessible ( via newspapers, radio, letters) and easy to understand, and can also include action items and meeting minutes. If it is clear that the public's feedback is having a real impact, the community will be more likely to continue to participate in other environmental activities. Response: EPA agrees that the Agency should explain how the public's input affected its decision. In the " Review and use input, and provide feedback to the public" section, see new language ( in bold italics): " Agency officials should briefly and clearly document consideration of the public's views in responsiveness summaries, regulatory preambles, environmental impact statements or other appropriate documents. This should occur at key decision points." Following this section are a number of specific actions that should be included in any responses. EPA will strive to include the additional suggestions in the comment in public involvement EPA's Response to Comments on the 2000 Draft Public Involvement Policy 125 training and a best practices data base for EPA staff.

California Department of Toxic Substance Control: One of the most challenging areas in the public involvement is including public input into the final decision by agency staff. It is valuable when the public understands the weight that public comment has on agency decisions, and we encourage efforts to make response to comments documents a useful communications tool with our communities, clearly demonstrating where public comment had ( or did not have) an impact on a decision. Response: EPA agrees that response to comments documents should be useful communication tools that describe the effects of the comments on the decision. The Policy supports these ideas in the section, " Review and use input, and provide feedback to the public" which describes information that should be contained in Responsiveness Summaries and other feedback documents. EPA will strive to include discussions on providing feedback in public involvement training for EPA staff.

Sierra Club, Committee on Environmental Justice: ... this section is very important to successful continuing public participation. In most cases, the public hearing process is a bureaucratic affair, with the purpose only to get the miscellany of comments on record according to the statutory requirements with responses, if any, coming well after the fact. As this section recognizes, it is important that the agency address the public's comments directly, explaining the agency's logic, explaining how the decision was reached, what role the public comments played, and why public comments and suggestions were rejected, if indeed they were. Yet it should be clear that assimilating information and providing feedback is not merely an exercise in drafting excuses. The feedback should be honest, clear, and subject to review. More to the point, however, the process should be flexible enough to allow the public to participate in more collaborative decision making. Response: EPA agrees that the Agency should address the public's comments directly and provide clear feedback about how the decision was made. EPA also agrees that providing feedback should not be an " exercise in drafting excuses." In certain cases, as mentioned in the section on " Conduct public consultation and involvement," collaborative decision making is appropriate and effective. EPA will strive to include the above ideas in public involvement training for EPA staff.

International Association for Public Participation: Decision makers should distinguish between agreement with comments from the public and demonstrating an understanding. Feedback that merely says " we don't agree" is not as accountable as feedback that demonstrates an understanding of the person's advice with an explanation of why it was not incorporated. Response: EPA agrees that the Agency's responses should explain why comments were or were not incorporated in the decision. In the " Review and use input, and provide feedback to the public" section, see new language: "" Agency officials should briefly and clearly document consideration of the public's views in responsiveness summaries, regulatory preambles, environmental impact statements or other appropriate documents. This should occur at key decision points." Following this section are a number of specific actions that should be included in any responses.

Provide Feedback to Participants EPA's Response to Comments on the 2000 Draft Public Involvement Policy 126 St. Regis Mohawk Tribe, Environment Division: Other actions that can be imperative in public participation are providing timely feedback to the public. The public can become frustrated when agencies don't get back to them when they've participated in a specific project, study, or have provided comments to a document. Therefore, giving back to the community in terms of study results or results of comments they've provided is a way to keep the public involved in the future. Response: EPA agrees that informing participants about the feedback process and providing feedback is important. The Policy suggests in the " Conduct public consultation and involvement activities" section: " 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. Also see previous response.

University of Michigan  Dearborn, Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory: Many [ Dialogue] participants agreed on the need for continuous feedback and continuous attention to feedback. There seemed to be implicit agreement that EPA needs to pay attention to feedback early in any decision making process, and at least fine tune goals accordingly.

International Association for Public Participation: We applaud your call for accountability in Function Six to " information and provide feedback to the public." As mentioned above, this should be done throughout the policy process and not just at the end. Response to above two comments: EPA agrees in principle with the benefits of providing continuous feedback throughout a decision making process. However, EPA's resource constraints frequently do not allow for this to occur. EPA will seek to include in public involvement training for EPA staff the need to address the public's interest in receiving more frequent feedback.

Citizen # 61: This [ Recommended Actions ( a) under 6. Assimilate information and provide feedback to the public] is an excellent proposal which state cooperators have been promised many times in the past but have never seen in practice even when MOA's, etc. have been signed by both parties. Response: EPA appreciates the comment. The EPA Public Involvement Policy, public involvement training and the best practices data base for EPA staff will provide guidance, training and information that will make it easier for EPA staff to give the public feedback. This comment was shared with EPA's Office of Congressional and Intergovernmental Affairs.

Los Angeles County Sanitation District: LACSD's experience is that EPA's embracing of this goal merits improvement and we welcome the listing of this important outreach program element. We have two significant general comments. LACSD often provides detailed written comments on proposed EPA rulemaking, draft policies and guidance documents. Many times these are lengthy letters and represent a composite of the viewpoints from both the wastewater and solid waste management sides of our organization as well as inputs, at times, from our sister agencies. All of the time however, these comment EPA's Response to Comments on the 2000 Draft Public Involvement Policy 127 letters represent a substantial investment of LACSD staff and Board time because the issues are significant to the ratepayers we serve. For the most part, we do not receive acknowledgment of the receipt of these comments from EPA and most importantly, there is no indication that the contents have been read and understood. While we would like to think that our comment letters are so well written that they require no additional discussion or clarification, in reality we think that this is not always the case and that indeed there are misconceptions and misunderstandings over what is being said. Response: EPA appreciates the comment. Due to time and resource constraints, EPA typically does not send an acknowledgment of receipt of comments, although some programs offer it to commenters who request it. EPA will strive to include suggestions regarding contacting commenters for additional discussion or clarification in public involvement training materials and a best practices data base for EPA staff.

Los Angeles County Sanitation District: In addition, regular e mails, personal letters and a detailed, written Responsiveness Summary should be prepared. These steps allow a commenter to see that it was heard. Unfortunately, the sense of what occurs at EPA during rulemaking, in particular, is that all information goes into a " black hole" so to speak and little or no information seeps out. Response: EPA agrees that detailed Responsiveness Summaries are important. They are prepared routinely. However, because of the volume of comments that EPA generally receives, EPA does not have the time or resources to correspond with commenters during its deliberations.

Describe all Sources that Influenced Decision Guild Law Center and Michigan Environmental Justice Coalition: [ applaud EPA's commitment to] providing a clear explanation of its ultimate decision once those comments are processed... However, we believe that the EPA should go even farther in detailing the reasons for and influences on its decision making process. In particular, we urge the EPA to include informal comments, conversations and meetings with members of the public, industry representatives, outside consultants and permit applicants in its accounting of the influences on and reasons for its final decision. ... want to stress that the EPA should be sure that any explanation of its decisions include an accounting of informal comments or contacts that influenced the outcome, particularly contacts with the regulated community or permit applicant. Failure to do so will create a serious credibility problem. By explaining the relative importance of this informal, pre comment information, the EPA could minimize such problematic perceptions. Thus, if the agency relied most heavily on technical data supplied by a permit applicant or on information that it found independently, its explanation of its decision should include a detailed account of these influences/ bases for decision. Response: It is a long standing policy of EPA to include in the public record new information or data that are likely to affect the decision. This policy was stated in a 1993 memorandum from the EPA Administrator to all employees requesting that " A brief memorandum summarizing any significant new data or information likely to affect the final decision that is received during a meeting or other conversation is placed in the public record." EPA intends to emphasize this EPA's Response to Comments on the 2000 Draft Public Involvement Policy 128 policy through public involvement training for EPA staff.

Explain Background Issues in Responsiveness Summary Minnesota Pollution Control Agency: In the Policy, on FR page 82343, 1st column, ( regarding assimilating information and providing feedback to the public), subitem a, " Recommended actions", there is a list of things EPA should report to the public in a [ public participation] responsiveness summary. The MPCA believes that this list should include a proactive statement of " what action the EPA initially proposed and why EPA determined such an action was needed." Just stating what action was taken and public involvement does not allow readers to adequately understand the scope of influence derived from public involvement. Response: In the " Review and use input, and provide feedback to the public" section, see new language for the content of responsiveness summaries: " Describe briefly the action that EPA initially proposed and why EPA determined such an action was needed." Also note in preceding paragraphs: " The Agency should demonstrate, in its decisions and actions, that it has understood and fully considered public concerns. Finally, the Agency should communicate the decision to the public and discuss how the public's input influenced the final decision."

Respond to All Comments Maryland Department of the Environment, Technical and Regulatory Services Administration: However, we have found, and we suggest to EPA, that the key to the effectiveness of a public involvement strategy is to be most proactive in letting the public know that their comments have been considered, even if the Agency did not agree. MDE often provides detailed comment response documents, addressing comments point by point, and we have found this to be very helpful. The Department does synthesize similar questions, but often attempts to address all of the comments that have been made. When feasible, we suggest that EPA attempt to do the same, particularly with respect to technical comments provided by States and co regulators.

Iowa Department of Natural Resources, Water Supply Section: At the State level, we are required to address every comment made during the public comment period ( written and oral), in a responsiveness summary that is presented with the final rule to the commission that approves the drinking water rules. The summary is also sent to every individual that made the effort to comment. The federal government needs to also present such a summary to those who comment on their rules and policies. We realize that a summary is presented in the preamble of the final rules, but it does not always either satisfactorily address comments that have been made, or address all of the comments that have been made. Response to above two comments: EPA agrees in principle that the Agency ideally should respond substantively to all significant issues addressed in the comments. However, EPA is not required to draft an individual response to every comment, nor are such responses necessary to enable the public, including the commenters, to identify the issues that were considered and EPA's resolution of those issues in making its ultimate decision. In some instances, EPA has responded to all comments in a Response to Comments document. Usually, however, EPA summarizes or categorizes the comments as mentioned in the Policy. How EPA responds to comments may differ due to the requirements of a particular statute, the applicable regulations or the needs of the program office. In the " Review and use input, and provide feedback to the public" section, see " Agency officials should briefly and clearly document consideration of the EPA's Response to Comments on the 2000 Draft Public Involvement Policy 129 public's views in responsiveness summaries, regulatory preambles, environmental impact statements or other appropriate documents. This should occur at key decision points." Also see new language " The Agency should demonstrate, in its decisions and actions, that it has understood and fully considered public concerns. Finally, the Agency should communicate the decision to the public and discuss how the public's input influenced the final decision." Following this section is a list of specific actions that should be included in any responses.

Describe How EPA Will Integrate Public Input in Decisions Kansas Department of Agriculture: The draft policy omits how EPA plans to integrate public input in decision making. The draft seems to pay mere lip service to the integration issue the issue determined by the Common Sense Initiative Council's Stakeholder Involvement Workgroup to be the area of greatest need. In 1998, the workgroup presented its report to EPA and recommended in part, " EPA stakeholder involvement needs to be clearly linked to decision making not simply an end in itself." The draft policy makes only a veiled reference to the integration concept by stating that the sixth step in effective public involvement is " assimilating information." In other words, the draft talks about what EPA needs to do, but not how EPA plans to integrate public input in the decision making process. Response: EPA disagrees that considerable additional details regarding how to integrate public input should be added to the Policy. See above response.

Public Input Should Affect EPA's Decisions Citizens # 13 15, 17, 18, 20 22, 28, 31, 33, 36 38, 40 43, 46, 48 50, 53, 54, 57 ( same comment provided by 25 citizens) I want a public involvement policy that will recognize and respect public's knowledge... The public's contribution should influence the decision. Response: EPA appreciates this comment. The EPA Public Involvement Policy supports the ideas of recognizing and respecting the knowledge that the public can provide, and allowing the public's input to influence the decision: " The Agency should demonstrate, in its decisions and actions, that it has understood and fully considered public concerns. Finally, the Agency should communicate the decision to the public and discuss how the public's input influenced the final decision." EPA will strive to reinforce these issues through public involvement training for EPA staff.

Association of State Drinking Water Administrators: Frequently, the perception exists that submitting comments rarely results in change. Response: EPA appreciates this comment. EPA expects that when the Public Involvement Policy is implemented, that perception will be reduced.

Environmental Defense: People will only be willing to continue participating in Agency decisions if they believe that their ideas are seriously being considered and can have an effect on the outcome. EPA's Response to Comments on the 2000 Draft Public Involvement Policy 130 National Environmental Justice Advisory Committee, Enforcement Subcommittee: Kudos to the workgroup for recognizing the importance of " assimilation of input" [ p. 4]  what must be emphasized is that public participation does not stop at outreach and risk communication. This is one way communication. True participation requires that residents' knowledge and concerns influence the Agency's decisions. If they don't feel they're being heard, the public will cease participating. Response to above two comments: EPA agrees that the Agency should provide feedback that allows people to know that their input is considered and used in EPA's decisions. In step 6, the Public Involvement Policy supports these ideas: " The Agency should demonstrate, in its decisions and actions, that it has understood and fully considered public concerns. Finally, the Agency should communicate the decision to the public and discuss how the public's input influenced the final decision." EPA will strive to reinforce these issues through public involvement training for EPA staff.

Golden Gate University, Environmental Law and Justice Clinic: To foster continued involvement in the public participation process, it is crucial for members of the public to know that the contributions they offer actually make a difference. It is not enough to give citizens a forum to air their grievances, if ultimately their input is not accounted for. The Draft Policy addresses this in section 6, under the heading of What Should EPA do to Ensure Full and Meaningful Public Involvement? It suggests, "[ the Agency should demonstrate in its decision and its actions, that is has understood and fully considered public concerns," and " should communicate the decision and discuss the influence of the public's input in the final decision." It goes on to detail a series of recommendations that if adopted, would effectively inform the public of how their input played into the decision. Nonetheless, there is still an issue as to how heavily the public's influence is actually weighed in the decision making process. Presumably this balancing would occur on a case by case basis, however there are some general concepts that would be helpful to consider. [ EJ considerations follow] Response: See new language in the Policy's " Review and use input, and provide feedback to the public" section, which replaces the Assimilating information language. " Gathering and using public viewpoints and preferences involves examining and analyzing public input in relation to scientific and other information relevant to the decision, considering if and how to incorporate that input into final program decisions, and carefully considering public views when making or modifying decisions. For each decision, EPA officials should attempt to find a balance that enables the Agency to consider both relevant scientific and other information and expressed public values in determining how best to protect the public's health and the environment. The Agency should demonstrate, in its decisions and actions, that it has understood and fully considered public concerns. Finally, the Agency should communicate the decision to the public and discuss how the public's input influenced the final decision." Following this section are a number of specific actions that should be included in any responses to commenters which should provide ample explanation. EPA agrees that the Agency should balance the public's input along with technical and other considerations on a case by case basis.

Iowa Department of Natural Resources, Water Supply Section: There is a perception from the public on State rules and policies, and from the State on federal rules and policies, that there is no point in commenting, because their comments will not result EPA's Response to Comments on the 2000 Draft Public Involvement Policy 131 in any change  so why make the effort. Response: EPA appreciates this comment. EPA expects that when the Public Involvement Policy is implemented, that perception will be reduced.

National Association Of Home Builders: While NAHB generally supports the goals and objectives EPA has laid out in its proposal, such as fostering a spirit of mutual trust and ensuring agency consultation with the public, NAHB seriously doubts the policy will ensure that all interested parties have a meaningful opportunity to participate in EPA decisions. In fact, NAHB routinely finds that its public comments, suggestions, and preferences are not addressed or are ignored in EPA final publications and actions. For instance, while NAHB submitted over 80 pages of comments on EPA's draft Phase II storm water rule, we could find scant evidence that our concerns were considered at all in the final rule.

Citizen # 60: The community wants to feel that their participation bears fruit  that you truly do listen and that there is a positive result because of our input. This is POWER. If people don't see that participation, commenting, protesting, etc., yield some result, they won't become involved, or they will stop whatever involvement they have had. If there's nothing to show for their effort, they won't come back. You have a group here I see all around. They may be losing hope. They must feel they can make a difference. They won't bother if you keep asking for input but then you don't listen or go on with business as usual. Response to above two comments: EPA appreciates this comment. EPA expects that when the Public Involvement Policy is implemented, dissatisfaction with the Agency's decision making and feedback processes should be reduced. EPA will strive to address these issues in public involvement training for EPA staff.

Columbia River Crab Fishermen's Association: The EPA needs to be responsive to public input if public trust is ever to be accomplished. Responsiveness to public input should not be driven by threat of lawsuit. Response: EPA agrees that it is important to be responsive to public input, and the Policy reflects this issue in its sections on " Purposes, goals and objectives" and " Review and use input, and provide feedback to the public."

Share Decision Making with Stakeholders Association of State Drinking Water Administrators: We've learned that real public engagement is not just a matter of more meetings or hearings, but of creating a climate in which the public feels its views are respected. To that end, we urge the Agency to maintain an open process for feedback and a willingness to share decision making with stakeholders. Response: EPA agrees that the Agency should use transparent decision making processes that help build trust and mutual respect. However, the ultimate responsibility for decisions rests with the Agency. See revised language in the " Introduction" section of the Policy ( new language in bold italics): " EPA's mission is to protect human health and the environment. To achieve that mission, EPA needs to integrate, in a meaningful way, the knowledge and opinions of others into its decision making processes. Effective public involvement can both improve the content of the Agency's decisions and enhance the deliberative process." EPA's Response to Comments on the 2000 Draft Public Involvement Policy 132 See also the revised language in step 6, Review and use input, and provide feedback to the public.

Include and Consider all Sectors of the Economy in EPA's Decisions American Chemistry Council: Importance of All Affected Sectors of the Economy Administrator Christine Todd Whitman recently noted that EPA decisions never occur in a vacuum; they affect the nation's agriculture, trade, defense, energy, transportation, urban development, and other interests. These " stakeholder" interests need to be a key part of the Agency's deliberations, and as appropriate the Agency should seek to understand the impacts of its decisions on these sectors. Response: EPA agrees that all stakeholders, including those representing affected sectors of the economy, should have the opportunity to provide input into EPA's decision making process so that EPA decision makers can understand the impact the decision may have on all stakeholders.

11. RESPONSIBILITIES FOR IMPLEMENTING THE POLICY Draft Policy's Description of EPA Management Responsibilities Statements in Support New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services: A section of EPA's policy that is particularly notable, located on page 82343, is the one entitled " Who is responsible for ensuring that the draft policy is applied appropriately?" One can conclude that such assignment of responsibility, set forth in substantial hierarchical detail, will help facilitate the policy's successful implementation. Response: EPA agrees that the Policy's assignment of responsibilities should facilitate successful implementation.

Delaware Nature Society: Accountability is crucial for effective policy implementation. Identifying officials specifically responsible for carrying out the public involvement policies ensures its success. Response: EPA agrees that the identification of the officials responsible for carrying out the Policy should facilitate successful implementation.

Specify Project Managers' Public Involvement Responsibilities City of Phoenix, Arizona, Office of Environmental Programs: The mandate to implement this Policy needs to be at the Project Manager or Section Chief level, as well as the Administrator or Assistant/ Associate Administrator levels. While the Policy indicates that managers " should" ensure that personnel are trained and that adequate public involvement funding needs are addressed ( Page 82343), there are no specific instructions or plan on how that will be done, nor is there a requirement to develop instructions for a plan. While EPA's Response to Comments on the 2000 Draft Public Involvement Policy 133 upper management can " consider resources" to ensure Policy implementation in performance standards, they are not required to ensure that resources are available. The Policy should specify what Project Managers are required to do with respect to public involvement and also specify that this critical duty will be in staff performance standards. Response: This Public Involvement Policy is a guidance document for EPA, not a rule and, therefore, contains no requirements. The Framework for Implementing EPA's Public Involvement Policy, released concurrently with this Policy, lists specific actions EPA intends to take to carry out the Policy. Please see http:// www. epa. gov/ publicinvolvement/ framework. pdf for this document. Regarding responsibilities below the senior EPA levels, see new language in the " Who manages the application of this Policy? section of the Policy: " Managers should encourage and facilitate the proper training, support and counseling of staff, and, recognizing overall budgetary constraints, should plan for and provide adequate funding for training or other needs in their specific budgets." Also see in Appendix 1 Guidance: " Deputy Administrators, Deputy Regional Administrators, Office and Division Directors and other appropriate supervisors: Ensure that they adequately support and recognize the public involvement efforts of their staff."

EPA Administrator Should Ensure Adequate Public Involvement Resources and Staffing Levels Washington State Department of Ecology, Toxics Cleanup Program: In the list of Administrator responsibilities in columns 2 and 3, the addition of ensuring adequate staffing levels is critical.

Iowa Department of Natural Resources, Water Supply Section: Page 82343: Item 1: ".. the Administrator will:" Comment: We suggest a fourth item, " d. dedicate resources to this effort" be added to this list. Without resource commitment from the top administration, it will be difficult to implement any of these ideas. Response to above two comments: EPA agrees that adequate staffing and resources are critical to successful implementation of the Policy. See new language in the " Plan and budget for public involvement activities" section ( new language 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")."

EPA Managers Must Support and Invest in Public Involvement International Association for Public Participation: The policy acknowledges heavy reliance on " the sound use of discretion by Agency officials." Discretion is certainly called for, but it is not sufficient. Desire for good public process must be accompanied by training, mentoring, an explicit reward system, and resources for outside consultation. Too few decision makers or project managers are experts in public participation. EPA's Response to Comments on the 2000 Draft Public Involvement Policy 134 Just as they would not hesitate to obtain outside assistance with legal, financial or scientific questions, the EPA culture must also support excellence and investment in public process. Response: EPA agrees that the Agency should support and invest in effective public involvement processes. The Framework for Implementing EPA's Public Involvement Policy released concurrently with this Policy lists specific actions EPA intends to take to carry out the Policy, including training, mentoring, rewards, and contractor resources. Please see http:// www. epa. gov/ publicinvolvement/ framework. pdf for this document.

Rutgers University, Cook College, Center for Environmental Communication: EPA will need to institutionalize public involvement. For PI to succeed it needs to be incorporated into agency activities, as opposed to implemented largely by a few PI " experts." This will require a great deal of commitment, including funding support, of senior agency administrators. Response: EPA agrees that public involvement should be an integral part of agency activities, and that EPA should to provide funding support for effective public involvement activities. The Policy supports this suggestion in the section on " Who manages the application of this Policy?" that states the leadership of EPA will be: " Encouraging effective public involvement by providing their staff and managers guidance, technical assistance, resources, training and incentives, as appropriate."

EPA Management Must Adopt the Policy and Ensure that Staff Implement It Citizen # 62: I encourage top EPA administrators and management to adopt it [ the Policy} and ensure that all EPA staff follow its tenets, especially those on projects which ADEQ and EPA work closely. Response: The Policy contains guidelines that should be used by all EPA managers and staff. EPA appreciates this comment, and has released its Framework for Implementing EPA's Public Involvement Policy that lists specific actions EPA intends to take to carry out the Policy, including training and evaluation. Please see http:// www. epa. gov/ publicinvolvement/ framework. pdf for this document.

Integrate Public Involvement in All Programs American Chemistry Council: With respect to the question, " Who is responsible for ensuring this draft policy is applied appropriately?" the Council strongly endorses the position that public involvement is an integral part of any program and should not be treated as a separate or subordinate function. Response: EPA agrees that public involvement should be an integral part of the Agency's programs and so states in the Introduction of the Policy: " EPA's mission is to protect human health and the environment. To achieve that mission, EPA needs to integrate, in a meaningful way, the knowledge and opinions of others into its decision making processes. Effective public involvement can both improve the content of the Agency's decisions and enhance the deliberative process." and in the section noted in your comment: " Public involvement should be an integral part of any Agency program, routinely included in decision making processes."

National Environmental Justice Advisory Committee, Enforcement Subcommittee: There is the Agency wide issue of coordination across agency offices/ divisions/ programs, with EPA's Response to Comments on the 2000 Draft Public Involvement Policy 135 some workgroups integrally involved in the charge for greater participation, and others completely unaware of Executive Order 12898 or of the Agency's public participation policy. Involving individuals from the major EPA program offices and regions is a good first step [ as you've done]. It seems key to continue " spreading the word" about the role and methods of inclusion to familiarize EPA employees with your recommendations. Response: EPA agrees that the Agency should continuously " spread the word" about effective public involvement when implementing the Policy. Internal communication, training and sharing best practices that support the Policy are part of the Framework for Implementing EPA's Public Involvement Policy released concurrently with this Policy. Please see http:// www. epa. gov/ publicinvolvement/ framework. pdf for this document.

Draft Policy Contains Too Much Redundant Administrative Reviews and Requirements Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Division of Water Resource Management: The draft Policy provides a perception that the process as a whole is " top heavy" in administrative review and requirements. There are too many responsibilities and layers of administrative review required throughout the document. In addition, to the extent certain responsibilities and review are necessary, they are repeated throughout the document. Overall, this redundancy makes it difficult to clearly see the exact requirements and reviews that are essential for implementing an effective public review. Response: This Public Involvement Policy is not a rule, and therefore does not contain any requirements. While it contains numerous recommendations for conducting public involvement activities, none are required. EPA has restructured the Policy to include details on recommended responsibilities in the Appendix 1 Guidance.

Implement the Policy Shoshone Natural Resources Coalition: This Policy needs to be held up as the way everyone who works for the EPA will treat the public. It must be consistently implemented, conducted and enforced throughout the Agency, starting with the Administrator. There is a high level of emphasis on creating opportunities for public input in this Policy. That needs to be maintained within the Agency. Above all, this Policy should not be used as patronization of the public. It has to be the " mustread document for all Agency employees and the " gospel" for Agency management. Response: EPA appreciates this comment. The Framework for Implementing EPA's Public Involvement Policy released concurrently with this Policy includes training, sharing of public involvement information among EPA staff, and evaluation of EPA public involvement activities. Please see http:// www. epa. gov/ publicinvolvement/ framework. pdf for this document.

National Association Of Home Builders: EPA's public outreach and involvement efforts are not merely some beneficial service that EPA is offering to the public. Rather, this movement is being compelled by a host of Congressional mandates and Executive Orders that stem from deep seated public frustration over the deficiencies of EPA's public involvement process. Appendix I of the Draft Public Involvement Policy contains the extensive list of the Laws, Executive Orders, and Presidential Memoranda which require EPA to conduct public involvement activities. EPA should recognize that these mandates are driven by public frustration over the ineffectiveness and lack of implementation of EPA's Response to Comments on the 2000 Draft Public Involvement Policy 136 EPA's prior policy, and the list will continue to grow unless serious attention is paid to EPA's public involvement efforts. Response: EPA takes seriously the public involvement requirements set forth in applicable statutes, Executive Orders and Presidential Memoranda. EPA is committed to providing earlier and more meaningful opportunities for public involvement than are required statutorily. EPA believes that the revised Policy will further strengthen EPA's longstanding commitment to involving the public and will improve the consistency and quality of EPA's already extensive public involvement activities. The commenter misunderstood the content of Appendix I of the Draft Policy. Appendix I did not list statutes, Executive Orders, and Presidential Memoranda that contain public involvement requirements, rather it attempted to list all authorities under which EPA acts.

National Association Of Home Builders: NAHB suggests that EPA's new Public Involvement Policy will not be effective if it is simply the documented theories of an agency working group. It must translate into the practical opportunity for the public to influence agency decision making in a real sense. EPA should ensure that its new policy is fully and efficiently implemented to achieve maximum effectiveness. Response: EPA appreciates this comment. The Framework for Implementing EPA's Public Involvement Policy released concurrently with this Policy lists specific actions EPA intends to take to carry out the Policy, including training, sharing of public involvement information among EPA staff, and evaluation of EPA public involvement activities. Please see http:// www. epa. gov/ publicinvolvement/ framework. pdf for this document.

Skeptical that EPA Will Implement the Policy Sierra Club, Committee on Environmental Justice: And finally, we see nothing particularly compelling in the Policy to provide the hope that the Policy will result in more meaningful involvement of the public. The Policy, in all the right words, suggests how things should work better while providing no guarantees that the climate of the more common decision making approach of " decide, announce and defend" can be changed... The purposes, goals and objectives listed in the proposed Policy reflect this dual importance, yet the Sierra Club is somewhat skeptical that the proposed Policy will meet the stated objectives. Response: The Policy is a guidance document for EPA, not a rule and therefore does not contain requirements. The Framework for Implementing EPA's Public Involvement Policy released concurrently with this Policy lists specific actions EPA intends to take to carry out the Policy, including training, sharing of public involvement information among EPA staff, and evaluation of EPA public involvement activities. Please see http:// www. epa. gov/ publicinvolvement/ framework. pdf for this document.

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources: Generally the Draft Public Involvement Policy is sound; however, because the policy " is not legally enforceable," its impact is completely dependent on the seriousness of an ongoing strong commitment and effort by EPA. Will EPA, at all levels, embrace the policy and the philosophy within it? That will be a real measure of the success of this effort.

National Association Of Home Builders: EPA's Public Involvement Policy Has Not Translated Into Public Satisfaction. EPA is proposing to replace its " five basic functions" of the 1981 Public Participation Policy with a new " six basic EPA's Response to Comments on the 2000 Draft Public Involvement Policy 137 function" process outlined in the Draft Public Involvement Policy. NAHB does not so much question the validity of the proposed process, but is rather concerned with its implementation. Given the fact that EPA's prior 1981 policy was never fully implemented or consistently followed, NAHB is concerned the new policy will suffer the same fate and be equally ineffectual. This will only lead to further public dissatisfaction with EPA's public involvement efforts.

New York City Environmental Justice Alliance: As is the case with the other potentially positive measures enumerated in the draft policy, any efforts to bolster participation by those in traditionally under served communities will only be successful if they are fully implemented by agency staff, across the board. Thus, while the stated goals and proposed measures set forth in the draft are certainly encouraging, it is the implementation of those goals and measures that will truly determine the success of the new policy. Response to above three comments: EPA appreciates the comments. The Framework for Implementing EPA's Public Involvement Policy released concurrently with this Policy lists specific actions EPA intends to take to carry out the Policy, including training, sharing of public involvement information among EPA staff, and evaluation of EPA public involvement activities. Please see http:// www. epa. gov/ publicinvolvement/ framework. pdf for this document.

Create Accountability/ Performance Evaluation System for EPA Employees' Public Involvement Efforts Citizens for Responsible Water Management: Occasional critiques by peers at each level might help those few [ EPA staff] whose bias or intolerance is visible. Response: EPA appreciates this comment. The Framework for Implementing EPA's Public Involvement Policy lists specific actions EPA intends to take to carry out the Policy, including human resource systems of reward and personnel performance standards and assessment. Please see http:// www. epa. gov/ publicinvolvement/ framework. pdf for this document.

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals and Earth Island Institute: Compliance with the draft Policy [ should] be assessed as a line item in annual performance appraisals of staff and management. In addition to any other strategies under consideration by the Public Involvement Policy Implementation Workgroup, PETA and EEI believe it is critical that annual performance appraisals specifically evaluate staff and management's compliance with the Public Involvement Policy. EPA management must demonstrate a serious commitment to implementing this policy; otherwise, it will remain only words on paper.

Rutgers University, Cook College, Center for Environmental Communication: Other organizational changes will also be required. For example, the agency will need to incorporate public involvement skills and experience into job descriptions and evaluations of program staff.

Shoshone Natural Resources Coalition: Our concern is that it is not going to be made a rule of conduct, but merely a suggestion of behavior. In order for this policy to work, the Agency must enforce it and develop consequences for employees who do not follow it. EPA's Response to Comments on the 2000 Draft Public Involvement Policy 138 Children's Environmental Health Network: Additionally, a key consideration not discussed in the policy is in its enforcement. The Network urges the Agency to describe how, or if, officials who do not do an adequate job following this guidance will be sanctioned. What is their incentive to follow both the letter and spirit of this policy?

Guild Law Center and Michigan Environmental Justice Coalition: The EPA notes that the Draft Policy is applicable to most decisions made by the agency, but that "[ agency officials must have the flexibility to determine appropriate public involvement, and will be accountable for those decisions." Draft Policy, 65 Fed. Reg. at 82338. However, the EPA also states that "[ the Draft Policy is not a rule, is not legally enforceable, and does not confer legal rights or impose legal obligations upon any member of the public, EPA or any other agency." Id. Given these limits on enforceability, the GLC and the MEJC are concerned that agency officials will not be held accountable for their decisions in applying this Policy.

Response to above five comments: EPA appreciates these comments. The Framework for Implementing EPA Public Involvement Policy released concurrently with the final Policy lists actions EPA intends to take to carry out the Policy. The " Evaluation and Accountability" section of the Framework adopts a five year framework with a list of public involvement activities expected to be performed by staff and managers. Please see http:// www. epa. gov/ publicinvolvement/ framework. pdf for the Framework.

International Association for Public Participation: While we understand why you included a statement that the Policy is not legally enforceable, we also understand why this statement raises a red flag for many members of the public. One mechanism we endorse is to include public participation as a requirement for all EPA work plans and decision makers, not just the responsibility of a community relations staff, and that performance in the realm of public participation be an explicit part of project management and senior management performance/ salary evaluations. As long as implementation of the Policy is seen as someone else's responsibility, the actual decision makers will be less likely to embrace it. Its inclusion can also mitigate political pressure that could contravene a public process. Response: The Public Involvement Policy and Framework for Implementing EPA Public Involvement Policy provide guidance for all who work at EPA, not just the " community relations staff" of the Superfund program. Also see above response.

National Environmental Justice Advisory Committee, Enforcement Subcommittee: Differences between a recommendation and a requirement  the former does not have any teeth in terms of holding Agency employees to any minimal standards of participation. Again, this is an Agency wide question, but has the workgroup thought about ways the EPA could hold industry, risk assessors, and other stakeholders accountable for including the public in a meaningful way? Response: EPA appreciates the comment. However, the Policy applies only to EPA. EPA cannot impose requirements on industry, risk assessors, and other stakeholders through the Policy. Using the Policy, EPA hopes to persuade and lead by modeling best practices and showcasing the best of others.

Golden Gate University, Environmental Law and Justice Clinic: EPA's Response to Comments on the 2000 Draft Public Involvement Policy 139 In conclusion the Draft Policy does an excellent job of detailing the need for increased efforts on the part of EPA to elicit and incorporate public participation. It also lays out creative and effective strategies for enacting positive change. However, all these intentions are only meaningful if the Policy is actually implemented and enforced. Therefore provisions should be made to hold the EPA accountable to the public, in addition to itself. Response: The Framework for Implementing EPA's Public Involvement Policy released concurrently with the final Policy has evaluation as an integral part, and includes opportunities for participants to evaluate the Agency's public involvement performance. Please see http:// www. epa. gov/ publicinvolvement/ framework. pdf for the Framework.

Create a Public Involvement Complaint Process Guild Law Center and Michigan Environmental Justice Coalition: We believe that the EPA must, at minimum, establish an informal method for making complaints about failure to provide adequate opportunities for public participation. This process could be as simple as listing a person on each Public Notice who will accept and review citizen complaints about the public participation process. The reviewing official should be authorized to direct agency officials to expand public participation opportunities and to reprimand those officials who consistently fail to apply the Draft Policy appropriately. Without some complaint process, we believe that many public participation problems may never come to the EPA's attention. If the agency is making a serious commitment to meaningful public participation, it must provide some process for critiquing its efforts and holding its officials accountable for their decisions in this area.

Children's Environmental Health Network: The Agency also needs to outline what steps citizens can take if they are not satisfied with the response of the " Agency officials involved" to the concerns they may raise.

Salado Creek: You must have accountability. When communicating with the public, you should include your boss's name so the public can go higher if necessary. EPA must have independence from other agencies. Response to above three comments: Though EPA has no centralized public involvement complaint process, there usually is a contact person listed in notices, fact sheets, etc. Individuals should contact this individual first. If this does not resolve the issue, then in the " Who manages the application of this Policy?" section, the Policy states that EPA's Administrator, Assistant and Regional Administrators should provide leadership and direction for their managers and staff, " Ensuring that effective public involvement is a cornerstone of all decisions, activities, plans and pilots, and fully complies with all applicable legal requirements". The Framework for Implementing EPA's Public Involvement Policy, released concurrently with the Policy has evaluation as an integral part, and includes opportunities for participants to evaluate the Agency's public involvement performance. Please see http:// www. epa. gov/ publicinvolvement/ framework. pdf for the Framework.

Create a Process to Evaluate EPA's Public Involvement Activities Rutgers University, Cook College, Center for Environmental Communication: EPA should consider including eliciting feedback or conducting formal evaluation as a basic EPA's Response to Comments on the 2000 Draft Public Involvement Policy 140 function of effective public involvement. This would make it a seventh basic function. Other researchers and I have written about the importance of evaluation and an EPA task force is doing an admirable job of increasing the amount and effectiveness of agency evaluation of PI. While evaluation is in the text of the policy, some form of feedback ( particularly for mid course corrections) is critical to success and therefore deserves to be elevated to a " basic function." Response: EPA agrees that evaluation should be added to the basic function steps listed in the Policy, and EPA plans to make evaluation an integral part of implementing the Policy. EPA added a new step 7 to the Policy ( new language in bold italics): " Evaluate public involvement activities. Goal: To evaluate the effectiveness of this Policy and of public involvement activities. Actions in this section include: Agency officials should evaluate and measure, on a continuing basis, both the effectiveness of the Policy to improve public involvement in regulatory and non regulatory processes, and the effectiveness of public involvement activities." Please see http:// www. epa. gov/ publicinvolvement/ framework. pdf for the Framework for Implementing EPA's Public Involvement Policy.

Doctoral Student, University of Washington Geography Department: Although the need for performance metrics were mentioned, no actual metrics were provided in the policy. I recommend adding a more detailed discussion of performance metrics. The Hanford Openness Panel  a broadly representative group of active Hanford Stakeholders and Tribal Representatives  developed recommendations in this regard that might be useful to the agency. Please see Appendix 14 of the 1999 Hanford Openness Workshop Report http:// www. hanford. gov/ boards/ openness/ trac 0828/ pdf/ appendix14. pdf for details. The full report is on line at http:// www. hanford. gov/ boards/ openness/ trac 0828/ index. html. Response: EPA appreciates this information, and will include it in the Agency's efforts to collect public involvement best practices and evaluation information. Evaluation measures are intended to be developed as part of the evaluation framework that EPA plans to support implementation of the Policy. See above response.

National Association Of Home Builders: NAHB also believes that EPA should mandate strict annual reporting requirements to gauge the effectiveness of the program. The annual reporting requirements should include more clearly defined evaluation criteria as well as performance measures that would allow EPA and the public to assess the agency's progress. Response: EPA plans to make evaluation an integral part of implementing the Policy, and has developed an overall evaluation framework that EPA plans to use to support implementation of the Policy. This framework does not include annual reporting as suggested, since it would be too resource intensive, but it does recommend periodic reporting to the Administrator on EPA's implementation of the Policy. Evaluation measures should be developed as part of the evaluation framework. See the Framework for Implementing EPA's Public Involvement Policy at http:// www. epa. gov/ publicinvolvement/ framework. pdf.

Sierra Club, Committee on Environmental Justice: Finally, members of the public should be full participants in the evaluation process. The public participation process can only be improved if all the participants continue to learn what works and what doesn't. Response: EPA agrees that members of the public should also be involved in EPA's public involvement evaluation processes. The Framework for Implementing EPA's Public Involvement Policy released concurrently with the new Policy has evaluation as an integral part, and EPA's Response to Comments on the 2000 Draft Public Involvement Policy 141 includes opportunities for participants to evaluate the Agency's public involvement performance. Please see http:// www. epa. gov/ publicinvolvement/ framework. pdf for this Framework.

National Environmental Justice Advisory Committee, Enforcement Subcommittee: As with all programs and interventions, it is important to track the application and efficacy of the recommendations as they're carried out in practice [ e. g., " in the field"]. It would be wise to set up a means of evaluating and revising, as necessary, the recommendations, dissemination techniques, consistency of their application and results of participation techniques.

St. Regis Tribe, Environment Division: As environmental programs go, we know that public involvement is an integral part of making them successful. However, just as important is evaluating our efforts with public involvement in environmental issues and policy.

Oregon Hanford Waste Board and the Oregon Office of Energy: The Draft Policy also fails to provide performance measures to evaluate the quality of EPA public involvement activities even though it mentions the need for evaluation criteria... The Board and Oregon Energy strongly encourage EPA to strengthen this section by adding specific performance measures to determine whether or not Headquarters, the Regions, or individual programs took the appropriate actions to achieve the desired goal of each one of the six basic functions. Stakeholders should also be involved in determining whether or not EPA has achieved its goals using the performance measures provided. In the combined sections discussing how and who is responsible for ensuring effective and meaningful public involvement, EPA should describe:  The consequences for Headquarters, the Regions, or individual programs that fail to satisfactorily achieve the goals of the six basic functions.  The incentives for Headquarters, the Regions, or individual programs that successfully achieve the six basic functions. The Board and Oregon Energy strongly believe that if EPA is truly committed to conducting effective public involvement, the Draft Policy must include performance measures to judge whether the public involvement activities conducted are meaningful and productive. The Board and Oregon Energy also believe the only way to ensure public involvement occurs and to hold program administrators and managers accountable is to identify consequences for failure. Without this additional detail, this Guidance merely perpetuates the status quo: inconsistent, often times ineffective, and occasionally token public involvement. Response to above three comments: EPA agrees that the Agency should evaluate EPA's public involvement activities as they are " carried out in practice," and EPA agrees that evaluation is a critical element in ensuring the success of EPA's public involvement activities. EPA plans to make evaluation an integral part of implementing the Policy, and has developed an overall evaluation framework that EPA intends to use to support implementation of the Policy. Evaluation measures should be developed as part of the evaluation framework, as shown in the Framework for Implementing EPA's Public Involvement Policy, which can be seen at http:// www. epa. gov/ publicinvolvement/ framework. pdf. EPA has also added a new step 7 to the Policy ( new language in bold italics): " Evaluate public involvement activities. Goal: To evaluate the effectiveness of this Policy and of public involvement activities. Actions in this section include: Agency officials should evaluate and measure, on a continuing basis, both the effectiveness of the Policy to improve public involvement in regulatory and non regulatory processes, and the effectiveness of public involvement activities. EPA's Response to Comments on the 2000 Draft Public Involvement Policy 142 Develop and use a broad based Agency wide internal survey to evaluate how well the Agency performs its public involvement activities, and to determine if EPA is using the Public Involvement Policy to improve related activities..."

12. COMMENTS RECOMMENDING EDITORIAL CHANGES TO THE POLICY EPA Should Streamline Draft Policy Minnesota Pollution Control Agency: The Federal Aviation Agency ( FAA) has a Community Involvement Policy Statement on the Web. This is a 1 page document. Still, it clearly conveys key goals for its public involvement program that are strikingly similar to those expressed by EPA in approximately 30 pages. The greatly improved clarity provided by the much more succinct FAA policy makes it easier for both staff and the public to understand the goals and when they've been achieved. Please consider making the EPA policy similarly clear and succinct. If necessary, EPA can always publish preamble to support a more succinct statement of policy.

McNulty Group: What needs to be in the Policy is the concept, not necessarily the detailed " how to." Response to above two comments: EPA restructured and streamlined the document to place details of the seven steps in Appendix 1 Guidelines. The Policy's main function is to provide recommendations and guidelines to EPA staff and managers across the Agency, and to be applicable to the wide spectrum of EPA activities that involve the public. It is meant to be comprehensive and to provide some of the more basic " how to" details.

Minnesota Pollution Control Agency: ( the following 7 comments are responded to individually): 1. While this Policy is comprehensive, for a variety of reasons, it is also difficult to comprehend. The MPCA believes that comprehension is directly related to success in implementing a policy. The MPCA is concerned that this Policy may face implementation hurdles related to its complexity. Response: EPA disagrees that the Policy may face implementation hurdles related to its complexity. The Framework for Implementing EPA's Public Involvement Policy released concurrently with the final Policy lists specific actions EPA intends to take to carry out the Policy, including mechanisms to share information among staff about the Policy, and public involvement training. Please see http:// www. epa. gov/ publicinvolvement/ framework. pdf for this document.

2. A concise Policy supported by a separate preamble discussion would be clearer. EPA uses this approach when it proposes rules in the Federal Register ( FR). When someone wants to understand reasoning behind a rule provision, they research the associated FR preamble. A Policy should clearly state broad goals. EPA could then use FR preamble to support those goals. Another approach used in rule publications is to provide an index in the FR that outlines the proposed language ( this would make the Policy even longer than 9 pages and may be lost in another publication format). Response: EPA agrees that a concise summary would be useful, but disagrees that much of the existing Policy text should be located in a preamble. The final Policy is separated into the Policy and Appendix 1 Guidelines which further details the seven steps. EPA's Response to Comments on the 2000 Draft Public Involvement Policy 143 3. The EPA should consider using a policy template to lend a consistent format to its policies. Response: This comment is outside the scope of the Policy. It was shared with EPA's Office of Communications.

4. EPA should clarify both its writing voice and its intended audience. EPA appears to have written the Policy to apply to both the EPA and to other agencies ( the Policy advocates that local authorities implement similar policy, it even discusses how local units of government should run Local Advisory Committees). The MPCA believes this may contribute to EPA using a " passive writing voice" in the Policy in lieu of a clearer " active writing voice". It also adds to Policy length. The EPA should write its Policy to apply to itself. A clear policy provides a better model for other agencies to emulate. Response: EPA agrees that the " passive voice" text should be changed and that the intended audience should be clarified. Please see new language throughout the document that clarifies that this Policy applies only to EPA, and not to other agencies ( although it can be used as a model for other agencies). EPA has removed many of the uses of " passive voice" throughout the document. The only discussions of advisory committees in the Policy refer to those subject to the Federal Advisory Committee Act.

5. The Policy loses clarity due to its draft format. As an example, EPA normally proposes rules in a final form, seeks comments, and then publishes any resulting modifications. In the proposed Policy, EPA uses the term " draft policy" throughout. EPA also includes extra explanations that seem inappropriate to a final Policy ( see FR p82341, column 3, 3rd paragraph in brackets). Response: The term " draft" was used to clearly indicate that the version of the Policy published for comment. EPA has removed all references to the " draft" Policy in the final Policy, as well as requests for specific information in public comments, as noted in the comment. EPA will make the full final Policy available.

6. The Policy repeats many ` disclaimer statements' that EPA might better state once as a general goal or in a preamble. Examples include such themes as " choose the right [ action] for the occasion," " the public should be involved to the extent possible," "[ EPA] must comply with all applicable requirements," and "[ EPA] should provide early advance notice [ of action] when appropriate." Response: EPA disagrees that general " disclaimers" should be stated once up front. Since the Policy contains general recommendations that are applicable to the variety of EPA activities that involve the public and is not prescriptive, it contains many such " disclaimer sentences." Discretion is necessary when applying the Policy to very diverse situations.

7. EPA should provide the Appendices to the Policy as preamble in the FR. Response: EPA does not agree that the information from the appendices should be included in the Policy's preamble. EPA believes that information of a more general and summary nature should precede the Policy in the FRN.

Doctoral Student, University of Washington Department of Geography: The heart of the policy appears in the section that outlines the six basic functions for effective public involvement. This section should be moved closer to the beginning so that the information is easy to find and access. Response: EPA agrees that the basic steps were difficult to find in the draft Policy. The final EPA's Response to Comments on the 2000 Draft Public Involvement Policy 144 Policy FRN lists the steps in the second paragraph of Supplemental information, and explains those steps in Appendix 1: Guidance.

Don't Just Provide Opportunity for Communication, but Actually Communicate McNulty Group: References to providing opportunity for involvement There are at least a few phrases saying essentially this in the draft Policy. ... providing an opportunity to participate is not sufficient. Sooner or later those affected by an action * will* have something to say. Any project manager should want to hear from these people early in the project, when it is easy and less expensive to accommodate their concerns and incorporate their ideas. Therefore all these references should change to communicating with those affected rather than just providing opportunities for communication. Response: EPA agrees that the Policy's text should emphasize communicating with the public. Please see new language in the Policy to address this issue: Under the Policy's " What Are the Purposes, Goals and Objectives of the Policy?" section, see revised purpose ( new language in bold italics): Promote the use of a wide variety of techniques to create early and, when appropriate, continuing opportunity for public involvement in Agency", and also " Identify, communicate with and listen to all affected sectors of the public ."

Include Reference to Public Involvement Requirements in Clean Water Act Kansas Department of Agriculture: The draft under emphasizes the mandatory nature of public participation in administration of the federal Clean Water Act. While the draft says that one of the goals is to ensure fulfillment of legal requirements imposed by statute and to involve members of the public " when possible," it fails to mention that under the Clean Water Act, public involvement is not optional. 33 US C § 125 J ( e ) states: Public participation in the development, revision, and enforcement of any regulation, standard, effluent limitation, plan, or program established by the Administrator or any State under this chapter shall be provided for, encouraged, and assisted by the Administrator and the States. ld. emphasis added. Public participation under the Clean Water Act is not a matter of convenience or discretion. Public participation is mandated. Furthermore, it is insufficient under the Clean Water Act simply to provide notice. The law plainly states that the public shall participate in the " development, revision and enforcement" of the act. We would like to see a direct reference in the policy to EPA's commitment to public participation in Clean Water Act matters. Response: EPA disagrees that the Policy should specifically reference the EPA's commitment to public participation in Clean Water Act matters. The Policy is meant to supplement public involvement requirements in all of EPA's programs, including administration of the Clean Water Act and other statutes. The What Are the Purposes, goals and objectives of the Policy?" section states: " This policy supports EPA in meeting statutory and regulatory requirements regarding public participation, particularly in environmental permitting programs and enforcement activities." ( Regulations, such as those found at 40 CFR Part 25 " Public Participation in Programs Under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act, and the Clean Water Act." ( See Part 25 at EPA's Response to Comments on the 2000 Draft Public Involvement Policy 145 http:// www. epa. gov/ publicinvolvement/ pdf/ part25. pdf.))

Include Overview of Paperwork Reduction Act in Preamble Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Division of Water Resource Management: Finally, as part of the preamble to this policy, we suggest the EPA provide a brief overview of the Paperwork Reduction Act ( PRA). It is mentioned throughout the Draft Public Policy. Clarification should be provided so the public clearly understands that the PRA is in effect to reduce the paperwork burden on the public. Response: EPA disagrees that the Policy should contain an overview of the Paperwork Reduction Act in the preamble. However, EPA agrees that the Policy should contain more references to this Act. See new clarifying language in several sections of the Policy that refer to the Paperwork Reduction Act in " Plan and budget for public involvement" under " a. Actions:", under " Identifying the interested and affected public", " b. Methods:" and several more times throughout the Policy.

Include References to Other EPA Public Involvement Guidance Documents California Department of Toxic Substance Control: While it is understood that this draft is intended to provide a broad brush approach to public participation, it may give the mistaken impression that guidance documents such as Community Relations in Superfund, Public Involvement in Environmental Permits, and the RCRA Public Involvement Manual are superceded. These documents provide a much more " nuts and bolts" approach to public involvement and the lack of any reference to them in the draft policy statement should be corrected. Staff, responsible parties, contractors and the public should be directed to these documents for specific information on how U. S. EPA will respond to the public's need for information at key points in the process. Response: EPA agrees that the existence of these other documents should be referenced in the Policy. See new language in the Policy's " Provide information and outreach to the public" section, " a. Actions:" ( new language in bold italics, new bullet): " Use EPA's existing public involvement manuals, which contain helpful advice for involving the public in specific EPA programs." This includes a reference to the website as well, at http:// www. epa. gov/ publicinvolvement/ involvework. htm# manuals. Further, an addendum to the Policy provides a list of references.

Describe Changes from 1981 Policy Washington State University: There is very little, if at all, any apparent change in the Draft 2000 Policy from the 1981 policy. A description of specific changes would have been extremely useful. Response: EPA appreciates the comment. The Draft Policy made numerous changes to the 1981 Policy. In discussing the changes, the Preamble of the draft 2000 Policy groups changes by type and describes each one. EPA's Response to Comments on the 2000 Draft Public Involvement Policy 146 13. GENERAL COMMENTS EPA received many public comments that support the Draft Public Involvement Policy. These supportive statements are shown below in the categories of " Support the draft policy," " Support EPA's effort to revise the Policy," " Partially support the draft Policy," and " Support EPA's commitment to public involvement." EPA appreciates these statements of support. EPA did not prepare individual responses to the following comments; however, EPA responded to all of the substantive recommendations from these organizations in other sections of this document.

Citizens' Advisory Panel of the Oak Ridge Reservation Local Oversight Committee, Inc.: This document is clearly written and promotes appropriate and acceptable values and activities regarding public participation. The CAP strongly supports this policy...

New York City Environmental Justice Alliance: On behalf of the New York City Environmental Justice Alliance, I am writing to express my support for the EPA Draft 2000 Public Involvement Policy as published at 65 Fed. Reg. 82,335.

New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services: In reviewing the Draft Policy, it is apparent that substantial thought and effort went into its development. It is well written, organized, and thorough. Further, it espouses a tone of openness and a commitment to ensuring that the public be involved in agency decision making. ..... the N. H. Department of Environmental Services has also developed a public participation policy, adopted on December 12, 2000 and available on line at www. des. state. nh. us/ ppp. htm, and it is gratifying to observe that the two federal and state policies are remarkably consistent, both in content and approach.

Michigan Environmental Council: The Michigan Environmental Council has read the draft proposal on public involvement and is pleased with the progress thus far. As we gain access to new technology and science the needs of the public as well as the policy that sets standards for the health and safety of future generations must continue to evolve. We understand the USEPA is adjusting policy to adequately meet these challenges. We have appreciated the accessibility offered by the EPA when complicated problems arise, but also acknowledge that a twenty year old public participation policy has inadequately addressed many challenges presented by more intensely technical and scientific jargon, a more polarized society in terms of race and economic status, and dramatic changes in communications technology. Fortunately, the EPA has recognized the need for a living policy to keep citizens involved in decision making for a living Earth. We believe that the amendments proposed to the EPA's 1981 Public Participation Policy represent a fair and genuine effort to modernize citizen involvement opportunities.

Harvey M. Sheldon, P. C.: Generally the Policy is certainly acceptable, since it pretty much tries to promise everything to everyone, i. e. it's hard to fault. EPA's Response to Comments on the 2000 Draft Public Involvement Policy 147 Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, Rocky Flats Oversight Unit, Hazardous Materials and Waste Management Division: Overall, this policy reflects needed improvements to the EPA's approach to public involvement. Of particular note is the emphasis on mechanisms appropriate for given circumstances. The use of the Internet, electronic documents, email and tailored technical meetings will accomplish much greater public understanding and awareness than traditional means.

The Groundwater Foundation: The Groundwater Foundation was founded on the idea that informed and motivated citizens are the basis of sustainable environmental stewardship including groundwater protection. As a result, we are very pleased to see EPA developing such detailed plans to promote involvement by citizens. I was especially pleased to see the agency's emphasis on audiences with limited access or traditional links to EPA rule making, enforcement actions, and regulatory and pollution prevention programs.

Professor, San Jacinto College South  Houston, TX: I have read and support the draft of the public involvement policy. I have participated in the Brio Superfund for 11 years. I remember a time when our community had to go through GAO to get EPA to listen to us. EPA has made advances in soliciting comments from the public that must live with the environmental regulations and policies that the agency proposes. This policy will go a long way in continuing that progress.

International Association for Public Participation: Overall, the policy is commendable and covers most of the areas we believe are important.

Staff, Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality: The policy is comprehensive and stands as a model for public involvement in EPA decision making on complicated, and often sensitive and controversial matters. I encourage my fellow Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality staff to follow its general principles and specific points which are appropriate to our dealing with the public.

National Farm* A* Syst Program: I am very impressed by the Policy's thoroughness and integrity, and the scope of suggested activities and responsibilities, particularly in the description of the " six basic functions for effective public involvement in any decision or activity" ( to which I gave most of my attention). I am glad to see the discussion about " identifying the interested and affected public" as this is key to the whole process. I applaud all your efforts in drafting this policy, and I look forward to its implementation! I wish all of you the best of luck, and encourage you to take advantage of the wisdom and services of facilitators/ educators/ public participation organizers in public or private organizations dedicated to these functions.

City of Austin, Texas Water and Wastewater Utility: We value the Public Involvement Policy because stakeholder meetings are an important opportunity for us to provide meaningful information to the EPA. EPA's Response to Comments on the 2000 Draft Public Involvement Policy 148 New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Office of Administration: We agree that the required activities covered in the Draft Policy ( p. 82338) should be considered the minimum level of public involvement and additional activities should always be considered whenever appropriate.

Citizens for Responsible Water Management: This draft policy statement properly deals with all critical elements of interaction between the public and government, a model other agencies would do well to emulate.

Lake County Health Department, Waukegan, Illinois: Overall, the policy as drafted is comprehensive and if implemented as written should improve public participation in EPA program/ policy development process.

Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Division of Water Resource Management: The policy provides avenues for an increase in the public's knowledge and understanding of federal environmental issues that may affect them. It ensures adequate opportunity for citizens to take part in planning and decision processes. Overall, we find the policy and the supporting documents explicitly set the stage for further involvement of the public in developing and adjusting procedures of the federal government that affect them. This policy provides for a mutual exchange of valuable information for the benefits of the agencies involved and the general public.

New York State Department of Health, Center for Environmental Health: Overall the draft Policy is well thought out and provides a practical approach to conducting public involvement. The draft policy is not overly prescriptive and continues to allow flexibility in how public involvement is actually conducted. We use many of the same approaches and techniques and find them effective. We understand that any policy is only as useful as the agency's ability to implement it and, like you, we continue to work at making involvement an active part of our outreach activities.

Rutgers University, Cook College Center for Environmental Communication: The EPA is to be commended for its investment in updating its public involvement ( PI) policy. The policy reflects considerable insight into the importance of PI and the ways to increase its effectiveness. There is also much useful guidance about the " nuts and bolts" of PI while also providing a framework the allows for necessary flexibility in implementation... The draft policy is a good example of the state of the art of public involvement. I hope the agency not only endorses the policy but also implements it.

Doctoral student, University of Washington Department of Geography: In general I think the policy includes several major elements of a sound and pro active public involvement strategy. The Agency should be commended for updating this policy.

Shoshone Natural Resources Coalition: EPA's Response to Comments on the 2000 Draft Public Involvement Policy 149 The Draft Public Involvement Policy is excellent. Its emphasis and detail center on good communication and building plans with the communities being affected by any Agency work. It shows respect for the public the EPA is supposed to be SERVING. It should be made the ruleof the road for EVERY Agency employee, right down to the mail clerk!

American Chemistry Council: We commend the EPA for developing this draft policy and welcomes future occasions to continue this and related dialogues with the Agency. Democratic decision making requires government officials to engage with and understand the views of various concerned stakeholders and the public at large. The Agency's draft Public Involvement Policy will greatly contribute to the achievement of this goal.

Environmental Defense: On the whole, we are pleased with the Draft Public Involvement Policy and are happy that we had the opportunity to comment on it.

California Department of Toxic Substance Control: We have reviewed the draft policy, and find it gives a good, general foundation for public involvement. It provides an excellent credo for federal and state agencies, and gives the communities we serve the assurance that public involvement is a priority.

Antioch New England Graduate School, Department of Environmental Studies: I wanted to indicate my enthusiastic support for the Draft Public Involvement Policy EPA is presently considering. First, I agree that recent progress in our understanding and experience with the practice of public involvement in environmental decision making makes a revision of the 1981 policy necessary. Second, I feel that the present draft as published in the Federal Register does an excellent job of incorporating the comments received from the 1999 comment period. This is truly a policy of which EPA can be proud. ...... As a researcher who works in this field, I am very pleased to see EPA bringing this knowledge into practice. I firmly believe that such a policy will improve the quality of environmental decisions while also building in citizens a renewed sense of confidence in EPA's commitment to democratic policy making. I congratulate EPA on this exceptional draft policy and encourage it be accepted as a Final Policy as well.

Western States Water Council: The Council agrees that the concepts outlined in the Draft Public Participation Policy are good policy for public participation.

Citizen # 56: Overall, I think that the Draft PIP is a good policy that represents a balance of competing interests. If EPA officials actually try to comply with the Draft PIP, they will necessarily have to invest much effort. It could lead to better decisions, it could lead to more people having the perception that EPA is actually concerned about what they think on particular issues, but it will not be easy. EPA's Response to Comments on the 2000 Draft Public Involvement Policy 150 St. Regis Mohawk Tribe, Environment Division: All in all, EPA through this draft policy identified, comprehensively, the components necessary to engage the public to become part of environmental solutions within their respective communities. It is the hope within Indian Country that EPA remains committed to reaching out to minority communities across the board. It will take a more concentrated effort on EPA's part to make this draft policy a reality within these smaller communities. ... Overall, this draft policy covers all the possible mechanisms that can be utilized to involve the public.

Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality: ... the LDEQ offers no substantive objections to the draft policy and supports EPA's effort to modernize its public involvement policy.

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources: I commend the agency for developing the draft policy and its sincere desire to respect the public's legitimate role in the development of policy and environmental protection decisions.

McNulty Group: Certainly the original EPA Public Involvement Policy and related procedures served the EPA, the states, and the public well. Much of what we did in the eighties and nineties with public involvement in New York State was based on the principles of the EPA public involvement program. I concur with the decision to build upon the foundation you have in place rather than start " from the ground up."

Sierra Club, Three Rivers Project, Piasa Palisades Group: We are supportive of the initiative of the Environmental Protection Agency to involve the public in the updating of policy that will provide guidance for the Agency to more thoroughly involve the public in their regulatory and program decisions.

City of Dallas, Texas Department of Environmental and Health Services: USEPA is to be commended for implementation of the 1981 Public Participation Policy and the current revision of that policy. The draft Public Involvement Policy is a very detailed document which wisely states its purposes and sets specific goals to enhance and encourage public involvement.