United States Office of Policy, EPA 233 B 03 001 Environmental Protection Economics, and May 2003 Agency Innovation ( 1807T) http:// www. epa. gov/ publicinvolvement/ responsetocomments. pdf EPA's Response to Comments on the 2000 Draft Public Involvement Policy May 2003 . Disclaimer:

The statutory provisions described in this response to comments contain legally binding requirements. As indicated by the use of non mandatory language such as " may," " should" and " can," this response to comments describes recommended procedures and approaches for conducting public involvement. EPA's Response to Comments on the 2000 Draft Public Involvement Policy May 2003 This page left intentionally blank. ii EPA's Response to Comments on the 2000 Draft Public Involvement Policy Table of Contents 1. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2. DEFINITIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3. PURPOSES, GOALS AND OBJECTIVES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 4. APPLICATION OF THE POLICY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 5. FUNCTION ( NOW STEP) 1. PLAN AND BUDGET FOR PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT ACTIVITIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .25 6. FUNCTION ( NOW STEP) 2. IDENTIFY THE INTERESTED AND AFFECTED PUBLIC. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .28 7. FUNCTION ( NOW STEP) 3. CONSIDER PROVIDING TECHNICAL OR FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE TO THE PUBLIC TO FACILITATE INVOLVEMENT. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 8. FUNCTION ( NOW STEP) 4. PROVIDE INFORMATION AND OUTREACH TO THE PUBLIC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 9. FUNCTION ( NOW STEP) 5. CONDUCT PUBLIC CONSULTATION AND INVOLVEMENT ACTIVITIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93 10. FUNCTION ( NOW STEP) 6. REVIEW AND USE INPUT, ( ASSIMILATE INFORMATION) AND PROVIDE FEEDBACK TO THE PUBLIC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125 11. RESPONSIBILITIES FOR IMPLEMENTING THE POLICY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136 12. COMMENTS RECOMMENDING EDITORIAL CHANGES TO THE POLICY. . . . . . . 145 13. GENERAL COMMENTS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149 14. RECOMMENDED BEST PRACTICES FOR PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT . . . . . . . . . . . 157 15. GENERAL COMMENTS ON PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT PROCESSES . . . . . . . . . . . . . 162 16. ISSUES NOT RELATED TO THE POLICY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .184 17. PUBLIC COMMENTS REGARDING STATE OR DELEGATED GOVERNMENTS . . .185 18. PUBLIC COMMENTS RELATED TO LOCAL GOVERNMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .206 19. PUBLIC COMMENTS REGARDING TRIBAL ISSUES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .212 iv 20. ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE PUBLIC COMMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .226 iii This page left intentionally blank. EPA's Response to Comments on the 2000 Draft Public Involvement Policy 1 1. INTRODUCTION  Public Involvement at EPA In February 1979, EPA promulgated regulations at 40 CFR Part 25 governing public participation for activities under the Clean Water Act, Safe Drinking Water Act and Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. In the same year, EPA began developing the Agency's first Public Participation Policy, which was issued on January 19, 1981. A draft of the Policy was published for comment in the Federal Register in April 1980.

In July 1999, the EPA Innovations Task Force issued " Aiming for Excellence: Actions to Encourage Stewardship and Accelerate Environmental Progress" ( EPA 100 R 99 006). In the report, at the suggestion of a FACA advisory committee, EPA stated that it would evaluate its public participation policies and regulations in light of current practices, relevant statutes, regulations and Executive Orders. During October 1999, EPA convened a cross agency workgroup to evaluate existing public participation requirements and practices, and to make recommendations to the Administrator.

On November 30, 1999, EPA republished the 1981 Policy in the Federal Register and asked for suggestions on changes to the Policy, on the processes that work well or need improvement, and on how the Agency should involve the public in revising the Policy. Based on public comments and internal review, in its report to the Administrator, " Engaging the American People" ( EPA 240 R 00 005), the workgroup recommended: updating the 1981 Policy to accommodate new statutes and regulations, changing and expanding techniques for engaging the public, changing relationships with state, local and tribal governments, and improved public access to information.

In the year 2000, members of the workgroup drafted a revised Public Participation Policy, now called the Public Involvement Policy. On December 28, 2000, the Associate Administrator for Policy, Economics and Innovation was published the draft Policy in the Federal Register and invited the public to submit comments through July 31, 2001. The central feature of the draft Policy was a description of the basic steps for conducting effective public involvement ( revised in the final Policy to include a seventh step):

1. Plan and budget for public involvement activities 2. Identify the interested and affected public 3. Consider providing technical or financial assistance to the public to facilitate involvement 4. Provide information and outreach to the public 5. Conduct public consultation and involvement activities 6. Review and use input, provide feedback to the public 7. Evaluate public involvement activities Coinciding with the release of the draft Policy, EPA charged a new cross agency workgroup with developing recommendations to implement the new Policy and improve the EPA's Response to Comments on the 2000 Draft Public Involvement Policy 2 overall quality of EPA public involvement activities for release with the new Policy.

In July 2000 EPA held a two week, Internet based " Dialogue on Public Involvement in EPA Decisions" to learn from the public and practitioners how the Agency could improve its practices. Over 1,100 people from all 50 states, several tribes, two territories and six other countries registered for the event. The Dialogue informed development of what became the Framework document. The Framework was released as a draft Implementation Plan for a 60 day review public comment period in January 2001. The Framework focuses on the areas of:

° Developing or making available public involvement training ° Sharing public involvement information and practices ° Creating mechanisms for tracking, measuring and evaluating the effectiveness of EPA's public involvement efforts EPA received 202 public comments on the draft Public Involvement Policy by the end of the public comment period. Sources included 26 state agencies, 12 local governments, 17 environmental organizations, 82 citizens, five industrial associations and five agricultural interests. Many of the comments raised implementation concerns and recommended improvements in how EPA plans and conducts public meetings, holds staff and managers accountable for public involvement, ensures that public input influences EPA's decisions, uses electronic communication methods, and provides feedback to participants or commenters. EPA analyzed the public comments and developed this Response to Comments document.

To protect individual's privacy, through this document comments are attributed to organizations. Unaffiliated individuals who commented are listed as " citizens # 1 to Citizen # 90".

The Cross Agency Public Involvement Work Group completed its internal review of the Policy and Framework in November 2002. A Final Agency Review, which required endorsement from regional and headquarters senior officials was held in January 2003. The Administrator issued the Policy and released the Framework and Response to Comments document in May, 2003. ( http:// www. epa. gov/ publicinvolvement " Recent Additions" to view the three documents.)

Staff who reviewed the comments grouped those comments into categories and developed substantive responses. Many are individual responses; some are single responses to a series of very similar comments. Whenever possible, language in the Policy is referenced. All citations from the Policy are in italicized type. Words that are new or changed are italicized and bolded.

Those who read this document and the Policy will easily see that the Agency seriously considered and used the public's comments to revise and reorganize the Policy. EPA's Response to Comments on the 2000 Draft Public Involvement Policy 3 2. DEFINITIONS Define Certain Terms Washington Department of Ecology, Nuclear Waste Program: After reviewing the Draft Policy, we would like to suggest that you clarify certain terms used frequently throughout the document. These terms include " earliest practicable times;" " early public involvement;" " timely" distribution of information, etc. While we commend the intent to involve stakeholders early in the process, we suggest that you define what is meant by " early" and " timely." Response: Please see new language in the " Definitions" section of the Policy ( new language in bold italics): ` Early public involvement' is no longer in the final Policy language. However the previous and current language has been used to describe and encourage opportunities for the public to contribute their input as early in the decision making process as practicable. ` Timely distribution of information' or the definition of " Timely information" means distributing information sufficiently far in advance so that the interested public have enough time to review relevant material, decide whether to become involved, and make plans for that involvement. Timely applies to the availability of background information on particular issues, as well as notification of public meetings, public comment periods or other critical involvement activities.

Modify Policy's Definition of " Public"

OMB Watch: The term " public" has many different meanings. The public includes: the regulated industry; state and local governments; school boards and planning commissions; community, social justice, and environmental groups; emergency responders ( such as police and firefighters); news reporters; investors; and many other interested parties. The general public includes those who actively use information from the government ( e. g., preparing a report), and those who only passively use such information ( e. g., watching the news). The public can also be divided along competency with using government information. Information " sophisticates," who include but are not limited to researchers, academics, and advocates, know where information they need is located and how to find new information. They often have personal relationships with people in agencies who can direct them to sets of information, provide access to hard to find documents, and provide advice and guidance on overcoming hurdles in the way of open public access. Others, mostly the " John Q. Publics," do not have special relationships with individuals in agencies or do not realize that individuals in agencies can be helpful in finding timely, relevant information.

Clean Air Council: The US EPA needs to acknowledge in its broad definition of public that not all members of the public are equal in the resources they bring to public policy discussions. While industry must indeed be a stakeholder that US EPA listens to   they often bring with them great financial resources, technical know how and political influence. Most community members and local EPA's Response to Comments on the 2000 Draft Public Involvement Policy 4 community organizations cannot match any of these resources. EPA needs to acknowledge these discrepancies and modify its public involvement policies to address these inequities. In order to allow these constituencies to participate meaningfully the US EPA must focus most of its public involvement resources towards these constituencies. Response for above two comments: EPA agrees that the term " public" is very broad, but does not agree that the definitions in the Policy should be revised. The Policy intentionally uses the term " public" because it is such a broad term. EPA recognizes that some members of the public have more resources than others; however, this is not a definitional issue. The Policy seeks to address resource limitations in other ways, such as in the Policy's step 3: " Consider providing technical and financial assistance to the public to facilitate involvement."

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. Response: Scientific and research organizations are listed in the Policy's definition of " public." The role that the external scientific community should play in developing EPA's science based regulations and policies is outside the scope of the Public Involvement Policy.

Clarify State Role in " Definitions" Section ( additional comments and responses related to states, tribes and local governments can be found in Section XX of this document)

Association of State Drinking Water Administrators: The proposed policy uses the broadest possible definition for the term " public" and outlines an extensive list of organizational and representational structures to be considered " stakeholders." The draft neither acknowledges nor makes provision for the unique role of states in the regulatory decision making process. State government is only one of a long list of entities considered to be part of the term " public" and is characterized as an equal stakeholder along with private citizens, consumer, environmental, and advocacy groups. ASDWA recommends that the proposed policy expand on the definition of " public" to reflect the unique role of state governments and to correct the misperception that state input into the regulatory decision making process carries no greater weight or value than other interested parties.

Association of State and Territorial Solid Waste Management Officials: Similarly, we found the role of States and other government entities as co regulators understated. We will not speak for other government entities, but in our experience States are not stakeholders in the general sense addressed here, because they are sovereign governments whose views must be addressed and incorporated into decision making. In many cases, State waste programs have parallel regulatory authorities which will be used to carry out their professional environmental decisions. Those State decisions will be developed with full consideration of public participation, but will not necessarily incorporate all those public recommendations. In many cases, States and other governments must put in place implementing steps which will make federal decisions possible ( e. g., institutional controls). In short, there is a discrete requirement for early, continuous federal consultation with State governments in order to develop the parameters of environmental decisions. We are not suggesting that the Agency attempt to define the State EPA relationship in this policy document, EPA's Response to Comments on the 2000 Draft Public Involvement Policy 5 but to acknowledge that it exists and is different from the public policy described herein. We do not agree with the characterization at the top of page 82337 that State regulatory agencies can be " stakeholders who provide input into EPA's decisions", because it oversimplifies and confuses this very complex relationship. Response to above two comments: See new material on the roles of states in the Policy's section on " What are the Roles of States, Tribes and Local Government" ( new language in bold italics): " 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."

Revise Policy's Definition of " Stakeholder"

Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Division of Water Resource Management: We are concerned with the use of the term " stakeholder" in the policy. This term is used in the web site for receiving comments on the draft public policy ( http:// www. epa. govshared with). EPA defines the term " stakeholder" as: " Any organization, governmental entity, or individual that has a stake in or may be impacted by a given approach to environmental regulation, pollution prevention, energy conservation, etc." ( see EPA Environmental Terms at http:// www. epa. gov/ OCEPAterms). Much of the public at large either has no knowledge of the term, or believes the term to be biased towards those with an economic interest and the ability to make themselves heard directly by the agencies. In other words, " stakeholder" imparts a perception of specific entities and not the general public. This term also may isolate some of the public by its use. Your policy is much more encompassing and provides opportunity for involvement for anyone in the public. We believe the terms " stakeholders" and " public policy" may contrast with one another, and suggest the term " stakeholders" only be used when discussing particular projects with effects limited to a specific sector of the public. Alternatively, you could more clearly explain that the term " stakeholder" as used in your policy is applicable to the general public. Response: EPA agrees that some members of the public may misconstrue the term " stakeholder;" however, the Policy clearly applies much more broadly to the public as a whole. EPA believes that the distinction between stakeholders and the public is clearly set out in the EPA's Response to Comments on the 2000 Draft Public Involvement Policy 6 Policy's " Definitions" section the following ( new language in bold italics): " Stakeholders" are representatives from organizations or interest groups who have a strong interest in the Agency's work and policies.

" Affected parties," are stakeholders who are or may be impacted by EPA decisions.

Remove Tribes from Definition of " Stakeholder"

Oregon Hanford Waste Board and the Oregon Office of Energy: Revise the draft Policy to list the Tribes independently so they are not put in the same category as stakeholders.

Doctoral Student, University of Washington, Geography Department: I notice throughout the policy that the term stakeholder is considered to include Tribes. Given the government to government relationship accorded to Tribes they should be called out explicitly. Response to above two comments: See new material in the Policy's " Definition" section and the section on " What are the Roles of States, Tribes and Local Government" about the unique relationship and responsibilities between EPA and tribes ( new language in bold italics): " The role of Tribes is unique in another way. Each federally recognized tribal government is a sovereign entity that has an individual government to government relationship with the federal government. Therefore, it is appropriate for EPA to engage in consultation activities with such tribes in addition to activities that the Agency would undertake for the public. EPA should coordinate and consult meaningfully with Tribes to the greatest extent practicable for agency actions that may affect the tribes. This Policy complements EPA's efforts to consult with Tribes. ( See Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments ( Nov. 6, 2000.))

Consultation should be a meaningful and timely two way exchange with Tribal officials that provides for the open sharing of information, the full expression of Tribal and EPA views, a commitment to consider Tribal views in decision making, and respect of Tribal self government and sovereignty. The Agency should allow comment from Tribes early in the planning process and prior to making a decision. However, consultation does not imply that the Tribes or any other non EPA entities that are consulted can stop an Agency action by withholding consent."

City of Phoenix, Arizona, Office of Environmental Programs: My discussions with EPA staff have indicated a bias on EPA's part that local governments may not reflect their citizenry and may not be " genuine stakeholders." If that perceived bias is true across the agency, EPA needs to reexamine what is meant by a " genuine stakeholder." Criteria for the decision of who has a " genuine stake in the local community" needs to be defined ( P 82340), and local governments need to be included in that definition. Response: Under the Policy, local governments are considered stakeholders whenever they have an interest in an EPA action. EPA agrees that the term " genuine stake" can be interpreted in many ways, and has deleted the word " genuine" from that section. See new material in the Policy's " What are the Roles of States, Tribes and Local Government" section( new language in bold italics): " State agencies, tribes and some local governments have unique roles regarding EPA's EPA's Response to Comments on the 2000 Draft Public Involvement Policy 7 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."

Include Definition of " Underserved"

New York State Department of Health, Center for Environmental Health: The draft Policy should include a definition of what constitutes an underserved population and, if necessary, a methodology for determining an underserved community. Response: EPA's Office of Environmental Justice currently pursues the issue of who is " underserved" on a case by case basis, and chooses to use the criteria of other state, federal and tribal governments.

3. PURPOSES, GOALS AND OBJECTIVES General Purposes, Goals and Objectives Citizen # 1: It appears that there are too many goals, for some are repetitive. Specific goals should flow out of specific purposes. Otherwise it's hard to follow the logic. Response: EPA appreciates the concern regarding the clarity of the goals. The Policy's listing of Purposes and Goals may seem to be repetitive; however, it is meant to be inclusive.

Alabama Department of Environmental Management: The draft Policy states that its fundamental premise is that " EPA should provide for meaningful public involvement" in all of its programs. We believe that the statutory and regulatory bases of each environmental program set explicit public participation requirements and procedures, which do provide the public with opportunities for meaningful involvement. The draft Policy attempts to ensure not that the public is given an opportunity for involvement, but rather, states that it should be used to " determine the appropriate nature and extent of public involvement above the basic requirements." The Public Involvement Policy needs to explicitly recognize that EPA's Response to Comments on the 2000 Draft Public Involvement Policy 8 decisions are predicated on regulatory requirements. Therefore, decisions are often not based on stakeholder consensus. EPA should not utilize this Policy as a means of steering public participation in regulatory or permitting programs in any particular direction. Response: EPA agrees that the Policy should not be used to steer public participation in any particular direction and nothing in the Policy requires stakeholder consensus as a basis for decision making. The intent of the Policy is to ensure early and meaningful public involvement so that all members of the public can be heard.

Purposes of the Draft Policy Reaffirm EPA's commitment to early and meaningful public involvement Citizens # 2, 13 15, 17 29, 31, 34, 36, 38 44, 46 51, 53 55, 57 ( same comment provided by 37 citizens via e mail) I want a public involvement policy that will encourage early and meaningful public participation in all aspects of environmental decision making. Response: EPA agrees that the Policy should encourage early and meaningful public participation in the Agency's decision making processes. This comment is reflected in the Policy's section on " Purposes, goals and objectives."

Ensure that environmental decisions are made with an understanding of the interests and concerns of affected people and entities Commenters in disagreement with purpose Alabama Department of Environmental Management: The vast majority of comments received by ADEM on permitting actions concern issues outside of the scope of the Department's responsibilities ( e. g. zoning, land use planning, property values, nuisance, etc.). A stated purpose of the Policy is to " ensure that environmental decisions are made with an understanding of the interests and concerns of affected persons..." Given that most concerns of the public seem to be outside of the scope of the environmental regulatory process, implementation of the Policy would not appease their concerns. Response: EPA agrees that the Policy may not resolve all concerns for all interested parties. However, EPA believes it is important for the public to have the opportunity to express its concerns. For EPA decisions, however, only those interests and concerns that relate to a specific EPA decision would be considered. The Policy addresses this issue by stating that outreach materials should " Provide informational materials that clearly identify the role of the public in the specific decisions to be made." Further, in the Consultation section, the Policy calls for EPA to "... 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. A goal of the Outreach portion of the Policy is " To assist the public in understanding the reasons for Agency action, the legal framework for decision making and the significance of the related technical data so that the public can provide meaningful comments." EPA's Response to Comments on the 2000 Draft Public Involvement Policy 9 Goals of the Draft Policy:

To ensure that the Agency provides the public with information at a time and in a form that it needs to participate in a meaningful way Iowa Department of Natural Resources, Water Supply Section: " Goal: To ensure that the Agency provides the public with information at a time and in a form that it needs to participate in a meaningful way." EPA must realize that promulgation of several rules and guidances in a short period of time can, and usually will, result in a less thorough review by the States and other stakeholders, simply due to the sheer volume of documents to be reviewed. Staff resources at the State level are already limited, so the reviews of draft material become cursory, if done at all. This has happened over the past two years with the SDWA program, with several rules currently in the proposed stage. At one point last spring, there were over 1000 pages of rules and guidance to be reviewed at a single point in time in the SDWA program alone.

Response: EPA agrees that there may be many rules, policies and other issues simultaneously open for comment, sometimes driven by statutory deadlines. This comment was provided to the EPA Office of Regulatory Management and the Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water.

To ensure that the public understands official programs and the implications of potential alternative courses of action Iowa Department of Natural Resources, Water Supply Section: Goal: " To ensure that the public understands official programs and the implications of potential alternative courses of action." To assist with this effort in understanding new rules, it would be most helpful if the implementation guidance was put out in draft form with the proposed rule, and then in the final form very shortly after the final rule is published. Often, the implementation guidance is out several months, if not years, after the final rule is published, by which time the States have already notified their public of the upcoming rule, and have already developed their rules and implementation plans. Technical guidances should also be issued as soon as possible, and at least concurrently with the final rule. Response: This comment was provided to the EPA Office of Regulatory Management.

To learn from the public the information it is uniquely able to provide 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, ideas and proposed solutions.

Citizen # 63: I would like public involvement in all aspects of environmental decision making. We the people EPA's Response to Comments on the 2000 Draft Public Involvement Policy 10 are very diverse. We have different educational back grounds and have much to offer. Many have a technical grasp of environmental science concerns. I personally am an auditor. Because of my unique position as an auditor. When I work, I see the whole picture. I do not know all the technical aspects of everything I audit, but I have a sufficient grasp on them that allows me to suggest innovative solutions to problems discovered. I say all of this because the public has knowledge and ideas to offer, and legitimate concerns to be discussed. The public can also evaluate proposals from a myriad of angles in order to help formulate the best solutions that are a win win situations for all parties concerned. Please, allow the public to be involved in the decision making process. Response to above 26 comments: EPA appreciates this comment. The Policy supports the idea of recognizing and respecting the knowledge, ideas and proposed solutions that the public can provide. These issues are reflected in several of the items in the Policy's " Purposes, goals and objectives" section.

To achieve the purposes and goals, while also recognizing resource constraints, Agency officials will strive to provide for, encourage, and assist public involvement in the following ways:

Beginning public involvement early in the decision making process and continuing it throughout the process as necessary to provide the best information possible Comments that support this statement New York State Department of Health, Center for Environmental Health: Page 6, " Begin public involvement early in the decision making process " We concur with this statement, however in the Hazardous Waste Program the mandated time when public involvement begins is often not early enough in the process. Many times technical staff have been working on a site for some time before the public involvement starts. This often leads to mistrust by the public because they feel they were left out of the early stages of the project. The public involvement staff should be brought into the site activities sooner. Response: This comment was provided to the EPA Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response.

Striving to identify, communicate with and listen to all affected sectors of the public. The role of Agency officials is to plan and conduct public involvement activities that provide equal opportunity for all individuals and groups to be heard. Where appropriate, implementation of this Draft Policy will require Agency officials to give extra encouragement and consider providing assistance to some sectors, such as minorities and low income populations, or small businesses, which may have fewer opportunities or resources to participate  Supporting comments New York Department of Environmental Conservation, Office of Administration: We also commend the inclusion ( p. 82337) of the objective of " striving to identify, communicate with and listen to all affected sectors of the public". This should include the recognition that state environmental agencies share with EPA the role in planning and conducting public involvement activities that provide equal opportunity for all individuals and groups to be heard. For instance, there may be situations where DEC will have greater insights for recommending extra EPA's Response to Comments on the 2000 Draft Public Involvement Policy 11 encouragement and assistance to some sectors, such as minorities and low income populations, or small businesses, which may have fewer opportunities or resources to participate in EPA actions. Response: EPA agrees that the role of the states needs to be clarified. See new material on the roles of states in the Policy's " What are the Roles of States, Tribes and Local Governments" and " Identifying the interested and affected public" sections ( new language in bold italics): " 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."

Citizens # 3, 13 18, 20 22, 30 31, 33, 35, 38, 40, 49 50, 53 55 ( same comment provided by 21 citizens) I want a public involvement policy that will educate community members to ensure equal participation and allow them to influence decisions and propose informed solutions. This includes regionalizing materials to ensure cultural sensitivity. Response: EPA appreciates the comments. Various sections of the Policy address the issues of ensuring that EPA provides information to the public that enables them to participate in a meaningful way, equal participation, public influence on decisions and proposed solutions, and ensuring that materials are understandable to the public.

Involving members of the public in developing options and alternatives ( when possible) and, before making decisions, seeking the public's opinion on options or alternatives. Agency officials must avoid advocacy and pre commitment to any particular alternative or option prior to decision making, unless statutory or regulatory requirements dictate otherwise ( e. g. when EPA proposes a Plan for a Superfund site) Supporting comments American Chemistry Council: Involve Stakeholders In Early Stage of Articulating Issues Along these same lines, the Council supports the Agency's view that it should, in a transparent manner, involve the public in developing options and alternatives ( when possible). As a general rule, the Council believes the Agency too often fails to involve the public in the early stages of EPA's Response to Comments on the 2000 Draft Public Involvement Policy 12 defining issues and options. Instead, these are presented when they are largely fleshed out, and the public is merely invited to comment. At best, this results in delay and inefficiency, as issues and options are reworked in light of public input. At worst, it is too late in the process to fully express public views, so the Agency's treatment of issues and options, by not including public input, is less than ideal. Response: EPA agrees that the Agency's decision making processes should be as " transparent" as feasible and that the public should be involved as early as feasible in that process. This comment was provided to the EPA Office of Regulatory Management.

American Chemistry Council: The Council also supports EPA's statement that it should " avoid advocacy and pre commitment to any particular alternative or option prior to decision making."( p82337) While not making a precommitment to any particular alternative, the Agency should nevertheless early on describe the problem it intends to address as well as the significance of that problem, and indicate the Agency's general decisional criteria, with particular emphasis on distinguishing the scientific criteria from policy issues. Response: The Policy includes these suggestions. See also new language in the section on " Provide Information and Outreach to the Public" ( new language in bold italics): 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." See also new language in the section on " Conduct Public Consultation and Involvement Activities: ( new language in bold italics): " 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."

National Association Of Home Builders: EPA Should Not Involve the Public Simply to Reach Preconceived Conclusions. However, there is also a persistent skepticism in the regulated community that despite all the procedural checks that have been enacted into law, the agency still arrives at preconceived conclusions despite the public involvement requirements. Simply stated, the regulated community does not feel its voice is being heard. Response: EPA agrees that public involvement should occur early enough to allow the public to feel that EPA considered the concerns expressed. This comment was provided to the EPA Office of Regulatory Management.

Making every effort to match the design of public involvement programs with the complexity and potential for controversy surrounding the issue being addressed, the segments of the public affected, the time frame for decision making, and the overall desired outcome of the public involvement process  Support comments Miami University, Department of Communication: I'm also glad to see a recognition in the Goals and Objectives that a " one size fits all" approach EPA's Response to Comments on the 2000 Draft Public Involvement Policy 13 to public participation is inappropriate. Addressing the wants and needs of individual communities is the only way public participation can be effective. Of course, someone will have to do some research to find out what those wants and needs are. Response: EPA agrees that it is important to identify the needs of potentially affected communities. The Policy recommends that the Agency use questionnaires, surveys, interviews and other means ( subject to appropriate approvals) in the section on " Provide information and outreach to the public." These can be effective means for identifying the wants and needs of communities.

Add New Goal to Produce Better Decisions through Public Involvement International Association for Public Participation: You should include a statement in the Purposes and Goals of the Policy that public participation can improve the quality, acceptability, feasibility and durability of decisions. This is the fundamental reason for incorporating public participation. Fostering trust and meeting legal requirements are by products of a good decision process.

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources: In the list of goals for public involvement processes ( p. 82337 center column), the agency focuses on a list of appropriate process oriented and relationship focused goals ( fulfill legal requirements, foster trust, solicit assistance, anticipate conflict, keep people informed, etc.). However, the policy is strangely silent on a major reason for involving others  the key goal of making better decisions, decisions that better reflect broad perspectives and therefore better meet the varied needs of the country and its people.

Sierra Club, Committee on Environmental Justice: ... public participation makes for better policy, We reject the arguments that public participation is " running amok" and that participation is at all in tension with proper deliberative decision making. Indeed, we believe strongly that participation, and the ideas and information that flow from it, only enhances the deliberative process. But perhaps more importantly, public participation is also the fundamental element of procedural justice that must necessarily be a part of every agency decision. 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.

Children's Environmental Health Network: However, two key inter related purposes of this policy are absent from this list. The Agency does not mention what one would think would be over riding concerns for undertaking these efforts: improved decisions as a result of public involvement and more effective protection of the public interest and thus public health and safety. For example, one would expect that the Agency's goal should be not just to " ensure that environmental decisions are made with an understanding of the interest and concerns of affected people and entities" but that the decisions themselves are improved and thus better meet the public interest as a result of public participation. Though the Federal Register notice includes statements about the benefits for other agencies, statements that public involvement will benefit EPA policies is absent. Without such goals, public participation efforts by the Agency are little more than empty EPA's Response to Comments on the 2000 Draft Public Involvement Policy 14 exercises. Response to above four comments: EPA agrees and has added language to reflect the concerns expressed in these comments in the " Purpose, Goals...." section( new language in bold italics): " Improve the acceptability, efficiency, feasibility and durability of the Agency's decisions."

Sierra Club, Committee on Environmental Justice: In reality, we believe that enhanced public participation increases the efficiency of decision making in the sense that an open and intelligible process are more likely to lead to results accepted by the public. Anger and distrust are potentially avoided with proper public participation processes. Response: EPA agrees that effective public participation can lead to results that are more widely accepted by the public. EPA plans to evaluate this and other aspects of public involvement processes and their outcomes.

Add New Goal to Address Public Concerns Sierra Club, Committee on Environmental Justice: In this section [ Conduct public consultation and involvement activities], the Policy misses the mark. For fuller and more meaningful public participation, the goals of the agency should not be merely " to understand the interests and needs of the affected public," and " to provide for the exchange of information and views," but rather it should be the goal of the agency to make sure that the interests of the public are affirmatively addressed. In public participation, it is not the ultimate goal of the public to be simply understood  the public is much more outcome oriented. And for that reason, to foster public participation, it is important to address the issues raised. This is of special importance to low income communities and communities of color. Participation for participation's sake is insufficient motivation for people with otherwise difficult and busy lives. Public participation that leads to demonstrable results will lead to better public participation.

Guild Law Center and Michigan Environmental Justice Coalition: However, the GLC and the MEJC believe that the EPA must do more than simply " understand" public interests and concerns to make public comment meaningful. Instead, the EPA must ensure that its decisions reflect and actively address public interests and concerns, either by making a decision that resolves those concerns or by providing detailed explanations of the reasons that certain problems would not or could not be addressed. As the EPA itself notes, " issues that are not resolved to the satisfaction of the concerned public may ultimately face timeconsuming review." 65 Fed. Reg. 82335, 82337 ( 2000). Unless affected citizens are persuaded that the EPA has made its best effort to accommodate their interests and concerns, such " timeconsuming review" is almost inevitable. We urge the EPA to make a stronger commitment to finding a solution or decision that actually reflects and accommodates public comments and concerns.

Environmental Defense: EPA should regularly consult with the public to ensure that its activities reflect the public's concerns, instead of just involving the public during the policy making process. EPA's Response to Comments on the 2000 Draft Public Involvement Policy 15 Response to above three comments: EPA agrees that the public participates in government processes for the purpose of influencing decisions. EPA expects that making public involvement more meaningful will provide additional opportunities for the public to impact of the public on Agency decisions. In any given case, of course, a particular stakeholder's view may or may not be adopted, or considering all the input EPA may make a decision that is different from the recommendation of any single stakeholder. EPA plans to evaluate the effectiveness of its public participation activities and implementation of the Policy. In addition, EPA expects to develop training aids to assist staff in using public comments and providing feedback to commenters. Please see the evaluation and training sections of the Framework for Implementing EPA's Public Involvement Policy released with this Policy at http:// www. epa. gov/ publicinvolvement/ policy2003 EPA will also include recommendations on how to regularly consult with the public in public involvement training materials for EPA staff.

State Up Front EPA's Mission to Protect Public Health and Environment Clean Air Council: The US EPA needs to acknowledge in the preamble to its public involvement policy that its statutory responsibility is to protect public health and that this priority needs to be reflected in all of its actions.

Minnesota Pollution Control Agency: EPA should clarify that, while committed to improving opportunities for public involvement in its decisions, EPA's primary mission and the reason for the actions it proposes is to protect human health and the environment. EPA understands what is at stake when it proposes an action. It has the authority to exercise stewardship on behalf of the environment   a huge responsibility. EPA should seek public involvement as a means to improve, mitigate or mediate the actions it determines are needed. The Policy should state EPA's mission and how EPA will assimilate the public's view while meeting its mission. Response to above two comments: EPA agrees that the Policy should refer to EPA's primary mission in relation to public involvement. 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. Public involvement also promotes democracy and civic engagement, and builds public trust in government.

EPA has long been committed to public involvement. The fundamental premise of this Policy is that EPA should continue to provide for meaningful public involvement in all its programs, and consistently look for new ways to enhance public input. EPA staff and managers should seek input reflecting all points of view and should carefully consider this input when making decisions. They also should work to ensure that decisionmaking processes are open and accessible to all interested groups, including those with limited financial and technical resources, English proficiency, and/ or past experience participating in environmental decision making. Such openness to the public increases EPA's credibility, improves the Agency's decision making processes, and informs its final decisions. At the same time, EPA should not accept any recommendation or EPA's Response to Comments on the 2000 Draft Public Involvement Policy 16 proposal without careful, critical examination."

Adopt the International Association for Public Participation's Core Values and Code Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources: EPA should adopt and incorporate the core values and code of ethics of public participation as identified by the, which were developed over several years with input by practitioners from throughout the world. Response: The goals in the Policy were in part based on the International Association for Public Participation's core values and code of ethics.

Public Should Contribute to, Not Affect EPA Decisions McNulty Group: "... public to become involved and affect the Agency's decision..." This seems to put the public and the Agency on opposing sides of the table. It implies the Agency may make a decision and then the public gets to modify it. Better to have the public become involved and * contribute* to the Agency's decision. Again, as said above, public involvement should provide information that contributes to a wise, informed decision. If it does that properly, it becomes a part of the decision making process rather than something that modifies a decision already made. Response: EPA agrees that one of the goals of public participation is to have the public contribute to the decision. EPA has revised that sentence in the " Purposes, Goals and Objectives" section ( new language in bold italics): " Effective public involvement will make it easier for the public to contribute to the Agency's decisions, build public trust, and make it more likely that those who are most concerned with and affected by Agency decisions will accept and implement them."

EPA Should Involve the Public in its Decisions Citizen # 83: I would like a public involvement policy that would allow the public to discuss proposals with the parties involved and would take the public opinion into account on any decisions made. In the United States, I see more and more people losing their voice in proposals that will affect their lives and the lives of others. They are not ignorant people, but because they have no financial stakes in the decision. More and more, it is the people that will be affected financially that are listened to and that's not right. Private corporations and the government no longer recognize the health and emotional effects as priorities. In order to ensure that every aspect of proposals is considered, the public needs to be given more say in decisions. And sometimes it turns out that they may have a solution or proposal that no one has thought of.

Citizen # 84: The EPA must involve public input into their policy.

Citizen # 85: I want a public involvement policy because I believe that a democratic government depends on the full range of opinions and participation of all its voters and citizen. EPA's Response to Comments on the 2000 Draft Public Involvement Policy 17 Citizen # 86: Your decision effects us all therefore we should have a say in what is decided.

Citizen # 87: Public involvement or awareness should be just as, if not more, important then the government or industries that have influence on the health of our environment. Involve us in decision making processes!! It's our space too. Response to above five comments: EPA agrees that the Agency should involve the public in its decision making processes. Please also see response to Minnesota Pollution Control Agency on page 15. The Agency expects that through implementation of this Policy, the public will have increased and fair opportunities for early and meaningful involvement in EPA's decision making processes.

Other Purposes or Goals:

Citizen # 2: I would like to see majority rule. Not government majority but the voice of the people. Environmental policy in the Bush Administration and the EPA under its guidance has swerved away from general public sentiment. If this administration is not going to do the people's bidding, it would be a great benefit for the people to, in a more tangible way, effect policy themselves. I support public involvement within all the decisions of the EPA. Response: This comment makes a suggestion that is outside the scope of the Policy.

Citizen # 3: Your agency should leave politics out of your decisions and solely act to protect the environment, which I said before is what you are there for. You should protect the interests of the public, and not just the oil, gas and nuclear industry. Our environment is fragile and so are we. Response: EPA agrees that the protection of the environment is very important. This comment, however, is outside the scope of the Policy.

Washington State University: When EPA makes a final decision, always remember, and be respectful of the fact, that it is local citizens who fully experience the consequences of decisions on a daily basis, not the decision makers in distant regional and national offices. The bottom line is that the public's personal health and welfare is at stake every time the EPA makes a decision. They are always aware of this, as well as the reality that they have to live with decisions, whether they agree with them, or understand them, or not. Most importantly, if you really want to be successful at public involvement, learn to LISTEN, not just speak. This will help the EPA to become aware of the difference between what the EPA intends the public to hear and what the public actually hears. Response: EPA agrees that it is important to develop skills to hear what the public is saying. In addition, EPA expects to develop training aids to assist staff in these areas.

4. APPLICATION OF THE POLICY Apply the Policy to all EPA offices and programs EPA's Response to Comments on the 2000 Draft Public Involvement Policy 18 Citizens # 13 15, 17 18, 20 22, 31 32, 38, 40 43, 46, 48 50, 53 54, 57 ( same comment provided by 22 citizens via e mail) I want a public involvement policy that will be followed in all EPA offices and programs. Response: EPA agrees that the Policy should be followed in all EPA offices and programs. In the Policy's section " When does this Policy Apply?" the Policy states ( new language in bold italics): " This Policy applies to all EPA programs and activities."

Policy Should Apply in All Cases Where the Public Has an Interest or is Affected International Association for Public Participation: When enumerating " when does this policy apply?" the Policy should begin by stating that it applies in all cases where the public has an interest or is affected. Some of these situations will have legal drivers, but the policy should not list this reason first. Often the challenge is to conduct effective participation along side the legal requirements; legal provisions for public participation are seldom sufficient in themselves. This is an area that your office can assist the Office of General Counsel so that the legal minimum doesn't get interpreted as the sole criteria. For example, a 30 day comment period need not preclude preliminary dialogue with interested and affected public or presentation of draft provisions in advance of the formal document. Response: EPA agrees that the legal requirements for public participation should not be the sole criteria for application of the Policy. However, the Policy cannot be applied in all cases where the public has an interest or is affected because some areas such as litigation are not appropriate for public participation. The section of the Policy " When Does the Policy Apply?" has been revised ( new language is in bold italics): This Policy applies to all EPA programs and activities. In programs or activities where the public is already meaningfully involved, EPA can use this Policy to enhance that public involvement. Where the existing level of public involvement needs to improve, this Policy provides suggestions for how to move forward. Finally, this Policy can serve as a model for building public involvement into new programs as they are developed.

The activities where conducting meaningful public involvement should particularly be considered include: S EPA rulemaking, when the regulations are classified as Economically Significant Actions ( under the terms of Executive Order 12866) S EPA issuance or significant modification of permits, licenses or renewals S Selection of plans for cleanup, remediation or restoration of hazardous waste sites or Brownfields properties S EPA's decision on whether to authorize, delegate or approve states or local governments to administer EPA programs consistent with the relevant regulatory requirements for each program ( Note: Tribes seeking approval to administer environmental programs under EPA statutes generally also seek " treatment in a similar manner as a state ( TAS)" status from EPA. Appropriate opportunities for public participation are contained in the relevant statutory and regulatory provisions establishing a TAS process. Consult with the Office of Regional Counsel or the Office of General Counsel, and/ or the American Indian Environmental Office for assistance.) S All other policy decisions that are determined by the Administrator, Deputy Administrator or appropriate Assistant, Regional or Associate Administrator to warrant public EPA's Response to Comments on the 2000 Draft Public Involvement Policy 19 participation in view of EPA's commitment to involve the public in important decisions S The development of significant information products ( as the Office of Environmental Information has defined them in Appendix 2: Definitions)

Clarify How Certain Situations May Influence the Design of Public Involvement Activities Golden Gate University, Environmental Law and Justice Clinic: Finally, there are several actions that could be clarified or improved upon. The section entitled What Should EPA Do to Ensure Full and Meaningful Public Involvement, contains a statement that reads, "[ t] he issues, locations, potential environmental and public health consequences of the activities, potential for controversy  will influence the design of the public involvement process." However, it does not express what kind of influence it will have. For example it could be interpreted to mean that if there is a likely potential for heated controversy, then public hearing should be avoided. We would not endorse such a stance, as we believe it would be necessary to openly address such a conflict. Therefore is may be useful to clearly define your intention. Response: EPA agrees that this statement needs clarification in the Policy. See new clarifying language in that section ( new language in bold italics): " For instance, enhanced opportunities for public involvement should be created for those situations in which there is the potential for greater environmental or human health consequences or controversy."

Edit Statement Describing Consequences of Inadequate Participation Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources: We would suggest strengthening the statement about the consequences of inadequate participation ( p. 82338, column 1, first unbulleted paragraph) to read: " However, lack of adequate participation or lack of effective means for participation can result in agreements or policies that do not necessarily reflect or consider the interests or needs of communities or constituencies that will be most impacted by them." Response: EPA agrees with this comments and has made the suggested changes ( new language in bold italics): " A lack of adequate participation or of effective means for participation can result in decisions that do not necessarily reflect or consider the interests or needs of communities or constituencies that will be most impacted by them."

" Use all reasonable efforts to ensure public is informed" on technical products Supporting comments American Chemistry Council: The Council is pleased that the Office of Research & Development ( ORD) has taken steps toward a more open process in developing its technical documents, most notably in its initiatives for better engagement with the public in developing draft files for the Integrated Risk Information System ( IRIS). We strongly encourage EPA to use " all reasonable efforts to ensure that the public is informed" ( at 82337) and to seek input from stakeholders on IRIS and other EPA's Response to Comments on the 2000 Draft Public Involvement Policy 20 important technical EPA products. Response: This comment is outside the scope of the Policy. It was provided to the EPA Office of Research and Development.

Clearly Define the Limited Extent of Public Involvement in Certain Decisions Washington State University: Like the 1981 policy, this is still a very clear, top down approach. Such an approach unintentionally communicates that full public involvement is not the goal EPA truly intends to achieve. This idea is reinforced with statements like " when appropriate," " at the agency's discretion" or " when the regulations are classified as significant" ( what does that mean by the way?). Tell the public when full involvement is not feasible and provide honest, straight forward explanations as to why. State it up front, e. g., " this policy doesn't not apply to some situations as listed and explained below," rather than tucking in " when appropriate" or " at the agency's discretion," and hoping the public won't notice. Not only will the public always notice and resent such smoke screens, but they will also find the assuming " father knows best, don't question it" underlying tone disrespectful and insulting. Response: EPA disagrees. The Policy is meant to expand and enhance public involvement, not limit it. The Policy provides EPA the discretion needed to enable the Agency to design public involvement processes to match the scope and complexity of the issues.

Washington State University: Public involvement is frequently misunderstood to include a vote or some level of authority in decision making. Be very clear up front about the fact that the EPA seeks advice from the public but that the EPA holds all the reigns of decision making power. The promise of a vote that is never realized promotes distrust. Response: EPA agrees that clarifying the roles of EPA and public participants is fundamental. The Policy as written, makes clear that " involvement" does not mean " vote." Further, the Policy's " Introduction" section now includes clarifying language on the Agency's mission and use of public input. See revised language in the " Introduction" section of the Policy ( new language in bold italics): " EPA has long been committed to public involvement. The fundamental premise of this Policy is that EPA should continue to provide for meaningful public involvement in all its programs, and consistently look for new ways to enhance public input. EPA staff and managers should seek input reflecting all points of view and should carefully consider this input when making decisions. They also should work to ensure that decision making processes are open and accessible to all interested groups, including those with limited financial and technical resources, English proficiency, and/ or past experience participating in environmental decision making. Such openness to the public increases EPA's credibility, improves the Agency's decision making processes, and informs its final decisions. At the same time, EPA should not accept any recommendation or proposal without careful, critical examination." In defining public involvement the Policy states: The term " public involvement" is used in this Policy to encompass the full range of actions and processes that EPA uses to engage the public in the Agency's work, and means that the Agency considers public concerns, values, and preferences when making decisions. Clearly, the decisions are those of the Agency. EPA's Response to Comments on the 2000 Draft Public Involvement Policy 21 Make Any Required EPA Public Involvement Changes through Rule Making Process, not through Policy Alabama Department of Environmental Protection: ADEM believes that EPA's existing public participation requirements for rulemaking and permitting, which are closely mirrored by state requirements, are more than adequate. If EPA feels improvements are needed, the improvements should be accomplished through the regulatory process such as with the upcoming revisions to the major source operating permits programs, 40 CFR Part 70. This would allow interested parties the opportunity to review and provide comments during a formal rulemaking process and to adjudicate the final decision, if they so desired. Formal adoption of these requirements through rulemaking also would lessen any potential ambiguities that could occur if they are solely implemented through a vague Policy. In this vein, the Department ardently opposes the imposition of public involvement procedures via this Policy similar to those reportedly under consideration for the aforementioned Part 70 revisions. ( e. g. mandatory public hearings upon request, copies of complete facility files maintain in the locality of a source, a prohibition against copying charges for documents, etc.) ADEM plans to comment on these changes when appropriate, should they come to fruition. The Department's position is that each program should be responsible for implementing its own public participation program and that a Departmental wide approach can adversely effect some programs. For instance, RCRA updated its version of the public participation program in 1998 to reflect the needs of its program. This current proposal mirrors the 1998 RCRA program in many aspects, but in some instances is overbearing and impractical from both work and cost aspects. Response: The Policy provides guidelines for all EPA programs; it is not directed to the states. It imposes nothing additional; it outlines the seven steps necessary for good public involvement, but does not replace, nor can it override regulatory requirements. The Policy provides the discretion to tailor public involvement to the situation, so that unnecessary process need not be provided. However, the premise of the Policy is that greater involvement will generally lead to better decisions.

Policy Should be Required of EPA Golden Gate University, Environmental Law and Justice Clinic: As it stands now the Draft Policy is not legally enforceable, but is instead, " the EPA's statement of its strong commitment to full and meaningful public involvement in Agency activities." However, because the policy does not, " confer any legal rights or impose legal obligations on any member of the public, EPA or any other agency," the EPA is not actually being held accountable to the public. Unfortunately, in our experience, a strong commitment to the public is not always enough. Conversely, citizen suit provisions in environmental laws are an invaluable tool in empowering the public to be actively involved in environmental protection. Building such a provision into the final Policy, making it into a Regulation, or requiring states to incorporate the Policy into State Air and Water Quality Plans submitted to the federal government, would make it clear that the Agency is prepared to stand by, and be held to its words, and truly rely on input from the public.

Citizen # 4: EPA's Response to Comments on the 2000 Draft Public Involvement Policy 22 Finally, I notice 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. Talk about lip service.

National Association Of Home Builders: EPA's Public Involvement Policy Should Be Binding and Enforceable on the Agency. Even EPA fully concedes the deficiencies it has had with its current Public Participation Policy. In fact, EPA identifies two areas of particular concern: lack of agency coordination from one activity to the next, making it difficult for the rest of the agency to benefit; and, second is the tendency to focus on single initiatives rather than developing a broader program perspective. NAHB believes that these problems will not be corrected unless the policy is made binding and enforceable on the agency. The current proposal relies too heavily on EPA staff discretion and flexibility, and is unenforceable by the public. Making the policy an enforceable administrative rule would help ensure the effectiveness of the policy and give the public a greater voice in EPA's regulatory processes.

City And County of Denver, Department of Environmental Health: Discretionary Application of the Policy Should be Limited to Ensure Consistency and Implementation. As a public entity, DEH understands that one size fits all rules often lack the adaptability needed to address particular needs in specific circumstances, and some flexibility will be required. But, since the Draft Policy still " relies heavily on the sound use of discretion by Agency officials," ( 65 Fed. Reg. 82338), it is not " legally enforceable," and it does not " impose legal obligations upon . . . [ the] EPA or any other agency," id. at 82338, we are concerned that it will be ignored. The EPA should consider strengthening the policy, making certain aspects mandatory rather than discretionary. We feel that the new policy needs to.... Limit the discretionary application by the agency to promote consistency and implementation.

Sierra Club, Committee on Environmental Justice: ..... the Policy has little weight. As mere guidance, it isn't binding. So it ultimately rises only to the level of a suggestion, which does not require anyone in any agency to do anything. Moreover, by allowing assistant and associate administrators to " identify and address those activities and major decisions where application of this Draft Policy is appropriate" the Policy makes explicit that not only are the suggestions not binding, they are discretionary. It isn't at all clear why the Policy would not be applicable to all normal agency decision making.

Doctoral Student, University of Washington Geography Department: The policy, as stated, is non binding. No penalties are incurred if the policy is not followed, nor are there incentives for those who do invest in good public involvement. This is a significant problem because without clear incentives or enforcement, the potential impact of the policy is weakened. I would urge you to reconsider the non binding status of the policy.

Citizens' Advisory Panel of the Oak Ridge Reservation Local Oversight Committee, Inc. EPA's Response to Comments on the 2000 Draft Public Involvement Policy 23 The existence of a formal policy does not ensure public involvement in practice; EPA Headquarters intends to ensure that all regional offices adopt and abide by this policy, including compliance by grant recipients Southwest Workers Union: The draft policy says it's not legally enforceable. If it's just left up to the administrator, it will be inconsistent. If not law, there will be too many loopholes in it and it will yield inconsistent results. This policy leaves too much discretion to the administrator. Response to above 8 comments: EPA disagrees. The Policy is not a rule and is not intended to be mandatory. It is guidance for EPA staff and managers that will be supported with information and training; it does not apply to grant recipients. Agency guidances provide guidelines on how EPA staff should implement programs, and allow discretion in applying the policy to particular situations. EPA believes that a rule would likely be too rigid and not allow enough flexibility to address the wide range of activities with which the Agency is involved. The Policy is intended to increase the consistency and effectiveness of EPA public involvement practices. The Agency hopes to establish incentives and rewards for those at EPA who carry out outstanding participatory processes.

Children's Environmental Health Network: On January 19, 1981, the EPA published its first Agency wide Public Participation Policy " to ensure that managers plan in advance needed public involvement in their programs, that they consult with the public on issues where public comment can be truly helpful, that they use methods of consultation that will be effective both for program purposes and for the members of the public who take part, and finally that they are able to apply what they have learned from the public in their final program decisions.'' ( 46 FR 5736, Jan. 19, 1981) ( emphasis added) The Network questions the use of the terms " needed" and " where public comment can be truly helpful" and believes they should be deleted from future iterations and descriptions of the policy. The Network would be interested in understanding which EPA programs do not " need" public involvement. It is disdainful for government employees to believe it is their role to make the advance judgement that public comment would not be " truly helpful." These phrases run counter to the Agency's stated intent. Response: This comment is outside the scope of the Policy. It refers to language included in the 1981 Policy. The Draft Public Involvement Policy that EPA published for comment in December 2000 does not contain this language.

Include Specific Public Involvement Requirements in Inter Agency Agreements U. S. Army Center for Health Promotion & Preventive Medicine: Coming from a federal agency perspective, DOD, project managers will typically follow EPA guidance; but too often, project managers will only do what EPA says is mandatory. Although this public involvement policy is not legally binding, I suggest that the spirit and " requirements" of this policy be included in any/ all other legally binding documents between EPA and DOD ( Federal Facilities Agreements, etc.). Sometimes, DOD will go above and beyond what EPA outlines as mandatory, but too often, DOD will only do what is absolutely necessary. Include this EPA's Response to Comments on the 2000 Draft Public Involvement Policy 24 public involvement policy as one of the critical elements DOD must embrace. This goes for projects where states and/ or tribal governments take the lead, too. Suggest including in EPA/ DOD agreements that an evaluation of public involvement will be part of the agreement. Is DOD doing what they agreed to do? Response: A policy, such as the Public Involvement Policy, is not a rule and, therefore, does not contain mandatory requirements for EPA or its regulatory partners. Further, EPA cannot unilaterally include provisions in legally binding agreements between EPA and DOD. Such agreements are the result of negotiations between the two agencies. The Policy encourages EPA and its regulatory partners to consider EPA's Public Involvement Policy in their work.

U. S. Army Center for Health Promotion & Preventive Medicine: Suggest being more specific about how the public can be involved in developing options/ alternatives. This goes back, again, to my observation that DOD rarely does anything that is not clearly spelled out in EPA guidance/ policy. If this policy could reference specific tasks or stages that the public can be involved in ( e. g., development of risk assessment assumptions, identification of pathways, cleanup alternatives, etc.) , DOD would be more likely to consider it. Response: Because EPA engages in numerous program activities and because this Policy is guidance only, it is not feasible or appropriate to include in this Policy a list of public involvement processes specific to each type of activity. It is the responsibility of the EPA office conducting the activity to determine the best type of public participation for their activity.

Conduct Public Workshops on Draft Policy California Department of Toxic Substance Control: Finally, DTSC encourages that U. S. EPA engage in an open dialogue with the public on this draft policy. As with most policy decisions, that final product will have a direct affect on the public we serve. It makes sense for U. S. EPA to conduct public workshops in California and elsewhere to explain the draft policy and receive public comment, in order that the final product is more reflective of public need. DTSC would be happy to work with U. S. EPA in coordinating this effort. Response: EPA followed up on this suggestion with EPA Region 9 in San Francisco. EPA also held a two week Internet based dialogue that had participation from all 50 states. The Agency was only able to hold a public meeting on the draft Policy in Region 6.

5. FUNCTION ( NOW STEP) 1. PLAN AND BUDGET FOR PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT ACTIVITIES Expand Policy's Plan and Budget Section Sierra Club, Committee on Environmental Justice: As perhaps the simplest and most obvious of the six " functions" for public participation, the Policy spends very little time and attention to this area. The Policy recognizes the importance of advance planning, early notice to stakeholders, adequate time and resources, and evaluation. Yet, in terms of implementing the Policy, this is perhaps the area in which the greatest improvements could be made. In practice, notice is seldom early, time and resources are seldom very available, and evaluations seldom actually performed. EPA's Response to Comments on the 2000 Draft Public Involvement Policy 25 Response: EPA agrees that the Agency needs to improve how it plans and budgets for public involvement. The Policy is intended to increase the consistency and effectiveness of EPA's public involvement practices. Resources for public involvement are of course constrained by the Agency's budget and compete with other Agency activities. EPA intends to address the issues raised above in training provided to EPA staff as well as in efforts to evaluate EPA's public involvement activities.

Rutgers University, Center for Environmental Communication: PI should be considered integral to program planning, not merely an additional planning activity. Although the policy stresses early involvement, it might make more explicit that planning for PI should occur in the context of larger program planning efforts. This will not only facilitate earlier involvement and increase resource effectiveness, but it makes it more likely that PI will become part of agency programs, rather than a less effective addition to agency efforts.

National Environmental Justice Advisory Committee, Enforcement Subcommittee: There are additional costs and logistical demands when involving the public. These and other potential challenges of public participation [ such as a potential increase in time and resources, revised decision making time lines, training to familiarize Agency staff with these methods, building the skills of both the public and the Agency staff to work in such collaborative forums, building trust, etc.] need to be explicitly addressed. Suggestions for dealing with challenges should be presented. Response to above two comments: EPA agrees that public involvement should be considered integral to program planning, and added new language in the " Plan and Budget" section of the Policy ( see 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")."

Define Public Involvement Objectives in Planning Phase Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources: In the first function, Planning For Public Involvement Activities ( p. 82338 82339), the policy lacks the essential step of planning: Defining the objective of public involvement in the project or decision. Will the objective be collaborative problem solving, assessing impacts of decision options, understanding the values and issues of the affected public, evaluating the necessity of an action, acquiring some specific types of information, negotiating between interests? Without defining the specific objectives, staff will not be able to appropriately make other decisions under this function. Objectives drive tools, schedules, etc.

International Association for Public Participation: The Draft Policy's first " basic function" for effective public participation is to plan and budget for public involvement activities. This is important. However, in order for public participation to be incorporated into project planning and budgeting a public participation plan must be developed that answers questions such as the objectives and the appropriate/ desired level of public EPA's Response to Comments on the 2000 Draft Public Involvement Policy 26 impact. Does the issue warrant information dissemination, consultation, involvement, collaboration or some other level of impact? The IAP2 Spectrum is an excellent tool to evaluate what the Agency's " promise to the public" should be and how to match public participation activities to it. The objective of including the public in this determination should also be part of this initial step. Response to above two comments: EPA agrees that defining the objective of public involvement is an essential step of planning, and added the following new language to the " Plan and budget" section: " Objectives of public involvement in the project or decision, and the appropriate level of public involvement ( For example, does the issue warrant information dissemination, interactive consultation or more collaborative approaches?)."

Better Define Public Involvement Steps in the Process Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources: Also in the Planning Function, under the bullet about setting key decisions, EPA could improve the policy by clarifying that the public involvement process should be tied to and designed along with the decision making process, including clarification of significant intermediate decision making points. " Key decisions" can be interpreted to mean simply the final and major decisions, when earlier, intermediate decisions can eliminate or affect options for those later decisions. Finally, under this Planning Function, the policy would be clearer if you include examples of types of intermediate planning steps that are often " ripe" for public input  identifying issues, developing options, assessing impacts, evaluating and picking options, etc. Response: EPA agrees that public involvement is needed at intermediate decision making points, and added new language to that section in the content of planning documents, shown in bold italics ( the first bullet): " Key decisions subject to public involvement, along with their significant intermediate decision making points ( for example, identifying issues, developing options, assessing impacts, evaluating and choosing options);"

International Association for Public Participation: A second aspect of planning for public participation is for the agency to clearly determine the internal decision making process and time line. It is remarkable to members of the public how often the Agency and applicant cannot articulate what the decision process is, the criteria for decision making, the expected time line, or who will be involved in the decision process. The most experienced public participation practitioner or dedicated member of the public cannot know how to be effective if the decision making process is unclear. The Draft Policy's function 5( c) should expand its discussion of process so the " engagement process" and the decision process are one in the same. Response: EPA agrees that the Agency should clearly identify its internal decision making process and time line for the public. See new language in the sixth bullet in the " Plan and Budget" section ( shown in bold italics): " Proposed schedule for public involvement activities that is consistent with the timing of the decision process." See also new language in the Consultation section, c. Content: " Agency officials should clearly identify EPA's Response to Comments on the 2000 Draft Public Involvement Policy 27 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."

EPA Needs Adequate Public Involvement Funding for/ from Specific Activities Guild Law Center and Michigan Environmental Justice Coalition: we believe that the EPA should consider the possibility of generating funds earmarked for public participation wherever the opportunity arises. For example, where the EPA itself is responsible for issuing permits, the agency should review the possibility of setting permit application fees at a level that would ensure the availability of funds for expanded public participation, including provision of technical assistance. Response: This comment is outside the scope of the Public Involvement Policy. EPA does not currently have authority to determine fees and collect them for a particular purpose or raise funds for public involvement. EPA funds public involvement out of the funds designated by Congress for specific programmatic purposes. Many states do use fees to help fund permitting programs, and EPA encourages them to explore using such fees to provide resources for public involvement.

Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, Rocky Flats Oversight Unit, Hazardous Materials and Waste Management Division: One area where the proposed policy seems deficient relates to sites where long term actions are included in the remedy. .... The policy can incorporate these long term considerations. On page 15 0f 40, the Goal 1 recommended action could specify that EPA request funds for continuing public involvement activities at sites whose remedies include long term actions. Response: EPA agrees that public involvement opportunities should be available throughout the course of an EPA action, including long term actions. According to EPA's Superfund program, Superfund's Technical Assistance Grant ( TAG) program provides assistance throughout the site remediation process. EPA can award a TAG grant related to a National Priority List site at any time until the site is deleted from the priorities list.

6. FUNCTION ( NOW STEP) 2. IDENTIFY THE INTERESTED AND AFFECTED PUBLIC " Lesser Actions" also Warrant Identification of the Public Sierra Club, Committee on Environmental Justice: ... the Policy should not assume that " lesser actions" do not warrant identification of interested parties. Instead, interested parties should be allowed to decide whether the actions are in fact minor. These are precisely the situations in which distrust of the agency will fester. Response: The term " lesser actions," which refers to actions that are minor and ministerial in nature, such as the change of a corporate address on a permit, no longer appears in the Policy. EPA's Response to Comments on the 2000 Draft Public Involvement Policy 28 Provide More Details in this Section of the Policy Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources: Identify the Interested and affected Public, this language is general and the lack of specificity raises some environmental justice questions. For example, will one legal notice in the appropriate newspaper be adequate for a notice of public hearing on a permit? Response: EPA does not agree that this section is too general. Because of the wide range of circumstances covered by the Policy, EPA does not believe that specifying these details would be useful. The Policy cannot provide specific recommendations for all situations, but recommends that EPA programs use a variety of methods in order to effectively reach the public. Many such recommendations are contained in the Policy's " Provide information and outreach" section.

Partner with Local Organizations and Government Organizations to Identify Public Environmental Defense: The Agency may also want to co plan and co sponsor meetings with local community organizations ( not just environmental groups, but also religious, public health, minority groups and so on). Such partnerships can attract other citizens who are more inclined to work with a local group than a large government agency, thereby possibly attracting a larger and more diverse group of participants.

New York State Department of Health, Center for Environmental Health: Identify the interested and affected public  underserved. Partner with local health departments. Often local health departments:  know the people in the community;  can provide information on how the community is likely to respond to an issue;  can speak the language of most of the people in the community; and  have a positive relationship with the community that could overflow to a " partner" agency.

New York State Department of Health, Center for Environmental Health: Different programs within EPA should reach out to each other and to other Federal and State agencies for help in solving issues of how to reach a community. In many cases an agency may already be working with a community and the " new" program can gain insight about the community and receive help in building a relationship with the community. Talk with WIC program coordinators to determine productive ways of reaching the community. Response to above three comments: EPA agrees that the Agency should partner with local organizations to identify the interested and affected public. See new language added at the end of the Goals section: " Develop and work in partnership with state, local and tribal governments, community groups, associations, and other organizations to develop and promote public involvement," and the methods portion of " Identify interested and affected public" section of the Policy, re: participating in the events of others and reaching the members of organizations through their publications. Such collaborative efforts will also be included in EPA training.

Use Enhanced Communication Strategies to Identify Public EPA's Response to Comments on the 2000 Draft Public Involvement Policy 29 Michigan Environmental Council: In identifying interested and affected members of the public, the agency should strive not only to proactively seek out new constituencies but also to fully integrate existing relationships into new communications strategies. Agency notification processes should be enhanced to reflect the increasing influence of new technologies. In the end, the public involvement process should seek to reveal consensus solutions. Response: EPA agrees that Agency staff should continue to involve existing participants and use enhanced communication methods to identify the public. See new language in the above response. Also, the Agency intends to expand its use of the Internet as an information tool, while maintaining other dissemination methods for those without access. Public involvement processes may, but do not always, lead to consensus solutions.

Expand Policy's Description of Alternative Methods for Identifying Public Sierra Club, Committee on Environmental Justice: The Policy should be more accommodating of alternate methods of identifying members of the public with interests. Response: EPA disagrees that the Policy restricts the use of alternative methods of identifying the public. In the " Identify the interested and affected public" section, the Policy recommends " using other comprehensive or creative means that consider community structure, languages spoken, local communications preferences... "

Guild Law Center and Michigan Environmental Justice Coalition: The Draft Policy is primarily focused on developing standard " contact lists" for various programs, activities and projects. The GLC and the MEJC believe that identifying parties interested in particular subject areas in advance may be helpful, but such pre identification will not be possible in many cases. For that reason, the Policy should include more specific information/ guidance on conducting community outreach on a project specific basis and on a tight time line. For example, the Draft Policy discusses participation at public events, such as conferences, workshops, meetings, fairs and festivals, as one way of providing information to the public. This outreach method should also be referenced as a means of identifying interested and affected parties. In fact, when major decisions are being made, we believe that the EPA should actively seek opportunities for public speaking, participating in training seminars, and appearing at public meetings and events as a means of gathering names of potentially interested parties and creating a notification list for the proposed action. Response: EPA agrees that the methods contained in the " Provide information and outreach" section are also applicable to the " Identify the interested and affected public" section, and added new material in the latter section under " Method"( revised bullet): " Participating in workshops, community meetings, public events, etc. to share information with potentially interested groups and individuals, and enable them to request additional information on the particular program, activity or project". In addition, training materials will assist staff in recognizing and using all available methods.

Identify People in Geographic Proximity to a Site Guild Law Center and Michigan Environmental Justice Coalition: EPA's Response to Comments on the 2000 Draft Public Involvement Policy 30 The EPA should also recognize that simple geographic proximity may be an appropriate basis for identifying potentially interested parties. For example, where a cleanup, remediation or restoration plan for a hazardous waste or Brownfields site is proposed, people living within the immediate vicinity of the site are likely to be interested in the plan and should be placed on any notification list. Response: EPA agrees that geographic proximity is an appropriate basis for identifying potentially interested parties, especially for site specific public issues.

Expand Policy's Description of Using Surveys to Increase Public Involvement Guild Law Center and Michigan Environmental Justice Coalition: In this section of the Draft Policy, the EPA mentions surveys aimed at understanding a community's level of awareness regarding certain environmental issues as one measure of identifying interested parties, but provides no concrete plans for using this information to increase public participation. We believe that such surveys may be useful in identifying communities that need additional assistance in learning about and understanding the environmental issues that affect them. Once such areas are identified, however, the EPA should make every effort to focus its assistance and outreach on these communities, to educate them about relevant environmental issues and otherwise facilitate public participation in agency decision making. Response: EPA agrees that surveys can also be used to gauge the need for public education and outreach. See new language in the second bullet of section 2b in the " Identify the interested and affected public" section of the Policy ( in bold italics): " Using questionnaires or surveys to find out levels of awareness and the need for tailored public education and outreach." In addition, EPA intends to include methods for the use of specific tools will be included in public involvement training for EPA staff.

Use Risk Perception Mapping to Identify Public University of Michigan Dearborn, Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory: I would like to point out that my earlier comment was offered to demonstrate how risk perception can be used as the basis for identifying the socio perceptual and geographical boundaries of an affected population, and thus is an effective means upon which to build a population specific outreach program. ... The purpose of that work was to demonstrate an ethnographic means of public participation, called " Risk Perception Mapping," that is sensitive to the role that cultural variation and risk perception can play in a community's participation in environmental management. Response: EPA appreciates being made aware of this technique, and intends to include it as a tool in reference materials for EPA staff.

Ask People Who are Already Involved to Help Identify Public Citizens for Responsible Water Management: EPA's Response to Comments on the 2000 Draft Public Involvement Policy 31 Could it ask these persons [ persons who have shown interest in its operations] to identify others who might contribute useful input on particular issues? Response: EPA agrees that people who are already involved can use their networks to expand the number of people invited to participate. See the various mechanisms for gaining input and the expanded language on methods in the " Identify the interested and affected public" section of the Policy ( new language in bold italics): " Asking those who attend events what, if any, interests are missing."

Better Manage/ Update Contact Lists National Association Of Home Builders: EPA Should Provide More Effective Outreach Mechanisms. EPA asserts that it seeks to create more effective and flexible contact mechanisms to ensure better public outreach and involvement. However, NAHB has experienced many difficulties with EPA contact lists and other outreach tools in the past. Although identifying proper contacts is a difficult and ongoing task, EPA should develop more effective tools to insure contact information is accurate and up to date. NAHB, for instance, has over 850 state and local Home Builder Association in its federation and has found few of these groups have ever been identified as groups interested in EPA actions. This is true despite the fact that the construction industry regularly participates in EPA proceedings and is significantly affected by countless EPA actions.

Citizens for Responsible Water Management: Has the EPA taken adequate steps to ensure that addresses of concerned citizens and groups don't ' fall off' lists? Is adequate effort made to request feedback from each at regular intervals? ( It has been my experience that some established groups are ' lost in the shuffle' by EPA where occasional communication to them could elicit useful insights.) Response to above two comments: EPA agrees that the Agency should effectively manage and update contact lists. EPA seeks to work through partners, and must sometimes depend upon membership associations to help alert and inform their constituencies of potential impacts. See new language added at the end of the Goals section: " Develop and work in partnership with state, local and tribal governments, community groups, associations, and other organizations to enhance and promote public involvement," and the Policy's " Identify the interested and affected public" section suggests ( new language in bold italics): " EPA should update each list frequently..." EPA also agrees that obtaining feedback from participants can be helpful; however, Federal agencies' ability to request regular feedback from participants can be impacted by the Paperwork Reduction Act. Public involvement training for EPA staff is intended to address the need to update lists.

Problems with Contact Lists as Primary Identification Method Sierra Club, Committee on Environmental Justice: .... the Policy purports to recognize the importance of this particular element of the public participation process, but other than the development of a " contact list" the Policy fails to provide EPA's Response to Comments on the 2000 Draft Public Involvement Policy 32 much in the way of accomplishing any improvement. Indeed this may be the weakest part of the proposed Policy, especially in terms of low income and minority communities. The reliance on contact lists inherently guarantees that participation will be limited to those individuals who find their way onto the lists. Contact lists are inevitably too narrow. Moreover, despite the fact the Policy wishes to " ensure that all points of view are represented on the lists," the development of such lists tends to presuppose what those interests are. Sorting or generating lists by category of interest or by geographic area, as the Policy suggests for example, will always be underinclusive. In practice, such contact lists are heavily weighted to interests with the wherewithal to position themselves on the lists. Industry, for example, with lawyers, lobbyists, and consultants know which lists are being created and for what purposes. Community members, however, find themselves on such lists typically only by happenstance, and usually much later in the process. The bottom line is that agencies should work on the presumption that many more persons than can be represented on a contact list may have interests in or may be affected by a decision. Response: EPA agrees that all interested and affected people may not be represented on contact lists, and EPA should use a variety of methods to identify the public. The Policy's " Identify the interested and affected public" section suggests " using other comprehensive or creative means..." to identify the interested public. See new language added at the end of the Goals section: " Develop and work in partnership with state, local and tribal governments, community groups, associations, and other organizations to enhance and promote public involvement." EPA also added new material in the identify section under Methods: " Participating in workshops, community meetings, public events, etc. to share information with potentially interested groups and individuals, and enable them to request additional information on the particular program, activity or project." In addition, public involvement training materials are intended to assist EPA staff in recognizing and using all available methods for identifying the public.

Sierra Club, Committee on Environmental Justice: While some [ contact] lists are under inclusive, others are sometimes so broad in subject matter that community members are inundated with so much information and so many requests for participation that sorting through it all is too time consuming and difficult. Indeed this is a major problem for underserved communities. In such communities, where participation rates are low, agencies look to the few individuals who are participating and ask them to do more rather than reach out to a wider community. Response: EPA agrees that the Agency needs to improve its use of contact lists and to reach out to a wider community. The Policy recommends using many methods to identify potentially interested people beyond those already involved, including partnering with local organizations. See new language in the above response.

Sierra Club, Committee on Environmental Justice: In practice, both types of lists, under inclusive and over inclusive, are updated infrequently. And in both cases, the methods for the development of contact lists tend to be event oriented ( persons who attended prior meetings, for example) or essentially word of mouth. Most lists are retired when the proceedings relating to the initial purpose are completed. For these practical reasons, contact lists must not be the full extent of identification process. Response: EPA agrees that the Agency should effectively manage and update contact lists. The Policy's " Identify the interested and affected public" section suggests ( new language in bold EPA's Response to Comments on the 2000 Draft Public Involvement Policy 33 italics): " EPA should update each list frequently..." The Policy also recommends using a variety of methods to identify and involve the public; see above responses. EPA intends to address the issues raised above in public involvement training provided to EPA staff.

Add Local Stakeholders to Contact Lists Reichold, Inc.: The EPA needs to expand its list of stakeholders to small local municipal governments, rural communities, tribes, and urban communities by compiling a list of local governments, churches/ synagogues, community centers, etc. Response: EPA agrees that the Agency should add such local contacts to its stakeholder lists, especially for community based or site specific projects. See new language added at the end of the Goals section: " Develop and work in partnership with state, local and tribal governments, community groups, associations, and other organizations to enhance and promote public involvement." EPA also added new material in this section under Methods: " Participating in workshops, community meetings, public events, etc. to share information with potentially interested groups and individuals, and enable them to request additional information on the particular program, activity or project." EPA intends to address the issues raised above in public involvement training provided to EPA staff.

Use Post Cards to Identify Interested Parties from a Larger List Minnesota Pollution Control Agency: The MPCA understands that some EPA programs use post cards in an effort to locate interested parties from a larger mailing audience. The EPA offers to send a more detailed notice on request. This seems like a good idea, if additional lead time for processing and mailing is available. Response: EPA agrees that it can be beneficial to use post cards to identify interested people from a larger mailing list, and intends to add this suggestion to EPA training materials as a best practice to consider.

This Section of the Policy can be Interpreted to Contain Excessive Requirements Alabama Department of Environmental Management: The Department believes this proposal may be interpreted to require project managers to initiate and maintain contact lists for each facility, geographic areas, and specific industries. These lists may be required to be formed not only through sign up sheets during major modifications, permit issuances, etc. as currently required, but also through pro active surveys, questionnaires, and research conducted by the project managers; again for each facility... This language may be interpreted to mean that the project manager is required to initiate and maintain a contact list for each facility, then incorporate this information into other lists that should broken into geographic EPA's Response to Comments on the 2000 Draft Public Involvement Policy 34 areas and industries. Furthermore, this proposal will require project managers to send out surveys and questionnaires to aid in construction of these lists and then once the lists are established, use the list to send out announcements of involvement opportunities, available information, etc. This may eventually be interpreted to mean making periodic updates of each facility's progress or activities available to everyone on the contact list. Response: The Policy is not a rule, but rather a set of recommendations for how to effectively involve the public in EPA's decision making process. The Policy is guidance for EPA staff, and although EPA encourages states to use the Policy in developing their own practices, the Policy does not apply to state employees. While the Policy does not require either EPA or state managers to take any actions, EPA believes that efforts should be made to inform the public about EPA decisions that are of interest to them.

7. FUNCTION ( NOW STEP) 3. CONSIDER PROVIDING TECHNICAL OR FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE TO THE PUBLIC TO FACILITATE INVOLVEMENT Broaden Policy's Discussion of Assistance to the Public Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources: Providing Assistance To The Public ( p. 82339), this function is laudable but should be broader to include more than just technical or financial assistance. There should also be a goal of tailoring the public involvement process to the process needs of participants. While sometimes that might include financial or technical assistance, it also might mean changing venues, methodologies, meeting formats or considering privacy concerns and cultural differences when involving the public. Response: EPA agrees that the Agency should try to identify and accommodate the process needs of public participants. This suggestion is included in the Policy's " Conduct public consultation and involvement activities" section ( new language in bold italics): Identify and select public consultation or involvement processes appropriate for the scope of the decision and the time and resources available. When possible, consult or involve the affected public to ensure that the approaches selected consider and, if appropriate, accommodate the potentially affected parties' needs, preferences, schedules and resources, as well as the Agency's needs. Overcoming the public's barriers to participation is intended to be part of training materials.

More Clearly Emphasize Technical and Financial Assistance in the Policy US Department of Interior, Office of Surface Mining: On page 82338, item 3, third column, the draft mentions that EPA should: " Consider providing technical or financial assistance to the public to facilitate involvement." The term " consider" is not very emphatic, particularly in the context of spending agency funds. If this is a desirable aspect of public involvement, and if EPA wants it to be administered uniformly and fairly, the Agency may want to emphasize it more clearly in the document. Response: EPA agrees that the draft policy did not emphasize provision of technical or financial assistance. EPA revised and clarified this section of the Policy. The Policy recommends that the Agency consider providing such assistance as one of the seven steps for conducting effective public involvement. EPA's allocation of funds is a decision made by EPA EPA's Response to Comments on the 2000 Draft Public Involvement Policy 35 offices when they prepare their budgets, and is discretionary, depending among other things, on total resources available. Therefore, EPA does not believe that more prescriptive wording is appropriately justified.

Inform the Public about Assistance / Ensure that Assistance is Available Early in the Process Shoshone Natural Resources Coalition: It would also be advantageous to the public to make them aware of the assistance that is available to them through the EPA as stated in the Draft Public Involvement Policy. If more people were aware of the assistance and resources available to them, they would be more willing to be involved. This should be done as early in the process as possible so the public can take advantage of the help BEFORE they have to formally respond to issues.

Lake County, Illinois, Health Department: If financial assistance is available for public involvement, the time line for submitting, reviewing and approving an application needs to be such that funding is available for potential use at the beginning of a decision process. Response to above two comments: EPA agrees that the Agency should inform the public about the availability of assistance and try to make that such assistance available early in the public involvement process, and added the following new language in the " Consider providing technical or financial assistance" section ( new language in bold italics): " It is also important for the Agency to identify those situations where members of the affected public may not have the requisite knowledge or resources to directly participate or obtain expertise to engage in meaningful involvement. In such situations EPA may have the authority to take special measures such as providing technical or financial assistance to facilitate effective participation. When such assistance is needed and available, EPA should announce its availability as early in the process as possible, and clearly describe the process and timing for accessing it." EPA intends to address this issue in public involvement training provided to EPA staff.

Use Internal Communication Mechanisms to Determine Best Methods for Providing Assistance New York Department of Environmental Conservation, Office of Administration: We support ( p. 82339) the continued provision of technical or financial assistance to the public to facilitate involvement, particularly to members of the public who lack the ability to participate in an effective or timely manner in EPA public consultation or involvement activities. For this to occur, internal communication mechanisms must be established for EPA managers to consult with knowledgeable staff ( some staff may be located in state agencies) to determine the most feasible and legal methods to follow. Response: EPA agrees that the Agency needs to use internal communication methods to determine the best methods for providing assistance. The Policy recommends working closely with regulatory partners in state, local, tribal, and federal agencies. EPA's Response to Comments on the 2000 Draft Public Involvement Policy 36 Assistance Should Come with No Strings Attached and be Directed by the Community Sierra Club, Committee on Environmental Justice: The technical and financial assistance, however, should come without agency imprimatur or strings attached. It is important, from a community perspective, that the assistance be independent and trustworthy. That it should be community driven and directed. And that the assistance should allow for advocacy rather than being required to be rigorously " impartial." The purposes of the assistance should not be so limited, rather the assistance should be given with the simple purpose that communities express themselves more effectively. Too often, the " assistance" provides only another layer of difficulty, if not distrust, for an under represented community  often not helping to express the community's views, but merely the views of the socalled assistant. Response: EPA agrees, and the Policy states, that financial assistance should be structured to allow stakeholder groups or other members of the public to participate effectively in the action. However, it should be noted that statutory restrictions govern how EPA can provide financial assistance. The way in which funds can be used depends on the specific statutory basis for the grant. Groups or individuals seeking financial assistance should discuss their concerns with the appropriate EPA official at the time they seek assistance to ensure that they understand any restrictions. EPA plans to address methods of ensuring that assistance that is provided serves the community's needs appropriately in training.

Support for Both Technical and Financial Assistance  Overall Clean Air Council: There is an underlying belief that simply providing the public with information somehow empowers them to effectively participate in policy debates or in the more local decisions that affect their neighborhoods. Information is not power   it is simply a tool. In order to use that tool effectively community based non governmental organizations ( NGOs) need access to financial and technical resources to allow them to understand the information provided by agencies such as EPA and how to use it to protect their communities.

Environmental Defense: By providing technical or financial assistance to people or groups who lack the adequate resources to participate effectively, EPA can ensure that everyone is able to deliver their comments. Financial resources can also go to providing additional technical assistance; for example, it is sometimes useful for citizens to have access to independent economic analyses or consultants to help them organize and formulate their ideas and submit useful comments. EPA should structure its technical assistance grants to determine when and how such independent analyses and other studies can be done with the Agency's assistance. Response to above two comments: EPA agrees that community groups sometimes need financial and technical assistance, and the Policy recommends that EPA programs consider providing such assistance. However, it should be noted that statutory restrictions govern how EPA can provide financial assistance. Groups or individuals seeking financial assistance should discuss their needs and concerns with the appropriate EPA official at the time they seek assistance to ensure that they understand any restrictions.

Sierra Club, Committee on Environmental Justice: EPA's Response to Comments on the 2000 Draft Public Involvement Policy 37 This should be more than mere consideration. Technical and financial assistance is absolutely essential in an ever increasing number of highly complex and technical agency decisions. Many decisions now require an extraordinary effort on the part of community lay persons simply to understand the issues involved, and even more effort to provide effective and timely comment. The Sierra Club understands the statutory and budgetary limitations on such funding, but every effort must be made to assist communities in these increasingly technical decisions. This is critically important in low income and minority communities which have traditionally not had access to the levels of expertise necessary to participate fully in modern environmental decision making. Response: EPA understands this concern and the Policy encourages programs to support financial and technical assistance whenever possible. Decisions regarding financial and technical assistance are made by the program office, in light of its total available resources, competing needs and statutory authorities.

Iowa Department of Natural Resources, Water Supply Section: Where appropriate, implementation of this Draft Policy will require Agency officials to give extra encouragement and consider providing assistance to some sectors.... This is a good concept, providing all comments received are treated with equal weight. Response: The purpose of this Policy is to encourage public participation by all interested sectors, not to afford particular sectors special considerations. To clarify this point, the language in the " What Are the Purposes, Goals and Objectives of This Policy" section has been revised to read ( new language in bold italics): " 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. Where appropriate, Agency officials should give extra encouragement and consider providing assistance to sectors, such as minority and low income populations, small businesses, and local governments, to ensure they have full opportunity to be heard and, where possible, access to technical or financial resources to support their participation.)" One of the Policy's goals is to " foster, to the extent possible, equal and open access to the regulatory process for all interested and affected parties." EPA believes that efforts to encourage public participation by encouraging and providing assistance to some sectors should foster equal, not disparate, treatment of all interested parties.

OMB Watch: Training and assistance grants. EPA should provide support grants to environmental organizations, libraries, nonprofit technology assistance centers, and other entities, to strengthen their ability to access and use environmental information and to teach the public how to access and use it. Response: EPA agrees that it would be beneficial to partner with organizations and libraries to increase public access to environmental information. This message was shared with EPA's Office of Environmental Information.

Include Cost of Providing Financial/ Technical Assistance as Part of Cleanup Costs Guild Law Center and Michigan Environmental Justice Coalition: To the extent permitted by law, the EPA should also consider including financial support for technical assistance to communities in reviewing and commenting on cleanup, remediation or EPA's Response to Comments on the 2000 Draft Public Involvement Policy 38 restoration plans as part of the costs of the cleanup, remediation, or restoration of hazardous waste or Brownfields sites. Response: EPA agrees that that public involvement opportunities should be available throughout the course of an EPA action, including long term actions. According to the Superfund Program, EPA initiated the Technical Outreach Services For Communities ( TOSC) program in 1994 to provide technical assistance to communities affected by hazardous waste that was not listed or pre listed on the National Priorities List and thus could not obtain assistance through any of EPA's established programs. Since that time, TOSC has been providing free assistance to communities on issues related to environmental investigation, technical assistance, cleanup and other challenges communities may face as a result of living near hazardous waste facilities. The TOSC program is a non advocate technical assistance program conducted through EPA's Office of Research and Development and supported by universities and colleges in EPA's Hazardous Substance Research Centers. Communities seeking assistance from TOSC can view the TOSC website at: http:// www. toscprogram. org.

Provide Technical Assistance Grants for Long term Involvement at Cleanup Sites Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, Rocky Flats Oversight Unit Hazardous Materials and Waste Management Division: One area where the proposed policy seems deficient relates to sites where long term actions are included in the remedy. .... The policy can incorporate these long term considerations.... Goal 3 on page 18 of 40 could also include funds for stakeholders to maintain involvement at these sites. Specifically, TAGs could be provided to allow stakeholders to maintain data bases and files on these sites. Response: This comment is outside the scope of the Policy, however it was shared with EPA's Superfund program.

Create Formal Referral System for Community Groups to Obtain Technical Assistance Guild Law Center and Michigan Environmental Justice Coalition: We also commend the EPA for recognizing that technical assistance is often required for community groups to effectively participate in agency decision making. However, we are concerned that the Draft Policy relies too heavily on ad hoc recommendations of technical assistance sources. We urge the EPA to develop a more formal referral system for community groups who need expert assistance or advice on the issues being debated by the agency. Response: EPA appreciates the comment and, according to the Superfund Program, it intends to make efforts to increase public awareness of the availability of technical assistance.