Guild Law Center and Michigan Environmental Justice Coalition: For example, the Public Notice could generate interest in participation by including a section identifying the issues of potential concern or the reasons that members of the public might want to participate in the comment process. Where the EPA has identified an action as effecting an environmental justice community, this information should be included in the Public Notice. The Public Notice could provide affected community members with the confidence to participate by including information about sources of technical assistance and advice, self help manuals or other publications that the EPA has found to be helpful in particular circumstances, and the technical assistance referral database referenced earlier. Response: See above two responses. In addition, see new language in this section ( new bullet in section 4. c. " Content": " If available, a list of sources of technical assistance, advice and self help manuals or other publications that could be helpful to the public."

Citizens for Responsible Water Management: Has EPA been duly diligent in finding ways to include maps and diagrams in its notices? I've seen many notices with blank pages that could have carried useful information that is not easily acquired by the general public. Response: EPA agrees that maps and diagrams can be helpful. EPA will seek to include this idea in EPA public involvement training materials.

Include/ Don't Include Estimates of Costs, Effects and Benefits with Proposals City of Austin, Texas Water and Wastewater Utility and also the American Water Works Association: EPA's Response to Comments on the 2000 Draft Public Involvement Policy 77 Also, on Page 82340, the Policy lists background documents that are typically developed as part of an outreach effort. In the context of the regulatory stakeholder process, the EPA could improve its efforts by including " back of the envelope" calculations of costs and benefits for the different regulatory options under consideration. This would provide an early screen of options that are really non starters. Response: The Policy's " Provide information and outreach to the public" recommends in section " c. Content:" that outreach materials contain information on the " social, economic, and environmental consequences of proposed decisions and alternatives" as well as other background and summary information. This comment was provided to EPA's Office of Regulatory Management.

Association of State Drinking Water Administrators: Recent rule proposals and promulgations in the drinking water program have been problematic because the Agency has sought comment on multiple approaches, each potentially having different significant impacts. It is not until the rule is promulgated that states and the public are made fully aware of the Agency's final decisions. In several recent cases, significant decisions were made between rule proposal and promulgation without public comment on impacts and costs associated with those decisions. Response: This comment is outside of the scope of the Policy. It was shared with the EPA Drinking Water program.

American Chemistry Council: As a fundamental principle, the Council believes that information about the costs and benefits of regulatory proposals and reasonable alternatives is vital to sound decision making. Armed with this information, a risk manager can better evaluate the most cost effective approach to achieving the Agency's   and the public's   goals of protecting human health and the environment without unduly imposing costs on local, state, tribal, and private entities which bear the costs of implementing regulatory controls. We strongly urge EPA to adhere to the principles set forth in E. O. 12866 ( and any successive executive order on regulatory planning and review). The Council was pleased to note that the Agency's proposed policy calls for " outreach materials" to include information of this sort whenever possible, and would urge an even clearer statement in the policy regarding the importance of placing cost and benefit information in the hands of stakeholders.

Environmental Council of the States: The second point is related: most environmental statutes do not allow, for example, a permitting agency to consider the social or economic consequences of a proposed activity in reviewing the permit application. On page 82340, the Policy recommends that the outreach materials include " Whenever possible, the social, economic, and environmental consequences of proposed decisions and alternatives". We think this approach misleads the public and often gives rise to public frustration and contentious meetings in which the comments offered by interested citizens do not provide the grounds for rejection of the permit application. In addition, it adds a burden to the environmental staff of any agency to attempt to prepare such analyses. Response to above two comments: EPA appreciates both of these comments. As the commenters point out, in some cases EPA is required to prepare economic analyses ( both under EO 12866 and under some statutes). In other cases, consideration of cost is not required EPA's Response to Comments on the 2000 Draft Public Involvement Policy 78 and in some cases it is prohibited. It is not EPA's intention to create confusion, but to ensure that information being considered by Agency decision makers is also available to the public. To clarify this, EPA has revised the Policy to read ( new language in bold italics): " Information on the social, economic, and environmental consequences of proposed decisions and alternatives that has been prepared in connection with the proposed decision".

Include Implementation Guidance with Rule Proposals Association of State Drinking Water Administrators: Unless and until implementation guidance such as data reporting and violation determinations accompanies rule proposals, understanding and thoughtful public response to the issues will not occur. The public and states must understand how a proposed rule will affect them at the local level. This can only be accomplished through review of the implementation requirements to be imposed. Response: This comment is outside of the scope of the Policy. It was shared with EPA's Office of Regulatory Management and the Office of the General Counsel.

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 is outside of the scope of the Policy. It was shared with EPA's Office of Regulatory Management and the Office of the General Counsel.

Include Exposure/ Emission Limit Information in Technical Documents Guild Law Center/ Michigan Environmental Justice Coalition:: The broader list of publications and documents that the EPA has identified as potentially useful are also important. At minimum, we ask that the EPA ensure that the technical documents made available for any agency permitting action or approval of any cleanup, remediation or restoration plan indicate the relevant exposure or emission limits, along with the statutes or regulations that establish those limits. Response: This comment is outside of the scope of the Policy. It was shared with EPA's Office of Regulatory Management to consider for future decision making.

Require EPA to Provide More Information in Public Notice Documents Guild Law Center and Michigan Environmental Justice Coalition: EPA's Response to Comments on the 2000 Draft Public Involvement Policy 79 The GLC and the MEJC applaud the EPA's stated commitment to providing the public with " accurate, understandable, pertinent and timely information in accessible places. . . ." Draft Policy, 65 Fed. Reg. at 82340. We believe that one of the most effective means of distributing information is to ensure that it is included, or its availability referenced, in all public notice documents. Public notice documents are generally the most widely circulated materials on specific agency actions and are the primary means of generating interest in an agency action or decision. We believe that the Draft Policy should mandate that Public Notice or public outreach documents include, at minimum, the information listed in Section 4. c ( described as potentially to be included in public outreach documents). EPA officials should only be allowed to omit any of the listed information where they can demonstrate that it is not relevant or that it is too lengthy to be included in the Public Notice itself. In the latter case, EPA officials should be required to refer to the existence of and method of acquiring this information. Response: EPA agrees with the general goal of using notices to provide information or identify where it can be obtained; however, this Policy cannot mandate any specific practice. The Policy contains guidance to EPA staff for effective public involvement in EPA decision making processes. It is not a rule and, therefore, does not impose any specific requirements on EPA.

Environmental Defense: Finally, information is essential for effective participation. It is not only enough for EPA to ask the public for feedback, but it needs to provide them with the information it needs to participate effectively. This means increasing the public's right to know and providing the public with more information than is currently available. In addition, the information needs to improve so it reflects the actual state of the air, water and land, and not just regulatory or statutory activities. Response: EPA agrees that the Agency should provide information to the public that enables them to effectively participate in EPA's decision making processes. This comment was provided to the Office of Environmental Information, which develops internal Agency Web and information product guidance. In addition, the OEI is leading an Agency wide initiative to improve environmental information on the conditions of our nation's air, water and land resources. Part of the long term goal of the Agency is to enhance information on the health of ecosystems, and on the impacts on human health from environmentally related diseases. The first product produced as a part of this effort is expected to be the EPA State of the Environment Report. [ Note: It is expected to be released in the spring of 2003  SOON!!! CHECK!].

Draft Policy Requires Too Much Information to the Public Alabama Department of Environmental Management: This proposal has also expanded the activities that will require outreach to include selection of plans for remediation, clean up, etc. Furthermore, this proposal expands the requirement for information to be provided by the Department as part of the outreach activity from the current fact sheet with the facility history, facility design, and permit/ modification information to then include: identifying the role of the public in the specific decisions, summarizing complex technical materials, providing translations, providing tentative information, and providing social, economic, and environmental consequences of proposed decisions and alternatives. To enact a policy such as this, at the individual work plan level, would cause major delays in the assessment and remediation of contaminated sites and could effectively bring clean up progress at these sites to a halt. EPA's Response to Comments on the 2000 Draft Public Involvement Policy 80 Response: EPA disagrees. The Policy contains guidance to EPA staff for effective public involvement in EPA decision making processes. It is not a rule and, therefore, does not impose any specific requirements on EPA or on any state.

Alabama Department of Environmental Management: This language may be interpreted to mean that the Department would be required to give specific information ( fact sheets, summaries, time tables, resource guides) along with alternative courses of action, tentative determinations, and predictions of social, economic, and environmental consequences of proposed decisions and alternatives to everyone on the contact list. The Department does not believe it is appropriate for individual project mangers or the Department to determine social and economic consequences of proposed and alternative decisions. Response: EPA disagrees. The Policy contains recommendations for effective public involvement in EPA decision making processes. It is not a rule and, therefore, does not impose any specific requirements on EPA or on any state. With regard to economic and social impacts, the Policy has been revised to clarify that it does not require preparation of information not already required. See new language in the " Provide information and outreach to the public" section ( new language in bold italics): " Information on the social, economic, and environmental consequences of proposed decisions and alternatives that has been prepared in connection with the proposed decision".

Property Rights and Public Education Property Rights Congress of America, Inc.: ... Relating to education and outreach, please make it known that efforts to " balance" environmental concerns while protecting private property rights and natural resource production is not being " anti environmentalist."... Americans must be re educated to know that natural resource production is not only the creation of our nation's wealth, our economic independence, but the bread and butter on our tables, and the clothes on our backs. Response: This comment is outside of the scope of the Policy.

TIMING OF INFORMATION TO THE PUBLIC Need Adequate Notice of Public Meetings Michigan Environmental Council: While we recognize the statutory limitations on the extent of many public comment periods, preparation of effective testimony at public hearings and meetings demands adequate notice. MEC recommends that a two week notification standard be adopted for these situations.

Property Rights Congress of America, Inc.: EPA should not hold any public hearings or public meetings until 30 days AFTER publication of Notice in the Federal Register.

Citizen # 11: The public in affected areas should have ample and timely notice of stakeholders' meetings. EPA's Response to Comments on the 2000 Draft Public Involvement Policy 81 American Water Works Association: EPA needs to continue to improve its outreach efforts to provide adequate notice of meetings. AWWA continues to be concerned at the lack of adequate notice of meetings on drinking water issues.

Minnesota Pollution Control Agency: The MPCA has experienced difficulty participating in EPA sponsored meetings due to poor advance notice and poor communication about meeting details. The Policy should direct EPA to provide clear, advance notices when inviting guests to meetings. Attendees often need many weeks to figure out who should attend, to procure travel authority and to make arrangements.

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources: ... in the discussion of timing ( p. 82342 middle column), 15 days is rarely sufficient notice for the public to plan and schedule attending a meeting. Change this sentence to read " Generally notice should be given not less than 30 days in advance of an impending meeting or consultation process." Since this is a guideline and not a minimum requirement, the longer time frame is more suitable. Response to above six comments: EPA agrees that the Agency should provide adequate notice prior to public hearings, meetings and comment periods. See revised language in the " Conduct public consultation and involvement activities" section of the Policy dealing with " e. Timing: " Agency officials should provide early advance notice of public involvement processes so that the public can obtain background information, formulate their needs and interests and obtain expert assistance, if necessary. Minimum time frames for notification of public hearings and public meetings will vary according to the applicable regulations and the complexity of the issue. For example, for actions subject to the public participation requirements of 40 CFR Part 25, the regulations require EPA to provide at least 45 days' notice before public hearings, but that time may be reduced to 30 days if there are no substantial documents to be reviewed and no complex or controversial matters to be addressed at the hearing. 40 CFR § 25.5 If the issues are unusually complex or involve review of lengthy documents, this period generally should be at least 60 days. EPA may further reduce or waive the hearing notice requirement in an emergency situation in which EPA determines that there is an imminent danger to public health. 40 CFR § 25.5. " This issue is intended to be included in public involvement training for EPA staff.

Washington State Department of Ecology, Toxics Cleanup Program: EPA should give public notice at least 10 days prior to a public meeting ( and again 1 2 days prior) in multiple media venues. Notice is often given 1 2 days before a meeting and sometimes the same day only by word of mouth. This does not allow individuals to make it part of their schedule, especially when considerable travel is required. Notice is also often overlooked. Meetings are held and the public complains they did not know about the meeting. If interested parties cannot readily find the information about upcoming public meetings, the general public will have an even greater difficulty finding out about meetings. Response: See above response, as well as other recommendations in the same section " d. Notification:" EPA's Response to Comments on the 2000 Draft Public Involvement Policy 82 Citizen # 5: The public must be able to attend public stakeholder meetings. EPA should provide significant advance notice of public stakeholder meetings, and should do its best to make sure the affected public is invited to the meeting. This includes advertising the meeting in public spaces ( other than just the Federal Register notice), providing scholarships for the public to attend these meetings, and possibly holding meetings in " the field" as opposed to Headquarters or regional EPA offices. Response: EPA agrees that the Agency should provide effective public notice for stakeholder meetings. These suggestions are contained in the Policy.

Provide Information to the Public at Early Proposal Stages Sierra Club, Committee on Environmental Justice: Again, the Policy speaks to the important issues, but fails to deliver any changes from practices causing the main frustrations in the community. The Policy suggests that information be provided to the public at the earliest practicable times, yet seldom is this the practice. For better participation, not to mention fairness, the earliest practicable time must mean at the earlier proposal stages rather than the often statutory notice and comment time periods when finalized proposals are aired. Industrial permit applicants, for example, often have months of dialogue with state and federal agencies in order to refine applications, before a " draft" is released for public comment. In such cases, public comment is often solicited on what is in actuality a done deal. Response: EPA agrees that it is desirable to involve the public early in the decision making process, and the Policy so states in the Purpose and steps 1, 3, 4 and 5. Public involvement training for EPA staff intend to emphasize the importance of providing early involvement opportunities.

Provide Requested Information Quickly Citizen # 12: Follow up, exercise independent action. I requested information of Mr. Hernandez on how to approach it. He immediately sent me the information. This is how you need to communicate when asked for information. Follow up to complaints is essential. Response: This comment is outside of the scope of the Policy. However, EPA's 1997 Customer Service Standards include these suggestions. These standards can be seen at http:// www. epa. gov/ customerservice/ standards. htm .

Define Specific Time Frames for Early Public Involvement Washington Department of Ecology, Nuclear Waste Program: It has been our experience that defining a time frame within which the agency will provide information is helpful and helps avoid miscommunication. For example, the Tri Party Agreement Community Relations Plan states that the three agencies will strive to include stakeholders " 30 45 days in advance" of the beginning of public comment periods. This provides a guideline for both public involvement staff and technical staff for preparation of materials for distribution, and helps reduce conflict over when stakeholders can expect to receive information. This helps EPA's Response to Comments on the 2000 Draft Public Involvement Policy 83 reinforce our commitment to involving stakeholders early in the decision making processes, thereby strengthening our stakeholder relationships. Response: EPA agrees that the Agency should provide adequate time frames in which the public can provide input. See revised language in the " Conduct public consultation and involvement activities" section of the Policy ( new language is in bold italics): " e. Timing: " Agency officials should provide early advance notice of public involvement processes so that the public can obtain background information, formulate their needs and interests and obtain expert assistance, if necessary. Minimum time frames for notification of public hearings and public meetings will vary according to the applicable regulations and the complexity of the issue. For example, for actions subject to the public participation requirements of 40 CFR Part 25, the regulations require EPA to provide at least 45 days' notice before public hearings, but that time may be reduced to 30 days if there are no substantial documents to be reviewed and no complex or controversial matters to be addressed at the hearing. 40 CFR § 25.5 If the issues are unusually complex or involve review of lengthy documents, this period generally should be at least 60 days. EPA may further reduce or waive the hearing notice requirement in an emergency situation in which EPA determines that there is an imminent danger to public health. 40 CFR § 25.5. " This issue will also be included in public involvement training for EPA staff.

PUBLIC COMMENT PERIODS Provide Adequate Notice of Public Comment Periods National Cattlemen's Beef Association: Due to time constraints, members of the public may choose not to comment on issues that directly affect them, thereby limiting the amount of useful input. Therefore, NCBA/ ICA supports efforts made by the Agency to inform the public in a timely fashion on comment periods and when and where informative materials are available to them.

Idaho Cattle Association: Due to time constraints, members of the public may choose not to comment on issues that directly affect them, thereby limiting the amount of useful input. Therefore, NCBA/ ICA supports efforts made by the Agency to inform the public in a timely fashion on comment periods and when and where informative materials are available to them. Response to above two comments: EPA agrees that the Agency should notify the public in a timely fashion. These suggestions are reflected in the Policy.

Provide Information Early to Affected Parties National Association Of Home Builders: In addition to longer comment periods, there are other tools that EPA can use to assist the public in maximizing the effectiveness of the notice and comment period. These include early identification of affected parties, prenotification of subject matter, early availability of technical materials, and the expanded use of websites and material summaries. NAHB believes these tools can increase the effectiveness of public involvement processes. Response: EPA agrees that the Agency should use a variety of tools to assist the public in using the notice and comment period effectively. EPA will seek to include these suggestions in public involvement training for EPA staff. EPA's Response to Comments on the 2000 Draft Public Involvement Policy 84 Post Electronic Documents at Start of Public Comment Period Citizen # 5: The public should be given a reasonable amount of time to comment on policy documents. This includes posting the document for comment on the same day as announcement of the document. While using the Internet to post documents for comment is a good, if EPA does not make these documents available electronically as soon as the comment period begins they are really shortening the comment period. This puts the public at a disadvantage those who have a full time job not related to the policy have a hard enough time commenting on documents during most comment periods. Response: EPA agrees that the Agency should post electronic documents on its web site at the beginning of public comment periods. In the section on " Provide information and outreach to the public" the Policy recommends that EPA: " Provide policy, program, and technical information to the affected public and interested parties at the earliest practicable times..." Also in the Policy's " Conduct public consultation and involvement activities" under " Common examples:" the policy lists " Interactive methods that provide participants with opportunities to discuss the issues and their input with the Agency through public meetings, listening sessions, workshops, availability sessions, open houses, interviews, focus groups or surveys, Internet based dialogues and other methods ( Note: Some of these types of exchange activities, including surveys and Internet dialogues, potentially are subject to provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act and security and privacy constraints)".

Have Flexible Public Comment Periods McNulty Group: There are all kinds of very sound reasons to limit the length of formal comment periods. If deadlines are to be met, and projects managed effectively, the formal comment period must be clearly defined, and limited to a period of time that " meshes" with the overall project schedule. However, that does not mean decision makers shouldn't be listening ( and trying to understand) before the beginning of the formal comment period, and certainly they should not close their ears at the end of the period. If someone has a thought or viewpoint that might " make or break" a project, you want to hear it  you need to hear it  even if it is late. It is better to avoid saying " the comment period closes ..." for that actively discourages later comments that may be critically important to the success of your work. Instead say: " Work on the draft, revision, or final form of XYZ project will begin on ( insert date) and comments received before then will be the most useful and be assured consideration. However, because we are always striving to improve our work and procedures, comments and suggestions are welcome at anytime." That way you have a better chance of hearing something you should know, even if it is later than you wish when you hear it. Response: EPA appreciates the comment. In some cases, EPA program offices have the discretion to accept public comments after the end of the comment period. However, EPA may not be able to consider late comments due to time constraints. EPA will seek to include this suggestion in public involvement training materials for EPA staff. EPA's Response to Comments on the 2000 Draft Public Involvement Policy 85 Allow Longer Comment Periods Iowa Department of Natural Resources, Water Supply Section: Page 82341: We agree with the statement that " The more complex the issue and greater the potential for controversy or misunderstanding, the earlier the materials should be distributed." All rules and guidance documents should have a 60 day comment period at a minimum.

Columbia River Crab Fisherman's Association: The public generally has a hard time adequately responding to a complicated issue in a 30 day time frame, 45 to 60 days is more appropriate, depending on the responsiveness of the EPA to request for additional information that needs reviewing.

Citizen # 5: The length of comment periods should be tied, when possible, to policy complexity. For example, allowing only 30 days to comment on a proposed TMDL is insufficient.

Association of State Drinking Water Administrators: The sheer volume of documents to be reviewed ( more than 1,000 pages for drinking water rules and guidances last Spring) either becomes too daunting for public response or results in less than thorough reviews by stakeholders and other interested parties in the limited time allowed for review and comment. Comment periods at the Federal level should be at least 60 days   longer if the proposal is complex or requires compiling data and information to ascertain impacts.

Shoshone Natural Resource Coalition: In order to have effective public input to the many technical documents that come in to play during any proposed project, the public MUST be given time to understand those documents. The public may need to seek professionals to translate the technicalities. The public may need to hold various meetings to get a broad representation of comments from their community. Assistance ( noted in point 2 above) also can take a lot of time to put into place. These needs and others like them take time. A minimum 30 day comment period implies that the Agency doesn't REALLY want substantive comment from the public. The minimum should be 60 days with allowance for reasonable extensions.

National Association Of Home Builders: EPA Should Maximize the Effectiveness of Public Notice and Comment Opportunities. In its prior comments, NAHB opined that it would be helpful to have longer ( 120 day) and more consistent notice and comment periods. While EPA responded that many of these notice and comment periods are set by statute and that EPA has no discretion over them, NAHB believes that the spirit of its earlier comment remains valid. While EPA is correct that many notice and comment periods are set by statute, the point is that comment periods should reflect the magnitude of the issue, and some comment periods provided by EPA are simply not long enough. Comment periods should be sufficiently long for interested parties to conduct independent research on the impact of EPA proposals. NAHB has found that EPA tends to utilize shorter, rather than longer, comment periods and this tends to limit the amount and quality of data that can be generated Response to above six comments: EPA agrees that longer public comment periods should be considered for complex issues. In the Policy's section on " Conduct public consultation and involvement activities" the Policy states in " e. Timing: " Agency officials should provide early EPA's Response to Comments on the 2000 Draft Public Involvement Policy 86 advance notice of public involvement processes so that the public can obtain background information, formulate their needs and interests and obtain expert assistance, if necessary. Minimum time frames for notification of public hearings and public meetings will vary according to the applicable regulations and the complexity of the issue. For example, for actions subject to the public participation requirements of 40 CFR Part 25, the regulations require EPA to provide at least 45 days' notice before public hearings, but that time may be reduced to 30 days if there are no substantial documents to be reviewed and no complex or controversial matters to be addressed at the hearing. 40 CFR § 25.5 If the issues are unusually complex or involve review of lengthy documents, this period generally should be at least 60 days. EPA may further reduce or waive the hearing notice requirement in an emergency situation in which EPA determines that there is an imminent danger to public health. 40 CFR § 25.5. " This issue will also be included in public involvement training for EPA staff.

Minimum comment periods may be set in regulations, statutes, or Executive Orders. EPA managers choose the length of a specific comment period based on the complexity and other aspects of the rule or other proposed actions. The Policy is meant to enhance public involvement. It should foster better planning and enable managers to engage the public in discussions during the development of proposals, prior to opening a formal comment period on proposals, and to set the length of comment periods that give the public adequate time to develop comments.

Consider Community Needs when Setting Comment Periods Guild Law Center/ Michigan Environmental Justice Coalition: The Draft Policy also references the appropriate time period for public comment. Where this comment period is flexible, the GLC and the MEJC believe that EPA should gear the length of the comment period to the character of the affected community as well as the complexity of the issue being considered. For example, if a community is new to public participation, as indicated by the lack of a developed notification list; has not organized around environmental issues, as indicated by the lack of awareness of or concern over a given issue; does not speak English as a first language; or qualifies as an environmental justice community, we believe that the comment period should be extended to ensure that these communities have an adequate opportunity to educate themselves about the agency's proposed action, develop a position on the action and find the expertise and resources needed to support that position. Response: EPA agrees that when flexibility is possible, the Agency should consider the community's needs when determining the length of public comment periods.

ACCESS TO EPA INFORMATION Make Hardcopy Information Accessible to the Public Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources: .... under recommended actions ( p. 82340, middle column), another bullet should be added that parallels the last bullet. This new bullet would read, " Consider whether EPA should provide documents through special methods to reach affected public or interested parties" to recognize barriers other than language differences. EPA's Response to Comments on the 2000 Draft Public Involvement Policy 87 Response: EPA does not agree that another bullet is needed. This suggestion is reflected in the language of the " Provide information and outreach to the public" section " a. Actions:" of the Policy.

American Library Association: Libraries provide gathering places where community members can meet and debate important issues. Working with the EPA, librarians can organize informational meetings where EPA policies and regulations can be introduced, debated, and discussed. Libraries can serve as distribution centers for EPA reports, brochures, booklets and other resources. Librarians can serve as instructors for workshops to provide essential training in environmental resources, and can offer small businesses information on issues such as protecting the environment, adhering to regulations, participating in pollution prevention and energy savings programs. Response: EPA agrees that partnerships with libraries should be further developed. In September 2000, EPA sponsored a two week Internet based Dialogue, " Libraries as a Community Resource for Environmental Information" with a focus on how libraries and EPA could work together to increase the capacity of communities and individuals to participate in EPA's decision making processes but also in environmental decision making at any level. The messages from that event are still available at http:// www. network democracy. org/ epa Many other suggestions on roles for librarians and libraries are contained in the messages exchanged during the event.

Environmental Defense: The information should not only be made available online, however. EPA needs to ensure that those without Internet access can still get the best information through, for example, hard copy reports, libraries, and so on. Response: EPA agrees that the Agency should use both traditional and electronic means to provide information to the public. The Policy includes these suggestions in the section on " Provide information and outreach to the public."

Sierra Club, Committee on Environmental Justice: The Sierra Club is pleased to see the Policy suggest localized depositories or dockets. In many delegated programs, states and local governments are ill equipped to provide access to information. Although most government entities will put a copy of a permit application, for example, in a local public library, the application alone is seldom sufficient for community members who wish to make more detailed comments. Never mind the local depositories, many state and local programs do not even maintain docket systems at all  even within the agency. All material relevant to a particular agency decision is often not all in the same place. Freedom of Information Act requests ( or state equivalents) are often the only method by which more complete information can be obtained, but such requests are time consuming and expensive for both the agency and the public. Simple organizational and docket structures could minimize the problems, and the guidance should be stronger on this point. Response: Although this comment is outside of the scope of the Policy because it refers to information availability through state and local agencies ( and the Policy only applies to EPA's activities), EPA agrees that the Agency should use localized depositories where possible and appropriate. Please see new language in the Policy's section on " Provide information and outreach to the public" item b( 1) ( new language in bold italics): " Publications, fact sheets, technical summaries, bibliographies, resource guides, relevant supporting documents EPA's Response to Comments on the 2000 Draft Public Involvement Policy 88 and other printed and electronic materials. ( These materials may be made available through the mail, on the EPA web site, and at information repositories such as EPA regional and field offices, federal depository libraries and local public libraries, and state/ tribal/ local agencies.)"

Bison Land Resource Center: In a rural area such as South Dakota, especially when a long and/ or complicated environmental document is involved, library access is not the solution to these problems. Distance alone will keep most people from being able to provide meaningful input, with people in most areas of the state having to travel at least 50 miles to get to a repository library. Library access should be provided, but additional copies of documents should also be available to late comers, and comment periods should be extended. Anyone who has a job or a family is not likely to be able to spend several weeks ( assuming they read fast) in a library reading a lengthy DEIS. People with both jobs and families would find this a hopeless task. Response: Although this example illustrates a problem encountered with another agency, EPA's will seek to ensure that public involvement training materials and best practices information reflect the need to recognize and accommodate local difficulties in accessing information and other important local issues when planning public involvement activities.

OMB Watch: EPA should establish an ongoing program with public libraries, depository libraries, and community technology centers to provide access to EPA information, coupled with efforts to educate the public about use of the data. Response: EPA agrees that partnerships with libraries should be further developed. In September 2000, EPA sponsored a two week Internet based Dialogue, " Libraries as a Community Resource for Environmental Information" with a focus on how libraries and EPA could work together to increase the capacity of communities and individuals to participate in EPA's decision making processes but also in environmental decision making at any level. The messages from that event are still available at http:// www. network democracy. org/ epa . Many other suggestions on roles for librarians and libraries are contained in the messages exchanged during that event and also during the two week Internet Dialogue on Public Involvement in EPA Decisions, held in July 2001 available at http:// www. network democracy. org/ epa pip .

Allow Fuller Access to EPA Information Sierra Club, Committee on Environmental Justice: The relevant information, as the Policy suggests, must be fully accessible. But this must mean all the information on which the agency is basing its decision. Too often agencies allow permit applicants to rely on claims of " confidential business information" to keep information they've submitted to the agency from being available to the public for review. Agencies are never critical enough of such claims, allowing years old production data, for example, and important scientific and biological testing from being fully ventilated. The Sierra Club recognizes the need to protect truly confidential business information, but just because the applicant has rubber stamped their materials with a big red " CBI" doesn't make it confidential. Response: EPA agrees that all information upon which a decision is based should be available to the public unless there are security, privilege or legitimate Confidential Business Information EPA's Response to Comments on the 2000 Draft Public Involvement Policy 89 ( CBI) reasons for limiting access. EPA's regulations ( 40 CFR Part 2, Subpart B) set out the CBI requirements.

Sierra Club, Committee on Environmental Justice: The Sierra Club applauds the suggestion that the agency make " special efforts" to summarize complex technical data, and to write documents in " plain language that the public will easily understand." However, this must not be a substitute for complete access to the data itself, nor should this be a substitute for technical or financial assistance to communities. And most importantly, the plain language summaries must not be simply an effort to sanitize or minimize the issues of interest to the public. For example, the Policy suggests summaries may be among the outreach materials generated " if relevant," but this requires the agencies' prior conclusory determination of what is or isn't relevant to the public's interest. Similarly, an agency's " delineation of the issues and the interests that they may affect" or their defining " alternative courses of action" or describing " tentative determinations" are ultimately conclusory and limiting of fuller participation. Early involvement, complete access, and technical or financial assistance where necessary are much more important for public participation. Response: EPA agrees that early opportunities for involvement, access to information and assistance are important to public involvement processes. The Policy's section on " Provide information and outreach to the public" states that " Fact sheets, news releases, summaries, and similar publications... should not be a substitute for public access to the complete documents." The Policy recommends creation of summaries and fact sheets to provide a first round of information that enables the public to decide if they want to involve themselves in an issue. It is therefore very important that plain English summary materials are available.

Provide Materials Free of Charge Columbia River Crab Fisherman's Association: Pertinent materials requested by those that comment to a proposed should be supplied free of charge under normal circumstances without resorting to the FOIA process. Response: In the Policy's section on " Provide information and outreach to the public," EPA states that " To the extent practicable, provide the public with integrated, on line, user friendly access to health and environmental data and information and to the extent practicable, enable communities, including minority, low income and underserved populations, to have access to relevant data and information." In the same section, the Policy also states: " When practicable, EPA should provide information in formats and locations that match the public's needs, " and " The Agency should provide one or more central collections of documents, reports, studies, plans, etc. relating to controversial issues or significant decisions in a location or locations convenient to the public. Suitable locations will depend on the nature of the action." Much of this access is free. Further, in the same section, under " f. Fees for Copying: In responding to a request for records, the Agency will follow its regulations implementing the Freedom of Information Act (" FOIA") at 40 CFR Part 2. The Agency may waive the fees associated with a FOIA request, pursuant to the criteria listed at 40 CFR 2.107( l), if disclosure would contribute to public understanding of government operations and is not primarily in the commercial interest of the requester."

Provide Real Time Local Environmental Information Environmental Defense: EPA's Response to Comments on the 2000 Draft Public Involvement Policy 90 EPA officials need to ask themselves and the public whether environmental information is easy to access and use and whether it tells people about the conditions where they work, live, or play. We've found that while the agency does a good job of making existing environmental information available to the public, the information is not easy to use and does not do enough to inform people about what they can do to protect their health and local environment. People need to be well informed to effectively participate in their community through activities such as formulating comments on EPA policies or taking action against specific facilities ( e. g. consent orders). To that end, EPA must follow up on its goal to provide people with timely ( ideally real time) information ( in various languages) so they can make informed decisions about their actions and effectively contribute to EPA activities. EPA's EMPACT program is a step in the right direction of providing this kind of information to the public, though the future of the program is in doubt as President Bush's proposed budget does not contain funding for EMPACT. Response: The Agency agrees that a public that is informed about environmental issues can make good personal decisions about their health and local environment and can better contribute to EPA's decision making. However, insofar as the comment relates to EPA's web site it is outside of the scope of the Policy. This comment was provided to EPA's Office of Environmental Information.

Improve Methods for Public to Learn about EPA New York State Department of Health, Center for Environmental Health: EPA has many avenues that people can use to become educated about EPA and what EPA does. We would like to see EPA continue to strive to improve the methods used by the average person to gather information about EPA and its programs. Also these systems should continue to be easier to use. Response: EPA agrees that the Agency should continue to improve the methods the public can use to obtain information, and the Policy recommends many ways to improve public access to information about EPA and EPA's programs. This comment was also provided to EPA's Office of Environmental Information.

9. FUNCTION ( NOW STEP) 5. CONDUCT PUBLIC CONSULTATION AND INVOLVEMENT ACTIVITIES GENERAL ISSUES Public Should Help Define the Contours of Public Discussions Sierra Club, Committee on Environmental Justice: The Policy suggests that " agency officials should clearly identify issues to be discussed, negotiated, or decided prior to and throughout the engagement process so that the public understands which decisions are subject to its input." But this type of top down determination will tend to stifle public participation, not promote it. If, in fact, the public is invited to participate early as the Policy suggests, and the public is provided with adequate information early, then the public should also be able to participate in defining the contours of the discussion as well. For example, the public should be afforded the opportunity to assist in the development of public participation work plans. EPA's Response to Comments on the 2000 Draft Public Involvement Policy 91 Response: EPA agrees that when possible, the Agency should involve the public when developing public involvement processes. In the " Conduct public consultation and involvement activities" section, the Policy recommends: " 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." The phrases noted in the comment are included in the Policy because EPA believes that it is important to clarify for the public the issues that are under discussion, as well as the roles of the public and the agencies involved. In most cases, the range of issues that is relevant will be limited by the nature of the Agency decision or action being discussed. While the public can usefully help frame the issues, it is also important to make members of the public aware of the limits on the scope of discussion.

Consultation Categories Listed in the Policy are Too Stark Sierra Club, Committee on Environmental Justice: ... the " categories" of consultation techniques are too stark. The Policy should not limit participation to the simplified " information exchange," " recommendations," and " agreements." For example, a public process designed for " information exchange" such as the normal noticeand comment procedures must allow comments to rise to the level of " recommendation" or the entire process may be pointless from the public's perspective. As a corollary, the ability to make " recommendations" must not be limited to those select " stakeholder representatives" invited to collaborate with each other and agency staff. The Policy recognizes our point, namely that the categories are " not mutually exclusive" but that they " form a progression." Response: EPA agrees, and changed the " Conduct public consultation and involvement activities" section in many ways. The following language now appears in that section, along with brief descriptions of common public involvement methods ( new language in bold italics): General descriptions of public involvement methods follow, including their purposes, common examples, and key actions. The following list of public involvement methods is not exhaustive. Its variety demonstrates the need for program officials to be flexible and to obtain information that enables them to choose the appropriate techniques for each situation. EPA staff also should review the Agency's detailed public involvement manuals and guides when planning public involvement activities. ( See Addendum 1 for a list of key resources.)

Allow as Much Consultative Public Involvement as Possible Sierra Club, Committee on Environmental Justice: But the Policy makes the statement that " progressing to a recommendation process or agreement process is not necessary, practical or affordable in all decision making processes." The Sierra Club believes that a fundamental purpose of the public participation guidance is to place the public as high on the Arnstein ladder of participation as is possible, and the Club believes that waiving off such a goal as unnecessary, or impractical, or not affordable is essentially a copout. The Sierra Club believes that better public participation comes when it occurs higher on the " ladder" of participation. Too often public participation in environmental decision making occurs on the lower rungs. The goals of the participation are more often " placation" ( communities get to negotiate tiny concessions) or " manipulation" ( communities subjected to public relations campaigns) rather than " control" or " partnership" in the decision making. EPA's Response to Comments on the 2000 Draft Public Involvement Policy 92 Response: EPA agrees with the general goal of enhancing public involvement. However, EPA also believes that the more participatory public involvement practices are not appropriate to all decision making processes. In the " Conduct public consultation and involvement activities" section of the Policy, EPA recommends that programs " Identify and select public consultation or involvement processes appropriate for the scope of the decision and the time and resources available." EPA needs to use a variety of methods because its decisions vary widely in complexity, scope and impact. In addition, EPA should not strive for consensus in all decisions, and its programs operate with limited resources. However, EPA will strive to promote the appropriate use of more participatory techniques in public involvement training for EPA staff. Please see an interpretation of the Arnstein ladder on page viii of the EPA December 2000 report ` Engaging the American People," which can be seen at http:// www. epa. gov/ publicinvolvement/ policy. htm# engaging University of Calgary, Department of Economics: The most important criterion that EPA can set is that, when policy is being created or implemented, public involvement should be in the form of consensus building. First, it is only when all interested parties have a direct influence over policy development that the outcome can be expected to maximize social benefits. Second, when parties have a direct influence, the benefits to them of participating increase, making it more likely that EPA will reach its goal of maximizing the level of participation. Response: EPA agrees that consensus based public involvement is appropriate in some circumstances, which is subject to the Federal Advisory Committee Act;; however, in many cases a consensus approach in the sense of unanimous consent is not desirable or realistic. See above response.

University of Calgary, Department of Economics: In many cases, policy is made and implemented in a two ( or multi) stage process. In the first stage, the central agency creates a general policy that applies broadly across a large number of regions or industries. For example, a national policy might be developed for determining maximum permissible air pollutants from manufacturing operations. In the second stage, those general regulations are then modified to apply to specific industries, watersheds, or regions. For example, specific air pollutant regulations may be established for each of the wood furniture, architectural coatings, and coke oven industries. Each of these industries has developed regulations through the use of a negotiated rulemaking process. See David Pritzker and Deborah Dalton, Negotiated Rulemaking Sourcebook, ( Office of the Chairman, Administrative Conference of the United States, Washington, D. C.), September 1995, pp. 392 394. My recommendation is that consensus building processes be employed at both ( all) levels of policy making. In most agencies, of which I believe EPA is one, public participation at the first state is generally limited to information exchange or solicitation of " recommendations." The ultimate decision making authority is left to employees of the agency. But if consensus building is not used at this stage, the agency will encounter difficulty selecting the socially preferred outcome. In part, this problem could be overcome if the policies created at the first stage were sufficiently " loosely" written that participants at the second stage could negotiate the preferred outcome. However, ( a) central agencies generally establish " tight" policies and ( b) the less precise are the directives from the first stage, the less benefit there is from employing that stage. Yet there are benefits from centralizing some decision making. For example, centralization creates economies of scale and broader representation can be obtained if relatively small groups are able to concentrate their resources on a small number of negotiations. EPA's Response to Comments on the 2000 Draft Public Involvement Policy 93 It is important that the regulations established in the first stage of negotiations are not so tightly written that the parties at the second stage have little flexibility. First, local and industry specific groups will have more information about the specifics of their situations than will national groups. This information will be lost if local groups are prevented from changes to the first stage policy. Second, the EPA will find it very difficult to induce groups to participate in local decision making processes if there is very little probability that those processes will yield policies that are significantly different from those that would arise in the absence of participation. Response: This Policy encourages public involvement at all stages of the policy process. This includes decisions on broad environmental goals and standards as well as those on narrower policies. However, a consensus requirement if universally applied could significantly impede decision making. Public involvement processes involving consensus are subject to the Federal Advisory Committee Act. Therefore EPA uses this approach judiciously.

Consider the Stakeholder Report Written by Resources for the Future Environmental Defense: First, however, we want to mention a comprehensive Resources for the Future study by Thomas C. Beierle entitled " The Quality of Stakeholder Based Decisions: Lessons from the Case Study Record" ( November 2000) that showed that stakeholder processes can lead to better decisions by adding new information, ideas and analysis. Their research also showed that the higher the degree of public participation   ranging from public hearings to negotiations   the better the outcomes were. While we commend EPA for re evaluating its Public Participation Policy, and its increased commitment to effectively enact it throughout the Agency and in the States, we urge the Agency to consider this study when deciding on the extent of its public participation activities. Response: EPA appreciates the comment, and intends to include information from this study in its public involvement training for EPA staff. EPA staff who developed the Policy and implementation activities reviewed Mr. Beierle's draft report, engaged him in EPA's July 2001 online dialogue on public involvement and its evaluation, and seek his advice on both evaluating EPA's public involvement activities, and on developing our public involvement evaluative tools.

Describe/ Define More Fully the Roles of the Public and EPA in EPA Decisions McNulty Group: Public involvement is not asking the public to do your job. It should not be asking the public to make your decisions, write your regulations, or edit your regulations. Both you, and they, should understand this very clearly from the start. What you need from the public is information, not decisions. Public involvement should give the decision maker ( and his or her advisors) information that enables the decision maker to make a wise, informed decision. That means you have to give the public sufficient information to allow them to respond, but you also have to ask them questions that will help them give you the information you need in a form you can use. And, be sure you ask questions they are qualified to answer. If you ask questions that they are unable to answer competently, they will ( 1) know that, ( 2) resent it, and ( 3) attempt to answer anyway, fearing that you are also ill equipped to answer or you wouldn't be asking them. In a EPA's Response to Comments on the 2000 Draft Public Involvement Policy 94 nut shell, public involvement is a part of the decision making process; it is not the decision making process. The person( s) responsible for making the decision must clearly understand this, and the involved public must clearly understand it. Once that understanding is established, public involvement then becomes easy, and a contributor to wise decisions rather than a stumbling block. That happens for two reasons: First, the public understands their role, and will accept it and the responsibility that goes with it as long as they receive prompt feedback that assures them they have been heard * and* understood. Second, the decision makers, and their subordinates, no longer feel threatened now they know that all involved understand it is their responsibility to make the hard choices. Now the decision makers can " think out loud" and treat the feedback they receive back as information rather than as criticism. Naturally there is more involved, techniques to be properly employed to facilitate the understandings mentioned, to reinforce the concept of information verses decisions, and to ensure that commenters know their comments and concerns have been genuinely heard and understood. Those techniques, to be effective, operate long before responsiveness summaries, drafts, and final drafts are issued. Response: EPA agrees that the goal of public involvement is to enable EPA to obtain information from the public that assists EPA in making sound decisions. EPA further agrees that Agency staff and the public should understand their roles in the decision making process. The Policy provides recommendations for a wide range of public involvement activities from public education to seeking consensus in decisions. EPA does not cede its responsibility for making the decisions that protect public health and the environment, clearly the public's role is to contribute to EPA's decisions as stated in the goals section of the Policy: " 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."

McNulty Group: " Public involvement enables the public to work with the Agency and hold it accountable for its decisions." This misstates the function of public involvement. It should be to support wise decision making by those whose job it is to make those decisions; it is not to make those decisions, nor is it to approve or disapprove the decisions. Also, if public involvement is the only way the public has to work with EPA, you have a problem. Get rid of this statement, and the thoughts that go with it. Response: EPA disagrees with this interpretation of " accountable." EPA defines " accountable" in this context as meaning " capable of being explained," that is, through the public involvement process, EPA should provide and the public should understand the basis for decisions. This definition matches the Policy's goal, " To foster a spirit of mutual trust, confidence, and openness between the Agency and the public." EPA processes provide the public with opportunities to share their ideas in order to improve its decisions, but not to have the public make those decisions or provide judgement on them. However, EPA decision processes should be transparent so the public can understand what led the Agency to make a specific decision, know what the final decision is and hold the Agency responsible to implement the decision. This concept of accountability is described in the Policy's section on " Review and use input, and provide feedback to the public" ( new language in bold italics): Gathering and using public viewpoints and preferences involves examining and analyzing public input in relation to scientific and other information relevant to the decision, considering if and how to incorporate that input into final program decisions, and carefully considering public views when making or modifying decisions. For each decision, EPA officials EPA's Response to Comments on the 2000 Draft Public Involvement Policy 95 should attempt to find a balance that enables the Agency to consider both relevant scientific and other information and expressed public values in determining how best to protect the public's health and the environment. The Agency should demonstrate, in its decisions and actions, that it has understood and fully considered public concerns. Finally, the Agency should communicate the decision to the public and discuss how the public's input influenced the final decision."

Environmental Council of the States: First the Policy includes in the list of goals that appears on page 82337: " To promote the public's involvement in implementing environmental laws". Under our system of government, the Executive Branch of government at both the federal and state levels is responsible for implementing the laws, subject to review by the judicial branch. It is misleading to suggest, either broadly in this Policy or specifically at a public meeting that the public has a role in implementing laws. We may ask for public input in how we interpret or implement laws, but government officials make the final decision. The Policy is inconsistent on this point, as later in the document on page 82342, two important suggestions are included:  " Agency officials should clearly identify issues to be discussed, negotiated or decided prior to and throughout the engagement process so that the public understands which decisions are subject to its input".  " The type of process to be conducted, the schedule and the assumptions and expectations for the outcomes of the process also should be clearly stated so that the public and its representatives understand whether they are being invited to an information exchange or a negotiation and can set their expectations accordingly". These are very critical points with which we agree, as our experience has taught us that more meetings do not guarantee a better dialogue. A public meeting can become the forum for grandstanding by a vocal minority, so it is important to look for effective ways to communicate with those parties who are potentially affected. In summary, a very clear understanding of each participant's role in the process is fundamental to effective communication. The Policy should consistently recognize that. Response: EPA appreciates the comment. The " implementing environmental laws" language has been modified, and new language added in the Introduction section of the Policy language: " 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." Through information, education and involvement, the Agency can help individuals, organizations and communities determine the actions and decisions they can take to improve health and the environment from the personal to the national and even global levels.

Make Public Participation Requirements Consistent Across EPA Programs Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources: One area that is missing in this laudable effort is for EPA to try and achieve some measure of consistency in the federal regulations covering public participation for the various " media" programs within the agency. It is confusing and frustrating for the public to need to follow different processes, time frames or formats to communicate their thoughts and concerns when such different methodologies are not driven by the nature of the specific " project" for which EPA's Response to Comments on the 2000 Draft Public Involvement Policy 96 participation is being sought. EPA needs to make it easy for the public to participate and not to make requirements complex and challenging. Consistency between each program's requirements should be an important objective for EPA.

City and County of Denver, Department of Environmental Health: We feel that the new policy needs to do three key things: .... Consolidate the many different public participation requirements that vary across agency programs. Response to above two comments: The Public Involvement Policy is not a regulatory action and therefore cannot be used to consolidate public participation requirements across Agency programs. EPA recognizes the difficulty that arises when different public involvement processes are used. However, specific public involvement processes and time frames are required by specific regulations, such as those found at 40 CFR Part 25 " Public Participation in Programs Under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act, and the Clean Water Act." A partial listing of existing public participation regulatory requirements is contained in Appendix 2 of the Policy. Although EPA believes that the Policy should provide some consistency and improve the quality of public involvement activities across programs, it also recognizes that public participation processes should be tailored to the particular issue and, therefore, the Policy should remain flexible.

City and County of Denver, Department of Environmental Health: The Policy Must be More Cohesive, and Bring Together All the EPA's Public Participation Programs. Currently a hodge podge of public participation requirements and programs exists which is confusing to both EPA staff and the public. Even sophisticated participants in EPA activities have a hard time understanding the various public participation programs, what types of participation are available under which circumstances, and whether public participation is mandated or simply discretionary in a particular instance. The average person has no chance of understanding the system. DEH staff suggest that as part of the new policy, the EPA prepare a checklist of both required and recommended public involvement activities, along with sample forms reflecting the requirements for each statute or program where differing requirements exist. This will enable all involved to know which requirements exist in a particular situation. The checklist should clearly specify the role of the general public, state governments, local governments, and tribes so EPA staff and all others involved will know what is expected and what is required. Response: EPA recognizes the difficulty that arises when different public involvement processes are used. However, the Policy is not a regulatory action and therefore cannot amend regulatory or statutory requirements. EPA attempted to array the public involvement requirements of different environmental statutes into tables in the Appendix to the document " Engaging the American People: A Review of Public Participation Policy and Regulations with Recommendations for Action." Please see Appendix A  Charts of Public Participation Requirements in Key Agency Programs, which can be found at http:// epa. gov/ publicinvolvement/ pdf/ eap_ appendices. pdf . These tables were accurate as of November, 2000. Also see " Public Involvement in Environmental Permits A Reference Guide" at http:// www. epa. gov/ permits/ publicguide. htm for an outline of the requirements for public involvement in permitting under the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, and the Safe Drinking Water Act.

All Techniques Listed in Draft Policy Can't be Applied  Resource Constraints EPA's Response to Comments on the 2000 Draft Public Involvement Policy 97 Association of State and Territorial Solid Waste Management Officials: We found the draft policy to contain a remarkably extensive listing of public participation vehicles and techniques, most of which have already been employed by federal and State programs, and many of which have proven to be satisfactory when used in the proper programmatic circumstances. We would be concerned if we believed that EPA intended every one of these techniques to be applied in all cases, and hope that is not the message. As we understand the policy, the key is that the Agency intends to apply the six basic functions listed on page 82338, and to use as many of the techniques listed thereafter in carrying out those functions. While we agree that functions substantially along these lines assist a successful environmental public participation program, we have to note that each carries considerably different resource implications. While the suggested techniques and vehicles all have merit, their use will also be affected by State judgments about the priority and availability of resources. We are concerned that with this policy the Agency may mistakenly raise public expectations that all levels of government can and will provide the full range of described participatory vehicles and techniques. Response: EPA agrees that the main purpose of the Policy is to recommend that EPA use the full range of available techniques as appropriate for carrying out public involvement activities for specific issues and programs. In the section describing how EPA wishes to achieve the Policy's " What Are the Purposes, Goals and Objectives of This Policy?" is the following statement: " Make every effort to tailor public involvement programs to the complexity and potential for controversy of the issue, the segments of the public affected, the time frame for decision making and the desired outcome." The Policy also clearly states that it applies only to EPA, and not to states.

Provide Guidance on When to Use Different Methods Guild Law Center and Michigan Environmental Justice Coalition: While the GLC and the MEJC appreciate that the EPA has thought about multiple methods of public consultation and involvement, we believe that the Draft Policy should include some parameters or suggestions for when each of these methods is appropriate. Without some guidance on when these more unusual consultation methods [ ADR and advisory/ technical assistance groups] are warranted, we are afraid that agency officials will simply rely on the more familiar methods of public hearings, meetings and listening sessions.

University of Calgary, Department of Economics: I have a similar concern about the draft document's section 5. There, the Agency " lists" a wide variety of participation processes that may or may not be employed by the EPA, as the situation demands. But a list is not a policy. Section 5 does not provide a set of criteria that can be applied ( either objectively or subjectively) to determine when, say, " information exchange" will be used and when " agreements" will be sought. Failure to provide such criteria may create two types of problems. First, if administrators are not given detailed direction, there may be inconsistencies in application of the guidelines across regions or industries. Different procedures may be employed in two otherwise identical regions or industries leading to disaffection among potential participants. Second, if interest groups are not provided with clear guidelines, some groups' expectations concerning participation will not be realized. Again, these groups may become disaffected. EPA's Response to Comments on the 2000 Draft Public Involvement Policy 98 Response to above two comments: EPA agrees that the Policy should contain some recommendations for using the different public involvement methods listed in the Policy. EPA revised the " Conduct consultation" section of the Policy to include the purposes, common examples and some key recommended actions for each of the different methods.

Involve the Public at Early Strategy Phase and Throughout Decision Process International Association for Public Participation: The overwhelming majority of the public wants to be informed and involved at the Big Picture or Strategy level. They want to be informed in plain language and be able to give their comments and concerns in plain language as well. This type of participation is more conversational, anticipatory, and policy level. EPA and its delegated agencies should do more of it. In its public participation training, IAP2 presents a generic decision process that begins with a common definition of the problem, developing decision/ evaluation criteria, developing options, and evaluation of alternatives. Talking with the public at these steps can be of immense value, rather than waiting for review and comment on a recommended solution. Response: EPA agrees that in many cases the public wants to be informed and involved early, and that they want to be informed with and use plain language to express their ideas. The Policy recommends that EPA use such practices.

McNulty Group: At the other end of the project, you need to start listening, at least informally, at the very beginning of a project. It is far easier, and far less work, to incorporate information and accommodate concerns early in a job   before endless hours are spent putting a concept down in words.

Citizen # 10: I firmly believe that your agency must plan early, well advertised public comment sessions ( accessible to all, of course) so that the public has input from the very beginning of the decisionmaking and program forming process. Response to above two comments: EPA agrees that the Agency should start communicating with the public early in the project. The Policy supports these suggestions, for instance in the " What Are the Purposes, Goals and Objectives of this Policy?" section: " Reaffirm EPA's commitment to early and meaningful public involvement;" and " Promote the use of a wide variety of techniques to create early and, when appropriate, continuing opportunity for public involvement in Agency decisions."

Seek Balanced Stakeholder Input Idaho Cattle Association: ICA believes the way to ensure public involvement at all levels of government and throughout the structure of EPA is to put into place a broad, encompassing, and well balanced outreach program. One sided input from groups and organizations with agendas can be destructive to the idea of public involvement. Unless EPA seeks input from all individuals and communities affected by the Agency's actions, public involvement may be rendered useless.

National Cattlemen's Beef Association: EPA's Response to Comments on the 2000 Draft Public Involvement Policy 99 NCBA believes the way to ensure public involvement at all levels of government and throughout the structure of EPA is to put into place a broad, encompassing, and well balanced outreach program. One sided input from groups and organizations with agendas can be destructive to the idea of public involvement. Unless EPA seeks input from all individuals and communities affected by the Agency's actions, public involvement may be rendered useless.

Washington State Department of Ecology, Toxics Cleanup Program: Audiences are changing. Attendees are more likely to be representatives of organized groups and less an individual community member. How can we as agencies make sure we are hearing from all sides? It would seem to be timely to have EPA recognize and address this in their draft policy. Response to above three comments: EPA agrees that it should obtain balanced stakeholder input. The Policy's opening introduction states, " EPA staff and managers should seek input reflecting all points of view and should carefully consider this input when making decisions." The Policy also recommends the use of varied outreach methods in the section on " Provide information and outreach to the public." EPA will strive to address this issue in public involvement training for EPA staff.

Citizen # 5 True public meetings include many members of the public, not just the private sector. Response: EPA agrees that the Agency should ensure that the interested and affected public is invited to attend public meetings, and that the meetings should be planned and conducted in ways that facilitate their attendance and participation.

Sierra Club, Committee on Environmental Justice: The Club must point out that reliance on representative public participation ( task forces, advisory committees, focus groups and the like) either formal or informal must be done with caution. Legitimacy and accountability and balance for such groups are often questionable. In addition, community representatives are often the only lay persons serving on panels of experts, and their non expert input is often discounted. But more importantly, such groups are rarely truly representative. It is absolutely essential, for example, that the affected community be represented. But perhaps just as important is that the full range of ideas that the public might bring to the table be represented as well. Tokenism is rampant in these types of representative public participation processes, and the guidance should be specific in condemning it. Response: EPA agrees that when the Agency establishes advisory committees as part of the public involvement process, those committees should be balanced, represent a broad range of views, and include the affected community. The Policy suggests that various methods should be used to seek input and to gather the full range of ideas and interests to inform the decisionmaking process. The Policy's opening introduction states, " EPA staff and managers should seek input reflecting all points of view and should carefully consider this input when making decisions." The Policy's " Identify the interested and affected public" section recommends a number of mechanisms to ensure that all points of view are represented and ways to find all sides. EPA does not agree that the " tokenism" issue raised in the comment should be addressed in the Policy, but it and other issues regarding representation of the public in advisory groups is intended to addressed in public involvement training for EPA staff.

Citizen # 58: EPA's Response to Comments on the 2000 Draft Public Involvement Policy 100 Public meetings do not work unless the issue is of such high import to the neighborhood that the meeting is highly charged and emotional to begin with. If not, you get the same " professional" activists that go to ALL of these meetings. They DO NOT represent the general public. The general public does not have time to bother with another community meeting. It is very low on our priority list. So most of the input comes from the full time activists  the squeaky wheels. They DO NOT represent us. I elect my local representatives  I do not elect my local activists. Response: EPA appreciates the comment. The Policy recommends using a variety of public involvement techniques in order to obtain input from all affected and interested members of the public. Elected officials are among those who may participate.

McNulty Group: One other point here: note the term " hearing from" above. If you are going to include something about reaching all affected parties, the statement should include the thought that it is not enough to afford an opportunity for affected parties to comment, the project manager must ensure all affected parties * are* heard from, and understood. Response: The Policy recommends using a variety of actions and methods in order to interest and involve the public in the " Identify the interested and affected public" section. EPA agrees that " reaching" and " hearing from" are not the same. However, if the people EPA reaches are not persuaded to participate, the Agency cannot press them for their input, nor should EPA question their decision not to participate. EPA will strive to address this issue in public involvement training for EPA staff.

Create EPA Public Ombudsman Position League of Women Voters of Michigan: If the EPA is now to be " neutral", I think a sub agency within the EPA needs to take on the mission of educating, listening and advocating for the groups about which you have particular concerns. It may be, therefore, that a somewhat out of date concept  the ombudsman  needs to be considered as the " front line" " person" for outreach & input. More specifically, the " front line" office, since such a role would need a number of people to help weigh the kind of personal interests which are the individual stories of the interested public as well as coordinate the representation of the individual's " best interests".

Environmental Defense: Secondly, EPA should consider hiring ombudspersons to go between the community and government similar to EPA's Small Business Ombudsman, which has grown into an effective advocate and communication vehicle for small business interests, or USDA's Extension Service, which is a much valued resource at the local level. Response to above two comments: These comments are outside of the scope of the Policy. However some of EPA's staff fill an ombudsman function when they are working on a Superfund or community based project. EPA agrees that the small business ombudsman is a good model; however, EPA currently does not plan to create a new public ombudsperson position. This comment was provided to the EPA Office of Regulatory Management.

Technical and Outreach Staff Must Work Together Washington State Department of Ecology, Toxics Cleanup Program: EPA's Response to Comments on the 2000 Draft Public Involvement Policy 101 It's been several years since I've had opportunities to work with EPA on cleanup sites  so do not know if these continue to be issues. It's critical in the development of public involvement, that technical and community relation's staff work together, and that each work in the area they have expertise in. I have heard this as a problem from many organizations  public and private. Public involvement must be allowed to occur inside the agency as well as outside the agency for it to be successful. Public Involvement must be recognized as both the art and science that it is, included in the cleanup process as is required in the regulations, by staff that have expertise in the field. ....... A public involvement specialist would not be the best person to provide engineering leadership on a site  and an engineer is not the best person to provide public involvement leadership. Although this may seem obvious  the reality is sometimes different.

Miami University, Department of Communication: I would encourage EPA to use technical personnel in workshops to explain technical issues. My experience has been that publics don't want to hear from the public information staff; they want to hear from people who " really know what they are talking about" ( I've been told that directly). This tactic can do wonders to calm fears and reduce resistance. When a project engineer can say, " We considered what you're saying, but here's why we can't make that work," many people will accept it, even if reluctantly. Of course, this tactic does require technical personnel to be or become effective communicators. Response to above two comments: EPA agrees that technical staff and public involvement staff should work cooperatively together. These comments show the value of having both types of experts working together in the outreach effort. They were shared with EPA's Superfund and Resource Conservation and Recovery Act programs.

Techniques for Consulting with Environmental Justice Communities  Partner with Local Groups New York State Department of Health, Center for Environmental Health: The draft Policy states that EPA should " consider the appropriate use of third parties in the development and implementation of programs ". We concur with this statement and have the following suggestions about third parties that may be helpful. In addition, the groups/ entities listed below could also be helpful in # 2 ( Identify the interested and affected public) and # 4 ( Provide information and outreach to the public.).  Work with local and statewide environmental justice groups. Our state has a statewide environmental justice advisory group. It probably would be helpful for regional staff to be involved with such groups. They would build relationships and have a better understanding of environmental justice issues in the region.  Consult with bilingual community members and ask them to serve as translators at meetings or during other activities.  Engage students ( particularly college undergraduate or graduate level) from the community and ask them to follow the issue and give suggestions about the community's perspective. This could include talking with residents, gathering their opinions, and reporting back to the agency. This activity could be for credit or for pay.  Hire a community person to listen and speak for the community or portion of the community. This takes the pressure off people who might want to be involved in the issue but may not be able to lose time from work. EPA's Response to Comments on the 2000 Draft Public Involvement Policy 102  Although it often is necessary to work with activists representing minority, low income and under served communities, the people who will be living with the program/ project should be involved in the decision making process as much as the activists.  Often people have " barriers" that prevent them from becoming involved. Some barriers are physical/ time restrictions such as a lack of transportation or need for childcare. An idea of a way to overcome transportation issues is to hold the meeting or event near the people's homes ( e. g. local school or church), or hold more than one session in different sections of the neighborhood. If childcare is an issue then hold meetings when children are in school or work with a church or a trusted civic group to provide childcare during the meeting. Some barriers come from preconceived ideas; for example new immigrants that come from countries with repressive governments have a general fear of government. In general, barriers may be more prevalent among minority, low income and under served populations and EPA should be aware from the beginning of a program/ project if barriers exist and address them initially. Talk with community leaders and see if there are barriers that would prevent people from participating. Discuss suggestions for overcoming the barriers and building trust.  Many people in minority, low income and under served communities are not available during the traditional workday ( 9 AM   5 PM) to go to the document repository, call agency staff, do site tours, etc. Staff should consider ways to make themselves and information about the program available outside the traditional workday.  We have found the following techniques helpful in making a meeting between a minority/ low income community and the State more productive:  hold the meeting/ event in a familiar, comfortable location ( e. g. school, church);  provide food;  have presenters that represent different racial backgrounds; and  structure the meeting so there are plenty of opportunities for open discussions with a question and answer component. Response: These suggestions are useful and EPA intends to incorporate those that federal regulations and resources permit in public involvement training and a best practices data base for EPA staff. See new language added at the end of the Goals section: " Develop and work in partnership with state, local and tribal governments, community groups, associations, and other organizations to enhance and promote public involvement," Also see in the methods portion of " Identify interested and affected public," participating in the events of others and reaching the members of organizations through their publications.

Provide Public Involvement Training to EPA Staff New York State Department of Health, Center for Environmental Health: The draft Policy calls for " guidance, resource and training" for technical staff. We would like to suggest that some of that training include public involvement topics, such as why public involvement is important, benefits of conducting public involvement and potential consequences of not doing public involvement. We concur that technical staff need fundamental public involvement training because they may be in a situation where they will have to do the public involvement. Response: EPA agrees that public involvement training should include some of the general topics raised in the comment, and intends to include such topics in EPA public involvement training for technical staff.

New York State Department of Health, Center for Environmental Health: EPA's Response to Comments on the 2000 Draft Public Involvement Policy 103 Another topic for technical staff training is a session on how people normally react to environmental threats on their homes and some of the impacts this stress can have on the community, family dynamics and the health of the residents. Response: EPA conducts staff training in Risk Communications and covers these topics.

Environmental Defense: To improve its outreach activities, the Agency needs to work on the ground with stakeholders. EPA can use facilitators who are sensitive to the local needs and concerns and train employees to effectively communicate with stakeholders. Response: EPA agrees that the Agency should work on the ground with stakeholders, particularly in site specific activities, and that facilitators should be sensitive to local needs and concerns. In the " Who is responsible" section of the Policy, EPA recognizes the importance of training ( new language in bold italics): " Managers should encourage and facilitate the proper training, support and counseling of staff, and, recognizing overall budgetary constraints, should plan for and provide adequate funding for training or other needs in their specific budgets."

Environmental Defense: There are three strategies that EPA can employ to improve its public outreach. First, it can train employees in public consultation and Alternative Dispute Resolution, like the Draft Policy proposes. Response: EPA agrees that employee training is important. The EPA's recommendations for implementing the Policy stress training, and EPA will strive to include many suggestions provided in the public comments on the draft Policy in that training. EPA has a growing cadre of people trained in Alternative Dispute Resolution.

International Association for Public Participation: In terms of specific techniques for identifying interested people and groups, providing technical assistance, providing information, and conducting public participation activities there are hundreds of pages and decades of experience available to the EPA and your colleagues. While the ideas delineated in your Draft Policy are admirable, we recommend that EPA conduct a comprehensive training program where particular techniques can be presented and discussed in context with your staff at headquarters, at the regions, and at the Tribes and states. In addition to the community relations staff who currently have responsibility for most public participation, we also recommend training for project and program staff, technical staff, senior decision makers, contracting officers and attorneys, restoration advisory boards and other regular participants. IAP2 offers a full complement of public participation training developed by the top practitioners in the field. This training includes the principles of public participation, public participation planning, communications for public participation, large group techniques and small group techniques. Response: EPA will strive to include all the items listed in this comment in its public involvement training for EPA staff.

Doctoral Student, Washington State University, Department of Geography: EPA's Response to Comments on the 2000 Draft Public Involvement Policy 104 When describing who is responsible for ensuring that the policy is applied appropriately, it is stated that " managers should ensure personnel are properly trained." I agree but feel this should be expanded such that managers should also ensure they ( i. e., themselves) are properly trained and the EPA should make sure they provide resources to their own staff to acquire selfrecognized training. Even those of us who are already trained, can benefit from an annual refresher where new approaches to old problems are presented, as it is difficult for all of us to keep up to speed with everything we should. Response: EPA agrees that managers also need public involvement training. The Agency's plans for public involvement training include training for managers as well as staff. EPA is also developing a data base of public involvement best practices and training resources that should enable EPA staff to self train without extensive classroom work.

National Association Of Home Builders: EPA Staff Needs Training on Public Involvement Processes As Well As Technical Issues. EPA has itself identified major flaws in the manner in which its 1981 policy was implemented and carried out. It will do little good to adopt a new policy and then implement it in an equally deficient manner. EPA staff engaged in stakeholder and public involvement efforts require special training in public outreach, communication, and participation. Equally important, however, is the need for proper training in the technical and scientific issues under consideration by EPA. EPA staff should be sufficiently versed in the subject matter they are attempting to regulate so they can fully appreciate the complexity of the issues as well as scientific and technical information they must evaluate. Response: EPA agrees that Agency staff would benefit from public involvement training. EPA's recommendations for implementing the Policy stress public involvement training for EPA staff. EPA also agrees that training in scientific and technical fields is important, although this is outside of the scope of this Policy.

Miami University, Department of Communication: I would encourage EPA to use technical personnel in workshops to explain technical issues.... Of course, this tactic does require technical personnel to be or become effective communicators. All agency staff should be trained in the principles and skills of public participation. Response: EPA agrees that technical staff also need public involvement training, and the Agency plans to offer public involvement training for both technical staff and public involvement staff.

McNulty Group: .... skip requirements for detailed written public involvement plans, etc. Instead, institute a traveling training program ( which you can make mandatory) that is designed to convey the concept of public involvement supporting decision making rather than being decision making. ( Making decisions in public, not the public making decisions.) Require the decision makers to participate in the training, and insist all others involved in the delegated project ( deputies, managers, regulation writers, etc.) participate as well. You cannot demand they change the way they think or make decisions, but you can convince them to change. Here your goal is changing attitudes; probably won't happen in a single session. Response: EPA agrees that many people at EPA should be participants in some form of public involvement training tailored to their particular responsibilities and functions. EPA will strive to ensure that training materials cover how public involvement supports EPA decision making. EPA's Response to Comments on the 2000 Draft Public Involvement Policy 105 PUBLIC HEARINGS/ MEETINGS Oppose Public Hearings that Allow Only One on One Interaction Citizen # 59: Over the last few years, Federal agencies have adopted a public hearing format that discourages democracy and public participation. The new format forces citizens to talk one onone with government officials and submit written or oral comments individually more or less in private. The problem with this new format is that other citizens do not get to hear what other participants are saying. There isn't any give and take dialogue in a public forum or arena. A free exchange of information and opinion does not occur and thus no public consensus can develop. Please ensure that there be a public forum component of any public hearings held. Response: EPA appreciates the comment, but does not conduct public hearings in the manner described in the comment. EPA hearings are open, advertised, and structured to encourage people to present their ideas. There are situations, however, in which EPA officials may meet with an individual to discuss specific issues. Such meetings generally are not open to the public; however, if matters pertinent to a docketed activity arise, notes of the meeting discussion should be made part of the appropriate docket and publicly available.

Ensure that Public Meetings Are Not Intimidating to Public Citizen # 7: How do you serve folks who understand issues, but are embarrassed to stand up in an open public meeting and voice their concerns? Response: EPA appreciates the concern voiced in this comment. The Policy's " Conduct public consultation and involvement activities" section suggests a number of information exchange activities and mechanisms: ( new language in bold italics): Interactive methods that provide participants with opportunities to discuss the issues and their input with the Agency through public meetings, listening sessions, workshops, availability sessions, open houses, interviews, focus groups or surveys, Internet based dialogues and other methods ( Note: Some of these types of exchange activities, including surveys and Internet dialogues, potentially are subject to provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act and security and privacy constraints)". EPA also encourages people to submit written comments by mail or via the Internet. This provides an avenue of communication for those who are uncomfortable speaking in a public meeting or hearing.

Golden Gate University and Environmental Law and Justice Clinic: ... consideration should be given to the fact that offering testimony at public hearings can be an intimidating experience. Therefore, in situations where public hearings are deemed to be the best forum for public comment, these should be set in a non adversarial structure. For example, adverse parties should not be allowed to cross examine public commenters. Also, the option of written testimony as opposed to oral testimony should be offered. Response: EPA agrees that public hearings should be conducted in a non adversarial manner, and generally encourages submitting written comments by mail or via the Internet as an alternative to speaking at a public hearing. Public hearings offer some opportunity for hearing EPA's Response to Comments on the 2000 Draft Public Involvement Policy 106 officers and the audience to pose clarifying questions. Cross examination, although required to be allowed in some limited cases, should not be common practice.

Create Rules that Specify When Public Hearings Must be Held Citizen # 5: True public hearings should be held on all large or long term actions... At the very least, clear rules on when EPA or the states have to hold a hearing need to be established because the current threshold of " significant public interest" appears to be defined in a widely diverse manner. Response: EPA disagrees that new rules for public hearings are needed. Requirements for public hearings are specified in the environmental statutes or regulations, and EPA does not plan to create additional rules for public hearings as suggested.

Don't Hold Public Meetings Only at the End of the Process University of Maryland, Department of Communication: Regarding public consultation and involvement activities, methods should avoid holding public meetings and public hearings at the end of the process. Despite the alternative and additional methods that EPA uses in the beginning and middle of the process, some citizens will not become aware until the decision nears  and becomes more relevant and salient to their lives  and they may perceive that the EPA has only held public meetings  and public meetings  especially the traditional, formal, public hearing  hold very negative images for the public, in terms of their not being truly legitimate or interactive forums of participation. The worst case scenario is that it ( the meeting) detracts from months ( or years) of hard work on involving the public. Response: EPA understands that people sometimes do not become involved until the process is about to end. In the goals section of the Policy please see: " Make every effort to tailor public involvement programs to the complexity and potential for controversy of the issue, the segments of the public affected, the time frame for decision making and the desired outcome. See new language in the " Conduct public consultation and involvement activities" section under " a. Actions:" such as: " Notify the public of potential consultation and involvement activities early enough to ensure that the public has adequate time to obtain and evaluate information; consult experts and formulate and express their opinions, options, and suggestions prior to Agency action."

Allow Public to Participate in Superfund Meetings ACES, Inc.: We suggest a procedure and regulations to allow public representatives to attend all joint GP/ PRP meetings, at minimum as observers, and hopefully as discussion participants. Response: This comment is outside of the scope of the Policy, and was shared with the EPA Superfund Program.

PUBLIC MEETING LOGISTICS Schedule Meeting Dates and Times that are Convenient for the Participants Citizens # 13 15, 17, 18, 20 22, 31, 38, 40 46, 48 50, 53, 54, 57 ( same comment provided by 23 citizens via e mail) EPA's Response to Comments on the 2000 Draft Public Involvement Policy 107 Meetings should be held at a time and day that accommodates working people.

American Water Works Association: Clearly, for local issues such as a Superfund site, EPA should consider setting public hearings in the evenings or on weekends so that the affected public need not take time off from work. This can be accomplished through setting meeting times that do not conflict with work hours.

Citizen # 10: It goes without saying that sessions must be held when ordinary working people can make them and where ordinary working people can take public transportation to reach them.

Citizen # 8: The agency could schedule hearings on evenings &/ or weekends, when the unempowered have whatever brief opportunities they may have to comment in person upon a question or ' problem.'

Southwest Workers Union: Many can't afford to take the day off, so when you have public meetings and want input from average people, don't have them during working hours.

City of Austin, Texas, Water and Wastewater Utility: Our experience has shown, that the EPA often chooses meeting days for its convenience, rather than the public's. The key to encouraging public involvement is to accommodate the public. For example, in scheduling stakeholder meetings, Mondays and Fridays are often off limits because many rank and file EPA staff have compressed work schedules and are unwilling to come in on their days off. For the public, however, Mondays and Fridays are frequently the best times to participate since weekend days can be used for travel. For issues that are clearly local, like a Superfund site, the EPA should consider setting public hearings in the evenings or on weekends so that the affected public need not take time off from work. This can be accomplished through setting meeting times that do not conflict with work hours. We have found this to be very effective in the scheduling of our own public hearings and public meetings.

American Water Works Association: Our experience has shown that EPA often chooses meeting days for its convenience, rather than the public's. The key to encouraging public involvement is to accommodate the public rather than federal staff and their contractors. Response to above seven comments: EPA agrees that public meeting dates and times should accommodate the interested and affected public. The Policy's " Conduct public consultation and involvement activities" section states: " Conduct public consultation and involvement activities at times and places which, to the maximum extent feasible, facilitate attendance or involvement by the affected public. Whenever possible, public meetings concerning local facilities or sites should be held during non work hours, such as evenings or weekends, and at locations accessible to public transportation." Particularly for local issues and decisions, EPA staff often plan and conduct evening and weekend meetings, attempting to better accommodate the public's needs. EPA will strive to include these issues in public involvement training for EPA staff.

Unitarian Universalist Fellowship, Falmouth, MA: EPA's Response to Comments on the 2000 Draft Public Involvement Policy 108 I hope that EPA staff people understand that, in today's America, different people are working on different schedules. There's no " best time" for public hearings. Some people  in particular, retired people and people who work at night  may prefer meetings during the day. Individuals with traditional nine to five work schedules may prefer evening hours for public hearings. Trying to squeeze all citizens into the same schedule will be almost impossible. Please be as flexible as possible. Response: EPA agrees that Agency staff should assess each situation and remain flexible when scheduling meetings in order to enable the best participation from all segments of the public. This may include scheduling more than one meeting at different times.

Southwest Workers Union: With people's work schedules they can't attend daytime meetings... Working class people can't take off from work...

Minnesota Pollution Control Agency: Also, many attendees don't qualify for federal air fare and hotel rates, so EPA should consider meeting in lower cost areas and timing meetings to allow Saturday stay discounts. Response to above two comments: EPA agrees that recognizing and attempting to minimize participants' costs should be considered when determining when and where to hold meetings.

Bison Land Resource Center: Another regional reality is weather. I cannot speak for people from other regions, but I know that in the northern Great Plains, travel may basically shut down for long portions of the winter. Out of town travel may be impossible, uncertain, or dangerous six months of the year, especially for the youngest and oldest drivers. Response: EPA agrees that the Agency needs to recognize and accommodate weather, transportation and other important local conditions when planning public involvement activities. EPA will strive to include this issue in public involvement training materials and best practices information for EPA staff.

Schedule Public Meeting Locations that are Convenient for the Participants Citizen # 11: Meetings should be held locally in the affected areas so that members of the public who will be affected can attend.

American Water Works Association: Additionally, EPA often chooses meeting locations for its convenience. EPA regulations have national impact and yet the majority of stakeholder meetings are held in Washington, DC, where EPA is headquartered. Again, to encourage public involvement, it must be convenient for the public. For national issues, we recommend that EPA hold stakeholder meetings and public hearings at various locations around the country.

Iowa Department of Natural Resources, Water Supply Section: ... it would be most helpful if EPA would hold more than one national meeting on a given rule. Or, if that is not possible, hold the meeting in a location that is centrally located in the country to reduce travel expenses, and hold it at such a time when winter weather is unlikely to hamper travel. EPA's Response to Comments on the 2000 Draft Public Involvement Policy 109 Washington State Department of Ecology, Toxics Cleanup Program: It is also desirable to have meetings close to people affected by the potential decision. If a transborder issue exists, meeting should be scheduled in both states to accommodate the public rather than accommodating EPA's desire not to duplicate meeting information or travel. Response to above four comments: EPA agrees that when possible, the Agency should conduct meetings in locations that are convenient for the interested and affected public. The Policy's " Conduct public consultation and involvement section" states: " Conduct public consultation and involvement activities at times and places which, to the maximum extent feasible, facilitate attendance or involvement by the affected public. Whenever possible, public meetings concerning local facilities or sites should be held during non work hours, such as evenings or weekends, and at locations accessible to public transportation." The Agency often holds meetings in locations outside metropolitan Washington, DC to encourage input on national issues. EPA also is increasing its use of electronic submissions of comments. EPA will strive to include these issues in public involvement training materials for EPA staff.

Citizen # 5: The public must be able to attend public stakeholder meetings. EPA should provide significant advance notice of public stakeholder meetings, and should do its best to make sure the affected public is invited to the meeting. This includes advertising the meeting in public spaces ( other than just the Federal Register notice), providing scholarships for the public to attend these meetings, and possibly holding meetings in " the field" as opposed to Headquarters or regional EPA offices. Response: EPA agrees that the Agency should provide advance notice of meetings, effectively invite the affected public, advertise the meeting using methods beyond the Federal Register and consider holding meetings in or near the affected community. These recommendations are included in various sections of the Policy. However, legal limitations prevent EPA from providing direct financial assistance for attendance at public meetings. Where members of the public are asked to consult and provide advice directly to the Agency, the Policy's section on " Consider providing technical or financial assistance to facilitate involvement" recommends providing travel and per diem financial assistance if those members would otherwise be unable to participate.

Schedule EPA Meetings to Coincide with Other Conferences/ Events American Water Works Association: In the second column on Page 82340, the Policy mentions, as one of its goals, that it should ".... ensure that information is provided at places easily accessible to interested and affected persons and organizations." To achieve broader participation from utilities, we recommend that the EPA schedule some of its public involvement activities concurrent with events like the American Water Works Association's Annual Conference, the Water Environment Federation's Technical Exposition and Conference, or other water conferences. Generally, stakeholders from all points of view attend these conferences and this will facilitate broad participation in EPA's outreach efforts.

City of Austin, Texas, Water and Wastewater Utility: In the second column on Page 82340, the Policy mentions, as one of its goals, that it should ".... ensure that information is provided at places easily accessible to interested and affected persons and organizations." To achieve broader participation from utilities, we recommend that EPA's Response to Comments on the 2000 Draft Public Involvement Policy 110 the EPA schedule some of its public involvement activities concurrent with industry events like the American Water Works Association's Annual Conference, the Water Environment Federation's Technical Exposition and Conference, or other industry conferences. We typically have staff in attendance at these conferences and this will facilitate our participation, as well as that of others, in the EPA's outreach efforts. Response to above two comments: EPA agrees that, when possible, the Agency should schedule meetings to coincide with major stakeholder events. The Policy's " Conduct public consultation and involvement activities" section states: " Conduct public consultation and involvement activities at times and places which, to the maximum extent feasible, facilitate attendance or involvement by the affected public." In addition, the Policy's " Provide information and outreach to the public" section recommends: " Participation in conferences, workshops, meetings..." This issue should be included in public involvement training materials for EPA staff.

Provide Child Care at Public Meetings Citizens # 13 15, 17, 18, 20 22, 31, 38, 40 46, 48 50, 53, 54, 57 ( same comment provided by 23 citizens via e mail) I want a public involvement policy with public comment sessions accessible to all (... child care). Response: The Policy suggests: " 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." However, it should be noted that EPA cannot pay for child care for members of the public who attend public meetings. EPA will strive to include these issues in public involvement training materials for EPA staff.

Hold Public Meetings at Locations with Access to Public Transportation Citizens # 13 15, 17, 18, 20 22, 31, 38, 40 46, 48 50, 53, 54, 57 ( same comment provided by 23 citizens via e mail) I want a public involvement policy with public comment sessions accessible to all ( public transportation...).

Citizen # 10: It goes without saying that sessions must be held when ordinary working people can make them and where ordinary working people can take public transportation to reach them.

Citizen # 55: Finally, as a user of public transportation, please make future meeting accessible via bus or train! The last time I attended a public meeting, it was in an area not accessible to public transportation. I ended up taking a bus to the closest location, then taking a taxi. It took me an hour to get there and cost me $ 15!

Unitarian Universalist Fellowship, Falmouth, MA: Access to hearings is a major concern. On at least two occasions in recent years, I've been invited to public hearings, relevant to public transportation planning, that weren't accessible by public transportation. Needless to say, this oversight seems a bit odd. EPA's Response to Comments on the 2000 Draft Public Involvement Policy 111 Southwest Workers Union: Don't make it hard to make it here to meetings. More may be on the way. Response to above five comments: EPA agrees that the Agency should conduct public meetings that are accessible to the affected public, which includes holding meetings at locations that are accessible to public transportation where possible. The Policy's " Conduct public consultation and involvement activities" section states: " " Conduct public consultation and involvement activities at times and places which, to the maximum extent feasible, facilitate attendance or involvement by the affected public. Whenever possible, public meetings concerning local facilities or sites should be held during non work hours, such as evenings or weekends, and at locations accessible to public transportation." EPA will strive to include this issue in public involvement training materials for EPA staff.

Provide Access to Meetings for Disabled Persons Citizens # 13 15, 17, 18, 20 22, 31, 38, 40 46, 48 50, 53, 54, 57 ( same comment provided by 23 citizens via e mail) I want a public involvement policy with public comment sessions accessible to all (... handicap access...).

Unitarian Universalist Fellowship, Falmouth, Massachusetts: In a nation in which the average age is rising, it's important to remove some of the barriers that prevent persons with disabilities from participating in public hearings. Please check sound systems, in advance, to make certain that all speakers at public events can be heard. Please reduce the amount of " small print" in government publications so that important reports can be easily read. Make certain that auditoriums and rooms for public hearings are easily accessible for people in wheelchairs. Try to provide adequate seating and ventilation in the places where hearings are being held. Please make certain that restrooms are accessible. ( Participation in a public hearing shouldn't be a physical ordeal.)

New York State Department of Health, Center for Environmental Health: Ensure that public meetings are in " handicapped accessible buildings". Consider having at the meeting speaker phones, cable public access and interactive Internet programs to help the handicapped. Response to above three comments: EPA complies with the Rehabilitation Act and provides access to meetings to all participants. EPA has added new language in the " Conduct public consultation and involvement" section of the Policy regarding EPA's efforts to provide access to people with disabilities ( see new bullet at the end of 5a): " Be knowledgeable of and comply with provisions of the Rehabilitation Act regarding appropriate accommodations for individuals who need special assistance in attending public hearings, meetings or other events." EPA intends to include this issue in public involvement training materials for EPA staff.

OTHER INFORMATION SHARING METHODS Need Alternatives to Public Meetings for Getting Input from Busy Public Citizen # 7: It seems that whenever you have a public hearing of one sort or another, those who choose to EPA's Response to Comments on the 2000 Draft Public Involvement Policy 112 attend are those with two to five hours to spare. I don't know about you, but my time is precious. The only way I would commit an hour or more to one of your meetings is if I felt very strongly about the subject. Is there a way to allow common citizens who are very, very, very busy, to take five minutes or ten minutes of their otherwise very busy days and quickly comment on EPA issues as opposed to taking two hours to attend one of your meetings? Can you make it easier for me to comment on subjects X, Y and Z? Are there Internet or e mail based methods of gathering public comment? Can you make it easier for the common citizen to comment? Response: EPA recognizes that many interested individuals also are very busy. The Policy encourages the use of public involvement processes, such as e mail and the Internet, that allow individuals to provide input without attending traditional meetings. EPA is planning to use Internet based methods more broadly, in addition to traditional public involvement methods.

EPA Staff Should Go on Field Visits National Farm* A* Syst Program: Another form of outreach I suggest for inclusion ( under either 4. or 5.) is " field trips" for EPA personnel. There is nothing like getting out in the field to see, meet, learn about the people, natural areas, and phenomena that EPA is trying to affect. Of course these have to be carefully structured to avoid undue influence in one direction or another. But I've learned there is no substitute for experiencing a situation directly, or for informal dialogue with stakeholders. One way to do this would be to invite opposing interest groups to organize their own field visits for the same EPA personnel at different times. Many private foundation funders find it very valuable to make site visits that put them in touch with actual constituents or beneficiaries of programs they fund. Such interactions not only gather information, they also assimilate and provide feedback on that information ( item # 6). Response: EPA agrees that Agency staff and the concerned public can benefit from site visits. See new language in the " Provide information and outreach to the public" section of the Policy under 4b Methods ( new language in bold italics): " Tours of relevant sites and facilities".

Conduct Surveys and Focus Groups for Public Input American Water Works Association: Innovative options for public involvement such as surveys and focus groups were not mentioned in the Policy. Response: EPA disagrees; the Policy encourages the use of innovative options for public involvement. Specifically, these methods are recommended in the Policy under section 2 " Identify the interested and affected public," section 4 " Provide information and outreach to the public" part b Methods, and section 5 " Conduct public consultation and involvement activities" part b Methods.

City of Austin, Texas, Water and Wastewater Utility: Innovative options for public involvement, that were not mentioned in the Policy, are surveys and focus groups. An advocacy group's claim to represent the public, is often taken at face value. In fact, advocacy groups may have more extreme views than the public at large. Surveys and focus groups are an opportunity for the EPA to contact the public, in a neutral and controlled forum, to ascertain their opinions on environmental matters. The Social Security Administration has used focus groups successful for a number of years and we encourage the EPA to model their survey and focus group efforts after the Social Security Administration's. EPA's Response to Comments on the 2000 Draft Public Involvement Policy 113 Response: See above response. EPA appreciates this information and since 1996 has used the work of the Social Security Administration as resource material when developing EPA's customer satisfaction and focus group survey instruments.

Citizen # 58: Do a random sample interview process of the general public. Offer them something for this  focus group style  tickets to a local water park or some such thing. This will give you a more honest viewpoint than a public meeting. Be creative  Get Out of The Box. Come and talk to us  like you, we're busy  but we do care. Response: Surveys and focus groups are among the techniques recommended in the Policy. Generally, Federal appropriations law may preclude agencies from providing " give aways" as suggested, but agencies may provide reasonable incentives for participation in surveys and focus groups in appropriate cases if funds are legally available for that purpose. Further, the policy does encourage the use of creative techniques for expanding participation. It should be noted that the Paperwork Reduction Act limits the use of surveys.