[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 90 (Thursday, May 9, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 27220-27233]
[FR Doc No: 2013-10945]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0452; FRL-9811-1]

EPA Activities To Promote Environmental Justice in the Permit
Application Process

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of availability of regional actions to promote public
participation in the permitting process and promising practices for
permit applicants seeking EPA-issued permits.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: As part of its ongoing efforts under Plan EJ 2014 to integrate
environmental justice into all of its programs, the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) is publishing Actions that EPA Regional Offices
Are Taking to Promote Meaningful Engagement in the Permitting Process
by Overburdened Communities and Promising Practices for Permit
Applicants Seeking EPA-Issued Permits: Ways to Engage Neighboring
Communities. This notice responds to comments on the proposals issued
for public comment in June 2012. These documents reflect suggestions
and input received by EPA from numerous stakeholders. This notice
describes actions that EPA regional offices are taking when issuing EPA
permits to promote greater participation in the permitting process by
communities that have historically been underrepresented in that
process. This notice also describes promising practices for permit
applicants that are designed to encourage and assist permit applicants
to reach out to neighboring communities when applying for permits that
may affect communities' quality of life, including their health and
environment.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For more information on this Federal
Register notice, contact Shani Harmon, Office of Air and Radiation,
Mail Code 6102A, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Table of Contents

I. General Information
II. Overview
III. Actions That EPA Regional Offices Are Taking To Promote
Meaningful Engagement in the Permitting Process by Overburdened
Communities (``EPA Actions'')
IV. Promising Practices for Permit Applicants Seeking EPA-Issued
Permits: Ways To Engage Neighboring Communities (``Promising
Practices'')
V. Conclusion

I. General Information

    Expanding the conversation on environmentalism and working for
environmental justice are top priorities of the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA). In 2011, EPA published Plan EJ 2014, the
Agency's overarching strategy for advancing environmental justice. The
Plan has three goals:
    1. Protect health and the environment in overburdened communities;
    2. Empower communities to take action to improve their health and
environment; and
    3. Establish partnerships with local, state, tribal, and federal
governments and organizations to achieve healthy and sustainable
communities.
    The year 2014 marks the 20th anniversary of the signing of
Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice
in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations. That Executive
Order directs each covered federal agency to ``make achieving
environmental justice part of its mission by identifying and
addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human
health or environmental effects of its programs, policies, and
activities.'' Plan EJ 2014 is EPA's roadmap for integrating
environmental justice into its programs, policies and activities. One
focus area of the Plan is ``Considering Environmental Justice in
Permitting.'' Environmental permits often contain measures to mitigate
pollution from a source. Therefore, environmental permits play a key
role in providing effective protection of public health and the
environment in communities. For this reason, Plan EJ 2014 calls upon
EPA to: (1) Enhance the ability of overburdened communities to
participate fully and meaningfully in the permitting process for EPA-
issued permits; and (2) take steps to meaningfully address
environmental justice issues in the permitting process for EPA-issued
permits to the greatest extent practicable.
    In this notice, EPA focuses on enhancing the opportunity and
ability of overburdened communities to participate in the permitting
process. Plan EJ 2014 uses the term ``overburdened'' to describe the
minority, low-income, tribal and indigenous populations or communities
in the United States that potentially experience disproportionate
environmental harms and risks due to exposures or cumulative impacts or
greater vulnerability to environmental hazards. This increased
vulnerability may be attributable to an accumulation of both negative
and lack of positive environmental, health, economic, or social
conditions within these populations or communities. EPA believes that
the participation of overburdened communities in EPA's permitting
process is an important step toward the ultimate goal of promoting
environmental justice through the permitting process. EPA realizes that
enhanced public engagement is only one aspect of addressing
environmental justice in the context of permitting. As part of the Plan
EJ 2014 initiative, EPA also intends to enhance its analysis of
environmental justice impacts associated with permits and identify
additional measures that can be

incorporated into permits to address environmental justice issues.
    Following the National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
(NEJAC) recommendation to encourage more public participation in the
permitting decision-making process, EPA has identified actions that EPA
and permit applicants, both for new and renewed permits, can take to
reduce barriers to participation in the permitting process. In
overburdened communities, these barriers can include lack of trust,
lack of awareness or information, lack of ability to participate in
traditional public outreach opportunities, language barriers, and
limited access to technical and legal resources. More transparency and
dialogue can to lead to more meaningful engagement of overburdened
communities in the permitting process. More meaningful engagement, in
turn, can lead to better permit outcomes for communities as well as
permit applicants.
    Both EPA regional offices and permit applicants can--and in some
cases already do--bring overburdened communities into the permitting
process through special outreach efforts. To learn more about how EPA
and permit applicants can involve overburdened communities in the
permitting process for EPA-issued permits, EPA launched an extensive
outreach effort to solicit diverse stakeholder views. EPA conducted
numerous listening sessions, conference calls and meetings with a
variety of stakeholders, including environmental justice stakeholders,
members of the business community, state, local and tribal governments
and communities, non-governmental organizations, and the NEJAC, to
gather input on how to enhance participation of overburdened
communities in EPA's process of issuing permits. EPA also surveyed its
regional offices, where EPA permitting activity predominantly occurs,
to determine what steps are currently being taken or could be taken to
meaningfully involve overburdened communities in the permitting
process. On June 26, 2012, EPA proposed Actions that EPA Regional
Offices Are Taking to Promote Meaningful Engagement in the Permitting
Process by Overburdened Communities and Draft Best Practices for Permit
Applicants Seeking EPA-Issued Permits: Ways to Engage Neighboring
Communities (77 FR 38051).
    In addition to soliciting comment on these ideas (Docket Number
EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0452), EPA continued its collaboration and dialogue
with stakeholders to obtain feedback on its proposals. EPA hosted
several informational calls with stakeholders to explain the proposals,
answer any questions, and gather input on the content of its proposals.
Under the EPA Policy on Consultation and Coordination with Indian
Tribes, EPA conducted a national consultation with federally recognized
tribes. EPA also presented its proposed ideas during the NEJAC's public
meeting on July 24-25, 2012. Listening sessions, dialogues and numerous
comments provided invaluable stakeholder feedback from communities,
states, municipalities, tribes, businesses, environmental groups, trade
associations, and federal advisory committees.
    EPA appreciates the commitment of time and resources from the
numerous stakeholders who provided feedback. EPA has considered all the
comments and questions it received. EPA has revised the draft proposals
and is now issuing two documents. The first is Actions that EPA
Regional Offices Are Taking to Promote Meaningful Engagement in the
Permitting Process by Overburdened Communities (hereafter referred to
as ``EPA Actions''). The second document is Promising Practices for
Permit Applicants Seeking EPA-Issued Permits: Ways to Engage
Neighboring Communities (hereafter referred to as ``Promising
Practices''). In today's notice, EPA incorporates some suggestions and
addresses several issues raised during public outreach on the
proposals. In addition, EPA has provided a Frequently Asked Questions
document responding to many of the questions and issues raised in
public engagement. The Frequently Asked Questions document is available
at http://www.epa.gov/environmentaljustice/plan-ej/permitting.html. EPA
expects to revise that document over time.

II. Overview

    Executive Order 12898 and Plan EJ 2014 direct EPA to make achieving
environmental justice part of its mission and to be a leader among
federal departments and agencies in addressing the impacts of federal
activities on overburdened communities. EPA believes that EPA's
permitting process presents opportunities to address environmental
justice. EPA further believes that it has the responsibility to lead by
example by addressing environmental justice in its permits. Therefore,
the actions described in this notice focus exclusively on EPA-issued
permits.
    Several commenters asked whether EPA Actions and Promising
Practices change existing regulations and guidance addressing public
participation in the permitting process. The answer is no. Although EPA
expects these two documents to aid EPA in its implementation of
Executive Order 12898 with regard to permitting, EPA Actions and
Promising Practices are not an interpretation of environmental
statutes, nor do they add to or change interpretations of statutory
obligations regarding permitting contained in existing regulations.
They create no legal obligations and in no way change the legal
landscape of the EPA permitting process. To the contrary, the only
legal requirements applicable to EPA regional offices and permit
applicants throughout the permitting process are those contained in the
EPA's environmental statutes, implementing regulations, the
Administrative Procedure Act, applicable anti-discrimination laws and
other applicable statutes and regulations.
    EPA is issuing EPA Actions to encourage more transparency and
consistency in EPA's permitting process with the goal of increasing
meaningful engagement of overburdened communities in that process. As
some commenters noted, EPA already has a legal obligation to provide
opportunities for public involvement in the permitting process. EPA
believes, however, that in some circumstances it is appropriate to go
beyond the minimum public involvement requirements of statutes and
regulations to encourage the participation of communities that will be
significantly impacted by a permit but that have historically been
underrepresented in the permitting process.
    Further, though EPA has discretion to increase the level of public
outreach it makes to communities beyond the requirements found in
statutes and regulations, EPA's ability to perform outreach is
constrained by its resources. EPA developed EPA Actions to more
effectively target outreach resources for the most meaningful
engagement and to provide guidance to its permitting programs in
regional and headquarters offices in order to promote consistency and
transparency in EPA's permitting outreach planning, and to ensure that
enhanced outreach is provided in situations where it may have an impact
on permit outcomes. EPA believes that such transparency and consistency
aids EPA in making more informed decisions, but also gives notice to
the public of EPA's considerations and encourages public engagement in
the permitting process.
    EPA is issuing Promising Practices to encourage permit applicants
to strategically plan and conduct enhanced

outreach to overburdened communities in the permitting process. As some
commenters noted, EPA has recommended some of the outreach strategies
included in Promising Practices previously. Nevertheless, EPA believes
that it is important to issue Promising Practices to encourage greater
use of practices, some of which are already employed by permit
applicants, that EPA believes can be effectively and beneficially used
in the context of permitting and environmental justice.
    EPA is not requiring permit applicants to adopt the Promising
Practices. Promising Practices are simply that: Good ideas in the form
of suggestions to permit applicants. EPA believes permit applicants may
benefit from applying these Promising Practices. EPA hopes that when
permit applicants practice early and meaningful dialogue with community
members, they can help build trust, promote a better understanding in
neighboring communities of the facility's environmental impact, and
build strong relationships that will lead to better results for both
the permit applicant and community. For example, EPA expects the
alignment of interests between a permit applicant's interests and those
of community members, who can be employees, customers, or investors in
the applicant's company, to lead to creative solutions that promote the
achievement of mutual economic and environmental goals. EPA also
believes that engaging community members upfront and throughout the
permitting process can be an effective tool for identifying and
addressing (or even avoiding) potential problems, and avoiding delays
resulting from concerns being raised late in the permitting process.
These and other benefits are discussed in the Promising Practices.
    Some commenters suggested that EPA should expand the scope of the
Environmental Justice in Permitting Initiative beyond EPA-issued
permits. EPA recognizes that most permits under its environmental
statutes are issued by state, local, and tribal governments, not EPA.
EPA believes, however, that the best way to exercise leadership in this
particular area is by undertaking these activities itself before
requiring state, local and tribal governments to do so. EPA believes
permits issued by EPA present valuable opportunities to address
environmental justice in the permitting process. EPA intends to discuss
its experiences and ideas with these governments as well as with other
federal agencies with the goal of learning from its state, local and
tribal partners and of promoting similar efforts.
    EPA is not discouraging state, local and tribal authorities from
adopting elements of EPA Actions or Promising Practices or other
measures that may improve their own or their permit applicants' efforts
to engage overburdened communities in their permitting processes. EPA
recognizes that some state, local and tribal governments already engage
in the kinds of activities described in this notice and have made
significant progress in meaningfully involving overburdened communities
in the permitting process. EPA believes that state, local and tribal
permitting authorities with experience in this area can provide
valuable information that will strengthen EPA's efforts. Therefore, EPA
invites these authorities to continue to share with EPA ideas and
approaches that can ensure the meaningful involvement of overburdened
communities in the permitting process and encourage dialogue between
permit applicants and communities.
    EPA also recognizes that states may have obligations to ensure
public participation in the permitting process under EPA regulations
governing state programs. As recipients of federal financial
assistance, they have affirmative obligations not to discriminate under
Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and other non-discrimination
statutes, EPA regulations at 40 CFR parts 5 and 7, and terms and
conditions of their grant awards. This notice does not address or
modify those obligations. Please refer to EPA's Guidance to
Environmental Protection Agency Financial Recipients Regarding Title VI
Prohibition Against National Origin Discrimination Affecting Limited
English Proficient Persons (69 FR 35602, June 25, 2004) and Title VI
Public Involvement Guidance for EPA Assistance Recipients Administering
Environmental Permitting Programs (71 FR 14207, March 21, 2006).
    As previously mentioned, considering Environmental Justice in
Permitting is one initiative under Plan EJ 2014. The ideas in this
notice are meant to complement all of the other tools and resources
developed under Plan EJ 2014 and other EPA initiatives to aid
communities and EPA permitting authorities in incorporating
environmental justice into the permitting process. The tools and
resources include: EJ Legal Tools, which addresses EPA's legal
authority to consider environmental justice; EPA's effort to develop a
nationally consistent screening tool for environmental justice; EPA's
efforts to meaningfully engage local communities and stakeholders in
government decisions on land cleanup, emergency preparedness and
responses and the management of hazardous substances and wastes through
the Community Engagement Network; and EPA's collaboration with other
federal agencies to improve our community-based actions and assistance
and to strengthen the use of interagency legal tools, such as the
National Environmental Policy Act. These resources supplement
information disseminated by EPA regional offices about their permit
processes and particular permits.
    Section III below focuses on activities that EPA regional offices
are undertaking to promote meaningful engagement of overburdened
communities in the permitting process. Section IV presents promising
practices that permit applicants can use to initiate and sustain a
dialogue with the neighboring communities that are impacted by the
permitted activity.

III. Actions That EPA Regional Offices Are Taking To Promote Meaningful
Engagement in the Permitting Process by Overburdened Communities (``EPA
Actions'')

    EPA has identified a number of activities and approaches that can
be used to promote greater public involvement of overburdened
communities in its permitting processes, particularly for major
permitted activities that may significantly impact these communities.
Each EPA regional office is developing a regional implementation plan
to address meaningful engagement of overburdened communities in their
permitting activities. This notice describes the general expectations
for the regional plans and presents the framework and specific
activities intended to enhance public participation.
    EPA expects that each regional office will use the agency-wide
guidelines to develop a regional implementation plan that is
appropriate for the particular circumstances within that region. The
agency-wide guidelines in this notice are designed to promote
consistency among regional offices and provide EPA's expectation for a
basic regional plan. At the same time, EPA recognizes that each permit
and community is different and that each EPA regional office has the
insight and experience to develop strategies tailored to the particular
communities and needs within that region. Thus, the regional
implementation plans reflect a balance between national consistency and
regional flexibility. EPA expects these plans to evolve as ``living
documents''

that are updated periodically to more accurately reflect their
experiences or circumstances once the plans are being implemented
within the regions.
    The activities described in this notice supplement the standard
notice-and-comment procedures required by law. Even though not required
to do so, EPA promotes the use of these techniques and activities
within regional offices because enhanced outreach can help remove some
of the barriers that deter overburdened communities from participating
in permit processes that affect them and are appropriate in some
circumstances. The result could be better public health protection for
these communities.
    It is important to note the difference between EPA's ``meaningful
engagement'' of tribal communities in permitting in the environmental
justice context and EPA's government-to-government consultation with
federally recognized tribes. Although EPA implements its commitment to
environmental justice by engaging tribal communities, organizations,
and individuals on issues of environmental and public health
protection, the Agency's engagement and consultation with tribal
governments arises from EPA's recognition that the federal government
has a unique government-to-government relationship with federally
recognized tribes. The federal government has a trust responsibility to
federally recognized tribes that arises from Indian treaties, statutes,
Executive Orders, and the historical relations between the United
States and Indian tribes. EPA, like other federal agencies, must act
consistent with the federal trust responsibility when taking actions
that affect federally recognized tribes. Part of this responsibility
includes consulting with tribes and considering their interests when
taking actions that may affect them or their resources. EPA will
continue to consult with federally recognized tribes on EPA-issued
permits that may affect them or their resources.

A. Agency-Wide Guidelines for EPA Regional Offices

    The guidelines presented here provide a framework for the regional
offices to identify possible actions they can take to promote the
meaningful engagement of overburdened communities for priority permits.
Specifically, the guidelines for EPA regional offices are designed to:
(1) Help regional offices identify which permits to prioritize for
enhanced outreach to overburdened communities; and (2) suggest
activities the regional offices can undertake to promote greater public
involvement in their permitting process.
1. Priority Permits for Enhanced Public Involvement Opportunities
    Although any permit action may be an opportunity to enhance the
engagement of a community, EPA believes that it is particularly
important to provide meaningful engagement opportunities for permitted
activities that may have significant public health or environmental
impacts on overburdened communities. Robust public outreach and
engagement can consume substantial resources among everyone involved.
EPA recognizes that its regional offices cannot enhance engagement for
every EPA-issued permit and that overburdened communities might not
have the same interest in engagement for every permit potentially
impacting them. For this reason, EPA will consider prioritizing for
enhanced public involvement opportunities those EPA-issued permits
associated with activities that may have significant public health or
environmental impacts on overburdened communities. These might include
new large production facilities or major modifications to existing
facilities. However, EPA does not intend to scale back the public
involvement opportunities it typically provides in other permits as a
result of its efforts to provide enhanced public involvement for
priority permits.
    To assist the regional offices in identifying priority permits for
enhanced outreach, EPA has identified the types of permits that may
involve activities with significant public health or environmental
impacts. In providing this list, EPA does not intend for its regional
offices to enhance engagement opportunities in every instance where one
of these permits is at issue. Rather, this list is provided to
illustrate the kinds of permit applications or renewals that may
involve activities with significant public health or environmental
impacts and that may be appropriate for prioritization if those impacts
affect overburdened communities. Regional offices may also choose to
prioritize permits that are not listed here. Examples of permits that
may involve activities with significant public health or environmental
impacts can include, but are not limited to, the following:
     Construction permits under the Clean Air Act, especially
new major sources (or major modifications of sources) of criteria
pollutants;
     Significant Underground Injection Control Program permits
under the Safe Drinking Water Act;
     ``Major'' industrial National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permits (as defined in 40 CFR 122.2) under
the Clean Water Act that are for:
    [cir] New sources or new dischargers, or
    [cir] Existing sources with major modifications, including, but not
limited to, a new outfall, a new or changed process that results in the
discharge of new pollutants, or an increase in production that results
in an increased discharge of pollutants;
     ``Non-Major'' industrial NPDES permits (as defined in 40
CFR 122.2) under the Clean Water Act that are identified by EPA on a
national or regional basis as a focus area, for:
    [cir] New sources or new discharges, or
    [cir] Existing sources with major modifications, including, but not
limited to, a new outfall, a new or changed process that results in the
discharge of new pollutants, or an increase in production that results
in an increased discharge of pollutants; and
     RCRA permits associated with new combustion facilities or
modifications to existing RCRA permits that address new treatment
processes or corrective action cleanups involving potential off-site
impacts.
    Several commenters asked for clarification on how EPA will
prioritize permits for enhanced outreach, and whether such
prioritization of permits is necessary. EPA believes a prioritization
process will help regional offices to focus more thoughtfully on
permitted activities that may have significant public health or
environmental impacts on overburdened communities and to devote
resources to outreach activities that will be most effective in
engaging a particular community. EPA believes the prioritization
process articulated in the guidelines appropriately takes into account
available resources to engage in this work, variability across EPA
regions, and variability across different communities. EPA expects the
prioritization process to result in a manageable number of permits for
which regional offices and communities can apply these guidelines.
    EPA recognizes that, as some commenters pointed out, the
prioritization process articulated in the guidelines may not provide
enough detail to determine which particular permits a regional office
will prioritize for enhanced outreach. The guidelines in this notice
are intended to establish parameters for regional implementation plans
and to provide some national consistency across the plans while
maintaining the flexibility of the regional offices to tailor outreach
to particular circumstances.
    Some commenters asked whether EPA would provide enhanced outreach
only if two criteria were met: (1) The

permitted activity is expected to have significant environmental or
public health impacts, and (2) the affect community is already
overburdened. EPA regional offices have the discretion to use other
considerations to prioritize EPA-issued permits for enhanced outreach
that do not meet either or both of those criteria. One important
consideration would be whether a community has expressed concerns over
a permit application or renewal. EPA regional offices may consider
prioritizing such permits and may tailor the engagement of neighboring
communities in proportion to the actual health or environmental impacts
or public concerns expressed over the permitted activity. However,
given resource constraints, EPA expects that it will only infrequently
provide enhanced outreach for permitted activities in response to
public concerns in the absence of information about potential
significant public health or environmental impacts. Further, the
enhanced outreach activities for a permitted activity that does not
have significant public health or environmental impacts will not
necessarily be the same as those for a permitted activity that has
significant public health or environmental impacts. EPA intends to
tailor enhanced outreach to the particular circumstances to most
effectively utilize the time and resources of EPA as well as
communities and permit applicants. Similarly, EPA may, on occasion,
prioritize a permitted activity for enhanced outreach due to its
significant impacts even though it does not impact an overburdened
community.
    In response to comments inquiring whether permits that are not
prioritized will receive outreach, EPA emphasizes that EPA will still
comply with all applicable public participation requirements
established by the relevant statutes and regulations. But EPA-issued
permits that are not prioritized for enhanced outreach may not receive
the supplemental activities presented below.
2. Regional Offices' Activities To Promote Greater Public Involvement
in the Permitting Process
    Presented below is a list of activities that EPA regional offices
are undertaking at key junctures in the permitting process to promote
greater involvement of overburdened communities. The list of activities
is intended to identify priority areas of activity and to provide
options for activities regions can consider including in the regional
implementation plans they develop. Regional offices, therefore, may
choose not to implement all of the activities listed below. Similarly,
the list of activities is not meant to be comprehensive or exhaustive.
Different situations will justify different responses.
    Planning & Gathering Information:
    [cir] Identify upcoming priority permits for promoting greater
public involvement. When identifying priority permits, focus on permits
that community members have identified as a priority, to the extent
such information is available.
    [cir] Locate existing data and studies that are relevant to the
particular community.
    [cir] Explore ways to reach out to the affected community in
coordination with relevant EPA staff, including permit writers, EJ
coordinators, public affairs staff, the press office, and EPA's
Conflict Prevention & Resolution Center.
    [cir] Coordinate with state, local, and/or tribal authorities in
appropriate circumstances.
    [cir] Evaluate the appropriate length of the public comment period
and EPA's openness to requests to extend that period.
    [cir] Consider holding information meetings for the public in
addition to the formal public comment processes.
    Coordinating within EPA:
    [cir] For applicants with multiple EPA permits, inform EPA permit
writers from other offices in the region that your office has received
a permit application from the applicant.
    Communicating with Community Members:
    [cir] Designate EPA point(s) of contact that community members can
contact to discuss environmental justice concerns or questions of a
technical nature about the permit application.
    [cir] Use informational materials to explain the permitting
process.
    [cir] Use plain language when communicating with the public.
    [cir] Use communication techniques that community members value,
such as direct mailings, posters, articles in local newspapers, and
emails to list serves.
    [cir] Offer translation services for communities with multi-lingual
populations (including interpreters at public meetings or translations
of public documents).
    [cir] Make key documents on the proposed project readily accessible
to community members, using a variety of media tools (paper copies,
online, etc.), when appropriate.
    [cir] Hold public meetings at times and places in neighboring
communities best designed to afford the public a meaningful chance to
attend.
    [cir] Give careful consideration to requests to extend the comment
period, or hold additional public meetings.
    [cir] After the permit has been issued, make available to community
members a summary of EPA's comment responses and provide information on
where community members can find the entire comment response document.
    Communicating with the Permit Applicant:
    [cir] Encourage the permit applicant to provide EPA with a plain-
language description of its proposed project or permit application.
    [cir] Encourage the permit applicant to consult EPA guidance on
environmental justice and other resources developed under Plan EJ 2014,
including the Promising Practices for Permit Applicants Seeking EPA-
Issued Permits: Ways to Engage Neighboring Communities.
    Some commenters inquired why EPA does not require all EPA regional
offices to perform the same or particular outreach activities. EPA
Actions strikes an important balance between national consistency and
regional flexibility. The Agency-wide guidelines establish national
consistency by providing EPA's expectations for the regional
implementation plans. At the same time, EPA recognizes that the
regional offices need the flexibility to take actions suited to the
types of permits and communities typically seen within the region. EPA
believes that each regional office has the insight and experience to
develop strategies tailored to their particular circumstances. To
support this needed regional flexibility, the guidelines do not
prescribe which permits the EPA regional offices must prioritize or
which outreach activities they must adopt.

B. EPA's Expectations for Regional Implementation Plans

    EPA expects each regional office to develop, implement and make
publicly available a regional implementation plan consistent with the
Agency-wide guidelines presented in this notice in order to support the
meaningful engagement of overburdened communities in the permitting
process for priority permits. EPA believes that regional offices will
be better able to provide enhanced outreach when they have planned and
allocated resources for outreach in advance through the development of
regional implementation plans. EPA also believes that making the
regional implementation plans publicly available will increase
transparency and inform communities of EPA regional offices' efforts to
create opportunities for

overburdened communities to meaningfully engage in the permitting
process. EPA intends for the plans to evolve as ``living documents'' as
the regional offices gain experience with using the plans to guide
their outreach efforts in overburdened communities for priority
permits.
    EPA expects the regional implementation plans to address with more
specificity the process that a regional office will use to prioritize
permits for enhanced engagement, including the types of permits and
activities the regional offices plan to implement. EPA expects the
regional plans to be tailored to the region's specific needs but also
to be consistent with the Agency-wide guidelines on prioritization of
permits for enhanced engagement and priority areas of outreach
activities outlined in today's notice.
    Consistent with the Agency-wide guidelines previously discussed,
EPA expects the regional implementation plans to include:
    I. EPA Regional Offices' Process for Prioritizing Permits for
Enhanced Engagement
    a. Use of a screening tool or other methodology to help identify
potentially overburdened communities; and
    b. Types of permits with significant public health or environmental
impacts.
    II. Priority Enhanced Outreach Activities
    a. Planning and gathering information;
    b. Coordinating within EPA;
    c. Communicating with Community Members; and
    d. Communicating with the Permit Applicant.
    In summary, EPA expects the regional implementation plans to give a
general picture of the types of permits that a regional office expects
to target for enhanced outreach and what enhanced outreach might
entail. Regional implementation plans are intended to inform the public
of an EPA regional office's plans to prioritize and conduct enhanced
outreach for permits generally. However, the regional implementation
plans are not intended to be a prospective or retrospective account of
the particular permits a regional office prioritized and specific
activities it conducted for enhancing outreach in overburdened
communities.
    EPA anticipates that the regional implementation plans will be
publicly available in Spring 2013. The regional implementation plans
will be posted to EPA's Plan EJ 2014 Web site, at http://www.epa.gov/environmentaljustice/plan-ej/index.html. Additionally, each Region will
post its regional implementation plan to the appropriate EPA regional
Web site.
    Under the Agency-wide guidelines for regional implementation plans,
EPA regional offices are expected to prioritize permits for enhanced
outreach based on the criteria of whether the permitted activities
could have significant environmental or public health impacts, and
whether those impacts affect an overburdened community. To be
prioritized for outreach, a permit will likely need to meet both
criteria. However, as previously mentioned, on occasion, EPA regional
office may decide to prioritize some EPA-issued permits for enhanced
outreach even if they do not meet one or both of the criteria.
    When prioritizing a permit for enhanced outreach, an EPA regional
office need not assess whether permitted activities have significant
environmental or public health impacts prior to investigating whether
the permitted activities affect an overburdened community, or vice
versa. Thus, EPA expects that some EPA regional offices will examine
whether a permitted activity has significant environmental or public
health impacts prior to assessing whether an overburdened community
would be impacted by the permitted activity while other EPA regional
offices might first examine whether an overburdened community would be
impacted. Accordingly, if an EPA regional office assesses the
significance of the environmental and public health impacts of a
permitted activity first, the EPA regional office may decide not to
perform an environmental justice screening on every permit application
it receives. Instead, the EPA regional office would perform an
environmental justice screening only on the permits that have been
found to have significant environmental or public health impacts.
Consequently, EPA does not expect that EPA regional offices will
perform an environmental justice screening on every permit application.
    Some commenters asked how EPA regional offices would perform an
environmental justice screening of permits. The Agency has developed a
nationally consistent screening tool to help identify communities that
are potentially overburdened. This tool, known as EJSCREEN, is one of
several tools being developed under Plan EJ 2014. EPA anticipates that
its regional offices will use EJSCREEN and other readily available
information, including known community concerns, to help prioritize
their permits for enhanced outreach. In cases where EJSCREEN is not
appropriate for use in screening because the relevant data were not
available for the area, the region will complete a similar screening by
reviewing available demographic and environmental data. EPA expects
that in most circumstances EJSCREEN will be the appropriate tool for
initial screening. Please visit EPA's Plan EJ 2014 Web site (http://www.epa.gov/environmentaljustice/plan-ej/index.html) to learn more
about EJSCREEN.
    Other commenters asked how EPA regional offices would determine
whether a permitted activity has significant environmental or public
health impacts. When permit applicants submit an application, they are
required to provide information on the proposed project consistent with
the requirements of particular statutes and regulations. EPA may also
do its own assessment of the environmental and public health impacts of
a proposed project, using modeling and monitoring data for example. All
of this information would inform an EPA regional office's decision on
whether a permitted activity has significant environmental or public
health impacts.
    EPA recognizes that a permitted activity could potentially impact
an area that straddles two or more EPA regions. The EPA region where
the permitted activity is located has the lead for issuing the permit
and is expected to apply the prioritization process for enhanced
outreach as described in their regional implementation plan. EPA
regional offices with the lead for issuing the permit routinely engage
other EPA regional offices impacted by the permitted activity to
coordinate on analysis and outreach.
    Some commenters inquired about the relationship between enhanced
outreach and the ultimate permit terms. Specifically, they asked if a
prioritized permit for enhanced outreach would be subject to stricter
emissions or discharge limits or perhaps denied altogether. In response
to this comment, EPA notes that an EPA regional office's decisions on
whether to issue a permit and, if so, the conditions to impose within a
permit are distinct from the EPA regional office's decision about the
outreach it will perform during the permitting process. An EPA regional
office's decision on whether to issue a permit and what permit
conditions to impose are governed by statute and regulation. Neither
EPA Actions nor Promising Practices affects that. However, enhanced
outreach to communities during the permitting process can provide an
EPA regional office with information relevant to the EPA regional
office's decision to issue a permit, and what conditions to require

should the regional office issue the permit. For example, community
involvement in the permitting process might provide EPA information on
vulnerable portions of the community. Based on that information, EPA
might require additional monitoring or reporting to learn more about
how pollution from the permitted activity impacts vulnerable sub-
populations, in accordance with applicable laws and regulations.

IV. Promising Practices for Permit Applicants Seeking EPA-Issued
Permits: Ways To Engage Neighboring Communities

    For EPA-issued permits, both the permit applicant and the
potentially affected community are key stakeholders in the permitting
process. Therefore, EPA engaged in extensive outreach to these
stakeholders and in particular the business community, on how to
meaningfully engage neighboring communities in the permitting process.
Business leaders on environmental justice issues shared their
experiences and insights with EPA. EPA learned that if a permit
applicant engages a community early and maintains that conversation, a
partnership can form that facilitates the exchange of information and
provides the foundation for dialogue on issues that may arise later
during the permitting process.
    Such engagement may be especially beneficial with communities that
have historically been underrepresented in the permitting process and
that potentially bear a disproportionate burden of an area's pollution.
EPA learned from its conversations with business stakeholders that
dialogue with community members early in the permitting process
promotes reasonable expectations among the public and, therefore, more
predictable outcomes for the permit applicant. EPA also learned that
permit applicants that invest in outreach may avoid the costs of delay,
negative publicity among peers and investors, and community distrust
resulting from community members objecting to a permit late in the
permitting process.
    In EPA's view, a facility that believes in environmental
stewardship in all its dimensions and that acts consistently with that
belief, including accountability to the neighboring community, may
achieve more environmental good than any permit can compel. Reducing
treatment failures, spills or other incidents becomes a source of
organizational pride when facility's successes--including the
facility's response and prevention strategies--are publicized within
neighboring communities. Transparency and accountability also make good
business sense because facilities save energy, devise new technologies,
reduce the rate of equipment failures, and develop cleaner products,
among other things. This ethic of corporate responsibility can improve
the neighboring environment and far beyond. Engaging meaningfully with
the local community is another facet of responsible corporate
citizenship that achieves environmental results. EPA believes that a
partnership with neighboring communities can lead to more informed
permits, resulting in better outcomes for the permit applicant as well
as neighboring communities that have a stake in the success of the
facility.
    In order to maximize the benefits of community engagement, and
conserve the limited resources of both the permit applicants and the
communities for outreach, EPA has identified what it considers to be
effective communication practices and strategies that permit applicants
can employ to meaningfully involve communities in the permitting
process. EPA gathered these practices and strategies from numerous
conversations with members of the business community, environmental
justice stakeholders, state, local and tribal governments and
communities, non-governmental organizations, and the NEJAC. The
resulting document, entitled Promising Practices, is included in
today's notice.
    An earlier version of this document described the practices and
strategies as ``best practices.'' As several commenters noted, not
every practice will be appropriate for every circumstance, as the term
``best practices'' implies. The term ``promising practices'' better
communicates EPA's desire to encourage permit applicants to use and
tailor these effective outreach practices in appropriate situations.
    The promising practices are designed to foster leadership among
permit applicants operating, or proposing to operate, facilities in
overburdened communities. EPA hopes that these promising practices will
inform businesses and other participants in the permitting process of
some effective techniques for meaningfully engaging overburdened
communities in the permitting process for EPA-issued permits. Though
previous EPA regulations, guidance and informational materials may have
already highlighted some of these practices as effective outreach
tools, EPA believes it is appropriate to emphasize the effectiveness
and benefits of employing them in the context of permitting and
environmental justice. EPA commends those permit applicants who are
already employing promising practices, and encourages other permit
applicants to adopt promising practices as appropriate.
    The promising practices are meant to complement existing guidance
and recommendations issued by permitting authorities, including state
and local agencies. The promising practices are not themselves legal
requirements and do not modify existing statutory or regulatory
requirements for the permitting process for EPA-issued permits. EPA
emphasizes that no permit applicant will be required to follow these
suggestions. Nor are the promising practices intended to be de facto
requirements in the process, as a checklist or otherwise.

V. Conclusion

    EPA appreciates the suggestions and comments received in response
to its proposals. EPA is issuing the EPA Actions to encourage more
transparency and consistency in EPA's permitting process with the goal
of increasing meaningful engagement of overburdened communities in the
permitting process. EPA is issuing Promising Practices to encourage
permit applicants to similarly strategically plan and conduct enhanced
outreach to overburdened communities in the permitting process.
    The EPA Actions and the Promising Practices are not an
interpretation of environmental statutes, nor do they add or change
interpretations of statutory obligations regarding permitting contained
in existing regulations. Throughout the permitting process, EPA
regional offices and permit applicants must comply with the relevant
public process obligations set forth in the applicable statues and
implementing regulations. However, EPA feels that in some circumstances
it is appropriate to go beyond the minimum public involvement
requirements of statutes and regulations to encourage the participation
of communities that will be significantly impacted by a permit but have
historically been underrepresented in the permitting process.
    Although enhanced engagement of overburdened communities in the
permitting process may not necessarily change the permit outcome, EPA
believes that meaningful involvement of overburdened communities is a
desirable end in and of itself. This is because, in some cases,
overburdened communities have significantly been impacted by a
permitted activity but

have not been able to access or participate in the permitting process.
By expanding a community's participation in the permitting process, EPA
can promote their understanding of the permitted activity, acquire
important information about their concerns, and foster a community's
sense of connection to government and business actions. EPA also
believes that enhanced engagement of overburdened communities in the
permitting process improves the permitting process generally through
more transparency and more consistency. EPA believes that such
transparency and consistency aids EPA in making more informed
decisions, but also gives notice to the public of EPA's considerations
and encourages them to engage EPA in the permitting process generally
as well as for specific permits. Additionally, engagement of permit
applicants and communities earlier in the permitting process can lead
to a more informed permitting process that allows for resolution of
issues earlier that could otherwise delay the issuance of a permit. EPA
further believes that every time enhanced outreach leads to a feasible
solution to an issue of interest to a community, all stakeholders
benefit.

    Dated: April 30, 2013.
Lisa Garcia,
Senior Advisor to the Administrator for Environmental Justice.

Promising Practices for Permit Applicants Seeking EPA-Issued Permits:
Ways To Engage Neighboring Communities

I. Introduction

    Achieving environmental justice is an integral part of EPA's
mission to protect human health and the environment. One way EPA
promotes environmental justice is to ensure that individuals in all
parts of society have access to information sufficient to help them
participate meaningfully in EPA decision-making.
    EPA decision-making takes many forms. These promising practices
focus on the permitting process, through which EPA authorizes
industrial and municipal facilities to release pollutants into the
environment at levels intended to meet applicable standards.
    By soliciting public comment prior to issuing permits, EPA plays an
important role in bringing communities and other members of the public
into the permitting conversation. But the best time to begin positive,
collaborative dialogue is before the permit is drafted, even before a
permit application is filed. And the key players are not EPA but rather
permit applicants and members of the neighboring community. Both sets
of individuals have a long-term stake in the health of the community
and the success of the company or enterprise.
    Information is critical at this early stage in the permitting
process, and the permit applicant has access to the information that
can create a constructive dialogue throughout the permitting process.
The permit applicant also has an interest in being a good neighbor to a
community. EPA believes that many applicants for EPA-issued permits are
already employing practices to be good neighbors. These promising
practices are designed to help all permit applicants to apply good
neighbor values to the permitting process, with an emphasis on ways to
reach out effectively to the neighboring community.
    EPA encourages all permit applicants to experiment with these
practices; all neighborhoods and communities benefit when a facility
reaches out as part of the permitting process. EPA emphasizes
neighboring communities because, for the vast majority of permits,
communities most proximate to a facility are likely to be the most
impacted by a permitting decision. For some permits, however, the
communities most impacted by a permitting decision may exist beyond the
fence-line. EPA encourages permit applicants for such permits to make
efforts to engage the communities that are likely to experience public
health or environmental impacts from their permitted activities. These
practices also have particular value in overburdened neighborhoods that
have been historically underrepresented in the permitting process or
may face barriers to participation in the permitting process, such as
lack of trust, lack of awareness or information, language barriers, and
limited access to technical information and other resources.
    EPA hopes that these promising practices--which emerged from EPA's
conversations with a host of community, permit applicant and government
stakeholders--will help applicants for EPA-issued permits to seize a
leadership role in this important area and, in doing so, demonstrate
publicly that their statements of core values on their Web sites or
elsewhere do indeed influence corporate behavior.

II. The Purpose of Promising Practices

    The purpose of these promising practices is to publicize the good
neighbor practices already employed by permit applicants across the
country and to encourage their greater use. Many of these practices are
quite simple. They can help build trust, promote a better understanding
in a community of the facility's environmental impacts, foster
realistic expectations and help build strong partnerships that lead to
better results for all parties. Investing in outreach to communities is
a cost-effective strategy. EPA encourages permit applicants to make
each of its facilities a good neighbor to the neighboring communities.
EPA hopes that the promising practices will help companies think of
ways to engage the neighboring communities and, in doing so, become
better neighbors.

III. Why is EPA providing promising practices to permit applicants?

    Industrial facilities are important members of the communities in
which they are located. In addition to their important role as a source
of employment and economic stability within a community, facilities
play other roles. Many facilities, for example, have robust community
engagement strategies that recognize the value of community outreach.
Pursuant to these strategies, facilities engage actively with a
community through environmental initiatives, neighborhood
beautification projects, education programs and charitable giving,
civic programs and the arts, youth activities, and other investments in
communities. Indeed, many companies and public authorities embody these
principles in their mission statements, using words and phrases like
collaboration, respect, and mutually beneficial relationships. Some
even aspire to measure their own success by the success of their
customers, shareholders, employees and communities. In short, a
corporate culture has emerged in this Nation that values and actively
promotes community partnerships.
    EPA recognizes that many permit applicants already practice
community outreach. These promising practices are meant to encourage
those leaders to continue their efforts and to provide helpful
suggestions for those seeking greater direction. EPA also hopes that
the practices described here will persuade those who are new to these
ideas to experiment with this form of leadership. Indeed, engaging with
their communities as described here is consistent with many permit
applicants' core values. These principles, practices and values lead to
corporate sustainability, stability and--ultimately--profitability.
    Early and meaningful dialogue between the permit applicant and a
community is especially important in communities that have historically
been

underrepresented in the permitting process or that potentially bear a
disproportionate burden of an area's pollution. Meaningful dialogue
promotes environmental justice. EPA encourages applicants for EPA-
issued permits to engage in public outreach to the neighboring
communities whenever the facility's pollutant releases have--or are
perceived by a community to have--potential health and environmental
impacts on overburdened communities. In such cases, the permit
applicant has an opportunity to inform the neighboring community about
the facility's actual pollutant releases and impacts. Providing
specific information about the pollution and related health impacts of
a permit action may allay general concerns community members have about
the facility or educate it about other sources of exposure. A permit
applicant that ignores a neighboring community's concerns about
pollution from its facility or general concerns about pollution in the
community may experience delays in the permitting process, negative
publicity, and community distrust. Employing promising practices can
foster a dialogue between the permit applicant and community members to
prevent misunderstandings and possibly opposition to the permit. The
permit applicant can tailor the engagement of the neighboring community
to be proportionate to the actual health and environmental impacts of
the facility or the particular concerns of community members. This
approach is consistent with EPA's objectives under Plan EJ 2014, which
promotes meaningful involvement of an affected community in the
permitting process.
    EPA believes these promising practices can foster a smoother and
faster permitting process. This outcome is in everyone's interest--EPA,
permit applicants and communities alike. The permit applicant and EPA
have an interest in an efficient permitting process. The permit
applicant wants permission to make operational improvements or
construct a new facility. The permitting authority wants to efficiently
issue a permit that comports with the law and accounts for public
comment in addition to protecting human health and the environment.
Some communities at the very least wants the assurance that, through
appropriate permit terms and conditions, the permit applicant accepts
responsibility for appropriately controlling its pollutant releases and
keeps a community informed of its control successes (and failures).
These interests, while different, do not conflict. Conversations
between the permit applicant and community members before the permit
application is filed can help launch the permit process in a way that
achieves all of these interests, with minimum conflict and delay. This
could result in a more expeditious permitting process.
    Early engagement can also yield a less contentious permitting
process. It seems axiomatic that communities generally do not welcome
one more source of pollution, especially when the community already
feels aggrieved by past siting decisions. But this may not be so self-
evident when the new project accelerates a transition to cleaner energy
or achieves another important environmental objective with benefits
beyond the local community. Early meaningful dialogue can help sort out
the interests, encourage a permit applicant to accept responsibility
for its impacts, and perhaps find low-cost ways valuable to some
communities by which the permit applicant can voluntarily mitigate
environmental burdens. Community members may be less likely to hold a
new project responsible for past unrelated actions if the permit
applicant accepts responsibility for its own actions and is willing to
help make community life better.

IV. How can a permit applicant enhance its outreach to a neighboring
community?

    There are many ways that a facility can enhance its outreach to a
community. Whatever degree of outreach a facility chooses to employ,
the following promising practices are designed to help both the permit
applicant and the surrounding communities get a reasonable return on
their investment of time, energy and other resources. EPA gathered
these ideas from permit applicants that have employed them, but EPA
notes that every situation is different. The permit applicant and the
affected community are in the best position to determine what
engagement strategy is most appropriate for their particular
circumstances.

1. Think Ahead

    Before deciding whether to undertake special efforts to reach out
to the neighboring community regarding a permit application, a permit
applicant may want to ask itself the following types of questions. The
answers to these questions may help the permit applicant decide what
kind of community engagement will be most appropriate under the
circumstances.
     What are the geographic boundaries of the neighboring
community?
     What are the demographics of the neighboring community?
     Who in the community may be affected by the proposed
permit?
     Has the facility successfully worked with the neighboring
community in the past?
     Are there other facilities or major pollution sources
(e.g., highways, landfills) in the neighboring community? Do community
members have a history of engaging with those facilities?
     Would the new permit introduce new or additional
pollutants to the neighboring community?
     Is the neighboring community already exposed to pollutants
originating from other facilities?
     How will changes at the facility site affect the quality
of life in the neighboring community, independent of the pollutants
released?
     Is the proposed pollutant release--or associated
activity--likely to cause concern among community members?
     If a risk assessment has been performed for the
neighboring community, what does it say? What have community members
said about it?
     What direction do the permit applicant's published core
values offer?
    Permit applicants may be required to reach out to a neighboring
community before applying for a permit. For example, EPA's Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act permitting regulations for hazardous
waste treatment, storage, or disposal facilities have such
requirements. See 40 CFR 124.31. In most cases, however, the decision
on whether to engage in pre-application outreach is committed to the
permit applicant's good judgment. (See Section V below for a discussion
of the benefits to permit applicants when they engage community members
as part of permit applications.) But however a permit applicant chooses
to engage the neighboring community, its outreach activities should be
proportional to the impact the facility's proposed permitting action
would have upon the community. In other words, permitting actions that
may have a significant impact on the community may justify more
extensive outreach than permits likely to have fewer impacts. Engaging
community members early in the permitting process can help a permit
applicant gauge the level of outreach appropriate to community member's
concerns.
    Community assessments can be a useful tool for permit applicants to
consider as they develop appropriate outreach strategies for a
community.

These assessments can help permit applicants develop a detailed profile
of a community and identify any concerns related to the proposed
project. They can also provide background information on a community
the permit applicant anticipates engaging. Another useful tool is a
public participation plan. Public participation plans can vary greatly
in the extent of their detail. The purpose of a public participation
plan is to aid the permit applicant in organizing its outreach. It can
also help convey the facility's outreach strategy to a community.
    EPA recognizes that a permit applicant, despite its planning and
execution, might not elicit community interest in its project. For
example, few people might attend meetings or visit the plant for tours.
Before concluding that community members are uninterested in the
project, the company may want to explore whether its engagement efforts
were sufficiently tailored for the community. If the permit applicant's
efforts to engage the community are made in good faith and are
sufficiently tailored for community members, this will go a long way
toward building trust, even if members of the community ultimately
choose not to engage.

2. Engage Community Leaders

    An effective way of promoting early and meaningful engagement
between a permit applicant and the surrounding community is by creating
a community environmental partnership. The key is to assemble the right
people to be in the partnership. EPA has learned from stakeholders that
the first step in meaningful engagement is identifying, working with,
and cultivating trusting relationships with community leaders; doing so
will then foster effective relationships among the interests they
represent and will help identify their common as well as their unique
goals.
    Community leaders may be elected officials or specialists in local,
state or tribal government. Thus, permit applicants may want to engage
government officials in the permitting process for EPA-issued permits
to take advantage of their knowledge, experience and networks. In some
cases, government officials may have already played a role in approving
the facility through zoning and siting processes. Thus, these
government officials are in the best position to address such concerns
with community members. Similarly, government officials may be an
excellent source when gathering information about other facilities that
impact a community. The following promising practices can help a
company create a successful community environmental partnership.
     Find out who the established community leaders are, both
elected and unelected.
     On tribal lands, work with the tribal government and other
contacts to identify tribal community leaders to commence outreach and
assistance to tribal communities.
     Identify people who collectively understand the needs (and
aspirations) of local stakeholders (permit applicant, community,
environmental groups, academic, etc.).
     Recruit stakeholder representatives who have strong
interpersonal skills and are willing to:
    [cir] Seek common interests;
    [cir] Cultivate trusting relationships.
     Engage with diverse leadership so that many views can be
brought into the dialogue. Successful partnerships have a variety of
local perspectives, including:
    [cir] Grassroots organizations and leaders;
    [cir] Faith community leaders;
    [cir] Tribal government and community representatives;
    [cir] Academic institutions;
    [cir] State, county or local governments;
    [cir] Environmental groups;
    [cir] Health organizations;
    [cir] Permittees, including, ideally, the facilities in the
neighborhood that engage in activities that generate pollution.

3. Engage Effectively

    As is the case with any relationship, predictable and ongoing
interactions are key to a strong partnership between a permit applicant
and a community. A permit applicant engaging a community early in the
permitting process, or even before the formal permitting process begins
through pre-application meetings, can lay the foundation for a positive
relationship with a community. In addition to early engagement, holding
regularly scheduled meetings throughout the permitting process can
build on that earlier outreach and ensure continuing communication,
further fostering the relationship between community members and permit
applicant.
    The following promising practices can help the permit applicant
engage effectively with community members.
     Foster sustained involvement by the participants;
relationships are created between individuals, not the positions they
hold.
     If a public participation plan or policy describing
outreach activities was developed, make it available to the public as a
sign of the permit applicant's intention to engage meaningfully with
community members.
     Invite community members and leaders to comment on
community outreach plans and processes, and give feedback on what is
working and lessons learned.
     Discuss project plans and potential impacts as early in
the planning process as possible, even if the permit applicant can
speak only in general terms.
    [cir] If the permit applicant is unsure about potential impacts, it
is better to acknowledge this fact; denying the potential for impacts
can undermine credibility and trust.
    [cir] Encourage input from community members on their concerns
about particular impacts early in the planning stages.
     Provide progress or status reports.
     Invite members of the community and community leaders for
regular tours of the facility, especially when the facility is planning
to change a process that might affect the community.
     Consider investing time in public education, e.g., by
hosting one- or two-day public information sessions with posters and
kiosks dedicated to specific topics, with discussions led by facility
personnel who are both familiar with the subject and capable of
effective discussion with the public (using a conversational tone, not
being defensive, using clear and non-technical language, etc.).

4. Communicate Effectively

    Permit applicants may need help to determine the most effective and
appropriate methods for informing and receiving input from community
members. Community leaders can provide this help. For example, they can
identify commonly spoken languages and any language barriers or Limited
English Proficiency within the neighboring community. They can also
help identify which media outlets (radio, newspaper, church bulletins),
outreach methods (going door-to-door, using social media, texting,
phoning, putting up fliers) and outreach materials (brochures, fact
sheets, postcards, letters, web postings) will be most effective in
communicating with community members. Community leaders can also help
to create more effective opportunities to receive information from the
public (individual/small/large/public/private meetings, anonymous
hotlines, solicitation of written comments). For some communities, it
may be appropriate to consider utilizing collaborative or interactive
Web-based information technology (IT) tools, social media, cell phone
applications, or other tools to

keep communities informed of activities related to a permitting
project. On the other hand, some communities do not have access to the
most modern communications tools and permit applicants may need to
resort to using local radio stations, CB radio, local newspapers,
posters at grocery stores or trading posts, or village/community
center/chapter meetings to keep communities informed. Every community
is different, so permit applicants that listen to their community's
advice and involve the community in their outreach efforts have a
greater chance of a successful outcome.
    A key component of effective communication is creating an
environment for all stakeholders to meaningfully participate in a
dialogue. Good ideas, including ideas that are good for the permit
applicant, can come from many sources. By meaningfully engaging with a
community potentially affected by an environmental permit, a permit
applicant may acquire a better sense of a community's true concerns and
ways a permit applicant could help alleviate them. Transparency and
disclosure of information that may be of interest to a community, such
as performance reports, can build trust conducive to meaningful
dialogue.
    EPA recognizes that both permit applicants and communities have
limited resources to engage in dialogue. The following promising
practices on fostering two-way communication and collaboration between
permit applicants and communities, collected from permit applicants and
communities, may help permit applicants communicate more effectively
and thus efficiently use their resources.
     Set up a hotline for community members to report a problem
or concern about the proposed project.
     Identify a single person within the facility to be the
liaison that community members can call with concerns or problems.
     Institute regular meetings among all stakeholders.
     Consider organizing citizen advisory councils or community
environmental partnerships.
     Select meeting locations and times that are convenient and
comfortable for the community. Follow advice from community leaders to
communicate in ways most effective for the community you are trying to
reach. Use language and terminology that community members understand,
including providing technical data in everyday terms.
     Consider alternate methods of obtaining input for
community members who may be interested but unable to attend public
meetings (e.g., allow submission of comments and surveys in writing,
online, or through a designated point of contact).
     Build in mechanisms for meeting attendees to ask
questions, express concerns and propose solutions.
     During the meeting, talk about participants' concerns and
questions (rather than simply ``taking note'' of them).
     Recognize that community members may be concerned about a
variety of things--within and outside the permit applicant's control--
including matters that do not relate to the permit under discussion
(e.g., truck routes, delivery times, etc.).
    [cir] Careful listening and an effort to understand the underlying
interests behind related and seemingly unrelated complaints might yield
a solution that addresses community member's true concerns at a
reasonable (or even minimal) cost to the facility.
     Consider using a neutral facilitator to assist in
designing an effective public participation process and conduct
meetings to encourage all participants (permit applicant and community)
to listen effectively, focus on interests rather than initial
positions, and to identify potential solutions.

5. Follow Up

    Follow-up can be crucial in building a strong partnership with a
community. The repeated interaction that follow-up provides can create
a predictable pattern of engagement that is conducive to building
trust. When a permit applicant delivers on commitments made during
meetings (e.g., to provide additional information) a permit applicant
demonstrates responsibility, integrity and commitment to the process.
The following promising practices can help permit applicants design
follow-up activities with communities.
     If the public is invited to comment on plans, discuss the
comments with community members after considering them.
    [cir] If a comment is not clear, ask for clarification; do not
ignore a suggestion due to a lack of understanding.
    [cir] Report back to let community members know how their comments
affected the permit applicant's planning or operation.
    [cir] Explain when comments cannot be incorporated into the permit
applicant's planned actions.
     Consider using a good neighborhood agreement to
memorialize agreements between permit applicants and communities.
     Make environmental performance records available to
community members without being asked, especially regarding pollution
matters that are important to some communities.
     Keep the conversation going even after the permit has been
issued; maintaining a collaborative relationship with some communites
can pay benefits at unexpected times.
    Provide opportunities for communities to give feedback on the
public engagement strategy, through a formal evaluation or informally
through questionnaires, interviews, comment boxes, or debriefs.

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN09MY13.004

V. Return on Investment: Benefits of Outreach to Permit Applicants

    EPA recognizes that a permit applicant would need to invest time,
energy and money in order to reach out to the neighboring communities.
For some permit applicants, ``business as usual'' might appear to be
the path of least resistance. But EPA has learned from conversations
with permittees that permit applicants that engage in effective
outreach with neighboring communities can realize a meaningful return
on that investment. The list below reflects these conversations. To
further illustrate these ideas, we present text (in italics) from
corporate mission statements, lists of corporate values, and annual
reports linking overarching business principles to benefits from
effective community outreach and engagement.
    1. The neighborhood has a stake in a permit applicant's success.
Community members are not only neighbors, but also often employees,
customers or investors. Healthy and sustainable

companies directly promote healthy and sustainable communities. That
alignment of interests can lead to creative solutions that promote the
achievement of mutual economic goals in more sustainable ways. We are
proud of our involvement in the communities where we operate. It's our
goal not only to support important projects in the communities where we
operate, but also to partner and build relationships where we live and
work. We always listen to local needs and find ways to invest that are
relevant to our business.
    2. An environment of trust pays dividends throughout the permit
term. A permit applicant not only applies for a permit but also
develops strategies for complying with its requirements. Meaningful
public engagement during the permitting process and throughout the
permit term can be a valuable component of a permit applicant's
compliance strategy. Community members often say they have nowhere to
turn when they worry about their local environment; a meaningful
dialogue with the permit applicant that addresses community members'
concerns can build trust. So, a permit applicant that experiences a
failure of its treatment processes--and, in real time, discloses and
takes action to remedy the problem--may maintain its reservoir of trust
within a community. We know you have questions; call us. We believe
that people work best when there's a foundation of trust.
    3. Engaging with a community is an effective cost-containment
strategy. Permit applicants that foster meaningful community outreach
incur ``costs'' in terms of time, resources energy, and money. But a
permit applicant that bypasses outreach incurs costs as well,
especially when these choices lead to misunderstandings with community
members. Even if the permit is granted, at what cost? Certainly, the
permit applicant incurs the cost of delay, negative publicity among
peers and investors, and community distrust (even apart from attorneys'
fees associated with litigation). Each of these costs has a monetary
value and each is potentially avoidable with an upfront investment.
Good business sense often dictates a small investment early in order to
avert larger costs later. Corporate leaders tell us that meaningful
community outreach is no different. Successful companies engage in
long-term planning to achieve strategic goals. Working with the
community during project development and implementation is just part of
the process.
    4. Engaging with a community is an effective risk management
strategy. Thoughtful risk-taking is a characteristic of many successful
enterprises. A permit applicant engaged in thoughtful risk-taking
around a new idea routinely gathers information and critically examines
the idea from many perspectives, identifies the range of possible
risks, modifies its idea as appropriate to minimize the risks, and then
weighs the benefits against the risks that remain. The better a permit
applicant anticipates and manages the risks, the more predictable and
successful the outcome. Engaging community members early in a permit
applicant's decision-making process can be an effective way to manage
the risks of a new idea. A permit applicant that is truly open to
gathering information, dialogue, and collaboration will find itself
with a more predictable operating or business environment, reduced
conflict, and, frequently, an outcome that achieves greater operational
efficiency and community support. Its risk-taking is thoughtful because
it identifies, analyzes and manages its risks. Permit applicants that
are thoughtful risk-takers recognize that having an engaged and
informed community as an ally promotes reasonable expectations among
the public and, therefore, more predictable outcomes. We practice
humility and intellectual honesty. We consistently seek to understand
and constructively deal with reality in order to create value and
achieve personal improvement.
    5. A permit applicant that engages meaningfully with a community is
more likely to be considered a good neighbor. A permit applicant is
more likely to be seen as a good neighbor by a community when it makes
efforts to engage and build a relationship with the community. Having
treated community members as good neighbors, the permit applicant is
more likely to be treated as a good neighbor by community members in
return. A community that understands the actual impacts a facility has
on the neighborhood and trusts the facility to behave responsibly may
also be less likely to hold the facility responsible for other
facilities' pollution. We are committed to improving our environmental
performance: we track our progress and report our results to the
public.
    6. Investors prefer good corporate citizens. Even if a permit
applicant survives a dispute with a community over a new project and
obtains the necessary environmental permits, investors may well inquire
whether that costly battle could have been avoided. Indeed, some
investors might even wonder whether the permit applicant's inadequate
response to the neighboring community's concerns signals a lack of
corporate responsibility, values-based leadership, or long-term
strategic thinking that is important in other areas of the business.
Leaders in this area say: It is more important than ever that we
continually earn investor confidence. We will do this by remaining a
leader in good corporate governance and providing clear, consistent,
and truthful communication about our performance.

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN09MY13.005

VI. Conclusion

    The promising practices are a starting point intended to promote
partnerships between communities and permit applicants. EPA believes
that a permit applicant that follows the promising practices will take
an important step on the path to building a fruitful and cooperative
relationship with community members on environmental issues. EPA also
believes that a permit applicant's efforts to meaningfully engage an
overburdened community are an important way to promote environmental
justice. EPA agrees with the message that many stakeholders send:
Collaborations between permit applicants and the surrounding
neighborhoods achieve greater environmental protections, more
profitable operations, and more sustainable communities.
[FR Doc. 2013-10945 Filed 5-8-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P