27220 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 90 / Thursday, May 9, 2013 / Notices 

and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 

385.214). Anyone filing a motion to 

intervene or protest must serve a copy 

of that document on the Applicant. 

Notice is hereby given that the 

deadline for filing protests with regard 

to the applicant’s request for blanket 

authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of 

future issuances of securities and 

assumptions of liability is May 23, 2013. 

The Commission encourages 

electronic submission of protests and 

interventions in lieu of paper, using the 

FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.go 

v. To facilitate electronic service, 

persons with Internet access who will 

eFile a document and/or be listed as a 

contact for an intervenor must create 

and validate an eRegistration account 

using the eRegistration link. Select the 

eFiling link to log on and submit the 

intervention or protests. 

Persons unable to file electronically 

should submit an original and 5 copies 

of the intervention or protest to the 

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 

888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 

20426. 

The filings in the above-referenced 

proceeding(s) are accessible in the 

Commission’s eLibrary system by 

clicking on the appropriate link in the 

above list. They are also available for 

review in the Commission’s Public 

Reference Room in Washington, DC. 

There is an eSubscription link on the 

Web site that enables subscribers to 

receive email notification when a 

document is added to a subscribed 

docket(s). For assistance with any FERC 

Online service, please email 

FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov. or call 

(866) 208–3676 (toll free). For TTY, call 

(202) 502–8659. 

Dated: May 3, 2013. 

Kimberly D. Bose, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2013–11042 Filed 5–8–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6717–01–P 

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 EPAIssued 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, (202) 564– 

1617, ejpermitting@epa.gov. 

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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 90 / Thursday, May 9, 2013 / Notices 27221 

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 EPAIssued 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/environmental

justice/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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

27222 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 90 / Thursday, May 9, 2013 / Notices 

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 nondiscrimination 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 communitybased 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’’ 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 90 / Thursday, May 9, 2013 / Notices 27223 

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-andcomment 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-togovernment 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 governmentto-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: 

Æ New sources or new dischargers, or 

Æ 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: 

Æ New sources or new discharges, or 

Æ 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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

27224 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 90 / Thursday, May 9, 2013 / Notices 

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: 

Æ 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. 

Æ Locate existing data and studies 

that are relevant to the particular 

community. 

Æ 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. 

Æ Coordinate with state, local, and/or 

tribal authorities in appropriate 

circumstances. 

Æ Evaluate the appropriate length of 

the public comment period and EPA’s 

openness to requests to extend that 

period. 

Æ Consider holding information 

meetings for the public in addition to 

the formal public comment processes. 

Coordinating within EPA: 

Æ 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: 

Æ 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. 

Æ Use informational materials to 

explain the permitting process. 

Æ Use plain language when 

communicating with the public. 

Æ Use communication techniques that 

community members value, such as 

direct mailings, posters, articles in local 

newspapers, and emails to list serves. 

Æ Offer translation services for 

communities with multi-lingual 

populations (including interpreters at 

public meetings or translations of public 

documents). 

Æ Make key documents on the 

proposed project readily accessible to 

community members, using a variety of 

media tools (paper copies, online, etc.), 

when appropriate. 

Æ Hold public meetings at times and 

places in neighboring communities best 

designed to afford the public a 

meaningful chance to attend. 

Æ Give careful consideration to 

requests to extend the comment period, 

or hold additional public meetings. 

Æ 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: 

Æ Encourage the permit applicant to 

provide EPA with a plain-language 

description of its proposed project or 

permit application. 

Æ 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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 90 / Thursday, May 9, 2013 / Notices 27225 

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/environmental

justice/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/environmental

justice/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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

27226 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 90 / Thursday, May 9, 2013 / Notices 

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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 90 / Thursday, May 9, 2013 / Notices 27227 

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 EPAissued 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 costeffective 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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

27228 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 90 / Thursday, May 9, 2013 / Notices 

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. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 90 / Thursday, May 9, 2013 / Notices 27229 

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: 

Æ Seek common interests; 

Æ 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: 

Æ Grassroots organizations and 

leaders; 

Æ Faith community leaders; 

Æ Tribal government and community 

representatives; 

Æ Academic institutions; 

Æ State, county or local 

governments; 

Æ Environmental groups; 

Æ Health organizations; 

Æ 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. 

Æ 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. 

Æ 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 twoday 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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

27230 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 90 / Thursday, May 9, 2013 / Notices 

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.). 

Æ 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. 

Æ If a comment is not clear, ask for 

clarification; do not ignore a suggestion 

due to a lack of understanding. 

Æ Report back to let community 

members know how their comments 

affected the permit applicant’s planning 

or operation. 

Æ 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. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 90 / Thursday, May 9, 2013 / Notices 27231 

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 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICESEN09MY13.004</GPH>

Example 1: Using Web and Social Networking Tools to Enhance Communication 

The use of web and social networking tools to provide communities with instant and easily understandable information 

concerning their environment is expanding. For example, EPA collaborated with federal, tribal, state and local partners to 

develop the Web site that provides the public with easy access to national air quality information and offers daily 

Air Quality Index (AQI) forecasts as well as real-time AQI conditions for over 300 cities across the United States, and 

provides links to more detailed State and local air quality Web sites. EPA also recently created a new application and Web 

site called This innovative tool helps people find information on the condition of their local 

waterways using a smart phone, tablet, or desktop computer and makes science-based water quality information accessible 

and understandable for everyone. In addition to several other features, users can instantly receive a list of waterways within 

about five miles of the search location where each waterway is identified as unpolluted, polluted, or unassessed, along with 

the year its condition was reported. A map option offers a view of the search area with the waters color-coded by assessment 

status. The (Reg DaRRT) was developed by EPA to provide 

information to the public on the status of EPA's priority rulemakings and retrospective reviews of existing regulations. This 

tool allows people to sign up for RSS feeds as an easy way for them to keep up with news and information on a regulatory 

action that is of particular interest, and helps avoid the conventional methods of browsing or searching for information on 

websites because the content is delivered directly to the individual. Permit applicants should consider using modem 

communications technology, if appropriate, to assist in their efforts to reach out to neighboring communities. 

Example 2: Alternative Dispute Resolution 

The success of pre-application meetings will vary widely depending on the proposed project, the concerns of the 

community, and the ability of the pennit applicant and the community to agree upon potential solutions. Sometimes, 

conversations between a community and a permit applicant have the potential to be contentious. For such cases, EPA 

recommends the use of a professional, trained, neutral facilitator to aid in creating and implementing an outreach strategy if 

an applicant is not successful in developing sufficient outreach capacity to enable meaningful involvement by a community. 

EPA and The U.S. Institute for Environmental Conflict Resolution have designed and initiated The National Roster of 

Environmental Dispute Resolution and Consensus Building Professionals \-'-""'=~"_""~""'c'_="-'-'-~=""'-':2"-~'''-''' which is a 

resource to identifY neutral third parties and connect them with appropriate projects. 
27232 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 90 / Thursday, May 9, 2013 / Notices 

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. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 90 / Thursday, May 9, 2013 / Notices 27233 

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 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

[FRL–9811–4] 

Clean Water Act: Availability of List 

Decisions 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Notice of availability. 

SUMMARY: This notice announces the 

availability of EPA’s action identifying 

water quality limited segments and 

associated pollutants in Louisiana to be 

listed pursuant to Clean Water Act 

Section 303(d), and request for public 

comment. Section 303(d) requires that 

States submit and EPA approve or 

disapprove lists of waters for which 

existing technology-based pollution 

controls are not stringent enough to 

attain or maintain State water quality 

standards and for which total maximum 

daily loads (TMDLs) must be prepared. 

On May 01, 2013, EPA partially 

approved and proposed to partially 

disapprove Louisiana’s 2012 Section 

303(d) submittal. Specifically, EPA 

approved Louisiana’s listing of 323 

waterbody pollutant combinations, and 

associated priority rankings. EPA 

proposed to disapprove Louisiana’s 

decisions not to list three waterbodies. 

These three waterbodies were added by 

EPA because the applicable numeric 

water quality standards marine criterion 

for dissolved oxygen was not attained in 

these segments. 

EPA is providing the public the 

opportunity to review its proposed 

decisions to add the three waters to 

Louisiana’s 2012 Section 303(d) List. 

EPA will consider public comments and 

if necessary amend its proposed action 

on the additional waterbodies identified 

for inclusion on Louisiana’s Final 2012 

Section 303(d) List. 

DATES: Comments must be submitted in 

writing to EPA on or before June 10, 

2013. 

ADDRESSES: Comments on the decisions 

should be sent to Diane Smith, 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICESEN09MY13.005</GPH>