Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 127 / Friday, June 30, 2000 / Notices 40639

2. Infants and children. Cabot

Corporation believes that sufficient

information has been submitted to

assess the hazards of TS-610. Because

silane, dichloromethyl-, reaction

product with silica conforms with the

definition of a polymer and meets the

criteria of a polymer under 40 CFR

723.250, Cabot Corporation believes

there are no concerns for risks

associated with exposure to infants and

children.

3. Cabot Corporation

9E6019

EPA has received an amendment to a

pesticide petition (9E6019) from Cabot

Corporation proposing, pursuant to

section 408(d) of the FFDCA, 21 U.S.C.

346a(d), to amend 40 CFR part 180 to

amend an exemption from the

requirement of a tolerance for

hexamethyldisilizane, reaction product

with silica (TS-530) when used in

accordance with good agricultural

practices as an inert ingredient in

pesticide formulations applied to

growing crops in or on the raw

agricultural commodity after harvest or

to animals. The initial notice of filing

was published in the Federal Register of

August 25, 1999 (64 FR 46378) (FRL–

6096–1). EPA has determined that the

petition contains data or information

regarding the elements set forth in

section 408(d)(2) of the FFDCA;

however, EPA has not fully evaluated

the sufficiency of the submitted data at

this time or whether the data support

granting of the petition. Additional data

may be needed before EPA rules on the

petition.

An exemption from the requirement

of a tolerance under 40 CFR 180.1001(c)

and (e) was established for

hexamethyldisilizane, reaction product

with silica in the Federal Register of

March 1, 2000 (65 FR 10946) (FRL–

6490–9), with the following uses:

‘‘moisture barrier, anti-caking agent,

anti-settling agent.’’ This petition

amendment requests that the use

‘‘thickening agent’’ be added so that the

uses for TS-530 under 40 CFR

180.1001(c) and (e) will read as follows:

‘‘moisture barrier, anti-caking agent,

anti-settling agent, thickening agent.’’

A. Residue Chemistry

No residue chemistry data are

presented in the petition as the Agency

does not generally require these data to

rule on the exemption from the

requirement of a tolerance for an inert

ingredient.

B. Toxicological Profile

As discussed in the March 1, 2000

Federal Register, hexamethyldisilizane,

reaction product with silica meets all

the criteria for a low risk polymer, as

specified in 40 CFR 723.250.

C. Aggregate Exposure

1. Dietary exposure.

Hexamethyldisilizane, reaction product

with silica is not absorbed through the

intact gastrointestinal tract and is

incapable of eliciting a toxic response.

2. Drinking water.

Hexamethyldisilizane, reaction product

with silica is not soluble in water and

therefore there is no reason to expect

human exposure to residues in water.

3. Non-dietary exposure. For most

uses of hexamethyldisilizane, reaction

product with silica the primary route of

exposure is dermal.

Hexamethyldisilizane, reaction product

with silica with a molecular weight

significantly greater than 400 is not

absorbed through the intact skin.

D. Cumulative Effects

Cabot Corporation believes that

sufficient information has been

submitted to assess the hazards of

hexamethyldisilizane, reaction product

with silica. Because

hexamethyldisilizane, reaction product

with silica conforms with the definition

of a polymer and meets the criteria of

a polymer under 40 CFR 723.250, Cabot

Corporation believes there are no

concerns for risks associated with

cumulative effects.

E. Safety Determination

1. U.S. population. Cabot Corporation

believes that sufficient information has

been submitted to assess the hazards of

hexamethyldisilizane, reaction product

with silica. Because

hexamethyldisilizane, reaction product

with silica conforms with the definition

of a polymer and meets the criteria of

a polymer under 40 CFR 723.250, Cabot

Corporation believes there are no

concerns for risks associated with any

potential exposure to adults.

2. Infants and children. Cabot

Corporation believes that sufficient

information has been submitted to

assess the hazards of

hexamethyldisilizane, reaction product

with silica. Because

hexamethyldisilizane, reaction product

with silica conforms with the definition

of a polymer and meets the criteria of

a polymer under 40 CFR 723.250, Cabot

Corporation believes there are no

concerns for risks associated with

exposure to infants and children.

[FR Doc. 00–16633 Filed 6–29–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–F

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

[FRL–6727–4]

Draft EPA Guidance for Community

Involvement in Supplemental

Environmental Projects

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: The Office of Enforcement

and Compliance Assurance (EPA) is

noticing a draft document, ‘‘Guidance

for Community Involvement in

Supplemental Environmental Projects,’’

for comment. This document is

intended to provide guidance to EPA

personnel on how to achieve the

community involvement objectives of

the 1998 Supplemental Environmental

Projects Policy (SEP Policy). EPA is

soliciting public comments on this

guidance to assist it in addressing issues

such as identifying communities

affected by enforcement actions,

facilitating the outreach process,

encouraging realistic community

expectations, and using liaisons to

facilitate communication.

DATES: Comments are due on or before

August 29, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Mail written comments to

the Enforcement and Compliance

Docket and Information Center (2201A),

Docket Number EC–G–2000–055, Office

of Enforcement and Compliance

Assurance, U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460.

(Comments may be submitted on disk in

WordPerfect 8.0 or earlier versions.)

Written comments may be delivered in

person to: Enforcement and Compliance

Docket and Information Center, U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency,

Room 4033, Ariel Rios Bldg., 1200

Pennsylvania Avenue, NW.,

Washington, DC. Submit comments

electronically to docket.oeca@epa.gov.

Electronic comments may be filed

online at many Federal Depository

Libraries.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Melissa Raack, 202–564–7039, Office of

Regulatory Enforcement, Mail Code

2248–A, United States Environmental

Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460, email: raack.melissa@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In its

Supplemental Environmental Projects

Policy of May 1, 1998, EPA affirmed its

commitment to involve communities in

the consideration of SEPs in appropriate

enforcement cases. Although there is no

formula for effective community

40640 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 127 / Friday, June 30, 2000 / Notices

1The SEP Policy allows EPA to consider a

defendant or respondent’s willingness to perform

an environmentally beneficial project when setting

an appropriate penalty to settle an enforcement

action. The purpose of a SEP is to secure significant

environmental or public health protection

improvements beyond those achieved by bringing

the defendant into compliance. The SEP must be a

new project, where EPA has the opportunity to

shape the scope of the project before it is

implemented, and the defendant must not be

otherwise legally required to do the work.

Community participation in SEP consideration is

one of the factors considered in valuing a SEP. This

summary of the SEP Policy should not be

considered a full summary of the SEP requirements

and persons interested in such requirements should

consult EPA’s Final SEP Policy at 63 FR 24796

(May 5, 1998).

2Throughout this guidance, the term ‘‘EPA,’’

when used in the context of a judicial enforcement

action, also includes the Department of Justice.

3 ‘‘Defendant,’’ when used herein, includes

defendants in civil judicial actions and respondents

in EPA administrative actions.

involvement, this guidance is intended

to identify issues and suggest resources

that may be utilized to achieve such

involvement. Community involvement

is an important goal that should be

considered along with other

enforcement goals, such as quick

response to environmental threats,

timely resolution of enforcement

actions, and using limited resources

effectively to achieve the maximum

benefit for human health and the

environment. Building trust between

EPA and communities is the foundation

of effective community involvement.

EPA is soliciting comments on how this

document can provide the best guidance

to its personnel to ensure that trust is

established and maintained in the SEP

consideration process.

Sylvia K. Lowrance,

Acting Assistant Administrator, Office of

Enforcement and Compliance Assurance.

Introduction

In its Supplemental Environmental

Projects Policy (SEP Policy) of May 1,

1998, EPA affirmed its commitment to

involve communities in the

consideration of SEPs in appropriate

enforcement cases.1 Seeking community

involvement can have a number of

advantages. It can result in SEPs that

meet a need of the community in which

the violation of an environmental law

occurred. It can also promote

environmental justice, enhance

community awareness of EPA’s

enforcement activities, and improve

relations between the community and

the violating facility.

This document provides guidance to

EPA on achieving the community

involvement objectives of the SEP

Policy. It is premised on EPA’s belief

that effective SEPs respond to the

environmental needs of the affected

community. While direct community

involvement may not be possible or

appropriate in all cases involving SEPs,

in many cases community involvement

can be a valuable part of SEP

consideration without adversely

affecting the enforcement action.

Although there is no formula for

effective community involvement, this

guidance identifies issues and suggests

resources that may be utilized to

achieve such involvement. The

guidance suggests when it may be

appropriate to include the community

in SEP consideration. It also provides

direction for identifying communities

potentially affected by the violations,

facilitating the process, encouraging

realistic community expectations, and

using liaisons to facilitate

communication.

This guidance recognizes that not

every settlement can include a SEP

proposed or favored by community

members. SEPs are projects undertaken

voluntarily by defendants, and not all

defendants are interested in performing

SEPs. Defendants may not be willing to

solicit input from the community, or

may not be receptive to community

input. Further, final approval of all SEPs

rests with EPA,2 which must review

project proposals to ensure consistency

with the SEP Policy. Not all proposed

projects will meet the criteria of the SEP

Policy. Also, if different community

groups support different SEP projects,

some part of the community is likely to

be disappointed no matter what the

outcome of the SEP consideration

process might be.

Nevertheless, community

involvement is an important goal that

should be considered along with other

enforcement goals, such as quick

response to environmental threats,

timely resolution of enforcement

actions, and using limited resources

effectively to achieve the maximum

benefit for human health and the

environment. This guidance encourages

Regions to think creatively about how to

engage communities, even though direct

community participation will not be

possible in every case that includes a

SEP. For example, Regions can consider

setting up a SEP Bank to solicit

community project ideas outside of the

context of a particular enforcement

action so that community project ideas

are available to draw from in

appropriate cases. Also, settlements can

be structured to provide for community

input on implementation of the SEP,

even if participation in SEP

consideration itself is not feasible.

Building trust between EPA and

communities is the foundation of

effective community involvement in the

SEP consideration process. Even where

community outreach does not result in

a community-supported or proposed

SEP being included in a settlement,

effective community outreach can help

increase the community’s confidence in

the process and may encourage the

community to work with EPA in the

future.

I. Reasons To Include Communities in

the Consideration of SEPs

Including communities in the

consideration of SEPs may benefit the

defendant,3 the community, the

environment, and EPA. First, because

SEPs help to protect the environment

and public health, and can redress

environmental harm, involving

communities in SEP consideration

enables EPA and the defendant to focus

on the particular environmental

priorities and concerns of a community,

which is especially important if several

different SEPs are being considered. The

community can also be a valuable

source of SEP ideas, including ideas that

result in creative or innovative SEPs

that might not otherwise have been

considered.

Second, active community

involvement can strengthen trust and

cooperation between EPA and a

community, and help EPA respond to

communities’ environmental protection

priorities. Even when a SEP cannot fully

respond to local priorities, community

involvement may provide ideas for

projects for future environmental

protection efforts outside the context of

the enforcement action (See discussion

of SEP Banks).

Third, pursuant to the SEP Policy, a

defendant’s active participation and

inclusion of public input into a SEP is

one of the factors EPA uses to determine

the penalty mitigation for a SEP. (SEP

Policy, p. 16). Defendants may also

benefit from community involvement

because it can result in better

relationships with the community.

Finally, the public has the

opportunity to comment on the terms of

proposed judicial and some

administrative Consent Decrees, and

early community involvement may

avoid adverse comments on the terms of

a settlement or a SEP during the public

comment period. Community

involvement also helps the public

understand the process of judicial or

administrative enforcement actions.

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 127 / Friday, June 30, 2000 / Notices 40641

II. Determining When Community

Involvement Is Appropriate

A. Community Participation In SEP

Consideration In Individual Cases

Given the wide range of violations

and communities, there is no formula to

determine when community

involvement in the consideration of a

SEP is appropriate. There are a number

of factors, however, to consider when

determining whether community

involvement is appropriate in any

particular case.

One obvious factor to consider is the

defendant’s willingness to perform a

SEP and to involve the community in

considering possible SEP projects. Even

if a defendant does not wish to

participate actively in outreach to the

community on SEP proposals, its

willingness to consider projects

generated by community sources is

essential to the process. As noted above,

there are many incentives for

defendants to engage communities in

SEP consideration. However, EPA

cannot coerce a defendant to do a

project or to accept projects proposed by

the community.

Resources are another concern when

evaluating whether and how to involve

communities in SEP consideration.

Direct community involvement in SEP

consideration has obvious impacts on

the time, money and effort that will be

required to bring the action to

conclusion. While the additional

resource demands are not in themselves

reasons not to include communities in

SEP consideration, these impacts should

be evaluated against the size and

complexity of the enforcement action

and how community involvement in

SEP consideration may affect the

Agency’s ability to resolve enforcement

actions within a reasonable time frame.

Balancing enforcement impacts with the

desire for community input may require

creative approaches. In some cases it

may be desirable to delay the

community involvement until after the

consent decree has been entered. For

example, if the government and

defendant agree on a particular project

that satisfies the terms of the SEP Policy

(e.g., a greenway project in a particular

area for a specified amount of acreage),

they may agree to provide for

community involvement in the SEP

during the implementation of the

consent decree (e.g., in determining

exactly which parcels of land to

purchase for the greenway).

In general, those cases which have a

large penalty at stake, where the

violations have had a direct impact on

the community and where community

interest in the enforcement action is

high may be appropriate for a broad and

inclusive outreach effort. As the SEP

Policy points out, community

involvement may be most appropriate in

cases where the range of possible SEPs

is great and/or multiple SEPs may be

negotiated. (SEP Policy, p. 19).

At the other end of the spectrum,

routine cases which have relatively little

potential for significant penalties, direct

environmental impact on the

community, or community interest may

not be good candidates for a broad

outreach effort. Between these two

extremes, however, lie opportunities to

tailor community involvement efforts to

meet the needs and limitations of a

particular enforcement action.

Generally, the important factors to be

considered in determining whether and

to what extent to involve communities

once the defendant has indicated a

desire to perform a SEP are:

1. The amount of the proposed

penalty and the settlement amount

which is likely to be mitigated by the

SEP;

2. The impact of the violations on the

community;

3. The level of interest of the

community in the facility and the

potential SEP; and

4. The willingness of the defendant to

solicit and respond in a meaningful way

to community input.

B. SEP Banks

‘‘SEP Banks’’ or ‘‘SEP Libraries’’ are

Regional inventories of potential SEPs

that can be consulted in individual

cases where the defendant requests

assistance in identifying appropriate

SEPs. SEP Banks can provide an

important avenue for community input

on SEPs, that can be used when the size

of the case or the timing of the

enforcement process does not allow for

direct community participation. SEP

Banks generally are more acceptable to

defendants than broad outreach efforts

and can help to avoid raising unrealistic

community expectations about the

likelihood of a particular project being

performed by a particular party.

The SEP Bank inventory can include

specific projects identified as priorities

by EPA, communities, or nongovernmental organizations. EPA can

solicit ideas for the SEP Bank through

town meetings, public hearings, or

meetings with appropriate EPA staff. At

the time ideas are collected for the SEP

Bank, the enforcement action in which

the SEP may ultimately be selected will

be unknown. Therefore, it is important

for communities to understand that

inclusion of a SEP in the SEP Bank does

not ensure that the project will be

implemented. All SEP Policy

requirements should be applied in the

context of the enforcement action to

determine whether the proposed SEP

meets the requirements of the Policy.

Before EPA considers a SEP Bank

proposal in the context of an

enforcement action, EPA should contact

community leaders to try to determine

whether the project is still a priority for

the community.

III. Roles of Participants In SEP

Consideration

Each participant’s role in the process

of SEP consideration will depend

primarily on the circumstances of the

case, including the defendant’s

willingness to solicit and include

community input in the development of

a SEP. However, there are several

principles to keep in mind to ensure

that each participant understands its

responsibilities and obligations.

A. EPA

EPA should provide communities

with information about SEP possibilities

as early as possible in the settlement

process, consistent with the

requirements of the case and in

accordance with confidentiality

constraints. When providing

information early in the process, EPA

should avoid raising community

expectations beyond realistic levels.

When a defendant expresses interest in

performing a SEP, EPA may play the

primary role in facilitating community

involvement. EPA should also establish

milestones and objectives for

community involvement, consistent

with the litigation deadlines, to ensure

that community involvement does not

create any potential impediment to the

progress of the litigation or to meeting

court-imposed deadlines. EPA should

make clear to the community that EPA

remains the final decision-maker on all

matters affecting the content and the

process of community involvement, and

that any SEP selected must meet the

requirements of the SEP Policy.

B. The Defendant

The defendant has a responsibility to

learn about the SEP Policy and to

explain why any SEP it proposes

conforms to the requirements of the

Policy. The defendant should also

explain why it favors any particular SEP

proposal over another proposal. As

noted above, in order to qualify for

additional mitigation of civil penalties

for community involvement, a

defendant must ‘‘actively’’ participate

by soliciting and incorporating public

input. The defendant’s knowledge of the

community, the defendant’s resources,

and the defendant’s cooperation can

40642 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 127 / Friday, June 30, 2000 / Notices

4Many of the steps taken for community outreach

may be undertaken by the defendant, in

consultation and coordination with EPA.

help ensure the success of community

participation. The following are just

some of the many activities that a

defendant may do when seeking to

actively participate:

1. Identify communities and

community representatives;

2. Provide facilities and resources for

public outreach;

3. Participate actively in EPA’s

outreach efforts;

4. Analyze and evaluate SEP ideas

proposed by the community;

5. Engage in discussion of SEP ideas

with community representatives;

6. Add to or build upon SEP ideas

proposed by the community;

7. Revise SEP proposals in response to

community comments (whether

presented directly by the community or

through EPA)

Even if the defendant is actively

soliciting and incorporating public

input, EPA remains in control of

community involvement and the final

decision on SEPs.

C. Communities

Communities can participate most

effectively when they are aware of the

requirements of the SEP Policy, the

general nature of the enforcement

action, and are willing to work within

EPA and court-imposed deadlines.

Communities need to understand that

not all community problems can be

solved through SEPs and that federal

law and the SEP Policy imposes a

number of constraints on the types of

activities that qualify as SEPs.

Communities may benefit by trying to

resolve any differences amongst

themselves so that they may present

clear and consistent proposals and

recommendations.

IV. Timing for Community Outreach

EPA should establish deadlines and

inform the community of those

deadlines to maintain compliance with

court-imposed deadlines and to help

keep the enforcement case on track. In

most cases, EPA will seek community

input after the defendant shows an

interest in performing a SEP and EPA

knows the approximate amount of

money available for a SEP. In some

cases, when the defendant is

particularly interested in settlement,

this may occur shortly before or after the

filing of the complaint. For example, it

may occur during pre-filing

negotiations. However, in many cases,

the potential for settlement, the

potential for the settlement to include a

SEP, and the amount of money available

for a SEP, will not be known until

weeks, months, or years of litigation.

Nonetheless, as discussed below, there

are steps EPA can take even before the

defendant shows interest in performing

a SEP.

A. General Outreach

In some cases, EPA may begin

community outreach very early in the

enforcement process. For example, EPA

may develop a communication strategy

when developing the enforcement case.

Several EPA offices may participate in

the development of a communications

strategy, including the Environmental

Justice Regional Team, the geographical

initiative teams, community outreach

personnel, and other regional and

headquarters offices, as resources

permit. A communications strategy

should include ways in which the

community can be prepared to

participate in SEP consideration, should

that possibility arise. For example, EPA

may mail non-case-specific information

on enforcement and SEPs to community

leaders to help them and their

communities better understand SEP

Policy requirements and be better

prepared to participate in SEP

consideration. In any event, EPA should

track community interest and

communicate significant developments

to the community to help them

participate effectively in SEP

consideration.

B. Steps To Ensure a Smooth Process of

Community Involvement

Once EPA determines that a SEP with

community involvement is feasible,

there are several steps that may smooth

the way for such involvement.4 First, if

extensive community involvement is

expected, the Regional Office may make

an EPA regional employee with

outreach experience available for

consultation. Second, EPA should

provide an outline of the SEP

consideration process to community

leaders, highlighting important matters,

including the deadlines for decisions,

and details for community involvement,

e.g., information about anticipated

community meetings. EPA and the

defendant should select the best

approach to engage the community and

to identify the priorities of the

community or communities. EPA

should advise the community of

significant decisions about

consideration of SEPs in a timely

manner, including the initial decision to

include the community in the

development of a SEP. Finally, EPA

should advise community members how

they can obtain information about the

status of the SEP consideration process.

EPA should also make clear that EPA

and the Department of Justice are the

final decision-makers in selecting SEPs

and determining appropriate penalties.

C. Making the Final Decision on a SEP

After EPA has gathered sufficient

information from the community (or

communities) and is close to making a

decision on a SEP or SEPs, EPA may

want to offer a limited opportunity for

any final community input (within a

clear and probably rather short

deadline). If a number of SEPs are under

consideration, EPA may want to ask the

community to rank the proposed SEPs

in order of priority to the community.

Once a SEP is selected, EPA should

explain why.

V. Tools and Techniques To Involve

Communities in SEP Consideration

A. Identifying Communities

EPA should begin by deciding where

to look for communities potentially

affected by the violations. Where to look

will generally depend on the nature of

the enforcement action. For example, in

an air toxics case, it may be appropriate

to look at all communities within a

certain radius of the defendant’s facility.

In a water quality case, the focus may

be on communities downstream of the

defendant’s facility. Where a case

involves right-to-know violations, the

appropriate area may be based on a local

emergency planning committee’s

jurisdiction.

After deciding where to look, EPA

and/or the defendant should identify

community members who may want to

be involved in SEP consideration. EPA

may rely on various internal and

external resources, some of which are

identified in Appendix A. A community

may have diverse interests. By

contacting a range of sources, EPA and/

or the defendant may ensure that

interested community members are not

excluded. To be as inclusive as possible,

EPA and/or the defendant may have to

make a special effort to reach out to

community members who face specific

barriers to involvement, for example,

language barriers or other

socioeconomic barriers.

B. Conducting Outreach

Once the affected community or

communities have been identified and

the other circumstances described above

have been met (i.e., defendant is willing

to do a SEP and the approximate

amount of money for a SEP is known)

EPA and/or the defendant can notify the

community about the violation, possible

SEPs, and the opportunity for

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 127 / Friday, June 30, 2000 / Notices 40643

5ERNS stands for Emergency Response

Notification System. IDEA stands for Integrated

Database for Enforcement Analysis. The SEP

Database contains descriptions of SEP projects

included in the settlement of Agency enforcement

actions. These databases can be accessed through

EPA’s website at www.epa.gov.

6See 40 CFR part 2, subpart B.

7Regardless of the case at issue, several categories

of documents and information must be kept

confidential. These include: (1) the parties’

settlement offers; (2) EPA’s penalty positions,

disclosure of which could compromise the

government’s case if settlement fails; (3)

information claimed as CBI pursuant to 40 CFR part

2, subpart B; (4) privileged documents (e.g.,

attorney work-product, attorney-client

communications, etc.); (5) National Security

Information; and (6) information subject to the

privacy requirements of FOIA or other statutes.

EPA’s policy on withholding enforcement sensitive

information that may be considered exempt from

the Freedom of Information Act (‘‘FOIA’’) conforms

with FOIA’s ‘‘presumption of disclosure.’’ However,

if such documents would interfere with

enforcement proceedings, EPA may chose to

withhold such information. See Memorandum of

Steven A. Herman, dated August 15, 1996, entitled

‘‘Public Release of EPA Enforcement Information.’’

community involvement. As noted

above, during negotiations with the

defendant concerning SEPs, EPA must

establish procedures, milestones, and

deadlines for community involvement.

EPA and/or the defendant should also

maintain communications with

representatives of the community. The

list of outreach approaches included in

Appendix B to this guidance may

provide ideas for involving the

community in SEP consideration.

C. Fostering a Good Relationship With

the Community

EPA can take a number of relatively

simple steps to foster a good

relationship with the community and

build and maintain trust among all

parties. Communication of information

to the community is one important

aspect of fostering a good relationship.

EPA should:

1. Ensure the community understands

that the defendant must agree to do a

SEP and that EPA cannot unilaterally

impose SEPs;

2. Explain to the community its role

in the SEP process while making clear

that EPA and DOJ remain solely

responsible for final SEP consideration;

3. Explain that a SEP is only one part

of the overall settlement, which will

generally also include penalty

assessment and injunctive relief;

4. Advise the community that a SEP

is an environmental project, which

requires nexus between the SEP and the

violation, and cannot be a direct

payment of money to the community,

and explain other limitations of federal

law and the SEP Policy;

5. Advise the community of the

milestones and deadlines in the

enforcement action and ensure that the

community understands the need to

meet deadlines, as well as the time

negotiations may take and the

government’s process for approval of

settlements and SEPs;

6. Advise the community as

milestones in the negotiation and the

development of a SEP are reached.

There are a number of approaches

EPA can use to effectively involve

communities in SEP consideration,

including:

1. Inform communities about Agency

databases, such as ERNS, IDEA, the SEP

Database, and Internet sources; 5

2. Using local libraries as information

repositories;

3. Employing creative approaches to

educating communities;

4. Providing information in plain

language and translating into languages

other than English if resources allow.

EPA’s credibility is another important

factor in fostering a good relationship.

The EPA case team may want to enlist

help from other EPA employees familiar

with the community or a community

member to clearly present information

to the community. Enlisting this

additional help may be limited by

available resources and expertise.

In some circumstances, EPA may

want to use an independent third-party

liaison to communicate with the

community. Use of such liaisons will

not be advisable for every SEP, but

could be especially helpful in complex

cases. Before entering into any contract

to use a third-party liaison, certain

questions should be resolved, such as:

Who pays for the liaison? How will the

process be managed to avoid delay and

miscommunication? How will EPA

resolve any community dissatisfaction

with the liaison?

There are also a number of factors

EPA should consider before electing to

use a liaison:

1. The constituency of the

community. For example, large

communities or communities with

many factions may be better served by

an independent third-party liaison that

possesses the expertise to manage the

myriad concerns such communities may

have.

2. The complexity of the case. In a

complex case, third-party liaisons may

alleviate resource burdens and expedite

the consideration process.

3. The liaison’s credibility with EPA,

the defendant, and with the community,

and any additional costs associated with

using a liaison.

In determining which liaison to use,

EPA should consider the following

issues:

1. The variety of individuals or groups

who are useful for identifying affected

communities. Many of these people can

function as liaisons;

2. The amount and quality of

experience a liaison has conducting

outreach;

3. Recommendations or suggestions

from the affected community or the

defendant.

If Alternative Dispute Resolution

(‘‘ADR’’) is used to assist in settling the

case, a third-party neutral may already

be available to contact the community

for input on SEPs. Even where ADR is

not used, EPA’s lists of third-party

neutrals and ADR procedures for their

hiring may be useful.

VI. Managing Confidentiality Concerns

SEPs usually will be developed in the

context of settlement negotiations.

Confidentiality between the government

and the defendant is essential to the

exchange of ideas and exploration of

settlement options. Because of this, EPA

must consider how to provide

information to the public to facilitate

their involvement in SEP consideration

and development without undermining

the confidentiality of settlement

negotiations. Much of the information

developed by the government may be

privileged and therefore not appropriate

for release to the public. In addition, a

defendant may provide information to

the government that must be kept

confidential. For example, a defendant

may provide confidential business

information (‘‘CBI’’) to EPA. CBI, by

law, cannot be provided to the public.6

Thus, each case will have limits on

what EPA may make available to the

public.7 Because of the voluminous

documentation in many enforcement

cases it may not always be practicable

for EPA to undertake the privilege and

confidentiality reviews necessary to

make information available, but where it

is able EPA should do so. In judicial

cases, the Department of Justice will

also retain authority to determine what

information can be released to the

community.

The provision of information to the

community should enhance the

community’s ability to provide

meaningful input and to develop

realistic expectations about what SEPs

are possible. Thus, when practicable,

EPA should make relevant, nonprivileged and non-confidential

information available to the public. The

types of information that may be

provided to the community, where

practicable, are notices of violation,

complaints, and other documents filed

with a Regional Hearing Clerk,

40644 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 127 / Friday, June 30, 2000 / Notices

Administrative Law Judge, or court, the

facility’s monitoring reports, and EPA,

state, or local inspection reports. EPA

should encourage the defendant to agree

to share information with the

community, within parameters

discussed above. This should help EPA

and the defendant establish a positive

relationship with the community and

enable the community to participate in

the SEP process more effectively.

VII. Conclusion

EPA is committed to involving

communities in the consideration of

SEPs in appropriate cases. This

guidance is intended to facilitate

community involvement in SEP

consideration and helps effectuate the

best possible SEPs in settlement of

enforcement cases in a manner that

promotes mutual trust and confidence,

and builds positive relationships

between the community and the

Agency.

This document is guidance intended

for the use of EPA personnel and does

not create any right or benefit,

substantive or procedural, enforceable at

law by a party against the United States,

its agencies, its officers, or any person.

This guidance is not intended to

supercede any statutory or regulatory

requirements, or EPA policy. Any

inconsistencies between this guidance

and any statute, regulation, or policy

should be resolved in favor of the

statutory or regulatory requirement, or

policy document, at issue.

Appendix A—Resources for Identifying

Communities

Below are some suggested resources within

and outside of EPA that may be useful in

targeting community outreach efforts.

Suggested Internal Sources

1. Community involvement coordinators at

OERR’s Community Involvement and

Outreach Center;

2. Headquarters offices, including: Office of

Environmental Justice, American Indian

Environmental Office, Federal Facilities

Enforcement Office;

3. Colleagues in other media programs or

regions;

4. Regional offices or coordinators who

handle community involvement,

environmental justice, tribal issues, or

Community-Based Environmental Protection

(CBEP);

5. ‘‘Model Plan for Public Participation’’

(November, 1996), developed by the Public

Participation and Accountability

Subcommittee of the National Environmental

Justice Advisory Council (available at NEJAC

website: www.epa.gov/oeca/oej/nejac).

Suggested External Sources

1. State, local, or tribal governments;

2. Educational or spiritual organizations;

3. Other federal agencies;

4. Neighborhood organizations or groups,

and individuals in neighborhoods closest to

the defendant’s facility;

5. Community activists;

6. Environmental and environmental

justice organizations and groups;

7. Local unions, business groups, and civic

groups;

8. The defendant or other members of the

regulated community (i.e., trade

associations);

9. Local newspapers, radio, television,

local Internet sites.

Appendix B—Community Outreach

Techniques

*This list is intended to provide a library

of options available for use in conducting

community outreach, and is not intended to

suggest that all of these techniques be used

in any given case.

1. Interview: Face-to-face or telephone

discussions with community members

provide information about local concerns and

issues. A significant time commitment may

be required to gather feedback representative

of the community.

2. Small Group Meeting: Convening

community members in a local meeting place

stimulates dialogue, generates information,

and may build rapport among participants.

3. Focus Group Meeting: Focus group

participants are convened by a trained

facilitator to provide answers to specific

questions. This direct approach is an efficient

information-gathering tool if participants

represent a cross-section of the community.

4. Public Meeting: Public meetings are

useful for hearing what people have to say

about current issues and engaging

community members in the process. At

public meetings, EPA should focus on active

listening and learning from the public.

5. Public Availability Session/Open House:

A public availability session is a less

structured alternative to a public meeting

that provides everyone an opportunity to ask

questions, express concerns, react to what is

being proposed, and make suggestions.

Typically, a public official announces she or

he will be available at a convenient time and

place where community members can talk

informally.

6. Public Notice: Public notices in the print

media or on radio and television are a

relatively inexpensive way to publicize

community participation opportunities. In

addition to the mainstream media, minority

publications, church bulletins and other such

vehicles offered by local organizations can

reach a more diverse audience.

7. Workshop: Workshops are participatory

seminars to educate small groups of citizens

on particular site issues. Workshops involve

and empower participants; but they, too, can

be time-intensive.

8. Site Tour: Site tours can familiarize

citizens, the media and local officials with

the nature of environmental concerns

affecting a community near a specific site.

Tours may result in better communication

among the community, facility, and Agency,

however, they are frequently resourceintensive to arrange and conduct.

9. Information Repository: An information

repository is a project file containing timely

information on site-specific activities and

accurate detailed and current data about a

site or enforcement action. Project files are

typically kept at convenient public locations,

e.g., libraries, and publicized through various

media.

[FR Doc. 00–16632 Filed 6–29–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

[OPP–00658; FRL–6556–4]

Pesticides; Policy Issues Related to

the Food Quality Protection Act

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of availability.

SUMMARY: To assure that EPA’s policies

related to implementing the Food

Quality Protection Act are transparent

and open to public participation, EPA is

soliciting comments on the pesticide

draft science policy paper entitled

‘‘Proposed Guidance on Cumulative

Risk Assessment of Pesticide Chemicals

That Have a Common Mechanism of

Toxicity.’’ This document is the

eighteenth in a series concerning

science policy papers related to the

Food Quality Protection Act and the

Tolerance Reassessment Advisory

Committee.

DATES: Comments for the draft science

policy paper, identified by docket

control number OPP–00658, must be

received on or before August 28, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be

submitted by mail, electronically, or in

person. Please follow the detailed

instructions for each method as

provided in Unit I.C. of the

‘‘SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.’’

To ensure proper receipt by EPA, it is

imperative that you identify docket

control number OPP–00658 in the

subject line on the first page of your

response.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Kathleen Martin, Environmental

Protection Agency (7509C), 1200

Pennsylvania, Ave., NW., Washington,

DC 20460; telephone number: (703)

308–2857; fax: (703) 305–5147; e-mail:

martin.kathleen@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this Action Apply to Me?

You may be potentially affected by

this action if you manufacture or

formulate pesticides. Potentially

affected categories and entities may

include, but are not limited to: