Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 123 / Tuesday, June 26, 2012 / Notices 38051 

Bureau of Reclamation’s Pinto dam, on 

Billy Clapp Lake near the city of Moses 

Lake in Grant County, Washington. The 

sole purpose of a preliminary permit, if 

issued, is to grant the permit holder 

priority to file a license application 

during the permit term. A preliminary 

permit does not authorize the permit 

holder to perform any land-disturbing 

activities or otherwise enter upon lands 

or waters owned by others without the 

owners’ express permission. 

The proposed project would use the 

existing Pinto dam, and would consist 

of the following new facilities: (1) A 72- 

inch-diameter penstock connecting the 

existing Pinto dam outlet tunnel to a 

powerhouse located immediately 

downstream of the dam; (2) a 

powerhouse containing a 3.4-megawatt 

Francis turbine/generator unit; (3) a 

tailrace discharging flows into the 

existing feed route between Billy Clapp 

Lake and Brook Lake; (4) a 7,000-footlong, 34.5-kilovolt (kV) transmission 

line extending from the project to a 

34.5-kV transmission line owned by the 

Public Utility District No. 1 of Grant 

County, Washington; and (5) 

appurtenant facilities. The estimated 

annual generation of the Pinto Dam 

Project would be 8.1 gigawatt-hours. 

Applicant Contact: Mr. Ronald K. 

Rodewald, Secretary-Manager, Grand 

Coulee Project Hydroelectric Authority, 

P.O. Box 209, Ephrata, Washington 

98823; phone: (509) 754–2227. 

FERC Contact: Jennifer Harper; 

phone: (202) 502–6136. 

Deadline for filing comments, motions 

to intervene, competing applications 

(without notices of intent), or notices of 

intent to file competing applications: 60 

days from the issuance of this notice. 

Competing applications and notices of 

intent must meet the requirements of 18 

CFR 4.36. Comments, motions to 

intervene, notices of intent, and 

competing applications may be filed 

electronically via the Internet. See 18 

CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the 

instructions on the Commission’s Web 

site http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ 

efiling.asp. Commenters can submit 

brief comments up to 6,000 characters, 

without prior registration, using the 

eComment system at http:// 

www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ 

ecomment.asp. You must include your 

name and contact information at the end 

of your comments. For assistance, 

please contact FERC Online Support at 

FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov or toll 

free at 1–866–208–3676, or for TTY, 

(202) 502–8659. Although the 

Commission strongly encourages 

electronic filing, documents may also be 

paper-filed. To paper-file, mail an 

original and seven copies to: Kimberly 

D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy 

Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street 

NE., Washington, DC 20426. 

More information about this project, 

including a copy of the application, can 

be viewed or printed on the ‘‘eLibrary’’ 

link of Commission’s Web site at http:// 

www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp. 

Enter the docket number (P–14380) in 

the docket number field to access the 

document. For assistance, contact FERC 

Online Support. 

Dated: June 19, 2012. 

Kimberly D. Bose, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2012–15482 Filed 6–25–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6717–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission 

[Project No. 13860–001] 

Jones Canyon Hydro, LLC; Notice of 

Application for Amendment of 

Preliminary Permit Accepted for Filing 

and Soliciting Comments, Motions To 

Intervene, and Protests 

On May 29, 2012, Jones Canyon 

Hydro, LLC filed an amendment to their 

preliminary permit issued March 28, 

2011 for the Jones Canyon Pumped 

Storage Project. The proposed project 

would be a closed-loop pumped storage 

project located near Grass Valley, in 

Sherman County, Oregon. 

The applicant proposes to make the 

following changes to their issued 

permit: (1) Expand the project boundary 

to include a second canyon north of the 

project; (2) change the location of the 

proposed lower reservoir dam to north 

of the current location and include an 

additional canyon; (3) expand the lower 

reservoir from 68 surface acres to 98 

surface acres at an elevation of 1,150 

feet above mean sea level; (4) change the 

total installed capacity of the project 

from 400 megawatts (MW) to 500 MW; 

(5) change the length of the transmission 

line from 0.34 miles to 4.5 miles; (6) 

lengthen the conduit between the 

proposed reservoirs from 6,225 feet to 

7,330 feet; and (7) change the name of 

the project from ‘‘Jones Canyon Pumped 

Storage Project’’ to ‘‘Oregon Winds 

Pumped Storage’’. 

FERC Contact: Jennifer Harper, 202– 

502–6136. 

Deadline for filing comments or 

motions to intervene: 30 days from the 

issuance of this notice. Comments and 

motions to intervene may be filed 

electronically via the Internet. See 18 

CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the 

instructions on the Commission’s Web 

site http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ 

efiling.asp. Commenters can submit 

brief comments up to 6,000 characters, 

without prior registration, using the 

eComment system at http:// 

www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ 

ecomment.asp. You must include your 

name and contact information at the end 

of your comments. For assistance, 

please contact FERC Online Support. 

Although the Commission strongly 

encourages electronic filing, documents 

may also be paper-filed. To paper-file, 

mail an original and seven copies to: 

Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal 

Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 

First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426. 

More information about this project, 

including a copy of the application, can 

be viewed or printed on the ‘‘eLibrary’’ 

link of the Commission’s Web site at 

http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ 

elibrary.asp. Enter the docket number 

(P–13860–001) in the docket number 

field to access the document. For 

assistance, contact FERC Online 

Support. 

Dated: June 19, 2012. 

Kimberly D. Bose, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2012–15483 Filed 6–25–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6717–01–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

[EPA–HQ–OAR–2012–0452; FRL–9680–6] 

EPA Activities To Promote 

Environmental Justice in the Permit 

Application Process 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Notice of Availability of 

Proposed Regional Actions to Promote 

Public Participation in the Permitting 

Process and Draft Best Practices for 

Permit Applicants Seeking EPA-Issued 

Permits; Request for Comments. 

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 soliciting public 

comment on ways that EPA and permit 

applicants can meaningfully engage 

communities in the permitting process. 

This notice describes and seeks 

comment on actions that EPA regional 

offices can take 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 announces the availability of 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
38052 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 123 / Tuesday, June 26, 2012 / Notices 

draft best practices for permit applicants 

seeking EPA-issued permits (located in 

the appendix to this notice). The best 

practices are designed to encourage and 

assist permit applicants to reach out to 

neighboring communities when 

applying for permits that may affect the 

community’s quality of life, including 

their health and environment. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before August 27, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2012–0452 by one of the following 

methods: 

• www.regulations.gov: Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• Mail: ‘‘Plan EJ 2014: Considering EJ 

in EPA’s Permitting Process’’ Docket, 

Environmental Protection Agency, EPA 

Docket Center, Mailcode 28221T, 1200 

Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, 

DC 20460. 

• Hand Delivery: ‘‘Plan EJ 2014: 

Considering EJ in EPA’s Permitting 

Process’’ Docket, EPA/DC, EPA West, 

Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. 

NW., Washington, DC 20460. Such 

deliveries are accepted only during the 

Docket’s normal hours of operation, and 

special arrangement should be made for 

deliveries of boxed information. 

EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change and may be 

available online at http://www.

regulations.gov, including any personal 

information provided, unless the 

comment includes information claimed 

to be Confidential Business Information 

(CBI) or other information of which 

disclosure is restricted by statute. Do 

not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through http://www.

regulations.gov or email. The http://

www.regulations.gov Web site is an 

‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which 

means EPA will not know your identity 

or contact information unless you 

provide it in the body of your comment. 

If EPA cannot read your comment due 

to technical difficulties and cannot 

contact you for clarification, EPA may 

not be able to consider your comment. 

Electronic files should avoid the use of 

special characters, avoid any form of 

encryption, and be free of any defects or 

viruses. For additional information 

about EPA’s public docket, visit the EPA 

Docket Center homepage at http://www.

epa.gov/cpallomc/dockets.htm. EPA 

also encourages the public to review 

and participate in the Environmental 

Justice in Action Blog which can be 

found at https://blog.epa.gov/ej. EPA 

intends to use the Environmental Justice 

in Action Blog to encourage different 

public stakeholders to dialogue over the 

ideas set forth in this Federal Register 

Notice. The Environmental Justice in 

Action Blog does not replace the 

conventional public comment process 

described above. Rather, EPA hopes that 

the Environmental Justice in Action 

Blog provides an informal public forum 

for stakeholders to exchange idea and 

share views, which may help shape 

comments submitted to EPA through 

Regulations.gov. As this public 

participation initiative illustrates, EPA 

believes that early and frequent dialogue 

among people with different points of 

view can lead to more thoughtful 

outcomes. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. General Information 

II. Actions That EPA Regional Offices Can 

Take To Promote Meaningful 

Engagement in the Permitting Process by 

Overburdened Communities 

III. Draft Best Practices for Permit Applicants 

Seeking EPA-Issued Permits: Ways To 

Engage Communities at the Fence-Line 

IV. 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 objectives: 

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 on environmental justice, 

which directs each 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 

play a key role in providing effective 

protection of public health and the 

environment in communities. Thus, 

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. 

Plan EJ 2014 directs 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 

environmental permitting presents 

opportunities to address environmental 

justice, and that the Agency has the 

responsibility to lead by example to 

address environmental justice in 

permits issued by EPA. Therefore, the 

actions described in this notice focus on 

EPA-issued permits. Although EPA 

issues few environmental permits 

compared to state, local and tribal 

governments that implement federal 

environmental laws as approved or 

delegated by EPA, EPA intends to share 

its experiences and ideas with these 

governments as well as with other 

federal agencies, with the goal of 

promoting similar efforts. 

In this notice, EPA focuses on 

enhancing the opportunity and ability of 

overburdened communities to 

participate in the permitting process. 

Overburdened communities are 

communities that potentially experience 

disproportionate environmental harms 

and risk as a result of cumulative 

impacts or greater vulnerability to 

environmental hazards. EPA believes 

that the participation of overburdened 

communities in the permitting process 

is an essential step toward the ultimate 

goal of achieving permits that 

meaningfully 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, language barriers, and 

limited access to technical and legal 

resources. In EPA’s view, more 

transparency and dialogue can lead to 

better permit outcomes for the 

community as well as permit applicants. 

Thus, EPA believes it is especially 

important to make special efforts to 

provide enhanced public participation 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 123 / Tuesday, June 26, 2012 / Notices 38053 

opportunities to overburdened 

communities, particularly minority, 

low-income, and indigenous 

communities. EPA also realizes that 

enhanced public engagement is only 

one aspect of attention to environmental 

justice in the context of permitting. 

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. EPA 

believes that permit applicants have 

unique opportunities in this area. Many 

companies are already active, 

contributing members of the 

community. In addition to their 

important role as a source of 

employment and economic stability 

within a community, permit applicants 

play other roles. Many facilities 

applying for permits, for example, have 

robust community engagement 

strategies that recognize the value of 

community outreach. Pursuant to these 

strategies, facilities engage actively with 

the community through environmental 

initiatives, neighborhood beautification 

projects, education programs and 

charitable giving, civic programs and 

the arts, youth activities, and other 

investments in the community. These 

existing ties between permit applicants 

and the broader communities where 

they are located provide a foundation 

for permit applicants to reach out to 

their immediate neighbors along the 

facility’s fence-line—ideally, to discuss 

health or environmental issues 

associated with their plans for new or 

increased pollutant releases. 

EPA has compiled the draft list of 

activities and best practices presented in 

this notice from many sources. EPA 

surveyed its regional offices, where EPA 

permitting activity predominantly 

occurs, to determine what steps are 

currently or could be taken to 

meaningfully involve overburdened 

communities in the permitting process. 

Additionally, 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, nongovernmental organizations, and the 

NEJAC, to gather more input on how to 

enhance participation of overburdened 

communities in EPA’s process of issuing 

environmental permits. One set of ideas, 

presented in Section II below, focuses 

on activities that EPA, as the permitting 

authority, can undertake to make it 

easier for communities to engage 

meaningfully and effectively in the 

permitting process. The second set of 

ideas, described in Section III below, 

presents best practices that permit 

applicants can use to initiate and 

sustain a dialogue with the communities 

at their fence-line when the companies 

seek environmental permits that may be 

affected by the permitting action. 

EPA recognizes that some states have 

made significant progress in 

meaningfully involving overburdened 

communities in the permitting process. 

While the focus of today’s notice is on 

EPA-issued permits, EPA believes that 

states with experience in this area can 

provide valuable information that will 

strengthen EPA’s efforts. Therefore, EPA 

invites states to share their ideas for 

ensuring the meaningful involvement of 

overburdened communities in the 

permitting process and encouraging 

dialogue between permit applicants and 

communities. 

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 the 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, 

and 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 and Title VI 

of the Civil Rights Act. These resources 

supplement information disseminated 

by EPA regional offices about their 

permit processes and particular permits. 

II. Actions That EPA Regional Offices 

Can Take To Promote Meaningful 

Engagement in the Permitting Process 

by Overburdened Communities 

As noted above, 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 permitting actions 

that may significantly impact them. 

Each EPA regional office will put in 

place 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’s expectation is 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. Therefore, EPA 

couples these agency-wide guidelines 

with the expectation that EPA regional 

offices have the flexibility in developing 

their implementation plans to take 

actions suited to the concerns of 

impacts on overburdened communities 

typically raised within their regions. 

This notice does not address any 

obligations imposed by the Civil Rights 

Act of 1964 or under EPA regulations at 

40 CFR part 7. 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 and Title VI 

Public Involvement Guidance for EPA 

Assistance Recipients Administering 

Environmental Permitting Programs. 

This notice does not address Executive 

Order 13175 or EPA’s Policy on 

Consultation and Coordination with 

Tribes. It is important to note the 

difference between the meaningful 

involvement of tribal communities as it 

is used in the EJ context and 

consultation with tribes. The Agency’s 

responsibilities under E.O. 13175 are 

separate from the responsibilities under 

E.O. 12898 and stem from federally 

recognized tribes’ status as sovereign 

governments. 

The activities described in this notice 

go beyond the standard notice-andcomment procedures required by law. 

EPA believes, however, that enhanced 

outreach can help to remove some of the 

barriers that can discourage 

overburdened communities from 

participating in permit processes that 

affect them and are appropriate in some 

circumstances. 

A. Agency-Wide Guidelines for EPA 

Regional Offices 

The guidelines presented here 

provide a framework for the regional 

offices to identify possible actions they 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
38054 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 123 / Tuesday, June 26, 2012 / Notices 

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 greater public 

involvement for 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 in 

permitting actions that may have 

significant public health or 

environmental impacts, such as a new 

operation or a modification of an 

existing operation, which may affect 

overburdened communities. Significant 

public outreach and engagement require 

significant resources. EPA recognizes its 

regional offices’ limited ability to 

enhance engagement for every EPAissued permit as well as the limited 

ability of overburdened communities to 

engage on every permit potentially 

impacting them. For this reason, EPA 

will consider prioritizing enhanced 

public involvement opportunities for 

those EPA-issued permits with 

significant public health or 

environmental impacts on already 

overburdened communities, determined 

by regional offices’ use of a screening 

tool or other methodology. Examples of 

permits that may have significant public 

health or environmental impacts 

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 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; 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. 

In addition, EPA will consider 

prioritizing for enhanced public 

involvement activities both permit 

applications and renewals for which a 

community has raised plausible 

environmental justice concerns, and 

permit applications and renewals where 

EPA has other information indicating 

environmental justice concerns related 

to the permit. 

In further recognition of EPA’s 

regional offices’ limited ability for 

enhanced public engagement, a regional 

office may not prioritize every EPAissued permit with significant public 

health or environmental impacts on 

already overburdened communities. 

Additionally, there may be 

circumstances under which a regional 

office finds enhanced public outreach 

appropriate irrespective of whether the 

permitting action has a significant 

public health or environmental impacts 

on already overburdened communities. 

2. Regional Offices’ Activities To 

Promote Greater Public Involvement in 

the Permitting Process 

Presented below is a proposed list of 

activities that EPA regional offices could 

undertake at key junctures in the 

permitting process to promote greater 

involvement of overburdened 

communities. The list of proposed 

activities is intended to identify priority 

areas of activity and to provide options 

for proposed activities in the 

development of regional 

implementation plans. Regional offices, 

therefore, may choose not to implement 

all of the proposed 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 the 

community has 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 Evaluate the appropriate length of 

the public comment period. 

Æ Consider holding information 

meetings for the public in addition to 

formal public comment sessions. 

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 the Community: 

Æ Designate EPA point(s) of contact 

that the community can contact to 

discuss environmental justice concerns 

or questions of a technical nature about 

the permit application. 

Æ Explain the permitting process by 

making informational fact sheets 

available. 

Æ Use plain language when 

communicating with the public. 

Æ Use communication techniques the 

community values, 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 

the community, using a variety of media 

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

appropriate. 

Æ Hold public meetings at times and 

places in the community best designed 

to afford the public a meaningful chance 

to attend. 

Æ After the permit has been issued, 

make available to the community a 

summary of EPA’s comment responses 

and provide information on where the 

community 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 (when 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 123 / Tuesday, June 26, 2012 / Notices 38055 

finalized) Draft Best Practices for Permit 

Applicants Seeking EPA-Issued Permits: 

Ways to Engage Communities at the 

Fence-Line. (See appendix.) 

B. EPA’s Expectations for Regional 

Implementation Plans 

EPA expects each regional office to 

develop, implement and make 

publically 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 opportunities 

for enhanced public participation 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 publically 

available will increase transparency and 

inform communities of EPA regional 

offices’ efforts to create opportunities for 

overburdened communities to 

meaningfully engage in the permitting 

process. 

EPA 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 

direction 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, the 

regional implementation plans will 

include: 

I. The EPA Regional Office’s process 

for prioritizing permits for enhanced 

engagement 

a. Use of a screening tool or other 

methodology to identify already 

overburdened communities; 

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 the 

Community; 

d. Communicating with the Permit 

Applicant. 

C. Solicitation of Comments 

EPA welcomes all comments on the 

proposed actions that Regional offices 

can take to promote the meaningful 

engagement of overburdened 

communities in the permitting process, 

but is particularly interested in 

comments addressing the following 

questions: 

• Has EPA identified the appropriate 

agency-wide guidelines to inform the 

development of regional 

implementation plans? What other 

guidelines should EPA consider that 

provide both agency-wide consistency 

and regional flexibility in promoting the 

meaningful engagement of 

overburdened communities in the 

permitting process? 

• What criteria should regional 

offices use to prioritize permits for 

enhanced outreach? 

• For priority permits, has EPA 

identified the appropriate activities that 

regional offices can take to promote the 

greater involvement of overburdened 

communities in the permitting process? 

What other activities should EPA 

consider? 

• Based on experiences you have had 

in the permitting process, what lessons 

have you learned that can be applied to 

improve the agency-wide guidelines or 

the regional implementation plans? 

III. Draft Best Practices for Permit 

Applicants Seeking EPA-Issued 

Permits: Ways To Engage Communities 

at the Fence-Line 

Even though EPA is the permitting 

authority for EPA-issued permits, both 

the permit applicant and the potentially 

affected community are also key 

stakeholders in the permit process. 

Therefore, EPA engaged in extensive 

outreach to these stakeholders, and in 

particular the business community, on 

how to meaningfully engage fence-line 

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 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 real or perceived 

disproportionate burden of an area’s 

pollution. EPA learned from its 

conversations with business 

stakeholders that dialogue with the 

community 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 a community objecting to 

a permit late in the permitting process. 

EPA believes that 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 the trends—and the 

facility’s response and prevention 

strategies—are publicized within the 

community. These practices 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—more than any permit— 

can improve the environment at the 

fence-line 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 the community can lead to more 

informed permits, resulting in better 

outcomes for the permit applicant as 

well as the community that has 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 environmental 

justice stakeholders, members of the 

business community, state, local and 

tribal governments and communities, 

non-governmental organizations, and 

the NEJAC. Based on these 

conversations, EPA has developed and 

solicits comment on the Draft Best 

Practices for Permit Applicants Seeking 

EPA-Issued Permits: Ways to Engage 

Communities at the Fence-line. (See 

appendix.) 

EPA hopes that these best practices, 

once finalized, will inform businesses 

and other participants in the permitting 

process of some effective techniques for 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
38056 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 123 / Tuesday, June 26, 2012 / Notices 

meaningfully engaging overburdened 

communities in the permitting process 

for EPA-issued permits. The final 

document would supplement existing 

guidance and recommendations issued 

by permitting authorities, including 

state and local agencies. 

The draft best practices presented 

here are designed to foster emerging 

leadership among permit applicants 

operating (or proposing to operate) 

facilities in overburdened communities. 

EPA emphasizes that no permit 

applicant will be required to follow 

these suggestions. To the contrary, EPA 

will continue to evaluate permit 

applications solely based on applicable 

regulations. 

EPA welcomes all comments on these 

draft best practices for permit 

applicants. EPA is particularly 

interested in comments addressing the 

following questions: 

• What different or additional 

activities could permit applicants 

employ in the permitting process to 

meaningfully involve overburdened 

communities? 

• Based on experiences you have had 

in the permitting process, what lessons 

have you learned or successful 

approaches you have employed that can 

be used by EPA to improve the best 

practice recommendations for permit 

applicants? 

• How can EPA ensure that 

communities are aware of the 

opportunity to have a two-way dialogue 

with permit applicants through the 

ideas provided here? 

IV. Conclusion 

EPA looks forward to considering 

suggestions and comments received in 

response to this notice. EPA hopes the 

creation of agency-wide guidelines and 

the development of regional 

implementation plans, as well as the 

presentation of best practices for permit 

applicants, will increase the meaningful 

participation of overburdened 

communities in the permitting process 

for EPA-issued permits. Although 

meaningful involvement in the 

permitting process may not always lead 

to reduced environmental impacts, EPA 

believes that every time an EPA permit 

writer or a permit applicant 

acknowledges a concern that would not 

have been aired but for enhanced 

outreach, communities and the permit 

applicant benefit. EPA further believes 

that every time this enhanced outreach 

leads to a feasible solution to an issue 

of interest to the community, all 

stakeholders benefit. 

Dated: June 15, 2012. 

Janet McCabe, 

Principal Deputy Assistant Administrator, 

Office of Air and Radiation. 

Appendix 

Best Practices for Permit Applicants Seeking 

EPA-Issued Permits: Ways To Engage 

Communities at the Fence-Line 

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 in EPA decision-making. 

EPA decision-making takes many forms. 

These best 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 environmental permits, EPA plays an 

important role in bringing communities and 

other members of the public into the 

permitting conversation. But the best time to 

achieve 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 the community on the other side of the 

facility’s fence. EPA believes that many 

applicants for EPA-issued permits are 

employing practices to be good neighbors. 

These best practices are designed to help a 

permit applicant to apply its good neighbor 

values to the permitting process, with an 

emphasis on ways to reach out effectively to 

the community at the fence-line. 

EPA encourages all permit applicants to 

experiment with these practices; all 

neighborhoods and communities will benefit 

when a facility reaches out as part of its 

environmental permitting process. This 

document emphasizes communities at the 

fence-line 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 by 

their permitted activities. These practices 

also have particular value in overburdened 

neighborhoods that have been historically 

underrepresented in the permitting process 

and may face barriers to participation in the 

permitting process, such as include lack of 

trust, lack of awareness or information, 

language barriers, and limited access to 

technical and legal resources. 

While EPA will evaluate a permit 

application based solely on the applicable 

regulations, permit applicants are encouraged 

to employ the suggestions in these best 

practices. EPA hopes that these best 

practices—which emerged from EPA’s 

conversations with a host of community, 

permit applicants and government 

stakeholders—will help applicants for EPAissued permits to seize a leadership role in 

this important area and, in doing so, 

demonstrate publicly that the core values on 

their Web sites do indeed influence corporate 

behavior. 

II. The Purpose of Best Practices 

The purpose of these best 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. The 

best practices can help build trust, promote 

a better understanding in the community of 

the facility’s environmental impacts, foster 

realistic expectations and help build strong 

partnerships that will lead to better results 

for all parties. Investing in communities is a 

cost-effective strategy. EPA encourages 

permit applicants to make each of its 

facilities a good neighbor to the communities 

at their fence-line. EPA hopes that the best 

practices will help companies think of ways 

to engage the communities at their fencelines and, in doing so, become better 

neighbors. 

III. Why is EPA Providing Best 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 the community through 

environmental initiatives, neighborhood 

beautification projects, education programs 

and charitable giving, civic programs and the 

arts, youth activities, and other investments 

in the community. Indeed, many companies 

and public authorities embody these 

principles in their mission statements, using 

words and phrases like collaboration, 

respect, and building 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 is 

emerging in this Nation that values and 

actively promotes community partnerships. 

EPA recognizes that many permit 

applicants already practice community 

outreach. These best practices are meant to 

encourage those leaders to continue their 

efforts. EPA hopes that the best practices will 

persuade those who are new to these ideas 

to experiment with this form of leadership, 

and to provide helpful suggestions for those 

seeking greater direction. Indeed, engaging 

with their communities as described here is 

consistent with many permit applicants’ core 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 123 / Tuesday, June 26, 2012 / Notices 38057 

values. These principles, practices and 

values lead to corporate sustainability, 

stability and—ultimately—profitability. 

Early and meaningful dialogue between the 

permit applicant and the community is 

especially important in overburdened 

communities that have historically been 

underrepresented in the permitting process 

and that potentially bear a real or believed 

disproportionate burden of an area’s 

pollution. Meaningful dialogue promotes 

environmental justice. EPA strongly 

encourages applicants for EPA-issued 

permits to engage in public outreach to the 

neighboring community whenever the 

facility’s pollutant releases have—or may be 

perceived to have—potential health and 

environmental impacts on overburdened 

communities. This approach is consistent 

with EPA’s objectives under Plan EJ 2014, 

which promotes meaningful involvement of 

the affected community in the permitting 

process. 

EPA believes these best 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. The community 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 the community informed 

of its control successes (and failures). These 

interests, while different, do not conflict. 

Conversations between the permit applicant 

and the community 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. 

Engagement early can also yield a less 

contentious permitting process. It seems 

axiomatic that no community welcomes one 

more source of pollution, especially when 

the community already feels aggrieved by 

past siting decisions. When the new project 

accelerates a transition to cleaner energy or 

achieves another important environmental 

objective with benefits beyond the local 

community, interests may seem to collide. 

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 the 

community by which the permit applicant 

can voluntarily mitigate environmental 

burdens. A community is 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 Fence-Line 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 best 

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 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 make sense under the 

circumstances. 

• Would the new permit introduce new or 

additional pollutants to the fence-line 

community? 

• Is the fence-line community already 

exposed to pollutants originating from other 

facilities? 

• How will changes at the facility site 

affect the quality of life in the fence-line 

community, independent of the pollutants 

released? 

• Is the proposed pollutant release—or 

associated activity—likely to cause concern 

in the community? 

• If a risk assessment has been performed 

for the community, what does it say? What 

does the community think it says? 

• What direction do the permit applicant’s 

published core values offer? 

Some laws, such as the Resource 

Conservation and Recovery Act, require 

permit applicants to reach out to the 

neighboring community before applying for a 

permit. 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 the 

community as part of permit applications.) 

But whatever way a permit applicant chooses 

to engage the neighboring community, its 

outreach activities should be proportional to 

the actual or perceived 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 the community early in 

the permitting process can help a permit 

applicant gauge the level of outreach 

appropriate to the community’s concerns. 

A public participation plan can be a useful 

tool for permit applicants engaged in 

outreach on permit actions. A public 

participation plan is one way to organize all 

of the permit applicant’s outreach activities 

and to communicate those activities to the 

community. 

EPA also 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 the 

community is uninterested in the project, the 

company may want to explore whether its 

engagement efforts were sufficiently tailored 

for the community. Other factors, such as 

lack of awareness of the engagement 

opportunity or the timing of the opportunity, 

may not have afforded the community a 

meaningful chance to attend. If the permit 

applicant’s efforts to engage the community 

are made in good faith and are sufficiently 

tailored for the community, this will go a 

long way toward building trust. 

2. Engage Community Leaders 

One of the best ways to promote 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 partnership. EPA has learned 

from stakeholders that the first step in 

meaningful engagement is the cultivation of 

a trusting relationship among participating 

individuals; doing so will then foster 

effective relationships among the interests 

they represent and will help identify their 

common as well as their unique goals. The 

following best 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 a trusting relationship 

• 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. 

Text Box 1: Community Advisory Councils, 

such as The Deer Park Community Advisory 

Council (DPCAC, http:// 

www.deerparkcac.org/) provide a ‘‘forum for 

an open and frank mutual exchange of ideas 

between representatives of the local 

community and industry.’’ These groups 

engage in frequent dialogue to help build 

understanding between industry and 

community. 

• Foster sustained involvement by the 

participants; relationships are created 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
38058 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 123 / Tuesday, June 26, 2012 / Notices 

between individuals, not the positions 

they hold. 

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 community. A permit 

applicant engaging a community early in the 

permitting process, or even before the formal 

permitting process begins through preapplication 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, further fostering the relationship 

between the community and permit 

applicant. 

The following best practices can help the 

permit applicant engage effectively with the 

community. 

• If a public participation plan describing 

outreach activities was developed, make 

it available to the public as a sign of the 

permit applicant’s intention to engage 

meaningfully with the community. 

• 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 

existence of potential impacts can 

undermine credibility and trust. 

Æ Encourage input from the community on 

their concerns about particular impacts 

early in the planning stages. 

• Provide progress or status reports 

• Invite members of the community and 

community leaders for regular tours of 

the facility, especially when the facility 

is planning to change a process that 

might affect the community. 

• Consider investing time in public 

education, e.g., by hosting one or two 

day public information sessions with 

posters and kiosks dedicated to specific 

topics, with discussions led by facility 

personnel who are both familiar with the 

subject and capable of effective 

discussion with the public 

(conversational tone, not defensive, nontechnical language, etc.) 

4. Communicate Effectively 

Permit applicants may need help to 

determine the most effective and appropriate 

methods for informing and receiving input 

from the community. Community leaders can 

provide this help. For example they can 

identify commonly spoken languages and 

any language barriers or Limited English 

Proficiency within the fence-line. They can 

also help identify which media outlets (radio, 

newspaper, church bulletins), outreach 

methods (knocking door-to-door, using social 

media, texting, phoning, putting up fliers) 

and outreach materials (brochures, fact 

sheets, postcards, letters) will be most 

effective in communicating with the 

community. 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). Every community is 

different, so permit applicants that listen to 

their community’s advice and involve them 

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 

permitted enterprise or business, can come 

from many sources. By meaningfully 

engaging with the 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. 

Text Box 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 permit applicant and the 

community to agree upon potential solutions. 

Sometimes, conversations between a 

community and a permit applicant have the 

potential to be contentious. As such, EPA 

recommends the use of a professional, 

trained, neutral facilitator to aid in creating 

and implementing their outreach strategy. 

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 (http:// 

roster.ecr.gov/Search.aspx), which is a 

resource to identify neutral third parties and 

connect them with appropriate projects. 

EPA recognizes that both permit applicants 

and the communities have limited resources 

to engage in dialogue. The following best 

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 the community 

understands, including providing 

technical data in every-day terms. 

• 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 the community’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 like) 

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 best practices can help permit 

applicants design follow-up activities with 

communities. 

• If the public is invited to comment on 

plans, discuss the comments with the 

community 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 the community to let 

them 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 the community without 

being asked, especially regarding 

pollution matters that are important to 

the community. 

• Keep the conversation going even after the 

permit has been issued; maintaining a 

collaborative relationship with the 

community can pay benefits at 

unexpected times. 

V. Return on Investment: Benefits of 

Outreach to Permit Applicants 

EPA recognizes that a permit applicant 

would need to invest time, energy and money 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 123 / Tuesday, June 26, 2012 / Notices 38059 

in order to reach out to the neighboring 

community. 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 fence-line 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 

these benefits from effective community 

outreach and engagement to overarching 

business principles. 

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. As 

such, healthy and sustainable companies 

directly promote healthy and sustainable 

communities. That alignment of interests can 

lead to creative solutions that promote the 

achievement of mutual economic goals in 

more sustainable ways. We are proud of our 

involvement in the communities where we 

operate. It’s our goal not only to support 

important projects in the communities where 

we operate, but also to partner and build 

relationships where we live and work. We 

always listen to local needs and find ways to 

invest that are relevant to our business. 

2. An environment of trust pays dividends 

throughout the permit term. A permit 

applicant not only applies for a permit but 

also develops strategies for complying with 

its requirements. Meaningful public 

engagement during the permitting process 

and throughout the permit term can be a 

thoughtful 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 their 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 the 

community. We know you have questions; 

call us. We believe that people work best 

when there’s a foundation of trust. 

3. Engaging with the community is an 

effective cost-containment strategy. Permit 

applicants that foster meaningful community 

outreach experience ‘‘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 in the community. 

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 the 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 the 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 the community 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 risktakers 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 the community as a good neighbor, 

the permit applicant is more likely to be 

treated as a good neighbor in return by the 

community. 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. 

Text Box 3: Collaborations in Chester, 

Pennsylvania 

Since the early 1990s, US EPA Region III 

has been working closely with the 

community and residents of Chester. With 

effective collaborations and partnerships, the 

City of Chester and its residents have 

successfully worked with local business and 

industry, government, and academia. These 

community-driven partnerships have led to 

increased awareness of environmental justice 

within the City of Chester. 

When citizens first raised their 

Environmental Justice concerns to EPA 

Region III, the regional Office took action by 

establishing a dialogue with the citizens, 

PADEP, PADOH, and a number of local 

businesses in an effort to bring greater 

understanding and resources to the issues 

and concerns. EPA Region III, PADEP, and 

PADOH were active in working with the 

community and the other partners to address 

the issues that had been raised. The 1995 

EPA Chester Risk Study not only looked at 

community risk and environmental concerns, 

but opened dialogues among the partners, 

and led to the formation of a number of 

workgroups. The workgroups then undertook 

on-the-ground actions to address some of the 

local concerns. PADEP provided an onsite 

inspector for the City of Chester. EPA and 

PADEP continued their dialogue on 

Environmental Justice, holding a number of 

joint meetings on the issues. 

Covanta Energy applied for permits to 

operate in Chester, and the citizens raised 

their concerns to Region III and PADEP. 

PADEP hosted a series of meetings between 

the citizens and the company. From these 

collaborative discussions, the Chester 

residents’ concerns were heard and 

considered, and an agreement was reached 

that allowed for the citizens and the 

company to have their needs met. Covanta 

continues to work proactively with the 

citizens in a productive and successful 

partnership, primarily through a citizen-led 

community organization called the Chester 

Environmental Partnership, founded and 

chaired by Reverend Dr. Horace Strand. The 

residents and other community stakeholders, 

including Covanta, have worked together in 

a primarily cooperative fashion to effect 

change and environmental improvement in 

Chester. The Chester Environmental 

Partnership works to bring about 

environmental improvement and growth by 

bringing all parties to the table—industry, 

government, non-government organizations, 

and the citizens—to have face to face 

dialogue on issues of concern. Covanta has 

taken an active partnership role in CEP. The 

ongoing dialogue and ground work of the 

partnership is a hallmark of these 

collaborative efforts and reflects a 

community-driven model that has produced 

positive results for Chester and its neighbors. 

Conclusion 

The best practices are a starting point 

intended to initiate partnerships between 

communities and permit applicants. EPA 

believes that a permit applicant that follows 

the best practices will take an important step 

on the path to building a fruitful and 

cooperative relationship with the community 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
38060 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 123 / Tuesday, June 26, 2012 / Notices 

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. 2012–15605 Filed 6–25–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

[FRL–9693–1] 

Proposed Consent Decree 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Notice of proposed consent 

decree; request for public comment. 

SUMMARY: In accordance with section 

113(g) of the Clean Air Act, as amended 

(‘‘Act’’), notice is hereby given of a 

proposed consent decree to resolve two 

lawsuits filed by various parties and 

consolidated in the United States 

District Court for the District of 

Columbia. Plaintiffs filed the lawsuits 

under the Act alleging that EPA has 

violated a nondiscretionary duty under 

the Clean Air Act, to complete a fiveyear review of the national ambient air 

quality standards (‘‘NAAQS’’) for 

particulate matter. Under the terms of 

the proposed consent decree, EPA 

agrees that no later than December 14, 

2012, EPA shall sign a notice of final 

rulemaking setting forth its final 

decision concerning its review of the 

NAAQS for particulate matter and 

promulgating such revisions to the 

NAAQS and/or promulgating such new 

NAAQS as may be appropriate. 

DATES: Written comments on the 

proposed settlement agreement must be 

received by July 26, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID number EPA– 

HQ–OGC–2012–0474, online at 

www.regulations.gov (EPA’s preferred 

method); by email to 

oei.docket@epa.gov; by mail to EPA 

Docket Center, Environmental 

Protection Agency, Mailcode: 2822T, 

1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., 

Washington, DC 20460–0001; or by 

hand delivery or courier to EPA Docket 

Center, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 

Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, 

DC, between 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. 

Monday through Friday, excluding legal 

holidays. Comments on a disk or CD– 

ROM should be formatted in Word or 

ASCII file, avoiding the use of special 

characters and any form of encryption, 

and may be mailed to the mailing 

address above. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Steven Silverman, Air and Radiation 

Law Office (2344A), Office of General 

Counsel, U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., 

Washington, DC 20460; telephone: (202) 

564–5523; fax number (202) 564–5603; 

email address: 

silverman.steven@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Additional Information About the 

Proposed Consent Decree 

This proposed consent decree would 

potentially resolve lawsuits 

consolidated in the United States 

District Court for the District of 

Columbia that were filed by the 

following plaintiffs: American Lung 

Association and National Parks 

Conservation Association (Civil Action 

No. 1:12–cv–00243–RLW), and the State 

of New York, et al. (Civil Action No. 

1:12–cv–00531–RLW). Plaintiffs filed 

the lawsuits under the Act alleging that 

EPA has violated a nondiscretionary 

duty under the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 

7409(d)(1), to complete a five-year 

review of the NAAQS for particulate 

matter. Under the terms of the proposed 

consent decree, EPA agrees that no later 

than December 14, 2012, EPA shall sign 

a notice of final rulemaking setting forth 

its final decision pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 

7409(d)(1) concerning its review of the 

NAAQS for particulate matter and 

promulgating such revisions to the 

NAAQS and/or promulgating such new 

NAAQS as may be appropriate in 

accordance with 42 U.S.C. 7408 and 

7409(b); that EPA shall seek expedited 

publication in the Federal Register of 

the notice of final rulemaking; and shall 

establish the effective date of the final 

decision such that any final rule shall 

become effective, barring intervening 

congressional or judicial action, on the 

earliest date that complies with the 

Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 

et seq. 

For a period of thirty (30) days 

following the date of publication of this 

notice, the Agency will accept written 

comments relating to the proposed 

consent decree from persons who were 

not named as parties or intervenors to 

the litigation in question. EPA or the 

Department of Justice may withdraw or 

withhold consent to the proposed 

consent decree if the comments disclose 

facts or considerations that indicate that 

such consent is inappropriate, 

improper, inadequate, or inconsistent 

with the requirements of the Act. Unless 

EPA or the Department of Justice 

determines, based on any comment 

submitted, that consent to this decree 

should be withdrawn, the terms of the 

consent decree will be affirmed. 

II. Additional Information About 

Commenting on the Proposed Consent 

Decree 

A. How can I get a copy of the proposed 

consent decree? 

The official public docket for this 

action (identified by Docket ID No. 

EPA–HQ–OGC–2012–0474) contains a 

copy of the proposed consent decree. 

The official public docket is available 

for public viewing at the Office of 

Environmental Information (OEI) Docket 

in the EPA Docket Center, EPA West, 

Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. 

NW., Washington, DC. The EPA Docket 

Center Public Reading Room is open 

from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday 

through Friday, excluding legal 

holidays. The telephone number for the 

Public Reading Room is (202) 566–1744, 

and the telephone number for the OEI 

Docket is (202) 566–1752. 

An electronic version of the public 

docket is available through 

www.regulations.gov. You may use the 

www.regulations.gov to submit or view 

public comments, access the index 

listing of the contents of the official 

public docket, and to access those 

documents in the public docket that are 

available electronically. Once in the 

system, key in the appropriate docket 

identification number then select 

‘‘search’’. 

It is important to note that EPA’s 

policy is that public comments, whether 

submitted electronically or in paper, 

will be made available for public 

viewing online at www.regulations.gov 

without change, unless the comment 

contains copyrighted material, CBI, or 

other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Information 

claimed as CBI and other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute 

is not included in the official public 

docket or in the electronic public 

docket. EPA’s policy is that copyrighted 

material, including copyrighted material 

contained in a public comment, will not 

be placed in EPA’s electronic public 

docket but will be available only in 

printed, paper form in the official public 

docket. Although not all docket 

materials may be available 

electronically, you may still access any 

of the publicly available docket 

materials through the EPA Docket 

Center. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES