Document ID: EPA-HQ-OA-2003-0005-0014
Agency: epa
Document Type: Supporting & Related Material
Title: 
Posted Date: 2003-06-05T04:00Z

Federal
Register/
Vol.
46,
NO.
12
/
Monday,
January
19,
1981
/
Notices
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
Responsiveness
Summary
and
Preamble
on
Public
Participation
Policy
AGENCY:
Environmental
Protection
Agency
ACTION:
Policy
SUMMARY:
This
Policy
is
designed
to
provide
guidance
and
direction
to
public
officials
who
manage
and
conduct
EPA
programs
on
reasonable
and
effective
means
of
involving
the
public
in
program
decisions.
The
Policy
applies
to
programs
under
the
Clean
Air
Act
(
Pub.
L.
95­
95),
Quiet
Communities
Act
(
Pub.
L.
95­
609)
Resource
Conservation
and
Recovery
Act
(
Pub.
L.
94­
580),
Toxic
Substances
Control
Act
(
Pub.
L.
94­
469),
Federal
Insecticide,
Fungicide
and
Rodenticide
Act
(
Pub.
L.
95­
396)
Safe
Drinking
Water
Act
(
Pub.
L.
95­
190),
and
the
Clean
Water
Act
(
Pub.
L.
95­
217).

The
Policy
establishes
the
objectives
of
public
participation
in
EPA
programs,
outlines
essential
elements
that
must
be
incorporated
in
any
public
participation
effort,
discusses
a
number
of
public
participation
mechanisms
with
ground
rules
for
their
effective
use,
and
assigns
responsibility
for
planning,
managing,
funding,
and
carrying
out
public
participation
activities
to
EPA
managers.
The
intent
of
the
Policy
is
to
ensure
that
managers
plan
in
advance
needed
public
involvement
in
their
programs,
that
they
consult
with
the
public
on
issues
where
public
comment
can
be
truly
helpful,
that
they
use
methods
of
consultation
that
will
be
effective
both
for
program
purposes
and
for
the
members
of
the
public
who
take
part,
and
finally
that
they
are
able
to
apply
what
they
have
learned
from
the
public
in
their
final
program
decisions.

The
Policy
provides
a
uniform
set
of
guidelines
and
requirements
applicable
to
all
EPA
programs,
thus
assuring
a
consistent
base
level
of
effort.
The
Policy
applies
to
all
EPA
activities
as
well
as
to
State
and
local
activities
funded
or
delegated
by
EPA.
EPA
will
develop
work
plans
as
part
of
the
annual
budget
development
cycle,
and
amend
program
regulations
as
needed
to
incorporate
the
Policy.
Affected
programs
are
listed
in
the
Appendix
to
the
Policy.

DATES:
The
Policy
is
effective
on
January
19,
1981.

FOR
FURTHER
INFORMATION
CONTACT:
Sharon
F.
Francis,
Special
Assistant
for
Public
Participation,
Office
of
the
Administrator
(
A­
100).
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
401
M
Street,
SW,
Washington,
D.
C.
20460,
telephone
202/
245­
3066.

SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION:
The
Policy
which
takes
effect
with
this
publication
is
the
result
of
long
and
careful
consideration
on
the
part
of
EPA,
State
and
local
agencies,
and
the
diverse
Federal
Register/
Vol.
46,
NO.
12
/
Monday,
January
19,
1981
/
Notices
2
public
that
are
actively
concerned
with
EPA
programs.
EPA
already
enjoys
a
substantial
amount
of
involvement
from
an
active
and
interested
public.
Indeed,
to
that
public
goes
substantial
credit
for
progress
made
in
cleaning
up
environmental
pollution
over
the
last
10
years.
There
has
been
recognition,
however,
both
inside
and
outside
the
Agency,
that
new
steps
need
to
be
taken
to
ensure
that
members
of
the
public
affected
by
EPA
programs
are
given
an
earlier
and
better
opportunity
to
be
heard
in
EPA
decision
making.

EPA
has
received
a
significant
volume
of
thoughtful
criticism
of
its
performance
in
implementing
its
legally
mandated
public
participation
activities
and
its
more
general
responsibility
to
involve
the
public
in
governmental
decisions.
The
desire
of
the
public
to
have
a
stronger
role
in
shaping
government
programs
which
affect
their
lives,
businesses,
and
communities,
and
also
the
growing
need
for
governmental
units
at
all
levels
to
participate
in
the
programs
of
other
governmental
entities
has
stimulated
this
criticism.
Government
decision­
makers
have
become
increasingly
aware
of
the
capability
of
the
public
to
make
constructive
use
of
opportunities
for
involvement.
This
new
awareness
has
been
accompanied
by
increased
practical
experience
in
using
a
variety
of
techniques
to
facilitate
public
involvement.

For
these
reasons,
EPA
has
recognized
the
need
to
improve
public
involvement
in
governmental
decisions
by
clarifying
the
rights
and
responsibilities
of
potential
participants
and
those
responsible
for
administering
public
participation
programs.
This
will
lead
to
better
decisions,
more
satisfactory
opportunities
for
the
public
to
pursue
their
goals
through
government,
and
greater
public
confidence
in
government
because
decisions
will
be
made
with
participation
by
interested
and
affected
members
of
the
public.

Both
EPA
and
members
of
the
public
have
more
demands
on
their
scarce
time
and
resources
than
can
be
filled,
and
need
to
use
them
where
the
results
can
be
most
effective.
This
Policy's
common
objectives,
procedures
and
emphasis
on
results
will
benefit
the
entire
Agency,
and
will
give
the
public
new
confirmation
that
EPA
intends
to
be
as
responsive
as
possible
to
public
questions,
concerns
and
preferences.

This
Policy
is
the
result
of
analysis
and
reforms
instituted
at
the
Administrator's
direction
by
the
Agency
Task
Force
on
Public
Participation.
The
Policy
was
initially
proposed
in
the
Federal
Register
on
April
30,
1980.
In
order
to
ensure
that
the
proposed
Policy
received
attention
from
the
various
sectors
of
the
public
active
in
EPA's
programs,
the
Agency
mailed
copies
of
the
proposal
to
a
nationwide
mailing
list
that
included
business
and
industry,
labor
organizations,
professional
and
trade
associations,
news
media,
consumer
and
women's
organizations,
environmental
and
public
interest
groups,
Black,
Hispanic,
and
Native
American
organizations,
scientific,
public
health,
legal
and
planning
societies,
and
State­
agencies.
Federal
Register/
Vol.
46,
NO.
12
/
Monday,
January
19,
1981
/
Notices
3
Additionally,
each
of
EPA's
ten
regional
offices
received
copies
of
the
Policy
for
distribution
to
their
constituent
lists
at
the
regional,
State
and
local
level.
A
number
of
regional
offices
wrote
and
distributed
summaries
of
the
proposed
Policy,
as
well
as
held
meetings
to
give
members
of
the
public
opportunity
to
raise
questions
and
express
their
views.
Public
meetings
were
held
in
Boston,
Chicago,
Columbus,
Minneapolis,
Denver,
Seattle,
Portland,
Boise,
Anchorage,
and
Washington.
As
a
result
of
these
outreach
efforts,
close
to
500
members
of
the
public
took
part
in
discussions
and
offered
comment
on
the
proposal.

The
following
analysis
of
the
comments
received,
in
terms
of
the
affiliation
of
the
person
commenting,
provides
insight
on
the
expectations
and
needs
of
various
sectors
of
the
public.

Written
comments
were
received
from
people
in
forty­
two
States,
with
the
largest
number
of
comments
coming
from
States
where
EPA's
regional
offices
had
also
stimulated
public
meetings,
namely
Massachusetts,
Connecticut,
Minnesota,
Ohio
and
Washington.
Written
comments
were
in
almost
every
case
substantive
and
extensive,
often
running
many
pages
in
length.
In
almost
all
cases,
the
people
who
wrote
had
been
involved
with
EPA
programs
either
as
public
participants
or
program
managers,
and
their
comments
reflected
this
reservoir
of
practical
experience.

The
largest
section
of
the
public
who
commented
were
public
interest
groups,
including
environmental,
consumer,
and
local
civic
groups.
They
provided
30%
of
the
comments
received
and
were
closely
followed
by
economic
interests,
including
industries,
business,
and
trade
association
with
27%.
Additionally,
15%
of
comments
came
from
State
agencies,
10%
from
citizens­
at­
large,
10%
from
local
officials,
6%
from
other
federal
agencies,
and
2%
from
academic
institutions.

Over
420
issues
were
addressed,
and
of
these,
the
ones
that
drew
the
greatest
amount
of
discussion
were
the
following:
the
composition
of
advisory
groups;
whether
to
provide
financial
assistance
to
the
participating
public,
and
under
what
criteria;
whether
to
apply
the
Policy
to
State
agencies
carrying
out
EPA
programs;
and
the
content
and
use
of
Responsiveness
Summaries.

Eighty­
five
percent
of
those
who
commented
supported
a
final
Policy
as
strong
as
or
stronger
than
the
one
the
Agency
proposed
in
late
April,
and
this
support
came
from
all
sectors
of
the
public.
In
the
case
of
State
agencies,
for
example,
only
7
of
the
44
who
commented
were
negative
about
EPA's
emphasis
and
public
participation
or
wanted
to
see
it
weakened.
The
other
37
agencies
all
wanted
a
Policy
and
wanted
it
even
stronger
than
EPA
proposed.
Economic
interests
expressed
opinions
on
both
sides
of
the
issue,
but
20%
wanted
it
stronger
and
50%
supported
the
Policy
as
proposed.

Those
who
opposed
the
proposed
Policy
said
that
EPA
should
not
be
in
the
business
of
Federal
Register/
Vol.
46,
NO.
12
/
Monday,
January
19,
1981
/
Notices
4
stimulating
participation.
People
who
are
really
concerned,
they
said,
will
come
forth
and
participate
on
their
own.
This
assumes,
however,
that
people
on
their
own
will
know
that
environmental
decisions
are
about
to
be
made,
that
these
decisions
will
affect
them,
and
that
they
will
have
enough
background
information
to
be
able
to
contribute
to
what
is
usually
a
technical
and
complex
discussion.
The
Agency
agrees
that
public
participation
must
not
be
a
contrived
exercise,
nor
should
it
be
undertaken
with
the
purpose
of
manipulating
the
public
into
agreement
with
a
governmental
position.
EPA
recognized
its
responsibility
to
give
affected
sectors
of
the
public
a
fair
opportunity
to
know
of
forthcoming
governmental
decisions
and
to
be
heard
when
those
decisions
are
made.
Clear
requirements
will
make
public
involvement
more
cost­
effective,
both
for
EPA
management
and
for
the
various
sectors
of
the
public.

It
is
clear
from
widespread
support
for
an
effective
policy
that
EPA's
emphasis
on
public
participation
struck
a
responsive
chord
in
all
sectors
of
the
public.
The
public's
thoughtfully
reasoned
statements
for
amplifying
or
strengthening
aspects
of
the
Proposed
Policy
have
convinced
us
of
the
merit
of
a
number
of
changes.
EPA
recognizes
the
commitment
it
is
now
making
to
more
open
and
effective
consultation
with
the
public.
This
policy
will
provide
a
strong
and
practical
framework
to
guide
our
interactions
in
the
months
and
years
ahead.

Summary
of
Response
to
Public
Comment
The
following
sections
respond
to
major
points
raised
in
comments
made
by
the
public.

1.
Objectives
of
EPA's
Policy:
There
was
support
from
all
sectors
for
the
objectives
stated
in
the
proposed
Policy,
but
a
number
of
people
called
for
additions
as
well.
These
include
the
role
of
the
public
in
identifying
and
selecting
among
alternatives,
the
importance
of
early
and
continuing
involvement,
the
significant
opportunity
that
public
participation
affords
for
anticipating
and
reducing
conflicts,
and
the
need
to
create
equal
access
to
the
regulatory
process.
Commenters
also
pointed
out
that
objectives
need
to
be
comprehensive
since
they
provide
the
yardstick
for
evaluation.
All
of
these
suggestions
have
merit
and
EPA
has
added
them
to
the
final
Policy.

2.
Application
of
the
Policy
to
EPA
Programs
Under
State
Administration:
Most
of
the
laws
EPA
administered
by
EPA
designate
certain
programs
which
can
be
administered
by
a
State,
instead
of
by
EPA,
if
the
State
Program
meets
statutory
and
regulatory
criteria.
The
proposed
Policy
required
EPA
to
provide
for
public
participation
in
the
process
of
deciding
to
approve
such
State
programs.
It
also
provided
that,
after
approval,
the
State
would
assume
responsibility
for
meeting
the
public
participation
requirements.

In
the
preamble
to
the
proposed
Policy,
EPA
drew
attention
to
this
matter,
and
specifically
asked
for
comment
on
whether
the
Agency
should
apply
the
Policy
to
EPA
programs
when
conducted
Federal
Register/
Vol.
46,
NO.
12
/
Monday,
January
19,
1981
/
Notices
5
by
States.
A
major
proportion
of
commenters
from
all
categories
preferred
the
option
as
proposed,
on
the
grounds
that
participation
is
needed
and
beneficial
to
program
decisions
regardless
of
who
administers
the
program.
A
much
smaller
number
of
commenters
favored
permitting
States
to
achieve
substantially
equivalent
results
to
EPA's
Policy;
however,
none
responded
to
EPA's
request
for
"
specific
suggestions
for
wording
and
evaluation
criteria"
since
"
substantially
equivalent
provisions
have
a
history
of
being
easy
to
espouse
but
difficult
to
demonstrate."
After
reading
all
the
comments,
EPA
concluded
that
the
Policy,
as
proposed,
has
sufficient
flexibility
within
a
context
of
practical
requirements
that
it
will
be
beneficial
to
State
program
administration.

Two
years
ago,
when
EPA
proposed
its
regulation
for
public
participation
in
Clean
Water,
Drinking
Water
and
Solid
Waste
programs
(
40
CFR
Part
25),
the
question
of
apply
the
requirements
to
States
was
intensely
controversial.
Now,
with
more
than
a
year
of
experience
in
those
programs,
the
worst
apprehensions
have
not
materialized
and
public
participation
has
begun
to
prove
its
constructive
role.
Most
State
agencies,
therefore,
were
not
troubled
by
the
proposal.
In
view
of
the
comments
received
and
the
discussion
above,
EPA
finds
no
need
to
alter
this
aspect
of
the
Policy.

3.
Consistency
with
Part
25
Regulations
for
Public
Participation
in
Water
and
Waste
Management
Programs:
In
Proposing
the
Policy,
EPA
made
conscious
effort
to
ensure
compatibility
between
its
provision
and
those
of
the
earlier
Part
25
regulation
for
programs
under
the
Clean
Water
Act,
Safe
Drinking
Water
Act,
and
Resource
Conservation
and
Recovery
Act.
Two
additions
that
EPA
is
now
make
to
the
Policy
will
further
remove
the
differences
between
the
two
documents
and
bring
the
Policy
into
closer
alignment
with
Part
25.
One
change
is
the
requirement
that
EPA
review
and
require
further
efforts
as
needed
to
achieve
the
balanced
membership
requirement
for
advisory
groups.
The
other
change
is
that
EPA
may
require
corrective
action
on
the
part
of
State
program
grantees
to
ensure
compliance
with
the
Policy.
While
differences
in
wording
remain
between
the
two
documents,
EPA
holds
that
40
CFR
Part
25
fulfills
the
intent
and
requirements
of
the
Policy
in
the
procedural
areas
(
Section
D.
of
Policy)
of
common
subject
matter.
If
differences
remain
between
part
25
and
the
Policy,
Part
25
will
control.
The
sections
of
the
Policy
on
work
plan,
assistance
to
the
public,
and
authority
and
responsibility
augment
the
requirements
contained
in
40
CFR
Part
25,
and
apply
to
all
programs
of
the
Agency.

4.
How
to
Identify
the
Public
Who
Should
Participate:
Many
of
those
who
commented
on
the
Identification
section
of
the
Policy
liked
our
emphasis
on
developing
a
contact
list
of
interested
or
affected
members
of
the
public
at
the
outset
of
a
participation
opportunity.
Several
pointed
out,
however,
that
contact
lists
need
frequent
updating,
especially
on
lengthy
projects.
This
change
we
are
incorporating.
A
number
of
those
who
commented
on
this
section
requested
that
the
Policy
indicate
the
uses
of
a
contact
list,
and
we
have
revised
the
Policy
to
do
so.
Federal
Register/
Vol.
46,
NO.
12
/
Monday,
January
19,
1981
/
Notices
6
5.
Ways
to
Inform
and
Reach
the
Public:
The
majority
of
comments
asked
for
amplification
of
the
Outreach
section.
Commenters
sent
many
valuable
suggestions,
many
of
which
the
final
Policy
incorporates.
Some
general
areas
of
concern
with
which
we
agree,
and
have
responded
to
in
the
final
Policy,
include
the
following:
(
1)
public
access
to
information
is
critical
to
successful
public
participate
programs;
(
2)
information
must
be
translated
from
"
technical"
language
into
language
understandable
to
the
lay
public;
(
3)
outreach
activities
should
be
emphasized
as
ongoing
activities
so
the
public
can
be
kept
up
to
date
on
matters
of
concern;
and
(
4)
the
uninterested
but
impacted
the
publics'
views
need
to
be
solicited
in
some
manner.

Specific
comments
addressed
each
of
the
major
sections
of
Outreach.
Under
Methods,
commenters
suggested
further
use
of
a
variety
of
techniques,
many
of
which
we
have
added
to
the
final
version.
Under
Content,
it
was
suggested
that
materials
be
prepared
in
clear,
concise
language
to
inform
the
public
of
triggering
events
which
initiate
a
proposed
action,
and
provide
details
on
supporting
research
analysis
and
methodology.
These
suggestions,
along
with
the
availability
of
Environmental
Impact
Statements,
were
included
in
the
final
Policy.
Under
Notification,
the
major
concerns
were
that
notices
should
inform
the
public
about
the
initiation
of
a
decision­
making
process
and
that
we
should
describe
the
type
of
media
notice
requried.
In
the
Depositories
section,
commenters
suggested
public
and
university
libraries
as
appropriate
locations,
and
that
consideration
ought
to
be
given
to
accessibility,
travel
time,
parking,
and
availability
during
off­
work
hours.
We
agreed
with
these
suggestions
and
included
them
in
the
final
Policy.

6.
Public
Notification
of
Financial
Assistance
Awards:
We
received
complaints
from
the
public
that
often
they
never
hear
about
EPA
funded
projects
that
provide
participation
opportunities
in
programs
of
State,
substate,
and
local
governments.
They
suggested
that
we
incorporate
some
type
of
requirement
that
notice
be
given
either
at
the
time
EPA
receives
applications,
or
after
award
acceptances.
After
careful
consideration,
and
with
a
conscious
effort
to
keep
the
Policy
consistent
with
40
CFR
Part
25
regulations,
we
have
added
a
section
under
Timing
that
the
recipient
give
public
notice
within
45
days
of
award
acceptance.

7.
Methods
to
Improve
Communication
Between
EPA
and
the
Public:
Many
commenters
were
dissatisfied
with
the
Dialogue
and
Hearing
section.
They
felt
we
placed
too
much
emphasis
on
describing
hearing
requirements,
and
did
not
give
enough
attention
to
other
methods
of
ensuring
communication
between
EPA
and
the
public.
We
responded
to
these
concerns
by
amplifying
the
Dialogue
section
to
include
these
suggestions
and
listing
other
methods
of
soliciting
and
using
public
input.
These
methods
include
review
groups,
workshops,
conferences,
personal
correspondence
and
conversations,
meetings,
and
citizen
panels.

8.
Suggestions
for
Improvement
of
Hearing
Format:
All
sectors
of
the
public
responding
felt
that
hearing
procedures
needed
to
move
away
from
rigid
rituals
and
be
more
attuned
to
listening
Federal
Register/
Vol.
46,
NO.
12
/
Monday,
January
19,
1981
/
Notices
7
and
responding
to
the
public's
views.
We
agree
that
public
hearings
can
be
more
successful
if
they
are
conducted
in
a
non­
intimidating
manner,
and
if
the
public
has
been
informed
of
the
issues
and
has
access
to
pertinent
information
prior
to
the
hearing.
Those
who
commented
on
the
Content
of
Notice
section
stressed
the
importance
of
early
and
clear
discussion
of
the
issues
and
alternatives
the
public
is
asked
to
comment
upon.
Under
Conduct
of
Hearing,
many
commenters
asked
for
more
informality
and
opportunity
for
questions
and
answers
in
the
hearing.
People
also
commented
that
hearings
are
often
located
too
far
from
the
affected
area.
We
have
revised
the
Policy
to
incorporate
these
ideas.

9.
45­
Day
Notice
Prior
to
Hearings:
Although
some
commenters
felt
that
a
45­
day
notice
prior
to
the
date
of
a
hearing
was
a
needless
delay
of
time
and
would
slow
down
the
process,
others
felt
that
45
days
was
much
too
short
a
time
to
expect
individuals
or
groups
to
prepare
adequately
for
hearing,
and
some
said
that
a
60
or
90­
day
notice
would
be
more
appropriate
for
proper
preparation.
Approximately
30%
of
the
respondents
favored
a
30­
day
or
less
notice
period,
with
the
remaining
70%
favoring
a
45­
day
or
longer
period.
However,
the
bulk
of
the
comments
favored
keeping
the
hearing
notice
requirement
at
45
days.
The
major
reasons
for
the
45­
day
notice
period
include:
(
1)
there
is
little
control
over
mail
deliveries,
and
often
the
interested
public
receives
information
too
late
to
prepare
effectively
for
hearings;
(
2)
many
groups
meet
once
a
month
and
need
time
to
meet
and
discuss
the
notice
to
decide
on
a
course
of
action;
(
3)
travel
time
over
long
distances
is
often
involved
to
acquire
and
review
material;
and
(
4)
the
review
material
is
often
complex
and
requires
time
for
research.

Additionally,
we
received
comments
concerning
the
discretion
given
to
Assistant
Administrators
and
Regional
Administrators
to
waive
the
45­
day
requirement
to
30
days
or
less
in
emergency
situations,
or
if
the
issues
are
not
complex
or
controversial.
Some
commenters
objected
to
the
waiver
saying
it
gives
the
Assistant
Administrators
and
Regional
Administrators
too
much
discretionary
power,
and
feared
they
may
use
the
waiver
more
often
than
necessary.
We
feel
some
flexibility
must
be
maintained
here,
and
that
the
Assistant
Administrators
and
Regional
Administrators
would
be
able
to
make
exceptions
they
feel
are
warranted.
However,
we
have
stated
that
those
objecting
to
a
waiver
may
appeal
to
the
Administrator
of
EPA.

10.
Composition
of
Advisory
Groups:
One
of
the
subjects
most
widely
discussed
in
the
proposed
Policy
has
been
the
composition
of
advisory
groups.
Almost
all
who
commented
on
this
subject
believed
EPA
was
fair
and
used
good
judgment
to
prescribe
a
balance
of
backgrounds
among
advisory
group
members;
however,
a
great
many
commenters
believed
certain
categories
sympathetic
to
their
own
viewpoints
should
be
given
added
weight,
or
others
of
contrasting
views
should
be
prohibited.

Overall,
commenters
favored
EPA's
proposal
balance
of
categories
two­
to­
one,
and
we
intend
to
retain
this
provision,
with
two
important
additions:
tribal
officials
have
been
added
as
another
category
of
public
official,
and
we
have
made
clear
that
elected
public
official
should
not
be
from
the
Federal
Register/
Vol.
46,
NO.
12
/
Monday,
January
19,
1981
/
Notices
8
decision­
making
body
the
group
is
advising.
Several
people
wanted
"
citizens
with
economic
interests"
and
"
organizations
with
economic
interests"
as
two
separate
categories,
but
we
do
not
agree
with
this
proposal.
We
prefer
to
leave
the
citizen­
at­
large
category
unencumbered
so
appointing
official
can
have
room
to
select
a
variety
of
individuals
with
potentially
worthwhile
contributions.

11.
Proof
of
Effort
to
Achieve
Advisory
Group
Composition:
A
number
of
those
who
commented
were
concerned
that
the
balanced
membership
of
advisory
groups
could
be
manipulated
if
there
is
not
some
degree
of
oversight
by
EPA.
They
also
pointed
out
that
the
40
CFR
Part
25
regulation
has
a
section
calling
for
demonstration
of
"
proof
of
effort,"
and
this
section
had
given
valuable
oversight
to
agencies
with
advisory
groups.
We
agree
that
federal
guidance
may
be
valuable
in
this
area
and
consequently
have
added
a
section
that
requires
advice,
assistance,
review,
and
approval
by
EPA.

12.
Use
of
Advisory
Group
Recommendations:
A
number
of
people
experienced
with
advisory
groups
reported
their
frustration
with
instances
when
the
group
felt
their
recommendations
were
being
suppressed
by
the
agencies
they
advised.
Since
a
major
purpose
of
this
Policy
is
to
improve
openness
on
the
part
of
governmental
entities,
we
have
added
a
short
section
to
the
Policy
which
makes
it
clear
that
advisory
group
recommendations
should
be
publicly
available.

13.
The
Frequency
and
Use
of
Responsiveness
Summaries:
The
great
majority
of
those
who
commented
on
the
subject
of
Responsiveness
Summaries
supported
EPA's
requirement,
and
thought
these
summaries
would
provide
an
important
addition
to
decision­
making.
A
few
people
pointed
out,
however,
that
our
emphasis
should
not
be
on
documenting
public
views
as
much
as
it
should
be
on
using
them.
We
agree
with
these
comments
and
have
added
some
language
to
reflect
this
emphasis.
Additionally,
there
was
a
certain
amount
of
misunderstanding
that
Responsiveness
Summaries
would
be
required
after
every
hearing
or
meeting.
This
is
not
our
intent,
but
rather
it
is
that
Responsiveness
Summaries
be
prepared
at
"
key
decision
points."
These
will
be
identified
in
public
participation
work
plans,
as
well
as
in
program
regulations
where
they
are
being
revised
to
incorporate
provisions
of
this
Policy.

14.
How
Much
Feedback
Should
Be
Provided
to
the
Public
on
the
Results
of
its
Participation?:
EPA's
proposal
that
feedback
be
provided
received
strong
support
from
all
sectors
of
the
public.
A
number
of
commenters
wanted
to
see
feedback
provided
within
a
time
limit,
such
as
60
days,
though
others
recognized
the
burden
that
such
acknowledgments
would
place
on
the
Agency's
staff.
Throughout
the
comments
on
this
section
was
the
desire
on
the
part
of
participants
to
know
substantively
why
their
suggestions
were
or
were
not
accepted.
EPA
does
not
have
the
staff
resources
to
be
able
to
commit
itself
to
interim
replies
of
a
substantive
nature,
especially
when
the
number
of
comments
on
may
issues
run
into
the
thousands.
We
do,
however,
recognize
a
serious
commitment
to
providing
feedback
and
thus
are
revising
the
policy
to
state
that
all
"
participants
in
a
particular
activity
(
must)
receive
feedback,"
not
just
"
have
access"
to
it
as
stated
in
our
earlier
proposal.
Federal
Register/
Vol.
46,
NO.
12
/
Monday,
January
19,
1981
/
Notices
9
15.
The
Use
of
Work
Plans:
In
EPA's
initial
proposal,
public
participation
work
plans
were
contemplated
for
two
reasons:
first,
good
public
participation
needs
to
be
carefully
planned,
and
second,
the
resource
outlays
needed
for
public
participation
should
be
built
into
program
operating
budgets.
Many
members
of
the
public,
as
well
s
State
and
substate
officials
who
commented
on
the
Policy,
supported
EPA's
emphasis
upon
work
plans.
In
fact,
several
said
work
plans
should
be
discussed
earlier
in
the
Policy,
a
suggestion
we
have
taken.
Additionally,
we
have
added
some
clarifying
and
strengthening
language
on
the
content
of
work
plans
and
the
timing
of
their
preparation.
Work
plans
will
be
developed
at
both
the
program
and
project
levels,
and
EPA
will
provide
guidance
on
the
content
of
these
documents.

16.
The
Use
of
Public
Funds
to
Assist
the
Participating
Public:
To
a
large
extent
the
debate
over
financial
assistance
to
members
of
the
public
or
public
organizations
focused
on
the
use
of
such
funds
in
regulatory
or
adjudicatory
proceedings.
The
debate
was
rendered
moot
by
Congress
in
its
action
on
EPA's
1981
appropriation
which
prohibited
use
of
EPA
funds
for
that
purpose.
The
final
Policy
reflects
the
removal
of
this
controversial
aspect.
Other
types
of
public
participation
funding
(
e.
g.
travel
expenses
for
witnesses
at
public
hearings
on
hazardous
waste
disposal
siting)
proved
uncontroversial
and
occasioned
little
comment.
It
is
the
Agency's
intention
to
continue
to
fund
such
non­
regulatory,
non­
adjudicatory
participation.

17.
The
Responsibility
of
EPA
Officials
for
Implementing
the
Policy:
Many
people
who
commented
on
the
Policy
liked
the
Agency's
proposal
which
outlined
the
authority
and
responsibility
of
various
Agency
officials
for
ensuring
the
Policy's
implementation.
Several
pointed
out,
however,
that
the
language
was
confusing
and
duplicative.
Therefore,
we
have
rewritten
that
section
with
separate
duties
identified
for
Regional
Administrators,
Associate
Administrators,
the
Director
of
the
Office
of
Public
Awareness,
and
the
Administrator.
These
sections
should
clarify
the
previous
ambiguities.

18.
Ensuring
Compliance
with
the
Policy:
A
large
proportion
of
commenters
wanted
reassurance
that
this
Policy
is
more
than
a
collection
of
good
intentions,
and
that
EPA
will
stand
behind
its
provisions
and
enforce
them.
They
were
particularly
concerned
with
State
and
substate
assistance
recipients,
and
urged
EPA
to
develop
enforcement
sanctions.
While
we
hope
that
sanctions
will
not
be
necessary,
we
have
amended
the
Policy
with
a
section
on
sanctions
that
gives
greater
emphasis
to
Policy
enforcement.

19.
Relationship
Between
Public
Participation
Policy
and
Environmental
Impact
Statement
(
EIS)
Process:
Several
people
noted
that
the
proposed
Policy
was
silent
on
how
the
Policy
fits
with
the
Agency's
EIS
procedures.
EIS's
are
undertaken
primarily
for
grants
for
wastewater
treatment
plans,
new
source
National
Pollutant
Discharge
Elimination
System
(
NPDES)
permits,
and
certain
major
regulations.
Many
of
the
goals
of
this
public
participation
Policy
and
EPA's
EIS
programs
are
similar.
The
requirements
of
the
new
Policy
will
serve
to
reinforce,
and
in
some
cases,
Federal
Register/
Vol.
46,
NO.
12
/
Monday,
January
19,
1981
/
Notices
10
supplement
existing
EIS
procedures.
In
revising
the
Policy,
we
have
added
a
number
of
references
to
EIS's
to
emphasize
this
relationship.

20.
Overall
Evaluation
of
Effectiveness:
Several
commenters
from
Federal
or
State
government
agencies,
as
well
as
several
citizens
with
years
of
experience
as
active
participants,
drew
attention
to
the
importance
of
evaluating
the
Policy.
They
said
this
should
be
done
both
to
oversee
how
well
its
provisions
are
being
followed
and
to
identify,
where
possible,
the
results
of
improved
public
involvement
on
Agency
decisions
and
program
implementation.

EPA
is
committed
to
evaluating
this
Policy
within
three
years
from
the
date
of
publication.
This
will
be
done
under
the
direction
of
the
Administrator's
Special
Assistant
for
Public
Participation.
This
evaluation
will
include
such
matters
as
effectiveness
of
requirements,
enforceability,
resource
expenditures,
alternative
public
participation
methods,
public
reaction,
and
reporting
requirements.

Conclusion
EPA
has
made
a
number
of
additions
and
improvements
to
the
proposed
Policy
on
the
basis
of
what
it
learned
from
the
public
during
the
comment
period.
Indeed,
the
revised
Policy
itself
is
a
good
example
of
how
public
involvement
augments
the
Agency's
work.
The
overwhelming
proportion
of
statements
came
from
people
with
long
experience
in
public
policy.
All
reflected
a
similar
outlook:
they,
like
EPA,
want
to
make
the
system
work
better.
Among
many
interesting
statements,
a
few
examples
indicate
the
challenge
of
the
public's
expectations.

A
planning
board
chairman
from
a
small
New
England
town
spoke
of
the
resentment
that
the
public
has
come
to
feel
toward
the
work
of
bureaucrats.
From
his
experience
in
marshaling
talent
to
address
local
problems,
he
suggested
that
EPA
consider
recruiting
broad
based
citizen
task
forces
or
advisory
groups
to
develop
all
the
Agency's
regulations
and
other
major
policy
items.
They
should
be
given
a
deadline,
and
only
if
they
failed
to
produce,
should
EPA
step
in
and
do
the
work.
"
That
would
be
real
participation,"
he
said.

A
major
national
chemical
manufacturer
opened
its
statement
by
saying
the
Policy
is
not
needed,
since
the
company
believes
it
duplicates
existing
procedures.
The
company
continued,
however,
to
urge
substantial
reform
of
EPA
practices
in
order
to
give
the
public
a
much
earlier
opportunity
for
participation
before
the
bureaucratic
momentum
becomes
too
great
to
accept
any
changes.
They
also
advocated
genuine
responsiveness
to
the
public,
not
just
a
"
superficial
consideration
of
comments."

A
citizen
group
that
has
been
working
for
years
to
reduce
adverse
environmental
consequences
from
two
oil
refineries
cited
a
series
of
disappointing
interactions
with
EPA;
delays
in
obtaining
Federal
Register/
Vol.
46,
NO.
12
/
Monday,
January
19,
1981
/
Notices
11
requested
material
for
review
prior
to
hearings;
difficulties
in
seeing
pertinent
material
even
when
they
visited
State
offices;
the
high
costs
of
reproducing
documents;
and
a
feeling
that
government
agencies
were
giving
substantial
amount
of
time
and
assistance
to
industrial
applicants,
but
were
not
even
willing
to
answer
the
questions
of
opponents,
let
alone
assist
them
more
substantially.
The
group
also
had
the
impression
that
EPA
had
its
mind
made
up
at
the
time
of
a
public
hearing,
and
the
citizens
felt
their
own
efforts
were
wasted.
Statements
such
as
these
reveal
the
frustration
that
many
members
of
the
public
have
experienced
when
trying
to
work
with
the
Agency,
and
they
also
point
to
the
motivation
and
high
hopes
that
the
public
continues
to
hold
about
participating
in
environmental
protection
issues.
Public
participation
lies
at
the
heart
of
the
Agency's
credibility
with
the
public.
It
affords
the
best
tested
recipe
for
citizens
to
influence
the
governmental
decisions
that
affect
their
lives
and
pocketbooks.
This
Policy
takes
an
important
step
in
defining
when
EPA
will
undertake
public
participation,
and
in
saying
that
when
we
do
it,
we
intend
to
do
it
right.

Members
of
the
public
who
wish
to
obtain
the
background
Compilation
of
Issues
with
their
disposition
and
List
of
Commenters
on
this
Policy
may
do
so
by
contacting:
Sharon
F.
Francis,
Special
Assistant
for
Public
Participation,
Office
of
the
Administrator
(
A­
100),
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
401
M
Street,
S.
W.,
Washington,
D.
C.
20460,
telephone
202/
245­
3066.
Dated:
January
13,
1981.

Douglas
M.
Costle,
Administrator.

Final
E.
P.
A.
Policy
on
Public
Participation
This
Policy
addresses
participation
by
the
public
in
decision­
making,
rulemaking,
and
program
implementation
by
the
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(
EPA),
and
other
governmental
entities
carrying
out
EPA
programs.
The
term,
"
the
public"
as
it
is
used
here,
means
the
people
as
a
whole,
the
general
population.
There
are
a
number
of
identifiable
"
segments
of
the
public"
who
may
have
a
particular
interest
or
who
may
be
affected
one
way
or
another
by
a
given
program
or
decision.
In
addition
to
private
citizens,
"
the
public"
includes,
among
others,
representatives
or
consumer,
environmental,
and
minority
groups;
the
business
and
industrial
communities;
trade,
industrial,
agricultural,
and
labor
organizations;
public
health,
scientific,
and
professional
societies;
civic
associations;
universities,
educational,
and
governmental
associations:
and
public
officials,
both
elected
and
appointed.

"
Public
participation"
is
that
part
of
the
agency's
decision­
making
process
that
provides
opportunity
and
encouragement
for
the
public
to
express
their
views
to
the
agency,
and
assures
that
the
agency
will
give
due
consideration
to
public
concerns,
values,
and
preferences
when
decisions
are
Federal
Register/
Vol.
46,
NO.
12
/
Monday,
January
19,
1981
/
Notices
12
made.

A.
Scope
The
requirements
and
procedures
contained
in
this
Policy
applys
to
the
Environmental
Protection
Agency
and
other
governmental
entities
carrying
out
EPA
programs
(
referred
to
herein
as
"
agency").
The
activities
covered
by
this
Policy
are:
EPA
rulemaking,
when
regulations
are
classified
as
significant,
(
under
terms
of
Executive
Order
12044);
The
administration
of
permit
programs
as
delineated
in
applicable
permit
program
regulations;

Program
activities
supported
by
EPA
financial
assistance
(
grants
and
cooperative
agreements)
to
State
and
substate
governments;

­­
The
process
leading
to
a
determination
of
approval
of
State
administration
of
a
program
in
lieu
of
Federal
administration;

­­
Major
policy
decisions,
as
determined
by
the
Administrator,
appropriate
Associate
Administrator,
Regional
Administrator,
or
Deputy
Assistant
Administrator,
in
view
of
EPA's
responsibility
to
involve
the
public
in
important
decisions.

When
covered
activities
are
governed
by
EPA
regulations
or
program
guidance,
the
provisions
of
the
Policy
shall
be
included
at
appropriate
points
in
these
documents.
Before
those
changes
are
made,
the
provisions
of
the
existing
regulations
or
program
guidance
shall
govern.

B.
Purpose
The
purpose
of
this
Policy
is
to
strengthen
EPA;
s
commitment
to
public
participation
and
establish
uniform
procedures
for
participation
by
the
public
in
EPA's
decision­
making
process.
A
strong
policy
and
consistent
procedures
will
make
it
easier
for
the
public
to
become
involved
and
affect
the
outcome
of
the
agency's
decisions.

This
in
turn
will
assist
EPA
in
carrying
out
its
mission,
by
giving
a
better
understanding
of
the
public's
viewpoints,
concerns,
and
preferences.
It
should
also
make
the
agency's
decisions
more
acceptable
to
those
who
are
most
concerned
and
affected
by
them.

Agency
officials
will
provide
for,
encourage,
and
assist
participation
by
the
public.
Officials
should
strive
to
communicate
with
and
listen
to
all
sectors
of
the
public.
Where
appropriate,
this
will
require
them
to
give
extra
encouragement
and
assistance
to
some
sectors,
such
as
minorities,
that
may
Federal
Register/
Vol.
46,
NO.
12
/
Monday,
January
19,
1981
/
Notices
13
have
fewer
opportunities
or
resources.

The
Policy
identifies
those
actions
which
are
required
and
others
that
are
discretionary,
on
the
part
of
agency
managers.
The
Policy
assumes,
however,
that
agency
employees
will
strive
to
do
more
than
the
minimum
required,
and
is
not
intended
to
create
barriers
to
more
substantial
or
more
significant
participation.
The
Policy
recognizes
the
agency's
need
to
set
priorities
for
its
use
of
resources,
and
emphasizes
participation
by
the
public
in
decisions
where
options
are
available
and
alternatives
must
be
weighed,
or
where
substantial
agreement
is
needed
from
the
public
if
a
program
is
to
be
carried
out.
Public
participation
must
begin
early
in
the
decision­
making
process
and
continue
throughout
the
process
as
necessary.
The
agency
must
set
forth
options
and
alternatives
beforehand,
and
seek
the
public's
opinion
on
them.
Merely
conferring
with
the
public
after
a
decision
is
made
does
not
achieve
this
purpose.

Agency
officials
must
avoid
advocacy
and
precommitment
to
any
particular
alterative
prior
to
decision­
making.
The
role
of
agency
officials
is
to
plan
and
conduct
public
participation
activities
that
provide
equal
opportunity
for
all
individuals
and
groups
to
be
heard.
Officials
should
actively
seek
to
facilitate
resolution
of
issues
among
disagreeing
interests
whenever
possible.

Decision
makers
are
aware
that
issues
which
are
not
resolved
to
the
satisfaction
of
the
concerned
public
may
ultimately
face
time­
consuming
review.
If
the
objectives
of
EPA's
public
participation
program
are
achieved,
delays
to
accommodate
litigation
should
be
reduced.

C.
Objectives
In
establishing
a
policy
on
public
participation,
EPA
has
the
following
objectives:
­­
To
use
all
feasible
means
to
create
early
and
continuing
opportunity
for
public
participation
in
agency
decisions;

­­
To
promote
the
public's
involvement
in
implementing
environmental
protection
laws;

­­
To
make
sure
that
the
public
understands
official
programs
and
the
implications
of
potential
alternative
courses
of
action;

­­
To
solicit
assistance
from
the
public
in
identifying
alternatives
to
be
studies.
And
in
selecting
among
alternatives
considered;

­­
To
keep
the
public
informed
about
significant
issues
and
changes
in
proposed
programs
or
projects,
as
they
arise;
Federal
Register/
Vol.
46,
NO.
12
/
Monday,
January
19,
1981
/
Notices
14
­­
To
create
an
equal
and
open
access
for
the
interested
and
affected
parties
to
the
regulatory
process;

­­
To
make
sure
that
the
government
understands
public
goals
and
concerns,
and
is
responsive
to
them;

­­
To
demonstrate
that
the
agency
consults
with
interested
or
affected
segments
of
the
public
and
takes
public
viewpoints
into
consideration
when
decisions
are
made;

­­
To
anticipate
conflicts
and
encourage
early
discussions
of
differences
among
affected
parties;

­­
To
foster
a
spirit
of
mutual
trust,
confidence,
and
openness
between
public
agencies
and
the
public.

D.
General
Procedures
for
All
Programs
Each
Assistant
Administrator,
Office
Director,
or
Regional
Administrator
shall
determine
forthcoming
decisions
or
activities
to
which
this
Policy
should
be
applied,
and
take
the
steps
needed
to
assure
that
adequate
public
participation
measures
are
developed
and
implemented.

To
ensure
effective
public
participation
in
any
decision
or
activity,
the
agency
must
carry
out
five
basic
functions:
Identification,
Outreach,
Dialogue,
Assimilation,
and
Feedback.

1.
Identification.
It
is
necessary
to
identify
groups
or
members
of
the
public
who
may
be
interested
in,
or
affected
by,
a
forthcoming
action.
This
may
be
done
by
a
variety
of
means:
developing
a
contact
list
of
person
and
organization
who
may
have
expressed
an
interest
in,
may
by
the
nature
of
their
purposes
or
activities
be
affected
by
or
have
an
interest
in
forthcoming
activity;
requesting
from
others
in
the
agency
or
from
key
public
groups,
the
names
of
interested
and
affected
individuals
to
include;
using
questionnaires
or
surveys
to
find
out
levels
of
awareness;
or
by
other
means.
If
EPA
is
required
to
file
an
Environmental
Impact
Statement
(
EIS),
the
scoping
process
can
be
used
to
identify
interested
parties.

The
responsible
official(
s)
shall
develop
a
contact
list
for
each
program
or
projects,
and
add
to
the
list
whenever
members
of
the
public
request
it.
The
list
should
be
updated
frequently,
and
it
will
be
most
useful
if
subdivided
by
category
of
interest
or
geographic
area.

The
contact
list
shall
be
used
to
send
announcements
of
participation
opportunities,
notices
of
meetings,
hearings,
field
trips
and
other
events,
notices
of
available
reports
and
documents,
and
for
identifying
members
of
the
public
who
may
be
considered
for
advisory
group
membership
and
other
Federal
Register/
Vol.
46,
NO.
12
/
Monday,
January
19,
1981
/
Notices
15
activities.

2.
Outreach.
The
public
can
contribute
effectively
to
agency
programs
only
if
it
is
provided
with
accurate,
understandable,
pertinent
and
timely
information
on
issues
and
decisions.
The
agency
shall
make
sure
that
adequate,
timely
information
concerning
forthcoming
action
or
decision
reaches
the
public.
The
agency
shall
provide
policy,
program,
and
technical
information
at
the
earliest
practical
times,
and
at
places
easily
accessible
to
interested
and
affected
parsons
and
organizations,
so
they
can
make
informed
and
constructive
contributions
to
decision­
making.
Information
and
educational
programs
shall
be
developed
so
that
all
levels
of
government
and
the
public
have
an
opportunity
to
become
familiar
with
the
issues
and
the
technical
data
from
which
they
emerge.
Informational
materials
shall
highlight
significant
issues
that
will
be
the
subject
of
decision­
making.
Special
efforts
shall
be
made
to
summarize
complex
technical
materials
for
the
public.

a.
Methods.
The
objective
of
the
agency's
public
outreach
program
is
to
insure
that
the
public
understands
the
significance
of
the
technical
data
so
that
rational
public
choices
can
be
made.
Outreach
programs
require
the
use
of
appropriate
communication
tools,
and
should
be
tailored
to
start
at
the
public's
level
of
familiarity
with
the
subject.

The
following,
among
other
approaches,
may
be
used
for
this
purpose:

(
1)
publications,
fact
sheets,
technical
summaries,
bibliographies;

(
2)
questionnaires,
surveys,
interviews;

(
3)
public
service
announcements,
and
news
releases;

(
4)
educational
activities
carried
out
by
public
organizations.

b.
Content.
Outreach
materials
must
include
background
information
(
e.
g.
statutory
basis,
rationale,
or
the
triggering
event
of
the
action);
a
timetable
of
proposed
actions;
summaries
of
lengthy
documents
or
technical
material
where
relevant;
a
delineation
of
issues;
alternative
courses
of
action
or
tentative
determination
which
the
agency
may
have
made;
whether
an
EIS
is,
or
will
be,
available;
specific
encouragement
to
stimulate
active
participation
by
the
public;
and
the
name
of
an
individual
to
contact
for
further
information.

Whenever
possible,
the
social,
economic,
and
environmental
consequences
of
proposed
decision
and
alternative
should
be
clearly
stated
in
outreach
material.
Technical
evidence
and
research
methodogy
should
be
explained.
Summaries
of
technical
documents
should
be
footnoted
to
refer
to
the
original
data.
Fact
sheets,
news
releases,
summaries,
and
similar
publications
may
be
used
to
provide
Federal
Register/
Vol.
46,
NO.
12
/
Monday,
January
19,
1981
/
Notices
16
notice
of
availability
of
materials
and
to
facilitate
public
understanding
of
more
complex
documents,
but
should
not
be
a
substitute
for
public
access
to
the
complete
documents.

c.
Notification.
The
agency
must
notify
all
parties
on
the
contact
list
and
the
media
of
opportunities
to
participate
and
provide
appropriate
information.
As
described
in
the
first
paragraph
of
Section
2.
b.
above.
Printed
legal
notices
are
often
required
by
program
regulations,
but
do
not
substitute
for
the
broader
notice
of
the
media
and
contact
list
required
by
this
section.

d.
Timing.
Notification
(
above)
must
take
place
well
enough
in
advance
of
the
agency's
action
to
permit
the
public
to
respond.
Generally,
it
should
take
place
not
less
than
30
days
before
the
proposed
action,
or
45
days
in
the
case
of
public
hearings
(
exceptions
in
the
case
of
public
hearings
are
discussed
under
Dialogue,
below).

Where
complex
issues
or
lengthy
documents
are
presented
for
public
comment,
the
comment
period
should
allow
enough
time
for
interested
parties
to
conduct
their
review.
This
period
generally
should
be
no
less
than
60
days.
Where
participation
opportunities
are
to
be
provide
in
programs
of
State,
substate,
and
local
governments
supported
by
EPA
financial
assistance,
notice
shall
be
given
by
the
recipient
to
the
public
within
45
days
after
award
acceptance.

e.
Fees
for
Copying.
Whenever
possible,
the
agency
should
provide
copies
of
relevant
documents,
free
of
charge.
Free
copies
may
be
reserved
for
private
citizens
and
public
interest
organizations
with
limited
funds.
Any
charges
must
be
consistent
with
requirements
under
the
Freedom
of
Information
Act
as
set
forth
in
40
CFR
Part
2.

f.
Depositories.
The
agency
shall
provide
one
or
more
central
collections
of
documents,
reports,
studies,
plans,
etc.
relating
to
controversial
issues
or
significant
decisions
in
a
location
or
locations
convenient
to
the
public.
Depository
arrangements
should
be
made
when
possible
with
public
libraries
and
university
libraries.
Consideration
must
be
given
to
accessibility,
travel
time,
parking,
transit,
and
to
availability
during
off­
work
hours.
Copying
facilities,
at
reasonable
charges,
should
be
available
at
depositories.

3.
Dialogue.
There
must
be
dialogue
between
officials
responsible
for
the
forthcoming
action
or
decision
and
the
interested
and
affected
members
of
the
public.
This
involves
exchange
of
views
and
open
exploration
of
issues,
alternatives,
and
consequences.

Public
consultation
must
be
preceded
by
timely
distribution
of
information
and
must
occur
sufficiently
in
advance
of
decision­
making
to
make
sure
that
the
public's
options
are
not
foreclosed,
and
to
permit
response
to
public
views
prior
to
agency
action.
Opportunities
for
dialogue
shall
be
provided
at
times
and
places
which,
to
the
maximum
extent
feasible.
Facilitate
attendance
or
participation
by
the
Federal
Register/
Vol.
46,
NO.
12
/
Monday,
January
19,
1981
/
Notices
17
public.
Whenever
possible,
public
meetings
should
be
held
during
non­
work
hours,
such
as
evenings
or
weekends,
and
at
locations
accessible
to
public
transportation.

Dialogue
may
take
a
variety
of
forms,
depending
upon
the
issues
to
be
addressed
and
the
public
whose
involvement
is
sought.
Public
hearings
are
the
most
familiar
forum
for
dialogue
and
often
are
legally
required,
but
their
use
should
not
serve
as
the
only
forum
for
citizen
input.
When
used,
hearings
should
be
at
the
end
of
a
process
that
has
given
the
public
earlier
opportunity
for
becoming
informed
and
involved.
Often
other
techniques
may
serve
a
broader
purpose:

°
Review
groups
or
ad
hoc
committees
may
confer
on
the
development
of
a
policy
or
written
materials;
°
Workshops
may
be
used
to
discuss
the
consequences
of
various
alternatives,
or
to
negotiate
differences
among
diverse
parties;

°
Conferences
provide
an
important
way
to
develop
consensus
for
changing
a
program
or
the
momentum
to
undertake
new
directions;

°
Task
forces
can
give
concentrated
and
experienced
attendion
to
an
issue;

°
Personal
conversations
and
personal
correspondence
gives
the
individualized
attention
that
some
issues
require;

°
Meetings
offer
a
good
opportunity
for
diverse
individuals
and
groups
to
express
their
questions
or
preferences;

°
A
series
of
meetings
may
be
the
best
way
to
address
a
long
and
complex
agenda
of
topics;

°
Toll­
free
lines
can
aid
dialogue,
especially
when
many
questions
can
be
anticipated
or
time
is
short;

°
A
hearing
panel
compiled
of
persons
from
representive
public
groups
may
be
used
in
nonadjudicatory
hearings
to
listen
to
presentations
and
review
the
hearing
summary.

This
list
is
not
exhaustive,
but
it
indicated
the
importance
for
program
managers
in
being
flexible
and
choosing
the
right
techniques
for
the
right
occasions.

a.
Requirements
for
public
hearings.

(
1)
Timing
of
Notice.
Notices
must
be
well
publicized
and
mailed
to
all
interested
and
affected
Federal
Register/
Vol.
46,
NO.
12
/
Monday,
January
19,
1981
/
Notices
18
parties
on
the
contact
list
(
see
1.
above)
and
to
the
media
at
least
45
days
prior
to
the
date
of
the
hearing.
However,
when
the
Assistant
Administrator
or
Regional
Administrator
find
that
no
review
of
substantial
documents
is
necessary
for
effective
participation
and
there
are
no
complex
or
controversial
matters
to
be
addressed,
the
notice
requirement
may
be
reduced
to
no
less
than
30
days
in
advance
of
the
hearing.
Additionally,
in
permit
programs,
notice
requirements
will
be
governed
by
permit
regulations
and
will
be
no
less
than
30
days.
Notice
for
EIS's
are
covered
by
EIS
regulation
which
calls
for
a
45­
day
review
period,
with
an
optional
15­
day
extension.
Notice
of
the
EIS
hearing
is
generally
contained
in
the
Draft
EIS.
Hearings
on
EIS's
are
usually
held
before
the
end
of
the
EIS
review
period,
but
no
earlier
than
30
days
after
the
EIS
notice.
Assistant
Administrators
or
Regional
Administrators
may
further
reduce
or
waive
the
requirements
for
advance
notice
of
a
hearing
in
emergency
situations
where
there
is
imminent
danger
to
public
health
and
safety
or
in
situations
where
there
is
a
legally
mandated
timetable.
Assistant
Administrators
may
also
reduce
this
requirement
if
they
determine
that
all
affected
parties
would
benefit
from
a
shorter
time
period.

Members
of
the
public
who
object
to
a
waiver
may
appeal
to
the
Administrator,
stating
their
reasons
in
detail.

(
2)
Content
of
Notice.
The
notice
must
identify
the
matters
to
be
discussed
at
the
hearing
and
must
include
or
be
accompanied
by:
(
a)
a
discussion
of
alternatives
the
public
is
being
asked
to
comment
upon
and
the
agency's
tentative
conclusions
on
major
issues
(
if
any):
(
b)
information
on
the
availability
of
an
EIS
and
bibliography
of
other
relevant
materials
(
if
appropriate),
(
c)
procedures
and
contact
for
obtaining
further
information;
and
(
d)
information
which
the
agency
particularly
solicits
from
the
public.

(
3)
Provision
of
Information.
All
reports,
EIS's
and
other
documents
and
data
relevant
to
the
discussions
at
the
public
hearings
must
be
available
to
the
public
on
request
after
the
notice,
as
soon
as
they
become
available
to
agency
staff.
Background
information
should
be
provided
no
later
than
30
days
prior
to
the
hearing.

(
4)
Conduct
of
Hearing.
The
agency
conducting
the
hearing
must
inform
the
audience
of
the
issues
involved
in
the
decision
to
be
made,
the
considerations
the
agency
will
take
into
account
under
law
and
regulations,
the
agency's
tentative
conclusions
(
if
any),
and
the
information
which
the
agency
particularly
solicits
from
the
public.
Whenever
possible,
the
hearing
room
should
be
set
up
informally.
The
agency
should
allocate
time
for
presentations,
questions
and
answers,
as
well
as
formal
commentary
on
the
record.
When
needed,
a
pre­
hearing
meeting
to
discuss
the
issues
should
be
held.
Procedures
must
not
inhibit
free
expression
of
views.
When
the
subject
of
a
hearing
addresses
conditions
in
a
specific
geographic
area,
the
hearing
itself
should
be
held
in
that
general
area.

(
5)
Record
of
Hearing.
The
hearing
record
must
be
left
open
for
at
least
ten
days
to
receive
Federal
Register/
Vol.
46,
NO.
12
/
Monday,
January
19,
1981
/
Notices
19
additional
comment,
including
any
from
those
usable
to
attend
in
person,
and
may
be
kept
open
longer,
at
the
discretion
of
the
hearing
officer.
The
agency
must
prepare
a
transcript
or
record
of
the
hearing
itself
and
add
additional
comments
to
the
complete
record
of
the
proceeding.
This
must
be
available
for
public
inspection
and
copying
at
cost
at
convenient
locations.
Alternatively,
copies
shall
be
provided
free.
If
tapes
are
used,
they
should
be
available
for
use
and
copying
on
conventional
equipment.
When
a
Responsiveness
Summary
(
see
Assimilation
below)
is
prepared
after
a
hearing,
it
must
be
provided
to
those
who
testified
at
or
attended
the
hearing,
as
well
as
anyone
who
requests
it.

b.
Requirements
for
advisory
groups.
Formation
of
an
advisory
group
is
one
of
the
methods
that
can
be
chose
to
gain
sustained
advice
from
a
representative
group
of
citizens.

The
primary
function
of
an
advisory
group
is
to
assist
elected
or
appointed
officials
by
making
recommendations
to
them
on
issues
which
the
decision
making
body
and
the
advisory
group
consider
relevant.
These
issues
may
include
policy
development,
project
alternatives,
financial
assistance
applications,
work
plans,
major
contracts,
interagency
agreements,
budget
submissions,
among
others.
Advisory
groups
can
provide
a
forum
for
addressing
issues,
promote
constructive
dialogue
among
the
various
interests
represented
on
the
group,
and
enhance
community
understanding
of
the
agency's
action.

(
1)
Requirements
for
Federal
EPA
Advisory
Committees:
When
Epa
establishes
an
advisory
group,
provisions
of
the
Federal
Advisory
Committee
Act
(
Pub.
L.
92­
463)
and
General
Service
Administration
(
GSA)
Regulations
on
Federal
Advisory
Committee
Management
must
be
followed.

(
2)
Requirements
for
State
and
Substate
and
Local
Advisory
Committees:
(
Explanatory
Note:
The
following
guidelines
do
not
apply
to
advisory
committees,
as
defined
by
the
Federal
Advisory
Committee
Act,
which
are
established
or
utilized
by
EPA.)
In
instances
where
regulations,
program
guidance,
or
the
public
participation
work
plans
of
State,
substate,
or
local
agencies,
call
for
advisory
groups,
the
following
special
requirements
will
apply:

(
A)
Composition
of
Advisory
Groups.
Agencies
must
try
to
constitute
advisory
groups
so
that
the
membership
includes
the
major
affected
parties,
reflects
a
balance
of
interests,
and
consists
of
substantially
equivalent
proportions
of
the
following
groups:

°
Private
citizens.
This
portion
of
the
advisory
group
would
not
include
anyone
who
is
likely
to
incur
a
financial
gain
or
loss
greater
than
that
of
an
average
homeowner,
taxpayer,
or
consumer
as
a
result
of
any
action
that
is
likely
to
be
taken
by
the
managing
agency;

°
Individual
citizens
or
representatives
of
organizations
that
have
substantial
economic
interests
in
the
plan
or
project;
Federal
Register/
Vol.
46,
NO.
12
/
Monday,
January
19,
1981
/
Notices
20
°
Federal,
State,
local,
and
tribal
officials.
These
may
be
both
elected
and
policy­
level
appointed
officials,
so
long
as
the
elected
officials
do
not
come
from
the
decision­
making
body
the
group
is
advising;

°
Representatives
of
public
interest
groups.
A
"
public
interest
group"
is
an
organization
which
has
a
general
civic,
social,
recreational,
environmental,
or
public
health
perspective
in
the
area,
and
which
does
not
directly
reflect
the
economic
interests
of
its
membership.

Generally,
where
an
activity
has
a
particular
geographic
focus,
the
advisory
group
should
be
composed
of
persons
from
that
geographic
area,
unless
issues
involved
are
of
wider
application.
Where
problems
in
meeting
the
membership
composition
arise,
the
agency
should
request
advice
and
assistance
from
EPA
or
the
State
in
the
case
of
a
delegated
program.
EPA
shall
review
the
agency's
efforts
to
comply,
and
approve
the
advisory
group
composition,
or,
if
the
agency's
efforts
were
inadequate,
require
additional
actions.

(
b)
Resources
for
Advisory
Groups.
To
the
extent
possible,
agencies
shall
identify
professional
and
clerical
staff
time
which
the
advisory
group
may
depend
upon
for
assistance,
and
provide
the
advisory
group
with
an
operating
budget
which
may
be
used
for
mailing,
duplicating,
technical
assistance,
and
other
purposes
the
advisory
group
and
the
agency
have
agreed
upon.
The
agency
should
establish
a
system
for
reimbursing
advisory
group
members
for
reasonable
out­
of­
pocket
expenses
that
relate
to
their
participation
on
the
advisory
group.

(
3)
Advisory
Group
Recommendations:
Recommendations,
including
minority
reports
and
the
minutes
of
all
meetings
of
an
advisory
group,
are
matters
of
public
information.
As
soon
as
these
become
available
to
agency
staff,
the
agency
must
provide
them
to
the
public
on
request
and
distribute
them
to
relevant
public
agencies.
Advisory
groups
may
communicate
with
EPA
or
the
public
as
needed,
or
request
EPA
to
perform
an
evaluation
of
the
assisted
agency's
compliance
with
the
requirements
of
this
part.

4.
Assimilation.
The
heart
of
public
participation
lies
in
the
degree
to
which
it
informs
and
influences
final
agency
decisions.

Assimilating
public
viewpoints
and
preferences
into
final
conclusions
involves
examining
and
analyzing
public
comments,
considering
how
to
incorporate
them
into
final
program
decisions,
and
making
or
modifying
decisions
according
to
carefully
considered
public
views.
The
agency
must
then
demonstrate,
in
its
decisions
and
actions,
that
it
has
understood
and
fully
considered
public
concerns.
Assimilation
of
public
views
must
include
the
following
three
elements:
Federal
Register/
Vol.
46,
NO.
12
/
Monday,
January
19,
1981
/
Notices
21
a.
Documentation.
The
agency
must
briefly
and
clearly
document
consideration
of
the
public's
views
in
Responsiveness
Summaries,
regulatory
preambles,
EIS's
or
other
appropriate
forms.
This
should
be
done
at
key
decision
points
specified
in
program
guidance
or
in
work
for
public
participation.

b.
Content.
Each
Responsiveness
Summary
(
or
similar
document)
must:
 
explain
briefly
the
type
of
public
participation
activity
that
was
conducted;

 
identify
or
summarize
those
who
participated
and
their
affiliation;

 
describe
the
matters
on
which
the
public
was
consulted;

 
summarize
the
public's
views,
important
comments,
criticisms
and
suggestions;

 
disclose
the
agency's
logic
in
developing
decisions;
and
 
set
forth
the
agency's
specific
responses,
in
terms
of
modifying
the
proposed
action,
or
explaining
why
the
agency
rejected
proposals
made
by
the
public.

c.
Use.
The
agency
must
use
Responsiveness
Summaries
in
its
decision­
making.

In
addition,
final
Responsiveness
Summaries
that
are
prepared
by
an
agency
receiving
financial
assistance
from
EPA
must
also
include
that
agency's
(
and
where
applicable,
its
advisory
group's)
evaluation
of
its
public
participation
program.

5.
Feedback.
The
agency
must
provide
feedback
to
participants
and
interested
parties
concerning
the
outcome
of
the
public's
involvement.
Feedback
may
be
in
the
form
of
personal
letters
or
phone
calls,
if
the
number
of
participants
is
small.
Alternatively,
the
agency
may
mail
a
Responsiveness
Summary
to
those
on
the
contact
list,
or
may
publish
it.

a.
Content.
The
feedback
that
the
agency
gives
must
include
a
statement
of
the
action
that
was
taken,
and
must
indicate
the
effect
the
public's
comments
had
on
that
action.

b.
Availability.
Agency
officials
must
take
the
initiative
in
giving
appropriate
feedback,
and
must
assure
that
all
public
participants
in
a
particular
activity
are
provided
that
feedback.
As
Responsiveness
Summaries
are
prepared,
their
availability
should
be
announced
to
the
public.
When
regulations
are
developed,
reprints
of
Preambles
and
final
regulations
must
be
provided
to
all
who
commented.

E.
Work
Plans
Federal
Register/
Vol.
46,
NO.
12
/
Monday,
January
19,
1981
/
Notices
22
A
work
plan
is
a
written
document
used
for
planning
a
public
participation
program.
It
may
be
an
element
of
regulatory
development
plans
or
program
plans.
Each
work
plan
should
include
the
following
elements:
objectives,
schedules,
techniques,
audiences
and
resources
requirements.
Work
plans
should
be
completed
on
both
a
program
and
project
level
or
for
each
activity
identified
under
Scope
of
the
Policy.

Public
participation
work
plans,
undertaken
by
EPA
or
by
applicants
for
EPA
financial
assistance,
shall
set
forth,
at
a
minimum:

1.
Key
decisions
subject
to
public
participation;

2.
Staff
contacts
and
budget
resources
to
be
allocated
to
public
participation;

3.
Segments
of
the
public
targeted
for
involvement;

4.
Proposed
schedule
for
public
participation
activities
to
impact
program
decisions;

5.
Mechanism
to
apply
the
five
basic
functions
­
Identification,
Outreach,
Dialogue,
Assimilation,
and
Feedback­
outlined
in
Section
D
of
this
Policy.

Reasonable
costs
of
public
participation
incurred
by
assisted
agencies,
including
advisory
group
expenses,
and
identified
in
an
approved
public
participation
work
plan,
will
be
eligible
for
financial
assistance,
subject
to
statutory
or
regulatory
limitations.

Assistant
Administrators
and
Regional
Administrators
will
ensure
that
program
work
plans
are
developed
in
a
timely
manner
for
use
in
the
annual
budget
planning
process.
Work
plans
will
be
reviewed
by
the
Special
Assistant
for
Public
Participation,
who
will
work
with
program
and
regional
managers
to
ensure
that
work
plans
adequately
carry
out
this
Policy.
Work
plans
may
be
used
as
public
information
documents.

F.
Assistance
to
the
Public
EPA
recognizes
that
responsible
participation
by
the
various
elements
of
the
public
in
some
of
the
highly
technical
and
complex
issues
addressed
by
the
agency
requires
substantial
commitments
of
time,
study,
research
analysis,
and
discussion.
While
the
Agency
needs
the
perspectives
and
ideas
that
citizens
bring,
it
cannot
always
expect
the
public
to
contribute
its
efforts
on
a
voluntary
basis.

Assistant
Administrators,
office
Directors,
and
Regional
Administrators
can
provide
funds
to
Federal
Register/
Vol.
46,
NO.
12
/
Monday,
January
19,
1981
/
Notices
23
outside
organizations
and
individuals
for
public
participation
activities
which
they,
as
EPA
managers,
deem
appropriate
and
essential
for
achieving
program
goals,
and
which
clearly
do
not
involve
rulemaking
or
adjudicative
activities.

Participation
funding
Criteria­
Any
financial
assistance
awarded
by
the
Agency
for
non­
regulatory
or
non­
adjudicatory
participation
should
be
based
on
the
following
criteria:

(
1)
whether
the
activity
proposed
will
further
the
objectives
of
this
Policy:

(
2)
whether
the
activity
proposed
will
result
in
the
participation
of
interests
not
adequately
represented;

(
3)
whether
the
applicant
does
not
otherwise
have
adequate
resources
to
participate;
and
(
4)
whether
the
applicant
is
qualified
to
accomplish
the
work.
These
are
the
primary
tests
for
public
participation
financial
assistance.
From
among
those
who
meet
these
tests,
the
Agency
will
make
special
efforts
to
provide
assistance
to
groups
who
may
have
had
fewer
opportunities
or
insufficient
resources
to
participate.

G.
Authority
and
Responsibility
Public
participation
has
an
integral
part
in
the
accomplishment
of
any
program.
It
should
routinely
be
included
in
decision­
making
and
not
be
treated
as
an
independent
function.
Managers
shall
assure
that
personnel
are
properly
trained,
and
that
funding
needs
are
incorporated
in
their
specific
budgets.

Responsibility
and
accountability
for
the
adequacy
of
public
participation
programs
belong
primarily
to
the
Regional
Administrators
and
the
Assistant
Administrators,
under
the
overall
direction
of
the
Administrator.

1.
The
Administrator
maintains
overall
direction
and
responsibility
for
the
Agency's
public
participation
activities.
Specifically,
the
Administrator,
aided
by
the
Special
Assistant
for
Public
Participation,
will:

(
a)
establish
policy
direction
and
guidance
for
all
EPA
public
participation
programs;

(
b)
review
public
participation
program
work
plans,
including
resource
allocation;

(
c)
coordinate
public
participation
funding
to
outside
groups
to
ensure
the
most
economical
Federal
Register/
Vol.
46,
NO.
12
/
Monday,
January
19,
1981
/
Notices
24
expenditures;

(
d)
provide
technical
advice
and
assistance
as
appropriate;

(
e)
develop
guidance
and
training
needed
to
ensure
that
program
personnel
are
equipped
to
implement
the
Policy;

(
f)
provide
incentives
to
agency
personnel
to
ensure
commitment
and
competence;
and
(
g)
evaluate
at
least
annually
the
adequacy
of
public
participation
activities
conducted
under
this
Policy,
and
the
appropriateness
and
results
of
public
participation
expenditures.

2.
Assistant
Administrators
have
the
following
responsibilities:

(
a)
identify
and
address
those
activities
where
application
of
this
Policy
is
require;

(
b)
identify
and
address
those
forthcoming
major
policy
decisions
where
the
Policy
should
be
applied;

(
c)
ensure
that
program
work
plans
are
developed
annually
to
provide
for
adequate
public
participation
in
the
above
decisions
and
activities;

(
d)
implement
approved
work
plans
for
public
information
and
public
participation
activities;

(
e)
ensure
that,
as
regulations
for
the
programs
cited
in
the
Appendix
of
the
Policy
are
amended,
they
incorporate
the
Policy's
provisions;

(
f)
evaluate
the
appropriateness
of
public
participation
expenditures
and
activities
under
their
jurisdiction,
revising
and
improving
them
as
necessary;

(
g)
encourage
coordination
of
public
participation
activities;

(
h)
provide
guidance
and
assistance
to
support
regional
office
activities;

(
i)
seek
public
participation
in
decisions
to
modify
or
develop
major
national
policies,
at
their
discretion;

(
j)
consider
funding
authorized
pilot
and/
or
innovative
demonstration
projects;
Federal
Register/
Vol.
46,
NO.
12
/
Monday,
January
19,
1981
/
Notices
25
(
k)
consider
measures
to
ensure
Policy
implementation
in
appropriate
managers'
performance
standards;

(
l)
provide
financial
assistance,
as
appropriate
and
available,
for
authorized
public
participation
activities
at
the
national
level.

3.
Regional
Administrators
have
the
following
responsibilities:

(
a)
identify
and
address
those
EPA
and
EPA­
assisted
activities
where
application
of
this
Policy
is
required;

(
b)
identify
and
address
those
forthcoming
EPA
and
EPA­
assisted
major
policy
decisions
where
the
Policy
should
be
applied;

(
c)
ensure
that
work
plans
are
developed
annually
by
the
programs
and
recipients
to
provide
for
adequate
public
participation
in
the
above
decisions
and
activities;

(
d)
implement
approved
work
plans
for
public
information
and
public
participation
activities;

(
e)
ensure
that
public
participation
is
included
by
applicants
in
the
development
of
program
funding
applications
to
EPA,
and
in
other
decisions
as
identified
by
this
Policy;

(
f)
provide
guidance
and
technical
assistance
to
recipients
on
the
conduct
of
public
participation
activities;

(
g)
evaluate
annually
public
participation
activities
of
State,
substate,
or
local
entities
revising
and
improving
them
as
necessary;

(
h)
encourage
coordination
of
public
participation
activities;

(
i)
support
and
assist
the
public
participation
activities
of
Headquarters;

(
j)
ensure
that
Regional
staff
are
trained,
and
resources
allocated
for
public
participation
program;

(
k)
incorporate
measures
to
ensure
Policy
implementation
in
managers'
performance
standards;

(
l)
provide
small
grants
to
representative
public
groups
for
needed
public
participation
work;
Federal
Register/
Vol.
46,
NO.
12
/
Monday,
January
19,
1981
/
Notices
26
(
m)
evaluate
the
appropriateness
of
public
participation
expenditures
and
activities,
revising
and
improving
them
as
necessary.

4.
The
Director,
Office
of
Public
Awareness
has
an
important
role
in
the
development
and
support
of
Agency
public
participation
activities.
The
Director
will:

(
a)
assist
Headquarters
and
regional
programs
in
identifying
interested
and
affected
members
of
the
public
in
compiling
project
contacts
lists;

(
b)
support
Headquarters
and
regional
program
in
development
and
distribution
of
outreach
materials
to
inform
and
educate
the
public
about
environmental
programs
and
issues,
and
participation
opportunities;

(
c)
develop
annual
public
awareness/
participation
support
plans
to
complement
public
participation
work
plans
and
identify
resources
requirements.

H.
Compliance
Assistant
Administrator,
Office
Directors,
and
Regional
Administrators
are
responsible
for
making
certain
that,
for
the
activities
under
their
jurisdiction,
all
those
concerned
comply
with
the
public
participation
requirements
set
forth
in
this
Policy.

Regional
Administrators
will
evaluate
compliance
with
public
participation
requirements
in
appropriate
State
and
substate
programs
supported
by
EPA
financial
assistance.
This
will
be
done
during
the
annual
review
of
the
States'
program(
s)
which
is
required
by
grant
provisions,
and
during
any
other
program
audit
or
review.

If
the
Regional
Administrator
is
not
satisfied
that
this
Policy
is
being
carried
out,
he
or
she
should
defer
the
grant
award
until
these
conditions
can
be
met
where
that
course
is
legally
permissible.
A
Regional
Administrator
may
grant
a
waiver
from
specific
requirements
in
this
Policy
upon
a
showing
by
the
agency
that
proposed
action
will
result
in
substantially
greater
public
participation
that
would
be
provided
by
the
Policy.

The
Administrator
of
EPA
has
final
authority
and
responsibility
for
ensuring
compliance.
Citizens
with
information
concerning
apparent
failures
to
comply
with
these
public
participation
requirements
should
first
notify
the
appropriate
Regional
Administrator
or
Assistant
Administrator,
and
then
if
necessary,
the
Administrator.
The
Regional
Administrator,
Assistant
Administrator,
or
Administrator
will
make
certain
that
instances
of
alleged
noncompliance
are
promptly
investigated
and
Federal
Register/
Vol.
46,
NO.
12
/
Monday,
January
19,
1981
/
Notices
27
that
corrective
action
is
taken
where
necessary.

Appendix­
List
of
Citations
Covering
Program
Grants,
Delegations,
or
Permits
to
States
and
Substate
Governments
The
Public
Participation
Policy
will
be
incorporated
in
program
regulations
that
cover
financial
assistance
or
delegations
of
authority
to
State
or
substate
governments
or
approval
of
State
programs.
Where
consolidated
awards
exist
under
these
provisions,
they
also
will
be
covered.
Programs
under
the
Clean
Water
Act,
Safe
Drinking
Water
Act,
and
the
Resource
Conservation
Recovery
Act
are
already
covered
by
this
Policy
insofar
as
they
have
been
amended,
or
will
be
amended,
to
incorporate
40
CFR,
Part,
25.
Consolidated
permit
programs
are
covered
by
40
CFR
Parts
122,
123,
and
124.
Regulations
that
refer
to
existing
programs
now
covered
by
the
Policy
will
have
to
be
amended
to
incorporate
its
provisions.
Where
programs
regulations
are
not
yet
written,
the
Policy
shall
be
incorporated.

Clean
Air
Act
(
Pub.
I
95­
95)

Air
Pollution
Control
Program
Grants
Sec.
105­
Grants
to
State
and
local
air
pollution
control
agencies
for
support
of
air
pollution
planning
and
control
programs.
(
Catalogue
of
Federal
Domestic
Assistance
No.
66001.)

Sec.
106­
Grants
to
interstate
air
quality
agencies
and
commissions
to
develop
implementation
plans
for
interstate
air
quality
agencies
and
commissions
to
develop
implementation
plans
for
interstate
air
quality
control
regions.
[
When
funded].

Urban
Mass
Transportation
Technical
Studies
Grants
(
DOT)

Sec.
175­
Grants
to
organizations
of
local
elected
officials
with
transportation
or
air
quality
maintenance
responsibilities
for
air
quality
maintenance
planning.
(
CFDA
No.
20.505)

Sec.
210­
Grants
to
State
agencies
for
developing
and
maintaining
effective
vehicle
emission
devices
and
systems
inspection
and
emission
testing
and
control
programs.
[
When
funded].

Quiet
Communities
Act
(
Pub.
L.
95­
609)
Federal
Register/
Vol.
46,
NO.
12
/
Monday,
January
19,
1981
/
Notices
28
Quiet
Communities
 
State
and
Local
Capacity
Building
Assistance
Sec.
14(
c)­
Grants
to
State
and
substate
governments
and
regional
planning
agencies
for
planning,
developing,
evaluating,
and
demonstrating
techniques
for
quiet
communities.
(
CFDA
No.
66.031.)

Toxic
Substances
Control
Act
(
Pub.
L.
94­
469)

State
Toxic
Substance
Control
Projects
Sec.
28­
Grants
to
State
for
establishing
and
operating
programs
to
complete
EPA
efforts
in
preventing
or
eliminating
risks
to
health
or
environment
from
chemicals.
(
CFDA
No.
66.800.)

Federal
Insecticide,
Fungicide
and
Rodenticide
Act
(
Publ.
L.
95­
398)

Pesticides
Enforcement
Program
Grant
Sec.
23(
a)­
Funding
to
States/
Indian
tribes
through
cooperative
agreements
for
enforcement
and
applicator
training
and
certification.
(
CFDA
No.
66­
700.)

Resource
Conservation
and
Recovery
Act
(
Pub.
L.
94­
580)

Sec.
3005(
a)­
Issuance
of
permits
for
treatment,
storage
and
disposal
of
hazardous
waste.

Sec.
3006­
Delegation
of
authority
to
administer
and
enforce
hazardous
waste
program.

Sec.
4002­
State
Planning
Guidelines.
Solid
and
Hazardous
Waste
Management
Program
Support
Grants
Sec.
4007­
Approval
for
State,
local,
and
regional
authorities
to
implement
State
or
Regional
Solid
Waste
Plans
and
be
eligible
for
Federal
assistance.
(
CFDA
No.
66.451)

Sec
4008­
Grants
to
State
and
substate
agencies
for
solid
waste
management,
resource
recovery
and
conservation,
and
hazardous
waste
management.
(
CFDA
No.
66.451.)

Sec.
4009­
Grants
to
States
for
rural
areas
solid
waste
management
facilities.
(
CFDA
No.
66.451.)
Federal
Register/
Vol.
46,
NO.
12
/
Monday,
January
19,
1981
/
Notices
29
Solid
Waste
Management
Demonstration
Grants
Sec.
8006­
Grants
to
State,
municipal,
interstate
or
intermunicipal
agency
for
resource
recovery
systems
or
improved
solid
waste
disposal
facilities.
(
CFDA
No.
66.452.)

Solid
Waste
Management
Training
Grants
Section
7007­
Grants
or
contracts
for
States,
interstate
agency,
municipality
and
other
organizations
for
training
personnel
in
occupations
related
to
solid
waste
management
and
resource
recovery.
(
CFDA
No
66.453.)

Safe
Drinking
Water
Act
(
Pub.
L.
95­
190)

Sec.
1421(
b)­
Issuance
of
permits
for
underground
injection
control
programs.

State
Public
Water
System
Supervision
Program
Grants
Sec.
1443(
a)­
Grants
to
States
for
public
water
system
supervision.
(
CFDA
66.432.)

State
Underground
Water
Source
Protection
 
Program
Grants
Sec.
1443(
b)­
Grants
to
States
for
underground
water
source
protection
programs.
(
CFDA
66.433.)

Clean
Water
Act
(
Pub.
L.
95­
217)

Construction
Grants
for
Wastewater
Treatment
Works
Sec.
201­
Grants
to
State,
municipality,
or
intermunicipal
agencies
for
construction
of
wastewater
treatment
works.
(
CFDA
66.418.)

Water
Pollution
Control­
State
and
Interstate
Program
Grants
Sec.
106­
Grants
to
State
and
Interstate
agencies
for
water
pollution
contol
administration.
(
CFDA
66.419.)

Water
Pollution
Control­
State
and
Areawide
Water
Quality
Management
Planning
Agency
Sec.
205(
g)­
Delegation
of
management
of
construction
grants
programs
to
State
designated
Federal
Register/
Vol.
46,
NO.
12
/
Monday,
January
19,
1981
/
Notices
30
agency(
ies).
(
CFDA
66.438.)

Sec.
208­
Grants
for
State
and
areawide
waste
treatment
management
planning.
(
CFDA
66.426.)

Water
Pollution
Control­
Lake
Restoration
Demonstration
Grants
Sec.
314­
Clean
Lakes
Program.

Sec.
402(
a)­
Issuance
of
permits
under
National
Pollutant
Discharge
Elimination
System.

Sec.
404­
Issuance
of
permits
for
disposal
of
dredge
and
fill
materials.

Pub.
L.
94­
580,
Sections
3005
&
3006;

Pub.
L.
95­
190,
Sections
1421­
1423;

Pub.
L.
95­
217,
Section
402;

Pub.
L.
95­
217,
Section
404;

Pub.
L.
95­
95,
Section
165;

Proposed
consolidated
permit
regulations,
covering;
Hazardous
Waste
Program
under
RCRA;
UIC
Program
under
SDWA.
NPDES
and
Section
404
of
the
Clean
Water
Act,
and
the
PSD
Program
under
the
Clean
Air
Act.

Billing
Code
6500­
36­
M