[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 127 (Friday, June 30, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 40639-40644]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-16632]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-6727-4]


Draft EPA Guidance for Community Involvement in Supplemental 
Environmental Projects

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (EPA) is 
noticing a draft document, ``Guidance for Community Involvement in 
Supplemental Environmental Projects,'' for comment. This document is 
intended to provide guidance to EPA personnel on how to achieve the 
community involvement objectives of the 1998 Supplemental Environmental 
Projects Policy (SEP Policy). EPA is soliciting public comments on this 
guidance to assist it in addressing issues such as identifying 
communities affected by enforcement actions, facilitating the outreach 
process, encouraging realistic community expectations, and using 
liaisons to facilitate communication.

DATES: Comments are due on or before August 29, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Mail written comments to the Enforcement and Compliance 
Docket and Information Center (2201A), Docket Number EC-G-2000-055, 
Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460. 
(Comments may be submitted on disk in WordPerfect 8.0 or earlier 
versions.) Written comments may be delivered in person to: Enforcement 
and Compliance Docket and Information Center, U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency, Room 4033, Ariel Rios Bldg., 1200 Pennsylvania 
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC. Submit comments electronically to 
[email protected]. Electronic comments may be filed online at many 
Federal Depository Libraries.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Melissa Raack, 202-564-7039, Office of 
Regulatory Enforcement, Mail Code 2248-A, United States Environmental 
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460, 
e-mail: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In its Supplemental Environmental Projects 
Policy of May 1, 1998, EPA affirmed its commitment to involve 
communities in the consideration of SEPs in appropriate enforcement 
cases. Although there is no formula for effective community

[[Page 40640]]

involvement, this guidance is intended to identify issues and suggest 
resources that may be utilized to achieve such involvement. Community 
involvement is an important goal that should be considered along with 
other enforcement goals, such as quick response to environmental 
threats, timely resolution of enforcement actions, and using limited 
resources effectively to achieve the maximum benefit for human health 
and the environment. Building trust between EPA and communities is the 
foundation of effective community involvement. EPA is soliciting 
comments on how this document can provide the best guidance to its 
personnel to ensure that trust is established and maintained in the SEP 
consideration process.

Sylvia K. Lowrance,
Acting Assistant Administrator, Office of Enforcement and Compliance 
Assurance.

Introduction

    In its Supplemental Environmental Projects Policy (SEP Policy) of 
May 1, 1998, EPA affirmed its commitment to involve communities in the 
consideration of SEPs in appropriate enforcement cases.\1\ Seeking 
community involvement can have a number of advantages. It can result in 
SEPs that meet a need of the community in which the violation of an 
environmental law occurred. It can also promote environmental justice, 
enhance community awareness of EPA's enforcement activities, and 
improve relations between the community and the violating facility.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The SEP Policy allows EPA to consider a defendant or 
respondent's willingness to perform an environmentally beneficial 
project when setting an appropriate penalty to settle an enforcement 
action. The purpose of a SEP is to secure significant environmental 
or public health protection improvements beyond those achieved by 
bringing the defendant into compliance. The SEP must be a new 
project, where EPA has the opportunity to shape the scope of the 
project before it is implemented, and the defendant must not be 
otherwise legally required to do the work. Community participation 
in SEP consideration is one of the factors considered in valuing a 
SEP. This summary of the SEP Policy should not be considered a full 
summary of the SEP requirements and persons interested in such 
requirements should consult EPA's Final SEP Policy at 63 FR 24796 
(May 5, 1998).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This document provides guidance to EPA on achieving the community 
involvement objectives of the SEP Policy. It is premised on EPA's 
belief that effective SEPs respond to the environmental needs of the 
affected community. While direct community involvement may not be 
possible or appropriate in all cases involving SEPs, in many cases 
community involvement can be a valuable part of SEP consideration 
without adversely affecting the enforcement action.
    Although there is no formula for effective community involvement, 
this guidance identifies issues and suggests resources that may be 
utilized to achieve such involvement. The guidance suggests when it may 
be appropriate to include the community in SEP consideration. It also 
provides direction for identifying communities potentially affected by 
the violations, facilitating the process, encouraging realistic 
community expectations, and using liaisons to facilitate communication.
    This guidance recognizes that not every settlement can include a 
SEP proposed or favored by community members. SEPs are projects 
undertaken voluntarily by defendants, and not all defendants are 
interested in performing SEPs. Defendants may not be willing to solicit 
input from the community, or may not be receptive to community input. 
Further, final approval of all SEPs rests with EPA,\2\ which must 
review project proposals to ensure consistency with the SEP Policy. Not 
all proposed projects will meet the criteria of the SEP Policy. Also, 
if different community groups support different SEP projects, some part 
of the community is likely to be disappointed no matter what the 
outcome of the SEP consideration process might be.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Throughout this guidance, the term ``EPA,'' when used in the 
context of a judicial enforcement action, also includes the 
Department of Justice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Nevertheless, community involvement is an important goal that 
should be considered along with other enforcement goals, such as quick 
response to environmental threats, timely resolution of enforcement 
actions, and using limited resources effectively to achieve the maximum 
benefit for human health and the environment. This guidance encourages 
Regions to think creatively about how to engage communities, even 
though direct community participation will not be possible in every 
case that includes a SEP. For example, Regions can consider setting up 
a SEP Bank to solicit community project ideas outside of the context of 
a particular enforcement action so that community project ideas are 
available to draw from in appropriate cases. Also, settlements can be 
structured to provide for community input on implementation of the SEP, 
even if participation in SEP consideration itself is not feasible.
    Building trust between EPA and communities is the foundation of 
effective community involvement in the SEP consideration process. Even 
where community outreach does not result in a community-supported or 
proposed SEP being included in a settlement, effective community 
outreach can help increase the community's confidence in the process 
and may encourage the community to work with EPA in the future.

I. Reasons To Include Communities in the Consideration of SEPs

    Including communities in the consideration of SEPs may benefit the 
defendant,\3\ the community, the environment, and EPA. First, because 
SEPs help to protect the environment and public health, and can redress 
environmental harm, involving communities in SEP consideration enables 
EPA and the defendant to focus on the particular environmental 
priorities and concerns of a community, which is especially important 
if several different SEPs are being considered. The community can also 
be a valuable source of SEP ideas, including ideas that result in 
creative or innovative SEPs that might not otherwise have been 
considered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ ``Defendant,'' when used herein, includes defendants in 
civil judicial actions and respondents in EPA administrative 
actions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Second, active community involvement can strengthen trust and 
cooperation between EPA and a community, and help EPA respond to 
communities' environmental protection priorities. Even when a SEP 
cannot fully respond to local priorities, community involvement may 
provide ideas for projects for future environmental protection efforts 
outside the context of the enforcement action (See discussion of SEP 
Banks).
    Third, pursuant to the SEP Policy, a defendant's active 
participation and inclusion of public input into a SEP is one of the 
factors EPA uses to determine the penalty mitigation for a SEP. (SEP 
Policy, p. 16). Defendants may also benefit from community involvement 
because it can result in better relationships with the community.
    Finally, the public has the opportunity to comment on the terms of 
proposed judicial and some administrative Consent Decrees, and early 
community involvement may avoid adverse comments on the terms of a 
settlement or a SEP during the public comment period. Community 
involvement also helps the public understand the process of judicial or 
administrative enforcement actions.

[[Page 40641]]

II. Determining When Community Involvement Is Appropriate

A. Community Participation In SEP Consideration In Individual Cases

    Given the wide range of violations and communities, there is no 
formula to determine when community involvement in the consideration of 
a SEP is appropriate. There are a number of factors, however, to 
consider when determining whether community involvement is appropriate 
in any particular case.
    One obvious factor to consider is the defendant's willingness to 
perform a SEP and to involve the community in considering possible SEP 
projects. Even if a defendant does not wish to participate actively in 
outreach to the community on SEP proposals, its willingness to consider 
projects generated by community sources is essential to the process. As 
noted above, there are many incentives for defendants to engage 
communities in SEP consideration. However, EPA cannot coerce a 
defendant to do a project or to accept projects proposed by the 
community.
    Resources are another concern when evaluating whether and how to 
involve communities in SEP consideration. Direct community involvement 
in SEP consideration has obvious impacts on the time, money and effort 
that will be required to bring the action to conclusion. While the 
additional resource demands are not in themselves reasons not to 
include communities in SEP consideration, these impacts should be 
evaluated against the size and complexity of the enforcement action and 
how community involvement in SEP consideration may affect the Agency's 
ability to resolve enforcement actions within a reasonable time frame. 
Balancing enforcement impacts with the desire for community input may 
require creative approaches. In some cases it may be desirable to delay 
the community involvement until after the consent decree has been 
entered. For example, if the government and defendant agree on a 
particular project that satisfies the terms of the SEP Policy (e.g., a 
greenway project in a particular area for a specified amount of 
acreage), they may agree to provide for community involvement in the 
SEP during the implementation of the consent decree (e.g., in 
determining exactly which parcels of land to purchase for the 
greenway).
    In general, those cases which have a large penalty at stake, where 
the violations have had a direct impact on the community and where 
community interest in the enforcement action is high may be appropriate 
for a broad and inclusive outreach effort. As the SEP Policy points 
out, community involvement may be most appropriate in cases where the 
range of possible SEPs is great and/or multiple SEPs may be negotiated. 
(SEP Policy, p. 19).
    At the other end of the spectrum, routine cases which have 
relatively little potential for significant penalties, direct 
environmental impact on the community, or community interest may not be 
good candidates for a broad outreach effort. Between these two 
extremes, however, lie opportunities to tailor community involvement 
efforts to meet the needs and limitations of a particular enforcement 
action.
    Generally, the important factors to be considered in determining 
whether and to what extent to involve communities once the defendant 
has indicated a desire to perform a SEP are:
    1. The amount of the proposed penalty and the settlement amount 
which is likely to be mitigated by the SEP;
    2. The impact of the violations on the community;
    3. The level of interest of the community in the facility and the 
potential SEP; and
    4. The willingness of the defendant to solicit and respond in a 
meaningful way to community input.

B. SEP Banks

    ``SEP Banks'' or ``SEP Libraries'' are Regional inventories of 
potential SEPs that can be consulted in individual cases where the 
defendant requests assistance in identifying appropriate SEPs. SEP 
Banks can provide an important avenue for community input on SEPs, that 
can be used when the size of the case or the timing of the enforcement 
process does not allow for direct community participation. SEP Banks 
generally are more acceptable to defendants than broad outreach efforts 
and can help to avoid raising unrealistic community expectations about 
the likelihood of a particular project being performed by a particular 
party.
    The SEP Bank inventory can include specific projects identified as 
priorities by EPA, communities, or non-governmental organizations. EPA 
can solicit ideas for the SEP Bank through town meetings, public 
hearings, or meetings with appropriate EPA staff. At the time ideas are 
collected for the SEP Bank, the enforcement action in which the SEP may 
ultimately be selected will be unknown. Therefore, it is important for 
communities to understand that inclusion of a SEP in the SEP Bank does 
not ensure that the project will be implemented. All SEP Policy 
requirements should be applied in the context of the enforcement action 
to determine whether the proposed SEP meets the requirements of the 
Policy. Before EPA considers a SEP Bank proposal in the context of an 
enforcement action, EPA should contact community leaders to try to 
determine whether the project is still a priority for the community.

III. Roles of Participants In SEP Consideration

    Each participant's role in the process of SEP consideration will 
depend primarily on the circumstances of the case, including the 
defendant's willingness to solicit and include community input in the 
development of a SEP. However, there are several principles to keep in 
mind to ensure that each participant understands its responsibilities 
and obligations.

A. EPA

    EPA should provide communities with information about SEP 
possibilities as early as possible in the settlement process, 
consistent with the requirements of the case and in accordance with 
confidentiality constraints. When providing information early in the 
process, EPA should avoid raising community expectations beyond 
realistic levels. When a defendant expresses interest in performing a 
SEP, EPA may play the primary role in facilitating community 
involvement. EPA should also establish milestones and objectives for 
community involvement, consistent with the litigation deadlines, to 
ensure that community involvement does not create any potential 
impediment to the progress of the litigation or to meeting court-
imposed deadlines. EPA should make clear to the community that EPA 
remains the final decision-maker on all matters affecting the content 
and the process of community involvement, and that any SEP selected 
must meet the requirements of the SEP Policy.

B. The Defendant

    The defendant has a responsibility to learn about the SEP Policy 
and to explain why any SEP it proposes conforms to the requirements of 
the Policy. The defendant should also explain why it favors any 
particular SEP proposal over another proposal. As noted above, in order 
to qualify for additional mitigation of civil penalties for community 
involvement, a defendant must ``actively'' participate by soliciting 
and incorporating public input. The defendant's knowledge of the 
community, the defendant's resources, and the defendant's cooperation 
can

[[Page 40642]]

help ensure the success of community participation. The following are 
just some of the many activities that a defendant may do when seeking 
to actively participate:
    1. Identify communities and community representatives;
    2. Provide facilities and resources for public outreach;
    3. Participate actively in EPA's outreach efforts;
    4. Analyze and evaluate SEP ideas proposed by the community;
    5. Engage in discussion of SEP ideas with community 
representatives;
    6. Add to or build upon SEP ideas proposed by the community;
    7. Revise SEP proposals in response to community comments (whether 
presented directly by the community or through EPA)
    Even if the defendant is actively soliciting and incorporating 
public input, EPA remains in control of community involvement and the 
final decision on SEPs.

C. Communities

    Communities can participate most effectively when they are aware of 
the requirements of the SEP Policy, the general nature of the 
enforcement action, and are willing to work within EPA and court-
imposed deadlines. Communities need to understand that not all 
community problems can be solved through SEPs and that federal law and 
the SEP Policy imposes a number of constraints on the types of 
activities that qualify as SEPs. Communities may benefit by trying to 
resolve any differences amongst themselves so that they may present 
clear and consistent proposals and recommendations.

IV. Timing for Community Outreach

    EPA should establish deadlines and inform the community of those 
deadlines to maintain compliance with court-imposed deadlines and to 
help keep the enforcement case on track. In most cases, EPA will seek 
community input after the defendant shows an interest in performing a 
SEP and EPA knows the approximate amount of money available for a SEP. 
In some cases, when the defendant is particularly interested in 
settlement, this may occur shortly before or after the filing of the 
complaint. For example, it may occur during pre-filing negotiations. 
However, in many cases, the potential for settlement, the potential for 
the settlement to include a SEP, and the amount of money available for 
a SEP, will not be known until weeks, months, or years of litigation. 
Nonetheless, as discussed below, there are steps EPA can take even 
before the defendant shows interest in performing a SEP.

A. General Outreach

    In some cases, EPA may begin community outreach very early in the 
enforcement process. For example, EPA may develop a communication 
strategy when developing the enforcement case. Several EPA offices may 
participate in the development of a communications strategy, including 
the Environmental Justice Regional Team, the geographical initiative 
teams, community outreach personnel, and other regional and 
headquarters offices, as resources permit. A communications strategy 
should include ways in which the community can be prepared to 
participate in SEP consideration, should that possibility arise. For 
example, EPA may mail non-case-specific information on enforcement and 
SEPs to community leaders to help them and their communities better 
understand SEP Policy requirements and be better prepared to 
participate in SEP consideration. In any event, EPA should track 
community interest and communicate significant developments to the 
community to help them participate effectively in SEP consideration.

B. Steps To Ensure a Smooth Process of Community Involvement

    Once EPA determines that a SEP with community involvement is 
feasible, there are several steps that may smooth the way for such 
involvement.\4\ First, if extensive community involvement is expected, 
the Regional Office may make an EPA regional employee with outreach 
experience available for consultation. Second, EPA should provide an 
outline of the SEP consideration process to community leaders, 
highlighting important matters, including the deadlines for decisions, 
and details for community involvement, e.g., information about 
anticipated community meetings. EPA and the defendant should select the 
best approach to engage the community and to identify the priorities of 
the community or communities. EPA should advise the community of 
significant decisions about consideration of SEPs in a timely manner, 
including the initial decision to include the community in the 
development of a SEP. Finally, EPA should advise community members how 
they can obtain information about the status of the SEP consideration 
process. EPA should also make clear that EPA and the Department of 
Justice are the final decision-makers in selecting SEPs and determining 
appropriate penalties.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Many of the steps taken for community outreach may be 
undertaken by the defendant, in consultation and coordination with 
EPA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Making the Final Decision on a SEP

    After EPA has gathered sufficient information from the community 
(or communities) and is close to making a decision on a SEP or SEPs, 
EPA may want to offer a limited opportunity for any final community 
input (within a clear and probably rather short deadline). If a number 
of SEPs are under consideration, EPA may want to ask the community to 
rank the proposed SEPs in order of priority to the community. Once a 
SEP is selected, EPA should explain why.

V. Tools and Techniques To Involve Communities in SEP Consideration

A. Identifying Communities

    EPA should begin by deciding where to look for communities 
potentially affected by the violations. Where to look will generally 
depend on the nature of the enforcement action. For example, in an air 
toxics case, it may be appropriate to look at all communities within a 
certain radius of the defendant's facility. In a water quality case, 
the focus may be on communities downstream of the defendant's facility. 
Where a case involves right-to-know violations, the appropriate area 
may be based on a local emergency planning committee's jurisdiction.
    After deciding where to look, EPA and/or the defendant should 
identify community members who may want to be involved in SEP 
consideration. EPA may rely on various internal and external resources, 
some of which are identified in Appendix A. A community may have 
diverse interests. By contacting a range of sources, EPA and/or the 
defendant may ensure that interested community members are not 
excluded. To be as inclusive as possible, EPA and/or the defendant may 
have to make a special effort to reach out to community members who 
face specific barriers to involvement, for example, language barriers 
or other socioeconomic barriers.

B. Conducting Outreach

    Once the affected community or communities have been identified and 
the other circumstances described above have been met (i.e., defendant 
is willing to do a SEP and the approximate amount of money for a SEP is 
known) EPA and/or the defendant can notify the community about the 
violation, possible SEPs, and the opportunity for

[[Page 40643]]

community involvement. As noted above, during negotiations with the 
defendant concerning SEPs, EPA must establish procedures, milestones, 
and deadlines for community involvement. EPA and/or the defendant 
should also maintain communications with representatives of the 
community. The list of outreach approaches included in Appendix B to 
this guidance may provide ideas for involving the community in SEP 
consideration.

C. Fostering a Good Relationship With the Community

    EPA can take a number of relatively simple steps to foster a good 
relationship with the community and build and maintain trust among all 
parties. Communication of information to the community is one important 
aspect of fostering a good relationship. EPA should:
    1. Ensure the community understands that the defendant must agree 
to do a SEP and that EPA cannot unilaterally impose SEPs;
    2. Explain to the community its role in the SEP process while 
making clear that EPA and DOJ remain solely responsible for final SEP 
consideration;
    3. Explain that a SEP is only one part of the overall settlement, 
which will generally also include penalty assessment and injunctive 
relief;
    4. Advise the community that a SEP is an environmental project, 
which requires nexus between the SEP and the violation, and cannot be a 
direct payment of money to the community, and explain other limitations 
of federal law and the SEP Policy;
    5. Advise the community of the milestones and deadlines in the 
enforcement action and ensure that the community understands the need 
to meet deadlines, as well as the time negotiations may take and the 
government's process for approval of settlements and SEPs;
    6. Advise the community as milestones in the negotiation and the 
development of a SEP are reached.
    There are a number of approaches EPA can use to effectively involve 
communities in SEP consideration, including:
    1. Inform communities about Agency databases, such as ERNS, IDEA, 
the SEP Database, and Internet sources; \5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ ERNS stands for Emergency Response Notification System. IDEA 
stands for Integrated Database for Enforcement Analysis. The SEP 
Database contains descriptions of SEP projects included in the 
settlement of Agency enforcement actions. These databases can be 
accessed through EPA's website at www.epa.gov.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    2. Using local libraries as information repositories;
    3. Employing creative approaches to educating communities;
    4. Providing information in plain language and translating into 
languages other than English if resources allow.
    EPA's credibility is another important factor in fostering a good 
relationship. The EPA case team may want to enlist help from other EPA 
employees familiar with the community or a community member to clearly 
present information to the community. Enlisting this additional help 
may be limited by available resources and expertise.
    In some circumstances, EPA may want to use an independent third-
party liaison to communicate with the community. Use of such liaisons 
will not be advisable for every SEP, but could be especially helpful in 
complex cases. Before entering into any contract to use a third-party 
liaison, certain questions should be resolved, such as: Who pays for 
the liaison? How will the process be managed to avoid delay and 
miscommunication? How will EPA resolve any community dissatisfaction 
with the liaison?
    There are also a number of factors EPA should consider before 
electing to use a liaison:
    1. The constituency of the community. For example, large 
communities or communities with many factions may be better served by 
an independent third-party liaison that possesses the expertise to 
manage the myriad concerns such communities may have.
    2. The complexity of the case. In a complex case, third-party 
liaisons may alleviate resource burdens and expedite the consideration 
process.
    3. The liaison's credibility with EPA, the defendant, and with the 
community, and any additional costs associated with using a liaison.
    In determining which liaison to use, EPA should consider the 
following issues:
    1. The variety of individuals or groups who are useful for 
identifying affected communities. Many of these people can function as 
liaisons;
    2. The amount and quality of experience a liaison has conducting 
outreach;
    3. Recommendations or suggestions from the affected community or 
the defendant.
    If Alternative Dispute Resolution (``ADR'') is used to assist in 
settling the case, a third-party neutral may already be available to 
contact the community for input on SEPs. Even where ADR is not used, 
EPA's lists of third-party neutrals and ADR procedures for their hiring 
may be useful.

VI. Managing Confidentiality Concerns

    SEPs usually will be developed in the context of settlement 
negotiations. Confidentiality between the government and the defendant 
is essential to the exchange of ideas and exploration of settlement 
options. Because of this, EPA must consider how to provide information 
to the public to facilitate their involvement in SEP consideration and 
development without undermining the confidentiality of settlement 
negotiations. Much of the information developed by the government may 
be privileged and therefore not appropriate for release to the public. 
In addition, a defendant may provide information to the government that 
must be kept confidential. For example, a defendant may provide 
confidential business information (``CBI'') to EPA. CBI, by law, cannot 
be provided to the public.\6\ Thus, each case will have limits on what 
EPA may make available to the public.\7\ Because of the voluminous 
documentation in many enforcement cases it may not always be 
practicable for EPA to undertake the privilege and confidentiality 
reviews necessary to make information available, but where it is able 
EPA should do so. In judicial cases, the Department of Justice will 
also retain authority to determine what information can be released to 
the community.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See 40 CFR part 2, subpart B.
    \7\ Regardless of the case at issue, several categories of 
documents and information must be kept confidential. These include: 
(1) the parties' settlement offers; (2) EPA's penalty positions, 
disclosure of which could compromise the government's case if 
settlement fails; (3) information claimed as CBI pursuant to 40 CFR 
part 2, subpart B; (4) privileged documents (e.g., attorney work-
product, attorney-client communications, etc.); (5) National 
Security Information; and (6) information subject to the privacy 
requirements of FOIA or other statutes. EPA's policy on withholding 
enforcement sensitive information that may be considered exempt from 
the Freedom of Information Act (``FOIA'') conforms with FOIA's 
``presumption of disclosure.'' However, if such documents would 
interfere with enforcement proceedings, EPA may chose to withhold 
such information. See Memorandum of Steven A. Herman, dated August 
15, 1996, entitled ``Public Release of EPA Enforcement 
Information.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The provision of information to the community should enhance the 
community's ability to provide meaningful input and to develop 
realistic expectations about what SEPs are possible. Thus, when 
practicable, EPA should make relevant, non-privileged and non-
confidential information available to the public. The types of 
information that may be provided to the community, where practicable, 
are notices of violation, complaints, and other documents filed with a 
Regional Hearing Clerk,

[[Page 40644]]

Administrative Law Judge, or court, the facility's monitoring reports, 
and EPA, state, or local inspection reports. EPA should encourage the 
defendant to agree to share information with the community, within 
parameters discussed above. This should help EPA and the defendant 
establish a positive relationship with the community and enable the 
community to participate in the SEP process more effectively.

VII. Conclusion

    EPA is committed to involving communities in the consideration of 
SEPs in appropriate cases. This guidance is intended to facilitate 
community involvement in SEP consideration and helps effectuate the 
best possible SEPs in settlement of enforcement cases in a manner that 
promotes mutual trust and confidence, and builds positive relationships 
between the community and the Agency.
    This document is guidance intended for the use of EPA personnel and 
does not create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, 
enforceable at law by a party against the United States, its agencies, 
its officers, or any person. This guidance is not intended to supercede 
any statutory or regulatory requirements, or EPA policy. Any 
inconsistencies between this guidance and any statute, regulation, or 
policy should be resolved in favor of the statutory or regulatory 
requirement, or policy document, at issue.

Appendix A--Resources for Identifying Communities

    Below are some suggested resources within and outside of EPA 
that may be useful in targeting community outreach efforts.

Suggested Internal Sources

    1. Community involvement coordinators at OERR's Community 
Involvement and Outreach Center;
    2. Headquarters offices, including: Office of Environmental 
Justice, American Indian Environmental Office, Federal Facilities 
Enforcement Office;
    3. Colleagues in other media programs or regions;
    4. Regional offices or coordinators who handle community 
involvement, environmental justice, tribal issues, or Community-
Based Environmental Protection (CBEP);
    5. ``Model Plan for Public Participation'' (November, 1996), 
developed by the Public Participation and Accountability 
Subcommittee of the National Environmental Justice Advisory Council 
(available at NEJAC website: www.epa.gov/oeca/oej/nejac).

Suggested External Sources

    1. State, local, or tribal governments;
    2. Educational or spiritual organizations;
    3. Other federal agencies;
    4. Neighborhood organizations or groups, and individuals in 
neighborhoods closest to the defendant's facility;
    5. Community activists;
    6. Environmental and environmental justice organizations and 
groups;
    7. Local unions, business groups, and civic groups;
    8. The defendant or other members of the regulated community 
(i.e., trade associations);
    9. Local newspapers, radio, television, local Internet sites.

Appendix B--Community Outreach Techniques

    *This list is intended to provide a library of options available 
for use in conducting community outreach, and is not intended to 
suggest that all of these techniques be used in any given case.
    1. Interview: Face-to-face or telephone discussions with 
community members provide information about local concerns and 
issues. A significant time commitment may be required to gather 
feedback representative of the community.
    2. Small Group Meeting: Convening community members in a local 
meeting place stimulates dialogue, generates information, and may 
build rapport among participants.
    3. Focus Group Meeting: Focus group participants are convened by 
a trained facilitator to provide answers to specific questions. This 
direct approach is an efficient information-gathering tool if 
participants represent a cross-section of the community.
    4. Public Meeting: Public meetings are useful for hearing what 
people have to say about current issues and engaging community 
members in the process. At public meetings, EPA should focus on 
active listening and learning from the public.
    5. Public Availability Session/Open House: A public availability 
session is a less structured alternative to a public meeting that 
provides everyone an opportunity to ask questions, express concerns, 
react to what is being proposed, and make suggestions. Typically, a 
public official announces she or he will be available at a 
convenient time and place where community members can talk 
informally.
    6. Public Notice: Public notices in the print media or on radio 
and television are a relatively inexpensive way to publicize 
community participation opportunities. In addition to the mainstream 
media, minority publications, church bulletins and other such 
vehicles offered by local organizations can reach a more diverse 
audience.
    7. Workshop: Workshops are participatory seminars to educate 
small groups of citizens on particular site issues. Workshops 
involve and empower participants; but they, too, can be time-
intensive.
    8. Site Tour: Site tours can familiarize citizens, the media and 
local officials with the nature of environmental concerns affecting 
a community near a specific site. Tours may result in better 
communication among the community, facility, and Agency, however, 
they are frequently resource-intensive to arrange and conduct.
    9. Information Repository: An information repository is a 
project file containing timely information on site-specific 
activities and accurate detailed and current data about a site or 
enforcement action. Project files are typically kept at convenient 
public locations, e.g., libraries, and publicized through various 
media.
[FR Doc. 00-16632 Filed 6-29-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P