Permits and Rules

[Katherine Carlitz <kcarlitz+@pitt.edu>]

Public Involvement in EPA Decisions

Summary: July 17, 2001

Dialogue Day 7 Agenda: Permits and Rules

DIALOGUE TO REMAIN AVAILABLE: A number of participants have 
asked how long this site will remain open.  Information 
Renaissance, the creator of the Dialogue, keeps all of its 
Dialogue sites open and available for at least a year.

Dialogue moderator Bob Carlitz and host Rebecca Astin from 
EPA's Office of Air and Radiation introduced today's topic: 
Permits and Rules.  Rebecca Astin asked for suggestions on 
how EPA can encourage groups outside Washington to 
participate in national rulemakings, and how EPA can best 
obtain input from small businesses when making permitting 
and regulatory decisions.  In line with today's agenda, Bob 
Carlitz invited comments on the following topics:
	*Improving public input to permitting
	*Best practices for public hearings
	*Broadening participation
	*Tools to help the public
	*Changes in the Unified Agenda
	*Public input for enforcement actions
	*Input from small business

NOTE:  Postings appearing by 10:00 PM Eastern Time appear 
in today's summary

As on previous days, most of the messages remained 
concerned with local rather than national action.  They 
clustered in the following three areas:

IMPROVE INPUT TO PERMITTING:

** There were several examples where agencies either issued 
permits without taking public input, or "dumbed down" the 
public input to the degree that it could no longer be 
effective.

** To avoid such scenarios, a number of participants 
described ideal permit processes, in which agencies would 
make available all data on new facilities, publicize the 
procedures for public input, make documents readily 
available, and carry out training activities.  It was 
emphasized that the public needs to see proposed rules and 
permits early enough to play a role in the process.  A 
successful process would ensure that a given Authority and 
the Applicant would both understand how a new permit would 
mesh with previously existing ones. 

** However, three postings dispute these ideals.  A small 
business representative suggested that smaller businesses 
need simpler procedures.  And while the public feels it is 
often given inadequate information, the permittees feel 
that they have to meet difficult requirements even for 
activities with minimal impact.   These two views of the 
permit process will probably persist.

** One of the panelists wrote that learning to read permits 
could be of real value to citizens, an excellent capacity-
builder.  Another urged participants to keep up with 
developments in testing technique, so as to know what to 
demand of agencies.

BEST PRACTICES FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS

** Here also, a number of postings described experiences of 
"worst practices," in which agencies kept public input off 
the record, closed comment periods the day after 
informational meetings, and delay acting on permits.  The 
table and microphone format intimidates some citizens.

** Suggested remedies were to distinguish between meetings 
(for consensus-building) and hearings (on the record).  
Meetings and hearings need to be focused.  The chair should 
clarify precisely which issues will be addressed.  A two-
meeting format was suggested for the permit process: an 
initial meeting just to disseminate information, and a 
final meeting for informed discussion.

** The more serious concern is "dialogue burnout."  The 
downside to the current emphasis on consensus-building is 
that too many meetings just aim at producing positive 
feelings.  People increasingly want to participate in 
making decisions that will actually be carried out.

SMALL BUSINESS INPUT

 **  The panelist from the EPA Office of Policy, Economics 
and Innovation explained the 1980 Regulatory Flexibility 
Act and later related legislation.  This legislation aims 
to level the playing field for small businesses, since 
large businesses have the resources to respond to more 
complex regulations.  Smaller businesses may be saddled 
with less rigorous testing and less intensive reporting.

** Obstacles to small business participation in rulemaking 
are that with smaller staffs they may have no one who can 
participate in hearings; they may know their own business 
but not the industry as a whole; they may know business but 
not how regulations are written.

** The small business representative in the discussion gave 
a very different perspective.  Small businesses interact 
with state and local agencies far more than with federal 
agencies, and they look to their trade associations to 
represent them in national-level discussions.

Each day's summary is intended to capture the essence of 
the conversation.  While this summary contains the 
highlights of participants' comments relating to today's 
topics, more comprehensive information may be found in the 
individual postings.  This and all daily summaries are 
available from the agenda page of the website.

http://www.info-ren.org/network-democracy/epa-pip/join/agenda.shtml

The dialogue for today's discussion is available at:

http://www.info-ren.org/network-democracy/epa-pip/archive/date-f1.html.

Katherine Carlitz
Reporter