[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 123 (Tuesday, June 26, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 38051-38060]
[FR Doc No: 2012-15605]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0452; FRL-9680-6]

EPA Activities To Promote Environmental Justice in the Permit
Application Process

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of Availability of Proposed Regional Actions to Promote
Public Participation in the Permitting Process and Draft Best Practices
for Permit Applicants Seeking EPA-Issued Permits; Request for Comments.

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

SUMMARY: As part of its ongoing efforts under Plan EJ 2014 to integrate
environmental justice into all of its programs, the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) is soliciting public comment on ways that EPA
and permit applicants can meaningfully engage communities in the
permitting process. This notice describes and seeks comment on actions
that EPA regional offices can take when issuing EPA permits to promote
greater participation in the permitting process by communities that
have historically been underrepresented in that process. This notice
also announces the availability of

draft best practices for permit applicants seeking EPA-issued permits
(located in the appendix to this notice). The best practices are
designed to encourage and assist permit applicants to reach out to
neighboring communities when applying for permits that may affect the
community's quality of life, including their health and environment.

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before August 27, 2012.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2012-0452 by one of the following methods:
     www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
     Mail: ``Plan EJ 2014: Considering EJ in EPA's Permitting
Process'' Docket, Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Docket Center,
Mailcode 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460.
     Hand Delivery: ``Plan EJ 2014: Considering EJ in EPA's
Permitting Process'' Docket, EPA/DC, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301
Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460. Such deliveries are
accepted only during the Docket's normal hours of operation, and
special arrangement should be made for deliveries of boxed information.
    EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the
public docket without change and may be available online at http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided,
unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information of which disclosure is
restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to
be CBI or otherwise protected through http://www.regulations.gov or
email. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous
access'' system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact
information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If EPA
cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot
contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your
comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters,
avoid any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.
For additional information about EPA's public docket, visit the EPA
Docket Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/cpallomc/dockets.htm. EPA
also encourages the public to review and participate in the
Environmental Justice in Action Blog which can be found at https://blog.epa.gov/ej. EPA intends to use the Environmental Justice in Action
Blog to encourage different public stakeholders to dialogue over the
ideas set forth in this Federal Register Notice. The Environmental
Justice in Action Blog does not replace the conventional public comment
process described above. Rather, EPA hopes that the Environmental
Justice in Action Blog provides an informal public forum for
stakeholders to exchange idea and share views, which may help shape
comments submitted to EPA through Regulations.gov. As this public
participation initiative illustrates, EPA believes that early and
frequent dialogue among people with different points of view can lead
to more thoughtful outcomes.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. General Information
II. Actions That EPA Regional Offices Can Take To Promote Meaningful
Engagement in the Permitting Process by Overburdened Communities
III. Draft Best Practices for Permit Applicants Seeking EPA-Issued
Permits: Ways To Engage Communities at the Fence-Line
IV. Conclusion

I. General Information

    Expanding the conversation on environmentalism and working for
environmental justice are top priorities of the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA). In 2011, EPA published Plan EJ 2014, the
Agency's overarching strategy for advancing environmental justice. The
Plan has three objectives:
    1. Protect health and the environment in overburdened communities;
    2. Empower communities to take action to improve their health and
environment; and
    3. Establish partnerships with local, state, tribal, and federal
governments and organizations to achieve healthy and sustainable
communities.
    The year 2014 marks the 20th anniversary of the signing of
Executive Order 12898 on environmental justice, which directs each
federal agency to ``make achieving environmental justice part of its
mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate,
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects of its programs, policies, and activities.'' Plan EJ 2014 is
EPA's roadmap for integrating environmental justice into its programs,
policies and activities. One focus area of the Plan is ``Considering
Environmental Justice in Permitting.'' Environmental permits play a key
role in providing effective protection of public health and the
environment in communities. Thus, Plan EJ 2014 calls upon EPA to: (1)
Enhance the ability of overburdened communities to participate fully
and meaningfully in the permitting process for EPA-issued permits; and
(2) take steps to meaningfully address environmental justice issues in
the permitting process for EPA-issued permits to the greatest extent
practicable.
    Plan EJ 2014 directs EPA to make achieving environmental justice
part of its mission, and to be a leader among federal departments and
agencies in addressing the impacts of federal activities on
overburdened communities. EPA believes that environmental permitting
presents opportunities to address environmental justice, and that the
Agency has the responsibility to lead by example to address
environmental justice in permits issued by EPA. Therefore, the actions
described in this notice focus on EPA-issued permits. Although EPA
issues few environmental permits compared to state, local and tribal
governments that implement federal environmental laws as approved or
delegated by EPA, EPA intends to share its experiences and ideas with
these governments as well as with other federal agencies, with the goal
of promoting similar efforts.
    In this notice, EPA focuses on enhancing the opportunity and
ability of overburdened communities to participate in the permitting
process. Overburdened communities are communities that potentially
experience disproportionate environmental harms and risk as a result of
cumulative impacts or greater vulnerability to environmental hazards.
EPA believes that the participation of overburdened communities in the
permitting process is an essential step toward the ultimate goal of
achieving permits that meaningfully address environmental justice
issues. Following the National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
(NEJAC) recommendation to encourage more public participation in the
permitting decision-making process, EPA has identified actions that EPA
and permit applicants, both for new and renewed permits, can take to
reduce barriers to participation in the permitting process. In
overburdened communities, these barriers can include lack of trust,
lack of awareness or information, language barriers, and limited access
to technical and legal resources. In EPA's view, more transparency and
dialogue can lead to better permit outcomes for the community as well
as permit applicants. Thus, EPA believes it is especially important to
make special efforts to provide enhanced public participation

opportunities to overburdened communities, particularly minority, low-
income, and indigenous communities. EPA also realizes that enhanced
public engagement is only one aspect of attention to environmental
justice in the context of permitting.
    Both EPA regional offices and permit applicants can--and in some
cases already do--bring overburdened communities into the permitting
process through special outreach efforts. EPA believes that permit
applicants have unique opportunities in this area. Many companies are
already active, contributing members of the community. In addition to
their important role as a source of employment and economic stability
within a community, permit applicants play other roles. Many facilities
applying for permits, for example, have robust community engagement
strategies that recognize the value of community outreach. Pursuant to
these strategies, facilities engage actively with the community through
environmental initiatives, neighborhood beautification projects,
education programs and charitable giving, civic programs and the arts,
youth activities, and other investments in the community. These
existing ties between permit applicants and the broader communities
where they are located provide a foundation for permit applicants to
reach out to their immediate neighbors along the facility's fence-
line--ideally, to discuss health or environmental issues associated
with their plans for new or increased pollutant releases.
    EPA has compiled the draft list of activities and best practices
presented in this notice from many sources. EPA surveyed its regional
offices, where EPA permitting activity predominantly occurs, to
determine what steps are currently or could be taken to meaningfully
involve overburdened communities in the permitting process.
Additionally, EPA conducted numerous listening sessions, conference
calls and meetings with a variety of stakeholders, including
environmental justice stakeholders, members of the business community,
state, local and tribal governments and communities, non-governmental
organizations, and the NEJAC, to gather more input on how to enhance
participation of overburdened communities in EPA's process of issuing
environmental permits. One set of ideas, presented in Section II below,
focuses on activities that EPA, as the permitting authority, can
undertake to make it easier for communities to engage meaningfully and
effectively in the permitting process. The second set of ideas,
described in Section III below, presents best practices that permit
applicants can use to initiate and sustain a dialogue with the
communities at their fence-line when the companies seek environmental
permits that may be affected by the permitting action.
    EPA recognizes that some states have made significant progress in
meaningfully involving overburdened communities in the permitting
process. While the focus of today's notice is on EPA-issued permits,
EPA believes that states with experience in this area can provide
valuable information that will strengthen EPA's efforts. Therefore, EPA
invites states to share their ideas for ensuring the meaningful
involvement of overburdened communities in the permitting process and
encouraging dialogue between permit applicants and communities.
    The ideas in this notice are meant to complement all of the other
tools and resources developed under Plan EJ 2014 and other EPA
initiatives to aid communities and EPA permitting authorities in
incorporating environmental justice into the permitting process. The
tools and resources include the EJ Legal Tools, which addresses EPA's
legal authority to consider environmental justice, EPA's effort to
develop a nationally consistent screening tool for environmental
justice, and EPA's efforts to meaningfully engage local communities and
stakeholders in government decisions on land cleanup, emergency
preparedness and responses and the management of hazardous substances
and wastes through the Community Engagement Network, and EPA's
collaboration with other federal agencies to improve our community-
based actions and assistance and to strengthen the use of interagency
legal tools, such as the National Environmental Policy Act and Title VI
of the Civil Rights Act. These resources supplement information
disseminated by EPA regional offices about their permit processes and
particular permits.

II. Actions That EPA Regional Offices Can Take To Promote Meaningful
Engagement in the Permitting Process by Overburdened Communities

    As noted above, EPA has identified a number of activities and
approaches that can be used to promote greater public involvement of
overburdened communities in its permitting processes, particularly for
major permitting actions that may significantly impact them. Each EPA
regional office will put in place a regional implementation plan to
address meaningful engagement of overburdened communities in their
permitting activities. This notice describes the general expectations
for the regional plans and presents the framework and specific
activities intended to enhance public participation.
    EPA's expectation is that each regional office will use the agency-
wide guidelines to develop a regional implementation plan that is
appropriate for the particular circumstances within that region. The
agency-wide guidelines in this notice are designed to promote
consistency among regional offices and provide EPA's expectation for a
basic regional plan. At the same time, EPA recognizes that each permit
and community is different and that each EPA regional office has the
insight and experience to develop strategies tailored to the particular
communities and needs within that region. Therefore, EPA couples these
agency-wide guidelines with the expectation that EPA regional offices
have the flexibility in developing their implementation plans to take
actions suited to the concerns of impacts on overburdened communities
typically raised within their regions.
    This notice does not address any obligations imposed by the Civil
Rights Act of 1964 or under EPA regulations at 40 CFR part 7. Please
refer to EPA's Guidance to Environmental Protection Agency Financial
Recipients Regarding Title VI Prohibition Against National Origin
Discrimination Affecting Limited English Proficient Persons and Title
VI Public Involvement Guidance for EPA Assistance Recipients
Administering Environmental Permitting Programs. This notice does not
address Executive Order 13175 or EPA's Policy on Consultation and
Coordination with Tribes. It is important to note the difference
between the meaningful involvement of tribal communities as it is used
in the EJ context and consultation with tribes. The Agency's
responsibilities under E.O. 13175 are separate from the
responsibilities under E.O. 12898 and stem from federally recognized
tribes' status as sovereign governments.
    The activities described in this notice go beyond the standard
notice-and-comment procedures required by law. EPA believes, however,
that enhanced outreach can help to remove some of the barriers that can
discourage overburdened communities from participating in permit
processes that affect them and are appropriate in some circumstances.

A. Agency-Wide Guidelines for EPA Regional Offices

    The guidelines presented here provide a framework for the regional
offices to identify possible actions they

can take to promote the meaningful engagement of overburdened
communities for priority permits. Specifically, the guidelines for EPA
regional offices are designed to: (1) Help regional offices identify
which permits to prioritize for greater public involvement for
overburdened communities; and (2) suggest activities the regional
offices can undertake to promote greater public involvement in their
permitting process.
1. Priority Permits for Enhanced Public Involvement Opportunities
    Although any permit action may be an opportunity to enhance the
engagement of a community, EPA believes that it is particularly
important to provide meaningful engagement opportunities in permitting
actions that may have significant public health or environmental
impacts, such as a new operation or a modification of an existing
operation, which may affect overburdened communities. Significant
public outreach and engagement require significant resources. EPA
recognizes its regional offices' limited ability to enhance engagement
for every EPA-issued permit as well as the limited ability of
overburdened communities to engage on every permit potentially
impacting them. For this reason, EPA will consider prioritizing
enhanced public involvement opportunities for those EPA-issued permits
with significant public health or environmental impacts on already
overburdened communities, determined by regional offices' use of a
screening tool or other methodology. Examples of permits that may have
significant public health or environmental impacts include, but are not
limited to, the following:

 Construction permits under the Clean Air Act, especially new
major sources (or major modifications of sources) of criteria
pollutants;
 Significant Underground Injection Control Program permits
under the Safe Drinking Water Act;
 ``Major'' industrial National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) permits (as defined in 40 CFR 122.2) under the Clean
Water Act that are for:
    [cir] New sources or new dischargers, or
    [cir] Existing sources with major modifications, including, but not
limited to, a new outfall, a new or changed process that results in the
discharge of new pollutants, or an increase in production that results
in an increased discharge of pollutants;
 ``Non-Major'' industrial NPDES permits (as defined in 40 CFR
122.2) under the Clean Water Act that are identified by EPA on a
national or regional basis as a focus area, for:
    [cir] New sources or new dischargers, or
    [cir] Existing sources with major modifications, including, but not
limited to, a new outfall, a new or changed process that results in the
discharge of new pollutants, or an increase in production that results
in an increased discharge of pollutants; and
 RCRA permits associated with new combustion facilities or
modifications to existing RCRA permits that address new treatment
processes or corrective action cleanups involving potential off-site
impacts.
In addition, EPA will consider prioritizing for enhanced public
involvement activities both permit applications and renewals for which
a community has raised plausible environmental justice concerns, and
permit applications and renewals where EPA has other information
indicating environmental justice concerns related to the permit.

    In further recognition of EPA's regional offices' limited ability
for enhanced public engagement, a regional office may not prioritize
every EPA-issued permit with significant public health or environmental
impacts on already overburdened communities.
    Additionally, there may be circumstances under which a regional
office finds enhanced public outreach appropriate irrespective of
whether the permitting action has a significant public health or
environmental impacts on already overburdened communities.
2. Regional Offices' Activities To Promote Greater Public Involvement
in the Permitting Process
    Presented below is a proposed list of activities that EPA regional
offices could undertake at key junctures in the permitting process to
promote greater involvement of overburdened communities. The list of
proposed activities is intended to identify priority areas of activity
and to provide options for proposed activities in the development of
regional implementation plans. Regional offices, therefore, may choose
not to implement all of the proposed activities listed below.
Similarly, the list of activities is not meant to be comprehensive or
exhaustive. Different situations will justify different responses.
    Planning & Gathering Information:
    [cir] Identify upcoming priority permits for promoting greater
public involvement. When identifying priority permits, focus on permits
that the community has identified as a priority, to the extent such
information is available.
    [cir] Locate existing data and studies that are relevant to the
particular community.
    [cir] Explore ways to reach out to the affected community in
coordination with relevant EPA staff, including permit writers, EJ
coordinators, public affairs staff, the press office, and EPA's
Conflict Prevention & Resolution Center.
    [cir] Evaluate the appropriate length of the public comment period.
    [cir] Consider holding information meetings for the public in
addition to formal public comment sessions.
    Coordinating within EPA:
    [cir] For applicants with multiple EPA permits, inform EPA permit
writers from other offices in the region that your office has received
a permit application from the applicant.
    Communicating with the Community:
    [cir] Designate EPA point(s) of contact that the community can
contact to discuss environmental justice concerns or questions of a
technical nature about the permit application.
    [cir] Explain the permitting process by making informational fact
sheets available.
    [cir] Use plain language when communicating with the public.
    [cir] Use communication techniques the community values, such as
direct mailings, posters, articles in local newspapers, and emails to
list serves.
    [cir] Offer translation services for communities with multi-lingual
populations (including interpreters at public meetings or translations
of public documents).
    [cir] Make key documents on the proposed project readily accessible
to the community, using a variety of media tools (paper copies, online,
etc.), when appropriate.
    [cir] Hold public meetings at times and places in the community
best designed to afford the public a meaningful chance to attend.
    [cir] After the permit has been issued, make available to the
community a summary of EPA's comment responses and provide information
on where the community can find the entire comment response document.
    Communicating with the Permit Applicant:
    [cir] Encourage the permit applicant to provide EPA with a plain-
language description of its proposed project or permit application.
    [cir] Encourage the permit applicant to consult EPA guidance on
environmental justice and other resources developed under Plan EJ 2014,
including the (when

finalized) Draft Best Practices for Permit Applicants Seeking EPA-
Issued Permits: Ways to Engage Communities at the Fence-Line. (See
appendix.)

B. EPA's Expectations for Regional Implementation Plans

    EPA expects each regional office to develop, implement and make
publically available a regional implementation plan consistent with the
agency-wide guidelines presented in this notice in order to support the
meaningful engagement of overburdened communities in the permitting
process for priority permits. EPA believes that regional offices will
be better able to provide opportunities for enhanced public
participation when they have planned and allocated resources for
outreach in advance through the development of regional implementation
plans. EPA also believes that making the regional implementation plans
publically available will increase transparency and inform communities
of EPA regional offices' efforts to create opportunities for
overburdened communities to meaningfully engage in the permitting
process.
    EPA expects the regional implementation plans to address with more
specificity the process that a regional office will use to prioritize
permits for enhanced engagement, including the types of permits and
activities the regional offices plan to implement. EPA expects the
regional plans to be tailored to the region's specific needs but also
to be consistent with the agency-wide guidelines direction on
prioritization of permits for enhanced engagement and priority areas of
outreach activities outlined in today's notice.
    Consistent with the agency-wide guidelines previously discussed,
the regional implementation plans will include:
    I. The EPA Regional Office's process for prioritizing permits for
enhanced engagement
    a. Use of a screening tool or other methodology to identify already
overburdened communities;
    b. Types of permits with significant public health or environmental
impacts.
    II. Priority Enhanced Outreach Activities
    a. Planning and gathering information;
    b. Coordinating within EPA;
    c. Communicating with the Community;
    d. Communicating with the Permit Applicant.

C. Solicitation of Comments

    EPA welcomes all comments on the proposed actions that Regional
offices can take to promote the meaningful engagement of overburdened
communities in the permitting process, but is particularly interested
in comments addressing the following questions:
     Has EPA identified the appropriate agency-wide guidelines
to inform the development of regional implementation plans? What other
guidelines should EPA consider that provide both agency-wide
consistency and regional flexibility in promoting the meaningful
engagement of overburdened communities in the permitting process?
     What criteria should regional offices use to prioritize
permits for enhanced outreach?
     For priority permits, has EPA identified the appropriate
activities that regional offices can take to promote the greater
involvement of overburdened communities in the permitting process? What
other activities should EPA consider?
     Based on experiences you have had in the permitting
process, what lessons have you learned that can be applied to improve
the agency-wide guidelines or the regional implementation plans?

III. Draft Best Practices for Permit Applicants Seeking EPA-Issued
Permits: Ways To Engage Communities at the Fence-Line

    Even though EPA is the permitting authority for EPA-issued permits,
both the permit applicant and the potentially affected community are
also key stakeholders in the permit process. Therefore, EPA engaged in
extensive outreach to these stakeholders, and in particular the
business community, on how to meaningfully engage fence-line
communities in the permitting process. Business leaders on
environmental justice issues shared their experiences and insights with
EPA. EPA learned that if a permit applicant engages a community early
and maintains that conversation, a partnership can form that
facilitates the exchange of information and provides the foundation for
dialogue on issues that may arise during the permitting process.
    Such engagement may be especially beneficial with communities that
have historically been underrepresented in the permitting process and
that potentially bear a real or perceived disproportionate burden of an
area's pollution. EPA learned from its conversations with business
stakeholders that dialogue with the community early in the permitting
process promotes reasonable expectations among the public and,
therefore, more predictable outcomes for the permit applicant. EPA also
learned that permit applicants that invest in outreach may avoid the
costs of delay, negative publicity among peers and investors, and
community distrust resulting from a community objecting to a permit
late in the permitting process.
    EPA believes that a facility that believes in environmental
stewardship in all its dimensions and that acts consistently with that
belief, including accountability to the neighboring community, may
achieve more environmental good than any permit can compel. Reducing
treatment failures, spills or other incidents becomes a source of
organizational pride when the trends--and the facility's response and
prevention strategies--are publicized within the community. These
practices also make good business sense because facilities save energy,
devise new technologies, reduce the rate of equipment failures, and
develop cleaner products, among other things. This ethic of corporate
responsibility--more than any permit--can improve the environment at
the fence-line and far beyond. Engaging meaningfully with the local
community is another facet of responsible corporate citizenship that
achieves environmental results. EPA believes that a partnership with
the community can lead to more informed permits, resulting in better
outcomes for the permit applicant as well as the community that has a
stake in the success of the facility.
    In order to maximize the benefits of community engagement, and
conserve the limited resources of both the permit applicants and the
communities for outreach, EPA has identified what it considers to be
effective communication practices and strategies that permit applicants
can employ to meaningfully involve communities in the permitting
process. EPA gathered these practices and strategies from numerous
conversations with environmental justice stakeholders, members of the
business community, state, local and tribal governments and
communities, non-governmental organizations, and the NEJAC. Based on
these conversations, EPA has developed and solicits comment on the
Draft Best Practices for Permit Applicants Seeking EPA-Issued Permits:
Ways to Engage Communities at the Fence-line. (See appendix.)
    EPA hopes that these best practices, once finalized, will inform
businesses and other participants in the permitting process of some
effective techniques for

meaningfully engaging overburdened communities in the permitting
process for EPA-issued permits. The final document would supplement
existing guidance and recommendations issued by permitting authorities,
including state and local agencies.
    The draft best practices presented here are designed to foster
emerging leadership among permit applicants operating (or proposing to
operate) facilities in overburdened communities. EPA emphasizes that no
permit applicant will be required to follow these suggestions. To the
contrary, EPA will continue to evaluate permit applications solely
based on applicable regulations.
    EPA welcomes all comments on these draft best practices for permit
applicants. EPA is particularly interested in comments addressing the
following questions:
     What different or additional activities could permit
applicants employ in the permitting process to meaningfully involve
overburdened communities?
     Based on experiences you have had in the permitting
process, what lessons have you learned or successful approaches you
have employed that can be used by EPA to improve the best practice
recommendations for permit applicants?
     How can EPA ensure that communities are aware of the
opportunity to have a two-way dialogue with permit applicants through
the ideas provided here?

IV. Conclusion

    EPA looks forward to considering suggestions and comments received
in response to this notice. EPA hopes the creation of agency-wide
guidelines and the development of regional implementation plans, as
well as the presentation of best practices for permit applicants, will
increase the meaningful participation of overburdened communities in
the permitting process for EPA-issued permits. Although meaningful
involvement in the permitting process may not always lead to reduced
environmental impacts, EPA believes that every time an EPA permit
writer or a permit applicant acknowledges a concern that would not have
been aired but for enhanced outreach, communities and the permit
applicant benefit. EPA further believes that every time this enhanced
outreach leads to a feasible solution to an issue of interest to the
community, all stakeholders benefit.

    Dated: June 15, 2012.
Janet McCabe,
Principal Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Air and Radiation.

Appendix

Best Practices for Permit Applicants Seeking EPA-Issued Permits: Ways
To Engage Communities at the Fence-Line

I. Introduction

    Achieving environmental justice is an integral part of EPA's
mission to protect human health and the environment. One way EPA
promotes environmental justice is to ensure that individuals in all
parts of society have access to information sufficient to help them
participate in EPA decision-making.
    EPA decision-making takes many forms. These best practices focus
on the permitting process, through which EPA authorizes industrial
and municipal facilities to release pollutants into the environment
at levels intended to meet applicable standards.
    By soliciting public comment prior to issuing environmental
permits, EPA plays an important role in bringing communities and
other members of the public into the permitting conversation. But
the best time to achieve positive, collaborative dialogue is before
the permit is drafted, even before a permit application is filed.
And the key players are not EPA but rather permit applicants and
members of the neighboring community. Both sets of individuals have
a long-term stake in the health of the community and the success of
the company or enterprise.
    Information is critical at this early stage in the permitting
process, and the permit applicant has access to the information that
can create a constructive dialogue throughout the permitting
process. The permit applicant also has an interest in being a good
neighbor to the community on the other side of the facility's fence.
EPA believes that many applicants for EPA-issued permits are
employing practices to be good neighbors. These best practices are
designed to help a permit applicant to apply its good neighbor
values to the permitting process, with an emphasis on ways to reach
out effectively to the community at the fence-line.
    EPA encourages all permit applicants to experiment with these
practices; all neighborhoods and communities will benefit when a
facility reaches out as part of its environmental permitting
process. This document emphasizes communities at the fence-line
because, for the vast majority of permits, communities most
proximate to a facility are likely to be the most impacted by a
permitting decision. For some permits, however, the communities most
impacted by a permitting decision may exist beyond the fence-line.
EPA encourages permit applicants for such permits to make efforts to
engage the communities that are likely to experience public health
or environmental impacts by their permitted activities. These
practices also have particular value in overburdened neighborhoods
that have been historically underrepresented in the permitting
process and may face barriers to participation in the permitting
process, such as include lack of trust, lack of awareness or
information, language barriers, and limited access to technical and
legal resources.
    While EPA will evaluate a permit application based solely on the
applicable regulations, permit applicants are encouraged to employ
the suggestions in these best practices. EPA hopes that these best
practices--which emerged from EPA's conversations with a host of
community, permit applicants and government stakeholders--will help
applicants for EPA-issued permits to seize a leadership role in this
important area and, in doing so, demonstrate publicly that the core
values on their Web sites do indeed influence corporate behavior.

II. The Purpose of Best Practices

    The purpose of these best practices is to publicize the good
neighbor practices already employed by permit applicants across the
country and to encourage their greater use. Many of these practices
are quite simple. The best practices can help build trust, promote a
better understanding in the community of the facility's
environmental impacts, foster realistic expectations and help build
strong partnerships that will lead to better results for all
parties. Investing in communities is a cost-effective strategy. EPA
encourages permit applicants to make each of its facilities a good
neighbor to the communities at their fence-line. EPA hopes that the
best practices will help companies think of ways to engage the
communities at their fence-lines and, in doing so, become better
neighbors.

III. Why is EPA Providing Best Practices to Permit Applicants?

    Industrial facilities are important members of the communities
in which they are located. In addition to their important role as a
source of employment and economic stability within a community,
facilities play other roles. Many facilities, for example, have
robust community engagement strategies that recognize the value of
community outreach. Pursuant to these strategies, facilities engage
actively with the community through environmental initiatives,
neighborhood beautification projects, education programs and
charitable giving, civic programs and the arts, youth activities,
and other investments in the community. Indeed, many companies and
public authorities embody these principles in their mission
statements, using words and phrases like collaboration, respect, and
building mutually beneficial relationships. Some even aspire to
measure their own success by the success of their customers,
shareholders, employees and communities. In short, a corporate
culture is emerging in this Nation that values and actively promotes
community partnerships.
    EPA recognizes that many permit applicants already practice
community outreach. These best practices are meant to encourage
those leaders to continue their efforts. EPA hopes that the best
practices will persuade those who are new to these ideas to
experiment with this form of leadership, and to provide helpful
suggestions for those seeking greater direction. Indeed, engaging
with their communities as described here is consistent with many
permit applicants' core

values. These principles, practices and values lead to corporate
sustainability, stability and--ultimately--profitability.
    Early and meaningful dialogue between the permit applicant and
the community is especially important in overburdened communities
that have historically been underrepresented in the permitting
process and that potentially bear a real or believed
disproportionate burden of an area's pollution. Meaningful dialogue
promotes environmental justice. EPA strongly encourages applicants
for EPA-issued permits to engage in public outreach to the
neighboring community whenever the facility's pollutant releases
have--or may be perceived to have--potential health and
environmental impacts on overburdened communities. This approach is
consistent with EPA's objectives under Plan EJ 2014, which promotes
meaningful involvement of the affected community in the permitting
process.
    EPA believes these best practices can foster a smoother and
faster permitting process. This outcome is in everyone's interest--
EPA, permit applicants and communities alike. The permit applicant
and EPA have an interest in an efficient permitting process. The
permit applicant wants permission to make operational improvements
or construct a new facility. The permitting authority wants to
efficiently issue a permit that comports with the law and accounts
for public comment. The community at the very least wants the
assurance that, through appropriate permit terms and conditions, the
permit applicant accepts responsibility for appropriately
controlling its pollutant releases and keeps the community informed
of its control successes (and failures). These interests, while
different, do not conflict. Conversations between the permit
applicant and the community before the permit application is filed
can help launch the permit process in a way that achieves all of
these interests, with minimum conflict and delay. This could result
in a more expeditious permitting process.
    Engagement early can also yield a less contentious permitting
process. It seems axiomatic that no community welcomes one more
source of pollution, especially when the community already feels
aggrieved by past siting decisions. When the new project accelerates
a transition to cleaner energy or achieves another important
environmental objective with benefits beyond the local community,
interests may seem to collide. Early meaningful dialogue can help
sort out the interests, encourage a permit applicant to accept
responsibility for its impacts, and perhaps find low-cost ways
valuable to the community by which the permit applicant can
voluntarily mitigate environmental burdens. A community is less
likely to hold a new project responsible for past unrelated actions
if the permit applicant accepts responsibility for its own actions
and is willing to help make community life better.

IV. How Can a Permit Applicant Enhance its Outreach to a Fence-Line
Community?

    There are many ways that a facility can enhance its outreach to
a community. Whatever degree of outreach a facility chooses to
employ, the following best practices are designed to help both the
permit applicant and the surrounding communities get a reasonable
return on their investment of time, energy and other resources. EPA
gathered these ideas from permit applicants that have employed them,
but the permit applicant and the affected community are in the best
position to determine what engagement strategy is most appropriate
for their particular circumstances.

1. Think Ahead

    Before deciding whether to undertake special efforts to reach
out to the neighboring community regarding a permit application, a
permit applicant may want to ask itself the following types of
questions. The answers to these questions may help the permit
applicant decide what kind of community engagement will make sense
under the circumstances.
     Would the new permit introduce new or additional
pollutants to the fence-line community?
     Is the fence-line community already exposed to
pollutants originating from other facilities?
     How will changes at the facility site affect the
quality of life in the fence-line community, independent of the
pollutants released?
     Is the proposed pollutant release--or associated
activity--likely to cause concern in the community?
     If a risk assessment has been performed for the
community, what does it say? What does the community think it says?
     What direction do the permit applicant's published core
values offer?
    Some laws, such as the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act,
require permit applicants to reach out to the neighboring community
before applying for a permit. In most cases, however, the decision
on whether to engage in pre-application outreach is committed to the
permit applicant's good judgment. (See Section V below for a
discussion of the benefits to permit applicants when they engage the
community as part of permit applications.) But whatever way a permit
applicant chooses to engage the neighboring community, its outreach
activities should be proportional to the actual or perceived impact
the facility's proposed permitting action would have upon the
community. In other words, permitting actions that may have a
significant impact on the community may justify more extensive
outreach than permits likely to have fewer impacts. Engaging the
community early in the permitting process can help a permit
applicant gauge the level of outreach appropriate to the community's
concerns.
    A public participation plan can be a useful tool for permit
applicants engaged in outreach on permit actions. A public
participation plan is one way to organize all of the permit
applicant's outreach activities and to communicate those activities
to the community.
    EPA also recognizes that a permit applicant, despite its
planning and execution, might not elicit community interest in its
project. For example, few people might attend meetings or visit the
plant for tours. Before concluding that the community is
uninterested in the project, the company may want to explore whether
its engagement efforts were sufficiently tailored for the community.
Other factors, such as lack of awareness of the engagement
opportunity or the timing of the opportunity, may not have afforded
the community a meaningful chance to attend. If the permit
applicant's efforts to engage the community are made in good faith
and are sufficiently tailored for the community, this will go a long
way toward building trust.

2. Engage Community Leaders

    One of the best ways to promote early and meaningful engagement
between a permit applicant and the surrounding community is by
creating a community environmental partnership. The key is to
assemble the right people to be in partnership. EPA has learned from
stakeholders that the first step in meaningful engagement is the
cultivation of a trusting relationship among participating
individuals; doing so will then foster effective relationships among
the interests they represent and will help identify their common as
well as their unique goals. The following best practices can help a
company create a successful community environmental partnership.

 Find out who the established community leaders are, both
elected and unelected.
 On tribal lands, work with the tribal government and other
contacts to identify tribal community leaders to commence outreach
and assistance to tribal communities.
 Identify people who collectively understand the needs (and
aspirations) of local stakeholders (permit applicant, community,
environmental groups, academic, etc.)
 Recruit stakeholder representatives who have strong
interpersonal skills and are willing to:
    [cir] Seek common interests;
    [cir] Cultivate a trusting relationship
 Engage with diverse leadership so that many views can be
brought into the dialogue. Successful partnerships have a variety of
local perspectives, including:
    [cir] Grassroots organizations and leaders
    [cir] Faith community leaders
    [cir] Tribal government and community representatives
    [cir] Academic institutions
    [cir] State, county or local governments
    [cir] Environmental groups
    [cir] Health organizations
    [cir] Permittees, including, ideally, the facilities in the
neighborhood that engage in activities that generate pollution.

    Text Box 1: Community Advisory Councils, such as The Deer Park
Community Advisory Council (DPCAC, http://www.deerparkcac.org/)
provide a ``forum for an open and frank mutual exchange of ideas
between representatives of the local community and industry.'' These
groups engage in frequent dialogue to help build understanding
between industry and community.
 Foster sustained involvement by the participants;
relationships are created

between individuals, not the positions they hold.

3. Engage Effectively

    As is the case with any relationship, predictable and ongoing
interactions are key to a strong partnership between a permit
applicant and community. A permit applicant engaging a community
early in the permitting process, or even before the formal
permitting process begins through pre-application meetings, can lay
the foundation for a positive relationship with a community. In
addition to early engagement, holding regularly scheduled meetings
throughout the permitting process can build on that earlier
outreach, further fostering the relationship between the community
and permit applicant.
    The following best practices can help the permit applicant
engage effectively with the community.

 If a public participation plan describing outreach
activities was developed, make it available to the public as a sign
of the permit applicant's intention to engage meaningfully with the
community.
 Invite community members and leaders to comment on
community outreach plans and processes, and give feedback on what is
working and lessons learned.
 Discuss project plans and potential impacts as early in the
planning process as possible, even if the permit applicant can speak
only in general terms.
    [cir] If the permit applicant is unsure about potential impacts,
it is better to acknowledge this fact; denying the existence of
potential impacts can undermine credibility and trust.
    [cir] Encourage input from the community on their concerns about
particular impacts early in the planning stages.
 Provide progress or status reports
 Invite members of the community and community leaders for
regular tours of the facility, especially when the facility is
planning to change a process that might affect the community.
 Consider investing time in public education, e.g., by
hosting one or two day public information sessions with posters and
kiosks dedicated to specific topics, with discussions led by
facility personnel who are both familiar with the subject and
capable of effective discussion with the public (conversational
tone, not defensive, non-technical language, etc.)

4. Communicate Effectively

    Permit applicants may need help to determine the most effective
and appropriate methods for informing and receiving input from the
community. Community leaders can provide this help. For example they
can identify commonly spoken languages and any language barriers or
Limited English Proficiency within the fence-line. They can also
help identify which media outlets (radio, newspaper, church
bulletins), outreach methods (knocking door-to-door, using social
media, texting, phoning, putting up fliers) and outreach materials
(brochures, fact sheets, postcards, letters) will be most effective
in communicating with the community. Community leaders can also help
to create more effective opportunities to receive information from
the public (individual/small/large/public/private meetings,
anonymous hotlines, solicitation of written comments). Every
community is different, so permit applicants that listen to their
community's advice and involve them in their outreach efforts have a
greater chance of a successful outcome.
    A key component of effective communication is creating an
environment for all stakeholders to meaningfully participate in a
dialogue. Good ideas, including ideas that are good for the
permitted enterprise or business, can come from many sources. By
meaningfully engaging with the community potentially affected by an
environmental permit, a permit applicant may acquire a better sense
of a community's true concerns and ways a permit applicant could
help alleviate them. Transparency and disclosure of information that
may be of interest to a community, such as performance reports, can
build trust conducive to meaningful dialogue.
    Text Box 2: Alternative Dispute Resolution
    The success of pre-application meetings will vary widely
depending on the proposed project, the concerns of the community,
and the ability of the permit applicant and the community to agree
upon potential solutions. Sometimes, conversations between a
community and a permit applicant have the potential to be
contentious. As such, EPA recommends the use of a professional,
trained, neutral facilitator to aid in creating and implementing
their outreach strategy. EPA and The U.S. Institute for
Environmental Conflict Resolution have designed and initiated The
National Roster of Environmental Dispute Resolution and Consensus
Building Professionals (http://roster.ecr.gov/Search.aspx), which is
a resource to identify neutral third parties and connect them with
appropriate projects.
    EPA recognizes that both permit applicants and the communities
have limited resources to engage in dialogue. The following best
practices on fostering two-way communication and collaboration
between permit applicants and communities, collected from permit
applicants and communities, may help permit applicants communicate
more effectively and thus efficiently use their resources.

 Set up a hotline for community members to report a problem
or concern about the proposed project.
 Identify a single person within the facility to be the
liaison that community members can call with concerns or problems.
 Institute regular meetings among all stakeholders
 Consider organizing citizen advisory councils or community
environmental partnerships
 Select meeting locations and times that are convenient and
comfortable for the community. Follow advice from community leaders
to communicate in ways most effective for the community you are
trying to reach. Use language and terminology that the community
understands, including providing technical data in every-day terms.
 Build in mechanisms for meeting attendees to ask questions,
express concerns and propose solutions.
 During the meeting, talk about participants' concerns and
questions (rather than simply ``taking note'' of them).
 Recognize that community members may be concerned about a
variety of things, within and outside the permit applicant's
control, including matters that do not relate to the permit under
discussion (e.g., truck routes, delivery times, etc.)
    [cir] Careful listening and an effort to understand the
underlying interests behind related and seemingly unrelated
complaints might yield a solution that addresses the community's
true concerns at a reasonable (or even minimal) cost to the
facility.
 Consider using a neutral facilitator to assist in designing
an effective public participation process and conduct meetings to
encourage all participants (permit applicant and community like) to
listen effectively, focus on interests rather than initial
positions, and to identify potential solutions.

5. Follow Up

    Follow-up can be crucial in building a strong partnership with a
community. The repeated interaction that follow-up provides can
create a predictable pattern of engagement that is conducive to
building trust. When a permit applicant delivers on commitments made
during meetings (e.g., to provide additional information) a permit
applicant demonstrates responsibility, integrity and commitment to
the process. The following best practices can help permit applicants
design follow-up activities with communities.

 If the public is invited to comment on plans, discuss the
comments with the community after considering them.
    [cir] If a comment is not clear, ask for clarification; do not
ignore a suggestion due to a lack of understanding.
    [cir] Report back to the community to let them know how their
comments affected the permit applicant's planning or operation.
    [cir] Explain when comments cannot be incorporated into the
permit applicant's planned actions.
 Consider using a good neighborhood agreement to memorialize
agreements between permit applicants and communities.
 Make environmental performance records available to the
community without being asked, especially regarding pollution
matters that are important to the community.
 Keep the conversation going even after the permit has been
issued; maintaining a collaborative relationship with the community
can pay benefits at unexpected times.

V. Return on Investment: Benefits of Outreach to Permit Applicants

    EPA recognizes that a permit applicant would need to invest
time, energy and money

in order to reach out to the neighboring community. For some permit
applicants, ``business as usual'' might appear to be the path of
least resistance. But EPA has learned from conversations with
permittees that permit applicants that engage in effective outreach
with fence-line communities can realize a meaningful return on that
investment. The list below reflects these conversations. To further
illustrate these ideas, we present text (in italics) from corporate
mission statements, lists of corporate values, and annual reports
linking these benefits from effective community outreach and
engagement to overarching business principles.
    1. The neighborhood has a stake in a permit applicant's success.
Community members are not only neighbors, but also often employees,
customers or investors. As such, healthy and sustainable companies
directly promote healthy and sustainable communities. That alignment
of interests can lead to creative solutions that promote the
achievement of mutual economic goals in more sustainable ways. We
are proud of our involvement in the communities where we operate.
It's our goal not only to support important projects in the
communities where we operate, but also to partner and build
relationships where we live and work. We always listen to local
needs and find ways to invest that are relevant to our business.
    2. An environment of trust pays dividends throughout the permit
term. A permit applicant not only applies for a permit but also
develops strategies for complying with its requirements. Meaningful
public engagement during the permitting process and throughout the
permit term can be a thoughtful component of a permit applicant's
compliance strategy. Community members often say they have nowhere
to turn when they worry about their local environment; a meaningful
dialogue with the permit applicant that addresses their concerns can
build trust. So, a permit applicant that experiences a failure of
its treatment processes--and, in real time, discloses and takes
action to remedy the problem--may maintain its reservoir of trust
within the community. We know you have questions; call us. We
believe that people work best when there's a foundation of trust.
    3. Engaging with the community is an effective cost-containment
strategy. Permit applicants that foster meaningful community
outreach experience ``costs'' in terms of time, resources energy,
and money. But a permit applicant that bypasses outreach incurs
costs as well, especially when these choices lead to
misunderstandings in the community. Even if the permit is granted,
at what cost? Certainly, the permit applicant incurs the cost of
delay, negative publicity among peers and investors, and community
distrust (even apart from attorneys' fees associated with
litigation). Each of these costs has a monetary value and each is
potentially avoidable with an upfront investment. Good business
sense often dictates a small investment early in order to avert
larger costs later. Corporate leaders tell us that meaningful
community outreach is no different. Successful companies engage in
long-term planning to achieve strategic goals. Working with the
community during project development and implementation is just part
of the process.
    4. Engaging with the community is an effective risk management
strategy. Thoughtful risk-taking is a characteristic of many
successful enterprises. A permit applicant engaged in thoughtful
risk-taking around a new idea routinely gathers information and
critically examines the idea from many perspectives, identifies the
range of possible risks, modifies the idea as appropriate to
minimize the risks, and then weighs the benefits against the risks
that remain. The better a permit applicant anticipates and manages
the risks, the more predictable and successful the outcome. Engaging
the community early in a permit applicant's decision-making process
can be an effective way to manage the risks of a new idea. A permit
applicant that is truly open to gathering information, dialogue, and
collaboration will find itself with a more predictable operating or
business environment, reduced conflict, and, frequently, an outcome
that achieves greater operational efficiency and community support.
Its risk-taking is thoughtful because it identifies, analyzes and
manages its risks. Permit applicants that are thoughtful risk-takers
recognize that having an engaged and informed community as an ally
promotes reasonable expectations among the public and, therefore,
more predictable outcomes. We practice humility and intellectual
honesty. We consistently seek to understand and constructively deal
with reality in order to create value and achieve personal
improvement.
    5. A permit applicant that engages meaningfully with a community
is more likely to be considered a good neighbor. A permit applicant
is more likely to be seen as a good neighbor by a community when it
makes efforts to engage and build a relationship with the community.
Having treated the community as a good neighbor, the permit
applicant is more likely to be treated as a good neighbor in return
by the community. A community that understands the actual impacts a
facility has on the neighborhood and trusts the facility to behave
responsibly may also be less likely to hold the facility responsible
for other facilities' pollution. We are committed to improving our
environmental performance: we track our progress and report our
results to the public.
    6. Investors prefer good corporate citizens. Even if a permit
applicant survives a dispute with a community over a new project and
obtains the necessary environmental permits, investors may well
inquire whether that costly battle could have been avoided. Indeed,
some investors might even wonder whether the permit applicant's
inadequate response to the neighboring community's concerns signals
a lack of corporate responsibility, values-based leadership, or
long-term strategic thinking that is important in other areas of the
business. Leaders in this area say: It is more important than ever
that we continually earn investor confidence. We will do this by
remaining a leader in good corporate governance and providing clear,
consistent, and truthful communication about our performance.
    Text Box 3: Collaborations in Chester, Pennsylvania
    Since the early 1990s, US EPA Region III has been working
closely with the community and residents of Chester. With effective
collaborations and partnerships, the City of Chester and its
residents have successfully worked with local business and industry,
government, and academia. These community-driven partnerships have
led to increased awareness of environmental justice within the City
of Chester.
    When citizens first raised their Environmental Justice concerns
to EPA Region III, the regional Office took action by establishing a
dialogue with the citizens, PADEP, PADOH, and a number of local
businesses in an effort to bring greater understanding and resources
to the issues and concerns. EPA Region III, PADEP, and PADOH were
active in working with the community and the other partners to
address the issues that had been raised. The 1995 EPA Chester Risk
Study not only looked at community risk and environmental concerns,
but opened dialogues among the partners, and led to the formation of
a number of workgroups. The workgroups then undertook on-the-ground
actions to address some of the local concerns. PADEP provided an
onsite inspector for the City of Chester. EPA and PADEP continued
their dialogue on Environmental Justice, holding a number of joint
meetings on the issues.
    Covanta Energy applied for permits to operate in Chester, and
the citizens raised their concerns to Region III and PADEP. PADEP
hosted a series of meetings between the citizens and the company.
From these collaborative discussions, the Chester residents'
concerns were heard and considered, and an agreement was reached
that allowed for the citizens and the company to have their needs
met. Covanta continues to work proactively with the citizens in a
productive and successful partnership, primarily through a citizen-
led community organization called the Chester Environmental
Partnership, founded and chaired by Reverend Dr. Horace Strand. The
residents and other community stakeholders, including Covanta, have
worked together in a primarily cooperative fashion to effect change
and environmental improvement in Chester. The Chester Environmental
Partnership works to bring about environmental improvement and
growth by bringing all parties to the table--industry, government,
non-government organizations, and the citizens--to have face to face
dialogue on issues of concern. Covanta has taken an active
partnership role in CEP. The ongoing dialogue and ground work of the
partnership is a hallmark of these collaborative efforts and
reflects a community-driven model that has produced positive results
for Chester and its neighbors.

Conclusion

    The best practices are a starting point intended to initiate
partnerships between communities and permit applicants. EPA believes
that a permit applicant that follows the best practices will take an
important step on the path to building a fruitful and cooperative
relationship with the community

on environmental issues. EPA also believes that a permit applicant's
efforts to meaningfully engage an overburdened community are an
important way to promote environmental justice. EPA agrees with the
message that many stakeholders send: collaborations between permit
applicants and the surrounding neighborhoods achieve greater
environmental protections, more profitable operations, and more
sustainable communities.

[FR Doc. 2012-15605 Filed 6-25-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 78 (Friday, April 22, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 24148]
[FR Doc No: 2022-08596]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER22-1652-000]

Energy Prepay I, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-
Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204
Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of
Energy Prepay I, LLC's application for market-based rate authority,
with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes
a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future
issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington,
DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's
Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone
filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability, is May 9, 2022.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at https://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically may mail similar pleadings to
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE,
Washington, DC 20426. Hand delivered submissions in docketed
proceedings should be delivered to Health and Human Services, 12225
Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
    In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
Federal Register, the Commission provides all interested persons an
opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via the
internet through the Commission's Home Page (https://www.ferc.gov)
using the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number excluding the last
three digits in the docket number field to access the document. At this
time, the Commission has suspended access to the Commission's Public
Reference Room, due to the proclamation declaring a National Emergency
concerning the Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19), issued by the
President on March 13, 2020. For assistance, contact the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission at [email protected] or call toll-free,
(886) 208-3676 or TYY,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: April 18, 2022.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-08596 Filed 4-21-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 170 (Friday, September 2, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 54277]
[FR Doc No: 2022-18980]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[SEC File No. 270-561, OMB Control No. 3235-0747]

Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Extension: Rule 607

Upon Written Request, Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of FOIA Services, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549-2736

    Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and Exchange
Commission (the ``Commission'') has submitted to the Office of
Management and Budget a request for extension of the previously
approved collection of information discussed below.
    Regulation E (17 CFR 230.601--230.610a) exempts from registration
under the Securities Act of 1933 (15 U.S.C. 77a et seq.) (``Securities
Act'') securities issued by a small business investment company
(``SBIC'') which is registered under the Investment Company Act of 1940
(15 U.S.C. 80a-1 et seq.) (``Investment Company Act'') or a closed-end
investment company that has elected to be regulated as a business
development company (``BDC'') under the Investment Company Act, so long
as the aggregate offering price of all securities of the issuer that
may be sold within a 12-month period does not exceed $5,000,000 and
certain other conditions are met. Rule 607 under Regulation E (17 CFR
230.607) entitled, ``Sales material to be filed,'' requires sales
material used in connection with securities offerings under Regulation
E to be filed with the Commission at least five days (excluding
weekends and holidays) prior to its use.\1\ Commission staff reviews
sales material filed under rule 607 for materially misleading
statements and omissions. The requirements of rule 607 are designed to
protect investors from the use of false or misleading sales material in
connection with Regulation E offerings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Sales material includes advertisements, articles or other
communications to be published in newspapers, magazines, or other
periodicals; radio and television scripts; and letters, circulars or
other written communications proposed to be sent given or otherwise
communicated to more than ten persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Respondents to this collection of information include SBICs and
BDCs making an offering of securities pursuant to Regulation E. No
filings were submitted to the Commission under rule 607 in 2019, 2020
or 2021. Accordingly, we estimate no annual responses. Each
respondent's reporting burden under rule 607 relates to the internal
burden associated with filing its sales material electronically, which
is negligible. For administrative purposes, we estimate an annual
burden of one hour.
    The requirements of this collection of information are mandatory.
Responses will not be kept confidential. An agency may not conduct or
sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a collection of
information unless it displays a currently valid control number.
    The public may view background documentation for this information
collection at the following website: www.reginfo.gov. Find this
particular information collection by selecting ``Currently under 30-day
Review--Open for Public Comments'' or by using the search function.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information
collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice
by October 3, 2022 to (i) [email protected] and
(ii) David Bottom, Director/Chief Information Officer, Securities and
Exchange Commission, c/o John Pezzullo, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549, or by sending an email to: [email protected].

    Dated: August 29, 2022.
J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-18980 Filed 9-1-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


PUBLIC NOTICE

The Shelby County Health Department – Pollution Control Section (SCHD)
is requesting public comment on a revision to the State Implementation
Plan (SIP), which includes an emissions off-set plan (OSP) and other
changes that result from this revision.

The purpose of the OSP is to provide and document sufficient emission
reductions of regulated pollutants to off-set the emission benefits
assigned to the City of Memphis’ Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance
(I/M) program in the Shelby County Ozone Maintenance Plan, (2010 O3
Maintenance Plan) approved by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
(75 Federal Register, January 4, 2010).  The OSP identifies the types
and amounts of emission reductions attributable to I/M, and where
reductions in emissions equivalent or greater to those reductions will
be achieved to off-set those I/M reductions.  It also requests the
adoption of this revised maintenance plan.

If the OSP is approved, Shelby County requests that the specific
components of the City of Memphis’ I/M program, approved into the
State Implementation Plan (SIP) in 1986, be formally removed from the
SIP, which will include removal from the 2010 O3 Maintenance Plan.
These new components will substitute for the air quality benefits
attributable to I/M.  The revised 2010 O3 Maintenance Plan continues to
identify county-wide basic I/M as a contingency measure, and defines the
events or conditions that would cause it to be triggered for
implementation.

A copy of the revised Maintenance Plan is available for public
inspection at the Pollution Control Section office noted below during
normal business hours (8:00 am – 4:30 pm).  In addition, a copy is
available for public inspection at the Benjamin L. Hooks Central
Library, 3030 Poplar Avenue, Memphis, TN.  It can also be found at the
following websites:   HYPERLINK "http://www.midsouthcleanair.org"
www.midsouthcleanair.org  or at   HYPERLINK
"http://www.shelbycountytn.gov"  www.shelbycountytn.gov .  Interested
parties are invited to review these materials and provide written
comments.

Two public hearings to receive oral or written comments have been
scheduled at the respective dates and locations below:

		Tuesday, March 4, 2014 at 6:00pm

Benjamin L Hooks Central Library

Meeting Room A

3030 Poplar Avenue, Memphis, TN  38111

Thursday, March 6, 2014 at 6:00pm

Baker Community Center

Meeting Room 2

7942 Church Street, Millington, TN  38053

The public comment period will end at close of business on Friday, March
14, 2014.  Written comments not submitted at the public hearings will be
included in the hearing record only if received by the end of the public
comment period and must be addressed to:

Mr. Robert Rogers, Technical Manager

Pollution Control Section

Shelby County Health Department

814 Jefferson Ave., 4th Floor

Memphis, TN  38105

(e-mail   HYPERLINK<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>)

Anyone desiring to make oral comments at either public hearing is
requested to prepare a written copy of these comments to be submitted to
the hearing officer.  All comments received during the public comment
period will be distributed to members of the Tennessee Air Pollution
Control Board for their review of the OSP and the SIP amendments.

Individuals with disabilities who wish to review this information should
contact the SCHD, Pollution Control Section, to discuss any auxiliary
aids, accommodations or services needed to facilitate such review.
Contact may be in person, writing, telephone or other means, and should
be made no less than ten (10) days prior to the end of the public
comment period to allow time to provide such aid or services.

Questions concerning these documents may be addressed to Mr. Robert
Rogers at the above referenced address or by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>.


Results of Section 610 Review of Architectural Coatings Regulations

Background

	On September 11, 1998 (63 FR 48848), EPA promulgated a regulation to
control volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions from architectural
coatings.  These requirements, codified at 40 CFR Part 79, Subpart D,
were promulgated under Section 183(e) of the Clean Air Act (CAA).
Section 183(e) requires EPA to list and regulate categories of consumer
and commercial products that account for at least 80 percent of all VOC
emissions from consumer and commercial products in ozone nonattainment
areas.  Architectural coatings are applied to stationary structures and
their appurtenances, to portable buildings, to pavements, or to curbs.
The rule included flexibilities such as market-based approaches and
phased-in compliance, as well as traditional VOC limitations.  This rule
was based on the best possible understanding of the industry, and it
afforded the flexibility to achieve the necessary emission reductions in
the most sensible, cost-effective ways.  Pursuant to Section 610 of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act, EPA has reviewed this rule to determine if
it should be continued without change, or should be rescinded or amended
to minimize adverse economic impacts on small entities.  As part of this
review, EPA considered, and solicited comments on, the following
factors: (1) The continued need for the rule; (2) the nature of
complaints or comments received concerning the rule; (3) the complexity
of the rule; (4) the extent to which the rule overlaps, duplicates, or
conflicts with other Federal, State, or local government rules; and (5)
the degree to which technology, economic conditions, or other factors
have changed in the area affected by the rule.  The results of EPA’s
review are summarized here.

Discussion of Five Factors

1.  Continued need for the rule

	The rule under review was promulgated as part of EPA’s efforts to
fulfill the requirements of CAA Section 183(e).  Because the rule
controls VOC emissions, which are precursors tropospheric ozone
formation, and because many areas of the United States have not met
ozone standards, EPA finds that there is a continued need for the rule.
Architectural coatings remain as sources of VOC emissions and,
therefore, continue to contribute to the persistent ozone nonattainment
problem.

2.  Nature of complaints or comments received concerning the rule

	One comment letter was received.  The commenter asserted that the use
of relative reactivity should be incorporated into this rule.  In
addition, the commenter cited EPA’s 2005 Interim Guidance on Control
of Volatile Organic Compounds in Ozone State Implementation Plans, as
well as EPA’s 2008 National Volatile Organic Compound Emission
Standards for Aerosol Coatings, as evidence of the feasibility of
reactivity-based regulatory approaches for reduction of ozone formation
from VOC emissions.

	We agree that not all VOC are equal in their effects on ground-level
ozone formation.  However, we believe that adoption of a
reactivity-based approach for the architectural coatings rule at this
time would not provide significant benefits to small coatings
manufacturers and, in some cases, could present small businesses with
the additional burden of research and development to carry out product
reformulation that could be required to comply with a new,
reactivity-based rule.

	Although we believe that the architectural coatings rule may not be a
suitable application for a reactivity-based approach at this time, we
are open to the idea of discussing future development of
reactivity-based approaches for VOC control that could be applied
broadly.  The commenter is encouraged to contact EPA's Bruce Moore
(919-541-5460) to initiate further dialogue on this concept.

3.  Complexity of the rule

	This rule is fairly straightforward and easy to understand.  It limits
the VOC content of architectural coatings.  We also published a Small
Entity Compliance Guide in 1998 to assist small businesses in
understanding and fulfilling the requirements of the rule.  Accordingly,
and in light of the fact that we received no comments on rule
complexity, we do not believe that complexity of the rule is a barrier
to understanding and complying with the rule.

4.  Extent to which the rule overlaps, duplicates, or conflicts with
other federal, State, or local government rules

	Several States have architectural coatings rules that are more
stringent and cover more categories than the 1998 federal architectural
coatings rule.  Consequently, many entities are marketing architectural
coatings that are lower in VOC content than required by the federal
rule.  However, the federal rule is the only rule in place in most
States in the country, and is therefore providing VOC reductions in
those States absent their own State rule.  We know of no instances where
the federal rule conflicts with existing State rules.

5.  The degree to which technology, economic conditions, or other
factors have changed in the area affected by the rule

	Many low-VOC and non-VOC architectural coatings have been developed
since promulgation of this rule in 1998.  Consequently, the VOC limits
in the existing federal rule pose no unreasonable burden on small or
large companies.  The issue of advances made in the science of relative
reactivity has been addressed above under “comments received.”
Although we believe that changes in technology do not warrant revision
of the architectural coatings rule at this time, we are open to
initiating dialogue on the subject of broadly applied reactivity-based
approaches to VOC regulation.

Conclusion

	The current architectural coatings rule provides for needed VOC
reductions without undue burden on small entities, and does not warrant
revision at this time.  Broad application of reactivity-based approaches
to VOC control and reductions in ozone formation by targeting the higher
reactivity compounds has merit, although we do not believe application
of a reactivity-based approach for architectural coatings is warranted
at this time.  Such an approach for architectural coatings could
conceivably increase burden on small entities rather than reduce burden.


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 218 (Tuesday, November 14, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 78013-78014]
[FR Doc No: 2023-24992]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 943-142]

Public Utility District No. 1 of Chelan County, Washington;
Notice of Application for Approval of Contract for the Sale of Power
Under Section 22 of the Federal Power Act

    Take notice that on May 16, 2023, Public Utility District No. 1 of
Chelan County, Washington (Chelan PUD) filed with the Commission an
application for approval of a contract for the sale of power from its
licensed Rock Island Hydroelectric Project No. 943 for a period beyond
the expiration of its existing license for the project. The project is
located on the Columbia River in Chelan and Douglas Counties,
Washington.
    Section 22 of the Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 815, provides that
contracts for the sale and delivery of power for periods extending
beyond the termination date of a license may be entered into upon the
joint approval of the Commission and the appropriate state public
service commission or other similar authority in the state in which the
sale or delivery of power is made.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date.
Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of
that document on the Petitioner.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file
comments, motions to intervene, notices of intent, and competing
applications using the Commission's eFiling system at https://ferconline.ferc.gov/LogIn.aspx. Commenters can submit brief comments up
to 6,000 characters, without prior registration, using the eComment
system at https://ferconline.ferc.gov/QuickComment.aspx. You must
include your name and contact information at the end of your comments.
In lieu of electronic filing, you may submit a paper copy. Submissions
sent via the U.S. Postal Service must be addressed to: Kimberly D.
Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888

First Street NE, Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426. Submissions sent via
any other carrier must be addressed to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary,
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 12225 Wilkins Avenue, Rockville,
Maryland 20852. The first page of any filing should include docket
number P-943-142.
    More information about this project, including a copy of the
application, can be viewed or printed on the ``eLibrary'' link of
Commission's website at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp.
Enter the docket number (P-943-142) in the docket number field to
access the document. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on December 6, 2023.

    Dated: November 6, 2023.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-24992 Filed 11-13-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P