[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 19 (Monday, February 1, 2021)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 7643-7646]
[FR Doc No: 2021-02063]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

18 CFR Parts 153 and 157

[Docket No. RM20-15-001; Order No. 871-A]

Limiting Authorizations To Proceed With Construction Activities
Pending Rehearing

AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

ACTION: Order addressing arguments raised on rehearing and
clarification, and providing for additional briefing.

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

SUMMARY: On rehearing, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
(Commission) modifies Order No. 871, which amended its regulations to
preclude the issuance of authorizations to proceed with construction
activities with respect to natural gas facilities authorized by order
issued pursuant to section 3 or section 7 of the Natural Gas Act until
either the time for filing a request for rehearing of such order has
passed with no rehearing request being filed or the Commission has
acted on the merits of any rehearing request. The Commission provides
for further briefing on the issues raised in the rehearing requests.

DATES: The effective date of the document published on July 6, 2020 (85
FR 40113) is confirmed: August 5, 2020.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  Tara DiJohn, Office of the General
Counsel, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE,
Washington, DC 20426,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    1. On June 9, 2020, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
(Commission) issued Order No. 871, which is a final rule that precludes
the issuance of authorizations to proceed with construction activities
with respect to a Natural Gas Act (NGA) section 3 authorization or
section 7(c) certificate order until the Commission acts on the merits
of any timely-filed request for rehearing or the time for filing such a
request has passed.\1\ On July 9, 2020, the Interstate Natural Gas
Association of America (INGAA) requested clarification or, in the
alternative, rehearing, and Kinder Morgan, Inc. Natural Gas Entities
\2\ (Kinder Morgan) and TC Energy Corporation (TC Energy) requested
rehearing of Order No. 871.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Limiting Authorizations to Proceed with Construction
Activities Pending Rehearing, Order No. 871, 85 FR 40113 (July 6,
2020), 171 FERC ] 61,201 (2020).
    \2\ The Kinder Morgan Gas Entities include: Natural Gas Pipeline
Company of America LLC; Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company, L.L.C.;
Southern Natural Gas Company, L.L.C.; Colorado Interstate Gas
Company, L.L.C.; Wyoming Interstate Company, L.L.C.; El Paso Natural
Gas Company, L.L.C.; Mojave Pipeline Company, L.L.C.; Bear Creek
Storage Company, L.L.C.; Cheyenne Plains Gas Pipeline Company, LLC;
Elba Express Company, L.L.C.; Kinder Morgan Louisiana Pipeline LLC;
Southern LNG Company, L.L.C.; and TransColorado Gas Transmission
Company LLC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    2. Pursuant to Allegheny Defense Project v. FERC,\3\ the rehearing
requests filed in this proceeding may be deemed denied by operation of
law. However, as permitted by section 19(a) of the NGA,\4\ we are
modifying the discussion in Order No. 871 and providing for additional
briefing, as discussed below.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 964 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2020) (en banc) (Allegheny).
    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 717r(a) (``Until the record in a proceeding shall
have been filed in a court of appeals, as provided in subsection
(b), the Commission may at any time, upon reasonable notice and in
such manner as it shall deem proper, modify or set aside, in whole
or in part, any finding or order made or issued by it under the
provisions of this chapter.'').
    \5\ Allegheny, 964 F.3d at 16-17.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Background

    3. In Order No. 871, the Commission explained that historically,
due to the complex nature of the matters raised on rehearing of orders
granting authorizations under NGA sections 3 and 7, the Commission had
often issued an order (known as a tolling order) by the thirtieth day
following the filing of a rehearing request, allowing itself additional
time to provide thoughtful, well-considered attention to the issues
raised on rehearing.
    4. In order to balance its commitment to expeditiously responding
to parties' concerns in comprehensive orders on rehearing and the
serious concerns posed by the possibility of construction proceeding
prior to the completion of agency review, the Commission, in Order No.
871, exercised its discretion by amending its regulations to add new
Sec.  157.23, which precludes the issuance of authorizations to proceed
with construction of projects authorized under NGA sections 3 and 7
during the period for filing request for rehearing of

the initial orders or while rehearing is pending.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Order No. 871 also revised Sec.  153.4 of the Commission's
regulations to incorporate a cross-reference to new Sec.  157.23.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    5. Three weeks after the Commission issued Order No. 871, the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit)
issued an en banc decision in Allegheny.\7\ The court held that the
Commission's use of tolling orders solely to allow itself additional
time to consider an application for rehearing does not preclude
operation of the NGA's deemed denial provision,\8\ which enables a
rehearing applicant to obtain judicial review after thirty days of
agency inaction.\9\ The court explained that, to prevent a rehearing
from being deemed denied, the Commission must act on an application for
rehearing within thirty days of its filing by taking one of the four
NGA-enumerated actions: Grant rehearing, deny rehearing, or abrogate or
modify its order without further hearing.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 964 F.3d 1.
    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 717r(a).
    \9\ Allegheny, 964 F.3d at 18-19.
    \10\ See id. at 13 (quoting 15 U.S.C. 717r(a)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    6. On July 9, 2020, INGAA filed a request for clarification or, in
the alterative, rehearing of Order No. 871. On the same day, Kinder
Morgan and TC Energy also filed requests for rehearing.

II. Discussion

    7. We believe that the issues raised regarding this rulemaking
merit further consideration by the Commission. Accordingly, to
facilitate our reconsideration of the rulemaking and ensure a complete
record for further Commission action, we provide all interested parties
an opportunity to comment on the arguments in the rehearing requests,
including, but not limited to, the issues enumerated below.
    a. Should the Commission withhold authorizations to commence
construction during the pendency of all rehearing requests?
Alternatively, should the Commission withhold authorizations to
commence construction only during the pendency of rehearing requests
that raise certain issues or arguments? If the Commission were to limit
such a rule to only certain issues or arguments, which issues or
arguments should trigger that rule?
    b. If the Commission were to adopt a rule of withholding
authorizations to commence construction while rehearing is pending,
should that rule apply to all orders pertaining to an NGA section 3
authorization or section 7 certificate or only a subset thereof?
    c. In its rehearing request, INGAA poses a number of hypotheticals
regarding circumstances that may unfold following Allegheny.\11\ Please
comment on how a rule withholding authorizations to commence
construction during rehearing, if appropriate, should apply to those
circumstances.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ INGAA Rehearing at 21-24.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    d. Should the Commission modify its practices or procedures to
address concerns regarding the exercise of eminent domain while
rehearing requests are pending before the Commission? If so, how?
    e. If the Commission retains the rule withholding authorizations to
commence construction while rehearing is pending, at what point in time
should projects be permitted, upon receipt of an appropriate
authorization, to commence construction? For example, should the
Commission set a specific time, such as 90 days after the filing for a
request for rehearing, for the Commission to issue an authorization to
proceed?
    8. Briefs shall be due within 21 days (February 16, 2021). Reply
briefs shall be due 15 days thereafter (March 3, 2021). Barring
exceptional circumstances, the Commission will issue an order
addressing the issues raised on rehearing and in the briefs within 60
days of receipt of the reply briefs.

III. Filing Procedures

    9. Submissions must refer to Docket No. RM20-15-001, and must
include the filer's name, the organization they represent, if
applicable, and their address. The Commission encourages electronic
filing via the eFiling link on the Commission's website at http://www.ferc.gov. The Commission accepts most standard word processing
formats. Documents created electronically using word processing
software should be filed in native applications or print-to-PDF format
and not in a scanned format. If filing electronically, you do not need
to make a paper filing.
    10. 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 RM20-15-001.
    11. All submissions will be placed in the Commission's public files
and may be viewed, printed, or downloaded remotely as described in the
Document Availability section below.

IV. Document Availability

    12. 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 (http://www.ferc.gov). At
this time, the Commission has suspended access to the Commission's
Public Reference Room due to the President's March 13, 2020
proclamation declaring a National Emergency concerning the Novel
Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19).
    13. From the Commission's Home Page on the internet, this
information is available on eLibrary. The full text of this document is
available on eLibrary in PDF and Microsoft Word format for viewing,
printing, and/or downloading. To access this document in eLibrary, type
the docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number
field.
    14. User assistance is available for eLibrary and the Commission's
website during normal business hours from FERC Online Support at (202)
502-6652 (toll free at 1-866-208-3676) or email at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or the Public Reference Room at (202) 502-
8371, TTY<PHONE_NUMBER>. Email the Public Reference Room at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
V. Effective Date

    15. The effective date of the document published on July 6, 2020
(85 FR 40113) is confirmed: August 5, 2020.

    By the Commission. Commissioner Danly is dissenting with a
separate statement attached.

    Issued: January 26, 2021.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.

United States of America Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Limiting Authorizations To Proceed With Construction Activities Pending
Rehearing

Docket No. RM20-15-001
DANLY, Commissioner, dissenting:
    1. On June 9, 2020, the Commission issued a final rule providing
that an authorization to proceed with construction activities for a
Natural Gas Act (NGA) section 3 \1\ authorization or

section 7(c) \2\ certificate authorization will not be issued until the
Commission acts on the merits of any timely-filed request for rehearing
or the time for filing such a request has passed.\3\ On July 9, 2020,
the Interstate Natural Gas Association of America requested
clarification or, in the alternative, rehearing, and Kinder Morgan,
Inc. Natural Gas Entities and TC Energy Corporation requested rehearing
of Order No. 871. Today's order does not address any of these requests
for rehearing, but instead establishes a briefing schedule for
addressing several questions which touch on some, but not all, of the
issues raised on rehearing, and additionally requests briefing on
issues not raised on rehearing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 717b (2018).
    \2\ 15 U.S.C. 717f(c).
    \3\ See Limiting Authorizations to Proceed with Construction
Activities Pending Rehearing, Order No. 871, 85 FR 40,113 (July 6,
2020), 171 FERC ] 61,201 (2020) (Order No. 871).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    2. I dissent from today's order because it: (1) Falls short of the
Commission's obligation under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) to
address the arguments raised in requests for rehearing; and (2) will
delay a ruling on the merits of the rehearing requests until
approximately ten months after they were submitted, an action that
surely is in tension with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia Circuit's (D.C. Circuit) decision in Allegheny Defense Project
v. FERC (Allegheny) \4\ which prohibits the Commission from employing
procedural means to delay judicial review of its orders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 964 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2020) (en banc).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    3. Whether the Commission retains the regulation as it is currently
written, modifies it, or vacates it, the Commission is required under
the APA to explain its reasoning. In doing so, it must respond to
arguments raised by litigants. This requirement is fundamental to
administrative decision making.\5\ The requests for rehearing assert
that the adoption of the regulation was arbitrary and capricious due to
a number of infirmities. Among them are:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass'n of U.S., Inc. v. State Farm
Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29, 43 (1983) (``Normally, an agency
rule would be arbitrary and capricious if the agency has relied on
factors which Congress has not intended it to consider, entirely
failed to consider an important aspect of the problem, offered an
explanation for its decision that runs counter to the evidence
before the agency, or is so implausible that it could not be
ascribed to a difference in view or the product of agency
expertise.'') (emphasis added); New England Power Generators Ass'n,
Inc. v. FERC, 881 F.3d 202, 211 (D.C. Cir. 2018) (finding ``that
FERC did not engage in the reasoned decisionmaking required by the
Administrative Procedure Act'' because it ``failed to respond to the
substantial arguments put forward by Petitioners and failed to
square its decision with its past precedent'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     A claim that the regulation could be read to prohibit
issuing an authorization to proceed with construction where a request
for rehearing is filed by a party in support of the project (including
by the project proponent itself);
     an argument that the rule would not allow an authorization
to proceed with construction where the party requesting rehearing is
not an affected landowner;
     a claim that the regulation, as drafted, might not allow
the issuance of an authorization to proceed with construction when a
rehearing request has been denied by operation of law due to Commission
inaction;
     an argument that the rule, strictly construed, might not
permit the issuance of an authorization to proceed with construction
when the rehearing request concerns an amendment to an existing
authorization or subjects unrelated to landowner concerns, such as
rates; and
     potential indefinite delay in the issuance of an
authorization to proceed with construction.
    These are legitimate arguments. They deserve a response by the
Commission. The Commission is obligated to provide those responses, but
all are sidestepped in today's order.
    4. An inattentive reader who does no more than glance at the title
of today's order might well be lulled into believing that it
accomplishes more than it really does. This order is styled ``Order
Addressing Arguments Raised on Rehearing and Clarification, and
Providing for Additional Briefing.'' Despite the title, the Commission
neither addresses the arguments raised on rehearing nor provides any
clarification. Instead, with no explanation other than a bald
declaration that ``[w]e believe that the issues raised regarding this
rulemaking merit further consideration,'' \6\ today's order lists a
number of questions for further briefing. Although the enumerated
questions may be relevant to some points raised in the requests for
rehearing, the Commission fails to explain why it agrees or disagrees
with those arguments or why it believes the record insufficient for the
Commission to rule on those arguments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Limiting Authorizations to Proceed with Construction
Activities Pending Rehearing, Order No. 871-A, 174 FERC 61,050, at P
7 (2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    5. To the extent that the Commission suggests a more complete
record is needed to consider the requests for rehearing, I disagree.
The Commission received three requests for rehearing that detail
arguments the Commission had not considered in issuing the final rule.
These arguments are straightforward--implicating neither complex facts
nor difficult legal principles. Although I acknowledge that the
Commission may well have needed more than thirty days in which to
address those arguments, the six months that have elapsed surely were
more than adequate, and I see no reason why the Commission needs the
additional ninety-six days afforded by today's order. Regardless, even
if there were good reasons for needing more time, the Commission
necessarily fails in its duties by offering no justification for
further delay.
    6. Moreover, the questions set forth for briefing are not confined
to the issues properly raised on rehearing. One question asks whether
the Commission should modify its practices or procedures to address
concerns regarding the exercise of eminent domain while rehearing
requests are pending before the Commission. No rehearing request
suggests the Commission take this step. One wonders why this is the
appropriate vehicle for such an inquiry, but it is not the proper
vehicle to respond to arguments raised in the normal course of
litigation.
    7. The inquiry regarding eminent domain appears at odds with the
Commission's well-developed body of law declaring that it lacks the
authority to restrict a certificate holder's use of eminent domain once
the certificate of public convenience and necessity is received.\7\ I
am not convinced that an automatic stay of the exercise of eminent
domain pending Commission action on the merits of a rehearing request,
which today's order suggests the Commission will consider, can be
reconciled with NGA section 19(c).\8\ That section provides that
``[t]he filing of an application for rehearing . . . shall not, unless
specifically ordered by the Commission, operate as a stay of the
Commission's order.'' \9\ As such, the idea that the Commission may
adopt practices or procedures (presumably) to automatically stay an
authorization to restrict a certificate holder's use of eminent domain
would appear, at least on initial inquiry, to conflict with NGA section
19(c). At a minimum, if the Commission wants parties to address the
question of whether the exercise of eminent domain should be stayed
automatically during the pendency of rehearing requests, it should also
have

directed the parties to address the foundational question of the
Commission's legal authority to issue a rule mandating such a stay. I
strongly encourage parties to address this question in their briefs,
even though it was not specifically mentioned in the majority's order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See, e.g., PennEast Pipeline Co., LLC, 174 FERC ] 61,056, at
P 10 & n.17 (2021) (collecting cases).
    \8\ See 15 U.S.C. 717r(c).
    \9\ Id. (emphasis added).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    8. The Commission's failure to address the substance of the
rehearing requests might be understandable if the order directing
briefing had been issued earlier. Indeed, the Court in Allegheny
suggested that it might be permissible for the Commission to provide
for such supplemental briefing.\10\ However, that suggestion was
offered in the context of the Court's discussion of a potential
Commission order issued in connection with a timely ruling on rehearing
within thirty days after a rehearing request.\11\ Here, we are simply
failing to perform our duties.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See Allegheny, 964 F.3d at 16.
    \11\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    9. Finally, lest any reader of today's order overlook it, let's
pause for a moment to consider the irony of what the Commission
contemplates here. In the very same proceeding in which the Commission
promulgated a rule specifically aimed at alleviating concerns that its
tolling orders served only to ``buy [the Commission] more time to act
on a rehearing application and stall judicial review,'' \12\ the
Commission attempts to buy more time by ordering further procedure
after the statutory deadline to act on rehearing has passed and as
judicial review is imminent, absent any modification in the meantime of
the rule under review. I for one will be interested to see whether the
D.C. Circuit countenances this action any more than it accepted the
Commission's use of tolling orders for the very same purpose. Time will
tell.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Id. at 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For these reasons, I respectfully dissent.

James P. Danly,
Commissioner.
[FR Doc. 2021-02063 Filed 1-29-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


EPA Smart Growth & Active Aging National Recognition Program DCTM_ ARP. doc 1 EPA National Community Recognition Program Validation of Beta Application Thank you very much for contributing your expertise and time to assist the EPA in creating this national recognition program for communities who are creating smart growth initiatives that also specifically enhance the health and well being of older Americans.

The purpose of the beta testing process is to establish content validity of the project questions and gather feedback for question revision through rankings by content area experts in smart growth and active aging, local/ county/ state officials, and others representing potential applicants to the recognition program. We also want to assess the ease of completing the on line instrument.

Instructions:

Please read the introductory section containing the definitions of the smart growth and active aging/ physical activity programming of interest, and the descriptions of the process and program levels. Applicants will also be asked to acknowledge their review of accompanying documents regarding specific components of smart growth policy, and the participation of a local aging services official in completion of the recognition program application.

Read each statement beginning on page 3 for items 1A through 5D and rate each on a scale of 1  10 as to how well it reflects the content described in the process and program definitions provided below. YOU DO NOT HAVE TO COMPLETE THE INFORMATION ABOUT THE PROGRAM ITSELF, ONLY THE SECTION REGARDING HOW WELL THE ITEM ASSESSES THE CONTENT REGARDING SMART GROWTH ( SG) and/ or PHYSICAL ACTIVITY ( PA). WE WANT TO DETERMINE IF THE ITEM IS CLEAR AND UNDERSTANDABLE TO YOU. Questions for you to complete are in red and bold type. Regardless of your rating, we encourage you to suggest any revision that would clarify the content of the item.

Introduction Definitions:

* Smart Growth ( SG): Smart Growth is defined as community development that serves the environment, community, economy, and public health. The principles of smart growth include: 1) Mix land use; 2) Take advantage of compact building design; 3) Create a range of housing opportunities and choices; 4) Create walkable neighborhoods; 5) Foster distinctive, attractive neighborhoods with a sense of place; 6) Preserve open space, farmland, natural beauty, and critical resources; 7) Strengthen and direct development towards existing communities; 8) Provide a variety of transportation choices; 9) Make development decisions predictable, fair, and cost effective; 10) Encourage community stakeholders collaboration in development decisions.

To be completed by applicant:

I have reviewed the accompanying policy and activity components that are integral to the smart growth principles above, and understand that they should form the basis for our community's responses to the application items for the Smart Growth and Active. Aging National Recognition Program. EPA Smart Growth & Active Aging National Recognition Program DCTM_ ARP. doc 2 * Active Aging/ Physical Activity ( PA): includes planning and implementing a variety of widely accessible programs and/ or self directed opportunities for those 60+ and which emphasize activities that increase endurance, strength, flexibility, balance, and the principles of injury prevention. These types of activities include walking, biking, fitness trails and similar activities/ programs at various levels of intensity to fit the capacities of participants. * This section will include additional resource links * Community assessment or survey: can include formal needs assessment or community survey or discussion of community needs with service providers with smart growth or active aging/ physical activity programming or opportunities in the community. * This section will include additional resource links * Denotes information link to definitions, examples, weblinks, etc Description of process and program levels:

Process I: Awareness of and general commitment to basic smart growth principles and active aging/ physical activity programs and opportunities.

Process II: Awareness of smart growth and active aging/ physical activity principles, applications and implementation strategies formulated with attention to linking smart growth and active aging/ physical activity programs and opportunities in the community.

Process III: Well established processes combining smart growth and active aging with coherent framework and broad smart growth and aging network community participation Well conceived and funded strategic attention to smart growth principles and active aging programs and opportunities; ability to mentor or serve as model for other communities. Processes are scalable, sustainable, and sharable,

Program I: Actively engaged in formulating pilot programs and activities combining smart growth and active aging.

Program II: Established/ expanding programs combining smart growth and active aging; engagement of broader segments of the community in program activity; active promotion of the program on a community basis.

Program III: Ongoing/ expanding programs on a wide community basis that are effectively applying principles of smart growth and active aging; wide community involvement of multiple sectors within the community; program funding sources established; ability to mentor or serve as a model program for other communities. Programs are scalable, sustainable, and sharable. EPA Smart Growth & Active Aging National Recognition Program DCTM_ ARP. doc 3 BETA Items Level1 1 A: SG Process I: Our community has defined goals or a mission for advancing or applying * smart growth principles.

Not at all

Just starting

Partially completed

Fully Completed

Ongoing Describe Activity:

> How well does this item assess the content for Process I:

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Not at all Adequately Very Well Your Score: __ 7___ Suggestions for revision: I don't really like the response categories. When it comes to answering this particular question what is the difference between Ongoing and Fully completed? If a community has fully completed Goals and a mission and have had these in place for some time would they check " ongoing or " fully completed. Seems that the reponse categories and the names assigned to them may need to change depending on the question being asked. I have this same problem throughout the survey.

1 B: SG Process I: Our community has conducted a * community assessment, survey or other planning activity for applying * smart growth principles.

Not at all

Just starting

Partially completed

Fully Completed

Ongoing Describe Activity:

> How well does this item assess the content for Process I:

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Not at all Adequately Very Well Your Score: _ 8_____ Suggestions for revision: Again, same problem as noted above with the response categories. EPA Smart Growth & Active Aging National Recognition Program DCTM_ ARP. doc 4 1 C: PA Process I: Our community has defined goals or a mission for increasing older adult participation in * active aging/ physical activity.

Not at all

Just starting

Partially completed

Fully Completed

Ongoing Describe Activity:

> How well does this item assess the content for Process I:

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Not at all Adequately Very Well Your Score: ____ 8__ Suggestions for revision: Again the response categories don't always seem to work well. Maybe defining at the beginning of the survey what the difference is between " ongoing" and " Fully completed" would help.

1 D: PA: Process I: Our community has conducted a * community assessment or survey, or reviewed information/ data for increasing older adult participation in active aging/ physical activity.

Not at all

Just starting

Partially completed

Fully Completed

Ongoing Describe Activity:

> How well does this item assess the content for Process I:

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Not at all Adequately Very Well Your Score: ____ 7__ Suggestions for revision: EPA Smart Growth & Active Aging National Recognition Program DCTM_ ARP. doc 5 Level 2 2 A: SG: Process II: Our community's strategic development plan includes aspects of feasibility, cost, impact, time frame and leadership for applying smart growth principles.

Not at all

Just starting

Partially completed

Fully Completed

Ongoing Describe Activity:

> How well does this item assess the content for Process II:

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Not at all Adequately Very Well Your Score: __ 8 Suggestions for revision: Many communities probably don't have something called a strategic development plan. Many communities have plans that get at part of what you are asking for. Possibly describe the plan more generically. Possibly rewrite it to read: ` Our community has a comprehensive plan or other specific plan that includes  ..

2 B: SG: Process II: Our community is actively engaged in formulating plans and strategies for specifically linking smart growth initiatives with programs, amenities or opportunities that include active aging/ physical activity for older adults

Not at all

Just starting

Partially completed

Fully Completed

Ongoing Describe Activity:

> How well does this item assess the content for Process II:

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Not at all Adequately Very Well Your Score: ___ 7___ EPA Smart Growth & Active Aging National Recognition Program DCTM_ ARP. doc 6 Suggestions for revision: This question asks about the status of " formulating " plans and strategies, not about the status of " implementing" them. In this context what does ongoing mean?

2 C: PA: Process II: Our community has a broad based planning process that includes feasibility, cost, impact, time frame and leadership for creating/ promoting active aging/ physical activity for aging adults.

Not at all

Just starting

Partially complete

Fully Completed

Ongoing Describe Activity:

> How well does this item assess the content for Process II:

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Not at all Adequately Very Well Your Score: ___ 8___ Suggestions for revision:

2 D: PA: Process II: Our community has established interagency committees, task forces, or other community partnerships with local aging organizations, service providers, and agencies as a means of coordinating activities and programs with smart growth and active aging/ physical activity components.

Not at all

Just starting

Partially complete

Fully Completed

Ongoing Describe Activity:

> How well does this item assess the content for Process II:

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Not at all Adequately Very Well Your Score: __ 8___ Suggestions for revision: EPA Smart Growth & Active Aging National Recognition Program DCTM_ ARP. doc 7 Level 3 3 A: SG & PA: Process III: Our community's comprehensive planning integrates smart growth principles and promotes application of these to encompass active aging/ physical activity programs and opportunities for older adults.

Not at all

Just starting

Partially complete

Fully Completed

Ongoing Describe Activity:

> How well does this item assess the content for Process III:

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Not at all Adequately Very Well Your Score: ___ 7___ Suggestions for revision:

3 B: SG: Program I: Our community has legislative, zoning, comprehensive plan initiatives and other policies in place or in consideration that include provision for both smart growth and active aging/ physical activity programs or opportunities for older adults.

Not at all

Just starting

Partially complete

Fully Completed

Ongoing Describe Activity:

> How well does this item assess the content for Program I:

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Not at all Adequately Very Well Your Score: ___ 7___ Suggestions for revision: EPA Smart Growth & Active Aging National Recognition Program DCTM_ ARP. doc 8 3 C: PA: Program I: Our community has created pilot programs, or has existing programs for active aging/ physical activity for older adults which take advantage of the resources and environments created by local smart growth activities such as safe walking area, biking amenities, age sensitive exercise trails, safe parks, etc. * This section will include additional resource links

Not at all

Just starting

Partially complete

Fully Completed

Ongoing Describe Activity:

> How well does this item assess the content for Program I:

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Not at all Adequately Very Well Your Score: ___ 7___ Suggestions for revision: If a community has a fully completed pilot program to they check " fully completed'? I suspose the community can explain where they are at with narrative.

Level 4 4 A: SG: Program II: Our community is increasing its capacity through budget allocation, staff resources, infrastructure improvement, etc. for systematically expanding existing initiatives that combine smart growth principles and planning and active aging/ physical activity programs and opportunities.

Not at all

Just starting

Partially complete

Fully Completed

Ongoing Describe Activity:

> How well does this item assess the content for Program II:

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 EPA Smart Growth & Active Aging National Recognition Program DCTM_ ARP. doc 9 Not at all Adequately Very Well Your Score: ____ 6__ Suggestions for revision: I would rewrite this to ask the community about its efforts over the last five years to increase it resource allocation to address this linkage. The response categories do not fit this question very well.

4 B: SG: Program II: Our community is reaching out to local/ county/ state officials and departments, land developers, and community organizations to expand the integration of smart growth and active aging/ physical activity programs.

Not at all

Just starting

Partially complete

Fully Completed

Ongoing Describe Activity:

> How well does this item assess the content for Program II:

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Not at all Adequately Very Well Your Score: ____ 7__ Suggestions for revision:

4 C: PA: Program II: Our community includes gathering evidence about and evaluating the effectiveness of and level of participation in our active aging/ physical activity programs and opportunities for older adults.

Not at all

Just starting

Partially complete

Fully Completed

Ongoing Describe Activity:

> How well does this item assess the content for Program II:

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 EPA Smart Growth & Active Aging National Recognition Program DCTM_ ARP. doc 10 Not at all Adequately Very Well Your Score: ___ 8___ Suggestions for revision:

4 D: PA: Program II: Our community has an initiative that includes promotion, advertising, recruitment, and widely available programs and opportunities to engage more older adults in active aging/ physical activity.

Not at all

Just starting

Partially completed

Fully Completed

Ongoing Describe Activity:

> How well does this item assess the content for Program II:

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Not at all Adequately Very Well Your Score: ___ 8___ Suggestions for revision:

Level 5 5 A: SG: Program/ Process III: Our community has already implemented, or has the capacity to implement a model program combining smart growth principles with programs emphasizing active aging/ physical activity for older adults.

Not at all

Just starting

Partially completed

Fully Completed

Ongoing Describe Activity:

> How well does this item assess the content for Program/ Process III:

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Not at all Adequately Very Well Your Score: __ 5____ EPA Smart Growth & Active Aging National Recognition Program DCTM_ ARP. doc 11 Suggestions for revision: There is a significant difference between iimplementation of a model program and having the capacity to implement one. Seems like two separte questions. Maybe just take out the " or have the capacity" part. What is the ssignificance of the term Model? If it's a good program and works for the community does it matter if other communities have picked it up and used it?

5 B: SG: Program/ Process III: Our community has a well established smart growth initiative and active aging/ physical activity programs and opportunities and is planning to expand these to a wider segment of our population as well as the partnerships that will support these programs.

Not at all

Just starting

Partially completed

Fully Completed

Ongoing Describe Activity:

> How well does this item assess the content for Program/ Process III:

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Not at all Adequately Very Well Your Score: ___ 8___

Suggestions for revision:

5 C: PA: Program/ Process III: Our community has an established coalition of service providers, advocacy organizations, businesses and governmental agencies who are cooperating to create more innovative and widely available programs that integrate smart growth principles and active aging/ physical activity programs and opportunities.

Not at all

Just starting

Partially completed

Fully Completed

Ongoing Describe Activity:

> How well does this item assess the content for Program/ Process III:

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 EPA Smart Growth & Active Aging National Recognition Program DCTM_ ARP. doc 12 Not at all Adequately Very Well Your Score: ___ 8___ Suggestions for revision:

5 D: PA: Program/ Process III:

Our community has an existing model program integrating active aging/ physical activity and smart growth for older adults and we can provide technical assistance and a contact person to share information with other communities.

Not at all

Just starting

Partially completed

Fully Completed

Ongoing Please describe your program/ initiative below or attach additional information:

Contact Person for program/ initiative described above: Name:_____________________________________________ Title:______________________________________________ Organization:_______________________________________ Address:___________________________________________ ____________________________________________ City:________________________________ State:_____ Zip:__________ Phone:___________________ Fax:_________________ Email:__________________________________________

> How well does this item assess the content for Program/ Process III:

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Not at all Adequately Very Well Your Score: ____ 7__ Suggestions for revision: EPA Smart Growth & Active Aging National Recognition Program DCTM_ ARP. doc 13 BETA TEST RESPONDENTS: PLEASE COMPLETE THE QUESTIONS BELOW:

> How was the process of completing this document for you and/ or your staff?

1 2 3 4 5 ( 6) 7 8 9 10 Easy Somewhat Difficult Difficult If you rated this process with a score of 6   10, please suggest how we might make this questionnaire easier to complete: Just work to clarify the questions and make the categories fit well with the questions being asked. A brief definition of what you mean by the difference between Fully completed and ongoing would help.

> Approximately how long did it take to complete this? __ 1___ hrs. ____ min.

> Would you recommend applying for this recognition program to other communities? Probably__ Yes ___ No Applicant completing this beta test form:

Name: ___ Brad Murphy_____________________________________

Title: ____ Planning Unit Director__________________________________________

Organization: ___ City of Madison____________________________________

Address: __ P. O. Box 2985_________________________________________ ___________________________________________

City: _____ Madison___________________________ State:_ WI____

Zip 53701 2985 Phone: _ 608 266 4635__________________ Fax:__ 608 267 8739_______________

Email: __ bmurphy@ cityofmadison. com__________________________________

Thank you for you assistance. Please return the completed MSWord document to Dr. John Migliaccio at 5 or hardcopy by mail to Maturity Mark Services Co., 55 Springdale Ave., White Plains, NY 10604 2309 ( 914) 684 9112.