[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 188 (Wednesday, September 28, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 66500-66513]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-23285]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
10 CFR Part 900
RIN 1901-AB36
Coordination of Federal Authorizations for Electric Transmission
Facilities
AGENCY: Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability,
Department of Energy.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Department of Energy (DOE) is amending its regulations for
the timely coordination of Federal authorizations for proposed
interstate electric transmission facilities pursuant to the Federal
Power Act (FPA). The amendments are intended to improve the pre-
application procedures and result in more efficient processing of
applications.
DATES: This final rule will become effective November 28, 2016. This
rule contains a collection of information requirement subject to OMB
approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act. DOE has submitted the
collection to OMB for approval and will provide separate notice in the
Federal Register of OMB approval and the OMB control number.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Julie A. Smith, Ph.D., U.S. Department
of Energy, Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability,
Mailstop OE-20, Room 8G-017, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington,
DC 20585; 202-586-7668; or [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Acronyms and Abbreviations. A number of acronyms and abbreviations
are used in this preamble. While this may not be an exhaustive list, to
ease the reading of this preamble and for reference purposes, the
following terms, acronyms, and abbreviations are defined as follows:
CEQ Council on Environmental Quality
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
DOE Department of Energy
EIS Environmental Impact Statement
E.O. Executive Order
EPAct Energy Policy Act of 2005
FERC Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
FPA Federal Power Act
FR Federal Register
IIP Integrated Interagency Pre-Application
MOU Memorandum of Understanding
NEPA National Environmental Policy Act
OMB Office of Management and Budget
PM Presidential Memorandum
PMA Federal Power Marketing Administration
RFI Request for Information
RRTT Rapid Response Team for Transmission
RTO Regional Transmission Operators
I. Background
II. Discussion of Final Rule and Responses to Comment
A. General
B. Applicability
C. Definitions
D. Integrated Interagency Pre-Application (IIP) Process
E. Selection of NEPA Lead Agency
F. IIP Process Administrative File
III. Regulatory Review
A. Executive Orders 12866 and 13563
B. National Environmental Policy Act
[[Page 66501]]
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
D. Paperwork Reduction Act
E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
F. Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 1999
G. Executive Order 13132
H. Executive Order 12988
I. Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 2001
J. Executive Order 13211
K. Congressional Review Act
IV. Approval of the Office of the Secretary
I. Background
In this final rule, DOE establishes a simplified Integrated
Interagency Pre-application (IIP) process for the siting of electric
transmission facilities, as described in Section II. This process is
established pursuant to DOE's authority under section 216(h) of the
Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 791-828c) (FPA), which sets forth
provisions relevant to the siting of interstate electric transmission
facilities. section 216(h) of the FPA (16 U.S.C. 824p(h)),
``Coordination of Federal Authorizations for Transmission Facilities,''
provides for DOE to coordinate all Federal authorizations and related
environmental reviews needed for siting certain interstate electric
transmission projects, including National Environmental Policy Act of
1969 (NEPA) reviews. Specifically, section 216(h)(3) requires the
Secretary, to the maximum extent practicable under Federal law, to
coordinate the Federal authorization and review process with any Indian
tribes, multi-state entities, and state agencies that have their own
separate permitting and environmental reviews. Section 216(h)(4)(C)
further requires that DOE establish an expeditious pre-application
mechanism to allow project proponents to confer with Federal agencies
involved, and for each such agency to communicate to the proponent any
information needs relevant to a prospective application and key issues
of concern to the agencies and public.
On February 2, 2016, DOE published a notice of proposed rulemaking
(NOPR) to amend its existing procedures to provide for this revised,
simplified IIP Process for certain electric transmission facilities (81
FR 5383). Publication of the NOPR began a 60-day public comment period
that ended on April 4, 2016. On March 22, 2016, DOE conducted a public
workshop to discuss the NOPR, which included a presentation describing
the proposed rule and allowed for questions about and comments on the
proposed rule by workshop participants. Comments on the proposed
rulemaking were received from approximately 12 sources, including
electric industry groups, other organizations, and individuals. The
NOPR, IIP public workshop presentation and transcript, and any comments
that DOE received are available on the DOE Web site at http://energy.gov/oe/services/electricity-policy-coordination-and-implementation/transmission-planning/improving.
For additional information on the legal authority for this final
rule, as well as the Executive Orders and Presidential Memoranda this
rule is intended to implement, please see the proposed IIP rule (81 FR
5383; Feb. 2, 2016). The proposed rule also contains information on
previous rulemaking and information gathering activities that DOE
conducted pursuant to its authority under section 216(h) of the FPA, as
well as information on the significant interagency coordination
activities that preceded this final rule.
II. Discussion of Final Rule and Responses to Comment
DOE has considered and evaluated the comments received during the
public comment period and public workshop. In this section, DOE
discusses comments received, provides DOE's responses to the comments,
and describes any resulting changes to the proposal adopted in this
final rule. Several commenters expressed overall support for DOE's
efforts to develop an IIP Process, acknowledging the importance of this
effort to improving transmission project planning and siting through
early engagement, information sharing, and coordination of federal,
tribal, state, and other permitting entities. Comments suggested that
implementation of this rule should prove beneficial during pre-
application process, as well as provide good information and analysis
for informing subsequent NEPA reviews. Specific elements of the
proposed rulemaking for which many commenters expressed support
include: The voluntary nature of the IIP Process for project
proponents; a proposed process that is coordinated by a single agency;
the simplified proposal for a two meeting IIP structure; development of
IIP Process deliverables maintained by DOE as a part of an IIP Process
administrative file; and DOE's required use of information technology,
which is intended to reduce costs while increasing the likelihood of
remote participation in IIP meetings and discussions by all potentially
affected federal agency, tribal, and state and/or local agency
representatives.
Commenters did express continued concern that while this final rule
is a positive move toward realizing transmission line permitting
efficiencies, much more is needed to address challenges in siting
infrastructure development and coordination of Federal regulatory
authorities and related review processes. Commenters urged DOE to take
the lead in developing a systemic, legislative overhaul of the Federal
environmental review procedures that lead to lengthy permitting times
for important transmission infrastructure that, in their view,
necessitated this rulemaking. Commenters also contended that the
existing authority afforded to DOE to lead transmission permitting
efforts under section 216(h) extends to post-application activities,
such as NEPA reviews; that this rule should put a mechanism in place
for Federal entities to recover costs associated with participating in
a pre-application processes like the IIP Process; and, that this final
rule should provide a mechanism for enforcing Federal entity adherence
to post-application Federal permitting timelines. In this rule, DOE
implements only section 216(h)(4)(C) of the FPA, which requires DOE
establish an expeditious pre-application mechanism for siting
transmission line projects. As a result, these comments are outside the
scope of this final rule, and DOE does not address these comments in
this final rulemaking. All other comments are addressed as appropriate
in sections II.A. through II.F.
A. General
10 CFR 900.1 states the purpose of the regulations, which is to
provide a process for the timely coordination of Federal authorizations
for proposed electric transmission facilities pursuant to section
216(h) of the FPA (16 U.S.C. 824p(h)), including the development of an
early pre-application process in support of this coordination and the
selection of a NEPA lead agency. This final rule provides a framework
for DOE to coordinate and facilitate early cooperation and exchange of
environmental information required to site qualified electric
transmission facilities. This early cooperation and information sharing
promotes understanding of all permitting requirements and information
needs to support agency decision making enabling applicants to prepare
more robust applications for submission to relevant Federal, Tribal or
State/local permitting agencies. Applications prepared through the IIP
Process are expected to better inform post-application regulatory
review and consultation processes, such as those under NEPA, the
Endangered Species
[[Page 66502]]
Act, and the National Historic Preservation Act.
The activities that comprise the IIP Process in this final rule
occur prior to an applicant filing a request for authorization with
Federal permitting agencies. The IIP Process is intended for a project
proponent who has identified potential study corridors and/or potential
routes within an established project area for a qualifying project. In
DOE's experience, the summary-level project and environmental
background information and supporting data, including discussion of the
project proponent stakeholder outreach activities, requested as a part
of the initiation request as described in Sec. 900.4 of this final
rule, is typically under development or available at this stage of
project development.
Commenters expressed concerns that the IIP Process would be
counterproductive or duplicative of the information developed for and
provided to Federal entities in support of an application and
subsequent NEPA review. Some commenters pointed to the amount of time
needed to prepare the IIP Initiation Meeting Request and asked DOE to
explain how this pre-application process supports review activities
under NEPA.
Pre-application activities, such as those provided for in this
final rule, can be incorporated into a NEPA review process and
resultant NEPA document in a variety of ways. For example, Federal
entities should incorporate information gained from any pre-application
activities into their public notices initiating NEPA reviews and
information about the project. In addition, identification of any
issues during the pre-application is expected to inform and be shared
in scoping meetings and other public meetings that are part of the NEPA
process. Information shared through the IIP Process and documented in
the Final IIP Resources Report and IIP Meeting Summaries, as described
in Sec. 900.4 of this final rule, can be included as part of the
background information for developing the proposed action under NEPA,
and would also aid in the development of alternatives and be reflected
in the alternatives section of the NEPA document, either as part of the
alternatives considered but eliminated from further analysis, or as an
alternative that is given detailed consideration in the NEPA document.
IIP Process deliverables such as the IIP Final Resources Report or
an IIP Meeting Summary, and the information contained therein, as well
as the supporting information or data maintained by DOE as a part of
the IIP Process administrative file should be incorporated by the NEPA
Lead Agency or a cooperating agency under NEPA in a subsequent NEPA
document that supports an application requesting Federal authorizations
for transmission lines. The IIP Process administrative file as defined
in Sec. 900.6 of this final rule would contain IIP Process
deliverables that could be referenced directly in NEPA documents post-
application. DOE agrees with commenters to the NOPR that the Department
should work with CEQ to develop guidance for Federal entities in their
implementation of this final rule, specifically focusing on how to use
the IIP Process deliverables to inform a post-application environmental
review process.
A commenter asked if a prospective applicant, or project proponent,
would need to submit application(s) to relevant state(s) responsible
for siting transmission lines within their boundaries before submitting
its request for initiation of the IIP Process to DOE. Under this final
rule, a project proponent may submit an initiation request to DOE
before, at the same time as, or after submitting applications for
authorizations by relevant states. DOE developed the IIP Process in
this final rule to promote flexibility for project proponents with
regard to timing of filing all applications for siting authorizations
necessary for siting a proposed transmission line project. The IIP
Process will notify and provide an opportunity for non-Federal agencies
(tribal, state, or local governments) to engage in early planning and
coordination of separate non-Federal permitting and environmental
reviews with that of the Federal permitting agencies.
DOE also received requests during the public comment period and
workshop for clarification about the interaction of this final rule
with provisions of the Fixing America's Surface Transportation (FAST)
Act (Pub. L. No: 114-94). Passed by Congress in December 2015, the FAST
Act contains provisions related to improving environmental review and
permitting of infrastructure projects, including but not limited to,
transmission infrastructure. For example, Title XLI of the FAST Act
creates a new interagency entity--the Federal Permitting Improvement
Council--to oversee interagency Federal infrastructure project
permitting and review processes, establishes new procedures to
standardize interagency consultation and coordination practices,
addresses infrastructure project delivery process, and adds tracking of
environmental review and permitting milestones. The activities
comprising the IIP Process described in this final rule would inform
the development of more robust applications for transmission
infrastructure projects that could be considered for and benefit from
the environmental review and permitting improvement provisions of Title
XLI of the FAST Act.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Title XLI of the Fast Act (section 41001(6)(B)(i)) defines
the term ``covered project'' as any activity in the United States
that requires authorization or environmental review by a Federal
agency involving construction of infrastructure for renewable or
conventional energy production, electricity transmission, surface
transportation, aviation, ports and waterways, water resource
projects, broadband, pipelines, manufacturing, or any other sector
as determined by a majority vote of the Council that: (1) Is subject
to NEPA; (2) is likely to require a total investment of more than
$200,000,000; and, (3) does not qualify for abbreviated
authorization or environmental review processes under any applicable
law. A covered project may also be one that is subject to NEPA and
the size and complexity of which, in the opinion of the Federal
Permitting Improvement Council, make the project likely to benefit
from enhanced oversight and coordination, including a project likely
to require: (1) Authorization from or environmental review involving
more than two Federal agencies; or (2) the preparation of an
environmental impact statement under NEPA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Applicability
Section 900.2 of the final rule explains when the provisions of
part 900 would apply to the coordination of Federal authorizations. The
provisions of part 900, which are consistent with DOE's prior
regulations and the 2009 MOU (for additional background on the MOU,
please refer to the proposed rule (81 FR 5383, Feb. 2, 2016)), will
apply to qualifying projects, and will also apply to Other Projects at
the discretion of the Assistant Secretary of DOE's Office of
Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability (OE-1). Both types of
projects must be for transmission facilities used for the transmission
of electric energy in interstate commerce, but qualifying projects are
generally 230 kV or above and cross jurisdictions administered by more
than one Federal entity or MOU signatory agency.
Commenters on the NOPR encouraged DOE to apply its coordination of
Federal authorizations to transmission line project proposals that
would be a part of a ``bulk electric system,'' as defined in FERC Order
No. 773,\2\ to include all facilities operated at or above 100 kV under
the definition of ``Other Projects.'' DOE clarifies that the definition
of ``Other Projects'' in Sec. 900.3 of this final rule would include
transmission projects defined by FERC as a part of a bulk electric
power system assistance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Revisions to Electric Reliability Organization Definition of
Bulk Electric System and Rules of Procedure, Order No. 773, 141 FERC
] 61,236 (December 20, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 66503]]
DOE emphasizes that there will be no coordination role for DOE for
Federal authorizations for electric transmission facilities located
within the Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT)
interconnection because section 216(k) of the FPA states that section
216 of the FPA shall not apply within the ERCOT area (16 U.S.C.
824p(k)). Section 900.2 also provides that section 216(h) does not
apply when an application has been submitted to FERC for issuance of a
permit for construction or modification of a transmission facility, or
a pre-filing procedure has been initiated, under section 216(b) of the
FPA (16 U.S.C. 824p(b)) (transmission lines within a DOE-designated
National Interest Electric Transmission Corridor). In those
circumstances, DOE has delegated its section 216(h) coordination
authority to FERC and, in Order No. 689,\3\ FERC adopted regulations
setting forth the procedures it will follow in such circumstances.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Department of Energy Delegation Order No. 00-004-00A, Sec.
1.22, issued May 16, 2006.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This part does not apply to transmission lines that cross the U.S.
international border, Federal submerged lands, national marine
sanctuaries, marine national monuments, or facilities constructed by
Federal Power Marketing Administrations (PMAs).\4\ Section 216(h) does
not affect any requirements of U.S. environmental laws, and in the
above mentioned cases, does not waive any requirements to obtain
necessary Federal authorizations for electric transmission facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ DOE does not consider applications to the PMAs for
transmission interconnections to be Federal authorization requests
within the meaning of section 216(h).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Definitions
Section 900.3 defines terms for this part. DOE removed the
definition of the term ``Stakeholder Outreach Plan'' from the list of
defined terms as it is not a term that is used in this final rule.
D. Integrated Interagency Pre-Application (IIP) Process
Section 900.4 provides the procedures and information requirements
of the IIP Process. This section sets forth a framework for
implementing the IIP Process, provisions for how DOE would fulfill its
section 216(h) Lead Coordinating Agency role as defined in Sec. 900.2
of this final rule, provisions describing expected outcomes of the IIP
Initial Meeting and IIP Close-Out Meeting, and provisions describing
the nature and purpose of products generated during the IIP Process
(e.g., Final IIP Resources Report).
For proponents of qualifying projects or Other Projects,
participation in the IIP Process is voluntary. A project proponent
initiates the IIP Process by submitting an initiation request as
described in Sec. 900.4 of this final rule. A project proponent may
elect to request initiation of the IIP Process for a qualifying project
or other project as defined in Sec. 900.3. The timing of the
initiation request is determined by the project proponent. A project
proponent electing to utilize the IIP Process must submit Initial and
Close-Out meeting requests to DOE and actively participate in initial
and close-out meetings coordinated by DOE to complete the IIP Process.
Completion of the IIP Process as proposed in this Final rule is
expected to assist the project proponent in determining the likelihood
that the project proponent would efficiently obtain permits necessary
to construct a proposed project in the competitive, regional
transmission planning processes.
The project proponent would be expected, among other things, to
provide the project-related and environmental information required as
part of the initiation request to DOE. DOE must determine that adequate
information has been provided by the project proponent consistent with
Sec. 900.4 before DOE will initiate its coordination function under
this part.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ The specific information requested as a part of section
216(h) process initiation is listed in the regulatory language in
Sec. 900.4(a)-(d). DOE will determine that the initiation request
is adequate based on the requested list of summary information (that
comprises the ``initiation request'') in Sec. 900.4(a)-(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Information requested as part of the initiation request in this
proposed rule retains many of the requirements contained in Sec. 900.5
``Request for coordination'' of the existing section 216(h) regulation
(73 FR 54456; September 19 2008), and expands on some of those elements
based on RRTT agency experience and information received in response to
the August 2013 RFI (78 FR 53436). DOE will also consider electronic
access to a checklist and an IIP Process timeline, as suggested by
commenters. These elements would make process determinations and IIP
Process deliverables more clear. DOE may also consider providing
publicly-available resources in a central electronic repository, as
currently provided for in Sec. 900.6(b) of the existing
regulations.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Electronic tools currently exist that may serve as a
resource for the information required as a part of the IIP Process.
For example, the Regulatory and Permitting Information Desktop
(RAPID) Toolkit is an online tool that streamlines siting and
permitting transmission lines in the West. The RAPID Toolkit offers
a single location for agencies, developers, and industry
stakeholders to work together on electric energy transmission
regulatory processes by using a wiki environment to collaborate on
regulatory processes, permit guidance, regulations, contacts, and
other relevant information. The RAPID Toolkit can be accessed at
http://en.openei.org/wiki/RAPID.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comments received on the NOPR also expressed concern that the
information requested to satisfy the initiation request represents a
substantial level of effort and involves preparation time that would be
better served by starting NEPA processes (e.g., early scoping) before
applications for Federal authorizations are filed with Federal
entities. As indicated previously, NEPA environmental review and
process requirements are not triggered until an application for Federal
authorization is filed and accepted by the recipient permitting Federal
entity. The IIP Process would occur prior to submission of an
application. Use of the IIP Process is voluntary, and DOE expects that
a project proponent requesting DOE coordination assistance has made the
calculation that the request, including active participation and
preparation of information constituting an IIP initiation request, is
in the best interests of the project proponent.
Another commenter was critical of the requirements of the
initiation request related to the Early Identification of Project
Issues, suggesting that they are duplicative of public scoping under
NEPA. The Project Issues summary-level information would be informed by
a project proponent's public and stakeholder outreach activities that
typically occur during project planning and inform the potential study
corridors or potential routes that would be described in the Summary of
the qualifying project portion of the IIP Process Initiation request.
DOE does not expect that a separate public participation plan would be
developed for and specific to the IIP Process nor does the initiation
request as described in Sec. 900.4 of this final rule mandate the
development of such a plan. Rather, the final rule requires that a
project proponent would provide a concise description of how a project
proponent coordinates stakeholder interface, communications, and
involvement during its own project planning and development efforts to
establish potential study corridors or potential routes for a
qualifying project.
DOE will notify and request participation by all Federal entities
in the IIP Process that have a potential authorization or consultation
for a qualifying project after DOE has reviewed and determined that an
[[Page 66504]]
initiation request meets the informational requirements of Sec.
900.4(a) through (d). All Federal entities notified by DOE as having a
potential authorization or consultation required for the siting of a
qualifying project will be expected to participate in the Initial
Meeting and the Close Out Meeting, unless the notified agency clarifies
in writing to DOE within fifteen (15) calendar days of notification
that they do not have any involvement or have minimal involvement,
along with the supporting rationale used by the notified agency for
their non- or minimal involvement.\7\ (DOE notes that this notification
was required within seven (7) days in the NOPR, but has determined that
seven days may not be adequate and so lengthened the time period to 15
days for this final rule.) Several comments on the NOPR suggested that
the IIP Process would not be effective in minimizing inefficiencies of
multiple agency environmental review and permitting processes if
Federal entities and Non-Federal entities cannot be required to
participate fully in the IIP Process. This final rule is issued
pursuant to Section 216(h)(4)(C) of the FPA, which requires DOE
establish an expeditious pre-application mechanism for siting
transmission line projects. While this provision authorizes DOE to
coordinate pre-application activities among agencies involved in an
authorization or permit of a proposed transmission line project, it
does not authorize DOE to enforce participation by any Federal entity
or non-Federal entity in the IIP Process. Rather, this final rule
strongly encourages and establishes a structure by which DOE expects
full and timely participation by Federal entities and non-Federal
entities through timely notification, and use of electronic
collaboration tools, like the use of teleconferencing and electronic
collaborative tools, which are intended to support remote, lower-cost
participation as described in this final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Provided, however, that a Federal entity whose permitting
authority for the construction or modification of electric
transmission facilities is limited to those facilities for which an
application is filed under section 216(b) of the Federal Power Act
may participate at its sole discretion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE will schedule IIP meetings no less than thirty (30) calendar
days from each other and only after Federal entities are given notice
of the need for their participation in the IIP Process. The
notification described applies to both Initiation and Close-Out of the
IIP Process, in response to the project proponent's request for such
meetings.
The list of Federal entities notified by DOE following its review
of the initiation request as having a potential authorization or
consultation required for the siting of a Qualified Project may be
revised as necessary during the IIP Process based on information
provided by the project proponent, a Federal entity, and otherwise
publicly-available information. DOE will oversee the IIP Process and
coordinate the involvement of the Federal entities as described in
Sec. 900.4. DOE will provide Federal entities and Non-Federal entities
access to all information received from the project proponent as a part
of an initiation request determined by DOE to meet the information
requirements of this part in Sec. 900.4, which will be coordinated
through the use of electronic collaborative tools, specifically the
Office of Management and Budget's (OMB's) MAX electronic system
(https://max.omb.gov/maxportal) throughout an IIP Process for a
qualifying project.
In-person attendance at IIP Process meetings by each Federal entity
will depend on the availability of resources or the authority to
recover costs from project proponents. Currently, certain Federal
entities may recover costs only after an application has been
submitted, and some Federal entities lack cost recovery authority
altogether. Even in instances where cost recovery may be available,
each Federal agency will make its own determination regarding its
participation and use of resources. Each Federal agency with concerns
regarding their level of participation in the IIP Process meetings will
provide its rationale to DOE in writing when or if a determination is
made that it may not be an expeditious use of staff time and funds to
attend all or some meetings. To the extent allowed by law, Federal
entities may seek cost recovery from the project proponents during the
IIP Process. DOE will provide an opportunity for Federal and Non-
Federal entities to participate in IIP meetings by using
teleconferencing and webinars.
Coordinating the preparation of the Final IIP Resources Report
document prepared by DOE and related administrative file will
facilitate more efficient preparation of a single environmental review
document that all agencies should strive to utilize to inform their
relevant decision making. The Final IIP Resources Report is
purposefully designed in terms of format and substance to be consistent
with provisions for early application of NEPA and the consideration of
applicant proposals in: (1) Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ)
regulations implementing NEPA (40 CFR parts 1500 through 1508); (2) CEQ
guidance related to early consultation or engagement of Federal
agencies with prospective applicants; and (3) NEPA's Forty Most Asked
Questions (46 FR 18026; March 23, 1981, as amended).\8\ For example,
the format and substance of the Final IIP Resources Report could be
similar to an ``early corporate environmental assessment'' or typical
applicant generated environmental study. CEQ explains that provisions
to promote the early application of NEPA, including by encouraging
private parties to initiate environmental studies early and encouraging
pre-application consultation between private parties and federal
agencies ``are intended to encourage and enable private and other non-
federal entities to build environmental considerations into their own
planning processes in a way that facilitates the application of NEPA
and avoids delay.'' \9\ Comments on the NOPR highlight the importance
of the Final IIP Resources Report and its use by a NEPA Lead Agency in
informing the post-application environmental review process (e.g.,
informing scoping) and resultant NEPA document (e.g., alternatives
development or incorporation by reference). DOE acknowledges this
comment, and notes that, as discussed previously in this preamble, DOE
will coordinate its guidance efforts with CEQ to best integrate the
information contained in the Final IIP Resources Report into post-
application environmental review(s).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ CEQ, NEPA's Forty Most Asked Questions (46 FR 18026; March
23, 1981, as amended).
\9\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Final IIP Resources Report will be included by DOE, along with
all other support information, datasets, maps, figures, etc. collected
as part of the IIP Process in an IIP Process administrative file that
would be provided to the NEPA Lead Agency to inform their environmental
reviews once an application is filed. This information can, and should,
also be used by other agencies on related decision making. DOE will
maintain the IIP Process administrative file for the duration of the
IIP Process and after the IIP Close out Meeting has been convened.
E. Selection of NEPA Lead Agency
Section 900.5 provides a mechanism for the identification and
selection of a potential NEPA Lead Agency responsible for meeting
Federal environmental review requirements \10\ for permitting
interstate transmission
[[Page 66505]]
lines across multiple Federal jurisdictions once applications are filed
with permitting agencies. This section incorporates the terms and
mechanisms provided for identification and determination of NEPA Lead
Agency for transmission facilities proposed for siting on majority
Federal lands as set forth in the 2009 MOU and in accordance with CEQ's
NEPA regulations. DOE provided clarifying changes to the Sec. 900.5
provisions of this final rule, including allowing for agencies to
notify DOE of the potential lead agency within 30 calendar days. DOE
has determined that more time was needed for agencies to consider this
designation and notify DOE of the determination.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Each participating Federal entity is responsible for
meeting its own agency-specific requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
F. IIP Process Administrative File
Section 900.6 defines the contents of a consolidated IIP Process
administrative file intended to document IIP Process-related
information. This new section replaces Sec. 900.6 of the existing
Section 216(h) regulations (73 FR 54456). This section also describes
the process by which this file will be maintained by DOE as Lead
section 216(h) Agency in coordination with the Federal entities for the
duration of the IIP Process. DOE will coordinate its guidance efforts
with CEQ to appropriately integrate the information contained in the
IIP Process Administrative File into post-application environmental
review(s) and related agency decision records.
III. Regulatory Review
A. Executive Orders 12866 and 13563
This regulatory action has been determined to be a ``significant
regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866, ``Regulatory Planning
and Review,'' 58 FR 51735 (October 4, 1993). Accordingly, this action
was subject to review under that Executive Order by the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs of the Office of Management and
Budget.
DOE has also reviewed this regulation pursuant to Executive Order
13563, issued on January 18, 2011. (76 FR 3281, Jan. 21, 2011) E.O.
13563 is supplemental to and explicitly reaffirms the principles,
structures, and definitions governing regulatory review established in
Executive Order 12866. To the extent permitted by law, agencies are
required by Executive Order 13563 to: (1) Propose or adopt a regulation
only upon a reasoned determination that its benefits justify its costs
(recognizing that some benefits and costs are difficult to quantify);
(2) tailor regulations to impose the least burden on society,
consistent with obtaining regulatory objectives, taking into account,
among other things, and to the extent practicable, the costs of
cumulative regulations; (3) select, in choosing among alternative
regulatory approaches, those approaches that maximize net benefits
(including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety,
and other advantages; distributive impacts; and equity); (4) to the
extent feasible, specify performance objectives, rather than specifying
the behavior or manner of compliance that regulated entities must
adopt; and (5) identify and assess available alternatives to direct
regulation, including providing economic incentives to encourage the
desired behavior, such as user fees or marketable permits, or providing
information upon which choices can be made by the public.
DOE concludes that this final rule is consistent with these
principles. Specifically, this final rule sets forth voluntary
procedures for DOE coordination of Federal authorizations for the
siting of interstate electric transmission facilities. Therefore, any
additional costs associated with the implementation of the rule will
primarily impact Federal implementing agencies. However, as described
in section III.C., because the rule seeks to streamline the IIP
process, additional costs to Federal Agencies may actually be minimized
or costs may be reduced. As discussed below, DOE will attempt to
characterize the effect of this regulation on Federal Agencies as part
of its retrospective review efforts. Additionally actions taken by this
rule to coordinate information and agency communication before
applications for Federal authorizations are submitted to Federal
agencies for review and consideration may help reduce application
review and decision-making timelines thereby potentially benefiting
applicants as well as the Federal government. Because use of the IIP
Process is voluntary, DOE further expects that the project proponent
requesting assistance has made the calculation that the request was in
the best interests of the project proponent. The request would also
help transmission developers determine the likelihood that they would
successfully obtain permits, which is necessary to make their proposed
project successful in the competitive, regional transmission planning
processes. As part of its semi-annual retrospective review plan or
other performance tracking efforts, DOE will (1) peridocially review
the efficacy of the IIP process, including an analysis of how the
revised process under this rulemaking has: (a) Improved times to permit
approval; (b) streamlined overall process performance, and (c) impacted
costs to the Federal government; (2) share the results with the public;
and (3) seek and respond to comments from the public, including
applicants and other federal agencies on how the process may be
improved.
B. National Environmental Policy Act
DOE has determined that promulgation of these regulations fall into
a class of actions that does not individually or cumulatively have a
significant impact on the human environment as set forth under DOE's
regulations implementing the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.). Specifically, this rulemaking is covered
under the Categorical Exclusion found in the DOE's National
Environmental Policy Act regulations at paragraph A6 of appendix A to
subpart D, 10 CFR part 1021, which applies to Rulemakings that are
strictly procedural. Accordingly, neither an environmental assessment
nor an environmental impact statement is required.
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires
preparation of an initial regulatory flexibility analysis for any rule
that by law must be proposed for public comment, unless the agency
certifies that the rule, if promulgated, will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. As required
by Executive Order 13272, ``Proper Consideration of Small Entities in
Agency Rulemaking,'' 67 FR 53461 (August 16, 2002), DOE published
procedures and policies on February 19, 2003, to ensure that the
potential impacts of its rules on small entities are properly
considered during the rulemaking process (68 FR 7990). DOE has made its
procedures and policies available on the Office of General Counsel's
Web site: http://www.gc.doe.gov.
DOE has reviewed this final rule under the provisions of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act and the procedures and policies published on
February 19, 2003. This final rule sets forth simplified or revised
procedures for DOE coordination of Federal authorizations for the
siting of interstate electric transmission facilities. As a result, the
rule directly impacts Federal agencies and not small entities. In those
cases where a project proponent requests DOE assistance for a project
[[Page 66506]]
that is not a qualifying project, DOE expects that the provisions of
this final rule, if adopted, would not affect the substantive interests
of such project proponents, including any project proponents that are
small entities. DOE expects actions taken under the provisions to
coordinate information and agency communication before applications for
Federal authorizations are submitted to Federal agencies for review and
consideration would help reduce application review and decision-making
timelines. Because use of the IIP Process set forth in this final rule
is voluntary, DOE further expects that the project proponent requesting
assistance has made the calculation that the request was in the best
interests of the project proponent. The request would also help
facilitate transmission developers with determining the likelihood that
they would successfully obtain permits, which is necessary to make
their proposed project successful in the competitive, regional
transmission planning processes. On the basis of the foregoing, DOE
certifies that this final rule would not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities. Accordingly, DOE has
not prepared a regulatory flexibility analysis for this rulemaking.
DOE's certification and supporting statement of factual basis will be
provided to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business
Administration pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605(b).
D. Paperwork Reduction Act
The rule contains information collection requirements subject to
review and approval by OMB pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of
1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) and the procedures implementing that Act,
5 CFR 1320.1 et seq. This requirement has been submitted to OMB for
approval. Public reporting burden for providing information during the
pre-application process is estimated to average twenty-five (25) hours
per response. Public reporting burden for requesting DOE assistance in
the Federal authorization process is estimated to average one hour per
response. Both of these burden estimates include the time for reviewing
instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and
maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the
collection of information. The pre-application burden estimate also
includes time necessary to share and discuss information during pre-
application meetings.
Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no person is
required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty
for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the
requirements of the PRA, unless that collection of information displays
a currently valid OMB Control Number.
E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4) generally
requires Federal agencies to examine closely the impacts of regulatory
actions on tribal, state, and local governments. Subsection 101(5) of
title I of that law defines a Federal intergovernmental mandate to
include any regulation that would impose upon tribal, state, or local
governments an enforceable duty, except a condition of Federal
assistance or a duty arising from participating in a voluntary Federal
program. Title II of that law requires each Federal agency to assess
the effects of Federal regulatory actions on tribal, state, and local
governments, in the aggregate, or to the private sector, other than to
the extent such actions merely incorporate requirements specifically
set forth in a statute. Section 202 of that title requires a Federal
agency to perform a detailed assessment of the anticipated costs and
benefits of any rule that includes a Federal mandate which may result
in costs to tribal, state, or local governments, or to the private
sector, of $100 million or more in any one year (adjusted annually for
inflation). 2 U.S.C. 1532(a) and (b). Section 204 of that title
requires each agency that proposes a rule containing a significant
Federal intergovernmental mandate to develop an effective process for
obtaining meaningful and timely input from elected officers of tribal,
state, and local governments. 2 U.S.C. 1534.
This final rule would revise procedures for an Integrated
Interagency Pre-application process by which transmission developers,
Federal, state, local agencies and tribes may coordinate early either
in person or via teleconference/web conference and share information
electronically. DOE has determined that the final rule would not result
in the expenditure by tribal, state, and local governments in the
aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more in any one
year. Accordingly, no assessment or analysis is required under the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995.
F. Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 1999
Section 654 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations
Act, 1999 (Pub. L. 105-277) requires Federal agencies to issue a Family
Policymaking Assessment for any final rule that may affect family well-
being. The final rule would not have any impact on the autonomy or
integrity of the family as an institution. Accordingly, DOE has
concluded that it is not necessary to prepare a Family Policymaking
Assessment.
G. Executive Order 13132
Executive Order 13132, ``Federalism,'' 64 FR 43255 (August 4, 1999)
imposes certain requirements on agencies formulating and implementing
policies or regulations that preempt state law or that have Federalism
implications. Agencies are required to examine the constitutional and
statutory authority supporting any action that would limit the
policymaking discretion of the states and carefully assess the
necessity for such actions. DOE has examined this rule and has
determined that it would not preempt state law and would not have a
substantial direct effect on the states, on the relationship between
the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government. No further
action is required by Executive Order 13132.
H. Executive Order 12988
With respect to the review of existing regulations and the
promulgation of new regulations, section 3(a) of Executive Order 12988,
``Civil Justice Reform,'' 61 FR 4729 (February 7, 1996), imposes on
Executive agencies the general duty to adhere to the following
requirements: (1) Eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity; (2) write
regulations to minimize litigation; and (3) provide a clear legal
standard for affected conduct rather than a general standard and
promote simplification and burden reduction. With regard to the review
required by section 3(a), section 3(b) of Executive Order 12988
specifically requires that Executive agencies make every reasonable
effort to ensure that the regulation: (1) Clearly specifies the
preemptive effect, if any; (2) clearly specifies any effect on existing
Federal law or regulation; (3) provides a clear legal standard for
affected conduct while promoting simplification and burden reduction;
(4) specifies the retroactive effect, if any; (5) adequately defines
key terms; and (6) addresses other important issues affecting clarity
and general draftsmanship under any guidelines issued by the Attorney
General. Section 3(c) of Executive Order 12988 requires Executive
agencies to review regulations in light of applicable standards in
section 3(a) and section 3(b) to determine whether they are met or it
is unreasonable to meet one or more of
[[Page 66507]]
them. DOE has completed the required review and determined that, to the
extent permitted by law, the final rule meets the relevant standards of
Executive Order 12988.
I. Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 2001
The Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 2001 (44
U.S.C. 3516 note) provides for agencies to review most disseminations
of information to the public under guidelines established by each
agency pursuant to general guidelines issued by OMB.
OMB's guidelines were published at 67 FR 8452 (February 22, 2002),
and DOE's guidelines were published at 67 FR 62446 (October 7, 2002).
DOE has reviewed this rule under the OMB and DOE guidelines and has
concluded that it is consistent with applicable policies in those
guidelines.
J. Executive Order 13211
Executive Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use,'' 66 FR 28355
(May 22, 2001) requires Federal agencies to prepare and submit to the
OMB, a Statement of Energy Effects for any proposed significant energy
action. A ``significant energy action'' is defined as any action by an
agency that promulgated or is expected to lead to promulgation of a
final rule, and that: (1) Is a significant regulatory action under
Executive Order 12866, or any successor order; and (2) is likely to
have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use
of energy, or (3) is designated by the Administrator of OIRA as a
significant energy action. For any proposed significant energy action,
the agency must give a detailed statement of any adverse effects on
energy supply, distribution, or use should the proposal be implemented,
and of reasonable alternatives to the action and their expected
benefits on energy supply, distribution, and use. This regulatory
action, which is intended to improve the pre-application procedures for
certain transmission projects and therefore result in the more
efficient processing of applications, would not have a significant
adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy and is
therefore not a significant energy action. Accordingly, DOE has not
prepared a Statement of Energy Effects.
K. Congressional Notification
As required by 5 U.S.C. 801, DOE will report to Congress on the
promulgation of this rule before its effective date. The report will
state that it has been determined that the rule is not a ``major rule''
as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
IV. Approval of the Office of the Secretary
The Secretary of Energy has approved the publication of this final
rule.
List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 900
Electric power, Electric utilities, Energy, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
Issued in Washington, DC, on September 16, 2016.
Patricia Hoffman,
Assistant Secretary, Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy
Reliability.
0
For the reasons stated in the preamble, DOE revises part 900 of chapter
II of title 10, Code of Federal Regulations as set forth below:
PART 900--COORDINATION OF FEDERAL AUTHORIZATIONS FOR ELECTRIC
TRANSMISSION FACILITIES
Sec.
900.1 Purpose.
900.2 Applicability.
900.3 Definitions.
900.4 Integrated Interagency Pre-application (IIP) process.
900.5 Selection of NEPA lead agency.
900.6 IIP Process administrative file.
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 824p(h).
Sec. 900.1 Purpose.
This part provides a process for the timely coordination of
information needed for Federal authorizations for proposed electric
transmission facilities pursuant to section 216(h) of the Federal Power
Act (FPA) (16 U.S.C. 824p(h)). This part seeks to ensure electric
transmission projects are consistent with the nation's environmental
laws, including laws that protect endangered and threatened species,
critical habitats and historic properties. This part provides a
framework called the Integrated Interagency Pre-Application (IIP)
Process by which the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) cooperates with
applicable Federal and Non-Federal entities for the purpose of early
coordination and information sharing for permitting and environmental
reviews required under Federal law to site qualified electric
transmission facilities prior to submission of required Federal
request(s). The IIP Process provides for timely and focused pre-
application meetings with key Federal and Non-Federal entities, as well
as for early identification of potential siting constraints or
opportunities, and seeks to promote thorough and consistent stakeholder
outreach or engagement by a project proponent during its transmission
line planning efforts. The IIP Process occurs before any application or
request for authorization is submitted to Federal entities. This part
improves the siting process by facilitating the early submission,
compilation, and documentation of information needed for subsequent
coordinated environmental review of a qualifying project or approved
other project by Federal entities under the National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA) following the submission of an application or request
for authorization. This part also provides an opportunity for Non-
Federal entities to coordinate their non-Federal permitting and
environmental reviews with the reviews of the Federal entities.
Sec. 900.2 Applicability.
(a) The regulations under this part apply to qualifying projects.
At the discretion of the Assistant Secretary (OE-1) the provisions of
part 900 may also apply to Other Projects.
(b) Other Projects. (1) Persons seeking DOE assistance in the
Federal authorization process for Other Projects must file a request
for coordination with the OE-1. The request must contain:
(i) The legal name of the requester; its principal place of
business; whether the requester is an individual, partnership,
corporation, or other entity; citations to the state laws under which
the requester is organized or authorized; and the name, title, and
mailing address of the person or persons to whom communications
concerning the request for coordination are to be addressed;
(ii) A concise general description of the proposed other project
sufficient to explain its scope and purpose;
(iii) A list of all potential Federal entities involved in the
proposed Other Project; and
(iv) A list of anticipated Non-Federal entities involved in the
proposed Other Project, including any agency serial or docket numbers
for pending applications.
(2) Within thirty (30) calendar days of receiving this request, the
OE-1, in consultation with the affected Federal entities with
jurisdiction, will determine if the other project should be treated as
a qualifying project under this part and will notify the project
proponent of one of the following:
(i) If accepted for processing under this rule, the project will be
treated as a qualifying project and the project proponent must submit
an initiation request as set forth under Sec. 900.5; or
(ii) If not accepted for processing under this rule, the project
proponent must follow the standard procedures of
[[Page 66508]]
Federal entities that will have jurisdiction over the project.
(c) This part does not apply to Federal authorizations for electric
transmission facilities wholly located within the Electric Reliability
Council of Texas interconnection.
(d) This part does not apply to electric transmission facilities in
a DOE-designated National Interest Electric Transmission Corridor where
a project proponent seeks a construction or modification permit from
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) under section 216(b) of
the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 824p(b)).
(e) This part does not affect any requirements of Federal law.
Participation or non-participation in the IIP Process does not waive
any requirements to obtain necessary Federal authorizations for
electric transmission facilities. This part shall not alter or diminish
any responsibilities of the Federal entities to consult under
applicable law.
(f) This part complements, and does not supplant, the Federal
entities' pre-application procedures for a Federal authorization.
Participation in the IIP Process does not guarantee issuance of any
required Federal authorization for a proposed qualifying project or
selection of the project proponent's proposed study corridors and
proposed routes as a range of reasonable alternatives or the preferred
alternative for NEPA purposes.
(g) DOE, in exercising its responsibilities under this part, will
communicate regularly with the FERC, electric reliability organizations
and electric transmission organizations approved by FERC, other Federal
entities, and project proponents. DOE will use information technologies
to provide opportunities for Federal entities to participate remotely.
(h) DOE, in exercising its responsibilities under this part, will
to the maximum extent practicable and consistent with Federal law,
coordinate the IIP Process with any Non-Federal entities. DOE will use
information technologies to provide opportunities for Non-Federal
entities to participate remotely.
Sec. 900.3 Definitions.
As used in this part:
Affected landowner means an owner of real property interests who is
usually referenced in the most recent county or city tax records, and
whose real property:
(1) Is located within either 0.25 miles of a proposed study
corridor or route of a qualifying project or at a minimum distance
specified by state law, whichever is greater; or
(2) Contains a residence within 3000 feet of a proposed
construction work area for a qualifying project.
DOE means the United States Department of Energy.
Early identification of project issues refers to an early and open
stakeholder participation process carried out by a project proponent as
a part of its project development activities to identify potential
environmental issues Federal and Non-Federal entities' may consider for
further study, issues of concern to the affected public and
stakeholders, and potential project alternatives.
Federal authorization means any authorization required under
Federal law to site an electric transmission facility, including
permits, rights-of-way, special use authorizations, certifications,
opinions, or other approvals. This term includes those authorizations
that may involve determinations under Federal law by either Federal or
Non-Federal entities.
Federal entity means any Federal agency with jurisdictional
interests that may have an effect on a proposed qualifying project,
that is responsible for issuing a Federal authorization for the
proposed qualifying project or attendant facilities, has relevant
expertise with respect to environmental and other issues pertinent to
or that are potentially affected by the proposed qualifying project or
its attendant facilities, or provides funding for the proposed
qualifying project or its attendant facilities. Federal entities
include those with either permitting or non-permitting authority; for
example, those entities with which consultation or review must be
completed before a project may commence, such as the Department of
Defense for an examination of military test, training or operational
impacts.
FPA means the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 791 through 828c).
IIP process administrative file means the information assembled and
maintained by DOE as the Lead section 216(h) Agency. The IIP Process
Administrative File will include the IIP Initiation Request, which
includes a Summary of Qualifying Project, Affected Environmental
Resources and Impacts Summary, associated Maps, Geospatial Information
and Data (provided in electronic format), and a Summary of Early
Identification of Project Issues. The IIP Process Administrative File
will also include IIP Meeting Summaries, an IIP Resources Report, and
other documents, including but not limited to maps, publicly-available
data, and other supporting documentation submitted by the project
proponent as part of the IIP Process that inform the Federal entities.
IIP resources report means the resource summary information
provided by the project proponent as a part of the IIP Process that
meets the content requirements pursuant to Sec. 900.4 of this part.
The IIP Resource Report contains the environmental information used by
a project proponent to plan a qualifying project.
Indian tribe has the same meaning as provided for in 25 U.S.C.
450b(e).
Lead 216(h) agency means the Department of Energy, which section
216(h) of the FPA (16 U.S.C. 824p(h)) makes responsible for timely
coordination of Federal authorization requests for proposed electric
transmission facilities.
MOU principals means the heads of each of the MOU signatory
agencies.
MOU signatory agency means a signatory of the Interagency MOU
executed on October 23, 2009, entitled, ``Memorandum of Understanding
among the United States (U.S.) Department of Agriculture (USDA), the
Department of Commerce, Department of Defense (DoD), Department of
Energy (DOE), Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Council on
Environmental Quality (CEQ), the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
(FERC), the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP), and
Department of the Interior (DOI), regarding Coordination in Federal
Agency Review of Electric Transmission Facilities on Federal Lands.''
NEPA means the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C.
4321 et seq.)
NEPA lead agency means the Federal agency or agencies preparing or
having primary responsibility for preparing an environmental impact
statement or environmental assessment as defined in 40 CFR 1508.16 and
in accordance with 40 CFR 1501.5(c).
Non-federal entity means an Indian Tribe, multistate governmental
entity, or state and local government agency with relevant expertise
and/or jurisdiction within the project area, that is responsible for
conducting permitting and environmental reviews of the proposed
qualifying project or its attendant facilities, that has special
expertise with respect to environmental and other issues pertinent to
or that are potentially affected by the proposed qualifying project or
its attendant facilities, or provides funding for the proposed
qualifying project or its attendant facilities. Non-Federal entities
may include those with either permitting or non-permitting authority,
e.g., entities such as State Historic
[[Page 66509]]
Preservation Offices, with whom consultation must be completed in
accordance with section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act,
54 U.S.C. 306108, before a project can commence.
OE-1 means the Assistant Secretary for DOE's Office of Electricity
Delivery and Energy Reliability.
Other projects mean electric transmission facilities that are not
qualifying projects. Other Projects may include facilities for the
transmission of electric energy in interstate commerce for the sale of
electric energy at wholesale that do not meet the 230 kV or above
qualification, or are not otherwise identified as regionally or
nationally significant with attendant facilities, in which all or part
of a proposed transmission line--
(1) Crosses jurisdictions administered by more than one Federal
entity; or
(2) Crosses jurisdictions administered by a Federal entity and is
considered for Federal financial assistance from a Federal entity.
Project area means the geographic area considered when the project
proponent develops study corridors and then potential routes for
environmental review and potential project siting as a part of the
project proponent's planning process for a qualifying project. It is an
area located between the two end points of the project (e.g.,
substations), including their immediate surroundings within at least
one-mile of that area, as well as any proposed intermediate
substations. The size of the project area should be sufficient to allow
for the evaluation of various potential alternative routes with
differing environmental, engineering, and regulatory constraints. The
project area does not necessarily coincide with ``permit area,'' ``area
of potential effect,'' ``action area,'' or other defined terms of art
that are specific to types of regulatory review.
Project proponent means a person or entity who initiates the IIP
Process in anticipation of seeking Federal authorizations for a
qualifying project or Other Project.
Qualifying project means a non-marine high voltage electric
transmission line (230 kV or above) and its attendant facilities, or
other regionally or nationally significant non-marine electric
transmission line and its attendant facilities, in which:
(1) All or part of the proposed electric transmission line is used
for the transmission of electric energy in interstate commerce for sale
at wholesale, and
(2) All or part of the proposed electric transmission line crosses
jurisdictions administered by more than one Federal entity or crosses
jurisdictions administered by a Federal entity and is considered for
Federal financial assistance from a Federal entity. qualifying projects
do not include those for which a project proponent seeks a construction
or modification permit from the FERC for electric transmission
facilities in a DOE-designated National Interest Electric Transmission
Corridor under section 216(b) of the FPA (16 U.S.C. 824p(b)).
Regional mitigation approach means an approach that applies the
mitigation hierarchy (first seeking to avoid, then minimize impacts,
then, when necessary, compensate for residual impacts) when developing
mitigation measures for impacts to resources from qualifying projects
at scales relevant to the resource, however narrow or broad, necessary
to sustain, or otherwise achieve established goals for those resources.
The approach identifies the needs and baseline conditions of targeted
resources, potential impacts from the qualifying projects, cumulative
impacts of past and likely projected disturbance to those resources,
and future disturbance trends. The approach then uses such information
to identify priorities for avoidance, minimization, and compensatory
mitigation measures across that relevant area to provide the maximum
benefit to the impacted resources.
Regional mitigation strategies or plans mean documents developed
through or external to the NEPA process that apply a Regional
Mitigation Approach to identify appropriate mitigation measures in
advance of potential impacts to resources from qualifying projects.
Route means a linear area within which a qualifying project could
be sited. It should be wide enough to allow minor adjustments in the
alignment of the qualifying project so as to avoid sensitive features
or to accommodate potential engineering constraints but narrow enough
to allow detailed study.
Stakeholder means any Non-Federal entity, any non-governmental
organization, Affected Landowner, or other person potentially affected
by a proposed qualifying project.
Study corridor means a contiguous area (but not to exceed one-mile)
in width within the project area where alternative routes may be
considered for further study.
Sec. 900.4 Integrated Interagency Pre-application (IIP) process.
(a) The IIP Process is intended for a project proponent who has
identified potential study corridors and/or potential routes within an
established project area and the proposed locations of any intermediate
substations for a qualifying project. The IIP Process is also intended
to accommodate qualifying projects that have been selected in a
regional electric transmission plan for purposes of cost allocation or
a similar process where an electric transmission plan has been
identified and the permitting and siting phase must commence. While the
IIP Process is optional, the early coordination provided by DOE between
Federal entities, Non-Federal entities, and the project proponent
ensures that the project proponent fully understands application and
permitting requirements, including data potentially necessary to
satisfy application requirements for all permitting entities. The two-
meeting structure of the IIP process also allows for early interaction
between the project proponents, Federal entities, and Non-Federal
entities in order to enhance early understanding by those having an
authorization or consultation related to the qualifying project. The
IIP process is expected to provide Federal entities and Non-Federal
entities with a clear description of a qualifying project, the project
proponent's siting process, and the environmental and community setting
being considered by the project proponent for siting the transmission
line, as well as facilitate the Early Identification of Project Issues.
(b) A project proponent electing to utilize the IIP Process must
submit an initiation request to DOE to start the IIP Process. The
timing of the submission of the initiation request for IIP Process is
determined by the project proponent. The initiation request must
include, based on best available information, a Summary of qualifying
project, Affected Environmental Resources and Impacts Summary,
associated Maps, Geospatial Information, and Studies (provided in
electronic format), and a Summary of Early Identification of Project
Issues. The initiation request must adhere to the page limits
established by this part.
(c) Summary of the qualifying project is limited to a maximum
length of ten (10) pages, single-spaced and must include:
(1) A statement that the project proponent requests to use the IIP
Process;
(2) Primary contact information for the project proponent,
including a primary email address;
(3) The legal information for the project proponent: Legal name;
principal place of business; whether the requester is an individual,
partnership, corporation, or other entity; the state
[[Page 66510]]
laws under which the requester is organized or authorized; and if the
project proponent resides or has its principal office outside the
United States, documentation related to designation by irrevocable
power of attorney of an agent residing within the United States;
(4) A description of the project proponent's financial and
technical capability to construct, operate, maintain, and decommission
the qualifying project;
(5) A statement of the project proponent's interests and
objectives;
(6) To the extent available, regional electric transmission
planning documents, including status of regional reliability studies,
regional congestion or other related studies where applicable, and
interconnection requests;
(7) A brief description of the evaluation criteria and methods used
by the project proponent to identify and develop the potential study
corridors or potential Routes for the proposed qualifying project;
(8) A brief description of the proposed qualifying project,
including endpoints, voltage, ownership, justification for the line,
intermediate substations if applicable, and, to the extent known, any
information about constraints or flexibility with respect to the
qualifying project;
(9) Project proponent's proposed schedule, including timeframe for
filing necessary Federal and state applications, construction start
date, and planned in-service date if the qualifying project receives
needed Federal authorizations and approvals by Non-Federal entities;
and
(10) A list of potentially affected Federal and Non-Federal
entities.
(d) Affected Environmental Resources and Impacts Summary. The
Affected Environmental Resources and Impacts Summary is limited to a
maximum length of twenty (20), single-spaced pages, not including
associated maps, and must include concise descriptions, based on
existing, relevant, and reasonably-available information, of the known
existing environment, and major site conditions in project area,
including:
(1) An overview of topographical and resource features that are
relevant to the siting of electric transmission lines present;
(2) Summary of known land uses, including Federal lands, Tribal
lands, and state public lands of various types (e.g., parks and
monuments), associated land ownership, where appropriate, and any land
use restrictions;
(3) Summary of known or potential adverse effects to cultural and
historic resources;
(4) Summary of known or potential conflicts with or adverse impacts
on military activities;
(5) Summary of known or potential impacts on the U.S. aviation
system, including FAA restricted airspace;
(6) Summary of known or potential impacts on the U.S. marine
transportation system, including impacts on waterways under
jurisdiction of the U.S. Coast Guard;
(7) Summary of known information about Federal- and state-protected
avian, aquatic, and terrestrial species, and critical habitat or
otherwise protected habitat, that may be present, as well as other
biological resources information that is necessary for an environmental
review;
(8) Summary of the aquatic habitats (to include estuarine
environments, and water bodies, including wetlands, as well as any
known river crossings and potential constraints caused by impacts to
navigable waters of the United States considered for the qualifying
project);
(9) Summary of known information about the presence of low-income
communities and minority populations that could be affected by the
qualifying project;
(10) Identification of existing or proposed qualifying project
facilities or operations in the project area;
(11) Summary of the proposed use of previously-disturbed lands,
existing, agency-designated corridors, including but not limited to
corridors designated under section 503 of the Federal Land Policy and
Management Act and section 368 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005,
transportation rights-of-way, and the feasibility for co-location of
the qualifying project with existing facilities or location in existing
corridors and transportation rights-of-way; and
(12) Summary of potential avoidance, minimization, and conservation
measures, such as compensatory mitigation (onsite and offsite),
developed through the use of Regional Mitigation Approach or, where
available, Regional Mitigation Strategies or Plans, and considered by
the project proponent to reduce the potential impacts of the proposed
qualifying project to resources warranting or requiring mitigation.
(e) Maps, Geospatial Information, and Studies. Maps, Geopspatial
Information and Studies in support of the information provided in the
summary descriptions for the known existing environmental, cultural,
and historic resources in the project area under paragraph (d) in this
section must be included, and do not contribute to the overall page
length of the IIP initiation request. Project proponents must provide
maps as electronic data files that may be readily accessed by Federal
entities and Non-Federal entities, including:
(1) A map of the project area showing the locations of potential
study corridors or potential routes;
(2) Detailed maps that accurately show information supporting
summaries of the known existing environmental resources within the
potential study corridors or potential routes;
(3) Electronic access to existing data or studies relevant to the
summary information provided as part of paragraphs (a) through (d) of
this section; and
(4) Citations identifying sources, data, and analyses used to
develop the IIP Process initiation request materials.
(f) Summary of Early Identification of Project Issues. The Summary
of Early Identification of Project Issues must not exceed ten (10),
single-spaced pages in length and is intended to provide a summary of
stakeholder outreach or interactions conducted for the qualifying
project prior to submission of the initiation request and to inform the
development of issues and project alternatives for study in an
environmental review document. The Summary of Early Identification of
Project Issues must also:
(1) Discuss the specific tools and actions used by the project
proponent to facilitate stakeholder communications and public
information, including an existing, current project proponent Web site
for the proposed qualifying project, where available, and a readily-
accessible, easily-identifiable, single point of contact for the
project proponent;
(2) Identify how and when meetings on the location of potential
study corridors or potential routes have been and would be publicized
prior to the submission of applications for Federal authorization, as
well as where and when those meetings were held and how many more
meetings may be planned during the IIP Process;
(3) Identify known stakeholders and how stakeholders are
identified;
(4) Briefly explain how the project proponent responds to requests
for information from stakeholders, as well as records stakeholder
requests, information received, and project proponent responses to
stakeholders;
(5) Provide the type of location (for example, libraries, community
reading rooms, or city halls) in each county potentially affected by
the proposed
[[Page 66511]]
qualifying project, where the project proponent has provided publicly-
available copies of documents and materials related to the proposed
qualifying project;
(6) Describe the evaluation criteria being used by the project
proponent to identify and develop the potential study corridors or
potential routes and that are presented by the project proponent to
stakeholders during its project planning outreach efforts prior to
submission of applications for Federal authorizations or non-Federal
permits or authorizations;
(7) Provide information collected as a result of the project
proponent's stakeholder outreach efforts; and
(8) Include a summary of issues identified, differing project
alternative Corridors or routes, and revisions to routes developed as a
result of issues identified by stakeholders during the project
proponent's stakeholder outreach efforts for the qualifying project.
(g) Within fifteen (15) calendar days of receiving the initiation
request, DOE shall notify by email all Federal entities and Non-Federal
entities with an authorization potentially necessary to site the
qualifying project that:
(1) Based on its initial review of information submitted by the
project proponent in response to requirements in paragraphs (a) through
(f) of this section, DOE has identified the contacted Federal entities
or Non-Federal entities as potentially having an authorization or
consultation responsibility or other relevant expertise related to the
qualifying project;
(2) Federal and Non-Federal entities notified by DOE should
participate in the IIP Process for the qualifying project with DOE's
rationale for that determination provided; and
(3) Federal and Non-Federal entities notified by DOE will provide
DOE with a name and information for a point of contact, and any initial
questions or concerns, including supporting rationale, about their
level of participation in the IIP Process based on DOE's justification
in writing to DOE within fifteen (15) calendar days of receiving DOE's
notification.
(h) Within thirty (30) calendar days of receiving the initiation
request, DOE shall notify the project proponent that:
(1) The initiation request meets the requirements in paragraphs (a)
through (f) of this section, including whether the project constitutes
a qualifying project; or
(2) The initiation request does not meet the requirements in
paragraphs (a) through (f) in this section. DOE will provide the
reasons for that finding and a description of how the project proponent
may, if applicable, address any deficiencies through supplementation of
the information contained in the initiation request so that DOE may re-
consider its determination.
(i) DOE shall provide Federal and Non-Federal entities with access
to an electronic copy of the initiation request and associated maps,
geospatial data, and studies that meet the requirements in paragraphs
(a) through (f) of this section, at the same time that DOE provides
notice to the project proponent.
(j) IIP Initial Meeting. DOE, in consultation with the identified
Federal entities, shall convene the IIP Initial Meeting with the
project proponent and all Federal entities and Non-Federal entities
notified by DOE as having an authorization or consultation related to
the qualifying project as soon as practicable and no later than forty-
five (45) calendar days after notifying the project proponent and
Federal and Non-Federal entities that the initiation request meets the
requirements in paragraphs (a) through (f) of this section. The Initial
Meeting shall be convened in the area or region where the proposed
qualifying project is located. Federal and Non-Federal entities shall
have at least thirty (30) calendar days to review the information
provided by the project proponent as part of the initiation request
prior to the meeting. Federal entities identified by DOE as having a
Federal authorization related to the qualifying project are expected to
participate in the Initial Meeting. DOE also shall invite Non-Federal
entities identified by DOE as having an authorization or consultation
related to the qualifying project to participate in the Initial
Meeting. During the Initial Meeting:
(1) DOE and the Federal entities shall discuss the IIP Process and
any cost recovery requirements, where applicable, with the project
proponent;
(2) The project proponent shall describe the proposed qualifying
project and the contents of its initiation request; and
(3) The Federal entities shall, to the extent possible and based on
agency expertise and experience, review the information provided by the
project proponent, and publicly-available information, and
preliminarily identify the following and other reasonable criteria for
adding, deleting, or modifying preliminary Routes from further
consideration within the identified study corridors, including:
(i) Potential environmental, visual, historic, cultural, economic,
social, or health effects or harm based on the potential project or
proposed siting, and anticipated constraints;
(ii) Potential cultural resources and historic properties of
concern;
(iii) Areas under special protection by Federal statute, or other
Federal entity or Non-Federal entity decision that could potentially
increase the time needed for project evaluation and potentially
foreclose approval of siting a transmission line route through such
areas. Such areas may include, but are not limited to, properties or
sites which may be of traditional or cultural importance to Indian
Tribe(s), National Scenic and Historic Trails, National Landscape
Conservation system units managed by the Bureau of Land Management
(BLM), National Wildlife Refuges, units of the National Park System,
national marine sanctuaries, or marine national monuments;
(iv) Opportunities to site routes through designated corridors,
previously disturbed lands, and lands with existing infrastructure as a
means of potentially reducing impacts and known conflicts as well as
the time needed for affected Federal land managers to evaluate an
application for a Federal authorization if the route is sited through
such areas (e.g., co-location with existing infrastructure or location
on previously disturbed lands or in energy corridors designated by the
DOI or USDA under Section 503 of the Federal Land Policy and Management
Act or Section 368 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, an existing right-
of-way, or a utility corridor identified in a land management plan);
(A) Potential constraints caused by impacts on military test,
training, and operational missions, including impacts on installations,
ranges, and airspace;
(B) Potential constraints caused by impacts on the United States'
aviation system;
(C) Potential constraints caused by impacts to navigable waters of
the United States;
(D) Potential avoidance, minimization, and conservation measures,
such as compensatory mitigation (onsite and offsite), developed through
the use of a Regional Mitigation Approach or, where available, Regional
Mitigation Strategies or Plans to reduce the potential impact of the
proposed qualifying project to resources requiring mitigation; and
(E) Based on available information provided by the project
proponent, biological (including threatened, endangered, or otherwise
protected avian, aquatic, and terrestrial species and aquatic
habitats), visual, cultural, historic, and other surveys and studies
[[Page 66512]]
that may be required for preliminary proposed routes.
(v) Such information and feedback to the project proponent does not
constitute a commitment by Federal entities to approve or deny any
Federal authorization request. Moreover, no agency will determine that
the project proponent's proposed preliminary routes presented or
discussed during the IIP Process constitute a range of reasonable
alternatives for NEPA purposes or that the environmental information
provided during the IIP Process would satisfy the entirety of
information needs for purposes of compliance with NEPA or other
applicable laws and regulations. The IIP Process does not limit agency
discretion regarding NEPA review. Participating Non-Federal entities
are encouraged to identify risks and benefits of siting the proposed
qualifying project within the preliminary proposed routes.
(vi) DOE shall record key issues, information gaps, and data needs
identified by Federal and Non-Federal entities during the Initial
Meeting, and shall convey a summary of the meeting discussions, key
issues, and information gaps and requests to the project proponent, all
Federal entities, and any Non-Federal entities that participate in the
IIP Process in a draft Initial Meeting Summary within fifteen (15)
calendar days after the meeting. Participating Federal entities and
Non-Federal entities, and the project proponent will then have fifteen
(15) calendar days following its receipt of the IIP Process Meeting
Summary to review the IIP Process Meeting Summary and provide
corrections to DOE for resolution in a final Initial Meeting Summary,
as appropriate. Thirty (30) calendar days following the close of the
15-day review period, DOE will incorporate the final Initial Meeting
Summary into the IIP Process Administrative File for the qualifying
project, and, at the same time, provide all Federal and Non-Federal
entities and the project proponent an electronic copy of a final IIP
Initial Meeting Summary.
(k) IIP Close-Out Meeting Request. A project proponent electing to
utilize the IIP Process pursuant to this section must submit a Close-
Out Meeting Request to DOE to complete the IIP Process. The timing of
the submission of the Close-Out Meeting Request for the IIP Process is
determined by the project proponent but may only be submitted no less
than forty-five (45) calendar days following the Initial Meeting. The
Close-Out Meeting Request shall include:
(1) A statement that the project proponent is requesting the Close-
Out Meeting for the IIP Process;
(2) A summary table of changes made to the qualifying project
during the IIP Process, including potential environmental and community
benefits from improved siting or design;
(3) Maps of updates to potential proposed routes within study
corridors, including the line, substations and other infrastructure,
which include at least as much detail as required for the Initial
Meeting described above and as modified in response to early
stakeholder input and outreach and agency feedback documented as a part
of the IIP Initial Meeting Summary;
(4) An updated summary of all project-specific biological
(including threatened, endangered or otherwise protected avian,
aquatic, and terrestrial species, and aquatic habitats), visual,
cultural, historic or other surveys sponsored by the project proponent;
(5) If known, a schedule for completing upcoming field resource
surveys;
(6) An updated summary of all known or potential adverse impacts to
natural resources;
(7) An updated summary of any known or potential adverse effects to
cultural and historic resources;
(8) A conceptual plan for potential implementation and monitoring
of mitigation measures, including avoidance, minimization, and
conservation measures, such as compensatory mitigation (offsite and
onsite), developed through the use of a Regional Mitigation Approach
or, where available, Regional Mitigation Strategies or Plans to reduce
the potential impact of the proposed qualifying project to resources
warranting or requiring mitigation;
(9) An estimated time of filing its requests for Federal
authorizations for the proposed qualifying project; and
(10) An estimated time of filing its requests for all other
authorizations and consultations with Non-Federal entities.
(l) Close-Out Meeting. The IIP Process Close-Out Meeting shall
result in a description by Federal entities of the remaining issues of
concern, identified information gaps or data needs, and potential
issues or conflicts that could impact the time it will take affected
Federal entities to process applications for Federal authorizations for
the proposed qualifying project. The Non-Federal entities shall also be
encouraged to provide a description of remaining issues of concern,
information needs, and potential issues or conflicts. The IIP Process
Close-Out Meeting will also result in the identification of a potential
NEPA Lead Agency pursuant to Sec. 900.6 described.
(1) Within fifteen (15) calendar days of receiving the Close-Out
Meeting Request, DOE shall notify by email the appropriate POCs of all
Federal entities and Non-Federal entities with a known or potential
authorization necessary to site the qualifying project.
(2) Within thirty (30) calendar days of receiving a Close-Out
Meeting Request, DOE shall determine whether the Close-Out Meeting
Request meets the requirements in paragraph (k) of this section and
inform the project proponent of its acceptance, and provide Federal
entities and Non-Federal entities with Close-Out Meeting Request
materials, including map, geospatial data, and surveys in electronic
format, via electronic means.
(3) Within sixty (60) calendar days of making a determination that
the Close-Out Meeting Request meets the requirements of this section,
DOE shall convene the Close-Out Meeting in the same region or location
as the Initial Meeting with the project proponent and all Federal
entities. All Non-Federal entities participating in the IIP Process
shall also be invited to attend. During the Close-Out Meeting:
(i) The project proponent's updates to the siting process to date
shall be discussed, including stakeholder outreach activities,
resultant stakeholder input, and project proponent response to
stakeholder input;
(ii) Based on information provided by the project proponent to
date, the Federal entities shall discuss key issues of concern and
potential mitigation measures identified for the proposed qualifying
project;
(iii) Led by DOE, all Federal entities shall discuss statutory and
regulatory standards that must be met to make decisions for Federal
authorizations required for the proposed qualifying project;
(iv) Led by DOE, all Federal entities shall describe the process
and estimated time to complete for required Federal authorizations and,
where possible, the anticipated cost (e.g., processing and monitoring
fees and land use fees);
(v) Led by DOE, all affected Federal entities shall describe their
expectations for a complete application for a Federal authorization for
the proposed qualifying project;
(vi) After the close out meeting, DOE shall prepare a Final IIP
Resources Report for inclusion in the IIP Process Administrative File.
The Final IIP Resources Report provides a description of the proposed
qualifying project, including stakeholder outreach activities and
feedback, summary information on environmental resources, and potential
impacts (with
[[Page 66513]]
electronic access to associated maps, geospatial data and/or survey
data), potential issues, and identification of constraints by Federal
entities and Non-Federal entities for the proposed qualifying project;
(vii) DOE shall recommend that participating Federal entities use
the Final IIP Resources Report to inform the NEPA process for the
proposed qualifying project. For example, Federal entities could use
the Final IIP Resources Report during scoping for an EIS and
identifying potential routes, to explain why certain alternatives were
eliminated from further consideration, and to preliminarily identify
impacts, potential avoidance, minimization, and conservation measures,
such as compensatory mitigation (onsite and offsite), developed through
the use of a Regional Mitigation Approach or, where available, Regional
Mitigation Strategies or Plans and considered by the project proponent
to reduce the potential impacts of the proposed qualifying project to
resources requiring mitigation; and
(viii) All participating Federal and Non-Federal entities shall
identify a preliminary schedule for authorizations for the proposed
qualifying project contingent upon timely filing of applications and
related materials by the project proponent.
Sec. 900.5 Selection of the NEPA lead agency.
DOE, in consultation with the Federal entities, shall coordinate
the selection of a potential NEPA Lead Agency responsible for preparing
an environmental review document under NEPA for proposed qualifying
projects. Determination and responsibilities of the NEPA Lead Agency
for preparing the EIS shall be in compliance with applicable law,
including the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and CEQ
implementing regulations at 40 CFR part 1500, and each agency's
respective NEPA implementing regulations and procedures. However:
(a) For proposed qualifying projects that cross lands administered
by both DOI and USDA, DOI and USDA shall consult and jointly determine
within thirty (30) calendar days of receiving the initiation request
information from DOE which Department has a greater land management
interest in the proposed qualifying project and which Department should
therefore assume the role of NEPA Lead Agency.
(b) DOI and USDA shall notify DOE of their determination regarding
the NEPA Lead Agency in writing within thirty (30) calendar days of
making the determination.
(c) Unless DOE notifies DOI and USDA in writing of its objection to
that determination within ten (10) calendar days of the DOI/USDA
notification, the determination shall be deemed accepted and final. In
deciding whether to object to the determination, DOE shall consider the
CEQ regulations pertaining to selection of the Lead Agency, including
40 CFR 1501.5(c).
(d) For proposed qualifying projects that do not cross lands
administered by both DOI and USDA, DOE and the Federal entities that
will likely constitute the cooperating agencies for an environmental
review document under NEPA, shall consult and jointly recommend a
potential NEPA Lead Agency within 45 calendar days of receiving an IIP
Process Close-Out Meeting Request. If DOE and the Federal entities are
unable to agree on a recommendation for a NEPA Lead Agency, the Federal
entities shall request CEQ to make a final determination by the Close-
Out Meeting. No determination of a Federal entity as the potential NEPA
Lead Agency under this part shall be made absent that Federal entity's
consent.
Sec. 900.6 IIP Process administrative file.
(a) When communicating with the project proponent during the IIP
Process, Federal entities are expected to include DOE in all
communications related to the IIP Process for the project proponent's
proposed qualifying project.
(b) DOE shall maintain all information, including documents and
communications, it disseminates or receives from the project proponent,
Federal entities, and Non-Federal entities during the IIP Process in an
IIP Process Administrative File for future use in reviewing any
applications for required Federal authorizations for the proposed
qualifying project. DOE will process any requests for information from
the public in accordance with Freedom of Information Act requirements.
DOE will share the IIP Process Administrative File with the selected or
potential NEPA Lead Agency.
(c) DOE shall document the list of issues identified during the IIP
Process for a proposed qualifying project and any updates to
information provided as part of the Close-Out Meeting discussion in a
Final IIP Resources Report for the IIP Process Administrative File.
(d) Each Federal entity is strongly encouraged to maintain the
documents and communications developed in the IIP Process subject to
each Federal entity's administrative record policies and, as
appropriate and applicable, those documents and communications should
become part of that Federal entity's administrative record for granting
or denying a Federal authorization for each qualifying project.
[FR Doc. 2016-23285 Filed 9-27-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P