[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 21 (Tuesday, February 2, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 5383-5395]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-01641]
========================================================================
Proposed Rules
Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of
the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these
notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in
the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.
========================================================================
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 21 / Tuesday, February 2, 2016 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 5383]]
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: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Department of Energy (DOE) proposes to amend its
regulations for the timely coordination of Federal Authorizations for
proposed interstate electric transmission facilities pursuant to
section 216(h) of the Federal Power Act (FPA). The proposed amendments
are intended to improve the pre-application procedures and result in
more efficient processing of applications.
DATES: Public comment on this proposed rule will be accepted until
April 4, 2016. DOE will hold a public workshop and will announce the
date, time and location in a subsequent notice.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by RIN 1901-AB36, by any
of the following methods:
1. Follow the instructions for submitting comments on the Federal
eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov.
2. Send email to [email protected]. Include RIN 1901-AB36 in the
subject line of the email. Please include the full body of your
comments in the text of the message or as an attachment.
3. Address postal mail to 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.
Due to potential delays in the delivery of postal mail, we
encourage respondents to submit comments electronically to ensure
timely receipt.
This notice of proposed rulemaking and any comments that DOE
receives will be made available on the DOE Web site at http://energy.gov/oe/services/electricity-policy-coordination-and-implementation/transmission-planning/improving. You may request a
hardcopy of the workshop transcript or comments be sent to you via
postal mail by contacting the DOE's Office of Electricity Delivery and
Energy Reliability.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Julie A. Smith, Ph.D. with the 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; 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 Proposed Rule
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
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
IV. Approval of the Office of the Secretary
I. Background
The Energy Policy Act of 2005 (Pub. L. 109-58) (EPAct) established
a national policy to enhance and, to the extent possible, increase the
coordination and communication among Federal agencies with authority to
site electric transmission facilities. The policies set forth by
Congress in EPAct reinforced policies announced in E.O. 13212, Actions
to Expedite Energy-Related Projects (66 FR 28357, May 22, 2001) by
mandating each agency with the authority to issue Federal
authorizations to ensure the timely and coordinated review and
permitting of electric transmission facilities. Section 1221(a) of
EPAct added a new section 216(h) to 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
interstate electric transmission projects, including National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) reviews.
Section 216(h) of the FPA provides for the coordination of Federal
transmission siting determinations for project proponents seeking
permits, special use authorizations, certifications, opinions, or other
approvals required under Federal law to site an electric transmission
facility. 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
[[Page 5384]]
agencies and public. The DOE proposes to amend its existing regulations
to implement the Integrated Interagency Pre-application (IIP) process
described in section II.
On September 19, 2008, DOE published an interim final rule
establishing procedures under which prospective applicants may request
that DOE coordinate interstate electric transmission facilities and
related environmental reviews pursuant to FPA section 216(h) (73 FR
54456). The interim final rule became effective on October 20, 2008,
and the regulations can be found at 10 CFR 900.1 through 900.6. Also on
September 19, 2008, DOE published a notice of proposed rulemaking
(NOPR), which proposed amendments to the interim final rule (73 FR
54461) that was intended to amend the interim final rule. Comments were
filed in response to the 2008 interim final rule and 2008 NOPR. DOE
addressed the comments submitted in response to both the interim final
rule and the 2008 NOPR in another NOPR issued on December 13, 2011 (76
FR 77432).\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ With the publication of this proposed rule, DOE withdraws a
previously proposed rulemaking for the Coordination of Federal
Authorizations for Electric Transmission Facilities in December 2011
(76 FR 77432; Dec. 13, 2011). In that action, DOE proposed
requirements for permitting entities to inform DOE of requests for
authorizations, established a process by which prospective Project
Proponents may request DOE's coordination under section 216(h) for
Federal authorizations for interstate electric transmission
facilities, provided for the selection of a Federal lead agency for
the purposes of compiling a single environmental review document and
consolidated administrative record for Qualifying Projects, as well
as provided for the establishment of intermediate and final
deadlines for the review of Federal authorization decisions, as well
as established a date certain after which all permit decisions and
related environmental reviews under all applicable Federal laws
shall be completed in one year or as soon thereafter as permissible
by law.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On October 23, 2009, DOE and eight other Federal agencies with
permitting or other Federal authorization responsibility for the siting
of electric transmission facilities entered into a ``Memorandum of
Understanding Regarding Coordination in Federal Agency Review of
Electric Transmission Facilities on Federal Land'' (2009 MOU). The
signatories to the 2009 MOU were DOE, the Departments of Defense,
Agriculture (USDA), the Interior (DOI), and Commerce, the Federal
Regulatory Energy Commission (FERC), the Environmental Protection
Agency (USEPA), the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), and the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation.
The purpose of the 2009 MOU is to establish a framework to improve
coordination among project proponents, Federal agencies, states, and
tribes involved in the siting and permitting process for electric
transmission facilities on Federal lands. The MOU is intended to
improve uniformity, consistency, and transparency by describing each
entity's role and responsibilities when project proponents wish to
build electric transmission facilities. Additionally, the MOU
designates a ``Lead Agency'' serving as the single point-of-contact for
coordinating all Federal environmental reviews necessary to site
electric transmission facilities on Federal lands. In most instances,
the Departments of Agriculture or Interior will be the Lead Agency,
since they have jurisdiction over most of the Federal lands and right-
of-ways for proposed electric transmission facilities. Nothing in this
proposed rule modifies this aspect of the MOU. The proposed 10 CFR
900.5 would maintain the agreements reached in the MOU in the context
of identifying and selecting a potential NEPA lead for environmental
reviews once applications for Federal authorizations are received by
Federal agencies.
In October 2011, in an effort to improve the performance of Federal
siting, permitting, and review processes for infrastructure
development, the President created a Rapid Response Team for
Transmission (RRTT), a collaborative effort involving nine executive
departments and agencies that are signatories to the 2009 MOU. The RRTT
is an interagency group working to improve the efficiency,
effectiveness and predictability of transmission siting, permitting,
and review processes, in part through increasing interagency
coordination and transparency. Lessons learned through the RRTT have
informed the Integrated Interagency Pre-application (IIP) process
proposed in this proposed rule.
On March 22, 2012, the President issued Executive Order 13604,
``Improving Performance of Federal Permitting and Review of
Infrastructure Projects'' that directed all Federal executive
departments and agencies to take all authorized steps, consistent with
available resources, to execute Federal permitting and review processes
with maximum efficiency and effectiveness, ensuring the health, safety,
and security of communities and the environment while supporting
economic growth. The E.O. emphasized early and active consultation with
tribal, state, and local governments to avoid conflicts or duplication
of effort, resolve concerns, and allow for concurrent rather than
sequential reviews. The E.O. also noted that these elements must be
integrated into project planning processes so that projects are
designed to avoid, minimize or mitigate, to the extent practicable,
adverse impacts on public health, security, historic properties and
cultural resources, and the environment.
On May 17, 2013, the President issued a memorandum on Modernizing
Federal Infrastructure Review and Permitting Regulations, Policies, and
Procedures to the heads of Executive Departments and Agencies, that
discussed agency best practices identified as a result of E.O. 13604.
These best practices include, but are not limited to: Early
coordination among Federal agencies, as well as with tribal, state, and
local governments; strategic outreach to stakeholders; project-planning
processes and individual project designs that consider local and
regional ecological planning goals; landscape- and watershed-level
mitigation practices; sharing of scientific and environmental data in
open-data formats to minimize redundancy, facilitate informed project
planning, and identify data gaps early in the review and permitting
process; and the application of best environmental and cultural
practices as set forth in the governing statutes.
On June 7, 2013, the President issued a memorandum on Transforming
our Nation's Electric Grid Through Improved Siting, Permitting, and
Review to the heads of Executive Departments and Agencies. Building on
the work of the RRTT, that memorandum strongly affirms that robust
collaboration among Federal, tribal, state, and local governments must
be a critical component of the Administration's effort to improve the
Federal siting, permitting, and review processes for transmission
projects because a single project may cross multiple governmental
jurisdictions over hundreds of miles. Section 4(a) of the memorandum
directs that Member Agencies of the Steering Committee created under
E.O. 13604 to develop an integrated, interagency pre-application
process for significant onshore electric transmission projects
requiring Federal approval. The process must be designed to: Promote
predictability in Federal siting, permitting, and review processes;
encourage early engagement, coordination, and collaboration of Federal,
tribal, state, and local governments, non-governmental organizations,
and the public; increase the use of integrated project planning early
in the siting, permitting, and review processes; facilitate early
identification of issues that could diminish the likelihood that
projects will ultimately be permitted; promote early planning for
integrated and
[[Page 5385]]
strategic mitigation plans; expedite siting, permitting, and review
processes through a mutual understanding of the needs of all affected
Federal agencies and tribal, state, and local governments; and improve
environmental and cultural resource outcomes.
On August 29, 2013, DOE published a Request for Information (RFI)
seeking information on a new draft IIP Process for significant onshore
electric transmission projects requiring Federal authorizations
developed by the RRTT. The proposed IIP Process presented in the RFI
consisted of a series of four (4) iterative meetings, with direct
federal involvement throughout the entire development of a transmission
line project--from the identification of two substation endpoints
(study area), to the selection of study corridors within a study area,
and through identification of route alternative(s) within those study
corridors. In response to comments received from the public, Federal
agencies, state agencies, environmental groups, and industry
representatives,\2\ DOE proposes a revised simplified IIP Process that
consists of two (2) meetings that focus on projects in which study
corridors and route alternatives are already under development. The IIP
Process is discussed in section II of this proposed rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Comments received in response to the 2013 RFI may be
accessed at: http://energy.gov/oe/downloads/comments-request-information-improving-performance-Federal-permitting-and-review.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. Discussion of Proposed Rule
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 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. These proposed regulations provide a framework
for DOE to coordinate early cooperation and exchange of environmental
information. These proposed regulations provide a framework for DOE to
facilitate early cooperation and exchange of environmental information
required to site qualified electric transmission facilities. These
activities would occur prior to an applicant filing a request for
authorization with Federal permitting agencies. The proposed
regulations also provide an opportunity for non-Federal agencies
(tribal, state, or local governments) to coordinate separate non-
Federal permitting and environmental reviews with that of the Federal
permitting agencies.
B. Applicability
Section 900.2 of the proposed 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 existing
regulations and the 2009 MOU, would apply to Qualifying Projects, and
would 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 that are 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.
Further, there would 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 900.2 also provides that 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 216(h).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Definitions
Section 900.3 defines terms for this part.
D. Integrated Interagency Pre-Application (IIP) Process
Section 900.4 provides the procedures and information requirements
of the proposed IIP Process. This section sets forth a proposed
framework for implementing the proposed IIP Process, provisions for how
DOE would fulfill its section 216(h) Lead Coordinating Agency role as
defined in Sec. 900.2 of this part, provisions describing expected
outcomes of each 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 Environmental Report).
For proponents of Qualifying Projects, participation in the IIP
Process is voluntary. A Project Proponent initiates the IIP Process by
submitting an Initiation Request as described in proposed Sec. 900.4.
A Project Proponent may elect to request initiation of the IIP Process
for a Qualifying Project or Other Project as defined in Sec. 900.2.
The timing of the Initiation Request is determined by the Project
Proponent.
When a Project Proponent elects to utilize the IIP Process, DOE
will require the active participation of the Project Proponent to
ensure effective coordination covered in this part. Active
participation includes providing 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.
Information requested as part of the Initiation Request in this
proposed rule retains many of the existing requirements contained in
Sec. 900.5 ``Request for coordination' of the existing section 216(h)
regulation (January 2011), 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 provide electronic access to a
checklist, as well as other helpful information and publicly-available
resources in a central electronic repository, as currently
[[Page 5386]]
provided for in Sec. 900.6(b) of the existing regulations at 10 CFR
part 900.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ 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, an online tool that streamlines the challenge of
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
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 Final Meeting, unless the notified agency clarifies in
writing to DOE within seven (7) 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. \6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ 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, the Federal Entity, and otherwise
publicly-available information. DOE will oversee the IIP Process and
coordinate the involvement of the Federal Entities as described below
in Sec. 900.4 even though DOE is not responsible for issuing a Federal
Authorization. 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 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 will provide
its rationale to DOE in writing when or if a determination is made that
it may not be expeditious to 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 can strive to utilize to inform their
relevant decision making. The Final IIP Resources Report is designed in
terms of format and substance to be similar to an ``early corporate
environmental assessment'' or typical applicant-generated environmental
study in accordance with: (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 related to the ability of agencies to authorize preparation
of environmental assessments by applicants (46 FR 18026; March 23,
1981, as amended). \7\ Such actions continue to be encouraged by CEQ as
``they call for private, Federal and non-Federal entities to build
environmental considerations into their own planning processes in a way
that facilitates the application of NEPA and avoids delay.'' \8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ CEQ, NEPA's Forty Most Asked Questions (46 FR 18026; March
23, 1981, as amended), Question 8 discusses ``early corporate
environmental assessments''
\8\ 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 until no later than thirty (30) calendar days 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 NEPA Lead Agency responsible for meeting Federal
environmental review requirements \9\ for permitting interstate
transmission 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ 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 products
and information. This new section replaces the existing Sec. 900.6.
This section also describes the intent and process by which this file
will be maintained by DOE as Lead 216(h) Agency in coordination with
the Federal Entities for the duration of the IIP Process.
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,
[[Page 5387]]
issued on January 18, 2011 (76 FR 3281, Jan. 21, 2011). Executive Order
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 proposed rule is consistent with these
principles. Specifically, this proposed rule sets forth voluntary
procedures for DOE coordination of Federal Authorizations for the
siting of interstate electric transmission facilities. As described in
section III.C., therefore, the costs of the rule will impact Federal
agencies. Among the benefits expected from this proposed rule, actions
taken 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 proposed 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.
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 proposed rule under the provisions of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act and the procedures and policies published on
February 19, 2003. This proposed 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
that is not a Qualifying Project, DOE expects that the provisions of
this proposed 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 proposed
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 the proposed 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 proposed 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 proposed 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 requesting
information during the pre-application process is estimated to average
30 minutes 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.
DOE invites public comment on: (1) Whether the proposed information
collection requirements are necessary for the performance of DOE's
functions, including whether the information will have practical
utility; (2) the accuracy of DOE's estimates of the burden of the
proposed information collection requirements; (3) ways to enhance the
quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) ways to minimize the burden of the information collection
requirements on respondents. Comments should be addressed to the DOE
Desk Officer, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, 725
17th Street NW.,
[[Page 5388]]
Washington, DC 20503. Persons submitting comments to OMB also are
requested to send a copy to the contact person at the address given in
the ADDRESSES section of this notice of proposed rulemaking. Interested
persons may obtain a copy of the DOE's Paperwork Reduction Act
Submission to OMB from the contact person named in this notice of
proposed rulemaking.
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 proposed 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
through the existing Office of Management and Budget MAX Web site
collaborative tool. DOE has determined that the proposed 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 proposed rule that may affect family
well being. The proposed 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 proposed 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 them. DOE has completed the
required review and determined that, to the extent permitted by law,
the proposed 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 proposed 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
[[Page 5389]]
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.
IV. Approval of the Office of the Secretary
The Secretary of Energy has approved the publication of this
proposed rule.
List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 900
Electric power, Electric utilities, Energy, Reporting and record
keeping requirements.
Issued in Washington, DC, on January 20, 2016.
Patricia A. Hoffman,
Assistant Secretary, Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy
Reliability.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, DOE proposes to revise 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 DOE cooperates with applicable Federal and non-Federal
entities for the purpose of early coordination of information 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 by a project proponent during
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, transparent 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 that 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; and
(iv) A list of anticipated non-Federal entities, 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 for 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 does not supplant but rather complements 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
[[Page 5390]]
city tax records, and whose real property:
(1) Is located within either 0.25 miles of a proposed centerline 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 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 216(h) Agency and the NEPA Lead Agency
for all Federal authorization decisions. The IIP Process Administrative
File will include, without limitation, 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, IIP meeting summaries, 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, and that inform the Federal entities.
IIP Resource 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. 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 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.''
MOU principals means the heads of each of the MOU signatory
agencies.
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 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 include facilities for the
transmission of electric energy in interstate commerce for the sale of
electric energy at wholesale, but do not need to meet the 230 kV or
above qualification, or be otherwise identified as regionally or
nationally significant with attendant facilities, in which all or part
of a proposed transmission line crosses jurisdictions administered by
more than one 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, and over 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. Note that 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--
(1) 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:
(i) 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
[[Page 5391]]
(ii) 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.
(2) 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 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.
Stakeholder outreach plan means a concise description and plan for
how a project proponent coordinates stakeholder interface,
communications, and involvement so as to provide information to and
receive feedback from stakeholders as defined in this part as part of
the development of a Qualifying Project and during the IIP Process. It
directly informs and supports the development of the summary of early
identification of project issues required as part of the initiation
request pursuant to Sec. 900.5. The purpose of the stakeholder
outreach plan is to ensure that a Project Proponent actively engages
and receives feedback from stakeholders when the Project Proponent is
evaluating potential study corridors or potential routes before and
during the IIP Process.
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 proposed 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 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 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, including 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), a summary of early identification of project
issues, and must adhere to the page limits established by this part.
(c) Summary of the Qualifying Project. The 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 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 that
are being 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
[[Page 5392]]
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 and state public
lands of various types (e.g., parks and monuments), associated land
ownership, 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 requiring mitigation.
(e) Maps, geospatial information, and studies. Maps, geospatial
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) of 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 that are relevant
to the summary information provided as part of paragraphs (c) and (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 inform the
development of issues and project alternatives for study in an
environmental review document. The Summary of Early Identification of
Project Issues will:
(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 Qualifying Project, and specify those 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 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 the Qualifying Project.
(g) Within fifteen (15) calendar days of receiving the initiation
request, DOE shall notify by electronic mail 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 (c) through
(f) of this section, DOE has identified the contacted Federal entities
or non-Federal entities as having an authorization or consultation
responsibility related to the Qualifying Project; and
(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
[[Page 5393]]
(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 about their level of participation in the IIP
Process based on DOE's justification within seven (7) 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 (c)
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 (c) through (f) of this section and 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 and DOE will 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
(c) 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 (c) 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 shall discuss the IIP process with the Project Proponent
and any cost recovery requirements, where applicable.
(2) The Project Proponent shall describe the proposed Qualifying
Project and the contents of its initiation request.
(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, preliminarily
identify the following and other reasonable criteria for adding,
deleting, or modifying preliminary routes from further consideration
within the identified study corridors:
(i) Potential environmental visual, historic, cultural, economic,
social, or health effects or harm based on 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-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, and
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 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);
(v) Potential constraints caused by impacts on military test,
training, and operational missions, including impacts on installations,
ranges, and airspace;
(vi) Potential constraints caused by impacts on the United States'
aviation system;
(vii) Potential constraints caused by impacts to navigable waters
of the United States;
(viii) 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
(ix) 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
that may be required for preliminary proposed routes.
(4) Information and feedback provided in paragraphs (j)(1) through
(3) of this section to the Project Proponent does not constitute a
commitment by Federal entities to approve or deny any Federal
authorization request. Moreover, no agency would or could determine
that the Project Proponent's proposed preliminary routes presented or
discussed during the IIP Process would constitute a range of reasonable
alternatives for NEPA purposes. 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.
(5) The 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 participated 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
[[Page 5394]]
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 must 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
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.
(1) Within fifteen (15) calendar days of receiving the close-out
meeting request, DOE shall notify by electronic mail 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, preferably via the OMB MAX collaboration Web site at https://max.omb.gov/maxportal/.
(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
at 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 estimated
time to make decisions for required Federal authorizations and 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) DOE shall prepare and include a final IIP Resources Report in
the IIP Process Administrative File, which provides an accurate
description of the proposed Qualifying Project, including stakeholder
outreach activities and feedback, summary information on environmental
resources, and potential impacts (with 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) When it is included in the IIP Process Administrative File,
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, during scoping for an EIS and
identifying potential routes, explaining why certain alternatives were
eliminated from further consideration, and preliminarily identifying
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
[[Page 5395]]
DOI and USDA, DOI and USDA shall consult and jointly determine within
thirty (30) calendar days of receiving the initiation request
information from DOE to determine 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 ten (10) 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) When the NEPA Lead Agency is not established pursuant to
paragraphs (a) through (c) of this section, the Federal entities that
will likely constitute the cooperating agencies for an environmental
review document under NEPA shall consult and jointly recommend a NEPA
Lead Agency within 45 calendar days of receiving an IIP Process close-
out meeting request to the Council on Environmental Quality for a fine
determination. No determination of a Federal entity as the 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 involved in 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 for
future use in reviewing any applications for required Federal
authorizations for the proposed Qualifying Project. Before
disseminating information specific to a Federal entity's or non-Federal
entity's review, DOE must receive approval from that agency in
accordance with that Federal entity's Freedom of Information Act
requirements.
(c) DOE shall document the list of issues identified during the IIP
process for a proposed Qualifying Project and updates to information
provided as part of the close-out meeting discussion in a final IIP
Resources Report, if any, for the IIP Process Administrative File.
(d) Each Federal entity is 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 could become part of
that Federal entity's administrative record for granting or denying a
Federal authorization for each Qualifying Project.
[FR Doc. 2016-01641 Filed 2-1-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P