[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 157 (Wednesday, August 16, 2023)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 55826-55855]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-17283]



[[Page 55825]]

Vol. 88

Wednesday,

No. 157

August 16, 2023

Part II





Department of Energy





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





10 CFR Part 900





Coordination of Federal Authorizations for Electric Transmission 
Facilities; Proposed Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 16, 2023 / 
Proposed Rules  

[[Page 55826]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

10 CFR Part 900

[DOE-HQ-2023-0050]
RIN 1901-AB62


Coordination of Federal Authorizations for Electric Transmission 
Facilities

AGENCY: Grid Deployment Office, U.S. Department of Energy.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking and request for comment.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Energy (DOE) is proposing to amend its 
regulations for the timely coordination of Federal authorizations for 
proposed interstate electric transmission facilities pursuant to the 
Federal Power Act (FPA). Specifically, DOE is proposing to establish an 
integrated and comprehensive Coordinated Interagency Transmission 
Authorizations and Permits Program (CITAP Program); make participation 
by application in the Integrated Interagency Preapplication (IIP) 
Process a pre-condition for a decision under the CITAP Program; require 
project proponents to develop resource reports and public engagement 
plans for communities that would be affected by a proposed qualifying 
project through an iterative and collaborative process with Federal 
agencies while providing that Federal entities would remain responsible 
for completion of environmental reviews, for government-to-government 
consultation with Indian Tribes (and government-to-sovereign 
consultation in the context of Native Hawaiian relations), and for any 
findings and determinations; require project proponents to conduct 
robust engagement with all Tribes and communities of interest that 
would be affected by a proposed qualifying project; ensure that DOE may 
carry out its statutory obligation to prepare a single Environmental 
Impact Statement (EIS) sufficient for the purposes of all Federal 
authorizations necessary to site a qualifying project; and align and 
harmonize the IIP Process and implementation of the FPA with Title 41 
of the Fixing America's Surface Transportation (FAST) Act.

DATES: DOE will accept comments, data, and information regarding this 
proposed rule on or before October 2, 2023. Please refer to section V 
(Public Participation--Submission of Comments) of the SUPPLEMENTARY 
INFORMATION section of this proposed rule for additional information.

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are encouraged to submit comments using 
the Federal eRulemaking Portal at www.regulations.gov, under docket 
number DOE-HQ-2023-0050. Follow the instructions for submitting 
comments. Alternatively, interested persons may submit comments, 
identified by docket number DOE-HQ-2023-0050 and/or Regulation 
Identification Number (RIN) 1901-AB62, by any of the following methods:
     Email: [email protected]. Include docket number DOE-HQ-
2023-0050 and/or RIN 1901-AB62 in the subject line of the email.
     Mail: Address written comments to U.S. Department of 
Energy, Grid Deployment Office, 4H-065, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, 
Washington, DC 20585.
     Hand Delivery/Courier: U.S. Department of Energy, Grid 
Deployment Office, 4H-065, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 
20585.
    Instructions: For detailed instructions on submitting comments and 
additional information on the rulemaking process, see the ``Public 
Participation--Submission of Comments'' (section V) of the 
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this proposed rule.
    Docket: The docket for this activity, which includes Federal 
Register notices, comments, and other supporting documents/materials, 
is available for review at www.regulations.gov, under docket number 
DOE-HQ-2023-0050. All documents in the docket are listed in the 
www.regulations.gov index. However, some documents listed in the index, 
such as those containing information that is exempt from public 
disclosure, may not be publicly available.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Liza Reed, U.S. Department of Energy, 
Grid Deployment Office, 4H-065, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, 
Washington, DC 20585. Telephone: (202) 586-2006. Email: 
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 
I. Executive Summary
II. Background and Authority
    A. Section 216(h): Implementation History
    B. Need for Proposed Revisions
III. Section-by-Section Analysis
IV. Regulatory Review
    A. Review Under Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and 14094
    B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
    C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
    D. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
    E. Review Under Executive Order 12988
    F. Review Under Executive Order 13132
    G. Review Under Executive Order 13175
    H. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
    I. Review Under Executive Order 12630
    J. Review Under Executive Order 13211
    K. Review Under the Treasury and General Government 
Appropriations Act, 1999
    L. Review Under the Treasury and General Government 
Appropriations Act, 2001
V. Public Participation--Submission of Comments
VI. Approval by the Office of the Secretary of Energy

I. Executive Summary

    In this notice of proposed rulemaking (NOPR), DOE is proposing 
regulatory amendments to 10 CFR part 900 in response to the 
Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) (Pub. L. 117-58, also 
known as the ``Bipartisan Infrastructure Law'') and the Inflation 
Reduction Act (IRA) (Pub. L. 117-169). The IIJA and IRA made 
significant investments in clean energy manufacturing and generation, 
and the electrification of homes, businesses, and vehicles. The full 
benefits of those investments will not be realized, however, unless the 
United States can quickly, sustainably, and equitably expand our 
electric transmission infrastructure. Transmission solutions are needed 
to accommodate the generation and load changes enabled by the financial 
incentives included in both laws.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ DOE, National Transmission Needs Study (Feb. 2023), 
available at: https://www.energy.gov/sites/default/files/2023-02/022423-DRAFTNeedsStudyforPublicComment.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Given the capacity constraints and congestion on the nation's 
electric transmission grid, it is imperative that the Federal 
Government provide a clear, efficient, and well-coordinated process to 
allow project proponents \2\ to obtain expedient approval to fill this 
vital need. For these reasons, DOE is proposing to amend part 900 to 
establish a Coordinated Interagency Transmission Authorizations and 
Permits Program (CITAP Program) that will reduce the time required for 
transmission project developers to receive decisions on Federal 
authorizations \3\ for transmission projects.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Throughout the preamble discussion, DOE uses terminology 
defined in the proposed regulatory text. Unless the meaning of the 
term is made clear from the context of the discussion, the first 
occurrence of the term is accompanied by a footnote that provides 
the proposed definition of the term. Proposed Sec.  900.2 defines 
``project proponent'' as a person or entity who initiates the IIP 
Process in anticipation of seeking a Federal authorization for a 
qualifying project.
    \3\ Section 216(h)(1) of the Federal Power Act defines ``Federal 
authorization'' as ``any authorization required under Federal law in 
order to site a transmission facility'' and provides that the term 
includes ``permits, special use authorizations, certifications, 
opinions, or other approvals as may be required under Federal law in 
order to site a transmission facility.'' Proposed Sec.  900.2 
defines ``authorization'' as any license, permit, approval, finding, 
determination, or other administrative decision required under 
Federal, state, local, or Tribal law to site an electric 
transmission facility, including permits, special use authorization, 
certifications, opinions, or other approvals. Proposed Sec.  900.2 
defines ``Federal authorization'' as any authorization required 
under Federal law.

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

[[Page 55827]]

II. Background and Authority

    The electric transmission system is the backbone of the United 
States' electricity system, connecting electricity generators to 
distributors and customers across the nation. Electric transmission 
facilities often traverse long distances and cross multiple 
jurisdictions, including Federal, State, Tribal, and private lands. To 
receive Federal financial support or build electric transmission 
facilities on or through Federal lands and waters, project developers 
often must secure authorizations from one or multiple Federal agencies, 
which can take considerable time and result in costly delays.
    Recognizing the need for increased efficiency in the authorization 
process for transmission facilities, the Energy Policy Act of 2005 
(Pub. L. 109-58) (EPAct) established a national policy to enhance 
coordination and communication among Federal agencies with authority to 
site electric transmission facilities. Section 1221(a) of EPAct added a 
new section 216 to Part II of the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 824p) 
(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,'' requires the DOE to coordinate all Federal authorizations 
and related environmental reviews needed for siting interstate electric 
transmission projects, including National Environmental Policy Act of 
1969 (Pub. L. 91-190, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) (NEPA) 
reviews. DOE is proposing to amend its section 216(h) implementing 
regulations, found in 10 CFR part 900, to implement this authority and 
better coordinate review of Federal authorizations for proposed 
interstate electric transmission facilities.
    Section 216(h) of the FPA provides for DOE's 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.
    First, section 216(h)(2) authorizes DOE to act as the lead agency 
to coordinate Federal authorizations and related environmental reviews 
required to site an interstate electric transmission facility. 16 
U.S.C. 824p(h)(2). Section 216(h)(3) requires the Secretary of Energy, 
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. 16 U.S.C. 824p(h)(3).
    Second, section 216(h)(4)(A) directs the Secretary to ``establish 
prompt and binding intermediate milestones and ultimate deadlines for 
the review of, and Federal authorization decisions relating to, the 
proposed facility.'' 16 U.S.C. 824p(h)(4)(A). If an agency fails to act 
on an application within the deadline set by DOE, or denies an 
application, the project proponent or any state where the facility 
would be located may appeal to the President for review of the 
application. 16 U.S.C. 824p(h)(6)(A).
    Third, the statute directs the Secretary to ``provide an 
expeditious pre-application mechanism for prospective [project 
proponents]. . . .'' 16 U.S.C. 824p(h)(4)(C).
    Fourth, the statute directs the Secretary, ``in consultation with 
the affected agencies,'' to ``prepare a single environmental review 
document, which shall be used as the basis for all decisions on the 
proposed project under Federal law.'' 16 U.S.C. 824p(h)(5)(A).
    Finally, section 216(h)(7) directs the Secretary to issue 
regulations necessary to implement section 216(h) and directs the 
Secretary and the heads of all affected agencies to enter into a 
memorandum of understanding (MOU) to ``ensure the timely and 
coordinated review and permitting of electricity transmission 
facilities.'' 16 U.S.C. 824p(h)(7).
    As discussed in the following section, DOE entered into an 
implementing MOU with eight other agencies and has established the pre-
application mechanism required by section 216(h)(4)(C) under 
regulations at 10 CFR part 900. For the reasons explained in the 
following sections, DOE is proposing modifications to update and expand 
part 900.

A. Section 216(h): Implementation History

    In 2006, nine Federal agencies with permitting or other Federal 
authorization responsibility for the siting of electric transmission 
facilities entered into a Memorandum of Understanding on Early 
Coordination of Federal Authorizations and Related Environmental 
Reviews Required in Order to Site Electric Transmission Facilities 
(2006 MOU).\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The 2006 MOU signatory agencies are the Department of Energy 
(DOE), the Department of Agriculture (USDA), the Department of 
Defense (DOD), the Department of the Interior (DOI), the Department 
of Commerce (DOC), the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), 
the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Council on 
Environmental Quality (CEQ), and the Advisory Council on Historic 
Preservation (ACHP). The 2006 MOU is publicly available at https://www.energy.gov/oe/articles/memorandum-understanding-early-coordination-federal-authorizations-and-related.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On September 19, 2008, DOE published an interim final rule 
establishing procedures at 10 CFR part 900 under which prospective 
project proponents could request that DOE coordinate Federal 
authorizations for the siting of interstate electric transmission 
facilities and related environmental reviews pursuant to section 216(h) 
(73 FR 54456). The interim final rule became effective on October 20, 
2008. Also on September 19, 2008, DOE published a NOPR, which proposed 
amendments to the interim final rule (73 FR 54461) (2008 NOPR). 
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 a 2011 NOPR issued on December 
13, 2011 (77 FR 77432). In 2009, nine Federal agencies signed the 
Memorandum of Understanding Regarding Coordination in Federal Agency 
Review of Electric Transmission Facilities on Federal Land (2009 MOU), 
superseding the 2006 MOU.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The nine 2009 MOU signatory agencies are the USDA, DOC, DOD, 
DOE, EPA, CEQ, ACHP, DOI, and FERC. The 2009 MOU is publicly 
available at https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/Transmission%20Siting%20on%20Federal%20Lands%20MOU%20October%2023%2C%202009.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On February 2, 2016, DOE withdrew the 2011 NOPR and instead 
proposed revisions to 10 CFR part 900 that would establish an 
Integrated Interagency Pre-Application (IIP) Process to encourage 
cooperation prior to the submission of a formal application for 
authorizations necessary to site transmission facilities (81 FR 5383). 
On September 28, 2016, DOE issued a final rule establishing the IIP 
Process (81 FR 66500). The final rule went into effect on November 28, 
2016.
    In May 2023, nine Federal agencies signed the Memorandum of 
Understanding Regarding Facilitating Federal Authorizations for 
Electric Transmission Facilities (2023 MOU), superseding the 2009 
MOU.\6\ The 2023

[[Page 55828]]

MOU signatory agencies recognized that insufficient budgetary 
resources, lack of agency staff, and limited mechanisms for 
coordination across Federal agencies have contributed to delays in 
permitting timelines for transmission facilities. In the 2023 MOU, DOE 
agreed, in consultation with the heads of the other signatory agencies, 
to update its regulations implementing section 216(h) within six months 
of signing the 2023 MOU. The 2023 MOU expands efforts to ensure pre-
construction coordination and provide updated direction to Federal 
agencies in expediting the siting, permitting, and construction of 
electric transmission infrastructure. After the execution of the 2023 
MOU but before the publication of this NOPR, Congress enacted the 
Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023 (Pub. L. 118-5) (FRA). Section 107 of 
the FRA, entitled ``Timely and Unified Federal Reviews,'' amended NEPA 
to require the designation of a lead agency empowered to perform a 
coordinating and schedule-setting function. Although the source of 
authority for this NOPR is section 216(h), through which Congress 
specifically addressed Federal reviews for electric transmission 
facilities, the reforms proposed in this NOPR are consistent with the 
FRA and, DOE believes, likely to advance Congress' goal of achieving a 
timely and unified review process among Federal agencies. In this NOPR, 
DOE has referred to ``lead'' and ``co-lead'' agencies, consistent with 
the terminology used in the 2023 MOU. DOE believes these terms to be 
substantively equivalent to the FRA's ``lead'' and ``joint lead'' 
agencies. DOE seeks comment on its use of these terms.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The nine 2023 MOU signatory agencies are USDA, DOC, DOD, 
DOE, DOI, EPA, Federal Permitting Steering Improvement Steering 
Council (FPISC), CEQ, and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). 
The 2023 MOU is publicly available at https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/Final-Transmission-MOU-with-signatures-5-04-2023.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Need for Proposed Revisions

    DOE is proposing to update its regulations implementing section 
216(h) to establish the CITAP Program, improve the IIP Process, and 
provide for the coordinated review of applications for Federal 
authorizations necessary to site transmission facilities.
    First, DOE is establishing a comprehensive and integrated CITAP 
Program. Under this program, DOE proposes to: (i) provide for an 
effective IIP Process to facilitate timely submission of materials 
necessary for Federal authorizations and related environmental reviews 
required under Federal law; (ii) set intermediate milestones and 
ultimate deadlines for the review of such authorizations and 
environmental reviews; and (iii) serve as the lead agency for the 
preparation of a single EIS in compliance with NEPA, designed to serve 
the needs of all relevant Federal entities \7\ and effectively inform 
their corresponding Federal authorization decisions. These elements of 
the CITAP Program are described in more detail throughout this proposed 
rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Proposed Sec.  900.2 defines ``Federal entity'' as any 
Federal agency or department. That section also defines ``relevant 
Federal entity'' as a Federal entity with jurisdictional interests 
that may have an effect on a qualifying project, that is responsible 
for issuing a Federal authorization for the qualifying project, that 
has relevant expertise with respect to environmental and other 
issues pertinent to or potentially affected by the qualifying 
project, or that provides funding for the qualifying project. The 
term includes participating agencies. The term includes a Federal 
entity 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 DOD for an 
examination of military test, training or operational impacts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Second, pursuant to the FPA, DOE proposes to make the IIP Process a 
mandatory precondition for participation in the CITAP Program. 
Consistent with DOE's interpretation in 2016, in this rule, DOE does 
not propose to require the participation of any Federal or non-Federal 
entity \8\ in the IIP Process. 81 FR 66500. Rather, Federal entities 
have agreed to participate through the 2023 MOU. Non-Federal entities 
may participate at their discretion. DOE does, however, propose that a 
project proponent's participation in the IIP Process is a prerequisite 
for the coordination and schedule-setting aspects of the CITAP Program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Proposed Sec.  900.2 defines ``non-Federal entity'' as an 
Indian Tribe, multi-state governmental entity, state agency, or 
local government agency.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE recognizes that this represents a departure from the IIP 
Process established by DOE's 2016 rule. However, DOE has concluded that 
a project proponent's participation in the IIP Process is necessary for 
the success of other elements of the CITAP Program and for the 
Secretary's satisfaction of the statutory obligations imposed by 
section 216(h). Specifically, section 216(h)(4)(B) requires that the 
Secretary determine that ``an application has been submitted with such 
data as the Secretary considers necessary'' and requires that the 
Secretary ``ensure'' that, once such data is submitted, ``all permit 
decisions and related environmental reviews under all applicable 
Federal law . . . be completed'' as soon as is practicable. DOE has 
determined that participation in the IIP Process is necessary for a 
project proponent to provide the ``data . . . the Secretary considers 
necessary'' such that the Secretary may determine that the permit 
decisions and related environmental reviews relevant to that 
application may be completed within the time period DOE will establish 
by schedule. As detailed further below, the IIP Process affords a 
unique opportunity for project proponents to provide essential 
information and to coordinate with Federal entities prior to submission 
of applications for Federal authorizations. DOE has determined that it 
will not be able to establish binding milestones and deadlines for 
projects that do not complete the IIP Process. DOE will also not be 
able to prepare a single EIS for such a project. Accordingly, DOE has 
proposed to make participation in the IIP Process a mandatory 
precondition for participation in those other aspects of the Program.
    In 2016, when DOE issued its previous regulations, there was no 
CITAP Program. Accordingly, DOE had no occasion then to consider 
whether a project proponent was required to participate in the IIP 
Process to benefit from the CITAP Program. For the reasons explained 
above, DOE has determined that the CITAP Program requires a project 
proponent's participation in the IIP Process. As discussed further 
below, DOE tentatively concludes that the benefits of participating in 
the IIP Process, and the resulting access to the CITAP Program, will 
justify the costs to project proponents. DOE expects that the CITAP 
Program will substantially accelerate the process by which transmission 
projects are permitted and developed. The expected reduction in 
permitting timelines will generate benefits that, while difficult to 
quantify with specificity, are likely to significantly exceed the cost 
of participating in the IIP Process.
    Third, DOE proposes to improve the IIP Process to ensure that it 
provides project proponents and Federal entities an opportunity to 
identify as early as possible potential environmental and community 
impacts associated with a proposed project. Accordingly, DOE proposes 
to require that project proponents submit resource reports and public 
participation and engagement plans, developed with guidance from 
Federal entities, and participate in a series of meetings to ensure 
that Federal entities have ample opportunities to provide this 
guidance.
    As proposed, the IIP Process is an iterative process, anchored by 
three meetings: the initial meeting, the review meeting, and the close-
out meeting. These meetings, defined in proposed Sec. Sec.  900.5, 
900.8 and 900.9, are milestones in the process, and are not

[[Page 55829]]

intended to preclude any additional meetings or communications between 
the project proponent and the relevant Federal entities. The iterative 
nature of the process is provided for in procedures for evaluating the 
completeness and the suitability for relevant agency decision-making of 
materials before each milestone.
    The project proponent resource reports are intended to develop data 
and materials that will facilitate Federal entities' review of the 
project proponent's applications under a number of Federal statutes, 
including, but not limited to, NEPA, section 106 of the National 
Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (54 U.S.C. 306108) (NHPA), section 10 
of the Rivers and Harbors Act (33 U.S.C. 403), section 404 of the Clean 
Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344) (CWA), and the Endangered Species Act (16 
U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) (ESA). As proposed, drafts of the reports would be 
submitted before the IIP Process review meeting. Federal entities 
responsible for making determinations under those statutes would have 
the opportunity to review the reports before the meeting and would then 
be able to present any concerns at the meeting. The project proponent 
would be required to submit final versions of the reports before the 
IIP Process close-out meeting.
    DOE recognizes that the information requested in the proposed 
resource reports is extensive and that gathering that information will 
require a significant investment of time and effort on the part of the 
project proponent. However, the investment of time and resources 
required by this proposed process cannot be assessed against a zero-
investment baseline. The information DOE proposes to require is 
information necessary for Federal entities to review applications for 
authorizations and prepare related environmental reviews. Accordingly, 
most information required to be submitted in the proposed resource 
reports would likely be required absent this proposal. The IIP Process 
is intended to ensure that all necessary information is provided to 
relevant Federal entities in a timely and coordinated fashion; it is 
also intended to avoid the duplication of cost and effort that project 
proponents and Federal entities face in navigating the series of 
authorizations necessary to site a transmission line.
    DOE believes that collating this information at an early stage of 
the CITAP Program will ultimately allow both the project proponent and 
the Federal entities to avoid time and resource-consuming pitfalls that 
would otherwise appear during the application process. Nevertheless, 
the IIP Process does not relieve the relevant Federal entities of their 
legal obligation to comply with applicable environmental requirements.
    In addition to the resource reports, DOE also proposes to require 
submission of public participation and engagement plans for communities 
that would be affected as described in the proposed qualifying 
project.\9\ DOE further proposes requiring project proponents to follow 
these plans and coordinate with relevant Federal entities to conduct 
robust engagement with all Tribes \10\ and communities that could be 
affected by the proposed qualifying project. This early engagement 
would inform a project proponent's development of a proposed project 
and would begin before an application is submitted to the Federal 
Government. Such engagement would not relieve the Federal entities of 
legal obligations to consult with Tribes and engage with communities, 
but rather would provide opportunities for Tribes and communities to 
express their views early in the process and to share their concerns 
directly with project proponents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Proposed changes to the term ``qualifying project'' are 
discussed in more detail in this section and the following sections. 
``Qualifying project'' is defined in proposed Sec.  900.2.
    \10\ Proposed Sec.  900.2 defines ``Indian Tribe'' as having the 
same meaning as provided by 25 U.S.C. 5304(e). The preamble 
discussion uses the terms ``tribe'' and ``Indian tribe'' 
interchangeably.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As a key example, the contents of Resource Report 4 in Sec.  900.6 
are intended to facilitate initiation of section 106 of the NHPA. As 
proposed, the rule is intended to allow project proponents to obtain as 
much information as possible about cultural and historic resources 
located within the affected environment, including preliminary detailed 
information about resources that may be implicated in the section 106 
process, such as cultural and historic resources that may be listed on 
the National Register of Historic Places. This initial information-
gathering and recommendation stage will give Federal entities insight 
into the potential range of resources and impacts implicated in the 
proposed project; gathering this information from project proponents 
does not bind Federal entity decisionmakers. Federal entities remain 
responsible for findings and determinations required by and reserved to 
them in 36 CFR part 800.
    The initial information-gathering phase precedes the formal 
consultation process under section 106. As proposed, DOE would 
authorize project proponents, as applicants to the CITAP Program, to 
begin section 106 consultation during the IIP Process, but only at such 
time as a project is sufficiently well developed to allow formal 
consultation to begin. DOE proposes that, within 45 days of the IIP 
Process review meeting described in proposed Sec.  900.8, DOE would 
determine whether the project proponent has developed the scope of its 
proposed project and alternatives adequately for DOE to determine that 
there exists an ``undertaking'' for purposes of section 106 of the 
NHPA. If DOE so determines, then DOE would authorize project proponents 
to initiate consultation with State Historical Preservation Officers 
(SHPOs), Tribal Historical Preservation Officers (THPOs), and others 
consistent with 36 CFR 800.2(e)(4). For all qualifying projects, DOE 
and the relevant Federal entity or entities shall serve as co-lead 
agencies for consultation for section 106 of the NHPA per 36 CFR 
800.2(a)(2). This would maximize coordination between NEPA and section 
106 processes per 36 CFR 800.8, for example, by enabling DOE to seek 
public input on the section 106 process during the opportunities for 
public comment provided by NEPA. Agencies often use the public input 
process of NEPA to seek public input on section 106. DOE would remain 
responsible for consulting on a government-to-government basis with 
Tribes (and government-to-sovereign consultation in the context of 
Native Hawaiian relations), including pursuant to section 106. DOE 
would also remain legally responsible for all findings and 
determinations charged to the agency under section 106.
    Fourth, DOE proposes to establish intermediate milestones and 
ultimate deadlines for Federal authorizations and related environmental 
reviews through the introduction of standard and project-specific 
schedules. This proposal is intended to implement Congress's express 
directive to ``establish prompt and binding intermediate milestones and 
ultimate deadlines for the review of, and Federal authorization 
decisions relating to'' the projects. 16 U.S.C. 824p(h)(4)(A). Congress 
also contemplated a specific timeline in section 216(h)(4)(B), which 
directs the Secretary of Energy to ensure that, ``once an application 
[for a Federal authorization] has been submitted with such data as the 
Secretary considers necessary,'' the decision on that application shall 
be completed within 1 year or as soon as practicable.
    In the 2023 MOU, the agencies determined that DOE would prepare a 
``standard schedule,'' upon which each project's project-specific 
schedule

[[Page 55830]]

would be based. The standard schedule is intended as a template showing 
the steps and expected timeline of a model transmission project from 
the beginning of the IIP Process through the end of the Federal 
authorizations process. The MOU signatory agencies agreed that the 
standard schedule should allow for ``a final decision on all Federal 
authorizations within two years of the publication of a notice of 
intent to prepare an EIS or as soon as practicable thereafter.'' (2023 
MOU at section V(b)(i)) The agencies also agreed to a process for 
modifying a project-specific schedule if deadlines are not met. (2023 
MOU at section V(b)(v))
    Consistent with the 2023 MOU and section 216(h)(4)(A), DOE proposes 
to establish project-specific schedules for each project participating 
in the IIP Process. The project-specific schedule will establish the 
binding deadlines by which Federal authorizations and related 
environmental reviews for a particular project must be completed. (See 
MOU at sections V(b) and (c)) The project-specific schedule will be 
developed during the IIP Process through consultation with the project 
proponent and other Federal agencies and finalized at the conclusion of 
that process.
    Fifth, DOE proposes to simplify the development of an 
administrative record by incorporating the IIP Process administrative 
file into a single docket that contains all the information assembled 
and utilized by the relevant Federal entities as the basis for Federal 
authorizations and related reviews. DOE and any NEPA co-lead agency 
will then maintain that docket. Access to, and restrictions of access 
to, the docket will be worked out at the time of project-specific 
implementation.
    Sixth, DOE proposes to amend its regulations to provide that DOE 
will serve as the lead NEPA agency and that, in collaboration with any 
NEPA co-lead agency determined pursuant to procedures established by 
these regulations and the 2023 MOU and in coordination with the 
relevant Federal entities, DOE will prepare a single EIS to serve as 
the NEPA document for all required Federal authorizations. DOE 
recognizes that this proposal reflects a departure from the 2016 Rule. 
This proposed change is intended to establish a transparent and 
consistent NEPA process for the project proponent. Under current 
regulations, the lead agency is determined through consultation with 
relevant Federal entities and may not be known until the IIP Process 
close-out meeting. The proposed revisions would eliminate the 
uncertainty of that process, instead ensuring that DOE will serve as 
the lead agency for every project alongside a co-lead, as appropriate. 
This change would provide consistency in the NEPA process for all 
projects under the CITAP Program. Moreover, as additional projects 
utilize the CITAP Program, DOE anticipates that it will be able to 
improve upon its NEPA processes, ultimately leading to greater 
efficiencies for both project proponents and Federal agencies.
    Finally, DOE proposes to limit the scope of the CITAP Program to 
high voltage transmission projects that are expected to require 
preparation of an EIS. Accordingly, DOE proposes to amend its 
regulations to define ``qualifying projects'' as those with electric 
transmission lines of (generally though not necessarily) 230 kV and 
above. Further, DOE is proposing to revise its regulations for the 
application process in Sec.  900.3 by which a project proponent may 
seek DOE assistance under these regulations for projects that do not 
meet the qualifying projects definition. DOE also proposes to clarify 
that, while ``qualifying project'' definition does not apply to marine 
lines, under the processes for accepting ``other projects'' summarized 
at Sec.  900.3, these and other lines that are expected to require an 
EIS, may, with the agreement of the relevant Federal entities, 
participate in the CITAP Program.

III. Section-by-Section Analysis

    This proposed rule would revise 10 CFR part 900 in several 
respects. The following discussion explains the revisions using the 
section numbers from the proposed rule.

A. Section 900.1 Purpose and Scope

    DOE proposes to revise Sec.  900.1 to update the purpose of part 
900, reference the establishment of the CITAP Program, and improve 
readability. These changes reflect DOE's understanding that Congress 
intended DOE to make the process to obtain multiple Federal 
authorizations more efficient and reduce administrative delays, which 
requires clear authority, process, and timelines. The proposed changes 
in this section reflect DOE's intent to carry out the full scope of the 
authority that Congress provided.
    DOE is proposing to divide Sec.  900.1 into proposed paragraphs (b) 
through (d). Portions of the text dealing with the IIP Process would be 
updated to clarify that the process will require submission of 
materials necessary for Federal authorizations and that the IIP Process 
should be initiated prior to the submission of any application for a 
Federal authorization. The proposed changes also clarify that the IIP 
Process is integrated into the CITAP Program.
    Proposed paragraph (a) would be added to establish the overarching 
CITAP Program and provide a roadmap to authorities and processes 
proposed to be added to part 900. The proposed paragraph would state 
that DOE will act as a lead agency for preparing an EIS for any 
qualifying project. Proposed paragraph (a), as well as proposed 
paragraph (d), would also point out DOE's role in establishing and 
monitoring adherence to intermediate milestones and final deadlines, as 
required by section 216(h). Paragraph (d) also elaborates on the role 
DOE will play in determining when a project proponent may initiate 
section 106 consultation for an undertaking consistent with 36 CFR 
800.2(c)(4).
    DOE proposes to add paragraph (e) to clarify the intended 
relationship between the early coordination envisioned by the IIP 
Process and the duties prescribed by section 106 of the NHPA and the 
implementing regulations at 36 CFR part 800. In particular, DOE intends 
to clarify that nothing in the IIP Process is intended to abrogate the 
obligations of Federal agencies under 36 CFR part 800. Additionally, 
DOE intends to authorize a project proponent as an applicant to the 
CITAP Program to initiate section 106 consultation during that 
proponent's involvement in the IIP Process.
    DOE proposes to redesignate paragraphs (a) and (e) of current Sec.  
900.2 as new paragraphs (f) and (g) of this section because the 
paragraphs contain general propositions regarding part 900 and are 
better suited to the general ``Purpose and scope'' section.
    Proposed paragraph (h) would be added to afford the Director of 
DOE's Grid Deployment Office, or that person's delegate, flexibility 
necessary to ensure that part 900 does not result in unnecessary, 
duplicative, or impracticable requirements. DOE proposes to authorize 
the Director to waive any such requirements. Further, this paragraph 
specifically contemplates a scenario in which a Federal entity is the 
principal project developer. Under such circumstances, DOE proposes 
that the Director will consider modifications to the requirements under 
this part as may be necessary under the circumstances.

B. Section 900.2 Definitions

    DOE proposes to redesignate Sec.  900.3 as Sec.  900.2 for the 
purpose of providing the definitions of terms before those

[[Page 55831]]

terms occur in the body of the regulation. DOE proposes to:
     Add a definition for ``authorization'' to provide clarity 
in several places where that term occurs. Amend the definition for 
``Federal authorization'' to account for the new definition of 
``authorization.''
     Add a definition for ``communities of interest'' to ensure 
broad coverage of potentially impacted populations during the public 
engagement process and establishment of the public engagement plan.
     Add a definition for ``participating agencies'' to serve 
as shorthand for the group of agencies that will serve various roles 
under the proposed amendments to the coordination of Federal 
authorizations.
     Add a definition of ``NEPA co-lead agency'' to identify 
where information about the designation of a NEPA co-lead agency occurs 
in the rule.
     Remove the term ``OE-1,'' meaning the Assistant Secretary 
for DOE's Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability, and 
replace it with the definition for ``Director,'' meaning the Director 
of DOE's Grid Deployment Office or that person's delegate. Under 
section 1.14(D) of Delegation Order No. S1-DEL-S3-2023 and section 
1.9(D) of Redelegation Order No. S3-DEL-GD1-2023 the Secretary of 
Energy delegated authority to exercise authority under section 216(h) 
to the Grid Deployment Office. That authority had previously been 
delegated to DOE's Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy 
Reliability. The proposed text would make the same substitution 
throughout part 900 to reflect that delegation change.
     Revise the reference to the definition of ``Indian Tribe'' 
in the United States Code to the correct reference following the 2016 
editorial reclassification. This proposed change does not amend the 
definition.
     Add the definitions for ``relevant Federal entity'' and 
``relevant non-Federal entity'' using the substance of the definitions 
from ``Federal entity'' and ``non-Federal entity,'' respectively. These 
proposed changes are intended to show that the terms only mean Federal 
or non-Federal entities with some relation to a particular qualifying 
project. These changes would be updated throughout part 900.
     Revise the definitions for ``regional mitigation 
approach'' and ``regional mitigation strategies or plans'' as 
``landscape mitigation approach'' and ``landscape mitigation strategies 
or plans'', respectively, to reflect terminology in current use. The 
definition of ``landscape mitigation approach'' is further revised to 
improve readability and promote consistency in terminology with other 
agencies.
     Revise the definition for ``MOU signatory agency'' to 
reflect the title of the 2023 MOU and the agencies to which it applies.
     Revise the definition for ``qualifying project'' in a 
number of ways. First, the proposed definition would remove the 
qualifier ``non-marine'' before high voltage transmission line and 
electric transmission line to match potential scope of the Program with 
that agreed to in the MOU. Second, the proposed definition would limit 
the term to projects that are expected to require preparation of an EIS 
because the Federal coordination will be most impactful for such 
projects due to their complexity. Third, the proposed revision would 
provide a mechanism under proposed Sec.  900.3 by which a project that 
does not meet the definition of a qualifying project may still 
participate in the Program. This change is discussed in more detail in 
the following section. Fourth, in accordance with the 2023 MOU, DOE 
proposes to amend the definition to state that the term does not 
include any transmission facility authorized under section 8(p) of the 
Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1337(p)). The exception to 
that restriction included in the 2023 MOU is provided for in the 
proposed changes to Sec.  900.3 and discussed further in that following 
section. Also, in accordance with the 2023 MOU, the term excludes a 
transmission facility that would require a construction or modification 
permit from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) pursuant to 
section 216(b) of the FPA. Fifth and finally, the proposed definition 
would exclude projects located wholly within the Electric Reliability 
Council of Texas interconnection, as required by section 216(k) (16 
U.S.C. 824p(k)). This exclusion is also located in Sec.  900.2(c) of 
the current rule, but DOE proposes to replicate it in this proposed 
definition for clarity.
     Remove the definitions of ``DOE'', ``NEPA'', and ``FPA'' 
because those terms are acronyms best addressed in the regulatory text 
rather than as definitions.
     Remove the definitions for ``early identification of 
project issues,'' ``IIP resources report'', ``IIP process 
administrative file'', ``lead 216(h) agency'', ``MOU principals'', and 
``other projects'' because those terms no longer occur in the proposed 
part 900.
     Remove the definition for ``NEPA Lead Agency'' because 
that term is self-explanatory in the context in which it occurs.

C. Section 900.3 Applicability to Other Projects

    Section 900.2 of the current rule, titled ``Applicability'', 
provides an application process by which a project proponent may seek 
DOE assistance under part 900 for an ``other project.'' Current Sec.  
900.3 defines an ``other project'' to be a transmission facility that 
does not meet the definition of ``qualifying project''. The proposed 
rule would redesignate Sec.  900.2 as Sec.  900.3 and retain a 
mechanism by which projects that do not otherwise qualify as 
``qualifying projects'' may be treated as such but would modify the 
text as follows.
    Current Sec.  900.2(b) would be reworded and divided into proposed 
Sec.  900.3(a) through (c) to more clearly communicate the process by 
which a project proponent may request that a facility be approved as a 
qualifying project. In particular, the proposed rule would remove the 
definition of the term ``other project'' and instead include the 
substance of that term in paragraph (a) of the revised section.
    DOE proposes to redesignate paragraphs (d) and (e) of current Sec.  
900.2 to proposed Sec.  900.1 as new paragraphs (f) and (g), 
respectively, because those paragraphs contain general propositions 
regarding part 900 and are better suited to the general ``Purpose and 
scope'' section. Current paragraphs (g) and (h) would be relocated to 
proposed Sec.  900.4 as paragraphs (e) and (f), respectively, because 
proposed Sec.  900.4 provides a general background to the IIP Process, 
and the substance of those paragraphs is more relevant to the IIP 
Process than the rest of part 900.
    The first sentence of current Sec.  900.2(e) is proposed to be 
removed as unnecessary because part 900 does not purport to affect 
other Federal law requirements except in specific, articulated 
instances. Current paragraph (f), which describes the IIP process as a 
complementary process that does not supplant existing pre-application 
processes, is proposed to be removed because the proposed rule 
establishes the IIP Process as the mandatory precondition for 
coordination under section 216(h).
    Whereas the current version of paragraph (d) provides that the 
section does not apply to a transmission facility that will require a 
construction or modification permit from FERC, the revised version 
would allow such projects to take advantage of part 900, provided that 
the FERC chair submits

[[Page 55832]]

the request to be included in the CITAP Program.
    The proposed rule would add new paragraphs (e) and (f)(1) that 
allow a project proposed to be authorized under section 8(p) of the 
Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act to receive coordination assistance 
under part 900, provided that the project is not proposed to be 
authorized in connection to a generation project and that all 2023 MOU 
signatories agree to the project's inclusion in the CITAP Program. 
These additions reflect the terms of the 2023 MOU.
    Finally, current paragraph (c) is proposed to be moved to paragraph 
(f)(2) to improve the readability of the section.

D. Section 900.4 Purpose of IIP Process

    Section 900.4 of the current rule states the purpose and structure 
of the IIP Process. The proposed rule would divide this section into 
proposed Sec. Sec.  900.4, 900.5, 900.8, and 900.9 to improve 
readability. Section 900.4(a) of the current rule would remain in Sec.  
900.4 but would be further divided into proposed paragraphs (a), (b), 
and (c) to improve readability.
    Additionally, while the current paragraph (a) describes the IIP 
Process as an optional process, the proposed Sec.  900.4(b) would 
establish the IIP Process as a prerequisite for coordination, 
consistent with the statutory language and the proposed revisions to 
the purpose of part 900 in Sec.  900.1.
    The proposed rule would add a new paragraph (d) to clarify that the 
IIP Process does not preclude additional communications between the 
project proponent and relevant Federal entities outside of the meetings 
envisioned by the IIP Process. The paragraph further emphasizes that 
DOE intends for the IIP Process to be an iterative process and that 
each milestone in the process is designed to improve upon the materials 
that Federal entities have available for authorization and 
environmental review decisions.
    As described previously, the proposed rule would redesignate Sec.  
900.2(g) and (h) as proposed Sec.  900.4(e) and (f), respectively, 
because Sec.  900.4 provides a general background to the IIP Process, 
and the substance of those paragraphs is more relevant to the IIP 
Process than the rest of part 900.
    Paragraph (g) of the proposed Sec.  900.4 would give authority to 
the Director to request additional information from a project proponent 
during the IIP Process to ensure that DOE can collect the information 
needed to adequately complete the IIP Process.
    Finally, the proposed rule would add new paragraphs (h) and (i), 
which provide processes by which a person may submit confidential 
information during the IIP Process or to request designation of 
information containing Critical Electric Infrastructure Information 
(CEII). These provisions would establish the mechanisms through which 
the IIP Process complies with 10 CFR 1004.11 and 1004.13.

E. Section 900.5 Initiation of IIP Process

    Proposed Sec.  900.5 is composed of current Sec.  900.4(b), (c), 
(e), (g), (h), (i), and (j). DOE proposes to revise these provisions to 
enumerate the documents and information required to initiate the IIP 
Process, expedite that process, ensure that community impacts from the 
project are identified early, and improve the overall readability and 
clarity of the provisions.
    Currently, an initiation request to begin the IIP Process must 
include a summary of the qualifying project; a summary of affected 
environmental resources and impacts, including associated maps, 
geospatial information, and studies; and a summary of early 
identification of project issues. The proposed rule would make several 
changes to the contents of the request. First, DOE proposes to update 
the contents required in the summary of the qualifying project in 
proposed paragraph (b) to include project proponent details; 
identification of any environmental and engineering firms and 
subcontractors under contract to develop the qualifying project; and a 
list of anticipated relevant Federal and non-Federal entities to ensure 
sufficient information is provided for DOE to review and to include all 
necessary agencies in the process. DOE also proposes to require 
additional maps as part of the initiation request, as detailed in 
proposed paragraph (c). DOE believes the additional information in 
proposed paragraphs (b) and (c) are necessary to properly identify the 
relevant agencies for efficient coordination.
    DOE also proposes to require submission of a project participation 
plan as part of the initiation request. This plan is proposed in place 
of the summary of early identification of project issues currently 
required under the rule. The project participation plan, as detailed in 
proposed paragraph (d), would include the project proponent's history 
of engagement and a public engagement plan for the project proponent's 
future engagement with communities of interest and with Indian Tribes 
that would be affected by a proposed qualifying project. The plan would 
include specific information on the proponent's engagement with 
communities of interest and with Indian Tribes that would be affected 
by a proposed qualifying project. An updated public engagement plan 
would be required at the end of the IIP Process to reflect any 
activities during that process. The addition of a public engagement 
plan that includes communities of interest and Indian Tribes that could 
be affected by a proposed qualifying project, would ensure that the 
project proponent follows best practices around outreach. Moreover, by 
including this plan in the IIP Process, the proposed regulation would 
provide relevant Federal entities an opportunity to provide input into 
the project proponent's engagement efforts, and to ensure that the 
project proponent engages with all communities of interest and Indian 
Tribes that could be affected by the proposed qualifying project. The 
engagement would complement Tribal consultation and public engagement 
undertaken by the relevant Federal entities and would not substitute 
for Federal agencies engaging in Nation-to-Nation consultation with 
Indian Tribes and public engagement with stakeholders and communities 
of interest.
    In new paragraph (e), DOE proposes to require submission of a 
statement regarding the project's status under Title 41 of the Fixing 
America's Surface Transportation Act (FAST-41) (42 U.S.C. 4370m et 
seq.) as part of the initiation request. This statement is intended to 
facilitate coordination between the IIP Process and the FAST-41 
Process. Project proponents would be required to indicate whether their 
proposed project currently is a FAST-41 ``covered project''.
    DOE proposes to add paragraph (f) to outline the timeline for DOE's 
review of the initiation request and provide relevant Federal entities 
and relevant non-Federal entities with a copy of the initiation request 
and notify each entity as to whether it should participate in the IIP 
Process and DOE's rationale for that determination. Under proposed 
paragraph (g), DOE would notify the project proponent and all relevant 
Federal entities and relevant non-Federal entities whether the 
initiation request meets the requirements of this section.
    The proposed rule would remove the requirement to submit an 
affected environmental resources and impacts summary as part of the 
initiation request. As discussed in more detail in the next section, 
that summary would be replaced by thirteen resource reports

[[Page 55833]]

submitted after the IIP Process initial meeting.
    This section also proposes changes to the timeline for convening 
the IIP Process initial meeting. Under the current rule, DOE is 
required to convene the initial meeting within 45 days of providing 
notice to the project proponent and the relevant Federal and non-
Federal entities that it has received an IIP Process initiation 
request. The proposed rule would require DOE to convene the IIP Process 
initial meeting within 30 days of providing notice under proposed 
paragraph (g) that the initiation request meets the requirements of the 
section.
    Likewise, the contents of the initial meeting would be updated. 
Under proposed Sec.  900.5(h)(1), DOE and the relevant Federal entities 
would be required to discuss the IIP Process and requirements with the 
project proponent, and the different Federal authorization processes. 
This meeting would also include discussion of arrangements for the 
project proponent to contribute funds to DOE to cover costs in the IIP 
Process (in accordance with 42 U.S.C. 7278), establishment of cost 
recovery agreements or procedures in accordance with regulations of 
relevant Federal entities, where applicable, or the use of third-party 
contractors under DOE's supervision, where applicable. DOE believes an 
early discussion of the process and requirements will ensure efficient 
participation of the parties and early identification of potential 
issues.
    Proposed Sec.  900.5(h)(2) would require DOE to identify certain 
applications that need to be submitted to relevant Federal entities 
during the IIP Process (for example, Standard Form 299, which an 
applicant would file to seek authorization for transmission lines 
crossing Federal property). The timing of the expected Federal 
applications, including which applications may be required during the 
IIP Process and which should be submitted following the conclusion of 
the IIP Process, will be covered in the initial meeting.
    Additionally, the current rule requires DOE to produce a final 
initial meeting summary within 30 days of receiving corrections to the 
draft summary. The proposed rule would reduce this timeframe to 15 
days. Both changes are intended to expedite the IIP Process.
    The proposed section in paragraph (l) requires DOE to add the final 
initial meeting summary to the consolidated administrative docket. This 
requirement was previously located in Sec.  900.6 and is currently 
required under the proposed revision of that section, but is duplicated 
here for clarity.
    Finally, portions of paragraph (j)(3)(v) are proposed to be removed 
as unnecessary because the contents are addressed elsewhere.

F. Section 900.6 Project Proponent Resource Reports

    The proposed rule would require project proponents to develop, in 
collaboration with relevant Federal entities, thirteen resource reports 
that will serve as inputs, as appropriate, into the relevant Federal 
entities' own environmental analysis and authorization processes. This 
pre-application material would provide for earlier collection of 
critical information to inform the future application process relating 
to the proposed transmission line and facilities, including preliminary 
information to support DOE's and the relevant Federal entities' 
compliance with section 106 of the NHPA, the ESA, and NEPA. The 
thirteen resource reports are: General project description; Water use 
and quality; Fish, wildlife, and vegetation; Cultural resources; 
Socioeconomics; Geological resources; Soil resources; Land use, 
recreation, and aesthetics; Communities of interest; Air and noise 
quality; Alternatives; Reliability and safety; and Tribal interests.
    DOE proposes to require project proponents develop these resource 
reports as part of the pre-application process instead of the affected 
environmental resources and impacts summary document required from 
project proponents under the existing rule at Sec.  900.4(d). The 
proposed resource reports identify information needed to complete NEPA 
and other review and authorization requirements. However, the topics 
identified and the proposed reports do not limit the information 
relevant Federal entities may need, require from project proponents, or 
develop independently, as necessary to satisfy each relevant Federal 
entity's applicable statutory and regulatory obligations. Each resource 
report will comprehensively discuss the baseline conditions and 
anticipated impacts to resources relevant to DOE's required 
environmental review, namely under NEPA, ESA, and section 106 of the 
NHPA. NEPA requires Federal agencies to analyze and assess potential 
environmental effects of the proposed Federal agency action, and these 
effects can vary in significance and complexity. Accordingly, by giving 
each resource proper consideration in individualized reports, DOE 
anticipates it will be able to meet its requirements under the various 
environmental laws referenced previously. In addition, proper 
assessment of the resources potentially affected by the proposed action 
can also help DOE identify resource conflicts, missing information, and 
needs from other agencies, and inform the project-specific schedule. 
These conflicts and needs can then be discussed and addressed during 
the review meeting and throughout the IIP Process.
    These resource reports would be developed by project proponents 
during the IIP Process with input and feedback from the Federal and 
non-Federal entities involved in authorization decisions. As proposed, 
this procedure better matches the IIP Process with the project 
development and Federal review timelines. Under the proposed changes, a 
project proponent may initiate the IIP Process without detailed 
environmental resources information, but the detailed information 
required by this proposed section must be developed to complete the IIP 
Process. The more detailed pre-application information, presented in 
the resource reports, would allow project proponents and the relevant 
Federal entities to coordinate and identify issues prior to submission 
of applications for authorizations, inform project design, and expedite 
relevant Federal entities' environmental reviews by providing 
environmental information that relevant Federal entities can use after 
submission of applications to inform their own reviews and by ensuring 
those applications are complete.
    DOE is particularly interested in seeking comment on these items in 
the proposed resource reports: (1) whether 0.25 mile distance of the 
proposed transmission project facilities is an adequate distance to: 
affected landowners, the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System (16 
U.S.C. 1271), the National Wildlife Refuge system (16 U.S.C. 668dd-ee), 
the National Wilderness Preservation System (16 U.S.C. 1131), the 
National Trails System (16 U.S.C. 1241), the National Park System (54 
U.S.C. 100101), National Historic Landmarks (NHLs), National Natural 
Landmarks (NNLs), Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) acquired 
Federal lands, LWCF State Assistance Program sites and the Federal 
Lands to Parks (FLP) program lands, or a wilderness area designated 
under the Wilderness Act (16 U.S.C. 1132); or the National Marine 
Sanctuary System, including national marine sanctuaries (16 U.S.C. 1431 
et seq.) and Marine National Monuments as designated under authority by 
the Antiquities Act (54 U.S.C. 320301-320303) or by Congress; (2) 
whether any other distances listed in the regulations are appropriate; 
and (3) whether the page limits identified in the regulations

[[Page 55834]]

is appropriate; (4) whether the duplicative aspects of the resource 
reports should be rectified; and (5) whether further revisions are 
needed to proposed Sec.  900.6(m)(8).
    As discussed in the following sections, the proposed rule would 
provide for additional opportunity for project proponents, DOE, 
relevant Federal entities, and relevant non-Federal entities to 
communicate regarding the potential impacts of a proposed project.

G. Section 900.7 Standard and Project-Specific Schedules

    Section 216(h) directs DOE to ``establish prompt and binding 
intermediate milestones and ultimate deadlines for the review of, and 
Federal authorization decisions relating to, the proposed facility.'' 
16 U.S.C. 824p(h)(4)(A). DOE proposes to amend how it will carry out 
that obligation. Specifically, in paragraph (a), the proposed rule 
describes the ``standard schedule,'' which DOE will publish as guidance 
and update from time to time. The standard schedule is not project 
specific. Rather, DOE proposes that it will describe, as a general 
matter, the steps necessary to review applications for Federal 
authorizations, and the related environmental reviews necessary to site 
qualifying projects. DOE proposes that this schedule will contemplate 
that authorizations and related environmental reviews be completed 
within two years.
    Paragraph (b) describes the project-specific schedule. As discussed 
further, DOE proposes to develop this schedule with the NEPA co-lead 
agency and the relevant Federal entities on a per-project basis during 
the IIP Process. This schedule would provide the ``binding intermediate 
milestones and ultimate deadlines'' required by section 216(h). This 
proposed provision is intended to specify the considerations that DOE 
will incorporate into its determination of the appropriate project-
specific schedule including co-lead and other agency-specific 
regulations and schedules. Section 216(h)(4)(B) requires DOE to set a 
project-specific schedule under which all Federal authorizations may be 
completed within one year of the filing of a complete application 
unless other requirements of Federal law require a longer schedule. DOE 
intends to determine the project-specific schedule based on the 
considerations specified in proposed paragraph (b).

H. Section 900.8 IIP Process Review Meeting

    The proposed rule would amend the IIP Process to ensure that DOE 
and the Federal and non-Federal entities involved have meaningful 
opportunities to identify issues of concern prior to the project 
proponent's submission of applications for authorizations. In addition 
to the initial and close-out meetings included in the current text of 
part 900, the proposed rule would establish an IIP Process review 
meeting, to be held at the request of the project proponent following 
initial submission of the requisite thirteen resource reports. In 
addition, DOE proposes to require that a project proponent requesting 
the review meeting also update DOE on the status of the project public 
engagement, and provide updated environmental information.
    As proposed, the IIP Process review meeting would ensure that DOE 
and the relevant Federal and non-Federal entities involved have 
meaningful opportunities to identify issues of concern prior to the 
close of the IIP Process and submission of applications for Federal 
authorizations. To this end, DOE proposes in paragraph (e) that at the 
review meeting the relevant Federal entities should discuss any 
remaining issues of concern, information gaps, data needs, potential 
issues or conflicts, statutory and regulatory standards, and 
expectations for complete applications for Federal authorizations. 
Additionally, DOE proposes that the meeting participants would provide 
updates on the siting process, including stakeholder outreach and 
input. To facilitate these discussions, DOE proposes in paragraph (a) 
that a project proponent should submit a request for the review meeting 
containing helpful documents and information such as a summary table of 
changes made to the project since the initial meeting, maps of proposed 
routes within study corridors, a conceptual plan for implementation and 
monitoring of mitigation measures, and an updated public engagement 
plan.
    Additionally, the proposed IIP Process review meeting would provide 
an opportunity for DOE and the relevant Federal and non-Federal 
entities to review the detailed resource reports prepared pursuant to 
Sec.  900.6. Therefore, DOE proposes in paragraph (a) that the review 
meeting would only be held after submission of the reports. As proposed 
at Sec.  900.8(e)(8), during the IIP Process review meeting DOE and the 
relevant Federal and non-Federal entities would identify any updates to 
the information included in those reports that the project proponent 
must make before the conclusion of the IIP Process. Finally, proposed 
Sec.  900.8(i) would require the project proponent to revise resource 
reports based on feedback received during the meeting. DOE believes 
that identifying and addressing issues in the reports during the IIP 
Process instead of at the end of that process would expedite DOE's 
preparation of an EIS and increase the likelihood of readiness of the 
project proponent's application(s) for Federal authorization(s).
    Furthermore, the IIP Process review meeting would integrate DOE's 
statutory schedule-setting function discussed in the previous section 
into the IIP Process. For this purpose, DOE proposes that the review 
meeting request under proposed paragraph (a) should include a schedule 
for completing upcoming field resource surveys, if known, and estimated 
dates that the project proponent will file requests for Federal and 
non-Federal authorizations and consultations. These resources will 
assist DOE in preparing the proposed project-specific schedule, which 
DOE would be required to present at the review meeting under proposed 
Sec.  900.8(e)(9). At the meeting, the relevant Federal entities would 
discuss the process for, and estimated time to complete, required 
Federal authorizations. These discussions along with other matters 
discussed at the review meeting would, in turn, allow DOE to continue 
refining the project-specific schedule.
    DOE proposes in paragraph (b) that within 15 days of receiving the 
review meeting request, DOE must provide relevant Federal entities and 
relevant non-Federal entities with materials included in the request 
and resource reports submitted under proposed Sec.  900.6. In paragraph 
(c), DOE proposes a 60-day period to review the request for sufficiency 
and provide notice to the proponent and relevant Federal and non-
Federal agencies. Furthermore, DOE proposes in paragraph (d) to convene 
the review meeting within 30 days of providing notice that the request 
has been accepted. These timelines will ensure that the IIP Process is 
pursued expeditiously while affording the relevant Federal entities 
sufficient time to review the relevant materials. The requirement to 
share the review meeting request and resources reports in paragraph (b) 
would ensure that all entities participating in the meeting have access 
to the materials being discussed at the meeting.
    DOE proposes in paragraphs (e), (f), and (g) that the IIP Process 
review meeting would conclude with a draft and, subsequently, a final 
review meeting summary, to be prepared by DOE. This summary would be 
included in the consolidated administrative docket described by Sec.  
900.10. It would serve as a docket of the issues identified by the 
parties to the review meeting, and to ensure that the project

[[Page 55835]]

proponent, the relevant Federal and non-Federal entities, and DOE, have 
a shared understanding of the work remaining to be done during the IIP 
Process.
    DOE proposes in paragraph (h) to include a mechanism by which it 
may determine whether the project proponent has developed the scope of 
its proposed project and alternatives sufficiently for DOE to determine 
that there exists an undertaking with the potential to affect historic 
properties for purposes of section 106 of the NHPA. If DOE so 
determines, DOE would initiate its section 106 review of the 
undertaking and authorize project proponents as CITAP Program 
applicants to initiate consultation with SHPOs, THPOs, and others 
consistent with 36 CFR 800.2(c)(4). This provision is intended to allow 
initiation of section 106 consultation during the IIP Process, prior to 
submission of applications for authorizations, but with sufficient 
opportunity for the project proponent, the relevant Federal entities, 
and DOE, to determine the scope of the proposed project.

I. Section 900.9 IIP Process Close-Out Meeting

    The proposed rule also would amend the close-out meeting provisions 
of the current rule at Sec.  900.4(k) and (l). As in the current rule, 
DOE proposes that the IIP Process would conclude with the close-out 
meeting. The proposed rule would require submission of a close-out 
meeting request to specify the modifications to the project since the 
review meeting. However, while the current rule states that the request 
may be submitted no less than 45 days after the initial meeting, DOE 
proposes to remove that requirement because changes to the IIP Process 
in the proposed rule no longer allow for a request to be submitted 
within that timeframe.
    DOE proposes to pare down the request by removing paragraphs 
(k)(3), (5), (8), and (9). The information required under those 
paragraphs would be submitted with the review meeting request under 
proposed Sec.  900.8(a). Likewise, DOE proposes to remove paragraphs 
(k)(4), (6), and (7) because the information required under those 
paragraphs would be submitted in the resources reports under proposed 
Sec.  900.6. Finally, paragraph (k)(1) is proposed to be removed 
because the submission of close-out meeting request materials is 
presumed to indicate that a close-out meeting is being requested.
    However, DOE also proposes that new materials be included with the 
request for the purpose of updating meeting participants on changes to 
the project. Paragraphs (a)(2) and (3) would require a description of 
all changes made to the qualifying project since the review meeting and 
a final public engagement plan. In paragraph (a)(4) DOE proposes the 
project proponent provide the requests for Federal authorizations for 
the qualifying project. These are proposed to be included in the close-
out meeting request to ensure that the project proponent is ready to 
begin the Federal authorization process.
    DOE proposes to revise the timelines for requesting and convening a 
close-out meeting. In current paragraphs (a)(1) through (3), DOE has 30 
days to respond to a close-out meeting request and 60 days from the 
date of providing a response to convene the close-out meeting. DOE 
proposes in paragraph (b) that within 15 days of receiving the request, 
DOE must provide relevant Federal entities and relevant non-Federal 
entities with materials included in the request and any updated 
resource reports submitted under Sec.  900.6. Proposed paragraph (c) 
provides that DOE has 60 days to review the request for sufficiency and 
notify the project proponent and all relevant Federal and non-Federal 
entities of DOE's decision. Under proposed paragraph (d), DOE would 
convene the close-out meeting within 30 days of notifying the project 
proponent that the request has been accepted. These new timelines will 
ensure that the IIP Process is pursued expeditiously. Furthermore, the 
requirement to share the close-out meeting request materials in 
paragraph (b) would ensure that all entities participating in the 
meeting have access to the materials being discussed at the meeting.
    DOE proposes that the substance of the close-out meeting will no 
longer include a description of remaining issues of concern, 
information gaps, data needs, and potential issues or conflicts that 
could impact the time it will take relevant Federal entities to process 
applications for Federal authorizations. That information is proposed 
to be covered at the review meeting under Sec.  900.8(d). Likewise, DOE 
proposes to eliminate paragraphs (l)(3)(ii) through (v) because that 
information is now required to be discussed at the review meeting. DOE 
proposes in paragraph (e) that DOE will present the final project-
specific schedule at the meeting, in keeping with DOE's statutory 
schedule-setting function discussed previously. As explained 
previously, the project-specific schedule will include the intermediate 
milestones and final deadlines for review of the project proponent's 
application and related environmental reviews.
    DOE proposes to remove the portion of paragraph (l) of the current 
regulation which states that ``The IIP Process Close-Out Meeting will 
also result in the identification of a potential NEPA Lead Agency 
pursuant to Sec.  900.6 described.'' DOE proposes to select the NEPA 
co-lead agency earlier in the IIP Process to allow for sufficient 
coordination.
    DOE proposes to remove paragraph (l)(3)(vi) because the information 
covered by the Final IIP Resources Report is proposed to be covered by 
the thirteen resources reports. Additionally, DOE proposes to remove 
paragraph (l)(3)(vii), which encourages agencies to use the Final IIP 
Resources Report to inform the NEPA Process. Instead, DOE proposes at 
Sec.  900.12(f) to require all relevant Federal entities to use the EIS 
as the basis for Federal authorization decisions. That requirement is 
discussed in more detail below.
    DOE proposes to remove paragraph (l)(3)(viii), which requires 
relevant Federal entities to identify a preliminary schedule for 
authorizations for the proposed qualifying project, because DOE now 
proposes to set a project-specific schedule for all relevant Federal 
entities in consultation with such entities.
    DOE proposes in paragraphs (f) through (h) that the IIP Process 
close-out meeting would conclude with a draft and, subsequently a final 
close-out meeting summary, to be prepared by DOE. This summary would be 
included in the administrative docket. It would serve as a docket of 
the issues identified by the parties to the close-out meeting, and 
ensure that the project proponent, the relevant Federal and non-Federal 
entities, and DOE, have a shared understanding of the conclusion of the 
IIP Process.
    In paragraph (h)(4), in accordance with the 2023 MOU, DOE proposes 
to notify the Federal Permitting Improvement Steering Council (FPISC) 
Executive Director that the project should be included on the FPISC 
Dashboard as a transparency project if the project is not identified as 
a covered project pursuant to Sec.  900.5(e).
    Finally, in paragraph (i), DOE proposes that DOE and the NEPA co-
lead agency shall issue a notice of intent to publish an EIS in 
accordance with the final project-specific schedule.

J. Section 900.10 Consolidated Administrative Docket

    Current Sec.  900.6 requires DOE to maintain an IIP Process 
Administrative File with all relevant documents and communications 
between the project

[[Page 55836]]

proponent and the agencies and encourages agencies to work with DOE to 
create a single record. To better integrate and coordinate Federal 
authorizations, the new section proposes to dispense with the IIP 
Process Administrative File and combine all documents that were 
previously included in that file along with all information assembled 
by relevant Federal entities for authorizations and reviews after 
completion of the IIP Process into a single, consolidated 
administrative docket.
    To this end, the proposed Sec.  900.10 expands current paragraph 
(b) as a new paragraph (a) to articulate more clearly the information 
that should be included in the docket, including requests made during 
the IIP Process, IIP Process meeting summaries, resources reports, and 
the final project-specific schedule. The sentence in current paragraph 
(b) regarding the Freedom of Information Act is proposed to be removed 
because that law applies to requests for information from the public on 
its own terms.
    Current paragraph (b) also requires DOE to share the IIP Process 
Administrative File with the co-lead NEPA agency. However, proposed 
paragraph (c) would require DOE to make the consolidated administrative 
docket available to both the NEPA co-lead agency and any Federal or 
non-Federal entity that will issue an authorization for the project. 
This change is proposed to ensure that other entities are able to use 
the docket for their own authorizations. Consequently, the proposed 
rule also proposes to remove current paragraph (d), which says that 
Federal entities are strongly encouraged to maintain information 
developed during the IIP Process.
    The proposed rule would also add a new paragraph (d) providing 
notice that, as necessary and appropriate, DOE may require a project 
proponent to contract with a qualified docket-management consultant to 
assist DOE and the NEPA co-lead agency in compiling and maintaining the 
administrative docket. Such a contractor may assist DOE and the 
relevant Federal entities in maintaining a comprehensive and readily 
accessible docket. DOE is also proposing that any such contractor shall 
operate at the direction of DOE, and that DOE shall retain 
responsibility and authority over the content of the docket to ensure 
the integrity and completeness of the docket.
    Finally, the proposed rule relocates paragraph (a) of the current 
rule to paragraph (b) for organizational purposes.

K. Section 900.11 NEPA Lead Agency and Selection of NEPA Co-Lead Agency

    Under the proposed rule, DOE would serve in the NEPA lead agency 
role contemplated in section 216(h) except where a co-lead is 
designated.
    Under the current Sec.  900.5, DOE coordinates the selection of a 
NEPA lead agency in compliance with NEPA, CEQ implementing regulations 
at 40 CFR part 1500, and each agency's respective NEPA implementing 
regulations and procedures. Paragraphs (a) through (d) of the current 
section govern the selection of a NEPA lead agency for projects that 
cross lands administered by both the Department of Interior (DOI) and 
the Department of Agriculture (USDA).
    The proposed rule proposes to redesignate current Sec.  900.5 to 
new Sec.  900.11 and proposes to update this section to reflect that 
DOE, in accordance with section 216(h)(5)(A) and the 2023 MOU, will 
serve as lead agency for purposes of NEPA along with any NEPA co-lead 
agency as designated pursuant to the MOU and Sec.  900.11 consistent 
with its obligation as lead agency to coordinate with relevant Federal 
entities.
    In the 2023 MOU, the MOU signatory agencies agreed to a process by 
which a NEPA co-lead agency could be designated. Under that process, 
DOE and the agency with the most significant interest in the management 
of Federal lands or waters that would be traversed or affected by the 
qualifying project would serve as lead agencies jointly responsible for 
preparing an EIS under NEPA. Proposed Sec.  900.11(b) reflects that 
agreed-upon process.
    The proposed amendments also provide that, for projects that would 
traverse both USDA and DOI lands, DOE will request that USDA and DOI 
determine the appropriate NEPA co-lead agency.

L. Section 900.12 Environmental Review

    Consistent with DOE's proposed role as lead agency, a new Sec.  
900.12 proposes to define DOE's responsibilities as lead agency for 
environmental reviews and the NEPA process, including by preparing a 
single EIS designed to serve the needs of all relevant Federal 
entities. In paragraph (a) of this section, the proposed rule would 
clarify that DOE will begin preparing an EIS following the conclusion 
of the IIP Process and after receipt of a relevant application. It also 
notes that DOE will do so in conjunction with any NEPA co-lead agency 
selected under Sec.  900.11.
    The other provisions of this proposed section specify details of 
DOE's--and any NEPA co-lead agency's--role as lead NEPA agency, 
including to arrange for contractors, publish completed documents, and 
identify the full scope of alternatives for analysis. As proposed, the 
applicable permitting agencies would maintain responsibility for 
identifying information, analysis, and alternatives necessary for their 
respective authorizations.
    Consistent with section 216(h)(5)(A), which requires that DOE's EIS 
serve as ``the basis for all decisions on the project under Federal 
law,'' proposed paragraph (f) would establish that the relevant Federal 
agencies will use the EIS as the basis for their respective decisions.
    Finally, proposed paragraph (g) would specify that DOE and the 
applicable permitting agency or agencies will serve as co-lead agencies 
for purposes of consultation under the ESA and compliance with the 
NHPA. This provision would allow DOE to meet its obligation under 
section 216(h)(2) to coordinate ``all . . . related environmental 
reviews of the facility.''

M. Section 900.13 Severability

    Proposed Sec.  900.13 would provide that the provisions of the 
proposed rule are separate and severable from one another, and that if 
any provision is stayed or determined to be invalid by a court of 
competent jurisdiction, the remaining provisions shall continue in 
effect. This standard severability clause is intended to clearly 
express the Department's intent that should a provision be stayed or 
invalidated the remaining provisions shall continue in effect. The 
Department has carefully considered the requirements of the proposed 
rule, both individually and in their totality, including their 
potential costs and benefits to project proponents. In the event a 
court were to stay or invalidate one or more provisions of this rule as 
finalized, the Department would want the remaining portions of the rule 
as finalized to remain in full force and legal effect.

IV. Regulatory Review

A. Review Under Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and 14094

    Executive Order (``E.O.'') 12866, ``Regulatory Planning and 
Review,'' 58 FR 51735 (Oct. 4, 1993), as supplemented and reaffirmed by 
E.O. 13563, ``Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review,'' 76 FR 3821 
(Jan. 21, 2011) and amended by E.O. 14094, ``Modernizing Regulatory 
Review,'' 88 FR 21879 (April 11, 2023), requires agencies, to the 
extent permitted by law, to (1) propose or adopt a regulation only

[[Page 55837]]

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 
emphasizes as well that E.O. 13563 requires agencies to use the best 
available techniques to quantify anticipated present and future 
benefits and costs as accurately as possible. In its guidance, the 
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) has emphasized that 
such techniques may include identifying changing future compliance 
costs that might result from technological innovation or anticipated 
behavioral changes. For the reasons stated in the preamble, this 
proposed regulatory action is consistent with these principles.
    Section 6(a) of E.O. 12866 requires agencies to submit 
``significant regulatory actions'' to OIRA for review. OIRA has 
determined that this proposed regulatory action constitutes a 
``significant regulatory action'' within the scope of E.O. 12866. 
Accordingly, this action is subject to review under E.O. 12866 by OIRA 
of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
    Section 6(a) of E.O. 12866 requires an agency issuing a 
``significant regulatory action'' to provide an assessment of the 
potential costs and benefits of the regulatory action. To that end, DOE 
has further assessed the qualitative and quantitative costs and 
benefits of this NOPR.
    The societal costs of the action are the direct costs incurred by 
project proponents during the IIP Process. DOE discussed in the 
previous sections that most of the information required to be submitted 
during the IIP Process would likely be required absent this proposal 
and therefore the investment of time and resources required by this 
proposed process are unlikely to be an additional burden on 
respondents. However, the full costs are considered in this analysis 
for transparency. These costs of $399,083 per year are detailed in the 
Paperwork Reduction Act burden analysis. The table below captures the 
10-year and 20-year net present value (NPV) of those annual costs under 
two discount rates (3% and 7%), assuming annual cost increases of 
2%.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ NPV analysis uses a 2% annual inflation, informed by the 
Federal Reserve Economic Data 10-year and 30-year Inflation 
Expectations and 5-year Forward Inflation Expectation.

                    CITAP Program NPV Cost Estimates
------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Discount rate                     3%              7%
------------------------------------------------------------------------
10-year NPV.............................   $3,783,815.40   $3,096,337.74
20-year NPV.............................    7,215,911.27    5,015,060.67
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The benefits of the CITAP Program, designed to reduce the Federal 
authorization timelines for interstate electric transmission facilities 
and enable more rapid deployment of transmission infrastructure, 
include direct benefits to the project proponents in decreased time and 
expenditure on authorizations and a series of indirect social benefits. 
DOE seeks comment on how much time or expense could be saved by the 
procedures in the proposed rule.
    Increasing the current pace of transmission infrastructure 
deployment will generate benefits to the public in multiple ways that 
can be categorized into grid operations, system planning, and non-
market benefits. Grid operation benefits include a reduction in the 
congestion costs for generating and delivering energy; mitigation of 
weather and variable generation uncertainty enhanced diversity of 
supply, which increases market competition and reduces the need for 
regional backup power options; and increased market liquidity and 
competition.\12\ From a system planning standpoint, accelerated 
transmission investments will allow the development of new, low cost 
power plants in areas of high congestion which might not otherwise see 
investment due to capacity constraints, and additional grid hardening 
or resilience. Finally, non-market benefits to the public include 
reduced costs for meeting public policy goals related to emissions and 
equitable energy access, as well as emissions reductions system 
wide.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Millstein, A. et al. (2022) Empirical estimates of 
transmission value using locational marginal prices, Empirical 
Estimates of Transmission Value using Locational Marginal Prices 
[verbar] Electricity Markets and Policy Group, 6. Available at: 
https://emp.lbl.gov/publications/empirical-estimates-transmission.
    \13\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The DOE Grid Deployment Office released a draft of the 2023 
National Transmission Needs Study (Needs Study), which identified 
significant need for the expansion of electric transmission across the 
contiguous United States.\14\ This draft Needs Study and 2022 
interconnection queue analysis by Berkeley Lab support DOE's analysis 
that the CITAP Program will provide substantial benefits by reducing 
authorization timelines for transmission projects and increasing the 
speed of transmission development and clean energy integration.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ DOE, National Transmission Needs Study (Feb. 2023), 
available at: https://www.energy.gov/sites/default/files/2023-02/022423-DRAFTNeedsStudyforPublicComment.pdf.
    \15\ Berkeley Lab, Queued up: Characteristics of power plants 
seeking transmission interconnection (2023), Electricity Markets and 
Policy Group. Available at: https://emp.lbl.gov/queues.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The quantitative benefits of the CITAP Program will ultimately 
depend on the projects that are designed and developed by project 
proponents. However, the quantifiable benefits of transmission 
development can be estimated generally. These quantifiable benefits are 
the result of reductions in transmission congestion costs and avoided 
emissions from the increased use of clean energy enabled by additional 
transmission.
    A 2023 analysis of transmission congestion costs by a consulting 
group found that congestion costs have risen from an average of $7.1 
billion between 2016 and 2021 to $20.8 billion in 2022.\16\ A 2022 
study by Lawrence Berkeley National Lab found that between 2012 and 
2021, a 1000 megawatts (MW) interregional transmission line could have 
provided $20 to $670 million dollars per year in value by providing 
congestion relief, which would have lowered energy costs to 
consumers.\17\ Forward-looking projections for transmission value along 
these parameters are not available, and DOE is reluctant to project the 
complex changes to technical operations and market dynamics given the 
wide range in projected value. However, DOE notes that it has estimated 
that the CITAP Program will serve three projects a year that are each 
roughly equivalent to a 1000 MW line, an increase in the average number 
of these transmission projects authorized by a Federal agency

[[Page 55838]]

in the past 17 years. With decreased authorization times after the 
CITAP Program is initialized, the additional capacity enabled by this 
proposed action would likely provide substantial congestion relief, 
consistent with the studies cited above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ (2023) Transmission congestion costs rise again in U.S. 
RTOS, 1. Available at: https://gridstrategiesllc.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/GS_Transmission-Congestion-Costs-in-the-U.S.-RTOs1.pdf.
    \17\ Millstein, et al., 2022, 15.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A key driver of transmission congestion costs is that the growth of 
low-cost renewable energy projects is outpacing the rate of 
transmission expansion. Inadequate transmission capacity can lead to 
curtailment of available renewable energy in favor of thermal 
generators, which increases costs to consumers due to fuel prices and 
increases emissions.18 19 A recent projection found that 
transmission capacity must expand by 2.3% annually to realize the full 
benefits of the clean energy investments in the IRA. However, in the 
last decade, transmission capacity has only increased an average of 1% 
per year.\20\ The modeling projects that increasing the rate of 
transmission capacity expansion by even just 50% (1% to 1.5% annually) 
would significantly reduce emissions by enabling more clean energy on 
the grid, estimating nearly 600 million tons of avoided emissions 
(CO2 equivalent) in 2030 alone.\21\ An annual 1.5% increase 
in transmission capacity is estimated to add 7,000 MW to the grid in 
2030 and provide an estimated $53.4 billion in societal benefits from 
avoided emissions that year, using a $89/ton social cost of carbon.\22\ 
DOE estimates that the CITAP Program will increase the number of high 
capacity projects seeking Federal authorizations, providing a portion 
of projected avoided emissions benefits through increased transmission 
capacity. These benefits would continue to grow in the following years 
as transmission capacity is increased.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ Howland, E. (2023) US grid congestion costs jumped 56% to 
$20.8B in 2022: Report, Utility Dive. Available at: https://
www.utilitydive.com/news/grid-congestion-costs-transmission-gets-
grid-strategies-report/687309/
#:~:text=Costs%20to%20consumers%20from%20congestion%20on%20the%20U.S.
,report%20released%20Thursday%20by%20consulting%20firm%20Grid%20Strat
egies.
    \19\ Nationwide transmission congestion costs rise to $20.8 
billion in 2022 (2023). Advanced Power Alliance. Available at: 
https://poweralliance.org/2023/07/13/nationwide-transmission-
congestion-costs-rise-to-20-8-billion-in-2022/
#:~:text=By%20extrapolating%20data%20from%20Independent%20Market%20Mo
nitor%20reports,congestion%20costs%20reached%20%2420.8%20billion%20na
tionwide%20last%20year.
    \20\ Jenkins, J.D. et al. (2022) Electricity transmission is key 
to unlock the full potential of the Inflation Reduction Act, Zenodo. 
Available at: https://zenodo.org/record/
7106176#:~:text=Previously%2C%20REPEAT%20Project%20estimated%20that%2
0IRA%20could%20cut,from%20electric%20vehicles%2C%20heat%20pumps%2C%20
and%20other%20electrification.
    \21\ Id.
    \22\ Technical support document: Social cost of carbon, methane, 
(2021) whitehouse.gov, 5. Available at: https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/TechnicalSupportDocument_SocialCostofCarbonMethaneNitrousOxide.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While these estimates of quantitative benefits are necessarily 
approximate, the benefits of the CITAP Program to the public far offset 
the costs to project proponents. By enabling rapid development of 
enhanced transmission capacity, the CITAP Program will help increase 
access to a diversity of generation sources, offset transmission 
congestion and carbon costs, and deliver reliable, affordable power 
that future consumers will need when and where they need it.

B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) 
requires that an agency prepare an initial regulatory flexibility 
analysis for any regulation for which a general notice of proposed 
rulemaking is required, unless the agency certifies that the rule, if 
promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities (5 U.S.C. 605(b)). As required by 
E.O. 13272, ``Proper Consideration of Small Entities in Agency 
Rulemaking,'' 67 FR 53461 (Aug. 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 (see 68 FR 7990). DOE has made its procedures and 
policies available on the Office of the General Counsel's website 
(www.energy.gov/gc/office-general-counsel).
    DOE reviewed this proposed rule under the provisions of the 
Regulatory Flexibility Act and the procedures and policies published on 
February 19, 2003. DOE certifies that the proposed rule, if adopted, 
would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of 
small entities. The factual basis for this certification is set forth.
    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 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. Ensuring that 
all project proponents avail themselves of the benefits of the IIP 
Process will result in a clear, non-duplicative, process. Participation 
in the CITAP Program is optional. Thus, proposing to make the IIP 
Process a condition of the Program does not prevent project proponents 
from submitting application outside of the Program. DOE, however, 
encourages project proponents to take advantage of the Program based on 
the urgency and a consensus among 2023 MOU signatories of the 
anticipated benefits the Program will provide.
    Furthermore, these changes are procedural and apply only to project 
proponents that develop electric transmission infrastructure. 
Historically, entities that develop transmission infrastructure are 
larger entities. Therefore, these procedures are unlikely to directly 
affect small businesses or other small entities. For these reasons, 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 proposed 
rulemaking. DOE's certification and supporting statement of factual 
basis will be provided to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small 
Business Administration for review under 5 U.S.C. 605(b).

C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    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.) (PRA) and the procedures 
implementing that Act (5 CFR 1320.1 through 1320.18). The request to 
approve and revise this collection requirement has been submitted to 
OMB for approval. The proposed amendments are intended to improve the 
pre-application procedures and result in more efficient processing of 
applications.
    This proposed rule would modify certain reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements included in OMB Control No. 1910-5185 which is an ongoing 
collection. The proposed revisions to DOE's regulations associated with 
the OMB Control No. 1910-5185 information collection are intended to 
ensure that DOE may carry out its statutory obligations under section 
216(h) of the FPA.
    Information supplied will be used to support an initiation request 
necessary to begin DOE's IIP Process. The proposed revisions include a 
project

[[Page 55839]]

proponent provide: (1) additional maps and information for the summary 
of qualifying project; (2) a project participation plan; and (3) a 
statement regarding whether the project is a FAST-41 covered project. 
Additional information collection required includes thirteen resource 
reports describing the project and its impacts to allow DOE to complete 
a single EIS as part of the IIP Process. Those reports are: General 
project description; Water use and quality; Fish, wildlife, and 
vegetation; Cultural resources; Socioeconomics; Geological resources; 
Soil resources; Land use, recreation, and aesthetics; Communities of 
interest; Air and noise quality; Alternatives; Reliability and safety; 
and Tribal interests. Additionally, during the review and close-out 
meetings, project proponents will provide updates to project documents 
and the project schedule.
    The proposed revisions would represent an increase in information 
collection requirements and burden for OMB No. 1910-5185.
    The estimated burden and cost for the requirements contained in 
this NOPR follow.
    Each entry indicates the time estimated for a meeting or the time 
estimated for the respondent to prepare the report or request.

                    Estimate of Annual Respondent Reporting and Recordkeeping Burden and Cost
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                     Estimated
                                                                                   burden hours
                                     Estimated       Estimated       Estimated        (total         Estimated
  Form No./title (and/or other       number of       number of       number of      responses x    reporting and
   collection instrument name)      respondents        total       burden hours      number of     recordkeeping
                                                    responses *    per response      hours per    cost burden **
                                                                                     response)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Current Rule Estimate of Annual Respondent Reporting and Recordkeeping Burden and Cost
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 900.2...................               5               5               1               5           $ 283
Section 900.4...................               5              10               5              50           2,830
                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.......................  ..............              15  ..............              55           3,113
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Proposed Rule Estimate of Annual Respondent Reporting and Recordkeeping Burden and Cost
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Initiation Request..............               3               3              30              90           5,855
Initial Meeting.................               3               3               2               6             390
Resource Report 1: General                     3               3              96             288          18,734
 project description............
Resource Report 2: Water use and               3               3             125             375          24,394
 quality........................
Resource Report 3: Fish,                       3               3             200             600          39,030
 wildlife, and vegetation.......
Resource Report 4: Cultural                    3               3             200             600          39,030
 resources......................
Resource Report 5:                             3               3             160             480          31,224
 Socioeconomics.................
Resource Report 6: Geological                  3               3             160             480          31,224
 resources......................
Resource Report 7: Soil                        3               3             200             600          39,030
 resources......................
Resource Report 8: Land use,                   3               3             220             660          42,933
 Recreation and aesthetics......
Resource Report 9: Communities                 3               3              96             288          18,734
 of interest....................
Resource Report 10: Air and                    3               3             220             660          42,933
 noise quality..................
Resource Report 11: Alternatives               3               3             160             480          31,224
Resource Report 12: Reliability                3               3             100             300          19,515
 and safety.....................
Resource Report 13: Tribal                     3               3             160             480          31,224
 interests......................
Review Meeting Request..........               3               3               1               3             195
Review Meeting..................               3               3               2               6             390
Close-Out Meeting Request.......               3               3               1               3             195
Close-Out Meeting...............               3               3               1               3             195
                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.......................               3               3           2,134           6,402         416,451
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* One response per respondent.
** estimated cost based on median hourly wage for a project manager from https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes131111.htm ($45.81/hr) and fully burdened scaling factor from https://www.bls.gov/regions/southwest/news-release/employercostsforemployeecompensation_regions.htm (1.42).

    DOE recognizes that some of the above estimates for the information 
collection activities proposed are new. Therefore, DOE seeks comment on 
the burden and costs associated with the requirements contained in this 
proposed rule.
    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.

D. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969

    DOE has analyzed this proposed rule in accordance with NEPA and 
DOE's NEPA implementing regulations (10 CFR part 1021). DOE has 
determined that this proposed rule is covered under the categorical 
exclusion located at 10 CFR part 1021, subpart D, appendix A, 
Categorical Exclusion A5 because the proposed rule would revise 
existing regulations at 10 CFR part 900. The changes would affect the 
process for the consideration of future proposals for electricity 
transmission, and potential environmental impacts associated with any 
particular proposal would be analyzed pursuant to NEPA and other 
applicable requirements. DOE has considered whether this action would 
result in extraordinary circumstances that would warrant preparation of 
an Environmental Assessment or EIS and has determined that no such 
extraordinary circumstances exist.

[[Page 55840]]

Therefore, DOE has determined that this proposed rulemaking does not 
require an Environmental Assessment or an EIS.

E. Review Under Executive Order 12988

    With respect to the review of existing regulations and the 
promulgation of new regulations, section 3(a) of E.O. 12988, ``Civil 
Justice Reform,'' 61 FR 4729 (Feb. 7, 1996), imposes on Federal 
agencies the general duty to adhere to the following requirements: (1) 
eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity; (2) write regulations to 
minimize litigation; (3) provide a clear legal standard for affected 
conduct rather than a general standard; and (4) promote simplification 
and burden reduction. Section 3(b) of E.O. 12988 specifically requires 
that 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; (6) specifies whether 
administrative proceedings are to be required before parties may file 
suit in court and, if so, describes those proceedings and requires the 
exhaustion of administrative remedies; and (7) addresses other 
important issues affecting clarity and general draftsmanship under any 
guidelines issued by the Attorney General. Section 3(c) of E.O. 12988 
requires 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, this proposed rule meets the relevant standards of 
E.O. 12988.

F. Review Under Executive Order 13132

    E.O. 13132, ``Federalism'', 64 FR 43255 (Aug. 10, 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. E.O. 13132 also requires agencies to have 
an accountable process to ensure meaningful and timely input by State 
and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have 
federalism implications. On March 14, 2000, DOE published a statement 
of policy describing the intergovernmental consultation process it will 
follow in the development of such regulations (see 65 FR 13735). DOE 
has examined this document and has tentatively determined that the 
proposed rule would not preempt State law and would not have a 
substantial direct effect on the States, the relationship between the 
National Government and the States, or the distribution of power and 
responsibilities among the various levels of government. No further 
action is required by E.O. 13132.

G. Review Under Executive Order 13175

    Under E.O. 13175, ``Consultation and Coordination with Indian 
Tribal Governments,'' 65 FR 67249 (Nov. 6, 2000), DOE may not issue a 
discretionary rule that has Tribal implications or that imposes 
substantial direct compliance costs on Indian Tribal governments unless 
DOE provides funds necessary to pay the costs of the Tribal governments 
or consults with Tribal officials before promulgating the rule. The 
proposed rule aims to improve the coordination of Federal 
authorizations for proposed interstate electric transmission facilities 
pursuant to the FPA. Specifically, the proposed amendments are intended 
to refine the pre-application procedures and result in more efficient 
processing of applications. As a result, the proposed amendments in 
this document would not have substantial direct effects on one or more 
Indian Tribes, would not impose substantial direct compliance costs on 
Indian Tribal governments, and would not preempt Tribal laws. 
Accordingly, the funding and consultation requirements of E.O. 13175 do 
not apply, and a Tribal summary impact statement is not required.
    DOE invites Indian Tribal governments to provide comments on the 
costs and effects that this proposed rule could potentially have on 
Tribal communities.

H. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) of 1995 (Pub. 
L. 104-4) requires each Federal agency to assess the effects of a 
Federal regulatory action on State, local, and Tribal governments, and 
the private sector. (Pub. L. 104-4, sec. 201 (codified at 2 U.S.C. 
1531)) For a proposed regulatory action likely to result in a rule that 
may cause the expenditure by State, local, and Tribal governments, in 
the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100 million or more in any 
one year (adjusted annually for inflation), section 202 of UMRA 
requires a Federal agency to publish a written statement that estimates 
the resulting costs, benefits, and other effects on the national 
economy (2 U.S.C. 1532(a), (b)). UMRA also requires a Federal agency to 
develop an effective process to permit timely input by elected officers 
of State, local, and Tribal governments on a proposed ``significant 
Federal intergovernmental mandate,'' and requires an agency plan for 
giving notice and opportunity for timely input to potentially affected 
small governments before establishing any requirements that might 
significantly or uniquely affect them. On March 18, 1997, DOE published 
a statement of policy on its process for intergovernmental consultation 
under UMRA (see 62 FR 12820) (this policy is also available at: 
www.energy.gov/gc/guidance-opinions). DOE examined the proposed rule 
according to UMRA and its statement of policy and has determined that 
the rule contains neither an intergovernmental mandate, nor a mandate 
that may result in the expenditure by State, local, and Tribal 
governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 
million or more in any year. Accordingly, no further assessment or 
analysis is required under UMRA.

I. Review Under Executive Order 12630

    DOE has determined, under E.O. 12630, ``Governmental Actions and 
Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights,'' 53 FR 
8859 (March 18, 1988), that this proposed rule would not result in any 
takings that might require compensation under the Fifth Amendment to 
the U.S. Constitution.

J. Review Under Executive Order 13211

    E.O. 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)(i) is a significant regulatory action under E.O. 
12866, or any successor order; and (ii) is likely to have a significant 
adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy, or (2) 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

[[Page 55841]]

action and their expected benefits on energy supply, distribution, and 
use. This proposed rule is intended to improve the pre-application 
procedures for certain transmission projects, and therefore result in 
the more efficient processing of applications, and thus this proposed 
rule 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. Review Under the 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. This 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.

L. Review Under the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 
2001

    The Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 2001 (44 
U.S.C. 3516 note) provides for Federal 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 (Feb. 22, 2002), and 
DOE's guidelines were published at 67 FR 62446 (Oct. 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.

V. Public Participation--Submission of Comments

    DOE will accept comments, data, and information regarding this 
proposed rule no later than the date provided in the DATES section at 
the beginning of this document. Interested individuals are invited to 
participate in this proceeding by submitting data, views, or arguments 
with respect to the specific sections addressed in this proposed rule 
using the methods described in the ADDRESSES section at the beginning 
of this document.
    1. Submitting comments via www.regulations.gov. The 
www.regulations.gov web page will require you to provide your name and 
contact information. Your contact information will be viewable by DOE 
Grid Deployment Office staff only. Your contact information will not be 
publicly viewable except for your first and last names, organization 
name (if any), and submitter representative name (if any). If your 
comment is not processed properly because of technical difficulties, 
DOE will use this information to contact you. If DOE cannot read your 
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for 
clarification, DOE may not be able to consider your comment. However, 
your contact information will be publicly viewable if you include it in 
the comment itself or in any documents attached to your comment. Any 
information that you do not want to be publicly viewable should not be 
included in your comment, nor in any document attached to your comment. 
Persons viewing comments will see only first and last names, 
organization names, correspondence containing comments, and any 
documents submitted with the comments.
    Do not submit to www.regulations.gov information for which 
disclosure is restricted by statute, such as trade secrets and 
commercial or financial information (hereinafter referred to as 
Confidential Business Information (CBI)). Comments submitted through 
www.regulations.gov cannot be claimed as CBI. Comments received through 
www.regulations.gov will waive any CBI claims for the information 
submitted. For information on submitting CBI, see the Confidential 
Business Information section.
    DOE processes submissions made through www.regulations.gov before 
posting. Normally, comments will be posted within a few days of being 
submitted. However, if large volumes of comments are being processed 
simultaneously, your comment may not be viewable for up to several 
weeks. Please keep the comment tracking number that www.regulations.gov 
provides after you have successfully uploaded your comment.
    2. Submitting comments via email or mail. Comments and documents 
submitted via email or mail will also be posted to www.regulations.gov. 
If you do not want your personal contact information to be publicly 
viewable, do not include it in your comment or any accompanying 
documents. Instead, provide your contact information in a cover letter. 
Include your first and last names, email address, telephone number, and 
optional mailing address. The cover letter will not be publicly 
viewable as long as it does not include any comments.
    Comments, data, and other information submitted to DOE 
electronically should be provided in PDF (preferred), Microsoft Word or 
Excel, WordPerfect, or text (ASCII) file format. Provide documents that 
are not secured, that are written in English, and that are free of any 
defects or viruses. Documents should not contain special characters or 
any form of encryption and, if possible, they should carry the 
electronic signature of the author.
    3. Confidential Business Information. Pursuant to the provisions of 
10 CFR 1004.11, any person submitting information or data he or she 
believes to be confidential and exempt by law from public disclosure 
should submit two well-marked copies: One copy of the document marked 
``CONFIDENTIAL'' including all the information believed to be 
confidential, and one copy of the document marked ``NON-CONFIDENTIAL'' 
with the information believed to be confidential deleted. Submit these 
documents via email to [email protected]. DOE will make its own 
determination about the confidential status of the information and 
treat it according to its determination.
    It is DOE's policy that all comments may be included in the public 
docket, without change and as received, including any personal 
information provided in the comments (except information deemed to be 
exempt from public disclosure).
    4. Campaign form letters. Please submit campaign form letters by 
the originating organization in batches of between 50 to 500 form 
letters per PDF or as one form letter with a list of supporters' names 
compiled into one or more PDFs. This reduces comment processing and 
posting time.

VI. Approval by the Office of the Secretary of Energy

    The Secretary of Energy has approved publication of this notice of 
proposed rulemaking and request for comment.

List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 900

    Electric power, Electric utilities, Energy, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements.

Signing Authority

    This document of the DOE was signed on August 8, 2023, by Maria D. 
Robinson, Director, Grid Deployment Office, pursuant to delegated 
authority from the Secretary of Energy. That document with the original 
signature and date is maintained by DOE. For administrative purposes 
only, and in compliance with requirements of the Office of the Federal 
Register, the

[[Page 55842]]

undersigned DOE Federal Register Liaison Officer has been authorized to 
sign and submit the document in electronic format for publication, as 
an official document of the Department of Energy. This administrative 
process in no way alters the legal effect of this document upon 
publication in the Federal Register.

    Signed in Washington, DC, on August 8, 2023.
Treena V. Garrett,
Federal Register Liaison Officer, U.S. Department of Energy.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Department of Energy 
proposes to revise 10 CFR part 900 to read as follows:

PART 900--COORDINATION OF FEDERAL AUTHORIZATIONS FOR ELECTRIC 
TRANSMISSION FACILITIES

Sec.
900.1 Purpose and scope.
900.2 Definitions.
900.3 Applicability to other projects.
900.4 Purpose of IIP Process.
900.5 Initiation of IIP Process.
900.6 Project proponent resource reports.
900.7 Standard and project-specific schedules.
900.8 IIP Process review meeting.
900.9 IIP Process close-out meeting.
900.10 Consolidated administrative docket.
900.11 NEPA lead agency and selection of NEPA co-lead agency.
900.12 Environmental review.
900.13 Severability.

    Authority:  16 U.S.C. 824p(h).


Sec.  900.1  Purpose and scope.

    (a) Pursuant to section 216(h) of the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 
824p(h)), the Department of Energy (DOE) establishes the Coordinated 
Interagency Transmission Authorizations and Permits Program (CITAP 
Program) under this part to coordinate the review and processes related 
to Federal authorizations necessary to site a transmission facility. 
Pursuant to section 216(h)(4)(A), this part establishes the mechanism 
by which DOE will set intermediate milestones and ultimate deadlines 
for the processes related to deciding whether to issue such 
authorizations. In addition, as the lead agency and in collaboration 
with any National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) co-lead agency and in 
consultation with the relevant Federal entities, as applicable, DOE 
will prepare a single environmental impact statement (EIS), which will 
be designed to serve the needs of all relevant Federal agencies and 
inform all Federal authorization decisions on the proposed qualifying 
project.
    (b) This part provides a process for the timely submission of 
information needed for Federal decisions related to authorizations for 
proposed electric transmission facilities. This part seeks to ensure 
that electric transmission projects are developed consistent with the 
nation's environmental laws, including laws that protect endangered and 
threatened species, critical habitats, and cultural and historic 
properties. This part provides a framework, called the Integrated 
Interagency Pre-Application (IIP) Process, by which DOE will coordinate 
submission of materials necessary for Federal authorizations and 
related environmental reviews required under Federal law to site 
qualified electric transmission facilities, and integrates the IIP 
Process into the CITAP Program.
    (c) This part describes the timing and procedures for the IIP 
Process, which should be initiated prior to a project proponent's 
submission of any application for a required Federal authorization. The 
IIP Process provides for timely and focused pre-application meetings 
with relevant Federal and non-Federal entities, as well as for early 
identification of potential siting constraints and opportunities and 
seeks to promote thorough and consistent stakeholder engagement by a 
project proponent. At the close-out of each IIP Process, DOE in 
coordination with the relevant Federal entities will establish the 
schedule by which all Federal authorizations and related reviews 
necessary for the qualifying project will be conducted.
    (d) This part improves the Federal permitting process by 
facilitating the early submission, compilation, and documentation of 
information needed for coordinated review by relevant Federal entities 
under the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.). 
This part also facilitates expeditious action on necessary Federal 
authorizations by ensuring that relevant Federal entities coordinate 
their consideration of those applications and by providing non-Federal 
entities the opportunity to coordinate their non-Federal permitting and 
environmental reviews with the reviews of the relevant Federal 
entities.
    (e) This part facilitates improved and earlier coordination of and 
consultation between relevant Federal entities, relevant non-Federal 
entities, and others pursuant to section 106 of the National Historic 
Preservation Act (54 U.S.C. 306108) (NHPA) and its implementing 
regulations found at 36 CFR part 800. Under this part, DOE may 
establish it has an undertaking with the potential to affect historic 
properties and, following the IIP review meeting, authorize a project 
proponent, as a CITAP applicant, to initiate section 106 consultation 
for the undertaking consistent with 36 CFR 800.2(c)(4). Prior to that 
determination, this part requires project proponents to gather initial 
information and make recommendations relevant to the section 106 
process to the extent possible. This part also establishes DOE as co-
lead for the section 106 process, consistent with DOE's role as lead or 
co-lead agency for purposes of NEPA, in order to maximize opportunities 
for coordination between the NEPA and section 106 processes. Federal 
entities remain responsible for government-to-government consultation 
with Indian Tribes (and government-to-sovereign consultation in the 
context of Native Hawaiian relations) and for any findings and 
determinations required by and reserved to Federal agencies in 36 CFR 
part 800.
    (f) This part applies only to qualifying projects as defined by 
Sec.  900.2.
    (g) Participation in the IIP Process does not alter any 
requirements to obtain necessary Federal authorizations for electric 
transmission facilities. Nor does this part alter any responsibilities 
of the relevant Federal entities for environmental review or 
consultation under applicable law.
    (h) The Director may waive any requirement imposed on a project 
proponent under this part if, in the Director's discretion, the 
Director determines that the requirement is unnecessary, duplicative, 
or impracticable under the circumstances relevant to the qualifying 
project. Where the principal project developer is itself a Federal 
entity that would be otherwise expected to prepare an EIS for the 
project, the Director shall consider modifications to the requirements 
under this part as may be necessary under the circumstances.


Sec.  900.2  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 3,000 feet of a proposed 
construction work area for a qualifying project.
    Authorization means any license, permit, approval, finding, 
determination, or other administrative decision required under Federal, 
State,

[[Page 55843]]

local, or Tribal law to site an electric transmission facility, 
including permits, special use authorization, certifications, opinions, 
or other approvals.
    Communities of interest include disadvantaged, fossil energy, 
rural, Tribal, indigenous, geographically proximate, or communities 
with environmental justice concerns that could be affected by the 
qualifying project.
    Director means the Director of the DOE Grid Deployment Office, that 
person's delegate, or another DOE official designated to perform the 
functions of this part by the Secretary of Energy.
    Federal authorization means any authorization required under 
Federal law.
    Federal entity means any Federal agency or department.
    Indian Tribe has the same meaning as provided by 25 U.S.C. 5304(e).
    Landscape mitigation approach means an approach that applies the 
mitigation hierarchy to develop mitigation measures for impacts to 
resources from a qualifying project at the relevant scale, however 
narrow or broad, that is necessary to sustain those resources, or 
otherwise achieve established goals for those resources. The mitigation 
hierarchy refers to an approach that first seeks to avoid, then 
minimize impacts, then, when necessary, compensate for residual 
impacts. A landscape mitigation approach identifies the needs and 
baseline conditions of targeted resources, potential impacts from the 
qualifying project, cumulative impacts of past and likely projected 
disturbances to those resources, and future disturbance trends, then 
uses this information to identify priorities for mitigation measures 
across the relevant area to provide the maximum benefit to the impacted 
resources. Such an approach includes full consideration of the 
conditions of additionality (meaning that the benefits of a 
compensatory mitigation measure improve upon the baseline conditions in 
a manner that is demonstrably new and would not have occurred without 
the mitigation measure) and durability (meaning that the effectiveness 
of a mitigation measure is sustained for the duration of the associated 
direct and indirect impacts).
    Landscape mitigation strategies or plans mean documents developed 
through, or external to, the NEPA process that apply a landscape 
mitigation approach to identify appropriate mitigation measures in 
advance of potential impacts to resources from qualifying projects.
    MOU signatory agency means a signatory of the interagency 
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) executed in May 2023, titled 
``Memorandum of Understanding among the U.S. Department of Agriculture, 
Department of Commerce, Department of Defense, Department of Energy, 
the Environmental Protection Agency, the Council on Environmental 
Quality, the Federal Permitting Improvement Steering Council, 
Department of the Interior, and the Office of Management and Budget 
Regarding Facilitating Federal Authorizations for Electric Transmission 
Facilities.''
    NEPA co-lead agency means the agency means the Federal entity 
designated under Sec.  900.11.
    Non-Federal entity means an Indian Tribe, multi-State governmental 
entity, State agency, or local government agency.
    Participating agencies means:
    (1) The Department of Agriculture (USDA);
    (2) The Department of Commerce;
    (3) The Department of Defense (DOD);
    (4) The Department of Energy;
    (5) The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA);
    (6) The Council on Environmental Quality;
    (7) The Office of Management and Budget;
    (8) The Department of the Interior (DOI);
    (9) The Federal Permitting Improvement Steering Council (FPISC);
    (10) Other agencies and offices as the Secretary of Energy may from 
time to time invite to participate; and
    (11) The following independent agencies, to the extent consistent 
with their statutory authority and obligations, and determined by the 
chair or executive director of each agency, as appropriate:
    (i) The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC); and
    (ii) The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation.
    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, 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 and route segments 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 a Federal authorization for a 
qualifying project.
    Qualifying project means:
    (1) A high-voltage electric transmission line (230 kV or above) and 
its attendant facilities, or other regionally or nationally significant 
electric transmission line and its attendant facilities:
    (i) For which all or part of the proposed electric transmission 
line is used for the transmission of electric energy in interstate or 
international commerce for sale at wholesale;
    (ii) Which is expected to require preparation of an environmental 
impact statement (EIS) pursuant to NEPA to inform an agency decision on 
a Federal authorization;
    (iii) Which is not proposed for authorization under section 8(p) of 
the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1337(p));
    (iv) Which will not require a construction or modification permit 
from FERC pursuant to section 216(b) of the Federal Power Act; and
    (v) Which is not wholly located within the Electric Reliability 
Council of Texas interconnection; or
    (2) An electric transmission facility that is approved by the 
Director under the process set out in Sec.  900.3.
    Relevant Federal entity means a Federal entity with jurisdictional 
interests that may have an effect on a qualifying project, that is 
responsible for issuing a Federal authorization for the qualifying 
project, that has relevant expertise with respect to environmental and 
other issues pertinent to or potentially affected by the qualifying 
project, or that provides funding for the qualifying project. The term 
includes participating agencies. The term includes a Federal entity 
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 DOD for an examination of military test, 
training or operational impacts.
    Relevant non-Federal entity means a non-Federal entity with 
relevant expertise or jurisdiction within the project area, that is 
responsible for issuing an authorization for the qualifying project, 
that has special expertise with respect to environmental and other 
issues pertinent to or potentially affected by the qualifying

[[Page 55844]]

project, or that provides funding for the qualifying project. The term 
includes an entity with either permitting or non-permitting authority, 
such as an Indian Tribe, Native Hawaiian Organization, or State or 
Tribal Historic Preservation Offices, with whom consultation must be 
completed in accordance with section 106 of the NHPA prior to approval 
of a permit, right-of-way, or other authorization required for a 
Federal authorization.
    Route means an area along a linear path within which a qualifying 
project could be sited that is:
    (1) Wide enough to allow minor adjustments in the alignment of the 
qualifying project to avoid sensitive features or to accommodate 
potential engineering constraints; and
    (2) Narrow enough to allow detailed study.
    Stakeholder means any relevant 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 (not to exceed one mile in 
width) within the project area where alternative routes or route 
segments may be considered for further study.


Sec.  900.3  Applicability to other projects.

    (a) Following the procedures set out in this section, the Director 
may determine that an electric transmission facility that does not meet 
the description of a qualifying project under paragraph (1) of the 
definition in Sec.  900.2 is a qualifying project under paragraph (2) 
of the definition.
    (b) A requestor seeking DOE assistance under this part for an 
electric transmission facility that does not meet the description of a 
qualifying project under paragraph (1) of the definition in Sec.  900.2 
must file a request for coordination with the Director. The request 
must contain:
    (1) The legal name of the requester; its principal place of 
business; and the name, title, and mailing address of the person or 
persons to whom communications concerning the request for coordination 
are to be addressed;
    (2) A concise description of the proposed facility sufficient to 
explain its scope and purpose;
    (3) A list of anticipated relevant Federal entities involved in the 
proposed facility; and
    (4) A list of anticipated relevant non-Federal entities involved in 
the proposed facility, including any agency serial or docket numbers 
for pending applications.
    (c) Not later than 30 calendar days after the date that the 
Director receives a request under this section, the Director, in 
consultation with the relevant Federal entities, will determine if the 
electric transmission facility is a qualifying project under this part 
and will notify the project proponent in writing of one of the 
following:
    (1) If accepted, that the facility is a qualifying project and the 
project proponent must submit an initiation request as set forth under 
Sec.  900.5; or
    (2) If not accepted, that the project proponent must follow the 
procedures of each relevant Federal entity that has jurisdiction over 
the facility without DOE performing a coordinating function.
    (d) For a transmission facility that will require a construction or 
modification permit from FERC pursuant to section 216(b) of the Federal 
Power Act, DOE may not consider a request for assistance under this 
section unless the requestor under paragraph (b) of this section is 
FERC acting through its chair.
    (e) At the discretion of the MOU signatory agencies, this section 
may be applied to a transmission facility proposed for authorization 
under section 8(p) of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, if the 
proposed authorization is independent of any generation project.
    (f) This section does not apply to:
    (1) A transmission facility proposed to be authorized under section 
8(p) of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act in conjunction with a 
generation project; or
    (2) A transmission facility wholly located within the Electric 
Reliability Council of Texas interconnection.


Sec.  900.4  Purpose of IIP Process.

    (a) The Integrated Interagency Pre-Application (IIP) Process is 
intended for a project proponent who has identified potential study 
corridors and/or potential routes and the proposed locations of any 
intermediate substations for a qualifying project.
    (b) Participation in the IIP Process is a prerequisite for the 
coordination provided by DOE between relevant Federal entities, 
relevant non-Federal entities, and the project proponent.
    (c) The IIP Process ensures early interaction between the project 
proponents, relevant Federal entities, and relevant non-Federal 
entities to enhance early understanding by those entities. Through the 
IIP Process, the project proponent will provide relevant Federal 
entities and relevant non-Federal entities with a clear description of 
the 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; and will coordinate with 
relevant Federal entities to develop resource reports that will serve 
as inputs, as appropriate, into the relevant Federal analyses and 
facilitate early identification of project issues.
    (d) The IIP Process is an iterative process anchored by three 
meetings: the initial meeting, review meeting, and close-out meeting. 
These meetings, defined in Sec. Sec.  900.5, 900.8 and 900.9, are 
milestones in the process and do not preclude any additional meetings 
or communications between the project proponent and the relevant 
Federal entities. The iterative nature of the process is provided for 
in procedures for evaluating the completeness of submitted materials 
and the suitability of materials for the relevant Federal entities' 
decision-making before each milestone.
    (e) DOE, in exercising its responsibilities under this part, will 
communicate regularly with FERC, electric reliability organizations and 
electric transmission organizations approved by FERC, relevant Federal 
entities, and project proponents. DOE will use information technologies 
to provide opportunities for relevant Federal entities to participate 
remotely.
    (f) 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 relevant non-Federal entities. DOE 
will use information technologies to provide opportunities and reduce 
burdens for relevant non-Federal entities to participate remotely.
    (g) The Director may at any time require the project proponent to 
provide additional information necessary to resolve issues raised by 
the IIP Process.
    (h) Pursuant to 10 CFR 1004.11, any person submitting information 
during the IIP Process that the person believes to be confidential and 
exempt by law from public disclosure should submit two well-marked 
copies, one marked ``confidential'' that includes all the information 
believed to be confidential, and one marked ``non-confidential'' with 
the information believed to be confidential deleted or redacted. DOE 
will make its own determination about the confidential status of the 
information and treat it according to its determination. The project 
proponent must request confidential treatment for all material filed 
with DOE containing location, character, and ownership information 
about cultural resources.
    (i) Pursuant to 10 CFR 1004.13, any person submitting information 
during

[[Page 55845]]

the IIP Process that the person believes might contain Critical 
Electric Infrastructure Information (CEII) should submit a request for 
CEII designation of information.


Sec.  900.5   Initiation of IIP Process.

    (a) Initiation request. A project proponent shall submit an 
initiation request to DOE. The project proponent may decide when to 
submit the initiation request. The initiation request must include, 
based on best available information:
    (1) A summary of the qualifying project, as described by paragraph 
(b) of this section;
    (2) Associated maps, geospatial information, and studies (provided 
in electronic format), as described by paragraph (c) of this section;
    (3) A project participation plan, as described by paragraph (d) of 
this section; and
    (4) A statement regarding the proposed qualifying project's status 
pursuant to Title 41 of the Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act 
(FAST-41) (42 U.S.C. 4370m-2(b)(2)), as described by paragraph (e) of 
this section.
    (b) Summary of the qualifying project. The summary of the 
qualifying project is limited to 10 pages, single-spaced and must 
include:
    (1) The following information:
    (i) The project proponent's legal name and principal place of 
business;
    (ii) The project proponent's contact information and designated 
point(s) of contact;
    (iii) Whether the project proponent is an individual, partnership, 
corporation, or other entity and, if applicable, the State laws under 
which the project proponent is organized or authorized; and
    (iv) 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;
    (2) A statement of the project proponent's interests and 
objectives;
    (3) To the extent available, copies of or links to:
    (i) Any regional electric transmission planning documents, regional 
reliability studies, regional congestion or other related studies that 
relate to the qualifying project or the need for the qualifying 
project; and
    (ii) Any relevant interconnection requests;
    (4) 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;
    (5) A brief description of the proposed qualifying project, 
including end points, voltage, ownership, intermediate substations if 
applicable, and, to the extent known, any information about constraints 
or flexibility with respect to the qualifying project;
    (6) Identification of any environmental and engineering firms and 
sub-contractors under contract to develop the qualifying project;
    (7) The project proponent's proposed schedule for filing necessary 
Federal and State applications, construction start date, and planned 
in-service date, assuming receipt of all necessary authorizations; and
    (8) A list of anticipated relevant Federal entities and relevant 
non-Federal entities, including contact information for each Federal 
agency, State agency, Indian Tribe, or multi-State entity that is 
responsible for or has a role in issuing an authorization or 
environmental review for the qualifying project.
    (c) Maps, geospatial information, and studies. The Integrated 
Interagency Pre-Application (IIP) Process initiation request must 
include maps, geospatial information, and studies in support of the 
information provided in the summary of the qualifying project under 
paragraph (b) of this section. Maps must be of sufficient detail to 
identify the proposed route or routes. Project proponents must provide 
the maps, information, and studies as electronic data files that may be 
readily accessed by relevant Federal entities and relevant non-Federal 
entities. The maps, information, and studies described in this 
paragraph (c) must include:
    (1) Location maps and plot plans to scale showing all major 
components, including a description of zoning and site availability for 
any permanent facilities; cultural resource location information should 
be submitted in accordance with Sec.  900.4(h);
    (2) A map of the project area showing potential study corridors 
and/or potential routes;
    (3) Electronic access to any existing data or studies relevant to 
the summary information provided as part of the initiation request; and
    (4) Citations identifying sources, data, and analyses used to 
develop the IIP Process initiation request materials.
    (d) Project participation plan. The project participation plan, 
which may not exceed 10, single-spaced pages, summarizes the 
stakeholder outreach that the project proponent conducted prior to 
submission of the initiation request, and describes the project 
proponent's planned outreach to communities of interest going forward. 
A supplemental appendix may be submitted to provide sufficient detail 
in addition to the narrative elements. The project participation plan 
must include:
    (1) A summary of prior outreach to communities of interest and 
stakeholders including:
    (i) A description of what work already has been done, including 
stakeholder and community outreach and public engagement related to 
project engineering and route planning, as well as any entities and 
organizations interested in the proposed undertaking;
    (ii) A list of environmental, engineering, public affairs, other 
contractors or consultants employed by the proponent to facilitate 
public outreach;
    (iii) A description of any materials provided to the public, such 
as environmental surveys or studies;
    (iv) A description of the communities of interest identified and 
the process by which they were identified;
    (v) A general description of the real property interests that would 
be impacted by the project and the rights that the owners and Federal 
land managers of those property interests would have under State law; 
and
    (vi) A summary of comments received during these previous 
engagement activities, issues identified by stakeholders, communities 
of interest (including various resource issues, differing project 
alternative corridors or routes, and revisions to routes), and 
responses provided to commenters, if applicable; and
    (2) A public engagement plan, which must:
    (i) Describe the project proponent's outreach plan and status of 
those activities, including planned future activities corresponding to 
each of the items identified in paragraphs (d)(1)(i) through (vi) of 
this section, specifying the planned dates or frequency;
    (ii) Describe the manner in which the project proponent will reach 
out to communities of interest about potential mitigation of concerns;
    (iii) Describe planned outreach activities during the permitting 
process, including efforts to identify, and engage, individuals with 
limited English proficiency and linguistically isolated communities, 
and provide accommodations for individuals with accessibility needs; 
and
    (iv) Discuss the specific tools and actions used by the project 
proponent to facilitate stakeholder communications and public 
information, including a readily accessible, easily identifiable,

[[Page 55846]]

single point of contact for the project proponent.
    (e) FAST-41 statement. The FAST-41 statement required under 
paragraph (a) of this section must specify the status of the proposed 
qualifying project pursuant to FAST-41. The statement must either:
    (1) State whether the project proponent has sought FAST-41 coverage 
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 4370m-2(a)(1); and state whether the Executive 
Director of the FPISC has created an entry on the Permitting Dashboard 
for the project as a covered project pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 4370m-
2(b)(2)(A); or
    (2) State that the project proponent elected not to apply to be a 
FAST-41 covered project at this time.
    (f) Determination. Not later than 15 calendar days after DOE 
receives an IIP Process initiation request, DOE shall provide relevant 
Federal entities and relevant non-Federal entities with an electronic 
copy of the initiation request, and notify each entity that:
    (1) Based on DOE's initial review of the initiation request, DOE 
has identified the entity as either a relevant Federal entity or 
relevant non-Federal entity for the project; and
    (2) The entity should participate in the IIP Process for the 
project, with DOE's rationale for that determination.
    (g) Notification of initiation request determination. Not later 
than 30 calendar days after the date that DOE receives an initiation 
request, DOE shall notify the project proponent and all relevant 
Federal entities and relevant non-Federal entities that:
    (1) The initiation request meets the requirements of this section, 
including that the project is a qualifying project; or
    (2) The initiation request does not meet the requirements of this 
section. DOE will provide the reasons for that finding and a 
description of how the project proponent may, if applicable, address 
any deficiencies in the initiation request so that DOE may reconsider 
its determination.
    (h) Initial meeting. If a project proponent submits a valid 
initiation request, DOE, in consultation with the identified relevant 
Federal entities, shall convene the IIP Process initial meeting with 
the project proponent and all relevant Federal entities notified by DOE 
under paragraph (g) of this section as soon as practicable and no later 
than 30 calendar days after the date that DOE provides notice under 
paragraph (g) that the initiation request meets the requirements of 
this section. DOE shall also invite relevant non-Federal entities to 
participate in the initial meeting. During the initial meeting:
    (1) DOE and the relevant Federal entities shall discuss with the 
project proponent the IIP Process, Federal authorization process, 
related environmental reviews, any arrangements for the project 
proponent to contribute funds to DOE to cover costs incurred by DOE and 
the relevant Federal entities in the IIP Process (in accordance with 42 
U.S.C. 7278), any requirements for entering into cost recovery 
agreements, and paying for third-party contractors under DOE's 
supervision, where applicable;
    (2) DOE will identify any Federal applications that must be 
submitted during the IIP Process, to enable relevant Federal entities 
to begin work on the review process, and those applications that will 
be submitted after the IIP Process. All application submittal timelines 
will be accounted for in the project-specific schedule described in 
Sec.  900.7;
    (3) The project proponent shall describe the qualifying project and 
the contents of the initiation request; and
    (4) DOE and the relevant Federal entities, along with any relevant 
non-Federal entities who choose to participate, will review the 
information provided by the project proponent and publicly available 
information, and, to the extent possible and based on agency expertise 
and experience, 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 (for instance, pole height 
and corridor width based on line capacity to improve safety and 
resiliency of project);
    (ii) Potential cultural resources and historic properties of 
concern;
    (iii) Areas under (or potentially under) special protection by 
State or Federal statute and areas subject to a 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. Such areas may include, but are not limited 
to, properties or sites that may be of traditional religious 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), Land and Water Conservation Fund 
lands, National Wildlife Refuges, national monuments, 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., colocation with existing infrastructure or location 
on previously disturbed lands or in energy corridors designated by the 
Department of the Interior or the Department of Agriculture under 
section 503 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (Pub. L. 94-
579) or section 368 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (Pub. L. 109-58), 
an existing right-of-way, a National Interest Energy Transmission 
Corridor, 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 a landscape mitigation approach or, where available, 
landscape mitigation strategies or plans to reduce the potential impact 
of the 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.
    (i) Feedback to project proponent. Feedback provided to the project 
proponent under paragraph (h) of this section does not constitute a 
commitment by any relevant Federal entity to approve or deny a Federal 
authorization request, nor does the IIP Process limit agency discretion 
regarding NEPA review.
    (j) Draft initial meeting summary. Not later than 15 calendar days 
after the initial meeting, DOE shall:
    (1) Prepare a draft initial meeting summary that includes a summary 
of the meeting discussion, a description of

[[Page 55847]]

key issues and information gaps identified during the meeting, and any 
requests for more information from relevant Federal entities and 
relevant non-Federal entities; and
    (2) Convey the draft summary to the project proponent, relevant 
Federal entities, and any relevant non-Federal entities that 
participated in the meeting.
    (k) Corrections. The project proponent and entities that received 
the draft initial meeting summary under paragraph (j) of this section 
will have 15 calendar days following receipt of the draft initial 
meeting summary to review the draft and provide corrections to DOE.
    (l) Final summary. Not later than 15 calendar days following the 
close of the 15-day review period under paragraph (k) of this section, 
DOE shall:
    (1) Prepare a final initial meeting summary by incorporating 
received corrections, as appropriate;
    (2) Add the final summary to the consolidated administrative docket 
described by Sec.  900.10; and
    (3) Provide an electronic copy of the summary to all relevant 
Federal entities, relevant non-Federal entities, and the project 
proponent.


Sec.  900.6   Project proponent resource reports.

    (a) Preparation and submission. The project proponent shall prepare 
and submit to DOE the 13 project proponent resource reports (``resource 
reports'') described in this section. The project proponent may submit 
the resource reports at any time before requesting a review meeting 
under Sec.  900.8 and shall, at the direction of DOE, revise resource 
reports in response to comments received from relevant Federal entities 
and relevant non-Federal entities during the Integrated Interagency 
Pre-Application (IIP) Process.
    (b) Content. Each resource report must include concise 
descriptions, based on the best available scientific and commercial 
information, of the known existing environment and major site 
conditions in the project area. The detail of each resource report must 
be commensurate with the complexity of the proposal and its potential 
for environmental impacts. Each topic in each resource report must be 
addressed or its omission justified. If material required for one 
resource report is provided in another resource report or in another 
exhibit, it may be incorporated by reference. If any resource report 
topic is not addressed at the time the applicable resource report is 
filed or its omission is not addressed, the report must explain why the 
topic is missing.
    (c) Requirements for IIP Process progression. Failure of the 
project proponent to provide at least the required initial or revised 
content will prevent progress through the IIP Process to the IIP review 
or close-out meetings, unless the Director determines that the project 
proponent has provided an acceptable reason for the item's absence and 
an acceptable timeline for filing it. Failure to file within the 
accepted timeline will prevent further progress in the IIP Process.
    (d) General requirements. As appropriate, each resource report 
shall:
    (1) Address conditions or resources that might be directly or 
indirectly affected by the qualifying project;
    (2) Identify environmental effects expected to occur as a result of 
the project;
    (3) Identify the potential effects of construction, operation 
(including maintenance and malfunctions), and termination of the 
project, as well as potential cumulative effects resulting from 
existing or reasonably foreseeable projects;
    (4) Identify measures proposed to enhance the environment or to 
avoid, mitigate, or compensate for potential adverse effects of the 
project; and
    (5) Provide:
    (i) A list of publications, reports, and other literature or 
communications, including agency communications, that were cited or 
relied upon to prepare each report; and
    (ii) The name and title of the person contacted in any 
communication, their affiliations, and telephone number or email 
address.
    (e) Federal responsibility. The resource reports prepared by the 
project proponent under this section do not supplant the requirements 
under existing environmental laws related to the information required 
for Federal authorization or consultation processes. The agencies shall 
independently evaluate the information submitted and shall be 
responsible for the accuracy, scope, and contents of all Federal 
authorization decision documents and related environmental reviews.
    (f) Resource Report 1--General project description. This report 
will describe facilities associated with the project, special 
construction and operation procedures, construction timetables, future 
plans for related construction, compliance with regulations and codes, 
and permits that must be obtained. Resource Report 1 must:
    (1) Describe and provide location maps of all facilities to be 
constructed, modified, abandoned, replaced, or removed, including 
related construction and operational support activities and areas such 
as maintenance bases, staging areas, communications towers, power 
lines, and new access roads (roads to be built or modified), as well as 
any existing infrastructure proposed to be used for the project (i.e., 
existing substations, connections to existing transmission, existing 
access roads);
    (2) Describe specific generation resources that are known or 
reasonably foreseen to be developed or interconnected as a result of 
the project, if any;
    (3) Identify other companies that may construct facilities related 
to the project (i.e., fiber optic cables) and where those facilities 
would be located;
    (4) Provide the following information for facilities described 
under paragraphs (f)(1) through (3) of this section:
    (i) A brief description of each facility, including, as 
appropriate, ownership, land requirements, megawatt size, construction 
status, and an update of the latest status of Federal, State, and local 
permits and approvals;
    (ii) Current topographic maps showing the location of the 
facilities;
    (iii) Any communications with the appropriate State Historic 
Preservation and Officers (SHPOs) and Tribal Historic Preservation 
Officers (THPOs) regarding cultural and historic resources in the 
project area;
    (iv) Correspondence with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 
(and National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), if appropriate) 
regarding potential impacts of the proposed facility on federally 
listed threatened and endangered species and their designated critical 
habitats; and
    (v) An indication of whether the project proponent will need to 
submit a Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) Federal consistency 
certification to State coastal management program(s) for the proposed 
transmission project, as required by the National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) Federal consistency regulations at 
15 CFR part 930, subpart D; and
    (vi) An indication of whether the project proponent will need to 
obtain a water quality certification under section 401 of the Clean 
Water Act (CWA) (33 U.S.C. 1341) for the proposed project.
    (5) Identify and describe the following if the project is 
considering abandonment of certain resources:
    (i) Facilities to be abandoned, and state how they would be 
abandoned, how the site would be restored, who would own the site or 
right-of-way after abandonment, and who would be responsible for any 
facilities abandoned in place; and
    (ii) When the right-of-way or the easement would be abandoned, 
identify

[[Page 55848]]

whether landowners were or will be given the opportunity to request 
that the facilities on their property, including foundations and below 
ground components, be removed, identify any landowners whose 
preferences the company does not intend to honor, and provide the 
reasons why the company does not intend to honor them;
    (6) Describe, by milepost, proposed construction and restoration 
methods to be used in areas of rugged topography, residential areas, 
active croplands, sites where the project would be located parallel to 
and under roads, and sites where explosives may be used;
    (7) Unless provided in response to Resource Report 5 (see paragraph 
(j) of this section), describe estimated workforce requirements, 
including the number of construction spreads, average workforce 
requirements for each construction spread, estimated duration of 
construction from initial clearing to final restoration, and number of 
personnel to be hired to operate the proposed project;
    (8) Describe reasonably foreseeable plans for future expansion of 
facilities, including additional land requirements and the 
compatibility of those plans with the current proposal;
    (9) To the extent they are available and in accordance with the 
project-specific schedule described by Sec.  900.7, describe all 
authorizations required to complete the proposed action and the status 
of applications for such authorizations and identify environmental 
mitigation requirements specified in any permit or proposed in any 
permit application to the extent not specified elsewhere in this 
resource report or another;
    (10) Provide the names and mailing addresses of all affected 
landowners to certify that all affected landowners have been notified;
    (11) Summarize any relevant potential avoidance, minimization, and 
conservation measures, such as proposed compensatory mitigation (onsite 
and offsite), developed through the use of a landscape mitigation 
approach or, where available, landscape mitigation strategies or plans, 
and anticipated by the project proponent to reduce the potential 
impacts of the qualifying project to resources warranting or requiring 
mitigation; and
    (12) Describe how the project will reduce capacity constraints and 
congestion on the transmission system, meet unmet demand, or connect 
generation resources (including the expected type of generation, if 
known) to load, as appropriate.
    (g) Resource Report 2--Water use and quality. This report must 
describe water resources, water use, and water quality as well as 
potential impacts associated with the project on these resources. It 
must also provide data sufficient to determine the expected impact of 
the project and the effectiveness of mitigation, enhancement, or 
protective measures. Project proponents should also describe the 
measures taken to avoid and minimize adverse effects to such water 
resources, where appropriate. Resource Report 2 must:
    (1) Identify and describe waterbodies, including perennial 
waterbodies, intermittent streams, and ephemeral waterbodies, as well 
as municipal water supply or watershed areas, specially designated 
surface water protection areas and sensitive waterbodies, floodplains, 
and wetlands that would be crossed by the project;
    (2) For each waterbody, floodplain, or wetland crossing identified 
under paragraph (g)(1) of this section, identify the approximate width, 
State water quality classifications, any known potential pollutants 
present in the water or sediments, and any potable water intake sources 
within three miles downstream;
    (3) Describe typical staging area requirements at waterbody, 
floodplain, and wetland crossings and identify and describe waterbodies 
and wetlands where staging areas are likely to be more extensive to 
avoid, minimize, or compensate for any potential impacts to water 
resources in those staging areas;
    (4) Provide two copies of floodplain and National Wetland Inventory 
(NWI) maps or, if not available, appropriate State wetland maps clearly 
showing the proposed route and mileposts;
    (5) For each wetland crossing, identify the milepost, the wetland 
classification specified by the USFWS, and the length of the crossing, 
and describe, by milepost, wetland crossings as determined by field 
delineations using the current Federal methodology;
    (6) For each floodplain crossing, identify the mileposts, acres of 
floodplains affected, flood elevation, and basis for determining that 
elevation;
    (7) Discuss proposed avoidance and mitigation measures to reduce 
the potential for adverse impacts to surface water, wetlands, 
floodplains, or groundwater quality, as well as any potential 
compensation that will be provided for remaining unavoidable impacts;
    (8) Identify the location of known public and private groundwater 
supply wells or springs within 150 feet of proposed construction areas;
    (9) Identify locations of EPA or State-designated principal-source 
aquifers and wellhead protection areas crossed by the proposed 
facilities; and
    (10) Discuss the results of any coordination with relevant Federal 
entities or non-Federal entities related to permitting and include any 
written correspondence that resulted from the coordination.
    (h) Resource Report 3--Fish, wildlife, and vegetation. This report 
must describe aquatic life, wildlife, and vegetation in the proposed 
project area; expected impacts on these resources including potential 
effects on biodiversity; and proposed mitigation, enhancement, 
avoidance, or protection measures. Surveys may be required to determine 
specific areas of significant habitats or communities of species of 
special concern to Federal, Tribe, State, or local agencies. If species 
surveys are impractical, there must be field surveys to determine the 
presence of suitable habitat unless the entire project area is suitable 
habitat. Project proponents should describe proposed measures to avoid 
and minimize incidental take of federally protected species, including 
eagles and migratory birds. Resource Report 3 must:
    (1) Describe commercial and recreational warmwater, coldwater, and 
saltwater fisheries in the affected area and associated significant 
habitats such as spawning or rearing areas and estuaries;
    (2) Describe terrestrial habitats, including wetlands, typical 
wildlife habitats, and rare, unique, or otherwise significant habitats 
that might be affected by the proposed project;
    (3) Describe typical species that have commercial, recreational, or 
aesthetic value and that may be affected by the proposed project;
    (4) Describe and provide the acreage of vegetation cover types that 
would be affected, including unique ecosystems or communities such as 
remnant prairie or old-growth forest, or significant individual plants, 
such as old-growth specimen trees;
    (5) Describe the impact of construction and operation on aquatic 
and terrestrial species and their habitats, including the possibility 
of a major alteration to ecosystems or biodiversity, and any potential 
impact on State-listed endangered or threatened species;
    (6) Describe the impact of maintenance, clearing, and treatment of 
the project area on fish, wildlife, and vegetation;
    (7) Identify all federally listed or proposed endangered or 
threatened species and critical habitats that potentially occur in the 
project area;
    (8) Identify all known and potential bald and golden eagle nesting 
and

[[Page 55849]]

roosting sites, migratory bird flyways, and any sites important to 
migratory bird breeding, feeding, and sheltering within 10 miles of the 
proposed project area. This should coincide with the USFWS's most 
current maps at the time this resource report is submitted;
    (9) Discuss the results of any discussions conducted by the 
proponent to date with relevant Federal entities or relevant non-
Federal entities related to fish, wildlife, and vegetation resources, 
and include any written correspondence that resulted from the 
discussions;
    (10) Include the results of any required surveys unless seasonal 
considerations make this impractical, in which case such seasonal 
considerations should be specified in the report;
    (11) If present, identify all federally listed essential fish 
habitat (EFH) that potentially occurs in the project area and provide:
    (i) Information on all EFH, as identified by the pertinent Federal 
fishery management plans, which may be adversely affected by the 
project;
    (ii) The results of discussions with NMFS; and
    (iii) Any resulting EFH assessments;
    (12) Describe anticipated site-specific mitigation measures to 
minimize impacts on fisheries, wildlife (including migration 
corridors), grazing, and vegetation; and
    (13) Include copies of any correspondence not provided pursuant to 
paragraph (h)(9) or (10) of this section containing recommendations 
from appropriate Federal and State fish and wildlife agencies to avoid 
or limit impact on wildlife, fisheries, and vegetation, and the project 
proponent's response to those recommendations.
    (i) Resource Report 4--Cultural resources. This report must 
describe potential impacts to cultural resources, including but not 
limited to preliminary identification of the project's area of 
potential effects, of cultural resources within that area that may be 
eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places, and 
of potential adverse effects to those cultural resources. To the extent 
possible, the project proponent should provide initial recommendations 
for avoidance and minimization measures to address potential adverse 
effects. The information provided in Resource Report 4 will contribute 
to the satisfaction of DOE's and relevant Federal entities' obligations 
under section 106 of the NHPA.
    (1) Resource Report 4 must contain:
    (i) A summary of initial known cultural and historic resources in 
the affected environment including but not limited to those listed or 
eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places;
    (ii) A description of potential adverse effects to the resources 
identified in paragraph (i)(1)(i) of this section;
    (iii) Documentation of the project proponent's initial 
communications and engagement, including preliminary outreach and 
coordination, with Indian Tribes, indigenous peoples, THPOs, SHPOs, 
communities of interest, and other entities having knowledge of, 
interest regarding, or an understanding about the resources identified 
in paragraph (i)(1)(i) of this section and any written comments from 
SHPOs, THPOs, other tribal historic preservation offices or 
governments, or others, as appropriate and available;
    (iv) Recommended avoidance and minimization measures to address 
potential effects;
    (v) Any initial and preliminary existing surveys or listing of 
cultural and historic resources in the affected environment; and
    (vi) Recommendations for any additional surveys needed.
    (2) If the project proponent chooses to undertake further 
preliminary surveys identified in paragraph (i)(1)(vi) of this section, 
the associated preliminary survey reports should be submitted as part 
of this report; if landowners deny access to private property and 
certain areas are not surveyed, the unsurveyed area must be identified 
by mileposts.
    (3) The project proponent must request confidential treatment for 
all material filed with DOE containing location, character, and 
ownership information about cultural resources in accordance with Sec.  
900.4(h).
    (j) Resource Report 5--Socioeconomics. This report must identify 
and quantify the impacts of constructing and operating the proposed 
project on the demographics and economics of communities in the project 
area, including minority and underrepresented communities. Resource 
Report 5 must:
    (1) Describe the socioeconomic resources that may be affected in 
the proposed project area;
    (2) Describe the positive and adverse socioeconomic impacts of the 
project;
    (3) Evaluate the impact of any substantial migration of people into 
the proposed project area on governmental facilities and services and 
describe plans to reduce the impact on the local infrastructure;
    (4) Describe on-site labor requirements during construction and 
operation, including projections of the number of construction 
personnel who currently reside within the impact area, who would 
commute daily to the site from outside the impact area, or who would 
relocate temporarily within the impact area;
    (5) Determine whether existing affordable housing within the impact 
area is sufficient to meet the needs of the additional population; and
    (6) Describe the number and types of residences and businesses that 
would be displaced by the project, procedures to be used to acquire 
these properties, and types and amounts of relocation assistance 
payments.
    (k) Resource Report 6--Geological resources. This report must 
describe geological resources and hazards in the project area that 
might be directly or indirectly affected by the proposed action or that 
could place the proposed facilities at risk, the potential effects of 
those hazards on the facility, and methods proposed to reduce the 
effects or risks. Resource Report 6 must:
    (1) Describe mineral resources that are currently or potentially 
exploitable, if relevant;
    (2) Describe, by milepost, existing and potential geological 
hazards and areas of nonroutine geotechnical concern, such as high 
seismicity areas, active faults, and areas susceptible to soil 
liquefaction; planned, active, and abandoned mines; karst terrain 
(including significant caves protected under the Federal Cave Resources 
Protection Act (Pub. L. 100-691, as amended) (16 U.S.C. 4301 et seq.)); 
and areas of potential ground failure, such as subsidence, slumping, 
and land sliding;
    (3) Discuss the risks posed to the project from each hazard 
identified in paragraph (k)(2) of this section;
    (4) Describe how the project would be located or designed to avoid 
or minimize adverse effects to the resources or risk to itself, 
including geotechnical investigations and monitoring that would be 
conducted before, during, and after construction;
    (5) Discuss the potential for blasting to affect structures and the 
measures to be taken to remedy such effects; and
    (6) Specify methods to be used to prevent project-induced 
contamination from mines or from mine tailings along the right-of-way 
and whether the project would hinder mine reclamation or expansion 
efforts.
    (l) Resource Report 7--Soil resources. This report must describe 
the soils that would be affected by the proposed project, the effect on 
those soils, and measures proposed to avoid, minimize, or mitigate 
impact. Resource Report 7 must:
    (1) List, by milepost, the soil associations that would be crossed 
and describe the erosion potential, fertility,

[[Page 55850]]

and drainage characteristics of each association;
    (2) If a site is larger than five acres:
    (i) List the soil series within the property and the percentage of 
the property comprised of each series;
    (ii) List the percentage of each series which would be permanently 
disturbed;
    (iii) Describe the characteristics of each soil series; and
    (iv) Indicate which are classified as prime or unique farmland by 
the USDA, Natural Resources Conservation Service;
    (3) Identify, potential impact from: soil erosion due to water, 
wind, or loss of vegetation; soil compaction and damage to soil 
structure resulting from movement of construction vehicles; wet soils 
and soils with poor drainage that are especially prone to structural 
damage; damage to drainage tile systems due to movement of construction 
vehicles and trenching activities; and interference with the operation 
of agricultural equipment due to the probability of large stones or 
blasted rock occurring on or near the surface as a result of 
construction;
    (4) Identify, by milepost, cropland and residential areas where 
loss of soil fertility due to trenching and backfilling could occur; 
and
    (5) Describe proposed avoidance, minimization, or mitigation 
measures to reduce the potential for adverse impact to soils or 
agricultural productivity.
    (m) Resource Report 8--Land use, recreation, and aesthetics. This 
report must describe the existing uses of land on, and within various 
distances (as specified in paragraphs (m)(1) through (16) of this 
section), the proposed project and changes to those land uses and 
impacts to inhabitants and users that would occur if the project is 
approved. The report must discuss proposed mitigation measures, 
including protection and enhancement of existing land use. Resource 
Report 8 must:
    (1) Describe the width and acreage requirements of all construction 
and permanent rights-of-way required for project construction, 
operation, and maintenance;
    (2) List locations where the proposed right-of-way would be 
adjacent to existing rights-of-way of any kind, and where lines in the 
proposed project may be co-located within existing rights-of-way for 
other facilities (e.g., for roads, other utility) and any required 
utility coordination, permits, and fees that would be associated as a 
result;
    (3) Identify, preferably by diagrams, existing rights-of-way that 
will be used for a portion of the construction or operational right-of-
way, the overlap and how much additional width will be required;
    (4) Identify the total amount of land to be purchased or leased for 
each project facility, the amount of land that would be disturbed for 
construction, operation, and maintenance of the facility, and the use 
of the remaining land not required for project operation and 
maintenance, if any;
    (5) Identify the size of typical staging areas and expanded work 
areas, such as those at railroad, road, and waterbody crossings, and 
the size and location of all construction materials storage yards and 
access roads;
    (6) Identify, by milepost, the existing use of lands crossed by the 
proposed transmission facility, or on or adjacent to each proposed 
project facility;
    (7) Describe planned development on land crossed by or within 0.25 
mile of proposed facilities, the time frame (if available) for such 
development, and proposed coordination to minimize impacts on land use. 
Planned development means development that is included in a master plan 
or is on file with the local planning board or the county;
    (8) Identify, by milepost and length of crossing, the area of 
direct effect of each proposed facility and operational site on lands 
owned or controlled by Federal or State agencies with special 
designations not otherwise mentioned in other resource reports, as well 
as lands controlled by private preservation groups (examples include 
sugar maple stands, orchards and nurseries, landfills, hazardous waste 
sites, nature preserves, game management areas, remnant prairie, old-
growth forest, national or State forests, parks, designated natural, 
recreational or scenic areas, registered natural landmarks, or areas 
managed by Federal entities under existing land use plans as Visual 
Resource Management Class I or Class II areas), and identify if any of 
those areas are located within 0.25 mile of any proposed facility;
    (9) Describe Tribal resources, including Indian Tribes, Tribal 
lands, and interests, including established treaty rights, that may be 
affected by the project; and
    (i) Identify Indian Tribes and indigenous communities that may 
attach traditional cultural or religious significance to properties, 
whether on or off of any federally recognized Indian reservation; and
    (ii) Submit, consistent with Sec.  900.4(h), information made 
available under this paragraph (m)(9), including specific site or 
property locations, the disclosure of which will create a risk of harm, 
theft, or destruction of archaeological or Native American cultural 
resources or to the site at which the resources are located, or which 
would violate any Federal law, including section 9 of the 
Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979 (Pub. L. 96-95, as 
amended) (16 U.S.C. 470hh) and section 3 of the NHPA (54 U.S.C. 
307103);
    (10) Describe any areas crossed by or within 0.25 mile of the 
proposed transmission project facilities that are included in, or are 
designated for study for inclusion in if available: the National Wild 
and Scenic Rivers System (Pub. L. 90-542) (16 U.S.C. 1271 et seq.), the 
National Wildlife Refuge system (16 U.S.C. 668dd 668ee), the National 
Wilderness Preservation System (16 U.S.C. 1131), the National Trails 
System (16 U.S.C. 1241), the National Park System (54 U.S.C. 100101), 
National Historic Landmarks (NHLs), National Natural Landmarks (NNLs), 
Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) acquired Federal lands, LWCF 
State Assistance Program sites and the Federal Lands to Parks (FLP) 
program lands, or a wilderness area designated under the Wilderness Act 
(16 U.S.C. 1132); or the National Marine Sanctuary System, including 
national marine sanctuaries (16 U.S.C. 1431 et seq.) and Marine 
National Monuments as designated under authority by the Antiquities Act 
(54 U.S.C. 320301-320303) or by Congress;
    (11) Indicate whether the project proponent will need to submit a 
CZMA Federal consistency certification to State coastal management 
program(s) for the proposed transmission project, as required by NOAA's 
Federal consistency regulations at 15 CFR part 930, subpart D;
    (12) Describe the impact the project will have on present uses of 
the affected areas as identified in paragraphs (m)(1) through (11) of 
this section, including commercial uses, mineral resources, 
recreational areas, public health and safety, Federal scientific 
survey, research and observation activities, protected resources and 
habitats, and the aesthetic value of the land and its features and 
describe any temporary or permanent restrictions on land use resulting 
from the project;
    (13) Describe mitigation measures intended for all special use 
areas identified under this paragraph (m);
    (14) Provide a detailed operations and maintenance plan for 
vegetation management;
    (15) Describe the visual characteristics of the lands and waters 
affected by the project. Components of this description include a 
description of how the transmission line project facilities will impact 
the visual character of project right-of-way and surrounding vicinity,

[[Page 55851]]

and measures proposed to lessen these impacts. Project proponents are 
encouraged to supplement the text description with visual aids; and
    (16) Identify, by milepost, all residences and buildings within 200 
feet of the edge of the proposed transmission line construction right-
of-way and the distance of the residence or building from the edge of 
the right-of-way and provide survey drawings or alignment sheets to 
illustrate the location of the transmission facilities in relation to 
the buildings.
    (i) Buildings. The report must list all dwellings and related 
structures, commercial structures, industrial structures, places of 
worship, hospitals, nursing homes, schools, or other structures 
normally inhabited by humans or intended to be inhabited by humans on a 
regular basis within a 0.5 mile-wide corridor centered on the proposed 
transmission line alignment and provide a general description of each 
habitable structure and its distance from the centerline of the 
proposed project. In cities, towns, or rural subdivisions, houses can 
be identified in groups, and the report must provide the number of 
habitable structures in each group and list the distance from the 
centerline to the closest habitable structure in the group.
    (ii) Electronic installations. The report must list all known 
commercial AM radio transmitters located within 10,000 feet of the 
centerline of the proposed project and all known FM radio transmitters, 
microwave relay stations, or other similar electronic installations 
located within 2,000 feet of the centerline of the proposed project; 
provide a general description of each installation and its distance 
from the centerline of the projects; and locate all installations on a 
routing map.
    (iii) Airstrips. list all known private airstrips within 10,000 
feet of the centerline of the project. List all airports registered 
with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) with at least one runway 
more than 3,200 feet in length that are located within 20,000 feet of 
the centerline of the proposed project. Indicate whether any 
transmission structures will exceed a 100:1 horizontal slope (one foot 
in height for each 100 feet in distance) from the closest point of the 
closest runway. List all airports registered with the FAA having no 
runway more than 3,200 feet in length that are located within 10,000 
feet of the centerline of the proposed project. Indicate whether any 
transmission structures will exceed a 50:1 horizontal slope from the 
closest point of the closest runway. List all heliports located within 
5,000 feet of the centerline of the proposed project. Indicate whether 
any transmission structures will exceed a 25:1 horizontal slope from 
the closest point of the closest landing and takeoff area of the 
heliport. Provide a general description of each private airstrip, 
registered airport, and registered heliport, and state the distance of 
each from the centerline of the proposed transmission line. Locate all 
airstrips, airports, and heliports on a routing map.
    (n) Resource Report 9--Communities of Interest. This report must 
summarize known information about the presence of communities of 
interest that could be affected by the qualifying project. The resource 
report must identify and describe the potential impacts of 
constructing, operating, and maintaining the project on communities of 
interest; and describe any proposed measures intended to avoid, 
minimize, or mitigate such impacts or community concerns. The report 
must include a discussion of any disproportionate and/or adverse human 
health or environmental impacts to communities of interest.
    (o) Resource Report 10--Air quality and noise effects. This report 
must identify the effects of the project on the existing air quality 
and noise environment and describe proposed measures to mitigate the 
effects. Resource Report 10 must:
    (1) Describe the existing air quality in the project area, indicate 
if any project facilities are located within a designated nonattainment 
or maintenance area under the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.), 
and provide the distance from the project facilities to any Class I 
area in the project area;
    (2) Estimate emissions from the proposed project and the 
corresponding impacts on air quality and the environment;
    (i) Estimate the reasonably foreseeable emissions from 
construction, operation, and maintenance of the project facilities 
(such as emissions from tailpipes, equipment, fugitive dust, open 
burning, and substations) expressed in tons per year; include 
supporting calculations, emissions factors, fuel consumption rates, and 
annual hours of operation;
    (ii) Estimate the reasonably foreseeable change in greenhouse gas 
emissions from the existing, proposed, and reasonably foreseeable 
generation resources identified in Resource Report 1 (see paragraph (f) 
of this section) that may connect to the project or interconnect as a 
result of the line, if any, as well as any other modeled air emissions 
impacts;
    (iii) For each designated nonattainment or maintenance area, 
provide a comparison of the emissions from construction, operation, and 
maintenance of the project facilities with the applicable General 
Conformity thresholds (40 CFR part 93);
    (iv) Identify the corresponding impacts on communities and the 
environment in the project area from the estimated emissions;
    (v) Describe any proposed mitigation measures to control emissions 
identified under this section; and
    (vi) Estimate the reasonably foreseeable effect of the project on 
indirect emissions;
    (3) Describe existing noise levels at noise-sensitive areas, such 
as schools, hospitals, or residences, including any areas covered by 
relevant State or local noise ordinances, and consider noise effects in 
sensitive wildlife habitat for federally threatened or endangered 
species, if appropriate;
    (i) Report existing noise levels as the a-weighted decibel (dBA) 
Leq (day), Leq (night), and Ldn (day-night sound level) and include the 
basis for the data or estimates;
    (ii) Include a plot plan that identifies the locations and duration 
of noise measurements, the time of day, weather conditions, wind speed 
and direction, engine load, and other noise sources present during each 
measurement; and
    (iii) Identify any State or local noise regulations that may be 
applicable to the project facilities;
    (4) Estimate the impact of the proposed project on the noise 
environment;
    (i) Provide a quantitative estimate of the impact of transmission 
line operation on noise levels at the edge of the proposed right-of-
way, including corona, insulator, and Aeolian noise; and for proposed 
substations and appurtenant facilities, provide a quantitative estimate 
of the impact of operations on noise levels at nearby noise-sensitive 
areas, including discrete tones; the operational noise estimates must 
demonstrate that the proposed project will comply with applicable State 
and local noise regulations and that noise attributable to any proposed 
substation or appurtenant facility does not exceed a day-night sound 
level (Ldn) of 55 dBA at any pre-existing noise-sensitive area;
    (A) Include step-by-step supporting calculations or identify the 
computer program used to model the noise levels, the input and raw 
output data and all assumptions made when running the model, far-field 
sound level data for maximum facility operation, and the source of the 
data;
    (B) Include sound pressure levels for project facilities, dynamic 
insertion loss for structures, and sound attenuation

[[Page 55852]]

from the project facilities to the edge of the right-of-way or to 
nearby noise-sensitive areas (as applicable);
    (C) Include far-field sound level data measured from similar 
project facilities in service elsewhere, when available, may be 
substituted for manufacturers' far-field sound level data; and
    (D) Describe wildlife-specific noise thresholds, like those 
specific to avian species that may be relevant in significant wildlife 
areas, if appropriate; and
    (ii) Describe the impact of proposed construction activities, 
including any nighttime construction, on the noise environment; 
estimate the impact of any horizontal directional drilling, pile 
driving, or blasting on noise levels at nearby noise-sensitive areas 
and include supporting assumptions and calculations; and
    (5) Describe measures, and manufacturer's specifications for 
equipment, proposed to mitigate impact to air and noise quality, 
including emission control systems, installation of filters, mufflers, 
or insulation of piping and buildings, and orientation of equipment 
away from noise-sensitive areas.
    (p) Resource Report 11--Alternatives. This report must describe 
alternatives identified by the proponent during its initial analysis, 
which may inform the relevant Federal entities' subsequent analysis of 
alternatives. The report should address alternative routes and 
alternative design methods and compare the potential environmental 
impacts and potential impacts to cultural and historic resources of 
such alternatives to those of the proposed project. This report must 
also include all the alternatives identified by the proponent, 
including those the proponent chose not to examine or not examine in 
greater detail. The proponent should provide an explanation for the 
proponent's choices regarding the identification and examination of 
alternatives. The discussion must demonstrate whether and how 
environmental benefits and costs were weighed against economic benefits 
and costs to the public, and technological and procedural constraints 
in developing the alternatives, as well as an explanation of the costs 
to construct, operate, and maintain each alternative and the potential 
for each alternative to meet project deadlines and the potential 
environmental impacts of each alternative. Resource Report 11 must:
    (1) Discuss the ``no action'' alternative and the potential for 
accomplishing the proponent's proposed objectives using alternative 
means;
    (2) Provide an analysis of the potential relative environmental 
benefits and costs for each alternative; and
    (3) Describe alternative routes or locations considered for the 
proposed transmission line and related facilities during the initial 
screening for the project and include the analysis in the thirteen 
environmental reports.
    (i) Identify all the alternative routes the project proponent 
considered in the initial screening for the project but not recommended 
for further study and describe the environmental characteristics of 
each route or site and include the reasons why the proponent chose not 
to examine such alternatives. The report must identify the location of 
such alternatives on maps of sufficient scale to depict their location 
and relationship to the proposed action, and the relationship of the 
proposed transmission line to existing rights-of-way.
    (ii) For alternative routes or locations recommended for more in-
depth consideration, the report must describe the environmental 
characteristics of each route or site the proponent chose not to 
examine such alternatives in greater detail. The report must provide 
comparative tables showing the differences in environmental 
characteristics for the alternative and proposed action. The location 
of any alternatives in this paragraph (p)(3)(ii) shall be provided on 
maps.
    (q) Resource Report 12--Reliability, resilience, and safety. This 
report must address the potential hazard to the public from failure of 
facility components resulting from accidents, intentional destructive 
acts, or natural catastrophes; how these events would affect 
reliability; and what procedures and design features have been used to 
reduce potential hazards. This report should account for any changes to 
the likelihood of relevant natural catastrophes resulting from climate 
change. This report must also address any benefits to reliability 
likely to result from the project. Resource Report 12 must:
    (1) Describe measures proposed to protect the public from failure 
of the proposed facilities (including coordination with local 
agencies);
    (2) Discuss hazards, the environmental impact, and service 
interruptions that could reasonably ensue from failure of the proposed 
facilities;
    (3) Discuss design and operational measures to avoid or reduce 
risk;
    (4) Discuss contingency plans for maintaining service or reducing 
downtime;
    (5) Describe measures used to exclude the public from hazardous 
areas, measures used to minimize problems arising from malfunctions and 
accidents (with estimates of probability of occurrence) and identify 
standard procedures for protecting services and public safety during 
maintenance and breakdowns; and
    (6) Describe improvements to reliability likely to result from the 
project.
    (r) Resource Report 13--Tribal interests. This report will identify 
the Indian Tribes, indigenous communities, and their respective 
interests, if any, that may be affected by the construction, operation, 
and maintenance of the proposed transmission facilities, including 
those Indian Tribes and indigenous communities that may attach 
religious and cultural significance to historic properties within the 
right-of-way or in the project area as well as any underlying Federal 
land management agencies. To the extent Indian Tribes are willing to 
communicate and share resource information, this report should discuss 
the potential impacts of project construction, operation, and 
maintenance on Indian Tribes and Tribal interests, including impacts 
related to enumerated resources and areas identified in the resource 
reports listed in this section (for instance, water rights, access to 
property, wildlife and ecological resources, etc.), and set forth 
available information on traditional cultural and religious resources 
that could be affected by the proposed project. This resource report 
should acknowledge existing relationships between adjacent and 
underlying Federal land management agencies and the local Tribes and 
engage the Federal land manager early to leverage existing 
relationships. Specific site or location information, disclosure of 
which may create a risk of harm, theft, or destruction, or otherwise 
violate Federal law (see, e.g., 16 U.S.C. 470 et seq., 43 CFR 7.18, 36 
CFR 800.11(c)), should be submitted separately. The project proponent 
must request confidential treatment for all material filed with DOE 
containing location, character, and ownership information about Tribal 
resources in accordance with Sec.  900.4(h).
    (s) Docketing of resource reports. DOE shall include in the 
consolidated administrative docket, as detailed in Sec.  900.10, the 
resource reports developed under this section, and any revisions to 
those reports.

[[Page 55853]]

Sec.  900.7  Standard and project-specific schedules.

    (a) DOE shall publish, and update from time to time, a standard 
schedule that identifies the steps generally needed to complete 
decisions on all Federal environmental reviews and authorizations for a 
qualifying project. The standard schedule will include recommended 
timing for each step so as to allow final decisions on all Federal 
authorizations within two years of the publication of a notice of 
intent to prepare an environmental impact statement under Sec.  900.9 
or as soon as practicable thereafter, considering the requirements of 
relevant Federal laws, and the need for robust analysis of project 
impacts and early and meaningful consultation with potentially affected 
Indian Tribes and public engagement with potentially-affected 
stakeholders and communities of interest.
    (b) During the Integrated Interagency Pre-Application (IIP) 
Process, DOE, in coordination with any NEPA co-lead agency and relevant 
Federal entities, shall prepare a project-specific schedule that is 
informed by the standard schedule prepared under paragraph (a) of this 
section and that establishes prompt and binding intermediate milestones 
and ultimate deadlines for the review of, and Federal authorization 
decisions relating to, a qualifying project, accounting for relevant 
statutory requirements, the proposed route, reasonable alternative 
routes, if any, the need to assess and address any impacts to military 
testing, training, and operations, and other factors particular to the 
specific qualifying project, including the need for early and 
meaningful consultation with potentially affected Indian Tribes and 
engagement with stakeholders. DOE may revise the project-specific 
schedule as needed to satisfy applicable statutory requirements, 
meaningfully engage with stakeholders, and to account for delays caused 
by the actions or inactions of the project proponent.


Sec.  900.8  IIP Process review meeting.

    (a) An Integrated Interagency Pre-Application (IIP) Process review 
meeting is required for each qualifying project utilizing the IIP 
Process and may only be held after the project proponent submits a 
review meeting request to DOE. The project proponent may submit the 
request at any time following submission of the resource reports 
required under Sec.  900.6. The review meeting request must include:
    (1) A summary table of changes made to the qualifying project since 
the IIP Process initial meeting, including potential environmental and 
community benefits from improved siting or design;
    (2) Maps of 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 initiation 
request described by Sec.  900.5 and as modified in response to early 
stakeholder input and outreach and feedback from relevant Federal 
entities and relevant non-Federal entities as documented in the final 
initial meeting summary described by Sec.  900.5;
    (3) If known, a schedule for completing any upcoming field resource 
surveys, as appropriate;
    (4) A conceptual plan for 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 landscape mitigation approach 
or, where available, landscape mitigation strategies or plans to reduce 
the potential impact of the qualifying project to resources warranting 
or requiring mitigation;
    (5) An updated public engagement plan described in Sec.  
900.5(d)(2), reflecting actions undertaken since the project proponent 
submitted the initiation request and input received from relevant 
Federal entities and relevant non-Federal entities;
    (6) Dates that the project proponent has already filed applications 
or requests for Federal authorizations for the qualifying project, if 
any, as well as estimated dates for any remaining such applications or 
requests or any revisions to applications or requests that have already 
been filed; and
    (7) Estimated dates that the project proponent will file requests 
for authorizations and consultations with relevant non-Federal 
entities.
    (b) Not later than 15 calendar days after the date that DOE 
receives the review meeting request, DOE shall provide relevant Federal 
entities and relevant non-Federal entities with materials included in 
the request and resource reports submitted under Sec.  900.6 via 
electronic means.
    (c) Not later than 60 calendar days after the date that DOE 
receives the review meeting request, DOE shall notify the project 
proponent and all relevant Federal entities and relevant non-Federal 
entities that:
    (1) The meeting request meets the requirements of this section, 
including that the initial resource reports are sufficiently detailed; 
or
    (2) The meeting request does not meet the requirements of this 
section. DOE will provide the reasons for that finding and a 
description of how the project proponent may, if applicable, address 
any deficiencies in the meeting request or resource reports so that DOE 
may reconsider its determination.
    (d) Not later than 30 calendar days after the date that DOE 
provides notice to the project proponent under paragraph (c) of this 
section that the review meeting request has been accepted, DOE shall 
convene the review meeting with the project proponent and the relevant 
Federal entities. All relevant non-Federal entities participating in 
the IIP Process shall also be invited.
    (e) During the IIP Process review meeting:
    (1) Relevant Federal entities shall identify any remaining issues 
of concern, identified information gaps or data needs, and potential 
issues or conflicts that could impact the time it will take the 
relevant Federal entities to process applications for Federal 
authorizations for the qualifying project;
    (2) Relevant non-Federal entities may identify remaining issues of 
concern, information needs, and potential issues or conflicts for the 
project;
    (3) The participants shall discuss the project proponent's updates 
to the siting process to date, including stakeholder outreach 
activities, resultant stakeholder input, and project proponent response 
to stakeholder input;
    (4) Based on information provided by the project proponent to date, 
the relevant Federal entities shall discuss key issues of concern and 
potential mitigation measures identified for the qualifying project;
    (5) Led by DOE, all relevant Federal entities shall discuss 
statutory and regulatory standards that must be met to make decisions 
for Federal authorizations required for the qualifying project;
    (6) Led by DOE, all relevant Federal entities shall describe the 
process for, and estimated time to complete, required Federal 
authorizations and, where possible, the anticipated cost (e.g., 
processing and monitoring fees and land use fees);
    (7) Led by DOE, all relevant Federal entities shall describe their 
expectations for a complete application for a Federal authorization for 
the qualifying project;
    (8) Led by DOE, all relevant Federal entities shall identify 
necessary updates to the resource reports that must be made before 
conclusion of the IIP Process, or, as necessary, following conclusion 
of the IIP Process; and

[[Page 55854]]

    (9) DOE shall present the proposed project-specific schedule 
developed under Sec.  900.7.
    (f) Not later than 15 calendar days after the review meeting, DOE 
shall:
    (1) Prepare a draft review meeting summary that includes a summary 
of the meeting discussion, a description of key issues and information 
gaps identified during the meeting, and any requests for more 
information from relevant Federal entities and relevant non-Federal 
entities; and
    (2) Convey the draft summary to the project proponent, relevant 
Federal entities, and any non-Federal entities that participated in the 
meeting.
    (g) The project proponent and entities that received the draft 
review meeting summary under paragraph (f) of this section will have 15 
calendar days following receipt of the draft to review the draft and 
provide corrections to DOE.
    (h) Not later than 15 calendar days following the close of the 15-
day review period under paragraph (g) of this section, DOE shall:
    (1) Prepare a final review meeting summary incorporating received 
corrections, as appropriate;
    (2) Add the final summary to the consolidated administrative docket 
described by Sec.  900.10;
    (3) Provide an electronic copy of the summary to the relevant 
Federal entities, relevant non-Federal entities, and the project 
proponent; and
    (4) Determine whether the project proponent has developed the scope 
of its proposed project and alternatives sufficiently for DOE to 
determine that there exists an undertaking for purposes of section 106 
of the NHPA. If DOE so determines, then DOE shall authorize project 
proponents to initiate consultation with SHPOs, THPOs, and others 
consistent with 36 CFR 800.2(c)(4).
    (i) After the review meeting and before the IIP Process close-out 
meeting described by Sec.  900.9 the project proponent shall revise 
resource reports submitted under Sec.  900.6 based on feedback from 
relevant Federal entities and relevant non-Federal entities received 
during the review meeting.


Sec.  900.9  IIP Process close-out meeting.

    (a) An Integrated Interagency Pre-Application (IIP) Process close-
out meeting concludes the IIP Process for a qualifying project and may 
only be held after the project proponent submits a close-out meeting 
request to DOE. The close-out meeting request shall include:
    (1) 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;
    (2) A description of all changes made to the qualifying project 
since the review meeting, including a summary of changes made in 
response to the concerns raised during the review meeting;
    (3) A final public engagement plan, as described in Sec.  
900.5(d)(2);
    (4) Requests for Federal authorizations for the qualifying project; 
and
    (5) An updated estimated time of filing requests for all other 
authorizations and consultations with non-Federal entities.
    (b) Not later than 15 calendar days after the date that DOE 
receives the close-out meeting request, DOE shall provide relevant 
Federal entities and relevant non-Federal entities with materials 
included in the request and any updated resource reports submitted 
under Sec.  900.6 via electronic means.
    (c) Not later than 60 calendar days after the date that DOE 
receives the review meeting request, DOE shall notify the project 
proponent and all relevant Federal entities and relevant non-Federal 
entities that:
    (1) The meeting request meets the requirements of this section, 
including that the initial resource reports are sufficiently detailed; 
or
    (2) The meeting request does not meet the requirements of this 
section. DOE will provide the reasons for that finding and a 
description of how the project proponent may, if applicable, address 
any deficiencies in the meeting request or resource reports so that DOE 
may reconsider its determination.
    (d) Not later than 30 calendar days after the date that DOE 
provides notice to the project proponent under paragraph (c) of this 
section that the close-out meeting request has been accepted, DOE shall 
convene the close-out meeting with the project proponent and all 
relevant Federal entities. All relevant non-Federal entities 
participating in the IIP Process shall also be invited.
    (e) The IIP Process close-out meeting concludes the IIP Process. 
During the close-out meeting:
    (1) The participants shall discuss the project proponent's updates 
to the siting process to date, including stakeholder outreach 
activities, resultant stakeholder input, and project proponent response 
to stakeholder input; and
    (2) DOE shall present the final project-specific schedule.
    (f) Not later than 15 calendar days after the close-out meeting, 
DOE shall:
    (1) Prepare a draft close-out meeting summary; and
    (2) Convey the draft summary to the project proponent, relevant 
Federal entities, and any non-Federal entities that participated in the 
meeting.
    (g) The project proponent and entities that received the draft 
close-out meeting summary under paragraph (f) of this section will have 
15 calendar days following receipt of the draft to review the draft and 
provide corrections to DOE.
    (h) Not later than 15 calendar days following the close of the 15-
day review period under paragraph (g) of this section, DOE shall:
    (1) Prepare a final close-out meeting summary by incorporating 
received corrections, as appropriate;
    (2) Add the final summary to the consolidated administrative docket 
described by Sec.  900.10;
    (3) Provide an electronic copy of the summary to all relevant 
Federal entities, relevant non-Federal entities, and the project 
proponent; and
    (4) In the event that the project is not identified as a covered 
project pursuant to Sec.  900.5(e), notify the Federal Permitting 
Improvement Steering Council (FPISC) Executive Director that the 
project ought to be included on the FPISC Dashboard as a transparency 
project.
    (i) DOE and any NEPA co-lead agency shall issue a Notice of Intent 
to publish an environmental impact statement, consistent with the final 
project-specific schedule.


Sec.  900.10  Consolidated administrative docket.

    (a) DOE shall maintain a consolidated docket of:
    (1) All information that DOE distributes to or receives from the 
project proponent, relevant Federal entities, and relevant non-Federal 
entities related to the Integrated Interagency Pre-Application (IIP) 
Process, including:
    (i) The IIP initiation request, review meeting request, and close-
out meeting request required by Sec. Sec.  900.5, 900.8, and 900.9;
    (ii) The IIP Process final meeting summaries required by Sec. Sec.  
900.5, 900.8 and 900.9;
    (iii) The IIP Process final resources reports developed under Sec.  
900.6;
    (iv) The final project-specific schedule developed under Sec. Sec.  
900.7 and 900.8;
    (v) Other documents submitted by the project proponent as part of 
the IIP Process or provided to the project proponent as part of the IIP 
Process, including but not limited to maps, publicly available data, 
and other supporting documentation; and

[[Page 55855]]

    (vi) Communications between any Federal or non-Federal entity and 
the project proponent regarding the IIP Process; and
    (2) All information assembled and used by relevant Federal entities 
as the basis for Federal authorizations and related reviews following 
completion of the IIP Process.
    (b) Federal entities should include DOE in all communications with 
the project proponent related to the IIP Process for the qualifying 
project.
    (c) DOE shall make the consolidated docket available, as 
appropriate, to the NEPA co-lead agency selected under Sec.  900.11; 
any Federal or non-Federal entity responsible for issuing an 
authorization for the qualifying project; and any consulting parties 
per section 106 of the NHPA, consistent with 36 CFR part 800. DOE shall 
exclude or redact privileged documents, as appropriate.
    (d) Where necessary and appropriate, DOE may require a project 
proponent to contract with a qualified record-management consultant to 
compile a contemporaneous docket on behalf of all participating 
agencies. Any such contractor shall operate at the direction of DOE, 
and DOE shall retain responsibility and authority over the content of 
the docket.


Sec.  900.11  NEPA lead agency and selection of NEPA co-lead agency.

    (a) For a qualifying project that is accepted for the Integrated 
Interagency Pre-Application (IIP) Process under Sec.  900.5, DOE shall 
serve as the lead agency to prepare an environmental impact statement 
(EIS) to serve the needs of all relevant entities. A NEPA co-lead 
agency to prepare the EIS may also be designated pursuant to this 
section, no later than by the IIP review meeting.
    (b) The NEPA co-lead agency, if any, shall be the Federal entity 
with the most significant interest in the management of Federal lands 
or waters that would be traversed or affected by the qualifying 
project. DOE shall make this determination in consultation with all 
Federal entities that manage Federal lands or waters traversed or 
affected by the qualifying project. For projects that would traverse 
lands managed by both the USDA and the DOI, DOE will request that USDA 
and DOI determine the appropriate NEPA co-lead agency, if any.


Sec.  900.12  Environmental review.

    (a) After the Integrated Interagency Pre-Application (IIP) Process 
close-out meeting, and after receipt of a relevant application in 
accordance with the project-specific schedule, DOE and any NEPA co-lead 
agency selected under Sec.  900.11 shall prepare an environmental 
impact statement (EIS) for the qualifying project designed to serve the 
needs of all relevant Federal entities.
    (b) When preparing the EIS, DOE and any NEPA co-lead agency shall:
    (1) Consider the materials developed throughout the IIP Process; 
and
    (2) Consult with relevant Federal entities and relevant non-Federal 
entities.
    (c) DOE, in consultation with any NEPA co-lead agency, will be 
responsible for:
    (1) Identifying, contracting with, directing, supervising, and 
arranging for the payment of contractors, as appropriate, to draft the 
EIS; and
    (2) Publishing all completed environmental review documents.
    (d) Each Federal entity or non-Federal entity that is responsible 
for issuing a separate Federal authorization for the qualifying project 
shall:
    (1) Identify all information and analysis needed to make the 
authorization decision; and
    (2) Identify all alternatives that need to be included, including a 
preferred alternative, with respect to the authorization.
    (e) DOE and any NEPA co-lead agency, in consultation with relevant 
Federal entities, shall identify the full scope of alternatives for 
analysis, including the no action alternative.
    (f) To the maximum extent permitted under law, relevant Federal 
entities shall use the EIS as the basis for all Federal authorization 
decisions on the qualifying project. Those entities shall execute their 
own records of decision.
    (g) For all qualifying projects, DOE and the applicable Federal 
entity or entities shall serve as co-lead agencies for consultation 
under the Endangered Species Act, per 50 CFR 402.07, and compliance 
with section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, per 36 CFR 
800.2(a)(2).


Sec.  900.13  Severability.

    The provisions of this part are separate and severable from one 
another. Should a court of competent jurisdiction hold any provision(s) 
of this part to be stayed or invalid, such action shall not affect any 
other provision of this part.

[FR Doc. 2023-17283 Filed 8-11-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P