[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 85 (Wednesday, May 1, 2024)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 35312-35382]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-08157]



[[Page 35311]]

Vol. 89

Wednesday,

No. 85

May 1, 2024

Part II





Department of Energy





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





10 CFR Part 900





Coordination of Federal Authorizations for Electric Transmission 
Facilities; Final Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 89 , No. 85 / Wednesday, May 1, 2024 / Rules 
and Regulations  

[[Page 35312]]


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

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: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Energy (DOE) is amending its regulations for 
the timely coordination of Federal authorizations for proposed 
interstate electric transmission facilities pursuant to the Federal 
Power Act (FPA). Specifically, DOE is establishing an integrated and 
comprehensive Coordinated Interagency Transmission Authorizations and 
Permits Program (CITAP Program); making participation in the Integrated 
Interagency Pre-Application (IIP) Process a pre-condition for 
assistance under the CITAP Program; re-establishing the IIP Process as 
an iterative and collaborative process between the proponent of a 
proposed electric transmission project and Federal and State agencies 
to develop information needed for Federal authorizations; requiring the 
project proponent to engage in robust engagement with the public, 
communities of interest, and Indian Tribes during the IIP Process; 
aligning and harmonizing the IIP Process and implementation of the FPA 
with the Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act; and ensuring that 
DOE may carry out its statutory obligation to prepare a single 
environmental review document sufficient for the purposes of all 
Federal authorizations necessary to site a proposed project.

DATES: This rule is effective May 31, 2024.

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
III. Summary of the Final Rule
IV. Tribal Sovereignty
V. Terminology and Clarification Changes
VI. Discussion of Comments
    A. General
    B. Purpose and Scope
    C. Qualifying Projects
    D. Purpose and Scope of IIP Process
    E. Public Participation in the IIP Process
    F. Timing of IIP Process and NOI Issuance
    G. IIP Process Initiation Request
    H. Standard and Project-Specific Schedules
    I. Selection of NEPA Lead and Joint Lead Agencies and 
Environmental Review
    J. Section 106 of the NHPA
    K. Definitions
    L. Resource Reports
    M. Administrative Docket
    N. Interaction With FPA 216(a) and FPA 216(b)
    O. Miscellaneous
    P. Out of Scope Comments
VII. Section-by-Section Analysis
VIII. 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
IX. Congressional Notification
X. Rehearing
XI. Approval by the Office of the Secretary of Energy

I. Executive Summary

    In this final rule, the Department of Energy (DOE) is amending its 
regulations under section 216(h) of the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 
824p(h)) (FPA) to establish a Coordinated Interagency Transmission 
Authorizations and Permits Program (CITAP Program) under which DOE will 
coordinate and expedite Federal authorizations and environmental 
reviews required to site proposed electric transmission facilities, 
which may include reviews pursuant to the National Environmental Policy 
Act of 1969 (Pub. L. 91-190, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) 
(NEPA), the National Historic Preservation Act (Pub. L. 89-665, as 
amended, 54 U.S.C. 30010 et seq.) (NHPA), the Endangered Species Act of 
1973 (Pub. L. 93-205, as amended, 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) (ESA), and 
evaluations necessary for authorizations under the Federal Land Policy 
and Management Act (Pub. L. 94-579, as amended, 43 U.S.C. 1701 et 
seq.). DOE coordination under this final rule will increase the 
efficiency and effectiveness of the Federal authorization and review 
process for proposed electric transmission facilities by establishing 
pre-application procedures designed to collect the information needed 
to perform efficient and timely Federal authorization and environmental 
reviews, reducing duplication of effort through preparation of a single 
environmental review document as the basis for all Federal decisions, 
and setting binding schedules for the completion of all Federal 
authorizations and environmental reviews. In doing so, this final rule 
aims to reduce the time it takes to site and permit the electric 
transmission infrastructure needed to ensure the delivery of reliable, 
resilient and low-cost electricity to American homes and businesses.
    Actions to enable more rapid deployment of electric transmission 
are more important than ever. As DOE documented in its 2023 National 
Transmission Needs Study, additional transmission capacity is needed in 
nearly every region of the country to improve the reliability and 
resilience of electric service, alleviate high costs caused by 
transmission congestion and constraints that prevents low-cost energy 
from reaching customers, and access new low-cost low carbon energy 
supplies to serve increasing electricity demands.\1\ Over the past 
decade additional transmission capacity has been added at half the rate 
of the previous three decades, at a time when electricity demand is 
increasing and new diverse sources of electricity generation are needed 
to serve that demand and meet Federal, State, and consumer goals to 
reduce greenhouse gas emissions from the electricity sector.\2\ 
Accelerating the current pace of transmission infrastructure investment 
and deployment is needed to meet these objectives and will generate 
multiple benefits to the public, including improved reliability and 
resilience, lower electricity costs, additional economic activity, and 
reduced greenhouse gas emissions. By enabling rapid development of 
transmission capacity, the CITAP Program will help increase access to a 
diversity of generation sources, reduce transmission congestion and 
power-sector emissions, and deliver reliable, affordable power that 
future consumers will need when and where they need it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ United States Department of Energy, National Transmission 
Needs Study (Feb. 2023), available at: https://www.energy.gov/sites/default/files/2023-02/022423-DRAFTNeedsStudyforPublicComment.pdf.
    \2\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On August 23, 2023, in accordance with section 216(h) of the FPA 
and a

[[Page 35313]]

May 2023 Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) among nine Federal agencies 
committing to expedite the siting, permitting, and construction of 
electricity transmission infrastructure through more effective 
implementation of section 216(h) of the FPA, DOE issued a notice of 
proposed rulemaking (NOPR), to establish the CITAP Program. (88 FR 
57011).\3\ Under the CITAP Program, the entity or individual heading 
the project (``project proponent'') will work with DOE and other 
Federal agencies to gather materials necessary to inform the completion 
of authorizations and environmental reviews. These materials include 
thirteen reports the project proponent will prepare that describe the 
proposed project and its potential impacts on resources including land, 
water, plant and animal life (``resource reports''); a summary of the 
proposed project that will include details on which Federal 
authorizations or permits may be necessary and the anticipated timeline 
to completion of acquiring the described authorizations and permits; 
and proposed project participation and public engagement plans, which 
will outline opportunities for the public to participate in project 
authorization decisions and ensure sufficient engagement with both 
communities of interest and relevant stakeholders. This process of 
collaborative information gathering is referred to as the ``Integrated 
Interagency Pre-Application Process'' or ``IIP Process.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The nine 2023 MOU signatory agencies are USDA, DOC, DOD, 
DOE, DOI, EPA, Federal Permitting Steering Improvement Steering 
Council (Permitting Council), 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under the CITAP Program, DOE will set intermediate milestones and 
ultimate deadlines for the review of relevant authorizations and 
environmental reviews that provide for their completion within two 
years and establish DOE as the lead agency for the preparation of a 
single environmental review document, in compliance with NEPA, that 
supports the decisions of all relevant Federal entities.\4\ This final 
rule confirms the CITAP Program and the restructured and improved IIP 
Process as described in the NOPR and adopts revisions to the NOPR 
proposals in response to comments regarding issues such as the Federal 
evaluation timelines, approaches to environmental reviews, and levels 
of details required for the Program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Section 900.2 of the final rule 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 proposed electric 
transmission project, that is responsible for issuing a Federal 
authorization for the proposed project, that has relevant expertise 
with respect to environmental and other issues pertinent to or 
potentially affected by the proposed project, or that provides 
funding for the proposed 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The IIP Process is a project-proponent-driven process. Accordingly, 
the time to complete the IIP Process and begin the time bound, two-year 
Federal authorization and environmental review period depends on the 
preparation and responsiveness of the project proponent. This final 
rule establishes a series of checkpoints in the IIP Process (the three 
anchor meetings described below) and requirements for the pre-
application materials that project proponents must develop to proceed 
through the Process (principally, resource reports and public 
participation and engagement plans, which are to be developed with 
guidance from Federal entities). The timeline for completing the pre-
application process and proceeding through these checkpoints will 
depend, in large part, on the readiness and responsiveness of project 
proponents. As discussed further below, DOE has revised the NOPR 
proposals in this final rule to reduce the time reserved for DOE to 
review and respond to the requested information within the IIP Process 
to just over six months. Coupled with the two-year timeline that DOE 
and signatories to the 2023 Memorandum of Understanding Regarding 
Facilitating Federal Authorizations for Electric Transmission 
Facilities (2023 MOU) agreed to for review of applications and related 
environmental review, DOE expects that the CITAP Program will 
substantially reduce the time necessary for permitting of transmission 
facilities.
    In response to the NOPR, DOE received 50 comments during the public 
comment period, as well as stakeholder input during the public webinar 
and additional briefing provided by the Grid Deployment Office in DOE 
that will be administering the CITAP Program. In this final rule, DOE 
is making several changes to the regulatory text proposed in the NOPR 
in response to public comments.
    DOE received 27 comments in support of the CITAP Program, and 
several specifically supporting the IIP Process, the Federal decision-
making timeline, and the requirement for the thirteen resource reports. 
Commenters specifically lauded the resource reports for their early and 
meaningful public engagement components, their effectiveness in 
coordinating decision-making across different Federal agencies, and 
their essential role in allowing the subsequent authorization and 
environmental review processes to be completed within two years. 
Commenters also affirmed the need for DOE to serve as the Lead Agency 
for NEPA review, section 106 of the NHPA, and section 7 of the ESA for 
projects in the CITAP Program to ensure that its objective of making 
transmission permitting processing more effective and efficient is 
realized.
    The received comments were also instrumental in identifying 
opportunities to streamline the IIP Process further to ensure that 
these objectives are met. The IIP Process proposed in the NOPR would 
have provided, at a maximum, 240 days for DOE evaluation and 
determinations of completeness and readiness to move to the next steps 
in the process. In response to comments requesting more efficiency, in 
this final rule that timeline has been reduced by 55 days by 
streamlining notification and convening timelines to now total 185 days 
at a maximum. Additional reductions to documentation timelines, which 
do not impact decision making, total 45 days, reducing all IIP Process 
activity by 100 days. As noted previously, however, the total timeline 
to complete the IIP Process will vary in each individual case based on 
the project proponent's preparation and responsiveness and the 
project's readiness to proceed to Federal authorization and 
environmental reviews. Project proponents will move most quickly 
through the IIP Process and Federal authorization and environment 
review processes by ensuring their projects are ready to proceed and by 
ensuring they are responsive to DOE and Federal agency requests for 
information.
    Section VI of this document discusses several other major issues 
raised by commenters and provides DOE's responses.

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

[[Page 35314]]

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 FPA, which sets forth provisions 
relevant to the siting of interstate electric transmission facilities. 
Section 216(h) of the FPA, ``Coordination of Federal Authorizations for 
Transmission Facilities,'' requires DOE to coordinate all Federal 
authorizations and related environmental reviews needed for siting 
interstate electric transmission projects, including NEPA reviews, 
permits, special use authorizations, certifications, opinions, or other 
approvals required under Federal law.
    Among other things, it authorizes DOE to act as the lead agency for 
Federal coordination and reviews and 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)(2)-(3). 
Relatedly, section 216(h) requires the Secretary to provide an 
``expeditious'' pre-application mechanism for prospective project 
proponents; 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; and 
provides a mechanism through which a project proponent or any State 
where the facility would be located may appeal to the President for 
review, if an agency fails to act within those deadlines or denies an 
application. 16 U.S.C. 824p(h)(4), (h)(6). The statute also directs the 
Secretary to prepare, in consultation with the affected agencies, a 
single environmental review document to be used as the basis for all 
decisions on the proposed project under Federal law, and to determine, 
for each Federal land use authorization that must be issued, whether 
the duration of such authorization is commensurate with the facility's 
anticipated use. 16 U.S.C. 824p(h)(5)(A); (h)(8)(A).
    As discussed in the proposed rule, in May 2023 DOE entered into an 
implementing MOU with eight other agencies to unlock these benefits. 
The 2023 MOU expanded upon prior efforts to ensure pre-construction 
coordination and provides updated direction to Federal agencies in 
expediting the siting, permitting, and construction of electric 
transmission facilities. DOE subsequently published a NOPR in August 
2023 to update and expand on its existing pre-application mechanism 
provided in regulations at 10 CFR part 900. Through this rule, DOE 
amends its section 216(h) implementing regulations to more effectively 
implement this authority and better coordinate review of Federal 
authorizations for proposed interstate electric transmission 
facilities.
    For the reasons explained in the following sections, in this final 
rule, DOE adopts its proposal in the NOPR, with modifications discussed 
below.

III. Summary of the Final Rule

    This final rule is needed for DOE 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. DOE's 
previous implementing regulations structured the IIP Process around two 
anchor meetings: the Initial and Close-Out meetings. To inform Federal 
agency coordination, project proponents were required to submit a 
project summary, an affected environmental resources and impacts 
summary, a summary of early identification of project issues, and data 
including maps and geospatial information. Additionally, the 
regulations included a process for identifying the NEPA lead agency and 
for establishing a preliminary NEPA review schedule. These regulations 
did not establish DOE as the lead agency for NEPA review, nor address 
important environmental and resource reviews under NHPA or ESA. 
Notably, these regulations did not establish a process through which 
DOE would set binding milestones for environmental reviews and Federal 
permitting and authorization decisions.
    In this final rule, DOE first establishes a comprehensive and 
integrated CITAP Program. The CITAP Program is the vehicle through 
which DOE will implement its authority as defined in Section 216(h) of 
the FPA, beginning with the IIP Process through the DOE-led 
environmental review and including DOE's coordination of the schedule 
for the Federal decisions on permits and authorizations.
    Under the CITAP Program, DOE: (i) provides for an effective IIP 
Process to facilitate timely submission of materials necessary to 
inform Federal authorizations and related environmental reviews 
required under Federal law; (ii) sets intermediate milestones and 
ultimate deadlines for the review of such authorizations and 
environmental reviews; and (iii) serves as the lead agency for the 
preparation of a single environmental review document in compliance 
with NEPA, designed to serve the needs of all relevant Federal entities 
and effectively inform their corresponding Federal authorization 
decisions. These elements of the CITAP Program are described in more 
detail throughout this rule.
    Second, pursuant to the FPA, DOE makes the IIP Process a mandatory 
precondition for participation in the CITAP Program. A project 
proponent's participation in the IIP Process is necessary for the 
success of the other elements of the CITAP Program and for the 
Secretary's satisfaction of the statutory obligations imposed by 
section 216(h) and 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 fulfill 
its role as lead agency under section 216(h)--including the 
establishment of binding deadlines--for projects that do not complete 
the IIP Process. DOE does not require the participation of any Federal 
or non-Federal entity in the IIP Process; rather Federal entities have 
agreed to participate through the 2023 MOU and non-Federal entities may 
participate at their discretion. As discussed further below, DOE 
concludes that the benefits of participating in the IIP Process, and 
the resulting access to the CITAP Program, justify the costs to project 
proponents. The CITAP Program will substantially accelerate the process 
by which transmission projects are permitted and developed, and the 
benefits of the expected reduction in permitting timelines are likely 
to significantly exceed the cost of participating in the IIP Process.
    Third, this final rule improves 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. The IIP Process is intended 
to ensure that necessary information is provided to the 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

[[Page 35315]]

series of authorizations necessary to site a transmission line and to 
allow both the project proponent and the Federal entities to avoid 
time- and resource-consuming pitfalls that would otherwise appear 
during the application process. Accordingly, DOE requires that project 
proponents submit resource reports and public participation and 
engagement plans, developed with guidance from Federal entities, and 
participate in a series of iterative meetings to ensure that Federal 
entities have ample opportunities to provide this guidance. The 
resource reports are intended to develop data and materials that will 
facilitate Federal entities' review of the project proponent's 
applications under the applicable Federal statutes. The early 
engagement facilitated by the submission of public participation and 
engagement plans will inform a project proponent's development of a 
proposed project. This early engagement begins before an application is 
submitted to the Federal Government and provides opportunities for 
Tribes and communities to express their views early in the process and 
to share their concerns directly with project proponents. However, the 
IIP Process does not relieve the relevant Federal entities of their 
legal obligation to comply with applicable requirements to consult with 
Tribes and engage with communities. This rule provides that the total 
time for DOE reviews and responses in the IIP Process is 185 days.\5\ 
Based on that timeline for DOE decision-making, DOE expects that a 
prepared and responsive project proponent could complete the IIP 
Process within a year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ This excludes meeting information summaries, which DOE does 
not categorize as review and response time that could impact a 
project timeline, because preparation of required information for 
subsequent IIP Process steps can happen in parallel.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Fourth, pursuant to Congress's express directive in section 
216(h)(4), DOE introduces the standard schedule and project-specific 
schedules, through which DOE will establish binding intermediate 
milestones and ultimate deadlines for Federal authorizations and 
related environmental reviews. The standard schedule identifies the 
steps generally needed to complete decisions on all Federal 
environmental reviews and authorizations for a proposed electric 
transmission project, including 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 (NOI) to prepare an 
environmental review document. This document serves as a template for 
the development of project-specific schedules. During the IIP Process, 
DOE and relevant Federal entities will prepare a project-specific 
schedule, informed by the standard schedule, that establishes prompt 
and binding intermediate milestones and ultimate deadlines for the 
review of, and Federal authorization decisions relating to, a proposed 
electric transmission project, accounting for relevant factors 
particular to the specific proposed project, including the need for 
early and meaningful consultation with potentially affected Indian 
Tribes and engagement with stakeholders.
    Fifth, DOE simplifies 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 will maintain that docket, which will be available 
to the public upon request except as restricted due to confidentiality 
or protected information processes. Access to, and restrictions of 
access to, the docket will be addressed at the time of project-specific 
implementation.
    Sixth, DOE amends its regulations to provide that DOE will serve as 
the lead NEPA agency and that, in collaboration with any NEPA joint 
lead agency \6\ 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 environmental review 
document to serve as the NEPA document for all required Federal 
authorizations. DOE will also serve as lead for consultation under 
section 106 of the NHPA and section 7 of the ESA for projects in the 
CITAP Program, unless the relevant Federal entities designate 
otherwise. 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. Relatedly, the rule provides that DOE and the 
relevant Federal entities shall issue, except where inappropriate or 
inefficient, a joint decision document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ As discussed in section V.D of this document, DOE is 
replacing the term ``NEPA co-lead agency'' from the proposed 
regulatory text with ``NEPA joint lead agency'' in this final rule. 
The change is non-substantive. For clarity and readability, DOE uses 
the term ``NEPA joint lead agency'' throughout the preamble in place 
of ``NEPA co-lead agency'' even when discussing a comment or 
document that originally referred to a ``NEPA co-lead agency.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, DOE provides that the primary scope of the CITAP Program 
is on-shore high-voltage or regionally or nationally significant 
transmission projects that are expected to require preparation of an 
environmental impact statement (EIS) and establishes procedures through 
which projects outside of that primary scope can seek a determination 
of qualifying-project status from the Grid Deployment Office on a case-
by-case basis.

IV. Tribal Sovereignty

    DOE affirms the sovereignty of Federally recognized Indian Tribes 
and confirms that this final rule makes no changes to Federal agencies' 
government-to-government responsibilities. Tribal sovereignty refers to 
Federally recognized Indian Tribes' original, inherent authority to 
govern themselves, their lands, and their resources. Because of their 
unique status as sovereigns, Federally recognized Tribes have a direct, 
government-to-government relationship with the Federal government. The 
United States has a general, ongoing trust relationship with Indian 
Tribes as well as with the Native Hawaiian Community. Neither section 
216(h) nor this final rule in any way alters that relationship.
    Tribal and Native Hawaiian consultation is a process for 
communication between the Federal government and Indian Tribes and the 
Native Hawaiian Community that is grounded in the government-to-
government or the government-to-sovereign relationship, respectively. 
Tribal and Native Hawaiian consultation may be required as part of 
compliance with section 106 of the NHPA, or may arise from other 
Federal authorities such as Executive Order 13007 or the Presidential 
Memorandum on Uniform Standards for Tribal Consultation (2022). 
Agencies often consult with Indian Tribes and the Native Hawaiian 
Community in conjunction with fulfilling their obligations under NEPA. 
Consistent with these requirements and authorities, during 
implementation of the CITAP Program, DOE commits to undertake Tribal 
and Native Hawaiian consultation as appropriate. Also as appropriate, 
DOE commits to designate Indian Tribes with special expertise regarding 
a qualifying project, including knowledge about sacred sites that the 
project could affect, that are eligible, to become cooperating agencies 
under NEPA, and to consult with Indian Tribes and Native Hawaiian 
Organizations as required by the NHPA in the Section 106 process. 
Finally, DOE clarifies that the IIP Process, resource reports, and 
other submissions are not

[[Page 35316]]

intended to, nor will they, satisfy DOE's or other Federal agencies' 
legal obligations and responsibilities under the relevant statutes, 
such as NEPA, NHPA, and ESA. The Federal agencies remain legally 
responsible for their compliance with the applicable statutes.

V. Terminology and Clarification Changes

    In this final rule, DOE has made a number of changes to ensure 
consistent use of terminology across part 900.

A. ``Project Area'' v. ``Study Corridor'' v. ``Route''

    The proposed rule used several terms related to areas. In this 
final rule, DOE has ensured that the usage of these terms is 
consistent. DOE clarifies here their meaning and use. For the area 
containing the study corridors selected by the project proponent for 
in-depth consideration and the immediate surroundings of the end points 
of the proposed electric transmission facility, DOE uses the term 
``project area.'' For a location within a project area where multiple 
transmission line designs may be contemplated, DOE used the term 
``study corridor''; within the project area, there may be multiple 
study corridors. Within a given study corridor, DOE refers to 
``potential routes'' or ``route segments''; within the study corridor, 
there may be multiple potential routes or route segments.
    Notably, DOE revises the definition of project area from what was 
proposed by replacing ``containing all study corridors'' with 
``containing the study corridors selected by the project proponent for 
in-depth consideration'' to clarify the scope of this term. 
Additionally, to clarify the role of study corridors, DOE added to the 
study corridors definition that ``study corridor does not necessarily 
coincide with `permit area,' `area of potential effect,' `action area,' 
or other defined terms that are specific to types of regulatory 
review.''
    The proposed rule used multiple terms to refer to a route of an 
electric transmission line that is considered during the IIP Process, 
including ``proposed route'' and ``potential route.'' This final rule 
replaces these synonymous terms with ``potential route.''

B. ``Potential Project'' v. ``Qualifying Project'' v. ``Transmission 
Facility''

    The proposed rule used several terms to refer to an electric 
transmission facility that is proposed to be sited and constructed, 
including ``transmission facility'' and ``electric transmission 
facility.'' This final rule replaces these terms with ``proposed 
electric transmission facility,'' which is shortened to ``proposed 
facility'' when the identity of the facility is clear from the context.
    Similarly, the proposed rule included a variety of phrases to refer 
to an electric transmission project, including ``qualifying project,'' 
``electric transmission project,'' ``proposed qualifying project,'' 
``proposed undertaking'' and ``project.'' This final rule replaces 
these terms with ``proposed electric transmission project,'' which is 
shortened to ``proposed project'' when the identity of the project is 
clear from the context. While the revision replaces the defined term 
``qualifying project'' in a number of instances, the revision has no 
substantive effect, because any proposed electric transmission project 
that is accepted into the IIP Process must involve a proposed electric 
transmission facility that is a qualifying project.

C. ``Plants'' v. ``Vegetation''

    The proposed rule used several terms to describe plant life, such 
as ``plant life,'' ``plants'' and ``vegetation.'' DOE has revised this 
final rule to consistently use the term ``plants,'' except where the 
rule uses an established term of art such as ``vegetation management'' 
or for consistency with Resource Report naming across agencies.

D. ``NEPA Co-Lead Agency'' vs ``NEPA Joint Lead Agency''

    The proposed rule used the term ``NEPA co-lead agency'' to refer to 
a Federal entity that may be designated under Sec.  900.11 to share the 
responsibilities of DOE as lead agency in preparing an environmental 
review document. DOE has revised the final rule to replace that term 
with ``NEPA joint lead agency'' to better conform with the terminology 
used in NEPA, as amended by Section 321 of the Fiscal Responsibility 
Act of 2023 (Pub. L. 118-5). The change is non-substantive and only 
reflects a difference in terminology.

VI. Discussion of Comments

A. General

    In response to the NOPR, DOE received 50 sets of comments from the 
following persons and groups:
    Advanced Energy United (AEU), Alan Leiserson, American Clean Power 
Association (ACP), American Council on Renewable Energy (ACORE), 
American Electric Power Service Corporation (AEP), Americans for a 
Clean Energy Grid (ACEG), Arizona Game and Fish Department (AZGFD), 
Arizona State Historic Preservation Office (Arizona SHPO), California 
Energy Commission and California Public Utilities Commission (CEC/
CPUC), Center for Biological Diversity (CBD), Clean Air Task Force 
(CATF), Clean Energy Buyers Association (CEBA), ClearPath, Colorado 
Governor's Office, Conrad Ko, Conservation and Renewable Energy 
Coalition (CARE--comprised of the National Wildlife Federation, The 
National Audubon Society, Environmental Law and Policy Center, and The 
Nature Conservancy), Delaware Division of Historical and Cultural 
Affairs (Delaware SHPO), EarthGrid PBC, Edison Electric Institute 
(EEI), Environmental Defense Fund (EDF), Gallatin Power Partners, LLC 
(Gallatin Power), Grid United LLC (Grid United), Idaho Governor's 
Office of Energy and Mineral Resources, Idaho Power, James Birdwell, 
Kentucky SHPO, Kris Pastoriza, Land Trust Alliance (LTA), Large Public 
Power Council, Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (LADWP), mkron 
mkron, National Association of Manufacturers, National Association of 
Tribal Historic Preservation Officers (NATHPO), New Mexico Department 
of Cultural Affairs Historic Preservation Division (NM SHPO), New York 
Transmission Owners (NYTO), New York University School of Law Institute 
for Policy Integrity (Policy Integrity), Niskanen Center, Oceti Sakowin 
Power Authority (OSPA), Pew Charitable Trusts, PJM Interconnection, LLC 
(PJM), Public Interest Organizations (PIOs, comprised of Earthjustice, 
Natural Resources Defense Council, NW Energy Coalition, Southern 
Environmental Law Center, Sustainable FERC Project, and WeACT for 
Environmental Justice) (PIO), Santa Rosa Rancheria Tachi Yokut Tribe, 
Scott Cooley, Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA), State of 
Colorado Governor's Office, State of Idaho Energy Office, Stoel Rives, 
LLP, StopPATH WV, Todd Simmons, VEIR, Inc, and an anonymous commenter.
    Of the 50 comments, 27 expressed general support for the proposed 
rule and many supported specific aspects, including the IIP Process, 
the Federal decision-making timelines, and the requirement for the 
thirteen resource reports.\7\ Commenters specifically

[[Page 35317]]

lauded the resource reports for their early and meaningful public 
engagement components, their effectiveness in coordinating decision-
making across different Federal agencies, and their essential role in 
streamlining environmental permitting processes to two years.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Advanced Energy United; American Clean Power Association; 
American Council on Renewable Energy; American Electric Power 
Service Corporation; American Electric Power Service Corporation; 
Americans for a Clean Energy Grid; Arizona Game and Fish Department; 
California Energy Commission joint with California Public Utilities 
Commission; Clean Air Task Force; Clean Energy Buyers Association; 
Colorado Energy Office; Conrad Ko; Delaware State Historic 
Preservation Office; Edison Electric Institute; Environmental 
Defense Funds; Gallatin Power Partners, LLC; Grid United, LLC; New 
York Transmission Owners; Niskanen Center; PJM Interconnection, 
L.L.C.; Public Interest Organizations; Scott Cooley; Solar Energy 
Industries Association; State of Idaho; Stoel Rives; The Pew 
Charitable Trusts; and Todd Simmons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Six commenters, NATHPO, Santa Rosa Rancheria Tachi Yokut Tribe, 
StopPath WV, James Birdwell, ClearPath, and mkron mkron were not 
supportive of the rulemaking.
    The comments and DOE's responses are discussed in detail in the 
subsequent subsections.

B. Purpose and Scope of Rule

DOE's Proposal
    In the NOPR, DOE proposed to establish the CITAP Program; made the 
IIP Process a mandatory precondition to participate in the CITAP 
Program; described the procedures and timing of the IIP Process; 
provided a process to set deadlines and milestones for projects; 
designated DOE as the lead NEPA agency for the purposes of preparing a 
single environmental impact statement; provided for earlier 
coordination of and consultation between relevant Federal entities, 
relevant non-Federal entities, and others pursuant to section 106 of 
the NHPA; designated DOE as a co-lead agency for the section 106 
process; and clarified applicability to qualifying projects. Finally, 
DOE proposed to include a provision stating that participation in the 
IIP Process does not alter any requirements to obtain necessary Federal 
authorizations for electric transmission facilities nor does it alter 
any responsibilities of the relevant Federal entities for environmental 
review or consultation under applicable law.
Summary of Public Comments
    DOE received several comments regarding DOE's authority to 
establish the CITAP Program, the ability of the proposed CITAP Program 
to meet the goals established by Congress in EPAct 2005, and the scope 
of the proposed CITAP Program.
    Regarding DOE's authority to establish the CITAP Program, EDF, 
PIOs, and CATF observed that the CITAP Program is consistent with the 
statutory language of section 216(h) of the FPA and with the 2023 MOU. 
Pew Charitable Trusts expressed their support for several key elements 
of the proposed rule, including the creation of a new framework for 
coordinated Federal authorizations.
    PIOs commented that DOE's proposed rule appropriately effectuates 
the congressional intent underlying section 216(h) of the FPA, and that 
DOE has sufficiently explained its proposed changes in the rule text by 
demonstrating awareness of changing its policies and providing sound 
reasons for doing so. PIOs also noted that although agencies do not 
need to demonstrate that the reasons for the new policies are better 
than the reasons for the old policies, they believed DOE has done so in 
the proposed rule. On the other hand, NATHPO and the Santa Rosa 
Rancheria Tachi Yokut Tribe requested that DOE withdraw the proposed 
rule. NATHPO and the Santa Rosa Rancheria Tachi Yokut Tribe found the 
proposed rule ``opaque'' and stated that they were unable to determine 
if the rule represented a threat to Tribal Nations' cultural resources 
and sacred places. Additionally, NATHPO and the Santa Rosa Rancheria 
Tachi Yokut Tribe objected to the rule on the grounds that it contained 
``numerous fundamental flaws,'' but only provided two examples, one 
concerning the Communities of Interest report and one concerning the 
Tribal Interests report. Specifically, regarding Communities of 
Interest, the commenters expressed concern not with the proposed rule 
text, but with a comment from DOE staff which the commenters believed 
indicated this resource report would fulfill NHPA ``Section 106 
responsibilities for determining the impact of projects on Tribal 
Nations' cultural resources and sacred places.'' Regarding Resource 
Report 13, the commenters expressed concerns with a comment from DOE 
staff which the commenters believe indicated, contrary to the proposed 
rule text, that this resource report would not include ``the effect of 
projects on Tribal Nations' cultural resources.'' These concerns are 
discussed in further detail and addressed in sections VI.J and 
VI.L.xiii of this document. Finally, NATHPO and the Santa Rosa 
Rancheria Tachi Yokut Tribe argued that DOE did not effectively engage 
with Tribal Historic Preservation Officers (THPOs) while drafting the 
proposed rule.
    Regarding the ability of the proposed CITAP Program to meet the 
stated goals of coordinating Federal authorizations and completing 
environmental review within a 2-year schedule, PIOs stated they believe 
the proposed rule will improve efficiency in Federal permitting for 
transmission projects that are urgently needed to address the climate 
crisis, improve reliability, and reduce congestion, and that the rule 
will accelerate the development of infrastructure that will provide the 
foundation for a clean and equitable energy grid. Pew Charitable Trusts 
stated that it believes that the proposed rule offers an appropriately 
streamlined approach to coordinating and facilitating transmission 
project authorizations. Pew Charitable Trusts further noted that 
previous studies of various types of infrastructure projects and 
environmental reviews suggest that an open, transparent, and 
comprehensive review process can work to the benefit of the public and 
developers. Pew Charitable Trusts supported that the schedule can be 
altered by DOE depending on the complexity of the review and other 
factors. ACEG recommended adding ``prompt and binding'' to describe the 
milestones and deadlines DOE will set in the schedule for Federal 
decision-making. The State of Idaho agreed that Federal efforts to 
reduce the time required for transmission project developers to receive 
decisions on Federal authorizations are needed and agreed that such 
actions should be encouraged. However, it also cautioned that those 
efforts should be implemented in a way that avoids diminishing the 
benefits of such reform by the addition of new permitting processes or 
requirements. In contrast, StopPATH WV asked why the NOPR was written 
in a way that presumes project approval, expressed concern that it was 
not clear how this rulemaking would speed up timelines, and asserted 
that if agencies could not change the project or deny it, then this 
would be a bureaucratic waste of time. Kris Pastoriza requested 
clarification on how the CITAP Program would change the jurisdiction of 
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC).
    Regarding DOE's role as a lead agency for environmental review and 
preparation of a single EIS, DOE received several comments in support 
of the role and the consistency of this designation with existing 
regulations and legislation. EDF commented that the rule is consistent 
with Section 107 of the Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023, which 
amended NEPA to require the designation of a lead agency to coordinate 
and schedule environmental review, as well as the related amendments to 
NEPA implementing regulations proposed by the Council for Environmental 
Quality. AEP, SEIA, Pew Charitable Trusts, EEI, and CEBA each

[[Page 35318]]

commented in support of DOE serving as the lead agency for developing a 
single environmental review document. SEIA noted that currently a lack 
of coordination among agencies causes unpredictability and inefficiency 
in the environmental review process and effective coordination will 
provide a more predictable and efficient process, a reduction in 
unnecessary delays and costs, and heightened allowance for more robust 
environmental reviews. ACEG recommended replacing the phrase 
``environmental impact statement'' with ``NEPA document'' because that 
phrasing more closely matches the statutory language in section 
216(h)(5)(A) and because it accounts for the breadth of reviews 
organized under the CITAP Program. EEI recommended that DOE must also 
rely on the expertise of Federal agencies to ensure certainty and 
minimize risk of post record decision litigation.
    Regarding the authority of the Director of the Grid Deployment 
Office to waive requirements, PIOs recommended establishing specific, 
transparent criteria by which the Director of the Grid Deployment 
Office can waive the review requirements for a proposed project that 
are deemed unnecessary, duplicative, or impracticable and further 
argued for the establishment of an appeal process for said waivers. 
PIOs further provided that if DOE declines to implement criteria and an 
appeals process that this final rule should eliminate the waiver 
provision.
DOE Response
    In this final rule, DOE retains the proposal in the NOPR to 
establish the CITAP Program, which requires the IIP Process for CITAP 
Program participation, sets binding schedules for Federal decision 
making, and through which DOE will serve as lead agency for 
environmental review and document preparation. In response to comments, 
DOE makes minor changes to this final rule for clarification but 
retains the full intent and scope of the proposed rule.
    With respect to NATHPO's comment regarding outreach, DOE believes 
that it engaged with appropriate entities regarding the rulemaking. DOE 
met with the Advisory Council for Historic Preservation in developing 
the language of the proposed rule and specifically with respect to 
addressing potential impacts on cultural resources and consistency of 
the CITAP Program with the requirements of the NHPA. Further, DOE 
developed the NOPR with substantive engagement from other Federal 
entities through the interagency review process. DOE then provided a 
45-day public comment period during which DOE noticed and provided a 
public webinar open to anyone to attend, and organized briefings with 
interested groups to introduce the proposed rule and listen to 
comments, to which NATHPO, THPOs, and State Historical Preservation 
Officers (SHPOs) were invited. In this final rule, DOE has made changes 
to provide additional clarity in the rule text and resolve ambiguity 
when possible. In particular, DOE clarifies certain issues relating to 
Tribal sovereignty, cultural resources, and the section 106 process in 
response to specific concerns raised by NATHPO, Santa Rosa Rancheria 
Tachi Yokut Tribe, and other commenters.
    In response to the State of Idaho's concerns and Kris Pastoriza's 
question regarding DOE implementing its coordinating authority, this 
final rule neither establishes new permitting requirements nor alters 
FERC's siting authority over transmission lines. Rather, DOE will be 
coordinating agencies' exercise of their existing authorities. This 
final rule maintains the NOPR provision that the IIP Process does not 
alter any requirements to obtain necessary Federal or non-Federal 
authorizations for electric transmission facilities. Similarly, DOE 
disagrees with the assertion that the proposed rule presumes project 
approval. The CITAP Program as described in the proposed rule and 
confirmed in this final rule coordinates and sets a schedule for 
Federal decision-making for qualified projects; it does not presume or 
require the outcome of such Federal decisions. Regarding DOE's schedule 
setting role in the CITAP Program, DOE agrees with ACEG's 
recommendation to align the language of this final rule with the 
authorizing statute and includes ``prompt and binding'' in the 
description of milestones in this final rule.
    Regarding DOE serving as lead agency for environmental review and 
development of a single EIS designed to serve the needs of all relevant 
Federal agencies and inform all Federal authorization decisions on the 
proposed qualifying project, DOE acknowledges that it will rely on 
other Federal agencies' expertise and believes the CITAP Program and 
IIP Process confirmed in this final rule will ensure this occurs. DOE 
agrees with ACEG's recommendation to align the language with the 
authorizing statute and changes ``EIS'' to ``environmental review 
document'' throughout this final rule.
    DOE makes no changes to the proposal to allow the Director of the 
Grid Deployment Office to waive requirements of the CITAP Program, nor 
does DOE adopt specific criteria for such waivers. The purpose of the 
CITAP Program and IIP Process is to allow DOE to perform a coordinating 
function for electric transmission facilities seeking Federal 
authorizations. Giving the Director the discretion to waive 
requirements of the CITAP Program helps ensure that this coordination 
function promotes efficiency and reduces duplication, as Congress 
intended in FPA section 216(h). In addition, it is important to note 
that a waiver granted by the Director under the CITAP Program would not 
waive Federal requirements for authorizations or permits. For these 
reasons, DOE is not persuaded that a lack of specific criteria for 
waivers in this final rule will substantively harm any entity or party.

C. Qualifying Projects

DOE's Proposal
    Section 216(h) of the FPA authorizes DOE to perform its 
coordinating function for all transmission facilities seeking Federal 
authorizations. In the NOPR, DOE proposed to prioritize the subset of 
these facilities that benefit the most from DOE's coordinating role and 
provide the most benefits to the American public from expeditious 
environmental review.
    In the NOPR, DOE proposed to define the subset of proposed electric 
transmission facilities for which to perform its coordinating 
function--called ``qualifying projects''--by defining two types of 
qualification: qualification by attribute and qualification by request. 
For qualification by attribute (set out in paragraph (1) of the 
proposed definition of ``qualifying project''), DOE proposed in the 
NOPR to categorize a proposed electric transmission facility as a 
``qualifying project'' based on the presence of certain enumerated 
attributes: it must be high-voltage (defined as 230 kV or above) or 
``regionally or nationally significant''; it will be used for the 
transmission of electric energy in interstate or international commerce 
for sale at wholesale; it will need one or more Federal authorizations 
expected to require preparation of an environmental impact statement 
(EIS) pursuant to NEPA; it will not require authorization under section 
8(p) of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act; the developer will not 
require a construction or modification permit from FERC pursuant to 
section 216(b) of the FPA; and the proposed transmission facility will 
not be wholly located within the Electric Reliability Council of Texas 
interconnection.

[[Page 35319]]

    DOE proposed that, if a proposed electric transmission facility did 
not qualify for the CITAP Program by attribute it could still qualify 
by request, as provided by paragraph (2) of the proposed definition of 
qualifying project and under the process set out in proposed Sec.  
900.3 of the NOPR. Under that process, DOE proposed that the project 
proponent file a request for coordination under the CITAP Program with 
the Director of the Grid Deployment Office. Then, the Director of the 
Grid Deployment Office, in consultation with the relevant Federal 
entities, determine, within 30 calendar days of receipt of the request, 
whether the proposed electric transmission facility is a ``qualifying 
project.'' In the NOPR, DOE proposed that proposed electric 
transmission facilities requiring a permit from FERC could be 
qualifying projects if the request came from the FERC Chair. DOE also 
proposed that projects proposed for authorization under section 8(p) of 
the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1331 et seq.) 
independent of any generation project may be qualifying projects at the 
discretion of MOU signatory agencies.
    DOE proposed to exclude from both types of qualification, and from 
the CITAP Program altogether, any project proposed to be authorized 
under section 8(p) of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act in 
conjunction with a generation project and any project for which the 
proposed transmission facility is wholly located within the Electric 
Reliability Council of Texas interconnection.
Summary of Public Comments
    DOE received several comments on the proposed definition of 
``qualifying project.''
    Starting with the qualification by attribute in paragraph (1) of 
the definition, DOE received several comments on the specific proposed 
attributes. Both AEP and Niskanen Center supported the proposed high-
voltage threshold of 230 kV or above. On the other hand, CEC/CPUC 
opposed limiting eligibility based on a voltage threshold and instead 
suggest expanding eligibility to proposed electric transmission 
facilities at any voltage level.
    With regard to DOE's proposal for qualification by attribute to 
require that a proposed electric transmission facility that does not 
satisfy the voltage threshold must be ``regionally or nationally 
significant,'' both Niskanen Center and ClearPath asserted that this 
alternative criterion is ambiguous. ClearPath recommended removing the 
alternative criterion altogether and only allowing for high-voltage 
transmission lines (i.e., those that satisfy the 230 kV or above 
threshold) to be ``qualifying projects.'' Niskanen Center recommended 
instead that DOE adopt factors that it will consider when determining 
whether a proposed transmission facility is ``regionally or nationally 
significant.'' Specifically, Niskanen Center suggested these factors: 
``(i) a reduction in the congestion costs for generating and delivering 
energy; (ii) a mitigation of weather and variable generation 
uncertainty; (iii) an enhanced diversity of supply; (iv) any reduced or 
avoided carbon emissions from the increased use of clean energy; and 
(v) an increased market liquidity and competition.''
    Moving to the other attributes, CEC/CPUC asked DOE to clarify how 
it will determine whether all or part of a proposed electric 
transmission facility will be ``used for the transmission of electric 
energy in interstate or international commerce for sale at wholesale.'' 
Further, CEC/CPUC recommended that DOE expand the attribute list to 
include a proposed electric transmission facility that will be used in 
intrastate commerce because, according to CEC/CPUC, intrastate 
transmission lines can traverse lands managed by several Federal 
agencies, such that DOE coordination under the CITAP Program would 
provide benefits to these projects as well. In the alternative, CEC/
CPUC asked that DOE clarify how a proposed intrastate transmission 
facility, such as an onshore, intrastate transmission facility built to 
support offshore wind development, that traverses Federal lands, could 
be a ``qualifying project.''
    On the proposed attribute that the proposed electric transmission 
facility would need one or more Federal authorizations that require 
preparation of an EIS pursuant to NEPA, AEP supported the proposal 
whereas Niskanen Center and PIOs recommended expanding the proposal to 
include proposed electric transmission facilities for which preparation 
of either an environmental assessment (EA) or an EIS is anticipated. 
PIOs also encouraged DOE to define which proposed electric transmission 
facilities are ``expected'' to require preparation of an EIS and which 
are expected to require preparation of an EA. In support of the 
recommendation to expand eligibility to include proposed electric 
transmission facilities for which preparation of an EA is expected (in 
addition to those for which preparation of an EIS is expected), PIOs 
argued that FERC regulations only require preparation of an EA for 
proposed electric transmission facilities sited within an existing 
right-of-way. If DOE adopts the proposal without PIOs' recommended 
expansion, PIOs explained that such proposed electric transmission 
facilities may be excluded from the CITAP Program, resulting in the 
CITAP Program not providing its full purported benefits. Similar to 
Niskanen Center and PIOs, CEC/CPUC recommended that DOE expand the 
definition of ``qualifying project'' such that any proposed electric 
transmission facility for which multiple Federal agency approvals will 
be required are eligible, regardless of what type of document is 
required under NEPA.
    On qualification by request--i.e., when a project proponent seeks 
qualifying-project status through a request to the Director of the Grid 
Deployment Office--several commenters expressed concern about DOE's 
level of discretion in the proposal. EEI requested examples of the 
types of proposed electric transmission facilities that may be deemed 
``qualifying projects'' by request. PIOs argued that the proposal 
appears to be wholly discretionary, making it difficult for project 
proponents, relevant regulators, and members of the public to 
understand what proposed electric transmission facilities may be 
eligible to participate in the CITAP Program. PIOs suggested that DOE 
establish criteria for how DOE will evaluate requests, which would 
assist project proponents in making well-grounded requests for 
participation in the CITAP Program. According to PIOs, these criteria 
should be: if the proposed electric transmission facility will benefit 
from DOE's coordination in terms of expeditious authorizations; if 
DOE's coordination will provide benefits that exceed the costs; and, if 
Federal and non-Federal regulators have sufficient resources to 
dedicate to the project's participation in the CITAP Program. PIOs also 
suggested that DOE require project proponents to explain what portions 
of their proposed electric transmission facility do not meet the 
``qualifying project'' definition (i.e., the attributes) and how the 
CITAP Program will facilitate Federal authorizations for the project or 
be otherwise beneficial. Further, PIOs recommended that DOE adopt a 
requirement that the Director of the Grid Deployment Office explain in 
writing the determination of whether a project is deemed a ``qualifying 
project'' by request. PIOs also recommended that if DOE rejects a 
request to participate in the CITAP Program, project proponents should 
be allowed to appeal the

[[Page 35320]]

decision to the Secretary of Energy. Similarly, ACP commented that the 
proposed rule lacked clarity regarding what can qualify as an ``other 
project'' and recommended that DOE provide further detail on the 
aspects which it will consider when making this determination.
    As proposed, qualification by request included a limitation in 
Sec.  900.3(d): for a proposed electric transmission facility seeking a 
permit from FERC pursuant to section 216(b) of the Federal Power Act, 
DOE may only consider a request for coordination if the requestor is 
FERC acting through its chair. ACORE recommended that DOE provide more 
detailed guidance for this category of proposed electric transmission 
facilities and for DOE to authorize relevant project proponents to 
submit a petition requesting such a request from the FERC Chair. 
Likewise, CEBA urged DOE to clarify the relationship between the 
section 216(b) and section 216(h) processes and to explain how the FERC 
Chair can request that a proposed electric transmission facility be 
eligible to participate in the CITAP Program under section 216(h). Both 
qualification by attribute and qualification by request included 
limitations related to offshore transmission facilities. For 
qualification by attribute, one listed attribute provided that the 
proposed electric transmission facility would not require authorization 
under section 8(p) of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act. Likewise, 
for qualification by request, DOE proposed to exclude electric 
transmission facilities proposed to be authorized under section 8(p) of 
the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act in conjunction with a generation 
project. However, projects proposed to be authorized under section 8(p) 
of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act could be allowed at the 
discretion of the MOU signatory agencies (as defined in the proposed 
rule) if the proposed offshore transmission facility is independent of 
any generation project.
    A number of commenters expressed concerns regarding DOE's treatment 
of proposed offshore transmission facilities. Broadly, ACP, ACORE, and 
PIOs contended that DOE must explain why the limitations on offshore 
transmission facilities are included and how the CITAP Program will 
apply to offshore transmission facilities in practice. ACP and ACORE 
suggested that DOE establish a process to allow potential State-
proposed transmission facilities to participate in the CITAP Program 
before a project developer is selected and include a process to enable 
the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management or a State to engage or request 
that a project participate in the CITAP Program.
    More specific to DOE's proposal, NYTOs opposed the offshore 
transmission facility-related attribute, asserting that its inclusion 
prevents proposed offshore transmission facilities from benefiting from 
the CITAP Program for project sections located closer to shore as well 
as for project sections that fall under the scope of the Outer 
Continental Shelf Lands Act. PIOs suggested removing the limitations in 
qualification by request and instead allowing for proposed offshore 
transmission facilities to take advantage of the CITAP Program without 
the approval of the MOU signatories. At a minimum, PIOs suggested 
removing the limitation that proposed offshore transmission facilities 
tied to generation projects cannot participate in the CITAP Program. 
Moreover, both PIOs and ACORE requested that DOE revise its proposal 
from requiring agreement from all MOU signatories and instead only 
requiring agreement from relevant MOU signatories participating in the 
environmental review or authorization.
    Finally, other commenters proposed revisions to DOE's proposed 
definition of ``qualifying project'' based on advanced transmission 
technologies and undergrounding. VEIR recommended that DOE include 
superconductors in its definition of ``qualifying projects'' because, 
according to VEIR, a superconductor can transfer more power at lower 
voltages than qualifying high-voltage transmission lines. EarthGrid 
asserted that underground transmission projects should be considered as 
a distinct category. And CBD suggested that DOE require that a proposed 
electric transmission facility be strictly necessary and that non-
transmission alternatives could not adequately address the issue 
addressed by the proposed electric transmission facility before 
allowing the project to participate in the CITAP Program.
DOE Response
    In this final rule, DOE retains the proposal in the NOPR to provide 
two types of qualification (qualification by attribute and 
qualification by request) for proposed electric transmission facilities 
to be ``qualifying projects.'' In response to commenters, DOE is making 
the following revisions to the details of those two types of 
qualification.
    First, consistent with commenters' suggestions, DOE has adopted 
factors that DOE may consider when determining that a proposed electric 
transmission facility is a qualifying project. For qualification by 
attribute, this final rule includes factors that DOE may consider when 
assessing if a proposed electric transmission facility is regionally or 
nationally significant. Similarly, for qualification by request, this 
final rule includes factors that DOE may consider when assessing if a 
proposed electric transmission facility is a qualifying project. 
Second, this final rule removes the requirement that projects seeking a 
permit from FERC under FPA section 216(b) may only be accepted into the 
CITAP Program if requested by FERC acting through its chair and states 
that the coordination between FERC and DOE on projects seeking permits 
under FPA section 216(b) will be consistent with the relevant 
delegation order governing DOE's coordination authority under FPA 
section 216(h), which may change from time to time. Third, this final 
rule also states that if DOE does not determine that a project is 
qualifying project, DOE will provide the reasons for its finding in 
writing.
    DOE believes that the definition of ``qualifying project'' adopted 
in this final rule appropriately balances the value of focusing DOE's 
resources on those proposed electric transmission facilities for which 
Federal coordination will be most impactful with the aims of the broad 
grant of authority to DOE under FPA section 216(h). By initially 
limiting the definition of ``qualifying project'' to those proposed 
electric transmission facilities that qualify by attribute, i.e., those 
that are high-voltage or regionally or nationally significant and that 
possess the other listed attributes, DOE is targeting for Federal 
coordination those complex proposed electric transmission facilities 
that will reap the greatest benefits from the CITAP Program. DOE 
believes that these proposed electric transmission facilities are also 
likely to provide substantial benefits to consumers in the form of 
congestion relief, emissions reductions, and increased reliability and 
resilience, among other benefits, to ensure reliable, affordable power 
can be delivered to consumers when and where they need it. 
Qualification by request provides DOE with additional flexibility to 
consider whether projects that do not meet the targeted attributes may 
be appropriate for participation in the CITAP Program as well, 
consistent with DOE's authority under section 216(h) to coordinate for 
all transmission facilities seeking Federal authorizations.
    As for specific aspects of the NOPR proposal, starting with 
qualification by attribute and the voltage threshold therein (i.e., 
proposed electric transmission facilities must be 230 kV or above), DOE 
declines to adopt the suggestion by CEC/CPUC to expand

[[Page 35321]]

eligibility to proposed transmission facilities at any voltage level. 
Such an expansion, although permissible by the statute, would not be 
the most effective use of DOE's authority because it would likely 
result in DOE providing coordination for proposed transmission 
facilities that would benefit less from the program. For example, DOE 
could be obligated to provide coordination for less complex proposed 
electric transmission facilities for which there is a low risk of 
protracted Federal authorization and review timelines and thereby have 
fewer resources to dedicate to those transmission facilities with more 
complex permitting requirements and/or more Federal authorizations and 
thus more risk of protracted review timelines in the absence of DOE 
coordination. Nonetheless, DOE acknowledges that voltage alone does not 
determine complexity nor whether the proposed transmission facility may 
benefit from participation in the CITAP Program. That is why this final 
rule provides multiple avenues for lower-voltage proposed transmission 
facilities to be ``qualifying projects,'' whether because they are 
``regionally or nationally significant'' or because they are determined 
to be qualifying projects by request to the Director of the Grid 
Deployment Office, on a case-by-case basis. In addition, satisfying the 
high-voltage threshold alone does not make a proposed transmission 
facility a ``qualifying project;'' it still must demonstrate the 
attributes listed in this final rule.
    As for the alternative criterion under qualification by attribute--
whether the proposed transmission facility is ``regionally or 
nationally significant''--DOE declines to remove this criterion but 
agrees that the proposal was ambiguous and therefore adopts clarifying 
revisions in this final rule. DOE believes that this alternative to the 
voltage threshold is important to ensure that lower-voltage 
transmission facilities that may benefit from participation in the 
CITAP Program have an avenue to be ``qualifying projects,'' as 
explained in the prior paragraph. Nevertheless, DOE appreciates 
commenters' requests for greater transparency and thus adopts factors 
to guide DOE's determination whether a proposed transmission facility 
is ``regionally or nationally significant.''
    In particular, DOE adopts regulations in this final rule that 
provide that, in determining whether a proposed transmission facility 
is ``regionally or nationally significant,'' DOE will consider whether 
a proposed transmission facility will reduce congestion costs, mitigate 
uncertainty, and enhance supply diversity. These factors are consistent 
with the overarching goals of focusing the CITAP Program on proposed 
transmission facilities for which DOE's coordination will be most 
impactful. The adopted regulations provide that DOE may consider other 
factors as well. This discretion is important to ensure that DOE has 
flexibility to best use its resources to provide Federal coordination 
where consistent with the goals of the CITAP Program and available 
resources. As explained in DOE's 2023 Needs Study, transmission 
infrastructure improvements can benefit consumers by improving grid 
reliability, resource adequacy, and resilience of the power system, as 
well as reducing congestion and losses and enabling access to clean, 
diverse energy supply. While transmission that addresses unnecessarily 
high costs to consumers may be regionally or nationally significant, so 
too may be transmission that reduces the vulnerability of the electric 
system to disruptive events, which risk high costs and service 
interruptions. The benefits of transmission also extend beyond the 
power system--to increased employment, tax revenues, and other economic 
development benefits. These benefits are all relevant to DOE's 
determination of whether a transmission line is ``regionally or 
nationally significant.''
    Although Niskanen Center suggested two additional factors for DOE 
to list as part of its determination as to whether a proposed electric 
transmission facility is ``regionally or nationally significant'' 
beyond those adopted herein (specifically focused on reduced or avoided 
carbon emissions and increased market liquidity and competition from 
the proposed electric transmission facility), DOE declines to adopt 
additional factors. For one, project proponents are unlikely to have 
substantial information at the stage of development recommended for 
initiation of the IIP Process for DOE to evaluate vis-[agrave]-vis 
these recommended factors. If such information is available, though, 
DOE may nevertheless consider it because, as explained above, DOE is 
maintaining discretion to consider other factors as part of its 
assessment of whether a proposed transmission facility is ``regionally 
or national significant.''
    As for the proposed attribute concerning whether all or part of a 
proposed transmission facility will be ``used for the transmission of 
electric energy in interstate or international commerce for sale at 
wholesale,'' DOE declines to provide further clarification in this 
final rule because this determination will be made based on the facts 
and circumstances of the proposed electric transmission facility 
seeking DOE coordination at the time of application. DOE expects that 
this determination will be informed by relevant precedent interpreting 
similar language in other provisions of the FPA, though DOE is not 
bound by that precedent in interpreting its own regulatory language.
    DOE declines to expand the listed attributes of a qualifying 
proposed electric transmission facility to also include intrastate 
transmission facilities. As previously explained, DOE's intent in 
defining a subset of electric transmission facilities for which DOE 
will conduct Federal coordination is to focus on where the CITAP 
Program is likely to be most impactful. While intrastate transmission 
facilities can have significant benefits, they are generally less 
likely to be the types of facilities that DOE expects will reap the 
greatest benefits from DOE's coordination or that would provide the 
greatest benefits to consumers as a result of more efficient permitting 
of critical transmission infrastructure. Nonetheless, DOE does not 
prohibit proponents of intrastate transmission facilities (e.g., high-
voltage intrastate transmission facilities that may require multiple 
Federal authorizations) from seeking qualification by request.
    Regarding the proposed attribute that a proposed electric 
transmission facility would need one or more Federal authorizations 
that require preparation of an EIS pursuant to NEPA, DOE declines to 
make the changes suggested by Niskanen Center, PIOs, and CEC/CPUC. As 
explained above, DOE is aiming to identify as ``qualifying projects'' 
those proposed electric transmission facilities for which DOE 
coordination under the CITAP Program is likely to be most impactful and 
to yield the greatest benefits for consumers. DOE believes that 
focusing on proposed electric transmission facilities for which 
preparation of an EIS is expected is an appropriate factor for 
narrowing the list of potential electric transmission facilities for 
DOE coordination because an EIS is typically needed for more complex 
projects. Preparation of an EIS is also a longer, more involved process 
and one that poses a greater risk of delays absent interagency 
coordination. Note that, although qualification by attribute is limited 
to those for which an EIS is likely required, qualification by request 
does not have this limitation, such that a project proponent is 
permitted to request DOE coordination even if an EIS

[[Page 35322]]

is not expected and seek a determination from the Director of the Grid 
Deployment Office on eligibility for the CITAP Program. As for the 
request that DOE define which proposed transmission facilities are 
expected to require an EIS, DOE declines to do so in this final rule. 
DOE and its fellow agencies will apply NEPA and its implementing 
regulations and will follow applicable regulations pursuant to NEPA, as 
will other relevant Federal agencies, to determine whether an EIS needs 
to be prepared, and those same regulations will inform any expectations 
as to whether an EIS is likely to be required.
    Regarding qualification by request, DOE agrees with commenters that 
criteria regarding the types of proposed electric transmission 
facilities that may be deemed ``qualifying projects'' under this 
process would be beneficial to project proponents, and ultimately to 
DOE in identifying the subset of projects that best suit the CITAP 
Program's goals. Consequently, DOE adopts criteria in this final rule 
that the Director of the Grid Deployment Office may consider when 
evaluating a request to determine whether a proposed electric 
transmission facility is a ``qualifying project.'' DOE will consider 
whether a proposed electric transmission facility will benefit from 
coordination under the CITAP program, reduce congestion costs, mitigate 
uncertainty, and enhance supply diversity. These factors are consistent 
with the overarching goals of focusing the CITAP Program on proposed 
electric transmission facilities for which DOE's coordination will be 
most impactful, to the ultimate benefit of consumers via reduced 
congestion and enhanced reliability and resilience, among other 
benefits. DOE believes the remaining discretion for DOE to determine 
which proposed electric transmission facilities are ``qualifying 
projects'' is consistent with the statutory framework that permits DOE 
to coordinate the Federal authorizations necessary for any transmission 
facility and the aim of the section 216(h) itself, notably the timely 
permitting of transmission projects.
    DOE agrees that it should explain its determinations of whether 
qualification by request is granted in writing and consequently 
establishes a requirement for such an explanation in this final rule.
    DOE makes no revisions in response to the suggestion that an 
appeals process be incorporated into the rule text for non-qualifying 
projects. DOE notes that any project not accepted under qualification 
by attribute may seek qualification by request of the Director of the 
Grid Deployment Office, and that this final rule does not disallow 
projects from resubmitting materials.
    Turning to the proposed limitation to qualification by request for 
a proposed electric transmission facility seeking a permit from FERC 
pursuant to section 216(b) of the FPA, which stated that DOE may only 
consider a request for coordination if the requestor is FERC acting 
through its chair, DOE revises its proposal in this final rule to 
clarify that the request for Federal coordination for proposed 
transmission facilities seeking a permit from FERC under section 216(b) 
must be consistent with Delegation Order No. 1-DEL-FERC-2006 or any 
similar, subsequent delegation to FERC, which depend on the mutual and 
continuing agreement of both agencies. With respect to CEBA and ACORE's 
requests for more detail on the procedures for the FERC Chair to 
request that a proposed electric transmission facility be eligible to 
participate in the CITAP Program, such procedures will depend on the 
state of any delegations of DOE's authority under FPA section 216(h); 
therefore, DOE finds that clarifying these procedures is best done 
through guidance outside the rulemaking process. Similarly, with 
respect to ACORE's request to be able to submit a petition for the FERC 
Chair to request DOE to consider a request for assistance under the 
proposed section, the removal of that section in this final rule 
obviates the need for such a process to be established by DOE and the 
establishment of any processes at FERC are outside the scope of this 
rulemaking.
    With respect to the treatment of offshore transmission facilities, 
commenters expressed concerns with the limitations related to offshore 
transmission facilities and sought further explanation, at a minimum. 
DOE adopts the proposal to exclude transmission facilities proposed to 
be authorized under section 8(p) of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands 
Act in conjunction with a generation project. DOE and the 2023 MOU 
signatories determined that offshore transmission facilities connected 
to generation projects should not be eligible for participation in the 
CITAP Program because the authorizations of, and permits for, these 
transmission facilities are typically included in the authorizations 
and permits for the connected generation projects. Coordinating Federal 
authorizations for generation projects, and reducing timelines for 
joint transmission-generation projects with interdependent permitting 
requirements, are beyond the scope of the 2023 MOU and the CITAP 
Program. This limitation allows DOE to focus its resources on 
addressing known challenges for transmission facility permitting.
    With respect offshore transmission facilities whose Federal 
authorizations and project development are independent of generation 
development, DOE is finalizing an approach consistent with the 2023 
MOU. For qualification by attribute, DOE declines to remove the 
requirement that the proposed electric transmission facility will not 
require authorization under section 8(p) of the Outer Continental Shelf 
Lands Act. Excluding offshore transmission from the qualification by 
attribute will facilitate a more efficient allocation of resources. 
Shared offshore transmission is a nascent industry with unique and 
unsettled permitting issues. Considering proposed offshore transmission 
facilities as potentially eligible for the CITAP Program in 
consultation with the MOU signatories, which is provided under 
qualification by request, will allow DOE to adopt a more tailored and 
responsive approach to this new industry.
    In order for offshore transmission facilities to be eligible for 
the CITAP Program via qualification by request, DOE proposed, and 
adopts here, the requirement that the MOU signatories must agree to DOE 
coordination for offshore transmission facilities for the reasons 
explained in the prior paragraph. DOE declines to only require 
agreement from those MOU signatories that are authorizing Federal 
agencies. DOE is unpersuaded that a single, non-authorizing agency 
would unilaterally hold up a proposed offshore transmission facility's 
eligibility for the CITAP Program, such that those agencies should not 
be allowed to participate in the eligibility decision making. Instead, 
DOE believes that continuing the coordination demonstrated by the MOU 
is consistent with the spirit of the CITAP Program and important for 
keeping all relevant agencies involved in ongoing development of 
offshore transmission permitting.
    DOE also declines to establish a process to allow potential State-
awarded transmission facilities to participate and to enable the Bureau 
of Ocean Energy Management or a State to request that a project 
participate, as ACP and ACORE suggested. At this time, DOE is focusing 
the CITAP Program on addressing well-documented and understood Federal 
authorization issues via improved coordination for a subset of proposed 
electric transmission facilities for which DOE coordination is likely 
to be most impactful. DOE is not persuaded that

[[Page 35323]]

creating a process for entities other than the project proponent to 
request participation for a proposed project in the CITAP Program is 
necessary to provide the benefits of the program to a project. DOE may 
consider revising its approach to offshore transmission facilities in 
future rulemakings pursuant to FPA section 216(h).
    Concerning commenters' proposed revisions to the definition of 
``qualifying project'' based on advanced transmission technologies or 
undergrounding, DOE declines to adopt such revisions. As explained 
throughout this section, DOE's approach is targeted towards proposed 
transmission facilities that are likely facing the types of permitting 
challenges for which FPA section 216(h) and the CITAP Program were 
created. Commenters provide no evidence to suggest that superconductor 
permitting or undergrounding are unique as to warrant special 
recognition within the definition of ``qualifying project.'' This is 
not to say that a proponent of a transmission facility that contains 
these features cannot also be a ``qualifying project'' under DOE's 
adopted definition.
    Finally, DOE declines to adopt CBD's suggestion that DOE impose a 
necessity test for proposed electric transmission facilities compared 
to non-transmission alternatives as a gateway to participation in the 
CITAP Program. Congress directed DOE to coordinate the authorizations 
necessary for the siting of transmission lines. DOE understands that to 
mean that Congress believes transmission lines are necessary and that 
Congress did not intend to supplant existing transmission planning 
processes. Through the CITAP Program, DOE will coordinate 
authorizations for transmission lines, which remain subject to the 
statutes relevant to their authorization, including NEPA. Through these 
statutes and their associated environmental review processes that DOE 
will coordinate, reasonable alternatives will be considered by the 
appropriate Federal agency as appropriate, which may or may not include 
non-transmission alternatives.

D. Purpose and Scope of the IIP Process

DOE's Proposal
    Under the proposed rule, the IIP Process is intended for qualifying 
project proponents who have sufficiently advanced their project such 
that they have identified potential study corridors and/or potential 
routes and the proposed locations of any intermediate substations. DOE 
proposed to establish the IIP Process as a mandatory prerequisite for 
coordination under the CITAP Program and require the submission of 
thirteen project proponent resource reports that will serve as inputs, 
as appropriate, into the relevant Federal analyses and facilitate early 
identification of project issues. Within these resource reports, DOE 
proposed to require reasonably foreseeable information in three of 
them: in the General Project Summary, DOE proposed to require 
reasonably foreseeable plans for future expansion of facilities and 
specific generation resources that are known or reasonably foreseen to 
be developed or interconnected; in the air quality and noise effects 
report, DOE proposed to require estimates on reasonably foreseeable 
emissions construction, operation, and maintenance, and reasonably 
foreseeable changes in greenhouse gas emissions and indirect emissions; 
and in the Reliability, Resilience, and Safety report, DOE proposed to 
require a description of the reasonably foreseeable impacts from a 
failure of the proposed facility.
    DOE also proposed to also establish the IIP Process as an iterative 
process anchored by three meetings, which function as milestones in the 
process: the initial meeting, review meeting, and close-out meeting. 
DOE proposed in the NOPR to require the project proponent to submit an 
initiation request containing certain information to DOE to initiate 
the IIP Process, including a summary of the qualifying project not to 
exceed 10 single-spaced pages and a project participation plan not to 
exceed 10 single-spaced pages. DOE also proposed to require the 
proponent to submit meeting review requests containing certain 
information to DOE prior to each of the three meetings. DOE proposed 
that the project proponent submit incomplete information so long as an 
acceptable reason for the absence of the information and an acceptable 
timeline for filing it is provided, and it provided the Director with 
discretion to waive any requirement imposed on a project proponent if 
the Director determines that that the requirement is unnecessary, 
duplicative, or impracticable under the relevant circumstances.
    The proposed rule explained that the IIP Process would ensure early 
interaction between the project proponent, relevant Federal entities, 
and relevant non-Federal entities, and that DOE would, to the maximum 
extent practicable and consistent with Federal law, coordinate the IIP 
Process with any relevant non-Federal entities. DOE also proposed in 
the NOPR that the IIP Process did not preclude additional 
communications between the project proponent and relevant Federal 
entities outside the IIP Process meetings.
    Additionally, the NOPR proposed to provide a process 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 established the 
mechanisms through which the IIP Process complied with 10 CFR 1004.11 
and 1004.13.
    In the NOPR, DOE specifically sought comment on the page 
limitations and on the resource report requirements to avoid, to the 
maximum extent practicable, duplication in these requirements.
Summary of Public Comments
    DOE received several comments that addressed the purpose and scope 
of the IIP Process including comments on the IIP Process as a 
prerequisite for DOE coordination; the level of detail required during 
the IIP Process and in resource reports, including page limits and 
reasonably foreseeable impacts; the role of the three anchor meetings; 
participation of Federal and non-Federal entities; and protection of 
confidential information and/or CEII. Comments to specific resource 
report requirements are addressed in section VI.L of this document on 
an individual report basis.
    DOE received many comments in support of the proposed IIP Process. 
Grid United, PIOs, State of Colorado Governor's Office, EEI, ACP, 
ACORE, PJM, and CEBA expressed support for the revitalized IIP Process 
proposed in the NOPR. PIOs stated that the IIP Process will help 
Federal agencies coordinate information exchange that is necessary to 
fulfill their individual statutory mandates, avoid duplication of cost 
and effort for project proponents, and reduce the potential for 
unexpected delays later in the permitting process. PIOs also agreed 
with DOE that, by increasing the pace of transmission development 
through the IIP Process, the proposed rule will confer significant 
public benefits. The State of Colorado Governor's Office recognized 
that the IIP Process would provide developers a uniform mechanism for 
projects to identify siting constraints and opportunities, engage with 
Indian Tribes, local communities, and other stakeholders, and to gather 
information that would serve as inputs, as appropriate, into Federal 
authorization decisions. EEI and ACP recognized the potential benefits 
to be gained from the IIP Process and encouraged DOE to move swiftly to 
both finalize the proposed approach and commit to

[[Page 35324]]

working closely with project proponents to ensure that the IIP Process 
produces the promised results. EEI stated its belief that by 
collaborating with electric companies, DOE can significantly increase 
the efficiency of the process and reduce the time needed for NEPA 
reviews while ensuring environmental integrity and project deployment.
    ACP and ACORE both supported the mandatory nature of the IIP 
Process as a prerequisite to participation in the CITAP Program, 
provided that it serves its intended objective of enhancing 
coordination, reducing permitting timelines, and minimizing 
duplication. ACP and ACORE noted that the IIP Process's early 
environmental review could conserve resources for public and private 
participations. PJM noted that the requirement should help avoid the 
current multi-agency piecemeal approach.
    DOE also received comments generally in support of the 
establishment of the resource reports. AEU and the CARE Coalition 
expressed support for the thirteen resource reports proposed by DOE. 
AEU commented that the resource reports provided a comprehensive and 
wide-ranging analysis of the project. CARE Coalition commented that the 
resource reports were sufficiently comprehensive and detailed to enable 
Federal agencies, State and Tribal authorities, stakeholders, and the 
public to adequately review the project. AZGFD explained that the 
heightened consideration for resources through submitting 13 resource 
reports early in the process enables coordination and prevents 
implementation delays. It also stated that in some cases, adequate 
assessment of resources could take multiple years and multiple 
revisions before Federal environmental review is complete.
    However, while commenters were broadly supportive, some commenters 
suggested changes to the level of detail required during the IIP 
Process and resource reports, indicating these would add flexibility 
and avoid what they perceived as unnecessary or burdensome tasks. Pew 
Charitable Trusts, in response to potential opposition to the level of 
information required in the pre-application phase, cited previous 
studies that conclude that a transparent and thorough siting process 
can benefit both the public and developers. AEP emphasized that an IIP 
Process should only be mandatory if it (1) informs the NEPA process and 
(2) minimizes duplication by project proponents and Federal entities. 
AEP noted that the IIP Process should also conserve the resources of 
project developers by actively encouraging permitting authorities to 
rely on the IIP Process's early environmental review. AEP also urged 
DOE to coordinate with transmission developers to enhance efficiency 
and protect environmental objectives. ACP cautioned against a 
burdensome pre-application phase and encouraged DOE to demand a level 
of information that is appropriate for NEPA scoping and consistent with 
the project's development. ACEG agreed with these assertions, adding 
that the level of information required in the IIP Process should be 
appropriate to support the relevant Federal entities' reviews and 
consultations, including under NEPA, ESA, and NHPA. ACEG emphasized the 
importance of reasonable and flexible demands. Similarly, CEBA 
cautioned against an IIP Process that was too complicated or time 
consuming. ACORE noted that the timeline for the submission of 
information in the IIP Process should align with when developers have 
the needed information and recommended that DOE provide some 
flexibility in those instances when the full scope of the information 
required in the IIP reports is not yet available. The NYTOs also 
suggested DOE should ensure that its data requests and sufficiency 
determinations align with the reliable data and information standards 
now set forth in sections 102(E) and 106(b)(3) of NEPA. These NEPA 
standards emphasize the use of reliable data and explicitly provide in 
NEPA section 106(b)(3)(B) that in making a determination regarding the 
level of review under NEPA, an agency ``is not required to undertake 
new scientific or technical research unless the new scientific or 
technical research is essential to a reasoned choice among 
alternatives, and the overall costs and time frame of obtaining it are 
not unreasonable.'' Similarly, Grid United recommended that DOE should 
consider section 106(b)(3) of NEPA in determining the level of 
information that is sufficient for each IIP Process meeting. AEP 
cautioned against a CITAP or IIP Process that duplicates or exceeds 
State regulatory application requirements.
    Several comments addressed the level of detail required in the 
resource reports and the burden this would represent to the project 
proponent. ACP expressed concerns with the level of time and effort 
required for the development and submission of DOE's proposed resource 
reports so early in the process, when their usefulness in NEPA's EIS 
review process is uncertain, and urged DOE to consider that there may 
be limited information available in the early stages of permitting. ACP 
requested that the mandatory ``shall'' language be changed to 
``should'' or ``to the extent practicable.'' ACEG, SEIA, and CEBA noted 
that DOE needs to strike a balance between requiring enough information 
to be helpful in streamlining the review but not making requirements so 
strict that project proponents are discouraged. ACEG stated that 
information required in the resource reports must be limited to the 
information available at the time of submission, as this is a 
preliminary stage and developers should not be discouraged from 
applying if they do not yet have all the information. ACEG recommended 
that the detail of each resource report must be commensurate with the 
level of available information at the time of the submission.
    Relatedly, DOE received several comments regarding the requirements 
that project proponents account for reasonably foreseeable effects. 
PIOs commented in support of the proposed rule's requirement to assess 
climate impacts. PIOs explained that the proposed rule's requirements 
that resource reports account for generation resources that are 
reasonably foreseen to be developed or interconnected and for 
reasonably foreseeable changes in emissions will ensure a rigorous 
environmental analysis that properly accounts for the project's climate 
impacts and are well-founded in NEPA's plain text and implementing 
regulations, CEQ guidance, and judicial precedent. Policy Integrity 
provided similar rationale and additionally indicated that providing 
such data would be ``relatively easy'' for proponents. Policy Integrity 
elaborated that FERC has historically required such estimates from 
transmission developers, that developers have previously submitted 
these data and analysis to both DOE and FERC, and that power system 
emissions estimates are accessible through readily available modeling 
software. Along similar lines, AEU commented that the resource reports 
are comprehensive and require a wide-ranging analysis of the project, 
and that the requirement to describe reasonably foreseeable generation 
resources is especially beneficial because it illustrates the project's 
value and benefits to the larger regional and interregional grid.
    On the other hand, CATF suggested that instead of requiring project 
proponents to describe reasonably foreseeable generation resources, DOE 
should request this specific information only for generator 
interconnections designed to connect specific generation resources to 
the bulk power system.

[[Page 35325]]

CATF explained that it may be difficult for certain qualifying projects 
to determine the scope of what generation resources are reasonably 
foreseeable. Accordingly, CATF recommended that DOE not require project 
proponents to determine associated generation resources where 
burdensome, speculative, and of limited value to decision makers, and 
revise the provision to include only ``specific'' generation resources. 
CATF cited to judicial decisions to support the proposition that an 
analysis of foreseeable generation is not required where the generation 
would likely have occurred even absent the project. ClearPath offered 
additional criticisms of the foreseeable generation requirement. 
ClearPath urged DOE not to exceed its jurisdiction to conduct 
environmental reviews by including additional requirements without 
consulting CEQ, and stated that DOE's requirements to consider indirect 
impacts of the project and identify effects from existing or reasonably 
foreseeable projects are beyond DOE's statutory authority and are 
contrary to CEQ Guidance. ClearPath recommended that DOE limit IIP 
Process requirements, and subsequent review in an EIS, to only an 
electric transmission line and its attendant facilities within Federal 
jurisdiction. Finally, the NM SHPO inquired generally about foreseeable 
generation, and whether foreseeable development will be considered in 
the assessment of historic properties under NHPA section 106 and its 
implementing regulations.
    DOE also received comments on the iterative nature of the IIP 
Process and the role and scope of the three anchor meetings. While ACP 
approved of the general structure of anchor meetings, ACP emphasized 
the importance of flexibility in order to accommodate proposed projects 
that already have conducted significant Federal and State outreach or 
have agency-specific reporting that may differ in approach and timing 
to the IIP. ACP also suggested that DOE clarify how potential route 
changes can be accommodated without restarting the process, and that 
the final rule provide specific criteria that DOE and relevant Federal 
entities would follow in their consideration of adding, deleting, or 
modifying these routes.
    ACEG suggested that DOE amend the proposed rule to strike or 
significantly modify its ``sufficiency'' standard for scheduling 
meetings, which DOE proposed to be required for scheduling each of the 
three required anchor meeting requests. ACEG and NYTOs commented that 
DOE should only find a meeting request insufficient when the 
information provided in the meeting request is insufficient to support 
a productive meeting, e.g., a review meeting request should only 
require sufficient information to hold a productive discussion on the 
initial resource reports. For an example, NYTOs stated that as an 
``initial review meeting'' is intended to identify issues of concern, 
information gaps or data needs--the existence of information gaps or 
the need for additional data, itself, should not be an appropriate 
basis for declining to proceed with a review meeting. ACEG expressed 
concerns that the current approach could allow an application to be 
indefinitely ``parked'' by unreasonable or overly burdensome demands 
for more information for purposes of a sufficiency determination. 
Similarly, Idaho Power asked, recognizing that review under the IIP 
Process is iterative, what controls there are to avoid continued and 
repeated refinement of analysis. Idaho Power also asked if the resource 
report requirement change infers the project proponent will have 
already identified potential resource concerns by consulting with 
relevant, Federal land managers.
    DOE requested comments on page limits for certain submission in the 
NOPR and received seven responses. CBD and the CARE Coalition both 
expressed a general concern with page limits on environmental reviews, 
with CBD stating that arbitrary limits risk sacrificing detail, 
undermining public participation, and causing delays. The Kentucky SHPO 
stated that page limits may be applicable if resource reports will 
serve only as background information, but page limits may not comply 
with NHPA or applicable State statutes if documentation is intended to 
be utilized by the project proponent or Federal agency for section 106 
consultation materials. AZGFD noted that the NOPR only mentions page 
limits in the documents Summary of the Qualifying Project and Project 
Participation Plan, required by Sec.  900.5, and recommended that DOE 
not include page limits for resource reports. ACP expressed concern 
with imposing page limits on project summaries and participations plans 
required by Sec.  900.5 and instead recommended that DOE allow for 
flexibility and allow for page-limit carve outs for appendices where 
appropriate. Gallatin Power stated that the page limits for the Summary 
of the Qualifying Project and Project Participation Plan are reasonable 
but noted that the scope of transmission projects will vary greatly and 
suggested that DOE allow project proponents to request additional pages 
if deemed necessary. The CEC/CPUC stated that the page limit for the 
Summary of the Qualifying Project is appropriate but the limit for the 
Project Participation Plan may be limiting. Similarly, EDF raised a 
concern that the ten-page limitation for a Project Participation Plan 
might constrain the level of detail needed to comprehensively and 
holistically assess the project's impact and may signal to project 
proponents that only a cursory assessment is needed.
    DOE received one comment regarding the participation of relevant 
Federal entities. EEI noted that transmission projects that 
interconnect, parallel, or cross facilities owned or operated by 
Federal power marketing administrations, such as Bonneville Power 
Administration and the Western Area Power Administration, may also be 
qualifying projects under the CITAP Program as proposed. EEI suggested 
that in such cases, the Federal power marketing administrations must be 
involved in some manner as relevant Federal entities, either as joint 
lead agency with DOE or otherwise, and should remain actively involved 
in the coordination process. EEI further noted that providing a 
coordination role for Federal power marketing administrations is 
consistent with section 216(h).
    DOE received comments from ACEG, AEP, and PIOs that addressed 
participation of relevant non-Federal entities. AEP urged DOE to be 
mindful of the important and necessary roles State and local 
decisionmakers play in the proposed transmission project approval 
process. ACEG and PIOs generally supported the clear and increased role 
for non-Federal entities, including Indian Tribes, SHPOs, and THPOs, in 
the IIP Process but noted that the important role of these additional 
entities in the process can also complicate reviews. ACEG recommended 
that DOE ensure that these non-Federal entities not only have but also 
use their seat at the IIP Process table and have necessary resources to 
fully participate in the process. PIOs stated that such improved 
coordination will be essential to ensure that resource reports provide 
all the necessary analysis and information to enable project proponents 
to receive all relevant authorizations. ACEG also noted that one way 
DOE can facilitate this participation is by effectively implementing 
its grant funding opportunities for transmission siting and permitting 
participation.
    Regarding confidential information and/or CEII, the CARE Coalition 
recommended that DOE specifically

[[Page 35326]]

invite comments from Indian Tribes regarding best practices around 
outreach by project proponents and prioritize Tribal recommendations. 
The CARE Coalition also recommended that DOE create a list of best 
practices; add free, prior, and informed consent (FPIC) to that list; 
and add language stating agencies must apply FPIC to all interactions 
between agencies and Tribal governments. The CARE Coalition believes 
that these changes will ensure that agencies adhere to both the United 
Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and the Federal 
trust responsibility to Tribal governments. Relatedly, PIOs recommended 
that DOE adopt language from the Washington State Attorney General's 
Centennial Accord Plan, Indigenous Knowledge requirements, and 
requirements from the 2022 Biden Memorandum on Uniform Consultation 
Standards. The CARE Coalition recommended that DOE add a separate 
provision requiring agencies to clearly articulate the levels of 
confidentiality afforded to the public and governmental engagement for 
the information shared therein. The CARE Coalition recommended that DOE 
ensure that sacred sites, locations, and Indigenous Knowledge are 
protected from public disclosure to the greatest extent practicable. 
The NM SHPO added that agency officials should address concerns about 
confidentiality with Tribes.
    DOE received comments requesting clarification on how the proposed 
rule would affect transmission projects that are already in the 
permitting process from Stoel Rives LLP and Idaho Power and a comment 
from Gallatin Power regarding the interaction of the IIP Process with 
other permitting processes. Stoel Rives argued that these projects 
should also be eligible for DOE's improved and expedited approval 
process, under the CITAP Program or otherwise. Stoel Rives encouraged 
DOE to consider these projects in this final rule and provide a roadmap 
detailing how they can be integrated into the process. Gallatin Power 
raised a concern that under the current provisions, a project proponent 
will not be able to submit applications to relevant Federal agencies 
for necessary Federal authorizations until after the completion of the 
IIP Process. Gallatin Power contended that the submission of an 
authorization application and supporting materials allows for the 
developer to identify its interest in a right-of-way path impacting 
Federal land and be designated the ``first-in-line'' for review. 
Forcing the application submittal to later in the process could result 
in multiple developers attempting to complete the IIP Process, 
including the intensive resource reports, for the same lands at the 
same time. This would create substantial inefficiencies for both the 
project proponents and the agencies involved. Gallatin Power suggested 
that to avoid this, DOE should either continue to allow developers to 
submit applications to Federal agencies prior to initiating the IIP 
Process or institute a similar ``first-in-line'' approach based on when 
projects are proposed for the CITAP Program. Gallatin Power also 
proposed that the transmission projects that have already submitted 
applications for authorizations to relevant Federal agencies should not 
be forced to redo their application process or have their applications 
invalidated until the IIP Process is completed. They argued that doing 
so would be highly disruptive to development efforts and 
counterproductive to DOE's goals.
    DOE also received comments regarding studies that may be undertaken 
during the IIP Process. The CEC/CPUC encouraged early coordination and 
review of a project proponent's supporting study methods for the IIP 
Process because reviewing study methods and securing necessary 
approvals for field review, before a proponent has conducted its 
studies, could reduce later delays. Additionally, the CEC/CPUC 
encouraged DOE to help other Federal agencies set schedules for timely 
study authorizations and afford exemptions to allow project proponents 
to initiate the IIP/CITAP Process if other Federal agency 
authorizations are delayed. Idaho Power asked DOE to clarify if the 
level of study is assumed to be desktop/GIS-informed or if there an 
expectation that field surveys will be completed for all project 
alternatives. Idaho Power also asked if DOE would be the final arbiter 
of completeness for studies or if each relevant Federal land management 
agency would have the authority to request additional information. 
Gallatin Power commented that DOE should clarify when the project 
proponent will receive authorization from Federal agencies to complete 
field resource surveys. Gallatin Power further stated that a lack of 
structure could allow for the permitting timelines to remain the same 
since uncertainty would be shifted to before the start of the rule's 
proposed two-year NEPA deadline.
    Five commenters provided responses to DOE's request regarding the 
duplicative aspects of the NOPR. ACP commented that project proponents 
should be permitted to incorporate by reference existing data, 
environmental reviews, and public engagement efforts to streamline the 
process. ACEG recommended that the specific language regarding 
incorporation by reference be clarified so that incorporation by 
reference is permissible for all data, not just material in other 
resource reports and provided some suggested edits to the provision. 
CEC/CPUC stated that duplicative aspects of reports should be 
eliminated to limit inconsistencies in review, providing as an example 
that the Cultural Resources resource report, the Tribal Resources 
resource report, the Communities of Interest resource report, and the 
Socioeconomic resource report all overlap but may not be reviewed by 
the same agency subject matter experts, which may result in 
inconsistent evaluations.
    ClearPath stated that the requirement for project proponents to 
list and describe all dwellings and related structures or other 
structures normally or intended to be inhabited by humans within a 0.5-
mile-wide corridor centered on the proposed transmission line was 
duplicative of information regarding affected landowners required in 
General Project Description resource report and should be omitted.
    ACP recommended that DOE not require the public disclosure of names 
of people project proponents spoke to in preparing the resource 
reports, as this is overly onerous and lack of detail in this section 
should not be a basis to legally challenge DOE's eventual 
determination.
DOE Response
    In this final rule, DOE retains the purpose and scope of the IIP 
Process as proposed in the NOPR, including the three-anchor-meeting 
structure and information requirements for progressing through the 
process, with minor revisions. DOE revises this final rule for clarity 
and to reduce burdensome and duplicative requirements in response to 
comments, as described below. DOE revises the page limits in this final 
rule to allow for project proponents to request a waiver. DOE makes no 
other revisions in response to these comments but notes that revisions 
to resource reports and IIP Process meetings in response to other, 
specific comments received on those aspects are addressed in sections 
VI.N and G of this document.
    DOE declines to act on those comments urging greater flexibility in 
the IIP Process and in the content of resource reports because it 
believes such measures are unnecessary. This final rule confirms the 
provisions in the NOPR that provide for sufficient

[[Page 35327]]

flexibility: the three anchor meetings, which provide structured 
opportunities to discuss and establish expectations; the provision 
permitting the project proponent to submit resource reports missing 
discrete pieces of information so long as the project proponent 
provides an acceptable reason for the omission and an acceptable 
timeline for curing the omission; and the provision granting the 
Director of the Grid Deployment Office with discretion to waive any 
requirement imposed on a project proponent if the Director of the Grid 
Deployment Office determines that that it is unnecessary, duplicative, 
or impracticable under the relevant circumstances. DOE finds that 
together these provisions provided the flexibility necessary to respond 
to a wide variety of circumstances.
    Regarding comments from ACP, ACEG, ACORE, SEIA, and CEBA on the 
level of detail requested in resource reports and specifically the 
availability of information based on project maturity and compliance 
with NEPA regulations, DOE makes no revisions in response to these 
comments. First, DOE believes the level of detail in the resource 
reports is necessary for DOE to implement its authority under section 
216(h), which includes both environmental review and the coordination 
of decision making with relevant Federal entities. Second, this final 
rule adopts the proposed provision that project proponents may address 
and justify omissions or incomplete information. DOE believes this 
provides sufficient flexibility to accommodate project differences 
without further revision. Regarding ACP's request to modify language 
from shall to ``should'' or ``to the extent practicable'', where DOE 
intends to impose a mandatory obligation, it uses appropriate language, 
including ``shall.''
    Regarding the inclusion of reasonably foreseeable effects, DOE 
declines to make changes to the requirements that project proponents 
identify certain reasonably foreseeable effects. DOE's obligations 
under NEPA, as well as corresponding obligations under section 106 of 
the NHPA and the ESA, require the Department to consider the reasonably 
foreseeable effects of major Federal actions affecting the quality of 
the human environment, as noted in PIOs' comment. While the scope of 
any NEPA review will be determined at the close of the IIP Process and 
on a case-by-case basis, the information required for inclusion within 
the resource reports discussed in this section is likely to be relevant 
for preparation of environmental review documents necessary for 
authorizations subject to this rule. In order to assist DOE in fully 
considering this relevant information, DOE seeks input from project 
proponents to identify reasonably foreseeable generation projects that 
may be caused by a Federal authorization. Even when DOE determines a 
particular generation resource to be outside the scope of review DOE 
may still need to identify the resource and explain its conclusion. The 
language of the rule tracks these statutory obligations, and is 
consistent with the Secretary of Energy's authority under section 
216(h) to require the submission of all data considered necessary.
    Regarding the iterative nature and level of information requested 
for the three anchor meetings, DOE makes minor changes in this final 
rule regarding the discussion of and criteria for modifying study 
corridors in response to comments. DOE restates that the IIP Process is 
designed to allow for flexibility throughout the process while 
maintaining sufficient review periods to ensure that the project 
proponent is taking the steps necessary to complete the required 
Federal authorization processes.
    In response to ACP's concern on how route changes will be 
accommodated without restarting the IIP Process, DOE believes the 
iterative nature of the IIP Process provides mechanisms to account for 
route changes, including: meetings, the use of analysis areas for 
resource report assessments (discussed in section VI.K.ii of this 
document in detail), study corridors that may contain multiple routes, 
and the resubmission of resources reports, none of which require a 
restart to the IIP Process. Accordingly, DOE makes no changes in 
response. Regarding ACP's request for criteria on adding or deleting 
routes, DOE revises the rule for clarity. First, DOE relocates the list 
of criteria from the initial meeting to Sec.  900.4, Purpose and Scope 
of the IIP Process, and clarifies in the text that these are the 
initial list of criteria the project proponent should consider when 
developing potential study corridors and potential routes for the IIP 
Process. The change encourages the project proponent to utilize the 
criteria in identifying routes and corridors throughout the IIP 
Process, rather than just after the initial meeting. Second, DOE 
removes ``deleting'' from the initial meeting discussion topic to 
clarify that the IIP Process does not include a Federal entity deleting 
any corridors or routes. This final rule retains the requirement for 
DOE and other agencies to identify other criteria for adding or 
modifying potential routes and includes that the agencies should also 
identify criteria for potential study corridors as well. DOE makes no 
further revisions as these changes sufficiently clarify the criteria 
recommended and how they will be considered, and any additional 
criteria will be discussed on a project-by-project basis.
    DOE makes no changes to the final rule in response to comments from 
ACEG and NYTO regarding establishing a standard for determining the 
sufficiency of materials required for each IIP Process meeting. DOE 
requests the information it deems necessary and sufficient for each 
meeting as described in the rule and has chosen not to provide a 
specific standard in order to maintain flexibility to evaluate 
submitted materials depending on the specific needs and circumstances 
of each project. As previously noted, IIP Process materials may be 
submitted with omissions provided that the omission is noted, a reason 
is given, and reasonable timeline for curing the omission is provided. 
Additionally, the final rule confirms the proposed provisions through 
which DOE will provide reasons for finding the submissions deficient 
and how such deficiencies may be addressed by the project proponent. 
DOE believes these provisions provide flexibility for a wide range of 
project circumstances.
    Regarding concerns from Idaho Power and ACEG that projects could be 
``parked'' in the IIP Process, DOE makes no revisions to the final 
rule. This final rule confirms the intended iterative nature of the IIP 
Process and the interests of DOE in engaging in communications that are 
not limited to the three anchor meetings. These provisions are intended 
to prevent the situation described by the commenters where a request is 
rejected due to information or knowledge gaps or continued study 
refinement, by providing a communication mechanism through which such 
gaps could be discussed in advance. Additionally, as previously 
explained, DOE provides sufficient flexibility to the IIP Process to 
accommodate unique circumstances.
    Regarding Idaho Power's question as to whether project proponents 
are expected to engage with agencies prior to the IIP Process, DOE 
responds that project proponents may choose to consult with relevant 
entities prior to IIP Process at their discretion, but are not required 
or expected to do so.
    Regarding page limits, DOE believes that the limitation on the 
number of pages in the Summary of the Qualifying Project and the 
Project Participation Plan is generally useful and appropriate, but 
agrees with commenters that some complex projects may require 
additional pages to address pertinent information for the project and 
the project

[[Page 35328]]

proponent's outreach. Accordingly, DOE revises this final rule to allow 
for project proponents to request waivers to the page limitations of 
the Summary of the Qualifying Project and the Project Participation 
Plan. As the proposed rule established no specific page limitations on 
the environmental review document or resource reports, DOE makes no 
additional revisions in response to comments on those documents but 
acknowledges that relevant statutory page limits for environmental 
review documents will be followed.
    Regarding the participation of relevant Federal entities, DOE has 
made no changes in response to EEI's suggestion to include Federal 
power marketing administrations because DOE has determined that such a 
scenario is already allowed by the regulatory text in the definition of 
relevant Federal entity.
    Regarding the participation of relevant non-Federal entities, DOE 
agrees that not all relevant non-Federal entities will have the 
resources available to participate in the IIP Process. DOE makes no 
changes to this final rule, however, because provisions for cost-
recovery and contribution of funds, which may assist in those entities' 
participation, are already included in the IIP Process. The 
recommendation of coordination of grant funding is outside the scope of 
this rulemaking, which is limited to implementation of DOE's 
coordinating authority under section 216(h) of the FPA. DOE has made no 
changes in response to this comment. DOE encourages non-Federal 
entities with authority to make permitting decisions regarding proposed 
electric transmission projects (e.g., State siting authorities) to 
actively participate in the CITAP Program, and will continue to seek 
ways to support such participation as the Program is implemented.
    Regarding confidentiality of information and recommendations from 
the CARE Coalition among others, DOE makes no changes to this final 
rule. DOE finds that existing statutory provisions referenced in the 
proposed rule and confirmed in this final rule provide a framework for 
the protection of certain sensitive information from public disclosure. 
DOE recognizes that Indian Tribes are entitled to decline to provide 
information potentially at issue in the resource reports and IIP 
Process, and notes that this final rule does not mandate that Indian 
Tribes provide any material or information to project proponents. DOE 
will work with Indian Tribes to access relevant material and 
incorporate it into relevant decision-making while protecting the 
confidential and sensitive nature of that information as necessary and 
legally permitted. Additionally, as noted in section IV of this 
document, DOE affirms the sovereignty of Federally recognized Indian 
Tribes and confirms that the rule makes no changes to Federal agencies' 
government-to-government responsibilities. DOE commits to undertake 
Tribal consultation as appropriate, including as required by applicable 
authorities such as Executive Order 13007 or the Presidential 
Memorandum on Uniform Standards for Tribal Consultation, and commits to 
designate Indian Tribes with special expertise regarding a qualifying 
project, including knowledge about sacred sites that the project could 
affect, that are eligible, to become cooperating agencies under NEPA. 
DOE declines to include in the final rule best practices around 
outreach by project proponents or to import existing requirements 
related to Tribal engagement into this rule. The form and scope of 
outreach may vary by project and DOE believes these issues are best 
addressed on a project-by-project basis or in guidance outside of this 
rule.
    Regarding participation of projects already undergoing a permitting 
process, DOE notes that nothing in the definition of qualifying project 
excludes such projects from participation and that the flexibility 
provided for in the IIP Process will allow DOE to determine 
accommodations for such projects on a project-by-project basis. DOE 
disagrees with Gallatin Power's interpretation that the CITAP Program 
would disallow or invalidate permitting applications previously 
submitted prior to initiation of the IIP Process or submitted during 
the IIP Process. DOE acknowledges that some applications for 
authorizations may already be submitted prior to initiation of the IIP 
Process or may be submitted during the IIP Process and accommodates for 
such scenarios in the rule. For example, this final rule confirms the 
NOPR provisions that the initiation request and the review meeting 
request require the project proponent to provide a list of anticipated 
and completed dates of applications for authorizations or permits. 
Further, the rule specifically provides in Sec.  900.5(h)(2) that at 
the initial meeting 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. DOE finds that these 
provisions sufficiently provide that this final rule will not impede 
developers' strategies for seeking authorizations for their projects. 
Nowhere in the rule does DOE indicate that these applications will be 
invalidated or require resubmission, nor does DOE have authority to do 
so.
    Regarding study methods and approvals as raised by CEC/CPUC, Idaho 
Power, and Gallatin Power, DOE revises this final rule to provide 
clarity on the extent to which analysis of alternatives is expected 
(discussed in more detail in section VI.L.xi of this document) and to 
specify that required or recommended surveys or studies will be 
discussed in the IIP Process during the initial and review meeting. DOE 
makes no further revisions to this final rule in response to these 
comments as study methods and authorization timelines are specific to 
project circumstances and DOE will address these on a project-by-
project basis. DOE clarifies here that DOE leads the IIP Process and 
will determine the completeness of documents and studies for the 
purpose of progressing through the milestones, while relevant Federal 
entities maintain statutory authority for determining the completeness 
of information needed for their decision-making.
    Regarding the duplicative nature of some resources reports, DOE 
makes minor revisions in response to these comments. DOE agrees that 
incorporation by reference should extend to publicly available sources, 
such as existing data and environmental reviews, but only if they exist 
in electronic form (to ensure relevant entities can reasonably access 
the material), and revises this final rule to allow for such 
references. In response to the request to combine resource reports to 
assure consistent review, DOE makes no revisions in response to this 
comment as DOE believes the division of resource reports will provide 
specific information pertinent to that resource topic that is necessary 
for DOE to implement its coordination authority. Further DOE believes 
the coordination of reviews within the IIP Process with relevant 
Federal entities will provide consistency of evaluation, and notes that 
the review of project proponent resource reports does not replace or 
supplant Federal entities' responsibilities to evaluate necessary 
information for decision making on authorizations and permits under 
their purview. Regarding the request to remove duplication in reporting 
of affected landowners and dwellings proximate to the proposed route, 
DOE makes no revisions in this final rule. DOE does not agree that 
these are duplicative requests, as affected landowner describes a 
person or entity and dwelling describes a building.
    In response to ACP's concern about the burden of providing detailed 
information on all persons contacted in

[[Page 35329]]

development of the resource reports, DOE agrees that this provision 
represents an unnecessary burden on project proponents and removes it 
from this final rule.

E. Public Participation in the IIP Process

DOE's Proposal
    The proposed rule included several provisions addressing public 
participation. In the NOPR, DOE proposed the project proponent submit, 
as part of the initiation request, a project participation plan. The 
proposed project participation plan included the project proponent's 
history of engagement with communities of interest and stakeholders, 
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. Before the review 
and close-out meetings, DOE proposed that the project proponent provide 
an updated public engagement plan to reflect any activities during the 
IIP Process. Additionally, the proposed rule required the standard 
schedule to take into consideration the need for early and meaningful 
consultation with Indian Tribes and engagement with stakeholders and 
communities of interest. Likewise, the project-specific schedule was 
required to account for early and meaningful consultation with Indian 
Tribes and engagement with stakeholders.
Summary of Public Comments
    DOE received several comments addressing public participation 
during the IIP Process, including the requirement of project proponents 
to plan for and report on engagement with various groups, and 
recommendations for modifications, clarifications, expansions, and 
reductions of the proposed public engagement reporting requirements.
    Many commenters supported DOE's requirement to have a project 
proponent submit project participation and engagement plans. ACP, AEU, 
ACEG, SEIA, Pew Charitable Trusts, CEBA, and PIOs all expressed support 
for the requirement, expressing that such engagement would build trust 
and allow prompt response to concerns. PIOs expressed that they believe 
DOE is correct to require project proponents to furnish ``specific 
information on the proponent's engagement with communities of interest 
and with Indian Tribes'' and that requiring a public participation plan 
is well-grounded in binding Federal authorities. Additionally, PIOs 
expressed appreciation to DOE for noting that project proponent 
outreach efforts are merely complementary and not substitutive for 
Federal agencies' own engagement with communities and Indian Tribes nor 
are they substitutive for formal requirements under NEPA or other laws 
that provide formal avenues for community input. ACP supported DOE's 
efforts to encourage early and consistent engagement by project 
proponents with affected communities, as this represents a best 
practice for identifying, mitigating, and avoiding risks of sometimes-
contentious transmission project development.
    DOE received several comments recommending changes to the role of 
public participation and the scope of participants. EDF stated that the 
project participation plan is too narrowly focused, as public input 
should be expansive and not limited to ``project engineering and route 
planning.'' The CARE Coalition encouraged DOE to require that project 
participation and public engagement plans include information about 
engagement with advocates for the public interest, such as advocates 
for wildlife protection, who may not be covered under the definition of 
``communities of interest.'' The CARE Coalition argued that the 
inclusion of these groups and individuals in the project participation 
and public engagement plans would help develop resource reports, reduce 
litigation risk, reduce delays, and reduce overall project costs. PIOs 
recommended that DOE require separate engagement plans for Indian 
Tribes and communities of interest.
    Commenters requested more guidance on public engagement, including 
parameters, minimum requirements, metrics, and best practices. EDF 
commented that proposed rule does not require the project proponent to 
strictly define communities of interest and recommended that the 
communities considered should be based on CEQ's Climate and Economic 
Justice Screening Tool or a comparable tool. EDF further recommended 
refining the public engagement plan to include mandatory deadlines or 
frequency of outreach requirements, to specify when communities of 
interest will have an opportunity to raise concerns, and to list 
additional tools that would facilitate communication in order to 
improve the efficacy of the plan. EDF expressed concern that the 
project participation plan did not require project proponents to engage 
with communities before substantive plans were solidified or require 
that input from communities of interest is taken into account in the 
beginning stages of plan development. Similarly, Niskanen Center was 
concerned that the proposed rule did not have sufficient notification 
or consultation requirements regarding the proposed public engagement 
plan, such that a project proponent would actually have to engage early 
or meaningfully with impacted parties or communities of interest. 
Niskanen Center accordingly recommended adopting notice requirements 
with defined timing and linked to specific milestones such as the 
notice of an initiation request. The CARE Coalition recommended that 
DOE adopt a definition of ``early and meaningful engagement'' similar 
to EPA's definition of ``meaningful involvement'' in its Environmental 
Justice 2020 Glossary and stated that providing a definition will 
ensure that engagement with communities does not simply consist of 
``check-the-box'' exercises without meaningfully engaging with 
communities that are disproportionately and adversely affected by 
certain Federal activities. ACP suggested that DOE should provide 
additional clarity as to what specific steps are required for 
engagement, and what DOE considers as ``successful'' engagement, and 
AEU echoed this comment. ACP, AEU and ACEG requested that DOE expressly 
recognize that engagement with potentially affected parties does not 
necessarily mean that all parties will reach a consensus on all issues. 
The CARE Coalition suggested DOE require submission of an ``Applicant 
Code of Conduct'' with additional information collection and sharing 
requirements for engagement, which would bring the rule into better 
alignment with FERC's proposed backstop permitting rule. Similarly, 
PIOs suggested that DOE require project proponents to adhere to a 
rigorous ethical code of conduct. Additionally, EDF suggested that the 
proposed rule might benefit from the expertise of DOE's Office of 
Economic Impact and Diversity.
    The CARE Coalition, CBD, and CEBA suggested including best 
practices for public engagement and providing guidelines for project 
proponents as to what activities are considered engagement.
    Commenters also expressed concern about the extent and approach to 
public engagement. AEP cautioned against a CITAP Program or IIP Process 
that duplicates or exceeds the RTO stakeholder process or required 
State and local permitting functions that ensure robust community and 
landowner engagement and outreach. ClearPath expressed opposition to 
requirements in the project participation plan and public engagement 
plan that

[[Page 35330]]

create duplicative engagement requirements and institute different 
standards of engagement for different population segments. ClearPath 
specifically took issue with the different standards for ``communities 
of interest'' and ``stakeholders'' in the plans and suggested that the 
distinction was counterproductive to development of transmission 
projects and possibly unconstitutional. ClearPath also recommended 
amending the requirement that a project participation plan must include 
``[a] description of . . . any entities and organizations interested in 
the proposed undertaking.'' ClearPath stated that it was impossible to 
describe any interested entities and organizations because DOE did not 
provide a threshold for what actions constitute a demonstration of 
interest. ClearPath recommended reevaluating whether this requirement 
was feasible and overly burdensome. StopPATH WV expressed its view that 
the project participation plan described in the NOPR is one-sided given 
that the developer and agencies have primary decision-making power and 
suggested that the name should be changed.
    DOE received three comments regarding the role of community 
benefits plans. Alan Leiserson commented that the public engagement 
plans should require that the project proponent propose a community 
benefit plan and consider affected communities' suggestions for it. EDF 
also proposed that CITAP project participation plans and public 
engagement plans be required to include information on any potential 
community benefits agreements and the process that would be used to 
work with communities of interest in developing such agreements. EDF 
reasoned that information about any community benefit agreement or plan 
would support the CITAP review process and allow for coordinated review 
of the compliance of those plans with any other legal requirements. ACP 
supported DOE's efforts to encourage early and consistent engagement by 
project sponsors with affected communities. ACP expressed that DOE 
should consider environmental mitigation and community benefits 
developed under this community engagement process as project mitigation 
and/or design features in NEPA reviews.
    PIOs, CARE Coalition, CBD, and Policy Integrity recommended that 
DOE incorporate additional opportunities for public participation in 
the IIP Process. PIOs stated that communities and organizations with 
relevant expertise should be allowed to participate in the three 
required meetings. CARE Coalition and PIOs suggested that DOE add an 
opportunity for public comment on project proponents' compliance with 
their participation plans and provide a mechanism for affected 
communities to make concerns known if proponents interact with the 
communities in a manner that is aggressive, coercive, dishonest, or 
otherwise unethical or if stakeholders disagree with project proponents 
over the scope or nature of a project's impacts. Similarly, CBD 
suggested including junctures at which the public could provide input 
into the resource reports and public participation plan. Policy 
Integrity also recommended that DOE modify the proposed IIP Process to 
allow for early public comments, arguing that early community feedback 
and expert opinion could reveal pitfalls in a project in the pre-
application stage. Without this step, Policy Integrity expressed 
concern that the public would have no voice until after the 
participating agencies have deliberated and potentially come to a 
consensus on certain issues in the pre-application stage. For example, 
Policy Integrity noted that agencies may deem project proponents' 
Alternatives Report as complete once they ratify it during the IIP 
Process, without any consideration for public input. Additionally, 
Policy Integrity argued that its proposed revision would bring the IIP 
Process into closer alignment with the pre-filing process for natural 
gas infrastructure at FERC, which accepts formal public comment, and 
suggested the consolidated administrative docket be allowed to provide 
public feedback.
DOE Response
    In this final rule, DOE retains the proposals in the NOPR to 
require a project participation plan and a public engagement plan, and 
the provisions in the NOPR addressing engagement with communities of 
interest, Indian Tribes, potentially affected landowners, and 
stakeholders. In response to these comments, DOE makes minor changes to 
this final rule to clarify the scope of topics on which project 
proponents should seek public engagement, for the reasons discussed 
below. Revisions to the definitions of communities of interest, 
potentially affected landowners, stakeholders, and to the resource 
reports are addressed in sections VI.J and VI.K of this document in 
response to other comments.
    Regarding the role of public participation and the scope of 
participants, DOE makes minor changes in response to these comments. 
DOE clarifies that the project participation plan may include--but is 
not limited to--engagement related to project engineering and route 
planning and strikes ``project engineering and route planning'' from 
this final rule to reflect this. DOE makes no changes in response to 
the request to require engagement with advocates for the public 
interest because DOE believes further expanding the required engagement 
creates an undue burden on project proponents without substantial 
benefit to communities of interest. Furthermore, DOE understands that 
these advocates may, and often do, act as representatives on behalf of 
communities of interest and are therefore likely to be engaged through 
those relationships. DOE is unpersuaded that two public engagement 
plans, one for communities of interest and another for Tribal 
engagement, are necessary and believes that the proposed resource 
report requirements for communities of interest and Tribal interests 
allow for sufficient differentiation on the topics for DOE's 
consideration.
    Regarding requests for minimum standards, deadlines, frequency, 
specific steps, use of tools for identifying communities of interest, 
and notice requirements, from CARE Coalition, CBD, CEBA, EDF, and 
Niskanen Center, DOE makes no revisions in this final rule in response 
to these comments. DOE believes the provisions for public engagement in 
the proposed rule and confirmed here establish sufficiently clear 
expectations for project proponent activities while maintaining 
flexibility for the project proponent to shape engagement consistent 
with the project circumstances and development. These provisions as 
proposed and now finalized sufficiently support the goals of the CITAP 
Program by encouraging engagement on the part of the project proponent 
to identify concerns early and to allow for the project proponent to 
consider adjustments in a timely and responsive manner. Additionally, 
these provisions are complementary and additional to Federal agencies' 
own engagement with communities and Indian Tribes and the requirements 
under NEPA or other laws that provide formal avenues for public input 
including notice and consultation requirements. DOE is not persuaded 
that additional requirements are necessary or appropriate for the IIP 
Process.
    Regarding codes of conduct, DOE has determined that defining a 
singular code within the regulatory text is unnecessary at this time. 
In its role coordinating the IIP Process and the CITAP Program, DOE 
will work closely with project proponents, relevant

[[Page 35331]]

Federal entities, communities, and other stakeholders. In that role, 
DOE will endeavor to ensure that project proponents engage in good 
faith with all participants. In contrast to FERC, DOE does not have 
specific statutory authority regarding eminent domain and thus 
alignment with all aspects of FERC's proposed rulemaking pursuant to 
engagement practices is not appropriate but may be addressed on a 
project-by-project basis where relevant. With experience, DOE may find 
it appropriate to provide code-of-conduct or ethical guidance and may 
rely on the resources provided by commenters. DOE also clarifies, in 
response to EDF's concern, that offices across the agency, including 
the Office of Energy Justice and Equity (formerly Economic Impact and 
Diversity), were consulted in the development of the rule.
    DOE declines to define ``successful,'' as requested by ACP, or 
``early and meaningful'' engagement as requested by the CARE Coalition, 
because DOE believes the required information on engagement (including 
what groups and individuals were engaged, how they were identified, 
topics that were raised, and the project proponent's responses) 
provides sufficient clarity and additional definitions are unnecessary. 
DOE declines to include the statement requested by ACP, AEU and ACEG 
that engagement with potentially affected parties does not necessarily 
mean that all parties will reach a consensus on all issues because DOE 
is not persuaded that the proposed rule indicates that all parties will 
reach a consensus on all issues and therefore finds such a statement 
unnecessary.
    DOE believes that best practices are best provided in guidance 
rather than regulatory text to allow for flexibility and evolution of 
such practices and makes no changes in this final rule in response to 
the comments by CARE Coalition, CBD, and CEBA. In the future, DOE may 
issue guidance for community-led engagement, measuring engagement, 
identifying communities of interest, and ethical and meaningful 
engagement, which may include or reference the sources provided by 
commenters as necessary for implementation of the CITAP Program.
    In response to ClearPath's concern about different standards of 
engagement, DOE reiterates that the various requirements, including the 
resource reports and public engagement plan, are tailored to fulfill 
various, not mutually exclusive, purposes to facilitate transmission 
authorizations pursuant to the CITAP Program, and are not intended to, 
nor do they, establish a hierarchy of treatment and consideration of 
impacts across population segments.
    In response to StopPath WV's objection to the project participation 
plan, DOE declines to change the name of the project participation plan 
because DOE is not persuaded that the phrase implies any decision-
making authority.
    Regarding the role of community benefits and community benefits 
plans, DOE makes no changes to this final rule. DOE believes that the 
public participation provisions proposed and confirmed here are 
sufficient to allow project proponents to engage with communities in 
the development of plans or agreements and for compliance to be 
evaluated in the CITAP Program where relevant for Federal permitting or 
authorization decisions. DOE does not agree that additional 
requirements are needed, as the comments suggest that the situations 
described are not universal but rather depend on the project, and 
therefore are best addressed on a project-by-project basis.
    Regarding recommendations for inclusion of expert groups in the IIP 
Process meetings and providing avenues for public comments, DOE makes 
no changes in this final rule in response to these comments. First, as 
noted previously, DOE believes the provisions in the proposed rule and 
confirmed here are sufficient to support the goals of the CITAP 
Program. DOE has structured the three IIP Process meetings to serve as 
milestones for coordination between the project proponent and the 
relevant Federal and non-Federal entities to ensure DOE can meet its 
obligations under FPA section 216(h) and DOE does not intend to use 
these meetings to solicit feedback from communities of interest or 
receive expert input from other organizations. The public participation 
plan is designed with the intent to identify issues well ahead of the 
IIP Process meetings for this reason, as the meetings themselves are 
not intended to serve as avenues for broader input. Second, as noted by 
DOE throughout the rule and supported by commenters, the CITAP Program 
public participation requirements are complementary and additional to 
Federal agencies' own engagement with communities and Indian Tribes and 
the requirements under NEPA or other laws that provide formal avenues 
for public input and public comment, including on project impacts.
    DOE disagrees with Policy Integrity's interpretation that agencies 
will make decisions on Federal authorizations during the IIP Process. 
Federal agency decisions remain subject to distinct decision-making 
processes with requirements under NEPA and other laws that provide 
formal avenues for public input. Furthermore, with respect to Policy 
Integrity's specific concern regarding project proponent's Alternatives 
resource report, as discussed in further detail below, see section 
VI.K.xi of this document, the project proponent's Alternatives resource 
report must discuss alternatives identified and considered by the 
project proponent. However, while a project proponent's study 
corridors, potential routes, and range of potential routes are relevant 
information, they do not displace the overall alternatives development 
process that must take place in consultation with relevant Federal and 
non-Federal entities, stakeholders, and the public. That process 
remains subject to public comment pursuant to NEPA and other laws.

F. Timing of IIP Process and NOI Issuance

DOE's Proposal
    The proposed rule included several provisions addressing the IIP 
Process timeline. In the NOPR, DOE proposed to, within 15 calendar days 
of receiving an IIP Process initiation request, notify relevant Federal 
entities and relevant non-Federal entities of the initiation request 
along with a determination that the recipient is either a relevant 
Federal entity or a relevant non-Federal entity and whether the project 
proponent should participate in the IIP Process. Also, DOE proposed to, 
within 30 calendar days of receiving the request, notify the project 
proponent and all relevant Federal entities and relevant non-Federal 
entities whether the initiation request meets the applicable 
requirements. If the request is found to meet the applicable 
requirements, DOE proposed, in consultation with the identified 
relevant Federal entities, to convene the IIP Process initial meeting 
within 30 days of providing notice to the project proponent.
    In the NOPR, DOE proposed to, within 15 calendar days after the 
initial meeting with the project proponent and relevant entities, 
prepare and deliver a draft initial meeting summary to the project 
proponent, relevant federal entities, and any non-Federal entities that 
participated in the meeting. The proposed rule provided a period of 15 
calendar days after receipt of the draft initial meeting summary for 
relevant entities to review and provide corrections to DOE.
    In the NOPR, DOE proposed, within 15 calendar days of the close of 
the 15-day review period, to prepare a final meeting summary that 
incorporates

[[Page 35332]]

received corrections, as appropriate, and incorporate the final summary 
into the consolidated administrative docket.
    DOE proposed in the NOPR to, within 60 calendar days after 
receiving a project proponent's review meeting request, notify the 
project proponent and all relevant Federal entities and relevant non-
Federal entities that the review meeting request has been accepted. In 
the NOPR, DOE proposed, within 30 calendar days after DOE provides 
notice that the review meeting request has been accepted, to convene 
the review meeting with the project proponent and relevant Federal 
agencies.
    DOE proposed in the NOPR to, within 15 calendar days after the 
review meeting, prepare and deliver a draft review meeting summary to 
the project proponent, relevant Federal entities, and any non-Federal 
entities that participated in the meeting. In the NOPR, DOE proposed to 
provide a period of 15 calendar days after receipt of the draft review 
meeting summary for relevant entities to review and provide corrections 
to DOE.
    DOE proposed in the NOPR to, within 15 calendar days of the close 
of the 15-day review period, prepare a final review meeting summary 
that incorporates received corrections, as appropriate, and to 
incorporate the final summary into the consolidated administrative 
docket.
    In the NOPR, DOE proposed to, within 60 calendar days after receipt 
of the close-out meeting request, notify the project proponent and all 
relevant Federal entities and relevant non-Federal entities that the 
close-out meeting request has been accepted. DOE also proposed to, 
within 30 calendar days of DOE notifying the project proponent that the 
close-out meeting request has been accepted, convene the close-out 
meeting with the project proponent and all relevant Federal entities.
    DOE proposed in the NOPR to, within 15 calendar days after the 
close-out meeting, prepare and deliver a draft close-out meeting 
summary to the project proponent, relevant federal entities, and any 
non-Federal entities that participated in the meeting. In the NOPR, DOE 
provided a period of 15 calendar days after receipt of the draft close-
out meeting summary for relevant entities to review and provide 
corrections to DOE.
    In the NOPR, DOE proposed to, within 15 calendar days of the close 
of the 15-day review period, prepare a final close-out meeting summary 
that incorporates received corrections, as appropriate, and to 
incorporate the final summary into the consolidated administrative 
docket.
Summary of Public Comments
    DOE received comments from PIOs, SEIA, ClearPath, and AEU that 
expressed general support for DOE's proposed IIP Process timelines.
    Several commenters suggested specific changes to the IIP Process 
timelines proposed in the NOPR. Grid United and ACP recommended 
reducing the time between receipt of an initiation request and the date 
of the initial meeting to no more than 30 calendar days. NYTOs 
recommended that DOE adopt a 60-day maximum period between receipt of a 
review meeting request and the convening of the review meeting because 
a significant amount of the information would have already been 
reviewed as part of the initial meeting.
    ACEG suggested that DOE reduce the 45-day summary and report 
process after each of the three anchor meetings (initial meeting, the 
review meeting, and the close-out meeting) and further suggested that 
DOE require a real-time wrap-up at the end of each meeting during which 
DOE would provide a meeting summary and participating entities would 
immediately make any needed corrections. ACEG also recommended that DOE 
reduce the number of days between the initiation request and initial 
meeting to 15 days, and reduce the number of days between the close out 
meeting request and that meeting to 30 days. Grid United also suggested 
shortening the meeting summary process by emphasizing close-out and 
action item discussions at the meeting and designating a 15-day period, 
thereafter, for finalizing the meeting report.
    Several commenters requested more information on the total timeline 
for the IIP Process and the CITAP Program. ACP recommended that the IIP 
Process include a general timetable to ensure that it does not add 
unnecessary costs or delays. Similarly, ACEG and CEBA recommended that 
the rule establish a presumptive one-year limit for completion of the 
IIP Process. ACORE commented that it supports ACEG's recommendation 
that DOE commit that any transmission project will be fully authorized 
in under three years and not longer than five years (from initiation of 
the pre-application process through issuance of all required Federal 
authorizations, including any required notice to proceed). CEBA argued 
that, ideally, the IIP Process and application process, including all 
environmental review procedures, would be completed within three years. 
CEBA added that DOE should work with the project developer on a joint 
schedule that may better accommodate the unique nature of the proposed 
project. Similarly, ClearPath suggested that the IIP Process timeline 
in the rule could serve as a baseline and that DOE should allow a 
project proponent to submit a proposed IIP Process schedule. EDF noted 
that the IIP Process could take more than one year given the lack of 
specific deadlines for specific IIP Process steps. EDF stated that 
there are IIP Process requirements such as the project participation 
plan that require significant effort and time to develop and that this 
development time is not captured in the IIP Process schedule. EDF 
recommended that DOE consider specifying a time period for when a 
developer must resubmit its review meeting request and close-out 
meeting request if either request does not meet the specified 
requirements.
    CEBA noted that the burden of completing the IIP Process in a 
timely manner is highly dependent on the level of effort and resources 
brought to bear by the project proponent and suggested that DOE should 
anticipate and recognize a broad diversity of project proposals and 
afford maximum flexibility for the developer. CEBA further encouraged 
DOE to ensure that the IIP Process does not become too complicated and 
time consuming, which could undermine the objective reflected in recent 
law to shorten the Federal authorization process. Gallatin Power stated 
that a lack of structure could allow for the permitting timelines to 
remain the same because timeline uncertainty would be shifted to before 
the start of the rule's proposed two-year NEPA deadline.
    PJM noted that although the NOPR describes the CITAP Program 
deadlines as ``binding,'' the May 2023 MOU contemplates a process to 
modify the project-specific deadlines. PJM believes that due to this 
and the fact that the extensive, mandatory IIP Process is not factored 
into the two-year timeline, the actual review and approval process will 
most likely take longer than two years. Hence, PJM requested that DOE 
carefully reexamine that the proposed revisions will actually aid in 
accelerating the current process in a way that will ensure that, at a 
minimum, the CITAP Program is able, in all but the most unusual of 
cases, to be completed within the two-year time frame or less.
    Four commenters, NYTOs, Grid United, ACEG, and ClearPath, expressed 
concern over the lack of a deadline for DOE to issue the NOI. Grid 
United recommended that the presumptive deadline should be 90 days 
after the

[[Page 35333]]

close-out meeting. The NYTOs recommended a presumptive deadline of 45 
days after either the close-out meeting or the project proponent's 
completion of applicable filing procedures for each involved Federal 
agency. ACEG suggested that DOE require the NOI to be issued within 90 
days of the project proponent filing all applications and resource 
reports. ACP recommended that DOE ensure that as little time as 
possible elapses between submittal of an application for an EIS Scoping 
NOI, and the subsequent publication in the Federal Register.
DOE Response
    This final rule makes several revisions to the DOE decision-making 
timelines that reduce the total time for DOE reviews and responses in 
the IIP Process by 55 days and the total time for all IIP Process steps 
by 100 days. DOE also revises this final rule to establish a deadline 
for DOE and any NEPA joint lead agency to issue an NOI to prepare an 
environmental review document for the proposed project. That deadline 
is established as within 90 days of the later of the IIP Process close-
out meeting or the receipt of a complete application for a Federal 
authorization for which NEPA review will be required. DOE makes no 
revisions to establish timelines for project proponents or to set a 
timeline for the IIP Process or overall CITAP Program. DOE recognizes 
that some of the IIP Process is within the government's control, and, 
where reasonable, for those pieces of the process this final rule 
adopts shorter timelines. For other pieces of the process, however, the 
pace is dictated by the project proponent (or factors outside anyone's 
control, like inclement weather). For those pieces, DOE has not set 
timelines.
    Regarding reducing time between meeting requests and meeting 
convenings, DOE makes several revisions. DOE agrees that the deadlines 
for determining the sufficiency of the initiation request and convening 
the initial meeting can be moved forward to streamline evaluation and 
coordination. To simplify the initiation request review and reduce the 
timeline, in this final rule DOE is combining the deadline for 
providing notice to Federal and non-Federal entities under Sec.  
900.5(f) of the NOPR with the deadline for providing notice of the 
sufficiency determination. Further, this final rule reduces the 
timeline for making a sufficiency determination on the initiation 
request from 30 calendar days after receiving the initiation request to 
20 calendar days. Finally, DOE revises the timeline for convening the 
initial meeting from 30 calendar days after providing notice of the 
sufficiency determination to 15 calendar days. In sum, the revisions 
reduce the maximum time period between receiving the initiation request 
and the initial meeting from 60 calendar days to 35 calendar days.
    DOE also agrees that the other IIP Process meetings can be convened 
in less time. Accordingly, the final rule revises the timeline for 
convening the review meeting and close-out meeting from within 30 
calendar days of sufficiency determination to within 15 calendar days. 
Regarding NYTO's comment that the time between a review meeting request 
and the review meeting could be reduced, in this final rule DOE 
shortens the period from 90 days to 75 days by convening the review 
meeting within 15 days rather than 30 days. However, DOE maintains the 
review period for the meeting request at a maximum of 60 days because 
DOE and the relevant Federal and relevant non-Federal entities will be 
reviewing both the meeting request and the draft submission of the 13 
resource reports, which will be substantial and will benefit from 
careful review. The review meeting timeline may be significantly 
reduced if the project proponent chooses to submit resource reports in 
advance, and communicates with DOE, as provided for in the IIP Process.
    DOE declines to adopt an immediate meeting summary review process 
as suggested by ACEG and Grid United because the content of each of the 
meetings is likely to be substantial, with multiple subject matter 
experts likely to attend from the relevant Federal entities and 
relevant non-Federal entities. DOE does not agree that immediate 
summaries will adequately capture an initial draft of the meeting 
outcomes. DOE also wishes to clarify that the meeting summary timelines 
do not add to the total time of the IIP Process because they are not 
precursors to any subsequent milestones. That is, while DOE is 
preparing summaries of each meeting, preparation or revisions to the 
resource reports or other materials needed for subsequent IIP Process 
steps can and should continue. Nonetheless, DOE does agree that these 
timelines should be reduced. Consequently, this final rule changes the 
deadline for DOE to deliver a meeting summary from 15 calendar days 
after the meeting to 10 calendar days after the meeting, for all three 
of the IIP Process meetings. Similarly, this final rule shortens the 
deadline for a project proponent and other entities to review the 
meeting summary from 15 calendar days after receiving the summary to 10 
calendar days after receiving the summary. Finally, the deadline for 
DOE to provide the final meeting summary is changed from 15 calendar 
days after the period for corrections to 10 calendar days after the 
period for corrections. DOE notes that since these deadlines are 
expressed as calendar days, not work days, DOE is declining additional 
reductions to ensure the expectations can be met. In sum, the revisions 
reduce the maximum time period between the conclusion of an IIP Process 
meeting and the finalization of the meeting summary from 45 calendar 
days to 30 calendar days.
    In response to comments requesting a general timetable or 
presumptive timeline for the IIP Process or the CITAP Program, DOE 
makes no changes in this final rule. In the proposed rule and confirmed 
here, DOE provides decision-making timelines for DOE's responsibilities 
in the IIP Process, leaving the timing of project proponent actions to 
trigger the next milestone flexible to account for differences in 
projects. When factoring the changes described above, the maximum total 
time for DOE reviews and responses in the IIP Process in this final 
rule is 185 days. Based on that timeline for DOE decision-making, DOE 
expects that a prepared and responsive project proponent could readily 
complete the IIP Process within a year.
    DOE does not agree that this final rule should set a total time for 
the IIP Process or CITAP Program. DOE has chosen to set expeditious 
timelines for the actions it and its fellow agencies can control. But 
the time required for each IIP process will ultimately depend on the 
needs and capabilities of the project proponent. Some projects will be 
able to move quickly and complete the process well within a year, while 
others may need more time. Even the best-prepared project proponents 
may need time to accommodate re-routing or design changes that result 
from unforeseen developments in the land acquisition process, the 
interconnection process, or other activities that they pursue in 
parallel to the IIP Process and that are not entirely within their 
control. DOE makes no revisions to establish timelines for project 
proponents to resubmit materials in response to EDF's request to 
accommodate project proponents with different capabilities. DOE is also 
declining to make revisions in response to ClearPath's or CEBA's 
recommendations to allow for individualized IIP Process schedules; 
again, the overall schedule for the IIP Process will ultimately be 
determined by the project proponent. Regarding PJM's comment that the 
IIP Process is not accounted for in the two-year

[[Page 35334]]

schedule described in the 2023 MOU, DOE confirms that this is accurate 
and reflects the agreement in the 2023 MOU. DOE clarifies that the two-
year timeline begins with the publication of an NOI to prepare an 
environmental review document; the IIP Process is intended to precede 
the publication of the NOI. As discussed in this section and section 
VI.H addressing the standard schedule and project-specific schedules, 
DOE has reviewed the timelines set out in this rule and modified 
certain timelines in the IIP Process to further streamline where 
appropriate.
    In response to comments requesting a timeline for NOI issuance, DOE 
revises this final rule to state that DOE will issue an NOI within 90 
days of the later of the IIP Process close-out meeting or the receipt 
of a complete application for a Federal authorization for which NEPA 
review will be required. This 90-day timeline aligns with recommended 
performance schedules established by the Federal Permitting Improvement 
Steering Council (FPISC). DOE does not adopt the recommendation to time 
the issuance of the NOI on the receipt of all applications, because 
some applications may require more information or project development 
before filing. For instance, both the FPISC-recommended performance 
schedules \8\ and DOE's draft standard schedule indicate that 
applications for Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) (CWA) or 
Rivers and Harbors Act (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.) permit applications may 
be filed after the NOI is issued.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ ``Recommended Performance Schedules.'' Permitting Dashboard: 
Federal Infrastructure Projects, FEDERAL PERMITTING IMPROVEMENT 
STEERING COUNCIL, Nov. 2023, www.permits.performance.gov/sites/permits.dot.gov/files/2023-11/RPS_November%202023.pdf.
    \9\ ``Draft Standard Schedule.'' Grid Deployment Office, United 
States Department of Energy, Aug. 2023, www.energy.gov/sites/default/files/2023-08/CITAP-Standard-Schedule-Draft.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

G. IIP Process Initiation Request

DOE's Proposal
    To participate in the CITAP Program, DOE proposed to require a 
project proponent to submit an IIP Process initiation request to DOE 
that included a summary of the qualifying project; associated maps, 
geospatial information, and studies (provided in electronic format); a 
project participation plan; and 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)).
Summary of Public Comments
    DOE received two comments on the contents of the initiation request 
for the IIP Process. LTA recommended that DOE add sufficient and 
satisfactory title work for the real property through which an electric 
transmission facility will pass to the list of required materials for 
an initiation request in order to identify conserved lands. ACEG stated 
that additional clarity is needed on how the CITAP program will align 
with FAST-41 and stated that a project proponent might not be able to 
state whether the project is covered under FAST-41 in the IIP Process 
initiation request. ACEG also stated it is unclear how DOE will 
coordinate with FPISC if the project is covered under the CITAP Program 
and FAST-41.
DOE Response
    In this final rule DOE maintains the required initiation request 
materials proposed in the NOPR with no revisions.
    In response to the request to add title work to the requirements, 
DOE does not make this revision because DOE believes this would be 
overly burdensome on the project proponent at the initiation stage of 
the IIP Process, when a project proponent may not have a finalized 
route.
    In response to the request for more information on alignment with 
FAST-41, DOE first provides clarification on the provision in the 
proposed rule. In the proposed rule, DOE would request the status of a 
project under FAST-41 at the time of the initiation request. But this 
provision would not ask the project proponent to speculate as to 
whether the project may be covered in the future. DOE believes the 
project proponent will be able to state if the project has applied for 
coverage under FAST-41 and if a coverage determination has been made at 
the time of the initiation request, and therefore DOE makes no changes 
in this final rule. Additionally, DOE provides no revisions regarding 
coordination with the Permitting Council because, as noted by the 
commenter, a project's FAST-41 status may change during the CITAP 
Program and therefore DOE expects that coordination between the 
Permitting Council and DOE will vary on a project-by-project basis. 
Examples of such coordination are described in the 2023 MOU, and DOE 
designed the CITAP Program timelines to work in harmony with the 
Permitting Council processes accordingly.

H. Standard and Project-Specific Schedules

DOE's Proposal
    In the NOPR, DOE proposed to establish intermediate milestones and 
ultimate deadlines for Federal authorizations and related environmental 
reviews through the introduction of standard and project-specific 
schedules in accordance with the terms of FPA section 216(h)(4) and of 
the 2023 MOU. Specifically, DOE proposed to periodically publish a 
standard schedule identifying the steps needed to complete decisions on 
all Federal environmental reviews and authorizations for a qualifying 
project along with the recommended timing for each step. In addition, 
DOE proposed to establish project-specific schedules for each project 
participating in the IIP Process, to set binding deadlines by which 
Federal authorizations and related environmental reviews for a 
particular project must be completed. DOE proposed to base the project-
specific schedule on the standard schedule, to develop it in 
consultation with the project proponent and other Federal agencies, and 
to finalize it at the conclusion of the IIP Process.
Summary of Public Comments
    DOE received several comments regarding the standard schedule and 
the development of project-specific schedules. Two commenters supported 
these provisions. The State of Colorado Governor's Office stated its 
belief that the standard schedule and the project-specific schedule 
will provide added flexibility to each project and expressed hope that 
doing so will minimize the time of the approval process. ClearPath 
expressed its support for the development of the standard schedule to 
serve as a baseline for developing project-specific schedules.
    Three commenters raised concerns that the two-year timeline in the 
standard schedule and presumed for the project-specific schedules was 
too long, and a fourth commenter, PJM, commented in favor of the two-
year timeline, but expressed concerns that it may still not adequately 
expedite the Federal permitting process. OSPA stated that the proposed 
two-year EIS process is still too long. Alan Leiserson recommended that 
the standard schedule deadline should be set at one year, or as soon 
thereafter as practicable, to be consistent with section 216(h). AEP 
recommended setting one-year timelines for environmental assessments 
and two years for environmental impact statements. PJM proposed that 
DOE clarify in the proposed revisions that

[[Page 35335]]

while developing the binding, project-specific milestones the relevant 
agencies will endeavor to shorten the two-year timeline based on the 
proposed project's scope and location in conjunction with the relevant 
statutory requirements.
    On the other hand, two commenters raised concerns that the two-year 
timeline was too short. CBD cautioned against setting any timelines for 
environmental reviews because it could cause agencies to cut corners 
and result in increased opposition to proposed projects. Similarly, 
AZGFD expressed concerns that expediting the approval process to 
facilitate rapid transmission infrastructure development may have 
unforeseen impacts on wildlife resources. AZGFD argued that although 
establishing a standard schedule would help in streamlining the 
process, some projects might require additional time for completion of 
the NEPA analysis and identification of appropriate conservation 
measures. AZGFD encouraged DOE to have provisions for independent 
process-specific timeframes, rather than a standard schedule, to allow 
adequate time for evaluation and assessment of potential impacts. AZGFD 
requested DOE to provide clear guidelines on establishment of review 
times for cooperating or participating agencies with statutory 
authority or special expertise related to proposed actions. AZGFD 
further mentioned that it is unclear whether the proposed two-year 
timeframe applies to the IIP Process, the NEPA process, or the combined 
process.
    Three commenters suggested the project proponent provide more input 
into the development of the project-specific schedule. ClearPath 
recommended that DOE allow project proponents to propose a project-
specific schedule. Similarly, ACEG and Grid United proposed that the 
project proponent have the opportunity to provide DOE and the relevant 
entities with a draft project-specific schedule before the initial 
meeting, which would be discussed at the initial meeting. Grid United 
also suggested requiring ongoing consultation between the project 
proponent, DOE, and the relevant agencies as part of finalizing the 
project-specific schedule. PJM suggested that DOE include a provision 
for revisiting the CITAP Program at least every two years to gauge 
whether the process is meeting its intended goals.
DOE Response
    In this final rule, DOE retains without revision the proposal in 
the NOPR to publish a standard schedule for completing environmental 
review and decision making for Federal authorizations for qualifying 
projects within two-years and to develop a proposed schedule with the 
NEPA joint lead agency and the relevant Federal entities on a project-
specific basis during the IIP Process.
    Regarding requests to reduce the two-year time frame to complete 
environmental reviews, DOE makes no changes to this final rule because 
DOE maintains its conviction that, as a general matter, for 
transmission projects of the type that meet the qualifying project 
definition, a two-year timeframe is the shortest practicable length of 
time necessary to consider applications for authorizations under 
relevant Federal laws and complete the necessary environmental reviews. 
Accordingly, DOE concludes that a two-year timeline is likely to be 
consistent with DOE's statutory obligations under FPA section 216(h). 
However, DOE notes that the rule does not preclude DOE, in consultation 
with relevant agencies, from setting project-specific timelines that 
are shorter than the two-year timeline, should such a timeline be 
practicable.
    Regarding concerns that the two-year timeframe is too short and 
could reduce the quality of environmental review or impact wildlife 
resources, DOE makes no changes to final rule because the CITAP Program 
does not alter any Federal environmental review standards or 
responsibilities towards wildlife resources. Additionally, this two-
year timeline is consistent with the timelines established by the 
Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023. Further, DOE notes that the standard 
schedule is a general framework for environmental review and 
authorizations, but that the proposed and now this final rule require 
that DOE develop a schedule specific to each project that addresses the 
unique permitting and review requirements for that project. In 
addition, as explained in the proposed rule, DOE anticipates that the 
IIP Process will inform the environmental review process, such that a 
two-year timeline is reasonable. DOE believes this structure 
sufficiently addresses AZGFD's concerns.
    Regarding the request to establish a standard schedule for EAs, DOE 
makes no changes to this final rule because the CITAP Program focuses 
DOE resources on projects expecting to complete an EIS, and 
adjustments, including to schedules, for any project requiring an EA 
will be addressed on a project-specific basis. Accordingly, DOE finds 
it unnecessary to establish a timeline for EAs in the text of this 
final rule but notes that the rule does not prevent DOE from publishing 
a standard schedule for EAs if the agency finds it necessary.
    Regarding the suggestions that DOE allow the project proponent to 
propose a project-specific schedule or provide additional opportunities 
for the project proponent to discuss the project-specific schedule with 
DOE and the relevant Federal entities, DOE notes that nothing in the 
rule prevents the project proponent from proposing a schedule but DOE 
maintains the statutory authority to set and maintain the schedule. 
Additionally, as proposed and finalized here, DOE requires the project 
proponent to submit information on the intended or desired timelines 
for various Federal applications as part of each meeting request during 
the IIP Process. DOE is required to present a proposed project-specific 
schedule at the review meeting and a final project-specific schedule at 
the close-out meeting. Project proponents are encouraged to communicate 
with DOE and relevant entities throughout the IIP Process. Project 
proponents are welcome to submit any information they believe will help 
DOE create the project-specific schedule, including a draft schedule, 
through any of these mechanisms. DOE believes these requirements 
provide sufficient opportunity for the project proponent to give input 
on the schedule and therefore makes no changes to the rule in response 
to these comments.
    In response to PJM's suggestion that DOE revisit the CITAP Program 
every two years, DOE makes no revisions in this final rule. DOE will 
evaluate the CITAP Program as appropriate, which may be based on time, 
the number of projects DOE has coordinated in the process, or other 
relevant factors.

I. Selection of NEPA Lead and Joint Lead Agencies and Environmental 
Review

DOE's Proposal
    Section 216(h)(2) of the FPA authorizes DOE to act as the lead 
agency to coordinate Federal authorizations and related environmental 
reviews required to site an interstate electric transmission facility. 
DOE proposed in the NOPR that DOE serve as the NEPA lead agency to 
prepare an EIS to serve the needs of all relevant entities. In the 
NOPR, DOE proposed that a NEPA joint lead agency may be designated no 
later than the IIP Process review meeting. The NEPA joint lead agency, 
if any, would be the Federal entity with the most significant interest 
in the management of the Federal lands or waters that would be 
traversed or affected by the qualifying project, and DOE would make 
this determination in consultation with all Federal entities that 
manage Federal

[[Page 35336]]

lands or waters affected. The proposed rule also provided that for all 
qualifying projects, DOE and the relevant Federal entity or entities 
would serve as co-lead agencies for consultation under the ESA and for 
compliance with section 106 of the NHPA.
    After the IIP Process close-out meeting and once an application has 
been received in accordance with the project-specific schedule, the 
proposed rule would require DOE and the NEPA joint lead agency to 
prepare an EIS for the qualifying project, which is meant to serve the 
needs of all relevant Federal entities. The proposed rule would also 
require DOE and the NEPA joint lead agency to consider the materials 
developed throughout the IIP Process; consult with relevant Federal 
entities and relevant non-Federal entities; draft the EIS, working with 
contractors, as appropriate; publish all completed environmental review 
documents; and identify the full scope of alternatives for analysis in 
consultation with the relevant Federal entities.
    Finally, the proposed rule would also require the Federal entities 
or non-Federal entities that are responsible for issuing a Federal 
authorization for the qualifying project to identify all information 
and analysis needed to make the authorization decision, identify all 
alternatives that need to be included, and to use the EIS as the basis 
for their Federal authorization decision on the qualifying project to 
the extent permitted by law.
Summary of Public Comments
    DOE received several comments addressing NEPA lead and joint lead 
designation and the environmental review DOE will undertake following 
the IIP Process.
    Regarding the proposal to establish DOE as the NEPA lead agency, 
PJM and the State of Colorado Governor's Office expressed support. The 
State of Colorado Governor's Office noted that DOE as the lead NEPA 
agency could effectively lead an iterative, interagency process to 
ensure applications for Federal authorizations are ready for review and 
can meet the specified timelines. It also noted that having one agency 
leading the NEPA process reduces duplication of work and improves 
efficiency.
    DOE received comments from CBD, PIOs, and Gallatin Power regarding 
the process for designation of a joint lead agency. CBD expressed 
concern that DOE would not have the expertise to evaluate impacts of 
transmission projects on ecosystems, species, and the environment, and 
recommended that the rules should require the designation of a land use 
agency as the NEPA joint lead agency. Gallatin Power commented that DOE 
should designate a joint lead agency that has experience permitting 
transmission projects during the promulgation of the rule and should 
implement a practice of identifying a joint lead agency prior to an IIP 
Initial Meeting instead of after the completion of the IIP Process. 
Gallatin Power argues that these joint lead agency designations will 
allow DOE to rely on Federal agencies with substantial experience in 
permitting and enable DOE to expedite approvals through the adoption of 
invaluable insights and best practices. PIOs challenged the proposed 
rule's assumption that only one agency can serve as a joint lead agency 
on the basis that the assumption is a departure from the statute and 
CEQ regulations both of which allow multiple agencies to serve as 
``joint lead agencies.'' PIOs encouraged DOE to consider whether 
allowing multiple joint lead agencies could better comport with NEPA 
and CEQ regulations and better realize the proposed rule's goal of 
improving efficiency in Federal analysis and decision-making.
    Three commenters suggested that the CITAP Program issue a joint 
record of decision for projects. CATF, PIOs, and SEIA recommended that 
DOE should ensure that the CITAP Program is in alignment with the 
congressional direction and best practices for NEPA. They recommended 
that DOE provide that, where feasible, agency decisions should be 
issued together in a joint record of decision, or provide greater 
clarity as to why DOE declines to require a joint record of decision. 
These commenters noted that requiring a joint record of decision aligns 
with recent revisions to NEPA and CEQ's NEPA regulations and promotes 
efficiency and coordination. They also suggested that a joint record of 
decision effectuates Congressional direction that the basis for all 
decisions under Federal law use DOE's environmental review and reduces 
confusion about how to seek judicial review.
    Multiple commenters submitted comments on the scope of 
environmental reviews and considerations. AEP agreed that DOE should 
carry out its statutory obligation to prepare a single EIS sufficient 
for the purposes of all Federal authorizations necessary to site a 
qualifying project. AEP further added that, to the extent practicable, 
the EIS should also include any relevant information to satisfy state 
permitting requirements to avoid duplication of reporting requirements. 
PIOs noted that the rule's inclusion of a requirement to assess climate 
impacts is well-founded in NEPA's plain text, its implementing 
regulations, authoritative guidance, and judicial precedent. PIOs 
further stated that DOE has both the authority and the responsibility 
to require assessments of climate related impacts, as NEPA's plain text 
explicitly includes ``reasonable foreseeable environment effects.'' 
However, PIOs also stated that DOE should use existing regulatory and 
scientific tools that CEQ makes available to assist other Federal 
agencies with their legally required analysis, and that the resulting 
analysis of climate impacts need not be perfect. AZGFD noted that when 
completing the IIP Process and developing the EIS, it is important to 
ensure that adequate consideration is given to wildlife and wildlife 
habitat resources along the project route, that effects to those 
resources and areas are not generalized for the full project route, and 
that, as necessary, suitable conservation measures are identified for 
specific areas and resources. AZGFD stated that it is also important to 
consider the varying purposes, management plans, and land use goals or 
mandates for lands managed by different Federal agencies. Hence, AZGFD 
requested further information on how the proposed rule and development 
of a single EIS by DOE will ensure that wildlife and wildlife habitat 
resources are considered and accommodated through the IIP Process. ACP 
mentioned that CEQ is simultaneously conducting revisions to its 
regulations implementing NEPA and suggested that DOE should ensure that 
the CITAP Program and any potential DOE rulemaking aligns with CEQ's 
NEPA rulemaking.
    DOE received multiple recommendations for streamlining 
environmental review. OSPA asserted that a Programmatic Environmental 
Impact Statement (PEIS) would dramatically speed the deployment of 
transmission in chronically underserved areas of the Upper Great 
Plains. Similarly, ACP suggested that DOE develop resource-specific 
programmatic NEPA reviews to reduce the administrative burden and legal 
risk of project-specific reviews. AEP recommended allowing for greater 
use of programmatic reviews and categorical exclusions. Alan Leiserson 
said DOE should use more categorical exclusions for clean energy 
projects. AEP recommended modifying thresholds for Federal agencies 
when determining what requires development of an environmental 
document. OSPA additionally recommended that DOE should expressly make 
EIS underlying

[[Page 35337]]

data available to Federal and non-Federal permitting entities for 
purposes of developing a PEIS. OSPA recommended that THPOs explicitly 
have access to this data as well as well as any consultants hired by 
THPOs.
    Three commenters suggested DOE include statements about what 
information or resources could be used in the environmental review. ACP 
argued that the resource reports are useful beyond the IIP Process and 
so this final rule should require that materials and findings in 
resource reports be used in the NEPA EIS process. ACP further noted 
that ideally this authority for consideration of the resource reports 
would be DOE's alone rather than DOE and the joint lead agency. AEP 
recommended stating that Federal agencies can use existing data and 
studies in determining when to develop an environmental document. AEP 
also recommended allowing for greater project proponent involvement in 
preparing environmental documents. DOE received the following 
additional comments:
    CBD recommended that DOE prioritize development on already degraded 
lands, existing rights of way, and other areas where communities will 
not object to new infrastructure. ACORE noted that there may be 
projects that do not participate in the CITAP Program, but that will 
still have DOE as the lead agency. Accordingly, ACORE recommended that 
DOE clarify which of CEQ's NEPA provisions, including timing 
requirements, would apply to these types of projects.
DOE Response
    In this final rule, DOE confirms its role as NEPA lead agency, the 
process for selecting a joint lead agency, and the responsibilities DOE 
will undertake for environmental review, with minor revisions in 
response to these comments. DOE revises this final rule to state that 
DOE and relevant Federal entities shall issue, except where 
inappropriate or inefficient, a joint decision document.
    Regarding the joint lead agency selection process, DOE makes no 
revisions in response to these comments. As proposed and confirmed 
here, the designation of a joint lead agency will be determined by DOE 
and Federal entities that manage Federal lands or waters by no later 
than the IIP Process review meeting. DOE believes the process for 
designating a joint lead, if any, is consistent with NEPA implementing 
regulations and provides flexibility to identify the relevant expertise 
among the relevant entities. Further, since the rule requires DOE to 
engage Federal land- and water-management agencies in the process, DOE 
is not persuaded that including a joint lead requirement is necessary, 
as suggested by CBD and Gallatin Power, and instead believes it is best 
to leave that determination up to the Federal entities on a project-
specific basis. Regarding the timing of the designation, DOE notes that 
this final rule confirms the same timing as the proposed rule, 
requiring the designation by the review meeting, not the completion of 
the IIP Process as indicated by the commenter. DOE does not agree that 
a designation requirement is appropriate before the initial meeting 
because DOE believes the initial meeting provides important project 
information that could inform any joint lead designation. In response 
to the PIO's comment about multiple joint leads, DOE maintains the 
presumption in the rule that no more than one joint lead agency will be 
designated to ensure efficiency and effectiveness, which will enable 
DOE to meet its coordination and scheduling obligations under FPA 
section 216(h).
    In response to the recommendation that the CITAP Program issue 
joint records of decision, DOE agrees with the commenters that this 
would be consistent with NEPA as amended by the Fiscal Responsibility 
Act of 2023. DOE also agrees that a policy in favor of joint records of 
decision would be consistent with the purpose of FPA section 216(h) and 
would enhance DOE's coordinating function. Accordingly, DOE revises 
this final rule to provide that, except where inappropriate or 
inefficient, the Federal agencies shall issue a joint record of 
decision that includes all relevant Federal authorizations and, to 
ensure consistency with the requirements of section 216(h), includes, 
if applicable, the determination by the Secretary of Energy of a 
duration for each land use authorization issued under section 
216(h)(8)(A)(i).
    Regarding the scope of environmental reviews, DOE makes no changes 
to this final rule because the rule as proposed did not change any of 
DOE or other Federal entities' responsibilities to comply with existing 
NEPA regulations and environmental review laws. DOE will endeavor to 
incorporate State requirements in the environmental review and makes no 
revisions to address this because DOE believes this will be 
accomplished through the inclusion of relevant non-Federal entities in 
the IIP Process. Similarly, DOE will endeavor to follow NEPA best 
practices and use available tools and does not find that these comments 
require any revisions to the rule.
    Regarding ACP's request to require the use of resource reports in 
the preparation of the environmental review document, AEP's request 
that DOE include a provision that existing data can be used, and AEP's 
recommendation that DOE allow for greater project proponent involvement 
in preparing environmental documents, DOE makes no changes in this 
final rule. Data requirements for environmental reviews are outside of 
scope of this rulemaking, which concerns only the implementation of 
DOE's coordinating authority under FPA section 216(h) and does not 
address the substance of NEPA compliance by DOE or its fellow agencies. 
But DOE reiterates that the purpose of the resource reports is to 
inform environmental review (and agency authorizations), and affirms 
its commitment to adhering to best practices for leveraging existing 
data sources. Comments suggesting revised environmental review 
thresholds, the use of categorical exclusions, and PEISs, are likewise 
outside the scope of this rulemaking.
    In response to CBD's request that DOE prioritize development on 
already degraded lands, DOE makes no changes to this final rule as this 
is beyond the scope of DOE's coordinating authority. While DOE and its 
fellow agencies may encourage development on degraded lands, DOE lacks 
authority to impose any requirement to that effect in the final rule. 
In response to ACORE's request for more information on how DOE will 
serve as lead agency for projects that are not in the CITAP Program, 
DOE makes no changes to this final rule as this is beyond the scope of 
the rulemaking, which is the implementation of DOE's coordinating 
authority under FPA section 216(h).

J. Section 106 of the NHPA

DOE's Proposal
    In the NOPR, DOE explained that 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 section 106 of the NHPA. DOE 
also explained that this initial information-gathering phase precedes 
the formal consultation process under section 106. DOE proposed to 
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 proposed to make this determination

[[Page 35338]]

within 45 days of the IIP Process review meeting. Finally, DOE affirmed 
that DOE would remain legally responsible for all findings and 
determinations charged to the agency under section 106.
Summary of Public Comments
    DOE received multiple comments related to section 106 of the NHPA. 
First, multiple commenters requested clarification regarding whether, 
and the extent to which, the resource reports would fulfill agencies' 
and project proponents' section 106 obligations. For instance, the 
Kentucky SHPO sought clarification of whether the resource reports will 
serve as only background information, or if they are intended to be 
utilized by the project proponent or agencies for section 106 
consultation materials, as their purpose would affect DOE's ability to 
impose page limits. It also stated that it is unclear whether DOE 
proposes to frontload NPS National Historic Landmarks (NHL) review 
under section 106, and that doing so is not feasible from a regulatory 
standpoint. The NM SHPO commented that it is not clear, as proposed, 
whether the rule authorizes the project proponent to initiate 
consultation with the SHPO and elicit comments on the resource reports, 
and noted that it may not be possible to account for all of the section 
106 impacts of a project at the initiation stage. The NM SHPO suggested 
that this may need to be stipulated in a Programmatic Agreement and 
asked how other agency reviews will be conducted. Relatedly, the 
Arizona SHPO stated that DOE intends to authorize all project 
proponents to act on its behalf and with procedures that deviate from 
the standard 36 CFR 800 Subpart B compliance process, and hence it 
advised that DOE consult with the National Conference of State Historic 
Preservation Officers (NCSHPO), NATHPO, and ACHP to develop a CITAP 
Program Alternative in accordance with 36 CFR 800.14. DOE also received 
comments from the Delaware SHPO and NM SHPO suggesting that DOE consult 
with ACHP and other entities regarding NHPA compliance.
    DOE also received comments on the resource reports as they relate 
to section 106. The Delaware SHPO recommended that the requirements of 
the proposed ``Resource Report 4: Cultural Resources'' be explicitly 
defined as cultural resources identification and evaluation level 
surveys, determined necessary through consultation with consulting 
parties, that meet the relevant Secretary of the Interior Standards and 
applicable State and Tribal guidelines. The Delaware SHPO expressed 
concern that the provision in its current form might lead to a scenario 
wherein the project proponent could be required to redo cultural 
resource reports if initiation occurs after the submission and review 
of resource reports, which would cause duplication of effort, leading 
to unnecessary delays and frustration for all parties. Conversely, 
NATHPO and the Santa Rosa Rancheria Tachi Yokut Tribe expressed concern 
regarding a comment by Department of Energy staff because they believed 
it indicated that the Communities of Interest resource report would 
satisfy section 106 conditions for examining the impacts of projects on 
Tribal Nations' cultural resources and sacred places. The commenters 
also stated that the proposed resource reports are not a Program 
Alternative approved by the ACHP under 36 CFR 800 and cannot be used to 
satisfy DOE requirements under NHPA section 106.
    DOE received comments on the timing of the section 106 process in 
relation to the CITAP Program process. The Delaware SHPO noted that the 
current CITAP Program's schedule would cause the project to experience 
significant delays when complying with section 106 of NHPA. The 
Delaware SHPO explained that, as proposed, project proponents would be 
required to complete resource reports to allow DOE to determine whether 
there is an undertaking. But, the Delaware SHPO argued, the presence of 
historic properties is not a determining factor to establish an 
undertaking. Rather, the Delaware SHPO noted that, per 36 CFR 800.3(a) 
and 800.16(y), an undertaking is an action with a Federal nexus, which 
is the type of activity with the potential to cause an effect on 
historic property. The Delaware SHPO stated that all above-ground 
transmission lines eligible for the CITAP Program would be undertakings 
and the initiation of consultation should occur concurrently with or 
immediately after the first CITAP Program meeting for a project. This 
process would set up the project proponent, DOE, and all consulting 
parties to begin consultation on the level of survey needed to identify 
historic properties early in the process. The Delaware SHPO noted that 
earlier consultation will allow the project to meet CITAP and NEPA 
deadlines and further noted that, with larger transmission projects, 
multiple SHPOs and numerous consulting parties will be involved and 
that property access would need to be arranged for surveys and longer 
reports, all of which may require longer review times. In addition, if 
a memorandum of agreement is needed due to any adverse effects to 
historic properties, negotiating and executing such an agreement could 
be time-consuming.
    DOE received comments from the Arizona SHPO and the Kentucky SHPO 
indicating that only one agency could be selected as lead agency for 
section 106 consultations as the process did not allow for co-lead 
agencies.
    Finally, DOE received comments regarding SHPOs' resource 
constraints. The Arizona SHPO expressed concerns that due to staffing 
and budgeting constraints it would not have adequate resources to 
conduct preliminary review of NHPA section 106 for project proponents 
prior to the establishment of a Federal undertaking by Federal agency.
DOE Response
    In this final rule, DOE maintains the structure and purpose of the 
resource reports. DOE revises this final rule as discussed below to 
adjust the timeline for DOE to make a determination of an undertaking 
pursuant to section 106 and to designate DOE as the lead agency for 
section 106.
    DOE clarifies that the resource reports are not intended to fulfill 
the agencies' section 106 responsibilities. Instead, the information 
provided in the Cultural Resources resource report, and the other 
resource reports as applicable, will contribute to the satisfaction of 
DOE's and relevant Federal entities' obligations under section 106. As 
the lead agency for section 106, DOE remains legally responsible for 
all findings and determinations charged to the agency under section 
106. The function of the resource reports is to gather information to 
contribute to DOE's subsequent section 106 compliance. DOE appreciates 
that project proponents may not have access to all information required 
for DOE's section 106 compliance at the time the proponents submit 
their resource reports. This final rule adopts, as proposed, that a 
project proponent may file incomplete information but must address the 
reason for the omission. The final rule also provides the Director of 
the Grid Deployment Office the discretion to allow the project to 
proceed to the next milestone and provides that the Director of the 
Grid Deployment Office may waive requirements as appropriate, providing 
flexibility to the IIP Process to accommodate unique circumstances.
    Regarding the comments on particular resource reports, DOE declines 
to revise the definition of cultural resources in the Cultural 
Resources resource report

[[Page 35339]]

in this final rule. That resource report is intended to inform not only 
DOE's section 106 compliance but also the environmental review 
document. Given that the timing of consultation under section 106 may 
vary based on the project and that this resource report is intended to 
fulfill multiple purposes, DOE necessarily retains its broader scope. 
Additionally, as previously noted, neither the Communities of Interest 
resource report nor any other resource report is intended to fulfill 
DOE's or relevant Federal entities' obligations under section 106.
    As for the comments related to program alternatives, DOE submitted 
the proposed and final rules for interagency review under E.O. 12866 
and intends to work collaboratively with ACHP and other relevant 
entities to develop mechanisms for efficient and effective 
implementation of section 106, which may include program alternatives. 
DOE, however, does not modify this final rule to provide for a 
particular program alternative under the section 106 implementing 
regulations \10\ nor does DOE intend for the resource reports to serve 
as a program alternative; DOE wishes to inform its approach through 
initial implementation and further collaboration with relevant 
entities. DOE believes this part provides sufficient flexibility to 
allow for an appropriate alternative without specifying one at this 
time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See 36 CFR 800.14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE agrees that initiating the NHPA section 106 consultation 
process earlier than DOE had proposed may be feasible and beneficial 
for certain project proposals that are sufficiently mature for DOE to 
determine there is an undertaking pursuant to the regulations 
implementing section 106.\11\ DOE has accordingly revised this final 
rule to remove the requirement that DOE make the undertaking 
determination only after the IIP Process review meeting. As revised, 
the final rule allows DOE to make the determination at any point in the 
IIP Process, but no later than 10 calendar days following the close of 
the 10-day review period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See 36 CFR 800.3(a) and 800.16(y).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regarding resource constraint concerns, DOE understands the 
staffing and budgeting constraints that SHPOs and THPOs may face. DOE 
does not intend for the IIP Process to create additional or preliminary 
review requirements for SHPOs and THPOs, and has designed the IIP 
Process with the intention of avoiding doing so. Rather, the intent of 
the IIP Process is to align the NHPA section 106 review with other 
Federal permitting and authorization processes. DOE notes that SHPOs 
and THPOs may consult with DOE and other relevant Federal agencies as 
to the range of possible assistance and resources that may be 
available.
    Finally, DOE modifies this final rule to indicate that DOE intends 
to serve as lead agency for section 106 of the NHPA as section 106 does 
not provide for a co-lead agency. The modification aligns this final 
rule and regulatory path with section 106's statutory language and 
procedures.

K. Definitions

i. Affected Landowner
DOE's Proposal
    In the NOPR, DOE proposed to define ``affected landowner'' as 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.
Summary of Public Comments
    Commenters made multiple suggestions for revisions to the 
definition.
    ACP recommended that DOE use the term ``potentially impacted 
landowner'' instead of ``affected landowner,'' given that ``affected 
landowner'' might carry some implication of an obligation for 
compensation.
    ClearPath recommended that DOE adopt the definition of ``affected 
landowner'' used in FERC's natural gas pipeline permitting regulations 
and FERC's proposed rule for implementing section 216(b) of the FPA. 
ClearPath suggested that the effective use of ``affected landowner'' in 
FERC's natural gas pipeline permitting demonstrates that definition's 
legal durability and thereby bolsters the legal durability and 
predictability of this final rule.
    Some commenters recommended that DOE revise the distances included 
in the proposed definition of affected landowner. To that end, SEIA, 
for instance, expressed support for a rule that considers the proposed 
project scale, geographic considerations, and resource usage of 
landowners to determine if a landowner falls under an ``affected 
landowner.'' Niskanen Center described the definition of ``affected 
landowner'' as nebulous and thus impracticable and overly burdensome, 
and recommended proximity qualifiers and a measure of immediate impact 
to the definition. LTA recommended that the rule should move away from 
a one-size-fits-all distance for the definition of landowner, and 
instead require project proponents to engage with communities of 
interest to assist in identifying potential impacts to landowners and 
the distance within which notifications to landowners would be 
appropriate. LTA specifically proposed that DOE expand the definition 
of ``affected landowner'' to include areas that a community of interest 
has identified as having one or more resources likely to be impacted by 
a proposed project. Grid United commented that the specific distances 
expressed in the definition of ``analysis area'' were not standard for 
high voltage transmission lines and could result in unnecessary data 
collection, burdens, and complexity for the project. Grid United 
suggested lowering the distances in the definition to 500 feet and 
likewise recommended establishing 500 feet as a presumptive radius for 
identification of affected resources unless existing practices dictated 
otherwise. ACP commented that the 0.25-mile distance provided is both 
too broad and too rigid and proposed that DOE remove references to a 
particular distance from the definition and instead base the required 
distance on the physical characteristics of the project and resource 
evaluated in each report.
    Commenters also recommended that DOE include or omit certain 
considerations from the definition. LTA recommended that DOE remove the 
reference to county and city tax records because many owners of real 
property interests are not listed in these records. LTA also suggested 
that DOE explicitly include in the definition of ``affected landowner'' 
conservation easement holders and landowners whose viewshed or other 
ecosystem services may be impacted by the transmission facility. ACP 
requested that DOE explicitly exclude landowners affected through 
owning mineral estate property interests, given the possibility of a 
project involving broad areas of potentially unoccupied land, and 
exclude additional areas of potential construction work, including 
roads and ancillary facilities, that may be preliminary prior to 
completion of a NEPA review.
    Finally, PIOs recommended that DOE require project proponents to 
provide a landowner bill of rights in transmission permitting processes 
to ensure affected landowners are informed of their rights in dealings 
with the proponent and attached a draft landowner bill of rights they 
submitted for FERC's proposed backstop permitting rule for reference. 
PIOs outlined that the landowner bill of

[[Page 35340]]

rights should include any information on requirements to obtain party 
status prior to appeal, how to obtain such status, and if and how a 
party can participate in the presidential appeal process.
DOE Response
    In this final rule, DOE revises the definition of affected 
landowner, for the reasons described below, to the following:
    Potentially affected landowner means an owner of a real property 
interest that is potentially affected directly (e.g., crossed or used) 
or indirectly (e.g., changed in use) by a project right-of-way, 
potential route, or proposed ancillary or access site, as identified in 
Sec.  900.6.
    At the outset, DOE clarifies that the project proponent is 
responsible for identifying potentially affected landowners based on 
the definition provided in this final rule. Nevertheless, as provided 
in this final rule, the project proponent must provide, as part of the 
IIP Process, the methodology by which potentially affected landowners 
were identified, which will allow DOE to evaluate the completeness of 
the process. Additionally, while the project proponent makes this 
determination, this final rule provides avenues for communities of 
interest and stakeholders to comment on the proposed project and engage 
with the project proponent; this definition does not limit those 
avenues.
    DOE has also made edits to this definition in response to comments. 
First, DOE agrees with ACP that, at this stage, landowners are not 
necessarily affected, but are only ``potentially'' affected. 
Accordingly, DOE changes the defined term from ``affected landowner'' 
to ``potentially affected landowner'' and includes a reference to 
``potential indirect and direct effects'' in the new definition.
    Second, in response to ClearPath's comment, DOE has also revised 
the definition in this final rule to broaden how real property 
interests can be potentially impacted by the proposed project, which 
aligns more closely with FERC's definition of ``affected landowner.'' 
DOE declines to adopt the exact same definition as FERC, reflecting 
that FERC's permitting and siting rules do not have an identical 
purpose to this final rule, which is to coordinate Federal 
authorizations for transmission facilities.
    Relatedly, DOE agrees with the commenters that suggested DOE revise 
the distance referenced in the affected landowner definition. DOE 
agrees that in certain instances the distances in the proposed rule 
will be overinclusive and overly burdensome, but also that a one-size-
fits-all distance will not adequately capture all landowners that are 
potentially affected by the transmission project. Because a single 
distance does not provide sufficient flexibility to account for 
differences in projects, DOE declines to adopt the 500-foot presumptive 
distance proposed by Grid United. Instead, DOE has removed distances 
from the definition of ``potentially affected landowner,'' and provides 
that a potentially affected landowner is one whose real property 
interest is either potentially affected directly or indirectly by the 
proposed project. In addition, this final rule requires the project 
proponent to describe the methodology used to identify potentially 
affected landowners. This definition allows project proponents to more 
precisely identify landowners who are most likely to be potentially 
affected by the project, because those real property interests may not 
always align with the distances included in the proposed rule and any 
prescribed distances may be under or overinclusive depending on the 
particulars of a project.
    Additionally, DOE agrees with LTA's comment that the reference to 
county and city tax records should be removed. As LTA noted, tax 
records may not, depending on the circumstances, accurately include the 
potentially affected real property interests. Accordingly, DOE has 
revised this final rule to remove the requirement that the owner of the 
real property interests is one who is usually referenced in the most 
recent county or city tax records. However, this final rule does not 
preclude the project proponent from referencing recent tax records. DOE 
declines to require the involvement of communities of interest in the 
identification of potentially affected landowners because this is an 
unnecessary step for identifying real property interests. The term 
``potentially affected landowners'' is not intended to refer to all 
potential impacts; therefore, additional engagement on impacts of a 
proposed project is not needed to satisfy this definition. Stakeholders 
and communities of interest are among the terms that capture a broader 
scope of potential impacts. This final rule also does not preclude 
project proponents from involving communities of interest in this 
process.
    DOE also declines LTA's suggestion to include conservation easement 
holders and landowners whose viewshed or other ecosystem services may 
be impacted by the proposed electric transmission facility. DOE defines 
potentially affected landowners in the context of real property 
interests. In some cases, conservation easements may be considered a 
real property interest and certain landowners whose viewshed or other 
ecosystem services may be affected may fall within the definition of a 
potentially affected landowner, but DOE declines to require that 
project proponents always include these landowners since these 
landowners may not always be owners of real property interests that are 
potentially affected. Additionally, DOE has not adopted ACP's 
suggestion to explicitly exclude mineral interest holders from the 
definition, as notice to such parties is still important for 
understanding reasonably foreseeable effects related to mineral entry 
and exploration. Nor has DOE adopted ACP's recommendation to exclude 
additional areas of potential construction work, because these areas 
are potentially relevant for environmental review and these landowners 
could be affected by the project.
    Finally, DOE declines to require project proponents to provide a 
landowner bill of rights. DOE disagrees with PIOs that a landowner bill 
of rights is needed or useful for this process, because DOE's exercise 
of its authority under section 216(h) does not confer eminent domain 
authority. Although DOE declines to require the provision of a 
landowner bill of rights, in response to PIOs' request that such a bill 
of rights include information on the rehearing and review process and 
the presidential appeals process, DOE notes that these topics are 
discussed in Sections VI.O.i and ii of this document, respectively. 
However, in response to both PIOs and LTA, DOE encourages all 
interested parties to proactively engage transparently and in good 
faith with appropriate stakeholders, including potentially affected 
landowners, and may issue best practices on engagement as discussed in 
section VI.E of this document.
ii. Analysis Area
DOE's Proposal
    The NOPR did not provide a definition for ``analysis area'' nor did 
it use this specific term. However, DOE sought comment from the public 
on whether distances included in the proposed rule were appropriate, 
which informed the definition of this term and are discussed below.
Summary of Public Comments
    DOE requested specific comment on whether distances included in the

[[Page 35341]]

proposed rule were appropriate and received numerous recommendations on 
changes to distances in this final rule.
    ACEG commented that the 0.25-mile distance is too narrow in some 
contexts or overly broad in others (e.g., affected landowners), and 
that the distance should be determined by the impacts of the project. 
Pew Charitable Trusts recommended that DOE allow greater flexibility, 
stating that while the proposed distance comports with the distance 
FERC would use for project notification requirements in the context of 
National Interest Electric Transmission Corridors (NIETCs), some cases 
warrant a wider area of review, including in areas that include 
National Wildlife Refuges, designated wilderness areas, cultural 
resources, or indigenous sacred sites. Pew Charitable Trusts suggested 
that the distance proposal could be managed like the standard template 
schedule, which is open to change depending on the project.
    DOE received three comments specifically on the Land Use, 
Recreation, and Aesthetics resource report. LTA supported the use of a 
0.25-mile distance, but because the distance will vary based on the 
specifics of each project and site, proposed that project proponents 
also consider an area that a community of interest, including experts 
from local conservation organizations, has identified as having one or 
more resources likely to be impacted by a proposed project.
    PIOs submitted that whether 0.25 miles is a sufficient distance is 
largely dependent on the nature of the impacts that DOE is attempting 
to identify. PIOs stated that wilderness areas are particularly 
vulnerable to visual impacts and proposed that DOE use distances of 5-
10 miles for when considering visual impacts of proposed projects. 
Relatedly, PIOs noted that certain areas preserved for wildlife habitat 
may be vulnerable to adverse impacts from transmission projects at 
distances greater than 0.25 miles, and accordingly, recommended that 
areas with valuable habitat for migratory birds, such as National 
Wildlife Refuges, should generally be identified no less than 10 miles 
from the proposed transmission project, and that DOE should consult 
with the relevant agencies and organizations to identify appropriate 
distances.
    The CARE Coalition stated that the 0.25-mile distance in the Land 
Use, Recreation, and Aesthetics resource report is arbitrary and 
unsuitable for several of the resources listed in that section, 
including visual resources and wildlife habitat. Referencing research 
at Argonne National Laboratory, the CARE Coalition suggested that a 
minimum distance of 10 miles for 500 kV or greater lines and at least 
five miles for 230-500 kV lines be used to identify sensitive visual 
resources. Additionally, citing concerns over project impacts to bird 
species, the CARE Coalition recommended DOE require proponents to 
identify key habitats for migratory birds and mammals, such as National 
Parks and National Wildlife Refuges, within 10 miles of proposed 
projects or consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) to 
identify adequate distances for critical migratory bird nesting and 
stopover habitats, as well as for large mammal migration corridors.
    The CEC/CPUC also stated that a 0.25-mile distance is often too 
narrow and may not capture all indirect impacts, including visual 
impacts on National Historical Landmarks. CEC/CPUC recommended that 
distances should be developed with consideration to the scale and scope 
of the proposed project and the specific resources evaluated.
    The Arizona SHPO and CEC/CPUC proposed that DOE align distance 
requirements with the Area of Potential Effect (APE) under section 106 
of the NHPA. The Arizona SHPO recommended that DOE provide guidance to 
project proponents to develop study areas that conform to the NEPA 
definition of affected environment as applicable to resource type, and 
for cultural resource assessments, includes the definition of an APE. 
Relatedly, the Kentucky SHPO further noted that an APE of 0.25 miles 
may be acceptable, depending on the type of transmission activities 
proposed, whether it is new construction or a rebuild, the applicable 
SHPO's guidance/standards, and any known resources near the proposed 
project area. On the other hand, the NM SHPO stated that the 0.25-mile 
distance is not adequate to address effects to cultural resources and 
landscapes, National Historic Trails, and National Monuments, 
especially in western states where the viewshed is expansive.
DOE Response
    In this final rule, DOE removes the distances proposed, and adds a 
defined term, ``analysis area.'' This approach allows the participants 
in the IIP Process to determine the appropriate analysis area based on 
project-specific factors.
    DOE agrees with the many commenters who indicated the distances 
should allow for more flexibility. Accordingly, DOE has determined that 
specific distances should be removed from the final rule, as the 
appropriate distances for various analyses depend on the relevant 
physical characteristics and needs of the given project and resource at 
issue. Instead, as discussed in the revisions to Sec. Sec.  900.5 and 
900.8, DOE and the project proponent must, at the initial meeting, 
establish initial analysis areas for each resource as determined by 
project-specific factors like ecology, land use and ownership, and 
other physical characteristics of the landscape. The proposed analysis 
areas for each resource may then be refined and finalized during the 
IIP Process review meeting. DOE confirms that establishment of such 
analysis areas for wildlife, fish, and plant life will involve not only 
the project proponent but the appropriate Federal and non-Federal 
entities, like the USFWS and relevant State and local agencies, to 
ensure analysis areas are adequate and consistent with those agencies' 
requirements and appropriate guidance. Relatedly, DOE declines to align 
the distance requirements with the APE under section 106 of the NHPA or 
to add any other method of identifying distances, including relying on 
distances identified by communities of interest, in favor of providing 
greater flexibility for the reasons stated above. DOE notes that where 
a legal standard exists for defining the area of analysis for a 
particular resource, as in the case of the APE for historic properties, 
the determination of the analysis area for that resource will take into 
account that legal standard.
    DOE is adding the defined term ``analysis area'' to account for the 
removal of the distances, and provide a consistent use of terminology 
throughout the final rule that accounts for the project's 
characteristics and needs and the resources at issue. DOE defines 
analysis area to mean an area established for a resource report at the 
IIP Process initial meeting and modified at the IIP Process review 
meeting, as applicable. Discussion of specific uses of this term is 
included in section VII of this document.
iii. Communities of Interest
DOE's Proposal
    In the NOPR, DOE proposed to 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. In the NOPR, DOE also proposed to define communities 
of interest to include disadvantaged, fossil energy, rural, Tribal, 
indigenous, geographically proximate, or communities with environmental 
justice concerns that

[[Page 35342]]

could be affected by the qualifying project.
Summary of Public Comments
    DOE received multiple comments suggesting amendments or 
clarifications to the definition of ``communities of interest'' in the 
proposed rule.
    ClearPath opposed DOE's definition of communities of interest, 
commenting that the definition is ambiguous and lacks ``legal 
durability.'' ClearPath pointed specifically to the phrase 
``geographically proximate'' as ambiguous and commented that the 
phrase, ``communities with environmental justice concerns'' provides no 
methodology for project proponents to adequately identify these 
communities. Niskanen Center proposed that further guidance on the term 
might include precise parameters such as defining it as being within 
0.25 miles of a study corridor or potential route. Niskanen Center also 
indicated that the precise meaning of the terms ``disadvantaged,'' 
``fossil energy,'' ``rural,'' ``geographically proximate,'' or 
``communities with environmental justice concerns'' is unclear, 
potentially leading to confusion and litigation in the IIP Process and 
CITAP Program.
    EDF stated that the broad proposed definition of ``communities of 
interest'' could potentially overlook key differences among and within 
the identified communities. Referencing several White House commitments 
and executive orders concerning impacts on communities with 
environmental justice concerns, EDF advised DOE to ensure it carefully 
addresses the concerns of those communities in the proposed rule.
    PIOs lauded the proposed rule's definition of communities of 
interest for broadly including Indigenous communities. Similar to EDF's 
comments, PIOs maintained that DOE revise its definition of 
``communities of interest'' to better reflect environmental justice 
issues. PIOs recommended that DOE remove the term ``disadvantaged,'' 
specifically include ``communities of Color'' and ``low-income or low-
wealth communities'' in the definition, and capitalize the terms 
``Color'' and ``Indigenous.''
    PIOs also suggested that DOE clarify and ``equitably describe'' the 
definition of ``fossil energy'' and align the definition of 
``overburdened'' with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) EJ 
2020 Glossary. PIOs then urged DOE to specifically require project 
proponents to describe how they will reach out to communities of 
interest about mitigation and require the resource report to describe 
proposed measures or community concerns. PIOs also recommended that DOE 
require project proponents to solicit community comments regarding 
their preferred form of mitigation and to respond to those comments.
    Policy Integrity suggested that for project proponents to identify 
communities of interest more accurately--especially given that DOE does 
not define ``disadvantaged,'' ``fossil energy,'' ``rural,'' or 
``communities with ``environmental justice concerns''--DOE should 
provide administrable criteria, such as project proponents locating 
``disadvantaged'' communities via the Climate and Economic Justice 
Screening Tool. Policy Integrity also recommended that DOE consider 
allowing communities to self-identify, which would ensure that 
communities are not excluded because of limitations of existing 
identification tools or methods. The commenter also indicated it would 
be more appropriate for DOE to adjudicate whether a community should be 
considered as having environmental justice concerns based on evidence 
submitted rather than allowing the project proponent to make this 
determination.
    LTA suggested that the definition of communities of interest should 
include local nonprofit conservation organizations to ensure that the 
conservation and working lands community is included early in the IIP 
Process.
    Finally, NATHPO and the Santa Rosa Rancheria Tachi Yokut Tribe 
commented that categorizing Tribal Nations as ``Communities of 
Interest'' fails to recognize the sovereignty of Tribal Nations. By 
doing so, NATHPO and the Santa Rosa Rancheria Tachi Yokut Tribe argued 
that the proposed rule neglects distinct nation-to-nation 
responsibilities.
DOE Response
    In this final rule DOE has revised the definition of ``communities 
of interest'' to improve readability and ensure consistency with the 
Inflation Reduction Act (Pub. L. 117-169) (IRA) but has retained the 
communities identified in the proposed rule, as discussed below. DOE 
notes that the project proponent is responsible for identifying 
communities of interest and taking the required actions with respect to 
these communities for purposes of complying with the proponent's 
responsibilities under these regulations, but through the IIP Process, 
DOE and the relevant Federal entities and relevant non-Federal entities 
will have the opportunity to assess the processes by which proponents 
identify and engage with communities of interest.
    To improve the readability of the definition, DOE has revised the 
structure of the definition to provide a list of the types of 
communities that are communities of interest. To that end, to clarify 
that the communities listed in the definition is the exclusive set of 
communities to which this definition applies, this final rule edits the 
definition to note that communities of interest ``means'' rather than 
``includes'' the listed communities. Finally, DOE has changed the 
reference to ``fossil energy'' communities to ``energy communities'' to 
align the terminology with that used throughout the IRA's programs.
    DOE appreciates the comments regarding the scope of ``communities 
of interest'' and the communities included in the definition. DOE 
declines to revise the communities included within the definition 
beyond the revision to ``fossil energy'' communities discussed above. 
DOE declines to prescribe a particular distance for ``geographically 
proximate'' communities for reasons similar to those explained above in 
connection with ``analysis area.'' For any given project or community, 
a set 0.25-mile distance could be over- or under-inclusive. Instead, 
the current definition provides flexibility and broad coverage for the 
project proponent to identify the communities that could be affected by 
a given project.
    DOE also declines to provide definitions for the terms used in the 
definition of communities of interest, or to otherwise narrow the 
definition. As written, the definition of communities of interest 
provides broad coverage of various communities and flexibility to 
consider relevant groups that may fall within such communities. Because 
the ways in which a project may affect certain communities varies, DOE 
believes that the definition in this final rule appropriately provides 
flexibility to encompass the potentially varied affected communities of 
interest. Relatedly, DOE declines to provide particular criteria that a 
project proponent must consider in identifying communities of interest, 
to permit communities to self-identify or to require that proponents 
engage further with community members, or to administer in the first 
instance whether a particular community qualifies, in favor of 
providing flexibility to the project proponent and the ability of DOE 
and the relevant Federal entities and relevant non-Federal entities to 
assess and refine the identification as needed throughout the IIP 
Process.
    DOE declines to remove or replace the term ``disadvantaged'' and 
declines to include ``communities of Color'' and

[[Page 35343]]

``low-income or low-wealth communities.'' The term provides flexibility 
for the project proponent to consider a broad range of disadvantaged 
communities that could be affected by the proposed project. Consistent 
with its usage throughout this rule, as well as in rules promulgated by 
other agencies such as FERC, DOE declines to capitalize the term 
``indigenous.'' Whether or not the term is capitalized, project 
proponents have the same responsibilities to these communities.
    Additionally, DOE declines to include nonprofit groups, as 
requested by LTA, as the definition is focused on communities, not 
organizations or entities. Nevertheless, this final rule does not 
preclude an organization from representing a community during IIP 
Process engagement, and additionally provides a definition of 
stakeholder that could include the type of organization LTA describes.
    Lastly, DOE affirms the sovereignty of Indian Tribes. DOE clarifies 
that the inclusion of Tribal communities in the definition of 
communities of interest is not intended to, nor does it, neglect the 
nation-to-nation responsibilities of Federal agencies when engaging 
with Indian Tribes, which are distinct from the project proponent's 
responsibilities under the CITAP Program. The CITAP Program and final 
rule make no changes to Federal agencies' nation-to-nation 
responsibilities. DOE's intent in including Tribal communities in the 
definition is to establish an expectation that project proponents 
engage with and consider the impacts of proposed projects on Tribal 
communities.
iv. Other Definition Changes
1. Mitigation Approach and Mitigation Strategies or Plans
DOE's Proposal
    The NOPR included definitions for two terms, ``landscape mitigation 
approach'' and ``landscape mitigation strategies or plans.'' In the 
NOPR, DOE proposed to define landscape mitigation approach to mean 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 resources. Among 
other things, the definition explained that the mitigation hierarchy 
refers to an approach that first seeks to avoid, then minimize impacts, 
and then, when necessary, compensate for residual impacts; while 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.
    In the NOPR, DOE proposed to define landscape mitigation strategies 
or plans as 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.
Summary of Public Comments
    ACP recommended that DOE cabin the definition of landscape 
mitigation approach. Specifically, ACP suggested that the definition 
include a materiality threshold for all references to impacts to limit 
overreach and include language regarding the practicability of such an 
approach. ACP elaborated that the definition should also permit 
mitigation efforts to be conducted following stakeholder engagement, 
allow for a deferral of such approach to mitigation in lieu of agency-
driven mitigation approaches, and, where stakeholder engagement efforts 
are ongoing, allow for those processes to fully inform the selected 
mitigation measures.
DOE Response
    In this final rule, DOE has revised ``landscape mitigation 
approach'' to a more general term ``mitigation approach'' and removed 
the defined term ``landscape mitigation strategies or plans.''
    DOE revised the definition for ``landscape mitigation approach'' 
because limiting mitigation approaches to only landscape-level 
approaches and strategies may not be sufficiently flexible to account 
for the variety of needs implicated by this rule. Rather than prescribe 
a single approach, DOE believes that this final rule should create an 
opportunity for consideration and discussion of multiple types of 
proposed mitigation for a given proposed project. In addition, DOE has 
revised this definition for clarity and to more closely align with 
existing NEPA regulations regarding mitigation.
    DOE declines to implement ACP's suggestion to include a materiality 
threshold and a discussion of the practicability of any proposed 
mitigation approaches to limit overreach, because no decisions are 
being made on mitigation during the IIP Process. Instead, as part of 
the IIP Process, the project proponent is expected to bring to DOE and 
any relevant Federal entities and relevant non-Federal entities a 
proposed mitigation approach, which will facilitate the development of 
a shared understanding of project needs and expectations.
    DOE also disagrees with ACP's suggestion to include stakeholder 
engagement in development of proposed mitigation approaches both 
ongoing and future. This final rule encourages stakeholder engagement 
by the project proponent throughout the IIP Process and the rule does 
not preclude the engagement described in ACP's comment. DOE avoids 
codifying a particular mitigation approach process in regulatory text, 
as this process may inaccurately indicate a preference or priority for 
the approach.
    Because the revisions to mitigation approach rendered ``landscape 
mitigation strategies or plans'' redundant, DOE has removed this 
defined term from this final rule.
2. MOU Signatory Agency
DOE's Proposal
    In the NOPR, DOE proposed to define ``MOU Signatory Agency'' to 
mean a signatory of the interagency Memorandum of Understanding 
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.''
Summary of Public Comments
    ACP submitted that, in addition to the nine agencies that signed 
the 2023 MOU, the definition should include any signatories to similar 
or subsequent MOUs entered into in the future.
DOE Response
    DOE agrees with ACP's comment that MOU Signatory Agency should be 
sufficiently broad to cover not only those signatories to the MOU 
executed in May 2023, but also to cover signatories to potential 
similar or subsequent MOUs entered into pursuant to section 
216(h)(7)(B)(i) of the FPA later in time. This final rule revises this 
definition to provide this flexibility, such that if a future MOU 
includes additional or different agencies, the

[[Page 35344]]

definition in this final rule will not need to be revised accordingly.
3. Relevant Non-Federal Entity
DOE's Proposal
    In the NOPR, DOE proposed to define ``non-Federal entity'' as an 
Indian Tribe, multi-State governmental entity, State agency, or local 
government agency, and to define ``relevant non-Federal entity'' as 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 project, or that provides funding for the qualifying 
project. The NOPR also proposed to provide that 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.
Summary of Public Comments
    DOE received two comments on the definition of relevant non-Federal 
entity. AZGFD recommended that DOE include State wildlife agencies as 
standard non-Federal entities engaged in the IIP Process. AZGFD noted 
that State wildlife agencies can provide project-specific special 
expertise on wildlife species occurrence and distributions, areas of 
potential concern, wildlife connectivity, and more, as well as advise 
on potential conservation measures to avoid, minimize, or offset 
potential impacts. PIOs commented that DOE should expand the definition 
to allow certain members of the public to participate in the IIP 
Process. PIOs noted that, as drafted, the definition excludes community 
groups or public interest organizations because they are not 
regulators, even if they have special expertise with respect to 
environmental and other issues pertinent to or potentially affected by 
the qualifying project. Instead, the proposed rule would consider these 
entities as stakeholders, who, as PIOs argued, have significantly less 
access to the IIP Process compared with relevant non-Federal entities. 
PIOs believe that allowing community and public interest groups with 
special expertise to participate in the IIP Process would further the 
rule's aim to create an opportunity to identify as early as possible 
potential environmental and community impacts associated with a 
proposed project. Relatedly, PIOs recommended that DOE define the term 
``special expertise'' to help project proponents, affected communities, 
and public interest organizations in better understanding what groups 
may meet this definition and allow community or public interest groups 
to request that they be permitted to participate in the IIP/CITAP 
Process by explaining what special expertise they possess.
DOE Response
    DOE revises the definition of relevant non-Federal entity to 
replace ``special expertise'' with ``relevant expertise'' to avoid 
confusion with the NEPA-defined term ``special expertise.'' DOE 
declines any further revisions to the definition of relevant non-
Federal entity that would expand its scope in this final rule.
    First, DOE notes that because State wildlife agencies are likely to 
have relevant expertise or jurisdiction within the proposed project 
area, may be responsible for issuing an authorization for the 
qualifying project, may have relevant expertise with respect to 
environmental and other issues pertinent to or potentially affected by 
the qualifying project, or may provide funding for the qualifying 
project, such agencies may meet the definition of a relevant non-
Federal entity. The list of non-Federal entities included in the 
definition merely provides examples and is not a comprehensive list.
    Next, DOE appreciates the expertise of community groups and public 
interest organizations. Rather than expand the definition of relevant 
non-Federal entity, DOE believes that the IIP Process, coupled with 
existing avenues for public comment, will best integrate the expertise 
and input of community groups and public interest organizations. The 
IIP Process provides for timely and focused pre-application meetings 
with relevant Federal entities and relevant 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. The IIP process is not, however, 
intended to supplant existing public comment processes afforded by 
relevant statutes, such as NEPA. DOE believes that it has appropriately 
defined relevant non-Federal entity to provide the necessary 
information to fulfill its obligations under section 216(h) and 
facilitate the pre-application process, while still providing 
sufficient avenues for others to participate as stakeholders and 
through those existing public-comment processes. DOE declines to 
provide a definition for special expertise because the term has been 
removed from the rule. DOE does not expand the definition of non-
Federal entity to explicitly include non-regulating or non-permitting 
entities as the current definition may already include those entities 
as long as they meet additional criteria.
4. Stakeholder
DOE's Proposal
    In the NOPR, DOE proposed to define the term ``stakeholder'' to 
mean any relevant non-Federal entity, any non-governmental 
organization, affected landowner, or other person potentially affected 
by a proposed qualifying project.
Summary of Public Comments
    ACP commented that the proposed definition of ``stakeholder'' is 
overly broad, including its reference to anyone ``potentially affected 
by the proposed qualifying project.'' ACP suggested that DOE narrow the 
definition to a party able to show some cognizable interest potentially 
being affected by the project.
DOE Response
    In this final rule, DOE revises the definition of ``stakeholder'' 
to provide that the term means any relevant non-Federal entity, 
interested non-governmental organization, potentially affected 
landowner, or other interested person or organization.
    In part, DOE has revised this definition to reflect the revision to 
terminology used in this final rule, i.e., replacing ``affected 
landowner'' with ``potentially affected landowner,'' for the reasons 
explained above. DOE has also revised the definition to provide more 
precise parameters for who is a stakeholder for purposes of this final 
rule, in some instances narrowing the definition and in others, 
broadening it. Specifically, the definition clarifies that only 
``interested,'' rather than ``all,'' non-governmental organizations are 
stakeholders, which appropriately limits coverage to only those non-
governmental organizations that have interest in the proposed project. 
Additionally, DOE revises the definition to provide that any other 
stakeholders must be ``interested'' and provides that stakeholders may 
be interested persons or organizations. This revision broadens the 
scope of other stakeholders beyond only persons, allowing those 
organizations that do not fall within the scope of relevant non-Federal 
entity, non-governmental organization, or potentially affected 
landowner to be considered stakeholders. DOE believes

[[Page 35345]]

this revision is appropriate given the diversity of entities that may 
be affected by or interested in a proposed project. Additionally, the 
revision broadens the definition beyond those who are potentially 
affected to those who are interested. Again, DOE believes this 
expansion is appropriate in light of various entities that may have 
equities in a proposed project. For instance, LTA raised in its comment 
that local conservation organizations may have relevant expertise and 
views on a proposed project.
    DOE disagrees with ACP's proposal to narrow the definition to only 
those parties able to show some cognizable interest potentially being 
affected by the project. First, DOE does not discern a practical 
difference in requiring that an interest be ``cognizable,'' and 
believes that DOE's definition is consistent with ACP's intent to 
ensure stakeholders have an interest in or are potentially affected by 
a proposed project. Second, DOE believes ACP's proposal is 
unnecessarily narrow and may potentially exclude relevant persons, 
organizations, or entities from the CITAP Program, including relevant 
non-Federal entities. Finally, DOE clarifies that this definition does 
not determine who is a party or has standing to challenge a relevant 
authorization or related environmental review document issued under 
section 216(h).
5. Study Corridor
DOE's Proposal
    DOE proposed to define study corridor as 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.
Summary of Public Comments
    DOE received two comments on the definition of the term study 
corridor. ACP recommended that the definition regarding consideration 
of NEPA alternative routes should be restricted to only those within 
the study corridor. ACP also recommended that the definition of study 
corridor be limited to alternative routes already within consideration 
of the study corridors, because, as ACP argued, this would cabin the 
scope of review and is necessary to avoid potential litigation risk if 
the rule were to require proponents to consider all potential 
alternative routes. OSPA requested that this final rule allow for study 
corridors wider than one mile to consider more alternative transmission 
paths. OSPA described that the one-mile width restriction is 
inconsistent with the broad definition of ``project area,'' which may 
limit the evaluation of potential transmission sites. OSPA therefore 
urged DOE to either change the definition or allow proponents to 
request exemptions from the one-mile restriction.
DOE Response
    In this final rule, DOE revises the definition of study corridor to 
clarify the role of study corridors and the relationship between this 
term and other NEPA-related terms, as provided in section IV of this 
document.
    DOE declines to revise the definition as ACP recommended. First, 
DOE clarifies that the project area may contain multiple study 
corridors and that those study corridors may include multiple potential 
routes. Additionally, DOE notes that study corridors are proposed by 
the project proponent, and the number of such study corridors will be 
driven by the project proponent, depending on the level of development 
of the project design at the time of IIP Process initiation. While 
these study corridors are developed by the project proponent, nothing 
in this rule commits DOE to limiting NEPA alternatives to these study 
corridors. The definition suffices to allow DOE and the relevant 
Federal entities to evaluate the study corridor and potential NEPA 
alternatives through the IIP Process.
    DOE declines to implement OSPA's recommendation that the definition 
allow for study corridors wider than one mile. DOE assesses that the 
one-mile distance suffices to provide DOE and the relevant Federal 
entities with the information necessary to make the relevant 
determinations and issue the relevant authorizations, while avoiding 
overburdening the project proponent.
6. Resilience
DOE's Proposal
    As noted, DOE proposed to require the submission of 13 resource 
reports, one of which would be titled Reliability, Resilience, and 
Safety.
Summary of Public Comments
    One anonymous commenter noted that DOE did not provide a definition 
of the term ``resilience'' and requested that DOE define the term.
DOE Response
    DOE declines in the final rule to provide a definition for the term 
``resilience.'' This term does not appear outside of the Reliability, 
Resilience, and Safety resource report and its meaning is evident from 
the substance of that report.
7. Proposed Facility
DOE's Proposal
    In the NOPR, DOE used the term ``proposed facility'' to delineate 
the scope of certain information project proponents would be required 
to submit. For instance, the NOPR proposed in Sec.  900.3(b) to require 
the project proponent to provide a concise description of the proposed 
facility and a list of anticipated relevant Federal and non-Federal 
entities involved in the proposed facility.
Summary of Public Comments
    CARE Coalition requested that DOE provide a definition of the term 
``proposed facility.''
DOE Response
    DOE declines in the final rule to provide a definition for proposed 
facility. DOE believes that the meaning of this term is sufficiently 
clear from the context and notes that through the IIP Process, project 
proponents will be able to refine the scope of the proposed facility as 
needed.

L. Resource Reports

    The PIOs noted that DOE's resource reports are similar to the 
resource reports required under FERC's proposed rule regarding FERC's 
siting authority in NIETCs, per FPA section 216(b). The PIOs 
recommended that DOE align the numbering of resource reports with the 
numbering in FERC's proposed rule. DOE agrees with the suggested 
numbering change and has renumbered the reports accordingly. The 
following table catalogs the renumbering.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Proposed rule        Final rule
      Resource report name             numbering           numbering
------------------------------------------------------------------------
General Project Description.....  Resource Report 1.  Resource Report 1.
Water Use and Quality...........  Resource Report 2.  Resource Report 2.
Fish, Wildlife, and Vegetation..  Resource Report 3.  Resource Report 3.
Cultural Resources..............  Resource Report 4.  Resource Report 4.
Socioeconomics..................  Resource Report 5.  Resource Report 5.
Geological Resources............  Resource Report 6.  Resource Report 8.

[[Page 35346]]

 
Soil Resources..................  Resource Report 7.  Resource Report 9.
Land Use, Recreation, and         Resource Report 8.  Resource Report
 Aesthetics.                                           10.
Communities of interest.........  Resource Report 9.  Resource Report 7.
Air Quality and Noise Effects...  Resource Report 10  Resource Report
                                                       11.
Alternatives....................  Resource Report 11  Resource Report
                                                       12.
Reliability, Resilience, and      Resource Report 12  Resource Report
 Safety.                                               13.
Tribal Interests................  Resource Report 13  Resource Report 6.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In this final rule, DOE also makes non-substantive edits to the 
proposed rule text of the resource reports to clarify the intent of the 
reports and clearly state the information that must be included in the 
reports. Across the resource reports, DOE reorganizes the proposed 
paragraphs to state the purpose of the resource report in the 
introductory paragraph (e.g., paragraph (j)) and list all requirements 
for the resource report in subparagraphs (e.g., paragraphs (j)(1), (2), 
etc.).
    DOE's responses to comments on the resource report requirements as 
well as additional changes to the resource report requirements are 
discussed as follows. The ordering of the discussion follows the 
ordering of the resource reports in the NOPR.
i. General Project Description Resource Report
DOE's Proposal
    In the NOPR, DOE proposed to require the submission of a resource 
report containing a general project description. The NOPR proposed that 
this report 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.
    In the NOPR, DOE proposed 12 topics that would be required as part 
of the report. The NOPR required that the project proponent: describe 
and provide location maps of all relevant facilities, access roads, and 
infrastructure; describe specific generation resources that are known 
or reasonably foreseen to be developed or interconnected; identify 
other companies that may construct facilities related to the project 
and where those facilities would be located; provide certain 
information regarding the facilities identified; provide certain 
information if the project is considering abandonment of certain 
resources; describe proposed construction and restoration methods; 
describe estimated workforce requirements; describe reasonably 
foreseeable plans for future expansion of facilities; describe all 
authorizations required and identify environmental mitigation 
requirements; provide the names and mailing addresses of all affected 
landowners; summarize any relevant potential avoidance, minimization, 
and conservation measures; and describe how the project will reduce 
capacity constraints and congestion on the transmission system, meet 
unmet demand, or connect generation resources to load, as appropriate.
Summary of Public Comments
    DOE received one comment addressing the General Project Description 
resource report that is not already addressed in other sections of the 
discussion. ClearPath opposed the requirement that project proponents 
``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,'' arguing that this information is 
outside the scope of Federal jurisdiction under FPA 216(h).
    That comment and others addressing reasonable and foreseeable 
generation are discussed in section VI.D of this document.
DOE Response and Summary of Other Changes
    In this final rule, DOE retains the scope and purpose of this 
resource report with no revisions in response to ClearPath's comment 
because information may be helpful for understanding the project 
proponent's purpose and need and the potential scope of the 
environmental review, consistent with DOE's coordinating obligations 
under FPA section 216(h).
    Additionally, DOE is eliminating a requirement from the NOPR for 
this report to include correspondence with the USFWS and National 
Marine Fisheries Service regarding potential impacts of the proposed 
facility on federally listed threatened and endangered species and 
their designated critical habitats because that correspondence is 
already required in Resource Report 3: Fish, Wildlife, and Vegetation, 
thereby reducing duplication of requirements.
ii. Water Use and Quality Resource Report
DOE's Proposal
    In the NOPR, DOE proposed requiring project proponents to submit a 
report on existing water resources that may be impacted by the proposed 
project, the impacts of the proposed project on those resources, and 
proposed mitigation, enhancement, or protective measures to address 
those impacts.
Summary of Changes
    DOE did not receive any comments on the Water Use and Quality 
Report that have not been addressed in another section of this final 
rule. However, DOE has made several changes to the requirements for the 
resource report between the NOPR and this final rule.
    In keeping with the discussion in section VI.K.ii of this document, 
DOE is replacing two distances included in the proposed rule with ``in 
the applicable analysis area'' to give DOE, the project proponent, and 
appropriate Federal and non-Federal entities flexibility to set these 
distances based on the physical characteristics and needs of the 
project. A project proponent must now identify the location of known 
public and private groundwater supply wells or springs within the 
applicable analysis area rather than within ``150 feet of proposed 
construction areas.'' A project proponent must now identify any 
downstream potable water intake sources within the applicable analysis 
area, rather than ``three miles downstream'' of a surface water 
crossing.
    DOE is making several terminology changes to clarify the scope of 
the analyses required by the report. The report now requires the 
project proponent to identify surface water resources crossed by a 
``potential route'' rather than ``the project.'' The report also 
requires wetland maps showing ``study corridors and potential routes'' 
rather than just a ``proposed route.'' Finally, the report requires 
identification of aquifers and wellhead protection area crossed by a 
``potential route,'' rather than ``proposed facilities.''

[[Page 35347]]

    Lastly, DOE is relocating a requirement to indicate whether a water 
quality certification under section 401 of the CWA will be required for 
any potential routes. This requirement was proposed for the General 
Project Description resource report but has been moved into the 
requirements for this report because it deals directly with water 
resources.
iii. Fish, Wildlife, and Vegetation Resource Report
DOE's Proposal
    In the NOPR, DOE proposed to require the submission of a resource 
report on fish, wildlife, and vegetation. As proposed, DOE required 
this report to include a description of 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. DOE also 
proposed that this resource report may require species surveys to 
determine significant habitats or communities of species of special 
concern to Federal, Tribe, State or local agencies, or field surveys to 
determine the presence of suitable habitat. Finally, DOE proposed 
requiring the project proponent to provide a description of the 
proposed measures to avoid and minimize incidental take of Federally 
protected species, including eagles and migratory birds as part of this 
resource report.
Summary of Public Comments
    DOE received two comments on the Fish, Wildlife, and Vegetation 
resource report, from AZGFD and the CARE Coalition.
    AZGFD encouraged DOE to include State wildlife sensitive species, 
especially those classified as of Greatest Conservation Need in 
individual State Wildlife Action Plans. AZGFD also recommended that 
potential impacts from habitat loss and fragmentation, including 
potential impacts on wildlife connectivity, identified habitat linkages 
or wildlife corridors, be analyzed in the report, considering that 
transmission infrastructure affects wildlife movements and habitat use. 
It suggested that DOE provide guidance in the rule regarding 
coordination with State wildlife agencies on conservation measures 
necessary for adequate wildlife connectivity.
    The CARE Coalition suggested that the report should describe known 
migratory corridors for large mammals within three kilometers of the 
proposed line. The CARE Coalition also suggested that project 
proponents should consult with USFWS to determine a distance at which 
the project proponent should identify Federally listed or proposed 
endangered or threatened species and critical habitats in the report.
DOE Response and Summary of Other Changes
    DOE makes minor revisions in response to these comments. In 
response to AZGFD's request to include classifications like ``Greatest 
Conservation Need,'' DOE revises this final rule to request relevant 
information on ``State, Tribal, and local species of concern and those 
species' habitats'' because DOE believes this broader terminology 
addresses the concern raised by the commenter and additionally extends 
to consider species, habitats, or communities of species of concern to 
Federal, Tribal, State, or local agencies. DOE also agrees that habitat 
fragmentation impacts are relevant to the resource report and revises 
this final rule to include information on the potential effects of the 
proposed project on habitats, including effects related to habitat loss 
and fragmentation. Regarding AZGFD's request for guidance on 
coordination with State wildlife agencies, DOE makes no changes to this 
final rule as such coordination will depend on project specific 
circumstances, for example if a wildlife agency in the State 
participates as a relevant non-Federal entity in the IIP Process.
    In response to CARE Coalition's request to include mammalian 
migratory corridors, DOE makes no revisions to this final rule. DOE 
believes the detail requested in the resource report is sufficient to 
provide such information if it is relevant to the project.
    DOE is also making changes to the proposed rule text that are not 
in response to a specific comment. DOE is making several changes to 
clarify the scope of the analyses required in the report. The rule now 
requires the project proponent to identify aquatic habitats in the 
``applicable analysis area'' rather than in the ``affected area'' and 
cabins the requirement to identify terrestrial habitats to only those 
terrestrial habitats in the project area. The rule also requires 
information on essential fish habitat which may be adversely affected 
by ``potential routes,'' rather than ``the project.''
    In keeping with the discussion in section VI.K.ii of this document, 
DOE is replacing four distances and areas included in the proposed rule 
with ``in the applicable analysis area'' to give DOE, the project 
proponent, and appropriate Federal and non-Federal entities flexibility 
to set these distances based on the physical characteristics and needs 
of the project. DOE is now requiring a project proponent to identify 
aquatic habitats that occur in the ``applicable analysis area'' rather 
than in the ``affected area.'' Additionally, DOE is requiring the 
project proponent to identify proposed or designated critical habitats 
that potentially occur in the ``applicable analysis area'' rather than 
the ``project area.'' DOE is also now requiring a project proponent to 
identify the location of potential bald and golden eagle nesting and 
roosting sites, migratory bird flyways, and any sites important to 
migratory bird breeding, feeding, and sheltering within the 
``applicable analysis areas,'' rather than within ``10 miles of the 
proposed project area.'' While 10 miles is currently the USFWS 
standard, DOE opts to leave establishment of these boundaries flexible 
for future project needs as well as any future updates to USFWS 
requirements. Likewise, DOE is requiring the project proponent to 
identify all Federally designated essential fish habitat that occurs in 
the ``applicable analysis area'' whereas in the proposed text, the 
scope of that identification was undefined.
    Lastly, the rule clarifies the role of surveys in the resource 
report. The rule provides that the project proponent must include the 
results of any appropriate surveys that have already been conducted and 
provide protocols for future surveys. The rule maintains the provision 
that if potentially suitable habitat is present, species-specific 
surveys may be required.
iv. Cultural Resources Resource Report
DOE's Proposal
    In the NOPR, DOE proposed to require the submission of a resource 
report on cultural resources, which would contribute to the 
satisfaction of DOE's and other relevant Federal entities' obligations 
under section 106 of the NHPA. The NOPR required the resource report to 
describe known cultural and historic resources in the affected 
environment, including those listed or eligible for listing on the 
National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), potential adverse effects 
to those resources, and recommended avoidance and minimization measures 
to address those potential effects. It also required the resource 
report to document the project proponent's initial communications and 
engagement with and comments from Indian Tribes, indigenous peoples, 
THPOs, SHPOs, communities of interest, and other relevant entities, and 
provide details

[[Page 35348]]

regarding surveys. Finally, the NOPR required that the project 
proponent request confidential treatment for all materials filed with 
DOE containing location, character, and ownership information about 
cultural resources.
Summary of Public Comments
    DOE received one comment on the Cultural Resources Resource Report 
from NM SHPO that is not otherwise addressed in section VI.J of this 
document.
    NM SHPO appreciated DOE's requirement for project proponents to 
consider treatments to avoid, minimize, or mitigate harmful impacts to 
the landscape, but encouraged DOE to also require project proponents to 
consider these treatments for individual historic properties eligible 
for or listed in the NRHP. This inclusion would require that resource 
reports begin with historic contexts for landscape-level evaluations 
and that other Federal agencies examine landscape-level eligibility and 
effects during the review of resource reports. The NM SHPO noted that 
in New Mexico, consultants are required to meet State documentation 
guidelines before accessing cultural resource records to produce a 
cultural resources report, and subsequently questioned whether DOE's 
regulation will acknowledge or supersede State statutes, regulations, 
or guidelines.
DOE Response and Summary of Other Changes
    DOE makes no revisions in response to NM SHPO's comment. DOE 
clarifies that while the CITAP Program is intended to facilitate 
coordination with relevant State statutes, regulations, and guidelines, 
the rule does not supersede State statutes, regulations, or guidelines. 
Regarding the NM SHPO's request that the rule should consider 
treatments to mitigate harmful impacts on certain individual 
properties, DOE notes that the rule does not preclude this sort of 
action, but makes no revisions to mandate a particular approach to 
mitigation because DOE believes these approaches are more appropriate 
to discuss in the context of project-specific circumstances. The 
updated definition of mitigation approach in this final rule is 
intended to create an opportunity for consideration and discussion of 
multiple types of mitigation strategies for a proposed project. DOE 
also notes that no decisions are made on mitigation during the IIP 
Process; rather, the IIP Process facilitates the development of a 
shared understanding of project needs and expectations.
    DOE is also making several changes to the proposed rule text that 
are not in response to a specific comment. In keeping with the 
discussion in section VI.K.ii of this document, DOE is now requiring a 
summary of known cultural and historic resources in the ``applicable 
analysis area'' rather than in the ``affected environment.''
    Furthermore, in the requirement to provide a summary of known 
cultural and historic resources, DOE is adding as an example of those 
resources, properties of religious and cultural significance to Indian 
Tribes, and any material remains of past human life or activities that 
are of an archeological interest. This change was made to broaden and 
clarify the definition of cultural resources included in the rule.
v. Socioeconomics Resource Report
DOE's Proposal
    In the NOPR, DOE proposed to require the submission of a resource 
report on socioeconomics. DOE proposed to require in this resource 
report the identification and quantification of 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.
Summary of Public Comments
    DOE received one comment addressing the required elements of the 
Socioeconomics resource report. ClearPath recommended that DOE exclude 
the requirement for project proponents to ``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'' because it is ambiguous and beyond 
DOE's statutory authority. Furthermore, ClearPath noted the project 
proponent is not responsible for minimizing the impact on local 
infrastructure from the significant migration of people.
DOE Response
    DOE makes no revisions in response to this comment because DOE 
finds this information is commonly requested for evaluating the impacts 
of infrastructure permitting.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See, for example, 10 CFR 380.16(g).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE is making several changes to the proposed rule text that are 
not in response to a specific comment. In keeping with the discussion 
in section VI.K.ii of this document, DOE is replacing multiple areas of 
study included in the proposed rule with ``in the applicable analysis 
area'' to give DOE, the project proponent, and appropriate Federal and 
non-Federal entities flexibility to set these distances based on the 
physical characteristics and needs of the project. The rule now 
requires the project proponent to describe the socioeconomic resources 
that may be affected in the ``applicable analysis area'' rather than in 
the ``project area.'' Likewise, the rule requires the project proponent 
to evaluate the impact of any substantial migration of people into the 
``applicable analysis area'' rather than the ``proposed project area.'' 
Finally, the rule replaces ``impact area'' with ``applicable analysis 
area'' in several instances because ``impact area'' is not defined in 
the rule.
vi. Geological Resources and Hazards Resource Report
DOE's Proposal
    The NOPR proposed requiring project proponents to submit a resource 
report on geological resources that might be affected by the proposed 
project and geological hazards that might put the proposed project at 
risk. As written, the NOPR required the resource report to include a 
description of methods to reduce the effects on geological resources 
and reduce the risks posed by the hazards.
Summary of Changes
    DOE did not receive any comments on the Geological Resources 
resource report that have not been addressed in another section of this 
final rule. However, DOE has made minor changes to the requirements and 
description for the resource report between the NOPR and this final 
rule.
    The title of this resource report has been updated to ``Geological 
Resources and Hazards'' to better reflect the scope of the report. 
Additionally, in keeping with the discussion in section VI.K.ii of this 
document, DOE is clarifying that the project proponent only needs to 
describe geological resources and hazards ``in the applicable analysis 
area.'' The proposed rule did not provide a definite boundary for these 
identifications.
vii. Soil Resources Resource Report
DOE's Proposal
    The NOPR proposed requiring project proponents to submit a resource 
report on soil resources that might be affected by the proposed 
project, the effect on those soils, and measures proposed to avoid, 
minimize, or mitigate impact.
Summary of Changes
    DOE did not receive any comments on the Soil Resources resource 
report that have not been addressed in another

[[Page 35349]]

section of this final rule. However, DOE has made one substantive 
change to the requirements for the resource report between the NOPR and 
this final rule.
    The NOPR proposed that a project proponent would need to list and 
describe soil series for any ``site larger than five acres.'' However, 
because almost all projects in the CITAP Program would cover more than 
five acres, this distinction would not set an effective boundary on the 
area of the requirement. Therefore, this final rule requires 
identification and description of soil series within ``the applicable 
analysis area'' to allow DOE, the project proponent, and relevant 
Federal and non-Federal entities to determine the scope of the analysis 
needed.
viii. Land Use, Recreation, and Aesthetics Resource Report
DOE's Proposal
    DOE proposed to require the submission of a resource report on land 
use, recreation, and aesthetics. DOE also proposed to require in this 
resource report a description of the existing uses of land on, and 
within various distances, the proposed project and changes to those 
land uses and impacts to inhabitants and users that would occur if the 
project were approved. The NOPR also required the report to describe 
proposed mitigation measures, including protection and enhancement of 
existing land use.
    DOE sought comment on whether further revisions were needed to 
proposed Sec.  900.6(m)(8), which proposed that the project proponent 
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.
Summary of Public Comments
    DOE received several comments on required elements of the Land Use, 
Recreation, and Aesthetics Resource Report. LTA expressed support for 
the inclusion of this resource report and commented specifically in 
support of retaining multiple provisions of this report.
    DOE received responses on whether revisions were needed to 
paragraph (m)(8) from LTA and CEC/CPUC. The CEC/CPUC advised DOE to 
divide Sec.  900.6(m)(8) into two sections: one about conservation 
lands and another about lands with protective covenants due to distinct 
management practices. LTA recommended adding ``conservation or 
agricultural lands subject to state statutorily enabled conservation or 
agricultural easements or restrictions'' to the list of examples. CEC/
CPUC recommended DOE include lands conserved and held by local focus on 
land use restrictions, and include more specific provisions that 
agricultural conservation lands described should only include those 
with formal designations.
    LTA recommended requiring the project proponent to describe ``an 
area a Community of Interest has identified as having one or more 
resources likely to be impacted by a proposed project'' in addition to 
the specifically listed areas under the list of Federal designations in 
paragraph (10). LTA also recommended adding to the specifically listed 
areas ``National Forests and Grasslands'' and ``lands in easement 
programs managed by the Natural Resource Conservation Service or the 
U.S. Forest Service'' to this paragraph.
    LTA recommended DOE revise its request for a detailed operations 
and maintenance plan for vegetation management to include, ``that 
utilizes native species to the maximum extent practical.''
    ACP stated that the requirement that proponents identify all 
residences and buildings within 200 feet of the edge of the proposed 
transmission line construction right-of-way was ``excessively onerous'' 
and impractical. ACP suggested that the transmission right-of-way is a 
more appropriate boundary than the construction right-of-way.
    AZGFD recommended that this resource report identify potential 
impacts to access for State wildlife agencies to carry out their 
responsibilities, outdoor recreation, and recreational access. AZGFD 
urged DOE to coordinate with State wildlife agencies to ensure actions 
do not prevent State agencies from conducting their responsibilities.
DOE Response and Summary of Other Changes
    DOE retains the scope and purpose of the Land Use, Recreation, and 
Aesthetics Resource Report with minor revisions in response to these 
comments.
    In response to the comments on revisions to paragraph (8), which 
includes a list of example specially designated areas, DOE has made 
overall changes to the structure and language of the paragraph to 
improve the clarity and readability of the requested information, to 
reduce emphasis on the specific types of land ownership or use, and to 
clarify that the resource report provides details regarding lands with 
explicit status through Federal, state, or local formal designation, as 
well as lands owned or controlled by Federal, State or local agencies 
or private preservation groups. DOE has also added that the proposed 
list is not exhaustive of the types of lands that should be identified 
in this section, but rather identifies examples of the types of lands 
that may meet the criteria now more clearly listed. DOE disagrees with 
CEC/CPUC that this resource report should only include lands with a 
formal agricultural conservation designations because the intent of 
this provision and its list of examples is to capture lands with 
special status not typically contemplated by Federal or State law but 
agrees with LTA that ``conservation or agricultural lands subject to 
State statutorily enabled conservation or agricultural easements or 
restrictions'' is a helpful additional example and includes this in 
this final rule.
    In response to comments on the list of Federal statutory 
designations in paragraph (10), DOE makes minor revisions to include 
forests and grasslands. DOE agrees that specifically listed areas 
should include Forest and Grasslands and lands in easement programs 
managed by the Natural Resource Conservation Service or the U.S. Forest 
Service and includes those in this final rule. DOE does not include 
areas identified by communities of interest because the intent of this 
resource report requirement is to identify areas that fall under 
specific Federal statutes and regulations to assist DOE in implementing 
its environmental review and coordination authority. In response to 
LTA's request that the vegetation management provision include a 
prioritization of the use of native species, DOE makes no revisions in 
this final rule because DOE believes specific prescriptions for project 
management practices should be addressed on a project-specific basis.
    In response to ACP's comment on the appropriate area for building 
identification DOE revises the proposed distance-based requirement but 
maintains construction right-of-way

[[Page 35350]]

because the effects of construction on buildings is information that 
DOE believes is necessary to inform DOE's environmental review.
    In response to AZGFD's request that this final rule consider 
impacts to State wildlife agencies, DOE makes no revisions because the 
agency believes that the text is sufficiently clear on the need for 
project proponents to provide such information in the resource report. 
Further, DOE believes that the coordination with non-Federal entities 
in the IIP Process sufficiently addresses the concern of coordination 
with State wildlife agencies and makes no further revisions.
    DOE is also making several changes to the proposed rule text that 
are not in response to a specific comment. DOE significantly 
reorganizes portions of the resource report requirements for clarity 
but does not make any substantive changes through the reorganization.
    In keeping with the discussion in section VI.K.ii of this document, 
DOE is replacing multiple distances included in the proposed rule with 
``in the applicable analysis area'' to give DOE, the project proponent, 
and appropriate Federal and non-Federal entities flexibility to set 
these distances based on the physical characteristics and needs of the 
project. A project proponent must now identify certain planned 
development within ``the applicable analysis area'' rather than within 
``0.25 mile of proposed facilities.'' Likewise, the requirement for a 
project proponent to identify directly affected areas that are owned or 
controlled by a governmental entity or private preservation group 
within ``0.25 miles of any proposed facility'' has been changed to 
within ``applicable analysis areas.'' The final rule also requires the 
project proponent to identify resources within ``the applicable 
analysis area'' that are included in or designated for study for 
inclusion in certain Federal land and water management statutes. The 
proposed rule asked for the project proponent to identify the same 
types of resources ``crossed by or within 0.25 mile of the proposed 
transmission project facilities.''
ix. Communities of Interest Resource Report
DOE's Proposal
    DOE proposed to require the submission of a resource report on 
communities of interest. DOE proposed to require in this resource 
report a summary of known information about the presence of communities 
of interest that could be affected by the qualifying project; 
identification and description of the potential impacts of 
constructing, operating, and maintaining the project on communities of 
interest; a description of any proposed measures intended to avoid, 
minimize, or mitigate such impacts or community concerns; and a 
discussion of any disproportionate and/or adverse human health or 
environmental impacts to communities of interest.
Summary of Public Comments
    DOE received three comments on the Communities of Interest Resource 
Report that are not already addressed in the discussion regarding the 
definition of communities of interest in section VI.K.iii of this 
document.
    LTA expressed support for retaining this resource report. ClearPath 
opposed the addition of this resource report because ``by proposing 
separate requirements for Communities of Interest in Project 
Participation plans and outreach plans, the DOE is conceding that 
stakeholder engagement requirements are deficient.'' ClearPath claims 
that the proposal represents duplicative requirements and paperwork for 
project proponents and establishes a hierarchy of treatment and 
consideration of project impacts across population segments that could 
have concerns regarding equal treatment and discrimination.
    Regarding the requirement that the project proponent ``[s]ummarize 
known information about the presence of communities of interest that 
could be affected by the qualifying project,'' EDF noted that the 
phrase ``known information'' may present a loophole, and instead the 
project proponent should be required to investigate, observe, and 
understand the concerns of communities of interest. EDF also indicated 
that regulations should specify that there is a responsibility to 
avoid, minimize, or mitigate any health or environmental impacts 
identified.
DOE Response
    DOE retains the Communities of Interest resource report with minor 
revisions in response to these comments. DOE does not agree that this 
resource report is duplicative with the public engagement plan and 
clarifies that this resource report is aimed at identifying negative 
impacts to communities of interest and mitigation measures while the 
public participation plan is aimed at ensuring sufficient engagement. 
ClearPath's concerns about the disparate treatment in the public 
engagement plan are discussed in further detail in section VI.E of this 
document.
    DOE agrees with EDF that ``known'' is not consistent with the 
intent of the information request and revises this final rule to 
require ``best available information on'' rather than EDF's proposed 
cure because this is consistent with the standard of information 
gathering for environmental reviews.
x. Air Quality and Noise Effects Resource Report
DOE's Proposal
    DOE proposed to require the submission of a resource report on air 
quality and noise effects. DOE proposed to require in this resource 
report the identification of the effects of the project on the existing 
air quality and noise environment and describe proposed measures to 
mitigate the effects.
Summary of Public Comments
    DOE received three comments in response to the Air Quality and 
Noise Effects resource report proposal.
    Policy Integrity stated that the NOPR is unclear regarding local 
air pollutants and non-power-sector emissions and advised DOE to 
require project proponents to comprehensively estimate the associated 
changes to GHG emissions and local air pollution from their 
transmission project and alternatives, such as indirect upstream GHG 
emissions from methane leakage. Additionally, the commenter suggested 
that the need to estimate and describe impacts from changes to criteria 
pollutants should not depend on whether they remain below the Clean Air 
Act's National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), stating that the 
EPA has recognized that there is no safe level of exposure. In 
contrast, ClearPath strongly opposed Air Quality and Noise Effects 
resource report's proposed requirement that project proponents estimate 
direct, indirect, and ``reasonably foreseeable'' generation resource-
related project emissions. ClearPath described the proposed 
requirements as vague and as lacking a robust process for proponents to 
follow, such that proponents are unlikely to understand and comply.
    AZGFD recommended that DOE require the identification of air and 
noise related potential impacts on all wildlife resources, in addition 
to the Federally-listed species or sensitive wildlife habitats 
currently identified.
DOE Response and Summary of Other Changes
    DOE retains the Air Quality and Noise Effects resource report in 
full in this final rule with no changes in response to these comments.

[[Page 35351]]

    Regarding local air pollutants and emissions, DOE makes no changes 
in response to the comment. DOE believes the rule makes clear that it 
requires information regarding non-GHG emissions and non-power-sector 
emissions. In this resource report, project proponents must identify 
reasonably foreseeable emissions caused by the project, regardless of 
whether those emissions occur in NAAQS non-attainment areas. DOE 
believes that requirement provides adequate guidance to project 
proponents.
    Regarding the impacts on wildlife resources, DOE believes the 
impacts to wildlife are sufficiently addressed in the Fish, Wildlife, 
and Vegetation resources report and makes no revisions to this report.
    DOE is making several changes to the proposed rule text that are 
not in response to a specific comment. DOE significantly reorganizes 
portions of the resource report requirements for clarity but does not 
make any substantive changes through the reorganization.
    In keeping with the discussion in section VI.K.ii of this document, 
DOE is replacing multiple areas of study included in the proposed rule 
with ``in the applicable analysis area'' to give DOE, the project 
proponent, and appropriate Federal and non-Federal entities flexibility 
to set these distances based on the physical characteristics and needs 
of the project. A project proponent is now required to describe 
existing air quality in ``the applicable analysis area'' rather than in 
the ``project area.'' Likewise, a project proponent is required to 
identify air quality impacts on communities and the environment in the 
``applicable analysis area,'' rather than the ``project area.'' 
Finally, the proposed rule clarifies that a project proponent is 
required to describe existing noise levels at noise-sensitive areas in 
the ``applicable analysis area,'' instead of leaving the study area 
undefined.
xi. Alternatives Resource Report
DOE's Proposal
    DOE proposed to require the submission of a resource report on 
alternatives. DOE proposed to require this resource report to include a 
description of alternatives identified by the project proponent during 
its initial analysis, which may inform the relevant Federal entities' 
subsequent analysis of alternatives, 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. DOE also proposed 
that the project proponent include all of the alternatives identified 
by the project proponent, including those the proponent chose not to 
examine or not examine in greater detail, and an explanation for the 
project proponent's choices regarding the identification and 
examination of alternatives. The NOPR proposed to require that project 
proponents 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 explain the costs to construct, operate, and 
maintain each alternative, the potential for each alternative to meet 
project deadlines, and the potential environmental impacts of each 
alternative.
Summary of Public Comments
    DOE received three comments addressing the Alternatives Resource 
Report that are not already addressed in other sections.
    Niskanen Center noted that the alternatives report would benefit 
from clarifying language and revisions to avoid ambiguity regarding the 
definition of alternatives and the extent to which they should be 
included in the resource report and provided recommendations. Niskanen 
Center also requested clarifying language if the Alternatives resource 
report is the only report that is required to include an alternatives 
analysis, and that if not, DOE should clearly state its request for 
such analysis in each report.
    ACP expressed concerns regarding the NOPR not reflecting the 
intersections between state, Tribal, and Federal siting authorities, 
specifically noting the overlapping timetables that can be difficult to 
predict. ACP provided as an example that if State siting precedes 
Federal siting, only a single route might be approved which would 
materially limit the required NEPA alternative and potentially increase 
overall legal risk if opponents claim that the failure to adequately 
consider proposed alternatives violates NEPA or the Administrative 
Procedure Act. ACP recommended that DOE explicitly address these 
limited alternatives that may be established through a State siting 
process, as well as ensure that Federal reviews account for the 
potential scope of State siting determinations and not require 
consideration of alternatives that are impossible or implausible.
    The CARE Coalition urged DOE to specifically require the 
consideration of alternative transmission technologies (ATTs), such as 
dynamic line ratings, power flow controllers, advanced conductors, and 
battery storage, in the report. The commenter explained that failure to 
consider ATTs excludes a potentially low-cost alternative that may 
prevent or reduce environmental harm.
DOE Response
    DOE maintains the Alternatives resource report but makes 
substantial revisions in response to these comments to reduce ambiguity 
on the scope and purpose.
    In response to Niskanen Center's comment, DOE confirms that this 
resource report is the only resource report that requires an 
alternatives analysis. Other resource reports are intended to address 
the potential study corridors or routes along which the project 
proponent is considering siting the electric transmission facility. 
Those resource reports do not need to address alternative study 
corridors or alternative routes that the project proponent has 
eliminated from consideration.
    The Alternatives resource report is intended to provide an overview 
of the study corridors and routes that were initially considered for 
the proposed project, but that ultimately were not chosen for further 
study by the project proponent. In keeping with this intent, in this 
final rule, DOE is requiring a project proponent to identify all study 
corridors that were considered as part of the proposed project, as well 
as all routes contained within those study corridors. Within that broad 
group of study corridors and routes, DOE requires the project proponent 
to identify those alternative study corridors and routes that the 
project proponent eliminated from further study under an initial 
screening, and the reasons why those corridors and routes were 
eliminated.
    For the remaining alternative study corridors and routes, DOE 
requires analyses of certain impacts of siting the electric facility in 
the corridor or along the route. Likewise, DOE requires a discussion of 
the costs, timelines, and technological and procedural constraints of 
siting the electric facility in the corridor or along the route. 
Finally, DOE requires the project proponent to demonstrate whether and 
how environmental benefits and costs were weighed against economic 
benefits and costs to the public for the route or corridor.
    In response to ACP's concern about overlapping timetables and 
limitations to alternatives, DOE makes no additional revisions because, 
as clarified above, the Alternatives resource report addresses the 
project proponent's

[[Page 35352]]

approach to Alternatives which may inform, but does not supplant, DOE's 
consideration of appropriate alternatives for its environmental review.
    In response to CARE Coalition's request that DOE include ATTs, DOE 
declines to specify the consideration of specific evolving technologies 
in its regulatory test.
xii. Reliability, Resilience, and Safety Resource Report
DOE's Proposal
    DOE proposed to require the submission of a resource report on 
potential hazards to the public from failures of the proposed electric 
transmission facility due to accidents, intentional destructive acts, 
and natural catastrophes. DOE also proposed requiring the report to 
describe how these events would affect reliability, benefits to 
reliability from the project, and what procedures and design features 
could be used to reduce risks to the facility and the public.
Summary of Changes
    DOE did not receive any comments on the Reliability, Resilience, 
and Safety resource report that have not been addressed in another 
section of this final rule. However, in this final rule DOE 
significantly reorganizes portions of the proposed resource report 
requirements for clarity but does not make any substantive changes 
through the reorganization.
xiii. Tribal Interests Resource Report
DOE's Proposal
    DOE proposed to require the submission of a resource report on 
Tribal interests. DOE proposed to require in this resource report the 
identification of the Indian Tribes, indigenous communities, and their 
respective interests that may be affected by 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. DOE also proposed to 
require in this resource report a discussion of potential impacts on 
Indian Tribes and Tribal interests and of traditional cultural and 
religious resources that could be affected by the proposed project, to 
the extent Indian Tribes are willing to share this information. 
Additionally, DOE proposed that certain specific site or location 
information that may create a risk of harm, theft, or destruction, or 
otherwise violate Federal law should be submitted separately, and that 
the project proponent must request confidential treatment for all 
material filed with DOE containing location, character, and ownership 
information about Tribal resources.
Summary of Public Comments
    DOE received four comments regarding the Tribal Interests Resource 
Report that are not already addressed in previous discussions. Most 
comments are addressed in section VI.J of this document in response to 
the approach to compliance with section 106 of the NHPA.
    LTA expressed support for this resource report and urged DOE to 
collaborate with Indian Tribes to ensure that the language used in the 
report adequately protects their interests. The Santa Rosa Rancheria 
Tachi Yokut Tribe and NATHPO expressed concern with a comment by DOE 
staff, which the commenters believe indicated, contrary to the proposed 
rule text, that the Tribal Interests resource report would not contain 
cultural resources, examples of Tribal resources provided in the 
proposed rule (e.g., water rights, access to property, wildlife and 
ecological resources) are Tribal cultural resources. The commenters 
stated that this comment reflects a fundamental lack of understanding 
about what is a Tribal cultural resource. Relatedly, the NM SHPO noted 
that resources identified in other resource reports, such as the Water 
Use and Quality resource report and the Fish, Wildlife, and Vegetation 
resource report, may also be of traditional and cultural significance 
and eligible for the NRHP.
DOE Response
    In this final rule DOE retains the Tribal Interests resource report 
with minor revisions for clarity in response to comments. First, DOE 
did not intend to indicate that the Tribal Interests resource report 
would not contain cultural resources. Second, DOE sought comment from 
Indian Tribes and will coordinate with Indian Tribes in accordance with 
the Federal Government's nation-to-nation responsibilities, pursuant to 
DOE's authority under FPA 216(h).
    In response to the concern raised by Santa Rosa Rancheria Tachi 
Yokut Tribe and NATHPO that the resource report requirements reflect a 
misunderstanding about tribal cultural resources, DOE revises the 
report for clarity. DOE acknowledges that the Tribal Interests and 
Cultural Resources resource reports may contain some resources that 
overlap in part but clarifies that they are intended to support 
different purposes and request different details. DOE expects that 
certain cultural resources may be described in both resource reports 
and revises the Cultural Resources resource report to clarify that 
cultural and historic resources include, among other things, properties 
of religious and cultural significance to Indian Tribes.

M. Administrative Docket

DOE's Proposal
    To better coordinate Federal authorizations, DOE proposed to 
maintain a consolidated administrative docket containing meeting 
requests, meeting summaries, resource reports, other information 
assembled during the IIP Process, and all information assembled by 
relevant Federal entities for authorizations and reviews after 
completion of the IIP Process.
Summary of Public Comments
    Commenters, such as EEI, PJM, and the CARE Coalition, expressed 
support for a consolidated administrative docket. PJM believes that a 
consolidated administrative docket will ensure all Federal entities are 
working from a single, complete record for reviews and decisions. One 
commenter, Niskanen Center, proposed that the administrative docket be 
public, while the CARE Coalition proposed the rule provide more details 
to clarify access to the administrative docket to ensure stakeholder 
participation. Another commenter, StopPATH WV, proposed DOE make the 
administrative docket information available to landowners that may be 
impacted by the proposed project.
DOE Response
    DOE maintains the features and purpose of the administrative docket 
in this final rule with minor revisions. DOE agrees that the public 
should have access to the administrative docket for the proposed 
project and revises this final rule to provide that ``Upon request, any 
member of the public may be provided materials included in the docket, 
excluding any materials protected as CEII or as confidential under 
other processes (e.g., confidential business information and 
information developed during consultation with Tribes).''

N. Interaction With FPA 216(a) and FPA 216(b)

Summary of Public Comments
    Seven commenters provided comments on the interaction of the 
proposed rule with DOE's process for designating NIETCs, per FPA 
section

[[Page 35353]]

216(a), and FERC's pending regulations regarding its siting authority 
in NIETCs, per FPA section 216(b), referred to by some commenters as 
``backstop siting.''
    PIOs praised DOE's proposed rule for its alignment with FERC's 
proposed backstop permitting rule. PIOs anticipated that this 
coordination would support a consistent, predictable, and rigorous 
Federal review and permitting process and offer certainty to project 
proponents, as they seek necessary authorizations. Additionally, PIOs 
anticipated that alignment would ensure project proponents could easily 
engage in both processes if necessary, citing potential scenarios in 
which a project seeking a FERC permit needs multiple Federal 
authorizations and could benefit from the IIP Process or a project 
undergoing the IIP Process decides it needs a FERC permit. PIOs argued 
that in these cases, alignment across processes would allow project 
proponents to effectively engage in both processes, while reducing 
duplication. PIOs identified several similarities between proposed 
requirements under DOE's CITAP Program and FERC's proposed rule. PIOs 
stated that DOE's proposed IIP Process plays a similar role to FERC's 
pre-filing process. Additionally, PIOs noted that DOE's resource 
reports are similar to those required under FERC's rule and recommended 
that DOE align the numbering of resource reports with the numbering in 
FERC's proposed rule.
    Several commenters supported alignment of the CITAP Program's 
requirements with FPA sections 216(a) and 216(b) regulations. ACEG, 
CEBA and the CARE Coalition urged DOE to align the CITAP Program with 
NIETC designation and FERC's backstop siting authority. CEBA suggested 
this would avoid duplication and ensure processes are clear and remain 
streamlined across relevant Federal agencies. ACEG stated it would 
ensure effective and efficient implementation; the CARE Coalition 
argued that this coordination would provide certainty and transparency 
for stakeholders, predictability for project proponents, and a 
reduction in associated project permitting costs. LADWP recommended 
that DOE align the information required by the resource reports during 
the IIP Process with the information required by the resource reports 
under FERC's proposed backstop permitting rule. LADWP suggested that 
alignment of this information would result in a more efficient 
permitting process. Similarly, ACORE recommended that DOE provide a 
mechanism for any information submitted under the NIETC program to be 
incorporated into the IIP Process.
    ACP commented that since proposed electric transmission projects 
seeking Federal ``backstop'' siting authority under section 216(b) of 
the FPA would not be eligible for the CITAP Program, DOE should ensure, 
in conjunction with FERC, that any subsequent NEPA rulemakings will 
allow for each agency to use an EIS prepared by the other agency as 
this would help to minimize the potential for duplicative reviews. 
Similarly, EDF recommended that in the event a transmission facility 
requires a construction or modification permit from FERC pursuant to 
section 216(b) of the FPA, DOE should conduct a single coordinated 
environmental review with FERC. EDF explained that the benefits of such 
a coordinated review have already been recognized by DOE in its 
``Building a Better Grid Initiative to Upgrade and Expand the Nation's 
Electric Transmission Grid To Support Resilience, Reliability, and 
Decarbonization'' NOI, wherein DOE states that ``DOE and FERC intend to 
work together, as appropriate, to establish coordinated procedures that 
facilitate efficient information gathering related to the scope of 
activities under review pursuant to these authorities.'' EDF believes 
that by coordinating, to the greatest extent practicable, pre-filing 
and application processes, DOE and FERC can work with project 
proponents to identify and resolve issues as quickly as possible, share 
information in a timely fashion, and expedite reviews conducted 
pursuant to these authorities, NEPA, and other requirements. ACEG added 
that to avoid fragmentation in the review process, and to comply with 
section 216(h) of the FPA, DOE must prepare a single document for the 
project's NEPA review, which will serve as the basis for decision-
making under both NIETC and CITAP.
    Two comments requested more information. ACEG and CEBA requested 
clarification on how a project proponent can initiate the CITAP Program 
while seeking project-specific NIETC designation and how a CITAP 
Program project can apply for backstop siting. ACEG explained that a 
project in a NIETC could need to transition to backstop siting years 
into the CITAP Program review process, and CEC/CPUC similarly requested 
clarification on what will happen to a CITAP Program application once a 
project becomes eligible for backstop siting. CEBA offered its 
interpretation of the NOPR, understanding that projects could 
participate in the section 216(h) process if the project has not 
triggered or received section 216(b) FERC backstop authority. ACEG 
explained that project proponents are likely to seek NIETC designation 
to unlock funding opportunities available to projects in designated 
corridors. ACEG encouraged DOE to streamline the processes by allowing 
project proponents to submit a single application to initiate both 
processes.
    Conrad Ko suggested the routes of any applicant for a transmission 
line construction permit to be automatically designated as a NIETC and 
for the entire United States should be designated a NIETC.
DOE Response
    DOE makes no revisions to the rule in response to these comments, 
except to renumber the resource reports to align with the numbering in 
FERC's proposed rule. DOE intends to coordinate interagency efforts to 
the greatest extent possible, pursuant to its authority under FPA 
section 216(h). The responsibility for coordinating Federal 
authorization under section 216(h) for projects seeking a permit under 
FPA section 216(b) has been delegated to FERC, pursuant to Delegation 
Order No. S1-DEL-FERC-2006. DOE's current approach to the environmental 
analysis for designation of NIETCs under section 216(a) may be found in 
the Guidance on Implementing Section 216(a) of the Federal Power Act to 
Designate National Interest Electric Transmission Corridors issued in 
December 2023.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ ``U.S. Department of Energy Grid Deployment Office Guidance 
on Implementing Section 216(a) of the Federal Power Act to Designate 
National Interest Electric Transmission Corridors.'' National 
Interest Electric Transmission Corridor Designation Process, United 
States Department of Energy, 19 Dec. 2023, www.energy.gov/sites/default/files/2023-12/2023-12-15GDONIETCFinalGuidanceDocument.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE does not find that any provisions in this rule would preclude 
the use of an EIS prepared by another agency, including FERC, should 
such a circumstance arise. DOE agrees with commenters that projects 
within a NIETC may qualify for the CITAP Program; however, if a project 
within a NIETC seeks a permit from FERC under FPA section 216(b), FPA 
section 216(h) coordination will proceed consistent with Delegation 
Order No. S1-DEL-FERC-2006. DOE has endeavored to align the 
environmental review procedures for NIETC designation and the CITAP 
Program to the greatest extent possible, and additionally align with 
FERC's proposed procedures for implementing section 216(b), as observed 
by PIOs, to minimize the chance that such transitions create 
duplicative work or unnecessary delay. Deviations among the 
regulations,

[[Page 35354]]

particularly the specific contents of the thirteen resource reports, 
reflect the differences in authorizations and permits DOE expects to 
coordinate and provide for in its single environmental review under FPA 
section 216(h).
    This final rule maintains the provision that the Director of the 
Grid Deployment Office may waive requirements of the CITAP Program, 
which provides flexibility for transitioning between processes without 
requiring duplicative work. Nothing in this final rule precludes the 
reuse or concurrent submission of resource reports or other project 
materials for a proposed project in a NIETC, whether under 
consideration for designation or already designated, seeking CITAP 
Program participation. DOE declines to further specify the coordination 
between NIETCs and the CITAP Program because it is outside the scope of 
the rulemaking. DOE has sufficiently established the requirements and 
restrictions on qualifying project designation and further details on 
interactions with other DOE programs are implementation issues that 
will be determined as needed. DOE may provide additional guidance 
outside of this rule regarding the interactions of various DOE and FERC 
authorities in section 216 of the FPA.

O. Miscellaneous

i. Presidential Appeal
Summary of Public Comments
    DOE received comments regarding the presidential appeals process 
and review. PIOs commented that the language in the proposed rule was 
consistent with the FPA but requested clarification on the process to 
inform project proponents and members of the public. PIOs requested 
that DOE clarify how the appeal to the President might work, and 
whether and how a project proponent might appeal the President's 
decision. AEU explained that the FPA section 216(h) allows for an 
appeal to the President of the United States which appears to be an 
extreme step in a process that should be handled through a judicial or 
administrative hearing. The association emphasized that transmission 
developers should have the ability to appeal if the approval process is 
not proceeding according to the schedule set by DOE through no fault of 
their own and the proposed rule should either describe how an appeal to 
the President would proceed or lay out a specific appeal process for a 
project developer. AEU also expressed concerns regarding recourse if 
the timeframe from NOI through issuance of the EIS is not met. AEP 
similarly recommended enabling project proponents to petition the court 
if Federal agencies fail to comply with applicable deadlines.
DOE Response
    Section 216(h) of the FPA authorizes the President to hear and 
consider appeals under that section. The 2023 MOU describes the 
procedures for Presidential appeals. The Presidential appeals provision 
of section 216 of the FPA and the procedures described in the MOU, 
including any process by which such a decision may be appealed, are 
outside the scope of DOE's authority and thus outside the scope of this 
rulemaking.
    In response to AEP's request that DOE enable project proponents to 
petition a court if Federal agencies fail to comply with applicable 
deadlines, DOE notes that it does not, through this rule, have the 
authority to authorize, or prohibit, project proponents from filing 
court petitions regarding of Federal agency adherence to applicable 
deadlines.
ii. Rehearing and Judicial Review
Summary of Public Comments
    PIOs urged DOE to explain the implications of section 313 of the 
FPA, including (1) the FPA's judicial review provision, in which 
challenges are first brought to the agency, and then litigated in a 
court of appeals under shorter timelines than most Federal agency 
decisions, which are subject to review in district courts within six 
years, and (2) the exhaustion requirements of the FPA, under which 
courts only recognize claims raised in a rehearing application. PIOs 
also asked DOE to explain whether the FPA's judicial review provisions 
require a potential challenger to intervene before DOE, to raise any 
substantive concerns during the DOE process even if DOE lacks 
substantive expertise with the challenger's concerns, to seek rehearing 
within thirty days, and to seek judicial review in a court of appeals 
within sixty days of a rehearing decision. PIOs also recommended that 
DOE (1) encourage parties, in both pre- and post-application outreach, 
to provide comment on transmission applications, (2) provide language 
for doing so, and (3) grant party status to any party that submits a 
timely comment.
DOE Response
    Section 313 of the FPA contains rehearing and judicial review 
provisions applicable to orders issued by DOE under the FPA, including 
any order issued under section 216(h). 16 U.S.C. 825l.\14\ Section 
313(a) provides that any person aggrieved by an order must first apply 
for rehearing within 30 days of the issuance of such order. Upon 
receiving the application, section 313 authorizes DOE to grant or deny 
rehearing or to abrogate or modify its order without a further hearing. 
DOE has 30 days to act upon the application for rehearing or the 
application is deemed to have been denied. Under section 313(b), a 
party may then proceed to seek judicial review in the courts of 
appeals, by filing a petition for review in such a court within 60 days 
of the order on the application for rehearing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Section 313 refers to ``an order issued by the [Federal 
Power] Commission.'' 16 U.S.C. 825l(a)-(b). In 1977, Congress 
dissolved the Federal Power Commission and transferred its 
authorities to DOE and FERC. See Department of Energy Organization 
Act, Public Law 95-91, 91 Stat. 565 (Aug. 4, 1977). The rehearing 
and judicial review provisions of section 313 apply to DOE as a 
successor to the Federal Power Commission. See Ctr. for Biological 
Diversity v. Dep't of Energy, No. CV 08-168AHM(MANX), 2008 WL 
4602721, at *5-6 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 16, 2008); Pa. Pub. Util. Comm'n v. 
Bodman, No. CIV. 1:CV-07-2002, 2008 WL 3925840, at *3-5 (M.D. Pa. 
Aug. 21, 2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Thus, any party that wishes to ensure the availability of judicial 
review of any relevant authorization or related environmental review 
document issued under section 216(h) should raise in rehearing before 
DOE all challenges to such authorization or document, including those 
actions undertaken by DOE in its role as the lead agency for purposes 
of environmental review. Subject to any further process, DOE intends to 
treat as a party any person or entity that comments on any relevant 
authorization or related environmental review document. Because these 
topics relate to procedures outside the scope of this rule and may 
depend on specific factual circumstances, DOE declines at this time to 
establish model language regarding rehearing and review. Nevertheless, 
DOE supports interested parties making comments on transmission 
applications in the CITAP Program, including pursuant to NEPA and other 
review processes that afford opportunities for comment and 
participation. Because of the various avenues for comment and 
participation and because the CITAP Program does not limit the public 
comments that can be made through the existing avenues for public 
input, DOE finds it is unnecessary to provide standardized language for 
providing comments as suggested by commenters.
iii. Role of States
Summary of Public Comments
    DOE received two comments related to the roles of states in siting

[[Page 35355]]

transmission lines. AEP emphasized the importance of respecting the 
roles and responsibilities of states and localities in transmission 
project approval. CEC/CPUC encouraged the coordination of Federal and 
State permitting processes, explaining that most major transmission 
facilities in California will require both Federal and State 
environmental review and approval. To align these processes and inform 
coordination, CEC/CPUC recommended that DOE support project-specific 
MOUs between State and Federal permitting authorities.
DOE Response
    DOE agrees with the commenters on the importance of states in the 
siting of transmission lines. Accordingly, and consistent with section 
216(h), the IIP Process is designed to encourage and facilitate states' 
participation. Moreover, nothing in the IIP Process supersedes any 
State siting or permitting authority. DOE may develop project-specific 
MOUs as appropriate and necessary; such individual decisions are 
outside the scope of this rulemaking.
iv. Effective Date
Summary of Public Comments
    Idaho Power requested clarification on when the CITAP Program 
outlined in the proposed rule would go into effect.
DOE Response
    DOE intends for the CITAP Program to take effect on the day this 
final rule takes effect: 30 days after publication of the rule in the 
Federal Register.
v. Costs and Benefits of Conservation
Summary of Public Comment
    AZGFD requested additional information about DOE's assessment of 
potential costs and benefits of the CITAP program. AZGFD stated that it 
was unclear whether DOE has assessed and evaluated the costs associated 
with implementation of conservation measures for offsetting potential 
impacts to resources. If DOE did not include this analysis, AZGFD 
recommends that DOE account for the cost of conservation measures.
DOE Response
    DOE makes no changes in this final rule in response to this 
comment. DOE believes that the CITAP Program, as finalized in this 
rulemaking, is designed to enhance coordination of decision-making 
efforts for the purposes of improved speed and efficiency of Federal 
permitting and authorizations overall, but will not materially impact 
the outcomes of specific decisions, which would include any 
conservation measures required to be undertaken. DOE's assessment of 
the final rule's anticipated costs and benefits is presented in section 
VIII of this document.
vi. Burden Estimates Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
Summary of Public Comment
    Gallatin Power expressed concern that the cost burden estimated in 
the NOPR seemed ``significantly lower than current market rates.'' 
Gallatin Power acknowledged that the median hourly rate was used to 
calculate the cost burden, but explained that, in its experience, 
``these hourly wages are significantly more when contracting with a 
subject matter expert, at an industry-accepted firm.'' Gallatin Power 
also expressed concern that the cost and time estimates did not 
identify a size for the transmission project given that ``these costs 
and time estimates would vary greatly among project lengths and 
locations.''
DOE Response
    DOE makes no changes in this final rule in response to this 
comment. Although Gallatin Power expressed concern about the burden 
analysis, it did not challenge DOE's approach as unreasonable nor did 
it provide an alternative approach for DOE to consider. As Gallatin 
Power acknowledges, costs and time estimates can vary widely among 
projects. Given that estimates can vary widely by project, DOE believes 
it was reasonable to use the most recently available median hourly wage 
for management analysts according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, 
for the proposed rulemaking and in this final rule, consistent with 
DOE's previous burden analysis for this collection. Though this revised 
collection changes the volution and subject matter of the information 
collection, including requesting analysis from a range of experts, many 
of the median wages reported by BLS for environmental and scientific 
consultants are below the management analysis median wage proposed by 
DOE, further supporting DOE's use of this occupation as a basis for 
estimation. Regarding the size of transmission project, DOE estimated 
an average burden for a qualifying project under CITAP, which 
represents a wide range of length and size, based on the special 
expertise in environmental evaluation of transmission projects within 
DOE. DOE's assessment of the final rule's estimated burden is in 
section VIII of this document.

P. Out of Scope Comments

Summary of Public Comments
    DOE received six additional comments not addressed above. NAM noted 
it supports a diverse approach to powering communities and operations, 
and urged DOE to follow its findings in the draft National Transmission 
Needs Study released in February 2023.
    The State of Colorado Governor's Office stated that the proposed 
rule does not consider the need to minimize the potential of the 
challenges from private citizens and groups alleging deficiencies in 
project review under NEPA and other statutes nor DOE's ability to 
facilitate interstate transmission development in the face of 
opposition from certain states or organizations.
    EEI suggested DOE consider how its implementation of section 216(h) 
can support electric companies working to meet State timelines for 
reducing emissions in the electric grid through its implementation of 
section 216(h) and for DOE and other agencies to consider IRA funds to 
increase the training of personnel or to provide grants to other 
agencies.
    Kris Pastoriza requested clarification on a statement on FERC's 
website, a definition for or list of ``interstate transmission lines.''
    Gallatin Power asked DOE to clarify whether designated DOE staff 
would be assigned to qualifying projects who could help move the 
permitting process along and would facilitate knowledge retention.
    EDF recommended DOE consider co-location of transmission projects 
within abandoned rights-of-way. In addition, EDF recommended DOE 
develop a record of right-of-way locations and to consider publishing 
this information on an interactive map for ease of use by the public. 
EDF believes the CITAP Program presents the perfect opportunity to 
develop this information. EDF believes this proposal would be 
consistent with the objective to ensure NEPA reviews are not 
duplicative because the information about rights-of-way would be more 
readily available for transmission projects.
DOE Response
    DOE finds these comments to be out of scope of the rulemaking, 
which addresses the implementation of DOE's authority to coordinate 
Federal environmental review and decision-making on transmission 
project authorizations and permits. The findings of the Needs Study are 
outside the scope of this rulemaking, as are the potential of 
challenges alleging deficiencies in NEPA review, as well as

[[Page 35356]]

any interpretations of FERC's authority. Regarding EEI's request that 
DOE consider State emissions reductions statutes in its implementation 
of section 216(h), DOE's authority is limited to coordination of 
environmental reviews and decision-making; project proponents remain 
responsible for meeting or complying with any State emissions 
reductions statutes. Additionally, regarding Gallatin Power's request 
that DOE clarify which DOE staff will be assigned to qualifying 
projects, whether there will be certain designated staff assigned to 
these projects will depend on the particular project and is best 
addressed on a project-by-project basis. Regarding EDF's recommendation 
for DOE to consider co-location within abandoned rights-of-way, project 
proponents remain responsible for proposed routes, and they may 
consider co-location as appropriate. Regarding EDF's recommendation for 
DOE to use the CITAP Program as an opportunity to develop a database of 
rights-of-way, DOE finds it unnecessary to adopt any regulatory text to 
address this recommendation but may, through implementation of the 
program, develop various tools to inform the public.

VII. Section-by-Section Analysis

Sec.  900.1 Purpose and Scope

    Section 900.1 provides a process for the timely and coordinated 
submission of information necessary for decision-making for Federal 
authorizations for siting of proposed electric transmission facilities 
pursuant to section 216(h) of FPA. This final rule revises 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 changes in this section reflect DOE's intent to carry 
out the full scope of the authority that Congress provided. Paragraph 
(a) is added to establish the overarching CITAP Program and provide a 
roadmap to authorities and processes throughout part 900. This 
paragraph states that DOE will act as a lead agency for preparing an 
environmental review document for any qualifying project. Paragraph 
(a), as well as revised paragraph (d), identify DOE's role in 
establishing and monitoring adherence to intermediate milestones and 
final deadlines, as required by section 216(h).
    This final rule revises the current regulatory text of Sec.  900.1 
by dividing it into paragraphs (b) through (d). Portions of the text 
dealing with the IIP Process have been 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 
changes also clarify that the IIP Process is integrated into the CITAP 
Program.
    In this final rule, DOE is adding 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, this 
section clarifies that nothing in the IIP Process is intended to 
abrogate the obligations of Federal agencies under 36 CFR part 800. 
Additionally, this section authorizes 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 redesignates 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. This final rule adds a 
new paragraph (f) to establish that DOE and the relevant Federal 
entities shall issue a joint decision document except where 
inappropriate or inefficient. This revision is to be consistent with 
NEPA regulations, including the Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023, 
which codified processes to streamline the environmental review process 
and facilitate one Federal decision, be consistent with the 
Congressional intent of FPA 216(h), and enhance DOE's coordinating 
function. This final rule revises new paragraph (g) to clarify that DOE 
will serve as lead agency for consultation under section 7 of the ESA 
and section 106 of the NHPA unless the relevant Federal entities 
designate otherwise. This revision aligns the lead agency designation 
with the authorizing statutes.
    This final rule also adds paragraph (h) 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 added this paragraph 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 has added language to indicate that the Director will consider 
modifications to the requirements under this part as may be necessary 
under the circumstances.

Sec.  900.2 Definitions

    DOE redesignated Sec.  900.3 as Sec.  900.2 for the purpose of 
providing the definitions of terms before those terms occur in the body 
of the regulation. Section 900.2 provides definitions for various terms 
used throughout part 900. This final rule amends or adds the following 
definitions:
     Revises the term ``affected landowner'' to ``potentially 
affected landowner'' and revises the substance of that definition to 
include any owner of a real property interest whose interest is 
potentially affected by a project right-of-way, potential route, or 
proposed ancillary or access site. Adds a definition of ``analysis 
area'' to serve as a reference in locating the points in the IIP 
Process that analysis areas are established and modified.
     Adds a definition for ``authorization'' to provide clarity 
in several places where that term occurs. Amends the definition for 
``Federal authorization'' to account for the new definition of 
``authorization.''
     Adds 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. Adds a definition for ``participating agencies'' to serve as 
shorthand for the group of agencies that will serve various roles under 
the amendments to the coordination of Federal authorizations.
     Adds a definition of ``NEPA joint lead agency'' to 
identify where information about the designation of a NEPA joint lead 
agency occurs in the rule.
     Removes the term ``OE-1,'' meaning the Assistant Secretary 
for DOE's Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability, and 
replaces 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 same substitution is made throughout part 900 to 
reflect that delegation change.

[[Page 35357]]

     Revises the reference to the definition of ``Indian 
Tribe'' in the United States Code to the correct reference following 
the 2016 editorial reclassification. This change does not amend the 
definition. Adds 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 
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 are updated throughout part 900.
     Revises the definition for ``regional mitigation 
approach'' to a more general term of ``mitigation approach.'' DOE 
revised this term because regional-level approaches and strategies may 
be too limiting for the needs at hand; instead, DOE wants to create the 
opportunity for discussion of all types of proposed mitigation for a 
given proposed project. In addition, DOE has revised the substance of 
this definition to clarify the meaning and more closely align with 
existing NEPA regulations regarding mitigation. Because the revisions 
to mitigation approach rendered ``regional mitigation strategies or 
plans'' redundant, DOE has removed that definition.
     Revises the definition for ``MOU signatory agency'' to 
mean any Federal entity that has entered into the currently effective 
MOU under section 216(h)(7)(B)(i) of the FPA. This change decouples the 
term from any particular MOU and keeps the rule current without 
requiring changes to the regulatory text. The term references the 2023 
MOU as an example.
     Revises the definition for ``qualifying project'' in a 
number of ways. First, the revised definition removes 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 revised definition includes several 
factors for determining if a transmission line is regionally or 
nationally significant. Third, the revised definition limits 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. Fourth, in accordance with the 2023 MOU, this 
final rule revises 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 
changes to Sec.  900.3 and discussed further in that section. Fifth, in 
accordance with the 2023 MOU, the term excludes a transmission facility 
that are seeking a construction or modification permit from FERC 
pursuant to section 216(b) of the FPA. Sixth, the revised definition 
excludes 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 it is not replicated it in this definition for 
clarity. Seventh, the revision provides a mechanism under Sec.  900.3 
by which a project that does not meet the definition of a qualifying 
project under the first paragraph of the term may still participate in 
the Program. This change is discussed in more detail in the following 
section.
     Revises the definition for ``project area'' to clarify the 
scope of this term.
     Removes the definitions of ``DOE'' and ``NEPA'' because 
those terms are acronyms best addressed in the regulatory text rather 
than as definitions.
     Removes the definition of ``FPA'' because that term no 
longer occurs in the regulatory text.
     Removes 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 part 900.
     Removes the definition for ``NEPA Lead Agency'' because 
that term is self-explanatory in the context in which it occurs.
     Revises the term ``stakeholder'' for clarity and 
readability and includes ``organization'' in the definition to clarify 
that stakeholders are not just individuals.
     Revises the term ``study corridor'' to clarify that the 
term does not coincide with ``permit area,'' ``area of potential 
effect,'' ``action area,'' or other terms specific to certain types of 
regulatory review.

Sec.  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.'' This final rule 
redesignates Sec.  900.2 as Sec.  900.3 and retains a mechanism by 
which projects that do not otherwise qualify as ``qualifying projects'' 
may be treated.
    Section 900.2(b) is revised and redesignated as Sec.  900.3(a)-(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, this final rule removes the definition of the term ``other 
project'' and instead includes the substance of that term in paragraph 
(a) of the revised section.
    Paragraphs (a) and (e) of current Sec.  900.2 are redesignated as 
paragraphs Sec.  900.1(f) and (g), respectively, because those 
paragraphs contain general propositions regarding part 900 and are 
better suited to the general ``Purpose and Scope'' section. This final 
rule removes the first sentence of current Sec.  900.2(e) as it is 
unnecessary because part 900 does not purport to affect other Federal 
law requirements except in specific, articulated instances.
    Current paragraphs Sec.  900.2 (g) and (h) are relocated to Sec.  
900.4 as paragraphs (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. Current Sec.  900.2(d) is redesignated as paragraph (e) and a 
new paragraph (d) is added. New paragraph (d) provides factors that the 
Director of GDO may consider when determining if a proposed electric 
transmission facility should be considered a qualifying project and 
accepted into the CITAP Program.
    Redesignated paragraph (e) is further amended. Whereas the current 
version of that paragraph provides that the section does not apply to a 
transmission facility that will require a construction or modification 
permit from FERC, this final rule amends the paragraph to allow such 
projects to take advantage of part 900, provided that the request to be 
included in the CITAP Program is submitted by a person with relevant 
authority under Delegation Order No. S1-DEL-FERC-2006 or any 
subsequent, similar delegation.
    In addition, this final rule removes paragraph (f), which describes 
the IIP process as a complementary process that does not supplant 
existing pre-application processes, because this final rule establishes 
the IIP Process as the mandatory precondition for coordination under 
section 216(h).
    This final rule adds new paragraphs (f) and (g)(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 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.

[[Page 35358]]

    Finally, current paragraph (c) is moved to paragraph (g)(2) to 
improve the readability of the section.

Sec.  900.4 Purpose and Scope of IIP Process

    Section 900.4 of the current rule states the purpose and structure 
of the IIP Process. This final rule divides this section into 
Sec. Sec.  900.4, 900.5, 900.8, and 900.9 to improve readability. 
Section 900.4(a) of the current rule remains in Sec.  900.4 but is 
further divided into paragraphs (a), (b), and (c) to improve 
readability.
    Sections 900.4(j)(3)(i) through (iv) are redesignated as Sec.  
900.4(a)(1) through (8) and amended to reflect a new purpose. Current 
Sec.  900.4(j)(3) requires the Federal entities at the initial meeting 
to identify reasonable criteria for adding, deleting, or modifying 
preliminary routes within the study corridors and lists nine criteria 
that should be included in the criteria that Federal entities identify. 
In contrast, new Sec.  900.4(a) provides that those criteria should 
instead be used by the project proponent when identifying potential 
study corridors and potential routes. The change encourages the project 
proponent to utilize the criteria in identifying routes and corridors 
throughout the IIP Process, rather than just after the initial meeting. 
This final rule retains the requirement for DOE and other agencies to 
identify other criteria for adding or modifying potential routes and 
includes that the agencies should also identify criteria for potential 
study corridors as well.
    Additionally, Sec.  900.4(b) establishes the IIP Process as a 
prerequisite for coordination, consistent with the statutory language 
and the revisions to the purpose of part 900 in Sec.  900.1. This final 
rule adds 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.
    This rule redesignates Sec.  900.2(g) and (h) as 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. Section Sec.  900.4 gives 
new 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, this final rule adds 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 establish the mechanisms through which the IIP Process 
complies with 10 CFR 1004.11 and 1004.13.

Sec.  900.5 Initiation of IIP Process

    Section 900.5 is composed of current Sec.  900.4(b), (c), (e), (g), 
(h), (i), and (j). This final rule revises 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. This final rule revises the contents 
of the request. First, this final rule updates the contents required in 
the summary of the qualifying project in 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. This 
final rule also adds new requirements for additional maps as part of 
the initiation request, as detailed in paragraph (c). DOE believes the 
additional information in paragraphs (b) and (c) is necessary to 
properly identify the relevant agencies for efficient coordination.
    Additional requirements are added in this final rule to require 
submission of a project participation plan as part of the initiation 
request. This plan is in place of the summary of early identification 
of project issues currently required under the current regulation. The 
project participation plan, as detailed in paragraph (d), will 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 
regulation will 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 complements 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.
    This final rule adds a new paragraph (e), 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. This final rule adds requirements for project proponents to 
indicate whether their proposed project currently is a FAST-41 
``covered project.''
    This final rule adds paragraph (f), which gives DOE 20 days from 
the receipt of the initiation request to determine whether the 
initiation request is sufficient and whether the proposed electric 
transmission facility is a qualifying project. In that same timeframe, 
paragraph (f) requires DOE to provide relevant Federal entities and 
relevant non-Federal entities with a copy of the initiation request and 
notify the project proponent and all relevant Federal entities and 
relevant non-Federal entities whether the initiation request is 
sufficient and whether the proposed facility is a qualifying project.
    This final rule adds a new paragraph (g), to provide clarity to the 
process that DOE and the project proponent must follow if DOE 
determines that the initiation request is insufficient or that the 
proposed facility is not a qualifying

[[Page 35359]]

project. Paragraph (g) dictates that DOE must give the project 
proponent the rationales for the determinations. It also provides that 
the project proponent may file a request for coordination with the 
Director of the GDO as provided in Sec.  900.3, if DOE determines that 
the proposed facility is not a qualifying project.
    This final rule removes 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 
is replaced by thirteen resource reports submitted after the IIP 
Process initial meeting.
    Section 900.5(j) is redesignated as Sec.  900.5(h), and the content 
of that section is amended to reflect a new timeline for convening the 
IIP Process initial meeting and updates to the discussions that must 
occur at the meeting. The timeline for convening the initial meeting 
has been reduced from 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 to within 15 days of 
providing notice under paragraph (f) that the initiation request meets 
the requirements of the section.
    Likewise, the contents of the initial meeting have been updated. 
Section 900.5(h)(1) is added to require DOE and the relevant Federal 
entities to discuss the IIP Process and requirements with the project 
proponent, the different Federal authorization processes, and 
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.
    This final rule adds Sec.  900.5(h)(2) to 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 
a project proponent 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.
    This final rule adds Sec.  900.5(h)(3) requiring DOE to establish 
all analysis areas necessary for the completion of resource reports 
required under Sec.  900.6. By requiring DOE to establish the analysis 
areas at this early stage of the IIP Process, this final rule enables 
and encourages the project proponent to begin assembling the resource 
reports soon after the proposed project is accepted into the CITAP 
Program.
    As discussed in the previous section, Sec.  900.4(j)(3)(i) through 
(iv) are redesignated as Sec.  900.4(a)(1) through (8) to encourages 
the project proponent to utilize the criteria in those paragraphs when 
in identifying potential routes and study corridors. Section 
900.5(h)(5) retains the requirement in Sec.  900.4(j)(3) for DOE and 
other agencies to identify other criteria for adding or modifying 
potential routes but adds that the agencies should also identify 
criteria for potential study corridors as well. Section 900.5(h)(5) is 
further amended to include a requirement that DOE and the relevant 
Federal entities discuss study corridors and potential routes 
identified by the project proponent and the criteria used to identify 
those corridors and routes.
    This final rule revises the requirement that DOE produce a draft 
initial meeting summary within 15 calendar days after the meeting to 10 
calendar days, and the revises the time that participating Federal 
entities and Non-Federal entities, and the project proponent will then 
have to provide corrections to the draft summary from 15 calendar days 
to 10 calendar days. Additionally, this final rule revises the 
requirement that DOE produce a final initial meeting summary within 30 
days of receiving corrections to the draft summary to 10 days. All 
three changes are intended to expedite the IIP Process.
    This final rule revises this section to add the requirement in 
Sec.  900.6 that requires DOE to add the final initial meeting summary 
to the consolidated administrative docket. Finally, this final rule 
removes portions of paragraph (j)(3)(v) because the contents are 
addressed elsewhere.

Sec.  900.6 Project Proponent Resource Reports

    This final rule adds a new Sec.  900.6 to add requirements for 
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 
will 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 
and hazards; Soil resources; Land use, recreation, and aesthetics; 
Communities of interest; Air quality and noise effects; Alternatives; 
Reliability, resilience, and safety; and Tribal interests. This final 
rule renumbers the resource reports in response to a comment, as 
discussed in section VI.L of this document.
    This final rule adds requirements for project proponents to 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 section 
900.4(d). The resource reports identify information needed to complete 
NEPA and other review and authorization requirements. However, the 
topics identified and the 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. To address possible 
differences in information required for onshore and offshore project 
environments, the final rule allows the Director to modify the 
requirements of resource reports to ensure that the reports adequately 
cover their intended purpose. 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. DOE anticipates that these reports will inform its work to 
meet its requirements under the various environmental laws referenced 
above. 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

[[Page 35360]]

addressed during the review meeting and throughout the IIP Process.
    These resource reports will be developed by project proponents 
during the IIP Process with input and feedback from the Federal and 
non-Federal entities involved in authorization decisions. This 
procedure better matches the IIP Process with the project development 
and Federal review timelines. Under these changes, a project proponent 
may initiate the IIP Process without detailed environmental resources 
information, but the detailed information required by this section must 
be developed to complete the IIP Process. The more detailed pre-
application information, presented in the resource reports, will 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.

Sec.  900.7 Standard and Project-Specific Schedules

    This final rule adds a new Sec.  900.7 to amend how DOE will carry 
out its obligation to ``establish prompt and binding intermediate 
milestones and ultimate deadlines for the review of, and Federal 
authorization decisions relating to, the proposed facility'' pursuant 
to section 216(h). 16 U.S.C. 824p(h)(4)(A). Specifically, this final 
rule adds a description for the ``standard schedule,'' which DOE will 
publish as guidance and update from time to time. The standard schedule 
is not project specific. Rather, 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. 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 below, DOE will develop this schedule with the NEPA joint 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 
provision is intended to specify the considerations that DOE will 
incorporate into its determination of the appropriate project-specific 
schedule including joint 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 paragraph (b).

Sec.  900.8 IIP Process Review Meeting

    This final rule amends 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, this final rule establishes 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, 
this final rule adds a requirement for a project proponent requesting 
the review meeting to update DOE on the status of the project's public 
engagement and provide updated environmental information.
    This final rule adds that the IIP Process review meeting will 
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, this final rule adds a 
requirement in paragraph (f) 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, the meeting participants will 
provide updates on the siting process, including stakeholder outreach 
and input. To facilitate these discussions, paragraph (a) is added to 
state 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, an updated public 
engagement plan and timeline information including dates on which any 
applications were already filed, estimated dates for filing remaining 
applications with Federal and non-Federal entities, and a proposed 
duration for each Federal land use authorization expected to be 
required for the proposed project.
    Additionally, the IIP Process review meeting will 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, the review meeting will only be held after submission 
of the reports. Section 900.8(f)(8) is added to state that during the 
IIP Process review meeting, DOE and the relevant Federal and non-
Federal entities will identify any updates to the information included 
in those reports that the project proponent must make before the 
conclusion of the IIP Process. Finally, this final rule adds in Sec.  
900.8(k) the requirement that the project proponent 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 a single environmental review document and increase the 
likelihood of readiness of the project proponent's application(s) for 
Federal authorization(s).
    Furthermore, the IIP Process review meeting will integrate DOE's 
statutory schedule-setting function discussed in the previous section 
into the IIP Process. For this purpose, the review meeting request 
under 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 Sec.  900.8(f)(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.
    This final rule adds a requirement in paragraph (b) that within 10 
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 the initial resource reports submitted 
under Sec.  900.6. In paragraph (c), DOE believes a 60-day period is 
necessary to review the request for sufficiency and provide notice to 
the proponent and relevant Federal and non-Federal agencies and 
provides in

[[Page 35361]]

paragraph (d) that it will provide reasons for any findings of 
insufficiency and how the project proponent may address them for 
reconsideration. Furthermore, this final rule adds a requirement in 
paragraph (e) that the review meeting will convene within 15 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 initial resources reports in paragraph (b) will ensure that all 
entities participating in the meeting have access to the materials 
being discussed at the meeting.
    This final rule adds requirements in paragraphs (g), (h), and (i) 
that the IIP Process review meeting will conclude with a draft and, 
subsequently, a final review meeting summary, to be prepared by DOE. 
This summary will be included in the consolidated administrative docket 
described by Sec.  900.10. It will serve as a docket of the issues 
identified by the parties to the review meeting, and to ensure that the 
project 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.
    This final rule adds paragraph (j) 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 will 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.

Sec.  900.9 IIP Process Close-Out Meeting

    This final rule amends the close-out meeting provisions of the 
current rule at Sec.  900.4(k) and (l). The IIP Process will conclude 
with the close-out meeting. This final rule adds the requirement of 
submission of a close-out meeting request to specify the modifications 
to the project since the review meeting. This final rule removes the 
requirement in this section that states that the request may be 
submitted no less than 45 days after the initial meeting. DOE removes 
that requirement because changes to the IIP Process in this final rule 
no longer allow for a request to be submitted within that timeframe.
    This final rule removes paragraphs (k)(3), (5), (8), and (9). The 
information required under those paragraphs will be submitted with the 
review meeting request under Sec.  900.8(a). Likewise, DOE removed 
paragraphs (k)(4), (6), and (7) because the information required under 
those paragraphs would be submitted in the resources reports under 
Sec.  900.6. Finally, paragraph (k)(1) is removed because the 
submission of close-out meeting request materials is presumed to 
indicate that a close-out meeting is being requested.
    Paragraphs (a)(2) and (3) require a description of all changes made 
to the proposed project since the review meeting and a final public 
engagement plan. In paragraph (a)(4) DOE added a requirement that the 
project proponent provide the requests for Federal authorizations for 
the proposed project. These will be included in the close-out meeting 
request to ensure that the project proponent is ready to begin the 
Federal authorization process.
    This final rule revises the timelines for requesting and convening 
a close-out meeting. In current paragraphs (1), (2), and (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 
provides in paragraph (b) that within 10 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 as required under Sec.  900.8. 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 paragraph (d), if DOE determines that 
the meeting request or updated resource reports are insufficient then 
DOE will provide reasons and how deficiencies may be addressed. Under 
paragraph (e), DOE will convene the close-out meeting within 15 days of 
notifying the project proponent that the request and updated resource 
reports have 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 removed the requirement that the substance of the close-out 
meeting 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. This information is covered at 
the review meeting under Sec.  900.8(d). Likewise, DOE eliminated 
paragraphs (l)(3)(ii), (iii), (iv), and (v) because that information is 
now required to be discussed at the review meeting. DOE added 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 previously explained, the project-
specific schedule will include the intermediate milestones and final 
deadlines for review of the project proponent's application and related 
environmental reviews.
    This final rule removes 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.'' This final rule adds a provision 
to select the NEPA joint lead agency earlier in the IIP Process to 
allow for sufficient coordination.
    DOE removed paragraph (l)(3)(vi) because the information covered by 
the Final IIP Resources Report will be covered by the thirteen 
resources reports. Additionally, DOE removed paragraph (l)(3)(vii), 
which encourages agencies to use the Final IIP Resources Report to 
inform the NEPA Process. Instead, this final rule adds a new 
requirement at Sec.  900.12(f) to require all relevant Federal entities 
to use the single environmental review document as the basis for 
Federal authorization decisions. That requirement is discussed in more 
detail as follows.
    This final rule removes paragraph (l)(3)(viii), which requires 
relevant Federal entities to identify a preliminary schedule for 
authorizations for the proposed project, because now DOE will set a 
project-specific schedule for all relevant Federal entities in 
consultation with such entities.
    Paragraphs (g), (h), and (i) provide that the IIP Process close-out 
meeting will conclude with a draft and, subsequently a final close-out 
meeting summary, to be prepared by DOE. This summary will be included 
in the administrative docket. It would serve as a summary of the issues 
identified by the parties to the close-out meeting, and

[[Page 35362]]

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 (i)(4), in accordance with the 2023 MOU, DOE will 
notify the 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).
    In paragraph (j), DOE and the NEPA joint lead agency shall issue a 
notice of intent to publish an environmental review document within 90 
days of the later of the IIP Process close-out meeting or the receipt 
of a complete application for a Federal authorization for which NEPA 
review will be required, as consistent with the final project-specific 
schedule to enable DOE to implement its coordinating authority under 
FPA section 216(h).
    Finally, in paragraph (k), in accordance with section 
313(h)(8)(A)(i) of the FPA, DOE shall issue, for each Federal land use 
authorization for a proposed electric transmission facility, a 
preliminary duration determination commensurate with the anticipated 
use of the proposed facility.

Sec.  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 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 dispenses with the 
IIP Process Administrative File and combines 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, this final rule amends and redesignates 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 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 joint lead NEPA agency. However, this 
final rule adds in paragraph (c) the requirement that DOE make the 
consolidated administrative docket available to both the NEPA joint 
lead agency and any Federal or non-Federal entity that will issue an 
authorization for the project. This change ensures that other entities 
are able to use the docket for their own authorizations. Consequently, 
this final rule removes paragraph (d), which says that Federal entities 
are strongly encouraged to maintain information developed during the 
IIP Process.
    This final rule adds 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 joint 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.
    This final rule adds a new paragraph (e) providing that upon 
request, any member of the public may be provided materials included in 
the docket, excluding any materials protected as CEII or as 
confidential under other processes. This addition is to support 
stakeholder engagement in the IIP Process.
    Finally, this final rule relocates paragraph (a) of the current 
rule to paragraph (b) for organizational purposes.

Sec.  900.11 NEPA Lead Agency and Selection of NEPA Joint Lead Agency

    This section states that DOE serves in the NEPA lead agency role 
contemplated in section 216(h) except where a joint lead is designated, 
in which case DOE serves as a joint lead. 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.
    This final rule redesignates Sec.  900.5 to a new Sec.  900.11 and 
amends 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 joint 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 joint 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 
proposed project would serve as lead agencies jointly responsible for 
preparing an EIS under NEPA. Section 900.11(b) reflects that agreed-
upon process.
    These 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 joint lead agency.

Sec.  900.12 Environmental Review

    Consistent with DOE's role as lead agency, a new Sec.  900.12 is 
added to define DOE's responsibilities as lead agency for environmental 
reviews and the NEPA process, including by preparing a single 
environmental review document designed to serve the needs of all 
relevant Federal entities. In paragraph (a) of this section, this final 
rule clarifies that DOE will begin preparing an environmental review 
document 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 joint lead agency selected under Sec.  
900.11.
    The other provisions of this section specify details of DOE's--and 
any NEPA joint 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. This final rule provides that 
except where inappropriate or inefficient to do so, the Federal 
agencies shall issue a joint record of decision, inclusive of all 
relevant Federal authorizations including the determination by the 
Secretary of Energy of a duration for each land use authorization 
issued under section 216(h)(8)(A)(i). This joint-decision provision is 
added to be consistent with NEPA regulations, including the Fiscal 
Responsibility Act of 2023, which codified processes to streamline the 
environmental review process and facilitate one Federal decision, be 
consistent with the Congressional intent of FPA 216(h), and enhance 
DOE's coordinating function.
    Consistent with section 216(h)(5)(A), which requires that DOE's 
environmental review document serve as ``the basis for all decisions on 
the project under Federal law,'' paragraph (f) is added to establish 
that the relevant

[[Page 35363]]

Federal agencies will use the environmental review document as the 
basis for their respective decisions.
    Finally, paragraph (g) is added to specify that DOE will serve as 
lead agency for purposes of consultation under the ESA and compliance 
with the NHPA unless the relevant Federal entities designate otherwise. 
This provision will allow DOE to meet its obligation under section 
216(h)(2) to coordinate ``all . . . related environmental reviews of 
the facility.''

Sec.  900.13 Severability

    Section Sec.  900.13 provides that the provisions of this final 
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 would still function sensibly 
and shall continue in effect. This 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 
this final 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.

VIII. 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 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 
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 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 final rule.
    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 these 
regulations and therefore the investment of time and resources required 
by this process are unlikely to be an additional burden on respondents. 
However, the full costs are considered in this analysis for 
transparency. These costs of $439,000 per year are detailed in the 
Paperwork Reduction Act burden analysis. The table below captures the 
10-year and 20-year net present value of those annual costs under two 
discount rates (3% and 7%).

                   CITAP Program NPV Cost Estimates *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Discount rate                    3%                 7%
------------------------------------------------------------------------
10-year NPV.......................         $3,745,000         $3,083,000
20-year NPV.......................          6,531,000          4,651,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* 10-year analysis is 2024-2033, 20-year analysis is 2024-2043. NPV
  estimates provided in 2024$.

    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.
    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.\15\ 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

[[Page 35364]]

public policy goals related to emissions and equitable energy access, 
as well as emissions reductions system wide.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 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.
    \16\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The DOE Grid Deployment Office released the 2023 National 
Transmission Needs Study (Needs Study), which identified significant 
need for the expansion of electric transmission across the contiguous 
United States.\17\ The 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.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ DOE, National Transmission Needs Study (Oct. 2023), 
available at https://www.energy.gov/sites/default/files/2023-12/National%20Transmission%20Needs%20Study%20-%20Final_2023.12.1.pdf.
    \18\ 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.\19\ A 2022 
study by Lawrence Berkeley National Lab found that between 2012 and 
2021, a 1000 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.\20\ 
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 in the 
past 17 years. With decreased authorization times after the CITAP 
Program is initialized, the additional capacity enabled by this action 
would likely provide substantial congestion relief, consistent with the 
studies cited previously.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ (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.
    \20\ 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.\21\ 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.\22\ 
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.\23\ 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.\24\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ 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. and 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.
    \22\ 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.
    \23\ Id.
    \24\ 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 non-monetized benefits of the CITAP Program to the 
public are expected to far offset the monetized 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 final rule under the provisions of the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act and the procedures and policies published on February 
19, 2003. DOE certifies that this final rule will 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 amendments to part 900 will 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

[[Page 35365]]

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 final rule will not have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities. Accordingly, DOE has 
not prepared a regulatory flexibility analysis for this rulemaking. 
DOE's certification and supporting statement of factual basis will be 
provided to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business 
Administration for review under 5 U.S.C. 605(b).

C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    This final 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 et seq.). The request to approve 
and revise this collection requirement has been submitted to OMB for 
approval. The amendments are intended to improve the pre-application 
procedures and result in more efficient processing of applications.
    This final rule modifies certain reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements included in OMB Control No. 1910-5185 which is an ongoing 
collection. The 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 revisions include 
requiring that a project proponent provide: (1) additional maps and 
information for the summary of proposed 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 environmental review 
document 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 and hazards; 
Soil resources; Land use, recreation, and aesthetics; Communities of 
interest; Air quality and noise effects; Alternatives; Reliability, 
resilience, 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 revisions 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 final rule 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 number/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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Final Rule Estimate of Annual Respondent Reporting and Recordkeeping Burden and Cost
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Initiation Request..............               3               3              30              90           5,855
Initial Meeting.................               3               3               8              24           1,561
Resource Report 1: General                     3               3             110             330          21,467
 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: Tribal                      3               3             160             480          31,224
 interests......................
Resource Report 7: Communities                 3               3              96             288          18,734
 of interest....................
Resource Report 8: Geological                  3               3             160             480          31,224
 resources and hazards..........
Resource Report 9: Soil                        3               3             200             600          39,030
 resources......................
Resource Report 10: Land use,                  3               3             224             676          43,714
 recreation and aesthetics......
Resource Report 11: Air quality                3               3             220             660          42,933
 and noise effects..............
Resource Report 12: Alternatives               3               3             160             480          31,224
Resource Report 13: Reliability,               3               3             100             300          19,515
 resilience, and safety.........
Review Meeting Request..........               3               3               1               3             195
Review Meeting..................               3               3               4              12             781
Close-Out Meeting Request.......               3               3               1               3             195

[[Page 35366]]

 
Close-Out Meeting...............               3               3               2               6             390
                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.......................               3               3           2,134           6,402         421,720
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* 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.

    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 final rule in accordance with NEPA and DOE's 
NEPA implementing regulations (10 CFR part 1021). DOE has determined 
that this final rule is covered under the categorical exclusion located 
at 10 CFR part 1021, subpart D, appendix A, Categorical Exclusion A5 
because this final rule revises 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. Therefore, DOE has determined that this 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 final 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 notice and has determined that this final rule will 
not preempt State law and will 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. This 
final rule aims to improve the coordination of Federal authorizations 
for proposed interstate electric transmission facilities pursuant to 
the FPA. Specifically, the amendments are intended to refine the pre-
application procedures and result in more efficient processing of 
applications. As a result, the amendments to part 900 do not have 
substantial direct effects on one or more Indian Tribes, will not 
impose substantial direct compliance costs on Indian Tribal 
governments, and will 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.

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.

[[Page 35367]]

(Pub. L. 104-4, sec. 201 (codified at 2 U.S.C. 1531)). For a 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 this final 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 this final 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 action and their expected benefits on 
energy supply, distribution, and use. This final 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 final rule will 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 rule that may affect family well-being. 
This final rule would not have any impact on the autonomy or integrity 
of the family as an institution. Accordingly, DOE has concluded that it 
is not necessary to prepare a Family Policymaking Assessment.

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 final rule under the OMB and DOE guidelines 
and has concluded that it is consistent with applicable policies in 
those guidelines.

IX. Congressional Notification

    As required by 5 U.S.C. 801, DOE will report to Congress on the 
promulgation of this rule before its effective date. The report will 
state that the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has 
determined that the rule does not meet the criteria set forth in 5 
U.S.C. 804(2).

X. Rehearing

    This rule is a final order subject to section 313 of the FPA (16 
U.S.C. 825l). Accordingly, any party seeking judicial review of this 
rule must first seek rehearing before the Department. A request for 
rehearing must be submitted in accordance with the FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT portion of this rule, within 30 days of the 
issuance of this rule. A request must concisely state the alleged 
errors in the final rule and must list each issue in a separately 
enumerated paragraph; any issue not so listed will be deemed waived.

XI. Approval by the Office of the Secretary of Energy

    The Secretary of Energy has approved publication of this final 
rule.

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 April 11, 2024, 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 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 April 12, 2024.
Treena V. Garrett,
Federal Register Liaison Officer, U.S. Department of Energy.

0
For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Department of Energy 
revises 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 and scope 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.

[[Page 35368]]

900.9 IIP Process close-out meeting.
900.10 Consolidated administrative docket.
900.11 NEPA lead agency and selection of NEPA joint 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 proposed electric 
transmission facility. Pursuant to section 216(h)(4)(A), this part 
establishes the mechanism by which DOE will set prompt and binding 
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) joint lead agency and in consultation with the 
relevant Federal entities, as applicable, DOE will prepare a single 
environmental review document, which will be designed to serve the 
needs of all relevant Federal agencies and inform all Federal 
authorization decisions on the proposed electric transmission project.
    (b) This part provides a process for the timely submission of 
information needed for Federal decisions related to authorizations for 
siting proposed electric transmission projects. This part seeks to 
ensure that these projects are developed consistent with the nation's 
environmental laws, including laws that address 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 
proposed 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. In addition, the IIP 
Process facilitates early identification of potential siting 
constraints and opportunities. The IIP Process promotes thorough and 
consistent stakeholder engagement by a project proponent. At the close-
out of each IIP Process, DOE will establish the schedule for all 
Federal reviews and authorizations required to site a proposed electric 
transmission facility, in coordination with the relevant Federal 
entities.
    (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 
determine it has an undertaking with the potential to affect historic 
properties and may, at that time, 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 lead 
for the section 106 process, consistent with DOE's role as lead or 
joint 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 proposed 
electric transmission projects. 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 proposed 
electric transmission project. Where the principal project developer is 
itself a Federal entity that would be otherwise expected to prepare an 
environmental review document 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:
    Analysis area means a geographical area established for a resource 
report at the IIP Process initial meeting and modified at the IIP 
Process review meeting, if applicable.
    Authorization means any license, permit, approval, finding, 
determination, or other administrative decision required under Federal, 
Tribal, State, or local law to site a proposed electric transmission 
facility, including special use authorization, certifications, 
opinions, or other approvals.
    Communities of Interest means the following communities that could 
be affected by a proposed electric transmission project: disadvantaged 
communities; rural communities; Tribal communities; indigenous 
communities; geographically proximate communities; communities with 
environmental justice concerns; and energy communities.
    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).
    Mitigation approach means an approach that applies a conceptual 
plan to identify appropriate measures to avoid, minimize, or compensate 
for potential impacts to resources from a proposed electric 
transmission project, consistent with 40 CFR 1508.1(s) or any successor 
regulation. A mitigation approach identifies the needs and baseline 
conditions of targeted resources, potential impacts from the proposed 
project, cumulative impacts of past and reasonably foreseeable future

[[Page 35369]]

disturbances to those resources, and future disturbance trends, then 
uses this information to identify priorities for measures across the 
relevant area. 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).
    MOU signatory agency means a Federal entity that has entered into 
the currently effective memorandum of understanding (MOU) under section 
216(h)(7)(B)(i) of the Federal Power Act, such as the interagency 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 joint lead 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.
    Potentially affected landowner means an owner of a real property 
interest that is potentially affected directly (e.g., crossed or used) 
or indirectly (e.g., changed in use) by a project right-of-way, 
potential route, or proposed ancillary or access site, as identified in 
Sec.  900.6.
    Project area means the area located between the two end points of 
the proposed electric transmission facility containing the study 
corridors selected by the project proponent for in-depth consideration 
for the proposed project and the immediate surroundings of the end 
points of the proposed facility. The project area does not necessarily 
coincide with ``permit area,'' ``area of potential effect,'' ``action 
area,'' or other terms specific to a certain type of regulatory review.
    Project proponent means a person or entity who initiates the IIP 
Process in anticipation of seeking a Federal authorization for a 
proposed electric transmission project.
    Qualifying project means:
    (1) A proposed electric transmission line and its attendant 
facilities:
    (i) That will either be a high-voltage (230 kV or above) line or a 
regionally or nationally significant line, as determined by DOE based 
upon relevant factors, including but not limited to, reduction in 
congestion costs for generating and delivering energy, mitigation of 
weather and variable generation uncertainty, and enhanced diversity of 
supply;
    (ii) Which is expected to be used, in whole or in part, for the 
transmission of electric energy in interstate or international commerce 
for sale at wholesale;
    (iii) Which is expected to require preparation of an environmental 
impact statement (EIS) pursuant to NEPA to inform an agency decision on 
a Federal authorization;
    (iv) Which is not proposed for authorization under section 8(p) of 
the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1337(p));
    (v) Which is not seeking a construction or modification permit from 
FERC pursuant to section 216(b) of the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 
824p(b)); and
    (vi) Which will not be wholly located within the Electric 
Reliability Council of Texas interconnection; or
    (2) Any other proposed 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 proposed electric transmission 
project, that is responsible for issuing a Federal authorization for 
the proposed project, that has relevant expertise with respect to 
environmental and other issues pertinent to or potentially affected by 
the proposed project, or that provides funding for the proposed 
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 proposed electric 
transmission project, that has relevant expertise with respect to 
environmental and other issues pertinent to or potentially affected by 
the proposed project, or that provides funding for the proposed 
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 Office 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 proposed 
electric transmission facility could be sited that is:
    (1) Wide enough to allow minor adjustments in the alignment of the 
proposed facility 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, interested non-
governmental organization, potentially affected landowner, or other 
interested person or organization.
    Study corridor means a contiguous area (not to exceed one mile in 
width) within the project area where potential routes or route segments 
may be considered for further study. A study corridor 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.


Sec.  900.3  Applicability to other projects.

    (a) Following the procedures set out in this section, the Director 
may

[[Page 35370]]

determine that a proposed 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 a 
proposed 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 
proposed 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 proposed 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 proposed facility is not a qualifying 
project, a justification of that determination, and an indication that 
the project proponent must follow the procedures of each relevant 
Federal entity that has jurisdiction over the proposed facility without 
DOE performing a coordinating function.
    (d) In making the determination whether a proposed electric 
transmission facility is a qualifying project, the Director may 
consider:
    (1) Whether the proposed facility would benefit from CITAP Program 
coordination;
    (2) Whether the proposed facility would result in reduced 
congestion costs for generating and delivering energy;
    (3) Whether the proposed facility would result in mitigation of 
weather and variable generation uncertainty;
    (4) Whether the proposed facility would result in an enhanced 
diversity of supply; and
    (5) Any other relevant factors, as determined by the Director.
    (e) For a proposed facility that is seeking a construction or 
modification permit pursuant to section 216(b) of the Federal Power 
Act, DOE may only consider a request for assistance under this section 
if the request under paragraph (b) of this section is consistent with 
Delegation Order No. S1-DEL-FERC-2006 or any similar, subsequent 
delegation that the Secretary may order.
    (f) At the discretion of the MOU signatory agencies, this section 
may be applied to a proposed electric 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.
    (g) This section does not apply to:
    (1) A proposed electric 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 proposed electric transmission facility wholly located within 
the Electric Reliability Council of Texas interconnection.


Sec.  900.4  Purpose and scope of IIP Process.

    (a) The Integrated Interagency Pre-Application (IIP) Process is 
intended for a project proponent who has identified potential study 
corridors or potential routes and the proposed locations of any 
intermediate substations for a proposed electric transmission project. 
To the extent possible, the project proponent should use the following 
criteria to identify potential study corridors and potential routes:
    (1) Potential environmental, visual, historic, cultural, economic, 
social, or health effects or harm based on the proposed project or 
proposed siting, and anticipated constraints (for instance, pole height 
and corridor width based on line capacity to improve safety and 
resiliency of the project);
    (2) Potential cultural resources, sacred sites, and historic 
properties that may be eligible for or listed in the National Register 
of Historic Places;
    (3) 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 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 Tribes, 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, 
National Historic Landmarks, units of the National Park System, 
national marine sanctuaries, and marine national monuments;
    (4) Opportunities to site potential 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, 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), existing rights-of-way, National Interest Electric 
Transmission Corridors designated under Federal Power Act section 
216(a), or utility corridors identified in a land management plan);
    (5) Potential constraints caused by impacts on military test, 
training, and operational missions, including impacts on installations, 
ranges, and airspace;
    (6) Potential constraints caused by impacts on the United States' 
aviation system;
    (7) Potential constraints caused by impacts to navigable waters of 
the United States; and
    (8) Potential avoidance, minimization, offsetting, and compensatory 
(onsite and offsite) measures, developed through a mitigation approach 
to reduce or offset the potential impact of the proposed project to 
resources requiring mitigation.
    (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 proposed electric transmission project, the project proponent's 
siting process, and the environmental and community setting being 
considered by

[[Page 35371]]

the project proponent for siting the proposed electric transmission 
facility; 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, in accordance 
with applicable law. The project proponent must request confidential 
treatment for all material filed with DOE containing non-public 
location, character, and ownership information about cultural 
resources.
    (i) Pursuant to 10 CFR 1004.13, any person submitting information 
during 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 proposed electric transmission 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 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 proposed project. The summary of the proposed 
electric transmission project may not exceed 10 single-spaced pages 
unless the project proponent requests a waiver of the page limit, 
including a rationale for the waiver, and DOE grants the waiver. The 
summary 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 proposed project or the need for the proposed project; 
and
    (ii) Any relevant interconnection requests;
    (4) A description of potential study corridors and routes 
identified by the project proponent and a brief description of the 
evaluation criteria and methods used by the project proponent to 
identify and develop those corridors and routes;
    (5) A brief description of the proposed 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 proposed project;
    (6) Identification of any environmental and engineering firms and 
sub-contractors under contract to develop the proposed 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 proposed project.
    (c) Maps, geospatial information, and studies. The initiation 
request must include maps, geospatial information, and studies in 
support of the information provided in the summary of the proposed 
project under paragraph (b) of this section. Maps must be of sufficient 
detail to identify the study corridors and potential 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 in 
these materials should be submitted in accordance with Sec.  900.4(h);
    (2) A map of the project area showing potential study corridors and 
potential routes;
    (3) Existing data or studies relevant to the summary of the 
proposed project; and
    (4) Citations identifying sources, data, and analyses used to 
develop the summary of the proposed project.

[[Page 35372]]

    (d) Project participation plan. The project participation plan, 
which may not exceed 10, single-spaced pages, summarizes the 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, as well as 
any entities and organizations interested in the proposed electric 
transmission project;
    (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 proposed project and the rights that the owners 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 study 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 or issues 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 public communications and public information, 
including whether the project proponent will have a readily accessible, 
easily identifiable, single point of contact.
    (e) FAST-41 statement. The FAST-41 statement required under 
paragraph (a) of this section must specify the status of the proposed 
electric transmission project pursuant to FAST-41 at the time of 
submission of the initiation request. The statement must either:
    (1) State that 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) Initiation request determination. Not later than 20 calendar 
days after the date that DOE receives an initiation request, DOE shall:
    (1) Determine whether the initiation request meets the requirements 
of this section and, if not previously determined under Sec.  900.3, 
whether the proposed electric transmission facility is a qualifying 
project;
    (2) Identify the relevant Federal entities and relevant non-Federal 
entities and provide each with an electronic copy of the initiation 
request; and
    (3) Give notice to the project proponent and relevant Federal and 
non-Federal entities of DOE's determinations under paragraph (f)(1) of 
this section.
    (g) Deficiencies. If DOE determines under paragraph (f)(1) of this 
section that the initiation request does not meet the requirements of 
this section, DOE must 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. If DOE determines under paragraph (f)(1) of this 
section that the proposed electric transmission facility is not a 
qualifying project, DOE must provide a justification for the 
determination and the project proponent may file a request for 
coordination with the Director as provided in Sec.  900.3. A project to 
site a proposed electric transmission facility that is not a qualifying 
project is not eligible for participation in the IIP Process.
    (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 (f) of this section as soon as practicable and no later 
than 15 calendar days after the date that DOE provides notice under 
paragraph (f) 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) DOE will establish all analysis areas necessary for the 
completion of resource reports required under Sec.  900.6;
    (4) The project proponent shall describe the proposed electric 
transmission project and the contents of the initiation request;
    (5) 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, discuss the study corridors and potential routes 
identified by the project proponent, discuss the evaluation criteria 
and methods used to identify those corridors and routes and, to the 
extent possible and based on agency expertise and experience, identify 
any additional criteria for adding or modifying potential routes and 
study corridors;
    (6) DOE and the relevant Federal entities will discuss, based on 
available information provided by the project proponent, any surveys 
and studies that may be required for potential routes and completion of 
the resource reports, including biological (including

[[Page 35373]]

threatened and endangered species or avian, aquatic, and terrestrial 
species and aquatic habitats of concern), visual, cultural, economic, 
social, health, and historic surveys and studies.
    (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 10 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 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 10 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 10 calendar days following the 
close of the 10-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 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. 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 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. If 
material required for one resource report is provided in another 
resource report or in another exhibit, it may be incorporated by 
reference. If outside material is reasonably available for review and 
comment, a resource report may incorporate that material by reference 
by including a citation to the material and a brief summary of the 
material. Consistent with Sec. Sec.  900.1(h) and 900.4(g), the 
Director may modify the requirements of this section to reflect 
differences in onshore and offshore environments and uses.
    (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 
Process 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 proposed electric transmission project;
    (2) Identify environmental effects expected to occur as a result of 
the proposed project;
    (3) Identify the potential effects of construction, operation 
(including maintenance and malfunctions), and termination of the 
proposed 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, minimize, or compensate for potential adverse effects of the 
proposed project; and
    (5) Provide a list of publications, reports, and other literature 
or communications, including agency communications, that were cited or 
relied upon to prepare each report.
    (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 relevant 
Federal entities 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 
should describe all expected facilities associated with the project, 
special construction and operation procedures, construction timetables, 
future plans for related construction, and permits, authorizations, and 
consultations that are expected to be required for proposed project. 
Resource Report 1 must:
    (1) Describe and provide location maps of all facilities to be 
constructed, modified, abandoned, replaced, or removed, including 
facilities related to 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 (e.g., connections to existing substations and 
transmission, and existing access roads);
    (2) Describe specific generation resources that are known or 
reasonably foreseen to be developed or interconnected as a result of 
the proposed electric transmission project, if any;
    (3) Identify facilities constructed by other entities that are 
related to the proposed project (e.g., fiber optic cables) and where 
those facilities would be located;
    (4) Provide the following information for each facility described 
under paragraphs (f)(1) through (3) of this section:
    (i) A brief description of the 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; and
    (ii) Current topographic maps showing the location of the facility;
    (5) Provide any communications with the appropriate State Historic 
Preservation Offices (SHPOs) and Tribal Historic Preservation Offices 
(THPOs) regarding cultural and historic resources in the project area;

[[Page 35374]]

    (6) To the extent known, identify the permits, authorizations, and 
consultations that are expected to be required for proposed project, 
including consultation under section 106 of the NHPA, consultation 
under section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (Pub. L. 93-205, 
as amended, 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), consistency determinations under 
the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA), and permits under the Clean 
Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) (CWA);
    (7) Describe any developments in obtaining authorizations and 
permits or completing required consultations for the proposed project 
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 resource report;
    (8) If the project includes abandonment of certain facilities, 
rights-of-way, or easements, identify and describe the following:
    (i) facilities, rights-of-way, or easements that the project 
proponent plans to abandon;
    (ii) how the facilities, rights-of-way, or easements would be 
abandoned;
    (iii) how the abandoned facilities, rights-of-way, and easements 
would be restored;
    (iv) the owner of the facilities, rights-of-way, or easement after 
abandonment;
    (v) the party responsible for the abandoned facilities, rights-of-
way, or easement;
    (vi) whether landowners were or are expected to be given the 
opportunity to request that the abandoned facilities on their property, 
including foundations and below ground components, be removed; and
    (vii) landowners whose preferences regarding abandoned facility 
removal the project proponent does not intend to honor and reasons why 
the project proponent does not intend to honor those preferences;
    (9) Provide construction timetables and describe, by milepost, 
proposed construction and restoration methods to be used in areas of 
rugged topography, residential areas, active croplands, sites where the 
proposed project would be located parallel to and under roads, and 
sites where explosives may be used;
    (10) Describe estimated workforce requirements for the proposed 
project, 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;
    (11) Describe reasonably foreseeable plans for future expansion of 
facilities related to the project, including additional land 
requirements and the compatibility of those plans with the current 
proposal;
    (12) Provide the names and mailing addresses of all potentially 
affected landowners identified by the project proponent, identify which 
potentially affected landowners have been notified by the project 
proponent, and describe the methodology used to identify potentially 
affected landowners;
    (13) Summarize the proposed mitigation approach anticipated by the 
project proponent to reduce the potential impacts of the proposed 
project to resources warranting or requiring mitigation; and
    (14) Describe how the proposed 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 should 
describe water resources that may be impacted by the proposed project, 
describe the potential impacts on these resources, and describe the 
measures taken to avoid and minimize adverse effects to such water 
resources, where appropriate. Resource Report 2 must:
    (1) Identify surface water resources, including perennial 
waterbodies, intermittent streams, ephemeral waterbodies, municipal 
water supply or watershed areas, specially designated surface water 
protection areas and sensitive waterbodies, floodplains, and wetlands, 
that would be crossed by a potential route;
    (2) For each surface water resource that would be crossed by a 
potential route, identify the approximate width of the crossing, State 
water quality classifications, any known potential pollutants present 
in the water or sediments, and any downstream potable water intake 
sources within the applicable analysis area;
    (3) Describe typical staging area requirements at surface water 
resource crossings and identify and describe each potential surface 
water crossing where staging areas are likely to be more extensive and 
could require a mitigation approach to address potential impacts to the 
water resource;
    (4) Provide two copies of floodplain and National Wetland Inventory 
(NWI) maps or, if not available, appropriate State wetland maps clearly 
showing the study corridors or potential routes and mileposts;
    (5) For each wetland crossing, identify the milepost of the 
crossing, 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) Describe and provide data supporting the expected impact of the 
proposed project on surface and groundwater resources;
    (8) Describe and provide data supporting proposed avoidance and 
minimization measures as well as protection or enhancement measures 
that would reduce the potential for adverse impacts to surface and 
groundwater resources, and discuss any potential compensation expected 
to be provided for remaining unavoidable impacts to water resources due 
to the proposed project;
    (9) Identify the location of known public and private groundwater 
supply wells or springs within the applicable analysis area;
    (10) Identify locations of EPA or State-designated principal-source 
aquifers and wellhead protection areas crossed by a potential route;
    (11) Discuss the results of any coordination with relevant Federal 
entities or non-Federal entities related to CWA permitting and include 
any written correspondence that resulted from the coordination; and
    (12) Indicate whether the project proponent expects that a water 
quality certification (under section 401 of the CWA) will be required 
for any potential routes.
    (h) Resource Report 3--Fish, wildlife, and vegetation. This report 
should identify and describe potential impacts to aquatic and 
terrestrial habitats, wildlife, and plants from the proposed project 
and discuss potential avoidance, minimization, or compensation 
measures, and enhancement or protection measures to reduce adverse 
impacts to these resources. Resource Report 3 must:
    (1) Describe aquatic habitats that occur in the applicable analysis 
area, including commercial and recreational warmwater, coldwater, and 
saltwater fisheries and associated significant habitats such as 
spawning or rearing areas, estuaries, and other essential fish 
habitats;
    (2) Describe terrestrial habitats that occur in the project area, 
including wetlands, typical wildlife habitats, and rare, unique, or 
otherwise significant habitats;

[[Page 35375]]

    (3) Identify fish, wildlife, and plants that may be affected by the 
proposed project, including 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 by the proposed project, 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 the proposed project on aquatic and 
terrestrial habitats, including potential loss and fragmentation;
    (6) Describe the potential impact of the proposed project on 
Federally listed, candidate, or proposed endangered or threatened 
species, State, Tribal, and local species of concern, and those 
species' habitats, including the possibility of a major alteration to 
ecosystems or biodiversity;
    (7) Describe the potential impact of maintenance, clearing, and 
treatment of the applicable analysis area on fish, wildlife, and plant 
life;
    (8) Identify all Federally listed, candidate, or proposed 
endangered or threatened species that may be affected by the proposed 
project and proposed or designated critical habitats that potentially 
occur in the applicable analysis area;
    (9) Identify all State, Tribal, and local species of concern that 
may be affected by the proposed project;
    (10) Identify all known and potential bald and golden eagle nesting 
and roosting sites, migratory bird flyways, and any sites important to 
migratory bird breeding, feeding, and sheltering within the applicable 
analysis areas. These identifications should coincide with the USFWS's 
most current range and location maps at the time this resource report 
is submitted;
    (11) 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;
    (12) Include the results of any appropriate surveys that have 
already been conducted, as well as plans and protocols for future 
surveys. If potentially suitable habitat is present, species-specific 
surveys may be required;
    (13) If present, identify all Federally designated essential fish 
habitat (EFH) that occurs in the applicable analysis area and provide:
    (i) Information on all EFH, as identified by the pertinent Federal 
fishery management plans, which may be adversely affected by potential 
routes;
    (ii) The results of discussions with National Marine Fisheries 
Service; and
    (iii) Any resulting EFH assessments that were evaluated, and EFH 
Conservation Recommendations that were provided by the National Marine 
Fisheries Service;
    (14) Describe potential avoidance, minimization, or compensation 
measures, and enhancement or protection measures to address adverse 
effects described in paragraphs (h)(5), (6), and (7) of this section;
    (15) Describe anticipated site-specific mitigation approaches for 
fisheries, wildlife (including migration corridors and seasonal areas 
of use), grazing, and plant life;
    (16) Describe proposed measures to avoid and minimize incidental 
take of Federally listed and candidate species and species of concern, 
including eagles and migratory birds; and
    (17) Include copies of any correspondence not otherwise provided 
pursuant to this paragraph (h) containing recommendations from 
appropriate Federal, State, and local fish and wildlife agencies to 
avoid or limit impact on wildlife, fish, fisheries, habitats, and 
plants, and the project proponent's response to those recommendations.
    (i) Resource Report 4--Cultural resources. This report should 
describe the location of known cultural and historic resources, 
previous surveys and listings of cultural and historic resources, the 
potential effects that construction, operation, and maintenance of the 
proposed project will have on those resources, and initial 
recommendations for avoidance and minimization measures to address 
potential effects to those resources. 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 known cultural and historic resources in the 
applicable analysis area including but not limited to those listed or 
eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places, such 
as properties of religious and cultural significance to Indian Tribes, 
and any material remains of past human life or activities that are of 
an archeological interest;
    (ii) A description of potential effects that construction, 
operation, and maintenance of the proposed project will have on 
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 of the proposed project;
    (v) Any relevant existing surveys or listings of cultural and 
historic resources in the affected environment; and
    (vi) Recommendations for any additional surveys needed; and
    (vii) A description, by milepost, of any area that has not been 
surveyed due to a denial of access by landowners.
    (2) The project proponent must update this report with the results 
of any additional surveys that the project proponent chooses to 
undertake, as identified in in paragraph (i)(1)(vi) of this section, 
after the initial submission of this report.
    (3) The project proponent must request confidential treatment for 
all material filed with DOE containing non-public location, character, 
and ownership information about cultural resources in accordance with 
Sec.  900.4(h).
    (j) Resource Report 5--Socioeconomics. This report should identify 
and quantify the impacts of constructing and operating the proposed 
project on the demographics and economics of communities in the 
applicable analysis area, including minority and underrepresented 
communities. Resource Report 5 must:
    (1) Describe the socioeconomic resources that may be affected in 
the applicable analysis area;
    (2) Describe the positive and adverse socioeconomic impacts of the 
proposed project;
    (3) Evaluate the impact of any substantial migration of people into 
the applicable analysis 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 applicable analysis area, who 
would commute daily to the site from outside the

[[Page 35376]]

analysis area, or who would relocate temporarily within the analysis 
area;
    (5) Determine whether existing affordable housing within the 
applicable analysis 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 proposed project, procedures to be used to 
acquire these properties, and types and amounts of relocation 
assistance payments.
    (k) Resource Report 6--Tribal interests. This report must identify 
the Indian Tribes and indigenous communities that may be affected by 
the construction, operation, and maintenance of the project facilities, 
including those Indian Tribes and indigenous communities that may 
attach religious and cultural significance to cultural resources within 
the project area. In developing this report, the project proponent 
should consider both Indian Tribes with contemporary presence in the 
project area and Indian Tribes with historic connections to the area. 
To the extent Indian Tribes and indigenous communities are willing to 
communicate and share resource information, this report must discuss 
the potential impacts of project construction, operation, and 
maintenance on Indian Tribes and Tribal interests. This discussion must 
include impacts to sacred sites and Treaty rights, 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 any additional, relevant traditional cultural and 
religious resources that could be affected by the proposed electric 
transmission project that are not already addressed. This resource 
report should acknowledge existing relationships between adjacent and 
underlying Federal land management agencies and the Indian Tribes. In 
developing this report, the project proponent should engage the Federal 
land manager early to leverage existing relationships. Specific site or 
property locations, the disclosure of which may create a risk of harm, 
theft, or destruction of archaeological or Native American cultural 
resources and information 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 304 of 
the NHPA (54 U.S.C. 307103), should be submitted consistent with Sec.  
900.4(h). The project proponent must request confidential treatment for 
all material filed with DOE containing non-public location, character, 
and ownership information about Tribal resources in accordance with 
Sec.  900.4(h).
    (l) Resource Report 7--Communities of Interest. This report must 
summarize best available information about the presence of communities 
of interest. The resource report must identify and describe the 
potential impacts of constructing, operating, and maintaining the 
proposed electric transmission project on communities of interest; and 
describe any proposed mitigation approaches for 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.
    (m) Resource Report 8--Geological resources and hazards. This 
report should describe geological resources that might be directly or 
indirectly affected by the proposed electric transmission project and 
methods to reduce those effects. The report should also describe 
geological hazards that could place project facilities at risk and 
methods proposed to mitigate those risks. Resource Report 8 must:
    (1) Describe geological resources in the applicable analysis area 
that are currently or potentially exploitable, if relevant;
    (2) Identify, by milepost, existing and potential geological 
hazards and areas of nonroutine geotechnical concern in the applicable 
analysis area, 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 proposed project from each 
hazard or area of nonroutine geotechnical concern identified in 
paragraph (m)(2) of this section;
    (4) Describe how the proposed project would be located or designed 
to avoid or minimize adverse effects to geological resources and reduce 
risk to project facilities, 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 discuss whether the proposed project would hinder mine reclamation 
or expansion efforts.
    (n) Resource Report 9--Soil resources. This report should describe 
the soils that could be crossed by the proposed electric transmission 
project, the potential effect on those soils, and the proposed 
mitigation approach for those effects. Resource Report 9 must:
    (1) List, by milepost, the soil associations that would be crossed 
by each potential route and describe the erosion potential, fertility, 
and drainage characteristics of each association;
    (2) For the applicable analysis area:
    (i) List the soil series within the area and the percentage of the 
area 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 soil units are classified as prime or unique 
farmland by the USDA, Natural Resources Conservation Service;
    (3) Identify potential impacts 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 the proposed mitigation approach to reduce the 
potential for adverse impact to soils or agricultural productivity.
    (o) Resource Report 10--Land use, recreation, and aesthetics. This 
report should describe the existing uses of land that may be impacted 
by the proposed project, and changes to those land uses and impacts to 
inhabitants and users that would occur if the proposed electric 
transmission project is approved. Resource Report 10 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 existing rights-of-way that would be co-located with or 
adjacent to the proposed rights-of-way (including temporary 
construction lines), and any required utility coordination, permits,

[[Page 35377]]

and fees that would be associated as a result;
    (3) Identify, preferably by diagrams, existing rights-of-way that 
are expected to be used for any portion of the construction or 
operational right-of-way, the overlap, and how much additional width is 
expected to 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:
    (i) Lands crossed by or adjacent to each project facility; and
    (ii) Lands on which a project facility is expected to be located;
    (7) Describe:
    (i) Planned development within the applicable analysis area that is 
either included in a master plan or on file with the local planning 
board or the county;
    (ii) The time frame (if available) for such development; and
    (iii) Proposed coordination to minimize impacts on land use due to 
such development;
    (8) Identify areas within applicable analysis areas that:
    (i) Are owned or controlled by Federal, State or local agencies, or 
private preservation groups;
    (ii) Are directly affected by the proposed project or any project 
facilities or operational sites; and
    (iii) Have special designations not otherwise mentioned in other 
resource reports.
    (iv) Examples of such specially designated areas under this 
provision may include but are not limited to sugar maple stands, 
orchards and nurseries, landfills, hazardous waste sites, nature 
preserves, conservation or agricultural lands subject to conservation 
or agricultural easements or restrictions, game management areas, 
remnant prairie, old-growth forest, national or State forests, parks, 
designated natural, recreational or scenic areas, registered natural 
landmarks, and areas managed by Federal entities under existing land 
use plans as Visual Resource Management Class I or Class II areas;
    (9) Identify Indian Tribes and indigenous communities that may be 
affected by the proposed project;
    (10) Describe Tribal and indigenous community resources lands, 
interests, and established treaty rights that may be affected by the 
proposed project;
    (11) Identify properties within the project area which may hold 
cultural or religious significance for Indian Tribes and indigenous 
communities, regardless of whether the property is on or off of any 
Federally recognized Indian reservation;
    (12) Identify resources within the applicable analysis area that 
are included in, or are designated for study for inclusion in, if 
available: the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System (16 U.S.C. 1271), 
the National Wildlife Refuge System (16 U.S.C. 668dd), the National 
Wilderness Preservation System (16 U.S.C. 1131), the National Trails 
System (16 U.S.C. 1241-1251), the National Park System (54 U.S.C. 
100101-120104), 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. 1131-1136); or the National Marine 
Sanctuary System, including national marine sanctuaries (16 U.S.C. 
1431-1445c-1.) and Marine National Monuments as designated under 
authority by the Antiquities Act (54 U.S.C. 320301-320303) or by 
Congress; National Forests and Grasslands (16 U.S.C. 1609 et seq); and 
lands in easement programs managed by the Natural Resource Conservation 
Service or the U.S. Forest Service (16 U.S.C. 3865, et seq.);
    (13) Indicate whether the project proponent will need to submit a 
CZMA Federal consistency certification to State coastal management 
program(s) for the project, as required by NOAA's Federal consistency 
regulations at 15 CFR part 930, subpart D;
    (14) Describe the impacts the proposed project will have on:
    (i) Present uses of land in the applicable analysis area, including 
commercial uses, mineral resource uses, and recreational uses,
    (ii) Public health and safety;
    (iii) Federal, State, and Tribal scientific survey, research, and 
observation activities;
    (iv) Sensitive resources and critical habitats;
    (v) The aesthetic value of the land and its features; and
    (vi) Federal, State or Tribal access limitations.
    (15) Describe any temporary or permanent restrictions on land use 
that would result from the proposed project.
    (16) Describe the proposed mitigation approach intended to address 
impacts described in paragraphs (o)(12) and (13) of this section, as 
well as protection and enhancement of existing land use;
    (17) Provide a proposed operations and maintenance plan for 
vegetation management, including management of noxious and invasive 
species;
    (18) Describe the visual characteristics of the lands and waters 
affected by the proposed project. Components of this description 
include a description of how permanent project facilities will impact 
the visual character of proposed project right-of-way and surrounding 
vicinity, and measures proposed to lessen these impacts. Project 
proponents are encouraged to supplement the text description with 
visual aids;
    (19) Identify, by milepost, all residences and buildings near the 
proposed electric transmission facility construction right-of-way, and 
identify 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 proposed facility in relation to the 
buildings;
    (20) 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 
the applicable analysis area 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;
    (21) List all known commercial AM radio transmitters located within 
the applicable analysis area and all known FM radio transmitters, 
microwave relay stations, or other similar electronic installations 
located within the analysis area; provide a general description of each 
installation and its distance from the centerline of the proposed 
project; and locate all installations on a routing map; and
    (22) List all known private airstrips within the applicable 
analysis area and 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 the analysis area. 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

[[Page 35378]]

the FAA having no runway more than 3,200 feet in length that are 
located within the analysis area. 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 the analysis 
area. 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.
    (23) Information made available under paragraphs (o)(9), (10), and 
(11) must be submitted consistent with Sec.  900.4(h), including 
information regarding 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 and information 
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 304 of the NHPA (54 U.S.C. 
307103).
    (p) Resource Report 11--Air quality and noise effects. This report 
should identify the effects of the proposed electric transmission 
project on the existing air quality and noise environment and describe 
proposed measures to mitigate the effects. Resource Report 11 must:
    (1) Describe the existing air quality in the applicable analysis 
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, including 
greenhouse gas 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 proposed project or 
interconnect as a result of the proposed project, 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 proposed project with the applicable General 
Conformity thresholds (40 CFR part 93);
    (iv) Identify the corresponding impacts on communities and the 
environment in the applicable analysis 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 proposed 
project on indirect emissions;
    (3) Describe existing noise levels at noise-sensitive areas in the 
applicable analysis area, such as schools, hospitals, residences, and 
any areas covered by relevant State or local noise ordinances;
    (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 noise regulations that may be applicable to the 
proposed project;
    (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 provide a 
quantitative estimate of the impact of operation of proposed 
substations and appurtenant project facilities on noise levels at 
nearby noise-sensitive areas, including discrete tones;
    (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 (either from the 
manufacturer or from far-field sound level data measured from similar 
project facilities in service elsewhere) and the source of the data;
    (B) Include sound pressure levels for project facilities, dynamic 
insertion loss for structures, and sound attenuation from the project 
facilities to the edge of the right-of-way or to nearby noise-sensitive 
areas (as applicable);
    (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;
    (5) Based on noise estimates, indicate whether the proposed project 
will comply with applicable noise regulations and whether noise 
attributable to any proposed substation or appurtenant facility will 
exceed permissible levels at any pre-existing noise-sensitive area;
    (6) Based on noise estimates, determine whether any wildlife-
specific noise thresholds may have an impact on the proposed project, 
such as those thresholds specific to avian species that may be relevant 
in significant wildlife areas, if appropriate; and
    (7) Describe measures, and manufacturer's specifications for 
equipment, proposed to mitigate noise effects and impacts to air 
quality, including emission control systems, installation of filters, 
mufflers, or insulation of piping and buildings, and orientation of 
equipment away from noise-sensitive areas.
    (q) Resource Report 12--Alternatives. This report should describe 
the range of study corridors that were considered as alternatives 
during the planning, identification, and design of the proposed 
electric transmission project and compare the environmental impacts of 
such corridors and the routes contained in those corridors. This 
analysis may inform the relevant Federal entities' subsequent analysis 
of their alternatives during the NEPA process. Resource Report 12 must:
    (1) Identify all study corridors and routes contained within those 
corridors. The report must identify the location of the corridors on 
maps of sufficient scale to depict their location and relationship to 
the proposed project, and the relationship of the proposed electric 
transmission facility to existing rights-of-way;
    (2) Discuss the ``no action'' alternative and the potential for 
accomplishing the proponent's proposed objectives using alternative 
means;
    (3) Discuss design and construction methods considered by the 
project proponent;
    (4) Identify all the alternative study corridors and routes the 
project proponent considered in the initial screening for the proposed 
project but did not recommend for further study and the reasons why the 
proponent chose not to examine such alternatives.

[[Page 35379]]

    (5) For alternative study corridors and routes recommended for more 
in-depth consideration, the report must:
    (i) Describe the potential impacts to cultural and historic 
resources for each alternative;
    (ii) Describe the environmental characteristics of each 
alternative, provide comparative tables showing the differences in 
environmental characteristics for the alternatives, and include an 
analysis of the potential relative environmental impacts for each 
alternative;
    (iii) Provide an explanation of the costs to construct, operate, 
and maintain each alternative, the potential for each alternative to 
meet project deadlines, and technological and procedural constraints in 
developing the alternatives; and
    (iv) Demonstrate whether and how environmental benefits and costs 
were weighed against economic benefits and costs to the public.
    (r) Resource Report 13--Reliability, resilience, and safety. This 
report should describe the impacts that would result from a failure of 
the proposed electric transmission facility, the measures, procedures, 
and features that would reduce the risk of failure, and measures in 
place to reduce impacts and protect the public if a failure did occur. 
Resource Report 13 must:
    (1) Discuss events that could result in a failure of the proposed 
facility, including accidents, intentional destructive acts, and 
natural catastrophes (accounting for the likelihood of relevant natural 
catastrophes resulting from climate change);
    (2) Describe the reasonably foreseeable impacts that would result 
from a failure of the proposed electric transmission facility, 
including hazards to the public, environmental impacts, and service 
interruptions;
    (3) Describe the operational measures, procedures, and design 
features of the proposed project that would reduce the risk of facility 
failure;
    (4) Describe measures proposed to protect the public from failure 
of the proposed facility (including coordination with local agencies);
    (5) Discuss contingency plans for maintaining service or reducing 
downtime;
    (6) 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
    (7) Describe improvements to reliability likely to result from the 
proposed project.


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 
proposed electric transmission 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 review document under 
Sec.  900.9 or as soon as practicable thereafter, considering the 
requirements of relevant Federal laws, and the need for robust analysis 
of proposed project impacts, early and meaningful consultation with 
potentially affected Indian Tribes and engagement with stakeholders and 
communities of interest.
    (b) During the Integrated Interagency Pre-Application (IIP) 
Process, DOE, in coordination with any NEPA joint 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 proposed electric transmission 
project, accounting for relevant statutory requirements, the potential 
route, reasonable alternative potential routes, if any, the need to 
assess and address any impacts to military testing, training, and 
operations, and other factors particular to the specific proposed 
project, including the need for early and meaningful consultation with 
potentially affected Indian Tribes and engagement with stakeholders and 
communities of interest. DOE may revise the project-specific schedule 
as needed to satisfy applicable statutory requirements, allow for 
engagement with stakeholders and communities of interest, and 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 proposed electric transmission 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 initial resource reports required under Sec.  900.6. The review 
meeting request must include:
    (1) A summary table of changes made to the proposed project since 
the IIP Process initial meeting, including potential environmental and 
community benefits from improved siting or design;
    (2) Maps of potential routes and study corridors, including the 
proposed line, substations, and other infrastructure, as applicable, 
with at least as much detail as required for the 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;
    (3) If known, a schedule for completing any upcoming field resource 
surveys, as appropriate;
    (4) A conceptual plan for implementation and monitoring of proposed 
mitigation measures to avoid, minimize, or compensate for effects of 
the proposed project, consistent with 40 CFR 1508.1(s) or any successor 
regulation. This may include compensatory mitigation measures (offsite 
and onsite);
    (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) A listing of:
    (i) The dates on which the project proponent filed applications or 
requests for Federal authorizations and the dates on which the project 
proponent filed revisions to previously filed applications or requests; 
and
    (ii) Estimated dates for filing remaining applications or requests 
for Federal authorization;
    (7) Estimated dates that the project proponent will file requests 
for authorizations and consultations with relevant non-Federal 
entities; and
    (8) A proposed duration for each Federal land use authorization 
expected to be required for the proposed project, commensurate with the 
anticipated use of the proposed electric transmission facility.
    (b) Not later than 10 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 the initial resource reports submitted under Sec.  
900.6 via electronic means.

[[Page 35380]]

    (c) Not later than 60 calendar days after the date that DOE 
receives the review meeting request, DOE shall:
    (1) Determine whether the meeting request meets the requirements of 
paragraph (a) of this section and whether the initial resource reports 
are sufficiently detailed; and
    (2) Give notice to the project proponent and relevant Federal and 
non-Federal entities of DOE's determinations under paragraph (c)(1) of 
this section.
    (d) If DOE determines under paragraph (c)(1) of this section that 
the meeting request does not meet the requirements of paragraph (a) of 
this section or that the initial resource reports are not sufficiently 
detailed, DOE must provide the reasons for that finding and a 
description of how the project proponent may address any deficiencies 
in the meeting request or resource reports so that DOE may reconsider 
its determination.
    (e) Not later than 15 calendar days after the date that DOE 
provides notice to the project proponent under paragraph (c) of this 
section that the review meeting request and initial resource reports 
have 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.
    (f) During the IIP Process review meeting:
    (1) The relevant Federal entities shall discuss, and modify if 
needed, the analysis areas used in the initial resource reports;
    (2) Relevant Federal entities shall identify any remaining issues 
of concern, known 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 proposed electric transmission project;
    (3) Relevant non-Federal entities may identify remaining issues of 
concern, information needs, and potential issues or conflicts for the 
project;
    (4) 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;
    (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 proposed 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 complete applications for Federal authorizations for 
the proposed project;
    (8) Led by DOE, all relevant Federal entities shall identify 
necessary updates to the initial resource reports that must be made 
before conclusion of the IIP Process, or, as necessary, following 
conclusion of the IIP Process; and
    (9) DOE shall present the proposed project-specific schedule 
developed under Sec.  900.7.
    (g) Not later than 10 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.
    (h) The project proponent and entities that received the draft 
review meeting summary under paragraph (g) of this section will have 10 
calendar days following receipt of the draft to review the draft and 
provide corrections to DOE.
    (i) Not later than 10 calendar days following the close of the 10-
day review period under paragraph (h) 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; and
    (3) Provide an electronic copy of the summary to the relevant 
Federal entities, relevant non-Federal entities, and the project 
proponent.
    (j) Not later than 10 calendar days following the close of the 10-
day review period under paragraph (h) of this section, DOE shall:
    (1) 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; and
    (2) if the scope is sufficiently developed, initiate consultation 
with SHPOs, THPOs, and others consistent with 36 CFR 800.2(c)(4), which 
may include authorizing a project proponent, as a CITAP applicant, to 
initiate section 106 consultation and providing appropriate 
notifications.
    (k) 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 and based on any updated surveys conducted 
since the initial 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 proposed electric 
transmission project and may only be held after the project proponent 
submits a close-out meeting request to DOE. The project proponent may 
submit the request at any time following the submission of the updated 
resource reports as required under Sec.  900.8. The close-out meeting 
request shall include:
    (1) A summary table of changes made to the proposed 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 proposed project since 
the review meeting, including a summary of changes made to the updated 
resource reports 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 proposed project; 
and
    (5) An updated estimated timeline of filing requests for all other 
authorizations and consultations with non-Federal entities.
    (b) Not later than 10 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 close-out meeting request, DOE shall:
    (1) Determine whether the meeting request meets the requirements of 
paragraph (a) of this section and whether the updated resource reports 
are sufficiently detailed; and
    (2) Give notice to the project proponent and relevant Federal and 
non-Federal entities of DOE's determinations under paragraph (c)(1) of 
this section.
    (d) If DOE determines that the meeting request does not meet the

[[Page 35381]]

requirements of paragraph (a) of this section or that the updated 
resource reports are not sufficiently detailed, DOE must provide the 
reasons for that finding and a description of how the project proponent 
may address any deficiencies in the meeting request or resource reports 
so that DOE may reconsider its determination.
    (e) Not later than 15 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 and updated resource reports 
have 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.
    (f) 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.
    (g) Not later than 10 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.
    (h) The project proponent and entities that received the draft 
close-out meeting summary under paragraph (g) of this section will have 
10 calendar days following receipt of the draft to review the draft and 
provide corrections to DOE.
    (i) Not later than 10 calendar days following the close of the 10-
day review period under paragraph (h) 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 proposed project is not identified as a 
covered project pursuant to Sec.  900.5(e), notify the FPISC Executive 
Director that the proposed project ought to be included on the FPISC 
Dashboard as a transparency project.
    (j) DOE and any NEPA joint lead agency shall issue a Notice of 
Intent to prepare an environmental review document for the proposed 
project within 90 days of the later of the IIP Process close-out 
meeting or the receipt of a complete application for a Federal 
authorization for which NEPA review will be required, as consistent 
with the final project-specific schedule.
    (k) DOE shall issue, for each Federal land use authorization for a 
proposed electric transmission facility, a preliminary duration 
determination commensurate with the anticipated use of the proposed 
facility.


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 resource 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
    (vi) Communications between any relevant 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 proposed 
electric transmission project.
    (c) DOE shall make the consolidated docket available, as 
appropriate, to the NEPA joint lead agency selected under Sec.  900.11; 
any relevant Federal or non-Federal entity responsible for issuing an 
authorization for the proposed 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.
    (e) Upon request, any member of the public will be provided 
materials included in the docket, excluding any materials protected as 
CEII or otherwise required or allowed to be withheld under the Freedom 
of Information Act.


Sec.  900.11  NEPA lead agency and selection of NEPA joint lead agency.

    (a) For a proposed electric transmission project that is accepted 
for the Integrated Interagency Pre-Application (IIP) Process under 
Sec.  900.5, DOE shall serve as the NEPA lead agency to prepare an 
environmental review document to serve the needs of all relevant 
Federal entities. A NEPA joint lead agency to prepare the environmental 
review document may also be designated pursuant to this section, no 
later than by the IIP Process review meeting.
    (b) The NEPA joint 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 proposed project. 
DOE shall make this determination in consultation with all Federal 
entities that manage Federal lands or waters traversed or affected by 
the proposed project. For a proposed project that would traverse lands 
managed by both the USDA and the DOI, DOE will request that USDA and 
DOI determine the appropriate NEPA joint 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 for a 
Federal authorization or permit in accordance with the final project-
specific schedule, DOE and any NEPA joint lead agency selected under 
Sec.  900.11 shall prepare an environmental review document for the 
proposed electric transmission project designed to serve the needs of 
all relevant Federal entities.
    (b) When preparing the environmental review document, DOE and any 
NEPA joint lead agency shall:
    (1) Consider the materials developed throughout the IIP Process; 
and
    (2) Consult with relevant Federal entities and relevant non-Federal 
entities.

[[Page 35382]]

    (c) DOE, in consultation with any NEPA joint lead agency, is 
expected to be responsible for:
    (1) Identifying, contracting with, directing, supervising, and 
arranging for the payment of contractors, as appropriate, to draft the 
environmental review document; and
    (2) Publishing the environmental review document and any related 
documents.
    (d) Each Federal entity or non-Federal entity that is responsible 
for issuing a separate Federal authorization for the proposed 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 joint 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 environmental review document as the basis for 
all Federal authorization decisions on the proposed project. DOE and 
the relevant Federal entities shall issue, except where inappropriate 
or inefficient, a joint decision document, which will include the 
determination by the Secretary of a duration for each land use 
authorization issued on the proposed project.
    (g) For all proposed projects, DOE shall serve as lead agency for 
consultation under the Endangered Species Act (50 CFR 402.07) and 
section 106 of the NHPA (36 CFR 800.2(a)(2)) unless the relevant 
Federal entities designate otherwise. DOE shall coordinate these 
consultation processes with the Federal agency with the most 
significant interest in the management of Federal lands or waters that 
would be traversed or affected by the proposed project or the 
designated lead agency.


Sec.  900.13  Severability.

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

[FR Doc. 2024-08157 Filed 4-30-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P