Improving Performance of Federal Permitting and Review of Infrastructure Projects, 53436-53446 [2013-21098]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 168 (Thursday, August 29, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 53436-53446]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-21098]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY


Improving Performance of Federal Permitting and Review of 
Infrastructure Projects

AGENCY: Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability, 
Department of Energy.

ACTION: Request for Information (RFI).

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Energy's Office of Electricity Delivery and 
Energy Reliability, in collaboration with the Member Agencies of the 
Steering Committee (Member Agencies) created under Executive Order 
13604 of March 22, 2012, and pursuant to the June 7, 2013 Transmission 
Presidential Memorandum, is seeking information on a draft Integrated, 
Interagency Pre-Application (IIP) Process for significant onshore 
electric transmission projects requiring Federal Authorization(s).

DATES: Comments must be received on or before September 30, 2013.

ADDRESSES: Comments should be addressed to: Julie A. Smith or 
Christopher Lawrence, Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy 
Reliability, Mail Code: OE-20, U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 
Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585. Because of delays in 
handling conventional mail, it is recommended that documents be 
transmitted by electronic mail to juliea.smith@hq.doe.gov or 
christopher.lawrence@hq.doe.gov, or by facsimile to 202-586-7031.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Julie A. Smith (Program Office) at 
202-586-7668, or by email to juliea.smith@hq.doe.gov; or Christopher 
Lawrence (Program Office) at 202-586-7680, or by email to 
christopher.lawrence@hq.doe.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Modernizing our Nation's electric 
transmission grid requires improvements in how transmission lines are 
sited, permitted, and reviewed. As part of its efforts to improve the 
performance of Federal siting, permitting, and review processes for 
infrastructure development, the Administration created a Rapid Response 
Team for Transmission (RRTT), a collaborative effort involving nine 
executive departments and

[[Page 53437]]

agencies. The RRTT is working to improve the efficiency, effectiveness, 
and predictability of transmission siting, permitting, and review 
processes, in part through increasing interagency coordination and 
transparency. An integrated pre-application process is one potential 
method to achieve these goals and to increase the predictability of the 
siting, permitting, and review processes.
    This Request for Information seeks public input on a draft IIP 
Process intended to improve interagency and intergovernmental 
coordination focused on ensuring that Project Proponents develop and 
submit accurate and complete information early in the project planning 
process to facilitate efficient and timely environmental reviews and 
agency decisions.

Executive Order 13604 of March 22, 2012 (Improving Performance of 
Federal Permitting and Review of Infrastructure Projects)

    On March 22, 2012, the President issued an Executive Order that 
stated:

    [I]t is critical that executive departments and agencies 
(agencies) take all steps within their authority, consistent with 
available resources, to execute Federal permitting and review 
processes with maximum efficiency and effectiveness, ensuring the 
health, safety, and security of communities and the environment 
while supporting vital economic growth . . . . They must encourage 
early collaboration among agencies, project sponsors, and affected 
stakeholders in order to incorporate and address their interests and 
minimize delays . . . . They must rely upon early and active 
consultation with State, local, and tribal governments to avoid 
conflicts or duplication of effort, resolve concerns, and allow for 
concurrent rather than sequential reviews . . . Also, these elements 
must be integrated into project planning processes so that projects 
are designed appropriately to avoid, to the extent practicable, 
adverse impacts on public health, security, historic properties and 
cultural resources, and the environment, and to minimize or mitigate 
impacts that may occur.

Presidential Memorandum--Modernizing Federal Infrastructure Review and 
Permitting Regulations, Policies, and Procedures

    On May 17, 2013, the President issued a memorandum Modernizing 
Federal Infrastructure Review and Permitting Regulations, Policies, and 
Procedures to the heads of Executive Departments and Agencies. That 
Memorandum stated:

    Through the implementation of Executive Order 13604 of March 22, 
2012 (Improving Performance of Federal Permitting and Review of 
Infrastructure Projects), executive departments and agencies 
(agencies) have achieved better outcomes for communities and the 
environment and realized substantial time savings in review and 
permitting by prioritizing the deployment of resources to specific 
sectors and projects, and by implementing best-management practices.
    These best-management practices include: integrating project 
reviews among agencies with permitting responsibilities; ensuring 
early coordination with other Federal agencies, as well as with 
State, local, and tribal governments; strategically engaging with, 
and conducting outreach to, stakeholders; employing project-planning 
processes and individual project designs that consider local and 
regional ecological planning goals; utilizing landscape- and 
watershed-level mitigation practices; promoting the sharing of 
scientific and environmental data in open-data formats to minimize 
redundancy, facilitate informed project planning, and identify data 
gaps early in the review and permitting process; promoting 
performance-based permitting and regulatory approaches; expanding 
the use of general permits where appropriate; improving transparency 
and accountability through the electronic tracking of review and 
permitting schedules; and applying best environmental and cultural 
practices as set forth in existing statutes and policies.

Presidential Memorandum--Transforming our Nation's Electric Grid 
Through Improved Siting, Permitting, and Review

    On June 7, 2013, the President issued a memorandum on Transforming 
our Nation's Electric Grid Through Improved Siting, Permitting, and 
Review (Transmission Presidential Memorandum) to the heads of Executive 
Departments and Agencies. That Memorandum stated:

    In furtherance of Executive Order 13604 of March 22, 2012 
(Improving Performance of Federal Permitting and Review of 
Infrastructure Projects), this memorandum builds upon the work of 
the RRTT to improve the Federal siting, permitting, and review 
processes for transmission projects. Because a single project may 
cross multiple governmental jurisdictions over hundreds of miles, 
robust collaboration among Federal, State, local, and tribal 
governments must be a critical component of this effort.

    Section 4(a) of the Memorandum directs that:

    Member Agencies shall develop an integrated, interagency pre-
application process for significant onshore electric transmission 
projects requiring Federal approval. The process shall be designed 
to: promote predictability in the Federal siting, permitting, and 
review processes; encourage early engagement, coordination, and 
collaboration of Federal, State, local, and tribal governments, non-
governmental organizations, and the public; increase the use of 
integrated project planning early in the siting, permitting, and 
review processes; facilitate early identification of issues that 
could diminish the likelihood that projects will ultimately be 
permitted; promote early planning for integrated and strategic 
mitigation plans; expedite siting, permitting, and review processes 
through a mutual understanding of the needs of all affected Federal 
agencies and State, local, and tribal governments; and improve 
environmental and cultural outcomes. By September 30, 2013, Member 
Agencies shall provide to the Chief Performance Officer (CPO) and 
the Chair of the Council on Environmental Quality a plan, including 
timelines and milestones, for implementing this process.

    Section 4(b) further states that in implementing Executive Order 
13604, Member Agencies shall:

    (i) improve siting, permitting, and review processes for all 
electric transmission projects, both onshore and offshore, requiring 
Federal approval. Such improvements shall include: increasing 
efficiency and interagency coordination; increasing accountability; 
ensuring an efficient decision-making process within each agency; to 
the extent possible, unifying and harmonizing processes among 
agencies; improving consistency and transparency within each agency 
and among all agencies; improving environmental and cultural 
outcomes; providing mechanisms for early and frequent public and 
local community outreach; and enabling innovative mechanisms for 
mitigation and mitigation at the landscape or watershed scale; and
    (ii) facilitate coordination, integration, and harmonization of 
the siting, permitting, and review processes of Federal, State, 
local, and tribal governments for transmission projects to reduce 
the overall regulatory burden while improving environmental and 
cultural outcomes.

Request for Information (RFI)

    The Department of Energy (DOE) seeks public input on the following 
draft IIP Process prepared in collaboration with the Member Agencies 
and pursuant to section 4(a) of the June 7, 2013 Transmission 
Presidential Memorandum and in light of Executive Order 13604. In 
responding to this RFI, please specify your affiliation or 
organization.
    (1) Please provide feedback on the following draft IIP Process, 
including any suggested changes or concerns with the proposed process. 
We are particularly interested in whether the proposed IIP Process 
efficiently meets the goals below and stated in the Transmission 
Presidential Memorandum. Please also comment on whether all Federal 
agencies with applicable permitting authority to the proposed project 
should be mandatorily required to participate in the IIP Process.
    (2) Please provide any comments on whether analogous integrated, 
interagency pre-application processes should be developed for other 
permitting of other major infrastructure sector projects covered in 
section 2(a) of EO 13604. What should be the highest

[[Page 53438]]

priority sectors that would benefit from this type of process? What key 
changes would need to be made to adapt the proposed IIP Process to 
other sectors?

IIP Process

    Purpose: The purpose of the proposed IIP Process is to establish a 
coordinated series of meetings and other actions that would take place 
prior to a Federal agency accepting a high-voltage transmission line 
application or taking other action that would trigger Federal review, 
permitting, and consultation or other requirements, such as those 
required under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), Section 
106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, and Sections 7 and 10 of 
the Endangered Species Act.
    The proposed IIP Process is designed to improve interagency and 
intergovernmental coordination, to encourage early engagement with 
stakeholders, and to help ensure Project Proponents develop and submit 
accurate and complete information early in the project planning 
process. Providing such information, for example, regarding potential 
environmental and cultural resource impacts of the proposed project 
will help the Project Proponent and Federal agencies identify potential 
requirements and challenges that may affect potential projects. Early 
identification will help ensure that the Project Proponent can submit 
Federal Authorization requests that address or avoid these issues, 
thereby simplifying later coordination and approval processes. The IIP 
Process does not substitute for compliance with NEPA or other required 
Federal reviews, but it can ensure that potential issues are identified 
before a Project Proponent files an application, thereby simplifying 
later review processes.
    Goals: The goals of the IIP Process are to enhance early 
communication and coordination; enhance public engagement and outreach; 
develop early iterative feedback on routing options and alternatives; 
promote predictability; and ultimately reduce the time required to 
reach a decision to approve or deny a project while also ensuring 
compliance with environmental laws.
    Applicability:
    Project Proponents: A developer of a Qualifying Project \1\ may 
elect to utilize the IIP Process. If a developer of a Qualifying 
Project elects not to utilize the IIP Process, the developer is 
encouraged to inform DOE in writing as soon as possible of its decision 
not to request that its transmission project be considered in the IIP 
Process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ A Qualifying Project is (1) (a) a non-marine high voltage 
transmission line (230 kV or above) and its attendant facilities or 
(b) a regionally or nationally significant non-marine transmission 
line and its attendant facilities, in which (2) all or part of the 
proposed transmission line is used for the transmission of electric 
energy in interstate commerce for sale at wholesale, and (3) all or 
part of the proposed transmission line (a) crosses jurisdictions 
administered by more than one Federal Entity or (b) crosses 
jurisdictions administered by a Federal Entity and is considered for 
Federal financial assistance from a Federal Entity. Qualifying 
Projects do not include those for which an application has been 
submitted to FERC for issuance of a permit for construction or 
modification of a transmission facility, or where a pre-filing 
procedure has been initiated, under section 216(b) of the Federal 
Power Act (16 U.S.C. 824p(b)) (transmission lines within a DOE-
designated National Interest Electric Transmission Corridor).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Federal Entities: Under the proposed IIP Process, all identified 
Federal Entities would be required to participate in the IIP Process 
for Qualifying Projects for which Project Proponents have submitted and 
DOE has accepted an Initiation Request. All identified Federal Entities 
will, at a minimum, be required to attend the Initial Meeting and the 
Final Meeting.\2\ The list of Federal Entities will be revised as 
necessary during the IIP Process based on the information provided by 
the Project Proponent prior to each interim meeting and otherwise 
publicly available information. DOE will oversee the IIP Process and 
coordinate the Federal Entities as described below even when it is not 
responsible for issuing a Federal Authorization.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ A Federal Entity whose permitting authority for construction 
or modification of electric transmission facilities is limited to 
facilities for which an application is filed under section 216(b) of 
the Federal Power Act may participate in any interim meeting at its 
sole discretion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Project Proponent Public Outreach Plan: During the initial meeting, 
the Project Proponent would be strongly encouraged to develop a Public 
Outreach Plan. The purpose of the Public Outreach Plan is to ensure the 
Project Proponent actively engages and receives feedback from all 
stakeholders when the Project Proponent is evaluating various routing 
options. A Project Proponent's Public Outreach Plan would not supplant 
the Federal Entity's public participation requirements under NEPA.
    Cost Recovery: Federal Entity attendance at IIP Process meetings 
and other Federal Entity participation in the IIP Process depends on 
agency resources or the authority to recover costs from Project 
Proponents Currently, certain agencies may only exercise cost-recovery 
authorities after an application has been submitted. To the extent 
allowed by law, some Federal Entities may seek cost recovery from the 
Project Proponents as soon as possible in the IIP Process.
    Implementation of IIP Process: The Member Agencies of the Steering 
Committee have not determined how to implement the draft IIP Process. 
Once the Steering Committee receives and considers the public input and 
approves the full contours of the IIP Process, it will submit on 
September 30, 2013, an implementation plan that includes timelines and 
milestones to the Chief Performance Officer and the Chair of the CEQ. 
The draft IIP Process described in this RFI may complement some Federal 
Entities' existing pre-application processes, but implementation of the 
process may require some Federal Entities to revise their existing 
review and permitting regulations, policies and procedures.
    Relationship to NEPA and Other Environmental and Review Processes: 
None of the IIP Process meetings are part of the NEPA or other 
environmental and review processes but will inform those processes. 
Feedback provided by the Federal Entities is preliminary and would not 
constitute a commitment to approve a Federal Authorization request. 
Moreover, no agency would or could determine prior to the formal NEPA 
process that the Project Proponent's proposed or preferred Study 
Corridors and Routes would constitute a reasonable range of 
alternatives for NEPA purposes. The documents and communications 
developed in this process would be preserved by the Federal Entities 
and would, as appropriate, become part of any subsequent administrative 
record.

Integrated, Interagency Pre-Application Process

I. Purpose, Goals, Design, and Applicability of the Integrated, 
Interagency Pre-Application (IIP) Process
    A. Purpose: The purpose of the IIP Process is to improve 
interagency and intergovernmental coordination and to help ensure 
Project Proponents develop and submit accurate and complete information 
early in the project planning process to facilitate efficient and 
timely environmental reviews and agency decisions. Providing such 
information (e.g., regarding potential environmental and cultural 
resource impacts of the proposed project) will help the Project 
Proponent, Federal Entities and relevant Non-Federal Entities identify 
potential requirements and challenges so that the Project Proponent can 
submit authorization requests that address or avoid these

[[Page 53439]]

issues, thereby simplifying later coordination and approval processes.
    B. Goals: The goals of the IIP Process are to enhance early 
communication and coordination; enhance public engagement and outreach; 
develop early iterative feedback on possible routing options and 
alternatives; promote predictability; and ultimately reduce the time 
required to reach a decision to approve or deny a project while also 
ensuring compliance with environmental laws.
    C. Design:
    (1) The proposed IIP Process establishes a coordinated series of 
meetings and other actions, as described in sections II-VII below, that 
would take place prior to a Federal agency receiving an application or 
taking other action that would trigger Federal review and consultation 
requirements, such as those required under the National Environmental 
Policy Act (NEPA), Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation 
Act and Sections 7 and 10 of the Endangered Species Act. DOE will 
oversee the IIP Process and coordinate the Federal Entities as 
described below even when DOE is not responsible for issuing a Federal 
Authorization.
    (2) Absent an exception, the IIP Process will consist of four 
meetings: Initial Meeting, Study Corridors Meeting, Routing Meeting, 
and Final Meeting. The purpose of this series of meetings is to obtain 
iterative feedback among Federal Entities and invited non-Federal 
Entities, and for the Project Proponent to refine its application for 
Federal Authorization while reducing potential siting conflicts that 
could delay processing of that application. Each meeting will be 
initiated by the Project Proponent through a meeting request described 
in sections II-VI below.
    D. Lead Coordinating Agency.
    (1) DOE shall act as the lead agency for purposes of coordinating 
the IIP Process among all Federal Entities and Project Proponents.
    (2) To the maximum extent practicable and consistent with Federal 
law, DOE shall coordinate the IIP Process with any non-Federal 
Entities.
    (3) DOE, in exercising its responsibilities, will consult regularly 
with FERC, as well as electric reliability organizations, and 
transmission organizations approved by FERC.
    (4) To perform the coordination function effectively, DOE requires 
the active participation of the Project Proponent, including providing 
requested information in a timely manner.
    E. Applicability:
    (1) Qualifying Projects: Qualifying Projects include (1) (a) a non-
marine high voltage transmission line (230 kV or above) and its 
attendant facilities or (b) a regionally or nationally significant non-
marine transmission line and its attendant facilities, in which (2) all 
or part of the proposed transmission line is used for the transmission 
of electric energy in interstate commerce for sale at wholesale, and 
(3) (a) all or part of the proposed transmission line crosses 
jurisdictions administered by more than one Federal Entity or (b) 
crosses jurisdictions administered by a Federal Entity and is 
considered for Federal financial assistance from a Federal Entity. 
Qualifying Projects do not include those for which an application has 
been submitted to FERC for issuance of a permit for construction or 
modification of a transmission facility, or where a pre-filing 
procedure has been initiated, under section 216(b) of the Federal Power 
Act (16 U.S.C. 824p(b)) (transmission lines within a DOE-designated 
National Interest Electric Transmission Corridor).
    (2) Project Proponent Participation:
    (a) Developers of Qualifying Projects may elect to utilize the IIP 
Process. A transmission developer initiates the IIP Process by 
submitting an Initiation Request as described in Section II.A. below. 
If a developer of a Qualifying Project elects not to utilize the IIP 
Process, the developer is encouraged to inform DOE in writing as soon 
as practicable of its decision not to request that its transmission 
project be considered in the IIP Process.
    (b) Developers of transmission projects that are not 230 kV or 
above but are nonetheless regionally or nationally significant may 
request that such a project be deemed a Qualifying Project by filing an 
Initiation Request with DOE, including an explanation of how its 
proposed project is regionally or nationally significant. DOE, in 
reviewing the Initiation Request as described in this Part, will 
determine whether the transmission project is a Qualifying Project and 
eligible to participate in the IIP Process.
    (c) Upon DOE's determination that a developer's proposed 
transmission project is a Qualifying Project, the developer will be 
deemed a Project Proponent under the IIP Process.
    (3) Federal Entity Participation:
    (a) Identification of Federal Entities: DOE will identify an 
initial list of Federal Entities to participate in the IIP Process 
based on the Initiation Request. The list of Federal Entities will be 
revised as necessary during the IIP Process based on the information 
provided by the Project Proponent prior to each interim meeting and 
publicly available information.
    (b) Participation:
    i. Initial and Final Meetings:
    1. All identified Federal Entities must attend the Initial Meeting 
to accomplish the requirements outlined in Section II.E. of the IIP 
Process and the Final Meeting to accomplish the requirements outlined 
in Section VII.D. of the IIP Process; provided, however, that a Federal 
Entity whose permitting authority for construction or modification of 
electric transmission facilities is limited to facilities for which an 
application is filed under section 216(b) of the Federal Power Act may 
participate in any Initial and/or Final Meeting at its sole discretion.
    2. DOE will use information technologies to ensure that Federal 
Entities unable to attend in person can participate.
    ii. Interim Meetings.
    1. Federal Entities will be expected to attend all IIP Process 
meetings. However, based on the information provided by the Project 
Proponent prior to each interim meeting, as well as otherwise publicly 
available information, Federal Entities may assess whether their 
regulatory roles and responsibilities or the potential substantive 
impact of the proposed project on properties under their jurisdiction 
warrants their participation in the next interim meeting or other 
related pre-application activities prior to the next interim meeting.
    2. If the Federal Entity determines that its regulatory roles and 
responsibilities or the potential substantive impact of the proposed 
project is insufficient to warrant its participation in the next 
interim meeting, it will notify DOE and other participating Federal 
Entities of its determination and of the rationale for that 
determination no later than 15 calendar days prior to the next interim 
meeting. Notwithstanding the requirements of this section, a Federal 
Entity whose permitting authority for construction or modification of 
electric transmission facilities is limited to facilities for which an 
application is filed under section 216(b) of the Federal Power Act may 
participate in any interim meeting at its sole discretion.
    3. If additional Federal Entities are identified through 
information provided to DOE by the Project Proponent or through other 
publicly available information between the Initial and Final Meetings, 
they will be notified by DOE no later than 30 days prior to the next 
interim meeting and provided the information that identified them.

[[Page 53440]]

    4. Unless otherwise determined by DOE (in consultation with the 
applicable Federal Entity) that a Federal Entity's participation is 
unnecessary in light of its regulatory roles and responsibilities or 
the proposed project's potential substantive impact on properties under 
their jurisdiction, such Federal Entity must attend the next meeting.
    (4) Non-Federal Entities: Non-Federal Entities will be invited to 
attend each of the IIP Process meetings described below.
    (5) Cost Recovery: Federal Entity attendance at IIP Process 
meetings and other Federal Entity participation in the IIP Process 
depends on agency resources or the authority to recover costs from 
Project Proponents. Currently, certain Federal Entities may exercise 
cost-recovery authorities only after an application has been submitted. 
To the extent allowed by law, some Federal Entities may seek cost 
recovery from the Project Proponents as soon as possible in the IIP 
Process.
II. Initial Meeting
    The Initial Meeting for the IIP Process will be scheduled as soon 
as practicable after a Project Proponent has identified the two 
proposed end points of a project and the proposed locations of any 
intermediate substations, but before identification of potential Study 
Corridors or Proposed Routes.
    A. If electing to utilize the IIP Process pursuant to section 
I.E.2, the Project Proponent must submit an Initiation Request to 
commence the IIP Process to DOE. The Initiation Request must include:
    (1) A statement that the Project Proponent requests to use the IIP 
Process;
    (2) Primary contact information for the Project Proponent;
    (3) The legal information for the Project Proponent: Legal name; 
principal place of business; whether the requester is an individual, 
partnership, corporation, or other entity; the state laws under which 
the requester is organized or authorized;
    (4) A description of the Project Proponent's financial and 
technical capability to construct, maintain, and decommission the 
project:
    (5) A brief description of the proposed project, including end 
points, voltage, ownership, justification for the line, intermediate 
substations if applicable, and, to the extent known, any information 
about constraints or flexibility with respect to the project;
    (6) Project Proponent's proposed schedule, including timeframe for 
filing necessary Federal and state applications, construction start 
date, and planned in-service date, if approved;
    (7) A list of potentially affected Federal and Non-Federal 
Entities, as defined below;
    (8) Based on existing, relevant, and reasonably available 
information, provide a description of the known existing major site 
conditions and areas of concern, including:
    (a) Land, airspace. and water uses in the Project Area as defined 
below;
    (b) Any known or potential conflicts with or adverse impacts to the 
environment or military activities;
    (c) Any listed threatened or endangered, candidate, or special 
status species that may be present in the Project Area or within 
designated critical habitat in or near the Project Area;
    (d) The aquatic habitats, including estuarine and marine 
environments, and water bodies, including wetlands, in the Project 
Area;
    (e) Existing or proposed project facilities or operations, and the 
potential for co-location; and
    (f) Potential avoidance, minimization, and mitigation options 
(onsite and offsite) to reduce the potential impacts of the proposed 
project, including existing Regional Mitigation Strategies, where 
available, and onsite and offsite management activities, where 
applicable.
    (9) Detailed map(s) and geospatial information that illustrate the 
Project Area and, within the Project Area:
    (a) General land status including the areas of Federal and Non-
Federal Entity jurisdiction and any protected areas, including 
Presidentially or Congressionally-designated areas (e.g., National 
Parks, National Wildlife Refuges, Wilderness Areas, National Historic 
and Scenic Trails), administratively-protected areas (e.g., Areas of 
Critical Environmental Concern, designated roadless areas), Indian 
trust lands, and military installations, ranges and airspace;
    (b) Topographical and resource features that are relevant to the 
siting of transmission lines, (e.g., airports, waterbodies and 
wetlands, wildlife resources and the data used to identify these 
resources);
    (c) Known information about protected avian, aquatic, and 
terrestrial species in the Project Area, as well as other biological 
information that will be necessary for an environmental review;
    (d) Known information about historic properties and other important 
cultural resources in the Project Area;
    (e) Known information about low income communities and minority 
populations;
    (f) Potential constraints caused by impacts on military test, 
training, and operational missions, including impacts to installations, 
ranges, water resource projects, and airspace;
    (g) If known, potential impacts on the Nation's aviation system, 
including FAA restricted airspace;
    (h) Proposed use of previously disturbed lands, existing corridors, 
including corridors designated under Section 503 of the Federal Land 
Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) and Section 368 of the Energy Policy 
Act of 2005, transportation rights-of-way; feasibility for co-location 
of facilities; and
    (i) Potential avoidance, minimization, and mitigation options 
(onsite and offsite) to reduce the impact of the proposed project, 
including existing Regional Mitigation Strategies, where available.
    (10) Project Proponent's interests and objectives;
    (11) To the extent available, regional transmission planning 
documents, including status of regional reliability studies and 
interconnection requests;
    (12) Citations for sources, data, and analyses used to develop the 
Initiation Meeting Request materials.
    B. Within 15 calendar days of receiving the Initiation Request, DOE 
will notify the Project Proponent that:
    (1) The Initiation Request meets the screening criteria of this 
section, including whether the project constitutes a Qualifying 
Project;
    (2) The Initiation Request does not meet the IIP requirements and 
provide the reasons for that finding and a description of how the 
Project Proponent may, if applicable, address any deficiencies through 
supplementation of the information contained in the Initiation Request.
    C. At the same time as notifying the Project Proponent that its 
Initiation Request meets the requirements of this section, DOE will 
provide the potential Federal Entities with the Initiation Request.
    D. DOE, in consultation with the identified Federal Entities, will 
convene the Initial Meeting with the Project Proponent and all 
identified Federal Entities as soon as practicable and no later than 45 
calendar days after notifying the Project Proponent and potential 
Federal Entities that the Initiation Request meets the requirements of 
this section. The Initial Meeting will be convened in the region where 
the project is located. Federal Entities will have at least 15 days to

[[Page 53441]]

review the Initiation Request prior to the meeting. All identified 
Federal Entities must attend the Initial Meeting. DOE also will invite 
all identified Non-Federal Entities to attend the Initial Meeting and 
will simultaneously provide them with the Initiation Request. DOE will 
use information technologies to ensure that Federal Entities and 
invited Non-Federal Entities unable to attend in person can participate 
in the Initial Meeting.
    E. During the Initial Meeting, the following will occur:
    (1) DOE will discuss the IIP Process with the Project Proponent, 
including the requirements for a Public Outreach Plan and any 
requirements of cost recovery where applicable.
    (2) The Project Proponent will describe the proposed project and 
the contents of its Initiation Request.
    (3) The Federal Entities will, to the extent possible and based on 
the information provided by the Project Proponent and publicly 
available information, preliminarily identify the following:
    (a) Potential environmental siting constraints and resources of 
concern and an early assessment for the potential for conflict;
    (b) Potential cultural resources and historic properties of 
concern, particularly those that occur at a landscape scale that should 
be avoided during project siting;
    (c) Potential impacts on low income communities and minority 
populations;
    (d) Potential constraints caused by impacts on military test, 
training, and operational missions, including impacts to installations, 
ranges, and airspace;
    (e) Potential impacts on the Nation's aviation system;
    (f) Potential areas that present challenges or conflicts that could 
increase the time needed for the Federal government to evaluate the 
application if the route is sited through such areas (e.g., right-of-
way avoidance areas identified through agency land management plans, 
National Historic Landmarks, traditional religious and cultural 
properties significant to Indian tribe(s), National Scenic and Historic 
Trails, National Wildlife Refuges, units of the National Park System, 
marine sanctuaries); and
    (g) Potential opportunities to site routes through designated 
corridors, previously disturbed lands, and/or lands with existing 
infrastructure as a means of potentially reducing the time needed for 
the Federal government to evaluate the application for a proposed 
route(s) through such areas (e.g., colocation with existing 
infrastructure or previously disturbed lands, energy corridors 
designated by the Department of the Interior (DOI) or the Department of 
Agriculture (USDA) under Section 368 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005; 
an existing right-of-way; and/or a utility corridor identified in a 
land management plan).
    (h) Authorized uses that may conflict with the proposal;
    (i) Affected Federal, State, and local land use plans;
    (j) Potential for public controversy; and
    (k) Potential avoidance, minimization, and mitigation options 
(onsite and offsite) to reduce the potential impact of the proposed 
project, including existing Regional Mitigation Strategies, where 
available.
    (4) The Federal Entities will also describe:
    (a) Statutory and regulatory authorities, roles, and 
responsibilities;
    (b) The Project Proponent's role and responsibilities to support 
compliance with applicable statutory and regulatory authorities; and
    (c) Types of studies likely to be needed to complete the project, 
including studies needed to comply with laws and policies for cultural 
resource and tribal consultation and endangered, threatened or 
otherwise protected species, visual resources, and aquatic and 
terrestrial resources.
    (5) Based on their review of the available information, the Federal 
Entities will do the following:
    (a) Comment on the proposed boundaries of the Project Area;
    (b) Request additional information from the Project Proponent, to 
the extent necessary; and
    (c) Provide additional information, including data sources, to the 
Project Proponent that could assist in identifying risks or benefits of 
siting the project in alternative locations within the Project Area.
    (6) Any Non-Federal Entity participating in the Initial Meeting 
will be invited to:
    (a) Comment on the proposed boundaries of the Project Area;
    (b) Request additional information from the Project Proponent, to 
the extent necessary; and
    (c) Provide additional information, including data sources or 
relevant studies, to the Project Proponent that could assist in 
identifying risks or benefits of siting the project in alternative 
locations within the Project Area.
    (7) All identified Federal and non-Federal Entities will provide 
contact information to the Project Proponent;
    (8) The Project Proponent will provide points of contact to DOE and 
to the Federal and Non-Federal Entities;
    (9) DOE will document points of contact for each Federal Entity and 
for each Non-Federal Entity and the list of issues or potential 
concerns identified in the Initial Meeting.
    (10) DOE will advise the Project Proponent that it will be required 
to ensure that stakeholders have access to accurate and timely 
information on the proposed project and permit application process. The 
access to this information is meant to solicit meaningful stakeholder 
input. Following the Initial Meeting, the Project Proponent will be 
required, as provided below in Section IV, to submit a Public Outreach 
Plan, to coordinate public interface and communications, and to 
identify at least one person primarily responsible for public outreach.
    (11) DOE will advise the Project Proponent that it may be required 
to fund the development and maintenance of one or more Web sites to 
share project information.
    (12) If known, DOE will inform the Project Proponent which agency/
ies has been identified as the NEPA Lead Agency and the lead agency for 
Section 106 consultation.
    (13) DOE will discuss potential contractor assistance for 
preparation of the NEPA document and other material relevant to Federal 
Authorizations.
    (14) DOE will inform the Project Proponent that the IIP meeting 
schedule allows flexibility as to the number of meetings. As described 
below, the Study Corridor Meeting, Routing Meeting, and Final Meeting 
establish goals for refining the Project Proponent's proposal to be 
filed later in an application to a Federal Entity. Depending on the 
complexity of the Qualifying Project, as well as the extent of 
conflicts identified by Federal Entities and others, a proposal could 
meet the meeting goals described in Section V and VI below with fewer 
meetings, thus reducing time necessary to satisfy the purpose of the 
IIP Process.
    F. Based on the information provided by the Project Proponent and 
Federal and Non-Federal Entities prior to and during the Initial 
Meeting, the Federal Entities, in consultation with the Project 
Proponent, will establish a preliminary non-binding schedule for the 
review of the Project Proponent's IIP filings, including targets for 
additional meetings (as needed) addressing study of corridor and 
routing options for the project. Based on the facts of a particular 
project, the Federal Entities may agree to modify the IIP Process to 
accommodate the needs of the particular proposed project.
    G. Any preliminary feedback provided by the Federal Entities at the

[[Page 53442]]

Initial Meeting, or provided to the Project Proponent in writing within 
30 calendar days of the Initial Meeting, is intended to identify 
potential issues and/or resource conflicts. The Federal Entities 
reserve the right to provide additional comments as needed. The 
preliminary feedback and any later feedback do not constitute an agency 
decision or commitment by those Federal entities to approve any 
authorization request.
III. Quarterly Reporting
    Upon completion of the Initial Meeting, the Project Proponent is 
required to submit quarterly status updates to DOE via email until the 
completion of the Final Meeting. DOE will distribute quarterly updates 
to Federal and Non-Federal Entities within 10 days after receipt from 
the Project Proponent.
IV. Public Outreach and Tribal Coordination Plans
    A. Public Outreach Plan: Within 60 days after the Initial Meeting, 
unless otherwise agreed upon, the Project Proponent will be required to 
submit a draft Public Outreach Plan to describe how it will coordinate 
public interface, communications, and involvement during the IIP 
Process. The plan must identify at least one person primarily 
responsible for public outreach efforts. DOE, in consultation with the 
Federal Entities, will coordinate and provide DOE and the Federal 
Entities' feedback to the Project Proponent within 60 days.
    (1) The Public Outreach Plan must accomplish the following:
    (a) Identify specific tools and actions to facilitate stakeholder 
communications and public information, including an up-to-date Company 
Project Web site and a readily accessible, easily identifiable, single 
point of contact within the company;
    (b) Identify how and when meetings on the location of potential 
Study Corridors or potential Routes will be publicized prior to the 
submission of the application(s) for Federal Authorization, as well as 
where those meetings will be held and how many there will be;
    (c) Identify known stakeholders and how stakeholders are 
identified;
    (d) Describe the type of location (for example, libraries, 
community reading rooms, or city halls) in each county where the 
Project Proponent will provide publicly available copies of relevant 
documents and materials related to the proposed project;
    (e) Describe the evaluation criteria being used by the Project 
Proponent to identify and develop the potential Study Corridors or 
potential Routes prior to submission of the application(s) that are 
presented to stakeholders during project planning outreach efforts as 
described in the Public Outreach Plan;
    (f) Explain how the Project Proponent intends to respond to 
requests for information from the public;
    (g) Explain how the Project Proponent intends to record public 
requests and Project Proponent responses to the public;
    (h) Describe how and when notification of owners of property 
located within the proposed Project Area will occur; and
    (i) Identify how and when information will be provided to and input 
will be received from Non-Federal Entities identified at the Initial 
Meeting.
    (2) A Proponent's Public Outreach Plan will not supplant the 
Federal agency's public participation requirements under NEPA.
    B. Tribal Coordination Plan: Within 60 days after the Initial 
Meeting, the Project Proponent will be required to submit a draft 
Tribal Coordination Plan describing how the Project Proponent will 
coordinate tribal interface and communication during the IIP. The role 
of the Project Proponent at this stage is to gather initial information 
to be included in the Federal agency tribal consultation plan and to 
ascertain the views of the tribe(s) on the effects to the environment 
and historic properties, including properties of religious and cultural 
significance in the area of the potential study corridor or route. The 
Project Proponent will be required to identify its point of contact 
responsible for tribal outreach efforts. DOE, in consultation with the 
Federal Entities, will coordinate and provide DOE and the Federal 
Entities' feedback to the Project Proponent within 60 days.
    (1) The Tribal Coordination Plan must accomplish the following:
    (a) Identify specific tools and actions to facilitate tribal 
involvement, communications and the sharing of information, including 
an up-to-date Company Project Web site and a readily accessible, easily 
identifiable, single point of contact within the Project Proponent;
    (b) Explain how the Project Proponent will coordinate with tribes 
to gather baseline information about their views on the environment and 
historic properties and potential impact of the project.
    (c) Identify how and when information on the IIP meetings on the 
location of potential Study Corridors or Routes will be provided to the 
Tribes prior to the submission of the application, as well as where 
those meetings will be held and how many there will be;
    (d) Identify known tribes with interest in the project area and how 
tribes were identified;
    (e) Describe how project information will be transmitted to tribes;
    (f) Describe what project information will be provided to the 
tribes, including but not limited to a listing of all Federal 
Authorizations the Project Proponent expects to seek;
    (g) Gather information from tribal representatives regarding the 
potential presence of places of religious and cultural significance to 
their tribes; the likely impacts of the proposed project on such 
places; and the potential to mitigate such effects, if any;
    (h) Explain how the Project Proponent intends to respond to 
requests for information from tribes;
    (i) Explain how the Project Proponent intends to record tribal 
communications and Project Proponent responses to the tribe;
    (j) Identify any tribe(s) that were contacted by the Project 
Proponent but declined to discuss places of religious and cultural 
significance to their tribes or potential issues regarding the proposed 
project with the Project Proponent;
    (k) Explain how the Project Proponent has shared information on the 
development of the Tribal Coordination Plan with tribes and to what 
extent the tribes provided input on the Plan during its development;
    (l) Determine in consultation with the tribe(s) how sensitive 
tribal information will be protected from inappropriate disclosure or 
retention.
    (2) A Proponent's Tribal Coordination Plan will not supplant the 
Federal agency's government-to-government consultation obligations 
under Federal law.
V. Study Corridors Meeting
    After the Initial Meeting, the Project Proponent will develop 
potential Study Corridors for the project. After the Project Proponent 
has identified the proposed Study Corridors and has received feedback 
from DOE and the Federal Entities on the Public Outreach Plan, the 
Project Proponent will submit a Study Corridor Meeting Request to DOE. 
DOE will distribute the Study Corridors Meeting Request to the 
previously identified Federal Entities within 5 calendar days of 
receipt of the Study Corridor Meeting Request.
    A. The Study Corridor Meeting Request must include:
    (1) A description of the factors (screening criteria) identifying 
the potential Study Corridors;

[[Page 53443]]

    (2) A map of the Project Area showing the location of the potential 
Study Corridors.
    (3) High-resolution maps of the potential Study Corridors with more 
detailed information than the Project Proponent was able to provide in 
the Initial Meeting, as described in section II.A., that precisely show 
existing rights of way, utility and transportation corridors, 
environmental resources, public land ownership, waterbodies, wetlands, 
residences, important farmland, rangeland, and forestland, and historic 
properties, and military installation, ranges, and managed airspace, 
and any other information required by the Federal Entities, if 
designated.
    (4) Building on the information provided in the Initiation Request 
and based on existing, relevant, and reasonably available information, 
provide aAn updated description of the following information, within 
the potential Study Corridors:
    (a) Information on the existing environment and known cultural 
resources and/or historic properties;
    (b) Existing data or studies relevant to the existing environment 
and cultural resources and/or historic properties, to the extent 
already collected;
    (c) Any known or potential conflicts or adverse impacts to the 
environment, or military activities;
    (d) Any listed threatened or endangered, candidate, or special 
status species that may be present in the potential Study Corridors or 
within designated critical habitat that may be present in in the 
potential Study Corridors;
    (e) The aquatic habitats, including estuarine environments, in the 
potential Study Corridors;
    (f) Any existing or proposed project facilities or operations, and 
the potential for co-location; and
    (g) Potential avoidance, minimization, and mitigation options 
(onsite and offsite) to reduce the impact of the proposed project, 
including existing Regional Mitigation Strategies, where available, and 
onsite and offsite management activities, where applicable; and
    (h) Any update on the status of implementation of the Public 
Outreach Plan.
    (5) If the potential Study Corridors run through areas previously 
identified as having siting constraints or as areas of concern raised 
in the Initial Meeting or provided in written feedback to the Project 
Proponent following the Initial Meeting, a description of why avoiding 
such areas is not feasible in meeting the goals for the project and 
proposed mitigation for impacts to affected resources.
    (6) Any updates to the previously identified list of the 
potentially affected Federal and Non-Federal Entities.
    (7) Citations identifying sources, data, and analyses used to 
develop the Study Corridors Meeting Request materials, and any 
additional information needed.
    B. Simultaneously with submitting the Study Corridors Meeting 
Request, the Project Proponent will post that request, along with its 
accompanying information, on the Company Project Web site.
    C. Within thirty (30) calendar days of receiving a Study Corridors 
Meeting Request and distributing it to the Federal Entities, DOE, in 
consultation with the Federal Entities, will determine if the Study 
Corridors Meeting Request meets the requirements of this section and 
will notify the Project Proponent.
    D. If the Study Corridors Meeting Request does not meet the 
requirements of this section, DOE will provide an explanation for that 
finding to the Project Proponent and describe how the Project Proponent 
may address any deficiencies through supplementation of the information 
contained in the Study Corridors Meeting Request.
    E. DOE will convene the Study Corridors Meeting in the region where 
the project is located with the Project Proponent and all previously 
identified Federal Entities within thirty (30) calendar days after 
notifying the Project Proponent and all identified Federal Entities 
that the Study Corridors Meeting Request meets the requirements of this 
section. DOE will further invite all identified Non-Federal Entities to 
attend and will simultaneously provide them with the Study Corridors 
Meeting Request. DOE will use information technologies to ensure 
participants unable to attend in person can participate in the Study 
Corridors Meeting.
    F. At the Study Corridors Meeting, the following will occur:
    (1) The Federal Entities will, to the extent known and based on the 
information provided by the Project Proponent and publicly available 
information, preliminarily identify the following and any other 
reasonable criteria for eliminating potential Study Corridors from 
further consideration:
    (a) Potential environmental siting constraints and resources of 
concern;
    (b) Potential cultural resources and historic properties of 
concern;
    (c) Potential areas that present challenges or conflicts that could 
increase the time needed for the Federal government to evaluate the 
application for a proposed route(s) through such areas (e.g., right-of-
way avoidance areas identified through agency land management plans, 
National Historic Landmarks, traditional religious and cultural 
properties significant to Indian tribe(s), National Scenic and Historic 
Trails, National Wildlife Refuges, units of the National Park System, 
marine sanctuaries).
    (d) Potential opportunities to site routes through designated 
corridors, previously disturbed lands, and/or lands with existing 
infrastructure as a means of potentially reducing the time needed for 
the Federal government to evaluate the application if the route is 
sited through such areas (e.g., colocation with existing infrastructure 
or previously disturbed lands, energy corridors designated by the DOI 
or USDA under Section 368 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005; an existing 
right-of-way; a utility corridor identified in a land management plan).
    (e) Potential constraints caused by impacts on military test, 
training, and operational missions, including impacts to installations, 
ranges, and airspace.
    (f) Potential constraints caused by impacts on the Nation's 
aviation system.
    (g) Based on available information provided by the Project 
Proponent, biological (including threatened and endangered species and 
aquatic resources), cultural, and other surveys and studies that may be 
required for the potential Study Corridors.
    (2) Such information and feedback to the Project Proponent does not 
constitute a commitment by Federal Entities to approve or deny any 
Federal Authorization request. Moreover, no agency would or could 
determine prior to the formal NEPA process that the Project Proponent's 
proposed or preferred Study Corridors and Routes presented or discussed 
during the IIP Process would constitute a reasonable range of 
alternatives for NEPA purposes.
    (3) Participating Non-Federal Entities may also identify risks and 
benefits of siting the proposed project within the potential Study 
(Corridors.
    (4) The Project Proponent must provide a list of all affected 
landowners and other stakeholders that have already been contacted, or 
have contacted the Project Proponent, about the project.
VI. Routing Meetings
    Once the Project Proponent has developed potential Routes within 
the Study Corridors, it will submit a Routing Meeting Request to DOE. 
DOE will distribute the Routing Meeting Request to identified Federal 
Entities within 5 calendar days of receipt. Except for the items set 
forth below, the process used for Routing Meetings will

[[Page 53444]]

be the same process set forth above for the Study Corridors Meetings. 
In its Routing Meeting Request, the Project Proponent will provide more 
detailed data for each potential route than was submitted for the Study 
Corridors Meeting.
    A. For example, for the potential proposed Routes identified within 
the Study Corridors, the Routing Meeting Requests should include:
    (1) A description of the factors (screening criteria) in 
identifying the potential Routes;
    (2) A map and description of the following: Residences, schools, 
daycare centers, hospitals, and airports; historic properties; areas 
identified for cultural significance \3\; areas of endangered and 
threatened species and designated critical habitat; land use; zoning by 
type; waters of the United States, floodplains and wetlands; Federal 
projects, including but not limited to dams, reservoirs, levees, other 
flood risk reduction projects, navigation channels, and environmental 
restoration projects; and, sections, townships, ranges, and municipal 
boundaries; and any identified low-income or minority populations; and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ This may include traditional cultural properties, 
traditional cultural landscapes, and other properties of religious 
and cultural significance to Indian tribes to the extent such 
information is known and is not protected against public disclosure 
in accordance with Section 304 of the National Historic Preservation 
Act, 16 U.S.C. 470w-3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (3) A description of the actions completed on the Public Outreach 
Plan to date.
    B. Within 60 calendar days of providing the Routing Meeting Request 
to the Federal Entities, DOE, in consultation with the Federal 
Entities, will determine if the Routing Meeting Request meets the 
requirements of this section.
    C. DOE will convene the Routing Meeting in the region where the 
project is located with the Project Proponent and all previously 
identified Federal Entities 30 days after notifying the Project 
Proponent and all previously identified Federal Entities that the 
Routing Meeting Request meets the requirements of this section.
    D. To the extent possible, the feedback mechanism from the Federal 
and Non-Federal Entities and opportunity for further comment on public 
participation will be the same as for the Study Corridors Meetings.
    E. In addition to the information provided in the Study Corridors 
Meeting, Federal and Non-Federal Entities will also identify during the 
Routing Meeting the initial requirements for site surveys for historic 
properties and cultural resources, endangered, threatened or otherwise 
protected species, and aquatic resources for potential proposed Routes 
within the Study Corridors, and if applicable, Regional Mitigation 
Strategies.
VII. Final Meeting
    After the Project Proponent has identified the potential proposed 
Route(s) within potential Study Corridor(s) that it intends to include 
in its Federal application(s), the Project Proponent will submit the 
Final Meeting Request to DOE. DOE will distribute the Final Meeting 
Request to previously identified Federal Entities within 5 calendar 
days of receipt of the Final Meeting Request.
    A. The Final Meeting Request shall include:
    (1) Maps of the potential proposed Route(s) within potential Study 
Corridor(s), including the line, substations and other infrastructure, 
which include at least as much detail as required for the Routing 
Meetings described above; and if available, GIS shapefiles or line 
data;
    (2) If the proposed Routes are sited through any Geographic Areas 
of Concern identified in prior meetings, a preliminary plan for 
addressing those concerns;
    (3) Summaries of all Project Proponent-sponsored project-specific 
surveys (biological, including aquatic resources, and visual and 
cultural surveys) for the proposed Routes along with the results of 
database and record reviews.
    (4) If known, a schedule of completion for upcoming field resource 
surveys;
    (5) A conceptual plan for potential mitigation options and 
measures, including avoidance, minimization, and mitigation (offsite 
and onsite), as well as Regional Mitigation Strategies, where 
available.
    (6) Description of how the Project Proponent complied with its 
Public Outreach Plan;
    (7) An estimated time of filing its request(s) for Federal 
Authorization(s).
    B. Within 60 calendar days of receiving a Final Meeting Request, 
DOE, in consultation with the Federal Entities, will jointly select the 
NEPA Lead Agency, if not already identified, as set forth in section 
VII below, select the lead agency for consultation under Section 106 of 
NHPA; and determine whether the Final Meeting Request meets the 
requirements of this section.
    C. Within 60 calendar days of making a determination that the Final 
Meeting Request meets the requirements of this section, DOE will 
convene the Final Meeting with the Project Proponent and all Federal 
Entities. Non-Federal Entities will also be invited to attend. DOE will 
use information technologies to ensure participants unable to attend in 
person can participate in the Final Meeting.
    D. During the Final Meeting, the following will occur:
    (1) Led by the NEPA Lead Agency, all Federal Entities will:
    (a) Based on information provided by the Project Proponent to date, 
discuss identified key issues of concern to the agencies and public and 
potential mitigation measures anticipated for the project;
    (b) Discuss statutory and regulatory standards that must be met to 
make decisions for applicable Federal Authorizations;
    (c) Describe estimated time to make decisions for such Federal 
Authorizations and the anticipated cost (e.g., processing and 
monitoring fees and rent);
    (d) Describe their expectations for written pre-application 
materials, if applicable; and
    (e) Describe their expectations for a complete application.
    (2) Any Non-Federal Entities are also encouraged to:
    (a) Identify key issues of concern;
    (b) Discuss statutory and regulatory standards that must be met to 
make decisions for applicable authorizations;
    (c) Describe estimated time and complexity to make decisions for 
such authorizations and the anticipated cost (processing and monitoring 
fees and rent);
    (d) Describe their expectations for written pre-application 
materials, if applicable; and
    (e) Describe their expectations for a complete application.
    (3) The Federal Entities will:
    (a) If not completed prior to this point, specify the requirements 
for biological, including aquatic resources, and historic property and 
cultural resource surveys/studies for the proposed Route(s) within 
potential Study Corridor(s).
    (b) Discuss available resources, including best practices for types 
of project, agency guidance, and existing Regional Mitigation 
Strategies, if applicable, or other information; and
    (c) Identify the process that will be used for defining the 
mitigation measures, as well as what mitigation measures would be 
expected for various routes; and identify among themselves any possible 
overlap of mitigation measures.
    (4) The Non-Federal Entities are also encouraged to:

[[Page 53445]]

    (a) If not completed prior to this point, specify the requirements 
for biological, including aquatic resources, and historic property and 
cultural resource surveys/studies for the Route(s) within potential 
Study Corridor(s).
    (b) Discuss available resources, including best practices for types 
of project, agency guidance, and existing Regional Mitigation 
Strategies, if applicable, or other information; and
    (c) Identify the process that may be used for defining the 
mitigation measures, as well as what mitigation measures would be 
expected for various potential Route(s) within potential Study 
Corridor(s); and identify among themselves any possible overlap of 
mitigation measures.
    (5) Federal and Non-Federal Entities may also identify among 
themselves any possible opportunities to synchronize or combine the 
review processes for their respective permits and approvals.
    (6) The NEPA Lead Agency will:
    (a) Describe the process of determining whether a third-party 
contractor will be selected for the NEPA review, if not completed prior 
to this point;
    (b) Discuss possible locations for the NEPA scoping meetings;
    (c) Discuss potential mitigation options and measures, and the 
process used for defining those measures, at a level of detail that is 
appropriate given the information available to the Project Proponent 
and the Federal and Non-Federal Entities at the time of the Final 
Meeting.
    (d) Discuss the Federal Entities' plans to meet tribal consultation 
requirements of Executive Order 13084 and compliance with the NHPA.
    (7) Nothing in this subsection requires agencies to commit to 
adopting particular mitigation measures or to limiting the mitigation 
measures that the NEPA Lead Agency and NEPA Cooperating Agencies might 
consider at later stages of NEPA review and in response to public 
comment.
    (8) The Final Meeting will result in a description by Federal 
Entities of the remaining key issues of concern and areas that 
represent potential high, medium, or low resource conflicts that could 
impact the time for which it takes Federal agencies to process 
applications for a proposed facility within the identified Study 
Corridors. That description will not constitute a commitment by any 
agency to approve or deny any authorization request nor will it 
guarantee a particular outcome in any individual case. Moreover, no 
agency would or could determine prior to the formal NEPA process that 
the Project Proponent's proposed or preferred Study Corridors and 
Routes presented or discussed during the IIP Process would constitute a 
reasonable range of alternatives for NEPA purposes. The Non-Federal 
Entities will also be encouraged to provide such a description of key 
issues of concern and areas of conflict.
    E. The NEPA Lead Agency will also describe the next set of 
milestones, including the creation of an interagency review schedule 
for the project once all written application materials have been deemed 
adequate, the issuance of a Notice of Intent to Prepare an 
Environmental Assessment or Environmental Impact Statement, and 
subsequent Scoping Meetings.
VIII. Selection of NEPA Lead Agency
    A. DOE, in consultation with the Federal Entities, will coordinate 
the selection of a NEPA Lead Agency responsible for compiling a unified 
environmental review document for qualifying projects. Determination of 
the lead agency for preparing NEPA documents shall be in compliance 
with applicable law and with regulations issued by CEQ at 40 CFR part 
1500 et seq.
    (1) For Qualifying Projects that cross DOI-administered lands 
(including trust or restricted Indian lands) or USDA-administered 
lands, DOI and USDA will consult and jointly determine within 30 
calendar days of receiving a Final Meeting Request whether a sufficient 
land management interest exists to support their assumption of the lead 
agency role; and, if so, which of the two agencies should assume that 
role.
    B. DOI and USDA will notify DOE of their determination in writing 
within 10 calendar days of making the determination.
    C. Unless DOE in writing notifies DOI and USDA of its objection to 
such determination within two calendar days of the DOI/USDA 
notification, such determination is deemed accepted and final. In 
deciding whether to object to such determination, DOE will consider the 
CEQ regulations pertaining to selection of the Lead Agency, including 
40 CFR 1501.5(c).
    D. When the NEPA Lead Agency is not established pursuant to 
paragraphs B-D of this section, the Federal Entities that will likely 
constitute the cooperating agencies for the unified environmental 
review document will consult and jointly determine a NEPA Lead Agency 
within 45 calendar days of receiving a Final Meeting Request. No 
determination of an agency as a NEPA Lead Agency under this rule shall 
be made absent that agency's consent.
    E. The Federal Entities will notify DOE of their determination in 
writing within 10 days of making the determination. Unless DOE in 
writing notifies the Federal Entities of its objection within two 
calendar days of receiving this notification, such determination is 
deemed accepted and final. If DOE objects to such determination, CEQ 
will determine the NEPA Lead Agency according to 40 CFR 1501.5(e)-(f).
IX. Consolidated Administrative Record
    A. Federal Entities are expected to include DOE on any 
communications with the Project Proponent, other Federal Entities, and 
Non-Federal Entities related to the IIP Process for a particular 
project.
    B. DOE will maintain all information, e.g., documents and 
communications, it disseminates or receives from the Project Proponent 
and Federal and Non-Federal Entities relating to specific IIP Processes 
as part of the administrative record for a future, potential 
transmission application. Before disseminating information specific to 
one agency's review, DOE must receive approval from that agency in 
accordance with that agency's FOIA requirements.
    C. At each meeting required in the IIP Process, DOE will record the 
key issues identified and, within 15 calendar days of the meeting, will 
send a list of such issues to the Federal and Non-Federal Entities that 
attended the meeting.
    D. Within 45 calendar days of receiving the list, the Federal and 
Non-Federal Entities that attended the meeting will revise the list, if 
necessary, and send the list to DOE.
    E. Within 30 calendar days of receiving the list in the above 
subsection, DOE will convey the list to the Project Proponent and all 
Federal and Non-Federal Entities that participated in the meeting.
    F. DOE will document the list of identified issues, if any, for the 
consolidated administrative record.
    G. Each Federal Entity is encouraged to maintain as part of a 
future, potential transmission application for which it may have a 
Federal Authorization the documents and communications developed in 
this process, which would, as appropriate, become part of its 
subsequent administrative record for that Federal Authorization.
X. Relationship to the NEPA Process and Other Environmental and Review 
Processes
    None of the IIP Process meetings are part of the NEPA or other 
environmental and review processes but will inform those processes. 
Feedback provided by

[[Page 53446]]

the Federal agencies is preliminary and would not constitute a 
commitment to grant a Federal Authorization. Moreover, no agency would 
or could determine prior to the formal NEPA process that the Project 
Proponent's proposed or preferred Study Corridors and Routes presented 
or discussed during the IIP Process would constitute a reasonable range 
of alternatives for NEPA purposes. As set forth in Section IX, the 
documents and communications developed in this process would be 
preserved by the Federal agencies and would, as appropriate, become 
part of any subsequent administrative record.

Glossary

    Federal Authorization means any authorization required under 
Federal law to site a transmission facility, including permits, special 
use authorizations, certifications, opinions, or other approvals. This 
term includes authorizations issued by Federal and Non-Federal Entities 
that are responsible for issuing decisions that are called for under 
Federal law for a transmission facility.
    Federal Entities means any Federal agencies with relevant expertise 
or interests that may have jurisdiction pertinent to the project, are 
responsible for conducting permitting and environmental reviews of the 
proposed project or attendant facilities, or have special expertise 
with respect to environmental and other issues pertinent to or that are 
potentially affected by the project or its attendant facilities or 
providing funding for the same. Federal Entities include those with 
either permitting or non-permitting authority, for example, those 
entities with which consultation must be completed before authorizing a 
project.
    Geographic Areas of Concern means those areas that present 
challenges or conflicts that could increase the time needed for the 
Federal government to evaluate the application if the route(s) are is 
sited through such areas (e.g., right-of-way avoidance areas identified 
through agency land management plans, National Historic Landmarks, 
traditional religious and cultural properties significant to Indian 
tribe(s), National Scenic and Historic Trails, National Wildlife 
Refuges, units of the National Park System, marine sanctuaries).
    NEPA Lead Agency means the Federal agency, selected as provided for 
in this process pursuant to 40 CFR Sec.  1501.5 to supervise the 
preparation of an environmental impact statement or an environmental 
assessment, as applicable, and to coordinate related Federal agency 
reviews.
    Non-Federal Entities means Indian Tribes, multistate entities, and 
State and local government agencies with relevant expertise that may 
have jurisdiction within the Project Area, are responsible for 
conducting permitting and environmental reviews of the proposed project 
or attendant facilities, or have special expertise with respect to 
environmental and other issues pertinent to or that are potentially 
affected by the project or its attendant facilities. Non-Federal 
Entities include those with either permitting or non-permitting 
authority, for example those entities with whom consultation must be 
completed before authorizing a project.
    Project Area means the geographic area to be considered when 
developing potential Study Corridors for environmental review and 
potential project siting. It is an area located between the two end 
points of the project (e.g., substations), including their immediate 
surroundings within at least one-quarter mile of that area, and over 
any proposed intermediate substations. The size of the Project Area 
should be sufficient to allow for the evaluation of potential 
alternative Routes with differing environmental, engineering, and 
regulatory constraints. Note that the Project Area does not necessarily 
coincide with ``permit area,'' ``area of potential effect,'' or 
``action area,'' which are specific to types of regulatory review as 
determined by the NEPA Lead Agency or DOE in consultation with the 
Project Proponent.
    Project Proponent means a person or entity who initiates the IIP 
Process in anticipation of seeking Federal Authorizations for a 
Qualifying Project.
    Qualifying Projects means (1) (a) a non-marine high voltage 
transmission line (230 kV or above) and its attendant facilities or (b) 
a regionally or nationally significant non-marine transmission line and 
its attendant facilities, in which (2) all or part of the proposed 
transmission line is used for the transmission of electric energy in 
interstate commerce for sale at wholesale, and (3) all or part of the 
proposed transmission line (a) crosses jurisdictions administered by 
more than one Federal Entity or (b) crosses jurisdictions administered 
by a Federal Entity and is considered for Federal financial assistance 
from a Federal Entity. Qualifying Projects do not include those for 
which an application has been submitted to FERC for issuance of a 
permit for construction or modification of a transmission facility, or 
where a pre-filing procedure has been initiated, under section 216(b) 
of the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 824p (b)) (transmission lines 
within a DOE-designated National Interest Electric Transmission 
Corridors).
    Regional Mitigation Strategies means mitigation measures and a 
framework based on the results of regional, landscape or watershed-
level analyses to directly compensate for project impacts.
    Route means a linear area within which a transmission line could be 
sited. A route is usually several hundred feet wide. It should be wide 
enough to allow minor adjustments in the alignment of the transmission 
line so as to avoid sensitive features or accommodate potential 
engineering constraints but narrow enough to allow detailed study of 
the entire area.
    Study Corridor means a contiguous area usually one mile to several 
miles wide within the Project Area where alternative Routes may be 
considered for further study.

    Issued in Washington, DC, August 23, 2013.
Patricia A. Hoffman,
Assistant Secretary, Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy 
Reliability.
[FR Doc. 2013-21098 Filed 8-28-13; 8:45 a.m.]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P