Improving Performance of Federal Permitting and Review of Infrastructure Projects, 53436-53446 [2013-21098]
Download as PDF
53436
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 168 / Thursday, August 29, 2013 / Notices
CHART 5—FIXED-RATE FEDERAL SUBSIDIZED AND UNSUBSIDIZED STAFFORD AND PLUS LOANS—Continued
First disbursed
on or after
Loan type
Student grade level
Unsubsidized ...................................................
PLUS ...............................................................
All Students ....................................................
Parents and Graduate/Professional Students
Note: No new loans have been made under
the FFEL Program since June 30, 2010.
Electronic Access to This Document:
The official version of this document is
the document published in the Federal
Register. Free Internet access to the
official edition of the Federal Register
and the Code of Federal Regulations is
available via the Federal Digital System
at: www.gpo.gov/fdsys. At this site you
can view this document, as well as all
other documents of this Department
published in the Federal Register, in
text or Adobe Portable Document
Format (PDF). To use PDF you must
have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is
available free at the site.
You may also access documents of the
Department published in the Federal
Register by using the article search
feature at: www.federalregister.gov.
Specifically, through the advanced
search feature at this site, you can limit
your search to documents published by
the Department.
Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1071 et seq.
Dated: August 26, 2013.
James F. Manning,
Chief of Staff of Federal Student Aid,
delegated the authority to perform the
functions and duties of the Chief Operating
Officer of Federal Student Aid.
[FR Doc. 2013–21142 Filed 8–28–13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Agency Information Collection
Extension
U.S. Department of Energy.
Submission for Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) review;
comment request.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
The Department of Energy
(DOE) has submitted an information
collection request to the OMB for
extension under the provisions of the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The
information collection requests a threeyear extension of its Financial
Assistance Information Collection, OMB
Control Number 1910–0400. This
information collection request covers
information necessary to administer and
manage DOE’s financial assistance
programs.
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
SUMMARY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:34 Aug 28, 2013
Jkt 229001
Comments regarding this
collection must be received on or before
September 30, 2013. If you anticipate
difficulty in submitting comments
within that period or if you want access
to the collection of information, without
charge, contact the person listed below
as soon as possible.
DATES:
Written comments should
be sent to the following: DOE Desk
Officer, Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs, Office of
Management and Budget, New
Executive Office Building, Room 10102,
735 17th Street NW., Washington, DC
20503.
ADDRESSES:
First disbursed
before
7/1/2006
7/1/2006
Rate
(percent)
7/1/2010
7/1/2010
6.80
8.50
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Improving Performance of Federal
Permitting and Review of
Infrastructure Projects
Office of Electricity Delivery
and Energy Reliability, Department of
Energy.
ACTION: Request for Information (RFI).
AGENCY:
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
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Memorandum, is seeking information
Richard Bonnell by email at
on a draft Integrated, Interagency Prerichard.bonnell@hq.doe.gov. Please put
Application (IIP) Process for significant
‘‘2013 DOE Agency Information
onshore electric transmission projects
Collection Extension’’ in the subject line requiring Federal Authorization(s).
when sending an email.
DATES: Comments must be received on
or before September 30, 2013.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This
ADDRESSES: Comments should be
information collection request contains:
addressed to: Julie A. Smith or
(1) OMB No.: 1910–0400 (Renewal); (2)
Christopher Lawrence, Office of
Information Collection Request Title:
Electricity Delivery and Energy
DOE Financial Assistance Information
Reliability, Mail Code: OE–20, U.S.
Clearance; (3) Type of Request: Renewal; Department of Energy, 1000
(4) Purpose: This package contains
Independence Avenue SW.,
information collections necessary to
Washington, DC 20585. Because of
annually plan, solicit, negotiate, award,
delays in handling conventional mail, it
administer, and closeout grants and
is recommended that documents be
cooperative agreements under the
transmitted by electronic mail to
Department’s financial assistance
juliea.smith@hq.doe.gov or
programs; (5) Estimated Number of
christopher.lawrence@hq.doe.gov, or by
Respondents 41,340; (6) Estimated Total facsimile to 202–586–7031.
Burden Hours: 573,732; and (7) Number FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Julie
of Collections: The information
A. Smith (Program Office) at 202–586–
collection request contains 16
7668, or by email to juliea.smith@
hq.doe.gov; or Christopher Lawrence
information and/or recordkeeping
(Program Office) at 202–586–7680, or by
requirements; (8) Annual Estimated
email to christopher.lawrence@
Reporting and Recordkeeping Cost
hq.doe.gov.
Burden: $0.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Statutory Authority: Federal Grant and
Modernizing our Nation’s electric
Cooperative Agreement Act, 31 U.S.C. 6301–
6308. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork transmission grid requires
improvements in how transmission
Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–13).
lines are sited, permitted, and reviewed.
Issued in Washington, DC, on August 21,
As part of its efforts to improve the
2013.
performance of Federal siting,
David Boyd,
permitting, and review processes for
Deputy Director, Office of Acquisition and
infrastructure development, the
Project Management.
Administration created a Rapid
[FR Doc. 2013–21117 Filed 8–28–13; 8:45 am]
Response Team for Transmission
(RRTT), a collaborative effort involving
BILLING CODE 6450–01–P
nine executive departments and
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\29AUN1.SGM
29AUN1
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 168 / Thursday, August 29, 2013 / Notices
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.
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:34 Aug 28, 2013
Jkt 229001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
53437
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
E:\FR\FM\29AUN1.SGM
29AUN1
53438
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 168 / Thursday, August 29, 2013 / Notices
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
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
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
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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:34 Aug 28, 2013
Jkt 229001
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.
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.
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 costrecovery authorities after an application
has been submitted. To the extent
allowed by law, some Federal Entities
may seek cost recovery from the Project
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 DOEdesignated National Interest Electric Transmission
Corridor).
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.
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
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
E:\FR\FM\29AUN1.SGM
29AUN1
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 168 / Thursday, August 29, 2013 / Notices
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 nonFederal 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:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:34 Aug 28, 2013
Jkt 229001
(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 DOEdesignated 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
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
53439
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.
E:\FR\FM\29AUN1.SGM
29AUN1
53440
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 168 / Thursday, August 29, 2013 / Notices
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
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 costrecovery 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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:34 Aug 28, 2013
Jkt 229001
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;
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
(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
E:\FR\FM\29AUN1.SGM
29AUN1
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 168 / Thursday, August 29, 2013 / Notices
review the Initiation Request prior to
the meeting. All identified Federal
Entities must attend the Initial Meeting.
DOE also will invite all identified NonFederal 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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:34 Aug 28, 2013
Jkt 229001
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 nonFederal 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;
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
53441
(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
E:\FR\FM\29AUN1.SGM
29AUN1
53442
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 168 / Thursday, August 29, 2013 / Notices
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.
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:34 Aug 28, 2013
Jkt 229001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
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;
E:\FR\FM\29AUN1.SGM
29AUN1
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 168 / Thursday, August 29, 2013 / Notices
(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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:34 Aug 28, 2013
Jkt 229001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
53443
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-ofway; 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
E:\FR\FM\29AUN1.SGM
29AUN1
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
53444
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 168 / Thursday, August 29, 2013 / Notices
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) 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
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.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:34 Aug 28, 2013
Jkt 229001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
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:
E:\FR\FM\29AUN1.SGM
29AUN1
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 168 / Thursday, August 29, 2013 / Notices
(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 NonFederal 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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:34 Aug 28, 2013
Jkt 229001
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 USDAadministered 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.
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
53445
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 NonFederal 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 NonFederal 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
E:\FR\FM\29AUN1.SGM
29AUN1
53446
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 168 / Thursday, August 29, 2013 / Notices
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.
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
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 § 1501.5 to
supervise the preparation of an
environmental impact statement or an
environmental assessment, as
applicable, and to coordinate related
Federal agency reviews.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:34 Aug 28, 2013
Jkt 229001
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 nonpermitting 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
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
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
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Office of Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy
[Case No. CD–008]
Energy Conservation Program for
Consumer Products: Decision and
Order Granting a Waiver to ASKO
Appliances Inc. From the Department
of Energy Residential Clothes Dryer
Test Procedure
Office of Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy, Department of
Energy.
ACTION: Decision and Order.
AGENCY:
The U.S. Department of
Energy (DOE) gives notice of the
decision and order (Case No. CD–008)
that grants to ASKO Appliances Inc.
(ASKO) a waiver from the DOE clothes
dryer test procedure. The waiver
pertains to the models of condensing
residential clothes dryer specified in
ASKO’s petition. Condensing clothes
dryers cannot be tested using the
currently applicable DOE test
procedure. Under today’s decision and
order, ASKO shall not be required to
test and rate its specified models of
residential condensing clothes dryer
pursuant to the current test procedure.
DATES: This Decision and Order is
effective August 29, 2013.
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\29AUN1.SGM
29AUN1
Agencies
[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