Mission Compatibility Evaluation Process, 73085-73092 [2013-28868]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 234 / Thursday, December 5, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
C. Public Law 96–354, Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601)
D. Section 96–511, Paperwork Reduction
Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35)
E. Executive Order 13132, Federalism
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Office of the Secretary
32 CFR Part 211
[Docket ID: DOD–2011–OS–0054; RIN 0790–
AI69]
Mission Compatibility Evaluation
Process
Office of the Under Secretary of
Defense for Acquisition, Technology,
and Logistics, DoD.
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
Section 358 of the Ike Skelton
National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2011 required the
Department of Defense (DoD) to
designate a senior official and a lead
organization to serve as a clearinghouse
for the coordination of DoD review of
applications filed with the Secretary of
Transportation. Applications referred to
the DoD involve proposals for the
construction of structures that may
affect navigable air space. Section 358
requires DoD to issue procedures for
addressing the impacts of those
structures on military operations and
determining if they pose an
unacceptable risk to the national
security of the United States. Section
358 requires the establishment of a
comprehensive strategy for addressing
military impacts of renewable energy
projects and other energy projects and
annual reports to Congress; these
requirements are not part of this rule
and will be addressed separately. Nor
does this rule deal with other proposal
review processes not included in
section 358, such as those applied by
the Bureau of Land Management,
Department of the Interior.
DATES: This rule is effective on January
6, 2014.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bill
Van Houten, (703) 571–9068, or at
DoDSitingClearinghouse@osd.mil.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
SUMMARY:
ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Preamble Outline
I. Authority
II. Background
III. Summary of Significant Changes to the
Rule
A. Definitions
B. Project Evaluation Procedures
C. Communications and Outreach
IV. Other Adjustments to the Final Rule
V. Executive Summary
VI. Administrative Requirements
A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory
Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563, Improving Regulation and
Regulatory Review.
B. Section 202, Public Law 104–4,
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
VerDate Mar<15>2010
13:56 Dec 04, 2013
Jkt 232001
I. Authority
This action is authorized by section
358 of the Ike Skelton National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011,
Public Law 111–383, as amended by
section 331 of Public Law 112–81.
II. Background
The Department of Defense
(hereinafter the ‘‘Department’’)
published an interim final rule in the
Federal Register on October 20, 2011, at
76 FR 65112.
The public comment period for the
interim final rule ended on December
19, 2011. Two commenters submitted
comments on the interim final rule. The
preamble to the final rule provides a
discussion of each section of the interim
final rule on which comments were
received. Where changes in the rule are
being made, specific reference is made
to those changes in the discussion.
Where no specific reference is made in
the discussion, no change to the interim
final rule is being made. Revisions to
the rule that are simply editorial or that
do not reflect substantive changes are
not addressed in this preamble.
All comments the Department
received are presented in a document
available at https://www.acq.osd.mil/ie/
siting.shtml.
III. Summary of Significant Changes to
the Final Rule
This section contains the
Department’s responses to the
comments received on the interim final
rule, organized by the structure of the
interim final and final rules.
The primary purpose of the rule is to
promulgate the Department’s policies
and procedures for the external
interfaces that are necessary to comply
with section 358 of Public Law 111–383.
Most of the comments received were
recommendations for greater specificity
in the rule, particularly with respect to
standards, criteria, and
communications. The Department has
carefully considered the comments it
has received. Its responses follow:
A. Definitions
Comment: One comment
characterized the definition of ‘‘adverse
impact on military operations and
readiness’’ as overly broad and stated
that it is not clear from either section
358 or the interim final rule how an
adverse impact that rises to the level of
an unacceptable risk to national security
differs from an adverse impact that does
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
73085
not. The same comment suggested that
the rule distinguish impacts that do not
significantly impact military operations
from those that could so that further
evaluation and discussion of mitigation
measures could be focused on the latter.
Response: The Department has made
some minor grammatical adjustments to
the definition of ‘‘Unacceptable risk to
the national security of the United
States’’. However, the coordinated
evaluation process required by section
358 is still not sufficiently mature for
the Department to establish more
specific quantitative thresholds to
distinguish adverse impacts that do not
significantly impact military operations
and readiness from those that do. The
law provides for the Department to
establish procedures to ensure that the
Secretary of Defense does not object to
a project unless the Secretary of Defense
or a senior officer designated by the
Secretary of Defense determines that the
project would result in an unacceptable
risk to the national security of the
United States. The rule provides that the
Deputy Secretary of Defense may make
a determination that a particular project
would pose an unacceptable risk to
national security and it establishes
procedures to ensure that, in such cases,
the Deputy Secretary of Defense has the
benefit of a recommendation from a
senior official as well as information
about the mitigation measures that were
available to both the Department and
the applicant. The Department does not
believe that further specificity is needed
at this time.
Comment: One comment suggested
expanding the definition of the term
‘‘requester’’ in the rule. Under the rule,
a requester is authorized to ask the DoD
for an informal review of a proposed
project. However, the definition of
‘‘requester’’ in the interim final rule did
not include landowners, and the
comment argued that large landowners
are in a position to steer developers to
portions of their property that have
better resources for renewable energy
projects and fewer or more manageable
conflicts with DoD interests.
Response: The Department agrees,
and the definition of ‘‘requester’’ has
been expanded in the final rule to
include landowners. A definition of the
term ‘‘landowner’’ has been provided in
the rule.
B. Project Evaluation Procedures
Comment: One comment stated that
the interim final rule was not clear as to
what level of information will be shared
with the applicant or with the Federal
Aviation Administration to explain a
DoD determination that a project will
have an adverse impact on military
E:\FR\FM\05DER1.SGM
05DER1
ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
73086
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 234 / Thursday, December 5, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
operations and readiness or pose an
unacceptable risk to national security.
Response: Because some explanations
may involve sensitive or classified
information, it is appropriate to avoid
committing the Department to a certain
level, or format, for transmitting
information about such determinations
to either applicants or the Federal
Aviation Administration. The language
in the rule allows the Department the
flexibility to provide explanations in a
manner that the Department considers
necessary and appropriate as well as to
withhold information that could
compromise the national security of the
United States if it were released. No
change was made to the rule to address
this comment.
Comment: One comment questioned
the provision in section 211.6(b)(1)(ii) of
the interim final rule that requires the
applicant to amend an application that
has been filed with the Secretary of
Transportation if the applicant and the
Department reach agreement on
mitigation measures that remove an
adverse impact on military operations
and readiness. The comment contends
that such an amendment is unnecessary
if the agreed-upon mitigation solely
involves measures to be taken by DoD.
Response: The Department agrees,
and the provision has been modified in
the final rule to require the applicant to
file an amended application only if the
agreed-upon mitigation measures entail
modification to the proposed project.
Comment: One comment pointed out
that the language in the subpart of the
interim final rule that addresses project
evaluation procedures could be
interpreted as implying a preference for
mitigation measures to be taken by the
applicant over mitigation measures to be
taken by the Department. The comment
recommended that the language in
question be modified to ensure there is
no implied preference for mitigation on
the part of the applicant.
Response: The Department does not
agree that the language in the rule
suggests a preference for mitigation
measures to be taken by the applicant.
Section 211.6(b)(2)(iii) and Section
211.6(c)(3) provide for consideration of
the mitigation actions that are available
to the Department as well as those that
have been agreed to by the applicant. No
change was made in the rule to address
this comment.
Comment: One comment raised a
question as to whether all adverse
impacts must be mitigated or only those
that are determined to pose an
unacceptable risk to national security.
Response: Since only the senior
officer designated by the Secretary of
Defense can officially determine that a
VerDate Mar<15>2010
13:56 Dec 04, 2013
Jkt 232001
proposed project poses an unacceptable
risk to the national security of the
United States and communicate that
determination to the Secretary of
Transportation, it would not be cost
effective to make such determinations
relative to each project before deciding
whether or not to mitigate the adverse
impact of that project. However, in
response to that comment, sections
211.6(a)(3)(ii) and 211.7(b)(2)(ii) have
been added to provide for
determinations that the adverse impact
posed by a proposed project is
sufficiently attenuated that it does not
require mitigation.
Comment: One comment
recommended that the procedures in the
rule be modified to allow landowners to
address mitigation. That comment
contended that large landowners in
particular would have more flexibility
in addressing mitigation than a
developer who only has a leasehold
interest on a portion of the landowner’s
property.
Response: In the final rule, section
211.3 has been modified to include the
owners of land on which a proposed
project is planned among the parties
that are eligible to request an informal
review from the Department of Defense.
Additionally, section 211.7(b)(2)(ii)(B)
has been modified to ensure that
landowners (when they are requesters)
are notified of Clearinghouse
determinations.
Comment: One comment
recommended that the Department
provide quantitative guidance in the
rule concerning what constitutes at
acceptable level of mitigation.
Response: It is not currently possible
to identify objective measures of
mitigation with sufficient specificity to
enumerate them in a rule. The
Department is working to develop
guidelines and models, but those
guidelines and models are not yet
mature. To provide some additional
clarity, however, in section 211.9(b) of
the final rule, the Department included
a provision that an applicant or
requester discussing mitigation with the
Department should consider limiting
the daily operating hours or the number
of days that equipment in the proposed
structure would be in use along with
other possible actions that could be
taken to avoid an unacceptable risk to
the national security of the United
States.
Comment: One commenter expressed
concern that section 211.9(b)(3) of the
interim final rule urged applicants to
consider providing a voluntary
contribution to offset the cost of
mitigation measures undertaken by the
DoD, but did not provide a specific
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
process for the transfer of such funds or
a statement of what commitments the
Department would make in return for
such funds. The comment also
requested clarification as to how large a
contribution would be necessary to lead
the Department to withdraw an
objection, whether the only acceptable
level of contributions was to pay the full
cost of mitigation, or whether a Federal
cost share would be available in some
circumstances.
Response: It is not possible to specify
in a rule what commitments, if any, the
Department would make in conjunction
with any given voluntary contribution.
Certainly, the decision to withdraw an
objection based on the existence of an
unacceptable risk to national security
will not be predicated on the magnitude
of a voluntary contribution. A voluntary
contribution is in the nature of
mitigation since it allows the
Department to reduce or eliminate an
adverse impact. The effect that a
voluntary contribution has on the
analysis of adverse impact and
unacceptable risk will vary from project
to project. In some instances, it may
remove an adverse impact; in others, an
unacceptable risk may be unavoidable
and not subject to mitigation. The facts
of each project will determine whether
a voluntary contribution will act to
mitigate an adverse impact. It is not
necessary to specify a method of
payment in the rule since that
information will be available on the
Clearinghouse Web site. No change was
made to the rule to address this
comment.
C. Communications and Outreach
Comment: With respect to section
211.12 of the interim final rule, one
comment observed that proposed
renewable energy projects are
competition sensitive. Because of that
concern, the comment recommended
that the Department refrain from
publicizing proposed projects for which
a requester is seeking informal review
on the DoD Web site, noting that
publication of such projects would limit
the attractiveness of the early
consultation option.
Response: The rule requires only the
minimum information necessary to
conduct a useful review. An additional
provision was added to section 211.7(a)
encouraging requestors to mark any
documents containing proprietary or
competition-sensitive information
accordingly when requesting an
informal review of a proposed project.
However, the DoD must comply with all
applicable laws, including the Freedom
of Information Act.
E:\FR\FM\05DER1.SGM
05DER1
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 234 / Thursday, December 5, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
In response to this comment, section
211.12 was modified to eliminate the
requirement for the Department to
include the requests for informal review
that the Department is considering on
its Web site.
ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
IV. Other Adjustments to the Final Rule
This section identifies and explains
minor adjustments that the Department
made to the rule that were not the result
of public comments.
In the final rule, the applicability of
the rule is extended to Indian tribal
governments, and they are included in
the definition of a ‘‘requester’’ so they,
like State and local governments, have
the authorization to seek informal
reviews of proposed projects. It was the
Department’s view that Indian tribal
governments fell within the category of
state governments, to which they are
somewhat analogous as separate
sovereigns. But in order to avoid any
doubt, the rule is being changed to
clarify this point.
In section 211.7 of the final rule, the
Department includes a requirement for
requesters that desire an informal
review of a project to provide the height
of the project as part of the required
information. It was the Department’s
view that the requirement to provide the
‘‘nature of the project’’ would
necessarily include the project’s height.
However, to avoid any doubt, the rule
is being changed to specifically include
a reference to the height of the project.
V. Executive Summary
In section 358 of Public Law 111–383,
Congress required, among other things,
that the DoD implement new procedures
relating to how the DoD reviews and
comments on applications filed with the
Secretary of Transportation pursuant to
49 U.S.C. 44718. Section 358 also
specifies who within DoD may provide
such comments to the Secretary of
Transportation, that DoD will engage in
outreach activities with interested
parties, and that Congress must be
advised when the DoD objects to an
application filed pursuant to 49 U.S.C.
44718.
Section 211.1 of this rule states the
two primary purposes of the rule which
are to provide for DoD commenting on
(1) applications filed pursuant to 49
U.S.C. 44718 and (2) requests for
reviews of projects prior to applications
being filed pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 44718.
Section 211.2 addresses the
applicability of part 211. This part
applies to all components of the DoD,
those applicants filing applications
pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 44718 when those
applications are conveyed by the
Secretary of Transportation to the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
13:56 Dec 04, 2013
Jkt 232001
Department of Defense, those requesting
reviews of projects prior to applications
being filed under 49 U.S.C. 44718
(including State, Indian tribal, and local
officials and landowners), and those
providing comments to DoD relating to
its actions in reviewing applications. It
also applies, geographically, to the
United States.
Section 211.3 provides definitions.
The definition of ‘‘adverse impact on
military operations and readiness’’
provides that a demonstrable
impairment or degradation of the ability
of the armed forces to perform their
warfighting missions constitutes an
adverse impact. The definition of
‘‘applicant’’ refers to an entity filing a
proper application with the Secretary of
Transportation pursuant to 49 U.S.C.
44718, and whose application has been
provided by the Secretary of
Transportation to the DoD. The
definition of ‘‘armed forces’’ refers to
the definition at 10 U.S.C. 101(a)(4),
which includes the Army, Navy, Air
Force, and Marine Corps, but excludes
the Coast Guard. The definition of
‘‘congressional defense committees’’ is
taken from section 3 of Public Law 111–
383, which, in turn, adopts by reference
the definition of the term in 10 U.S.C.
101(a)(16). The definition of ‘‘military
readiness’’ is taken from the definition
of the term provided in section 358. The
definition of ‘‘mitigation’’ provides a
general description of the term while
leaving to individual actions more
specific examples of what may
constitute mitigation. The definition of
‘‘proposed project’’ is the project as
submitted to the Secretary of
Transportation pursuant to 49 U.S.C.
44718. The definition of ‘‘requester’’
refers to a developer of a renewable
energy development or other energy
project, a landowner on whose property
such project is proposed to be built, or
a State, Indian tribal, or local official
seeking an informal review of a project
by the DoD prior to the project being
submitted for formal review pursuant to
49 U.S.C. 44718. The definition of
‘‘section 358’’ refers to the authorizing
provision, section 358 of Public Law
111–383. The definition of
‘‘unacceptable risk to the national
security of the United States’’ includes
the two existing criteria found in 49
U.S.C. 44718, namely the construction,
alteration, establishment, or expansion,
or the proposed construction, alteration,
establishment, or expansion, of a
structure or sanitary landfill that
endangers safety in air commerce or
interferes with the efficient use and
preservation of the navigable airspace
and of airport traffic capacity at public-
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
73087
use airports, but, for purposes of this
rule, only when related to the activities
of the DoD. The definition also includes
an additional criterion consisting of
actions that will significantly impair or
degrade the capability of the DoD to
conduct training, research,
development, testing, and evaluation,
and operations or to maintain military
readiness. The definition of ‘‘United
States’’ is included to provide the
geographical limitation of the part,
clarifying that it does not apply outside
of the United States.
Section 211.4 provides the general
policy of the part, taken from section
358(a). It also limits the participation of
DoD in the Federal Aviation
Administration’s process under 49
U.S.C. 44718 to the process provided in
this rule.
Section 211.5 specifies the officials
with authorities and responsibilities
under the part pursuant to section 358.
The Deputy Secretary of Defense is
designated as the senior officer who is
authorized to provide a determination to
the Secretary of Transportation that a
project filed pursuant to 49 U.S.C.
44718 would result in an unacceptable
risk to the national security of the
United States. The Under Secretary of
Defense for Acquisition, Technology,
and Logistics is designated as the senior
official who may make a
recommendation to the Deputy
Secretary of Defense that such a project
would result in such a risk. The Deputy
Under Secretary of Defense
(Installations & Environment) is
designated as the official who, in
coordination with the Deputy Assistant
Secretary of Defense (Readiness) and the
Principal Deputy Director, Operational
Test and Evaluation, reviews such a
project and provides a preliminary
assessment of the level of risk of adverse
impact on military operations and
readiness that would arise from the
project and the extent of mitigation that
may be needed to address such risk. The
Office of the Deputy Under Secretary of
Defense (Installations & Environment) is
designated as the lead organization, and
the DoD Siting Clearinghouse is
established and organized under the
Deputy Under Secretary.
Section 211.6 provides the procedures
for formal DoD review of a project filed
by an applicant with the Secretary of
Transportation pursuant to 49 U.S.C.
44718.
Section 211.7 provides the procedures
for informal DoD review of a project
submitted by a requester prior to
submitting a formal application
pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 44718.
Section 211.8 directs DoD
Components to forward any inquiries or
E:\FR\FM\05DER1.SGM
05DER1
73088
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 234 / Thursday, December 5, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
requests they may receive to the
Clearinghouse so as to avoid
unauthorized action by a Component
outside of the process established by
this rule.
Section 211.9 provides some of the
types of mitigation to be considered by
the DoD and the applicant/requester
when discussing mitigation.
Section 211.10 provides for the
notification to Congress required by
section 358 when the senior officer
makes a determination that a project
presents an unacceptable risk to the
national security of the United States.
Section 211.11 provides for a public
Web site where the public can review
the actions being considered by DoD,
track their progress, and offer
comments.
VI. Administrative Requirements
A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory
Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563, Improving Regulation and
Regulatory Review
It has been certified that this rule is
not an economically significant rule that
will result in an annual effect of $100
million or more on the national
economy or which will have other
substantial impacts. This rule has been
reviewed by the Office of Management
and Budget as required under the
provisions of E.O. 12866.
It has been certified that 32 CFR part
211 does not contain a Federal mandate
that may result in the expenditure by
State, local and tribal governments, in
aggregate, or by the private sector, of
$100 million or more in any one year.
ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
C. Public Law 96–354, ‘‘Regulatory
Flexibility Act’’ (5 U.S.C. 601)
The Congress enacted the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (RFA) of 1980, as
amended, 5 U.S.C. 601–612, to ensure
that Government regulations do not
unnecessarily or disproportionately
burden small entities. The RFA requires
a regulatory flexibility analysis if a rule
would have a significant economic
impact, either detrimental or beneficial,
on a substantial number of small
entities. The RFA requires agencies to
analyze the economic impact of
regulations to determine the extent to
which there is anticipated to be a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
DoD anticipates that the rule could
potentially affect a few entities that
might otherwise have located structures
on public or private lands that would
present an unreasonable risk to the
13:56 Dec 04, 2013
Jkt 232001
D. Public Law 96–511, Paperwork
Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35)
It has been certified that the
Paperwork Reduction Act applies. This
rule contains information collection
requirements under OMB Control
Number 0790–0005 titled, ‘‘Informal
DoD Review of Energy Projects.’’
E. Executive Order 13132, Federalism
It has been certified that this part does
not have federalism implications, as set
forth in Executive Order 13132. This
rule does not have substantial direct
effects on:
(1) The States
(2) The relationship between the
National Government and the States; or
(3) The distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various
levels of Government.
List of Subjects in 32 CFR Part 211
Energy, Evaluation.
B. Section 202, Public Law 104–4,
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
VerDate Mar<15>2010
national security of the United States.
DoD further anticipates that some of
these entities will be small entities as
defined by the Small Business
Administration; however, DoD does not
expect the potential impact to be
significant because this rule provides
procedures to mitigate the impact of
such an unreasonable risk to the benefit
of both the proponent and the DoD.
Accordingly 32 CFR part 211 is
revised to read as follows:
PART 211—MISSION COMPATIBILITY
EVALUATION PROCESS
Subpart A—General
Sec.
211.1 Purpose.
211.2 Applicability.
211.3 Definitions.
Subpart B—Policy
211.4 Policy.
211.5 Responsibilities.
Subpart D—Communications and Outreach
211.11 Communications with the
Clearinghouse.
211.12 Public outreach.
Authority: Public Law 111–383, Section
358, as amended by Public Law 112–81,
Section 331.
Frm 00010
Fmt 4700
§ 211.1
Sfmt 4700
Purpose.
This part prescribes procedures
pursuant to section 358 of the Ike
Skelton National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2011 to provide:
(a) A formal review of projects for
which applications are filed with the
Secretary of Transportation under 49
U.S.C. 44718, to determine if they pose
an unacceptable risk to the national
security of the United States.
(b) An informal review of a renewable
energy development or other energy
project in advance of the filing of an
application with the Secretary of
Transportation under 49 U.S.C. 44718.
§ 211.2
Applicability.
This part applies to:
(a) The Office of the Secretary of
Defense, the Military Departments, the
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and
the Joint Staff, the Combatant
Commands, the Office of the Inspector
General of the Department of Defense,
the Defense Agencies, the DoD Field
Activities, and all other organizational
entities in the Department of Defense
(hereafter referred to collectively as the
‘‘DoD Components’’).
(b) Persons filing applications with
the Secretary of Transportation for
proposed projects pursuant to 49 U.S.C.
44718, when such applications are
received by the Department of Defense
from the Secretary of Transportation.
(c) A State, Indian tribal, or local
official, a landowner, or a developer of
a renewable energy development or
other energy project seeking a review of
such project by DoD.
(d) Members of the general public
from whom comments are received on
notices of actions being taken by the
Department of Defense under this part.
(e) The United States.
§ 211.3
Subpart C—Project Evaluation Procedures
211.6 Initiating a formal DoD review of a
proposed project.
211.7 Initiating an informal DoD review of
a project.
211.8 Inquiries received by DoD
Components.
211.9 Mitigation options.
211.10 Reporting determinations to
Congress.
PO 00000
Subpart A—General
Definitions.
Adverse impact on military
operations and readiness. Any adverse
impact upon military operations and
readiness, including flight operations
research, development, testing, and
evaluation and training, that is
demonstrable and is likely to impair or
degrade the ability of the armed forces
to perform their warfighting missions.
Applicant. An entity filing an
application with the Secretary of
Transportation pursuant to 49 U.S.C.
44718, and whose proper application
has been provided by the Secretary of
Transportation to the Clearinghouse.
Armed forces. This term has the same
meaning as provided in 10 U.S.C.
101(a)(4) but does not include the Coast
Guard.
E:\FR\FM\05DER1.SGM
05DER1
ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 234 / Thursday, December 5, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
Clearinghouse. The DoD Siting
Clearinghouse, established under the
Deputy Under Secretary of Defense
(Installations & Environment).
Congressional defense committees.
The—
(1) Committee on Armed Services and
the Committee on Appropriations of the
Senate; and
(2) Committee on Armed Services and
the Committee on Appropriations of the
House of Representatives.
Days. All days are calendar days but
do not include Federal holidays.
Landowner. A person, partnership,
corporation, or other legal entity, that
owns a fee interest in real property on
which a proposed project is planned to
be located.
Military readiness. Includes any
training or operation that could be
related to combat readiness, including
testing and evaluation activities.
Mitigation. Actions taken by either or
both the DoD or the applicant to ensure
that a project does not create an
unacceptable risk to the national
security of the United States.
Proposed project. A proposed project
is the project as described in the
application submitted to the Secretary
of Transportation pursuant to 49 U.S.C.
44718 and transmitted by the Secretary
of Transportation to the Clearinghouse.
Requester. A developer of a renewable
energy development or other energy
project, a State, Indian tribal, or local
official, or a landowner seeking an
informal review by the DoD of a project.
Section 358. Section 358 of the Ike
Skelton National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2011, Public Law
111–383.
Unacceptable risk to the national
security of the United States. The
construction, alteration, establishment,
or expansion, or the proposed
construction, alteration, establishment,
or expansion, of a structure or sanitary
landfill that would:
(1) Endanger safety in air commerce,
related to the activities of the DoD.
(2) Interfere with the efficient use and
preservation of the navigable airspace
and of airport traffic capacity at publicuse airports, related to the activities of
the DoD.
(3) Significantly impair or degrade the
capability of the DoD to conduct
training, research, development, testing,
and evaluation, and operations or to
maintain military readiness.
United States. The several States, the
District of Columbia, the
Commonwealths of Puerto Rico and the
Northern Mariana Islands, American
Samoa, Guam, Midway and Wake
Islands, the U.S. Virgin Islands, any
other territory or possession of the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
13:56 Dec 04, 2013
Jkt 232001
United States, and associated navigable
waters, contiguous zones, and territorial
seas and the airspace of those areas.
Subpart B—Policy
§ 211.4
Policy.
(a) It is an objective of the Department
of Defense to ensure that the robust
development of renewable energy
sources and the increased resiliency of
the commercial electrical grid may
move forward in the United States,
while minimizing or mitigating any
adverse impacts on military operations
and readiness.
(b) The participation of the DoD in the
process of the Federal Aviation
Administration conducted pursuant to
49 U.S.C. 44718 shall be conducted in
accordance with this part. No other
process shall be used by a DoD
Component.
(c) Nothing in this part shall be
construed as affecting the authority of
the Secretary of Transportation under 49
U.S.C. 44718.
§ 211.5
Responsibilities.
(a) Pursuant to subsection (e)(4) of
section 358, the Deputy Secretary of
Defense is designated as the senior
officer. Only the senior officer may
convey to the Secretary of
Transportation a determination that a
project filed with the Secretary of
Transportation pursuant to 49 U.S.C.
44718 would result in an unacceptable
risk to the national security of the
United States.
(b) Pursuant to subsection (b)(1) of
section 358, the Under Secretary of
Defense for Acquisition, Technology,
and Logistics is designated as the senior
official. Only the senior official may
provide to the senior officer a
recommendation that the senior officer
determine a project filed with the
Secretary of Transportation pursuant to
49 U.S.C. 44718 would result in an
unacceptable risk to the national
security of the United States.
(c) Pursuant to subsection (e)(1) of
section 358, the Deputy Under Secretary
of Defense (Installations &
Environment), in coordination with the
Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense
(Readiness) and the Principal Deputy
Director, Operational Test and
Evaluation, shall review a proper
application for a project filed pursuant
to 49 U.S.C. 44718 and received from
the Secretary of Transportation and
provide a preliminary assessment of the
level of risk of adverse impact on
military operations and readiness that
would arise from the project and the
extent of mitigation that may be needed
to address such risk.
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
73089
(d) Pursuant to subsection (b)(1) of
section 358, the Office of the Deputy
Under Secretary of Defense
(Installations & Environment) is
designated as the lead organization.
Under the authority, direction, and
control of the Under Secretary of
Defense for Acquisition, Technology,
and Logistics, there is, within the Office
of the Deputy Under Secretary, a DoD
Siting Clearinghouse. The
Clearinghouse:
(1) Shall have a governing board
organized in accordance with DoD
Instruction 5105.18, DoD
Intergovernmental and
Intragovernmental Committee
Management Program.
(2) Has an executive director who is
a Federal Government employee,
appointed by the Deputy Under
Secretary of Defense (Installations &
Environment).
(3) Performs such duties as assigned
in this part and as the Deputy Under
Secretary directs.
Subpart C—Project Evaluation
Procedures
§ 211.6 Initiating a formal DoD review of a
proposed project.
(a) A formal review of a proposed
project begins with the receipt from the
Secretary of Transportation by the
Clearinghouse of a proper application
filed with the Secretary of
Transportation pursuant to 49 U.S.C.
44718.
(1) The Clearinghouse will convey the
application as received to those DoD
Components it believes may have an
interest in reviewing the application.
(2) The DoD Components that receive
the application shall provide their
comments and recommendations on the
application to the Clearinghouse no
later than 20 days after they receive the
application.
(3) Not later than 30 days after
receiving the application from the
Secretary of Transportation, the
Clearinghouse shall evaluate all
comments and recommendations
received and take one of three actions:
(i) Determine that the proposed
project will not have an adverse impact
on military operations and readiness, in
which case it shall notify the Secretary
of Transportation of such determination.
(ii) Determine that the proposed
project will have an adverse impact on
military operations and readiness but
that the adverse impact involved is
sufficiently attenuated that it does not
require mitigation. When the
Clearinghouse makes such a
determination, it shall notify the
Secretary of Transportation of such
determination.
E:\FR\FM\05DER1.SGM
05DER1
ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
73090
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 234 / Thursday, December 5, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
(iii) Determine that the proposed
project may have an adverse impact on
military operations and readiness. When
the Clearinghouse makes such a
determination it shall immediately—
(A) Notify the applicant of the
determination of the Clearinghouse and
offer to discuss mitigation with the
applicant to reduce the adverse impact;
(B) Designate one or more DoD
Components to engage in discussions
with the applicant to attempt to mitigate
the adverse impact;
(C) Notify the Secretary of
Transportation that the Department of
Defense has determined that the
proposed project may have an adverse
impact on military operations and
readiness, and, if the cause of the
adverse impact is due to the proposed
project exceeding an obstruction
standard set forth in subpart C of part
77 of title 14 of the Code of Federal
Regulations, identify the specific
standard and how it would be exceeded;
and
(D) Notify the Secretary of
Transportation and the Secretary of
Homeland Security that the
Clearinghouse has offered to engage in
mitigation discussions with the
applicant.
(4) The applicant must provide to the
Clearinghouse its agreement to discuss
the possibility of mitigation within five
days of receipt of the notification from
the Clearinghouse.
(b) If the applicant agrees to enter into
discussions with the DoD to seek to
mitigate an adverse impact, the
designated DoD Components shall
engage in discussions with the applicant
to attempt to reach agreement on
measures that would mitigate the
adverse impact of the proposed project
on military operations and readiness.
The Clearinghouse shall invite the
Administrator of the Federal Aviation
Administration and the Secretary of
Homeland Security to participate in
such discussions. The Clearinghouse
may also invite other Federal agencies
to participate in such discussions.
(1) Such discussions shall not extend
more than 90 days beyond the initial
notification to the applicant, unless both
the designated DoD Components and
the applicant agree, in writing, to an
extension of a specific period of time.
(i) If agreement between the applicant
and the designated DoD Components
has not been reached on mitigation
measures by that time and no extension
has been mutually agreed to, the
designated DoD Components shall
notify the Clearinghouse of the results of
the discussions and the analysis and
recommendations of the Components
VerDate Mar<15>2010
13:56 Dec 04, 2013
Jkt 232001
with regard to the proposed project as
it is proposed after discussions.
(ii) If agreement between the
applicant and the designated DoD
Components has been reached on
mitigation measures that remove the
adverse impact of the proposed project
on military operations and readiness,
the DoD Components shall notify the
Clearinghouse of the agreement. If the
mitigation measures entail modification
to the proposed project, the applicant
shall notify the Secretary of
Transportation of such agreement and
amend its application accordingly.
(2) If the applicant and the designated
DoD Components are unable to reach
agreement on mitigation, the
Clearinghouse shall review the analysis
and recommendations of the DoD
Components and determine if the
proposed project as it may have been
modified by the applicant after
discussions would result in an
unacceptable risk to the national
security of the United States.
(i) If the Clearinghouse determines
that the proposed project as it may have
been modified by the applicant after
discussions would result in an
unacceptable risk to the national
security of the United States, it shall
make a recommendation to the senior
official to that effect. If the
Clearinghouse determines, contrary to
the recommendations of the DoD
Components, that the proposed project
as it may have been modified by the
applicant after discussions would not
result in an unacceptable risk to the
national security of the United States, it
shall make a recommendation to the
senior official to that effect.
(ii) If the senior official concurs with
the recommendation of the
Clearinghouse, the senior official shall
make a recommendation to the senior
officer that is consistent with the
recommendation of the Clearinghouse.
If the senior official does not agree with
the recommendation of the
Clearinghouse, the senior official may
make a recommendation to the senior
officer to that effect.
(iii) The senior officer shall consider
the recommendation of the senior
official, and, after giving full
consideration to mitigation actions
available to the DoD and those agreed to
by the applicant, determine whether the
proposed project as it may have been
modified by the applicant would result
in an unacceptable risk to the national
security of the United States. If the
senior officer makes such a
determination, the senior officer shall
convey that determination to the
Secretary of Transportation, identifying
which of the three criteria in § 211.3
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
creates the unacceptable risk to the
national security of the United States.
(iv) Any mitigation discussions
engaged in by the Department of
Defense pursuant to this part shall not
be binding upon any other Federal
agency, nor waive required compliance
with any other law or regulation.
(c) If the applicant does not agree to
enter into discussions with the DoD to
seek to mitigate an adverse impact, the
Clearinghouse shall review the analysis
and recommendations of the designated
DoD Components and determine if the
proposed project would result in an
unacceptable risk to the national
security of the United States.
(1) If the Clearinghouse determines
that the proposed project would result
in an unacceptable risk to the national
security of the United States, it shall
make a recommendation to the senior
official to that effect. If the
Clearinghouse determines, contrary to
the recommendations of the DoD
Components, that the proposed project
would not result in an unacceptable risk
to the national security of the United
States, it shall make a recommendation
to the senior official to that effect.
(2) If the senior official concurs with
the recommendation of the
Clearinghouse, the senior official shall
make a recommendation to the senior
officer that is consistent with the
recommendation of the Clearinghouse.
If the senior official does not agree with
the recommendation of the
Clearinghouse, the senior official may
make a recommendation to the senior
officer to that effect.
(3) The senior officer shall consider
the recommendation of the senior
official, and, after giving full
consideration to mitigation actions
available to the DoD and those agreed to
by the applicant, determine whether the
proposed project would result in an
unacceptable risk to the national
security of the United States. If the
senior officer makes such a
determination, the senior officer shall
convey that determination to the
Secretary of Transportation, identifying
which of the three criteria in § 211.3
creates the unacceptable risk to the
national security of the United States.
(d) The Clearinghouse may, on behalf
of itself, the senior official, or the senior
officer, seek an extension of time from
the Secretary of Transportation for
consideration of the application.
§ 211.7 Initiating an informal DoD review of
a proposed project.
(a) An informal review of a project
begins with the receipt from a requester
by the Clearinghouse of a request for an
informal review. In seeking an informal
E:\FR\FM\05DER1.SGM
05DER1
ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 234 / Thursday, December 5, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
review, the requester shall provide the
following information to the
Clearinghouse:
(1) The geographic location of the
project including its latitude and
longitude,
(2) The height of the project,
(3) The nature of the project.
(4) The requester is encouraged to
provide as much additional information
as is available. The more information
provided by the requester, the greater
will be the accuracy and reliability of
the resulting DoD review. When a
request for an informal review includes
information that is proprietary or
competition sensitive, requesters are
encouraged to mark the documents they
submit accordingly.
(b) The Clearinghouse shall, within
five days of receiving the information
provided by the requester, convey that
information to those DoD Components it
believes may have an interest in
reviewing the request.
(1) The DoD Components that receive
the request from the Clearinghouse shall
provide their comments and
recommendations on the request to the
Clearinghouse no later than 30 days
after they receive the request.
(2) Not later than 50 days after
receiving the request from the requester,
the Clearinghouse shall evaluate all
comments and recommendations
received and take one of three actions:
(i) Determine that the project will not
have an adverse impact on military
operations and readiness, in which case
it shall notify the requester of such
determination. In doing so, the
Clearinghouse shall also advise the
requester that the informal review by
the DoD does not constitute an action
under 49 U.S.C. 44718 and that neither
the DoD nor the Secretary of
Transportation are bound by the
determination made under the informal
review.
(ii) Determine that the project will
have an adverse impact on military
operations and readiness but that the
adverse impact involved is sufficiently
attenuated that it does not require
mitigation. The Clearinghouse shall
notify the requester of such
determination. In doing so, the
Clearinghouse shall also advise the
requester that the informal review by
the DoD does not constitute an action
under 49 U.S.C. 44718 and that neither
the DoD nor the Secretary of
Transportation are bound by the
determination made under the informal
review.
(iii) Determine that the project will
have an adverse impact on military
operations and readiness.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
13:56 Dec 04, 2013
Jkt 232001
(A) When the requester is the project
proponent, the Clearinghouse shall
immediately—
(1) Notify the requester of the
determination and the reasons for the
conclusion of the Clearinghouse and
advise the requester that the DoD would
like to discuss the possibility of
mitigation to reduce any adverse
impact; and
(2) Designate one or more DoD
Components to engage in discussions
with the requester to attempt to mitigate
the adverse impact.
(B) When the requester is a State,
Indian tribal, or local official or a
landowner, notify the requester of the
determination and the reasons for that
conclusion.
(c) If the requester is the project
proponent and agrees to enter into
discussions with the DoD to seek to
mitigate an adverse impact, the
designated DoD Components shall
engage in discussions with the requester
in an attempt to reach agreement on
measures that would mitigate the
adverse impact of the project on military
operations and readiness.
§ 211.8 Inquiries received by DoD
Components.
(a) An inquiry received by a DoD
Component other than the
Clearinghouse relating to an application
filed with the Secretary of
Transportation pursuant to 49 U.S.C.
44718 shall be forwarded to the
Clearinghouse by the DoD Component
except when that DoD Component has
been designated by the Clearinghouse to
engage in discussions with the entity
making the inquiry.
(b) A request for informal DoD review
or any other inquiry related to matters
covered by this part and received by a
DoD Component other than the
Clearinghouse shall be forwarded to the
Clearinghouse by that Component
except when that DoD Component has
been designated by the Clearinghouse to
engage in discussions with the entity
making the request.
§ 211.9
Mitigation options.
(a) In discussing mitigation to avoid
an unacceptable risk to the national
security of the United States, the DoD
Components designated to discuss
mitigation with an applicant or
requester shall, as appropriate and as
time allows, analyze the following types
of DoD mitigation to determine if they
identify feasible and affordable actions
that may be taken to mitigate adverse
impacts of projects on military
operations and readiness:
(1) Modifications to military
operations.
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
73091
(2) Modifications to radars or other
items of military equipment.
(3) Modifications to military test and
evaluation activities, military training
routes, or military training procedures.
(4) Providing upgrades or
modifications to existing systems or
procedures.
(5) The acquisition of new systems by
the DoD and other departments and
agencies of the Federal Government.
(b) In discussing mitigation to avoid
an unacceptable risk to the national
security of the United States, the
applicant or requester, as the case may
be, should consider the following
possible actions:
(1) Modification of the proposed
structure, operating characteristics, or
the equipment in the proposed project.
(2) Changing the location of the
proposed project.
(3) Limiting daily operating hours or
the number of days the equipment in
the proposed structure is in use in order
to avoid interference with military
activities.
(4) Providing a voluntary contribution
of funds to offset the cost of measures
undertaken by the Secretary of Defense
to mitigate adverse impacts of the
project on military operations and
readiness.
§ 211.10 Reporting determinations to
Congress.
(a) Not later than 30 days after making
a determination of unacceptable risk
pursuant to § 211.6, the senior officer
shall submit to the congressional
defense committees a report on such
determination and the basis for such
determination.
(b) Such a report shall include—
(1) An explanation of the operational
impact that led to the determination.
(2) A discussion of the mitigation
options considered.
(3) An explanation of why the
mitigation options were not feasible or
did not resolve the conflict.
Subpart D—Communications and
Outreach
§ 211.11 Communications with the
Clearinghouse.
All communications to the
Clearinghouse by applicants, requesters,
or members of the public should be
addressed to: Executive Director, DoD
Siting Clearinghouse, Office of the
Deputy Under Secretary of Defense
(Installations and Environment), Room
5C646, 3400 Defense Pentagon,
Washington, DC 20301–3400, or, if by
electronic mail, to
DoDSitingClearinghouse@osd.mil.
Additional information about the
E:\FR\FM\05DER1.SGM
05DER1
73092
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 234 / Thursday, December 5, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
Clearinghouse and means of contacting
it are available at the following URL:
https://www.acq.mil/ie/sch.
§ 211.12
Public outreach.
(a) The DoD shall establish a Web site
accessible to the public that—
(1) Lists the applications that the DoD
is currently considering.
(2) Identifies the stage of the action,
e.g., preliminary review, referred for
mitigation discussions, determined to be
an unacceptable risk.
(3) Indicates how the public may
provide comments to the DoD.
(b) The Clearinghouse shall publish a
handbook to provide applicants,
requesters, and members of the public
with necessary information to assist
them in participating in the Mission
Compatibility Evaluation Process.
Dated: November 18, 2013.
Aaron Siegel,
Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison
Officer, Department of Defense.
[FR Doc. 2013–28868 Filed 12–4–13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001–06–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
National Park Service
36 CFR Part 7
[NPS–NERI–14336; PPNENERIP0,
PPMPRLE1Z.Y00000]
RIN 1024–AD95
Special Regulations; Areas of the
National Park System, New River
Gorge National River, Bicycling
National Park Service, Interior.
Final rule.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
This rule authorizes bicycle
use on new and existing multi-use trails
and administrative roads within the
New River Gorge National River. The
rule is necessary because the National
Park Service general regulation for
bicycle use requires publication of a
special regulation when new trails are
constructed outside of developed areas.
DATES: The rule is effective January 6,
2014.
SUMMARY:
ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Jamie Fields, Outdoor Recreation
Planner, New River Gorge National
River, P.O. Box 246 (104 Main St), Glen
Jean, WV 25846, (304) 465–6527, Jamie_
Fields@nps.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Administrative Background
The New River Gorge National River
(NERI or park), a unit of the National
VerDate Mar<15>2010
13:56 Dec 04, 2013
Jkt 232001
Park System located in West Virginia,
encompasses approximately 72,000
acres within a 53-mile corridor along
the New River, extending from Hawks
Nest State Park to Hinton. Congress
established NERI as a unit of the
National Park System, largely in
response to a 20-year grassroots effort
organized by local community leaders.
In 1978, President Jimmy Carter signed
legislation establishing the park, ‘‘for
the purpose of conserving and
interpreting outstanding natural, scenic,
and historic values and objects in and
around the New River Gorge and
preserving as a free-flowing stream an
important segment of the New River in
West Virginia for the benefit and
enjoyment of present and future
generations’’ (Pub. L. 95–625, sec. 1101,
1978). Subsequent legislation
concerning the park states in its findings
that NERI ‘‘has provided the basis for
increased recreation and tourism
activities in southern West Virginia due
to its nationally recognized status and
has greatly contributed to the regional
economy’’ (Pub. L. 100–534, sec.
2(a)(1)–(2), 1988).
Park Planning
The park’s 1982 General Management
Plan (1982 GMP) anticipated
accommodating an expanding array of
recreational pursuits, including off-road
bicycling. It states that ‘‘[l]evels of use
of new or unusual forms of recreation
(such as hang gliding, rock climbing,
dirt bicycling) will be managed to avoid
problems of visitor safety, conflicts
between uses, or resource impacts.’’
The 1982 GMP also anticipated trail
construction as funding became
available. A subsequent park-wide Trail
Development Plan (1993) recommended
that the park develop a trail system
emphasizing multiple uses, including
hiking and bicycling. Both of these
plans can be viewed by going to the
NERI park planning Web site, https://
www.nps.gov/neri/parkmgmt/
planning.htm, then following this path:
Click the link for ‘‘Environmental
Assessment: Design and Build Two
Stacked Loop Hiking and Biking Trail
Systems . . .’’; click the link to the
Document List on the left; click the link
to either the ‘‘1982 NERI General
Management Plan’’ or the ‘‘1993 NERI
Trail Development Plan’’; then
download the documents on their
respective pages.
The park began developing a new,
updated general management plan in
2005 to respond to changes in park
boundaries, land acquisitions, and park
and public needs and priorities that had
occurred since the 1982 GMP was
approved. The park’s updated 2010/
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
2011 GMP and Environmental Impact
Statement (2010/2011 GMP/EIS) process
revealed substantial and consistent
public support for authorizing bicycle
use on trails during public scoping
(February 2004 through October 2007)
and public comment (January 13, 2010
through April 16, 2010).
The 2010/2011 GMP/EIS proposed
that, after promulgation of the required
special regulations and proper
compliance with the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA),
bicycle use would be an appropriate use
on new and existing trails. This would
include bicycle use in frontcountry
zones, in backcountry zones on single
track trails, and on a limited basis on a
variety of trail types in historic resource,
river corridor, and park development
zones. The Record of Decision (ROD) for
the 2010/2011 GMP/EIS was signed, and
the Notice of Availability was published
in the Federal Register (77 FR 12877,
March 2, 2012). The 2010/2011 GMP/
EIS can be viewed by going to the NERI
park planning Web site, https://
www.nps.gov/neri/parkmgmt/
planning.htm, then following this path:
Click the link for ‘‘General Management
Plan’’; click the link to the Document
List on the left; click the link to the
‘‘Draft General Management Plan and
EIS/Draft Foundation Plan’’; then
download the documents at the bottom
of the page (corrections to the 2010/
2011 GMP/EIS are located in the
‘‘Abbreviated Final General
Management Plan . . .’’, also in the
Document List).
As a result of the public support for
bicycle use expressed early in the 2010/
2011 GMP/EIS process, the park
developed an Environmental
Assessment (Trails EA) to evaluate the
impact of the construction of new trails
and designation of new and existing
park trails as routes for bicycle use.
Public scoping for the Trails EA, which
occurred from November 10, 2009 until
January 15, 2010 (with a public focus
group on November 10, 2009 and a
public open house on December 8,
2009), confirmed there was
overwhelming support for bicycle use
on trails. Only one of approximately 400
scoping comments from residents of 32
states was opposed to bicycle use at
NERI.
The Trails EA
The Preferred Alternative that became
the NPS Selected Action upon approval
of the Finding of No Significant Impact
(FONSI) provided for the designation of
some existing park trails and
administrative roads as routes open to
bicycle use, and for the construction
and designation of three new trails for
E:\FR\FM\05DER1.SGM
05DER1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 234 (Thursday, December 5, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 73085-73092]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-28868]
[[Page 73085]]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Office of the Secretary
32 CFR Part 211
[Docket ID: DOD-2011-OS-0054; RIN 0790-AI69]
Mission Compatibility Evaluation Process
AGENCY: Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition,
Technology, and Logistics, DoD.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Section 358 of the Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2011 required the Department of Defense (DoD) to
designate a senior official and a lead organization to serve as a
clearinghouse for the coordination of DoD review of applications filed
with the Secretary of Transportation. Applications referred to the DoD
involve proposals for the construction of structures that may affect
navigable air space. Section 358 requires DoD to issue procedures for
addressing the impacts of those structures on military operations and
determining if they pose an unacceptable risk to the national security
of the United States. Section 358 requires the establishment of a
comprehensive strategy for addressing military impacts of renewable
energy projects and other energy projects and annual reports to
Congress; these requirements are not part of this rule and will be
addressed separately. Nor does this rule deal with other proposal
review processes not included in section 358, such as those applied by
the Bureau of Land Management, Department of the Interior.
DATES: This rule is effective on January 6, 2014.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bill Van Houten, (703) 571-9068, or at
DoDSitingClearinghouse@osd.mil.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Preamble Outline
I. Authority
II. Background
III. Summary of Significant Changes to the Rule
A. Definitions
B. Project Evaluation Procedures
C. Communications and Outreach
IV. Other Adjustments to the Final Rule
V. Executive Summary
VI. Administrative Requirements
A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review and
Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review.
B. Section 202, Public Law 104-4, Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
C. Public Law 96-354, Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601)
D. Section 96-511, Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter
35)
E. Executive Order 13132, Federalism
I. Authority
This action is authorized by section 358 of the Ike Skelton
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011, Public Law
111-383, as amended by section 331 of Public Law 112-81.
II. Background
The Department of Defense (hereinafter the ``Department'')
published an interim final rule in the Federal Register on October 20,
2011, at 76 FR 65112.
The public comment period for the interim final rule ended on
December 19, 2011. Two commenters submitted comments on the interim
final rule. The preamble to the final rule provides a discussion of
each section of the interim final rule on which comments were received.
Where changes in the rule are being made, specific reference is made to
those changes in the discussion. Where no specific reference is made in
the discussion, no change to the interim final rule is being made.
Revisions to the rule that are simply editorial or that do not reflect
substantive changes are not addressed in this preamble.
All comments the Department received are presented in a document
available at https://www.acq.osd.mil/ie/siting.shtml.
III. Summary of Significant Changes to the Final Rule
This section contains the Department's responses to the comments
received on the interim final rule, organized by the structure of the
interim final and final rules.
The primary purpose of the rule is to promulgate the Department's
policies and procedures for the external interfaces that are necessary
to comply with section 358 of Public Law 111-383. Most of the comments
received were recommendations for greater specificity in the rule,
particularly with respect to standards, criteria, and communications.
The Department has carefully considered the comments it has received.
Its responses follow:
A. Definitions
Comment: One comment characterized the definition of ``adverse
impact on military operations and readiness'' as overly broad and
stated that it is not clear from either section 358 or the interim
final rule how an adverse impact that rises to the level of an
unacceptable risk to national security differs from an adverse impact
that does not. The same comment suggested that the rule distinguish
impacts that do not significantly impact military operations from those
that could so that further evaluation and discussion of mitigation
measures could be focused on the latter.
Response: The Department has made some minor grammatical
adjustments to the definition of ``Unacceptable risk to the national
security of the United States''. However, the coordinated evaluation
process required by section 358 is still not sufficiently mature for
the Department to establish more specific quantitative thresholds to
distinguish adverse impacts that do not significantly impact military
operations and readiness from those that do. The law provides for the
Department to establish procedures to ensure that the Secretary of
Defense does not object to a project unless the Secretary of Defense or
a senior officer designated by the Secretary of Defense determines that
the project would result in an unacceptable risk to the national
security of the United States. The rule provides that the Deputy
Secretary of Defense may make a determination that a particular project
would pose an unacceptable risk to national security and it establishes
procedures to ensure that, in such cases, the Deputy Secretary of
Defense has the benefit of a recommendation from a senior official as
well as information about the mitigation measures that were available
to both the Department and the applicant. The Department does not
believe that further specificity is needed at this time.
Comment: One comment suggested expanding the definition of the term
``requester'' in the rule. Under the rule, a requester is authorized to
ask the DoD for an informal review of a proposed project. However, the
definition of ``requester'' in the interim final rule did not include
landowners, and the comment argued that large landowners are in a
position to steer developers to portions of their property that have
better resources for renewable energy projects and fewer or more
manageable conflicts with DoD interests.
Response: The Department agrees, and the definition of
``requester'' has been expanded in the final rule to include
landowners. A definition of the term ``landowner'' has been provided in
the rule.
B. Project Evaluation Procedures
Comment: One comment stated that the interim final rule was not
clear as to what level of information will be shared with the applicant
or with the Federal Aviation Administration to explain a DoD
determination that a project will have an adverse impact on military
[[Page 73086]]
operations and readiness or pose an unacceptable risk to national
security.
Response: Because some explanations may involve sensitive or
classified information, it is appropriate to avoid committing the
Department to a certain level, or format, for transmitting information
about such determinations to either applicants or the Federal Aviation
Administration. The language in the rule allows the Department the
flexibility to provide explanations in a manner that the Department
considers necessary and appropriate as well as to withhold information
that could compromise the national security of the United States if it
were released. No change was made to the rule to address this comment.
Comment: One comment questioned the provision in section
211.6(b)(1)(ii) of the interim final rule that requires the applicant
to amend an application that has been filed with the Secretary of
Transportation if the applicant and the Department reach agreement on
mitigation measures that remove an adverse impact on military
operations and readiness. The comment contends that such an amendment
is unnecessary if the agreed-upon mitigation solely involves measures
to be taken by DoD.
Response: The Department agrees, and the provision has been
modified in the final rule to require the applicant to file an amended
application only if the agreed-upon mitigation measures entail
modification to the proposed project.
Comment: One comment pointed out that the language in the subpart
of the interim final rule that addresses project evaluation procedures
could be interpreted as implying a preference for mitigation measures
to be taken by the applicant over mitigation measures to be taken by
the Department. The comment recommended that the language in question
be modified to ensure there is no implied preference for mitigation on
the part of the applicant.
Response: The Department does not agree that the language in the
rule suggests a preference for mitigation measures to be taken by the
applicant. Section 211.6(b)(2)(iii) and Section 211.6(c)(3) provide for
consideration of the mitigation actions that are available to the
Department as well as those that have been agreed to by the applicant.
No change was made in the rule to address this comment.
Comment: One comment raised a question as to whether all adverse
impacts must be mitigated or only those that are determined to pose an
unacceptable risk to national security.
Response: Since only the senior officer designated by the Secretary
of Defense can officially determine that a proposed project poses an
unacceptable risk to the national security of the United States and
communicate that determination to the Secretary of Transportation, it
would not be cost effective to make such determinations relative to
each project before deciding whether or not to mitigate the adverse
impact of that project. However, in response to that comment, sections
211.6(a)(3)(ii) and 211.7(b)(2)(ii) have been added to provide for
determinations that the adverse impact posed by a proposed project is
sufficiently attenuated that it does not require mitigation.
Comment: One comment recommended that the procedures in the rule be
modified to allow landowners to address mitigation. That comment
contended that large landowners in particular would have more
flexibility in addressing mitigation than a developer who only has a
leasehold interest on a portion of the landowner's property.
Response: In the final rule, section 211.3 has been modified to
include the owners of land on which a proposed project is planned among
the parties that are eligible to request an informal review from the
Department of Defense. Additionally, section 211.7(b)(2)(ii)(B) has
been modified to ensure that landowners (when they are requesters) are
notified of Clearinghouse determinations.
Comment: One comment recommended that the Department provide
quantitative guidance in the rule concerning what constitutes at
acceptable level of mitigation.
Response: It is not currently possible to identify objective
measures of mitigation with sufficient specificity to enumerate them in
a rule. The Department is working to develop guidelines and models, but
those guidelines and models are not yet mature. To provide some
additional clarity, however, in section 211.9(b) of the final rule, the
Department included a provision that an applicant or requester
discussing mitigation with the Department should consider limiting the
daily operating hours or the number of days that equipment in the
proposed structure would be in use along with other possible actions
that could be taken to avoid an unacceptable risk to the national
security of the United States.
Comment: One commenter expressed concern that section 211.9(b)(3)
of the interim final rule urged applicants to consider providing a
voluntary contribution to offset the cost of mitigation measures
undertaken by the DoD, but did not provide a specific process for the
transfer of such funds or a statement of what commitments the
Department would make in return for such funds. The comment also
requested clarification as to how large a contribution would be
necessary to lead the Department to withdraw an objection, whether the
only acceptable level of contributions was to pay the full cost of
mitigation, or whether a Federal cost share would be available in some
circumstances.
Response: It is not possible to specify in a rule what commitments,
if any, the Department would make in conjunction with any given
voluntary contribution. Certainly, the decision to withdraw an
objection based on the existence of an unacceptable risk to national
security will not be predicated on the magnitude of a voluntary
contribution. A voluntary contribution is in the nature of mitigation
since it allows the Department to reduce or eliminate an adverse
impact. The effect that a voluntary contribution has on the analysis of
adverse impact and unacceptable risk will vary from project to project.
In some instances, it may remove an adverse impact; in others, an
unacceptable risk may be unavoidable and not subject to mitigation. The
facts of each project will determine whether a voluntary contribution
will act to mitigate an adverse impact. It is not necessary to specify
a method of payment in the rule since that information will be
available on the Clearinghouse Web site. No change was made to the rule
to address this comment.
C. Communications and Outreach
Comment: With respect to section 211.12 of the interim final rule,
one comment observed that proposed renewable energy projects are
competition sensitive. Because of that concern, the comment recommended
that the Department refrain from publicizing proposed projects for
which a requester is seeking informal review on the DoD Web site,
noting that publication of such projects would limit the attractiveness
of the early consultation option.
Response: The rule requires only the minimum information necessary
to conduct a useful review. An additional provision was added to
section 211.7(a) encouraging requestors to mark any documents
containing proprietary or competition-sensitive information accordingly
when requesting an informal review of a proposed project. However, the
DoD must comply with all applicable laws, including the Freedom of
Information Act.
[[Page 73087]]
In response to this comment, section 211.12 was modified to
eliminate the requirement for the Department to include the requests
for informal review that the Department is considering on its Web site.
IV. Other Adjustments to the Final Rule
This section identifies and explains minor adjustments that the
Department made to the rule that were not the result of public
comments.
In the final rule, the applicability of the rule is extended to
Indian tribal governments, and they are included in the definition of a
``requester'' so they, like State and local governments, have the
authorization to seek informal reviews of proposed projects. It was the
Department's view that Indian tribal governments fell within the
category of state governments, to which they are somewhat analogous as
separate sovereigns. But in order to avoid any doubt, the rule is being
changed to clarify this point.
In section 211.7 of the final rule, the Department includes a
requirement for requesters that desire an informal review of a project
to provide the height of the project as part of the required
information. It was the Department's view that the requirement to
provide the ``nature of the project'' would necessarily include the
project's height. However, to avoid any doubt, the rule is being
changed to specifically include a reference to the height of the
project.
V. Executive Summary
In section 358 of Public Law 111-383, Congress required, among
other things, that the DoD implement new procedures relating to how the
DoD reviews and comments on applications filed with the Secretary of
Transportation pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 44718. Section 358 also specifies
who within DoD may provide such comments to the Secretary of
Transportation, that DoD will engage in outreach activities with
interested parties, and that Congress must be advised when the DoD
objects to an application filed pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 44718.
Section 211.1 of this rule states the two primary purposes of the
rule which are to provide for DoD commenting on (1) applications filed
pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 44718 and (2) requests for reviews of projects
prior to applications being filed pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 44718.
Section 211.2 addresses the applicability of part 211. This part
applies to all components of the DoD, those applicants filing
applications pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 44718 when those applications are
conveyed by the Secretary of Transportation to the Department of
Defense, those requesting reviews of projects prior to applications
being filed under 49 U.S.C. 44718 (including State, Indian tribal, and
local officials and landowners), and those providing comments to DoD
relating to its actions in reviewing applications. It also applies,
geographically, to the United States.
Section 211.3 provides definitions. The definition of ``adverse
impact on military operations and readiness'' provides that a
demonstrable impairment or degradation of the ability of the armed
forces to perform their warfighting missions constitutes an adverse
impact. The definition of ``applicant'' refers to an entity filing a
proper application with the Secretary of Transportation pursuant to 49
U.S.C. 44718, and whose application has been provided by the Secretary
of Transportation to the DoD. The definition of ``armed forces'' refers
to the definition at 10 U.S.C. 101(a)(4), which includes the Army,
Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps, but excludes the Coast Guard. The
definition of ``congressional defense committees'' is taken from
section 3 of Public Law 111-383, which, in turn, adopts by reference
the definition of the term in 10 U.S.C. 101(a)(16). The definition of
``military readiness'' is taken from the definition of the term
provided in section 358. The definition of ``mitigation'' provides a
general description of the term while leaving to individual actions
more specific examples of what may constitute mitigation. The
definition of ``proposed project'' is the project as submitted to the
Secretary of Transportation pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 44718. The definition
of ``requester'' refers to a developer of a renewable energy
development or other energy project, a landowner on whose property such
project is proposed to be built, or a State, Indian tribal, or local
official seeking an informal review of a project by the DoD prior to
the project being submitted for formal review pursuant to 49 U.S.C.
44718. The definition of ``section 358'' refers to the authorizing
provision, section 358 of Public Law 111-383. The definition of
``unacceptable risk to the national security of the United States''
includes the two existing criteria found in 49 U.S.C. 44718, namely the
construction, alteration, establishment, or expansion, or the proposed
construction, alteration, establishment, or expansion, of a structure
or sanitary landfill that endangers safety in air commerce or
interferes with the efficient use and preservation of the navigable
airspace and of airport traffic capacity at public-use airports, but,
for purposes of this rule, only when related to the activities of the
DoD. The definition also includes an additional criterion consisting of
actions that will significantly impair or degrade the capability of the
DoD to conduct training, research, development, testing, and
evaluation, and operations or to maintain military readiness. The
definition of ``United States'' is included to provide the geographical
limitation of the part, clarifying that it does not apply outside of
the United States.
Section 211.4 provides the general policy of the part, taken from
section 358(a). It also limits the participation of DoD in the Federal
Aviation Administration's process under 49 U.S.C. 44718 to the process
provided in this rule.
Section 211.5 specifies the officials with authorities and
responsibilities under the part pursuant to section 358. The Deputy
Secretary of Defense is designated as the senior officer who is
authorized to provide a determination to the Secretary of
Transportation that a project filed pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 44718 would
result in an unacceptable risk to the national security of the United
States. The Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and
Logistics is designated as the senior official who may make a
recommendation to the Deputy Secretary of Defense that such a project
would result in such a risk. The Deputy Under Secretary of Defense
(Installations & Environment) is designated as the official who, in
coordination with the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense (Readiness)
and the Principal Deputy Director, Operational Test and Evaluation,
reviews such a project and provides a preliminary assessment of the
level of risk of adverse impact on military operations and readiness
that would arise from the project and the extent of mitigation that may
be needed to address such risk. The Office of the Deputy Under
Secretary of Defense (Installations & Environment) is designated as the
lead organization, and the DoD Siting Clearinghouse is established and
organized under the Deputy Under Secretary.
Section 211.6 provides the procedures for formal DoD review of a
project filed by an applicant with the Secretary of Transportation
pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 44718.
Section 211.7 provides the procedures for informal DoD review of a
project submitted by a requester prior to submitting a formal
application pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 44718.
Section 211.8 directs DoD Components to forward any inquiries or
[[Page 73088]]
requests they may receive to the Clearinghouse so as to avoid
unauthorized action by a Component outside of the process established
by this rule.
Section 211.9 provides some of the types of mitigation to be
considered by the DoD and the applicant/requester when discussing
mitigation.
Section 211.10 provides for the notification to Congress required
by section 358 when the senior officer makes a determination that a
project presents an unacceptable risk to the national security of the
United States.
Section 211.11 provides for a public Web site where the public can
review the actions being considered by DoD, track their progress, and
offer comments.
VI. Administrative Requirements
A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563, Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
It has been certified that this rule is not an economically
significant rule that will result in an annual effect of $100 million
or more on the national economy or which will have other substantial
impacts. This rule has been reviewed by the Office of Management and
Budget as required under the provisions of E.O. 12866.
B. Section 202, Public Law 104-4, Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
It has been certified that 32 CFR part 211 does not contain a
Federal mandate that may result in the expenditure by State, local and
tribal governments, in aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100
million or more in any one year.
C. Public Law 96-354, ``Regulatory Flexibility Act'' (5 U.S.C. 601)
The Congress enacted the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) of 1980,
as amended, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, to ensure that Government regulations do
not unnecessarily or disproportionately burden small entities. The RFA
requires a regulatory flexibility analysis if a rule would have a
significant economic impact, either detrimental or beneficial, on a
substantial number of small entities. The RFA requires agencies to
analyze the economic impact of regulations to determine the extent to
which there is anticipated to be a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. DoD anticipates that the rule
could potentially affect a few entities that might otherwise have
located structures on public or private lands that would present an
unreasonable risk to the national security of the United States. DoD
further anticipates that some of these entities will be small entities
as defined by the Small Business Administration; however, DoD does not
expect the potential impact to be significant because this rule
provides procedures to mitigate the impact of such an unreasonable risk
to the benefit of both the proponent and the DoD.
D. Public Law 96-511, Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35)
It has been certified that the Paperwork Reduction Act applies.
This rule contains information collection requirements under OMB
Control Number 0790-0005 titled, ``Informal DoD Review of Energy
Projects.''
E. Executive Order 13132, Federalism
It has been certified that this part does not have federalism
implications, as set forth in Executive Order 13132. This rule does not
have substantial direct effects on:
(1) The States
(2) The relationship between the National Government and the
States; or
(3) The distribution of power and responsibilities among the
various levels of Government.
List of Subjects in 32 CFR Part 211
Energy, Evaluation.
Accordingly 32 CFR part 211 is revised to read as follows:
PART 211--MISSION COMPATIBILITY EVALUATION PROCESS
Subpart A--General
Sec.
211.1 Purpose.
211.2 Applicability.
211.3 Definitions.
Subpart B--Policy
211.4 Policy.
211.5 Responsibilities.
Subpart C--Project Evaluation Procedures
211.6 Initiating a formal DoD review of a proposed project.
211.7 Initiating an informal DoD review of a project.
211.8 Inquiries received by DoD Components.
211.9 Mitigation options.
211.10 Reporting determinations to Congress.
Subpart D--Communications and Outreach
211.11 Communications with the Clearinghouse.
211.12 Public outreach.
Authority: Public Law 111-383, Section 358, as amended by Public
Law 112-81, Section 331.
Subpart A--General
Sec. 211.1 Purpose.
This part prescribes procedures pursuant to section 358 of the Ike
Skelton National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 to
provide:
(a) A formal review of projects for which applications are filed
with the Secretary of Transportation under 49 U.S.C. 44718, to
determine if they pose an unacceptable risk to the national security of
the United States.
(b) An informal review of a renewable energy development or other
energy project in advance of the filing of an application with the
Secretary of Transportation under 49 U.S.C. 44718.
Sec. 211.2 Applicability.
This part applies to:
(a) The Office of the Secretary of Defense, the Military
Departments, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Joint
Staff, the Combatant Commands, the Office of the Inspector General of
the Department of Defense, the Defense Agencies, the DoD Field
Activities, and all other organizational entities in the Department of
Defense (hereafter referred to collectively as the ``DoD Components'').
(b) Persons filing applications with the Secretary of
Transportation for proposed projects pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 44718, when
such applications are received by the Department of Defense from the
Secretary of Transportation.
(c) A State, Indian tribal, or local official, a landowner, or a
developer of a renewable energy development or other energy project
seeking a review of such project by DoD.
(d) Members of the general public from whom comments are received
on notices of actions being taken by the Department of Defense under
this part.
(e) The United States.
Sec. 211.3 Definitions.
Adverse impact on military operations and readiness. Any adverse
impact upon military operations and readiness, including flight
operations research, development, testing, and evaluation and training,
that is demonstrable and is likely to impair or degrade the ability of
the armed forces to perform their warfighting missions.
Applicant. An entity filing an application with the Secretary of
Transportation pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 44718, and whose proper
application has been provided by the Secretary of Transportation to the
Clearinghouse.
Armed forces. This term has the same meaning as provided in 10
U.S.C. 101(a)(4) but does not include the Coast Guard.
[[Page 73089]]
Clearinghouse. The DoD Siting Clearinghouse, established under the
Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Installations & Environment).
Congressional defense committees. The--
(1) Committee on Armed Services and the Committee on Appropriations
of the Senate; and
(2) Committee on Armed Services and the Committee on Appropriations
of the House of Representatives.
Days. All days are calendar days but do not include Federal
holidays.
Landowner. A person, partnership, corporation, or other legal
entity, that owns a fee interest in real property on which a proposed
project is planned to be located.
Military readiness. Includes any training or operation that could
be related to combat readiness, including testing and evaluation
activities.
Mitigation. Actions taken by either or both the DoD or the
applicant to ensure that a project does not create an unacceptable risk
to the national security of the United States.
Proposed project. A proposed project is the project as described in
the application submitted to the Secretary of Transportation pursuant
to 49 U.S.C. 44718 and transmitted by the Secretary of Transportation
to the Clearinghouse.
Requester. A developer of a renewable energy development or other
energy project, a State, Indian tribal, or local official, or a
landowner seeking an informal review by the DoD of a project.
Section 358. Section 358 of the Ike Skelton National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011, Public Law 111-383.
Unacceptable risk to the national security of the United States.
The construction, alteration, establishment, or expansion, or the
proposed construction, alteration, establishment, or expansion, of a
structure or sanitary landfill that would:
(1) Endanger safety in air commerce, related to the activities of
the DoD.
(2) Interfere with the efficient use and preservation of the
navigable airspace and of airport traffic capacity at public-use
airports, related to the activities of the DoD.
(3) Significantly impair or degrade the capability of the DoD to
conduct training, research, development, testing, and evaluation, and
operations or to maintain military readiness.
United States. The several States, the District of Columbia, the
Commonwealths of Puerto Rico and the Northern Mariana Islands, American
Samoa, Guam, Midway and Wake Islands, the U.S. Virgin Islands, any
other territory or possession of the United States, and associated
navigable waters, contiguous zones, and territorial seas and the
airspace of those areas.
Subpart B--Policy
Sec. 211.4 Policy.
(a) It is an objective of the Department of Defense to ensure that
the robust development of renewable energy sources and the increased
resiliency of the commercial electrical grid may move forward in the
United States, while minimizing or mitigating any adverse impacts on
military operations and readiness.
(b) The participation of the DoD in the process of the Federal
Aviation Administration conducted pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 44718 shall be
conducted in accordance with this part. No other process shall be used
by a DoD Component.
(c) Nothing in this part shall be construed as affecting the
authority of the Secretary of Transportation under 49 U.S.C. 44718.
Sec. 211.5 Responsibilities.
(a) Pursuant to subsection (e)(4) of section 358, the Deputy
Secretary of Defense is designated as the senior officer. Only the
senior officer may convey to the Secretary of Transportation a
determination that a project filed with the Secretary of Transportation
pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 44718 would result in an unacceptable risk to the
national security of the United States.
(b) Pursuant to subsection (b)(1) of section 358, the Under
Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics is
designated as the senior official. Only the senior official may provide
to the senior officer a recommendation that the senior officer
determine a project filed with the Secretary of Transportation pursuant
to 49 U.S.C. 44718 would result in an unacceptable risk to the national
security of the United States.
(c) Pursuant to subsection (e)(1) of section 358, the Deputy Under
Secretary of Defense (Installations & Environment), in coordination
with the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense (Readiness) and the
Principal Deputy Director, Operational Test and Evaluation, shall
review a proper application for a project filed pursuant to 49 U.S.C.
44718 and received from the Secretary of Transportation and provide a
preliminary assessment of the level of risk of adverse impact on
military operations and readiness that would arise from the project and
the extent of mitigation that may be needed to address such risk.
(d) Pursuant to subsection (b)(1) of section 358, the Office of the
Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Installations & Environment) is
designated as the lead organization. Under the authority, direction,
and control of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition,
Technology, and Logistics, there is, within the Office of the Deputy
Under Secretary, a DoD Siting Clearinghouse. The Clearinghouse:
(1) Shall have a governing board organized in accordance with DoD
Instruction 5105.18, DoD Intergovernmental and Intragovernmental
Committee Management Program.
(2) Has an executive director who is a Federal Government employee,
appointed by the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Installations &
Environment).
(3) Performs such duties as assigned in this part and as the Deputy
Under Secretary directs.
Subpart C--Project Evaluation Procedures
Sec. 211.6 Initiating a formal DoD review of a proposed project.
(a) A formal review of a proposed project begins with the receipt
from the Secretary of Transportation by the Clearinghouse of a proper
application filed with the Secretary of Transportation pursuant to 49
U.S.C. 44718.
(1) The Clearinghouse will convey the application as received to
those DoD Components it believes may have an interest in reviewing the
application.
(2) The DoD Components that receive the application shall provide
their comments and recommendations on the application to the
Clearinghouse no later than 20 days after they receive the application.
(3) Not later than 30 days after receiving the application from the
Secretary of Transportation, the Clearinghouse shall evaluate all
comments and recommendations received and take one of three actions:
(i) Determine that the proposed project will not have an adverse
impact on military operations and readiness, in which case it shall
notify the Secretary of Transportation of such determination.
(ii) Determine that the proposed project will have an adverse
impact on military operations and readiness but that the adverse impact
involved is sufficiently attenuated that it does not require
mitigation. When the Clearinghouse makes such a determination, it shall
notify the Secretary of Transportation of such determination.
[[Page 73090]]
(iii) Determine that the proposed project may have an adverse
impact on military operations and readiness. When the Clearinghouse
makes such a determination it shall immediately--
(A) Notify the applicant of the determination of the Clearinghouse
and offer to discuss mitigation with the applicant to reduce the
adverse impact;
(B) Designate one or more DoD Components to engage in discussions
with the applicant to attempt to mitigate the adverse impact;
(C) Notify the Secretary of Transportation that the Department of
Defense has determined that the proposed project may have an adverse
impact on military operations and readiness, and, if the cause of the
adverse impact is due to the proposed project exceeding an obstruction
standard set forth in subpart C of part 77 of title 14 of the Code of
Federal Regulations, identify the specific standard and how it would be
exceeded; and
(D) Notify the Secretary of Transportation and the Secretary of
Homeland Security that the Clearinghouse has offered to engage in
mitigation discussions with the applicant.
(4) The applicant must provide to the Clearinghouse its agreement
to discuss the possibility of mitigation within five days of receipt of
the notification from the Clearinghouse.
(b) If the applicant agrees to enter into discussions with the DoD
to seek to mitigate an adverse impact, the designated DoD Components
shall engage in discussions with the applicant to attempt to reach
agreement on measures that would mitigate the adverse impact of the
proposed project on military operations and readiness. The
Clearinghouse shall invite the Administrator of the Federal Aviation
Administration and the Secretary of Homeland Security to participate in
such discussions. The Clearinghouse may also invite other Federal
agencies to participate in such discussions.
(1) Such discussions shall not extend more than 90 days beyond the
initial notification to the applicant, unless both the designated DoD
Components and the applicant agree, in writing, to an extension of a
specific period of time.
(i) If agreement between the applicant and the designated DoD
Components has not been reached on mitigation measures by that time and
no extension has been mutually agreed to, the designated DoD Components
shall notify the Clearinghouse of the results of the discussions and
the analysis and recommendations of the Components with regard to the
proposed project as it is proposed after discussions.
(ii) If agreement between the applicant and the designated DoD
Components has been reached on mitigation measures that remove the
adverse impact of the proposed project on military operations and
readiness, the DoD Components shall notify the Clearinghouse of the
agreement. If the mitigation measures entail modification to the
proposed project, the applicant shall notify the Secretary of
Transportation of such agreement and amend its application accordingly.
(2) If the applicant and the designated DoD Components are unable
to reach agreement on mitigation, the Clearinghouse shall review the
analysis and recommendations of the DoD Components and determine if the
proposed project as it may have been modified by the applicant after
discussions would result in an unacceptable risk to the national
security of the United States.
(i) If the Clearinghouse determines that the proposed project as it
may have been modified by the applicant after discussions would result
in an unacceptable risk to the national security of the United States,
it shall make a recommendation to the senior official to that effect.
If the Clearinghouse determines, contrary to the recommendations of the
DoD Components, that the proposed project as it may have been modified
by the applicant after discussions would not result in an unacceptable
risk to the national security of the United States, it shall make a
recommendation to the senior official to that effect.
(ii) If the senior official concurs with the recommendation of the
Clearinghouse, the senior official shall make a recommendation to the
senior officer that is consistent with the recommendation of the
Clearinghouse. If the senior official does not agree with the
recommendation of the Clearinghouse, the senior official may make a
recommendation to the senior officer to that effect.
(iii) The senior officer shall consider the recommendation of the
senior official, and, after giving full consideration to mitigation
actions available to the DoD and those agreed to by the applicant,
determine whether the proposed project as it may have been modified by
the applicant would result in an unacceptable risk to the national
security of the United States. If the senior officer makes such a
determination, the senior officer shall convey that determination to
the Secretary of Transportation, identifying which of the three
criteria in Sec. 211.3 creates the unacceptable risk to the national
security of the United States.
(iv) Any mitigation discussions engaged in by the Department of
Defense pursuant to this part shall not be binding upon any other
Federal agency, nor waive required compliance with any other law or
regulation.
(c) If the applicant does not agree to enter into discussions with
the DoD to seek to mitigate an adverse impact, the Clearinghouse shall
review the analysis and recommendations of the designated DoD
Components and determine if the proposed project would result in an
unacceptable risk to the national security of the United States.
(1) If the Clearinghouse determines that the proposed project would
result in an unacceptable risk to the national security of the United
States, it shall make a recommendation to the senior official to that
effect. If the Clearinghouse determines, contrary to the
recommendations of the DoD Components, that the proposed project would
not result in an unacceptable risk to the national security of the
United States, it shall make a recommendation to the senior official to
that effect.
(2) If the senior official concurs with the recommendation of the
Clearinghouse, the senior official shall make a recommendation to the
senior officer that is consistent with the recommendation of the
Clearinghouse. If the senior official does not agree with the
recommendation of the Clearinghouse, the senior official may make a
recommendation to the senior officer to that effect.
(3) The senior officer shall consider the recommendation of the
senior official, and, after giving full consideration to mitigation
actions available to the DoD and those agreed to by the applicant,
determine whether the proposed project would result in an unacceptable
risk to the national security of the United States. If the senior
officer makes such a determination, the senior officer shall convey
that determination to the Secretary of Transportation, identifying
which of the three criteria in Sec. 211.3 creates the unacceptable
risk to the national security of the United States.
(d) The Clearinghouse may, on behalf of itself, the senior
official, or the senior officer, seek an extension of time from the
Secretary of Transportation for consideration of the application.
Sec. 211.7 Initiating an informal DoD review of a proposed project.
(a) An informal review of a project begins with the receipt from a
requester by the Clearinghouse of a request for an informal review. In
seeking an informal
[[Page 73091]]
review, the requester shall provide the following information to the
Clearinghouse:
(1) The geographic location of the project including its latitude
and longitude,
(2) The height of the project,
(3) The nature of the project.
(4) The requester is encouraged to provide as much additional
information as is available. The more information provided by the
requester, the greater will be the accuracy and reliability of the
resulting DoD review. When a request for an informal review includes
information that is proprietary or competition sensitive, requesters
are encouraged to mark the documents they submit accordingly.
(b) The Clearinghouse shall, within five days of receiving the
information provided by the requester, convey that information to those
DoD Components it believes may have an interest in reviewing the
request.
(1) The DoD Components that receive the request from the
Clearinghouse shall provide their comments and recommendations on the
request to the Clearinghouse no later than 30 days after they receive
the request.
(2) Not later than 50 days after receiving the request from the
requester, the Clearinghouse shall evaluate all comments and
recommendations received and take one of three actions:
(i) Determine that the project will not have an adverse impact on
military operations and readiness, in which case it shall notify the
requester of such determination. In doing so, the Clearinghouse shall
also advise the requester that the informal review by the DoD does not
constitute an action under 49 U.S.C. 44718 and that neither the DoD nor
the Secretary of Transportation are bound by the determination made
under the informal review.
(ii) Determine that the project will have an adverse impact on
military operations and readiness but that the adverse impact involved
is sufficiently attenuated that it does not require mitigation. The
Clearinghouse shall notify the requester of such determination. In
doing so, the Clearinghouse shall also advise the requester that the
informal review by the DoD does not constitute an action under 49
U.S.C. 44718 and that neither the DoD nor the Secretary of
Transportation are bound by the determination made under the informal
review.
(iii) Determine that the project will have an adverse impact on
military operations and readiness.
(A) When the requester is the project proponent, the Clearinghouse
shall immediately--
(1) Notify the requester of the determination and the reasons for
the conclusion of the Clearinghouse and advise the requester that the
DoD would like to discuss the possibility of mitigation to reduce any
adverse impact; and
(2) Designate one or more DoD Components to engage in discussions
with the requester to attempt to mitigate the adverse impact.
(B) When the requester is a State, Indian tribal, or local official
or a landowner, notify the requester of the determination and the
reasons for that conclusion.
(c) If the requester is the project proponent and agrees to enter
into discussions with the DoD to seek to mitigate an adverse impact,
the designated DoD Components shall engage in discussions with the
requester in an attempt to reach agreement on measures that would
mitigate the adverse impact of the project on military operations and
readiness.
Sec. 211.8 Inquiries received by DoD Components.
(a) An inquiry received by a DoD Component other than the
Clearinghouse relating to an application filed with the Secretary of
Transportation pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 44718 shall be forwarded to the
Clearinghouse by the DoD Component except when that DoD Component has
been designated by the Clearinghouse to engage in discussions with the
entity making the inquiry.
(b) A request for informal DoD review or any other inquiry related
to matters covered by this part and received by a DoD Component other
than the Clearinghouse shall be forwarded to the Clearinghouse by that
Component except when that DoD Component has been designated by the
Clearinghouse to engage in discussions with the entity making the
request.
Sec. 211.9 Mitigation options.
(a) In discussing mitigation to avoid an unacceptable risk to the
national security of the United States, the DoD Components designated
to discuss mitigation with an applicant or requester shall, as
appropriate and as time allows, analyze the following types of DoD
mitigation to determine if they identify feasible and affordable
actions that may be taken to mitigate adverse impacts of projects on
military operations and readiness:
(1) Modifications to military operations.
(2) Modifications to radars or other items of military equipment.
(3) Modifications to military test and evaluation activities,
military training routes, or military training procedures.
(4) Providing upgrades or modifications to existing systems or
procedures.
(5) The acquisition of new systems by the DoD and other departments
and agencies of the Federal Government.
(b) In discussing mitigation to avoid an unacceptable risk to the
national security of the United States, the applicant or requester, as
the case may be, should consider the following possible actions:
(1) Modification of the proposed structure, operating
characteristics, or the equipment in the proposed project.
(2) Changing the location of the proposed project.
(3) Limiting daily operating hours or the number of days the
equipment in the proposed structure is in use in order to avoid
interference with military activities.
(4) Providing a voluntary contribution of funds to offset the cost
of measures undertaken by the Secretary of Defense to mitigate adverse
impacts of the project on military operations and readiness.
Sec. 211.10 Reporting determinations to Congress.
(a) Not later than 30 days after making a determination of
unacceptable risk pursuant to Sec. 211.6, the senior officer shall
submit to the congressional defense committees a report on such
determination and the basis for such determination.
(b) Such a report shall include--
(1) An explanation of the operational impact that led to the
determination.
(2) A discussion of the mitigation options considered.
(3) An explanation of why the mitigation options were not feasible
or did not resolve the conflict.
Subpart D--Communications and Outreach
Sec. 211.11 Communications with the Clearinghouse.
All communications to the Clearinghouse by applicants, requesters,
or members of the public should be addressed to: Executive Director,
DoD Siting Clearinghouse, Office of the Deputy Under Secretary of
Defense (Installations and Environment), Room 5C646, 3400 Defense
Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-3400, or, if by electronic mail, to
DoDSitingClearinghouse@osd.mil. Additional information about the
[[Page 73092]]
Clearinghouse and means of contacting it are available at the following
URL: https://www.acq.mil/ie/sch.
Sec. 211.12 Public outreach.
(a) The DoD shall establish a Web site accessible to the public
that--
(1) Lists the applications that the DoD is currently considering.
(2) Identifies the stage of the action, e.g., preliminary review,
referred for mitigation discussions, determined to be an unacceptable
risk.
(3) Indicates how the public may provide comments to the DoD.
(b) The Clearinghouse shall publish a handbook to provide
applicants, requesters, and members of the public with necessary
information to assist them in participating in the Mission
Compatibility Evaluation Process.
Dated: November 18, 2013.
Aaron Siegel,
Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
[FR Doc. 2013-28868 Filed 12-4-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001-06-P