Executive Office of the President 

Office of Management and Budget 

Executive Office of the President 

Council on Environmental Quality 

M-18-13 

FROM: 

SUBJECT: 

March 20, 2018 

Mick Mulvaney 

Director 

Office of Manageme t and Budget 

Mary Neumayr'l1.t~ '\A ",. _ . -·· , Chief of Staff { Y ~~ 

Council on Environmental Quality 

One Federal Decision Framework for the Environmental Review and 

Authorization Process for Major Infrastructure Projects under Executive Order 

13807 

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and the Council on Environmental 

Quality (CEQ), in consultation with the Federal Permitting Improvement Steering Council 

(Permitting Council), 1 are issuing this guidance2 for agencies to carry out responsibilities under 

Executive Order (E.O.) 13807, which requires Federal agencies to process environmental 

reviews and authorization decisions for "major infrastructure projects" as One Federal Decision 

(OFD).3 Section 5 of E.O. 13807 directs all Federal agencies with environmental review, 

authorization, or consultation responsibilities for major infrastructure projects to develop a single 

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for such projects, sign a single Record of Decision 

(ROD) and issue all necessary authorizations within 90 days thereafter, subject to limited 

exceptions. E.O. 13807 sets a government-wide goal ofreducing, to two years, the average time 

1 The Permitting Council was created by Title 41 of the Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act (FAST-41 

Act), 42 U.S.C. §§ 4370m et seq. 

2 Federal agencies should implement this Memorandum consistent with applicable law. This Memorandum is not 

intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by 

any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any 

other person. 

3 E.O. 13807 of August 15, 2017, "Establishing Discipline and Accountability in the Environmental Review and 

Permitting Process for Infrastructure Projects," 82 Fed. Reg. 40,463 (Aug. 24, 2017). Unless otherwise indicated, 

terms are used herein as defined in E.O. 13807. 
2 

for each agency to complete the required environmental reviews and authorization decisions for 

major infrastructure projects, as measured from the date of publication of a notice of intent (NOI) 

to prepare an EIS.

4

 

To implement the OFD framework, each Federal agency with responsibility to conduct 

environmental reviews or make authorization decisions with respect to major infrastructure 

projects5 should enter into, and from time to time revise and improve, a Memorandum of 

Understanding for Implementation of One Federal Decision (MOU), as set forth in Appendix A 

hereto. This MOU outlines the roles and responsibilities for agencies, and the process by which 

they should jointly and cooperatively process environmental reviews and make authorization 

decisions for major infrastructure projects. 

As reflected in the attached MOU, an essential element of the OFD framework is the 

development of a schedule, referred to herein as the “Permitting Timetable,” that includes key 

milestones critical to completion of the environmental review and issuance of a ROD. The 

Permitting Timetable should account for any federally-required decisions or authorizations, 

including those that are assumed by, or delegated to, State, tribal, or local agencies, and are a 

prerequisite to the issuance of a decision or authorization by a Federal agency. The Permitting 

Timetable should provide a complete picture of the environmental review and authorization 

requirements for a project, and give specific focus to those reviews and authorizations that are 

complex, require extensive coordination, or might significantly extend the overall project review 

schedule. Cooperating agencies that are required by law to develop schedules for environmental 

review or authorization processes should transmit a summary of such schedules to the lead 

agency for integration into the Permitting Timetable. 

When developing the Permitting Timetable, lead Federal agencies need not include the 

estimated intermediate and final completion dates of any reviews or authorizations until the 

design of the project has sufficiently advanced so that those dates can be determined. In such 

cases, lead agencies should estimate when the project’s design will be advanced enough to 

determine such dates, and establish estimated milestones accordingly. 

 

4 E.O. 13807 was effective August 15, 2017. Accordingly, its two-year goal is applicable to environmental reviews 

of major infrastructure projects for which an NOI was published after August 15, 2017. If the lead agency 

determines that it must reissue, revise, or withdraw the NOI due to a substantial change in the project proposal or 

delay by the project proponent, the two-year timeframe will start with publication of the reissued or revised NOI.

 

5 Sec. 3 of E.O. 13807 defines a “major infrastructure project” as “an infrastructure project for which multiple 

authorizations by Federal agencies will be required to proceed with construction, the lead Federal agency has 

determined that it will prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS) under the National Environmental Policy 

Act (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq., and the project sponsor has identified the reasonable availability of funds 

sufficient to complete the project.” 82 Fed. Reg. at 40,464. The “reasonable availability of funds” criterion of E.O. 

13807 ensures that agencies are expending resources on the environmental review and authorization of project 

proposals that are likely to have the necessary funds to be constructed in the event that a build option is selected. 

Public and private funds shall be considered “reasonably available” whether or not they are contingent on 

completion of environmental reviews and issuance of necessary authorizations for the project. The burden of 

demonstrating the reasonable availability of funds is on the project sponsor. Project sponsors may meet this burden 

by submitting a finance plan showing the estimated costs of the project and the available sources from which the 

project sponsor anticipates meeting the costs. Agencies shall facilitate project sponsors’ demonstration of the 

reasonable availability of funds.
3 

To ensure timely completion of the environmental review and issuance of necessary 

authorizations, OMB and CEQ recommend the Permitting Timetable for major infrastructure 

projects provide for environmental review according to the following schedule: 

1) Formal scoping and preparation of a Draft EIS (DEIS) within 14 months, beginning

on the date of publication of the NOI to publish an EIS and ending on the date of the

Notice of Availability of the DEIS;6

2) Completion of the formal public comment period and development of the Final EIS

(FEIS) within eight months of the date of the Notice of Availability of the DEIS; and

3) Publication of the final ROD within two months of the publication of the Notice of

Availability of the FEIS.7

While the actual schedule for any given project may vary based upon the circumstances 

of the project and applicable law, agencies should endeavor to meet the two-year goal

established in E.O. 13807. 

Consistent with E.O. 13807, agencies should, if necessary for the implementation of 

OFD, develop procedures and appropriate policies, including by reviewing and revising their 

existing NEPA procedures. In addition, the Permitting Council should support implementation of 

the OFD policy and should recommend any needed revisions to the CEQ/OMB Memorandum 

M-17-14 on “Guidance to Federal Agencies Regarding the Environmental Review and

Authorization Processes for Infrastructure Projects,”8 including its Appendix B. In consultation

with the interagency working group established under Section 5(e) of E.O. 13807, CEQ and

OMB will review and, if necessary, recommend changes to ensure the effectiveness of each

agency’s policies in implementing OFD.

Agencies should also ensure that they have an efficient process for the elevation and 

resolution of issues consistent with the process set forth in the attached MOU. For 

environmental review and authorization issues that cannot be resolved at an interagency level, 

agencies should follow the dispute resolution process provided by law for the environmental 

review and authorization processes for such projects, if any. CEQ will mediate disputes where 

other dispute resolution process is provided for by law.

9

 In addition, OMB will have final 

interpretative authority regarding this guidance and the MOU adopted hereunder. 

6 The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and other agencies identified by OMB and CEQ that have procedures 

that provide for publication of the NOI substantially in advance of filing of the project application may comply with 

OFD by starting the two-year schedule from the date on which an application is filed. 

7 Where Federal law allows for one or more agencies to issue a combined FEIS/ROD, nothing in the OFD

framework precludes the use of that authority. 

8

Memorandum for Heads of Federal Department and Agencies titled “Guidance to Federal Agencies Regarding the 

Environmental Review and Authorization Process for Infrastructure Projects” (Jan. 13, 2017) available at

https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/whitehouse.gov/files/omb/memoranda/2017/m-17-14.pdf. 

9 FAST-41 Act covered projects should follow the dispute resolution procedures provided by the statute and related 

OMB-CEQ Guidance. See Memorandum for Heads of Federal Department and Agencies titled “Guidance to Federal 

Agencies Regarding the Environmental Review and Authorization Process for Infrastructure Projects” (Jan. 13, 

2017). 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING 

IMPLEMENTING ONE FEDERAL DECISION UNDER
 

EXECUTIVE ORDER 13807
 

I. Introduction 

The undersigned Federal agencies (agencies) enter into this Memorandum of Understanding 

(MOU) to establish a cooperative relationship for the timely processing of environmental 

reviews and authorization decisions for proposed major infrastructure projects under the One 

Federal Decision (OFD) policy established in Executive Order (E.O.) 13807.1 E.O. 13807 

requires the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and the Council on Environmental 

Quality (CEQ), in consultation with the Federal Permitting Improvement Steering Council 

(Permitting Council), to develop a framework for implementation of the Executive Order. On 

March 20, 2018, OMB and CEQ issued an OMB/CEQ Memorandum to Heads of Federal 

Departments and Agencies titled “One Federal Decision Framework for the Environmental 

Review and Authorization Process for Major Infrastructure Projects under Executive Order 

13807” (OFD Framework) pursuant to which agencies enter into this MOU. The agencies 

accordingly agree to work together to implement OFD as set forth in this MOU. 

II. Background 

Under the OFD approach established in E.O. 13807, Federal agencies with a role in the 

environmental review and permitting process for a major infrastructure project are directed to 

develop an environmental review and authorization decision schedule for that project. For each 

major infrastructure project, agencies will work together to develop a single Permitting 

Timetable for the necessary environmental review and authorization decisions, prepare a single 

environmental impact statement (EIS), sign a single record of decision (ROD), and issue all 

necessary authorization decisions within 90 days of issuance of the ROD, subject to limited 

exceptions.

2 E.O. 13807 sets a goal for agencies of reducing the time for completing 

environmental reviews and authorization decisions to an agency average of not more than two 

years from publication of a Notice of Intent (NOI) to prepare an EIS. The purposes of this MOU 

are to: 

•	 provide a more predictable, transparent and timely Federal review and authorization process 

for delivering major infrastructure projects; 

1 E.O. 13807 defines a “major infrastructure project” as “an infrastructure project for which multiple authorizations 

by Federal agencies will be required to proceed with construction, the lead Federal agency has determined that it 

will prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 42 

U.S.C. §§ 4321 et seq., and the project sponsor has identified the reasonable availability of funds sufficient to 

complete the project.” E.O. 13807 of August 15, 2017, “Establishing Discipline and Accountability in the 

Environmental Review and Permitting Process for Infrastructure Projects,” 82 Fed. Reg. 40,463, 40,464 (Aug. 24, 

2017). The funding criterion of E.O. 13807 ensures that agencies are expending resources on the environmental 

review and authorization of project proposals that are likely to be constructed. Public and private funds shall be 

considered “reasonably available” whether or not they are contingent on completion of environmental reviews and 

issuance of necessary authorizations for the project.

2 All references to days in this MOU are to calendar days unless otherwise indicated. 

A-1
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

•	 establish standard operating procedures for how the Federal Government will make 

concurrent and synchronized reviews for major infrastructure projects; and 

•	 eliminate duplication of effort among agencies, improve the efficiency of project delivery, 

make better-informed decisions and promote good environmental, community and economic 

outcomes. 

III. Definitions 

Terms used herein have the definitions assigned to them in E.O. 13807 and 40 C.F.R. Parts 

1500-1508. 

IV. Authorities 

Section 5(a) of E.O. 13807 directs Federal agencies to implement an OFD policy in accordance 

with the framework developed by OMB and CEQ under Section 5(b) of the Executive Order. 

Section 5(e) of the Executive Order authorizes CEQ to issue such regulations, guidance, and 

directives to Federal agencies as it may deem appropriate to further the goals of the order. Other 

authorities for agencies to enter into this MOU include NEPA, Title 41 of the Fixing America’s 

Surface Transportation Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 4370m et seq. (FAST-41) and the specific authorities 

of each agency. 

V. General Agreements 

The lead agency will decide whether a project sponsor has identified the reasonable availability 

of funds, and whether the project otherwise meets the definition of “major infrastructure project” 

under E.O. 13807, and is therefore subject to OFD. The lead agency’s decision shall be 

determinative for purposes of this MOU. 

This MOU sets forth the agreement of the signatory agencies through which they will jointly and 

cooperatively process environmental reviews and make authorization decisions for major 

infrastructure projects, to the extent consistent with applicable law. 

A. Two-year goal. Agencies will undertake to meet the goal set forth in E.O. 13807 of 

reducing the time to two years for each agency to complete all environmental reviews and 

authorization decisions for major infrastructure projects starting from the date the NOI is 

published to issuance of a ROD, except as provided in the OFD Framework. To help 

achieve this goal, agencies commit to cooperate, communicate, share information, and 

resolve conflicts that could prevent meeting milestones. 

B. Agency Implementation of OFD. Agencies will develop appropriate policies to ensure 

the use and efficient implementation of OFD for major infrastructure projects. Within 90 

days, each agency will transmit to CEQ and OMB a plan to facilitate the efficient 

implementation of OFD. 

C. Communication. Agencies will actively participate in environmental reviews and 

authorization processes for major infrastructure projects, and communicate with one 

A-2
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

another, as well as project applicants and sponsors, in an effective and structured manner 

that starts early and continues throughout the review process. This active communication 

should provide all agencies with the opportunity to identify concerns, raise potential 

issues early in the review process, and identify solutions.3 

D. Concurrent Reviews. Agencies will carry out their obligations with respect to the 

environmental review and authorization decisions for a major infrastructure project 

concurrently, and in conjunction with the review performed by the lead agency under 

NEPA, to the extent consistent with applicable law. 

E. Permitting Timetable.	 Agencies will work together to meet the milestones, including the 

intermediate and final completion dates of any reviews or authorization decisions, of the 

Permitting Timetable established pursuant to this MOU. 

F.	 Commitment to Process Enhancements. Agencies will work individually and 

collectively, as appropriate, to:
 

1.	 identify and remove process impediments to implementing OFD; 

2.	 implement best practices that will result in more efficient reviews; 

3.	 develop and implement appropriate programmatic agreements with respect to project 

reviews where multiple major infrastructure projects present common issues; 

4.	 as appropriate, update, develop and adopt internal procedures, including amendments 

to their NEPA implementing procedures, to implement their responsibilities under 

E.O. 13807 and the OFD Framework, including through the E.O. 13807 Sec. 5(e)(iii) 

working group process; and 

5.	 work together to revise and improve this MOU from time to time, as needed, 

including through prompt notification of any changes to agency Chief Environmental 

Review and Permitting Officers (CERPOs)4 or other key personnel. 

G. Cooperating Agency for FERC Proceedings. 

1.	 Each agency whose authorization is required, or which otherwise has jurisdiction by 

law, for a major infrastructure project with respect to which FERC is lead agency 

under NEPA and which is the subject of a FERC proceeding will, upon the request of 

FERC, participate as a cooperating agency under Section VI. Other agencies may 

participate as cooperating agencies with respect to such projects at FERC’s invitation, 

as provided in 40 C.F.R. 1501.6. 

3 Predecisional documents prepared by FERC or submitted to FERC in FERC proceedings are to be treated as 

confidential. Such documents may not be released, including release requested under the Freedom of Information 

Act or other applicable law, without prior authorization from FERC. FERC regulations prohibit the disclosure of 

“the nature and time of any proposed action by the Commission” and limit the disclosure of interagency 

communications. 18 C.F.R. §§ 3c.2(b), 388.107(e). 

4 Agency CERPOs are designated by agency heads pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 4370m-1(b)(2)(A)(iii)(I). 

A-3
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2.	 Under 40 C.F.R. 1501.6, agencies may decline any such FERC invitation only if the 

agency has no jurisdiction by law. Agencies that decline to be cooperating agencies at 

FERC’s invitation agree not to join the FERC proceeding as an intervenor. 

3.	 An agency’s participation as a cooperating agency under this subsection shall not 

impede such agency’s ability to submit comments to the FERC docket for the 

relevant proceeding, nor impede the agency’s ability to defend any mandatory 

conditions in court proceedings. 

VI. Determination of Lead and Cooperating Agencies 

A. Determination of Lead and Cooperating Agencies.	 Lead and cooperating agencies will 

be determined as soon as practicable and in accordance with 40 C.F.R. 1501.5 and 

1501.6. Each potential lead or cooperating agency will, as soon as practicable, designate 

a point of contact (Project POC), which may be the agency CERPO, to represent the 

agency in interagency consultations about that project. In any case where the lead agency 

is disputed: 

1.	 The Project POC for the agency that receives the first substantial contact with the 

project sponsor (originating agency) will notify the Project POCs for the other 

potential cooperating and lead agencies of the dispute regarding lead agency 

determination. 

2.	 The Project POC of the notified agencies will have 10 business days to object. If 

a notified agency Project POC objects to the selection of lead agency, then the 

originating agency will convene a meeting with all other notified agency Project 

POCs to occur no later than 15 business days after responses have been received. 

During the meeting, the agencies will agree on an agency to be the lead agency. 

3.	 If agencies cannot agree, then the originating agency CERPO will follow the 

procedures for lead agency determination by CEQ pursuant to 40 C.F.R. 1501.5. 

4.	 Co-lead agencies may designate one of the co-lead agencies to be “lead agency” 

for purposes of this MOU and of the OFD Framework. 

VII. Permitting Timetable 

A. Development of Permitting Timetable. 

1.	 The lead agency, in consultation with the project sponsor and cooperating and 

participating agencies,5 will develop a Permitting Timetable that identifies the actions 

and associated milestones for applicable environmental reviews and authorizations. 

The Permitting Timetable will be developed as soon as practicable after the project is 

sufficiently advanced to allow the determination of relevant milestones and generally 

before publication of an NOI. To the maximum extent practicable and permitted by 

5 For purposes of this MOU, “participating agency” shall have the meaning set forth in FAST-41 or such other law 

as may apply to the lead agency’s authorization of the project. 

A-4
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

law, the Permitting Timetable will establish a schedule of no more than two years 

from NOI to publication of a single ROD that will provide for the completion of all 

required authorization decisions. 

2.	 After consultation with all cooperating and participating agencies, the lead agency 

will transmit to each cooperating agency a proposed Permitting Timetable for 

comment. If no agency CERPO or Project POC objects in writing to the proposal 

within 10 business days, the proposal will be the Permitting Timetable for the project. 

To the extent an agency objects to a proposed milestone, such agency will 

communicate its objection and the basis for the objection to the lead agency in writing 

within 10 business days. If the objecting agency has authorization responsibility for 

the project, such agency will also include an alternative proposed milestone which 

will comport with the two-year OFD schedule, unless special circumstances or 

applicable law make the two-year schedule impracticable. 

3.	 With respect to cooperating agencies with authorization decision responsibilities, if 

the lead agency cannot reconcile the alternative proposed milestone with other 

proposed Permitting Timetable milestones, the lead agency will elevate the issue to 

an appropriate senior official of the cooperating agency for timely resolution. After 

an opportunity to resolve the issue, the lead agency will issue the Permitting 

Timetable. 

4.	 All agencies will comply with the milestones set forth in the Permitting Timetable to 

the maximum extent practicable and permitted by law. 

B. Contents of Permitting Timetable. 

1.	 The Permitting Timetable for major infrastructure projects should include the 

environmental review and authorization milestones specified in Appendix B of the 

CEQ/OMB Memorandum on “Guidance to Federal Agencies Regarding the 

Environmental Review and Authorization Processes for Infrastructure Projects,” as 

amended. The lead agency may also include any other appropriate milestones in the 

Permitting Timetable that the lead agency deems appropriate, are requested by the 

project sponsor, or are requested by a cooperating or participating agency. 

2.	 The lead agency will design the Permitting Timetable so that it has adequate time to 

accept and consider public, cooperating agency, and participating agency comments 

and input, and conduct any appropriate alternatives analysis or impact assessments. 

3.	 The Permitting Timetable will account for intermediate and final completion dates for 

any environmental review or authorization required for the project. The Permitting 

Timetable should include estimated milestones for the project sponsor to develop and 

submit complete applications and any other information required for Federal 

authorization of the project, including required authorization decisions by nonFederal entities. In such cases, lead agencies will estimate when the project’s design 

will be advanced enough to determine such dates, and establish estimated milestones 

accordingly. 

A-5
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

C. Modifications and Updates. 

1.	 Following consultations with cooperating agencies, the lead agency will update, 

and as necessary modify, the Permitting Timetable at least quarterly. A modified 

Permitting Timetable will be transmitted to each cooperating and participating 

agency Project POC and to the project sponsor. 

2.	 With respect to the modification of milestones concerning actions by cooperating 

agencies with authorization decision responsibilities, lead agencies may modify 

such milestones following the procedures contained in Section VII.A. 

3.	 If the lead agency receives a written request from the project sponsor to suspend 

or cancel the environmental review and authorization process, or otherwise 

determines that the project sponsor has suspended or cancelled the project, the 

lead agency will document the request and modify the Permitting Table 

accordingly. 

D. Publication. A copy of the Permitting Timetable and any modifications will be made 

available to the public online, including, as appropriate and practicable, through the 

Federal Permitting Dashboard. 

VIII. Agency Roles and Responsibilities 

A. Lead Agencies. 

1.	 The lead agency is responsible for organizing the Federal environmental review and 

authorization processes for a proposed project, including assigning a management 

official to lead the environmental review process and identifying a primary Federal 

point of contact at each cooperating or participating agency for the project. 

2.	 After a lead agency has been designated, that agency will be responsible for 

requesting cooperation from other Federal agencies that have jurisdiction by law or 

special expertise (as determined by the lead agency under 40 C.F.R. 1501.6) on any 

environmental issue that should be addressed in the EIS. To the fullest extent 

possible and at the earliest time practicable, the lead agency should seek the 

cooperation of State, tribal or local agencies of similar qualifications in accordance 

with 40 C.F.R. 1506.2. The lead agency should also identify and invite participating 

agencies. 

3.	 The lead agency will prepare a single EIS for the project in coordination with the 

other Federal cooperating agencies with authorization decision responsibilities and 

will ensure that the final EIS (FEIS) includes an adequate level of detail to inform 

decisions by all agencies with review or authorization decision responsibilities for the 

proposed project. 

4.	 The lead agency will inform cooperating agencies regarding new material information 

and changes related to the project. 

A-6
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5.	 The lead agency is responsible for developing the Purpose and Need, identifying the 

range of alternatives to be analyzed, identifying the preferred alternative and 

determining whether to develop the preferred alternative to a higher level of detail. 

6.	 The lead agency will provide the cooperating agencies the opportunity to review and 

contribute to all relevant substantive phases of the EIS preparation in conformity with 

the Concurrence Points set forth in Section XI. 

7.	 The lead agency is responsible for preparing and publishing a single ROD for all 

Federal agencies with authorization responsibility for the project to support any 

necessary authorization decisions. The ROD will incorporate the decisions of each 

such agency, unless an exception to a single ROD is met as set forth in Section XIII 

or where Federal law provides for the lead agency to issue a combined FEIS/ROD. 

8.	 The lead agency will maintain a consolidated project file of the information 

assembled and utilized by the Federal cooperating agencies as the basis for their 

environmental reviews under NEPA. 

B. Cooperating Agencies. 

1.	 Cooperating agencies with authorization decision responsibilities will coordinate and 

synchronize their authorization reviews with the lead agency’s development of the 

FEIS and issuance of the ROD. 

2.	 Agencies with authorization decision responsibilities will participate as cooperating 

agencies when invited by the lead agency, consistent with 40 C.F.R. 1501.6. Agencies 

without authorization decision responsibilities may participate as cooperating 

agencies whenever invited by the lead agency. 

3.	 At the request of the lead agency, cooperating agencies will make available personnel 

and/or expertise to the lead agency, to the extent practicable. 

4.	 Cooperating agencies will be responsible for identifying any information necessary to 

complete application review and authorizations in accordance with the Permitting 

Timetable, as well as the means of obtaining such information. 

5.	 Cooperating agencies will ensure that any issues that may delay the Permitting
 

Timetable are promptly brought to the attention of the lead agency. 

6.	 Each cooperating agency should limit its comments to those issues that are within that 

agency’s areas of special expertise or jurisdiction. 

7.	 Each cooperating agency will be responsible for making its respective authorization 

decisions, and will maintain the administrative record associated with such decisions 

and provide such information as the lead agency may request for the consolidated 

project file. 

A-7
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

C. Participating Agencies. Participating agencies will complete their reviews and provide 

any necessary input in compliance with the requests of the lead agency. 

D. State, Local, and Tribal Agencies. Lead agencies may invite any relevant State, local or 

tribal agency with Federal authorization decision responsibilities for a major 

infrastructure project to be a cooperating agency. Lead agencies will seek to secure such 

State, local or tribal agency’s commitment to comply with the Permitting Timetable and 

such other obligations of a cooperating agency under this MOU as the lead agency may 

deem appropriate and necessary for the project, if necessary by the execution of a 

separate written agreement with such agency. 

E. CERPOs. 

1.	 Each agency CERPO will help oversee the implementation of this MOU and E.O. 

13807 at that agency. 

2.	 Each agency CERPO should be informed of all major infrastructure projects for 

which that agency is either a lead agency or cooperating agency, and of the 

Permitting Timetables for such projects. 

3.	 Each agency CERPO should help agency leadership ensure the prioritization of 

resources at that agency to comply with applicable Permitting Timetables. 

IX. Preliminary Project Planning 

A. Preapplication Procedures and Prescoping. After a lead agency is determined, the lead 

agency should begin prescoping, including through using any applicable preapplication 

procedures at that agency. The lead agency should also identify and begin discussions 

with potential cooperating and participating agencies and the project sponsor to identify 

potentially significant environmental issues, the community and stakeholders affected, 

the extent of the analysis needed, and the time required to complete environmental review 

and authorization decision processes. The lead agency will complete its prescoping 

process as expeditiously as possible. 

B. Preliminary Planning. During prescoping, or as soon as practicable, the lead agency, in 

consultation with the cooperating agencies and the project sponsor, may develop a 

preliminary project plan that will establish how agencies will work together to process 

the environmental review and authorization decisions for the project. Plans and 

timetables developed for FAST-41 projects may serve as preliminary project plans. The 

plan may include: 

•	 A Permitting Timetable; 

•	 A project-specific framework for all agencies’ reviews, analyses and decisions; 

•	 Specific areas of responsibilities and roles of all involved agencies; 

•	 Identification of the significant issues and concerns that affect the environmental 

review and authorizations needed for the project; 

A-8
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

•	 A stakeholder, public and tribal outreach and engagement plan; 

•	 Requirements for complete applications for respective authorizations, and an 

identification of the earliest possible stage when the application could be submitted; 

•	 Procedures for integration of environmental review and authorization processes with 

the goal of meeting milestones in the Permitting Timetable; and 

•	 Potential avoidance, minimization, and mitigation strategies. 

C. Programmatic Coordination Plan. A preliminary project plan for an individual project 

may be established separately from any programmatic coordination plan, or it may 

incorporate one or more programmatic coordination plans established by the lead agency 

to govern coordination with one or more agencies. 

X. Notice of Intent 

A. Timing of Publication. The lead agency will publish the NOI as soon as practicable after 

determining (1) that a project is a major infrastructure project; and (2) after consultation 

with cooperating agencies, that the project proposal is sufficiently developed to permit 

scoping and meaningful public comment. The publication of the NOI should not be 

unreasonably delayed. 

B. Revision or Withdrawal. If the lead agency determines that the NOI must be revised, 

supplemented, corrected, reissued, or withdrawn, the lead agency will transmit the 

proposed change to all cooperating and participating agencies and to the project sponsor, 

and modify the Permitting Timetable accordingly, before publishing a new NOI. The 

modified Permitting Timetable will reflect the date of the new NOI as the new start date 

for purposes of the two-year OFD schedule. 

XI. Scoping and Concurrence Points 

A. Scoping. 

1.	 The scoping process should be an open process for determining the scope of issues to 

be addressed in the EIS, identifying the significant issues related to the proposed 

project and engaging stakeholders and the public. Lead agencies should determine 

the level and form of public engagement on a case-by-case basis, taking into account 

factors such as the overall size and complexity of the project. 

2.	 Agencies will use the NEPA scoping process to agree on the relevant analyses, 

studies and engineering design that will be needed in order for each agency to be able 

to sign a single ROD and for all the authorization decisions to be issued within 90 

days after the ROD is signed. 

3.	 Agencies will consult and seek to agree on the best use and relevance of prior 

developed information, such as information developed during a planning process. 

B. Requirement of Coordination. 

A-9
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1.	 The OFD policy integrates the requirements of all Federal agencies with authorization 

decision responsibilities. The undersigned agencies commit to implementing the OFD 

process early in project development to avoid schedule delays. The environmental 

review process will be conducted concurrently with the applicable authorization 

decision processes, and, as such, the lead agency should obtain a written concurrence 

from all cooperating agencies whose authorization is required for the project at three 

key milestones: 1) Purpose and Need, 2) Alternatives To Be Carried Forward for 

Evaluation, and 3) the Preferred Alternative. Lead agencies, in consultation with the 

relevant cooperating agencies with applicable authorization decision responsibilities, 

have discretion to add other concurrence points as necessary to meet project specific 

circumstances. 

2.	 The lead agency will request written concurrence on each concurrence point from all 

cooperating agencies whose authorization is required for the project. “Concurrence” 

for purposes of this MOU means confirmation by the agency that the information is 

sufficient for that stage, and the environmental review process may proceed to the 

next stage of the NEPA process, as set forth in the lead agency’s request for written 

concurrence. Each applicable cooperating agency will either confirm its concurrence 

or inform the lead agency that it cannot yet concur. A non-concurring agency will 

undertake to resolve the issue and provide the requested concurrence, and will if 

necessary elevate the issue pursuant to Section XII. Cooperating agency Project 

POCs will respond to the lead agency’s request for concurrence within 10 business 

days. Failure to respond within 10 business days may be treated as concurrence, at the 

discretion of the lead agency. 

3.	 With respect to cooperating agencies whose authorization is not required for the 

project, comments should be considered by the lead agency and reflected in the 

environmental analysis and/or project planning, as appropriate. 

C. Specific Concurrent Points. 

1.	 Concurrence Point #1: Purpose and Need. 

(a) The concurrence point will generally occur early in the NEPA review process, 

prior to issuance of an NOI. The Purpose and Need statement is the foundation for 

the NEPA alternatives analysis. Cooperating agencies with authorization decision 

responsibilities for a project will review the lead agency’s Purpose and Need 

statement and determine if it meets their NEPA obligations. 

2.	 Concurrence Point #2: Alternatives to be Carried Forward for Evaluation. 

(a) This concurrence point identifies the alternatives to be carried forward for 

analysis in the EIS. Concurrence should be sought as early as possible and prior 

to detailed analysis in the draft EIS (DEIS). Concurrence should be obtained 

prior to presenting the results of alternatives screening to the public. In order to 

fulfill the needs of other agencies’ authorities, there may be alternatives that 

require analysis beyond what is necessary for the lead agency. 

A-10
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3.	 Concurrence Point #3 - Preferred Alternative. 

(a) A preferred alternative should be identified in the DEIS and must be identified in 

the FEIS. A final decision is identified in the ROD. Before a preferred alternative 

is identified in a DEIS or FEIS, the lead agency will request written concurrence 

on the preferred alternative from all agencies whose authorization is required for 

the project, and will explain in such request the rationale for its selection. An 

agency’s concurrence on a preferred alternative identified in the DEIS will also 

serve as concurrence for that preferred alternative in the FEIS, unless there is a 

material change in the preferred alternative from DEIS to FEIS. 

D. Changed Circumstances.	 If after concurrence, the lead agency determines that changes to 

the Purpose and Need, Alternatives, or the Preferred Alternative are necessary, then the 

lead agency and cooperating agencies with authorization decision responsibilities will 

review such changes to determine if concurrence should be revisited. 

XII. Elevation of Delays and Dispute Resolution 

A. Any issue or dispute that arises between or among agencies during the OFD process will 

be addressed expeditiously to avoid delay. 

B. Agencies will implement this section consistent with any dispute resolution process 

established in an applicable law, regulation, or legally binding agreement to the 

maximum extent permitted by law. 

C. Agencies will seek to resolve issues or disputes at the earliest possible time at the project 

level through staff who have day-to-day involvement in the project. 

D. Agencies will notify their CERPOs of any instance where a dispute is to be elevated. 

Where appropriate, agencies will also consult with the project sponsor, and its input 

should also be considered. 

E. If a dispute between agencies causes a milestone to be missed or extended, or the lead 

agency anticipates that a Permitting Timetable milestone will be missed or will need to be 

extended, then the dispute should be elevated to an official designated by the relevant 

agency for resolution. Such elevation should take place as soon as practicable after the 

lead agency becomes aware of the dispute or potential missed milestone. Disputes that 

do not impact the ability of an agency to meet a milestone may be elevated as appropriate 

F.	 Once elevated to the designated official, if no resolution has been reached at the end of 

30 days after the relevant milestone date or extension date, then the relevant agencies will 

elevate the dispute to senior agency leadership for resolution. 

XIII. Exceptions 

A-11
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A. The lead agency will grant exceptions to the single EIS and single ROD requirement of 

E.O. 13807 when: 

1.	 the project sponsor requests that the agencies issue separate NEPA documents; 

2.	 the NEPA obligations of a cooperating or participating agency have already been 

satisfied; or 

3.	 the lead agency determines that one ROD would not promote efficient completion of 

the project's environmental review and authorization process. 

B. The lead agency may grant an exception to the single ROD requirement of E.O. 13807 

when Federal law provides for the lead agency to issue a combined FEIS/ROD and 

cooperating agencies are not authorized to issue a combined FEIS/ROD. When a lead 

agency elects to grant such an exception, the agencies not authorized to issue a combined 

FEIS/ROD will issue a joint ROD or other appropriate decision document as soon as 

practicable, consistent with applicable law and the Permitting Timetable. 

C. FERC will grant an exception to the single ROD requirement of E.O. 13807 when the 

FERC licensing order serves as the ROD. In such situations, the agencies not authorized 

to issue a combined FEIS/ROD will issue a joint ROD or other appropriate decision 

document as soon as practicable, consistent with applicable law and the Permitting 

Timetable. 

D. The lead agency may also extend the 90-day deadline for any authorization required for a 

project in the following circumstances: 

1.	 when applicable law prohibits an agency from issuing its approval or permit within 

the 90-day period; 

2.	 the project sponsor requests that the permit decision or approval follow a different 

timeline; or 

3.	 an extension would better promote completion of the project’s environmental review 

and authorization process. 

E. The lead agency may terminate the coordinated development of the single EIS and/or 

single ROD under OFD upon request of the project sponsor, changed circumstances, or if 

the project sponsor fails to respond timely to lead agency requests. 

XIV. Miscellaneous Provisions 

A. Agencies may enter into appropriate agreements as necessary to implement OFD, 

including agreements on a program- and project-specific basis. Any such agreements 

will be consistent with this MOU, E.O. 13807, the OFD Framework, and Federal law. 

A-12
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

B. Nothing contained in this MOU is intended to or should be construed to limit or affect the 

authority or legal responsibilities of the undersigned agencies, or binds the undersigned 

agencies to perform actions beyond their respective authorities. 

C. Nothing in this MOU shall be construed to impair or otherwise adversely affect: 

1. the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; 

or 

2. the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to 

budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals. 

D. Nothing in this MOU is intended to, or should, be construed to restrict the agencies from 

participating in similar activities or arrangements with other public or private entities, 

organizations, or individuals. 

E. Independent agency staff will comply with this MOU to the maximum extent practicable, 

consistent with such agency’s status as an independent agency, statutory requirements, 

and such agency’s regulations and procedures.6 

F.	 The mission requirements, funding, personnel, and other priorities of the undersigned 

agencies may affect their ability to fully implement all the provisions identified in this 

MOU. 

G. This MOU shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the 

availability of appropriations. 

H. Specific activities that involve the transfer of money, services, or property between or 

among the undersigned agencies may require execution of separate agreements or 

contracts. 

I.	 This MOU is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or 

procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its 

departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person. 

J.	 This MOU may be modified and amended, or terminated, by written agreement among 

the undersigned agencies. 

K. Additional Federal agencies may become parties to this MOU by signing an addendum to 

the MOU. 

L.	 This MOU is effective on April 10, 2018. 

6 For purposes of this MOU, “independent agency” means an independent regulatory agency as defined in 44 U.S.C. 

§ 3502(5). 

A-13
 
By: Date: 1Afl ( ce, Nam:e~:~Rn=ya-;;;-i-J-...:.=~~~~~ 

Title: Secreta 

A-14 

Date: {J?t, ·/?, 2 0/f 

, 

A-15 

Department of Commerce 

By: GJ J. C4.uJ Date: er , 1o ~ Name: Wilbur L. Ross, Jr. 

Title: Secretary 

A-16 

g and Urban Development 

By:~---+--~--bP.=.-~~~~~­

Name: Dr. Benjamin S. Carson, Sr., M.D. 

Date: '(- f-/ ~ 

Title: Secretary 

A-17 

Department of Transpo~atym _ 

By: <tQ. C}VliJ 

NamyElaine L. Chao 

IJate: ~~~ Title: Secretary 

A-18 

Department of En~ 

e'd2_tc.k.. -f./e.R-R-y Date: 'i/1 Ife 
 Nam~k l I Perry ~ 

Title: Secretary 

A-19 
!)ate: ~ 

A-20 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

By: 7/!k% I . -~~ Date: ¥'-- 1- /8 

Name: Mark T. Esper 

Title: Secretary 

A-21 
By: ...................,,,~-+-~~~~

Date: '(-; 'f· /9

Name: Scott Pruitt 

Title: Administrator 

A-22 

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

Date: '76-J /eo1cf 

Title: Chairman 

A-23 

By:~-= --=----~~=---~­ Date: 

Name: John M. Fowler 

Title: Executive Director 

A-24 

Federal Permitting Improvement Steering Council 

By: .J~ l.----- J{2fi\ q Date: 1 201~ Name: Ang~Colamaria 

Title: Acting Executive Director 

A-25