Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 205 / Wednesday, October 23, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 84465 

1Applications for Permits to Site Interstate Elec. 

Transmission Facilities, Order No. 1977, 89 FR 

46682 (May 29, 2024), 187 FERC ¶ 61,069 (2024). 

2 16 U.S.C. 824p. 

3Public Law 117–58, sec. 40105, 135 Stat. 429 

(2021). 

4New York Commission seeks rehearing, or in the 

alternative, clarification of Order No. 1977. 

5 964 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2020) (en banc). 

6 16 U.S.C. 825l(a) (‘‘Until the record in a 

proceeding shall have been filed in a court of 

appeals, as provided in subsection (b), the 

Commission may at any time, upon reasonable 

notice and in such manner as it shall deem proper, 

modify or set aside, in whole or in part, any finding 

or order made or issued by it under the provisions 

of this chapter.’’). 

7Allegheny Def. Project, 964 F.3d at 16–17. 

8Public Law 109–58, sec. 1221, 119 Stat. 594 

(Aug. 8, 2005). 

9Order No. 1977 provides a more detailed 

discussion of the legislative, regulatory, and judicial 

actions that preceded the final rule. See Order No. 

1977, 187 FERC ¶ 61,069 at pt I. 

Country Entity License requirement License review 

policy Federal Register citation 

Ayman Elgindy, T5–055, SAIF Zone, Sharjah, 

United Arab Emirates; and SAIF office, T5– 

055, Sharjah, 513756, United Arab Emirates; 

and SAIF Executive Office P–8–03–01, 

Sharjah, 12702PA 121702, United Arab Emirates; and Shariah, SAIF Office P8–03–01 P.O. 

Box 513756, United Arab Emirates. 

For all items subject to the EAR. 

(See § 744.11 of the EAR).

Presumption of denial.89 FR [INSERT FR PAGE NUMBER]; 10/23/2024. 

******

Steel Design FZE, a.k.a., the following two 

aliases: 

—TRME; and 

—Turbo Resources. 

T5–055, SAIF Zone, Sharjah, United Arab Emirates; and SAIF office, T5–055, Sharjah, 

513756, United Arab Emirates; and SAIF Executive Office, P–8–03–01, Sharjah, 12702PA 

121702, United Arab Emirates; and Shariah, 

SAIF Office P8–03–01, P.O. Box 513756, 

United Arab Emirates; and SAIF Office P8–03– 

01, P.O. 513756, Sharjah, United Arab Emirates. 

For all items subject to the EAR. 

(See § 744.11 of the EAR).

Presumption of denial.89 FR [INSERT FR PAGE NUMBER]; 10/23/2024. 

******

*******

* * * * * 

Matthew S. Borman, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Strategic Trade 

and Technology Security. 

[FR Doc. 2024–24562 Filed 10–21–24; 11:15 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–33–P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission 

18 CFR Parts 50 and 380 

[Docket No. RM22–7–001; Order No. 1977– 

A] 

Applications for Permits to Site 

Interstate Electric Transmission 

Facilities 

AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission, Department of Energy. 

ACTION: Final rule; Order addressing 

arguments raised on rehearing, and 

setting aside prior order, in part. 

SUMMARY: In this order, the Federal 

Energy Regulatory Commission 

addresses arguments raised on rehearing 

of Order No. 1977, which amended the 

Commission’s regulations governing 

applications for permits to site electric 

transmission facilities under section 216 

of the Federal Power Act, as amended 

by the Infrastructure Investment and 

Jobs Act of 2021, and amended its 

National Environmental Policy Act 

procedures. 

DATES: This rule is effective November 

22, 2024. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Maggie Suter (Technical Information), 

Office of Energy Projects, Federal 

Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 

First Street NE, Washington, DC 

20426, (202) 502–6344, 

magdalene.suter@ferc.gov 

Tara DiJohn Bruce (Legal Information), 

Office of the General Counsel, Federal 

Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 

First Street NE, Washington, DC 

20426, (202) 502–8671, tara.bruce@

ferc.gov 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 1. On May 

13, 2024, the Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission (Commission) issued Order 

No. 1977.1 Order No. 1977 amended the 

Commission’s regulations governing 

applications for permits to site electric 

transmission facilities: to be consistent 

with section 216 of the Federal Power 

Act (FPA),2 as amended by the 

Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act 

(IIJA); 3 to modernize certain regulatory 

requirements; and to incorporate other 

updates and clarifications to ensure the 

efficient and timely review of permit 

applications. On June 12, 2024, 

Earthjustice, Environmental Defense 

Fund, Natural Resources Defense 

Council, Sierra Club, Sustainable FERC 

Project, Union of Concerned Scientists, 

WE ACT for Environmental Justice, and 

the Yurok Tribe (together, Public 

Interest Organizations); Louisiana 

Public Service Commission (Louisiana 

Commission); New York State Public 

Service Commission (New York 

Commission); 4 and Pennsylvania Public 

Utility Commission (Pennsylvania 

Commission) filed timely requests for 

rehearing. 

2. Pursuant to Allegheny Defense 

Project v. FERC,5 the rehearing requests 

filed in this proceeding may be deemed 

denied by operation of law. However, as 

permitted by section 313(a) of the FPA,6

we are modifying the discussion in 

Order No. 1977 and setting aside the 

order, in part, as discussed below.7

I. Background 

3. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 8

added section 216 to the FPA, providing 

for Federal siting of electric 

transmission facilities under certain 

circumstances.9 Under section 216, 

Federal siting authority is divided 

between the U.S. Department of Energy 

(DOE) and the Commission. Section 

216(a) directs DOE to conduct a study 

and issue a report on electric 

transmission congestion and authorizes 

DOE to designate certain transmissionconstrained or congested geographic 

areas as national interest electric 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
84466 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 205 / Wednesday, October 23, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

10Reguls. for Filing Applications for Permits to 

Site Interstate Elec. Transmission Facilities, Order 

No. 689, 117 FERC ¶ 61,202 (2006) (Order No. 689), 

reh’g denied, 119 FERC ¶ 61,154 (2007) (Order No. 

689 Rehearing). 

11 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. See also 18 CFR pt. 380 

(Commission’s regulations implementing NEPA). 

12 16 U.S.C. 824p(b)(1)(C). 

13 Id. 824p(e)(1). 

14 Id. 

15Applications for Permits to Site Interstate Elec. 

Transmission Facilities, 88 FR 2770 (Jan. 17, 2023), 

181 FERC ¶ 61,205 (2022) (NOPR), errata notice, 

182 FERC ¶ 61,020 (2023). The Commission’s errata 

notice for the NOPR, issued on January 17, 2023, 

reflected certain stylistic revisions requested by the 

Federal Register as well as minor, non-substantive 

editorial revisions. 

16 16 U.S.C. 824p(b)(1)(c). 

17New York Commission Rehearing Request at 5. 

18 Id. at 6–7. 

19 Id. at 6, 7. 

20 Id. at 6. 

21 Id. at 7–8. 

22We note that FPA section 216(b)(1)(C)(i) 

provides that the Commission may issue a permit 

if a State has not made a determination on an 

application by the date that is one year after the 

date on which the application was filed, or the date 

on which the relevant National Corridor was 

designated, whichever is later. But the statute does 

not explicitly state that the one-year period is 

triggered by the filing of a complete application. 

Compare 16 U.S.C. 824p(b)(1)(C)(i) with id. 

824p(b)(h)(4)(B) (requiring all permit decisions and 

environmental reviews be completed within one 

year ‘‘once an application has been submitted with 

such data as the Secretary [of Energy] considers 

necessary’’) 

transmission corridors (National 

Corridors). Section 216(b) provides that 

the Commission may issue permits to 

construct or modify electric 

transmission facilities in a designated 

National Corridor under specified 

circumstances. 

4. On November 16, 2006, the 

Commission issued Order No. 689,10

which implemented new regulations for 

section 216 permit applications by 

adding part 50 to the Commission’s 

regulations and by modifying part 380 

of the Commission’s regulations 

implementing the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

(NEPA).11

5. On November 15, 2021, the IIJA 

amended FPA section 216. With respect 

to the Commission’s electric 

transmission siting authority, the IIJA 

amended section 216(b)(1)(C) to 

expressly provide that the Commission 

may issue a permit if a State has denied 

an application. As amended, section 

216(b)(1)(C) provides that the 

Commission’s siting authority is 

triggered when a State commission or 

other entity with authority to approve 

the siting of the transmission facilities: 

(i) has not made a determination on a 

siting application by one year after the 

later of the date on which the 

application was filed or the date on 

which the relevant National Corridor 

was designated; (ii) has conditioned its 

approval such that the proposed project 

will not significantly reduce 

transmission capacity constraints or 

congestion in interstate commerce or is 

not economically feasible; or (iii) has 

denied an application.12

6. Additionally, the IIJA amended 

section 216(e), which grants a permit 

holder the right to acquire the necessary 

right-of-way by eminent domain.13 As 

amended, section 216(e)(1) requires the 

Commission to determine, as a 

precondition to a permit holder 

exercising eminent domain authority, 

that the permit holder has made good 

faith efforts to engage with landowners 

and other stakeholders early in the 

applicable permitting process.14

7. On December 15, 2022, the 

Commission issued a Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking (NOPR) which 

proposed revisions to parts 50 and 380 

of the Commission’s regulations to, 

among other things, address the IIJA’s 

amendments to FPA section 216.15 After 

considering comments on the NOPR, on 

May 13, 2024, the Commission issued 

its final rule in Order No. 1977. 

8. On June 12, 2024, Public Interest 

Organizations, Louisiana Commission, 

New York Commission, and 

Pennsylvania Commission requested 

rehearing. The rehearing requests raise 

issues related to when the Commission’s 

jurisdiction is triggered; how State siting 

decisions and evidentiary records, 

including comments filed in State 

proceedings, will be considered in the 

Commission proceeding; the scope of 

the Applicant Code of Conduct and the 

Landowner Bill of Rights; and the 

analysis of climate impacts under 

NEPA. We address the issues raised on 

rehearing below. 

II. Discussion 

A. Commission Jurisdiction 

1. Order No. 1977 

9. FPA section 216(b)(1)(C)(i), as 

amended by the IIJA, provides that the 

Commission may issue a permit for the 

construction or modification of electric 

transmission facilities in a National 

Corridor if a State commission or other 

entity with authority to approve the 

siting of the transmission facilities has 

not made a determination on a siting 

application by one year after the later of 

the date on which the application was 

filed or the date on which the relevant 

National Corridor was designated.16 The 

final rule revised § 50.6(e) of the 

Commission’s regulations, which 

describes the information that each 

permit application must provide. As 

relevant here, § 50.6(e)(3)(i) requires that 

an applicant seeking to invoke the 

Commission’s jurisdiction under FPA 

section 216(b)(1)(C)(i) must provide, at 

the time it files an application with the 

Commission, evidence that a State has 

not made a determination on an 

application seeking approval pursuant 

to applicable law. 

2. Requests for Rehearing 

10. New York Commission contends 

that the Commission’s failure to explain 

how the one-year timeframe triggering 

the Commission’s jurisdiction will be 

calculated is arbitrary and capricious.17

Reiterating its comments on the NOPR, 

New York Commission recommends 

that the one-year period commence once 

an application is deemed complete 

according to applicable State 

requirements.18 It asserts that failure to 

impose such a requirement leaves the 

States with significant regulatory 

uncertainty and could lead to 

incomplete applications and rushed 

review.19 New York Commission states 

that the Commission’s jurisdiction 

should not be triggered until a year after 

a complete application has been filed 

with the State in order to disincentivize 

applicants from trying to ‘‘game’’ the 

system by filing deficient applications 

with the State just to start and exhaust 

the one-year timeframe.20

11. New York Commission asks the 

Commission to revise the final rule to 

specify that, where a State has not made 

a determination on an application, the 

Commission’s jurisdiction is dependent 

upon the filing of a complete 

application with the State.21 In the 

alternative, New York Commission asks 

that the Commission clarify for 

prospective applicants how the 

Commission will determine when the 

statute’s one-year period begins to run. 

3. Commission Determination 

12. We agree with New York 

Commission that the filing of a complete 

application with the State is an 

important consideration when 

Commission jurisdiction is based upon 

FPA section 216(b)(1)(C)(i). However, 

we do not find it necessary to revise the 

final rule to specify that the 

Commission’s consideration of an 

application pursuant to FPA section 

216(b)(1)(C)(i) must hinge upon the 

filing of a complete application with the 

State.22 As the Commission explained 

previously, our regulations require that 

the applicant file information 

concerning the status of the applicant’s 

filings before State agencies at various 

points during the Commission’s preVerDate Sep<11>2014 15:59 Oct 22, 2024 Jkt 265001 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\23OCR1.SGM 23OCR1

khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 205 / Wednesday, October 23, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 84467 

23Order No. 689 Rehearing, 119 FERC ¶ 61,154 at 

P 34. 

24Order No. 1977, 187 FERC ¶ 61,069 at PP 53– 

54. 

25See id. PP 53–54. 

26See id. P 40. 

27 Id. P 33. 

28 Id. P 216. 

29Louisiana Commission Rehearing Request at 5, 

7–8. 

30 Id. at 8. 

31 Id. 

32Public Interest Organizations Rehearing 

Request at 23–34. 

33 Id. at 23. 

34 Id. at 24. 

35 Id. 

36Order No. 689 Rehearing, 119 FERC ¶ 61,154 at 

P 4. 

37 16 U.S.C. 824p(b)(1)(C)(iii). 

38Order No. 1977, 187 FERC ¶ 61,069 at P 256. 

39 Id. 

filing process.23 Specifically, 

§ 50.5(b)(3) requires that the applicant, 

at the initial consultation meeting in 

pre-filing, discuss when it filed its 

application with the State and the status 

of that application. Section 50.5(c)(5) 

requires that the applicant’s pre-filing 

request describe any work completed or 

actions taken in conjunction with the 

State proceeding. Finally, under 

§ 50.6(e)(3)(i), the applicant must 

provide evidence, at the time an 

application is filed with the 

Commission, that the State has not 

made a determination on an application 

seeking approval under applicable law. 

13. The Commission will take into 

account all information provided by the 

applicant and stakeholders, including 

the relevant States, concerning the 

timing and status of the State 

proceeding in determining whether an 

application meets the requirements of 

FPA section 216(b)(1)(C)(i). When 

rendering a decision on a permit 

application, the Commission will 

consider, on a case-by-case basis, 

arguments regarding whether one year 

has passed from the date on which the 

application was filed with the State, 

including any assertion that such 

application was incomplete. We find 

this measured, case-specific approach is 

appropriate because such a 

determination will be informed by the 

specific facts presented in any given 

proceeding including, as applicable, 

State-specific laws and regulations. 

14. Moreover, we note that in Order 

No. 1977 the Commission declined to 

adopt the NOPR proposal to allow 

simultaneous processing.24 This 

proposal would have allowed the 

Commission’s pre-filing process to begin 

once an application had been filed with 

the State.25 In declining to adopt 

simultaneous processing, the 

Commission continues to recognize the 

States’ primacy in transmission siting 

and afford States one full year to process 

an application without any overlapping 

Commission processes.26 An applicant 

may request to begin the Commission’s 

pre-filing process only after that year 

has passed. 

B. State Siting Proceedings 

1. Order No. 1977 

15. Section 50.6(e) requires an 

application to provide evidence 

demonstrating that one of the 

jurisdictional bases set forth in FPA 

section 216(b)(1) applies to the 

proposed facilities. In addition, § 50.6(f) 

provides that an application must also 

demonstrate that the proposed facilities 

meet the statutory criteria in FPA 

sections 216(b)(2) through (6), 

including, among other things, that the 

proposal is consistent with the public 

interest. 

16. In Order No. 1977, the 

Commission adopted revisions to 

§ 50.6(e) for consistency with the IIJA’s 

amendments to FPA section 216(b)(1).27

The IIJA did not amend the criteria in 

section 216(b)(2) through (6). Therefore, 

Order No. 1977 did not revise § 50.6(f). 

In response to comments on the NOPR, 

the Commission declined to adopt a 

requirement that an applicant file with 

the Commission all comments 

submitted in a relevant State siting 

proceeding.28

2. Requests for Rehearing 

17. Louisiana Commission seeks 

rehearing of Order No. 1977, arguing 

that the final rule intrudes on State 

authority and fails to require 

consideration of a State’s siting decision 

and the associated evidentiary record.29

It asserts that a State’s decision on a 

siting application is deserving of 

deference and should be presumed 

correct, with the burden of proof on the 

applicant in the Federal proceeding to 

overcome that presumption.30 Louisiana 

Commission urges the Commission to 

defer, or at least consider and afford 

great weight, to a State’s findings.31

18. Public Interest Organizations 

assert that the Commission should 

incorporate all public comments in the 

State permitting docket into the 

administrative record for any 

subsequent Federal permitting 

proceeding.32 They contend that 

comments in State permitting processes 

are generally public and incorporating 

them in the Commission’s docket, even 

absent explicit permission, will not 

harm commenters’ interests.33 Rather, 

Public Interest Organizations note that 

this practice would benefit commenters 

by eliminating the ‘‘procedural trap’’ of 

requiring commenters in a State 

proceeding to resubmit any input to the 

Commission.34 They also posit that 

incorporating all comments filed at the 

State level would help ensure that the 

Commission has a full administrative 

record containing all information 

relevant to the State’s decision and that 

the Commission’s permit decision is 

legally defensible.35

3. Commission Determination 

19. The Commission has previously 

stated that in reviewing a request for a 

permit to site electric transmission 

facilities it will consider the record in 

its entirety, including any information 

filed regarding actions or findings made 

in the State proceeding.36 We reaffirm 

that commitment here. Nevertheless, we 

note that, although the Commission will 

consider the outcome and relevant 

findings of State siting decisions, the 

State’s decision is not determinative 

under the section 216 framework. If the 

Commission finds that the statutory 

criteria under section 216(b) have been 

met, it may issue a permit to construct 

or modify electric transmission facilities 

in a National Corridor notwithstanding 

a State’s denial of the same.37 The 

Commission’s consideration, as 

described in the final rule, of whether 

an application meets the statutory 

criteria for Commission jurisdiction 

does not improperly intrude upon State 

authority. 

20. When filings made in a 

Commission proceeding reference 

information in a State siting proceeding, 

to the extent that the Commission may 

find certain elements of the State siting 

proceeding useful in its decisionmaking process, it may request that the 

applicant file this information in the 

Commission’s record, as needed, on a 

case-by-case basis.38 We continue to 

find that incorporating the State record 

in its entirety into the Commission’s 

record would require the submission 

and review of information that may not 

be relevant to the Commission 

proceeding.39

21. We disagree that we are creating 

a ‘‘procedural trap’’ or imperiling the 

legal defensibility of our orders by 

declining to mandate that all comments 

in the State proceeding be filed in the 

Commission’s docket. The 

commencement of the pre-filing process 

and the filing of an application are both 

milestones that trigger requirements that 

an applicant notify stakeholders. These 

requirements are intended to encourage 

stakeholder participation and 

disseminate information about the 

proposed project and about how to 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
84468 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 205 / Wednesday, October 23, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

40 18 CFR 50.4(c)(1). 

41 Id. § 50.4(c)(2)(i)(H). 

42Order No. 1977, 187 FERC ¶ 61,069 at P 53. 

43 Id. P 54. 

44 16 U.S.C. 824p(e)(1). 

45Order No. 1977, 187 FERC ¶ 61,069 at PP 73– 

74. 

46 Id. P 82. 

47 Id. P 84. 

48Public Interest Organizations Rehearing 

Request at 2. 

49 Id. at 2–6. 

50 Id. at 5–6. 

51 Id. at 7–8. 

52See id. at 8–16. 

53 Id. at 10. 

54 Id. at 12–15. 

55 Id. at 15–16. 

56Order No. 1977, 187 FERC ¶ 61,069 at P 84. 

57 Id. 

participate in the Commission’s prefiling and application processes. In 

particular, applicants must make a good 

faith effort to notify, among other 

stakeholders, any known individuals or 

organizations that have expressed an 

interest in the State siting proceeding.40

In addition, the applicant’s Pre-filing 

Notification must explain that the 

Commission’s pre-filing and application 

processes are separate from any ongoing 

State siting proceeding and describe the 

status of any such State siting 

proceeding.41 We believe these 

provisions are sufficient to ensure that 

stakeholders are made aware of the 

Commission’s separate proceeding and 

how to participate in it, and that 

stakeholders can then decide whether to 

file with the Commission information 

that they have provided to the State. 

22. Moreover, as previously noted, in 

Order No. 1977 the Commission 

declined to adopt the NOPR proposal to 

allow simultaneous processing.42 This 

means that, in cases where the 

Commission’s jurisdiction rests on the 

pendency of a State’s siting 

determination (i.e., FPA section 

216(b)(1)(C)(i)), the pre-filing process 

will not begin until at least one year 

after applications have been filed with 

the relevant States.43 The one-year delay 

between initiation of the State and 

Federal processes increases the 

possibility that comments filed in the 

State siting proceeding may contain 

outdated information or may not fully 

reflect the filer’s views with respect to 

the subsequent Commission proceeding. 

For these reasons, we continue to find 

it unnecessary to impose a generic 

requirement that all comments filed in 

a State siting proceeding should be 

incorporated into any subsequent 

Commission proceeding. This does not 

preclude interested parties from 

submitting for the Commission’s 

consideration information from the 

State proceeding. 

C. Applicant Code of Conduct 

Applicability 

1. Order No. 1977 

23. Section 216(e)(1) of the FPA, as 

amended by the IIJA, requires the 

Commission to determine, as a 

prerequisite to a permit holder receiving 

eminent domain authority, that the 

permit holder has made good faith 

efforts to engage with landowners and 

other stakeholders early in the 

applicable permitting process.44 In 

Order No. 1977, the Commission 

adopted an Applicant Code of Conduct 

as one way that an applicant may 

demonstrate that it has made good faith 

efforts to engage with landowners.45 The 

Commission further explained that an 

applicant may choose an alternative 

method of demonstrating that it meets 

the good faith efforts standard, so long 

as it explains how its alternative method 

is equal to or better than compliance 

with the Applicant Code of Conduct.46

In response to comments about the 

statute’s requirement to make good faith 

efforts to engage with ‘‘other 

stakeholders’’ in addition to 

landowners, Order No. 1977 explained 

that applicants will bear the burden of 

demonstrating good faith efforts to 

engage with stakeholders other than 

landowners and that the Commission 

will evaluate these efforts on a case-bycase basis, based on the record in each 

individual proceeding.47

2. Rehearing Requests 

24. First, Public Interest Organizations 

contend that the Commission erred by 

not extending the Applicant Code of 

Conduct to all stakeholders or, in the 

alternative, by not adding to the 

regulations a requirement that 

applicants demonstrate that they have 

made good faith efforts to engage with 

other stakeholders.48 To comply with 

the FPA’s good faith efforts requirement, 

Public Interest Organizations argue that 

the Applicant Code of Conduct must be 

applied to all landowners and other 

stakeholders.49 They generally argue 

this would provide a clear path for 

applicants to satisfy the statutory 

requirement and that many of the 

provisions in the Applicant Code of 

Conduct are not landowner-specific and 

apply equally to all stakeholders (e.g., 

maintaining a discussion log; ensuring 

communications are factually correct 

and respectful; avoiding harassing, 

coercive, manipulative, or intimidating 

communications or high-pressure 

tactics).50 In the alternative, Public 

Interest Organizations argue that the 

Commission must revise its regulations 

to make clear that the applicant must 

engage in good faith with all 

stakeholders.51

25. Second, Public Interest 

Organizations assert that if the 

Applicant Code of Conduct is not 

extended to all stakeholders it should, at 

a minimum, apply to an applicant’s 

engagement with Indian Tribes.52 Citing 

that the Commission’s reasoning for 

limiting applicability of the Code of 

Conduct is to protect landowners whose 

property may be used or acquired, 

Public Interest Organizations note that 

‘‘these same early-in-the-process 

protections of honest dealings, consent 

to enter lands, and documentation of 

engagement are also necessary to protect 

Tribes whose remaining resources may 

be affected, particularly on reservations 

or lands otherwise held by a Tribe, as 

well as on Tribes’ ancestral lands.’’ 53

26. Third, Public Interest 

Organizations urge the Commission to 

clarify two statements in Order No. 

1977’s preamble regarding Tribal land 

ownership. They ask the Commission to 

recognize that Tribes: (1) meet the 

Commission’s definition of ‘‘affected 

landowners’’ regardless of whether their 

land is held in fee or in trust,54 and (2) 

retain their sovereign right to exclude 

nonmembers from reservation land, 

regardless of the applicability of the 

Applicant Code of Conduct.55

3. Commission Determination 

27. Order No. 1977 did not err by 

adopting an Applicant Code of Conduct 

that focuses on an applicant’s 

engagement with affected landowners. 

As the Commission previously 

explained, the Applicant Code of 

Conduct specifies recordkeeping and 

information-sharing requirements that 

are tailored to encourage productive and 

more sustained engagement with 

affected landowners regarding the use or 

acquisition of their property.56 The 

interests of other individual 

stakeholders may vary in timing and 

scope, and the amount and type of 

engagement with each stakeholder will 

need to be adapted to case-specific 

circumstances. We continue to find that 

the most appropriate way to determine 

whether an applicant has made good 

faith efforts to engage with other 

stakeholders is based on the record in 

each individual proceeding. As the 

Commission previously explained, the 

burden is on the applicant to show that 

the good faith efforts standard is met 

with respect to stakeholders.57 In 

evaluating whether this showing is met, 

we will consider, among other things, 

an applicant’s efforts to engage 

stakeholders as described in the Project 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 205 / Wednesday, October 23, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 84469 

58 Id. 

59 Id. P 78. 

60We note that, to the extent relevant, nothing 

precludes applicants from applying generic 

principles of good faith engagement from the 

Applicant Code of Conduct to interactions with 

other stakeholders. 

61 It appears that BIA regulations require an 

applicant for right-of way authorization to obtain 

consent from the Tribe or individual Indian 

landowner. See 25 CFR 169.107. 

62BIA’s regulations provide that ‘‘trust or 

restricted status’’ means: ‘‘(1) That the United States 

holds title to the tract or interest in trust for the 

benefit of one or more tribes and/or individual 

Indians; or (2) That one or more tribes and/or 

individual Indians holds title to the tract or interest, 

but can alienate or encumber it only with the 

approval of the United States because of limitations 

in the conveyance instrument under Federal law or 

limitations in Federal law.’’ 25 CFR 169.2. 

63As in the final rule, we note that the Tribal 

Engagement Plan does not affect and is separate 

from the Commission’s consultation practices under 

its Tribal Consultation Policy, as well as existing 

trust responsibilities and government-togovernment relationships with Tribes. Pol’y 

Statement on Consultation with Indian Tribes in 

Comm’n Procs., Order No. 635, 104 FERC ¶ 61,108 

(2003), revised, Order No. 863, 169 FERC ¶ 61,036 

(2019). The Tribal Consultation Policy is codified 

at 18 CFR 2.1c. The Commission also has separate 

responsibilities to consult with Tribes under section 

106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. 

64See Order No. 1977, 187 FERC ¶ 61,069 at P 94 

(‘‘Regarding Tribal concerns for obtaining consent 

to enter Tribal lands, we clarify that the Applicant 

Code of Conduct would apply to land owned in fee 

by a Tribe or member of a Tribe, so § 50.12(a)(9) 

would require approval from the Tribe or member 

of a Tribe under those circumstances.’’). 

65See, e.g., State of Montana v. U.S., 450 U.S. 

544, 557 (1981) (Tribe may prohibit nonmembers 

from hunting or fishing on land belonging to the 

Tribe or held by the United States in trust for the 

Tribe or it may place conditions upon their entry 

upon the same); Merrion v. Jicarilla Apache Tribe, 

455 U.S. 130, 144 (1982) (‘‘Nonmembers who 

lawfully enter tribal lands remain subject to the 

tribe’s power to exclude them. This power 

necessarily includes the lesser power to place 

conditions on entry, on continued presence, or on 

reservation conduct, such as a tax on business 

activities conducted on the reservation.’’). 

66Order No. 1977, 187 FERC ¶ 61,069 at P 202 & 

app. A (providing final version of the Landowner 

Bill of Rights). 

67 Id. P 196. 

68Pennsylvania Commission Rehearing Request 

at 2. 

69 Id. at 4. 

Participation Plan (including 

engagement with environmental justice 

communities and Tribes) and monthly 

status reports filed during pre-filing, as 

well as compliance with project 

notification requirements.58 The 

Commission will also consider other 

record information, such as comments 

filed by stakeholders. 

28. The Commission has explained 

that it will make this determination at 

the time it renders a decision on a 

permit application.59 We intend to 

evaluate an applicant’s engagement with 

affected landowners based on 

compliance with the Applicant Code of 

Conduct, or an alternative method, and 

an applicant’s engagement with other 

stakeholders based on the record in the 

proceeding. This approach will provide 

the Commission with sufficient 

information to determine whether an 

applicant has made good faith efforts, 

and the Commission did not err by 

declining to either adopt specific 

criteria or regulatory text reiterating the 

statutory obligation with respect to 

other stakeholders.60

29. As to Public Interest 

Organizations’ second argument, we 

similarly find that Order No. 1977 did 

not err by declining to extend the 

Applicant Code of Conduct to an 

applicant’s engagement with Tribes. As 

noted above, we think it appropriate 

that the Applicant Code of Conduct 

focuses on affected landowners whose 

property is most likely to be affected by 

a proposed project—e.g., property that 

will be crossed or used, abutting 

property that may be affected by minor 

adjustments to the route or project 

facilities, or property containing 

residences in close proximity to 

construction areas—and whose property 

may be subject to eminent domain. 

Section 216(e) authorizes a permit 

holder to use eminent domain to acquire 

the necessary right-of-way to construct, 

operate, and maintain transmission 

facilities. But section 216(e)(1) expressly 

excludes property owned by the United 

States from the type of property that can 

be acquired by eminent domain, and 

Tribal reservation or trust lands are 

owned by the United States and held in 

trust for the benefit of Tribes. Therefore, 

an applicant may not acquire rights-ofway across these lands using eminent 

domain under section 216(e). Rather, an 

applicant must apply to the U.S. 

Department of the Interior’s Bureau of 

Indian Affairs (BIA) for right-of-way 

authorization to cross Tribal land and 

comply with the relevant BIA 

regulations.61

30. Nevertheless, due to the unique 

and complex nature of Tribal land 

ownership, we are modifying the Tribal 

Engagement Plan to add requirements 

that will apply if rights-of-way on land 

owned in trust or restricted status must 

be obtained for a proposed project.62

Specifically, if a proposed project will 

require this type of right-of-way 

authorization, the Tribal Engagement 

Plan must describe how the applicant 

will engage with the relevant Indian 

Tribe or individual Indian landowners 

to obtain the necessary permissions, 

including consent to access Tribal land 

to prepare information required by the 

application (e.g., to survey), if 

applicable, and ensure that 

communications with Indian Tribes are 

honest, factually accurate, and 

respectful of Tribal sovereignty. These 

additional requirements, if applicable, 

will apply to all applicants regardless of 

whether they choose to comply with the 

Applicant Code of Conduct.63 We 

clarify that the definition of affected 

landowner does not specifically 

encompass Indian Tribes or individual 

Indian landowners located on Tribal 

reservations or trust lands owned by the 

United States and held in trust for the 

benefit of Tribes. 

31. Finally, in response to Public 

Interest Organizations’ request, we 

clarify a statement in Order No. 1977’s 

preamble regarding the need to obtain 

consent to enter Tribal lands. The 

statement was in reference to 

applicability of a specific provision of 

the Applicant Code of Conduct that 

requires an applicant to obtain an 

affected landowner’s permission prior to 

accessing their property to survey.64 We 

recognize and clarify that a Tribe’s right 

to exclude, or condition the presence of, 

nonmembers on Tribal lands is wellestablished.65 Nothing in Order No. 

1977, as revised herein, is intended to 

or can infringe upon Tribal sovereignty. 

D. Landowner Bill of Rights 

1. Order No. 1977 

32. In Order No. 1977, the 

Commission adopted a new project 

notification requirement to ensure that 

any Pre-filing Notification that an 

applicant mails to an affected 

landowner include a copy of a 

Commission document titled 

‘‘Landowner Bill of Rights in Federal 

Energy Regulatory Commission Electric 

Transmission Proceedings’’ (Landowner 

Bill of Rights).66 The Commission 

explained that requiring applicants to 

provide this document at the outset of 

the permitting process would help 

ensure that affected landowners are 

informed of their rights in dealings with 

the applicant, in Commission 

proceedings, and in eminent domain 

proceedings.67

2. Rehearing Requests 

33. Pennsylvania Commission argues 

that the Commission’s decision to 

require its Landowner Bill of Rights was 

arbitrary and capricious, an abuse of 

discretion, and not reasoned decisionmaking.68 Pennsylvania Commission 

asserts that the Commission failed to 

consider Pennsylvania Commission’s 

proffered alternative that the 

Commission endorse State-designed 

Landowner Bill of Rights for those 

States willing to engage with the 

Commission on the contents of the 

document.69 It also faults the 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
84470 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 205 / Wednesday, October 23, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

70 Id. at 5. 

71See Order No. 1977, 187 FERC ¶ 61,069 at PP 

197, 203. 

72See id. P 203. 

73 Id. PP 379–386. 

74 Id. P 371; 89 FR 46682, 46738 (to be codified 

at 18 CFR 380.16(m)(3)(i)–(iv)). 

75Public Interest Organizations Rehearing 

Request at 16–22. 

76Enacted on June 3, 2023, the Fiscal 

Responsibility Act includes a section titled 

‘‘Builder Act,’’ which amended NEPA in several 

ways. See FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY ACT OF 2023, 

Public Law 118–5, 137 Stat 10, § 321 (providing the 

‘‘Builder Act’’). 

77On May 1, 2024, CEQ published its Phase 2 

final rule revising its regulations implementing 

NEPA, including to implement the Builder Act 

amendments. CEQ, National Environmental Policy 

Act Implementing Regulations Revisions Phase 2, 

89 FR 35442 (May 1, 2024). CEQ’s Phase 2 final rule 

became effective on July 1, 2024, and agencies have 

12 months from the effective date to develop or 

revise proposed procedures to implement CEQ’s 

revised regulations. 

78Public Interest Organizations Rehearing 

Request at 17. On May 1, 2024, DOE issued a final 

rule revising its regulations under section 216(h) of 

the FPA to establish a Coordinated Interagency 

Transmission Authorizations and Permits (CITAP) 

Program for coordinating the Federal authorization 

and environmental review process for electric 

transmission facilities. See DOE, Coordination of 

Federal Authorizations for Electric Transmission 

Facilities, 89 FR 35312 (May 1, 2024) (DOE CITAP 

Final Rule). We note that, pursuant to Delegation 

Order No. S1–DEL–FERC–2006, DOE delegated to 

the Commission the responsibility for coordinating 

the Federal authorization and environmental review 

process for electric transmission facilities seeking a 

permit under FPA section 216(b). 

79Public Interest Organizations Rehearing 

Request at 21 (quoting CITAP Final Rule, 89 FR at 

35378). 80 44 U.S.C. 3501–3521. 

Commission-developed Landowner Bill 

of Rights because it does not mention 

State siting jurisdiction and gives the 

impression that Federal permit 

applications are the only proceedings 

that matter.70

3. Commission Determination 

34. In Order No. 1977, the 

Commission considered and ultimately 

disagreed with Pennsylvania 

Commission’s recommendation that 

modifications to the Landowner Bill of 

Rights, including State-designed 

versions of the document, should be 

permissible.71 The Commission 

explained that the purpose of requiring 

applicants to provide the Landowner 

Bill of Rights with the Pre-filing 

Notification is to ensure that affected 

landowners are informed in a consistent 

manner of their rights. Allowing 

applicants to modify or develop their 

own version of the Landowner Bill of 

Rights, even with State input, could 

result in uncertainty and confusion.72

We continue to find that to be the case. 

Endorsing various, potentially 

conflicting, documents that are specific 

to each State would be a confusing and 

inefficient approach. Requiring 

applicants to provide affected 

landowners with a copy of the 

Landowner Bill of Rights—a generic 

document developed by the 

Commission and intended to provide 

information about the Federal 

permitting process in a broad and 

consistent manner—does not preclude 

an applicant from providing additional 

information to landowners about 

additional rights under State law or 

ongoing State siting proceedings, if 

applicable. 

E. Climate Impacts Analysis Under 

NEPA 

1. Order No. 1977 

35. In Order No. 1977, the 

Commission adopted a new 

environmental resource report that 

requires an applicant to provide 

information on proposed transmission 

facilities’ impacts on air quality and 

environmental noise.73 As relevant here, 

the Air quality and environmental noise 

resource report requires an applicant to 

estimate emissions from the proposed 

project and the corresponding impacts 

on air quality and the environment. 

Specifically, the report must disclose 

the reasonably foreseeable emissions 

from construction, operation, and 

maintenance of the project facilities; 

compare those emissions with 

applicable General Conformity 

thresholds for each designated 

nonattainment or maintenance area; 

identify the corresponding impacts on 

communities and the environment in 

the project area; and describe any 

proposed mitigation measures to control 

emissions.74

2. Rehearing Requests 

36. Public Interest Organizations 

assert that the Commission must require 

a more rigorous analysis of electric 

transmission projects’ climate impacts 

under NEPA.75 They generally argue 

that the final rule’s failure to explicitly 

require applicants to analyze climate 

impacts is out of step with recent legal 

developments, including the Fiscal 

Responsibility Act of 2023,76 the 

Council on Environmental Quality’s 

(CEQ) Phase 2 final rule,77 and DOE’s 

section 216(h) rule.78 Public Interest 

Organizations urge the Commission to 

adopt relevant language from DOE’s 

regulations and require applicants to 

‘‘[e]stimate the reasonably foreseeable 

change in greenhouse gas emissions 

from the existing, proposed, and 

reasonably foreseeable generation 

resources . . . that may connect to the 

proposed project or interconnect as a 

result of the proposed project.’’ 79

3. Commission Determination 

37. We disagree with Public Interest 

Organizations’ contention that the final 

rule does not ensure a rigorous analysis 

of electric transmission projects’ climate 

impacts. The Commission’s regulations 

describe the generally applicable 

information that permit applications 

must include. These are minimum filing 

requirements with which each 

application must comply. In addition, 

each project will raise unique issues 

that will need to be considered on a 

case-by-case basis. In Order No. 1977, 

the Commission adopted regulations 

requiring applicants to estimate a 

proposed project’s emissions and the 

corresponding impacts on air quality 

and the environment. Although the 

regulations are broad, greenhouse gases 

are considered air pollutants by the 

Environmental Protection Agency and 

estimates of such emissions should be 

included in the Air quality and 

environmental noise resource report if 

they are reasonably foreseeable, along 

with associated climate impacts. 

38. Public Interest Organizations’ 

concern that an applicant’s analysis will 

be incongruous with new statutory and 

regulatory authority directing 

consideration of climate impacts under 

NEPA is misplaced. It is the 

Commission’s obligation to ensure that 

its environmental analysis complies 

with the most current requirements 

under NEPA. And it is the 

Commission’s responsibility to obtain 

any additional information needed to 

ensure such compliance. The 

Commission’s required resource reports 

are intended to support the 

Commission’s environmental review 

and NEPA obligations but cannot be 

exhaustive of all environmental matters 

that may arise in a proceeding that the 

Commission may need to address. The 

Commission will determine on a caseby-case basis whether additional 

information is needed to analyze the 

proposed project’s reasonably 

foreseeable effects. This approach is 

reasonable where, as is the case here, 

determinations regarding the scope and 

reasonable foreseeability of a proposed 

project’s climate change impacts will be 

complex, variable, and will turn on the 

unique facts of each case. 

III. Information Collection Statement 

39. The Paperwork Reduction Act 80

requires each Federal agency to seek 

and obtain the Office of Management 

and Budget’s (OMB) approval before 

undertaking a collection of information 

directed to 10 or more persons or 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 205 / Wednesday, October 23, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 84471 

81See 5 CFR 1320.12. 

82FERC–729 includes the reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements for ‘‘Electric 

Transmission Facilities.’’ 

83We consider the filing of an application, 

including the mandatory pre-filing information, to 

be a ‘‘response.’’ 

84The estimates for cost per response are derived 

using the following formula: Average Burden Hours 

per Response * $100 per Hour = Average Cost per 

Response. The hourly cost figure is the FY2024 

FERC average annual salary plus benefits 

($207,786/year or $100/hour). Commission staff 

estimates that industry costs for salary plus benefits 

are similar to Commission costs. 

contained in a rule of general 

applicability. OMB regulations require 

approval of certain information 

collection requirements contained in 

final rules published in the Federal 

Register.81 Upon approval of a 

collection of information, OMB will 

assign an OMB control number and an 

expiration date. Respondents subject to 

the filing requirements of a rule will not 

be penalized for failing to respond to the 

collection of information unless the 

collection of information displays a 

valid OMB control number. 

40. Public Reporting Burden: On 

rehearing of Order No. 1977, the 

Commission is further revising its 

regulations governing applications for 

permits to site transmission facilities 

under section 216 of the FPA. This 

order on rehearing modifies certain 

reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements included in FERC–729 

(OMB Control No. 1902–0238).82

41. Previously, the Commission 

submitted to OMB the information 

collection requirements arising from 

Order No. 1977 and OMB approved 

those requirements. In this order on 

rehearing, the Commission makes one 

substantive change to those 

requirements. This order on rehearing 

revises § 50.4(a)(5) to require applicants, 

under certain circumstances, to provide 

additional information describing its 

efforts to engage with Tribes. 

Specifically, if a right-of-way on Tribal 

lands must be obtained for a proposed 

project, the Tribal Engagement Plan 

must describe how the applicant will 

engage with the relevant Indian Tribe or 

individual Indian landowners to obtain 

the necessary permissions, including 

consent to access Tribal land to prepare 

information required by the application 

(e.g., to survey), if applicable. In 

addition, the plan must describe how 

the applicant will ensure 

communications with Indian Tribes are 

honest, factually accurate, and 

respectful of Tribal sovereignty. 

Accordingly, there is a slight increase in 

the reporting requirements and burden 

for FERC–729. 

42. The estimated burden and cost for 

the requirements contained in this order 

on rehearing follow. 

ANNUAL CHANGES RESULTING FROM ORDER ON REHEARING IN DOCKET NO. RM22–7–001 

Number of 

respondents 

Number of 

responses 83 per 

respondent 

Total number 

of responses 

Avg. burden 

hrs. & cost 

per response 84

Total annual 

burden hours & 

total annual cost 

(1) (2) (1) × (2) = (3) (4) (3) × (4) = 5 

Tribal Engagement Plan ........................................................ 1 1 1 27 hrs.; $2,700 ..... 27 hrs.; $2,700. 

The final rule estimated the burden 

and cost for the Tribal Engagement Plan 

to be 24 hours and $2,400. In this order 

on rehearing, we are requiring 

applicants to provide additional 

information in the Tribal Engagement 

Plan if the proposed transmission 

facilities will cross Tribal lands. We 

estimate that this will result in an 

increase of three burden hours. 

Therefore, we estimate that the total 

burden and cost for the Tribal 

Engagement Plan, as revised herein, to 

be 27 hours and $2,700. No other 

information collection requirements 

contained in Order No. 1977 are affected 

by this order on rehearing. 

43. Title: FERC–729—Electric 

Transmission Facilities. 

44. Action: Revision of information 

collection FERC–729 in accordance with 

Docket No. RM22–7–001. 

45. OMB Control No.: 1902–0238 

(FERC–729). 

46. Respondents: Entities proposing to 

construct electric transmission facilities 

pursuant to the Commission’s authority 

under section 216 of the FPA. 

47. Frequency of Information 

Collection: Ongoing. 

48. Necessity of Information: The new 

information collection requirements in 

this order on rehearing are necessary for 

the Commission to carry out its 

responsibilities under the FPA, as 

amended by the IIJA, and NEPA. The 

required information would enable the 

Commission to review the features of 

the proposed project and determine 

whether the proposed project meets the 

statutory criteria enumerated in section 

216(b) of the FPA as well as evaluate 

whether an applicant has made good 

faith efforts to engage with affected 

landowners and other stakeholders. 

49. Internal Review: The Commission 

has reviewed the revisions and has 

determined that they are necessary. 

These requirements conform to the 

Commission’s need for efficient 

information collection, communication, 

and management within the energy 

industry. The Commission has assured 

itself, by means of internal review, that 

there is specific, objective support for 

the burden estimates associated with the 

information collection requirements. 

50. Interested persons may obtain 

information on the reporting 

requirements by contacting the Federal 

Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 

First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426 

[Attention: Kayla Williams, Office of the 

Executive Director], by email to 

DataClearance@ferc.gov or by phone 

(202) 502–6468. 

51. Comments concerning the 

collection of information and the 

associated burden estimates may also be 

sent to: Office of Information and 

Regulatory Affairs, Office of 

Management and Budget, 725 17th 

Street NW, Washington, DC 20503 

[Attention: Desk Officer for the Federal 

Energy Regulatory Commission]. Due to 

security concerns, comments should be 

sent electronically to the following 

email address: oira_submission@

omb.eop.gov. Comments submitted to 

OMB should refer to FERC–729 (OMB 

Control No. 1902–0238). Copies of the 

comments can be sent to the 

Commission (identified by Docket No. 

RM22–7–001 and the specific FERC 

collection number (FERC–729) 

electronically through https://

www.ferc.gov. For those unable to file 

electronically, comment copies may be 

filed by USPS mail or by hand 

(including courier) delivery: Mail via 

U.S. Postal Service Only: Addressed to: 

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 

Secretary of the Commission, 888 First 

Street NE, Washington, DC 20426. Or 

hand (including courier) delivery: 

Deliver to: Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission, 12225 Wilkins Avenue, 

Rockville, MD 20852. 

IV. Environmental Analysis 

52. The Commission is required to 

prepare an environmental assessment or 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES

I 
84472 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 205 / Wednesday, October 23, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

85Reguls. Implementing the Nat’l Envtl. Policy 

Act of 1969, Order No. 486, FERC Stats. & Regs. 

¶ 30,783 (1987) (cross-referenced at 41 FERC 

¶ 61,284). 

86 18 CFR 380.4(a)(2)(ii). 

87 5 U.S.C. 601–612. 

88 Id. 603(c). 

89 Id. 605(b). 

90 13 CFR 121.101. 

91 Id. 121.201. 

92The North American Industry Classification 

System (NAICS) is an industry classification system 

that Federal statistical agencies use to categorize 

businesses for the purpose of collecting, analyzing, 

and publishing statistical data related to the U.S. 

economy. United States Census Bureau, North 

American Industry Classification System, https://

www.census.gov/eos/www/naics/. 

93 13 CFR 121.201 (Sector 22—Utilities). 

94Order No. 1977, 187 FERC ¶ 61,069 at PP 427– 

430. 

95See id. 

an environmental impact statement for 

any action that may have a significant 

effect on the human environment.85 The 

Commission has categorically excluded 

certain actions from this requirement as 

not having a significant effect on the 

human environment, including the 

promulgation of rules that are clarifying, 

corrective, or procedural, or that do not 

substantially change the effect of 

legislation or the regulations being 

amended.86 Because the final rule 

promulgated by Order No. 1977, and 

revised herein, falls within this 

categorical exclusion, preparation of an 

environmental assessment or an 

environmental impact statement is not 

required. 

V. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

53. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 

1980 (RFA) 87 generally requires a 

description and analysis of final rules 

that will have significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. The RFA mandates 

consideration of regulatory alternatives 

that accomplish the stated objectives of 

applicable statutes and minimize any 

significant economic impact on small 

entities.88 In lieu of preparing a 

regulatory flexibility analysis, an agency 

may certify that a final rule will not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities.89

54. The Small Business 

Administration’s (SBA) Office of Size 

Standards develops the numerical 

definition of a small business.90 The 

SBA size standard for electric utilities is 

based on the number of employees, 

including affiliates.91 Under SBA’s size 

standards, a transmission owner 

covered under the category of Electric 

Bulk Power Transmission and Control 

(NAICS code 221121) 92 is small if, 

including its affiliates, it employs 500 or 

fewer people.93

55. In Order No. 1977, the 

Commission, pursuant to RFA section 

605(b), certified that the final rule 

would not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities.94 This order on rehearing does 

not disturb that conclusion. For the 

same reasons cited in Order No. 1977,95

we continue to find that the final rule, 

as revised herein, would not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

VI. Document Availability 

56. In addition to publishing the full 

text of this document in the Federal 

Register, the Commission provides all 

interested persons an opportunity to 

view and/or print the contents of this 

document via the internet through the 

Commission’s Home Page (http://

www.ferc.gov). 

57. From the Commission’s Home 

Page on the internet, this information is 

available on eLibrary. The full text of 

this document is available on eLibrary 

in PDF and Microsoft Word format for 

viewing, printing, and/or downloading. 

To access this document in eLibrary, 

type the docket number excluding the 

last three digits of this document in the 

docket number field. 

58. User assistance is available for 

eLibrary and the Commission’s website 

during normal business hours from 

FERC Online Support at (202) 502–6652 

(toll free at 1–866–208–3676) or email at 

ferconlinesupport@ferc.gov, or the 

Public Reference Room at (202) 502– 

8371, TTY (202) 502–8659. Email the 

Public Reference Room at 

public.referenceroom@ferc.gov. 

VII. Effective Date 

59. These regulations are effective 

November 22, 2024. 

List of Subjects in 18 CFR Part 50 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Electric power, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements. 

By the Commission. 

Issued: October 17, 2024. 

Debbie-Anne A. Reese, 

Secretary. 

In consideration of the foregoing, the 

Commission amends part 50, chapter I, 

title 18, Code of Federal Regulations, as 

follows: 

PART 50—APPLICATIONS FOR 

PERMITS TO SITE INTERSTATE 

ELECTRIC TRANSMISSION FACILITIES 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 50 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 824p; DOE 

Delegation Order No. S1–DEL–FERC–2006. 

■ 2. Amend § 50.4 by revising paragraph 

(a)(5) to read as follows: 

§ 50.4 Stakeholder participation. 

* * * * * 

(a) * * * 

(5) Includes a Tribal Engagement Plan 

that addresses all targeted outreach to 

identified Indian Tribes. This plan must 

summarize comments received from 

potentially affected Indian Tribes during 

any previous outreach activities and 

describe planned targeted outreach 

activities with such Tribes during the 

pre-filing process and after the filing of 

an application. This plan must also 

describe how the applicant will engage 

Indian Tribes about any potential 

mitigation measures. If rights-of-way 

over or across land owned in trust or 

restricted status must be obtained, this 

plan must describe how the applicant 

will engage with the relevant Indian 

Tribe or individual Indian landowners 

to obtain the necessary permissions, 

including consent to access Tribal land 

to prepare information required by the 

application (e.g., to survey), if 

applicable, and ensure communications 

with Indian Tribes are honest, factually 

accurate, and respectful of Tribal 

sovereignty. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2024–24526 Filed 10–22–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6717–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY 

Office of Foreign Assets Control 

31 CFR Part 588 

Publication of Western Balkans 

Stabilization Regulations Web General 

Licenses 3A, 4, and 5 

AGENCY: Office of Foreign Assets 

Control, Treasury. 

ACTION: Publication of Web General 

Licenses. 

SUMMARY: The Department of the 

Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets 

Control (OFAC) is publishing three 

general licenses (GLs) issued pursuant 

to the Western Balkans Stabilization 

Regulations: GLs 3A, 4, and 5, each of 

which was previously made available 

on OFAC’s website. 

DATES: GLs 3A, 4, and 5 were issued on 

June 18, 2024. See SUPPLEMENTARY

INFORMATION for additional relevant 

dates. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

OFAC: Assistant Director for Licensing, 

202–622–2480; Assistant Director for 

Regulatory Affairs, 202–622–4855; or 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES