53436 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 168 / Thursday, August 29, 2013 / Notices 

CHART 5—FIXED-RATE FEDERAL SUBSIDIZED AND UNSUBSIDIZED STAFFORD AND PLUS LOANS—Continued 

Loan type Student grade level First disbursed 

on or after 

First disbursed 

before 

Rate 

(percent) 

Unsubsidized ................................................... All Students .................................................... 7/1/2006 7/1/2010 6.80 

PLUS ............................................................... Parents and Graduate/Professional Students 7/1/2006 7/1/2010 8.50 

Note: No new loans have been made under 

the FFEL Program since June 30, 2010. 

Electronic Access to This Document: 

The official version of this document is 

the document published in the Federal 

Register. Free Internet access to the 

official edition of the Federal Register 

and the Code of Federal Regulations is 

available via the Federal Digital System 

at: www.gpo.gov/fdsys. At this site you 

can view this document, as well as all 

other documents of this Department 

published in the Federal Register, in 

text or Adobe Portable Document 

Format (PDF). To use PDF you must 

have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is 

available free at the site. 

You may also access documents of the 

Department published in the Federal 

Register by using the article search 

feature at: www.federalregister.gov. 

Specifically, through the advanced 

search feature at this site, you can limit 

your search to documents published by 

the Department. 

Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1071 et seq. 

Dated: August 26, 2013. 

James F. Manning, 

Chief of Staff of Federal Student Aid, 

delegated the authority to perform the 

functions and duties of the Chief Operating 

Officer of Federal Student Aid. 

[FR Doc. 2013–21142 Filed 8–28–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4000–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Agency Information Collection 

Extension 

AGENCY: U.S. Department of Energy. 

ACTION: Submission for Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) review; 

comment request. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Energy 

(DOE) has submitted an information 

collection request to the OMB for 

extension under the provisions of the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The 

information collection requests a threeyear extension of its Financial 

Assistance Information Collection, OMB 

Control Number 1910–0400. This 

information collection request covers 

information necessary to administer and 

manage DOE’s financial assistance 

programs. 

DATES: Comments regarding this 

collection must be received on or before 

September 30, 2013. If you anticipate 

difficulty in submitting comments 

within that period or if you want access 

to the collection of information, without 

charge, contact the person listed below 

as soon as possible. 

ADDRESSES: Written comments should 

be sent to the following: DOE Desk 

Officer, Office of Information and 

Regulatory Affairs, Office of 

Management and Budget, New 

Executive Office Building, Room 10102, 

735 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 

20503. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Richard Bonnell by email at 

richard.bonnell@hq.doe.gov. Please put 

‘‘2013 DOE Agency Information 

Collection Extension’’ in the subject line 

when sending an email. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This 

information collection request contains: 

(1) OMB No.: 1910–0400 (Renewal); (2) 

Information Collection Request Title: 

DOE Financial Assistance Information 

Clearance; (3) Type of Request: Renewal; 

(4) Purpose: This package contains 

information collections necessary to 

annually plan, solicit, negotiate, award, 

administer, and closeout grants and 

cooperative agreements under the 

Department’s financial assistance 

programs; (5) Estimated Number of 

Respondents 41,340; (6) Estimated Total 

Burden Hours: 573,732; and (7) Number 

of Collections: The information 

collection request contains 16 

information and/or recordkeeping 

requirements; (8) Annual Estimated 

Reporting and Recordkeeping Cost 

Burden: $0. 

Statutory Authority: Federal Grant and 

Cooperative Agreement Act, 31 U.S.C. 6301– 

6308. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–13). 

Issued in Washington, DC, on August 21, 

2013. 

David Boyd, 

Deputy Director, Office of Acquisition and 

Project Management. 

[FR Doc. 2013–21117 Filed 8–28–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Improving Performance of Federal 

Permitting and Review of 

Infrastructure Projects 

AGENCY: Office of Electricity Delivery 

and Energy Reliability, Department of 

Energy. 

ACTION: Request for Information (RFI). 

SUMMARY: The Department of Energy’s 

Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy 

Reliability, in collaboration with the 

Member Agencies of the Steering 

Committee (Member Agencies) created 

under Executive Order 13604 of March 

22, 2012, and pursuant to the June 7, 

2013 Transmission Presidential 

Memorandum, is seeking information 

on a draft Integrated, Interagency PreApplication (IIP) Process for significant 

onshore electric transmission projects 

requiring Federal Authorization(s). 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before September 30, 2013. 

ADDRESSES: Comments should be 

addressed to: Julie A. Smith or 

Christopher Lawrence, Office of 

Electricity Delivery and Energy 

Reliability, Mail Code: OE–20, U.S. 

Department of Energy, 1000 

Independence Avenue SW., 

Washington, DC 20585. Because of 

delays in handling conventional mail, it 

is recommended that documents be 

transmitted by electronic mail to 

juliea.smith@hq.doe.gov or 

christopher.lawrence@hq.doe.gov, or by 

facsimile to 202–586–7031. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Julie 

A. Smith (Program Office) at 202–586– 

7668, or by email to juliea.smith@

hq.doe.gov; or Christopher Lawrence 

(Program Office) at 202–586–7680, or by 

email to christopher.lawrence@

hq.doe.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Modernizing our Nation’s electric 

transmission grid requires 

improvements in how transmission 

lines are sited, permitted, and reviewed. 

As part of its efforts to improve the 

performance of Federal siting, 

permitting, and review processes for 

infrastructure development, the 

Administration created a Rapid 

Response Team for Transmission 

(RRTT), a collaborative effort involving 

nine executive departments and 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 168 / Thursday, August 29, 2013 / Notices 53437 

agencies. The RRTT is working to 

improve the efficiency, effectiveness, 

and predictability of transmission siting, 

permitting, and review processes, in 

part through increasing interagency 

coordination and transparency. An 

integrated pre-application process is one 

potential method to achieve these goals 

and to increase the predictability of the 

siting, permitting, and review processes. 

This Request for Information seeks 

public input on a draft IIP Process 

intended to improve interagency and 

intergovernmental coordination focused 

on ensuring that Project Proponents 

develop and submit accurate and 

complete information early in the 

project planning process to facilitate 

efficient and timely environmental 

reviews and agency decisions. 

Executive Order 13604 of March 22, 

2012 (Improving Performance of 

Federal Permitting and Review of 

Infrastructure Projects) 

On March 22, 2012, the President 

issued an Executive Order that stated: 

[I]t is critical that executive departments 

and agencies (agencies) take all steps within 

their authority, consistent with available 

resources, to execute Federal permitting and 

review processes with maximum efficiency 

and effectiveness, ensuring the health, safety, 

and security of communities and the 

environment while supporting vital 

economic growth . . . . They must encourage 

early collaboration among agencies, project 

sponsors, and affected stakeholders in order 

to incorporate and address their interests and 

minimize delays . . . . They must rely upon 

early and active consultation with State, 

local, and tribal governments to avoid 

conflicts or duplication of effort, resolve 

concerns, and allow for concurrent rather 

than sequential reviews . . . Also, these 

elements must be integrated into project 

planning processes so that projects are 

designed appropriately to avoid, to the extent 

practicable, adverse impacts on public 

health, security, historic properties and 

cultural resources, and the environment, and 

to minimize or mitigate impacts that may 

occur. 

Presidential Memorandum— 

Modernizing Federal Infrastructure 

Review and Permitting Regulations, 

Policies, and Procedures 

On May 17, 2013, the President issued 

a memorandum Modernizing Federal 

Infrastructure Review and Permitting 

Regulations, Policies, and Procedures to 

the heads of Executive Departments and 

Agencies. That Memorandum stated: 

Through the implementation of Executive 

Order 13604 of March 22, 2012 (Improving 

Performance of Federal Permitting and 

Review of Infrastructure Projects), executive 

departments and agencies (agencies) have 

achieved better outcomes for communities 

and the environment and realized substantial 

time savings in review and permitting by 

prioritizing the deployment of resources to 

specific sectors and projects, and by 

implementing best-management practices. 

These best-management practices include: 

integrating project reviews among agencies 

with permitting responsibilities; ensuring 

early coordination with other Federal 

agencies, as well as with State, local, and 

tribal governments; strategically engaging 

with, and conducting outreach to, 

stakeholders; employing project-planning 

processes and individual project designs that 

consider local and regional ecological 

planning goals; utilizing landscape- and 

watershed-level mitigation practices; 

promoting the sharing of scientific and 

environmental data in open-data formats to 

minimize redundancy, facilitate informed 

project planning, and identify data gaps early 

in the review and permitting process; 

promoting performance-based permitting and 

regulatory approaches; expanding the use of 

general permits where appropriate; 

improving transparency and accountability 

through the electronic tracking of review and 

permitting schedules; and applying best 

environmental and cultural practices as set 

forth in existing statutes and policies. 

Presidential Memorandum— 

Transforming our Nation’s Electric 

Grid Through Improved Siting, 

Permitting, and Review 

On June 7, 2013, the President issued 

a memorandum on Transforming our 

Nation’s Electric Grid Through 

Improved Siting, Permitting, and 

Review (Transmission Presidential 

Memorandum) to the heads of Executive 

Departments and Agencies. That 

Memorandum stated: 

In furtherance of Executive Order 13604 of 

March 22, 2012 (Improving Performance of 

Federal Permitting and Review of 

Infrastructure Projects), this memorandum 

builds upon the work of the RRTT to improve 

the Federal siting, permitting, and review 

processes for transmission projects. Because 

a single project may cross multiple 

governmental jurisdictions over hundreds of 

miles, robust collaboration among Federal, 

State, local, and tribal governments must be 

a critical component of this effort. 

Section 4(a) of the Memorandum 

directs that: 

Member Agencies shall develop an 

integrated, interagency pre-application 

process for significant onshore electric 

transmission projects requiring Federal 

approval. The process shall be designed to: 

promote predictability in the Federal siting, 

permitting, and review processes; encourage 

early engagement, coordination, and 

collaboration of Federal, State, local, and 

tribal governments, non-governmental 

organizations, and the public; increase the 

use of integrated project planning early in the 

siting, permitting, and review processes; 

facilitate early identification of issues that 

could diminish the likelihood that projects 

will ultimately be permitted; promote early 

planning for integrated and strategic 

mitigation plans; expedite siting, permitting, 

and review processes through a mutual 

understanding of the needs of all affected 

Federal agencies and State, local, and tribal 

governments; and improve environmental 

and cultural outcomes. By September 30, 

2013, Member Agencies shall provide to the 

Chief Performance Officer (CPO) and the 

Chair of the Council on Environmental 

Quality a plan, including timelines and 

milestones, for implementing this process. 

Section 4(b) further states that in 

implementing Executive Order 13604, 

Member Agencies shall: 

(i) improve siting, permitting, and review 

processes for all electric transmission 

projects, both onshore and offshore, requiring 

Federal approval. Such improvements shall 

include: increasing efficiency and 

interagency coordination; increasing 

accountability; ensuring an efficient 

decision-making process within each agency; 

to the extent possible, unifying and 

harmonizing processes among agencies; 

improving consistency and transparency 

within each agency and among all agencies; 

improving environmental and cultural 

outcomes; providing mechanisms for early 

and frequent public and local community 

outreach; and enabling innovative 

mechanisms for mitigation and mitigation at 

the landscape or watershed scale; and 

(ii) facilitate coordination, integration, and 

harmonization of the siting, permitting, and 

review processes of Federal, State, local, and 

tribal governments for transmission projects 

to reduce the overall regulatory burden while 

improving environmental and cultural 

outcomes. 

Request for Information (RFI) 

The Department of Energy (DOE) 

seeks public input on the following 

draft IIP Process prepared in 

collaboration with the Member Agencies 

and pursuant to section 4(a) of the June 

7, 2013 Transmission Presidential 

Memorandum and in light of Executive 

Order 13604. In responding to this RFI, 

please specify your affiliation or 

organization. 

(1) Please provide feedback on the 

following draft IIP Process, including 

any suggested changes or concerns with 

the proposed process. We are 

particularly interested in whether the 

proposed IIP Process efficiently meets 

the goals below and stated in the 

Transmission Presidential 

Memorandum. Please also comment on 

whether all Federal agencies with 

applicable permitting authority to the 

proposed project should be mandatorily 

required to participate in the IIP 

Process. 

(2) Please provide any comments on 

whether analogous integrated, 

interagency pre-application processes 

should be developed for other 

permitting of other major infrastructure 

sector projects covered in section 2(a) of 

EO 13604. What should be the highest 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
53438 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 168 / Thursday, August 29, 2013 / Notices 

1A Qualifying Project is (1) (a) a non-marine high 

voltage transmission line (230 kV or above) and its 

attendant facilities or (b) a regionally or nationally 

significant non-marine transmission line and its 

attendant facilities, in which (2) all or part of the 

proposed transmission line is used for the 

transmission of electric energy in interstate 

commerce for sale at wholesale, and (3) all or part 

of the proposed transmission line (a) crosses 

jurisdictions administered by more than one 

Federal Entity or (b) crosses jurisdictions 

administered by a Federal Entity and is considered 

for Federal financial assistance from a Federal 

Entity. Qualifying Projects do not include those for 

which an application has been submitted to FERC 

for issuance of a permit for construction or 

modification of a transmission facility, or where a 

pre-filing procedure has been initiated, under 

section 216(b) of the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 

824p(b)) (transmission lines within a DOEdesignated National Interest Electric Transmission 

Corridor). 

2A Federal Entity whose permitting authority for 

construction or modification of electric 

transmission facilities is limited to facilities for 

which an application is filed under section 216(b) 

of the Federal Power Act may participate in any 

interim meeting at its sole discretion. 

priority sectors that would benefit from 

this type of process? What key changes 

would need to be made to adapt the 

proposed IIP Process to other sectors? 

IIP Process 

Purpose: The purpose of the proposed 

IIP Process is to establish a coordinated 

series of meetings and other actions that 

would take place prior to a Federal 

agency accepting a high-voltage 

transmission line application or taking 

other action that would trigger Federal 

review, permitting, and consultation or 

other requirements, such as those 

required under the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 

Section 106 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act, and Sections 7 and 10 

of the Endangered Species Act. 

The proposed IIP Process is designed 

to improve interagency and 

intergovernmental coordination, to 

encourage early engagement with 

stakeholders, and to help ensure Project 

Proponents develop and submit 

accurate and complete information early 

in the project planning process. 

Providing such information, for 

example, regarding potential 

environmental and cultural resource 

impacts of the proposed project will 

help the Project Proponent and Federal 

agencies identify potential requirements 

and challenges that may affect potential 

projects. Early identification will help 

ensure that the Project Proponent can 

submit Federal Authorization requests 

that address or avoid these issues, 

thereby simplifying later coordination 

and approval processes. The IIP Process 

does not substitute for compliance with 

NEPA or other required Federal reviews, 

but it can ensure that potential issues 

are identified before a Project Proponent 

files an application, thereby simplifying 

later review processes. 

Goals: The goals of the IIP Process are 

to enhance early communication and 

coordination; enhance public 

engagement and outreach; develop early 

iterative feedback on routing options 

and alternatives; promote predictability; 

and ultimately reduce the time required 

to reach a decision to approve or deny 

a project while also ensuring 

compliance with environmental laws. 

Applicability: 

Project Proponents: A developer of a 

Qualifying Project 1 may elect to utilize 

the IIP Process. If a developer of a 

Qualifying Project elects not to utilize 

the IIP Process, the developer is 

encouraged to inform DOE in writing as 

soon as possible of its decision not to 

request that its transmission project be 

considered in the IIP Process. 

Federal Entities: Under the proposed 

IIP Process, all identified Federal 

Entities would be required to participate 

in the IIP Process for Qualifying Projects 

for which Project Proponents have 

submitted and DOE has accepted an 

Initiation Request. All identified Federal 

Entities will, at a minimum, be required 

to attend the Initial Meeting and the 

Final Meeting.2 The list of Federal 

Entities will be revised as necessary 

during the IIP Process based on the 

information provided by the Project 

Proponent prior to each interim meeting 

and otherwise publicly available 

information. DOE will oversee the IIP 

Process and coordinate the Federal 

Entities as described below even when 

it is not responsible for issuing a Federal 

Authorization. 

Project Proponent Public Outreach 

Plan: During the initial meeting, the 

Project Proponent would be strongly 

encouraged to develop a Public 

Outreach Plan. The purpose of the 

Public Outreach Plan is to ensure the 

Project Proponent actively engages and 

receives feedback from all stakeholders 

when the Project Proponent is 

evaluating various routing options. A 

Project Proponent’s Public Outreach 

Plan would not supplant the Federal 

Entity’s public participation 

requirements under NEPA. 

Cost Recovery: Federal Entity 

attendance at IIP Process meetings and 

other Federal Entity participation in the 

IIP Process depends on agency resources 

or the authority to recover costs from 

Project Proponents Currently, certain 

agencies may only exercise costrecovery authorities after an application 

has been submitted. To the extent 

allowed by law, some Federal Entities 

may seek cost recovery from the Project 

Proponents as soon as possible in the IIP 

Process. 

Implementation of IIP Process: The 

Member Agencies of the Steering 

Committee have not determined how to 

implement the draft IIP Process. Once 

the Steering Committee receives and 

considers the public input and approves 

the full contours of the IIP Process, it 

will submit on September 30, 2013, an 

implementation plan that includes 

timelines and milestones to the Chief 

Performance Officer and the Chair of the 

CEQ. The draft IIP Process described in 

this RFI may complement some Federal 

Entities’ existing pre-application 

processes, but implementation of the 

process may require some Federal 

Entities to revise their existing review 

and permitting regulations, policies and 

procedures. 

Relationship to NEPA and Other 

Environmental and Review Processes: 

None of the IIP Process meetings are 

part of the NEPA or other environmental 

and review processes but will inform 

those processes. Feedback provided by 

the Federal Entities is preliminary and 

would not constitute a commitment to 

approve a Federal Authorization 

request. Moreover, no agency would or 

could determine prior to the formal 

NEPA process that the Project 

Proponent’s proposed or preferred 

Study Corridors and Routes would 

constitute a reasonable range of 

alternatives for NEPA purposes. The 

documents and communications 

developed in this process would be 

preserved by the Federal Entities and 

would, as appropriate, become part of 

any subsequent administrative record. 

Integrated, Interagency Pre-Application 

Process 

I. Purpose, Goals, Design, and 

Applicability of the Integrated, 

Interagency Pre-Application (IIP) 

Process 

A. Purpose: The purpose of the IIP 

Process is to improve interagency and 

intergovernmental coordination and to 

help ensure Project Proponents develop 

and submit accurate and complete 

information early in the project 

planning process to facilitate efficient 

and timely environmental reviews and 

agency decisions. Providing such 

information (e.g., regarding potential 

environmental and cultural resource 

impacts of the proposed project) will 

help the Project Proponent, Federal 

Entities and relevant Non-Federal 

Entities identify potential requirements 

and challenges so that the Project 

Proponent can submit authorization 

requests that address or avoid these 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 168 / Thursday, August 29, 2013 / Notices 53439 

issues, thereby simplifying later 

coordination and approval processes. 

B. Goals: The goals of the IIP Process 

are to enhance early communication 

and coordination; enhance public 

engagement and outreach; develop early 

iterative feedback on possible routing 

options and alternatives; promote 

predictability; and ultimately reduce the 

time required to reach a decision to 

approve or deny a project while also 

ensuring compliance with 

environmental laws. 

C. Design: 

(1) The proposed IIP Process 

establishes a coordinated series of 

meetings and other actions, as described 

in sections II–VII below, that would take 

place prior to a Federal agency receiving 

an application or taking other action 

that would trigger Federal review and 

consultation requirements, such as 

those required under the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 

Section 106 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act and Sections 7 and 10 

of the Endangered Species Act. DOE 

will oversee the IIP Process and 

coordinate the Federal Entities as 

described below even when DOE is not 

responsible for issuing a Federal 

Authorization. 

(2) Absent an exception, the IIP 

Process will consist of four meetings: 

Initial Meeting, Study Corridors 

Meeting, Routing Meeting, and Final 

Meeting. The purpose of this series of 

meetings is to obtain iterative feedback 

among Federal Entities and invited nonFederal Entities, and for the Project 

Proponent to refine its application for 

Federal Authorization while reducing 

potential siting conflicts that could 

delay processing of that application. 

Each meeting will be initiated by the 

Project Proponent through a meeting 

request described in sections II–VI 

below. 

D. Lead Coordinating Agency. 

(1) DOE shall act as the lead agency 

for purposes of coordinating the IIP 

Process among all Federal Entities and 

Project Proponents. 

(2) To the maximum extent 

practicable and consistent with Federal 

law, DOE shall coordinate the IIP 

Process with any non-Federal Entities. 

(3) DOE, in exercising its 

responsibilities, will consult regularly 

with FERC, as well as electric reliability 

organizations, and transmission 

organizations approved by FERC. 

(4) To perform the coordination 

function effectively, DOE requires the 

active participation of the Project 

Proponent, including providing 

requested information in a timely 

manner. 

E. Applicability: 

(1) Qualifying Projects: Qualifying 

Projects include (1) (a) a non-marine 

high voltage transmission line (230 kV 

or above) and its attendant facilities or 

(b) a regionally or nationally significant 

non-marine transmission line and its 

attendant facilities, in which (2) all or 

part of the proposed transmission line is 

used for the transmission of electric 

energy in interstate commerce for sale at 

wholesale, and (3) (a) all or part of the 

proposed transmission line crosses 

jurisdictions administered by more than 

one Federal Entity or (b) crosses 

jurisdictions administered by a Federal 

Entity and is considered for Federal 

financial assistance from a Federal 

Entity. Qualifying Projects do not 

include those for which an application 

has been submitted to FERC for issuance 

of a permit for construction or 

modification of a transmission facility, 

or where a pre-filing procedure has been 

initiated, under section 216(b) of the 

Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 824p(b)) 

(transmission lines within a DOEdesignated National Interest Electric 

Transmission Corridor). 

(2) Project Proponent Participation: 

(a) Developers of Qualifying Projects 

may elect to utilize the IIP Process. A 

transmission developer initiates the IIP 

Process by submitting an Initiation 

Request as described in Section II.A. 

below. If a developer of a Qualifying 

Project elects not to utilize the IIP 

Process, the developer is encouraged to 

inform DOE in writing as soon as 

practicable of its decision not to request 

that its transmission project be 

considered in the IIP Process. 

(b) Developers of transmission 

projects that are not 230 kV or above but 

are nonetheless regionally or nationally 

significant may request that such a 

project be deemed a Qualifying Project 

by filing an Initiation Request with 

DOE, including an explanation of how 

its proposed project is regionally or 

nationally significant. DOE, in 

reviewing the Initiation Request as 

described in this Part, will determine 

whether the transmission project is a 

Qualifying Project and eligible to 

participate in the IIP Process. 

(c) Upon DOE’s determination that a 

developer’s proposed transmission 

project is a Qualifying Project, the 

developer will be deemed a Project 

Proponent under the IIP Process. 

(3) Federal Entity Participation: 

(a) Identification of Federal Entities: 

DOE will identify an initial list of 

Federal Entities to participate in the IIP 

Process based on the Initiation Request. 

The list of Federal Entities will be 

revised as necessary during the IIP 

Process based on the information 

provided by the Project Proponent prior 

to each interim meeting and publicly 

available information. 

(b) Participation: 

i. Initial and Final Meetings: 

1. All identified Federal Entities must 

attend the Initial Meeting to accomplish 

the requirements outlined in Section 

II.E. of the IIP Process and the Final 

Meeting to accomplish the requirements 

outlined in Section VII.D. of the IIP 

Process; provided, however, that a 

Federal Entity whose permitting 

authority for construction or 

modification of electric transmission 

facilities is limited to facilities for 

which an application is filed under 

section 216(b) of the Federal Power Act 

may participate in any Initial and/or 

Final Meeting at its sole discretion. 

2. DOE will use information 

technologies to ensure that Federal 

Entities unable to attend in person can 

participate. 

ii. Interim Meetings. 

1. Federal Entities will be expected to 

attend all IIP Process meetings. 

However, based on the information 

provided by the Project Proponent prior 

to each interim meeting, as well as 

otherwise publicly available 

information, Federal Entities may assess 

whether their regulatory roles and 

responsibilities or the potential 

substantive impact of the proposed 

project on properties under their 

jurisdiction warrants their participation 

in the next interim meeting or other 

related pre-application activities prior to 

the next interim meeting. 

2. If the Federal Entity determines 

that its regulatory roles and 

responsibilities or the potential 

substantive impact of the proposed 

project is insufficient to warrant its 

participation in the next interim 

meeting, it will notify DOE and other 

participating Federal Entities of its 

determination and of the rationale for 

that determination no later than 15 

calendar days prior to the next interim 

meeting. Notwithstanding the 

requirements of this section, a Federal 

Entity whose permitting authority for 

construction or modification of electric 

transmission facilities is limited to 

facilities for which an application is 

filed under section 216(b) of the Federal 

Power Act may participate in any 

interim meeting at its sole discretion. 

3. If additional Federal Entities are 

identified through information provided 

to DOE by the Project Proponent or 

through other publicly available 

information between the Initial and 

Final Meetings, they will be notified by 

DOE no later than 30 days prior to the 

next interim meeting and provided the 

information that identified them. 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
53440 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 168 / Thursday, August 29, 2013 / Notices 

4. Unless otherwise determined by 

DOE (in consultation with the 

applicable Federal Entity) that a Federal 

Entity’s participation is unnecessary in 

light of its regulatory roles and 

responsibilities or the proposed 

project’s potential substantive impact on 

properties under their jurisdiction, such 

Federal Entity must attend the next 

meeting. 

(4) Non-Federal Entities: Non-Federal 

Entities will be invited to attend each of 

the IIP Process meetings described 

below. 

(5) Cost Recovery: Federal Entity 

attendance at IIP Process meetings and 

other Federal Entity participation in the 

IIP Process depends on agency resources 

or the authority to recover costs from 

Project Proponents. Currently, certain 

Federal Entities may exercise costrecovery authorities only after an 

application has been submitted. To the 

extent allowed by law, some Federal 

Entities may seek cost recovery from the 

Project Proponents as soon as possible 

in the IIP Process. 

II. Initial Meeting 

The Initial Meeting for the IIP Process 

will be scheduled as soon as practicable 

after a Project Proponent has identified 

the two proposed end points of a project 

and the proposed locations of any 

intermediate substations, but before 

identification of potential Study 

Corridors or Proposed Routes. 

A. If electing to utilize the IIP Process 

pursuant to section I.E.2, the Project 

Proponent must submit an Initiation 

Request to commence the IIP Process to 

DOE. The Initiation Request must 

include: 

(1) A statement that the Project 

Proponent requests to use the IIP 

Process; 

(2) Primary contact information for 

the Project Proponent; 

(3) The legal information for the 

Project Proponent: Legal name; 

principal place of business; whether the 

requester is an individual, partnership, 

corporation, or other entity; the state 

laws under which the requester is 

organized or authorized; 

(4) A description of the Project 

Proponent’s financial and technical 

capability to construct, maintain, and 

decommission the project: 

(5) A brief description of the proposed 

project, including end points, voltage, 

ownership, justification for the line, 

intermediate substations if applicable, 

and, to the extent known, any 

information about constraints or 

flexibility with respect to the project; 

(6) Project Proponent’s proposed 

schedule, including timeframe for filing 

necessary Federal and state 

applications, construction start date, 

and planned in-service date, if 

approved; 

(7) A list of potentially affected 

Federal and Non-Federal Entities, as 

defined below; 

(8) Based on existing, relevant, and 

reasonably available information, 

provide a description of the known 

existing major site conditions and areas 

of concern, including: 

(a) Land, airspace. and water uses in 

the Project Area as defined below; 

(b) Any known or potential conflicts 

with or adverse impacts to the 

environment or military activities; 

(c) Any listed threatened or 

endangered, candidate, or special status 

species that may be present in the 

Project Area or within designated 

critical habitat in or near the Project 

Area; 

(d) The aquatic habitats, including 

estuarine and marine environments, and 

water bodies, including wetlands, in the 

Project Area; 

(e) Existing or proposed project 

facilities or operations, and the potential 

for co-location; and 

(f) Potential avoidance, minimization, 

and mitigation options (onsite and 

offsite) to reduce the potential impacts 

of the proposed project, including 

existing Regional Mitigation Strategies, 

where available, and onsite and offsite 

management activities, where 

applicable. 

(9) Detailed map(s) and geospatial 

information that illustrate the Project 

Area and, within the Project Area: 

(a) General land status including the 

areas of Federal and Non-Federal Entity 

jurisdiction and any protected areas, 

including Presidentially or 

Congressionally-designated areas (e.g., 

National Parks, National Wildlife 

Refuges, Wilderness Areas, National 

Historic and Scenic Trails), 

administratively-protected areas (e.g., 

Areas of Critical Environmental 

Concern, designated roadless areas), 

Indian trust lands, and military 

installations, ranges and airspace; 

(b) Topographical and resource 

features that are relevant to the siting of 

transmission lines, (e.g., airports, 

waterbodies and wetlands, wildlife 

resources and the data used to identify 

these resources); 

(c) Known information about 

protected avian, aquatic, and terrestrial 

species in the Project Area, as well as 

other biological information that will be 

necessary for an environmental review; 

(d) Known information about historic 

properties and other important cultural 

resources in the Project Area; 

(e) Known information about low 

income communities and minority 

populations; 

(f) Potential constraints caused by 

impacts on military test, training, and 

operational missions, including impacts 

to installations, ranges, water resource 

projects, and airspace; 

(g) If known, potential impacts on the 

Nation’s aviation system, including 

FAA restricted airspace; 

(h) Proposed use of previously 

disturbed lands, existing corridors, 

including corridors designated under 

Section 503 of the Federal Land Policy 

and Management Act (FLPMA) and 

Section 368 of the Energy Policy Act of 

2005, transportation rights-of-way; 

feasibility for co-location of facilities; 

and 

(i) Potential avoidance, minimization, 

and mitigation options (onsite and 

offsite) to reduce the impact of the 

proposed project, including existing 

Regional Mitigation Strategies, where 

available. 

(10) Project Proponent’s interests and 

objectives; 

(11) To the extent available, regional 

transmission planning documents, 

including status of regional reliability 

studies and interconnection requests; 

(12) Citations for sources, data, and 

analyses used to develop the Initiation 

Meeting Request materials. 

B. Within 15 calendar days of 

receiving the Initiation Request, DOE 

will notify the Project Proponent that: 

(1) The Initiation Request meets the 

screening criteria of this section, 

including whether the project 

constitutes a Qualifying Project; 

(2) The Initiation Request does not 

meet the IIP requirements and provide 

the reasons for that finding and a 

description of how the Project 

Proponent may, if applicable, address 

any deficiencies through 

supplementation of the information 

contained in the Initiation Request. 

C. At the same time as notifying the 

Project Proponent that its Initiation 

Request meets the requirements of this 

section, DOE will provide the potential 

Federal Entities with the Initiation 

Request. 

D. DOE, in consultation with the 

identified Federal Entities, will convene 

the Initial Meeting with the Project 

Proponent and all identified Federal 

Entities as soon as practicable and no 

later than 45 calendar days after 

notifying the Project Proponent and 

potential Federal Entities that the 

Initiation Request meets the 

requirements of this section. The Initial 

Meeting will be convened in the region 

where the project is located. Federal 

Entities will have at least 15 days to 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 168 / Thursday, August 29, 2013 / Notices 53441 

review the Initiation Request prior to 

the meeting. All identified Federal 

Entities must attend the Initial Meeting. 

DOE also will invite all identified NonFederal Entities to attend the Initial 

Meeting and will simultaneously 

provide them with the Initiation 

Request. DOE will use information 

technologies to ensure that Federal 

Entities and invited Non-Federal 

Entities unable to attend in person can 

participate in the Initial Meeting. 

E. During the Initial Meeting, the 

following will occur: 

(1) DOE will discuss the IIP Process 

with the Project Proponent, including 

the requirements for a Public Outreach 

Plan and any requirements of cost 

recovery where applicable. 

(2) The Project Proponent will 

describe the proposed project and the 

contents of its Initiation Request. 

(3) The Federal Entities will, to the 

extent possible and based on the 

information provided by the Project 

Proponent and publicly available 

information, preliminarily identify the 

following: 

(a) Potential environmental siting 

constraints and resources of concern 

and an early assessment for the 

potential for conflict; 

(b) Potential cultural resources and 

historic properties of concern, 

particularly those that occur at a 

landscape scale that should be avoided 

during project siting; 

(c) Potential impacts on low income 

communities and minority populations; 

(d) Potential constraints caused by 

impacts on military test, training, and 

operational missions, including impacts 

to installations, ranges, and airspace; 

(e) Potential impacts on the Nation’s 

aviation system; 

(f) Potential areas that present 

challenges or conflicts that could 

increase the time needed for the Federal 

government to evaluate the application 

if the route is sited through such areas 

(e.g., right-of-way avoidance areas 

identified through agency land 

management plans, National Historic 

Landmarks, traditional religious and 

cultural properties significant to Indian 

tribe(s), National Scenic and Historic 

Trails, National Wildlife Refuges, units 

of the National Park System, marine 

sanctuaries); and 

(g) Potential opportunities to site 

routes through designated corridors, 

previously disturbed lands, and/or 

lands with existing infrastructure as a 

means of potentially reducing the time 

needed for the Federal government to 

evaluate the application for a proposed 

route(s) through such areas (e.g., 

colocation with existing infrastructure 

or previously disturbed lands, energy 

corridors designated by the Department 

of the Interior (DOI) or the Department 

of Agriculture (USDA) under Section 

368 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005; an 

existing right-of-way; and/or a utility 

corridor identified in a land 

management plan). 

(h) Authorized uses that may conflict 

with the proposal; 

(i) Affected Federal, State, and local 

land use plans; 

(j) Potential for public controversy; 

and 

(k) Potential avoidance, minimization, 

and mitigation options (onsite and 

offsite) to reduce the potential impact of 

the proposed project, including existing 

Regional Mitigation Strategies, where 

available. 

(4) The Federal Entities will also 

describe: 

(a) Statutory and regulatory 

authorities, roles, and responsibilities; 

(b) The Project Proponent’s role and 

responsibilities to support compliance 

with applicable statutory and regulatory 

authorities; and 

(c) Types of studies likely to be 

needed to complete the project, 

including studies needed to comply 

with laws and policies for cultural 

resource and tribal consultation and 

endangered, threatened or otherwise 

protected species, visual resources, and 

aquatic and terrestrial resources. 

(5) Based on their review of the 

available information, the Federal 

Entities will do the following: 

(a) Comment on the proposed 

boundaries of the Project Area; 

(b) Request additional information 

from the Project Proponent, to the extent 

necessary; and 

(c) Provide additional information, 

including data sources, to the Project 

Proponent that could assist in 

identifying risks or benefits of siting the 

project in alternative locations within 

the Project Area. 

(6) Any Non-Federal Entity 

participating in the Initial Meeting will 

be invited to: 

(a) Comment on the proposed 

boundaries of the Project Area; 

(b) Request additional information 

from the Project Proponent, to the extent 

necessary; and 

(c) Provide additional information, 

including data sources or relevant 

studies, to the Project Proponent that 

could assist in identifying risks or 

benefits of siting the project in 

alternative locations within the Project 

Area. 

(7) All identified Federal and nonFederal Entities will provide contact 

information to the Project Proponent; 

(8) The Project Proponent will 

provide points of contact to DOE and to 

the Federal and Non-Federal Entities; 

(9) DOE will document points of 

contact for each Federal Entity and for 

each Non-Federal Entity and the list of 

issues or potential concerns identified 

in the Initial Meeting. 

(10) DOE will advise the Project 

Proponent that it will be required to 

ensure that stakeholders have access to 

accurate and timely information on the 

proposed project and permit application 

process. The access to this information 

is meant to solicit meaningful 

stakeholder input. Following the Initial 

Meeting, the Project Proponent will be 

required, as provided below in Section 

IV, to submit a Public Outreach Plan, to 

coordinate public interface and 

communications, and to identify at least 

one person primarily responsible for 

public outreach. 

(11) DOE will advise the Project 

Proponent that it may be required to 

fund the development and maintenance 

of one or more Web sites to share project 

information. 

(12) If known, DOE will inform the 

Project Proponent which agency/ies has 

been identified as the NEPA Lead 

Agency and the lead agency for Section 

106 consultation. 

(13) DOE will discuss potential 

contractor assistance for preparation of 

the NEPA document and other material 

relevant to Federal Authorizations. 

(14) DOE will inform the Project 

Proponent that the IIP meeting schedule 

allows flexibility as to the number of 

meetings. As described below, the Study 

Corridor Meeting, Routing Meeting, and 

Final Meeting establish goals for 

refining the Project Proponent’s 

proposal to be filed later in an 

application to a Federal Entity. 

Depending on the complexity of the 

Qualifying Project, as well as the extent 

of conflicts identified by Federal 

Entities and others, a proposal could 

meet the meeting goals described in 

Section V and VI below with fewer 

meetings, thus reducing time necessary 

to satisfy the purpose of the IIP Process. 

F. Based on the information provided 

by the Project Proponent and Federal 

and Non-Federal Entities prior to and 

during the Initial Meeting, the Federal 

Entities, in consultation with the Project 

Proponent, will establish a preliminary 

non-binding schedule for the review of 

the Project Proponent’s IIP filings, 

including targets for additional meetings 

(as needed) addressing study of corridor 

and routing options for the project. 

Based on the facts of a particular 

project, the Federal Entities may agree 

to modify the IIP Process to 

accommodate the needs of the particular 

proposed project. 

G. Any preliminary feedback 

provided by the Federal Entities at the 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
53442 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 168 / Thursday, August 29, 2013 / Notices 

Initial Meeting, or provided to the 

Project Proponent in writing within 30 

calendar days of the Initial Meeting, is 

intended to identify potential issues 

and/or resource conflicts. The Federal 

Entities reserve the right to provide 

additional comments as needed. The 

preliminary feedback and any later 

feedback do not constitute an agency 

decision or commitment by those 

Federal entities to approve any 

authorization request. 

III. Quarterly Reporting 

Upon completion of the Initial 

Meeting, the Project Proponent is 

required to submit quarterly status 

updates to DOE via email until the 

completion of the Final Meeting. DOE 

will distribute quarterly updates to 

Federal and Non-Federal Entities within 

10 days after receipt from the Project 

Proponent. 

IV. Public Outreach and Tribal 

Coordination Plans 

A. Public Outreach Plan: Within 60 

days after the Initial Meeting, unless 

otherwise agreed upon, the Project 

Proponent will be required to submit a 

draft Public Outreach Plan to describe 

how it will coordinate public interface, 

communications, and involvement 

during the IIP Process. The plan must 

identify at least one person primarily 

responsible for public outreach efforts. 

DOE, in consultation with the Federal 

Entities, will coordinate and provide 

DOE and the Federal Entities’ feedback 

to the Project Proponent within 60 days. 

(1) The Public Outreach Plan must 

accomplish the following: 

(a) Identify specific tools and actions 

to facilitate stakeholder 

communications and public 

information, including an up-to-date 

Company Project Web site and a readily 

accessible, easily identifiable, single 

point of contact within the company; 

(b) Identify how and when meetings 

on the location of potential Study 

Corridors or potential Routes will be 

publicized prior to the submission of 

the application(s) for Federal 

Authorization, as well as where those 

meetings will be held and how many 

there will be; 

(c) Identify known stakeholders and 

how stakeholders are identified; 

(d) Describe the type of location (for 

example, libraries, community reading 

rooms, or city halls) in each county 

where the Project Proponent will 

provide publicly available copies of 

relevant documents and materials 

related to the proposed project; 

(e) Describe the evaluation criteria 

being used by the Project Proponent to 

identify and develop the potential Study 

Corridors or potential Routes prior to 

submission of the application(s) that are 

presented to stakeholders during project 

planning outreach efforts as described 

in the Public Outreach Plan; 

(f) Explain how the Project Proponent 

intends to respond to requests for 

information from the public; 

(g) Explain how the Project Proponent 

intends to record public requests and 

Project Proponent responses to the 

public; 

(h) Describe how and when 

notification of owners of property 

located within the proposed Project 

Area will occur; and 

(i) Identify how and when 

information will be provided to and 

input will be received from Non-Federal 

Entities identified at the Initial Meeting. 

(2) A Proponent’s Public Outreach 

Plan will not supplant the Federal 

agency’s public participation 

requirements under NEPA. 

B. Tribal Coordination Plan: Within 

60 days after the Initial Meeting, the 

Project Proponent will be required to 

submit a draft Tribal Coordination Plan 

describing how the Project Proponent 

will coordinate tribal interface and 

communication during the IIP. The role 

of the Project Proponent at this stage is 

to gather initial information to be 

included in the Federal agency tribal 

consultation plan and to ascertain the 

views of the tribe(s) on the effects to the 

environment and historic properties, 

including properties of religious and 

cultural significance in the area of the 

potential study corridor or route. The 

Project Proponent will be required to 

identify its point of contact responsible 

for tribal outreach efforts. DOE, in 

consultation with the Federal Entities, 

will coordinate and provide DOE and 

the Federal Entities’ feedback to the 

Project Proponent within 60 days. 

(1) The Tribal Coordination Plan must 

accomplish the following: 

(a) Identify specific tools and actions 

to facilitate tribal involvement, 

communications and the sharing of 

information, including an up-to-date 

Company Project Web site and a readily 

accessible, easily identifiable, single 

point of contact within the Project 

Proponent; 

(b) Explain how the Project Proponent 

will coordinate with tribes to gather 

baseline information about their views 

on the environment and historic 

properties and potential impact of the 

project. 

(c) Identify how and when 

information on the IIP meetings on the 

location of potential Study Corridors or 

Routes will be provided to the Tribes 

prior to the submission of the 

application, as well as where those 

meetings will be held and how many 

there will be; 

(d) Identify known tribes with interest 

in the project area and how tribes were 

identified; 

(e) Describe how project information 

will be transmitted to tribes; 

(f) Describe what project information 

will be provided to the tribes, including 

but not limited to a listing of all Federal 

Authorizations the Project Proponent 

expects to seek; 

(g) Gather information from tribal 

representatives regarding the potential 

presence of places of religious and 

cultural significance to their tribes; the 

likely impacts of the proposed project 

on such places; and the potential to 

mitigate such effects, if any; 

(h) Explain how the Project Proponent 

intends to respond to requests for 

information from tribes; 

(i) Explain how the Project Proponent 

intends to record tribal communications 

and Project Proponent responses to the 

tribe; 

(j) Identify any tribe(s) that were 

contacted by the Project Proponent but 

declined to discuss places of religious 

and cultural significance to their tribes 

or potential issues regarding the 

proposed project with the Project 

Proponent; 

(k) Explain how the Project Proponent 

has shared information on the 

development of the Tribal Coordination 

Plan with tribes and to what extent the 

tribes provided input on the Plan during 

its development; 

(l) Determine in consultation with the 

tribe(s) how sensitive tribal information 

will be protected from inappropriate 

disclosure or retention. 

(2) A Proponent’s Tribal Coordination 

Plan will not supplant the Federal 

agency’s government-to-government 

consultation obligations under Federal 

law. 

V. Study Corridors Meeting 

After the Initial Meeting, the Project 

Proponent will develop potential Study 

Corridors for the project. After the 

Project Proponent has identified the 

proposed Study Corridors and has 

received feedback from DOE and the 

Federal Entities on the Public Outreach 

Plan, the Project Proponent will submit 

a Study Corridor Meeting Request to 

DOE. DOE will distribute the Study 

Corridors Meeting Request to the 

previously identified Federal Entities 

within 5 calendar days of receipt of the 

Study Corridor Meeting Request. 

A. The Study Corridor Meeting 

Request must include: 

(1) A description of the factors 

(screening criteria) identifying the 

potential Study Corridors; 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 168 / Thursday, August 29, 2013 / Notices 53443 

(2) A map of the Project Area showing 

the location of the potential Study 

Corridors. 

(3) High-resolution maps of the 

potential Study Corridors with more 

detailed information than the Project 

Proponent was able to provide in the 

Initial Meeting, as described in section 

II.A., that precisely show existing rights 

of way, utility and transportation 

corridors, environmental resources, 

public land ownership, waterbodies, 

wetlands, residences, important 

farmland, rangeland, and forestland, 

and historic properties, and military 

installation, ranges, and managed 

airspace, and any other information 

required by the Federal Entities, if 

designated. 

(4) Building on the information 

provided in the Initiation Request and 

based on existing, relevant, and 

reasonably available information, 

provide aAn updated description of the 

following information, within the 

potential Study Corridors: 

(a) Information on the existing 

environment and known cultural 

resources and/or historic properties; 

(b) Existing data or studies relevant to 

the existing environment and cultural 

resources and/or historic properties, to 

the extent already collected; 

(c) Any known or potential conflicts 

or adverse impacts to the environment, 

or military activities; 

(d) Any listed threatened or 

endangered, candidate, or special status 

species that may be present in the 

potential Study Corridors or within 

designated critical habitat that may be 

present in in the potential Study 

Corridors; 

(e) The aquatic habitats, including 

estuarine environments, in the potential 

Study Corridors; 

(f) Any existing or proposed project 

facilities or operations, and the potential 

for co-location; and 

(g) Potential avoidance, minimization, 

and mitigation options (onsite and 

offsite) to reduce the impact of the 

proposed project, including existing 

Regional Mitigation Strategies, where 

available, and onsite and offsite 

management activities, where 

applicable; and 

(h) Any update on the status of 

implementation of the Public Outreach 

Plan. 

(5) If the potential Study Corridors 

run through areas previously identified 

as having siting constraints or as areas 

of concern raised in the Initial Meeting 

or provided in written feedback to the 

Project Proponent following the Initial 

Meeting, a description of why avoiding 

such areas is not feasible in meeting the 

goals for the project and proposed 

mitigation for impacts to affected 

resources. 

(6) Any updates to the previously 

identified list of the potentially affected 

Federal and Non-Federal Entities. 

(7) Citations identifying sources, data, 

and analyses used to develop the Study 

Corridors Meeting Request materials, 

and any additional information needed. 

B. Simultaneously with submitting 

the Study Corridors Meeting Request, 

the Project Proponent will post that 

request, along with its accompanying 

information, on the Company Project 

Web site. 

C. Within thirty (30) calendar days of 

receiving a Study Corridors Meeting 

Request and distributing it to the 

Federal Entities, DOE, in consultation 

with the Federal Entities, will determine 

if the Study Corridors Meeting Request 

meets the requirements of this section 

and will notify the Project Proponent. 

D. If the Study Corridors Meeting 

Request does not meet the requirements 

of this section, DOE will provide an 

explanation for that finding to the 

Project Proponent and describe how the 

Project Proponent may address any 

deficiencies through supplementation of 

the information contained in the Study 

Corridors Meeting Request. 

E. DOE will convene the Study 

Corridors Meeting in the region where 

the project is located with the Project 

Proponent and all previously identified 

Federal Entities within thirty (30) 

calendar days after notifying the Project 

Proponent and all identified Federal 

Entities that the Study Corridors 

Meeting Request meets the requirements 

of this section. DOE will further invite 

all identified Non-Federal Entities to 

attend and will simultaneously provide 

them with the Study Corridors Meeting 

Request. DOE will use information 

technologies to ensure participants 

unable to attend in person can 

participate in the Study Corridors 

Meeting. 

F. At the Study Corridors Meeting, the 

following will occur: 

(1) The Federal Entities will, to the 

extent known and based on the 

information provided by the Project 

Proponent and publicly available 

information, preliminarily identify the 

following and any other reasonable 

criteria for eliminating potential Study 

Corridors from further consideration: 

(a) Potential environmental siting 

constraints and resources of concern; 

(b) Potential cultural resources and 

historic properties of concern; 

(c) Potential areas that present 

challenges or conflicts that could 

increase the time needed for the Federal 

government to evaluate the application 

for a proposed route(s) through such 

areas (e.g., right-of-way avoidance areas 

identified through agency land 

management plans, National Historic 

Landmarks, traditional religious and 

cultural properties significant to Indian 

tribe(s), National Scenic and Historic 

Trails, National Wildlife Refuges, units 

of the National Park System, marine 

sanctuaries). 

(d) Potential opportunities to site 

routes through designated corridors, 

previously disturbed lands, and/or 

lands with existing infrastructure as a 

means of potentially reducing the time 

needed for the Federal government to 

evaluate the application if the route is 

sited through such areas (e.g., colocation 

with existing infrastructure or 

previously disturbed lands, energy 

corridors designated by the DOI or 

USDA under Section 368 of the Energy 

Policy Act of 2005; an existing right-ofway; a utility corridor identified in a 

land management plan). 

(e) Potential constraints caused by 

impacts on military test, training, and 

operational missions, including impacts 

to installations, ranges, and airspace. 

(f) Potential constraints caused by 

impacts on the Nation’s aviation system. 

(g) Based on available information 

provided by the Project Proponent, 

biological (including threatened and 

endangered species and aquatic 

resources), cultural, and other surveys 

and studies that may be required for the 

potential Study Corridors. 

(2) Such information and feedback to 

the Project Proponent does not 

constitute a commitment by Federal 

Entities to approve or deny any Federal 

Authorization request. Moreover, no 

agency would or could determine prior 

to the formal NEPA process that the 

Project Proponent’s proposed or 

preferred Study Corridors and Routes 

presented or discussed during the IIP 

Process would constitute a reasonable 

range of alternatives for NEPA purposes. 

(3) Participating Non-Federal Entities 

may also identify risks and benefits of 

siting the proposed project within the 

potential Study (Corridors. 

(4) The Project Proponent must 

provide a list of all affected landowners 

and other stakeholders that have already 

been contacted, or have contacted the 

Project Proponent, about the project. 

VI. Routing Meetings 

Once the Project Proponent has 

developed potential Routes within the 

Study Corridors, it will submit a 

Routing Meeting Request to DOE. DOE 

will distribute the Routing Meeting 

Request to identified Federal Entities 

within 5 calendar days of receipt. 

Except for the items set forth below, the 

process used for Routing Meetings will 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
53444 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 168 / Thursday, August 29, 2013 / Notices 

3This may include traditional cultural properties, 

traditional cultural landscapes, and other properties 

of religious and cultural significance to Indian 

tribes to the extent such information is known and 

is not protected against public disclosure in 

accordance with Section 304 of the National 

Historic Preservation Act, 16 U.S.C. 470w–3. 

be the same process set forth above for 

the Study Corridors Meetings. In its 

Routing Meeting Request, the Project 

Proponent will provide more detailed 

data for each potential route than was 

submitted for the Study Corridors 

Meeting. 

A. For example, for the potential 

proposed Routes identified within the 

Study Corridors, the Routing Meeting 

Requests should include: 

(1) A description of the factors 

(screening criteria) in identifying the 

potential Routes; 

(2) A map and description of the 

following: Residences, schools, daycare 

centers, hospitals, and airports; historic 

properties; areas identified for cultural 

significance 3; areas of endangered and 

threatened species and designated 

critical habitat; land use; zoning by 

type; waters of the United States, 

floodplains and wetlands; Federal 

projects, including but not limited to 

dams, reservoirs, levees, other flood risk 

reduction projects, navigation channels, 

and environmental restoration projects; 

and, sections, townships, ranges, and 

municipal boundaries; and any 

identified low-income or minority 

populations; and 

(3) A description of the actions 

completed on the Public Outreach Plan 

to date. 

B. Within 60 calendar days of 

providing the Routing Meeting Request 

to the Federal Entities, DOE, in 

consultation with the Federal Entities, 

will determine if the Routing Meeting 

Request meets the requirements of this 

section. 

C. DOE will convene the Routing 

Meeting in the region where the project 

is located with the Project Proponent 

and all previously identified Federal 

Entities 30 days after notifying the 

Project Proponent and all previously 

identified Federal Entities that the 

Routing Meeting Request meets the 

requirements of this section. 

D. To the extent possible, the 

feedback mechanism from the Federal 

and Non-Federal Entities and 

opportunity for further comment on 

public participation will be the same as 

for the Study Corridors Meetings. 

E. In addition to the information 

provided in the Study Corridors 

Meeting, Federal and Non-Federal 

Entities will also identify during the 

Routing Meeting the initial 

requirements for site surveys for historic 

properties and cultural resources, 

endangered, threatened or otherwise 

protected species, and aquatic resources 

for potential proposed Routes within the 

Study Corridors, and if applicable, 

Regional Mitigation Strategies. 

VII. Final Meeting 

After the Project Proponent has 

identified the potential proposed 

Route(s) within potential Study 

Corridor(s) that it intends to include in 

its Federal application(s), the Project 

Proponent will submit the Final 

Meeting Request to DOE. DOE will 

distribute the Final Meeting Request to 

previously identified Federal Entities 

within 5 calendar days of receipt of the 

Final Meeting Request. 

A. The Final Meeting Request shall 

include: 

(1) Maps of the potential proposed 

Route(s) within potential Study 

Corridor(s), including the line, 

substations and other infrastructure, 

which include at least as much detail as 

required for the Routing Meetings 

described above; and if available, GIS 

shapefiles or line data; 

(2) If the proposed Routes are sited 

through any Geographic Areas of 

Concern identified in prior meetings, a 

preliminary plan for addressing those 

concerns; 

(3) Summaries of all Project 

Proponent-sponsored project-specific 

surveys (biological, including aquatic 

resources, and visual and cultural 

surveys) for the proposed Routes along 

with the results of database and record 

reviews. 

(4) If known, a schedule of 

completion for upcoming field resource 

surveys; 

(5) A conceptual plan for potential 

mitigation options and measures, 

including avoidance, minimization, and 

mitigation (offsite and onsite), as well as 

Regional Mitigation Strategies, where 

available. 

(6) Description of how the Project 

Proponent complied with its Public 

Outreach Plan; 

(7) An estimated time of filing its 

request(s) for Federal Authorization(s). 

B. Within 60 calendar days of 

receiving a Final Meeting Request, DOE, 

in consultation with the Federal 

Entities, will jointly select the NEPA 

Lead Agency, if not already identified, 

as set forth in section VII below, select 

the lead agency for consultation under 

Section 106 of NHPA; and determine 

whether the Final Meeting Request 

meets the requirements of this section. 

C. Within 60 calendar days of making 

a determination that the Final Meeting 

Request meets the requirements of this 

section, DOE will convene the Final 

Meeting with the Project Proponent and 

all Federal Entities. Non-Federal 

Entities will also be invited to attend. 

DOE will use information technologies 

to ensure participants unable to attend 

in person can participate in the Final 

Meeting. 

D. During the Final Meeting, the 

following will occur: 

(1) Led by the NEPA Lead Agency, all 

Federal Entities will: 

(a) Based on information provided by 

the Project Proponent to date, discuss 

identified key issues of concern to the 

agencies and public and potential 

mitigation measures anticipated for the 

project; 

(b) Discuss statutory and regulatory 

standards that must be met to make 

decisions for applicable Federal 

Authorizations; 

(c) Describe estimated time to make 

decisions for such Federal 

Authorizations and the anticipated cost 

(e.g., processing and monitoring fees 

and rent); 

(d) Describe their expectations for 

written pre-application materials, if 

applicable; and 

(e) Describe their expectations for a 

complete application. 

(2) Any Non-Federal Entities are also 

encouraged to: 

(a) Identify key issues of concern; 

(b) Discuss statutory and regulatory 

standards that must be met to make 

decisions for applicable authorizations; 

(c) Describe estimated time and 

complexity to make decisions for such 

authorizations and the anticipated cost 

(processing and monitoring fees and 

rent); 

(d) Describe their expectations for 

written pre-application materials, if 

applicable; and 

(e) Describe their expectations for a 

complete application. 

(3) The Federal Entities will: 

(a) If not completed prior to this 

point, specify the requirements for 

biological, including aquatic resources, 

and historic property and cultural 

resource surveys/studies for the 

proposed Route(s) within potential 

Study Corridor(s). 

(b) Discuss available resources, 

including best practices for types of 

project, agency guidance, and existing 

Regional Mitigation Strategies, if 

applicable, or other information; and 

(c) Identify the process that will be 

used for defining the mitigation 

measures, as well as what mitigation 

measures would be expected for various 

routes; and identify among themselves 

any possible overlap of mitigation 

measures. 

(4) The Non-Federal Entities are also 

encouraged to: 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 168 / Thursday, August 29, 2013 / Notices 53445 

(a) If not completed prior to this 

point, specify the requirements for 

biological, including aquatic resources, 

and historic property and cultural 

resource surveys/studies for the Route(s) 

within potential Study Corridor(s). 

(b) Discuss available resources, 

including best practices for types of 

project, agency guidance, and existing 

Regional Mitigation Strategies, if 

applicable, or other information; and 

(c) Identify the process that may be 

used for defining the mitigation 

measures, as well as what mitigation 

measures would be expected for various 

potential Route(s) within potential 

Study Corridor(s); and identify among 

themselves any possible overlap of 

mitigation measures. 

(5) Federal and Non-Federal Entities 

may also identify among themselves any 

possible opportunities to synchronize or 

combine the review processes for their 

respective permits and approvals. 

(6) The NEPA Lead Agency will: 

(a) Describe the process of 

determining whether a third-party 

contractor will be selected for the NEPA 

review, if not completed prior to this 

point; 

(b) Discuss possible locations for the 

NEPA scoping meetings; 

(c) Discuss potential mitigation 

options and measures, and the process 

used for defining those measures, at a 

level of detail that is appropriate given 

the information available to the Project 

Proponent and the Federal and NonFederal Entities at the time of the Final 

Meeting. 

(d) Discuss the Federal Entities’ plans 

to meet tribal consultation requirements 

of Executive Order 13084 and 

compliance with the NHPA. 

(7) Nothing in this subsection requires 

agencies to commit to adopting 

particular mitigation measures or to 

limiting the mitigation measures that 

the NEPA Lead Agency and NEPA 

Cooperating Agencies might consider at 

later stages of NEPA review and in 

response to public comment. 

(8) The Final Meeting will result in a 

description by Federal Entities of the 

remaining key issues of concern and 

areas that represent potential high, 

medium, or low resource conflicts that 

could impact the time for which it takes 

Federal agencies to process applications 

for a proposed facility within the 

identified Study Corridors. That 

description will not constitute a 

commitment by any agency to approve 

or deny any authorization request nor 

will it guarantee a particular outcome in 

any individual case. Moreover, no 

agency would or could determine prior 

to the formal NEPA process that the 

Project Proponent’s proposed or 

preferred Study Corridors and Routes 

presented or discussed during the IIP 

Process would constitute a reasonable 

range of alternatives for NEPA purposes. 

The Non-Federal Entities will also be 

encouraged to provide such a 

description of key issues of concern and 

areas of conflict. 

E. The NEPA Lead Agency will also 

describe the next set of milestones, 

including the creation of an interagency 

review schedule for the project once all 

written application materials have been 

deemed adequate, the issuance of a 

Notice of Intent to Prepare an 

Environmental Assessment or 

Environmental Impact Statement, and 

subsequent Scoping Meetings. 

VIII. Selection of NEPA Lead Agency 

A. DOE, in consultation with the 

Federal Entities, will coordinate the 

selection of a NEPA Lead Agency 

responsible for compiling a unified 

environmental review document for 

qualifying projects. Determination of the 

lead agency for preparing NEPA 

documents shall be in compliance with 

applicable law and with regulations 

issued by CEQ at 40 CFR part 1500 et 

seq. 

(1) For Qualifying Projects that cross 

DOI-administered lands (including trust 

or restricted Indian lands) or USDAadministered lands, DOI and USDA will 

consult and jointly determine within 30 

calendar days of receiving a Final 

Meeting Request whether a sufficient 

land management interest exists to 

support their assumption of the lead 

agency role; and, if so, which of the two 

agencies should assume that role. 

B. DOI and USDA will notify DOE of 

their determination in writing within 10 

calendar days of making the 

determination. 

C. Unless DOE in writing notifies DOI 

and USDA of its objection to such 

determination within two calendar days 

of the DOI/USDA notification, such 

determination is deemed accepted and 

final. In deciding whether to object to 

such determination, DOE will consider 

the CEQ regulations pertaining to 

selection of the Lead Agency, including 

40 CFR 1501.5(c). 

D. When the NEPA Lead Agency is 

not established pursuant to paragraphs 

B–D of this section, the Federal Entities 

that will likely constitute the 

cooperating agencies for the unified 

environmental review document will 

consult and jointly determine a NEPA 

Lead Agency within 45 calendar days of 

receiving a Final Meeting Request. No 

determination of an agency as a NEPA 

Lead Agency under this rule shall be 

made absent that agency’s consent. 

E. The Federal Entities will notify 

DOE of their determination in writing 

within 10 days of making the 

determination. Unless DOE in writing 

notifies the Federal Entities of its 

objection within two calendar days of 

receiving this notification, such 

determination is deemed accepted and 

final. If DOE objects to such 

determination, CEQ will determine the 

NEPA Lead Agency according to 40 CFR 

1501.5(e)–(f). 

IX. Consolidated Administrative Record 

A. Federal Entities are expected to 

include DOE on any communications 

with the Project Proponent, other 

Federal Entities, and Non-Federal 

Entities related to the IIP Process for a 

particular project. 

B. DOE will maintain all information, 

e.g., documents and communications, it 

disseminates or receives from the 

Project Proponent and Federal and NonFederal Entities relating to specific IIP 

Processes as part of the administrative 

record for a future, potential 

transmission application. Before 

disseminating information specific to 

one agency’s review, DOE must receive 

approval from that agency in accordance 

with that agency’s FOIA requirements. 

C. At each meeting required in the IIP 

Process, DOE will record the key issues 

identified and, within 15 calendar days 

of the meeting, will send a list of such 

issues to the Federal and Non-Federal 

Entities that attended the meeting. 

D. Within 45 calendar days of 

receiving the list, the Federal and NonFederal Entities that attended the 

meeting will revise the list, if necessary, 

and send the list to DOE. 

E. Within 30 calendar days of 

receiving the list in the above 

subsection, DOE will convey the list to 

the Project Proponent and all Federal 

and Non-Federal Entities that 

participated in the meeting. 

F. DOE will document the list of 

identified issues, if any, for the 

consolidated administrative record. 

G. Each Federal Entity is encouraged 

to maintain as part of a future, potential 

transmission application for which it 

may have a Federal Authorization the 

documents and communications 

developed in this process, which would, 

as appropriate, become part of its 

subsequent administrative record for 

that Federal Authorization. 

X. Relationship to the NEPA Process 

and Other Environmental and Review 

Processes 

None of the IIP Process meetings are 

part of the NEPA or other environmental 

and review processes but will inform 

those processes. Feedback provided by 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
53446 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 168 / Thursday, August 29, 2013 / Notices 

the Federal agencies is preliminary and 

would not constitute a commitment to 

grant a Federal Authorization. 

Moreover, no agency would or could 

determine prior to the formal NEPA 

process that the Project Proponent’s 

proposed or preferred Study Corridors 

and Routes presented or discussed 

during the IIP Process would constitute 

a reasonable range of alternatives for 

NEPA purposes. As set forth in Section 

IX, the documents and communications 

developed in this process would be 

preserved by the Federal agencies and 

would, as appropriate, become part of 

any subsequent administrative record. 

Glossary 

Federal Authorization means any 

authorization required under Federal 

law to site a transmission facility, 

including permits, special use 

authorizations, certifications, opinions, 

or other approvals. This term includes 

authorizations issued by Federal and 

Non-Federal Entities that are 

responsible for issuing decisions that 

are called for under Federal law for a 

transmission facility. 

Federal Entities means any Federal 

agencies with relevant expertise or 

interests that may have jurisdiction 

pertinent to the project, are responsible 

for conducting permitting and 

environmental reviews of the proposed 

project or attendant facilities, or have 

special expertise with respect to 

environmental and other issues 

pertinent to or that are potentially 

affected by the project or its attendant 

facilities or providing funding for the 

same. Federal Entities include those 

with either permitting or non-permitting 

authority, for example, those entities 

with which consultation must be 

completed before authorizing a project. 

Geographic Areas of Concern means 

those areas that present challenges or 

conflicts that could increase the time 

needed for the Federal government to 

evaluate the application if the route(s) 

are is sited through such areas (e.g., 

right-of-way avoidance areas identified 

through agency land management plans, 

National Historic Landmarks, traditional 

religious and cultural properties 

significant to Indian tribe(s), National 

Scenic and Historic Trails, National 

Wildlife Refuges, units of the National 

Park System, marine sanctuaries). 

NEPA Lead Agency means the Federal 

agency, selected as provided for in this 

process pursuant to 40 CFR § 1501.5 to 

supervise the preparation of an 

environmental impact statement or an 

environmental assessment, as 

applicable, and to coordinate related 

Federal agency reviews. 

Non-Federal Entities means Indian 

Tribes, multistate entities, and State and 

local government agencies with relevant 

expertise that may have jurisdiction 

within the Project Area, are responsible 

for conducting permitting and 

environmental reviews of the proposed 

project or attendant facilities, or have 

special expertise with respect to 

environmental and other issues 

pertinent to or that are potentially 

affected by the project or its attendant 

facilities. Non-Federal Entities include 

those with either permitting or nonpermitting authority, for example those 

entities with whom consultation must 

be completed before authorizing a 

project. 

Project Area means the geographic 

area to be considered when developing 

potential Study Corridors for 

environmental review and potential 

project siting. It is an area located 

between the two end points of the 

project (e.g., substations), including 

their immediate surroundings within at 

least one-quarter mile of that area, and 

over any proposed intermediate 

substations. The size of the Project Area 

should be sufficient to allow for the 

evaluation of potential alternative 

Routes with differing environmental, 

engineering, and regulatory constraints. 

Note that the Project Area does not 

necessarily coincide with ‘‘permit area,’’ 

‘‘area of potential effect,’’ or ‘‘action 

area,’’ which are specific to types of 

regulatory review as determined by the 

NEPA Lead Agency or DOE in 

consultation with the Project Proponent. 

Project Proponent means a person or 

entity who initiates the IIP Process in 

anticipation of seeking Federal 

Authorizations for a Qualifying Project. 

Qualifying Projects means (1) (a) a 

non-marine high voltage transmission 

line (230 kV or above) and its attendant 

facilities or (b) a regionally or nationally 

significant non-marine transmission line 

and its attendant facilities, in which (2) 

all or part of the proposed transmission 

line is used for the transmission of 

electric energy in interstate commerce 

for sale at wholesale, and (3) all or part 

of the proposed transmission line (a) 

crosses jurisdictions administered by 

more than one Federal Entity or (b) 

crosses jurisdictions administered by a 

Federal Entity and is considered for 

Federal financial assistance from a 

Federal Entity. Qualifying Projects do 

not include those for which an 

application has been submitted to FERC 

for issuance of a permit for construction 

or modification of a transmission 

facility, or where a pre-filing procedure 

has been initiated, under section 216(b) 

of the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 

824p (b)) (transmission lines within a 

DOE-designated National Interest 

Electric Transmission Corridors). 

Regional Mitigation Strategies means 

mitigation measures and a framework 

based on the results of regional, 

landscape or watershed-level analyses 

to directly compensate for project 

impacts. 

Route means a linear area within 

which a transmission line could be 

sited. A route is usually several hundred 

feet wide. It should be wide enough to 

allow minor adjustments in the 

alignment of the transmission line so as 

to avoid sensitive features or 

accommodate potential engineering 

constraints but narrow enough to allow 

detailed study of the entire area. 

Study Corridor means a contiguous 

area usually one mile to several miles 

wide within the Project Area where 

alternative Routes may be considered 

for further study. 

Issued in Washington, DC, August 23, 

2013. 

Patricia A. Hoffman, 

Assistant Secretary, Office of Electricity 

Delivery and Energy Reliability. 

[FR Doc. 2013–21098 Filed 8–28–13; 8:45 a.m.] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy 

[Case No. CD–008] 

Energy Conservation Program for 

Consumer Products: Decision and 

Order Granting a Waiver to ASKO 

Appliances Inc. From the Department 

of Energy Residential Clothes Dryer 

Test Procedure 

AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy, Department of 

Energy. 

ACTION: Decision and Order. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of 

Energy (DOE) gives notice of the 

decision and order (Case No. CD–008) 

that grants to ASKO Appliances Inc. 

(ASKO) a waiver from the DOE clothes 

dryer test procedure. The waiver 

pertains to the models of condensing 

residential clothes dryer specified in 

ASKO’s petition. Condensing clothes 

dryers cannot be tested using the 

currently applicable DOE test 

procedure. Under today’s decision and 

order, ASKO shall not be required to 

test and rate its specified models of 

residential condensing clothes dryer 

pursuant to the current test procedure. 

DATES: This Decision and Order is 

effective August 29, 2013. 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES