This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER

contains notices to the public of the proposed

issuance of rules and regulations. The

purpose of these notices is to give interested

persons an opportunity to participate in the

rule making prior to the adoption of the final

rules.

Proposed Rules Federal Register

5383 

Vol. 81, No. 21 

Tuesday, February 2, 2016 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

10 CFR Part 900 

RIN 1901–AB36 

Coordination of Federal Authorizations 

for Electric Transmission Facilities 

AGENCY: Office of Electricity Delivery 

and Energy Reliability, Department of 

Energy. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Energy 

(DOE) proposes to amend its regulations 

for the timely coordination of Federal 

Authorizations for proposed interstate 

electric transmission facilities pursuant 

to section 216(h) of the Federal Power 

Act (FPA). The proposed amendments 

are intended to improve the preapplication procedures and result in 

more efficient processing of 

applications. 

DATES: Public comment on this 

proposed rule will be accepted until 

April 4, 2016. DOE will hold a public 

workshop and will announce the date, 

time and location in a subsequent 

notice. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by RIN 1901–AB36, by any of 

the following methods: 

1. Follow the instructions for 

submitting comments on the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal at http://

www.regulations.gov. 

2. Send email to oeregs@hq.doe.gov. 

Include RIN 1901–AB36 in the subject 

line of the email. Please include the full 

body of your comments in the text of the 

message or as an attachment. 

3. Address postal mail to U.S. 

Department of Energy, Office of 

Electricity Delivery and Energy 

Reliability, Mailstop OE–20, Room 8G– 

017, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., 

Washington, DC 20585. 

Due to potential delays in the delivery 

of postal mail, we encourage 

respondents to submit comments 

electronically to ensure timely receipt. 

This notice of proposed rulemaking 

and any comments that DOE receives 

will be made available on the DOE Web 

site at http://energy.gov/oe/services/

electricity-policy-coordination-andimplementation/transmission-planning/

improving. You may request a hardcopy 

of the workshop transcript or comments 

be sent to you via postal mail by 

contacting the DOE’s Office of 

Electricity Delivery and Energy 

Reliability. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Julie 

A. Smith, Ph.D. with the U.S. 

Department of Energy, Office of 

Electricity Delivery and Energy 

Reliability, Mailstop OE–20, Room 8G– 

017, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., 

Washington, DC 20585; or oeregs@

hq.doe.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Acronyms 

and Abbreviations. A number of 

acronyms and abbreviations are used in 

this preamble. While this may not be an 

exhaustive list, to ease the reading of 

this preamble and for reference 

purposes, the following terms, 

acronyms, and abbreviations are defined 

as follows: 

CEQ Council on Environmental Quality 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

DOE Department of Energy 

EIS Environmental Impact Statement 

E.O. Executive Order 

EPAct Energy Policy Act of 2005 

FERC Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission 

FPA Federal Power Act 

FR Federal Register 

IIP Integrated Interagency Pre-Application 

MOU Memorandum of Understanding 

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act 

OMB Office of Management and Budget 

PM Presidential Memorandum 

PMA Federal Power Marketing 

Administration 

RFI Request for Information 

RRTT Rapid Response Team for 

Transmission 

RTO Regional Transmission Operators 

I. Background 

II. Discussion of Proposed Rule 

A. General 

B. Applicability 

C. Definitions 

D. Integrated Interagency Pre-Application 

(IIP) Process 

E. Selection of NEPA Lead Agency 

F. IIP Process Administrative File 

III. Regulatory Review 

A. Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 

B. National Environmental Policy Act 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

D. Paperwork Reduction Act 

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

F. Treasury and General Government 

Appropriations Act, 1999 

G. Executive Order 13132 

H. Executive Order 12988 

I. Treasury and General Government 

Appropriations Act, 2001 

J. Executive Order 13211 

IV. Approval of the Office of the Secretary 

I. Background 

The Energy Policy Act of 2005 (Pub. 

L. 109–58) (EPAct) established a 

national policy to enhance and, to the 

extent possible, increase the 

coordination and communication 

among Federal agencies with authority 

to site electric transmission facilities. 

The policies set forth by Congress in 

EPAct reinforced policies announced in 

E.O. 13212, Actions to Expedite EnergyRelated Projects (66 FR 28357, May 22, 

2001) by mandating each agency with 

the authority to issue Federal 

authorizations to ensure the timely and 

coordinated review and permitting of 

electric transmission facilities. Section 

1221(a) of EPAct added a new section 

216(h) to the Federal Power Act (16 

U.S.C. 791–828c) (FPA), which sets 

forth provisions relevant to the siting of 

interstate electric transmission facilities. 

Section 216(h) of the FPA (16 U.S.C. 

824p(h)), ‘‘Coordination of Federal 

Authorizations for Transmission 

Facilities,’’ provides for DOE to 

coordinate all Federal authorizations 

and related environmental reviews 

needed for siting interstate electric 

transmission projects, including 

National Environmental Policy Act of 

1969 (NEPA) reviews. 

Section 216(h) of the FPA provides for 

the coordination of Federal transmission 

siting determinations for project 

proponents seeking permits, special use 

authorizations, certifications, opinions, 

or other approvals required under 

Federal law to site an electric 

transmission facility. Section 216(h)(3) 

requires the Secretary, to the maximum 

extent practicable under Federal law, to 

coordinate the Federal authorization 

and review process with any Indian 

tribes, multi-state entities, and state 

agencies that have their own separate 

permitting and environmental reviews. 

Section 216(h)(4)(C) further requires 

that DOE establish an expeditious preapplication mechanism to allow project 

proponents to confer with Federal 

agencies involved, and for each such 

agency to communicate to the 

proponent any information needs 

relevant to a prospective application 

and key issues of concern to the 


wgreen on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
5384 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 21 / Tuesday, February 2, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

1With the publication of this proposed rule, DOE 

withdraws a previously proposed rulemaking for 

the Coordination of Federal Authorizations for 

Electric Transmission Facilities in December 2011 

(76 FR 77432; Dec. 13, 2011). In that action, DOE 

proposed requirements for permitting entities to 

inform DOE of requests for authorizations, 

established a process by which prospective Project 

Proponents may request DOE’s coordination under 

section 216(h) for Federal authorizations for 

interstate electric transmission facilities, provided 

for the selection of a Federal lead agency for the 

purposes of compiling a single environmental 

review document and consolidated administrative 

record for Qualifying Projects, as well as provided 

for the establishment of intermediate and final 

deadlines for the review of Federal authorization 

decisions, as well as established a date certain after 

which all permit decisions and related 

environmental reviews under all applicable Federal 

laws shall be completed in one year or as soon 

thereafter as permissible by law. 

agencies and public. The DOE proposes 

to amend its existing regulations to 

implement the Integrated Interagency 

Pre-application (IIP) process described 

in section II. 

On September 19, 2008, DOE 

published an interim final rule 

establishing procedures under which 

prospective applicants may request that 

DOE coordinate interstate electric 

transmission facilities and related 

environmental reviews pursuant to FPA 

section 216(h) (73 FR 54456). The 

interim final rule became effective on 

October 20, 2008, and the regulations 

can be found at 10 CFR 900.1 through 

900.6. Also on September 19, 2008, DOE 

published a notice of proposed 

rulemaking (NOPR), which proposed 

amendments to the interim final rule (73 

FR 54461) that was intended to amend 

the interim final rule. Comments were 

filed in response to the 2008 interim 

final rule and 2008 NOPR. DOE 

addressed the comments submitted in 

response to both the interim final rule 

and the 2008 NOPR in another NOPR 

issued on December 13, 2011 (76 FR 

77432).1

On October 23, 2009, DOE and eight 

other Federal agencies with permitting 

or other Federal authorization 

responsibility for the siting of electric 

transmission facilities entered into a 

‘‘Memorandum of Understanding 

Regarding Coordination in Federal 

Agency Review of Electric Transmission 

Facilities on Federal Land’’ (2009 

MOU). The signatories to the 2009 MOU 

were DOE, the Departments of Defense, 

Agriculture (USDA), the Interior (DOI), 

and Commerce, the Federal Regulatory 

Energy Commission (FERC), the 

Environmental Protection Agency 

(USEPA), the Council on Environmental 

Quality (CEQ), and the Advisory 

Council on Historic Preservation. 

The purpose of the 2009 MOU is to 

establish a framework to improve 

coordination among project proponents, 

Federal agencies, states, and tribes 

involved in the siting and permitting 

process for electric transmission 

facilities on Federal lands. The MOU is 

intended to improve uniformity, 

consistency, and transparency by 

describing each entity’s role and 

responsibilities when project 

proponents wish to build electric 

transmission facilities. Additionally, the 

MOU designates a ‘‘Lead Agency’’ 

serving as the single point-of-contact for 

coordinating all Federal environmental 

reviews necessary to site electric 

transmission facilities on Federal lands. 

In most instances, the Departments of 

Agriculture or Interior will be the Lead 

Agency, since they have jurisdiction 

over most of the Federal lands and rightof-ways for proposed electric 

transmission facilities. Nothing in this 

proposed rule modifies this aspect of 

the MOU. The proposed 10 CFR 900.5 

would maintain the agreements reached 

in the MOU in the context of identifying 

and selecting a potential NEPA lead for 

environmental reviews once 

applications for Federal authorizations 

are received by Federal agencies. 

In October 2011, in an effort to 

improve the performance of Federal 

siting, permitting, and review processes 

for infrastructure development, the 

President created a Rapid Response 

Team for Transmission (RRTT), a 

collaborative effort involving nine 

executive departments and agencies that 

are signatories to the 2009 MOU. The 

RRTT is an interagency group working 

to improve the efficiency, effectiveness 

and predictability of transmission siting, 

permitting, and review processes, in 

part through increasing interagency 

coordination and transparency. Lessons 

learned through the RRTT have 

informed the Integrated Interagency Preapplication (IIP) process proposed in 

this proposed rule. 

On March 22, 2012, the President 

issued Executive Order 13604, 

‘‘Improving Performance of Federal 

Permitting and Review of Infrastructure 

Projects’’ that directed all Federal 

executive departments and agencies to 

take all authorized steps, 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 

economic growth. The E.O. emphasized 

early and active consultation with tribal, 

state, and local governments to avoid 

conflicts or duplication of effort, resolve 

concerns, and allow for concurrent 

rather than sequential reviews. The E.O. 

also noted that these elements must be 

integrated into project planning 

processes so that projects are designed 

to avoid, minimize or mitigate, to the 

extent practicable, adverse impacts on 

public health, security, historic 

properties and cultural resources, and 

the environment. 

On May 17, 2013, the President issued 

a memorandum on Modernizing Federal 

Infrastructure Review and Permitting 

Regulations, Policies, and Procedures to 

the heads of Executive Departments and 

Agencies, that discussed agency best 

practices identified as a result of E.O. 

13604. These best practices include, but 

are not limited to: Early coordination 

among Federal agencies, as well as with 

tribal, state, and local governments; 

strategic outreach to stakeholders; 

project-planning processes and 

individual project designs that consider 

local and regional ecological planning 

goals; landscape- and watershed-level 

mitigation practices; 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; and 

the application of best environmental 

and cultural practices as set forth in the 

governing statutes. 

On June 7, 2013, the President issued 

a memorandum on Transforming our 

Nation’s Electric Grid Through 

Improved Siting, Permitting, and 

Review to the heads of Executive 

Departments and Agencies. Building on 

the work of the RRTT, that 

memorandum strongly affirms that 

robust collaboration among Federal, 

tribal, state, and local governments must 

be a critical component of the 

Administration’s effort 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. Section 4(a) of 

the memorandum directs that Member 

Agencies of the Steering Committee 

created under E.O. 13604 to develop an 

integrated, interagency pre-application 

process for significant onshore electric 

transmission projects requiring Federal 

approval. The process must be designed 

to: Promote predictability in Federal 

siting, permitting, and review processes; 

encourage early engagement, 

coordination, and collaboration of 

Federal, tribal, state, and local 

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 


wgreen on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 21 / Tuesday, February 2, 2016 / Proposed Rules 5385 

2Comments received in response to the 2013 RFI 

may be accessed at: http://energy.gov/oe/

downloads/comments-request-informationimproving-performance-Federal-permitting-andreview. 

3 Department of Energy Delegation Order No. 00– 

004–00A, sec. 1.22, issued May 16. 2006. 

4 DOE does not consider applications to the PMAs 

for transmission interconnections to be Federal 

authorization requests within the meaning of 

216(h). 

strategic mitigation plans; expedite 

siting, permitting, and review processes 

through a mutual understanding of the 

needs of all affected Federal agencies 

and tribal, state, and local governments; 

and improve environmental and 

cultural resource outcomes. 

On August 29, 2013, DOE published 

a Request for Information (RFI) seeking 

information on a new draft IIP Process 

for significant onshore electric 

transmission projects requiring Federal 

authorizations developed by the RRTT. 

The proposed IIP Process presented in 

the RFI consisted of a series of four (4) 

iterative meetings, with direct federal 

involvement throughout the entire 

development of a transmission line 

project—from the identification of two 

substation endpoints (study area), to the 

selection of study corridors within a 

study area, and through identification of 

route alternative(s) within those study 

corridors. In response to comments 

received from the public, Federal 

agencies, state agencies, environmental 

groups, and industry representatives,2

DOE proposes a revised simplified IIP 

Process that consists of two (2) meetings 

that focus on projects in which study 

corridors and route alternatives are 

already under development. The IIP 

Process is discussed in section II of this 

proposed rule. 

II. Discussion of Proposed Rule 

A. General 

10 CFR 900.1 states the purpose of the 

regulations, which is to provide a 

process for the timely coordination of 

Federal authorizations for proposed 

transmission facilities pursuant to 

section 216(h) of the FPA (16 U.S.C. 

824p(h)), including the development of 

an early pre-application process in 

support of this coordination and the 

selection of a NEPA lead agency. These 

proposed regulations provide a 

framework for DOE to coordinate early 

cooperation and exchange of 

environmental information. These 

proposed regulations provide a 

framework for DOE to facilitate early 

cooperation and exchange of 

environmental information required to 

site qualified electric transmission 

facilities. These activities would occur 

prior to an applicant filing a request for 

authorization with Federal permitting 

agencies. The proposed regulations also 

provide an opportunity for non-Federal 

agencies (tribal, state, or local 

governments) to coordinate separate 

non-Federal permitting and 

environmental reviews with that of the 

Federal permitting agencies. 

B. Applicability 

Section 900.2 of the proposed rule 

explains when the provisions of part 

900 would apply to the coordination of 

Federal authorizations. The provisions 

of part 900, which are consistent with 

DOE’s existing regulations and the 2009 

MOU, would apply to Qualifying 

Projects, and would also apply to Other 

Projects at the discretion of the 

Assistant Secretary of DOE’s Office of 

Electricity Delivery and Energy 

Reliability (OE–1). Both types of 

projects must be for transmission 

facilities that are used for the 

transmission of electric energy in 

interstate commerce, but Qualifying 

Projects are generally 230 kV or above 

and cross jurisdictions administered by 

more than one Federal Entity or MOU 

Signatory Agency. 

Further, there would be no 

coordination role for DOE for Federal 

authorizations for electric transmission 

facilities located within the Electric 

Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT) 

interconnection because section 216(k) 

of the FPA states that section 216 of the 

FPA shall not apply within the ERCOT 

area (16 U.S.C. 824p(k)). Section 900.2 

also provides that section 216(h) does 

not apply when an application has been 

submitted to FERC for issuance of a 

permit for construction or modification 

of a transmission facility, or a pre-filing 

procedure has been initiated, under 

section 216(b) of the FPA (16 U.S.C. 

824p(b)) (transmission lines within a 

DOE-designated National Interest 

Electric Transmission Corridor). In 

those circumstances, DOE has delegated 

its section 216(h) coordination authority 

to FERC and, in Order No. 689,3 FERC 

adopted regulations setting forth the 

procedures it will follow in such 

circumstances. 

Section 900.2 also provides that this 

part does not apply to transmission 

lines that cross the U.S. international 

border, Federal submerged lands, 

national marine sanctuaries, marine 

national monuments, or facilities 

constructed by Federal Power Marketing 

Administrations (PMAs).4 Section 

216(h) does not affect any requirements 

of U.S. environmental laws, and in the 

above mentioned cases, does not waive 

any requirements to obtain necessary 

Federal authorizations for electric 

transmission facilities. 

C. Definitions 

Section 900.3 defines terms for this 

part. 

D. Integrated Interagency PreApplication (IIP) Process 

Section 900.4 provides the procedures 

and information requirements of the 

proposed IIP Process. This section sets 

forth a proposed framework for 

implementing the proposed IIP Process, 

provisions for how DOE would fulfill its 

section 216(h) Lead Coordinating 

Agency role as defined in § 900.2 of this 

part, provisions describing expected 

outcomes of each IIP Initial Meeting and 

IIP Close-Out Meeting, and provisions 

describing the nature and purpose of 

products generated during the IIP 

Process (e.g., Final IIP Environmental 

Report). 

For proponents of Qualifying Projects, 

participation in the IIP Process is 

voluntary. A Project Proponent initiates 

the IIP Process by submitting an 

Initiation Request as described in 

proposed § 900.4. A Project Proponent 

may elect to request initiation of the IIP 

Process for a Qualifying Project or Other 

Project as defined in § 900.2. The timing 

of the Initiation Request is determined 

by the Project Proponent. 

When a Project Proponent elects to 

utilize the IIP Process, DOE will require 

the active participation of the Project 

Proponent to ensure effective 

coordination covered in this part. Active 

participation includes providing 

project-related and environmental 

information required as part of the 

Initiation Request to DOE. DOE must 

determine that adequate information has 

been provided by the Project Proponent 

consistent with § 900.4 before DOE will 

initiate its coordination function under 

this part. 

Information requested as part of the 

Initiation Request in this proposed rule 

retains many of the existing 

requirements contained in § 900.5 

‘‘Request for coordination’ of the 

existing section 216(h) regulation 

(January 2011), and expands on some of 

those elements based on RRTT agency 

experience and information received in 

response to the August 2013 RFI (78 FR 

53436). DOE will provide electronic 

access to a checklist, as well as other 

helpful information and publiclyavailable resources in a central 

electronic repository, as currently 


wgreen on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
5386 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 21 / Tuesday, February 2, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

5Electronic tools currently exist that may serve as 

a resource for the information required as a part of 

the IIP Process. For example, the Regulatory and 

Permitting Information Desktop (RAPID) Toolkit, an 

online tool that streamlines the challenge of siting 

and permitting transmission lines in the West. The 

RAPID Toolkit offers a single location for agencies, 

developers, and industry stakeholders to work 

together on electric energy transmission regulatory 

processes by using a wiki environment to 

collaborate on regulatory processes, permit 

guidance, regulations, contacts, and other relevant 

information. The RAPID Toolkit can be accessed at 

http://en.openei.org/wiki/RAPID. 

6Provided, however, that a Federal Entity whose 

permitting authority for the construction or 

modification of electric transmission facilities is 

limited to those facilities for which an application 

is filed under section 216(b) of the Federal Power 

Act may participate at its sole discretion. 

7CEQ, NEPA’s Forty Most Asked Questions (46 

FR 18026; March 23, 1981, as amended), Question 

8 discusses ‘‘early corporate environmental 

assessments’’ 

8 Id. 

9Each participating Federal Entity is responsible 

for meeting its own agency-specific requirements. 

provided for in § 900.6(b) of the existing 

regulations at 10 CFR part 900.5

DOE will notify and request 

participation by all Federal Entities in 

the IIP Process that have a potential 

authorization or consultation for a 

Qualifying Project after DOE has 

reviewed and determined that an 

Initiation Request meets the 

informational requirements of § 900.4(a) 

through (d). All Federal Entities notified 

by DOE as having a potential 

authorization or consultation required 

for the siting of a Qualifying Project will 

be expected to participate in the Initial 

Meeting and the Final Meeting, unless 

the notified agency clarifies in writing 

to DOE within seven (7) calendar days 

of notification that they do not have any 

involvement or have minimal 

involvement, along with the supporting 

rationale used by the notified agency for 

their non- or minimal involvement. 6

DOE will schedule IIP meetings no 

less than thirty (30) calendar days from 

each other and only after Federal 

Entities are given notice of the need for 

their participation in the IIP Process. 

The notification described applies to 

both initiation and close-out of the IIP 

Process, in response to the Project 

Proponent’s request for such meetings. 

The list of Federal Entities notified by 

DOE following its review of the 

Initiation Request as having a potential 

authorization or consultation required 

for the siting of a Qualified Project may 

be revised as necessary during the IIP 

Process based on information provided 

by the Project Proponent, the Federal 

Entity, and otherwise publicly-available 

information. DOE will oversee the IIP 

Process and coordinate the involvement 

of the Federal Entities as described 

below in § 900.4 even though DOE is not 

responsible for issuing a Federal 

Authorization. DOE will provide 

Federal Entities and Non-Federal 

Entities access to all information 

received from the Project Proponent as 

a part of an Initiation Request 

determined by DOE to meet the 

information requirements of this part in 

§ 900.4, which will be coordinated 

through the use of the Office of 

Management and Budget’s (OMB’s) 

MAX electronic system (https://

max.omb.gov/maxportal) throughout an 

IIP Process for a Qualifying Project. 

In-person attendance at IIP Process 

meetings by each Federal Entity will 

depend on the availability of resources 

or the authority to recover costs from 

Project Proponents. Currently, certain 

Federal Entities may recover costs only 

after an application has been submitted, 

and some Federal entities lack cost 

recovery authority altogether. Even in 

instances where cost recovery may be 

available, each Federal agency will 

make its own determination regarding 

its participation and use of resources. 

Each Federal agency will provide its 

rationale to DOE in writing when or if 

a determination is made that it may not 

be expeditious to use of staff time and 

funds to attend all or some meetings. To 

the extent allowed by law Federal 

Entities may seek cost recovery from the 

Project Proponents during the IIP 

Process. DOE will provide an 

opportunity for Federal and NonFederal Entities to participate in IIP 

meetings by using teleconferencing and 

webinars. 

Coordinating the preparation of the 

Final IIP Resources Report document 

prepared by DOE and related 

administrative file will facilitate more 

efficient preparation of a single 

environmental review document that all 

agencies can strive to utilize to inform 

their relevant decision making. The 

Final IIP Resources Report is designed 

in terms of format and substance to be 

similar to an ‘‘early corporate 

environmental assessment’’ or typical 

applicant-generated environmental 

study in accordance with: (1) Council 

on Environmental Quality (CEQ) 

regulations implementing NEPA (40 

CFR parts 1500 through 1508); (2) CEQ 

guidance related to early consultation or 

engagement of Federal agencies with 

prospective applicants; and (3) NEPA’s 

Forty Most Asked Questions related to 

the ability of agencies to authorize 

preparation of environmental 

assessments by applicants (46 FR 18026; 

March 23, 1981, as amended). 7 Such 

actions continue to be encouraged by 

CEQ as ‘‘they call for private, Federal 

and non-Federal entities to build 

environmental considerations into their 

own planning processes in a way that 

facilitates the application of NEPA and 

avoids delay.’’ 8

The Final IIP Resources Report will be 

included by DOE, along with all other 

support information, datasets, maps, 

figures, etc. collected as part of the IIP 

Process in an IIP Process Administrative 

File that would be provided to the 

NEPA Lead Agency to inform their 

environmental reviews once an 

application is filed. This information 

can, and should, also be used by other 

agencies on related decision making. 

DOE will maintain the IIP Process 

Administrative File for the duration of 

the IIP Process and until no later than 

thirty (30) calendar days after the IIP 

Close out Meeting has been convened. 

E. Selection of NEPA Lead Agency 

Section 900.5 provides a mechanism 

for the identification and selection of a 

NEPA Lead Agency responsible for 

meeting Federal environmental review 

requirements 9 for permitting interstate 

transmission lines across multiple 

Federal jurisdictions once applications 

are filed with permitting agencies. This 

section incorporates the terms and 

mechanisms provided for identification 

and determination of NEPA Lead 

Agency for transmission facilities 

proposed for siting on majority Federal 

lands as set forth in the 2009 MOU and 

in accordance with CEQ’s NEPA 

regulations. 

F. IIP Process Administrative File 

Section 900.6 defines the contents of 

a consolidated IIP Process 

Administrative File intended to 

document IIP Process-related products 

and information. This new section 

replaces the existing § 900.6. This 

section also describes the intent and 

process by which this file will be 

maintained by DOE as Lead 216(h) 

Agency in coordination with the Federal 

Entities for the duration of the IIP 

Process. 

III. Regulatory Review 

A. Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 

This regulatory action has been 

determined to be a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action’’ under Executive 

Order 12866, ‘‘Regulatory Planning and 

Review,’’ 58 FR 51735 (October 4, 1993). 

Accordingly, this action was subject to 

review under that Executive Order by 

the Office of Information and Regulatory 

Affairs of the Office of Management and 

Budget. 

DOE has also reviewed this regulation 

pursuant to Executive Order 13563, 


wgreen on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 21 / Tuesday, February 2, 2016 / Proposed Rules 5387 

issued on January 18, 2011 (76 FR 3281, 

Jan. 21, 2011). Executive Order 13563 is 

supplemental to and explicitly reaffirms 

the principles, structures, and 

definitions governing regulatory review 

established in Executive Order 12866. 

To the extent permitted by law, agencies 

are required by Executive Order 13563 

to: (1) Propose or adopt a regulation 

only upon a reasoned determination 

that its benefits justify its costs 

(recognizing that some benefits and 

costs are difficult to quantify); (2) tailor 

regulations to impose the least burden 

on society, consistent with obtaining 

regulatory objectives, taking into 

account, among other things, and to the 

extent practicable, the costs of 

cumulative regulations; (3) select, in 

choosing among alternative regulatory 

approaches, those approaches that 

maximize net benefits (including 

potential economic, environmental, 

public health and safety, and other 

advantages; distributive impacts; and 

equity); (4) to the extent feasible, specify 

performance objectives, rather than 

specifying the behavior or manner of 

compliance that regulated entities must 

adopt; and (5) identify and assess 

available alternatives to direct 

regulation, including providing 

economic incentives to encourage the 

desired behavior, such as user fees or 

marketable permits, or providing 

information upon which choices can be 

made by the public. 

DOE concludes that this proposed 

rule is consistent with these principles. 

Specifically, this proposed rule sets 

forth voluntary procedures for DOE 

coordination of Federal Authorizations 

for the siting of interstate electric 

transmission facilities. As described in 

section III.C., therefore, the costs of the 

rule will impact Federal agencies. 

Among the benefits expected from this 

proposed rule, actions taken to 

coordinate information and agency 

communication before applications for 

Federal Authorizations are submitted to 

Federal agencies for review and 

consideration would help reduce 

application review and decision-making 

timelines. Because use of the proposed 

IIP Process is voluntary, DOE further 

expects that the Project Proponent 

requesting assistance has made the 

calculation that the request was in the 

best interests of the Project Proponent. 

The request would also help 

transmission developers determine the 

likelihood that they would successfully 

obtain permits, which is necessary to 

make their proposed project successful 

in the competitive, regional 

transmission planning processes. 

B. National Environmental Policy Act 

DOE has determined that 

promulgation of these regulations fall 

into a class of actions that does not 

individually or cumulatively have a 

significant impact on the human 

environment as set forth under DOE’s 

regulations implementing the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 

U.S.C. 4321 et seq). Specifically, this 

rulemaking is covered under the 

Categorical Exclusion found in the 

DOE’s National Environmental Policy 

Act regulations at paragraph A6 of 

Appendix A to Subpart D, 10 CFR part 

1021, which applies to Rulemakings 

that are strictly procedural. 

Accordingly, neither an environmental 

assessment nor an environmental 

impact statement is required. 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires preparation 

of an initial regulatory flexibility 

analysis for any rule that by law must 

be proposed for public comment, unless 

the agency certifies that the rule, if 

promulgated, will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. As required by 

Executive Order 13272, ‘‘Proper 

Consideration of Small Entities in 

Agency Rulemaking,’’ 67 FR 53461 

(August 16, 2002), DOE published 

procedures and policies on February 19, 

2003, to ensure that the potential 

impacts of its rules on small entities are 

properly considered during the 

rulemaking process (68 FR 7990). DOE 

has made its procedures and policies 

available on the Office of General 

Counsel’s Web site: http://

www.gc.doe.gov. 

DOE has reviewed this proposed rule 

under the provisions of the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act and the procedures and 

policies published on February 19, 

2003. This proposed rule sets forth 

simplified or revised procedures for 

DOE coordination of Federal 

Authorizations for the siting of 

interstate electric transmission facilities. 

As a result, the rule directly impacts 

Federal agencies and not small entities. 

In those cases where a Project 

Proponent requests DOE assistance for a 

project that is not a Qualifying Project, 

DOE expects that the provisions of this 

proposed rule, if adopted, would not 

affect the substantive interests of such 

Project Proponents, including any 

Project Proponents that are small 

entities. DOE expects actions taken 

under the proposed provisions to 

coordinate information and agency 

communication before applications for 

Federal Authorizations are submitted to 

Federal agencies for review and 

consideration would help reduce 

application review and decision-making 

timelines. Because use of the IIP Process 

set forth in the proposed rule is 

voluntary, DOE further expects that the 

Project Proponent requesting assistance 

has made the calculation that the 

request was in the best interests of the 

Project Proponent. The request would 

also help facilitate transmission 

developers with determining the 

likelihood that they would successfully 

obtain permits, which is necessary to 

make their proposed project successful 

in the competitive, regional 

transmission planning processes. On the 

basis of the foregoing, DOE certifies that 

this proposed rule would not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

Accordingly, DOE has not prepared a 

regulatory flexibility analysis for this 

rulemaking. DOE’s certification and 

supporting statement of factual basis 

will be provided to the Chief Counsel 

for Advocacy of the Small Business 

Administration pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 

605(b). 

D. Paperwork Reduction Act 

The proposed rule contains 

information collection requirements 

subject to review and approval by OMB 

pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction 

Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) and 

the procedures implementing that Act, 5 

CFR 1320.1 et seq. This requirement has 

been submitted to OMB for approval. 

Public reporting burden for requesting 

information during the pre-application 

process is estimated to average 30 

minutes per response. Public reporting 

burden for requesting DOE assistance in 

the Federal authorization process is 

estimated to average one hour per 

response. Both of these burden 

estimates include the time for reviewing 

instructions, searching existing data 

sources, gathering and maintaining the 

data needed, and completing and 

reviewing the collection of information. 

DOE invites public comment on: (1) 

Whether the proposed information 

collection requirements are necessary 

for the performance of DOE’s functions, 

including whether the information will 

have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of 

DOE’s estimates of the burden of the 

proposed information collection 

requirements; (3) ways to enhance the 

quality, utility, and clarity of the 

information to be collected; and (4) 

ways to minimize the burden of the 

information collection requirements on 

respondents. Comments should be 

addressed to the DOE Desk Officer, 

Office of Information and Regulatory 

Affairs, OMB, 725 17th Street NW., 


wgreen on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
5388 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 21 / Tuesday, February 2, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

Washington, DC 20503. Persons 

submitting comments to OMB also are 

requested to send a copy to the contact 

person at the address given in the 

ADDRESSES section of this notice of 

proposed rulemaking. Interested 

persons may obtain a copy of the DOE’s 

Paperwork Reduction Act Submission to 

OMB from the contact person named in 

this notice of proposed rulemaking. 

Notwithstanding any other provision 

of the law, no person is required to 

respond to, nor shall any person be 

subject to a penalty for failure to comply 

with, a collection of information subject 

to the requirements of the PRA, unless 

that collection of information displays a 

currently valid OMB Control Number. 

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 

1995 

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4) generally 

requires Federal agencies to examine 

closely the impacts of regulatory actions 

on tribal, state, and local governments. 

Subsection 101(5) of title I of that law 

defines a Federal intergovernmental 

mandate to include any regulation that 

would impose upon tribal, state, or local 

governments an enforceable duty, 

except a condition of Federal assistance 

or a duty arising from participating in a 

voluntary Federal program. Title II of 

that law requires each Federal agency to 

assess the effects of Federal regulatory 

actions on tribal, state, and local 

governments, in the aggregate, or to the 

private sector, other than to the extent 

such actions merely incorporate 

requirements specifically set forth in a 

statute. Section 202 of that title requires 

a Federal agency to perform a detailed 

assessment of the anticipated costs and 

benefits of any rule that includes a 

Federal mandate which may result in 

costs to tribal, state, or local 

governments, or to the private sector, of 

$100 million or more in any one year 

(adjusted annually for inflation). 2 

U.S.C. 1532(a) and (b). Section 204 of 

that title requires each agency that 

proposes a rule containing a significant 

Federal intergovernmental mandate to 

develop an effective process for 

obtaining meaningful and timely input 

from elected officers of tribal, state, and 

local governments. 2 U.S.C. 1534. 

This proposed rule would revise 

procedures for an Integrated Interagency 

Pre-application process by which 

transmission developers, Federal, state, 

local agencies and tribes may coordinate 

early either in person or via 

teleconference/web conference and 

share information through the existing 

Office of Management and Budget MAX 

Web site collaborative tool. DOE has 

determined that the proposed rule 

would not result in the expenditure by 

tribal, state, and local governments in 

the aggregate, or by the private sector, of 

$100 million or more in any one year. 

Accordingly, no assessment or analysis 

is required under the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act of 1995. 

F. Treasury and General Government 

Appropriations Act, 1999 

Section 654 of the Treasury and 

General Government Appropriations 

Act, 1999 (Pub. L. 105–277) requires 

Federal agencies to issue a Family 

Policymaking Assessment for any 

proposed rule that may affect family 

well being. The proposed rule would 

not have any impact on the autonomy 

or integrity of the family as an 

institution. Accordingly, DOE has 

concluded that it is not necessary to 

prepare a Family Policymaking 

Assessment. 

G. Executive Order 13132 

Executive Order 13132, ‘‘Federalism,’’ 

64 FR 43255 (August 4, 1999) imposes 

certain requirements on agencies 

formulating and implementing policies 

or regulations that preempt state law or 

that have Federalism implications. 

Agencies are required to examine the 

constitutional and statutory authority 

supporting any action that would limit 

the policymaking discretion of the states 

and carefully assess the necessity for 

such actions. DOE has examined this 

proposed rule and has determined that 

it would not preempt state law and 

would not have a substantial direct 

effect on the states, on the relationship 

between the national government and 

the states, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities among the 

various levels of government. No further 

action is required by Executive Order 

13132. 

H. Executive Order 12988 

With respect to the review of existing 

regulations and the promulgation of 

new regulations, section 3(a) of 

Executive Order 12988, ‘‘Civil Justice 

Reform,’’ 61 FR 4729 (February 7, 1996), 

imposes on Executive agencies the 

general duty to adhere to the following 

requirements: (1) Eliminate drafting 

errors and ambiguity; (2) write 

regulations to minimize litigation; and 

(3) provide a clear legal standard for 

affected conduct rather than a general 

standard and promote simplification 

and burden reduction. With regard to 

the review required by section 3(a), 

section 3(b) of Executive Order 12988 

specifically requires that Executive 

agencies make every reasonable effort to 

ensure that the regulation: (1) Clearly 

specifies the preemptive effect, if any; 

(2) clearly specifies any effect on 

existing Federal law or regulation; (3) 

provides a clear legal standard for 

affected conduct while promoting 

simplification and burden reduction; (4) 

specifies the retroactive effect, if any; (5) 

adequately defines key terms; and (6) 

addresses other important issues 

affecting clarity and general 

draftsmanship under any guidelines 

issued by the Attorney General. Section 

3(c) of Executive Order 12988 requires 

Executive agencies to review regulations 

in light of applicable standards in 

section 3(a) and section 3(b) to 

determine whether they are met or it is 

unreasonable to meet one or more of 

them. DOE has completed the required 

review and determined that, to the 

extent permitted by law, the proposed 

rule meets the relevant standards of 

Executive Order 12988. 

I. Treasury and General Government 

Appropriations Act, 2001 

The Treasury and General 

Government Appropriations Act, 2001 

(44 U.S.C. 3516 note) provides for 

agencies to review most disseminations 

of information to the public under 

guidelines established by each agency 

pursuant to general guidelines issued by 

OMB. 

OMB’s guidelines were published at 

67 FR 8452 (February 22, 2002), and 

DOE’s guidelines were published at 67 

FR 62446 (October 7, 2002). DOE has 

reviewed this proposed rule under the 

OMB and DOE guidelines and has 

concluded that it is consistent with 

applicable policies in those guidelines. 

J. Executive Order 13211 

Executive Order 13211, ‘‘Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use,’’ 66 FR 28355 (May 

22, 2001) requires Federal agencies to 

prepare and submit to the OMB, a 

Statement of Energy Effects for any 

proposed significant energy action. A 

‘‘significant energy action’’ is defined as 

any action by an agency that 

promulgated or is expected to lead to 

promulgation of a final rule, and that: 

(1) Is a significant regulatory action 

under Executive Order 12866, or any 

successor order; and (2) is likely to have 

a significant adverse effect on the 

supply, distribution, or use of energy, or 

(3) is designated by the Administrator of 

OIRA as a significant energy action. For 

any proposed significant energy action, 

the agency must give a detailed 

statement of any adverse effects on 

energy supply, distribution, or use 

should the proposal be implemented, 

and of reasonable alternatives to the 

action and their expected benefits on 


wgreen on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 21 / Tuesday, February 2, 2016 / Proposed Rules 5389 

energy supply, distribution, and use. 

This regulatory action, which is 

intended to improve the pre-application 

procedures for certain transmission 

projects and therefore result in the more 

efficient processing of applications, 

would not have a significant adverse 

effect on the supply, distribution, or use 

of energy and is therefore not a 

significant energy action. Accordingly, 

DOE has not prepared a Statement of 

Energy Effects. 

IV. Approval of the Office of the 

Secretary 

The Secretary of Energy has approved 

the publication of this proposed rule. 

List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 900 

Electric power, Electric utilities, 

Energy, Reporting and record keeping 

requirements. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on January 20, 

2016. 

Patricia A. Hoffman, 

Assistant Secretary, Office of Electricity 

Delivery and Energy Reliability. 

For the reasons stated in the 

preamble, DOE proposes to revise part 

900 of chapter II of title 10, Code of 

Federal Regulations as set forth below: 

PART 900—COORDINATION OF 

FEDERAL AUTHORIZATIONS FOR 

ELECTRIC TRANSMISSION FACILITIES 

Sec. 

900.1 Purpose. 

900.2 Applicability. 

900.3 Definitions. 

900.4 Integrated interagency preapplication (IIP) process. 

900.5 Selection of NEPA lead agency. 

900.6 IIP Process administrative file. 

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 824p(h). 

§ 900.1 Purpose. 

This part provides a process for the 

timely coordination of information 

needed for Federal authorizations for 

proposed electric transmission facilities 

pursuant to section 216(h) of the Federal 

Power Act (FPA) (16 U.S.C. 824p(h)). 

This part seeks to ensure electric 

transmission projects are consistent 

with the nation’s environmental laws, 

including laws that protect endangered 

and threatened species, critical habitats 

and historic properties. This part 

provides a framework called the 

Integrated Interagency Pre-Application 

(IIP) process by which DOE cooperates 

with applicable Federal and nonFederal entities for the purpose of early 

coordination of information for 

permitting and environmental reviews 

required under Federal law to site 

qualified electric transmission facilities 

prior to submission of required Federal 

request(s). The IIP process provides for 

timely and focused pre-application 

meetings with key Federal and nonFederal entities, as well as for early 

identification of potential siting 

constraints or opportunities, and seeks 

to promote thorough and consistent 

stakeholder outreach by a project 

proponent during transmission line 

planning efforts. The IIP process occurs 

before any application or request for 

authorization is submitted to Federal 

entities. This part improves the siting 

process by facilitating the early 

submission, compilation, and 

documentation of information needed 

for subsequent coordinated, transparent 

environmental review of a Qualifying 

Project or approved Other Project by 

Federal entities under the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) 

following the submission of an 

application or request for authorization. 

This part also provides an opportunity 

for non-Federal entities to coordinate 

their non-Federal permitting and 

environmental reviews with that of the 

Federal entities. 

§ 900.2 Applicability. 

(a) The regulations under this part 

apply to Qualifying Projects. At the 

discretion of the Assistant Secretary 

(OE–1) the provisions of part 900 may 

also apply to Other Projects. 

(b) Other Projects. (1) Persons seeking 

DOE assistance in the Federal 

Authorization process for Other Projects 

must file a request for coordination with 

the OE–1. The request must contain: 

(i) The legal name of the requester; its 

principal place of business; whether the 

requester is an individual, partnership, 

corporation, or other entity; citations to 

the state laws under which the requester 

is organized or authorized; and the 

name, title, and mailing address of the 

person or persons to whom 

communications concerning the request 

for coordination are to be addressed; 

(ii) A concise general description of 

the proposed Other Project sufficient to 

explain its scope and purpose; 

(iii) A list of all potential Federal 

entities; and 

(iv) A list of anticipated non-Federal 

entities, including any agency serial or 

docket numbers for pending 

applications. 

(2) Within thirty (30) calendar days of 

receiving this request, the OE–1, in 

consultation with the affected Federal 

Entities with jurisdiction, will 

determine if the Other Project should be 

treated as a Qualifying Project under 

this part and will notify the Project 

Proponent of one of the following: 

(i) If accepted for processing under 

this rule, the project will be treated as 

a Qualifying Project and the Project 

Proponent must submit an Initiation 

Request as set forth under § 900.5; or 

(ii) If not accepted for processing 

under this rule, the Project Proponent 

must follow the standard procedures for 

Federal Entities that will have 

jurisdiction over the project. 

(c) This part does not apply to Federal 

Authorizations for electric transmission 

facilities wholly located within the 

Electric Reliability Council of Texas 

interconnection. 

(d) This part does not apply to electric 

transmission facilities in a DOEdesignated National Interest Electric 

Transmission Corridor where a Project 

Proponent seeks a construction or 

modification permit from the Federal 

Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) 

under section 216(b) of the Federal 

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

(e) This part does not affect any 

requirements of Federal law. 

Participation or non-participation in the 

IIP process does not waive any 

requirements to obtain necessary 

Federal authorizations for electric 

transmission facilities. This part shall 

not alter or diminish any 

responsibilities of the Federal entities to 

consult under applicable law. 

(f) This part does not supplant but 

rather complements the Federal entities’ 

pre-application procedures for a Federal 

authorization. Participation in the IIP 

Process does not guarantee issuance of 

any required Federal authorization for a 

proposed Qualifying Project or selection 

of the project proponent’s proposed 

study corridors and proposed routes as 

a range of reasonable alternatives or the 

preferred alternative for NEPA 

purposes. 

(g) DOE, in exercising its 

responsibilities under this part, will 

communicate regularly with the FERC, 

electric reliability organizations and 

electric transmission organizations 

approved by FERC, other Federal 

entities, and Project Proponents. DOE 

will use information technologies to 

provide opportunities for Federal 

entities to participate remotely. 

(h) DOE, in exercising its 

responsibilities under this part, will to 

the maximum extent practicable and 

consistent with Federal law, coordinate 

the IIP Process with any non-Federal 

entities. DOE will use information 

technologies to provide opportunities 

for non-Federal entities to participate 

remotely. 

§ 900.3 Definitions. 

As used in this part: 

Affected landowner means an owner 

of real property interests who is usually 

referenced in the most recent county or 


wgreen on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
5390 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 21 / Tuesday, February 2, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

city tax records, and whose real 

property: 

(1) Is located within either 0.25 miles 

of a proposed centerline of a Qualifying 

Project or at a minimum distance 

specified by state law, whichever is 

greater; or 

(2) Contains a residence within 3000 

feet of a proposed construction work 

area for a Qualifying Project. 

DOE means the United States 

Department of Energy. 

Early identification of project issues 

refers to an early and open stakeholder 

participation process carried out by a 

project proponent to identify potential 

environmental issues Federal and nonFederal entities’ may consider for 

further study, issues of concern to the 

affected public and stakeholders, and 

potential project alternatives. 

Federal authorization means any 

authorization required under Federal 

law to site an electric transmission 

facility, including permits, rights-ofway, special use authorizations, 

certifications, opinions, or other 

approvals. This term includes those 

authorizations that may involve 

determinations under Federal law by 

either Federal or non-Federal entities. 

Federal entity means any Federal 

agency with jurisdictional interests that 

may have an effect on a proposed 

Qualifying Project, that is responsible 

for issuing a Federal authorization for 

the proposed Qualifying Project or 

attendant facilities, has relevant 

expertise with respect to environmental 

and other issues pertinent to or that are 

potentially affected by the proposed 

Qualifying Project or its attendant 

facilities, or provides funding for the 

proposed Qualifying Project or its 

attendant facilities. Federal entities 

include those with either permitting or 

non-permitting authority; for example, 

those entities with which consultation 

or review must be completed before a 

project may commence, such as the 

Department of Defense for an 

examination of military test, training or 

operational impacts. 

FPA means the Federal Power Act (16 

U.S.C. 791 through 828c). 

IIP Process Administrative File means 

the information assembled and 

maintained by DOE as the Lead 216(h) 

Agency and the NEPA Lead Agency for 

all Federal authorization decisions. The 

IIP Process Administrative File will 

include, without limitation, the IIP 

Initiation Request, which includes a 

summary of Qualifying Project, Affected 

Environmental Resources and Impacts 

summary, associated maps, geospatial 

information, and data (provided in 

electronic format), and a summary of 

Early Identification of Project Issues, IIP 

meeting summaries, and other 

documents, including but not limited to 

maps, publicly-available data, and other 

supporting documentation submitted by 

the project proponent as part of the IIP 

Process, and that inform the Federal 

entities. 

IIP Resource Report means the 

resource summary information provided 

by the Project Proponent as a part of the 

IIP process that meets the content 

requirements pursuant to § 900.4. The 

IIP Resource Report contains the 

environmental information used by a 

Project Proponent to plan a Qualifying 

Project. 

Indian tribe has the same meaning as 

provided for in 25 U.S.C. 450b(e). 

Lead 216(h) Agency means the 

Department of Energy, which section 

216(h) of the FPA (16 U.S.C. 824p(h)) 

makes responsible for timely 

coordination of Federal authorization 

requests for proposed electric 

transmission facilities. 

MOU signatory agency means a 

signatory of the interagency MOU 

executed on October 23, 2009, entitled, 

‘‘Memorandum of Understanding among 

the United States (U.S.) Department of 

Agriculture (USDA), the Department of 

Commerce, Department of Defense 

(DoD), Department of Energy (DOE), 

Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA), the Council on Environmental 

Quality (CEQ), the Federal Energy 

Regulatory Commission (FERC), the 

Advisory Council on Historic 

Preservation (ACHP), and Department of 

the Interior (DOI), regarding 

Coordination in Federal Agency Review 

of Electric Transmission Facilities on 

Federal Lands.’’ 

MOU principals means the heads of 

each of the MOU signatory agencies. 

NEPA means the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 

U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) 

NEPA Lead Agency means the Federal 

agency or agencies preparing or having 

primary responsibility for preparing an 

environmental impact statement or 

environmental assessment as defined in 

40 CFR 1508.16 and in accordance with 

40 CFR 1501.5(c). 

Non-Federal entity means an Indian 

tribe, multistate governmental entity, or 

state and local government agency with 

relevant expertise and/or jurisdiction 

within the project area, that is 

responsible for conducting permitting 

and environmental reviews of the 

proposed Qualifying Project or its 

attendant facilities, that has special 

expertise with respect to environmental 

and other issues pertinent to or that are 

potentially affected by the proposed 

Qualifying Project or its attendant 

facilities, or provides funding for the 

proposed Qualifying Project or its 

attendant facilities. Non-Federal entities 

may include those with either 

permitting or non-permitting authority, 

e.g., entities such as State Historic 

Preservation Offices, with whom 

consultation must be completed in 

accordance with section 106 of the 

National Historic Preservation Act, 54 

U.S.C. 306108, before a project can 

commence. 

OE–1 means the Assistant Secretary 

for DOE’s Office of Electricity Delivery 

and Energy Reliability. 

Other Projects mean electric 

transmission facilities that are not 

Qualifying Projects. Other Projects 

include facilities for the transmission of 

electric energy in interstate commerce 

for the sale of electric energy at 

wholesale, but do not need to meet the 

230 kV or above qualification, or be 

otherwise identified as regionally or 

nationally significant with attendant 

facilities, in which all or part of a 

proposed transmission line crosses 

jurisdictions administered by more than 

one Federal entity. 

Project area means the geographic 

area considered when the project 

proponent develops study corridors and 

then potential routes for environmental 

review and potential project siting as a 

part of the project proponent’s planning 

process for a Qualifying Project. It is an 

area located between the two end points 

of the project (e.g., substations), 

including their immediate surroundings 

within at least one-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 various 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,’’ ‘‘action area,’’ or other 

defined terms of art that are specific to 

types of regulatory review. 

Project Proponent means a person or 

entity who initiates the IIP Process in 

anticipation of seeking Federal 

authorizations for a Qualifying Project 

or Other Project. 

Qualifying Project means— 

(1) A non-marine high voltage electric 

transmission line (230 kV or above) and 

its attendant facilities or other 

regionally or nationally significant nonmarine electric transmission line and its 

attendant facilities, in which: 

(i) All or part of the proposed electric 

transmission line is used for the 

transmission of electric energy in 

interstate commerce for sale at 

wholesale; and 


wgreen on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 21 / Tuesday, February 2, 2016 / Proposed Rules 5391 

(ii) All or part of the proposed electric 

transmission line crosses jurisdictions 

administered by more than one Federal 

entity or crosses jurisdictions 

administered by a Federal entity and is 

considered for Federal financial 

assistance from a Federal entity. 

(2) Qualifying Projects do not include 

those for which a project proponent 

seeks a construction or modification 

permit from the FERC for electric 

transmission facilities in a DOEdesignated National Interest Electric 

Transmission Corridor under section 

216(b) of the FPA (16 U.S.C.824p(b)). 

Regional mitigation approach means 

an approach that applies the mitigation 

hierarchy (first seeking to avoid, then 

minimize impacts, then, when 

necessary, compensate for residual 

impacts) when developing mitigation 

measures for impacts to resources from 

Qualifying Projects at scales relevant to 

the resource, however narrow or broad, 

necessary to sustain, or otherwise 

achieve established goals for those 

resources. The approach identifies the 

needs and baseline conditions of 

targeted resources, potential impacts 

from the Qualifying Projects, cumulative 

impacts of past and likely projected 

disturbance to those resources, and 

future disturbance trends. The approach 

then uses such information to identify 

priorities for avoidance, minimization, 

and compensatory mitigation measures 

across that relevant area to provide the 

maximum benefit to the impacted 

resources. 

Regional mitigation strategies or plans 

mean documents developed through or 

external to, the NEPA process that apply 

a regional mitigation approach to 

identify appropriate mitigation 

measures in advance of potential 

impacts to resources from Qualifying 

Projects. 

Route means a linear area within 

which a Qualifying Project could be 

sited. It should be wide enough to allow 

minor adjustments in the alignment of 

the Qualifying Project so as to avoid 

sensitive features or accommodate 

potential engineering constraints but 

narrow enough to allow detailed study. 

Stakeholder means any non-Federal 

entity, any non-governmental 

organization, affected landowner, or 

other person potentially affected by a 

proposed Qualifying Project. 

Stakeholder outreach plan means a 

concise description and plan for how a 

project proponent coordinates 

stakeholder interface, communications, 

and involvement so as to provide 

information to and receive feedback 

from stakeholders as defined in this part 

as part of the development of a 

Qualifying Project and during the IIP 

Process. It directly informs and supports 

the development of the summary of 

early identification of project issues 

required as part of the initiation request 

pursuant to § 900.5. The purpose of the 

stakeholder outreach plan is to ensure 

that a Project Proponent actively 

engages and receives feedback from 

stakeholders when the Project 

Proponent is evaluating potential study 

corridors or potential routes before and 

during the IIP Process. 

Study corridor means a contiguous 

area (but not to exceed one-mile) in 

width within the project area where 

alternative routes may be considered for 

further study. 

§ 900.4 Integrated interagency preapplication (IIP) process. 

(a) The IIP Process is intended for a 

Project Proponent who has identified 

potential study corridors and/or 

potential routes within an established 

project area and the proposed locations 

of any intermediate substations for a 

Qualifying Project. The IIP Process is 

also intended to accommodate proposed 

Qualifying Projects that have been 

selected in a regional electric 

transmission plan for purposes of cost 

allocation or a similar process where an 

electric transmission plan has been 

identified and the permitting and siting 

phase must commence. While the IIP 

Process is optional, the early 

coordination provided by DOE between 

Federal entities, non-Federal entities, 

and the Project Proponent ensures that 

the Project Proponent fully understands 

application and permitting 

requirements, including data potentially 

necessary to satisfy application 

requirements for all permitting entities. 

The two-meeting structure also allows 

for early interaction between the Project 

Proponents, Federal entities, and nonFederal entities in order to enhance 

early understanding by those having an 

authorization or consultation related to 

the Qualifying Project with a clear 

description of a Qualifying Project, the 

Project Proponent’s siting process, and 

the environmental and community 

setting being considered by the Project 

Proponent for siting the transmission 

line, including early identification of 

project issues. 

(b) A Project Proponent electing to 

utilize the IIP Process must submit an 

initiation request to DOE to start the IIP 

Process. The timing of the submission of 

the initiation request for IIP Process is 

determined by the Project Proponent. 

The initiation request must include, 

based on best available information, a 

Summary of Qualifying Project, Affected 

Environmental Resources and Impacts 

Summary, associated maps, geospatial 

information, and studies (provided in 

electronic format), a summary of early 

identification of project issues, and 

must adhere to the page limits 

established by this part. 

(c) Summary of the Qualifying Project. 

The Summary of the Qualifying Project 

is limited to a maximum length of ten 

(10) pages, single-spaced and must 

include: 

(1) A statement that the Project 

Proponent requests to use the IIP 

Process; 

(2) Primary contact information for 

the Project Proponent, including a 

primary email address; 

(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; and if the 

Project Proponent resides or has its 

principal office outside the United 

States, documentation related to 

designation by irrevocable power of 

attorney of an agent residing within the 

United States; 

(4) A description of the Project 

Proponent’s financial and technical 

capability to construct, operate, 

maintain, and decommission the 

Qualifying Project; 

(5) A statement of the Project 

Proponent’s interests and objectives; 

(6) To the extent available, regional 

electric transmission planning 

documents, including status of regional 

reliability studies, regional congestion 

or other related studies where 

applicable, and interconnection 

requests; 

(7) A brief description of the 

evaluation criteria and methods that are 

being used by the Project Proponent to 

identify and develop the potential study 

corridors or potential routes for the 

proposed Qualifying Project; 

(8) A brief description of the proposed 

Qualifying Project, including endpoints, 

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 Qualifying 

Project; 

(9) Project Proponent’s proposed 

schedule, including timeframe for filing 

necessary Federal and State 

applications, construction start date, 

and planned in-service date if the 

Qualifying Project receives needed 

Federal authorizations and approvals by 

non-Federal entities; and 

(10) A list of potentially affected 

Federal and non-Federal entities. 

(d) Affected Environmental Resources 

and Impacts Summary. The Affected 


wgreen on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
5392 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 21 / Tuesday, February 2, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

Environmental Resources and Impacts 

Summary is limited to a maximum 

length of twenty (20), single-spaced 

pages, not including associated maps, 

and must include concise descriptions, 

based on existing, relevant, and 

reasonably-available information, of the 

known existing environment, and major 

site conditions in project area, 

including: 

(1) An overview of topographical and 

resource features that are relevant to the 

siting of electric transmission lines 

present; 

(2) Summary of known land uses, 

including Federal and state public lands 

of various types (e.g., parks and 

monuments), associated land 

ownership, and any land use 

restrictions; 

(3) Summary of known or potential 

adverse effects to cultural and historic 

resources; 

(4) Summary of known or potential 

conflicts with or adverse impacts on 

military activities; 

(5) Summary of known or potential 

impacts on the U.S. aviation system, 

including FAA restricted airspace; 

(6) Summary of known or potential 

impacts on the U.S. marine 

transportation system, including 

impacts on waterways under 

jurisdiction of the U.S. Coast Guard; 

(7) Summary of known information 

about Federal- and State-protected 

avian, aquatic, and terrestrial species, 

and Critical Habitat or otherwise 

protected habitat, that may be present, 

as well as other biological resources 

information that is necessary for an 

environmental review; 

(8) Summary of the aquatic habitats 

(to include estuarine environments, and 

water bodies, including wetlands, as 

well as any known river crossings and 

potential constraints caused by impacts 

to navigable waters of the United States 

considered for the Qualifying Project); 

(9) Summary of known information 

about the presence of low-income 

communities and minority populations 

that could be affected by the Qualifying 

Project; 

(10) Identification of existing or 

proposed Qualifying Project facilities or 

operations in the project area; 

(11) Summary of the proposed use of 

previously-disturbed lands, existing, 

agency-designated corridors, including 

but not limited to corridors designated 

under section 503 of the Federal Land 

Policy and Management Act and section 

368 of the Energy Policy Act of 

2005,transportation rights-of-way, and 

the feasibility for co-location of the 

Qualifying Project with existing 

facilities or location in existing 

corridors and transportation rights-ofway; and 

(12) Summary of potential avoidance, 

minimization, and conservation 

measures, such as compensatory 

mitigation (onsite and offsite), 

developed through the use of regional 

mitigation approach or, where available, 

regional mitigation strategies or plans, 

and considered by the Project Proponent 

to reduce the potential impacts of the 

proposed Qualifying Project to resources 

requiring mitigation. 

(e) Maps, geospatial information, and 

studies. Maps, geospatial information, 

and studies in support of the 

information provided in the summary 

descriptions for the known existing 

environmental, cultural, and historic 

resources in the project area under 

paragraph (d) of this section must be 

included, and do not contribute to the 

overall page length of the IIP Initiation 

Request. Project proponents must 

provide maps as electronic data files 

that may be readily accessed by Federal 

entities and non-Federal entities, 

including: 

(1) A map of the project area showing 

the locations of potential study 

corridors or potential routes; 

(2) Detailed maps that accurately 

show information supporting 

summaries of the known existing 

environmental resources within the 

potential study corridors or potential 

routes; 

(3) Electronic access to existing data 

or studies that are relevant to the 

summary information provided as part 

of paragraphs (c) and (d) of this section; 

and 

(4) Citations identifying sources, data, 

and analyses used to develop the IIP 

Process Initiation Request materials. 

(f) Summary of Early Identification of 

Project Issues. The Summary of Early 

Identification of Project Issues must not 

exceed ten (10), single-spaced pages in 

length and is intended to provide a 

summary of stakeholder outreach or 

interactions conducted for the 

Qualifying Project prior to submission 

of the initiation request and inform the 

development of issues and project 

alternatives for study in an 

environmental review document. The 

Summary of Early Identification of 

Project Issues will: 

(1) Discuss the specific tools and 

actions used by the project proponent to 

facilitate stakeholder communications 

and public information, including an 

existing, current project proponent Web 

site for the proposed Qualifying Project, 

where available, and a readilyaccessible, easily-identifiable, single 

point of contact for the project 

proponent; 

(2) Identify how and when meetings 

on the location of potential study 

corridors or potential routes have been 

and would be publicized prior to the 

submission of applications for Federal 

authorization, as well as where and 

when those meetings were held and 

how many more meetings may be 

planned during the IIP Process; 

(3) Identify known stakeholders and 

how stakeholders are identified; 

(4) Briefly explain how the project 

proponent responds to requests for 

information from stakeholders, as well 

as records stakeholder requests, 

information received, and project 

proponent responses to stakeholders; 

(5) Provide the type of location (for 

example, libraries, community reading 

rooms, or city halls) in each county 

potentially affected by the proposed 

Qualifying Project, and specify those 

where the Project Proponent has 

provided publicly-available copies of 

documents and materials related to the 

proposed Qualifying Project; 

(6) Describe the evaluation criteria 

being used by the Project Proponent to 

identify and develop the potential study 

corridors or potential routes and that are 

presented by the Project Proponent to 

stakeholders during its project planning 

outreach efforts prior to submission of 

applications for Federal authorizations 

or non-Federal permits or 

authorizations; 

(7) Provide information collected as 

result of the Project Proponent’s 

stakeholder outreach efforts; and 

(8) Include a summary of issues 

identified, differing project alternative 

corridors or routes, and revisions to 

routes developed as a result of issues 

identified by stakeholders during the 

project proponent’s stakeholder 

outreach efforts the Qualifying Project. 

(g) Within fifteen (15) calendar days 

of receiving the initiation request, DOE 

shall notify by electronic mail all 

Federal entities and non-Federal entities 

with an authorization potentially 

necessary to site the Qualifying Project 

that: 

(1) Based on its initial review of 

information submitted by the Project 

Proponent in response to requirements 

in paragraphs (c) through (f) of this 

section, DOE has identified the 

contacted Federal entities or nonFederal entities as having an 

authorization or consultation 

responsibility related to the Qualifying 

Project; and 

(2) Federal and non-Federal entities 

notified by DOE should participate in 

the IIP Process for the Qualifying Project 

with DOE’s rationale for that 

determination provided; and 


wgreen on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 21 / Tuesday, February 2, 2016 / Proposed Rules 5393 

(3) Federal and non-Federal entities 

notified by DOE will provide DOE with 

a name and information for a point of 

contact, and any initial questions or 

concerns about their level of 

participation in the IIP Process based on 

DOE’s justification within seven (7) 

calendar days of receiving DOE’s 

notification. 

(h) Within thirty (30) calendar days of 

receiving the initiation request, DOE 

shall notify the Project Proponent that: 

(1) The initiation request meets the 

requirements in paragraphs (c) through 

(f) of this section, including whether the 

project constitutes a Qualifying Project; 

or 

(2) The initiation request does not 

meet the requirements in paragraphs (c) 

through (f) of this section 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 and 

DOE will consider its determination. 

(i) DOE shall provide Federal and 

non-Federal entities with access to an 

electronic copy of the initiation request 

and associated maps, geospatial data, 

and studies that meet the requirements 

in paragraphs (c) through (f) of this 

section, at the same time that DOE 

provides notice to the Project 

Proponent. 

(j) IIP initial meeting. DOE, in 

consultation with the identified Federal 

entities, shall convene the IIP initial 

meeting with the Project Proponent and 

all Federal entities and non-Federal 

entities notified by DOE as having an 

authorization or consultation related to 

the Qualifying Project as soon as 

practicable and no later than forty-five 

(45) calendar days after notifying the 

Project Proponent and Federal and nonFederal entities that the initiation 

request meets the requirements in 

paragraphs (c) through (f) of this section. 

The initial meeting shall be convened in 

the area or region where the proposed 

Qualifying Project is located. Federal 

and non-Federal entities shall have at 

least thirty (30) calendar days to review 

the information provided by the Project 

Proponent as part of the initiation 

request prior to the meeting. Federal 

entities identified by DOE as having a 

Federal authorization related to the 

Qualifying Project are expected to 

participate in the initial meeting. DOE 

also shall invite non-Federal entities 

identified by DOE as having an 

authorization or consultation related to 

the Qualifying Project to participate in 

the initial meeting. During the initial 

meeting: 

(1) DOE shall discuss the IIP process 

with the Project Proponent and any cost 

recovery requirements, where 

applicable. 

(2) The Project Proponent shall 

describe the proposed Qualifying 

Project and the contents of its initiation 

request. 

(3) The Federal entities shall, to the 

extent possible and based on agency 

expertise and experience, review the 

information provided by the Project 

Proponent, and publicly-available 

information, preliminarily identify the 

following and other reasonable criteria 

for adding, deleting, or modifying 

preliminary routes from further 

consideration within the identified 

study corridors: 

(i) Potential environmental visual, 

historic, cultural, economic, social, or 

health effects or harm based on 

potential project or proposed siting, and 

anticipated constraints; 

(ii) Potential cultural resources and 

historic properties of concern; 

(iii) Areas under special protection by 

Federal statute or other Federal entity or 

non-entity decision that could 

potentially increase the time needed for 

project evaluation and potentially 

foreclose approval of siting a 

transmission line route through such 

areas, and may include but are not 

limited to properties or sites which may 

be of traditional or cultural importance 

to Indian tribe(s), National Scenic and 

Historic Trails, National Landscape 

Conservation system units managed by 

BLM, National Wildlife Refuges, units of 

the National Park System, national 

marine sanctuaries, or marine national 

monuments; 

(iv) Opportunities to site routes 

through designated corridors, 

previously disturbed lands, and lands 

with existing infrastructure as a means 

of potentially reducing impacts and 

known conflicts as well as the time 

needed for affected Federal land 

managers to evaluate an application for 

a Federal authorization if the route is 

sited through such areas (e.g., colocation with existing infrastructure or 

location on previously disturbed lands 

or in energy corridors designated by the 

DOI or USDA under section 503 of the 

Federal Land Policy and Management 

Act or section 368 of the Energy Policy 

Act of 2005, an existing right-of-way, or 

a utility corridor identified in a land 

management plan); 

(v) Potential constraints caused by 

impacts on military test, training, and 

operational missions, including impacts 

on installations, ranges, and airspace; 

(vi) Potential constraints caused by 

impacts on the United States’ aviation 

system; 

(vii) Potential constraints caused by 

impacts to navigable waters of the 

United States; 

(viii) Potential avoidance, 

minimization, and conservation 

measures, such as compensatory 

mitigation (onsite and offsite), 

developed through the use of a regional 

mitigation approach or, where available, 

regional mitigation strategies or plans to 

reduce the potential impact of the 

proposed Qualifying Project to resources 

requiring mitigation; and 

(ix) Based on available information 

provided by the project proponent, 

biological (including threatened, 

endangered, or otherwise protected 

avian, aquatic, and terrestrial species 

and aquatic habitats), visual, cultural, 

historic, and other surveys and studies 

that may be required for preliminary 

proposed routes. 

(4) Information and feedback 

provided in paragraphs (j)(1) through (3) 

of this section 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 that the Project Proponent’s 

proposed preliminary routes presented 

or discussed during the IIP Process 

would constitute a range of reasonable 

alternatives for NEPA purposes. The IIP 

Process does not limit agency discretion 

regarding NEPA review. Participating 

non-Federal entities are encouraged to 

identify risks and benefits of siting the 

proposed Qualifying Project within the 

preliminary proposed routes. 

(5) The DOE shall record key issues, 

information gaps, and data needs 

identified by Federal and non-Federal 

entities during the initial meeting, and 

shall convey a summary of the meeting 

discussions, key issues, and information 

gaps and requests to the project 

proponent, all Federal entities, and any 

non-Federal entities that participated in 

the IIP Process in a draft initial meeting 

summary within fifteen (15) calendar 

days after the meeting. Participating 

Federal entities and non-Federal 

entities, and the Project Proponent will 

then have fifteen (15) calendar days 

following its receipt of the IIP Process 

meeting summary to review the IIP 

Process meeting summary and provide 

corrections to DOE for resolution in a 

final initial meeting summary, as 

appropriate. Thirty (30) calendar days 

following the close of the 15-day review 

period, DOE will incorporate the final 

initial meeting summary into the IIP 

Process administrative file for the 

Qualifying Project, and at the same time, 

provide all Federal and non-Federal 

entities and the Project Proponent an 


wgreen on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
5394 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 21 / Tuesday, February 2, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

electronic copy of a final IIP initial 

meeting summary. 

(k) IIP close-out meeting request. A 

Project Proponent electing to utilize the 

IIP Process pursuant to this section must 

submit a close-out meeting request to 

DOE to complete the IIP Process. The 

timing of the submission of the closeout meeting request for the IIP Process 

is determined by the Project Proponent 

but must be submitted no less than 

forty-five (45) calendar days following 

the initial meeting. The close-out 

meeting request shall include: 

(1) A statement that the Project 

Proponent is requesting the close-out 

meeting for the IIP Process; 

(2) A summary table of changes made 

to the Qualifying Project during the IIP 

Process, including potential 

environmental and community benefits 

from improved siting or design; 

(3) Maps of updates to potential 

proposed routes within study corridors, 

including the line, substations and other 

infrastructure, which include at least as 

much detail as required for the initial 

meeting described above and as 

modified in response to early 

stakeholder input and outreach and 

agency feedback documented as a part 

of the IIP initial meeting summary; 

(4) An updated summary of all 

project-specific biological (including 

threatened, endangered or otherwise 

protected avian, aquatic, and terrestrial 

species, and aquatic habitats), visual, 

cultural, historic or other surveys 

sponsored by the Project Proponent; 

(5) If known, a schedule for 

completing upcoming field resource 

surveys; 

(6) An updated summary of all known 

or potential adverse impacts to natural 

resources; 

(7) An updated summary of any 

known or potential adverse effects to 

cultural and historic resources; 

(8) A conceptual plan for potential 

implementation and monitoring of 

mitigation measures, including 

avoidance, minimization, and 

conservation measures, such as 

compensatory mitigation (offsite and 

onsite), developed through the use of a 

regional mitigation approach or, where 

available, regional mitigation strategies 

or plans to reduce the potential impact 

of the proposed Qualifying Project to 

resources requiring mitigation; 

(9) An estimated time of filing its 

requests for Federal authorizations for 

the proposed Qualifying Project; and 

(10) An estimated time of filing its 

requests for all other authorizations and 

consultations with non-Federal entities. 

(l) Close-out meeting. The IIP process 

close-out meeting shall result in a 

description by Federal entities of the 

remaining issues of concern, identified 

information gaps or data needs, and 

potential issues or conflicts that could 

impact the time it will take affected 

Federal entities to process applications 

for Federal authorizations for the 

proposed Qualifying Project. The nonFederal entities shall also be encouraged 

to provide a description of remaining 

issues of concern, information needs, 

and potential issues or conflicts. The IIP 

Process close-out meeting will also 

result in the identification of a potential 

NEPA lead agency pursuant to § 900.6. 

(1) Within fifteen (15) calendar days 

of receiving the close-out meeting 

request, DOE shall notify by electronic 

mail the appropriate POCs of all Federal 

entities and non-Federal entities with a 

known or potential authorization 

necessary to site the Qualifying Project. 

(2) Within thirty (30) calendar days of 

receiving a close-out meeting request, 

DOE shall determine whether the closeout meeting request meets the 

requirements in paragraph (k) of this 

section and inform the Project 

Proponent of its acceptance, and 

provide Federal entities and nonFederal entities with close-out meeting 

request materials, including map, 

geospatial data, and surveys in 

electronic format, preferably via the 

OMB MAX collaboration Web site at 

https://max.omb.gov/maxportal/. 

(3) Within (sixty) 60 calendar days of 

making a determination that the closeout meeting request meets the 

requirements of this section, DOE shall 

convene the close-out meeting in the 

same region or location at the initial 

meeting with the project proponent and 

all Federal entities. All non-Federal 

entities participating in the IIP Process 

shall also be invited to attend. During 

the close-out meeting: 

(i) The Project Proponent’s updates to 

the siting process to date shall be 

discussed, including stakeholder 

outreach activities, resultant stakeholder 

input, and Project Proponent response 

to stakeholder input; 

(ii) Based on information provided by 

the Project Proponent to date, the 

Federal entities shall discuss key issues 

of concern and potential mitigation 

measures identified for the proposed 

Qualifying Project; 

(iii) Led by DOE, all Federal entities 

shall discuss statutory and regulatory 

standards that must be met to make 

decisions for Federal authorizations 

required for the proposed Qualifying 

Project; 

(iv) Led by DOE, all Federal entities 

shall describe the estimated time to 

make decisions for required Federal 

authorizations and the anticipated cost 

(e.g., processing and monitoring fees 

and land use fees); 

(v) Led by DOE, all affected Federal 

entities shall describe their expectations 

for a complete application for a Federal 

authorization for the proposed 

Qualifying Project; 

(vi) DOE shall prepare and include a 

final IIP Resources Report in the IIP 

Process Administrative File, which 

provides an accurate description of the 

proposed Qualifying Project, including 

stakeholder outreach activities and 

feedback, summary information on 

environmental resources, and potential 

impacts (with electronic access to 

associated maps, geospatial data and/or 

survey data), potential issues, and 

identification of constraints by Federal 

entities and non-Federal entities for the 

proposed Qualifying Project; 

(vii) When it is included in the IIP 

Process Administrative File, DOE shall 

recommend that participating Federal 

entities use the final IIP Resources 

Report to inform the NEPA process for 

the proposed Qualifying Project, for 

example, during scoping for an EIS and 

identifying potential routes, explaining 

why certain alternatives were 

eliminated from further consideration, 

and preliminarily identifying impacts, 

potential avoidance, minimization, and 

conservation measures, such as 

compensatory mitigation (onsite and 

offsite), developed through the use of a 

regional mitigation approach or, where 

available, regional mitigation strategies 

or plans and considered by the project 

proponent to reduce the potential 

impacts of the proposed Qualifying 

Project to resources requiring 

mitigation; and 

(viii) All participating Federal and 

non-Federal entities shall identify a 

preliminary schedule for authorizations 

for the proposed Qualifying Project 

contingent upon timely filing of 

applications and related materials by 

the Project Proponent. 

§ 900.5 Selection of the NEPA lead agency. 

DOE, in consultation with the Federal 

entities, shall coordinate the selection of 

a potential NEPA Lead Agency 

responsible for preparing an 

environmental review document under 

NEPA for proposed Qualifying Projects. 

Determination and responsibilities of 

the NEPA Lead Agency for preparing 

the EIS shall be in compliance with 

applicable law, including the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and 

CEQ implementing regulations at 40 

CFR part 1500, and each agency’s 

respective NEPA implementing 

regulations and procedures. However: 

(a) For proposed Qualifying Projects 

that cross lands administered by both 


wgreen on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 21 / Tuesday, February 2, 2016 / Proposed Rules 5395 

DOI and USDA, DOI and USDA shall 

consult and jointly determine within 

thirty (30) calendar days of receiving the 

initiation request information from DOE 

to determine which Department has a 

greater land management interest in the 

proposed Qualifying Project and which 

Department should therefore assume the 

role of NEPA Lead Agency. 

(b) DOI and USDA shall notify DOE 

of their determination regarding the 

NEPA Lead Agency in writing within 

ten (10) calendar days of making the 

determination. 

(c) Unless DOE notifies DOI and 

USDA in writing of its objection to that 

determination within ten (10) calendar 

days of the DOI/USDA notification, the 

determination shall be deemed accepted 

and final. In deciding whether to object 

to the determination, DOE shall 

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 

(a) through (c) of this section, the 

Federal entities that will likely 

constitute the cooperating agencies for 

an environmental review document 

under NEPA shall consult and jointly 

recommend a NEPA Lead Agency 

within 45 calendar days of receiving an 

IIP Process close-out meeting request to 

the Council on Environmental Quality 

for a fine determination. No 

determination of a Federal entity as the 

NEPA Lead Agency under this part shall 

be made absent that Federal entity’s 

consent. 

§ 900.6 IIP Process administrative file. 

(a) When communicating with the 

Project Proponent during the IIP 

Process, Federal entities are expected to 

include DOE involved in the IIP Process 

for the Project Proponent’s proposed 

Qualifying Project. 

(b) DOE shall maintain all 

information, including documents and 

communications, it disseminates or 

receives from the Project Proponent, 

Federal entities, and non-Federal 

entities during the IIP Process for future 

use in reviewing any applications for 

required Federal authorizations for the 

proposed Qualifying Project. Before 

disseminating information specific to a 

Federal entity’s or non-Federal entity’s 

review, DOE must receive approval from 

that agency in accordance with that 

Federal entity’s Freedom of Information 

Act requirements. 

(c) DOE shall document the list of 

issues identified during the IIP process 

for a proposed Qualifying Project and 

updates to information provided as part 

of the close-out meeting discussion in a 

final IIP Resources Report, if any, for the 

IIP Process Administrative File. 

(d) Each Federal entity is encouraged 

to maintain the documents and 

communications developed in the IIP 

Process subject to each Federal entity’s 

administrative record policies and, as 

appropriate and applicable, those 

documents and communications could 

become part of that Federal entity’s 

administrative record for granting or 

denying a Federal authorization for each 

Qualifying Project. 

[FR Doc. 2016–01641 Filed 2–1–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2015–7490; Directorate 

Identifier 2015–NE–40–AD] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; Turbomeca 

S.A. Turboshaft Engines 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM). 

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new 

airworthiness directive (AD) for certain 

Turbomeca S.A. Astazou XIV B and H 

turboshaft engines. This proposed AD 

was prompted by a report of a crack on 

the 3rd stage turbine wheel. This 

proposed AD would require a one-time 

inspection of the front surface of the 3rd 

stage turbine for a groove. We are 

proposing this AD to prevent cracks in 

the 3rd stage turbine wheel, failure of 

the engine, in-flight shutdown, and loss 

of control of the helicopter. 

DATES: We must receive comments on 

this proposed AD by April 4, 2016. 

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by 

any of the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 

http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Mail: Docket Management Facility, 

U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 

New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building 

Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 

Washington, DC 20590–0001. 

• Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail 

address above between 9 a.m. and 5 

p.m., Monday through Friday, except 

Federal holidays. 

• Fax: 202–493–2251. 

For service information identified in 

this proposed AD, contact Turbomeca 

S.A., 40220 Tarnos, France; phone: 33 

(0)5 59 74 40 00; fax: 33 (0)5 59 74 45 

15. You may view this service 

information at the FAA, Engine & 

Propeller Directorate, 1200 District 

Avenue, Burlington, MA. For 

information on the availability of this 

material at the FAA, call 781–238–7125. 

Examining the AD Docket 

You may examine the AD docket on 

the Internet at http://

www.regulations.gov by searching for 

and locating Docket No. FAA–2015– 

7490; or in person at the Docket 

Operations office between 9 a.m. and 5 

p.m., Monday through Friday, except 

Federal holidays. The AD docket 

contains this proposed AD, the 

mandatory continuing airworthiness 

information (MCAI), the regulatory 

evaluation, any comments received, and 

other information. The address for the 

Docket Office (phone: 800–647–5527) is 

in the ADDRESSES section. Comments 

will be available in the AD docket 

shortly after receipt. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Wego Wang, Aerospace Engineer, 

Engine Certification Office, FAA, Engine 

& Propeller Directorate, 1200 District 

Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803; phone: 

781–238–7134; fax: 781–238–7199; 

email: wego.wang@faa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Comments Invited 

We invite you to send any written 

relevant data, views, or arguments about 

this NPRM. Send your comments to an 

address listed under the ADDRESSES

section. Include ‘‘Docket No. FAA– 

2015–7490; Directorate Identifier 2015– 

NE–40–AD’’ at the beginning of your 

comments. We specifically invite 

comments on the overall regulatory, 

economic, environmental, and energy 

aspects of this NPRM. We will consider 

all comments received by the closing 

date and may amend this NPRM based 

on those comments. 

We will post all comments we 

receive, without change, to http://

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information you provide. We 

will also post a report summarizing each 

substantive verbal contact with FAA 

personnel concerning this NPRM. 

Discussion 

The European Aviation Safety Agency 

(EASA), which is the Technical Agent 

for the Member States of the European 

Community, has issued EASA AD 2015– 

0223, dated November 16, 2015 

(referred to hereinafter as ‘‘the MCAI’’), 

to correct an unsafe condition for the 

specified products. The MCAI states: 

During the overhaul of an ASTAZOU XIV 

engine, a crack was detected on the front face 


wgreen on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS