the order in accordance with FPA section 313(a), the acceptance must be
filed within 30 days after final disposition of the request for
rehearing. * * *
* * * * *
    (d) * * * Provided that, no authorization to proceed with
construction activities will be issued:
    (1) Until the time for the filing of a request for rehearing under
16 U.S.C. 825l(a) has expired with no such request being filed, or
    (2) If a timely request for rehearing raising issues reflecting
opposition to project construction, operation, or need is filed, until:
    (i) The request is no longer pending before the Commission;
    (ii) The record of the proceeding is filed with the court of
appeals; or
    (iii) 90 days has passed after the date that the request for
rehearing may be deemed to have been denied under 16 U.S.C. 825l(a).
* * * * *
0
12. Add Sec.  50.12 to read as follows:

Sec.  50.12   Applicant code of conduct for landowner engagement.

    Under section 216(e)(1) of the Federal Power Act, any applicant
that may, upon receipt of a permit, seek to acquire the necessary
right-of-way by the exercise of the right of eminent domain must
demonstrate to the Commission that it has made good faith efforts to
engage with landowners and other stakeholders early in the applicable
permitting process. An applicant's commitment to and compliance with
the Applicant Code of Conduct in its communications with affected
landowners during the permitting process is one way to demonstrate to
the Commission that such good faith efforts have been made.
    (a) Applicant code of conduct. To promote good faith engagement
with affected landowners, applicants committing to comply with the
Applicant Code of Conduct must:
    (1) For the duration of the pre-filing and application review
process, develop and retain a log of discussions with affected
landowners, organized by name and property address, that includes:
    (i) The name of the affected landowner;
    (ii) The substance of the items discussed;
    (iii) The nature of the contact (such as in-person, virtual
meeting, telephone, electronic mail);
    (iv) The date of the contact; and
    (v) The status of discussions with the affected landowner following
the contact, including any permissions granted, negotiations, or future
meetings scheduled.
    (2) In addition to the pre-filing request notification required by
Sec.  50.4(c)(1)(i) and (ii), provide to each affected landowner, prior
to, during, or immediately after the first contact, a document that, at
a minimum, includes: a description of the project, a description of the
Commission and its role, a map of the project route, and the Landowner
Bill of Rights in the form described in Sec.  50.4(c)(2)(ii)(B). If the
first contact with the affected landowner is in-person, the applicant
must offer to provide the affected landowner at least one paper copy of
the document. If the first contact with the affected landowner is by
telephone, text, or electronic mail, the applicant may provide the
affected landowner with a copy of the document by electronic means or
by first class mail, at the affected landowner's preference. The
applicant must review the provisions of the document with the affected
landowner upon request.
    (3) Ensure that any representative acting on the applicant's behalf
states their full name, title, and employer, as well as the name of the
applicant that they represent, at the beginning of any discussion with
an affected landowner, and provides the representative's contact
information, including mailing address, telephone number, and
electronic mail address, prior to the end of the discussion.
    (4) Ensure that all communications with affected landowners are
factually correct. The applicant must correct any statements made by it
or any representative acting on its behalf that it becomes aware were:
    (i) Inaccurate when made; or
    (ii) Have been rendered inaccurate based on subsequent events,
within three business days of discovery of any such inaccuracy.
    (5) Ensure that communications with affected landowners do not
misrepresent the status of the discussions or negotiations between the
parties.
    (6) Provide affected landowners with updated contact information
whenever an applicant's contact information changes.
    (7) Communicate respectfully with affected landowners and avoid
harassing, coercive, manipulative, or intimidating communications or
high-pressure tactics.
    (8) Except as otherwise provided by State or local law, abide by an
affected landowner's request to end the communication or for the
applicant or its representative to leave the affected landowner's
property.
    (9) Except as otherwise provided by State or local law, obtain an
affected landowner's permission prior to entering the property,
including for survey or environmental assessment, and leave the
property without argument or delay if the affected landowner revokes
permission.
    (10) Refrain from discussing an affected landowner's communications
or negotiations status with any other affected landowner.
    (11) Provide the affected landowner with a copy of any appraisal
that has been prepared by, or on behalf of, the applicant for that
affected landowner's property, if any, before discussing the value of
the property in question.

    (12) Ensure that any representative acting on the applicant's
behalf complies with all provisions of the Applicant Code of Conduct
described in this paragraph (a).
    (b) Compliance with Applicant Code of Conduct. Applicants
committing to comply with the Applicant Code of Conduct must:
    (1) File, as part of the pre-filing request required by Sec.
50.5(c), an affirmative statement that the applicant intends to comply
with the Applicant Code of Conduct.
    (2) Include, as part of the monthly status reports required by
Sec.  50.5(e)(10):
    (i) An affirmation that the applicant and its representatives have,
to the best of their knowledge, complied with the Applicant Code of
Conduct during the month in question; or
    (ii) A detailed explanation of any instances of non-compliance with
the Applicant Code of Conduct during the month in question and any
remedial actions taken or planned.
    (3) Identify, in a filing with the Commission or as part of the
monthly status reports required by Sec.  50.5(e)(10), any known
instances of non-compliance that were not disclosed in prior monthly
status reports and explain any remedial actions taken in the current
month to address instances of non-compliance occurring in prior months.
    (c) Compliance with an alternative method. Applicants not
committing to comply with the Applicant Code of Conduct must:
    (1) File, as part of the pre-filing request required by Sec.
50.5(c):
    (i) An affirmative statement that the applicant intends to rely on
an alternative method of demonstrating that it meets the good faith
efforts standard;
    (ii) A detailed explanation of the alternative method of
demonstrating that it meets the good faith efforts standard, including
any commitments to record-keeping, information-sharing, or other
conduct;
    (iii) An explanation of how the alternative method is equal to or
superior to compliance with the Applicant Code of Conduct as a means to
ensure the good faith efforts standard is met;
    (iv) An explanation, for each component of the Applicant Code of
Conduct with which it does not comply, why it did not follow that
component; and
    (v) An explanation, for each component of the Applicant Code of
Conduct with which it does not comply, why the alternative method is an
equal or better means to ensure the good faith standard is met
notwithstanding that deviation from the Applicant Code of Conduct.

PART 380--REGULATIONS IMPLEMENTING THE NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL
POLICY ACT

0
13. The authority citation for part 380 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  42 U.S.C. 4321-4370h, 7101-7352; E.O. 12009, 3 CFR
1978 Comp., p. 142.
0
14. Amend Sec.  380.2 by redesignating paragraphs (f) and (g) as
paragraphs (g) and (h) and adding new paragraph (f).
    The addition reads as follows:

Sec.  380.2   Definitions and terminology.

* * * * *
    (f) Environmental justice community means any disadvantaged
community that has been historically marginalized and overburdened by
pollution. Environmental justice communities include, but may not be
limited to, minority populations, low-income populations, or indigenous
peoples.
* * * * *

Sec.  380.13  [Amended]

0
15. Amend Sec.  380.13 in paragraph (b)(2)(i) by adding ``or Sec.
380.16, as applicable'' directly after the reference to ``Sec.
380.12''.

Sec.  380.14   [Amended]

0
16. Amend Sec.  380.14 in paragraph (a) introductory text as follows:
0
a. Remove the parenthetical reference to ``16 U.S.C. 470(f)'' in the
first sentence and adding, in its place, a parenthetical reference to
``54 U.S.C. 306108''; and
0
b. Add the ``or Sec.  380.16(f), as applicable'' directly after the
reference to ``380.12(f)''.
0
17. Amend Sec.  380.16 as follows:
0
a. Revise the second sentence of paragraph (a)(1), revise paragraph
(b)(3), revise the first sentence of paragraph (c) introductory text
and the first sentence of paragraph (c)(1), and revise paragraphs
(c)(2)(i) through (iii) and (c)(3) and (4);
0
b. Revise paragraph (d)(6) and the second sentence of paragraph (d)(7);
0
c. Revise paragraph (e)(3), the first two sentences of paragraph
(e)(4), the first and third sentences of paragraph (e)(5), and
paragraphs (e)(6) through (8);
0
d. Revise paragraphs (f)(1)(i), (iii), (iv), and (v), (f)(2)
introductory text, and the first sentence of paragraph (f)(4);
0
e. Revise the first sentence of paragraph (g) introductory text and
paragraphs (g)(3) and (6);
0
f. Redesignate paragraphs (k) through (m) as paragraphs (n) through
(p);
0
g. Redesignate paragraphs (h) through (j) as paragraphs (j) through
(l);
0
h. Add new paragraphs (h) and (i);
0
i. Revise the heading and the second sentence of newly redesignated
paragraph (j) introductory text and revise newly redesignated paragraph
(j)(3);
0
j. Revise the newly redesignated paragraph (k) heading and paragraphs
(k) introductory text and (k)(2) and (3);
0
k. Add paragraph (k)(4);
0
l. Revise newly redesignated paragraph (l);
0
m. Add new paragraph (m);
0
n. Revise the newly redesignated paragraph (n) heading and introductory
text, the second sentence of newly redesignated paragraph (n)(2)(i),
and the second sentence of newly redesignated paragraph (n)(2)(ii);
0
o. Revise the newly redesignated paragraph (o) heading and introductory
text, newly redesignated paragraphs (o)(1) through (4), the first
sentence of newly redesignated paragraph (o)(5), and newly redesignated
paragraph (o)(7); and
0
p. Revise the newly redesignated paragraph (p) heading, the second
sentence of newly redesignated paragraph (p) introductory text, the
third sentence of newly redesignated paragraph (p)(2), and newly
redesignated paragraphs (p)(3)(i) and (iii) and (p)(4).
    The revisions and additions read as follows:

Sec.  380.16   Environmental reports for Section 216 Federal Power Act
Permits.

    (a) * * *
    (1) * * * The environmental report must include the 14 resource
reports and related material described in this section.
* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (3) Identify the effects of construction, operation (including
malfunctions), and maintenance, as well as cumulative effects resulting
from the incremental effects of the project when added to the effects
of other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions;
* * * * *
    (c) * * * This report must describe facilities associated with the
project; special construction, operation, and maintenance procedures;
construction timetables; future plans for related construction;
compliance with regulations and codes; and permits that must be
obtained. * * *
    (1) Describe and provide location maps of all project facilities
(such as transmission line towers, substations, and any appurtenant
facilities) to be constructed, modified, replaced, or removed, and
related construction and operational support activities and areas,

such as maintenance bases, staging areas, communications towers, power
lines, and new access roads (roads to be built or modified). * * *
    (2) * * *
    (i) Current, original United States Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5-
minute series topographic maps, or maps of equivalent detail, covering
at least a 0.5-mile-wide corridor centered on the electric transmission
facility centerline, with integer mileposts identified, showing the
location of rights-of-way, new access roads, other linear construction
areas, substations, and construction materials storage areas. Nonlinear
construction areas must be shown on maps at a scale of 1:3,600, or
larger, keyed graphically and by milepost to the right-of-way maps. The
topographic maps must depict the facilities identified under paragraph
(l)(5) of this section, including any facilities located outside of the
0.5-mile-wide corridor.
    (ii) Original aerial images or photographs or photo-based alignment
sheets based on these sources, not more than one year old (unless older
ones accurately depict current land use and development) and with a
scale of 1:6,000, or larger, showing the proposed transmission line
route and location of transmission line towers, substations and
appurtenant facilities, covering at least a 0.5-mile-wide corridor, and
including mileposts. The aerial images or photographs or photo-based
alignment sheets must show all existing transmission facilities located
in the area of the proposed facilities and the facilities identified
under paragraph (l)(5) of this section, including any facilities
located outside of the 0.5-mile-wide corridor. Older images/
photographs/alignment sheets must be modified to show any facilities
not depicted in the original. Alternative formats (e.g., blue-line
prints of acceptable resolution) need prior approval by the
environmental staff of the Commission's Office of Energy Projects.
    (iii) In addition to the requirements under Sec.  50.3(b) of this
chapter, the applicant must contact the environmental staff of the
Office of Energy Projects regarding the need for any additional copies
of topographic maps and aerial images/photographs.
    (3) Describe and identify, by milepost, proposed general
construction and restoration methods, and any special methods to be
used in areas of rugged topography, residential areas, active
croplands, and sites where explosives are likely to be used. Describe
any proposed horizontal directional drilling and pile driving that may
be necessary.
    (4) Identify the number of construction spreads, average workforce
requirements for each construction spread and estimated duration of
construction from initial clearing to final restoration. Indicate the
days of the week and times of the day that proposed construction
activities would occur and describe any proposed nighttime construction
activities.
* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (6) Discuss proposed mitigation measures to reduce the potential
for adverse impacts to surface water, wetlands, or groundwater quality.
Discuss the potential for blasting or contamination/spills to affect
water wells, springs, and wetlands, and measures to be taken to detect
and remedy such effects. Describe the impact of proposed land clearing
and vegetation management practices, including herbicide treatment, in
the project area on water resources.
    (7) * * * Identify locations of Environmental Protection Agency or
State-designated, sole-source aquifers and wellhead protection areas
crossed by the proposed transmission line facilities.
    (e) * * *
    (3) Describe and provide the acreage of vegetation cover types that
would be affected, including unique ecosystems or communities, such as
remnant prairie, interior forest, or old-growth forest, or significant
individual plants, such as old-growth specimen trees.
    (4) Describe the impact of construction, operation, and maintenance
on aquatic and terrestrial species and their habitats, including the
possibility of a major alteration to ecosystems or biodiversity, and
any potential impact on State-listed endangered or threatened species.
Describe the impact of proposed land clearing and vegetation management
practices, including herbicide treatment, in the project area on fish,
wildlife, and vegetation. * * *
    (5) Identify all federally listed or proposed threatened or
endangered species and critical habitat that potentially occur in the
vicinity of the project. * * * The application must include the results
of any required surveys unless seasonal considerations make this
impractical. * * *
    (6) Identify all federally listed essential fish habitat (EFH) that
potentially occurs in the vicinity of the project. Provide information
on all EFH, as identified by the pertinent Federal fishery management
plans, that may be adversely affected by the project and the results of
abbreviated consultations with the National Marine Fisheries Service,
and any resulting EFH assessments.
    (7) Describe proposed, site-specific mitigation measures to
minimize impacts on fisheries, wildlife, and vegetation.
    (8) Include copies of correspondence not provided under paragraph
(e)(5) of this section, containing recommendations from appropriate
Federal and State fish and wildlife agencies to avoid or limit impacts
on wildlife, fisheries, and vegetation, and the applicant's response to
the recommendations.
    (f) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (i) Documentation of the applicant's initial cultural resource
consultations, including consultations with Native Americans and other
interested persons (if appropriate);
* * * * *
    (iii) An Evaluation Report, as appropriate;
    (iv) A Treatment Plan, as appropriate; and
    (v) Written comments from State Historic Preservation Officer(s)
(SHPO), Tribal Historic Preservation Officers (THPO), as appropriate,
and applicable land-management agencies on the reports in paragraphs
(f)(1)(i) through (iv) of this section.
    (2) The application or pre-filing documents, as applicable, must
include the documentation of initial cultural resource consultation(s),
the Overview and Survey Reports, if required, and written comments from
SHPOs, THPOs, and land-management agencies, if available. The initial
cultural resource consultations should establish the need for surveys.
If surveys are deemed necessary by the consultation with the SHPO/THPO,
the survey reports must be filed with the application or pre-filing
documents.
* * * * *
    (4) The applicant must request privileged treatment for all
material filed with the Commission containing location, character, and
ownership information about cultural resources in accordance with Sec.
388.112 of this chapter. * * *
* * * * *
    (g) * * * This report must identify and quantify the impacts of
project construction, operation, and maintenance on factors affecting
municipalities and counties in the vicinity of the project. * * *
* * * * *
    (3) Describe on-site manpower requirements and payroll during
construction, operation, and maintenance, including the number of

construction personnel who currently reside within the impact area,
will commute daily to the site from outside the impact area, or will
relocate temporarily within the impact area.
* * * * *
    (6) Conduct a fiscal impact analysis evaluating incremental local
government expenditures in relation to incremental local government
revenues that will result from the project. Incremental expenditures
include, but are not limited to, school operation, road maintenance and
repair, public safety, and public utilities.
    (h) Resource Report 6--Tribal resources. This report must describe
Indian Tribes, Tribal lands, and Tribal interests that may be affected
by the proposed project. Resource Report 6 must:
    (1) Identify Indian Tribes that may be affected by the
construction, operation, and maintenance of the proposed transmission
facilities.
    (2) Describe the impacts of construction, operation, and
maintenance of the project on Indian Tribes and Tribal interests,
including those related to: water use and quality; wildlife and
vegetation; cultural and historic resources; socioeconomics; geological
resources; soils; land use, recreation, and aesthetics; air quality and
environmental noise; traffic; and health.
    (3) Identify project impacts that may affect Tribal interests not
necessarily associated with resources specified in paragraph (h)(2) of
this section, e.g., treaties, Tribal practices, or agreements between
the Indian Tribe and entities other than the applicant.
    (4) Identify Indian Tribes that may attach religious and cultural
significance to historic properties within the proposed project right-
of-way or in the project vicinity, as well as available information on
Indian traditional cultural and religious properties, whether on or off
of any Indian reservation.
    (5) Ensure that information made available under this section not
include specific site or property locations, the disclosure of which
will create a risk of harm, theft, or destruction of archaeological or
Tribal cultural resources or to the site at which the resources are
located, or which would violate any Federal law, including the
Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979, 16 U.S.C. 470hh, and
the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, 54 U.S.C. 307103.
    (i) Resource Report 7--Environmental justice. This report must
address the effects of the proposed project on environmental justice
communities, as defined in Sec.  380.2 of this chapter. Resource Report
7 must:
    (1) Identify environmental justice communities within the area of
potential project impacts using current guidance and data, including
localized data, from the Environmental Protection Agency, the Council,
the Census Bureau, and other authoritative sources. Provide maps
depicting identified environmental justice communities in relation to
the proposed project facilities using granular data.
    (2) Describe the impacts of construction, operation, and
maintenance of the project on environmental justice communities,
including those related to: water use and quality; wildlife and
vegetation; cultural and historic resources; socioeconomics; geological
resources; soils; land use, recreation, and aesthetics; air quality and
environmental noise; traffic; and health. Identify any
disproportionately high and adverse impacts on environmental justice
communities.
    (3) Discuss any cumulative impacts on environmental justice
communities, regarding resources affected by the project, including
whether any cumulative impacts would be disproportionately high and
adverse. Describe the proposed project's impacts in relation to the
aggregation of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions taken
by Federal or non-Federal entities, and the environmental justice
communities' capacity to tolerate additional impacts.
    (4) Describe any proposed mitigation measures to avoid or minimize
impacts on environmental justice communities, including any community
input received on the proposed measures and how the input informed the
proposed measures.
    (j) Resource Report 8--Geological resources. * * * Resource Report
8 must:
* * * * *
    (3) Describe how the project will be located or designed to avoid
or minimize adverse effects to geological resources or risk to itself.
Describe any geotechnical investigations and monitoring that would be
conducted before, during, and after construction. Discuss the potential
for blasting to affect structures and the proposed measures to be taken
to remedy such effects.
* * * * *
    (k) Resource Report 9--Soils. This report must describe the soils
that will be affected by the proposed project, the effect on those
soils, and measures proposed to minimize or avoid impacts. Resource
Report 9 must:
* * * * *
    (2) Identify, by milepost, potential impacts from: soil erosion due
to water, wind, or loss of vegetation; soil compaction and damage to
soil structure resulting from movement of construction vehicles; wet
soils and soils with poor drainage that are especially prone to
structural damage; damage to drainage tile systems due to movement of
construction vehicles and trenching activities; and interference with
the operation of agricultural equipment due to the possibility of large
stones or blasted rock occurring on or near the surface as a result of
construction.
    (3) Identify, by milepost, cropland and residential areas where
project construction may result in the loss of soil fertility,
including any land classified as prime or unique farmland by the U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service.
    (4) Describe any proposed mitigation measures to reduce the
potential for adverse impacts to soils or agricultural productivity.
    (l) Resource Report 10--Land use, recreation, and aesthetics. This
report must describe the existing uses of land in the project vicinity
and changes to those land uses that will occur if the project is
approved. The report must discuss proposed mitigation measures,
including the protection and enhancement of existing land use. Resource
Report 10 must:
    (1) Describe the width and acreage requirements of all construction
and permanent rights-of-way for project construction, operation and
maintenance.
    (i) List, by milepost, locations where the proposed construction or
permanent rights-of-way would be adjacent to existing rights-of-way of
any kind.
    (ii) Identify, preferably by diagrams, existing rights-of-way that
will be used for a portion of the construction or permanent rights-of-
way, the overlap and how much additional width will be required.
    (iii) Identify the total amount of land to be purchased or leased
for each project facility; the amount of land that would be disturbed
for construction, operation, and maintenance of the facility; and the
proposed use of the remaining land not required for project operation
and maintenance, if any.
    (iv) Identify the size of typical staging areas and expanded work
areas, such as those at railroad, road, and waterbody crossings, and
the size and location of all construction materials storage yards and
access roads.

    (2) Identify, by milepost, the existing use of lands crossed by, or
adjacent to, the proposed project facilities or rights-of-way.
    (3) Describe planned development on land crossed by, or within 0.25
mile of, the proposed facilities, the time frame (if available) for
such development, and proposed coordination to minimize impacts on land
use. Planned development means development that is included in a master
plan or is on file with the local planning board or the county.
    (4) Identify, by milepost and length of crossing, the area of
direct effect of each proposed facility and operational site on sugar
maple stands; orchards and nurseries; landfills; operating mines;
hazardous waste sites; State wild and scenic rivers; State or local
designated trails; nature preserves; game management areas; remnant
prairie; old-growth forest; interior forest; national or State forests
or parks; golf courses; designated natural, recreational or scenic
areas; registered natural landmarks; Native American religious sites
and traditional cultural properties (to the extent they are known to
the public at large) and reservations; lands identified under the
Special Area Management Plan of the Office of Coastal Zone Management,
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration; and lands owned or
controlled by Federal or State agencies or private preservation groups.
Also identify if any of those areas are located within 0.25 mile of any
proposed facility.
    (5) Identify and describe buildings, electronic installations,
airstrips, airports, and heliports in the project vicinity. The
facilities identified under this paragraph (l)(5) must be depicted on
the maps and photographs in Resource Report 1, as required by paragraph
(c)(2) of this section.
    (i) Buildings: List all single-family and multi-family dwellings
and related structures, mobile homes, apartment buildings, commercial
structures, industrial structures, business structures, churches,
hospitals, nursing homes, schools, or other structures normally
inhabited by humans or intended to be inhabited by humans on a daily or
regular basis within a 0.5-mile-wide corridor centered on the proposed
transmission line alignment. Provide a general description of each
habitable structure and its distance from the centerline of the
proposed project. In cities, towns, or rural subdivisions, houses can
be identified in groups. Provide the number of habitable structures in
each group and list the distance from the centerline to the closest
habitable structure in the group. Provide a list of all habitable
structures within 200 feet of a proposed construction work area for all
proposed project facilities, including transmission line towers,
substations, access roads, and appurtenant facilities; a general
description of each habitable structure; and the distance of each
habitable structure from the proposed construction work area.
    (ii) Electronic installations: List all commercial AM radio
transmitters located within 10,000 feet of the centerline of the
proposed project and all FM radio transmitters, microwave relay
stations, or other similar electronic installations located within
2,000 feet of the centerline of the proposed project. Provide a general
description of each installation and its distance from the centerline
of the proposed project.
    (iii) Airstrips, Airports, and Heliports: List all known private
airstrips within 10,000 feet of the centerline of the project. List all
airports registered with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA),
with at least one runway more than 3,200 feet in length, that are
located within 20,000 feet of the centerline of the proposed project.
Indicate whether any transmission structures will exceed a 100:1
horizontal slope (one foot in height for each 100 feet in distance)
from the closest point of the closest runway. List all airports
registered with the FAA having no runway more than 3,200 feet in length
that are located within 10,000 feet of the centerline of the proposed
project. Indicate whether any transmission structures will exceed a
50:1 horizontal slope from the closest point of the closest runway.
List all heliports located within 5,000 feet of the centerline of the
proposed project. Indicate whether any transmission structures will
exceed a 25:1 horizontal slope from the closest point of the closest
landing and takeoff area of the heliport. Provide a general description
of each private airstrip, registered airport, and registered heliport,
and state the distance of each from the centerline of the proposed
transmission line. Include copies of any consultation with the FAA.
    (6) Describe any areas crossed by, or within 0.25 mile of, the
proposed transmission project facilities that are included in, or are
designated for study for inclusion in: the National Wild and Scenic
Rivers System (16 U.S.C. 1271), the National Trails System (16 U.S.C.
1241), or a wilderness area designated under the Wilderness Act (16
U.S.C. 1132).
    (7) For facilities within a designated coastal zone management
area, provide a consistency determination or evidence that the
applicant has requested a consistency determination from the State's
coastal zone management program.
    (8) Describe the impact the project will have on present uses of
the affected areas as identified above, including commercial uses,
mineral resources, recreational areas, public health and safety, and
the aesthetic value of the land and its features. Describe any
temporary or permanent restrictions on land use resulting from the
project.
    (9) Describe proposed mitigation measures intended for all special
use areas identified under this section.
    (10) Identify the area of potential visual effects from the
proposed project. Describe the visual characteristics of the lands and
waters affected by the project, including any visually sensitive areas,
visual classifications, and key viewpoints in the project vicinity.
Describe how the transmission line project facilities will impact the
visual character and scenic quality of the landscape and proposed
mitigation measures to lessen these impacts. Provide visual aids to
support the textual descriptions required by this paragraph.
    (11) Demonstrate that applications for rights-of-way authorizations
or other proposed land uses have been, or soon will be, filed with
Federal land-management agencies with jurisdiction over land that would
be affected by the project.
    (m) Resource Report 11--Air quality and environmental noise. This
report must estimate emissions from the proposed project and the
corresponding impacts on air quality and the environment, estimate the
impact of the proposed project on the noise environment, and describe
proposed measures to mitigate the impacts. Resource Report 11 must:
    (1) Describe the existing air quality in the project area, indicate
if any project facilities are located within a designated nonattainment
or maintenance area under the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.),
and provide the distance from the project facilities to any Class I
area in the project vicinity.
    (2) For proposed substations and appurtenant facilities,
quantitatively describe existing noise levels at nearby noise-sensitive
areas, such as schools, hospitals, or residences.
    (i) Report existing noise levels as the Leq (day), Leq (night), and
Ldn and include the basis for the data or estimates.
    (ii) Include a plot plan that identifies the locations and duration
of noise measurements, time of day, weather conditions, wind speed and
direction,

engine load, and other noise sources present during each measurement.
    (iii) Identify any State or local noise regulations that may be
applicable to the project facilities.
    (3) Estimate emissions from the proposed project and the
corresponding impacts on air quality and the environment.
    (i) Estimate the reasonably foreseeable emissions from
construction, operation, and maintenance of the project facilities
(such as emissions from tailpipes, equipment, fugitive dust, open
burning, and substations) expressed in tons per year. Include
supporting calculations, emissions factors, fuel consumption rates, and
annual hours of operation.
    (ii) For each designated nonattainment or maintenance area, provide
a comparison of the emissions from construction, operation, and
maintenance of the project facilities with the applicable General
Conformity thresholds (40 CFR part 93).
    (iii) Identify the corresponding impacts on communities and the
environment in the project area from the estimated emissions.
    (iv) Describe any proposed mitigation measures to control emissions
identified under this section.
    (4) Estimate the impact of the proposed project on the noise
environment.
    (i) Provide a quantitative estimate of the impact of transmission
line operation on noise levels at the edge of the proposed right-of-
way, including corona, insulator, and Aeolian noise. For proposed
substations and appurtenant facilities, provide a quantitative estimate
of the impact of operations on noise levels at nearby noise-sensitive
areas, including discrete tones.
    (A) Include step-by-step supporting calculations or identify the
computer program used to model the noise levels, input and raw output
data and all assumptions made when running the model, far-field sound
level data for maximum facility operation, and source of the data.
    (B) Include sound pressure levels for project facilities, dynamic
insertion loss for structures, and sound attenuation from the project
facilities to the edge of the right-of-way or to nearby noise-sensitive
areas (as applicable).
    (C) Far-field sound level data measured from similar project
facilities in service elsewhere, when available, may be substituted for
manufacturer's far-field sound level data.
    (D) The operational noise estimates must demonstrate that the
proposed project will comply with applicable State and local noise
regulations and that noise attributable to any proposed substation or
appurtenant facility does not exceed a day-night sound level (Ldn) of
55 dBA at any pre-existing noise-sensitive area.
    (ii) Describe the impact of proposed construction activities,
including any nighttime construction, on the noise environment.
Estimate the impact of any horizontal directional drilling, pile
driving, or blasting on noise levels at nearby noise-sensitive areas
and include supporting assumptions and calculations.
    (iii) Describe any proposed mitigation measures to reduce noise
impacts identified under this section.
    (n) Resource Report 12--Alternatives. This report must describe
alternatives to the project and compare the environmental impacts (as
identified in Resource Reports 1 through 11 of this section) of such
alternatives to those of the proposal. * * * Resource Report 12 must:
* * * * *
    (2) * * *
    (i) * * * Where applicable, identify the location of such
alternatives on maps of sufficient scale to depict their relationship
to the proposed action and existing rights-of-way; and
    (ii) * * * Provide comparative tables showing the differences in
environmental characteristics for the alternatives and proposed action.
* * *
    (o) Resource Report 13--Reliability and safety. This report must
address the potential hazards to the public from failure of facility
components resulting from, among other things, accidents or natural
catastrophes; how these events would affect reliability; and proposed
procedures and design features to reduce potential hazards. Resource
Report 13 must:
    (1) Discuss hazards, environmental impacts, and service
interruptions that could reasonably ensue from failure of the proposed
facilities.
    (2) Describe proposed measures to protect the public from failure
of the proposed facilities (including coordination with local
agencies).
    (3) Discuss proposed design and operational measures to avoid or
reduce risk, including any measures to ensure that the proposed project
facilities would be resilient against future climate change impacts in
the project area.
    (4) Discuss proposed contingency plans for maintaining service or
reducing downtime to ensure that the proposed facilities would not
adversely affect the bulk electric system in accordance with applicable
North American Electric Reliability Corporation reliability standards.
    (5) Describe proposed measures to exclude the public from hazardous
areas. * * *
* * * * *
    (7) Discuss the potential for electrical noise from electric and
magnetic fields, including shadowing and reradiation, as they may
affect health or communication systems along the transmission right-of-
way.
* * * * *
    (p) Resource Report 14--Design and engineering. * * * If the
version of this report submitted with the application is preliminary in
nature, the applicant must state that in the application. * * *
* * * * *
    (2) * * * If a permit is granted on the basis of preliminary
designs, the applicant must submit final design drawings for written
approval by the Director of the Office of Energy Projects prior to
commencement of any construction of the project.
    (3) * * *
    (i) An assessment of the suitability of the locations of proposed
transmission line towers, substations, and appurtenant structures based
on geological and subsurface investigations, including investigations
of soils and rock borings and tests evaluating all foundations and
construction materials;
* * * * *
    (iii) An identification of all borrow areas and quarry sites and an
estimate of required quantities of suitable construction material; and
* * * * *
    (4) The applicant must submit the supporting design report
described in paragraph (p)(3) of this section at the time preliminary
and final design drawings are filed. If the report contains preliminary
drawings, it must be designated as a ``Preliminary Supporting Design
Report.''

    Note: The following appendix will not appear in the Code of
Federal Regulations.

Appendix

Draft Version: Landowner Bill of Rights in Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission Electric Transmission Proceedings

    1. You have the right to receive compensation if your property
is necessary for the construction or modification of an authorized
project. The amount of such compensation would be determined through
a negotiated easement agreement between you and the entity applying
to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) for
authorization to construct a transmission line (applicant) or
through an eminent domain proceeding in the appropriate Federal or
State court. The applicant cannot seek to take a property by

eminent domain unless and until the Commission approves the
application, unless otherwise provided by State or local law.
    2. You have the right to request the full name, title, contact
information including email address and phone number, and employer
of every representative of the applicant that contacts you about
your property.
    3. You have the right to access information about the proposed
project through a variety of methods, including by accessing the
project website that the applicant must maintain and keep current,
by visiting a central location in your county designated by the
applicant for review of project documents, or by accessing the
Commission's eLibrary online document information system at
www.ferc.gov.
    4. You have the right to participate, including by filing
comments and, after an application is filed, by intervening in any
open Commission proceedings regarding the proposed transmission
project in your area. Deadlines for making these filings may apply.
For more information about how to participate and any relevant
deadlines, contact the Commission's Office of Public Participation
by phone<PHONE_NUMBER>) or by email ([email protected]).
    5. When contacted by the applicant or a representative of the
applicant either in person, by phone, or in writing, you have the
right to communicate or not to communicate. You also have the right
to hire counsel to represent you in your dealings with the applicant
and to direct the applicant and its representatives to communicate
with you only through your counsel.
    6. The applicant may seek to negotiate a written easement
agreement with you that would govern the applicant's and your rights
to access and use the property that is at issue and describe other
rights and responsibilities. You have the right to negotiate or to
decline to negotiate an easement agreement with the applicant;
however, if the Commission approves the proposed project and
negotiations fail or you chose not to engage in negotiations, there
is a possibility that your property could be taken through an
eminent domain proceeding, in which case the appropriate Federal or
State court would determine fair compensation.
    7. You have the right to hire your own appraiser or other
professional to appraise the value of your property or to assist you
in any easement negotiations with the applicant or in an eminent
domain proceeding before a court.
    8. Except as otherwise provided by State or local law, you have
the right to grant or deny access to your property by the applicant
or its representatives for preliminary survey work or environmental
assessments, and to limit any such grant in time and scope.
    9. In addition to the above rights, you may have additional
rights under Federal, State, or local laws.

United States of America

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Applications for Permits to Site Interstate Electric Transmission
Facilities Docket No. RM22-7-000

(Issued December 15, 2022)
DANLY, Commissioner, concurring:

    1. I concur with the issuance of this Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking (NOPR) because it is not my habit to oppose any but the
most infirm proposed rules. Today's issuance purports to be the
first step in discharging the Commission's obligations under
Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act,\1\ which, among other
things, included amendments to certain provisions of section 216 of
the Federal Power Act \2\ (FPA) to clarify Federal ``backstop''
siting of electric transmission facilities in limited circumstances
when states fail to act on certain transmission proposals. The NOPR
itself, however, largely appears to be an exercise to extend various
environmental reviews typically seen in natural gas project
proceedings--a regime in which the majority of the Commission has
been imposing pervasive, standardless environmental tests well
beyond our statutory authority.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Public Law 117-58, Sec.  40105, 135 Stat. 429.
    \2\ 16 U.S.C. 824p (2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    2. I agree that our ``backstop'' siting authority is limited
under the Commission's governing statutes. I disagree that the
limited ``backstop'' siting authority that the Commission has been
granted also confers extensive powers as an environmental and social
regulator. Regardless, the statute certainly did not extend our
obligations beyond the requirements we have always observed in order
to discharge our duties under the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA).
    3. In going far beyond that which is required by the
Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, this NOPR instead appears to
represent the majority's ``environmental justice'' wish list.
Accordingly, I specifically solicit citations to the provisions in
section 216, as amended--or any other statutory basis--to support
each revision proposed in the NOPR (such citations are often omitted
in the NOPR itself).\3\ Once statutory authority is certain,
commenters should further provide legal analysis and evidence
whether the proposed rule constitutes good policy, such as, for
example, whether it will be beneficial in determining whether to
site electric transmission projects when the states have not done
so, or whether the rule will tend to ensure almost nothing is ever
sited.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ As amended by the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act,
FPA section 216(a)(4)(G) provides that in determining whether to
designate a national interest electric transmission corridor the
Secretary of Energy ``may consider'' whether the designation
``avoids and minimizes, to the maximum extent practicable, and
offsets to the extent appropriate and practicable, sensitive
environmental areas and cultural heritage sites.'' 16 U.S.C.
824p(a)(4), 824p(a)(4)(G)(ii). As amended, FPA section 216(e)(1)
provides that a permit holder may acquire rights-of-way by the
exercise of eminent domain if, among other things, ``in the
determination of the Commission, the permit holder has made good
faith efforts to engage with landowners and other stakeholders early
in the applicable permitting process.'' Id. Sec.  824p(e)(1). It is
stretching these amendments to FPA section 216 beyond their breaking
point to use them to justify the scope of environmental review the
Commission now proposes in the NOPR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    4. For example, we propose to ``require [electric transmission
project] applicants to develop and file an Environmental Justice
Public Engagement Plan as part of their Project Participation Plan
under Sec.  50.4(a)(4).'' \4\ The Commission does not cite any
statute that requires or even permits us to require this
Environmental Justice Public Engagement Plan, instead citing
Executive Orders, at least one of which the majority acknowledges
does not bind the Commission.\5\ The Commission further ``proposes
to define the term `environmental justice community' as any
disadvantaged community that has been historically marginalized and
overburdened by pollution, including, but not limited to, minority
populations, low-income populations, or indigenous peoples.'' \6\
What does it mean to be ``overburdened by pollution?'' Is this a
concept that the Commission--a Federal energy rate regulator--is
authorized and equipped to define or establish? Will the regulated
community of transmission developers have any idea how to comply
with such ambiguities? Is there anything about being
``overburdened'' in the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Applications for Permits to Site Interstate Elec.
Transmission Facilities, 181 FERC ] 61,205 at P 31 (2022) (NOPR);
see also 18 CFR 50.4(a).
    \5\ NOPR, 181 FERC ] 61,205 at PP 30, 65, n.72. The Commission
also proposes to require a new ``Environmental Justice Report'' as
part of its regulations implementing NEPA. See id. PP 65-67. Again,
I would like to know where the Commission gets this authority. We
also ``expect applicants to utilize the latest guidance and data
from [the Council on Environmental Quality], [the Environmental
Protection Agency], the Census Bureau, and other authoritative
sources.'' Id. P 67. Does the ``latest'' guidance and data include
anything issued after pre-filing but before permitting? What about
the day after permitting? What about during the pendency of a
rehearing request? And who or what are ``other authoritative
sources?''
    \6\ Id. P 32 (emphasis added).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    5. The Commission also seeks to decree that the Environmental
Justice Public Engagement Plan must ``describe the manner in which
the applicant will reach out to environmental justice communities
about potential mitigation,'' \7\ or, in other words, include a
mitigation plan, even though ``NEPA not only does not require
agencies to discuss any particular mitigation plans that they might
put in place, it does not require agencies--or third parties--to
effect any.'' \8\ Commenters should tell us how the Commission can
impose such a requirement when the Supreme Court and the D.C.
Circuit have ruled otherwise.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Id. P 31.
    \8\ Citizens Against Burlington, Inc. v. Busey, 938 F.2d 190,
206 (D.C. Cir. 1991) (citing Robertson v. Methow Valley Citizens
Council, 490 U.S. 332, 353 & n.16 (1989)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    6. By way of further example, as part of its NEPA review, the
Commission proposes to require applicants to submit ``Resource
Report 10'' on ``Air quality and environmental noise.'' \9\
``Proposed Resource Report 10 would require the applicant to
estimate emissions from the proposed project . . . and describe
proposed measures to mitigate the impacts.'' \10\ ``Specifically,
the

applicant must provide the reasonably foreseeable emissions from
construction, operation, and maintenance of the project facilities .
. . and describe any proposed mitigation measures to control
emissions.'' \11\ Someone better propose some standards because
these proposals sound much more like aspirational goals than clear
rules that a developer could figure out how to comply with. What are
``foreseeable emissions'' from ``maintenance,'' for example? If a
transmission line falls in a storm, is a transmission developer
supposed to predict ``reasonably foreseeable'' emissions from the
truck the utility line worker uses to drive out to the site? If the
line worker uses a rechargeable ratchet to loosen a bolt, is the
transmission developer supposed to predict the ``reasonably
foreseeable'' emissions from electric generation required to
recharge the battery? And, again, by what authority do we propose to
require a mitigation plan over directly contrary judicial precedent?
\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ NOPR, 181 FERC ] 61,205 at P 69.
    \10\ Id.
    \11\ Id. P 70.
    \12\ See supra P 5 n.8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    7. As another example, the Commission proposes to ``add language
to Sec.  50.11(d) that would, under certain circumstances and for a
limited time, preclude the issuance of authorizations to proceed
with construction of transmission facilities authorized under FPA
section 216 while requests for rehearing of orders issuing permits
remain pending before the Commission.'' \13\ Though in a different
context and sounding in a different statute, the majority imposed a
similar policy, including the issuance of stays, for natural gas
projects, over my dissent.\14\ I solicit comment whether we have
this authority, and if so, whether it is sound policy to exercise it
as part of our limited ``backstop'' siting jurisdiction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ NOPR, 181 FERC ] 61,205 at P 47.
    \14\ See Limiting Authorizations to Proceed with Constr.
Activities Pending Rehearing, Order No. 871-B, 175 FERC ] 61,098
(Danly, Comm'r, dissenting), order on reh'g, 176 FERC ] 61,062
(2021) (Danly, Comm'r, dissenting).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    8. I have similar questions to those raised here about nearly
every aspect of the NOPR.\15\ The powers that Congress has granted
the Commission are narrow, as has been acknowledged, but they are
profound and, depending upon how the Commission implements those
authorities, can have a lasting effect on the development of the
transmission system. Accordingly, I invite comments from every
interested party on my questions and any other aspect of the
proposed rules so that the Commission will have a full record as it
considers whether to promulgate these or related rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ For example, I question whether we are complying with the
purpose of the act to engage in parallel activity with the states
during the pendency of the states' review of transmission project
proposals, a subject that Commissioner Christie has thoroughly
canvassed in his separate statement to this order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    9. It is hard to reconcile today's proposed rule, adorned as it
is by burdensome, unnecessary requirements, with what appears, at
the merest glance, to have been the purpose of Congress when passing
the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act--to facilitate, not
inhibit, the siting of transmission infrastructure.
    For these reasons, I respectfully concur.

James P. Danly,
Commissioner.

United States of America

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Applications for Permits to Site Interstate Electric Transmission
Facilities Docket No. RM22-7-000
(Issued December 15, 2022)
CHRISTIE, Commissioner, concurring:

    1. Updating the Commission's existing regulations and practices
governing the Commission's exercise of its transmission siting
backstop authority is required by a statutory change adopted last
year by Congress.\1\ While, of course, we must implement the change
made by Congress, a simple update to our existing regulation would
have been sufficient. This order,\2\ however, goes beyond merely
implementing the required conforming changes to our existing
regulation. So while I concur with putting these amendments out for
comment, I look forward to reviewing the comments on this proposal,
particularly from organizations representing State regulators.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA), Public
Law 117-58, 40105, 135 Stat. 429 (2021), amended section 216 of the
Federal Power Act (FPA) in certain respects. Most notably, it
explicitly allows the Commission to grant transmission siting
authority even when a State has denied an application within one
year. 16 U.S.C. 824p(b)(1)(C) (as amended by IIJA section 1221).
    \2\ Applications for Permits to Site Interstate Electric
Transmission Facilities, 181 FERC ] 61,205 (2022) (Backstop Siting
NOPR).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    2. Some relevant history: States have historically had sole
authority for permitting and siting transmission lines (two very
separate functions), and for good reasons. Every power line, from
the small ones below 100 kV to the huge 765 kV lines, visible for
many miles around, comes with its own unique set of facts and local
concerns. One of those concerns--let us not forget--is the cost, and
that cost will be paid, in some portion, by consumers in the situs
state, through FERC formula rates. So, whenever the day comes when
FERC orders a line built after a State has found it was not needed
or found the cost was not reasonable and prudent, FERC will not only
be choosing a route that was rejected by State regulators, but FERC
will be ordering the State's consumers to pay for the project, under
applicable cost allocation rules. And even if the proposed project
ends up being litigated for years before any steel is in the
ground--a virtual certainty for a controversial project that was
rejected by State regulators but imposed by FERC--consumers will
likely be paying through formula rates for years for pre-
construction costs, which can be substantial.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ For example, the Potomac-Appalachian Transmission Highline
(PATH) Project--which was abandoned, and never even completed--
spawned several years of litigation and imposed many millions of
dollars in costs (including return on equity) to ratepayers. See
Newman v. FERC, 27 F.4th 690 (D.C. Cir. 2022) (noting that PATH
sought recovery through rates of over $121 million in abandonment
costs alone, charges that were litigated over several years).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    3. State regulators are much better prepared to deal with that
myriad of local concerns, including concerns over routing and costs,
than FERC. Furthermore, State processes are far more convenient and
user-friendly than processes at FERC, if for no other reason than
geographic proximity. So, waiting one full year to allow a State to
``go first'' and make its decision makes sense for a lot of reasons.
One obvious reason is that if the line is truly needed, the State
regulators will in all likelihood approve it, and no FERC staff time
and resources will need to be expended at all. The whole mantra that
goes ``the states are blocking needed transmission all over the
country!'' is simply a political and special-interest narrative. The
steadily mounting increases over the past decade in transmission
rate base nationally,\4\ with concomitant skyrocketing increases in
transmission costs to consumers, blows up the narrative that states
are systemically blocking needed transmission lines. Contrary to the
narrative, states need more authority to scrutinize transmission
projects for need and prudence of cost, not less, to protect
consumers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See, e.g., RRA Regulatory Focus An Overview of Transmission
Ratemaking in the U.S.--2021 Update, S&P Global Market Intelligence,
Sept. 16, 2021 (``Growth in aggregate transmission rate base, 2012-
2020'' chart at page 3, showing increase from $57.8 billion to
$131.7 billion); see also Jim O'Reilly, PJM, AEP transcos drive
9.17% YOY [year-over-year] increase in US transmission rate base,
S&P Capital IQ Pro, November 1, 2022 (``Transmission rate base among
a group of 76 utilities in the U.S. maintained year-over-year growth
above 9% for the third consecutive year. . . .''.'') (emphasis
added).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    4. This proposed regulation changes the practice this Commission
adopted in 2006 of holding off on all processes here for a year, to
one in which pre-filing processes will begin, potentially concurrent
with the initiation of State proceedings.\5\ That change is not
required by last year's congressional action. It is an act of
discretion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Backstop Siting NOPR, 181 FERC ] 61,205 at PP 21-23.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    5. Some more history: The Energy Policy Act of 2005 \6\ altered
the traditional arrangement of State authority by creating FPA
section 216, which provided this Commission with supplemental or
``backstop'' siting authority in certain narrow circumstances. This
authority was limited, not plenary: As discussed in greater detail
in the order, EPAct 2005 explicitly authorized the Commission to
exercise transmission siting authority in DOE-designated ``national-
interest'' transmission corridors when a State application had been
rendered futile because the State lacks authority to act, the
applicant lacks standing to obtain authority from the State, the
State attaches conditions rendering the project infeasible, or the
State fails to act within one year.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Public Law 109-58, 1221, 119 Stat. 594 (2005) (amended 2021)
(EPAct 2005).
    \7\ See Backstop Siting NOPR, 181 FERC ] 61,205 at PP 2-7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    6. In Order No. 689, the Commission implemented this new FPA
section 216 authority.\8\ In doing so, it construed that

authority expansively in two respects. First, it construed the
statute as vesting siting authority in the Commission even when a
State acts within a year to deny an application. Second, it
construed the statute as ``permit[ting] parallel Commission-State
processes.'' \9\ But these expansive constructions were promptly
curbed: the first, by the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals; the
second, by the Commission itself.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Regulations for Filing Applications for Permits to Site
Interstate Electric Transmission Facilities, Order No. 689, FERC
Stats. & Regs. ] 31,234 (2006) (Order No. 689), reh'g denied, 119
FERC ] 61,154 (2007).
    \9\ Id. P 20; see also id. P 19 (same). I won't opine on whether
this construction is correct or not--though seemingly reasonable, it
doesn't seem to be rooted in anything more than an inference from
the fact that the Commission may act if the State has failed to do
so within a year--but I will observe that it is not compelled by
citations to the statutory text or legislative history.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    7. As for the first, the Fourth Circuit correctly found in
Piedmont that Congress had not, in fact, authorized the Commission
to grant an application that had been timely denied by a State.\10\
In direct response to the Fourth Circuit's opinion, last year
Congress expanded the Commission's FPA section 216 a notch further,
by empowering the Commission essentially to exercise a veto over a
State's timely decision to deny a transmission siting application.
In other words, in the IIJA, Congress sought to (and did) overturn
the key holding in Piedmont.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Piedmont Envtl. Council v. FERC, 558 F.3d 304 (4th Cir.
2009) (Piedmont), cert. denied, 558 U.S. 1147 (2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    8. As for the second, the Commission wisely decided that ``that
States which have authority to approve the siting of facilities
should have one full year to consider a siting application without
there being any overlapping Commission process,'' and therefore
found that, ``in cases where our jurisdiction rests on FPA section
216(b)(1)(C), the pre-filing process should not commence until one
year after the relevant State applications have been filed.'' \11\
This policy was not set in stone, of course--the Commission noted
that it would ``reconsider the issue'' if in the future it turned
out ``that the lack of a Commission pre-filing process prior to the
end of the one year is delaying projects or otherwise not in the
public interest.'' \12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Order No. 689, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,234 at P 21
(footnote omitted).
    \12\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    9. This was sound policy in 2006, and I am not convinced that
the intervening years have taught us that ``the lack of a Commission
pre-filing process prior to the end of the one year is delaying
projects or otherwise not in the public interest.'' \13\ Nor did
Congress, in the IIJA, do anything to suggest that commencement of
the Commission's pre-filing process should be accelerated--although
of course it could have.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    10. Nonetheless, I support this order, in its current form,
because I believe that the proposal to allow states a 90-day comment
period following a year of pre-filing processes may afford adequate
protection for the states and their processes, provided that the
Commission's pre-filing process does not begin before the relevant
State processes have been commenced. This order actually invites
comment on whether FERC's pre-filing processes should be allowed to
commence prior to the initiation of State proceedings.\14\ I would
not even have raised that prospect. I ask states in particular to
review closely and comment on these provisions. There are also other
examples of this order going beyond where it needed to go.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Backstop Siting NOPR, 181 FERC ] 61,205 at P 23.
    \15\ For example, the order proposes a new regulatory definition
of ``environmental justice community.'' Id. P 32. This concept has
been in flux since it was created and it continues to evolve;
nothing in the IIJA's amendments to FPA section 216 either
explicitly or implicitly requires the Commission to adopt any such
definition at all herein.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    11. To be clear, I have no concern with informal communications
between applicants and Commission staff before the states have had a
year to act. Nor do I have any concern with allowing an initial
consultation or other preparatory work during this one-year period.
But as discussed above, I believe strongly that the states should
have an opportunity to complete their processes without any
impediment or distraction from Commission proceedings.
    12. I support revising the Commission's Regulations to reflect
the modest expansion of its authority worked on FPA section 216 by
the IIJA, and I am inclined to believe that the 90-day comment
period afforded to states at the close of a year's worth of pre-
filing may adequately protect a State's interests. To that extent, I
support putting this order out for comment and I look forward to the
comments the Commission will receive.
    For these reasons, I concur.

Mark C. Christie,
Commissioner.

[FR Doc. 2022-27716 Filed 1-13-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 99 (Tuesday, May 22, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 30230-30232]
[FR Doc No: 2012-12349]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2012-0528; Directorate Identifier 2011-SW-068-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Eurocopter Deutschland Helicopters

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all
Eurocopter Deutschland GmbH Model MBB-BK117 C-2 helicopters with
certain Generator Control Units (GCU) installed. This proposed AD is
prompted by reports of internal short circuits in certain GCUs. The
proposed actions are intended to replace any affected GCUs to prevent a
short circuit, which could result in a loss of electrical generating
power, loss of systems required for continued safe flight and landing,
and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by July 23, 2012.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Docket: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for sending your
comments electronically.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Send comments to the U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver to the ``Mail'' address between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

Examining the AD Docket: You may examine the AD docket on the Internet
at http://www.regulations.gov 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 economic
evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street
address for the Docket Operations Office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in
the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket
shortly after receipt.
    For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact
American Eurocopter Corporation, 2701 N. Forum Drive, Grand Prairie, TX
75052, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER> or<PHONE_NUMBER>, fax<PHONE_NUMBER>,
or at http://www.eurocopter.com/techpub. You may review a copy of the
referenced service information at the FAA, Office of the Regional
Counsel, Southwest Region, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Room 663, Fort Worth,
Texas 76137.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: George Schwab, Aviation Safety
Engineer, FAA, Rotorcraft Directorate, Safety Management Group, 2601
Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, Texas 76137; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting
written comments, data, or views. We also invite comments relating to
the economic, environmental, energy, or federalism impacts that might
result from adopting the proposals in this document. The most helpful
comments reference a specific portion of the proposal, explain the
reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. To
ensure the docket does not contain duplicate comments, commenters
should send only one copy of written comments, or if comments are filed
electronically, commenters should submit only one time.
    We will file in the docket all comments that we receive, as well as
a report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel
concerning this proposed rulemaking. Before acting on this proposal, we
will consider all comments we receive on or before the closing date for
comments. We will consider comments filed after the comment period has
closed if it is possible to do so without incurring expense or delay.
We may change this proposal in light of the comments we receive.

Discussion

    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical
Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued AD No.:
2011-0149R1, dated September 30, 2011 (AD

2011-0149R1), to correct an unsafe condition for the Eurocopter
Deutschland GmbH Model MBB-BK117 C-2 helicopters. EASA advises that
during an acceptance test procedure of a GCU, a short circuit caused by
a manufacturing discrepancy occurred within the unit. According to
EASA, all part number (P/N) 51530-021EI ``no MOD,'' ``MOD A,'' and
``MOD B'' GCUs are potentially affected by this discrepancy. To address
this potential unsafe condition, EASA issued AD No.: 2011-0149, dated
August 19, 2011, to identify and replace each affected GCU with an
airworthy GCU. Since issuing that AD, Eurocopter Deutschland GmbH
demonstrated that helicopters modified in accordance with Eurocopter
Deutschland GmbH Alert Service Bulletin (ASB) MBB BK117 C-2-24A-008,
Revision 1, dated August 29, 2011, have a much lower risk of losing
electrical generating power from a faulty generator control unit. EASA
then revised AD No.: 2011-0149 and issued AD 2011-0149R1 to allow an
extended compliance time for helicopters modified in accordance with
the Eurocopter Deutschland ASB.

FAA's Determination

    These helicopters have been approved by the aviation authority of
Germany and are approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant
to our bilateral agreement with Germany, EASA, its technical
representative, has notified us of the unsafe condition described in
its AD. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all known
relevant information and determined that an unsafe condition is likely
to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.

Related Service Information

    Eurocopter Deutschland GmbH has issued ASB MBB-BK117 C-2-24A-010
Revision 2, dated September 14, 2011, which specifies removing any GCU
with P/N 51530-021EI with no modification (MOD), MOD A, or MOD B, and
replacing it with a GCU P/N 51530-021EI MOD C or later MOD. EASA
classified this ASB as mandatory and issued AD 2011-0149R1 to ensure
the continued airworthiness of these helicopters.

Proposed AD Requirements

    This proposed AD would require replacement of the GCU with an
airworthy GCU.

Differences Between This Proposed AD and the EASA AD

    The EASA AD allows a compliance time of 500 flight hours for
helicopters previously modified by Eurocopter Deutschland GmbH ASB MBB
BK117 C-2-24A-008 Revision 1, while the proposed AD requires compliance
within the next 300 hours time-in-service for all affected helicopters.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD would affect 104 helicopters of
U.S. Registry. We estimate that operators may incur the following costs
in order to comply with this AD. Replacing a GCU with an airworthy GCU
will require about 2 work hours at an average labor rate of $85 per
hour. Required parts will cost $7,130, for a total cost per helicopter
of $7,300.

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. ``Subtitle VII: Aviation
Programs,'' describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's
authority.
    We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
``Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General
requirements.'' Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing
regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator
finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within
the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition
that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this
rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD 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.
    For the reasons discussed, I certify this proposed regulation:
    1. Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order
12866;
    2. Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
    3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska to the extent that
it justifies making a regulatory distinction; and
    4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    We prepared an economic evaluation of the estimated costs to comply
with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by
reference, Safety.

The Proposed Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

    1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

    2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new
Airworthiness Directive (AD):

Eurocopter Deutschland GmbH Helicopters: Docket No. FAA-2012-0528;
Directorate Identifier 2011-SW-068-AD.

(a) Applicability

    This AD applies to Model MBB-BK117 C-2 helicopters with a
generator control unit (GCU), part number (P/N) 51530-021EI with no
modification (MOD), MOD A, or MOD B installed, certificated in any
category.

(b) Unsafe Condition

    This AD defines the unsafe condition as an internal short
circuit in certain GCUs. This condition could result in loss of
electrical generating power, resulting in the loss of systems
required for continued safe flight and landing, and subsequent loss
of control of the helicopter.

(c) Compliance

    You are responsible for performing each action required by this
AD within the specified compliance time unless it has already been
accomplished prior to that time.

(d) Required Actions

    (1) Within the next 300 hours time-in-service or 6 months,
whichever occurs first, replace all GCUs with no MOD, MOD A, or MOD
B with an airworthy GCU.
    (2) Do not install a GCU P/N 51530-021-EI with no MOD, MOD A, or
MOD B on any helicopter.

(e) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOC)

    (1) The Manager, Safety Management Group, FAA, may approve AMOCs
for this AD. Send your proposal to: George Schwab, Aviation Safety
Engineer, FAA, Rotorcraft Directorate, Safety Management Group, 2601
Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, Texas 76137; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

    (2) For operations conducted under 14 CFR part 119 operating
certificate or under 14 CFR part 91, subpart K, we suggest that you
notify your principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector,
the manager of the local flight standards district office or
certificate holding district office before operating any aircraft
complying with this AD through an AMOC.

(f) Additional Information

    (1) Eurocopter Deutschland GmbH Alert Service Bulletin MBB-BK117
C-2-24A-010 Revision 2, dated September 14, 2011, which is not
incorporated by reference, contains additional information about the
subject of this AD.
    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact
American Eurocopter Corporation, 2701 N. Forum Drive, Grand Prairie,
TX 75052, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER> or<PHONE_NUMBER>, fax (972) 641-
3775, or at http://www.eurocopter.com/techpub. You may review a copy
of the service information at the FAA, Office of the Regional
Counsel, Southwest Region, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Room 663, Fort Worth,
Texas 76137.
    (3) The subject of this AD is addressed in European Aviation
Safety Agency (EASA) AD No.: 2011-0149R1, dated September 30, 2011.

 (g) Subject

    Joint Aircraft Service Component (JASC) Code: 2436: DC Generator
Control Unit.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on May 10, 2012.
Kim Smith,
Manager, Rotorcraft Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2012-12349 Filed 5-21-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P