FR 2021-00088

The document published by the Federal Permitting Improvement Steering Council announces the inclusion of mining as a sector eligible for coverage under the Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act (FAST-41). The intent behind this change is to enhance the federal permitting process for mining infrastructure projects, making it more timely and transparent. The document outlines that this addition is aimed at streamlining the review process without bypassing any required environmental reviews or public consultations.

Summary of the Document

The core aim of the document is to officially recognize mining as a sector that can benefit from the streamlined permitting process under FAST-41. This inclusion is designed to facilitate better coordination among federal agencies when reviewing mining projects to enhance decision-making efficiency. Although the designation of mining as a FAST-41 sector is now formalized, it does not guarantee approval for any mining projects nor does it alter existing environmental review requirements. Instead, it allows mining project sponsors to avail themselves of the improved coordination and predictability in federal reviews.

Significant Issues or Concerns

One notable issue within the document is its length and complexity, which could pose challenges for the general public in terms of understanding its full implications. The text is filled with legal references and procedural matters that may not be easily accessible to all readers.

The economic analysis provided in the document admits that quantifying potential benefits of adding mining to the FAST-41 sector list is speculative. This uncertainty indicates a lack of concrete data supporting the tangible advantages of this designation.

Another concern raised in the document is the denial of a request for an extension to the public comment period. The original period was notably short given the constraints of the COVID-19 pandemic and holiday season, potentially limiting public input on this significant policy change.

There are also concerns regarding how the benefits of "enhanced interagency coordination, transparency, and predictability" will be realized for mining projects. The document does not provide specific examples or measurable outcomes to illustrate these benefits.

Additionally, the document discusses a two-year limitations period under FAST-41 that might hinder access to courts for parties affected by mining projects, which could be seen as limiting their legal recourse.

Public Impact

Broadly, this document could affect the public in several ways. For individuals and communities concerned with environmental impacts, there may be apprehensions about how mining projects are reviewed and approved. While FAST-41 aims for efficiency, community members may worry about whether expedited processes might undermine thorough environmental assessments, despite assurances stated in the document.

For stakeholders such as mining companies, this designation provides an opportunity for a more predictable and unified federal review process, potentially reducing delays in project approvals. However, there is skepticism about the extent to which these benefits will be realized given the lack of specific outcomes or data.

Impact on Specific Stakeholders

The document's changes could positively impact mining companies by potentially shortening timeframes for obtaining necessary federal permits. This can lead to cost savings and greater predictability in project planning. Nonetheless, because these projects often face significant regulatory and environmental scrutiny, mining companies should remain aware of public and governmental expectations for compliance with existing environmental standards.

Conversely, communities near mining projects might have concerns about the expedited processes and their potential effects on the environment. These communities might perceive this regulatory change as prioritizing industrial efficiency over environmental protection and public health.

Overall, the document's intention to facilitate federal processes for mining infrastructure projects is clear, but its practical implications and benefits remain somewhat uncertain and could vary significantly depending on stakeholder perspectives and the specific details of individual projects.

The document concerning the addition of mining as a sector under the FAST-41 coverage contains several financial references. These references shed light on the expected financial impact and the criteria for project eligibility within FAST-41.

Project Value Threshold
One of the key financial benchmarks introduced in this rule is the $200 million project value threshold. Projects eligible for FAST-41 coverage are required to either meet this project value threshold or satisfy an alternative permitting complexity requirement. This implies that only significant mining projects with substantial investment are considered for coverage, potentially limiting the number of projects that can benefit from FAST-41.

Submission Costs for Project Sponsors
The document also suggests that submitting a project for coverage under FAST-41 should not be financially burdensome for project sponsors. It indicates that the process of preparing and submitting a project FIN (Federal Infrastructure Notice) should require only "a few hours of effort." This suggests that the administrative costs associated with seeking FAST-41 coverage are minimal, which is crucial for encouraging participation without imposing significant financial strain on the project sponsors.

Economic Impact
Concerning broader economic effects, the document makes it clear that the rule does not impose significant financial obligations on governments or the private sector. Specifically, it states that the rule will not have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more. This reference aims to assure stakeholders that the rule will not place an undue financial burden on the economy or involved entities.

Unfunded Mandates
The rule explicitly notes that it does not create an unfunded mandate exceeding $100 million per year on state, local, or tribal governments, or the private sector. This implies that the financial impact of the rule on various levels of government and the private sector is expected to be manageable without needing to allocate additional funds to comply with the rule.

Relation to Identified Issues
The financial references in the rule relate to several identified issues. The lack of concrete data on potential economic benefits, as mentioned in the economic analysis section, highlights a concern about the speculative nature of the financial advantages of adding mining as a FAST-41 sector. Additionally, there is ambiguity regarding how these financial considerations translate into tangible benefits, complicating efforts to measure the success or effectiveness of the rule.

Moreover, the mention of a modest submission cost for project FIN preparation could be affected by public engagement constraints noted during the comment period. If stakeholders had limited time to respond due to COVID-19 and holiday seasons, as alluded to in the issues, there might be questions about whether these financial thresholds and mechanisms have been reviewed adequately by all affected parties.

In summary, while the document outlines specific financial requirements and limits, these references underscore the need for clarity regarding the expected economic outcomes and how effectively the rule will achieve its intended financial efficiency without imposing additional costs on small entities or related sectors.