28256 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 95 / Monday, May 18, 2015 / Notices 

data in the desired format. ED is 

soliciting comments on the proposed 

information collection request (ICR) that 

is described below. The Department of 

Education is especially interested in 

public comment addressing the 

following issues: (1) Is this collection 

necessary to the proper functions of the 

Department; (2) will this information be 

processed and used in a timely manner; 

(3) is the estimate of burden accurate; 

(4) how might the Department enhance 

the quality, utility, and clarity of the 

information to be collected; and (5) how 

might the Department minimize the 

burden of this collection on the 

respondents, including through the use 

of information technology. Please note 

that written comments received in 

response to this notice will be 

considered public records. 

Title of Collection: Race to the Top 

Early Learning Challenge: Descriptive 

Study of Tiered Quality Ratings and 

Improvement Systems in Nine Round 1 

States. 

OMB Control Number: 1850—NEW. 

Type of Review: A new information 

collection. 

Respondents/Affected Public: State, 

Local and Tribal Governments. 

Total Estimated Number of Annual 

Responses: 24. 

Total Estimated Number of Annual 

Burden Hours: 87. 

Abstract: The Study of Race to the 

Top–Early Learning Challenge Tiered 

Quality Rating and Improvement 

Systems (RTT–ELC TQRIS) will collect 

data from two to three RTT–ELC states 

on TQRIS ratings, component-level 

ratings, indicator-level ratings, and 

kindergarten entry assessments. In the 

event that the kindergarten entry 

assessment data are not available from 

state databases, the study will reach out 

to selected districts in the RTT–ELC 

states to collect such data. If this step 

proves necessary, the study will reach 

out to up to 42 districts in order to 

ultimately recruit 14 districts from 

which to collect assessment data. The 

study will use these data to conduct 

analyses of the relationship between 

TQRIS ratings and child outcome 

measures to inform ongoing 

development and improvement of 

TQRIS systems at the state level. 

Kate Mullan, 

Acting Director, Information Collection 

Clearance Division, Office of the Chief Privacy 

Officer, Office of Management. 

[FR Doc. 2015–11940 Filed 5–15–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4000–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Record of Decision and Floodplain 

Statement of Findings for the Cheniere 

Marketing, LLC and Corpus Christi 

Liquefaction, LLC Application To 

Export Liquefied Natural Gas to NonFree Trade Agreement Countries 

AGENCY: Office of Fossil Energy, DOE. 

ACTION: Record of Decision. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of 

Energy (‘‘DOE’’) announces its decision 

in FE Docket No. 12–97–LNG to issue 

DOE/FE Order No. 3638, granting longterm, multi-contract authorization for 

Cheniere Marketing, LLC and Corpus 

Christi Liquefaction, LLC (collectively 

‘‘CMI’’) to engage in export of 

domestically produced liquefied natural 

gas (‘‘LNG’’) in an amount up to 782 

million million Btu (million MMBtu) 

per year, which is equivalent to 

approximately 767 billion cubic feet 

(‘‘Bcf’’) of natural gas per year, for a 20- 

year period commencing the earlier of 

the date of first export or seven-years 

from the date of issuance of the 

authorization requested. CMI is seeking 

authorization to export LNG from the 

proposed Corpus Christi Liquefaction 

Project (‘‘Liquefaction Project’’) near 

Corpus Christi, Texas, to any nation 

with which the United States has not 

entered into a free trade agreement 

(‘‘FTA’’) that requires national treatment 

for trade in natural gas (non-FTA 

countries). Order No. 3638 is issued 

under section 3 of the Natural Gas Act 

(‘‘NGA’’) and 10 CFR part 590 of the 

DOE regulations. DOE participated as a 

cooperating agency with the Federal 

Energy Regulatory Commission 

(‘‘FERC’’) in preparing an environmental 

impact statement (‘‘EIS’’) analyzing the 

potential environmental impacts of the 

proposed Liquefaction Project and 

associated pipeline that, if constructed, 

will support the export authorization 

sought from DOE’s Office of Fossil 

Energy (‘‘DOE/FE’’). 

ADDRESSES: The EIS and this Record of 

Decision (‘‘ROD’’) are available on 

DOE’s National Environmental Policy 

Act (‘‘NEPA’’) Web site at http://

energy.gov/nepa/nepa-documents. 

Order No. 3638 is available on DOE/FE’s 

Web site at http://energy.gov/fe/

downloads/listing-doefe-authorizationsissued-2015. For additional information 

about the docket in these proceedings, 

contact Larine Moore, U.S. Department 

of Energy, Office of Natural Gas 

Regulatory Activities, Office of Fossil 

Energy, Room 3E–042, 1000 

Independence Avenue SW., 

Washington, DC 20585. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: To 

obtain additional information about the 

project, the EIS, or the ROD, contact Mr. 

John Anderson, U.S. Department of 

Energy, Office of Oil & Gas Global 

Security & Supply, Office of Oil and 

Natural Gas, Office of Fossil Energy, 

Room 3E–042, 1000 Independence 

Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585, 

(202) 586–5600; or Mr. Edward LeDuc, 

U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the 

Assistant General Counsel for 

Environment, 1000 Independence 

Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585, 

(202) 586–4007. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: DOE 

prepared this ROD and Floodplain 

Statement of Findings pursuant to the 

National Environmental Policy Act of 

1969 (42 United States Code [U.S.C.] 

4321, et seq.), and in compliance with 

the Council on Environmental Quality 

(‘‘CEQ’’) implementing regulations for 

NEPA (40 Code of Federal Regulations 

[CFR] parts 1500 through 1508), DOE’s 

implementing procedures for NEPA (10 

CFR part 1021), and DOE’s ‘‘Compliance 

with Floodplain and Wetland 

Environmental Review Requirements’’ 

(10 CFR part 1022). 

Background 

Cheniere Marketing, LLC, a Delaware 

limited liability company with its 

principal place of business in Houston, 

Texas, is affiliated with Corpus Christi 

Liquefaction, LLC (Cheniere Marketing, 

LLC’s co-Applicant in this proceeding) 

and Cheniere Corpus Christi Pipeline, 

L.P. (‘‘CCP’’), the developers of the 

Corpus Christi LNG Project (‘‘Corpus 

Christi LNG Project’’ or ‘‘Project’’ 

collectively refers to the Liquefaction 

Project and the Cheniere Pipeline). 

Cheniere Marketing, LLC is an indirect 

subsidiary of Cheniere Energy, Inc., a 

Delaware corporation with its primary 

place of business in Houston, Texas. 

Cheniere Energy, Inc. is a developer of 

LNG terminals and natural gas pipelines 

on the Gulf Coast, including the Corpus 

Christi LNG Project. 

Cheniere Marketing, LLC filed an 

application (‘‘Application’’) with DOE/

FE on August 31, 2012, seeking longterm, multi-contract authorization to 

export to non-FTA countries up to 782 

million MMBtu per year of LNG, 

equivalent to approximately 767 Bcf per 

year of natural gas, for a period of 22 

years beginning on the earlier of the 

date of first export or eight years from 

the date the authorization is granted by 

DOE/FE. On October 10, 2012, Cheniere 

Marketing, LLC clarified that it is 

requesting authorization to export LNG 

both on its own behalf and as agent for 

other parties who hold title to the LNG 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 95 / Monday, May 18, 2015 / Notices 28257 

1The CCL Project is being developed at the same 

general locations proposed for the previously 

authorized Corpus Christi LNG L.P. import terminal 

and associated pipeline. See Corpus Christi LNG 

L.P. and Cheniere Corpus Christi Pipeline 

Company, Order Granting Authority Under Section 

3 of the Natural Gas Act and Issuing Certificates, 

111 FERC ¶ 61,081 (2005). Since the facilities were 

never constructed, the Commission vacated Corpus 

Christi LNG, L.P.’s and Corpus Christi Pipeline 

Company’s authorizations to construct the proposed 

LNG facility and associated pipeline. Corpus Christi 

LNG, L.P., 139 FERC ¶ 61,195 (2012). 

2The authority to regulate the imports and 

exports of natural gas, including liquefied natural 

gas, under section 3 of the NGA (15 U.S.C. 717b) 

has been delegated to the Assistant Secretary for FE 

in Redelegation Order No. 00–006.02 issued on 

November 17, 2014. 

3Cheniere Marketing, LLC, Order Granting LongTerm Multi-Contract Authorization to Export 

Liquefied Natural Gas by Vessel from the Proposed 

Corpus Christi Liquefaction Project to Free Trade 

Agreement Nations, DOE/FE Order No. 3164, 

October 16, 2012 (FE Docket No 12–99–LNG). 

4See Final EIS at 1–12, Table 1.4–1 Issues 

Identified and Comments Received During the 

Scoping Process for the Corpus Christi LNG Project. 

5Corpus Christi Liquefaction, LLC and Cheniere 

Corpus Christi Pipeline, L.P., Order Granting 

Authorization Under Section 3 of the Natural Gas 

Act, 149 FERC ¶ 61,283 (December 30, 2014). 

at the point of export. On August 15, 

2014, Cheniere Marketing, LLC 

amended its Application to include 

Corpus Christi Liquefaction, LLC as an 

additional applicant. 

The Application was filed in 

conjunction with the Liquefaction 

Project being developed by Corpus 

Christi Liquefaction, LLC and Cheniere 

Corpus Christi Pipeline, L.P. at the site 

of the previously authorized import 

terminal and associated pipeline in San 

Patricia and Nueces Counties Texas.1

Concurrent with the Application, 

Corpus Christi Liquefaction, LLC filed 

an application with FERC for 

authorization pursuant to Section 3(a) of 

the NGA 2 to site, construct and operate 

the Liquefaction Project. In addition, 

Cheniere Corpus Christi Pipeline, L.P. 

filed an application with the FERC 

pursuant to Section 7(c) of the NGA to 

construct, own, and operate the 

Cheniere Pipeline (‘‘Pipeline’’) to 

connect the Liquefaction Project to 

interstate and intrastate natural gas 

supplies and markets. 

On August 31, 2012, in Docket No. 

12–99–LNG, Cheniere Marketing, LLC 

filed with DOE/FE a separate 

application for long-term multi-contract 

authorization to engage in the export of 

LNG in an amount up to 782 million 

MMBtu per year, to any nation with 

which the United States has or in the 

future will have an FTA that requires 

national treatment for trade in natural 

gas; that has developed, or in the future 

develops, the capacity to import LNG; 

and with which trade is not prohibited 

by U.S. law or policy. On October 16, 

2012, DOE/FE Order No. 3164 was 

issued in FE Docket No 12–99–LNG 

granting long-term export authorization 

to FTA countries from the Project.3

Project Description 

The Liquefaction Project will be 

located on a 991-acre site located along 

the northern shore of the La Quinta 

Channel north and east of the City of 

Corpus Christi, Texas and will include 

three ConocoPhillips Optimized 

CascadeSM LNG trains, each capable of 

liquefying approximately 700 million 

standard cubic feet (MMcf) per day of 

natural gas. Natural gas will be liquefied 

into LNG and stored in three 160,000 

cubic meters LNG storage tanks, each 

equipped with five in-tank well 

columns and safety and monitoring 

systems. The Liquefaction Project will 

also include two trains of ambient air 

vaporizers, each with an average 

vaporization capacity of approximately 

200 MMcf per day of natural gas, and 

marine terminal facilities with two LNG 

carrier berths. The Pipeline will include 

an approximately 23-mile-long, 48-inchdiameter pipeline and two compressor 

stations to be located wholly within San 

Patricio County, Texas. The Pipeline 

will function to transport domestic 

natural gas to the Liquefaction Project 

for liquefaction and export, as well as to 

transport regasified imported LNG from 

the LNG terminal to interconnections 

with the existing pipeline systems. 

The EIS Process 

In accordance with NEPA, FERC 

issued a draft EIS for the proposed 

Corpus Christi LNG Project on June 13, 

2014. The notice of availability (‘‘NOA’’) 

for the draft EIS was published in the 

Federal Register on June 20, 2014 (79 

FR 35344). The NOA included notice of 

a public comment meeting on July 15, 

2014, in Portland, Texas. The NOA also 

provided summary information 

regarding the draft EIS. Copies of the 

draft EIS were also sent to agencies, 

elected officials, media organizations, 

Native American Tribes, private 

landowners, and other interested 

parties. 

Issues raised by commenters included 

concerns regarding: Air pollution 

(including greenhouse gas emissions 

and mitigation and compliance with the 

National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards), construction dust and noise 

vibrations, land use changes, impacts of 

water discharges on aquatic species 

(including impacts to an essential fish 

habitat (‘‘EFH’’)), light pollution, visual 

impacts, public safety and lack of an 

emergency response plan, water use and 

CMI’s source of water, impacts on 

property values, expanding the scope of 

the cumulative impact analysis and 

alternatives analysis, recreational 

impacts and workforce availability.4

The final EIS was published on 

October 8, 2014, and recommended that 

the FERC approve the Corpus Christi 

LNG Project. It concluded that the 

Project will result in some adverse 

environmental impacts; however, those 

impacts would not be significant if the 

Project is constructed and operated in 

accordance with applicable laws and 

regulations. 

Accordingly FERC issued an Order 5

granting authorization to the Project on 

December 30, 2014, subject to the 104 

environmental conditions contained in 

Appendix A of that Order. 

In accordance with 40 CFR 1506.3, 

after an independent review of the 

FERC’s final EIS, DOE adopted the EIS 

and the U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency published a notice of that 

adoption in the Federal Register on 

April 24, 2015 (80 FR 22992). 

Addendum to Environmental Review 

Documents Concerning Exports of 

Natural Gas From the United States 

(‘‘Addendum’’) 

On June 4, 2014, DOE/FE published 

the Draft Addendum for public 

comment (79 FR 32258). Although not 

required by NEPA, DOE/FE prepared 

the Addendum in an effort to be 

responsive to the public and to provide 

the best information available on a 

subject that had been raised by 

commenters. The Addendum is a review 

of existing literature and was intended 

to provide information only on the 

resource areas potentially impacted by 

unconventional gas production. 

The 45-day comment period on the 

Draft Addendum closed on July 21, 

2014. DOE/FE received 40,745 

comments in 18 separate submissions, 

and considered those comments in 

issuing the Addendum on August 15, 

2014. DOE/FE provided a summary of 

the comments received and responses to 

substantive comments in Appendix B of 

the Addendum. DOE/FE has 

incorporated the Draft Addendum, 

comments, and final Addendum into 

the record in its CMI proceeding. 

Alternatives 

The EIS conducted an alternatives 

analysis for the Liquefaction Project that 

could achieve the Project objectives. 

The range of alternatives analyzed 

included the No-Action Alternative, 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
28258 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 95 / Monday, May 18, 2015 / Notices 

6See Final EIS at Section 3.0. Table 3.1–1 and 

Section 3.2.3.3 were revised to include information 

regarding the proximity of alternative Terminal 

sites with respect to floodplains. 

system alternatives, alternative 

Liquefaction Project sites, alternative 

Pipeline routes, and alternative 

compressor station sites. Alternatives 

were evaluated and compared to the 

Liquefaction Project to determine if 

these alternatives were environmentally 

preferable. 

While the No-Action Alternative 

would avoid the potential adverse and 

beneficial environmental impacts 

identified in the EIS, adoption of this 

alternative would preclude meeting the 

Project objectives. Other LNG export/

import projects could also be developed 

elsewhere in the Gulf Coast region or in 

other areas of the United States, but 

would likely result in similar or 

potentially greater environmental 

impacts than those of the proposed 

Project. The No-Action Alternative 

could also require potential end users to 

make other arrangements to obtain 

natural gas service, or continue the use 

of alternative fossil fuel energy sources 

(such as coal or fuel oil) to compensate 

for the reduced availability of natural 

gas that would otherwise be supplied by 

the Corpus Christi LNG Project. 

The EIS evaluated 12 system 

alternatives for the Project, including 6 

operating LNG import terminals in the 

Gulf of Mexico area, and 6 proposed or 

planned export projects along the Gulf 

Coast. All of the systems were 

eliminated from further consideration 

for reasons that include the need for 

substantial construction beyond that 

currently proposed, production volume 

limitations, in-service dates scheduled 

significantly beyond the Project 

schedule, and potential environmental 

impacts that were considered 

comparable to or greater than those of 

the Project. 

The EIS also evaluated three 

alternative Liquefaction Project sites, 

two in proximity to the proposed site 

and one near Brownsville, Texas. 

Construction of the terminal at each of 

the alternative sites would have 

comparable or greater environmental 

impacts when compared to the 

proposed terminal site; therefore, none 

of the three sites evaluated were 

determined to be environmentally 

preferable. 

Approximately 86 percent of the 

Pipeline would be co-located, overlap, 

or parallel existing rights-of-way, so 

many types of environmental impacts 

have already been reduced or avoided. 

While two route alternatives were 

evaluated, the EIS did not identify any 

site-specific environmental concerns 

along the proposed route that would 

make the alternative pipeline routes 

preferable. 

The EIS evaluated a total of five 

alternative sites for the proposed 

compressor stations but determined that 

none of these sites were 

environmentally preferable to the 

proposed sites. 

Environmentally Preferred Alternative 

When compared against the other 

action alternatives assessed in the EIS, 

as discussed above, the Corpus Christi 

LNG Project is the environmentally 

preferred alternative. While the NoAction Alternative would avoid the 

environmental impacts identified in the 

EIS, adoption of this alternative would 

not meet the Project objectives. 

Decision 

DOE/FE has decided to issue Order 

No. 3638 to grant the long-term, multicontract authorization for CMI to engage 

in exports of domestically produced 

liquefied natural gas in an amount up to 

767 Bcf per year for a 20-year period, 

commencing the earlier of the date of 

first export or seven-years from the date 

of issuance of the authorization 

requested. The authorization is to export 

LNG from the proposed Corpus Christi 

Liquefaction Project to any nation with 

which the United States does not now 

or in the future have an FTA requiring 

the national treatment for trade in 

natural gas, that has, or in the future 

develops, the capacity to import LNG 

and with which trade is not prohibited 

by U.S. law or policy. 

Concurrently with this Record of 

Decision, DOE/FE is issuing Order No. 

3638 in which it finds that the granting 

of the requested authorization has not 

been shown to be inconsistent with the 

public interest, and that the Application 

should be granted subject to compliance 

with the terms and conditions set forth 

in Order No. 3638, including the 

environmental conditions adopted in 

the FERC Order at Appendix A. 

Additionally, the authorization is 

conditioned on CMI’s compliance with 

any other preventative and mitigative 

measures imposed by other Federal or 

state agencies. 

Basis of Decision 

DOE/FE’s decision is based upon the 

analysis of potential environmental 

impacts presented in the EIS, and DOE/ 

FE’s determination in Order No. 3638 

that the opponents of the Application 

have failed to overcome the statutory 

presumption that the proposed export 

authorization is not inconsistent with 

the public interest. Although not 

required by NEPA, DOE/FE also 

considered the Addendum, which 

summarizes available information on 

potential upstream impacts associated 

with unconventional natural gas 

activities, such as hydraulic fracturing. 

Mitigation 

As a condition of its decision to issue 

Order No. 3638 authorizing CMI to 

export LNG to non-FTA countries, DOE/ 

FE is imposing requirements that will 

avoid or minimize the environmental 

impacts of the project. These conditions 

include the environmental conditions 

adopted in the FERC Order at Appendix 

A. Mitigation measures beyond those 

included in DOE/FE Order No. 3638 

that are enforceable by other Federal 

and state agencies are additional 

conditions of Order No. 3638. With 

these conditions, DOE/FE has 

determined that all practicable means to 

avoid or minimize environmental harm 

from the project have been adopted. 

Floodplain Statement of Findings 

DOE prepared this Floodplain 

Statement of Findings in accordance 

with DOE’s regulations entitled 

‘‘Compliance with Floodplain and 

Wetland Environmental Review 

Requirements’’ (10 CFR part 1022). The 

required floodplain and wetland 

assessment was conducted during 

development and preparation of the 

EIS.6 No alternative Liquefaction Project 

sites were evaluated outside of a 

floodplain because, as discussed in 

section 4.1.1.5 of the final EIS, the 

facilities would be placed above 

predicted storm surge elevations, and 

the site is necessarily tied to marine/

port locations. Similarly, no Pipeline 

route alternatives outside of floodplains 

were evaluated because, as discussed in 

section 4.1.2.4 of the Final EIS, Cheniere 

Corpus Christi Pipeline, L.P. has 

proposed to implement acceptable 

mitigation measures at waterbody 

crossings and areas subject to flooding 

to compensate for negative buoyancy. 

DOE determined that the placement of 

some project components within 

floodplains would be unavoidable. 

However, the current design for the 

project minimizes floodplain impacts to 

the extent practicable. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on May 12, 

2015. 

Christopher A. Smith, 

Assistant Secretary, Office of Fossil Energy. 

[FR Doc. 2015–11926 Filed 5–15–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES