Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 45 / Thursday, March 8, 2007 / Notices 10507 

1The Kenai LNG Facility is owned by the Kenai 

LNG Corporation. CPANGC has a 70-percent 

ownership interest and Marathon has a 30-percent 

ownership interest in Kenai LNG Corporation. 

2See, Phillips Alaska Natural Gas Corporation 

and Marathon Oil Company, 37 FPC 777 (April 19, 

1967). 

The potential costs associated with 

this notice of proposed priority, 

requirements, and selection criteria are 

those resulting from statutory 

requirements and those we have 

determined as necessary for 

administering this program effectively 

and efficiently. 

In assessing the potential costs and 

benefits—both quantitative and 

qualitative—of this notice of proposed 

priority, requirements, definitions, and 

selection criteria, we have determined 

that the benefits of the proposed 

priority, requirements, and selection 

criteria justify the costs. 

We have also determined that this 

regulatory action does not unduly 

interfere with State, local, and tribal 

governments in the exercise of their 

governmental functions. 

Elsewhere in this notice we discuss 

the potential costs and benefits of the 

proposed priority, requirements, and 

selection criteria under the following 

heading: Discussion of Priority, 

Requirements, and Selection Criteria. 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) 

Certain sections of the proposed priority, 

requirements, and selection criteria for the 

SLC grant program contain changes to 

information collection requirements already 

approved by the Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB) under OMB control number 

1810–0676 (1890–0001). We will be 

publishing a separate notice in the Federal 

Register requesting comments on these 

changes. 

Intergovernmental Review 

This program is subject to Executive 

Order 12372 and the regulations in 34 

CFR part 79. One of the objectives of the 

Executive order is to foster an 

intergovernmental partnership and a 

strengthened federalism. The Executive 

order relies on processes developed by 

State and local governments for 

coordination and review of proposed 

Federal financial assistance. 

This document provides early 

notification of our specific plans and 

actions for this program. 

Electronic Access to This Document 

You may view this document, as well 

as all other Department of Education 

documents published in the Federal 

Register, in text or Adobe Portable 

Document Format (PDF) on the Internet 

at the following site: http://www.ed.gov/ 

news/fedregister. 

To use PDF you must have Adobe 

Acrobat Reader, which is available free 

at this site. If you have questions about 

using PDF, call the U.S. Government 

Printing Office (GPO), toll free, at 1–

888–293–6498; or in the Washington, 

DC, area at (202) 512–1530. 

Note: The official version of this document 

is the document published in the Federal 

Register. Free Internet access to the official 

edition of the Federal Register and the Code 

of Federal Regulations is available on GPO 

Access at: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/nara/ 

index.html. 

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance 

Number 84.215L, Smaller Learning 

Communities Program.) 

Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 7249. 

Dated: March 2, 2007. 

Raymond Simon, 

Deputy Secretary of Education Delegated the 

Authority to Perform the Functions of the 

Assistant Secretary for Elementary and 

Secondary Education. 

[FR Doc. E7–4228 Filed 3–7–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4000–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

[FE Docket No. 07–02–LNG] 

Office of Fossil Energy; 

ConocoPhillips Alaska Natural Gas 

Corporation and Marathon Oil 

Company; Application for Blanket 

Authorization To Export Liquefied 

Natural Gas 

AGENCY: Office of Fossil Energy, DOE. 

ACTION: Notice of application. 

SUMMARY: The Office of Fossil Energy 

(FE) of the Department of Energy (DOE) 

gives notice of receipt of an application 

filed jointly on January 10, 2007 by 

ConocoPhillips Alaska Natural Gas 

Corporation (CPANGC) and Marathon 

Oil Company (Marathon), requesting 

blanket authorization to export on their 

own behalf or as agents for others on a 

short-term or spot market basis from 

existing facilities near Kenai, Alaska up 

to 99 Trillion British thermal units 

(TBtu’s) (approximately 99 Billion cubic 

feet (Bcf)) of liquefied natural gas (LNG) 

to Japan and/or one or more countries 

on either side of the Pacific Rim over a 

two year period commencing April 1, 

2009 and terminating March 31, 2011. 

The application is filed under section 

3 of the Natural Gas Act (15 U.S.C. 

717b), as amended by section 201 of the 

Energy Policy Act of 1992 (Pub. L. 102–

486), and DOE Delegation Order No. 00–

002.00G (Jan. 29, 2007) and DOE 

Redelegation Order No. 00–002.04C 

(Jan. 30, 2007). Protests, motions to 

intervene, notices of intervention, and 

written comments are invited. 

DATES: Protests, motions to intervene or 

notices of intervention, as applicable, 

requests for additional procedures, and 

written comments are to be filed at the 

address listed below no later than 4:30 

p.m., eastern time, April 9, 2007. 

ADDRESSES: Office of Oil and Gas Global 

Security and Supply, Office of Fossil 

Energy, U.S. Department of Energy, 

Forrestal Building, Room 3E–042, FE–

34, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., 

Washington, DC 20585. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Larine Moore or Beverly Howard, Office 

of Oil and Gas Global Security and 

Supply, Office of Fossil Energy, U.S. 

Department of Energy, Forrestal 

Building, Room 3E–042, FE–34, 1000 

Independence Avenue, SW., 

Washington, DC 20585. (202) 586–

9478; (202) 586–9387. 

Edward Myers, Office of the Assistant 

General Counsel for Fossil Energy and 

Energy Efficiency, U.S. Department of 

Energy, Forrestal Building, Room 6B–

159, 1000 Independence Ave., SW., 

Washington, DC 20585. (202) 586–

3397. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

CPANGC, a Delaware corporation 

with its principal place of business in 

Anchorage, Alaska, is a wholly-owned 

subsidiary of ConocoPhillips Company, 

a publicly traded Delaware corporation. 

Marathon is an Ohio corporation with 

its principal place of business in 

Houston, Texas. CPANGC and Marathon 

are not affiliated with each other. The 

applicants are joint indirect owners of 

natural gas liquefaction and marine 

terminal facilities near Kenai, Alaska 

(Kenai LNG Facility) on Cook Inlet in 

Southcentral Alaska.1

Existing Long-Term Authorization 

The applicants hold an existing longterm authorization to export LNG to 

Japan granted to CPANGC predecessor 

Phillips Petroleum Company (Phillips) 

and Marathon by the Federal Power 

Commission in 1967.2 Phillips and 

Marathon were specifically authorized 

to export LNG from the State of Alaska 

to supply Tokyo Electric Power 

Company Inc. (Tokyo Electric) and 

Tokyo Gas Company Limited (Tokyo 

Gas) for a 15-year period terminating on 

May 31, 1984. The order also authorized 

Phillips and Marathon to construct the 

necessary liquefaction and marine 

terminal facilities in the Cook Inlet 

Basin near Kenai, Alaska. The long-term 

export authorization was subsequently 

amended and extended by the Economic 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
10508 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 45 / Thursday, March 8, 2007 / Notices 

3See, DOE/ERA Opinion and Order No. 49 (1 

ERA ¶ 70, 116, December 14, 1982) (extended 

export authority); DOE/ERA Opinion and Order 

No.49–A (1 ERA ¶‘‘70,127, April 3, 1986) 

(transferred authorization from Phillips Petroleum 

Company to Phillips 66 Natural Gas Company); 

DOE/ERA Opinion and Order No. 206 (1 ERA 

¶‘‘70,128, November 16, 1987) (amended pricing 

formula). 

4See, DOE/ERA Opinion and Order No. 261 (1 

ERA ¶ 70,130, July 28, 1988) (extended export 

authority); DOE/FE Opinion and Order No. 261–A 

(1 FE ¶‘‘70,454, June 18, 1991) (amended pricing 

formula); DOE/FE Opinion and Order No. 261–B (1 

FE ¶70, 506, December 19, 1991) (transferred 

authorization from Phillips 66 Natural Gas 

Company to PANGC); DOE/FE Opinion and Order 

No. 261–C (1 FE ¶‘‘70,607, July 15, 1992) (increased 

annual contract quantity from 52 trillion Btu’s to 

64.4 trillion Btu’s—the provision for yearly sales up 

to 106 percent of annual contract quantity remained 

unchanged); DOE/FE Opinion and Order No. 261–

D (1 FE ¶‘‘71,087, March 2, 1995) (amended pricing 

formula); DOE/FE Opinion and Order No. 261–E (2 

FE ¶ 71,429, July 18, 1997) (dismissed complaint). 

5See, Phillips Alaska Natural Gas Corporation 

and Marathon Oil Company, DOE/FE Opinion and 

Order No. 1473 (2 FE ¶ 70,317, April 2, 1999). 

6See, DOE/FE Opinion and Order No. 261–F (2 

FE ¶ 70,506, June 20, 2000) (amended pricing 

provisions of Japanese sales contracts). 

7See, Phillips Alaska Natural Gas Corporation 

and Marathon Oil Company, DOE/FE Opinion and 

Order No. 1580 (2 FE ¶ 70,472, April 10, 2000). 

8See Resource Decisions, Economic Analysis of 

Kenai LNG Export (January 2007) included as 

Appendix C to the application of CPANGC and 

Marathon filed January 10, 2007; and Netherland, 

Sewell & Associates report evaluating natural gas 

reserves in the Cook Inlet region of Alaska (January 

4, 2007), included as Appendix D to the application 

of CPANGC and Marathon filed January 10, 2007. 

9 In 2005 dollars. 

Regulatory Administration (ERA) at 

various times between 1982 and 1987.3

On July 28, 1988, ERA granted 

CPANGC, then known as Phillips 66 

Natural Gas Company, and Marathon an 

extension of the long-term authorization 

to export LNG to Japan for a term of 15 

years, ending March 31, 2004. FE 

subsequently approved amendments of 

the long-term authorization at various 

times between 1991 and 1995.4

On April 2, 1999, in DOE/FE Order 

No. 1473, FE granted CPANGC 

predecessor Phillips Alaska Natural Gas 

Corporation (PANGC) and Marathon a 

further five-year extension of the longterm authorization to annually export 

up to 64.4 TBtu’s of LNG to Japan 

commencing April 1, 2004 through 

March 31, 2009.5 The commencement 

date proposed by the applicants for the 

blanket export authorization coincides 

with the anticipated termination of the 

applicants’ currently effective long-term 

authorization issued in Order No. 1473. 

On June 20, 2000, FE granted PANGC 

and Marathon approval of a revision in 

the pricing provisions of their Japanese 

sales contracts.6

Existing Blanket Authorization 

On April 10, 2000, in DOE/FE Order 

No. 1580, FE granted PANGC and 

Marathon blanket authorization to 

export up to 10 TBtu’s (10 Bcf) of LNG 

from the Kenai LNG facility to 

international markets in the Pacific Rim 

over a two year period beginning on the 

date of the first export.7 Although this 

blanket authorization was intended to 

supplement the long term authorization 

issued in DOE/FE Order No. 1473, the 

blanket authorization issued in DOE/FE 

Order No. 1580 has not been activated 

to date and no exports of LNG under 

this blanket authorization have been 

made. 

Current Application 

In the instant application, the 

applicants initially requested that FE 

vacate the blanket authorization issued 

in DOE/FE Order No. 1580 

contemporaneous with, and conditioned 

on, the issuance of the proposed blanket 

authorization sought in this application. 

However, by letter dated February 16, 

2007, the applicants subsequently 

notified DOE that they are 

contemplating the activation of the 

blanket authorization issued in DOE/FE 

Order No. 1580. The applicants further 

state in the February 16 letter that if 

they activate the Order No. 1580 blanket 

authorization before the Department 

issues a favorable order in the instant 

proceeding, it will not be necessary for 

the Department to vacate the Order No. 

1580 authorization. Alternatively, the 

applicants state that if the Department 

issues a favorable order herein before 

the applicants activate the Order No. 

1580 authorization, then the applicants 

seek to reserve the ability to activate the 

Order No. 1580 authorization prior to 

the time period covered by the instant 

application. 

Public Interest Considerations 

In support of their application, 

CPANGC and Marathon state there is no 

regional need for the volume of LNG 

that they seek authority to export during 

the two year time period of the 

proposed authorization. The applicants 

commissioned separate studies by two 

independent consulting firms, 

Netherland, Sewell & Associates (NSAI) 

and Resource Decisions (RD), to assist in 

determining the regional need for the 

natural gas proposed to be exported as 

LNG. The NSAI study evaluates natural 

gas reserves in the Cook Inlet region of 

Alaska and the RD study provides an 

analysis of the available supply and the 

effective demand for Cook Inlet natural 

gas during the term of the proposed 

blanket authorization. The RD study, in 

particular, postulates ‘‘Expected Cases’’

and ‘‘Stress Cases’’ for natural gas 

supply and demand in Southcentral 

Alaska in order to discern the possible 

impact of the export of LNG on regional 

need from 2006 through the first quarter 

of 2011. The applicants state the 

Expected Demand Case employs the 

most likely estimates for Southcentral 

Alaska natural gas demand and the 

Expected Supply Case employs the most 

likely estimates for Cook Inlet natural 

gas supply. The Stress Demand Case, on 

the other hand, reportedly employs 

regional natural gas demand 

assumptions that are higher than 

expected and the Stress Supply Case 

employs Cook Inlet natural gas supply 

assumptions that are lower than 

expected. The applicants project that 

under all of the analyzed scenarios, 

there are sufficient supplies of natural 

gas and other energy sources to meet 

both the regional demand of 

Southcentral Alaska and the foreign 

export market during the two year 

period of the proposed export 

authorization.8

With respect to national need, 

CPANGC and Marathon state that 

shipment of LNG from the applicants’

Kenai LNG facilities to the lower 48 

states does not appear to be a viable 

option due to certain regulatory and 

economic hurdles. The applicants 

emphasize that the requirements of 

Section 27 of the Merchant Marine Act 

of 1920 (46 U.S.C. 883), commonly 

known as the Jones Act, would present 

a substantial regulatory hurdle. The 

applicants also emphasize that there are 

no existing U.S. west coast LNG 

receiving terminals and the cost of 

shipping Kenai LNG to U.S. east coast 

or Gulf Coast LNG receiving terminals 

would vastly exceed the cost of 

transporting the same LNG to Japan 

and/or another customer in the Pacific 

Rim due to the distances involved. 

The applicants assert that approval of 

the requested authorization to export 

Cook Inlet LNG from Kenai to Japan 

and/or one or more countries on either 

side of the Pacific Rim will provide 

tangible benefits to the Alaskan 

economy and to U.S. national interests. 

The applicants maintain that the Kenai 

LNG Facility provides a stable source of 

income and employment in 

Southcentral Alaska, an area noted for 

seasonal unemployment and a marked 

cyclical response to world oil price 

changes. The operation of the Kenai 

LNG Facility reportedly provides 

employment generating an estimated 

$15.9 million dollars in personal 

income.9 The State of Alaska and its 

citizens also benefit from royalty 

payments on the LNG and from 

production and corporate income tax 

receipts. The applicants assert that a 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 45 / Thursday, March 8, 2007 / Notices 10509 

denial of the application will lead to the 

end of LNG exports from the Kenai LNG 

Facility by early 2009, resulting in a 

major loss in benefits to the State of 

Alaska. The applicants further assert 

that shutdown of the Kenai LNG Facility 

would cause a shut-in of the flowing gas 

supplies that would otherwise be 

produced from the Cook Inlet reservoirs 

and could result in permanent loss of 

natural gas reserves and deliverability. 

In this regard, the applicants maintain 

that once flowing wells are shut-in, 

there is no guarantee that those supplies 

will be available in the future at the 

same rate of production or that reserves 

will not be lost permanently. Finally, 

CPANGC and Marathon note the 

beneficial impact of the exportation of 

LNG on the balance of payments 

between the U.S. and Pacific Rim 

countries during the two year term of 

the proposed blanket authorization. 

DOE/FE Evaluation 

This export application will be 

reviewed pursuant to section 3 of the 

Natural Gas Act, as amended, and the 

authority contained in DOE Delegation 

Order No. 00–002.00G (Jan. 29, 2007) 

and DOE Redelegation Order No. 00–

002.04C (Jan. 30, 2007). In reviewing 

LNG exports, DOE considers domestic 

need for the gas and any other issue 

determined to be appropriate, including 

whether the arrangement is consistent 

with DOE’s policy of promoting 

competition in the marketplace by 

allowing commercial parties to freely 

negotiate their own trade arrangements. 

Parties that may oppose this application 

should comment in their responses on 

these issues. CPANGC and Marathon 

assert the proposed authorization is in 

the public interest. Under section 3 of 

the Natural Gas Act, as amended, an 

export from the United States to a 

foreign country must be authorized 

unless ‘‘the proposed exportation will 

not be consistent with the public 

interest.’’ Section 3 thus creates a 

statutory presumption in favor of 

approval of this application, and parties 

opposing the authorization bear the 

burden of overcoming this presumption. 

The National Environmental Policy 

Act (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq., 

requires DOE to give appropriate 

consideration to the environmental 

effects of its proposed decisions. No 

final decision will be issued in this 

proceeding until DOE has met its NEPA 

responsibilities. 

Public Comment Procedures 

In response to this notice, any person 

may file a protest, motion to intervene 

or notice of intervention, as applicable, 

and written comments. Any person 

wishing to become a party to the 

proceeding and to have their written 

comments considered as a basis for any 

decision on the application must file a 

motion to intervene or notice of 

intervention, as applicable. The filing of 

a protest with respect to the application 

will not serve to make the protestant a 

party to the proceeding, although 

protests and comments received from 

persons who are not parties will be 

considered in determining the 

appropriate action to be taken on the 

application. All protests, motions to 

intervene, notices of intervention, and 

written comments must meet the 

requirements specified by the 

regulations in 10 CFR part 590. Protests, 

motions to intervene, notices of 

intervention, requests for additional 

procedures, and written comments 

should be filed with the Office of Oil 

and Gas Global Security and Supply at 

the address listed above. 

A decisional record on the application 

will be developed through responses to 

this notice by parties, including the 

parties’ written comments and replies 

thereto. Additional procedures will be 

used as necessary to achieve a complete 

understanding of the facts and issues. A 

party seeking intervention may request 

that additional procedures be provided, 

such as additional written comments, an 

oral presentation, a conference, or trialtype hearing. Any request to file 

additional written comments should 

explain why they are necessary. Any 

request for an oral presentation should 

identify the substantial question of fact, 

law, or policy at issue, show that it is 

material and relevant to a decision in 

the proceeding, and demonstrate why 

an oral presentation is needed. Any 

request for a conference should 

demonstrate why the conference would 

materially advance the proceeding. Any 

request for a trial-type hearing must 

show that there are factual issues 

genuinely in dispute that are relevant 

and material to a decision and that a 

trial-type hearing is necessary for a full 

and true disclosure of the facts. 

If an additional procedure is 

scheduled, notice will be provided to all 

parties. If no party requests additional 

procedures, a final opinion and order 

may be issued based on the official 

record, including the application and 

responses filed by parties pursuant to 

this notice, in accordance with 10 CFR 

590.316. 

The application filed by CPANGC and 

Marathon is available for inspection and 

copying in the Office of Oil and Gas 

Global Security and Supply docket 

room, 3E–042, at the above address. The 

docket room is open between the hours 

of 8 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday 

through Friday, except Federal holidays. 

The application is also available 

electronically by going to the following 

Web address: http://www.fe.doe.gov/ 

programs/gasregulation/index.html. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on March 2, 

2007. 

Robert F. Corbin, 

Manager, Natural Gas Regulatory Activities, 

Office of Oil and Gas Global Security and 

Supply, Office of Fossil Energy. 

[FR Doc. E7–4162 Filed 3–7–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission 

[Docket No. RP00–632–022] 

Dominion Transmission, Inc.; Notice of 

Compliance Filing 

March 2, 2007. 

Take notice that on February 20, 2007, 

Dominion Transmission, Inc. (DTI) 

tendered for filing its addendum to the 

2006 informational fuel report filed with 

the Commission on June 30, 2006 in 

Docket No. RP00–632–021. 

Any person desiring to protest this 

filing must file in accordance with Rule 

211 of the Commission’s Rules of 

Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 

385.211). Protests to this filing will be 

considered by the Commission in 

determining the appropriate action to be 

taken, but will not serve to make 

protestants parties to the proceeding. 

Such protests must be filed on or before 

the date as indicated below. Anyone 

filing a protest must serve a copy of that 

document on all the parties to the 

proceeding. 

The Commission encourages 

electronic submission of protests in lieu 

of paper using the ‘‘eFiling’’ link at 

http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to 

file electronically should submit an 

original and 14 copies of the protest to 

the Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission, 888 First Street, NE., 

Washington, DC 20426. 

This filing is accessible on-line at 

http://www.ferc.gov, using the 

‘‘eLibrary’’ link and is available for 

review in the Commission’s Public 

Reference Room in Washington, DC. 

There is an ‘‘eSubscription’’ link on the 

Web site that enables subscribers to 

receive e-mail notification when a 

document is added to a subscribed 

docket(s). For assistance with any FERC 

Online service, please e-mail 

FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov, or call 

(866) 208–3676 (toll free). For TTY, call 

(202) 502–8659. 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES