Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 126 / Thursday, July 1, 2010 / Notices 38093 

5Freeport LNG Development, L.P., Order No. 

2644, June 8, 2009 at p. 12. 

6ConocoPhillips Company, DOE/FE Order No. 

2731, November 30, 2009 at p. 11. 

reasons. Dow states that the LNG that 

may be exported pursuant to the blanket 

authorization requested in the 

Application is not needed to meet 

domestic demand. Dow states that 

granting the requested export 

authorization will facilitate the 

importation of LNG into the United 

States. Dow also states that granting the 

requested export authorization will not 

reduce domestically-produced natural 

gas supplies. Finally, Dow states that 

granting the requested export 

authorization will have positive 

international effects. Further details can 

be found in the Application. 

Environmental Impact 

Dow states that its requested export 

authorization does not raise any 

environmental concerns. Dow states that 

FERC performed an environmental 

review under the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), with 

DOE acting as a cooperating agency, 

prior to granting FLNG the authority to 

modify its LNG terminal facilities to 

enable LNG exports as well as imports. 

Dow states that DOE/FE relied on such 

NEPA review and found it to be 

sufficient in the granting of FLNG’s 

application for blanket authority to 

export previously imported LNG 5 as 

well as the granting of authority to 

ConocoPhillips Company to export 

previously imported LNG from the 

FLNG terminal.6 Dow asserts that 

consequently, the same conclusion is 

applicable to this Application insofar as 

the blanket authorization requested by 

Dow is substantially identical to the 

blanket authorization granted to FLNG 

and ConocoPhillips Company. 

DOE/FE Evaluation 

This export application will be 

reviewed pursuant to section 3 of the 

NGA, as amended, and the authority 

contained in DOE Delegation Order No. 

00–002.00I (Nov. 10, 2009) and DOE 

Redelegation Order No. 00–002.04D 

(Nov. 6, 2007). In reviewing this LNG 

export application, DOE will consider 

domestic need for the gas, as well as any 

other issues 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. 

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 and written 

comments, as provided in DOE’s 

regulations at 10 CFR 590.301, et seq. 

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 shall 

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 Dow is 

available for inspection and copying in 

the Office of Oil and Gas Global 

Security and Supply docket room, 3E– 

042, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., 

Washington, DC 20585. 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 June 28, 

2010. 

John A. Anderson, 

Manager, Natural Gas Regulatory Activities, 

Office of Oil and Gas Global Security and 

Supply, Office of Fossil Energy. 

[FR Doc. 2010–16044 Filed 6–30–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

[FE Docket No. 10–63–LNG] 

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 June 8, 2010, by 

ConocoPhillips Alaska Natural Gas 

Corporation (CPANGC) and Marathon 

Oil Company (Marathon) (collectively 

Applicants), requesting blanket 

authorization to export a quantity of 

liquefied natural gas (LNG) equal to the 

difference between the 99 trillion 

British thermal units (TBtus) authorized 

in DOE/FE Order Nos. 2500 and 2500– 

A, and the cumulative volume that is 

ultimately exported by Applicants 

under their currently-effective blanket 

authorization from April 1, 2009, 

through March 31, 2011. Applicants 

seek blanket authorization to export this 

volume of LNG from facilities located 

near Kenai, Alaska, to Japan and/or one 

or more other countries globally with 

which trading is not prohibited by U.S. 

law for a two-year period commencing 

April 1, 2011, and terminating March 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
38094 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 126 / Thursday, July 1, 2010 / Notices 

1The Kenai LNG Facility is owned by the Kenai 

LNG Corporation. CPANGC has a 70% ownership 

interest and Marathon has a 30% ownership 

interest in Kenai LNG Corporation. 

2 15 U.S.C. 717b. Natural gas is defined to include 

LNG in 10 CFR part 590.102(i) (2010). 

3 DOE/FE Order No. 1473 at p. 13, citing, 

Panhandle Producers and Royalty Owners 

Association v. ERA, 822 F.2d 1105, 1111 (DC Cir. 

1987); the court found Section 3 of the NGA 

‘‘requires an affirmative showing of inconsistency 

with the public interest to deny an application’’ and 

that a ‘‘presumption favoring * * * authorization 

* * * is completely consistent with, if not 

mandated by, the statutory directive.’’ See also 

Independent Petroleum Association v. ERA, 870 

F.2d 168, 1 72 (5th Cir. 1989); Panhandle Producers 

and Royalty Owners Association v. ERA, 847 F.2d 

1168, 1176 (5th Cir. 1988). 

4Order No. 1473 at p. 14 citing, Delegation Order 

No. 0204–111, 49 FR 6684 (Feb 22, 1984). 

5Order No. 1473 at p. 15, n. 48; DOE/FE Order 

No. 2500 at pp. 44–45. 

31, 2013. The application was filed 

under section 3 of the Natural Gas Act 

(NGA), as amended by section 201 of 

the Energy Policy Act of 1992, and 10 

CFR part 590 of DOE’s regulations. 

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 in ADDRESSES no 

later than 4:30 p.m., eastern time, 

August 2, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: U.S. Department of Energy 

(FE–34), Office of Oil and Gas Global 

Security and Supply, Office of Fossil 

Energy, Forrestal Building, Room 3E– 

042, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., 

Washington, DC 20585. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Larine Moore or Marc Talbert, U.S. 

Department of Energy (FE–34), Office 

of Oil and Gas Global Security and 

Supply, Office of Fossil Energy, 

Forrestal Building, Room 3E–042, 

1000 Independence Avenue, SW., 

Washington, DC 20585. (202) 586– 

9478; (202) 586–7991. 

Edward Myers, U.S. Department of 

Energy, Office of the Assistant 

General Counsel for Electricity and 

Fossil 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. Applicants are joint 

indirect owners of natural gas 

liquefaction and marine terminal 

facilities near Kenai, Alaska, (Kenai 

LNG Facility) 1 on Cook Inlet in 

Southcentral Alaska. 

Existing Blanket Authorization 

On June 3, 2008, in DOE/FE Order No. 

2500, FE granted Applicants blanket 

authorization to export up to 99 TBtus 

of LNG (the equivalent of 98.1 Billion 

cubic feet (Bcf) of natural gas) from the 

Kenai LNG Facility to Japan and/or one 

or more countries on either side of the 

Pacific Rim for a two-year term, which 

extends through March 31, 2011. DOE/ 

FE denied rehearing of DOE/FE Order 

No. 2500 in DOE/FE Order No. 2500–A 

issued on July 30, 2008. 

Current Application 

In the instant application, Applicants 

seek a two-year blanket authorization 

commencing April 1, 2011, and 

terminating March 31, 2013, for a 

quantity of LNG equal to the difference 

between the 99 TBtus (the equivalent of 

98.1 billion cubic feet (Bcf) of natural 

gas) that FE authorized Applicants to 

export in DOE/FE Order No. 2500, and 

the cumulative volume of LNG that is 

ultimately exported by Applicants 

under their currently-effective blanket 

authorization from April 1, 2009, 

through March 31, 2011, as reflected in 

the monthly export reports filed with FE 

by Applicants. Applicants note that they 

do not seek blanket authorization to 

export volumes of LNG beyond those 

authorized by DOE/FE Order No. 2500, 

but seek authorization that would, in 

effect, allow an additional two years to 

export the currently-authorized volume. 

Applicants expect to continue 

exporting LNG to Japan and/or one or 

more countries globally with which 

trade is not prohibited by U.S. law, 

acting on their own behalf or as agent 

for others, pursuant to the requested 

blanket authorization. 

Applicants state that the application 

is being filed to ensure Applicants will 

have necessary blanket authorization 

should they elect to continue LNG 

exports after March 31, 2011. 

Applicants state that whether they 

ultimately continue LNG exports after 

March 31, 2011, could be impacted by: 

(1) LNG market conditions; (2) the 

ability to secure LNG shipping at 

economic rates; and (3) strategic 

decisions regarding the future role of the 

Kenai LNG Facility. Further background 

information on the Applicant’s prior 

long-term authorizations to export LNG 

and exports under Order No. 2500 can 

be found in the application. 

Public Interest Considerations 

In support of their application, 

Applicants state that under section 3 of 

the NGA, FE must authorize an export 

of natural gas from the United States to 

a foreign country unless there is a 

finding that the export ‘‘will not be 

consistent with the public interest.’’ 2

Applicants state that FE found that 

section 3 of the NGA creates a statutory 

presumption in favor of approval of a 

properly-framed export application, 

which opponents bear the burden of 

overcoming.3 Applicants state that FE’s 

public interest determination is guided 

by DOE Delegation Order No. 0204–111, 

which ‘‘designates domestic need for the 

natural gas proposed to be exported as 

the only explicit criterion that must be 

considered in determining the public 

interest.’’ 4 Applicants state that FE has 

found the regional need for the natural 

gas proposed to be exported to be the 

principal focus of its review for an 

application for authorization to export 

LNG from the State of Alaska.5

Applicants also state that FE has in turn 

evaluated regional need by determining 

whether there is sufficient evidence that 

regional natural gas supplies will be 

adequate to meet both regional needs 

and the proposed LNG export during the 

relevant export period, and that FE has 

also considered other factors to the 

extent they are shown to be relevant to 

the public interest determination for an 

export authorization. 

Finally, Applicants state that the 

application is not inconsistent with the 

public interest for the following reasons, 

as well as more detailed reasons set 

forth in the application: 

First, the Applicants contend that the 

natural gas to be exported has already 

been determined to be surplus to 

regional needs on a reserve basis by FE 

in DOE/FE Order No. 2500. Therefore, 

according to the Applicants, the LNG to 

be exported during the two-year period 

will not be needed to satisfy regional 

demand for natural gas; 

Second, the Applicants allege that 

allowing them to have an additional two 

years to complete the export of these 

volumes will not jeopardize service to 

the local markets into which this natural 

gas might otherwise be sold; to the 

contrary, it will serve to enhance the 

supply security of these markets on a 

day-by-day basis during the export term 

in the following ways: 

(a) The Kenai LNG Facility will 

continue to provide a critical back-up 

natural gas supply service for the local 

market in times of peak needs on the 

coldest days of the year; and 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 126 / Thursday, July 1, 2010 / Notices 38095 

(b) During the summer months, the 

Kenai LNG Facility’s base level of 

demand will ensure that production 

from natural gas wells are not curtailed 

or shut-in, thereby protecting reserves 

and well deliverability to serve utility 

demand during the colder months. 

Third, the Applicants maintain that in 

the longer term, the maintenance of the 

Kenai LNG Facility creates options for 

future uses that would enhance natural 

gas supplies for local consumption, 

including possible retrofitting of the 

facility to provide regasification 

capacity so that it could function as a 

storage facility; conversion into an 

import and LNG regasification terminal; 

and use of the existing terminal for 

exports to support the economic 

viability of a ‘‘bullet line’’ from Alaska’s 

North Slope. 

Fourth, the Applicants submit that a 

number of studies of natural gas 

reserves support the conclusion that 

there are sufficient supplies to satisfy 

local demand and the proposed export 

authorization. 

Fifth, with the recent execution of two 

natural gas supply contracts with local 

utilities, the Applicants maintain that 

virtually all of the local utilities’ 

projected gas needs through the term of 

the requested authorization will be 

satisfied; and Applicants, as suppliers to 

these utilities, will take their supply 

obligations into account in determining 

the extent to which to use their 

requested export authorization. 

Sixth, the Applicants contend that the 

Kenai LNG Facility provides local 

economic benefits, including as an 

employer and as a source of royalties 

and taxes for the State of Alaska and the 

Kenai Peninsula Borough. 

Request for Expedited Action 

Applicants request that FE act upon 

their application as expeditiously as 

possible, preferably within 90 days. 

Environmental Impact 

Applicants state that approval of the 

requested export authorization is not a 

major Federal action significantly 

affecting the quality of the human 

environment within the meaning of the 

National Environmental Policy Act of 

1969, 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq., and no 

environmental impact statement or 

environmental assessment is required. 

Applicants state that the proposed 

export of LNG would not require any 

changes to the Kenai LNG Facility. 

Applicants state that the LNG 

manufacturing and storage facilities that 

will be utilized during the blanket 

authorization already exist and have 

been operated safely without major 

disruption of supply or accident from 

their startup in 1969. 

DOE/FE Evaluation 

This export application will be 

reviewed pursuant to section 3 of the 

NGA, as amended, and the authority 

contained in DOE Delegation Order No. 

00–002.00I (Nov. 10, 2009) and DOE 

Redelegation Order No. 00–002.04D 

(Nov. 6, 2007). In reviewing this LNG 

export application, DOE will consider 

domestic need for the gas, as well as any 

other issues 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. 

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 and written 

comments, as provided in DOE’s 

regulations at 10 CFR 590.301, et seq. 

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 shall 

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 Applicants is 

available for inspection and copying in 

the Office of Oil and Gas Global 

Security and Supply docket room, 3E– 

042, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., 

Washington, DC 20585. 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 June 28, 

2010. 

John A. Anderson, 

Manager, Natural Gas Regulatory Activities, 

Office of Oil and Gas Global Security and 

Supply, Office of Fossil Energy. 

[FR Doc. 2010–16042 Filed 6–30–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 

FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE 

CORPORATION 

Agency Information Collection 

Activities: Proposed Collection 

Renewal; Comment Request 

AGENCY: Federal Deposit Insurance 

Corporation (FDIC). 

ACTION: Notice and request for comment. 

SUMMARY: The FDIC, as part of its 

continuing effort to reduce paperwork 

and respondent burden, invites the 

general public and other federal 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES