Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 87 / Friday, May 4, 2012 / Notices 26531 

6. Percent of infants and toddlers birth to 

3 with IFSPs compared to national data. 

7. Percent of eligible infants and toddlers 

with IFSPs for whom an initial evaluation 

and initial assessment and an initial IFSP 

meeting were conducted within Part C’s 45- 

day timeline. 

8. The percentage of toddlers with 

disabilities exiting Part C with timely 

transition planning for whom the Lead 

Agency has: 

A. Developed an IFSP with transition steps 

and services at least 90 days, and at the 

discretion of all parties, not more than nine 

months, prior to the toddler’s third birthday; 

B. Notified (consistent with any opt-out 

policy adopted by the State) the SEA and the 

LEA where the toddler resides at least 90 

days prior to the toddler’s third birthday for 

toddlers potentially eligible for Part B 

preschool services; and 

C. Conducted the transition conference 

held with the approval of the family at least 

90 days, and at the discretion of all parties, 

not more than nine months, prior to the 

toddler’s third birthday for toddlers 

potentially eligible for Part B preschool 

services. 

9. General supervision system (including 

monitoring, complaints, hearings, etc.) 

identifies and corrects noncompliance as 

soon as possible but in no case later than one 

year from identification. 

10. Percent of signed written complaints 

with reports issued that were resolved within 

60-day timeline or a timeline extended for 

exceptional circumstances with respect to a 

particular complaint, or because the parent 

(or individual or organization) and the public 

agency agree to extend the time to engage in 

mediation or other alternative means of 

dispute resolution, if available in the State. 

11. Percent of fully adjudicated due 

process hearing requests that were fully 

adjudicated within the applicable timeline or 

a timeline that is properly extended by the 

hearing officer at the request of either party. 

12. Percent of hearing requests that went to 

resolution sessions that were resolved 

through resolution session settlement 

agreements (applicable if Part B due process 

procedures are adopted). 

13. Percent of mediations held that 

resulted in mediation agreements. 

14. State reported data (618 and State 

Performance Plan and Annual Performance 

Report) are timely and accurate. 

[FR Doc. 2012–10831 Filed 5–3–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4000–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 

[Docket ID ED–2012–OESE–0009] 

Request for Information To Gather 

Technical Expertise Pertaining to the 

Disaggregation of Asian and Native 

Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander 

Student Data and the Use of Those 

Data in Planning and Programmatic 

Endeavors 

AGENCY: Office of Elementary and 

Secondary Education, Department of 

Education. 

ACTION: Request for Information. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of 

Education (the Department) is seeking to 

gather and share information about 

practices and policies regarding existing 

education data systems that disaggregate 

data on subgroups within the Asian and 

Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Island 

(ANHPI) student population. The 

Department anticipates making use of 

this information to help State 

educational agencies (SEAs), local 

educational agencies (LEAs), schools, 

and institutions of higher education 

(IHEs) identify, share, and implement 

promising practices and policies for 

identifying and overcoming challenges 

to gathering and disaggregating data on 

subgroups within the ANHPI student 

population. SEAs, LEAs, schools, and 

IHEs might then use those data to 

improve their ability to respond to the 

unique needs and issues that might exist 

for these subgroups. 

The Department is issuing this request 

for information (RFI) to collect 

information about promising practices 

and policies regarding existing 

education data systems and models that 

disaggregate data on subgroups within 

the ANHPI student population. The 

Department poses a series of questions 

to which we invite interested members 

of the public, including experts and data 

collection practitioners, to respond. The 

Department will publish a document 

that contains a summary of the 

recommendations that we will develop 

using information obtained as a result of 

the RFI and through other outreach 

efforts. 

This RFI has no effect on the existing 

Federal data collection and aggregate 

reporting requirements for racial and 

ethnic data by educational agencies and 

institutions. The Department is not 

considering modifying its racial and 

ethnic data collection and reporting 

requirements set forth in its 2007 Final 

Guidance on Maintaining, Collecting, 

and Reporting Racial and Ethnic Data to 

the U.S. Department of Education (2007 

Guidance), 72 FR 59266 (October 19, 

2007). http://www2.ed.gov/legislation/ 

FedRegister/other/2007-4/101907c.html. 

DATES: Written submissions must be 

received by the Department on or before 

July 3, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments 

through the Federal eRulemaking Portal 

or via U.S. mail, commercial delivery, or 

hand delivery. We will not accept 

comments by fax or by email. To ensure 

that we do not receive duplicate copies, 

please submit your comments only one 

time. In addition, please include the 

Docket ID and the term ‘‘Data 

Disaggregation Response’’ at the top of 

your comments. 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 

www.regulations.gov to submit your 

comments electronically. Information 

on using Regulations.gov, including 

instructions for accessing agency 

documents, submitting comments, and 

viewing the docket, is available on the 

site under ‘‘How to Use This Site.’’ 

• U.S. Mail, Commercial Delivery, or 

Hand Delivery: If you mail or deliver 

your comments, address them to Donald 

Yu, Attention: ANHPI Student Data 

Disaggregation RFI, U.S. Department of 

Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., 

room 7C157, Washington, DC 20202– 

6132. 

• Privacy Note: The Department’s 

policy for comments received from 

members of the public (including 

comments submitted by mail, 

commercial delivery, or hand delivery) 

is to make these submissions available 

for public viewing in their entirety on 

the Federal eRulemaking Portal at 

www.regulations.gov. Therefore, 

commenters should be careful to 

include in their comments only 

information that they wish to make 

publicly available on the Internet. 

Given the subject matter, some 

comments may include proprietary 

information as it relates to confidential 

commercial information. The Freedom 

of Information Act defines ‘‘confidential 

commercial information’’ as information 

the disclosure of which could 

reasonably be expected to cause 

substantial competitive harm. You may 

wish to request that we not disclose 

what you regard as confidential 

commercial information. 

To assist us in making a 

determination on your request, we 

encourage you to identify any specific 

information in your comments that you 

consider confidential commercial 

information. Please list the information 

by page and paragraph numbers. 

While this RFI is seeking to gather 

information related to policies and 

practices, you should still make certain 

your comments do not include 

disclosures of personally identifiable 

information from students’ education 

records in a manner that violates the 

Family Educational Rights and Privacy 

Act of 1974 (FERPA). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Donald Yu, U.S. Department of 

Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., 

Room 3W104, Washington, DC 20202– 

6132 by phone at 202–205–4499. 

If you use a telecommunications 

device for the deaf (TDD), call the 

Federal Relay Service (FRS), toll free, at 

1–(800) 877–8339. 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
26532 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 87 / Friday, May 4, 2012 / Notices 

1OMB defines ‘‘Asian’’ as a person having origins 

in any of the original peoples of the Far East, 

Southeast Asia, or the Indian subcontinent 

including, for example, Cambodia, China, India, 

Japan, Korea, Malaysia, Pakistan, the Philippine 

Islands, Thailand, and Vietnam. It includes people 

who indicate their race as ‘‘Asian Indian,’’ 

‘‘Chinese,’’ ‘‘Filipino,’’ ‘‘Korean,’’ ‘‘Japanese,’’ 

‘‘Vietnamese,’’ and ‘‘Other Asian’’ or provide other 

detailed Asian responses. ‘‘Native Hawaiian or 

Other Pacific Islander’’ is defined as a person 

having origins in any of the original peoples of 

Hawaii, Guam, Samoa, or other Pacific Islands. It 

includes people who indicate their race as ‘‘Native 

Hawaiian,’’ ‘‘Guamanian or Chamorro,’’ ‘‘Samoan,’’ 

and ‘‘Other Pacific Islander’’ or provide other 

detailed Pacific Islander responses. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

1. Introduction 

The Department is seeking 

information on disaggregation practices 

that SEAs, LEAs, schools, and IHEs use 

when collecting and reporting data on 

Asians and Native Hawaiians or Other 

Pacific Islanders.1 This is a request for 

information only. This RFI is 

specifically inquiring about examples 

of: (1) Existing data systems and models 

that disaggregate data on subgroups 

within the ANHPI student population; 

(2) the categories for which these 

systems and models disaggregate data 

by ANHPI subgroup, including, but not 

necessarily limited to, languages 

spoken, English language proficiency, 

and graduation rates; (3) the challenges 

that administrators of those systems and 

models have encountered in gathering 

high-quality disaggregated data on 

subgroups within the ANHPI student 

population, and the actions they have 

taken to overcome those challenges; and 

(4) how educational agencies or 

institutions have used, or are using, 

disaggregated data on ANHPIs to 

improve their ability to identify and 

respond to unique educational needs 

and issues of those populations. 

This RFI has no effect on the existing 

Federal data collection and aggregate 

reporting requirements for racial and 

ethnic data by educational agencies and 

institutions. The Department is not 

considering modifying its racial and 

ethnic data collection and reporting 

requirements. The 2007 Guidance sets 

forth requirements that aim to strike the 

balance between minimizing the burden 

for educational agencies and institutions 

while also ensuring the availability of 

high-quality racial and ethnic data for 

carrying out the Department’s 

responsibilities in such areas as civil 

rights enforcement, program monitoring, 

the identification and placement of 

students in special education, research 

and statistical analyses, and 

accountability for student achievement. 

Beyond the Federal collection and 

reporting requirements, an educational 

agency or institution has the flexibility 

to collect data on subcategories of racial 

and ethnic data for their own 

educational purposes. In the 2007 

Guidance, the Department noted that an 

educational institution may collect 

racial and ethnic data on sub-categories 

of students, so long as the educational 

institution can aggregate the data into 

Federal reporting categories. The 

Department has encouraged educational 

agencies and institutions to pursue this 

option if they determine that it would 

benefit their educational purposes, 

provided that they can still aggregate the 

data into the reporting categories 

required by the Department. Any 

additional racial and ethnic 

subcategories may be used by the State 

or educational institution and are not 

reported to the Department. 

It is with this flexibility in mind that 

we are publishing this RFI, to learn from 

and better understand what SEAs, LEAs, 

schools, and IHEs around the country 

are doing with regard to collecting racial 

and ethnic data on sub-categories of 

students and to make any promising 

practices available to other educational 

agencies and institutions that may be 

interested in adopting similar policies 

or practices. 

This RFI is issued solely for 

information and planning purposes and 

is not a request for proposals (RFP) or 

notice inviting applications (NIA) or a 

promise to issue an RFP or NIA. This 

RFI does not commit the Department to 

contract for any supply or service 

whatsoever. Further, the Department is 

not now seeking proposals and will not 

accept unsolicited proposals. The 

Department will not pay for any 

information or administrative costs that 

you may incur in responding to this RFI. 

The documents and information 

submitted in response to this RFI 

become the property of the U.S. 

Government and will not be returned. 

2. Background 

Disaggregating data on subgroups 

within the ANHPI student population 

has long been a priority for some 

educators, researchers, and advocates. 

Although data are limited, evidence 

shows large disparities among ANHPI 

subgroups in terms of income and 

educational attainment (Maramba, 

2011). For instance, Southeast Asian 

Americans (SEAAs) have some of the 

highest poverty rates in the Nation: 37.8 

percent of Hmong-Americans, 29.3 

percent of Cambodian-Americans, 18.5 

percent of Laotian-Americans, and 16.6 

percent of Vietnamese-Americans in the 

United States live in poverty (Reeves 

and Bennett, 2004; Teranishi, 2010). 

In terms of educational attainment, 

data from the 2010 U.S. Census reveal 

that 37 percent of CambodianAmericans, 38 percent of HmongAmericans, 33 percent of LaotianAmericans, and 29 percent of 

Vietnamese-Americans over 25 years of 

age had less than a high school 

education in 2010, compared with only 

5.4 percent of Japanese-Americans and 

7 percent of Indonesian-Americans. 

Additionally, according to the 2010 

Census, only 13 percent of Native 

Hawaiians and Pacific Islanders in the 

United States 25 years of age and older 

had at least a bachelor’s degree. By 

contrast, 37.8 percent of FilipinoAmericans 25 and older had at least a 

bachelor’s degree. On the issue of 

limited English language proficiency, 44 

percent of Bangladeshi-Americans and 

51 percent of Vietnamese-Americans 

indicated they did not speak English 

very well (2010 U.S. Census). 

Data on the ANHPI student 

population as a whole, without 

disaggregation, mask the hidden 

achievement gaps among subgroups of 

ANHPI students and creates a need for 

further disaggregation of educational 

data among ANHPI student subgroups 

(Maramba, 2011). Without disaggregated 

data, educational agencies and 

institutions might lack the critical and 

in-depth information they need to 

identify, target, and effectively address 

the unique needs of the subgroups of 

students who are not succeeding. 

There could be several applications 

for disaggregated data. For instance, 

SEAs, LEAs, schools, and IHEs could 

use those data to: 

• Identify achievement gaps within 

the population of ANHPI students; 

• Ensure that support services are 

available to the most needy ANHPI 

subgroups; 

• Analyze graduation rates and 

college enrollment rates for the purpose 

of making decisions on LEA- and 

school-level interventions; 

• Examine disparities in school 

discipline; and 

• Identify rates of enrollment in 

rigorous courses (e.g., high-level 

science, technology, engineering, and 

mathematics course; honors courses; 

advanced placement and International 

Baccalaureate courses). 

While this list of potential uses of 

disaggregated data is not exhaustive, 

some SEAs, LEAs, schools, and IHEs 

might be using disaggregated data in 

innovative ways, and the Department 

would like to know how this 

information is being used to improve 

achievement for ANHPI student 

subgroups. 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 87 / Friday, May 4, 2012 / Notices 26533 

The Department has made some 

progress in revealing hidden 

achievement gaps among ANHPI 

subgroups. In 2007, in its Revisions to 

the Standards for the Classification of 

Federal Data on Race and Ethnicity, 62 

FR 58782 (October 30, 1997), the 

Department changed the racial and 

ethnic data reporting requirements that 

implement the Government-wide 

standards established by the Office of 

Management and Budget; 

www.whitehouse.gov/omb/fedreg/ 

1997standards.html. This change has 

required educational institutions to 

report ‘‘Asian’’ data separately from 

‘‘Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific 

Islander’’ data to the Department 

beginning in school year 2010–11. 

In accordance with the 2007 Guidance 

and for the first time in 2011, the 

Department’s National Center for 

Education Statistics (NCES) reported 

data for Asian American students 

separately from Native Hawaiian and 

Other Pacific Islander students in the 

National Assessment of Educational 

Progress (NAEP) reports. NAEP reports 

serve as a common metric for all States, 

providing a clear picture of student 

academic progress over time. New 

baseline data from these NAEP reports 

show that Native Hawaiians and Other 

Pacific Islanders face achievement gaps 

typically reported of other minority 

students. 

Further, on October 14, 2009, 

President Obama signed Executive 

Order 13515 ‘‘Increasing Participation of 

Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders 

in Federal Programs’’ (EO 13515). EO 

13515 requires that each participating 

Federal agency—including the 

Department—develop a plan for 

‘‘improv[ing] the quality of life of Asian 

Americans and Pacific Islanders through 

increased participation in Federal 

programs in which Asian Americans 

and Pacific Islanders may be 

underserved.’’ 

The Department submitted its plan to 

the President in October 2010. The plan 

includes a goal to ‘‘identify and 

highlight three models with potential 

for replication of how schools and 

colleges use disaggregated data systems 

for * * * students to increase 

attainment and achievement.’’ The plan 

further states that ‘‘[a]lthough data on 

educational achievement and 

attainment are generally disaggregated 

by major racial and ethnic groups 

* * *, a lack of further disaggregation 

* * * masks hidden achievement 

gaps.’’ 

This RFI is one step the Department 

is taking to achieve the goal previously 

described. The RFI seeks information 

about existing practices and policies 

about collecting data and its use to 

improve instructions for ANHPI student 

subgroups. In addition, we are 

interested in receiving technical 

information about these systems, legal 

obstacles that were encountered and 

how those obstacles were resolved 

(including any regulatory solutions), 

and other information that would help 

the public understand how these 

practices and policies for the collection 

and use of data on subgroups within the 

ANHPI student population could be 

implemented by other SEAs, LEAs, 

schools, and IHEs. 

The Department plans to develop a 

summary of the recommendations 

drawn from the responses to the RFI 

that will be used to help inform 

interested organizations. Further, it is 

the Department’s goal to take what we 

have learned from the RFI and deliver 

voluntary technical assistance to SEAs 

and LEAs. 

3. Context for Responses 

3.1 The primary goal of this RFI is to 

gather information related to the 

disaggregation and use of student data 

on subgroups within ANHPI student 

populations, and then to disseminate 

that information to the public, 

specifically to SEAs, LEAs, schools, and 

IHEs. Toward that end, the Department 

welcomes responses that address SEA, 

LEA, school, and IHE policies and 

practices related to the issues discussed 

in this notice and to applicable Federal, 

State, and local laws. To help focus our 

consideration of the responses provided, 

we have developed several questions. 

Because the questions are only guides to 

helping us better understand the issues 

surrounding ANHPI data disaggregation 

in various education communities, 

respondents do not have to respond to 

any specific question and may provide 

comments in a format that is most 

convenient to them. Commenters may 

also provide relevant information that is 

not responsive to a particular question 

but might, nevertheless, be helpful. 

3.2 General Questions Regarding 

Disaggregation of Data on Subgroups 

within Asian and Native Hawaiian or 

Other Pacific Islander Student 

Populations. 

3.2.1 Disaggregation Policies and 

Practices. We would be interested in 

learning whether your SEA, LEA, 

school, or IHE has a policy for 

disaggregating data on ANHPI racial or 

ethnic subgroups. If you do have such 

a policy, we would appreciate learning 

how your educational agency or 

institution disaggregates the data. For 

instance, when data for ANHPI student 

subgroups are disaggregated, what are 

the specific categories that are used, and 

why? It would be helpful to know 

whether the categories are primarily 

based upon categories used by the U.S. 

Census, e.g., Asian Indian, Cambodian, 

Hmong, and Laotian. If not, we would 

be interested in learning what categories 

are used and why. We would also find 

it helpful if commenters could describe 

the information about ANHPI student 

subgroups that is most helpful in 

identifying and addressing the 

educational needs of these student 

subgroups, e.g., ethnicity, language, 

background, gender, etc. 

3.2.3 Data Collection and Systems. 

Please describe how the data are 

collected. For example, are the data 

collected through an annual 

questionnaire or survey given to parents 

or students? What data systems, such as 

a statewide longitudinal data system, 

are currently being used to collect and 

maintain disaggregated data? What, if 

anything, had to be changed about your 

data system in order to collect 

disaggregated data regarding ANHPI 

student subgroups? 

3.2.4 Effective Use of Disaggregated 

Data. Has your practice of collecting 

and using disaggregated data for ANHPI 

students improved your SEA’s, LEA’s, 

school’s or IHE’s ability to identify and 

respond to the unique educational 

needs and issues of ANHPI student 

subgroups? If so, how? Have specific 

programs been created or specific 

interventions been implemented in 

response to the disaggregated data? 

Please describe these programs or 

interventions and how they have 

targeted specific communities. 

3.2.5 Barriers. What barriers or 

challenges exist that make adoption of 

these practices and policies at the SEA, 

LEA, school, or postsecondary levels 

difficult? Are there common capacity 

challenges (e.g., training or technology) 

that SEAs, LEAs, schools, and IHEs 

might face when disaggregating data on 

ANHPI student subgroups? Did your 

SEA, LEA, school, or IHE encounter 

privacy issues with the smaller 

subgroups resulting from disaggregating 

data on the ANHPI student population? 

What are the general lessons learned 

from the adoption of these 

disaggregation practices? 

3.2.6 Reporting and Transparency. 

For SEAs, LEAs, schools, and IHEs that 

have disaggregated data for ANHPI 

student subgroups, how are 

disaggregated data being publicly 

reported and used? For example, how 

have the data been used in outreach 

efforts, curricula development, 

adaptation of English language 

proficiency programs, and dropout 

prevention efforts? 

References: 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
26534 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 87 / Friday, May 4, 2012 / Notices 

Maramba, D. C. 2011. ‘‘The Importance of 

Critically Disaggregating Data: The Case of 

Southeast Asian American College 

Students.’’ aapi nexus Vol. 9, No. 1&2 (Fall 

2011): 127–133. 

Reeves, T. J. and C.E. Bennett. 2004. ‘‘We the 

people: Asians in the United States.’’ 

Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau. 

Teranishi, R. T. 2010. Asians in the Ivory 

Tower: Dilemmas of Racial Inequality in 

American Higher Education. New York: 

Teachers College Press. 

Accessible Format: Individuals with 

disabilities can obtain this document in 

an accessible format, e.g., braille, large 

print, audiotape, or compact disc, on 

request to the program contact person 

listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT. 

Electronic Access to This Document: 

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 via the Federal 

Digital System at: www.gpo.gov/fdsys. 

At this site you can view this document, 

as well as all other documents of this 

Department published in the Federal 

Register, in text or Adobe Portable 

Document Format (PDF). To use PDF 

you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, 

which is available free at the site. 

You may also access documents of the 

Department published in the Federal 

Register by using the article search 

feature at: www.federalregister.gov. 

Specifically, through the advanced 

search feature at this site, you can limit 

your search to documents published by 

the Department. 

Dated: May 1, 2012. 

Martha Kanter, 

Under Secretary. 

Michael Yudin, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Elementary 

and Secondary Education. 

[FR Doc. 2012–10835 Filed 5–3–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4000–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission 

[Docket No. CP12–157–000] 

Northern Natural Gas Company, 

Florida Gas Transmission Company, 

LLC, Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line 

Company, LLC, Enterprise Field 

Services, LLC; Notice of Application 

Take notice that on April 18, 2012, 

Northern Natural Gas Company 

(Northern Natural), 1111 South 103rd 

Street, Omaha, Nebraska 68124–1000, 

on behalf of itself and other owners, 

Florida Gas Transmission Company, 

LLC, Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line 

Company, LLC, and Enterprise Field 

Services, LLC, filed an application in 

Docket No. CP12–157–000 pursuant to 

section 4 and section 7(b) of the Natural 

Gas Act (NGA) and Part 157 of the 

Commission’s regulations, requesting 

authorization to abandon in place 

certain inactive gathering facilities 

consisting of 16.8 miles of 24-inch 

diameter pipeline and appurtenances 

located in the Mustang Island and 

Matagorda Island Areas in Federal 

offshore waters of Texas (MOPS Phase 

III Facilities). 

Any questions concerning this 

application may be directed to Michael 

T. Loeffler, Senior Director, Certificates 

and External Affairs, Northern Natural 

Gas Company, 1111 South 103rd Street, 

Omaha, Nebraska 68124, or phone at 

(402) 398–7103, or email at 

mike.loeffler@nngco.com. 

There are two ways to become 

involved in the Commission’s review of 

this project. First, any person wishing to 

obtain legal status by becoming a party 

to the proceedings for this project 

should, on or before the comment date 

stated below, file with the Federal 

Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 

First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, 

a motion to intervene in accordance 

with the requirements of the 

Commission’s Rules of Practice and 

Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or 385.211) 

and the Regulations under the NGA (18 

CFR 157.10). A person obtaining party 

status will be placed on the service list 

maintained by the Secretary of the 

Commission and will receive copies of 

all documents filed by the applicant and 

by all other parties. A party must submit 

an original and 7 copies of filings made 

with the Commission and must mail a 

copy to the applicant and to every other 

party in the proceeding. Only parties to 

the proceeding can ask for court review 

of Commission orders in the proceeding. 

However, a person does not have to 

intervene in order to have comments 

considered. The second way to 

participate is by filing with the 

Secretary of the Commission, as soon as 

possible, an original and two copies of 

comments in support of or in opposition 

to this project. The Commission will 

consider these comments in 

determining the appropriate action to be 

taken, but the filing of a comment alone 

will not serve to make the filer a party 

to the proceeding. The Commission’s 

rules require that persons filing 

comments in opposition to the project 

provide copies of their protests only to 

the party or parties directly involved in 

the protest. 

The Commission strongly encourages 

electronic filings of comments, protests 

and interventions in lieu of paper using 

the ‘‘eFiling’’ link at http:// 

www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file 

electronically should submit an original 

and 7 copies of the protest or 

intervention 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 email 

notification when a document is added 

to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance 

with any FERC Online service, please 

email FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov, or 

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

call (202) 502–8659. 

Comment Date: May 17, 2012. 

Dated: April 26, 2012. 

Kimberly D. Bose, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2012–10791 Filed 5–3–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6717–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission 

[Docket No. CP12–164–000] 

Texas Eastern Transmission, LP; 

Notice of Application 

Take notice that on April 19, 2012, 

Texas Eastern Transmission, LP (Texas 

Eastern), 5400 Westheimer Court, 

Houston, Texas 77056, filed in Docket 

No. CP12–164–000, a request for 

authority, pursuant to 18 CFR part 157 

and section 7(b) of the Natural Gas Act, 

to abandon, in place and by removal, 

certain pipeline facilities and associated 

ancillary facilities in Montgomery 

County, Texas. Specifically, Texas 

Eastern proposes to abandon, in place, 

approximately 5.7 miles of 24-inch 

diameter auxiliary pipeline and 

abandon, by removal, related ancillary 

facilities between mile post (MP) 97.54 

and MP 103.23. across the Lake Conroe 

Reservoir. Texas Eastern states that the 

proposed abandonment will not cause a 

reduction in firm service to existing 

customers, all as more fully set forth in 

the application, which is on file with 

the Commission and open to public 

inspection. The filing may also be 

viewed on the web at http:// 

www.ferc.gov using the ‘‘eLibrary’’ link. 

Enter the docket number excluding the 

last three digits in the docket number 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES