48132 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 158 / Friday, August 15, 2014 / Notices 

(202) 219–3032. The registration 

deadline is Tuesday, September 2, 2014. 

Individuals who will need 

accommodations for a disability in order 

to attend the hearing (i.e., interpreting 

services, assistive listening devices, 

and/or materials in alternative format) 

should notify the Advisory Committee 

no later than Tuesday, September 2, 

2014 by contacting Ms. Tracy Jones at 

(202) 219–2099 or via email at 

tracy.deanna.jones@ed.gov. We will 

attempt to meet requests after this date, 

but cannot guarantee availability of the 

requested accommodation. The hearing 

site is accessible to individuals with 

disabilities. Individuals who use a 

telecommunications device for the deaf 

(TTY) may call the Federal Information 

Relay Service (FRS) toll free at 1–800– 

877–8339. 

Records are kept for Advisory 

Committee proceedings, and are 

available for inspection at the Office of 

the Advisory Committee on Student 

Financial Assistance, Capitol Place, 80 F 

Street NW., Suite 413, Washington, DC 

from the hours of 9:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. 

Eastern Standard Time, Monday 

through Friday, except Federal holidays. 

Information regarding the Advisory 

Committee is available on the 

Committee’s Web site, www2.ed.gov/

ACSFA. 

Dated: August 11, 2014. 

William J. Goggin, 

Executive Director, Advisory Committee on 

Student Financial Assistance. 

[FR Doc. 2014–19326 Filed 8–14–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4000–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Addendum to Environmental Review 

Documents Concerning Exports of 

Natural Gas From the United States 

Freeport LNG Expansion, 

L.P. and FLNG Liquefaction, LLC.

[DOE/EIS– 

0487] 

Cameron LNG, LLC .............. [DOE/EIS– 

0488] 

Jordan Cove Energy Project, 

L.P.

[DOE/EIS– 

0489] 

Lake Charles Exports, LLC 

and Trunkline LNG Export, 

LLC.

[DOE/EIS– 

0491] 

LNG Development Company, 

LLC (d/b/a Oregon LNG).

[DOE/EIS– 

0492] 

Cheniere Marketing, LLC ...... [DOE/EIS– 

0493] 

Excelerate Liquefaction Solutions I, LLC.[DOE/EIS– 

0494] 

CE FLNG, LLC ...................... [DOE/EIS– 

0497] 

Magnolia LNG, LLC .............. [DOE/EIS– 

0498] 

Dominion Cove Point LNG, 

LP.

[DOE/EA– 

1942] 

Southern LNG Company, 

L.L.C.

[DOE/EA– 

1963] 

Golden Pass Products LLC .. [DOE/EA– 

1971] 

Sabine Pass Liquefaction, 

LLC.

[DOE/EA– 

1983] 

AGENCY: Office of Fossil Energy, 

Department of Energy. 

ACTION: Notice of Availability of 

Addendum to Environmental Review 

Documents Concerning Exports of 

Natural Gas from the United States. 

SUMMARY: The Office of Fossil Energy 

(FE) of the Department of Energy (DOE) 

announces the availability of the 

Addendum to Environmental Review 

Documents Concerning Exports of 

Natural Gas From the United States 

(Addendum). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John 

Anderson, U.S. Department of Energy 

(FE–34), Office of Natural Gas 

Regulatory Activities, Office of Fossil 

Energy, Forrestal Building, Room 3E– 

042, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., 

Washington, DC 20585; Edward LeDuc, 

U.S. Department of Energy (GC–51), 

Office of the Assistant General Counsel 

for Environment, Forrestal Building, 

1000 Independence Avenue SW., 

Washington, DC 20585. 

ADDRESSES: The Addendum and other 

relevant documents are available for 

download at http://www.energy.gov/fe/

services/natural-gas-regulation, and for 

inspection and copying in the Division 

of Natural Gas Regulatory Activities 

docket room, Room 3E–042, 1000 

Independence Avenue SW., 

Washington, DC 20585. The docket 

room is open between the hours of 8:00 

a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through 

Friday, except Federal holidays. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

purpose of this Addendum is to provide 

additional information to the public 

regarding the potential environmental 

impacts of unconventional natural gas 

exploration and production activities. 

DOE has received many comments in 

related proceedings expressing concerns 

about the potential impacts from 

increased development of 

unconventional natural gas resources in 

the United States, particularly 

production that involves hydraulic 

fracturing. While not required by the 

National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA), DOE has prepared this 

Addendum in an effort to be responsive 

to the public and provide the best 

information available. 

On June 4, 2014, DOE published a 

Federal Register notice (79 FR 32258) 

announcing the availability of the draft 

Addendum for public review and 

comment. The comment period closed 

on July 21, 2014. DOE received 18 

comment submittals, comprised of a 

total of 40,754 individual comments. 

DOE considered all the comments and 

prepared the final Addendum. In an 

effort to assist readers DOE used bold 

text and vertical lines in the margin to 

indicate where the draft Addendum has 

been revised or supplemented. A 

summary of the public comments and 

DOE’s responses is included in the final 

Addendum. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on August 11, 

2014. 

Christopher A. Smith, 

Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary, Office 

of Fossil Energy. 

[FR Doc. 2014–19368 Filed 8–14–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Procedures for Liquefied Natural Gas 

Export Decisions 

AGENCY: Office of Fossil Energy, 

Department of Energy. 

ACTION: Final revised procedures. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of 

Energy (DOE or the Department) will act 

on applications to export liquefied 

natural gas (LNG) from the lower-48 

states to countries with which the 

United States does not have a free trade 

agreement requiring national treatment 

for natural gas only after completing the 

review required by the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 

suspending its practice of issuing 

conditional decisions prior to final 

authorization decisions. 

DATES: Effective Date: August 15, 2014. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John 

Anderson, U.S. Department of Energy, 

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) 586–5600; 

Samuel Walsh, U.S. Department of 

Energy, Office of the General Counsel, 

Forrestal Building, 1000 Independence 

Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585, 

(202) 586–6732. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Proposed Procedural Change 

The Department of Energy is 

responsible for authorizing exports of 

natural gas to foreign nations pursuant 

to section 3 of the Natural Gas Act, 15 

U.S.C. 717b. For proposed exports to 

countries with which the United States 

lacks a free trade agreement requiring 

national treatment for trade in natural 

gas (non-FTA countries), the 

Department conducts an informal 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 158 / Friday, August 15, 2014 / Notices 48133 

1 Dep’t of Energy, Import and Export of Natural 

Gas; New Administrative Procedures; Proposed 

Rule, 46 FR 44696 (Sept. 4, 1981). 

2 LNG Develop. Co., LLC (d/b/a Oregon LNG), 

DOE/FE Order No. 3465 (July 31, 2014) [hereinafter 

Oregon LNG]; Jordan Cove Energy Project, L.P., 

DOE/FE Order No. 3413 (March 24, 2014); Cameron 

LNG, LLC, DOE/FE Order No. 3391 (Feb. 11, 2014); 

Freeport LNG Expansion, L.P. et al., DOE/FE Order 

No. 3357 (Nov. 15, 2013); Dominion Cove Point 

LNG, LP, DOE/Order No. 3331 (September 11, 

2013); Lake Charles Exports, LLC, DOE/FE Order 

No. 3324 (Aug. 7, 2013); Freeport LNG Expansion, 

L.P. et al., DOE/FE Order No. 3282 (May 17, 2013); 

Sabine Pass Liquefaction, LLC, DOE/FE Order No. 

2961 (May 20, 2011). 

3See, e.g., Oregon LNG, DOE/FE Order No. 3465, 

at 138. 

4The comments are available at: http://

energy.gov/fe/proposed-procedures-liquefiednatural-gas-export-decisions (Comments). 

adjudication and grants the application 

unless the Department finds that the 

proposed exportation will not be 

consistent with the public interest. 15 

U.S.C. 717b(a). Before reaching a final 

decision on a non-FTA application, the 

Department must also comply with the 

National Environmental Policy Act 

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

Typically, the agency responsible for 

permitting the export facility serves as 

the lead agency in the NEPA review 

process and DOE serves as a cooperating 

agency within the meaning of the 

Council on Environmental Quality’s 

(CEQ) regulations. 40 CFR 1501.4, 

1501.5. For LNG terminals located 

onshore or in state waters, the agency 

responsible for permitting the export 

facilities is the Federal Energy 

Regulatory Commission (FERC) 

pursuant to Section 3(e) of the Natural 

Gas Act. 15 U.S.C. 717b(e). For LNG 

terminals located offshore beyond state 

waters, the responsible agency is the 

Maritime Administration (MARAD) 

within the Department of 

Transportation pursuant to Section 3(9) 

of the Deepwater Ports Act, as amended 

by Section 312 of the Coast Guard and 

Maritime Transportation Act of 2012 

(Pub. L. 112–213). 

For more than 30 years, DOE’s 

regulations governing natural gas 

imports and exports have allowed for 

conditional decisions, on a 

discretionary basis, before DOE 

completes its review process.1 DOE’s 

regulations at 10 CFR 590.402, entitled 

‘‘Conditional orders,’’ state that DOE 

may issue a conditional order at any 

time during a proceeding prior to 

issuance of a final opinion and order. In 

the past three years, DOE has issued 

eight conditional authorizations for 

exports of LNG to non-FTA countries.2

In each of these proceedings, DOE has 

made preliminary findings on all factors 

relating to the public interest other than 

environmental issues. The conditional 

authorization orders have explained 

that, before taking final action, DOE will 

reconsider its public interest analysis in 

light of the information gathered in the 

environmental review.3

DOE has acted on non-FTA LNG 

export applications according to the 

order of precedence posted on DOE’s 

Web site on December 5, 2012. On June 

4, 2014, however, DOE published a 

notice in the Federal Register proposing 

to suspend its practice of issuing 

conditional decisions prior to 

completion of the NEPA review process 

for LNG export applications from the 

lower-48 states. Dep’t of Energy, 

Proposed Procedures for Liquefied 

Natural Gas Export Decisions; Notice of 

Proposed Procedures, 79 FR 32261 

(Proposed Procedures Notice). DOE did 

not propose to amend 10 CFR 590.402 

and, therefore, under the proposal 

would retain discretion to issue 

conditional decisions in the future. 

DOE explained that, under the newly 

proposed procedures, DOE would cease 

to act on non-FTA LNG export 

applications according to the published 

order of precedence. Instead, DOE 

would act on applications in the order 

they become ready for final action. The 

Proposed Procedures Notice stated that 

an application is ready for final action 

when DOE has sufficient information on 

which to base a public interest 

determination and when DOE has 

completed its NEPA review. The 

Proposed Procedures Notice further 

explained that, for purposes of setting 

the order in which DOE will act, an 

application would be deemed to have 

completed the pertinent NEPA review 

process as follows: (1) For those projects 

requiring an Environmental Impact 

Statement (EIS), 30 days after 

publication of a Final EIS; (2) for 

projects for which an Environmental 

Assessment (EA) has been prepared, 

upon publication by DOE of a Finding 

of No Significant Impact (FONSI); or (3) 

upon a determination by DOE that an 

application is eligible for a categorical 

exclusion pursuant to DOE’s regulations 

implementing NEPA, 10 CFR 1021.410, 

Appx. A & B. DOE explained that this 

test would apply in the same fashion 

regardless of whether FERC, MARAD, or 

DOE has served as the lead agency for 

preparation of the environmental review 

document. 

The Proposed Procedures Notice also 

made clear that the proposed 

procedures would not affect the 

continued validity of the conditional 

authorizations DOE had already issued. 

For those applications, DOE stated it 

would proceed as explained in the 

orders: By reconsidering the conditional 

authorization in light of the information 

gathered in the environmental review 

once that review is complete and taking 

appropriate final action. 

The Department offered four reasons 

for the proposed procedural change. See 

Proposed Procedures Notice at 79 FR 

32263–32264. First, the Department 

explained that conditional 

authorizations no longer appear 

necessary for FERC or the majority of 

applicants to commit resources to the 

NEPA review process. Second, the 

Department explained that by 

suspending its practice of issuing 

conditional decisions and ceasing to 

follow the order of precedence 

published on December 5, 2012, DOE 

would better be able to ensure prompt 

action on applications that are 

otherwise ready to proceed. Third, the 

Department explained that the proposed 

procedures would improve the quality 

of information on which DOE bases its 

decisions. Finally, the Department 

noted that suspending its practice of 

issuing conditional decisions would 

better allocate departmental resources 

by reducing the likelihood that the 

Department would be forced to act on 

applications with little prospect of 

proceeding. 

II. Public Comments 

The Department received 74 

comments in response to the Proposed 

Procedures Notice.4 Many of the 

comments expressed general support for 

or opposition to LNG exports or 

otherwise urged substantive changes to 

DOE’s public interest analysis. DOE 

officials have read and considered these 

comments carefully, but consider them 

outside the scope of the Proposed 

Procedures Notice, which addressed 

only whether DOE should suspend its 

current practice of issuing conditional 

decisions prior to completion of NEPA 

review. 

The remaining relevant comments 

generally fall into three groups: 

Comments on the rationale DOE 

provided for the proposed procedures, 

comments on the test proposed for 

when an application is ready for final 

decision, and comments on the timing 

of final decisionmaking once an 

application is ready for final action. 

A. Comments on the Rationale for the 

Proposed Procedures 

Public Comments: DOE’s first 

rationale advanced in support of the 

proposed procedural change was that 

conditional decisions no longer appear 

necessary for FERC or the majority of 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with NOTICES
48134 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 158 / Friday, August 15, 2014 / Notices 

5See Corpus Christi Liquefaction, LLC, FERC 

Docket No. CP12–507; Excelerate Liquefaction 

Solutions (Port Lavaca I), LLC et al., FERC Docket 

Nos. CP14–71, 72 & 73; Southern LNG Co. LLC, 

FERC Docket No. CP14–103; CE FLNG, FERC 

Docket No. PF13–11, Golden Pass Products LLC, 

FERC Docket No. PF13–14; Sabine Pass 

Liquefaction, LLC and Sabine Pass LNG, L.P., FERC 

Docket No. CP14–12; Magnolia LNG, LLC, FERC 

Docket No. PF13–9. In addition to these projects 

that have made substantial progress, two others 

have recently been accepted for pre-filing at FERC. 

See Gulf LNG Liquefaction Company, L.L.C., FERC 

Docket No. PF 13–4, Louisiana Energy, LLC, FERC 

Docket No. PF14–17. 

applicants to commit resources to the 

NEPA review process. Many 

commenters supported this claim. 

Several other commenters questioned it, 

however, observing that conditional 

decisions may have value for applicants 

even if they have already initiated 

NEPA review. Likewise, they asserted 

that conditional decisions may be of 

value to other stakeholders, such as 

financial parties, LNG purchasers, or 

foreign governments. 

DOE Response: DOE acknowledges 

that conditional decisions may hold 

value for some applicants and may 

supply useful information to third 

parties. Nevertheless, the justification 

for issuing conditional decisions before 

completing NEPA review is much 

weaker in an environment where 

applicants are willing to commit 

resources to NEPA review even without 

a conditional decision. In the 

approximately 18 months since we 

established the existing order of 

precedence, we have had an 

opportunity to observe industry 

developments, as well as the progress of 

numerous individual projects in the 

FERC-led NEPA review processes. We 

have seen numerous instances where 

applicants have proven willing to 

commit resources to NEPA review 

before having received a conditional 

authorization. As noted above, to date 

DOE has issued eight conditional 

authorizations (including one, Sabine 

Pass, which is now final) cumulatively 

authorizing non-FTA exports in a 

combined total of 10.52 billion cubic 

feet per day of natural gas (Bcf/d). Many 

of these applicants had made substantial 

progress in preparing resource reports 

for the NEPA review process before 

receiving their conditional 

authorizations. Likewise, among 

applicants that have not yet received a 

conditional decision, at least seven 

projects constituting 9.51 Bcf/d in 

requested export capacity have made 

considerable progress in the NEPA 

review process.5 These examples 

demonstrate that, broadly speaking, 

conditional decisions are no longer 

necessary for applicants to commit 

substantial resources to the NEPA 

review process. 

Public Comments: The second 

rationale advanced in support of the 

proposed procedural change was that it 

would ensure that applications 

otherwise ready for DOE action will not 

be held back by their position in the 

order of precedence. Many commenters 

voiced support for the proposed 

procedures for this reason. One 

commenter, however, asserted that 

under the proposed procedures, DOE 

will no longer concurrently evaluate 

whether applications are in the public 

interest while these applications are 

undergoing NEPA review. This 

commenter, therefore, concluded that 

the proposed procedures would 

lengthen DOE’s review time. This 

commenter also asserted that it is 

arbitrary for DOE to require the 

completion of NEPA review before DOE 

completes its public interest review. 

DOE Response: DOE wishes to clarify 

that applicants can and should apply 

concurrently to DOE and to FERC or 

MARAD. DOE will begin the process of 

evaluating whether an application is in 

the public interest prior to completion 

of NEPA review, but will not issue a 

final decision before the NEPA review is 

complete. The requirement that NEPA 

review be completed prior to a final 

public interest determination is not 

arbitrary, but rather flows from the most 

fundamental requirement in NEPA: that 

agencies consider environmental 

impacts prior to deciding to undertake 

a major federal action. See 10 CFR 

1021.210(b) (‘‘DOE shall complete its 

NEPA review for each DOE proposal 

before making a decision on the 

proposal.’’); see also Silentman v. 

Federal Power Commission, 566 F.2d 

237 (D.C. Cir. 1977) (a cooperating 

agency must await the lead agency’s 

completion of its impact statement 

before taking final action). 

Public Comments: The third rationale 

advanced in support of the proposed 

procedural change was that it would 

improve the quality of information on 

which DOE bases its decisions. One 

reason provided for why the proposed 

procedures would improve the quality 

of information is that, by restricting its 

decisions to applicants that have 

undertaken the considerable expense of 

providing the engineering and design 

information necessary to complete 

NEPA review, DOE would make its 

decisions on a cohort of projects that 

are, on average, more likely to be 

financed and built than those that have 

not completed NEPA review. By 

focusing on projects that are more likely 

to proceed, DOE reasoned that it would 

be better positioned to evaluate the 

cumulative impacts of its decisions on 

natural gas markets. One commenter 

rejected this reasoning, stating that 

applicants with the wherewithal to 

build LNG export facilities also have the 

wherewithal to complete the permitting 

process. 

DOE Response: The commenter’s 

observation that applicants with the 

wherewithal to build LNG export 

facilities also have the wherewithal to 

complete the permitting process 

supports rather than undermines DOE’s 

reasoning. DOE’s view is that LNG 

projects for which NEPA review is 

complete have already shown 

themselves more likely to advance to 

commercial operation than projects that 

have not yet commenced the NEPA 

process (or have stalled at that stage) for 

whatever reason. By eliminating the 

possibility that DOE will issue 

conditional decisions on applications 

that never complete the NEPA review 

process, the proposed procedures will 

help to focus DOE’s decisionmaking on 

projects that are more likely to proceed 

and, therefore, will benefit DOE’s ability 

to assess cumulative market impacts. 

Public Comments: DOE noted that it 

generally would be preferable to 

integrate the consideration of all public 

interest factors in a single, final order. 

Under existing procedures, DOE has 

focused on economic and international 

factors at the conditional decision stage 

and considered environmental factors at 

the final stage, once NEPA review is 

complete. Under the proposed 

procedures, DOE would evaluate all 

such public interest factors in one order. 

One commenter asserted that DOE failed 

to explain why it is generally preferable 

to integrate analysis of all public 

interest factors in a single order. 

DOE Response: DOE’s public interest 

determinations involve consideration of 

a wide range of factors. These public 

interest factors include economic, 

international, and environmental 

considerations that, under current 

practice, have been bifurcated between 

DOE’s conditional and final 

authorizations. In some instances, the 

bifurcation is not problematic because 

the issues are largely distinct. In other 

instances, however, there may be 

overlap between environmental and 

non-environmental issues that would be 

more efficiently and thoroughly 

resolved in a single order. For these 

reasons, DOE believes that it is generally 

preferable to consider these factors 

concurrently and to present them in a 

single analysis. Further, doing so 

demonstrates that each factor is given 

full consideration and allows DOE to 

communicate its decision to the public 

in a simpler, more comprehensible way. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 158 / Friday, August 15, 2014 / Notices 48135 

6The revised procedures will apply only to 

exports from the lower-48 states. In the Proposed 

Procedures Notice, DOE stated that no long-term 

applications to export LNG from Alaska were 

currently pending and, therefore, DOE could not 

say whether there may be unique features of 

Alaskan projects that would warrant exercise of the 

DOE’s discretionary authority to issue conditional 

decisions. After publishing the Proposed 

Procedures Notice, DOE received one application to 

export LNG from Alaska. See Alaska LNG Project 

LLC, Application for Long-Term Authorization to 

Export Liquefied Natural Gas, Docket No. 14–96– 

LNG (July 18, 2014). DOE will consider whether to 

issue a conditional decision on that application, or 

any future application to export from Alaska, in the 

context of those proceedings. 

B. Comments on the Test for When an 

Application is Ready for Final Decision 

Public Comments: As explained 

above, DOE proposed that it would act 

on applications in the order they 

become ready for final decision. DOE 

specified that an application is ready for 

final decision when DOE has completed 

the NEPA review and when DOE has 

sufficient information on which to base 

a public interest determination. One 

commenter recommended that the 

requirement that DOE has sufficient 

information on which to base a public 

interest determination be removed. This 

commenter asserted that, because the 

Natural Gas Act creates a rebuttable 

presumption in favor of authorizing 

imports and exports, DOE lacks the 

power to ensure that the record in a 

proceeding is complete before taking 

final action. 

DOE Response: In the revised 

procedures, DOE will retain the 

requirement that it have sufficient 

information on which to base a public 

interest determination as a predicate to 

final action. The commenter is correct 

that the Natural Gas Act creates a 

rebuttable presumption in favor of 

authorizing imports and exports. But 

that presumption does not remove 

DOE’s power to impose informational 

requirements on applicants or to decide 

when it has a complete record on which 

to base its decision. See, e.g., 10 CFR 

590.202, 590.203. 

Public Comments: DOE proposed that 

it would act on applications in the order 

they become ready for final decision 

and that an application is ready for final 

decision when DOE has completed the 

pertinent NEPA review. DOE further 

specified that the application will be 

deemed to have completed the pertinent 

NEPA review (1) for those projects 

requiring an EIS, 30 days after 

publication of a Final EIS, (2) for 

projects for which an EA has been 

prepared, upon publication by DOE of a 

Finding of No Significant Impact 

(FONSI), or (3) upon a determination by 

DOE that an application is eligible for a 

categorical exclusion pursuant to DOE’s 

regulations implementing NEPA, 10 

CFR 1021.410, Appx. A & B. 

Commenters urged DOE to clarify that 

the pertinent NEPA review may be one 

in which DOE serves as a cooperating 

agency and either FERC or MARAD 

serves as lead agency. Relatedly, one 

commenter sought clarification as to 

whether DOE intends to issue a FONSI 

in cases where it adopts an EA prepared 

by another agency, and whether DOE 

may accept a categorical exclusion 

determination made by another agency. 

DOE Response: The pertinent NEPA 

review referred to in the Proposed 

Procedures Notice may be one for which 

another agency is the lead agency and 

DOE is a cooperating agency, provided 

that DOE ultimately elects to adopt the 

EA or EIS produced by the lead agency. 

As a cooperating agency, DOE may 

adopt an EIS or EA prepared by another 

agency and need not re-publish those 

documents for additional comment. 40 

CFR 1506.3(c). Nevertheless, even when 

it is participating as a cooperating 

agency, DOE is ultimately responsible 

for its own NEPA compliance. 

Therefore, where another agency has 

prepared an EA or EIS that DOE has 

chosen to adopt, DOE must conduct its 

own independent analysis and issue its 

own FONSI or Record of Decision, 

respectively. Similarly, DOE must issue 

its own categorical exclusion 

determination. A categorical exclusion 

determination issued by another agency 

may inform DOE’s decisionmaking, but 

DOE may only determine that a 

proposed action is categorically 

excluded from NEPA review in 

accordance with its own regulations. 10 

CFR 1021.410, Appx. A & B. We note 

that DOE’s list of categorical exclusions 

applicable to specific agency actions 

includes: ‘‘approvals or disapprovals of 

new authorizations or amendments of 

existing authorizations to import or 

export natural gas under section 3 of the 

Natural Gas Act that involve minor 

operational changes (such as changes in 

natural gas throughput, transportation, 

and storage operations) but not new 

construction.’’ Id. Appx. B at B5.7. 

Public Comments: One commenter 

questioned why, for projects requiring 

an EIS, completion of the NEPA review 

process occurs 30 days after publication 

of the EIS rather than upon publication 

of the EIS. 

DOE Response: The CEQ regulations 

implementing NEPA generally prohibit 

agencies from making a final decision in 

reliance on an EIS until 30 days after 

publication by the Environmental 

Protection Agency of the notice of 

availability for the final EIS. 40 CFR 

1506.10(b)(2). In cases where DOE is a 

cooperating agency in the preparation of 

an EIS, DOE must also adopt the final 

EIS before it can issue a Record of 

Decision. 

C. Comments Related to the Timing of 

Final Decisions 

Public Comments: Numerous 

commenters urged DOE to establish a 

uniform deadline by which DOE will 

issue final decisions after an 

application’s NEPA review is complete. 

These commenters contend that a 

deadline would provide greater 

regulatory certainty enabling better 

planning and investment decisions. 

DOE Response: DOE is sympathetic to 

this concern. Indeed, one of the 

overriding purposes of the procedural 

changes announced in this notice is to 

enable prompt action on applications 

that are ready for final decision. 

However, DOE has several concerns 

with creating a uniform deadline. First, 

each application contains novel issues 

such that a deadline that is reasonable 

for the majority of cases may be 

unreasonable in an individual case. 

Second, DOE lacks control over when 

the NEPA review for applications is 

complete. Were the final EIS for several 

applications to be completed at or 

around the same time, compliance with 

a fixed deadline may be unworkable. 

For these reasons, DOE declines to 

create a deadline for final decisions in 

this notice. 

III. Revised Procedures 

For the reasons provided in the 

Proposed Procedures Notice and in this 

notice, DOE will implement the 

procedural changes substantially as 

proposed. Specifically, DOE will 

suspend its practice of issuing 

conditional decisions on applications to 

export LNG to non-FTA countries from 

the lower-48 states.6

DOE will no longer act in the 

published order of precedence, but will 

act on applications in the order they 

become ready for final action. An 

application is ready for final action 

when DOE has completed the pertinent 

NEPA review process and when DOE 

has sufficient information on which to 

base a public interest determination. For 

purposes of determining the order in 

which DOE will act on applications 

before it, DOE will use the following 

criteria: (1) For those projects requiring 

an EIS, 30 days after publication of a 

Final EIS, (2) for projects for which an 

EA has been prepared, upon publication 

by DOE of a Finding of No Significant 

Impact, or (3) upon a determination by 

DOE that an application is eligible for a 

categorical exclusion pursuant to DOE’s 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with NOTICES
48136 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 158 / Friday, August 15, 2014 / Notices 

regulations implementing NEPA, 10 

CFR 1021.410, Appx. A & B. 

These revised procedures will not 

affect the continued validity of the 

conditional orders the Department has 

already issued. For those applications, 

the Department will proceed as 

explained in the conditional orders: 

When the NEPA review process for 

those projects is complete, the 

Department will reconsider the 

conditional authorization in light of the 

information gathered in the 

environmental review and take 

appropriate final action. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on August 11, 

2014. 

Christopher A. Smith, 

Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary, Office 

of Fossil Energy. 

[FR Doc. 2014–19364 Filed 8–14–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission 

[Docket No. DI14–3–000] 

Chenega Bay Utilities; Notice of 

Declaration of Intention and Soliciting 

Comments, Protests, and/or Motions 

To Intervene 

Take notice that the following 

application has been filed with the 

Commission and is available for public 

inspection: 

a. Application Type: Declaration of 

Intention 

b. Docket No: DI14–3–000 

c. Date Filed: June 6, 2014 

d. Applicant: Chenega Bay Utilities 

e. Name of Project: Chenega 

Hydroelectric Project 

f. Location: The proposed Chenega 

Hydroelectric Project will be located on 

Anderson Creek immediately 

downstream from the city water supply 

dam, near the village of Chenega Bay, 

Alaska, affecting T. 001S, R. 008E, S. 23 

and 26, Seward Meridian. 

g. Filed Pursuant to: Section 23(b)(1) 

of the Federal Power Act, 16 USC 817(b) 

(2012). 

h. Applicant Contact: Charles 

Totemoff, Chenega Bay Utilities, 3000 C 

Street, Suite 301, Anchorage, AK 99503; 

telephone: (907) 277–5706, cwt@

chenegacorp.com mail to: mpdpe@

aol.com. 

i. FERC Contact: Any questions on 

this notice should be addressed to 

Jennifer Polardino, (202) 502–6437, or 

Email address: Jennifer.Polardino@

ferc.gov 

j. Deadline for filing comments, 

protests, and/or motions is: 30 days 

from the issuance of this notice by the 

Commission. 

Comments, Motions to Intervene, and 

Protests may be filed electronically via 

the Internet. See 18 CFR 

385.2001(a)(l)(iii) (2014) and the 

instructions on the Commission’s Web 

site under the ‘‘eFiling’’ link. If unable 

to be filed electronically, documents 

may be paper-filed. To paper-file, an 

original and eight copies should be 

mailed to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, 

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 

888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 

20426. For more information on how to 

submit these types of filings, please go 

to the Commission’s Web site located at 

http://www.ferc.gov/filingcomments.asp. 

Please include the docket number 

(DI14–03–000) on any comments, 

protests, and/or motions filed. 

k. Description of Project: The 

proposed 60-kW run-of-river Chenega 

Hydroelectric Project will consist of: (1) 

An intake chamber, making use of 

Anderson Creek (2) a 14-inch-diameter, 

1600-foot-long pipe, which will be 

buried a minimum of three feet under 

the existing roadway and will convey 

the water from the intake to the 

powerhouse; (3) a 16 feet by 20 feet 

powerhouse at an elevation of 64 feet 

above mean sea level; (4) a twin-jet 

Pelton turbine rated at 170 feet of net 

head coupled to a generator with an 

average inflow of 5.4 cfs; (5) a 24-inch 

diameter, 40-foot long culvert pipe (6) a 

4.5-foot-wide by one-foot-deep stream 

channel excavated from the existing 

ground (7) a screening box and new 

constructed spillway; (8) and 

appurtenant facilities. 

When a Declaration of Intention is 

filed with the Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission, the Federal Power Act 

requires the Commission to investigate 

and determine if the project would 

affect the interests of interstate or 

foreign commerce. The Commission also 

determines whether or not the project: 

(1) Would be located on a navigable 

waterway; (2) would occupy public 

lands or reservations of the United 

States; (3) would utilize surplus water 

or water power from a government dam; 

or (4) would be located on a nonnavigable stream over which Congress 

has Commerce Clause jurisdiction and 

would be constructed or enlarged after 

1935. 

l. Locations of the Application: Copies 

of this filing are on file with the 

Commission and are available for public 

inspection. This filing may 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 field to access the 

document. You may also register online 

at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/

esubscription.asp to be notified via 

email of new filings and issuances 

related to this or other pending projects. 

For assistance, call 1–866–208–3676 or 

email FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov for 

TTY, call (202) 502–8659. A copy is also 

available for inspection and 

reproduction at the address in item (h) 

above. 

m. Individuals desiring to be included 

on the Commission’s mailing list should 

so indicate by writing to the Secretary 

of the Commission. 

n. Comments, Protests, or Motions to 

Intervene—Anyone may submit 

comments, a protest, or a motion to 

intervene in accordance with the 

requirements of Rules of Practice and 

Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211, .214. 

In determining the appropriate action to 

take, the Commission will consider all 

protests or other comments filed, but 

only those who file a motion to 

intervene in accordance with the 

Commission’s Rules may become a 

party to the proceeding. Any comments, 

protests, or motions to intervene must 

be received on or before the specified 

comment date for the particular 

application. 

o. Filing and Service of Responsive 

Documents—All filings must bear in all 

capital letters the title ‘‘COMMENTS’’, 

‘‘PROTESTS’’, AND/OR ‘‘MOTIONS TO 

INTERVENE’’, as applicable, and the 

Docket Number of the particular 

application to which the filing refers. A 

copy of any Motion to Intervene must 

also be served upon each representative 

of the Applicant specified in the 

particular application. 

p. Agency Comments—Federal, state, 

and local agencies are invited to file 

comments on the described application. 

A copy of the application may be 

obtained by agencies directly from the 

Applicant. If an agency does not file 

comments within the time specified for 

filing comments, it will be presumed to 

have no comments. One copy of an 

agency’s comments must also be sent to 

the Applicant’s representatives. 

Dated: August 7, 2014. 

Kimberly D. Bose, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2014–19302 Filed 8–14–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6717–01–P 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with NOTICES