Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 107 / Wednesday, June 4, 2014 / Notices 32261 

invite comments on the LCA GHG 

Report, as applied to the pending 

matters. 

The LCA GHG Report 

The LCA GHG Report was conducted 

by the National Energy Technology 

Laboratory (NETL), a DOE laboratory. 

The LCA GHG Report estimates the life 

cycle GHG emissions of U.S. LNG 

exports to Europe and Asia, compared 

with alternative supplies, to produce 

electric power. For additional 

information on the natural gas model, 

refer to the NETL report, ‘‘Life Cycle 

Analysis of Natural Gas Extraction and 

Power Generation,’’ which is available 

at http://energy.gov/fe/LCA-GHGReport. 

The primary questions addressed by 

the LCA GHG Report are: 

• How does exported liquefied 

natural gas (LNG) from the U.S. compare 

with regional coal (or other LNG 

sources) for electric power generation in 

Europe and Asia, from a life cycle 

greenhouse gas (GHG) perspective? 

• How do those results compare with 

natural gas sourced from Russia and 

delivered to the same European and 

Asian markets via pipeline? 

To address these questions, NETL 

applied its life cycle analysis (LCA) 

model to represent unconventional 

natural gas production and 

transportation to a U.S. Gulf Coast 

liquefaction facility, liquefaction of the 

gas at the facility, and transportation of 

the LNG to an import terminal in 

Rotterdam, Netherlands, to represent a 

European market, and to an import 

terminal in Shanghai, China, to 

represent Asian Markets. LNG produced 

in Algeria was modeled to represent an 

alternative regional LNG European 

market supply source with a destination 

of Rotterdam and LNG from Darwin, 

Australia was modeled to represent an 

alternative regional LNG Asian market 

supply source with a destination of 

Osaka, Japan. Conventional natural gas 

extracted from the Yamal region of 

Siberia in Russia was modeled as the 

regional pipeline gas alternative for both 

the European and Asian markets. 

Regional coal production and 

consumption in Germany and China 

were also modeled. Scenario specific 

variability was modeled by adjusting 

methane leakage for natural gas 

production, coal type (bituminous and 

sub-bituminous), transport distance 

(ocean tanker for LNG and rail for coal), 

and power plant efficiency. 

DOE is not establishing a new 

proceeding or docket by today’s 

issuance and the submission of 

comments in response to this Notice 

will not make commenters parties to 

any of the pending 25 cases. Persons 

with an interest in the outcome of one 

or more of the 25 pending matters have 

been given an opportunity to intervene 

in or protest those pending matters by 

complying with the procedures 

established in the respective notices of 

application issued in the pending 25 

matters and published in the Federal 

Register. The record in the 25 pending 

proceedings will include all comments 

received in response to this Notice. 

Comments will be reviewed on a 

consolidated basis for purposes of 

hearing, and decisions will be issued on 

a case-by-case basis. 

Public Comment 

In response to this Notice, any person 

may file comments. DOE prefers 

comments to be filed using the online 

form (method 1). However, for those 

lacking access to the Internet, comments 

may be filed using method 2 or 3. The 

three methods are: (1) Submission of 

comments using the online form at 

http://energy.gov/fe/LCA-GHG-Report; 

(2) mailing comments to the Office of 

Oil and Gas Global Security and Supply 

at the address listed in ADDRESSES; and 

(3) delivering comments (by hand or 

courier) to the Office of Oil and Gas 

Global Security and Supply at the 

address listed in ADDRESSES. All filings 

must include a reference to LCA GHG 

Report Comments. PLEASE NOTE: 

DOE/FE is not accepting any comments 

by email. Any hardcopy filing submitted 

that is greater in length than 50 pages 

must also include, at the time of the 

filing, a digital copy on disk of the 

entire submission in PDF format. Please 

do not include any active hyperlinks or 

password protection in any of the 

electronic documents related to the 

filing. All electronic filings submitted to 

DOE must follow these guidelines to 

ensure that all documents are filed in a 

timely manner. 

DOE will consider all comments 

received until the close of the comment 

period. Comments must be limited to 

the issues and potential impacts 

addressed in the LCA GHG Report, and 

DOE may disregard comments that are 

not germane. 

Commenters should be advised that 

filings with DOE shall be subject to 

public disclosure, so submissions 

should be free of any personally 

identifiable information (PII) or other 

information that the individual does not 

wish to be revealed in a public forum. 

Instructions for submitting comments 

are available at http://energy.gov/fe/ 

LCA-GHG-Report. All comments filed in 

response to this Notice will be publicly 

available on the DOE/FE Web site 

(http://energy.gov/fe/LCA-GHG-Report). 

The LCA GHG Report and other 

relevant documents are available for 

download at http://energy.gov/fe/LCAGHG-Report 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. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on May 29, 

2014. 

Christopher A. Smith, 

Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary, Office 

of Fossil Energy. 

[FR Doc. 2014–12927 Filed 6–3–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Proposed Procedures for Liquefied 

Natural Gas Export Decisions 

AGENCY: Office of Fossil Energy, 

Department of Energy. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed procedures. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of 

Energy (DOE or the Department) 

proposes to act on applications to export 

liquefied natural gas (LNG) only after 

the review required by the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) has 

been completed, suspending its practice 

of issuing conditional decisions prior to 

final authorization decisions. 

DATES: Comments are to be filed using 

procedures detailed in the Submission 

of Comments section no later than 4:30 

p.m., Eastern Time, July 21, 2014. 

ADDRESSES: Interested persons may 

submit comments by any of the 

following methods: 

Electronic Filing Using Online Form: 

http://energy.gov/fe/Procedures. 

Regular Mail: U.S. Department of 

Energy (FE–34), Attn: Proposed 

Procedures, Office of Oil and Gas Global 

Security and Supply, Office of Fossil 

Energy, P.O. Box 44375, Washington, 

DC 20026–4375. 

Hand Delivery or Private Delivery 

Services (e.g., FedEx, UPS, etc.): U.S. 

Department of Energy (FE–34), Attn: 

Proposed Procedures 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: 

John Anderson, 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 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
32262 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 107 / Wednesday, June 4, 2014 / Notices 

1The Department of Energy Organization Act 

transferred jurisdiction over import and export 

authorizations from the Federal Power Commission 

to the Secretary of Energy. 42 U.S.C. § 7151. 

2See, e.g., Rochester Gas and Electric Corp., DOE/ 

FE Order No. 503 (May 16, 1991); Brooklyn Union 

Gas Company, et al., DOE/FE Order No. 368–A 

(1990); Atlantic Richfield Company, DOE/FE Order 

No. 301–B (1990); Midland Cogeneration Venture 

Limited Partnership, DOE/FE Order No. 305–A 

(1990); Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company, DOE 

Order No. 254–A (1989). 

3 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 

Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585, 

(202) 586–5600. 

Samuel Walsh, U.S. Department of 

Energy (GC–1), Office of the General 

Counsel, Forrestal Building, 1000 

Independence Avenue SW., 

Washington, DC 20585, (202) 586– 

6732. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

a. Roles of the Agencies With Respect to 

Natural Gas Exports and Related 

Facilities 

Section 3(a) of the Natural Gas Act 

(NGA), 15 U.S.C. § 717b(a), gives the 

Department of Energy 1 responsibility 

for authorizing exports of natural gas to 

foreign nations. The nature of the 

Department’s review of applications for 

export authorization depends on the 

country to which the natural gas is 

proposed to be exported. Exports to 

countries with which the United States 

has a free trade agreement (FTA) 

requiring national treatment for trade in 

natural gas (FTA countries) are deemed 

in the public interest by statute and 

must be authorized ‘‘without 

modification or delay.’’ 15 U.S.C. 

717b(c). This notice does not concern 

applications to export natural gas to 

FTA countries. For exports to countries 

with which the United States does not 

have a such an agreement (non-FTA 

countries), the Department must 

conduct an informal adjudication and 

then grant the application unless the 

Department finds that the proposed 

export will not be consistent with the 

public interest. 

In addition to an authorization from 

the Department under Section 3(a) of 

the NGA, an applicant intending to 

export natural gas from a new or 

modified LNG terminal must also obtain 

approval to site, construct, and operate 

the terminal. For LNG terminals located 

onshore or in state waters, the applicant 

must obtain approval from the Federal 

Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) 

pursuant to Section 3(e) of the NGA. 15 

U.S.C. 717b(e). For LNG terminals 

located offshore beyond state waters, the 

applicant must obtain approval from the 

Maritime Administration within the 

Department of Transportation (MARAD) 

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). To date, all but two 

of the 26 large-scale non-FTA LNG 

export applications to DOE have 

proposed exports from LNG terminals 

located onshore or in state waters and 

therefore have fallen within FERC’s 

jurisdiction. In most cases, these 

applicants have applied to DOE and 

FERC in parallel, which has enabled the 

two agencies to conduct concurrent 

reviews under the NGA. 

An application to export natural gas 

to non-FTA countries also requires 

review of potential environmental 

impacts under the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 42 

U.S.C. 4321 et seq., as does an 

application to site, construct, and 

operate an LNG terminal. Therefore, 

both DOE and FERC (or MARAD) must 

satisfy the applicable requirements of 

NEPA, which typically result in the 

preparation or adoption of an 

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) 

or an Environmental Assessment (EA) 

describing the potential environmental 

impacts associated with the proposed 

authorization before taking final action. 

Nearly all of the non-FTA export 

proposals currently pending before DOE 

that have begun the NEPA review 

process are seeking parallel 

authorizations from FERC. In those 

cases, FERC is serving as the lead 

agency for purposes of preparing the 

environmental review documents and 

DOE is serving as a cooperating agency. 

See 40 CFR 1501.4, 1504.5. 

b. DOE Procedures for Non-FTA Export 

Applications 

DOE regulations at 10 CFR part 590 

describe DOE’s process for reviewing 

non-FTA export applications. This 

process begins with the submission of 

an application, the required contents of 

which are described at 10 CFR 590.202. 

Upon receipt, DOE reviews the 

application for completeness. If the 

application is complete, DOE publishes 

a notice in the Federal Register inviting 

public participation and comment. 10 

CFR 590.205. Upon completing its 

review of all comments and protests 

received in response to the notice of 

application, all information generated in 

the NEPA review process, and any other 

information entered into the 

administrative record at DOE’s initiative 

or otherwise, DOE issues an order 

deciding whether the proposed export is 

consistent with the public interest. 

Parties then have 30 days to seek 

rehearing or clarification of DOE’s order. 

15 U.S.C. § 717r(a); 10 CFR 590.501. 

DOE regulations also contemplate the 

issuance of conditional decisions on a 

discretionary basis prior to the 

completion of DOE’s review process. 

Section 590.402 of DOE’s regulations, 

entitled ‘‘Conditional orders,’’ states: 

‘‘The Assistant Secretary may issue a 

conditional order at any time during a 

proceeding prior to issuance of a final 

opinion and order. The conditional 

order shall include the basis for not 

issuing a final opinion and order at that 

time and a statement of findings and 

conclusions. The findings and 

conclusions shall be based solely on the 

official record of the proceeding.’’ 

In 1981, when DOE proposed this 

provision, it explained that a 

‘‘conditional decision would be 

appropriate in cases where a need exists 

for an indication of [DOE’s] preliminary 

findings and conclusions, but additional 

information is needed before a final 

decision and order can be rendered.’’ 

Dep’t of Energy, Import and Export of 

Natural Gas; New Administrative 

Procedures; Proposed Rule, 46 FR 44696 

(Sept. 4, 1981). The Department noted 

the interconnected regulatory authority 

possessed by DOE and FERC, and the 

benefit that conditional decisions may 

hold for FERC. The Department 

explained that ‘‘[s]ince decisions on 

such applications are usually major 

Federal actions significantly affecting 

the quality of the human environment 

within the meaning of [NEPA], an 

environmental impact statement (EIS) 

would usually be prepared to assess the 

impacts of and alternatives to the 

proposed project. The EIS would then 

be used by both FERC and [DOE] in 

making their respective decisions on the 

application. Since the terminal facilities 

potentially would involve the larger 

environmental impact, the FERC would 

generally be the lead agency for 

preparing an EIS. Before expending the 

time and resources needed to develop 

an EIS, the FERC would benefit from a 

preliminary indication from [DOE] 

regarding consistency of the importation 

with the public interest.’’ Id. at 44700. 

In the years following, DOE issued 

conditional authorizations on numerous 

occasions.2 DOE typically issued these 

conditional authorizations after 

completion of the notice and comment 

process, but before completion of NEPA 

review. DOE has also, in the past three 

years, issued seven conditional 

authorizations for exports of LNG to 

non-FTA countries.3 In these orders, 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 107 / Wednesday, June 4, 2014 / Notices 32263 

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). 

4See, e.g., Jordan Cove Energy Project, L.P., DOE/ 

FE Order No. 3413 (March 24, 2014) at 15. 

5The Department currently has no long-term 

applications before it to export LNG from Alaska. 

Lacking any such applications, the Department 

cannot say whether there may be unique features 

of Alaskan projects that would warrant exercise of 

the Department’s discretionary authority to issue 

conditional decisions. Accordingly, this notice does 

not address the treatment of applications to export 

natural gas from Alaska. 

6See Oregon LNG, FERC Docket No. CP09–6; 

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. 

DOE has assessed all factors relating to 

the public interest other than 

environmental factors and has 

explained that, when the environmental 

review is complete, DOE will reconsider 

the conditional authorization in light of 

the information gathered in the 

environmental review before taking 

final action.4

c. The Published Order of Precedence 

On December 5, 2012, the Department 

published the order in which it 

intended to take up applications to 

export LNG to non-FTA countries. The 

order, which the Department has 

updated from time to time, grouped the 

pending applications into three 

categories. The group of applications 

placed first were those for which the 

applicant had received approval from 

FERC to use the FERC pre-filing process 

on or before December 5, 2012. 

Receiving this approval from FERC 

means that an applicant has initiated 

the NEPA review process, which, as 

explained above, is a predicate for final 

action by both FERC and DOE. The 

group of applications placed second 

were those that had not yet initiated 

NEPA review but had already applied to 

DOE. The group placed third consisted 

of all applicants that had yet to apply to 

DOE as of December 5, 2012, regardless 

of their status in the NEPA review 

process. Within each group, 

applications were and have continued 

to be placed in order of submission to 

DOE. 

II. Discussion 

a. Proposed Procedures 

In this notice, the Department is 

proposing to suspend its practice of 

issuing conditional decisions on 

applications to export LNG from the 

lower-48 states 5 to non-FTA countries 

prior to completion of NEPA review. 

However, DOE is not proposing to 

amend 10 CFR 590.402 and will retain 

its discretion to issue conditional 

decisions in the future should the 

reasoning set forth in this Notice no 

longer apply. 

Under the proposed procedure, DOE 

would no longer proceed in the 

published order of precedence, but 

would act on applications in the order 

in which 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 this order, an application 

will be deemed to have completed the 

NEPA review process: (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 regulations 

implementing NEPA, 10 CFR 1021.410, 

Appx. A & B. The test for whether an 

application has completed NEPA review 

will be applied as stated above and 

without regard for whether FERC, 

MARAD, or DOE has served as lead 

agency in preparation of the 

environmental review document. 

This proposed procedure, if adopted, 

would 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. Further, the 

Department will continue to act on 

requests for conditional authorizations 

during the period when the procedures 

proposed in this notice are under 

consideration. 

b. Rationale 

The Department is proposing the 

procedure described above for four 

reasons: first, because conditional 

decisions no longer appear necessary for 

FERC or the majority of applicants to 

devote resources to NEPA review; 

second, because doing so will prioritize 

acting upon applications that are 

otherwise ready to proceed; third, 

because doing so will facilitate 

decisionmaking informed by better and 

more complete information; and fourth, 

because doing so will better allocate 

agency resources. 

The Department’s original stated 

justification for issuing conditional 

authorizations—to provide greater 

certainty for FERC—no longer appears 

to apply. FERC has proceeded with the 

NEPA review process for many LNG 

terminals that have yet to receive 

conditional non-FTA authorizations 

from DOE. Similarly, the applicants 

themselves have, in general, been 

willing to devote time and resources to 

the NEPA review process without 

having received conditional 

authorizations. In addition to the seven 

applications comprising a total of 9.27 

billion cubic feet per day (Bcf/d) in 

export authority to non-FTA countries 

that DOE has already approved either 

finally or conditionally, there are 

another 8 projects comprising 10.82 Bcf/ 

d in requested non-FTA export 

authority that are well into the NEPA 

review process without having received 

a conditional authorization.6

Further, the proposed procedure will 

ensure that applications otherwise ready 

to proceed will not be held back by their 

position in the order of precedence. 

While the first grouping of applications 

in the order of precedence was partially 

determined by the applicants’ having 

initiated NEPA review, over time the 

order of precedence is likely to bear less 

of a direct relationship to the applicants’ 

progress in NEPA review. Indeed, it is 

likely that if DOE were to continue on 

its current course in the published order 

of precedence, DOE would act on some 

applications that have yet to initiate 

NEPA review before acting on others 

that have already finished NEPA review. 

By removing the intermediate step of 

conditional decisions and setting the 

order of DOE decisionmaking based on 

readiness for final action, DOE will 

avoid the possibility of delayed action 

on applications that are otherwise ready 

to proceed. 

The proposed procedure is also likely 

to improve the quality of information on 

which DOE bases its decisions for three 

reasons. First, by considering economic 

issues closer in time to when the project 

is ready to commence construction, 

DOE will be able to base its decision on 

more current data than when it issues a 

conditional decision, which could 

potentially occur years before NEPA 

review for the application is complete. 

Second, by acting only on applications 

for which NEPA review has been 

completed, DOE will be in a better 

position to judge the cumulative market 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
32264 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 107 / Wednesday, June 4, 2014 / Notices 

7See, FERC, Office of Energy Projects, Guidance 

Manual for Environmental Report Preparation (Aug. 

2002), available at http://www.ferc.gov/industries/

gas/enviro/erpman.pdf (describing required 

contents of Resource Report 13). 

impacts of its authorizations in its 

public interest review. Completion of 

the NEPA review process requires, 

among other things, preparation of 

engineering and design plans at 

considerable expense to the applicant.7

An applicant’s willingness and 

capability to make such expenditures is 

indicative of the applicant’s willingness 

and capability to complete the proposed 

project. Therefore, while it is surely not 

the case that all projects for which 

NEPA review is completed will be 

financed and constructed, projects that 

have undertaken the expense to 

complete NEPA review are, as a group, 

more likely to proceed than those that 

have not. Third, DOE believes that, 

while it may be warranted in some 

circumstances to bifurcate the 

consideration of environmental factors 

and all other factors affecting the public 

interest in two separate orders, it is 

generally preferable to integrate the 

consideration of all public interest 

factors in a single order. 

Declining to issue conditional 

decisions will also better allocate 

departmental resources. Applying for an 

export authorization from DOE is 

relatively inexpensive; it requires a 

small application fee and modest 

informational requirements. For that 

reason, some companies may view it as 

advantageous to file an application with 

DOE even if they foresee only a low 

probability that they will ultimately 

undergo NEPA review and complete the 

application process. By acting only on 

applications that are ready for final 

action, DOE will likely avoid devoting 

resources to applications that have little 

prospect of proceeding. These saved 

resources can be better deployed to 

providing timely action on applications 

that are furthest along in the regulatory 

review process. 

III. Public Participation 

A. Submission of Comments 

In response to this notice, any person 

may file comments. DOE prefers 

comments to be filed using the 

following online form (method 1). 

However, for those lacking access to the 

Internet, comments may be filed using 

method 2 or 3. The three methods are: 

(1) Submission of comments using the 

on-line form at http://energy.gov/fe/ 

Procedures; (2) mailing comments to the 

Office of Oil and Gas Global Security 

and Supply at the address listed in 

ADDRESSES; or (3) delivering comments 

(by hand or courier) to the Office of Oil 

and Gas Global Security and Supply at 

the address listed in ADDRESSES. All 

filings must include a reference to 

Notice of Change of Procedures. 

PLEASE NOTE: DOE/FE is not 

accepting any comments by email. Any 

hardcopy filing submitted greater in 

length than 50 pages must also include, 

at the time of the filing, a digital copy 

on disk of the entire submission in PDF 

format. Please do not include any active 

hyperlinks or password protection in 

any of the electronic documents related 

to the filing. All electronic filings 

submitted to DOE must follow these 

guidelines to ensure that all documents 

are filed in a timely manner. All 

comments filed in response to this 

Notice will be publicly available on the 

DOE/FE Web site (http://energy.gov/fe/ 

Procedures) and on 

www.regulations.gov. 

While this invitation to comment 

covers a specific issue, DOE may 

disregard comments that are not 

germane to the present inquiry. 

Commenters should be advised that 

filings with DOE shall be subject to 

public disclosure, so submissions 

should be free of any personally 

identifiable information (PII) or other 

information that the individual does not 

wish to be revealed in a public forum. 

Any hardcopy filings are available 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. All 

comments filed will also be available 

electronically by going to the following 

DOE/FE Web address: http://energy.gov/ 

fe/Procedures. 

DOE will accept comments no later 

than the date provided at the beginning 

of this notice. After the close of the 

comment period, DOE will review the 

comments received and decide whether 

to implement the proposed policy. 

According to 10 CFR part 1004.11, 

any person submitting information that 

he or she believes to be confidential and 

exempt by law from public disclosure 

should submit two copies: one copy of 

the document should have all the 

information believed to be confidential 

deleted. DOE will make its own 

determination as to the confidential 

status of the information and treat it 

according to its determination. 

Factors of interest to DOE when 

evaluating requests to treat submitted 

information as confidential include (1) a 

description of the items; (2) whether 

and why such items are customarily 

treated as confidential within the 

industry; (3) whether the information is 

generally known or available from 

public sources; (4) whether the 

information has previously been made 

available to others without obligations 

concerning its confidentiality; (5) an 

explanation of the competitive injury to 

the submitting persons which would 

result from public disclosure; (6) a date 

after which such information might no 

longer be considered confidential; and 

(7) why disclosure of the information 

would be contrary to the public interest. 

B. Issues on Which DOE Seeks 

Comments 

DOE welcomes comments on all 

aspects of the proposed procedures, 

including its likely impact on applicants 

and other stakeholders. The Department 

invites all interested parties to submit in 

writing by July 21, 2014 comments and 

information on matters addressed in this 

notice. After the expiration of the period 

for submitting written statements, the 

Department will consider all comments 

and additional information that is 

obtained from interested parties or 

through further analyses, and it will 

prepare a final procedure statement. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on May 29, 

2014. 

Christopher A. Smith, 

Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary, Office 

of Fossil Energy. 

[FR Doc. 2014–12932 Filed 6–3–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission 

[Docket No. CP14–487–000] 

ANR Pipeline Company; Notice of 

Application 

Take notice that on May 13, 2014, 

ANR Pipeline (ANR), 717 Texas Street, 

Houston, Texas 77002–2761, filed an 

application pursuant to sections 7(b) 

and 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act and 

sections 157.5, 157.7 and 157.18 of the 

Commission’s regulations for 

authorization to implement its proposed 

2014 Storage Realignment to reduce the 

capacity at two storage fields (South 

Chester Storage Field and Central 

Charlton Storage Field) and authority to 

realign and revise the capacity 

parameters at five storage fields (the 

Lincoln-Freeman Storage Field, the 

Goodwell Storage Field, Reed City 

Storage Field, Winfield Storage Field, 

Loreed Storage Field) while maintaining 

the same aggregate level of working 

capacity on the system. Additionally, 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES