Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 37 / Thursday, February 24, 2022 / Notices 10355 

1 49 U.S.C. app. 1 (1988). 

2 Id. § 15(1). 

3 Id. § 3(1). 

4 Id. § 1(4). 

5Suncor Mktg. Inc. v. Platte Pipe Line Co., 132 

FERC ¶ 61,242, at P 24 (2010). 

6 Id. P 26. In a simplified example, if a pipeline’s 

available capacity per cycle is 100 barrels and 

Shipper A and Shipper B each nominate 100 

barrels, each shipper would be allocated 50 barrels. 

If in the next cycle, Shippers A and B each 

nominate 100 barrels again, but new Shippers C and 

D also each nominate 100 barrels, each shipper 

would be allocated 25 barrels. 

7 Id. P 25. In a simplified example, assume that 

a pipeline’s available capacity per cycle is 100 

barrels and that Shipper A and Shipper B each 

nominate 100 barrels. Assume also that, over the 

prior 12 months, Shipper A shipped 900 barrels and 

Shipper B shipped 300 barrels. If Shipper A and 

Shipper B each nominate 100 barrels in a particular 

cycle, then Shipper A would be allocated 75 barrels 

of the 100 available barrels of capacity (reflecting 

its historical usage of 75% of total usage over the 

past year) and Shipper B would be allocated 25 

barrels of the 100 available barrels of capacity 

(reflecting its historical usage of 25% of total usage 

over the past year). 

8See Colonial Pipeline Co., 156 FERC ¶ 61,001, at 

PP 19–24 (2016); Suncor, 132 FERC ¶ 61,242 at P 

25; Platte Pipe Line Co., 117 FERC ¶ 61,296, at P 

46 (2006). 

9See Colonial, 156 FERC ¶ 61,001 at P 24; Platte, 

117 FERC ¶ 61,296 at P 56. 

10Refined petroleum products include motor 

gasoline, jet fuel, diesel, naphtha, and kerosene. 

11Natural gas liquids include propane, butane, 

ethane, and natural gasoline. 

can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/ 

docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For 

other information, call (866) 208–3676 

(toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502–8659. 

Dated: February 17, 2022. 

Debbie-Anne A. Reese, 

Deputy Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2022–03913 Filed 2–23–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6717–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission 

[Docket No. AD22–7–000] 

Oil Pipeline Capacity Allocation Issues 

and Anomalous Conditions 

AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission, Department of Energy. 

ACTION: Notice of inquiry. 

SUMMARY: In this Notice of Inquiry, the 

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

(Commission) seeks comment on oil 

pipeline capacity allocation issues that 

arise when anomalous conditions affect 

the demand for oil pipeline capacity. In 

addition, the Commission seeks 

comment on what actions, if any, the 

Commission should consider to address 

those allocation issues. 

DATES: Initial Comments are due April 

25, 2022, and Reply Comments are due 

May 25, 2022. 

ADDRESSES: Comments, identified by 

docket number, may be filed in the 

following ways. Electronic filing 

through http://www.ferc.gov, is 

preferred. 

• Electronic Filing: Documents must 

be filed in acceptable native 

applications and print-to-PDF, but not 

in scanned or picture format. 

• For those unable to file 

electronically, comments may be filed 

by USPS mail or by hand (including 

courier) delivery. 

Æ Mail via U.S. Postal Service Only: 

Addressed to: Federal Energy 

Regulatory Commission, Secretary of the 

Commission, 888 First Street NE, 

Washington, DC 20426. 

Æ Hand (including courier) delivery: 

Deliver to: Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission, 12225 Wilkins Avenue, 

Rockville, MD 20852. 

The Comment Procedures Section of 

this document contains more detailed 

filing procedures. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Adrianne Cook (Technical Information), 

Office of Energy Market Regulation, 

Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission, 888 First Street NE, 

Washington, DC 20426, (202) 502– 

8849, Adrianne.Cook@ferc.gov 

Caitlin Tweed (Legal Information), 

Office of the General Counsel, Federal 

Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 

First Street NE, Washington, DC 

20426, (202) 502–8073, 

Caitlin.Tweed@ferc.gov 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 1. In this 

Notice of Inquiry, the Federal Energy 

Regulatory Commission (Commission) 

seeks to explore oil pipeline capacity 

allocation issues that arise when 

anomalous conditions affect the demand 

for oil pipeline capacity and what 

actions, if any, the Commission should 

consider to address those allocation 

issues. Specifically, the Commission 

seeks public comment on anomalous 

conditions and their potential impacts 

on oil pipeline capacity allocation, as 

well as whether there are changes to the 

Commission’s existing policies (such as 

those regarding prorationing) that the 

Commission should consider to mitigate 

these impacts. The Commission also 

seeks comment on the effects of recent 

anomalous conditions—those arising 

from the COVID–19 pandemic—on the 

availability of pipeline capacity for 

transporting jet fuel. 

I. Background 

A. Allocation of Capacity 

2. Interstate oil pipelines are regulated 

as common carriers subject to the 

Interstate Commerce Act (ICA).1

Accordingly, oil pipeline rates, terms, 

and conditions of service must be just 

and reasonable 2 and nondiscriminatory.3 Furthermore, an oil 

pipeline is obligated to provide 

transportation upon reasonable request.4

3. Prorationing is the mechanism that 

oil pipelines use to allocate capacity 

among shippers when their total 

nominations exceed the pipeline’s 

capacity. The Commission does not 

prescribe a uniform prorationing 

methodology, but a pipeline’s 

methodology must be consistent with 

the ICA.5

4. Historically, oil pipelines have 

employed two general types of 

prorationing methodologies: Pro rata 

and history-based. A pro rata 

methodology awards available capacity 

to shippers in proportion to their 

nominations each nomination cycle, 

regardless of how much service, if any, 

they have taken in the past.6 In contrast, 

a history-based methodology gives 

preference to shippers with a history of 

shipping on the pipeline.7 However, the 

Commission has required pipelines 

using this methodology to allow all 

shippers the opportunity to develop a 

record of transportation on the pipeline 

so as to attain preferred historical 

shipper status.8 When a pipeline uses a 

history-based methodology, it must 

reserve a portion of its capacity for new 

shippers.9

B. Anomalous Conditions 

5. Oil pipelines serve a critical 

function transporting crude oil, refined 

products,10 and natural gas liquids.11

Pipelines move crude oil from 

production areas to refineries and 

refined products to markets for 

consumption. Pipeline transportation is 

often more convenient and more costeffective than alternative forms of 

transportation. Many pipelines offer 

transportation of more than one kind of 

product, often using a batching system 

to differentiate between products on the 

system. 

6. As explained above, pipeline 

prorationing policies determine which 

shippers may access the pipeline when 

shipper demand exceeds pipeline 

capacity. These prorationing policies are 

often important during anomalous 

conditions that may cause sudden and 

unexpected changes to the demand for 

pipeline capacity. Anomalous 

conditions can result from a number of 

circumstances, including, but not 

limited to, extreme weather, national 

emergencies, and major market 

disruptions. Anomalous conditions can 

significantly and suddenly increase 

shipper nominations above available 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES1
10356 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 37 / Thursday, February 24, 2022 / Notices 

12See Impacts of COVID–19 on the Energy 

Industry, Docket No. AD20–17–000, Tr. 222–224, 

242–246 (O’Mahoney); see also Comment of Delta 

Air Lines, Inc., Docket No. AD20–17–000 

(submitted June 30, 2020). Additionally, in May 

2021, SFPP, L.P. (SFPP) proposed a temporary 

change to its prorationing policy that would allow 

jet fuel shippers to obtain new shipper space as 

well as regular shipper space. This filing was 

protested, and SFPP subsequently withdrew it. 

SFPP, L.P., Tariff Filing, Docket No. IS21–322–000 

(submitted May 11, 2021; withdrawn June 1, 2021). 

13The jet fuel shippers that filed the request for 

emergency relief included Airlines for America, 

Reno-Tahoe Airport Authority, Alaska Air Group, 

Inc., Allegiant Air, American Airlines, Inc., Delta 

Air Lines, Inc., Federal Express Corp., Frontier 

Airlines, JetBlue Airways Corp., National Air 

Carrier Assoc., Southwest Airlines Co., and World 

Fuel Services, Inc. Airlines for America, Request for 

Emergency Relief, Docket No. OR21–10–000 

(submitted July 26, 2021) (Request for Emergency 

Relief). The Commission denied the request because 

the petition did not establish that the circumstances 

rose to the level of a public health emergency 

warranting extraordinary relief under § 1(15) of the 

ICA. Airlines for Am., 176 FERC ¶ 61,065, at PP 14– 

16 (2021). 

14As used herein, ‘‘Airlines’’ refers to various jet 

fuel shippers that supply airports, primarily 

airlines, and their trade association, Airlines for 

America. 

15See, e.g., Airlines for America, Motion to 

Intervene, Docket No. IS21–322–001 (filed May 27, 

2021); Airlines for America, Request for Emergency 

Relief, Docket No. OR21–10–000 (filed July 26, 

2021). 

16See Airlines for America, Request for 

Emergency Relief, Docket No. OR21–10–000, at 2 

(filed July 26, 2021) (‘‘[D]emand for air travel 

radically decreased at the start of the COVID–19 

pandemic and remained depressed throughout 2020 

and into early 2021. Consequently, shipments of jet 

fuel on interstate pipelines . . . significantly 

decreased as well.’’); Airlines for America, Motion 

to Intervene, Docket No. IS21–322–001, at 2–3 (filed 

May 27, 2021) (‘‘While demand for air travel was 

depressed, airlines were unable to meet their 

minimum shipping requirements and nominate 

future volumes in accordance with their line space 

history.’’). 

17For example, SFPP’s prorationing policy 

provides that 95% of its capacity shall be allocated 

to regular shippers based on each shipper’s average 

historical shipments over a rolling 12-month base 

period. SFPP, L.P., Proration Policy dated June 1, 

2019, at 1, 3, available at https://www.kinder

morgan.com/item/Policy/SFPP%20Policy/1. 

18 Impacts of COVID–19 on the Energy Industry, 

Docket No. AD20–17–000, Tr. 222–224 

(O’Mahoney); Airlines for America, Request for 

Emergency Relief, Docket No. OR21–10–000 (filed 

July 26, 2021). 

19Under a history transfer, a shipper’s credit for 

accumulated shipping history on a particular 

pipeline could be transferred to another shipper in 

exchange for payment. The replacement shipper 

could then nominate on the pipeline during 

prorationing using the shipper history of the selling 

shipper, thereby obtaining a higher allocation than 

it otherwise might be entitled to. 

pipeline capacity. Likewise, anomalous 

conditions can temporarily reduce some 

shippers’ usage of the pipeline system. 

Under these circumstances, if demand 

subsequently increases above pipeline 

capacity, prorationing policies must 

address the allocation of pipeline 

capacity among different shippers 

whose most recent shipping histories 

may not reflect their longer-term 

historical usage. 

7. The COVID–19 pandemic 

significantly affected jet fuel shippers’ 

demand for oil pipeline capacity, 

although it reduced demand rather than 

increasing it. For example, at a July 

2020 technical conference discussing 

the serious impacts that emergency 

conditions caused by the COVID–19 

pandemic were having on the energy 

industry, one panelist raised concerns 

regarding jet fuel shippers’ ability to 

access capacity on oil pipelines using 

history-based prorationing due to a 

disproportionate decrease in jet fuel 

consumption during the COVID–19 

pandemic.12 Then, in July 2021, certain 

jet fuel shippers filed a request for 

emergency relief, asking the 

Commission to direct SFPP to prioritize 

jet fuel shipments on its North Line to 

Reno-Tahoe International Airport to 

prevent jet fuel shortages.13

8. As reflected in these proceedings, 

Airlines 14 have raised capacity 

allocation issues related to the COVID– 

19 pandemic’s effects on demand for jet 

fuel shipments and subsequent effects 

on pipeline allocation.15 After demand 

for air travel declined due to the start of 

the pandemic in March 2020, Airlines 

state that they reduced shipments of jet 

fuel on several multi-product pipelines 

that supply airports.16 Because these 

pipelines use history-based 

prorationing, Airlines claim that their 

decreased shipments during the 

pandemic reduced the future capacity 

allocated to them.17 Airlines state that 

this reduction harms their ability to 

continue to self-supply jet fuel using 

their shipper history on pipelines as 

they did prior to the pandemic. They 

state that fuel is a major cost and that 

self-supply enables them to better 

control fuel costs.18

II. Discussion 

9. In this proceeding, we seek 

comment on oil pipeline capacity 

allocation issues that arise under 

anomalous conditions, including the 

availability of pipeline capacity for 

transporting jet fuel to supply airports 

following the onset of the COVID–19 

pandemic. We also seek comment on 

whether there are any actions the 

Commission should consider that would 

mitigate the effects of anomalous 

conditions on oil pipeline capacity 

allocations, including the effects of the 

COVID–19 pandemic on demand for 

pipeline capacity to airport destinations. 

A. Capacity Allocation Issues Arising 

Under Anomalous Conditions 

A1. Using specific historical 

examples, please describe any 

anomalous conditions that have affected 

demand for, and thus shipper access to, 

pipeline capacity. In discussing each 

example, commenters should (a) 

generally describe the differential 

between the shipper’s nominations and 

actual, pro-rated shipments, (b) describe 

how long the anomalous conditions 

existed, (c) explain whether the 

anomalous conditions continued to 

affect pipeline access even after the 

anomalous conditions concluded, and 

(d) describe whether and to what extent 

the shipper was able to use 

transportation alternatives (e.g., 

trucking) or other means to compensate 

for the difference between its 

nominations and actual, pro-rated 

shipments. 

A2. Do current prorationing policies 

sufficiently address the allocation of 

capacity during and after anomalous 

conditions? For commenters responding 

that current prorationing policies are 

insufficient, please explain how current 

prorationing policies are insufficient 

and describe any aspects of current 

prorationing policies that pose 

particular problems or impediments. 

A3. Are there any actions the 

Commission should consider that would 

mitigate the effects of anomalous 

conditions on pipeline capacity 

allocations? To the extent the 

Commission considers changes to 

prorationing policies to address capacity 

allocation issues under anomalous 

conditions, should the Commission 

consider alternatives to history-based 

prorationing and pro rata allocations? 

Or should the Commission instead 

modify existing capacity allocation 

methodologies? In proposing any 

potential actions, please describe how 

such actions would be consistent with 

the ICA. 

A4. Please describe the current 

availability of secondary transactions for 

acquiring shipper history 19 or for 

otherwise obtaining access to pipeline 

capacity outside a pipeline’s 

nomination and prorationing process. 

Please describe any experience with, 

and the practical implications of, using 

such secondary transactions to mitigate 

the impacts of anomalous conditions. 

Please also explain whether and, if so, 

how the availability of secondary 

transactions could be enhanced or 

expanded to improve shipper access to 

pipeline capacity during anomalous 

conditions. 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 37 / Thursday, February 24, 2022 / Notices 10357 

20Mitigation could include increased trucking, 

tankering, and other attempts to obtain fuel 

supplies. 

21Although an individual shipper may not have 

complete information regarding pipeline capacity, a 

shipper could provide information related to its 

own nominations and capacity or could work with 

other shippers to provide aggregate information. 

B. Access to Capacity for Transporting 

Jet Fuel Following the Onset of the 

COVID–19 Pandemic 

B1. In the context of the Airlinespecific issues that have been raised to 

the Commission, please identify any 

pipelines and the destination airports 

where Airlines anticipate receiving 

capacity for moving jet fuel in 2022 or 

2023 that is both (a) below prepandemic levels and (b) below Airlines’ 

anticipated fuel needs, notwithstanding 

Airlines’ efforts to mitigate the 

pipeline’s capacity constraints.20

B2. Are there pipelines transporting 

jet fuel that were not in prorationing at 

any time over the past 12 months that 

would have been in prorationing had jet 

fuel volumes shipped at 2019 levels? If 

so, for each nomination cycle (or month) 

in which the pipeline would have been 

in prorationing, please describe the 

degree to which nominations would 

have exceeded capacity to the extent 

possible. 

B3. Regarding pipelines identified in 

response to B1, please provide both 

historical and projected levels of total 

jet fuel demand at the airport 

destinations, aggregate jet fuel 

nominations to each airport destination, 

and aggregate pipeline capacity awarded 

for jet fuel movements to each airport 

destination, beginning with January 

2018.21

B4. For pipelines that transport jet 

fuel, please provide the pipeline’s 

current total capacity for shipments of 

all products at destinations serving 

airports and any changes to total 

capacity that occurred since January 

2018. 

B5. Regarding products other than jet 

fuel transported on pipelines serving 

airport destinations, please provide data 

showing how aggregate product 

nominations and aggregate pipeline 

capacity awarded for each product have 

changed during the COVID–19 

pandemic. Please discuss any specific 

shifts in product demand that caused 

these changes. In addition, please 

provide information regarding how 

sudden demand shifts have affected 

pipeline capacity allocations for some 

products to the detriment of others, 

including jet fuel. 

B6. Please describe any action that the 

Commission should consider to address 

concerns regarding oil pipeline capacity 

to airport destinations. Such actions 

could include broader policy changes, 

as discussed in Section A above, or 

proposals specifically designed to 

address the capacity allocation issues 

that have arisen due to the effects of the 

COVID–19 pandemic on demand for jet 

fuel shipments. For example, should the 

Commission consider adjustments to 

existing capacity allocation 

methodologies to enhance shippers’ 

ability to transfer their history or 

otherwise transfer capacity rights to 

mitigate the impacts of the COVID–19 

pandemic? In proposing any potential 

actions, please describe how such 

actions would be consistent with the 

ICA. 

B7. Please describe whether 

expansions of capacity on the pipelines 

serving airport destinations would help 

address current and future jet fuel 

needs. Please identify whether any of 

the pipelines serving airports were in 

prorationing in the 12 months prior to 

March 2020. Please explain in detail the 

extent of the capacity constraints on 

these pipelines and discuss whether 

expansions of pipeline capacity are 

necessary to avoid continued 

prorationing going forward. 

III. Comment Procedures 

10. The Commission invites interested 

persons to submit comments on the 

matters and issues proposed in this 

notice, including any related matters or 

alternative proposals that commenters 

may wish to discuss. Initial Comments 

are due April 25, 2022, and Reply 

Comments are due May 25, 2022. 

Comments must refer to Docket No. 

AD22–7–000, and must include the 

commenter’s name, the organization 

they represent, if applicable, and their 

address. All comments will be placed in 

the Commission’s public files and may 

be viewed, printed, or downloaded 

remotely as described in the Document 

Availability section below. Commenters 

on this proposal are not required to 

serve copies of their comments on other 

commenters. 

11. The Commission encourages 

comments to be filed electronically via 

the eFiling link on the Commission’s 

website at http://www.ferc.gov. The 

Commission accepts most standard 

word processing formats. Documents 

created electronically using word 

processing software must be filed in 

native applications or print-to-PDF 

format and not in a scanned format. 

Commenters filing electronically do not 

need to make a paper filing. 

12. Commenters that are not able to 

file comments electronically may file an 

original of their comment by USPS mail 

or by courier-or other delivery services. 

For submission sent via USPS only, 

filings should be mailed to: Federal 

Energy Regulatory Commission, Office 

of the Secretary, 888 First Street NE, 

Washington, DC 20426. Submission of 

filings other than by USPS should be 

delivered to: Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission, 12225 Wilkins Avenue, 

Rockville, MD 20852. 

IV. Document Availability 

13. In addition to publishing the full 

text of this document in the Federal 

Register, the Commission provides all 

interested persons an opportunity to 

view and/or print the contents of this 

document via the internet through the 

Commission’s Home Page (http://

www.ferc.gov). At this time, the 

Commission has suspended access to 

the Commission’s Public Reference 

Room due to the President’s March 13, 

2020 proclamation declaring a National 

Emergency concerning the Novel 

Coronavirus Disease (COVID–19). 

14. From the Commission’s Home 

Page on the internet, this information is 

available on eLibrary. The full text of 

this document is available on eLibrary 

in PDF and Microsoft Word format for 

viewing, printing, and/or downloading. 

To access this document in eLibrary, 

type the docket number excluding the 

last three digits of this document in the 

docket number field. 

15. User assistance is available for 

eLibrary and the Commission’s website 

during normal business hours from the 

Commission’s Online Support at 202– 

502–6652 (toll free at 1–866–208–3676) 

or email at ferconlinesupport@ferc.gov, 

or the Public Reference Room at (202) 

502–8371, TTY (202) 502–8659. Email 

the Public Reference Room at 

public.referenceroom@ferc.gov. 

By direction of the Commission. 

Commissioner Danly is concurring with a 

separate attached. 

Issued: February 17, 2022. 

Debbie-Anne A. Reese, 

Deputy Secretary. 

Department of Energy 

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

Oil Pipeline Capacity Allocation Issues and 

Anomalous Conditions, Docket No. AD22–7– 

000 

DANLY, Commissioner, concurring: 

1. I concur because the Commission always 

has discretion to issue a Notice of Inquiry 

(NOI) on any topic within its purview. I also 

concur because I agree that we recently faced 

a potential jet fuel shortage driven, at least 

in part, by the mechanisms in our pipeline 

tariffs. I write separately to express three 

concerns. 

2. First, it is my view that the Commission 

should only issue notices of inquiry when 

there is a problem that in fact may need to 

be resolved and can be done so by the 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES1
10358 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 37 / Thursday, February 24, 2022 / Notices 

1Oil Pipeline Capacity Allocation Issues and 

Anomalous Conditions, 178 FERC ¶ 61,105, at P 9 

(2022) (Oil Pipeline Allocation NOI). 

2 Id. P 7. 

3See also Chief Administrative Law Judge, Final 

Status Report, Conference to Discuss Resolution of 

Jet Fuel Issues at the Reno-Tahoe International 

Airport, Docket No. AD21–16–000, at PP 2–3 (Aug. 

25, 2021) (‘‘The long-term concerns raised regarding 

jet fuel capacity are too speculative at this time for 

the parties to a find a consensual resolution in this 

form . . . it is determined that the participants are 

at an impasse regarding long term remedies . . . . 

Going forward, based on a general assessment of the 

matters at issue, the attendees and other concerned 

entities would be well advised to continue 

discussions, in their regular course of business. It 

seems beneficial for all entities to keep open lines 

of communication to identify issues or disputes 

before they arise, and to engage in dialogue on how 

to best obtain optimal commercial resolution of 

what they perceived to be issues in this matter.’’). 

But see Hearing to Review Admin. of Laws Within 

FERC’s Jurisdiction Before the S. Comm. on Energy 

and Nat’l Res., 117th Cong. (2021) (responding to 

Senator Cortez Masto on 2021 jet fuel shortages, ‘‘I 

think this issue of historical use needs to be 

addressed. I raised this as an issue in a technical 

conference we had earlier in the year. I think we 

need a different approach to allocating capacity 

because of different anomalies. And you have my 

commitment that we will take a look at that and 

hopefully act before next summer’s demand peak’’) 

(statement of Richard Glick, Chairman of the Fed. 

Energy Regulatory Comm’n), https://www.energy.

senate.gov/hearings/2021/9/full-committee-hearingto-review-administration-of-laws-within-fercjurisdiction. 

4 I also note that the NOI solicits information not 

related to the anomalous conditions problem. Id. P 

9, Question B.7 (‘‘Please describe whether 

expansions of capacity on the pipelines serving 

airport destinations would help address current and 

future jet fuel needs.’’). 

5See 49 App. U.S.C. 3 (1988) (prohibiting undue 

preference). 

6Pilot Travel Centers LLC, et al., Joint Motion to 

Intervene and Protest, Docket No. OR21–10–000, at 

3 (Jul. 27, 2021); see also Chevron Products Co., et 

al., Response to Request for Emergency Relief under 

Section 1(15) of the Interstate Commerce Act, 

Docket No. OR 21–10–000, at 2 (Jul. 28, 2021) (‘‘The 

Commission should ask whether the Request is 

seeking to prioritize jet fuel and those who can 

afford to access air travel at the expense of 

supplying transportation fuels that affect many 

more people and their daily lives as they go to 

work, daycare, school, and deliver goods and 

services in support of their communities.’’). 

7See Oil Pipeline Allocation NOI, 178 FERC 

¶ 61,105 at P 9, Question B.3 (‘‘[P]lease provide . . . 

aggregate jet fuel nominations to each airport 

destination, and aggregate pipeline capacity 

awarded for jet fuel movements to each airport 

destination . . . .’’); id. Question B.5 (‘‘Regarding 

products other than jet fuel transported on 

pipelines serving airport destinations, please 

provide data showing how aggregate product 

nominations and aggregate pipeline capacity 

awarded for each product have changed during the 

COVID–19 pandemic.’’). 

8 49 App. U.S.C. 15(13) (1988). 

Commission. I do not believe that to be the 

case here. 

3. Today’s NOI characterizes the problem 

as whether oil pipeline allocation 

methodologies sufficiently address 

anomalous conditions and identifies only 

one instance where this problem has 

occurred: ‘‘effects of the COVID–19 pandemic 

on demand for pipeline capacity to airport 

destinations.’’ 1 The NOI does not show 

airlines as having raised concerns since July 

2021 when certain airlines filed a request for 

emergency relief.2 Airlines are not shy before 

the Commission. If there were still a problem, 

we would have heard from them.3

4. Second, while I again acknowledge that 

we had a particular problem with supplies of 

jet fuel in 2021, as a general matter, I am 

wary of any action wherein the Commission 

singles out a particular shipper category as 

the basis for exploring changes to its policies 

and tariffs.4 This is especially true when, as 

here, we have not even made the most 

preliminary of showings that this shipper 

category is not similarly situated with other 

shippers, nor have we identified some other 

legitimate factor that justifies disparate 

treatment.5 As commenters in response to the 

July 2021 request for relief stated: ‘‘All 

industries and shipper classes faced 

unprecedented demand destruction during 

the COVID–19 pandemic. All shippers faced 

challenges and choices to manage the 

downturn and prepare for the upcoming 

period when demand will return.’’ 6

5. Third, I am not confident that carriers 

will willingly provide the information the 

Commission requests on destinations, 

nominations, and capacity awarded.7 Section 

15(13) of the Interstate Commerce Act 

prohibits common carriers from disclosing: 

any information concerning the nature, kind, 

quantity, destination, or consignee, or routing 

of any property tendered or delivered to such 

common carrier for interstate transportation, 

which information may be used to the 

detriment or prejudice of such shipper or 

consignee, or which may improperly disclose 

his business transactions to a competitor 

....8

6. While I acknowledge the Commission 

attempts to strategically deploy the word 

‘‘aggregate,’’ I do not think that this 

maneuver is sufficient. Oil pipelines that 

deliver to airport destinations in many cases 

only have a few shippers, meaning that, even 

if data is ‘‘aggregated,’’ it is not difficult to 

discern individual shipper data. And even 

so, I could imagine some shippers arguing 

that the information, aggregated or not, might 

be used to their detriment or prejudice. 

For these reasons, I respectfully concur. 

James P. Danly, 

Commissioner. 

[FR Doc. 2022–03912 Filed 2–23–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6717–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission 

[Docket No. CP22–51–000] 

CNG Holding 1 LLC; Notice of Petition 

for Declaratory Order 

Take notice that on February 11, 2022, 

pursuant to Rule 207(a)(2) of the Federal 

Energy Regulatory Commission’s 

(Commission) Rules of Practice and 

Procedure, CNG HOLDING 1 LLC (CNG 

Holding) filed a petition for declaratory 

order requesting the Commission issue 

an order stating that CNG Holding’s: (1) 

Proposed compressed natural gas (CNG) 

production facility; (2) the docks from 

which CNG Holding will export the 

CNG; and (3) CNG Holding’s proposal to 

construct an on-site truck fueling 

station, a bunkering pipeline to 

transport end-use fuel to vessels, and 

provide an industrial fueling service to 

industrial customers in Louisiana are 

not subject to the Commission’s 

jurisdiction under section 3 or section 7 

of the Natural Gas Act, 15 U.S.C. 717b, 

717f (2018). 

Any person desiring to intervene or to 

protest this filing must file in 

accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of 

the Commission’s Rules of Practice and 

Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). 

Protests will be considered by the 

Commission in determining the 

appropriate action to be taken, but will 

not serve to make protestants parties to 

the proceeding. Any person wishing to 

become a party must file a notice of 

intervention or motion to intervene, as 

appropriate. Such notices, motions, or 

protests must be filed on or before the 

comment date. Anyone filing a motion 

to intervene or protest must serve a copy 

of that document on the Petitioner. 

The Commission encourages 

electronic submission of protests and 

interventions in lieu of paper using the 

‘‘eFiling’’ link at http://www.ferc.gov. 

Persons unable to file electronically may 

mail similar pleadings to the Federal 

Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 

First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426. 

Hand delivered submissions in 

docketed proceedings should be 

delivered to Health and Human 

Services, 12225 Wilkins Avenue, 

Rockville, Maryland 20852. 

In addition to publishing the full text 

of this document in the Federal 

Register, the Commission provides all 

interested persons an opportunity to 

view and/or print the contents of this 

document via the internet through the 

Commission’s Home Page (http://

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

Enter the docket number excluding the 

last three digits in the docket number 

field to access the document. At this 

time, the Commission has suspended 

access to the Commission’s Public 

Reference Room, due to the 

proclamation declaring a National 

Emergency concerning the Novel 

Coronavirus Disease (COVID–19), issued 

by the President on March 13, 2020. For 

assistance, contact the Federal Energy 

Regulatory Commission at 

FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov or call 

toll-free, (886) 208–3676 or TYY, (202) 

502–8659. 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES1