34084 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 109 / Thursday, June 6, 2013 / Notices 

1Applicants are required to provide volumes of 

natural gas in Bcf, 10 CFR 590.202(b)(1), and 

therefore DOE/FE will address FME’s requested 

authorization in Bcf/y below. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: It is proposed that the hours 

of availability at Lindy C. Boggs and 

John H. Overton Locks on the J Bennett 

Johnston Waterway (Red River) will 

remain at the current schedule of 24 

hours per day, 7 days per week, 365 

days per year. It is also proposed that 

the hours of availability at Lock 3, 

Russell B. Long, and Joe D. Waggonner 

locks will be reduced from the current 

schedule of 24 hours per day, 7 days per 

week, 365 days per year, to 20 hours per 

day, as operated by the contractor, 7 

days per week, 365 days per year. The 

Inland Marine Transportation System 

Level of Service Guidelines led to the 

reduced hours of operation for Lock 3, 

Russell B. Long, and Joe D. Waggonner 

locks. The intended effect is to provide 

lock availability that matches existing 

lock usage. Pool levels will not be 

affected by change of operating hours. 

DATES: Proposed implementation date is 

February 1, 2014. 

ADDRESSES: Submit written comments 

to Mr. James V. Ross, Chief, Operations 

Division, Vicksburg District, U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers, 4155 Clay Street, 

Vicksburg, MS 39183, or deliver them to 

Mr. Ross between the hours of 8:00 a.m. 

and 4:00 p.m., Monday through Friday 

at the address above. Comments 

received and other materials relevant to 

the proposed reduction in hours of lock 

availability will be posted on the 

Vicksburg District Web site, http:// 

www.mvk.usace.army.mil/. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

Michael Kidby at the Corps of Engineers 

Headquarters in Washington, DC, by 

phone at 202–761–0250. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The legal 

authority for the regulation governing 

the use, administration, and navigation 

of the Red River and Locks is Section 4 

of the River and Harbor Act of August 

18, 1894 (28 Stat. 362), as amended, 

which is codified at 33 U.S.C. 1. This 

statute requires the Secretary of the 

Army to ‘‘prescribe such regulations for 

the use, administration, and navigation 

of the navigable waters of the United 

States’’ as the Secretary determines may 

be required by public necessity. 

Reference 33 CFR 207.249, Ouachita 

and Black Rivers, Ark. and La., Mile 0.0 

to Mile 338.0 (Camden, Ark.) above the 

mouth of the Black River; the Red River, 

La., Mile 6.7 (Junction of Red, 

Atchafalaya and Old Rivers) to Mile 

276.0 (Shreveport, La.); use, 

administration, and navigation. 

Brenda S. Bowen, 

Army Federal Register Liaison Officer. 

[FR Doc. 2013–13379 Filed 6–5–13; 8:45 a.m.] 

BILLING CODE 3720–58–P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

[FE Docket No. 13–26–LNG] 

Freeport-McMoRan Energy LLC; 

Application for Long-Term 

Authorization To Export Liquefied 

Natural Gas Produced From Domestic 

Natural Gas Resources to Non-Free 

Trade Agreement Countries for a 30- 

Year Period 

AGENCY: Office of Fossil Energy, DOE. 

ACTION: Notice of application. 

SUMMARY: The Office of Fossil Energy 

(FE) of the Department of Energy (DOE) 

gives notice of receipt of an application 

(Application) filed on February 22, 

2013, by Freeport-McMoRan Energy 

LLC (FME), requesting long-term, multicontract authorization to export 

liquefied natural gas (LNG) produced 

from domestic sources in an amount up 

to 24 million metric tons per year 

(mtpa), which FME states is equivalent 

to approximately 1,176 billion cubic feet 

per year (Bcf/y) of natural gas, or 3.2 Bcf 

per day (Bcf/d).1 FME seeks 

authorization to export the LNG for a 

30-year term from the proposed Main 

Pass Energy HubTM Deepwater Port 

(MPEHTM Port), to be located in federal 

waters in Main Pass Block 299, 16 miles 

offshore of Louisiana. In the portion of 

FME’s Application subject to this 

Notice, FME requests authorization to 

export LNG to any country with which 

the United States does not have a free 

trade agreement (FTA) requiring 

national treatment for trade in natural 

gas (non-FTA countries) with which 

trade is not prohibited by U.S. law or 

policy. FME requests that this 

authorization commence on the earlier 

of the date of first export or 10 years 

from the date the authorization is 

granted. FME requests this authorization 

both on its behalf and as agent for other 

parties who hold title to the LNG at the 

time of export. The Application was 

filed under section 3 of the Natural Gas 

Act (NGA), 15 U.S.C. 717b. 

DATES: Protests, motions to intervene or 

notices of intervention, as applicable, 

requests for additional procedures, and 

written comments are to be filed using 

procedures detailed in the Public 

Comment Procedures section no later 

than 4:30 p.m., eastern time, August 5, 

2013. 

ADDRESSES: Electronic Filing by email: 

fergas@hq.doe.gov. 

Regular Mail 

U.S. Department of Energy (FE–34), 

Office of Natural Gas Regulatory 

Activities, 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), 

Office of Natural Gas Regulatory 

Activities, Office of Fossil Energy, 

Forrestal Building, Room 3E–042, 1000 

Independence Avenue SW., 

Washington, DC 20585. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Larine Moore or Marc Talbert, U.S. 

Department of Energy (FE–34), Office of 

Natural Gas Regulatory Activities, Office 

of Fossil Energy, Forrestal Building, 

Room 3E–042, 1000 Independence 

Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585, 

(202) 586–9478; (202) 586–7991. 

Edward Myers, U.S. Department of 

Energy, Office of the Assistant General 

Counsel for Electricity and Fossil 

Energy, Forrestal Building, Room 6B– 

256, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., 

Washington, DC 20585, (202) 586–3397. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

FME, a subsidiary of McMoRan 

Exploration Co., is a Delaware limited 

liability company with its principal 

place of business in New Orleans, 

Louisiana. FME is also an initial 

member of Main Pass Energy Hub LLC 

(MPEH LLC), which is a Delaware 

limited liability company with its 

principal place of business in New 

Orleans, Louisiana. The other initial 

member of MPEH LLC is United LNG, 

LLC, a Delaware limited liability 

company. 

FME is requesting this authorization 

to export LNG from the MPEHTM Port, 

currently owned by FME. FME and 

United LNG, LP are parties to a 

Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) 

concerning the commercial 

development of the MPEHTM Port. 

United LNG, LP is a Texas limited 

partnership with its principal place of 

business in Houston, Texas. After 

execution of the MOU, MPEH LLC was 

formed. 

FME states that the MPEHTM Port is 

proposed to be located in approximately 

210 feet of water at a deepwater site in 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 109 / Thursday, June 6, 2013 / Notices 34085 

2According to FME, this site is located at latitude 

29°15′56′′ and longitude 88°45′34′′. 

3 Main Pass Energy Hub, LLC, DOE/FE Order No. 

3220, Order Granting Long-Term Multi-Contract 

Authorization to Export Liquefied Natural Gas by 

Vessel from the MPEH Deepwater Port Located 16 

miles Offshore the Louisiana Coast in Federal 

Waters to Free Trade Agreement Nations (Jan. 4, 

2013). In the Main Pass application, MPEH LLC 

stated that 24 mtpa was equal to 1,175 Bcf/y of 

natural gas and, on that basis, DOE/FE granted 

export authorization to MPEH LLC in that amount. 

See Main Pass Energy Hub, LLC, DOE/FE Order No. 

3220, at 9 (‘‘Main Pass is authorized to export 

domestically produced LNG by vessel from the 

proposed MPEH Deepwater Port . . . up to the 

equivalent of 1,175 Bcf/y of natural gas for a 30-year 

term, . . . .’’). 

4 Freeport-McMoRan Energy LLC, DOE/FE Order 

No. 3290, Order Granting Long-Term Multi-Contract 

Authorization to Export Liquefied Natural Gas By 

Vessel from the Proposed Main Pass Energy HubTM

Deepwater Port 16 Miles Offshore Of Louisiana to 

Free Trade Agreement Nations (May 24, 2013). 

5 Id. at 10. The authority to regulate the import 

and export of natural gas, including liquefied 

natural gas, under section 3 of the NGA (15 U.S.C. 

717b) was delegated to the Assistant Secretary for 

FE in Redelegation Order No. 00–002.04E, issued 

on April 29, 2011. 

6FME App. at 1. 

7 Freeport LNG Development, L.P. and FLNG 

Liquefaction, LLC, DOE/FE Order No. 2913, Order 

Granting Long-Term Authorization to Export 

Liquefied Natural Gas from Freeport LNG Terminal 

to Free Trade Nations (Feb. 10, 2011). 

the Gulf of Mexico on the Outer 

Continental Shelf (OCS) of the United 

States, approximately 16 miles offshore 

from southeast Louisiana at Main Pass 

Block 299 (Block 299).2 FME states that 

the MPEHTM Port will be configured to 

receive, store, condition, and liquefy 

domestic natural gas for export as LNG. 

Construction of the MPEHTM Port will 

include modification of existing 

offshore structures currently owned by 

FME; construction of new facilities and 

salt dome storage caverns; and 

construction, installation, and operation 

of floating liquefaction storage and 

offloading vessels (FLVs) to be used for 

the on-site liquefaction and exportation 

of LNG from the MPEHTM Port. 

According to FME, the MPEHTM Port 

will utilize five large existing 

interconnected platforms and three 

smaller satellite platforms. FME states 

that these platforms will house the gas 

conditioning facilities, gas metering 

facilities, quarters for on-site employees, 

and gas storage and compression 

equipment. FME further states that, in 

addition to the platform-based facilities, 

the MPEHTM Port will consist of six 

FLVs, each capable of producing up to 

4 mtpa of LNG, for a total production 

capacity at the MPEHTM Port of 24 mtpa 

of LNG. FME states that each FLV will 

be moored using a buoy system and will 

be capable of liquefying 537 million 

cubic feet per day of natural gas, storing 

200,000 cubic meters of LNG, and 

delivering LNG to off-taking LNG 

carriers utilizing a ship-to-ship process. 

According to FME, the amount of 

LNG sought to be exported from the 

MPEHTM Port in the current Application 

is the same amount for which FME’s 

affiliate MPEH LLC obtained an export 

authorization in January 2013, in DOE/ 

FE Docket No. 12–114–LNG. 

Specifically, in DOE/FE Order No. 3220, 

DOE/FE authorized MPEH LLC to 

export from the MPEHTM Port up to 

1,175 Bcf/y of natural gas (which MPEH 

LLC stated was the equivalent of the 

requested 24 mtpa of LNG) to any 

country with which the United States 

currently has, or in the future will have, 

a FTA requiring the national treatment 

for trade in natural gas, pursuant to 

section 3(c) of the Natural Gas Act 

(NGA), 15 U.S.C. 717b(c).3 In the 

current Application, FME requests both 

FTA and non-FTA authorizations for the 

same quantity of LNG, stating that only 

24 mtpa of LNG will be exported in any 

year from the proposed MPEHTM Port 

(which DOE/FE notes is equivalent to 

1,175 Bcf/y of natural gas). 

Subsequently, in DOE/FE Order No. 

3290, DOE granted the portion of FME’s 

Application seeking FTA export 

authorization.4 In that order issued on 

May 24, 2013, DOE/FE authorized FME 

to export domestically produced LNG 

by vessel to FTA nations from the 

proposed MPEHTM Port up to the 

equivalent of 1,175 Bcf/y of natural gas 

for a 30-year term.5 DOE/FE explained 

that, although FME’s Application states 

that 24 mtpa is ‘‘approximately 

equivalent to 1,176 Bcf . . . per year,’’ 6

DOE/FE granted FME’s FTA 

authorization in an amount equivalent 

to 1,175 Bcf/y of natural gas to retain 

consistency with the FTA authorization 

granted to MPEH LLC in DOE/FE Order 

No. 3220. 

FME asserts that any export 

authorizations issued to MPEH LLC and 

FME are meant to be coincidental rather 

than cumulative, and that, before any 

exports occur, it will inform DOE/FE as 

to how the 24 mtpa of LNG exports will 

be allocated between all export 

authorizations applicable to the 

MPEHTM Port. 

Current Application 

FME requests authorization to export 

domestically produced LNG in an 

amount up to of 24 mtpa, which it states 

is the equivalent of 1,176 Bcf/y of 

natural gas (equal to 3.22 Bcf/day of 

natural gas), from the proposed 

MPEHTM Port to be located 16 miles 

offshore of Louisiana to: (1) Any country 

with which the United States currently 

has, or in the future will have, a Free 

Trade Agreement (FTA) requiring the 

national treatment for trade in natural 

gas, and (2) as relevant here, any 

country with which the United States 

does not have an FTA requiring national 

treatment for trade in natural gas (nonFTA countries) with which trade is not 

prohibited by U.S. law or policy. 

FME seeks authorization to export the 

LNG for a 30-year term, commencing on 

the earlier of the date of first export or 

10 years from the date the authorization 

is issued. FME requests this 

authorization both on its behalf and as 

agent for other parties who hold title to 

the LNG at the time of export. FME 

states that it will comply with all DOE/ 

FE requirements for exports and agents, 

as established in Freeport LNG 

Development, L.P. and FLNG 

Liquefaction, LLC, DOE/FE Order No. 

2913, including the registration 

requirements.7 FME further states that, 

when acting as agent, it will register 

with DOE/FE each LNG title holder for 

which FME seeks to export LNG as 

agent. 

The portion of FME’s Application that 

seeks authorization to export 

domestically produced LNG to non-FTA 

countries will be reviewed pursuant to 

NGA section 3(a), 15 U.S.C. 717b(a), and 

is the subject of this Notice. As stated 

above, DOE/FE already granted the 

portion of FME’s Application that 

sought authorization to export the same 

quantity of domestically produced LNG 

to FTA countries pursuant to NGA 

section 3(c). 

FME states that the MPEHTM Port will 

export natural gas available in the U.S. 

natural gas supply and transmission 

system. FME states that the sources of 

natural gas will include the vast 

supplies of natural gas available from 

the Gulf Coast producing regions, 

including onshore and offshore 

resources. FME further states that the 

proposed MPEHTM Port has the 

potential to access nine major natural 

gas pipelines, with indirect access to the 

entire national gas pipeline grid. The 

MPEHTM Port will draw gas from the 

domestic market through a pipeline 

connecting the offshore facilities to the 

onshore interstate pipeline network and 

from off-shore gathering and 

transmission systems in the Gulf of 

Mexico. FME asserts that it holds a 

sulphur and salt lease in Block 299, 

which it will use to construct salt-dome 

storage caverns to store natural gas prior 

to liquefaction. FME states that the 

natural gas intake at the MPEHTM Port 

will not exceed 4 Bcf/d. 

FME states that the MPEHTM Port will 

be strategically located on the OCS, 

which it characterizes as a prolific and 

highly productive area. According to 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

34086 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 109 / Thursday, June 6, 2013 / Notices 

8FME notes that exports of natural gas directly 

from the OCS may be subject to the requirements 

of the Outercontinental Shelf Lands Act, 43 U.S.C. 

1354(b), and states that FME would conduct any 

such activities in compliance with those 

requirements. 

9The Deepwater Port Act of 1974, 33 U.S.C. 1501 

et seq., was amended in December 2012 to allow 

exports of oil and gas to occur from offshore 

facilities in waters of the United States. 

10FME App. at 8 (quoting Sabine Pass 

Liquefaction, LLC, DOE/FE Order No. 2961, 

Opinion and Order Conditionally Granting LongTerm Authorization to Export Liquefied Natural Gas 

From Sabine Pass LNG Terminal to Non-Free Trade 

Agreement Nations (May 20, 2011), at 28). 

11 Id. at 9 (quoting Sabine Pass Liquefaction, LLC, 

FE Docket 10–111–LNG, Opinion and Order 

Denying Request for Review Under Section 3(c) of 

the NGA, at 5 (Oct. 21, 2010) & Policy Guidelines 

and Delegation Orders Relating to the Regulation of 

Imported Natural Gas, 49 FR 6,684 (Feb.22, 1984). 

12 Id. (citing, e.g., Phillips Alaska Natural Gas 

Corp. and Marathon Oil Co., DOE/FE Order No. 

1473 at 14). 

13U.S. Energy Information Administration, 

Annual Energy Outlook 2013 Early Release (Jan. 

2013), available at http://www.eia.doe.gov/ 

forecasts/aeo/tables.ref.cfm (EIA Outlook 2013 

Early Release). 

14EIA Outlook 2013 Early Release. 

15Navigant Consulting, Inc., Southern LNG 

Export Project Market Analysis Study, included as 

App. A to the Application of Southern LNG 

Company, L.L.C. for Long-Term, Multi-Contract 

FME, its parent company (MMR 

Exploration Co.) is one of the largest 

acreage holders on the OCS and is 

engaged in exploration and 

development activities with the 

potential to unlock more than 100 

trillion cubic feet of natural gas over a 

200-mile area in the shallow waters of 

the Gulf of Mexico and onshore 

Louisiana.8 FME contends that the 

onshore and offshore resources available 

to the MPEHTM Port through its 

numerous potential pipeline 

interconnections will provide more than 

sufficient gas quantities to support the 

proposed LNG exports over the term of 

the requested authorization. FME 

further notes that, given the size of 

traditional gas resources in close 

proximity to the proposed MPEHTM

Port, as well as rapid growth of gas 

resources in the region, FME’s 

customers will have a diverse, reliable 

choice of gas supplies from the most 

liquid natural gas market in the world. 

FME asserts that the long-term 

authorization requested in this 

Application is necessary to permit it to 

incur the substantial capital and other 

costs of developing the MPEHTM Port 

and to secure customer contracts. FME 

states that terms for the use of the 

liquefaction and other offshore 

deepwater port facilities will be set forth 

in agreements with customers of the 

MPEHTM Port. 

As explained below, FME states that 

this Application will include a complete 

environmental review of the proposed 

MPEHTM Port. The U.S. Maritime 

Administration (MARAD), in 

coordination with the U.S. Coast Guard, 

will act as the lead agency for 

environmental review of the proposed 

MPEHTM Port, with DOE acting as a 

cooperating agency. FME asks that DOE/ 

FE issue the export authorization 

conditioned on MARAD’s completion of 

the environmental review and approval 

of the facility construction. 

Finally, FME asks that DOE/FE 

consider the Application separately 

from the processing parameters 

established for non-FTA applications 

before the Deepwater Port Act of 1974 

was amended in December 20, 2012.9

FME states that it had been in 

discussions with MARAD about the 

proposed MPEHTM Port project since 

July 2012, and submitted to MARAD a 

Letter of Intent to Submit Application 

on October 3, 2012. According to FME, 

MARAD’s jurisdiction to license an LNG 

export facility under the Deepwater Port 

Act was not clear before that Act was 

amended on December 20, 2012. FME 

further states that, following discussions 

with DOE/FE, FME was unable to 

submit a non-FTA application until the 

amendments were enacted. Therefore, 

FME contends that it should not be 

subject to the previously established 

processing parameters. 

Public Interest Considerations 

FME states that its proposed non-FTA 

authorization should be granted by 

DOE/FE because it is not inconsistent 

with the public interest, as set forth in 

NGA section 3(a). FME quotes DOE/FE 

in stating that, ‘‘ ‘Section 3(a) of the 

NGA creates a rebuttable presumption 

that proposed exports of natural gas are 

in the public interest, and [that] DOE 

must grant such an application unless 

those who oppose the application 

overcome that presumption.’ ’’ 10 FME 

states that DOE/FE, in evaluating the 

public interest pursuant to its Policy 

Guidelines and Delegation Orders 

Relating to the Regulation of Imported 

Natural Gas, examines whether 

‘‘‘domestic supply shortages or domestic 

security needs overcome the statutory 

presumption that a proposed export is 

not inconsistent with the public 

interest.’ ’’ 11 FME states that, although 

the Policy Guidelines address imports of 

natural gas, DOE/FE has found that the 

same principles apply to exports.12

FME asserts that the main focus of 

DOE/FE’s public interest analysis has 

been the projected domestic need for the 

gas to be exported. FME states that, 

during the period of the export 

authorization requested by FME, U.S. 

reserves and recoverable resources will 

be far in excess of total gas demand. 

FME further asserts that multiple, 

independent analyses, including that of 

Navigant Consulting, Inc. and Deloitte 

MarketPoint, have concluded that 

exports will not cause a significant 

increase in domestic natural gas prices. 

Therefore, FME maintains that its 

requested export authorization will not 

have a detrimental impact on the 

domestic supply of natural gas and is 

not inconsistent with the public 

interest. 

Addressing domestic natural gas 

supply, FME contends that the U.S. 

natural gas supply is more than 

adequate to meet both the future U.S. 

domestic demand and FME’s proposed 

export volumes over the term of the 

requested authorization. FME discusses 

the impact of increased shale 

production on domestic supply, stating 

that dry gas production in 2013 is 

expected to be 24 Trillion Cubic Feet 

(Tcf), a 13 percent increase from 2010.13

Addressing domestic natural gas 

demand, FME states that U.S. natural 

gas available for supply far exceeds 

demand. According to FME, EIA 

estimates that domestic natural gas 

demand will grow from 25.63 Tcf per 

year in 2012 to 28.71 Tcf per year in 

2035, and that cumulative domestic gas 

consumption from 2012 through 2035 

will be 643 Tcf.14

FME states that its requested export 

authorization would increase demand 

by a maximum of 1.46 Tcf per year. 

FME recognizes that other applications 

to export domestic LNG are pending 

before DOE and additional applicants 

may seek export authorization. As noted 

above, FME also observes that a number 

of groups—including Navigant, Deloitte, 

and the Brookings Energy Security 

Initiative—have considered the 

cumulative effects of LNG exports on 

natural gas demand and pricing. 

Focusing on the Navigant study, FME 

states that Navigant considered two 

scenarios of relevance to FME’s 

Application: an ‘‘Aggregate Exports 

Case’’ and a ‘‘High Demand Base Case.’’ 

The Aggregate Exports Case assumes a 

total of 7.7 Bcf per day of LNG exports, 

split between Gulf Coast exports (4.7 

Bcf/day), Pacific Coast exports (2.5 Bcf/ 

day), and Atlantic Coast (0.5 Bcf/day)— 

an assumption that could reflect the 

proposed MPEHTM Port operating at full 

capacity. The High Demand Base Case 

assumes a total of 7.2 Bcf/day of LNG 

exports (excluding the Atlantic Coast 

exports), but includes increased 

domestic demand for natural gas, such 

as through natural gas vehicles.15 FME 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 109 / Thursday, June 6, 2013 / Notices 34087 

Authorization to Export Liquefied Natural Gas to 

Non-Free Trade Agreement Countries submitted in 

FE Docket No. 12–100–LNG on August 31, 2012 

(Navigant Study), at 40. 

16 Deloitte MarketPoint, Analysis of Economic 

Impact of LNG Exports from the United States, 

included as App. F to the Application for LongTerm, Multi-Contract Authorization to Export 

Liquefied Natural Gas to Non-Free Trade 

Agreement Countries submitted by Excelerate 

Liquefaction Solutions I, LLC in FE Docket No. 

12–146–LNG on October 5, 2012 (Deloitte Study). 

17FME App. at 20 (quoting NERA study at 6). 

18Exec. Order No. 13534, 75 FR 12,433 (Mar. 11, 

2010). 

19Bureau of Economic Analysis, U.S. Department 

of Commerce, U.S. International Trade in Goods 

and Services, (Oct. 11, 2012), available at http:// 

www.bea.gov/newsreleases/international/trade/ 

trad_time_series.xls. 

20FME App. at 23 n.68 (citing DOE/FE orders). 

21Sabine Pass Liquefaction, LLC, DOE/FE Order 

No. 2961, at 35. 

22FME App. at 23 (citing Michael Levi, A 

Strategy for U.S. Natural Gas Exports, prepared for 

The Hamilton Project, at 25 (June 2012), available 

at http://www.brookings.edu/research/papers/2012/ 

06/13-exports-levi (Hamilton Study)). 

23FME App. at 3 n.1 (citing Docket entry 371. 

USCG–2004–17696–371.). 

24FME App. at 26 n.80 (citing DOE/FE orders). 

notes Navigant’s conclusion that LNG 

exports would have a mild stimulating 

effect on U.S. natural gas production. 

Under the Aggregate Exports Case and 

High Demand Base Case, FME states 

that U.S. gas supply would increase 

slightly more than would be expected 

without exports. 

FME states that Deloitte also prepared 

a study that considered a number of 

export scenarios, including exports of 

1.33 Bcf/day, 3 Bcf/day, 6 Bcf/day, 9 

Bcf/day, and 12 Bcf/day.16 FME asserts 

that the analyses from Navigant and 

Deloitte are applicable to the proposed 

MPEHTM Port because the Port will be 

located near traditional and shale 

reserves in the Gulf of Mexico in a 

location where other projects are being 

considered. 

Taking into account these studies and 

EIA data, FME maintains that: (1) The 

United States has more than enough 

supply to support domestic gas needs 

and proposed LNG export volumes, and 

(2) natural gas producers will be able to 

anticipate new demand and ramp up 

production in advance, such that the 

commencement of LNG exports will not 

shock the market. 

Turning to potential impacts on U.S. 

natural gas market prices, FME contends 

that the effect of LNG exports on natural 

gas prices will be limited. As support 

for this position, FME cites analyses 

performed by EIA, Navigant, and 

Deloitte. FME concludes that potential 

increases in natural gas prices resulting 

from LNG exports are not large enough, 

and are sufficiently offset by several 

resulting benefits (such as limiting 

volatility in the market), so as not to 

merit a determination that the MPEHTM

Port is not in the public interest. 

FME next asserts that the requested 

authorization will benefit local, 

regional, and national economies and is 

therefore in the public interest. FME 

quotes the LNG export study conducted 

by NERA, which concluded that ‘‘ ‘the 

U.S. would experience net economic 

benefits from increased LNG exports’ ’’ 

and that ‘‘ ‘U.S. economic welfare 

consistently increases as the volume of 

natural gas exports increased.’ ’’ 17

Among other economic benefits, FME 

states that the requested authorization 

would result in the creation of new jobs 

and would be consistent with President 

Obama’s National Export Initiative 

signed in 2010.18 FME states that, 

during the five-year build phase, it is 

estimated that the proposed MPEHTM

Port will create about 3,000 to 4,000 

jobs. Upon full operation, the Port will 

employ approximately 250 to 500 

people on-site. According to FME, a 

corollary to the creation of these jobs 

will be the additional taxes paid by the 

MPEHTM Port and associated workforce. 

FME further states that granting the 

authorization would positively impact 

the U.S. balance of trade. FME asserts 

that, in 2011, the U.S. trade deficit was 

$559.9 billion—an increase of $65.1 

billion from the 2010 figure.19 FME 

states that, depending on the price of 

gas, exports from the MPEHTM Port 

could reduce the trade imbalance by 

approximately $12 billion per year. FME 

observes that DOE/FE, in approving 

export applications, has acknowledged 

the positive impact that LNG exports 

can have on the balance of trade with 

destination countries.20

Additionally, FME explains that, in 

processing natural gas in preparation for 

exports, it will derive ethane, propane, 

and other liquids condensate for sale, 

which will further help the U.S. balance 

of trade by increasing domestic supply 

and thus reducing imports. FME states 

that, in DOE/FE Order No. 2961, 

DOE/FE found that a facility exporting 

803 Bcf of gas per year would produce 

46.7 million barrels per year of liquids 

and improve the trade balance by $1.7 

billion annually.21 FME states that the 

MPEHTM Port, by analogy, should 

produce 68.3 million barrels of liquids 

and improve the balance of trade by 

approximately $2.5 billion annually by 

offsetting imports. FME states that these 

domestically produced natural gas 

liquids will be of particular benefit to 

chemical manufacturers that use these 

liquids as chemical feedstocks.22

Additionally, FME asserts that the 

requested authorization is consistent 

with U.S. obligations under the General 

Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 

(GATT), would promote free and open 

trade, and could have wider geopolitical 

benefits. 

Finally, in addition to providing 

economic benefits, FME states that LNG 

exports can have significant 

environmental benefits. FME contends 

that natural gas is cleaner burning than 

other fossil fuels, such as coal-fired 

generation. 

Additional details can be found in 

FME’s Application, which is posted on 

the DOE/FE Web site at: http:// 

www.fossil.energy.gov/programs/ 

gasregulation/authorizations/ 

2013_applications/13_26_lng_fta.pdf. 

Environmental Impact 

According to FME, MARAD 

previously approved an earlier form of 

the MPEHTM Port as a deepwater port 

for the importation and regasification of 

LNG, the conditioning of natural gas to 

produce natural gas liquids, and the 

storage of natural gas in salt caverns. 

FME states that, as part of MARAD’s 

approval process, the MPEHTM LNG 

import project underwent an extensive 

analysis under the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 42 

U.S.C. 431 et seq., including preparation 

of an Environmental Impact Statement 

and a review by several other federal 

agencies including the U.S. Coast 

Guard, the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, the U.S. Army Corps 

of Engineers, among others. FME states 

that this analysis resulted in a favorable 

Record of Decision by MARAD in 

January 2007.23

In connection with this Application, 

FME states that MARAD, in 

coordination with the U.S. Coast Guard, 

will act as the lead agency for 

environmental review, with DOE acting 

as a cooperating agency. FME asserts 

that it initiated discussions with 

MARAD in October 2012 about 

developing an application for the 

proposed MPEHTM Port. FME states that 

it is currently performing scoping 

studies to determine which federal, 

state, or local agencies need to be 

involved and the additional studies that 

need to be performed in conjunction 

with the construction of the proposed 

MPEHTM Port, including the FLVs. FME 

requests that DOE/FE issue this export 

authorization conditioned on MARAD’s 

completion of the NEPA review and 

approval of the facility construction. 

FME states that the DOE/FE routinely 

issues orders with such a condition.24

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

34088 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 109 / Thursday, June 6, 2013 / Notices 

DOE/FE Evaluation 

The Application will be reviewed 

pursuant to section 3(a) of the NGA, 15 

U.S.C. 717b(a), and the authority 

contained in DOE Delegation Order No. 

00–002.00L (April 29, 2011) and DOE 

Redelegation Order No. 00–002.04E 

(April 29, 2011). In reviewing this LNG 

export Application, DOE will consider 

any issues required by law or policy. To 

the extent determined to be relevant or 

appropriate, these issues will include 

the impact of LNG exports associated 

with this Application, and the 

cumulative impact of any other 

application(s) previously approved, on 

domestic need for the gas proposed for 

export, adequacy of domestic natural 

gas supply, U.S. energy security, and 

any other issues, including the impact 

on the U.S. economy (GDP), consumers, 

and industry, job creation, U.S. balance 

of trade, international considerations, 

and whether the arrangement is 

consistent with DOE’s policy of 

promoting competition in the 

marketplace by allowing commercial 

parties to freely negotiate their own 

trade arrangements. Parties that may 

oppose this Application should address 

these issues in their comments and/or 

protests, as well as any other issues 

deemed relevant to the Application. 

NEPA requires DOE to give 

appropriate consideration to the 

environmental effects of its proposed 

decisions. No final decision will be 

issued in this proceeding until DOE has 

met its environmental responsibilities. 

Due to the complexity of the issues 

raised by the Applicant, interested 

persons will be provided 60 days from 

the date of publication of this Notice in 

which to submit comments, protests, 

motions to intervene, notices of 

intervention, or motions for additional 

procedures. 

Public Comment Procedures 

In response to this Notice, any person 

may file a protest, comments, or a 

motion to intervene or notice of 

intervention, as applicable. Any person 

wishing to become a party to the 

proceeding must file a motion to 

intervene or notice of intervention, as 

applicable. The filing of comments or a 

protest with respect to the Application 

will not serve to make the commenter or 

protestant a party to the proceeding, 

although protests and comments 

received from persons who are not 

parties will be considered in 

determining the appropriate action to be 

taken on the Application. All protests, 

comments, motions to intervene, or 

notices of intervention must meet the 

requirements specified by the 

regulations in 10 CFR Part 590. 

Filings may be submitted using one of 

the following methods: (1) emailing the 

filing to fergas@hq.doe.gov with FE 

Docket No. 13–26–LNG in the title line; 

(2) mailing an original and three paper 

copies of the filing to the Office Natural 

Gas Regulatory Activities at the address 

listed in ADDRESSES; or (3) hand 

delivering an original and three paper 

copies of the filing to the Office of 

Natural Gas Regulatory Activities at the 

address listed in ADDRESSES. All filings 

must include a reference to FE Docket 

No. 13–26–LNG. 

A decisional record on the 

Application will be developed through 

responses to this notice by parties, 

including the parties’ written comments 

and replies thereto. Additional 

procedures will be used as necessary to 

achieve a complete understanding of the 

facts and issues. A party seeking 

intervention may request that additional 

procedures be provided, such as 

additional written comments, an oral 

presentation, a conference, or trial-type 

hearing. Any request to file additional 

written comments should explain why 

they are necessary. Any request for an 

oral presentation should identify the 

substantial question of fact, law, or 

policy at issue, show that it is material 

and relevant to a decision in the 

proceeding, and demonstrate why an 

oral presentation is needed. Any request 

for a conference should demonstrate 

why the conference would materially 

advance the proceeding. Any request for 

a trial-type hearing must show that there 

are factual issues genuinely in dispute 

that are relevant and material to a 

decision, and that a trial-type hearing is 

necessary for a full and true disclosure 

of the facts. 

If an additional procedure is 

scheduled, notice will be provided to all 

parties. If no party requests additional 

procedures, a final Opinion and Order 

may be issued based on the official 

record, including the Application and 

responses filed by parties pursuant to 

this notice, in accordance with 10 CFR 

590.316. 

The Application is available for 

inspection and copying in the Office 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. The 

Application and any filed protests, 

motions to intervene or notice of 

interventions, and comments will also 

be available electronically by going to 

the following DOE/FE Web address: 

http://www.fe.doe.gov/programs/ 

gasregulation/index.html. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on May 31, 

2013. 

John A. Anderson, 

Manager, Natural Gas Regulatory Activities, 

Office of Oil and Gas Global Security and 

Supply, Office of Fossil Energy. 

[FR Doc. 2013–13418 Filed 6–5–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Biological and Environmental 

Research Advisory Committee 

AGENCY: Office of Science, Department 

of Energy. 

ACTION: Notice of Open Meeting. 

SUMMARY: This notice announces a 

meeting of the Biological and 

Environmental Research Advisory 

Committee (BERAC). The Federal 

Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92– 

463, 86 Stat. 770) requires that public 

notice of these meetings be announced 

in the Federal Register. 

DATES: Thursday, June 27, 2013; 8:30 

a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Friday, June 28, 2013; 

8:30 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. 

ADDRESSES: Gaithersburg Marriott 

Washingtonian Center, 9751 

Washingtonian Boulevard, Gaithersburg, 

Maryland 20878. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. 

David Thomassen, Designated Federal 

Officer, U.S. Department of Energy, 

Office of Science, Office of Biological 

and Environmental Research, SC–23/ 

Germantown Building, 1000 

Independence Avenue SW, Washington, 

DC 20585–1290. Phone 301–903–9817; 

fax (301) 903–5051 or email: 

david.thomassen@science.doe.gov. The 

most current information concerning 

this meeting can be found on the Web 

site: http://science.energy.gov/ber/ 

berac/meetings/. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Purpose of the Meeting: To provide 

advice on a continuing basis to the 

Director, Office of Science of the 

Department of Energy, on the many 

complex scientific and technical issues 

that arise in the development and 

implementation of the Biological and 

Environmental Research Program. 

Tentative Agenda Topics 

• Report from the Office of Biological 

and Environmental Research 

• News from the Biological Systems 

Science and Climate and 

Environmental Sciences Divisions 

• Discussion of the Office of Science 

Digital Data Policy 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES