[Federal Register: September 23, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 184)]
[Notices]
[Page 58018-58019]
[DOCID:fr23se10-125]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

[Summary Notice No. PE-2010-38]

Petition for Exemption; Reopening of Comment Period

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of petitions for exemption received; Reopening of
Comment Period

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: In accordance with 14 CFR 11.47(c), the FAA has received a
request to extend the comment period due to the temporary removal of
the original petition. The FAA will reopen the comment period for 20
days after the date of publication.

DATE: Comments on this petition must identify the petition docket
number involved and must be received on or before October 13, 2010.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments identified by Docket Number FAA-2010-
0496 using any of the following methods:
     Government-wide rulemaking Web site: Go to http://
www.regulations.gov and follow the instructions for sending your
comments electronically.
     Mail: Send comments to the Docket Management Facility;
U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West
Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590.
     Fax: Fax comments to the Docket Management Facility at
202-493-2251.
     Hand Delivery: Bring comments to the Docket Management
Facility in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    Privacy: We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you
provide. Using the search function of our docket Web site, anyone can
find and read the comments received into any of our dockets, including
the name of the individual sending the comment (or signing the comment
for an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's
complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on
April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78).
    Docket: To read background documents or comments received, go to
http://www.regulations.gov at any time or to the Docket Management
Facility in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mark Forseth, ANM-113,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
Federal Aviation Administration, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, WA
98057-3356, or Katherine Haley,<PHONE_NUMBER>, Office of Rulemaking
(ARM-203), Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue,
SW., Washington, DC 20591. This notice is published pursuant to 14 CFR
11.85.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on September 17, 2010.
Dennis Pratte,
Acting Director, Office of Rulemaking.

Petition for Exemption

    Docket No.: FAA-2010-0496.
    Petitioner: The Boeing Company.

Section of 14 CFR Affected

    14 CFR part 25, Appendix K, Sec.  K25.1.4(a)(3).

Description of Relief Sought

    The comment period for the Summary of Petition Received published
on September 1, 2010 (75 FR 53736) and closes on September 21, 2010.
The FAA temporarily removed the petition from the docket due to
proprietary content. This notice reopens the comment period.

[FR Doc. 2010-23812 Filed 9-22-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


The issue of whether the CAA authorizes emissions fees is discussed
above in section III.F.2.
4. Hybrid Market Based Approach
    A hybrid, market-oriented approach that could be used to regulate
GHG borrows from pollution control options that are based on setting
emissions rates, emissions credit trading, and emissions fees. This
approach starts with a rate-based emissions credit program in which an
average emission rate (e.g., tons of GHGs emitted per unit of output or
input) would be established for a given industry. As with a typical
rate-based policy, a source in the given industry would need to buy
credits to the extent it produces with emissions over the average
intensity, and could sell credits to the extent it produces with
emissions below the average. An element of an emissions fee approach
would then be added to this policy in which the government would also
buy and sell credits. The government could set a price for credits
based on selected policy criteria, and offer credits to sources at that
predetermined price. Sources could then buy credits from the government
as well as other regulated sources. Therefore, the government-set price
would act as a price ceiling (or ``safety-valve''), and the potential
for price fluctuations in emissions credits would be diminished
(because the government's predetermined price would act as a ceiling
price). As long as relatively cost-effective GHG emissions reductions
could occur within a covered sector over time, the average emissions
intensity may decline and total reductions in emissions would occur in
a relatively cost-effective manner without significant government
handling of emissions fee revenues. In addition to being a seller, the
government could also act as a buyer (so the government sales of
credits would not result in an excess supply). A similar approach
without the government's role in selling credits at a ceiling price and
with a fixed schedule of allowable average annual rate of allowable
emissions was actually successfully used in the phase down of lead in
gasoline in the 1980s by EPA.
    Some have suggested that the government could set a price for GHG
credits or allowances based on its assessment of those benefits to be
gained from the GHG emissions reduction per unit of output or input. In
theory, under this approach the marginal compliance costs would never
exceed the marginal benefits of reducing emissions. Note, however, that
there are serious issues to be resolved regarding whether and how a
defensible single estimate of marginal GHG reduction benefits can be
developed for this purpose (see section III.G). First, whether the
scope of benefits counted is global or domestic could significantly
affect the marginal benefits estimate. Second, for benefits categories
that can be quantified and monetized, there are many uncertainties that
result in a range of legitimate estimates, making it difficult to
pinpoint an appropriate number. Third, there is a bias toward
underestimating benefits of GHG reductions because many impacts
categories identified by the IPCC are not quantified and
monetized.\293\ As a result, the price might be set too low to achieve
the amount of emissions reductions that would be warranted considering
all benefits and policy goals.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \293\ There also are policy considerations that would be
neglected by an approach attempting to find a point at which
marginal costs equal marginal benefits. Examples include
irreversibility of changes in climate with adverse impacts affecting
future generations who cannot take part in today's decision-making,
and unequal geographic distribution of adverse climate change
impacts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    By including this discussion, EPA is not taking a position on
whether it has legal authority to pursue a hybrid market-oriented
approach. (See section III.F.2 above.) However, the agency seeks
comment on the general matter of how the pricing of credits within an
emissions intensity approach might be designed and established, what
legal authority would be necessary for this action, and what impact
different price-setting approaches would have on aggregate emissions
reductions, costs and benefits.

VIII. Stratospheric Ozone Protection Authorities, Background, and
Potential Regulation

A. Ozone Depleting Substances and Title VI of the Clean Air Act

    Title VI of the CAA provides authority to protect stratospheric
ozone, a layer high in the atmosphere that protects the Earth from
harmful UVB radiation. Added to the CAA in 1990, Title VI establishes a
number of regulatory programs to phase out and otherwise control
substances that deplete stratospheric ozone. These ozone-depleting
substances (ODS) are used in many consumer and industrial applications,
such as refrigeration,

building and vehicle air conditioning, solvent cleaning, civil
aviation, foam blowing, and fire extinguishing, and even in small but
important uses such as metered dose inhalers.
    Many ODS and some of the substances developed to replace them
(e.g., HFCs) are also potent GHGs. As described below, Title VI
programs have already achieved significant reductions in emissions of
ODS and thus in emissions of GHGs. However, the ODS being phased out
are not among the six major GHGs addressed by this notice. Because
these ODS are already being addressed by international and national
requirements for protecting stratospheric ozone, they are not covered
by UNFCCC requirements, the President's May 2007 directive or many
other efforts to address climate change. Similarly, the discussion in
this notice of a potential endangerment finding for GHGs does not
include in its analysis the ODS being phased out.
    In this section of the notice, we briefly describe Title VI
regulatory programs as they relate to ODS because of the GHG emission
reductions they achieve. We also consider the Title VI program for
regulating ODS substitutes, since some substitutes are also GHGs. Since
our focus in this notice is on potential use of the CAA to control the
six major GHGs, we also examine the general authority in section 615 as
it might be used to control those GHGs. However, as further explained
below, section 615 would be available for that purpose only to the
extent that EPA finds that emissions of the major GHGs are known or
reasonably anticipated to cause or contribute to harmful effects on
stratospheric ozone or otherwise affect the stratosphere in a way that
may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare.
Unlike other CAA provisions examined in this notice, section 615 would
not be triggered by a finding that one or more GHGs cause or contribute
to air pollution that may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public
health or welfare. The potential applicability of section 615 to the
major GHGs depends on whether specified findings related to the
stratosphere or ozone in the stratosphere could be made. In this way,
Title VI is significantly different from other CAA titles that provide
more general regulatory authority to address air pollutants that meet
an endangerment test.
1. Title VI Regulatory Programs
    Existing Title VI programs are largely focused on reducing and
otherwise controlling ODS to protect stratospheric ozone. The
cornerstone Title VI program is a graduated phaseout of ODS that
implements similar requirements in the Montreal Protocol on Substances
that Deplete the Ozone Layer, an international treaty to which the U.S.
is a party. The Title VI phaseout program relies on a system of
marketable allowances to control overall U.S. consumption (defined as
production + imports-exports) consistent with the Protocol's
requirements. EPA tracks production, export, and import of ODS, as well
as transactions in ODS allowances reflecting the flexibility inherent
in the program's market-oriented approach. This ensures compliance with
U.S. consumption caps established under the Protocol. The program also
allows exemptions from the phaseout to ensure that supplies of ODS
critical to certain sectors, like the agricultural fumigant methyl
bromide, are available until alternatives adequately penetrate the
marketplace.
    Other Title VI provisions supplement the phaseout program in a
variety of ways that enhance ozone layer protection. Under these
provisions, EPA has established a national ODS recycling and emission
reduction program, bans on nonessential ODS uses, a program for
labeling ODS-containing products, and the Significant New Alternatives
Policy (SNAP). Under the SNAP program, EPA reviews and approves
substitutes for ODS to help spur the development and uptake of safer
alternatives. Finally, Title VI authorizes EPA to accelerate the
schedule for phasing out ODS as warranted by scientific information,
the availability of substitutes, or the evolution of the treaty's
requirements pursuant to international negotiations among Parties to
the Montreal Protocol.
    Title VI has achieved large reductions in ODS consumption and
emissions, and consequently has reduced GHG emissions and slowed
climate change. According to a recent study, by 2010 ozone layer
protection will have done more to mitigate climate change than the
initial reduction target under the Kyoto Protocol, amounting to avoided
emissions of 11 billion metric tons of CO2 equivalent per
year, or a delay in climate impacts by about 10 years.\294\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \294\ Velders, G.J. et al., The Importance of the Montreal
Protocol in Protecting Climate, Proceedings of the National Academy
of Sciences, March 2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Because some ODS substitutes are GHGs, some have asked whether the
net effect of the Protocol on climate has been beneficial. Recent
research has demonstrated that the climate impact of ODS (e.g.,
chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs)), compared
to CO2 emissions from fossil fuel combustion, fell from
about 33 percent in 1990 to about 10 percent in 2000. The following
graph shows how the shift over time toward ODS alternatives under Title
VI has created a marked downward trend for GHG consumption in sectors
that use ODS and their substitutes, even while these uses have grown
with the U.S. economy and population. As can be seen below, consumption
of the ODS (CFCs, HCFCs, etc.) in 2004, although significantly lower
than peak ODS emissions in 1990, were actually greater than consumption
of HFCs, which are substitutes for CFCs and HCFCs.
    In view of the GHG emission reduction benefits of existing Title VI
programs, EPA seeks public comment on how elements of the existing
Title VI program could be used to provide further climate protection
while assuring a successful completion of the ODS phaseout, including a
smooth transition to alternatives.

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP30JY08.033

2. Further Action Under the Montreal Protocol
    The Montreal Protocol has been and will continue to be an
important, if limited, step in addressing climate change. At the 19th
Meeting of the Parties in September 2007, the Parties agreed to more
aggressively phase out a class of ODS, the hydrochlorofluorocarbons
(HCFCs). The agreement to adjust the phase-out schedule for HCFCs is
expected to reduce emissions of HCFCs to the atmosphere by 47 percent,
compared to the prior commitments under the treaty over the 30-year
period of 2010 to 2040. For the developing countries, the agreement
means there will be about a 58 percent reduction in HCFC emissions over
the same period.
    The climate benefits of the faster phase-out of HCFCs will depend
to some extent on technology choices in the transition from HCFCs. The
estimated climate benefit of the new, stronger HCFC phase-out may be
approximately 9,000 million metric tons of CO2e. A byproduct
of the manufacture of HCFC-22 is hydrofluorocarbon-23 (HFC-23), a gas
that does not damage ozone in the stratosphere but has a very high GWP.
Because this gas is produced in higher quantities in lower efficiency
production, to the extent that HCFC-22 production in the developing
world remains uncontrolled, additional HFC-23 would be created. Thus,
the agreement to sharply limit future developing world production of
ODS represents an important opportunity for climate protection, as well
as ozone layer recovery, as the President recognized in his April 16,
2008 speech on climate change.

B. Title VI Authorities Potentially Applicable to the Major GHGs

    As mentioned previously, the framework created by Title VI could be
effective in achieving GHG reductions by reducing and controlling ODS
and ODS substitutes through existing mechanisms for tracking
production, evaluating new safer alternatives, and addressing the needs
of the major contributing subsector, refrigeration and air
conditioning, through technician training, emission reduction and
recycling. In this section we review Title VI provisions that could
potentially apply to efforts to reduce the major GHGs that are not also
ODS or ODS substitutes.
    Title VI mostly includes provisions specific to individual ODS and
programs. The provisions generally apply to ``class I'' or ``class II''
ODS. Title VI requires EPA to list specified substances as class I and
class II ODS, and authorizes EPA to add other substances to either
category if the Agency makes certain findings regarding the substance's
effect on stratospheric ozone (see sections 602(a) and (b)). One
important difference between class I and class II ODS is that class I
substances include the most potent ODS; section 602(a) requires EPA to
list as class I substances all substances with an ozone depletion
potential of more than 0.2.\295\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \295\ The ozone depletion potential (ODP) of a chemical measures
its ability to reduce stratospheric ozone compared to a common ODS
known as CFC-11. While this and another common ODS have ODPs of 1.0,
the ODPs of class I and class II ODSs known to be in use range from
0.02 to 10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Title VI also requires EPA to publish the global warming potential
(GWP) of each listed ODS. Section 602(e) further provides that the
requirement to publish

GWP for a listed substance ``shall not be construed to be the basis of
any additional regulation under'' the CAA.
    Since the major GHGs being addressed in this notice have no ozone
depletion potential, it appears that the Title VI provisions that
authorize regulation of listed ODS are of limited potential use for
regulating those GHGs. EPA requests comment on the potential
applicability of ODS-specific Title VI authorities, and the
significance of the section 602(e) language quoted above for regulation
of GHGs under Title VI.
1. Section 615
    In addition to the specific provisions that authorize regulation of
listed ODS and in some cases ODS substitutes, Title VI also includes
general authority in section 615 to protect the stratosphere,
especially stratospheric ozone. Section 615 states:

    If, in the Administrator's judgment, any substance, practice,
process, or activity may reasonably be anticipated to affect the
stratosphere, especially ozone in the stratosphere, and such effect
may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare,
the Administrator shall promptly promulgate regulations respecting
the control of such substance, practice, process or activity, and
shall submit notice of the proposal and promulgation of such
regulation to the Congress.

While Title VI was added to the CAA in 1990, a provision largely
identical to section 615 was added to the Act in 1977, soon after
concerns about the effects of some substances on the stratosphere were
initially raised. In 1988, EPA promulgated regulations implementing the
first round of requirements of the Montreal Protocol through a system
of tradable allowances under section 157(b) of the CAA as amended in
1977. Section 157(b) was subsequently modified by the 1990 Amendments
and became section 615.
    Since 1990, EPA has rarely relied on the authority in section 615
to support rulemaking activity, since the activities that the Agency
regulates to protect stratospheric ozone have generally been addressed
under the more specific Title VI authorities. However, in 1993 EPA did
rely on section 615 to promulgate trade restrictions in order to
conform EPA regulations to Montreal Protocol provisions on trade with
countries that were not Parties to the Protocol. (March 18, 1993, 58 FR
15014, 15039 and December 10, 1993, 58 FR 65018, 65044). These trade
restrictions prevented shipments of ODS from the U.S. to countries with
no regulatory infrastructure to control their use. Promulgating these
restrictions reduced the release of ODS into the atmosphere, thereby
reducing harmful effects on public health and welfare. The restrictions
also resulted in eliminating the U.S. as a potential market for ODS
produced in non-Parties, thereby discouraging shifts of production to
non-Parties and limiting the potential for undermining the phaseout.
    Section 615 authority remains available when other CAA authorities
are not sufficient to address effects on the stratosphere, especially
ozone in the stratosphere. For example, in the late 1990s, EPA, the
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), and the Federal
Aviation Administration (FAA) considered options for addressing
potential ozone depletion resulting from supersonic commercial
aircraft. EPA and NASA analyzed the impacts from a theoretical fleet of
supersonic commercial aircraft, known as High Speed Civil Transport
(HSCT), and in an October 1998 Memorandum of Agreement between the two
agencies (signed by Spence M. Armstrong, Associate Administrator for
Aeronautics and Space Transportation Technology (NASA) and Robert
Perciasepe, Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation (EPA)) noted
the potential to rely on section 615 in conjunction with other
regulatory authorities.\296\
    While section 615 sets forth the authority and responsibility of
the Administrator to address effects on the stratosphere in order to
protect public health and welfare, EPA recognizes that this authority
was intended to augment other authorities and responsibilities
established by Title VI. EPA does not believe this authority is a basis
for prohibiting practices, processes, or activities that Congress
specifically exempted elsewhere. For example, EPA does not intend to
promulgate regulations eliminating the exceptions from the ODS phaseout
for essential uses as established by section 604.
    For section 615 authority to be used, a two-part endangerment test
unique to that section must be met. First, the Administrator must find,
in his judgment, that ``a substance, practice, process or activity may
reasonably be anticipated to affect the stratosphere, especially ozone
in the stratosphere.'' Second, he must determine that ``such effect may
reasonably be anticipated to endanger health or welfare.'' To determine
the potential applicability of section 615 to major GHGs, EPA thus
would have to consider whether available scientific information
supports making the requisite findings.
    The effect on the stratosphere of GHG emissions and of climate
change generally is a topic of ongoing scientific study.\297\ Recent
science suggests that feedback mechanisms exist that allow temperatures
in the stratosphere and troposphere to be mutually reinforcing or
mutually antagonistic depending on a number of factors, including the
latitude at which the ozone loss occurs. Further research is underway
to better understand these interactions. While it is beyond the scope
of this notice to assess and analyze the available scientific
information on the effect of GHGs on the stratosphere, EPA requests
comment on how evolving science might be relevant to the Agency's
potential use of section 615. More specifically, EPA requests comment
on how scientific research might help resolve areas of ambiguity in the
relationship between GHGs, effects on the stratosphere, and climate
change, and how this might help the Administrator make appropriate
judgments in applying the two-part test of section 615.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \297\ See, e.g., World Meteorological Organization, Global Ozone
Research and Monitoring Project--Report No. 50, Scientific
Assessment of Ozone Depletion: 2006, Ch. 5, Climate-Ozone
Connections.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    If the requisite endangerment finding is made, the regulatory
authority provided by section 615 is broad. While most Title VI
authorities are applicable to class I or class II substances or their
substitutes, section 615 authorizes regulation of ``any substance,
practice, process, or activity'' which EPA finds meets the two-part
endangerment test. As noted elsewhere in this notice, depending on the
nature of any finding made, section 615 authority may be broad enough
to establish a cap-and-trade program for the substance, practice,
process or activity covered by the finding, if appropriate. Title VI
provisions provide other examples of possible regulatory approaches,
such as maximizing recapture and recycling and requiring product
labeling. EPA requests comment on possible regulatory approaches under
section 615 and how those approaches would be affected by the
particular endangerment finding that is a prerequisite to the use of
section 615 authority.
2. Section 612
    Section 612 is also relevant to today's notice to the extent a GHG
may be used as a substitute for an ODS. CAA section 612 provides for
the review of alternatives to ODS and the approval of substitutes that
do not present a risk more significant than other alternatives that are
available. Under that authority, the SNAP program has worked
collaboratively for many years with industries, user groups, and other

stakeholders to create a menu of alternatives that can be substituted
for the ODS as they are phased out of production in the U.S.
    In recent years, industry partners in the motor vehicle air
conditioning (MVAC) sector have urged EPA to identify and approve
appropriate new substitutes to allow for the implementation of a world-
wide platform that will satisfy the needs of the U.S. market while also
meeting new requirements in the European Union, which call for a
transition over approximately six years beginning with the 2011 model
year into non-ODS alternatives with Global Warming Potentials (GWPs) of
less than 150.
    To address these concerns, EPA proposed in September 2006 a SNAP
rulemaking that provided for the use of CO2 and HFC-152a in MVACs (71
FR 55140 docket no. EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0488). In a separate action (INSERT
FR CITE), EPA has made final the portion of the rulemaking related to
HFC-152a. This substitute meets the EU requirements, while also
providing a new avenue for automakers to replace ODS. We believe we
should issue guidance on the use of CO2 as an MVAC alternative in the
context of the broader considerations of regulating GHGs set forth in
this notice. We have included in the docket cited above a summary of
our proposal regarding CO2 as an alternative from MVACs. This summary
reflects our latest thinking on the safe use of CO2 in those systems.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Chapter I

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control.

    Dated: July 11, 2008.
Stephen L. Johnson,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. E8-16432 Filed 7-29-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 76 (Thursday, April 19, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 23474]
[FR Doc No: 2012-9384]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings

    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural
Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

Filings Instituting Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: RP12-398-000.
    Applicants: Iberdrola Renewables, Inc., Iberdrola Energy Services
LLC.
    Description: Filed Date: 4/6/12.
    Accession Number: 20120406-5080.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/18/12.

    Docket Numbers: RP12-591-000.
    Applicants: Colorado Interstate Gas Company LLC.
    Description: Non-Conforming TSA (PSCO) to be effective 5/1/20/12.
    Filed Date: 4/5/12.
    Accession Number: 20120405-5169.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/17/12.

    Docket Numbers: RP12-592-000.
    Applicants: Questar Pipeline Company.
    Description: Minimum Pressure Guarantee to be effective 5/10/2012.
    Filed Date: 4/9/12.
    Accession Number: 20120409-5069.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/23/12.

    Docket Numbers: RP12-593-000.
    Applicants: TransColorado Gas Transmission Company LLC.
    Description: Housekeeping Filing 2012-04-09 to be effective 5/9/
2012.
    Filed Date: 4/9/12.
    Accession Number: 20120409-5075.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/23/12.

    Docket Numbers: RP12-594-000.
    Applicants: Stingray Pipeline Company, L.L.C.
    Description: Settlement to be effective 5/1/2012.
    Filed Date: 4/9/12.
    Accession Number: 20120409-5129.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/23/12.

    Docket Numbers: RP12-595-000.
    Applicants: Colorado Interstate Gas Company LLC.
    Description: EBB Notice Categories Filing to be effective 5/15/
2012.
    Filed Date: 4/9/12.
    Accession Number: 20120409-5140.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/23/12.

    Docket Numbers: RP12-596-000.
    Applicants: Cheyenne Plains Gas Pipeline Company, L. L.C.
    Description: EBB Notice Categories Filing to be effective 5/15/
2012.
    Filed Date: 4/9/12.
    Accession Number: 20120409-5147.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/23/12.

    Docket Numbers: RP12-597-000.
    Applicants: Young Gas Storage Company, Ltd.
    Description: EBB Notice Categories to be effective 5/15/2012.
    Filed Date: 4/9/12.
    Accession Number: 20120409-5153.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/23/12.

    Docket Numbers: RP12-598-000.
    Applicants: Ruby Pipeline, L.L.C.
    Description: EBB Notice Categories Filing to be effective 5/15/
2012.
    Filed Date: 4/9/12.
    Accession Number: 20120409-5154.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/23/12.

    Docket Numbers: RP12-599-000.
    Applicants: Wyoming Interstate Company, L.L.C.
    Description: EBB Notice Categories Filing to be effective 5/15/
2012.
    Filed Date: 4/9/12.
    Accession Number: 20120409-5155.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/23/12.

    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the
proceeding.

Filings in Existing Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: RP12-517-001.
    Applicants: Questar Pipeline Company.
    Description: Statement of Negotiated Rates Version 4.1.0 to be
effective 4/2/2012.
    Filed Date: 4/9/12.
    Accession Number: 20120409-5065.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/23/12.

    Any person desiring to protest in any the above proceedings must
file in accordance with Rule 211 of the Commission's Regulations (18
CFR 385.211) on or before 5 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment
date.
    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, and service can be found at:
http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other
information, call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-
8659.

    Dated: April 10, 2012.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.
Deputy Secretary
[FR Doc. 2012-9384 Filed 4-18-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 60 (Friday, March 28, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 17535-17536]
[FR Doc No: 2014-06983]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RM98-1-000]

Records Governing Off-the-Record Communications; Public Notice

    This constitutes notice, in accordance with 18 CFR 385.2201(b), of
the receipt of prohibited and exempt off-the-record communications.
    Order No. 607 (64 FR 51222, September 22, 1999) requires Commission
decisional employees, who make or receive a prohibited or exempt off-
the-record communication relevant to the merits of a contested
proceeding, to deliver to the Secretary of the Commission, a copy of
the communication, if written, or a summary of the substance of any
oral communication.
    Prohibited communications are included in a public, non-decisional
file associated with, but not a part of, the decisional record of the
proceeding. Unless the Commission determines that the prohibited
communication and any responses thereto should become a part of the
decisional record, the prohibited off-the-record communication will not
be considered by the Commission in reaching its decision. Parties to a
proceeding may seek the opportunity to respond to any facts or
contentions made in a prohibited off-the-record communication, and may
request that the Commission place the prohibited communication and
responses thereto in the decisional record. The Commission will grant
such a request only when it determines that fairness so requires. Any
person identified below as having made a prohibited off-the-record
communication shall serve the document on all parties listed on the
official service list for the applicable proceeding in accordance with
Rule 2010, 18 CFR 385.2010.
    Exempt off-the-record communications are included in the decisional
record of the proceeding, unless the communication was with a
cooperating agency as described by 40 CFR 1501.6, made under 18 CFR
385.2201(e) (1) (v).
    The following is a list of off-the-record communications recently
received by the Secretary of the Commission. The communications listed
are grouped chronologically, in ascending order. These filings are
available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or
may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov using
the eLibrary link. Enter the docket number, excluding the last three
digits, in the docket number field to access the document. For
assistance, please contact FERC, Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll free at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or for TTY,
contact<PHONE_NUMBER>.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Docket No.                   Filed date                    Presenter or requester
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prohibited:
    1. ER13-2108-000.....................          3-6-14  PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    2. P-1256-000........................         3-10-14  FERC Staff.\1\
    3. CP13-36-000.......................         3-18-14  Barbara Pearson.
    CP13-132-000
Exempt:
    1. CP13-483-000......................         2-14-14  FERC Staff.\2\
    CP14-492-000
    2. CP13-113-000......................         2-28-14  Montgomery County Council.\3\
    3. CP13-492-000......................          3-4-14  FERC Staff.\4\
    4. ER13-80-000.......................          3-5-14  Hon. Chris Gibson.
    5. P-2629-000........................          3-6-14  FERC Staff.\5\
    6. CP13-113-000......................          3-6-14  Members of Congress.\6\
    7. ER13-1380-000.....................         3-10-14  Hon. Nita M. Lowey.
    ER14-500-000
    8. CP13-483-000......................         3-12-14  FERC Staff.\7\
    CP13-492-000
    9. CP13-483-000......................         3-13-14  FERC Staff.\8\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Telephone and email records.
\2\ Telephone record.
\3\ Letter from George L. Leventhal.
\4\ Notes from 2-19-14 and 2-20-14 meetings.
\5\ Telephone Record.

\6\ Hons. Barbara A. Mikulski and Benjamin L.Cardin.
\7\ Notes from 2-13-14 meeting and letter from Jordan Cove to the US Department of Transportation.
\8\ Letter dated 3-13-14 from US Corps. of Engineers to Jordan Cove.

    Dated: March 24, 2014.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-06983 Filed 3-27-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P