[Federal Register: October 27, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 208)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 62912-62921]
[DOCID:fr27oc06-14]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

18 CFR Parts 153, 157, 375, and 385

[Docket No. RM06-1-000; Order No. 687]

Regulations Implementing the Energy Policy Act of 2005;
Coordinating the Processing of Federal Authorizations for Applications
Under Sections 3 and 7 of the Natural Gas Act and Maintaining a
Complete Consolidated Record

October 19, 2006.
AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, DOE.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: Section 313 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct 2005) \1\
amends section 15 of the Natural Gas Act (NGA) \2\ to provide the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) with additional
authority to coordinate the processing of authorizations required under
Federal law for proposed natural gas projects subject to NGA sections 3
and 7 and to maintain a complete consolidated record of decisions with
respect to such Federal authorizations. This Final Rule promulgates
regulations governing its exercise of this authority whereby the
Commission will establish a schedule for the completion of reviews of
requests for authorizations necessary for a proposed project and
compile a consolidated record to be used in the event of review of
actions by the Commission and other agencies in responding to requests
for authorizations necessary for a proposed project.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Pub. L. 109-58, 119 Stat. 594 (2005).
    \2\ 15 U.S.C. 717n (2005).

DATES: Effective Date: The rule will become effective December 26,
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2006.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gordon Wagner, Office of the General
Counsel, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(202) 502-8947.
    Lonnie Lister, Office of Energy Projects, Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426;
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(202) 502-8587.

    William O. Blome, Office of the General Counsel, Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC. 20426;
(202) 502-8462.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Before Commissioners: Joseph T. Kelliher, Chairman; Suedeen G.
Kelly, Marc Spitzer, Philip D. Moeller, and Jon Wellinghoff

    1. On May 18, 2006, the Commission issued a Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking (NOPR) in Docket No. RM06-1-000,\3\ requesting comments on
proposed regulations to implement section 313 of the Energy Policy Act
of 2005 (EPAct 2005).\4\ EPAct 2005 section 313 amends the Natural Gas
Act (NGA) to provide the Commission with the authority (1) to set a
schedule for Federal agencies, and state agencies acting under
federally delegated authority, to reach a final decision on requests
for Federal authorizations necessary for proposed NGA section 3 or 7
gas projects and (2) to maintain a complete consolidated record of all
decisions and actions by the Commission and other agencies with respect
to such authorizations. In this Final Rule, the Commission considers
comments submitted in response to the NOPR, and as a result, makes
certain modifications to the proposed regulatory revisions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 71 FR 30632 (May 30 2006); FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 32,601
(2006); 115 FERC ] 61,203 (2006).
    \4\ Pub. L. 109-58, 119 Stat. 594 (2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Background

    2. The Commission authorizes the construction and operation of
proposed natural gas projects under NGA sections 3 and 7.\5\ However,
the Commission does not have jurisdiction over every aspect of each
natural gas project. Hence, for a natural gas project to go forward, in
addition to Commission approval, several different agencies must
typically reach favorable findings regarding other aspects of the
project. To better coordinate the activities of separate agencies with
varying responsibilities over proposed natural gas projects, EPAct 2005
modified the Commission's role. Section 313 of EPAct 2005 directs the
Commission (1) to establish a schedule for agencies to review requests
for Federal authorizations required for a project \6\

and (2) to compile a record of each agency's decision, together with
the record of the Commission's decision, to serve as a consolidated
record for the purpose of appeal, including judicial review.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Under NGA section 7, the Commission has jurisdiction over
the transportation or sale of natural gas in interstate commerce and
the construction, acquisition, operation, and abandonment of
facilities to transport natural gas in interstate commerce. Under
NGA section 3(e), the Commission has exclusive authority to approve
or deny an application for the siting, construction, expansion, or
operation of a liquefied natural gas (LNG) terminal. The Secretary
of the Department of Energy (DOE) has delegated to the Commission
the authority under NGA section 3 to approve or disapprove
applications for the siting, construction, and operation of
facilities to import or export natural gas. The most recent
delegation is in Delegation Order No. 00-004-00A, effective May 16,
2006.
    \6\ EPAct 2005 section 313 describes ``Federal authorizations''
as decisions or actions by a Federal agency or official, ``or State
administrative agency or officer acting under delegated Federal
authority,'' granting or denying requests for permits, certificates,
opinions, approvals, and other authorizations. The United States
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) asks what types of state
actions would qualify as being under delegated Federal authority.
The Commission finds that a state action qualifies as an action
under delegated Federal authority if it is an action that (1) a
State entity is permitted, approved, or directed to take under
Federal law and (2) provides the basis for a reasoned decision on a
request for a Federal authorization. The United States Department of
Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National
Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) asks whether a Federal authorization
would include recommendations or biological opinions issued
subsequent to consultations under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
Conservation and Management Act and Endangered Species Act (ESA). To
the extent recommendations and opinions are necessary for a Federal
agency, or state agency acting under federally delegated authority,
to reach a decision on a request for a Federal authorization that is
needed for a proposed NGA section 3 or 7 project to go forward, the
Commission interprets EPAct 2005's mandate as encompassing such
recommendations and opinions as ``Federal authorizations.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    3. On November 17, 2005, the Commission issued an order initially
implementing the authority conferred by EPAct 2005 \7\ and delegating
to the Director of OEP the authority to set schedules for agencies to
act on requests for Federal authorizations necessary for natural gas
projects to ensure such requests are processed expeditiously. In that
order, the Commission stated a subsequent rulemaking would codify the
pertinent provisions of EPAct 2005. To that end, the May 2006 NOPR set
forth proposed regulatory revisions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Coordinated Processing of NGA Section 3 and 7 Proceedings,
113 FERC ] 61,170 (2005). This Final Rule codifies this delegation
of authority by revising Sec.  375.308, Delegations to the Director
of the Office of Energy Projects (OEP), to add a new Sec.
375.308(bb), which delegates authority to the Director of OEP to
establish schedules, consistent with Federal law, for agencies to
complete their analysis and decision making processes and issue
decisions on requests for Federal authorizations necessary for
natural gas projects.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In this Final Rule, the Commission responds to comments concerning
the NOPR, and adopts further regulatory revisions to implement its new
responsibilities under EPAct 2005.

Notice and Comment

    4. Notice of the NOPR was published in the Federal Register on May
30, 2006.\8\ Comments on the NOPR were filed by Baker Botts, L.L.P.
(Baker Botts); Cheniere Energy, Inc. (Cheniere); City of Fall River,
Massachusetts; Coastal States Organization; Conservation Law
Foundation; Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental
Control, Division of Soil & Water Conservation (Delaware DNR); U. S.
Department of the Army Corps of Engineers (Army COE); Dominion
Transmission, Inc., Dominion Cove Point LNG, LP, and Dominion South
Pipeline Company, LP (Dominion); Duke Energy Transmission, LLC (Duke);
United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA); Interstate Natural
Gas Association of America (INGAA); United States Department of the
Interior (Interior); Islander East Pipeline Company, L.L.C. (Islander
East); Mr. Mark Mendelson; Massachusetts Office of the Attorney
General; Massachusetts Executive Office of Environmental Affairs
(Massachusetts EOEA); New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection
(New Jersey DEP); Columbia Gas Transmission Corporation, Columbia Gulf
Transmission Company, Crossroads Pipeline Company, Granite State Gas
Transmission, Inc., and Central Kentucky Transmission Company
(collectively NiSource); Oregon Coastal Management Program; United
States Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS); and Williston
Basin Interstate Pipeline Company (Williston).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 71 FR 30632 (May 30, 2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Discussion

    5. The comments raise objections to various aspects of the proposed
regulatory revisions. In response, various aspects of the NOPR's
proposed revisions are modified, as discussed below.

Electronic Submission of Information

    6. There are several different events that trigger the obligation
on the part of other agencies and officials to submit information to
the Commission. In the NOPR, the Commission proposed all such
information be submitted electronically, but requested that affected
agencies and officials comment on whether electronic submission could
prove impractical. Several agencies stated that they are not yet
prepared to transmit information by electronic means. Consequently, to
avoid any undue hardship, while stressing its preference to receive
information via electronic means, the Commission removes the
requirement to submit information by electronic means.

Coordinating Federal Authorizations

When to Submit Requests for Federal Authorizations

    7. Proposed Sec. Sec.  153.8 and 157.14 specify that an application
filed with the Commission for a natural gas project under NGA section 3
or 7 must include:

    A statement identifying each Federal authorization that the
proposal will require; the Federal agency or officer, or State
agency or officer acting pursuant to delegated Federal authority,
which will issue each authorization; the date each request for
authorization was submitted; and the date by which final action on
each Federal authorization has been requested or is expected.

    The NOPR observed that if an application does not include this
proposed new information statement, the Commission may deem the
application incomplete.
    8. Several commenters explain that it is impractical, if not
impossible, to submit applications for all Federal authorizations
before or contemporaneously with the project application filed with the
Commission. These commenters propose instead that a project sponsor be
permitted to file an application with the Commission first; list the
authorizations necessary for the new project; identify those
authorizations for which applications have already been submitted and
the dates upon which they were submitted; and then state the dates by
which any outstanding authorization requests will be submitted.
    9. The Commission observes that most applications to construct
major new gas projects are filed with the Commission after the project
sponsor has participated in the Commission's prefiling process. This
prefiling period affords a project sponsor, Commission staff, and staff
from other agencies the opportunity to identify which Federal
authorizations will be needed for a project, and ample time for the
project sponsor to prepare requests for related Federal authorizations
in advance of filing an application with the Commission.\9\ Thus, the
prefiling process can establish coordination among the agencies
responsible for reviewing a project proposal and diminish the chance
that the Commission might find an application to be incomplete.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ The NOPR noted that project sponsors that have made use of
the prefiling period and process to prepare and submit requests for
Federal authorizations to agencies before an NGA application is
filed with the Commission have been able to compress the time needed
to obtain Commission authorization. In large part, this is because
completion of the Commission's assessment of an application often
rests on other agencies reaching favorable determinations on
separate authorization requests. Dominion and Duke are concerned
that the new filing requirement might force a project sponsor to
devote undue resources to preparing to submit requests for related
Federal authorizations at the same time as an NGA application. The
Commission believes the prefiling process can minimize the resources
needed by a project sponsor by spacing out its submission of
authorization requests over a period of several months.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    10. The Commission nevertheless acknowledges that there may be
circumstances that preclude a project sponsor from presenting all
requests for necessary Federal authorizations by the time it files an
application with the Commission.\10\ Therefore, Sec. Sec.  153.8 and

157.14 of the Commission's regulations will be modified to provide for
a sponsor to explain why requests for Federal authorizations remain
outstanding and state anticipated dates for submitting such requests. A
project sponsor will now be required to state ``the date each request
for authorization was submitted; why any request has not been submitted
and the date submission is expected; and the date by which final action
on each Federal authorization has been requested or is expected.'' For
requests that remain outstanding at the time an application is filed,
the Commission will review the reasons given, the projected dates of
submission, and an applicant's interactions with the agencies. The
Commission may then accept the application for consideration, and based
on the state of documents and studies needed to support prospective
authorization requests, accept the projected submission dates as a
basis for establishing a schedule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Cheniere, for example, posits that an agency may refuse to
accept a request for a Federal authorization ``through no fault of
the applicant.'' Were this to occur, the project sponsor should
inform the Commission, which can then inquire as to the
circumstances. NMFS points out that with respect to certain Federal
authorizations, such as an affirmation of compliance with the
Endangered Species Act or the National Historic Preservation Act,
the project sponsor is not in a position to submit an authorization
request, since a request to initiate consultation with the
responsible agency must be submitted by the Commission. The
Commission notes this does not relieve the project sponsor of its
obligation, as described in Part 380 of the existing regulations, to
develop and submit all necessary technical information. Baker Botts
and INGAA call attention to difficulties that may be presented by
compelling a project sponsor to file a permit under the Clean Air
Act contemporaneously with an NGA section 3 or 7 application. Such
difficulties should be alleviated by the modifications that this
Final Rule makes to the filing requirements as proposed in the NOPR.
Provided a project sponsor presents good cause for not submitting a
particular authorization request by the time an application is
submitted, the Commission stands ready to accept the application.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Determining a Schedule for Federal Authorizations

    11. Initially, upon receiving an application, the Commission issues
a notice ``within 10 days of filing,'' in accordance with Sec.  157.9
of its regulations,\11\ or rejects the application in accordance with
Sec.  157.8 of its regulations. In issuing a notice of an application,
the Commission, or the Director of OEP acting pursuant to delegated
authority, may also declare a schedule for final decisions on
outstanding requests for Federal authorizations. When a schedule is
established, it will comply with agencies' applicable schedules
established by Federal law.\12\ The NOPR stated that in the event the
Commission or the Director of OEP does not set a schedule for a
particular project in the notice or at a later date, the default
deadline for decisions by those agencies without applicable schedules
established by Federal law will be no later than 90 days after the
issuance of the Commission's final environmental document on the
proposed project, or if no environmental document is issued, then no
later than 90 days after issuance of a final order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Section 157.9 is revised by this Final Rule to state that
in calculating this deadline, only days during which the Commission
is open for business are counted.
    \12\ In response to a query by NMFS, the Commission states it
interprets the reference in EPAct 2005 section 313(c)(1)(B) to
``Federal law'' to consist of schedules specified either in the
United States Code or in the Code of Federal Regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    12. Commenters point out that if no schedule is included in the
notice of an application, agencies are left to wonder whether a
project-specific schedule will be issued at some later date, or whether
silence indicates the default deadline applies. The Commission
acknowledges the desirability of informing agencies in a timely manner
of the schedule that will apply in each case. Accordingly, the
Commission will adopt a different procedural approach, as described
below.
    13. The NOPR proposed requiring that agency action on authorization
requests be completed within 90 days of the issuance of the
Commission's final environmental document in a proceeding, or if an
environmental document were not prepared, then within 90 days of the
issuance of a final Commission order. Previously, the Commission has
not always issued its environmental assessment (EA) at the time of its
completion. Going forward, the Commission commits to issue its final
environmental document in every proceeding by placing it in the public
record. In addition, going forward, the Commission commits to issuing a
notice within 90 days of the notice of an application describing the
schedule that will apply to the environmental review process conducted
by the Commission to ensure compliance with the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA).\13\ This notice of the schedule for the
environmental review will state, among other milestones, the
anticipated date for the Commission's completion of its EA or final
environmental impact statement (EIS).\14\ This NEPA notice will thus
serve to inform agencies without a schedule established by Federal law
of the projected date by which they are to reach a decision on
requested authorizations, i.e., within 90 days after the anticipated
issuance of the Commission's EA or final EIS. Section 157.9 is revised
accordingly.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 42 U.S.C. 4321-4347 (2005).
    \14\ It has been the Commission's experience that in processing
applications for certain minor and routine projects, the
Commission's assessment, including its NEPA review, can often be
completed within 90 days. For such projects, the Commission will
either include a notice of the environmental schedule in conjunction
with the notice of the application (i.e., the initial notice issued
within 10 days of an application's being filed with the Commission),
or will issue a separate notice of the environmental schedule
shortly thereafter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    14. Under this approach, there is no longer any distinction--as was
discussed in the NOPR--between a ``default'' and a ``project-specific''
schedule. For agencies without a schedule established by Federal law,
the deadline for a final decision will follow from the date the
Commission issues its final environmental document by placing it in the
public record, with the anticipated issuance date stated in the NEPA
notice. However, this anticipated issuance date is subject to change.
As explained in the NOPR, during the course of considering an
application or a request for a Federal authorization, unanticipated
issues and circumstances can arise and affect the time needed to
complete the review. The Commission will monitor such changed
circumstances, and may find it appropriate to revise the milestones set
out in its initial schedule for its environmental review.\15\ If the
Commission does so, it will issue a notice updating the milestones
associated with its environmental review process. Any revision that
alters the date that the Commission anticipates issuing its EA or final
EIS will correspondingly shift the projected 90-day deadline for
agencies without a schedule established by Federal law to reach a final
decision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ This flexibility should alleviate the concern of commenters
such as the City of Fall River, Massachusetts, regarding situations
where apparently straightforward issues are discovered during the
course of analysis to be more complex and time-consuming than
originally anticipated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    15. As described above, the Commission will now issue a notice
describing the schedule for its environmental review as a part of, or
within 90 days of, its initial notice of an application. Therefore,
agencies will know, relatively early in the processing of all
applications, where they stand with respect to due dates for their
final decisions on requests for Federal authorizations.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ The New Jersey DEP recommends that each State agency
reviewing a request for a Federal authorization be provided with
formal notice of the date the Commission issues a final
environmental document, arguing that ``[w]ithout formal notice . . .
a State agency will not know that the 90-day review period for a
decision has begun.'' New Jersey DEP's Comments at 1 (July 28,
2006). In view of the Commission's commitment to issue a formal
notice of the schedule for the environmental review, agencies should
have adequate notice of the anticipated start date of the last 90
days of the review period applicable to those agencies without a
schedule set by Federal law. State and Federal agencies and officers
are urged to make use of the Commission's eSubscription service as a
means to monitor documents submitted in a proceeding, updates, and
the date of issuance of the Commission's EA or final EIS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    16. Commenters expressed the concern that the Commission could
reach a decision on a schedule for agency action without first
considering

agency comments on authorization requests. As discussed below,
agencies' reports on authorization requests will still be due within 30
days of the receipt of such requests. In addition, it is expected that
project sponsors will submit as many requests for necessary Federal
authorizations as possible by the time an application is filed with the
Commission. Therefore, in most cases the Commission will have
approximately 60 days to consider agency comments in advance of issuing
the notice of its schedule for the environmental review, enabling the
Commission to review agencies' input in setting the milestones for the
completion of the Commission's environmental review.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ As noted above, in minor and routine cases where issues
that might complicate agencies' reviews are unlikely to arise, the
Commission may issue notice of its environmental schedule in its
initial notice of the filing of an application or shortly
thereafter. However, if concerns regarding authorization requests
are subsequently raised in agency reports to the Commission, the
Commission would then reconsider the given time frames. In
determining whether a proposal qualifies as minor and routine, and
thereby suitable for processing on an accelerated schedule, EPA
recommends the Commission first consult with the other agencies that
will be involved. The Commission expects such projects to be readily
identifiable or identified in the course of a prefiling
consultation. The Commission will not identify a proposal as a
candidate for accelerated processing unless it is confident of
consensus among agencies that it merits such treatment. An agency
may object to any schedule set by the Commission, and the Commission
will reassess the grounds for its determination.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    17. The Conservation Law Foundation requests doubling the 90 days
following the issuance of the Commission's final environmental document
to 180 days, whereas INGAA and interstate pipelines promote reducing
the time to 30 days. The Conservation Law Foundation points out that a
final decision on a request for a necessary Federal authorization may
not be reached within 90 days of the issuance of the EA or EIS. The
Commission acknowledges that although infrequent, this can occur.
However, the Commission expects that project sponsors' increasing use
of the Commission's prefiling consultation process, in conjunction with
the regulatory revisions instituted herein, will eliminate such delayed
authorization decisions.\18\ Further, the Commission believes that
providing the 180 days requested would be incompatible with the EPAct
2005 mandate to ``ensure expeditious completion'' of NGA section 3 and
7 proceedings.\19\ On the other hand, the Commission finds no reason to
adopt a 30-day requirement. Comments in favor advocate harmonizing the
amount of time provided for agencies to act with the 30 days from
issuance of a Commission order currently provided for filing a request
for rehearing or accepting a certificate. The Commission sees no need
to do so, as there is no evidence that project sponsors are currently
hindered in reaching decisions on whether to seek rehearing of the
Commission's orders or accept a certificate when other agencies take
more than 30 days after an order to complete action on authorization
requests. The Commission believes that the 90 days provided strikes an
appropriate balance between providing adequate time for agencies'
deliberation and avoiding delay to project sponsors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ The Commission notes that for the most part, instances in
which final decisions on requests for necessary Federal
authorizations have not been reached within the 90-day time frame
designated herein, have involved authorizations for which a schedule
for agency action is established by Federal law, e.g., a Coastal
Zone Management Act (CZMA) consistency determination or a water
quality certification under section 401 of the Clean Water Act
(CWA). Nothing in this Final Rule will alter schedules set by
Federal law.
    \19\ EPAct 2005 section 313(c)(1)(A) (2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    18. The NOPR observed that:

    In some cases--for example, when there is a demonstrated need to
have a new natural gas project in service by a certain date--the
Commission may set deadlines that are shorter than the maximum times
permitted under Federal law. In such cases, the Commission
recognizes that compliance with its specified deadlines would be
voluntary for agencies with deadlines determined by Federal law.\20\

    \20\ 71 FR 30632 at 30635 (May 30, 2006); FERC Stats. & Regs. ]
32,601 at 32,558 (2006); 115 FERC ] 61,203 at P 17 (2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    19. Several commenters contend this observation conflicts with
Federal law. In setting a schedule for agencies to conclude their
reviews of requests for Federal authorization, the Commission has no
ability to contract or expand a schedule established by Federal law.
Consequently, there can be no conflict between a schedule set by the
Commission and a schedule set by Federal law.\21\ The Commission's
observation in the NOPR was no more than an acknowledgment of current
practice. Agencies frequently complete their review of certain project
proposals--most often for modest and uncontroversial facilities--well
in advance of deadlines allotted by Federal law. The NOPR stated the
aspiration that agencies might continue to do so, recognizing that in
exercising its new authority to set schedules, the Commission can only
encourage agencies to act in advance of deadlines set by Federal law,
it cannot compel them to do so.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ Baker Botts raises a related issue in requesting
clarification that an agency presented with an authorization request
must not be permitted to await the outcome of another agency's
action prior to commencing its own review. While such an approach
might be viewed as contrary to EPAct 2005's expressed intent to
expedite the review process for proposed gas projects, provided the
agency in waiting is able to meet its deadline to reach a final
decision--be it established by Federal law or by the Commission--
there would not necessarily be cause to seek to compel the
recalcitrant agency to commence its review sooner.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    20. The Army COE states that the deadlines established by the
Commission for final agency action will be ``voluntary and non-
binding.'' \22\ This would be the case if, as discussed above, the
schedule set by the Commission calling for a shorter time frame did not
meet the EPAct 2005 requirement that it ``comply with applicable
schedules established by Federal law.'' \23\ However, if an agency
without a schedule established by Federal law fails to meet a deadline
set by the Commission, this ``failure of the agency to take action * *
* in accordance with the Commission schedule established pursuant to
section 15(c) shall be considered inconsistent with Federal Law,'' and
as a result, can be brought to the attention of the United States Court
of Appeals, which can ``remand the proceeding to the agency to take
appropriate action consistent with the order of the Court'' by the
``schedule and deadline for the agency to act on remand'' that will be
set by the court.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ Army COE's Comments at 3 (July 31, 2006).
    \23\ EPAct 2005 section 313(c)(1)(B) (2005).
    \24\ EPAct 2005 section 313(d)(2) and (3). Note this described
civil action for the review of an agency's alleged failure to act on
a requested authorization does not apply to CZMA determinations,
since the Department of Commerce, not a Federal court, is the body
to review a failure to act on, or the outcome of, a CZMA request.
This section of EPAct 2005 was recently discussed and applied in
Islander East Pipeline Co. LLC v. Connecticut Department of
Environmental Protection, Docket No. 05-4139-ag (2d Cir. Oct. 5,
2006); the court found a State agency acting under delegated Federal
authority had not conducted a complete and reasoned review of a
request for a Federal authorization, and required the state agency
to either do so within 75 days or abdicate its delegated Federal
authority.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Informing the Commission Upon Receipt of an Authorization Request

    21. New Sec.  385.2013 specifies that within 30 days of receiving
an authorization request, an agency must inform the Commission of: (1)
Whether the agency deems the application to be ready for processing
and, if not, what additional information or materials will be necessary
to assess the merits of the request; (2) the time the agency will allot
the applicant to provide the necessary additional information or
materials; (3) what, if any, studies will be necessary in order to
evaluate the request; (4) the anticipated effective date of the
agency's decision; and (5) if

applicable, the schedule set forth by Federal law for the agency to
act. Further, if an agency asks for additional information, the agency
is to provide the Commission with a copy of its data request.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ This establishes the minimum information required of an
agency. EPA, Duke, and Islander East suggest a more collaborative
approach to establish a schedule. To this end, the Commission
invites agencies to go beyond the requisite minimum and provide
additional information, which the Commission will consider in
exercising its scheduling responsibilities. Further, in determining
a schedule appropriate to a particular application, Commission takes
into account not only agencies' input but also the project sponsor's
proposed construction schedule and in-service date.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    22. Commenters claim that 30 days is an unreasonably short time to
be able to render a meaningful assessment of an authorization request.
The Commission recognizes that 30 days will often be insufficient for
agencies to reach definitive conclusions on each of the stipulated
aspects of an authorization request. But that is not the intent.
Instead, the information submission is intended to give the Commission
an overview to enable it to determine a realistic timetable for the
environmental review process. The Commission recognizes that agencies'
reports will necessarily be provisional and subject to change, and will
take this into account both when first determining a schedule for its
NEPA review, and thereafter, to take into account agencies' progress in
processing authorization requests.
    23. For the purpose of measuring the time for an agency to act on
an authorization request, in the NOPR the Commission explained the
clock begins to run on the day a request is submitted to the agency.
Interior questions whether this would be the day a request is sent or
the day it is received; the Commission clarifies that the day the
agency receives a request is the first day counted. This is unlikely to
be the day an agency takes official notice that a complete application
has been received and is ready for processing; rather, this will be the
first day an agency is in receipt of a formal written request by a
project sponsor for an authorization needed for a prospective NGA
section 3 or 7 project.
    24. Commenters are concerned with the prospect that an agency might
receive a cursory authorization request that could not be evaluated
absent additional information. The NOPR stated that if an agency deems
a request to be incomplete, and the project sponsor fails to provide
the necessary information in time for the agency to reach a decision by
the Commission's scheduled deadline, then the agency may deny the
request.\26\ In turn, the Commission may deny the application before
it, or authorization to commence construction, due to the project
sponsor's failure to obtain a necessary Federal authorization. The
Commission reiterates that whether an agency finds a request complete
has no bearing on the agency's allotted response time. That said, the
Commission does not expect to have to frequently reject NGA
applications due to imperfections in requests for related Federal
authorizations in view of the decision to revise the procedural
schedule, as described above, to tie agencies' deadlines to issuance of
the EA or final EIS. This approach to scheduling should give agencies
and applicants adequate advance notice of when decisions on requests
for Federal authorizations will be due, and motivate project sponsors
to make all necessary information available in order for agencies to
reach timely decisions on the merits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ This presumably would be the outcome with respect to an
authorization required for a project if, as the Oregon Coastal
Management Program and Coastal States Organization speculate, the
agency is unable to obtain all the information needed to make an
appropriate assessment of the proposal in time to meet the scheduled
deadline for a final decision. Dominion requests that if an agency
informs the Commission that a project sponsor has not adequately
supported its request, then ``the Commission will give the applicant
an opportunity to respond and cure the alleged deficiencies.''
Dominion's Comments at 11 (July 31, 2006). In the event of a
disagreement regarding the adequacy of the contents of a request for
a Federal authorization, the Commission may find reason to revise an
agency's deadline for a final decision. However, although the
Commission implores project sponsors and agencies to work
cooperatively, it cannot compel them to do so. An agency retains the
discretion to reject a request on the grounds that information
necessary to reach a decision is lacking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    25. The Army COE asks if submitting an electronic copy to the
Commission of the agency's response to a project sponsor's
authorization request would satisfy the Sec.  385.2013 reporting
requirement. It would, provided the submission contains the specified
information; moreover, as discussed herein, submission to the
Commission need not be by electronic means. Regardless of whether an
agency's submission is made electronically or by paper copy, it should
be filed in the PF or CP docket number, if available, assigned to the
project sponsor's application to the Commission.

Procedural Clarifications

    26. Once an application is filed with the Commission and a schedule
is established, if a project sponsor seeks to make a modification to
its proposal that is material to one or more of its requested Federal
authorizations, the project sponsor should file a description of the
modification with the Commission--regardless of whether the Commission
has approved the application or whether the modification would require
amendment of the proposal before the Commission. NiSource requests the
Commission clarify that a material modification would include a
modification to an aspect of the proposal that would substantially
change the overall environmental impacts. The Commission accepts this
characterization. Following a project sponsor's notice to the
Commission of a material modification, it will be within the discretion
of the Director of OEP to determine whether the modification will make
it impossible for an agency to reach a final decision on a request for
a Federal authorization within 90 days of the issuance of the
Commission's final environmental document.\27\ If so, pursuant to Sec.
375.308, the Director of OEP may establish a revised, separate deadline
for a final decision by that agency. Finally, a material modification
to a project pending approval by the Commission may merit revising and
re-noticing the schedule for the environmental review. The schedule for
agencies to complete their reviews would then be adjusted in accordance
with the revised schedule for completing the NEPA process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ As one such instance, the Army COE describes circumstances
where a project sponsor made a material modification that impacted
the authorization request under consideration by the Army COE after
the Commission's final EIS was completed. Army COE Comments at 3
(July 31, 2006). In such a case, the project sponsor should inform
the Commission, and where appropriate, a revised, separate deadline
will be established for the affected agency.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    27. The New Jersey DEP suggests that in submitting a request for a
necessary Federal authorization for an NGA section 3 or 7 project, the
project sponsor identify the request as such. The Commission endorses
this suggestion, and urges project sponsors to include the Commission's
applicable PF or CP docket number, if available, in its authorization
request. Identifying the proposed project in this manner, and informing
the agency that the request is being submitted in conjunction with an
application to the Commission, will alert the agency of the need to
inform the Commission of its receipt of the request, pursuant to new
Sec.  385.2013. Agencies, in turn, in submitting a report to the
Commission on the status of a requested Federal authorization, should
identify the party submitting the request, identify the proposed
project, and include, if available, the applicable PF or CP docket
number.

    28. The New Jersey DEP and Delaware DNR propose making the project
sponsor, rather than the agency receiving a request for a Federal
authorization, responsible for submitting to the Commission the
agency's initial 30-day status report and any data requests. The
Commission sees disadvantages in having the project sponsor assume this
responsibility. In part, the aim of the 30-day report is to open, or
extend, the dialogue between the agency and the Commission, since the
Commission expects to confer with the responsible agencies over the
course of the NEPA review process. Initial contact would not
necessarily be established early were the project sponsor to act as an
intermediary between agencies and the Commission. The burden on
agencies to copy the Commission on a data request sent to a project
sponsor is minimal; thus, the Commission finds that rather than having
project sponsors receiving an agency's data request forward it on, it
is better, in terms of timing and simplicity, to have the agency that
generates the data request submit it directly to the Commission.
    29. NMFS suggests the Commission serve as a central point of
contact linking project sponsors to agencies. The Commission sees no
benefit to placing itself between the company seeking to develop a new
project and the agencies responsible for examining aspects of the
proposal. As is, Commission staff maintains communication with the
project sponsor and agencies from the receipt of a request to make use
of the prefiling process through issuance of the final decision.
    30. The Commission declares, in response to questions raised by
INGAA and Islander East, that the procedures described herein do not
apply to activities that do not involve ``an application for
authorization under section 3 or a certificate of public convenience
and necessity under section 7.'' \28\ For example, auxiliary
installations and the replacement of facilities under Sec.  2.55, and
activities authorized under the blanket certificate provisions of Part
157, subpart F, of the Commission's regulations, and certain activities
undertaken in response to a gas emergency, do not require authorization
under NGA section 3 or issuance of a certificate under NGA section 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ EPAct 2005 section 313(a)(3) (2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    31. When a request to authorize a proposed project under the
blanket certificate provisions is protested, and the protest is not
either dismissed or resolved and withdrawn, the ``request filed by the
certificate holder shall be treated as an application for section 7
authorization for the particular activity.'' \29\ However, although a
protested blanket project proposal is treated as an application for a
case-specific certificate, once the merits of the issues raised in the
protest are addressed, and provided the proposal is not denied, the
project is authorized under the project sponsor's existing blanket
certificate.\30\ A project sponsor that makes a prior notice filing for
a proposed project to be constructed under blanket certificate
authority is acting under the authority of its existing blanket
certificate issued pursuant to NGA section 7(c). Consequently, to
undertake projects that comply with the blanket certificates
provisions, the project sponsor does not need to obtain an additional,
separate NGA section 7(c) certificate. Therefore, the new regulatory
requirements promulgated herein pursuant to EPAct 2005 will not apply
to projects authorized pursuant to the blanket certificate program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ 18 CFR 157.205(f) (2006).
    \30\ See, e.g., Texas Eastern Transmission Corp., 76 FERC ]
61,178 (1996).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    32. The City of Fall River, Massachusetts, the Massachusetts EOEA,
and the Massachusetts Attorney General seek clarification on how the
Federal NEPA review and the environmental review undertaken by a State
or the District of Columbia may interact. The different environmental
reviews proceed on separate jurisdictional tracks, each on its own
schedule and each arriving at its own independent findings. However, as
a practical matter, if Federal and State agencies are able to work in
tandem, the result can be greater efficiencies for all concerned.
Accordingly, where possible, the Commission coordinates its efforts
with State agencies when assessing the environmental impacts of a
proposed project and intends to continue to do so going forward.
    33. Islander East seeks clarification on how the revised
regulations will apply to pending projects. The Commission, as a
general matter, will not apply the Sec. Sec.  153.8 and 157.14 filing
requirements for project sponsors, or the Sec.  385.2013 reporting
requirements for agencies, to applications filed prior to the effective
date of this rule. That said, as noted above, the Director of OEP
currently has delegated authority to establish schedules in pending
proceedings,\31\ and if there is cause to do so, the Director of OEP
may establish a schedule applicable to an ongoing proceeding.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ See note 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    34. Mr. Mark Mendelson is concerned that the Commission is creating
a ``standardized'' schedule that will not allow for an adequate
assessment of safety risks and long-term project impacts of proposed
gas projects on individuals and communities. Mr. Mendelson expresses
general dissatisfaction regarding the content, timing, and availability
of information concerning proposed projects. He contends that affected
individuals do not always receive adequate notice of proposed projects
and suggests all potential stakeholders be notified by mail via the
United States Postal Service of potential hazards or risks in their
general locale posed by a proposed project.
    35. The Commission's new reporting requirements and commitment to
issue a notice of the environmental review schedule should serve to
inform potentially interested persons of a pending project proposal.
The Commission expects that its authority to establish schedules will
lead to tailoring milestones appropriate to the particularities of
proposed projects, and not to a one-size-fits-all standard. Mr.
Mendelson's proposal to review and revise the existing public notice
requirements is beyond the scope of and is not germane to the matters
being addressed in this rulemaking proceeding. However, any affected
landowner that does not receive notice of a proposed project in a
docketed proceeding as specified in the Commission's regulations, or
any individual that suspects the public notice provided is procedurally
insufficient or substantively incomplete, can bring such concerns to
the Commission's attention and the specific circumstances will be
investigated.

Consolidated Record

    36. Section 313 of EPAct 2005 directs the Commission to ``maintain
a complete consolidated record of all decisions made or actions taken
by the Commission or by a Federal administrative agency or officer (or
State administrative agency or officer acting under delegated Federal
authority) with respect to any Federal authorization.''
    37. The NOPR proposed to require agencies and officers issuing
decisions or approvals necessary for proposed projects under NGA
sections 3 and 7 to provide the Commission with a copy of the final
decision reached or action taken, or a summary thereof, within three
days of issuance of a final decision or action. The Commission proposed
requiring agencies and officers to file an

index of the record, identifying all documents and materials--including
pleadings, comments, evidence, exhibits, transcripts of testimony,
project alternatives (including alternative routings), studies, and
maps--relevant to the decision, within three days of issuance of a
final decision or action.
    38. Commenters object to the proposed requirement that a copy of
the decision and an index to the record be filed within three days of
the decision and suggest that the Commission allow 30 days for the
filing of the decision and record index. In addition to promoting a 30-
day interval, the Conservation Law Foundation recommends the Commission
reimburse agencies for reasonable costs incurred in providing the
index.
    39. The Commission accepts the claim that three days may not
provide every agency with adequate time to organize and send the
requested information--although, if an agency maintains and updates its
index throughout the course of its proceeding, all it need do when a
decision is issued is add the decision, or a summary thereof, to the
index and submit it to the Commission. The Commission anticipated
agencies' submission of the requested information would be merely
ministerial, i.e., that the information would be available and
electronically transmittable--or at least, easily duplicated and then
sent--on the same day a final decision was reached. Commenters
persuasively argue that this is not the case. In any event, the
Commission does not believe that it is necessary to receive an agency's
information within three days of a final decision in order to satisfy
the EPAct 2005 mandate to maintain a complete consolidated record.
Accordingly, the Final Rule revises the reporting requirement to
provide agencies and officers 30 days, not three, to submit a final
decision, or summary thereof, and index to the Commission. Further,
while the Commission encourages electronic submissions, the proposed
regulations are modified to provide the option to make paper filings
with the Commission.\32\ In view of this modification to the means of
filing, the Commission will modify the time provided for agencies to
file a copy of data requests with the Commission, extending it from
three days to 10 business days.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ As is currently the case, agencies will be expected to
conform their filings to the requirements of 18 CFR 385.2003, to the
extent that they are able.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    40. The Commission finds no cause to adopt the Conservation Law
Foundation's request to provide reimbursement to agencies for expenses
related to compliance with the provisions of this rule. Compliance is
mandatory pursuant to the authority provided to the Commission by EPAct
2005. Further, in view of the revision above regarding the time
permitted and means of submission, and the clarification below
regarding the contents of the index, the Commission expects the
additional cost incurred by agencies to meet these new reporting
requirements will not be unduly burdensome.
    41. Commenters' objections to submitting an index appear to stem in
part from an overly broad interpretation of what this index must
include. The Commission clarifies that the index need not summarize the
contents of each item in the agency's record; rather, the index can be
any method of notation capable of identifying each item in the record
sufficiently to allow a reviewing body to select items of relevance to
an issue on appeal. The Oregon Coastal Management Program observes that
it typically relies on and references the outcome of multiple state and
local actions, but does not include in its record the underlying
documents that make up the record in those other actions. There is no
need for agencies that follow such an approach to make any adjustment.
Any methodology and recordkeeping that an agency now employs that is
sufficient to serve as the basis for appeals or reviews is an
acceptable ``index'' for the purposes of the consolidated record. Note
that in filing an index, agencies should title the submission
``Consolidated Record'' and include a prominent reference on the first
page to the docket number applied to the Commission proceeding which
gave rise to the request for agency authorization.
    42. Baker Botts requests the Commission require that agencies
provide the Commission with their full record, and not just an index
thereto. The Commission finds no cause to require agencies to reproduce
and transmit the contents of their entire record to the Commission.
Only in the event of appeal will there be any call to view the original
or duplicate materials, and even then it is unlikely anything other
than a limited subset of the record will be relevant. Therefore,
provided an index is prepared, and original materials are retained and
available for a minimum of three years, or until an appeal or review is
concluded, there should be no delay in producing the portion of an
agency's record requested by a reviewing entity.
    43. The Army COE points out that when it issues a requested permit,
the permit with terms and conditions is sent to the applicant, which
has 60 days to appeal the terms and conditions if it chooses to do so;
if the permit is denied, the applicant may appeal the denial. The Army
COE asks that the date of final agency action for purposes of providing
the record to the Commission be ``at the end of any appeals process.''
    44. The Commission expects that individual agencies' own
regulations will determine when their actions are considered ``final''
and thereby start the 30-day clock for filing their decisions and
indices with the Commission. However, the Commission will consider a
decision or action on a request for a Federal authorization to be
``final,'' and consequently subject to the 30-day deadline for filing
with the Commission, if the project sponsor submitting the request can
rely on an affirmative determination as sufficient authority to
proceed. In other words, the agency's deliberation must go beyond
verification that a request is complete, or a preliminary
determination, or an agency decision that approves a project sponsor's
application but makes its right to proceed contingent on the outcome of
certain agency review or appeal processes; i.e., the outcome of the
agency's final decision or action must grant, condition, or deny the
applicant's requested authorization. At this point, the 30-day period
begins for an agency to provide the Commission with a copy of its
decision, or a summary, and an index to its record in the proceeding.
The 30-day period should permit the Commission to receive agencies'
decisions and indices in time to compile a complete consolidated record
for the purposes of judicial review (or in the case of a CZMA
determination, review by the Department of Commerce).\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ The Commission notes that when it issues an order granting
a project sponsor a section 7 certificate or section 3 authorization
under the NGA to construct gas facilities, clearance to commence
construction generally is withheld until the project sponsor has
obtained other necessary authorizations from other agencies.
However, once such authorizations have been obtained by the project
sponsor, the project sponsor generally is granted clearance to
commence construction, notwithstanding any pending requests for
rehearing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    45. The Army COE asserts the Commission should forward Freedom of
Information Act (FOIA) requests to agencies, instead of preparing a
response using the consolidated record. The Commission clarifies that
FOIA requests should be submitted directly to the agency responsible
for generating the information in question. While an agency's index
filed with the

Commission may be useful in identifying records relevant to a FOIA
request, the Commission will not be capable of effectively responding
to FOIA requests, or other types of requests, that concern the
substantive matters of another agency's proceeding. Further, the
Commission's responsibilities under EPAct 2005 do not include compiling
documents to respond to FOIA requests. The Commission does not expect
to receive or respond to FOIA requests, unless the information sought
is part of the Commission's own record of its deliberations in a
particular proceeding.

Information Collection Statement

    46. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) regulations require
that OMB approve certain reporting, record keeping, and public
disclosure (collections of information) requirements imposed by agency
rules.\34\ Pursuant to OMB regulations, the Commission is submitting
these reporting requirements to OMB for its review and approval under
section 3507(d) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA).\35\ Upon
approval of a collection of information, OMB will assign an OMB control
number and an expiration date. Respondents subject to the filing
requirements of this rule will not be penalized for failing to respond
to these collections of information unless the collections of
information display a valid OMB control number. The information
collection requirements in this Final Rule are: FERC-539, FERC-537,
FERC-606, and FERC-607. These are mandatory reporting requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ 5 CFR 1320.11 (2006).
    \35\ 44 U.S.C. 3507(d) (2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Public Reporting Burden

    47. The Commission did not receive specific comments concerning its
burden estimates and uses the same estimates here in the Final Rule.
Several commenters expressed concern with the burden that would be
imposed if information was required to be submitted under the initially
proposed time frame. However, as discussed herein, the Commission has
taken these comments into consideration and extended the time frame for
submitting information.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Number of       Number of       Hours per
                 Data collection                    respondents      responses       response       Total hours
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FERC-537........................................              76             815             0.5             408
FERC-539........................................              12              12             0.5               6
FERC-606........................................              48            1702             4.4           7,489
FERC-607........................................              48            1654             6.3          10,423
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
    Totals......................................  ..............  ..............  ..............          18,326
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Total Annual Hours for Collection: 18,326.
    Information Collection Costs: Because of the regional differences
and the various staffing levels that will be involved in preparing the
documentation (legal, technical, and support), the Commission is using
an hourly rate of $150 to estimate the costs for filing and other
administrative processes (reviewing instructions, searching data
sources, completing and transmitting the collection of information).
The estimated cost is $2,748,900.
    Title: FERC-539 ``Gas Pipeline Certificates: Import/Export
Related;'' FERC-537 ``Gas Pipeline Certificates: Construction,
Acquisition and Abandonment;'' FERC-606 ``Gas Pipeline Certificates:
Notification of Request for Federal Authorization;'' and FERC-607
``Report on Decision or Action on Request for Federal Authorization.''
    Action: Data Collection.
    OMB Control No.: FERC-539 (1902-0062); FERC-537 (1902-0060); FERC-
606 and FERC-607 (To be determined).
    Respondents: Natural gas pipeline companies and state agencies and
officers.
    Frequency of Responses: On occasion.
    Necessity of Information: EPAct 2005 section 313 directs the
Commission to (1) establish schedules for State and Federal agencies
and officers to act on requests for Federal authorizations required for
natural gas projects under sections 3 and 7 of the NGA and (2) maintain
a complete consolidated record of all decisions or actions taken by the
Commission and other agencies and officers with respect to such
authorizations. The Commission considers the regulatory provisions
adopted herein to be the minimum necessary for the Commission to
implement the new authority provided by EPAct 2005.
    48. For information regarding the requirements of the collections
of information and the associated burden estimates, including
suggestions for reducing this burden, please send comments to the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426 (Attention: Michael Miller, Office of the
Executive Director), or send e-mail to michael.miller@ferc.gov), or to
the Office of Management and Budget (Attention: Desk Officer for the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission), by fax to<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by
e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Environmental Analysis

    49. The Commission is required to prepare an Environmental
Assessment or an Environmental Impact Statement for any action that may
have a significant adverse effect on the human environment.\36\ No
environmental consideration is raised by promulgation of a rule that is
procedural in nature or that does not substantially change the effect
of legislation or regulations being amended.\37\ The regulations
adopted herein require authorizing agencies to provide the Commission
with copies or summaries of decisions and indices to the records of
those decisions in cases arising under the Commissions jurisdiction
under the Natural Gas Act. These are minor procedural changes to the
Commission's existing regulations and do not substantially change the
effect of any legislation or regulations. Nor do they substantially
change any regulatory requirements to which pipeline companies or
authorizing agencies are currently subject. Accordingly, the
preparation of an environmental document is not required.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ Order No. 486, Regulations Implementing the National
Environmental Policy Act, 52 FR 47897 (Dec. 17, 1987), FERC Stats. &
Regs. Preambles 1986-1990 ] 30,783 (1987).
    \37\ 18 CFR 380.4(a)(2)(ii) (2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification

    50. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA) \38\ generally
requires a

description and analysis of final rules that will have significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The
Commission is not required to make such an analysis if proposed
regulations would not have such an effect.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ 5 U.S.C. 601-612 (2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    51. Although it appears that agencies affected by the rule
promulgated today do not fall within the RFA's definition of ``small
governmental jurisdiction'' \39\ or its definition of ``small
entities,'' \40\ the Commission is nevertheless mindful of costs and
burdens to be imposed upon agencies required to provide copies of
decisions and indexes to the record in Federal authorization
proceedings. In response to commenters that observe certain agencies
may lack the resources needed to comply with the proposed three-day
deadline for filing and the proposed requirement for electronic filing,
the Commission is adopting alternative requirements to take into
account the resources available to the agencies to accommodate the
limited resources of small entities.\41\ The three-day deadline is
extended to 30 days, and electronic filing, while still the preferred
option, is no longer required.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ 5 U.S.C. 601(5) (2005) provides that ``the term `small
governmental jurisdiction' means governments of cities, counties,
towns, townships, villages, school districts, or special districts,
with a populations of less than fifty thousand.''
    \40\ 5 U.S.C. 601(6) (2005) provides that ``the term `small
entity' shall have the same meaning as the terms `small business,'
`small organization,' and `small governmental jurisdiction.' ''
    \41\ 5 U.S.C. 603(c)(1) and (2) (2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    52. Most of the natural gas companies regulated by the Commission
do notfall within the RFA's definition of a small entity.\42\
Approximately 114 natural gas companies are potential respondents
subject to the requirements adopted by this rule. For the year 2004
(the most recent year for which information is available), 32 companies
had annual revenues of less than $6.5 million. The procedural
modifications enacted herein should have no significant economic impact
on those entities--be they large or small--subject to the Commission's
NGA jurisdiction. In view of these considerations, the Commission
certifies that this Final Rule's amendments to the regulations will not
have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\ See 5 U.S.C. 601(3) (2005), citing section 3 of the Small
Business Act, 15 U.S.C. 623 (2005). Section 3 of the SBA defines a
``small business concern'' as a business which is independently
owned and operated and which is not dominant in its field of
operation. The Small Business Size Standards component of the North
American Industry Classification System defines a small natural gas
pipeline company as one that transports natural gas and whose annual
receipts (total income plus cost of goods sold) did not exceed $6.5
million for the previous year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Document Availability

    53. 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 print the contents of this document via the
Internet through FERC's Home Page (http://www.ferc.gov) and in FERC's

Public Reference Room during normal business hours (8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.
eastern time) at 888 First Street, NE., Room 2A, Washington DC 20426.
From FERC's Home Page on the Internet, this information is available in
the Commission's document management system, eLibrary. The full text of
this document is available in eLibrary in PDF and Microsoft Word format
for viewing, printing, and downloading. To access this document in
eLibrary, type RM06-1 in the docket number field.
    54. User assistance is available for eLibrary and the Commission's
Web site during normal business hours at<PHONE_NUMBER> or the Public
Reference Room at<PHONE_NUMBER> Press 0, TTY<PHONE_NUMBER>. E-Mail
the Public Reference Room at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Effective Date and Congressional Notification

    55. These regulations are effective December 26, 2006.
    56. The Commission has determined, with the concurrence of the
Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs of
OMB, that this rule is not a ``major rule'' as defined in Section 351
of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996.\43\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ 5 U.S.C. 804(2) (2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

List of Subjects

18 CFR Part 153

    Exports, Imports, Natural gas, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.

18 CFR Part 157

    Administrative practice and procedure, Natural gas, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.

18 CFR Part 375

    Authority delegations (Government agencies), Seals and insignia,
Sunshine Act.

18 CFR Part 385

    Administrative practice and procedure, Electric power, Penalties,
Pipelines, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    By the Commission.
Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.

0
In consideration of the foregoing, the Commission amends parts 153,
157, 375, and 385, Chapter I, Title 18, Code of Federal Regulations, as
follows:

PART 153--APPLICATIONS FOR AUTHORIZATION TO CONSTRUCT, OPERATE, OR
MODIFY FACILITIES USED FOR THE EXPORT OR IMPORT OF NATURAL GAS

0
1. The authority citation for part 153 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 15 U.S.C. 717b, 717o; E.O. 10485, 3 CFR, 1949-1953
Comp., p. 970, as amended by E.O. 12038, 3 CFR, 1978 Comp., p. 136,
DOE Delegation Order No. 0204-112, 49 FR 6684 (February 22, 1984).

0
2. In subpart B, Sec.  153.4 is added to read as follows:

Sec.  153.4  General requirements.

    The procedures in Sec. Sec.  157.5, 157.6, 157.8, 157.9, 157.10,
157.11, and 157.12 of this chapter are applicable to the applications
described in this subpart.

0
3. In Sec.  153.8:
0
a. The word ``and'' is removed from the end of paragraph (a)(7);
0
b. The period is removed from the end of paragraph (a)(8), and ``;
and'' is added in its place; and
0
c. Paragraph (a)(9) is added to read as follows:

Sec.  153.8  Required exhibits.

    (a) * * *
    (9) Exhibit H. A statement identifying each Federal authorization
that the proposal will require; the Federal agency or officer, or State
agency or officer acting pursuant to delegated Federal authority, that
will issue each required authorization; the date each request for
authorization was submitted; why any request was not submitted and the
date submission is expected; and the date by which final action on each
Federal authorization has been requested or is expected.
* * * * *

PART 157--APPLICATIONS FOR CERTIFICATES OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND
NECESSITY AND FOR ORDERS PERMITTING AND APPROVING ABANDONMENT UNDER
SECTION 7 OF THE NATURAL GAS ACT

0
4. The authority citation for part 157 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 15 U.S.C. 717-717w.

0
5. In Sec.  157.9:
0
a. The section heading is revised;

0
b. The existing text is designated as paragraph (a) and the word
``business'' is added immediately before the phrase ``days of filing'';
and
0
c. A new paragraph (b) is added, to read as follows:

Sec.  157.9  Notice of application and notice of schedule for
environmental review.

* * * * *
    (b) For each application that will require an environmental
assessment or an environmental impact statement, notice of a schedule
for the environmental review will be issued within 90 days of the
notice of the application, and subsequently will be published in the
Federal Register.
0
6. In Sec.  157.14, paragraph (a)(12) is added to read as follows:

Sec.  157.14  Exhibits.

    (a) * * *
    (12) Exhibit J--Federal authorizations. A statement identifying
each Federal authorization that the proposal will require; the Federal
agency or officer, or State agency or officer acting pursuant to
delegated Federal authority, that will issue each required
authorization; the date each request for authorization was submitted;
why any request was not submitted and the date submission is expected;
and the date by which final action on each Federal authorization has
been requested or is expected.
* * * * *

0
7. In subpart A, Sec.  157.22 is added to read as follows:

Sec.  157.22  Schedule for final decisions on a request for a Federal
authorization

    For an application under section 3 or 7 of the Natural Gas Act that
requires a Federal authorization--i.e., a permit, special use
authorization, certification, opinion, or other approval--from a
Federal agency or officer, or State agency or officer acting pursuant
to delegated Federal authority, a final decision on a request for a
Federal authorization is due no later than 90 days after the Commission
issues its final environmental document, unless a schedule is otherwise
established by Federal law.

PART 375--THE COMMISSION

0
8. The authority citation for part 375 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 5 U.S.C. 551-557; 15 U.S.C. 717-717w, 3301-3432; 16
U.S.C. 791-825r, 2601-2645; 42 U.S.C. 7101-7352.

0
9. In Sec.  375.308, paragraph (bb) is added to read as follows:

Sec.  375.308  Delegations to the Director of the Office of Energy
Projects.

* * * * *
    (bb) Establish a schedule for each Federal agency or officer, or
State agency or officer acting pursuant to delegated Federal authority,
to issue or deny Federal authorizations required for natural gas
projects subject to section 3 or 7 of the Natural Gas Act.

PART 385--RULES OF PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE

0
10. The authority citation for part 385 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 5 U.S.C. 551-557; 15 U.S.C. 717-717z, 3301-3432; 16
U.S.C. 791a-825r, 2601-2645; 28 U.S.C. 2461; 31 U.S.C. 3701, 9701;
42 U.S.C. 7101-7352; 49 U.S.C. 60502; 49 App. U.S.C. 1-85 (1988).

0
11. Section 385.2013 is redesignated as Sec.  385.2015 and the heading
of newly designated Sec.  385.2015 is revised to read as follows:

Sec.  385.2015  Videotapes (Rule 2015).

* * * * *

0
12. New Sec. Sec.  385.2013 and 385.2014 are added to read as follows:

Sec.  385.2013  Notification of requests for Federal authorizations and
requests for further information (Rule 2013).

    (a) For each Federal authorization--i.e., permit, special use
authorization, certification, concurrence, opinion, or other approval--
required under Federal law with respect to a natural gas project for
which an application has been filed under section 3 of the Natural Gas
Act for a certificate of public convenience and necessity under section
7 of the Natural Gas Act, each Federal agency or officer, or State
agency or officer acting pursuant to delegated Federal authority,
responsible for a Federal authorization must file with the Commission
within 30 days of the date of receipt of a request for a Federal
authorization, notice of the following:
    (1) Whether the application is ready for processing, and if not,
what additional information or materials will be necessary to assess
the merits of the request;
    (2) The time the agency or official will allot the applicant to
provide the necessary additional information or materials;
    (3) What, if any, studies will be necessary in order to evaluate
the request;
    (4) The anticipated effective date of the agency's or official's
decision; and
    (5) If applicable, the schedule set by Federal law for the agency
or official to act.
    (b) A Federal agency or officer, or State agency or officer acting
pursuant to delegated Federal authority, considering a request for a
Federal authorization that submits a data request to an applicant must
file a copy of the data request with the Commission within 10 business
days.

Sec.  385.2014  Petitions for appeal or review of Federal
authorizations (Rule 2014).

    (a) For each Federal authorization--i.e., permit, special use
authorization, certification, concurrence, opinion, or other approval--
required under Federal law with respect to a natural gas project for
which an application has been filed for authorization under section 3
of the Natural Gas Act for a certificate of public convenience and
necessity under section 7 of the Natural Gas Act, the Federal agency or
officer, or State agency or officer acting pursuant to delegated
Federal authority, responsible for each Federal authorization must file
with the Commission within 30 days of the effective date of a final
decision or action on a request for a Federal authorization or the
expiration of the time provided by the Commission or by Federal law for
a final decision or action, the following:
    (1) A copy of any final decision or action;
    (2) An index identifying all documents and materials--including
pleadings, comments, evidence, exhibits, testimony, project
alternatives, studies, and maps--relied upon by the agency or official
in reaching a decision or action; and
    (3) The designation ``Consolidated Record'' and the docket number
for the Commission proceeding applicable to the requested Federal
authorization.
    (b) The agencies' and officers' decisions, actions, and indices,
and the Commission's record in each proceeding, constitute the complete
consolidated record. The original documents and materials that make up
the complete consolidated record must be retained by agencies,
officers, and the Commission for at least three years from the
effective date of a decision or action or until an appeal or review is
concluded.
    (c) Upon appeal or review of a Federal authorization, agencies,
officers, and the Commission will transmit to the reviewing authority,
as requested, documents and materials that constitute the complete
consolidated record.

 [FR Doc. E6-18025 Filed 10-26-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 58 (Tuesday, March 26, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 18264-18265]
[FR Doc No: 2013-06948]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2013-0194; Airspace Docket No. 13-ANM-10]

Proposed Establishment of Class E Airspace; Tobe, CO

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: This action proposes to establish Class E airspace at the Tobe
VHF Omni-Directional Radio Range/Distance Measuring Equipment (VOR/
DME), Tobe, CO to facilitate vectoring of Instrument Flight Rules (IFR)
aircraft under control of Denver and Albuquerque Air Route Traffic
Control Centers (ARTCCs). The FAA is proposing this action to enhance
the safety and management of aircraft operations within the National
Airspace System.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before May 10, 2013.

ADDRESSES: Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>. You must identify FAA Docket No. FAA-2013-
0194; Airspace Docket No. 13-ANM-10, at the beginning of your comments.
You may also submit comments through the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eldon Taylor, Federal Aviation
Administration, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center, 1601
Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed
rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as
they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the
views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing
reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are
specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic,
environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal.
    Communications should identify both docket numbers (FAA Docket No.
FAA 2013-0194 and Airspace Docket No. 13-ANM-10) and be submitted in
triplicate to the Docket Management System (see ADDRESSES section for
address and phone number). You may also submit comments through the
Internet at http://www.regulations.gov.
    Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments
on this action must submit with those comments a self-addressed stamped
postcard on which the following statement is made: ``Comments to FAA
Docket No. FAA-2013-0194 and Airspace Docket No. 13-ANM-10''. The
postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.
    All communications received on or before the specified closing date
for comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed
rule. The proposal contained in this action may be changed in light of
comments received. All comments submitted will be available for
examination in the public docket both before and after the closing date
for comments. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with
FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the
docket.

Availability of NPRM's

    An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the
Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking
documents can also be accessed through the FAA's Web page at http://www.faa.gov/airports_airtraffic/air_traffic/publications/airspace_amendments/.
    You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any
comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets
Office (see the ADDRESSES section for the address and phone number)
between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except federal
holidays. An informal docket may also be examined during normal
business hours at the Northwest Mountain Regional Office of the Federal
Aviation Administration, Air Traffic Organization, Western Service
Center, Operations Support Group, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA
98057.
    Persons interested in being placed on a mailing list for future
NPRM's should contact the FAA's Office of Rulemaking,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
for a copy of Advisory Circular No. 11-2A, Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking Distribution System, which describes the application
procedure.

The Proposal

    The FAA is proposing an amendment to Title 14 Code of Federal
Regulations (14 CFR) Part 71 by establishing Class E en route domestic
airspace extending upward from 1,200 feet above the surface at the Tobe
VOR/DME, Tobe, CO. This action would contain aircraft while in IFR
conditions under control of Denver and Albuquerque ARTCCs by vectoring
aircraft from en route airspace to terminal areas.
    Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6006, of
FAA Order 7400.9W, dated August 8, 2012, and effective September 15,
2012, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E
airspace designation listed in this document will be published
subsequently in this Order.
    The FAA has determined this proposed regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
Therefore, this proposed regulation; (1) Is not a ``significant
regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a
``significant rule'' under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44
FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a
regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since
this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures
and air navigation, it is certified this proposed rule, when
promulgated, would not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the U.S. Code. Subtitle 1, Section 106, describes
the authority for the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation
Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority.
This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the
FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of the
airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient
use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority
as it would establish controlled airspace at Tobe VOR/DME, Tobe, CO.
    This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in
accordance with FAA Order 1050.1E, ``Environmental Impacts: Policies
and Procedures'' prior to any FAA final regulatory action.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

The Proposed Amendment

    Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, the Federal
Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

PART 71--DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR
TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS

0
1. The authority citation for 14 CFR part 71 continues to read as
follows:

     Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854,
24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of the Federal
Aviation Administration Order 7400.9W, Airspace Designations and
Reporting Points, dated August 8, 2012, and effective September 15,
2012 is amended as follows:

Paragraph 6006 En Route Domestic Airspace Areas.

* * * * *

ANM CO E6 Tobe, CO [New]

Tobe VOR/DME, CO
    (Lat. 37[deg]15'31'' N., long. 103[deg]36'00'' W.)
    That airspace extending upward from 1,200 feet above the surface
within an area bounded by lat. 36[deg]17'00'' N., long.
104[deg]14'00'' W.; to lat. 36[deg]59'57'' N., long. 104[deg]18'04''
W.; to lat. 39[deg]40'23'' N., long. 103[deg]29'02'' W.; to lat.
39[deg]00'35'' N., long. 101[deg]59'12'' W.; to lat. 38[deg]33'23''
N., long. 101[deg]59'12'' W.; to lat. 37[deg]29'58'' N., long.
102[deg]33'04'' W.; to lat. 37[deg]00'17'' N., long. 102[deg]09'21''
W.; thence to the point of beginning.

    Issued in Seattle, Washington, on March 18, 2013.
Clark Desing,
Manager, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2013-06948 Filed 3-25-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


1EPA guidance on baseline years is found in the memorandum of November 18, 2002, from Lydia Wegman and Peter Tsirigotis, " 2002 Base Year Emission Inventory SIP Planning: 8 hr Ozone, PM2.5 and Regional Haze Programs." This document is available at the following web site: http:// www. epa. gov/ ttn/ oarpg/ meta. 442.1.2002baseinv. pdf. That document noted, " The EPA is aware that some areas have already begun on a voluntary basis to model for purposes of the 8 hour ozone standard. These areas may continue to use modeling from previous base years for each set of meteorological episode conditions for use in their SIP submittals if these studies are still applicable for an attainment demonstration." 8/ 16/ 05 new bump up section 7. What baseline emission inventory should be used for the attainment demonstration? [ Not addressed in the June 2, 2003 proposal; § 51.909 of the draft regulatory text.] The June 2, 2003 proposal did not discuss baselines for purposes of the attainment demonstration. ( It did, however, discuss baselines for RFP demonstrations.) Section 51.909 of the draft regulatory text provided that 2002 should be used as the baseline emission inventory year for purposes of both RFP and the attainment demonstration for areas with an effective date of designation of June 15, 2004. We recognize, however, that some areas have already begun to perform modeling for their attainment demonstrations using baseline year inventories earlier than the 2002 inventory, and because the 2002 inventory may not be in a format to readily be used for photochemical grid modeling. 1 Therefore, the final rule does not specify a baseline for purposes of the attainment demonstration and modeling. As discussed more fully in the section of the preamble regarding RFP, the specification of 2002 as a baseline year for RFP purposes ( for areas with an effective date of designation of June 15, 2004) appears in the RFP provisions of 40 CFR § 51.910. Section 51.909 remains reserved. 8. Voluntary Reclassifications (" Bump ups"). Although we believe most 8 hour nonattainment areas will attain the standard by their statutory attainment date, we recognize that some areas classified under subpart 2 may need additional time beyond the statutory attainment date for their area to attain as expediously as practicable. As discussed in the Phase 1 Rule ( 69 FR at 23959, col. 3), in the event an area cannot practicably attain by the maximum date for its classification, the Clean Air Act provides the opportunity for more time. An area regulated under subpart 2 can receive a later maximum attainment date through a State request to bump up 2Although some 8 hour ozone nonattainment areas have additional areas beyond the boundary of the former 1 hour nonattainment area and thus would be faced with new requirements for the higher classification.

2 to a higher classification ( e. g. from moderate to serious). The Act requires EPA to grant a State request to reclassify an area to a higher classification; the State plan still must provide for attainment as expeditiously as practicable. Although bump up means that certain additional specified requirements apply, an area may already be meeting most or all of these specified requirements due to controls previously adopted to implement the 1 hour ozone standard. This is because some areas had 1 hour classifications that were higher ( and more restrictive) than the areas' 8 hour classification, 2 and because the Phase 1 final implementation rule for the 8 hour O3 NAAQS contains antibacksliding provisions generally requiring areas to continue implementating measures required for the 1 hour classification. Although there may not be additional mandatory control measures required because the areas may already have such measures in place, an area that needs more time to attain may need additional emission reductions to reach attainment. E. What requirements for RFP should apply under the 8 hour ozone standard? [ Section VI. I. of June 2, 2003 proposed rule ( 68 FR 32832); § 51.909 and § 51.910 in draft; § 51.910( d) in final regulatory text.]


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 194 (Tuesday, October 6, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 63127-63128]
[FR Doc No: 2020-22065]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

[Docket No. USCG-2020-0099]

Collection of Information Under Review by Office of Management
and Budget; OMB Control Number 1625-0019

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Thirty-day notice requesting comments.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 the
U.S. Coast Guard is forwarding an Information Collection Request (ICR),
abstracted below, to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Office
of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), requesting an extension
of its approval for the following collection of information: 1625-0019,
Alternative Compliance for International and Inland Navigation Rules;
without change. Our ICR describes the information we seek to collect
from the public. Review and comments by OIRA ensure we only impose
paperwork burdens commensurate with our performance of duties.

DATES: You may submit comments to the Coast Guard and OIRA on or before
November 5, 2020.

ADDRESSES: Comments to the Coast Guard should be submitted using the
Federal eRulemaking Portal at https://www.regulations.gov. Search for
docket number [USCG-2020-0099]. Written comments and recommendations to
OIRA for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30
days of publication of this notice to https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain. Find this particular information collection by selecting
``Currently under 30-day Review--Open for Public Comments'' or by using
the search function.
    A copy of the ICR is available through the docket on the internet
at https://www.regulations.gov. Additionally, copies are available
from: COMMANDANT (CG-6P), ATTN: PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT MANAGER, U.S.
COAST GUARD, 2703 MARTIN LUTHER KING JR. AVE SE, STOP 7710, WASHINGTON,
DC 20593-7710.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A.L. Craig, Office of Privacy
Management, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, or fax<PHONE_NUMBER>, for questions
on these documents.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Public Participation and Request for Comments

    This notice relies on the authority of the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995; 44 U.S.C. chapter 35, as amended. An ICR is an application to
OIRA seeking the approval, extension, or renewal of a Coast Guard
collection of information (Collection). The ICR contains information
describing the Collection's purpose, the Collection's likely burden on
the affected public, an explanation of the necessity of the Collection,
and other important information describing the Collection. There is one
ICR for each Collection.
    The Coast Guard invites comments on whether this ICR should be
granted based on the Collection being necessary for the proper
performance of Departmental functions. In particular, the Coast Guard
would appreciate comments addressing: (1) The practical utility of the
Collection; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden of the Collection;
(3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of information
subject to the Collection; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the
Collection on respondents, including the use of automated collection
techniques or other forms of information technology. Consistent with
the requirements of Executive Order 13771, Reducing Regulation and
Controlling Regulatory Costs, and Executive Order 13777, Enforcing the
Regulatory Reform Agenda, the Coast Guard is also requesting comments
on the extent to which this request for information could be modified
to reduce the burden on respondents. These comments will help OIRA
determine whether to approve the ICR referred to in this Notice.
    We encourage you to respond to this request by submitting comments
and related materials. Comments to Coast Guard or OIRA must contain the
OMB Control Number of the ICR. They must also contain the docket number
of this request, [USCG-2020-0099], and must be received by November 5,
2020.

Submitting Comments

    We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking
Portal at https://www.regulations.gov. If your material cannot be
submitted using https://www.regulations.gov, contact the person in the
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document for alternate
instructions. Documents mentioned in this notice, and all public
comments, are in our online docket at https://www.regulations.gov and
can be viewed by following that website's instructions. Additionally,
if you go to the online docket and sign up for email alerts, you will
be notified when comments are posted.
    We accept anonymous comments. All comments to the Coast Guard will
be posted without change to https://www.regulations.gov and will
include any personal information you have provided. For more about
privacy and submissions to the Coast Guard in response to this
document, see DHS's eRulemaking System of Records notice (85 FR 14226,
March 11, 2020). For more about privacy and submissions to OIRA in
response to this document, see the https://www.reginfo.gov, comment-
submission web page. OIRA posts its decisions on ICRs online at https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain after the comment period for each
ICR. An OMB Notice of Action on each ICR will become available via a
hyperlink in the OMB Control Number: 1625-0019.

Previous Request for Comments

    This request provides a 30-day comment period required by OIRA. The
Coast Guard published the 60-day notice (85 FR 44913, July 24, 2020)
required by 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2). That notice elicited no comments.
Accordingly, no changes have been made to the Collection.

Information Collection Request

    Title: Alternative Compliance for International and Inland
Navigation Rules--33 CFR parts 81 through 89.
    OMB Control Number: 1625-0019.
    Summary: The information collected provides an opportunity for an
owner, operator, builder, or agent of a unique vessel to present their
reasons why the vessel cannot comply with existing International/Inland
Navigation Rules and how alternative compliance can.
    Need: Certain vessels cannot comply with the International
Navigation Rules (see 33 U.S.C. 1601 through 1608; 28 U.S.T. 3459, and
T.I.A.S. 8587) and Inland Navigation Rules (33 U.S.C. 2071). The Coast
Guard thus provides an opportunity for alternative compliance. However,
it is not possible to determine whether alternative compliance is
appropriate, or what kind of alternative procedures might be necessary,
without this collection.
    Forms: Not applicable.
    Respondents: Vessel owners, operators, builders and agents.

    Frequency: One-time application.
    Hour Burden Estimate: The estimated burden has decreased from 207
hours to 180 hours a year due to a decrease in the estimated annual
number of responses.
    Authority: The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C. chapter
35, as amended.

    Dated: October 1, 2020.
Kathleen Claffie,
Chief, Office of Privacy Management, U.S. Coast Guard.
[FR Doc. 2020-22065 Filed 10-5-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P