Notices. Notice

22,013 words·~100 min read·/register/2004/02/26/04-4266

A research copy — for the controlling text, always check the official state or federal source. Not legal advice.

BILLING CODE 4001-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. RP99-301-103] ANR Pipeline Company; Notice of Negotiated Rate Filing February 5, 2004. Take notice that on February 2, 2004, ANR Pipeline Company

(ANR)tendered for filing and approval three amendments to existing negotiated rate service agreements between ANR and NJR Energy Services Company. ANR requests that the Commission accept and approve the subject negotiated rate agreement amendments to be effective February 2, 2004. Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should file a motion to intervene or a protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with sections 385.214 or 385.211 of the Commission's rules and regulations. All such motions or protests must be filed in accordance with section 154.210 of the Commission's regulations. Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceedings. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to intervene. This filing is available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at *http://www.ferc.gov* using the eLibrary. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to access the document. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at *FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov* or toll-free at

(866)208-3676, or TTY, contact

(202)502-8659. The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings. *See* 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site under the e-Filing link. Linda Mitry, Acting Secretary. [FR Doc. E4-401 Filed 2-25-04; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. PR03-16-001] Cypress Gas Pipeline, LLC; Notice of Refund Report February 5, 2004. Take notice that on January 20, 2004, Cypress Gas Pipeline, LLC (Cypress) tendered for filing a refund report showing the refunds made to affected customers in connection with the Commission approved Stipulation and Agreement filed by Cypress on November 25, 2003. Cypress states that on December 18, 2003, it had issued all required refunds on all amounts collected above the approved settlement rates. Any person desiring to protest said filing should file a protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with section 385.211 of the Commission's rules and regulations. All such protests must be filed in accordance with section 154.210 of the Commission's regulations. Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceedings. This filing is available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at *http://www.ferc.gov* using the eLibrary link. Enter the docket number including the last three digits in the docket number field to access the document. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at *FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov* or toll-free at

(866)208-3676, or TTY, contact

(202)502-8659. The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings. *See* 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site under the eFiling link. *Comments Date:* February 20, 2004. Linda Mitry, Acting Secretary. [FR Doc. E4-403 Filed 2-25-04; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. CP04-63-000] Dominion Transmission, Inc.; Notice of Application February 19, 2004. Take notice that on February 11, 2004, Dominion Transmission, Inc. (DTI), 120 Tredegar Street, Richmond, Virginia, filed in Docket No. CP04-63-000 an application for authorization to own, operate and maintain, and abandon certain facilities located in Pennsylvania, Ohio, and West Virginia, pursuant to sections 7(c) and 7(b) of the Natural Gas Act, as amended, and part 157 of the Commission's rules and regulations, all as more fully set forth in the application which is on file with the Commission and open to public inspection. As a result of an internal review conducted pursuant to the July 11, 2003, Stipulation and Agreement in Docket No. CP01-440-000, 1 DTI requests that the Commission clarify or confirm certificate authorization for continued ownership and operation of various facilities that DTI cannot show were authorized pursuant to Commission regulations in effect at the time of each facility's installation. The filing may be also viewed on the Web at *http://www.ferc.gov* using the “eLibrary” link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to access the document. For assistance, call

(202)502-8222 or TTY,

(202)208-1659. 1 104 FERC ¶ 61,073 (2003). Any questions regarding the application should be directed to Anne E. Bomar, Managing Director, Transmission Rates and Regulation, Dominion Resources, Inc., 120 Tredegar Street, Richmond, Virginia 23219, at

(804)819-2134 and with fax at

(804)819-2064. There are two ways to become involved in the Commission's review of this project. First, any person wishing to obtain legal status by becoming a party to the proceedings for this project should, on or before March 11, 2004, file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of the Commission's rules of practice and procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or 385.211) and the regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.10). A person obtaining party status will be placed on the service list maintained by the Secretary of the Commission and will receive copies of all documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties. A party must submit 14 copies of filings made with the Commission and must mail a copy to the applicant and to every other party in the proceeding. Only parties to the proceeding can ask for court review of Commission orders in the proceeding. However, a person does not have to intervene in order to have comments considered. The second way to participate is by filing with the Secretary of the Commission, as soon as possible, an original and two copies of comments in support of or in opposition to this project. The Commission will consider these comments in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but the filing of a comment alone will not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. The Commission's rules require that persons filing comments in opposition to the project provide copies of their protests only to the party or parties directly involved in the protest. The Commission may issue a preliminary determination on non-environmental issues prior to the completion of its review of the environmental aspects of the project. This preliminary determination typically considers such issues as the need for the project and its economic effect on existing customers of the applicant, on other pipelines in the area, and on landowners and communities. For example, the Commission considers the extent to which the applicant may need to exercise eminent domain to obtain rights-of-way for the proposed project and balances that against the non-environmental benefits to be provided by the project. Therefore, if a person has comments on community and landowner impacts from this proposal, it is important either to file comments or to intervene as early in the process as possible. Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commenters will be placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive copies of the environmental documents, and will be notified of meetings associated with the Commission's environmental review process. Environmental commenters will not be required to serve copies of filed documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commenters will not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by the Commission (except for the mailing of environmental documents issued by the Commission) and will not have the right to seek court review of the Commission's final order. Comments, protests and interventions may be filed electronically via the Internet in lieu of paper. *See* 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site under the “e-Filing” link. *Comment Date:* March 12, 2004. Magalie R. Salas, Secretary. [FR Doc. E4-400 Filed 2-25-04; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. RP04-170-000] Eastern Shore Natural Gas Company; Notice of Proposed Changes in FERC Gas Tariff February 19, 2004. Take notice that on February 17, 2004, Eastern Shore Natural Gas Company

(ESNG)tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Second Revised Volume No. 1, the tariff sheets listed in Appendix A to the filing, with a proposed effective date of February 1, 2004. ESNG states that the purpose of this instant filing is to track rate changes attributable to a storage service purchased from Columbia Gas Transmission Corporation (Columbia) under its Rate Schedules FSS and SST. ESNG asserts that the costs of the above referenced storage service comprise the rates and charges payable under ESNG's Rate Schedule CFSS. ESNG indicates this tracking filing is being made pursuant to section 3 of ESNG's Rate Schedule CFSS. ESNG states that copies of the filing have been served upon its jurisdictional customers and interested State Commissions. Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should file a motion to intervene or a protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with sections 385.214 or 385.211 of the Commission's rules and regulations. All such motions or protests must be filed in accordance with section 154.210 of the Commission's regulations. Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceedings. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to intervene. This filing is available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at *http://www.ferc.gov* using the eLibrary. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to access the document. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at *FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov* or toll-free at

(866)208-3676, or TTY, contact

(EPV)Warren Power LLC

(WP)and East Texas Electric Cooperative, Inc.

(ETEC)(collectively, Applicants) filed an application requesting all necessary authorizations under section 203 of the Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 824b, for Applicants to engage in the transfer of a 9.1% undivided ownership interest in the jurisdictional facilities associated with the 550 MW Harrison County Power Project from EPV to ETEC and a 25% undivided ownership interest in the jurisdictional facilities associated with the 300 MW Warren power plant from WP to ETEC. Applicants have requested privileged treatment of the Ownership Interest Purchase Agreement submitted as an appendix to the application. Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing should file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's rules of practice and procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to intervene. All such motions or protests should be filed on or before the comment date, and, to the extent applicable, must be served on the applicant and on any other person designated on the official service list. This filing is available for review at the Commission or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at *http://www.ferc.gov* , using the eLibrary (FERRIS) link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to access the document. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at *FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov* or toll-free at

(866)208-3676, or for TTY, contact

(202)502-8659. Protests and interventions may be filed electronically via the Internet in lieu of paper; *see* 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site under the “e-Filing” link. The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings. *Comment Date:* March 10, 2004. Magalie R. Salas, Secretary. [FR Doc. E4-391 Filed 2-25-04; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Project No. 1971-082] Idaho Power Company; Notice Rejecting Request for Rehearing February 19, 2004. 1. On January 20, 2004, Idaho Power Company (Idaho Power) filed a request for rehearing of a December 19, 2003, letter by the Director, Office of Energy Projects (Director), responding to Idaho Power's objections with respect to proposed meetings between representatives of the Commission and Indian tribes with an interest in the relicensing of Idaho Power's Hells Canyon Hydroelectric Project. 2. Section 313(a) of the Federal Power Act, 18 U.S.C. 8251(a), provides that requests for rehearing may be filed only by persons aggrieved by an order issued by the Commission. Moreover, rule 713 of the Commission's rules of practice and procedure, 18 CFR 385.713 (2004), provides that a rehearing request may be sought after a final decision or other final order in a proceeding. The Director's December 19, 2003, letter is not a final decision or order. It does not impose an obligation on any party or adjudicate anyone's substantive rights; rather, the letter simply responds to questions regarding proposed procedures. That being the case, Idaho Power is not aggrieved by the letter. Moreover, a challenge to the Commission's procedures will be ripe only after the Commission has acted on the merits of Idaho Power's application, not at this preliminary stage. 3. For the above reasons, rehearing of the December 19, 2004, letter does not lie, and Idaho's Power's request for rehearing is rejected. 1 1 Contemporaneous with its request for rehearing, Idaho Power filed a procedural motion that it requested be considered should the Commission determine that rehearing did not lie. That motion is pending. 4. This notice constitutes final agency action. Requests for rehearing by the Commission may be filed within 30 days of the date of issuance of this notice, pursuant to 18 CFR 385.713 (2003). Magalie R. Salas, Secretary. [FR Doc. E4-394 Filed 2-25-04; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. ER04-374-001] Invenergy TN, LLC; Notice of Filing February 19, 2004. Take notice that on February 13, 2004, Invenergy TN LLC (Invenergy) tendered for filing pursuant to section 205 of the Federal Power Act Substitute Original Sheet No. 1 to its FERC Electric Rate Schedule that amends Original Sheet No. 1 submitted in its application filed December 31, 2003, for authorization to sell, as amended, energy and capacity at market-based rates, and to resell transmission rights. Invenergy TN LLC requests an effective date of June 1, 2004. Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing should file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's rules of practice and procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to intervene. All such motions or protests should be filed on or before the comment date, and, to the extent applicable, must be served on the applicant and on any other person designated on the official service list. This filing is available for review at the Commission or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at *http://www.ferc.gov* , using the eLibrary (FERRIS) link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to access the document. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at *FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov* or toll-free at

(866)208-3676, or for TTY, contact

(866)208-3676, or TTY, contact

(202)502-8659. The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings. See, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site under the e-Filing link. Linda Mitry, Acting Secretary. [FR Doc. E4-404 Filed 2-25-04; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket Nos. RP00-474-007 and RP01-17-009 and RP03-174-004] Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline, L.L.C.; Notice of Compliance Filing February 19, 2004. Take notice that on February 13, 2004, Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline, L.L.C. (Maritimes) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, First Revised Volume No. 1, the following tariff sheets:

(i)Second Sub First Revised Sheet No. 262A, with an effective date of July 1, 2003, and

(ii)Third Revised Sheet No. 263 and Second Revised Sheet No. 264, both with an effective date of March 1, 2004. Maritimes states that the purpose of this filing is to comply with the Commission's order issued in the captioned dockets on January 29, 2004 (January 29 Order). Maritimes states that it is making changes to its General Terms and Conditions in order to credit and charge OBA parties a blended rate for imbalances on the system, regardless of whether they trade the imbalances, and to clarify that its restriction on trading imbalances across Posted Points of Restriction only applies to imbalances created while a Posted Point of Restriction was in effect. Maritimes states that it has served this filing on all parties on the Commission's Official Service List in this proceeding. Any person desiring to protest said filing should file a protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with section 385.211 of the Commission's rules and regulations. All such protests must be filed in accordance with section 154.210 of the Commission's regulations. Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceedings. This filing is available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at *http://www.ferc.gov* using the eLibrary link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to access the document. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at *FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov* or toll-free at

(866)208-3676, or TTY, contact

(202)502-8659. The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings. *See* 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site under the e-Filing link. Magalie R. Salas, Secretary. [FR Doc. E4-395 Filed 2-25-04; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. RP04-155-000] Northern Natural Gas Company; Notice of Tariff Filing February 5, 2004. Take notice that on January 30, 2004, Northern Natural Gas Company (Northern) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Fifth Revised Volume No. 1, the revised tariff sheets set forth in Appendix A to the filing. Northern states that the tariff sheets are being filed to effectuate changes in the rates and terms applicable to Northern's jurisdictional services. The effect of the rate case is an overall increase in revenues of approximately $29.6 million above the annual revenue requirement established in Northern's 2003 rate case. The changes reflected in the Revised Tariff Sheets to be effective March 1, 2004, are required to effectuate the rate increase and to make certain changes to Northern's tariff. In addition, Northern proposes Pro Forma Tariff Sheets which reflect further changes to become effective on a prospective basis following a Commission order on the merits or a settlement of this proceeding. Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should file a motion to intervene or a protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Sections 385.214 or 385.211 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such motions or protests must be filed in accordance with Section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceedings. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to intervene. This filing is available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at *http://www.ferc.gov* using the eLibrary. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to access the document. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at *FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov* or toll-free at

(866)208-3676, or TTY, contact

(202)502-8659. The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings. *See,* 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site under the e-Filing link. Linda Mitry, Acting Secretary. [FR Doc. E4-405 Filed 2-25-04; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. RP04-171-000] Portland Natural Gas Transmission System; Notice of Proposed Change in FERC Gas Tariff February 19, 2004. Take notice that on February 17, 2004, Portland Natural Gas Transmission System (PNGTS) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Original Volume No. 1, the tariff sheets attached to the filing, to become effective on April 1, 2004. PNGTS states that the purpose of its filing is to establish a new firm transportation service, *i.e.* , “Hourly Reserve Service” (or “HRS”), which will be provided under a new Rate Schedule HRS. PNGTS states that it is proposing HRS service to provide additional options and flexibility to shippers, such as electricity generators, or those serving electricity generators, whose intra-day delivery requirements may not be uniform and who may require accelerated flow rates and minimum delivery pressures during particular periods of the gas day. PNGTS states that its provision of HRS service will not impair its ability to provide existing FT service and that PNGTS will provide HRS service from available system capacity; therefore no new facilities construction is required. PNGTS states that copies of this filing are being served on all jurisdictional customers and interested State commissions. Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should file a motion to intervene or a protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with sections 385.214 or 385.211 of the Commission's rules and regulations. All such motions or protests must be filed in accordance with section 154.210 of the Commission's regulations. Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceedings. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to intervene. This filing is available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at *http://www.ferc.gov* using the eLibrary. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to access the document. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at *FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov* or toll-free at

(866)208-3676, or TTY, contact

(SCWC)tendered for filing a resubmission of an SCWC compliance filing initially filed on November 12, 2002. SCWC states that the resubmission does not contain any confidential or otherwise protected materials. SCWC explains that its November 12, 2002, filing may have contained confidential or otherwise protected materials that should not be available for public inspections. Therefore, SCWC requests that the Commission remove the original version from the eLibrary system and the Public Reference Room. Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing should file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's rules of practice and procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to intervene. All such motions or protests should be filed on or before the comment date, and, to the extent applicable, must be served on the applicant and on any other person designated on the official service list. This filing is available for review at the Commission or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at *http://www.ferc.gov* , using the eLibrary (FERRIS) link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to access the document. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at *FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov* or toll-free at

(866)208-3676, or for TTY, contact

(866)208-3676, or TTY, contact

(202)502-8659. The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings. *See* 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site under the e-Filing link. Magalie R. Salas, Secretary. [FR Doc. E4-398 Filed 2-25-04; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. RP04-168-000] Trailblazer Pipeline Company; Notice of Filing Penalty Revenue Crediting Report February 18, 2004. Take notice that on February 13, 2004, Trailblazer Pipeline Company (Trailblazer) tendered for filing its Penalty Revenue Crediting Report. Trailblazer states that the purpose of this filing is to inform the Commission of penalty revenues it has received in the periods ended September 30, 2003, and December 31, 2003. Trailblazer states that copies of the filing are being mailed to its customers and interested State commissions. Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should file a motion to intervene or a protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with sections 385.214 or 385.211 of the Commission's rules and regulations. All such motions or protests must be filed on or before the date as indicated below. Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceedings. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to intervene. This filing is available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at *http://www.ferc.gov* using the eLibrary. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to access the document. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at *FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov* or toll-free at

(866)208-3676, or TTY, contact

(202)502-8659. The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings. *See* 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site under the e-Filing link. *Protests Date:* February 26, 2004. Magalie R. Salas, Secretary. [FR Doc. E4-397 Filed 2-25-04; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. CP04-59-000] Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corporation; Notice of Application February 5, 2004. Take notice that on January 29, 2004, Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corporation (Transco) pursuant to and in accordance with section 7(b) of the Natural Gas Act and part 157 of the Commission's regulations, tendered for filing an application, in abbreviated form, in Docket No. CP04-59-000 for an order permitting and approving the abandonment of storage service under Rate Schedule LG-S provided to Southern Connecticut Gas Company. Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should file a motion to intervene or a protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with sections 385.214 or 385.211 of the Commission's rules and regulations. All such motions or protests must be filed on or before the date as indicated below. Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceedings. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to intervene. This filing is available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at *http://www.ferc.gov* using the eLibrary. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to access the document. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at *FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov* or toll-free at

(866)208-3676, or TTY, contact

(202)502-8659. The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings. *See* 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site under the e-Filing link. Take further notice that, pursuant to the authority contained in and subject to the jurisdiction conferred upon the Commission by sections 7 and 15 of the Natural Gas Act and the Commission's rules of practice and procedure, a hearing will be held without further notice before the Commission on this application if no petition to intervene is filed within the time required herein, and the Commission on its own review of the matter finds that a grant of the abandonment is required by the public convenience and necessity. If a protest or petition for leave to intervene is timely filed, or if the Commission on its own motion believes that a formal hearing is required, further notice of such hearing will be duly given. Under this procedure, unless otherwise advised, it will be unnecessary for Transco to appear or to be represented at the hearing. *Comment Date:* February 19, 2004. Linda Mitry, Acting Secretary. [FR Doc. E4-406 Filed 2-25-04; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. RP04-167-000] Viking Gas Transmission Company; Notice of Proposed Changes in FERC Gas Tariff February 19, 2004. Take notice that on February 13, 2004, Viking Gas Transmission Company (Viking) tendered for filing to become part of its FERC Gas Tariff, First Revised Volume No. 1, the following tariff sheets to become effective on April 1, 2004: Seventh Revised Sheet No. 5H Original Sheet No. 5H.01 Sixteenth Revised Sheet No. 6B Original Sheet No. 6B.01 Fifth Revised Sheet No. 87C Viking states that the purpose of this filing is to make Viking's annual adjustment to its Load Management Cost Reconciliation Adjustment (LMCRA) in accordance with section 154.403 of the Commission's rules and regulations, 18 CFR 154.403

(2002)and section 27 of the General Terms and Conditions of Viking's FERC Gas Tariff and to make minor housekeeping changes related to the LMCRA. Viking states that copies of the filing have been mailed to all of its jurisdictional customers and to affected State regulatory commissions. Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should file a motion to intervene or a protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with sections 385.214 or 385.211 of the Commission's rules and regulations. All such motions or protests must be filed in accordance with section 154.210 of the Commission's regulations. Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceedings. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to intervene. This filing is available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at *http://www.ferc.gov* using the eLibrary. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to access the document. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at *FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov* or toll-free at

(866)208-3676, or TTY, contact

(EIS)that will discuss the environmental impacts of the Cheniere Corpus Christi LNG Terminal and Pipeline Project involving construction and operation of facilities by Corpus Christi LNG, L.P. and Cheniere Corpus Christi Pipeline Company (collectively referred to as Cheniere Corpus Christi) in San Patricio and Nueces Counties, Texas. 1 These facilities would consist of a liquefied natural gas

(LNG)import terminal and storage facilities, and 24 miles of 48-inch-diameter pipeline. This EIS will be used by the Commission in its decision-making process to determine whether the project is in the public convenience and necessity. 1 On December 22, 2003, Corpus Christi LNG, L.P. filed its application with the Commission under Section 3(a) of the Natural Gas Act

(NGA)and Part 153 of the Commission's regulations, and Cheniere Corpus Christi Pipeline Company filed its application under Section 7 of the NGA and Parts 157 and 284 of the Commission's regulations. This notice is being sent to residents within 0.5 mile of the proposed LNG terminal; landowners along the proposed pipeline route; Federal, state, and local government representatives and agencies; environmental and public interest groups; Native American tribes; local libraries and newspapers; and intervenors in this proceeding. We 2 request that state and local government representatives notify their constituents of this proposed action and encourage them to comment on their areas of concern. 2 “We,” “us,” and “our” refer to the environmental staff of the FERC's Office of Energy Projects (OEP). If you are a landowner receiving this notice, you may be contacted by a company representative about the acquisition of an easement to construct, operate, and maintain the proposed facilities. The company would seek to negotiate a mutually acceptable agreement. However, if the project is approved by the Commission, that approval conveys with it the right of eminent domain. Therefore, if easement negotiations fail to produce an agreement, the company could initiate condemnation proceedings in accordance with state law. A fact sheet prepared by the FERC entitled “An Interstate Natural Gas Facility On My Land? What Do I Need To Know?” was attached to the project notice Cheniere Corpus Christi provided to landowners. This fact sheet addresses a number of typically asked questions, including the use of eminent domain and how to participate in the Commission's proceedings. It is available for viewing on the FERC Internet Web site ( *http://www.ferc.gov* ). Summary of the Proposed Project Cheniere Corpus Christi proposes to import, store, and vaporize on average about 2,600 million cubic feet per day of LNG at its terminal facility on the northern shoreline of Corpus Christi Bay, east of Portland, Texas. The proposed pipeline, extending from the LNG terminal to north of Sinton, Texas, would be capable of transporting about 2,700 million cubic feet per day of imported natural gas to markets throughout the United States, via interconnections with a number of existing interstate pipeline systems. Cheniere Corpus Christi seeks authority to construct and operate: • A new marine basin at the northwestern end of the existing La Qunita Channel, consisting of a dredged maneuvering area and two protected berths, equipped to unload up to 300 LNG ships per year, including three tugs and two line-handling boats; • Three liquid unloading arms, one vapor return arm, and two LNG transfer lines for each dock; • Three all-metal, double-walled, single containment, top entry LNG storage tanks, each with a nominal working volume of approximately 160,000 cubic meters (1,006,400 barrels equivalent), surrounded by earthen dikes capable of containing 110 percent of the gross tank volume; • Three in-tank LNG pumps, an LNG vaporization and send out system consisting of 16 high pressure LNG send out pumps, 16 high pressure submerged combustion LNG vaporizers, three boil-off gas compressors and a boil-off gas condensing system, and two vapor return blowers, together with LNG terminal control instrumentation and safety systems, and on-site natural gas metering facilities; • Various buildings at the LNG terminal site to house administrative offices, warehouse/maintenance, terminal control system, utilities, customs, and a gatehouse; • 24 miles of 48-inch-diameter natural gas pipeline; • Seven metering stations/delivery points, and pipeline interconnections with the following existing natural gas pipeline systems: Texas Eastern Transmission Company, Gulf South Pipeline Company, Channel Pipeline Company, Florida Gas Transmission Company, Kinder Morgan Texas Pipeline Company, Transcontinental Gas Pipeline Corporation, and Natural Gas Pipeline Company of America; and • Three mainline valves, and a pig launcher facility at the LNG terminal and receiver facility at the northern pipeline terminus. Construction of the proposed LNG terminal would also require construction of nonjurisdictional facilities, consisting of about 1.6 miles of new 138 kV overhead electric power line and an electrical substation and about 1.6 miles of new potable water line. These facilities are not under jurisdiction of the Commission but they will be addressed in the EIS as related nonjurisdictional facilities. Cheniere Corpus Christi would like to have the project constructed and operational prior to the 2007 winter heating season. The general location of the facilities is shown in appendix 1. 3 3 The appendices referenced in this notice are not being printed in the **Federal Register** . Copies of all appendices, other than appendix 1 (maps), are available on the Commission's Web site at the “eLibrary” link or from the Commission's Public Reference, Room 2A or call

(202)502-8371. For instructions on connecting to eLibrary refer to the last page of this notice. Copies of the appendices were sent to all those receiving this notice in the mail. Requests for detailed maps of the proposed facilities should be made directly to the Cheniere Corpus Christi. Land Requirements for Construction Construction of the proposed LNG terminal would utilize a total of about 1,078 acres of land and water. On-shore, permanent operation of the terminal would require use of about 187 acres. About 494 acres on-shore would be affected temporarily during construction. An additional 316 acres on-shore would be retained for exclusion zones, but would not be affected by either construction or operations of the facility. Off-shore, about 81 acres of open water would be used for construction and operation of the marine basin and berthing facilities. The material dredged during creation of the marine basin would be placed over existing bauxite residue beds and tailings ponds on a 385 acre area owned by Alcoa, Inc., on the north side of the LNG storage facility. Construction of the proposed pipeline would affect a total of about 390 acres of land. A 120-foot-wide nominal construction right-of-way would be used, plus additional temporary extra work spaces, and the permanent pipeline easement would be 50-feet-wide. Operation would require use of about 166 acres, including about 4 acres necessary for aboveground facilities. At the end of construction, the remaining 224 acres of land along the pipeline route would be restored to its previous condition and use. The EIS Process The National Environmental Policy Act

(NEPA)requires the Commission to take into account the environmental impacts that could result from an action whenever it considers the issuance of a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity. NEPA also requires the Commission to discover and address concerns the public may have about proposals. This process is referred to as “scoping.” The main goal of the scoping process is to focus the analysis in the EIS on the important environmental issues and reasonable alternatives. With this notice, we are soliciting input from the public and interested agencies to help us focus the analysis in the EIS on the potentially significant environmental issues related to the proposed action. To ensure that your scoping comments are considered, please carefully follow the instructions in the public participation section beginning on page 6. We are also asking Federal, state, local, and tribal agencies with jurisdiction and/or special expertise with respect to the environmental issues to formally cooperate with us in the preparation of the EIS. These agencies, especially the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Coast Guard, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the National Marine Fisheries Service, may choose to participate once they have evaluated the proposal relative to their responsibilities. Our independent analysis of the proposed project will be included in a draft EIS. The draft EIS will be published and mailed to Federal, state, and local agencies, public interest groups, interested individuals, affected landowners, Native American tribes, newspapers, libraries, and the Commission's official service list for this proceeding. A 45-day comment period will be allotted for review of the draft EIS. We will consider all timely comments on the draft EIS and revise the document, as necessary, before issuing the final EIS. In addition, we will consider all comments on the final EIS when we make our recommendations to the Commission. Currently Identified Environmental Issues The EIS will discuss impacts that could occur as a result of the construction and operation of the proposed project under the general resource headings listed below. We have already identified several issues that we think deserve attention based on a preliminary review of the proposed facilities and the environmental information provided by Cheniere Corpus Christi. This preliminary list of issues may be changed based on your comments and our analysis. • Geology and Soils: —Assessment of dredging for the new marine basin, and use of dredged material to cover existing bauxite residue beds and tailings ponds at LNG terminal site. —Location of LNG storage tanks within an area used for bauxite storage. —Conversion of prime farm land for aboveground facilities associated with the pipeline. • Water Resources and Wetlands: —Handling of storm water captured in LNG storage dikes, and water generated during LNG vaporization process. —Assessment of impacts construction and operation of the LNG terminal and pipeline would have on wetlands. —Potential impacts on surface waterbodies. • Vegetation and Wildlife: —Impacts of clearing of native vegetation at the LNG terminal and along pipeline. —Assessment of impacts on state and/or Federally-listed threatened and endangered species at the LNG terminal and along the pipeline. —Assessment of impacts the creation of the LNG marine terminal may have on shellfish and finfish within the essential fish habitat of Corpus Christi Bay. • Land Use and Recreation: —Evaluation of project's consistency with coastal zone management area guidelines. —Assessment of impacts on agricultural land crossed by the pipeline. —Visual impacts associated with new LNG storage tanks. • Socioeconomics: —Assessment of environmental justice in location of LNG terminal site. —Assessment of impact and potential benefits of construction workforce on local housing, infrastructure, public services, and economy. —Assessment of impacts of LNG ship traffic on the Port of Corpus Christi. • Cultural Resources: —Assessment of archaeological sites at the LNG terminal. —Native American concerns. • Air and Noise Quality: —Assessment of impacts of construction and operation of the LNG terminal and pipeline on local air quality. —Assessment of noise from construction and operation of the LNG terminal and pipeline facilities. • Reliability and Safety: —Assessment of hazards associated with the transport, unloading, storage, and vaporization of LNG. —Assessment of security associated with LNG ship traffic and an LNG import terminal. • Alternatives: —Assessment of the use of existing LNG import terminals and natural gas pipeline systems to achieve project goals. —Evaluation of alternative sites for the LNG terminal, including offshore sites. —Evaluation of pipeline route alternatives. • Cumulative Impacts: —Assessment of the effect of the proposed project when combined with other past, present, or reasonably foreseeable future actions in the project area, including other proposed LNG facilities in Corpus Christi Bay and the proposed Port of Corpus Christi La Quinta Container Terminal. Public Participation You can make a difference by providing us with your specific comments or concerns about the project. By becoming a commentor, your concerns will be addressed in the EIS and considered by the Commission. You should focus on the potential environmental effects of the proposal, alternatives to the proposal (including alternative terminal locations or pipeline routes), and measures to avoid or lessen environmental impact. The more specific your comments, the more useful they will be. Please carefully follow these instructions to ensure that your comments are received in time and properly recorded: • Send an original and two copies of your letter to: Magalie R. Salas, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First St., NE., Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426. • Label one copy of the comments for the attention of Gas Branch 3. • Reference Docket Nos. CP04-37-000, *et al.* • Mail your comments so that they will be received in Washington, DC on or before March 26, 2004. Please note that we are continuing to experience delays in mail deliveries from the U.S. Postal Service. As a result, we will include all comments that we receive within a reasonable time frame in our environmental analysis of this project. However, the Commission strongly encourages electronic filing of any comments or interventions or protests to this proceeding. See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site at *http://www.ferc.gov* under the “e-Filing” link and the link to the User's Guide. Before you can file comments you will need to create a free account, which can be created by clicking on “Login to File” and then “New User Account.” You will be asked to select the type of filing you are making. This filing is considered a “Comment on Filing.” Public Scoping Meeting and Site Visit In addition to or in lieu of sending written comments, we invite you to attend the public scoping meeting we will conduct in the project area. The location and time for this meeting is listed below: Wednesday, March 24, 2004, 7 p.m., Portland Community Center, 2000 Billy G. Webb Drive, Portland, Texas 78374, Telephone:

(361)777-3301. The public scoping meeting is designed to provide state and local agencies, interested groups, affected landowners, and the general public with more detailed information and another opportunity to offer your comments on the proposed project. Interested groups and individuals are encouraged to attend the meeting and to present comments on the environmental issues they believe should be addressed in the EIS. A transcript of the meeting will be made so that your comments will be accurately recorded. Also on Wednesday, March 24, 2004, starting at 1 p.m., we will be conducting a visit to the LNG terminal site. Anyone interested in participating in the site visit should meet at the lobby of the Days Inn, 133 U.S. Highway 181, Portland, Texas 78374. Participants must provide their own transportation. For additional information, please contact the Commission's Office of External Affairs at 1-866-208-FERC (3372). Becoming an Intervenor In addition to involvement in the EIS scoping process, you may want to become an official party to the proceeding known as an “intervenor.” Intervenors play a more formal role in the process. Among other things, intervenors have the right to receive copies of case-related Commission documents and filings by other intervenors. Likewise, each intervenor must provide 14 copies of its filings to the Secretary of the Commission and must send a copy of its filings to all other parties on the Commission's service list for this proceeding. If you want to become an intervenor you must file a motion to intervene according to Rule 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214) (see appendix 2). 4 Only intervenors have the right to seek rehearing of the Commission's decision. 4 Interventions may also be filed electronically via the Internet in lieu of paper. See the previous discussion on filing comments electronically. Affected landowners and parties with environmental concerns may be granted intervenor status upon showing good cause by stating that they have a clear and direct interest in this proceeding which would not be adequately represented by any other parties. You do not need intervenor status to have your environmental comments considered. Environmental Mailing List If you do not want to send comments at this time but still want to remain on our mailing list, please return the Mailing List Form included in appendix 3. If you do not return this form or send in written comments, you will be taken off the mailing list. Additional Information Additional information about the project is available from the Commission's Office of External Affairs, at 1-866-208-FERC

(3372)or on the FERC Internet Web site ( *http://www.ferc.gov* ) using the eLibrary link. Click on the eLibrary link, click on “General Search” and enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the Docket Number field. Be sure you have selected an appropriate date range. For assistance with eLibrary, the eLibrary helpline can be reached at 1-866-208-3676, TTY

(202)502-8659, or at *FERConlinesupport@ferc.gov* . The eLibrary link on the FERC Internet Web site also provides access to the texts of formal documents issued by the Commission, such as orders, notices, and rulemakings. In addition, the Commission now offers a free service called eSubscription which allows you to keep track of all formal issuances and submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with notification of these filings, document summaries and direct links to the documents. To register for this service, go to *http://www.ferc.gov/esubscribenow.htm* . Magalie R. Salas, Secretary. [FR Doc. E4-410 Filed 2-25-04; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket Nos. CP04-47-000, CP04-38-000, CP04-39-000, and CP04-40-000] Sabine Pass LNG, L.P., Cheniere Sabine Pass Pipeline Company; Notice of Intent To Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement for the Proposed Sabine Pass, LNG, and Pipeline Project and Request for Comments on Environmental Issues and Notice of Public Scoping Meetings and Site Visit February 20, 2004. The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) will prepare an environmental impact statement

(EIS)that will discuss the environmental impacts of the Sabine Pass LNG and Pipeline Project involving construction and operation of facilities proposed by Sabine Pass LNG, L.P. and Cheniere Sabine Pass Pipeline Company (collectively referred to as Cheniere Sabine) in Cameron Parish, Louisiana. 1 These facilities would consist of a liquefied natural gas

(LNG)import terminal and storage facilities and approximately 16 miles of 42-inch-diameter pipeline in Cameron Parish. 2 This EIS will be used by the Commission in its decision-making process to determine whether the project is in the public convenience and necessity. 1 On January 2, 2004, the Commission gave notice that the applications for Sabine Pass LNG L.P. and Cheniere Sabine Pass Pipeline Company were filed on December 22, 2003, under section 3(a) and section 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act and part 153, part 157, and part 284 of the Commission's regulations. 2 On February 10, 2004, the Commission gave notice that Sabine Pass Pipeline Company filed an amendment to its application on February 6, 2004, that reflected a shortening of the length of the originally proposed pipeline from approximately 120 miles to approximately 16 miles, a reduction of the diameter of the pipeline from 48 inches to 42 inches, and a decrease in the maximum capacity of the pipeline from 2.7 to 2.6 billion cubic feet per day. This notice is being sent to residents within 0.5 mile of the proposed LNG terminal facilities; potentially affected landowners along the proposed pipeline route; Federal, State, and local government agencies; elected officials; environmental and public interest groups; Native American tribes; and local libraries and newspapers. We 3 have asked state and local government representatives to notify their constituents of this planned action and encourage them to comment on their areas of concern. 3 “We,” “us,” and “our” refer to the environmental staff of the Office of Energy Projects. If you are a landowner receiving this notice, you may be contacted by a pipeline company representative about the acquisition of an easement to construct, operate, and maintain the proposed pipeline facilities. The pipeline company would seek to negotiate a mutually acceptable agreement. However, if the project is approved by the Commission, that approval conveys with it the right of eminent domain. Therefore, if easement negotiations fail to produce an agreement, the pipeline company could initiate condemnation proceedings in accordance with State law. A fact sheet prepared by the FERC entitled “An Interstate Natural Gas Facility On My Land? What Do I Need To Know?” was attached to the project notice Cheniere Sabine provided to landowners. This fact sheet addresses a number of typically asked questions, including the use of eminent domain and how to participate in the Commission's proceedings. It is available for viewing on the FERC Internet Web site at *www.ferc.gov* . Summary of the Proposed Project Cheniere Sabine proposes to build a new LNG import, storage, and vaporization terminal in a rural part of Cameron Parish, Louisiana, across the Sabine Pass Channel from Sabine Pass, Texas. The LNG import terminal would import, store, and vaporize an average of approximately 2,600 million standard cubic feet per day (MMscfd) of LNG, with an installed capacity of 2,880 MMscfd, for supply to U.S. natural gas markets. Cheniere Sabine seeks authority to construct and operate the following new facilities: • A new marine basin connected to the Sabine Pass Channel that would include a ship maneuvering area and two protected berths to unload up to 300 LNG ships per year with a ship capacity ranging up to 250,000 cubic meters (m <sup>3</sup> ) of LNG; • Two 30-inch-diameter stainless steel insulated LNG transfer lines to transfer the LNG from the berth facilities to the LNG storage tanks; • Three all-metal, double-walled, single containment, top-entry LNG storage tanks, each with a nominal working volume of approximately 160,000 m 3 and each with secondary containment dikes to contain 110 percent of the gross tank volume; • Sixteen high-pressure submerged combustion LNG vaporizors with a capacity of approximately 180 MMscfd each, as well as other associated vaporization equipment, including pumps, boil-off gas compressors, instrumentation, and safety systems; • Ancillary utilities, buildings, and service facilities, including hazard detection and fire response systems; • Approximately 16 miles of 42-inch-diameter natural gas pipeline extending from the LNG import terminal to an interconnection with four existing pipelines at Johnson's Bayou; • Three metering stations, one at the LNG terminal site, one at an interconnection with Natural Gas Pipeline Company of America, and one at the interconnection with the existing pipelines at Johnson's Bayou; and • Associated pipeline facilities including a pig launcher receiver facility, and three mainline valves, and one side valve. Construction of the LNG terminal facilities would take approximately 3 years, and the pipeline would take approximately 4 to 6 months. Cheniere Sabine proposes to place the project in service before the 2007 winter heating season. The general location of the proposed project facilities is shown in appendix 1. 4,5 4 Requests for detailed maps of the facilities may be made to the company directly by calling 1-800-690-1361. Be as specific as you can about the location(s) of your area(s) of interest. 5 The appendices referenced in this notice are not being printed in the **Federal Register** E. Copies are available on the Commission's Web site ( *http//www.ferc.gov* ) at the “eLibrary” link or from the Commission's Public Reference Room 2A or call

(202)502-8371. Copies of the appendices were sent to all those receiving this notice in the mail. In addition, certain nonjurisdictional electric and water line facilities would be required for operation of the LNG terminal and would be subject to review and approval by the appropriate state and Federal agencies. The Jefferson Davis Electric Cooperative would construct a 23.6-mile, 230 kilovolt

(kV)electric transmission line that would extend from its existing substation near the Intracoastal Waterway south across the eastern edge of Sabine Lake to the LNG terminal site. Cameron Parish Waterworks, District 10, would construct an approximate 8.6-mile, 8-inch-diameter potable water line that will extend from its facilities near Johnson's Bayou west along the northern edge of State Highway 82 to the LNG terminal site. Land Requirements for Construction Cheniere Sabine has acquired 568 acres of land, formerly used for dredge spoil placement by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, for the proposed LNG terminal facility. Of this total, about 291.7 acres would be affected during construction, comprising 264.9 acres of land and 26.8 acres of water. Operation of the LNG facility would affect about 236.6 acres, comprising 210.1 acres of land and 26.5 acres of water. Cheniere Sabine proposes to use a 120-foot-wide construction right-of-way and a 50-foot-wide operational right-of-way for the pipeline. Construction of the pipeline would disturb about 245.8 acres of land and would include land required for the pipeline construction right-of-way, additional temporary workspaces, access roads, meter stations, and other associated aboveground facilities. Total operational land requirements would be approximately 105 acres for the new permanent right-of-way, access roads, and above ground facilities. The EIS Process The National Environmental Policy Act

(NEPA)requires the Commission to take into account the environmental impacts that could result from an action whenever it considers the issuance of a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity, or an import authorization under section 3 of the Natural Gas Act. NEPA also requires us to discover and address issues and concerns the public may have about proposals. This process is referred to as “scoping.” The main goal of the scoping process is to focus the analysis in the EIS on the important environmental issues and reasonable alternatives. With this notice, we are soliciting input from the public and interested agencies to help us focus the analysis in the EIS on the potentially significant environmental issues related to the proposed action. We are also asking Federal, State, local, and tribal agencies with jurisdiction and/or special expertise with respect to the environmental issues to formally cooperate with us in the preparation of the EIS. These agencies, especially the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, National Marine Fisheries Service, and the U.S. Coast Guard, may choose to participate once they have evaluated the proposal relative to their responsibilities. Agencies that would like to request cooperating status should follow the instructions for filing comments described later in this notice. Our independent analysis of the proposed project will be included in a draft EIS. The draft EIS will be published and mailed to Federal, State, and local agencies, public interest groups, interested individuals, affected landowners, Native American tribes, newspapers, libraries, and the Commission's official service list for this proceeding. A 45-day comment period will be allotted for review of the draft EIS. We will consider all timely comments on the draft EIS and revise the document, as necessary, before issuing the final EIS. In addition, we will consider all comments on the final EIS when we make our recommendations to the Commission. Currently Identified Environmental Issues The EIS will discuss impacts that could occur as a result of the construction and operation of the proposed project under the resource headings listed below. We have already identified several issues that we think deserve attention based on a preliminary review of the proposed facilities and the environmental information provided by Cheniere Sabine. This preliminary list of issues may be changed based on your comments and our analysis. Geology and Soils • Assessment of dredged material management plan, including the potential for beneficial uses of dredged material. Water Resources and Wetlands • Assessment of construction effects on quality of surface and groundwater. • Assessment of effects of construction and operation on the Chicot sole-source aquifer. • Potential effects of freshwater discharges on the salinity of receiving waterbodies. • Effects of dredging approximately 4.5 million cubic yards of clays for the marine basin and berthing area. • Assessment of construction and operation effects on wetlands at the terminal site and along the pipeline route. • Potential impacts of a thermal (coldwater) discharge. Fish, Wildlife, and Vegetation • Effect on commercial and recreational fisheries of Sabine Lake and other affected waterbodies. • Potential effect of electric transmission lines on shore birds and other birds. • Effects of lighting and towers on migratory birds. • Effects of construction on waterfowl habitat. Endangered and Threatened Species • Potential effects on federally listed species including piping plover, brown pelican, and bald eagle; Kemp's Ridley, loggerhead, green, hawksbill, and leatherback sea turtles; gulf sturgeon and smalltooth sawfish; and sperm whale. • Effects on essential fish habitat. Land Use, Recreation and Special Use Areas, and Visual Resources • Potential impact on public access to the Sabine Pass Lighthouse, which is listed on the National Register of Historic Places. • Effects of pipeline construction on residences within 50 feet of the proposed right-of-way. • Consistency with coastal zone management plan. • Visual impacts of new LNG storage tanks. Socioeconomics • Impact of construction equipment and construction worker vehicles on local traffic. • Effects of LNG ship traffic. • Effects of construction workforce demands on public services and housing. Cultural • Effects on archaeological sites and historic properties. Air Quality and Noise • Effects of construction and operation on local air quality and the noise environment. • Effects of LNG ship emissions on air quality. Reliability and Safety • Safety and security of the terminal and pipeline. • Safety related to LNG shipping. Cumulative Impacts • Assessment of the effect of the proposed project when combined with other past, present, or reasonably foreseeable future actions in the Sabine Pass area. At present, we are aware of one other LNG project, the ExxonMobil Golden Pass LNG and Pipeline Project, in the vicinity of the proposed Sabine Pass LNG and Pipeline Project. As currently proposed, the Golden Pass LNG Project site is approximately 2 miles west of the Cheniere Sabine LNG site on the west bank of the Port Arthur ship channel in Jefferson County, Texas. This project would also involve the construction of approximately 75 miles of pipelines, extending from the LNG site through Jefferson, Orange, and Newton Counties, Texas to the vicinity of Starks, Louisiana in Calcasieu Parish, Louisiana. Alternatives • Evaluation of no action alternative, alternatives using other existing LNG terminals or pipeline systems, alternative sites for the proposed LNG terminal, and alternative pipeline routes. Public Participation You can make a difference by providing us with your specific comments or concerns about the project. By becoming a commentor, your concerns will be addressed in the EIS and considered by the Commission. You should focus on the potential environmental effects of the proposal, alternatives to the proposal (including alternative locations/routes), and measures to avoid or lessen environmental impact. The more specific your comments, the more useful they will be. Please carefully follow these instructions to ensure that your comments are received in time and properly recorded: • Send an original and two copies of your letter to: Magalie R. Salas, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First St., NE., Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426. • Label one copy of the comments for the attention of Gas Branch 2. • Reference Docket Nos. CP04-38-000 *et al.* and CP04-47-000 on the original and both copies. • Mail your comments so that they will be received in Washington, DC on or before March 22, 2004. Please note that we are continuing to experience delays in mail deliveries from the U.S. Postal Service. As a result, we will include all comments that we receive within a reasonable time frame in our environmental analysis of this project. However, the Commission strongly encourages you to file your comments electronically via the Internet in lieu of paper. *See* 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site at *http://www.ferc.gov* under the “e-Filing” link and the link to the User's Guide. Before you can file comments you will need to create a free account, which can be created by clicking on “Login to File” and then “New User Account.” You will be asked to select the type of filing you are making. This filing is considered a “Comment on Filing.” Public Scoping Meetings and Site Visit In addition to or in lieu of sending written comments, we invite you to attend a public scoping meeting that we will conduct in the area. The location and time for this meeting is listed below: March 11, 2004, 7 p.m., Johnson Bayou Recreation Center, 135 Berwick Road, Cameron, LA 70631, telephone: 337-569-2204. The public scoping meeting is designed to provide state and local agencies, interested groups, affected landowners, and the general public with more detailed information and another opportunity to offer comments on the proposed project. Interested groups and individuals are encouraged to attend the meetings and to present comments on the environmental issues they believe should be addressed in the EIS. Transcripts of the meetings will be made so that your comments are accurately recorded. We will also be conducting a limited site visit to the LNG terminal site and pipeline route on the day of the meeting. Anyone interested in participating in the site visit should meet at the Johnson's Bayou Recreation Center at 8 a.m. on March 11, 2004. Participants must provide their own transportation. For additional information, please contact the Commission's Office of External Affairs at 1-866-208 FERC (3372). Becoming an Intervenor In addition to involvement in the EIS scoping process, you may want to become an official party to the proceeding known as an “intervenor”. Intervenors play a more formal role in the process. Among other things, intervenors have the right to receive copies of case-related Commission documents and filings by other intervenors. Likewise, each intervenor must provide 14 copies of its filings to the Secretary of the Commission and must send a copy of its filings to all other parties on the Commission's service list for this proceeding. If you want to become an intervenor you must file a motion to intervene according to Rule 214 of the Commission's rules of practice and procedure (18 CFR 385.214) ( *see* appendix 2). 6 Only intervenors have the right to seek rehearing of the Commission's decision. 6 Interventions may also be filed electronically via the Internet in lieu of paper. *See* the previous discussion on filing comments electronically. Affected landowners and parties with environmental concerns may be granted intervenor status upon showing good cause by stating that they have a clear and direct interest in this proceeding which would not be adequately represented by any other parties. You do not need intervenor status to have your environmental comments considered. Environmental Mailing List If you do not want to send comments at this time but still want to remain on our mailing list, please return the Mailing List Form included in appendix 3. If you do not return this form or send in written comments, you will be taken off the mailing list. Additional Information Additional information about the project is available from the Commission's Office of External Affairs, at 1-866-208-FERC

(3372)or on the FERC Internet Web site ( *www.ferc.gov* ) using the eLibrary link. Click on the eLibrary link, click on “General Search” and enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the Docket Number field. Be sure you have selected an appropriate date range. For assistance with eLibrary, the eLibrary helpline can be reached at 1-866-208-3676, TTY

(202)502-8659, or at *FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov* . The eLibrary link on the FERC Internet Web site also provides access to the texts of formal documents issued by the Commission, such as orders, notices, and rulemakings. In addition, the Commission now offers a free service called eSubscription that allows you to keep track of all formal issuances and submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to the documents. To register for this service, go to *www.ferc.gov/esubscribenow.htm* . Magalie R. Salas, Secretary. [FR Doc. E4-411 Filed 2-25-04; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Notice of Settlement Agreement and Soliciting Comments February 5, 2004. Take notice that the following settlement agreement has been filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection. a. *Type of Application:* Settlement agreement on new license application. b. *Project No.:* P-2233-043. c. *Date Filed:* February 2, 2004. d. *Applicant:* Portland General Electric Company. e. *Name of Project:* Willamette Falls Hydroelectric Project. f. *Location:* On the Willamette River, in the Town of West Linn, Clackamas County, Oregon. g. *Filed Pursuant to:* Rule 602 of the Commission's rules of practice and procedure, 18 CFR 385.602. h. *Applicant Contact:* Julie A. Keil, Director, Hydro Licensing, Portland General Electric Company, 121 SW. Salmon Street, Portland, Oregon 97204, 503-464-8864 i. *FERC Contact:* John Blair, 202-502-6092, *john.blair@ferc.gov* . j. *Deadline for Filing Comments:* March 5, 2004. Reply comments: March 15, 2004. All documents (original and eight copies) should be filed with: Magalie R. Salas, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. The Commission's rules of practice require all interveners filing documents with the Commission to serve a copy of that document on each person on the official service list for the project. Further, if an intervener files comments or documents with the Commission relating to the merits of an issue that may affect the responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they must also serve a copy of the document on that resource agency. Comments may be filed electronically via the Internet in lieu of paper. The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings. *See* 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site ( *http://www.ferc.gov* ) under the “e-Filing” link. k. Portland General Electric Company filed the Settlement Agreement on behalf of itself and the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, NOAA Fisheries (formerly National Marine Fisheries Service), Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Oregon Water Resources Department, Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon, Confederated Tribes of Siletz Indians of Oregon, Confederated Tribes of the Grand Ronde Community of Oregon, American Rivers, Oregon Trout, The Native Fish Society, and Trout Unlimited. The purpose of the Settlement Agreement is to resolve among the signatories issues regarding the licensing of the Willamette Falls Project. These parties represent the major stakeholders with interests affected by the relicensing of the Project. All Parties have agreed that the Settlement Agreement is fair and reasonable and in the public interest. On behalf of the Parties, PGE requests that the Commission approve the Settlement Agreement and adopt it as part of the new license without material modification. l. A copy of the settlement agreement is available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at *http://www.ferc.gov* using the “eLibrary” link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to access the document. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support at *FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov* or toll-free at 1-866-208-3676, or for TTY,

(202)502-8659. A copy is also available for inspection and reproduction at the address in item h above. You may also register online at; *http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp* to be notified via email of new filings and issuances related to this or other pending projects. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support. Linda Mitry, Acting Secretary. [FR Doc. E4-402 Filed 2-25-04; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Notice of Application for Transfer of License and Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and Protests February 20, 2004. Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection: a. *Application Type:* Amendment to Joint Application for Approval of Transfer of License. b. *Project No:* 4784-066. c. *Date Filed:* Application filed December 11, 2003; amendment filed January 30, 2004. d. *Applicants:* UtilCo Group Inc.; UtilCo SaleCo, LLC; Topsham Hydro Partners Limited Partnership; DaimlerChrysler Services North America LLC (DCSNA), as successor in interest to Chrysler Capital Corporation (Chrysler Capital), Chrysler Financial Corporation (CFC), and Chrysler Financial Company L.L.C. (CFC LLC). e. *Name and Location of Project:* The Pejepscot Hydroelectric Project is located on the Androscoggin River in the town of Topsham, in Sagadahoc, Cumberland and Androscoggin Counties, Maine. f. *Filed Pursuant to:* Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 791(a)-825(r). g. *Applicant Contacts:* For Transferor: Victor A. Contract, Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP, 3050 K Street, NW., Washington, DC 20007,

(202)339-8495. For Transferee: Brogan Sullivan, Assistant General Counsel, UtilCo Group Inc. c/o Aquila, Inc., 20 W. Ninth Street, Kansas City, MO 64105,

(816)467-3659. h. *FERC Contact:* Lynn R. Miles

(202)502-8763. i. Deadline for filing comments, protests, and motions to intervene: March 19, 2004. All documents (original and eight copies) should be filed with: Magalie R. Salas, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. Comments, protests, and interventions may be filed electronically via the Internet in lieu of paper; see 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's web site under the “e-Filing” link. The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings. Please include the project number (P-4784-066) on any comments or motions filed. The Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure require all interveners filing a document with the Commission to serve a copy of that document on each person in the official service list for the project. Further, if an intervener files comments or documents with the Commission relating to the merits of an issue that may affect the responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they must also serve a copy of the documents on that resource agency. j. *Description of Application:* The amendment to the application requests approval of partial transfers of the license to substitute as a co-licensee CFC LLC for CFC and DCSNA for CFC LLC. The partial transfers resulted from a series of mergers. (The initially-filed application's request for approval of a partial transfer of the license to substitute UtilCo SaleCo, LLC, for UtilCo Group Inc., as a co-licensee was decided separately to accommodate the schedule for closing the sale underlying that initially-requested partial transfer.) k. This filing is available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at *http://www.ferc.gov* using the “FERRIS” link. Enter the project number excluding the last three digits (P-4784) in the docket number field to access the document. For assistance, call toll-free 1-866-208-3676 or e-mail *FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov* . For TTY, call

(202)502-8659. A copy is also available for inspection and reproduction at the addresses in item g. above. l. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission. m. Comments, Protests, or Motions to Intervene—Anyone may submit comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211, .214. In determining the appropriate action to take, the Commission will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only those who file a motion to intervene in accordance with the Commission's Rules may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments, protests, or motions to intervene must be received on or before the specified comment date for the particular application. n. Filing and Service of Responsive Documents—Any filings must bear in all capital letters the title “COMMENTS”, “PROTEST”, OR “MOTION TO INTERVENE”, as applicable, and the Project Number of the particular application to which the filing refers. Any of the above-named documents must be filed by providing the original and the number of copies provided by the Commission's regulations to: The Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. A copy of any motion to intervene must also be served upon each representative of the Applicant specified in the particular application. o. Agency Comments—Federal, State, and local agencies are invited to file comments on the described application. A copy of the application may be obtained by agencies directly from the Applicant. If an agency does not file comments within the time specified for filing comments, it will be presumed to have no comments. One copy of an agency's comments must also be sent to the Applicant's representatives. Magalie R. Salas, Secretary. [FR Doc. E4-409 Filed 2-25-04; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket Nos. CP03-302-000, CP03-303-000, CP03-304-000, PF03-1-000 and CP03-301-000] Cheyenne Plains Gas Pipeline Company, LLC and Colorado Interstate Gas Company; Notice of Availability of the Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Proposed Cheyenne Plains Pipeline Project February 20, 2004. The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) has prepared the final environmental impact statement

(EIS)on the natural gas pipeline facilities proposed by Cheyenne Plains Gas Pipeline Company, LLC

(CPG)and Colorado Interstate Gas Company

(CIG)in the above-referenced dockets. The proposed project, referred to as the Cheyenne Plains Pipeline Project, is located in various counties in Colorado and Kansas. The final EIS was prepared to satisfy the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The staff concludes that, if the project is constructed as modified and with the appropriate mitigation measures as recommended, it would have limited adverse environmental impact. The information in the final EIS, along with the information contained in the Commission's Preliminary Determination on Non-Environmental Issues for the project, will be considered by the Commission when making a final decision on the project. The U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service

(FS)is participating as a cooperating agency in the preparation of the final EIS because the FS will be issuing its own Record of Decision

(ROD)on whether or not to issue Special Use Authorizations for the portion of the pipeline that crosses the Pawnee National Grassland (PNG). After issuance of the FS' ROD, there is a 45-day period to appeal the FS' decision under Title 36 Code of Federal Regulations

(CFR)Part 215, Notice, Comment and Appeal Procedures for National Forest System Projects and Activities. In accordance with Title 36 CFR 215.13, only individuals and organizations who submitted substantive written or oral comments during the comment period on the draft EIS for the proposed Cheyenne Plains Pipeline Project (and specifically addressed the portion on the PNG) may appeal the Regional Forester's decision as documented in the ROD. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

(FWS)is also a cooperating agency in the preparation of the final EIS because the project has the potential to affect endangered species, migratory birds, wildlife, and habitat. The final EIS addresses the potential environmental effects of the construction and operation of the following facilities: • A total of 379.8 miles of 36-inch-diameter mainline, with 189.0 miles in Colorado (Weld, Morgan, Washington, Yuma, and Kit Carson Counties) and 190.8 miles in Kansas (Sherman, Wallace, Logan, Scott, Lane, Finney, Hodgeman, Ford, and Kiowa Counties); • 0.2 mile of 20-inch-diameter lateral 1 (Sand Dune Lateral) in Kiowa County, Kansas; 1 A lateral is typically a smaller diameter pipeline that takes gas from the main system to deliver it to a customer, local distribution system, or another interstate transmission system. • 4.2 miles of 30-inch-diameter lateral (South Rattlesnake Creek Lateral) in Kiowa County, Kansas; • 3.0 miles of 8-inch-diameter lateral (Cossell Lake Lateral) in Kiowa County, Kansas; • One 2,443-horsepower

(hp)jumper compressor installed within CIG's existing compressor station located at its Cheyenne Hub in Weld County, Colorado; • Two 10,310-hp turbine compressors installed in a new CPG compressor station at the Cheyenne Hub; • Nine new interconnects 2 with existing pipeline systems. These interconnects would include metering facilities and would consist of two receipt points, one each with CIG and Wyoming Interstate Company at the Cheyenne Hub in Weld County, Colorado, and seven delivery points, one with Kinder Morgan Interstate Pipeline Company in Scott County, Kansas, one with Natural Gas Pipeline Company of America in Ford County, Kansas, and one each with Southern Star Central Gas Pipeline, LLC, ANR Pipeline Company, Northern Natural Gas Company, Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line Company, and Kansas Gas Service Company in Kiowa County, Kansas; 2 An interconnect is a connection to another pipeline system that is used to deliver or receive gas. Metering and regulating facilities would typically be included at each interconnect. • Two new gas treatment plants, each consisting of an amine and glycol processing train, one at the Cheyenne Hub and the other at the Southern Star interconnect; • 32 mainline valves (MLVs), consisting of 1 at the Cheyenne Hub, 4 at interconnects in Kiowa County, Kansas, and 27 located independently along the mainline and laterals; and • Two pig 3 launchers, two pig receivers, and five pig launchers and receivers, each collocated with new MLV sites. 3 A pig is an internal tool that can be used to clean and dry a pipeline and/or to inspect it for damage or corrosion. The final EIS has been placed in the public files of the FERC and is available for public inspection in the Public Reference Room 2A or call

(202)502-8371. A limited number of copies of the final EIS are available from the Public Reference Room. In addition, copies of the final EIS have been mailed to Federal, state, and local agencies; elected officials; Native American tribes; newspapers; public libraries; television and radio stations; intervenors to the FERC's proceeding; and individuals who provided scoping comments, commented on the draft EIS, or requested the final EIS. Additional information about the project is available from the Commission's Office of External Affairs, at 1-866-208 FERC

(3372)or on the FERC Internet website ( *http://www.ferc.gov* ). Using the “eLibrary”, select “General Search” from the eLibrary menu, enter the selected date range and “Docket Number”, and follow the instructions. You may also search using the phrase “Cheyenne Plains” in the “Text Search” field. For assistance with access to eLibrary, the helpline can be reached at 1-866-208-3676, TTY

(202)502-8659, or at *FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov* . In addition, the Commission now offers a free service called eSubscription that allows you to keep track of all formal issuances and submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to the documents. To register for this service, go to *http://www.ferc.gov/ esubscribenow.htm* . Information concerning the involvement of the FS is available from John Oppenlander at

(970)346-5005. Information concerning the involvement of the FWS is available from Dan Mulhern at

(785)539-3474 (ext. 109). Magalie R. Salas, Secretary. [FR Doc. E4-412 Filed 2-25-04; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION [CC Docket No. 96-45; FCC 03-338] Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: In this document, the Commission grants in part and denies in part, subject to enumerated conditions, the petition of Virginia Cellular, LLC to be designated as an eligible telecommunications carrier throughout its licensed service area in the Commonwealth of Virginia, pursuant to the Communications Act of 1934, as amended. The Commission concludes that Virginia Cellular, LLC has demonstrated that it will offer and advertise the services supported by the federal universal service support mechanisms throughout the designated service area. The Commission also finds that the designation of Virginia Cellular as an ETC in two non-rural study areas serves the public interest. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thomas Buckley, Attorney, Wireline Competition Bureau, Telecommunications Access Policy Division,

(202)418-7400. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Memorandum Opinion and Order in CC Docket No. 96-45; FCC 03-338 released on January 22, 2004. The full text of this document is available for public inspection during regular business hours in the FCC Reference Center, Room CY-A257, 445 Twelfth Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. I. Introduction 1. In this Order, we grant in part and deny in part, subject to enumerated conditions, the petition of Virginia Cellular, LLC (Virginia Cellular) to be designated as an eligible telecommunications carrier

(ETC)throughout its licensed service area in the Commonwealth of Virginia pursuant to section 214(e)(6) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the Act). In so doing, we conclude that Virginia Cellular, a commercial mobile radio service

(CMRS)carrier, has satisfied the statutory eligibility requirements of section 214(e)(1). Specifically, we conclude that Virginia Cellular has demonstrated that it will offer and advertise the services supported by the federal universal service support mechanisms throughout the designated service area. We find that the designation of Virginia Cellular as an ETC in two non-rural study areas serves the public interest. We also find that the designation of Virginia Cellular as an ETC in areas served by five of the six rural telephone companies serves the public interest and furthers the goals of universal service. As explained, with regard to the study area of NTELOS Telephone Inc. (NTELOS), we do not find that ETC designation would be in the public interest. 2. Because Virginia Cellular is licensed to serve only part of the study area of three of six incumbent rural telephone companies affected by this designation, Virginia Cellular has requested that the Commission redefine the service area of each of these rural telephone companies for ETC designation purposes, in accordance with section 214(e)(5) of the Act. We agree to the service area redefinition proposed by Virginia Cellular for the service areas of Shenandoah Telephone Company (Shenandoah) and MGW Telephone Company (MGW), subject to the agreement of the Virginia State Corporation Commission (Virginia Commission) in accordance with applicable Virginia Commission requirements. We find that the Virginia Commission's first-hand knowledge of the rural areas in question uniquely qualifies it to examine the redefinition proposal and determine whether it should be approved. Because we do not designate Virginia Cellular as an ETC in NTELOS' study area, we do not redefine this service area. 3. In response to a request from the Commission, the Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service (Joint Board) is currently reviewing:

(1)The Commission's rules relating to the calculation of high-cost universal service support in areas where a competitive ETC is providing service;

(2)the Commission's rules regarding support for non-primary lines; and

(3)the process for designating ETCs. Some commenters in that proceeding have raised concerns about the rapid growth of high-cost universal service support and the impact of such growth on consumers in rural areas. The outcome of that proceeding could potentially impact, among other things, the support that Virginia Cellular and other competitive ETCs may receive in the future and the criteria used for continued eligibility to receive universal service support. 4. While we await a recommended decision from the Joint Board, we acknowledge the need for a more stringent public interest analysis for ETC designations in rural telephone company service areas. The framework enunciated in this Order shall apply to all ETC designations for rural areas pending further action by the Commission. We conclude that the value of increased competition, by itself, is not sufficient to satisfy the public interest test in rural areas. Instead, in determining whether designation of a competitive ETC in a rural telephone company's service area is in the public interest, we weigh numerous factors, including the benefits of increased competitive choice, the impact of multiple designations on the universal service fund, the unique advantages and disadvantages of the competitor's service offering, any commitments made regarding quality of telephone service provided by competing providers, and the competitive ETC's ability to provide the supported services throughout the designated service area within a reasonable time frame. Further, in this Order, we impose as ongoing conditions the commitments Virginia Cellular has made on the record in this proceeding. These conditions will ensure that Virginia Cellular satisfies its obligations under section 214 of the Act. We conclude that these steps are appropriate in light of the increased frequency of petitions for competitive ETC designations and the potential impact of such designations on consumers in rural areas. II. Discussion 5. After careful review of the record before us, we find that Virginia Cellular has met all the requirements set forth in section 214(e)(1) and (e)(6) to be designated as an ETC by this Commission for portions of its licensed service area. First, we find that Virginia Cellular has demonstrated that the Virginia Commission lacks the jurisdiction to perform the designation and that the Commission therefore may consider Virginia Cellular's petition under section 214(e)(6). Second, we conclude that Virginia Cellular has demonstrated that it will offer and advertise the services supported by the federal universal service support mechanisms throughout the designated service area upon designation as an ETC in accordance with section 214(e)(1). In addition, we find that the designation of Virginia Cellular as an ETC in certain areas served by rural telephone companies serves the public interest and furthers the goals of universal service by providing greater mobility and a choice of service providers to consumers in high-cost and rural areas of Virginia. Pursuant to our authority under section 214(e)(6), we therefore designate Virginia Cellular as an ETC for parts of its licensed service area in the Commonwealth of Virginia, as set forth. As explained, however, we do not designate Virginia Cellular as an ETC in the study area of NTELOS. In areas where Virginia Cellular's proposed service areas do not cover the entire study area of a rural telephone company, Virginia Cellular's ETC designation shall be subject to the Virginia Commission's agreement with our new definition for the rural telephone company service areas. In all other areas, as described herein, Virginia Cellular's ETC designation is effective immediately. Finally, we note that the outcome of the Commission's pending proceeding before the Joint Board examining the rules relating to high-cost universal service support in competitive areas could potentially impact the support that Virginia Cellular and other ETCs may receive in the future. This Order is not intended to prejudge the outcome of that proceeding. We also note that Virginia Cellular always has the option of relinquishing its ETC designation and its corresponding benefits and obligations to the extent that it is concerned about its long-term ability to provide supported services in the affected rural study areas. A. Commission Authority To Perform the ETC Designation 6. We find that Virginia Cellular has demonstrated that the Virginia Commission lacks the jurisdiction to perform the requested ETC designation and that the Commission has authority to consider Virginia Cellular's petition under section 214(e)(6) of the Act. Specifically, Virginia Cellular states that it submitted an application for designation as an ETC with the Virginia Commission, and on April 9, 2002, the Virginia Commission issued an order stating that it had not asserted jurisdiction over CMRS carriers. In its order, the Virginia Commission directed Virginia Cellular to file for ETC designation with the FCC. Based on this statement by the Virginia Commission, we find that the Virginia Commission lacks jurisdiction to designate Virginia Cellular as an ETC and that this Commission has authority to perform the requested ETC designation in the Commonwealth of Virginia pursuant to section 214(e)(6). B. Offering and Advertising the Supported Services 7. *Offering the Services Designated for Support.* We find that Virginia Cellular has demonstrated through the required certifications and related filings, that it now offers, or will offer upon designation as an ETC, the services supported by the federal universal service support mechanism. As noted in its petition, Virginia Cellular is an “A-Band” cellular carrier for the Virginia 6 Rural Service Area, serving the counties of Rockingham, Augusta, Nelson, and Highland, as well as the cities of Harrisonburg, Staunton, and Waynesboro. Virginia Cellular states that it currently provides all of the services and functionalities enumerated in § 54.101(a) of the Commission's rules throughout its cellular service area in Virginia. Virginia Cellular certifies that it has the capability to offer voice-grade access to the public switched network, and the functional equivalents to DTMF signaling, single-party service, access to operator services, access to interexchange services, access to directory assistance, and toll limitation for qualifying low-income consumers. Virginia Cellular also complies with applicable law and Commission directives on providing access to emergency services. In addition, although the Commission has not set a minimum local usage requirement, Virginia Cellular certifies it will comply with “any and all minimum local usage requirements adopted by the FCC” and it intends to offer a number of local calling plans as part of its universal service offering. As discussed, Virginia Cellular has committed to report annually its progress in achieving its build-out plans at the same time it submits its annual certification required under §§ 54.313 and 54.314 of the Commission's rules. 8. Virginia Cellular has also made specific commitments to provide service to requesting customers in the service areas that it is designated as an ETC. Virginia Cellular states that if a request is made by a potential customer within its existing network, Virginia Cellular will provide service immediately using its standard customer equipment. In instances where a request comes from a potential customer within Virginia Cellular's licensed service area but outside its existing network coverage, it will take a number of steps to provide service that include determining whether:

(1)The requesting customer's equipment can be modified or replaced to provide service;

(2)a roof-mounted antenna or other equipment can be deployed to provide service;

(3)adjustments can be made to the nearest cell tower to provide service;

(4)there are any other adjustments that can be made to network or customer facilities to provide service;

(5)it can offer resold services from another carrier's facilities to provide service; and

(6)an additional cell site, cell extender, or repeater can be employed or can be constructed to provide service. In addition, if after following these steps, Virginia Cellular still cannot provide service, it will notify the requesting party and include that information in an annual report filed with the Commission detailing how many requests for service were unfulfilled for the past year. 9. Virginia Cellular has further committed to use universal service support to further improve its universal service offering by constructing several new cellular sites in sparsely populated areas within its licensed service area but outside its existing network coverage. Virginia Cellular estimates that it will construct 11 cell sites over the first year and a half following ETC designation. These 11 cell sites will serve a population of 157,060. Virginia Cellular notes that the parameters of its build-out plans may evolve over time as it responds to consumer demand. 10. The Virginia Rural Telephone Companies raise several concerns about Virginia Cellular's service offerings. We address each of these concerns, and in so doing, we conclude that Virginia Cellular has demonstrated that it will offer the services supported by the federal universal service support mechanism upon designation as an ETC. Initially, we note that the Commission has held that to require a carrier to actually provide the supported services before it is designated an ETC has the effect of prohibiting the ability of prospective entrants from providing telecommunications service. Instead, “a new entrant can make a reasonable demonstration * * * of its capability and commitment to provide universal service without the actual provision of the proposed service.” 11. We also reject the argument of the Virginia Rural Telephone Companies that Virginia Cellular does not offer all of the services supported by the federal universal service support mechanisms as required by section 214(e)(1)(A). Specifically, the Virginia Rural Telephone Companies claim that Virginia Cellular:

(1)Has not yet upgraded from analog to digital and until this happens, Virginia Cellular cannot effectively implement E-911 or the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (CALEA);

(2)offers no local usage;

(3)has stated that its customers will not have equal access to interexchange carriers;

(4)states only that it will participate “as required” with respect to Lifeline service; and

(5)has wireless signals that are sporadic or unavailable in some of the mountainous regions that Virginia Cellular proposes to serve. 12. We find that Virginia Cellular's commitment to provide access to emergency services is sufficient. Virginia Cellular states that it is in compliance with state and federal 911 and E-911 mandates and is upgrading from analog to digital technology. Virginia Cellular states that it is implementing Phase I E-911 services in those areas where local governments have developed E-911 functionality and that upon designation as an ETC, it will be able to effectively implement E-911. 13. We find sufficient Virginia Cellular's showing that it will offer minimum local usage as part of its universal service offering. Therefore, we reject the Virginia Rural Telephone Companies' claim that Virginia Cellular should be denied ETC designation because it does not currently offer any local usage. Although the Commission did not set a minimum local usage requirement, in the *Universal Service Order,* 62 FR 32862, June 17, 1997, it determined that ETCs should provide some minimum amount of local usage as part of their “basic service” package of supported services. Virginia Cellular states that it will comply with any and all minimum local usage requirements adopted by the FCC. It adds that it will meet the local usage requirements by including a variety of local usage plans as part of a universal service offering. In addition, Virginia Cellular states that its current rate plans include access to the local exchange network, and that many plans include a large volume of minutes. Accordingly, we find that Virginia Cellular's commitment to provide local usage is sufficient. 14. We reject the Virginia Rural Telephone Companies' claim that ETC designation should be denied because Virginia Cellular's customers will not have equal access to interexchange carriers. Section 54.101(a)(7) of the rules states that one of the supported services is access to interexchange services, not equal access to those services. Virginia Cellular states that it provides access to interexchange services. Accordingly, we find sufficient Virginia Cellular's showing that it will offer access to interexchange services. 15. We find that Virginia Cellular's commitment to participate in the Lifeline and Linkup programs is sufficient. In its petition, Virginia Cellular states that it currently has no Lifeline customers, and upon designation as an ETC, it will participate in Lifeline as required. Virginia Cellular also states that it will advertise the availability of Lifeline service to its customers. Although Virginia Cellular does not currently advertise Lifeline to its customers, we note that the advertising rules for Lifeline and Linkup services apply only to already-designated ETCs. Thus, we find sufficient Virginia Cellular's commitment to participate in Lifeline and Linkup. 16. Although the Virginia Rural Telephone Companies claim that Virginia Cellular's wireless signals are sporadic in certain areas, we find that the existence of so-called “dead spots” in Virginia Cellular's network does not preclude us from designating Virginia Cellular as an ETC. The Commission has already determined that a telecommunications carrier's inability to demonstrate that it can provide ubiquitous service at the time of its request for designation as an ETC should not preclude its designation as an ETC. Moreover, as stated, Virginia Cellular has committed to improve its network. In addition, the Commission's rules acknowledge the existence of dead spots. “Dead spots” are defined as “[s]mall areas within a service area where the field strength is lower than the minimum level for reliable service.” Section 22.99 of the Commission's rules states that “[s]ervice within dead spots is presumed.” Additionally, the Commission's rules provide that “cellular service is considered to be provided in all areas, including dead spots * * * .” Because “dead spots” are acknowledged by the Commission's rules, we are not persuaded by the Virginia Rural LECs that the possibility of dead spots demonstrates that Virginia Cellular is not willing or capable of providing acceptable levels of service throughout its service area. 17. *Offering the Supported Services Using a Carrier's Own Facilities.* Virginia Cellular has demonstrated that it satisfies the requirement of section 214(e)(1)(A) that it offer the supported services using either its own facilities or a combination of its own facilities and resale of another carrier's services. Virginia Cellular states that it intends to provide the supported services using its cellular network infrastructure, which includes “the same antenna, cell-site, tower, trunking, mobile switching, and interconnection facilities used by the company to serve its existing conventional mobile cellular service customers.” We find that this certification is sufficient to satisfy the facilities requirement of section 214(e)(1)(A). 18. *Advertising the Supported Services.* We conclude that Virginia Cellular has demonstrated that it satisfies the requirement of section 214(e)(1)(B) to advertise the availability of the supported services and the charges therefor using media of general distribution. Virginia Cellular certifies that it “will use media of general distribution that it currently employs to advertise its universal service offerings throughout the service areas designated by the Commission.” In addition, Virginia Cellular details alternative methods that it will employ to advertise the availability of its services. For example, Virginia Cellular will provide notices at local unemployment, social security, and welfare offices so that unserved consumers can learn about Virginia Cellular's service offerings and learn about Lifeline and Linkup discounts. Virginia Cellular also commits to publicize locally the construction of all new facilities in unserved or underserved areas so customers are made aware of improved service. We find that Virginia Cellular's certification and its additional commitments to advertising its service offerings satisfy section 214(e)(1)(B). In addition, as the Commission has stated in prior decisions, because an ETC receives universal service support only to the extent that it serves customers, we believe that strong economic incentives exist, in addition to the statutory obligation, for an ETC to advertise its universal service offering in its designated service area. C. Public Interest Analysis 19. We conclude that it is “consistent with the public interest, convenience, and necessity” to designate Virginia Cellular as an ETC for the portion of its requested service area that is served by the non-rural telephone companies Bell Atlantic and GTE South, Inc. We also conclude that it is in the public interest to designate Virginia Cellular as an ETC in Virginia in the study areas served by five of the six affected rural telephone companies. In determining whether the public interest is served, the Commission places the burden of proof upon the ETC applicant. We conclude that Virginia Cellular has satisfied the burden of proof in establishing that its universal service offering in these areas will provide benefits to rural consumers. We do not designate Virginia Cellular as an ETC, however, for the study area of NTELOS because we find that Virginia Cellular has not satisfied its burden of proof in this instance. 20. *Non-Rural Study Areas.* We conclude that it is “consistent with the public interest, convenience, and necessity” to designate Virginia Cellular as an ETC for the portion of its requested service area that is served by the non-rural telephone companies of Bell Atlantic and GTE South. We note that the Bureau previously has found designation of additional ETCs in areas served by non-rural telephone companies to be *per se* in the public interest based upon a demonstration that the requesting carrier complies with the statutory eligibility obligations of section 214(e)(1) of the Act. We do not believe that designation of an additional ETC in a non-rural telephone company's study area based merely upon a showing that the requesting carrier complies with section 214(e)(1) of the Act will necessarily be consistent with the public interest in every instance. We nevertheless conclude that Virginia Cellular's public interest showing here is sufficient based on the detailed commitments Virginia Cellular made to ensure that it provides high quality service throughout the proposed rural and non-rural service areas; indeed, given our finding that Virginia Cellular has satisfied the more rigorous public interest analysis for the rural study areas, it follows that its commitments satisfy the public interest requirements for non-rural areas. We also note that no parties oppose Virginia Cellular's request for ETC designation in the study areas of these non-rural telephone companies. We therefore conclude that Virginia Cellular has demonstrated that its designation as an ETC in the study areas of these non-rural telephone companies, is consistent with the public interest, as required by section 214(e)(6). We further note that the Joint Board is reviewing whether to modify the public interest analysis used to designate ETCs in both rural and non-rural carrier study areas under section 214(e) of the Act. The outcome of that proceeding could impact the Commission's public interest analysis for future ETC designations in non-rural telephone company service areas. 21. *Rural Study Areas.* Based on the record before us, we conclude that grant of this ETC designation for the requested rural study areas, in part, is consistent with the public interest. In considering whether designation of Virginia Cellular as an ETC will serve the public interest, we have considered whether the benefits of an additional ETC in the wire centers for which Virginia Cellular seeks designation outweigh any potential harms. We note that this balancing of benefits and costs is a fact-specific exercise. In determining whether designation of a competitive ETC in a rural telephone company's service area is in the public interest, we weigh the benefits of increased competitive choice, the impact of the designation on the universal service fund, the unique advantages and disadvantages of the competitor's service offering, any commitments made regarding quality of telephone service, and the competitive ETC's ability to satisfy its obligation to serve the designated service areas within a reasonable time frame. We recognize that as part of its review of the ETC designation process in the pending proceeding examining the rules relating to high-cost support in competitive areas, the Commission may adopt a different framework for the public interest analysis of ETC applications. This Order does not prejudge the Joint Board's deliberations in that proceeding and any other public interest framework that the Commission might ultimately adopt. 22. Virginia Cellular's universal service offering will provide benefits to customers in situations where they do not have access to a wireline telephone. For instance, Virginia Cellular has committed to serve residences to the extent that they do not have access to the public switched network through the incumbent telephone company. Also, the mobility of Virginia Cellular's wireless service will provide other benefits to consumers. For example, the mobility of telecommunications assists consumers in rural areas who often must drive significant distances to places of employment, stores, schools, and other critical community locations. In addition, the availability of a wireless universal service offering provides access to emergency services that can mitigate the unique risks of geographic isolation associated with living in rural communities. Virginia Cellular also submits that, because its local calling area is larger than those of the incumbent local exchange carriers it competes against, Virginia Cellular's customers will be subject to fewer toll charges. 23. We acknowledge arguments made in the record that wireless telecommunications offerings may be subject to dropped calls and poor coverage. Parties also have noted that wireless carriers often are not subject to mandatory service quality standards. Virginia Cellular has committed to mitigate these concerns. Virginia Cellular assures the Commission that it will alleviate dropped calls by using universal service support to build new towers and facilities to offer better coverage. As evidence of its commitment to high service quality, Virginia Cellular has also committed to comply with the Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association Consumer Code for Wireless Service, which sets out certain principles, disclosures, and practices for the provision of wireless service. In addition, Virginia Cellular has committed to provide the Commission with the number of consumer complaints per 1,000 handsets on an annual basis. Therefore, we find that Virginia Cellular's commitment to provide better coverage to unserved areas and its other commitments discussed herein adequately address any concerns about the quality of its wireless service. 24. Although we find that grant of this ETC designation will not dramatically burden the universal service fund, we are increasingly concerned about the impact on the universal service fund due to the rapid growth in high-cost support distributed to competitive ETCs. Specifically, although competitive ETCs only receive a small percentage of all high-cost universal service support, the amount of high-cost support distributed to competitive ETCs is growing at a dramatic pace. For example, in the first quarter of 2001, three competitive ETCs received approximately $2 million or 0.4 percent of high-cost support. In the fourth quarter of 2003, 112 competitive ETCs are projected to receive approximately $32 million or 3.7 percent of high-cost support. This concern has been raised by parties in this proceeding, especially as it relates to the long-term sustainability of universal service high-cost support. Specifically, commenters argue that designation of competitive ETCs will place significant burdens on the federal universal service fund without any corresponding benefits. We recognize these commenters raise important issues regarding universal service support. As discussed, the Commission has asked the Joint Board to examine, among other things, the Commission's rules relating to high-cost universal service support in service areas in which a competitive ETC is providing service, as well as the Commission's rules regarding support for second lines. We note that the outcome of the Commission's pending proceeding examining the rules relating to high-cost support in competitive areas could potentially impact, among other things, the support that Virginia Cellular and other competitive ETCs may receive in the future. It is our hope that the Commission's pending rulemaking proceeding also will provide a framework for assessing the overall impact of competitive ETC designations on the universal service mechanisms. 25. Additionally, we conclude that, for most of the rural areas in which Virginia Cellular seeks ETC designation, such designation does not raise the rural creamskimming and related concerns alleged by commenters. Rural creamskimming occurs when competitors seek to serve only the low-cost, high revenue customers in a rural telephone company's study area. In this case, because the contour of its CMRS licensed area differs from the existing rural telephone companies' study areas, Virginia Cellular will be unable to provide facilities-based service to the entirety of the study areas of three of the six affected rural telephone companies—Shenandoah, MGW, and NTELOS. Generally, a request for ETC designation for an area less than the entire study area of a rural telephone company might raise concerns that the petitioner intends to creamskim in the rural study area. In this case, however, Virginia Cellular commits to provide universal service throughout its licensed service area. It therefore does not appear that Virginia Cellular is deliberately seeking to enter only certain portions of these companies' study areas in order to creamskim. 26. At the same time, we recognize that, for reasons beyond a competitive carrier's control, the lowest cost portion of a rural study area may be the only portion of the study area that a wireless carrier's license covers. Under these circumstances, granting a carrier ETC designation for only its licensed portion of the rural study area may have the same effect on the ILEC as rural creamskimming. 27. We have analyzed the record before us in this matter and find that, for the study areas of Shenandoah and MGW, Virginia Cellular's designation as an ETC is unlikely to undercut the incumbents' ability to serve the entire study area. Our analysis of the population density of each of the affected wire centers reveals that, for the study areas of MGW and Shenandoah, Virginia Cellular will not be serving only low-cost areas to the exclusion of high-cost areas. Although there are other factors that define high-cost areas, a low population density typically indicates a high-cost area. Our analysis of population density reveals that Virginia Cellular is serving not only the lower cost, higher density wire centers in the study areas of MGW and Shenandoah. The population density for the Shenandoah wire center for which Virginia Cellular seeks ETC designation is approximately 4.64 persons per square mile and the average population density for Shenandoah's remaining wire centers is approximately 53.62 persons per square mile. The average population density for the MGW wire centers for which Virginia Cellular seeks ETC designation is approximately 2.30 persons per square mile and the average population density for MGW's remaining wire centers is approximately 2.18 persons per square mile. 28. We conclude, however, for the following reasons, that it would not be in the public interest to designate Virginia Cellular as an ETC in the study area of NTELOS. Virginia Cellular's licensed CMRS area covers only the Waynesboro wire center in NTELOS' study area. Based on our examination of the population densities of the wire centers in NTELOS' study area, we find that Waynesboro is the lowest-cost, highest-density wire center in the study area of NTELOS, and that there is a great disparity in density between the Waynesboro wire center and the NTELOS wire centers outside Virginia Cellular's service area. The population density in the Waynesboro wire center is approximately 273 persons per square mile, while the average population density of the remaining wire centers in NTELOS' study area is approximately 33 persons per square mile. Universal service support is calculated on a study-area-wide basis. Although NTELOS did not take advantage of the Commission's disaggregation options to protect against possible uneconomic entry in its lower-cost area, we find on the facts here that designating Virginia Cellular as an ETC only for the Waynesboro wire center could potentially significantly undermine NTELOS' ability to serve its entire study area. The widely disparate population densities in NTELOS' study area and the status of Waynesboro as NTELOS' sole low-cost, high-density wire center could result in such an ETC designation placing NTELOS at a sizeable unfair competitive disadvantage. In addition, we believe that, if NTELOS had disaggregated, the low costs of service in the Waynesboro wire center would have resulted in little or no universal service support targeted to those lines. Therefore, our decision not to designate Virginia Cellular as an ETC in the study area of NTELOS is unlikely to impact consumers in the Waynesboro wire center because Virginia Cellular will make a business decision on whether to provide service in that area without regard to the potential receipt of universal service support. D. Designated Service Area 29. Virginia Cellular is designated an ETC in the areas served by the non-rural carriers Bell Atlantic and GTE South, as listed in Appendix A. We designate Virginia Cellular as an ETC throughout most of its CMRS licensed service area in the Virginia 6 Rural Service Area. Virginia Cellular is designated an ETC in the areas served by the three rural telephone companies whose study areas Virginia Cellular is able to serve completely, as listed in Appendix B. As discussed, and subject to the Virginia Commission's agreement on redefining the service areas of MGW and Shenandoah, we also designate Virginia Cellular as an ETC for the entire Bergton, McDowell, Williamsville, and Deerfield wire centers. 30. We designate Virginia Cellular as an ETC in the entire Deerfield, McDowell, and Williamsville wire centers in the study area of MGW. We note that, although the boundaries of its CMRS licensed service area in Virginia exclude a small part of MGW's Williamsville wire center, Virginia Cellular has committed nevertheless to offer service to customers in the entirety of the Williamsville wire center through a combination of its own facilities and resale of either wireless or wireline services. 31. We also designate Virginia Cellular as an ETC for the Bergton wire center in Shenandoah's study area. We note that the study area of Shenandoah is composed of two non-contiguous areas. One such area is composed solely of the Bergton wire center, which falls within Virginia Cellular's licensed service area, and the other area is composed of eight remaining wire centers, which fall outside of Virginia Cellular's licensed service area. We find that, because the Bergton wire center is a low-density, high-cost wire center, concerns about undermining Shenandoah's ability to serve the entire study area are substantially minimized. We further note that the Commission has previously expressed concern about requiring competitive ETCs to serve non-contiguous areas. In the *Universal Service Order,* the Commission concluded that requiring a carrier to serve a non-contiguous service area as a prerequisite of eligibility might impose a serious barrier to entry, particularly to wireless carriers. The Commission further concluded that “imposing additional burdens on wireless entrants would be particularly harmful in rural areas * * *.” Accordingly, we find that denying Virginia Cellular ETC status for Shenandoah's Bergton wire center simply because Virginia Cellular is not licensed to serve the eight remaining wire centers would be inappropriate. Thus, we conclude that it is appropriate to designate Virginia Cellular as an ETC for the Bergton wire center within Shenandoah's study area. 32. Finally, for the reasons described, we do not designate Virginia Cellular as an ETC in any portion of NTELOS' service area. E. Redefining Rural Telephone Company Service Areas 33. We redefine the service areas of MGW and Shenandoah pursuant to section 214(e)(5). Consistent with prior rural service area redefinitions, we redefine each wire center in the MGW and Shenandoah study areas as a separate service area. Our decision to redefine the service areas of these telephone companies is subject to the review and final agreement of the Virginia Commission in accordance with applicable Virginia Commission requirements. Accordingly, we submit our redefinition proposal to the Virginia Commission and request that it examine such proposal based on its unique familiarity with the rural areas in question. 34. In order to designate Virginia Cellular as an ETC in a service area that is smaller than the affected rural telephone company study areas, we must redefine the service areas of the rural telephone companies in accordance with section 214(e)(5) of the Act. We define the affected service areas only to determine the portions of rural service areas in which to designate Virginia Cellular and future competitive carriers seeking ETC designation in the same rural service areas. Any future competitive carrier seeking ETC designation in these redefined rural service areas will be required to demonstrate that such designation will be in the public interest. In defining the rural telephone companies' service areas to be different than their study areas, we are required to act in concert with the relevant state commission, “taking into account the recommendations” of the Joint Board. The Joint Board's concerns regarding rural telephone company service areas as discussed in the *1996 Recommended Decision* are as follows:

(1)Minimizing creamskimming;

(2)recognizing that the 1996 Act places rural telephone companies on a different competitive footing from other LECs; and

(3)recognizing the administrative burden of requiring rural telephone companies to calculate costs at something other than a study area level. We find that the proposed redefinition properly addresses these concerns. 35. First, we conclude that redefining the affected rural telephone company service areas at the wire center level for MGW and Shenandoah should not result in opportunities for creamskimming. Because Virginia Cellular is limited to providing facilities-based service only where it is licensed by the Commission and because Virginia Cellular commits to providing universal service throughout its licensed territory in Virginia, concerns regarding creamskimming are minimized. In addition, we have analyzed the population densities of the wire centers Virginia Cellular can and cannot serve to determine whether the effects of creamskimming would occur. We note that we do not propose redefinition in areas where ETC designation would potentially undermine the incumbent's ability to serve its entire study area. Therefore, we conclude, based on the particular facts of this case, that there is little likelihood of rural creamskimming effects in redefining the service areas of MGW and Shenandoah as proposed. 36. Second, our decision to redefine the service areas of the affected rural telephone companies includes special consideration for the affected rural carriers. Nothing in the record convinces us that the proposed redefinition will harm the incumbent rural carriers. The high-cost universal service mechanisms support all lines served by ETCs in rural areas. Under the Commission's rules, receipt of high-cost support by Virginia Cellular will not affect the total amount of high-cost support that the incumbent rural telephone company receives. Therefore, to the extent that Virginia Cellular or any future competitive ETC captures incumbent rural telephone company lines, provides new lines to currently unserved customers, or provides second lines to existing wireline subscribers, it will have no impact on the amount of universal service support available to the incumbent rural telephone companies for those lines they continue to serve. Similarly, redefining the service areas of the affected rural telephone companies will not change the amount of universal service support that is available to these incumbents. 37. Third, we find that redefining the rural telephone company service areas as proposed will not require the rural telephone companies to determine their costs on a basis other than the study area level. Rather, the redefinition merely enables competitive ETCs to serve areas that are smaller than the entire ILEC study area. Our decision to redefine the service areas does not modify the existing rules applicable to rural telephone companies for calculating costs on a study area basis, nor, as a practical matter, the manner in which they will comply with these rules. Therefore, we find that the concern of the Joint Board that redefining rural service areas would impose additional administrative burdens on affected rural telephone companies is not at issue here. 38. In accordance with § 54.207(d) of the Commission's rules, we submit this order to the Virginia Commission. We request that the Virginia Commission treat this Order as a petition to redefine a service area under § 54.207(d)(1) of the Commission's rules. Virginia Cellular's ETC designation in the service areas of Shenandoah and MGW is subject to the Virginia Commission's review and agreement with the redefinition proposal herein. We find that the Virginia Commission is uniquely qualified to examine the redefinition proposal because of its familiarity with the rural service areas in question. Upon the effective date of the agreement of the Virginia Commission with our redefinition of the service areas of Shenandoah and MGW, our designation of Virginia Cellular as an ETC for these areas as set forth herein shall also take effect. In all other areas for which this Order grants ETC status to Virginia Cellular, as described herein, such designation is effective immediately. If, after its review, the Virginia Commission determines that it does not agree with the redefinition proposal herein, we will reexamine Virginia Cellular's petition with regard to redefining the affected rural service areas. F. Regulatory Oversight 39. We note that Virginia Cellular is obligated under section 254(e) of the Act to use high-cost support “only for the provision, maintenance, and upgrading of facilities and services for which support is intended” and is required under §§ 54.313 and 54.314 of the Commission's rules to certify annually that it is in compliance with this requirement. Separate and in addition to its annual certification filing under §§ 54.313 and 54.314 of our rules, Virginia Cellular has committed to submit records and documentation on an annual basis detailing its progress towards meeting its build-out plans in the service areas it is designated as an ETC. Virginia Cellular also has committed to become a signatory to the Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association's Consumer Code for Wireless Service and provide the number of consumer complaints per 1,000 mobile handsets on an annual basis. In addition, Virginia Cellular will annually submit information detailing how many requests for service from potential customers in the designated service areas were unfulfilled for the past year. We require that Virginia Cellular submit these additional data to the Commission and USAC on October 1 of each year beginning October 1, 2004. We find that reliance on Virginia Cellular's commitments is reasonable and consistent with the public interest and the Act and the Fifth Circuit decision in *Texas Office of Public Utility Counsel* v. *FCC.* We conclude that fulfillment of these additional reporting requirements will further the Commission's goal of ensuring Virginia Cellular satisfies its obligation under section 214(e) of the Act to provide supported services throughout its designated service area. We adopt the commitments that Virginia Cellular has made as conditions on our approval of its ETC designation for the Commonwealth of Virginia. We note that the Commission may institute an inquiry on its own motion to examine any ETC's records and documentation to ensure that the high-cost support it receives is being used “only for the provision, maintenance, and upgrading of facilities and services” in the areas where it is designated as an ETC. Virginia Cellular will be required to provide such records and documentation to the Commission and USAC upon request. We further emphasize that if Virginia Cellular fails to fulfill the requirements of the statute, our rules, and the terms of this Order after it begins receiving universal service support, the Commission has authority to revoke its ETC designation. The Commission also may assess forfeitures for violations of Commission rules and orders. III. Anti-Drug Abuse Act Certification 40. Pursuant to section 5301 of the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988, no applicant is eligible for any new, modified, or renewed instrument of authorization from the Commission, including authorizations issued pursuant to section 214 of the Act, unless the applicant certifies that neither it, nor any party to its application, is subject to a denial of federal benefits, including Commission benefits. Virginia Cellular has provided a certification consistent with the requirements of the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988. We find that Virginia Cellular has satisfied the requirements of the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988, as codified in §§ 1.2001-1.2003 of the Commission's rules. IV. Ordering Clauses 41. Pursuant to the authority contained in section 214(e)(6) of the Communications Act, Virginia Cellular, LLC is designated an eligible telecommunications carrier for specified portions of its licensed service area in the Commonwealth of Virginia subject to the conditions described herein. 42. Pursuant to the authority contained in section 214(e)(5) of the Communications Act, § 54.207(d) and

(e)of the Commission's rules, the request of Virginia Cellular, LLC to redefine the service areas of Shenandoah Telephone Company and MGW Telephone Company in Virginia is granted, subject to the agreement of the Virginia State Corporation Commission with the Commission's redefinition of the service areas for these rural telephone companies. Upon the effective date of the agreement of the Virginia State Corporation Commission with the Commission's redefinition of the service areas for those rural telephone companies, this designation of Virginia Cellular, LLC as an ETC for such areas as set forth herein shall also take effect. 43. Pursuant to the authority contained in section 214(e)(5) of the Communications Act, and § 54.207(d) and

(e)of the Commission's rules, the request of Virginia Cellular, LLC to redefine the service area of NTELOS Telephone Inc. in Virginia is denied. 44. A copy of this Memorandum Opinion and Order shall be transmitted by the Office of the Secretary to the Virginia State Corporation Commission and the Universal Service Administrative Company. Federal Communications Commission. Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary. Appendix A Virginia Non-Rural Wire Centers for Inclusion in Virginia Cellular's ETC Service Area Bell Atlantic (Verizon) GTE South, Inc. (Verizon) Staunton (STDRVASD) * Broadway. Staunton (STTNVAST) Edom. Staunton (STTNVAVE) Hinton. Craigsville Dayton. Lovingston (NLFRVANF) Keezletown. Lovingston (LVTNVALN) Harrisonburg. Lovingston (WNTRVAWG) McGaheysville. Greenwood Bridgewater. Pine River Weyerscave. Grottoes. Elkton. Amherst. Gladstone. * Because the wire center locality names are the same in some instances, the Wire Center Codes are listed in parentheses. Appendix B Virginia Rural Telephone Company Study Areas for Inclusion in Virginia Cellular's ETC Service Area New Hope Telephone Company North River Telephone Company Highland Telephone Cooperative Appendix C Virginia Rural Telephone Company Wire Centers for Inclusion in Virginia Cellular's Etc. Service Area Shenandoah Telephone Company Bergton MGW Telephone Company McDowell Williamsville Deerfield [FR Doc. 04-4266 Filed 2-25-04; 8:45 am]

Connectionstraces to 10

Traces to 10 documents

CFR