Fed. Reg. Rules and Regulations — DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

BILLING CODE 6450-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. PR05-1-000] Nicor Gas; Notice of Petition for Rate Approval November 15, 2004. Take notice that on October 5, 2004, Nicor Gas tendered for filing an application pursuant to sections 284.224 and 284.123 to:

(a)Establish a new facility-based priority interruptible service; and

(b)revise Nicor Gas' Operating Statement to make it more user-friendly, clarify several aspects of the rules governing interstate services provided by Nicor Gas, and expand the recourse rate options available to interstate shippers. Pursuant to section 284.123(b)(2)(ii), if the Commission does not act within 150 days of the date of this filing, the rates will be deemed to be fair and equitable and not in excess of an amount which interstate pipelines would be permitted to charge for similar transportation service. The Commission may, prior to the expiration of the 150 day period, extend the time for action or institute a proceeding to afford parties an opportunity for written comments and for the oral presentation of views, data, and arguments. Any person desiring to participate in this rate filing must file 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 notice of intervention or motion to intervene, on or before the date as indicated below. Anyone filing an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on or before the intervention or protest date need not serve motions to intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant. The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at *http://www.ferc.gov.* Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. This filing is accessible on-line at *http://www.ferc.gov,* using the “eLibrary” link and is available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an “eSubscription” link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail *FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov,* or call

(866)208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call

(202)502-8659. *Intervention and Protest Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on December 6, 2004. Magalie R. Salas, Secretary. [FR Doc. E4-3257 Filed 11-18-04; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket Nos. CP04-343-001 and CP04-343-002] Paiute Pipeline Company; Notice of Amendments November 4, 2004. Take notice that on October 25, 2004, Paiute Pipeline Company (Paiute), PO Box 94197, Las Vegas, Nevada 89193, filed in Docket No. CP04-343-001, an amendment to its initial application for a certificate of public convenience and necessity filed in Docket No. CP04-343-000. With this amendment, Paiute is proposing to acquire and operate LNG storage and associated pipeline facilities and to render LNG Storage service consistent with a settlement filed on October 27, 2004, between Avista Corporation (Avista), Paiute, Public Service Resources Corporation (PSRC), Sierra Pacific Power Company (Sierra), Southwest Gas Corporation (Southwest), Tuscarora Gas Transmission Company (Tuscarora), and Uzal, LLC (Uzal). Paiute additionally requests authorization to render new, long-term LNG storage services under its existing Rate Schedule LGS-1. Take further notice that on October 28, 2004, Paiute filed in Docket No. CP04-343-002 an amendment to revise the proposed levels for each of the prospective storage service customers from what was proposed in Docket No. CP04-343-001, all as more fully set forth in the applications which are on file with the Commission and open to public inspection. The filings may also be 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)502-3676 or TYY

(202)502-8659. In addition to the authorizations sought by Paiute in the subject amendments, the named parties to the settlement request Commission approval of the settlement. Paiute states the settlement resolves five pending Commission proceedings and two court cases. Among the settlements numerous other aspects Paiute requests approval for several key provisions including a determination that acquisition cost of $21,970,000 is a prudent expenditure, approval of an allocation of $12,970,000 to its storage function and $9,000,000 to its transmission function and approval of rolling into Paiute's rates the transmission costs. Paiute notes that Tuscarora and Uzal have filed to withdraw their respective applications in Docket Nos. CP04-344-000, CP04-388-000, CP04-389-000 and CP04-390-000, but indicates that such withdrawals are specifically conditioned on Commission approval of the settlement. The second amendment, Docket No. CP04-343-002, amends the proposal in Docket No. CP04-343-001 to reflect the newly contracted service agreements as follows: Customer Storage capacity Daily delivery capacity Effective date of service Avista 86,267 Dth 6,535 Dth 05/01/2005 Sierra 303,604 Dth 23,000 Dth 04/01/2005 Southwest—N. California 64,219 Dth 4,865 Dth 03/01/2005 Southwest—N. Nevada 495,782 Dth 37,559 Dth 03/01/2005 Any questions regarding this amendment should be directed to Edward C. McMurtrie, Paiute Pipeline Company, PO Box 94197, Las Vegas, Nevada 89193, at

(702)876-7178. 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 the comment date, 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. Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of this project, or in support of or in opposition to 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. The Commission's rules require that persons filing comments in opposition to the project provide copies of their protests only to the applicant. 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. The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments, protests, and interventions via the internet in lieu of paper. 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. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. eastern time on November 12, 2004. Magalie R. Salas, Secretary. [FR Doc. E4-3208 Filed 11-16-04; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. CP04-64-001] Trunkline Gas Company, LLC; Notice of Filing November 10, 2004. Take notice that on November 5, 2004, Trunkline Gas Company, LLC (Trunkline Gas), PO Box 4967, Houston, Texas 77210-4967, pursuant to section 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act, as amended, and subpart A of part 157 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations, filed an application to amend its Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity which was issued on September 17, 2004, in the above captioned docket. 1 Trunkline Gas requests that the Commission amend the certificate to increase the proposed LNG Loop Project from a 30-inch to a 36-inch diameter pipeline and certain modifications to the proposed interconnection facilities. 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 for TTY, contact

(202)502-8659. 1 Trunkline Gas Company, LLC, *et al.* , 10 FERC ¶ 61,251 (2004). On September 17, 2004, Trunkline Gas and its customer, BG LNG, entered into a Supplement and Amendment to the January 28, 2004, Agreement for Construction of Facilities. The amended agreement provides BG LNG with additional operational reliability and flexibility in Trunkline Gas Field Zone to accommodate BG LNG's presently contracted, as well as potentially expanded levels of regasified LNG volumes. Under the amended agreement, Trunkline Gas and BG LNG have agreed in principle to certain modifications to their existing arrangements. These modifications include

(a)changing the proposed pipeline loop from a 30-inch to a 36-inch diameter pipeline, and

(b)modifying the capacity and delivery pressure at some of the proposed delivery points. The LNG Loop Project modifications will not change the proposed construction footprint or construction procedures. Trunkline Gas does not propose to change the Amended LNG Loop Project's authorized take away capacity from the Trunkline LNG Company, LLC's terminal. The LNG import terminal is currently authorized to provide a regasified LNG sendout volume of 2.1 Bcf/d on a peak day basis, and 1.8 Bcf/d on a sustained basis. Any questions regarding the application are to be directed to William W. Grygar, Vice President of Rates and Regulatory Affairs, Trunkline Gas Company, LLC, PO Box 4967, Houston, Texas 77210. 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 the below listed comment date, 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. 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. 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. Motions to intervene, protests and comments 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:* December 1, 2004. Magalie R. Salas, Secretary. [FR Doc. E4-3253 Filed 11-18-04; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. ER95-1528-009, et al.] Wisconsin Public Service Corporation, et al.; Electric Rate and Corporate Filings November 12, 2004. The following filings have been made with the Commission. The filings are listed in ascending order within each docket classification. 1. Wisconsin Public Service Corporation, Wisconsin Public Service Corporation, WPS Power Development, Inc., and WPS Energy Services, Inc., Mid-American Power, LLC, Sunbury Generation, LLC, WPS Canada Generation, Inc. and WPS New England Generation, Inc., WPS Westwood Generation, LLC, Advantage Energy Inc. [Docket Nos. ER95-1528-0090, ER96-1088-034, ER96-1858-014, ER99-3420-003, ER99-1936-002, ER01-1114-002, ER97-2758-009] Take notice that on November 5, 2004, WPS Resources Corporation

(WPSR)on behalf of the following subsidiaries: Wisconsin Public Service Corporation; WPS Energy Services, Inc.; WPS Power Development, Inc.; Mid-American Power, LLC; Sunbury Generation, LLC; WPS Canada Generation, Inc.; WPS New England Generation, Inc.; WPS Westwood Generation, LLC, and Advantage Energy, Inc., tendered for filing tariff sheets that modify their market-based rate tariffs to add the Market Behavior Rules as adopted by the Commission. WPSR states that on September 27, 2004, it submitted a request for three-year renewal of the market-based rate authority for each of the subsidiaries. WPSR requests an effective date of December 17, 2003. WPSR states that a copy of the filing was served on all parties listed on the Commission's official service lists in the referenced proceedings and the Public Service Commission of Wisconsin. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. eastern time on November 26, 2004. 2. NewCorp Resources Electric Cooperative, Inc. [Docket No. ER02-2001-000] Take notice that on September 3, 2004, NewCorp Resources Electric Cooperative, Inc. filed a Request for Waiver of Order No. 2001 Electric Quarterly Reports Requirements. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. eastern time on December 3, 2004. 3. Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc. [Docket No. ER04-458-004] Take notice that on November 8, 2004, the Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc., (Midwest ISO) submitted a compliance filing pursuant to the Commission's Order issued July 8, 2004, in Docket Nos. ER04-458-000 and ER04-458-001, 108 FERC ¶ 61,027 (2004). The Midwest ISO states that it has electronically served a copy of this filing upon all Midwest ISO Members, Member representatives of Transmission owners and Non-Transmission Owners, the Midwest ISO Advisory Committee participants, as well as all State commissions within the region. In addition, the Midwest ISO states that the filing has been posted on the Midwest ISO Web site at *http://www.midwestiso.org* under the heading “Filings to FERC” for other interested parties. The Midwest ISO further states that it will provide hard copies to any interested parties upon request. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. eastern time on November 29, 2004. 4. Alpena Power Generation, L.L.C. [Docket No. ER04-1004-002] Take notice that on November 5, 2004, Alpena Power Generation, L.L.C. (Alpena Generation) tendered for filing a second supplement to its application for market-based rate authority filed on July 9, 2004, as amended on August 27, 2004, in response to the Commission's October 22, 2004, deficiency letter in Docket Nos. ER04-1004-000 and ER04-1004-001. Alpena Generation states that copies of the filing were served on the public utility's jurisdictional customers and the Michigan Public Service Commission. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. eastern time on November 26, 2004. 5. Orion Power MidWest, L.P. [Docket Nos. ER05-92-000 and ER05-92-001] Take notice that on October 28, 2004, as amended on November 2, 2004, Orion Power MidWest, L.P.

(OPMW)filed a revised tariff sheet designated as First Revised Sheet No. 1, Orion Power MidWest, L.P. FERC Electric Tariff, First Revised Volume No. 1. OPMW requests an effective date of December 1, 2004. OPMW states that copies of the filing were served on OPMW's jurisdictional customers. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. eastern time on November 23, 2004. 6. PPL Electric Utilities Corporation [Docket No. ER05-169-001] Take notice that on November 5, 2004, PPL Electric Utilities Corporation (PPL Electric) submitted an amendment to its November 2, 2004, filing of revisions to PPL Electric Rate Schedule FERC No. 180, a transmission agreement between PPL Electric and Allegheny Electric Cooperating, Inc. (Allegheny). PPL Electric states that copies of the filing were served on Allegheny. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. eastern time on November 26, 2004. 7. Allegheny Energy Supply Company, LLC [Docket No. ER05-180-000] Take notice that on November 4, 2004, Allegheny Energy Supply Company, LLC (AE Supply) filed a Notice of Cancellation of Hatfield's Ferry LLC, FERC Electric Tariff, Original Volume No. 1. AE Supply requests an effective date of January 1, 2005. AE Supply states that a copy of the Notice of Cancellation has been served on all persons with currently effective service agreements under the rate schedule referenced above. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. eastern time on November 26, 2004. 8. AYP Energy, Inc. [Docket No. ER05-181-000] Take notice that on November 4, 2004, AYP Energy, Inc.

(AYP)filed a Notice of Cancellation of AYP Energy, Inc., First Revised Rate Schedule No. 1. AYP requests an effective date of January 1, 2005. AYP states that a copy of the Notice of Cancellation has been served on all persons with currently effective service agreements under the rate schedule referenced above. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. eastern time on November 26, 2004. 9. Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc. [Docket No. ER05-182-000] Take notice that on November 4, 2004, the Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc., (Midwest ISO) filed an Interconnection and Operating Agreement among the Electric Generation Business Function of Northern States Power Company d/b/a Xcel Energy, the Functionally Unbundled Transmission Function of Northern States Power Company d/ba Xcel and the Midwest ISO. Midwest ISO states that the filing was served on the parties to the Interconnection Agreement. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. eastern time on November 26, 2004. 10. Carolina Power & Light Company [Docket No. ER05-183-000] Take notice that on November 4, 2004, Carolina Power & Light Company, doing business as Progress Energy Carolina, (CP&L) tendered for filing a Generator Balancing Service Schedule as Schedule 4B under the Open Access Transmission Tariffs of CP&L and Florida Power Corporation. CP&L requests an effective date of January 1, 2005. CP&L states that copies of the filing were served on the North Carolina Utilities Commission, the South Carolina Public Service Commission and CP&L's jurisdictional customers. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. eastern time on November 26, 2004. 11. PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. [Docket No. ER05-184-000] Take notice that on November 4, 2004, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.

(PJM)filed amendments to the PJM Open Access Transmission Tariff and the Amended and Restated Operating Agreement of PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. to create a special membership for its real-time option Economic Load Response Program. PJM requests an effective date of November 5, 2004. PJM states that copies of the filing were served on all PJM members and each state electric utility regulatory commission in the PJM region. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. eastern time on November 26, 2004. 12. PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. [Docket No. ER05-185-000] Take notice that on November 4, 2004, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.

(PJM)filed proposed costs of generating units for providing black start service in the Commonwealth Edison Company zone to be recovered under Schedule 6A and of the PJM Tariff in lieu of the formula rate specified in the Tariff. PJM states that copies of the filing were served on all PJM members and each state electric utility regulatory commission in the PJM region. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. eastern time on November 26, 2004. 13. Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc. [Docket No. ER05-186-000] Take notice that on November 5, 2004, the Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc., (Midwest ISO) filed a Large Generator Interconnection Agreement among Butler Ridge, LLC, American Transmission Company, LLC and the Midwest ISO. Midwest ISO states that the filing was served on the parties to the Interconnection Agreement. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. eastern time on November 26, 2004. 14. Virginia Electric and Power Company [Docket No. ER05-187-000] Take notice that on November 5, 2004, Virginia Electric and Power Company (Dominion) tendered for filing a new Appendix E-2 for the Service Agreement under its Open Access Transmission Tariff, FERC Electric Tariff Second Revised Volume No. 5, for Network Integration Transmission Service between Dominion and North Carolina Electric Membership Corporation (NCEMC). Dominion states that the revised service agreement adds charges to reimburse Dominion for costs associated with the conversion of Mapleton Delivery Point for Roanoke Electric Cooperation. Dominion states that copies of the filing were served on the NCEMC, the North Carolina Utilities Commission and the Virginia State Corporation Commission. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. eastern time on November 26, 2004. 15. Entergy Services, Inc. [Docket No. ER05-188-000] Take notice that on November 5, 2004, Entergy Louisiana, Inc. (Entergy Louisiana) tendered for filing an Interconnection Agreement between Entergy Louisiana and Perryville Energy Partners, L.L.C., designated as Original Service Agreement No. 381 under Entergy Services, Inc.'s FERC Electric Tariff, Second Revised Volume No. 3. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. eastern time on November 26, 2004. 16. Entergy Services, Inc. [Docket No. ER05-189-000] Take notice that on November 5, 2004, Entergy Services, Inc., on behalf of Entergy Louisiana, Inc. (Entergy Louisiana), tendered for filing a Notice of Termination of Original Service Agreement No. 102 under Entergy Services, Inc.'s FERC Electric Tariff, First Revised Volume No. 3 and Supplement No. 1 thereto, the Interconnection and Operating Agreement and Generator Imbalance Agreement between Entergy Louisiana and Cleco Midstream Resources, LLC. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. eastern time on November 26, 2004. 17. Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc. and Northern Indiana Public Service Company [Docket No. ER05-190-000] Take notice that on November 5, 2004, the Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc., (Midwest ISO) and Northern Indiana Public Service Company (NIPSCO) (collectively, Applicants) filed a joint application under section 205 of the Federal Power Act for approval of transition to formulae rate. Applicants submitted proposed revisions to the Open Access Transmission Tariff of the Midwest ISO to reflect NIPSCO's transition from stated rates to the formulae rates under Attachment O, Rate Formulae of the Tariff. Applicants request an effective date of December 1, 2004. Applicants state that copies of this filing have been served electronically on all Midwest ISO members, member representatives of transmission customers, and the Midwest ISO Advisory Committee participants, as well as all State commissions within the affected regions. In addition, Applicants state that the filing has been posted on the Midwest ISO's Web site at *http://www.midwestiso.org* under the heading “Filings to FERC.” *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. eastern time on November 26, 2004. 18. Perryville Energy Partners, L.L.C. [Docket No. ER05-191-000] Take notice that on November 5, 2004, Perryville Energy Partners, L.L.C.

(PEP)tendered for filing an Interconnection and Service Charge Agreement (Agreement) between PEP and Entergy Louisiana, Inc. (Entergy Louisiana) requesting that the Commission permit the Agreement to become effective as of the date that PEP's sale to Entergy Louisiana of the Perryville 718 megawatt natural gas-fired generating facility located in Ouachita Parish near Perryville, Louisiana, becomes effective. PEP states that copies of the filing were served on Entergy Louisiana and the Louisiana Public Service Commission. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. eastern time on November 26, 2004. 19. PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. [Docket No. ER05-192-000] Take notice that on November 1, 2004, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.

(PJM)submitted for filing

(1)seven service agreements that were previously filed with and accepted by the Commission, and

(2)five service agreements that have been filed with the Commission and for which Commission action is pending to redesignate them with new service agreement numbers. PJM requests waiver to permit the prior Commission-approved effective dates for the agreements previously accepted for filing by the Commission and to permit the effective dates originally requested for the agreements for which Commission action is currently pending. PJM states that copies of the filing were served on the parties to the agreements and the state regulatory commissions within the PJM region. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. eastern time on November 22, 2004. Standard Paragraph Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 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 notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant and all parties to this proceeding. The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at *http://www.ferc.gov.* Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. This filing is accessible on-line at *http://www.ferc.gov,* using the “eLibrary” link and is available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an “eSubscription” link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail *FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov,* or call

(866)208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call

(202)502-8659. Magalie R. Salas, Secretary. [FR Doc. E4-3260 Filed 11-18-04; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. CP02-90-003] AES Ocean Express, L.L.C. (Ocean Express); Notice of Intent To Prepare an Environmental Assessment for the Proposed Modifications to the Ocean Express Pipeline Project and Request for Comments on Environmental Issues November 15, 2004. The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) and the Minerals Management Service

(MMS)will prepare an environmental assessment

(EA)that will discuss the environmental impacts of the Modifications to the Ocean Express Pipeline Project proposed by Ocean Express in Broward County, Florida, State Waters of Florida, and Federal Waters of the United States. 1 The Ocean Express Pipeline Project received a certificate of public convenience and necessity from the Commission on January 29, 2004 in Docket Nos. CP02-90, *et al.* Ocean Express has requested necessary authorizations for a pipeline right-of-way in Federal waters from the MMS. Ocean Express has now proposed changes to their original proposal, and those proposed changes will be reviewed by Commission and MMS staff. The Ocean Express Pipeline Project modifications reflect the incorporation of tunnel construction methodology for the nearshore portion of the pipeline, as well as certain other design changes, for the natural gas pipeline between the United States and the Bahamas. This EA will be used by the Commission in its decision-making process to determine whether the project modifications are in the public convenience and necessity. The MMS will have primary responsibility for offshore analysis in U.S. waters and will coordinate with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers regarding Florida State waters review. 1 Ocean Express's application was filed with the Commission on September 9, 2004, as supplemented on September 15, 2004 and September 20, 2004, under section 7 of the Natural Gas Act and part 157 and part 284 of the Commission's Regulations. The FERC is the lead agency and the MMS is a Federal cooperating agency for this project because the MMS has jurisdiction by law as well as special expertise regarding the potential environmental impacts associated with that portion of the proposed pipeline that would be installed on the Outer Continental Shelf. This notice is being sent to landowners, individuals, organizations, and government entities that expressed an interest in the original project and received a copy of FERC's *Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Ocean Express Pipeline Project* (issued November 28, 2003). No new landowners are affected by the proposed modifications. It is also being sent to all identified potential right-of-way grantors. 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 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. FERC prepared a fact sheet entitled “An Interstate Natural Gas Facility On My Land? What Do I Need To Know?”. 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 As certificated, the Ocean Express Pipeline Project would consist of a new 24-inch-diameter interstate natural gas pipeline, and certain ancillary facilities, that would extend approximately 54.5 miles from a receipt point on the Exclusive Economic Zone

(EEZ)boundary between the United States and the Bahamas to two delivery points in Broward County, Florida, one at an interconnection with the existing Florida Gas Transmission System

(FGT)pipeline at the Florida Power and Light

(FPL)Fort Lauderdale Power Plant, and the other at an interconnection with the FPL gas line that serves the FPL Fort Lauderdale plant. Ocean Express's proposed modifications reflect the incorporation of tunnel construction methodology for the nearshore portion of its pipeline, as well as certain other design changes. Ocean Express developed the proposed modifications to address the local gas markets demand for peak period deliverability and certain delays that it has encountered in meeting its proposed construction schedule. Ocean Express explains that the use of the tunnel construction methodology would allow it to construct the nearshore portion the pipeline using an approximately 14,000-foot-long tunnel, with certain minor route changes to accommodate the methodology, as opposed to the horizontal directional drills

(HDDs)that the Commission has already approved. Ocean Express also proposes to increase the pipeline diameter from 24 inches to 26 inches and internally coat the pipeline, to allow for increased hourly flow rates, but does not propose to increase the certificated capacity (842,000 dekatherms/day) of its pipeline. Additionally, Ocean Express proposes to install a pressure reducing station inside the tunnel to reduce the onshore Maximum Allowable Operating Pressure

(MAOP)to 1,480 pounds per square inch gauge

(psig)or less, from the certificated MAOP of 2,200 psig. An aboveground tunnel shaft/access building and gas vent would also be installed at the Dania Beach Boulevard Traffic Circle. Ocean Express designed the proposed tunnel construction installation to further minimize the potential for direct impacts and the risk of inadvertent impacts to sensitive marine resources, particularly the hardbottom and coral reef resources that occur in the nearshore environment of the project area. The proposed tunnel modification would replace previously certificated plans to perform two HDDs under the nearshore reef systems, with the HDDs connected by a direct pipelay segment between two of the dominant reef trends. The tunnel modification would avoid the need for offshore construction work spaces to the west of the dominant reef trends. Ocean Express indicates that elimination of those work spaces would minimize direct impacts and significantly reducing the potential for inadvertent impacts in proximity to the reefs ( *e.g.* , unanticipated spills, anchor impacts, work vessel passage over reefs, etc.). Additionally, Ocean Express states that the equipment used to construct the tunnel would not use drilling fluids under high pressure, thereby eliminating the potential risk of an inadvertent release of drilling muds, or frac-out, which could potentially have occurred in association with the HDD installation methodology. The proposed tunnel would begin at an entrance point at the Dania Beach Boulevard Traffic Circle (RMP 48.0, TMP 47.5), as proposed with the certificated HDD installation method, and exit approximately 200 feet east of the mapped edge of the easternmost reef trend (TMP 44.8). An entrance shaft, consisting of a 40-foot-diameter by 140-foot-deep, single concrete caisson, would be constructed at the tunnel entry point. From that point, an earth pressure balance

(EPB)tunnel boring machine would be used to construct a watertight, approximately 13,500-foot-long, 13.6-foot-diameter, concrete-lined tunnel. At the end of this main tunnel (TMP 44.9), a 42-inch-diameter microtunnel measuring approximately 650-feet-in-length would be constructed by either a microtunnel boring machine or by hydraulic jacking of a casing out to the ocean floor. Once completed, the tunnel would provide a conduit for installation of the nearshore portion of the pipeline. The pipeline string to be installed within the main tunnel would be assembled inside the tunnel. The pipestring installed within the microtunnel would be prefabricated offshore and pulled back into the microtunnel to accomplish tie-in between the pipeline within the main tunnel and the offshore, direct lay portion of the pipeline. An approximately 2,000-foot-long pipestring would be assembled within an offshore pull corridor using an anchor positioned work barge. A prefabricated pipe support measuring approximately 100-feet-long by 9-feet-wide would be positioned near the microtunnel exit. This pipe support would be used to support the prefabricated pipestring across a span created by the 4 to 6 degree seabed slope at the tunnel exit during pull back into the microtunnel. Following pipeline installation, articulated concrete mats would be used to cover and protect the segment of the pipeline extending from the tunnel exit to a water depth of 200 feet. This concrete mat covered segment of the pipeline would measure approximately 2,300-feet-long by 9-feet-wide and would encompass an area of approximately 0.5 acre. No onshore alignment changes would be required in association with the proposed modifications. Ocean Express has slightly revised its proposed nearshore route to accommodate the tunnel installation methodology and to minimize construction activities outside the tunnel. The revised nearshore route would reduce the length of the proposed pipeline by approximately 0.5 mile, but would not differ substantively in alignment from the certificated route. Seaward of the tunnel exit point, an approximately 0.8-mile-long segment of pipeline would extend to a tie-in with the previously authorized route at RMP 44.0/TMP 44.0. East of this point, the offshore route would be unchanged by the proposed modifications. The previously certificated facilities, as modified by the Ocean Express proposal, are summarized in Table 1 below, and the proposed alignment of the modified nearshore project facilities is shown in Appendix 1. 2 If you are interested in obtaining detailed maps of a specific portion of the project, send in your request using the form in Appendix 4. 2 The appendices referenced in this notice are not being printed in the **Federal Register** . Copies of all appendices, other than Appendix 1 (map), are available on the Commission's Web site at the “eLibrary” link or from the Commission's Public Reference Room, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, or call

(202)502-8371. For instructions on connecting to eLibrary refer to the “Additional Information” section of this notice. Copies of the appendices were sent to all those receiving this notice in the mail. Land Requirements for Construction As a result of the tunnel installation methodology, Ocean Express indicates that the offshore temporary workspaces for pipeline installation would be reduced from approximately 1,840 acres to approximately 1,466 acres. The 200-foot-wide construction right-of-way for the offshore segment of the project that was previously authorized would be maintained. All land requirements associated with the tunnel exit/tie-in, pipelay fabrication and construction, and laybarge anchoring would be contained within the 200-foot-wide construction right-of-way and the additional workspace areas identified in Appendix 1. Pipelay construction from TMP 44.2 to the EEZ boundary (MP 0) would be performed using a dynamically positioned laybarge. Following construction, a permanent 25-foot-wide right-of-way would be retained in State of Florida territorial waters (RMP 43.0 to TMP 47.5) for pipeline operation and maintenance. The alignment and width (200 feet) of the proposed permanent right-of-way for the offshore segment of the pipeline in federal waters would be unaffected by the proposed modifications. Table 1.—Ocean Express Pipeline Project Summary of Previously Authorized Project Facilities as Modified by the Current Proposal Facility 1 Pipeline diameter Approximate length (miles) 2 Milepost 3 Location/jurisdiction Offshore Segment: Pipeline 26-inch* 43.0 MP 0.0 to RMP 43.03 U.S. Federal Waters. Pipeline 26-inch* *4.5 RMP 43.03 to TMP 47.5 Florida State Waters. Onshore Segment: Pipeline 26-inch* 6.1 TMP 47.5 to 53.62 Broward County. Pipeline 4 20-inch 0.7 FPL MP 0.0 to 0.35 Broward County. Aboveground Facilities 5 N/A 6 N/A TMP 53.62 & TMP 47.5* Broward County. Underground Facilities 7 N/A N/A TMP 47.5* Broward County. Total Length: 54.3 miles 8 * Denotes project facilities or characteristics included in the proposed modification and that would differ from the certificated facilities. 1 Project facilities include pipeline and associated facilities. 2 Approximate length provided in statute miles. 3 ”MP” refers to Milepost; “RMP” refers to Revised Milepost; and “TMP” refers to Tunnel Milepost. 4 Includes dual 20-inch lateral lines to the FPL Fort Lauderdale Power Plant. 5 The term “Aboveground Facilities” for purposes of this table includes the proposed meter stations, mainline shutoff valve, and pig launching/receiving station located at TMP 53.62 and the tunnel shaft/access building and gas vent at TMP 47.5 proposed in association with the modification. 6 N/A indicates not applicable. 7 The term “Underground Facilities” for purposes of this table includes the pressure reducing station and mainline shutoff valve at TMP 47.5 (located inside the tunnel) proposed in association with the modification. 8 Does not include 40.4 miles of non-jurisdictional pipeline that would be constructed in waters between the Bahamas and the EEZ. Ocean Express is not proposing any alignment changes to the onshore portion of the project and does not anticipate that the increase in diameter of the pipeline from 24 inches to 26 inches would affect the size of the onshore construction or permanent rights-of-way. A temporary concrete segment fabrication batch plant would be constructed as part of the tunnel modification and would require approximately 8 to 12 acres of existing light industrial or industrial zoned land in order to fabricate the tunnel concrete segments. Ocean Express anticipates that they would enter into a lease agreement with a local landowner for this land requirement. With the exception of Ocean Express's temporary concrete-segment fabrication batch plant facility, the onshore construction activities would not deviate from certificated land requirements for access roads, additional workspace/storage areas, or pipe and contractor yards. The onshore aboveground facilities would be identical to the certificated project with the exception of a newly proposed tunnel shaft utility/access building and gas vent, which would service the underground pressure reducing station that would be located at the Dania Beach Boulevard Traffic Circle. The EA 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 us 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 EA on the important environmental issues. By this Notice of Intent, the Commission staff requests public comments on the scope of the issues to address in the EA. All comments received are considered during the preparation of the EA. State and local government representatives are encouraged to notify their constituents of this proposed action and encourage them to comment on their areas of concern. In the EA we 3 will discuss impacts that could occur as a result of the construction and operation of the proposed project under these general headings: 3 ”We”, “us,” and “our” refer to the environmental staff of the Office of Energy Projects (OEP). • Geology; • Soils and sediments; • Water resources; • Fishery resources, benthic communities, and wildlife; • Protected, threatened, and endangered species; • Land use and visual resources; • Cultural resources; • Socioeconomics; • Air quality and noise; • Reliability and safety; and • Cumulative impacts. We will not discuss impacts to certain resource areas since they are not present in the project area, or would not be affected by the proposed facilities in a manner substantially different than has already been evaluated in the certificated project. These resource areas include: • Onshore vegetation communities, including wetlands; • Onshore wildlife and fisheries; and • Recreation. We will also evaluate possible alternatives to lessen or avoid impacts on the various resource areas. Our independent analysis of the issues will be included in the EA. Depending on the comments received during the scoping process, the EA may be published and mailed to federal, state, and local agencies, public interest groups, interested individuals, affected landowners, newspapers, libraries, and the Commission's official service list for this proceeding. A comment period will be allotted for review if the EA is published. We will consider all comments on the EA before we make our recommendations to the Commission. To ensure your comments are considered, please carefully follow the instructions in the public participation section of this notice. Currently Identified Environmental Issues FERC staff participated in a technical meeting with representatives from Ocean Express and federal, state, and local agencies on September 24, 2004. We also attended a public open house (informational meeting) sponsored by Ocean Express on October 7, 2004. The issues and concerns identified by the commentors during those meetings will be considered in the preparation of the EA. 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 Ocean Express. This preliminary list of issues may be changed based on your comments and our analysis. The issues include: • Fishery resources and benthic communities, especially relating to potential impacts to marine hardbottom habitats and coral reef resources; • Water resources, including the potential for sedimentation and/or turbidity effects associated with “punch out” at the eastern terminus of the tunnel; • Tunnel stability and the potential for subsidence; • Aquatic toxicity of soil conditioners and foams used in tunnel construction; • Potential impacts to operations at the U.S. Navy's Naval Surface Warfare Center, Carderrock Division (NSWCCD) resulting from the proposed modifications; • Increased onshore vehicle traffic and congestion associated with the proposed modified installation method; and • Safety and security of the proposed modifications. Ocean Express indicates that the proposed tunnel modification would further avoid or minimize impacts to the nearshore reef systems and significantly reduce the risk of unanticipated impacts, as compared to the HDD construction methodology authorized by the FERC certificate. Table 2 summarizes and compares the anticipated direct and indirect marine habitat impacts associated with the proposed modifications to those associated with the HDD construction methodology. Specifically, the landfall HDD exit point, the 9,100-foot-long concrete mat covered segment between the dominant reef trends, and the offshore HDD entry location would be eliminated under the proposed modification. Additionally, the pre-assembled pipestring that would have been floated over the eastern most reef trend for installation within the landfall HDD bore would be eliminated. Because these elements of the project and their associated construction workspaces would be eliminated, Ocean Express indicates that the tunnel modification would significantly reduce direct impacts and the risk of inadvertent impacts in proximity to the reefs. Further, Ocean Express states that the EPB tunnel boring machine would not use drilling fluids under high pressure, thereby eliminating the potential risk of a frac-out, which could potentially have occurred in association with the HDD installation methodology. Ocean Express predicts that the equipment that would be used to construct the microtunnel can be operated in a manner that would avoid creation of a sediment plume in the marine environment at the tunnel exit point. Additionally, the tunnel installation methodology would not require dredging to excavate the tunnel exit point, which would be required by the previously approved HDD installation method. Even though the proposed tunnel installation methodology greatly reduces the potential for turbidity and sedimentation generating activities, Ocean Express continues to use its previous estimates for turbidity and sedimentation associated with the HDD installation exit point as a conservative measure of impact estimation. Ocean Express would also continue with its plans to monitor for potential unanticipated environmental damage, both during and after construction. Table 2.—Ocean Express Pipeline Project Comparison of Marine Benthic Impacts in State of Florida Waters Certificated HDD installation method Proposed tunnel installation method Temporary impact (acres) Permanent impact (acres) Temporary impact (acres) Permanent impact (acres) Habitat type 1 Habitat type 1 Work area segment (state waters) Sand w/rubble Sand Sand w/rubble Sand Sand w/rubble Sand Sand w/rubble Sand West of Reef 3: Direct Impact 0.31 2.91 0.07 1.78 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Indirect Impact 0.00 4.09 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 East of Reef 3: Direct Impact 0.38 1.02 0.16 0.29 0.36 0.86 0.15 0.38 Indirect Impact 0.28 0.69 0.00 0.00 0.28 2 0.69 0.00 0.00 Subtotal 0.97 8.71 0.23 2.07 0.64 1.55 0.15 0.38 Total Impact 3 1.20 10.78 0.79 1.93 1 “Sand w/Rubble” (Habitat Type B) consists of sand and rubble habitat with 5 to 20 percent biotal coverage, while the remaining percentage consists of sand and rubble with less than 5 percent biotal coverage. “Sand” (Habitat Type D) consists of sand in proximity to hardbottom/reef resources with less than 5 percent biotal coverage. 2 This area corresponds to the previous estimates of sedimentation/turbidity impact associated with excavation of the offshore HDD exit location. Ocean Express is continuing to use this value as a conservative estimate of the sedimentation/turbidity impacts that would be associated with the microtunnel exit point. 3 Total impact includes estimated additive effect of both temporary and permanent impacts. Ocean Express has reported that after extensive consultation with tunneling experts, review of available geologic data, as well as a review of previously completed tunneling projects, there appears to be no major technical obstacles to successful completion of the proposed tunnel. During tunnel construction, Ocean Express would implement various measures to stabilize the tunnel and minimize the potential for tunnel collapse. The overburden above the tunnel would be maintained at a minimum of 30 feet, and pre-fabricated concrete segments designed to withstand internal and external loading forces would be used to stabilize the tunnel as the EPB tunnel boring machine advances. Additionally, Ocean Express would implement a Tunnel Monitoring and Control Program to ensure that tunnel stability is monitored and maintained. The Commission will evaluate the feasibility of the proposed tunnel modification in consideration of site-specific geologic conditions and experience gained from other tunneling projects. The U.S. Navy's NSWCCD is located in proximity to the proposed nearshore pipeline route, and a portion of the proposed pipeline would cross a U.S. Navy restricted area. The NSWCCD uses systems that are highly sensitive to magnetic interference and could be affected by the proposed pipeline project. In order to address the Navy's concerns, Ocean Express proposed to construct approximately 3.8 miles of its pipeline using low magnetic pipe. Under the proposed modification, this portion of the pipeline would be reduced to 3.3 miles, but the alignment would still traverse one corner of the Navy restricted area. Ocean Express is coordinating the proposed modifications with the NSWCCD and anticipates amending the February 5, 2003 Memorandum of Agreement with NSWCCD to accommodate technical issues related to the proposed modifications. Spoil materials removed from the tunnel would be loaded on trucks at the Dania Beach Boulevard Traffic Circle and removed offsite for disposal. Ocean Express estimates that about 8,004 cubic yards of spoil would be removed to construct the tunnel shaft and about 97,330 cubic yards of spoil would be removed to construct the tunnel and microtunnel corridors. Soil conditioners and foaming agents would be used to stabilize the tunnel face during excavation activities and could contaminate spoil material removed during excavation activities. Ocean Express anticipates that proper handling of tunnel spoils would prevent any potential degradation of soil, surface water, or ground water quality. The pre-fabricated concrete segments used to line the tunnel and the pipeline segments installed within the portion of the tunnel constructed using the EPB tunnel boring machine would be delivered to the Dania Beach Boulevard Traffic Circle construction site. This activity in combination with the removal of spoil from the site could impact local traffic flow patterns. These activities would generate an increased volume of traffic through the duration of the tunnel boring and pipeline installation process, which is expected to last approximately 15 months. Ocean Express is currently in the final stages of revising its traffic study to gauge the anticipated increased truck traffic in and around the Dania Beach Boulevard Traffic Circle associated with implementation of the proposed installation modifications. Ocean Express will file the traffic study with FERC once the study is complete, but has indicated that it would employ the necessary traffic control devices to ensure that construction activities avoid or minimize any impact to the local traffic flow. Day to day construction activities would be scheduled to account for heavier than usual traffic flow and to avoid high traffic periods. Additionally, an on-site storage facility at the Dania Beach Boulevard Traffic Circle construction site would be designed to hold several days of production materials to give added flexibility. The pipeline and ancillary facilities associated with the proposed project would be designed, constructed, operated, and maintained in accordance with the U.S. Department of Transportation Minimum Federal Safety Standards in 49 CFR part 192, and any other applicable safety standards. These standards govern the distance between sectionalizing block valves and require the pipeline owner to install cathodic protection, use other corrosion-preventing procedures, and perform various maintenance activities. During construction, pipeline weld inspections and hydrostatic tests would be conducted to verify pipeline integrity and ensure the pipeline's ability to withstand the maximum designed operating pressure. Additionally, the proposed tunnel would be designed, constructed, installed, inspected, operated, and maintained, as applicable, in accordance with applicable U.S. Department of Labor, Occupational Health and Safety Administration and local building code requirements. Precautions would also be taken to ensure that the facilities associated with the proposed modifications are secured during operation. The natural gas vent and tunnel shaft utility access building that would be located at the Dania Beach Traffic Circle, would be enclosed within a secured fenced area and the access door to the Tunnel Shaft Utility/Access building would be locked. The door and fence would be alarmed to prevent intruders. The non-jurisdictional facilities associated with the previously certificated Ocean Express Pipeline Project, which consist of a pipeline and liquefied natural gas terminal and regasification facility that would be located within the jurisdiction of the Bahamian government, are discussed in the FEIS. We will briefly describe the location and status of these facilities in the EA. 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 EA and considered by the Commission. You should focus on the potential environmental effects of the proposal 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 No. CP02-90-003. • Mail your comments so that they will be received in Washington, DC, on or before December 20, 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 on-line. Becoming an Intervenor In addition to involvement in the EA 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 send one electronic copy (using the Commission's eFiling system) or 14 paper 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 3). 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 This notice is being sent to landowners, individuals, organizations, and government entities that expressed an interest in the original project and received a copy of FERC's Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Ocean Express Pipeline Project (issued November 28, 2003). By this notice we are also asking governmental agencies, especially those in Appendix 4, to express their interest in becoming cooperating agencies for the preparation of the EA. Additional Information Additional information about the project is available from the Commission's Office of External Affairs, at 1-866-208-FERC 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, please contact FERC Online Support at *FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov* or toll free at 1-866-208-3676, or for TTY, contact

(202)502-8659. The eLibrary link also provides access to the texts of formal documents issued by the Commission, such as orders, notices, and rulemakings. General information about the MMS and detailed information regarding Florida state and federal waters can be accessed at the MMS Internet Web site *(http://www.mms.gov).* 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. Go to *http://www.ferc.gov/esubscribenow.htm.* Finally, public meetings or site visits, if conducted, would be posted on the Commission's calendar located at *http://www.ferc.gov/EventCalendar/EventsList.aspx* along with other related information. Magalie R. Salas, Secretary. [FR Doc. E4-3259 Filed 11-18-04; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. CP05-15-000] Caledonia Energy Partners, L.L.C.; Notice of Intent To Prepare an Environmental Assessment for the Proposed Caledonia Storage Project and Request for Comments on Environmental Issues November 15, 2004. The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) will prepare an environmental assessment

(EA)that will discuss the environmental impacts of the Caledonia Storage Project involving construction and operation of facilities by Caledonia Energy Partners, L.L.C. (Caledonia) near the town of Caledonia in Monroe and Lowndes Counties, Mississippi. 1 These facilities would consist of eight injection/withdrawal storage wells, 1.98 miles of various diameter pipeline, and 10,650 horsepower

(hp)of compression. This EA will be used by the Commission in its decisionmaking process to determine whether the project is in the public convenience and necessity. 1 Caledonia's application was filed with the Commission under section 7 of the Natural Gas Act and part 157 of the Commission's regulations. 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 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 Caledonia 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 Caledonia wants to convert a nearly depleted natural gas reservoir, known as the Caledonia Field, into a high-deliverability, multi-cycle gas storage field. Modification of the existing underground sandstone reservoir would result in a reservoir capable of storing 11.7 billion cubic feet of working gas with an initial maximum withdrawal capacity of 330 million standard cubic feet per day (MMscfpd), and a maximum injection capability of 260 MMscfpd. Caledonia seeks authority to construction and operates: • Eight new injection/withdrawal storage wells; • Three, 3,550-hp gas engine compressor units and ancillary facilities at a new compressor facility site on the south side of flint hill road; • About 0.32 mile of small diameter well interconnect pipeline; • About 0.85 mile of 24-inch-diameter pipeline to connect the wells to the compressor facility; and • About 0.81 mile of 24-inch-diameter pipeline to connect the compressor facility to Tennessee gas pipeline company's interstate pipeline system. The location of the project facilities is shown in Appendix 1. 2 2 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, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, 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. Land Requirements for Construction Construction of the proposed facilities would require about 62.2 acres of land, including an 85-foot-wide construction right-of-way to install the 24-inch-diameter pipelines. Operation would require use of about 33.1 acres for aboveground facilities (three well pad sites and the compressor facility site) and about 12.0 acres would be maintained as a new 60-foot-wide permanent right-of-way along the pipeline routes. Following construction, about 17.1 acres of land would be restored and allowed to revert to its former use. The EA 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 us 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 EA on the important environmental issues. By this Notice of Intent, the Commission staff requests public comments on the scope of the issues to address in the EA. All comments received are considered during the preparation of the EA. State and local government representatives are encouraged to notify their constituents of this proposed action and encourage them to comment on their areas of concern. In the EA we 3 will discuss impacts that could occur as a result of the construction and operation of the proposed project under these general headings: 3 “We”, “us”, and “our” refer to the environmental staff of the Office of Energy Projects (OEP). • Geology and soils. • Land use. • Water resources, fisheries, and wetlands. • Cultural resources. • Vegetation and wildlife. • Air quality and noise. We will not discuss impacts to the following resource areas since they are not present in the project area, or would not be affected by the proposed facilities. • Hazardous waste. • Endangered and threatened species. We will also evaluate reasonable alternatives to the proposed project or portions of the project, and make recommendations on how to lessen or avoid impacts on the various resource areas. Our independent analysis of the issues will be in the EA. Depending on the comments received during the scoping process, the EA may be published and mailed to Federal, State, and local agencies, public interest groups, interested individuals, affected landowners, newspapers, libraries, and the Commission's official service list for this proceeding. A comment period will be allotted for review if the EA is published. We will consider all comments on the EA before we make our recommendations to the Commission. To ensure your comments are considered, please carefully follow the instructions in the public participation section below. Currently Identified Environmental Issues 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 Caledonia. This preliminary list of issues may be changed based on your comments and our analysis. • A total of 34.7 acres of forest land would be permanently impacted through above ground facility construction or permanent conversion to open land. • A total of 2.6 acres of agricultural land would convert to industrial use. • One perennial waterway, seven intermittent waterways, and two emergent wetlands would be crossed by the proposed project. • Two noise sensitive areas ( *i.e.* , residences) are located approximately 600 feet and 1,500 feet from the proposed compressor facility site. 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 EA 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 3. • Reference Docket No. CP05-15-000. • Mail your comments so that they will be received in Washington, DC on or before December 17, 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 on-line. We may mail the EA for comment. If you are interested in receiving it, please return the Information Request (Appendix 4). If you do not return the Information Request, you will be taken off the mailing list. Becoming an Intervenor In addition to involvement in the EA 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 send one electronic copy (using the Commission's eFiling system) or 14 paper 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 An effort is being made to send this notice to all individuals, organizations, and government entities interested in and/or potentially affected by the proposed project. This includes all landowners who are potential right-of-way grantors, whose property may be used temporarily for project purposes, or who own homes within distances defined in the Commission's regulations of certain aboveground facilities. By this notice we are also asking governmental agencies, especially those in Appendix 3, to express their interest in becoming cooperating agencies for the preparation of the EA. Additional Information Additional information about the project is available from the Commission's Office of External Affairs, at 1-866-208-FERC 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, please contact FERC Online Support at *FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov* or toll free at 1-866-208-3676, or for TTY, contact

(202)502-8659. The eLibrary link 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. Go to *http://www.ferc.gov/esubscribenow.htm.* Finally, public meetings or site visits will be posted on the Commission's calendar located at *http://www.ferc.gov/EventCalendar/EventsList.aspx* along with other related information. Magalie R. Salas, Secretary. [FR Doc. E4-3258 Filed 11-18-04; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. CP05-7-000] Natural Gas Pipeline Company of America; Notice of Intent To Prepare an Environmental Assessment for the Proposed Sayre Nominated Storage Service Project and Request for Comments on Environmental Issues November 10, 2004. The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) will prepare an environmental assessment

(EA)that will discuss the environmental impacts of the Sayre Nominated Storage Service Project (Sayre), proposed by Natural Gas Pipeline Company of America (Natural). The Project would include abandonment of natural gas pipeline and construction and operation of additional facilities in Beckham County, Oklahoma. 1 This EA will be used by the Commission in its decision-making process to determine whether the project is in the public convenience and necessity. 1 Natural's application was filed with the Commission under section 7 of the Natural Gas Act and Part 157 of the Commission's regulations. 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 Natural 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 Natural seeks authority to increase its peak day withdrawal level at Sayre from 400 million cubic feet per day (MMcf/day) to 600 MMcf/day and the maximum working gas capacity at Sayre in Beckham County, Oklahoma, from 51.1 billion cubic feet

(Bcf)to 57.1 Bcf. This would be accomplished by drilling 22 new injection/withdrawal wells, adding 8.3 miles of pipeline, and installing 2 new compressor units (inside Natural's existing Compressor Station 184) with a total rating of 8,285 horsepower. Natural also proposes to abandon by removal and in place, about 1.1 miles of natural gas pipeline. The location of the project facilities is shown in Appendix 1. 2 2 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 and Files Maintenance Branch, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, 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. Land Requirements for Construction Construction of the facilities (including access roads) would affect about 162.7 acres of land. Of this, about 110 acres would revert to previous use while the rest would be maintained for operation of the facilities. The acreage affected includes the 1.1 mile of natural gas pipeline that would be abandoned. Natural would use a 100-foot-wide right-of-way during construction of its new pipeline, and subsequently maintain a 50-foot-wide permanent right-of-way. The construction right-of-way would be expanded at special work areas ( *e.g.* , pipeline crossing of the North Fork of the Red River and road crossings). The EA 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 us 3 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 EA on the important environmental issues. By this Notice of Intent, the Commission staff requests public comments on the scope of the issues to address in the EA. All comments received are considered during the preparation of the EA. State and local government representatives are encouraged to notify their constituents of this proposed 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 (OEP). We will also evaluate possible alternatives to the proposed project or portions of the project and make recommendations on how to lessen or avoid impacts on the various resource areas. Our independent analysis of the issues will be in the EA. Depending on the comments received during the scoping process, the EA may be published and mailed to federal, state, and local agencies, public interest groups, interested individuals, affected landowners, newspapers, libraries, and the Commission's official service list for this proceeding. A comment period will be allotted for review if the EA is published. We will consider all comments on the EA before we make our recommendations to the Commission. Currently Identified Environmental Issues We have already identified issues (noise impacts on nearby residents, threatened and endangered species, and land use) that we think deserve our attention based on a preliminary review of the proposed facilities and the environmental information provided by Natural. Issues we consider may change based on your comments and our analysis. 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 EA and considered by the Commission. You should focus on the potential environmental effects of the proposal, alternatives to the proposal, 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 1. • Reference Docket No. CP05-7-000. • Mail your comments so that they will be received in Washington, DC on or before December 11, 2004. Please note that 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. Prepare your submission in the same manner as you would if filing on paper and save it to a file on your hard drive. Before you can file comments, you will need to create an account 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.” Becoming an Intervenor In addition to involvement in the EA 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 send one electronic copy (using the Commission's e-Filing system) or 14 paper 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 An effort is being made to send this notice to all individuals, organizations, and government entities interested in and/or potentially affected by the proposed project. This includes all landowners whose property may be used temporarily for project purposes or who own homes within distances defined in the Commission's regulations of certain aboveground facilities. Availability of Additional Information Additional information about the project is available from the Commission's Office of External Affairs, at 1-866-208-FERC 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, contact FERCOnline Support at *FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov* , or call toll-free

(866)208-3676 or TTY 202-502-8659. The eLibrary link 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. Go to *http://www.ferc.gov/esubscribenow.htm.* Magalie R. Salas, Secretary. [FR Doc. E4-3251 Filed 11-18-04; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Project No. 2801-000] Littleville Power Company, Inc.; Notice of Intent To File Application for Subsequent License or Application for Exemption From Licensing November 10, 2004. a. *Type of Filing:* Notice of Intent to File Application for a Subsequent License or Application for Exemption from Licensing. 1 1 For an exemption from licensing project, 18 CFR section 4.30(29) requires additional capacity. b. *Project No.:* 2801-000. c. *Date Filed:* October 28, 2004. d. *Submitted By:* Littleville Power Company, Inc.—current licensee. e. *Name of Project:* Glendale Hydroelectric Project. f. *Location:* On the Housatonic River, in the Town of Stockbridge, Berkshire County, Massachusetts. The project uses no federal facilities and occupies no federal lands. g. *Filed Pursuant to:* 18 CFR 16.19(b) of the Commission's regulations. h. *Effective Date of Current License:* November 1, 1979. i. *Expiration Date of Current License:* October 31, 2009. j. *The Project Consists of:*

(1)A reinforced concrete dam 30 feet high and 180 feet long;

(2)a reservoir with a surface area of 40 acres at a normal water surface elevation of 811 feet m.s.l.;

(3)a 1,500-foot-long, 40-foot-wide unlined canal with a mean water depth of 5 feet;

(4)an intake structure leading to a 250-foot-long, 12-foot-diameter steel penstock;

(5)a powerhouse with a concrete foundation and quarry rock walls containing 4 turbine/generator units with a total installed capacity of 1,140 kW;

(6)a 1,500-foot-long, 13.8 kV transmission line; and

(7)appurtenant facilities. k. Pursuant to 18 CFR 16.7, information on the project is available at: Kevin Webb, Littleville Power Company, Inc., One Tech Drive, Suite 220, Andover, MA 01810,

(978)681-1900, extension 809. l. *FERC Contact:* Kristen Murphy,

(202)502-6236, *kristen.murphy@ferc.gov.* m. Pursuant to 18 CFR 16.20 of the Commission's regulations, applications for subsequent license must be filed with the Commission at least 24 months prior to the expiration of the existing license. Applications for license for this project must be filed by October 31, 2007. n. A copy of 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 (P-2801) to access the document. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support at *FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov* or toll-free at 1-866-208-3676, or TTY 202-502-8659. A copy is also available for inspection and reproduction at the address in item k above. o. 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 as shown in the paragraph above. Magalie R. Salas, Secretary. [FR Doc. E4-3250 Filed 11-18-04; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Notice of Application for Transfer of Licenses and Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and Protests November 10, 2004. Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection: a. *Application Type:* Transfer of licenses. b. *Project Nos.:* 1855-028, 1892-018, 1904-038, 2077-045, and 2323-144. c. *Date Filed:* October 29, 2004, as supplemented November 2, 2004. d. *Applicants:* USGen New England, Inc. (USGenNE, Transferor), TransCanada Hydro Northeast Inc. (TC Hydro NE, Transferee). e. *Name and Location of Projects:* Bellows Falls, P-1855: Connecticut River in Windham and Windsor Counties, Vermont and Cheshire and Sullivan Counties, New Hampshire; Wilder, P-1892: Connecticut River in Windsor and Orange Counties, Vermont and Grafton County, New Hampshire; Vernon, P-1904: Connecticut River in Windham County, Vermont and Cheshire County, New Hampshire; Fifteen Mile Falls, P-2077: Connecticut River in Grafton and Coos Counties in New Hampshire and Caledonia and Essex Counties in Vermont; and Deerfield, P-2323: Deerfield River in Windham and Bennington Counties in Vermont and Franklin and Berkshire Counties in Massachusetts. f. *Filed Pursuant to:* Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 791a-825r. g. *Applicant Contacts:* For Transferor: William J. Madden, Jr., John A. Whittaker, IV, Winston & Strawn, 1400 L Street, NW., Washington, DC 20005,

(202)371-5700. For Transferee: Kenneth L. Wiseman, Andrews Kurth LLP, 1701 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Suite 300, Washington, DC 20006,

(202)662-2700. h. *FERC Contact:* James Hunter,

(202)502-6086 i. *Deadline for Filing Comments, Protests, and Motions to Intervene:* December 13, 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(s) 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 applicants seek Commission approval to transfer the licenses for the projects listed in item e. from USGenNE to TC Hydro NE. 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 docket number (P-1855, etc.) 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 eight copies 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. E4-3252 Filed 11-18-04; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. AI05-1-000] Accounting for Pipeline Assessment Costs; Notice of Proposed Accounting Release November 5, 2004. Take notice that the Chief Accountant of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission proposes to issue an Accounting Release (attached) to provide guidance on accounting for pipeline assessment activities. The proposed Accounting Release would require an entity to recognize costs incurred in performing pipeline assessments that are a part of a pipeline integrity management program as maintenance expense and would apply to all Commission jurisdictional entities. The Commission has reviewed the proposed Accounting Release. At the conclusion of the comment period specified at the end of this notice, the Chief Accountant will consider the comments received, make any necessary changes and circulate the proposed final Accounting Release to the Commission for review. Upon the Commission's approval, a final Accounting Release will be issued by the Chief Accountant. All interested parties are invited to send electronic or written comments on all matters in this proposed Accounting Release to the Commission. Comments are requested from those who agree with the provisions of the proposed Accounting Release as well as from those who do not. Comments are most helpful if they identify the issues or specific paragraph or group of paragraphs to which they relate and clearly explain the problem or question. Those who disagree with provisions of this proposed Accounting Release are asked to describe their suggested alternatives, supported by specific reasoning. Specifically, responses to the following questions are requested: 1. The Proposed Accounting Release concludes that pipeline assessment activities performed as part of a pipeline integrity management program should be accounted for as maintenance expense. Do you agree or disagree with the conclusion? If you disagree, please provide your alternative view and basis for it. 2. Are there instances, other than in connection with a major pipeline rehabilitation project, where pipeline assessment costs should be capitalized? If so, please provide particulars of the circumstances under which the costs would qualify for capitalization, the applicable Uniform System of Accounts Instruction and/or other authoritative literature that supports such a determination. 3. This proposed Accounting Release contemplates an effective date of January 1, 2005. Should this Accounting Release instead be applied retroactively for all periods? If so, provide a basis for your conclusion. The Commission encourages electronic submission of comments in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at *http://www.ferc.gov* . Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies of their comments to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the **Federal Register,** the filing is accessible online at *http://www.ferc.gov,* using the “eLibrary” link and is available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an “eSubscription” link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail *FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov,* or call

(866)208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call

(202)502-8659. *Comment Date:* December 20, 2004. Magalie R. Salas, Secretary. Attachment—Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Proposed Accounting Release No. 18 Accounting for Pipeline Assessment Costs Summary 1. This Accounting Release clarifies that the pipeline assessment costs of a pipeline integrity management program are properly accounted for as maintenance and charged to expense in the period incurred. These costs generally include hydrostatic testing, smart pigging, and direct pipeline assessment techniques. Reasons for Issuing Accounting Release 2. The Commission has become aware of diverse practices in accounting for pipeline assessment activities. For example, some entities view pipeline assessments as activities performed specifically for the purpose of testing and reporting on the condition and integrity of the existing pipeline to prevent failure and recognize these costs as maintenance expense. While other entities capitalize some or all pipeline assessment costs where the assessment leads to any property changes that qualify as a capital addition or replacement. These diverse accounting practices reduce the comparability of financial statements among jurisdictional entities and make reviews of existing rates more difficult. This Accounting Release would clarify the proper accounting for pipeline assessment costs, promote comparability of financial information, and reduce uncertainty. Basis for Conclusion 3. Under the requirements of the Commission's Uniform System of Accounts, costs incurred to inspect, test, and report on the condition of existing plant to determine the need for repairs or replacements and testing the adequacy of repairs made are recognized as maintenance expense. 1 Additionally, costs incurred for work performed specifically for the purpose of preventing failure or maintaining the life of plant are recognized as maintenance expense. 2 1 *See* Operating Expense Instruction No. 2, Maintenance, Item No. 2 of 18 CFR parts 101 and 201 (2004). 2 *See* Operating Expense Instruction No. 2, Maintenance, Item No. 3 of 18 CFR parts 101 and 201 (2004). 4. The Commission, however, has permitted the capitalization of pipeline testing costs related to existing plant in certain instances. In response to pipeline safety legislation in 1968, the Chief Accountant issued Accounting Release No. 8 (AR-8). In AR-8, costs incurred under a planned maintenance program to meet the requirements of the legislation were to be treated as maintenance expense. However, entities were allowed to capitalize retest costs in those instances where initial tests of a constructed pipeline did not meet the requirements of the new legislation, making it necessary to retest so that the full capacities of the pipeline could be utilized. When such costs are capitalized all prior testing costs related to the specific property were to be retired in accordance with Gas Plant Instruction No. 10. 5. The Chief Accountant has also permitted entities to capitalize hydrostatic testing costs when the work was done in connection with major pipeline rehabilitation projects involving significant replacements and modifications of facilities. 3 These rehabilitation projects extended the overall pipeline system's useful life and serviceability. Capitalization of pipeline assessment costs in these instances was permitted on the conceptual basis that future accounting periods would be benefited. 4 The pipeline assessment activities in these instances were not, however, associated with any on-going maintenance programs. 3 In Docket No. AC94-149-000, Northwest Pipeline Corporation

(NPC)was permitted to capitalize the costs of pipeline coating and hydrostatic testing costs incurred to rehabilitate its pipeline system. NPC was also permitted to establish retirement units for pipeline costing and hydrostatic testing. When coating costs and hydrostatic testing costs were capitalized as part of a rehabilitation project, NPC was required to retire all prior coating and testing costs in accordance with Gas Plant Instruction No. 10. Capitalization of pipeline assessment activities in this case was permitted as they were considered part of a one-time rehabilitation project which significantly enhanced and increased the life of NPC's pipeline system as a whole, although the work was spread out over a number of years. 4 *See* Statement of Financial Accounting Concepts No. 6, paragraph 25. 6. Natural gas and oil pipelines must now comply with new Federal regulations regarding pipeline integrity management programs issued by the Office of Pipeline Safety

(OPS)of the U.S. Department of Transportation. 5 Under these regulations, natural gas pipeline and hazardous liquid pipeline operators are required to develop, implement, and follow an integrity management program for segments of pipeline in high consequence areas. The pipeline integrity management programs require pipeline companies to

(a)identify and characterize applicable threats to pipeline segments that could impact a high consequence area;

(b)conduct a baseline assessment and periodic re-assessments of these pipeline segments;

(c)mitigate significant defects discovered from the assessment; and

(d)continually monitor the effectiveness of its integrity program and modify the program as needed to improve its effectiveness. To make initial and subsequent assessments, pipeline companies will use hydrostatic tests, smart pigs, or direct assessment activities. 5 49 CFR part 192, Pipeline Safety: Pipeline Integrity Management in High Consequence Areas (Gas Pipelines); Final Rule effective January 14, 2004 and 49 CFR part 195, Pipeline Safety: Pipeline Integrity management in High Consequence Areas (Hazardous Liquid Operators with 500 or more miles of Pipeline); Final Rule effective February 15, 2002. 7. Under OPS's regulations for pipeline integrity management programs, the pipeline assessment activities that pipelines must undertake are to determine the condition of the pipe. If any anomalies are detected, repairs or replacements are then made to maintain and improve pipeline integrity and reliability. The assessment activities required under a pipeline integrity management program constitute steps performed as part of an on-going inspection and testing program. 8. The Commission's accounting rules, as described above, provide that costs incurred to inspect, test and report on the condition of plant to determine the need for repairs or replacements are to be charged to maintenance expense in the period the costs are incurred. We view the various testing techniques that will take place because of the new safety regulations to constitute a work activity falling within our rules for maintenance expense. Further, expenditures for pipeline assessment activities under a pipeline integrity program do not meet the capitalization criteria established by the Commission, as discussed above, as the costs are not incurred as part of a one-time rehabilitation project to extend the useful life of the pipeline system, rather the expenditures are made as part of an on-going inspection and testing or maintenance program. 9. Accordingly, pipeline assessment costs of a pipeline integrity management program are properly accounted for as maintenance and charged to expense in the period incurred. Appendix A includes three examples that illustrate the provisions of this Accounting Release. 10. This Accounting Release shall be effective January 1, 2005. Appendix A—Illustrative Examples of the Application of the Accounting Release Example 1 A pipeline company owns and operates a large pipeline system. The company has established 100 foot lengths of pipe as a retirement unit for purposes of determining when the costs of property changes are to be charged to expense or capitalized as a component of pipeline property. During the year, the Company assesses 100 miles using hydrostatic testing and direct assessment of pipe at a cost of $1.5 million. As a result of the assessment, the company replaces a continuous 2 mile segment of the pipe at a cost of $750,000 and replaces or sleeves 3 other separate sections of the pipeline each being less than 100 feet in length at a total cost of $175,000. At the conclusion of all work, the company hydrostatically tests the affected segments of pipe to appropriate operating pressure at a cost of $150,000. The assessment activity, regardless of whether hydrostatic testing, direct assessment, or other techniques are utilized constitutes work undertaken specifically for the purpose of determining the condition of existing pipeline facilities. Although the assessment did result in identifying a need to replace a segment of line in excess of the designated property unit of 100 feet, only the direct construction costs of $750,000 and a related portion of the hydrostatic testing costs incurred following completion of the construction work should be capitalized. All of the costs incurred to assess the condition of the existing pipeline should be charged to maintenance expense in the period they are incurred. Also, all of the costs of replacing or sleeving the 3 pipe sections that are each less than a retirement unit, including a portion of the related hydrostatic testing costs incurred after completion of the work should be charged to expense in the period incurred. Example 2 A pipeline company owns and operates a large pipeline system. Its pipeline system is comprised of segments with different size pipe and different maximum allowable operating pressures (MAOP). The company is experiencing capacity constraints on certain pipeline segments because of increased demand for gas in markets it serves. The company hydrostatically tests a 5 mile segment of its system to assess its compliance with pipeline safety regulations at a cost of $1,000,000. In conjunction with facility additions of $200,000, the company uses the opportunity provided by the hydrostatic testing to certify an increase in the MAOP of the 5 mile pipeline segment from 750 pounds per square inch gauge

(PSIG)to 1000 PSIG. The increased MAOP of the 5 mile segment now equals the MAOP at the upstream and downstream ends of the pipeline segments of which it is interconnected and the company is able to alleviate an operational constraint and increase the available capacity of its pipeline system. The costs of the hydrostatic test of $1,000,000 should be charged to maintenance expense since they were incurred for the purpose of determining the condition of existing pipeline facilities, a maintenance activity. While a benefit of the assessment activity was an increase in the capacity of the pipeline segment, the company would have had to incur the costs to hydrostatic test the pipeline segment to comply with pipeline safety requirements regardless whether an increase in MAOP resulted. Thus, the company cannot capitalize any of the hydrostatic test costs in this instance. The company would, however, be allowed to capitalize the $200,000 of facility additions. Example 3 A pipeline company previously received approval from the Chief Accountant to capitalize hydrostatic test and smart pigging costs when the work was done in connection with a major pipeline rehabilitation project involving significant replacements and modifications of facilities. The rehabilitation project significantly extended the overall pipeline system's useful life. During 20X1, the Company assesses 50 miles of the eastern leg of its system using hydrostatic testing and smart pigging at a cost of $1.0 million. The assessment was done as part of the pipeline's integrity management program to comply with DOT regulations. As a result of the assessment, the company replaces a continuous 5 mile segment of pipe at a cost of $1.5 million. In addition, the company undertakes a major rehabilitation of the western leg of its system. As a part of the $20 million rehabilitation project, the company incurs $500,000 of hydrostatic test costs to determine the exact nature of replacements to be made, along with incurring $250,000 of hydrostatic test costs to determine that the replacements were adequately made. The costs of the hydrostatic and smart pigging assessment activities performed on the eastern leg of the system of $1.0 million would be expensed as maintenance, since it was performed as a part of the company's integrity management program. The company would be allowed, however, to capitalize the $1.5 million of direct construction costs it incurred, since they replaced a segment of line in excess of the designated property unit of 100 feet. In regards to the major rehabilitation project on the western leg of the company's system, the company would be allowed to capitalize assessment related costs, if it has in place appropriate internal controls for distinguishing between costs incurred related to ongoing assessment activities under its pipeline integrity program and those assessment costs that are a part of a rehabilitation project. As a minimum, in order to qualify for capitalization, the company must have controls in place that clearly define the scope of the rehabilitation project, separately budget for the project as a capital item, provides for a projected completion date for the project and adequately sets forth how costs are assigned to construction projects. If the above capitalization criteria are met, the company would be allowed to capitalize the $500,000 of hydrostatic test costs it incurred to determine the scope of the replacements needed related to the major rehabilitation of the western leg of its system. The company would also be allowed to capitalize the $250,000 of hydrostatic test costs it incurred to determine that the replacements were adequately made. Capitalization of hydrostatic test costs in this instance is appropriate since the rehabilitation project significantly extends the useful life of the western leg of the company's system. Previous testing costs related to the rehabilitated segments would of course be retired in accordance with Gas Plant Instruction No. 10. [FR Doc. E4-3224 Filed 11-18-04; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [ER-FRL-6657-7] Environmental Impact Statements; Notice of Availability *Responsible Agency:* Office of Federal Activities, General Information

(202)564-7167 or *http://www.epa.gov/compliance/nepa.* Weekly receipt of Environmental Impact Statements Filed November 8, 2004, Through November 12, 2004 Pursuant to 40 CFR 1506.9. EIS No. 040445, FINAL EIS, AFS, WY, ID, High Mountains Heli-Skiing

(HMH)Project, Issuance of a New 5-Year Special Use Permit

(SUP)to Continue Operating Guided Helicopter Skiing in Portions of the Bridger-Teton National Forest and Caribou-Targhee National Forest (CTNF), Teton and Lincoln Counties, WY and Teton and Bonneville Counties, ID, Wait Period Ends: December 20, 2004, Contact: Ray Spencer

(307)739-5400. Revision of FR Notice Published on 09/24/2004: CEQ Wait Period Ending 10/25/2004 has been Reestablished to 12/20/2004. Due to Incomplete Distribution of the FEIS at the time of Filing with USEPA under Section 1506.9 of the CEQ Regulations. EIS No. 040527, DRAFT EIS, AFS, IN, German Ridge Restoration Project, To Restore Native Hardwood Communities, Implementation, Hoosier National Forest, Tell City Ranger District, Perry County, IN, Comment Period Ends: January 3, 2005, Contact: Ron Ellis

(812)275-5987. EIS No. 040528, DRAFT EIS, FHW, OH, Eastern Corridor Multi-Modal (Tier 1) Project, To Implement a Multi-Modal Transportation Program between the City of Cincinnati and Eastern Suburbs in Hamilton and Clermont Counties, OH, Comment Period Ends: January 3, 2005, Contact: Mark VonderEmbse

(614)280-6854. EIS No. 040529, DRAFT EIS, COE, MA, Cape Wind Energy Project, Construct and Operate 30 Wind Turbine Generators on Horseshoe Shoal in Nantucket Sound, MA, Comment Period Ends: January 18, 2005, Contact: Karen Adams

(978)318-8338. EIS No. 040530, FINAL EIS, FRC, LA, Sabine Pass Liquefied Natural Gas

(LNG)and Pipeline Project, Construction and Operation LNG Import Terminal and Natural Gas Pipeline Facilities, Several Permits, Cameron Parish, LA, Wait Period Ends: December 20, 2004, Contact: Thomas Russo

(866)208-3372. EIS No. 040531, FINAL EIS, AFS, MO, East Fredericktown Project, To Restore Shortleaf Pine, Improve Forest Health, Treat Affected Stands and Recover Valuable Timber Products, Mark Twain National Forest, Potosi/Fredericktown Ranger District, Bollinger, Madison, St. Francois and Ste. Genevieve Counties, MO, Wait Period Ends: December 20, 2004, Contact: Ronnie Raum

(573)364-4621. EIS No. 040532, FINAL EIS, FHW, IN, IN-25 Transportation Corridor Improvements from I-65 Interchange to U.S. 24, Funding, Right-of -Way and U.S. Army COE Section 404 Permit Issuance, Hoosier Heartland Highway, Tippecanoe, Carroll and Cass Counties, IN, Wait Period Ends: December 20, 2004, Contact: Matt Fuller

(317)226-5234. EIS No. 040533, FINAL EIS, FHW, WA, WA-104/Edmonds Crossing Project, Connecting Ferries, Bus and Rail, Funding, NPDES Permit and COE Section 10 and 404 Permit, City of Edmonds, Snohomish County, WA, Wait Period Ends: December 20, 2004, Contact: Peter Eun

(360)753-955 . EIS No. 040534, FINAL EIS, COE, FL, Picayune Strand Restoration (formerly Southern Golden Gate Estates Ecosystem Restoration), Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan, Implementation, Collier County, FL, Wait Period Ends: December 20, 2004, Contact: Bradley A. Foster

(904)232-2110. EIS No. 040535, DRAFT EIS, AFS, UT, Duck Creek Fuels Treatment Analysis, To Reduce Fuels, Enhance Fire-Tolerant Vegetation and Provide Fuel Breaks, Dixie National Forest, Cedard City Ranger District, Kane County, UT, Comment Period Ends: January 3, 2005, Contact: David Swank

(435)865-3700. Dated: November 16, 2004. Ken Mittelholtz, Environmental Protection Specialist, Office of Federal Activities. [FR Doc. 04-25711 Filed 11-18-04; 8:45 am]

Rules and Regulations. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY