Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 191 / Monday, October 4, 2004 / Notices 59299

supplies could encourage other 

pipelines to expand their systems. 

While no information is available at this 

time about the location or time frames 

of any such projects, expansion of these 

systems could result in more extensive 

environmental impacts than the 

Proposed Action because they would 

require the construction of additional 

pipelines, while the Proposed Action 

would not. Specific impacts from these 

other projects would be speculative, but 

would have to be identified and 

analyzed during the regulatory process 

for these other projects. 

Under the second scenario, one or 

more Rocky Mountain refineries could 

close. These refineries are currently 

evaluating their ability to comply with 

new environmental requirements. To 

comply they must either invest in 

facility upgrades or obtain a source of 

higher quality petroleum that enables 

them to comply without major capital 

investment. The Proposed Action would 

expand access to a wide variety of high 

quality petroleum supply that complies 

with the new environmental objectives. 

The Express Pipeline also transports 

petroleum on a batched basis, which 

meets the smaller refiners’ need for 

specialized petroleum. It is possible that 

one or more of these refineries could 

close under the No Action alternative.

Under the third scenario, an entirely 

new refined product pipeline could be 

constructed from Canada to the United 

States. The construction of an entirely 

new pipeline would likely result in 

more extensive environmental impacts 

than the installation of additional pump 

stations on the existing Express 

Pipeline. The specific impacts would be 

speculative and would have to be 

identified and evaluated during the 

regulatory process for these other 

projects. 

Cummulative Effects 

Cumulative effects are the impacts on 

the environment that result from an 

incremental impact of the Proposed 

Action when added to other past, 

present and reasonably foreseeable 

actions. Examples of such actions would 

include the past construction and 

operation of the Express Pipeline; other 

pipelines proposed for construction 

near the Express Pipeline; upgrades of 

existing highways in the vicinity of the 

proposed pump stations; and 

construction or upgrades of 

transmission lines in the vicinity of the 

proposed pump stations. 

The Express Pipeline was constructed 

in 1996 and has been in operation since 

1997. The Express Pipeline has 

provided positive economic benefits to 

local communities, local power 

providers, the States of Montana and 

Wyoming through ad valorem taxes, and 

improved petroleum supply to Montana 

refiners. Environmental impacts from 

construction of the pipeline have been 

largely mitigated, and there have been 

no major operational problems with the 

pipeline. 

No other petroleum pipelines are 

known to be proposed for construction 

in the vicinity of the Express Pipeline. 

No substantial upgrades (i.e., not 

including normal maintenance and 

resurface operations, which are shortterm activities) are scheduled for any of 

the public highways in the vicinity of 

the proposed pump stations for the next 

two years. Thus there would be no 

conflicts with the Proposed Action in 

terms of use of temporary housing or 

short-term population increases. It is 

assumed that environmental impacts of 

any new highway construction projects 

would be addressed by separate analysis 

documents. 

There are no known proposals to 

construct or upgrade electric 

transmission lines in the vicinity of the 

proposed pump stations, except for the 

transmission lines that would directly 

supply the proposed pump stations. It is 

assumed that environmental impacts of 

any transmission line projects would be 

addressed by separate analysis 

documents. If it assumed that the 

transmission lines that would supply 

electrical power to the proposed pump 

stations were constructed in the same 

time frame as the proposed pump 

stations, there could be increased shortterm socioeconomic benefits to the 

States of Montana and Wyoming, as 

well as counties and local communities, 

but there could also be shortages of 

temporary housing for construction 

workers, depending on the number of 

workers employed for transmission line 

construction, and the season of 

construction. 

Unavoidable Adverse Impacts 

Construction of the Proposed Action 

would result in some short-term direct 

and indirect unavoidable impacts. 

Temporary impacts to wildlife and 

visual resources during construction 

could not be avoided. Soil and 

vegetation would be removed, and 

agricultural productivity would be lost, 

on a maximum of 1.24 acres at each 

proposed pump station over the life of 

the project, but restored per the 

mitigation measures described here-in. 

All such impacts would be mitigated as 

described above. 

Conclusion 

On the basis of the Final 

Environmental Assessment submitted 

by the sponsor, the Department’s 

independent review of that assessment, 

information developed during the 

review of the application and 

Environmental Assessment, comments 

received by the Department from 

Federal and State agencies, and 

measures that Express and Terasen are 

prepared to undertake to prevent or 

mitigate potentially adverse 

environmental impacts, the Department 

has concluded that issuance of a 

Presidential Permit authorizing 

construction and operation of the 

proposed Express Pipeline capacity 

increase would not have a significant 

impact on the quality of the human 

environment within the United States. 

Accordingly, a Finding of No Significant 

Impact is adopted and an 

Environmental Impact Statement will 

not be prepared. 

The Final Environmental Assessment 

addressing this action is incorporated by 

reference and is on file and may be 

reviewed by interested parties at the 

Department of State, 2201 C Street NW., 

Room 3535, Washington, DC 20520 

(Attn: Mr. Pedro Erviti, Tel. 202–647–

1291).

Dated: September 24, 2004. 

Stephen J. Gallogly, 

Director, Office of Energy & Commodity 

Policy, Bureau of Economic and Business 

Affairs, Department of State.

[FR Doc. 04–22241 Filed 10–1–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4710–07–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration 

Commercial Space Transportation 

Advisory Committee—Open Meeting

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of Commercial Space 

Transportation Advisory Committee 

open meeting. 

SUMMARY: Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of 

the Federal Advisory Committee Act 

(Pub. L. 92–463, 5 U.S.C. App. 2), notice 

is hereby given of a meeting of the 

Commercial Space Transportation 

Advisory Committee (COMSTAC). The 

meeting will take place on Wednesday, 

October 27, 2004, starting at 8 a.m. at 

the Federal Aviation Administration 

Headquarters Building, 800 

Independence Avenue, SW., 

Washington, DC, in the Bessie Coleman 

Conference Center, 2nd Floor. This will 

be the fortieth meeting of the 

COMSTAC. 

The proposed agenda for the meeting 

will include updates on current 

59300 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 191 / Monday, October 4, 2004 / Notices 

commercial space transportation 

legislation, and an activities report from 

FAA’s Associate Administrator for 

Commercial Space Transportation. An 

agenda will be posted on the FAA Web 

site at http://ast.faa.gov. Meetings of the 

COMSTAC Working Groups 

(Technology and Innovation, Reusable 

Launch Vehicle, Risk Management, and 

Launch Operations and Support) will be 

held on Tuesday, October 26, 2004. For 

specific information concerning the 

times and locations of the working 

group meetings, contact the Contact 

Person listed below. 

Individuals who plan to attend and 

need special assistance, such as sign 

language interpretation or other 

reasonable accommodations, should 

inform the Contact Person listed below 

in advance of the meeting.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Brenda Parker (AST–200), Office of the 

Associate Administrator for Commercial 

Space Transportation (AST), 800 

Independence Avenue, SW., Room 331, 

Washington, DC 20591, telephone (202) 

385–4713; e-mail 

brenda.parker@faa.dot.gov.

Issued in Washington, DC, September 28, 

2004. 

Patricia G. Smith, 

Associate Administrator for Commercial 

Space Transportation.

[FR Doc. 04–22277 Filed 10–1–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Highway Administration 

Environmental Impact Statement: 

Etowah County, AL

AGENCY: Federal Highway 

Administration (FHWA), Department of 

Transportation.

ACTION: Notice of intent.

SUMMARY: The FHWA is issuing this 

notice to advise the public that an 

Environmental Impact Statement will be 

prepared for a proposed highway project 

in Etowah County, Alabama. This 

Notice of Intent (NOI) supersedes a NOI 

for this proposed project that was issued 

by the FHWA in the Federal Register

dated May 29, 2001 (Volume 66, 

Number 103) Public involvement and 

coordination activities on the original 

proposal have resulted in a change in 

the scope of the project that should 

better meet the needs of local 

community and impacted 

neighborhoods.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

Joe D. Wilkerson, Division 

Administrator, Federal Highway 

Administration, 500 Eastern Boulevard, 

Suite 200, Montgomery, Alabama 36117, 

Telephone: (334) 223–7370.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

FHWA, in cooperation with the State of 

Alabama Department of Transportation, 

will prepare an Environmental Impact 

Statement (EIS) for Alabama Project 

HPP–1602 (539), old project number 

NHF–PE 94 (2). The proposal is to 

construct a limited access facility from 

the eastern terminus of Interstate 

Highway 759 (I–759) near George 

Wallace Drive to an interchange with 

U.S. Highway 431 and U.S. Highway 

278 in the city of Gadsden, Alabama. 

The project will be a multi-lane 

roadway on new location. The proposal 

will allow traffic from I–759 to flow 

through the city of Gadsden. 

Alternatives under consideration 

include (1) alternate route locations, (2) 

a no-action alternative, and (3) 

postponing the action. 

Letters describing the proposed action 

and soliciting comments will be sent to 

appropriate Federal, State, and local 

agencies and to private organizations 

and citizens that have previously 

expressed or are known to have an 

interest in this proposal. A public 

involvement meeting and a public 

hearing will be held in the city of 

Gadsden. Public notice with be given of 

the time and place for the meeting and 

hearing. A formal scoping meeting will 

not be held. 

To ensure that the full range of issues 

related to this proposed action are 

addressed and all significant issues 

identified, comments and suggestions 

are invited from all interested parties. 

Comments or questions concerning this 

proposed action and the EIS should be 

directed to the FHWA at the address 

provided above.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance 

Program Number 20.205, Highway Planning 

and Construction. The regulations 

implementing Executive Order 12372 

regarding intergovernmental consultation on 

Federal programs and activities apply to this 

program.) 

Issued on: September 21, 2004. 

Joe D. Wilkerson, 

Division Administrator, Montgomery, 

Alabama.

[FR Doc. 04–22181 Filed 10–1–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–22–M

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration 

Petition for Exemption from the 

Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard; 

Nissan North America, Inc.

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration (NHTSA), 

Department of Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Grant of petition for exemption.

SUMMARY: This notice grants in full the 

petition of Nissan North America, Inc., 

(Nissan) for an exemption of a high-theft 

vehicle line, [whose nameplate is 

confidential], from the parts-marking 

requirements of the Federal motor 

vehicle theft prevention standard. This 

petition is granted because the agency 

has determined that the antitheft device 

to be placed on the line as standard 

equipment is likely to be as effective in 

reducing and deterring motor vehicle 

theft as compliance with the partsmarking requirements of the Theft 

Prevention Standard. Nissan requested 

confidential treatment for the 

information and attachments it 

submitted in support of its petition. In 

a letter dated July 23, 2004, the agency 

granted the petitioner’s request for 

confidential treatment of most aspects of 

its petition.

DATES: The exemption granted by this 

notice is effective beginning with the 

[confidential] model year.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. 

Rosalind Proctor, Office of International 

Policy, Fuel Economy and Consumer 

Programs, NHTSA, 400 Seventh Street, 

SW., Washington, DC 20590. Ms. 

Proctor’s telephone number is (202) 

366–0846. Her fax number is (202) 493–

2290.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In a 

petition dated June 23, 2004, Nissan 

North America, Inc. (Nissan), requested 

exemption from the parts-marking 

requirements of the theft prevention 

standard (49 CFR Part 541) for a vehicle 

line. The nameplate of the line and the 

model year of introduction are 

confidential. The petition has been filed 

pursuant to 49 CFR Part 543, Exemption 

from Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard, 

based on the installation of an antitheft 

device as standard equipment for an 

entire vehicle line. Based on the 

evidence submitted by Nissan, the 

agency believes that the antitheft device 

for the vehicle line is likely to be as 

effective in reducing and deterring 

motor vehicle theft as compliance with 

the parts-marking requirements of the 

theft prevention standard (49 CFR Part 

541).