59292 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 191 / Monday, October 4, 2004 / Notices 

II. The information collection listed 

below has been submitted to OMB for 

clearance. 

Your comments on the information 

collection would be most useful if 

received by OMB and SSA within 30 

days from the date of this publication. 

You can obtain a copy of the OMB 

clearance package by calling the SSA 

Reports Clearance Officer at 410–965–

0454, or by writing to the address listed 

above.

Request for Waiver of Special 

Veterans Benefits (SVB) Overpayment 

Recovery or Change in Repayment 

Rate—0960—NEW

Background 

Section 251 of the Foster Care 

Independence Act of 1999, Pub. L. 106–

169, added Title VIII (Special Benefits 

for Certain World War II veterans) to the 

Social Security Act. Title VIII allows for 

the payments of monthly benefits to 

qualified World War II veterans who 

reside outside the United States. When 

an overpayment in SVB occurs, the 

beneficiary can request a waiver of 

recovery of the overpayment or a change 

in the overpayment rate. 

The Information Collection 

Form SSA–2032–BK will be used by 

SSA to obtain the information necessary 

to determine whether the provisions of 

the Act regarding waiver of recovery of 

the overpayment are met. The 

information on the form is needed to 

determine a repayment rate if 

repayment cannot be waived. The 

information will be collected by 

personnel in SSA field offices, U.S. 

Embassies or consulates, or the Veterans 

Affairs Regional Office in the 

Philippines. Respondents to the SSA–

2032 are beneficiaries who have 

overpayments on their Title VIII record 

and wish to file a claim for waiver of 

recovery or change in repayment rate. 

Type of Request: New Information 

Collection. 

Number of Respondents: 39. 

Frequency of Response: 1. 

Average Burden Per Response: 120 

minutes. 

Estimated Annual Burden: 78 hours.

Dated: September 28, 2004. 

Elizabeth A. Davidson, 

Reports Clearance Officer, Social Security 

Administration.

[FR Doc. 04–22219 Filed 10–1–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4191–02–P

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice 4849] 

Notice of Finding of No Significant 

Impact and Summary Environmental 

Assessment: Express Pipeline in 

Montana and Wyoming

AGENCY: Department of State, Office of 

International Energy and Commodities 

Policy.

ACTION: Notice.

The proposed action is to issue a 

Presidential Permit to Express Pipeline 

LLC (‘‘Express’’) to authorize it to 

construct, connect, operate and 

maintain six new pump stations for an 

existing 24-inch outer diameter pipeline 

to convey crude petroleum from 

Hardisty, Alberta in Canada, to Casper, 

Wyoming. The Department of State (the 

‘‘Department’’) issued a Presidential 

Permit on August 30, 1996 to construct, 

connect, operate, and maintain the 24-

inch-diameter buried steel pipeline that 

is currently capable of transporting 

172,000 bpd of petroleum from 

Hardisty, Alberta, Canada to Casper, 

Wyoming. On behalf of Express, 

Westech Environmental Services of 

Helena, Montana, prepared a draft 

environmental assessment (‘‘EA’’) for 

the proposed action under the guidance 

and supervision of the Department. The 

Department placed a notice in the 

Federal Register (69 FR 33691 (June 16, 

2004)) regarding the availability for 

inspection of the Express permit 

application and the draft environmental 

assessment, and initiating a 30-day 

public comment period. No public 

comments were submitted on the draft 

environmental assessment. 

Numerous Federal and State agencies 

independently reviewed the Express 

Permit application and the draft 

environmental assessment. They 

include: the Environmental Protection 

Agency, the Department of 

Transportation, the Department of the 

Interior, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, the U.S. Department of 

Homeland Security, the Department of 

Defense, the Department of Commerce 

and the Department of Energy. 

Comments received from the Federal 

and State agencies were either 

responded to directly, or addressed 

directly by incorporation into the 

analysis contained in the draft 

environmental assessment. In addition 

to inclusion in the analyses of impacts 

and risks, Federal and State agency 

comments were used to develop 

measures to be undertaken by Express to 

prevent or mitigate potentially adverse 

environmental impacts, which were 

included as commitments by Express 

and its operator Terasen Pipelines, Inc., 

in the EA and are to be included in the 

permit to be issued. 

The summary environmental 

assessment, comments submitted by the 

Federal and State agencies, responses to 

those comments, and the draft 

environmental assessment, as amended, 

together constitute the Final 

Environmental Assessment of the 

proposed action. 

Introduction 

The Express Pipeline is a 24-inchdiameter buried steel pipeline currently 

capable of transporting approximately 

172,000 bpd of petroleum from 

Hardisty, Alberta, Canada to Casper, 

Wyoming. The U.S. portion of the 

Express Pipeline was authorized by a 

Presidential Permit issued by the 

Department on August 30, 1996 which 

permitted the operation of five pump 

stations, several mainline valves and 

other pipeline related facilities on the 

basis of an environmental impact 

statement that is an annex to this 

environmental assessment. The Express 

Pipeline was constructed in the fall and 

winter of 1996–1997, and became 

operational in early 1997. 

The 1996 Presidential Permit was 

issued to Express Pipeline partnership, 

a Delaware partnership. On August 1, 

2001, Express Pipeline partnership filed 

a certificate of conversion to a limited 

liability company with the Delaware 

Secretary of State, thereby automatically 

converting to a domestic limited 

liability company, Express Pipeline 

LLC. On January 9, 2003, Encana 

Corporation of British Columbia sold 

Express Pipeline LLC to a consortium 

comprised of Terasen, Inc., of British 

Columbia, the Ontario Municipal 

Employees Retirement System and the 

Ontario Teachers Pension Plan Board, 

each holding an equal one-third interest. 

Terasen Pipelines (USA) Inc., 

(‘‘Terasen’’) operates and maintains the 

existing system on behalf of Express 

Pipeline LLC. 

Express Pipeline LLC (‘‘Express’’) 

owns the portion of the Express Pipeline 

system from the Canada/U.S. border to 

Casper, Wyoming. Express is now 

applying for a Presidential Permit from 

the U.S. Department of State to 

construct, operate and maintain six 

additional pump stations on the Express 

Pipeline in Montana and Wyoming and 

to transfer the existing Presidential 

Permit from Express Pipeline 

partnership to Express (the ‘‘Proposed 

Action’’). This expansion of the capacity 

of the Express Pipeline in the United 

States would enable Express to respond 

to the market demand of Rocky 

Mountain and Midwest refiners for 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 191 / Monday, October 4, 2004 / Notices 59293

increased access to a wider diversity 

and additional supply of Canadian 

petroleum. 

Subsequent engineering and 

operational analysis demonstrated that, 

in conjunction with the Proposed 

Action, two new 150,000 barrel storage 

tanks would be needed at the existing 

Casper Station Tank Farm located in 

Casper, Wyoming to accommodate the 

additional volumes of petroleum. The 

Casper Station Tank Farm is owned by 

Platte Pipe Line Company (‘‘Platte’’), an 

affiliate of Express. Because, according 

to Express, these storage tanks would be 

located beyond the terminus of the 

Express Pipeline system (i.e., they 

would be part of the Platte Pipeline 

system), they were not included within 

the scope of Express’ proposal for which 

it seeks a Presidential Permit from the 

Department. After thoroughly 

considering all factors, the Department 

has concluded that the two additional 

storage tanks at the Casper Station Tank 

Farm are not within the scope of the 

Proposed Action and therefore will not 

be subject to the Presidential Permit, 

once issued. The environmental 

consequences of construction, operation 

and maintenance of the two storage 

tanks are evaluated in conjunction with 

the Proposed Action, however. 

Purpose and Need

The Express Pipeline was constructed 

to meet the requirements of refiners in 

the U.S., particularly in the Rocky 

Mountain and Midwest regions, by 

providing new sources of Canadian 

petroleum to numerous markets 

including Montana, Wyoming, Utah, 

Colorado, Kansas and Illinois. The 

Express Pipeline system is consistently 

operating at or near its maximum 

capacity in its current configuration. 

Market demand for additional Canadian 

petroleum supplies continues to grow. 

The Express Pipeline cannot meet the 

increased demand in its current 

configuration. The construction of 

additional pump stations along the 

existing, permitted Express Pipeline 

right-of-way (‘‘ROW’’), along with 

construction of two new storage tanks at 

the Casper Station Tank Farm, would 

result in the expansion of capacity 

necessary to enable Express Pipeline to 

transport additional petroleum to these 

markets. Without greater supply 

diversity and reliability of access to 

additional supply, the potential that the 

consumer will enjoy the availability of 

more competitively priced refined 

products could be substantially reduced 

and the refiners’ ability to comply with 

more rigorous refined product 

specifications could be hindered. 

Project Background 

The increased demand for Canadian 

petroleum was anticipated at the time 

the Express Pipeline was originally 

proposed in 1993. The entire Express 

Pipeline system from Hardisty, Alberta 

to Casper, Wyoming was originally 

designed for an ultimate capacity of 

approximately 280,000 barrels per day 

(‘‘bpd’’), depending on the 

characteristics of the petroleum being 

transported. Accordingly, the original 

design of the Express Pipeline system 

called for 11 pump stations to be located 

in the United States. 

Although the Express Pipeline system 

was designed for an ultimate capacity of 

approximately 280,000 bpd, it was 

originally constructed to transport 

approximately 172,000 bpd, in response 

to the anticipated market demand in 

1996. Consequently, only five of the 11 

pump stations planned for location in 

the U.S. were needed when the pipeline 

was constructed. 

Mainline valves were installed at the 

locations of the six remaining pump 

stations in order to allow the future 

addition of the remaining pump stations 

without requiring substantial alteration 

or reconstruction of the pipeline itself. 

To maintain the hydraulic efficiency 

of the pipeline system as currently 

designed, the remaining six pump 

stations in the U.S. would need to be 

placed at the locations originally 

planned. Three of the six new pump 

stations will be located on public land 

administered by the U.S. Department of 

the Interior, Bureau of Land 

Management (‘‘BLM’’). The BLM 

evaluated the environmental 

consequences of constructing and 

operating pipeline facilities in the 

Express Crude Oil Draft Environmental 

Impact Statement. Since environmental 

conditions at the three BLMadministered sites have not materially 

changed from those reflected in the 

DEIS, BLM issued a ‘‘Notice to Proceed’’

with construction of these pump 

stations on October 14, 2003. 

The three pump stations on nonfederal land would all be constructed 

within the certified 500-foot-wide 

Express Pipeline corridor. Express owns 

or has obtained easements on the land 

at these three proposed pump stations. 

The general discussion of impacts and 

mitigation measures for the pump 

stations on non-federal land set forth 

below would also be relevant to the 

pump stations on Federal land. 

Description of Alternatives 

Alternatives Considered but Eliminated 

From Further Analysis 

Three action alternatives were 

considered but eliminated from further 

analysis for the reasons discussed 

below. 

(1) Looping the Express Pipeline 

‘‘Looping’’ allows an existing pipeline 

system to expand its capacity by 

constructing a second, generally parallel 

pipeline alongside the existing pipeline. 

Looping is utilized when the existing 

pipeline does not have the potential 

capacity to transport additional 

petroleum. The two pipelines could be 

located in the same ROW, although they 

would be offset far enough so that 

construction activities on the second 

pipeline would not disturb the existing 

pipeline. The two pipelines may share 

certain facilities, such as an operations 

center. 

Looping is a major construction 

activity that has the potential for 

environmental impacts equal to those 

encountered during construction of the 

original pipeline. For example, if the 

Express Pipeline was looped only along 

the U.S. portion of the pipeline, 

approximately 515 miles of new 

pipeline along with pump stations, 

mainline valves and other facilities 

would have to be constructed. The 

pipeline would have to cross 137 named 

perennial, intermittent or ephemeral 

rivers and streams, as well as 354 

named or unnamed drainages, 

irrigations canals or ditches. There 

could be potential impacts to land use 

activities along the pipeline, to wildlife 

and fisheries habitat (including 

endangered or threatened species), to 

soils and cultural resources, as well as 

socioeconomic burdens on the existing 

infrastructure, such as temporary 

housing and road systems. Looping 

would require a minimum of two years 

to design the new pipeline and 

facilities, conduct a thorough 

environmental impact analysis, obtain 

construction easements and other 

permits, acquire the pipe and other 

materials, hire pipeline contractors, 

construct the pipeline and rehabilitate 

disturbed areas after construction. 

In the case of the Express Pipeline, 

looping would not be necessary because 

the Express Pipeline system was 

conceived and designed for an ultimate 

capacity of approximately 280,000 bpd, 

assuming 18 pump stations in Canada 

and the U.S. In other words, the Express 

Pipeline system could be expanded 

simply by adding nine pump stations 

(three in Canada and six in the U.S.) at 

sites where mainline valves were placed 

59294 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 191 / Monday, October 4, 2004 / Notices 

during construction of the original 

pipeline. The potential environmental 

impacts associated with constructing an 

entire pipeline would be avoided, and 

additional petroleum supplies could 

reach U.S. refiners within a few months, 

rather than a minimum of two years. 

Consequently, looping was eliminated 

as a possible alternative from further 

analysis.

(2) A New Pipeline on an Alternative 

Route 

The Express Pipeline system 

transports petroleum from Hardisty, 

Alberta, Canada to Casper, Wyoming, 

crossing the Canada/U.S. border near 

the Port of Wild Horse. As part of the 

pre-construction environmental impact 

analysis for the Express Pipeline, the 

Express Crude Oil Draft Environmental 

Impact Statement evaluated three 

alternative points of entry into the U.S.: 

one located approximately 120 miles 

west of Wild Horse, and the other two 

located approximately 65 and 120 miles 

east of Wild Horse respectively. The 

Express Crude Oil Draft Environmental 

Impact Statement concluded that these 

alternative routes would add additional 

length and cost to the Express Pipeline 

system without providing any 

environmental or engineering benefits. 

These same three entry points are still 

potentially available for an alternative 

pipeline route. However, use of any of 

these entry points would require 

construction of a new pipeline on the 

Canada portion of the Express Pipeline 

system as well as a new pipeline on the 

U.S. portion (in effect, construction of 

an entirely new Express Pipeline 

system). Any such pipeline system 

would be longer than the existing 

pipeline, would require substantial 

engineering and environmental study 

and design in both Canada and the U.S. 

that would delay construction of the 

project for several years, and (as stated 

in the Express Crude Oil Draft 

Environmental Impact Statement) 

would not provide any environmental 

or engineering benefits on the U.S. 

portion of the project. In addition, as 

discussed previously, a new pipeline 

would not be necessary to obtain the 

additional petroleum supplies for U.S. 

refiners, since the existing Express 

Pipeline system could provide those 

supplies by the simple addition of nine 

pump stations (three in Canada and six 

in the U.S.). Therefore, a new pipeline 

on an alternative route was also 

eliminated as an alternative from further 

analysis. 

(3) Alternative Pump Station Locations 

The original Express Pipeline was 

designed for an ultimate capacity of 

approximately 280,000 bpd, which 

would require a total of 18 pump 

stations in Canada and the U.S. The 

location of each of the 18 pump stations 

was selected when the Express Pipeline 

was originally designed to minimize 

environmental impact and maximize 

both the capacity and efficiency of the 

system. To achieve the initial capacity 

of approximately 172,000 bpd, nine of 

the 18 pump stations were constructed 

in 1996, four pump stations in Canada 

and five pump stations in the United 

States. To maintain the hydraulic 

efficiency of the pipeline system as it 

was originally designed, the remaining 

nine pump stations (three in Canada, six 

in the U.S.) must be placed at the 

intervals as originally planned. 

The proposed pump station sites 

addressed in the Proposed Action were 

selected not only for their hydraulic 

efficiency but to minimize 

environmental impacts. The pump 

stations locations were deliberately 

selected to avoid impacts to the 

following land uses:

• National Wilderness Area 

• National Primitive Area 

• Designated or Undesignated Roadless 

Areas Greater Than 5,000 Acres 

• National Wild and Scenic Rivers 

(‘‘WSR’’) 

• Rivers Under Study for the WSR 

System 

• National Wildlife Refuges or Ranges 

• National or State Recreation Areas 

• National Trails 

• National Historic Landmarks/National 

Register Historic Districts or Sites 

• State Historic Preservation Office 

(‘‘SHPO’’) Historic Districts or Sites 

• Designated Habitat for Federally 

Listed, Proposed or Candidate 

Endangered or Threatened Species 

• Habitats Occupied Seasonally by 

Federally Listed, Proposed or 

Candidate Endangered or Threatened 

Species 

• Habitats Critical to Species of Special 

Interest or Concern 

• Unique Habitats or Natural Areas 

• Wetlands 

• Federal or State Waterfowl Production 

Areas 

• Areas With High Waterfowl Density 

• State Game Ranges and Game 

Management Areas 

• Big Game Winter Ranges 

• Big Game Summer Security Areas 

• Grouse Leks or Severe Winter 

Concentration Areas 

• Bird Nesting Colonies 

• Riparian Forests 

• Conservation Easements

• Sites Funded by the Land and Water 

Conservation Fund or Urban Park and 

Recreation Recovery Programs 

• Water Bodies Larger Than 20 Acres 

• Municipal Watersheds 

• Surface Supplies of Potable Waters 

• Active Faults Showing Evidence of 

Post-Micoene Movement 

• Rugged Topography With Slopes 

Greater Than 15% 

• Erodible Soils, Areas with Severe 

Reclamation Constraints 

• Undeveloped Natural Features 

• Avalanche Chutes 

• Permitted Surface Mining Areas 

• Geological Formations with High 

Probability of Paleontological 

Resources 

• Sites of Religious or Heritage 

Significance to Native Americans 

• Schools or Future School Sites 

• Agricultural Experiment Stations 

• Prime or Unique Farmland and 

Orchards 

• Scenic Overlooks and Scenic 

Highways 

• Areas of Conflict with Published 

Visual Management Plans 

• Limited Access Areas

Because of the placement of the 

existing pump stations, any change in 

the locations of the proposed pump 

stations would interfere with the 

hydraulics and performance of the 

entire pipeline system. Changing the 

locations of the proposed pump stations 

would not provide any engineering or 

environmental benefits. Consequently, 

use of alternative pump station 

locations were eliminated as an 

alternative from further analysis. 

In sum, there do not appear to be any 

alternatives other than the Proposed 

Action and a No Action alternative. The 

design of the pump stations as described 

in the Proposed Action represents the 

most efficient use of the available site 

lands and minimizes environmental 

impacts associated with construction, 

operation and maintenance of the pump 

stations. Other alternatives that would 

increase pipeline capacity are less 

desirable from an environmental 

standpoint. Putting the six pump 

stations at new locations would entail 

much more invasive construction than 

that required at the locations already 

identified and moving the pipeline 

would be even more environmentally 

disruptive. Accordingly, there are no 

other alternatives that would meet the 

requirements of the Proposed Action 

and therefore this EA considers only the 

Proposed Action and a No Action 

alternative. 

Proposed Action 

The physical design of the pump 

station facilities would be similar to the 

originally constructed stations, although 

the footprint of the new pump stations 

would be smaller than that of the 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 191 / Monday, October 4, 2004 / Notices 59295

existing pump stations. Each proposed 

pump station would require about 5.74 

acres of land during construction, while 

the post-construction area of each pump 

station would be about 1.24 acres. Each 

site has previously been entirely or 

partially disturbed by agricultural 

activities and the construction of the 

Express Pipeline. 

The stations would be constructed 

adjacent to existing mainline valves, in 

fenced and graveled station yards. 

Electrical supply lines and substations 

would provide the power required for 

the pump stations and would be 

permitted, constructed and maintained 

by local electrical utility companies. 

Each pump station would have two 

5,000 horsepower electric motor-driven 

pumps located above ground on 

concrete pads, and coated at the factory 

with protective paint to prevent 

corrosion. Each pump would have a 

pump seal. Additional equipment at 

each station would include piping, a 

double-walled sump tank, electrical 

controls, process instrumentation, data 

collection and communication 

equipment. An electrical building 

would be constructed at each pump 

station to house electrical equipment 

including switchgear, motor controls 

and Supervisory Control and Data 

Acquisition (‘‘SCADA’’) equipment. 

Each of the proposed pump stations 

would be equipped with a SCADA 

system to control and monitor the 

station. A satellite dish would be 

installed to maintain the 

communication link with the Edmonton 

Control Center. Collected data would be 

relayed to the Control Center in 

Edmonton, Alberta where Control 

Center Operators monitor the status of 

the stations and pipeline. The 

Edmonton Control Center is a 24-hour 

staffed facility, and has full control of 

all the station equipment including the 

capability to start and stop station 

pumps, and close and open station 

valves. 

Express and Terasen have agreed to 

test each pump station hydrostatically 

to ensure system integrity prior to 

operation. The pump stations would be 

maintained and operated in accordance 

with the standards set forth in the 

General Operations Management Plan 

that are applicable to the existing 

stations. All manuals, including the 

Express/Platte Emergency Response 

Plan (‘‘ERP’’) required by the U.S. 

Department of Transportation (‘‘U.S. 

DOT’’), would be updated to reflect the 

addition of these proposed stations. 

In addition, the storage tanks would 

be constructed at the Casper Station 

Tank Farm. Other possible locations 

outside the Casper Tank Farm boundary 

would reduce the efficiency of the 

transfer of petroleum from the Express 

Pipeline system to the Platte Pipeline 

system because it would lengthen the 

distance to the refineries as well as 

increase costs and opportunities for 

system failure. In addition, locating the 

storage tanks within the Casper Tank 

Farm, which has been disturbed by past 

and on-going activities with the existing 

tanks, would minimize potential 

environmental impacts from 

construction and operation of the tanks 

while allowing quick response from 

Terasen personnel and equipment in the 

event of an emergency. 

The project facilities would consist of 

two 150,000-barrel storage tanks, leak 

detection system, spill-containment 

dikes, impervious liners, piping, control 

valves, manifold piping and site 

lighting. Electrical service would be 

provided by an extension from the 

distribution center in Platte’s station 

yard, or from an adjacent transmission 

line. Other facilities such as an access 

road, control and quality assurance 

buildings and satellite dish are already 

in place in the Casper Station Tank 

Farm. A secure 6-foot chain link fence 

surrounds the entire complex.

Like the pump stations, Express and 

Terasen have agreed to hydrostatically 

test the storage tank facilities prior to 

operation to ensure system integrity. 

According to Express and Terasen, the 

new storage tanks would be operated in 

accordance with appropriate manuals 

and procedures for the Casper Station 

Tank Farm. Further they state that all 

manuals, including the Express/Platte 

ERP required by the U.S. DOT, would be 

updated to reflect the addition of these 

additional storage tanks. 

No Action Alternative 

The No Action Alternative would 

mean that the additional pump stations 

and storage tanks would not be 

constructed. There would be no 

additional environmental impacts under 

the No Action alternative. However, 

there would be no beneficial economic 

effects because the pipeline capacity 

would remain unchanged. 

Environmental Impacts and Mitigation 

Measures 

Proposed Action 

Construction and normal operation of 

the Proposed Action would have 

beneficial economic impacts. 

Temporary socioeconomic benefits 

would flow to the local economy during 

the construction period and would 

result in a temporary increase in local 

personal income. Local motels, 

restaurants, retail outlets and recreation 

providers would be the primary 

recipients of these benefits. 

Over the long-term, the state of 

Montana and respective counties would 

receive additional tax benefits as a 

result of the ad valorem tax that would 

be assessed on the three proposed 

stations on private land. It is estimated 

that the ad valorem tax would be 

approximately $225,000 per station per 

year. 

The construction of the proposed 

pump stations would increase the 

throughput capacity of the Express 

Pipeline, increasing the pipeline’s 

ability to deliver high quality Canadian 

petroleum to refiners in PADD II and 

PADD IV including Montana, Wyoming, 

Utah, Colorado, Kansas and Illinois. 

This would enable these refiners to 

access additional quantities of 

specialized petroleum, enhancing their 

ability to meet increasingly stringent 

refined product quality requirements. 

The Proposed Action would also 

provide the refiners access to an 

increased number of potential suppliers, 

and potentially longer-term supply 

sources at tolls that would be 

competitive with alternative routes. 

Based on the draft environmental 

assessment prepared by Westech 

Environmental Services on behalf of 

Express, normal operation of the 

Proposed Action would have no 

significant adverse impacts on climate, 

air quality noise, geology, wetlands and 

riparian areas, navigable waters, 

floodplains, plant species of special 

concern/sensitive communities, noxious 

weeds, threatened or endangered 

species, land use, transportation, 

socioeconomics, population and 

housing, recreation, and cultural and 

paleontological resources. This 

document lays out the minimal impacts 

that have been identified in the 

environmental assessment. 

Water Resources: There may be shortterm impacts from construction of the 

Proposed Action to water resources as a 

result of runoff and sedimentation 

during construction or hydrostatic 

testing. Express and Terasen have 

agreed to undertake the following 

measures to mitigate impacts to surface 

water for the proposed pump stations: 

• During construction, drainage 

control structures (ditches, ponds, 

sediment fence) would be designed, 

built and maintained to transport 

surface runoff from the affected area but 

prevent discharge to drainages or areas 

outside the 5.74-acre site. 

• A detailed hydrostatic test plan 

would be prepared before mechanical 

construction of the pump stations 

would begin. 

59296 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 191 / Monday, October 4, 2004 / Notices 

• Any necessary permits or approvals 

would be obtained prior to hydrostatic 

testing. 

Soil: There could be impacts to soil 

resources during the construction phase 

as a result of salvage and storage, 

clearing and grading, compaction, and 

wind or water erosion. Express and 

Terasen have agreed to undertake the 

following measures to mitigate impacts 

to upland soil resources for pump 

stations: 

• During construction, drainage 

control structures (ditches, ponds, 

sediment fence) would be designed, 

built and maintained to transport 

surface runoff off the affected area but 

to prevent discharge to drainages or 

areas outside the 5.74-acre site.

• With the potential exception of the 

proposed Faulkners Coulee pump 

station, salvaged topsoil would be 

spread to blend with the landforms on 

undisturbed portions of the site. 

• At the proposed Faulkners Coulee 

pump station, it may be necessary to 

retain a small topsoil stockpile for the 

life of the project, due to the active 

cultivation of portions of the site that 

would make it difficult to maintain (and 

eventually salvage) a uniform soil 

depth. Unless otherwise requested by 

the landowner, the topsoil would be 

seeded in the first appropriate season 

with ‘‘Sodar’’ streambank wheatgrass. 

Vegetation: Because soils would be 

disturbed, there could be impacts to 

upland vegetation as a result of 

construction of the Proposed Action. 

Express and Terasen have agreed to 

undertake the following measures to 

mitigate any impacts to vegetation 

resources for the Proposed Action: 

• After construction is completed, 

temporary workspace and other portions 

of the affected area where long-term 

disturbance is not required would be 

rehabilitated using the topsoil spreading 

and revegetation mixtures 

recommended in the applicable 

discussion for each pump station in the 

EA. 

• Ultimate reclamation of the three 

pump stations would be addressed in 

the abandonment plan. 

• Noxious weeds at each station 

would be monitored and controlled. 

Wildlife and Fisheries: Similarly, 

there could be impacts to wildlife and 

fisheries from surface runoff, as a result 

of surface disturbance during 

construction, and from normal 

operation of the Proposed Action. 

Express and Terasen have agreed to 

undertake the following measures to 

mitigate impacts to wildlife and 

fisheries from the Proposed Action: 

• Implement the surface runoff 

control mitigation measures 

recommended above to reduce the 

potential for surface runoff and 

sedimentation to reach drainages. 

• Any transmission line poles erected 

on the site would provide raptor 

protection in accordance with Suggested 

Practices for Raptor Protection on Power 

Lines: the State of the Art in 1996 

(APLIC 1996). 

Visual Resources: The Proposed 

Action could impair or detract from the 

scenery surrounding the pipeline as a 

result of vegetation removal, grading 

and site development, the presence of 

construction workers and equipment, 

and the long-term presence of small 

buildings, the pumps and other 

facilities. Express and Terasen have 

agreed to undertake the following 

measures to mitigate impacts to visual 

resources from the Proposed Action: 

• Facilities would be painted similar 

to the paint scheme used at the existing 

pump stations. 

• As soon as practicable after 

construction, temporary workspace that 

is not needed for the life of the project 

would be revegetated.

Environmental Justice: Executive 

Order 12898, Federal Actions to 

Address Environmental Justice in 

Minority Populations and Low-Income 

Populations, provides that each Federal 

agency must identify and address, as 

appropriate, effects of its activities on 

minority populations and low-income 

populations. The Proposed Action 

would be located in rural areas of 

comparatively low population density. 

No residences are located less than 0.25 

mile from any proposed pump station. 

There are no population centers at or 

proximal to the Proposed Action, and 

none are proposed for development. 

Consequently, it is not anticipated that 

the Proposed Action would have any 

significant adverse human health or 

environmental effects on any minority 

or low-income populations. 

Historical and Cultural Resources:

Pre-construction field surveys for 

cultural and paleontological resources 

along the 500-foot-wide permitted 

Express Pipeline route discovered no 

such resources at any of the Proposed 

Action locations. No historic, 

archaeological, architectural and/or 

traditional cultural properties on or 

eligible for inclusion on the National 

Register of Historic Places were found. 

No paleontological resources were 

documented. The proposed pump 

station sites are comprised of land that 

is or has been cultivated, and no 

undisturbed surface cultural or 

paleontological resources would be 

expected at any of the sites. In addition, 

all proposed pump station sites were 

previously affected by construction of 

the Express Pipeline. Because no 

cultural or paleontological resources are 

known to be present at any of the 

proposed pump stations, there would be 

no known significant impacts from 

construction and operation of the 

proposed pump stations on these 

resources. Any cultural or 

paleontological resources found during 

the construction of the proposed pump 

stations would be addressed in 

accordance with protocols established 

for the existing Express Pipeline. 

Pipeline Safety and Reliability: The 

potential for an operational petroleum 

release from the Express Pipeline 

throughout its life would be very low. 

Because the pipeline and its facilities 

were designed for the ultimate capacity 

of approximately 280,000 bpd, it was 

constructed to accommodate the change 

in pressure profile that would be needed 

to transport that capacity, which is the 

Proposed Action. The SCADA system 

and its accompanying leak detection 

system were also designed for the 

ultimate capacity of about 280,000 bpd. 

Consequently, the addition of the six 

pump stations covered by this Proposed 

Action would not require any material 

changes in the overall design, 

engineering, or operational procedures 

currently employed by the Express 

Pipeline. None of the proposed 

additional pump stations is located in a 

‘‘High Consequence Area’’ as defined by 

49 CFR 195.450. Therefore the addition 

of the Proposed Action to the Express 

Pipeline system would not result in an 

increase in the pipeline integrity-related 

potential for an accidental petroleum 

release, compared to the existing 

conditions. 

The potential for a petroleum release 

during normal operations would be 

driven by the age of the pipeline rather 

than its operating capacity. The Express 

Crude Oil Draft Environmental Impact 

Statement presented a risk analysis for 

petroleum release in or near riverbeds, 

based on pipeline industry statistics. 

That analysis concluded that, over a 

potential 25-year life of the project, two 

releases of 50 barrels or less and one 

release of over 50 barrels could 

statistically occur. If the life of the 

project were extended an additional 25 

years (i.e., a total of 50 years), there 

would be a statistical potential for nine 

more releases of less than 50 barrels and 

two releases of over 50 barrels. Since the 

Express Pipeline was placed in service 

in 1997, there has been only one release 

that occurred in 2003 when a backhoe 

excavating at a block valve hit a valve 

fitting. The entire release 

(approximately 70 barrels) was 

contained on site. 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 191 / Monday, October 4, 2004 / Notices 59297

The statistical potential for a major 

release (i.e., greater than 500 barrels) 

during the first 25 years of the Express 

Pipeline was calculated to be 0.31, and 

0.62 during the second 25 years. This 

release potential would not be expected 

to change regardless of the operating 

capacity of the pipeline, because the 

maximum release in the event of a major 

rupture is comprised of the volume lost 

before the leak is recognized and the 

valves are closed, plus the volume that 

drains down due to topography. The 

volume lost prior to shut down is 

related to the amount of flow (i.e., 

280,000 bpd vs. 172,000 bpd), but this 

is small in relation to the amount of 

peak drain down, which is generally not 

affected by throughput (i.e., amount of 

flow). 

For example, a 15-minute recognition 

and shut down time of a major rupture 

of the Express Pipeline at 280,000 bpd 

(release volumes were calculated in 

accordance with 49 CFR 194.105(b)(1)), 

would result in a volume release of 

2,917 barrels, which could be up to 

1,125 barrels greater than would be 

expected under the current capacity. 

In comparison, drain down volumes 

following shut down would vary as a 

function of topography, rather than 

throughput, and so would not be 

significantly increased by the Proposed 

Action (as compared to current 

capacity). Peak drain down volumes for 

the Express Pipeline would be in the 

order of 30,000 to 50,000 barrels, far 

greater than the volume lost as a result 

of the increased flow in the pipeline 

system. 

Terasen has an Integrity Management 

Program, developed as a result of the 

requirements of 49 CFR 195.452. When 

constructed, the Express Pipeline 

employed ‘‘state-of-the-art’’ technology, 

including the most recent SCADA and 

leak detection systems. 

The sensitivity of leak detection is a 

function of the uncertainty in the flow 

rate of fluid entering and delivered from 

the pipeline system, and the uncertainty 

in the line pack within the pipeline. 

These uncertainties are dependent on a 

number of parameters including 

instrumentation accuracy and 

repeatability, fluid properties and 

SCADA system characteristics. The 

proposed Action would not 

fundamentally change the type or level 

of instrumentation, the fluids being 

transported or the SCADA system. 

Therefore the leak detection system 

would continue to operate at the same 

sensitivity, as a percentage of flow rate, 

at the ultimate capacity of 

approximately 280,000 bpd as it does at 

the current rate of 172,000 bpd. 

Upon regulatory approval of the 

Proposed Action, as required by the U.S. 

DOT, Terasen would update the 

Express/Platte ERP to consider the 

worst-case scenario based on the 

throughput under the Proposed Action. 

Although the worst-case scenario would 

not likely represent a ‘‘real world’’

occurrence, Terasen’s response planning 

is based on this scenario. For example, 

additional manpower and spill response 

equipment might be needed as a result 

of these calculations; if so, Terasen 

would obtain these resources through 

local contractors and the MontanaWyoming Spill Cooperative.

As discussed in the Express Crude Oil 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement, 

in the event of a release anywhere on 

the Express Pipeline, the magnitude and 

duration of environmental damage 

would be influenced by a number of 

factors. The kind, magnitude and 

duration of these effects would not be 

expected to materially change under the 

Proposed Action, although the released 

volume could be greater in some 

locations and smaller in others. 

The U.S. Department of 

Transportation (‘‘DOT’’) regulates all 

aspects of pipeline design, construction, 

operations, maintenance and emergency 

and spill response. Pipeline safety 

regulations are designed to protect the 

public, environmentally sensitive areas, 

cultural resources and economic 

resources. Emergency and spill response 

planning regulations require the 

identification of environmentally 

important areas, and require that 

operators have response capabilities in 

place to minimize a pipeline release and 

the impact of such a release on the 

environment, the public and other 

resources. 

In the event of a release, the Federal 

regulatory programs define the 

notification requirements and required 

response actions. These programs 

include: The National Oil and 

Hazardous Substances Pollution 

Contingency Plan (NCP: 40 CFR part 

300); the Clean Water Act; the Oil 

Pollution Act; and the Superfund 

Amendment and Reauthorization Act. 

U.S. DOT NEPA regulations allow for 

coordinated implementation of these 

federal requirements. The U.S. DOT 

requires Terasen to develop, maintain 

and update an approved ERP. The ERP 

defines notification and initiation of 

response actions in a timeframe and on 

a scale appropriate to the extent of the 

release. The ERP establishes a required 

endpoint for response actions, that 

being the mitigation of any unacceptable 

threat to human health or the 

environment. The ERP includes a 

mechanism for providing compensation 

for short- or long-term damages to any 

natural resources and for restoration 

costs. The cumulative result of these 

regulatory constraints is that the adverse 

impacts of a release will be temporary 

and that baseline conditions will be 

restored. 

In summary, although the throughput 

of the Express Pipeline system would be 

greater under the Proposed Action than 

under the currently certificated 

capacity, the kind, magnitude, duration 

and result of environmental impacts are 

not expected to be significant under the 

Proposed Action because: 

(1) The range of these impacts was 

identified and discussed in the Express 

Crude Oil Draft Environmental Impact 

Statement and would not be expected to 

change as a result of the Proposed 

Action; 

(2) The Express Pipeline was designed 

and constructed to operate at the 

volumes contemplated by the Proposed 

Action, and can safely accommodate 

these volumes; 

(3) The petroleum release detection 

system currently in place on the Express 

Pipeline would continue to work at the 

same efficiency as at the current 

certificated volume, and continues to be 

‘‘state-of-the-art’’ technology; and 

(4) Procedures for design, 

construction, operation and 

maintenance of the Express and Platte 

Pipeline systems are covered by a 

variety of Federal regulations under the 

oversight of the U.S.DOT. The ERP 

required by the U.S. DOT mandates the 

mechanisms of Terasen’s response to a 

petroleum release and would be 

updated to reflect the pipeline 

capacities under the Proposed Action. 

Accidental release of petroleum at any 

of the proposed pump stations would 

not affect most environmental 

disciplines. The disciplines most likely 

to be affected would be surface water, 

groundwater, wildlife and fish. The 

following measures are proposed to 

minimize the potential impacts as a 

result of a petroleum spill: 

• Sump tanks will be constructed to 

incorporate a double wall with integrity 

monitoring instrumentation, to enable 

Terasen to know of any leak in either 

sump tank wall. 

• In accordance with U.S. DOT 

requirements, Terasen has developed an 

ERP that is updated as necessary. In 

accordance with the ERP, sufficient 

petroleum spill response equipment and 

other resources, such as contractors and 

equipment, are provided to respond to 

any emergency along the Express 

pipeline within a specified timeframe. 

Therefore response times in the event of 

major petroleum spill at any of the 

59298 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 191 / Monday, October 4, 2004 / Notices 

action alternative sites would be 

approximately two hours. 

• In the event of a petroleum release, 

Terasen is committed to remediating 

impacted areas so that vegetation can be 

reestablished. Implementing the ERP 

and reestablishing vegetation will 

remediate impacts to surface water, 

groundwater, fish and wildlife. 

As noted above, implementation of 

the Proposed Action would require the 

construction and normal operation of 

the two storage tanks at the Casper 

Station Tank Farm. Construction and 

operation of the storage tanks would 

contribute to the local and State 

(Wyoming) economic benefits described 

above. 

Based on the draft environmental 

assessment prepared by Westech 

Environmental Services on behalf of 

Express, construction and normal 

operation of the storage tanks would 

have no significant adverse 

environmental impacts on climate, air 

quality noise, geology, wetlands and 

riparian areas, navigable waters, 

floodplains, plant species of special 

concern/sensitive communities, noxious 

weeds, threatened or endangered 

species, land use, transportation, 

socioeconomics, population and 

housing, recreation, and cultural and 

paleontological resources, given that 

they are additions to an existing tank 

farm. 

Construction and operation of the 

storage tanks could affect surface water 

as a result of runoff and sedimentation 

during construction or hydrostatic 

testing. Express and Terasen have 

agreed to undertake the following 

measures to mitigate impacts to surface 

water from the two storage tanks: 

• During construction, drainage 

control structures (ditches, ponds, 

sediment fence) would be designed, 

built and maintained to transport 

surface runoff from the affected area but 

prevent discharge to drainages or areas 

outside the Casper Station Tank Farm. 

• Terasen would prepare a detailed 

hydrostatic test plan before mechanical 

construction of the storage tanks and 

piping would begin. 

• Terasen would obtain any necessary 

permits or approvals prior to hydrostatic 

testing. 

Groundwater at the Casper Station 

Tank Farm consists of shallow, 

fractured aquifers that could be affected 

by construction of the proposed storage 

tanks. Express and Terasen have agreed 

to undertake the following measures to 

mitigate impacts to groundwater at the 

storage tank site: 

• An impervious liner would be 

installed beneath the storage tanks and 

berm. 

• A leak detection system would be 

installed below the tanks. 

There could be impacts to soil 

resources at the Casper Station Tank 

Farm as a result of salvage and storage, 

clearing and grading, compaction, and 

wind or water erosion. Express and 

Terasen have agreed to undertake the 

following measures to mitigate any such 

impacts to upland soil resources: 

• During construction, drainage 

control structures (ditches, ponds, 

sediment fence) would be designed, 

built and maintained to transport 

surface runoff off the affected area but 

to prevent discharge outside the Casper 

Station Tank Farm.

• After construction, any remaining 

subsoil would be spread onto the 2–4 

acres used for temporary workspace, 

and the salvaged topsoil would be 

placed over the subsoil. The topsoil 

would be seeded with ‘‘Ephraim’’

crested wheatgrass (Agropyron 

cristatum) and Sodar streambank 

wheatgrass (Agropyron riparium) at a 

rate of eight pounds each pure live seed 

(PLS) per acre if applied by drill 

seeding, and 16 pounds each PLS per 

acre if applied by broadcast seeding. 

These two perennial cultivars were 

selected because they are droughttolerant, readily available, relatively low 

growing, and have a rhizomatous 

growth habit that would readily cover 

and stabilize topsoil. This vegetative 

cover would reduce fire hazards and 

maintenance concerns. 

• Ultimate reclamation of the 

proposed storage tank site would be 

addressed in the abandonment plan to 

be submitted to the DOT Office of 

Pipeline Safety at least one year prior to 

abandonment. 

Because soils would be disturbed, 

there could be impacts to upland 

vegetation as a result of construction 

and normal operation of the storage 

tanks. Express and Terasen have agreed 

to undertake the following measures to 

mitigate impacts to vegetation resources: 

• After construction is completed, 

temporary workspace and other portions 

of the affected area where long-term 

disturbance is not required would be 

rehabilitated using the topsoil spreading 

and revegetation mixtures 

recommended above. 

• Ultimate reclamation of the site 

would be addressed in the abandonment 

plan. 

• Noxious weeds would be monitored 

and controlled. 

Similarly, there could be impacts 

from construction and operation of the 

storage tanks to wildlife and fisheries. 

Express and Terasen have agreed to 

undertake the following measures to 

mitigate these impacts: 

• Terasen would implement the 

surface runoff control mitigation 

measures recommended above to reduce 

the potential for surface runoff and 

sedimentation to reach drainages. 

• Wildlife habitat would be 

considered in the abandonment plan. 

• Terasen would prepare a detailed 

hydrostatic test plan before mechanical 

construction of the storage tanks and 

piping would begin. 

• Terasen would obtain any necessary 

permits or approvals prior to hydrostatic 

testing. 

Because the storage tanks would be 

constructed in the existing Casper 

Station Tank Farm, they would not 

detract from the visual impression of the 

site or surrounding area. However, 

Express and Terasen have agreed to 

undertake the following measures to 

minimize impacts to visual resources 

from the two storage tanks: 

• Facilities would be painted similar 

to the paint scheme used at the existing 

Casper Station Tank Farm. 

• As soon as practicable after 

construction, temporary work space that 

is not needed for the life of the project 

would be revegetated. 

No Action Alternative 

If no action were taken, there would 

be no environmental impacts from the 

Proposed Action or associated facilities. 

Any environmental impacts currently 

occurring at these sites would continue 

to occur. 

Under the No Action Alternative, 

economic benefits to the U.S. from 

additional petroleum supplies via the 

Express Pipeline would not be realized. 

Economic benefits to the States of 

Montana and Wyoming from additional 

taxes, and construction and operation 

benefits to local power providers and 

communities, would not materialize. 

If the Express Pipeline were not 

expanded, three potential scenarios 

would be reasonably foreseeable: 

(1) Existing pipelines other than 

Express would expand by looping or 

building entirely new pipelines; 

(2) Some smaller refineries could be 

forced to reduce throughput or close if 

they were unable to access specialized 

petroleum and maintain the quality of 

their petroleum via transportation on a 

batch pipeline system such as Express; 

and 

(3) A refined products pipeline could 

be built that would serve the Rocky 

Mountain region thereby causing the 

closure of smaller refineries because of 

competing lower-priced refined 

products from larger refineries. 

Under the first scenario, the market 

responses to the Express Pipeline’s 

inability to deliver additional petroleum 

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