Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 223 / Friday, November 19, 2004 / Notices 67729

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, 

67730 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 223 / Friday, November 19, 2004 / Notices 

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 FireTolerant 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] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

[ER–FRL–6657–8] 

Environmental Impact Statements and 

Regulations; Availability of EPA 

Comments 

Availability of EPA comments 

prepared pursuant to the Environmental 

Review Process (ERP), under section 

309 of the Clean Air Act and section 

102(2)(c) of the National Environmental 

Policy Act, as amended. Requests for 

copies of EPA comments can be directed 

to the Office of Federal Activities at 

(202) 564–7167. An explanation of the 

ratings assigned to draft environmental 

impact statements (EISs) was published 

in the Federal Register dated April 2, 

2004 (69 FR 17403). 

Draft EISs 

ERP No. D–AFS–J02045–WY Rating 

EC2, Yates Petroleum Federal #1 Oil 

and Gas Lease, Application for Permit to 

Drill (APD), Medicine Bow-Routt 

National Forests and Thunder Basin 

National Grassland, Duck Creek, 

Campbell County, WY. 

Summary: While the EIS thoroughly 

discussed environmental impacts and 

proposed mitigation measures, EPA did 

express environmental concerns due to 

groundwater and wildlife impacts if 

controlled surface use stipulations are 

waived. 

ERP No. D–AFS–L39061–WA Rating 

EC2, Fish Passage and Aquatic Habitat 

Restoration at Hemlock Dam, 

Implementation, Gifford Pinchot 

National Forest, Mount Adams District, 

Skamania County, WA. 

Summary: EPA has no objections to 

the dam removal alternatives, B and C 

which promote improved water quality, 

fish passage and aquatic habitat. EPA 

expressed environmental concerns with 

alternatives D, E, and No Action because 

they continue to impede fish mitigation 

and/or would not improve water quality 

or aquatic habitat. The Final EIS should 

address sediment quality, revegetation, 

monitoring plans, and consultation with 

affected Tribes. 

ERP No. DS–NRC–E06023–AL Rating 

EC1, Generic EIS—License Renewal of 

Nuclear Plants, Joseph M. Farley 

Nuclear Plants, Units 1 and 2, 

Supplemental 18 to NUREG–1437 (TAC 

Nos. MCO768 and MCO769), Houston 

County, AL. 

Summary: EPA expressed concern 

and recommended the radiological 

monitoring of all plant effluents, and the 

appropriate storage/disposition of 

radioactive waste. 

Final EISs 

ERP No. F–AFS–F65045–MN Virginia 

Forest Management Project Area, 

Resource Management Activities on 

101,000 Acres of Federal Land, 

Implementation, Superior National 

Forest, Eastern Region, St. Louis 

County, MN. 

Summary: The final EIS addressed 

EPA’s previous concerns regarding 

mitigation/monitoring activities for sand 

and gravel mining and deer herbivore. 

ERP No. F–AFS–L65441–OR Easy Fire 

Recovery Project and Proposed 

Nonsignificant Forest Plan 

Amendments, Timber Salvage, Future 

Fuel Reduction, Road Reconstruction 

and Maintenance, Road Closure, Tree 

Planting and Two Non-significant Forest 

Plan Amendments, Implementation, 

Malheur National Forest, Prairie City 

Ranger District, Grant County. 

Summary: The final EIS addressed 

EPA’s major concerns with impacts 

from sediment to water quality and 

temperature. However, given 

uncertainties with estimating sediment 

loading EPA encourages the Forest 

Service to maximize woody debris on 

slopes after harvest to reduce sediment 

delivery to streams and the obliteration 

of road 2600391 in the harvest area. 

ERP No. F–COE–K36139–CA 

Hamilton City Flood Damage Reduction 

and Ecosystem Restoration, Propose to 

Increase Flood Protection and Restore 

the Ecosystem, Sacramento River, Glenn 

County, CA. 

Summary: No formal comment letter 

was sent to the preparing agency.

ERP No. F–FHW–J40164–MT 

US–2 Highway Corridor Improvement 

Project, Reconstruction between Havre 

to Fort Belknap to Replace the Aging 

US–2 Facility, U.S. Army COE Section 

404 Permit, Hill and Blaine Counties, 

MT. 

Summary: EPA is pleased by the 

selection of the improved two-lane with 

passing lanes alternative because it 

involves fewer adverse environmental 

impacts than a four-lane alternative. 

EPA’s remaining environmental 

concerns are potential impacts to water 

quality and aquatic habitat, including 

wetlands, and impacts to wildlife 

connectivity and fragmentation. 

ERP No. F–NOA–L91022–00

Programmatic EIS—Pacific Coast 

Groundfish Bycatch Management Plan, 

Establishment of Policies and Program 

Direction to Minimize Baycatch in the 

West Coast Groundfish Fisheries, WA, 

OR and CA. 

Summary: No formal comment letter 

was sent to the preparing agency.

Dated: November 15, 2004. 

Ken Mittelholtz, 

Environmental Protection Specialist, Office 

of Federal Activities.

[FR Doc. 04–25713 Filed 11–18–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P