31536 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 97 / Thursday, May 18, 2000 / Notices

should be directed to Kathy Axt at (703)

426–9692. Individuals who use a

telecommunications device for the deaf

(TDD) may call the Federal Information

Relay Service (FIRS) at 1–800–877–

8339.

[FR Doc. 00–12488 Filed 5–17–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4000–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

[CFDA No. 84.334]

Office of Postsecondary Education,

Gaining Early Awareness and

Readiness for Undergraduate

Programs

Notice Inviting Applications for New

Awards for Fiscal Year 2000;

Correction

SUMMARY: On April 27, 2000 we

published in the Federal Register (65

FR 24764) a notice inviting applications

for new awards for fiscal year 2000 for

the Gaining Early Awareness and

Readiness for Undergraduate Program

(GEAR UP). That document incorrectly

listed the priority for Partnerships that

establish or maintain a scholarship

program as invitational. Please note that

Partnerships that establish or maintain a

scholarship program will receive a

competitive priority, as was stated in

the application package for this year’s

competition.

The priority therefore reads as

follows:

Competitive Preference Priority

The Secretary will give preference to

Partnership projects that establish or

maintain financial assistance programs

that award scholarships to participating

students, either in accordance with

section 404E of the Higher Education

Act of 1965, as amended, or in

accordance with GEAR UP regulations.

The Secretary will award up to five (5)

additional points, in addition to any

points the applicant earns under the

selection criteria, to applicants who

meet this priority, depending on how

well the application meets the priority.

Also in that same Notice we stated

that applications for a Partnership or

State grant that serve students in

Empowerment Zones, Supplemental

Empowerment Zones, or Enterprise

Communities would be given a

Competitive Preference Priority. The

language used to explain this priority

(The Secretary will select an application

that meets this priority over an

application of comparable merit that

does not meet this priority) comes

directly from the Education Department

General Regulations (EDGAR) 34 CFR

Part 75.105. This notice clarifies that

this preference will be applied as a tiebreaker only.

Finally, that notice incorrectly listed

the maximum grant amount for State

grants as $5 million. The correct

maximum grant amount for State grants

is $2.1 million.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Rafael Ramirez, Office of Postsecondary

Education, U.S. Department of

Education, 1900 K Street, NW, Room

6252, Washington, DC 20006.

Telephone: (202) 502–7676. If you use a

telecommunications device for the deaf

(TDD), you may call the Federal

Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1–

800–877–8339.

Individuals with disabilities may

obtain this document in an alternative

format (e.g., Braille, large print,

audiotape, or computer diskette) on

request to the contact person listed in

the preceding paragraph.

Electronic Access to This Document

You may view this document in text

or Adobe Portable Document Format

(PDF) on the Internet at the following

sites:

http://ocfo.ed.gov/fedreg.htm

http://www.ed.gov/news.html

http://ifap.ed.gov/csblhtml/

fedlreg.htm

To use the PDF you must have the

Adobe Acrobat Reader Program, which

is available free at the first of the

previous sites. If you have questions

about using the PDF, call the U.S.

Government Printing Office (GPO), toll

free, at 1–888–293–6498; or in the

Washington, D.C. area at (202) 512–

1530.

Note: The official version of this document

is the document published in the Federal

Register. Free Internet access to the official

edition of the Federal Register and the Code

of Federal Regulations is available on GPO

Access at:

http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/

index.html

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance

Number: 84.334 Gaining Early Awareness

and Readiness for Undergraduate Program)

Dated: May 15, 2000.

A. Lee Fritschler,

Assistant Secretary, Office of Postsecondary

Education.

[FR Doc. 00–12525 Filed 5–17–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4000–01–U

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

National Nuclear Security

Administration; Postponement of

Scoping Meeting for the Proposed

Relocation of the Los Alamos National

Laboratory Technical Area 18 Missions

AGENCY: Department of Energy, National

Nuclear Security Administration.

ACTION: Postponement of scoping

meeting.

SUMMARY: On May 2, 2000, the

Department of Energy (DOE) announced

in the Federal Register, (65 FR 25472),

that it would hold scoping meetings for

the proposal to relocate missions at

Technical Area 18 (TA–18). Due to the

recent fire at the Los Alamos National

Laboratory (LANL), the scoping meeting

scheduled for May 17, 2000 at the Betty

Ehart Senior Center, 2132 Central

Avenue, Los Alamos, NM, has been

postponed. DOE will provide notice of

the new date, time, and location for this

meeting when it becomes available.

DOE regrets any inconvenience for this

postponement. Any questions

associated with the TA–18 Project can

be asked by calling Mr. Jay Rose at 1–

800–832–0885, ext. 65484.

Issued in Washington, D.C., this 15th day

of May 2000.

Henry Garson,

NEPA Compliance Officer, Office of Defense

Programs, Department of Energy.

[FR Doc. 00–12630 Filed 5–16–00; 1:33 pm]

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory

Commission

[Docket No. IC00–500–001, FERC–500]

Information Collection Submitted for

Review and Request for Comments

May 12, 2000.

AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory

Commission, DOE.

ACTION: Notice of submission for review

by the Office of Management and

Budget (OMB) and request for

comments.

SUMMARY: The Federal Energy

Regulatory Commission (Commission)

has submitted the energy information

collection listed in this notice to the

Office of Management and Budget

(OMB) for review under the provisions

of Section 3507 of the Paperwork

Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. No. 104–

13). Any interested person may file

comments on the collection of

information directly with OMB and

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 97 / Thursday, May 18, 2000 / Notices 31537

should address a copy of those

comments to the Commission, as

explained below. The Commission

received comments from two entities in

response to an earlier Federal Register

notice of November 9, 1999 (64 FR

62184–85) and has responded to those

comments in this submission.

DATES: Comments regarding this

collection are best assured of having

their full effect if received on or before

June 10, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Address comments to Office

of Management and Budget, Office of

Information and Regulatory Affairs,

Attention: Federal Energy Regulatory

Commission Desk Officer, 725 17th

Street, NW, Washington, DC 20503. A

copy of the comments should also be

sent to Federal Energy Regulatory

Commission, Office of the Chief

Information Officer, Attention: Mr.

Michael Miller, CI–1, 888 First Street,

NE, Washington, DC 20426. Mr. Miller

may be reached by telephone at

(202)208–1415 and by e-mail at

mike.miller@ferc.fed.us.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Description

The energy information collection

submitted to OMB for review contains:

1. Collection of Information: FERC–

500, ‘‘Application for License, Relicense

for Water Projects with More than 5 MW

Capacity.’’

2. Sponsor: Federal Energy Regulatory

Commisison.

3. Control No.: 1902–0058. The

Commission is now requesting that

OMB approve a three year extension of

the expiration date, with no changes to

the existing collection. This is a

mandatory collection requirement.

4. Necessity of Collection of

Information: Submission of the

information is necessary to fulfill the

requirements of Part I of the Federal

Power Act (FPA) in order for the

Commission to make the required

finding that the proposal is

economically sound, is best adopted to

a comprehensive plan for improving/

developing a waterway or waterways.

Under Part I of the FPA (16 U.S.C.

sections 79a et seq.), the Commission

has the authority to issue licenses for

hydroelectric projects on the waters

over which Congress has jurisdiction.

The Electric Consumers Protection Act

(ECPA) (Pub. L. 99–495, 100 Stat. 1243)

provides the Commission with the

responsibility of issuing licenses for

nonfederal hydroelectric plants. ECPA

also amended the language of the EPA

concerning environmental issues to

ensure environmental quality. The

information collected under FERC–500

is used by the Commission to determine

the broad impact of a hydropower

license application.

5. Respondent Description: The

respondent universe currently

comprises on average, 9 applicants for a

hydropower license/relicense.

6. Estimated Burden: 15,276 total

burden hours, 9 respondents 1 response

(on occasion), 1,697 hours per response

(rounded off).

7. Estimated Cost to Burden to

Respondents: The estimated cost burden

to respondents: 15,276÷2080 hours per

year×$111,545 per year=$819,212.

Statutory Authority: Sections 4(e), 9, 10,

14 and 15 of the Federal Power Act (FPA),

16 U.S.C. Sections 791a et seq. and Energy

Consumers Protection Act, Pub. L. 99–495,

100 Stat. 1243

Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,

Acting Secretary.

[FR Doc. 00–12470 Filed 5–17–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717–01–M

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory

Commission

[Docket No. RP00–275–000]

Chesapeake Panhandle Limited

Partnership, Complainant, v. Natural

Gas Pipeline Company of America,

MidCon Gas Products Corp., MidCon

Gas Services Corp., KN Energy, Inc.

and Kinder Morgan, Inc., Respondents;

Notice of Complaint

May 12, 2000.

Take notice that on May 10, 2000,

Chesapeake Panhandle Limited

Partnership (Complainant) filed with

the Federal Energy Regulatory

Commission a complaint against Natural

Gas Pipeline Company of America

(‘‘NGPL’’), MidCon Gas Products Corp.

(MidCon Gas Products), MidCon Gas

Services Corp. (MidCon Gas Services),

KN Energy, Inc. (KN) and Kinder

Morgan, Inc. (Kinder Morgan)

(collectively, Respondents) pursuant to

Rule 206 of the Commission’s Rules of

Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.206.

According to the Complaint,

Respondents, all affiliated companies,

acted in concert to circumvent the filed

rate doctrine and violate NGPL’s Tariff

by charging rates for gathering services

which NGPL performed in connection

with jurisdictional transportation

services and which, in sum, exceeded

the rate specified in the NGPL Tariff

governing the relevant service.

Complainant alleges that from March

3, 1998 until January 1, 2000,

Respondents effectively charged (i) a

‘‘gathering fee’’ which in certain months

exceeded the Maximum rate NGPL, a

jurisdictional provider of gathering

services through NGPL’s West

Panhandle Gathering System, was

authorized to charge and (ii) a fuel

retention rate for gathering service

provided by NGPL, which was not

included in NGPL’s filed Tariff. The

‘‘gathering fee’’ and fuel retention rate

were established in a Gas Sales and

Purchase Agreement (GAS Sales

Agreement) which MC Panhandle, Inc.

(MC Panhandle), an affiliate of NGPL,

had initially executed with another

NGPL affiliate, MidCon Gas Services.

MidCon Gas Services’ interest was later

transferred by assignment to MidCon

Gas Products. Complainant states that,

in 1998, it acquired ownership of MC

Panhandle, the owner of certain gas

wells in Moore and Carson Counties,

Texas, subject to the terms of the Gas

Sales Agreement. It avers that through

this purchase it became obligated to

pay, and in fact paid (through a reduced

gas sales price), rates for gathering

services actually performed by NGPL

that were greater than the applicable

rates set forth in NGPL’s FERC Gas

Tariff.

According to the Complainant,

although the Gas Sales Agreement was

nominally between MC Panhandle (later

succeeded by Chesapeake Panhandle)

and MidCon Gas Services (later

succeeded by its affiliate MidCon Gas

Products), NGPL’s role in the

transaction as: (1) The provider of the

gathering service, (2) the affiliate of the

Gas Sales Agreements’s Buyers, MidCon

Gas Services and MidCon Gas Products,

(3) the affiliate of the Gas Sales

Agreement’s initial Seller, MC

Panhandle, and (4) a signatory to the

Gas Sales Agreement, effectively make

NGPL a party to the Gas Sales

Agreement and, in any event, support

the inference that NGPL benefited from

the actions of its affiliates in charging a

rate for services which NGPL provided,

but for which NGPL itself could not

lawfully have charged. Thus,

Complainant seeks a refund, with

interest, of the amounts it was charged

(by way of a gas sales price reduction)

for ‘‘gathering fees’’ in excess of NGPL’s

authorized gathering rate and fuel

retainage during the period from March

3, 1998 through December 31, 1999.

Questions concerning the Complaint

may be directed to counsel for

Complainant, James F. Bowe, Jr., Dewey

Ballantine LLP, 1775 Pennsylvania

Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20006–4605,

Phone 202/429–1444, Fax 202/862–

1093, e-mail

jbowe@deweyballantine.com.