Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 203 / Tuesday, October 21, 1997 / Notices 54627

30. American Electric Power Service

Corporation

[Docket No. ER97–4723–000]

Take notice that on September 22,

1997, the American Electric Power

Service Corporation (AEPSC), tendered

for filing executed service agreements

under the AEP companies’ Power Sales

Tariff. The Power Sales Tariff was

accepted for filing effective October 1,

1995, and has been designated AEP

Companies’ FERC Electric Tariff First

Revised Volume No. 2. AEPSC requests

waiver of notice to permit the service

agreements to be made effective for

service billed on and after August 24,

1997.

A copy of the filing was served upon

the Parties and the State Utility

Regulatory Commissions of Indiana,

Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, Tennessee,

Virginia and West Virginia.

Comment date: October 24, 1997, in

accordance with Standard Paragraph E

at the end of this notice.

31. Southern California Edison

Company, The Montana Power

Company, Nevada Power Company,

PacifiCorp, Pacific Gas and, Electric

Company, and Sierra Pacific Power

Company

[Docket No. ER97–4724–000]

Take notice that on September 22,

1997, Southern California Edison

Company (‘‘Edison’’), tendered for filing

the revised Western Systems

Coordinating Council (‘‘WSCC’’)

Unscheduled Flow Mitigation Plan

(‘‘Revised Plan’’) which alters the

methodology for calculating

unscheduled flow mitigation dues to be

paid by WSCC Members. The Montana

Power Company, Nevada Power

Company, PacifiCorp, Pacific Gas and

Electric Company, and Sierra Pacific

Power Company have tendered

Certificates of Concurrence supporting

the filing. Copies of the filing were

served upon all the WSCC Members and

all the state utility commissions in

which the WSCC Members provide

retail electric service.

Comment date: October 24, 1997, in

accordance with Standard Paragraph E

at the end of this notice.

32. Cinergy Services, Inc.

[Docket No. ER97–4725–000]

Take notice that on September 23,

1997, Cinergy Services, Inc. (Cinergy),

tendered for filing a service agreement

under Cinergy’s Open Access

Transmission Service Tariff (the Tariff)

entered into between Cinergy and e

prime, inc. (E prime).

Cinergy and e prime are requesting an

effective date of August 31, 1997.

Comment date: October 24, 1997, in

accordance with Standard Paragraph E

at the end of this notice.

33. Southern Indiana Gas & Electric

Company

[Docket No. OA96–117–002

Take notice that on September 23,

1997, Southern Indiana Gas & Electric

Company tendered for filing its

compliance filing in the abovereferenced docket.

Comment date: October 24, 1997, in

accordance with Standard Paragraph E

at the end of this notice.

Standard Paragraph

E. Any person desiring to be heard or

to protest said filing should file a

motion to intervene or protest with the

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission,

888 First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C.

20426, in accordance with Rules 211

and 214 of the Commission’s Rules of

Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211

and 18 CFR 385.214). All such motions

or protests should be filed on or before

the comment date. Protests will be

considered by the Commission in

determining the appropriate action to be

taken, but will not serve to make

protestants parties to the proceeding.

Any person wishing to become a party

must file a motion to intervene. Copies

of this filing are on file with the

Commission and are available for public

inspection.

Lois D. Cashell,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 97–27838 Filed 10–20–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory

Commission

[Docket No. CP97–276–000]

Texas Eastern Transmission

Corporation; Notice of Availability of

the Environmental Assessment for the

Proposed Line 1–A Reactivation

Project

October 15, 1997.

The staff of the Federal Energy

Regulatory Commission (FERC or

Commission) has prepared an

environmental assessment (EA) on the

natural gas pipeline facilities proposed

by Texas Eastern Transmission

Corporation (Texas Eastern) in the

above-referenced docket.

The EA was prepared to satisfy the

requirements of the National

Environmental Policy Act. The staff

concludes that approval of the proposed

project, with appropriate mitigating

measures, would not constitute a major

Federal action significantly affecting the

quality of the human environment.

The EA assesses the potential

environmental effects of the

construction and operation of the

proposed reactivation of Line 1–A in

Chester and Delaware Counties,

Pennsylvania, including:

• Reactivating about 22.7 miles of the

20-inch-diameter Line 1–A, which

includes investigating and repairing/

replacing 101 anomaly sites, if needed,

and hydrostatically testing the entire

length of the pipeline;

• Installing new regulating facilities

at Eagle Compressor Station;

• Installing a delivery tap off Line 1–

A for Texas Eastern’s existing

Planebrook Measuring and Regulating

Station (M&R);

• Installing mainline valves at

mileposts 6.8, 12.6, and 16.0;

• Installing delivery taps on Line 1–

H and Line 1–A for PICO Energy

Company’s (PECO) new Hersheys Mill

M&R Station;

• Installing delivery taps on Line 1–

A and 1–H, and a new Brookhaven M&R

Station at the existing Chester Junction

site; and

• Replacing the existing temporary

pig receiver with a permanent receiver

at the Chester Junction site.

The purpose of the proposed facilities

would be to allow Texas Eastern to

deliver on a firm basis up to 120,000

dekatherms per day (Dth/d) of natural

gas to PECO and 8,000 Dth/d to Mobil

Oil Corporation.

The EA has been placed in the public

files of the FERC. A limited number of

copies of the EA are available for

distribution and public inspection at:

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission,

Public Reference and Files Maintenance

Branch, 888 First Street, N.E., Room 2A,

Washington, D.C. 20426, (202) 208–

1371.

Copies of the EA have been mailed to

Federal, state and local agencies, public

interest groups, interested individuals,

newspapers, and parties to this

proceeding.

Any person wishing to comment on

the EA may do so. To ensure

consideration prior to a Commission

decision on the proposal, it is important

that we receive your comments before

the date specified below. Please

carefully follow these instructions to

ensure that your comments are received

in time and properly recorded:

• Send two copies of your comments

to: Lois Cashell, Secretary, Federal

Energy Regulatory Commission, 888

First St., FN.E., Room 1A, Washington,

DC 20426.
54628 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 203 / Tuesday, October 21, 1997 / Notices

1Florida Gas Transmission Company’s

application was filed with the Commission under

Section 7 of the Natural Gas Act and Part 157 of

the Commission’s regulations.

2The appendices referenced in this notice are not

being printed in the Federal Register. Copies are

available from the Commission’s Public Reference

and Files Maintenance Branch, 888 First Street,

N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426, or call (202) 208–

1371. Copies of the appendices were sent to all

those receiving this notice in the mail.

• Label one copy of the comments for

the attention of the Environmental

Review and Compliance Branch, PR–

11.2

• Reference Docket No. CP97–276–

000; and

• Mail your comments so that they

will be received in Washington, DC on

or before November 14, 1997.

Comments will be considered by the

Commission but will not serve to make

the comenter a party to the proceeding.

Any person seeking to become a party

to the proceeding must file a motion to

intervene pursuant to Rule 214 of the

Commission’s Rules of Practice and

Procedures (18 CFR 385.214).

The date for filing timely motions to

intervene in this proceeding has passed.

Therefore, parties now seeking to file

late interventions must show good

cause, as required by Section

385.214(b)(3), why this time limitation

should be waived. Environmental issues

have been viewed as good cause for late

intervention. You do not need

intervenor status to have your

comments considered.

Lois D. Cashell,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 97–27776 Filed 10–20–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717–01–M

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory

Commission

[Docket No. CP97–690–000]

Florida Gas Transmission Company;

Notice of Intent To Prepare an

Environmental Assessment for the

Proposed FGT 24′′ Calcasieu Pipeline

Replacement Project and Request for

Comments on Environmental Issues

October 15, 1997.

The staff of the Federal Energy

Regulatory Commission (FERC or

Commission) will prepare an

environmental assessment (EA) that will

discuss the environmental impacts of

the construction and operation of the

facilities proposed in the FGT 24′′

Calcasieu Pipeline Replacement

Project.1 This EA will be used by the

Commission in its decision-making

process to determine whether the

project is in the public convenience and

necessity.

Summary of the Proposed Project

Florida Gas Transmission Company

(FGT) proposes to reroute one section

and replace, within the same right-ofway, two sections of its 24-inchdiameter mainline pipeline in Calcasieu

Parish, Louisiana. The sections to be

replaced are between mileposts 425.99

and 426.92 (section 1), 430.53 and

432.09 (section 2), and 432.17 and

432.40 (section 3).

Below is an explanation of the work

involved.

Section 1: Abandon, 5,070 feet of

existing 24-inch-diameter mainline and

install about 8,883 feet of new 24-inchdiameter pipeline.

Section 2: Abandon about 8,236 feet

of existing 24-inch-diameter mainline

and install about 7,586 feet of new 24-

inch-diameter pipeline located 10 feet

south of the existing pipeline. The

remaining 650 feet of new 24-inchdiameter pipeline would be north of the

existing pipeline.

Section 3: Abandon about 1,239 feet

of existing 24-inch-diameter mainline,

and install about 1,239 feet of new 24-

inch-diameter pipeline located 10 feet

south of the existing mainline.

All of the facilities are in Calcasieu

Parish, Louisiana. The pipeline sections

must be replaced to comply with

Department of Transportation

Regulations.

The proposed facilities would cost

about $3,762,161.

The general location of the project

facilities is shown in appendix 1.2 If you

are interested in obtaining procedural

information, please write to the

Secretary of the Commission.

Land Requirements for Construction

The replacement and relocation of the

3 sections of the 24-inch-diameter

mainline pipeline would affect about 23

acres with 7 acres being needed for

Section 1, 10 acres for Section 2, and 2

acres for Section 3. Section 1 would

require an additional 4 acres for a new

permanent right-of-way.

Temporary work spaces would

require about 3 acres. FGT proposes to

deliver pipeline to the site by truck and

string the pipeline directly along the

construction right-of-way. All other pipe

fittings would be stored in a leased

warehouse facility.

The EA Process

The National Environmental Policy

Act (NEPA) requires the Commission to

take into account the environmental

impacts that could result from an action

whenever it considers the issuance of a

Certificate of Public Convenience and

Necessity. NEPA also requires us to

discover and address concerns the

public may have about proposals. We

call this ‘‘scoping.’’ The main goal of the

scoping process is to focus the analysis

in the EA on the important

environmental issues. By this Notice of

Intent, the Commission requests public

comments on the scope of the issues it

will address in the EA. All comments

received are considered during the

preparation of the EA. State and local

government representatives are

encouraged to notify their constituents

of this proposed action and encourage

them to comment on their areas of

concern.

The EA will discuss impacts that

could occur from the construction and

operation of the proposed project under

these general headings:

• Geology and soils

• Water resources, fisheries, and

wetlands

• Vegetation and wildlife

• Public safety

• Land use

• Cultural resources

• Endangered and threatened species

We will also evaluate possible

alternatives to the proposed project or

portions of the project, and make

recommendations on how to lessen or

avoid impacts on the various resource

areas.

Our independent analysis of the

issues will be in the EA. Depending on

the comments received during the

scoping process, the EA may be

published and mailed to Federal, state,

and local agencies, public interest

groups, interested individuals, affected

landowners, newspapers, libraries, and

the Commission’s official service list for

this proceeding. A comment period will

be allotted for review if the EPA is

published. We will consider all

comments on the EA before we make

our recommendations to the

Commission.

Currently Identified Environmental

Issues

We have already identified several

issues that we think deserve attention

based on a preliminary review of the

proposed facilities and the

environmental information provide by

FGT. This preliminary list of issues may

be changed based on your comments

and our analysis.

• A horizontal drill would be used to

cross the Calcasieu River.

• A total of 11.9 acres of wetlands

would be temporarily affected and 2.2

acres of wetlands would be permanently

affected.