76634 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 236 / Thursday, December 7, 2000 / Notices

Comment date: December 13, 2000, in

accordance with Standard Paragraph E

at the end of this notice.

30. Entergy Services, Inc.

[Docket No. ER01–503–000]

Take notice that on November 22,

2000, Entergy Services, Inc., on behalf of

Entergy Arkansas, Inc., tendered for

filing an Interconnection and Operating

Agreement with TPS Dell LLC, f/k/a/

GenPower Dell LLC (TPS Dell), and a

Generator Imbalance Agreement with

TPS Dell.

Comment date: December 13, 2000, in

accordance with Standard Paragraph E

at the end of this notice.

31. Southwestern Electric Power

Company

[Docket No. ER01–504–000]

Take notice that on November 22,

2000, Southwestern Electric Power

Company (SWEPCO) filed a Restated

and Amended Electric System

Interconnection Agreement (Agreement)

between SWEPCO and Louisiana

Generating LLC (LaGen). The Agreement

supersedes in its entirety the 1988

Electric System Interconnection

Agreement, as amended, between

SWEPCO and Cajun Electric Power

Cooperative (Cajun). In March 2000,

LaGen acquired Cajun.

SWEPCO seeks an effective date of

June 15, 2000 and, accordingly, seeks

waiver of the Commission’s notice

requirements.

Copies of the filing have been served

on LaGen and on the Louisiana Public

Service Commission.

Comment date: December 13, 2000, in

accordance with Standard Paragraph E

at the end of this notice.

32. NEV California, L.L.C.

[Docket No. ER01–505–000]

Take notice that on November 22,

2000, NEV California, L.L.C. (NEV

California) tendered for filing a notice of

cancellation in operations pursuant to

18 CFR 35.14 in order to reflect the

cancellation of its market-rate tariff

originally accepted for filing by the

Commission in Docket No. ER97–4653–

000.

Comment date: December 13, 2000, in

accordance with Standard Paragraph E

at the end of this notice.

33. NEV East, L.L.C.

[Docket No. ER01–506–000]

Take notice that on November 22,

2000, NEV East, L.L.C. (NEV East)

tendered for filing a notice of

cancellation in operations pursuant to

18 CFR 35.15 in order to reflect the

cancellation of its market-rate tariff

originally accepted for filing by the

Commission in Docket No. ER97–4652–

000.

Comment date: December 13, 2000, in

accordance with Standard Paragraph E

at the end of this notice.

34. AES New Energy, Inc.

[Docket No. ER01–507–000]

Take notice that on November 22,

2000, AES New Energy, Inc. (AES New

Energy) tendered for filing a notice of

succession in operations pursuant to 18

CFR 35.16, in order to reflect its name

change from New Energy Ventures, Inc.

Comment date: December 13, 2000, in

accordance with Standard Paragraph E

at the end of this notice.

35. NEV Midwest, L.L.C.

[Docket No. ER01–508–000]

Take notice that on November 22,

2000, NEV Midwest, L.L.C. (NEV

Midwest) tendered for filing a notice of

cancellation in operations pursuant to

18 CFR 35.15, in order to reflect the

cancellation of its market-rate tariff

originally accepted for filing by the

Commission in Docket No. ER97–4654–

000.

Comment date: December 13, 2000, in

accordance with Standard Paragraph E

at the end of this notice.

36. Entergy Services, Inc.

[Docket No. ER01–509–000]

Take notice that on November 22,

2000, Entergy Services, Inc., on behalf of

Entergy Mississippi, Inc., tendered for

filing an Interconnection and Operating

Agreement with Duke Energy

Southaven, LLC (Duke Southaven), and

a Generator Imbalance Agreement with

Duke Southaven.

Comment date: December 13, 2000, in

accordance with Standard Paragraph E

at the end of this notice.

37. Jersey Central Power & Light

Company Metropolitan Edison

Company Pennsylvania Electric

Company

[Docket No. ER01–510–000]

Take notice that on November 24,

2000, Jersey Central Power & Light

Company, Metropolitan Edison

Company and Pennsylvania Electric

Company (d/b/a GPU Energy), filed an

executed Service Agreement between

GPU Energy and El Paso Merchant

Energy, L.P. (El Paso Power), dated

November 22, 2000. This Service

Agreement specifies that El Paso Power

has agreed to the rates, terms and

conditions of GPU Energy’s MarketBased Sales Tariff (Sales Tariff)

designated as FERC Electric Rate

Schedule, Second Revised Volume No.

5. The Sales Tariff allows GPU Energy

and El Paso Power to enter into

separately scheduled transactions under

which GPU Energy will make available

for sale, surplus capacity and/or energy.

GPU Energy requests a waiver of the

Commission’s notice requirements for

good cause shown and an effective date

of November 22, 2000 for the Service

Agreement.

GPU Energy has served copies of the

filing on regulatory agencies in New

Jersey and Pennsylvania.

Comment date: December 15, 2000, in

accordance with Standard Paragraph E

at the end of this notice.

Standard Paragraphs

E. Any person desiring to be heard or

to protest such filing should file a

motion to intervene or protest with the

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission,

888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC

20426, in accordance with Rules 211

and 214 of the Commission’s Rules of

Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211

and 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 these filings are on file with the

Commission and are available for public

inspection. This filing may also be

viewed on the Internet at http://

www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm (call

202–208–2222 for assistance).

David P. Boergers

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 00–31121 Filed 12–6–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory

Commission

[Docket No. CP01–12–000]

El Paso Natural Gas Company; Notice

of Intent To Prepare an Environmental

Assessment for the Proposed Line No.

2039 Pipeline Relocation Project and

Request for Comments on

Environmental Issues

December 1, 2000.

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 Line No. 2039 Relocation Project

involving construction and operation of

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 236 / Thursday, December 7, 2000 / Notices 76635

1El Paso’s application was filed with the

Commission under Section 7 of the Natural Gas Act

and Part 157 of the Commission’s regulations.

2 ‘‘We’’, ‘‘us’’, and ‘‘our’’ refer to the

environmental staff of the Office of Energy Projects

(OEP).

facilities by El Paso Natural Gas

Company (El Paso) in Maricopa County,

Arizona.1 These facilities would consist

of about 6.88 miles of 16-inch-diameter

pipeline and one meter station. 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.

If you are landowner receiving this

notice, you may be contacted by a

pipeline company representative about

the acquisition of an easement to

construct, operate, and maintain the

proposed facilities. The pipeline

company would seek to negotiate a

mutually acceptable agreement.

However, if the project is approved by

the Commission, that approval conveys

with it the right to eminent domain.

Therefore, if easement negotiations fail

to produce an agreement, the pipeline

company could initiate condemnation

proceedings in accordance with state

law.

A fact sheet prepared by the FERC

entitled ‘‘An Interstate Natural Gas

Facility On My Land? What Do I Need

To Know?’’ was attached to the project

notice El Paso provided to landowners.

This fact sheet addresses a number of

typically asked questions, including the

use of eminent domain and how to

participate in the Commission’s

proceedings. It is available for viewing

on the FERC Internet website

(www.ferc.fed.us).

Summary of the Proposed Project

El Paso wants to relocate a portion of

the Line No. 2039 Pipeline located on

the southwest side of Phoenix, Arizona,

in order to avoid residential and

industrial encroachment on the existing

pipeline and meet DOT class

requirements in the future. In addition,

El Paso wants to increase the diameter

of the pipe to satisfy increased gas

demand expected from the expanded

West Phoenix Power Plant at the north

end of this pipeline.

El Paso seeks authority to abandon

6.88 miles of the existing 16-inchdiameter Line No. 2039 Pipeline and

relocate it up to 2700 feet to the east on

new right-of-way (ROW). The Line No.

2039 Pipeline would be abandoned in

place, including those sections under

roads, for about 2.9 miles, and would be

abandoned by removal for about 4.0

miles. Four tap and valve assemblies

with appurtenant facilities located on

the existing Line No. 2039 Pipeline

would be abandoned either in place or

by removal. The existing Southern

Avenue Meter Station would be

abandoned by removal and relocated

onto the new Line No. 2039 Pipeline in

the northwest quadrant of Southern

Avenue and 43rd Avenue Pig launching

and receiving facilities would be

installed at the Laveen Meter Station on

Elliot Road and at the West Phoenix

Meter Station north of Buckeye Road.

The Salt River would be crossed using

the open-trenching method. A block

valve would be installed on each side of

the Salt River. A 3,800–foot-long section

of the new Line No. 2039 Pipeline from

milepost 7.18 to 7.90 was installed in

June 2000 under El Paso’s blanket

authority and would be tied into the

proposed Line No. 2039 Pipeline.

The location of the project facilities is

shown in appendix 1, figures 1 and 2.

Land Requirements for Construction

Replacement of the proposed facilities

would require the use of 105 acres of

land, primarily agricultural, with some

residential land. This includes 73 acres

of previously undisturbed ROW for the

new pipeline, road, rail, and canal

crossings, the new Southern Avenue

Meter Station and associated staging

area, and pigging facilities. Previously

disturbed ROW in the amount of 32

acres would be required for abandoning

sections of pipeline by removal.

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 2 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 as a result of the

construction and operation of the

proposed project under these general

headings:

• Geology and soils

• Water resources, fisheries, and

wetlands

• Vegetation and wildlife

• Endangered and threatened species

• Public safety

• Land Use

• Cultural resources

• Air quality and noise

• Hazardous waste

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 EA is

published. We will consider all

comments on the EA before we make

our recommendations to the

Commission.

To ensure your comments are

considered, please carefully follow the

instructions in the public participation

section below.

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 provided by

El Paso. This preliminary list of issues

may be changed based on your

comments and our analysis.

• A 1750-foot-long, open trench

crossing of the Salt River would use a

30- to 75-foot-wide trench to bury the

pipeline 25 feet below the river bed.

• Construction would be within 50

feet of four residences on Elliot Road

and 43rd Avenue.

• Construction would disturb habitat

potentially suitable for the federally

listed endangered Yuma clapper rail

located in the Salt River floodplain.

• The project area crosses several

sites that may eligible to the National

Register of Historic Places, including

historic and prehistoric irrigation

systems. The historic Farmers Canal

system would be crossed in the vicinity

of Buckeye Road. El Paso proposes to

avoid adversely effecting the currently

used historic Roosevelt Canal by boring

beneath it.

Public Participation

You can make a difference by

providing us with your specific

76636 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 236 / Thursday, December 7, 2000 / Notices

comments or concerns about the project.

By becoming a commentor, your

concerns will be addressed in the EA/

EIS and considered by the Commission.

You should focus on the potential

environmental effects of the proposal,

alternatives to the proposal (including

alternative [locations/routes]), and

measures to avoid or lessen

environmental impact. The more

specific your comments, the more useful

they will be. Please carefully follow

these instructions to ensure that your

comments are received in time and

properly recorded:

• Send an original and two copies of

your letter to: David P. Boergers,

Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory

Commission, 888 First St., NE., Room

1A, Washington, DC 20426.

• Label one copy of the comments for

the attention of (Gas 2).

• Reference Docket No. CP00–012–

000.

• Mail your comments so that they

will be received in Washington, DC on

or before January 2, 2001.

Comments may also be filed

electronically via the Internet in lieu of

paper. See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii)

and the instructions on the

Commission’s web site at http://

www.ferc.fed.us/efi/doorbell.htm under

the link to the User’s Guide. Before you

can file comments you will need to

create an account which can be created

by clicking on ‘‘Login to File’’ and then

‘‘New User Account.’’

Becoming an Intervenor

In addition to involvement in the EA

scoping process, you may want to

become an official party to the

proceeding known as an ‘‘intervenor’’.

Intervenors play a more formal role in

the process. Among other things,

intervenors have the right to receive

copies of case-related Commission

documents and filings by the other

intervenors. Likewise, each intervenor

must provide 14 copies of its filings to

the Secretary of the Commission and

must send a copy of its filings to all

other parties on the Commission’s

service list for this proceeding. If you

want to become an intervenor you must

file a motion to intervene according to

Rule 214 of the Commission’s Rules of

Practice and Procedure (18 CFR

385.214) (see appendix 2). Only

intervenors have the right to seek

rehearing of the Commission’s decision.

Affected landowners and parties with

environmental concerns may be granted

intervenor status upon showing good

cause by stating that they have a clear

and direct interest in this proceeding

which would not be adequately

represented by any other parties. You do

not need intervenor status to have your

environmental comments considered.

Additional information about the

proposed project is available from the

Commission’s Office of External Affairs

at (202) 208–0004 or on the FERC

website (www.ferc.fed.us) using the

‘‘RIMS’’ link to information in this

docket number. Click on the ‘‘RIMS’’

link, select ‘‘Docket #’’ from the RIMS

Menu, and follow the instructions. For

assistance with access to RIMS, the

RIMS helpline can be reached at (202)

208–2222.

Similarly, the ‘‘CIPS’’ link on the

FERC Internet website provides access

to the texts of formal documents issued

by the Commission, such as orders,

notices, and rulemakings. From the

FERC Internet website, click on the

‘‘CIPS’’ link, select ‘‘Docket #’’ from the

CIPS menu, and follow the instructions.

For assistance with access to CIPS, the

CIPS helpline can be reached at (202)

208–2474.

David P. Boergers,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 00–31127 Filed 12–6–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717–01–M

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory

Commission

Notice of Request To Use Alternative

Procedures in Preparing a License

Application

December 1, 2000.

Take notice that the following request

to use alternative procedures to prepare

a license application has been filed with

the Commission.

a. Type of Application: Request to use

alternative procedures to prepare a new

license application.

b. Project No.: 2100.

c. Date filed: November 22, 2000.

d. Applicant: California Department

of Water Resources (DWR).

e. Name of Project: Oroville Project

(Feather River Project).

f. Location: On the Feather River, in

Butte County, California. The project

occupies federal lands within the

Plumas and Lassen National Forests.

g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power

Act, 16 U.S.C. 791(a)–825(r).

h. Applicant Contact: Viju Patel,

Executive Manager, Power Systems at

(916) 653–5913 or Rick Ramirez, State

Water Project Analysis Office at (916)

653–1095.

i. FERC Contact: James Fargo at (202)

219–2848; e-mail

james.fargo@ferc.fed.us

j. Deadline for Comments: January 8,

2001.

All documents (original and eight

copies) should be filed with: David P.

Boergers, Secretary, Federal Energy

Regulatory Commission, 888 First

Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.

Comments and protests may be filed

electronically via the internet in lieu of

paper. See, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii)

and the instructions on the

Commission’s web site at http://

www.ferc.fed.us/efi/doorbell.htm.

k. The Oroville facilities consist of the

existing Oroville Dam and Reservoir, the

Edward Hyatt Powerplant, Thermalito

Powerplant, Thermalito Diversion Dam

Powerplant, Thermalito Forebay and

Afterbay, and associated recreational

and fish and wildlife facilities. The

project has a total installed capacity of

762,000 kilowatts.

l. DWR has shown that it has made an

effort to contact most federal and state

resources agencies, non-governmental

organizations (NGO), and others affected

by the project. DWR has also shown that

a consensus exists that the use of

alternative procedures is appropriate in

this case. DWR has submitted a

proposed communications protocol that

is supported by many of the

stakeholders.

The purpose of this notice is to invite

any additional comments on DWR’s

request to use the alternative

procedures, pursuant to Section 4.34(i)

of the Commission’s regulations.

Additional notices seeking comments

on the specific project proposal,

interventions and protests, and

recommended terms and conditions will

be issued at a later date. DWR will

complete and file a preliminary

Environmental Assessment, in lieu of

Exhibit E of the license application.

This differs from the traditional process,

in which an applicant consults with

agencies, Indian tribes, NGOs, and other

parties during preparation of the license

application and before filing the

application, but the Commission staff

performs the environmental review after

the application is filed. The alternative

procedures are intended to simplify and

expedite the licensing process by

combining the pre-filing consultation

and environmental review process into

a single process, to facilitate greater

participation, and to improve

communication and cooperation among

the participants.

DWR has met with federal and state

resources agencies, NGOs, elected

officials flood control and downstream

interests, environmental groups,

business and economic development

organizations, the boating industry, and

members of the public regarding the