Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 238 / Monday, December 11, 2000 / Notices 77419

safe transportation of hazardous

materials and the specific requirements

in the HMR, even when not enforced,

because the requirement may cause

offerors or transporters of hazardous

materials to take actions that are not

required by the HMR, or refrain from

actions that are permitted under the

HMR.

While it may not be necessary to look

at the actual application of a nonFederal requirement, except when

applying the ‘‘obstacle’’ test, the words

in the requirement always set the scope

of the requirement. In some cases, terms

may be defined in the statute,

regulation, or ordinance. Otherwise,

those terms must be given their usual

and customary meaning. But RSPA

cannot accept efforts to interpret a nonFederal requirement in a manner that

‘‘is in direct conflict with the plain

language’’ of the State, local, or tribal

statute, regulation, or ordinance. PD–

14(R), Houston, Texas, Fire Code

Requirements on the Storage,

Transportation, and Handling of

Hazardous Materials, 63 FR 67506,

67510 (Dec. 7, 1998), decision on

petition for reconsideration, 64 FR

33949 (June 24, 1999).

Here, both NTTC and Safco appear to

support Kiesel’s position that RSPA

should consider the ‘‘plain language’’ of

Missouri’s prohibition against

recontainerization of hazardous waste

and find that the Missouri regulation is

preempted because it is not

substantively the same as Federal

requirements on ‘‘the packing,

repacking, [and] handling * * * of

hazardous material.’’ 49 U.S.C.

5125(b)(1)(B). Kiesel also specifically

refers to PD–12(R), where the applicant

and other persons indicated, without

contradiction, that New York’s

repackaging prohibition prevented a

transporter ‘‘from transferring the

contents of rail cars into trucks.’’ 60 FR

at 62536.

To date, very few comments have

been submitted on Kiesel’s application.

Neither Kiesel nor DNR has provided a

copy of the ‘‘written assurances’’

explaining why the prohibition against

recontainerization in 10 CSR 25–

6.263(2)(A).10.h would not apply to

Kiesel’s planned operations, nor has

DNR submitted any comments

explaining its regulation and why it is

not preempted by 49 U.S.C.

5125(b)(1)(B). Under these

circumstances, it is appropriate to

reopen the comment period rather than

simply to proceed to a determination in

this proceeding.

IV. Reopening of Comment Periods

The period to submit comments on

Kiesel’s application is reopened to allow

a new initial comment period of 45

days, followed by a 45-day period for

rebuttal comments.

All comments should address

whether 49 U.S.C. 5125 preempts the

prohibition against recontainerization in

10 CSR 25–6.263(2)(A)10.H, and, in the

context of the preemption criteria

discussed in the August 14, 2000 public

notice:

(1) explain the meaning of the

Missouri prohibition against

recontainerization of hazardous wastes

and the manner in which that

prohibition is applied and enforced; and

(2) address the assertions in Kiesel’s

August 30, 2000 letter that the Missouri

prohibition against recontainerization

precludes a transfer of hazardous waste

from a rail car to a motor vehicle and

is preempted because it is not

substantively the same as RSPA’s

regulations on the ‘‘packing, repacking,

[and] handling * * * of hazardous

material.’’ 49 U.S.C. 5125(b)(1)(B).

Persons intending to comment should

review the standards and procedures

governing consideration of applications

for preemption determinations, set forth

at 49 CFR 107.201–107.211.

Issued in Washington, DC on December 4,

2000.

Robert A. McGuire,

Associate Administrator for Hazardous

Materials Safety, Research and Special

Programs Administration.

[FR Doc. 00–31477 Filed 12–8–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–60–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Research and Special Programs

Administration (RSPA), DOT

[Docket No. RSPA–00–8452; Notice 1]

Pipeline Safety: Intent To Approve

Waiver and Environmental

Assessment of Waiver for Duke Energy

AGENCY: Office of Pipeline Safety,

Research and Special Programs

Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of Intent to Consider

Waiver and Environmental Assessment

of Waiver.

SUMMARY: The Office of Pipeline Safety

(OPS) is conducting a Risk Management

Demonstration Program with pipeline

operators to determine how risk

management might be used to

complement and improve the existing

Federal pipeline safety regulatory

process. OPS selected Duke Energy

(Duke) as a candidate for participation

in the Demonstration Program;

subsequently, OPS and Duke held

discussions as part of a consultation

process. During the consultation, Duke

identified a portion of its system where

it believed performing alternative risk

control activities in lieu of compliance

with current regulations would result in

a comparable margin of safety and

environmental protection. Duke

submitted an application to OPS to

temporarily waive certain regulatory

requirements relating to class location

changes for five locations in a 3-line

system, ranging from 0.5 miles to 0.88

miles in length and totaling 12.2 miles

in fifteen pipeline segments. Duke had

previously reduced the operating

pressure along the fifteen segments in

accordance with these requirements and

seeks to return the pipeline to its

historical operating pressure. Duke has

completed many of the proposed

alternative risk control activities related

to assuring integrity of the pipeline in

the segments for which regulatory relief

is sought. Discussions continue between

OPS and Duke regarding programmatic

aspects of the company’s risk

management demonstration project.

This Notice announces OPS’s intent

to approve a waiver to allow Duke to

increase the allowable operating

pressure in these fifteen pipe segments.

OPS has reviewed the terms of this

waiver and found them to be

appropriate. Among the terms of the

waiver that were crucial to OPS’s

decision to consider granting the waiver

were Duke’s selection as a candidate for

the Risk Management Demonstration

Program, Duke’s subsequent

participation in the consultation process

with an OPS Project Review Team

(PRT), the comparable margin of safety

and environmental protection provided

by the proposed activities, and the

expectation that the continuing

discussions with Duke may result in

approval of their risk management

demonstration project. In addition, OPS

has found that the overall effect of the

waiver is not inconsistent with pipeline

safety. If granted, this waiver would

expire upon either the approval or

disapproval of Duke’s risk management

demonstration project.

OPS is considering whether or not

additional regulations to enhance

pipeline integrity in high consequence

areas are warranted for natural gas

transmission pipelines. Additional

information on integrity management

rule-related activities is available on the

OPS web site at http://ops.dot.gov.

Within 90 days of OPS’s adoption of

new rules related to integrity

management of natural gas pipelines,

77420 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 238 / Monday, December 11, 2000 / Notices

1Candidates for the Pipeline Risk Management

Demonstration Program (62 FR 40135, July 25,

1997).

2Pipeline Safety: Remaining Candidates for the

Pipeline Risk Management Demonstration Program

(62 FR 53052, October 10, 1997).

3The consultation process is in its final stages

and the proposed Duke Energy Risk Demonstration

Project has been approved by the PRT.

Documentation that will formally accept Duke

Energy into the Risk Management Demonstration

Program is currently being prepared. That

documentation will include an order requiring

completion of all proposed risk control activities

and implementation of measures to evaluate their

continued effectiveness.

Duke will be required to re-evaluate the

effects of this waiver and report to OPS

on whether the terms of the waiver

continue to be appropriate and whether

the overall effect of the waiver remains

consistent with pipeline safety.

This Notice also provides an

environmental assessment of Duke’s

Activities. Based on this environmental

assessment, OPS has preliminarily

concluded that this waiver will have no

significant environmental impacts.

OPS seeks public comment on the

proposed waiver and the environmental

assessment, so that it may consider and

address these comments before making

a final decision on this matter.

ADDRESSES: OPS requests that

comments to this Notice or about this

environmental assessment be submitted

on or before January 10, 2001, so they

can be considered before a final

determination is made whether to grant

the waiver to Duke. Written comments

should be sent to the Dockets Facility,

U.S. Department of Transportation,

Plaza 401, 400 Seventh Street, SW.,

Washington, DC 20590–0001.

Comments should identify the docket

number RSPA–00–8452. Persons should

submit the original comment document

and one (1) copy. Persons wishing to

receive confirmation of receipt of their

comments must include a self-addressed

stamped postcard. The Dockets Facility

is located on the plaza level of the

Nassif Building in Room 401, 400

Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC.

The Dockets Facility is open from 10:00

a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday through

Friday, except on Federal holidays. You

may also submit comments to the

docket electronically. To do so, log on

to the DMS Web at http://dms.dot.gov.

Click on Help & Information to obtain

instructions for filing a document

electronically.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Elizabeth Callsen, OPS, (202) 366–4572,

regarding the subject matter of this

Notice. Contact the Dockets Unit, (202)

366–5046, for docket material.

Comments may also be reviewed online

at the DOT Docket Management System

website at http://dms.dot.gov/.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

1. Background

The Accountable Pipeline Safety and

Partnership Act of 1996 authorizes the

Secretary of Transportation to establish

risk management demonstration projects

in partnership with operators of gas and

liquid pipeline facilities, pursuant to

U.S.C. § 60126. In 1997, OPS announced

that Duke Energy (Duke) and eleven

other pipeline companies would be

candidates for participation in the Risk

Management Demonstration Program.1 2

Following this announcement, a

consultation process commenced, in

which an OPS Project Review Team

(PRT) and Duke held discussions on the

potential participation of Duke in the

Demonstration Program. The

consultation process involved technical

scrutiny by OPS of Duke’s safety

practices and pipeline integrity.3

During the course of the consultation

process, Duke identified seven new

Class 2 sites on their 3-line system,

comprising twenty-one pipeline

segments ranging from 0.5 to 2.7 miles

in length where it proposed to conduct

risk control alternative activities (the

‘‘Activities ’’) in lieu of the class

location change requirements in 49 CFR

192.611. Fifteen of these segments are

located in Tennessee and six are in

Kentucky. Operating pressure has

already been reduced for the fifteen

Tennessee segments, from 1000 psig to

936 psig, pursuant to the requirements

of 49 CFR 192.611. Duke submitted an

application on October 5, 2000, for a

waiver of the requirements of 49 CFR

192.611 for the fifteen Tennessee

segments (the ‘‘waiver segments’’) while

consultative discussions regarding

Duke’s proposed risk management

demonstration project continue. If the

waiver is approved, Duke will return the

operating pressure along the waiver

segments, for which most of the

proposed Activities have already been

completed, to 1000 psig. This document

summarizes OPS’s review of the

Activities and evaluates the extent to

which the terms of this waiver are

appropriate and the overall effect of the

waiver is not inconsistent with pipeline

safety, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 60118(c).

2. OPS Evaluation of Duke’s Proposed

Alternative Risk Control Activities

Representatives from OPS

Headquarters, OPS Southern Region,

and the State of Tennessee evaluated

Duke’s proposed Activities. OPS has

evaluated Duke’s current risk

assessment and risk control processes,

the method Duke used to identify and

define the Activities, and the analysis

Duke performed when comparing the

protection provided by 49 CFR 192.611

to the Activities. The OPS evaluation

also included an environmental

assessment, which is described in

Appendix A of this Notice.

The Duke System transports

pressurized natural gas, which is lighter

than air and flammable. If released as a

result of a pipeline leak or rupture,

natural gas can potentially ignite

causing fires or explosions, loss of life,

and/or damage to property or the

environment. Protecting the public and

environment through the prevention of

pipeline leaks and ruptures is the

highest priority for OPS and Duke. A

major review criterion for this

evaluation was whether the Activities

Duke proposes will achieve a margin of

safety and environmental protection

comparable to that achieved through

compliance with 49 CFR 192.611. It is

the preliminary opinion of OPS that

implementing the proposed Activities

will result in a comparable margin of

safety and environmental protection.

Once OPS has considered comments

it receives in response to this Notice,

OPS will make a final determination

regarding whether to grant a waiver to

Duke to return the operating pressure

along the waiver segments to 1000 psig

and implement any remaining Activities

in lieu of compliance with 49 CFR

192.611.

3. Alternative Risk Control Activity

Locations

The proposed Activities focus on

controlling risks along fifteen pipeline

segments in Tennessee. These waiver

segments are located on the three

parallel lines 10, 15, and 25,

downstream from the Mt. Pleasant

Compressor Station. The waiver

segments lie in Maury and Williamson

Counties, Tennessee. The waiver

segments are located at the following

specific milepost (M.P.) locations on

Line 10, and include the adjacent

sections of Lines 15 and 25 in each

location:

In Maury County, 1.2 miles southwest of

Hollywood, TN—From M.P. 226.47 to

M.P. 227.50

In Maury County, one-half mile north of

Hollywood, TN—From M.P. 228.49 to

M.P. 229.21

In Maury County, one mile east of

Union Grove, TN—From M.P. 238.00

to M.P. 238.65

In Maury County, 2.5 miles northwest of

Rally Hill, TN—From M.P. 247.78 to

M.P. 248.27

In Williamson County, 3.5 miles eastnortheast of Arrington, TN—From

M.P. 264.03 to M.P. 265.42

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 238 / Monday, December 11, 2000 / Notices 77421

4. Description of Waiver: Alternative

Risk Control Activities Designed To

Provide Comparable Margin of Safety

4.1 Current Regulatory Requirements

This section describes the current

regulatory requirements in 49 CFR

192.611 governing actions that must be

taken by a pipeline operator when

population density increases along a

pipeline.

OPS categorizes all locations along

natural gas pipelines according to the

population densities near the pipelines

(see 49 CFR 192.5). Locations with the

lowest population density (10 or fewer

buildings intended for human

occupancy within an area that extends

220 yards on either side of the

centerline of any continuous one mile

length of pipeline) are designated as

Class 1. As the population along a

pipeline increases, the class location

increases. For example, Class 2

locations have more than 10 but fewer

than 46 buildings intended for human

occupancy. Class 3 locations have 46 or

more buildings intended for human

occupancy, or are areas where a

pipeline lies within 100 yards of either

a building or small, well-defined

outside area (such as a playground,

recreation area, outdoor theater, or other

place of public assembly) that is

occupied by 20 or more persons on at

least 5 days a week for 10 weeks in any

12 month period. Class 4 locations are

any class location unit where buildings

with four or more stories above ground

are prevalent (e.g. large office

buildings).

All of the Duke waiver pipe segments

(identified in Section 3) have changed

from Class 1 to Class 2.

Pipeline safety regulations impose

more stringent design and operational

requirements as the class location

increases. When a class location

changes to a higher class (e.g., from

class 1 to class 2), the operator must

reduce the operating pressure on the

pipeline to provide an additional

margin of safety. The operator may be

able to avoid a pressure reduction, in

some cases, if a pressure test on the pipe

has confirmed that a prescribed safety

margin exists. In these cases, if a

previous pressure test has not confirmed

the prescribed safety margin, then the

operator must test the pipe to confirm

the margin. In other cases, the operator

must reduce the pressure or replace the

pipe with new pipe. In the case of the

waiver segments, Duke has lowered the

operating pressure from 1000 psig to

936 psig.

Duke has stated that in order to

provide reliable natural gas service to its

customers, it cannot maintain the

current pressure reduction along the

waiver segments. Consequently, in order

to increase pressure and provide reliable

service, Duke would be required to

replace the pipe in the fifteen waiver

segments. By replacing the existing pipe

with new pipe that has the prescribed

design factor, Duke could eliminate the

possibility that defects in the original

materials and construction, as well as

corrosion that may have occurred since

installation, would result in a failure.

4.2 Duke’s Proposed Alternative Risk

Control Activities

For each waiver segment, Duke

proposes to perform the following

alternative risk control activities, with

the objective of providing a margin of

safety and environmental protection

comparable to pipe replacement:

1. Internally inspect the waiver

segments using geometry and magnetic

flux leakage in-line inspection tools,

which are not required under current

regulations. These tools identify

indications of wall loss (e.g. corrosion),

as well as dents and gouges from initial

construction damage or third party

excavators working along the pipeline

right-of-way. These internal inspections

have been performed and the OPS

Southern Region has reviewed the

inspection results.

2. Internally inspect approximately

166 miles of additional pipe on the

three parallel lines in the Mt. Pleasant

Discharge. These internal inspections

have been performed and the OPS

Southern Region has reviewed the

inspection results.

3. Investigate dents upon completion

of the dent inspections for an extended

length of pipe (the ‘‘extended

segments’’) bordering and including

each waiver segment to further extend

the benefits of the integrity analysis.

The extended segments cover a length of

pipe totaling 660 feet on both ends of

each waiver segment. These internal

inspections have been performed and

the OPS Southern Region has reviewed

the inspection results.

4. Repair indications of corrosion,

existing construction damage, and

existing outside force damage identified

by the internal inspection using

conservative investigation and repair

criteria. The criteria used by Duke calls

for investigation and repairs of small

dents and anomalies that are well below

the threshold where pipeline integrity

might be compromised.

5. Perform hydrostatic tests of the

portions of Line 10 which have not

previously been tested to 100 percent

(SMYS). This includes two of the waiver

segments, 2.5 miles northwest of Rally

Hill in Maury County and 3.5 miles

east-northeast of Arrington in

Williamson County. These hydrostatic

tests have been completed.

6. Implement a Communications Plan

designed to inform and educate

appropriate stakeholders and Duke

Energy employees about risk

management concepts and the purposes

and expected benefits of the Duke

Energy Demonstration Project.

7. Perform enhanced damage

prevention activities including

implementing selected

recommendations from a recent study of

one-call systems and damage prevention

programs best practice, ‘‘Common

Ground’’. Duke will also install, for a

trial period, the TransWave monitoring

system covering all of the waiver

segments. This system will be tested to

determine its reliability and usefulness

for detecting third-party encroachments

(construction, excavation, etc.) in the

pipeline right-of-way.

As part of the company’s risk

evaluation, Duke has compared the

expected risk reduction produced by

increasing the operating pressure and

implementing the Activities to that

which would be achieved by

compliance with the current

regulations. OPS has reviewed this

evaluation and concluded that the

Activities will likely achieve a margin of

safety and environmental protection

comparable to the margin which would

be achieved through compliance with

49 CFR 192.611.

5. OPS’s Proposed Action

Based on OPS’s evaluation of Duke’s

proposed Activities, OPS is considering

granting Duke a waiver from the

pressure confirmation and pipe

replacement requirements of 49 CFR

192.611. This waiver would accept

Duke’s implementation of the Activities

in lieu of compliance with this

requirement and will allow Duke to

return the operating pressure in the

waiver segments to 1000 psig. In

addition, Duke along with OPS, would

be required to monitor the Activities’

effectiveness.

OPS is considering whether or not

additional regulations to enhance

pipeline integrity in high consequence

areas are warranted for natural gas

transmission pipelines. Additional

information on integrity management

rule-related activities is available on the

OPS web site at http://ops.dot.gov. No

more than 90 days after OPS adopts new

rules related to integrity management of

natural gas pipelines, Duke will be

required to re-evaluate the terms and

effects of this waiver and report to OPS

on whether the terms of the waiver

continue to be appropriate and whether

77422 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 238 / Monday, December 11, 2000 / Notices

1OPS is considering whether or not additional

regulations to enhance pipeline integrity in high

consequence areas is warranted for natural gas

transmission pipelines. Additional information on

integrity management rule-related activities is

available on the OPS web site at http://ops.dot.gov.

the overall effect of the waiver remains

consistent with pipeline safety. If, after

reviewing the Duke evaluation and

report, OPS determines that the terms of

the terms of the waiver are no longer

appropriate or that the overall effect of

the waiver is inconsistent with pipeline

safety, OPS will revoke the waiver and

require Duke to comply with 49 CFR

192.611 and all other applicable

regulations. This waiver will expire

upon approval of Duke’s risk

management demonstration project or in

the event that the Duke risk

management demonstration project is

disapproved. If either of these actions

occur earlier than 90 days after OPS

adopts new rules related to integrity

management of natural gas pipelines,

then this re-evaluation will not be

required.

6. Regulatory Perspective

Why is OPS Considering This Waiver?

OPS has determined that the terms of

the waiver are appropriate and that the

overall effect of the waiver is not

inconsistent with pipeline safety. The

following factors were considered when

making this determination:

1. The proposed Activities will

provide a comparable margin of safety

and protection for the environment and

the communities in the vicinity of

Duke’s pipelines.

2. Duke’s risk-based justification of

the alternatives to the class location

change regulations is technically sound.

3. The fifteen waiver segments have a

good integrity history, with no leaks

recorded during operation or

hydrostatic testing.

4. Duke has internally inspected a

total of 191 miles of pipe on the three

parallel lines in the Mt. Pleasant

discharge, including all of the waiver

segments. These inspections provide

added protection against pipeline

failures from corrosion, manufacturing

and construction defects, and outside

third-party damage along the full 191

mile length. Compliance with 49 CFR

192.611 would require replacement of

pipe within the waiver segments only

(approximately 12 miles of pipe) with

no added protection for the extended

segments (approximately 181 miles of

pipe). The proposed Activities provide

added protection by including the

additional pipe. Duke also conducted

hydrostatic tests to 100% SMYS on Line

10. In addition, Duke has installed the

TransWave system and will be

evaluating it over the coming year.

5. Duke was selected as a candidate

for the Risk Management Demonstration

Program and has participated in a

rigorous consultation process with OPS,

which included an enhanced sharing

with OPS of information related to the

integrity Duke’s pipeline. The

consultation process is nearly complete

and may result in acceptance of Duke

into the Risk Management

Demonstration Program including

enforceable commitments for the

additional risk control activities.

How Will OPS Oversee the Activities?

OPS retains its authority to enforce

Duke’s compliance with the pipeline

safety regulations. OPS is only

considering whether to grant a waiver

from compliance with 49 CFR 192.611

at those fifteen segments where Duke

has demonstrated that its proposed

Activities achieve a comparable margin

of safety and environmental protection.

Should any information subsequently

indicate that the terms of the waiver are

no longer appropriate or that the overall

effect of the waiver is inconsistent with

pipeline safety, then OPS retains its

authority to revoke the waiver and

require Duke to again comply with 49

CFR 192.611 and all other applicable

regulations.

This Notice is OPS’s final request for

public comment before OPS makes a

final decision on granting the waiver to

Duke.

Issued in Washington, DC, on December 5,

2000.

Stacey L. Gerard,

Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety.

[FR Doc. 00–31340 Filed 12–8–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–60–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Research and Special Programs

Administration

[Docket No. RSPA–00–8453; Notice 1]

Pipeline Safety: Intent To Consider

Waiver and Environmental

Assessment of Waiver for Tennessee

Gas Pipeline Company

AGENCY: Office of Pipeline Safety,

Research and Special Programs

Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of intent to consider

waiver and environmental assessment of

waiver.

SUMMARY: The Office of Pipeline Safety

(OPS) is conducting a Risk Management

Demonstration Program with pipeline

operators to determine how risk

management might be used to

complement and improve the existing

Federal pipeline safety regulatory

process. OPS selected Tennessee Gas

Pipeline Company (TGP) as a candidate

for participation in the Demonstration

Program; subsequently, OPS and TGP

held discussions as part of a

consultation process. During the

consultation, TGP identified a portion of

its system where it believed performing

alternative risk control activities in lieu

of compliance with current regulations

would result in a comparable margin of

safety and environmental protection.

TGP submitted an application to OPS to

waive certain regulatory requirements

relating to class location changes for

four pipeline segments. TGP’s

application stated that TGP would carry

out the proposed alternative risk control

activities in lieu of compliance with

these regulations.

This Notice announces OPS’s intent

to consider granting a waiver to allow

TGP to perform the proposed alternative

risk control activities. OPS has reviewed

the terms of this waiver and found them

to be appropriate. Among the terms of

the waiver that were crucial to OPS’s

decision to consider granting the waiver

were TGP’s selection as a candidate for

the Risk Management Demonstration

Program and TGP’s subsequent

participation in a consultation process

with OPS. In addition, OPS has found

that the overall effect of the waiver is

not inconsistent with pipeline safety,

because TGP’s proposed Activities

achieve a margin of safety and

environmental protection comparable to

the margin achieved by compliance

with current regulations. Within 90 days

of OPS’s adoption of new rules related

to integrity management of natural gas

pipelines 1, TGP will be required to reevaluate the effects of its proposed

alternative risk control activities and

report to OPS on whether the terms of

the waiver continue to be appropriate

and whether the overall effect of the

waiver remains consistent with pipeline

safety. This Notice also provides an

environmental assessment of TGP’s

Activities. Based on this environmental

assessment, OPS has preliminarily

concluded that this waiver will have no

significant environmental impacts.

OPS seeks public comment on the

proposed waiver and the environmental

assessment, so that it may consider and

address these comments before making

a final decision on this matter.

ADDRESSES: OPS requests that

comments to this Notice or about this

environmental assessment be submitted

on or before January 10, 2001, so they

can be considered before a final

determination is made whether to grant