27638 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 97 / Friday, May 18, 2001 / Notices

Preapplication

A preapplication is strongly

encouraged. The preapplication should

contain a title, address, telephone, fax

and e-mail address of the Principal

Investigator, and consist of 500 words or

less of narrative outlining the proposed

research objectives and methods.

Include a list of proposed principal

investigators and their institutions at the

end of the narrative. Responses to

preapplications, encouraging or

discouraging formal applications, will

generally be communicated within 7

days of receipt. Notification of a

successful preapplication is not an

indication that an award will be made

in response to the formal application.

Merit Review

Applications will be subjected to

formal merit review (peer review) and

will be evaluated against the following

criteria which are listed in descending

order of importance codified at 10 CFR

605.10(d):

1. Scientific and/or Technical Merit of

the Project;

2. Appropriateness of the Proposed

Method or Approach;

3. Competency of Applicant’s

Personnel and Adequacy of Proposed

Resources; and

4. Reasonableness and

Appropriateness of the Proposed

Budget.

The evaluation will include program

policy factors such as the relevance of

the proposed research to the terms of

the announcement and the agency’s

programmatic needs. Note, external peer

reviewers are selected with regard to

both their scientific expertise and the

absence of conflict-of-interest issues.

Non-federal reviewers may be used, and

submission of an application constitutes

agreement that this is acceptable to the

investigator(s) and the submitting

institution.

Submission Information

Information about the development

and submission of applications,

eligibility, limitations, evaluation,

selection process, and other policies and

procedures may be found in 10 CFR Part

605, and in the Application Guide for

the Office of Science Financial

Assistance Program. Electronic access to

the Guide and required forms is made

available via the World Wide Web at:

http://www.sc.doe.gov/production/

grants/grants.html. DOE is under no

obligation to pay for any costs

associated with the preparation or

submission of applications if an award

is not made.

In addition, for this notice, the

research description should not exceed

20 pages, exclusive of attachments, must

include detailed budgets, form DOE F

4620.1, for each year of support

requested, and must contain a one-page

abstract or summary of the proposed

research. On the SC grant face page,

form DOE F 4650.2, in block 15, also

provide the PI’s phone number, fax

number and e-mail address.

Attachments should include curriculum

vitae for all key personnel, a listing of

all current and pending federal support,

and letters of intent when collaborations

are part of the proposed research.

Curriculum vitae should be submitted

in a form similar to that of NIH or NSF

(two pages maximum), see for example:

http://www.nsf.gov:80/bfa/cpo/gpg/

fkit.htm#forms-9.

For researchers who do not have

access to the World Wide Web, please

contact Karen Carlson, Environmental

Sciences Division, SC–74, U.S.

Department of Energy, 19901

Germantown Road, Germantown, MD

20874–1290, phone: (301) 903–3338,

fax: (301) 903–8519, e-mail:

karen.carlson@science.doe.gov; for hard

copies of background material

mentioned in this solicitation.

(The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance

Number for this program is 81.049, and the

solicitation control number is ERFAP 10 CFR

part 605.)

Issued in Washington, DC May 9, 2001.

John Rodney Clark,

Associate Director of Science for Resource

Management.

[FR Doc. 01–12539 Filed 5–17–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6450–01–U

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

[FE Docket No. PP–197, DOE/EIS–0307]

Notice of Reopening Scoping Period

and Schedule for Public Scoping

Meetings; Public Service Company of

New Mexico

AGENCY: Department of Energy (DOE).

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: DOE announces that it is

reopening the scoping period and will

hold additional public scoping meetings

for the environmental impact statement

(DOE/EIS–0307) that is being prepared

in connection with an application for a

Presidential permit field by Public

Service Company of New Mexico

(PNM). PNM has applied for a

Presidential permit to construct electric

transmission lines across the U.S.-

Mexico border. DOE is preparing an EIS,

with the U.S. Forest Service as a

cooperating agency, because together

they have determined that the issuance

of a DOE Presidential permit and/or

issuance of a Forest Service ‘‘Special

Use Permit’’ would constitute major

Federal actions that may have a

significant impact upon the

environment within the meaning of the

National Environmental Policy Act of

1969 (NEPA). The purpose of this notice

is to open a new scoping period to

obtain comments on the five alternative

corridors proposed to be analyzed in the

EIS. These alternative corridors have

been derived from the eight study

corridors that were the subject of

previous scoping periods.

DATES: DOE invites interested agencies,

organizations, and members of the

public to submit comments or

suggestions to assist in identifying

significant environmental issues not

previously identified and in

determining the appropriate scope of

the EIS. This new scoping period starts

with the publication of this notice in the

Federal Register and will continue until

June 22, 2001. Written and oral

comments will be given equal weight

and DOE will consider all comments

received or postmarked by June 22,

2001, in defining the scope of the EIS.

Comments received or postmarked after

that date will be considered to the

extent possible.

Dates, times and locations for the

public scoping meetings are:

1. June 12, 2001, 4 p.m. to 7 p.m., Rio

Rico Resort, 1069 Camino Caralampi,

Rio Rico, Arizona.

2. June 13, 2001, 4 p.m. to 7 p.m.,

Marana High School, Marana, Arizona.

Requests to speak at a public scoping

meeting(s) should be received by the

NEPA Document Manager, Mrs. Ellen

Russell, at the address indicated below

on or before June 7, 2001. Requests to

speak may also be made at the time of

the scoping meeting(s). However,

persons who submitted advance

requests to speak will be given priority

if time should be limited during the

meeting.

ADDRESSES: Written comments or

suggestions on the scope of the EIS and

requests to speak at the scoping

meeting(s) should be addressed to: Mrs.

Ellem Russell, NEPA Document

Manager, Office of Fossil Energy (FE–

27), U.S. Department of Energy, 1000

Independence Avenue, SW.,

Washington DC 20585–0350; phone

202–586–9624, facsimile: 202–287–

5736, or by electronic mail at

Ellen.Russell@hq.doe.gov. Comments

that relate exclusively to activities on or

impacts to lands under the control of

the U.S. Forest Service may also be

transmitted directly to Jerry Conner,

Coronado National Forest, 300 W.

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 97 / Friday, May 18, 2001 / Notices 27639

Congress Street, Tucson, Arizona 85701;

phone 520–670–4527 or via electronic

mail at jconner@fs.fed.us.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For

information on the proposed project or

to receive a copy of the Draft EIS when

it is issued, contact Mrs. Russell at the

address listed in the ADDRESSES section

of this notice.

For general information on the DOE

NEPA review process, contact: Carol M.

Borgstrom, Director, Office of NEPA

Policy and Compliance (EH–42), U.S.

Department of Energy, 1000

Independence Avenue, SW.,

Washington, DC 20585–0119; Phone:

202–586–4600 or leave a message at

800–472–2756; Facsimile: 202–586–

7031.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background and Need for Agency

Action

Executive Order 10485, as amended

by Executive Order 12038, requires that

a Presidential permit be issued by DOE

before electric transmission facilities

may be constructed, maintained,

operated or connected at the U.S.

international border. The Executive

Order provides that a Presidential

permit may be issued after a finding that

the proposed project is consistent with

the public interest. In determining

consistency with the public interest,

DOE considers the impacts of the

project on the reliability of the U.S.

electric power system and on the

environment. The regulations

implementing the Executive Order have

been codified at 10 205.320–205.329.

Issuance of a Presidential permit does

not mandate that the project be

completed; in fact, prior to construction,

the recipient must obtain approval from

all other Federal, state and local

authorities with jurisdiction over the

project.

On December 28, 1998, PNM filed an

application for a Presidential permit

with the Office of Fossil Energy of DOE.

PNM proposed to construct up to two

transmission lines on a single right-ofway extending approximately 210 to

250 miles from the electric switchyard

near the Palo Verde Nuclear Generating

Station (PVNGS), located approximately

30 miles west of Phoenix, Arizona, to

the U.S.-Mexico border. South of the

border, PNM would extend the line(s)

approximately 60 miles to the Santa

Ana Substation, located in the City of

Santa Ana, Sonora, Mexico, and owned

by the Commission Federal de

Electricdad (CFE), the national electric

utility of Mexico.

In its December 28, 1998, Presidential

permit application, PNM identified

three alternative corridors for

construction of the two cross-border

transmission lines. These corridors were

the subject of public scoping meetings

conducted in Nogales, Tucson,

Patagonia, Sells, Ajo, Gila Bend, and

Casa Grande, Arizona, in March 1999.

The initial scoping period extended

from February 12 to March 15, 1999 (64

FR 7173, February 12, 1999), and was

later extended to April 14, 1999 (64 FR

13553, March 19, 1999). Later, three

additional alternative corridors were

developed and were the subject of

public scoping meetings conducted in

Green Valley, Tubac, Sasabe, Three

Points (Robles Junction), and Tucson in

June 1999, during a second scoping

period that extended from June 10 to

July 14, 1999 (64 FR 31204, June 10,

1999). A third scoping period was

opened on July 20, 2000 (65 FR 45042,

July 20, 2000), and, by an August 20,

2000, information letter to the public,

continued until October 2, 2000, to

receive public comment on two

additional alternative corridors, one

identified as the PNM ‘‘Preferred

Alternative.’’ Public scoping meetings

on these two additional alternative

corridors were scheduled for Rio Rico

and Tucson during August but were

later canceled when DOE became aware

from comments by the public that the

quality of maps distributed and posted

on the project web site was not

adequate. Also, the public pointed out

to DOE that during the month of August

many residents of southern Arizona

vacation outside of the State and either

would not be available for the meeting

or would not have received information

on the proceeding.

When the third scoping period was

opened on July 20, 2000, PNM had

identified a total of eight corridors,

modified the path of several from what

had originally been presented to the

public by DOE, and eliminated the

proposal to use direct current (DC)

technology. Since the close of the third

scoping period, PNM has continued to

identify, eliminate and/or modify its

proposed alternative corridors. For

example, initially, for each of its

proposal corridors, PNM had assumed a

two-mile-wide study corridor. As its

proposal has evolved, PNM has more

narrowly defined each alternative study

corridor, reducing the width of most to

approximately one mile. PNM also has

continued to define corridor alternatives

and consider multiple options to many

segments of these corridors.

Earlier this year DOE informed PNM

that this proceeding and the number of

variations to proposed corridors had

become too cumbersome for DOE to

adequately describe and analyze or for

the public to decipher. DOE requested

PNM to identify the set of alternatives

that DOE would propose to analyze in

the EIS. DOE then mapped PNM’s set of

alternatives to provide the public with

information to identify potential

impacts to their property and to their

community during this scoping period.

In addition, DOE decided that it would

not consider corridors PNM had earlier

proposed through the Tohono O’odham

Nation in light of the Nation’s

sovereignty and in response to its

request that DOE terminate the NEPA

and Presidential permit processes as

they pertain to the Nation.

Each of the five corridors that DOE

proposed to analyze in the EIS has been

named after distinguishing

characteristics in the southern part of

the corridor within the United States:

the East Valley Corridor, the Sasabe

Corridor, the Pipeline Corridor, the

Cross-Over Corridor (designated the

PNM preferred corridor), and the

Tucson Corridor. The first four of these

corridors have an optional routing in the

area near Picacho and Marana. A map

and description of each of the

alternatives (and options) is being

mailed to stakeholders who have

previously expressed an interest in this

proposal. In addition, maps are

available on the project web site

maintained for DOE by Battelle

Memorial Institute at http://

projects.battelle.org/pnmeis/ or may be

received by mail by leaving a message

at 1–888–806–3421. In addition, from

this web site interested persons can

download other project-related

information.

The EIS is being prepared to satisfy

the environmental review requirements

of any Federal agency having

jurisdiction over the proposed project or

any segment of it. The U.S. Forest

Service (Coronado National Forest) has

notified DOE that it will participate as

a cooperating agency in the preparation

of this EIS; several of the PNM-proposed

corridors cross land under control of the

Coronado National Forest. PNM must

obtain a ‘‘Special Use Permit’’ from the

U.S. Forest Service before a

transmission line can be constructed on

these lands.

Scoping Process

Interested parties are invited to

participate in the scoping process.

Public scoping meetings will be held at

the locations, dates, and times indicated

above under DATES and ADDRESSES

sections. These scoping meetings will be

informal but a transcript will be taken

and made available on the project web

site. The DOE presiding officer will

establish only those procedures needed

27640 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 97 / Friday, May 18, 2001 / Notices

to ensure that everyone who wishes to

speak has a chance to do so and that

DOE understands all issues and

comments. At this time DOE expects to

provide speakers with approximately 5

minutes for their oral statements.

Allotted time may change based on the

number of speakers who register.

Persons who have not submitted a

request to speak in advance may register

to speak at each scoping meeting, but

advance requests are encouraged.

Should any speaker desire to provide for

the record further information that

cannot be presented within the

designated time, such additional

information may be submitted in

writing by the date listed in the DATES

section. Both oral and written comments

will be considered and given equal

weight by DOE. Oral and written

comments previously submitted in this

proceeding have been entered in the

official record of this proceeding and

need not be resubmitted.

Issued in Washington, DC on May 15,

2001.

Anthony J. Como,

Deputy Director, Electric Power Regulation,

Office of Coal & Power Im/Ex, Office of Coal

& Power System, Office of Fossil Energy.

[FR Doc. 01–12538 Filed 5–17–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6450–01–M

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory

Commission

[Docket No. EL01–61–001]

PacifiCorp; Notice of Filing

May 14, 2001.

Take notice that on May 4, 2001,

PacifiCorp tendered for filing with the

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

(Commission) in accordance with 18

CFR Part 35 of the Commission’s Rules

and Regulations, a Long-Term Firm

Transmission Service Agreement with

Idaho Power Company (Idaho) under

PacifiCorp’s FERC Electric Tariff,

Second Revised Volume No. 11 (Tariff).

Copies of this filing were supplied to

the Washington Utilities and

Transportation Commission and the

Public Utility Commission of Oregon.

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 and protests

should be filed on or before May 25,

2001. Protests will be considered by the

Commission to determine the

appropriate action to be taken, but will

not serve to make protestants parties to

the proceedings. 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. This

filing may also be viewed on the

Internet at http://www.ferc.fed.us/

online/rims.htm (call 202–208–2222 for

assistance). Comments, protests and

interventions may be filed electronically

via the internet in lieu of paper. See, 18

CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(m)(iii) and the

instructions on the Commission’s web

site at http://www.ferc.us/efi/

doorbell.htm.

David P. Boergers,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 01–12504 Filed 5–17–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717–01–M

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory

Commission

[Docket No. CP01–360–000]

Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company;

Notice of Application

May 14, 2001.

Take notice that on May 7, 2001,

Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company

(Tennessee), 1001 Louisiana, Houston,

Texas 77002, filed in Docket No. CP01–

360–000, an application pursuant to

sections 7(b) and 7(c) of the Natural Gas

Act (NGA), and the Regulations of the

Federal Energy Regulatory

Commission’s requesting authorization

for its proposed Dracut Expansion

Project. In the proposal for the Dracut

Expansion Project, Tennessee seeks to

abandon approximately 11.92 miles of

16-inch pipeline, and requests a

certificate of public convenience and

necessity to construct, install and

operate approximately 11.50 miles of

24-inch diameter replacement pipeline

and 0.42 miles of 16-inch diameter

replacement pipeline, all as more fully

set forth in the application which is on

file with the Commission and open to

public inspection. This filing may be

viewed on the web at http://

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

(202) 208–2222 for assistance].

Tennessee states that the Project will

increase Tennessee’s capacity and

flexibility on its system in the New

England region, so that it can help meet

the significant growth in the demand for

natural gas services projected in this

area of the country. Tennessee’s current

capacity from Dracut is 200 MMcfd on

a firm year-round basis. Tennessee

states that the proposed replacement

and upgrade of facilities will increase its

capacity from Dracut to 500 MMcfd on

a firm year-round basis, with minimal

environmental disruption and relatively

modest facility construction.

The estimated cost for installations

and removal of the Dracut Project

facilities is approximately $36.4 million.

Tennessee proposes to place the Dracut

Expansion facilities in service by

November 1, 2002. Tennessee requests

that the Commission grant the requested

authority by December 31, 2001.

Tennessee states that it will charge

transportation rates as currently set

forth in its tariff for any service which

utilizes the proposed facilities; that no

new or rate schedules are being

proposed; and that capacity created by

the Dracut Expansion Project will be

awarded in accordance with

Tennessee’s existing Gas Tariff.

Any questions regarding this

application should be directed to Susan

T. Halbach, Senior Counsel, P.O. Box

2511, Houston, Texas 77252 (713) 420–

5751.

There are two ways to become

involved in the Commission’s review of

this project. First, any person wishing to

obtain legal status by becoming a party

to the proceedings for this project

should, on or before May 4, 2001, file

with the Federal Energy Regulatory

Commission, 888 First Street, NE.,

Washington, DC 20426, a motion to

intervene in accordance with the

requirements of the Commission’s Rules

of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR

385.214 and 385.211) and the

Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR

157.10). A person obtaining party status

will be placed on the service list

maintained by the Secretary of the

Commission and will receive copies of

all documents filed by the applicant and

by all other parties. A party must submit

14 copies of filings made with the

Commission and must mail a copy to

the applicant and to every other party in

the proceeding. Only parties to the

proceeding can ask for court review of

Commission orders in the proceeding.

However, a person does not have to

intervene in order to have comments

considered. The second way to

participate is by filing with the

Secretary of the Commission, as soon as

possible, an original and two copies of

comments in support of or in opposition

to this project. The Commission will

consider these comments in

determining the appropriate action to be

taken, but the filing of a comment alone

will not serve to make the filer a party

to the proceeding. The Commission’s

rules require that persons filing