Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 111 / Friday, June 8, 2001 / Notices 30897

4The petition notes that Indian tribes are

identified as entities that can participate in

intergovernmental agreements with municipalities

under Arizona law A.R.S. 11–951 (1998).

and southern distribution systems are

not interconnected.

Acting at the direction of member

municipalities, including Hildale, Utah,

Colorado City, Arizona, Kanab, Utah,

and Fredonia, Arizona, IMGA has

requested that Questar Gas deliver

interstate gas supplies from its

interconnections with interstate

pipelines to the interconnection

between Questar Gas’ southern system

feeder line and Hildale’s municipal

pipeline at the City of Hurricane, Utah.

From that point, the gas supplies would

then be transported by IMGA through

Hildale’s 22-mile municipal pipeline to

Hildale, Utah. Some of the gas would

then be delivered to a planned

municipal pipeline that would cross the

Utah border into northern Arizona and

then back into Utah, terminating at

Kanab, Utah, to service only the

residents of Kanab, Utah. In the

alternative, a new municipal pipeline

could be jointly built to serve not only

Kanab, Utah, but also Colorado City,

Arizona, and Fredonia, Arizona. The

Kaibab Paiute Indian tribe in Arizona

may also participate.4 Each city would

connect to the pipeline and distribute

and sell the gas through a municipal

utility to their respective residential,

commercial and industrial end-users.

In a recent proceeding before the Utah

PSC, Hildale and IMGA requested that

the Utah PSC order Questar Gas to

provide wholesale transportation

service for Hildale and similarly

situated Utah municipalities. Under the

terms of a stipulation resulting in an

approved settlement in that proceeding,

Questar Gas has agreed to provide such

wholesale transportation service,

provided it does not jeopardize Questar

Gas’ NGA section 1(c) Hinshaw

exemption.

Accordingly, the petition seeks a

declaratory order addressing Questar

Gas’ concerns regarding the

jurisdictional consequences of

providing transportation service directly

to Kanab, Utah, where the pipeline

serving Kanab crosses into Arizona

before reentering Utah, and to

municipalities, like Colorado City and

Fredonia, Arizona, located outside of

Utah. Questar Gas requests that the

Commission address the jurisdictional

implications of such transportation

services on Questar’s existing NGA

section 1(c) Hinshaw exemption for its

southern distribution system and

Questar Gas’ ability to seek in the future

a service area determination for this

system under NGA section 7(f).

The petition seeks clarification

regarding whether Questar Gas would

need NGA certificate authority, such as

a blanket transportation certificate

issued pursuant to section 284.224 of

the Commission’s regulations (18 CFR

284.224), to render wholesale

transportation service or to construct

facilities for transportation of gas to

municipal utilities located within

Questar Gas’ existing designated NGA

section 7(f) service area or any such

service area designated for Questar Gas

in the future. In addition, the petition

raises the issue of whether Questar Gas

would lose its Hinshaw exemption by

providing wholesale transportation

service, constructing facilities for such

service, or connecting its northern

section 7(f) system to its southern

Hinshaw system so that gas could flow

from one to the other.

IMGA requests clarification of the rate

implications for Utah municipalities

presently receiving wholesale

transportation from Questar Gas, as a

Hinshaw pipeline, if Questar Gas

accepts a section 284.224 blanket

transportation certificate to authorize

Questar Gas’ transportation of gas that

ultimately would be distributed by

municipal utilities in non-Utah cities.

The petition also raises the issue of

whether Questar Gas may elect,

pursuant to the Commission’s

regulations governing service under a

section 284.224 blanket certificate, to

charge the Utah PSC’s currently

approved rate for Questar Gas’ existing

Hinshaw transportation services for

municipal utilities in Utah as Questar

Gas’ rate for transportation service for

Arizona municipalities.

There are two ways to become

involved in the Commission’s review of

this petition. First, any person wishing

to obtain legal status by becoming a

party to the proceeding should, on or

before June 25, 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 or 385.211)

and the Regulations under the Natural

Gas Act (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 applicants

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

the comments in support of or in

opposition to matters raised in the

petition. The Commission will consider

these comments in determining the

appropriate action to be taken, but the

filing of a comment will not serve to

make the filer a party to the proceeding.

The Commission’s rules require that

persons filing comments in opposition

provide copies of their protests only to

the party or parties directly involved in

the protest.

Comments, protests and interventions

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.

David P. Boergers,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 01–14437 Filed 6–7–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717–01–M

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory

Commission

[Docket No. EL01–84–000]

Salt River Project Agricultural

Improvement and Power District v.

California Independent System

Operator Corporation; Notice of

Complaint

June 4, 2001.

Take notice that on June 1, 2001, Salt

River Project Agricultural Improvement

and Power District (SRP) submitted a

Complaint against the California

Independent System Operator

Corporation (CAISO) pursuant to

Section 206 of the Federal Power Act

(FPA) 16 U.S.C. 824e. SRP alleges that

the CAISO over collected neutrality

adjustment charges from SRP, for the

time period January 2000 through

December 31, 2000, in violation of the

FPA, the rate cap contained in CAISO’s

tariff and orders of the Commission.

SRP also alleges that the CAISO off-set

these erroneous charges against

payments owed by the CAISO to SRP for

power supplies and that the CAISO’s

tariff violations are discouraging

suppliers from providing wholesale

power to the CAISO, contrary to the

Commission’s policy goals. SRP seeks

refunds of the alleged over charges, plus

30898 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 111 / Friday, June 8, 2001 / Notices

interest calculated in accordance with

the Commission’s regulations.

Copies of the filing were served upon

the California Independent System

Operator Corporation, the California

Public Utilities Commission and all

parties to Cities of Anaheim, Azusa,

Banning, Colton and Riverside,

California v. California Independent

System Operator Corporation, Docket

No. EL00–111–000, where similar issues

concerning the CAISO’s neutrality

adjustment charges were raised.

Any person desiring to be heard or to

protest this 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

must be filed on or before June 21, 2001.

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 in the

Public Reference Room. This filing may

also be viewed on the Internet at http:/

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

202–208–2222) for assistance. Answers

to the complaint shall also be due on or

before June 21, 2001. Comments,

protests and interventions 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.

David P. Boergers,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 01–14436 Filed 6–7–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717–01–M

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory

Commission

[Project No. 2232–413 South Carolina]

Duke Energy Corporation; Notice of

Availability of Environmental

Assessment

June 4, 2001.

An environmental assessment (EA) is

available for public review. The EA

analyzes the environmental impacts of

Duke Energy Corporation’s (Duke)

application to grant a non-project use of

project land to City of York (York) to

install a pipeline and intake, for raw

water withdrawal, in Lake Wylie, a

reservoir for the Catawba-Wateree

Hydroelectric Project. Duke’s proposed

grant would also allow York to

withdrawal up to 6 million gallons of

water per day from Lake Wylie. The

Catawba-Wateree Project is on the

Catawba River in Lancaster, York, and

Fairfield Counties, South Carolina, and

Gaston, Lincoln, and Burke Counties,

North Carolina.

The EA was written by staff in the

Office of Energy Projects, Federal

Energy Regulatory Commission. In the

EA, Commission staff conclude that

approving Duke’s application to grant

the use would not constitute a major

federal action significantly affecting the

quality of the human environment.

Copies of the EA can be viewed on the

web at www.ferc.fed.us/online/

rims.htm. Call (202) 208–2222 for

assistance. Copies are also available for

inspection and reproduction at the

Commission’s Public Reference Room,

located at 888 First Street, NE., Room

2A, Washington DC 20426, or by calling

(202) 208–1371.

David P. Boergers,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 01–14438 Filed 6–7–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717–01–M

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory

Commission

[Project No. 2114–091 Washington]

Public Utility District No. 2 of Grant

County Washington; Notice of

Availability of Environmental

Assessment

June 4, 2001.

In accordance with the National

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and

the Federal Energy Regulatory

Commission’s (Commission)

regulations, 18 CFR part 380 (Order No.

486, 52 FR 47910), the Office of Energy

Projects has reviewed Public Utility

District No. 2 of Grant County’s

application for an amendment to

temporarily waive for the current year

the spill flow requirements applicable to

its Priest Rapids Project, located on the

Columbia River in Grant, Yakima,

Kittitas, Douglas, Benton and Chelan

Counties, Washington and has prepared

an Environmental Assessment (EA). The

project occupies 3,051.92 acres of

federal lands administered by the

Bureau of Land Management

Department of Energy, Department of

Army, Bureau of Reclamation, and the

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

The EA contains the staff’s analysis of

the potential environmental impacts of

the proposed amendment and

alternatives developed by staff and

concludes that approval of the staff

recommended alternative would not

constitute a major federal action that

would significantly affect the quality of

the human environment.

The EA is attached to a Commission

order issued on June 1, 2001 for the

above application. Copies of the EA are

available for review at the Commission’s

Public Reference Room, located at 888

First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426,

or by calling (202) 208–1371. The EA

may be viewed on the web at http://

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

(202) 208–2222 for assistance).

For further information, contact

Charles Hall at (202) 219–2853.

David P. Boergers,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 01–14466 Filed 6–7–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717–01–M

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory

Commission

Notice of Application Accepted for

Filing and Soliciting Comments,

Motions To Intervene, and Protests

May 31, 2001.

Take notice that the following

hydroelectric application has been filed

with the Commission and is available

for public inspection:

a. Type of Application: Preliminary

Permit.

b. Project No: 11986–000.

c. Date Filed: May 4, 2001.

d. Applicant: Symbiotics, LLC.

e. Name of Project: Seven Oaks Dam

Hydroelectric Project.

f. Location: The proposed project

would be located on an existing dam

owned by the U.S. Army Corps of

Engineers, on the Santa Ana River in

San Bernadino County, California. Part

of the project would be on lands

administered by the U.S. Army Corps of

Engineers.

g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power

Act, 16 U.S.C. 791(a)–825(r).

h. Applicant Contact: Mr. Brent L.

Smith, President, Northwest Power

Services, Inc., P.O. Box 535, Rigby, ID

83442, (208) 745–8630, (fax) (208) 745–

7909, or e-mail address: npsihydro@aol.

com.

i. FERC Contact: Any questions on

this notice should be addressed to Mr.

Lynn R. Miles, Sr. at (202) 219–2671, or

e-mail address: lynn.miles@ferc.fed.us.