16466 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 61 / Thursday, March 30, 1995 / Notices

1Williams Natural Gas 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, Room 3104, 941

North Capitol 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.

3According to the applicant, the project will not

affect any waters of the United States. We will

report any potential impacts, or their absence,

under this heading.

6. PacifiCorp

[Docket No. ER95–727–000]

Take notice that on March 10, 1995,

PacifiCorp, tendered for filing in

accordance with 18 CFR Part 35 of the

Commission’s Rules and Regulations,

Service Agreements with AES Power

Inc. (AES), Engelhard Power Marketing,

Inc. (Engelhard), InterCoast Power

Marketing Company (InterCoast) and

Gulfstream Energy, LLC (Gulfstream)

under PacifiCorp’s FERC Electric Tariff,

Volume No. 3, Service Schedule PPL–3.

Copies of this filing were supplied to

AES, Engelhard, InterCoast, Gulfstream,

the Washington Utilities and

Transportation Commission and the

Public Utility Commission of Oregon.

Comment date: April 7, 1995, in

accordance with Standard Paragraph E

at the end of this notice.

Standard Paragraphs

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,

825 North Capitol 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. 95–7767 Filed 3–29–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717–01–P

[Docket No. CP95–178–000]

Williams Natural Gas Co.; Notice of

Intent To Prepare an Environmental

Assessment for the Proposed Wilson

County Replacement Project and

Request for Comments on

Environmental Issues

March 24, 1995.

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 Wilson County

Replacement Project.1 This EA will be

used by the Commission in its decisionmaking process to determine whether an

environmental impact statement is

necessary and whether to approve the

project.

Summary of the Proposed Project

Williams Natural Gas Company

(Williams) wants to replace about 2,200

feet of 8-inch lateral pipeline with about

2,270 feet of 2-inch and 6-inch lateral

pipeline in Wilson County, Kansas. The

replacement would continue to provide

service to the Neodesha, Kansas area.

Williams requests Commission

authorization to construct and operate

the following facilities needed to

continue service:

• abandon in place 1,300 feet of 8-

inch lateral pipeline;

• abandon by removal 900 feet of 8-

inch lateral pipeline;

• construct 2,144 feet of 6-inch lateral

pipeline; and

• construct 130 feet of 2-inch lateral

pipeline.

The general location of the project

facilities and specific locations for

facilities on new sites are shown in

appendix 1.2

Land Requirements for Construction

Construction for the proposed

facilities would require about 3.45 acres

of land. Following construction, about

2.3 acres would be maintained as

permanent right-of-way. The remaining

1.3 acres of land would be restored and

allowed to revert to its former use.

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 as a result of the

construction and operation of the

proposed project under these general

headings:

• geology and soils

• water resources, fisheries, and

wetlands 3

• vegetation and wlidlife

• 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

recommend that the Commission

approve or not approve the project.

Currently Identified Environmental

Issues

One issue that has arisen based on a

preliminary review of the proposed

facilities and the environmental

information provided by Williams

concerns the location of a residential

area near the proposed pipeline. The

proposed right-of-way has been routed

to avoid impact to residences, however

several new landowners would be

affected by the location of the new

pipeline right-of-way in Neodosha,

Kansas.

Public Participation

You can make a difference by sending

a letter addressing your specific

comments or concerns about the project.

You should focus on the potential

environmental effects of the proposal,
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 61 / Thursday, March 30, 1995 / Notices 16467

alternatives to the proposal (including

alternative routes), and measures to

avoid or lessen environmental impact.

The more specific your comments, the

more useful they will be. Please follow

the instructions below to ensure that

your comments are received and

properly recorded:

• Address your letter to: Lois Cashell,

Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory

Commission, 825 North Capitol St., NE.,

Washington, DC 20426.

• Reference Docket No. CP95–130–

000.

• Send a copy of your letter to: Ms.

Amy Olson, EA Project Manager,

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission,

825 North Capitol St., NE., Room 7312,

Washington, DC 20426; and

• Mail your comments so that they

will be received in Washington, DC on

or before May 1, 1995.

If you wish to receive a copy of the

EA, you should request one from Ms.

Olson at the above address.

Becoming an Intervenor

In addition to involvement in the EA

scoping process, you may want to

become an official party to the

proceeding or become an ‘‘intervenor’’.

Among other things, intervenors have

the right to receive copies of caserelated Commission documents and

filings by other intervenors. Likewise,

each intervenor must provide copies of

its filings to all other parties. 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).

The date for filing of 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 scoping

comments considered.

Additional information about the

proposed project is available from Ms.

Amy Olson, EA Project Manager, at

(202) 208–1199.

Lois D. Cashell,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 95–7765 Filed 3–29–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717–01–M

Notice of Application

March 24, 1995.

Take notice that the following

hydroelectric application has been filed

with the Commission and is available

for public inspection:

a. Type of Application: Major License.

b. Project No.: 11214–001.

c. Date Filed: February 22, 1995.

d. Applicant: Southwestern Electric

Cooperative, Inc.

e. Name of Project: Carlyle Reservoir.

f. Location: On the Kaskaskia River

near the City of Carlyle, Clinton County,

Illinois.

g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power

Act, 16 U.S.C. 791(a)825(r).

h. Applicant Contact: Mr. Robert

Weinberg, 1615 M Street, N.W. Suite

800, Washington, DC 20036, (202) 467–

6370.

i. FERC Contact: Charles T. Raabe (dt)

(202) 219–2811.

j. Comment Date: On or before April

24, 1995.

k. Description of Project: The

proposed project would utilize the

existing U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’

Carlyle Dam and Reservoir and would

consist of: (1) An intake structure; (2)

five 96-inch-diameter penstocks; (3) a

power plant having five 800–Kw

turbine/generator units; (4) a 1400-footlong underground and a 3,000-foot-long

overhead transmission line; and (5)

appurtenant facilities.

l. With this notice, we are initiating

consultation with the State Historic

Preservation officer (SHPO), as required

by § 106, National Historic Preservation

Act, and the regulations of the Advisory

Council on Historic Preservation, 36

CFR 800.4.

m. Pursuant to § 4.32(b)(7) of 18 CFR

of the Commission’s Regulations, if any

resource agency, SHPO, Indian Tribe, or

person believes that an additional

scientific study should be conducted in

order to form an adequate factual basis

for a complete analysis of the

application of its merits, the resource

agency, SHPO, Indian Tribe, or person

must file a request for a study with the

Commission not later than 60 days from

the filing date and serve a copy of the

request on the applicant.

Lois D. Cashell,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 95–7762 Filed 3–29–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717–01–M

[Docket No. CP95–262–000, et al.]

Phillips Gas Pipeline Company, et al.;

Natural Gas Certificate Filings

March 23, 1995.

Take notice that the following filings

have been made with the Commission:

1. Phillips Gas Pipeline Company

[Docket No. CP95–262–000]

Take notice that on March 13, 1995,

Phillips Gas Pipeline Company

(Phillips), P.O. Box 1967, Houston,

Texas 77251–1967, filed an application

pursuant to Section 7(b) of the Natural

Gas Act for an order permitting and

approving the abandonment of all of

Phillips’ interstate pipeline

transmission facilities located in

Oklahoma and Texas in order to convert

the facilities to its former configuration

for oil transportation, all as more fully

set forth in the application which is on

file with the Commission and open to

public inspection.

Phillips requests permission and

approval to abandon all of its interstate

pipeline facilities consisting of

approximately 153 miles of 30-inch

pipeline that transports natural gas from

Cushing, Oklahoma to approximately 1

mile across the northern Texas border,

as well as related facilities and

equipment. Phillips proposes to

abandon these facilities so that Phillips

would be able to perform its former

function of transporting oil.

Phillips states that Phillips has not

been able to transport any natural gas on

a firm basis for almost two years, since

May 1, 1993, which has significantly

impaired Phillips’ ability to recover its

cost of service because Phillips’ rates are

based upon recovery of 100% of its

fixed costs through its reservation fees.

Phillips states that Phillips Gas

Marketing Company (PGMC), an affiliate

of Phillips and Phillips’ primary

interruptible customer, representing

over 97% of Phillips’ annual volumetric

throughput during 1994, recently

advised Phillips that PGMC would no

longer require any transportation service

on Phillips facilities in the near future.

Phillips indicates that the imminent loss

of over 97% of Phillips’ volumetric

throughput and Phillips’ inability to

acquire any firm transportation

contracts compels Phillips to seek

abandonment authorization for the

facilities. Phillips states that Phillips

has entered into a joint venture

agreement with ARCO Pipeline

Company (ARCO) regarding plans to

convert the facilities into an oil pipeline

to provide useful and necessary oil

transportation services. ARCO would

make all appropriate filings at the

Commission prior to commencing

operation of any new oil pipeline

facility, it is stated.

Comment date: April 13, 1995, in

accordance with Standard Paragraph F

at the end of this notice.