Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 192 / Thursday, October 2, 2008 / Notices 57347 

1This notice announces the second scoping 

period the Commission has opened for the Ruby 

Pipeline Project. See page 5 for details. 

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

environmental staff of the Commission’s Office of 

Energy Projects. 

in the docket number field to access the 

document. For assistance with eLibrary, 

contact FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov or 

call toll-free at (866) 208–3372, or for 

TTY contact (202) 502–8659. 

For further information regarding this 

notice, please contact Andrea Claros at 

(202) 502–8171 or by e-mail at 

andrea.claros@ferc.gov. 

Kimberly D. Bose, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. E8–23215 Filed 10–1–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6717–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission 

[FERC Docket No. PF08–9-000] 

Ruby Pipeline, L.L.C.; Notice of Intent 

To Prepare an Environmental Impact 

Statement and Land and Resource 

Management Plan Amendment for the 

Proposed Ruby Pipeline Project, 

Request for Comments on 

Environmental Issues, and Notice of 

Public Scoping Meetings 

September 26, 2008. 

The staff of the Federal Energy 

Regulatory Commission (FERC or 

Commission) will prepare an 

environmental impact statement (EIS) 

that will discuss the environmental 

impacts of Ruby Pipeline, L.L.C.’s 

(Ruby) proposed Ruby Pipeline Project 

in Wyoming, Utah, Nevada, and Oregon. 

The project facilities would consist of 

about 677 miles of 42-inch-diameter 

natural gas pipeline, four new 

compressor stations, and related 

facilities as described below. The EIS 

will be used by the Commission in its 

decision-making process to determine if 

the project is in the public convenience 

and necessity. 

This notice explains the scoping 

process that is being used to gather 

input from the public and interested 

agencies on the project. Your input will 

help determine the issues that need to 

be evaluated in the EIS. Please note that 

this scoping period will close on 

October 29, 2008. 

Comments may be submitted in 

writing or verbally. Details on how to 

submit written comments are provided 

in the ‘‘Public Participation’’ section of 

this notice. In lieu of or in addition to 

sending written comments, you are 

invited to attend any of the four public 

scoping meetings to verbally comment 

on the project. The dates and locations 

of the meetings are listed below and will 

be posted on the Commission’s calendar 

at http://www.ferc.gov/EventCalendar/ 

EventsList.aspx. All meetings are 

scheduled to begin at 7 p.m. in the time 

zone in which they are being held. 

October 14, 2008—Montpelier, Idaho, 

Oregon-California Trail Center, 320 N 

4th Street, (208) 847–3800. 

October 15, 2008—Hyrum, Utah, Civic 

Center, 83 W Main Street, (435) 245– 

6033. 

October 16, 2008—Brigham City, Utah, 

Brigham City Senior Center, 24 N 300 

W, (435) 723–3303. 

October 22, 2008—Lakeview, Oregon, 

Elks Lodge, 323 N. F Street, (541) 

947–2258. 

If a significant number of people are 

interested in commenting at the 

meetings, each commenter will be 

limited to a three to five minute 

comment period to ensure that all 

people wishing to comment have the 

opportunity in the time allotted for the 

meeting. If time limits on comments are 

implemented, they will be strictly 

enforced. 

The Ruby Pipeline Project is currently 

in the ‘‘Pre-filing’’ stage and at this time 

a formal application has not been filed 

with the Commission. For this proposal, 

the Commission is initiating its National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) 

review prior to receiving the 

application. The Commission’s Prefiling Process allows interested 

stakeholders to become involved early 

in the project planning with the intent 

of identifying and resolving issues 

before a formal application is filed with 

the FERC.1 A docket number (PF08–9– 

000) has been established to place 

information filed by Ruby and related 

documents issued or received by the 

Commission into the public record. 

Once a formal application is filed with 

the FERC, a new docket number will be 

established. 

The FERC is the lead federal agency 

for the preparation of the EIS. The U.S. 

Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is 

participating as a cooperating agency in 

the preparation of the EIS because the 

project would cross federally 

administered lands in Wyoming, Utah, 

Nevada, and Oregon. The U.S. Forest 

Service (USFS) also is participating as a 

cooperating agency because the project 

would cross the Wasatch-Cache and 

Fremont-Winema National Forests in 

Utah and Oregon, respectively. 

As a cooperating agency, the BLM 

intends to adopt the EIS per Title 40 of 

the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 

1506.3, to meet its NEPA 

responsibilities for Ruby’s application 

for a Right-of-Way Grant and Temporary 

Use Permit for crossing federally 

administered lands, including the 

Wasatch-Cache and Fremont-Winema 

National Forests. The concurrence or 

non-concurrence of the USFS would be 

considered in the BLM’s decision as 

well as impacts on resources and 

programs and the project’s conformance 

with land use plans. 

As proposed, the Ruby Pipeline 

Project does not follow a designated 

utility corridor through the WasatchCache National Forest; therefore, if 

Ruby’s proposed route were authorized, 

the Wasatch-Cache National Forest 

Revised Land and Resource 

Management Plan (2003) (Forest Plan) 

would need to be amended. The USFS 

will use the EIS to consider amending 

the Forest Plan to allow pipeline 

construction outside of designated 

utility corridors. 

With this notice, we 2 are asking other 

federal, state, and local agencies with 

jurisdiction and/or special expertise 

with respect to environmental issues in 

the project area to formally cooperate 

with us in the preparation of the EIS. 

These agencies may choose to 

participate once they have evaluated 

Ruby’s proposal relative to their 

responsibilities. Agencies that would 

like to request cooperating status should 

follow the instructions for filing written 

comments described later in this notice 

and describe the extent to which they 

would like to be involved as a 

cooperating agency. We also encourage 

government representatives to notify 

their constituents of this project and 

encourage them to comment on their 

areas of concern. 

If you are a 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. If so, Ruby and the 

affected landowners should seek to 

negotiate a mutually acceptable 

agreement. However, if the project is 

approved by the Commission, that 

approval conveys with it the right of 

eminent domain for securing easements 

for the facilities. Therefore, if easement 

negotiations fail to produce an 

agreement, Ruby could initiate 

condemnation proceedings in 

accordance with state law. 

This notice is being sent to potentially 

affected landowners crossed by and 

adjacent to the project route; 

landowners within 0.5 mile of proposed 

compressor station sites; federal, state, 

and local government agencies; elected 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

57348 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 192 / Thursday, October 2, 2008 / Notices 

3A lateral is a short pipeline that takes natural 

gas from the main pipeline system to a customer, 

such as a local distribution company or another 

natural gas pipeline system. 4The 4 measurement stations would house a total 

of 10 receipt and/or delivery points. 5A pipeline ‘‘pig’’ is a device designed to 

internally clean or inspect the pipeline. A pig 

launcher/receiver is an aboveground facility where 

pigs are inserted into or retrieved from the pipeline. 

6Appendix 1 (General Project Map) and appendix 

2 (Mailing List Retention Form) are not being 

printed in the Federal Register. Copies are available 

on the Commission’s Internet Web site (http:// 

www.ferc.gov) at the ‘‘eLibrary’’ link or from the 

Commission’s Public Reference Room at (202) 502– 

8371. For instructions on connecting to eLibrary, 

refer to the ‘‘Availability of Additional Information’’ 

section at the end of this notice. The General Project 

Map and Mailing List Retention Form were sent to 

all those receiving this notice in the mail. 

officials; environmental and public 

interest groups; Native American tribes; 

local libraries and newspapers; and 

other interested parties. 

This notice is also being sent to 

landowners within 0.5 mile of Ruby’s 

currently planned pipeline route and 

0.5 mile of an alternative route 

previously considered by Ruby. Both 

routes are shown on the map in 

appendix 1. We included these 

landowners on our original mailing list 

and scoping effort for the project 

because the initial route location 

proposed by Ruby was very general and 

had potential to directly affect a wider 

range of landowners as the route became 

more refined. Thus, some recipients of 

this notice may not be directly affected 

by the Ruby Pipeline Project. Although 

we have retained these landowners for 

this mailing, please note that recipients 

of this notice who do not comment on 

the proposed project and want to remain 

on the list for future mailings must 

return the Mailing List Retention Form 

(see the section ‘‘Environmental Mailing 

List’’ on page 9 and also appendix 2 for 

details on how to remain on the mailing 

list). 

To assist potentially affected 

landowners, a fact sheet prepared by the 

FERC entitled ‘‘An Interstate Natural 

Gas Facility On My Land? What Do I 

Need To Know?’’ addresses a number of 

typically asked questions, including the 

potential use of eminent domain and 

how to participate in the Commission’s 

proceedings. It is available for viewing 

on the FERC Internet Web site (http:// 

www.ferc.gov). 

Summary of the Proposed Project 

Ruby is proposing to construct a new 

pipeline system to transport natural gas 

from the Rocky Mountain region to the 

northwestern United States. 

Specifically, Ruby is proposing to 

construct: 

• About 674 miles of 42-inchdiameter pipeline from the Opal Hub in 

Lincoln County, Wyoming to the Malin 

Market Center in Klamath County, 

Oregon; 

• About 3 miles of 42-inch-diameter 

lateral 3 pipeline in Klamath County, 

Oregon; 

• 4 new compressor stations; 

• 4 measurement stations; 4

• 42 mainline block valves; and 

• 14 pig 5 launcher and 13 pig 

receiver facilities. 

A map depicting the general location 

of project facilities is included as 

appendix 1.6 Ruby originally considered 

a northern route on the eastern end of 

the pipeline as illustrated on the general 

location map. Based on additional study 

and agency consultations, Ruby no 

longer prefers the northern route. We 

are, however, including it in our 

evaluation as a possible alternative 

along with other possible alternatives. 

The project, if completed, would have 

the capacity for transporting 

approximately 1.3 to 1.5 billion cubic 

feet of natural gas per day. Ruby 

anticipates filing its formal application 

with the FERC in January 2009. Ruby is 

proposing to start construction of the 

project in the first or second quarter of 

2010, with the goal of placing the 

proposed pipeline in service in the first 

quarter of 2011. 

Land Requirements for Construction 

Ruby is proposing to use a nominal 

115-foot-wide construction right-of-way 

for the project. Additional work areas 

would be required where the pipeline 

crosses certain features (e.g., 

waterbodies, wetlands, steep slopes, 

roads, and railroads); for staging areas, 

pipe yards, and contractor’s yards; and 

for widening certain roads for project 

access. 

Based on preliminary information, we 

estimate that construction of the Ruby 

Pipeline Project would disturb about 

12,000 acres of land. Of the 12,000 

acres, about 4,300 acres would be 

retained after construction as a 50-footwide permanent right-of-way and as 

aboveground facility sites. All 

temporary work areas would be restored 

and allowed to revert to former use after 

construction. 

The EIS Process 

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 under Section 7 of the Natural 

Gas Act. NEPA also requires us to 

identify and address concerns the 

public has about proposals. This is the 

‘‘scoping’’ process referred to earlier. 

The main goal of the scoping process is 

to focus the analysis in the EIS on 

important environmental issues and 

reasonable alternatives. All comments 

received during a scoping period are 

considered in the preparation of an EIS. 

As a part of the Commission’s Prefiling Process, FERC and cooperating 

agency staff have already started to meet 

with Ruby, jurisdictional agencies, and 

other interested stakeholders to discuss 

the project and identify issues/impacts 

and concerns. FERC and BLM staff 

participated in eight public open house 

meetings hosted by Ruby in February 

and March 2008. In addition, on March 

28, 2008, the FERC issued a Notice of 

Pre-Filing Environmental Review for the 

Ruby Pipeline Project, Request for 

Comments on Environmental Issues, 

and Notice of Public Scoping Meetings. 

Issuance of that notice opened an initial 

time period for providing comments on 

the project and announced the six 

public scoping meetings held in April 

2008. 

By this notice, we are formally 

announcing the preparation of the EIS 

and are requesting additional agency 

and public comments to help focus the 

analysis in the EIS on the potentially 

significant environmental issues/ 

impacts related to the project. Our 

independent analysis of the issues will 

be included in a draft EIS. The draft EIS 

will be mailed to federal, state, and local 

government agencies; elected officials; 

environmental and public interest 

groups; Native American tribes; affected 

landowners; commentors; other 

interested parties; local libraries and 

newspapers; and the FERC’s official 

service list for this proceeding. A 45-day 

comment period will be allotted for 

public review of the draft EIS. We will 

consider all comments on the draft EIS 

and revise the document, as necessary, 

before issuing a final EIS. We will 

consider all comments on the final EIS 

before we make our recommendations to 

the Commission. To ensure that your 

comments are considered, please follow 

the instructions in the ‘‘Public 

Participation’’ section of this notice. 

Currently Identified Environmental 

Issues 

The EIS will discuss impacts that 

could occur as a result of construction 

and operation of the Ruby Pipeline 

Project. We have already identified a 

number of issues and alternatives that 

we think deserve attention based on the 

initial public scoping period and our 

review of the information provided by 

Ruby. This preliminary list of potential 

issues and alternatives may be changed 

based on your comments and our 

analysis. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 192 / Thursday, October 2, 2008 / Notices 57349 

Geology, Soils, and Reclamation: 

• Impacts on current and future 

mining operations, including gold 

mines near Elko and Winnemucca, 

Nevada. 

• Potential for seismic activity to 

affect the integrity of the pipeline. 

• Potential for reduced soil fertility 

due to topsoil and subsoil mixing. 

• Construction limitations and 

erosion potential in steep terrain. 

• Potential for problematic 

reclamation due to poor soils, arid 

conditions, and potential grazing after 

restoration has occurred. 

• Potential for invasion or spread of 

undesirable vegetation and noxious 

weeds during and after construction. 

Water Resources and Wetlands: 

• Potential effects on groundwater 

resources and springs. 

• Effects of construction on 

waterbodies and agricultural canals. 

• Impacts on wetlands, including 

wetlands in the Wetland Reserve 

Program. 

Fish, Wildlife, Vegetation, and 

Sensitive Species: 

• Effects of project construction and 

timing on fish and wildlife and their 

habitat, including state-listed threatened 

and endangered species, migratory 

birds, and big game species. 

• Effects of water depletion from 

hydrostatic test water withdrawals, 

including effects on federally listed or 

proposed threatened or endangered 

species. 

Cultural Resources: 

• Effect on known and undiscovered 

cultural resources. 

• Native American and tribal 

concerns, including traditional cultural 

properties. 

Land Use, Recreation and Special 

Interest Areas, and Visual Resources: 

• Potential for impacts on Utahdesignated Agricultural Protection 

Areas. 

• Impacts on grazing and livestock as 

a result of cutting fences and having an 

open trench in range land. 

• Impacts on farming as a result of 

reduced soil fertility (top/subsoil 

mixing), disrupted irrigation and 

drainage patterns. 

• Impacts on residences, including 

proximity of facilities to existing 

structures and conflicts with planned 

and future development. 

• Impacts on existing or proposed 

roadless and wilderness areas. 

• Impacts on existing conservation 

easements and potential for future 

preclusion from conservation 

easements. 

• Impacts on recreation (e.g., fishing, 

hunting, boating, camping, and hiking). 

Socioeconomics: 

• Effects of construction workforce 

demands on public services and 

temporary housing. 

Air Quality and Noise: 

• Effects on local air quality and 

noise environment from construction 

and operation of the proposed facilities. 

Reliability and Safety: 

• Potential hazards to natural gas 

pipelines from wildfires, and potential 

for construction to start a wildfire. 

• Potential for third-party damage or 

inadequate maintenance of the pipeline 

to cause a pipeline incident. 

• Assessment of security associated 

with operation of natural gas facilities. 

Alternatives: 

• Use of alternative systems to 

transport natural gas, such as the LNG 

terminals proposed in Oregon. 

• Evaluation of the northern route 

alternative. 

• Use of existing corridors (e.g., 

Interstate 80, Questar pipelines, 

petroleum pipelines south of Utah State 

Highway 30, the West Wide Energy 

Corridor). 

• Minor variations to avoid specific 

features or resources. 

Cumulative Impacts: 

• Impacts of the project when 

combined with other actions in the 

same region, particularly the multiple 

LNG terminals and natural gas pipeline 

projects proposed in Oregon. 

• Potential for cumulative impacts 

from siting multiple utilities within the 

same corridor. 

• Potential for the new corridor to 

attract future utility lines and result in 

cumulative impacts. 

We will make recommendations in 

the EIS on how to lessen or avoid 

impacts on the various resource areas 

and evaluate possible alternatives to the 

proposed project or portions of the 

project. 

Public Participation 

You can make a difference by 

providing us with your specific 

comments or concerns about Ruby’s 

planned project. Your comments should 

focus on the potential environmental 

effects, reasonable alternatives, and 

measures to avoid or lessen 

environmental impacts. The more 

specific your comments, the more useful 

they will be. To ensure that your 

comments are timely and properly 

recorded, please send your comments so 

that they will be received in 

Washington, DC on or before October 

29, 2008. 

For your convenience, there are three 

methods which you can use to submit 

written comments to the Commission. 

In all instances please reference the 

project docket number (PF08–9–000) 

with your submission. The Commission 

strongly encourages electronic filing of 

comments and has dedicated eFiling 

staff available to assist you at 202–502– 

8258 or efiling@ferc.gov. 

(1) You may file your comments 

electronically by using the Quick 

Comment feature, which is located on 

the Commission’s Internet Web site at 

http://www.ferc.gov under the link to 

Documents and Filings. A Quick 

Comment is an easy method for 

interested persons to submit text-only 

comments on a project. 

(2) You may file your comments 

electronically by using the eFiling 

feature, which is located on the 

Commission’s Internet Web site at 

http://www.ferc.gov under the link to 

Documents and Filings. eFiling involves 

preparing your submission in the same 

manner as you would if filing on paper 

and then saving the file on your 

computer’s hard drive. You will attach 

that file as your submission. New 

eFiling users must first create an 

account by clicking on ‘‘Sign up’’ or 

‘‘eRegister.’’ You will be asked to select 

the type of filing you are making. A 

comment on a particular project is 

considered a ‘‘Comment on Filing.’’ 

(3) You may file your comments by 

mail by sending an original and two 

copies of your letter to: Kimberly D. 

Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy 

Regulatory Commission, 888 First 

Street, NE.; Room 1A, Washington, DC 

20426. 

Label one copy of your comments for 

the attention of Gas 1; DG2E; PJ–11.1. 

The public scoping meetings 

referenced on page 1 of this notice are 

designed to provide another opportunity 

to offer comments on the Ruby Pipeline 

Project. Interested groups and 

individuals are encouraged to attend 

these meetings and to present comments 

on the environmental issues they 

believe should be addressed in the EIS. 

Transcripts of the meetings will be 

made so that your comments will be 

accurately recorded. In addition, we 

have asked representatives from Ruby to 

be available with project location maps 

and other technical information to 

answer landowner concerns after each 

meeting. 

Once Ruby formally files its 

application with the Commission, you 

may want to become an official party to 

the proceeding known as an 

‘‘intervenor.’’ Intervenors play a more 

formal role in the process and are able 

to file briefs, appear at hearings, and be 

heard by the courts if they choose to 

appeal the Commission’s final ruling. 

An intervenor formally participates in a 

Commission proceeding by filing a 

request to intervene. Instructions for 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

57350 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 192 / Thursday, October 2, 2008 / Notices 

1Algonquin Gas Transmission, LLC, 118 FERC 

¶61,123. 

2 Id., 120 FERC ¶61,072. 

3Saltville Gas Storage Company LLC, 124 FERC 

¶61,209. 

4East Tennessee Natural Gas, LLC, 124 FERC 

¶61,210. 

becoming an intervenor are included in 

the User’s Guide under the ‘‘eFiling’’ 

link on the Commission’s Web site. 

Please note that you may not request 

intervenor status at this time. You must 

wait until a formal application is filed 

with the Commission. You do not need 

intervenor status to have your 

environmental comments considered. 

Environmental Mailing List 

If you received this notice, you are 

currently on the environmental mailing 

list for this project. If you do not want 

to send comments at this time and have 

not previously sent comments to us on 

this project or presented comments at 

one of the public scoping meetings, but 

still want to remain on our mailing list, 

please return the Mailing List Retention 

Form (appendix 2). If you do not submit 

or present comments or if you do not 

return the Mailing List Retention Form, 

you will be removed from the 

Commission’s environmental mailing 

list for this project. 

Availability of Additional Information 

Additional information about the 

Project is available from the FERC’s 

Office of External Affairs at 1–866–208– 

FERC (3372) or on the FERC Internet 

Web site (http://www.ferc.gov) using the 

eLibrary link. Click on the eLibrary link, 

click on ‘‘General Search,’’ and enter the 

docket number excluding the last three 

digits in the Docket Number field (i.e., 

PF08–9). Be sure you have selected an 

appropriate date range. For assistance, 

please contact FERC Online Support at 

FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov or toll 

free at 1–866–208–3676, or for TTY, 

contact (202) 502–8659. The eLibrary 

link on the FERC Internet Web site also 

provides access to the text of formal 

documents issued by the Commission, 

such as orders, notices, and 

rulemakings. 

In addition, the FERC offers a free 

service called eSubscription that allows 

you to keep track of all formal issuances 

and submittals in specific dockets. This 

can reduce the amount of time you 

spend researching proceedings by 

automatically providing you with 

notification of these filings, document 

summaries, and direct links to the 

documents. To register for this service, 

go to the eSubscription link on the 

FERC Internet Web site (http:// 

www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ 

esubscription.asp). 

Information concerning the 

involvement of the BLM in the EIS 

process may be obtained from Mark 

Mackiewicz, PMP, National Project 

Manager, at (435) 636–3616. Information 

concerning the involvement of the USFS 

may be obtained from Catherine 

Callaghan at the Fremont-Winema 

National Forest at (541) 947–2151, and 

David Ream (801) 236–3400 at the 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest. 

Finally, Ruby has established an 

Internet Web site for its project at 

http://www.rubypipeline.com. The Web 

site includes a description of the project 

as well as project maps and links to 

related documents. Information can also 

be obtained by calling Ruby directly at 

1–877–598–5263 (toll free) or 1–719– 

520–4450. 

Kimberly D. Bose, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. E8–23216 Filed 10–1–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6717–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission 

[Docket Nos. RP07–139–000, RP08–479– 

000, RP08–487–000 (not consolidated)] 

Algonquin Gas Transmission, LLC, 

Saltville Gas Storage Company, LLC, 

East Tennessee Natural Gas, LLC; 

Notice of Technical Conference 

September 26, 2008. 

On January 19, 2007, Algonquin Gas 

Transmission, LLC (Algonquin) filed 

proposed changes to its tariff sheets 

concerning, among other things, a net 

present value (NPV) allocation 

methodology for available capacity that 

considered probability of default as one 

of its factors. On February 16, 2007, the 

Commission accepted and suspended 

the proposed tariff changes, subject to 

refund and conditions.1 On July 19, 

2007, the Commission accepted 

Algonquin’s compliance filing subject to 

certain modifications.2 On September 

19, 2007, the Commission granted a 

request for rehearing for further 

consideration. 

On August 1, 2008, in Docket No. 

RP08–479–000, Saltville Gas Storage 

Company, LLC (Saltville) and, in Docket 

No. RP08–487–000, East Tennessee 

Natural Gas, LLC (East Tennessee) filed 

proposed changes to their respective 

tariffs concerning, among other things, a 

NPV allocation methodology for 

available capacity that considered 

probability of default as one of its 

factors. On August 29, 2008, the 

Commission accepted and suspended 

the proposed tariff changes of both 

Saltville3 and East Tennessee,4 subject 

to refund and conditions, and the 

outcome of a technical conference. In 

both orders, the Commission directed its 

Staff to convene a technical conference 

to address the proposed services and 

terms and conditions, and to report the 

results of the technical conference to the 

Commission within 120 days. 

On September 24, 2008 the 

Commission staff sent data requests to 

Algonquin, Saltville, and East 

Tennessee requesting information about 

the companies’ credit practices, default 

history, and proposed use of a 

probability of default factor in 

determining NPV of bids for available 

capacity. Responses to the data requests 

are due on October 6, 2008. 

Take notice that a technical 

conference to discuss issues raised by 

the filings of Algonquin, Saltville, and 

East Tennessee will be held on 

Wednesday, October 22, 2008 at 9:30 am 

(EST), in a room to be designated at the 

offices of the Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission, 888 First Street, NE., 

Washington, DC 20426. 

The parties to all three proceedings 

should be prepared to discuss the issues 

raised by the filings, in particular issues 

concerning the probability of default 

factor. Parties should also be prepared 

to discuss companies’ responses to the 

data requests including their current 

methodologies for allocating capacity, 

what, if any deficiencies may exist with 

these methodologies, and how the 

proposed probability of default factor 

addresses the deficiencies. The parties 

should also be prepared to discuss the 

need for a probability of default factor 

for both creditworthy and noncreditworthy customers, whether the 

proposed use of a probability of default 

factor unreasonably limits the pool of 

qualified potential bidders for available 

capacity, and the merits of not 

separating the probability of default 

assessment from the NPV bid. 

The Commission’s conferences are 

accessible under section 508 of the 

Rehabilitation Act of 1973. For 

accessibility accommodations please 

send an e-mail to accessibility@ferc.gov 

or call toll free 1–866–208–3372 (voice) 

or 202–208–1659 (TTY), or send a FAX 

to 202–208–2106 with the required 

accommodations. 

All parties and staff are permitted to 

attend. For further information please 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES