[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 98 (Friday, May 21, 1999)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 27717-27730]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-11215]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

18 CFR Parts 2, 153, 157, 380

[Docket No. RM98-17-000]


Landowner Notification, Expanded Categorical Exclusions, and 
Other Environmental Filing Requirements; Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

April 28, 1999.
AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

ACTION: Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) is 
proposing to amend its regulations under the Natural Gas Act (NGA) by 
adding certain early landowner notification requirements that will

[[Page 27718]]

ensure that landowners who may be affected by a pipeline's proposal to 
construct natural gas pipeline facilities have sufficient opportunity 
to participate in the Commission's certificate process. The Commission 
also proposes to amend certain areas of its regulations to provide 
pipelines with greater flexibility and to further expedite the 
certificate process, including expanding the list of activities 
categorically excluded from the need for an environmental assessment in 
section 380.4 of the Commission's regulations; (2) expanding the types 
of events that allow pipelines to rearrange facilities under their 
blanket construction certificate; and (3) allowing pipelines to drill 
observation wells under their blanket construction certificate.
    Finally, the Commission also proposes to require that pipelines 
consult with the National Marine Fisheries Service concerning essential 
fish habitat as required by regulations implementing the Magnuson-
Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act; and apply the Upland 
Erosion Control, Revegetation and Maintenance Plan and the Wetland and 
Waterbody Construction and Mitigation Procedures to activities 
conducted under the pipeline's blanket construction certificate.

DATES: Comments are due June 21, 1999.

ADDRESSES: Send comments to: Office of the Secretary, Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

John S. Leiss, Office of Pipeline Regulation, Federal Energy Regulatory 
Commission 888, First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426, (202) 208-
1106
Carolyn Van Der Jagt, Office of the General Counsel, Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426, 
(202) 208-2246

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In addition to publishing the full text of 
this document in the Federal Register, the Commission also provides all 
interested persons an opportunity to inspect or copy the contents of 
this document during normal business hours in the Public Reference Room 
at 888 First Street, N.E., Room 2A, Washington, D.C. 20426.
    The Commission Issuance Posting System (CIPS) provides access to 
the texts of formal documents issued by the Commission from November 
14, 1994, to the present. CIPS can be accessed via Internet through 
FERC's Home page (http://www.ferc.fed.us) using the CIPS Link or the 
Energy Information Online icon. Documents will be available on CIPS in 
ASCII and WordPerfect 6.1. User assistance is available at 202-208-2474 
or by E-mail to [email protected].
    This document is also available through the Commission's Records 
and Information Management System (RIMS), an electronic storage and 
retrieval system of documents submitted to and issued by the Commission 
after November 16, 1981. Documents from November 1995 to the present 
can be viewed and printed. RIMS is available in the Public Reference 
Room or remotely via Internet through FERC's Home page using the RIMS 
link or the Energy Information Online icon. User assistance is 
available at 202-208-2222, or by E-mail to [email protected].
    Finally, the complete text on diskette in WordPerfect format may be 
purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, RVJ International, 
Inc. RVJ International, Inc. is located in the Public Reference Room at 
888 First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426.

I. Introduction

    The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) is proposing 
to amend its regulations under the Natural Gas Act (NGA) by adding 
certain early landowner notification requirements that will ensure that 
landowners who may be affected by a pipeline's proposal to construct 
natural gas pipeline facilities have sufficient opportunity to 
participate in the Commission's certificate process. The Commission 
also proposes to amend certain areas of its regulations to provide 
pipelines with greater flexibility and to further expedite the 
certificate process, including: (1) Expanding the list of activities 
categorically excluded from the need for an environmental assessment in 
section 380.4 of the Commission's regulations; (2) expanding the types 
of events that allow pipelines to rearrange facilities under their 
blanket construction certificate; and (3) allowing pipelines to drill 
observation wells under their blanket construction certificate.
    Finally, the Commission also proposes to: (1) require that 
pipelines consult with the National Marine Fisheries Service concerning 
essential fish habitat as required by regulations implementing the 
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act; and (2) apply 
the Upland Erosion Control, Revegetation and Maintenance Plan and the 
Wetland and Waterbody Construction and Mitigation Procedures to 
activities conducted under the pipeline's blanket construction 
certificate.

II. Background

    As part of an ongoing review of its regulations, the Commission 
continues to try to find ways to make its certificate process more 
efficient and effective. Recently, it has become evident that 
landowners that may be affected by a pipeline's proposal to construct 
facilities want earlier and better notice of that pipeline's intent to 
construct pipeline facilities on or near their property.
    Under the Commission's current practice, landowners with property 
on a proposed pipeline route, adjacent to compressor station or LNG 
plant sites, or adjacent to existing fee-owned rights-of-way which 
would be used for a proposed pipeline are generally notified by the 
Commission as part of its environmental review of the proposed project. 
Specifically, a pipeline seeking authorization to construct these 
facilities provides the Commission with a list of names of the 
landowners that would be affected by the project when, or shortly 
after, it files the construction application. The Commission then 
notifies the people on the pipeline's landowner list when it issues a 
Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) or 
Environmental Assessment (EA) as required by the National Environmental 
Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA).1
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Specifically, NEPA requires that federal agencies carefully 
weigh the potential environmental impact of all their decisions and 
consult with federal and state agencies and the public on serious 
environmental questions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Notice of Intent is mailed to the affected landowners after the 
Commission has begun to process the pipeline's application and after 
the Commission notices the application for the new facilities and, 
usually, after the intervention period has run.2 The Notice 
of Intent: (1) Summarizes the proposed project; (2) describes the 
environmental review process; (3) identifies the environmental issues 
raised by the project; and (4) explains how the public can participate 
in the environmental review process. It also includes the text from the 
Commission's pamphlet ``An interstate natural gas pipeline on my land? 
What do I need to know?'' The Notice of Intent invites landowners to 
participate in the Commission's environmental review process either by 
becoming an intervenor for environmental purposes or by submitting 
environmentally-related

[[Page 27719]]

comments on the pipeline's proposal. The purpose of the Notice of 
Intent is to notify the affected landowners of the environmental review 
of the project and only seeks comments on environmental issues. 
Generally, the Notice of Intent does not provide the landowners with a 
forum to raise non-environmental issues.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Once the application is filed, the Commission issues a 
notice of the filing, which is published in the Federal Register. 
The notice appears approximately 10 days after the filing. The 
notice specifies an intervention period, usually 21 days from the 
notice date.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Recently, landowners and other citizens have expressed increasing 
interest in participating in the major pipeline projects, especially 
the greenfield pipelines and pipeline expansions in heavily populated 
areas.3 Generally, landowner groups contend that they are 
uninformed and uneducated about their right to participate in the 
certificate process and do not know where to go for information. 
Further, they assert that they are notified too late in the process to 
actively participate or have a say in the proceeding.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Greenfield pipelines are pipeline proposals that will be 
located in a new pipeline right-of-way for most of their length.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Senator Fred Thompson and Representative Zach Wamp introduced 
legislation (S. 1687 and H.R. 3319, respectively) that would require 
that pipelines make a good faith effort to notify property owners from 
whom they may seek to acquire a property interest through the exercise 
of eminent domain. The proposed legislation required that a notice be 
sent by certified mail, and on the same day the company files an 
application.
    On September 16, 1998, the Interstate Natural Gas Association of 
America (INGAA) proposed that the Commission formalize notice 
procedures using the proposed legislation as a starting point. 
Generally, INGAA proposed that on the business day following the date 
the pipeline files the application, the company would make a good faith 
effort to notify, by certified mail, any person who is the owner of 
record of real property that would be subject to the exercise of 
eminent domain under the NGA.
    On September 30, 1998, the Commission issued a notice on its intent 
to hold a staff technical conference to address, among other things, 
concerns regarding its present landowner notification policies. 
Additionally, the notice invited interested persons to submit written 
comments. The Commission received written comments from approximately 
33 commenters. In their filed comments, the industry generally 
supported the INGAA proposal or stated that no changes to the current 
procedure were necessary. However, in their filed comments the 
landowner groups contended that notice should be given before the 
application is filed so they have a meaningful opportunity to 
participate in the siting process.
    The notice also raised other issues related to landowner 
notification. One was how the pipeline would notify landowners and get 
their consent if the Commission expanded its definition of eligible 
facilities to include injection, withdrawal, and observation wells. The 
Commission also was concerned about how the pipeline would acquire 
landowner consent to use additional work space for replacement 
facilities.
    Another area raised in the September 30 notice was the Commission's 
plan to designate residential areas as sensitive environmental areas as 
defined in section 157.202(b)(11) of the Commission's regulations. The 
Commission also sought comments on applying erosion control and stream 
and wetland crossing mitigation measures to blanket construction 
projects. Finally, the Commission mentioned that it might employ a 
negotiated rulemaking procedure as an alternative to its traditional 
rulemaking process in this proceeding.
    On December 9, 1998, the Commission held the technical conference. 
At the conference, the industry was represented by Duke Energy 
Pipelines (Duke Energy), Enron Interstate Pipelines (Enron), 
Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company (Transco), and INGAA. The 
landowners were represented by the GASP Coalition, the Citizens 
Advocates for Pipeline Safety, the Newton Citizens Committee, and the 
Ohio-PA Landowners Association. Representatives for the Pipeline 
Contractor's Association and Central Maine Power Company (Central 
Maine) also participated. Several parties, including INGAA and GASP, 
filed follow-up comments after the conference. The filed comments and 
comments made at the technical conference are discussed below.

III. Discussion

A. Landowner Notification

1. Notification Process
    a. Comments. Most parties agree that the Commission should modify 
its current landowner notification policy. The Process Gas Consumers 
Group, the American Iron and Steel Institute and the Georgia Industrial 
Group (jointly Process Gas) contends that the Commission's current 
notification policy and publication of the notice in the Federal 
Register is sufficient to notify landowners. It argues that any new 
requirements would create new procedural traps. Williston Basin 
Interstate Pipeline Company (Williston Basin) also does not believe 
that additional notification requirements are necessary. It argues that 
the Commission should make additional notice requirements performance 
based and only impose those requirements on problem pipelines. For 
example, if the Commission receives no complaints, the pipeline should 
be deemed to have performed in a satisfactory manner.
    Generally, the industry posits that the landowners should be 
notified after the application is filed, whereas, the landowner groups 
want to be notified before the application is filed. This latter 
position is also supported by the Public Service Commission of the 
State of New York (NYPSC). The Iowa Utilities Board (Iowa Board) 
suggests that the Commission consider requiring pre-filing 
informational meetings.
    The Iowa Board and NYPSC state that the pipelines should not 
consider landowner notification as an onerous duty, but as an 
opportunity to establish an early rapport with landowners and to obtain 
information early in the process. They promote informal meetings with 
the public before the pipeline files the application. They believe that 
this process provides an opportunity for the pipeline to initiate 
favorable relationships with landowners and to obtain input to refine 
its petition and better determine the best location for the pipeline. 
While many of the pipelines claim that they contact many of the 
landowners early on during the surveying process, they do not want the 
Commission to specifically make this a requirement.4
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Duke stated that it contacts individual landowners on 
proposed rights-of-way early in the project and continues the 
process of education by ``notification to public officials, open 
house meetings, media notifications, agency meetings, newsletters, 
landowner brochures and face-to-face survey permission contracts and 
easement negotiations with landowners.'' See Duke's comments, at 3. 
El Paso Energy Corporation (El Paso) notes that it generally 
contacts landowners along the route in order to conduct required 
surveys before a certificate application is filed. Williston Basin 
states that it has its initial contact with landowners during the 
survey process. Enron agrees pre-filing conferences are useful, but 
contends that they do little to foster landowner relationships.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As stated, the landowner groups want to be notified before the 
application is filed. They contend, as does the NYPSC, that there is 
significant benefit in obtaining early and ongoing public information 
and participation. They state that the initial notification should be 
early enough in the planning of a proposed line so that the potentially 
affected landowners have the opportunity to participate fully in the

[[Page 27720]]

siting process. They contend that public involvement, including 
identification of alternative locations, can help create a process 
where issues are identified and addressed in cooperative fashion during 
the project development. They envision that such cooperation can 
facilitate analyses and the development of environmental reports.
    The landowner groups and NYPSC argue that lack of notice to 
landowners can generate significant delays. They claim that 
notification at time of application is too late. They assert that by 
the time the application is filed many decisions may have already 
progressed beyond the point of no return. Further, property owners do 
not have access to expertise to file timely motions to intervene to 
protect their interest. Moreover, even timely intervention is too late 
if lines have already been drawn on a filed map and costly resources 
committed by the applicant to a particular route.
    In response, the pipelines contend that it is confusing and 
impractical to formally notify all potentially affected landowners 
prior to filing. They also argue that formal notification in advance of 
filing creates a threatening environment and would prematurely narrow 
the window of negotiation. Finally, they assert that inviting 
landowners to collaborate with the pipeline to determine a proposed 
route in advance of filing a certificate application would only pit 
landowner against landowner. They argue that it is the pipeline's 
responsibility to choose the route.
    As stated, INGAA generally proposes to send notification by 
certified mail on the next business day after the application is filed. 
It states that requiring the notification to be sent on the next 
business day will allow the pipeline to include the project's docket 
number in the notification. El Paso, on the other hand, contends that 
one day after filing is not reasonable. It argues that it would be 
impossible to get the docket number, incorporate it in a letter, 
assemble a landowner package, and effectuate mailing all in one day. It 
states that such a procedure would be labor intensive and a significant 
administrative burden. It also asserts that certified mailing imposes 
additional costs on the pipeline. It recommends that the Commission 
require notice within five business days if the docket number is 
provided on the day of filing. Williston Basin states that although it 
has its initial contact during the survey process, the Commission 
should allow the pipelines the option to either deliver the notice by 
hand or by the mail either before the application is filed or up to 
three business days after filing.5 It contends that 
notification by mail is not conducive to the continuation of good 
relationships. It believes personal contact is better.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ In a letter to the Chairman of the Commission concerning the 
INGAA proposal, Senator Thompson supports the provision of the INGAA 
proposal that the landowners be notified after the application is 
filed. He states, ``* * * it is absolutely critical not only that 
the landowners receive this information, but that they receive it in 
a timely manner * * *''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As stated, INGAA proposes to notify the landowners by certified 
mail. Great Lakes objects to sending the notice by certified mail 
because it could delay receipt and could be unduly burdensome. It 
contends that many landowners may not be able to accept delivery and 
that certified mail creates needless anxiety. It recommends the 
Commission only require that the company provide an affidavit signed by 
an authorized representative of the company stating that it made a good 
faith effort to provide notice to all owners of record by regular mail.
    b. Commission Response. We agree with NYPSC and the Iowa Board that 
an early dialog and personal contact between the pipeline and the 
community and landowners, perhaps in pre-filing informational meetings, 
would promote more favorable relationships between the pipelines and 
the potentially affected landowners. As stated, many of the pipelines 
stated that they do contact landowners prior to filing a construction 
application. It is in the pipeline's best interest to attempt to 
involve the public early on in the process by seeking their input 
before determining the exact route of the proposed pipeline. As the 
Iowa Board points out, pre-filing meetings with the potentially 
affected landowners provides the pipelines with valuable information 
``from persons with knowledge of the route area which may impact 
routing or design.'' 6
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Iowa Board's comments, at 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Further, as stated, in Docket No. RM98-9-000, the more thorough and 
the more complete an application is when it is filed, the more 
expeditiously the Commission can process that application. Earlier 
landowner participation could result in a more definitively defined 
route. Specifically, the Commission experiences significant delays in 
processing a certificate application because of the time needed to 
address and resolve numerous landowner concerns about the placement of 
the pipeline on their property. If the pipeline could resolve these 
issues prior to filing the application, the Commission could process 
the application more expediently.
    A recent study conducted by Florida Gas Transmission Company 
(Florida Gas) 7 stated that over half the people interviewed 
suggested that Florida Gas:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The executive summary of the study is located on Florida 
Gas' home page at http://www.fgt.enron.com/mmexecutivesummary.doc.

Hold regular public meetings before and during construction to allow 
citizens to participate in dialogue about the project, to ask 
questions and to provide input to the route selection. * * * Many 
cautioned that communications must be honest and open. They said the 
company must not be too ``aggressive'' or ``pushy'' but, instead, to 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
take the time to build public support up-front.

Further, at the December 9 conference, representatives from Duke and 
Enron stated that their companies frequently contact landowners during 
the initial planning stage with beneficial results.8
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Both the Duke and Enron representatives stated that they 
contact potential landowners when they are conducting initial 
environmental surveys before the application is filed with the 
Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While the Commission encourages pipelines to hold pre-filing 
meetings, it does not believe it is necessary to mandate pre-filing 
meetings at this time. This is especially true given the indications 
that some pipelines are attempting more dialogue early on with 
communities and landowners. However, we invite public comment on 
whether the Commission should have a more formal (structured) pre-
filing public notification requirement.
    Therefore, in accord with INGAA's proposal and the aforementioned 
proposed legislation, the Commission proposes new sections 153.3, 
157.6(d), and 157.103 to require that for all section 7 projects 
pipeline companies notify all affected landowners of record from the 
most recent tax rolls by certified or first class mail within three (3) 
business days following the date they file their application with the 
Commission. The pipeline should file an affidavit with the 
Environmental Resource Report 1 as required in proposed section 
380.12(c)(10) certifying that the pipeline will notify all affected 
landowners as required in proposed section 157.6(d).
    As stated, the Commission currently mails the Notice of Intent to 
the people on the pipeline's list of potential landowners. Many of the 
notices are returned as undeliverable. Therefore, as part of the 
Commission's landowner notification procedure we propose in section 
157.6(d)(4) to require that the pipelines make a good-faith effort to 
determine the correct address for any returned notices and to send 
notices to the corrected addresses. The pipeline

[[Page 27721]]

also would be required to file an updated landowner list with the 
corrected addresses within 30 days of filing the application as 
proposed in section 157.6(d)(5). We believe that it will benefit the 
pipeline to attempt to obtain the correct addresses earlier on in the 
process. The pipeline will need to have accurate addresses for the 
necessary landowners to obtain the easements for the project. 
Therefore, determining the proper address sooner as opposed to later 
will alleviate any potential delay in obtaining the necessary 
easements.
    As stated, the landowner groups contend that notification after the 
application is too late because the route has already been determined. 
We disagree. Although we do require that the pipeline file for the 
route it proposes to use, the pipeline route frequently is modified 
during the certificate process. As discussed at the December 9 
conference, pipelines do modify their proposal as a result of 
negotiations with landowners. Additionally, the Commission frequently 
makes route modifications to accommodate specific landowner or other 
environmental concerns.
    Finally, in section 380.12(c)(5), the Commission is proposing to 
require that pipelines consult with landowners prior to abandoning 
facilities and the associated right-of-way or easement to determine if 
the landowners would prefer to have the facilities removed from their 
property. The pipeline, in consultation with the landowner, should 
determine if the pipeline should be abandoned in place or removed. If 
it determines that it is not practical to honor any requests to remove 
facilities, it needs to explain why in Resource Report 1.
    We propose this requirement because we believe the landowner's 
opinion should be actively sought in cases where the pipeline is 
relinquishing all rights to the land it has obtained temporary use of 
from the landowner. As the pipeline may have no responsibility for the 
facilities left on such property, we should know whether the landowner 
would like the land back the way the pipeline found it. We are not 
requiring the pipeline to automatically agree to the landowner's 
wishes, because there may be valid reasons to leave the facility in the 
ground.
2. Affected Landowners
    a. Comments. INGAA proposes that the pipeline make a good faith 
effort to notify any person who is the owner of record of real property 
that may be subject to eminent domain as a result of the project. El 
Paso states that the Commission should not require that the pipelines 
do a full title search. INGAA argues that the Commission's ``affected 
public'' standard is vague and difficult to define. It contends that it 
might be interpreted to require that the pipeline provide notice to 
competing pipelines before the application is filed. It recommends that 
the ``affected landowners'' be defined as ``the individual noted in the 
most recent county tax records as receiving the tax notice for property 
that may be subject to eminent domain as a result of approval of the 
certificate application.'' It states that only landowners directly 
impacted by either the permanent right-of-way or temporary work spaces 
should be notified.
    Landowner groups recommend that various persons and groups be 
notified, including the entire community, public officials, landowners, 
abutters,9 and local newspapers. Some recommend that all 
landowners directly affected and nearby owners of land with property 
lines within one half a mile radius of the pipeline and one mile for 
strictly agricultural areas be included. Others recommend that the 
landowners or residents located within 220 yards of proposed right-of-
way or all landowners who share common land within 220 yards of 
proposed right-of-way be notified.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Abutters are owners of properties which share a common 
boundary with the facility site or the right-of-way.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NYPSC requests that the pipelines provide notice to potential 
properties that may be affected directly or indirectly by the project. 
For example, it recommends that the pipeline notify owners of property 
adjacent to or within the range of influence of aboveground or noise 
producing equipment such as compressor stations, blow-down valves, pig 
launchers or similar facilities. It also recommends that notice be 
given to nearby or adjacent property owners where construction will 
introduce significant visual elements or remove visual buffers. Where 
the route is uncertain, the Commission should consider notice to all 
owners of record of potentially-affected property.
    Senator Thompson's legislation provided for a: ``good faith effort 
to provide notice by certified mail to any person who is the owner of 
record of any interest in property which may be subject to the exercise 
of eminent domain under [the NGA].''
    b. Commission Response. In section 157.6(d)(2), the Commission 
proposes to define affected landowners to include owners of: (1) 
Property directly affected by the proposed activity, including all 
property subject to the right-of-way and temporary work space; (2) 
property abutting an existing right-of-way (owned in fee by a utility) 
in which the facilities would be constructed; (3) property abutting a 
compressor or LNG facility; or (4) property over new storage fields or 
expansion of storage fields and any applicable buffer zone.
    We believe that these properties potentially could be significantly 
impacted by the proposed pipeline projects. Property owners whose 
property abuts existing rights-of-way should be notified because they 
may be affected and the Commission would like their input. Property 
owners abutting a compressor or LNG facility should be notified for the 
same reason. Finally, property owners over new or expanded storage 
fields or in buffer zones for these areas should be notified because 
their property rights may be affected, natural gas may be stored under 
their property, and facilities might ultimately be constructed on their 
property.
    We note that the Commission will continue to notify state and local 
government agencies and representative, and additional landowners on a 
case-by-case basis as necessary as part of its environmental review 
when the Notice of Intent is issued. Further, the proposed regulations 
are only a minimum requirement and the pipelines and the Commission can 
notify any additional landowners as necessary.
3. Notification Contents
    a. Comments. Senator Thompson's letter to the Commission in 
response to INGAA's proposal stated that the rulemaking should:

Include a specific and conspicuous description of the rights of 
property owners to participate in any proceeding relating to the 
granting of eminent domain authority and a specific and conspicuous 
statement of who the property owners may contact at the appropriate 
federal agency relating to the proceeding.

    Other recommendations made by others for information that should be 
in the notice, included: (1) Information about the pipeline company; 
(2) a general description of the project, its purpose, and its proposed 
timetable; (3) when the pipeline intends to file the application; (4) 
up to date information on the proposed route,10 construction 
process and timing, and the type of easement sought; (5) an explanation 
of

[[Page 27722]]

the pipeline construction process, including methods and restoration 
plans; (6) an explanation of the Commission's certificate process, 
including the rights of landowners to file comments or intervene; (7) 
details on how to file as an intervening party, an appropriate list of 
agency contacts and principal parties involved (including pipeline 
company officials), including phone numbers, addresses, and web 
addresses, and applicable regulations; (8) a statement that points out 
that the route is in a preliminary stage and is subject to revisions 
and adjustments; (9) an explanation of the easement rights the pipeline 
company will seek to acquire for the project; (10) an explanation about 
how the company will pay for damages; (11) the Commission's pamphlet 
``An interstate natural gas pipeline on my land? What do I need to 
know?''; (12) a full copy of the application; and (13) an explanation 
of who the project would benefit and a justification of the end use.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Including a map of the route. For large projects there 
should be a map showing the entire route, and another map showing 
the landowner's local area (such as the county).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    b. Commission Response. The Commission proposes that the notice 
should include: (1) The docket number of the filing; (2) a detailed 
description of the proposed facilities including specific details of 
their location, the purpose of the project, and the timing of the 
project; (3) a description of the applicant; (4) the name of specific 
contacts at the pipeline where the landowner can obtain additional 
information about the project; and (5) a location where the applicant 
has made copies of the application available.11 
Additionally, the notice should either include map(s) of the project or 
information where detailed map(s) of the project can be viewed or 
obtained. The pipeline contact should be knowledgeable about the 
project and should be able to answer specific questions concerning the 
project.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ In new section 157.10, promulgated in RM98-9-000, the 
pipelines are required to make complete copies of the application 
available in each county in the project area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The notice should also include a copy of the Commission's pamphlet 
``An interstate natural gas pipeline on my land? What do I need to 
know?''. The pamphlet generally explains the Commission's certificate 
process and addresses the basic concerns of landowners. It includes 
information on how to get a copy of the pipeline's application and how 
to participate in the proceeding. It also includes general information 
on pipeline rights-of-way including, among other things: (1) how the 
pipeline obtains a right-of-way; (2) the size of the right-of-way and 
how it is maintained; and (3) building on the right-of-way. The 
pamphlet explains the responsibilities of the pipeline company. It also 
discusses safety and environmental issues. Finally, the pamphlet lists 
the phone number of the Commission's Office of External Affairs which 
the landowner can contact if there are further questions concerning the 
certificate process.

B. Landowner Notification Under Sections 157.202 and 2.55 of the 
Commission's Regulations

    In the September 30 notice, the Commission stated that it is 
considering changes to sections 157.202 and 2.55 of its regulations. 
Specifically, under section 157.202(b)(2) the Commission is considering 
expanding the definition of eligible facilities to include injection, 
withdrawal, and observation wells. Under section 2.55, it is 
considering allowing the use of additional work space for replacement 
facilities. However, under both sections the Commission stated that it 
was concerned about how the pipeline would obtain the landowner's 
consent before beginning construction.
    In general, the landowner groups state that the pipeline should 
notify the landowners, via certified mail, to obtain their consent any 
time they plan to enter on the property even if the pipeline has a 
valid easement. The pipelines generally believe that any additional 
Commission regulations in this area are unnecessary. They contend that 
the pipelines must have the necessary property rights before engaging 
in any construction activities on the landowner's property.
    Prior to using any land for any work, the pipelines state that they 
must have an easement or property rights to use the land. They assert 
that the agreements with the landowner would: (1) Govern the pipeline's 
use of the property; (2) determine what type of notice is required; and 
(3) would detail any compensation that may be due the property owner. 
If the right to use the property is not controlled by an easement 
agreement, the pipelines contend that they would have to acquire the 
appropriate property rights or consent from the landowner prior to 
commencing any project under automatic authority in order to avoid 
claims of criminal and trespass charges and to maintain good working 
relationships with the landowners. Therefore, the pipelines believe 
that the Commission should provide flexibility to allow each pipeline 
to implement notification of landowners in a manner best suited to its 
own landowner situations. They argue the Commission should respect the 
bargains the pipelines have already negotiated and obtained from the 
landowners and not impose any additional requirements. Finally, they 
argue that there is no forum under the blanket certificate where the 
landowner could raise issues.12
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ However, we note that the suggested changes were to require 
landowner notification under these sections, not to notify the 
Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    b. Commission Response. As stated in the September 30 notice, the 
Commission stated that it was considering expanding the definition of 
eligible facilities under section 157.202(b) of the regulations to 
include injection, withdrawal, and observation wells. Upon 
reconsideration of this issue, the Commission has determined that it is 
not appropriate for the pipeline to construct new injection and 
withdrawal wells under its blanket certificate. Such activity would 
expand upon the authorization granted in the original certificate by 
increasing the capacity and deliverability of the storage field. We 
believe such activity is beyond the original intent of the blanket 
certificate which was to ``enable pipelines to construct relatively 
minor facilities and undertake relatively routine services without the 
burden of a case-specific determination.'' 13
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Interstate Pipeline Certificates for Routine Transactions, 
Order No. 234-A, 47 FR 38,871 (September 3, 1982) FERC Stats. and 
Regs. Regulation Preambles 1982-1985 para. 30,389, at 30,258 (1982).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    However, we do propose to allow the pipelines to drill observation 
wells under their blanket certificate. Observation wells generally are 
needed for the pipelines to adequately monitor their storage fields. 
Further, they do not change the characteristics of the storage fields 
and do not result in any significant changes to the underlying 
certificate authorization. Accordingly, we propose to add a sentence to 
section 157.202(b)(2)(i) specifically including observation wells as 
eligible facilities.
    We also believe, upon further consideration, that it is premature 
for the Commission to address expanding the allowed area for additional 
workspace under section 2.55. Section 2.55 exempts certain activities 
from NGA section 7 jurisdiction. Acquiring additional land for 
construction activities is a section 7 activity and, therefore, does 
not qualify for the section 2.55 exemption.
    While we do not intend to expand the definition of eligible 
facilities to include injection or withdrawal wells or to allow 
additional work space under section 2.55, we agree with the landowners' 
request that they be notified of construction to be performed

[[Page 27723]]

under these sections. Accordingly, the Commission intends to add a 
landowner notification requirement for construction activities 
conducted under section 2.55 and Subpart F of Part 157 of the 
Commission's regulations. Under proposed sections 2.55(b) (1)(iv) and 
157.203(d)(1), the pipeline will have to notify the affected landowner 
30 days prior to commencing construction. The notification should 
include: (1) a brief description of the facilities to be constructed/
replaced and the effect the construction activity will have on the 
landowner's property; (2) the name and phone number of a company 
representative that is knowledgeable about the project; and (3) a 
description of the Commission's Enforcement Hotline procedures 
explained in section 1b.21 of the Commission's regulations and the 
Enforcement Hotline phone number.
    In the event the landowners have further questions concerning the 
project, they can contact the company representative for more details. 
If the landowners need further information concerning the Commission's 
role in these types of projects, they can contact the Commission's 
enforcement staff.
    The Commission proposes the similar requirements in section 
157.203(d)(2) for prior notice filings. Except under 157.203(d)(2), we 
propose to require that the pipeline notify the affected landowner 
within three (3) business days after filing the prior notice 
application with the Commission and to include the docket number in the 
notice. We also propose that the include the following paragraph in the 
notice:

This project is being proposed under the Commission's prior notice 
requirements of its blanket certificate program. Under the 
Commission's regulations, you have the right to protest this project 
within 45 days of the date the Commission issues a notice of the 
pipeline's filing. If you file a protest, you should include the 
docket number listed in this letter and provide the specific reasons 
for your protest. The protest should be mailed to to the Secretary 
of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First St., N.E., 
Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426. A copy of the protest should be 
mailed to the pipeline at [pipeline address]. If you have any 
questions concerning these procedures you can call the Commission's 
Office of External Affairs at (202) 208-1088.

We note that requiring that the pipeline inform the landowners of their 
right to protest a prior notice filing when the pipeline constructs 
facilities under its blanket certificate resolves the Commission's 
concerns over adding residential areas to its definition of sensitive 
environmental areas. Accordingly, we do not believe it is necessary to 
include residential areas in the list of sensitive environmental areas 
at this time.

C. Mitigation Measures for Blanket Certificates

1. Comments
    The Commission also requested comments on the need to apply the 
same erosion control and stream and wetland crossing mitigation 
measures to blanket projects as are routinely used in the regular 
certificate process. Currently, there are no such mitigation measures 
imposed on blanket construction projects, although the impacts are 
similar to those encountered in the traditional 7(c) projects. The 
Commission needs to ensure that the pipelines are following such 
mitigation measures.
    Generally, the pipelines do not object to the Commission's 
proposal. However, they recommend that the Commission view the 
mitigation measures as guidelines and not mandate them in all 
instances. They contend that the Commission should allow the pipelines 
the flexibility to deviate from the guidelines as appropriate.
    National Fuel states that there are problems with the Commission's 
measures and that the pipelines frequently find it necessary to seek 
deviations from certain measures to meet the recommendations of state 
or local agencies or implement appropriate site specific construction 
procedures.
2. Commission Response
    In fulfilling its mandate under NEPA, the Commission routinely 
requires that pipeline facilities constructed under case-specific NGA 
section 7 certificates follow some type of erosion control and stream 
and wetland crossing mitigation measures. We believe that to apply NEPA 
consistently the Commission should require the same measures be applied 
to pipeline facilities constructed under the pipeline's blanket 
certificate. Therefore, we propose to add section 157.206(b)(3)(iv) to 
the regulations to require that, unless it gets a variance, the 
pipelines constructing facilities under their blanket certificates 
adhere to the Commission staff's current ``Upland Erosion Control, 
Revegetation and Maintenance Plan'' (Plan) and ``Wetland and Waterbody 
Construction and Mitigation Procedures'' (Procedures). The documents 
are available on the Commission's Internet home page or from the 
Commission's staff.
    If the pipelines cannot follow the mitigation measures for a 
particular project or if an agency with responsibility for protecting 
the relevant resource (soil, wetland, or waterbodies) specifies a 
measure that conflicts with a measure in the Plan or Procedures, a 
variance can be obtained. In either case, an alternative measure 
specified in writing by the appropriate agency may be used. 
Alternatively, the pipeline can apply to the Director of the Office of 
Pipeline Regulation to request a waiver of the mitigation measures or 
permission to apply alternative measures.

D. Magnuson Act

    The Magnuson Act requires all Federal agencies to consult with the 
National Marine Fisheries Service on the effects that their activities 
may have on ``essential fish habitat.'' The National Marine Fisheries 
Service's regulations at Chapter 50 Part 600 of the Code of Federal 
Regulations describe the process that should be followed. We are 
currently discussing the details of how the Commission can best comply 
with this act in the long-term, but in the interim, we will simply 
state that the requirements of this act are important for the companies 
to consider at the same time they address Endangered Species Act 
considerations. Companies should be contacting the National Marine 
Fisheries Service to address what level of consultation is required for 
their project for appropriate consideration of ``essential fish 
habitat.'' Accordingly, we propose to add references to the Magnuson 
Act in both the blanket certificate regulations, at section 
157.206(b)(2)(xii), and for case-specific NGA section 7 filings, at 
section 380.12(e)(5), requiring that pipelines consult with the 
National Marine Fisheries Service with respect to ``essential fish 
habitat''.

E. Categorical Exclusions

    Section 380.4 of the Commission's regulations lists projects or 
actions that the Commission has determined normally do not have a 
significant environmental impact and are, therefore, categorically 
excluded from the need for an Environmental Assessment. The Commission 
proposes to add several new categories to the list, including: (1) 
Abandonment of facilities by sale that only involve minor or no ground 
disturbance to disconnect the facilities from the system (proposed 
section 380.4(a)(31)); (2) conversion of facilities from use under the 
Natural Gas Policy Act to use under the NGA (proposed section 
380.4(a)(32)); (3) construction or abandonment of facilities conducted 
entirely in Federal offshore waters which has been approved by the 
Minerals Management Service and the Corps of Engineers, as necessary 
(proposed section

[[Page 27724]]

380.4(a)(33)); (4) abandonment or construction of facilities on an 
existing offshore platform (proposed section 380.4(a)(34)); (5) 
abandonment, construction, or replacement of a facility (other than 
compression) solely within an existing building within a natural gas 
facility (other than LNG facilities), so long as it does not increase 
the noise or air emissions from the facility, as a whole (proposed 
section 380.4(a)(35)); and (6) conversion of compression to standby use 
as long as the compressor is not moved, or abandonment of compression 
as long as the compressor station remains in operation (proposed 
section 380.4(a)(36)).
    Proposed sections 380.4(a)(31) and (32) involve abandonments or 
conversions that, at most, involve disturbance in small areas within 
existing rights-of-way to connect or disconnect existing pipelines. 
Proposed section 380.4(a)(34) has no effect on the natural environment 
with the exception of air and noise emissions if compression is 
involved. Given the fact that these emissions would occur offshore on 
existing platforms which are isolated and already contain similar 
activities, we believe there is no significant impact associated with 
this type of activity.
    In section 380.4(a)(33) we are proposing to require that the 
company receive pre-approval from the Minerals Management Service and 
the Corps of Engineers that have primary jurisdiction over the 
construction, operation, and removal of offshore facilities. These 
Federal agencies have their own procedures for complying with NEPA for 
the impact potentially involved with these projects. Therefore, we 
believe there is no reason for the Commission to conduct its own 
environmental analysis, or to verify that the other agencies did such 
an analysis.
    Proposed section 380.4(a)(35) deals with activities taking place 
solely within existing structures. The only potential impacts to the 
environment under this type of activity would be air and noise 
emissions. Since we propose to require that there be no increase in 
either type of emission, the only potential is for a reduction and, 
therefore, an improvement in the natural environment. We do not believe 
any purpose would be served in conducting an environmental analysis for 
this kind of activity.
    Proposed section 380.4(a)(36) is similar to proposed section 
380.4(a)(35). The conversion of compression to standby can only reduce 
the amount of air and noise emissions from the station. The change to 
air and noise emissions is a positive effect--the same as it is for the 
previous category. Abandonment of some of the compression at a station 
which remains in operation may result in ground disturbance within the 
compressor station site, but this area was disturbed similarly when the 
facility was first installed. Therefore, it requires no further 
Commission analysis.

F. Miscellaneous Rearrangement of Facilities

    In the comments filed in Docket No. RM98-9-000, several parties 
requested that the Commission clarify that miscellaneous rearrangement 
of facilities under section 157.202(b)(6) of the Commission's 
regulations includes replacement facilities needed as a result of 
encroachment on the pipeline because of residential, commercial, or 
industrial development. Because of the landowner notification issue, 
the Commission deferred addressing that issue to this proceeding.
    Since this rulemaking proposes to require the company to notify 
landowners of their intent to conduct the rearrangement activity, the 
landowners would be given the opportunity to express any concerns. This 
satisfies our landowner participation concern. Accordingly, we propose 
to add encroachment to section 157.202(b)(6) as an appropriate reason 
to use the blanket certificate for miscellaneous rearrangement of 
facilities.

G. Other Issues Raised

1. Special Intervention Status
    Many landowner groups claim that the Commission's current 
intervention process is cost prohibitive and that it deters landowner 
participation. They request that the Commission streamline its process 
to accommodate landowners. Specifically, they request that the 
Commission allow landowners to file one copy of their comment/protest 
with the Commission and one copy with the company. Also, one landowner 
recommended that town governments should be viewed as intervenors for 
citizens and/or that town governments should be viewed automatically as 
parties.
    Under section 385.2010 of the Commission's regulations an 
intervenor in a proceeding before the Commission must serve a copy of 
its filing on all parties on the official service list. However, under 
section 385.101(e) of the Commission's regulations, the Commission may 
waive a rule for good cause. Parties that have difficulty participating 
in the proceeding for whatever reason may request a waiver of the 
Commission's service rule.
2. Depositories of Filing Information
    One landowner also requests that the Commission set up depositories 
where materials are readily available to the general public. In Docket 
No. RM98-9-000, the Commission intends to allow a limited waiver of the 
service rules for the filing of voluminous material or difficult to 
reproduce material. Specifically, the Commission determined that these 
filings do not need to be served on all parties unless they 
specifically request a copy. Instead, the Commission is requiring that 
the pipeline put complete copies of those filings in depositories along 
the route of the pipeline for public inspection. In addition, new 
section 157.10, promulgated in RM98-9-000, requires that pipelines make 
complete copies of the application available in each county in the 
project area. Finally, all documents filed with the Commission are 
available on the Commission's Internet home page. Increasingly, people 
have access to the Internet either in their homes or at the local 
libraries. Therefore, we believe that the information filed in a 
certificate proceeding under the Commission's current regulations (as 
amended in Docket No. RM98-9-000) is sufficiently available to the 
participating parties.
3. Inspectors of Construction Sites/Pipeline Safety
    a. Comments. Central Maine Power Company (Central Maine) states 
that the Commission presently has no oversight of the actual 
construction process. It contends that the pipeline construction crews 
repeatedly violate OSHA clearances and minimum work space requirements 
when working near power lines. It urges the Commission to modify its 
regulations so that the safety and electric system reliability concerns 
are fully addressed throughout the certificate process, and that 
certificate orders explicitly require compliance with safety 
requirements with the same degree of specificity as already required 
for environmental conditions. It believes that the Commission has an 
obligation to devote necessary resources to insure that the pipeline 
construction it authorizes does not endanger the public and is not 
adverse to the public interest in reliable electric service. It 
requests that the Commission allocate resources to expand substantially 
the scope of its post-certificate monitoring of the pipeline 
construction process. Several of the landowner groups also maintain 
that the Commission should have

[[Page 27725]]

inspectors assigned locally to monitor construction sites.
    b. Commission Response. The Commission does, in fact, conduct 
oversight inspections of the construction process. As part of the 
environmental conditions imposed in a certificate proceeding, the 
Commission requires that the pipeline company hire environmental 
inspectors to make sure that the environmental conditions of the 
certificate, including any proposed mitigation, are appropriately 
applied. In the event landowners have questions or problems during the 
construction phase or after the facilities are built, they can call the 
Commission's enforcement staff. We believe these measures allow the 
Commission to ensure compliance with our environmental conditions.
    Central Maine is concerned about our pipeline siting regulations 
and the construction process. These concerns are outside the scope of 
this rulemaking, and the safety concerns raised by Central Maine are 
generally under the purview of the Occupational Safety and Health 
Administration and the Department of Transportation. While we do favor 
the use of existing corridors when appropriate, we recognize that 
cooperation between the companies involved and careful construction 
practices are key to success.
    During our environmental review process we attempt to determine the 
feasibility of the joint use of rights-of-way and the availability of 
adequate spacing for a proposed project. We obtain input from both 
companies before requiring joint use. As stated, we conduct inspections 
during construction. In the event that trouble arises during the 
construction phase, we will take steps to avoid inappropriate risks to 
other utilities or to the public.
4. Eminent Domain
    Some of the landowner groups state that in a deregulated industry 
in which market forces are allowed to determine whether pipelines are 
constructed, the use of eminent domain to enable construction and 
operation of natural gas facilities on the private property is 
inappropriate. They state that landowners become largely uncompensated 
business partners who receive only a token payment for an easement. 
They argue that market demand is not the same as public need. They 
believe that companies in profit making businesses that use other 
people's properties should be required to acquire that property in the 
marketplace. They urge the Commission to require a pipeline to acquire 
a large majority of easements through negotiations before they can 
seize the remaining property. They claim that the property owners' 
compensation is offset by the court costs.
    The landowner groups assert that the pipeline should be required to 
negotiate a business deal with landowners instead of relying on the 
right of eminent domain. They contend that landowners should have the 
option of being paid royalties for use of their land.
    Under the NGA, if the Commission finds that a proposed project is 
in the public convenience and necessity, the pipeline has the right to 
acquire the property for that project by eminent domain. The pipeline's 
right to eminent domain is not optional. Further, case law suggests 
that the pipeline cannot waive its right to eminent 
domain.14 It is a statutory requirement imposed by Congress. 
The Commission cannot change or modify statutory requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See Georgia v. City of Chattanooga, 264 U.S. 472 (1924); 
Terminal Shares v. Chicago, B & Q.R. Co., 65 F.Supp. 678, 683 
(1946)(finding that the power of eminent domain is conferred upon a 
railroad ``as one in trust, to be exercised in promoting the public 
interest.'' ``[It] is not a power owned by a railroad corporation as 
one of its assets, that it may barter about and pass as a 
consideration in contracts and agreements.'')
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

5. Review of Easement Documents
    The landowner groups request that the Commission assign a person 
from the Commission's staff to each area of pipeline construction from 
the beginning of easement negotiations to assist landowners in land 
acquisition. They contend that the Commission should assure that 
pipelines do not try to acquire more than what they are entitled to by 
the certificate. Additionally, they request that the Commission review 
all easement agreements to determine if they are consistent with the 
certificate authorization. They state that the landowner does not want 
to relinquish more rights than the Commission intended and that the 
company should not be able to acquire more than the Commission 
intended. They state that in several recent projects there are 
discrepancies between the certificate authorization and easement 
documents/court papers and that they do not have the knowledge or 
resources to fight the pipeline.
    The Commission does not believe it is necessary to review every 
easement document negotiated by the pipeline or submitted to the court 
for the condemnation proceeding. However, we expect that the pipelines 
will negotiate with the landowners fairly and in good faith. We believe 
the landowners have a right to know the specific area the Commission 
has authorized the pipeline to take and the specific activities the 
Commission has authorized for that property before they begin any 
negotiations for the easement. We note that the pipeline should clearly 
explain and delineate at the beginning of the negotiations what is 
specifically covered by the Commission's certificate.
    Further, in the future, where landowner issues are a concern, as a 
condition to a certificate to construct facilities, the Commission may 
require that the pipeline specifically state in the easement document 
the specific area that is covered by easement and the phone number and 
a name of a representative of the pipeline the landowners can call if 
they have a question concerning the easement agreement.

G. Negotiated Rulemaking

    Finally, the Commission stated that it was considering using the 
negotiated rulemaking process under the Negotiated Rulemaking Act of 
1990 as an alternative to traditional rulemaking to promulgate new 
regulations for its landowner notification policy. Generally, the 
comments were not in favor of the negotiated rulemaking process. The 
Iowa Board stated that it found such a process for these types of 
issues combative and partisan. Others stated that the negotiated 
rulemaking process was too rigid a structure. However, many supported 
the use of working groups to address some of the more controversial 
issues.
    The Negotiated Rulemaking Act recommends that an agency consider 
the feasibility of regulatory negotiations to resolve a specific issue 
when: (1) There is a need for a rule; (2) there are a limited number of 
identifiable interests; (3) these interests can be adequately 
represented by persons willing to negotiate in good faith to reach a 
consensus; (4) there is a likelihood that the committee will reach 
consensus within a fixed period of time; (5) the negotiated rulemaking 
procedure will not unreasonably delay the notice of proposed 
rulemaking; (6) the agency has adequate resources and is willing to 
commit such resources to the process; and (7) the agency is committed 
to use the result of the negotiation in formulating a proposed rule if 
at all possible.
    Generally, in light of the comments received in this proceeding, it 
is evident that the Commission can rule on many of the issues based on 
the written record in this proceeding. For example, all parties are in 
agreement that earlier notification is necessary. However, the 
pipelines want notification to be after

[[Page 27726]]

the application is filed. The landowner groups want to be notified 
earlier to participate in the siting process. It is doubtful that any 
further negotiations would produce a consensus on this issue and it 
will probably create an unnecessary delay. Additionally, there is very 
little controversy over how the notice should be delivered and what 
should be included in the notice. While other issues, for example, who 
should be included in the group notified and whether the Commission 
should designate residential areas as sensitive environmental areas, 
may merit further public discussion, forming a negotiated rulemaking 
committee on the basis of those issues alone would likely delay 
implementation of new notification regulations that are clearly needed 
now. In the event, after the Commission issues this NOPR, it is 
determined that certain issues may benefit from further public 
discussion, the Commission may hold additional technical conferences to 
discuss those issues.

IV. Information Collection Statement

    The proposed rule, if adopted, would establish new reporting 
requirements and modify existing reporting requirements under 18 CFR 
Parts 2.55, 153, 157, and 380 of the Commission's Regulations. The 
information requirements proposed in the subject rulemaking would 
affect, and become part of, the data requirements under the 
Commission's FERC-537 15 and FERC-577 16 data 
collections. Specifically, the subject rule would require notification 
of all landowners whose land may be affected by proposed natural gas 
pipeline projects.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Gas Pipeline Certificates: Construction, Acquisition, and 
Abandonment.
    \16\ Gas Pipeline Certificates: Environmental Impact Statement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In accordance with Section 3507(d) of the Paperwork Reduction Act 
of 1995,17 the proposed data requirements in the subject 
rulemaking are being submitted to the Office of Management and Budget 
(OMB) for review.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ 44 U.S.C. 3507(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The estimated reporting burden related to the notification 
requirements proposed herein is shown in the tables below. The 
estimates include an initial one-time start-up burden of 8,800 hours 
for the first year plus an on-going annual burden of 7,284 hours under 
FERC-577 and a decrease of 12,600 hours under FERC-537. The net change 
in total reporting burden under the data collections would be an 
estimated net increase of 3,484 hours for the first year. In subsequent 
years, there would be a net decrease of 5,316 hours.
    To consider the impact on the persons affected by this rulemaking, 
comments are solicited on the need for this notice requirement, whether 
the information/notice will have practical utility, the accuracy of the 
provided burden estimates, ways to enhance the quality, utility, and 
clarity of the information requirements, and any suggested methods for 
minimizing respondent's burden, including the use of automated 
information techniques. The Commission would like specific comments on 
the impact of this rule on individual natural gas companies. Both 
estimates of current burden and impact should be in work hours and 
dollar costs in sufficient detail to demonstrate methodology and 
assumptions.
    The burden estimates for complying with this proposed rule are as 
follows:
    Public Reporting Burden: Estimated Annual Burden: The burden 
estimates for complying with this proposed rule are as follows:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       Number. of     Number of      Hours per     Total  annual
                   Data collection                     respondents    responses      response          hours
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FERC-537............................................            50           -50             252         -12,600
FERC-577............................................            70           -20        18 +13.9      19 +16,084
                                                     -----------------------------------------------------------
    Total...........................................            70           -70         20 +2.1          +3,484
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
18 The increase per response based on an estimated 1,160 responses per year. Note: Detail may not add to total
  because of rounding.
19 Includes one-time initial start-up burden of 8,800 hours.
20 Represents the increase per response (rounded) based on the net increase in total reporting burden (3,484
  hours) divided by the total number of responses expected annually under both FERC-537 and FERC-577 (1,690
  responses).

Total Annual Hours for Collections

    Annual reporting burden (including one-time start-up burden during 
the first year of implementation) plus record keeping (if 
appropriate)=3,484 hours.
    Based on the Commission's experience with processing applications 
for construction and acquisition of pipeline facilities over the last 
three fiscal years (FY96-FY98), it is estimated that 1,690 filings/
responses per year (under both data collections) will be made over the 
next three years. The average burden per filing would increase 2.1 
hours; the average burden per respondent would increase 49.8 hours. 
Following the first year of implementation, the reporting burden under 
FERC-577 would be reduced by 8,800 hours.
    Information Collection costs: The Commission seeks comments on the 
costs to comply with these requirements. It has projected the average 
annualized cost for all respondents during the first year of 
implementation to be:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                  Annualized on-
                                                                    Annualized      going costs        Total
                         Data collection                          capital/start-    (operations     annualized
                                                                     up costs           and            costs
                                                                                   maintenance)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FERC-537........................................................               0       -$665,674       -$665,674
FERC-577........................................................        $464,915         384,823         849,738
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
    Total.......................................................         464,915        -280,851         184,064
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 27727]]

    OMB regulations require its approval of certain information 
collection requirements imposed by agency rule.21 
Accordingly, pursuant to OMB regulations, the Commission is providing 
notice of its proposed information collections to OMB.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ 5 CFR 1320.11 (1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Title: FERC-537 ``Gas Pipeline Certificate: Construction, 
Acquisition, and Abandonment.'' and FERC-577 ``Environmental Impact 
Statement.''
    Action: Proposed Data Collections.
    OMB Control No.: 1902-0060 (FERC-537); 1902-0128 (FERC-577). 
Applicants shall not be penalized for failure to respond to these 
collections of information unless the collections of information 
display a valid OMB control number. The notice requirements proposed in 
the subject rule would be mandatory if adopted by the Commission in a 
Final Rule.
    Respondents: Businesses or other for profit. (Interstate natural 
gas pipelines (Not applicable to small business))
    Frequency of Responses: On occasion.
    Necessity of Information: The proposed rule revises the 
Commission's regulations governing the filing of applications for the 
construction and operation of pipeline facilities to provide service or 
to abandon facilities or service under section 7 of the NGA. Section 7 
of the NGA requires the Commission to issue certificates of public 
convenience and necessity for all interstate sales and transportation 
of natural gas, the construction and operation of natural gas 
facilities used for those interstate sales and transportation and prior 
Commission approval of abandonment of jurisdictional facilities or 
services. The Commission has determined that portions of its 
regulations need to be revised to reflect a recent increase in 
sensitivity of the public to pipeline construction, and a desire on the 
part of the public to receive more timely notification of pipeline 
construction proposals. Certain other changes are being made because of 
the Commission's experience in the processing of some applications for 
which an environmental assessment is unnecessary.
    Internal Review: The Commission has assured itself, by means of its 
internal review, that there is specific, objective support for the 
burden estimates associated with the information requirements. These 
requirements conform to the Commission's plan for efficient information 
collection, communication, and management within the natural gas 
industry.
    For information on the requirements, submitting comments concerning 
the collection of information and the associated burden estimates, 
including suggestions for reducing this burden, please send your 
comments to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, 
NE., Washington, DC 20426 [Attention: Michael Miller, Office of the 
Chief Information Officer, Phone: (202) 208-1415, fax: (202) 273-0873, 
e-mail: [email protected]]. In addition, comments on reducing the 
burden and/or improving the collections of information should also be 
submitted to the Office of Management and Budget, Office of Information 
and Regulatory Affairs, Attention: Desk Officer for the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 725 17th Street, NW, Washington, D.C. 20503, 
phone (202) 395-3087, fax: (202) 395-7285.

V. Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) requires agencies to prepare 
certain statements, descriptions and analyses of proposed rules that 
will have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of 
small entities.22 The Commission is not required to make 
such analyses if a rule would not have such an effect.23
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ 5 U.S.C. 601-612 (1988).
    \23\ 5 U.S.C. 605(b)(1988).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission does not believe that this rule would have such an 
impact on small entities. The regulations adopted here impose 
requirements only on interstate pipelines, which are not small 
businesses. Accordingly, pursuant to section 605(b) of the RFA, the 
Commission hereby certifies that the regulations proposed herein will 
not have a significant adverse impact on a substantial number of small 
entities.

VI. Environmental Statement

    The Commission is required to prepare an Environmental Assessment 
or an Environmental Impact Statement for any action that may have a 
significant adverse effect on the human environment.24 The 
Commission has categorically excluded certain actions from these 
requirements as not having a significant effect on the human 
environment.25 Generally, the actions proposed to be taken 
here fall within categorical exclusions in the Commission's regulations 
for rules that are clarifying, corrective, or procedural, for 
information gathering, analysis, and dissemination, and for sales, 
exchange, and transportation of natural gas that requires no 
construction of facilities.26 While the additions of the 
categorical exclusion in proposed sections 380.4(a)(31) through (36) 
include construction-type activities, the above section that discusses 
those sections explains why they do not have a significant effect on 
the environment. Accordingly, we do not believe that any further 
analysis is needed. Therefore, an environmental assessment is 
unnecessary and has not been prepared in this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ Regulations Implementing the National Environmental Policy 
Act, Order No. 486, 52 FR 47897 (Dec. 17, 1987), FERC Stats. & Regs. 
Preambles 1986-1990 para. 30,783 (1987).
    \25\ 18 CFR 380.4.
    \26\ See 18 CFR 380.4(a)(2)(ii), 380.4(a)(5), 380.4(a)(27).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VII. Public Comment Procedures

    The Commission invites interested persons to submit written 
comments on the matters and issues proposed in this notice to be 
adopted, including any related matters or alternative proposals that 
commenters may wish to discuss.
    The original and 14 copies of such comments must be received by the 
Commission before 5:00 p.m., June 21, 1999. Comments should be 
submitted to the Office of the Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory 
Commission, 888 First Street, NE, Washington DC 20426 and should refer 
to Docket No. RM98-17-000.
    In addition to filing paper copies, the Commission encourages the 
filing of comments either on computer diskette or via Internet E-Mail. 
Comments may be filed in the following formats: WordPerfect 6.1 or 
lower version, MS Word Office 97 or lower version, or ASCII format.
    For diskette filing, include the following information on the 
diskette label: Docket No. RM98-17-000; the name of the filing entity; 
the software and version used to create the file; and the name and 
telephone number of a contact person.
    For Internet E-Mail submittal, comments should be submitted to 
``[email protected]'' in the following format. On the subject 
line, specify Docket No. RM98-17-000. In the body of the E-Mail 
message, include the name of the filing entity; the software and 
version used to create the file, and the name and telephone number of 
the contact person. Attach the comment to the E-Mail in one of the 
formats specified above. The Commission will send an automatic 
acknowledgment to the sender's E-Mail address upon receipt. Questions 
on electronic filing should be directed to Brooks Carter at 202-501-
8145, E-Mail address [email protected].

[[Page 27728]]

    Commenters should take note that, until the Commission amends its 
rules and regulations, the paper copy of the filing remains the 
official copy of the document submitted. Therefore, any discrepancies 
between the paper filing and the electronic filing or the diskette will 
be resolved by reference to the paper filing.
    All written comments will be placed in the Commission's public 
files and will be available for inspection in the Commission's Public 
Reference room at 888 First Street, NE, Washington DC 20426, during 
regular business hours. Additionally, comments may be viewed and 
printed remotely via the Internet through FERC's Homepage using the 
RIMS link or the Energy Information Online icon. User assistance is 
available at 202-208-2222, or by E-Mail to [email protected].

List of Subjects

18 CFR Part 2

    Administrative practice and procedure, Electric power, Natural gas, 
Pipelines, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

18 CFR Part 153

    Exports, Imports, Natural gas, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements.

18 CFR Part 157

    Administrative practice and procedure, Natural gas, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements.

18 CFR Part 380

    Environmental impact statements, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements.

    By direction of the Commission.
David P. Boergers,
Secretary.
    In consideration of the foregoing, the Commission proposes to amend 
Parts 2, 153, 157, and 380 Chapter I, Title 18, Code of Federal 
Regulations, as set forth below.

PART 2--GENERAL POLICY AND INTERPRETATIONS

    1. The authority citation for Part 2 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 5 U.S.C. 601; 15 U.S.C. 717-717w, 3301-3432; 16 
U.S.C. 792-825y, 2601-2645; 42 U.S.C. 4321-4361, 7101-7352.


Sec. 2.55  [Amended]

    2. In Sec. 2.55, paragraph (b)(1)(ii) is revised and new paragraphs 
(b)(1)(iii) and (iv) are added to read as follows:
* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (ii) The replacement facilities will have a substantially 
equivalent designed delivery capacity, will be located in the same 
right-of-way or on the same site as the facilities being replaced, and 
will be constructed using the temporary work space used to construct 
the original facility as determined by the guidelines in Appendix A of 
this Part;
    (iii) Except as described in paragraph (b)(2) of this section, the 
company will file notification of such activity with the Commission at 
least 30 days prior to commencing construction; and
    (iv) The company will notify the affected landowner 30 days prior 
to commencing construction. The notification shall include:
    (A) A brief description of the facilities to be replaced and the 
effect the construction activity will have on the landowner's property;
    (B) The name and phone number of a company representative that is 
knowledgeable about the project; and
    (C) An explanation of the Commission's Enforcement Hotline 
procedures, as codified in section 1b.21 of this chapter, and the 
Enforcement Hotline phone number.
* * * * *

PART 153--APPLICATIONS FOR AUTHORIZATION TO CONSTRUCT, OPERATE, OR 
MODIFY FACILITIES USED FOR THE EXPORT OR OF IMPORT NATURAL GAS

    3. The authority citation for Part 153 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 15 U.S.C. 717b, 717o; E.O. 10485, 3 CFR, 1949-1953 
Comp., p. 970, as amended by E.O. 12038, 3 CFR, 1978 Comp., p.136.

    4. New section 153.3 is added to read as follows:


Sec. 153.3  Notice requirements.

    All applications filed under this part are subject to the landowner 
notification requirements in Sec. 157.6 of this chapter.

PART 157--APPLICATIONS FOR CERTIFICATES OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND 
NECESSITY AND FOR ORDERS PERMITTING AND APPROVING ABANDONMENT UNDER 
SECTION 7 OF THE NATURAL GAS ACT

    5. The authority citation for Part 157 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 15 U.S.C. 717-717w, 3301-3432; 42 U.S.C. 7101-7352.

Subpart A--Applications for Certificates of Public Convenience and 
Necessity and for Orders Permitting and Approving Abandonment Under 
Section 7 of the Natural Gas Act, as Amended, Concerning Any 
Operation, Sales, Service, Construction, Extension, Acquisition or 
Abandonment

    6. In Sec. 157.6, a new paragraph (d) is added to read as follows:


Sec. 157.6  Applications; general requirements.

* * * * *
    (d) Landowner notification. (1) For all applications filed under 
this subpart, the applicant shall notify all affected landowners by 
certified or first class mail, within 3 business days following the 
date that it files an application of its intent to construct or abandon 
facilities.
    (2) All affected landowners includes owners of real property, as 
noted in the most recent county/city tax records as receiving the tax 
notice, whose property:
    (i) Is directly affected by the proposed activity, including all 
facility sites, rights-of-way, and temporary workspace;
    (ii) Abuts an existing right-of-way or facility site owned in fee 
by any utility company, in which the facilities would be constructed;
    (iii) Abuts the facility site for compressor or LNG facilities; or
    (iv) Is within the area of new storage fields or expansions of 
storage fields and any applicable buffer zone.
    (3) The notice shall include:
    (i) The docket number of the filing;
    (ii) The most recent edition of the Commission's pamphlet that 
explains the Commission's certificate process and addresses the basic 
concerns of landowners.
    (iii) A description of the applicant and the proposed project, its 
location, its purpose, and the timing of the project;
    (iv) A description of how the landowner may contact the applicant, 
including a local or toll-free phone number and a name of a specific 
person to contact who is knowledgeable about the project; and
    (v) Information on how the landowner can get a copy of the 
application from the company or the location(s) where a copy of the 
application may be found as specified in Sec. 157.10.
    (4) If the notice is returned as undeliverable, the applicant will 
make a reasonable attempt to find the correct address and notify the 
landowner.
    (5) Within 30 days of the date the application was filed, applicant 
shall

[[Page 27729]]

file an updated list of affected landowners, including information 
concerning notices that were returned undeliverable.
    7. In Sec. 157.103, a new paragraph (k) is added to read as 
follows:


Sec. 157.103  Terms and conditions; other requirements.

* * * * *
    (k) Applications filed under this section are subject to the 
landowner notification requirements described in Sec. 157.6(d).
    8. In Sec. 157.202, a sentence is added to the end of paragraph 
(b)(2)(i), paragraph (b)(6)(ii) is revised, and paragraph (b)(11)(i) is 
revised to read as follows:


Sec. 157.202  Definitions.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (2)(i) * * * Eligible facility includes observation wells.
* * * * *
    (6) * * *
    (ii) When required by highway construction, dam construction, 
encroachment of residential, commercial, or industrial areas, erosion, 
or the expansion or change of course of rivers, streams or creeks, or
* * * * *
    (11) Sensitive environmental area means:
    (i) The habitats of species which have been identified as 
endangered or threatened under the Endangered Species Act (Pub. L. 93-
205, as amended) and essential fish habitat as identified under the 
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (16 U.S.C. 
1801, et seq.);
* * * * *
    9. In Sec. 157.203, new paragraph (d) is added to read as follows:


Sec. 157.203  Blanket certification.

* * * * *
    (d) Landowner notification. (1) No activity described in 
Sec. 157.203(b) is authorized unless the company notifies all affected 
landowners, as defined in Sec. 157.6(d)(2), at least 30 days prior to 
commencing construction. The notification shall include:
    (i) A brief description of the facilities to be constructed or 
replaced and the effect the construction activity will have on the 
landowner's property;
    (ii) The name and phone number of a company representative who is 
knowledgeable about the project; and
    (iii) An explanation of the Commission's Enforcement Hotline 
procedures, as codified in section 1b.21 of this chapter, and the 
Enforcement Hotline telephone number.
    (2) For activities described in Sec. 157.203(c) the company shall 
notify all affected landowners, as defined in Sec. 157.6(d)(2), within 
three business days of filing its application. The notice should 
include:
    (i) A brief description of the facilities to be constructed or 
replaced and the effect the construction activity will have on the 
landowner's property;
    (ii) The name and phone number of a company representative that is 
knowledgeable about the project;
    (iii) The docket number assigned to the company's application; and
    (iv) The following paragraph: This project is being proposed under 
the prior notice requirements of the blanket certificate program 
administered by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. Under the 
Commission's regulations, you have the right to protest this project 
within 45 days of the date the Commission issues a notice of the 
pipeline's filing. If you file a protest, you should include the docket 
number listed in this letter and provide the specific reasons for your 
protest. The protest should be mailed to the Secretary of the Federal 
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First St., NE, Room 1A, Washington, 
DC 20426. A copy of the protest should be mailed to the pipeline at 
[pipeline address]. If you have any questions concerning these 
procedures you can call the Commission's Office of External Affairs at 
(202) 208-1088.
    10. In Sec. 157.206, new paragraphs (b)(2)(xii), (b)(3)(iv) and 
(b)(8) are added to read as follows:


Sec. 157.206  Standard conditions.

* * * * *
    (b) Environmental compliance. * * *
    (2) * * *
    (xii) Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (16 
U.S.C. 1801, et seq.)
    (3) * * *
    (iv) Paragraphs (b)(2)(i) and (viii) of this section only if it 
adheres to Commission staff's current ``Upland Erosion Control, 
Revegetation and Maintenance Plan'' and ``Wetland and Waterbody 
Construction and Mitigation Procedures'' which are available on the 
Commission Internet home page or from the Commission staff, or gets 
written approval from the staff or the appropriate Federal or state 
agency for the use of project-specific alternatives to clearly 
identified portions of those documents.
* * * * *
    (8) The certificate holder shall notify the affected landowners of 
the project at least 30 days prior to the beginning of construction for 
automatically authorized activities, or within 3 business days of 
filing the prior notice, as specified in Secs. 157.203(d).
* * * * *

PART 380--REGULATIONS IMPLEMENTING THE NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL 
POLICY ACT

    11. The authority citation for Part 380 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority: National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, 42 U.S.C. 
4321-4370a; Department of Energy Organization Act, 42 U.S.C. 7101-
7352; E.O. 12009, 3 CFR 1978 Comp., p. 142.

    12. In Sec. 380.4(a), new paragraphs (31) through (36) are added to 
read as follows:


Sec. 380.4  Projects or actions categorically excluded

    (a)  * * *
* * * * *
    (31) Abandonment of facilities by sale that involves only minor or 
no ground disturbance to disconnect the facilities from the system;
    (32) Conversion of facilities from use under the NAPA to use under 
the NGA;
    (33) Construction or abandonment of facilities constructed entirely 
in Federal offshore waters that has been approved by the Minerals 
Management Service and the Corps of Engineers, as necessary;
    (34) Abandonment or construction of facilities on an existing 
offshore platform;
    (35) Abandonment, construction or replacement of a facility (other 
than compression) solely within an existing building within a natural 
gas facility (other than LNG facilities), if it does not increase the 
noise or air emissions from the facility, as a whole; and
    (36) Conversion of compression to standby use if the compressor is 
not moved, or abandonment of compression if the compressor station 
remains in operation.
    13. In Sec. 380.12, paragraph (c)(5) is revised; paragraph (c)(10) 
is revised; and the first two sentences of (e)(5) are revised to read 
as follows:


Sec. 380.12  Environmental reports for Natural Gas Act applications.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (5)(i) Identify facilities to be abandoned, and state how they 
would be abandoned, how the site would be restored, who would own the 
site or right-of-way after abandonment, and who would be responsible 
for any facilities abandoned in place.
    (ii) When the right-of-way or the easement would be abandoned, 
identify whether landowners were given the

[[Page 27730]]

opportunity to request that the facilities on their property, including 
foundations and below ground components, be removed. Identify any 
landowners whose preferences the company does not intend to honor, and 
the reasons therefore.
* * * * *
    (10) Provide the names and mailing addresses of all affected 
landowners specified in Sec. 157.6(d) and certify that all affected 
landowners will be notified as required in Sec. 157.6(d).
* * * * *
    (e) * * *
    (5) Identify all federally listed or proposed threatened or 
endangered species and critical habitat and federally listed essential 
fish habitat that potentially occur in the vicinity of the project. 
Discuss the results of the consultation requirements listed in 
Sec. 380.13(b) at least through Sec. 380.13(b)(5)(i) for endangered or 
threatened species and with the National Marine Fisheries Service for 
essential fish habitat, and include any written correspondence that 
resulted from the consultation. * * *
* * * * *
    14. In Appendix A to Part 380, the descriptions of Resource Reports 
1 and 3 are revised to read as follows:

Appendix A to Part 380-Minimum Filing Requirements for 
Environmental Reports Under the Natural Gas Act

Resource Report 1--General Project Description

    1. Provide a detailed description and location map of the 
project facilities. (Sec. 380.12(c)(1))
    2. Describe any nonjurisdictional facilities that would be built 
in association with the project. (Sec. 380.12(c)(2))
    3. Provide current original U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5-
minute-series topographic maps with mileposts showing the project 
facilities; (Sec. 380.12(c)(3))
    4. Provide aerial images or photographs or alignment sheets 
based on these sources with mileposts showing the project 
facilities; (Sec. 380.12(c)(3))
    5. Provide plot/site plans of compressor stations showing the 
location of the nearest noise-sensitive areas (NSAs) within 1 mile. 
(Sec. 380.12(c)(3,4))
    6. Describe construction and restoration methods. 
(Sec. 380.12(c)(6))
    7. Identify the permits required for construction across surface 
waters. (Sec. 380.12(c)(9))
    8. Provide the names and address of all affected landowners and 
certify that all affected landowners will be notified as required in 
Sec. 157.6(d). (Sec. 380.12(a)(4) and (c)(10))
* * * * *

Resource Report 3--Vegetation and Wildlife

    1. Classify the fishery type of each surface waterbody that 
would be crossed, including fisheries of special concern. 
(Sec. 380.12(e)(1))
    2. Describe terrestrial and wetland wildlife and habitats that 
would be affected by the project. (Sec. 380.12(e)(2))
    3. Describe the major vegetative cover types that would be 
crossed and provide the acreage of each vegetative cover type that 
would be affected by construction. (Sec. 380.12(e)(3))
    4. Describe the effects of construction and operation procedures 
on the fishery resources and proposed mitigation measures. 
(Sec. 380.12(e)(4))
    5. Evaluate the potential for short-term, long-term, and 
permanent impact on the wildlife resources and state-listed 
endangered or threatened species caused by construction and 
operation of the project and proposed mitigation measures. 
(Sec. 380.12(e)(4))
    6. Identify all federally listed or proposed endangered or 
threatened species and federally listed essential fish habitat that 
potentially occur in the vicinity of the project and discussion 
results of consultations with other agencies. (Sec. 380.12(e)(5))
    7. Describe any significant biological resources that would be 
affected. Describe impact and any mitigation proposed to avoid or 
minimize that impact. (Sec. 380.12(e)(4 & 6))
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 99-11215 Filed 5-20-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P