Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 65 / Friday, April 4, 1997 / Notices 16149

1Natural says that it made this offer to Northern

Border on January 27, 1997, but that on February

7, 1997, Northern Border declined the offer and

made no counter-proposal.

[Docket No. CP97–294–000]

Natural Gas Pipeline Company of

America; Notice of Application

March 31, 1997.

Take notice that on March 19, 1997,

Natural Gas Pipeline Company of

America (Natural), located at 701 East

22nd Street, Lombard, Illinois 60148,

filed in Docket No. CP97–294–000 an

application pursuant to Section 7(c) of

the Natural Gas Act and Subpart A of

Part 157 of the Commission’s

Regulations. Natural seeks a certificate

of public convenience and necessity

authorizing the construction and

operation of certain expansion facilities

required by transport up to 663,000 Mcf

per day of additional volumes on

Natural’s Amarillo mainline system east

of Harper, Iowa, to the Chicago area.

The details of Natural’s application are

more fully set forth in its filing which

is on file with the Commission and open

to public inspection.

Natural states that this application is

being filed in response to the Draft

Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS)

for the ‘‘Northern Border Project’’ issued

by the Commission Staff in Northern

Border Pipeline Company (Northern

Border), Docket Nos. CP95–194–001,

003, and Natural, Docket Nos. CP96–27–

000, 001, and represents a further

expansion of Natural’s Amarillo Line.

This application, in conjunction with

Natural’s already pending applications

in Docket Nos. CP96–27–000 and 001, is

said to put before the Commission, in a

formal manner, the ‘‘Amarillo System

Alternative’’ considered by the DEIS for

the Northern Border Project. However,

Natural states that 62 miles of large

diameter lateral lines and 29,600

horsepower of additional compression

which the Northern Border DEIS

considered as part of the Amarillo

System Alternative is not included

because Natural says that those facilities

are not needed. Thus, Natural states that

its version of the Amarillo System

Alternative is preferable to the Iowa/

Illinois System Alternative which was

also considered by the Northern Border

Project DEIS.

Natural requests certificate authority

for the following facilities:

(1) About 20.7 miles of 36-inch

mainline loop in Washington and

Louisa Counties, Iowa, extending

westward from the beginning of the 36-

inch loop proposed in Docket No.

CP96–27–001;

(2) About 16.9 miles of 36-inch

mainline loop in Rock Island and Henry

Counties, Illinois, extending eastward

from the end of the 36-inch loop

proposed in Docket No. CP96–27–001 to

the suction side of Compressor Station

No. 110;

(3) About 68.9 miles of 42-inch

mainline loop in Henry, Bureau and

LaSalle Counties, Illinois, from the

discharge side of Compressor Station

No. 110 to the beginning of the No. 4

line in LaSalle County, Illinois;

(4) About 4.7 miles of 36-inch

mainline loop in Bureau County,

Illinois, extending eastward from the

end of the 36-inch loop proposed in

Docket No. CP96–27–001;

(5) Two 15,000 horsepower gas

turbine compressors at Station No. 199

located in Muscatine County, Iowa;

(6) 19,000 horsepower of gas turbine

compression at Station No. 110 located

in Henry County, Illinois; and,

(7) One 13,000 horsepower gas

turbine compressor at Station No. 113

located in Will County, Illinois.

The estimated cost of these facilities

is $160 million.

Natural says that it will charge its

currently effective rates under Rate

Schedule FTS for the transportation

service performed by the facilities

proposed in this Application. Natural

further requests a preliminary

determination that the cost of the

facilities should be reflected on a rolledin basis in Natural’s next Section 4 rate

proceeding. The Commission’s pricing

policy statement in Docket No. PL94–4–

000 indicates that there is a

presumption in favor of rolled-in rates

when the rate increase to existing

customers from rolling-in the new

facilities is five percent or less.

Natural says that, as shown in Exhibit

N of its application, the rolling-in of the

proposed facilities will have no

significant impact on Natural’s existing

rates. While the impact on the rates for

Natural’s transportation services vary by

transportation path, on a volume

weighted basis, there is a slight overall

reduction in rates. Similarly, Natural’s

storage rates will change by less than

0.3%. Natural claims to have thus met

the requirements necessary for a

preliminary determination in favor of

rolled-in rates.

Natural says that Northern Border

could contract with it for firm

transportation service over the Amarillo

System Alternative in lieu of

constructing the Northern Border

proposed expansion from Harper to

Chicago.1 Natural says that Northern

Border would pay Natural’s maximum

rate under Rate Schedule FTS which is

currently about 14 cents, and then

Northern Border would charge its own

shippers 8.5 cents per MMBtu under

Northern Border’s cost-of-service tariff.

Natural says that under the Amarillo

System Alternative, Northern Border’s

system would be effectively extended

east of Harper and that all the shippers

would contract with Northern Border,

not with Natural, for service to the

Chicago area. Natural says that all the

shippers would receive comparable or,

in some cases, better service than they

originally contracted for (in the

precedent agreements), but at a lower

per unit cost. Natural says that all this

would be accomplished without the

need for a totally new pipeline system/

corridor being constructed across

eastern Iowa and Illinois by Northern

Border.

Any person desiring to be heard or to

make any protest with reference to said

application should on or before April

21, 1997, file with the Federal Energy

Regulatory Commission, Washington,

D.C. 20426, a motion to intervene or a

protest in accordance with the

requirements of the Commission’s Rules

of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR

385.214 or 385.211) and the Regulations

under the Natural Gas Act (18 CFR

157.20). All protests filed with the

Commission will be considered by it in

determining the appropriate action to be

taken but will not serve to make the

protestants parties to the proceeding.

Any person wishing to become a party

to the proceeding or to participate as a

party in any hearing therein must file a

motion to intervene in accordance with

the Commission’s Rules.

Take further notice that, pursuant to

the authority contained in and subject to

the jurisdiction conferred upon the

Commission by Sections 7 and 15 of the

Natural Gas Act and the Commission’s

Rules of Practice and Procedure, a

hearing will be held without further

notice before the Commission or its

designee on this application if no

motion to intervene is filed within the

time required herein, if the Commission

on its own review of the matter finds

that a grant of the certificate is required

by the public convenience and

necessity. If a motion for leave to

intervene is timely filed, or if the

Commission on its own motion believes

that a formal hearing is required, further

notice of such hearing will be duly

given.

Under the procedure herein provided

for, unless otherwise advised, it will be
16150 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 65 / Friday, April 4, 1997 / Notices

unnecessary for Natural to appear or be

represented at the hearing.

Lois D. Cashell,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 97–8575 Filed 4–3–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717–01–M

[Docket No. OA97–553–000]

Ohio Edison Company, Pennsylvania

Power Company; Notice of Filing

March 31, 1997.

Take notice that on February 21, 1997,

Ohio Edison Company tendered for

filing on behalf of itself and

Pennsylvania Power Company, a

Supplement to the rate schedule to the

Agreement for System Power

Transactions with Citizens Lehman

Power Sales. This filing is made

pursuant to Section 205 of the Federal

Power Act.

Any person desiring to be heard or to

protest said filing should file a motion

to intervene or protest with the Federal

Energy Regulatory Commission, 888

First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C.

20426, in accordance with Rules 211

and 214 of the Commission’s Rules of

Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211

and 18 CFR 385.214). All such motions

or protests should be filed on or before

April 11, 1997. Protests will be

considered by the Commission in

determining the appropriate action to be

taken, but will not serve to make

protestants parties to the proceeding.

Any person wishing to become a party

must file a motion to intervene. Copies

of this filing are on file with the

Commission and are available for public

inspection.

Lois D. Cashell,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 97–8579 Filed 4–3–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717–01–M

[Docket No. CP97–308–000]

Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line

Corporation; Notice of Request Under

Blanket Authorization

March 31, 1997.

Take notice that on March 26, 1997,

Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line

Corporation (Transco), P.O. Box 1396,

Houston, Texas 77251, filed in Docket

No. CP97–308–000 a request pursuant to

Sections 157.205 and 157.211 of the

Commission’s Regulations under the

Natural Gas Act (18 CFR 157.211) for

authorization to construct and operate a

sales tap for an existing industrial

chemical facility located in St. James

Parish, Louisiana, under TGPL’s blanket

certificate issued in Docket No. CP82–

426–000 pursuant to Section 7 of the

Natural Gas Act, all as more fully set

forth in the request that is on file with

the Commission and open to public

inspection

Transco states that the new sales tap

will be used by Occidental Chemical

Corporation (Occidental) for chemical

manufacturing plant operations.

Transco proposes to construct, install,

own and operate the new sales tap and

associated pipeline facilities consisting

of a 6-inch hot tap near the 4.04

milepost on Transco’s existing 12-inch

Hester Lateral, a dual 2-inch meter run

and 750 of associated pipeline. Transco

states that Occidental will construct, or

cause to be constructed, appurtenant

facilities to enable it to receive up to

8,000 Mcf of gas per day from Transco

on an interruptible basis. Transco states

that the proposed facilities are estimated

at $165,000 and that Occidental will

cause Transco to be reimbursed for all

costs associated with the facilities.

Transco states that the new sales tap

is not prohibited by its existing tariff

and that it has sufficient capacity to

accomplish deliveries without

detriment or disadvantage to other

customers. The new sales tap will not

have an effect on Transco’s peak day

and annual deliveries and the total

volumes delivered will not exceed total

volumes authorized prior to this

request.

Any person or the Commission’s staff

may, within 45 days after issuance of

the instant notice by the Commission,

file pursuant to Rule 214 of the

Commission’s Procedural Rules (18 CFR

385.214) a motion to intervene or notice

of intervention and pursuant to Section

157.205 of the Regulations under the

Natural Gas Act (18 CFR 157.205) a

protest to the request. If no protest is

filed within the time allowed therefor,

the proposed activity shall be deemed to

be authorized effective the day after the

time allowed for filing a protest. If a

protest is filed and not withdrawn

within 30 days after the time allowed

for filing a protest, the instant request

shall be treated as an application for

authorization pursuant to Section 7 of

the Natural Gas Act.

Lois D. Cashell,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 97–8576 Filed 4–3–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717–01–M

[Project Nos. 2017–011 et al.]

Hydroelectric Applications [Southern

California Edison Company, et al.];

Notice of Applications

Take notice that the following

hydroelectric applications have been

filed with the Commission and are

available for public inspection:

1 a. Type of Application: New Major

License.

b. Project No.: 2017–011.

c. Date filed: February 26, 1997.

d. Applicant: Southern California

Edison.

e. Name of Project: Big Creek No. 4

Hydroelectric.

f. Location: On the San Joaquin River,

near Auberry, in Fresno, Madera, and

Tulare Counties, California; on lands

within the Sierra National Forest.

g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power

Act 16 USC §§ 791(a)–825(r).

h. Applicant Contact: C. Edward

Miller, Manager of Hydro Generation

Southern California Edison Co., 2244

Walnut Grove Avenue, P.O. Box 800,

Rosemead, CA 91770, (818) 302–1564.

i. FERC Contact: He ́ctor M. Pe ́rez at

(202) 219–2843.

j. Brief Description of Project: The

existing project consists of: (1) The Big

Creek Dam No. 7 with the 465-acre

reservoir; (2) the concrete intake

structure; (3) the water conduit; (4) the

concrete powerhouse; (5) two turbine

generator units with a rated capacity of

50 MW each and the turbine generator

unit with a rated capacity of 350 kW; (6)

the tailrace; (7) the two 220-kV

transmission lines, one 5.8-mile-long

and one 81-mile-long; and (8) other

appurtenances.

k. With this notice, we are initiating

consultation with the California State

Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO), as

required by § 106, National Historic

Preservation Act, and the regulations of

the Advisory Council on Historic

Preservation, 36, CFR, at 800.4.

l. Under Section 4.32 (b)(7) of the

Commission’s regulations (18 CFR), if

any resource agency, Indian Tribe, or

person believes that the applicant

should conduct an additional scientific

study to form an adequate factual basis

for a complete analysis of the

application on its merits, they must file

a request for the study with the

Commission, not later than 60 days after

the application is filed, and must serve

a copy of the request on the applicant.

2 a. Type of Application: Preliminary

Permit.

b. Project No.: 11598–000.

c. Date filed: February 11, 1997.

d. Applicant: Ketchikan Public

Utilities.