Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 91 / Thursday, May 9, 1996 / Notices 21167

inspection in the Public Reference

Room.

Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,

Acting Secretary.

[FR Doc. 96–11573 Filed 5–8–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717–01–M

[Docket No. QF88–218–004]

Burney Forest Products, a Joint

Venture; Notice of Application for

Commission Recertification of

Qualifying Status of a Small Power

Production Facility

May 3, 1996.

On April 30, 1996, Burney Forest

Products, a Joint Venture (Burney

Forest) of 35586–B, Highway 299 East,

Burney, California 96013, submitted for

filing an application for recertification

of a facility as a qualifying small power

production facility pursuant to Section

292.207(b) of the Commission’s

Regulations. No determination has been

made that the submittal constitutes a

complete filing.

According to the applicant, the

biomass-fueled small power production

facility is located in Shasta County,

California. The Commission previously

certified the capacity of the facility to be

24.0 MW. The facility consists of two

wood-fired boilers and a condensing

steam turbine generator. According to

the applicant, the instant application for

recertification was submitted solely to

report a change in ownership of the

facility. Applicant has also concurrently

filed with the Commission in Docket

No. EL96–51–000, a petition for a

declaratory order requesting a

determination of the appropriate

methodology for calculating the

maximum net capacity of the facility.

Any person desiring to be heard or

objecting to the granting of qualifying

status should file a motion to intervene

or protest with the Federal Energy

Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street

NE, Washington, DC 20426, in

accordance with rules 211 and 214 of

the Commission’s Rules of Practice and

Procedure. All such motions or protests

must be filed within 30 days after the

date of publication of this notice in the

Federal Register and must be served on

the applicant. 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 petition to intervene. Copies

of this filing are on file with the

Commission and are available for public

inspection.

Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,

Acting Secretary.

[FR Doc. 96–11567 Filed 5–8–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717–01–M

[Docket No. RP96–215–000]

Florida Gas Transmission Co., Notice

of Proposed Changes in FERC Gas

Tariff

April 30, 1996.

Take notice that on April 25, 1996,

Florida Gas Transmission Company

(FGT) tendered for filing as part of its

FERC Gas Tariff, Third Revised Volume

No. 1 the following tariff sheets to

become effective June 1, 1996.

Original Sheet No. 129C

Original Sheet No. 129D

Second Revised Sheet No. 184B

FGT states that its currently effective

FERC Gas Tariff does not contain

provisions for resolution of

Unscheduled Deliveries from FGT’s

system. The Unscheduled Delivery

provisions as proposed herein are very

similar to the Unauthorized Gas

provisions as contained in Section 12.D

of FGT’s General Terms & Conditions

(GT&C). However, whereas the

Unauthorized Gas provisions apply

exclusively to points of receipt, the

proposed Unscheduled Delivery

provisions apply exclusively to points

of delivery in FGT’s Western Division.

Unscheduled Delivery provisions are

not necessary in FGT’s Market Area

because all Market Area delivery points

are covered by Delivery Point Operator

Accounts. Furthermore, pipeline

interconnects are excluded because

most are covered by operational

balancing agreements or other

arrangements with the interconnecting

pipelines which are not subject to FGT’s

Tariff.

Unscheduled Deliveries are defined in

the proposed tariff provisions are

volumes delivered at non-pipeline

interconnect points for which there is

no volume scheduled by any shipper.

Additionally, as required by

Commission orders concerning FGT’s

Unauthorized Gas Provisions, the

proposed Unscheduled Delivery

provisions shall not apply at any point

at which there is a volume scheduled

and shall not encompass imbalance

volumes. Further, the proposed

provisions provided that parties

responsible for Unscheduled Deliveries

which occurred prior to the proposed

effective date of these provisions, will

be provided the opportunity to balance

by scheduling deliveries to FGT prior to

being settled on a cash basis.

Similar to the Unauthorized Gas

provisions, FGT is proposing that upon

becoming aware of Unscheduled

Deliveries, FGT will post on its

Electronic Bulletin Board (EBB) for a

period of thirty (30) days the volume,

production month delivered and the

point of delivery of such volumes.

Shippers who respond during the thirty

(30) day period will have thirty (30)

days to schedule such volumes.

Unscheduled Deliveries prior to the

effectiveness of these provisions will be

afforded a sixty (60) days posting period

and shippers will have thirty (30) days

to schedule such volumes. Unscheduled

Deliveries neither claimed nor

scheduled will be billed to the party

physically the Unscheduled Deliveries

at a rate of 120% of the St. Helena

Parish Index plus a transportation rate

described below.

FGT shall invoice a maximum of

12,000 MMBtu at the 120% Index rate

during a twelve (12) month calender

period at any single delivery point.

Volumes in excess of the maximum will

be billed at a rate of 150% of the St.

Helena Index. FGT has included the

maximum provision to discourage

potential ‘‘gaming’’ of Unscheduled

Deliveries. Unscheduled Deliveries

settled on a cash basis will be billed a

transportation rate including surcharges

based on a point of receipt at FGT

milepost zero under Rate Schedule

FTS–1 for service in FGT’s Western

Division. The non-transportation

revenues resulting from the resolution

of Unscheduled Deliveries will be

accounted for pursuant to Section 19.1

of FGT’s GT&C.

Any person desiring to be heard or to

protect said filing should file a motion

to intervene or protest with the Federal

Energy Regulatory Commission, 888

First street, NE, Washington, DC, 20426,

in accordance with Sections 385.211

and 385.214 of the Commission’s Rules

and Regulations. All such motions or

protests must be filed as provided in

Section 154.210 of the Commission’s

Regulations. Protests will be considered

by the Commission in determining the

appropriate action to be taken, but will

not serve to make protestants parties to

the proceeding. Any person wishing to

become a party must file a motion to

intervene. Copies of this filing are on

file with the Commission and are

available for public inspection in the

Public Reference Room.

Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,

Acting Secretary.

[FR Doc. 96–11574 Filed 5–8–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717–01–M
21168 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 91 / Thursday, May 9, 1996 / Notices

[Docket No. CP96–347–000]

Granite State Gas Transmission, Inc.;

Notice of Application

April 30, 1996.

Take notice that on April 23, 1996,

Granite State Gas Transmission, Inc.

(Granite State), filed in Docket No.

CP96–347–000, an application pursuant

to Section 7(b) of the Natural Gas Act

requesting authorization for the

abandonment of: (1) approximately

15.26 miles of 6-inch pipeline located

between Exeter, New Hampshire and

Haverhill, Massachusetts; and (2) a

compressor station located in Plaistow,

New Hampshire, comprised of two 375

HP Ingersoll-Rand reciprocating

engines, valves, station piping and

appurtenant equipment, all as more

fully set forth in the application which

is on file with the Commission and open

to public inspection.

According to Granite State, the

proposed interstate pipeline that the

Portland Natural Gas Transmission

System (PNGTS) plans to construct and

operate in its pending application before

the Commission, Docket No. CP96–249–

000, involves a routing south from

Portland to Haverhill which closely

parallels Granite State’s existing

pipeline. From Exeter south to

Haverhill, the routing of the PNGTS is

alongside Granite State’s existing

pipeline. Granite State says that it owns

and operates parallel 6- and 10-inch

pipelines for a distance of

approximately 15.26 miles. Granite

State requests authority to abandon its

6-inch pipeline in order to make way for

and provide space for the location of the

new PNGTS 20-inch line, which will

allow the PNGTS pipeline to be laid in

the existing right-of-way, alongside

Granite State’s 10-inch pipeline.

According to Granite State, the

abandoned 6-inch line will be removed

from its existing location and disposed

off by PNGTS at no cost to Granite State.

At the time the 6-inch is removed,

PNGTS will reimburse Granite State for

the undepreciated cost, which as of

December 31, 1995 was $44,099.00.

Granite State says it will convey to

PNGTS the right to use the right-of-way

occupied by the 6-inch line at a price to

be negotiated later. The actual

abandonment and removal of the 6-inch

line and the compressor station will not

occur until the construction of the

PNGTS 20-inch pipeline begins in the

Exeter to Haverhill area, sometime

during the 1998 construction season.

Granite State further requests that a

Commission order approving the

requested abandonment be issued

contemporaneously with a Commission

ordered issuing a certificate to PNGTS

in Docket No. CP96–249–000.

According to Granite State, there will be

no loss of service or decrease in service

to any of its customers as a result of the

proposed abandonments.

Any person desiring to be heard or to

make any protest with reference to said

application should on or before May 21,

1996, 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

157.10). 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 a 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

Federal Energy Regulatory 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 permission and

approval for the proposed

abandonments are 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 provide

for, unless otherwise advised, it will be

unnecessary for Granite State to appear

or be represented at the hearing.

Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,

Acting Secretary.

[FR Doc. 95–11575 Filed 5–8–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717–01–M

[Docket No. RP96–217–000]

Great Lakes Gas Transmission Limited

Partnership; Notice of Proposed

Changes in FERC Gas Tariff

April 30, 1996.

Take notice that on April 26, 1996,

Great Lakes Gas Transmission Limited

Partnership (Great Lakes) tendered for

filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff,

Second Revised Volume No. 1, the

following tariff sheets to become

effective June 1, 1996:

Second Revised Sheet No. 1

First Revised Sheet No. 2

First Revised Sheet No. 9

First Revised Sheet No. 10

First Revised Sheet No. 13

First Revised Sheet No. 14

First Revised Sheet No. 16

First Revised Sheet No. 21

First Revised Sheet No. 22

First Revised Sheet No. 29

First Revised Sheet No. 30

First Revised Sheet No. 31

First Revised Sheet No. 32

First Revised Sheet No. 33

First Revised Sheet No. 34

Original Sheet No. 34A

First Revised Sheet No. 35

First Revised Sheet No. 40

Original Sheet No. 40A

Original Sheet No. 40B

First Revised Sheet No. 42

First Revised Sheet No. 43

First Revised Sheet No. 44

First Revised Sheet No. 45

First Revised Sheet No. 50B

First Revised Sheet No. 50C

First Revised Sheet No. 51

First Revised Sheet No. 52

First Revised Sheet No. 53

First Revised Sheet No. 56

First Revised Sheet No. 57

Original Sheet No. 57A

First Revised Sheet No. 58

First Revised Sheet No. 59

First Revised Sheet No. 61

First Revised Sheet No. 62

First Revised Sheet No. 63

Second Revised Sheet No. 64

Second Revised Sheet No. 65

Second Revised Sheet No. 67

First Revised Sheet No. 68

First Revised Sheet No. 70

Original Sheets No. 84 through 89

Great Lakes also tendered for filing as

part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Original

Volume No. 2, the following tariff sheet

to become effective June 1, 1996:

Forty-Second Revised Sheet No. 1

Great Lakes states that the abovereferenced tariff sheets are being filed to

implement procedural and operational

changes deemed necessary in the

competitive post-Order No. 636

environment. Great Lakes further states

that all of the proposed changes are

being made in an effort to provide

shippers with greater ease and

flexibility in obtaining service, while

preserving the operational integrity of

Great Lakes’ system. None of the

proposed changes will affect any of

Great Lakes’ currently effective rates

and charges, it is stated.

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.