Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 102 / Friday, May 26, 1995 / Notices 27969

1Standards of Conduct and Reporting

Requirements for Transportation and Affiliate

Transactions, Order No. 566, 59 FR 32885 (June 27,

1994), III FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶30,997 (June 17,

1994); Order No. 566–A, Order on rehearing, 59 FR

52896 (October 20, 1994), 69 FERC ¶61,044

(October 14, 1994); Order No. 566–B, order on

rehearing, 59 FR 65707, (December 21, 1994); 69

FERC ¶61,334 (December 14, 1994): appeal

docketed sub nom. Conoco, Inc. v. FERC, D.C. Cir

No. 94–1745 (December 13, 1994).

Secretariat at the Commission’s

headquarters in accordance with 17 CFR

145.7 and 145.8.

Any person interested in submitting

written data, views, or arguments on the

proposed terms and conditions, or with

respect to other materials submitted by

the CSCE, should send such comments

to Jean A. Webb, Secretary, Commodity

Futures Trading Commission, 2033 K

Street NW., Washington, DC 20581 by

the specified date.

Issued in Washington, DC, on May 19,

1995.

Blake Imel,

Acting Director.

[FR Doc. 95–12991 Filed 5–25–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6351–01–M

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Environmental Management Site

Specific Advisory Board, Hanford Site

AGENCY: Department of Energy.

ACTION: Notice of open meeting.

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the provisions of

the Federal Advisory Committee Act

(Public Law 92–463, 86 Stat. 770) notice

is hereby given of the following

Advisory Committee meeting:

Environmental Management Site

Specific Advisory Board (EM SSAB),

Hanford Site.

DATES: Thursday, June 1: 9:00 a.m.–5:00

p.m.; Friday, June 2: 8:30 a.m.–4:00 p.m.

ADDRESSES: Red Lion Columbia River,

1401 N. Hayden Island Drive, Portland,

Oregon.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Jon Yerxa, Public Participation

Coordinator, Department of Energy

Richland Operations Office, P.O. Box

550, Richland, WA, 99352.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Purpose of

the Board: The purpose of the Board is

to make recommendations to DOE and

its regulators in the areas of

environmental restoration, waste

management, and related activities.

Tentative Agenda

June Meeting Topics

The Hanford Advisory Board will

receive information on and discuss

issues related to: Privatization, Risk

Assessment, St. Louis Plan

Implementation, the ’97 Budget, the

M&O Contract Rebid Process, and the

USDOE–HQ Risk Report for Congress.

The Committee will also receive

updates from various Subcommittees,

including reports on: the Board Progress

Report, and the Board Schedule and

Operating Plan for FY ’96.

Public Participation: The meeting is

open to the public. Written statements

may be filed with the Committee either

before or after the meeting. Individuals

who wish to make oral statements

pertaining to agenda items should

contact Jon Yerxa’s office at the address

or telephone number listed above.

Requests must be received 5 days prior

to the meeting and reasonable provision

will be made to include the presentation

in the agenda. The Designated Federal

Official is empowered to conduct the

meeting in a fashion that will facilitate

the orderly conduct of business. Each

individual wishing to make public

comment will be provided a maximum

of 5 minutes to present their comments.

Due to programmatic issues that had to

be resolved, the Federal Register notice

is being published less than fifteen days

before the date of the meeting.

Minutes: The minutes of this meeting

will be available for public review and

copying at the Freedom of Information

Public Reading Room, 1E–190, Forrestal

Building, 1000 Independence Avenue,

SW., Washington, DC 20585 between

9:00 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday–Friday,

except Federal holidays. Minutes will

also be available by writing to Jon

Yerxa, Department of Energy Richland

Operations Office, P.O. Box 550,

Richland, WA 99352, or by calling him

at (509)–376–9628.

Issued at Washington, DC on May 23, 1995.

Rachel M. Samuel,

Acting Deputy Advisory Committee

Management Officer.

[FR Doc. 95–13008 Filed 5–25–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P

Federal Energy Regulatory

Commission

[Docket No. MG92–3–002]

Pacific Gas Transmission Company;

Notice of Filing

May 22, 1995

Take notice that on May 12, 1995,

Pacific Gas Transmission Company

(PGT) submitted revised standards of

conduct to incorporate the changes

required by Order Nos. 566 et seq.1 and

the Commission’s Order issued April

19, 1995 in Docket No. MG92–3–001.

PGT states that all parties of record in

the above-referenced docket have been

served with copies of this filing, as well

as all jurisdictional customers and

interested state regulatory agencies.

Any person desiring to be heard or to

protest said filing should file a motion

to intervene or protest with the Federal

Energy Regulatory Commission, 825

North Capitol Street, NE., Washington,

DC, 20426, in accordance with Rules

211 or 214 of the Commission’s Rules of

Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211

or 385.214 (1991)). All such motion to

intervene or protest should be filed on

or before June 6, 1995. 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.

Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,

Acting Secretary.

[FR Doc. 95–12923 Filed 5–25–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717–01–M

[Docket No. CP95–503–000]

Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company;

Notice of Request Under Blanket

Authorization

May 22, 1995.

Take notice that on May 18, 1995,

Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company

(Tennessee), P.O. Box 2511, Houston,

Texas 77252, filed in Docket No. CP95–

503–000 a request pursuant to Sections

157.205 and 157.212 of the

Commission’s Regulations under the

Natural Gas Act (18 CFR 157.205,

157.212) for authorization to construct

and operate delivery point facilities in

Humphreys County, Mississippi, in

order to deliver gas to Producer Feed

Company (PFC) under Tennessee’s

blanket certificate issued in Docket No.

CP82–413–000 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.

Tennessee proposes to construct a

delivery point to enable PFC to receive

gas under various transportation

arrangements. Tennessee states that the

estimated cost of the proposed facilities

will be $105,220, which will be

reimbursed to Tennessee by PFC.

Any person or the Commission’s staff

may, within 45 days after issuance of

the instant notice by the Commission,
27970 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 102 / Friday, May 26, 1995 / Notices

1Hamilton states that it is directly connected to

two interstate pipeline systems, Texas Gas

Transmission Corporation (Texas Gas) and Texas

Eastern Transmission Corporation (Texas Eastern),

and has contracted for substantial storage capacity

on ANR Pipeline Company (ANR); these three

pipelines interconnect in the area of Lebanon, Ohio.

2Hamilton states that: (1) these pipelines are

ANR, Columbia Gas Transmission Corporation,

CNG Transmission Corporation, Texas Eastern, and

Texas Gas; (2) Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line

Company also delivers gas to Lebanon through

facilities owned by Texas Eastern and ANR (‘‘the

Lebanon Lateral’’); (3) all major producing areas,

including Canada, are accessible through at least

one of these pipelines; (4) several storage areas are

accessible to the Lebanon area.

3Pipeline Service Obligations and Revisions to

Regulations Governing Self-Implementing

Transportation; and Regulation of Natural Gas

Pipelines After Partial Wellhead Decontrol, 57 Fed.

Reg. 13,267 (April 16, 1992), III FERC Stats. & Regs.

Preambles ¶ 30,939 (April 8, 1992); order on reh’g,

Order No. 636–A, 57 Fed. Reg. 36,128 (August 12,

1992, III Stats. & Regs. Preambles ¶ 30,950 (August

3, 1992); order on reh’g, Order No. 636–B, 57 Fed.

Reg. 57,911 (December 8, 1992), 61 FERC ¶ 61,272

(November 27, 1992) appeal redocketed sub nom.,

Atlanta Gas Light Company and Chattanooga Gas

Company, et al. v. FERC, No. 94–1171 (D.C. Cir.

(May 27, 1994).

4The Commission stated that it was adopting

Order No. 636

in order to facilitate the meeting of gas purchasers

and gas sellers in a national gas market. Market

centers may, in certain areas, create additional

meeting places for gas purchasers and gas sellers.

These inter-pipeline market centers would allow

gas from production areas attached to different

pipelines to meet where the pipelines intersect to

create a market for gas purchasers from different

market areas. The Commission believes that market

centers should develop naturally and, therefore,

will not mandate market centers. However, as stated

above, the Commission is requiring in new Sections

284.8(b)(5) and 284.9(b)(5) that there must be

nothing in a pipeline’s tariff that inhibits the

development of market centers. (Order No. 636,

¶ 30,939 at 30,427–28. Emphasis added; footnote

omitted.)

The Commission provided specific examples of

rate structures that may inhibit market centers. In

various restructuring proceedings, the Commission

provided examples of those rate structures which

may impede the development of market centers. See

Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corporation, 63

FERC ¶ 61,194 at 62,501 (1993), and Arkla Energy

Resources Company, 62 FERC ¶ 61,076 at 61,461

(1993).

5 In Texas Eastern Transmission Corporation’s

(Texas Eastern) one year restructuring report,

Hamilton State that Texas Eastern’s backhaul

service was merely a transfer of gas within a market

center and that a rate reduction was appropriate.

Citing the Commission’s earlier order on

restructuring, the Commission said that:

The Commission continues to believe, as it

previously advised Hamilton, that the appropriate

place to discuss the maximum rate for backhaul

services is in Texas Eastern’s next rate case

proceeding. 69 FERC ¶ 61,362, 62,370 (1994).

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

§ 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 therefore,

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.

Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,

Acting Secretary.

[FR Doc. 95–12922 Filed 5–25–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717–01–M

[Docket No. PL94–3–000]

City of Hamilton, Ohio; Order on

Request for Designation of Market

Center

Issued May 22, 1995.

On May 23, 1994, the City of

Hamilton, Ohio (Hamilton) filed a

Request to Designate Lebanon, Ohio a

Market Center and to require Tariff

Changes. The City of Hamilton,1 a

municipal gas system located in Butler

County, Ohio, serves approximately

23,000 residential, commercial, and

industrial customers. Hamilton is

located approximately 16 miles from

Lebanon, Ohio. Within a 20-mile radius

of Lebanon, five interstate pipelines

interconnect.2

Hamilton requests that the

Commission issue a policy statement

designating Lebanon, Ohio as a market

center and requiring changes to the

tariffs of the interstate pipelines which

connect in the Lebanon Market Center.

Hamilton asserts that certain tariff

provisions currently impede the

development of an efficient market

center at Lebanon. Hamilton contends

that use of a policy statement in this

case is consistent with continued

implementation of the Commission’s

mandate in Order No. 636 3 for pipelines

to remove impediments to the

development of market centers.

Discussion

We agree with the City of Hamilton

that market centers should be

encouraged to develop and allowed to

operate so that both the industry and

consumers of natural gas will benefit.

The Commission has made clear its

intent that market centers should

develop and that rate structures not

inhibit market centers. Consistent with

the basic operational characteristics of

the market, Order no. 636 states the

Commission’s belief that market centers

should develop naturally and that the

Commission should not designate

market centers.4 Market centers have

developed since Order No. 636 without

the Commission designating locations as

market centers.

Hamilton specifies some of its

concerns regarding the efficiency of the

running of a market center at Lebanon

and expresses concerns about the

consideration of other issues in

individual proceedings. There is more

to be considered here than economy of

administrative effort, however. The

Commission’s policy that market centers

should evolve naturally does not

compromise Hamilton’s interests.

Hamilton has raised and may raise tariff

and rate issues in particular pipelines’

individual rate cases.5 Discussion

among the pipelines to better coordinate

their operations is also encouraged.

For these reasons, the Commission

sees no reason to change its policy now.

The market is better able than the

Commission to determine where market

centers should be located. As we have

already stated, unless a market center

proposal or specific rate and tariff terms

violate the Commission’s rules and

regulations, the Commission is unlikely

to intrude on the natural process of

development of a market center.

Accordingly, the Commission will not

designate Lebanon a market center and

Hamilton’s request that the Commission

generally review pipeline operations

and tariffs is denied.

The Commission orders

The request for designation of

Lebanon, Ohio as a market center and

for a general review of pipeline tariffs

and operations is denied.

By the Commission.

Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,

Acting Secretary.

[FR Doc. 95–12989 Filed 5–25–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717–01–M

[Docket No. EG95–51–000, et al.]

CNG Power Services Corporation, et

al., Electric Rate and Corporate

Regulation Filings

May 19, 1995.

Take notice that the following filings

have been made with the Commission:

1. CNG Power Services Corporation

[Docket No. EG95–51–000]

On May 15, 1995, CNG Power

Services Corporation (‘‘CNGPS’’), One

Park Ridge Center, Box 15746,

Pittsburgh, PA 15222, filed with the

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

(‘‘Commission’’) an application for a

new determination of exempt wholesale

generator status, due to changed

circumstances resulting from certain