Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 92 / Friday, May 12, 1995 / Notices 25711

Currently Identified Environmental

Issues

We have already identified several

issues that we think deserve attention

based on a preliminary review of the

proposed facilities and the

environmental information provided by

Steuben. Keep in mind that this is a

preliminary list. The list of issues may

be added to, subtracted from, or

changed based on your comments and

our analysis. Issues are:

• The project would cross three

perennial streams: Mud Hollow Brook,

the Canisteo River, an unnamed

tributary of the Canisteo River.

• The 12-inch-diameter header would

be constructed within Catatunk Road

and Canisteo River Road between

approximately mileposts 1 and 2.6 (see

appendix 1).

• About 25 acres of upland forest

would be disturbed.

• A 3,284 horsepower compressor

station would be constructed adjacent to

Steuben’s existing Adrian Compressor

Station which may increase existing

sound levels.

In addition, the following concerns

were raised in response to our March 3

Notice:

• The EA should include standards

required for slope stabilization and

erosion control during and after

pipeline construction.

• Prime agricultural lands should be

identified.

• Restoration should include

monitoring of agricultural lands.

• Fishery resources of the streams

crossed should be identified.

• The EA should identify any

threatened or endangered species

potentially found along the proposed

route.

• Safety features to ensure that no gas

leaks during all aspects of operation

should be described.

• All residences potentially affected

during construction should be

identified.

• All active or abandoned hazardous

waste sites should be identified.

Public Participation

You can make a difference by sending

a letter addressing your specific

comments or concerns about the project.

You should focus on the potential

environmental effects of the proposal,

alternatives to the proposal (including

alternative routes), and measures to

avoid or lessen environmental impact.

The more specific your comments, the

more useful they will be. Please follow

the instructions below to ensure that

your comments are received and

properly recorded:

• Address you letter to: Lois Cashell,

Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory

Commission, 825 North Capitol St.,

N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426;

• Reference Docket No. CP95–119–

001;

• Send a copy of your letter to: Mr.

Howard J. Wheeler, EA Project Manager,

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission,

825 North Capitol St., N.E., Room 7312,

Washington, D.C. 20426; and

• Mail your comments so that they

will be received in Washington, D.C. on

or before June 12, 1995.

If you wish to receive a copy of the

EA, you should request one from Mr.

Wheeler at the above address.

Becoming an Intervenor

In addition to involvement in the EA

scoping process, you may want to

become an official party to the

proceeding or become an ‘‘intervenor’’.

Among other things, intervenors have

the right to receive copies of caserelated Commission documents and

filings by other intervenors. Likewise,

each intervenor must provide copies of

its filings to all other parties. If you

want to become an intervenor you must

file a Motion to Intervene according to

Rule 214 of the Commission’s Rules of

Practice and Procedure (18 CFR

385.214) (see appendix 2).

The date for filing timely motions to

intervene in this proceeding has passed.

Therefore, parties now seeking to file

late interventions must show good

cause, as required by section

385.214(b)(3), why this time limitation

should be waived. Environmental issues

have been viewed as good cause for late

intervention. You do not need

intervenor status to have your scoping

comments considered.

Additional information about the

proposed project is available from Mr.

Howard Wheeler, EA Project Manager,

at (202) 208–2299.

Lois D. Cashell,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 95–11725 Filed 5–11–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717–01–M

[Docket No. CP95–464–000, et al.]

Continental Natural Gas, Inc., et al.;

Natural Gas Certificate Filings

May 4, 1995.

Take notice that the following filings

have been made with the Commission:

1. Continental Natural Gas, Inc.

Complainant, vs. Colorado Interstate

Gas Company Respondent

[Docket No. CP95–464–000]

Take notice that on May 3, 1995,

Continental Natural Gas Company

(Continental), 1400 SouthBoston, Tulsa,

Oklahoma 74119, filed with the

Commission in Docket No. CP95–464–

000 a complaint, motion for a cease and

desist order, and a motion for order

directing physical interconnections

pursuant to Rule 206 of the

Commission’s Rules of Practice and

Procedure, against Colorado Interstate

Gas Company (CIG) (Respondent),

alleging violations of the Natural Gas

Act (NGA); Section 7(b)—Unauthorized

abandonment of facilities and services,

Section 7(c)—Unauthorized

modification of facilities, and Section

284 of the Commission Regulationsdiscrimination in favor of its nonjurisdictional processing affiliate, all as

more fully set forth in the complaint

which is on file with the Commission

and open to public inspection.

Continental, an Oklahoma corporation

with its principal place of business in

Tulsa, Oklahoma, engaged in the

gathering, processing and marketing of

natural gas, is also a gathering and

transportation customer on CIG’s system

and operates a natural gas processing

plant connected to CIG’s system.

CIG, a Delaware corporation, with

principal place of business in Colorado

Springs, Colorado, is engaged in the

business of gathering and interstate

transmission of natural gas. CIG’s

system stretches from Texas to

Wyoming.

Continental requests that the

Commission direct CIG to cease and

desist in its plans to reconfigure the

Mocane Compressor Station and direct

CIG to provide Continental with the

requested mainline and gathering

interconnections necessary to continue

the needed compression at the Mocane

Station. Continental states that its

Warren processing plant is located on

CIG’s mainline, immediately

downstream from the Mocane

Compressor Station (also on CIG’s

mainline) in Beaver County, OK, which

is essential to ensuring access to gas

supply for the Warren plant.

Continental alleges that CIG plans to

abandon (without Commission

approval) a significant portion of the

compression at the Mocane Station and

to appropriate such compression

(modification) for the primary benefit of

its non-jurisdictional processing

affiliate. Continental states that the

abandonment of that compression will

significantly reduce the throughput

capability of the Mocane Station and

will cause severe harm to Continental.

As explained by Continental,

Continental has requested that CIG

provide it with certain mainline and

gathering interconnects in order to

maintain as well as maximize current
25712 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 92 / Friday, May 12, 1995 / Notices

1Transwestern states that the facilities which are

proposed to be transferred to TGC mirror the

facilities which are identified in the data response

filed on September 6, 1994, in Docket No. CP94–

254–000 (Refunctionalization Proceeding).

and future access to the gas supply

behind the Mocane Gathering System.

However, CIG has withheld

authorization for these interconnects, as

asserted by Continental, but CIG has

recently provided similar

interconnections to CIG’s processing

affiliate. Continental states that CIG has

offered no explanation for such

discrimination. As a result, Continental

requests that the Commission (1) direct

CIG to cease and desist in its plans to

reconfigure the Mocane Compressor

Station and (2) direct CIG to provide

Continental with the requested mainline

and gathering interconnections.

Comment date: June 5, 1995, in

accordance with the first paragraph of

Standard Paragraph F at the end of this

notice.

2. Transwestern Pipeline Company

[Docket No. CP95–70–001]

Take notice that on May 1, 1995,

Transwestern Pipeline Company

(Transwestern), Post Office Box 1188,

Houston, Texas 77251–1188 filed an

amendment (Amendment) to its original

application in Docket No. CP95–770–

000, which was filed pursuant to

Section 7(b) of the Natural Gas Act for

permission and approval to abandon

certain facilities by transfer to

Transwestern Gathering Company

(TGC), a wholly-owned subsidiary of

Transwestern.1 Transwestern states that

the Amendment incorporates minor

revisions and corrections to ensure

consistency among the captioned

proceeding, Transwestern’s

refunctionalization proceeding in

Docket No. CP94–254 and

Transwestern’s abandonment

proceeding in Docket No. CP94–751, all

as more fully set forth in the application

which is on file with the Commission

and open to public inspection.

Transwestern states that, in response

to a June 7, 1994, data request from the

Commission in the refunctionalization

proceeding, it conducted an in-depth

review and analysis of each facility in

its entire system, resulting in a different

functionalization of the facilities from

that originally filed. It is stated that the

response was filed September 6, 1994.

On October 3, 1994, Transwestern

states that it supplemented its data

response by making some substantial,

but mostly miscellaneous corrections

and revisions to the refunctionalization

of facilities. On November 14, 1994,

Transwestern contends that it again

supplemented its data response with a

summary on its proposed adjustments to

plant and depreciation resulting from

the refunctionalization proposed in the

data response.

Also on November 14, 1994,

Transwestern submits that it filed an

application in Docket No. CP95–70–000

proposing to spindown certain

compression, plants, metering,

dehydration and pipeline facilities,

along with certain agreements and

services, by transfer to TGC. Essentially,

Transwestern proposed to spindown to

TGC all of its facilities functionalized as

gathering in the refunctionalization

proceeding.

On December 5, 1994, Transwestern

filed a Petition for Declaratory Order in

Docket No. CP95–112–000 seeking the

Commission to declare that upon

completion of the acquisition by TGC of

the facilities being spun down from

Transwestern, such facilities and the

services provided through them would

be exempt from Commission

jurisdiction.

Subsequent to the filing of the

spindown, Transwestern contends that

it was determined that certain minor

revisions and corrections were required

to the application in this proceeding.

Comment date: May 25, 1995, in

accordance with Standard Paragraph F

at the end of this notice.

3. Transwestern Pipeline Company

[Docket No. CP94–254–001]

Take notice that on May 1, 1995,

Transwestern Pipeline Company

(Transwestern), P. O. Box 1188,

Houston, Texas 77251–1188, filed in

Docket No. CP94–254–001 an

amendment (Amendment) to its original

application filed in the captioned

proceeding on February 25, 1994

pursuant to Sections 7(b) and (c) of the

Natural Gas Act for a certificate of

public convenience and necessity and

abandonment authorization relating to

the proposed refunctionalization of

certain facilities from production and

gathering to transmission and from

transmission to production and

gathering, respectively. Transwestern

states that it filed the Amendment to

fully incorporate the functionalization

of facilities proposed in its data

response filed on September 6, 1994, all

as more fully set forth in the application

which is on file with the Commission

and open to public inspection.

Transwestern states that, in response

to a June 7, 1994, data request from the

Commission, it conducted an in-depth

review and analysis of each facility in

its entire system, resulting in a different

functionalization of the facilities from

that originally filed. It is stated that the

response was filed September 6, 1994.

On October 3, 1994, Transwestern

states that it supplemented its data

response by making some substantial,

but mostly miscellaneous corrections

and revisions to the refunctionalization

of facilities. On November 14, 1994,

Transwestern contends that it again

supplemented its data response with a

summary on its proposed adjustments to

plant and depreciation resulting from

the refunctionalization proposed in the

data response.

Also on November 14, 1994,

Transwestern submits that it filed an

application in Docket No. CP95–70–000

proposing to spindown certain

compression, plants, metering,

dehydration and pipeline facilities,

along with certain agreements and

services, by transfer to Transwestern

Gathering Company (TGC). Essentially,

Transwestern proposed to spindown to

TGC all of its facilities functionalized as

gathering in the refunctionalization

proceeding.

On December 5, 1994, Transwestern

filed a Petition for Declaratory Order in

Docket No. CP95–112–000 seeking the

Commission to declare that upon

completion of the acquisition by TGC of

the facilities being spun down from

Transwestern, such facilities and the

services provided through them would

be exempt from Commission

jurisdiction.

Transwestern states that the

refunctionalization of facilities

contained in the data response is fully

consistent with the Commission’s

primary function test. In addition, it is

stated that the refunctionalization

proposed in the data response is the

basis of the spindown to TGC.

Therefore, to avoid confusion, to ensure

consistency among the

refunctionalization, spindown and

petition for declaratory order and to

ensure a consistent Commission record,

Transwestern requests that its original

application in the refunctionalization

proceeding be amended to fully

incorporate the functionalization of

facilities proposed in Transwestern’s

data response, as amended.

Comment date: May 25, 1995, in

accordance with Standard Paragraph F

at the end of this notice.

4. Mississippi River Transmission

Corporation NorAm Field Services

Corp.

[Docket No. CP95–376–000]

Take notice that on April 28, 1995

Mississippi River Transmission

Corporation (MRT) 9900 Clayton Road,

St. Louis, Missouri 63124, and NorAm

Field Services Corp. (NFS) 525 Milam,
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 92 / Friday, May 12, 1995 / Notices 25713

Shreveport, Louisiana 71101, jointly

filed in Docket No. CP95–376–000 an

application pursuant to Section 7(b) and

Rule 207. MRT is proposing to abandon

by sale and transfer, certain gathering

facilities to, its affiliate, NFS. NFS is

petitioning the Commission for a

declaratory order, wherein the

Commission declines to assert

jurisdiction over the gathering facilities

once the facilities become the property

of NFS, all as more fully set forth in the

application which is on file with the

Commission and open to public

inspection.

Specifically, pursuant to Section 7(b)

of the Natural Gas Act, MRT proposes

to abandon by sale to NFS, four discrete,

certificated gathering systems which

MRT states are remote from its

transmission system. The four gathering

systems are: Mills Ranch in Wheeler

County, Texas; Little Washita in Grady

County, Oklahoma; North Reydon in

Roger Mills County, Oklahoma; and

Southwest New Liberty in Beckham

County, Oklahoma. In addition,

pursuant to Rule 207 of the

Commission’s Rules of Practice and

Procedure, 18 CFR 385.207, MRT and

NFS petition the Commission for an

order declaring that the facilities are

exempt from Commission regulations

under Section 1(b) of the Natural Gas

Act.

MRT states that because the gathering

facilities are remote from its

transmission system, they are not

integral to MRT’s operations in the postrestructuring environment. It is further

stated that although all of the facilities

have been certificated, they have

historically been functionalized as

gathering facilities for ratemaking

purposes, and that such facilities clearly

qualify as gathering facilities under the

modified primary function test. It is

averred that NFS is engaged in the

business of providing exclusively nonjurisdictional gathering services in

competition with producers, gatherers

and intrastate pipelines; and that NFS

will operate the facilities in essentially

the same manner as they have been

operated by MRT. It is stated that the

net book value of the subject facilities as

of December 31, 1994 was $810,430.

Comment date: May 25, 1995, in

accordance with Standard Paragraph F

at the end of this notice.

5. Transwestern Pipeline Company

[Docket No. CP94–751–002]

Take notice that on May 1, 1995,

Transwestern Pipeline Company

(Transwestern), Post Office Box 1188,

Houston, Texas 77251–1188 filed an

amendment (Amendment) to its original

application in Docket No. CP94–751–

000, which was filed pursuant to

Section 7(b) of the Natural Gas Act for

an order granting permission and

approval to abandon certain facilities.

Transwestern states that the

Amendment reflects the sale of certain

facilities to third parties, the

determination that certain of the

facilities have already been abandoned

and the determination that gas is

currently flowing through certain of the

wellhead facilities, all as more fully set

forth in the amendment which is on file

with the Commission and open to

public inspection.

It is stated that in the process of

analyzing Transwestern’s system in

response to the May 27, 1994 series of

gathering orders issued by the

Commission and while preparing for

further proceedings in Transwestern’s

refunctionalization proceeding in

Docket No. CP94–254–000, it was

discovered that certain field facilities,

including compressors, plants, meters,

dehydrators and miscellaneous

associated facilities are no longer used

and useful or are uneconomical or

otherwise unnecessary for continued

operation of the pipeline. Therefore,

Transwestern states that it filed the

original abandonment application on

August 30, 1994. Transwestern

determined that it would be most

practical and efficient to first seek an

order authorizing the abandonment of

facilities in Docket No. CP94–751–000

before seeking the refunctionalization of

Transwestern’s remaining facilities in

Docket No. CP94–254–000.

Transwestern states that it felt that this

sequencing would avoid the necessity of

needlessly determining the facilities

primary function when they were

proposed to be abandoned.

Transwestern states that it has now

been determined that certain additional

revisions are necessary to the

application in Docket No. CP94–751–

000 to reflect the sale of certain facilities

to third parties, the determination that

certain of the facilities have already

been abandoned and the determination

that gas is currently flowing through

certain of the wellhead facilities.

On November 14, 1994, Transwestern

submits that it filed an application in

Docket No. CP95–70–000 proposing to

spindown certain compression, plants,

metering, dehydration and pipeline

facilities, along with certain agreements

and services, by transfer to

Transwestern Gathering Company

(TGC). Essentially, Transwestern

proposed to spindown to TGC all of its

facilities functionalized as gathering in

the refunctionalization proceeding.

On December 5, 1994, Transwestern

filed a Petition for Declaratory Order in

Docket No. CP95–112–000 seeking the

Commission to declare that upon

completion of the acquisition by TGC of

the facilities being spun down from

Transwestern, such facilities and the

services provided through them would

be exempt from Commission

jurisdiction. In general, Transwestern

contends that where facilities are

removed from the instant abandonment

application to be sold to third parties,

such facilities are included in an

amendment to Transwestern’s

spindown proceeding in Docket No.

CP95–70–000 filed concurrently and

will be accordingly spundown to TGC

prior to the sale to a third party.

Comment date: May 25, 1995, in

accordance with Standard Paragraph F

at the end of this notice.

Standard Paragraphs

F. Any person desiring to be heard or

to make any protest with reference to

said application should on or before the

comment date, 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 a grant of the

certificate and/or permission and

approval for the proposed abandonment

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 provided

for, unless otherwise advised, it will be
25714 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 92 / Friday, May 12, 1995 / Notices

unnecessary for applicant to appear or

be represented at the hearing.

Lois D. Cashell,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 95–11711 Filed 5–11–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717–01–P

[Project No. 2035 Colorado]

City and County of Denver; Notice of

Intent to File an Application for a New

License

May 8, 1995.

Take notice that City and County of

Denver, the existing licensee for the

Gross Reservoir Hydroelectric Project

No. 2035, also known as Reservoir #22,

filed a timely notice of intent to file an

application for a new license, pursuant

to 18 CFR 16.6 of the Commission’s

Regulations. The original license for

Project No. 2035 was issued effective

May 1, 1950, and expires April 30, 2000.

The project is located on South

Boulder Creek in Boulder County,

Colorado. The principal works of the

Gross Project include a dam and a

reservoir with a capacity of 41,811 acrefeet designed primarily to supply water

to Denver for municipal purposes. Also

licensed, but not constructed, are a

conduit 18,500 feet long, a powerhouse

with a capacity of about 10,500

horsepower, a substation and a

connection to a transmission line owned

by the Public Service Company of

Colorado.

Pursuant to 18 CFR 16.7, the licensee

is required henceforth to make available

certain information to the public. This

information is now available from the

licensee at Central Records, Denver

Water, 1600 W. 12th Ave., Denver, CO

80254.

Pursuant to 18 CFR 16.8, 16.9 and

16.10, each application for a new

license and any competing license

applications must be filed with the

Commission at least 24 months prior to

the expiration of the existing license.

All applications for license for this

project must be filed by April 30, 1998.

Lois D. Cashell,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 95–11722 Filed 5–11–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717–01–M

[Docket No. RP95–276–000]

East Tennessee Natural Gas Co.;

Notice of Compliance Filing

May 8, 1995.

Take notice that on May 3, 1995, East

Tennessee National Gas Company (East

Tennessee), tendered for filing its First

Revised Sheet Nos. 139, 140, and 143 in

compliance with Order No. 577, issued

by the Commission in the abovereferenced docket on April 4, 1995.

East Tennessee states that copies of

the filing have been served to all

affected customers and state regulatory

commissions.

Any person desiring to be heard or to

make any protest with reference to said

filing should file a petition to intervene

or protest with the Federal Energy

Regulatory Commission, 825 North

Capitol Street, NE., Washington, DC

20426, in accordance with Sections 211

and 214 of the Commission’s Rules of

Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.211

and 385.214. All such petitions or

protests should be filed on or before

May 15, 1995. Protests will be

considered by the Commission 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

must file a motion to intervene. Copies

of this filing are on file and are available

for public inspection.

Lois D. Cashell,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 95–11721 Filed 5–11–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717–01–M

[Docket No. CP95–480–000]

K N Interstate Gas Transmission Co.;

Notice of Request Under Blanket

Authorization

May 8, 1995.

Take notice that on May 3, 1995, K N

Interstate Gas Transmission Co. (KNI),

P.O. Box 281304, Lakewood, Colorado

80228, filed in Docket No. CP95–480–

000 a request pursuant to Section

157.205 of the Commission’s

Regulations under the Natural Gas Act

(18 CFR 157.205) for authorization to

construct and operate 14 new delivery

taps for retail customers in Nebraska,

under KNI’s blanket certificate issued in

Docket No. CP82–140–000 et al., all as

more fully set forth in the request which

is on file with the Commission and open

to public inspection.

KNI proposes to construct and operate

the taps and appurtenant facilities for

delivery to K N Energy, Inc. (K N), a

local distribution company, on behalf of

K N’s customers located on KNI’s

system, as detailed in the appendix. KNI

states that the proposed deliveries are

within K N’s current entitlement from

KNI. It is further stated that the

deliveries would have no adverse

impact on KNI’s peak day or annual

deliveries and that the additional taps

are not prohibited by KNI’s FERC Gas

Tariff.

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 instance request

shall be treated as an application for

authorization pursuant to Section 7 of

the Natural Gas Act.

Lois D. Cashell,

Secretary.

APPENDIX

County

Volume (Mcf)

End use Cost Peak

day Annual

Red Willow ............................................................................................................................... 2 145 Domestic ...................... $400

Boone ...................................................................................................................................... 3 175 Domestic ...................... 400

Sherman .................................................................................................................................. 7 430 Commercial .................. 850