Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 80 / Wednesday, April 25, 2001 / Notices 20795

Issued in Oak Ridge, Tennessee on April

16, 2001.

Charles D. Crowe,

Director, Procurement and Contracts Division,

Oak Ridge Operations Office.

[FR Doc. 01–10226 Filed 4–24–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory

Commission

[Docket No. CP01–154–000]

Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline, L.L.C.;

Notice of Application

April 19, 2001.

On April 13, 2001, Maritimes &

Northeast Pipeline, L.L.C. (Maritimes),

1284 Soldiers Field Road, Boston,

Massachusetts 02135, filed in Docket

No. CP01–154–000, an abbreviated

application pursuant to section 7(c) of

the Natural Gas Act (NGA) and the

Commission’s Rules and Regulations for

a certificate of public convenience and

necessity authorizing Maritimes: (i) To

place in service, on a full-time basis, a

compressor unit which is currently

installed for use on a stand-by basis at

Maritimes’ existing compressor station

site in Richmond, Maine; (ii) to connect,

place in service and operate a second

compressor unit currently on site and

stored within an existing compressor

station building in Baileyville, Maine;

and (iii) to construct, install, and

operate any auxiliary facilities at these

compressor stations necessary to place

these compressor units in service. The

application is on file with the

Commission and open to public

inspection. The filing may be viewed at

http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm

(call 202–208–2222 for assistance).

Maritimes, along with its Canadian

pipeline affiliate, operates a high

pressure natural gas delivery system

that transports natural gas in

international commerce from a point

near Goldboro, Nova Scotia to the

Canadian-United States border and

through the northeastern states of Maine

and New Hampshire, with a terminus in

Dracut, Massachusetts. Maritimes states

that the proposed facilities will provide

additional system flexibility and

reliability and eliminate system

bottlenecks for Maritimes’ existing

shippers. It also will enable Maritimes

to accommodate additional flows of gas

from the existing production fields

located offshore Nova Scotia. The

proposed compressor units have a

nominal rating of 8,311 (HP) (NEMA)

each. The new compressor units will

increase the design capacity of 360,575

Dekatherms per day (Dth/d) to 440,000

Dth/d. Maritimes states that there are no

additional land requirements associated

with the proposed project. All project

components are located on lands, and

within compressor station buildings,

currently owned and used by Maritimes.

The estimated cost of Maritimes’

proposed project is approximately $11.7

million. Maritimes states that there is no

subsidy issue with respect to this

application because: (i) The cost of the

unit at Richmond is already reflected in

rate base, (ii) Maritimes’ rates are

currently capped and will continue to

be capped until at least November 30,

2004, at $0.715 per dth on a 100 percent

load factor basis, and (iii) the rate on a

rolled-in basis, giving consideration to

the costs associated with the proposed

facilities, will not increase above

current levels.

Questions regarding the details of this

proposed project should be directed to

Joseph F. McHugh, Director, Rates and

Regulatory Affairs, M&N Management

Company, 1284 Soldiers Field Road,

Boston, Massachusetts 02135.

There are two ways to become

involved in the Commission’s review of

this project. First, any person wishing to

obtain legal status by becoming a party

to the proceedings for this project

should, on or before May 10, 2001, file

with the Federal Energy Regulatory

Commission, 888 First Street, NE.,

Washington, DC 20426, a motion to

intervene 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 NGA (18 CFR 157.10). A

person obtaining party status will be

placed on the service list maintained by

the Secretary of the Commission and

will receive copies of all documents

filed by the applicant and by all other

parties. A party must submit 14 copies

of filings made with the Commission

and must mail a copy to the applicant

and to every other party in the

proceeding. Only parties to the

proceeding can ask for court review of

Commission orders in the proceeding.

However, a person does not have to

intervene in order to have comments

considered. The second way to

participate is by filing with the

Secretary of the Commission, as soon as

possible, an original and two copies of

comments in support of or in opposition

to this project. The Commission will

consider these comments in

determining the appropriate action to be

taken, but the filing of a comment alone

will not serve to make the filer a party

to the proceeding. The Commission’s

rules require that persons filing

comments in opposition to the project

provide copies of their protests only to

the party or parties directly involved in

the protest.

Persons who wish to comment only

on the environmental review of this

project should submit an original and

two copies of their comments to their

comments to the Secretary of the

Commission. Environmental

commenters will be placed on the

Commission’s environmental mailing

list, will receive copies of the

environmental documents, and will be

notified of meetings associated with the

Commission’s environmental review

process. Environmental commenters

will not be required to serve copies of

filed documents on all other parties.

However, the non-party commenters

will not receive copies of all documents

filed by other parties or issued by the

Commission (except for the mailing of

environmental documents issued by the

Commission) and will not have the right

to seek court review of the

Commission’s final order.

The Commission may issue a

preliminary determination on nonenvironmental issues prior to the

completion of its review of the

environmental aspects of the project.

This preliminary determination

typically considers such issues as the

need for the project and its economic

effect on existing customers of the

applicant, on other pipelines in the area,

and on landowners and communities.

For example, the Commission considers

the extent to which the applicant may

need to exercise eminent domain to

obtain rights-of-way for the proposed

project and balances that against the

non-environmental benefits to be

provided by the project. Therefore, if a

person has comments on community

and landowner impacts from this

proposal, it is important either to file

comments or to intervene as early in the

process as possible.

Comments, protests, and intervention

may be filed electronically via the

internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR

385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions

on the Commission’s web site at http:/

/www.ferc. fed.us/efi/doorbell.htm.

If the Commission decides to set the

application for a formal hearing before

an Administrative Law Judge, the

Commission will issue another notice

describing that process. At the end of

the Commission’s review process, a

final Commission order approving or

denying a certificate will be issued.

Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,

Acting Secretary.

[FR Doc. 01–10191 Filed 4–24–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712–01–M