[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 97 (Friday, May 18, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Pages 27640-27641]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-12505]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP01-360-000]


Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company; Notice of Application

May 14, 2001.
    Take notice that on May 7, 2001, Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company 
(Tennessee), 1001 Louisiana, Houston, Texas 77002, filed in Docket No. 
CP01-360-000, an application pursuant to sections 7(b) and 7(c) of the 
Natural Gas Act (NGA), and the Regulations of the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission's requesting authorization for its proposed 
Dracut Expansion Project. In the proposal for the Dracut Expansion 
Project, Tennessee seeks to abandon approximately 11.92 miles of 16-
inch pipeline, and requests a certificate of public convenience and 
necessity to construct, install and operate approximately 11.50 miles 
of 24-inch diameter replacement pipeline and 0.42 miles of 16-inch 
diameter replacement pipeline, all as more fully set forth in the 
application which is on file with the Commission and open to public 
inspection. This filing may be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm [call (202) 208-2222 for assistance].
    Tennessee states that the Project will increase Tennessee's 
capacity and flexibility on its system in the New England region, so 
that it can help meet the significant growth in the demand for natural 
gas services projected in this area of the country. Tennessee's current 
capacity from Dracut is 200 MMcfd on a firm year-round basis. Tennessee 
states that the proposed replacement and upgrade of facilities will 
increase its capacity from Dracut to 500 MMcfd on a firm year-round 
basis, with minimal environmental disruption and relatively modest 
facility construction.
    The estimated cost for installations and removal of the Dracut 
Project facilities is approximately $36.4 million. Tennessee proposes 
to place the Dracut Expansion facilities in service by November 1, 
2002. Tennessee requests that the Commission grant the requested 
authority by December 31, 2001. Tennessee states that it will charge 
transportation rates as currently set forth in its tariff for any 
service which utilizes the proposed facilities; that no new or rate 
schedules are being proposed; and that capacity created by the Dracut 
Expansion Project will be awarded in accordance with Tennessee's 
existing Gas Tariff.
    Any questions regarding this application should be directed to 
Susan T. Halbach, Senior Counsel, P.O. Box 2511, Houston, Texas 77252 
(713) 420-5751.
    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 4, 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 and 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

[[Page 27641]]

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 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 non-
environmental 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 applicants 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 interventions 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.

David P. Boergers,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 01-12505 Filed 5-17-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M