8354 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 30 / Tuesday, February 14, 1995 / Notices

Station by replacing the existing orifice

plate in the 6-inch orifice meter run

with a larger capacity orifice plate.

Northwest states that this change will

increase the maximum design delivery

capacity of the South Vancouver Meter

Station from 14,167 Dths per day to

approximately 16,667 Dths per day at a

pressure of 400 psig. Northwest states

that the South Vancouver Meter Station

originally was constructed under

certificate authorization in Docket No.

G–1429.

Northwest states the IGI, a marketer of

natural gas, has requested that

Northwest expand the South Vancouver

Meter Station to accommodate an

additional 2,500 MMBtu per day (at 400

psig) of firm delivery capacity under an

existing firm transportation service

agreement dated June 29, 1990, or under

any other duly authorized

transportation agreement.

Northwest states that the total cost of

the proposed facility upgrade at the

South Vancouver Meter Station is

estimated to be approximately $1,000

which will be reimbursed by IGI.

Comment date: March 24, 1995, in

accordance with Standard Paragraph G

at the end of this notice.

3. Columbia Gas Transmission Corp.

[Docket No. CP95–196–000]

Take notice that on February 2, 1995,

Columbia Gas Transmission Corporation

(Columbia), 1700 MacCorkle Avenue,

S.E., Charleston, West Virginia 25314–

1599, filed request with the Commission

in Docket No. CP95–196–000 pursuant

to Sections 157.205 and 157.211 of the

Commission’s Regulations under the

Natural Gas Act (NGA) for authorization

to construct and operate additional

points of delivery, authorized in blanket

certificate issued in Docket No. CP83–

76–000, all as more fully set forth in the

request on file with the Commission and

open to public inspection.

Columbia proposes to construct and

operate new facilities that would

establish ten additional points of

delivery to existing customers that have

asked Columbia to provide firm

transportation. Columbia states that the

estimated cost would be approximately

$150 per tap which would be treated as

a O&M Expense.

Comment date: March 24, 1995, in

accordance with Standard Paragraph G

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, DC 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

unnecessary for applicant to appear or

be represented at the hearing.

G. 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 instant request

shall be treated as an application for

authorization pursuant to Section 7 of

the Natural Gas Act.

Lois D. Cashell,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 95–3634 Filed 2–13–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717–01–P

[Docket No. RP93-198–004]

Alabama-Tennessee Natural Gas Co.;

Proposed Change In FERC Gas Tariff

February 8, 1995.

Take notice that on February 3, 1995,

Alabama-Tennessee Natural Gas

Company (Alabama-Tennessee), filed to

revise the filing previously submitted by

Alabama-Tennessee on November 29

1994 in Docket No. RP93–198–003

(November 29 Filing). In particular,

Alabama-Tennessee states that the

instant filing is designed to reflect a

dollar-for-dollar refund of $37,631.73

that Alabama-Tennessee recently

received from Tennessee Gas Pipeline

Company (Tennessee) relating to a

Tennessee billing error.

According to Alabama-Tennessee its

November 29 Filing provided for the

recovery by Alabama-Tennessee of the

net debit balance due and payable by

shippers on Alabama-Tennessee’s

system under Section 33.4(f) of the

General Terms and Conditions of

Alabama-Tennessee’s FERC Gas Tariff,

Second Revised Volume No. 1, resulting

from a true-up performed by AlabamaTennessee following the elimination of

its Transportation Cost Rate

Adjustment. As a further result of the

flow-through of the subject refund,

however, those shippers which owed

Alabama-Tennessee the true-up

amounts shown in the November 29

Filing will now receive a credit.

Alabama-Tennessee proposes that the

November 29 Filing be deemed revised

by the instant filing and that it be

permitted to credit the amount due each

customer under this revised filing on

bills Alabama-Tennessee will be

rendering in March 1995, for services

provided during February, 1995.

Alabama-Tennessee has requested

that the Commission grant such waivers

as may be necessary to accept and

approve the filing as submitted.

Any person desiring to protest said

filing should file a protest with the

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission,

825 North Capitol Street, NE.,

Washington, DC 20426, in accordance

with Rule 211 of the Commission’s rules

of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR

385.211). All such protests should be

filed on or before February 15, 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. Copies of this filing are
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 30 / Tuesday, February 14, 1995 / Notices 8355

1Order 497, 53 FR 22139 (June 14, 1988), III

FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶30,820 (1988); Order No. 497–

A, order on rehearing, 54 FR 52781 (December 22,

1989), III FERC Stats. & Regs. 30,868 (1989); Order

No. 497–B, order extending sunset date, 55 FR

53291 (December 28, 1990), III FERC Stats. & Regs.

30,908 (1990); Order No. 497–C, order extending

sunset date, 57 FR 9 (January 2, 1992), III FERC

Stats. & Regs. 30,934 (1991), rehearing denied, 57

FR 5815 (February 18, 1992), 58 FERC ¶ 61,139

(1992); Tenneco Gas v. FERC (affirmed in part and

remanded in part), 969 F.2d 1187 (D.C. Cir. 1992);

Order No. 497–D, order on remand and extending

sunset date, III FERC Stats. & Regs. 30,958

(December 4, 1992), 57 FR 58978 (December 14,

1992); Order No. 497–E, order on rehearing and

extending sunset date, 59 FR 243 (January 4, 1994),

65 FERC ¶ 61,381 (December 23, 1993); Order No.

497–F, order denying rehearing and granting

clarification, 59 FR 15336 (April 1, 1994), 66 FERC

¶ 61,347 (March 24, 1994); and Order No. 497–G,

order extending sunset date, 59 FR 32884 (June 27,

1994), III FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 30,996 (June 17,

1994).

2Standard 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, Conoco, Inc. v. FERC, D.C. Cir. No. 94–

1745 (December 13, 1994).

on file with the Commission and are

available for public inspection.

Lois D. Cashell,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 95–3572 Filed 2–13–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717–01–M

[Docket No. RP95–7–003]

Mississippi River Transmission Corp.;

Compliance Filing

February 8, 1995.

Take notice that on February 3, 1995,

Mississippi River Transmission

Corporation (MRT), submitted for filing

the following tariff sheets listed below

to its FERC Gas Tariff, Third Revised

Volume No. 1:

Proposed effective date

Second Substitute First

Revised Sheet No. 127.

November 1,

1994.

Second Substitute First

Revised Sheet No. 213.

November 1,

1994.

MRT states that the purpose of the

filing is to comply with the

Commission’s January 19, 1995, order

by revising the tariff language on Sheet

Nos. 127 and 224 to conform with the

tariff language originally proposed by

MRT in its October 7, 1994, filing in this

proceeding.

MRT states that a copy of the filing

has been mailed to each of its customers

and the State Commissions of Arkansas,

Illinois and Missouri.

Any person desiring to protest said

filing should file a protest with the

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission,

825 North Capitol Street NE.,

Washington, DC 20426, in accordance

with Rule 211 of the Commission’s

Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR

385.211). All such protests should be

filed on or before February 15, 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. Copies of this filing are

on file with the Commission and are

available for public inspection.

Lois D. Cashell,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 95–3571 Filed 2–13–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717–01–M

[Docket No. CP95–198–000]

Northern Natural Gas Co.; Request

Under Blanket Authorization

February 8, 1995.

Take notice that on February 3, 1995,

Northern Natural Gas Company

(Northern), P.O. Box 3330, Omaha,

Nebraska 68103–0330, filed in Docket

No. CP95–198–000 a request pursuant to

§§ 157.205 and 157.212 of the

Commission’s Regulations under the

Natural Gas Act (18 CFR 157.205 and

157.212) for authorization to upgrade an

existing delivery point to accommodate

increased natural gas deliveries to

Northern States Power (Minnesota)

(NSP–M), under the blanket certificate

issued in Docket No. CP82–401–000,

pursuant to Section 7(c) of the Natural

Gas Act, all as more fully set forth in the

request which is on file with the

Commission and open to public

inspection.

Northern proposes to upgrade an

existing town border station (Kandiyohi

#1 Town Border Station) located in

Kandiyohi County, Minnesota, to

accommodate increased natural gas

deliveries to NSP-M for commercial,

industrial and residential end-use under

Northern’s currently effective service

agreement with NSP-M. Northern

estimates increased peak day and

annual volumes through the upgraded

town border station of 720 Mcf and

91,980 Mcf, respectively. Northern

estimates a cost of upgrading the

delivery point of $3,500 and indicates

that the costs would be financed in

accordance with the General Terms and

Conditions of Northern’s FERC Gas

Tariff, Fifth Revised Volume No. 1.

Northern advises that the total

volumes to be delivered to the customer

after the request do not exceed the total

volumes authorized prior to the request.

Also, Northern indicates that the

proposed activity is not prohibited by

its existing tariff and that it has

sufficient capacity to accommodate the

changes proposed herein without

deteriment or disadvantage of

Northern’s other customers.

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

§ 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 instant request

shall be treated as an application for

authorization pursuant to Section 7 of

the Natural Gas Act.

Lois D. Cashell,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 95–3574 Filed 2–13–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717–01–M

[Docket No. MG95–4–000]

Northwest Pipeline Corp.; Filing

February 8, 1995.

Take notice that on February 2, 1995,

Northwest Pipeline Corporation

(‘‘Northwest’’), filed a ‘‘Petition of

Northwest Pipeline Corporation For

Waiver of Regulations.’’ Northwest

seeks waiver of the Federal Energy

Regulatory Commission’s marketing

affiliate regulations described under

Order Nos. 497 et seq.1 and Order Nos.

566 et seq.2 Northwest has entered into

an agreement with Williams Energy

Systems company (‘‘WES’’) to act as

administrator of WES’ ‘‘Streamline’’

service which facilities the engagement

of buyers and sellers of natural gas at

the interface between gas production

areas and pipeline interconnections at

the Rocky Mountain Market Center

located in Opal, Wyoming. Northwest

may, in the future, provide similar

services for WES at other locations. The

requested waiver is limited to

Northwest’s role, now and in the future,

as administrator of this electronic gas

trading service.

Northwest states that a copy of this

Petition has been served to Northwest’s