Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 77 / Friday, April 21, 1995 / Notices 19913

Northern proposes to abandon inplace a single staged 1,080 horsepower

compressor unit (Big Lake Unit No. 1)

located at its Big Lake compressor

station (Big Lake Station) in Reagan

County, Texas. Northern indicates that

currently the Big Lake Station consists

of four compressor units totaling 4,360

horsepower. Northern indicates that the

installation of blind flanges or weld

caps during abandonment will be

completed, as required, so as not to

affect the operation of the remaining

units at the Big Lake Station.

Northern advises that it proposes to

abandon in its entirety the Pecos County

No. 2 Station (Pecos Station), which

currently consists of three compressor

units, totaling 3,000 horsepower, and to

move two of those units to a new facility

to be constructed during the summer

1995, the Jal Compressor Station located

in Lea County, New Mexico. Northern

states that the new facility will be

constructed on Northern’s 16 inch

transmission branchline approximately

26 miles north of the existing Kermit

Compressor Station in Winkler County,

Texas, and will be installed pursuant to

Northern’s blanket authority granted on

September 1, 1982, in Docket No. CP82–

401. Northern proposes to abandon the

remaining unit at the Pecos Station inplace. Northern further indicates that all

gas and service piping to the Pecos

Station will be disconnected and sealed

off either by the installation of blind

flanges or weld caps.

Northern avers that it intends to

utilize the remaining Pecos Station unit

and the Big Lake unit No. one, or parts

from these units, in the future at other

locations within Northern’s field area as

the need for these units may arise.

Northern states that in certain instances,

the units proposed to be abandoned may

be salvaged rather than utilized

elsewhere on Northern’s pipeline

system. Northern indicates that it will

seek, to the extent applicable, the

required Commission authority in order

to install and operate these compressor

facilities at a new location if these

facilities are to be utilized in the future.

Northern further states that the Big Lake

compressor Unit No. 1 and the Pecos

Station are not required due to reduced

deliverability in the systems located

upstream of the compressor units.

Northern advises that the abandonment

of the Big Lake unit and the Pecos

Station will not result in the

abandonment of service to any of

Northern’s existing customers or

producers, nor will the proposed

abandonment adversely impact capacity

since this compression is no longer

needed by Northern to receive the

remaining gas supplies available from

upstream gathering systems.

Comment date: May 3, 1995, in

accordance with Standard Paragraph F

at the end of this notice.

8. Texas Gas Transmission Corporation

[Docket No. CP95–313–000]

Take notice that on April 10, 1995,

Texas Gas Transmission Corporation

(Texas Gas), 3800 Frederica Street,

Owensboro, Kentucky 42301, filed in

Docket No. CP95–313–000 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 through which it

delivers gas to Indiana Gas Company,

Inc. (Indiana Gas) in Parke County,

Indiana, under Texas Gas’s blanket

certificate issued in Docket No. CP82–

407–000 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.

It is stated that Indiana Gas has

requested that Texas Gas increase the

measurement capability at the Hercules

Powder Meter Station to allow Indiana

Gas to serve, in addition to existing

requirements, new load attributable to

the Wabash River Coal Gasification

Project. Texas Gas proposes to upgrade

the meter station by replacing the dual

2-inch meter runs, two 2-inch side

valves and related piping with a dual 4-

inch station at this point. It is stated that

Indiana Gas will reimburse Texas Gas

for the cost of upgrading the

measurement facilities, which is

estimated to be $92,700.

It is further stated that Indiana Gas

has informed Texas Gas that it will not

require any increase in existing firm

contract quantities to accommodate

service at the delivery point as the new

load will be served with interruptible

and capacity release volumes.

Comment date: May 30, 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, 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

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

§ 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. 95–9858 Filed 4–20–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717–01–P

[Docket No. CP95–318–000]

Williams Gas Processing—MidContinent Region Company; Petition

for Declaratory Order

April 17, 1995.

Take notice that on April 11, 1995,

Williams Gas Processing—Mid-
19914 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 77 / Friday, April 21, 1995 / Notices

Continent Region Company (WGP–

MCR), Post Office Box 3102, Tulsa,

Oklahoma 74101, filed a petition for a

declaratory order in Docket No. CP95–

318–000, requesting that the

Commission declare that WGP–MCR’s

acquisition, ownership, and operation of

approximately 25.8 miles of 26-inch

pipeline and appurtenant facilities

located in Texas County, Oklahoma

currently owned by Williams Natural

Gas Company (WNG) are exempt from

the Commission’s Regulations pursuant

to Section 1(b) of the Natural Gas Act

(NGA), all as more fully set forth in the

petition which is on file with the

Commission and open to public

inspection.

WGP–MCR states that the current

filing is necessary because the subject

line’s function will change as a result of

the construction and operation of a new

processing plant, the Baker Plant. The

new plant is being constructed by

Williams Field Services Company

(WFS), an affiliate of WGP–MCR, and

will process gas from both the Straight

sub-system and the Liberal-Baker

subsystem as well as third-party

gathering systems. WGP–MCR states

that the Baker Plant will replace the

Guymon drip control plant and is

scheduled to be in operation by

November 1, 1995. WGP–MCR states

that the subject 25.8 mile pipeline is

located upstream of the new Baker

Plant, and upon completion of the plant

the function of the subject line will be

gathering.

WGP–MCR asks that the Commission

process this petition for declaratory

order and WNG’s related abandonment

application, but it does not request an

order until the Baker Plant begins

operations. WGP–MCR states that it will

use the same default contract for

services on the subject facilities as was

submitted to the Commission in Docket

No. CP94–196–000.

WGP–MCR asserts that the Baker

Plant will be capable of processing

greater volumes and of removing more

liquids compared to the capabilities of

the Guymon drip control plant, and this

will result in better value to the

gathering and processing customers.

WGP–MCR claims that the location of

the plant was chosen for primarily two

reasons: (1) Located in the middle of the

production facilities owned by third

parties—whereas the Guymon drip

control plant could only process gas

from the Straight facilities; and (2) the

location of the Baker Plant is conducive

to the formation of a hub, with other

transmission pipelines located in the

vicinity.

WGP–MCR states that it will provide

gathering services consistent with openaccess principles and will operate as a

company separate and independent

from WNG. WNG currently provides

transportation service to one direct

delivery irrigation customer connected

to the subject pipeline. WGP–MCR

asserts that it will assume WNG’s

obligations and provide gathering

services to this customer following

abandonment.

Any person desiring to be heard or to

make a protest with reference to said

petition should, on or before May 8,

1995, file with the Federal Energy

Regulatory Commission, 825 North

Capitol Street, NE., 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).

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.

Lois D. Cashell,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 95–9856 Filed 4–20–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717–01–M

Office of Hearings and Appeals

New Filing Deadline in Special Refund

Proceeding Involving Crude Oil

Overcharge Refunds

AGENCY: Office of Hearings and Appeals,

Department of Energy.

ACTION: Notice of new deadline for filing

applications for refund in the crude oil

overcharge special refund proceeding.

SUMMARY: The Office of Hearings and

Appeals of the Department of Energy

has determined that the period for filing

applications for refund in the crude oil

overcharge special refund proceeding

shall close on June 30, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Thomas L. Wieker, Deputy Director,

Virginia Lipton, Assistant Director,

Office of Hearings and Appeals,

Department of Energy, 1000

Independence Avenue SW.,

Washington, DC 20585, (202) 586–2390

(Wieker), (202) 586–2400 (Lipton).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On

November 1, 1994, the Office of

Hearings and Appeals (OHA) of the

Department of Energy (DOE) issued a

Notice stating that it would reopen the

period for filing Subpart V crude oil

overcharge refund applications and take

comments on the issue of the

appropriate closing date for filing

refund claims in this proceeding. In the

Notice we set a new tentative filing

deadline of June 3, 1996. 59 FR 55656

(November 8, 1994). The Notice further

stated that comments regarding this

issue should be provided by April 3,

1995. The period for filing comments

has now closed. We have carefully

reviewed the comments we received in

order to set a final deadline for

submission of refund applications.

In all, we received comments from ten

firms and individuals. Nine of these

comments were submitted by entities

that file refund claims on behalf of

Subpart V crude oil overcharge refund

claimants. We refer to such

representatives as ‘‘filing services.’’ The

tenth comment was filed by an attorney

who represents a group of States. [Under

the DOE’s Modified Statement of

Restitutionary Policy, the States and

Territories of the United States and the

federal government will receive the

balance of any funds remaining after all

disbursements to Subpart V crude oil

overcharge claimants have been made.]

The comments submitted by filing

services that represent smaller claimants

tended to favor extending the filing

deadline as long as possible, even

beyond the tentative June 3, 1996

deadline. These filing services believe

that there are still many eligible

claimants who have not applied for a

refund. One commenter in this group

estimated that there are between

500,000 and 1 million entities that used

more than 65,500 gallons of refined

petroleum products during the August

1973 through January 1981 refund

period. This commenter believes that

since the OHA has received only

100,000 Subpart V crude oil overcharge

refund claims, there are many potential

applicants who have not yet applied.

Although they offer no supporting

statistics, the other commenters in this

group agree that there are many

potential refund applicants who have

not yet been contacted. In this regard,

the commenters state that after the prior

June 30, 1994 deadline passed, they

closed their operations that focused on

searching for these claimants. They

suggest that they are now actively

seeking new clients and that it will

require significant additional time for

them to fully reopen their searching

processes and solicit new claimants.

They therefore seek an extended

additional refund application period.

We are certainly aware that many

potential refund applicants have not

filed a crude oil overcharge refund

claim. However, this fact, in and of

itself, is not a reason to allow for