18388 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 81 / Thursday, April 25, 1996 / Notices

[Docket No. CP96–308–000]

Northwest Pipeline Corporation; Notice

of Request Under Blanket

Authorization

April 19, 1996.

Take notice that on April 10, 1996,

Northwest Pipeline Corporation

(Northwest), 295 Chipeta Way, Salt Lake

City, Utah 84108, filed in Docket No.

CP96–308–000 a request pursuant to

Sections 157.205, 157.216 and 157.211

of the Commission’s Regulations under

the Natural Gas Act (18 CFR 157.205,

157.216 and 157.211) for authorization

to abandon an existing obsolete,

undersized meter and to construct and

operate an upgraded replacement meter

at the Mancos Meter Station in

Montezuma County, Colorado, under

Northwest’s blanket certificate issued in

Docket No. CP82–433–000 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.

Northwest proposes to upgrade the

meter station by removing the existing

2-inch positive displacement meter and

appurtenances and installing a new 2-

inch positive displacement meter and

appurtenances. The maximum design

capacity of the meter station will

increase from 233 Dth per day to

approximately 438 Dth per day at 150

psig. The estimated upgrade cost is

$79,680 ($69,680 for installation of new

facilities and $10,000 for removal of the

old). Northwest states that this proposal

will better accommodate existing firm

maximum daily delivery obligations at

this delivery point to Greeley Gas

Company. Northwest has stated that its

existing FERC Gas Tariff does not

prohibit the proposed upgrading; that

there will be no impact on Northwest’s

system peak day or annual deliveries;

and, that there is sufficient capacity to

accomplish deliveries without

detriment or disadvantage to existing

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 Section

157.205 of the Regulations under the

Natural Gas Act (18 CFR 157.205) a

protest to the request. If not 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protest is filed and not withdrawn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. 96–10136 Filed 4–24–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717–01–M

[Docket No. CP96–313–000]

Williams Natural Gas Company; Notice

of Request Under Blanket

Authorization

April 19, 1996

Take notice that on April 12, 1996,

Williams Natural Gas Company

(Williams), P.O. Box 3288, Tulsa,

Oklahoma 74101, filed in Docket No.

CP96–313–000 a request pursuant to

Section 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 operate in

interstate commerce certain facilities

that were previously constructed and

operated to effectuate transportation

service pursuant to Section 311 of the

Natural Gas Policy Act (NGPA).

Williams makes such request, under its

blanket certificate issued in Docket No.

CP82–479–000 pursuant to Section 7 of

the Natural Gas Act, all as more fully set

forth in the request on file with the

Commission and open to public

inspection.

Specifically, Williams is proposing to

use a delivery facility that was installed

in Mitchell County, Kansas, for

purposes other than Section 311

transport. It is stated that the subject

facilities were constructed to enable

Williams to perform NGPA Section 311

transportation to Western Resources,

Inc. (WRI) for use by Plum Creek Farms

(Plum Creek). The Section 311 facilities

consist of a 2-inch tap, metering,

regulating and appurtenant facilities.

Williams states that it commenced gas

delivery to WRI for Plum Creek on

December 14, 1995. Williams states that

the volumes of gas that will be delivered

to WRI for Plum Creek, after approval of

the request herein, will not exceed

WRI’s existing entitlements.

Williams declares that such a change

in facility use is not prohibited by its

existing tariff, and that Williams has

sufficient capacity to accomplish the

delivery specified without detriment or

disadvantage to its other customers. It is

stated that WRI reimbursed Williams

the $4,451 construction cost of the

subject facilities.

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 a 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 protests 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. 96–10137 Filed 4–24–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717–01–M

[Docket No. EC96–18–000, et al.]

Great Bay Power Corporation, et al.;

Electric Rate and Corporate Regulation

Filings

April 18, 1996.

Take notice that the following filings

have been made with the Commission:

1. Great Bay Power Corporation

[Docket No. EC96–18–000]

Take notice that on April 11, 1996,

Great Bay Power Corporation (Great

Bay), submitted an application pursuant

to § 203 of the Federal Power Act for

authority to effect a ‘‘disposition of

facilities’’ that would be deemed to

occur as a result of implementation of

a proposed holding company structure,

all as more fully set forth in the

application, which is on file with the

Commission and open to public

inspection.

The application states that

implementation of the holding company

structure proposed would be

accomplished through the creation of a

holding company (Holding Company) of

which Great Bay would be a subsidiary.

It is stated that the proposed holding

company structure is intended to

facilitate the separation of Great Bay’s

activities as an exempt wholesale

generator (EWG), as that term is defined

under Section 32 of the Public Utility

Holding Company Act of 1935, from any

other business. Such separation will

permit Holding Company to engage in

business activities through subsidiaries

other than Great Bay, which Great Bay

is prohibited from engaging in due to its

status as an EWG.

Comment date: May 9, 1996, in

accordance with Standard Paragraph E

at the end of this notice.