19930 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 87 / Friday, May 3, 1996 / Notices

1Pricing Policy For New And Existing Facilities

Constructed By Interstate Natural Gas Pipelines, 71

FERC ¶ 61,241 (1995).

2Alberta Department of Energy; American Forest

and Paper Association; Fuel Managers Association;

Great Lakes Gas Transmission Limited Partnership;

JMC Power Projects; Midland Cogeneration Venture

Limited Partnership; Natural Gas Supply

Association; Northern Illinois Gas Company; Public

Service Electric and Gas Company; Selkirk Cogen

Partners, L.P.; UGI Utilities, Inc.; United

Distribution Companies; Viking Gas Transmission

Company; Washington Natural Gas Company.

storage field boundary for its Loreed

Storage Field located in Lake and

Osceola Counties, Michigan, pursuant to

Section 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act and

Section 157.7 of the Federal Energy

Regulatory Commission’s Regulations,

all as more fully set forth in the

application which is on file with the

Commission and open to public

inspection.

ANR states that is requesting approval

of the proposed storage field boundary

because there has been a gradual

expansion of the storage reservoir over

the years, and the grant of authority

sought will help ANR to acquire,

through eminent domain if necessary,

the property it needs to protect the

integrity of the Loreed Storage Field and

the gas stored therein. ANR also states

that approval of the proposed boundary

of Loreed Storage Field will not increase

the storage capacity or the deliverability

of the field. ANR estimates that the cost

of storage and mineral rights will be

$357,125.

Comment date: May 17, 1996, in

accordance with Standard Paragraph F

at the end of this notice.

7. NorAm Gas Transmission Company

[Docket No. CP96–342–000]

Take notice that on April 22, 1996,

NorAm Gas Transmission Company

(NGT), 1600 Smith Street, Houston,

Texas 77002, filed in Docket No. CP96–

342–000 an application pursuant to

Section 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act to

continue operating the Dunn Junction

compressor station in Logan County,

Arkansas, all as more fully set forth in

the application which is on file with the

Commission and open to public

inspection.

NGT states that on July 23, 1987, in

Docket No. CP87–458, NGT filed an

application to certificate, among other

things, existing facilities that were

originally constructed and operated as

non-jurisdictional intrastate facilities.

NGT further states that on June 8, 1989,

the Commission issued an order

authorizing the continued operation of

these facilities; however, although the

need for certification for the Dunn

Junction compressor station was

described in the body of the 1987

application, due to an administrative

oversight, Dunn Junction was not

specifically highlighted as a facility

requiring certification on the exhibits

accompanying the application.

Therefore, in order to prevent any

ambiguity as to the status of the Dunn

Junction compressor station, NGT

requests an order authorizing the

operation of the station as a

jurisdictional facility.

Comment date: May 17, 1996, in

accordance with Standard Paragraph F

at the end of this notice.

Standard Paragraphs

F. Any person desiring to be heard or

make any protest with reference to said

filing should on or before the comment

date file with the Federal Energy

Regulatory Commission, 888 First

Street, N.E., 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 385.211 and

385.214) 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

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

filing 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 is 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 the applicant to appear

or be represented at the hearing.

G. Any person or the Commission’s

staff may, within 45 days after the

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

therefore, 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.

Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,

Acting Secretary.

[FR Doc. 96–10990 Filed 5–2–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717–01–P

[Docket No. PL94–4–001]

Pricing Policy For New and Existing

Facilities Constructed by Interstate

Natural Gas Pipelines; Order Denying

Rehearing

Issued: April 29, 1996.

On May 31, 1995, the Commission

issued a Statement of Policy (Policy

Statement) on the approach the

Commission intended to follow in

establishing rates for new construction

of pipeline facilities.1 The Policy

Statement focused on whether projects

would be priced on a rolled-in basis

(rolling-in the expansion costs with the

existing facilities) or an incremental

basis (establishing separate cost-ofservices and separate rates for the

existing and expansion facilities). The

Policy Statement provided that a

preliminary determination of rate design

would be made when the pipeline filed

its certificate application for the project.

Fourteen parties seek rehearing and

clarification of the Policy Statement.2

Summary of the Requests for Rehearing

and Clarification

Some parties contended the Policy

Statement did not adopt a sufficiently

strong presumption in favor of rolled-in

rates. Others raised questions about how

the presumption will operate, i.e., is it

a bright-line test, how will the rate

impact be determined in specific cases,

and how thoroughly will the

Commission review projects that meet

the presumption? The parties also raised

questions about how the Commission

will weigh the system-wide benefits

against the rate impact. In particular,

some parties suggested the Commission

should not consider several of the types

of system-wide benefits which the

Commission identified in the Policy

Statement.

The parties similarly raised questions

about how the Commission will
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 87 / Friday, May 3, 1996 / Notices 19931

3 71 FERC at 61,915.

4See, e.g., CNG Transmission Company, 74 FERC

¶ 61,073 (1996); Paiute Pipeline Company, 74 FERC

¶ 61,049 (1996); Northwest Pipeline Company, 73

FERC ¶ 61,353 (1995), reh’g denied, 75 FERC ¶

61,008 (1996); El Paso Natural Gas Company, 73

FERC ¶ 61,352 (1995); Southern Natural Gas

Company, 73 FERC ¶ 61,085 (1995); Texas Eastern

Transmission Corporation, 73 FERC ¶ 61,012

(1995).

determine whether mitigation of rate

impact is needed and how the

mitigation will be done. Some argued

that no mitigation is needed when the

benefits are proportionate to the rate

impact, while others argued mitigation

should apply in every instance when

the rate impact exceeds 5%.

Finally, the parties raised questions

about the procedures for addressing rate

design questions in certificate

proceedings. They requested

clarification as to the role of shippers in

the certificate proceedings, such as

whether the shippers will be able to

present evidence opposing the

pipelines’ proposed rate design. They

also raised questions about how the

declaratory order will be applied in

subsequent rate cases under section 4 of

the Natural Gas Act when pipelines

propose rolled-in pricing.

Discussion

The purpose of the Policy Statement

was to provide the industry with

guidance on the criteria the Commission

would apply when evaluating rate

design for new pipeline construction

and to establish the procedures for

making this analysis. In the Policy

Statement, the Commission

contemplated that the resolution of

pricing methodology would take place

in individual proceedings based on the

facts and circumstances of the project at

issue.3 The Commission finds that the

issues raised in the rehearing requests

generally are not susceptible to a generic

resolution, but need to be considered in

the context of a specific filing. Indeed,

since issuing the Policy Statement, the

Commission has addressed some of

these issues in individual cases.4

Accordingly, the Commission declines

to consider the issues raised in the

requests for rehearing and/or

clarification in this docket, but will

consider such issues and arguments in

the specific cases in which they apply.

By the Commission.

Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,

Acting Secretary.

[FR Doc. 96–11047 Filed 5–2–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717–01–M

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

[ER–FRL–5469–1]

Environmental Impact Statements;

Notice of Availability

Responsible Agency: Office of Federal

Activities, General Information (202)

564–7167 OR (202) 564–7153.

Weekly receipt of Environmental

Impact Statements Filed April 22, 1996

through April 26, 1996 pursuant to 40

CFR 1506.9.

EIS No. 960190, DRAFT EIS, FHW,

WI, Burlington Bypass State Trunk

Highway Project, Construction, from

WI–36, WI–11 and WI–83, Funding and

COE Section 404 Permit, City of

Burlington, Racine and Walworth

Counties, WI, Due: June 24, 1996,

Contact: Richard Madrzak (608) 829–

7510.

EIS No. 960191, FINAL EIS, BLM, CA,

Clear Creek Management Area, Land

and Resource Management Plan

Amendment, Implementation, San

Benito and Fresno Counties, CA, Due:

June 03, 1996, Contact: Meg Pearson

(408) 637–8183.

EIS No. 960192, FINAL EIS, FAA, NY,

Syracuse Hancock International Airport,

Land Acquisition and Construction of

Runway 10 L–28R, Funding and Airport

Layout Plan Approval, Onondaga

County, NY, Due: June 03, 1996,

Contact: Frank Squeglia (718) 553–3325.

EIS No. 960193, DRAFT EIS, COE, NJ,

Absecon Island Interim Feasibility

Study, Storm Damage Reduction,

Brigantic Inlet to Great Egg Harbor Inlet,

Atlantic County, NJ, Due: June 25, 1996,

Contact: Ltc. Robert Magnifico (215)

656–6555.

EIS No. 960194, DRAFT EIS, FHW,

FL, Port of Miami Tunnel and Access

Improvements, I–395 via MacArthur

Causeway Bridge, Dade County, FL,

Due: June 17, 1996, Contact: J. R.

Skinner (904) 942–9582.

EIS No. 960195, FINAL

SUPPLEMENT, COE, CA, Richmond

Harbor Deep Draft Navigation

Improvements, Updated and Additional

Information, to Improve Navigation

Efficiency into the Potrero, San

Francisco Bay, Contra Costa County,

CA, Due: June 03, 1996, Contact: Linda

Ngim (415) 744–3341.

EIS No. 960196, DRAFT EIS, USN,

United States Navy Shipboard Solid

Waste Disposal, Implementation,

MARPOL Special Areas: Designation

Baltic Sea, North Sea, Wilder Caribbean,

Antarctic Ocean, Mediterranean Sea,

Black Sea and Red Sea, Gulf Regions:

Persian Gulf and Gulf of Oman, Due:

June 17, 1996, Contact: Robert K.

Ostermueller (610) 595–0759.

EIS No. 960197, FINAL

SUPPLEMENT, IBR, NM, CO, AnimasLa Plata Project, Additional Information

concerning Agricultural, Municipal and

Industrial Water Supplies, Animas and

La Plata Rivers, San Juan County, NM

and La Plata and Montezuma Counties,

CO, Due: June 03, 1996, Contact: Ken

Beck (970) 385–6558.

EIS No. 960198, FINAL EIS, DOE,

NM, Medical Isotopes Production

Project (MIPP), Establishment and

Production of a Continuous Supply of

Molybdenum-99 and Related Isotopes,

Bernalillo County, NM, Due: June 03,

1996, Contact: Wade Carroll (301) 903–

7731.

EIS No. 960199, FINAL EIS, USN,

WA, Disposal of Decommissioned,

Defueled Cruiser, Ohio Class and Los

Angeles Class Naval Reactor Plants, Site

Selection, U.S. Department of Energy’s

Hanford Site, Benton, Franklin and

Grant Counties or Puget Sound Naval

Shipyard, Bremerton, WA, Due: June 03,

1996, Contact: John Gordon (360) 476–

7111.

EIS No. 960200, FINAL EIS, DOE,

WA, Adoption—Disposal of

Decommissioned, Defueled Cruiser,

Ohio Class and Los Angeles Class Naval

Reactor Plants, Site Selection, U.S.

Department of Energy’s Hanford Site,

Benton, Franklin and Grant Counties or

Puget Sound Naval Shipyard,

Bremerton, WA, Due: June 03, 1996,

Contact: Paul F.X. Dunigan (509) 376–

6667.

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE),

has adopted the U.S. Department of the

Navy’s FEIS #960199, filed with the

Environmental Protection Agency on

04–26–96. DOE is a cooperating agency

on this project. Recirculation of the

document is not necessary under

Section 1506.3(c) of the Council on

Environmental Quality Regulations.

Amended Notices

EIS No. 960007, DRAFT EIS, GSA,

DC, Central and West Heating Plants

(CHP/WHP) Construction and

Operation, Air Quality Improvement

Project, District Heating System (DHS),

City of Washington, DC, Due: May 24,

1996, Contact: Frank L. Thomas (202)

708–5334. Published FR 01–19–96—

Review Period Extended.

EIS No. 960115, DRAFT EIS, FHW, RI,

Rhode Island Northeast Corridor Freight

Rail Improvement Project, Major

Investment Study, Implementation,

Boston Switch in Central Falls to the

Quonset Point/Davisville Industrial Park

in North Kingtown, Funding, COE

Section 10 and 404 Permits, Providence

County, RI, Due: May 13, 1996, Contact:

K. Robert Sikora (401) 528–4541.