Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 127 / Monday, July 1, 1996 / Notices 33911

control liabilities/vulnerabilities

—Technical

— Policy

III. Identify/Recommend steps to

maximize positive and reduce

negative impacts of main storage

options

(D) Disposition Options for Surplus

Plutonium

I. Description and analysis of four

groups of alternatives (See Figure 1

for factors to be considered)

(a) Reactor Options (US and/or

European MOX fabrication)

Evolutionary LWRs

Partially Completed LWRs

Existing LWRs

Candu Reactor in Canada

(b) Immobilization

Vitrification

Ceramic Immobilization

Electrometalurgical Treatment

(c) Deep Borehole Review

Direct Disposition

Immobilized Disposition

(d) No Action

II. Nonproliferation analysis of three

main categories of options (See

Figure I).

(a) Nonproliferation and arms control

benefits

Technical

Policy

(b) Nonproliferation and arms control

liabilities/vulnerabilities

Technical

Policy

III. Identify/Recommend steps to

maximize benefits and reduce any

negative nonproliferation impacts

of options

(E) General Recommendations/

Conclusions

(The Assessment will not rank the

alternatives based on nonproliferation

criteria, but will recommend possible

ways to maximize benefits or mitigate

any negative nonproliferation

implications associated with particular

alternatives.)

FIGURE 1.—TECHNICAL/POLICY FACTORS AND MITIGATING STEPS

Technical factors Policy factors Mitigating steps

TIME LINES

—Time to Start

—Time to Finish

RISK OF DIVERSION IN PROCESS

—Material form and attractiveness

—Material security and accounting

—Transport security

—Process through-put

—Other process issues

—Material inventories

—Number of facilities and sites

—Bilateral and international monitoring

—Political and security conditions in countries involved

Impacts on foreign programs and activities

Impact on current and future U.S. policy

Impacts on nonproliferation agreements and

regimes

Political implementability

Impacts on current and future fissile material

related negotiations

Impact on future dismantlement activities

Safeguards and Security

International monitoring and access

Implementation variations

Stated justifications

Bilateral or multilateral agreements or PAGE

arrangements

RISK OF RE-USE IN WEAPONS

—Final material form and attractiveness

—Physical access to material

—Cost, time and observability of recovery

—Bilateral and international monitoring.

[FR Doc. 96–16679 Filed 6–28–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P

Federal Energy Regulatory

Commission

[Docket No. RP96–282–000]

Algonquin Gas Transmission

Company; Notice of Proposed

Changes in FERC Gas Tariff

June 25, 1996.

Take notice that on June 20, 1996,

Algonquin Gas Transmission Company

(Algonquin) tendered for filing as part of

its FERC Gas Tariff, Fourth Revised

Volume No. 1, the following revised

tariff sheets, with a proposed effective

date of July 20, 1996:

Twenty-eighth Revised Sheet No. 20A

Original Sheet No. 93C

Fourth Revised Sheet No. 700

Third Revised Sheet No. 701

Second Revised Sheet No. 702

Fourth Revised Sheet No. 703

Algonquin states that the purpose of

this filing is to flow through

$177,225.78 of take-or-pay charges

billed to Algonquin by National Fuel

Gas Supply Corporation under the

revised allocation methodology.

Algonquin requests that the

Commission grant any waiver that may

be necessary to place these tariff sheets

into effect on the date requested.

Algonquin states that copies of this

filing were mailed to all customers of

Algonquin and interested state

commissions.

Any person desiring to be heard or to

protest this filing should file a motion

to intervene or protest with the Federal

Energy Regulatory Commission, 888

First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426,

in accordance with 385.214 and 385.211

of the Commission’s Rules and

Regulations. All such motions or

protests must be filed as provided in

§ 154.210 of the Commission’s

Regulations. 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. Any person wishing to

become a party must file a motion to

intervene. Copies of this filing are on

file with the Commission and are

available for public inspection in the

Public Reference Room.

Lois D. Cashell,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 96–16631 Filed 6–28–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717–01–M

[Docket No. RP90–95–012]

Colorado Interstate Gas Company;

Notice of Compliance Filing

June 25, 1996.

Take notice that on June 21, 1996,

Colorado Interstate Gas Company (CIG),

tendered for filing a semiannual

compliance filing consisting of work

papers detailing accrued interest

payments made by CIG to its affected

customers related to the unused portion
33912 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 127 / Monday, July 1, 1996 / Notices

1Order No. 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. Preambles

¶ 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), 66 FERC ¶ 61,347

(March 24, 1994).

2Standards 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).

of transportation credits in the above

referenced docket.

CIG states that this is the final report

and the appropriate refund has been

made to all affected customers.

CIG states that copies of the filing

were served upon all of the parties to

this proceeding and affected state

commissions and affected parties.

Any person desiring to protest said

filing should file a protest with the

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission,

888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC

20426, in accordance with Section

385.211 of the Commission’s Rules and

Regulations. All such protests must be

filed on or before July 2, 1996. Protests

will be considered by the Commission

in determining the appropriate action to

be taken but will not serve to make

protestant parties to the proceeding.

Copies of this filing are on file with the

Commission and are available for public

inspection in the Public Reference

Room.

Lois D. Cashell,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 96–16629 Filed 6–28–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717–01–M

[Docket No. OR96–14–000]

Exxon Company, U.S.A., a division of

Exxon Corporation, v. Amerada Hess

Pipeline Company, et al.; Notice of

Complaint June 25, 1996.

Take notice that on June 19, 1996,

Exxon Company, U.S.A. (EUSA), a

division of Exxon Corporation, filed a

complaint against the seven Trans

Alaska Pipeline System (TAPS) owners,

Amerada Hess Pipeline Corporation,

ARCO Transportation Alaska, Inc., BP

Pipelines (Alaska) Inc., Exxon Pipeline

Company, Mobil Alaska Pipeline

Company, Phillips Alaska Pipeline

Corporation, and Unocal Pipeline

Company (TAPS Carriers), pursuant to

Sections 9, 13(1) and 15(1) of the

Interstate Commerce Act, 49 U.S.C.

App. Sections 9, 13(1), 15(1), and Rule

206 of the Commission’s Rules of

Practice and Procedures.

EUSA alleges that the TAPS Carriers

have violated sections 1(5), 3(1) and 6(7)

of the ICA, 49 U.S.C. App. Sections 1(5),

3(1), 6(1) and 6(7), by imposing certain

TAPS Quality Bank charges which are

unjust and unreasonable by

unjustifiably giving a preference to

shippers of heavier petroleum, thereby

unduly discriminating against shippers

of lighter petroleum, and by failing to

adhere to the TAPS Quality Banks

tariffs.

EUSA requests that the Commission

(1) Consolidate this proceeding with the

Quality Bank proceedings in Docket

Nos. OR89–2–009, et al.; (2) find that

the current Quality Bank methodology

violates sections 1(5), 3(1), 6(1), and 6(7)

of the ICA; (3) award damages to EUSA;

(4) prescribe as appropriate Quality

Bank methodology; and (5) amend the

TAPS Quality Bank tariffs to provide

expressly for EUSA and other shippers

to audit administration of the Quality

Bank methodology.

Any person desiring to be heard or to

protest the instant complaint should file

a motion to intervene or protest with the

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission,

888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC

20426, in accordance with Rules 214

and 211 of the Commission’s Rules of

Practice and Procedure. All such

motions or protests must be filed on or

before July 19, 1996. 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.

Any person wishing to become a party

must file a motion to intervene. Copies

of this filing are on file with the

Commission and are available for public

inspection. Answers to this complaint

shall be due on or before July 19, 1996.

Lois D. Cashell,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 96–16628 Filed 6–28–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717–01–M

Federal Energy Regulatory

Commission

[Docket No. MG96–15–000]

Koch Gateway Pipeline Company;

Notice of Filing

June 25, 1996.

Take notice that on June 17, 1996,

Koch Gateway Pipeline Company

(Koch) submitted revised standards of

conduct under Order Nos. 497 et al.1

and Order Nos. 566 et seq.2

Koch states that the changes are the

result of its contracting with its

marketing affiliate, Koch Gas Services

Company, to act as its agent for Koch’s

merchant services.

Any person desiring to be heard or to

protest said filing should file a motion

to intervene or protest with the Federal

Energy Regulatory Commission, 888

First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C.

20426, in accordance with Rules 211 or

214 of the Commission’s Rules of

Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211

or 385.214). All such motions to

intervene or protest should be filed on

or before July 10, 1996. 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.

Any person wishing to become a party

must file a motion to intervene. Copies

of this filing are on file with the

Commission and are available for public

inspection.

Lois D. Cashell,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 96–16627 Filed 6–28–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717–01–M

Federal Energy Regulatory

Commission

[Docket No. CP96–573–000]

Northwest Pipeline Corporation; Notice

of Application

June 25, 1996.

Take notice that on June 17, 1996,

Northwest Pipeline Corporation