01-31598. Great Lakes Gas Transmission Limited Partnership; Notice of Application

December 18, 2001.

Take notice that on December 12, 2001, Great Lakes Gas Transmission Limited Partnership (Great Lakes), 5250 Corporate Drive, Troy, Michigan 48098, filed in Docket No. CP02-49-000 , an application pursuant to section 7(b) of the Natural Gas Act (NGA) for authorization to abandon certain meter station facilities on Great Lakes' system, located in Clare County, Michigan, all as more fully set forth in the application which is on file with the Commission and open to public inspection. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and are available for public inspection. This filing may be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.gov using the “RIMS” link, select “Docket #” from the RIMS Menu and follow the instructions (call [phone] for assistance).

Great Lakes proposes to abandon its Summerfield Meter Station facilities, located in Clare County, Michigan, by removal of all above-ground and below-ground appurtenances upstream of Great Lakes' preexisting Mainline Branch Valve 11-5. Great Lakes states that the facilities to be abandoned include minor valves and fittings, 300 linear feet of nominal 2-inch diameter pipeline, a separator, condensate tank, heater, fence, building, and miscellaneous related facilities. Great Lakes indicates that it intends to salvage a 2-inch positive displacement meter and gas sampling equipment; all other items removed will be disposed of as scrap and/or solid waste, as appropriate.

On April 2, 1986, in Docket No. CP86-12-000, 35 FERC ¶ 62,038 (1986), the Commission issued a certificate to Great Lakes authorizing the construction and operation of a tap and metering facilities in Summerfield Township, Clare County, Michigan. Great Lakes declares that construction and operation of the Summerfield Meter Station was necessary for Great Lakes to provide certain interruptible transportation service to Michigan Consolidated Gas Company (MichCon). Great Lakes avers that the facilities were placed into service on September 26, 1986.

Great Lakes states that since that time, MichCon removed its interconnecting facilities at the Summerfield receipt point. Great Lakes declares that MichCon has not delivered gas at the Summerfield receipt point since April of 1988, and has indicated it does not oppose Great Lakes' abandonment of the facilities there. Great Lakes asserts that no other customer's service utilizes the subject facilities.

Great Lakes states that the estimated cost to abandon the subject facilities is $50,000.

Any questions regarding this application should be directed to M. Catharine Davis, Senior Attorney, Great Lakes Gas Transmission Company, 5250 Corporate Drive, Troy, Michigan 48098, at [phone].

There are two ways to become involved in the Commission's review of this project. First, any person wishing to obtain legal status by becoming a party to the proceedings for this project should, on or before January 8, 2002, file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, a motion to intervene 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 NGA (18 CFR 157.10). A person obtaining party status will be placed on the service list maintained by the Secretary of the Commission and will receive copies of all documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties. A party must submit 14 copies of filings made with the Commission and must mail a copy to the applicant and to every other party in the proceeding. Only parties to the proceeding can ask for court review of Commission orders in the proceeding.

However, a person does not have to intervene in order to have comments considered. The second way to participate is by filing with the Secretary of the Commission, as soon as possible, an original and two copies of comments in support of or in opposition to this project. The Commission will consider these comments in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but the filing of a comment alone will not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. The Commission's rules require that persons filing comments in opposition to the project provide copies of their protests only to the party or parties directly involved in the protest.

Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commenters will be placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive copies of the environmental documents, and will be notified of meetings associated with the Commission's environmental review process. Environmental commenters will not be required to serve copies of filed documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commenters will not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by the Commission (except for the mailing of environmental documents issued by the Commission) and will not have the right to seek court review of the Commission's final order.

The Commission may issue a preliminary determination on non-environmental issues prior to the completion of its review of the environmental aspects of the project. This preliminary determination typically considers such issues as the need for the project and its economic effect on existing customers of the applicant, on other pipelines in the area, and on landowners and communities. For example, the Commission considers the extent to which the applicant may need to exercise eminent domain to obtain rights-of-way for the proposed project and balances that against the non-environmental benefits to be provided by the project. Therefore, if a person has comments on community and landowner impacts from this proposal, it is important either to file comments or to intervene as early in the process as possible.

Comments, protests and interventions may be filed electronically via the Internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site under the “e-Filing” link.

If the Commission decides to set the application for a formal hearing before an Administrative Law Judge, the Commission will issue another notice describing that process. At the end of the Commission's review process, a final Commission order approving or denying a certificate will be issued.

Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,

Acting Secretary.