[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 17 (Friday, January 25, 2002)]
[Notices]
[Pages 3694-3695]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-1825]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP02-63-000]


White Rock Pipeline, L.L.C.; Notice of Application

January 18, 2002.
    Take notice that on January 11, 2002, White Rock Pipeline, L.L.C. 
(White Rock), 426 East Missouri Avenue, Pierre, South Dakota 57501, 
filed in Docket No. CP02-63-000, an application pursuant to Section 
7(c) of the Natural Gas Act (NGA) and Part 157 of the Commission's 
Rules and Regulations (Commission), for a certificate of public 
convenience and necessity authorizing White Rock to operate an existing 
single-use pipeline that is approximately 10.5 miles long and 4.5 
inches in diameter, 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 also be viewed on the Web at 
http://www.ferc.gov using the ``RIMS'' link, select ``Docket#'' and 
follow the instructions (call 202-208-2222 for assistance).
    White Rock states that the proposed pipeline is to be used for the 
sole purpose of transporting natural gas from an interconnection with 
the Alliance Pipeline in North Dakota, to a end-use customer, the Tri-
State Ethanol Company, L.L.C. (Tri-State), which is White Rock's 
affiliate. White Rock states that Tri-State is a farmer-owned company 
that is in the process of building a facility near Rosholt, South 
Dakota that will produce ethanol from locally-produced corn. It is 
stated that the plant will be operational by mid-February. According to 
White Rock, Tri-State will be the majority owner and will exercise 
ownership and operational control over the pipeline.
    White Rock states that the proposed pipeline is located in a 
sparsely-populated agricultural area in the extreme southeast corner of 
North Dakota and the extreme northeast corner of South Dakota. 
According to White Rock, the pipeline passes through farms and under 
rural roads; it will not pass through any residential areas. The sole

[[Page 3695]]

purpose and use of the pipeline will be to transport natural gas to 
White Rock's affiliate, Tri-State.
    White Rock states that the proposed pipeline has already been 
constructed. It was built in October and November 2001 because, at that 
time, it was conceived that there would be two companies that would own 
the pipeline--White Rock, which would own the portion of the pipeline 
in South Dakota, and another company, Fairmount Natural Gas Pipeline 
Company, L.L.C. (Fairmount), which would own the pipeline running from 
the Alliance interconnection to the North Dakota-South Dakota border. 
White Rock and Fairmount believed this arrangement would not be subject 
to FERC jurisdiction because the White Rock pipeline (as then 
conceived) would be a non-jurisdictional, intra-state plant line 
located wholly within South Dakota, and the Fairmount pipeline would be 
an intrastate pipeline located wholly in North Dakota, only 
interconnecting with the White Rock pipeline at the state border.
    As a result, according to White Rock, the pipeline running from 
Alliance to the Tri-State facility was constructed in the Fall of 2001. 
No landowners expressed concern with the construction, as all easements 
and rights-of-way already had been purchased from consenting 
landowners.
    According to White Rock, in accordance with Alliance's suggestion 
expressed during negotiations of an interconnect development agreement, 
White Rock agreed to obtain either an NGA certificate of public 
convenience and necessity, or a FERC determination that the pipelines 
were not required to obtain an NGA certificate.
    According to White Rock, as a result and because the owners of 
these pipelines wish to put the entire pipeline into service as 
promptly as possible, White Rock has filed the subject application to 
operate the pipeline. Furthermore, and to simplify this application and 
its intent, the entire pipeline running from the Alliance 
interconnection to the Tri-State facility has been consolidated and now 
is owned and will be operated as a single pipeline--i.e., the White 
Rock pipeline, and the Fairmount entity will be or has been dissolved. 
The entire 10.5 mile pipeline is now owned by White Rock.
    White Rock states that in addition to approving its request for a 
certificate, White Rock requests that the Commission grant a waiver of 
any regulations and requirements that White Rock may not have complied 
with in constructing its pipeline as it did. White Rock further 
requests waiver of various otherwise-applicable FERC regulations and 
requirements.
    Any questions regarding this application should be directed to 
James Robbennolt, Olinger, Lovald, Robbennolt, McCahren & Reimers, 
P.C., 117 E. Capitol, P. O. Box 66, Pierre, S.D. 57501, at (605) 224-
8851.
    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 25, 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.
    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.
[FR Doc. 02-1825 Filed 1-24-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P