[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 173 (Friday, September 6, 2002)]
[Notices]
[Pages 56993-56994]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-22705]


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

FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Docket No. CP02-427-000]


Honeoye Storage Corporation; Notice of Application

August 30, 2002.
    Take notice that on August 20, 2002, Honeoye Storage Corporation 
(Honeoye), c/o HALLC, 55 Union Street, 4th Floor, Boston, Massachusetts 
02108, filed an application in the above captioned docket seeking a 
certificate of public convenience and necessity and related 
authorizations pursuant to Section 7 of the Natural Gas Act (NGA), as 
amended, and the Commission's Rules and Regulations thereunder. 
Honeoye's application requests that the Commission issue an order 
authorizing Honeoye to make a well modification and increase the 
Maximum Allowable Operating Pressure (MAOP) of its compressor station 
and field gathering system as described in the application. This filing 
is available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room 
or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov 
using the ``FERRIS'' link. Enter the docket number excluding the last 
three digits in the docket number field to access the document. For 
Assistance, call (202) 502-8222 or for TTY, (202) 208-1659. Any 
questions regarding this application should be directed to Richard A. 
Norman, Vice-President, Honeoye Storage Corporation, c/o EHALLC, 55 
Union Street, 4th Floor, Boston, MA 02108 (617) 367-0032.
    Honeoye's application states that it does not seek to increase the 
existing certificated storage capacity or injection/withdrawal 
deliverability of its facility. Honeoye also indicated that the 
proposed activities will improve operational efficiency of its storage 
reservoir located in Ontario County, New York within existing 
certificated limits. Honeoye asserts that while it has met all of its 
service obligations, it is unable to completely fill the storage 
reservoir during the injection cycle to its certificated capacity 
because of limits on the existing MAOP. In addition, Honeoye states 
that it has experienced a decline in deliverability during late stages 
of withdrawal from the Honeoye facility because of the installation of 
smaller casing/tubing sizes in certain injection/withdrawal wells.
    Consequently, Honeoye proposes to increase the MAOP of its 
compressor station and field gathering system from its presently 
authorized limit of 1045 psia to 1322 psia to improve injection rates 
during late stages of injection.

[[Page 56994]]

Honeoye further proposes to laterally extend the existing Roberts 
3 injection/ withdrawal well in order to enhance 
deliverability during the withdrawal season. Honeoye states that these 
modifications will enhance the injection and withdrawal capability of 
the Honeoye facility while permitting Honeoye to remain within its 
certificated limitation of Maximum Quantity Stored of 6,718.4 MDth and 
Maximum Daily Withdrawal Quantity of 55,880 MDth/d. The cost of the 
proposed project is $548,500, which will be financed with funds on 
hand, funds generated internally, borrowing under revolving credit 
agreements, or short-term financing which will be rolled into permanent 
financing.
    Honeoye states that all proposed work will be completed on or 
beneath land and existing right of ways and leases which it now owns, 
and therefore, Honeoye indicates that this application does not require 
the exercise of the right of eminent domain.
    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 September 23, 2002, file with the Federal Energy Regulatory 
Commission, 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 proceedings. Only parties to the proceedings 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.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 02-22705 Filed 9-5-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P