DBM Pipeline, LLC; Notice of Withdrawal of Staff Protest to Proposed Blanket Certificate Activity, 69959 [2015-28635]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 218 / Thursday, November 12, 2015 / Notices
construct two new tie-ins; and (vi)
acquire from National Fuel the
aforementioned 1.08 miles of Line XM–
10. Empire proposes to provide 350,000
dekatherms per day of new firm natural
gas transportation capacity.
National Fuel and Empire request
authorization to abandon their jointly
owned meter station along Line XM–10
in Pendleton, New York. The total cost
of the Project would be approximately
$376,670,388 (National Fuel) and
$78,710,359 (Empire).
Pursuant to section 157.9 of the
Commission’s rules, 18 CFR 157.9,
within 90 days of this Notice the
Commission staff will either: Complete
its environmental assessment (EA) and
place it into the Commission’s public
record (eLibrary) for this proceeding, or
issue a Notice of Schedule for
Environmental Review. If a Notice of
Schedule for Environmental Review is
issued, it will indicate, among other
milestones, the anticipated date for the
Commission staff’s issuance of the final
environmental impact statement (FEIS)
or EA for this proposal. The filing of the
EA in the Commission’s public record
for this proceeding or the issuance of a
Notice of Schedule will serve to notify
federal and state agencies of the timing
for the completion of all necessary
reviews, and the subsequent need to
complete all federal authorizations
within 90 days of the date of issuance
of the Commission staff’s FEIS or EA.
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 the comment date
stated below, 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
5 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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:15 Nov 10, 2015
Jkt 238001
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.
Motions to intervene, protests and
comments 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. The
Commission strongly encourages
electronic filings.
Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern
Time on November 25, 2015.
Dated: November 4, 2015.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015–28634 Filed 11–10–15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717–01–P
69959
In its prior notice request filed on July
27, 2015 (in Docket No. CP15–537–000)
and noticed on August 6, 2015,1 DBM
Pipeline, LLC (DBM Pipeline) proposed
to construct and operate approximately
9 miles of 20-inch-diameter pipeline in
Reeves and Culberson Counties, Texas,
and Eddy County, New Mexico
(Project). Protestor protested the prior
notice request filed under the provisions
of Part 157, subpart F, of the
Commission’s regulations, because DBM
Pipeline did not file in its application or
supplemental filings, the Bureau of
Land Management comments on the
Project and did not provide adequate
avoidance plans to have no effect on
historic properties. In addition DBM
Pipeline did not provide complete
responses to the FERC Environmental
Data Request dated September 23, 2015.
Protestor notes that on November 3,
2015, DBM Pipeline filed a data
response with comments from the Texas
and New Mexico State Historic
Preservation Officers (SHPOs), dated
June 23, 2015 and October 27, 2015
respectively, stating that the Project
would either have no effect on or would
avoid historic properties. DBM Pipeline
also filed an avoidance plan for three
cultural resources in New Mexico.
Additionally, the BLM agreed with the
avoidance plan and stated the Project
would have no effect on historic
properties in a letter dated November 2,
2015. FERC staff agrees with the Texas
and New Mexico SHPOs and finds the
avoidance plan acceptable. Finally,
DBM Pipeline submitted complete
responses to the FERC Environmental
Data Request dated September 23, 2015.
Thus, Protestor’s environmental
concern has been satisfied. Accordingly,
Protestor hereby withdraws its Protest to
the Proposed Blanket Certificate
Activity filed in the instant docket on
October 2, 2015.
Dated: November 4, 2015.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015–28635 Filed 11–10–15; 8:45 am]
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
BILLING CODE 6717–01–P
Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Docket No. CP15–537–000]
Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission
DBM Pipeline, LLC; Notice of
Withdrawal of Staff Protest to
Proposed Blanket Certificate Activity
Combined Notice of Filings #1
Commission staff (Protestor) hereby
withdraws its Protest to the Proposed
Blanket Certificate Activity filed in the
above-referenced proceeding on October
2, 2015.
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Take notice that the Commission
received the following electric corporate
filings:
1 Notice of the request was published in the
Federal Register on August 13, 2015 (80 Fed. Reg.
48520).
E:\FR\FM\12NON1.SGM
12NON1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 218 (Thursday, November 12, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 69959]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-28635]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. CP15-537-000]
DBM Pipeline, LLC; Notice of Withdrawal of Staff Protest to
Proposed Blanket Certificate Activity
Commission staff (Protestor) hereby withdraws its Protest to the
Proposed Blanket Certificate Activity filed in the above-referenced
proceeding on October 2, 2015.
In its prior notice request filed on July 27, 2015 (in Docket No.
CP15-537-000) and noticed on August 6, 2015,\1\ DBM Pipeline, LLC (DBM
Pipeline) proposed to construct and operate approximately 9 miles of
20-inch-diameter pipeline in Reeves and Culberson Counties, Texas, and
Eddy County, New Mexico (Project). Protestor protested the prior notice
request filed under the provisions of Part 157, subpart F, of the
Commission's regulations, because DBM Pipeline did not file in its
application or supplemental filings, the Bureau of Land Management
comments on the Project and did not provide adequate avoidance plans to
have no effect on historic properties. In addition DBM Pipeline did not
provide complete responses to the FERC Environmental Data Request dated
September 23, 2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Notice of the request was published in the Federal Register
on August 13, 2015 (80 Fed. Reg. 48520).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Protestor notes that on November 3, 2015, DBM Pipeline filed a data
response with comments from the Texas and New Mexico State Historic
Preservation Officers (SHPOs), dated June 23, 2015 and October 27, 2015
respectively, stating that the Project would either have no effect on
or would avoid historic properties. DBM Pipeline also filed an
avoidance plan for three cultural resources in New Mexico.
Additionally, the BLM agreed with the avoidance plan and stated the
Project would have no effect on historic properties in a letter dated
November 2, 2015. FERC staff agrees with the Texas and New Mexico SHPOs
and finds the avoidance plan acceptable. Finally, DBM Pipeline
submitted complete responses to the FERC Environmental Data Request
dated September 23, 2015.
Thus, Protestor's environmental concern has been satisfied.
Accordingly, Protestor hereby withdraws its Protest to the Proposed
Blanket Certificate Activity filed in the instant docket on October 2,
2015.
Dated: November 4, 2015.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-28635 Filed 11-10-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
