23282 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 81 /Tuesday, April 28, 1998 / Notices

interest owners and CIG to come to an

agreement on the proper amount of

refunds due and to submit any

unresolved dispute to the Commission.

The March 10 petition also requested

that the Commission grant an

adjustment of its refund procedures:

(1) to allow GMC and its working

interest owners a 1-year deferral (until

March 9, 1999) on the payment of

principal and interest attributable to

royalties; and

(2) to allow GMC and its working

interest owners to escrow refund

amounts presently in dispute, and (a)

the principal and interest attributable to

royalty refunds which have not been

collected, (b) the principal and interest

attributable to production prior to

October 4, 1983, (c) the interest on

royalty amounts that have been

recovered from the royalty owners

where the principal has been refunded,

and (d) the interest on all reimbursed

principal determined to be refundable

as being in excess of maximum lawful

prices, excluding interest retained under

(a), (b), and (c) above.

As set forth in the March 10 petition,

GMC stated that it prepared schedules

recalculating the aggregate total refund

it believes is owed to CIG ($359,688.28)

and submitted this information to its

working interest owners.

GMC’s March 13, 1998, first

supplement to the March 10 petition

amended the March 10 petition by

adding: 1) Frances B. Smith Trust; 2)

North Dakota University; and 3) Fred

and June MacMurray Trust to the list of

working interest owners covered by the

March 10 petition, and by revising

GMC’s aggregate total refund calculation

from $359,688.28 to $365,973.60.

GMC’s March 26, 1998, second

supplement to the March 10 petition

amended the petition by adding Notre

Dame University to the list of working

interest owners covered by the March 10

petition, and by further revising GMC’s

aggregate total refund calculation, from

$365,973.60 to $370,220.01.

Any person desiring to answer GMC’s

March 13 and March 26 amendments

should file such answer with the

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission,

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

20426, on or before 15 days after the

date of publication of this notice in the

Federal Register, in accordance with the

Commission’s Rules of Practice and

Procedure (18 CFR 385.213, 385.215,

385.1101, and 385.1106).

David P. Boergers,

Acting Secretary.

[FR Doc. 98–11171 Filed 4–27–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717–01–M

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory

Commission

[Docket No. CP98–361–000]

Koch Gateway Pipeline Company;

Notice of Request Under Blanket

Authorization

April 22, 1998.

Take notice that on April 17, 1998,

Koch Gateway Pipeline Company,

(Koch), P.O. Box 1478, Houston, Texas,

77251–1478, filed under Sections

157.205 and 157.211(a)(2) of the

Commission’s Regulations under the

Natural Gas Act to construct delivery

facilities to serve Savannah Foods’

Colonial Sugars Processing Plant

(Colonial), an end user, served under

Koch’s FTS Rate Schedule. This docket

which is on file with the Commission

and open to public inspection.

Koch proposes to install the new

delivery point on its transmission line,

designated as Index 270, in St. James

Parish, Louisiana. These facilities will

satisfy Colonial’s request for gas service.

Colonial estimates the maximum peak

day volumes to be delivered at 8,000

MMBtu and average day volumes to be

delivered at 6,000 MMBtu. Koch plans

to install a 2-inch tap, a dual 2 and 4-

inch meter station and 5,300 feet of 4-

inch pipeline to connect to Colonial’s

processing plant. The cost of installing

the facilities is $235,000. Koch will

transport the volumes under its blanket

certificate issued in Docket No. CP88–6–

000.

Any person or the Commission’s staff

may, within 45 days after issuance of

the instant notice by the Commission,

file pursuant to Rule 214 of the

Commission’s Procedural Rules (18 CFR

385.214) a motion to intervene or notice

of intervention and pursuant to Section

157.205 of the Regulations under the

Natural Gas Act (18 CFR 157.205) a

protest to the request. If no protest is

filed within the time allowed therefore,

the proposed activity shall be deemed to

be authorized effective the day after the

time allowed for filing a protest. If a

protest is filed and not withdrawn

within 30 days after the time allowed

for filling a protest, the instant request

shall be treated as an application for

authorization pursuant to Section 7 of

the Natural Gas Act.

David P. Boergers,

Acting Secretary.

[FR Doc. 98–11174 Filed 4–27–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717–01–M

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory

Commission

[Docket No. RP98–140–000]

Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company;

Notice of Technical Conference

April 22, 1998.

In the Commission’s order issued on

March 25, 1998, the Commission

directed that a technical conference be

held to address issues raised by the

filing.

Take notice that the technical

conference will be held on Tuesday,

Mary 5, 1998, at 10:00 a.m., in a room

to be designated at the offices of the

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission,

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

20426.

All interested parties and staff are

permitted to attend.

David P. Boergers,

Acting Secretary.

[FR Doc. 98–11173 Filed 4–27–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717–01–M

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory

Commission

[Docket No. RP98–189–000]

UtiliCorp United Inc.; Notice of Petition

for Relief

April 22, 1998.

Take notice that on April 17, 1998,

pursuant to Order No. 636–C and Rule

207 of the Rules of Practice and

Procedure, UtiliCorp United Inc.

(UtiliCorp), tendered for filing a petition

for relief to shorten to five years the

terms of its two firm transportation

agreements with Colorado Interstate Gas

Company (CIG), that were entered into

pursuant to the then-effective right-offirst-refusal (ROFR), procedures under

CIG’s tariff—(1) Rate Schedule TF–1

Service Agreement No. 33128, which

currently expires on March 31, 2009;

and (2) Rate Schedule TF–1 Service

Agreement No. 33079, which currently

expires on March 31, 2012.

UtiliCorp requests that the

Commission order the shortening of the

terms of Agreements No. 33079 and

33128 to five years because, in

accordance with Order No. 636–C,

UtiliCorp agreed to the current terms

exclusively because of the twenty-year

cap under CIG’s then-effective tariff.

UtiliCorp states that had it not had to

match a competing third party bid—

which under CIG’s then-effective tariff

could be for as long as twenty years for