Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 105 /Tuesday, June 2, 1998 / Notices 29981

1See 80 FERC ¶61,264 (1997); order denying

rehearing issued January 28, 1998, 82 FERC

¶ 61,058 (1998).

2Public Service Company of Colorado, v. FERC,

91 F.3d 1478 (D.C. 1996), cert. denied, Nos. 96–954

and 96–1230 (65 U.S.L.W. 3751 and 3754, May 12,

1997).

CEESI states that the planned

calibration facility will provide

manufacturers and users of large volume

flow meters in the United States access

to a calibration facility in the United

States, resulting in reduced expense and

time required to test and transport such

meters. In addition, CEESI avers that the

facility will provide the opportunity to

further develop the ultrasonic flowmeter

technology and to develop United States

standards for ultrasonic flowmeters.

CEESI further states that Northern

Border will install about 900 feet of 30-

inch pipe and a tie-over between

Ventura to Harper, Iowa and the outlet

of the CEESI facility all located in the

Ventura Station yard to accommodate

CEESI’s calibration facility. The 30-inch

pipe will connect the meter calibration

facility and Northern Border’s system.

Northern Border will also construct two

buildings for CEESI, one to house

instrumentation and one for the testing

of meters. CEESI will reimburse

Northern Border for any operating or

maintenance costs. CEESI will also pay

Northern Border a fee related to the 30-

inch pipe, the tie-over, buildings and

appurtenances installed by Northern

Border. CEESI will replace in kind any

natural gas volume lost during the meter

calibration process. The gas loss during

the meter calibration process will be

minimis. Operation of the CEESI

facilities will not result in costs or

charges to Northern Border’s customers.

Any person desiring to be heard or to

make any protest with reference to said

application should on or before June 17,

1998, file with the Federal Energy

Regulatory Commission, 888 First

Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426, a

motion to intervene or a protest 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 Natural

Gas Act (18 CFR 157.10). All protests

filed with the Commission will be

considered by it in determining the

appropriate action to be taken but will

not serve to make the protestants parties

to the proceeding. Any person wishing

to become party to a proceeding or to

participate as a party in any hearing

therein must file a motion to intervene

in accordance with the Commission’s

Rules.

Take further notice that, pursuant to

the authority contained in and subject to

the jurisdiction conferred upon the

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

by Section 7 and 15 of the Natural Gas

Act and the Commission’s Rules of

Practice and Procedure, a hearing will

be held without further notice before the

Commission or its designee on this

application if no motion to intervene is

filed within the time required herein

and if the Commission on its own

review of the matter finds that a grant

of the certificate is required by the

public convenience and necessity. If a

motion for leave to intervene is timely

filed, or if the Commission on its own

motion believes that a formal hearing is

required, further notice of such hearing

will be duly given.

Under the procedure herein provided

for, unless otherwise advised, it will be

unnecessary for the CEESI to appear or

be represented at the hearing.

Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,

Acting Secretary.

[FR Doc. 98–14481 Filed 6–1–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING COCE 6717–01–M

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory

Commission

[Docket No. GP98–33–000]

Graham-Michaelis Corporation; Notice

of Petition for Dispute Resolution

May 27, 1998.

Take notice that, on May 19, 1998,

Graham-Michaelis Corporation (GMC)

filed a petition requesting the

Commission to resolve any dispute

between GMC and Williams Gas

Pipelines Central, Inc., formerly:

Williams Natural Gas Company

(Williams), regarding GMC’s refund

liability for Kansas ad valorem tax

reimbursements that Amoco made to

GMC and that GMC forwarded to certain

third-party working interest owners.

GMC asks the Commission to find that

GMC has no such refund liability, to

Williams, because GMC only served as

the operator for those third-party

working interest owners, and did not

hold an interest in those leases and

wells. GMC’s petition is on file with the

Commission and open to public

inspection.

The Commission, by order issued

September 10, 1997, in Docket No.

RP97–369–000 et al,1 on remand from

the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals,2

required first sellers to refund the

Kansas ad valorem tax reimbursements

to the pipelines, with interest, for the

period from 1983 to 1988. In its January

28, 1998 Order Clarifying Procedures,

the Commission stated that producers

(i.e., first sellers) could file dispute

resolution requests with the

Commission, asking the Commission to

resolve the dispute with the pipeline

over the amount of Kansas ad valorem

tax refunds owed, see 82 FERC ¶ 61,059

(1998).

GMC states that it received a copy of

a letter that Amoco Production

Company (Amoco) sent to Williams (in

response to the Statement of Refunds

Due that Williams sent to Amoco) that

detailed Amoco’s analysis of its Kansas

ad valorem tax refund liability. GMC

notes that Amoco stated therein that it

is not responsible for refunds

attributable to third-party working

interests, and listed ‘‘GrahamMichaelis’’ as having received these

reimbursements during the applicable

period (1983–1988). GMC states that,

with interest computed through March

9, 1998, these refunds total $42,004.68.

While GMC agrees that Amoco has no

refund liability for the third-party

reimbursements, GMC contends that it

also has no such refund liability,

because GMC only operated the leases

and the eight wells involved (Bowker 2,

Lowe, Long Wood, Wheatley 2–33,

Weber B, Weber A, Dennis, and Steen)

on behalf of the working interest

owners, and GMC did not retain the

Kansas ad valorem tax reimbursements.

GMC adds that: 1) the subject working

interest owners sold the leases and

wells a number of years ago; 2) many of

the corresponding files and records

were turned over to the purchaser; 3) it

has been unable to determine whether,

and to what extent these

reimbursements exceeded the maximum

lawful prices; and 4) it has been unable

to determine the principal and interest

owed by each working interest owner.

GMC states that it has not received a

Statement of Refunds Due from

Williams with respect to these refunds;

thus, no refund claim has been leveled

at GMC. GMC further states that it does

not know, at this time, whether any

dispute with Williams exists.

Nevertheless, GMC asks the

Commission to find that GMC has no

refund liability to Williams, with regard

to the Kansas ad valorem tax

reimbursements that GMC passed

through to the working interest owners.

Meanwhile, GMC states that it will: 1)

continue to assemble the information to

determine what Kansas ad valorem tax

reimbursement distributions it made to

each working interest owner; 2)

continue its efforts to determine

whether those reimbursements

exceeded the applicable maximum

lawful prices; and 3) notify the working

interest owners of their refund liability

once GMC completes its determinations,

and furnish its findings to Williams,
29982 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 105 /Tuesday, June 2, 1998 / Notices

along with the names and addresses of

the working interest owners. GMC states

that it believes that these determinations

will be completed and the notifications

given within the next three weeks.

Any person desiring to comment on

or make any protest with respect to the

above-referenced petition should, on or

before June 17, 1998, file with the

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission,

888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC

20426, a motion to intervene or protest

in accordance with the requirements of

the Commission’s Rules of Practice and

Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or 385.211).

All protests filed with the Commission

will be considered by it in determining

the appropriate action to be taken, but

will not serve to make the protestants

parties to the proceeding. Any person

wishing to become a party to the

proceeding, or to participate as a party

in any hearing therein, must file a

motion to intervene in accordance with

the Commission’s Rules.

Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,

Acting Secretary.

[FR Doc. 98–14480 Filed 6–1–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717–01–M

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory

Commission

[Docket No. CP98–553–000]

Midcoast Interstate Transmission, Inc.;

Notice of Request Under Blanket

Authorization

May 27, 1998.

Take notice that on May 14, 1998, as

supplemented on May 22, 1998,

Midcoast Interstate Transmission, Inc.

(MIT), 3230 Second Street, Muscle

Shoals, Alabama 35661, filed a prior

notice request with the Commission in

Docket No. CP98–553–000 pursuant to

section 157.205 of the Commission’s

Regulations under the Natural Gas Act

(NGA) for authorization to install and

operate a new delivery point and

appurtenant facilities in Morgan

County, Alabama, under MIT’s blanket

certificates issued in Docket No. CP85–

359–000 pursuant to Section 7 of the

NGA, all as more fully set forth in the

request which is open to the public for

inspection.

MIT proposes to install and operate a

new delivery point under a

transportation agreement with BaileyPVS Oxides (Decatur), L.L.C. (Bailey).

MIT states that it would install two hot

taps on its mainline transmission

system in Morgan County

approximately 250 feet of 2-inch

diameter pipe from the hot taps to the

delivery point, a sales meter, and a

regulator station. MIT states that it

would construct the proposed delivery

point facilities at a cost of $93,063 in

order to deliver approximately 1,000

dekatherm equivalents of natural gas per

day to Bailey pursuant to Rate Schedule

IT of MIT’s FERC Gas Tariff. MIT also

states that Bailey has contracted for firm

transportation service with MIT via the

proposed delivery point once the

looping facilities that MIT has requested

approval for in Docket No. CP98–247–

000 are authorized and operational. MIT

further states that the addition of the

proposed delivery point is not

prohibited by its FERC Gas Tariff and

that addition of the delivery point

would not have any adverse impact on

a daily or annual basis upon MIT’s

existing customers.

Any person or the Commission’s staff

may, within 45 days after the

Commission has issued this notice, 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

NGA (18CFR 157.205) a protest to the

request. If no protest is filed within the

allowed time, 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 filing a protest, the

instant request shall be treated as an

application for authorization pursuant

to Section 7 of.

Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,

Acting Secretary.

[FR Doc. 98–14485 Filed 6–1–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717–01–M

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory

Commission

[Docket Nos. CP98–563–000 and CP98–564–

000]

Western Gas Resources, Inc.; Notice of

Application

May 27, 1998.

Take notice that on May 20, 1998,

Western Gas Resources, Inc. (Western),

12200 N. Pecos Street, Denver, Colorado

80234, filed in Docket Nos. CP98–563–

000 and CP98–564–000 an application

pursuant to Section 7(c) of the Natural

Gas Act (NGA) and Part 157 of the

Commission’s Regulations for a limited

jurisdiction certificate of public

convenience and necessity to operate a

processing plant residue line and to

engage in certain routine activities, all

as more fully set forth in the application

which is on file with the Commission

and open to public inspection.

It is stated that the subject application

is made in compliance with the January

29, 1998, order issued in Docket No.

CP97–636–000, wherein the

Commission determined that if Western

decided to commence operation of a

currently idle 9 mile, 10-inch residue

line extending from the tailgate of the

Chaney Dell processing plant to

Williams Gas Pipelines Central, Inc.’s

(Williams) Canadian-Blackwell

pipeline, Western must apply for a

Section 7 certificate under the NGA.

Western states that it is requesting a

limited jurisdiction certificate for the

sole purpose of authorizing Western’s

use of its Chaney Dell plant residue line

to deliver Western’s gas to Williams in

order to satisfy the 4 Bcf delivery

obligation arising from Western’s

purchase of the Yellowstone Line in

Docket No. CP97–636–000.

Western also requests a blanket

certificate of public convenience and

necessity under Part 157 of the

Commission’s Regulations authorizing

the various activities stated in Subpart

F of Part 157 of the Commission’s

Regulations. In this regard, Western

requests waiver of the requirements of

Section 157.204(a) of the Commission’s

Regulations which otherwise limits

issuance of such blanket certificates

only to applicants which have been

issued certificates other than limited

jurisdiction authorizations, and which

have had rates accepted by the

Commission.

Western requests waiver of all

Commission rate and tariff filing

requirements, such as FERC annual

reports, tariffs or rate schedules, or any

requirement that would subject Western

to any strictures prohibiting bundled

sales of gas which might otherwise

affect Western’s ability to gather and sell

gas like all other non-jurisdictional

gathering and processing plant operators

with which Western competes. Western

also requests waiver of any requirement

that would result in being assessed or

having to pay annual charges to the

Commission pursuant to Part 382 of the

Commission’s Regulations.

Western requests that any certificate

authorized by the Commission confirm

that the Commission’s jurisdiction

under the NGA arising both granting

such certificate and from Western’s

acceptance thereof will be limited solely

and exclusively to Western’s operation

of the Chaney Dell residue line for

deliveries to Williams.

Any person desiring to be heard or to

make any protest with reference to said

application should on or before June 17,