Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 113 / Friday, June 12, 1998 / Notices 32197

1See 80 FERC ¶ 61.264 (1997); order denying

reh’g 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).

by Sections 7 and 15 of the NGA 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, 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 Koch Gateway to appear

or be represented at the hearing.

Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,

Acting Secretary.

[FR Doc. 98–15661 Filed 6–11–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717–01–M

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory

Commission

[Docket No. CP98–578–000]

MIGC, Inc.; Notice of Request Under

Blanket Authorization

June 8, 1998.

Take notice that on June 1, 1998,

MIGC, Inc. (MIGC), 12200 North Pecos

Street, Suite 230, Denver, Colorado

80234, filed in Docket No. CP98–578–

000 a request pursuant to Sections

157.205 and 157.216 of the

Commission’s Regulations under the

Natural Gas Act (18 CFR 157.205 and

157.216) for permission and approval to

abandon, by removal, the 1,215

horsepower Nortex Compressor located

in Converse County, Wyoming. MIGC

makes such request under its blanket

certificate issued in Docket No. CP82–

409–000 pursuant to Section 7 of the

Natural Gas Act, all as more fully set

forth in the request on file with the

Commission and open to public

inspection.

MIGC states that the Nortex

Compressor was installed in 1991 in

conjunction with the installation of a

sales lateral to serve an oil field engaged

in a gas repressurization campaign. It is

averred that repressurization operations

require high volumes of gas during the

initial phase of operations in order to

pressure up the reservoir, and the

during the first year of operation, an

average of 30,750 Mcf of natural gas

daily was compressed by the Nortex

Compressor and flowed on the sales

lateral. MIGC indicates that subsequent

to the initial phase of the operations,

deliveries declined as less and less gas

was required to maintain the pressure in

the oil field. It is further stated that

concurrent with the decline in volumes

on the sales lateral, volumes on MIGC’s

mainline have steadily increased which

has resulted in an increase in mainline

pressure. MIGC firmly states that the net

results of the decrease in volumes

flowing on the sales lateral and the

increase in pressures on the MIGC

mainline is that the Nortex Compressor

is not longer necessary to provide

sufficient pressure for gas to flow on the

sales lateral.

It is stated that this abandonment will

not affect MIGC’s ability to perform

jurisdictional services, nor will it

disrupt the flow of production into the

MIGC system. MIGC therefore states its

intent to move the Nortex Compressor to

a new location on its system where it

can be better utilized to serve system

operations.

MIGC is a wholly-owned subsidiary of

Western Gas Resources, Inc. (Western).

Western has title to all of the gas

flowing into the sales lateral which has

historically been served by the Nortex

Compressor, and Western has consented

to MIGC’s proposal to abandon the

Nortex Compressor.

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 therefor,

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

the Natural Gas Act.

Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,

Acting Secretary.

[FR Doc. 98–15664 Filed 6–11–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717–01–M

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory

Commission

[Docket No. GP98–36–000]

Joyce A. Mims, Robert E. Mims, et al.;

Notice of Petition for Dispute

Resolution

June 8, 1998.

Take notice that, on June 2, 1998,

Joyce A. Mims, Robert E. Mims, Barbara

J. Wilson, Inc., the Estate of Barbara J.

Wilson, Rings of Saturn, Inc., Kerry L.

Carlson (successor-in-interest to Robert

P. Wilson, Jr. and Janet J. Wilson, now

Janet Wilson Edwards) (collectively:

Applicants) filed a petition requesting

the Commission to resolve any potential

dispute they have with Panhandle

Eastern Pipe Line Company (Panhandle)

as to whether Applicants owe

Panhandle any Kansas ad valorem tax

refunds. Applicants request that the

Commission find that they have no

Kansas ad valorem tax refund liability to

Panhandle for the period from 1983 to

1988, based on a November 1, 1989

Settlement Agreement between

Applicants and Panhandle (1989

Settlement). Applicants’ 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

[82 FERC ¶ 61,059 (1998)], 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.

Applicants state that Panhandle has

attempted to collect Kansas ad valorem

tax refunds from them for the period

from 1983 to 1988. Applicants contend

that these efforts are a breach of their

1989 Settlement with Panhandle,

because the 1989 Settlement released

Applicants and Panhandle from all

claims against each other relating to

Applicants’ various gas purchase

contracts with Panhandle. Applicants