Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 122 /Thursday, June 25, 1998 / Notices 34645

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).

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory

Commission

[Docket No. GP98–37–000]

James E. Silver; Notice of Petition for

Clarification

June 19, 1998.

Take notice that, on June 15, 1998,

James E. Silver (Silver) filed a letter

petitioning the Commission to clarify

whether the Commission will direct

Williams Gas Pipelines Central, Inc.,

formerly: Williams Natural Gas

Company (Williams) to return certain

Kansas ad valorem tax refunds that

Silver paid to Williams on behalf of

certain royalty interest owners, where

Silver has since been unable to recover

the refunds he paid on behalf of certain

royalty owners, from those royalty

owners. Silver’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.

Silver indicates that he is the

Managing Partner of Olympic Petroleum

Company (Olympic), and that Williams

notified him that Olympic owed

$85,787.27 in Kansas ad valorem tax

refunds to Williams ($34,877.98 in

principal and $50,909.29 in interest).

Silver states that he paid this sum to

Williams, in full. Silver also indicates

that $15,453.64 of this total represents

refunds attributable to royalty owners

that he paid on behalf of the royalty

owners. Silver states that he has been

unable to recover $10,281.37 from

certain royalty owners, and sets forth

the amount of unrecovered refunds,

along with the reason he has been

unable to recover those refunds from the

royalty owners, as follows: (1) $8,441.53

represents ten (10) royalty owners that

have failed to respond to letters and

phone calls; (2) $210.32 represents a

single royalty owner who’s address is

unknown; (3) $818.57 represents a

single royalty owner who has petitioned

the Commission (in Docket No. SA98–

79–000) for relief from the refund

requirement; and $810.95 represents

five (5) royalty owners who are

deceased and their estates closed. In

review of this, Silver requests the

Commission to clarify whether the

Commission will consider returning

(i.e., whether the Commission will

consider directing Williams to return):

(1) The $810.95 Silver paid on behalf

of deceased royalty owners and, if so,

what the procedures are for requesting

such consideration;

(2) the $210.32 Silver paid on behalf

of the royalty owner whose address is

unknown; and

(3) the $818.57, in the event that the

Commission grants the royalty owner’s

appeal in Docket No. SA98–79–000 and,

if so, what the procedure is for doing so.

In addition, Silver requests the

Commission to clarify whether the

Commission’s September 10, 1997

refund order affords Silver any authority

or legal power to recover the $8,441.53

in refunds that he paid on behalf of the

10 royalty owners who have since

refused to respond to his requests to be

reimbursed for the refunds he made on

their behalf.

Any person desiring to comment on

or make any protest with respect to the

above-referenced petition should, on or

before July 10, 1998, file with the

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission,

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

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.

David P. Boergers,

Acting Secretary.

[FR Doc. 98–16888 Filed 6–24–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717–01–M

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory

Commission

[Project No. 405–043]

Susquehanna Power Company and

Philadelphia Electric Company; Notice

of Petition for Declaratory Order

June 19, 1998.

On May 12, 1998, the Mayor and City

Council of Baltimore, Maryland

(Baltimore) filed a petition for

declaratory order and supporting

memorandum, seeking a Commission

order declaring: (1) That the

Commission has exclusive jurisdiction

over pool elevations and pool

operations of the Conowingo Project No.

405; (2) that the Licensees for the project

must comply with all orders of this

Commission concerning the project; and

(3) such further and other relief as the

Commission may deem appropriate.

Baltimore’s petition is prompted by

concerns that water withdrawals it

makes from the project reservoir may be

restricted as a result of certains actions

being taken by the Susquehanna River

Basin Commission.

Anyone may submit comments, a

protest, or a motion to intervene in

accordance with the requirements of the

Commission’s Rules of Practice and

Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, 385.211,

and 385.214. In determining the

appropriate action to take, the

Commission will consider all protests

and other comments, but only those

who file a motion to intervene may

become a party to the proceeding.

Comments, protests, or motions to

intervene must be filed by July 27, 1998;

must bear in all capital letters the title

‘‘COMMENTS,’’ ‘‘PROTEST,’’ or

‘‘MOTION TO INTERVENE,’’ as

applicable, and Project No. 405–043.

Send the filings (original and 8 copies)

to: The Secretary, Federal Energy

Regulatory Commission, 888 First

Street, NE, Washington, DC 20426. A

copy of any filing must also be served

on each representative of the petitioner

named in its petition.

David P. Boergers,

Acting Secretary.

[FR Doc. 98–16891 Filed 6–24–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717–01–M

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory

Commission

[Docket No. GT98–54–000]

Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line

Corporation; Notice of Refund

June 19, 1998.

Take notice on June 15, 1998,

Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line

Corporation (Transco) tendered for

filing a report of Gas Research Institute

(GRI) refunds made to its customers.

Transco states that refunded amounts

were made to eligible shippers via Mail

or wire transfer based on nondiscounted GRI demand amounts paid

during the year ended December 31,

1997. The amounts refunded by Transco

resulted from refunds made to Transco

by the GRI.