61108 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 220 / Friday, November 14, 1997 / Notices

1The 12-inch pipeline segment proposed to be

abandoned herein, was certificated in Docket No.

G–756, 5 FPC 820, Cities Service Gas Company

(1946).

2Cities Service Gas Company, 30 FPC 1,100

(1963).

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 Viking Voyageur to

appear or be represented at the hearing.

Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,

Acting Secretary.

[FR Doc. 97–29944 Filed 11–13–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717–01–M

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory

Commission

[Docket No. CP98–59–000]

Williams Natural Gas Company; Notice

of Request under Blanket

Authorization

November 7, 1997.

Take notice that on October 31, 1997,

Williams Natural Gas Company

(Williams), Post Office Box 3288, Tulsa,

Oklahoma 74101, filed in Docket No.

CP98–59–000 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 in place a portion of the 12-

inch Independence pipeline lateral,

along with related facilities and

services, all of which are located in Cass

County, Missouri. Williams makes such

request under its blanket certificate

issued in Docket No. CP82–479–000

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.

Specifically, Williams proposed to

abandon in place, and cap

approximately 6.09 miles of the

Independence 12-inch lateral pipeline.

Williams also proposes to abandon in

place, by sale to Missouri Gas Energy

(MGE) approximately 1.95 miles of the

Independence 12-inch lateral pipeline,

along with related services and

facilities, and the Raymore town border

station. It is stated that the 12-inch

Independence pipeline was originally

constructed, to enable Williams to

supply the natural gas requirements of

MGE, in the Independence, Missouri

area.1 The Raymore town border station

was originally installed in 1963 and

certificated in Docket No. CP63–345.2

Williams states that the Lee’s Summit

town border meter will become a single

point of delivery for MGE. Williams

further states that to maintain service to

the Lee’s Summit town border location,

it will construct a tie-over line from its

Sugar Creek line to the Lee’s Summit

town border station pursuant to Section

311 of the NGPA.

Williams indicates that the most

recent volumes of gas delivered to the

Raymore town border station was 7,565

MMcf on a peak day with 595,035 MMcf

delivered annually. It is stated that

service to the Raymore town border

facility will continue to be provided by

MGE.

Williams indicates that MGE will

integrate into its system, the facilities

that Williams has designated to sell to

MGE in this proceeding. It is averred

that one domestic customer, located on

the 1.95-mile segment, will be impacted

by the proposed abandonment.

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. 97–29943 Filed 11–13–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717–01–M

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory

Commission

[Docket No. CP98–56–000]

Williston Basin Interstate Pipeline

Company; Notice of Request Under

Blanket Authorization

November 7, 1997.

Take notice that on October 30, 1997,

Williston Basin Interstate Pipeline

Company (Williston Basin), 200 North

Third Street, Suite 300, Bismarck, North

Dakota 58501, filed in Docket No. CP98–

56–000 a request pursuant to Sections

157.205 and 157.211 of the

Commission’s Regulations under the

Natural Gas Act (18 CFR 157.205 and

157.211) for authorization to construct

and operate new metering and

associated appurtenant facilities for use

in providing delivery of transportation

service gas to Bear Paw Operating

Company, Inc. (Bear Paw), under

Williston Basin’s blanket certificate

issued in Docket No. CP82–487–000

pursuant to Section 7 of the Natural Gas

Act, all as more fully set forth in the

request that is on file with the

Commission and open to public

inspection.

Williston Basin states that the

facilities to be constructed at the

proposed metering facility will consist

of a building, an orifice meter, SCADA

communication equipment and

miscellaneous piping, gauges and

valves, all of which will be constructed

on existing right-of-way at the Baker

Compressor Plant in Section 12, T7N,

R59E, Fallon County, Montana.

Williston Basin states that Bear Paw has

requested installation of this metering

facility to allow Williston Basin to make

deliveries of up to 4,800 Mcf per day to

Bear Paw to be used as emergency fuel

at the Big Horn plant. The estimated

cost of the proposed metering facilities

is $11,400. The actual cost of the facility

is 100% reimbursable by Bear Paw.

Williston Basin states that the

addition of the proposed facilities will

have no significant effect on its peak

day or annual requirements, that the

total volumes delivered will not exceed

total volumes authorized prior to this

request, that the existing tariff does not

prohibit the addition of new delivery

points and that there is sufficient

capacity to accomplish deliveries

without detriment or disadvantage to

other customers.

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
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 220 / Friday, November 14, 1997 / Notices 61109

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. 97–29939 Filed 11–13–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717–01–M

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Office of Hearings and Appeals

Determination of Excess Petroleum

Violation Escrow Funds for Fiscal Year

1998

AGENCY: U.S. Department of Energy,

Office of Hearings and Appeals.

ACTION: Notice of determination of

excess monies pursuant to the

Petroleum Overcharge Distribution and

Restitution Act of 1986.

SUMMARY: The Petroleum Overcharge

Distribution and Restitution Act of 1986

requires the Secretary of Energy to

determine annually the amount of oil

overcharge funds held in escrow that is

in excess of the amount needed to make

restitution to injured parties. Notice is

hereby given that $20,610,767 of the

amounts currently in escrow is

determined to be excess funds for fiscal

year 1998. Pursuant to the statutory

directive, these funds will be made

available to state governments for use in

specified energy conservation programs.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION: Thomas O.

Mann, Deputy Director, Roger Klurfeld,

Assistant Director, Office of Hearings

and Appeals, U.S. Department of

Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue,

SW., Washington, DC 20585–0107, (202)

426–1492 [Mann]; (202) 426–1449

[Klurfeld].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

Petroleum Overcharge Distribution and

Restitution Act of 1986 (hereinafter

PODRA), contained in Title III of the

Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of

1986, Pub. L. No. 99–509, establishes

certain procedures for the disbursement

of funds collected by the Department of

Energy (hereinafter DOE) pursuant to

the Emergency Petroleum Allocation

Act of 1973 (hereinafter EPAA) or the

Economic Stabilization Act of 1970

(hereinafter ESA). These funds,

commonly referred to as oil overcharge

funds, are monies obtained through

enforcement actions instituted to

remedy actual or alleged violations of

those Acts.

PODRA requires the DOE, through the

Office of Hearings and Appeals

(hereinafter OHA), to conduct

proceedings under 10 CFR Part 205,

Subpart V, to accept claims for

restitution from the public and to refund

oil overcharge monies to persons

injured by violations of the EPAA or the

ESA. In addition, PODRA requires the

Secretary of Energy to determine

annually the amount of oil overcharge

funds that will not be required for

restitution to injured parties in these

refund proceedings and to make this

excess available to state governments for

use in four energy conservation

programs. This determination must be

published in the Federal Register

within 45 days after the beginning of

each fiscal year. The Secretary has

delegated this responsibility to the OHA

Director.

Notice is hereby given that based on

the best currently available information,

$20,610,767 is in excess of the amount

that is needed to make restitution to

injured parties.

To arrive at that figure, the OHA has

reviewed all accounts in which monies

covered by PODRA are deposited.

PODRA generally covers all funds now

in DOE escrow which are derived from

alleged violations of the EPAA or the

ESA, with certain exclusions. Excluded

are funds which (1) have been identified

for indirect restitution in orders issued

prior to enactment of PODRA; (2) have

been identified for direct restitution in

a judicial or administrative order; or (3)

are attributable to alleged violations of

regulations governing the pricing of

crude oil and subject to the settlement

agreement in In re The Department of

Energy Stripper Well Exemption

Litigation, M.D.L. No. 378 (D. Kan., July

7, 1986). As of September 30, 1997, the

total in escrow subject to the PODRA

procedures was $96,366,739.

The OHA has employed the following

methodology to determine the amount

of excess funds. We took special

account of the provision of PODRA

which directs that ‘‘primary

consideration [be given] to assuring that

at all times sufficient funds (including

a reasonable reserve) are set aside for

making [direct] restitution.’’ Thus, in

proceedings in which refund claims are

pending, we have on a claim-by-claim

basis examined pending claims and

established reserves sufficient to pay the

amount of these claims. The reserves

also include all refunds ordered by the

OHA since the end of the last fiscal year

on September 30, 1997, but not yet paid.

For proceedings in which all claims

have been considered or in which no

claims have been filed, and the deadline

for filing claims has passed, all funds

remaining are excess. Small amounts of

interest accrued, until transfer, on funds

in accounts that were closed (with a

zero balance) in the fiscal year 1997

PODRA determination (61 FR 58545

(1996)) are included as part of the

‘‘excess’’ for fiscal year 1998. No ‘‘other

commitments’’ are reflected in the

reserves.

As indicated above, the total escrow

account equity subject to PODRA is

$96,366,739. The total amount needed

as reserves for direct restitution in those

cases is $75,755,972. When this figure is

subtracted from the former, the

remainder—$20,610,767—is the amount

in fiscal year 1998 that is ‘‘in excess’’ of

the amount that will be needed to make

restitution to injured persons. The

Appendix to this Notice sets forth for

each refund case within the OHA’s

jurisdiction the total amount eligible for

distribution under PODRA and the

‘‘excess’’ amount.

Accordingly, $20,610,767 will be

transferred to a separate account within

the United States Treasury and made

available to the States for use in the

designated energy conservation

programs in the manner prescribed by

PODRA.

Dated: November 7, 1997.

George B. Breznay,

Director, Office of Hearings and Appeals.

AMOUNT AVAILABLE FOR INDIRECT RESTITUTION IN FY 1998

Name of company Consent order

number

Equity as of Sept.

30, 1997

Amount available

in FY 98

ATLANTIC RICHFIELD CO (ARCO) ................................................................... RARH00001Z $11,566,398.41 $7,000,000.00

ENRON CORPORATION ..................................................................................... 730V00221Z 21,225,255.49 3,200,000.00

TEXACO INC ....................................................................................................... RTXE006A1Z 3,166,580.85 3,166,580.85