65652 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 244 / Wednesday, December 20, 1995 / Notices

1Section 406 provides in full:

Inasmuch as this Consent Order settles both the

principal and interest portions of all claims made

by the DOE against Occidental, the principal

portion of the payments made pursuant to

paragraphs 402 through 404 shall be deemed to be

a payment of principal and interest in the same

ratio that the principal portion of the DOE’s claim

in the proceeding styled In the Matter of OXY USA

Inc., Case No. LRO–0003, bears to the interest

portion of the DOE’s claim in that case as of the

Effective Date.

60 FR at 35189.

2See generally Mt. Airy Refining Co., 24 DOE ¶

85,094 at 88,305 n.1 (1994) (consent order funds

considered crude oil funds where most of consent

order funds related to crude oil violations);

DeMenno-Kerdoon, 23 DOE ¶ 85,046 at 88,112 n.1

(1993) (global consent order funds considered crude

oil funds where the funds were less than the crude

oil violations alleged in PRO that was settled by the

consent order).

under the federal petroleum price and

allocation regulations during the consent

order period. Thus, the Consent Order settles

not only issues related to the 91 reciprocal

transactions but also any other potential

liability of Occidental with respect to its

compliance with the federal price and

allocation regulations during the consent

order period .

II. Jurisdiction and Authority

The Subpart V regulations set forth general

guidelines which may be used by the OHA

in formulating and implementing a plan of

distribution of funds received as a result of

an enforcement proceeding. The DOE policy

is to use the Subpart V process to distribute

such funds. For a more detailed discussion

of Subpart V and the authority of the OHA

to fashion procedures to distribute refunds,

see Petroleum Overcharge Distribution and

Restitution Act of 1986, 15 U.S.C. 4501 et

seq.; see also Office of Enforcement, 9 DOE

¶ 82,508 (1981); Office of Enforcement, 8

DOE ¶ 82,597 (1981).

III. Proposed Refund Procedures

A. The DOE’s Modified Statement of

Restitutionary Policy

The distribution of crude oil overcharge

funds is governed by the DOE’s July 1986

Modified Statement of Restitutionary Policy

in Crude Oil Cases (MSRP). See 51 Fed. Reg.

27899 (August 4, 1986). The MSRP was

issued in conjunction with the Stripper Well

Settlement Agreement. See In re: The

Department of Energy Stripper Well

Exemption Litigation. 653 F. Supp. 108 (D.

Kan. 1986).

Under the MSRP, up to 20 percent of crude

oil overcharge funds may be reserved for

direct restitution to injured purchasers, with

the remainder divided equally between the

states and the federal government. The MSRP

also specifies that any funds remaining after

all valid claims by injured purchasers are

paid be disbursed to the states and the

federal government in equal amounts.

In August 1986, shortly after the issuance

of the MSRP, the OHA issued an Order that

announced that the MSRP would be applied

in all Subpart V proceedings involving

alleged crude oil violations. See Order

Implementing the MSRP, 51 FR 29689

(August 20, 1986) (the August 1986 Order).

In response, parties filed comments.

In April 1987, the OHA issued a Notice

analyzing the numerous comments received

in response to the August 1986 Order. See 52

FR 11737 (April 10, 1987). This Notice

provided guidance to claimants that

anticipated filing refund applications for

crude oil funds under the Subpart V

regulations. A crude oil refund applicant was

only required to submit one application for

its share of crude oil overcharge funds.

Consistent with the foregoing, the OHA

accepted refund applications from 1987 until

the June 30, 1995 deadline. See 60 FR 19914

(April 20, 1995). Applicants who filed before

the deadline and whose applications are

approved will share in the crude oil

overcharge funds. Approved applicants are

currently receiving $.0016 per gallon of

purchased refined product.

B. Proposal To Distribute the OXY Consent

Order Funds in Accordance With the MSRP

We have tentatively determined that all of

the consent order funds are crude oil funds

and, therefore, should be distributed in

accordance with the MSRP. Although the

Consent Order was global, i.e., it settled any

potential claims against Occidental, the

Consent Order was the result of a pending

enforcement proceeding related to OXY’s

reciprocal purchases and sales of crude oil

and the reporting of the purchased crude oil

to the DOE Entitlements Program. The

Consent Order does not identify any

potential refined product claims, let alone

indicate that any such potential violations

were taken into account in arriving at the

settlement amount. In fact, a provision in the

Consent Order refers to an apportionment of

the principal portion of consent order funds

as payments of the principal and interest

sought by the agency based on the ratio of

principal and interest sought in the RPRO.1

In addition to the Consent Order itself, the

Notice of Proposed Consent Order and the

Petition for Implementation of Special

Refund Procedures both support the

conclusion that the consent order funds are

crude oil funds. The Notice of Proposed

Consent Order indicates that the settlement

amount was determined by reference to the

litigation concerning the reciprocal crude oil

transactions. See 60 FR at 35187 (Part II.

Determination of Reasonable Settlement

Amount). The Petition for Implementation of

Special Refund Procedures states that the

alleged violations underlying the Consent

Order concern the improper reporting of

crude oil certifications to the Entitlements

Program, i.e., the claim in the RPRO. Petition

at 2. Under the foregoing circumstances, we

have tentatively determined that 100 percent

of the consent order funds are crude oil

funds.2

Because we have tentatively determined

that 100 percent of the consent order funds

are crude oil funds, we propose to distribute

the funds according to the MSRP. We

propose to reserve initially the full 20

percent ($55 million), plus accrued interest,

for direct restitution to injured purchasers of

crude oil and refined petroleum products.

We propose to distribute the remaining 80

percent ($220 million) in equal shares to the

states and the federal government.

As indicated above, the funds reserved for

direct restitution to injured purchasers will

be available for distribution through OHA’s

Subpart V crude oil overcharge refund

proceeding. We have previously discussed

the application requirements and standards

that apply in that proceeding. Because the

deadline for the filing of applications has

now passed, we do not believe that it is

necessary to reiterate those matters. In

accordance with the MSRP, we propose that

any funds remaining after the conclusion of

the Subpart V crude oil overcharge refund

proceeding be disbursed to the states and the

federal government in equal shares.

With respect to the funds made available

to the states for indirect restitution, we note

that the share or ratio of the funds which

each state will receive is contained in Exhibit

H of the Stripper Well Settlement Agreement.

When disbursed, these funds will be subject

to the same limitations and reporting

requirements as all other crude oil monies

received by the states under the Stripper

Well Settlement Agreement. Based on the

foregoing, we propose that the $100 million

initial payment made by Occidental be

disbursed as follows: $20 million, plus

accrued interest, to the DOE interest-bearing

escrow account for crude oil claimants, $40

million, plus accrued interest, to the DOE

interest-bearing escrow account for the states,

and $40 million, plus accrued interest, to the

DOE interest-bearing escrow account for the

federal government. We propose that, upon

remittance to the DOE, Occidental’s

subsequent five annual payments of $35

million, plus accrued interest, be distributed

to the same accounts in the same

proportions.

It is therefore ordered That:

The consent order funds remitted by

Occidental Petroleum Corporation will be

distributed in accordance with the foregoing

Decision.

[FR Doc. 95–30960 Filed 12–19–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P

Western Area Power Administration

Loveland Area Projects, Post-1999

Resource Study

AGENCY: Western Area Power

Administration, DOE.

ACTION: Notice of Completion.

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Post1989 General Power Marketing and

Allocation Criteria (Criteria), Pick-Sloan

Missouri Basin Program-Western

Division, published in the Federal

Register on January 31, 1986 (51 FR

4012), the Western Area Power

Administration’s (Western) Loveland

Area Office (LAO) has completed a

hydrological study to determine the

available electric power resources for

the period starting with the first day of

the October 1999 billing period through

the last day of the September 2004

billing period. The results of the study

show that there is an energy deficit and
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 244 / Wednesday, December 20, 1995 / Notices 65653

some surplus capacity available in the

post-1999 period. The annual energy

deficit is 3.3 percent of the total annual

energy resource. The deficit occurs in

the winter season when LAO has

historically purchased energy. Western

has reviewed the study results and

concluded that the energy resource,

even though deficit, will be sufficient to

meet the current contractual

commitments with minor energy

purchases. The available capacity will

be used to maintain operation

flexibility. Therefore, there is no need to

change the allocated amounts of energy

with capacity under the Criteria

between 1999 and 2004.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.

Stephen A. Fausett, Area Manager,

Loveland Area Office, Western Area

Power Administration, P.O. Box 3700,

Loveland, CO 80539–3003, Telephone:

(970) 490–7201.

Regulatory Procedural Requirements

The authority upon which Western

allocates and contracts for electric

service is based upon the provisions of

the Reclamation Act of 1902 (ch. 1093,

32 Stat. 388); the Reclamation Project

Act of 1939 (43 U.S.C. 485h(c)); the

Department of Energy Organization Act

of 1977 (42 U.S.C. 7152, 7191); the

Flood Control Act of 1944 (58 Stat. 891);

the Fryingpan-Arkansas Project Acts of

1962 and 1974 (Pub. L. 87–590, 76 Stat.

389 and Pub. L. 93–493, 88 Stat. 1497);

and acts amending or supplementing

the foregoing legislation.

Background

Power produced by the Loveland Area

projects is marketed pursuant to the

Criteria. LAO’s firm electric service

contracts executed under the Criteria

expire on the last day of the September

billing period in 2004. The Criteria

states ‘‘* * * at the end of the 1999

summer season billing period, the

provisions of the contracts concerning

the amounts of energy and capacity

committed will be subject to revision

based on the marketable resource. Any

necessary revisions to these contract

provisions will be determined by

Western and presented to the

contractors by the end of the 1996

summer season billing period.’’ The

available resources in the Criteria were

determined by duplicating the river

systems with a hydrological computer

modeling program and calculating what

the available energy and capacity would

be using this data. The marketable

capacity was calculated using a 90-

percent probability of exceedance factor.

The energy portion of the Post-1999

Resource Study uses the average of the

actual monthly generation rather than a

calculated amount of energy using a

hydrological computer simulation

model. The capacity portion of the

study uses essentially the same

methodology as used in the Criteria. The

results of the Post-1999 Resource Study

show that there is an energy deficit and

some surplus capacity available.

Resources

Post 1999

marketable

Difference

from contract

Winter Energy

(GWh) ............ 821.1 (89.2)

Summer Energy

(GWh) ............ 1,153.1 23.1

Total Energy

(GWh) . 1,974.2 (66.1)

Winter Capacity

(MW) ............. 538.5 42.0

Summer Capacity (MW) ......... 606.7 16.7

Environmental Compliance

The National Environmental Policy

Act (NEPA) of 1969 (42 U.S.C 4321 et

seq.) and implementing regulations

issued by the Council on Environmental

Quality (40 CFR parts 1500–1508)

require that the environmental effects of

agency actions be studied and

considered by decision makers. DOE

issued Implementing Procedures and

Guidelines for the National

Environmental Policy Act at 10 CFR

Part 1021. Performance of this resource

study meets the definition of a

categorical exclusion, which is a

category of actions defined at 40 CFR

1508.4 and listed in Appendix A to

Subpart D of the DOE Implementing

Procedures for which neither an

environmental assessment nor an

environmental impact statement is

usually required. The applicable

categorical exclusion is found at A9 in

Appendix A to Subpart D.

Issued at Washington, DC, December 11,

1995.

Joel K. Bladow,

Assistant Administrator.

[FR Doc. 95–30959 Filed 12–19–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

[FRL–5399–5]

Agency Information Collection

Activities Under OMB Review

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: In compliance with the

Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C.

3501 et seq.), this notice announces that

the Information Collection Request (ICR)

abstracted below has been forwarded to

the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB) for review and comment. The

ICR describes the nature of the

information collection and its expected

cost and burden; where appropriate, it

includes actual data collection

instrument.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on

or before January 19, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION OR A COPY

CALL:

Sandy Farmer at EPA, (202) 260–2740,

and refer to EPA ICR No. 1426.04.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Title: EPA Worker Protection

Standard for Hazardous Waste

Operations and Emergency Response,

OMB Control # 2050–0105, EPA ICR

# 1426.04, expiration 1–31–96. This is a

request for extension, without change,

of a currently approved collection.

Abstract: Section 126(f) of the

Superfund Amendments and

Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA)

require EPA to set worker protection

standards for State and local employees

engaged in hazardous waste operations

and emergency response in the 27 States

that do not have Occupational Safety

and Health Administration approved

State plans. The EPA coverage, required

to be identical to the OSHA standards,

extends to three categories of

employees: those in clean-ups at

uncontrolled hazardous waste sites,

including corrective actions at

Treatment, Storage and Disposal (TSD)

facilities regulated under the Resource

Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA);

employees working at routine hazardous

waste operations at RCRA TSD facilities;

and employees involved in emergency

response operations without regard to

location. This ICR renews the existing

mandatory recordkeeping collection of

ongoing activities including monitoring

of any potential employee exposure at

uncontrolled hazardous waste sites

maintaining records of employee

training, refresher training, medical

exams, and reviewing emergency

response plans. An agency may not

conduct or sponsor, and a person is not

required to respond to a collection of

information unless it displays a

currently valid OMB control number.

The OMB control numbers for EPA’s

regulations are displayed in 40 CFR Part

9 and 48 CFR Chapter 15. The Federal

Register Notice required under 5 CFR

1320.8(d), soliciting comments on this