19914 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 77 / Friday, April 21, 1995 / Notices

Continent Region Company (WGP–

MCR), Post Office Box 3102, Tulsa,

Oklahoma 74101, filed a petition for a

declaratory order in Docket No. CP95–

318–000, requesting that the

Commission declare that WGP–MCR’s

acquisition, ownership, and operation of

approximately 25.8 miles of 26-inch

pipeline and appurtenant facilities

located in Texas County, Oklahoma

currently owned by Williams Natural

Gas Company (WNG) are exempt from

the Commission’s Regulations pursuant

to Section 1(b) of the Natural Gas Act

(NGA), all as more fully set forth in the

petition which is on file with the

Commission and open to public

inspection.

WGP–MCR states that the current

filing is necessary because the subject

line’s function will change as a result of

the construction and operation of a new

processing plant, the Baker Plant. The

new plant is being constructed by

Williams Field Services Company

(WFS), an affiliate of WGP–MCR, and

will process gas from both the Straight

sub-system and the Liberal-Baker

subsystem as well as third-party

gathering systems. WGP–MCR states

that the Baker Plant will replace the

Guymon drip control plant and is

scheduled to be in operation by

November 1, 1995. WGP–MCR states

that the subject 25.8 mile pipeline is

located upstream of the new Baker

Plant, and upon completion of the plant

the function of the subject line will be

gathering.

WGP–MCR asks that the Commission

process this petition for declaratory

order and WNG’s related abandonment

application, but it does not request an

order until the Baker Plant begins

operations. WGP–MCR states that it will

use the same default contract for

services on the subject facilities as was

submitted to the Commission in Docket

No. CP94–196–000.

WGP–MCR asserts that the Baker

Plant will be capable of processing

greater volumes and of removing more

liquids compared to the capabilities of

the Guymon drip control plant, and this

will result in better value to the

gathering and processing customers.

WGP–MCR claims that the location of

the plant was chosen for primarily two

reasons: (1) Located in the middle of the

production facilities owned by third

parties—whereas the Guymon drip

control plant could only process gas

from the Straight facilities; and (2) the

location of the Baker Plant is conducive

to the formation of a hub, with other

transmission pipelines located in the

vicinity.

WGP–MCR states that it will provide

gathering services consistent with openaccess principles and will operate as a

company separate and independent

from WNG. WNG currently provides

transportation service to one direct

delivery irrigation customer connected

to the subject pipeline. WGP–MCR

asserts that it will assume WNG’s

obligations and provide gathering

services to this customer following

abandonment.

Any person desiring to be heard or to

make a protest with reference to said

petition should, on or before May 8,

1995, file with the Federal Energy

Regulatory Commission, 825 North

Capitol Street, NE., Washington, DC

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).

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 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.

Lois D. Cashell,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 95–9856 Filed 4–20–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717–01–M

Office of Hearings and Appeals

New Filing Deadline in Special Refund

Proceeding Involving Crude Oil

Overcharge Refunds

AGENCY: Office of Hearings and Appeals,

Department of Energy.

ACTION: Notice of new deadline for filing

applications for refund in the crude oil

overcharge special refund proceeding.

SUMMARY: The Office of Hearings and

Appeals of the Department of Energy

has determined that the period for filing

applications for refund in the crude oil

overcharge special refund proceeding

shall close on June 30, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Thomas L. Wieker, Deputy Director,

Virginia Lipton, Assistant Director,

Office of Hearings and Appeals,

Department of Energy, 1000

Independence Avenue SW.,

Washington, DC 20585, (202) 586–2390

(Wieker), (202) 586–2400 (Lipton).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On

November 1, 1994, the Office of

Hearings and Appeals (OHA) of the

Department of Energy (DOE) issued a

Notice stating that it would reopen the

period for filing Subpart V crude oil

overcharge refund applications and take

comments on the issue of the

appropriate closing date for filing

refund claims in this proceeding. In the

Notice we set a new tentative filing

deadline of June 3, 1996. 59 FR 55656

(November 8, 1994). The Notice further

stated that comments regarding this

issue should be provided by April 3,

1995. The period for filing comments

has now closed. We have carefully

reviewed the comments we received in

order to set a final deadline for

submission of refund applications.

In all, we received comments from ten

firms and individuals. Nine of these

comments were submitted by entities

that file refund claims on behalf of

Subpart V crude oil overcharge refund

claimants. We refer to such

representatives as ‘‘filing services.’’ The

tenth comment was filed by an attorney

who represents a group of States. [Under

the DOE’s Modified Statement of

Restitutionary Policy, the States and

Territories of the United States and the

federal government will receive the

balance of any funds remaining after all

disbursements to Subpart V crude oil

overcharge claimants have been made.]

The comments submitted by filing

services that represent smaller claimants

tended to favor extending the filing

deadline as long as possible, even

beyond the tentative June 3, 1996

deadline. These filing services believe

that there are still many eligible

claimants who have not applied for a

refund. One commenter in this group

estimated that there are between

500,000 and 1 million entities that used

more than 65,500 gallons of refined

petroleum products during the August

1973 through January 1981 refund

period. This commenter believes that

since the OHA has received only

100,000 Subpart V crude oil overcharge

refund claims, there are many potential

applicants who have not yet applied.

Although they offer no supporting

statistics, the other commenters in this

group agree that there are many

potential refund applicants who have

not yet been contacted. In this regard,

the commenters state that after the prior

June 30, 1994 deadline passed, they

closed their operations that focused on

searching for these claimants. They

suggest that they are now actively

seeking new clients and that it will

require significant additional time for

them to fully reopen their searching

processes and solicit new claimants.

They therefore seek an extended

additional refund application period.

We are certainly aware that many

potential refund applicants have not

filed a crude oil overcharge refund

claim. However, this fact, in and of

itself, is not a reason to allow for
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 77 / Friday, April 21, 1995 / Notices 19915

another long window of opportunity to

file refund applications. Many firms and

individuals may have already heard of

the Subpart V refund process and

simply decided not to apply for a

refund. Further, even those that have

not yet heard about the refund process

might not wish to file a claim, even if

they were made aware of their

eligibility. We do not believe that it

would be useful to hold open the refund

process based upon the speculation

raised by commenters. It is simply not

feasible to hold the proceeding open to

ensure that all eligible claimants have

received notice of the opportunity to

apply. We believe it is sufficient to

provide adequate notice of the

proceeding, and a reasonable period for

applications to be submitted. We find

that this notice and opportunity have

been provided over the course of the

eight-year refund period. Further, in

view of the fact that notice of the

reopening of this refund proceeding was

published on November 8, 1994, we

find that there has been adequate time

for filing services to renew their search

efforts and provide additional

notification.

The comments submitted by filing

services representing larger refund

applicants in this proceeding indicate

that they are generally not now seeking

to locate additional refund claimants.

This group urged that the application

period be quickly terminated. These

firms and individuals point out that the

longer the claim period remains open,

the more delay there will be in

terminating the entire crude oil

overcharge refund process, and in

disbursing the final refund payment. We

believe that there is considerable merit

to this position.

We are also aware that a new, lengthy

additional window of opportunity for

filing refund claims may result in a large

number of duplicate claims,

administrative waste, and confusion

among members of the public.

Accordingly, we find that prompt

closure of the refund application period

will best promote our goals of

administrative efficiency and finality.

Therefore, the final date for filing

Applications for Refund in the OHA

Subpart V crude oil overcharge refund

proceeding will be June 30, 1995. All

crude oil refund applications must be

postmarked no later than that date.

Dated: April 17, 1995.

George B. Breznay,

Director, Office of Hearings and Appeals.

[FR Doc. 95–9934 Filed 4–20–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

[ER–FRL–4722–4]

Environmental Impact Statements and

Regulations; Availability of EPA

Comments

Availability of EPA comments

prepared March 20, 1995 Through

March 24, 1995 pursuant to the

Environmental Review Process (ERP),

under Section 309 of the Clean Air Act

and Section 102(2)(c) of the National

Environmental Policy Act as amended.

Requests for copies of EPA comments

can be directed to the Office of Federal

Activities at (202) 260–5076.

An explanation of the ratings assigned

to draft environmental impact

statements (EISs) was published in FR

dated April 14, 1995 (72 FR 19047).

Draft EISs

ERP No. D–AFS–J65227–MT Rating

EC2, Wagner-Atlanta Vegetation

Treatment Project, Implementation,

Helena National Forest, Townsend

Ranger District, Meagher County, MT.

Summary

EPA expressed environmental

concerns with the treatment methods/

units, existing degraded water quality/

fisheries in the project area, and an

inadequate plan for a water quality

monitoring program. EPA recommended

additional information be collected to

fully assess and mitigate impacts of the

proposed action. EPA supported a

combination of grass burns (Alternative

C) and harvest methods from the other

alternatives which protect big game,

minimize new road construction,

protect water quality, in stream uses and

the aquatic ecosystem.

ERP No. D–AFS–J65228–UT Rating

EC1, Jacob/Swale Vegetation

Management Project, Implementation,

Dixie National Forest, Escalante Ranger

District, Garfield County, UT.

Summary

EPA expressed environmental

concerns and recommended that a

preferred alternative be selected that

minimizes the impacts to road

management, roadless areas and wildlife

habitat concerns.

ERP No. D–AFS–L65233–OR Rating

EC2, Sandy River Delta Plan,

Implementation, Special Management

Area (SMA), Columbia River Gorge

National Scenic Area (NSA), Several

Permits for Approval, US Coast Guard

Bridge Permit and COE Section 404

Permit, Multnomah County, OR.

Summary

EPA supported the wetland vegetation

restoration objectives of the draft EIS,

but expressed environmental concerns

regarding the repeated use of herbicides

to meet vegetative objectives. EPA

preferred the re-establishment of the

original native species mix to the extent

possible, to create a self-sustaining

wetland system without using

herbicides.

ERP No. D–AFS–L65234–ID Rating

EC2, Hobo Cornwall Project Area

Timber Sale and Ecosystem

Management Plan, Implementation,

Idaho Panhandle National Forests, St.

Joe Ranger District, Shoshone County,

ID.

Summary

EPA expressed environmental

concerns based on potential water

quality standards violations and the lack

of an air quality impacts analysis.

Additional information is requested to

clarify compliance with state water

quality standards and to disclose air

quality impacts related to prescribed

burning.

ERP No. D–AFS–L65236–OR Rating

LO, Santiam Pass Forest Health Project,

Implementation, Willamette National

Forest, McKenzie Ranger District, Linn

County, OR.

Summary

EPA expressed lack of objections to

the proposed project.

ERP No. D–BLM–G65061–NM Rating

LO, Rosewell Resource Area

Management Plan and Carlsbad

Resource Area Management Plan

Amendment, Implementation, Quay,

Curry, DeBaca, Roosevelt, Lincoln,

Guadalupe, Chaves, Eddy, and Lea

Counties, NM.

Summary

EPA expressed lack of objections and

supported the preferred alternative. For

clarification EPA requested that the air

impact analysis be expanded to include

definitive effects of oil and gas

operations on air quality and consider

the cumulative impacts of 23,000 wells

on the 2 resource areas.

ERP No. D–BLM–J60016–WY Rating

EC2, Kenetech/PacifiCorp Windpower

Development Project, Construction of a

500–MW Windplant and 230-kV

Transmission Line between Arlington

and Hanna, Right-of-Way Grant, COE

Section 404 Permit and Special-UsePermit, Carbon County, WY.

Summary

EPA expressed environmental

concerns based on potential adverse