26514 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 103 / Tuesday, May 28, 1996 / Notices

Stanley). The New England Power Pool

Agreement, as amended, has been

designated NEPOOL FPC No. 2.

The Executive Committee states that

acceptance of the signature page would

permit Morgan Stanley to join the over

90 Participants already in the Pool.

NEPOOL further states that the filed

signature page does not change the

NEPOOL Agreement in any manner,

other than to make Morgan Stanley a

Participant in the Pool. NEPOOL

requests an effective date of July 1, 1996

for commencement of participation in

the Pool by Morgan Stanley.

Comment date: June 3, 1996, in

accordance with Standard Paragraph E

at the end of this notice.

Standard Paragraph

E. Any person desiring to be heard or

to protest said filing should file a

motion to intervene or protest with the

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission,

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

20426, in accordance with Rules 211

and 214 of the Commission’s Rules of

Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211

and 18 CFR 385.214). All such motions

or protests should be filed on or before

the comment date. Protests will be

considered by the Commission in

determining the appropriate action to be

taken, but will not serve to make

protestants parties to the proceeding.

Any person wishing to become a party

must file a motion to intervene. Copies

of this filing are on file with the

Commission and are available for public

inspection.

Lois D. Cashell,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 96–13216 Filed 5–24–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717–01–P

Office of Hearings and Appeals

Implementation of Special Refund

Procedures

AGENCY: Office of Hearings and Appeals,

Department of Energy.

ACTION: Notice of Implementation of

Special Refund Procedures.

SUMMARY: The Office of Hearings and

Appeals (OHA) of the Department of

Energy announces the procedures for

disbursement of $1,140,552.84 (plus

accrued interest) in alleged or

adjudicated crude oil overcharges

obtained by the DOE from Gil-Mc Oil

Corporation (Case No. LEF–0054),

LeClair Operating Company (Case No.

LEF–0054), SRG Corporation (Case No.

LEF–0056), Petroleum Carrier Company

(Case No.LEF–0119) and Dane Energy

Company (LEF–0122). The OHA has

determined that the funds obtained from

these firms, plus accrued interest, will

be distributed in accordance with the

DOE’s Modified Statement of

Restitutionary Policy in Crude Oil

Cases, 51 Fed. Reg. 27899 (August 4,

1986).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Richard T. Tedrow, Deputy Director,

Office of Hearings and Appeals,

Washington, DC 20585, (202) 426–1562.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In

accordance with 10 CFR 205.282(c),

notice is hereby given of the issuance of

the Decision and Order set forth below.

The Decision and Order sets for the

procedures that the DOE has formulated

to distribute a total of $1,140,553, plus

accrued interest, remitted to the DOE by

Gil-Mc Oil Corporation, LeClair

Operating Company, SRG Corporation,

Petroleum Carrier Company, and Dane

Energy Company. The DOE is currently

holding these funds in interest bearing

escrow accounts pending distribution.

The OHA will distribute these funds in

accordance with the DOE’s Modified

Statement of Restitutionary Policy in

Crude Oil Cases, 51 FR 27899 (August

4, 1986) (the MSRP). Under the MSRP,

crude oil overcharge monies are divided

among the federal government, the

states, and injured purchasers of refined

petroleum products. Refunds to the

states will be distributed in proportion

to each state’s consumption of

petroleum products during the price

control period. Refunds to eligible

purchasers will be based on the volume

of petroleum products that they

purchased and the extent to which they

can demonstrate injury. Because the

June 30, 1995, deadline for the crude oil

refund applications has passed, no new

applications from purchasers of refined

petroleum products will be accepted for

the 20 percent of these funds allocated

to individual claimants. Instead, that

share of the funds will be added to the

general crude oil overcharge pool used

for direct restitution.

Dated: May 16, 1996.

George B. Breznay,

Director, Office of Hearings and Appeals.

Decision and Order of the Department of

Energy

Implementation of Special Refund

Procedures

Names of Firms: Gil-Mc Oil Corporation,

LeClair Operating Company, SRG

Corporation, Petroleum Carrier Company,

Dane Energy Company.

Dates of Filings: July 20, 1993, December

7, 1993, April 8, 1994.

Case Numbers: LEF–0054, LEF–0055, LEF–

0056, LEF–0119, LEF–0122.

The Economic Regulatory Administration

(ERA) of the Department of Energy filed five

Petitions for the Implementation of Special

Refund Procedures with the Office of

Hearings and Appeals (OHA), to distribute

funds remitted to the DOE pursuant to

settlements between Gil-Mc Oil Corporation

(Gil-Mc), LeClair Operating Company

(LeClair), SRG Corporation (SRG), Petroleum

Carrier Company, (Petroleum Carrier), and

Dane Energy Company (Dane). A total of

$1,140,553, plus interest, is available for

restitution. All of these funds are now being

held in an interest-bearing account pending

a determination regarding their proper

disposition.

In accordance with the procedural

regulations codified at 10 C.F.R. Part 205,

Subpart V, the ERA requests in its Petitions

that the OHA establish special refund

procedures to remedy the effects of any

regulatory violations which were resolved by

these settlements. This Decision and Order

sets forth the OHA’s final plan to distribute

these 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–

07 (PODRA), Office of Enforcement, 9 DOE

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

DOE ¶ 82,597 (1981).

I. Background

On June 16, 1982, the DOE issued a

Proposed Remedial Order (PRO) to Gil-Mc

which alleged that certain first sales of crude

oil by Gil-Mc had been in excess of

applicable ceiling prices during the period

August 19, 1973 through January 27, 1981.

The DOE and Gil-Mc entered into a Consent

Order on March 29, 1983, which satisfied the

DOE’s claim against Gil-Mc. There is a total

of $10,273, plus interest, available from GilMc for restitution.

On June 3, 1982, the DOE issued a PRO to

LeClair which alleged that certain first sales

of crude oil by LeClair had been in excess of

applicable ceiling prices during the period

August 19, 1973 through January 27, 1981.

The DOE and LeClair entered into a Consent

Order on November 5, 1982, which satisfied

the DOE’s claim against LeClair. There is a

total of $70,386, plus interest, available from

LeClair for restitution.

On July 23, 1982, the DOE entered into a

Consent Order with SRG which resolved

DOE’s claims against SRG. Specifically, the

DOE alleged that during the period of August

19, 1973 through January 27, 1981, crude oil

was sold from certain properties operated by

SRG in excess of the applicable lawful ceiling

prices. There is a total of $171,041, plus

interest, available from SRG for restitution.

On June 26, 1987, the DOE issued a

Remedial Order to Petroleum Carrier for

violations of the crude oil pricing regulations

during the period from June 1974 through

December 1977. The DOE collected a total of

$18,853 from Petroleum Carrier pursuant to

the Remedial Order. That amount, plus

interest, is available for restitution.

On December 10, 1992, the DOE issued a

Remedial Order to Dane for violations of the

crude oil pricing regulations during the

period December 1978 through December

1980. The DOE and Dane entered into a

Consent Order on December 16, 1993, which
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 103 / Tuesday, May 28, 1996 / Notices 26515

satisfied the DOE’s claim against Dane. There

is a total of $870,000, plus interest, available

from Dane for restitution.

II. The Proposed Decisions

On October 26, 1993, May 20, 1994, and

June 6, 1994, we issued Proposed Decisions

and Orders (PDOs) that tentatively concluded

that ERA’s Petitions to implement Subpart V

proceedings with respect to the funds

collected from these five firms should be

approved. Gil-Mc Oil Corp., 58 FR 57595

(October 26, 1993) (also included LeClair and

SRG); Petroleum Carrier Co., 59 FR 26493

(May 20, 1994); Dane Energy Co., 59 FR

29287 (June 6, 1994). In each of the PDOs,

we tentatively determined that the funds

obtained from these firms should be

distributed in accordance with the DOE’s

Modified Statement of Restitutionary Policy

in Crude Oil Cases, 51 FR 27899 (August 4,

1986) (the MSRP). The MSRP was issued as

a result of a court-approved Settlement

Agreement. In re: The Department of Energy

Stripper Well Exemption Litigation, 653 F.

Supp. 108 (D. Kan. 1986) (the Stripper Well

Settlement Agreement). The MSRP

establishes that 40 percent of the crude oil

funds will be remitted to the federal

government, another 40 percent to the states,

and up to 20 percent may be initially

reserved for payment of claims to injured

parties.

The MSRP also specifies that any monies

remaining after all valid claims by injured

purchasers are paid be disbursed to the

federal government and the states in equal

amounts.

The OHA has utilized the MSRP in all

Subpart V proceedings involving alleged

crude oil violations. See Order Implementing

the MSRP, 51 FR 29689 (August 20, 1986).

This Order provided a period of 30 days for

filing of comments or objections to our

proposed use of the MSRP as the groundwork

for evaluating claims in crude oil refund

proceedings. Following this period, the OHA

issued a Notice evaluating the numerous

comments which it had received pursuant to

the Order Implementing the MSRP. This

notice was published at 52 FR 11737 (April

10, 1987).

The April 10, 1987 Notice contained

guidance to assist potential claimants

wishing to file refund applications for crude

oil monies under the Subpart V regulations.

Generally, all claimants would be required to

(1) document their purchase volumes of

petroleum products during the August 19,

1973 through January 27, 1981 crude oil

price control period, and (2) show that they

were injured by the alleged crude oil

overcharges. We also specified that end-users

of petroleum products whose businesses

were unrelated to the petroleum industry

will be presumed to have been injured by the

alleged crude oil overcharges. End-users,

therefore, need only submit documentation

of their purchase volumes. See City of

Columbus, Georgia, 16 DOE ¶ 85,550 (1987).

Additionally, we stated that we would

calculate crude oil refunds on a per gallon (or

volumetric) basis. We obtained this figure by

dividing the crude oil refund pool by the

total consumption of petroleum products in

the United States during the crude oil price

control period. OHA is currently paying

crude oil refund claims at the rate of $0.0016

per gallon. We will decide whether sufficient

crude oil overcharge funds are available for

additional refunds when we are better able to

determine how much additional money will

be collected from firms that have either

outstanding obligations to the DOE or

enforcement cases currently in litigation.

III. The Refund Procedure

No comments were received on the PDOs,

and we adopt the tentative determination to

distribute these funds in accordance with the

MSRP. These standard crude oil procedures

will be used to distribute the funds remitted

by Gil-Mc, LeClair, SRG, Petroleum Carrier

and Dane. Accordingly, we shall initially

reserve 20 percent of these funds,

$228,110.56, plus accrued interest, for direct

refunds to claimants in order to ensure

sufficient funds will be available for injured

parties. As we have stated in prior decisions,

a crude oil refund applicant need only

submit one application for its share of all

available crude oil overcharge funds. See,

e.g., A. Tarricone, Inc., 15 DOE ¶ 85,495

(1987). June 30, 1995, was the final deadline

for filing Applications for Refund from the

crude oil funds. See 60 FR 19914 (April 21,

1995). A party that submitted a timely claim

in the crude oil refund proceeding need not

file another claim in order to share in the

funds at issue in this Decision.

Under the terms of the MSRP, the

remaining 80 percent of the funds collected

from these five firms shall be disbursed in

equal shares to the states and the federal

government for indirect restitution. Refunds

to the states will be in proportion to the

consumption of petroleum products in each

state during the period of price controls. The

share or ratio of the funds which each state

will receive is contained in Exhibit H of the

Stripper Well Settlement Agreement, 6 Fed.

Energy Guidelines ¶ 90,509 at 90,687. 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.

It Is Therefore Ordered That: The Director

of Special Accounts and Payroll, Office of

Departmental Accounting and Financial

Systems Development, Office of the

Controller of the Department of Energy shall

take all steps necessary to transfer $10,273,

plus all accrued interest, from the Gil-Mc

subaccount (Account No. 670C00339T),

$70,386, plus all accrued interest from the

LeClair subaccount (Account No.

600C20071T), $171,041, plus all accrued

interest from the SRG subaccount (Account

No. 400C00200T), $18,853, plus all accrued

interest from the Petroleum Carrier

subaccount (Account No. 6A0X00253Z) and

$870,000, plus all accrued interest, from the

Dane subaccount (Account No.

6A0X00320Z), for a total of $1,140,553, plus

all accrued interest, pursuant to Paragraphs

(2), (3), and (4) of this Decision.

(2) The Director of Special Accounts and

Payroll shall transfer $456,221 (plus interest)

of the funds obtained pursuant to Paragraph

(1) above into the subaccount denominated

‘‘Crude Tracking—States,’’ Number

999DOE003W.

(3) The Director of Special Accounts and

Payroll shall transfer $456,221 (plus interest)

of the funds obtained pursuant to Paragraph

(1) above into the subaccount denominated

‘‘Crude Tracking—Federal,’’ Number

999DOE002W.

(4) The Director of Special Accounts and

Payroll shall transfer $228,111 (plus interest)

of the funds obtained pursuant to Paragraph

(1) above into the subaccount denominated

‘‘Crude Tracking—Claimants 4,’’ Number

999DOE010Z.

(5) This is a final Order of the Department

of Energy.

Dated: May 16, 1996.

George B. Breznay,

Director, Office of Hearings and Appeals.

[FR Doc. 96–13245 Filed 5–24–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

[FRL–5510–1]

San Gabriel Valley Superfund Sites,

Areas 1–4; Proposed Notice of

Administrative Settlement

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice; Request for public

comment.

SUMMARY: In accordance with the

Comprehensive Environmental

Response, Compensation and Liability

Act of 1980, as amended by the

Superfund Amendments and

Reauthorization Act of 1986

(‘‘CERCLA’’), 42 U.S.C. 9600 et seq.,

notice is hereby given that a proposed

prospective purchaser agreement

associated with the San Gabriel Valley

Superfund Sites, Areas 1–4 was

executed by the United States

Environmental Protection Agency

(‘‘EPA’’) on May 13, 1996. The proposed

prospective purchaser agreement would

resolve certain potential claims of the

United States under sections 106 and

107 of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. 9606 and

9607, and section 7003 of the Solid

Waste Disposal Act, as amended, 42

U.S.C. 6973, against the Monsanto

Company (the ‘‘Purchaser’’). The

proposed settlement would require the

purchaser to pay EPA a one-time

payment of $150,000.

For thirty (30) calendar days

following the date of publication of this

notice, EPA will receive written

comments relating to the proposed

settlement. If requested prior to the

expiration of this public comment

period, EPA will provide an opportunity

for a public meeting in the effected area.

EPA’s response to any comments

received will be available for public