Commitments and Contingencies.

Investment

Dynegy Inc.

On March 28, 2012 an action was filed in the U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, entitled Silsby v. Icahn et. al. Defendants include Carl C. Icahn and two officers of Dynegy Inc. ("Dynegy") and certain of its directors. As initially filed, the action purports to be brought as a class action on behalf of Dynegy shareholders who acquired their shares between September 2011 and March 2012. The Complaint alleges violations of the federal securities laws by defendants' allegedly making false and misleading statements in securities filings which statements artificially inflated the price of Dynegy stock. The individual defendants are alleged to have been controlling persons of Dynegy. Plaintiff is seeking damages in an unspecified amount. Subsequent to the filing of this action, Dynegy filed for bankruptcy, and a U.S. bankruptcy court has approved a Plan of Reorganization. Plaintiff is proceeding with the action and has filed an amended complaint that purports to be a class action on behalf of Dynegy shareholders who acquired their securities between July 10, 2011 and March 9, 2012. We believe that we have meritorious defenses to the claims and filed a motion to dismiss on July 19, 2013. At present, the motion to dismiss the case is pending.

Dell Inc.

On August 1, 2013, High River Limited Partnership and each of the Investment Funds (collectively, the “Icahn Parties”), filed an action in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware ("Court") against Dell Inc., (“Dell”), and the members of its board of directors, including Michael Dell (the “Dell Board”). The complaint challenges certain actions taken by the Dell Board in relation to a going-private merger (the “Merger”) and an alternative recapitalization of Dell proposed by the Icahn Parties and others. In particular the complaint challenges actions taken by the Dell Board in relation to a special meeting to vote on the Merger and the failure of the Dell Board to hold an annual meeting of stockholders at which the Icahn Parties and others intended to seek stockholders approval of new directors who would support the recapitalization proposal. The complaint seeks both injunctive and declaratory relief. On August 16, 2013, the Court held a conference on the Icahn Parties' motion for expedition. It denied that motion, finding that the complaint did not establish a sufficiently colorable claim to require expedition. The Court thereafter entered a stipulated order setting the date for Dell's 2013 annual meeting. Following the Court conference the parties entered a stipulation extending defendants time to respond to the complaint. The Icahn Parties voluntarily dismissed the action on January 10, 2014.

Automotive

Environmental Matters

Federal-Mogul is a defendant in lawsuits filed, or the recipient of administrative orders issued or demand letters received, in various jurisdictions pursuant to the Federal Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act of 1980 (“CERCLA”) or other similar national, provincial or state environmental remedial laws. These laws provide that responsible parties may be liable to pay for remediating contamination resulting from hazardous substances that were discharged into the environment by them, by prior owners or occupants of property they currently own or operate, or by others to whom they sent such substances for treatment or other disposition at third party locations. Federal-Mogul has been notified by the United States Environmental Protection Agency, other national environmental agencies, and various provincial and state agencies that it may be a potentially responsible party (“PRP”) under such laws for the cost of remediating hazardous substances pursuant to CERCLA and other national and state or provincial environmental laws. PRP designation often results in the funding of site investigations and subsequent remedial activities.

Many of the sites that are likely to be the costliest to remediate are often current or former commercial waste disposal facilities to which numerous companies sent wastes. Despite the potential joint and several liability which might be imposed on Federal-Mogul under CERCLA and some of the other laws pertaining to these sites, its share of the total waste sent to these sites has generally been small. Federal-Mogul believes its exposure for liability at these sites is limited.

Federal-Mogul has also identified certain other present and former properties at which it may be responsible for cleaning up or addressing environmental contamination, in some cases as a result of contractual commitments and/or federal or state environmental laws. Federal-Mogul is actively seeking to resolve these actual and potential statutory, regulatory and contractual obligations. Although difficult to quantify based on the complexity of the issues, Federal-Mogul has accrued amounts corresponding to its best estimate of the costs associated with such regulatory and contractual obligations on the basis of available information from site investigations and best professional judgment of consultants.

Total environmental liabilities, determined on an undiscounted basis, were $14 million and $15 million at December 31, 2013 and 2012, respectively, and are included in accrued expenses and other liabilities in our consolidated balance sheets.

Federal-Mogul believes that recorded environmental liabilities will be adequate to cover its estimated liability for its exposure in respect to such matters. In the event that such liabilities were to significantly exceed the amounts recorded by Federal-Mogul, our Automotive segment's results of operations could be materially affected. At December 31, 2013, Federal-Mogul estimates reasonably possible material additional losses, above and beyond its best estimate of required remediation costs as recorded, to approximate $44 million.

Asset Retirement Obligations

Federal-Mogul has identified sites with contractual obligations and several sites that are closed or expected to be closed and sold. In connection with these sites, Federal-Mogul has accrued $26 million and $29 million at December 31, 2013 and 2012, respectively, for ARO's, primarily related to anticipated costs of removing hazardous building materials at its facilities, and has considered impairment issues that may result from capitalization of these ARO amounts.

Federal-Mogul has conditional asset retirement obligations ("CARO"), primarily related to removal costs of hazardous materials in buildings, for which it believes reasonable cost estimates cannot be made at this time because it does not believe it has a reasonable basis to assign probabilities to a range of potential settlement dates for these retirement obligations. Accordingly, Federal-Mogul is currently unable to determine amounts to accrue for CARO at such sites.

Energy

Unconditional Purchase Obligations

The minimum required payments for CVR's unconditional purchase obligations are as follows:



	Unconditional Purchase Obligations⁽¹⁾
	(in millions)
2014	$	121
2015	110
2016	102
2017	101
2018	101
Thereafter	883
	$	1,418

⁽¹⁾This amount includes $973 million payable ratably over nine years pursuant to petroleum transportation service agreements between CRRM and TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, LP ("TransCanada"). Under the agreements, CRRM receives transportation for at least 25,000 barrels per day of crude oil with a delivery point at Cushing, Oklahoma for a term of 20 years on TransCanada's Keystone pipeline system. CRRM began receiving crude oil under the agreements in the first quarter of 2011.

Unconditional Purchase Obligations

CVR leases various equipment, including rail cars, and real properties under long-term operating leases expiring at various dates. For the year ended December 31, 2013 and the period May 5, 2012 through December 31, 2012, lease expense approximated $9 million and $6 million, respectively. The lease agreements have various remaining terms. Some agreements are renewable, at CVR's option, for additional periods. It is expected, in the ordinary course of business, that leases will be renewed or replaced as they expire. Additionally, in the normal course of business, CVR has long-term commitments to purchase oxygen, nitrogen, electricity, storage capacity and pipeline transportation services.

Crude Oil Supply Agreement

On August 31, 2012, Coffeyville Resources Refining & Marketing, LLC ("CRRM") and Vitol Inc. (“Vitol”), entered into an Amended and Restated Crude Oil Supply Agreement (the “Vitol Agreement”). The Vitol Agreement amends and restates the Crude Oil Supply Agreement between CRRM and Vitol dated March 30, 2011, as amended. Under the Vitol Agreement, Vitol supplies the petroleum business with crude oil and intermediation logistics, which helps to reduce CVR Refining's inventory position and mitigate crude oil pricing risk.

The Vitol Agreement has an initial term commencing on August 31, 2012 and extending through December 31, 2014 (the "Initial Term"). Following the Initial Term, the Vitol Agreement will automatically renew for successive one-year terms (each such term, a "Renewal Term") unless either party provides the other with notice of nonrenewal at least 180 days prior to expiration of the Initial Term or any Renewal Term.

Litigation

From time to time, CVR is involved in various lawsuits arising in the normal course of business, including matters such as those described below under, "Environmental, Health and Safety Matters." Liabilities related to such litigation are recognized when the related costs are probable and can be reasonably estimated. These provisions are reviewed at least quarterly and adjusted to reflect the impacts of negotiations, settlements, rulings, advice of legal counsel and other information and events pertaining to a particular case. It is possible that CVR's management estimates of the outcomes will change due to uncertainties inherent in litigation and settlement negotiations. In the opinion of CVR management, the ultimate resolution of any other litigation matters is not expected to have a material adverse effect. There can be no assurance that CVR management's beliefs or opinions with respect to liability for potential litigation matters are accurate.

Samson Resources Company, Samson Lone Star, LLC and Samson Contour Energy E&P, LLC (together, "Samson") filed fifteen lawsuits in federal and state courts in Oklahoma and two lawsuits in state courts in New Mexico against CRRM and other defendants between March 2009 and July 2009. In addition, in May 2010, separate groups of plaintiffs (the "Anstine and Arrow cases") filed two lawsuits against CRRM and other defendants in state court in Oklahoma and Kansas. All of the lawsuits filed in state court were removed to federal court. All of the lawsuits (except for the New Mexico suits, which remained in federal court in New Mexico) were then transferred to the Bankruptcy Court for the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, where the SemGroup bankruptcy resides. In March 2011, CRRM was dismissed without prejudice from the New Mexico suits. All of the lawsuits alleged that Samson or other respective plaintiffs sold crude oil to a group of companies, which generally are known as SemCrude or SemGroup (collectively, "Sem"), which later declared bankruptcy and that Sem has not paid such plaintiffs for all of the crude oil purchased from Sem. The Samson lawsuits further alleged that Sem sold some of the crude oil purchased from Samson to J. Aron & Company ("J. Aron") and that J. Aron sold some of this crude oil to CRRM. All of the lawsuits sought the same remedy, the imposition of a trust, an accounting and the return of crude oil or the proceeds therefrom. The amount of the plaintiffs' alleged claims is unknown since the price and amount of crude oil sold by the plaintiffs and eventually received by CRRM through Sem and J. Aron, if any, is unknown. CRRM timely paid for all crude oil purchased from J. Aron. On January 26, 2011, CRRM and J. Aron entered into an agreement whereby J. Aron agreed to indemnify and defend CRRM from any damage, out-of-pocket expense or loss in connection with any crude oil involved in the lawsuits which CRRM purchased through J. Aron, and J. Aron agreed to reimburse CRRM's prior attorney fees and out-of-pocket expenses in connection with the lawsuits. The indemnification agreement does not provide reimbursement for any damages that CRRM may be liable for in connection with any purchases it made directly from Sem. Samson and CRRM entered a stipulation of dismissal with respect to all of the Samson cases and the Samson cases were dismissed with prejudice on February 8, 2012. The dismissal does not pertain to the Anstine and Arrow cases. In February 2013, CRRM agreed to settlement in the Anstine and Arrow cases which was finalized with the plaintiffs in June 2013, and CRRM was dismissed with prejudice. The settlement did not have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial statements.

On June 21, 2012, Goldman, Sachs & Co. (“GS”) filed suit against CVR in state court in New York, alleging that CVR failed to pay GS approximately $18.5 million in fees allegedly due to GS by CVR pursuant to an engagement letter dated March 21, 2012, which according to the allegations set forth in the complaint, provided that GS was engaged by CVR to assist CVR and the CVR board of directors in connection with a tender offer for CVR's common stock made by Carl C. Icahn and certain of his affiliates. CVR believes it has meritorious defenses and intends to vigorously defend against the suit. This amount has been fully accrued as of December 31, 2013 and 2012.

On August 10, 2012, Deutsche Bank (“DB”) filed suit against CVR in state court in New York, alleging that CVR failed to pay DB $18.5 million in fees allegedly due to DB by CVR pursuant to an engagement letter dated March 23, 2012, which according to the allegations set forth in the complaint, provided that DB was engaged by CVR to assist CVR and the CVR board of directors in connection with a tender offer for CVR's stock made by Carl C. Icahn and certain of his affiliates. CVR believes it has meritorious defenses and intends to vigorously defend against the suit. This amount has been fully accrued as of December 31, 2013 and 2012.

On December 17, 2012, Gary Community Investment Company, f/k/a The Gary-Williams Company and GWEC Holding Company, Inc. (referred to herein collectively as “Gary-Williams”) filed a lawsuit in the Supreme Court of New York, New York County (Gary Community Investment Co. v. CVR Energy, Inc., No. 654401/12) against CVR and CRLLC (referred to collectively for purposes of this paragraph as “CVR”). The action arose out of claims relating to CVR’s purchase of the Wynnewood, Oklahoma refinery pursuant to the Purchase and Sale Agreement entered into by the parties on November 2, 2011 (the “Purchase Agreement”). Specifically, CVR had provided notice to Gary-Williams that it sought indemnification for various breaches of the Purchase Agreement and had subsequently made a claim notice for payment of the entire escrow property pursuant to the Escrow Agreement by and among Gary-Williams, CRLLC and the escrow agent, dated as of December 15, 2011. Gary-Williams, in its lawsuit, alleged that CVR breached the Purchase Agreement and the Escrow Agreement, and sought a declaratory judgment that CVR’s claims are without any legal basis, damages in an unspecified amount, and release of the full amount of the escrow property to Gary-Williams.

In November 2013, each of the claims related to the Purchase Agreement and Escrow Agreement were settled by CVR and Gary-Williams, and the lawsuit was subsequently dismissed. Funds received by CVR from the Escrow Agreement under the settlement were not material and are included in other income, net in our consolidated statement of operations for the year ended December 31, 2013.

CRNF received a ten-year property tax abatement from Montgomery County, Kansas in connection with the construction of the nitrogen fertilizer plant that expired on December 31, 2007. In connection with the expiration of the abatement, the county reclassified and reassessed CRNF's nitrogen fertilizer plant for property tax purposes. The reclassification and reassessment resulted in an increase in CRNF's annual property tax expense by an average of $11 million per year for each of the years ended December 31, 2008 and 2009, $12 million for the year ended December 31, 2010 and $11 million for each of the years ended December 31, 2011 and 2012. CRNF protested the classification and resulting valuation for each of those years to the Kansas Court of Tax Appeals ("COTA"), followed by an appeal to the Kansas Court of Appeals. However, CRNF fully accrued and paid the property taxes the county claims are owed for the years ended December 31, 2008 through 2012. The Kansas Court of Appeals, in a memorandum opinion dated August 9, 2013, reversed the COTA decision, in part and remanded the case to COTA instructing COTA to classify each asset on an asset by asset basis instead of making a broad determination that the entire plant was real property as COTA did originally. CRNF believes that when that asset by asset determination is done, the majority of the plant will be classified as personal property which would result in significantly lower property taxes for CRNF for 2008 and for those years after the conclusion of the property tax settlement noted below as compared to the taxes paid by CRNF prior to the settlement. The County filed a motion for rehearing with the Kansas Court of Appeals seeking reconsideration of the Court’s August 9, 2013 decision and that motion was denied. The County has also filed a petition for review with the Kansas Supreme Court and that petition is pending.

On February 25, 2013, Montgomery County and CRNF agreed to a settlement for tax years 2009 through 2012, which will lower CRNF's property taxes by about $11 million per year for tax years 2013 through 2016 based on current mill levy rates. In addition, the settlement provides that Montgomery County will support CRNF's application before COTA for a ten year tax exemption for the UAN expansion. Finally, the settlement provides that CRNF will continue its appeal of the 2008 reclassification and reassessment discussed above.

Flood, Crude Oil Discharge and Insurance

Crude oil was discharged from CVR's Coffeyville refinery on July 1, 2007, due to the short amount of time available to shut down and secure the refinery in preparation for the flood that occurred on June 30, 2007. In May 2008, in connection with the discharge, CVR received in May 2008, notices of claims from 16 private claimants under the Oil Pollution Act ("OPA") in an aggregate amount of approximately $4 million ((plus punitive damages). In August 2008, those claimants filed suit against CVR in the United States District Court for the District of Kansas in Wichita (the "Angleton Case"). In October 2009 and June 2010, companion cases to the Angleton Case were filed in the United States District Court for the District of Kansas in Wichita, seeking a total of approximately $3 million (plus punitive damages) for three additional plaintiffs as a result of the July 1, 2007 crude oil discharge. CVR has settled all of the claims with the plaintiffs from the Angleton Case and has settled all but one of the plaintiffs from the companion cases. The settlements did not have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial statements. CVR believes that the resolution of the remaining claim will not have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial statements.

As a result of the crude oil discharge that occurred on July 1, 2007, CVR entered into an administrative order on consent (the "Consent Order") with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (the "EPA") on July 10, 2007. As set forth in the Consent Order, the EPA concluded that the discharge of crude oil from CVR's Coffeyville refinery caused an imminent and substantial threat to public health and welfare. Pursuant to the Consent Order, CVR agreed to perform specified remedial actions to respond to the discharge of crude oil from CVR's refinery. The substantial majority of all required remedial actions were completed by January 31, 2009. CVR prepared and provided its final report to the EPA in January 2011 to satisfy the final requirement of the Consent Order. In April 2011, the EPA provided CVR with a notice of completion indicating that CVR has no continuing obligations under the Consent Order, while reserving its rights to recover oversight costs and penalties.

On October 25, 2010, CVR received a letter from the United States Coast Guard on behalf of the EPA seeking $2 million in oversight cost reimbursement. CVR responded by asserting defenses to the Coast Guard's claim for oversight costs. On September 23, 2011, the United States Department of Justice (the "DOJ"), acting on behalf of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") and the United States Coast Guard, filed suit against CRRM in the United States District Court for the District of Kansas seeking recovery from CRRM related to alleged non-compliance with the Clean Air Act's Risk Management Program (“RMP”), the Clean Water Act (“CWA”) and the OPA. CRRM has reached an agreement with the DOJ resolving its claims under the CWA and the OPA. The agreement is memorialized in a Consent Decree that was filed with and approved by the Court on February 12, 2013 and March 25, 2013, respectively (the “2013 Consent Decree”). On April 19, 2013, CRRM paid a civil penalty (including accrued interest) in the amount of $0.6 million related to the CWA claims and reimbursed the Coast Guard for oversight costs under OPA in the amount of $1.7 million. The 2013 Consent Decree also requires CRRM to make small capital upgrades to the Coffeyville refinery crude oil tank farm, develop flood procedures and provide employee training.

The parties also reached an agreement to settle DOJ’s claims related to alleged non-compliance with RMP. The agreement is memorialized in a separate consent decree that was filed with and approved by the Court on May 21, 2013 and July 2, 2013, respectively, and provided for a civil penalty of $0.3 million. On July 29, 2013, CRRM paid the civil penalty related to the RMP claims. The RMP consent decree also requires CRRM to conduct several audits related to compliance with RMP requirements.

CVR is seeking insurance coverage for this release and for the ultimate costs for remediation and third-party property damage claims. On July 10, 2008, CVR filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Kansas against certain of CVR's environmental insurance carriers requesting insurance coverage indemnification for the June/July 2007 flood and crude oil discharge losses. Each insurer reserved its rights under various policy exclusions and limitations and cited potential coverage defenses. Although the Court has now issued summary judgment opinions that eliminate the majority of the insurance defendants' reservations and defenses, CVR cannot be certain of the ultimate amount or timing of such recovery because of the difficulty inherent in projecting the ultimate resolution of CVR's claims. CVR has received $25 million of insurance proceeds under its primary environmental liability insurance policy, which constitutes full payment to CVR of the primary pollution liability policy limit.

The lawsuit with the insurance carriers under the environmental policies remains the only unsettled lawsuit with the insurance carriers related to these events.

Environmental, Health and Safety Matters

The petroleum and nitrogen fertilizer businesses are subject to various stringent federal, state, and local Environmental, Health and Safety ("EHS") rules and regulations. Liabilities related to EHS matters are recognized when the related costs are probable and can be reasonably estimated. Estimates of these costs are based upon currently available facts, existing technology, site-specific costs and currently enacted laws and regulations. In reporting EHS liabilities, no offset is made for potential recoveries.

CRRM, CRNF, Coffeyville Resources Crude Transportation, LLC ("CRCT"), Wynnewood Refining Company, LLC ("WRC") and Coffeyville Resources Terminal, LLC ("CRT") own and/or operate manufacturing and ancillary operations at various locations directly related to petroleum refining and distribution and nitrogen fertilizer manufacturing. Therefore, CRRM, CRNF, CRCT, WRC and CRT have exposure to potential EHS liabilities related to past and present EHS conditions at these locations. Under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act ("CERCLA"), the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (“RCRA”), and related state laws, certain persons may be liable for the release or threatened release of hazardous substances. These persons include the current owner or operator of property where a release or threatened release occurred, any persons who owned or operated the property when the release occurred, and any persons who disposed of, or arranged for the transportation or disposal of, hazardous substances at a contaminated property. Liability under CERCLA is strict, and under certain circumstances, joint and several, so that any responsible party may be held liable for the entire cost of investigating and remediating the release of hazardous substances. Similarly, the OPA generally subjects owners and operators of facilities to strict, joint and several liability for all containment and clean-up costs, natural resource damages, and potential governmental oversight costs arising from oil spills into the waters of the United States, which has been broadly interpreted to include most water bodies including intermittent streams.

CRRM and CRT have agreed to perform corrective actions at the Coffeyville, Kansas refinery and the now-closed Phillipsburg, Kansas terminal facility, pursuant to Administrative Orders on Consent issued under RCRA to address historical contamination by the prior owners (RCRA Docket No. VII-94-H-0020 and Docket No. VII-95-H-011, respectively). As of both December 31, 2013 and 2012, environmental accruals of $2 million were reflected in the consolidated balance sheets for probable and estimated costs for remediation of environmental contamination under the RCRA Administrative Orders. Accruals were determined based on an estimate of payment costs through 2031, for which the scope of remediation was arranged with the EPA, and were discounted at the appropriate risk free rates at December 31, 2013 and 2012. The accruals include estimated closure and post-closure costs of $1 million for the two landfills at both December 31, 2013 and 2012.

CVR's management periodically reviews and, as appropriate, revises its environmental accruals. Based on current information and regulatory requirements, CVR's management believes that the accruals established for environmental expenditures are adequate.

CRRM, CRNF, CRCT, WRC and CRT are subject to extensive and frequently changing federal, state and local EHS laws and regulations governing the emission and release of hazardous substances into the environment, the treatment and discharge of waste water, the storage, handling, use and transportation of petroleum and nitrogen products, and the characteristics and composition of gasoline and diesel fuels. The ultimate impact on CVR's business of complying with evolving laws and regulations is not always clearly known or determinable due in part to the fact that our operations may change over time and certain implementing regulations for laws, such as the federal Clean Air Act, have not yet been finalized, are under governmental or judicial review or are being revised. These laws and regulations could result in increased capital, operating and compliance costs.

In 2007, the EPA promulgated the Mobile Source Air Toxic II (“MSAT II”) rule that requires the reduction of benzene in gasoline by 2011. CRRM and WRC are considered to be small refiners under the MSAT II rule and compliance with the rule is extended until 2015 for small refiners. As a result of our purchase of a controlling interest in CVR on May 4, 2012, CVR's MSATII projects have been accelerated by three months due to the loss of small refiner status. Total capital expenditures to comply with the rule are expected to be approximately $63 million for CRRM and $105 million for WRC. As of December 31, 2013, $25 million and $52 million have been spent related to these projects by CRRM and WRC, respectively.

The petroleum refining industry is subject to the Renewable Fuel Standard ("RFS"), which requires refiners to blend "renewable fuels" in with their transportation fuels or purchase renewable fuel credits, known as renewable identification numbers ("RINs"), in lieu of blending. The EPA is required to determine and publish the applicable annual renewable fuel percentage standards for each compliance year by November 30 for the forthcoming year. The percentage standards represent the ratio of renewable fuel volume to gasoline and diesel volume. On August 6, 2013, the EPA announced that the final 2013 renewable fuel standard percentage would be 9.74%. Beginning in 2011, the Coffeyville refinery was required to blend renewable fuels into its gasoline and diesel fuel or purchase RINs in lieu of blending, and in 2013, the Wynnewood refinery was subject to the RFS for the first time, unless the Wynnewood refinery receives a further extension of its "hardship" relief for 2013 based on the "disproportionate economic impact" of the rule on the Wynnewood refinery. From time to time, the petroleum business may purchase RINs on the open market or waiver credits for cellulosic biofuels from the EPA in order to comply with RFS. While the petroleum business cannot predict the future prices of RINs or waiver credits, the cost of purchasing RINs was extremely volatile in 2013, as the EPA's proposed 2013 renewable fuel volume mandates approached the "blend wall". The blend wall refers to limitations on adding increasing amounts of ethanol into the transportation fuel supply at volumes exceeding those achieved by the sale of nearly all gasoline as E10 (gasoline containing 10 percent ethanol by volume). The EPA has published the proposed volume mandates for 2014, which are generally lower than the volumes for 2013 and lower than statutory mandates. The price of RINs has decreased significantly after the 2014 mandate was published; however, RIN prices have remained volatile and have increased in 2014. The cost of RINs for the year ended December 31, 2013 and the period May 5, 2012 through December 31, 2012 was $181 million and $14 million, respectively. As of December 31, 2013 and 2012, the petroleum business' biofuel blending obligation was $17 million and $1 million, respectively, which was recorded in accrued expenses and other liabilities on the consolidated balance sheets. The future cost of RINs for the petroleum business going forward is difficult to estimate. In particular, the cost of RINs is dependent upon a variety of factors, which include the availability of RINs for purchase, the price at which RINs can be purchased, transportation fuel production levels, the mix of the petroleum business' petroleum products, as well as the fuel blending performed at the its refineries, all of which can vary significantly from quarter to quarter.

In 2013, the EPA proposed "Tier 3" gasoline sulfur standards. Based on the proposed standards, CRRM anticipates it will incur less than $20 million of capital expenditures to install controls in order to meet the anticipated new standards. The project is expected to be completed during the Coffeyville refinery's next scheduled turnaround in 2016. It is not anticipated that the Wynnewood refinery will require additional controls or capital expenditures to meet the anticipated new standard.

In March 2004, CRRM and CRT entered into a Consent Decree (the "2004 Consent Decree") with the EPA and the Kansas Department of Health and Environment (the "KDHE") to resolve air compliance concerns raised by the EPA and KDHE related to Farmland Industries Inc.'s prior ownership and operation of the Coffeyville crude oil refinery and the now-closed Phillipsburg terminal facilities. Under the 2004 Consent Decree, CRRM agreed to install controls to reduce emissions of sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides and particulate matter from its FCCU by January 1, 2011. In addition, pursuant to the 2004 Consent Decree, CRRM and CRT assumed clean-up obligations at the Coffeyville refinery and the now-closed Phillipsburg terminal facilities.

In March 2012, CRRM entered into a "Second Consent Decree" with the EPA, which replaces the 2004 Consent Decree, as amended (other than certain financial assurance provisions associated with corrective action at the refinery and terminal under RCRA). The Second Consent Decree was entered by the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas on April 19, 2012. The Second Consent Decree gives CRRM more time to install the FCCU controls from the 2004 Consent Decree and expands the scope of the settlement so that it is now considered a "global settlement" under the EPA's "National Petroleum Refining Initiative." Under the National Petroleum Refining Initiative, the EPA alleged industry-wide non-compliance with four "marquee" issues under the Clean Air Act: New Source Review, Flaring, Leak Detection and Repair, and Benzene Waste Operations NESHAP. The National Petroleum Refining Initiative has resulted in most U.S. refineries (representing more than 90% of the US refining capacity) entering into consent decrees requiring the payment of civil penalties and the installation of air pollution control equipment and enhanced operating procedures. Under the Second Consent Decree, CVR was required to pay a civil penalty of less than $1 million and complete the installation of FCCU controls required under the 2004 Consent Decree, add controls to certain heaters and boilers and enhance certain work practices relating to wastewater and fugitive emissions. The remaining costs of complying with the Second Consent Decree are expected to be approximately $40 million. CRRM also agreed to complete a voluntary environmental project that will reduce air emissions and conserve water at an estimated cost of $1 million. The incremental capital expenditures associated with the Second Consent Decree will not be material and will be limited primarily to the retrofit and replacement of heaters and boilers over a five to seven year time-frame.

WRC entered into a Consent Order with the Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality (the "ODEQ") in August 2011 (the "Wynnewood Consent Order"). The Wynnewood Consent Order addresses certain historic Clean Air Act compliance issues related to the operations of the prior owner. Under the Wynnewood Consent Order, WRC paid a civil penalty of $950,000 and agreed to install certain controls, enhance certain compliance programs, and undertake additional testing and auditing. A substantial portion of the costs of complying with the Wynnewood Consent Order were expended during the last turnaround. The remaining costs are expected to be approximately $3 million. In consideration for entering into the Wynnewood Consent Order, WRC received a release from liability from ODEQ for matters described in the ODEQ order.

From time to time, ODEQ conducts inspections of the Wynnewood refinery and identifies areas of alleged non-compliance. ODEQ routinely pursues enforcement related to the alleged non-compliance seeking civil penalties and injunctive relief, which may necessitate the installation of controls. In January 2014, ODEQ issued a full compliance evaluation report covering the period from December 2010 through June 2013, which attributed to GWEC ownership and operation and, in some cases, continued into CVR's ownership of the Wynnewood refinery. The agency has indicated that it will pursue enforcement related to the alleged non-compliance and that it expects to enter into a second Consent Order with CVR, which would necessitate the payment of a civil penalty and the implementation of injunctive relief to address the alleged non-compliance. The costs of any such enforcement action cannot be predicted at this time. However, based on our experience related to Clean Air Act enforcement and control requirements, CVR does not anticipate that the costs of any civil penalties, required additional controls or operational changes would be material.

WRC has entered into a series of Clean Water Act consent orders with ODEQ. The latest Consent Order (the "CWA Consent Order"), which supersedes other consent orders, became effective in September 2011. The CWA Consent Order addresses alleged non-compliance by WRC with its Oklahoma Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit limits. The CWA Consent Order requires WRC to take corrective action steps, including undertaking studies to determine whether the Wynnewood refinery's wastewater treatment plant capacity is sufficient. The Wynnewood refinery may need to install additional controls or make operational changes to satisfy the requirements of the CWA Consent Order. The cost of additional controls, if any, cannot be predicted at this time. However, based on our experience with wastewater treatment and controls, CVR does not anticipate that the costs of any required additional controls or operational changes would be material.

In January 2014, ODEQ issued a Notice of Violation to the Wynnewood refinery related to alleged violations of its OPDES permit. The costs of any related enforcement action cannot be predicted at this time. However, based on CVR's experience related to CWA enforcement, it does not anticipate that the costs of any civil penalties, required additional controls or operational changes would be material.

In January 2014, the EPA also issued an inspection report to the Wynnewood refinery related to a RCRA compliance evaluation inspection conducted in March 2013. The inspection report identified areas of concern for which EPA may take enforcement action. The costs of any related enforcement action cannot be predicted at this time. However, based on CVR's experiences related to RCRA enforcement, it does not anticipate that the costs of any civil penalties, required additional controls or operational changes would be material.

Environmental expenditures are capitalized when such expenditures are expected to result in future economic benefits. For the year ended December 31, 2013 and the period May 5, 2012 through December 31, 2012, capital expenditures were and $111 million and $21 million, respectively, and were incurred to improve the environmental compliance and efficiency of the operations.

CRRM, CRNF, CRCT, WRC and CRT each believes it is in substantial compliance with existing EHS rules and regulations. There can be no assurance that the EHS matters described above or other EHS matters which may develop in the future will not have a material adverse effect on CVR's business, financial condition, or results of operations.

On September 28, 2012, the Wynnewood refinery experienced an explosion in a boiler unit during startup after a short outage as part of the turnaround process. Two employees were fatally injured. Damage at the refinery was limited to the boiler. Additionally, there has been no evidence of environmental impact. The refinery was in the final stages of shutdown for turnaround maintenance at the time of the incident. The petroleum business completed an internal investigation of the incident and cooperated with OSHA in its investigation. OSHA also conducted a general inspection of the facility during the boiler incident investigation. In March 2013, OSHA completed its investigation and communicated its citations to WRC. OSHA also placed WRC in its Severe Violators Enforcement Program (“SVEP”). WRC is vigorously contesting the citations and OSHA’s placement of WRC in the SVEP. Any penalties associated with OSHA’s citations are not expected to have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial statements. On September 25, 2013, WRC agreed to pay a small civil penalty to settle rather than defend claims alleged by the EPA under the Clean Air Act's general duty clause related to the boiler incident. In addition to the above, the spouses of the two employees fatally injured have filed a civil lawsuit against WRC, CVR Refining and CVR Energy in Fort Bend County, Texas. The civil suit is in its preliminary stages and it is currently too early to assess a potential outcome.

Metals

Environmental Matters

Certain of PSC Metals' facilities are environmentally impaired in part as a result of operating practices at the sites prior to their acquisition by PSC Metals and as a result of PSC Metals' operations. PSC Metals has established procedures to periodically evaluate these sites, giving consideration to the nature and extent of the contamination. PSC Metals has provided for the remediation of these sites based upon management's judgment and prior experience. PSC Metals has estimated the liability to remediate these sites to be $29 million at each of December 31, 2013 and 2012. Management believes, based on past experience, that the vast majority of these environmental liabilities and costs will be assessed and paid over an extended period of time. PSC Metals believes that it will be able to fund such costs in the ordinary course of business.

Estimates of PSC Metals' liability for remediation of a particular site and the method and ultimate cost of remediation require a number of assumptions that are inherently difficult to make, and the ultimate outcome may be materially different from current estimates. Moreover, because PSC Metals has disposed of waste materials at numerous third-party disposal facilities, it is possible that PSC Metals will be identified as a PRP at additional sites. The impact of such future events cannot be estimated at the current time.

PSC Metals has been designated as a PRP under U.S. federal and state superfund laws with respect to certain sites with which PSC Metals may have had a direct or indirect involvement. It is alleged that PSC Metals and its subsidiaries or their predecessors transported waste to the sites, disposed of waste at the sites or operated the sites in question. In addition, PSC Metals recently learned that its Knoxville location was the subject of investigations by the State of Tennessee under the federal Superfund law. These investigations were performed by the State of Tennessee pursuant to a contract with the EPA. Currently, PSC Metals cannot assess the impact of any cost or liability associated with these investigations. With respect to all other matters in which PSC Metals has been designated as a PRP under U.S. federal and state superfund laws, PSC Metals has reviewed the nature and extent of the allegations, the number, connection and financial ability of other named and unnamed PRPs and the nature and estimated cost of the likely remedy. Based on reviewing the nature and extent of the allegations, PSC Metals has estimated its liability to remediate these sites to be immaterial at each of December 31, 2013 and 2012. If it is determined that PSC Metals has liability to remediate those sites and that more expensive remediation approaches are required in the future, PSC Metals could incur additional obligations, which could be material.

In November and December of 2011, PSC Metals received three notices of violation from the Missouri Department of Natural Resources, or MDNR, for hazardous waste and water violations related to its Festus, Missouri location. PSC Metals has entered into a settlement with MDNR that resolves these notices of violation. Currently, PSC Metals believes that it has established adequate reserves for the cost of this settlement. In addition, PSC Metals believes that it has a claim for indemnification against the prior owner of the facility associated with the above-referenced notices of violation.

MDNR has undertaken sampling for lead at residences near PSC Metals' Festus yard. MDNR has indicated to PSC Metals that this sampling was initiated in response to citizen complaints regarding its Festus yard. PSC Metals was informed by MDNR that of the approximately 50 residences that were sampled and tested, 15 tested above residential standards for lead contamination and may require some amount of limited soil remediation. PSC Metals has entered into a settlement agreement with MDNR which resolves MNDR’s claims and requires limited soil remediation at these residences. As part of the settlement, PSC Metals is required to conduct soil sampling at 17 additional residential properties to assess whether those sites are above residential standards for lead contamination. Currently, PSC Metals believes that it has adequately reserved for the cost of remediation associated with its Festus yard and the residential areas near the yard. However, as sampling of the additional properties referenced above is on-going, PSC Metals cannot assess its liability with certainty at this time. Additionally, PSC Metals believes that liability for off-site contamination was retained by the prior owner of the Festus yard and it would have a claim for indemnification against the prior owner.

In 2011, PSC Metals entered into a consent decree with the EPA regarding PSC Metals' scrap processing facility located in Cleveland, Ohio. The EPA alleged that PSC Metals violated the requirements of Section 608 of the Clean Air Act, 42 USC Section 761, which requires scrap processors to either recover refrigerants from appliances in accordance with the procedures described in the applicable federal regulations or verify through certifications that refrigerants have previously been evacuated. The consent decree includes injunctive relief that, among other things, will require PSC Metals to offer refrigerant extraction services at 11 of its scrap processing facilities for the next three years. PSC Metals estimates that the cost associated with the required injunctive relief will range from $0.8 million to $1.7 million, exclusive of a civil penalty of $199,000 assessed in connection with the consent decree which PSC Metals paid in 2011.

On April 3, 2013, two citizen groups filed a citizen suit under the Clean Water Act (the “CWA”) for alleged storm water and process water discharges at PSC Metals' Nashville, TN facility that the citizen groups allege violate the CWA and PSC Metals' storm water discharge permit. The CWA requires that to maintain a citizen suit, the citizen plaintiff must be able to show that the violations are on-going or are reasonably likely to reoccur. PSC Metals believes, based on its investigation to date, that the citizen plaintiffs cannot meet this burden. Based on reviewing the nature and extent of the allegations, PSC Metals currently cannot reasonably provide an estimate of range of loss. PSC Metals intends to defend itself vigorously. PSC Metals received a subpoena from the DOJ regarding potential criminal violations of the CWA at PSC Metals’ Nashville facility. In February 2014, after reviewing the materials that PSC Metals provided and interviewing PSC Metals’ employees, the Department of Justice indicated that they will not pursue any further action in this matter.

Gaming

Aztar v. Marsh

Aztar filed a broker malpractice and breach of contract action in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Atlantic County, Law Division (the “Court”) on August 12, 2010, against Marsh & McLennan Companies, Marsh, Inc., Marsh USA, Inc. and various fictitious Marsh entities (together, the "Marsh Defendants"). The claim seeks $100 million or more in compensatory damages against the Marsh Defendants, Aztar's risk management and insurance brokers at the time of a 2002 expansion of Tropicana AC by Aztar, including, but not limited to, lost profits, expenses arising from the interruption of operations, attorneys' fees, loss of the use of the insurance proceeds at issue, and litigation expenses resulting from the Marsh Defendants' failure to secure for Aztar business interruption and property damage coverage covering losses sustained by Aztar from the collapse of a parking garage that occurred at Tropicana AC on October 30, 2003.

The Marsh Defendants filed an answer on October 20, 2010 denying the material allegations of the complaint and subsequently filed a Motion to Dismiss for Forum Non Conveniens in December 2010, which motion was denied by the Court on April 12, 2011. On August 18, 2011 the Marsh Defendants filed a Motion for Summary Judgment arguing that the Court should apply the Arizona Statue of Limitations to the action. Aztar filed an objection to the Marsh Defendants' motion on September 23, 2011 arguing, inter alia, that the New Jersey Statute of Limitations applies to the action. The Marsh Defendants filed its Reply on October 3, 2011. The motion was argued in January 2012. In April 2012, the Court granted the Marsh Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment dismissing Aztar's complaint with prejudice. Aztar subsequently filed a Motion for Reconsideration with the Court, which was denied. In September 2012, Aztar filed an appeal of the Court's decision to dismiss the case with the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division. In September 2013, the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division denied Aztar’s appeal substantially for the reasons set forth in the Court’s decision. Aztar has filed a Petition for Certification to the New Jersey Supreme Court, which petition is pending. Any recovery obtained by Aztar in this action will be recoverable by Tropicana as the current owner of Tropicana AC.

Tropicana AC Tax Appeal Settlement

In January 2013, Tropicana settled outstanding real estate tax appeals involving our Tropicana AC property with the City of Atlantic City. The settlement involves the tax years 2008 through 2012 and also covers negotiated real estate assessments for 2013 and 2014. Under the terms of the settlement, Tropicana AC was to receive approximately $50 million refund in the form of credits against annual real estate tax bills beginning in 2013 and ending in 2017. In addition, under the terms of the settlement, Tropicana AC was assessed at $700 million in 2013 and will be assessed at $680 million in 2014. The credits were to be front-loaded in 2013 and 2014 so that after the credits were applied, Tropicana AC paid approximately $2 million in taxes in 2013. Tropicana utilized $16 million of credits as a reduction to operating expenses in the year ended December 31, 2013. In addition, we expensed $4 million in professional fees related to this settlement in the year ended December 31, 2013. In January 2014, Tropicana received approximately $32 million in cash as payment to satisfy future credits.

Food Packaging

Tax Matter

During 2005, Viskase Brasil Embalagens Ltda. (“Viskase Brazil”) received three tax assessments by São Paulo tax authorities with respect to Viskase Brazil's alleged failure to pay value added and sales and services tax (“ICMS”) levied on the importation of raw materials, and sales of goods in and out of the State of São Paulo, and alleged improper credits taken, from 2000 through 2005. In late December 2012, São Paulo issued a decree announcing a special settlement program (the “Settlement Program”) for eligible companies that wish to settle alleged ICMS liabilities arising prior to July 31, 2012. The Settlement Program offers significant reductions in interest and penalties to companies that choose to participate.

On May 29, 2013, after consulting with its legal and tax advisors and considering the inherent uncertainty surrounding the outcome of the ongoing litigation, Viskase Brazil accepted participation in the Settlement Program, which allowed it to satisfy all of its remaining ICMS liabilities and related costs for $23 million.

Home Fashion

Environmental Matters

WPH is subject to various federal, state and local environmental laws and regulations governing, among other things, the discharge, storage, handling and disposal of a variety of hazardous and nonhazardous substances and wastes used in or resulting from its operations and potential remediation obligations. WPH's operations are also governed by U.S. federal, state, local and foreign laws, rules and regulations relating to employee safety and health which, among other things, establish exposure limitation for cotton dust, formaldehyde, asbestos and noise, and which regulate chemical, physical and ergonomic hazards in the workplace. WPH estimated its environmental accruals to be $1 million at both December 31, 2013 and 2012.

Other Matters

Mr. Icahn, through certain affiliates, owns 100% of Icahn Enterprises GP and approximately 87.9% of Icahn Enterprises' outstanding depositary units as of December 31, 2013. Applicable pension and tax laws make each member of a “controlled group” of entities, generally defined as entities in which there is at least an 80% common ownership interest, jointly and severally liable for certain pension plan obligations of any member of the controlled group. These pension obligations include ongoing contributions to fund the plan, as well as liability for any unfunded liabilities that may exist at the time the plan is terminated. In addition, the failure to pay these pension obligations when due may result in the creation of liens in favor of the pension plan or the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation ("PBGC") against the assets of each member of the controlled group.

As a result of the more than 80% ownership interest in us by Mr. Icahn’s affiliates, we and our subsidiaries are subject to the pension liabilities of entities in which Mr. Icahn has a direct or indirect ownership interest of at least 80%. As a result of our ownership of more than 80% in our subsidiaries, we and our subsidiaries are subject to the pension liabilities of all entities in which Mr. Icahn has a direct or indirect ownership interest of at least 80%. ACF and Federal-Mogul, are the sponsors of several pension plans. All the minimum funding requirements of the Code and the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended by the Pension Protection Act of 2006, for these plans have been met as of December 31, 2013 and 2012. If the plans were voluntarily terminated, they would be underfunded by approximately $592 million and $130 million as of December 31, 2013 and 2012, respectively. As discussed in Note 4, "Operating Units - Automotive," as a result of the Federal-Mogul Rights Offering during the third quarter of 2013, we purchased additional shares of Federal-Mogul common stock, thereby increasing our ownership of Federal-Mogul to 80.7%. As a result, the underfunded termination liability balance includes Federal-Mogul effective in the third quarter of 2013. These results are based on the most recent information provided by the plans’ actuaries. These liabilities could increase or decrease, depending on a number of factors, including future changes in benefits, investment returns, and the assumptions used to calculate the liability. As members of the controlled group, we would be liable for any failure of ACF and Federal-Mogul to make ongoing pension contributions or to pay the unfunded liabilities upon a termination of the pension plans of ACF and Federal-Mogul. In addition, other entities now or in the future within the controlled group in which we are included may have pension plan obligations that are, or may become, underfunded and we would be liable for any failure of such entities to make ongoing pension contributions or to pay the unfunded liabilities upon termination of such plans.

The current underfunded status of the pension plans of ACF and Federal-Mogul requires them to notify the PBGC of certain “reportable events,” such as if we cease to be a member of the ACF and Federal-Mogul controlled group, or if we make certain extraordinary dividends or stock redemptions. The obligation to report could cause us to seek to delay or reconsider the occurrence of such reportable events.

Starfire Holding Corporation ("Starfire"), which is 99.4% owned by Mr. Icahn, has undertaken to indemnify us and our subsidiaries from losses resulting from any imposition of certain pension funding or termination liabilities that may be imposed on us and our subsidiaries or our assets as a result of being a member of the Icahn controlled group. The Starfire indemnity (which does not extend to pension liabilities of our subsidiaries that would be imposed on us as a result of our interest in these subsidiaries and not as a result of Mr. Icahn and his affiliates holding more than an 80% ownership interest in us, and as such would not extend to the unfunded pension termination liability for Federal-Mogul) provides, among other things, that so long as such contingent liabilities exist and could be imposed on us, Starfire will not make any distributions to its stockholders that would reduce its net worth to below $250 million. Nonetheless, Starfire may not be able to fund its indemnification obligations to us.

Consolidated Leases

Consolidated future minimum lease payments under operating leases with initial terms of one or more years consist of the following at December 31, 2013:



Year	Amount
	(in millions)
2014	$	77
2015	64
2016	56
2017	43
2018	34
Thereafter	114
	$	388