P.1 

OAR Box 1338 

Prepped by Ollie Stewart 

Document Number: 

27) ll-J-10 

Docket Number: 

A-89-10 

Printed 6/17/2008 1:48:06 PM Sheet 27 of 105 
/ Vd. 55, No, i a I Thosdsf, j^5 , 119 A-89-10 

P.2 

M 

Federal Register / 

B. Calcutaikm of BtfaadAmcmmtr 

In older to determine Ae potential. 

refund amounts for applicants in this 

proceeding, we propose io adopt a 

volumetric refund presumption, Ths 

volumetric reload presumption treats 

Pester'• alleged overcharges as if thsy 

were dispersed equally in all of Fester's 

sales or regular gasoline and diesel fuel 

during the audit period. In accordance 

with this presumption, refimds are made 

on a pro-rate or volumetric basis.' In the 

absence of better information, s 

volumetric refund is appropriate 

because the DOE price regulations 

generally required a regulated Grin to 

account for increased costs on s firmwide basis in determining is prices. 

Under the volumetric approach, a 

claimant that adequately demonstrates 

its purchase volumes will be eligible to 

receive a refund equal to the number of 

gallons of eligible product that it 

purchased from Pester during the audit 

period times the per gallon refund 

amount In the present case, the per 

gallon refund amount is $00113* We 

computed this figure by dividing the 

$287,993.71 received from Pester by the 

25J95.987 gallons of regular gasoline 

and diesel fuel which Pester sold during 

the audit period. In addition, each 

successful claimant will receive a 

proportionate share of the interest that 

las accrued in the Pester escrow 

account 

As in previous cases, we propose to 

;3tablish a minimum refund amount of 

315.00.* We have found through our 

:xperience that the cost of processing 

:laims in which refunds for amounts 

ess than $15.00 are sought outweighs 

he benefits of restitution in those 

stances. See Exxon Corp* 17 DOE 

35.590 at 89,150 (1988). See also 10 CFR 

5.288(b). 

II-J-1 0 

' The volumetric refund presumption It 

>uttable. Because we realise that th* Impart as on 

ii vidua! claimant may have been greater than th* 

olumetrtc refund amount, a claimant may sutnft 

vidence detailing the specific overcharges that it 

lcurred in order to ba eligible fora large leAiad. 

ee. e.g.. Standard Oil Co. (Indiana)/Army and Air 

ores Exchange Strrica. 12 DOE 1asuns (1984). 

' Under the votumetiic method we have propowd 

I thia proceeding, we calculate that an applicant 

mat have purchased at leaat 1323 gallons of 

?gular gasoline or diasat fuel from Pasta* during tha 

ix-montfe audit period ia otdot taqnaJify fat tha 

unimm US mbiatL Wa aatfdpola that although 

\any individual motorists whs puwhaeeri prodacta 

i Peatar'a istatt outlet* may have lagltjaaasa slaiaak 

lost of those claims will fall below tha att* 

ireshoid. Howayar.it iepoeeiUe tbattbavaaa 

jvenuiasttalectiflaaathiatlnaiaea wUhmitlttpla 

ahidea that oyrrhssaH ragnlaar gaaaHns- at rlaaal 

ief faun Peeler oaamgilarhasla and atvanfflrteat 

uantltiet ta qualify far a tefand 

IV, E 

after 

As indicated above, we propose that 

any funds that remain after aO first 

stage claims have been decided be 

distributed in accordance with the 

provisions of PODRA. PODRA requires 

that the Secretary of Energy determine 

annually the amount of oil overcharge 

funds that will not be required to refund 

monies to injured parties in Subpart V 

proceedings and make those funds, 

available to state governments for use in 

four energy conservation programs. The 

Secretary has delegated these 

responsibilities to the OHA, and any 

funds in the Pester escrow account that 

the OHA determines will not be needed 

to effect direct restitution to injured 

customers will be distributed in. 

accordance with the provisions of 

PODRA. 

V. Applications for Reftatf 

Applications for refund should not be 

filed at this time. Detailed procedures 

for filing Applications will be provided 

in a final Decision and Order. Before 

disposing of any of the funds received 

from Pester, we intend to publicize the 

distribution process in order to solicit 

comments on all aspects of die foregoing 

Proposed Decision and Order from 

interested parties. All comments must 

be filed within 30 days of the 

publication of this Proposed Decision is 

the Federal Register 

It is therefore ordered That The 

payments remitted to the Department of 

Energy by Pester Marketing Company 

pursuant to an Order of the United 

States Bankruptcy Court for the 

Southern District of Iowa on June 

1988, will be distributed in accordance 

with the foregoing Decision, 

(FR Doc. 99-19595 PBed 7-S-flO: 8:45 am) 

saxsio cooe Mts-n-a 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

[FRL 3808-3) 

Open Meeting of the Negotiated 

Rulemaking Advteory Committee; 

Fugitive Emfesiora From Equipment 

Leaks Rule 

As required by section 9(a)(2) of the 

Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. 

L 92-483), we. are giving notice that the 

next meeting of the Advisory Committee 

to negotiate-a rule to control fugitive 

emission* of toxic chemicals from 

equipment leeks will be held on Jnfy 17 

from 10 a.m. to ffpjn, and on JUly UL \%} 

1990 from»«J». to Span, at the ;. - ' 

Meredith Suites at the Park. 300 r 

Meredith Drive. Durham, NC 27713: (919) rr 

381-1234. The Meredith Suites is off Exit P 

278 on M a p 

The Committee reached agreement on V 

the conceptual framework of the fugitive a 

emissions from equipment leaks rule at C 

the June 1990 meeting. The purpose of rthe July meeting is to review regulatory s 

language drafted to reflect the a 

consensus and Implement the f< 

agreement. 

The meeting is open to the public 

without advance registration. Persons C 

needing further Information on 

substantive aspects of the rule should fi 

call Robert Ajax. Office of Air Quality 

Planning and Standards, U.S. EPA, (919) D 

541-5579. Persons needing further 

information on committee arrangements 

or procedures should contact the 

Committee's facilitator, Philip Harter, 

(202) 887-1033. C 

Dated: June 28,1990.

 a 

Paul Lapaley, " 

Director, Regulatory Management Division. 

Office of Policy, Planning and Evaluation. /-

(FR Doc. 90-15458 Filed 7-3-90: 8:45 am] 

anxmo coos uto-so-u 

8 

[OPP-0O2S1;FRL-3774-t] 0 

State FIFRA Issues Research and 

Evaluation Group (SFIREG) Full 

Committee Meeting and Meeting of the D 

SFIREG Working Committee on c 

Ground Water Protection and [i 

Pesticide Disposal; Open Meetings w 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). [I 

ACTION: Notice. 

•'••• • .., - — f\ 

SUMMARY: There will be a 2-day meeting £ 

of the State FIFRA Issues Research and 

Evaluation Group (SFIREG) and a 1-day 

meeting of the SFIREG Working ' 

Committee on Ground Water Protection f 

and Pesticide Disposal. This notice £ 

announces the location and times for the [ 

meetings and sets forth tentative agenda p 

topics. The meetings are open to the p 

public. p 

DATES: The SFIREG will meet on 8 

Monday, July 9,199a from 8:30 a.m. to 5 > 

p.m. and on Tuesday, July 10,1990, v 

beginning at 8:30 a.m. and adjourning at v 

approximately noon. The SFIREG p 

Working Committee on Ground Water n 

Protection and Pesticide Disposal will p 

meet on Wednesday, July 11,1990, c 

•*\ beginning at 8:30 a.m. and adjourning at c 

.approximately 3:30 p.m. p 

OAMMISMS: The meetings will be held ir 

v at: The Hyatt Regency—CryBtal City, p 

AV2799 Jefferson Davis Highway, N 

\VArlington. VA 22202. (703) 488-1234. B