Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 32 / Tuesday, February 18, 1997 / Notices 7227

Company (ARM Power) applied to the

Commission for (1) acceptance of ARM

Power’s Rate Schedule FERC No. 1; (2)

a disclaimer of jurisdiction over ARM

Power’s Power brokering activities; (3)

blanket authorization to sell electricity

at market-based rates; (4) waiver of

certain Commission Regulations; and (5)

such other waivers and authorizations

as have been granted to other power

marketers.

ARM Power intends to engage in

electric power and energy transactions

as a marketer and broker. ARM Power

is not in the business of generating,

transmitting, or distributing electric

power.

Comment date: February 25, 1997, in

accordance with Standard Paragraph E

at the end of this notice.

7. Indiana Michigan Power Company

[Docket No. FA91–66–002]

Take notice that on September 25,

1995, Indiana Michigan Power

Company tendered for filing its refund

report in the above-referenced docket.

Comment date: February 25, 1997, in

accordance with Standard Paragraph E

at the end of this notice.

8. Systems Energy Resources, Inc.

[Docket No. FA93–23–002]

Take notice that on January 31, 1997,

Systems Energy Resources, Inc.

tendered for filing its refund report in

the above-referenced docket.

Comment date: February 25, 1997, in

accordance with Standard Paragraph E

at the end of this notice.

9. Canal Electric Company

[Docket No. FA93–30–001]

Take notice that on May 26, 1995,

Canal Electric Company tendered for

filing its refund report in the abovereferenced docket.

Comment date: February 25, 1997, in

accordance with Standard Paragraph E

at the end of this notice.

10. Detroit Edison Company

[Docket No. FA93–65–002]

Take notice that on January 27, 1997,

Detroit Edison Company tendered for

filing its refund report in the abovereferenced docket.

Comment date: February 25, 1997, in

accordance with Standard Paragraph E

at the end of this notice.

11. Florida Power Corporation

[Docket No. FA94–56–001]

Take notice that on December 3, 1996,

Florida Power Corporation tendered for

filing its refund report in the abovereferenced docket.

Comment date: February 25, 1997, in

accordance with Standard Paragraph E

at the end of this notice.

12. Wisconsin Electric Power Company

[Docket No. FA95–25–001]

Take notice that on February 4, 1997,

Wisconsin Electric Power Company

tendered for filing its refund report in

the above-referenced docket.

Comment date: February 25, 1997, 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. 97–3891 Filed 2–14–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

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 and

solicitation of comments.

SUMMARY: The Office of Hearings and

Appeals of the Department of Energy

announces procedures concerning the

refunding of $214,236.37 (plus accrued

interest) in consent order funds. The

funds are being held in escrow pursuant

to a Consent Judgment and a

Bankruptcy Distribution involving

Houma Oil Company and Jedco, Inc.,

respectively.

DATE AND ADDRESS: Applications for

Refund should be addressed to the

Office of Hearings and Appeals,

Department of Energy, 1000

Independence Avenue, SW.,

Washington, DC. 20585–0107. All

Applications should conspicuously

display a reference to either Case

Number VEF–0023 (Houma Oil Co.) or

VEF–0024 (Jedco, Inc.).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Richard W. Dugan, Associate Director,

Office of Hearings and Appeals, 1000

Independence Avenue, SW.,

Washington, DC. 20585–0107, (202)

426–1575.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In

accordance with § 205.282(c) of the

procedural regulations of the

Department of Energy, 10 CFR

205.282(c), notice is hereby given of the

issuance of the Decision and Order set

forth below. The Decision relates to a

Consent Judgment entered into by the

Houma Oil Company which settled

possible pricing violations in the firm’s

sales of motor gasoline during the

period May 1, 1979 through April 30,

1980. The Decision also relates to a

Bankruptcy Distribution which settled

pricing violations stemming from Jedco,

Inc.’s sales of motor gasoline during the

period November 1, 1973 through

March 31, 1974. A Proposed Decision

and Order tentatively establishing

refund procedures and soliciting

comments from the public concerning

the distribution of the Houma and Jedco

settlement funds was issued on October

28, 1996. 61 FR 57868 (November 8,

1996).

The Decision sets forth the procedures

and standards that the DOE has

formulated to distribute funds remitted

by Houma and Jedco and being held in

escrow. The DOE has decided that the

funds should be distributed in two

stages in the manner utilized with

respect to consent order funds in similar

proceedings. In the first stage, the DOE

will consider claims for refunds made

by firms and individuals that purchased

motor gasoline from Houma and/or

Jedco during the respective audit

periods.

The second stage of the refund

process will take place only in the event

that the meritorious first stage

applicants do not deplete the settlement

funds. Any funds that remain after all

first stage claims have been decided will

be distributed to state governments for

use in four energy conservation

programs, in accordance with the

provisions of the Petroleum Overcharge

Distribution and Restitution Act of l986.

All first stage applications should be

submitted within 90 days of publication

of this notice. All comments and

applications received in this proceeding

will be available for public inspection

between the hours of 1 to 5 p.m.,

Monday through Friday, except federal
7228 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 32 / Tuesday, February 18, 1997 / Notices

holidays, in the Public Reference Room

of the Office of Hearings and Appeals,

located in Room 1E–234, 1000

Independence Avenue, SW.,

Washington, DC. 20585–0107.

Dated: February 7, 1997.

George B. Breznay,

Director, Office of Hearings and Appeals.

Decision and Order of the Department of

Energy

Special Refund Procedures

Name of Firms: Houma Oil Company, Jedco,

Inc.

Date of Filing: September 1, 1995

Case Numbers: VEF–0023, VEF–0024

In accordance with the procedural

regulations of the Department of Energy

(DOE), 10 C.F.R. Part 205, Subpart V, the

Regulatory Litigation branch of the Office of

General Counsel (OGC)(formerly the

Economic Regulatory Administration (ERA))

filed Petitions for the Implementation of

Special Refund Procedures with the Office of

Hearings and Appeals (OHA) on September

1, 1995. The petitions request that the OHA

formulate and implement procedures for the

distribution of funds received pursuant to a

Consent Judgment and a Bankruptcy

Distribution concerning Houma Oil Co.

(Houma) and Jedco, Inc. (Jedco), respectively.

Background

Houma was a ‘‘reseller-retailer’’ during the

period of price controls. The ERA audited

Houma’s business records and determined it

violated DOE’s regulations in its sales of

motor gasoline during the period May 1, 1979

through April 30, 1980. On November 21,

1983, the ERA issued a Proposed Remedial

Order (PRO) to Houma in which it

determined the firm overcharged its

customers by $503,810 during the audit

period. On August 1, 1984, Houma and DOE

entered into a consent order in which Houma

agreed to refund the overcharge amount, plus

interest, in installment payments to DOE over

a two year period. Houma ultimately

defaulted on its repayment obligation and the

matter was referred to the Department of

Justice (DOJ) for enforcement. The DOJ then

obtained a Consent Judgment against Houma

on February 9, 1995. Pursuant to this

Judgment, Houma remitted a total of

$210,414.73 to the DOE. Houma then stopped

making payment, and the DOE determined

that further legal action against Houma was

unlikely to result in meaningful benefits to

the taxpayer. The residual payment

obligation was therefore declared

uncollectible.

The DOE issued a Remedial Order (RO) to

Jedco on October 24, 1978. Jedco, Inc., Case

No. DRW–0006. Like Houma, Jedco was a

‘‘reseller-retailer’’ during the audit period

November 1, 1973 through March 31, 1974.

The RO required the firm to implement a

rollback of its motor gasoline prices, thereby

restoring its overcharged customers to the

position they would have been in absent the

overcharges. After the deregulation of

petroleum prices, the RO was modified and

this requirement was replaced by an order

requiring payment to the U.S. Treasury.

Jedco, Inc., 8 DOE ¶ 81,068 (1981). Jedco

failed to comply with the directives of the

DOE in this matter and ultimately declared

bankruptcy. The DOE’s claim against the firm

led to a final distribution to the DOE of

$3,821.64. In accordance with current DOE

policy, since OGC has been unable to identify

the customers injured by the Jedco

overcharges, it has petitioned OHA to

distribute this amount pursuant to Subpart V.

The funds obtained from the two firms are

presently in interest-bearing escrow accounts

maintained by the Department of the

Treasury. They will be distributed in accord

with the procedures outlined herein.

Jurisdiction

The procedural regulations of the DOE set

forth general guidelines by which the OHA

may formulate and implement a plan of

distribution for funds received as a result of

an enforcement proceeding. 10 C.F.R. Part

205, Subpart V. It is DOE policy to use the

Subpart V process to distribute such funds.

For a more detailed discussion of Subpart V

and the authority of the OHA to fashion

procedures to distribute refunds obtained as

part of the settlement agreements, see Office

of Enforcement, 9 DOE ¶ 82,553 (1982);

Office of Enforcement, 9 DOE ¶ 82,508

(1981). After reviewing the record in the

present case, we have concluded that a

Subpart V proceeding is an appropriate

mechanism for distributing the monies

obtained from Houma and Jedco. We

therefore grant OGC’s petitions and assume

jurisdiction over distribution of the funds.

On October 28, 1996, OHA issued a

Proposed Decision and Order (PDO)

establishing tentative procedures to

distribute the Houma and Jedco settlement

funds. The PDO was published in the

Federal Register and a 30 day period was

provided for the submission of comments

regarding our proposed refund plan. See 61

Fed. Reg. 57868 (November 8, l996). More

than 30 days have elapsed and the OHA has

received no comments concerning the

proposed procedures for the distribution of

the Houma or Jedco settlement funds.

Consequently, the procedures will be

adopted as proposed.

Refund Procedures

In cases where the DOE is unable to

identify parties injured by the alleged

overcharges or the specific amounts to which

they may be entitled, we normally implement

a two-stage refund procedure. In the first

stage of the proceeding, those who bought

refined petroleum products from the consent

order firm may apply for a refund, which is

calculated on a pro-rata or volumetric basis.

In order to calculate the volumetric refund

amount, the OHA divides the amount of

money available for direct restitution by the

number of gallons sold by the consent order

firm during the period covered by the

consent order. In the second stage, any funds

remaining after all first-stage claims are

decided are distributed for indirect

restitution in accordance with the provisions

of the Petroleum Overcharge Distribution and

Restitution Act of 1986 (PODRA), 15 U.S.C.

§§ 4501–07.

In the two cases covered by this Decision,

however, we lack much of the information

that we normally use to provide direct

restitution to injured customers of the

consent order firms. In particular, we have

been unable to obtain any information on the

volume of the relevant petroleum products

sold by Houma and Jedco during the

respective settlement periods. Nor do we

have any information concerning the

customers of these firms. Based on the

present state of the record in these cases, it

would be difficult to implement a volumetric

refund process. Nevertheless, we shall accept

any refund claims submitted by persons who

purchased motor gasoline from Houma

during the period May 1, 1979 through April

30, 1980 or from Jedco during the period

November 1, 1973 through March 31, 1974.

We will work with those claimants to

develop additional information that would

enable us to determine who should receive

refunds and in what amounts. See Bell Fuels,

Inc., 25 DOE ¶ 85,020 (1995).

Injury Presumptions/Showing of injury

As in previous Subpart V proceedings,

those customers of Houma and Jedco who

were ultimate consumers (end-users) of their

motor gasoline shall be presumed injured by

their alleged overcharges. These customers

will therefore not be required to make a

further demonstration of injury in order to

receive a refund.

Reseller claimants (including retailers and

refiners) who purchased motor gasoline from

either of the two firms on a regular (non-spot)

basis and whose refund claim is $10,000 or

less will also be presumed injured and

therefore need not provide further

demonstration of injury. See E.D.G., Inc., 17

DOE ¶ 85,679 (1988). We realize that the cost

to an applicant of gathering evidence of

injury to support a relatively small refund

claim could exceed the expected refund.

Consequently, in the absence of simplified

procedures some injured parties would be

denied an opportunity to obtain a refund.

In addition, any reseller refund

claimant advancing a refund claim in

excess of $10,000 must establish that it

did not pass the alleged Houma or Jedco

overcharges along to its customers. See,

e.g., Office of Enforcement, 8 DOE ¶

82,597 (1981). While there are a variety

of means by which a claimant could

make this showing, a successful

claimant should demonstrate that at the

time it purchased motor gasoline from

the consent order firm, market

conditions would not permit it to

increase its prices to pass through the

additional costs associated with the

alleged overcharges. In addition, such

claimants must show that they had a

‘‘bank’’ of unrecovered product costs

sufficient to support their refund claim

in order to demonstrate that they did

not subsequently recover those costs by

increasing their product prices.

However, the maintenance of a cost

bank does not automatically establish

injury. See Tenneco Oil/Chevron U.S.A.,

10 DOE ¶ 85,014 (1982); Vickers Energy

Corp./Standard Oil Co., 10 DOE ¶
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 32 / Tuesday, February 18, 1997 / Notices 7229

1Under the Privacy Act of l974, the submission

of a social security number by an individual

applicant is voluntary. An applicant that does not

wish to submit a social security number must

submit an employer identification number if one

exists. This information will be used in processing

refund applications, and is requested pursuant to

our authority under the Petroleum Overcharge

Distribution and Restitution Act of 1986 and the

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

V. The information may be shared with other

Federal agencies for statistical, audition or

archiving purposes, and with law enforcement

agencies when they are investigating a potential

violation of civil or criminal law. Unless an

applicant claims confidentiality, this information

will be available to the public in the Public

Reference Room of the Office of Hearings and

Appeals.

2We will not process applications signed by filing

services or other representatives. In addition, the

statement must be dated on or after the date of this

Decision and Order. Any application signed and

dated before the date of this Decision will be

summarily dismissed.

85,036 (1982); Vickers Energy Corp./

Koch Industries, Inc., 10 DOE ¶ 85,038

(1982), Motion for Modification denied,

10 DOE ¶ 85,062 (1983).

Finally, we hereby establish a minimum

amount of $15 for refund claims. We have

found in prior refund proceedings that the

cost of processing claims in which refunds

are sought for amounts less than $15

outweighs the benefits of restitution in those

situations. See, e.g., Uban Oil Co., 9 DOE ¶

82,541 at 85,225 (1982). See also 10 C.F.R.

§ 205.286(b).

Refund Application Requirements

To apply for a refund from either the

Houma or Jedco settlement fund, a claimant

should submit an Application for Refund

containing all of the following information:

(1) Identifying information including the

claimant’s name, current business address,

business address during the refund period,

taxpayer identification number, a statement

indicating whether the claimant is an

individual, corporation, partnership, sole

proprietorship, or other business entity, the

name, title, and telephone number of the

person to contact for any additional

information, and the name and address of the

person who should receive any refund

check.1 If the applicant operated under more

than one name or under a different name

during the price control period, the applicant

should specify these names;

(2) The applicant’s use of motor gasoline

from Houma and/or Jedco during the audit

period: e.g., consumer (end-user),

cooperative, or reseller;

(3) A statement certifying that the

applicant purchased motor gasoline from

Houma during the period May 1, 1979

through April 30, 1980, or from Jedco during

the period November 1, 1973 through March

31, 1974;

(4) A statement as to whether the applicant

or a related firm has filed, or has authorized

any individual to file on its behalf, any other

application in the Houma and/or Jedco

refund proceeding. If so, an explanation of

the circumstances of the other filing or

authorization should be submitted;

(5) If the applicant is or was in any way

affiliated with Houma and/or Jedco, it should

explain this affiliation, including the time

period in which the affiliation existed;

(6) A statement as to whether the

ownership of the applicant’s firm changed

during or since the respective audit periods.

If an ownership change occurred, the

applicant should list the names, addresses,

and telephone numbers of any prior or

subsequent owners. The applicant should

also provide copies of any relevant Purchase

and Sale Agreements, if available. If such

written documents are not available, the

applicant should submit a description of the

ownership change, including the year of the

sale and the type of sale, e.g., sale of

corporate stock, sale of company assets;

(7) A statement as to whether the applicant

has ever been a party in a DOE enforcement

action or a private Section 210 action. If so,

an explanation of the case and copies of the

relevant documents should also be provided;

(8) The following statement signed by the

individual applicant or a responsible official

of the firm filing the refund application: 2

I swear (or affirm) that the information

contained in this application is true and

correct to the best of my knowledge and

belief. I understand that anyone who is

convicted of providing false information to

the federal government may be subject to a

fine, a jail sentence, or both, pursuant to 18

U.S.C. § 1001. I understand that the

information contained in this application is

subject to public disclosure. I have enclosed

a duplicate of this entire application which

will be placed in the OHA Public Reference

Room.

Applications should be either typed or

printed and clearly labeled ‘‘Houma Oil

Company Special Refund Proceeding, Case

No. VEF–0023’’ or ‘‘Jedco, Inc. Special

Refund Proceeding, Case No. VEF–0024.’’

Each applicant must submit an original and

one copy of the application. If the applicant

believes that any of the information in its

application is confidential and does not wish

for this information to be publicly disclosed,

it must submit an original application,

clearly designated ‘‘confidential,’’ containing

the confidential information, two copies of

the application with the confidential

information deleted and an explanation of

the basis for its confidentiality claim. All

refund applications should be postmarked no

later than 90 days from the publication of

this Decision and Order in the Federal

Register, and sent to: Houma Oil Company,

OR, Jedco, Inc., Special Refund Proceeding,

Office of Hearings and Appeals, Department

of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue, S.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20585–0107.

Any representative that requests that it be

a payee of a refund check must file with the

OHA if it has not already done so a statement

certifying that it maintains a separate escrow

account at a bank or other financial

institution for the deposit of all refunds

received on behalf of applicants, and that its

normal business practice is to deposit all

Subpart V refund checks in that account

within two business days of receipt and to

disburse refunds to applicants within 30

calendar days thereafter. Unless such

certification is received by the OHA, all

refund checks approved will be made

payable solely to the applicants.

Representatives who have not previously

submitted an escrow account certification

form to the OHA may obtain a copy of the

appropriate form by contacting: Marcia B.

Carlson, Chief, Docket & Publications

Division, Office of Hearings and Appeals,

Department of Energy, Washington, D.C.

20585–0107.

Distribution of Funds Remaining After First

Stage

Any funds that remain after all first-stage

claims have been decided will be distributed

in accordance with the provisions of PODRA.

PODRA requires that the Secretary of Energy

determine annually the amount of all

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 OHA.

Any funds in the Houma and/or Jedco escrow

accounts the OHA determines will not be

needed to effect direct restitution to injured

customers of either Houma or Jedco will be

distributed in accordance with the provisions

of PODRA.

It Is Therefore Ordered That:

(1) Applications for Refund from the funds

remitted to the Department of Energy by the

Houma Oil Company pursuant to the Consent

Judgment that became effective on February

9, 1995, may now be filed.

(2) Applications for Refund from the funds

remitted to the Department of Energy by

Jedco, Inc., pursuant to a final bankruptcy

distribution effective July 23, l995, may now

be filed.

(3) All Applications for Refund must be

postmarked no later than 90 days after

publication of this Decision and Order in the

Federal Register.

Dated: February 7, 1997.

George B. Breznay,

Director, Office of Hearings and Appeals.

[FR Doc. 97–3874 Filed 2–14–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

[FRL–5690–3]

National Environmental Justice

Advisory Council Public Participation

and Accountability Subcommittee;

Notice of Meeting

March 17–18, 1997.

Pursuant to the Federal Advisory

Committee Act, Public Law 92–463,

notice is hereby given that the Public

Participation and Accountability

Subcommittee of the National

Environmental Justice Advisory Council

will hold a subcommittee meeting on

Monday, March 17, 1997, from 1–5 p.m.

ET in Room 6226 and Tuesday, March

18, 1997 from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. ET in

Room 7216. Both meetings are located