Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 12 / Thursday, January 19, 1995 / Notices 3865

was ‘‘overcharged’’ by a specific amount, and that

it absorbed those overcharges. See Panhandle

Eastern Pipeline Co./Western Petroleum Co., 19

DOE ¶ 85,705 (1989). To the degree that a claimant

makes this showing, it will receive an abovevolumetric refund.

4As in previous cases, we propose to establish a

minimum refund amount of $15. In this proceeding,

any potential claimant purchasing less than 245

gallons of covered product from Mockabee would

have an allocable share of less than $15. We have

found through our experience that the cost of

processing claims in which refund amounts of less

than $15 are sought outweighs the benefits of

restitution in those instances. See Exxon Corp., 17

DOE ¶ 85,590 (1988).

better information, a volumetric refund

is appropriate because the DOE price

regulations generally required a

regulated firm to account for increased

costs on a firm-wide basis in

determining prices.

Under the volumetric approach, a

claimant’s ‘‘allocable share’’ of the

Mockabee fund is equal to the number

of gallons of covered product purchased

from Mockabee during the period

covered by the MRO times the per

gallon refund amount. In the present

case, the per gallon refund is $0.0612.

We derived this figure by dividing the

monies remitted by Mockabee

($75,638.48) by the total volume of

covered products sold by Mockabee

from November 1, 1973 through

December 31, 1975 (1,236,132 gallons).

A claimant that establishes its eligibility

for a refund will receive all or a portion

of its allocable share plus a pro-rata

share of accrued interest.4

In addition to the volumetric

presumption, we also propose to adopt

a presumption regarding injury for endusers.

2. End Users

In accordance with prior Subpart V

proceedings, we propose to adopt the

presumption that an end user or

ultimate consumer of covered products

purchased from Mockabee whose

business is unrelated to the petroleum

industry was injured by the overcharges

resolved by the MRO. See, e.g., Texas

Oil and Gas Corp., 12 DOE ¶ 85,069 at

88,209 (1984). Unlike regulated firms in

the petroleum industry, members of this

group generally were not required to

keep records which justified selling

price increases by reference to cost

increases. Consequently, analysis of the

impact of the overcharges on the final

price of goods and services produced by

members of this group would go beyond

the scope of the refund proceeding. Id.

We therefore propose that the end-users

of covered products purchased from

Mockabee need only document their

purchase volumes from Mockabee

during the period covered by the MRO

to make a sufficient showing that they

were injured by the overcharges.

B. Refund Applications Filed by

Representatives

We propose to adopt the standard

OHA procedures relating to refund

applications filed on behalf of

applicants by ‘‘representatives,’’

including refund filing services,

consulting firms, accountants, and

attorneys. See, e.g., Stark’s Shell

Service, 23 DOE ¶85,017 (1993);

Texaco, Inc., 20 DOE ¶85,147 (1990);

Shell Oil Co., 18 DOE ¶85,492 (1989).

We will also require strict compliance

with the filing requirements as specified

in 10 CFR 205.283, particularly the

requirement that applications and the

accompanying certification statement be

signed by the applicant.

The OHA reiterates its policy to

closely scrutinize applications filed by

filing services. Applications submitted

by a filing service should contain all of

the information indicated in the final

Decision and Order in this proceeding.

C. Distribution of Funds Remaining

After First Stage

We propose that any funds that

remain after all first stage claims have

been decided be distributed in

accordance with the provisions of the

Petroleum Overcharge Distribution and

Restitution Act of 1986 (PODRA), 15

U.S.C. 4501–07. The 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 Mockabee fund that the

OHA determines will not be needed to

effect direct restitution to injured

customers will be distributed in

accordance with the provisions of the

PODRA.

It is therefore ordered that: the monies

remitted to the Department of Energy by

Mockabee Gas & Fuel Oil Co. pursuant

to the Modified Remedial Order issued

on April 10, 1985, will be distributed in

accordance with the foregoing Decision.

[FR Doc. 95–1356 Filed 1–18–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

[FRL–5141–3]

Proposed Settlement; Acid Rain Core

Rules Litigation

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of proposed settlement;

request for public comment.

SUMMARY: In accordance with section

113(g) of the Clean Air Act (‘‘Act’’),

notice is hereby given of a proposed

third partial settlement of

Environmental Defense Fund v. Carol

M. Browner, et al., No. 93–1203 (and

consolidated cases) (D.C. Cir.).

The case involves challenges by

several parties to the acid rain core rules

published in the Federal Register on

January 11, 1993, at 58 FR 3590 (January

11, 1993). The proposed settlement

relates primarily to the issue of how

ownership of a jointly owned unit is

apportioned with respect to defining a

dispatch system and to clarification of

the definition of a ‘‘sulfur-free

generation.’’

For a period of thirty (30) days

following the date of publication of this

notice, the Agency will receive written

comments relating to the settlement

from persons who were not named as

parties to the litigation in question. EPA

or the Department of Justice may

withhold or withdraw consent to the

proposed settlement if the comments

disclose facts or circumstances that

indicate that such consent is

inappropriate, improper, inadequate, or

inconsistent with the requirements of

the Act. Copies of the settlement are

available from Phyllis Cochran, Air and

Radiation Division (2344), Office of

General Counsel, U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, 401 M Street S.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20460, (202) 260–

7606. Written comments should be sent

to Patricia A. Embrey at the above

address and must be submitted on or

before February 21, 1995.

January 12, 1995.

Jean C. Nelson,

General Counsel

[FR Doc. 95–1251 Filed 1–18–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–M