Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 25 / Tuesday, February 7, 1995 / Notices 7195

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.

All applications should be either typed or

printed and clearly labeled ‘‘Application for

Crude Oil Refund.’’ 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, and two copies of

the application with the confidential

information deleted. All refund applications

should be sent to: Subpart V Crude Oil

Overcharge Refunds, Office of Hearings and

Appeals, Department of Energy, 1000

Independence Ave., S.W., Washington, DC

20585.

The filing deadline has not yet been set.

The DOE has proposed that June 3, 1996, will

be the final deadline for all applications in

the crude oil proceeding. See 59 Fed. Reg.

55656 (November 8, 1994). Notice of the final

deadline will appear in the Federal Register.

Even though an applicant is not required to

use any specific form for its crude oil refund

application, a suggested form has been

prepared by the OHA and may be obtained

by sending a written request to the address

listed above.

D. Payments to the Federal Government and

the States

Under the terms of the MSRP, we have

determined that the remaining 80 percent of

the Kind and Bridewell funds, plus accrued

interest, should be disbursed in equal shares

to the states and the federal government for

indirect restitution. Refunds to the states will

be in proportion to the consumption of

petroleum products in each state during the

period of price controls. The share or ratio of

the funds which each state will receive is

contained in Exhibit H of the Stripper Well

Settlement Agreement, 6 Fed. Energy

Guidelines ¶ 90,509 at 90,687. When

disbursed, these funds will be subject to the

same limitations and reporting requirements

as all other crude oil monies received by the

states under the Stripper Well Settlement

Agreement.

It Is Therefore Ordered That:

(1) Applications for Refund from the crude

oil overcharge funds remitted by King

Petroleum, Inc., et al., and Billy Bridewell,

William J. Cobb, et al., may now be filed.

(2) All Applications submitted pursuant to

paragraph (1) must be filed in duplicate and

postmarked no later than June 3, 1996.

(3) The Director of Special Accounts and

Payroll, Office of Departmental Accounting

and Financial Systems Development, Office

of the Controller of the Department of Energy

shall take all steps necessary to transfer

$1,245.04, plus all accrued interest, from the

King subaccount (Account No. 650X00358Z),

and $337,022.86, plus all accrued interest,

from the Bridewell subaccount (Account No.

6A0C00217Z), for a total of $338,267.90, plus

all accrued interest, pursuant to Paragraphs

(4), (5), and (6) of this Decision.

(4) The Director of Special Accounts and

Payroll shall transfer $135,307.16 (plus

interest) of the funds obtained pursuant to

Paragraph (3) above into the subaccount

denominated ‘‘Crude Tracking-States,’’

Number 999DOE003W.

(5) The Director of Special Accounts and

Payroll shall transfer $135,307.16 (plus

interest) of the funds obtained pursuant to

Paragraph (3) above into the subaccount

denominated ‘‘Crude Tracking-Federal,’’

Number 999DOE002W.

(6) The Director of Special Accounts and

Payroll shall transfer $67,653.58 (plus

interest) of the funds obtained pursuant to

Paragraph (3) above into the subaccount

denominated ‘‘Crude Tracking-Claimants 4,’’

Number 999DOE010Z.

Dated: February 1, 1995.

George B. Breznay,

Director, Office of Hearings and Appeals.

[FR Doc. 95–3020 Filed 2–6–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6450–01–M

Implementation of Special Refund

Procedures

AGENCY: Office of Hearings and Appeals,

Department of Energy.

ACTION: Notice of Implementation of

Special Refund Procedures.

SUMMARY: The Office of Hearings and

Appeals (OHA) of the Department of

Energy (DOE) announces the procedures

for disbursement of $3,657.84, plus

accrued interest, in refined petroleum

product violation amounts obtained by

the DOE pursuant to a September 30,

1981 Remedial Order issued to Ed’s

Exxon, Case No. LEF–0078, and an

April 27, 1982 Remedial Order issued to

Ron’s Shell, Case No. LEF–0084. The

OHA has determined that the funds

obtained from the above firms, plus

accrued interest, will be distributed to

customers who purchased gasoline from

them during the following periods:

August 1, 1979 through October 31,

1979 in the Ed’s Exxon proceeding and

August 1, 1979 through November 13,

1981 in the Ron’s Shell proceeding.

DATES AND ADDRESSES: Applications

must be filed in duplicate, addressed to

‘‘Ed’s Exxon OR Ron’s Shell Special

Refund Proceeding’’ and sent to: Office

of Hearings and Appeals, Department of

Energy, 1000 Independence Ave., S.W.,

Washington, DC 20585.

Applications should display a

prominent reference to the case number

‘‘LEF–0078’’ (for the Ed’s Exxon

proceeding) or ‘‘LEF–0084’’ (for the

Ron’s Shell proceeding).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Thomas O. Mann, Deputy Director,

Roger Klurfeld, Assistant Director,

Office of Hearings and Appeals, 1000

Independence Avenue, S.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20585 (202) 586–2094

(Mann); 586–2383 (Klurfeld).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In

accordance with 10 C.F.R. 205.282(b),

notice is hereby given of the issuance of

the Decision and Order set out below.

The Decision and Order sets forth the

procedures that the DOE has formulated

to distribute to eligible claimants

$3,657.84, plus accrued interest,

obtained by the DOE pursuant to

September 30, 1981 and April 27, 1982

Remedial Orders. In the Remedial

Orders, the DOE found that, during

periods beginning August 1, 1979, the

firms each had sold motor gasoline at

prices in excess of the maximum lawful

selling price, in violation of Federal

petroleum price regulations.

The OHA has determined to distribute

the funds obtained from the firms in two

stages. In the first stage, we will accept

claims from identifiable purchasers of

gasoline from the firms who may have

been injured by overcharges. The

specific requirements which an

applicant must meet in order to receive

a refund are set out in Section III of the

Decision. Claimants who meet these

specific requirements will be eligible to

receive refunds based on the number of

gallons of gasoline which they

purchased from Ed’s Exxon or Ron’s

Shell.

If any funds remain after valid claims

are paid in the first stage, they may be

used 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.

Applications for Refund must be

postmarked by August 31, 1995.

Instructions for the completion of

refund applications are set forth in the

Decision that immediately follows this

notice. Applications should be sent to

the address listed at the beginning of

this notice.

Unless labelled as ‘‘confidential,’’ all

submissions must be made available for

public inspection between the hours of

1 p.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through

Friday, except federal holidays, in the

Public Reference Room of the Office of

Hearings and Appeals, located in Room

1E–234, 1000 Independence Avenue,

S.W., Washington, DC 20585.

Dated: January 27, 1995.

George B. Breznay,

Director, Office of Hearings and Appeals.

Decision and Order of the Department of

Energy; Implementation of Special Refund

Procedures

January 27, 1995.

Names of Firms: Ed’s Exxon, Ron’s Shell

Date of Filing: July 20, 1993

Case Numbers: LEF–0078, LEF–0084
7196 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 25 / Tuesday, February 7, 1995 / Notices

1Ed’s Exxon was issued a PRO on January 25,

1980; Ron’s Shell was issued a PRO on December

31, 1980.

2A Remedial Order was issued to Ed’s Exxon on

September 30, 1981. A Remedial Order was issued

to Ron’s Shell on April 27, 1982.

3 If a refiner, reseller, or retailer should file an

application in any of the refund proceedings,

however, we will utilize the standards and

appropriate presumptions established in previous

proceedings. See, e.g., Starks Shell Service, 23 DOE

¶ 85,017 (1993); Shell Oil Co., 18 DOE ¶ 85,492

(1989).

4 If an individual claimant believes that it was

injured by more than its volumetric share, it may

elect to forego this presumption and file a refund

application based upon a claim that it suffered a

disproportionate share of the remedial firm’s

overcharges. See, e.g., Mobil Oil Corp./Atchison,

Topeka and Santa Fe Railroad Co., 20 DOE ¶ 85,788

(1990); Mobil Oil Corp./Marine Corps Exchange

Service, 17 DOE ¶85,714 (1988). Such a claim will

only be granted if the claimant makes a persuasive

showing that it 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

above-volumetric refund.

5The per gallon refund amount is $0.0251 for

claimants applying in the Ed’s Exxon proceeding

($2,500 remitted/99,651 gallons sold), $0.0072 in

the Ron’s Shell proceeding ($1,157.84 remitted/

160,777.9 gallons sold).

6As in previous cases, we will establish a

minimum refund amount of $15. We have found

through our experience that the cost of processing

claims in which refunds for amounts less than $15

are sought outweighs the benefits of restitution in

those instances. See Exxon Corp., 17 DOE ¶ 85,590,

at 89,150 (1988) (Exxon).

On July 20, 1993, the Economic Regulatory

Administration (ERA) of the Department of

Energy (DOE) filed a Petition for the

Implementation of Special Refund

Procedures with the Office of Hearings and

Appeals (OHA), to distribute the funds

received pursuant to Remedial Orders issued

by the DOE to Ed’s Exxon of Cotati,

California, and Ron’s Shell of Danville,

California (hereinafter jointly referred to as

the remedial order firms). In accordance with

the provisions of the procedural regulations

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

the ERA requests in its Petition that the OHA

establish special procedures to make refunds

in order to remedy the effects of regulatory

violations set forth in the Remedial Order.

This Decision and Order sets forth the OHA’s

plan to distribute these funds.

I. Background

Each of the remedial order firms was a

retailer of motor gasoline during the periods

relevant to this proceeding. The ERA issued

Proposed Remedial Orders (PROs) to each of

the firms.1 The PROs alleged that, during

separate periods beginning on August 1,

1979, the remedial order firms had:

charged more than the maximum lawful

selling price for one or more grades of

gasoline in violation of 10 C.F.R. 212.93;

failed to post and maintain the maximum

lawful selling price or a proper certification

in violation of 10 C.F.R. 212.129; failed to

keep and maintain books and records to

support the lawfulness of the price for

gasoline on the audit date in violation of 10

C.F.R. 210.92 and 212.93; and/or engaged in

unlawful or discriminatory business

practices in violation of 10 C.F.R. 210.62.

After considering and dismissing the firms’

objections to the PROs, the DOE issued final

Remedial Orders. Ed’s Exxon, 8 DOE ¶ 83,035

(1981); Alameda Chevron Service, et al., 9

DOE ¶ 83,027 (1982).2 Each of the firms has

since remitted a specified amount in

compliance with the Remedial Orders, to

which interest has since accrued. These

funds are being held in an interest-bearing

escrow account maintained at the

Department of the Treasury pending a

determination regarding their proper

distribution.

II. Jurisdiction and Authority

The Subpart V regulations set forth general

guidelines which may be used by the OHA

in formulating and implementing a plan of

distribution of funds received as a result of

an enforcement proceeding. The DOE policy

is 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,

see Petroleum Overcharge Distribution and

Restitution Act of 1986, 15 U.S.C. §§ 4501 et

seq., Office of Enforcement, 9 DOE ¶ 82,508

(1981), and Office of Enforcement, 8 DOE

¶ 82,597 (1981) (Vickers).

We have considered the ERA’s petition that

we implement Subpart V proceedings with

respect to the above remedial order funds

and have determined that such proceedings

are appropriate. This Decision and Order sets

forth the OHA’s plan to distribute these

funds.

III. Proposed Refund Procedures

On December 14, 1994, the OHA issued a

Proposed Decision & Order (PD&O)

establishing tentative procedures to

distribute the Remedial Order funds. That

PD&O was published in the Federal Register,

and a 30-day period was provided for the

submission of comments regarding our

proposed refund plan. See 59 Fed. Reg.

66029 (December 22, 1994). More than 30

days have elapsed and the OHA has received

no comments concerning these proposed

refund procedures. Consequently, the

procedures will be adopted as proposed.

We will to implement a two-stage refund

procedure for distribution of the remedial

order funds, by which purchasers of gasoline

from the remedial order firms during the

period covered by the Remedial Orders may

submit Applications for Refund in the initial

stage. From our experience with Subpart V

proceedings, we expect that potential

applicants generally will be limited to

ultimate consumers (‘‘end-users’’). Therefore,

we do not anticipate that it will be necessary

to employ the injury presumptions that we

have used in past proceedings in evaluating

applications submitted by refiners, resellers,

and retailers.3

A. First Stage Refund Procedures

In order to receive a refund, each claimant

will be required to submit a schedule of its

monthly purchases of gasoline from the

remedial order firm during the period

covered by the Remedial Order. Our

experience indicates that the use of certain

presumptions permits claimants to

participate in the refund process without

incurring inordinate expense and ensures

that refund claims are evaluated in the most

efficient manner possible. See Marathon

Petroleum Co., 14 DOE ¶ 85,269 (1986)

(Marathon). Presumptions in refund cases are

specifically authorized by the applicable

Subpart V regulations at 10 C.F.R.

§ 205.282(e). Accordingly, we will adopt the

presumptions set forth below.

1. Calculation of Refunds

First, we will adopt a presumption that the

overcharges were dispersed equally in all of

the remedial order firms’ sales of gasoline

during the period covered by the Remedial

Orders. In accordance with this presumption,

refunds will be made on a pro-rata or

volumetric basis.4 In the absence of better

information, a volumetric refund is

appropriate because the DOE price

regulations generally required a regulated

firm to account for increased costs on a firmwide basis in determining its prices.

Under the volumetric approach, a

claimant’s ‘‘allocable share’’ of a Remedial

Order fund is equal to the number of gallons

purchased from the remedial order firm

during the period covered by that Remedial

Order times the per gallon refund amount.5

We derived the per gallon refund figures by

dividing the amount of each Remedial Order

fund by the total volume of gasoline which

each remedial order firm sold during the

period specified in that Remedial Order. An

applicant that establishes its eligibility for a

refund will receive all or a portion of its

allocable share plus a pro-rata share of the

accrued interest.6

In addition to the volumetric presumption,

we will adopt a presumption regarding injury

for end-users.

2. End-Users

In accordance with prior Subpart V

proceedings, we will adopt the presumption

that an end-user or ultimate consumer of

gasoline purchased from one of the remedial

order firms whose business is unrelated to

the petroleum industry was injured by the

overcharges resolved by the Remedial Order.

See, e.g., Texas Oil and Gas Corp., 12 DOE

¶ 85,069 at 88,209 (1984) (TOGCO). Members

of this group generally were not subject to

price controls during the period covered by

the Remedial Order, and 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 prices of goods and

services produced by members of this group

would be beyond the scope of the refund

proceeding. Id. End-users of gasoline

purchased from the remedial order firms

need only document their purchase volumes

from the firm during the period covered by

the Remedial Order to make a sufficient

showing that they were injured by the

overcharges.

B. Refund Application Requirements

To apply for a refund from any of the

Remedial Order funds, a claimant should

submit an Application for Refund containing

all of the following information:
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 25 / Tuesday, February 7, 1995 / Notices 7197

7Under the Privacy Act of 1974, the submission

of a social security number by an individual

applicant is voluntary. An applicant that does not

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 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, auditing 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.

8The Remedial Orders cover the following

periods: August 1, 1979 through October 31, 1979

in the Ed’s Exxon proceeding and August 1, 1979

through November 13, 1981 in the Ron’s Shell

proceeding.

9As in other refund proceedings involving

alleged refined product violations, the DOE will

presume that affiliates of the remedial order firm

were not injured by the firm’s overcharges. See, e.g.,

Marathon Petroleum Co./EMRO Propane Co., 15

DOE ¶ 85,288 (1987). This is because the remedial

order firm presumably would not have sold

petroleum products to an affiliate if such a sale

would have placed the purchaser at a competitive

disadvantage. See Marathon Petroleum Co./Pilot Oil

Corp., 16 DOE ¶85,611 (1987), amended claim

denied, 17 DOE ¶85,291 (1988), reconsideration

denied, 20 DOE ¶85,236 (1990). Furthermore, if an

affiliate of the remedial order firm were granted a

refund, the remedial order firm would be indirectly

compensated from a Remedial Order fund remitted

to settle its own alleged violations.

(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 a

person to contact for additional information,

and the name and address of the person who

should receive any refund check.7 If the

applicant operated under more than one

name or under a different name during the

price control period, the applicant should

specify those names;

(2) A monthly purchase schedule covering

the relevant Remedial Order period.8 The

applicant should specify the source of this

gallonage information. In calculating its

purchase volumes, an applicant should use

actual records from the refund period, if

available. If these records are not available,

the applicant may submit estimates of its

gasoline purchases, but the estimation

method must be reasonable and must be

explained.

(3) A statement whether the applicant or a

related firm has filed, or has authorized any

individual to file on its behalf, any other

application in that refund proceeding. If so,

an explanation of the circumstances of the

other filing or authorization should be

submitted;

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

affiliated with the remedial order firm, it

should explain this affiliation, including the

time period in which it was affiliated.9

(5) The statement listed below signed by

the individual applicant or a responsible

official of the firm filing the refund

application:

I swear (or affirm) that the information

contained in this application and its

attachments is true 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.

All applications should be either typed or

printed and clearly labeled ‘‘Ed’s Exxon

(Case No. LEF–0078) OR Ron’s Shell (Case

No. LEF–0084) Special Refund Proceeding.’’

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 that information to be publicly disclosed,

it must submit an original application,

clearly designated ‘‘confidential,’’ containing

the confidential information, and two copies

of the application with the confidential

information deleted. All refund applications

should be postmarked on or before August

31, 1995 and sent to: Ed’s Exxon OR Ron’s

Shell Special Refund Proceeding, Office of

Hearings and Appeals, Department of Energy,

1000 Independence Ave., S.W., Washington,

D.C. 20585.

C. Refund Applications Filed by

Representatives

We will 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., Starks 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 C.F.R. § 205.283, particularly

the requirement that applications and the

accompanying certification statement be

signed by the applicant.

The OHA reiterates its policy to scrutinize

applications filed by filing services closely.

Applications submitted by a filing service

should contain all of the information

indicated above.

Finally, the OHA reserves the authority to

require additional information before

granting any refund in these proceedings.

Applications lacking the required

information may be dismissed or denied.

D. Distribution of Funds Remaining After

First Stage

Any funds that remain after all first stage

claims have been decided shall be distributed

in accordance with the provisions of the

Petroleum Overcharge Distribution and

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

§ 4501–07. 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 Remedial Order funds 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.

It Is Therefore Ordered That: (1)

Applications for Refund from the funds

remitted to the Department of Energy by Ed’s

Exxon and Ron’s Shell pursuant to the

Remedial Orders dated September 30, 1981

and April 27, 1982 may now be filed.

(2) Applications for Refund must be

postmarked no later than August 31, 1995.

Dated: January 27, 1995.

George B. Breznay,

Director, Office of Hearings and Appeals.

[FR Doc. 95–3012 Filed 2–6–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

[FRL-5150–8]

Notice of Open Meeting of the

Alternative Financing Workgroup of

the Environmental Financial Advisor

Board on April 25,1995

The Alternative Financing Workgroup

of the Environmental Financial

Advisory Board (EFAB) will hold an

open workgroup meeting on fee system

options for raising revenue to finance

water and wastewater infrastructure.

The meeting is scheduled for April 25,

1995 in Ballroom ‘‘A’’ of the Sheraton

Crystal City Hotel located at 1800

Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington,

Virginia. The meeting will begin at 8:30

a.m. and adjourn at 5:00 p.m.

EFAB is chartered with providing

authoritative analysis and advice to the

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

on environmental finance issues. The

purpose of the workgroup meeting is to

take comments on a draft options paper

on fee systems for raising revenue to

finance water and wastewater

infrastructure. The scope of the study

includes national and state fees,

collection and delivery mechanisms,

and state fees, collection and delivery

mechanisms, and eligibilities. This

paper is being prepared in response to

a congressional request for an

evaluation of alternative financing

options in EPA’s FY 95 appropriations

bill. A critical part of the development

process is to solicit and consider public

comment. This is the first of several

meetings serving that purpose.

The draft options paper is being

developed by the Environmental

Finance Center (EFC) of the Maxwell

School of Citizenship and Public Affairs

at Syracuse University. The draft will be