Office of Hearings and Appeals; Proposed Implementation of Special Refund Procedures, 38901-38902 [05-13231]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 128 / Wednesday, July 6, 2005 / Notices
Issued in Washington, DC on June 29,
2005.
R. Samuel,
Deputy Advisory Committee Management
Officer.
[FR Doc. 05–13230 Filed 7–5–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Office of Hearings and Appeals;
Proposed Implementation of Special
Refund Procedures
Office of Hearings and Appeals;
Department of Energy.
ACTION: Notice of Proposed
Implementation of Special Refund
Procedures.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: The Office of Hearings and
Appeals (OHA) of the Department of
Energy (DOE) announces the proposed
procedures for the disbursement of
$1,585,576.76, plus accrued interest, in
crude oil overcharges obtained by the
DOE concerning BPM Ltd., Case No.
TEF–0001, Honeymon Drilling Co., Case
No. TEF–0002, Intercontinental Oil,
Case No. TEF–0003, Knox Oil, Case No.
TEF–0004, Pescar Trading, Case No.
TEF–0005, Shepherd Oil, Inc., Case No.
TEF–0006, Sierra Petroleum Co., Case
No. TEF–0007, Thriftway Co., Case No.
TEF–0008, and Western Refining Co.
(Robert J. Martin), Case No. TEF–0011.
DATES: Comments must be filed in
duplicate within 30 days of publication
of this notice in the Federal Register
ADDRESSES: Comments should be
addressed to the Office of Hearings and
Appeals, Department of Energy, 1000
Independence Ave., SW., Washington,
DC 20585–1615. All comments should
display a reference to Case No. TEF–
0001.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Richard A. Cronin, Jr., Assistant
Director, Office of Hearings and
Appeals, 1000 Independence Ave., SW.,
Washington, DC 20585–1615 (202) 287–
1589, richard.cronin@hq.doe.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In
accordance with 10 CFR 205.282(b),
notice is hereby given of the issuance of
the Proposed Decision and Order set out
below. The Proposed Decision sets forth
the procedures that the DOE has
tentatively formulated to distribute to
eligible claimants $1,585,576.76, plus
accrued interest, obtained by the DOE
from BPM Ltd., Honeymon Drilling Co.,
Intercontinental Oil, Knox Oil, Pescar
Trading, Shepherd Oil, Inc., Sierra
Petroleum Co., Thriftway Co., and
Western Refining Co. (Robert J. Martin).
The OHA has proposed to distribute
these funds in the currently-existing
VerDate jul<14>2003
16:35 Jul 05, 2005
Jkt 205001
crude oil refund proceeding described
in the Proposed Decision and Order.
Because the deadline for filing crude oil
refund applications has passed, no new
applications for refund for the alleged
(or established) crude oil pricing
violations of the listed firms will be
accepted for these funds.
Any member of the public may
submit written comments regarding the
proposed refund procedures.
Commenting parties are requested to
forward two copies of their submission,
within 30 days of the publication of this
notice in the Federal Register, to the
address set forth at the beginning of this
notice. Comments so received will be
made available for public inspection
between the hours of 1:30 p.m. and 4
p.m., Monday through Friday, except
Federal Holidays, in Room 7132 (the
public reference room), 950 L’Enfant
Plaza, Washington, DC.
Dated: June 29, 2005.
Fred L. Brown,
Acting Deputy Director, Office of Hearings
and Appeals.
Proposed Decision and Order
Names of Firms: BPM Ltd.,
Honeymon Drilling Co., Intercontinental
Oil, Knox Oil, Pescar Trading, Shepherd
Oil, Inc., Sierra Petroleum Co.,
Thriftway Co., and Western Refining Co.
(Robert J. Martin).
Date of Filing: June 21, 2005.
Case Numbers: TEF–0001, TEF–0002,
TEF–0003, TEF–0004, TEF–0005, TEF–
0006, TEF–0007, TEF–0008, and TEF–
0009.
I. Background
The Office of General Counsel (OGC)
of the Department of Energy (DOE) filed
a Petition requesting that the Office of
Hearings and Appeals (OHA) formulate
and implement subpart V special refund
proceedings. Under the procedural
regulations of the DOE, special refund
proceedings may be implemented to
refund monies to persons injured by
violations of the DOE petroleum price
regulations, provided DOE is unable to
readily identify such persons or to
ascertain the amount of any refund. 10
CFR 205.280. We have considered
OGC’s request to formulate refund
procedures for the disbursement of
monies remitted by the following firms
pursuant to administrative or judicial
decisions or in settlement of the DOE
allegations that the firms had violated
the DOE petroleum price control and
allocation regulations:
BPM Ltd., Honeymon Drilling Co.,
Intercontinental Oil, Knox Oil, Pescar
Trading, Shepherd Oil, Inc., Sierra
Petroleum Co., Thriftway Co., and
Western Refining Co. (Robert J. Martin).
PO 00000
Frm 00040
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
38901
We have determined that the refund
procedures requested by OGC are
appropriate.
A total of $1,585,576.76 has been
remitted to DOE by these firms to
remedy violations that occurred during
the relevant audit periods. These funds
are being held in an escrow account
established with the United States
Treasury pending a determination of
their proper distribution. This Decision
sets forth OHA’s proposed plan to
distribute those funds.
II. Jurisdiction and Authority
The general guidelines that govern
OHA’s ability to formulate and
implement a plan to distribute refunds
are set forth at 10 CFR Part 205, subpart
V. These procedures apply in situations
where the DOE cannot readily identify
the persons who were injured as a result
of actual or alleged violations of the
regulations or ascertain the amount of
the refund each person should receive.
For a more detailed discussion of
subpart V and the authority of the OHA
to fashion procedures to distribute
refunds, see Office of Enforcement, 9
DOE ¶ 82,508 (1981) and Office of
Enforcement, 8 DOE ¶ 82,597 (1981).
III. Refund Procedures
A. Allocation of Remitted Funds
The alleged violations by the abovenamed firms all concerned the sale of
crude oil. Under these circumstances,
we propose that all of the funds
remitted be allocated for restitution for
parties injured by the firms’ alleged
violations of the crude oil regulations.
B. Refund Procedures for Crude Oil
Violations
We propose that the funds should be
distributed in accordance with the
DOE’s Modified Statement of
Restitutionary Policy in Crude Oil
Cases, (MSRP), see 51 FR 27899 (August
4, 1986). Pursuant to the MSRP, OHA
may reserve up to 20 percent of those
funds for direct refunds to applicants
who claim that they were injured by the
crude oil violations. The remaining
funds would be distributed to the states
and federal government for indirect
restitution. We propose to distribute the
funds obtained from the two firms in
accordance with the MSRP, which was
issued as a result of the Settlement
Agreement approved by the court in The
Department of Energy Stripper Well
Exemption Litigation, 653 F. Supp. 108
(D. Kan. 1986). Shortly after the
issuance of the MSRP, the OHA issued
an Order that announced that this
policy would be applied in all subpart
V proceedings involving alleged crude
E:\FR\FM\06JYN1.SGM
06JYN1
38902
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 128 / Wednesday, July 6, 2005 / Notices
oil violations. See Order Implementing
the MSRP, 51 FR 29,689 (August 20,
1986) (the August 1986 Order).
Under the MSRP, 40 percent of crude
oil overcharge funds will be disbursed
to the federal government, another 40
percent to the states, and up to 20
percent may initially be reserved for the
payment of claims to injured parties.
The MSRP also specified that any funds
remaining after all valid claims by
injured purchasers are paid will be
disbursed to the federal government and
the states in equal amounts.
In April 1987, the OHA issued a
Notice analyzing the numerous
comments received in response to the
August 1986 Order. 52 FR 11737 (April
10, 1987) (April 10 Notice). This Notice
provided guidance to claimants that
anticipated filing refund applications
for crude oil monies under the Subpart
V regulations. In general, we stated that
all claimants would be required to (1)
document their purchase volumes of
petroleum products during the August
19, 1973 through January 27, 1981 crude
oil price control period, and (2) prove
that they were injured by the alleged
crude oil overcharges. Applicants who
were end-users or ultimate consumers of
petroleum products, whose businesses
are unrelated to the petroleum industry,
and who were not subject to the DOE
price regulations would be presumed to
have been injured by any alleged crude
oil overcharges. In order to receive a
refund, end-users would not need to
submit any further evidence of injury
beyond the volume of petroleum
products purchased during the period of
price controls. See City of Columbus
Georgia, 16 DOE ¶ 85,550 (1987).
1. Individual Refund Claims
The amount of money obtained from
the listed firms intended for restitution
of crude oil violations is $1,585,576.76
plus accrued interest. In accordance
with the MSRP, we shall initially
reserve 20 percent of those funds
($317,115 plus accrued interest) for
direct refunds to applicants who claim
that they were injured by crude oil
overcharges. We shall base refunds on a
volumetric amount which has been
calculated in accordance with the
methodology described in the April 10
Notice. That volumetric refund amount
is currently $0.0016 per gallon. See 57
FR 15562 (March 24, 1995). On May 13,
2004, we announced final procedures
for the distribution of the remaining
crude oil overcharge funds held by DOE,
and estimated that the remaining funds
would result in an additional
volumetric refund amount of $0.00072
per gallon. See 69 FR 29300 (May 21,
2004).
VerDate jul<14>2003
16:35 Jul 05, 2005
Jkt 205001
The filing deadline for refund
applications in the crude oil refund
proceeding was June 30, 1994. This was
subsequently changed to June 30, 1995.
See Filing Deadline Notice, 60 FR 19914
(April 20, 1995); see also DMLP PDO, 60
FR 32004, 32007 (June 19, 1995).
Because the June 30, 1995, deadline for
crude oil refund applications has
passed, no new applications for
restitution from purchasers of refined
petroleum products based on the alleged
(or established) crude oil pricing
violations will be accepted for these
funds. Instead, these funds will be
added to the general crude oil
overcharge pool used for direct
restitution.
2. Payments to the States and Federal
Government
Under the terms of the MSRP, the
remaining 80 percent of the crude oil
violation amounts subject to this
Decision, or $1,268,461 plus accrued
interest, should be disbursed in equal
shares to the states and 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. 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
Agreement.
Accordingly, we will direct the DOE’s
Office of the Controller to transfer onehalf of that amount, or $634,230 plus
interest, into an interest bearing
subaccount for the states, and one-half
or $634,230 plus interest, into an
interest bearing subaccount for the
federal government.
It is therefore ordered that: The
payments remitted to the Department of
Energy by BPM Ltd., Honeymon Drilling
Co., Intercontinental Oil, Knox Oil,
Pescar Trading, Shepherd Oil, Inc.,
Sierra Petroleum Co., Thriftway Co., and
Western Refining Co. (Robert J. Martin)
will be distributed in accordance with
the forgoing Decision.
[FR Doc. 05–13231 Filed 7–5–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450–01–P
PO 00000
Frm 00041
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission
[Docket Nos. ER05–905–000, ER01–1064–
000, ER01–1064–001]
Celerity Energy Partners San Diego
LLC; Celerity Energy of New Mexico
LLC; Notice of Issuance of Order
June 27, 2005.
Celerity Energy Partners San Diego
LLC (Celerity-SD) filed an application
for market-based rate authority, with an
accompanying rate tariff. The proposed
rate tariff provides for the sales of
capacity, energy, and ancillary services
at market-based rates. Celerity-SD also
requested waiver of various Commission
regulations. In particular, Celerity-SD
requested that the Commission grant
blanket approval under 18 CFR part 34
of all future issuances of securities and
assumptions of liability by Celerity-SD.
On June 23, 2005, pursuant to
delegated authority, the Director,
Division of Tariffs and Market
Development—South, granted the
request for blanket approval under part
34. The Director’s order also stated that
the Commission would publish a
separate notice in the Federal Register
establishing a period of time for the
filing of protests. Accordingly, any
person desiring to be heard or to protest
the blanket approval of issuances of
securities or assumptions of liability by
Celerity-SD should file a motion to
intervene or protest with the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888
First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426,
in accordance with Rules 211 and 214
of the Commission’s Rules of Practice
and Procedure. 18 CFR 385.211, 385.214
(2004).
Notice is hereby given that the
deadline for filing motions to intervene
or protest is July 27, 2005.
Absent a request to be heard in
opposition by the deadline above,
Celerity-SD is authorized to issue
securities and assume obligations or
liabilities as a guarantor, indorser,
surety, or otherwise in respect of any
security of another person; provided
that such issuance or assumption is for
some lawful object within the corporate
purposes of Celerity-SD, compatible
with the public interest, and is
reasonably necessary or appropriate for
such purposes.
The Commission reserves the right to
require a further showing that neither
public nor private interests will be
adversely affected by continued
approval of Celerity-SD issuances of
securities or assumptions of liability.
E:\FR\FM\06JYN1.SGM
06JYN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 128 (Wednesday, July 6, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 38901-38902]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-13231]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Office of Hearings and Appeals; Proposed Implementation of
Special Refund Procedures
AGENCY: Office of Hearings and Appeals; Department of Energy.
ACTION: Notice of Proposed Implementation of Special Refund Procedures.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Office of Hearings and Appeals (OHA) of the Department of
Energy (DOE) announces the proposed procedures for the disbursement of
$1,585,576.76, plus accrued interest, in crude oil overcharges obtained
by the DOE concerning BPM Ltd., Case No. TEF-0001, Honeymon Drilling
Co., Case No. TEF-0002, Intercontinental Oil, Case No. TEF-0003, Knox
Oil, Case No. TEF-0004, Pescar Trading, Case No. TEF-0005, Shepherd
Oil, Inc., Case No. TEF-0006, Sierra Petroleum Co., Case No. TEF-0007,
Thriftway Co., Case No. TEF-0008, and Western Refining Co. (Robert J.
Martin), Case No. TEF-0011.
DATES: Comments must be filed in duplicate within 30 days of
publication of this notice in the Federal Register
ADDRESSES: Comments should be addressed to the Office of Hearings and
Appeals, Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Ave., SW., Washington,
DC 20585-1615. All comments should display a reference to Case No. TEF-
0001.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Richard A. Cronin, Jr., Assistant
Director, Office of Hearings and Appeals, 1000 Independence Ave., SW.,
Washington, DC 20585-1615 (202) 287-1589, richard.cronin@hq.doe.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In accordance with 10 CFR 205.282(b), notice
is hereby given of the issuance of the Proposed Decision and Order set
out below. The Proposed Decision sets forth the procedures that the DOE
has tentatively formulated to distribute to eligible claimants
$1,585,576.76, plus accrued interest, obtained by the DOE from BPM
Ltd., Honeymon Drilling Co., Intercontinental Oil, Knox Oil, Pescar
Trading, Shepherd Oil, Inc., Sierra Petroleum Co., Thriftway Co., and
Western Refining Co. (Robert J. Martin).
The OHA has proposed to distribute these funds in the currently-
existing crude oil refund proceeding described in the Proposed Decision
and Order. Because the deadline for filing crude oil refund
applications has passed, no new applications for refund for the alleged
(or established) crude oil pricing violations of the listed firms will
be accepted for these funds.
Any member of the public may submit written comments regarding the
proposed refund procedures. Commenting parties are requested to forward
two copies of their submission, within 30 days of the publication of
this notice in the Federal Register, to the address set forth at the
beginning of this notice. Comments so received will be made available
for public inspection between the hours of 1:30 p.m. and 4 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal Holidays, in Room 7132 (the public
reference room), 950 L'Enfant Plaza, Washington, DC.
Dated: June 29, 2005.
Fred L. Brown,
Acting Deputy Director, Office of Hearings and Appeals.
Proposed Decision and Order
Names of Firms: BPM Ltd., Honeymon Drilling Co., Intercontinental
Oil, Knox Oil, Pescar Trading, Shepherd Oil, Inc., Sierra Petroleum
Co., Thriftway Co., and Western Refining Co. (Robert J. Martin).
Date of Filing: June 21, 2005.
Case Numbers: TEF-0001, TEF-0002, TEF-0003, TEF-0004, TEF-0005,
TEF-0006, TEF-0007, TEF-0008, and TEF-0009.
I. Background
The Office of General Counsel (OGC) of the Department of Energy
(DOE) filed a Petition requesting that the Office of Hearings and
Appeals (OHA) formulate and implement subpart V special refund
proceedings. Under the procedural regulations of the DOE, special
refund proceedings may be implemented to refund monies to persons
injured by violations of the DOE petroleum price regulations, provided
DOE is unable to readily identify such persons or to ascertain the
amount of any refund. 10 CFR 205.280. We have considered OGC's request
to formulate refund procedures for the disbursement of monies remitted
by the following firms pursuant to administrative or judicial decisions
or in settlement of the DOE allegations that the firms had violated the
DOE petroleum price control and allocation regulations:
BPM Ltd., Honeymon Drilling Co., Intercontinental Oil, Knox Oil,
Pescar Trading, Shepherd Oil, Inc., Sierra Petroleum Co., Thriftway
Co., and Western Refining Co. (Robert J. Martin).
We have determined that the refund procedures requested by OGC are
appropriate.
A total of $1,585,576.76 has been remitted to DOE by these firms to
remedy violations that occurred during the relevant audit periods.
These funds are being held in an escrow account established with the
United States Treasury pending a determination of their proper
distribution. This Decision sets forth OHA's proposed plan to
distribute those funds.
II. Jurisdiction and Authority
The general guidelines that govern OHA's ability to formulate and
implement a plan to distribute refunds are set forth at 10 CFR Part
205, subpart V. These procedures apply in situations where the DOE
cannot readily identify the persons who were injured as a result of
actual or alleged violations of the regulations or ascertain the amount
of the refund each person should receive. For a more detailed
discussion of subpart V and the authority of the OHA to fashion
procedures to distribute refunds, see Office of Enforcement, 9 DOE ]
82,508 (1981) and Office of Enforcement, 8 DOE ] 82,597 (1981).
III. Refund Procedures
A. Allocation of Remitted Funds
The alleged violations by the above-named firms all concerned the
sale of crude oil. Under these circumstances, we propose that all of
the funds remitted be allocated for restitution for parties injured by
the firms' alleged violations of the crude oil regulations.
B. Refund Procedures for Crude Oil Violations
We propose that the funds should be distributed in accordance with
the DOE's Modified Statement of Restitutionary Policy in Crude Oil
Cases, (MSRP), see 51 FR 27899 (August 4, 1986). Pursuant to the MSRP,
OHA may reserve up to 20 percent of those funds for direct refunds to
applicants who claim that they were injured by the crude oil
violations. The remaining funds would be distributed to the states and
federal government for indirect restitution. We propose to distribute
the funds obtained from the two firms in accordance with the MSRP,
which was issued as a result of the Settlement Agreement approved by
the court in The Department of Energy Stripper Well Exemption
Litigation, 653 F. Supp. 108 (D. Kan. 1986). Shortly after the issuance
of the MSRP, the OHA issued an Order that announced that this policy
would be applied in all subpart V proceedings involving alleged crude
[[Page 38902]]
oil violations. See Order Implementing the MSRP, 51 FR 29,689 (August
20, 1986) (the August 1986 Order).
Under the MSRP, 40 percent of crude oil overcharge funds will be
disbursed to the federal government, another 40 percent to the states,
and up to 20 percent may initially be reserved for the payment of
claims to injured parties. The MSRP also specified that any funds
remaining after all valid claims by injured purchasers are paid will be
disbursed to the federal government and the states in equal amounts.
In April 1987, the OHA issued a Notice analyzing the numerous
comments received in response to the August 1986 Order. 52 FR 11737
(April 10, 1987) (April 10 Notice). This Notice provided guidance to
claimants that anticipated filing refund applications for crude oil
monies under the Subpart V regulations. In general, we stated that all
claimants would be required to (1) document their purchase volumes of
petroleum products during the August 19, 1973 through January 27, 1981
crude oil price control period, and (2) prove that they were injured by
the alleged crude oil overcharges. Applicants who were end-users or
ultimate consumers of petroleum products, whose businesses are
unrelated to the petroleum industry, and who were not subject to the
DOE price regulations would be presumed to have been injured by any
alleged crude oil overcharges. In order to receive a refund, end-users
would not need to submit any further evidence of injury beyond the
volume of petroleum products purchased during the period of price
controls. See City of Columbus Georgia, 16 DOE ] 85,550 (1987).
1. Individual Refund Claims
The amount of money obtained from the listed firms intended for
restitution of crude oil violations is $1,585,576.76 plus accrued
interest. In accordance with the MSRP, we shall initially reserve 20
percent of those funds ($317,115 plus accrued interest) for direct
refunds to applicants who claim that they were injured by crude oil
overcharges. We shall base refunds on a volumetric amount which has
been calculated in accordance with the methodology described in the
April 10 Notice. That volumetric refund amount is currently $0.0016 per
gallon. See 57 FR 15562 (March 24, 1995). On May 13, 2004, we announced
final procedures for the distribution of the remaining crude oil
overcharge funds held by DOE, and estimated that the remaining funds
would result in an additional volumetric refund amount of $0.00072 per
gallon. See 69 FR 29300 (May 21, 2004).
The filing deadline for refund applications in the crude oil refund
proceeding was June 30, 1994. This was subsequently changed to June 30,
1995. See Filing Deadline Notice, 60 FR 19914 (April 20, 1995); see
also DMLP PDO, 60 FR 32004, 32007 (June 19, 1995). Because the June 30,
1995, deadline for crude oil refund applications has passed, no new
applications for restitution from purchasers of refined petroleum
products based on the alleged (or established) crude oil pricing
violations will be accepted for these funds. Instead, these funds will
be added to the general crude oil overcharge pool used for direct
restitution.
2. Payments to the States and Federal Government
Under the terms of the MSRP, the remaining 80 percent of the crude
oil violation amounts subject to this Decision, or $1,268,461 plus
accrued interest, should be disbursed in equal shares to the states and
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. 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
Agreement.
Accordingly, we will direct the DOE's Office of the Controller to
transfer one-half of that amount, or $634,230 plus interest, into an
interest bearing subaccount for the states, and one-half or $634,230
plus interest, into an interest bearing subaccount for the federal
government.
It is therefore ordered that: The payments remitted to the
Department of Energy by BPM Ltd., Honeymon Drilling Co.,
Intercontinental Oil, Knox Oil, Pescar Trading, Shepherd Oil, Inc.,
Sierra Petroleum Co., Thriftway Co., and Western Refining Co. (Robert
J. Martin) will be distributed in accordance with the forgoing
Decision.
[FR Doc. 05-13231 Filed 7-5-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
