[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 107 (Monday, June 6, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-13692]


[[Page Unknown]]

[Federal Register: June 6, 1994]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Office of Hearings and Appeals (OHA) of the Department of 
Energy (DOE) announces the procedures for disbursement of $144,864.85, 
plus accrued interest, in refined petroleum overcharges obtained by the 
DOE under the terms of a Remedial Order issued to N. C. Ginther 
Company, Case No. LEF-0060. The OHA has determined that the funds will 
be distributed in accordance with the provisions of 10 CFR. Part 205, 
Subpart V and 15 U.S.C. 4501, the Petroleum Overcharge Distribution and 
Restitution Act (PODRA).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Richard T. Tedrow, Deputy Director, 
Office of Hearings and Appeals, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW. 
Washington, DC 20585 (202) 586-6602.

DATES AND ADDRESSES: Applications for Refund must be filed in 
duplicate, addressed to N. C. Ginther Company Special Refund Proceeding 
and sent to: Office of Hearings and Appeals, Department of Energy, 1000 
Independence Avenue, SW. Washington, DC 20585. Applications should 
display a prominent reference to the Case Number LEF-0060 and be 
postmarked on or before November 30, 1994.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In accordance with 10 CFR 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 $144,864.85, plus 
accrued interest, obtained by the DOE under the terms of a Consent 
Order that the DOE issued to N. C. Ginther Company on March 25, 1983. 
The Consent Order resolved all civil and administrative claims and 
disputes between N. C. Ginther Company and the DOE.
    The OHA has determined to distribute the Consent Order fund in a 
two stage refund proceeding. Purchasers of propane, butane, and natural 
gasoline from N. C. Ginther Company will have an opportunity to submit 
refund applications in the first stage. 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 propane, butane, and natural gasoline which they purchased 
from N. C. Ginther Company.
    In the event that money remains after all first stage claims have 
been disposed of, the remaining funds will be disbursed in accordance 
with the provisions of 15 U.S.C. 4501, the Petroleum Overcharge 
Distribution and Restitution Act of 1986 (PODRA).
    Applications for Refund must be postmarked on or before November 
30, 1994. Instructions for the completion of refund applications are 
set forth in Section IV of 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, SW., Washington DC 20585.

    Dated: May 31, 1994.
George B. Breznay,
Director, Office of Hearings and Appeals.

Decision and Order of The Department of Energy

Implementation of Special Refund Procedures

Name of Petitioner: N. C. Ginther Company
Date of Filing: July 20, 1993
Case Number: LEF-0060

    Under the procedural regulations of the Department of Energy (DOE), 
the Economic Regulatory Administration (ERA) may request that the 
Office of Hearings and Appeals (OHA) formulate and implement special 
refund procedures. 10 CFR 205.281. These procedures are used to refund 
monies to those injured by actual or alleged violations of the DOE 
price regulations.
    In this Decision and Order, we consider a Petition for 
Implementation of Special Refund Procedures filed by the ERA on July 
20, 1993, for funds obtained due to alleged pricing violations in the 
sale of propane, butane, and natural gasoline (natural gas liquids 
products). The funds at issue in that Petition were obtained through 
settlement of DOE enforcement proceedings involving N. C. Ginther 
Company (Ginther), pursuant to 10 CFR part 205, subpart V. The present 
Decision will set forth final procedures for the distribution of these 
funds to qualified purchasers of Ginther's natural gas liquids (NGL) 
products.

I. Background

    During the period covered by the Consent Order (September 1, 1973, 
through March 31, 1977), Ginther was a ``gas plant operator'' (as 
defined in 10 CFR 212.162) and its sales were subject to DOE price 
regulations. Accordingly, Ginther was subject to the DOE Mandatory 
Petroleum Price Regulations. An ERA audit of Ginther's records revealed 
possible violations of the Mandatory Petroleum Price Regulations, 10 
CFR part 212 subparts E and K, in specified transactions during the 
period September 1, 1973, through March 31, 1977 (the consent order 
period).1 Consequently, the ERA issued a Notice of Probable 
Violation (NOPV) to Ginther on December 31, 1980, alleging pricing 
violations in the sale of propane, butane, and natural gasoline during 
the audit period. On March 25, 1983, Ginther and the DOE entered into a 
Consent Order. The Consent Order refers to the ERA's allegations of 
regulatory violations. It also includes Ginther's denials that any such 
violations occurred.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\Ginther owned all or a portion of four gas processing plants 
for various lengths of time during the audit period. In addition, 
Ginther owned and operated Ginther Energy Marketing Company and A & 
V Gas Service, Inc. In accordance with the definition of a firm in 
10 CFR 212.31, the four gas processing plants, Ginther Energy 
Marketing Company, and A & V Gas Service, Inc., constitute one firm 
and were regarded as such by ERA in the audit. Notice of Probable 
Violation issued to N. C. Ginther dated December 31, 1980.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As a result of the Consent Order, there is a total of $144,864.85, 
plus accrued interest, available for restitution. This Decision 
concerns the distribution of all funds in the Ginther escrow account.

II. The Proposed Decision and Order

    On April 14, 1994, the OHA issued a Proposed Decision and Order 
(PDO) establishing tentative procedures to distribute the alleged 
violation amount obtained from Ginther. 59 FR 19005 (April 21, 1994). 
The OHA tentatively outlined procedures under which purchasers of 
Ginther's NGL products could apply for refunds. In order to permit 
applicants to make refund claims without incurring disproportionate 
costs as well as to allow the OHA to equitably and efficiently consider 
those claims, we set forth a number of presumptions pertaining to 
refund procedures.
    First, we presumed that the alleged refined product overcharges 
were spread evenly over all of Ginther's sales of NGL products during 
the Consent Order period. We therefore proposed that an applicant's 
potential refund generally should be computed by multiplying the per-
gallon refund amount by the number of gallons of Ginther's NGL products 
that the claimant purchased during the Consent Order period. The 
resulting figure is referred to as the claimant's ``volumetric share'' 
of the Ginther Consent Order funds. Because an applicant may have been 
overcharged by more than the volumetric amount, we proposed that an 
applicant could rebut the volumetric refund presumption by showing that 
it sustained a greater amount of the overcharge.
    Because it is potentially difficult, time-consuming, and expensive 
to demonstrate that one was forced to absorb any overcharges from 
Ginther, we proposed to adopt a number of presumptions concerning 
injury. We proposed that resellers and retailers claiming refunds of 
$5,000 or less, end-users, agricultural cooperatives, and certain types 
of regulated firms would be presumed injured by Ginther's alleged 
overcharges. We proposed that refiners, resellers, and retailers 
seeking refunds greater than $5,000 could receive a maximum of $20,000 
based upon 40 percent of their volumetric share without having to prove 
injury. We also proposed to presume that claimants who made only spot 
purchases from Ginther were not injured and must rebut that presumption 
to receive a refund. We stated that applicants not covered by one of 
the injury presumptions would be required to demonstrate that they were 
forced to absorb any overcharge by Ginther in order to receive their 
full volumetric shares of the Ginther Consent Order funds.
    Finally, we proposed that any money remaining after all Ginther 
refund claims are analyzed should be disbursed as indirect restitution 
in accordance with the provisions of the Overcharge Distribution and 
Restitution Act of 1986 (PODRA), 15 U.S.C. Secs. 4501-4507 (1988).
    The PDO provided a period of 30 days from the date of publication 
in the Federal Register in which comments could be filed regarding the 
tentative refund process. More than 30 days have elapsed and the OHA 
has received no comments concerning the proposed procedures for the 
distribution of the Ginther settlement funds. Consequently, the 
procedures will be adopted as proposed.

III. Refund Procedures

A. Eligibility for Refund

    As indicated above, the Consent Order resolved all civil and 
administrative claims between DOE and Ginther. Accordingly, to the 
extent that is possible, the Ginther Consent Order amount of 
$144,864.85, plus accrued interest, will be distributed to purchasers 
of covered Ginther NGL products who can show that they were injured by 
Ginther's pricing practices during the period September 1, 1973, 
through March 31, 1977.

B. Calculation of Refund Amount

    We are adopting a volumetric method to apportion the Ginther escrow 
account. Under this volumetric refund approach, a claimant's allocable 
share of the refined products pool is equal to the number of gallons of 
covered products purchased during the Consent Order period times a per 
gallon refund amount. We will derive the volumetric figure (per gallon 
refund amount) by dividing the $144,864.85 received from Ginther by the 
total volume of NGL products sold by the firm during the regulatory 
period, 25,312,920 gallons. This yields a volumetric refund amount of 
$.0057 per gallon, exclusive of interest. This method is based upon the 
presumption that the alleged overcharges were spread equally over all 
gallons of NGL products sold by Ginther during the regulatory period. 
E.g., American Pac. Int'l, Inc., 14 DOE  85,158, at 88,293 
(1986).2
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\Nevertheless, we realize that the impact on an individual 
claimant may have been greater than the volumetric amount. 
Therefore, the volumetric presumption will be rebuttable, and we 
will allow a claimant to submit evidence detailing the specific 
overcharges that it incurred in order to be eligible for a larger 
refund. E.g., Standard Oil Co./Army and Air Force Exchange Serv., 12 
DOE  85,015 (1984). Such an application will be granted only if an 
applicant makes a persuasive showing that: (1) it was 
``overcharged'' by a specific amount, (2) it sustained a 
disproportionate share of Ginther's alleged overcharges, and (3) it 
was injured by those overcharges. See MCO Holdings, Inc., MGPC, 
Inc./Little America Refining Co., 19 DOE  85,560 (1989); Marathon 
Petroleum Co./Red Diamond Oil Co., 19 DOE  85,543 (1989); Getty Oil 
Co./Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railroad Co., 18 DOE  85,107 
(1988). To the extent that a claimant makes this showing, it will 
receive a refund above the volumetric refund level. In computing the 
appropriate refunds of this type, we will prorate the refund amount 
by the ratio of the Ginther Consent order amount as compared to the 
aggregate overcharge amount alleged by the ERA. Amtel, Inc./Whitco, 
Inc., 19 DOE  85,319 (1989) (Amtel/Whitco).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under the volumetric approach, an eligible claimant will receive a 
refund equal to the number of gallons of covered products that it 
purchased from Ginther during the period September 1, 1973, through 
March 31, 1977, multiplied by the per gallon volumetric amount for this 
proceeding. Accordingly, each claimant will be required to establish, 
by documentation or reasonable estimation, the volume of products that 
it purchased during this period. In addition, each successful claimant 
will receive a pro rata portion of the interest that has accrued on the 
Ginther funds since the date of remittance. As in previous cases, we 
will establish a minimum amount of $15 for refund claims. E.g., Uban 
Oil Co., 9 DOE  82,541, at 85,225 (1982). Accordingly, an applicant 
must have purchased at least 2,544 gallons of NGL products from Ginther 
in order for its claim to be considered.

C. Showing of Injury

    Each claimant will be required to document its purchases of covered 
products from Ginther during the Consent Order period. In addition, in 
order to receive a refund, an applicant generally must demonstrate 
through the submission of detailed evidence that it did not pass on the 
alleged overcharges to its customers. See, e.g., Office of Enforcement, 
8 DOE  82,597, at 85,396-97 (1981) (Vickers).
    However, as we have done in many prior refund cases, we will adopt 
a number of presumptions regarding injury for claimants in each 
category listed below. These presumptions are intended to ease what 
would be a time-consuming and potentially expensive process if an 
applicant were forced to demonstrate that they absorbed the alleged 
overcharges.
1. End-Users
    In accordance with prior Subpart V proceedings, we are adopting the 
presumption that an end-user or ultimate consumer of Ginther NGL 
products whose business is unrelated to the petroleum industry was 
injured by the alleged overcharges settled by the consent order. See, 
e.g., Texas Oil and Gas Corp., 12 DOE  85,069, at 88,209 (1984) 
(TOGCO). Unlike regulated firms in the petroleum industry, members of 
this group generally were not subject to price controls during the 
consent order period and were not required to keep records which 
justified selling price increases by reference to cost increases. 
Consequently, analysis of the impact of the alleged 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. Therefore, end-
users of Ginther NGL products need only document their purchase volumes 
from Ginther during the consent order period to make a sufficient 
showing that they were injured by the alleged overcharges.
2. Regulated Firms and Cooperatives
    In order to receive a full volumetric refund, a claimant whose 
prices for goods and services are regulated by a governmental agency, 
i.e., a public utility, or an agricultural cooperative which is 
required by its charter to pass through cost savings to its member 
purchasers, need only submit documentation of purchases used by itself 
or, in the case of a cooperative, sold to its members. However, a 
regulated firm or a cooperative will also be required to certify that 
it will pass any refund received through to its customers or member-
customers, provide us with a full explanation of how it plans to 
accomplish the restitution, and certify that it will notify the 
appropriate regulatory body or membership group of the receipt of the 
refund. See Marathon, 14 DOE at 88,514-15. This requirement is based 
upon the presumption that, with respect to a regulated firm, any 
overcharge would have been routinely passed through to its customers. 
Similarly, any refunds received should be passed through to its 
customers. With respect to a cooperative, in general, the cooperative 
agreement which controls its business operations would ensure that the 
alleged overcharges, and similarly refunds, would be passed through to 
its member-customers. Accordingly, these firms will not be required to 
make a detailed demonstration of injury.3
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\A cooperative's purchases of Ginther products which were 
resold to non-members will be treated in a manner consistent with 
purchases made by other resellers. See Total Petroleum, Inc./Farmers 
Petroleum Cooperative, Inc., 19 DOE  85,215 (1989).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Refiners, Resellers, and Retailers
    a. Small claims presumption. We will adopt a ``small claims'' 
presumption that resellers requesting relatively small refunds were 
injured by the alleged overcharges. Under the small claims presumption, 
a refiner, reseller, or retailer seeking a refund of $5,000 or less, 
exclusive of interest, will not be required to submit evidence of 
injury beyond documentation of the volume of Ginther products it 
purchased during the consent order period. See TOGCO, 12 DOE at 88,210. 
This presumption is based on the fact that there may be considerable 
expense involved in gathering the types of data necessary to support a 
detailed claim of injury; for small claims the expense might even 
exceed the potential refund. Consequently, failure to allow simplified 
refund procedures for small claims could deprive injured parties of 
their opportunity to obtain a refund. Furthermore, use of the small 
claims presumption is desirable because it allows the OHA to process 
the large number of routine refund claims in an efficient manner.4
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\In order to qualify for a refund under the small claims 
presumption, a refiner, reseller, or retailer must have purchased 
less than 877,280 gallons of Ginther products during the consent 
order period. However, an applicant, who has purchased more than 
877,280 gallons of Ginther products during the consent order period, 
may elect to limit its refund to the small claims presumption.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    b. Mid-Level Claim Presumption. In addition, a refiner, reseller, 
or retailer claimant whose allocable share of the refund pool exceeds 
$5,000, excluding interest, may elect to receive as its refund either 
$5,000 or 40 percent of its allocable share, up to $20,000,5 
whichever is larger.6 The use of this presumption reflects our 
conviction that these larger, mid-level claimants were likely to have 
experienced some injury as a result of the alleged overcharges. See 
Marathon, 14 DOE at 88,515. We are adopting a 40 percent presumptive 
level of injury for all mid-level claimants in this proceeding. 
Consequently, an applicant in this group will only be required to 
provide documentation of its purchase volumes of Ginther NGL products 
during the consent order period in order to be eligible to receive a 
refund of 40 percent of its total allocable share, up to $20,000, or 
$5,000, whichever is greater.7
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\In most prior proceedings, we have used a $50,000 mid-level 
claim presumption. However, due to the small size of the Ginther 
consent order fund and the rather small volumetric figure, this 
amount would be impractical.
    \6\That is, claimants who purchased more than 877,281 gallons of 
Ginther products during the consent order period (mid-level 
claimants) may elect to utilize this presumption.
    \7\A claimant who attempts to make a detailed showing of injury 
in order to obtain 100 percent of its allocable share but, instead, 
provides evidence that leads us to conclude that it passed through 
all of the alleged overcharges, or that it is eligible for a refund 
of less than the applicable presumption-level refund, may not then 
be eligible for a presumption-based refund. Instead, such a claimant 
may receive a refund which reflects the level of injury established 
in its application. No refund will be approved if its submission 
indicates that it was not injured as a result of its purchases from 
Ginther. See Exxon, 17 DOE at 89,150 n.10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    c. Spot purchasers. We are adopting a rebuttable presumption that a 
reseller that made only spot purchases from Ginther did not suffer 
injury as a result of those purchases. As we have previously stated, 
spot purchasers generally had considerable discretion as to the timing 
and market in which they made their purchases and therefore would not 
have made spot market purchases from a firm at increased prices unless 
they were able to pass through the full amount of the firm's selling 
price to their own customers. See, e.g., Vickers, 8 DOE at 85,396-97. 
Accordingly, a spot purchaser claimant must submit specific and 
detailed evidence to rebut the spot purchaser presumption and to 
establish the extent to which it was injured as a result of its spot 
purchases from Ginther.8
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\In prior proceedings, we have stated that refunds will be 
approved for spot purchasers who demonstrate that: (1) They made the 
spot purchases for the purpose of ensuring a supply for their base 
period customers rather than in anticipation of financial advantage 
as a result of those purchases and (2) they were forced by market 
conditions to resell the product at a loss.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. Allocation Claims

    We may also receive claims based upon Ginther's alleged failure to 
furnish products that it was obliged to supply under the DOE allocation 
regulations that became effective in January 1974. See 10 CFR part 211. 
Any such applications will be evaluated with reference to the standards 
set forth in subpart V implementation cases such as Office of Special 
Counsel, 10 DOE 85,048, at 88,220 (1982), and refund application cases 
such as Mobil Oil Corp./Reynolds Indus., Inc., 17 DOE 85,608 (1988); 
Marathon Petroleum Co./Research Fuels, Inc., 19 DOE 85,575 (1989) 
(Marathon/RFI), aff'd sub nom. Research Fuels, Inc. v. DOE, No. CA3-89-
2983G (N.D. Tex. 1990), aff'd, 977 F.2d 601 (Temp. Emer. Ct. App. 
1992). These standards generally require an allocation claimant to 
demonstrate the existence of a supplier/purchaser relationship with the 
consent order firm and the likelihood that the consent order firm 
failed to furnish NGL products that it was obliged to supply to the 
claimant under 10 CFR part 211. In addition, the claimant should 
provide evidence that it had contemporaneously notified the DOE or 
otherwise sought redress from the alleged allocation violation. 
Finally, the claimant must establish that it was injured and document 
the extent of the injury.
    In our evaluation of whether allocation claims meet these 
standards, we will consider various factors. For example, we will seek 
to obtain as much information as possible about the agency's treatment 
of complaints made to it by the claimant. We will also look at any 
affirmative defenses that Ginther may have had to the alleged 
allocation violation. See Marathon/RFI, 19 DOE 85,575. In assessing an 
allocation claimant's injury, we will evaluate the effect of the 
alleged allocation violation on its entire business operations with 
particular reference to the amount of product that it received from 
suppliers other than Ginther. In determining the amount of an 
allocation refund, we will utilize any information that may be 
available regarding the portion of the Ginther consent order amount 
that the agency attributed to allocation violations in general and to 
the specific allocation violation alleged by the claimants. Finally, 
since the Ginther consent order fund is less than Ginther's potential 
liability in the proceedings, we will pro rate those allocation refunds 
that would otherwise be disproportionately large in relation to the 
consent order fund. Cf. Amtel/Whitco, 19 DOE 85,319.

E. Distribution of Funds Remaining After First Stage

    In the event that money remains after all refund claims from the 
Ginther funds have been analyzed, the remaining funds in that account 
will be disbursed as indirect restitution 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 energy conservation programs. The Secretary has delegated these 
responsibilities to the OHA, and any funds in the Ginther consent order 
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.

IV. General Refund Application Requirements

    Pursuant to 10 CFR 205.283, we will now accept Applications for 
Refund from individuals and firms that purchased NGL products sold by 
Ginther during the period September 1, 1973, through March 31, 1977. 
There is no specific application form that must be used. However, the 
following information should be included in all Applications for 
Refund:
    (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 a 
corporation, partnership, sole proprietorship, or other business 
entity, the name, title, and telephone number of a person to contact 
for any additional information, and the name and address of the person 
who should receive any refund check.9 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\Under the Privacy Act of 1974, 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, 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 OHA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (2) If the applicant's firm is owned by another company, or owns 
other companies, a list of those companies' names, addresses, and 
descriptions of their relationship to the applicant's firm.
    (3) A brief description of the claimant's business and the manner 
in which it used the petroleum products listed on its application.
    (4) A monthly schedule of the applicant's purchases of NGL products 
that it purchased from Ginther during the Consent Order period. The 
applicant must indicate the name of its supplier and the delivery 
location. The applicant should indicate the source of its volume 
information. Monthly schedules should be based upon actual, 
contemporaneous business records. If such records are not available, 
the applicant may submit estimates provided that those estimates are 
reasonable and the estimation methodology is explained in detail.
    (5) If the applicant was an indirect purchaser, it should submit 
the name, address, and telephone number of its immediate supplier and 
indicate why it believes that the NGL products was originally sold by 
Ginther.
    (6) A statement whether the applicant or a related firm has filed, 
or authorized any individual to file on its behalf, any other 
Application for Refund in the Ginther proceeding, and if so, the 
circumstances surrounding that filing or authorization.
    (7) A statement whether the applicant was in any way affiliated 
with Ginther. If so, the applicant should explain the nature of the 
affiliation.
    (8) If the applicant is a reseller, retailer, or refiner whose 
volumetric share exceeds $5,000, it must indicate whether it elects to 
receive its maximum refund under the presumptions of injury. If it does 
not elect a presumption of injury, it must submit a detailed showing 
that it was injured by Ginther's pricing practices.
    (9) If the applicant is a regulated utility or a cooperative, 
certifications that it will pass on the entirety of any refund received 
to its customers, will notify its state utility commission, other 
regulatory agency, or membership body of the receipt of any refund, and 
a brief description as to how the refund will be passed along.
    (10) A statement whether there has been any change in the ownership 
of the entity that purchased the covered Ginther products at any time 
during or after the refund period. If so, the name and address of the 
current (or former) owner should be provided.
    (11) The statement listed below signed by the individual applicant 
or a responsible official of the company filing the refund application:

    I swear (or affirm) that this is the only refund Application 
filed on behalf of this applicant in the N.C. Ginther Company 
special refund proceeding and that the information contained in this 
Application and its attachments 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.

    We also invite each applicant to submit copies of no more than five 
contemporaneous invoices or other proofs of purchase showing that it 
purchased NGL products from Ginther. While this information is not 
required of refund applicants, it may well expedite the processing of 
the refund application.
    All applications should be either typed or printed and clearly 
labeled ``N.C. Ginther Company Application for 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: N.C. Ginther Company Refund 
Proceeding, Case No. LEF-0060, Office of Hearings and Appeals, 
Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Ave., SW., Washington, DC 
20585.
    The filing deadline is November 30, 1994.
    It Is Therefore Ordered That:
    (1) Applications for Refund from the funds remitted to the 
Department of Energy by N.C. Ginther Company pursuant to the Consent 
Order finalized on March 25, 1983, may now be filed.
    (2) All Applications submitted pursuant to Paragraph (1) above must 
be filed in duplicate and postmarked no later than November 30, 1994.

    Dated: May 31, 1994.
George B. Breznay,
Director, Office of Hearings and Appeals.
[FR Doc. 94-13692 Filed 6-3-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P