[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 121 (Friday, June 23, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 32666-32670]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-15465]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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 $10,700,000,
plus accrued interest, in alleged crude oil overcharges obtained by the
DOE pursuant to a Settlement Agreement entered into by the DOE and
Murphy Oil Corp., Murphy Oil USA, Inc. and Murphy Exploration &
Production Co., Case No. VEF-0003 (Murphy). The DOE has determined that
the funds obtained from Murphy will be distributed in accordance with
the DOE's Modified Statement of Restitutionary Policy in Crude Oil
Cases, 51 FR 27899 (August 4, 1986).
DATES AND ADDRESSES: Applications for Refund from the crude oil funds
should be clearly labeled ``Application for Crude Oil Refunds'' and
should be mailed to Subpart V Crude Oil Overcharge Refunds, Office of
Hearings and Appeals, Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Ave.,
S.W., Washington, DC 20585. Applications for Refund must be filed in
duplicate no later than June 30, 1995. Any party who has previously
filed an Application for Refund should not file another for the present
crude oil funds. The previously filed crude oil application will be
deemed filed in all crude oil proceedings as the proceedings are
finalized.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thomas O. Mann, Deputy Director, Roger
Klurfeld, Assistant Director, Office of Hearings and Appeals, 1000
Independence Ave., S.W., Washington, DC 20585, (202) 586-2094 (Mann);
586-2383 (Klurfeld).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In accordance with 10 C.F.R. 205.282(c),
notice is hereby given of the issuance of the Decision and Order set
out below. The Decision and Order sets forth the procedures the DOE has
formulated to distribute a total of $10,700,000, plus accrued interest,
obtained from Murphy pursuant to the Settlement Agreement entered into
by Murphy and the DOE. The DOE is currently holding these funds in an
interest bearing account, pending distribution.
The OHA will distribute these funds in accordance with the DOE's
Modified Statement of Restitutionary Policy in Crude Oil Cases, 51 FR
27899 (August 4, 1986) (the MSRP). Under the MSRP, crude oil overcharge
monies are divided among the federal government, the states, and
injured purchasers of refined petroleum products. Refunds to the states
will be distributed in proportion to each state's consumption of
petroleum products during the price control period. Refunds to eligible
purchasers will be based on the volume of petroleum products that they
purchased and the extent to which they can demonstrate injury.
Applications for Refund must be postmarked no later than June 30,
1995. As we state in the Decision, any party who has previously filed a
refund application in the crude oil proceedings should not file another
application for refund. The previously filed crude oil application will
be deemed filed in all crude oil proceedings as the proceedings are
finalized.
Dated: June 15, 1995.
George B. Breznay,
Director, Office of Hearings and Appeals.
Implementation of Special Refund Procedures
Name of Firm: Murphy Oil Corp./Murphy Oil USA, Inc.
Date of Filing: October 25, 1994
Case Number: VEF-0003
On October 25, 1994, 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 $10,700,000 remitted by Murphy Oil
Corp., Murphy Oil USA, Inc., and Murphy Exploration & Production Co.
(collectively referred to as ``Murphy''), pursuant to a Consent Order
entered into between Murphy and the DOE on July 15, 1994. In accordance
with the procedural regulations codified 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
alleged regulatory violations which were resolved by the present
Consent Order. This Decision and Order sets forth the OHA's plan to
distribute these funds.
I. Background
Murphy is a major integrated refiner which produced and sold crude
oil and a full range of refined petroleum products during the period of
federal price controls. As such, it was subject to the federal
petroleum price and allocation regulations. During that time, the ERA
conducted an extensive audit of Murphy and issued an Issue Letter to
Murphy on September 29, 1976. ERA issued a Notice of Probable Violation
to Murphy on January 28, 1981. ERA issued a Proposed Remedial Order
(PRO) to Murphy on December 15, 1986, which Murphy contested before the
OHA.
On February 9, 1987, Murphy and the DOE entered into a Consent
Order which resolved disputes regarding Murphy's refined petroleum
product operations during the period the petroleum price and allocation
regulations were in effect. See Murphy Oil Corp., 17 DOE para. 85,782
(1987) (the first Consent Order). The first Consent Order left the
issue of Murphy's alleged violations as a producer of crude oil
unresolved. Those issues were decided by the OHA on June 17, 1992 when
the OHA issued a modified version of the PRO as a Remedial Order (RO).
See Murphy Oil Corp., 22 DOE para. 83,005 (1992). Murphy subsequently
appealed the OHA's determination to the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission (FERC). On January 24, 1994, a FERC Administrative Law Judge
(ALJ) issued a Decision and Proposed Order (D&PO) which modified the
RO. See Ocean Drilling & Exploration Co., et al., 66 FERC para. 63,002
(1994).
On July 15, 1994, Murphy and the DOE entered into the present
Consent Order. This second Consent Order, which does not modify or
affect the terms of the first Consent Order, resolves all existing or
potential civil and administrative claims against Murphy for alleged
violations of the federal petroleum price and allocation regulations
left unresolved by the first Consent Order. Under the terms of this
second Consent Order, Murphy has remitted $10,700,000 to the DOE, and
all outstanding or potential crude oil overcharge claims by the DOE
against Murphy have been settled. 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.
[[Page 32667]]
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
for 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 The Petroleum Overcharge
Distribution and Restitution Act of 1986 (PODRA), 15 U.S.C. 4501-07;
Office of Enforcement, 9 DOE para. 82,508 (1981); Office of
Enforcement, 8 DOE para. 82,597 (1981).
III. The Proposed Decision and Order
We considered the ERA's Petition that we implement a Subpart V
proceeding with respect to the Murphy funds and, on December 12, 1994,
we issued a Proposed Decision and Order (PDO) setting forth the
tentative plan to distribute these funds. See 59 FR 65332 (December 19,
1994). In the PDO, we proposed to distribute the Murphy funds in
accordance with the DOE's Modified Statement of Restitutionary Policy
in Crude Oil Cases, 51 Fed. Reg. 27899 (August 4, 1986) (the MSRP). The
MSRP was issued as a result of the Stripper Well Settlement Agreement.
In re: The Department of Energy Stripper Well Exemption Litigation, 653
F. Supp. 108 (D. Kan.), 6 Fed. Energy Guidelines para. 90,509 (1986).
Under the MSRP, 40 percent of the crude oil overcharge funds will be
remitted to the federal government and 40 percent to the states for
indirect restitution, and up to 20 percent may be initially reserved
for direct restitution to injured parties. Any money remaining after
all valid claims by injured parties are paid will be disbursed to the
federal government and the states in equal amounts.
We received two comments on the PDO. The first comment was
submitted by the Controller of the State of California (Controller).
The second comment was submitted by Utilities, Transporters and
Manufacturers (UTM), a consortium of six utilities, fourteen
transporting companies, and five manufacturers. Both address the issue
of royalties paid by Murphy to the federal government under its lease
agreements to produce crude oil from federal lands.1
\1\ UTM also commented, without elaboration, upon the Subpart V
proceedings as a whole. We have previously considered these comments
at length and rejected them. We therefore do not discuss them again
here. See Permian Corp., 23 DOE para. 85,034 (1993); Seneca Oil Co.,
21 DOE para. 85,327 (1991).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. The Royalty Issue
As part of its operations, Murphy leased land from the United
States and paid royalties to the United States Geological Survey of the
Department of the Interior (USGS) on all crude oil produced from
federal lease areas. During the Murphy enforcement proceedings, Murphy
claimed that the United States had benefited from the overcharges
through increased royalty payments (since royalty payments are based on
the sale price of crude produced from leased federal land).
Accordingly, Murphy argued, the amount of any overcharges assessed
against Murphy should be reduced by the amount of royalties paid to
prevent the United States from enjoying a double recovery. Murphy Oil
Corp., 22 DOE para. 83,005 at 86,097. While the OHA rejected this
argument, the FERC ALJ found that the argument had merit. The ALJ
ordered the OHA to reconsider the issue on remand and determine to what
extent the United States benefited from the overcharges through
increased royalty payments, and to reduce Murphy's overcharges
accordingly. Ocean Drilling & Exploration Co., et al., 66 FERC para.
63,002 at 65,027-29.
The second Murphy Consent Order eliminated the need to make any
such determination, since it settled all claims by the DOE against
Murphy in exchange for one lump sum payment. In its announcement of the
Proposed Consent Order, the ERA listed the royalty issue as one of the
matters addressed and settled by the agreement between Murphy and the
DOE. Announcement of Proposed Consent Order with Murphy Oil
Corporation, Murphy Oil USA, Inc., and Murphy Exploration & Production
Co., 59 FR 38169, at 38170 (July 27, 1994).
In response to the Proposed Consent Order, the Controller and UTM
submitted comments asking that, if the ERA accepted an offset from the
alleged overcharges based on FERC's determination on the royalty issue,
the ERA identify the amount of money in the settlement set aside as
royalty payments. UTM and the Controller further stated that this
amount should not be subject to the usual division of funds between the
federal government, the states, and individual claimants, as set forth
in the MSRP. Instead, they argued that the amount attributable to the
royalty issue should be divided exclusively between the states and
individual claimants to prevent any sort of ``double recovery'' by the
federal government. For a more detailed discussion of their comments,
see Announcement of Final Consent Order with Murphy Oil Corporation,
Murphy Oil USA, Inc. and Murphy Exploration & Production Company, 59
Fed. Reg. 47315 (September 15, 1994) (Final Consent Order Notice). In
considering these comments, the ERA stated that it would be difficult
to set a dollar value on the amount attributable to the royalty
issue.2 The ERA also stated that consideration of any comments
regarding the division of funds should wait until the implementation of
the Subpart V process. Accordingly, the Controller and UTM have filed
comments with us after the publication of the PDO in the Federal
Register.
\2\ However, in two footnotes, the ERA indicated that the value
could be $341,798, or 3.2% of the total. Final Consent Order Notice
at 47316 n.3, 47317 n.5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Comments of the Controller and UTM
Both the Controller and UTM argue that none of the Murphy Consent
Order fund attributable to the royalty issue should be disbursed to the
federal government for indirect restitution under the MSRP. In
addition, since the ERA did not set a value on the royalty issue in the
Final Consent Order Notice, UTM proposes its own formula for
determining the percentage of the Murphy funds attributable to the
royalty issue.
C. Analysis of Comments
As explained below, we find no merit in the Controller's and UTM's
arguments that we should alter the normal formula set forth in the MSRP
for the disbursement of funds in this proceeding.
The Controller asserts that, by compromising with Murphy on the
royalty issue in the final Consent Order, the ERA reduced the amount of
the settlement. The Controller argues that, in so doing, ERA had, in
effect, acted to reduce the potential amount of restitutionary funds
available to the states and individual claimants. Controller Comments
at 1. The Controller maintains that this is inequitable in light of the
determination of the FERC ALJ that the federal government may have
benefited from the overcharges through the royalties. The Controller
therefore asks us to deny the federal government the right to receive
any money attributable to the royalty issue, so that the states and
individual claimants ``are not required to bear this burden out of
their share of the refund.'' Id. at 2.
UTM's position is also based on the issue raised by the FERC ALJ
that the federal government, through the royalty payments made to the
USGS, may have benefited from the overcharges. UTM
[[Page 32668]] Comments at 3. According to UTM's theory, we should
regard the royalty payments as ``an advance payment of restitution to
the U.S. Treasury.'' Id. Therefore, UTM argues, the federal government
should receive none of the money attributable to the royalty issue, in
order to preserve the 40:40:20 ratio set forth in the Stripper Well
Settlement Agreement and the MSRP.3
\3\ In view of our determination not to alter the distribution
of funds from the formula in the MSRP, there is no need to discuss
UTM's suggested method of estimating the percentage of the Murphy
funds attributable to the royalty issue.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We reject these arguments to change the disbursement of the Murphy
Consent Order funds from the formula set forth in the Stripper Well
Settlement Agreement. Under the statute and regulations governing the
litigation between Murphy and the DOE, the final Consent Order is a
final Order of the DOE which is not subject to administrative appeal.
See Department of Energy Organization Act, section 503, 42 U.S.C. 7193;
10 C.F.R. 205.199B. It therefore supersedes the determination of the
FERC ALJ and forecloses further inquiry into the issue of whether, and
to what extent, the federal government may have benefited from the
alleged Murphy overcharges through the royalties paid to USGS. We
instead rely on the ERA's statement that ``it is neither practical nor
appropriate to quantify the portion of the $10.7 million proposed
settlement sum that exceeds the $5.2 million in restitution under the
D&PO that can be ascribed to the royalty payment issue.'' Final Consent
Order Notice, 59 FR 47315, 47316. As the Court of Appeals recently
noted in Mullins v. DOE, No. 93-1424 (Fed. Cir. March 25, 1995),
petition for rehearing en banc denied (June 8, 1995), the OHA may rely
on ERA's statements about overcharges compromised in settlements when
implementing Subpart V refund procedures.
Furthermore, contrary to the Controller's assertion, the ERA did
not disturb the ``inviolate'' allocation of the crude oil
restitutionary funds by agreeing to settle the Murphy crude oil
overcharge litigation. The disbursement of crude oil overcharge funds
is based on the total amount of funds collected by the DOE in its
enforcement proceedings and then turned over to the OHA for
distribution through Subpart V proceedings. It is not based on the
potential amount of funds that the DOE could have obtained if it
successfully litigated every claim to finality. The ERA correctly noted
that the royalty issue was one of the litigation risks which could
justifiably be compromised in settlement. See Final Consent Order
Notice at 47315, 47317. As courts have noted in the past, Consent
Orders result from a process in which each party ``gives up something
it might have won in litigation.'' Consumer Energy Council v. Duncan,
No. CA 80-2570 (D.D.C. April 1, 1981), 3 Fed. Energy Guidelines para.
26,314 (1981) (CEC). Consent Order negotiations, therefore, fall
entirely within ERA's prosecutorial discretion. Id. See also Payne 22,
Inc., 762 F.2d 91 (1985) (Court review of DOE Consent Orders would
result ``in chaos''). If we followed the Controller's logic to its
natural conclusion, the OHA could never rely on an ERA Consent Order.
Instead, the OHA would need to determine what ERA could conceivably
have won in completely successful litigation and deduct the amount of
any compromise from the federal share of any crude oil refund
disbursement under the MSRP. This notion is patently absurd. It would
run counter to the considerations of administrative efficiency
underlying ERA's settlement authority, and impose an impossible burden
on DOE's limited resources. CEC, 3 Fed. Energy Guideline at 28,417.
We do not, however, rely solely on these considerations in
rejecting the Controller's and UTM's comments on the proper
disbursement of funds. We reject the suggested disbursement changes
because they stem from a misunderstanding of the federal government's
role in the disbursement of funds for indirect restitution. Our recent
holding in Defense Logistics Agency, 24 DOE para. 85,134 (1995) (DLA)
is relevant here. As we stated in DLA, the federal government is not
seen as a monolithic entity for the purposes of refund proceedings. Its
role in the division of funds is entirely separate from the role of
individual agencies as consumers of petroleum products or, in the case
of USGS, as a collector of royalties for crude oil produced on federal
land. ``[T]he division of monies between the federal government and the
states pursuant to the terms of the Settlement Agreement arose as a
function of their role as parens patriae, as stand-ins for their
citizens who, though unidentified, were nonetheless injured by the
crude oil overcharges.'' Id. at 88,415. In other words, the federal
government's 40 percent share of crude oil monies for indirect
restitution under the MSRP is not paid to compensate the federal
government for any injuries from petroleum overcharges. It is paid to
the federal government so that the federal government can compensate
the mass of unidentified citizens who all suffered to some degree from
the overcharges.
The federal government and the states also have other, different
roles in the process. For example, we have held that state and federal
agencies may receive refunds as end-users in refund proceedings because
their role as purchasers and consumers is entirely separate from their
role in providing indirect restitution to their citizens. Id.; City of
Burbank, 19 DOE para. 85,169 (1989) (No double recovery ``is presented
by a state serving as a conduit for indirect restitution on behalf of
its citizens, while at the same time receiving direct restitution in
its own right for petroleum product purchases.''); Metropolitan Atlanta
Rapid Transit Authority, 17 DOE para. 85,243 (1988); Chicago Transit
Authority, 17 DOE para. 85,223 (1988). Pursuant to this reasoning, we
have granted direct refunds to a number of states based on their
purchases of petroleum products. See, e.g., The Commonwealth of
Massachusetts, 22 DOE para. 85,002 (1992); State of Minnesota, 21 DOE
para. 85,342 (1991); State of Tennessee, 21 DOE para. 85,334 (1991);
State of New Hampshire, 21 DOE para. 85,234 (1991); State of Arkansas,
20 DOE para. 85,741 (1990). Similarly, any benefit USGS received from
the alleged overcharges through the royalties has no effect upon the
disbursement of the Murphy funds to the federal government for indirect
restitution.
In addition, if we accepted UTM's argument that we consider royalty
payments to the USGS as an advance payment of restitution, we would
need to apply the same principle to the states. Several states have
leasing provisions for state-owned land which require payments of
royalties on mineral rights. To apply this principle consistently, we
would be forced to revisit each crude oil overcharge proceeding in
which we have disbursed money to the states, determine if the funds
came from a firm which paid royalty payments to any state, and
retroactively deduct that amount from our disbursement to the states in
question. Such a scheme would be hopelessly complex, particularly at
this late date, and we would refuse to adopt UTM's arguments for this
reason alone.
In conclusion, we reject UTM's argument that we depart from the
disbursement of funds set out in the MSRP and the Stripper Well
Agreement. Whether one agency of the federal government arguably
received some benefit from the alleged overcharges is immaterial to the
right of all United States citizens to receive indirect restitution
through the 40 percent share of the Murphy Consent Order fund deposited
in the United States Treasury under the MSRP. In addition, principles
of administrative efficiency would provide ample reason not to deviate
[[Page 32669]] from our established policy and begin a lengthy
examination into the question of which states received royalty payments
from crude oil producers, how much the states may have benefited from
these royalties, and whether to rescind refunds already made to them.
Accordingly, we have decided that we will not alter the formula.
IV. The Refund Procedures
A. Crude Oil Refund Policy
As explained above, we will distribute the Murphy funds in
accordance with the DOE's Modified Statement of Restitutionary Policy
in Crude Oil Cases, 51 FR 27899 (August 4, 1986) (the MSRP). As noted
above, the MSRP establishes that 40 percent of the crude oil overcharge
funds will be remitted to the federal government, another 40 percent to
the states, and up to 20 percent may initially be reserved for the
payment of claims by injured parties. The MSRP also specifies that any
monies remaining after all valid claims by injured purchasers are paid
be disbursed to the federal government and the states in equal amounts.
The OHA has utilized the MSRP in all Subpart V proceedings involving
alleged crude oil violations. See Order Implementing the MSRP, 51 FR
29689 (August 20, 1986). This Order provided a period of 30 days for
the filing of comments or objections to our proposed use of the MSRP as
the groundwork for evaluating claims in crude oil refund proceedings.
Following this period, the OHA issued a Notice evaluating the numerous
comments which it received pursuant to the Order Implementing the MSRP.
This Notice was published at 52 FR 11737 (April 10, 1987) (the April 10
Notice).
The April 10 Notice contained guidance to assist potential
claimants wishing to file refund applications for crude oil monies
under the Subpart V regulations. Generally, 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. We also specified that end-users of petroleum
products whose businesses are unrelated to the petroleum industry will
be presumed to have been injured by the alleged crude oil overcharges
and need not submit any additional proof of injury beyond documentation
of their purchase volumes. See City of Columbus, Georgia, 16 DOE para.
85,550 (1987). Additionally, we stated that crude oil refunds would be
calculated on the basis of a per gallon (or ``volumetric'') refund
amount, which is obtained by dividing the crude oil refund pool by the
total consumption of petroleum products in the United Sates during the
crude oil price control period. The OHA has adopted the refund
procedures outlined in the April 10 Notice in numerous cases. See,
e.g., Texaco, Inc, 19 DOE para. 85,200 (1989); Shell Oil Co., 17 DOE
para. 85,204 (1988) (Shell); Mountain Fuel Supply Co., 14 DOE para.
85,475 (1986) (Mountain Fuel).
B. Refund Claims
We adopt the DOE's standard crude oil refund procedures to
distribute the monies remitted by Murphy. We have chosen initially to
reserve 20 percent of the fund, plus accrued interest, for direct
refunds to claimants in order to ensure that sufficient funds will be
available for injured parties. This reserve figure may later be reduced
if circumstances warrant.
The OHA will evaluate crude oil refund claims in a manner similar
to that used in Subpart V proceedings to evaluate claims based on
alleged refined product overcharges. See Mountain Fuel, 14 DOE at
88,869. Under these procedures, claimants will be required to document
their purchase volumes of petroleum products and prove they were
injured as a result of the alleged violations.
We adopt a presumption that the alleged crude oil overcharges were
absorbed, rather than passed on, by applicants which were (1) end-users
of petroleum products, (2) unrelated to the petroleum industry, and (3)
not subject to the regulations promulgated under the Emergency
Petroleum Allocation Act of 1973 (EPAA), 15 U.S.C. 751-760h. In order
to receive a refund, end-user claimants need not submit any evidence of
injury beyond documentation of their purchase volumes. See Shell, 17
DOE at 88,406.
Petroleum retailer, reseller, and refiner applicants must submit
detailed evidence of injury, and they may not rely upon the injury
presumptions utilized in refined product cases. Id. These applicants,
however, may use econometric evidence of the type found in the OHA
Report on Stripper Well Overcharges, 6 Fed. Energy Guidelines para.
90,507 (1985). See also PODRA section 3003(b)(2), 15 U.S.C.
Sec. 4502(b)(2). If a claimant has executed and submitted a valid
waiver pursuant to one of the escrows established by the Stripper Well
Settlement Agreement, it has waived its rights to file an application
for Subpart V crude oil refund monies. See Mid-America Dairymen v.
Herrington, 878 F.2d 1448 (Temp. Emer. Ct. App.), 3 Fed. Energy
Guidelines para. 26,617 (1989); In re: Department of Energy Stripper
Well Exemption Litigation, 707 F. Supp. 1267 (D. Kan.), 3 Fed Energy
Guidelines para. 26,613 (1987).
As has been stated in prior Decisions, a crude oil refund applicant
will only be required to submit one application for its share of all
available crude oil overcharge funds. See, e.g., A. Tarricone, Inc., 15
DOE para. 85,495 (1987). A party that has already submitted a claim to
any other crude oil refund proceeding implemented by the DOE need not
file another claim. The prior application will be deemed to be filed in
all crude oil refund proceedings finalized to date. The final deadline
for the crude oil refund proceeding is June 30, 1995. It is the policy
of the DOE to pay eligible crude oil refund claimants at the rate of
$0.0016 per gallon. We will decide after the resolution of a few
outstanding enforcement proceedings whether sufficient funds are
available for additional refunds.
To apply for a refund, a claimant should submit an Application for
Refund containing the information specified by the OHA in past
Decisions. See, e.g., Permian Corp., 23 DOE para. 85,034 (1993); Hood
Goldsberry, 18 DOE para. 85,902 (1989). All applications must be
postmarked no later than June 30, 1995 and sent to: Subpart V Crude Oil
Overcharge Refunds, Office of Hearings and Appeals, Department of
Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585
Although 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.
C. Payments to the Federal Government and the States
Under the terms of the MSRP, we have determined that the remaining
80 percent of the Murphy 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 para. 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: [[Page 32670]]
(1) Applications for Refund from the crude oil overcharge funds
remitted by Murphy Oil Corp./Murphy Oil USA, Inc., may now be filed.
(2) All Applications submitted pursuant to paragraph (1) must be
filed in duplicate and postmarked no later than June 30, 1995.
(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 $10,700,000, plus all accrued interest, from the
Murphy subaccount (Account No. RMUC01994W) pursuant to Paragraphs (4),
(5), and (6) of this Decision.
(4) The Director of Special Accounts and Payroll shall transfer
$4,280,000 (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
$4,280,000 (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
$2,140,000 (plus interest) of the funds obtained pursuant to Paragraph
(3) above into the subaccount denominated ``Crude Tracking-Claimants
4,'' Number 999DOE010Z.
Date: June 15, 1995.
George B. Breznay,
Director, Office of Hearings and Appeals.
[FR Doc. 95-15465 Filed 6-22-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P