[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