[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 143 (Wednesday, July 26, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 38322-38326]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-18390]



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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Office of Hearings and Appeals


Implementation of Special Refund Procedures

AGENCY: Office of Hearings and Appeals, Department of Energy.


[[Page 38323]]

ACTION: Notice of implementation of special refund procedures.

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

SUMMARY: The Office of Hearings and Appeals (OHA) of the Department of 
Energy announces the procedures for disbursement of $29,376,255.50 
(plus accrued interest) in alleged or adjudicated crude oil overcharges 
obtained by the DOE from Western Asphalt Service, Inc. (Case No. LEF-
0047), Gray Trucking Company (Case No. LEF-0120), William Valentine & 
Sons, Inc. (Case No. LEF-0123), Dorchester Master Limited Partnership 
(Case No. VEF-0005), Howell Corporation (Case No. VEF-0006), Placid Oil 
Company (Case No. VEF-0008), Eton Trading Corporation (Case No. VEF-
0009) and Rodgers Hydrocarbon Corporation (Case No. VEF-0010). The OHA 
has determined that the funds obtained from these firms, plus accrued 
interest, will be distributed in accordance with the DOE's Modified 
Statement of Restitutionary Policy in Crude Oil Cases, 51 FR 27899 
(August 4, 1986).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Richard W. Dugan, Associate Director, 
Office of Hearings and Appeals, 1000 Independence Avenue, S.W., 
Washington, D.C. 20585, (202) 586-2860.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In accordance with 10 CFR 205.282(c), notice 
is hereby given of the issuance of the Decision and Order set forth 
below. The Decision and Order sets forth the procedures that the DOE 
has tentatively formulated to distribute a total of $29,376,255.50, 
plus accrued interest, remitted to the DOE by Western Asphalt Service, 
Inc., Gray Trucking Company, William Valentine & Sons, Inc., Dorchester 
Master Limited Partnership, Howell Corporation, Placid Oil Company, 
Eton Trading Corporation and Rodgers Hydrocarbon Corporation. The DOE 
is currently holding these funds in interest bearing escrow accounts 
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.
    Because the June 30, 1995, deadline for the crude oil refund 
applications has passed, no new applications from purchasers of refined 
petroleum products will be accepted for the 20 percent of these funds 
allocated to individual claimants. Instead, that share of the funds 
will be added to the general crude oil overcharge pool used for direct 
restitution.

    Date: July 17, 1995.
George B. Breznay,
Director, Office of Hearings and Appeals.
July 17, 1995.

Decision and Order of the Department of Energy; Implementation of 
Special Refund Procedures

    Names of Firms: Western Asphalt Service, Inc. et al.
    Dates of Filing: July 17, 1992 et al.
    Case Numbers: LEF-0047 et al.
    The Office of General Counsel, Regulatory Litigation (``OGC'') 
(formerly the Economic Regulatory Administration (ERA), Office of 
Enforcement Litigation), filed Petitions for the Implementation of 
Special Refund Procedures with the Office of Hearings and Appeals 
(OHA) to distribute funds which the eight firms listed in the 
Appendix to this Decision and Order remitted to the DOE pursuant to 
court-approved settlements between the parties and the DOE, DOE 
consent orders or remedial orders.
    In accordance with procedural regulations codified at 10 C.F.R. 
Part 205, Subpart V (Subpart V), the OGC requested in its Petitions 
that the OHA establish special refund procedures to remedy the 
effects of the regulatory violations which were resolved by these 
proceedings. This Decision and Order sets forth the OHA's final plan 
to distribute these funds.

I. Background

    As indicated by the following summaries of the relevant 
enforcement proceedings, all of the funds that are subject to this 
Decision were obtained by the DOE as a result of alleged or 
adjudicated crude oil overcharges.

A. Western Asphalt Service, Inc. (Western)

    During the period of Federal petroleum price controls, Western 
was engaged in crude oil refining and reselling.1 The firm was 
therefore subject to regulations governing the pricing of crude oil 
set forth at 10 CFR parts 205, 210, 211, and 212 of the Mandatory 
Petroleum Price and Allocation Regulations. As a result of an ERA 
audit of its operations, a Proposed Remedial Order (PRO) was issued 
to Western on April 4, 1984 pursuant to 10 CFR part 205, Subpart O 
(ERA Docket No. 940X00182). The PRO alleged violations of the 
pricing and certification rules that applied to crude oil resellers. 
Essentially, the firm was charged with selling price-controlled 
crude oil at unlawfully high prices in violation of the provisions 
of 10 CFR part 212, Subpart L and 10 CFR Sec. 212.131. In another 
enforcement proceeding, on May 7, 1981, a Notice of Probable 
Violation (NOPV) was issued to Western which alleged that the firm 
unlawfully received Small Refiner Bias Entitlements (ERA Docket No. 
N00S90197) in April and May 1977. These alleged violations of DOE 
crude oil regulations by Western were settled by a Consent Order 
between the firm and DOE on May 30, 1984. The PRO was therefore 
withdrawn and the NOPV was rescinded. Western agreed to remit 
$300,000, plus interest, to the DOE for deposit in an interest-
bearing escrow account. Western has complied with this obligation, 
remitting a total of $390,059.12 to the DOE. In return, the DOE has 
released Western from any liability regarding its failure to comply 
with the Federal petroleum price and allocation regulations during 
the period August 19, 1973 through January 27, 1981, with the sole 
exception of any potential violations of the Entitlements Program 
after September 30, 1980.

    \1\ Western Asphalt Service, Inc., W.F. Moore and Son, Inc., and 
Gibson Oil and Refining Company were all controlled by Wilfred Paige 
van Loben Sels during the price control period. Textual references 
to ``Western'' in this Decision include all parties to the Western 
Consent Order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Gray Trucking Company (Gray)

    Gray was also a crude oil reseller during the period of price 
controls. On March 29, 1982, Gray and the DOE entered into a Consent 
Order whereby Gray would remit $31,500, plus interest, to the DOE 
for deposit in an interest-bearing escrow account. The DOE agreed 
not to pursue its claim that, during the period March 1977 through 
January 1980, Gray overcharged its customers by charging unlawfully 
high prices for crude oil in violation of 10 CFR part 212, subparts 
F and L. Despite its agreement with the terms of the Consent Order, 
Gray failed to comply fully with its financial obligations to the 
DOE, and remitted only $4,738.86 to the DOE. On October 15, 1985, 
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Amarillo 
Division, granted the DOE an Amended Judgment against Gray for an 
additional $34,625. However, the Amended Judgment has not resulted 
in any additional payments to DOE by Gray. ERA has petitioned that 
the $4,738.86, plus accrued interest, obtained from Gray be 
distributed by OHA in accordance with the Subpart V regulations.

C. William Valentine & Sons, Inc. (Valentine)

    Valentine was engaged in crude oil reclamation during the period 
May 1979 through December 1980.2 Through an unincorporated 
subsidiary, Big Muddy Oil Processors Inc. (Big Muddy), Valentine 
obtained waste crude oil from oil spills, pipeline ruptures, waste 
oil pits and oil tank bottoms. After numerous separation and 
filtering processes, the waste oil was mixed with various blending 
agents (naphthas, natural gasoline, natural gas by-products, etc.) 
and the resulting product was sold as pipeline-quality crude oil. 
Big Muddy, and by extension Valentine, was therefore a reseller of 
crude oil, subject to the provisions 

[[Page 38324]]
of 10 CFR part 212, subpart L, which governed the resales of crude oil.

    \2\ William Valentine and Sons, Inc., Valentine Construction, 
Inc., Dale L. Valentine, Verna Valentine, and James L. Marchant are 
collectively referred to as ``Valentine'' in the text. All are 
parties to the Settlement Agreement which resolved DOE claims 
against them.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    An ERA audit uncovered evidence that Valentine sold crude oil at 
unlawfully high prices during the period May 1979 through December 
1980. On December 2, l987, OHA issued a Remedial Order (RO) to 
Valentine directing the firm to refund $1,454,876 in overcharges, 
plus interest. See William Valentine and Sons, Inc., 16 DOE para. 
83,025 (1987). Valentine appealed OHA's determination to the Federal 
Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). On March 23, 1989, FERC 
rejected Valentine's Appeal of the RO and upheld OHA's findings. See 
William Valentine and Sons, Inc., 46 FERC para. 61,252 (1989). 
Valentine appealed that decision and, on January 24, 1990, the U.S. 
District Court for the District of Wyoming ruled that Valentine's 
challenge to the RO and to FERC's ruling was without merit. At the 
same time, the Court also approved a Settlement Agreement in which 
Valentine agreed to remit to DOE no less than $108,739 plus 
interest. In return, DOE agreed to deem Valentine in full compliance 
with the price control program and to release all administrative and 
civil claims against the firm. Valentine has paid $126,402.66 into 
an interest-bearing DOE escrow account in compliance with the 
Settlement Agreement.
D. Dorchester Master Limited Partnership (DMLP)

    During the period of petroleum price controls, the firms which 
now comprise DMLP 3 were engaged in crude oil refining and 
reselling. The firms were therefore subject to regulations governing 
the pricing and allocation of crude oil set forth at 10 C.F.R. Parts 
211 and 212. In an audit which covered the period from November 1, 
1974 through August 1979 the ERA identified instances in which it 
believed that Dorchester's refinery subsidiary and reseller division 
engaged in the improper switching of crude oil certifications in 
violation of 10 C.F.R. 211.67 (the Crude Oil Entitlements Program) 
and 212.131(b). As a result of the ERA audit, a PRO was issued to 
Dorchester on March 19, 1982 (Case No. 6A0X00278). The OHA affirmed 
the findings of the PRO and issued an RO to Dorchester on March 11, 
1985. Dorchester Gas Corp., 12 DOE para. 83,034 (1985), appeal 
docketed, No. R085-12-000 (FERC April 22, 1985). As a result of 
another ERA audit, on March 9, 1983, a PRO was issued to Doram and 
Damson, the other firms now comprising DMLP, alleging that during 
the period March 1980 through December 1980, they received illegal 
revenue by reselling crude oil at prices in excess of those 
permitted by applicable crude oil reseller price regulations. An RO 
was issued to those two firms on March 12, 1987. Doram Energy, Inc., 
15 DOE para. 83,024 (1987), modified, 16 DOE para. 83,006 (1987), 
appeal docketed, No. R087-16-000 (FERC April 6, 1987).

    \3\ DMLP, a limited partnership formed in 1984, is the successor 
to Dorchester Gas Corporation (Dorchester) and includes Damson Oil 
Corporation (Damson), the general partner of DMLP, and Doram Energy, 
Inc. (Doram), a subsidiary of Damson. Therefore, DMLP will be used 
to refer collectively to Dorchester, Damson, and Doram, and their 
subsidiaries and affiliates. We will refer to the individual firms 
in some instances, since the audits originated with those firms 
during the period of price controls.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On April 4, 1988, a Consent Order was executed between DMLP and 
the DOE which resolved a number of outstanding issues involving 
DMLP. Under the terms of the settlement, DMLP would pay the DOE a 
maximum of $65 million but no less than $11 million, plus 
installment interest, by July 1, 1997. The Consent Order states that 
the DOE has made no formal findings of violation by DMLP and that 
DMLP does not admit it has committed any regulatory violations. As 
of March 31, 1995, DMLP had paid the DOE the sum of 
$11,193,729.72,4 and it is current in its payments to DOE. 
Although we anticipate that additional revenues will be collected 
from DMLP, no good reason exists to forestall implementing 
procedures for distributing the current balance of the fund.

    \4\ Of that amount $5,198.52 came from Damson pursuant to its 
own bankruptcy proceeding.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

E. Howell Corporation (Howell)

    During the price control period, Howell was a crude oil 
producer, refiner, and reseller. Howell was therefore subject to the 
Federal petroleum price and allocation regulations. In 1981, the ERA 
audited Howell's compliance with the crude oil Entitlements Program 
during the period January 1, 1978 through January 27, 1981. As a 
result of that audit, on June 24, 1988, a PRO was issued to the 
firm, alleging violations of the crude oil price and allocation 
regulations.5 On February 23, 1989, the DOE and Howell executed 
a Consent Order resolving the issues addressed in the PRO. Pursuant 
to the Consent Order, Howell agreed to pay the DOE $19,375,000 plus 
interest, with installment payments over seven years. As of June 30, 
1995, Howell had paid the DOE $15,288,097.66, and it is current in 
its payments to the DOE. Although we anticipate that additional 
revenues will be collected from Howell, no good reason exists to 
forestall implementing procedures for distributing the current 
balance of the fund.

    \5\ The PRO alleged violations of 10 C.F.R. 211.66(b) and (h), 
205.202, and 210.62(c), resulting from significant understatement of 
receipts of price-controlled crude oil. Specifically, ERA alleged 
that during the period April 1978 through December 1979, the Joint 
Venture consisting of Howell and Quintana Refinery Co, failed to 
correctly report the tier certifications associated with substantial 
volumes of its crude oil receipts at its Corpus Christi, Texas, 
refinery; and Howell Hydrocarbons engaged in similar conduct during 
the period April 1978 through November 1980 at its San Antonio, 
Texas, refinery. In addition, the ERA alleged that during the period 
April 1978 through December 1979, Howell Industries, an affiliate, 
improperly charged prices for crude oil in excess of its actual 
purchase prices, in violation of 10 C.F.R. 212.186, 210.62(c) and 
205.202.
F. Placid Oil Company (Placid)

    Placid was a producer of crude oil during the period of price 
controls. On March 30, 1981, the ERA issued a PRO in which it 
alleged that during the period from September 1973 through May 1977, 
Placid overcharged its customers in sales of crude oil from several 
properties it operated. In addition, the PRO also alleged that 
Placid improperly calculated the average daily production for a 
number of properties and as a result erroneously certified crude oil 
production from these properties as exempt from price controls 
pursuant to the stripper well exemption. On February 11, 1985, the 
OHA issued an RO to Placid, affirming the ERA allegations concerning 
Placid's overcharges. Placid Oil Co., 12 DOE para. 83,030, modified, 
13 DOE para. 83,007 (1985). Placid appealed the RO to the FERC. On 
February 26, 1987, the FERC reversed and vacated the RO (Placid Oil 
Co., 38 FERC para. 61,199); however, on July 23, 1987, the FERC 
reversed itself in part, vacating portions of its previous Order 
(Placid Oil Co., 40 FERC para. 61,112). On March 18, 1988, the FERC 
issued an Order affirming the RO but modifying the violation amount. 
Placid Oil Co., 42 FERC para. 61,326 (1988). Subsequently, in a 
bankruptcy proceeding involving Placid, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court 
for the Northern District of Texas approved the DOE's claim of 
$1,196,728.09 against Placid. Placid has fulfilled its financial 
obligation to the DOE, with payments, including installment 
interest, totalling $1,272,963.81.

G. Eton Trading Corporation (Eton)

    Eton and its affiliate, Eton Enterprises, Inc., were resellers 
of crude oil during the period June 1980 through December 1980, and 
were subject to the crude oil reseller regulations set forth at 10 
CFR. Part 212, Subpart L. As the result of an ERA audit of Eton's 
operations, on January 14, 1986, the ERA issued a PRO to the firm 
alleging that it had engaged in layered crude oil transactions in 
violation of 10 CFR Sec. 212.186. The PRO stated that those layered 
transactions resulted in overcharges amounting to $9,182,412.70. On 
March 17, 1986, Eton filed a Notice of Objection with this Office 
but waived its right to contest the determinations made in the PRO 
by failing to file a Statement of Objections in a timely manner. 
Accordingly, on December 5, 1986, the OHA issued the PRO as a final 
Remedial Order. Eton Trading Corp., 15 DOE para. 83,011 (1986). In 
July 1986, Eton Trading Corporation and Eton Enterprises filed for 
bankruptcy. The DOE filed identical claims in the bankruptcy 
proceedings of the two firms. A distribution has been made in the 
Eton Trading bankruptcy proceeding, in which the DOE received 
$1,049,073.67. Although the possibility exists that additional 
revenues will be distributed to the DOE in the Eton Enterprise 
bankruptcy proceeding which has not yet been closed, no reason 
exists to delay in implementing distribution of the current balance 
of the fund.

H. Rodgers Hydrocarbon Corporation

    Rodgers Hydrocarbon Corporation and Ray V. Rodgers, Jr. 
(referred to collectively as Rodgers) were crude oil resellers 
during the period of September 1977 through January 1980. On March 
29, 1985, the ERA issued a PRO to Rodgers alleging that during that 
period, Rodgers failed to properly certify crude oil as required by 
10 CFR. 212.131(b). In addition, the ERA alleged that Rodgers failed 
to submit reports and maintain books and records in accordance with 
10 CFR 

[[Page 38325]]
212.187 (a) and (b).6 Rodgers filed a Statement of Objections to 
the PRO on August 26, 1985. After considering Rodgers' objections, 
certain provisions of the PRO were modified, and the PRO was issued 
as a final RO on July 20, 1989. Rodgers Hydrocarbon Corp., 19 DOE 
para. 83,004 (1989). On December 4, 1989, Rodgers and the DOE 
executed a Consent Order resolving the issues addressed by the RO. 
Pursuant to the Consent Order, Rodgers agreed to pay the DOE 
$50,000, plus interest, in two equal payments. Rodgers paid to the 
DOE the sum of $51,190 and has fulfilled its financial obligation to 
the DOE.

    \6\ Crude oil resellers were required to file certain 
information on ERA-69 ``Crude Oil Reseller's Self-Reporting Forms.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Jurisdiction and Authority

    The Subpart V regulations set forth general guidelines which may 
be used by the OHA in formulating and implementing a plan of 
distribution of funds received as a result of an enforcement 
proceeding. The DOE policy is to use the Subpart V process to 
distribute such funds. For a more detailed discussion of Subpart V 
and the authority of the OHA to fashion procedures to distribute 
refunds, see Petroleum Overcharge Distribution and Restitution Act 
of 1986, 15 U.S.C. 4501 et seq.; see also Office of Enforcement, 9 
DOE para. 82,508 (1981), and Office of Enforcement, 8 DOE para. 
82,597 (1981).

III. The Proposed Decisions and Orders

    On July 1, 1994, and June 12, 1995, OHA issued Proposed 
Decisions and Orders (PDOs) setting forth the OHA's tentative plan 
to distribute these funds. See 59 FR 35329 (July 11, 1994) (the 
Western PDO) and 60 FR 32004 (June 19, 1995) (the DMLP PDO), 
respectively. OHA tentatively concluded that the funds should be 
distributed in accordance with the DOE's Modified Statement of 
Restitutionary Policy in Crude Oil Cases, (MSRP), see 51 FR 27899 
(August 4, 1986). Pursuant to the MSRP, OHA proposed to reserve 20 
percent of those funds for direct refunds to applicants who claim 
that they were injured by the crude oil violations. We stated that 
the remaining 80 percent of the funds would be distributed to the 
states and federal government for indirect restitution.
    We provided a period of 30 days from the date of the PDOs' 
publication in the Federal Register in which the public could submit 
comments regarding the tentative refund procedures. More than 30 
days have elapsed, and the OHA has received no comments concerning 
the proposed procedures.

IV. The Refund Procedures

A. Crude Oil Refund Policy

    We adopt the tentative determination of the PDOs to distribute 
the funds obtained from the eight firms in accordance with the MSRP, 
which was issued as a result of the Settlement Agreement approved by 
the court in The Department of Energy Stripper Well Exemption 
Litigation, 653 F. Supp. 108 (D. Kan. 1986). Shortly after the 
issuance of the MSRP, the OHA issued an Order that announced that 
this policy would be applied in all Subpart V proceedings involving 
alleged crude oil violations. See Order Implementing the MSRP, 51 FR 
29689 (August 20, 1986) (the August 1986 Order).
    Under the MSRP, 40 percent of crude oil overcharge funds will be 
disbursed to the federal government, another 40 percent to the 
states, and up to 20 percent may initially be reserved for the 
payment of claims to injured parties. The MSRP also specified that 
any funds remaining after all valid claims by injured purchasers are 
paid will be disbursed to the federal government and the states in 
equal amounts.
    In April 1987, the OHA issued a Notice analyzing the numerous 
comments received in response to the August 1986 Order. 52 FR 11737 
(April 10, 1987) (April 10 Notice). This Notice provided guidance to 
claimants that anticipated filing refund applications for crude oil 
monies under the Subpart V regulations. In general, we stated that 
all claimants would be required to (1) Document their purchase 
volumes of petroleum products during the August 19, 1973 through 
January 27, 1981 crude oil price control period, and (2) prove that 
they were injured by the alleged crude oil overcharges. Applicants 
who were end-users or ultimate consumers of petroleum products, 
whose businesses are unrelated to the petroleum industry, and who 
were not subject to the DOE price regulations would be presumed to 
have been injured by any alleged crude oil overcharges. In order to 
receive a refund, end-users would not need to submit any further 
evidence of injury beyond the volume of petroleum products purchased 
during the period of price controls. See City of Columbus, Georgia, 
16 DOE para. 85,550 (1987).

B. Refund Claims

    The amount of money subject to this Decision is $29,376,255.50, 
plus accrued interest, which, as of May 31, 1995, totalled 
$6,312,426.32. In accordance with the MSRP, we shall initially 
reserve 20 percent of those funds ($5,875,251.10 plus accrued 
interest) for direct refunds to applicants who claim that they were 
injured by crude oil overcharges. We shall base refunds on a 
volumetric amount which has been calculated in accordance with the 
methodology described in the April 10 Notice. That volumetric refund 
amount is currently $0.0016 per gallon. See 57 FR 15562 (March 24, 
1995).
    In the Western PDO, we indicated that the filing deadline for 
refund applications in the crude oil refund proceeding was June 30, 
1994. This was subsequently changed to June 30, 1995. See Filing 
Deadline Notice, 60 FR 19914 (April 20, 1995); see also DMLP PDO, 60 
FR 32004, 32007 (June 19, 1995). Because the June 30, 1995, deadline 
for crude oil refund applications has passed, no new applications 
from purchasers of refined petroleum products will be accepted for 
these funds. Instead, these funds will be added to the general crude 
oil overcharge pool used for direct restitution.7

    \7\ A crude oil refund applicant is only required to submit one 
application for its share of all available crude oil overcharge 
funds. See, e.g., Ernest A. Allerkamp, 17 DOE para. 85,079 at 88,176 
(1988).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Payments to the States and Federal Government

    Under the terms of the MSRP, the remaining 80 percent of the 
crude oil violation amounts subject to this Decision, or 
$23,501,004.40 plus accrued interest, should be disbursed in equal 
shares to the states and federal government, for indirect 
restitution. Refunds to the states will be in proportion to the 
consumption of petroleum products in each state during the period of 
price controls. The share or ratio of the funds which each state 
will receive is contained in Exhibit H of the Stripper Well 
Settlement Agreement. When disbursed, these funds will be subject to 
the same limitations and reporting requirements as all other crude 
oil monies received by the states under the Stripper Well Agreement.
    Accordingly, we will direct the DOE's Office of the Controller 
to transfer one-half of that amount, or $11,750,502.20 plus 
interest, into an interest bearing subaccount for the states, and 
one-half or $11,750,502.20, plus interest, into an interest bearing 
subaccount for the federal government.
    It Is Therefore Ordered That:
    (1) 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 the consent order funds shown in the Appendix 
to this Decision and Order, plus all accrued interest from the 
escrow accounts of the firms listed in the Appendix pursuant to 
Paragraphs (2), (3), and (4) of this Decision.
    (2) The Director of Special Accounts and Payroll shall transfer 
$11,750,502.20 plus any accrued interest, of the funds referenced in 
Paragraph (1) above, into the subaccount denominated ``Crude 
Tracking-States,'' Number 999DOE0003W.
    (3) The Director of Special Acccounts and Payroll shall transfer 
$11,750,502.20, plus any accrued interest, of the funds referenced 
in Paragraph (1) above, into the subaccount denominated ``Crude 
Tracking-Federal,'' Number 999DOE002W.
    (4) The Director of Special Accounts and Payroll shall transfer 
$5,875,251.10 plus any accrued interest, of the funds referenced in 
Paragraph (1) above, into the subaccount denominated ``Crude 
Tracking-Claimants 4,'' Number 999DOE0010Z.
    (5) This is a final Order of the Department of Energy.

    Dated: July 17, 1995.
George B. Breznay,
Director, Office of Hearings and Appeals.

                                                                        

[[Page 38326]]
                                                    Appendix                                                    
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Case No.                               Firm                           ERA order numbers   Principal amount
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LEF-0047              Western Asphalt Service, Inc......................  940X00182Z                 $390,059.12
LEF-0120              Gray Trucking Company.............................  6A0X00305Z                    4,738.86
LEF-0123              William Valentine & Sons, Inc.....................  N00X00683Z                  126,402.66
VEF-0005              Dorchester Master Limited Partnership.............  6A0X00278W               11,193,729.72
VEF-0006              Howell Corporation................................  650X00367W               15,288,097.66
VEF-0008              Placid Oil Company................................  6D0C00048W                1,272,963.81
VEF-0009              Eton Trading Corporation..........................  6C0X00301W                1,049,073.67
VEF-0010              Rodgers Hydrocarbon Corporation...................  6A0X00328W                   51,190.00
                                                                                               -----------------
      Total           ..................................................  ....................     29,376,255.50
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[FR Doc. 95-18390 Filed 7-25-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P