[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 186 (Tuesday, September 24, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 50018-50020]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-24396]


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


DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Implementation of Special Refund Procedures

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

ACTION: Notice of proposed implementation of special refund procedures 
and solicitation of comments.

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

SUMMARY: The Office of Hearings and Appeals of the Department of Energy 
announces proposed procedures and solicits comments concerning the 
refunding of $30,000 (plus accrued

[[Page 50019]]

interest) in consent order funds. The funds are being held in escrow 
pursuant to a Stipulation for Compromise Settlement involving Houston-
Pasadena Apache Oil Company.

DATES AND ADDRESSES: Comments must be filed on or before October 24, 
1996 and should be addressed to the Office of Hearings and Appeals, 
Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 
20585-0107. All comments should conspicuously display a reference to 
Case Number VEF-0022.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Richard W. Dugan, Associate Director, 
Office of Hearings and Appeals, 1000 Independence Avenue, S. W., 
Washington, D.C. 20585-0107, (202) 426-1575.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In accordance with Section 205.282(b) of the 
procedural regulations of the Department of Energy, 10 C.F.R. 
205.282(b), notice is hereby given of the issuance of the Proposed 
Decision and Order set forth below. The Proposed Decision relates to a 
Stipulation for Compromise Settlement entered into by the Houston-
Pasadena Apache Oil Company (Apache) which settled possible pricing 
violations in the firm's wholesale transactions of motor gasoline 
during the period October-December 1979.
    The Proposed Decision sets forth the procedures and standards that 
the DOE has tentatively formulated to distribute funds remitted by 
Apache and being held in escrow. The DOE has tentatively decided that 
the funds should be distributed in two stages in the manner utilized 
with respect to consent order funds in similar proceedings.
    Applications for Refund should not be filed at this time. 
Appropriate public notice will be given when the submission of claims 
is authorized.
    Any member of the public may submit written comments regarding the 
proposed refund procedures. Commenting parties are requested to submit 
two copies of their comments. Comments should be submitted within 30 
days of publication of this notice in the Federal Register, and should 
be sent to the address set forth at the beginning of this notice. All 
comments received in this proceeding will be available for public 
inspection between the hours of 1:00 to 5:00 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, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20585-0107.

    Dated: September 16, 1996.
George B. Breznay,
Director, Office of Hearings and Appeals.

Proposed Decision and Order of the Department of Energy

Special Refund Procedures

Name of Petitioner: Houston-Pasadena Apache Oil Co.
Date of Filing: September 1, 1995
Case Number: VEF-0022

    In accordance with the procedural regulations of the Department 
of Energy (DOE), 10 C.F.R. Part 205, Subpart V, the Regulatory 
Litigation branch of the Office of General Counsel (OGC)(formerly 
the Economic Regulatory Administration (ERA)) filed a Petition for 
the Implementation of Special Refund Procedures with the Office of 
Hearings and Appeals (OHA) on September 1, 1995. The petition 
requests that the OHA formulate and implement procedures for the 
distribution of funds received pursuant to a Stipulation for 
Compromise Settlement (Settlement Stipulation) concerning the 
Houston-Pasadena Apache Oil Company (Apache).

Background

    Apache was a ``reseller-retailer'' of motor gasoline during the 
period of price controls. Accordingly, Apache was subject to the 
provisions of 10 C.F.R. Part 212, Subpart F, governing wholesale and 
retail sales of refined petroleum products. On April 30, 1985, the 
ERA issued a Proposed Remedial Order (PRO) to Apache concerning 
Apache's compliance with the price regulations for the period March 
1, 1979 through December 31, 1979 (the audit period). Apache 
provided documents for a more limited period (October-December 
1979), and based upon those documents, the ERA found that Apache 
sold motor gasoline at prices in excess of those permitted under the 
DOE price regulations governing reseller-retailers during that 
period. After considering Apache's challenge to the PRO, the OHA 
issued a final Remedial Order (RO) to Apache on June 19, 1989. See 
Houston/Pasadena Apache Oil Company, 19 DOE para. 83,001 (1989). In 
the RO, the OHA remanded to the ERA a portion of the PRO involving 
retail transactions and two sales to Dow Chemical Company (Dow) and 
affirmed the rest of the PRO. The OHA also directed Apache to refund 
the amount of $160,713 plus interest, this sum representing the 
overcharges realized by the firm in its wholesale transactions 
during the period October-December 1979. Apache did not honor its 
repayment obligation and the matter was referred to the Department 
of Justice (DOJ) for resolution. On June 4, 1993, the DOJ and Apache 
executed a Stipulation for Compromise Settlement resolving the 
issues addressed by the RO. Pursuant to this settlement, Apache 
agreed to pay $30,000 in full settlement of the DOE claim. Apache's 
compliance with the settlement has resulted in payment to DOE of 
$30,000 which we propose to disburse pursuant to the procedures set 
forth in this Proposed Decision. These funds are presently in an 
interest-bearing escrow account maintained by the Department of the 
Treasury.

Jurisdiction

    The procedural regulations of the DOE set forth general 
guidelines by which the OHA may formulate and implement a plan of 
distribution for funds received as a result of an enforcement 
proceeding. 10 C.F.R. Part 205, Subpart V. Generally, it is DOE 
policy 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 obtained as part of 
settlement agreements, see Office of Enforcement, 9 DOE para. 82,553 
(1982); Office of Enforcement, 9 DOE para. 82,508 (1981). After 
reviewing the record in the present case, we have concluded that a 
Subpart V proceeding is an appropriate mechanism for distributing 
the monies obtained from Apache. We therefore propose to grant OGC's 
petition and assume jurisdiction over distribution of the funds.

Proposed Refund Procedures

A. Refund Claimants

    We propose that refund monies be distributed to those wholesale 
customers which were injured in their transactions with Apache 
during the period October 1, 1979 through December 31, 1979. These 
customers of Apache are listed in Appendix A to the RO. If any of 
these customers are affiliates of Apache, they will be ineligible to 
apply for a refund in this proceeding.

B. Calculation of Refund Amounts

    For claims against the funds obtained from Apache, we propose to 
establish a maximum potential refund (allocable share) for each of 
the customers identified in the Apache RO as an overcharged 
customer. These claimant-specific maximum potential refunds will be 
based upon the ratio of overcharges incurred by each customer to the 
total overcharge amount multiplied by the principal amount in the 
Apache escrow account. A list of the identified Apache customers and 
their maximum potential refunds is presented in the Appendix to this 
Proposed Decision. Each successful refund claimant shall also 
receive a pro rata share of interest which has accrued on the Apache 
escrow fund account.

C. Showing of Injury/Injury Presumptions

    As in previous Subpart V proceedings, we propose that those 
customers who were ultimate consumers (end-users) of Apache motor 
gasoline be presumed injured by Apache's alleged overcharges. They 
will therefore not be required to make a further demonstration of 
injury in order to receive a refund.
    We propose that reseller claimants (including retailers and 
refiners) who purchased on a regular (non-spot) basis and whose 
maximum potential refund is $10,000 or less will be presumed injured 
and therefore need not provide further demonstration of injury. See 
E.D.G., Inc., 17 DOE para. 85,679 (1988). We realize that the cost 
to an applicant of gathering evidence of injury to support a 
relatively small refund claim could exceed the expected refund. 
Consequently, in the absence of simplified procedures some injured 
parties would be denied an opportunity to obtain a refund. We 
further propose that Tesoro Crude (Tesoro

[[Page 50020]]

Energy), the only potential reseller claimant whose allocable share 
exceeds $10,000, may elect either to receive a refund under the 
small claims presumption outlined above or to pursue its potential 
refund of $16,034.97. If Tesoro limits its claim to the $10,000 
small claims threshold, it need not demonstrate injury beyond the 
requirements established for other small claimants. If the firm 
elects to claim its entire potential refund it must establish that 
it did not pass the Apache overcharges along to its customers.1 
See, e.g., Office of Enforcement, 8 DOE para. 82,597 (1981). Tesoro 
can make such an injury showing by demonstrating that it would have 
kept its motor gasoline prices at the same level had the Apache 
overcharges not occurred. While there are a variety of means by 
which a claimant could make this showing, Tesoro should demonstrate 
that at the time it purchased Apache motor gasoline, market 
conditions would not permit it to increase its prices to pass 
through the additional costs associated with the Apache overcharges. 
In addition, Tesoro must show that it had a ``bank'' of unrecovered 
product costs sufficient to support its refund claim in order to 
demonstrate that it did not subsequently recover those costs by 
increasing its prices. However, the maintenance of a cost bank does 
not automatically establish injury. See Tenneco Oil/Chevron U.S.A., 
10 DOE para. 85,014 (1982); Vickers Energy Corp./Standard Oil Co., 
10 DOE para. 85,036 (1982); Vickers Energy Corp./Koch Industries, 
Inc., 10 DOE para. 85,038 (1982).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ In the event that Tesoro demonstrates that it should be 
treated as an end-user instead of as a reseller, it will not be 
required to make this injury showing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, we propose to establish a minimum amount of $15 for 
refund claims. We have found in prior refund proceedings that the 
cost of processing claims in which refunds are sought for amounts 
less than $15 outweighs the benefits of restitution in those 
situations. See, e.g., Uban Oil Co., 9 DOE para. 82,541 at 85,225 
(1982). See also 10 C.F.R. Sec. 205.286(b). This proposed 
restriction would rule out the participation in this proceeding of 
two of the firms listed in the Appendix: Gulf Coast Waste, and 
Parrish Corp.2
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Although the allocable share of Clay Texaco, $14.70, is 
under the $15 threshold, we have calculated that with interest its 
refund would exceed $15.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Conclusion

    Refund applications in this proceeding should not be filed until 
the issuance of a final Decision and Order pertaining to the instant 
OGC Implementation Petition. Detailed procedures for filing 
applications will be provided in the final Decision and Order. 
Before disposing of any of the funds received, we intend to 
publicize the distribution process and to provide an opportunity for 
any affected party to file a claim. A copy of this Proposed Decision 
and Order will be published in the Federal Register and public 
comments will be solicited.
    Any funds that remain after all first-stage claims have been 
decided will be distributed 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 OHA. Any funds in the Apache escrow 
account the OHA determines will not be needed to effect direct 
restitution to injured Apache customers will be distributed in 
accordance with the provisions of PODRA.
    It Is Therefore Ordered That:
    The refund amount remitted to the Department of Energy by 
Houston-Pasadena Apache Oil Company, Inc. pursuant to the 
Stipulation for Compromise Settlement executed on June 4, 1993, will 
be distributed in accordance with the foregoing Decision.

                                Appendix                                
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Allocable 
                         Applicant                              share   
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Car Wash..................................................        $31.17
Clay Texaco...............................................         14.70
DuMac Oil.................................................         22.59
Gulf Coast Waste \1\......................................          8.97
Jas Lee...................................................        126.06
Joe Lee...................................................      3,059.22
John Parker...............................................         28.60
Kirby Car Wash............................................         19.83
Lloyd Parrish.............................................        288.03
Main Stop.................................................         48.90
Parrish Corp.\1\..........................................         11.43
Quail Valley Gulf.........................................        166.95
So Sweet Energy...........................................      2,098.14
Tesoro Energy (Tesoro Crude)..............................     16,034.97
Trio Oil Co...............................................      1,414.17
True Oil Co...............................................      1,119.96
Two Oil Co................................................      5,489.67
Yims Texaco...............................................         16.64
                                                           -------------
      Total...............................................    30,000.00 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The allocable share entries were generated by multiplying the principal 
  amount in the Apache escrow account by the percentage of total        
  overcharges incurred by each individual claimant as determined by the 
  ERA audit of Apache's business records.                               
\1\ Under $15 threshold. See n.2 of Decision.                           

[FR Doc. 96-24396 Filed 9-23-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P