[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 66 (Wednesday, April 5, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 17864-17869]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-8329]


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

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 
$1,369,404.60, plus accrued interest, in refined petroleum overcharges 
obtained by the DOE under the terms of remedial and consent orders with 
respect to Bi-Petro Refining Company, Inc., et al. (Bi-Petro), Case 
Nos. VEF-0035, et al. The OHA has determined that the funds will be 
distributed in accordance with the provisions of 10 C.F.R. Part 205, 
Subpart V and 15 U.S.C. Sec. 4501, the Petroleum Overcharge 
Distribution and Restitution Act (PODRA).

DATES AND ADDRESSES: Applications for Refund must be filed in 
duplicate, addressed to Bi-Petro Refining Co., Inc., et al. Special 
Refund Proceeding and sent to the Office of Hearings and Appeals, 
Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Ave., S.W., Washington, DC, 
20585-0107. All applications should display a reference to Case Nos. 
VEF-0035, et al. and be postmarked on or before September 30, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thomas L. Wieker, Deputy Director 
Office of Hearings and Appeals, 1000 Independence Ave., S.W., 
Washington, DC 20585-0107, (202) 426-1527.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In accordance with 10 CFR 205.282(b), notice 
is hereby given of the issuance of the Decision and Order set out 
below. The Decision sets forth the procedures that the DOE has 
formulated to distribute to eligible claimants $1,369,404.60, plus 
accrued interest, obtained by the DOE under the terms of Remedial 
Orders and Consent Orders regarding Bi-Petro Refining Company, Inc., et 
al. Under the Remedial Orders, companies were found to have violated 
the Federal petroleum price and allocation regulations involving the 
sale of refined petroleum products during the relevant audit periods. 
The Consent Orders resolved alleged violations of these regulations.
    The OHA will distribute the funds in a two-stage refund proceeding. 
Purchasers of certain covered petroleum products from any one of the 
firms considered in the proceeding have an opportunity to submit refund 
applications in the first stage. Refunds will be granted to applicants 
who satisfactorily demonstrate they were injured by the pricing 
violations and who document the volume of refined petroleum products 
they purchased from one of the firms during the relevant audit periods. 
In the event that money remains after all first-stage claims have been 
disposed of, the remaining funds will be disbursed in accordance with 
the provisions of 15 U.S.C. Sec. 4501, the Petroleum Overcharge 
Distribution and Restitution Act of 1986 (PODRA).
    Applications for Refund must be postmarked on or before September 
30, 2000. Instructions for the completion of refund applications have 
been set forth in Section III of the Decision immediately following 
this notice. Refund applications should be mailed to the address listed 
at the beginning of this notice.
    Unless labeled as ``confidential'', all submissions must be made 
available for public inspection between the hours of 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., 
Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays, in the Public Reference 
Room of the Office of Hearings and Appeals, 950 L'Enfant Plaza, 
Washington, D.C.

    Dated: March 28, 2000.
George B. Breznay,
Director, Office of Hearings and Appeals.
    March 28, 2000.

Decision and Order

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Implementation of Special Refund Procedures

    Names of Firms: Bi-Petro Refining Co., Inc., et al.
    Dates of Filing: October 19, 1999, et al.
    Case Numbers: VEF-0035, et al.
    On October 19, 1999, the Office of General Counsel (OGC) of the

[[Page 17865]]

Department of Energy (DOE) filed a Petition requesting that the Office 
of Hearings and Appeals (OHA) formulate and implement Subpart V special 
refund proceedings. Under the procedural regulations of the DOE, 
special refund proceedings may be implemented to refund monies to 
persons injured by violations of the DOE petroleum price regulations, 
provided DOE is unable to readily identify such persons or to ascertain 
the amount of any refund. 10 C.F.R. Sec. 205.280. We have considered 
OGC's request to formulate refund procedures for the disbursement of 
monies remitted by Bi-Petro Refining Co., Inc. and eight other firms 
pursuant to Remedial Orders and Consent Orders (Remedial Order and 
Consent Order funds), and have determined that such procedures are 
appropriate. Each firm's name, case number and amount of money remitted 
to remedy its pricing violations has been set out in the Appendix 
immediately following this Decision.
    Under the terms of the Remedial Orders and Consent Orders, a total 
of $1,369,404.60 has been remitted to DOE to remedy pricing violations 
which occurred during the relevant audit periods. These funds are being 
held in an escrow account established with the United States Treasury 
pending a determination of their proper distribution. This Decision 
sets forth OHA's plan to distribute those funds. The specific 
application requirements appear in Section III of this Decision.

I. Jurisdiction and Authority

    The general guidelines that govern OHA's ability to formulate and 
implement a plan to distribute refunds are set forth at 10 C.F.R. Part 
205, Subpart V. These procedures apply in situations where the DOE 
cannot readily identify the persons who were injured as a result of 
actual or alleged violations of the regulations or ascertain the amount 
of the refund each person should receive. For a more detailed 
discussion of Subpart V and the authority of the OHA to fashion 
procedures to distribute refunds, see Office of Enforcement, 9 DOE 
para. 82,508 (1981) and Office of Enforcement, 8 DOE para. 82,597 
(1981).

II. Background

    On January 21, 2000, we issued a Proposed Decision and Order (PDO) 
establishing tentative procedures to distribute the funds that each 
firm remitted to DOE. We proposed implementing a two-stage refund 
proceeding and we stated that applicants who purchased certain covered 
petroleum products from any one of the retailers identified in the 
Appendix to the PDO would be provided an opportunity to submit refund 
applications in the first stage. In the event funds remained after all 
first stage claims had been considered, we stated that the remaining 
funds would be disbursed in the second stage in accordance with the 
provisions of the Petroleum Overcharge Distribution and Restitution Act 
of 1986 (15 U.S.C. Sec. 4501) (PODRA).
    We provided a 30-day period for the submission of comments 
concerning the proposed procedures. However, we have received no 
comments since the PDO was published in the Federal Register more than 
30 days ago. The proposed procedures will therefore be adopted in the 
same form in which they were originally outlined. Immediately set forth 
below are the specific considerations that will guide our evaluation of 
refund applications during the first stage.

III. The First-Stage Refund Procedures

    Refund applications submitted in these special refund proceedings 
will be evaluated in exactly the same manner as applications submitted 
in other refined product proceedings. In those proceedings, we have 
frequently chosen to adopt a number of rebuttable presumptions relating 
to pricing violations and injury. Such a policy reflects our belief 
that adoption of certain presumptions (1) permits applicants to 
participate in refund proceedings in larger numbers by avoiding the 
need to incur inordinate expense; and (2) facilitates our consideration 
of first stage refund applications. 10 C.F.R. Sec. 205.282(e). For 
those reasons, we have adopted similar presumptions in the present 
proceeding.

A. Calculating the Refund

    We have presumed that the pricing violations were dispersed equally 
throughout each firm's refined petroleum product sales during the 
relevant audit period. We therefore proposed that each applicant's 
potential refund should be calculated on a volumetric basis. Under the 
volumetric approach, refunds are calculated by multiplying the gallons 
of refined product each applicant purchased by the per gallon refund 
amount, multiplied by the percentage of funds DOE succeeded in 
collecting (volumetric). Applicants believing they were 
disproportionately overcharged by the pricing violations may present 
documentation which supports that claim. Those who succeed in showing 
they were disproportionately overcharged will be eligible to receive 
refunds calculated at a higher volumetric.
    We have established a volumetric for each of the firms whose name 
appears in the Appendix accompanying this Decision. The precise 
volumetric for each firm can be found in the Appendix.
    Each volumetric was obtained by multiplying $.0004 by the 
collection percentage.\1\ This percentage was calculated by dividing 
the amount collected (with interest accrued by the DOE as of the date 
of issuance of this final implementation order) by the amount the firm 
was either ordered to pay in a Remedial Order or agreed to pay in a 
Consent Order.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ However, if the collection percentage is 100 percent or 
greater, the volumetric was not reduced.
    \2\ Nevertheless, we realize that the impact on an individual 
claimant may have been greater than the volumetric amount. We 
therefore propose that the volumetric presumption will be 
rebuttable, and we will allow a claimant to submit evidence 
detailing the specific overcharges that it incurred in order to be 
eligible for a larger refund. E.g., Standard Oil Co./Army and Air 
Force Exchange Service, 12 DOE para.85,015 (1984). In addition, we 
note that we may need to lower the volumetric for a particular 
proceeding, if the volume claimed by applicants multiplied by the 
volumetric indicates that if all volume were claimed, the fund would 
be exhausted or insufficient to satisfy all claims. We may also need 
to lower a particular volumetric if it appears inappropriate, based 
on our experience in these cases.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Eligibility for a Refund

    In order to be eligible to receive a refund in this proceeding, 
each applicant must (1) document the volume of certain petroleum 
products listed in the Appendix that it purchased during the relevant 
period; and (2) demonstrate that it was injured by the overcharges. The 
threshold requirement for any applicant is documenting the volume of 
product it purchased. This requirement is typically satisfied when the 
applicant successfully demonstrates ownership of the business for which 
the refund is sought and submits documentation which supports the 
volume claimed in its refund application.
    The injury showing, however, is a potentially more difficult 
requirement for applicants to satisfy, especially those seeking smaller 
refund amounts. This is true because an applicant must demonstrate that 
it was forced to absorb the overcharges. Our cases have often stated 
that an applicant accomplishes this by demonstrating that it maintained 
a ``bank'' of unrecovered product costs and showing that market 
conditions would not permit them to pass through those increased costs. 
See, Quintana Energy Corp., 21 DOE para.85,032 at 88,117 (1991).
    We recognized that the cost to the applicant of gathering evidence 
of injury

[[Page 17866]]

to support a relatively small refund claim could exceed the expected 
refund and thereby cause some injured parties to forego an opportunity 
to obtain a refund. In view of these difficulties, we proposed adopting 
a number of injury presumptions which simplify and streamline the 
refund process. The simplified procedures reduce the burden that would 
have been placed on this Office had we required detailed injury 
showings for relatively small refund applications.

C. Presumptions of Injury

    Set forth below are the presumptions of injury that have been 
adopted for each class of applicant likely to submit refund 
applications in this proceeding. These presumptions are not unlike 
injury presumptions adopted by OHA in many other refined product 
proceedings. Each presumption turns on the category of applicant.
Small-claim Presumption
    We have adopted a small claim presumption of injury for resellers, 
retailers and refiners whose claim is $10,000 or less. Such an 
applicant need only document the volume of certain covered petroleum 
products listed in the Appendix he or she purchased during the audit 
period from one or more of the firms named in the Appendix to be 
eligible to receive a full refund. See Enron Corporation, 21 DOE para. 
85,323 at 88,957 (1991).
Medium Range Presumption
    Medium range applicants; that is, applicants seeking refunds in 
excess of $10,000 but less than $50,000, are eligible to receive 40 
percent of their allocable share without proving injury. Like small-
claim applicants, these applicants will only be required to document 
the volume of certain covered petroleum products listed in the Appendix 
they purchased during the audit period from any one of the firms named 
in the Appendix to be eligible to receive a refund. See Shell, 17 DOE 
at 88,406.
End-user Presumption
    We have presumed that end-users of petroleum products whose 
businesses were unrelated to the petroleum industry and were not 
subject to the regulations promulgated under the Emergency Petroleum 
Price and Allocation Act of 1973 (EPAA), 15 U.S.C. Secs. 751-760h, were 
injured by each of the firm's pricing violations. Unlike regulated 
firms, end-users were not subject to price controls during the audit 
period. Moreover, these firms were not required to keep records that 
justified selling price increases by reference to cost increases. An 
analysis of the impact of the alleged overcharges on the final prices 
of non-petroleum goods and services is beyond the scope of a special 
refund proceeding. See American Pacific International, Inc., 14 DOE 
para.85,158 at 88,294 (1986). End-users seeking refunds in this 
proceeding will therefore be presumed to have been injured. In order to 
receive a refund, end-user applicants need only document the volume of 
certain refined petroleum products they purchased during the relevant 
audit period from any of the nine firms whose name appears in the 
Appendix following this Decision. Meritorious applicants are eligible 
to receive their full allocable share. See Shell, 17 DOE at 88,406.

Refunds in Excess of $50,000 and Other Applicants

    Applicants seeking refunds in excess of $50,000, excluding 
interest, will be required to submit detailed evidence of injury. These 
applicants must show that the overcharges were absorbed, not passed 
through to their customers. They will therefore be unable to rely upon 
injury presumptions utilized in many refined product refund cases. Id.

Regulated Firms and Cooperatives

    Regulated firms (such as public utilities) and agricultural 
cooperatives, which are required to pass on to their customers the 
benefit of any refund received, are exempted from the requirement that 
they make a detailed showing of injury. Marathon Petroleum Co., 14 DOE 
para. 85,269 at 88,515 (1986); see also Office of Special Counsel, 9 
DOE para. 82,538 at 85,203 (1982). We require a regulated firm or 
cooperative to establish that it was a customer of one of the firms or 
a successor thereto. In addition, we require each such claimant to 
certify that it will pass any refund received through to its customers, 
to provide us with a full explanation of the manner in which it plans 
to accomplish this restitution to its customers and to notify the 
appropriate regulatory or membership body of the receipt of the refund 
money. If a regulated firm or cooperative meets these requirements, it 
will receive a refund equal to its full pro-rata share. However, any 
public utility claiming a refund of $10,000 or less, or accepting the 
medium-range presumption of injury, will not be required to submit the 
above referenced certifications and explanation. A cooperative's sales 
of covered petroleum products to non-members will be treated in the 
same manner as sales by other resellers or retailers.

Indirect Purchasers

    Firms which made indirect purchases of covered petroleum products 
from one of the firms during the relevant period may also apply for 
refunds. If an applicant did not purchase directly from one of the 
firms, but believes that the covered petroleum products it purchased 
from another firm were originally purchased from the firms at issue, 
the applicant must establish the basis for its belief and identify the 
reseller from whom the covered petroleum products were purchased. 
Indirect purchasers who either fall within a class of applicant whose 
injury is presumed, or who can prove injury, may be eligible for a 
refund if the reseller of one of the nine firms' products passed 
through these firms' alleged overcharges to its own customers. E.g., 
Dorchester Gas Corp., 14 DOE para. 85,240 at 88,451-52 (1986).

Spot Purchasers

    We adopt the rebuttable presumption that a claimant who made only 
spot purchases from one of the firms was not injured as a result of 
those purchases. A claimant is a spot purchaser if it made only 
sporadic purchases of significant volumes of covered petroleum products 
from one of the firms. Accordingly, a spot purchaser claimant must 
submit specific and detailed evidence to rebut the spot purchaser 
presumption and to establish the extent to which it was injured as a 
result of its spot purchases from one of these firms. E.g., Office of 
Enforcement, 8 DOE para. 82,597 at 85,396-97 (1981).

Applicants Seeking Refunds Based on Allocation Claims

    We also recognize that we may receive claims alleging these firms' 
failure to furnish petroleum products that they were obliged to supply 
under the DOE allocation regulations that became effective in January 
1974. See 10 CFR Part 211. Any such application will be evaluated with 
reference to the standards we set forth in Subpart V implementation 
decisions such as Office of Special Counsel, 10 DOE para. 85,048 at 
88,220 (1982), and refund application cases such as Mobil Oil Corp./
Reynold Industries, Inc., 17 DOE para. 85,608 (1988). These standards 
generally require an allocation claimant to demonstrate the existence 
of a supplier/purchaser relationship with the firm at issue and the 
likelihood that the firm at issue failed to furnish petroleum products 
that it was obliged to supply to the claimant under 10 CFR Part 211. In 
addition, the claimant should provide evidence that it sought redress 
from the

[[Page 17867]]

alleged allocation violation. Finally, the claimant must establish that 
it was injured and document the extent of the injury.
    In our evaluation of whether allocation claims meet these 
standards, we will consider various factors. For example, we will seek 
to obtain as much information as possible about the DOE's (or its 
predecessors') treatment of complaints made to it by the claimant. We 
will also look at any affirmative defenses that the firm may have had 
to the alleged allocation violation. In assessing an allocation 
claimant's injury, we will evaluate the effect of the alleged 
allocation violation on its entire business operations with particular 
reference to the amount of product that it received from suppliers 
other than the firm at issue. In determining the amount of an 
allocation refund, we will utilize any information that may be 
available regarding the amount of the firm's allocation violations in 
general and regarding the specific allocation violation alleged by the 
claimants. We will also pro rate any allocation refunds that would 
otherwise be disproportionately large in relation to the funds 
collected. cf. Amtel, Inc./Whitco, Inc., 19 DOE para. 85,319 (1989).

Consignees

    We adopt a rebuttable level of injury presumption of 10 percent for 
all consignees of the instant firms during the relevant periods. See 
Gulf Oil Corp., 16 DOE para. 85,381 (1987). Accordingly, a consignee 
may elect to receive a refund based on 10 percent of its total 
allocable share. Any consignee applicant will be free to rebut this 
presumption and prove a greater injury in order to receive a larger 
refund.

D. How To Apply for a Refund

    To apply for a refund from one or more of the firms' remitted 
funds, an applicant should submit an Application for Refund containing 
all of the following information:
    (1) The applicant's name; the current name and address of the 
business for which the refund is sought; the name and address during 
the refund period of the business for which the refund is sought; the 
taxpayer identification number; a statement specifying whether the 
applicant is an individual, corporation, partnership, sole 
proprietorship or other business entity; the name, title, and telephone 
number of a person to contact for additional information; and the name 
and address of the person who should receive any refund check.\3\ If 
the applicant operated under more than one name or under a different 
name during the price control period, the applicant should specify 
those names.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Under the Privacy Act of 1974, the submission of a social 
security number by an individual applicant is voluntary. An 
applicant who does not wish to submit a social security number must 
submit an employer identification number if one exists. This 
information will be used in processing refund applications. It is 
requested pursuant to our authority under the Petroleum Overcharge 
Distribution and Restitution Act of 1986 and the regulations 
codified at 10 C.F.R. Part 205, Subpart V. The information may be 
shared with other Federal agencies for statistical, auditing or 
archiving purposes, and with law enforcement agencies when they are 
investigating a potential violation of civil or criminal law. Unless 
an applicant claims confidentiality, this information will be 
available to the public in the Public Reference Room of the Office 
of Hearings and Appeals.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (2) The applicant should specify the source of its gallonage 
information. In calculating its purchase volumes, an applicant should 
use actual records from the relevant period of purchase, if available. 
If these records are not available, the applicant may submit estimates 
of its relevant refined petroleum product purchases, but the estimation 
methodology must be reasonable and must be explained.
    (3) A statement indicating whether the applicant or a related firm 
has filed, or has been authorized to file on its behalf, any other 
application in this refund proceeding. If so, an explanation of the 
circumstances of the other filing or authorization should be submitted;
    (4) If the applicant is or was in any way affiliated with the firm 
from whom it purchased covered petroleum products and consequently is 
filing its present application, the applicant should explain this 
affiliation, including the time period in which it was affiliated. If 
not, a statement that the applicant was not affiliated with that firm.
    (5) The statement listed below, provided it has been signed by the 
applicant or a responsible official of the firm filing the refund 
application:

    I swear (or affirm) that the information contained in this 
application and its attachments is true and correct to the best of 
my knowledge and belief. I understand that anyone who is convicted 
of providing false information to the Federal government may be 
subject to a fine, a jail sentence, or both, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 
Sec. 1001. I understand that the information contained in this 
application is subject to public disclosure. I have enclosed a 
duplicate of this entire application which will be placed in the OHA 
Public Reference Room.

    All applications should be either typed or printed and should 
clearly refer to the entity from whom it bought the relevant covered 
petroleum products and its respective case number as listed in the 
Appendix. Each applicant must submit an original and one copy of the 
application. If the applicant believes that any of the information in 
its application is confidential and does not wish this information to 
be publicly disclosed, the applicant must submit an original 
application, clearly designated ``confidential'', containing the 
confidential information, and two copies of the application with the 
confidential information deleted. All refund applications should be 
postmarked no later than September 30, 2000, and sent to: Bi-Petro 
Refining Co, Inc., et al., VEF-0035, et al., Office of Hearings and 
Appeals, Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue, S.W., 
Washington, D.C. 20585-0107.

E. Minimal Amount Requirement

    Only claims for at least $15 will be processed. This minimum has 
been adopted in refined product refund proceedings because the cost of 
processing claims for refunds of less than $15 outweighs the benefits 
of restitution in those instances. See Mobil Oil Corporation, 13 DOE 
para. 85,339 (1985).

F. Additional Information

    OHA reserves the authority to require additional information before 
granting any refund in these proceedings. Applications lacking the 
required information may be dismissed or denied.

G. Refund Applications filed by Representatives

    OHA reiterates its policy to closely scrutinize applications filed 
by filing services. Applications submitted by a filing service should 
contain all of the information indicated in this final Decision and 
Order. Strict compliance with the filing requirement as specified in 10 
C.F.R. Sec. 205.283, particularly the requirement that applications and 
the accompanying certification statement be signed by the applicant, 
will be required.

H. Filing Deadline

    The deadline for filing an Application for Refund is September 30, 
2000. We are not anticipating extending this deadline for any reason.

IV. Second-Stage Refund Procedures

    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. Secs. 4501-07. PODRA

[[Page 17868]]

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 four energy conservation programs. The 
Secretary has delegated these responsibilities to OHA, and any funds 
that OHA determines will not be needed to effect direct restitution to 
injured customers will be distributed in accordance with the provisions 
of PODRA.
    It Is Therefore Ordered That: Applications for Refund from the 
funds remitted to the Department of Energy by any one of the firms 
named in the Appendix to this Decision may now be filed.

    Dated: March 28, 2000.
George B. Breznay,
Director, Office of Hearings and Appeals.

                                                                                            Appendix
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                             Amounts
Name of firm primary operating                    Consent order                                           Applicable    ---------------- Actual payment   With interest  Collection
   location or headquarters      OHA case No.    tracking system   Type of business  Covered products       Dates*        Agreed to or      principal    through 01/31/  percentage   Volumetric
           location                                 No. (COTS)                                                               ordered                           00
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
South Central Terminal Co.,     VEF-0035......  720S00565W         refiner.........  gasoline........  July 1978-Dec.       $236,242.00     $167,287.26     $217,597.33        92        0.00037
 Inc., f/k/a Bi-Petro Refining                                                                          1979.
 Co., Inc., P.O. Box 3245,
 Springfield, Il 62708.
Don Rettig/Don's Shell 1097 W.  VEF-0037......  999K90058W         retailer........  gasoline........  Aug. 1979-April         4,208.40        1,800.00        3,944.04        94        0.00038
 Tennyson Rd., Hayward, CA                                                                              1980.
 94544.
Gugino's Exxon, 25th and Pine   VEF-0040......  999K90074W         retailer........  gasoline........  Aug.-Sept. 1979.        1,772.00          530.00        1,113.02        63        0.00025
 St., Niagara Falls, NY 14301.
J.D. Streett & Company, Inc.,   VEF-0042......  720H00555W         reseller-         all covered       Aug. 1973-Jan.        400,000.00      532,362.00      716,949.37       179    **** 0.0004
 144 Weldon Parkway, M.D.                                           retailer.         products.         1981.                                                                                  0
 Heights, MO 63043.
McWhirter Distributing Co.,     VEF-0045......  930H00291W         reseller-         gasoline........  April-Sept. 1979      128,171.06       28,101.00       30,747.05        24        0.00010
 Inc., 6633 Valjean Ave., Van                                       retailer.
 Nuys, CA 91406.
Charles B. Luna, formerly d/b/  VEF-0046......  720H00606W         reseller-         all covered       July 1977-Jan.     ***154,128.74       26,397.43       43,942.80        29        0.00012
 a Ozark County Gas Co., P.O.                                       retailer.         products.         1981.
 Box 1339, Branson, MO 65616.
Sherer Oil Company/Ringer Tri-  VEF-0052......  340H00496W         reseller-         gasoline........  April-Sept. 1979      387,465.05       96,921.55      150,832.70        39        0.00016
 State Oil Co., 608 Central                                         retailer.
 Ave., Johnstown, PA 15902.
Swann Oil Company** 111         VEF-0053......  320H00222W         reseller-         heating oil,      Nov.-Dec. 1973..    6,874,342.08      362,811.45      497,562.97         7        0.00003
 Presidential Blvd., Bala-                                          retailer.         residual fuel
 cynwyda, PA 19004.                                                                   oil.
Vantage Petroleum Co., 515      VEF-0056......  200H00026W         reseller-         gasoline........  April-Aug. 1979.    2,049,481.61      153,193.91      209,157.98        10        0.00004
 Johnson Ave., Bohemia, NY                                          retailer.
 11716.
    Totals....................                                                                                            10,235,810.94    1,369,404.60   1,871,847.26
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Or until relevant decontrol date.
** Subsidiaries include: Swann Oil Co. of Allentown, Swann Oil of Georgia, L.A. Swann Oil Co., and Swann Oil Co. of Philadelphia.
*** The amount the applicant was originally ordered to pay was increased from $125,000.00 to $154,128.74.
**** As explained in the Decision, since the collection percentage in this case is greater than 100 percent, the volumetric will not be reduced.


[[Page 17869]]

[FR Doc. 00-8329 Filed 4-4-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P