Implementation of Special Refund Procedures

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

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 $38,214.98,

plus accrued interest, in refined petroleum overcharges obtained by the

DOE under the terms of a Remedial Order issued to County Fuel Company,

Inc., Case No. LEF-0015. The OHA has determined that the funds will be

distributed in accordance with the provisions of 10 CFR part 205,

Subpart V and 15 U.S.C. 4501, the Petroleum Overcharge Distribution and

Restitution Act (PODRA).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Richard T. Tedrow, Deputy Director,

Office of Hearings and Appeals, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW.,

Washington, DC 20585, (202) 586-6602.

DATE and ADDRESS: Applications for Refund must be filed in duplicate,

addressed to County Fuel Company, Inc. Special Refund Proceeding and

sent to: Office of Hearings and Appeals, Department of Energy, 1000

Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585. Applications should

display a prominent reference to the Case Number LEF-0015 and be

postmarked on or before November 30, 1994.

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 and Order sets forth the procedures that the DOE

has formulated to distribute to eligible claimants $38,214.98, plus

accrued interest, obtained by the DOE under the terms of a Remedial

Order that the DOE issued to County Fuel Company, Inc., on May 7, 1984.

Under the Remedial Order, County Fuel Company, Inc., was found to have

violated the federal petroleum price and allocation regulations

involving the sale of motor gasoline during the relevant audit period.

The OHA has determined to distribute the Remedial Order fund in a

two stage refund proceeding. Purchasers of motor gasoline from County

Fuel Company, Inc., will have an opportunity to submit refund

applications in the first stage. The specific requirements which an

applicant must meet in order to receive a refund are set out in Section

III of the Decision. Claimants who meet these specific requirements

will be eligible to receive refunds based on the number of gallons of

motor gasoline which they purchased from County Fuel Company, Inc.

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. 4501, the Petroleum Overcharge

Distribution and Restitution Act of 1986 (PODRA).

Applications for Refund must be postmarked on or before November

30, 1994. Instructions for the completion of refund applications are

set forth in Section IV of the Decision that immediately follows this

notice. Applications should be sent to the address listed at the

beginning of this notice.

Unless labelled as ``confidential,'' all submissions must be made

available for public inspection between the hours of 1 p.m. and 5 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 SW., Washington, DC 20585.

Dated: May 24, 1994.

George B. Breznay,

Director, Office of Hearings and Appeals.

Name of Firm: County Fuel Company, Inc.

Date of Filing: March 6, 1990.

Case Number: LEF-0015.

Under the procedural regulations of the Department of Energy (DOE),

the Economic Regulatory Administration (ERA) may request that the

Office of Hearings and Appeals (OHA) formulate and implement special

refund procedures. 10 CFR 205.281. These procedures are used to refund

monies to those injured by actual or alleged violations of the DOE

price regulations.

In this Decision and Order, we consider a Petition for

Implementation of Special Refund Procedures filed by the ERA on March

6, 1990, for funds obtained due to alleged pricing violations in the

sale of motor gasoline at wholesale and retail levels. The funds at

issue in that Petition were obtained through DOE enforcement

proceedings involving County Fuel Company, Inc. (County), pursuant to

10 CFR part 205, subpart V. The present Decision will set forth final

procedures for the distribution of these funds to qualified purchasers

of County's motor gasoline.

I. Background

During the period covered by the Remedial Order (March 1, 1979,

through March 18, 1980), County was a ``reseller-retailer'' of refined

petroleum products as that term was defined in 10 CFR 212.31 and was

located in Baltimore, Maryland. Accordingly, County was subject to the

DOE Mandatory Petroleum Price Regulations. An ERA audit of County

records revealed possible violations of these regulations in sales of

County's motor gasoline during the period March 1, 1979, through March

18, 1980. On the basis of this audit, the ERA issued a Proposed

Remedial Order (PRO) to County on May 24, 1982. This Office affirmed

these alleged violations and issued a Remedial Order to County on May

7, 1984. County Fuel Company, Inc., 12 DOE  83,007 (1984). The

Remedial Order was affirmed by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

on August 23, 1985. County Fuel Company, Inc., 32 FERC  61,301 (1985).

The Temporary Emergency Court of Appeals (TECA) affirmed the decision

on August 12, 1987. County Fuel Company, Inc., v. DOE, 3 Fed. Energy

Guidelines  26,588 (Temp. Emer. Ct. App. 1987).

However, County had filed for bankruptcy on July 6, 1981. Following

the TECA decision, the DOE's claim as an unsecured creditor was allowed

by the bankruptcy court in the amount of $254,766.49, including

interest. In re: County Fuel Company, Inc., No. 81-2-2208-L (D. Md.

1986). Under the Second Amended Plan of Reorganization, unsecured

creditors were paid 15 percent of the allowed claim in cash or 100

percent of the claim in common stock. On August 25, 1988, County

delivered a check in the amount of $38,214.98 to the DOE, representing

15 percent of the allowed claim. The ERA accepted this amount in lieu

of payment in common stock. Interest in the amount of $14,047.66 has

accrued as of March 31, 1994.

II. The Proposed Decision and Order

On March 8, 1994, the OHA issued a Proposed Decision and Order

(PDO) establishing tentative procedures to distribute the alleged

violation amount obtained from County. 59 FR 11979 (March 15, 1994).

The OHA tentatively outlined procedures under which purchasers of

County's motor gasoline could apply for refunds. In order to permit

applicants to make refund claims without incurring disproportionate

costs as well as to allow the OHA to equitably and efficiently consider

those claims, we set forth a number of presumptions pertaining to

refund procedures.

First, we presumed that the alleged refined product overcharges

were spread evenly over all of County's sales of motor gasoline during

the Remedial Order period. We therefore proposed that an applicant's

potential refund generally should be computed by multiplying the per-

gallon refund amount by the number of gallons of County's motor

gasoline that the claimant purchased during the Remedial Order period.

The resulting figure is referred to as the claimant's ``volumetric

share'' of the County Remedial Order funds. Because an applicant may

have been overcharged by more than the volumetric refund presumption by

showing that it sustained a greater amount of the overcharge.

Because it is potentially difficult, time-consuming, and expensive

to demonstrate that one was forced to absorb any overcharges from

County, we proposed to adopt a number of presumptions concerning

injury. We proposed that resellers and retailers claiming refunds of

$5,000 or less, end-users, agricultural cooperatives, and certain types

of regulated firms would be presumed injuried by County's alleged

overcharges. We proposed that refiners, resellers and retailers seeking

refunds greater than $5,000 could receive a maximum of $20,000 based

upon 40 percent of their volumetric share without having to prove

injury. We also proposed to presume that claimants who made only spot

purchases from County were not injured and must rebut that presumption

to receive a refund. We stated that applicants not covered by one of

the injury presumptions would be required to demonstrate that they were

forced to absorb any overcharge by County in order to receive their

full volumetric shares of the County Remedial Order funds.

Finally, we proposed that any money remaining after all County

refund claims are analyzed should be disbursed as indirect restitution

in accordance with the provisions of the Overcharge Distribution and

Restitution Act of 1986 (PODRA), 15 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 4501-4507 (1988).

The PDO provided a period of 30 days from the date of publication

in the Federal Register in which comments could be filed regarding the

tentative refund process. More than 30 days have elapsed and the OHA

has received no comments concerning the proposed procedures for the

distribution of the County settlement funds. Consequently, the

procedures will be adopted as proposed.

III. Refund Procedures

A. Eligibility for Refunds

As indicated above, the Remedial Order found that County

overcharged its customers a total of $197,305.49, excluding interest,

in violating 10 CFR 212.93, by charging prices in excess of its maximum

lawful selling prices for motor gasoline. Accordingly, to the extent

that is possible, the County Remedial Order amount of $38,214.98, plus

accrued interest, will be distributed to purchasers of covered County

motor gasoline who can show that they were injured by County's pricing

practices during the period March 1, 1979, through March 18, 1980.

B. Calculation of Refund Amount

We are adopting a volumetric method to apportion the County escrow

account. Under this volumetric refund approach, a claimant's allocable

share of the refined products pool is equal to the number of gallons of

covered products purchased during the Remedial Order period times a per

gallon refund amount. We will derive the volumetric figure (per gallon

refund amount) by dividing the $38,214.98 received from County by the

total volume of motor gasoline sold by the firm during the regulatory

period, 2,431,180 gallons. This yields a volumetric refund amount of

$.0157 per gallon, exclusive of interest.\1\ This method is based upon

the presumption that the alleged overcharges were spread equally over

all gallons of motor gasoline sold by County during the regulatory

period. E.g., American Pac. Int'l, Inc., 14 DOE  85,158, at 88,293

(1986).\2\

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

\1\In the PDO, we included the interest which had accrued as of

January 31, 1994, in the County Remedial Order Fund. It has come to

our attention that this would lower the actual amount of restitution

an applicant would receive when taking advantage of one of the

presumptions. Therefore, in this Final Decision and Order, we have

decided to only use the amount actually collected from County to

compute the volumetric amount.

\2\Nevertheless, we realize that the impact on an individual

claimant may have been greater than the volumetric amount.

Therefore, 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 Serv., 12

DOE  85,015 (1984). Such an application will be granted only if an

applicant makes a persuasive showing that: (1) it was

``overcharged'' by a specific amount, (2) it sustained a

disproportionate share of County's alleged overcharges, and (3) it

was injured by those overcharges. See MCO Holdings, Inc., MGPC,

Inc./Little America Refining Co., 19 DOE  85,560 (1989); Marathon

Petroleum Co./Red Diamond Oil Co., 19 DOE  85,543 (1989); Getty Oil

Co./Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railroad Co., 18 DOE  85,107

(1988). To the extent that a claimant makes this showing, it will

receive a refund above the volumetric refund level. In computing the

appropriate refunds of this type, we will prorate the refund amount

by the ratio of the County remedial order amount as compared to the

aggregate overcharge amount alleged by the ERA. Amtel, Inc./Whitco,

Inc., 19 DOE  85,319 (1989) (Amtel/Whitco).

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

Under the volumetric approach, an eligible claimant will receive a

refund equal to the number of gallons of covered products that it

purchased from County during the period March 1, 1979, through March

18, 1980, multiplied by the per gallon volumetric amount for this

proceeding. Accordingly, each claimant will be required to establish,

by documentation of reasonable estimation, the volume of products that

it purchased during this period. In addition, each successful claimant

will receive a pro rata portion of the interest that has accrued on the

County funds since the date of remittance. As in previous cases, we

will establish a minimum amount of $15 for refund claims. E.g., Uban

Oil Co., 9 DOE 82,541, at 85,225 (1982). Accordingly, an applicant

must have purchased at least 924 gallons of motor gasoline from County

in order for its claim to be considered.

C. Showing of Injury

Each claimant will be required to document its purchases of covered

products from County during the Remedial Order period. In addition, in

order to receive a refund, an applicant generally must demonstrate

through the submission of detailed evidence that it did not pass on the

alleged overcharges to its customers. See, e.g., Office of Enforcement,

8 DOE 82,597, at 85,396-97 (1981).

However, as we have done in many prior refund cases, we will adopt

a number of presumptions regarding injury for claimants in each

category listed below. These presumptions are intended to ease what

would be a time-consuming and potentially expensive process if an

applicant were forced to demonstrate that they absorbed the alleged

overcharges.

1. End-Users

In accordance with prior Subpart V proceedings,we are adopting the

presumption that an end-user or ultimate consumer of County motor

gasoline whose business is unrelated to the petroleum industry was

injured by the alleged overcharges settled by the remedial order. See,

e.g., Texas Oil and Gas Corp. 12 DOE 85,069, at 88,209 (1984) (TOGCO).

Unlike regulated firms in the petroleum industry, members of this group

generally were not subject to price controls during the remedial order

period and were not required to keep records which justified selling

price increases by reference to cost increases. Consequently, analysis

of the impact of the alleged overcharges on the final prices of goods

and services produced by members of this group would be beyond the

scope of the refund proceeding. Id. Therefore, end-users of County

motor gasoline need only document their purchase volumes from County

during the remedial order period to make a sufficient showing that they

were injured by the alleged overcharges.

2. Regulated Firms and Cooperatives

In order to receive a full volumetric refund, a claimant whose

prices for goods and services are regulated by a governmental agency,

i.e., a public utility, or an agricultural cooperative which is

required by its charter to pass through cost savings to its member

purchasers, need only submit documentation of purchases used by itself

or, in the case of a cooperative, sold to its members. However, a

regulated firm or a cooperative will also be required to certify that

it will pass any refund received through to its customers or member-

customers, provide us with a full explanation of how it plans to

accomplish the restitution, and certify that it will notify the

appropriate regulatory body or membership group of the receipt of the

refund. See Marathon, 14 DOE at 88,514-15. This requirement is based

upon the presumption that, with respect to a regulated firm, any

overcharge would have been routinely passed through to its customers.

Similarly, any refunds received should be passed through to its

customers. With respect to a cooperative, in general, the cooperative

agreement which controls its business operations would ensure that the

alleged overcharges, and similarly refunds, would be passed through to

its member-customers. Accordingly, these firms will not be required to

make a detailed demonstration of injury.\3\

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

\3\A cooperative's purchases of County products which were

resold to non-members will be treated in a manner consistent with

purchases made by other resellers. See Total Petroleum, Inc./Farmers

Petroleum Cooperative, Inc., 19 DOE 85,215 (1989).

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

3. Refiners, Resellers, and Retailers

a. Small claims presumption. We will adopt a ``small claims''

presumption that resellers requesting relatively small refunds were

injured by the alleged overcharges. Under the small claims presumption,

a refiner, reseller, or retailer seeking a refund to $5,000 or less,

exclusive of interest, will not be required to submit evidence of

injury beyond documentation of the volume of County products it

purchased during the remedial order period. See TOGCO, 12 DOE at

88,210. This presumption is based on the fact that there may be

considerable expense involved in gathering the types of data necessary

to support a detailed claim of injury; for small claims the expense

might even exceed the potential refund. Consequently, failure to allow

simplified refund procedures for small claims could deprive injured

parties of their opportunity to obtain a refund. Furthermore, use of

the small claims presumption is desirable because it allows the OHA to

process the large number of routine refund claims in an efficient

manner.\4\

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

\4\In order to qualify for a refund under the small claims

presumption, a refiner, reseller, or retailer must have purchased

less than 318,503 gallons of County motor gasoline during the

remedial order period.

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

b. Mid-level claim presumption. In addition, a refiner, reseller,

or retailer claimant whose allocable share of the refund pool exceeds

$5,000, excluding interest, may elect to receive as its refund either

$5,000 or 40 percent of its allocable share, up to $20,000,\5\

whichever is larger.\6\ The use of this presumption reflects our

conviction that these larger, mid-level claimants were likely to have

experienced some injury as a result of the alleged overcharges. See

Marathon, 14 DOE at 88,515. We are adopting a 40 percent presumptive

level of injury for all mid-level claimants in this proceeding.

Consequently, an applicant in this group will only be required to

provide documentation of its purchase volumes of County motor gasoline

during the remedial order period in order to be eligible to receive a

refund of 40 percent of its total allocable share, up to $20,000, or

$5,000, whichever is greater.\7\

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

\5\In most prior proceedings, we have used a $40,000 mid-level

claim presumption. However, due to the small size of the County

Remedial Order Fund, this amount would be impractical.

\6\That is, claimants who purchased more than 318,504 gallons of

County motor gasoline during the remedial order period (mid-level

claimants) may elect to utilize this presumption.

\7\A claimant who attempt to make a detailed showing of injury

in order to obtain 100 percent of its allocable share but, instead,

provides evidence that leads us to conclude that it passed through

all of the alleged overcharges, or that it is eligible for a refund

of less than the applicable presumption-level refund, may not then

be eligible for a presumption-based refund. Instead, such a claimant

may receive a refund which reflects the level of injury established

in its application. No refund will be approved if its submission

indicates that it was not injured as a result of its purchases from

County. See Exxon, 17 DOE at 89,150 n.10.

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

c. Spot purchasers. We are adopting a rebuttable presumption that a

reseller that made only spot purchases from County did not suffer

injury as a result of those purchases. As we have previously stated,

spot purchasers generally had considerable discretion as to the timing

and market in which they made their purchases and therefore would not

have made spot market purchases from a firm at increased prices unless

they were able to pass through the full amount of the firm's selling

price to their own customers. See, e.g., Vickers, 8 DOE at 85,396-97.

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 County.\8\

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

\8\In prior proceedings, we have stated that refunds will be

approved for spot purchasers who demonstrate that: (1) they made the

spot purchases for the purpose of ensuring a supply for their base

period customers rather than in anticipation of financial advantage

as a result of those purchases and (20 they were forced by market

conditions to resell the product at a loss.

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

4. Allocation claims. We may also receive claims based upon

County's alleged failure to furnish motor gasoline that it was obliged

to supply under the DOE allocation regulations that became effective in

January 1974. See 10 CFR part 211. Any such applications will be

evaluated with reference to the standards set forth in Subpart V

implementation cases such as Office of Special Counsel, 10 DOE 85,048,

at 88,220 (1982), and refund application cases such as Mobil Oil Corp./

Reynolds Industries, Inc., 17 DOE 85,608 (1988); Marathon Petroleum

Co./Research Fuels, Inc., 19 DOE 85,575 (1989) (Marathon/RFI), aff'd

sub nom. Research Fuels, Inc. versus Department of Energy, No. CA-3-89-

2983G (N.D. Tex. 1990), aff'd, 977 F.2d 601 (Temp. Emer. Ct. App.

1992). These standards generally require an allocation claimant to

demonstrate the existence of a supplier/purchaser relationship with the

remedial order firm and the likelihood that the remedial order firm

failed to furnish motor gasoline that it was obliged to supply to the

claimant under 10 CFR part 211. In addition, the claimant should

provide evidence that it had contemporaneously notified the DOE or

otherwise sought redress from the 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 agency's treatment

of complaints made to it by the claimant. We will also look at any

affirmative defenses that County may have had to the alleged allocation

violation. See Marathon/RFI, 19 DOE 85,575. 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 County. In determining the amount of an allocation refund,

we will utilize any information that may be available regarding the

portion of the County remedial order amount that the agency attributed

to allocation violations in general and to the specific allocation

violation alleged by the claimants. Finally, since the County Remedial

Order Fund is less than County's potential liability in the

proceedings, we will pro rate those allocation refunds that would

otherwise be disproportionately large in relation to the remedial order

fund. Cf. Amtel/Whitco, 19 DOE 85,319.

D. Distribution of Funds Remaining After First Stage

In the event that money remains after all refund claims from the

County fund have been analyzed, the remaining funds in that account

will be disbursed as indirect restitution 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 the OHA, and any funds in the County remedial order

escrow account that the OHA determined will not be needed to effect

direct restitution to injured customers will be distributed in

accordance with the provisions of PODRA.

IV. General Refund Application Requirements

Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 205.283, we will now accept Applications for

Refund from individuals and firms that purchased motor gasoline sold by

County during the period March 1, 1979, through March 18, 1980. There

is no specific application form that must be used. However, the

following information should be included in all Applications for

Refund:

(1) Identifying information including the claimant's name, current

business address, business address during the refund period, taxpayer

identification number, a statement indicating whether the claimant is a

corporation, partnership, sole proprietorship, or other business

entity, the name, title, and telephone number of a person to contact

for any additional information, and the name and address of the person

who should receive any refund check.\9\ If the applicant operated under

more than one name or under a different name during the price control

period, the applicant should specify these names.

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

\9\Under the Privacy Act of 1974, the submission of a social

security number by an individual applicant is voluntary. An

applicant that 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, and is

requested pursuant to our authority under the Petroleum Overcharge

Distribution and Restitution Act of 1986 and the regulations

codified at 10 CFR 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 OHA.

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

(2) If the applicant's firm is owned by another company, or owns

other companies, a list of those companies' names, addresses, and

descriptions of their relationship to the applicant's firm.

(3) A brief description of the claimant's business and the manner

in which it used the petroleum products listed on its application.

(4) A monthly schedule of the applicant's purchases of motor

gasoline that it purchased from County during the Remedial Order

period. The applicant must indicate the name of its supplier and the

delivery location. The applicant should indicate the source of its

volume information. Monthly schedules should be based upon actual,

contemporaneous business records. If such records are not available,

the applicant may submit estimates provided that those estimates are

reasonable and the estimation methodology is explained in detail.

(5) If the applicant was an indirect purchaser, it should submit

the name, address, and telephone number of its immediate supplier and

indicate why it believes that the motor gasoline was originally sold by

County.

(6) A statement whether the applicant or a related firm has filed,

or authorized any individual to file on its behalf, any other

Application for Refund in the County proceeding, and if so, the

circumstances surrounding that filing or authorization.

(7) A statement whether the applicant was in any way affiliated

with County. If so, the applicant should explain the nature of the

affiliation.

(8) If the applicant is a reseller, retailer, or refiner whose

volumetric share exceeds $5,000, it must indicate whether it elects to

receive its maximum refund under the presumptions of injury. If it does

not elect a presumption of injury, it must submit a detailed showing

that it was injured by County's pricing practices.

(9) If the applicant is a regulated utility or a cooperative,

certifications that it will pass on the entirety of any refund received

to its customers, will notify its state utility commission, other

regulatory agency, or membership body of the receipt of any refund, and

a brief description as to how the refund will be passed along.

(10) A statement whether there has been any change in the ownership

of the entity that purchased the covered County products at any time

during or after the refund period. If so, the name and address of the

current (or former) owner should be provided.

(11) The statement listed below signed by the individual applicant

or a responsible official of the company filing the refund application:

I swear (or affirm) that this is the only refund Application

filed on behalf of this applicant in the County Fuel Company, Inc.

special refund proceeding and 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.

We also invite each applicant to submit copies of no more than five

contemporaneous invoices or other proofs of purchase showing that it

purchased motor gasoline from County. While this information is not

required of refund applicants, it may well expedite the processing of

the refund application.

All applications should be either typed or printed and clearly

labeled ``County Fuel Company, Inc. Application for Refund.'' 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 for this information to be publicly

disclosed, it 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 sent to: County Fuel Company, Inc.

Refund Proceeding, Case No. LEF-0015, Office of Hearings and Appeals,

Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Ave., SW., Washington, DC

20585.

The filing deadline is November 30, 1994.

It Is Therefore Ordered That:

(1) Applications for Refund from the funds remitted to the

Department of Energy by County Fuel Company, Inc., pursuant to the

Remedial Order finalized on May 7, 1984, may now be filed.

(2) All Applications submitted pursuant to Paragraph (1) above must

be filed in duplicate and postmarked no later than November 30, 1994.

Dated: May 24, 1994.

George B. Breznay,

Director Office of Hearings and Appeals.

[FR Doc. 94-13305 Filed 5-31-94; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6450-01-P