Implementation of Special Refund Procedures

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 $144,864.85,

plus accrued interest, in refined petroleum overcharges obtained by the

DOE under the terms of a Remedial Order issued to N. C. Ginther

Company, Case No. LEF-0060. 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.

DATES AND ADDRESSES: Applications for Refund must be filed in

duplicate, addressed to N. C. Ginther Company 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-0060 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 $144,864.85, plus

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

Order that the DOE issued to N. C. Ginther Company on March 25, 1983.

The Consent Order resolved all civil and administrative claims and

disputes between N. C. Ginther Company and the DOE.

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

two stage refund proceeding. Purchasers of propane, butane, and natural

gasoline from N. C. Ginther Company 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 propane, butane, and natural gasoline which they purchased

from N. C. Ginther Company.

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 31, 1994.

George B. Breznay,

Director, Office of Hearings and Appeals.

Decision and Order of The Department of Energy

Implementation of Special Refund Procedures

Name of Petitioner: N. C. Ginther Company

Date of Filing: July 20, 1993

Case Number: LEF-0060

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 July

20, 1993, for funds obtained due to alleged pricing violations in the

sale of propane, butane, and natural gasoline (natural gas liquids

products). The funds at issue in that Petition were obtained through

settlement of DOE enforcement proceedings involving N. C. Ginther

Company (Ginther), 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 Ginther's natural gas liquids (NGL)

products.

I. Background

During the period covered by the Consent Order (September 1, 1973,

through March 31, 1977), Ginther was a ``gas plant operator'' (as

defined in 10 CFR 212.162) and its sales were subject to DOE price

regulations. Accordingly, Ginther was subject to the DOE Mandatory

Petroleum Price Regulations. An ERA audit of Ginther's records revealed

possible violations of the Mandatory Petroleum Price Regulations, 10

CFR part 212 subparts E and K, in specified transactions during the

period September 1, 1973, through March 31, 1977 (the consent order

period).1 Consequently, the ERA issued a Notice of Probable

Violation (NOPV) to Ginther on December 31, 1980, alleging pricing

violations in the sale of propane, butane, and natural gasoline during

the audit period. On March 25, 1983, Ginther and the DOE entered into a

Consent Order. The Consent Order refers to the ERA's allegations of

regulatory violations. It also includes Ginther's denials that any such

violations occurred.

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

\1\Ginther owned all or a portion of four gas processing plants

for various lengths of time during the audit period. In addition,

Ginther owned and operated Ginther Energy Marketing Company and A &

V Gas Service, Inc. In accordance with the definition of a firm in

10 CFR 212.31, the four gas processing plants, Ginther Energy

Marketing Company, and A & V Gas Service, Inc., constitute one firm

and were regarded as such by ERA in the audit. Notice of Probable

Violation issued to N. C. Ginther dated December 31, 1980.

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

As a result of the Consent Order, there is a total of $144,864.85,

plus accrued interest, available for restitution. This Decision

concerns the distribution of all funds in the Ginther escrow account.

II. The Proposed Decision and Order

On April 14, 1994, the OHA issued a Proposed Decision and Order

(PDO) establishing tentative procedures to distribute the alleged

violation amount obtained from Ginther. 59 FR 19005 (April 21, 1994).

The OHA tentatively outlined procedures under which purchasers of

Ginther's NGL products 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 Ginther's sales of NGL products during

the Consent 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 Ginther's NGL products

that the claimant purchased during the Consent Order period. The

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

of the Ginther Consent Order funds. Because an applicant may have been

overcharged by more than the volumetric amount, we proposed that an

applicant could rebut 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

Ginther, 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 injured by Ginther'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 Ginther 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 Ginther in order to receive their

full volumetric shares of the Ginther Consent Order funds.

Finally, we proposed that any money remaining after all Ginther

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. Secs. 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 Ginther settlement funds. Consequently, the

procedures will be adopted as proposed.

III. Refund Procedures

A. Eligibility for Refund

As indicated above, the Consent Order resolved all civil and

administrative claims between DOE and Ginther. Accordingly, to the

extent that is possible, the Ginther Consent Order amount of

$144,864.85, plus accrued interest, will be distributed to purchasers

of covered Ginther NGL products who can show that they were injured by

Ginther's pricing practices during the period September 1, 1973,

through March 31, 1977.

B. Calculation of Refund Amount

We are adopting a volumetric method to apportion the Ginther 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 Consent Order period times a per

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

refund amount) by dividing the $144,864.85 received from Ginther by the

total volume of NGL products sold by the firm during the regulatory

period, 25,312,920 gallons. This yields a volumetric refund amount of

$.0057 per gallon, exclusive of interest. This method is based upon the

presumption that the alleged overcharges were spread equally over all

gallons of NGL products sold by Ginther during the regulatory period.

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

(1986).2

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

\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 Ginther'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 Ginther Consent 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 Ginther during the period September 1, 1973, through

March 31, 1977, multiplied by the per gallon volumetric amount for this

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

by documentation or 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

Ginther 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 2,544 gallons of NGL products from Ginther

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 Ginther during the Consent 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) (Vickers).

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 Ginther NGL

products whose business is unrelated to the petroleum industry was

injured by the alleged overcharges settled by the consent 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

consent 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 Ginther NGL products need only document their purchase volumes

from Ginther during the consent 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 Ginther 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 of $5,000 or less,

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

injury beyond documentation of the volume of Ginther products it

purchased during the consent 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 877,280 gallons of Ginther products during the consent

order period. However, an applicant, who has purchased more than

877,280 gallons of Ginther products during the consent order period,

may elect to limit its refund to the small claims presumption.

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

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 Ginther NGL products

during the consent 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 $50,000 mid-level

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

consent order fund and the rather small volumetric figure, this

amount would be impractical.

\6\That is, claimants who purchased more than 877,281 gallons of

Ginther products during the consent order period (mid-level

claimants) may elect to utilize this presumption.

\7\A claimant who attempts 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

Ginther. 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 Ginther 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 Ginther.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 (2) they were forced by market

conditions to resell the product at a loss.

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

D. Allocation Claims

We may also receive claims based upon Ginther's alleged failure to

furnish products 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 Indus., 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. v. DOE, No. CA3-89-

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

consent order firm and the likelihood that the consent order firm

failed to furnish NGL products 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 Ginther 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 Ginther. In determining the amount of an

allocation refund, we will utilize any information that may be

available regarding the portion of the Ginther consent order amount

that the agency attributed to allocation violations in general and to

the specific allocation violation alleged by the claimants. Finally,

since the Ginther consent order fund is less than Ginther's potential

liability in the proceedings, we will pro rate those allocation refunds

that would otherwise be disproportionately large in relation to the

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

E. Distribution of Funds Remaining After First Stage

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

Ginther funds 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 Ginther consent order

escrow account that the OHA determines 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 CFR 205.283, we will now accept Applications for

Refund from individuals and firms that purchased NGL products sold by

Ginther during the period September 1, 1973, through March 31, 1977.

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 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 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 NGL products

that it purchased from Ginther during the Consent 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 NGL products was originally sold by

Ginther.

(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 Ginther proceeding, and if so, the

circumstances surrounding that filing or authorization.

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

with Ginther. 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 Ginther'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 Ginther 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 N.C. Ginther Company

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.

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 NGL products from Ginther. 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 ``N.C. Ginther Company 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: N.C. Ginther Company Refund

Proceeding, Case No. LEF-0060, 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 N.C. Ginther Company pursuant to the Consent

Order finalized on March 25, 1983, 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 31, 1994.

George B. Breznay,

Director, Office of Hearings and Appeals.

[FR Doc. 94-13692 Filed 6-3-94; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6450-01-P