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 $10,700,000,

plus accrued interest, in alleged crude oil overcharges obtained by the

DOE pursuant to a Settlement Agreement entered into by the DOE and

Murphy Oil Corp., Murphy Oil USA, Inc. and Murphy Exploration &

Production Co., Case No. VEF-0003 (Murphy). The DOE has determined that

the funds obtained from Murphy will be distributed in accordance with

the DOE's Modified Statement of Restitutionary Policy in Crude Oil

Cases, 51 FR 27899 (August 4, 1986).

DATES AND ADDRESSES: Applications for Refund from the crude oil funds

should be clearly labeled ``Application for Crude Oil Refunds'' and

should be mailed to Subpart V Crude Oil Overcharge Refunds, Office of

Hearings and Appeals, Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Ave.,

S.W., Washington, DC 20585. Applications for Refund must be filed in

duplicate no later than June 30, 1995. Any party who has previously

filed an Application for Refund should not file another for the present

crude oil funds. The previously filed crude oil application will be

deemed filed in all crude oil proceedings as the proceedings are

finalized.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thomas O. Mann, Deputy Director, Roger

Klurfeld, Assistant Director, Office of Hearings and Appeals, 1000

Independence Ave., S.W., Washington, DC 20585, (202) 586-2094 (Mann);

586-2383 (Klurfeld).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In accordance with 10 C.F.R. 205.282(c),

notice is hereby given of the issuance of the Decision and Order set

out below. The Decision and Order sets forth the procedures the DOE has

formulated to distribute a total of $10,700,000, plus accrued interest,

obtained from Murphy pursuant to the Settlement Agreement entered into

by Murphy and the DOE. The DOE is currently holding these funds in an

interest bearing account, pending distribution.

The OHA will distribute these funds in accordance with the DOE's

Modified Statement of Restitutionary Policy in Crude Oil Cases, 51 FR

27899 (August 4, 1986) (the MSRP). Under the MSRP, crude oil overcharge

monies are divided among the federal government, the states, and

injured purchasers of refined petroleum products. Refunds to the states

will be distributed in proportion to each state's consumption of

petroleum products during the price control period. Refunds to eligible

purchasers will be based on the volume of petroleum products that they

purchased and the extent to which they can demonstrate injury.

Applications for Refund must be postmarked no later than June 30,

1995. As we state in the Decision, any party who has previously filed a

refund application in the crude oil proceedings should not file another

application for refund. The previously filed crude oil application will

be deemed filed in all crude oil proceedings as the proceedings are

finalized.

Dated: June 15, 1995.

George B. Breznay,

Director, Office of Hearings and Appeals.

Implementation of Special Refund Procedures

Name of Firm: Murphy Oil Corp./Murphy Oil USA, Inc.

Date of Filing: October 25, 1994

Case Number: VEF-0003

On October 25, 1994, the Economic Regulatory Administration (ERA)

of the Department of Energy (DOE) filed a Petition for the

Implementation of Special Refund Procedures with the Office of Hearings

and Appeals (OHA), to distribute $10,700,000 remitted by Murphy Oil

Corp., Murphy Oil USA, Inc., and Murphy Exploration & Production Co.

(collectively referred to as ``Murphy''), pursuant to a Consent Order

entered into between Murphy and the DOE on July 15, 1994. In accordance

with the procedural regulations codified at 10 C.F.R. Part 205, Subpart

V (Subpart V), the ERA requests in its Petition that the OHA establish

special procedures to make refunds in order to remedy the effects of

alleged regulatory violations which were resolved by the present

Consent Order. This Decision and Order sets forth the OHA's plan to

distribute these funds.

I. Background

Murphy is a major integrated refiner which produced and sold crude

oil and a full range of refined petroleum products during the period of

federal price controls. As such, it was subject to the federal

petroleum price and allocation regulations. During that time, the ERA

conducted an extensive audit of Murphy and issued an Issue Letter to

Murphy on September 29, 1976. ERA issued a Notice of Probable Violation

to Murphy on January 28, 1981. ERA issued a Proposed Remedial Order

(PRO) to Murphy on December 15, 1986, which Murphy contested before the

OHA.

On February 9, 1987, Murphy and the DOE entered into a Consent

Order which resolved disputes regarding Murphy's refined petroleum

product operations during the period the petroleum price and allocation

regulations were in effect. See Murphy Oil Corp., 17 DOE para. 85,782

(1987) (the first Consent Order). The first Consent Order left the

issue of Murphy's alleged violations as a producer of crude oil

unresolved. Those issues were decided by the OHA on June 17, 1992 when

the OHA issued a modified version of the PRO as a Remedial Order (RO).

See Murphy Oil Corp., 22 DOE para. 83,005 (1992). Murphy subsequently

appealed the OHA's determination to the Federal Energy Regulatory

Commission (FERC). On January 24, 1994, a FERC Administrative Law Judge

(ALJ) issued a Decision and Proposed Order (D&PO) which modified the

RO. See Ocean Drilling & Exploration Co., et al., 66 FERC para. 63,002

(1994).

On July 15, 1994, Murphy and the DOE entered into the present

Consent Order. This second Consent Order, which does not modify or

affect the terms of the first Consent Order, resolves all existing or

potential civil and administrative claims against Murphy for alleged

violations of the federal petroleum price and allocation regulations

left unresolved by the first Consent Order. Under the terms of this

second Consent Order, Murphy has remitted $10,700,000 to the DOE, and

all outstanding or potential crude oil overcharge claims by the DOE

against Murphy have been settled. These funds are being held in an

interest-bearing escrow account maintained at the Department of the

Treasury pending a determination regarding their proper distribution.

[[Page 32667]]

II. Jurisdiction and Authority

The Subpart V regulations set forth general guidelines which may be

used by the OHA in formulating and implementing a plan of distribution

for funds received as a result of an enforcement proceeding. The DOE

policy is to use the Subpart V process to distribute such funds. For a

more detailed discussion of Subpart V and the authority of the OHA to

fashion procedures to distribute refunds, see The Petroleum Overcharge

Distribution and Restitution Act of 1986 (PODRA), 15 U.S.C. 4501-07;

Office of Enforcement, 9 DOE para. 82,508 (1981); Office of

Enforcement, 8 DOE para. 82,597 (1981).

III. The Proposed Decision and Order

We considered the ERA's Petition that we implement a Subpart V

proceeding with respect to the Murphy funds and, on December 12, 1994,

we issued a Proposed Decision and Order (PDO) setting forth the

tentative plan to distribute these funds. See 59 FR 65332 (December 19,

1994). In the PDO, we proposed to distribute the Murphy funds in

accordance with the DOE's Modified Statement of Restitutionary Policy

in Crude Oil Cases, 51 Fed. Reg. 27899 (August 4, 1986) (the MSRP). The

MSRP was issued as a result of the Stripper Well Settlement Agreement.

In re: The Department of Energy Stripper Well Exemption Litigation, 653

F. Supp. 108 (D. Kan.), 6 Fed. Energy Guidelines para. 90,509 (1986).

Under the MSRP, 40 percent of the crude oil overcharge funds will be

remitted to the federal government and 40 percent to the states for

indirect restitution, and up to 20 percent may be initially reserved

for direct restitution to injured parties. Any money remaining after

all valid claims by injured parties are paid will be disbursed to the

federal government and the states in equal amounts.

We received two comments on the PDO. The first comment was

submitted by the Controller of the State of California (Controller).

The second comment was submitted by Utilities, Transporters and

Manufacturers (UTM), a consortium of six utilities, fourteen

transporting companies, and five manufacturers. Both address the issue

of royalties paid by Murphy to the federal government under its lease

agreements to produce crude oil from federal lands.1

\1\ UTM also commented, without elaboration, upon the Subpart V

proceedings as a whole. We have previously considered these comments

at length and rejected them. We therefore do not discuss them again

here. See Permian Corp., 23 DOE para. 85,034 (1993); Seneca Oil Co.,

21 DOE para. 85,327 (1991).

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

A. The Royalty Issue

As part of its operations, Murphy leased land from the United

States and paid royalties to the United States Geological Survey of the

Department of the Interior (USGS) on all crude oil produced from

federal lease areas. During the Murphy enforcement proceedings, Murphy

claimed that the United States had benefited from the overcharges

through increased royalty payments (since royalty payments are based on

the sale price of crude produced from leased federal land).

Accordingly, Murphy argued, the amount of any overcharges assessed

against Murphy should be reduced by the amount of royalties paid to

prevent the United States from enjoying a double recovery. Murphy Oil

Corp., 22 DOE para. 83,005 at 86,097. While the OHA rejected this

argument, the FERC ALJ found that the argument had merit. The ALJ

ordered the OHA to reconsider the issue on remand and determine to what

extent the United States benefited from the overcharges through

increased royalty payments, and to reduce Murphy's overcharges

accordingly. Ocean Drilling & Exploration Co., et al., 66 FERC para.

63,002 at 65,027-29.

The second Murphy Consent Order eliminated the need to make any

such determination, since it settled all claims by the DOE against

Murphy in exchange for one lump sum payment. In its announcement of the

Proposed Consent Order, the ERA listed the royalty issue as one of the

matters addressed and settled by the agreement between Murphy and the

DOE. Announcement of Proposed Consent Order with Murphy Oil

Corporation, Murphy Oil USA, Inc., and Murphy Exploration & Production

Co., 59 FR 38169, at 38170 (July 27, 1994).

In response to the Proposed Consent Order, the Controller and UTM

submitted comments asking that, if the ERA accepted an offset from the

alleged overcharges based on FERC's determination on the royalty issue,

the ERA identify the amount of money in the settlement set aside as

royalty payments. UTM and the Controller further stated that this

amount should not be subject to the usual division of funds between the

federal government, the states, and individual claimants, as set forth

in the MSRP. Instead, they argued that the amount attributable to the

royalty issue should be divided exclusively between the states and

individual claimants to prevent any sort of ``double recovery'' by the

federal government. For a more detailed discussion of their comments,

see Announcement of Final Consent Order with Murphy Oil Corporation,

Murphy Oil USA, Inc. and Murphy Exploration & Production Company, 59

Fed. Reg. 47315 (September 15, 1994) (Final Consent Order Notice). In

considering these comments, the ERA stated that it would be difficult

to set a dollar value on the amount attributable to the royalty

issue.2 The ERA also stated that consideration of any comments

regarding the division of funds should wait until the implementation of

the Subpart V process. Accordingly, the Controller and UTM have filed

comments with us after the publication of the PDO in the Federal

Register.

\2\ However, in two footnotes, the ERA indicated that the value

could be $341,798, or 3.2% of the total. Final Consent Order Notice

at 47316 n.3, 47317 n.5.

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

B. Comments of the Controller and UTM

Both the Controller and UTM argue that none of the Murphy Consent

Order fund attributable to the royalty issue should be disbursed to the

federal government for indirect restitution under the MSRP. In

addition, since the ERA did not set a value on the royalty issue in the

Final Consent Order Notice, UTM proposes its own formula for

determining the percentage of the Murphy funds attributable to the

royalty issue.

C. Analysis of Comments

As explained below, we find no merit in the Controller's and UTM's

arguments that we should alter the normal formula set forth in the MSRP

for the disbursement of funds in this proceeding.

The Controller asserts that, by compromising with Murphy on the

royalty issue in the final Consent Order, the ERA reduced the amount of

the settlement. The Controller argues that, in so doing, ERA had, in

effect, acted to reduce the potential amount of restitutionary funds

available to the states and individual claimants. Controller Comments

at 1. The Controller maintains that this is inequitable in light of the

determination of the FERC ALJ that the federal government may have

benefited from the overcharges through the royalties. The Controller

therefore asks us to deny the federal government the right to receive

any money attributable to the royalty issue, so that the states and

individual claimants ``are not required to bear this burden out of

their share of the refund.'' Id. at 2.

UTM's position is also based on the issue raised by the FERC ALJ

that the federal government, through the royalty payments made to the

USGS, may have benefited from the overcharges. UTM

[[Page 32668]] Comments at 3. According to UTM's theory, we should

regard the royalty payments as ``an advance payment of restitution to

the U.S. Treasury.'' Id. Therefore, UTM argues, the federal government

should receive none of the money attributable to the royalty issue, in

order to preserve the 40:40:20 ratio set forth in the Stripper Well

Settlement Agreement and the MSRP.3

\3\ In view of our determination not to alter the distribution

of funds from the formula in the MSRP, there is no need to discuss

UTM's suggested method of estimating the percentage of the Murphy

funds attributable to the royalty issue.

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

We reject these arguments to change the disbursement of the Murphy

Consent Order funds from the formula set forth in the Stripper Well

Settlement Agreement. Under the statute and regulations governing the

litigation between Murphy and the DOE, the final Consent Order is a

final Order of the DOE which is not subject to administrative appeal.

See Department of Energy Organization Act, section 503, 42 U.S.C. 7193;

10 C.F.R. 205.199B. It therefore supersedes the determination of the

FERC ALJ and forecloses further inquiry into the issue of whether, and

to what extent, the federal government may have benefited from the

alleged Murphy overcharges through the royalties paid to USGS. We

instead rely on the ERA's statement that ``it is neither practical nor

appropriate to quantify the portion of the $10.7 million proposed

settlement sum that exceeds the $5.2 million in restitution under the

D&PO that can be ascribed to the royalty payment issue.'' Final Consent

Order Notice, 59 FR 47315, 47316. As the Court of Appeals recently

noted in Mullins v. DOE, No. 93-1424 (Fed. Cir. March 25, 1995),

petition for rehearing en banc denied (June 8, 1995), the OHA may rely

on ERA's statements about overcharges compromised in settlements when

implementing Subpart V refund procedures.

Furthermore, contrary to the Controller's assertion, the ERA did

not disturb the ``inviolate'' allocation of the crude oil

restitutionary funds by agreeing to settle the Murphy crude oil

overcharge litigation. The disbursement of crude oil overcharge funds

is based on the total amount of funds collected by the DOE in its

enforcement proceedings and then turned over to the OHA for

distribution through Subpart V proceedings. It is not based on the

potential amount of funds that the DOE could have obtained if it

successfully litigated every claim to finality. The ERA correctly noted

that the royalty issue was one of the litigation risks which could

justifiably be compromised in settlement. See Final Consent Order

Notice at 47315, 47317. As courts have noted in the past, Consent

Orders result from a process in which each party ``gives up something

it might have won in litigation.'' Consumer Energy Council v. Duncan,

No. CA 80-2570 (D.D.C. April 1, 1981), 3 Fed. Energy Guidelines para.

26,314 (1981) (CEC). Consent Order negotiations, therefore, fall

entirely within ERA's prosecutorial discretion. Id. See also Payne 22,

Inc., 762 F.2d 91 (1985) (Court review of DOE Consent Orders would

result ``in chaos''). If we followed the Controller's logic to its

natural conclusion, the OHA could never rely on an ERA Consent Order.

Instead, the OHA would need to determine what ERA could conceivably

have won in completely successful litigation and deduct the amount of

any compromise from the federal share of any crude oil refund

disbursement under the MSRP. This notion is patently absurd. It would

run counter to the considerations of administrative efficiency

underlying ERA's settlement authority, and impose an impossible burden

on DOE's limited resources. CEC, 3 Fed. Energy Guideline at 28,417.

We do not, however, rely solely on these considerations in

rejecting the Controller's and UTM's comments on the proper

disbursement of funds. We reject the suggested disbursement changes

because they stem from a misunderstanding of the federal government's

role in the disbursement of funds for indirect restitution. Our recent

holding in Defense Logistics Agency, 24 DOE para. 85,134 (1995) (DLA)

is relevant here. As we stated in DLA, the federal government is not

seen as a monolithic entity for the purposes of refund proceedings. Its

role in the division of funds is entirely separate from the role of

individual agencies as consumers of petroleum products or, in the case

of USGS, as a collector of royalties for crude oil produced on federal

land. ``[T]he division of monies between the federal government and the

states pursuant to the terms of the Settlement Agreement arose as a

function of their role as parens patriae, as stand-ins for their

citizens who, though unidentified, were nonetheless injured by the

crude oil overcharges.'' Id. at 88,415. In other words, the federal

government's 40 percent share of crude oil monies for indirect

restitution under the MSRP is not paid to compensate the federal

government for any injuries from petroleum overcharges. It is paid to

the federal government so that the federal government can compensate

the mass of unidentified citizens who all suffered to some degree from

the overcharges.

The federal government and the states also have other, different

roles in the process. For example, we have held that state and federal

agencies may receive refunds as end-users in refund proceedings because

their role as purchasers and consumers is entirely separate from their

role in providing indirect restitution to their citizens. Id.; City of

Burbank, 19 DOE para. 85,169 (1989) (No double recovery ``is presented

by a state serving as a conduit for indirect restitution on behalf of

its citizens, while at the same time receiving direct restitution in

its own right for petroleum product purchases.''); Metropolitan Atlanta

Rapid Transit Authority, 17 DOE para. 85,243 (1988); Chicago Transit

Authority, 17 DOE para. 85,223 (1988). Pursuant to this reasoning, we

have granted direct refunds to a number of states based on their

purchases of petroleum products. See, e.g., The Commonwealth of

Massachusetts, 22 DOE para. 85,002 (1992); State of Minnesota, 21 DOE

para. 85,342 (1991); State of Tennessee, 21 DOE para. 85,334 (1991);

State of New Hampshire, 21 DOE para. 85,234 (1991); State of Arkansas,

20 DOE para. 85,741 (1990). Similarly, any benefit USGS received from

the alleged overcharges through the royalties has no effect upon the

disbursement of the Murphy funds to the federal government for indirect

restitution.

In addition, if we accepted UTM's argument that we consider royalty

payments to the USGS as an advance payment of restitution, we would

need to apply the same principle to the states. Several states have

leasing provisions for state-owned land which require payments of

royalties on mineral rights. To apply this principle consistently, we

would be forced to revisit each crude oil overcharge proceeding in

which we have disbursed money to the states, determine if the funds

came from a firm which paid royalty payments to any state, and

retroactively deduct that amount from our disbursement to the states in

question. Such a scheme would be hopelessly complex, particularly at

this late date, and we would refuse to adopt UTM's arguments for this

reason alone.

In conclusion, we reject UTM's argument that we depart from the

disbursement of funds set out in the MSRP and the Stripper Well

Agreement. Whether one agency of the federal government arguably

received some benefit from the alleged overcharges is immaterial to the

right of all United States citizens to receive indirect restitution

through the 40 percent share of the Murphy Consent Order fund deposited

in the United States Treasury under the MSRP. In addition, principles

of administrative efficiency would provide ample reason not to deviate

[[Page 32669]] from our established policy and begin a lengthy

examination into the question of which states received royalty payments

from crude oil producers, how much the states may have benefited from

these royalties, and whether to rescind refunds already made to them.

Accordingly, we have decided that we will not alter the formula.

IV. The Refund Procedures

A. Crude Oil Refund Policy

As explained above, we will distribute the Murphy funds in

accordance with the DOE's Modified Statement of Restitutionary Policy

in Crude Oil Cases, 51 FR 27899 (August 4, 1986) (the MSRP). As noted

above, the MSRP establishes that 40 percent of the crude oil overcharge

funds will be remitted to the federal government, another 40 percent to

the states, and up to 20 percent may initially be reserved for the

payment of claims by injured parties. The MSRP also specifies that any

monies remaining after all valid claims by injured purchasers are paid

be disbursed to the federal government and the states in equal amounts.

The OHA has utilized the MSRP in all Subpart V proceedings involving

alleged crude oil violations. See Order Implementing the MSRP, 51 FR

29689 (August 20, 1986). This Order provided a period of 30 days for

the filing of comments or objections to our proposed use of the MSRP as

the groundwork for evaluating claims in crude oil refund proceedings.

Following this period, the OHA issued a Notice evaluating the numerous

comments which it received pursuant to the Order Implementing the MSRP.

This Notice was published at 52 FR 11737 (April 10, 1987) (the April 10

Notice).

The April 10 Notice contained guidance to assist potential

claimants wishing to file refund applications for crude oil monies

under the Subpart V regulations. Generally, all claimants would be

required to (1) document their purchase volumes of petroleum products

during the August 19, 1973 through January 27, 1981 crude oil price

control period, and (2) prove that they were injured by the alleged

crude oil overcharges. We also specified that end-users of petroleum

products whose businesses are unrelated to the petroleum industry will

be presumed to have been injured by the alleged crude oil overcharges

and need not submit any additional proof of injury beyond documentation

of their purchase volumes. See City of Columbus, Georgia, 16 DOE para.

85,550 (1987). Additionally, we stated that crude oil refunds would be

calculated on the basis of a per gallon (or ``volumetric'') refund

amount, which is obtained by dividing the crude oil refund pool by the

total consumption of petroleum products in the United Sates during the

crude oil price control period. The OHA has adopted the refund

procedures outlined in the April 10 Notice in numerous cases. See,

e.g., Texaco, Inc, 19 DOE para. 85,200 (1989); Shell Oil Co., 17 DOE

para. 85,204 (1988) (Shell); Mountain Fuel Supply Co., 14 DOE para.

85,475 (1986) (Mountain Fuel).

B. Refund Claims

We adopt the DOE's standard crude oil refund procedures to

distribute the monies remitted by Murphy. We have chosen initially to

reserve 20 percent of the fund, plus accrued interest, for direct

refunds to claimants in order to ensure that sufficient funds will be

available for injured parties. This reserve figure may later be reduced

if circumstances warrant.

The OHA will evaluate crude oil refund claims in a manner similar

to that used in Subpart V proceedings to evaluate claims based on

alleged refined product overcharges. See Mountain Fuel, 14 DOE at

88,869. Under these procedures, claimants will be required to document

their purchase volumes of petroleum products and prove they were

injured as a result of the alleged violations.

We adopt a presumption that the alleged crude oil overcharges were

absorbed, rather than passed on, by applicants which were (1) end-users

of petroleum products, (2) unrelated to the petroleum industry, and (3)

not subject to the regulations promulgated under the Emergency

Petroleum Allocation Act of 1973 (EPAA), 15 U.S.C. 751-760h. In order

to receive a refund, end-user claimants need not submit any evidence of

injury beyond documentation of their purchase volumes. See Shell, 17

DOE at 88,406.

Petroleum retailer, reseller, and refiner applicants must submit

detailed evidence of injury, and they may not rely upon the injury

presumptions utilized in refined product cases. Id. These applicants,

however, may use econometric evidence of the type found in the OHA

Report on Stripper Well Overcharges, 6 Fed. Energy Guidelines para.

90,507 (1985). See also PODRA section 3003(b)(2), 15 U.S.C.

Sec. 4502(b)(2). If a claimant has executed and submitted a valid

waiver pursuant to one of the escrows established by the Stripper Well

Settlement Agreement, it has waived its rights to file an application

for Subpart V crude oil refund monies. See Mid-America Dairymen v.

Herrington, 878 F.2d 1448 (Temp. Emer. Ct. App.), 3 Fed. Energy

Guidelines para. 26,617 (1989); In re: Department of Energy Stripper

Well Exemption Litigation, 707 F. Supp. 1267 (D. Kan.), 3 Fed Energy

Guidelines para. 26,613 (1987).

As has been stated in prior Decisions, a crude oil refund applicant

will only be required to submit one application for its share of all

available crude oil overcharge funds. See, e.g., A. Tarricone, Inc., 15

DOE para. 85,495 (1987). A party that has already submitted a claim to

any other crude oil refund proceeding implemented by the DOE need not

file another claim. The prior application will be deemed to be filed in

all crude oil refund proceedings finalized to date. The final deadline

for the crude oil refund proceeding is June 30, 1995. It is the policy

of the DOE to pay eligible crude oil refund claimants at the rate of

$0.0016 per gallon. We will decide after the resolution of a few

outstanding enforcement proceedings whether sufficient funds are

available for additional refunds.

To apply for a refund, a claimant should submit an Application for

Refund containing the information specified by the OHA in past

Decisions. See, e.g., Permian Corp., 23 DOE para. 85,034 (1993); Hood

Goldsberry, 18 DOE para. 85,902 (1989). All applications must be

postmarked no later than June 30, 1995 and sent to: Subpart V Crude Oil

Overcharge Refunds, Office of Hearings and Appeals, Department of

Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585

Although an applicant is not required to use any specific form for

its crude oil refund application, a suggested form has been prepared by

the OHA and may be obtained by sending a written request to the address

listed above.

C. Payments to the Federal Government and the States

Under the terms of the MSRP, we have determined that the remaining

80 percent of the Murphy funds, plus accrued interest, should be

disbursed in equal shares to the states and the federal government for

indirect restitution. Refunds to the states will be in proportion to

the consumption of petroleum products in each state during the period

of price controls. The share or ratio of the funds which each state

will receive is contained in Exhibit H of the Stripper Well Settlement

Agreement, 6 Fed. Energy Guidelines para. 90,509 at 90,687. When

disbursed, these funds will be subject to the same limitations and

reporting requirements as all other crude oil monies received by the

states under the Stripper Well Settlement Agreement.

It Is Therefore Ordered That: [[Page 32670]]

(1) Applications for Refund from the crude oil overcharge funds

remitted by Murphy Oil Corp./Murphy Oil USA, Inc., may now be filed.

(2) All Applications submitted pursuant to paragraph (1) must be

filed in duplicate and postmarked no later than June 30, 1995.

(3) The Director of Special Accounts and Payroll, Office of

Departmental Accounting and Financial Systems Development, Office of

the Controller of the Department of Energy shall take all steps

necessary to transfer $10,700,000, plus all accrued interest, from the

Murphy subaccount (Account No. RMUC01994W) pursuant to Paragraphs (4),

(5), and (6) of this Decision.

(4) The Director of Special Accounts and Payroll shall transfer

$4,280,000 (plus interest) of the funds obtained pursuant to Paragraph

(3) above into the subaccount denominated ``Crude Tracking-States,''

Number 999DOE003W.

(5) The Director of Special Accounts and Payroll shall transfer

$4,280,000 (plus interest) of the funds obtained pursuant to Paragraph

(3) above into the subaccount denominated ``Crude Tracking-Federal,''

Number 999DOE002W.

(6) The Director of Special Accounts and Payroll shall transfer

$2,140,000 (plus interest) of the funds obtained pursuant to Paragraph

(3) above into the subaccount denominated ``Crude Tracking-Claimants

4,'' Number 999DOE010Z.

Date: June 15, 1995.

George B. Breznay,

Director, Office of Hearings and Appeals.

[FR Doc. 95-15465 Filed 6-22-95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6450-01-P