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.

[[Page 38323]]

ACTION: Notice of implementation of special refund procedures.

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

SUMMARY: The Office of Hearings and Appeals (OHA) of the Department of

Energy announces the procedures for disbursement of $29,376,255.50

(plus accrued interest) in alleged or adjudicated crude oil overcharges

obtained by the DOE from Western Asphalt Service, Inc. (Case No. LEF-

0047), Gray Trucking Company (Case No. LEF-0120), William Valentine &

Sons, Inc. (Case No. LEF-0123), Dorchester Master Limited Partnership

(Case No. VEF-0005), Howell Corporation (Case No. VEF-0006), Placid Oil

Company (Case No. VEF-0008), Eton Trading Corporation (Case No. VEF-

0009) and Rodgers Hydrocarbon Corporation (Case No. VEF-0010). The OHA

has determined that the funds obtained from these firms, plus accrued

interest, will be distributed in accordance with the DOE's Modified

Statement of Restitutionary Policy in Crude Oil Cases, 51 FR 27899

(August 4, 1986).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Richard W. Dugan, Associate Director,

Office of Hearings and Appeals, 1000 Independence Avenue, S.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20585, (202) 586-2860.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In accordance with 10 CFR 205.282(c), notice

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

below. The Decision and Order sets forth the procedures that the DOE

has tentatively formulated to distribute a total of $29,376,255.50,

plus accrued interest, remitted to the DOE by Western Asphalt Service,

Inc., Gray Trucking Company, William Valentine & Sons, Inc., Dorchester

Master Limited Partnership, Howell Corporation, Placid Oil Company,

Eton Trading Corporation and Rodgers Hydrocarbon Corporation. The DOE

is currently holding these funds in interest bearing escrow accounts

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.

Because the June 30, 1995, deadline for the crude oil refund

applications has passed, no new applications from purchasers of refined

petroleum products will be accepted for the 20 percent of these funds

allocated to individual claimants. Instead, that share of the funds

will be added to the general crude oil overcharge pool used for direct

restitution.

Date: July 17, 1995.

George B. Breznay,

Director, Office of Hearings and Appeals.

July 17, 1995.

Decision and Order of the Department of Energy; Implementation of

Special Refund Procedures

Names of Firms: Western Asphalt Service, Inc. et al.

Dates of Filing: July 17, 1992 et al.

Case Numbers: LEF-0047 et al.

The Office of General Counsel, Regulatory Litigation (``OGC'')

(formerly the Economic Regulatory Administration (ERA), Office of

Enforcement Litigation), filed Petitions for the Implementation of

Special Refund Procedures with the Office of Hearings and Appeals

(OHA) to distribute funds which the eight firms listed in the

Appendix to this Decision and Order remitted to the DOE pursuant to

court-approved settlements between the parties and the DOE, DOE

consent orders or remedial orders.

In accordance with procedural regulations codified at 10 C.F.R.

Part 205, Subpart V (Subpart V), the OGC requested in its Petitions

that the OHA establish special refund procedures to remedy the

effects of the regulatory violations which were resolved by these

proceedings. This Decision and Order sets forth the OHA's final plan

to distribute these funds.

I. Background

As indicated by the following summaries of the relevant

enforcement proceedings, all of the funds that are subject to this

Decision were obtained by the DOE as a result of alleged or

adjudicated crude oil overcharges.

A. Western Asphalt Service, Inc. (Western)

During the period of Federal petroleum price controls, Western

was engaged in crude oil refining and reselling.1 The firm was

therefore subject to regulations governing the pricing of crude oil

set forth at 10 CFR parts 205, 210, 211, and 212 of the Mandatory

Petroleum Price and Allocation Regulations. As a result of an ERA

audit of its operations, a Proposed Remedial Order (PRO) was issued

to Western on April 4, 1984 pursuant to 10 CFR part 205, Subpart O

(ERA Docket No. 940X00182). The PRO alleged violations of the

pricing and certification rules that applied to crude oil resellers.

Essentially, the firm was charged with selling price-controlled

crude oil at unlawfully high prices in violation of the provisions

of 10 CFR part 212, Subpart L and 10 CFR Sec. 212.131. In another

enforcement proceeding, on May 7, 1981, a Notice of Probable

Violation (NOPV) was issued to Western which alleged that the firm

unlawfully received Small Refiner Bias Entitlements (ERA Docket No.

N00S90197) in April and May 1977. These alleged violations of DOE

crude oil regulations by Western were settled by a Consent Order

between the firm and DOE on May 30, 1984. The PRO was therefore

withdrawn and the NOPV was rescinded. Western agreed to remit

$300,000, plus interest, to the DOE for deposit in an interest-

bearing escrow account. Western has complied with this obligation,

remitting a total of $390,059.12 to the DOE. In return, the DOE has

released Western from any liability regarding its failure to comply

with the Federal petroleum price and allocation regulations during

the period August 19, 1973 through January 27, 1981, with the sole

exception of any potential violations of the Entitlements Program

after September 30, 1980.

\1\ Western Asphalt Service, Inc., W.F. Moore and Son, Inc., and

Gibson Oil and Refining Company were all controlled by Wilfred Paige

van Loben Sels during the price control period. Textual references

to ``Western'' in this Decision include all parties to the Western

Consent Order.

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

B. Gray Trucking Company (Gray)

Gray was also a crude oil reseller during the period of price

controls. On March 29, 1982, Gray and the DOE entered into a Consent

Order whereby Gray would remit $31,500, plus interest, to the DOE

for deposit in an interest-bearing escrow account. The DOE agreed

not to pursue its claim that, during the period March 1977 through

January 1980, Gray overcharged its customers by charging unlawfully

high prices for crude oil in violation of 10 CFR part 212, subparts

F and L. Despite its agreement with the terms of the Consent Order,

Gray failed to comply fully with its financial obligations to the

DOE, and remitted only $4,738.86 to the DOE. On October 15, 1985,

the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Amarillo

Division, granted the DOE an Amended Judgment against Gray for an

additional $34,625. However, the Amended Judgment has not resulted

in any additional payments to DOE by Gray. ERA has petitioned that

the $4,738.86, plus accrued interest, obtained from Gray be

distributed by OHA in accordance with the Subpart V regulations.

C. William Valentine & Sons, Inc. (Valentine)

Valentine was engaged in crude oil reclamation during the period

May 1979 through December 1980.2 Through an unincorporated

subsidiary, Big Muddy Oil Processors Inc. (Big Muddy), Valentine

obtained waste crude oil from oil spills, pipeline ruptures, waste

oil pits and oil tank bottoms. After numerous separation and

filtering processes, the waste oil was mixed with various blending

agents (naphthas, natural gasoline, natural gas by-products, etc.)

and the resulting product was sold as pipeline-quality crude oil.

Big Muddy, and by extension Valentine, was therefore a reseller of

crude oil, subject to the provisions

[[Page 38324]]

of 10 CFR part 212, subpart L, which governed the resales of crude oil.

\2\ William Valentine and Sons, Inc., Valentine Construction,

Inc., Dale L. Valentine, Verna Valentine, and James L. Marchant are

collectively referred to as ``Valentine'' in the text. All are

parties to the Settlement Agreement which resolved DOE claims

against them.

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

An ERA audit uncovered evidence that Valentine sold crude oil at

unlawfully high prices during the period May 1979 through December

1980. On December 2, l987, OHA issued a Remedial Order (RO) to

Valentine directing the firm to refund $1,454,876 in overcharges,

plus interest. See William Valentine and Sons, Inc., 16 DOE para.

83,025 (1987). Valentine appealed OHA's determination to the Federal

Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). On March 23, 1989, FERC

rejected Valentine's Appeal of the RO and upheld OHA's findings. See

William Valentine and Sons, Inc., 46 FERC para. 61,252 (1989).

Valentine appealed that decision and, on January 24, 1990, the U.S.

District Court for the District of Wyoming ruled that Valentine's

challenge to the RO and to FERC's ruling was without merit. At the

same time, the Court also approved a Settlement Agreement in which

Valentine agreed to remit to DOE no less than $108,739 plus

interest. In return, DOE agreed to deem Valentine in full compliance

with the price control program and to release all administrative and

civil claims against the firm. Valentine has paid $126,402.66 into

an interest-bearing DOE escrow account in compliance with the

Settlement Agreement.

D. Dorchester Master Limited Partnership (DMLP)

During the period of petroleum price controls, the firms which

now comprise DMLP 3 were engaged in crude oil refining and

reselling. The firms were therefore subject to regulations governing

the pricing and allocation of crude oil set forth at 10 C.F.R. Parts

211 and 212. In an audit which covered the period from November 1,

1974 through August 1979 the ERA identified instances in which it

believed that Dorchester's refinery subsidiary and reseller division

engaged in the improper switching of crude oil certifications in

violation of 10 C.F.R. 211.67 (the Crude Oil Entitlements Program)

and 212.131(b). As a result of the ERA audit, a PRO was issued to

Dorchester on March 19, 1982 (Case No. 6A0X00278). The OHA affirmed

the findings of the PRO and issued an RO to Dorchester on March 11,

1985. Dorchester Gas Corp., 12 DOE para. 83,034 (1985), appeal

docketed, No. R085-12-000 (FERC April 22, 1985). As a result of

another ERA audit, on March 9, 1983, a PRO was issued to Doram and

Damson, the other firms now comprising DMLP, alleging that during

the period March 1980 through December 1980, they received illegal

revenue by reselling crude oil at prices in excess of those

permitted by applicable crude oil reseller price regulations. An RO

was issued to those two firms on March 12, 1987. Doram Energy, Inc.,

15 DOE para. 83,024 (1987), modified, 16 DOE para. 83,006 (1987),

appeal docketed, No. R087-16-000 (FERC April 6, 1987).

\3\ DMLP, a limited partnership formed in 1984, is the successor

to Dorchester Gas Corporation (Dorchester) and includes Damson Oil

Corporation (Damson), the general partner of DMLP, and Doram Energy,

Inc. (Doram), a subsidiary of Damson. Therefore, DMLP will be used

to refer collectively to Dorchester, Damson, and Doram, and their

subsidiaries and affiliates. We will refer to the individual firms

in some instances, since the audits originated with those firms

during the period of price controls.

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

On April 4, 1988, a Consent Order was executed between DMLP and

the DOE which resolved a number of outstanding issues involving

DMLP. Under the terms of the settlement, DMLP would pay the DOE a

maximum of $65 million but no less than $11 million, plus

installment interest, by July 1, 1997. The Consent Order states that

the DOE has made no formal findings of violation by DMLP and that

DMLP does not admit it has committed any regulatory violations. As

of March 31, 1995, DMLP had paid the DOE the sum of

$11,193,729.72,4 and it is current in its payments to DOE.

Although we anticipate that additional revenues will be collected

from DMLP, no good reason exists to forestall implementing

procedures for distributing the current balance of the fund.

\4\ Of that amount $5,198.52 came from Damson pursuant to its

own bankruptcy proceeding.

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

E. Howell Corporation (Howell)

During the price control period, Howell was a crude oil

producer, refiner, and reseller. Howell was therefore subject to the

Federal petroleum price and allocation regulations. In 1981, the ERA

audited Howell's compliance with the crude oil Entitlements Program

during the period January 1, 1978 through January 27, 1981. As a

result of that audit, on June 24, 1988, a PRO was issued to the

firm, alleging violations of the crude oil price and allocation

regulations.5 On February 23, 1989, the DOE and Howell executed

a Consent Order resolving the issues addressed in the PRO. Pursuant

to the Consent Order, Howell agreed to pay the DOE $19,375,000 plus

interest, with installment payments over seven years. As of June 30,

1995, Howell had paid the DOE $15,288,097.66, and it is current in

its payments to the DOE. Although we anticipate that additional

revenues will be collected from Howell, no good reason exists to

forestall implementing procedures for distributing the current

balance of the fund.

\5\ The PRO alleged violations of 10 C.F.R. 211.66(b) and (h),

205.202, and 210.62(c), resulting from significant understatement of

receipts of price-controlled crude oil. Specifically, ERA alleged

that during the period April 1978 through December 1979, the Joint

Venture consisting of Howell and Quintana Refinery Co, failed to

correctly report the tier certifications associated with substantial

volumes of its crude oil receipts at its Corpus Christi, Texas,

refinery; and Howell Hydrocarbons engaged in similar conduct during

the period April 1978 through November 1980 at its San Antonio,

Texas, refinery. In addition, the ERA alleged that during the period

April 1978 through December 1979, Howell Industries, an affiliate,

improperly charged prices for crude oil in excess of its actual

purchase prices, in violation of 10 C.F.R. 212.186, 210.62(c) and

205.202.

F. Placid Oil Company (Placid)

Placid was a producer of crude oil during the period of price

controls. On March 30, 1981, the ERA issued a PRO in which it

alleged that during the period from September 1973 through May 1977,

Placid overcharged its customers in sales of crude oil from several

properties it operated. In addition, the PRO also alleged that

Placid improperly calculated the average daily production for a

number of properties and as a result erroneously certified crude oil

production from these properties as exempt from price controls

pursuant to the stripper well exemption. On February 11, 1985, the

OHA issued an RO to Placid, affirming the ERA allegations concerning

Placid's overcharges. Placid Oil Co., 12 DOE para. 83,030, modified,

13 DOE para. 83,007 (1985). Placid appealed the RO to the FERC. On

February 26, 1987, the FERC reversed and vacated the RO (Placid Oil

Co., 38 FERC para. 61,199); however, on July 23, 1987, the FERC

reversed itself in part, vacating portions of its previous Order

(Placid Oil Co., 40 FERC para. 61,112). On March 18, 1988, the FERC

issued an Order affirming the RO but modifying the violation amount.

Placid Oil Co., 42 FERC para. 61,326 (1988). Subsequently, in a

bankruptcy proceeding involving Placid, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court

for the Northern District of Texas approved the DOE's claim of

$1,196,728.09 against Placid. Placid has fulfilled its financial

obligation to the DOE, with payments, including installment

interest, totalling $1,272,963.81.

G. Eton Trading Corporation (Eton)

Eton and its affiliate, Eton Enterprises, Inc., were resellers

of crude oil during the period June 1980 through December 1980, and

were subject to the crude oil reseller regulations set forth at 10

CFR. Part 212, Subpart L. As the result of an ERA audit of Eton's

operations, on January 14, 1986, the ERA issued a PRO to the firm

alleging that it had engaged in layered crude oil transactions in

violation of 10 CFR Sec. 212.186. The PRO stated that those layered

transactions resulted in overcharges amounting to $9,182,412.70. On

March 17, 1986, Eton filed a Notice of Objection with this Office

but waived its right to contest the determinations made in the PRO

by failing to file a Statement of Objections in a timely manner.

Accordingly, on December 5, 1986, the OHA issued the PRO as a final

Remedial Order. Eton Trading Corp., 15 DOE para. 83,011 (1986). In

July 1986, Eton Trading Corporation and Eton Enterprises filed for

bankruptcy. The DOE filed identical claims in the bankruptcy

proceedings of the two firms. A distribution has been made in the

Eton Trading bankruptcy proceeding, in which the DOE received

$1,049,073.67. Although the possibility exists that additional

revenues will be distributed to the DOE in the Eton Enterprise

bankruptcy proceeding which has not yet been closed, no reason

exists to delay in implementing distribution of the current balance

of the fund.

H. Rodgers Hydrocarbon Corporation

Rodgers Hydrocarbon Corporation and Ray V. Rodgers, Jr.

(referred to collectively as Rodgers) were crude oil resellers

during the period of September 1977 through January 1980. On March

29, 1985, the ERA issued a PRO to Rodgers alleging that during that

period, Rodgers failed to properly certify crude oil as required by

10 CFR. 212.131(b). In addition, the ERA alleged that Rodgers failed

to submit reports and maintain books and records in accordance with

10 CFR

[[Page 38325]]

212.187 (a) and (b).6 Rodgers filed a Statement of Objections to

the PRO on August 26, 1985. After considering Rodgers' objections,

certain provisions of the PRO were modified, and the PRO was issued

as a final RO on July 20, 1989. Rodgers Hydrocarbon Corp., 19 DOE

para. 83,004 (1989). On December 4, 1989, Rodgers and the DOE

executed a Consent Order resolving the issues addressed by the RO.

Pursuant to the Consent Order, Rodgers agreed to pay the DOE

$50,000, plus interest, in two equal payments. Rodgers paid to the

DOE the sum of $51,190 and has fulfilled its financial obligation to

the DOE.

\6\ Crude oil resellers were required to file certain

information on ERA-69 ``Crude Oil Reseller's Self-Reporting Forms.''

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

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 of 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 Petroleum Overcharge Distribution and Restitution Act

of 1986, 15 U.S.C. 4501 et seq.; see also Office of Enforcement, 9

DOE para. 82,508 (1981), and Office of Enforcement, 8 DOE para.

82,597 (1981).

III. The Proposed Decisions and Orders

On July 1, 1994, and June 12, 1995, OHA issued Proposed

Decisions and Orders (PDOs) setting forth the OHA's tentative plan

to distribute these funds. See 59 FR 35329 (July 11, 1994) (the

Western PDO) and 60 FR 32004 (June 19, 1995) (the DMLP PDO),

respectively. OHA tentatively concluded that the funds should be

distributed in accordance with the DOE's Modified Statement of

Restitutionary Policy in Crude Oil Cases, (MSRP), see 51 FR 27899

(August 4, 1986). Pursuant to the MSRP, OHA proposed to reserve 20

percent of those funds for direct refunds to applicants who claim

that they were injured by the crude oil violations. We stated that

the remaining 80 percent of the funds would be distributed to the

states and federal government for indirect restitution.

We provided a period of 30 days from the date of the PDOs'

publication in the Federal Register in which the public could submit

comments regarding the tentative refund procedures. More than 30

days have elapsed, and the OHA has received no comments concerning

the proposed procedures.

IV. The Refund Procedures

A. Crude Oil Refund Policy

We adopt the tentative determination of the PDOs to distribute

the funds obtained from the eight firms in accordance with the MSRP,

which was issued as a result of the Settlement Agreement approved by

the court in The Department of Energy Stripper Well Exemption

Litigation, 653 F. Supp. 108 (D. Kan. 1986). Shortly after the

issuance of the MSRP, the OHA issued an Order that announced that

this policy would be applied in all Subpart V proceedings involving

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

29689 (August 20, 1986) (the August 1986 Order).

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

disbursed to the federal government, another 40 percent to the

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

payment of claims to injured parties. The MSRP also specified that

any funds remaining after all valid claims by injured purchasers are

paid will be disbursed to the federal government and the states in

equal amounts.

In April 1987, the OHA issued a Notice analyzing the numerous

comments received in response to the August 1986 Order. 52 FR 11737

(April 10, 1987) (April 10 Notice). This Notice provided guidance to

claimants that anticipated filing refund applications for crude oil

monies under the Subpart V regulations. In general, we stated that

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. Applicants

who were end-users or ultimate consumers of petroleum products,

whose businesses are unrelated to the petroleum industry, and who

were not subject to the DOE price regulations would be presumed to

have been injured by any alleged crude oil overcharges. In order to

receive a refund, end-users would not need to submit any further

evidence of injury beyond the volume of petroleum products purchased

during the period of price controls. See City of Columbus, Georgia,

16 DOE para. 85,550 (1987).

B. Refund Claims

The amount of money subject to this Decision is $29,376,255.50,

plus accrued interest, which, as of May 31, 1995, totalled

$6,312,426.32. In accordance with the MSRP, we shall initially

reserve 20 percent of those funds ($5,875,251.10 plus accrued

interest) for direct refunds to applicants who claim that they were

injured by crude oil overcharges. We shall base refunds on a

volumetric amount which has been calculated in accordance with the

methodology described in the April 10 Notice. That volumetric refund

amount is currently $0.0016 per gallon. See 57 FR 15562 (March 24,

1995).

In the Western PDO, we indicated that the filing deadline for

refund applications in the crude oil refund proceeding was June 30,

1994. This was subsequently changed to June 30, 1995. See Filing

Deadline Notice, 60 FR 19914 (April 20, 1995); see also DMLP PDO, 60

FR 32004, 32007 (June 19, 1995). Because the June 30, 1995, deadline

for crude oil refund applications has passed, no new applications

from purchasers of refined petroleum products will be accepted for

these funds. Instead, these funds will be added to the general crude

oil overcharge pool used for direct restitution.7

\7\ A crude oil refund applicant is only required to submit one

application for its share of all available crude oil overcharge

funds. See, e.g., Ernest A. Allerkamp, 17 DOE para. 85,079 at 88,176

(1988).

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

C. Payments to the States and Federal Government

Under the terms of the MSRP, the remaining 80 percent of the

crude oil violation amounts subject to this Decision, or

$23,501,004.40 plus accrued interest, should be disbursed in equal

shares to the states and 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. 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 Agreement.

Accordingly, we will direct the DOE's Office of the Controller

to transfer one-half of that amount, or $11,750,502.20 plus

interest, into an interest bearing subaccount for the states, and

one-half or $11,750,502.20, plus interest, into an interest bearing

subaccount for the federal government.

It Is Therefore Ordered That:

(1) 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 the consent order funds shown in the Appendix

to this Decision and Order, plus all accrued interest from the

escrow accounts of the firms listed in the Appendix pursuant to

Paragraphs (2), (3), and (4) of this Decision.

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

$11,750,502.20 plus any accrued interest, of the funds referenced in

Paragraph (1) above, into the subaccount denominated ``Crude

Tracking-States,'' Number 999DOE0003W.

(3) The Director of Special Acccounts and Payroll shall transfer

$11,750,502.20, plus any accrued interest, of the funds referenced

in Paragraph (1) above, into the subaccount denominated ``Crude

Tracking-Federal,'' Number 999DOE002W.

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

$5,875,251.10 plus any accrued interest, of the funds referenced in

Paragraph (1) above, into the subaccount denominated ``Crude

Tracking-Claimants 4,'' Number 999DOE0010Z.

(5) This is a final Order of the Department of Energy.

Dated: July 17, 1995.

George B. Breznay,

Director, Office of Hearings and Appeals.

[[Page 38326]]

Appendix

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

Case No. Firm ERA order numbers Principal amount

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

LEF-0047 Western Asphalt Service, Inc...................... 940X00182Z $390,059.12

LEF-0120 Gray Trucking Company............................. 6A0X00305Z 4,738.86

LEF-0123 William Valentine & Sons, Inc..................... N00X00683Z 126,402.66

VEF-0005 Dorchester Master Limited Partnership............. 6A0X00278W 11,193,729.72

VEF-0006 Howell Corporation................................ 650X00367W 15,288,097.66

VEF-0008 Placid Oil Company................................ 6D0C00048W 1,272,963.81

VEF-0009 Eton Trading Corporation.......................... 6C0X00301W 1,049,073.67

VEF-0010 Rodgers Hydrocarbon Corporation................... 6A0X00328W 51,190.00

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

Total .................................................. .................... 29,376,255.50

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

[FR Doc. 95-18390 Filed 7-25-95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6450-01-P