C.F.R. » Title 10 » CHAPTER II—DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY › SUBCHAPTER A—OIL › PART 205—ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES AND SANCTIONS › Subpart O—Notice of Probable Violation, Remedial Order, Notice of Proposed Disallowance, and Order of Disallowance

10 C.F.R. § 205.192

Proposed remedial order

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) If the ERA finds, after the 30-day or other period authorized for reply to the Notice of Probable Violation, that a violation has occurred, is continuing, or is about to occur, it may issue a Proposed Remedial Order, which shall set forth the relevant facts and law.

(b) The ERA may issue a Proposed Remedial Order at any time it finds that a violation has occurred, is continuing, or is about to occur even if it has not previously issued a Notice of Probable Violation.

(c) The ERA shall serve a copy of the Proposed Remedial Order upon the person to whom it is directed. The ERA shall promptly publish a notice in the Federal Register which states the person to whom the Proposed Remedial Order is directed, his address, and the products, dollar amounts, time period, and geographical area specified in the Proposed Remedial Order. The notice shall indicate that a copy of the Proposed Remedial Order with confidential information, if any, deleted may be obtained from the ERA and that within 15 days after the date of publication any aggrieved person may file a Notice of Objection with the Office of Hearings and Appeals of accordance with § 205.193. The ERA shall mail copies of the Federal Register notice to all readily identifiable persons who are likely to be aggrieved by issuance of the Proposed Remedial Order as a final order.

(d) The Proposed Remedial Order shall set forth the proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law upon which it is based. It shall also include a discussion of the relevant authorities which support the position asserted, including rules, regulations, rulings, interpretations and previous decisions issued by DOE or its predecessor agencies. The Proposed Remedial Order shall be accompanied by a declaration executed by the DOE employee primarily knowledgeable about the facts of the case stating that, to the best of declarant's knowledge and belief, the findings of fact are correct.

(e) The ERA may amend or withdraw a Proposed Remedial Order at its discretion prior to the date of service of a Statement of Objections in that proceeding. The date of service of the amended documents shall be considered the date of service of the Proposed Remedial Order in calculating the time periods specified in this part 205.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 20 cases, 1976–1997 · leading case: Atl. Richfield Co. v. United States Dep't of Energy, 769 F.2d 771 (D.C. Cir. 1985).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Atl. Richfield Co. v. United States Dep't of Energy, 769 F.2d 771 (D.C. Cir. 1985). · cites it 2× “10 C.F.R. § 205.192 (a) (1977), amended by 44 Fed.”
Exxon Corp. v. Dep't of Energy, 91 F.R.D. 26 (N.D. Tex. 1981). “10 C.F.R. § 205.192 . Remedies which can be ordered in a Remedial Order include restitution, price rollbacks and assessment of interest.”
Texaco, Inc. v. Dep't of Energy, 490 F. Supp. 874 (D. Del. 1980). · cites it 2× “10 C.F.R. § 205.192 (a). If the PRO is not contested, the ERA may request the Office of Hearings and Appeals (“OHA”) to issue the PRO as a final Remedial Order (“RO”).”
Gulf Oil Corp. v. United States Dep't of Energy, 663 F.2d 296 (D.C. Cir. 1981). “” 10 C.F.R. § 205.192 (b) (1981). OSC is charged to enforce the Phase IV Petroleum Price Regulations, former 6 C.”
Energy Reserves Grp., Inc. v. Fed. Energy Admin., 447 F. Supp. 1135 (D. Kan. 1978). “10 C.F.R. § 205.192 (a). The Remedial Order issued to Suburban Propane by the FEA on April 25, 1977, states in part: II.”
Atl. Richfield Co. v. Zarb, 532 F.2d 1363 (Temp. Emerg. Ct. App. 1976). “” This regulation obviously contemplates the recitation of greater facts justifying the imposition of penalties for the violation alleged in the Remedial Order than would be set forth in a Notice of Probable Violation.”
Atl. Richfield Co. v. Fed. Energy Admin., 429 F. Supp. 1052 (N.D. Cal. 1976). “191 with 10 C.F.R. 205.192. These regulations indicate that a NOPV is simply a notice to a party that it may be violating FEA regulations.”
State of La. v. Dep't of Energy, 507 F. Supp. 1365 (W.D. La. 1981). “10 C.F.R. §§ 205.192 (a) and (d). If the PRO is contested by the recipient by filing a Notice of Objection, the matter proceeds to an adversary, *1370 adjudicatory proceeding before the Office of Hearings and Appeals (“OHA”) of the DOE.”
United States v. Thriftyman, Inc., 704 F.2d 1240 (Temp. Emerg. Ct. App. 1983). “…that a violation has occurred, is continuing or is about to occur, even if the ERA has not previously issued a NOPV. 10 C.F.R. § 205.192 .”
Diversified Chemicals & Propellants Co. v. Fed. Energy Admin., 432 F. Supp. 859 (N.D. Ill. 1977). “10 C.F.R. § 205.192 . West Penn Power Company v.”
Nat'l Distillers & Chem. Corp. v. Dep't of Energy, 498 F. Supp. 707 (D. Del. 1980). “10 C.F.R. § 205.192 . This PRO is then published in the Federal Register and the recipient of the NOPV has yet another opportunity to refute the ERA allegations by filing a Notice, and then Statement, of Objections.”
South Cent. Terminal Co. v. United States Dep't of Energy, 920 F.2d 27 (Temp. Emerg. Ct. App. 1990). “On March 17, 1983, the DOE issued a Proposed Remedial Order (“PRO”) to SCT pursuant to 10 C.F.R. § 205.192 alleging that SCT had violated DOE reporting and pricing regulations.”
Show all 20 citing cases →
— 10 C.F.R. § 205.192(a) — 1 case
Clark Oil Co., Inc. v. Texaco Inc., 609 F. Supp. 1373 (D. Del. 1985).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.