(a) After considering the Petition, the Director of the Office of Hearings and Appeals or his designee shall issue a Proposed Decision and Order. The Proposed Decision and Order shall generally describe the nature of the particular refund proceeding and shall set forth the standards and procedures that the Office of Hearings and Appeals intends to apply in evaluating refund claims.
(b) The Proposed Decision and Order shall be published in the Federal Register together with a statement that any member of the public may submit written comments to the Office of Hearings and Appeals with respect to the matter. At least 30 days following publication in the Federal Register shall be provided for the submission of comments.
(c) After considering the comments submitted, the Director of the Office of Hearings and Appeals or his designee shall issue a final Decision and Order which shall govern the disposition of the refunds. The final Decision and Order shall also be published in the Federal Register.
(d) The final Decision and Order shall set forth the standards and procedures that will be used in evaluating individual Applications for Refunds and distributing the refund amount. Those standards and procedures shall be consistent with the provisions of this subpart.
(e) In establishing standards and procedures for implementing refund distributions, the Office of Hearings and Appeals shall take into account the desirability of distributing the refunds in an efficient, effective and equitable manner and resolving to the maximum extent practicable all outstanding claims. In order to do so, the standards for evaluation of individual claims may be based upon appropriate presumptions.
Notes of Decisions
Consol. Edison Co. of New York, Inc. v. Bodman, 473 F. Supp. 2d 1 (D.D.C. 2007).
· cites it 2× “Plaintiffs can only point to general statements that Lubrizol sold its products to domestic oil companies, which OHA found insufficient.”
Highland Petroleum, Inc. v. United States Dep't of Energy, 798 F.2d 474 (Temp. Emerg. Ct. App. 1986).
· cites it 3× “3 Acting pursuant to Subpart V, see 10 C.F.R. § 205.282 (a) (1986), OHA on February 27, 1981, issued a Proposed Decision and Order in which it “considerfed] the procedures under which the $2,850,000 in escrow should be distributed.”
Int'l Drilling & Energy Corp. v. Watkins, 920 F.2d 14 (Temp. Emerg. Ct. App. 1990).
“See 10 C.F.R. §§ 205.282 (e), 211. An applicant who is not successful before the agency may seek judicial review of the agency’s decision in federal court.”
Getty Oil Co. v. Dep't of Energy, 117 F.R.D. 540 (D. Del. 1987).
“’ 10 C.F.R. § 205.282 . The proposed decision must be published in the Federal Register and the public must be given an opportunity to comment.”
Sinclair Oil Corp. v. Abraham, 291 F.3d 822 (Fed. Cir. 2002).
· cites it 2× “10 C.F.R. § 205.282 (c)-(d). The final order “shall take into account the desirability of distributing the refunds in an efficient, effective and equitable manner and resolving to the maximum extent practicable all outstanding claims.”
In re Dep't of Energy Stripper Well Exemption Litig., 671 F. Supp. 1318 (D. Kan. 1987).
“10 C.F.R. § 205.282 (e). In OHA’s “Notice Explaining Procedures for Processing Refund Applications in Crude Oil Refund Proceedings Under 10 CFR Part 205, Subpart V,” OHA explained that pursuant to this regulatory authority, it “has employed presumptions in thousands of refund…”
Mullins v. United States Dept. of Energy, 821 F. Supp. 1194 (W.D. Ky. 1993).
· cites it 4× “Plaintiffs, who would be entitled to restitution from the settlement as purchasers of Texaco’s allegedly overpriced refined petroleum products, claim that the agency’s allocation of $120 million (10% of the settlement amount) to the Texaco refined products refund pool violates…”
Mullins v. United States Dep't of Energy, 50 F.3d 990 (Fed. Cir. 1995).
“Plaintiffs argue that the 90-10 split incorporated in the settlement does not meet the requirement that refunds be distributed in an equitable manner, 10 C.F.R. § 205.282 (e) (1994), and the decision to use a 90-10 split is not supported by substantial evidence in the record, as…”
— 10 C.F.R. § 205.282(e) — 1 case
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.