Case No. RF344-00001
March 25, 1998
DECISION AND ORDER
OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Applications for Refund
Motion for Reconsideration
Names of Cases: The 341 Tract Unit of the Citronelle Field/ Farmers Petroleum Cooperative, Inc., et al.
Consolidated Edison Co. of New York, et al.
Dates of Filing: June 29, 1993, et al.
May 1, 1992
Case Nos.: RF344-1, et al.
LER-0009
On November 4, 1997, the Office of Hearings and Appeals (OHA) of the Department of Energy (DOE) issued a Proposed Decision and Order (PDO) concerning refund applications filed by a total of 25 applicants. The 341 Tract Unit of the Citronelle Field/Farmers Petroleum Cooperative, Inc. et al. (November 4, 1997) (Unpublished Decision and Order). These applicants are either airlines or large farm cooperatives. This decision will consider comments submitted concerning the PDO and will set forth a final determination on those refund applications.
The monies that will be used to pay refunds to these applicants were originally collected by the Department of Energy ("DOE") in connection with the approval of exception relief for The 341 Tract Unit of the Citronelle Field by the Office of Hearings and Appeals ("OHA"). The 341 Tract Unit of the Citronelle Field, 10 DOE ¶ 81,027 (1983). The Citronelle exception relief spawned years of administrative and judicial litigation, including litigation over the final terms and conditions of the relief, OHA's authority to grant the relief and the evidentiary basis for its decision, and the possible revision or termination of the relief. Ultimately, in December 1991, OHA issued a decision terminating the exception relief and requiring the transfer of the remaining Citronelle exception relief funds to an escrow account in the United States Treasury under the supervision of the DOE Controller. The 341 Tract Unit of the Citronelle Field, 21 DOE ¶ 81,009 (1991). In
April 1992, OHA issued a decision addressing certain claims to the Citronelle escrow account funds, establishing deadlines and procedures governing claims to the funds, and scheduling an evidentiary proceeding. The 341 Tract Unit of the Citronelle Field, 22 DOE ¶ 85,069 (1992) (Citronelle I). In May 1994, OHA issued a Decision and Order setting forth its determination of the percentage of the funds that should be allocated to entities listed on the November 1980 Entitlements Notice. The 341 Tract Unit of the Citronelle Field, 24 DOE ¶ 81,035 (1994) (Citronelle II).
Those actions led to further litigation. The Unit appealed OHA's termination decision to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission ("FERC") and then sought judicial review of FERC's affirmance in R.H. Stechmann, et al. v. Department of Energy, No. 94-0887-A-M (S.D. Ala. Filed Nov. 17, 1994). Certain refiners of petroleum products listed on the November 1980 Entitlements Notice (the "Refiner-Litigants") filed judicial challenges to OHA's May 1994 decision in Amoco Oil Co., et al. v. Department of Energy, No. H-94-2423 (S.D. Tex. Filed July 15, 1994), and Total Petroleum, Inc. v. Department of Energy, No. 04-CV-72745 (E.D. Mich. Filed July 18, 1994).
In order to avoid the uncertainties of further extended judicial proceedings over the disposition of the Citronelle escrow account, DOE reached a settlement ("Settlement Agreement") resolving, first, the claims to the escrow of the Refiner-Litigants and, second, the Unit's claims. The settlement agreement resolving the claims of the Refiner-Litigants was approved by the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas on December 6, 1995. On December 21, 1995, the United States District Court for the Southern District of Alabama approved the settlement agreement resolving the Unit's claims. The resolution of these claims cleared the way for OHA to resolve the remaining applications for refunds from the Citronelle fund filed in accordance with our 1992 and 1994 Decisions and Orders.
As of December 18, 1995, the funds on deposit in the interest- bearing escrow account attributable to the Citronelle exception relief totaled $144,204,002. Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, these funds were deposited into specified escrow accounts for ultimate disbursal to parties to the Agreement, as well as to other entities. The 341 Tract Unit of the Citronelle Field, 25 DOE ¶ 82,505 (1995). The sum of $6.9 million was reserved to cover refunds for several groups of applicants, including the two groups that are involved in this case: Airlines and Cooperatives. (1) The applications of the subject Airlines and Cooperatives represent the final category of Citronelle fund refund claims requiring resolution by this office.
As we noted in the PDO, several issues have arisen concerning the eligibility of these claimants for refunds in this proceeding. Accordingly, to ensure that all participants in the proceeding received an opportunity to comment on our determinations concerning these issues, we served a copy of the PDO on all parties to the proceeding. We received comments from the following persons: (1) Philip P. Kalodner, Esq., representing a group of utilities, transporters and manufacturers (End Users); (2) James F. Flug, Esq., representing a group of state governments (States); (3) Beverly J. Rudy, Esq., representing four cooperatives; and (4) Floyd Grabiel, Esq., representing Universal Cooperatives, Inc. of Minneapolis. On December 11, 1997, we transmitted to all commenters and several other parties interested in this proceeding a copy of the comments filed, and solicited the filing of responsive comments within fifteen days. In response to this solicitation, we received additional comments from Messrs. Kalodner and Flug and Ms. Rudy on behalf of their respective clients.(2)In addition, Donald B. Craven, Esq. filed reply comments on behalf of Refiners who were parties to the Citronelle Settlement Agreement.
I.
As we noted in the PDO, the Airlines and Cooperatives all received refunds from an escrow fund established especially for their benefit as part of the Stripper Well Settlement Agreement. See Orders Approving Establishment of Escrow Accounts, In re The Department of Energy Stripper Well Exemption Litigation, M.D.L. No. 378 (D. Kan. July 7, 1986). In order to receive those refunds, the Airlines and Cooperatives were required to sign a waiver releasing their rights to any further refunds derived from "alleged crude oil violations." Groups of state governments and end users previously filed comments in these proceedings concerning these claims, arguing that as a result of their participation in Stripper Well, the Airlines and Cooperatives waived their right to file for a refund from the Citronelle escrow. In the PDO, we reviewed whether these claimants are precluded from receiving a Citronelle refund by virtue of having signed the Stripper Well waivers. The submissions of the States and End Users in response to the PDO essentially reprise the arguments discussed in our proposed order. As further explained below, we stand by our determination that the Airlines and Cooperatives did not waive their claims to Citronelle funds by virtue of their participation in the Stripper Well settlement and execution of settlement documents in that case.
To briefly recapitulate, the Stripper Well case involved the distribution of overcharge funds recovered by DOE due to violations of the petroleum pricing regulations in effect during the price control period. The Final Settlement Agreement, approved by the Kansas district court on July 7, 1986, established a mechanism for refunding a portion of $1.4 billion in crude oil overcharges, through individual escrow accounts, to various groups -- including refiners, resellers of petroleum products, retailers, airlines, utilities, surface transporters, and rail and water transporters -- from the funds in the Stripper Well escrow.
The Stripper Well agreement required the parties to that agreement to waive any other claims to crude oil overcharge funds. However, the Stripper Well waivers were limited to claims to "alleged crude oil violations" funds and did not involve funds derived from exception proceedings such as the subject Citronelle exception relief proceeding.
The preamble to the Stripper Well Settlement Agreement defines the term alleged crude oil violations in a "whereas" clause as follows: "certain parties are or will be involved in other proceedings both judicial and administrative involving alleged violations of DOE's price and allocation controls applicable to crude oil (hereinafter the Alleged Crude Oil Violations) including but not limited to (1) the first sale and the resale of crude oil under 10 C.F.R. Part 212, Subparts D, F, and L and (2) the Domestic Crude Oil Allocation Program (hereinafter the 'Entitlements Program')." The Stripper Well Agreement preamble further specifies the parties' intention of "establishing a mutually agreeable method of disbursing certain funds that have been or will be collected as a result of the alleged violations in issue." Paragraphs III.A.1 and III.A.3 governing the releases to be executed under the Stripper Well Agreement similarly specify that the releases to be executed by the parties will be to claims based on "Alleged Crude Oil Violations." Paragraph VI of the Stripper Well Agreement circumscribes the scope of the Agreement, providing, "by its terms this Agreement (except Part V hereof [addressing Refiner claims concerning the Entitlements Program]) applies only to Alleged Crude Oil Violation funds. Nothing in this agreement shall operate to the detriment of any party or claimant in a non-crude oil refund case."
The Kansas district court's decision approving the Stripper Well Settlement Agreement underscores that the settlement resolved three discrete categories of issues. Thus, the court noted that the Agreement "before the Court represents a comprehensive charter for the resolution of the immediate matter of satisfactory disbursement of the escrow held under the court's direction, as well as two related matters: the distribution of crude oil overcharge funds in other cases, and settlement of other litigation concerning the [DOE] Entitlements Program." In re The Department of Energy Stripper Well Exemption Litigation, 653 F. Supp. 108, 109 (D. Kan. 1986).
The scope of the releases executed by the Airlines and Cooperatives carries through the general theme of the Stripper Well Agreement by providing for a release of claims by the Airlines to monies "relating to violations or alleged violations of the federal mandatory allocation and price control regulations applicable to crude oil, and the Entitlements Program (herein Alleged Crude Oil Violations)" and in the case of the Cooperatives to monies relating to "Alleged Crude Oil Violations." See Airlines Waiver, ¶¶ 7(a)(2), 10, Cooperatives Waiver, ¶ 5(a)(ii), Stripper Well Settlement Agreement at 100, 137.
Accordingly, in both our 1992 decision and the PDO respecting these claims, we held that the releases executed by the Airlines and Cooperatives affected only their rights to apply for refunds relating to violations or alleged violations of the federal mandatory allocation and price regulations applicable to crude oil and the Entitlements Program, and did not "preclude them from filing a Citronelle refund application." The 341 Unit of the Citronelle Field, 22 DOE at 88,204 ("Citronelle I").
In the PDO we explained that the States' and End Users' contention that the Airlines and Cooperatives waived their claims to the Citronelle exception fund under Stripper Well is premised on an assumption that the Stripper Well Agreement governs the disposition of all funds relating to crude oil, not just crude oil violation funds. However, the preamble to the Agreement, the specific releases executed by the Airlines and Cooperatives, and Paragraphs III and VI of the Agreement all tie the scope of the Stripper Well waiver to alleged crude oil violations funds.
The States' comments in response to the PDO repeat their assertion that the exclusion of the Citronelle litigation from the provisions of the Stripper Well settlement addressing the Refiners' claims and the Refiners' release indicates that non-refiner participants in the Stripper Well settlement, such as the subject Airline and Cooperative claimants, waived their claims to Citronelle funds. Significantly, however, unlike the other parties to the Stripper Well settlement, only Refiners were required to waive entitlements claims as a condition of participating in the Stripper Well distributions. Thus, in order to preserve any entitlements-related claims, such as those involved in the Citronelle exception proceeding, the Refiners needed to specifically exclude them from the Agreement. A specific exclusion of the Citronelle proceeding from the waivers and releases executed by other Stripper Well settling parties, including the subject Airline and Cooperative claimants, was not necessary because such claimants were not required to so waive entitlements-related claims in Stripper Well.
After carefully reviewing the language of the subject Stripper Well waivers, we therefore found in the PDO that these waivers are inapplicable to the Citronelle monies. The Citronelle proceeding does not involve the disbursement of funds attributable to actual or alleged crude oil violations. Cf. Boise Cascade Corp., 16 DOE ¶ 85,214 (1987) (signatories of the Surface Transporter Waiver in the Stripper Well Settlement Agreement ineligible to receive a Subpart V refund from the OHA, which involves funds collected as a result of alleged crude oil violations), affd sub nom. In re The Department of Energy Stripper Well Exemption Litigation, 707 F. Supp. 1267 (D. Kan. 1987), affd sub nom. Burlington Industries v. Watkins, 916 F.2d 722 (Temp. Emer. Ct. App. 1990). In short, the End Users and States simply cannot escape the fact that the Citronelle funds originated with exception relief authorized by the DOE that was intended to promote the production of domestic crude oil. These funds were not the result of an alleged crude oil violation. Accordingly, we find that the Airlines and Cooperatives are not barred from receiving Citronelle refunds by virtue of having signed the Stripper Well waivers.
II.
In the PDO, we noted that a further issue regarding the eligibility of these claimants for a refund in this proceeding arises from the fact that Citronelle I provided that the refund claims of applicants such as the Airlines and Cooperatives were to be filed by June 30, 1993. 22 DOE at 88,207. Only one of the refund claims in the instant group was filed by that date, Farmers Petroleum Cooperative, Inc., Case No. RF344-1.
However, in the PDO we proposed that the late filings should not be a bar to the approval of refunds for these applicants. In a number of our refund proceedings we have allowed the liberal filing of refund claims after the stated filing deadline. See Final Filing Deadline in Special Refund Proceeding No. LFX-0002, 59 Fed. Reg. 55656 (November 8, 1994); Final Filing Deadline in Special Refund Proceeding No. HEF-0590, 57 Fed. Reg. 27771 (June 22, 1992). Our rationale has been that as long as the acceptance of and decision on a belatedly filed refund claim do not interfere with the overall efficient administration of the refund proceeding, we will grant an otherwise meritorious refund application. See, e.g., Marathon Petroleum Co./Independent Oil & Tire Co., 24 DOE ¶ 85,032, 88,059 (1994). Compare Gulf Oil Corporation/New York Telephone Co., 25 DOE ¶ 85,161, 88,422.
Here, while all but one of the refund applications were filed after June 30, 1993, the last filed applications were submitted on October 4, 1994. Since these claims could not have been processed or paid prior to the resolution of the claims of the Unit and the Refiner-Litigants in December 1995, we find that acceptance of the late-filed claims would not interfere with our efficient administration of these refund proceedings, and we therefore will exercise our discretion to accept the late filings. In reaching this conclusion, we note that none of the commenters has challenged the determination in the PDO to so accept the late-filed claims in accordance with our precedents.
III.
In the PDO, we also sought comments from interested parties concerning the calculation of refund awards for these refund claimants. In Citronelle I we described how we proposed to calculate the refunds for Airline and Cooperative applicants. We stated that refunds would be calculated on a volumetric basis. We indicated that we would start with the total Citronelle escrow fund available and deduct from that sum the amount allocated to crude oil refiners. We then indicated that we would also deduct any amounts refunded to the Citronelle Unit. We stated that we would divide the resulting figure by the total consumption of petroleum products in the United States during the price control period, 2,020,997,335,000 gallons. The resulting number would constitute the volumetric figure for end users in the Citronelle refund proceeding. 22 DOE at 88,206.
In the PDO, we considered two potential methods for calculating the numerator of the volumetric for the Airline and Cooperative claimants. Under the first method we would deduct from the volumetric calculation the $8.5 million amount actually disbursed from the escrow to the Citronelle Unit and the amount of the exception relief held in Citronelle II to have been absorbed by refiners as a class (i.e. 5.4%). See The 341 Unit of the Citronelle Field, 24 DOE at 82,621.
However, we concluded that this method failed to take into account the amounts actually paid to Refiners under the Citronelle Settlement Agreement, and that would result in awards to these claimants that are disproportionate to the awards made to similarly situated end users. For this reason we found that adjusting the numerator of the volumetric to reflect the actual amounts disbursed to Refiners under the Citronelle Settlement is more appropriate and equitable under the circumstances. Accordingly, we proposed to establish the numerator of the volumetric as $98,579,894 ($144,204,002 - $8,500,000 (Unit distribution) - $37,124,108 (total Refiner distribution) = $98,579,894).
The proposed calculation methodology has attracted conflicting comments. Four cooperatives filed comments arguing that the use of the actual Refiners' distribution, rather than the 5.4% absorption percentage originally identified by OHA, results in an inequitably small distribution to these claimants. For their part, the End Users (in whose comments on this point the States concur) urge that our proposed volumetric calculation overcompensates these claimants vis-à-vis other end users by calculating the volumetric using the funds existing in the escrow on December 18, 1995 ($144,204,002), the date OHA issued a Supplemental Order directing the DOE Controller to disburse the amounts in the Citronelle escrow to specified accounts for the various parties and claimants herein, rather than the amount in the Escrow as of January 31, 1995 ($137,300,000). The adjustment requested by the End Users and States would thus exclude from the volumetric the interest earned on the escrow between January 31, 1995, and the Supplemental Order.
Our task in these refund proceedings is to arrive at an equitable distribution of the Citronelle fund. In our view, a volumetric calculation reflecting both the actual distribution to refiners and the actual amount in the escrow as of the December 18, 1995, is reasonable and results in a more appropriate and equitable distribution than either of the conflicting proposals urged by the Cooperatives and End Users. Ignoring the actual amount of the Refiners' distribution would artificially enlarge these claimants' recoveries compared to other end users. It appears similarly artificial to decrease these claimants' recoveries by the device of basing the volumetric calculation on a figure lower than the actual amount contained in the escrow as of the date of our Supplemental Order. Accordingly, we cannot accept the views of either the End Users and States, on the one hand, or the four cooperatives, on the other. We conclude that adoption of either of their proposals would result in a volumetric calculation that is less precise and fair than the method we have employed.
IV.
As end-users, the Airlines are presumed injured by the additional costs associated with the Citronelle exception relief. They thus are not required to prove particularized injury. The Cooperatives, on the other hand, passed through the additional costs of the Citronelle relief to their members. Through their patronage systems, they will, in a like manner, be expected to pass through any Citronelle refunds to their members, and we will direct these Cooperatives to accomplish that pass through.
In response to our determination on this point in the PDO, we received a comment from Floyd Grabiel, Esq., on behalf of Universal Cooperatives, Inc. of Minneapolis, a cooperative refund recipient in this matter. Mr. Grabiel indicated that Universal returns its profit (defined as excess of revenue over expenses) to its members based on the amount of business done with the members, rather than shares of stock or some other measure. Mr. Grabiel states that the refunds Universal will receive in this proceeding will represent "patronage" since they result from the business done by Universal with its members. Mr. Grabiel proposes to modify the PDOs requirement that refunds be passed through to the members on a "dollar for dollar" basis, by providing instead that the refunds be passed through according to the "cooperative's established patronage systems."
By its terms this proposed modification of our order would not assure dollar for dollar passthrough of the refund amounts. As indicated in our PDO, we have no objection to a cooperative's using its established patronage systems to channel refunds. However, with respect to refunds to cooperatives, we have consistently emphasized our concern that cooperatives pass through any refunds on a dollar for dollar basis. See, e.g., Four Circle Cooperative, 25 DOE ¶ 85,116 (1996) (proportional grant of relief relative to the number of affected members left in reorganization); Farmers Union Elevator, 23 DOE ¶ 85,122 (1993) (refund granted after demonstration of ability to convey refunds to affected end users). Accord, Matagorda County Farmers Cooperative, 18 DOE ¶ 85,714 (1989); Farmers Union Oil Co., 17 DOE ¶ 85,464 (1988). We have also denied similar requests for refunds where we were unconvinced of the cooperative's ability to pass the funds to affected end users. Burt County Cooperative Co., 26 DOE ¶ 85,012 (1996). Accordingly, we cannot accept the modification proposed by Mr. Grabiel because it would avoid the requirement that the refunds be so passed through.
V.
The End Users have indicated their intention to appeal any refund granted to the airlines and cooperatives. They have asked that any distribution to these claimants be postponed until the completion of "the appeal which [the End Users] will take from any decision making awards to the Airlines and Cooperatives." End User Comments at 9. The End Users note that a similar deferral of payment was provided for in our final order awarding Citronelle refunds to refiner cooperatives. See The 341 Tract Unit of the Citronelle Field/ National Cooperative Refinery Assoc., 26 DOE ¶ 85,019 (1996). The End Users' request is supported by the Refiners and not opposed by any other party.
In the interests of administrative and judicial economy, we have determined that payment of the refunds granted herein shall be made within 20 days after 60 days have passed without the filing of an appeal from this decision in an appropriate forum or, if an appeal is filed, within 20 days after such appeal has been fully resolved and no further review is available. If an appeal is filed, the subject refunds shall be retained in a separate subaccount in the Post-Apportionment Citronelle Escrow Account accruing interest from the last date by which payment would have been made absent an appeal, i.e., 80 days after the date of this Order. If this Decision and Order is sustained on appeal, the Cooperative and Airline claimants shall be entitled to their respective shares of the accrued interest in the subaccount.
VI.
Based on these determinations, each applicant in the Appendix to this Decision and Order will be eligible for a refund equal to its total purchase of refined petroleum products during the period of price controls (August 19, 1973 through January 27, 1991) multiplied by $0.00004878. We have reviewed the gallonage claims of the applicants and find them reasonable. The approved gallonage of each applicant and the refund amount are set out in the Appendix.
It Is Therefore Ordered That:
(1) The Director of Special Accounts and Payroll, Office of Departmental Accounting and Financial Systems Developments, Office of the Controller of the Department of Energy shall take appropriate action to disburse from the escrow account denominated "Citronelle-Coops" to the 25 Applicants the amounts specified in the Appendix to this Decision and Order. The total amount of the refunds to be granted in this determination is $1,716,784.
(2) The payment of the refunds granted herein shall be made within 20 days after 60 days has passed without the filing of an appeal in an appropriate forum or, if an appeal is filed, within 20 days after such appeal has been fully resolved and no further review is available. If an appeal is filed, the subject refunds shall be retained in a separate subaccount in the Post-Apportionment Citronelle Escrow Account accruing interest from the last date by which payment would have been made absent an appeal, i.e. 80 days after the date of this Order. If this Decision and Order is sustained on appeal, the Cooperative and Airline claimants shall be entitled to their respective shares of the accrued interest in the subaccount.
(3) The Motion for Reconsideration filed by Consolidated Edison Company of New York, et al. (Case No. LER-0009) is hereby denied.
(4) The Cooperative refund recipients named in this determination shall pass through to their members the refunds received on a dollar for dollar basis. Upon completing the transmittal of the refunds to their members, these Cooperatives shall certify to the Office of Hearings and Appeals that they have effected the required dollar for dollar refund passthrough.
(5) The determinations regarding refund amounts made in this Decision and Order are based on the presumed validity of statements and documentary material submitted by the Applicants. Any of these determinations may be revoked or modified at any time upon a finding that the basis underlying an application is incorrect.
(6) This is a final Order of the Department of Energy.
George B. Breznay
Director
Office of Hearing and Appeals
Date: March 25, 1998
(1)
1/ The names, case numbers and other pertinent information necessary for calculation and disbursement of the refunds granted to these applicants are set forth in the Appendix to this determination.
(2) The state governments requested an extension of the filing deadline until January 12, 1998, and filed a response on that date.
A
APPENDIX THE 341 TRACT UNIT OF THE CITRONELLE FIELD / FARMERS PETROLEUM COOPERATIVE, INC., ET AL. CASE NOS. RF344-1, ET AL. Case No. Applicant / Address Date Filed App. Type Gallonage Refund RF344-1 Farmers Petroleum Cooperative, Inc. 06/29/93 Farmer Coop 352,591,000 $17,199 Attn: Thomas J. Parker P.O. Box 30960 7373 West Saginaw Highway Lansing, MI 48909 RF344-2 Waterloo Service Company 05/13/94 Farmer Coop 338,048,000 $16,490 Attn: Claire W. Randall 1402 Logan Ave. P.O. Box 300 Waterloo, IA 50704 RF344-3 Delta Purchasing Federation 05/16/94 Farmer Coop 70,882,000 $3,458 Attn: Ralph T. Hand, Jr. P.O. Box 8177 1206 Carnegie Street Greenwood, MS 38935-8177 RF344-4 SF Services, Inc. 05/16/94 Farmer Coop 74,113,000 $3,615 Attn: Larry Fortner 824 N. Palm Street N. Little Rock, AR 72119 RF344-5 Great American Airways 05/16/94 Airline 1,715,759 $84 c/o Target Airways Ltd. Attn: Jean Garrabrant P.O. Box 10165 Reno, NV 89510 RF344-6 Countrymark, Inc. 05/16/94 Farmer Coop 1,048,107,957 $51,127 Attn: Steve Westfall 4565 Columbus Pike Delaware, OH 43015 RF344-7 Transamerica Airlines, Inc. 05/25/94 Airline 487,896,814 $23,800 Attn: Chris Fadeeff P.O. Box 2504 Oakland, CA 94614 RF344-8 Delta Air Lines, Inc. 05/25/94 Airline 7,129,298,712 $347,767 Attn: J.T. Shell P.O. Box 20531 Hartsfield Atlanta Int'nl Airport Atlanta, GA 30320-2531 RF344-9 American Airlines, Inc. 05/27/94 Airline 8,872,374,000 $432,794 Attn: Sue Thoms P.O. Box 619616 Dallas/Ft. Worth Intl. Airport, TX 75216 RF344-10 Delta Airlines / Western Airlines 06/08/94 Airline 2,258,230,249 $110,156 Attn: J.T. Shell P.O. Box 20531 Hartsfield Atlanta Int'nl Airport Atlanta, GA 30320-2531 RF344-11 US Air, Inc. 06/13/94 Airline 1,837,754,979 $89,646 Attn: Richard Landers Crystal Park IV, 2345 Crystal Drive Arlington, VA 22227 RF344-12 US Air, Inc. 06/13/94 Airline 618,099,047 $30,151 Re: Piedmont Aviation Attn: Richard Landers Crystal Park IV, 2345 Crystal Drive Arlington, VA 22227 RF344-13 US Air, Inc. 06/13/94 Airline 766,014,947 $37,366 Re: Pacific SW Airlines Attn: Richard Landers Crystal Park IV, 2345 Crystal Drive Arlington, VA 22227 RF344-14 United Parcel Service of America, Inc. 06/16/94 Airline 970,341,080 $47,333 Attn: Jeff H. Ridings 55 Glenlake Parkway, NE Atlanta, GA 30328 RF344-15 Air Canada 06/17/94 Airline 278,287,000 $13,575 Attn: Peter Reichman Centre Air Canada 025, CP 10,000 St. Laurent, Que., CANADA, H4Y ICI RF344-16 Aloha Airlines, Inc. 06/20/94 Airline 123,676,091 $6,033 Attn: Owen Sekimura P.O. Box 30028 Honolulu, HI 96280 RF344-17 Alaska Airlines, Inc. 06/24/94 Airline 274,290,427 $13,380 Attn: Fred Ketzeback P.O. Box 68900 Seattle, WA 98168 RF344-18 Southwest Airlines Co. 07/07/94 Airline 103,420,752 $5,045 Attn: John Chaussee 2702 Love Field Drive Dallas, TX 75235 RF344-19 Pan American World Airways, Inc. 07/26/94 Airline 5,065,761,000 $247,108 Attn: Paul Rendish 24 Link Drive Rockleigh, NJ 07647 RF344-20 Tennessee Farmers Cooperative 10/04/94 Farmer Coop 162,788,000 $7,941 c/o Sutherland, Asbill & Brennan Attn: Jacob Dweck 1275 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20004-2404 RF344-21 Southern States Cooperative, Inc. 10/04/94 Farmer Coop 1,342,517,000 $65,488 c/o Sutherland, Asbill & Brennan Attn: Jacob Dweck 1275 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20004-2404 RF344-22 Growmark, Inc. 10/04/94 Farmer Coop 2,397,311,000 $116,941 c/o Sutherland, Asbill & Brennan Attn: Jacob Dweck 1275 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20004-2404 RF344-23 MFA Oil Company 10/04/94 Farmer Coop 563,931,000 $27,509 c/o Sutherland, Asbill & Brennan Attn: Jacob Dweck 1275 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20004-2404 RF344-24 Agway Petroleum Corporation 09/26/94 Farmer Coop 31,868,704 $1,555 Attn: Richard A. Hysick P.O. Box 4852 Syracuse, NY 13221 RF344-25 Universal Cooperatives, Inc. 05/13/94 Farmer Coop 25,079,000 $1,223 Attn: Patrick M. Finley 7801 Metro Parkway Bloomington, MN 55425 TOTALS 25 Applicants 11 Farmer Coops 35,169,318,518 $1,716,784 14 Airlines Volumetric = $98,579,894 / 2,020,997,335,000 = $0.00004878 per gallon
Last Updated on 7/6/98
By Marcia Carlson