About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

B-200170 1 (1981-04-01)

handle is hein.gao/gaobabkac0001 and id is 1 raw text is: ~~ ,, COMPTROLLER GENERAL OFTHE UN ITED STATESAP ~~~~ ~~~~~~ ~~WASHINGTON, D.C. 20548 riIlhII/lliiiiiiiui B-200170• / The Honorable John D. Dingell, Chairman Committee on Energy and Commerce House of Representatives Dear Mr. Chairman: You have requested t'at we supplement our October 10, 1980, opinion f-(B-200170)concerning aproeosd plan of te ... oE for the distribution of ;25 millan overcharge refundsobtained as a result of a settlement reached between the Getty Oil Company (Getty) and the Secretary of Energy -and Energy's Special Counsel for Compliance (Special Counsel). You have~asked us to review in our supplemental opinion-the legality of a variety of actions or positions taken by Energy concerning the distribution of overcharge refunds obtained through consent orders between Energy and several other producers of petroleum products. In brief, our review is~o consider the legality of (1) the denial by Energy's Office of Hearings and Appeals (OHA) of several petitions by enforcement officials to utilize the procedures of Energy's Subpart V regulationi (10 C.F.R. §§ 205.280-205.288);C(2) the solicitation of public comments on the manner in which consent order funds should be distri- buted by Energy published at 45 F.R. 59627, September 10, 1980, in light of the Subpart V requirements;C(3) the proposed use by OA of overcharge funds, including interest, to cover its administrative costs-,\ in considering, and carrving out, Subpart V petitions; (4) the discre- tionary authority granted to OtA in the Subpart V regulations to dis- tribute consent order funds either to the Treasury, or in any other manner specified'7in OM's Decision and Order (10 C.F.R. § 205.287(c)); and (5)jhe distribution by the former Special Counsel of $1 million to each of four charitable institutions from an escrow account estab- lished pursuant to a settlement between the Standard Oil Company of Indiana and Energy. You also asked that we provide an indication of the actions that should be taken to correct this situation, as well as an analysis of the obligations of the Special Counsel. Our conclusions, are that OH may not lawfully deny petitions under Subpart V; (2) OH-A may solicit public co.rt.ents under Subpart V, but only as to means of identifying and and locating those who are en- 163!f

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most