These proposed regulations were published in the Federal Register, for comment on July 20, 1973. On August 17, 1973 the Council issued Phase IV Oil Regulations.
8. Plaintiffs and the class are the only class of retailers employing sixty or fewer individuals who are not exempt from the regulations.
9. There is no factual or statistical information or material justifying the failure to make the small business exemption under the regulations applicable to plaintiffs and the class.
10. There is no rational relationship between the objectives of the regulations and the denial to plaintiffs and the class of their small business exemption.
11. All segments of the economy and all other classes of retailers are allowed under the regulations to pass through increased costs on a dollar for dollar basis with the exception of plaintiffs and the class.
12. Plaintiffs and the class have been singled out from among all other classes in that they must absorb all their nonproduct cost increases since January 10, 1973.
13. Plaintiffs and the class have been singled out from all other classes and in particular, all petroleum firms, in that they must absorb all product cost increases after August 1, 1973.
14. Plaintiffs and the class are the only class whose principal supplier is allowed to pass on his costs both in product and otherwise to Plaintiffs and the class while they, in turn, may not pass on such costs in their sales to the general public.
15. The Phase IV January 10, 1973, date for the establishment of price margins for plaintiffs and the class is an arbitrary date, bearing no reasonable relationship to the ends sought to be achieved under the Regulations.
16. The application of Subpart L of the August, 1973 Oil Regulations to plaintiffs and the class would require plaintiffs and substantial members of the class to go out of business or otherwise sustain substantial and severe economic injury.
17. The establishment of a refiner-retailer class within Subpart L, with separate and distinct regulations applicable thereto, has no rational foundation and confers a competitive advantage upon said class not available to plaintiffs and the class.
18. Establishment of a refiner-retailer class within Subpart L is inconsistent with the objective of the Act and the Regulations.
19. Requiring plaintiffs to exhaust their administrative remedies would result in irreparable harm, in that in this case, time is crucial to protect the rights of plaintiffs and the class.
Conclusions of Law
1. This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to Section 211 of the Economic Stabilization Act, as last amended by P.L. 93-28 (April 30, 1973).
2. Venue is proper.
3. Subpart L of the Phase IV Oil Regulations as applied to plaintiffs and the class is arbitrary and capricious within the meaning of the Act.
4. Subpart L as applied to plaintiffs and the class discriminates against plaintiffs and the class and violates the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment.
5. The provisions and regulations of Subpart L as applied to plaintiffs and the class are arbitrary and discriminatory and bear no rational relationship to the ends sought to be achieved by the Act or of Phase IV regulations in general and, therefore, violate the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment.
6. Plaintiffs have made a sufficiently strong showing that they are likely to prevail on the merits of this suit.
7. The preliminary injunction should be granted.
© 1992-2004 VersusLaw Inc.