[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 117 (Monday, June 20, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-14957]


[[Page Unknown]]

[Federal Register: June 20, 1994]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------


DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
 

Notice of Issuance of Decisions and Orders by the Office of 
Hearings and Appeals, Week of March 28 Through April 1, 1994

    During the week of March 28 through April 1, 1994, the decisions 
and orders summarized below were issued with respect to appeals and 
applications for exception or other relief filed with the Office of 
Hearings and Appeals of the Department of Energy. The following summary 
also contains a list of submissions that were dismissed by the Office 
of Hearings and Appeals.
    Copies of the full text of these decisions and orders are available 
in the Public Reference Room of the Office of Hearings and Appeals, 
Room 1E-234, Forrestal Building, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., 
Washington, DC 20585, Monday through Friday, between the hours of 1:00 
p.m. and 5:00 p.m., except federal holidays. They are also available in 
Energy Management: Federal Energy Guidelines, a commercially published 
loose leaf reporter system.

    Dated: June 13, 1994.
George B. Breznay,
Director, Office of Hearings and Appeals.

Appeal

Cowles Publishing Company, 3/30/94, LFA-0360

    Cowles Publishing Company (Cowles) filed an Appeal from a partial 
denial by the DOE's Richland Operations Office of a Request for 
Information which the firm had submitted under the Freedom of 
Information Act (the FOIA). In considering the Appeal, the DOE found 
that it was unable to render a determination on the threshold issue of 
whether the withheld documents constituted ``agency records'' for 
purposes of the FOIA. Accordingly, the DOE remanded the matter to the 
Richland Operations Office with instructions to investigate and review 
the matter further and to consider several relevant inquiries raised by 
Cowles on Appeal.

Requests for Exception

Marbob Energy Corporation, 3/28/94, LEE-0066

    Marbob Energy Corporation (Marbob) filed an Application for 
Exception from the requirement that it file Form EIA-23, the ``Annual 
Survey of Domestic Oil and Gas Reserves.'' Marbob claimed that it 
lacked the necessary technical personnel to provide the information 
requested in Form EIA-23. In considering the request, the DOE found 
that there were no technical personnel required to complete the form 
other than those already employed by Marbob. The DOE also concluded 
that the firm was not suffering a serious hardship and was not 
adversely affected by the reporting requirement in a way that was 
significantly different from the burden borne by similar reporting 
firms. Therefore, the DOE denied Marbob's Application for Exception.

Ward Oil Co., 3/29/94, LEE-0088

    Ward Oil Co. (Ward) filed an Application for Exception from the 
provisions of the Energy Information Administration (EIA) reporting 
requirements which the firm sought relief from filing Form EIA-782B, 
entitled ``Resellers'/Retailers' Monthly Petroleum Product Sales 
Report.'' In considering the request, the DOE found that the firm was 
suffering a gross inequity due to the long illness and death of the 
firm's office manager. Accordingly, the DOE determined that the 
exception request be granted in part and that Ward should be removed 
from the survey from March 1994 through December 1994.

Refund Applications

Atlantic Richfield Company/Phoenix Steel Corporation, 3/29/94, RF304-
12974

    The DOE issued a Decision and Order denying an Application for 
Refund filed by LK, Inc., on behalf of Phoenix Steel Corporation in the 
Atlantic Richfield Company Subpart V special refund proceeding. The 
Phoenix Steel Application was denied because LK, Inc. failed to show it 
was authorized to represent Phoenix Steel and the DOE was unable to 
contact Phoenix Steel or an employee of the company.

Atlantic Richfield Company/Small's Garage, et al., 4/1/94, RF304-4881

    DOE issued a Decision and Order concerning six Applications for 
Refund filed in the Atlantic Richfield Company (ARCO) special refund 
proceeding. The DOE determined that the refund claims be denied, 
because the individual who filed the Applications, Nic Schnettler, 
admitted that they were fraudulent. After pleading guilty to mail 
fraud, Mr. Schnettler was sentenced to two years probation and ordered 
to pay $7,000 in restitution by the United States District Court for 
the Northern District of Illinois. Although the ARCO proceeding was 
closed on December 3, 1993, five of the six Applicants were given 
thirty days from the date of the Decision to file Applications on their 
own in the ARCO proceeding. The other Applicant has an Application 
pending.

Gulf Oil Corp./New York Telephone Co., 3/30/94, RR300-256

    The DOE issued a Decision and Order denying a Motion for 
Reconsideration filed by Resource Refunds, Inc. (RRI) in the Gulf Oil 
Corp. special refund proceeding on behalf of New York Telephone Company 
(NYT). RRI, in filing the Motion, requested that the DOE reverse its 
earlier decisions dismissing NYT's Application for Refund because it 
was filed after the final filing deadline in the Gulf Oil Corp. special 
refund proceeding. RRI further alleged that certain staff members of 
the DOE were prejudiced against RRI and that the prejudice influenced 
the DOE's decision to dismiss NYT's Application for Refund and deny 
NYT's first Motion for Reconsideration. The DOE, as a discretionary 
matter, reviewed the Motion and determined that it should be denied. 
The DOE found that RRI had presented no new information or compelling 
reason that warranted reversing the previous decisions. The DOE also 
found RRI's allegations of bias to be unfounded.

Murphy Construction Co., et al., 3/28/94, RF272-91456

    The DOE issued a Decision and Order granting seven Applications for 
Refund filed in the crude oil refund proceeding. This Decision and 
Order incorporated simplified language as part of an ongoing attempt to 
improve service to the DOE's stakeholders and customers. With respect 
to one application, the DOE noted that the applicant had included 
purchases of asphalt concrete. The DOE held that asphalt concrete did 
not qualify as a covered product and therefore reduced the applicant's 
gallonage to reflect the exclusion of asphalt concrete.

Standard Oil Co. (Amoco)/Indiana, 3/29/94, RM21-265

    The State of Indiana filed a Motion for Modification of a 
previously-approved second-stage refund plan. The Motion, if granted, 
would allow the State to use $123,750 of Amoco monies to fund its Fuel 
Saver Van Program. Under Indiana's proposal, up to three vans 
containing automobile diagnostic equipment will travel to thirty cities 
in the State of Indiana. The equipment in the vans will be used to 
inspect motorists' vehicles free of charge. Once an analysis is 
completed, each motorist will be given a detailed description of all 
items inspected and their condition. The analyses will focus on 
problems affecting excess gasoline consumption and vehicle emissions. 
The State predicts that the Program will help injured consumers improve 
the energy efficiency of their automobiles and save them money by 
reducing the amount of fuel they consume. The $123,750 that Indiana 
proposes to use for this program has not previously been allocated to 
another program. However, since Indiana had not been reflecting in its 
oil overcharge account all of the interest earned on Amoco monies 
previously transferred to it, the State itself has supplied $123,750 
which would have been the total amount of interest earned on Amoco 
monies received by the State, but was not previously posted to its 
account. The DOE has previously approved funds for state support of the 
Fuel Saver Van Program. Accordingly, the Motion for Modification was 
granted.

Texaco Inc./J.H. Rose Truck Line, Inc., 4/1/94, RF321-19063

    LK, Inc. filed an Application for Refund on behalf of First 
Interstate Bank of Texas (First Interstate), requesting a refund based 
on purchases of Texaco petroleum products made by J.H. Rose Truck Line 
(Rose). The Application stated that First Interstate was a secured 
creditor in Rose's bankruptcy proceeding. In considering this request, 
the DOE found that First Interstate had not demonstrated that it had a 
clear and undisputed right to Rose's Texaco refund. Accordingly, the 
DOE issued a Decision and Order denying the Application for Refund 
filed on behalf of First Interstate.

Texaco Inc./M & M Transportation Co., 4/1/94, RR321-150

    LK, Inc. filed a Motion for Reconsideration of a Decision and Order 
that had denied its Application for Refund in the Texaco refund 
proceeding with respect to purchases made by M & M Transportation 
Company (M&M), a bankrupt firm. The DOE determined that the Motion did 
not present any compelling reason to reconsider the earlier decision. 
Specifically, the DOE found that the purported assignment of M&M's 
right to a Texaco refund to LK in the course of the bankruptcy 
proceeding did not meet the strict standard adopted for approving such 
assignments in the precedential case of Gulf Oil Corp./Spector Red 
Ball, Inc., 23 DOE 85,011 (1993). The DOE further found that there was 
no reason for applying a more lenient standard in this case since the 
assignment did not expressly convey the right to apply for a product 
refund in the Texaco proceeding and LK's payment to M&M was 
unconscionably low. Accordingly, LK's motion was denied.

Texaco Inc./Mike's Texaco on Henry Kevin's Texaco, 4/1/94, RF321-8931, 
RF321-9514

    The DOE issued a Decision and Order concerning Applications for 
Refund filed on behalf of two indirect purchasers, Mike's Texaco on 
Henry and Kevin's Texaco, in the Texaco Inc. special refund proceeding. 
Each applicant stated that it had no records from which to determine 
the number of gallons of Texaco products it purchased during the 
consent order period and submitted estimated figures obtained from a 
chart labelled ``Information compiled from the National Petroleum News 
Fact Book'' (Chart). The DOE rejected the use of the Chart in 
estimating the applicant's gallonage figures because it failed to 
differentiate between different types of retailers and because the 
Chart defied established historical trends in petroleum sales during 
the consent order period. Because neither applicant could establish the 
volumes of Texaco products it purchased during the consent order 
period, the DOE determined that granting the applicants a refund would 
not constitute restitution for Texaco's alleged overcharges. 
Consequently, the DOE denied the Applications for Refund.

Tiger Oil Company, 3/29/94, RD272-68538, RF272-68538
    The DOE issued a Decision and Order granting a refund to Tiger Oil 
Company (Tiger), an oil drilling contractor, in the Subpart V crude oil 
overcharge refund proceeding. The application was submitted by Edward 
Mike Davis, owner of Tiger, through Federal Refunds, Inc. (FRI), a 
private filing service. In the application, FRI estimated that Tiger 
purchased 204,529,860 gallons of refined petroleum products during the 
crude oil price control period. Neither Davis nor FRI submitted any 
documentation to support this estimate.
    The DOE later learned that Tiger is the subject of a Chapter 11 
bankruptcy proceeding. The DOE contacted the trustee in bankruptcy, who 
had Tiger's records examined by two petroleum engineers. The petroleum 
engineers calculated from the records that Tiger purchased 18,729,672 
gallons of refined petroleum products during the price control period. 
The DOE adjusted Tiger's gallonage claim in accordance with the 
petroleum engineers' estimate, and directed the refund check to the 
trustee to provide appropriate restitution to Tiger. In addition, the 
DOE denied a motion by a group of States and Territories, which argued 
that Tiger had passed the crude oil overcharges onto its customers. The 
total volume approved in the Decision and Order is 18,729,672 gallons, 
and the total refund amount granted is $14,984.

Refund Applications

    The Office of Hearings and Appeals issued the following Decisions 
and Orders concerning refund applications, which are not summarized. 
Copies of the full texts of the Decisions and Orders are available in 
the Public Reference Room of the Office of Hearings and Appeals.


Atlantic Richfield Company/Pearl Oil   RF304-14786.........     04/01/94
 Company, Inc..                                                         
Atlantic Richfield Company/Refiners    RF304-13604.........     04/01/94
 Distributing Corp. & Wells                                             
 Distributing Company.                                                  
Borough of Haledon...................  RA272-58............     03/30/94
Cannon Valley Cooperative et al......  RF272-92501.........     03/28/94
Deere & Company......................  RF272-13135.........     03/30/94
Deere & Company......................  RD272-13135.........  ...........
Gulf Oil Corp./Allender's Gulf et al.  RF300-18706.........     03/30/94
Gulf Oil Corp./Butane Gas & Electric   RF300-13194.........     03/30/94
 Co., Inc et al.                                                        
Gulf Oil Corp./Gulf States Oil &       RF300-19731.........     03/28/94
 Refining Co.                                                           
Gulf Oil Corp./Lehman & Dailey Gulf..  RF300-19838.........     03/28/94
Gulf Oil Corp./Storey Oil Co., Inc...  RF300-464...........     03/28/94
Lone Star Industries, Inc............  RF272-67281.........     03/28/94
Lone Star Industries, Inc............  RD272-67281.........  ...........
Medusa Aggregates Company............  RF272-76872.........     04/01/94
Morris Motors, Inc. et al............  RF272-91204.........     03/30/94
Oklahoma Tank Lines, Inc.............  RF272-41032.........     03/30/94
Olive Hill Motor Sales, Inc..........  RF272-41106.........  ...........
Richmond Oil, Soap & Chemical et al..  RF272-91575.........     04/01/94
Shell Oil Company/Hillsdale Shell....  RF315-1101..........     04/01/94
Hillsdale Shell......................  RF315-10284.........  ...........
Texaco Inc./Washburn Texaco Service..  RF321-7136..........     03/30/94
Goldy's Parking Co...................  RF321-7144..........  ...........
Nelson's Texaco......................  RF321-12583.........  ...........
The Town of Cortlandt................  RF272-83262.........     03/30/94
U.S.S. Agri-Chemicals................  RF272-78015.........     03/30/94
W.R. Grace & Co. et al...............  RF272-90133.........     03/28/94
                                                                        

Dismissals

    The following submissions were dismissed:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                        Name                               Case No.     
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama, California, Connecticut, et al.............  LFA-0363          
Gordon's Transports, Inc............................  RF315-9717        
Islandia Sportfishing...............................  RR304-49          
Joe's Arco..........................................  RF304-15000       
Joy Sales & Service.................................  RF300-20037       
Philpot Moving & Storage............................  RF300-19165       
R.F. Hayes Truck Lines..............................  RF300-19139       
Robert A. Brunner...................................  RF304-13763       
West Central School District No. 49-7...............  RF272-87339       
Zachary Arco........................................  RF304-4199        
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 94-14957 Filed 6-17-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P