[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 175 (Monday, September 12, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-22506]


[[Page Unknown]]

[Federal Register: September 12, 1994]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Office of Hearings and Appeals

 

Issuance of Decisions and Orders During the Week of May 2 Through 
May 6, 1994

    During the week of May 2 through May 6, 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.

Appeal

The National Security Archive, 5/3/94, LFA-0365

    The National Security Archive (NSA) filed an Appeal from a 
determination issued to it on March 18, 1994 by the Office of 
Resource Management (ORM), Office of Policy, Planning, and Program 
Management of the Department of Energy which denied a request for 
information it had filed under the Freedom of Information Act 
(FOIA). The request sought information concerning the export of 4.3 
tons of heavy water from the U.S. to Israel in 1963. The ORM stated 
that it did not possess any responsive documents, and the Appeal 
challenged the adequacy of the search. In considering the Appeal, 
the DOE found that NSA's FOIA request may not have been subjected to 
a search sufficiently thorough and conscientious to meet the 
established standard of reasonableness. Accordingly, the Appeal was 
granted and remanded to the FOI Branch for further action.

Requests for Exception

Carson Petroleum Co., 5/4/94, LEE-0055

    Carson Petroleum Co. (Carson) filed an Application for Exception 
from the Energy Information Administration (EIA) requirement that it 
file Form EIA-782B, the Resellers'/Retailers' Monthly Petroleum 
Product Sales Report.'' In considering Carson's request, the DOE 
found that the firm was not experiencing a gross inequity or serious 
hardship. On March 10, 1994, the DOE issued a Proposed Decision and 
Order determining that the exception request should be denied. No 
Notice of Objection to the Proposed Decision and Order was filed 
within the prescribed time period. Therefore, the DOE issued the 
Proposed Decision and Order in final form, denying Carson's 
Application for Exception.

Dick's Oil Co., 5/3/94, LEE-0067

    Dick's Oil Co. filed an Application for Exception from the 
Energy Information Administration (EIA) requirement that it file 
Form EIA-782B, the ``Resellers'/Retailers' Monthly Petroleum Product 
Sales Report.'' In considering this request, the DOE found that the 
firm was not suffering gross inequity or serious hardship. 
Accordingly, exception relief was denied.

Friendly Service Stations, Inc., 5/3/94, LEE-0070

    Friendly Service Stations, Inc. (Friendly) filed an Application 
for Exception from the Energy Information Administration (EIA) 
requirement that it file Form EIA-82B, the ``Resellers'/Retailers' 
Monthly Petroleum Product Sales Report.'' Friendly showed that it 
had been forced by financial difficulties to reduce its staff to 
such an extent that complying with the reporting requirement would 
impose an inordinate burden on the firm. DOE therefore determined 
that exception relief should be granted. Friendly hopes that its 
current difficulties will prove temporary. The exception relief 
granted will therefore be effective for a period of nineteen months, 
ending April 30, 1995. If Friendly wishes to receive continued 
exemption from filing requirements after that time, it must then 
reapply with the DOE. Accordingly, the Application was granted in 
part.

Raymer Oil Company, 5/3/94, LEE-0095

    Raymer Oil Company (Raymer) filed an Application for Exception 
from the Energy Information Administration (EIA) requirement that it 
file Form EIA-782B, the Resellers'/Retailers' Monthly Petroleum 
Product Sales Report.'' In considering this request, the DOE found 
that the firm was not suffering gross inequity or serious hardship. 
On March 24, 1994, the DOE issued a Proposed Decision and Order 
determining that the exception request should be denied. No Notice 
of Objections to the Proposed Decision and Order was filed at the 
Office of Hearings and Appeals of the DOE within the prescribed time 
period. Therefore, the DOE issued the Proposed Decision and Order in 
final form, denying Raymer's Application for Exception.

Rockford Grain Growers, 5/4/94, LEE-0064

    Rockford Grain Growers (Rockford) filed an Application for 
Exception from the Energy Information Administration (EIA) 
requirement that it file Form EIA-782B, the ``Resellers'/Retailers' 
Monthly Petroleum Product Sales Report.'' In considering this 
request, the DOE found that the firm was not experiencing a serious 
hardship, gross inequity, or unfair distribution of burdens arising 
from this filing requirement. On February 10, 1994, the DOE issued a 
Proposed Decision and Order determining that the exception request 
should be denied. A Notice of Objections (Objections) to the 
Proposed Decision and Order was filed at the Office of Hearings and 
Appeals of the DOE on March 14, 1994. In the Objections, Rockford 
submitted additional information which demonstrated that the firm's 
precarious financial situation was exacerbated by the requirement to 
file EIA-782B. Since Rockford demonstrated in its Objections that it 
was experiencing an unfair distribution of burdens, the DOE issued a 
Decision and Order, granting Rockford's Application for Exception.

V.W. Smith Oil, Inc., 5/3/94, LEE-0081

    V.W. Smith Oil, Inc. (V.W. Smith) filed an Application for 
Exception from the Energy Information Administration (EIA) 
requirement that it file Form EIA-782B, the ``Resellers'/Retailers' 
Monthly Petroleum Product Sales Report.'' In considering this 
request, the DOE found that the firm was not suffering gross 
inequity or serious hardship. On February 28, 1994, the DOE issued a 
Proposed Decision and Order determining that the exception request 
should be denied. No Notice of Objections to the Proposed Decision 
and Order was filed at the Office of Hearings and Appeals of the DOE 
within the prescribed time period. Therefore, the DOE issued the 
Proposed Decision and Order in final form, denying V.W. Smith's 
Application for Exception.

Interim Order

Hunt Oil Co., 5/3/94, LEN-0086

    Hunt Oil Co. filed an Application for Exception from the 
provisions of the requirement to file Form EIA-782B in which the 
firm sought relief from filing the form. In considering the request, 
the DOE found that interim exception relief was necessary to 
alleviate a serious hardship to the reporting firm. Accordingly, 
interim exception relief was granted. Although the reporting 
requirement did not create the hardship, it aggravated the situation 
faced by Hunt.

Refund Applications

ASARCO Incorporated--Ray Unit ASARCO Incorporated, 5/3/94, RF272-
13526, RD272-13526, RF272-25467

    The DOE issued a Decision and Order concerning two Applications 
for Refund filed on behalf of ASARCO Incorporated--Ray Unit and 
ASARCO Incorporated in the crude oil special refund proceeding being 
disbursed by the DOE under 10 C.F.R. Part 205, Subpart V. The DOE 
determined that the refund claims were meritorious and granted a 
refund of $175,157. However, the DOE denied a portion of the claim, 
because it was based on gallons of petroleum products covered by 
price escalator clauses. The DOE also denied a Motion for Discovery 
filed by a consortium of States and two Territories and rejected 
their challenge to the claim. The DOE denied the States' Objections, 
finding that the industry-wide econometric data submitted by the 
States did not rebut the presumption that the Applicant was injured 
by the crude oil overcharges.

Standard Oil Co. (Indiana)/Idaho, 5/4/94, RM21-268

    The DOE issued a Decision and Order approving a Motion for 
Modification of a previously-approved second-stage refund plan filed 
by the State of Idaho (Idaho). In its Motion, Idaho requested the 
authority to use $175,096.29 of its uncommitted Standard Oil Co. 
(Indiana) second-stage refund monies to fund four projects in 
Idaho's State Energy Conservation Program. The DOE affirmed the 
timely restitutionary benefits of the plan to promote the efficient 
use to energy in Idaho. The DOE also identified the proposed 
recipients of those benefits (the people of Idaho) as a substantial 
segment of injured consumers of refined petroleum products. The 
Idaho plan was thus found to satisfy the criteria for a second-stage 
refund restitutionary program. Accordingly, Idaho's Motion for 
Modification was approved.

Texaco Inc./Dental's Automotive Center, 5/5/94, RR321-56

    The DOE issued a Decision and Order granting a Motion for 
Reconsideration filed by R.W. Dental, the owner of Dental's 
Automotive Center (Dental's), in the Texaco Inc. special refund 
proceeding. Mr. Dental's refund application had been denied because 
the DOE determined that the business was not a purchaser of Texaco 
products, but a consignee of an independent Texaco distributor. In 
the Motion, Mr. Dental demonstrated that, because the per gallon 
margin Dental's received for sales of Texaco products fluctuated, 
the business was susceptible to Texaco price increases and market 
pressures. Accordingly, the DOE granted Mr. Dental a total refund of 
$13,908 under the medium-range presumption of injury.

Texaco Inc./Houston & Davidson Texaco, 5/3/94, RF321-20557

    The DOE issued a Decision and Order denying an Application for 
Refund filed by Mr. William E. Davidson on behalf of Houston & 
Davidson Texaco in the Texaco Inc. special refund proceeding. The 
DOE found that the applicant had not shown that he had had any 
ownership interest in the outlet located at 300 N. Euclid St., 
Fullerton, California, either as a partner or otherwise, and 
therefore concluded that he was not eligible for a refund based on 
the purchases made by that outlet.

Texaco Inc./Jerry's Texaco, Kelly's Texaco, 5/4/94, RF321-19200, 
RF321-19308

    Applications for Refund were filed by Jerry Mittler on behalf of 
Jerry's Texaco (Case No. RF321-19200) and by Jack Fensterheim on 
behalf of Kelly's Texaco (Case No. RF321-19308) requesting refunds 
based on purchases of Texaco petroleum products. Each applicant 
estimated that he purchased 32,000 gallons of Texaco motor gasoline 
each month he was in business, and requested that his refund be 
based on this estimate. In considering this request, the DOE found 
that this estimate was not reliable, since it was based solely on 
the applicants' recollection of the size and frequency of gasoline 
deliveries. Accordingly, the DOE issued a Decision and Order denying 
the Applications for Refund filed by Jerry Mittler and Jack 
Fensterheim.

Texaco Inc./Wathke's Interstate Texaco, Haak's Texaco, 5/3/94, 
RF321-20937, RF321-20965

    The DOE issued a Decision and Order concerning two Applications 
for Refund filed on behalf of Wathke's Interstate Texaco (Wathke) 
and Haak's Texaco (Haak) in the Texaco Inc. special refund 
proceeding. Both applications were postmarked after the February 28, 
1994 deadline for submitting applications in the Texaco proceeding. 
The applicant's representative, Resource Refunds, Inc. (RRI), argued 
that Wathke's application should be considered as filed timely 
because Wathke mailed RRI its application in an envelope postmarked 
February 24, 1994 and that RRI did not receive Wathke's application 
until March 2, 1994. RRI argued that Haak's application should be 
considered timely because Haak mailed material needed to complete 
its application to the wrong address. The DOE held that, with 
respect to Wathke, it was immaterial that its application was 
delayed in its transmission to RRI since Wathke itself elected to 
send its application to RRI by mail instead of sending it to the DOE 
directly, and that RRI could not be considered an agent of the DOE 
for purposes of satisfying the deadline. In addition, the DOE held 
that Haak's negligence in sending information to the wrong address 
was not a sufficient excuse to justify its late application. Because 
Wathke's and Haak's applications were filed after the February 28 
deadline and no equitable considerations existed in excusing their 
lateness, the DOE dismissed both applications.

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/Ed Yee, Inc. et al.............................  RF304-14396                 05/03/94
Atlantic Richfield Company/Fox Hills Services, Inc. et al.................  RF304-14350                 05/03/94
Atlantic Richfield Company/H.C. Rineer & Sons, Inc........................  RF304-13486                 05/03/94
Atlantic Richfield Company/Horry N. & Larry L. Brock et al................  RF304-13181                 05/06/94
Atlantic Richfield Company/P&H Gas Company................................  RF304-13021                 05/05/94
Atlantic Richfield Company/Rich & Horton Oil Co. et al....................  RF304-13756                 05/05/94
Beacon Oil Company/San Lucas Truck Stop...................................  RR238-1                     05/06/94
Central Soya Feed Co., Inc................................................  RF272-93829                 05/04/94
Central Soya Co., Inc.....................................................  RF272-93882                         
Cherokee Brick and Tile Co. et al.........................................  RF272-93805                 05/03/94
Eau Claire Transit........................................................  RC272-236                   05/03/94
Enron Corp./K.C. Sales Company, Inc.......................................  RF340-102                   05/06/94
Eastwin Bottle Gas Service................................................  RF340-143                           
Famous Lubricants, Inc....................................................  RF272-93317                 05/03/94
Gulf Oil Corp./Mr. Best Car Wash Systems, Inc.............................  RF300-20155                 05/03/94
Gulf Oil Corp./Yorktown Gulf II...........................................  RF300-21790                 05/06/94
Inwood Heights et al......................................................  RF272-56902                 05/03/94
Lompoc Unified School District............................................  RF272-79166                 05/04/94
Luke Oil Company, Inc.....................................................  RF272-94743                 05/03/94
C. Jim Spence Oil Company, Inc............................................  RF272-94744                         
Kramer Tire Company.......................................................  RF272-94760                         
Shell Oil Company/Ingram Shell Service....................................  RF315-10285                 05/04/94
Texaco Inc./Tom Lacaze Texaco.............................................  RF321-20453                 05/03/94
                                                                                                                

Dismissals

    The following submissions were dismissed: 

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                        Name                                Case No.    
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Louie's Arco....................................  RF304-14283      
Dohrn Transfer Co., Inc..............................  RF272-78472      
Jay F. Darrenogue....................................  RF321-17070      
Muscogee County Air Service..........................  RF300-20747      
Myers Chevron........................................  LEE-0089         
Native Americans for a Clean Environment.............  LFA-0367         
Northeast Utilities Service Co.......................  RF321-20936      
Reynolds Electrical & Engineering Co., Inc...........  LWA-0007         
T.W. Brown Oil Co., Inc..............................  RF321-19146      
Westinghouse Hanford Company.........................  LWZ-0030         
Windsor Service, Inc.................................  RF321-20010      
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 
p.m. and 5 p.m., except federal holidays. They are also available in 
Energy Management: Federal Energy Guidelines, a commercially published 
loose leaf reporter system.

    Dated: September 6, 1994.
George B. Breznay,
Director, Office of Hearings and Appeals.
[FR Doc. 94-22506 Filed 9-9-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P