[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