[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 25 (Tuesday, February 7, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 7189-7192]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-3017]



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


DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Notice of Issuance of Decisions and Orders; Week of October 17 
Through October 21, 1994

    During the week of October 17 through October 21, 1994 the 
decisions and orders summarized below were issued with respect to 
appeals and applications for 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.

Appeals

Dale N. Treweek, 10/19/94, LFA-0423

    Dale N. Treweek filed an appeal from a partial denial of a request 
for information under the Freedom of Information Act issued by the 
DOE's Office of Engineering, Operations, Security, and Transition 
Support (EOST). In response to the request, EOST released some 
documents and stated that it had found no further responsive documents. 
After Treweek filed the Appeal, he conducted discussions with 
representatives of the DOE that identified certain potentially 
responsive documents that had not been released. The DOE therefore 
granted the Appeal and remanded the case to EOST for further action.

 [[Page 7190]] In Defense of Animals, 10/21/94, LFA-0424

    In Defense of Animals (IDA) filed an Appeal from determinations by 
the DOE's Freedom of Information (FOI) and Privacy Acts Branch and the 
Nevada Operations Office. In the determinations, these DOE offices 
stated that no documents could be found that were responsive to the 
Request for Information which the firm had submitted under the Freedom 
of Information Act. In considering the Appeal, the DOE found that the 
search for responsive documents was inadequate, and the Request was 
remanded to the FOI and Privacy Acts Branch for a further search. The 
DOE's Decision was based on the fact that DOE documents pertaining to 
IDA's request were mentioned in various publications.

Martha L. Powers, 10/17/94, LFA-0411

    Martha L. Powers filed an Appeal from a determination issued to her 
by the DOE's Nevada Operations Office (Nevada Operations) in response 
to a Request for Information submitted under the Freedom of Information 
Act (FOIA). In considering the Appeal, the DOE found that, with the 
information available to it, Nevada Operations conducted an adequate 
search for documents relating to George Egish, a civilian employee of 
the Army who may have photographed atmospheric atomic explosion tests 
during the 1940's and 1950's. After consulting with Mrs. Powers, Nevada 
Operations and various DOE offices, the DOE determined that the agency 
may be able to identify some responsive documents if she were to submit 
a new request with additional identifying information. Nevada 
Operations personnel indicated their willingness to work with Mrs. 
Powers to refine any new search request she might make. Accordingly, 
the Appeal was denied.

Painters District Council No. 55, 10/18/94, LFA-0422

    Painters District Council No. 55 (PDC) filed an Appeal from a 
determination issued by the DOE's Bonneville Power Administration 
(BPA), which determination denied in part a Request for Information PDC 
submitted under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). PDC requested 
documents relating to BPA's procurement of a painting services 
contract, including all proposals, the final contract and documents 
generated by BPA in the course of the procurement process. BPA released 
redacted copies of the final contract, a document entitled ``Document 
of Award Decision'' (Decision), and the proposals (Proposals). However, 
BPA withheld the ``Best Buy Analysis'' and the Analysis of Offers and 
portions of the Contract, Proposals and Decision pursuant to FOIA 
Exemptions 4 and 5. In its Appeal, PDC argued that BPA had improperly 
withheld that material and had failed to provide additional responsive 
documents. In considering the Appeal, the DOE determined that the unit 
prices and individual components of unit prices were properly withheld 
under Exemption 4. However, the DOE found that other portions of the 
Best Buy Analysis and the Proposals were improperly withheld under 
Exemption 4. Additionally, the DOE found that portions of the Decision 
and the Analysis of Offers were improperly withheld pursuant to 
Exemption 5. The DOE also found that BPA had made an adequate search in 
response to PDC's FOIA request. Consequently, the DOE granted the 
Appeal in part and remanded the matter to BPA for further action.

U.A. Plumbers and Pipefitters Local 36, 10/17/94, LFA-0421

    U.A. Plumbers and Pipefitters Local 36 (Local 36) filed an Appeal 
from a determination issued to it on September 16, 1994, by the DOE's 
Idaho Operations Office. In that determination, the Authorizing 
Official denied a request for a waiver of fees in connection with a 
request filed by Local 36 under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 
5 U.S.C. 552, as implemented by the DOE in 10 CFR Part 1004. The 
Authorizing Official advised Local 36 that the cost of processing its 
request would be approximately $156,255. In its Appeal, Local 36 asked 
that the Office of Hearings and Appeals (OHA) reverse the initial 
determination, and grant it a fee waiver. In considering the Appeal, 
the OHA found that although disclosure of the requested information was 
in the commercial interest of Local 36, a partial reduction of fees was 
appropriate because the requested information will primarily benefit 
the general public. The OHA determined that it would be appropriate to 
reduce the charges assessed Local 36 by 75 percent. Therefore, the 
Appeal was granted in part.

Requests for Exception

Brindley Oil Co., 10/21/94, LEE-0123

    Brindley Oil Company (Brindley) 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 suffering a gross inequity and a serious hardship. The DOE 
issued a final Decision and Order determining that the exception 
request should be granted.

Carter Oil Company, 10/19/94, LEE-0100

    Carter Oil Company (Carter) filed an Application for Exception from 
the provisions of the Energy Information Administration (EIA) reporting 
requirements in which the firm sought relief from filing Form EIA-782B, 
entitled ``Resellers'/Retailers' Monthly Petroleum Product Sales 
Report.'' The DOE determined that Carter did not meet the standards for 
exception relief because it was not experiencing a serious hardship or 
gross inequity as a result of the reporting requirements. Accordingly, 
exception relief was denied.

Chambers Oil Company, 10/17/94, LEE-0116

    Chambers Oil Company (Chambers) filed an Application for Exception 
from the provisions of the Energy Information Administration (EIA) 
reporting requirements in which the firm sought relief from filing Form 
EIA-782B, entitled ``Resellers'/Retailers' Monthly Petroleum Product 
Sales Report.'' The DOE determined that Chambers did not meet the 
standards for exception relief because it was not experiencing a 
serious hardship or gross inequity as a result of the reporting 
requirements. Accordingly, exception relief was denied.

Ewing Oil Company, 10/17/94, LEE-0084

    Ewing Oil Company 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 Ewing's request, the DOE found that the firm, 
which the EIA characterized as a ``certainty firm'' because of its 
significant market share, was not experiencing a serious hardship or a 
gross inequity. Accordingly, exception relief was denied.

Petroleum Products, Inc., 10/17/94, LEE-0087

    Petroleum Products, Inc., 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 a gross inequity or serious hardship, and denied 
Petroleum Product's Application for Exception.

Texpar Energy, Inc., 10/18/94, LEE-0119

     [[Page 7191]] Texpar Energy, Inc., 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,'' and Form EIA-782C, the ``Monthly 
Report of Prime Supplier Sales of Petroleum Products Sold for Local 
Consumption.'' In considering this request, the DOE found that the firm 
was not suffering a gross inequity or serious hardship, and denied 
Texpar's Application for Exception.

Refund Applications

Draper Energy Co., Inc., 10/18/94, RF272-92349

    The DOE issued a Decision and Order concerning the Application for 
Refund of a claimant in the Subpart V crude oil overcharge refund 
proceeding. The Application for Refund was based on purchases of 
gasoline and middle distillates the applicant purchased and resold 
during the crude oil price control refund period. The DOE determined 
that the applicant's sales of gasoline and middle distillates allowed 
it to pass on the costs of any crude oil overcharges to its customers. 
Therefore, the DOE concluded that the claimant was not injured by any 
of the crude oil overcharges associated with the gallons that it 
purchased. Accordingly, the Application for Refund was denied.

Gulf Oil Corporation/Huber's 4 Corners Store, 10/19/94, RF300-10925

    Huber's 4 Corners Store filed an Application for Refund in the Gulf 
Oil Corporation refund proceeding. Huber's requested a refund based on 
its indirect purchases of Gulf motor gasoline. The DOE noted that an 
indirect purchaser is not entitled to a refund where the direct 
purchaser demonstrates that it absorbed the alleged overcharges rather 
than passing them through to its customers. Because the direct 
purchaser had established that it absorbed the alleged Gulf 
overcharges, the DOE determined that Huber's was not entitled to a 
refund. Accordingly, the Application for Refund was denied.

Texaco Inc./Loop's Airport Texaco, 10/17/94, RR321-167

    The DOE issued a Decision and Order partially granting a Motion for 
Reconsideration filed by Bert N. Loop on behalf of Loop's Airport 
Texaco. In his Motion, Mr. Loop asked that the DOE modify a 
Supplemental Order issued on July 20, 1994, Texaco Inc./Loop's Airport 
Texaco, 24 DOE 85,061 (1994), which ordered him to repay a portion of 
a refund that he had previously been granted in the Texaco special 
refund proceeding. Mr. Loop requested that he not be required to pay 
interest on the excess amount of the refund between the date the refund 
was issued and the date of repayment. Mr. Loop also requested that he 
not be held responsible for that portion of the excessive refund that 
he paid to Federal Refunds, Inc. (FRI), the private company with whom 
he contracted to help him obtain his refund. In considering these 
requests, the DOE determined that it was partially responsible for the 
error that resulted in Mr. Loop's receiving an excessive refund, and it 
therefore decided that Mr. Loop would not be required to pay interest 
on the repayment. However, the DOE determined that since any agreement 
between FRI and Mr. Loop was a private matter between the two parties, 
it would not reduce his repayment obligation to the DOE.

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.

                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                
Cox Construction Co. et al.....................................................  RF272-86255            10/20/94
Dahlen Farmers Elevator & Oil Company et al....................................  RF272-94775            10/20/94
Farmers Union Oil Co. of Minot.................................................  RF272-86878            10/21/94
Gulf Oil Corporation/O.S.T. & Kirby............................................  RF300-20580            10/18/94
Westheimer & Kirby.............................................................  RF300-20581         ...........
Fannin Gulf....................................................................  RF300-20582         ...........
Spencer & Allen Genoa..........................................................  RF300-20583         ...........
Gulf Oil Corporation/Sylvester's Crill & Palm Ave..............................  RF300-21801            10/17/94
Sylvester's Crill & Palm Ave...................................................  RF300-21802         ...........
Sylvester's Crill & Palm Ave...................................................  RF300-21803         ...........
Sylvester's Crill & Palm Ave...................................................  RF300-21804         ...........
Lanford Flying Service et al...................................................  RF272-94809            10/20/94
Texaco Inc./Curtis Beard et al.................................................  RF321-14018            10/19/94
Texaco Inc./ Stewart's Texaco et al............................................  RF321-20605            10/20/94
Village of Lyons et al.........................................................  RF272-97204            10/17/94


[[Page 7192]]


Dismissals

    The following submissions were dismissed:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                         Name                               Case No.    
------------------------------------------------------------------------
14 Mile 7 Gratiot Service............................  RF321-21032      
Clinchfield Railroad.................................  RF272-93753      
O/T/S/ Oil Co., Inc.,................................  RF300-21719      
William J. Miles.....................................  RF272-89769      
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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, D.C. 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: January 30, 1995.
George B. Breznay,
Director, Office of Hearings and Appeals.
[FR Doc. 95-3017 Filed 2-6-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P