[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 39 (Tuesday, February 27, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 7250-7252]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-4404]



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


DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Notice of Issuance of Decisions and Orders During the Week of May 
15 Through May 19, 1995

    During the week of May 15 through May 19, 1995, 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.

Appeal

International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers, 5/18/
95, VFA-0034

    IFPTE filed an Appeal from a denial by the Idaho Operations Office 
of a Request for Information which it had submitted under the Freedom 
of Information Act. The Idaho Operations Office has refused to release 
the short list of best qualified candidates for the position of Deputy 
Assistant Manager for Program Execution. In considering the Appeal, the 
DOE found that the list was properly withheld under Exemptions 5 and 6.

U.A. Plumbers and Pipefitters, Local 36, 5/19/95, VFA-0035

    U.A. Plumbers and Pipefitters, Local 36 (the Union) filed an appeal 
from a denial by the Department of Energy's (DOE) Idaho Operations 
Office (the Operations Office) of a Request for Information which the 
Union had submitted under the Freedom of Information Act (the FOIA). In 
considering the Appeal, the DOE found the Operations Office's finding 
that DOE owned documents that were not in the DOE's possession are not 
subject to the FOIA to be erroneous. The DOE's finding was based upon 
the Operations Office's failure to apply DOE FOIA Regulation 10 CFR 
1004.3(e)(1). The DOE also found that some of the documents requested 
by the Union were not subject to the FOIA because those documents were 
neither in DOE's possession nor owned by the DOE. Accordingly, the 
Appeal was remanded to the Operations Office.

Personnel Security Hearing

Albuquerque Operations Office, 5/19/95, VSO-0016

    Under the provisions set forth in 10 CFR Part 710, the Department 
of Energy, Albuquerque Operations Office (DOE/AL) suspended the access 
authorization (``Q'' level security clearance) of an individual based 
upon disqualifying criteria set forth in 10 CFR 710.8(j), viz., that 
the individual ``has been, or is a user of alcohol habitually to 
excess, or has been diagnosed by a board-certified psychiatrist as 
alcohol dependent or as suffering from alcohol abuse.'' Following a 
hearing convened at the request of the individual, the Hearing Officer 
found that (i) the individual was properly diagnosed by a DOE 
consultant-psychiatrist as alcohol dependent, based upon substantial 
derogatory information contained in the record which was uncontroverted 
by the individual, and (ii) the individual has failed to present 
adequate evidence of rehabilitation, reformation or other mitigating 
factors. Accordingly, the Hearing Officer concluded that the 

[[Page 7251]]
individual's access authorization should be restored.

Implementation of Special Refund Procedures

Bell Fuels, Et Al, 5/19/95, LEF-0061, ET AL.

    The DOE issued a Decision and Order announcing procedures to 
distribute $866,352.24, plus accrued interest, remitted to the DOE 
pursuant to Consent Orders issued to 18 resellers and retailers of 
refined petroleum products. In the absence of sufficient information to 
implement standard procedures for direct restitution to injured 
customers of the consenting firms, the DOE will accept refund claims 
from any injured customers who come forward and will devise refund 
procedures based on the information these applicants provide. If no 
such customers come forward, the funds obtained from these firms, plus 
accrued interest, will be made available to state governments for 
indirect restitution in accordance with the provisions of the Petroleum 
Overcharge Distribution and Restitution Act of 1986. The deadline for 
filing Applications for Refund is September 29, 1995.

Gulf Oil Corporation, 5/19/1995, KFX-0037

    The Department of Energy issued a Decision and Order covering the 
disbursal of $104,050,661 in crude oil overcharge monies made available 
pursuant to a settlement agreement with Gulf Oil Corporation. The DOE 
divided the funds pursuant to the Modified Statement of Restitutionary 
Policy. Accordingly, the DOE disbursed 20 percent of the funds plus 
interest ($37,309,761) for direct restitution to end users of refined 
petroleum products. The DOE further determined that the States had 
already received a partial payment from the Gulf crude oil funds and 
were entitled to an additional principal amount of $4,827,700, interest 
of $3,827,715, plus a reimbursement of $51,114, for a payment made by 
the Federal government to Sage Creek Refining Company. The total 
disbursement to the States was, therefore, $8,706,529. The amount 
disbursed to the Federal Government was equal to the States' share, 
less the Sage Creek adjustment, or $8,604,301.

MAPCO International, Inc., 5/19/95, VEF-0004

    The DOE issued a Decision and Order announcing procedures for 
disbursement of $7,280,202, plus accrued interest, in crude oil 
overcharges obtained by the DOE pursuant to a June 23, 1994 Settlement 
Agreement with MAPCO, Inc. and MAPCO International, Inc. The OHA has 
determined that the funds obtained from MAPCO, plus accrued interest, 
will be distributed in accordance with the DOE's Modified Statement of 
Restitutionary Policy in Crude Oil Cases.

Refund Applications

Sears Logistics Services, Inc., 5/19/95, RF272-92021

    The DOE issued a Decision and Order concerning an Application for 
Refund in the Subpart V crude oil overcharge refund proceeding filed by 
Sears Logistics Services, Inc. The DOE determined that Sears Logistics 
Services, Inc., was not entitled to a refund since its parent, Sears 
Roebuck and Co., had filed a Retailers Escrow Settlement Claim Form and 
Waiver, in which it requested a Stripper Well refund from the Retailers 
escrow, thereby waiving its right and the right of its subsidiaries, to 
a Subpart V crude oil refund. Accordingly, the Application for Refund 
was denied.

Texaco Inc./Elm Garage, Inc., 5/16/95, RF321-20935, RF321-21053, RF321-
21066, RF321-21067

    The DOE issued a Decision and Order in the Texaco Inc. special 
refund proceeding concerning four applicants who had applied on behalf 
of a service station, Elm Garage, Inc. (Elm Garage) was operated during 
the price control period as a 50/50 partnership by two bothers, Adam, 
who passed away in 1988, and Joseph Polek. Applications were received 
from Joseph Polek; Martha Polek, Adam's widow; Richard Polek, Adam's 
son; and the Adam R. Polek Trust (The Trust). In its Decision, the DOE 
construed Adam's 1969 will in which he devised his stock in Elm Garage 
to Richard, devised ``tangible personal property'' to Martha, and named 
the Trust, with Martha as beneficiary, as the residuary devisee. After 
execution of that will, Adam suffered an incapacitating stroke, and Elm 
Garage was dissolved. The DOE determined that because the corporation 
was dissolved after Adam had become incompetent, the devise of the Elm 
Garage stock had not been adeemed, i.e., revoked, and thus found 
Richard still entitled to Adam's portion of the refund. The DOE next 
determined the volumes purchased by Elm Garage based on check register 
receipts and motor gasoline prices from Platt's Oil Price Handbook and 
Oilmanac. Further, the DOE reduced, on a year-by-year basis, the per 
gallon volumetric refund amount of Elm Garage by the percentage of non-
Texaco motor gasoline that its supplier purchased during the consent 
order period. Thus, the DOE granted Joseph Polek's and Richard Polek's 
applications, denied the Trust's application, and dismissed Martha's 
application.

Town of Bristol, 5/19/95, RR272-190

    The DOE issued a Decision and Order granting a Motion for 
Reconsideration filed by the Town of Bristol (Bristol) in the Subpart V 
crude oil refund proceeding. Bristol's original Application for Refund 
was dismissed on February 8, 1995, on the grounds that the town had 
failed to respond to DOE's requests for additional information. In its 
Motion for Reconsideration, Bristol stated that it had sent the DOE a 
letter the previous August in response to its requests. Accordingly, 
Bristol's Motion for Reconsideration was granted.

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.

Crude Oil Supplemental Refund Distribution...............  RB272-2                                      05/15/95
Gulf Oil Corporation/Bourque's Gulf Service et al........  RF300-14615                                  05/19/95
Gulf Oil Corporation/Buccellato and Chase et al, Bartco    RF300-13333                                  05/15/95
 Petroleum Corp.                                           RF300-17593                                          
McKelvey Trucking Co.....................................  RC272-291                                    05/15/95
Parker K. Bailey & Sons, Inc.............................  RC272-290                                    05/19/95
Texaco Inc./Davis Texaco et al...........................  RF321-10307                                  05/16/95
Texaco Inc./Myers Texaco.................................  RF321-20374                                  05/16/95
Texaco Inc./Rick's Texaco................................  RF321-20494                                  05/16/95
                                                                                                                


[[Page 7252]]


Dismissals

    The following submissions were dismissed:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                     Name                               Case No.        
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Blende Texaco................................  RF321-20302              
Buckley & Company............................  RF321-20321              
City of Vineland Electric....................  RF321-20236              
Continental Baking Co........................  RF321-19854              
Conway Dyno Alignment Service................  RF321-20306              
Courville's Garage...........................  RF321-20773              
Express Texaco...............................  RF321-20219              
Fruehauf Trailer Corp........................  RF321-20350              
Kanab Texaco.................................  RF321-6331               
Murray's Texaco Service Station..............  RF321-19287              
Partanna's Texaco............................  RF321-20239              
Queen's Texaco on Providence.................  RF321-20387              
Taylor's Texaco Service......................  RF321-20261              
Walter Luther Texaco.........................  RF321-11342              
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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: February 14, 1996.
George B. Breznay,
Director, Office of Hearings and Appeals.
[FR Doc. 96-4404 Filed 2-26-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P