[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 177 (Wednesday, September 11, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 47923-47924]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-23182]


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


DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Notice of Issuance of Decisions and Orders During the Week of 
April 8 through April 12, 1996

Office of Hearings and Appeals
    During the week of April 8 through April 12, 1996, the decisions 
and orders summarized below were issued with respect to appeals, 
applications, petitions, or other requests 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, D.C. 20585-0107, 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. Some decisions and 
orders are available on the Office of Hearings and Appeals World Wide 
Web site at http://www.oha.doe.gov.

    Dated: August 30, 1996.
Richard W. Dugan,
Acting Director, Office of Hearings and Appeals.

Decision List No. 967

Week of April 8 through April 12, 1996

Appeals

A. Victorian, 4/11/96, VFA-0142

    Dr. A. Victorian filed an Appeal from a denial by the Office of 
Defense Programs of a request for information that he filed under the 
Freedom of Information Act. Defense Programs responded by stating that 
it could neither confirm nor deny the existence of records responsive 
to Dr. Victorian's request. Based on its review of the nature of the 
request, and after considering the arguments that Dr. Victorian raised 
on appeal, the DOE determined that Defense Programs' Glomar response 
was appropriate. Accordingly, the Appeal was denied.

Petrucelli & Nadler, 4/11/96, VFA-0143

    Petrucelli & Nadler (Petrucelli) filed an Appeal from a denial by 
the Oak Ridge Operations Office (DOE/OR) of the Department of Energy of 
a Request for Information which the firm had submitted under the 
Freedom of Information Act. In considering the Appeal, the DOE found 
that the documents requested by Petrucelli, information on all persons 
involved in radiation experiments performed on students at the Fernald 
State School in Massachusetts, could possibly have been located in a 
search of either another relevant DOE office or the DOE Archives. Thus, 
the Appeal was granted.

Personnel Security Hearing

Pittsburgh Naval Reactors Office, 4/12/96, VSA-0048

    The Director of the Office of Hearings and Appeals issued an 
Opinion regarding a Request for Review of a Hearing Officer Opinion 
which recommended against restoring the level ``L'' access 
authorization of the Respondent seeking review of the matter. The 
Respondent had requested that the Director examine two issues: (1) 
Whether the Respondent's failure to file state and federal income taxes 
and pay miscellaneous local taxes raises a legitimate security concern; 
and (2) whether promises to repay loans to the Respondent and the 
Respondent's opportunity to satisfy his mortgage mitigate some of the 
DOE's security concerns. With regard to the first issued, after 
reviewing the record regarding the Respondent's tax situation and 
considering the Respondent's purported efforts to take corrective 
action with respect to some of his tax liabilities, the Director found 
no reason to disturb the Hearing Officer's Opinion. As for the second 
issue raised on review, the Director first opined that the new evidence 
suggesting that some of the Respondent's relatives might repay the 
Respondent some time in the future is not sufficient to overcome the 
security concern raised by the DOE regarding the Respondent's financial 
problems. Moreover, the Director observed that the Respondent has not 
demonstrated that he will be able to satisfy his entire mortgage debt 
within the time frame prescribed by the Respondent's lending 
institution. In sum, the Director refused to conclude that the new 
evidence tendered by the Respondent regarding his attempt to redress 
his mortgage problems mitigates the DOE's security concerns regarding 
the Respondent's judgement in managing his financial affairs.
    After carefully considering the record, the Director opined that 
the Respondent's access authorization should not be restored.

Refund Applications

Charter Co./Mississippi--RQ23-601
Standard Oil Co. (Indiana)/Mississippi--RQ251-602

OKC Corp./Mississippi, 4/11/96, RQ13-603

    The DOE issued a Decision and Order granting a second-stage refund 
application filed by the State of Mississippi. Mississippi requested 
that all remaining funds allocated to it in the Charter Company, 
Standard Oil Co. (Indiana), and OKC Corp. Special refund proceedings be 
used to fund the state's Energy-Efficient, Affordable Housing and 
Energy in Agriculture Programs. As

[[Page 47924]]

of March 31, 1996, the allocation totaled $856,829 ($372,150 in 
principal and $484,679 in interest), but the allocation will be 
slightly higher at the time of disbursement due to interest earned 
between March 31, 1996 and the date of disbursement. The DOE found that 
Mississippi's proposal would provide timely restitutionary benefits to 
injured consumers of refined petroleum products. Accordingly, 
Mississippi's second-stage refund application was granted.

Gulf Oil Corp./Victoria Guernsey, Inc., 4/11/96, RF300-18821

    The DOE issued a Decision and Order granting a refund application 
filed by Victoria Guernsey, Inc. in the Gulf Oil Corporation special 
refund proceeding. The DOE found that Victoria Guernsey made a 
reasonable demonstration that it purchased the claimed amount of Gulf 
product through two suppliers, Parton Oil Co. and Armour Oil Co. 
Because there was no affirmative evidence that either supplier absorbed 
the alleged Gulf overcharges, the DOE determined that Victoria Guernsey 
should be considered for a refund under the standards applicable to 
direct purchasers. Accordingly, the DOE granted Victoria Guernsey a 
$23,981 refund based on the medium range presumption of injury.

Valley Line Co., 4/12/96, RC272-337

    The DOE issued a Decision and Order rescinding a refund granted to 
The Valley Line Co. in the Subpart V crude oil refund proceeding. The 
DOE was informed by The Valley Line that Chromalloy American 
Corporation, the former parent company of The Valley Line, had received 
a refund from the Rail & Water Transporters Escrow, one of the eight 
escrows established by the final Settlement Agreement in the Stripper 
Well Exemption Litigation. In order to receive a refund from a Stripper 
Well escrow, a claimant was required to waive its right and the rights 
of its affiliates to participate in any future refund proceeding based 
on crude oil overcharges. Therefore, The Valley Line was ineligible to 
receive a refund in the crude oil proceeding.

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.

Gulf Oil Corporation/Ed & Ray's Gulf et al...............  RF300-13549                                  04/08/96
Heartland Co-op et al....................................  RK272-03205                                  04/11/96
Hereford Independent School District et al...............  RF272-86302                                  04/09/96
Mueller Industries, Inc..................................  RC272-00336                                  04/08/96
Rick Rush................................................  RJ272-9                                      04/11/96
Ricky Timmons Estate et al...............................  RK272-01106                                  04/08/96
Woods Research & Development Corp. et al.................  RK272-03328                                  04/11/96
                                                                                                                

Dismissals

    The following submissions were dismissed:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                     Name                               Case No.        
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air Ontario Limited..........................  RF272-98755              
Arundel Asphalt Products.....................  RD272-74858              
Arundel Asphalt Products, Inc................  RF272-74858              
Bouchard Transportation Co., Inc.............  RF272-74311              
Bouchard Transportation Co., Inc.............  RD272-74311              
Dianna McNew.................................  VFA-0146                 
Dispatch Distribution Line, Inc..............  RF272-77995              
Leotal, Inc. for Northeast Tool and            RG272-00102              
 Engineering.                                                           
Liberty Express..............................  RF272-98705              
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 96-23182 Filed 9-10-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P