[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 202 (Thursday, October 17, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 54191-54193]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-26597]


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


DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Office of Hearings and Appeals

Issuance of Decisions and Orders; Week of September 11 Through 
September 15, 1995
    During the week of September 11 through September 15, 1995, 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: October 7, 1996.
George B. Breznay,
Director, Office of Hearings and Appeals.

Decision List No. 937

Week of September 11 Through September 15, 1995

Appeals

Jeffrey R. Leist, 9/14/95, VFA-0069

    Jeffrey R. Leist filed an Appeal from a determination issued to him 
by the Manager of the Ohio Field Office partially denying a request for 
information filed by him pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act. 
The Manager had released copies of responsive documents, but had 
redacted all personal identifying information from them under Exemption 
6. In considering the Appeal, the DOE determined that the Manager 
inadvertently redacted Mr. Leist's own name from one of the responsive 
documents. Accordingly, the DOE directed the Manager to send to Mr. 
Leist a copy of this document, without a redaction of his name. Since 
the DOE determined that Exemption 6 was otherwise properly applied to 
the responsive documents, the Appeal was denied in all other respects.

Jeffrey R. Leist, 9/12/95, VFA-0071

    Jeffrey R. Leist filed an Appeal from a determination issued to him 
by the Ohio Field Office partially denying a request for information 
filed by him pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act. Specifically, 
the Manager released copies of responsive documents, but could not 
locate a letter Mr. Leist alleged was sent to him. In considering the 
Appeal, the DOE confirmed the existence of the responsive letter and 
remanded the case to the Manager to either release a copy of the letter 
or provide a detailed explanation as to why the letter is exempt from 
public disclosure.

State of Michigan, 9/15/95, VFA-0066

    The State of Michigan, filed an Appeal from a determination issued 
by the Freedom of Information and Privacy Act Division in response to a 
request it submitted under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). 
Michigan sought documents concerning the 1992-93 Presidential 
transition members and Cities Service Oil and Gas Corporation. It 
contended that additional responsive documents must exist. In 
considering the Appeal, the DOE found that the FOIA Division performed 
an adequate search for responsive documents. Accordingly, the Appeal 
was denied.

Personnel Security Hearing

Oak Ridge Operations Office, 9/15/95, VSO-0035

    A Hearing Officer from the Office of Hearings and Appeals issued an 
Opinion regarding the eligibility of an individual for access 
authorization under the provisions of 10 C.F.R. Part 710. The Hearing 
Officer found that: (i) the individual used cocaine and marijuana in 
the past and used cocaine after assuring the DOE in writing that he 
would not have any involvement with illegal drugs; (ii) the individual 
deliberately provided false information to the DOE on three separate 
occasions; (iii) the acts of the individual tend to show that the 
individual may use illegal drugs in the future and that the individual 
is not honest, reliable, or trustworthy; and (iv) the DOE's security 
concerns regarding these behaviors were not overcome by the evidence 
mitigating the derogatory information underlying the DOE's charges. 
Accordingly, the Hearing Officer found that the individual's access 
authorization should not be restored.

[[Page 54192]]

Refund Applications

Atlantic Richfield Company/Nicot Oils Co., Inc., 9/14/95, RF304-4883

    Nicot Oils Co., Inc. was denied a refund in the Atlantic Richfield 
Company special refund proceeding. After an investigation by the 
Inspector General's office, Mr. Nick Schnettler, the owner of Nicot, 
pled guilty to mail fraud regarding 16 applications he filed in the 
ARCO and Mobil Oil Company special refund proceedings. Because special 
refund proceedings are equitable proceedings and thus are subject to 
the equitable stricture against ``unclean hands,'' the Nicot Refund 
Application was denied.

Spag Realty Associates, et al., 9/11/95, RC272-00298, et al.

    A Supplemental Order was issued requiring Spag Realty Associates 
and three related firms to repay $9,909 to the DOE. These firms 
received duplicate refunds in the crude oil refund proceeding. The 
first set of applications was filed on the companies' behalf by 
Recovery Resources, a private filing service. The second set of 
applications was filed by the companies' accountant. Both sets of 
applications were granted based on the purchase volume figures provided 
in the applications. In the Supplemental Order, the DOE determined that 
the applications filed by Recovery Resources contained inaccurate and 
inflated purchase volume claims, and that the four firms were not 
entitled to refunds based on these purchase volume figures. The DOE 
also determined that the applications filed by the companies' 
accountant contained accurate purchase volume claims. The applicants 
would, therefore, have been eligible for supplemental crude oil refunds 
based on these applications. The DOE determined that the amount the 
firms will be required to remit should be reduced by the amount of the 
supplemental refunds they would have received. The Order also holds 
Recovery Resources jointly responsible for the repayment of the 
refunds.

Texaco Inc./Ryder Systems, Inc., 9/15/95, RF321-171

    A Motion for Reconsideration filed by Ryder System, Inc., was 
granted. Ryder had previously received the maximum refund available 
under the retailer/reseller medium-range presumption of injury. Ryder 
requested that it be permitted to benefit from the end-user presumption 
of injury by receiving an additional refund for products that it 
consumed rather than resold. The DOE determined that Ryder was entitled 
to an additional refund based only on those consumed gallons purchased 
by Ryder-owned companies whose operations were unrelated to Ryder's 
renting and leasing operations.

Texaco, Inc./Self Enterprises, 9/15/95, RR321-192

    Self Enterprises filed a Motion for Reconsideration in the Texaco 
Inc. special refund proceeding. Self had been granted a refund of 
$10,000 in the Texaco proceeding under the medium-range presumption of 
injury for the purchases of 13 outlets. See Texaco Inc./Tabba Oil, 23 
DOE ] 85,192 (1994). In its Motion, Self requested that Tabba be 
vacated in order that it may attempt to make an injury showing, or 
alternatively, that it be modified to include purchases of more gallons 
than were originally claimed. The DOE declined to consider any of these 
requests. Self had been put on notice by the DOE of the proposed 
disposition of its case, the time period to make objections to that 
disposition, and the February 28, 1994 deadline for filing applications 
in the Texaco proceeding, yet waited one and one-half years past that 
deadline to make its submission. The DOE determined that this delay was 
not excusable. Therefore, the Motion for Reconsideration was dismissed.

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...............  RB272-40                                     09/11/95
Doe Run Company et al....................................  RK272-151                                    09/12/95
Interstate Mushroom Co. et al............................  RF272-89291                                  09/11/95
Liberty Trucking Company.................................  RF272-78467                                  09/14/95
Navistar Internation Transportation Corp.................  RF272-77726                                  09/15/95
Nuclear Fuel Services, Inc...............................  RF272-91052                                  09/12/95
Spring Valley Farms of AL, Inc., et al...................  RF272-77533                                  09/14/95
Texaco Inc./Larmac Texaco, Inc...........................  RF321-20639                                  09/15/95
Texaco Service Station...................................  RF321-20745                            ..............
Texaco Inc./PEH Texaco...................................  RR321-190                                    09/15/95
Princeton Circle.........................................  RR321-191                              ..............
Texaco Inc./Temple & Temple Excavating & Paving, Inc.....  RF321-20456                                  09/14/95
Texaco Inc./Texaco #8/Self Enterprises...................  RF321-18534                                  09/15/95
Theodor Pick et al.......................................  RK272-74                                     09/15/95
                                                                                                                

Dismissals

    The following submissions were dismissed:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                     Name                               Case No.        
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gulf Coast Petroleum, Inc....................  RF321-20380              
Karnack Chemical Corporation.................  RF272-78133              
Laverne's Oil................................  RF272-89946              
Margaret Klunk VFA-0070......................                           
Newton County, MS............................  RF300-21591              
Southern Disposal, Inc.......................  RF272-99102              
Southern Disposal, Inc.......................  RF272-95216              
Virginia Concrete Company....................  RF272-78022              
------------------------------------------------------------------------



[[Page 54193]]

[FR Doc. 96-26597 Filed 10-16-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P