[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
