[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 39 (Tuesday, February 27, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 7255-7257]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-4408]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Notice of Issuance of Decisions and Orders by the Office of
Hearings and Appeals; Week of August 21 through August 25, 1995
During the week of August 21 through August 25, 1995 the decisions
and orders summarized below were issued with respect to applications
for other relief filed with the Office of Hearings and Appeals of the
Department of Energy. The following summary also
[[Page 7256]]
contains a list of submissions that were dismissed by the Office of
Hearings and Appeals.
Appeal
Murray, Jacobs & Abel, 8/22/94, VFA-0061
The DOE's Office of Inspector General (OIG) requested
reconsideration of a July 1995 Decision and Order issued to Murray,
Jacobs & Abel (MJ&A), Case No. VFA-0050. That Decision remanded a
Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to the OIG for a new
determination pursuant to Exemption 7(A) of the FOIA, and consistent
with Albuquerque Journal, 22 DOE para. 80,148 (1992). The OIG argued
that under federal court decisions the government met its burden if it
demonstrated that release of the types of documents at issue could
reasonably be expected to interfere with enforcement proceedings
generally and that the government need not make a particularized
showing of harm with respect to the enforcement proceeding at issue.
Upon reconsideration, the DOE agreed and overturned the Albuquerque
decision to the extent that it required such a particularized showing.
Refund Applications
GS Roofing Products Company, Inc., 8/23/95, RF272-93215
The DOE issued a Decision and Order granting an Application for
Refund filed by GS Roofing Products Company, Inc. in the Subpart V
crude oil refund proceeding. The DOE determined that in addition to
GS's asphalt products, slate oil was a covered product eligible for a
refund because it was made from napthenic crude oil and came from a
refinery. The refund granted to GS in this Decision was $378,610.
Standard Oil Co. (Indiana)/Nebraska, 8/23/95, RM251-295
The DOE issued a Decision and Order granting a Motion for
Modification of a previously-approved refund plan filed by the State of
Nebraska in the Standard Oil Co. (Indiana) second stage refund
proceeding. Nebraska requested permission to reallocate $50,000 in
previously disbursed Amoco II monies to the business sector of the
Dollar and Energy Saving Loan Program. The program is a revolving loan
program that provides low interest loans to Nebraska citizens for
energy efficiency improvements to homes, businesses, farms, local
government structures, and rural nursing homes. In accordance with a
prior Decision that approved the use of second stage funds for the
program, the DOE granted Nebraska's Motion.
Texaco Inc./Gasolinera Melendez, Inc., 8/23/95, RR321-180
The DOE issued a Decision and Order concerning a Motion for
Reconsideration regarding an Application for Refund filed by Gasolinera
Melendez, Inc. (GM) filed in the Texaco Inc. special refund proceeding.
GM's Application for Refund had been dismissed in a prior Decision
because its Application had been submitted to the DOE several months
after the February 28, 1994 final deadline for the Texaco proceeding.
In the prior Decision, the DOE rejected GM's arguments that the lack of
notice given to applicants in Puerto Rico about the existence of the
Texaco refund proceeding constituted a compelling reason to process its
application. In its Motion for Reconsideration, GM argued again that
Puerto Rican retailers had little knowledge concerning the Texaco
proceeding while retailers in the 50 States had much more notice about
the proceeding and that this disparity was fundamentally unfair and
constituted an equitable consideration favoring the processing of its
application. The DOE held that retailers in Puerto Rico had the
opportunity to learn about the existence of the Texaco proceeding since
proper Notices were published in the Federal Register regarding the
establishment of the Texaco proceeding and that many retailers in the
United States also did not receive actual notice. The DOE found that
any disparity in notice provided to Puerto Rican retailers was not a
sufficient equitable consideration sufficient to warrant processing
GM's application since the DOE, in consideration of this disparity,
accepted applications from Puerto Rico retailers received in the month
of March 1994. The DOE also rejected GM's claim that processing its
claim after the final deadline would cause no harm to the refund
process. Because DOE found that GM had presented no equitable
consideration meriting the processing of its Application for Refund,
GM's Motion for Reconsideration was dismissed.
Texaco Inc./Pea Ridge Iron Ore Co., Inc., 8/23/95, RF321-8850
The DOE issued a Decision and Order concerning an Application for
Refund filed in the Texaco Inc. special refund proceeding. Pea Ridge
Iron Ore Co., Inc. (Pea Ridge) applied for a refund based upon direct
Texaco purchases made by another corporation, Meramec Mining Co. In
support of its application, Pea Ridge argued that it was entitled to
Meramec's refund by virtue of the fact that Meramec was wholly owned
subsidiary of St. Joe Mineral Corporation (St. Joe) which dissolved
Meramec and transferred all of its assets and facilities to another
wholly owned corporation it created, Pea Ridge. The DOE held that Pea
Ridge was created by St. Joe to continue the business operations of the
prior dissolved corporation, Meramec, and that since St. Joe owned all
of the outstanding stock of both Meramec and Pea Ridge, the entire
transaction was simply a change in corporate form rather than a true
ownership change. Consequently, the DOE held that, given the above
transaction, Meramec's right to a refund was transferred to Pea Ridge.
The DOE approved a refund for Pea Ridge totalling $24,875, representing
$16,669 in principal plus $8,206 in interest.
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.
Atlantic Richfield Company/Maple Canyon Arco et al....... RF304-13663 08/23/95
Bethel Utilities Corporation............................. RF272-2638 08/23/95
Enron Corp./Kay & Herring Gas Company.................... RF340-132 08/23/95
Texaco Inc./Arroyo Service Station....................... RF321-21069 08/23/95
Texaco Inc./Dravo Corp. et al............................ RF321-18353 08/23/95
Texaco Inc./Red Carpet Car Wash.......................... RF321-7893 08/23/95
Tom Inman Trucking, Inc.................................. RK272-239 08/23/95
Boss-Linco Lines, Inc.................................... RK272-240 ..............
Uniroyal Technology Corp................................. RF272-97573 08/23/95
[[Page 7257]]
Dismissals
The following submissions were dismissed:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Name Case No.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Clarke County, Virginia...................... RF272-86668
Mort Hall Aviation........................... RF304-15150
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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, S.W.,
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. 96-4408 Filed 2-26-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
