[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 39 (Tuesday, February 27, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 7257-7258]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-4409]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Notice of Issuance of Decisions and Orders by the Office of
Hearings and Appeals; Week of August 14 through August 18, 1995
During the week of August 14 through August 18, 1995 the decisions
and orders summarized below were issued with respect to applications
for 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
Greg Long, 8/15/95, VFA-0060
Greg Long filed an Appeal from a determination issued to him by the
Office of Public Affairs of the DOE's Albuquerque Operations Office in
response to a Request for Information submitted under the Freedom of
Information Act (FOIA). In that determination, the Albuquerque
Operations Office had withheld under the Exemption 5 ``deliberative
process privilege'' a draft of a never-finalized or issued report
investigating a mysterious ``hum'' reported in and around Taos, New
Mexico. In considering the Appeal, the DOE found that the Albuquerque
Operations Office had not determined whether the document contained
deliberative material. In addition, the DOE had not determined whether
the document contained segregable non-exempt material or whether the
document qualified for withholding under the standard articulated in
the October 1993 Memorandum of Attorney General Janet Reno concerning
the FOIA. Accordingly, the Appeal was granted in part, denied in part,
and remanded to the Albuquerque Operations Office for a new
determination in accordance with the guidance set forth in the Decision
and Order.
Personnel Security Hearing
Rocky Flats Field Office, 8/14/95, VSO-0027
An Office of Hearings and Appeals Hearing Officer issued an opinion
concerning the eligibility of an individual for access authorization
under 10 CFR Part 710, ``Criteria and Procedures for Determining
Eligibility for Access to Classified Matter or Special Nuclear
Material.'' After considering the record in view of the standards set
forth in Part 710, the Hearing Officer found that the individual
adequately demonstrated rehabilitation from a history of alcohol abuse.
Accordingly, the Hearing Officer found that the individual's access
authorization should be granted.
Refund Applications
Enron Corp./Ozona Butane Company, Inc., Bob's L.P. Gas, Inc., B.F.
Goodrich Chemical Group, 8/16/95, RF340-58, RF340-110, RF340-144
The DOE issued a Decision and Order concerning refund applications
that Ozona Butane Company, Inc. (Ozona), Bob's LP Gas, Inc. (Bob's),
and B.F. Goodrich Chemical Group (GCG) had submitted in the Enron
Corporation (Enron) special refund proceeding. The DOE found that Ozona
and Bob's were retailers of Enron products who qualified for refunds
under the small claim presumption of injury. However, both firms
purchased Enron product indirectly through Gartman Butane Company, Inc.
(Gartman). The DOE collected information from Gartman in order to
determine the portion of Gartman purchases by Ozona and Bob's that were
Enron products. The DOE found that GCG used Enron propane as a
feedstock to produce vinyl, and therefore that GCG was entitled to a
refund for its purchases from Enron under the presumption of injury for
end-users of Enron products. The total refund granted to Ozona, Bob's
and GCG, including interest, is $10,914.
General Electric Company, 8/16/95, RF272-25357, RD272-25357
The DOE issued a Decision and Order granting an Application for
Refund filed by General Electric Company (GE), a large diversified
industrial corporation, in the Subpart V crude oil refund proceeding. A
group of States and Territories (States) objected to the application on
the grounds that the applicant was able to pass through increased
petroleum costs to its customers. Noting that the applicant did
business in many markets, the States contended that a claim of 100%
absorption of overcharges by a conglomerate such as GE is not
reasonable. The DOE determined that the evidence offered by the States
was insufficient to rebut the presumption of end-user injury. The DOE
also denied the States' Motion for Discovery, finding that discovery
was not warranted where the States had not presented evidence
sufficient to rebut the applicant's presumption of injury. In addition,
the DOE found that GE's purchases of ethane, chlorobenzene, acetic
anhydride, polypropylene, isopropanol, isoproply alcohol, methyl,
cellosolve, cresylic acid, phenol, acetone, cumene, styrene, EPON 828/
829, tetra-bromo bisphenol, and butadiene were not eligible for a crude
oil refund. Finally, the DOE considered the validity of a waiver of the
right to a crude oil refund filed in the Stripper Well Surface
Transporters (ST) proceeding on behalf of RCA Corporation, which had
been acquired by GE in a merger completed on June 9, 1986. The DOE
found that where a dismissed ST application had not been filed by an
authorized representative, the waiver had not been validly executed,
and, therefore, the claimant had not waived its right to a Subpart V
refund. The refund granted to the applicant in this Decision was
$2,536,874.
Texaco Inc./ J.E. Meintzer & Sons, Inc., 8/15/95, RF321-4048
The DOE issued a Decision and Order in the Texaco Inc. special
refund proceeding concerning J.E. Meintzer &
[[Page 7258]]
Sons, Inc. (J.E. Meintzer & Sons), a direct purchaser of Texaco
products. The DOE had previously determined that the purchase volumes
of refund claims filed by affiliated firms should be combined in order
to determine one allocable share for the applicants. In the instant
case, a substantial amount of common ownership interest existed
previously between J.E. Meintzer & Sons and two other companies which
have been granted refunds in the Texaco proceeding. Nonetheless, the
DOE determined that because the degree of this common ownership has
been dramatically decreased, none of the involved companies are
currently affiliated to a degree that would result in windfall benefits
to a single corporate entity or shareholder. Thus, the DOE found that
J.E. Meintzer & Sons' refund should not be reduced by the refunds
granted the other two firms.
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/Brookvale Arco et al.......... RF304-14096 08/16/95
Bloomer Coop Feeds et al................................. RF272-86665 08/16/95
Crude Oil Supplemental Refund Distribution............... RB272-8 08/15/95
Crude Oil Supplemental Refund Distribution............... RB272-43 08/15/95
Crude Oil Supplemental Refund Distribution............... RB272-42 08/15/95
Crude Oil Supplemental Refund Distribution............... RB272-39 08/15/95
Crude Oil Supplemental Refund Distribution............... RB272-37 08/15/95
Deback Cartage Company................................... RF272-97087 08/15/95
Dryer and Geodecke, Inc.................................. RA272-71 08/16/95
Elmer Bowerman et al..................................... RK272-424 08/15/95
Federal Reserve Bank of New York et al................... RF272-90224 08/16/95
J.L. Anderson Co., Inc. et al............................ RF272-77264 08/16/95
Leboeouf Brothers Towing Company, Inc.................... RF272-69366 08/16/95
Leboeouf Brothers Towing Company, Inc.................... RD272-69366
Monroe County Commission et al........................... RF272-97541 08/16/95
Ranson Farmers Coop Union et al.......................... RF272-97161 08/16/95
Texaco Inc./Kelly's Food Store et al..................... RF321-19433 08/16/95
Texaco Inc./Ray's Texaco................................. RF321-20416 08/15/95
Cunningham's Texaco...................................... RF321-20691
Texaco Inc./Villa Street Service Station................. RF321-20724 08/16/95
International Harvester.................................. RF321-20755
Webster School District et al............................ RF272-95425 08/16/95
Dismissals
The following submissions were dismissed:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Name Case No.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
City of Villa Park, CA....................... RF272-86154
Robert Hawthorne, Inc........................ RF272-86818
Silsbee Butane Company....................... RF304-15155
Thomas Fredrich.............................. RF304-15146
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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, DC. 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. 96-4409 Filed 2-26-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
