[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 25 (Tuesday, February 7, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 7189-7192]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-3017]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Notice of Issuance of Decisions and Orders; Week of October 17
Through October 21, 1994
During the week of October 17 through October 21, 1994 the
decisions and orders summarized below were issued with respect to
appeals and applications for other 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.
Appeals
Dale N. Treweek, 10/19/94, LFA-0423
Dale N. Treweek filed an appeal from a partial denial of a request
for information under the Freedom of Information Act issued by the
DOE's Office of Engineering, Operations, Security, and Transition
Support (EOST). In response to the request, EOST released some
documents and stated that it had found no further responsive documents.
After Treweek filed the Appeal, he conducted discussions with
representatives of the DOE that identified certain potentially
responsive documents that had not been released. The DOE therefore
granted the Appeal and remanded the case to EOST for further action.
[[Page 7190]] In Defense of Animals, 10/21/94, LFA-0424
In Defense of Animals (IDA) filed an Appeal from determinations by
the DOE's Freedom of Information (FOI) and Privacy Acts Branch and the
Nevada Operations Office. In the determinations, these DOE offices
stated that no documents could be found that were responsive to the
Request for Information which the firm had submitted under the Freedom
of Information Act. In considering the Appeal, the DOE found that the
search for responsive documents was inadequate, and the Request was
remanded to the FOI and Privacy Acts Branch for a further search. The
DOE's Decision was based on the fact that DOE documents pertaining to
IDA's request were mentioned in various publications.
Martha L. Powers, 10/17/94, LFA-0411
Martha L. Powers filed an Appeal from a determination issued to her
by the DOE's Nevada Operations Office (Nevada Operations) in response
to a Request for Information submitted under the Freedom of Information
Act (FOIA). In considering the Appeal, the DOE found that, with the
information available to it, Nevada Operations conducted an adequate
search for documents relating to George Egish, a civilian employee of
the Army who may have photographed atmospheric atomic explosion tests
during the 1940's and 1950's. After consulting with Mrs. Powers, Nevada
Operations and various DOE offices, the DOE determined that the agency
may be able to identify some responsive documents if she were to submit
a new request with additional identifying information. Nevada
Operations personnel indicated their willingness to work with Mrs.
Powers to refine any new search request she might make. Accordingly,
the Appeal was denied.
Painters District Council No. 55, 10/18/94, LFA-0422
Painters District Council No. 55 (PDC) filed an Appeal from a
determination issued by the DOE's Bonneville Power Administration
(BPA), which determination denied in part a Request for Information PDC
submitted under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). PDC requested
documents relating to BPA's procurement of a painting services
contract, including all proposals, the final contract and documents
generated by BPA in the course of the procurement process. BPA released
redacted copies of the final contract, a document entitled ``Document
of Award Decision'' (Decision), and the proposals (Proposals). However,
BPA withheld the ``Best Buy Analysis'' and the Analysis of Offers and
portions of the Contract, Proposals and Decision pursuant to FOIA
Exemptions 4 and 5. In its Appeal, PDC argued that BPA had improperly
withheld that material and had failed to provide additional responsive
documents. In considering the Appeal, the DOE determined that the unit
prices and individual components of unit prices were properly withheld
under Exemption 4. However, the DOE found that other portions of the
Best Buy Analysis and the Proposals were improperly withheld under
Exemption 4. Additionally, the DOE found that portions of the Decision
and the Analysis of Offers were improperly withheld pursuant to
Exemption 5. The DOE also found that BPA had made an adequate search in
response to PDC's FOIA request. Consequently, the DOE granted the
Appeal in part and remanded the matter to BPA for further action.
U.A. Plumbers and Pipefitters Local 36, 10/17/94, LFA-0421
U.A. Plumbers and Pipefitters Local 36 (Local 36) filed an Appeal
from a determination issued to it on September 16, 1994, by the DOE's
Idaho Operations Office. In that determination, the Authorizing
Official denied a request for a waiver of fees in connection with a
request filed by Local 36 under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA),
5 U.S.C. 552, as implemented by the DOE in 10 CFR Part 1004. The
Authorizing Official advised Local 36 that the cost of processing its
request would be approximately $156,255. In its Appeal, Local 36 asked
that the Office of Hearings and Appeals (OHA) reverse the initial
determination, and grant it a fee waiver. In considering the Appeal,
the OHA found that although disclosure of the requested information was
in the commercial interest of Local 36, a partial reduction of fees was
appropriate because the requested information will primarily benefit
the general public. The OHA determined that it would be appropriate to
reduce the charges assessed Local 36 by 75 percent. Therefore, the
Appeal was granted in part.
Requests for Exception
Brindley Oil Co., 10/21/94, LEE-0123
Brindley Oil Company (Brindley) filed an Application for Exception
from the Energy Information Administration (EIA) requirement that it
file Form EIA-782B, the ``Resellers'/Retailers' Monthly Petroleum
Product Sales Report.'' In considering this request, the DOE found that
the firm was suffering a gross inequity and a serious hardship. The DOE
issued a final Decision and Order determining that the exception
request should be granted.
Carter Oil Company, 10/19/94, LEE-0100
Carter Oil Company (Carter) filed an Application for Exception from
the provisions of the Energy Information Administration (EIA) reporting
requirements in which the firm sought relief from filing Form EIA-782B,
entitled ``Resellers'/Retailers' Monthly Petroleum Product Sales
Report.'' The DOE determined that Carter did not meet the standards for
exception relief because it was not experiencing a serious hardship or
gross inequity as a result of the reporting requirements. Accordingly,
exception relief was denied.
Chambers Oil Company, 10/17/94, LEE-0116
Chambers Oil Company (Chambers) filed an Application for Exception
from the provisions of the Energy Information Administration (EIA)
reporting requirements in which the firm sought relief from filing Form
EIA-782B, entitled ``Resellers'/Retailers' Monthly Petroleum Product
Sales Report.'' The DOE determined that Chambers did not meet the
standards for exception relief because it was not experiencing a
serious hardship or gross inequity as a result of the reporting
requirements. Accordingly, exception relief was denied.
Ewing Oil Company, 10/17/94, LEE-0084
Ewing Oil Company filed an Application for Exception from the
Energy Information Administration (EIA) requirement that it file Form
EIA-782B, the ``Resellers'/Retailers' Monthly Petroleum Product Sales
Report.'' In considering Ewing's request, the DOE found that the firm,
which the EIA characterized as a ``certainty firm'' because of its
significant market share, was not experiencing a serious hardship or a
gross inequity. Accordingly, exception relief was denied.
Petroleum Products, Inc., 10/17/94, LEE-0087
Petroleum Products, Inc., filed an Application for Exception from
the Energy Information Administration (EIA) requirement that it file
Form EIA-782B, the ``Resellers'/Retailers' Monthly Petroleum Product
Sales Report.'' In considering this request, the DOE found that the
firm was not suffering a gross inequity or serious hardship, and denied
Petroleum Product's Application for Exception.
Texpar Energy, Inc., 10/18/94, LEE-0119
[[Page 7191]] Texpar Energy, Inc., filed an Application for
Exception from the Energy Information Administration (EIA) requirement
that it file Form EIA-782B, the ``Resellers'/Retailers' Monthly
Petroleum Product Sales Report,'' and Form EIA-782C, the ``Monthly
Report of Prime Supplier Sales of Petroleum Products Sold for Local
Consumption.'' In considering this request, the DOE found that the firm
was not suffering a gross inequity or serious hardship, and denied
Texpar's Application for Exception.
Refund Applications
Draper Energy Co., Inc., 10/18/94, RF272-92349
The DOE issued a Decision and Order concerning the Application for
Refund of a claimant in the Subpart V crude oil overcharge refund
proceeding. The Application for Refund was based on purchases of
gasoline and middle distillates the applicant purchased and resold
during the crude oil price control refund period. The DOE determined
that the applicant's sales of gasoline and middle distillates allowed
it to pass on the costs of any crude oil overcharges to its customers.
Therefore, the DOE concluded that the claimant was not injured by any
of the crude oil overcharges associated with the gallons that it
purchased. Accordingly, the Application for Refund was denied.
Gulf Oil Corporation/Huber's 4 Corners Store, 10/19/94, RF300-10925
Huber's 4 Corners Store filed an Application for Refund in the Gulf
Oil Corporation refund proceeding. Huber's requested a refund based on
its indirect purchases of Gulf motor gasoline. The DOE noted that an
indirect purchaser is not entitled to a refund where the direct
purchaser demonstrates that it absorbed the alleged overcharges rather
than passing them through to its customers. Because the direct
purchaser had established that it absorbed the alleged Gulf
overcharges, the DOE determined that Huber's was not entitled to a
refund. Accordingly, the Application for Refund was denied.
Texaco Inc./Loop's Airport Texaco, 10/17/94, RR321-167
The DOE issued a Decision and Order partially granting a Motion for
Reconsideration filed by Bert N. Loop on behalf of Loop's Airport
Texaco. In his Motion, Mr. Loop asked that the DOE modify a
Supplemental Order issued on July 20, 1994, Texaco Inc./Loop's Airport
Texaco, 24 DOE 85,061 (1994), which ordered him to repay a portion of
a refund that he had previously been granted in the Texaco special
refund proceeding. Mr. Loop requested that he not be required to pay
interest on the excess amount of the refund between the date the refund
was issued and the date of repayment. Mr. Loop also requested that he
not be held responsible for that portion of the excessive refund that
he paid to Federal Refunds, Inc. (FRI), the private company with whom
he contracted to help him obtain his refund. In considering these
requests, the DOE determined that it was partially responsible for the
error that resulted in Mr. Loop's receiving an excessive refund, and it
therefore decided that Mr. Loop would not be required to pay interest
on the repayment. However, the DOE determined that since any agreement
between FRI and Mr. Loop was a private matter between the two parties,
it would not reduce his repayment obligation to the DOE.
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.
Cox Construction Co. et al..................................................... RF272-86255 10/20/94
Dahlen Farmers Elevator & Oil Company et al.................................... RF272-94775 10/20/94
Farmers Union Oil Co. of Minot................................................. RF272-86878 10/21/94
Gulf Oil Corporation/O.S.T. & Kirby............................................ RF300-20580 10/18/94
Westheimer & Kirby............................................................. RF300-20581 ...........
Fannin Gulf.................................................................... RF300-20582 ...........
Spencer & Allen Genoa.......................................................... RF300-20583 ...........
Gulf Oil Corporation/Sylvester's Crill & Palm Ave.............................. RF300-21801 10/17/94
Sylvester's Crill & Palm Ave................................................... RF300-21802 ...........
Sylvester's Crill & Palm Ave................................................... RF300-21803 ...........
Sylvester's Crill & Palm Ave................................................... RF300-21804 ...........
Lanford Flying Service et al................................................... RF272-94809 10/20/94
Texaco Inc./Curtis Beard et al................................................. RF321-14018 10/19/94
Texaco Inc./ Stewart's Texaco et al............................................ RF321-20605 10/20/94
Village of Lyons et al......................................................... RF272-97204 10/17/94
[[Page 7192]]
Dismissals
The following submissions were dismissed:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Name Case No.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
14 Mile 7 Gratiot Service............................ RF321-21032
Clinchfield Railroad................................. RF272-93753
O/T/S/ Oil Co., Inc.,................................ RF300-21719
William J. Miles..................................... RF272-89769
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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, 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: January 30, 1995.
George B. Breznay,
Director, Office of Hearings and Appeals.
[FR Doc. 95-3017 Filed 2-6-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
