[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 85 (Wednesday, May 3, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 21799-21801]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-10900]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Notice of Issuance of Decisions and Orders; Week of March 13
Through March 17, 1995
During the week of March 13 through March 17, 1995, the decisions
and orders summarized below were issued with respect to appeals and
applications for exception or 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
Casey O. Ruud, 3/16/95, VFA-0027
Casey O. Ruud filed an Appeal from a partial denial by the Richland
Operations Office of a Request for Information which he had submitted
under the Freedom of Information Act. The Richland Operations Office
had released copies of two letters that were requested, but had
withheld the identity of the writer. In considering the Appeal, the DOE
found that the writer's name and address were properly withheld under
Exemption 6 of the FOIA.
Robert S. Foote, 3/16/95, VFA-0024
Robert S. Foote filed an Appeal from a determination issued to him
on January 18, 1995 by the Acting Associate Director for Health and
Environmental Research (OHER) in the Office of Energy Research of the
Department of Energy (DOE). In that determination, the OHER denied in
part a request for information filed by Mr. Foote on July 26, 1994,
under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). The OHER released certain
items requested by Mr. Foote. However, it withheld other items either
in their entirety or in part pursuant to 5 U.S.C. Sec. 552(b)(5)
(Exemption 5). In his Appeal, Mr. Foote challenged the OHER's
application of Exemption 5 to the requested information and requested
that the DOE direct the OHER to release the withheld information. In
considering the Appeal, the Office of Hearings and Appeals found that
although in the past it has analyzed this kind of information under the
deliberative process privilege of Exemption 5, it is more appropriate
to apply FOIA Exemption 6 to the withheld information. The Office of
Hearings and Appeals remanded this Appeal to the OHER to either release
the withheld information or prepare a new determination that explains
in detail the reasons which justify withholding the information under
Exemption 6. [[Page 21800]] Therefore, the Department of Energy granted
in part and denied in part Mr. Foote's Appeal.
Request for Exception
Visa Petroleum, Inc., 3/15/95, LEE-0096
Visa Petroleum, Inc., filed an Application for Exception from the
requirement that it file Form EIA-782B, the ``Reseller's/Retailer's
Monthly Petroleum Product Sales Report.'' The applicant submitted
evidence that for the last two years, it had lost $10,000 per year. In
addition, the wife of the owner, who had been completing the forms, had
recently been diagnosed as having cancer. Under these circumstances,
the DOE found that the requirement that the firm submit the reports
constituted a serious hardship. Accordingly, the firm's Application for
Exception was granted.
Refund Applications
Shell Oil Company/Briggs Transportation Company, Texaco Inc./Briggs
Transportation Company, 3/16/95, RR315-13, RR321-175
The DOE issued a Decision and Order denying a Motion for
Reconsideration filed by LK, Inc. (LK), a filing service. In an earlier
Decision, the DOE had rescinded two refunds granted to a bankrupt
company, Briggs Transportation Company (Briggs) in the Shell Oil
Company and Texaco Inc. special refund proceedings. In that Decision,
the DOE also ordered the filing service which had filed the
Applications, LK, to repay its commissions which it had subtracted from
the refunds. In its Motion for Reconsideration, LK argued that DOE does
not possess the necessary authority to order the filing service to
repay these funds. LK also argued that even if DOE possesses this
authority, LK was still entitled to retain its commissions. In its
Decision, the DOE found that it possesses the necessary authority to
govern the conduct of those filing claims in its Subpart V proceedings,
including filing services. It further found that the restitutionary
purposes of the Petroleum Overcharge Distribution and Restitution Act
of 1986 would not be served by permitting a filing service to recover a
fee for an application in which the refund had been rescinded. Finally,
the Decision noted that even under general common law principles, the
filing service would not be entitled under its contingency fee
arrangement with Briggs to recover a commission unless Briggs received
a refund, and that Briggs cannot be considered to have received a
refund which has been rescinded. Therefore, LK's Motion for
Reconsideration was denied.
Texaco Inc./Airport Texaco, 3/17/95, RR321-147, RF321-21060
The DOE issued a Decision and Order granting a Motion for
Reconsideration filed by Ben A. Story on behalf of Airport Texaco and
rescinding a portion of a refund previously granted to John M. Locklier
on behalf of the same station. Documents and statements submitted by
both applicants demonstrated that a portion of Mr. Locklier's previous
refund was based on purchases made by Airport Texaco when Mr. Story was
the sole proprietor of that business, and that another portion of Mr.
Locklier's refund was based on purchases made by the station during a
period in which Airport Texaco was operated as a limited partnership of
the two men. The limited partnership arrangement at Airport Texaco
entitled Mr. Locklier to a specific amount from the outlet's profits,
with the balance of the profits, if any, distributed to Mr. Story.
Accordingly, DOE determined that dividing the refund money in the same
proportions as the profits were divided was the most equitable solution
in this case. Accordingly, the DOE issued a Decision and Order granting
Mr. Story a refund and rescinding a portion of the refund granted to
Mr. Locklier in Texaco, Case Nos. RF321-3311 et al. (May 26, 1992).
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/Green Run Arco et al............................... RF304-14741........ 03/15/95
Atlantic Richfield Company/Shelton Butane Co., Inc. et al..................... RF304-13487........ 03/15/95
Clark Oil & Refining Corp./Lansing Ice & Fuel Company......................... RF342-6............ 03/13/95
Rollins Oil Company........................................................... RF342-9............ ...........
Clark Oil & Refining Corp./Oakley & Oldfield, Inc............................. RF342-311.......... 03/13/95
Cross Winds Transport, Inc.................................................... RF272-91991........ 03/15/95
Gulf Oil Corporation/Crawford Garden Supplies, Inc............................ RF300-21572........ 03/13/95
Crawford Garden Supplies, Inc................................................. RF300-21824........ ...........
Crawford Garden Supplies, Inc................................................. RF300-21825........ ...........
Minnesota Power............................................................... RF272-97260........ 03/15/95
Shell Oil Company/Loiza Valley Shell Service Station.......................... RR315-8............ 03/15/95
Sigmor Corporation............................................................ RF272-93888........ 03/13/95
Texaco Inc./Evan's Valley Texaco et al........................................ RF321-20402........ 03/16/95
Texaco Inc./Phillips Texaco et al............................................. RF321-20208........ 03/15/95
Dismissals
The following submissions were dismissed:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Name Case No.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
A&L Texaco.......................................... RF321-18601
City of Canton...................................... RF272-85687
City of Clarkston................................... RF272-85667
City of Warrington.................................. RF272-85806
Dejong Service...................................... RF272-94053
Frank Kovac's Texaco Service........................ RF321-05529
Hendersonville Police Dept.......................... RF272-94111
Interstate Texaco................................... RF321-20737
Lewis County........................................ RF272-85814
[[Page 21801]]
Mullis Petroleum Co................................. RF321-20635
Read's Service Station.............................. RF300-21680
Richland Parish..................................... RF272-85808
Roosevelt County.................................... RF272-85784
Town of Manlius..................................... RF272-85818
Tri-Gas & Oil Co., Inc.............................. RF321-20657
Venable, Baetjer, and Howard, LLP................... VFA-0028
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: April 27, 1995.
George B. Breznay,
Director, Office of Hearings and Appeals.
[FR Doc. 95-10900 Filed 5-2-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
