[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 117 (Monday, June 20, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-14957]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: June 20, 1994]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Notice of Issuance of Decisions and Orders by the Office of
Hearings and Appeals, Week of March 28 Through April 1, 1994
During the week of March 28 through April 1, 1994, 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.
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: June 13, 1994.
George B. Breznay,
Director, Office of Hearings and Appeals.
Appeal
Cowles Publishing Company, 3/30/94, LFA-0360
Cowles Publishing Company (Cowles) filed an Appeal from a partial
denial by the DOE's Richland Operations Office of a Request for
Information which the firm had submitted under the Freedom of
Information Act (the FOIA). In considering the Appeal, the DOE found
that it was unable to render a determination on the threshold issue of
whether the withheld documents constituted ``agency records'' for
purposes of the FOIA. Accordingly, the DOE remanded the matter to the
Richland Operations Office with instructions to investigate and review
the matter further and to consider several relevant inquiries raised by
Cowles on Appeal.
Requests for Exception
Marbob Energy Corporation, 3/28/94, LEE-0066
Marbob Energy Corporation (Marbob) filed an Application for
Exception from the requirement that it file Form EIA-23, the ``Annual
Survey of Domestic Oil and Gas Reserves.'' Marbob claimed that it
lacked the necessary technical personnel to provide the information
requested in Form EIA-23. In considering the request, the DOE found
that there were no technical personnel required to complete the form
other than those already employed by Marbob. The DOE also concluded
that the firm was not suffering a serious hardship and was not
adversely affected by the reporting requirement in a way that was
significantly different from the burden borne by similar reporting
firms. Therefore, the DOE denied Marbob's Application for Exception.
Ward Oil Co., 3/29/94, LEE-0088
Ward Oil Co. (Ward) filed an Application for Exception from the
provisions of the Energy Information Administration (EIA) reporting
requirements which the firm sought relief from filing Form EIA-782B,
entitled ``Resellers'/Retailers' Monthly Petroleum Product Sales
Report.'' In considering the request, the DOE found that the firm was
suffering a gross inequity due to the long illness and death of the
firm's office manager. Accordingly, the DOE determined that the
exception request be granted in part and that Ward should be removed
from the survey from March 1994 through December 1994.
Refund Applications
Atlantic Richfield Company/Phoenix Steel Corporation, 3/29/94, RF304-
12974
The DOE issued a Decision and Order denying an Application for
Refund filed by LK, Inc., on behalf of Phoenix Steel Corporation in the
Atlantic Richfield Company Subpart V special refund proceeding. The
Phoenix Steel Application was denied because LK, Inc. failed to show it
was authorized to represent Phoenix Steel and the DOE was unable to
contact Phoenix Steel or an employee of the company.
Atlantic Richfield Company/Small's Garage, et al., 4/1/94, RF304-4881
DOE issued a Decision and Order concerning six Applications for
Refund filed in the Atlantic Richfield Company (ARCO) special refund
proceeding. The DOE determined that the refund claims be denied,
because the individual who filed the Applications, Nic Schnettler,
admitted that they were fraudulent. After pleading guilty to mail
fraud, Mr. Schnettler was sentenced to two years probation and ordered
to pay $7,000 in restitution by the United States District Court for
the Northern District of Illinois. Although the ARCO proceeding was
closed on December 3, 1993, five of the six Applicants were given
thirty days from the date of the Decision to file Applications on their
own in the ARCO proceeding. The other Applicant has an Application
pending.
Gulf Oil Corp./New York Telephone Co., 3/30/94, RR300-256
The DOE issued a Decision and Order denying a Motion for
Reconsideration filed by Resource Refunds, Inc. (RRI) in the Gulf Oil
Corp. special refund proceeding on behalf of New York Telephone Company
(NYT). RRI, in filing the Motion, requested that the DOE reverse its
earlier decisions dismissing NYT's Application for Refund because it
was filed after the final filing deadline in the Gulf Oil Corp. special
refund proceeding. RRI further alleged that certain staff members of
the DOE were prejudiced against RRI and that the prejudice influenced
the DOE's decision to dismiss NYT's Application for Refund and deny
NYT's first Motion for Reconsideration. The DOE, as a discretionary
matter, reviewed the Motion and determined that it should be denied.
The DOE found that RRI had presented no new information or compelling
reason that warranted reversing the previous decisions. The DOE also
found RRI's allegations of bias to be unfounded.
Murphy Construction Co., et al., 3/28/94, RF272-91456
The DOE issued a Decision and Order granting seven Applications for
Refund filed in the crude oil refund proceeding. This Decision and
Order incorporated simplified language as part of an ongoing attempt to
improve service to the DOE's stakeholders and customers. With respect
to one application, the DOE noted that the applicant had included
purchases of asphalt concrete. The DOE held that asphalt concrete did
not qualify as a covered product and therefore reduced the applicant's
gallonage to reflect the exclusion of asphalt concrete.
Standard Oil Co. (Amoco)/Indiana, 3/29/94, RM21-265
The State of Indiana filed a Motion for Modification of a
previously-approved second-stage refund plan. The Motion, if granted,
would allow the State to use $123,750 of Amoco monies to fund its Fuel
Saver Van Program. Under Indiana's proposal, up to three vans
containing automobile diagnostic equipment will travel to thirty cities
in the State of Indiana. The equipment in the vans will be used to
inspect motorists' vehicles free of charge. Once an analysis is
completed, each motorist will be given a detailed description of all
items inspected and their condition. The analyses will focus on
problems affecting excess gasoline consumption and vehicle emissions.
The State predicts that the Program will help injured consumers improve
the energy efficiency of their automobiles and save them money by
reducing the amount of fuel they consume. The $123,750 that Indiana
proposes to use for this program has not previously been allocated to
another program. However, since Indiana had not been reflecting in its
oil overcharge account all of the interest earned on Amoco monies
previously transferred to it, the State itself has supplied $123,750
which would have been the total amount of interest earned on Amoco
monies received by the State, but was not previously posted to its
account. The DOE has previously approved funds for state support of the
Fuel Saver Van Program. Accordingly, the Motion for Modification was
granted.
Texaco Inc./J.H. Rose Truck Line, Inc., 4/1/94, RF321-19063
LK, Inc. filed an Application for Refund on behalf of First
Interstate Bank of Texas (First Interstate), requesting a refund based
on purchases of Texaco petroleum products made by J.H. Rose Truck Line
(Rose). The Application stated that First Interstate was a secured
creditor in Rose's bankruptcy proceeding. In considering this request,
the DOE found that First Interstate had not demonstrated that it had a
clear and undisputed right to Rose's Texaco refund. Accordingly, the
DOE issued a Decision and Order denying the Application for Refund
filed on behalf of First Interstate.
Texaco Inc./M & M Transportation Co., 4/1/94, RR321-150
LK, Inc. filed a Motion for Reconsideration of a Decision and Order
that had denied its Application for Refund in the Texaco refund
proceeding with respect to purchases made by M & M Transportation
Company (M&M), a bankrupt firm. The DOE determined that the Motion did
not present any compelling reason to reconsider the earlier decision.
Specifically, the DOE found that the purported assignment of M&M's
right to a Texaco refund to LK in the course of the bankruptcy
proceeding did not meet the strict standard adopted for approving such
assignments in the precedential case of Gulf Oil Corp./Spector Red
Ball, Inc., 23 DOE 85,011 (1993). The DOE further found that there was
no reason for applying a more lenient standard in this case since the
assignment did not expressly convey the right to apply for a product
refund in the Texaco proceeding and LK's payment to M&M was
unconscionably low. Accordingly, LK's motion was denied.
Texaco Inc./Mike's Texaco on Henry Kevin's Texaco, 4/1/94, RF321-8931,
RF321-9514
The DOE issued a Decision and Order concerning Applications for
Refund filed on behalf of two indirect purchasers, Mike's Texaco on
Henry and Kevin's Texaco, in the Texaco Inc. special refund proceeding.
Each applicant stated that it had no records from which to determine
the number of gallons of Texaco products it purchased during the
consent order period and submitted estimated figures obtained from a
chart labelled ``Information compiled from the National Petroleum News
Fact Book'' (Chart). The DOE rejected the use of the Chart in
estimating the applicant's gallonage figures because it failed to
differentiate between different types of retailers and because the
Chart defied established historical trends in petroleum sales during
the consent order period. Because neither applicant could establish the
volumes of Texaco products it purchased during the consent order
period, the DOE determined that granting the applicants a refund would
not constitute restitution for Texaco's alleged overcharges.
Consequently, the DOE denied the Applications for Refund.
Tiger Oil Company, 3/29/94, RD272-68538, RF272-68538
The DOE issued a Decision and Order granting a refund to Tiger Oil
Company (Tiger), an oil drilling contractor, in the Subpart V crude oil
overcharge refund proceeding. The application was submitted by Edward
Mike Davis, owner of Tiger, through Federal Refunds, Inc. (FRI), a
private filing service. In the application, FRI estimated that Tiger
purchased 204,529,860 gallons of refined petroleum products during the
crude oil price control period. Neither Davis nor FRI submitted any
documentation to support this estimate.
The DOE later learned that Tiger is the subject of a Chapter 11
bankruptcy proceeding. The DOE contacted the trustee in bankruptcy, who
had Tiger's records examined by two petroleum engineers. The petroleum
engineers calculated from the records that Tiger purchased 18,729,672
gallons of refined petroleum products during the price control period.
The DOE adjusted Tiger's gallonage claim in accordance with the
petroleum engineers' estimate, and directed the refund check to the
trustee to provide appropriate restitution to Tiger. In addition, the
DOE denied a motion by a group of States and Territories, which argued
that Tiger had passed the crude oil overcharges onto its customers. The
total volume approved in the Decision and Order is 18,729,672 gallons,
and the total refund amount granted is $14,984.
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/Pearl Oil RF304-14786......... 04/01/94
Company, Inc..
Atlantic Richfield Company/Refiners RF304-13604......... 04/01/94
Distributing Corp. & Wells
Distributing Company.
Borough of Haledon................... RA272-58............ 03/30/94
Cannon Valley Cooperative et al...... RF272-92501......... 03/28/94
Deere & Company...................... RF272-13135......... 03/30/94
Deere & Company...................... RD272-13135......... ...........
Gulf Oil Corp./Allender's Gulf et al. RF300-18706......... 03/30/94
Gulf Oil Corp./Butane Gas & Electric RF300-13194......... 03/30/94
Co., Inc et al.
Gulf Oil Corp./Gulf States Oil & RF300-19731......... 03/28/94
Refining Co.
Gulf Oil Corp./Lehman & Dailey Gulf.. RF300-19838......... 03/28/94
Gulf Oil Corp./Storey Oil Co., Inc... RF300-464........... 03/28/94
Lone Star Industries, Inc............ RF272-67281......... 03/28/94
Lone Star Industries, Inc............ RD272-67281......... ...........
Medusa Aggregates Company............ RF272-76872......... 04/01/94
Morris Motors, Inc. et al............ RF272-91204......... 03/30/94
Oklahoma Tank Lines, Inc............. RF272-41032......... 03/30/94
Olive Hill Motor Sales, Inc.......... RF272-41106......... ...........
Richmond Oil, Soap & Chemical et al.. RF272-91575......... 04/01/94
Shell Oil Company/Hillsdale Shell.... RF315-1101.......... 04/01/94
Hillsdale Shell...................... RF315-10284......... ...........
Texaco Inc./Washburn Texaco Service.. RF321-7136.......... 03/30/94
Goldy's Parking Co................... RF321-7144.......... ...........
Nelson's Texaco...................... RF321-12583......... ...........
The Town of Cortlandt................ RF272-83262......... 03/30/94
U.S.S. Agri-Chemicals................ RF272-78015......... 03/30/94
W.R. Grace & Co. et al............... RF272-90133......... 03/28/94
Dismissals
The following submissions were dismissed:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Name Case No.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama, California, Connecticut, et al............. LFA-0363
Gordon's Transports, Inc............................ RF315-9717
Islandia Sportfishing............................... RR304-49
Joe's Arco.......................................... RF304-15000
Joy Sales & Service................................. RF300-20037
Philpot Moving & Storage............................ RF300-19165
R.F. Hayes Truck Lines.............................. RF300-19139
Robert A. Brunner................................... RF304-13763
West Central School District No. 49-7............... RF272-87339
Zachary Arco........................................ RF304-4199
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FR Doc. 94-14957 Filed 6-17-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
