[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 162 (Tuesday, August 23, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-20697]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: August 23, 1994]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Issuance of Decisions and Orders; Week of June 27 Through July 1,
1994
During the week of June 27 through July 1, 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
John Gilmore, 6/29/94, LFA-0388
Mr. John Gilmore filed an Appeal from a denial by the Albuquerque
Operations Office of a Request for Information which his attorney Lee
Tien had submitted under the Freedom of Information Act (the FOIA). In
considering the Appeal, the DOE found that the material requested
computer source code of conferencing software developed by Sandia
National Laboratories, was not considered agency records subject to
disclosure under the FOIA. The DOE also concluded that even if the
software could be considered records, the programs would likely be
withheld under Exemption 4 because they are commercially valuable to
Sandia Corporation, which sold two software licenses and expects to
sell more. The Appeal was therefore denied. The important issue that
was considered in the Decision and Order was whether computer programs
could be considered agency records subject to disclosure under the
FOIA.
Teresa Longstreet, 6/27/94, LFA-0389
Teresa Longstreet filed an Appeal from a denial by the Oak Ridge
Operations Office (Oak Ridge) of a request for Information she had
submitted under the Freedom of Information Act (the FOIA). In
considering the Appeal, the DOE found that the search for responsive
documents conducted by Oak Ridge was adequate. Accordingly, the DOE
denied Ms. Longstreet's Appeal. An important issue considered in the
Decision and Order was the adequacy of the search.
Requests for Exception
Fitch Oil Company, Inc., 6/30/94, LEE-0101
Fitch Oil Company, Inc. (Fitch), 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 Sales
Report.'' In considering the request, the DOE found that the firm was
suffering a gross inequity due to the firm's personnel shortage.
Accordingly, the DOE determined that the exception request be granted
in part and that Fitch be relieved of the reporting requirement from
April 1994 through December 1994.
Saupe' Enterprises, Inc., 6/30/94, LEE-0105
Saupe' Enterprises, Inc. (Saupe') 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.'' In considering the request, the DOE
found that the firm was not experiencing a serious hardship or gross
inequity as a result of the reporting requirements. Accordingly,
exception relief was denied.
Swan Oil Company, 6/29/94, LEE-0076
Swan 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 this request, the DOE found that the firm was
not suffering a gross inequity or serious hardship. On March 29, 1994,
the DOE issued a Proposed Decision and Order determining that the
exception request should be denied. No Notice of Objections was filed.
Consequently, the DOE issued the Proposed Decision and Order in final
form, denying Swan Oil Company's Application for Exception.
Wells Oil Co., 6/30/94, LEE-108
Wells Oil Co. filed an Application for Exception from the
provisions of the EIA reporting requirements in which the firm sought
an exception from filing Form EIA-782B. In considering the request, the
DOE found that the firm was not suffering a serious hardship or gross
inequity as a result of the reporting requirements. Accordingly,
exception relief was denied.
Refund Applications
Texaco Inc./Energy Sales, Inc., 6/29/94, RF321-20015; RF321-20074;
RF321-21006
The DOE issued a Decision and Order in the Texaco Inc. refund
proceeding concerning three Applications for Refund filed with respect
to Texaco purchases made by Energy Sales, Inc. (ESI), a dissolved
corporation. The DOE noted that generally where the corporation has
been dissolved, the owners at the time of dissolution are usually
entitled to the refund. There was no dispute that John Grisham owned
24.33 percent of ESI, and he was granted a refund equal to 24.33
percent of the refund due ESI. The other two applicants, David
Montgomery and Clarence Stapp, both claimed the remaining 75.67 percent
of ESI's refund. Montgomery claimed to have purchased ESI's corporate
shares from Stapp in 1986, and he submitted a copy of the purchase
contract to support his claim. Stapp claimed that the conditions of the
contract were never fulfilled and that he retains the stock
certificates. The DOE found the stock certificates were issued in
Montgomery's name. Stapp retained custody of the certificates only to
protect a security interest, and, he had never exercised a stock power
that would have transferred them to his name. The DOE also noted that
the loan for which the stock certificates constituted a security
interest had been paid off. Under these circumstances, the DOE found
that Montgomery was the owner of the stock. Accordingly, the refund
application filed by Montgomery was granted and the application filed
by Stapp was denied.
Texaco Inc./Lacey-Elliott Texaco, Elliott Bell, Inc., 6/29/94, RF321-
19844
On June 18, 1991, the DOE issued a Decision and Order in the Texaco
Inc. refund proceeding concerning an Application for Refund filed by
Mrs. Earl Elliott on behalf of Elliott Bell, Inc., a Texaco jobber.
That refund was based upon the applicant's claim that her husband
operated the business. Subsequently, the children of Trammel Lacey
filed an application for refund for the same business under the name
Lacey-Elliott Texaco. They stated that Mr. Lacey and Mr. Elliott were
partners for part of the refund period. In response, Mrs. Elliott
claimed that her husband acquired all rights to the business, including
the right to the Texaco refund, when he bought out Mr. Lacey's share.
The DOE noted that, generally, the owners of the firm at the time
of the Texaco purchases are entitled to the refund. This right is not
normally transferred to the purchaser of a partner's interest unless
the interest was transferred under a contract that either specifies
refunds as one of the assets being transferred or leaves no doubt that
the parties intended the contract to transfer rights to refunds. The
DOE found that Mr. Lacey had owned 40 percent of the business and that
nothing in the contract indicated an intent to transfer rights to
refunds. Accordingly, the DOE found that the children of Mr. Lacey
should receive a refund based upon 40 percent of the firm's purchases
for the portion of the refund period prior to Mr. Lacey's sale of the
business to Mr. Elliott, and Mrs. Elliott should repay, with interest,
that portion of the refund she had previously received that was
attributable to Mr. Lacey's share of the business.
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.
Conrad Coop et al...................... RF272-93754 06/29/94
Dahlman Truck Lines, Inc. et al........ RF272-82513 06/30/94
Enron Corp./Fuel Products, Inc......... RF340-69 06/30/94
Taylor-Harbin L.P. Gas................. RF340-133
Domex, Inc............................. RF340-191
Gulf Oil Corporation/Braniff Airways, RF300-20801 07/01/94
Inc..
Gulf Oil Corporation/Dothan Aviation RF300-15434 06/29/94
Corp., Inc. et al.
Gulf Oil Corporation/Enserch RF300-20585 06/29/94
Corporation.
Gulf Oil Corporation/Hammond Country RR300-186 06/29/94
Store.
McClure's Gulf......................... RR300-208
Gulf Oil Corporation/Trenton Lehigh RR300-78 06/29/94
Coal & Oil Co. et al.
Iuka Cooperative Exchange et al........ RF272-88266 06/29/94
Setton Company, Inc.................... RF272-94484 06/29/94
Town of Billerica Fire Dept............ RF272-94490
Texaco Inc./Bellis Texaco et al........ RF321-19332 06/27/94
Texaco Inc./Bobis Texaco et al......... RF321-19742 06/30/94
Texaco Inc./Gold Medal Farms Inc. et al RF321-6587 07/01/94
Texaco Inc./James River Corporation et RF321-19655 06/30/94
al.
Texaco Inc./Joe's Texaco #1............ RF321-20230 07/01/94
Joe's Texaco #2........................ RF321-20231
Texaco Inc./Linwood Texaco et al....... RF321-16861 06/30/94
Texaco Inc./Nora Texaco et al.......... RF321-415 06/29/94
Union County School District et al..... RF272-82427 06/29/94
Warrden County, New York et al......... RF272-85209 06/29/94
Dismissals
The following submissions were dismissed:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Name Case No.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air Vista Texaco...................................... RF321-11304
Amax Copper, Inc...................................... RF321-19926
Auburn Texaco......................................... RF321-13877
Bagwell Service Station............................... RF272-95736
Bill Alsbury Texaco................................... RF321-20870
Bill's Texaco......................................... RF321-19582
Dan's Texaco.......................................... RF321-16249
Holmes Oil Corporation................................ RF315-10186
Howard Bush's Texaco #2............................... RF321-10624
John Diramarian Texaco................................ RF321-20438
John Paul's Texaco.................................... RF321-20684
Kennedy Realty Co..................................... RF272-78323
Kinzeler Marine, Inc.................................. RF321-19911
Mac's Triangle Service................................ RF321-12101
Middlesex Builders, Inc............................... RF272-77675
Miss Valley C U Dist 166.............................. RF272-87093
Oakland C U School Dist 5............................. RF272-87140
Pats Fuel Oil......................................... RF300-20050
Regency Texaco........................................ RF321-20764
Salt Meadow Shell..................................... RF315-8857
Strickland Texaco..................................... LFA-7049
Styles Arco........................................... RF272-95735
The Armrel-Byrnes Co.................................. RF321-19922
Vic's Monterey........................................ RF272-95747
Warrick Eastside Texaco............................... RF321-11214
Woodbridge Gardens Association........................ RF272-78346
Woodbridge Village Association........................ RF272-78354
Wyomissing Area School District....................... RF272-81933
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: August 16, 1994.
George B. Breznay,
Director, Office of Hearings and Appeals.
[FR Doc. 94-20697 Filed 8-22-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
