[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 179 (Friday, September 13, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 48485-48487]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-23488]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Issuance of Decisions and Orders During the Week of September 18
Through September 22, 1995
During the week of September 18 through September 22, 1995, the
decisions and orders summarized below were issued with respect to
appeals, applications, petitions, or other requests 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, S.W.,
Washington, D.C. 20585-0107, 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. Some decisions and
orders are available on the Office of Hearings and Appeals World Wide
Web site at http://www.oha.doe.gov.
[[Page 48486]]
Dated: August 30, 1996.
Richard W. Dugan,
Acting Director Office of Hearings and Appeals.
Appeal
James W. Simpkin, 9/18/95, VFA-0067 VFA-0068
On August 18, 1995, James W. Simpkin (Simpkin) filed a joint Appeal
from two determinations issued to him on July 20, 1995, by the
Albuquerque Operations Office (AL) of the Department of Energy (DOE).
The determinations were issued in response to requests for information
submitted by Simpkin under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). The
AL issued a determination stating that no documents exist responsive to
some parts of Simpkin's first and second requests. However, the AL
provided some documents responsive to other parts of Simpkin's first
and second requests. In his Appeal, Simpkin asked the Office of
Hearings and Appeals (OHA) to direct the AL to conduct a new search for
responsive documents. In considering the Appeal, the OHA found that
with respect to Simpkin's first request, there was no need to consider
the issue on Appeal because the AL agreed to send Simpkin a new copy of
the responsive document requested by Simpkin. With respect to Simpkin's
second request, the OHA found that the search conducted at the
direction of the AL was inadequate and remanded this Appeal to AL to
coordinate a new search. Accordingly, the DOE dismissed one of
Simpkin's Appeals, and granted Simpkin's other Appeal.
Refund Applications
Hoechst Celanese Chemical, et al., 9/21/95, RR272-152, et al.
The DOE considered 13 identical Motions for Reconsideration filed
by Philip Kalodner. In those Motions Kalodner requested that the DOE
reconsider its prior denial of the crude oil overcharge refund
applications filed by his clients. The applications were denied because
each firm had signed a waiver of its rights to receive a Subpart V
crude oil overcharge refund in order to participate in the Stripper
Well Settlement Agreement. Kalodner argued that for equitable reasons
the Office of Hearings and Appeals should not consider these waivers to
apply to affiliates of the signing firms, even though the waivers
plainly state that they are so applicable. The OHA denied the Motion,
finding that it would not be proper to disregard the preclusion
provisions of the waivers. It pointed out that granting the Motion
would overturn a long-established principle of the Subpart V crude oil
refund proceeding and intrude upon key principles of the negotiated
Stripper Well settlement agreement, as well as upon the authority of
Judge Theis, who approved that agreement.
Texaco Inc./Crowley Maritime Corporation, 9/20/95 RF321-14012
The DOE issued a Decision and Order concerning an Application for
Refund filed in the Texaco Inc. special refund proceeding. Crowley
Maritime Corporation (Crowley) applied for a refund based upon its
estimated Texaco purchase volume figures for the refund period. Crowley
estimated its figures by taking each year's dollar expenditures for
various Texaco products and dividing them by a national average
wholesale price for that year listed in the 1981 Platt's Oil Price
Handbook and Oilmanac. After examining Crowley's estimation method, the
DOE concluded that it would most likely overstate Crowley's estimated
purchase figures. The DOE estimated each of Crowley's yearly purchase
volume figures by dividing Crowley's yearly expenditure for each
petroleum product by the highest price for the product listed in that
year's Platt's Oilmanac. The DOE approved a refund for Crowley
totalling $56,189, representing $37,469 in principal plus $18,720 in
interest.
Texaco Inc./Hale Brothers, Hale Brothers, Hale Brothers, 9/22/95,
RF321-14012, RF321-21080, RF321-21081
The DOE issued a Decision and Order concerning three Applications
for Refund filed in the Texaco Inc. special refund proceeding. J. Estil
Hale (Hale), on behalf of himself and the Estate of Donald Hale, and
his sister, Sandra H. Crouch (Crouch), applied for refunds based upon
direct Texaco purchases made by Hale Brothers, a partnership which
operated a Texaco outlet during the consent order period. In their
application, Hale and Crouch stated that Hale Brothers was operated as
partnership between Hale, his father C.E. Hale, and his brother, Donald
Hale. Subsequently, C.E. Hale and Donald Hale became deceased. The DOE,
using Virginia intestate law as a guide, held that Hale, Crouch and the
Estate of Donald Hale were the proper parties to receive the refund for
the Texaco purchases made by Hale Brothers. The DOE approved refunds
for Hale, Crouch and the Estate of Donald Hale totalling $2,219,
representing $1,480 in principal plus $739 in interest.
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.
Crude Oil Supplemental Refund Distribution............... RB272-51 09/20/95
H&M Lumber Company et al................................. RF272-90969 09/18/95
Holyoke Coop Association et al........................... RF272-97559 09/20/95
Texaco Inc./Chronister Oil Company....................... RF321-20441 09/22/95
Texaco Inc./Sharon Steel Corp............................ RF321-15768 09/18/95
Bennie Reid.............................................. RF321-16352
Gallera Gonzales Texaco.................................. RF321-16362
Texaco Inc./Vaughan Bassett Furniture Corp............... RR321-0193 09/21/95
Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line et al..................... RF272-77230 09/20/95
Webster County et al..................................... RF272-95804 09/22/95
West Coast Truck Lines, Inc.............................. RF272-78668 09/22/95
Dismissals
The following submissions were dismissed:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Name Case No.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Farmers Co-op Oil Co......................... RF272-94119
Francione's Five Points Texaco............... RF321-20669
Merrill Farms................................ RF272-97416
Midway Texaco Service........................ RF321-14082
PA Historical & Museum Commission............ RF300-21478
[[Page 48487]]
Taxi Cab of Cincinnati....................... RF272-97247
Thrall Oil & Chemical........................ RF321-20653
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FR Doc. 96-23488 Filed 9-12-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
