[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 228 (Tuesday, November 29, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-29369]


[[Page Unknown]]

[Federal Register: November 29, 1994]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------


DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
 

Notice of Issuance of Decisions and Orders During the Week of 
October 24 Through October 28, 1994

    During the week of October 24 through October 28, 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.

Appeal

Robert Heitmann, 10/26/94, LFA-0425

    Robert Heitmann (Heitmann) filed an Appeal from a determination 
issued to him by the Office of Intergovernmental and External Affairs 
(OIEA) of the Albuquerque Operations Office (Albuquerque) of the 
Department of Energy (DOE). The determination stated that there were no 
responsive documents pursuant to Heitmann's Freedom of Information Act 
(FOIA) request. Heitmann had requested analysis results of data taken 
during a March 1994 Air Force survey of a 1950 crash site at Travis Air 
Force Base in California. The Air Force stated that the results of this 
survey would be analyzed by Sandia National Laboratories (Sandia). In 
considering the Appeal, the DOE found that the FOIA request had only 
been forwarded to Sandia facilities located in New Mexico and that the 
Sandia facilities in Livermore, California had not been contacted. 
Consequently, the DOE remanded the matter to the OIEA to search Sandia 
facilities in Livermore, California for responsive documents.

Implementation of Special Refund Procedures

Beacon Bay Enterprises, Inc. 10/27/94, LEF-0074

    The DOE issued a Decision and Order implementing special refund 
procedures to distribute $100,697.87, plus accrued interest, which 
Beacon Bay Enterprises, Inc. (Beacon Bay) remitted to the DOE pursuant 
to a June 21, 1982 Remedial Order. The DOE determined that it would 
distribute the fund in two stages. In the first stage, the DOE will 
accept applications for refund from those claiming injury as a result 
of Beacon Bay's violations of Federal petroleum pricing regulations. If 
any funds remain after meritorious claims are paid in the first stage, 
they will be used for indirect restitution through the States in 
accordance with the provisions of the Petroleum Overcharge Distribution 
and Restitution Act of 1986.

Doma Corp., 10/27/94, 10/27/94 LEF-0049

    The Department of Energy issued a Decision and Order setting forth 
procedures for the disbursement of $5,982.32, received as a result of a 
Consent Order between the DOE and Doma Corporation and Don Martin. The 
DOE determined that the fund should be distributed in accordance with 
the DOE's Modified Statement of Restitutionary Policy in the crude oil 
overcharge cases.

Refund Applications

Shell Oil Company/the Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Co., Inc., 
10/28/94, RR315-6

    The DOE denied a Motion for Reconsideration filed by The Atchison, 
Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Co., Inc. (Santa Fe) in the DOE's Shell Oil 
Company (Shell) refund proceeding. In making its determination, the DOE 
found that Santa Fe had previously settled a law suit it had filed 
against Shell based on the exact same claims that its above-volumetric 
refund claim was based. Since Santa Fe had reached a settlement, for 
which it received $550,000, and had moved the federal district court, 
in which its claim had been filed, to dismiss its case with prejudice, 
DOE found that it was collaterally estopped from further asserting its 
claim.
    The DOE also found that Santa Fe has failed to show that Shell had 
incorrectly calculated its Maximum Legal Selling Price (MLSP). Santa Fe 
had claimed that Shell should have based its calculation of Santa Fe's 
MLSP on a May 15, 1973 selling price of 9.2 cents a gallon, instead of 
the 14.5 cents a gallon that it actually used. The DOE found that Santa 
Fe's contentions were without merit, since Santa Fe's May 15, 1973 
selling price was based on a different type of diesel fuel than Santa 
Fe actually purchased during the refund period.

Standard Oil Co. (Indiana)/Oklahoma, 10/27/94, RM8-272, RM5-273, RM13-
274, RM1-275, RM251-276

    The DOE issued a Decision and Order denying Motions for 
Modification of previously-approved refund plans filed by the State of 
Oklahoma in the Belridge Oil Company, Palo Pinto Oil & Gas, OKC Corp., 
Vickers Energy Corp., and Standard Oil Company (Indiana) refund 
proceedings. Oklahoma requested permission to use $25,000 in interest 
from funds which the State originally received for other second-stage 
refund plans to resurface 2.5 to 3 miles of road in the small town of 
Morris. The DOE found that the restitutionary benefits of this proposal 
were uncertain and remote. It also noted that such repaving projects 
would normally be funded by other sources. States may not use second-
stage refund monies to supplant available federal, state, or local 
funds. Accordingly, the State's Motions for Modification were denied.

Cuyahoga Landmark, Inc., 10/28/94, RF272-94876

    Cuyahoga Landmark, Inc. (Cuyahoga) filed an Application for Refund 
in the Subpart V crude oil refund proceeding. Cuyahoga was an 
agricultural cooperative that became a for-profit petroleum reseller in 
1984. The Application for Refund was based on the cooperative's 
purchases of refined petroleum products that were subsequently resold 
to cooperative members during the price control period. As a part of 
its application, Cuyahoga certified that it would pass 100 percent of 
any crude oil refund through to the members of the cooperative during 
the price control period and distribute that refund on a pro rata 
basis. Cuyahoga's application also stated that the company still has 
records of its members' purchases and could use those records to 
distribute a crude oil refund. Therefore, the DOE concluded that 
granting a refund to Cuyahoga would provide appropriate restitution to 
members of the cooperative during the price control period. 
Accordingly, the Application for Refund was granted.

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/Pacific Palisades Car Wash et al...............  RF304-14746                 10/27/94
Atlantic Richfield Company/Rocco's ARCO et al.............................  RF304-14589                 10/25/94
Atlantic Richfield Company/Superior Oil Co. et al.........................  RF304-14631                 10/28/94
Eagle Coal & Dock et al...................................................  RF272-94905                 10/28/94
Forest River Farmers Elevator Company et al...............................  RF272-94706                 10/25/94
Good Hope Refineries/Bray Terminals, Inc..................................  RF339-20                    10/27/94
Tenneco, Inc..............................................................  RF339-21                            
Amoco Oil Company.........................................................  RF339-22                            
Gulf Oil Corporation/Gary Refining Company, Inc...........................  RF300-18276                 10/24/94
Gulf Oil Corporation/Gulf 23 et al........................................  RF300-21601                 10/27/94
Gulf Oil Corporation/King Gulf et al......................................  RF300-21301                 10/25/94
Gulf Oil Corporation/Morris E. Wisser Coal & Fuel Oil, Inc................  RF300-21447                 10/24/94
Morris E. Wisser Coal & Fuel Oil, Inc.....................................  RF300-21795                         
Martin & Martin Fuels et al...............................................  RF272-93676                 10/27/94
Shell Oil Company/Cantu Shell.............................................  RR315-10                    10/24/94
Texaco Inc./Curran's Texaco...............................................  RF321-21039                 10/28/94
Texaco Inc./Westside Gas..................................................  RR321-169                   10/27/94
                                                                                                                

Dismissals

    The following submissions were dismissed:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                       Name                               Case No.      
------------------------------------------------------------------------
B & J Citgo.......................................  RF321-9087          
City of Hiawatha..................................  RF272-89727         
Cole Texaco #1....................................  RF321-13053         
COLE Texaco #2....................................  RF321-13054         
COLE Texaco #3....................................  RF321-13055         
Dick's Suburban Texaco............................  RF321-7490          
Hammel's Express, Inc.............................  RF272-97285         
Harris Texaco.....................................  RF321-7641          
Koppers Company, Inc..............................  RF272-98980         
Koppers Company, Inc..............................  RF272-99146         
Municipality of Metro Seattle.....................  RF321-6559          
Myer's Metered Gas Service........................  RF321-9524          
North Grand Texaco at 1601........................  RF321-6620          
North Point Cab Company, Inc......................  RF272-98915         
Sellers Texaco....................................  RF321-9616          
Spencer School District...........................  RF272-86792         
Star Service Texaco...............................  RF321-10434         
Sturgis Lumber Co.................................  RF272-98119         
Sturgis Lumber Co.................................  RF272-98901         
Tahoe-Truckee Unified School District.............  RF272-78985         
The Farmer's Coop, Inc............................  RF272-92239         
Vulcan Power Company..............................  VFA-0004            
Zarate Texaco.....................................  RF321-19724         
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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: November 21, 1994 .
George B. Breznay,
Director, Office of Hearings and Appeals.
[FR Doc. 94-29369 Filed 11-28-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P