Issuance of Decisions and Orders; Week of June 27 Through July 1, 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