# Notice of Issuance of Decisions and Orders During the Week of October 24 Through October 28, 1994 > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A94-29369 ## Record - **Collection:** Federal Register - **Document type:** Uncategorized Document - **Published:** November 29, 1994 ## Text 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 --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A94-29369. Public record. Not legal advice.