Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 47 / Friday, March 10, 1995 / Notices 13149

date of this notice. (June 16, 1995 for

Project No. 11316–002).

Anyone may obtain an extension of

time for these deadlines from the

Commission only upon a showing of

good cause or extraordinary

circumstances in accordance with 18

CFR 385.2008.

All filings must (1) bear in all capital

letters the title ‘‘PROTEST,’’ ‘‘MOTION

TO INTERVENE,’’ ‘‘COMMENTS,’’

‘‘REPLY COMMENTS,’’

‘‘RECOMMENDATIONS,’’ ‘‘TERMS

AND CONDITIONS,’’ or

‘‘PRESCRIPTIONS;’’ (2) set forth in the

heading the name of the applicant and

the project number of the application to

which the filing responds; (3) furnish

the name, address, and telephone

number of the person protesting or

intervening; and (4) otherwise comply

with the requirements of 18 CFR

385.2001 through 385.2005. All

comments, recommendations, terms and

conditions or prescriptions must set

forth their evidentiary basis and

otherwise comply with the requirements

of 18 CFR 4.34(b). Agencies may obtain

copies of the application directly from

the applicant. Any of these documents

must be filed by providing the original

and the number of copies required by

the Commission’s regulations to: The

Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory

Commission, 825 North Capitol Street,

NE., Washington, DC 20426. An

additional copy must be sent to

Director, Division of Project Review,

Office of Hydropower Licensing,

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission,

Room 1027, at the above address. A

copy of any protest or motion to

intervene must be served upon each

representative of the applicant specified

in the particular application. A copy of

all other filings in reference to this

application must be accompanied by

proof of service on all persons listed in

the service list prepared by the

Commission in this proceeding, in

accordance with 18 CFR 4.34(b) and

385.2010.

D10. Filing and Service of Responsive

Documents—The application is ready

for environmental analysis at this time,

and the Commission is requesting

comments, reply comments,

recommendations, terms and

conditions, and prescriptions.

The Commission directs, pursuant to

§ 4.34(b) of the regulations (see Order

No. 533 issued May 8, 1991, 56 FR

23108, May 20, 1991) that all comments,

recommendations, terms and conditions

and prescriptions concerning the

application be filed with the

Commission within 60 days from the

issuance date of this notice (May 2, 1995

for Project No. 2705–003). All reply

comments must be filed with the

Commission within 105 days from the

date of this notice (June 16, 1995 for

Project No. 2705–003).

Anyone may obtain an extension of

time for these deadlines from the

Commission only upon a showing of

good cause or extraordinary

circumstances in accordance with 18

CFR 385.2008.

All filings must (1) bear in all capital

letters the title ‘‘COMMENTS’’, ‘‘REPLY

COMMENTS’’,

‘‘RECOMMENDATIONS,’’ ‘‘TERMS

AND CONDITIONS,’’ or

‘‘PRESCRIPTIONS;’’ (2) set forth in the

heading the name of the applicant and

the project number of the application to

which the filing responds; (3) furnish

the name, address, and telephone

number of the person submitting the

filing; and (4) otherwise comply with

the requirements of 18 CFR 385.2001

through 385.2005. All comments,

recommendations, terms and conditions

or prescriptions must set forth their

evidentiary basis and otherwise comply

with the requirements of 18 CFR 4.34(b).

Agencies may obtain copies of the

application directly from the applicant.

Any of these documents must be filed

by providing the original and the

number of copies required by the

Commission’s regulations to: The

Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory

Commission, 825 North Capitol Street,

NE., Washington, DC 20426. An

additional copy must be sent to

Director, Division of Project Review,

Office of Hydropower Licensing,

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission,

Room 1027, at the above address. Each

filing must be accompanied by proof of

service on all persons listed on the

service list prepared by the Commission

in this proceeding, in accordance with

18 CFR 4.34(b) and 385.2010.

Dated: March 6, 1995, Washington, DC.

Lois D. Cashell,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 95–5967 Filed 3–9–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717–01–P

Office of Hearings and Appeals

Issuance of Decisions and Orders

During the Week of November 14

Through November 18, 1994

During the week of November 14

through November 18, 1994, the

decisions and orders summarized below

were issued with respect to applications

for exception or 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

Brenda Wolfenbarger, 11/16/94, VFA–

0007

Brenda Wolfenbarger (Wolfenbarger)

filed an Appeal under the Freedom of

Information Act of a September 30, 1994

Determination Letter issued to her by

the Department of Energy’s (DOE’s) Oak

Ridge Operations Office (Oak Ridge).

Wolfenbarger had requested all medical

and personnel records held by Oak

Ridge concerning her father, who had

worked for a contractor at Oak Ridge

during the 1940’s. On Appeal,

Wolfenbarger contended that the DOE’s

search for responsive documents was

inadequate. After considering her

Appeal, the DOE found that Oak Ridge’s

search for responsive documents was

adequate and therefore denied her

Appeal.

Robert Heitmann, 11/16/94, VFA–0005

Robert Heitmann filed an Appeal from

a denial by the FOI and Privacy Acts

Branch, Reference and Information

Management Division, at the

Department of Energy Headquarters

(DOEHQ) of a Request for Information

which he had submitted under the

Freedom of Information Act. In

considering the Appeal, the DOE found

that one office had not adequately

searched for responsive documents, and

that the records of the searches of two

other offices were contradictory. The

matter was therefore remanded for a

new search of these three offices.

Requests for Exception

Leonard Wall Oil Co., 11/18/94, LEE–

0155

Leonard Wall Oil Company (Leonard

Wall) filed an Application for Exception

requesting permanent relief 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 Leonard Wall was not experiencing

a serious hardship, gross inequity or an

unfair distribution of burdens as a result

of the requirement that it file Form EIA–

782B. On September 26, 1994, the DOE

issued a Proposed Decision and Order

determining that the exception request

should be denied. No Notice of

Objection to the Proposed Decision and

Order was filed within the prescribed

time period. Therefore, the DOE issued

the Proposed Decision and Order in

final form, denying Leonard Wall’s

Application for Exception.

Shuster Oil Co., Inc., 11/17/94, LEE–

0142
13150 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 47 / Friday, March 10, 1995 / Notices

Shuster Oil Company, Inc., 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

September 13, 1994, the DOE issued a

Proposed Decision and Order

determining that the exception request

should be denied. No Notice of

Objection to the Proposed Decision and

Order was filed within the prescribed

time period. Therefore, the DOE issued

the Proposed Decision and Order in

final form, denying Shuster’s

Application for Exception.

Tommy Carr’s Tire and Automotive

Service Center, Inc., 11/18/94, LEE–

0151

Tommy Carr’s Tire and Automotive

Service Center, Inc. (Carr) 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.’’ The

DOE determined that Carr should be

granted exception relief for a period of

three years because it was experiencing

a gross inequity. The recent destruction

of the business by fire as well as

pressing financial obligations in Mr.

Carr’s personal life, i.e., the facial

operations his newborn baby has

received, made the filing of Form EIA–

782B unusually burdensome.

Accordingly, exception relief was

granted.

Supplemental Order

Ronald A. Sorri, 11/18/94, LWX–0014

This Decision supplements an Initial

Agency Decision, dated December 16,

1993, issued by an OHA Hearing Officer

in a case involving a ‘‘Whistleblower’’

complaint filed by Ronald A. Sorri

(Sorri) under the DOE Contractor

Employee Protection Program, 10 CFR

Part 708. In the December 16 Decision,

the Hearing Officer determined that

Sorri should be awarded backpay lost as

a result of the reprisals taken against

him, as well as all costs and expenses

reasonably incurred by him in bringing

his complaint.

After submitting a full accounting of

his hourly charges for attorney’s fees

together with costs, expenses, and

expert witness fees incurred in

representing Sorri, Thad M. Guyer

(Guyer), attorney for Complainant, filed

a Motion for attorney’s fees and costs on

September 26, 1994. In considering the

motion, the Hearing Officer found that

Guyer’s request for attorney’s fees, legal

assistant costs, and litigation costs and

expenses was reasonable and should be

approved. Accordingly, Guyer’s Motion

for attorney’s fees and costs was

granted. The Hearing Officer awarded

Guyer $25,356.43 in attorney’s fees and

costs.

Refund Applications

Hay & Forage Industries, 11/16/94,

RF272–92459

The DOE issued a Decision and Order

concerning one Application for Refund

in the Subpart V crude oil overcharge

refund proceeding. The refund

application was filed by Hay & Forage

Industries. The DOE determined that

Hay & Forage Industries was not entitled

to a refund since a parent company had

filed a Surface Transporters Escrow

Settlement Claim Form and Waiver. In

this filing, a parent company of Hay &

Forage Industries requested a Stripper

Well refund from the Surface

Transporters escrow, thereby waiving

Hay & Forage Industries’ right to a

Subpart V crude oil refund.

Accordingly, the DOE denied Hay &

Forage Industries’ Application for

Refund.

Nekoosa Papers, Inc., et al., 11/14/94,

RC272–257, et al.

The DOE issued a Decision and Order

concerning Applications for Refund

submitted in the Subpart V crude oil

refund proceeding by four affiliates of

Great Northern Nekoosa Corporation:

Nekoosa Papers, Inc., Bibler Bros., Inc.,

Great Northern Paper Company, and

Great Southern Paper Company. The

DOE previously granted crude oil

refunds to these four applicants. The

four applicants, however, were

subsequently found to have been

affiliated with both Chattahoochee

Industrial Railroad (Chattahoochee) and

Great Southern Plywood (Plywood) on

August 7, 1986. Chattahoochee had filed

a refund claim in the Rail and Water

Transporters Stripper Well proceeding,

and Plywood had filed a refund claim

in the Surface Transporters Stripper

Well proceeding. In doing so,

Chattahoochee and Plywood had

executed waivers and releases waiving

their rights and the rights of their

affiliates on August 7, 1986, to receive

crude oil overcharge refunds.

Accordingly, this Decision rescinded

the original refunds granted to the four

applicants.

Scalzo Utilities, Inc., 11/18/94, RF272–

92378

The DOE issued a Decision and Order

concerning the Application for Refund

of a claimant in the Subpart V crude oil

overcharge refund proceeding. The

Application for Refund was based on

purchases of kerosene and residual fuel

the applicant purchased and resold

during the crude oil price control refund

period. The DOE determined that the

applicant had filed to show that it has

been unable to pass on the crude oil

overcharges in its sales of kerosene and

residual fuel. Therefore, the DOE

concluded that the claimant was not

injured by any of the overcharges

associated with the gallons that it

purchased. Accordingly, the DOE

denied the Application for Refund.

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.

Anaheim Union High School District et al ........................................................................................................ RF272–79602 11/14/94

Arundel Corporation ........................................................................................................................................... RF272–85 11/17/94

Atlantic Richfield Company/Ray Lumber Co. et al ........................................................................................... RF304–14624 11/17/94

Atlantic Richfield Company/Searles Arco et al ................................................................................................. RF304–14720 11/18/94

Chambersburg Area School District et al ........................................................................................................... RF272–95574 11/18/94

Clark Oil & Refining Corp./Commonwealth Edison Company ......................................................................... RF342–325 11/17/94

D.L. Stowe Trucking et al ................................................................................................................................... RF272–91020 11/17/94

E.D.G. Inc./Smith Oil Company, Inc .................................................................................................................. RR311–2 11/18/94

Gulf Oil Corporation/Winston C. Bresett ........................................................................................................... RR300–258 11/16/94

Macke Laundry Service et al .............................................................................................................................. RF272–97127 11/17/94

Newark Housing Authority ................................................................................................................................. RF272–68961 11/18/94

Ralston Purina Company et al ............................................................................................................................ RC272–261 11/17/94

Stanley G. Flagg & Co. et al ................................................................................................................................ RF272–92009 11/18/94

Texaco Inc./Art and Speck’s Texaco et al .......................................................................................................... RF321–17165 11/18/94
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 47 / Friday, March 10, 1995 / Notices 13151

Texaco Inc./Hershey Foods Corporation ............................................................................................................ RF321–17106 11/16/94

Texaco Inc./Richmond Texaco et al ................................................................................................................... RF321–20188 11/14/94

Texaco Inc./Rodriguez Service Station et al ...................................................................................................... RF321–20852 11/18/94

Texaco Inc./Shorts Oil Co., Inc ........................................................................................................................... RF321–20443 11/14/94

T.B. Smith Co., Inc .............................................................................................................................................. RF321–20651 .......................

Texaco Inc. V&F Svara, Inc ................................................................................................................................. RF 321–20946 11/18/94

V&F Svara, Inc ..................................................................................................................................................... RF321–20951 .......................

Texaco Inc./Windsor Texaco .............................................................................................................................. RF321–16854 11/17/94

Delsea Texaco Service Station ............................................................................................................................ RF321–16855 .......................

Burlington Texaco ............................................................................................................................................... RF321–16856 .......................

Woodbury Service Station .................................................................................................................................. RF321–16857 .......................

Dismissals

The following submissions were dismissed:

Name Case No.

Cass County, MN ............................................................................................................................................................................. RF272–86744

Edmonson County Trucking Co ....................................................................................................................................................... RF300–21532

General Motors Saginaw Division .................................................................................................................................................... RF272–93270

Homer Tesoro Service ..................................................................................................................................................................... LEE–0165

Jessee Rogers Sand & Gravel ........................................................................................................................................................ RF272–95291

L.P. Shanks Company ..................................................................................................................................................................... RF272–94627

Mt. Sinai School of Medicine ........................................................................................................................................................... RF321–20801

Philip Morris Management Corp ...................................................................................................................................................... RF272–93294

Rodriguez Texaco ............................................................................................................................................................................ RF321–20642

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, SW., Washington, DC 20585,

Monday through Friday, between the

hours of 1 p.m. and 5 p.m., except

federal holidays. They are also available

in Energy Management: Federal Energy

Guidelines, a commercially published

loose leaf reporter system.

Dated: February 28, 1995.

George B. Breznay,

Director, Office of Hearings and Appeals.

[FR Doc. 95–6013 Filed 3–9–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P

Issuance of Decisions and Orders

During the Week of January 9 Through

January 13, 1995

During the week of January 9 through

January 13, 1995, the decisions and

orders summarized below were issued

with respect to applications for 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.

Refund Applications

Gulf Oil Corporation/Donati’s Auto

Repair, 1/9/95, RF300–15980

The DOE issued a Decision and Order

concerning an Application for Refund

submitted in the Gulf Oil Corporation

special refund proceeding by the owner

of Donati’s Auto Repair, a retailer of

Gulf petroleum products. The applicant

requested reconsideration of an

Application for Refund that he filed in

a previous Gulf refund proceeding. The

DOE had dismissed that application.

The applicant filed his request nearly

five years after his previous Application

was dismissed, and did not provide any

reason as to why his claim should be

reconsidered. In addition, the DOE had

disbursed all of the remaining funds in

the proceeding’s escrow account

pursuant to the provisions of the

Petroleum Overcharge Distribution and

Restitution Act of 1986. Accordingly,

the DOE determined that it would not

be appropriate to reopen the earlier

proceeding and denied the Application.

Shell Oil Company/Briggs

Transportation Company; Texaco

Inc./Briggs Transportation

Company 1/11/95, RF315–10286,

RF321–21054

The DOE issued a Supplemental

Order rescinding refunds granted to

Brigg Transporation Company (Briggs)

in the Shell Oil Company and Texaco

Inc. special refund proceedings. Prior to

the filing of Briggs’ refund applications,

Briggs had filed for bankruptcy. The

Trustee in Bankruptcy authorized a

private filing service, LK, Inc. (LK), to

file the two applications. Pursuant to

the Trustee’s request, the DOE ordered

each refund check to be made payable

to Briggs and mailed to LK. When LK

received each check, it deposited the

check in its account, retained its

commission and sent the remainder to

the Trustee. The Trustee later informed

the DOE that because the Bankruptcy

Court found the proposed distribution

to Briggs’ creditors to be inefficient, the

refunds should be returned to the DOE.

The Trustee also enclosed Briggs’ share

of the two refunds. Accordingly, the

DOE rescinded the refunds issued to

Briggs and ordered the two checks

received from the Trustee deposited in

the Texaco Inc. and Shell Oil Company

escrow accounts. Further, it ordered LK

to repay its commissions, but did not

assess interest on the commissions for

the period of time during which LK had

use of these funds.

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/Burholme Fuel Oil Co. et al ................................................................................ RF304–13599 01/12/95

Atlantic Richfield Company/Kim’s Arco ........................................................................................................... RF304–15466 01/12/95

Butte Public Schools et al ................................................................................................................................... RF272–79708 01/11/95

Campbell’s Auto Express et al ............................................................................................................................ RF272–97029 01/11/95

Carlton Towers et al ............................................................................................................................................ RF272–77813 01/09/95

Chickasaw Cnty Secondary Road Department ................................................................................................... RF272–96151 01/09/95