(a) This subpart establishes the procedures for the filing of a formal request for an interpretation and for the consideration of such request. Responses, which may include verbal or written responses to general inquiries or to other than formal written requests for interpretation filed with the General Counsel or his delegate or a Regional Counsel, are not interpretations and merely provide general information.
(b) A request for interpretation that includes, or could be construed to include an application for an exception or an exemption may be treated solely as a request for interpretation and processed as such.
(Emergency Petroleum Allocation Act of 1973, Pub. L. 93-159, as amended, Pub. L. 93-511, Pub. L. 94-99, Pub. L. 94-133, Pub. L. 94-163, and Pub. L. 94-385, Federal Energy Administration Act of 1974, Pub. L. 93-275, as amended, Pub. L. 94-385, Energy Policy and Conservation Act, Pub. L. 94-163, as amended, Pub. L. 94-385; E.O. 11790, 39 FR 23185; Department of Energy Organization Act, Pub. L. 95-91; E.O. 12009, 42 FR 46267)
[39 FR 35489, Oct. 1, 1974, as amended at 43 FR 14437, Apr. 6, 1978]
Notes of Decisions
Atl. Richfield Co. v. Fed. Energy Admin., 429 F. Supp. 1052 (N.D. Cal. 1976).
· cites it 2× “See 10 C.F.R. 205.80. An administrative appeal from such an interpretation may be taken by any person aggrieved by that interpretation.”
Mobil Oil Corp. v. Tully, 499 F. Supp. 888 (N.D.N.Y. 1980).
“With respect to the type of opinion letter relied upon by the defendants herein, 10 C.F.R. §§ 205.80 provides that: Responses, which may include verbal or written responses to general inquiries or to other than formal written requests for interpretations filed with the General…”
Amoco Prod. Co. v. United States Dep't of Energy, 469 F. Supp. 236 (D. Del. 1979).
“As a result, on May 18,1978, ARCO requested an interpretation from DOE’s Office of General Counsel, pursuant to 10 C.F.R. § 205.80 , et seq., which also presented the first sale issue.”
Stand. Oil Co. v. Fed. Energy Admin., 453 F. Supp. 203 (N.D. Ohio 1978).
“On April 29, 1975, Mobil Oil Corporation submitted a formal request for an interpretation to the FEA under the procedures articulated in 10 C.F.R. §§ 205.80 et seq. 67 In that request Mobil suggested the same regulatory interpretation that was ulti *216 mately adopted in the…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.