[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 184 (Friday, September 20, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 49449-49450]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-24121]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Office of Hearings and Appeals
Notice of Issuance of Decisions and Orders From the Week of March
18 Through March 22, 1996
During the week of March 18 through March 22, 1996, the decisions
and orders summarized below were issued with respect to appeals,
applications, petitions, or other requests 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.
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. 20585-0107, 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. Some decisions and
orders are available on the Office of Hearings and Appeals World Wide
Web site at http://www.oha.doe.gov.
Dated: September 10, 1996.
George B. Breznay,
Director, Office of Hearings and Appeals.
Decision List No. 964--Week of March 18 through March 22, 1996
Appeals
Esther Samra, 3/21/96, VFA-0051
Esther Samra (Samra) filed an Appeal from a determination issued to
her by the Albuquerque Operations Office (DOE/AL) of the Department of
Energy (DOE). In her Appeal, Samra asserted that DOE/AL improperly
withheld as classified a photograph she requested pursuant to the FOIA.
The DOE determined that the photograph was properly classified since it
contained nuclear weapon design features and was thus properly withheld
pursuant to Exemption 3 of the FOIA. Consequently, Samra's Appeal was
denied.
Gilberte R. Brashear, 3/21/96, VFA-0136
Mrs. Gilberte R. Brashear filed an Appeal from a determination
issued to her on January 31, 1996, by the FOIA Officer of the Oak Ridge
Operations Office of the Department of Energy (DOE). In that
determination, the FOIA Officer stated that she did not find any
documents responsive to the appellant's information request under the
Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). In considering the Appeal, the DOE
confirmed that the FOIA Officer followed procedures reasonably
calculated to uncover the requested information. Accordingly, the DOE
denied the appellant's request.
The News Tribune, 3/21/96, VFA-0111
The News Tribune filed an Appeal from a determination issued to it
by the Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) of the Department of
Energy (DOE) in response to a Request for Information submitted under
the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). In considering the Appeal, the
DOE found that the BPA properly withheld under Exemption 6 the home
addresses of property owners to whom the BPA had written letters
requesting the removal of items encumbering BPA easements on the
addresses' land. In particular, the DOE found that there was
substantial privacy interest in home addresses and there was no FOIA
public interest, as defined by the Supreme Court, that would be served
by release of the home addresses. However, because the DOE's practice
is to release business addresses, the matter was remanded to BPA to
ascertain and release business locations. The DOE also determined that
the addressees in this case had no privacy interest justifying
withholding of their names because there is no privacy interest in land
ownership, in the fact of government contract, or in the name itself.
In addition, to the extent that the properties are not home locations,
the DOE determined that, in this case, there was no privacy interest in
what was occurring on the land because the BPA did not allege that the
property owners knew of or caused the encumbrances prior to the receipt
of the letters. Accordingly, the Appeal was denied in part, granted in
part, and remanded to BPA to release business addresses and the names
of the addressees unless the properties are their residence or some
other privacy interest is identified.
Personnel Security Hearing
Oakridge Operations Office, 3/12/96, VSO-0074
An Office of Hearings and Appeals Hearing Officer issued an opinion
addressing the continued eligibility of an individual for access
authorization under the provisions of 10 C.F.R. Part 710. After
considering the record of the proceeding in view of the standards set
forth in Part 710, the Hearing Officer found that the individual had
used an illegal drug and lied to the Department of Energy when
confronted with the results of a positve drug test. The Hearing Officer
also found that the individual had not mitigated the security concerns
raised by these actions. Accordingly, the Hearing Officer's opinion
recommended that the individual's access authorization not be restored.
Refund Application
Texaco Inc./California Target Supply, Inc., 3/18/96, RF321-20877
[[Page 49450]]
The DOE issued a Decision and Order in the Texaco Inc. special
refund proceeding concerning California Target Enterprises, Inc.
(Target). Target operated 113 retail outlets during the refund period
and purchased Texaco products both directly and indirectly. Target
indirectly purchased Texaco products from Cook & Cooley, Inc. (C&C),
and other suppliers. Because C&C had made a partially successful injury
showing, Target was only eligible for a refund for its C&C purchases
based on 42 percent of its regular gasoline purchases from that
supplier, and was not eligible for a refund based on purchases of any
other types of petroleum products from that supplier. Further, Target
submitted estimates of its gallonage during the refund period. The DOE
rejected Target's estimates for the early portion of the refund period,
since the DOE discovered Texaco volume records for that time period. As
for the latter portion of the refund period, the DOE rejected Target's
estimate, which used figures from all of 1981, in favor of an estimate
that relied primarily on the volume for January 1981, the only month of
that year in which price and allocation controls were in effect. Thus,
the DOE granted Target a refund of $77,040, including interest.
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/Friendly Oil Co. et al........ RF304-14244 03/22/96
Atlantic Richfield Company/Robert S. Long................ RF304-15051 03/22/96
Avco Construction, Inc................................... RK272-03272 03/18/96
B & O Railroad........................................... RC272-0330 03/22/96
C & O Railroad........................................... RC272-0331
Gulf Oil Corporation/Ingram's Trucking Co. et al......... RF300-15286 03/22/96
Gulf Oil Corporation/Melvin Fordham Store................ RF300-13009 03/18/96
Gulf Oil Corporation/Rice's Grocery & Gulf Service....... RR300-00274 03/22/96
J.J. Clement et al....................................... RK272-2478 03/19/96
Rosalie Schlemmer et al.................................. RK272-00835 03/18/96
Dismissals
The following submissions were dismissed:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Name Case No.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Del Grego's Arco............................. RF304-15342
Farmers Union Co-op Association.............. RF272-85391
Georgina Jacobs.............................. VFA-0126
Pittsburgh Naval Reactors Office............. VSO-0080
Shultz Arco.................................. RF304-15401
Tonka Products............................... RF272-78126
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FR Doc. 96-24121 Filed 9-19-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P