[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