[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 201 (Wednesday, October 16, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Page 53918]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-26425]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------


DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Issuance of Decisions and Orders; Week of September 4 Through 
September 8, 1995

    During the week of September 4 through September 8, 1995, 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, SW, 
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: October 7, 1996.
George B. Breznay,
Director, Office of Hearings and Appeals.

Decision List No. 936

Appeals

James Minter, 9/6/95, VFA-0064

    James Minter filed an Appeal from a determination issued by the 
Albuquerque Operations Office (DOE/AL) in response to a request filed 
under the Freedom of Information Act. The Appellant sought documents 
relating to an alleged assault and battery between himself and another 
DOE employee. In its Decision, the Office of Hearings and Appeals (OHA) 
rejected the Appellant's attempt to expand the scope of the appeal. The 
OHA concluded that there may be responsive documents that were not 
identified in the initial search. Accordingly, the DOE granted the 
Appeal and remanded the matter to DOE/AL for further action.

Klickitat Energy Partners, 9/8/95, VFA-0065

    Klickitat Energy Partners filed an Appeal from a partial denial by 
the Bonneville Power Administration of a Freedom of Information Act 
Request. The DOE found that BPA failed to provide adequate descriptions 
of the documents that were withheld under Exemption 5, and that the 
justification for withholding documents was inadequate. The matter was 
remanded to BPA for a new determination. The DOE also found that BPA's 
search for responsive documents was adequate.

Personnel Security Hearing

Oak Ridge Operations Office, 9/8/95, VSO-0029

    A Hearing Officer recommended that access authorization not be 
restored to an employee whose access was suspended due to evidence of 
alcohol dependence. The Hearing Officer found the employee had not 
shown sufficient evidence of rehabilitation to mitigate valid security 
concerns raised by his excessive use of alcohol.

Refund Applications

State of Montana, Et Al., 9/5/95; RK272-00147, Et Al.

    During a review process for the issuance of a supplemental refund 
to all applicants previously granted refunds in the crude oil 
proceeding, the Office of Hearings and Appeals (OHA) discovered a group 
of possible duplicate refunds. The OHA determined that in each case the 
smaller refund should be rescinded. However, the OHA did not order a 
direct repayment of that money. Instead each applicant's supplemental 
refund will be reduced by the overpayment.

Texaco Inc./Sun Enterprises, Ltd. and Anglo-American Shipping Co., 9/6/
95, RF321-7581; RR321-7582

    The DOE issued a Decision and Order concerning Applications for 
Refund submitted by Sun Enterprises, Ltd. (Sun) and Anglo-American 
Shipping Co. (Anglo) in the Texaco Inc. special refund proceeding. Both 
applicants submitted invoices indicating that they purchased, in the 
United States, a portion of their petroleum products from London based 
Texaco, Ltd. The applicants argued that U.S. Texaco Ltd. purchases 
should not be deemed a ``first sale into U.S. commerce,'' and thus 
ineligible for a refund, because Texaco Ltd. would have most likely 
sold U.S. price-controlled petroleum products instead of higher priced 
``first sale'' foreign imported oil. The DOE held that it would 
presume, in the absence of other information indicating that a purchase 
was, in fact, a ``first sale'' purchase, that Sun's and Anglo's 
purchases in which the product was obtained in the United States would 
be eligible for a refund in the Texaco proceeding. Consequently, the 
DOE approved refunds for the applicants.

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.

Crude Oil Supplemental Refund Distribution, RB272-25, 09/05/95

Crude Oil Supplemental Refund Distribution, RB272-45, 09/06/95

Crude Oil Supplemental Refund Distribution, RB272-18, 09/08/95

Crude Oil Supplemental Refund Distribution, RB272-50, 09/08/95

Texaco Inc./R.W. Dickman Company, Inc., RR321-0116, 09/05/95

Dismissals

    The following submissions were dismissed:
    Name and Case No.

Albuquerque Operations Office; VSO-0047

Craig Investments, Inc.; RF304-15177

Jacob's Fuel Oil Service; RF300-21559

[FR Doc. 96-26425 Filed 10-15-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P