[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 31 (Tuesday, February 17, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 7783-7784]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-3849]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Office of Hearings and Appeals


Notice of Issuance of Decisions and Orders; Week of November 10 
Through November 14, 1997

    During the week of November 10 through November 14, 1997, 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: February 6, 1998.
George B. Breznay,
Director, Office of Hearings and Appeals.

Decision List No. 59: Week of November 10 Through November 14, 1997

Appeals

F.A.C.T.S., 11/10/97, VFA-0339, VFA-0343

    For A Clean Tonawanda Site (F.A.C.T.S.), the Appellant, filed 
Appeals from determinations issued to him by the Oak Ridge Operations 
Office (OR) and the Office of the Executive Secretariat (ES) of the 
Department of Energy (DOE). In its Appeal, the Appellant asserted that 
OR and ES had improperly withheld documents pertaining to a DOE FUSRAP 
site in Tonawanda, New York, pursuant to Exemption 5 of the FOIA and 
that OR and ES had conducted an inadequate search for documents 
responsive to three categories of requested documents. Additionally, 
the Appellant appealed OR's denial of a fee waiver in connection with 
its request. Upon review, the DOE determined that OR and ES had 
conducted an adequate search for responsive documents. With regard to 
the OR's fee waiver determination, the DOE determined that the 
Appellant had not supplied sufficient information upon which OR could 
grant a fee waiver. However, because OR and ES had failed to adequately 
describe each of the withheld documents, the DOE remanded the matter to 
OR for the issuance of another determination. Since each of the 
documents withheld by ES was included in the documents withheld by OR, 
ES was not required to issue another determination. Consequently, the 
Appeal pertaining to the ES determination (Case No. VFA-0339) was 
denied but the Appeal pertaining to the OR determination (Case No. VFA-
0343) was granted in part.

James R. Hutton, 11/13/97, VFA-0341

    The DOE's Office of Hearings and Appeals (OHA) issued a decision 
granting in part a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Appeal filed by 
James R. Hutton. Hutton sought the release of information withheld by 
the Oak Ridge Operations Office (Oak Ridge). In its decision, OHA found 
that Oak Ridge improperly withheld a retention register in its 
entirety, when instead it should have released this document with only 
that information which would reveal specific employees' identities 
removed. OHA also found that Oak Ridge had improperly used a Glomar 
declaration in response to the Appellant's request for another 
document. (A ``Glomar'' declaration neither confirms nor denies the 
existence of a document). Accordingly, the Appeal was remanded to Oak 
Ridge and denied in all other aspects.

Refund Applications

Belle Pass Towing Corp., 11/13/97, RF272-57009

    The DOE issued a Decision and Order granting sixteen Applications 
for Refund in the crude oil refund proceeding. Eight of the cases 
involved a corporation that dissolved after it submitted its timely and 
accurate refund application. Because the DOE did not act on the 
application prior to the corporation's dissolution, the DOE allowed 
shareholders at the time of dissolution to file refund claims after the 
June 30, 1995 crude oil proceeding deadline.

Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, 11/14/97, RR272-304

    The Office of Hearings and Appeals granted a supplemental crude oil 
refund in the amount of $425,580 to the Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company 
in accordance with the Opinion issued by the United States Court of 
Appeals for the Federal Circuit on June 30, 1997. The supplemental 
refund pertained to Goodyear's butadiene and propylene purchases from 
two of its suppliers.

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.


CAVE CREEK UNIF. DIST. #93 ET AL.........................  RF272-95415                                  11/13/97
COLONY TRANSPORT ET AL.                                    RF272-76468                                  11/13/97
CRUDE OIL SUPPLE REF DIST                                  RB272-00125                                  11/13/97
GEORGE L. GEAR                                             RK272-04053                                  11/12/97
LYDA STOWE ET AL.                                          RK272-04598                                  11/12/97
THE ROBERT JURY TRUST ET AL.                               RK272-01611                                  11/12/97
                                                                                                                


[[Page 7784]]

[FR Doc. 98-3849 Filed 2-13-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P