[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 226 (Tuesday, November 24, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 64961-64962]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-31365]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Office of Hearings and Appeals
Notice of Issuance of Decisions and Orders During the Week of
July 27 Through July 31, 1998
During the week of July 27 through July 31, 1998, 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, 950
L'Enfant Plaza, SW, Washington, D.C. 20585-0107, Monday through Friday,
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: November 12, 1998.
George B. Breznay,
Director, Office of Hearings and Appeals.
Decision List No. 96--Week of July 27 Through July 31, 1998
Appeals
Charles W. Hemingway, 7/31/98, VFA-0424
DOE denied a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Appeal filed by
Charles W. Hemingway. Hemingway contended that the redacted information
was wrongfully withheld under Exemption 6 of the FOIA because he filed
his request under the Ethics in Government Act (EGA), to which FOIA
exemptions are inapplicable. OHA dismissed this portion of the Appeal
because it lacks jurisdiction to consider matters arising under the
EGA. DOE denied Hemingway's claim that it had waived the right to
withhold a social security number under Exemption 6 by previously
releasing it in a proceeding before the Merit Systems Protection Board.
DOE held that the submission to the MSPB did not dissolve the
employee's privacy right.
Edwin S. Rothschild, 7/28/98, VFA-0423
The DOE denied a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Appeal filed by
the Edwin S. Rothschild. Rothschild sought documents used to prepare a
report to Congress pertaining to consideration of a regional petroleum
product reserve. Responsive documents were located by the Office of the
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Strategic Petroleum Reserves (SPR), but
were withheld under Exemption 5. Rothschild argued that release of the
report mandated release of the preparatory material. DOE found that the
status of the documents as predecisional was not altered by the release
of the final report, DOE and that SPR had articulated the foreseeable
harm that would result from release of the requested documents.
Personnel Security
Personnel Security Review, 7/29/98, VSA-0186
The Director of OHA issued an Opinion regarding the eligibility of
an individual to maintain access authorization. The Director agreed
with the Hearing Officer that the individual had failed to mitigate
security concerns regarding his alcohol abuse, because while the
individual had agreed not to use alcohol while participating in the
Employee Assistance Program (EAPRO), he did so on ten occasions, and
then lied about that use to his EAPRO counsel on eight occasions.
Accordingly, the Director recommended that the individual's access
authorization not be restored.
Refund Application
Good Hope Refineriers/Apex Oil Company 7/31/98, RF339-12
DOE considered an Application for Refund filed by Apex Oil Company
in the Good Hope Refineries Special Refund Proceeding. DOE denied that
portion of the application based on Apex's purchases of middle
distillates during the period, August 19, 1973 through July 31, 1976,
because Apex was a spot purchaser during this period and had failed to
rebut the spot purchaser presumption of non-injury. DOE granted Apex a
refund based on Apex's purchases of 500,241,901 gallons of motor
gasoline during the period, August 1976 through July 31, 1979. DOE
found that Apex had demonstrated injury by showing it had positive
banks of unrecovered increased product costs in excess of the refund
sought, and had suffered a competitive disadvantage as a result of its
purchases from Good Hope.
[[Page 64962]]
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 Supple......................................... RB272-00140 7/31/98
Donald Claunch........................................... RR272-308 7/28/98
Donald Claunch........................................... RR272-309
Philippine Government.................................... RG272-754 7/31/98
Dismissals
The following submissions were dismissed.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Name Case No.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Donham.................................. VFA-0428
Personnel Security Hearing................... VSO-0213
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FR Doc. 98-31365 Filed 11-23-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
