[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 28 (Tuesday, February 11, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 6244-6246]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-3311]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Notice of Issuance of Decisions and Orders; Week of January 13
through January 17, 1997
During the week of January 13 through January 17, 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, 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: February 3, 1997.
George B. Breznay,
Director, Office of Hearings and Appeals.
Decision List No. 16
Appeals
Digital City Communications, Inc., 1/14/97, VFA-0254
Digital City Communications, Inc. (Digital) filed an Appeal of a
Determination issued to it by the Department of Energy (DOE) in
response to a request under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). In
the request, the Appellant asked for Network Intrusion Detector
software and the accompanying manual. In its Determination, DOE's
Oakland Operations Office (Oakland) found that the requested items
should be withheld under Exemption 4 of the FOIA. On Appeal, the Office
of Hearings and Appeals (OHA) found that the case should be remanded
because Oakland had failed to determine whether the software was a
``record'' under the FOIA. OHA further found that Oakland's Exemption 4
determination was inadequate. Therefore, the DOE granted the Appeal and
remanded the matter to Oakland for further action.
Gretchen Lee Coles, 1/15/97, VFA-0251
Gretchen Lee Coles filed an Appeal from determinations issued by
the Oak Ridge Operations Office and the Albuquerque Operations Office
indicating that they had been unable to locate records that would
reflect whether the federal government had employed Lee H. Coles and
whether Mr. Coles had been exposed to radiation. The DOE denied the
Appeal because it found that the searches conducted in response to the
Appellant's Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request were reasonable.
The DOE found that the FOIA Officers contacted people who would have
knowledge of whether relevant documents exist, and that these
individuals used appropriate procedures to search for the records
requested.
Harold Bibeau, 1/17/97 VFA-0255
The Department of Energy denied an Appeal of a determination that
no documents responsive to the appellant's request could be located.
DOE found that the search conducted was reasonably calculated to
uncover material responsive to the request.
I.B.E.W., 1/15/97, VFA-0250
The International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (I.B.E.W.)
filed an Appeal from a determination, dated
[[Page 6245]]
November 8, 1996, by the Authorizing Official of the Savannah River
Operations Office of the Department of Energy. In that determination,
the Authorizing Official denied a request for information and fee
waiver filed by the I.B.E.W. In considering the Appeal, the DOE denied
the request for a fee waiver and remanded the matter to Savannah River
for a further search of documents based on a request clarified on
appeal.
James L. Hecht, 1/15/97, VFA-0244
The Department of Energy (DOE) issued a Decision and Order (D&O)
granting a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Appeal that was filed by
James L. Hecht. In his Appeal, Mr. Hecht challenged the adequacy of the
search for responsive documents that was conducted by the DOE's Office
of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EE) in response to Mr.
Hecht's FOIA request. In the Decision, the OHA found that the EE
interpreted Mr. Hecht's request in an unreasonably narrow manner in
order to reduce the scope of that request. The OHA remanded the case to
the EE so that the EE could confer with Mr. Hecht in an attempt to
reformulate the request so that it would be less burdensome and
disruptive to the operations of that Office.
J.B. Truher, 1/15/97, VFA-0245
J.B. Truher filed an Appeal from a determination, dated October 23,
1996, by the Deputy Inspector General for Inspections of the Office of
Inspector General (Deputy IG) of the Department of Energy (DOE). In
that determination, the Deputy IG partially granted a request for
information filed by Mr. Truher. In considering the Appeal, the DOE
ordered that Deputy IG to release title headings in four documents.
Keci Corporation, 1/14/97, VFA-0246
Keci Corporation (Keci) filed an Appeal from a denial by the
Department of Energy's (DOE's) Office of Inspector General (OIG) of a
Request for Information submitted under the Freedom of Information Act
and the Privacy Act. Keci requested information provided to DOE by a
named individual regarding alleged irregularities in a DOE procurement,
and any other relevant records. In considering the Appeal, the DOE
found that OIG properly invoked the Glomar response to protect the
individual's privacy rights and neither confirmed nor denied the
existence of responsive records. Therefore, the Appeal was denied.
Request for Exception
Kalamazoo Oil Co., 1/16/97 VEE-0036
Kalamazoo Oil Co. (Kalamazoo) filed an Application for Exception
from the Energy Information Administration (EIA) requirement that it
file Form EIA-782B, the ``Resellers'/Retailers'' Monthly Petroleum
Product Sales Report.'' In considering the request, the DOE found that
the firm was not suffering a gross inequity or serious hardship.
Therefore, the DOE denied Kalamazoo's Application for Exception.
Personnel Security Hearing
Personnel Security Hearing, 1/16/97, VSO-0116
Under the provisions of 10 C.F.R. Part 710, the Department of
Energy (DOE) suspended an individual's access authorization (a ``Q''
level security clearance) pending administrative review, based upon
derogatory information received by the DOE which revealed illegal drug
use on the part of the individual. More specifically, DOE found that
pursuant to a random drug screening performed by the individual's
employer, a DOE contractor, a urine specimen provided by the individual
tested positive for marijuana. In addition, the individual signed an
Acknowledgement of Positive Drug Screen and during a subsequent
Personnel Security Interview (PSI) concerning this matter, the
individual admitted using marijuana. On this basis, DOE suspended the
individual's access authorization under 10 C.F.R. Sec. 710.8(k),
finding that the individual ``[t]rafficked in, sold, transferred,
possessed, used, or experimented with a drug or other substance listed
in the Schedule of Controlled Substance established pursuant to section
202 of the Controlled Substance Act of 1970 (such as marijuana,
cocaine, amphetamines, barbiturates, narcotics, etc.) except as
prescribed or administered by a physician licensed to dispense drugs in
the practice of medicine, or as otherwise authorized by law.''
Following a hearing convened at the request of the individual, the
Office of Hearings and Appeals Hearing Officer found in his Opinion
that: (i) the individual's marijuana use was an isolated, one-time
occurrence, and (ii) the record of the proceeding contained sufficient
supporting evidence to accept the individual's assurance that the
individual would never use marijuana again. Accordingly, the Hearing
Officer concluded in the Opinion that the individual's access
authorization should be restored.
Refund Application
Dixie Hauling Co., Inc., 1/16/97, RF272-97810
The DOE issued a Decision and Order granting four Applications for
Refund in the crude oil refund proceeding. In two of the cases,
additional claimants signed applications previously filed in the crude
oil proceeding, but did not do so until after the crude oil refund
proceeding deadline. These claimants were granted a portion of the
refunds because they joined applications which: (1) Were submitted
prior to the crude oil refund proceeding deadline; (2) contained
accurate information supporting the companies'' rights to refunds; and
(3) had yet to be granted by the DOE prior to their amendment by the
signatures of the additional claimants.
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.
Brader Hauling Service, Inc.............................. RG272-00928 1/16/97
Crude Oil Supple. Refund Dist............................ RB272-00097 1/16/97
Cruce Oil Supple. Refund Dist............................ RB272-00098 1/16/97
Gulf Oil Corporation/Cabot Corporation................... RF300-16719 1/16/97
Indianapolis Baptist Schools............................. RF272-95103 1/14/97
Warren Brothers Road Company, et al...................... RF272-93484 1/16/97
Dismissals
The following submissions were dismissed.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Name Case No.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
A-DEC, Inc................................... RG272-916
Green Holdings, Inc.......................... RD272-25553
[[Page 6246]]
Green Holdings, Inc.......................... RF272-25553
Personnel Security Review.................... VSA-0074
Scappoose Sand & Gravel Co................... RG272-984
Wilkins, Kaiser & Olsen, Inc................. RG272-983
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FR Doc. 97-3311 Filed 2-10-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
