[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 31 (Tuesday, February 17, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 7781-7783]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-3848]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Office of Hearings and Appeals
Notice of Issuance of Decisions and Orders; Week of January 5
Through January 9, 1998
During the week of January 5 through January 9, 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,
Room 1E-234, Forrestal Building, 1000 Independence Avenue, S.W.,
Washington, D.C. 20585-0107, Monday through Friday, between
[[Page 7782]]
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. 67: Week of January 5 Through January 9, 1998
Appeals
James R. Hutton, 1/5/98, VFA-0359,
The DOE's Office of Hearing and Appeals (OHA) issued a decision
denying the Appellant's request that we reconsider our ruling that the
names and position numbers of federal employees listed on a ``retention
register'' are exempt from disclosure under Exemption 6 of the Freedom
of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. Sec. 552(b)(6); 10 CFR
Sec. 1004.10(b)(6). After considering Appellant's arguments, we
reaffirmed our previous ruling that an employee has a privacy interest
in his or her name and position number in the context of a retention
register because the disclosure of this information might suggest the
employee's vulnerability to a reduction in force. We also reaffirmed
that the public interest in the disclosure of the names and position
numbers of the employees listed in the retention register was
insubstantial or nonexistent.
K&M Plastics, Inc., 1/8/98, VFA-0356
K&M Plastics, Inc., (K&M) 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 a bid abstract relating to a subcontract at the Rocky Flats
Environmental Technology Site (RFETS). In its Determination, the Rocky
Flats Field Office (RFFO) found that all responsive documents were
owned by RFETS's management and operating contractor, Kaiser-Hill
Company (Kaiser Hill). On appeal, the K&M requested the bid abstract,
arguing that all records not related to national security or public
safety were subject to release under the FOIA, and that RFFO had
released a bid abstract to K&M in the past. The Office of Hearings and
Appeals (OHA) found that the documents in the current request were not
agency records and not subject to release under DOE regulations.
Accordingly, the Appeal was denied.
Patricia C. McCracken, VFA-0348
The Department of Energy (DOE) issued a Decision and Order denying
a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Appeal that was filed by Patricia
C. McCracken. In her Appeal, Ms. McCracken requested that we review a
determination issued by the Richland Operations Office withholding the
winning proposal submitted in a competitive bidding procedure under
Exemption 3 of the FOIA. Ms. McCracken also attempted to expand the
scope of her original FOIA request to include additional documents. In
the Decision, the OHA found that the National Defense Authorization Act
of 1997 is a statute of exemption for purposes of Exemption 3, and that
the proposal was properly withheld. The OHA also concluded that a FOIA
Appeal is not the appropriate venue for the consideration of an initial
request for documents. The OHA therefore denied Ms. McCracken's Appeal.
Personnel Security Hearing
Personnel Security Hearing, 1/9/98, VSO-0174
An OHA Hearing Officer issued an Opinion concerning an individual
whose access authorization was suspended under the regulations set
forth at 10 C.F.R. Part 710 because the DOE obtained derogatory
information that the individual was alcohol dependent. At a hearing
convened at the individual's request, the individual maintained there
are mitigating factors that alleviate the agency's security concerns
and justify the restoration of his security clearance. In support of
his position, the individual stated that he is participating in alcohol
rehabilitation by attending AA, that he has totally abstained from
alcohol, that he has no intention to resume drinking and that he has
never consumed alcohol while working for the DOE. The Hearing Officer
found that the individual had not demonstrated sufficient
rehabilitation or reformation to mitigate the DOE's security concerns.
Accordingly, the Hearing Officer recommended that the individual's
access authorization not be restored.
Personnel Security Hearing, 1/9/98, VSO-0177
An Office of Hearings and Appeals Hearing Officer issued an Opinion
under 10 C.F.R. Part 710 concerning the continued eligibility of an
individual to hold an access authorization. After considering the
testimony at the hearing convened at the request of the individual and
all other information in the records, the Hearing Officer found that,
as duly determined by a DOE Psychiatrist, the individual was a user of
alcohol habitually to excess. The Hearing Officer further found that
the individual had failed to present sufficient evidence of
rehabilitation and reformation to mitigate the legitimate security
concerns of DOE relating to the individual's alcohol use. Accordingly,
the Hearing Officer recommended that the individual's access
authorization, which had been suspended, should not be restored.
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 CO./CHUCK LORRAH'S ARCO #1............ RF304-15512 1/5/98
CHUCK LORRAH'S ARCO #2................................... RF304-15513
CRUDE OIL SUPPLEMENTAL REFUND DIST....................... RB272-00128 1/8/98
CRUDE OIL SUPPLEMENTAL REFUND DIST....................... RB272-00130 1/8/98
CRUDE OIL SUPPLEMENTAL REFUND DIST....................... RB272-00131 1/8/98
LORRAINE FLORHAUG ET AL.................................. RK272-01759 1/8/98
MCCONNELL CONSTRUCTION, INC. ET AL....................... RF272-94732 1/5/98
RGIS INVENTORY SPECIALISTS ET AL......................... RK272-04706 1/8/98
Dismissals
The following submissions were dismissed.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Name Case No.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BERWIND RAILROAD SERVICE CO.................. RF272-95292
DAVID R. KOUNS............................... VWA-0019
[[Page 7783]]
MID-AMERICAN PETROLEUM SUPPLY................ RF315-06429
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FR Doc. 98-3848 Filed 2-13-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
