[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 128 (Thursday, July 3, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 36060-36061]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-17484]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Office of Hearings and Appeals
Notice of Issuance of Decisions and Orders; Week of May 26
Through May 30, 1997
During the week of May 26 through May 30, 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: June 26, 1997.
George B. Breznay,
Director, Office of Hearings and Appeals.
Decision List No. 35; Week of May 26 Through May 30, 1997
Appeals
Martha J. McNeely, 5/27/97, VFA-0291
Martha J. McNeely filed an Appeal from a determination issued by
the Freedom of Information and Privacy Act Division (FOI/PAD). In that
determination, FOI/PAD indicated that it could not locate Ms. McNeely's
medical records. In her Appeal, Ms. McNeely asserted that a letter she
had received from Dr. Tara O'Toole, DOE Assistant Secretary, contained
information that could only have come from her medical records. The DOE
rejected that contention, indicating that Dr. O'Toole's letter was
based solely on information Ms. McNeely had submitted. Therefore, the
Appeal was denied.
Mary Feild Jarvis, 5/29/97, VFA-0292
Mary Feild Jarvis filed an Appeal from a determination issued to
her by the Richland Operations Office (Richland Operations) of the
Department of Energy (DOE) in response to a Request for Information
submitted under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). Ms. Jarvis'
request sought the names listed in, and the substance of, a report of a
possible breach of the standards of ethical conduct by a DOE employee.
Richland Operations had withheld this information under Exemption 6 of
the FOIA, protecting personal privacy. In considering the Appeal, the
DOE found, in a case of first impression, that a person reporting a
potential ethical concern by a DOE employee has a protectable privacy
interest for the purposes of Exemption 6 for the same reason that
others who report alleged governmental misconduct have a privacy
interest. In this case, the DOE found no public interest that
outweighed the privacy interest and thus found that Richland Operations
properly withheld the name, identifying information, and associated
phrases of the person who reported the ethics concern. However, in this
case, the DOE found no protectable privacy interest in the names and
affiliations of persons with actual knowledge of the alleged ethics
infraction nor in the report of the ethics concern. In the case of the
former, the DOE determined that there was nothing private revealed
about the named people, and in the case of the latter, the DOE found
the concern written in such a manner that it was highly unlikely that
one could determine who reported the ethics concern. Accordingly, the
Appeal was granted in part, denied in part, and remanded to the
Richland Operations Office with instructions to issue a new
determination either releasing the specified material or asserting and
explaining further privacy interests and balancing them with any public
interest.
Personel Security Hearing
Personnel Security Hearing, 5/29/97, VSO-0136
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 for access authorization. After considering the testimony at
the hearing convened at the request of the individual and all other
information in the record, the Hearing Officer found that the
individual had violated a DOE Drug Certification, and that this raised
security concerns under 10 C.F.R. Sec. 710.8(1). However, the Hearing
Officer further found that the individual presented sufficient evidence
to mitigate the security concern. Specifically, the Hearing Officer
found that the individual (i) used an illegal drug only one time in the
16 years since he signed the Drug Certification, (ii) convincingly
expressed his commitment not to violate his Drug Certification in the
future, and (iii) provided ample evidence that he would not use illegal
drugs in the future. Accordingly, the Hearing Officer recommended that
the individual's access authorization, which had been suspended, should
be restored.
Refund Application
Burkland Oil Company, Cal's Supply, Inc., T.A. Weisman, Milkiken &
Servas, Inc., Johnson Oil Company, Fraser Oil Company, Brookline Avenue
Service, Schlottman Oil Company, Mike Junker, 5/29/97, RR72-00024,
RR272-00025, RR272-00026, RR272-00027, RR272-00028, RR272-00029, RR272-
00030, RR272-00031, RR272-00032
The Department of Energy (DOE) issued a Decision and Order
concerning Motions for Reconsideration filed in the Crude Oil Subpart V
Special Refund Proceeding. Each of the nine applicants had been denied
a refund in that proceeding on the grounds that they were either a
retailer or repeller and had not rebutted the presumption that these
classes of persons were not harmed by overcharges in the pricing of
crude oil during the period of controls. In their Motions for
Reconsideration, each of the applicants attempted to rebut the non-
injury presumption by relying on the statements of Dr. Peter D.
Linneman given while the DOE was considering evidence during its
preparation of the Report on Stripper Well Overcharges for the United
States District Court of Kansas. In accord with precedent, the DOE
found Dr. Linneman's general econometric statements are not sufficient
to demonstrate that any particular claimant was injured by crude oil
overcharges. In addition, the applicants did not submit any further
evidence to show injury. Accordingly, the Motions for Reconsideration
were denied.
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.
[[Page 36061]]
Allied Signal, Inc....................................... RR272-285 5/27/97
American Tar Company (ATCO).............................. RJ272-00042 5/30/97
Calcasieu Refining Co.................................... RG272-76 5/30/97
Farmers Cooperative, Thorp............................... RG272-679 5/29/97
Heritage FS, Inc et al................................... RG272-160 5/30/97
Missouri Farm Bureau SVC et al........................... RK272-01761 5/27/97
Norwood School District et al............................ RF272-96313 5/29/97
Perkins Drilling, Inc., et al............................ RK272-03757 5/27/97
Sidney & Darlene Daily et al............................. RK272-04058 5/30/97
Dismissals
The following submissions were dismissed.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Name Case No.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arch Bilt Container Corp./G. Fisher.......... RK272-04198
Cortland Bulk Milk Prod. Co-Op, Inc.......... RG272-00868
Pilot Freight Lines, Inc..................... RG272-00583
The Trane Co................................. RF272-98768
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FR Doc. 97-17484 Filed 7-2-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
