[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 184 (Friday, September 20, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 49452-49453]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-24125]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Notice of Issuance of Decisions and Orders From the Week of July
29 Through August 2, 1996
During the week of July 29 through August 2, 1996, 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, 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: September 10, 1996.
George B. Breznay,
Director, Office of Hearings and Appeals.
Decision List No. 983
Appeals
Association of Public Agency Customers, 8/1/96, VFA-0174
The Association of Public Agency Customers (Appellant) 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) concerning documents related to power service contracts. In its
Determination, Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) stated that, after
release of several installment responses, it was discontinuing
processing of the Appellant's request due to nonpayment of search and
review costs. The Appellant appealed by challenging the amount of
search and review fees it had been assessed. The Office of Hearings and
Appeals (OHA) determined that DOE did not violate the FOIA either by
failing to fully respond to the request in ten working days or by
responding in installments. OHA further found that the amounts charged
for search and review time were not exorbitant. However, the OHA found
that BPA had incorrectly charged the Appellant the cost of the
photocopier operator's time. The OHA also determined that DOE had not
disregarded the Appellant's request not to be supplied with documents
already located in the administrative record of six legal cases
involving BPA. OHA also found the documents released by BPA to be
responsive. Finally, the OHA found that because the response had not
been completed, the Appellant was not entitled to a ``privilege log.''
Accordingly, the DOE granted the Appeal in part because it ordered BPA
to reduce its fees to the Appellant by the amount of the incorrect
charges, but denied the Appeal in all other respects.
U.S. Solar Roof, 7/31/96, VFA-0180, VFA-0181
U.S. Solar Roof filed an Appeal from a determination issued to it
by the Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy (EE) of the Department of Energy (DOE) in response to
two Requests for Information submitted under the Freedom of Information
Act. In considering the Appeal, the DOE found that in the first
request, there was no evidence that the meetings for which U.S. Solar
Roof had requested documents took place. Thus, there were no documents
responsive to U.S. Solar Roof's request. Accordingly, Appeal No. VFA-
0180 was denied. In its second request U.S. Solar Roof had not yet
received a determination. In such cases, the Office of Hearings and
Appeals (OHA) lacks jurisdiction to consider the Appeal. However, OHA
consulted with EE which stated it would undertake an expeditious search
for responsive records and respond directly to U.S. Solar Roof.
Accordingly, Appeal No. VFA-0181 was dismissed.
Personnel Security Hearings
Albuquerque Operations Office, 7/29/96, VSO-0085
An Office of Hearings and Appeals Hearing Officer issued an opinion
concerning the continued eligibility of an individual for access
authorization under 10 CFR Part 710. The individual admitted using
illegal drugs and violating a DOE Drug Certification. See 10 CFR 710.8
(k) and (l). The individual presented insufficient evidence that 1) the
use of cocaine was an isolated occurrence; (2) there were extenuating
circumstances surrounding this drug use; and (3) he has been
rehabilitated. As the individual failed to meet his burden of proving
the existence of mitigating circumstances, the Hearing Officer found
that the individual's security clearance should not be restored.
Schenectady Naval Reactors Office, 7/30/96, VSO-0090
[[Page 49453]]
An OHA Hearing Officer issued an opinion concerning the continued
eligibility of an individual for access authorization under 10 CFR Part
710, entitled ``Criteria and Procedures for Determining Eligibility for
Access Authorization to Classified Matter or Special Nuclear
Material.'' The Schenectady Naval Reactors Office (SNR) had suspended
the individual's access authorization based on the individual's drug
use and financial problems. The Hearing Officer found the individual
had not produced evidence that would mitigate those security concerns.
Accordingly, the Hearing Officer found that the individual's access
authorization should not be restored.
Request for Exception
Middleton Oil Company, Inc., 7/30/96, VEE-0025
Middleton Oil Company, Inc. (Middleton) filed an Application for
Exception from the Form EIA-782B monthly filing requirement. In
considering Middleton's request OHA determined that the company was
significantly more burdened by the filing requirement than were other
similarly situated companies due to the long-term illness and recent
death of Middleton's owner, coupled with the extremely small office
staff employed by the company. Accordingly, DOE granted exception
relief for the term of one year, from July 1, 1996 to July 1, 1997.
Refund Applications
A.C.B. Trucking, Inc., 7/30/96, RF272-97874
The DOE issued a Decision and Order denying the Application for
Refund on behalf of A.C.B. Trucking, Inc. (A.C.B.), filed in the crude
oil proceeding. Prior to the filing of A.C.B.'s Application, A.C.B. had
applied for a refund from the Surface Transporters' Escrow in the
Stripper Well proceeding. After the DOE was told in 1987 that A.C.B.'s
owner-operators had purchased their own fuel, and A.C.B. had itself
purchased less than 250,000 gallons, the DOE found A.C.B. ineligible
for a Surface Transporters' refund. In A.C.B.'s 1994 Subpart V crude
oil refund, the applicant claimed that there had been a
miscommunication regarding its Surface Transporters' application, and
that A.C.B. had actually purchased all fuel its trucks consumed,
including its owner-operators' trucks. In its Decision and Order, the
DOE determined that because A.C.B. had now proved that it had bought
more than 250,000 gallons, it had been eligible for a Surface
Transporters' refund. Thus, because the applicant's Stripper Well
waiver was effective, the DOE denied A.C.B.'s Subpart V refund
application. Further, the DOE could not approve a reopening of the
Surface Transporters' proceeding, as that proceeding is long closed,
and the applicant failed to present any adequate reason why it failed
to submit a Motion for Reconsideration in that proceeding earlier.
Stillman Management, et al., 8/2/96, RG272-1006, ET AL.
The Office of Hearings and Appeals of the Department of Energy
(DOE) issued a Decision and Order dismissing thirteen Applications for
Refund submitted in the crude oil overcharge refund proceeding
conducted under 10 CFR Part 205, Subpart V. The claims were dismissed
because they were filed after the deadline for submitting applications.
As published in the Federal Register on April 21, 1995, all
applications were to be postmarked by June 30, 1995.
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.
Carlisle Companies, Inc. et al........................... RK272-03616 07/29/96
Gulf Oil Corporation/Britton Oil Company................. RF300-14549 08/01/96
Hobart Brothers Company et al............................ RF272-78618 08/01/96
Sea-Land Service, Inc.................................... RG272-00961 08/01/96
Dismissals
The following submissions were dismissed:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Name Case No.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Balair/CTA................................... RG272-810
Barry Cartage, Inc........................... RF272-95298
Foskett School Bus Service................... RG272-938
Givaudan-Roure Corporation................... RG272-531
Givaudan-Roure Corporation................... RG272-857
Harry Robertson's Gulf Agency................ RF300-21418
Merichem Company............................. RG272-856
Mobil Cab & Baggage Co., Inc................. RF272-95226
Mutual Materials Company..................... RG272-881
New York State Electric & Gas Corporation.... RG272-828
R.A. Hamilton Corporation.................... RG272-817
Southwestern Public Service Co............... RF272-95116
Spence, Moriarty, & Schuster................. VFA-0190
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FR Doc. 96-24125 Filed 9-19-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
