4758 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 21 / Friday, January 31, 1997 / Notices

[FR Doc. 97–2393 Filed 1–30–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P

Issuance of Decisions and Orders

During the Week of November 25

Through November 29, 1996

During the week of November 25

through November 29, 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–

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: January 22, 1997.

George B. Breznay,

Director, Office of Hearings and Appeals.

Decision List No. 9

Week of November 25 through

November 29, 1996.

Appeals

Ashok K. Kaushal, 11/26/96, VFA–0228

DOE granted in part an Appeal of

withholding of documents related to an

investigation of the requester’s

whistleblower complaint. DOE found

that some of the records sought by the

appellant were neither ‘‘agency records’’

within the meaning of the FOIA, nor

subject to the release under the DOE

regulations. Regarding other records,

DOE remanded the request for

processing under the Privacy Act.

Douglas A. Holman, 11/27/96, VFA–

0240

DOE denied an Appeal of withholding

of documents related to an investigation

of the requester’s role as a union

steward conducted by his employer, a

DOE contractor. DOE found that the

records sought by the appellant were

neither ‘‘agency records’’ within the

meaning of the FOIA, nor subject to the

FOIA under DOE regulations.

Gary L. Graham, 11/27/96, VFA–0237

Gary L. Graham Appealed a

determination issued to him on October

4, 1996, by the Western Area Power

Administration (WAPA) in response to

a request for information he submitted

under the Freedom of Information Act.

WAPA had released some information

Mr. Graham requested but stated that it

could not find information responsive to

a portion of his request. We determined

that WAPA followed procedures which

were reasonably calculated to uncover

the information sought by Mr. Graham.

Therefore, the Appeal was denied.

Research Information Services, Inc., 11/

27/96, VFA–0235

The DOE granted a Freedom of

Information Act Appeal filed by

Research Information Services, Inc.

(RIS). RIS challenged the adequacy of a

search conducted by the DOE’s Office of

Arms Control and Nonproliferation

(OACN). DOE found that the

determination issued by OACN was

inadequate. Accordingly, DOE

remanded the matter to OACN with

instructions to correct the

determination’s deficiencies.

Thomas Stampahar, 11/29/96, VFA–

0239

Thomas Stampahar filed an Appeal

from a determination issued by the

Nevada Operations Office in response to

a Request for Information submitted

under the Freedom of Information and

Privacy Acts. In considering the Appeal,

the DOE noted that as a general matter,

a FOIA search should encompass all

documents which would be subject to

the Privacy Act. On review the DOE

determined that the search in this case

was adequate. It also found that any

responsive records which might be held

by Bechtel Nevada are contractually the

property of Bechtel Nevada and are not

subject to the FOIA under 10 C.F.R.

§ 1004.3(e). Accordingly, the Appeal

was denied.

Refund Application

Good Hope Refineries/Commonwealth

Edison Co., 11/29/96, RF339–19

Commonwealth Edison Company

filed an Application for Refund in the

Good Hope Refineries II Refund

Proceeding. The DOE denied ConEd’s

application after finding that it had

failed to establish that it was an indirect

purchaser of Good Hope petroleum

products.

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.

Averitt Express, Inc .............................................................................................................................................. RR272–263 11/27/96

International Mill Service, et al .......................................................................................................................... RK272–01849 11/27/96

San Mateo Cnty Superintendent, et al ................................................................................................................ RF272–95418 11/25/96

United Truck Line ................................................................................................................................................ RR272–249 11/25/96

Dismissals

The following submissions were dismissed.

Name Case No.

Ralph L. Coulon ................................................................................................................................................................................ RF272–92198

Personnel Security Hearing .............................................................................................................................................................. VSO–0117

[FR Doc. 97–2394 Filed 1–30–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P