9428 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 41 / Monday, March 3, 1997 / Notices

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission,

888 First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C.

20426, in accordance with Rules 211

and 214 of the Commission’s Rules of

Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211

and 18 CFR 385.214). All such motions

or protests should be filed on or before

the comment date. Protests will be

considered by the Commission in

determining the appropriate action to be

taken, but will not serve to make

protestants parties to the proceeding.

Any person wishing to become a party

must file a motion to intervene. Copies

of this filing are on file with the

Commission and are available for public

inspection.

Lois D. Cashell,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 97–5140 Filed 2–28–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717–01–P

Sunshine Act Meeting

FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION OF PREVIOUS

ANNOUNCEMENT: February 24, 1997, 62

FR 8237.

PREVIOUSLY ANNOUNCED TIME AND DATE OF

MEETING: February 26 1997, 10:00 a.m.

CHANGE IN THE MEETING: The following

Docket Number and Company have

been added to the Agenda scheduled for

the February 26, 1997 meeting.

Item No. Docket No. and company

CAG–7 ..... RP97–137–000, Southern Natural Gas Company.

Lois D. Cashell,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 97–5268 Filed 2–27–97; 11:50 am]

BILLING CODE 6717–01–M

Office of Hearings and Appeals

Notice of Issuance of Decisions and

Orders; Week of January 20 Through

January 24, 1997

During the week of January 20

through January 24, 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, DC 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 21, 1997.

George B. Breznay,

Director, Office of Hearings and Appeals.

Decision List No. 17

Week of January 20 through January 24,

1997

Appeals

Cascade Scientific, Inc., 1/23/97, VFA–

0257

Cascade Scientific, Inc., filed an

Appeal from a determination issued to

it by the Richland Operations Office

(Richland). In its Appeal, Cascade

asserted that Richland improperly

withheld unit price figures from a

document requested pursuant to the

FOIA. The DOE determined that

Richland had correctly applied

Exemption 4 to the unit price figures

and the Appeal was denied.

Refund Applications

Department of the Navy, RF272–00464

U.S. Army Engineer District, RF272–

77326

Charleston Naval Shipyard, RF272–

77502

Accounting & Finance Office, 1/23/97,

RF272–78004

The DOE dismissed Applications for

Refund filed by four elements of the

Department of Defense (DOD). The DOE

noted that the Defense Logistics Agency

had already received a refund for the

total DOD consumption of domestic

petroleum products during the refund

period.

Ward Transport, Inc./William R. Ward,

1/23/97, RK272–04007

William R. Ward submitted an

Application for a Supplemental Refund

in the crude oil refund proceeding. As

the former owner of the original

Applicant, Ward Transport, Inc., Mr.

Ward sought supplemental refund

monies due to the corporation despite

the fact that he sold the entire capital

stock of the firm in 1989. After

reviewing the purchase agreement, the

DOE determined that Mr. Ward had not

retained the right to receive a refund

based on the corporation’s refined

product purchases when he sold the

capital stock. Accordingly, Mr. Ward’s

Application for Supplemental Refund

was denied.

Department of Veteran Affairs, 1/23/97,

RR272–00111

The DOE denied a Motion for

Reconsideration filed by a group of

States from a Decision and Order

granting a refund to a Department of

Veterans Affairs (Veterans) medical

center. The DOE rejected the States’

argument that Veterans’ status as a

Federal agency was a bar to a crude oil

refund. The DOE also rejected the

States’ argument that the purchases

specified in the Veterans’ Applications

had already formed the basis for an

earlier refund.

Land Paving Company, 1/21/97, RR272–

00274

DOE denied a Motion for

Reconsideration of a prior crude oil

refund decision. The DOE found that

the refund should go to the debtor in

possession of the applicant company in

a pending chapter 11 bankruptcy

proceeding, rather than to either the

estate of the owner of the firm or to a

related firm.

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.

Clark Oil Dealer .................................................................................................................................................... RF342–274 ........................

E.D. Fee Transfer, Inc., E.D. Fee Transfer, Inc ................................................................................................... RG272–387,

RR272–261

1/23/97

Gulf Stream Lumber Co ....................................................................................................................................... RK272–01037 1/21/97

Halifax County, et al ............................................................................................................................................ RF272–86421 1/23/97

J.J. Carter & Son of Nashville, et al ..................................................................................................................... RK272–03252, 1/21/97

Dismissals

The following submissions were dismissed.
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 41 / Monday, March 3, 1997 / Notices 9429

Name Case No.

Lee Britton Clark ............................................................................................................................................................................... RF342–93

[FR Doc. 97–5124 Filed 2–28–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P

Notice of Issuance of Decisions And

Orders During the Week of January 27

Through January 31, 1997

Office of Hearings and Appeals

During the week of January 27

through January 31, 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, DC 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 21, 1997.

George B. Breznay,

Director, Office of Hearings and Appeals.

Decision List No. 18

Week of January 27 through January 31,

1997

Appeals

Consolidated Edison Company of New

York, Inc., 1/28/97, VFA–0006

The DOE denied an appeal of a utility

from a determination of its liability to

the Uranium Enrichment

Decontamination and Decommissioning

Fund established under the Energy

Policy Act of 1992. The DOE

determined that the utility was properly

assessed for separative work it

purchased in leasing uranium from the

DOE and for separative work used to

enrich excess uranium the utility

provided to its nuclear fuel fabricator.

Ezra A. Beattie, Sr., 1/28/97, VFA–

0247

The DOE denied a Freedom of

Information Act (FOIA) Appeal filed by

Ezra A. Beattie, Sr. Beattie sought

information concerning a particular

Office of the Inspector General (IG)

investigation. The OHA found that the

IG’s withholding of the identities of

individuals who had provided

information to the IG was appropriate

under FOIA Exemptions 6 and 7(C).

Eugene Maples, 1/31/97, VFA–0258

Eugene Maples filed an Appeal from

a determination issued by the Office of

Inspector General (OIG) on November

25, 1996. The determination released

information Mr. Maples had requested

but deleted all personal names in that

information under Exemptions 6 and

7(C). The DOE determined that not all

of the names deleted were eligible for

withholding under these Exemptions,

because some of them were of persons

who were neither the focus of the OIG’s

investigation nor witnesses. Therefore,

the DOE granted the Appeal in part, and

remanded the matter to the OIG to

determine whether any of the names

withheld could be released.

Request for Exception

Lepiers’ Inc., 11/28/97, VEE–0034

LePiers’ Inc., filed an Application for

Exception from the requirement that it

file Form EIA–782B, entitled ‘‘Resellers/

Retailers’ Monthly Petroleum Products

Sales Report.’’ The DOE found that

exception relief was not warranted in

this case, because LePiers’ was not

experiencing a special hardship,

inequity or unfair distribution of

burdens as a result of the requirement

that it file the Form. Consequently, the

DOE concluded that the Application for

Exception filed by LePiers’ should be

denied.

Personnel Security Hearing

Personnel Security Hearing, 11/28/97,

VSO–0101

A Hearing Officer issued an Opinion

regarding the eligibility of an individual

to maintain an access authorization. The

DOE Personnel Security Division

alleged that the individual: (1)

Deliberately misrepresented in a

personnel security interview his use of

marijuana and problems with

prescription drugs; and (2) used, or

experimented with drugs or other

controlled substance. The DOE alleged

that this conduct tends to show that the

individual is not honest, reliable, or

trustworthy. The Hearing Officer

determined that the individual did not

deliberately falsify information in a

personnel security interview. However,

the Hearing Officer also determined that

the individual used an illegal drug and

abused prescription medication, which

indicated that he is not honest, reliable

or trustworthy. Accordingly, the

Hearing Officer recommended that the

individual’s access authorization not be

restored.

Refund Applications

Oivind Lorentzen Shipping As, 11/27/

97, RG272–613

The DOE denied an Application for

Refund filed on behalf of Oivind

Lorentzen Shipping AS in the crude oil

refund proceeding. The basis for the

denial was the finding that the

estimation method used by the firm to

determine its petroleum product

purchases during the refund period was

not reasonable.

Wells Cargo, Inc., 11/28/97, RR272–124

Wells Cargo, Inc., filed a Motion for

Reconsideration in the Supart V crude

oil overcharge refund proceeding. The

Office of Hearings and Appeals had

previously rescinded the firm’s crude

oil refund because the firm had waived

the right to receive such a refund by

participating as a Surface Transporter in

the Stripper Well refund proceeding.

The firm requested that the Office of

Hearings and Appeals reconsider that

rescission, contending that it should

have been able to claim refunds in the

Subpart V refund proceeding that it

could not have claimed in the Stripper

Well refund proceeding. The OHA

found no merit in this argument, stating

that this very position had already been

clearly considered and rejected by the

Temporary Emergency Court of

Appeals. Accordingly, Wells Cargo’s

Motion was 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.