Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 51 / Monday, March 17, 1997 / Notices 12637

[FR Doc. 97–6586 Filed 3–14–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P

Notice of Issuance of Decisions and

Orders by the Office of Hearings and

Appeals; Week of February 24 through

February 28, 1997

During the week of February 24

through February 28, 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: March 7, 1997.

George B. Breznay,

Director, Office of Hearings and Appeals.

Decision List No. 22; Week of February

24 Through February 28, 1997

Appeals

Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson,

2/24/97, VFA–0263

Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver &

Jacobson (Fried) filed an Appeal from a

determination by the DOE’s

Albuquerque Operations Office (AOO).

In that determination, the AOO partially

granted a request for information under

the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA),

5 U.S.C. § 552, as implemented by the

DOE in 10 CFR Part 1004. In

considering the Appeal, the DOE

confirmed that the AOO mistakenly did

not include a copy of a contract

modification when it released a copy of

the contract. Accordingly, the DOE

ordered the AOO to release a copy of the

contract modification. The DOE also

found that, since Section 821 of the

National Defense Authorization Act

does not bar the release of proposal

information that has been incorporated

into a contract, Exemption 3 does not

apply in this case as a reason to

withhold the proposal in its entirety.

Therefore, the DOE remanded this case

to the AOO to release the proposal

information incorporated into the

awarded contract or to provide a

detailed justification for withholding.

Lois Blanche Vaughan, 2/25/97, VFA–

0264

The DOE issued a Decision and Order

denying a Freedom of Information Act

Appeal that was filed by Lois B.

Vaughan. In her Appeal, Ms. Vaughan

challenged the adequacy of the search

for responsive documents that was

conducted by the DOE’s Oak Ridge

Operations Office (DOE/OR) in response

to Ms. Vaughan’s FOIA request. Ms.

Vaughan requested documents dated

from 1948 through 1968. In the

Decision, the DOE found that DOE/OR

conducted a reasonable search for

responsive documents. Accordingly, the

Appeal was denied.

Martha J. Mcneely, 2/25/97, VFA–0265

Martha J. McNeely filed an Appeal

from a determination issued to her by

the DOE’s Richland Operations Office

(Richland). In her Appeal, Ms. McNeely

asserted that Richland had failed to

conduct an adequate search pursuant to

the Privacy Act for her medical and

dental records. The DOE determined

that Richland had performed an

adequate search. However, since Ms.

McNeely provided additional

information in her Appeal, in which she

claimed to have participated in human

radiation experimentation studies, the

matter was remanded to the DOE

Headquarters Freedom of Information

and Privacy Group so that a search

could be made for relevant documents.

Refund Application

Allied Signal, Inc., 2/25/97, RR272–247

The DOE partially granted a Motion

for Reconsideration filed on behalf of

Allied Signal, Inc., in the crude oil

overcharge refund proceeding

conducted under 10 CFR Part 205,

Subpart V. Allied Signal’s Motion

requested a refund for its purchases of

cumene during the crude oil refund

period. The DOE found that cumene is

not an eligible product in this

proceeding. However, Allied Signal

showed, through price escalation

clauses in its contracts for cumene

purchases, that it incurred the crude oil

overcharges which are presumed in the

benzene component of cumene.

Therefore, Allied Signal was granted a

refund based on the number of benzene

gallons used in the production of the

cumene it purchased.

Refund Appications

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.

CRUDE OIL SUPPLEMENTAL REFUND DIST .................................................................................................. RB272–00103 2/25/97

FRANKLIN COUNTY COOPERATIVE ............................................................................................................... RK272–04183 2/25/97

LONG BROTHERS ROOFING & WATER ET AL ............................................................................................... RK272–03508 2/25/97

MELVIN BOOTS .................................................................................................................................................. RK272–03346 2/25/97

ALLEN BOOTS ..................................................................................................................................................... RK272–03358 ........................

ALLEN BOOTS ..................................................................................................................................................... RK272–03347 ........................

R.W. MILLER & SONS, INC. ET AL ................................................................................................................... RG272–00816 2/26/97

Dismissals

The following submissions were dismissed:

Name Case No.

BURKE GRADING & PAVING, INC ................................................................................................................................................. RG272–988

CASS-CLAY CREAMERY, INC ........................................................................................................................................................ RG272–692

FAIRMOUNT CHEMICAL CO .......................................................................................................................................................... RG272–1003

JOHNSON PAVING CO., INC .......................................................................................................................................................... RG272–986

VARIETY WHOLESALERS, INC ...................................................................................................................................................... RK272–4199

[FR Doc. 97–6585 Filed 3–14–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P