30738 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 108 / Friday, June 5, 1998 / Notices

Dr. Nicolas Dominguez filed three

Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)

Appeals requesting that the Office of

Hearings and Appeals of the Department

of Energy (DOE) order a new search for

responsive documents and release

documents withheld from three FOIA

requests. In considering the Appeal, the

DOE determined that additional

responsive documents may exist and

that other documents were not ‘‘agency

records.’’ Thus, the DOE remanded the

Appeal to the Oak Ridge Operations

Office.

Janice C. Curry, 13/10/98, VFA–0370

The DOE issued a decision granting in

part a Freedom of Information Act

(FOIA) Appeal filed by Janice C. Curry.

Curry sought the release of documents

withheld under FOIA Exemptions 6,

7(C), and 7(F) by the Office of Minority

Affairs of the Environmental

Management Division (EM/MA). In its

decision, OHA found that withholding

under Exemption 6 was proper, but EM/

MA had made no attempt to disclose

non-exempt segregable information.

Because the DOE did not have evidence

of the law enforcement authority of the

ombudsman of EM/MA, withholding

under Exemption 7 was denied.

Accordingly, the Appeal was granted in

part, denied in part, and remanded to

EM/MA for a new determination.

Masako Matsuzaki, 3/12/98, VFA–0381

The DOE issued a decision denying a

Privacy Act Appeal filed by Masako

Matsuzaki. Matsuzaki sought the release

of documents confirming that she was

exposed to radiation while serving in

the military and stationed at the

Hanford Site in Richland, Washington.

In its decision, the DOE found that its

Richland Operations Office performed

an adequate search for responsive

information under the Privacy Act and

the Freedom of Information Act.

Accordingly, the Appeal was denied.

Stand of Amarillo, 3/10/98, VFA–0374

The DOE granted an appeal of a FOIA

determination from the DOE’s

Albuquerque Operations Office (AOO).

In the determination, AOO released

what it stated were all materials

responsive to the appellant’s request. In

the appeal, the appellant included

information from the transcript of a

hearing conducted by the Department of

Labor indicating that additional

responsive documents might exist. The

matter was therefore remanded to AOO

to search for the documents indicated in

the appeal.

Refund of 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.

HAHN TRUCK LINE, INC ................................................................................................................................... RF272–95302 3/10/98

OGALLALA PUBLIC SCHOOLS ......................................................................................................................... RF272–79795 3/12/98

OGLE SERVICE COMPANY ................................................................................................................................ RG272–00198 3/10/98

R.C. GERLACH ..................................................................................................................................................... RK272–01820 3/12/98

STROEHMANN BAKERIES, L.C ......................................................................................................................... RK272–4642 3/12/98

EASTERN FINE PAPER, INC .............................................................................................................................. RJ272–54

EASTERN FINE PAPER, INC .............................................................................................................................. RC272–382

NATIONAL TEA CO ............................................................................................................................................ RJ272–53

NATIONAL TEA CO ............................................................................................................................................ RC272–381

STROEHMANN BROS CO., INC ......................................................................................................................... RC272–380

Dismissals

The following submissions were dismissed.

Name Case No.

PATRICIA MCCRACKEN ................................................................................................................................................................. VFA–0385

[FR Doc. 98–14971 Filed 6–4–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Office of Hearings and Appeals

Notice of Issuance of Decisions and

Orders During the Week of January 19

Through January 23, 1998

During the week of January 19

through January 23, 1998, 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, 950 L’Enfant

Plaza, SW, Washington, DC 20585–

0107, Monday through Friday, 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: May 20, 1998.

Thomas O. Mann,

Acting Director, Office of Hearings and

Appeals.

Decision List No. 69; Week of January

19 Through January 23, 1998

Appeal

Charlene Pazar, 1/20/98, VFA–0364

Charlene Pazar (Appellant) filed an

Appeal of a Determination issued to her

by the Rocky Flats Field Office (RFFO)

of the Department of Energy (DOE) in

response to a request under the Freedom

of Information Act (FOIA). In its

determination, RFFO withheld the sole

requested document under Exemption 5

of the FOIA. RFFO claimed that the

document was protected under the

attorney work-product privilege. The

Office of Hearings and Appeals

determined that the document was

protected by the attorney-work product

privilege. Although the litigation which

had led to the creation of the withheld

document had ended, other ongoing

litigation involved the same set of facts.

Therefore, release of the document

could compromise DOE’s strategy and

tactics. Accordingly, the DOE denied

the Appeal.

Ruth Towle Murphy, 1/23/98, VFA–0360
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 108 / Friday, June 5, 1998 / Notices 30739

Ruth Towle Murphy completed the

filing of a Freedom of Information Act

(FOIA) Appeal requesting that the Office

of Hearings and Appeals of the

Department of Energy (DOE) order the

release of ‘‘estimated costs, fixed fees,

and the names of key personnel to

implement a contract,’’ information

withheld pursuant to 5 U.S.C.

§ 552(b)(4). In considering the Appeal,

the DOE determined that all of the

information withheld was commercial

information within the meaning of that

Exemption. Thus, the DOE dismissed

Ms. Murphy’s Appeal.

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.

CITY OF PROVO .................................................................................................................................................. RG272–738 1/20/98

CITY OF QUINCY ................................................................................................................................................ RF272–95482 1/20/98

ELSA COOP GIN ASSN ....................................................................................................................................... RF272–95719 ........................

J & H ASSOCIATES ET AL ................................................................................................................................. RK272–01580 1/21/98

QUANTUM CHEMICAL CORP./RICE OIL CO ................................................................................................... RF330–67 ........................

RICE-LINDQUIST, INC ........................................................................................................................................ RF300–21841 ........................

WINN-DIXIE MIDWEST, INC. ET AL ................................................................................................................. RK272–04683 1/23/98

Dismissals

The following submissions were dismissed.

Name Case No.

ARTHUR F. MURFIN ........................................................................................................................................................................ VWA–0016

BROOKLYN-GERNSEY-MALCOLM COMM. SCHOOLS ................................................................................................................ RF272–79520

GENERAL DELIVERY AND SERVICE ............................................................................................................................................ RF272–94642

JONES, WALKER, WAECHTER, POITEVENT, CA ........................................................................................................................ VFA–0363

[FR Doc. 98–14972 Filed 6–4–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Office of Hearings and Appeals

Notice of Issuance of Decisions and

Orders During the Week of March 2

Through March 6, 1998

During the week of March 2 through

March 6, 1998, 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, 950 L’Enfant

Plaza, SW, Washington, DC 20585–

0107, Monday through Friday, 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: May 20, 1998.

Thomas O. Mann,

Acting Director, Office of Hearings and

Appeals.

Decision List No. 75; Week of March 2

Through March 6, 1998

Appeal

GLEN MILNER, 3/3/98, VFA–0170

Glen Milner filed an Appeal from a

denial by the Albuquerque Operations

Office of a Request for Information that

he filed under the Freedom of

Information Act (FOIA). Because the

withheld information was identified as

classified under Executive Order 12958

and the Atomic Energy Act, the DOE

withheld it under Exemptions 1 and 3

of the FOIA. In considering the

information that was withheld, the DOE

determined on appeal that a small

portion of the document must continue

to be withheld under Exemption 3, but

the remainder could be released.

Accordingly, the Appeal was granted in

part and a newly redaction version of

the requested information was ordered

to be released.

Personnel Security Hearing

PERSONNEL SECURITY HEARING, 3/

5/98 VSO–0183

A Hearing Officer Opinion

recommended against the grant of

access authorization. The Opinion

found that the individual had not

resolved the security concern arising

from a pattern of dishonest conduct.

Refund Applications

ENRON CORP./FERRELLGAS, INC.,

3/3/98, RF340–60

The DOE granted an Application for

Refund submitted by Ferrellgas, Inc.

(Ferrellgas) in the Enron Corporation

(Enron) special refund proceeding. The

DOE found that Ferrellgas was a reseller

and retailer that purchased large

quantities of propane and butane from

Enron. The DOE also found that

Ferrellgas’ propane and butane

purchases from Enron were not

discretionary in nature, and were

necessary for Ferrellgas to meet the

supply requirements of its regular

customers. The DOE found that

Ferrellgas had demonstrated that the

prices it paid to Enron for butane

resulted in an economic injury to

Ferrellgas, and granted Ferrellgas a full

volumetric refund for its butane

purchases. However, with respect to

propane, the DOE found that Ferrellgas

had not established a level of injury

sufficient to qualify for a full volumetric

refund. The DOE therefore limited this

refund to the volume of propane that

Ferrellgas purchased from Enron at

above market prices. Accordingly, the

DOE granted Ferrellgas a refund,

including interest, of $347,549.