32202 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 113 / Friday, June 12, 1998 / Notices

Standard Offer Service Agreements

between Montaup and its two retail

affiliates doing business in Rhode

Island, Blackstone Valley Electric

Company and Newport Electric

Corporation, and between Montaup and

its retail affiliate doing business in the

Commonwealth of Massachusetts,

Eastern Edison Company. Montaup

requests that the addenda for Blackstone

and Newport be accepted and allowed

to be made effective as of January 1,

1998, and that the addendum for

Eastern be accepted and allowed to be

made effective as of March 1, 1998, i.e.,

the respective Retail Access Date for

each of these companies under

Montaup’s restructuring settlement filed

in Docket Nos. ER97–2800 et al.

Copies of the filing were served upon

Montaup’s jurisdictional customers and

upon affected state agencies.

Comment date: June 23, 1998, in

accordance with Standard Paragraph E

at the end of this notice.

19. Duke Power

[Docket No. ER98–3208–000]

Take notice that on June 3, 1998,

Duke Power, a division of Duke Energy

Corporation (Duke), tendered for filing a

Market Rate Service Agreement (the

MRSA) between Duke and Avista

Energy, Inc., dated as of March 31, 1998.

Comment date: June 23, 1998, in

accordance with Standard Paragraph E

at the end of this notice.

Standard Paragraph

E. Any person desiring to be heard or

to protest said filing should file a

motion to intervene or protest with the

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 these filings are on file with the

Commission and are available for public

inspection.

David P. Boergers,

Acting Secretary.

[FR Doc. 98–15652 Filed 6–11–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Office of Hearings and Appeals

Notice of Issuance of Decisions and

Orders; Week of March 30 Through

April 3, 1998

During the week of March 30 through

April 3, 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, Room 7117,

Comsat Building, 950 L’Enfant Plaza

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: June 2, 1998.

George B. Breznay,

Director, Office of Hearings and Appeals.

Decision List No. 79; Week of March 30

through April 3, 1998

Appeals

David R. Berg, 4/2/98, VFA–0376

The Department of Energy denied a

Privacy and Freedom of Information

Acts (FOIA) Appeal filed by David R.

Berg from a determination issued by the

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Human

Resources that certain documents

relating to Mr. Berg and several coworkers were exempt from mandatory

disclosure. The DOE found that the

withheld material was exempt from

mandatory disclosure under subsection

(d)(5) of the Privacy Act and Exemption

6 of the FOIA, but that Exemptions 7(C)

and 7(F) of the FOIA were inapplicable

because the documents were not

compiled for law enforcement purposes.

Dr. Nicolas Dominquez, 4/2/98, VFA–

0368, VFA–0387, VFA–0388, VFA–

0389

Dr. Nicolas Dominguez appealed four

Determinations issued to him in

response to a request under the Freedom

of Information Act (FOIA). The

Appellant sought information

concerning his termination by Lockheed

Martin Energy Research Corporation

(LMERC), including two memos, his job

description and identifying information

concerning a ‘‘group of peers’’ which

heard testimony regarding the

termination. In its Determination, the

Oak Ridge Operations Office (ORO)

found that all responsive documents

were owned by LMERC. On appeal, the

DOE rejected the argument that all

records funded by the taxpayers were

subject to release under the FOIA. The

DOE, however, found that ORO did

possess responsive agency records

regarding the ‘‘group of peers,’’ and that

some of the requested documents were

subject to release because they were

owned by DOE. Accordingly, two of the

Appeals were granted and two were

denied.

Eugene Maples, 3/30/98, VFA–0382

Eugene Maples (Maples) appealed

determinations issued to him by the

Offices of the Inspector General (OIG)

and the General Counsel (OGC). In his

Appeal, Maples asserted that OIG

improperly withheld, pursuant to FOIA

Exemptions 6 and 7(C), names from

documents relating to recoupment of

Petroleum Violation Escrow (PVE) funds

from the State of South Carolina. Maples

also argued that OIG and OGC

conducted inadequate searches for

responsive documents. The DOE

determined that OIG and OGC

conducted adequate searches for

responsive documents, but that OIG

may have improperly applied

Exemptions 6 and 7(C) to the withheld

names. Consequently, Maples’s Appeal

was granted in part.

Personnel Security Hearing

Personnel Security Hearing, 4/3/98,

VSO–0172

A Hearing Officer recommended that

the access authorization of an

individual employed by a DOE

contractor not be reinstated. The

individual was charged with

deliberately omitting information

relevant to his eligibility for access

authorization from two written security

questionnaire forms, making false

statements during a DOE personnel

security interview, and with ‘‘unusual

conduct’’ that tended to show he was

not honest, reliable or trustworthy,

including violation of a DOE Drug

Certification and a pattern of repeated

arrests. The Hearing Officer found that

the individual had mitigated some of

the charges, including a number of

minor inconsistencies in his statements

to the local DOE security office, and his

violation of the Drug Certification five

years before the hearing, but had failed

to mitigate the charges that he had

deliberately omitted or falsified
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 113 / Friday, June 12, 1998 / Notices 32203

information relevant to his eligibility for

access authorization. He thus

recommended against reinstating the

individual’s access authorization.

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.

American Aggregates Corp. et al ......................................................................................................................... RF272–76986 4/1/98

John R. Olivares, Inc. et al ................................................................................................................................... RK272–04778 4/1/98

Dismissals

The following submissions were dismissed.

Name Case No.

Cass County, North Dakota .............................................................................................................................................................. RF272–86469

Ikard & Newsom ............................................................................................................................................................................... RF340–00134

Patricia McCracken ........................................................................................................................................................................... VFA–0392

Personnel Security Hearing .............................................................................................................................................................. VSO–0196

[FR Doc. 98–15722 Filed 6–11–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Office of Hearings and Appeals

Notice of Issuance of Decisions and

Orders; Week of April 27 Through May

1, 1998

During the week of April 27 through

May 1, 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, 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: June 2, 1998.

George B. Breznay,

Director, Office of Hearings and Appeals.

Decision List No. 83; Week of April 27

through May 1, 1998

Appeals

Diane C. Larson, 4/30/98, VFA–0405

The DOE denied a Freedom of

Information Act (FOIA) Appeal filed by

Diane C. Larson. Larson sought the

release of names withheld from

investigative files released to her by the

DOE’s Office of the Inspector General. In

its decision, the DOE found that the

withholding of the names was

appropriate under FOIA Exemptions 6

and 7(C).

Eva Glow Brownlow, 4/30/98, VFA–0397

Eva Glow Brownlow appealed a

determination issued to her by the

Albuquerque Operations Office (AL)

that denied a request for information

she filed under the Freedom of

Information Act (FOIA). In her Appeal,

Ms. Brownlow contended that AL

improperly withheld the requested

information from disclosure under

Exemption 5, of the FOIA. The DOE

found that AL properly applied

Exemption 5, and concluded that the

release of the document would not be in

the public interest. Consequently, the

Appeal filed by Ms. Brownlow was

denied.

McGraw-Hill Companies, 4/28/98, VFA–

0398

The DOE denied a Freedom of

Information Act (FOIA) Appeal that was

filed by McGraw-Hill Companies

(McGraw-Hill). In its Appeal, McGrawHill contested the adequacy of the

search for responsive documents carried

out by the DOE’s Office of Civilian

Radioactive Waste Management. The

DOE found that the search was

adequate.

Tamara L. Mix, 4/27/98, VFA–0394

Tamara L. Mix (Mix) appealed a

determination issued to her by the Oak

Ridge Operations Office (OR). In her

Appeal, Mix asserted that OR failed to

conduct an adequate search for various

Oak Ridge community relations

documents she sought pursuant to a

Freedom of Information Act Request.

The DOE determined that OR had

conducted an adequate search for

documents responsive to Mix’s Request.

Consequently, Mix’s Appeal was

denied.

Whistleblower Proceeding

Daniel Holsinger, VWC–0001; K-Ray

Security, Inc., 4/27/98, VWC–0002

Upon remand by the Deputy

Secretary, the Director of the OHA

considered whether K-Ray Security,

Inc., a subsequent contractor, should be

required to reinstate Daniel Holsinger,

who was terminated by a prior DOE

contractor after making a disclosure

protected under 10 CFR, Part 708

(Contractor Employee Protection

Program). After considering all the

equities involved, and in particular the

important goals of Part 708, the Director

found that K-Ray had not shown that it

would experience any undue burden if

it were required to reinstate Holsinger

for one eight-hour shift per week.

Refund Application

Gulf Oil Corp./Amerigas Propane, Inc.,

RR300–00292; Gulf Oil Corp./Utility

Propane Co., 4/28/98, RF300–21843

The DOE granted a Motion for

Reconsideration filed by Amerigas

Propane, Inc. (Amerigas) in the Gulf

refund proceeding. The DOE had

previously determined that Utility

Propane Co., rather than Amerigas was

entitled to a refund based on the

purchases of Utility Propane. Upon

reconsideration, the DOE determined

that the sale and purchase agreement

between Utility Propane and Amerigas

contained sufficiently broad language to

transfer the right to the refund to

Amerigas. Accordingly, the refund

granted to Utility Propane was