32876 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 115 /Tuesday, June 16, 1998 / Notices

Department of Energy (DOE). In her

Appeal, Murphy asserted that the

Manager improperly withheld, pursuant

to Exemption 4, financial information

from documents relating to contracts

between Science Applications

International Corporation and the DOE

regarding the Office of Scientific and

Technical Information. After reviewing

the withheld information, the DOE

determined that the information was

properly withheld pursuant to

Exemption 4. Consequently, Murphy’s

Appeal was denied.

Personnel Security Hearings

Personnel Security Hearing, 2/19/98

VSO–0173

A Hearing Officer from the Office of

Hearings and Appeals issued an

Opinion regarding the eligibility of an

individual for access authorization

under the provisions of 10 C.F.R. Part

710. After considering the record,

Hearing Officer found that the DOE had

presented sufficient evidence to show

that the individual had used cocaine on

five occasions and that he used cocaine

despite having signed a Drug

Certification and knowing of the DOE

and his employer’s policies barring

illegal drug use. The Hearing Officer

also found that the individual had not

presented sufficient evidence to mitigate

the security concerns raised by his

conduct. Accordingly, the Hearing

Officer recommended that the

individual’s access authorization should

not be restored.

Personnel Security Hearing, 2/19/98

VSO–0184

A Hearing Officer found that the

concern raised by an individual’s illness

or mental condition remained

unresolved. Accordingly, the Hearing

Officer recommended in the Opinion

that the individual’s access

authorization not be restored.

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.

Delta Asphalt Paving Co ...................................................................................................................................... RF272–55648 2/18/98

Delta Asphalt Paving Co ...................................................................................................................................... RD272–55648 ........................

Hancock Service Company .................................................................................................................................. RG272–179 2/18/98

Adams FS, Inc ...................................................................................................................................................... RG272–180 ........................

LaFarge Corporation ............................................................................................................................................. RK272–4765 2/19/98

LaFarge Corporation ............................................................................................................................................. RK272–4766 ........................

Neal Tyler & Sons, Inc ......................................................................................................................................... RK272–4724 2/19/98

Gwinnett County Board of Commissioners ........................................................................................................ RK272–4733 ........................

[FR Doc. 98–15952 Filed 6–15–98; 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 February 23 Through

February 27, 1998

During the week of February 23

through February 27, 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, D.C., 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 4, 1998.

George B. Breznay,

Director, Office of Hearings and Appeals.

Decision List No. 74: Week of February

23 Through February 27, 1998

Appeals

INEEL Research Bureau, 2/26/98, VFA–

0373

DOE granted an appeal of

determination in response to a request

for an index of classified documents.

OHA found that the DOE’s Idaho

Operations Office (DOE/ID) did not

release indices that were responsive to

a broadly worded request submitted by

the appellant. The matter was therefore

remanded to DOE/ID.

Sandra M. Hart, 2/27/98, VFA–0372

The DOE’s Office of Hearings and

Appeals (OHA) issued a decision

granting in part a Freedom of

Information Act (FOIA) Appeal filed by

Sandra M. Hart. Hart sought the release

of three portion of an EEO complaint

filed by a third party that were withheld

to by the DOE’s Idaho Operations Office

(Idaho). In its decision, OHA found that

Idaho’s withholding of this information

was appropriate under FOIA

Exemptions 6, 7(C) and 7(A).

Accordingly, the Appeal was denied.

Personnel Security Hearing

Personnel Security Hearing, 2/24/98,

VSO–0176

A Hearing Officer found that an

individual had not successfully

mitigated security concerns arising from

her severe depression and use of

controlled substances without a

prescription. Accordingly, the Hearing

Officer recommended that the

individual’s access authorization not be

restored.

Request for Exception

Public Service Electric and Gas (New

Jersey), 2/24/98, VEE–0044

The Public Service Electric and Gas of

New Jersey (PSE&G) filed a request for

confidential treatment of certain data

that the firm submits to the Energy

Information Administration (EIA) in

connection with EIA’s survey and

monitoring of domestic electric power

production. The PSE&G request was

based upon the increasingly competitive

nature of the market for electric power,

and the argument that in the hands of

its competitors, the data would allow

competitors to know PSE&G’s marginal

cost of electrical power production, to

the detriment of the firm. In view of the

broad implications of the PSE&G

argument, the Office of Hearings and

Appeals negotiated an agreement under

which EIA (1) would not generally

release the data in question for any

reporting electric utility, and (2) would

issue a Federal Register notice soliciting

comments from the industry and the

public on confidentiality associated

with the EIA electric surveys in order to

re-evaluate EIA’s data disclosure policy

in this area. The EIA commenced the

processes to which it agreed and, on
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 115 /Tuesday, June 16, 1998 / Notices 32877

February 11, 1998, the PSE&G request

was dismissed.

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.

Crude Oil Supplemental Refund Dist. ................................................................................................................ RB272–0133 2/27/98

Crude Oil Supplemental Refund Dist. ................................................................................................................ RB272–0134 2/27/98

Tejas Trucking, Inc. et al ..................................................................................................................................... RK272–04704 2/27/98

The Augsbury Organization, Inc ......................................................................................................................... RK272–3844 2/24/98

The Augsbury Organization, Inc ......................................................................................................................... RF304–15515 ........................

The Augsbury Organization, Inc ......................................................................................................................... RC272–379 ........................

Dismissals

The following submissions were dismissed.

Name Case No.

American Aggregates Corp. ............................................................................................................................................................. RF272–98820

[FR Doc. 98–15953 Filed 6–15–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Office of Hearing and Appeals

Notice of Issuance of Decisions and

Orders; Week of April 13 Through April

17, 1998

During the week of April 13 through

April 17, 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

decision and order are available in the

Public Reference Room of the Office of

Hearings and Appeals, 950 L’Enfant

Plaza, SW, Washington, D.C., 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 4, 1998.

George B. Breznay,

Director, Office of Hearings and Appeals.

Decision List No. 81: Week of April 13

Through April 17, 1998

Appeals

FAS Engineering, Inc., 4/14/98, VFA–

0375

FAS Engineering, Inc. filed an Appeal

from a determination by the Department

of Energy’s (DOE) Golden Field Office,

denying a request for information under

the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).

In its Appeal, FAS contended that

Golden improperly withheld the

requested information from disclosure

under the deliberative process privilege

of FOIA Exemption 5. The DOE found

that Golden properly applied the

threshold requirements of Exemption 5

to the requested documents. However,

the DOE remanded this matter to

Golden to issue a new determination,

either releasing reasonably segregable

factual material or explaining the

reasons for withholding any factual

material contained in the requested

documents. Consequently, the Appeal

was granted.

FAS Engineering, Inc., 4/17/98, VFA–

0400, VFA–0401

FAS Engineering Inc. filed two

Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)

Appeals requesting that the Office of

Hearings and Appeals of the Department

of Energy (DOE) release documents it

withheld from two FOIA requests

pursuant to Exemption 5 of the FOIA. In

considering the Appeals, the DOE

determined that many of the documents

contained segregable factual information

that should not have been withheld

pursuant to Exemption 5. For these

reasons, the DOE directed the FOIA

Official to review all of its withheld

information again and either release

factual information, such as ‘‘rating

guidelines,’’ headings, names of

contractor employees and bid proposal

submissions contained in these

documents, or provide a detailed

explanation for withholding any such

information. Thus, the DOE remanded

the Appeal to the Idaho Operations

Office.

Jones, Walker, Waechter, Poitevent,

Carrere & Denegre, L.L.P., 4/15/98,

VFA–0396

Jones, Walker, Waechter, Poitevent,

Carrere & Denegre, L.L.P. (Appellant),

filed an Appeal of a determination

issued to it by the Department of Energy

(DOE) in response to a request under the

Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). In

its request to the Federal Energy

Technology Center (FETC), the

Appellant asked for information

concerning a Request for Proposal.

FETC forwarded the request to the

Rocky Flats Field Office (RFFO). In its

determination, RFFO found that it

possessed no responsive documents. On

appeal, the Appellant argued that the

search by RFFO had been inadequate.

The DOE first found that RFFO had

never been responsible for overseeing

the RFP at issue and therefore,

possessed no responsive documents.

The DOE further noted that FETC had

conducted a further search for

documents once FETC realized that it

had overseen the RFP at issue. Finally,

the DOE noted that RFFO was only

required to search for documents

possessed as of the date of the FOIA

request. Since the management and

operating contractor had come into

possession of responsive documents

after the request date, the Appellant

could make a new FOIA request for

those documents. Accordingly, the

Appeal of the adequacy of RFFO’s

search was denied.

Moore Brower Hennessy & Freeman,

P.C., 4/16/98, VFA–0393.

Moore Brower Hennessy & Freeman,

P.C. (Moore) filed an Appeal of a

determination issued to it by the

Department of Energy (DOE) in response

to a request under the Freedom of

Information Act (FOIA). In the request,

Moore asked for copies of records

relating to a construction contract that