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
32878 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 115 /Tuesday, June 16, 1998 / Notices

Lockheed Martin Information

Technologies Company (LMITCO), the

management and operating contractor of

the Idaho National Engineering

Laboratory, awarded to a construction

company. In its determination, the

Idaho Operations Office (Idaho) stated

that it could not release the responsive

material because the responsive

documents were in LMITCO’s

possession. The DOE found that, even

though in LMITCO’s possession, the

documents in the current request were

nonetheless subject to release under the

DOE regulations. Accordingly, the

Appeal was granted.

Nuclear Control Institute, 4/15/98,

VFA–0395

The DOE issued a decision granting in

part a Freedom of Information Act

(FOIA) Appeal filed by the Nuclear

Control Institute (NCI). NCI sought the

release of information withheld by the

Oak Ridge and Oakland Operations

Offices. In its decision, the DOE found

that the Operations Offices failed to

consider the public interest in

disclosure and had not articulated any

foreseeable harm that would result from

the release of several documents

withheld under FOIA Exemption 5. The

DOE also found that the Operations

Offices had not segregated releasable

information. Accordingly, the Appeal

was remanded to Oak Ridge and

Oakland.

The National Security Archive, 4/16/

98, VFA–0196

The National Security Archive filed

an Appeal from a denial by the

Department of the Air Force of a request

for information that it filed under the

Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).

Because the withheld information was

identified as classified under the

Atomic Energy Act, the Air Force

withheld it at the direction of the DOE

under Exemption 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

redacted version of the requested

information was ordered to be released.

Whistleblower Hearing

Timothy E. Barton, 4/13/98 VWA–

0017

A Hearing Officer issued an Initial

Agency Decision concerning a

whistleblower complaint. The decision

found that, while the employee proved

that disclosures he had made were

protected under 10 C.F.R. Part 708 and

contributed to his termination, the

employer demonstrated by clear and

convincing evidence that it would have

terminated the complainant in the

absence of the protected disclosures.

Personnel Security Hearing

Personnel Security Hearing, 4/17/98,

VSO–0179

A Hearing Officer found that an

individual had shown that he is not

currently suffering from the ‘‘mental

illness,’’ dysthymia, or from any

‘‘mental condition’’ that would cause a

defect in his judgment or reliability.

Accordingly, the Hearing Officer

recommended in the Opinion that the

individual be granted an access

authorization.

Refund Application

Enron Corp./Solar Gas, Inc., 4/17/98,

RF340–55

The DOE granted an Application for

Refund submitted by Solar Gas, Inc.

(Solar Gas) in the Enron Corporation

(Enron) special refund proceeding. The

DOE excluded from Solar Gas’ claim the

volume of propane relating to exchange

or buy/sell transactions between Solar

Gas and Enron. With respect to the

firm’s other purchases from Enron, the

DOE found that Solar Gas had

demonstrated that the prices it paid to

Enron for propane resulted in some

economic injury to Solar Gas, but not a

level of injury sufficient to qualify Solar

Gas for a full volumetric refund. The

DOE therefore limited this refund to the

81.5 percent of the firm’s volumetric

refund. Accordingly, the DOE granted

Solar Gas a refund, including interest, of

$521,622.

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.

Imogene R. Owens ............................................................................................................................................... RK272–01777 4/14/98

Two F Company, L.L.C. ET AL ........................................................................................................................... RK272–04788 4/15/98

Union County, NJ ................................................................................................................................................. RC272–00389 4/14/98

Dismissals

The following submissions were dismissed.

Name Case No.

Personnel Security Hearing .............................................................................................................................................................. VSO–0188

[FR Doc. 98–15954 Filed 6–15–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

[FRL–6111–1]

Revision to Addendum to Mobile

Source Enforcement Memorandum 1A;

Revised Tampering Enforcement

Policy for Alternative Fuel Conversions

A. Purpose

The purpose of this document is to

revise the tampering enforcement policy

for alternative fuel conversions as

currently provided in the U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency’s

(EPA) Addendum to Memorandum 1A

in response to comments and

suggestions received by the regulated

community and other stakeholders.

B. Background

EPA issued an Addendum to Mobile

Source Enforcement Memorandum 1A

(Addendum) on September 4, 1997, to

address emissions increases that

resulted from the conversion of gasoline

powered vehicles and engines to operate

on compressed natural gas (CNG) and

liquefied petroleum gasoline (LPG or

propane). The background and basis for

the issuance of the Addendum and the

contents of the new policy are fully

contained in the Addendum. Since

issuance of the Addendum, EPA has

received a number of inquiries and

recommendations that certain revisions

to the policy would be in the public

interest while not jeopardizing the