Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 84 / Tuesday, May 2, 1995 / Notices 21515

Name Case No.

Huntsville Utilities ............................................................................................................................................................................. RF272–78672

Lake Region Union High School ...................................................................................................................................................... RF272–96586

Live Oak LPG ................................................................................................................................................................................... RF304–14816

Lockheed Environmental Systems & Technologies Company ........................................................................................................ VWD–0001

Mound Bayou Public Schools .......................................................................................................................................................... RF272–88263

Redmond Sand & Gravel Co ........................................................................................................................................................... RF272–98122

Sam Denaro’s Texaco Service ........................................................................................................................................................ RF321–20331

Santee’s Arco ................................................................................................................................................................................... RF304–14809

Southside Texaco of Monroe ........................................................................................................................................................... RF321–8134

West Park Texaco ............................................................................................................................................................................ RF321–11379

Winn-Dixie Atlanta, Inc ..................................................................................................................................................................... RF272–77493

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, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20585,

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.

Dated: April 21, 1995.

George B. Breznay,

Director, Office of Hearings and Appeals.

[FR Doc. 95–10756 Filed 5–1–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P

Notice of Issuance of Decisions and

Orders During the Week of February 20

Through February 24, 1995

During the week of February 20

through February 24, 1995, the

decisions and orders summarized below

were issued with respect to appeals and

applications for other relief 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.

Appeals

David K. Hackett, 2/24/95, VFA–0021

David K. Hackett filed an Appeal from

a determination issued by the Oak Ridge

Operations Office (Oak Ridge) of the

Department of Energy in response to a

request from Mr. Hackett under the

Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). Mr.

Hackett sought a copy of the transcript

of the deposition taken of him in the

case of Hackett v. Martin Marietta. In

denying Hackett’s request, Oak Ridge

stated that it did not possess the

requested document. In considering the

Appeal, the Office of Hearings and

Appeals found that although Oak Ridge

did not possess the requested transcript,

it did own that document. The OHA

found that since Oak Ridge owned the

deposition transcript, it should have

considered whether the document

should have been released. Accordingly,

the matter was remanded to Oak Ridge.

J/R/A Associates, 2/23/95, VFA–0022

J/R/A Associates filed an Appeal from

a determination issued to it by the

Associate Deputy Secretary for Field

Management of the Department of

Energy (DOE) in response to a Request

for Information submitted under the

Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). In

considering the Appeal, the DOE found

that the Office of Contractor Employee

Protection (OCEP) had improperly

withheld the name of corporate

contractors and subcontractors named

in ongoing ‘‘whistleblower’’

investigations. OCEP had withheld this

information under Exemptions 6 and

7(C), which protect personal privacy.

The DOE found that corporations do not

have protectable privacy interests for

the purposes of these FOIA exemptions.

Accordingly, the Appeal was granted in

part, denied in part and remanded with

instructions to either release the

requested information or to issue a new

determination fully explaining its

reasons for continuing to withhold the

information.

Refund Applications

Atlantic Richfield Co./Coast Gas, Inc., 2/

23/95 RR304–63

Coast Gas, Inc. filed a Motion for

Reconsideration from the dismissal of

an Application for Refund that it had

filed the Atlantic Richfield Company

special refund proceeding. Since Coast

Gas was seeking a refund in excess of

$5,000, it was required to demonstrate

that it was injured by ARCO’s alleged

overcharges on its sales of natural gas

liquids. The firm submitted evidence

that it maintained banks of unrecovered

product costs in excess of its refund

claim and that the firm’s ARCO

purchases placed it at a competitive

disadvantage vis-a-vis other resellers of

propane and butane in its marketing

area. The firm was not however, at a

competitive disadvantage with respect

to its purchases of ARCO natural

gasoline. Accordingly, the firm was

granted a refund of its full allocable

share with respect to its propane and

butane purchases, and a refund equal to

its above-market volumetric share with

respect to its purchases of natural

gasoline. The total refund issued to the

firm was $88,339 ($49,699 in principal

and $38,640 in interest).

Texaco Inc./ Cadoret Oil Company, 2/

22/95 RF321–14165

The DOE issued a Decision and Order

granting an Application for Refund in

the Texaco Inc. special refund

proceeding. Francis Cadoret filed an

Application for Refund on behalf of

Cadoret Oil Co., a firm he owned with

his partner, Joseph Cadoret, for its

purchases of Texaco petroleum

products. Francis Cadoret claimed that

he alone was entitled to the entire

refund since he had purchased his

partners share of the business. After

examining the language of the relevant

partnership dissolution agreement, the

DOE found that the agreement had

transferred Joseph Cadorets right to a

refund to Francis Cadoret.

Consequently, the DOE determined that

Francis Cadoret was eligible to receive

a refund equal to Cadoret Oil’s full

allocable share. Accordingly, Francis

Cadoret was granted a refund of $1,166

($805 principal plus $361 interest).

Texaco Inc./27 W. Landis Texaco,

Langhorne Texaco Service Station,

D’ippolito Oil Company R.A. Reiff

Fuels, Inc., 2/23/95 RF321–16943,

RF321–16944, RF321–16950,

RF321–16951

The DOE issued a Decision and Order

concerning four Applications for Refund

submitted by indirect purchases of

Texaco products. The DOE determined

that the four applicants were affiliated

through varying degrees of common

ownership and considered the claims

together in order to determine one

combined allocable share for the four

firms. Further, one of the owners of R.A.

Reiff Fuels, Inc. also owns 75 percent of

the shares of the corporation that

supplied Texaco products to R.A. Reiff

Fuels, Inc. Since that supplier has
21516 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 84 / Tuesday, May 2, 1995 / Notices

received a refund for its direct

purchases of Texaco products, R.A. Reiff

Fuels, Inc.’s refund attributable to the

common owner was reduced by 75

percent so that he would not receive

two refunds for the same gallons of

product. The total of the refunds granted

to the applicants was $12,005 ($8,288

principal and $3,717 interest).

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.

Name Case No. Date

Atlantic Richfield Company/R.D.P. Corporation et al ......................................................................... RF304–14596 ..................... 02/23/95

City of Columbus et al ........................................................................................................................ RF272–83003 ..................... 02/22/95

Deer Trail Truckline ............................................................................................................................ RC272–277 ......................... 02/23/95

Deer Trail Truckline ............................................................................................................................ RR272–187 .........................

Muckleroy Cattle Co. et al .................................................................................................................. RF272–91900 ..................... 02/21/95

Prins Rental et al ................................................................................................................................ RF272–90188 ..................... 02/22/95

Texaco Inc./Air Comfort, Inc ............................................................................................................... RF321–21058 ..................... 02/21/95

Texaco Inc./Allen Texaco et al ........................................................................................................... RF321–9086 ....................... 02/22/95

Texaco Inc./Pritchard’s Texaco et al .................................................................................................. RF321–17144 ..................... 02/21/95

Texaco Inc./Silva’s Texaco et al ........................................................................................................ RF321–20818 ..................... 02/22/95

Dismissals

The following submissions were

dismissed:

Name Case No.

Arizona Chemical .............. RF321–20821

Schadow Texaco ............... RF321–12996

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, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20585,

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.

Dated: April 21, 1995.

George B. Breznay,

Director, Office of Hearings and Appeals.

[FR Doc. 95–10757 Filed 5–1–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P

Office of Hearings and Appeals

Issuance of Decisions and Orders;

Week of March 20 through March 24,

1995

During the week of March 20 through

March 24, 1995 the decisions and orders

summarized below were issued with

respect to appeals and applications for

other relief 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.

Appeals

National Security Archive, 3/24/95,

LFA–0297

National Security Archive filed an

Appeal from a denial by the Department

of Defense of a request for information

that it filed under the Freedom of

Information Act (FOIA). The

information had been withheld by the

predecessor to the DOE’s Office of

Declassification as classified material

under Exemptions 1 and 3 of the FOIA.

After considering the matter, the DOE

determined that all of previously

withheld material could now be

released. Accordingly, the Appeal was

granted.

Richard J. Levernier, 3/21/95, VFA–0025

Richard J. Levernier filed an Appeal

from a determination issued by the

Manager of the Department of Energy’s

Rocky Flats Office (DOE/RF), in

response to a request for information

under the Freedom of Information Act

(FOIA). Levernier sought records of

telephone conversations between

himself and personnel of Wackenhut

Services, Inc., a DOE contractor. In his

Appeal, Levernier challenged the

adequacy of DOE/RF’s search for

records. In considering the Appeal, the

DOE found that, because the DOE/RF

FOIA Officer consulted each of the

offices at DOE/RF that were likely to

possess the records, including the

offices that Levernier stated had

reviewed the documents, her search was

reasonably calculated to uncover the

records sought by the Appellant.

Accordingly, the Appeal was denied.

Robert L. Hale, 3/20/95, VFA–0026

The Department of Energy issued a

Decision and Order denying a Freedom

of Information Act Appeal filed by

Robert L. Hale. In his Appeal, Mr. Hale

contested the adequacy of the search for

responsive documents performed by the

DOE’s Oak Ridge Operations Office.

After conducting its own inquiry into

the scope of the search, the DOE

concluded that the search was adequate.

Mr. Hale’s Appeal was therefore denied.

Personnel Security Hearings

Albuquerque Operations Office, 3/22/

95, VSO–0011

A Hearing Officer issued an Opinion

regarding the eligibility of an individual

to maintain a level ‘‘Q’’ access

authorization under the provisions of 10

CFR part 710. The individual was

alleged to have an illness or mental

condition of a nature that in the opinion

of a board-certified psychiatrist causes,

or may cause, a significant defect in her

judgment or reliability. On February 15,

1995, an evidentiary hearing was

conducted in which a DOE-sponsored

psychiatrist and the individual’s

psychiatrist testified, along with other

relevant witnesses. After carefully

examining the record of the proceeding,

the Hearing Officer determined that

although the individual suffers from

recurrent major depression, her

psychiatric profile, type of depression,

work record and efforts at rehabilitation

indicate to him that she is not a risk to

national security. Accordingly, the

Hearing Officer found that the

individual’s access authorization should

be reinstated.

Albuquerque Operations Office, 3/23/

95, VSO–0013

An OHA Hearing Officer issued an

opinion concerning the access

authorization of an individual whose

security clearance was suspended

because he tested positive for marijuana

use and also because he lied on a DOE

form, stating that he had not used illegal

drugs. The Hearing Officer found that

the individual was rehabilitated from