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
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 84 / Tuesday, May 2, 1995 / Notices 21517

his drug use, but had not shown

rehabilitation from the falsification.

Accordingly, the Hearing Officer

determined that the individual’s

clearance should not be restored.

Refund Application

Gulf Oil Corporation/Hilltop Auto

Laundry, 3/23/95, RF300–15647

Hilltop Auto Laundry filed an

Application for Refund in the Gulf Oil

Corporation (Gulf) special refund

proceeding. Hilltop requested an abovevolumetric refund based on Gulf’s

alleged breach of 1972 franchise and

supply agreements. The conduct cited

by Hilltop was Gulf’s termination of the

franchise arrangement, Gulf’s use of a

substitute supplier, and Hilltop’s receipt

of less product than provided for under

the 1972 contract. In considering

Hilltop’s Application, the DOE noted

that refunds are granted based on

alleged or actual regulatory violations,

not alleged breaches of contractual

agreements. The DOE determined that

Hilltop had not demonstrated that the

conduct in question violated the

regulations. Accordingly, the

Application was denied.

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

Skilo Mfg. Inc. ..................................................................................................................................... RC272–285 ......................... 03/22/95

Texaco Inc./Dave & Jack’s Texaco Service, Inc. ............................................................................... RF321–20885 ..................... 03/22/95

Millcrest Texaco .................................................................................................................................. RF321–20914.

White’s Texaco ................................................................................................................................... RF321–20931.

Texaco Inc./Lake Street Texaco et al ................................................................................................ RF321–572 ......................... 03/24/95

Texaco Inc./Six Points Texaco ........................................................................................................... RF321–15920 ..................... 03/22/95

Southside Texaco ............................................................................................................................... RR321–159.

Texaco Inc./Spiros Karamalegos et al ............................................................................................... RF321–7550 ....................... 03/24/95

Dismissals

The following submissions were

dismissed:

Name Case No.

Agipcoal USA, Inc. ............ RF272–95020

Airport Limousine Service,

Inc.

RF272–91666

American Western Corporation.RF272–67861

Benzie County ................... RF272–86933

Clipper’s Texaco ............... RF321–18913

Felix M. Rivera Rivera ...... RF315–9352

Gibson Texaco .................. RF321–18974

Hardy Gulf ......................... RF300–21714

John Morrell & Co. ............ RF272–96573

Luis B. Cruz ...................... RF315–9337

McConnell Texaco ............ RF321–10849

Nevada Operations Office . VSO–0022

Rafael Torres Diaz ............ RF315–9342

Stanley Cain ...................... RF321–8985

Villa Prade Auto Service ... RF315–9347

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. 95–10758 Filed 5–1–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P

Issuance of Decisions and Orders

During the Week of February 13

through February 17, 1995

During the week of February 13

through February 17, 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.

Appeal

Southwest Resource Development, 2/15/

95, VFA–0020

Southwest Resource Development

(Southwest) filed an Appeal from a

partial denial by the DOE’s Office of

Inspector General (IG) of a Request for

Information which Southwest had

submitted under the Freedom of

Information Act (FOIA). In considering

the Appeal, the DOE found that IG

properly applied Exemptions 6 and 7(C)

to the information requested by

Southwest. The DOE found that the

information requested by Southwest

might identify individuals in an IG

investigation by indicating certain

functions performed by them. Since the

interest in the identity of the

individuals did not outweigh the

individuals’ privacy interest, the release

of identifying information would

constitute an unwarranted invasion of

privacy. Accordingly, the Appeal was

denied.

Refund Applications

Defense Logistics Agency, 2/14/95,

RF272–11

The DOE issued a Decision and Order

concerning an Application for Refund

filed in the Subpart V Crude Oil refund

proceeding by Defense Logistics Agency

(DLA), a purchasing organ for the

federal government. In granting the DLA

refund claim, the DOE rejected

challenges to the agency’s right to

receive a refund in the proceeding and

DLA’s claimed status as a product enduser. The DOE noted that agencies of the

federal government are not precluded

from participation in the Crude Oil

refund proceeding, and that DLA was

properly classified as an end-user since

its purchase of refined petroleum

product ended the commercial

marketing of the product which was

consumed by entities of the federal

government. DLA was therefore granted

a refund of $34,161,149.

Holston Defense Corp., 2/13/95, RF272–

91995

The DOE issued a Decision and Order

denying Holston Defense Corporation’s

application for refund in the crude oil

special refund proceeding. The

applicant purchased petroleum

products for work done under contract

with the U.S. Department of Defense.

Since the Department of Defense

reimbursed Holston for all petroleum

purchases, it was ineligible to receive a

refund in this proceeding. Therefore, the

Application for Refund was denied.