25906 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 93 / Monday, May 15, 1995 / Notices

REFUND APPLICATIONS RECEIVED

[Week of March 13 to March 17, 1995]

Date

received Name of refund proceeding/name of refund application Case No.

3/13/95 Charles William Newell .............................................................................................................................................. RF321–21061

3/13/95 Well Treating Service ................................................................................................................................................. RG272–35

3/16/95 Skilo Mfg. Inc. ............................................................................................................................................................. RC272–285

3/17/95 Farmers Co-Op Assn. of Garwood ............................................................................................................................ RG272–36

[FR Doc. 95–11919 Filed 5–12–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P

Issuance of Decisions and Orders

During the Week of April 10 through

April 14, 1995

During the week of April 10 through

April 14, 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

Natural Resources Defense Council, 4/

14/95, KFA–0071

The Natural Resources Defense

Council (NRDC) filed an Appeal from a

determination issued to it by the Office

of Military Application (OMA) of the

Department of Energy (DOE). The

determination partially denied three

Requests for Information which NRDC

submitted under the Freedom of

Information Act (FOIA). In its Requests,

NRDC asked for copies of two

documents and various unclassified

graphs regarding the force structure of

the United States’ nuclear weapon

stockpile. In its determination, OMA

provided NRDC with redated copies of

the two requested documents and

further stated that the graphs were being

withheld in their entirety since they

were contained in another classified

document. Since the withheld

information was classified, OMA stated

that the information was being withheld

under Exemptions 1 and 3 of the FOIA.

NRDC argued that the two documents it

was provided were improperly redacted

and that OMA’s reason for withholding

the graphs was invalid. Additionally,

NRDC argued that classified graphs

potentially responsive to its requests

could be made unclassified by redacting

an axis of the graph and provided

examples of various responsive graphs

which had been released to the public.

The DOE determined that under current

classification guidelines, additional

information from the two responsive

documents could now be released but

that the remainder of the withheld

information in the documents were

properly classified and withheld

pursuant to Exemption 3. The DOE also

found that it possessed no unclassified

graphs other than the ones already in

NRDC’s possession and that in regard to

potentially responsive classified graphs,

such graphs were properly classified

under the current classification

guidelines. Further, the DOE

determined that it was impossible to

declassify any currently classified

graphs by deletion of a particular

element of the graph without risking the

release of classified information.

Consequently, NRDC’s Appeal was

granted in part.

Refund Application

Charter Co./California, 4/10/95 RM23–

288

The DOE issued a Decision and Order

granting a Motion for Modification of a

previously-approved refund plan filed

by the State of California in the Charter

Company second stage refund

proceeding. California requested

permission to reallocate $300,000 in

previously disbursed Charter monies to

the Sacramento City Intermodal Transit

Access Project. The project is intended

to improve connections between

different forms of public transit in the

Sacramento area. In accordance with

prior Decisions that noted the benefits

of similar plans, the DOE granted

California’s Motion.

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.

Atlantic Richfield Company/Klein

Trucking et

al.

RF304–14136 04/14/95

Gulf Oil Corporation/

Walton’s

Auto Service

et al.

RF300–20084 04/14/95

Shell Oil Company/Howard Shell.RF315–8277 . 04/14/95

Texas Gas

Transmission

Corp.

RF272–77212 04/14/95

Dismissals

The following submissions were

dismissed:

Name Case No.

Bacon Towing Co., Inc. ........ RF272–96133

Drumm Service Center #2 .... RF321–17133

Herzog Contracting Corp ...... RF321–20158

United Coal & Oil Company . RF321–20179

University of Maine ............... RF272–77609

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: May 5, 1995.

George B. Breznay,

Director, Office of Hearings and Appeals.

[FR Doc. 95–11921 Filed 5–12–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P

Office of Hearing and Appeals

Cases Filed; Week of March 6 Through

March 10, 1995

During the week of March 6 through

March 10, 1995, the appeals and

applications for exception or other relief

listed in the Appendix to this Notice

were filed with the Office of Hearings

and Appeals of the Department of

Energy.
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 93 / Monday, May 15, 1995 / Notices 25907

Under DOE procedural regulations, 10

CFR part 205, any person who will be

aggrieved by the DOE action sought in

these cases may file written comments

on the application within ten days of

service of notice, as prescribed in the

procedural regulations. For purposes of

the regulations, the date of service of

notice is deemed to be the date of

publication of this Notice or the date of

receipt by an aggrieved person of actual

notice, whichever occurs first. All such

comments shall be filed with the Office

of Hearings and Appeals, Department of

Energy, Washington, D.C. 20585.

Dated: May 5, 1995.

George B. Breznay,

Director, Office of Hearings and Appeals.

LIST OF CASES RECEIVED BY THE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS

[Week of March 6 Through March 10, 1995]

Date Name and location of applicant Case No. Type of submission

Mar. 3, 1995 ............ David K. Hackett, Knoxville, Tennessee . VFA–0032 ..... Appeal of an Information Request Denial. If granted: The

February 22, 1995 Freedom of Information Request Denial

issued by the Oak Ridge Operations Office would be rescinded, and David K. Hackett would receive access to

certain Department of Energy information.

Mar. 6, 1995 ............ Consolidated Edison Company of New

York, Inc., New York, New York.

VEA–0006 ..... Appeal from Special Assessment to the Uranium Enrichment

Decontamination and Decommissioning Fund. If granted:

The written determination issued by the Department of Energy on February 2, 1995 would be rescinded and Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. (Con Ed) would

receive a refund of payments made to the Decontamination and Decommissioning Fund, all Con Ed’s future obligations would be cancelled and Con Ed’s assessment

would be adjusted to zero.

Mar. 6, 1995 ............ Albuquerque Operations Office, Albuquerque, New Mexico.VSO–0023 ..... Request for Hearing under 10 CFR part 710. If granted: An

individual whose security clearance was suspended by the

Albuquerque Operations Office would receive a hearing

under 10 CFR part 710.

Mar. 8, 1995 ............ Eton Trading Corporation, Amarillo,

Texas.

VEF–0009 ..... Implementation of Special Refund Procedures. If granted:

The Office of Hearings and Appeals would implement Special Refund Procedures pursuant to 10 CFR part 205, subpart V to distribute funds received by the DOE as a result

of a December 5, 1986 Remedial Order issued to Eton

Trading Corporation.

Do ..................... Oak Ridge Operations Office, Oak

Ridge, Tennessee.

VSO–0024 ..... Request for Hearing under 10 CFR part 710. If granted: An

individual employed at the Oak Ridge Operations Office

would receive a hearing under 10 CFR part 710.

Do ..................... Rodgers Hydrocarbon Corporation,

Amarillo, Texas.

VEF–0010 ..... Implementation of Special Refund Procedures. If granted:

The Office of Hearings and Appeals would implement Special Refund Procedures pursuant to 10 CFR part 205, subpart V to distribute funds received by the DOE as a result

of a July 20, 1989 Remedial Order issued to Rodgers Hydrocarbon Corporation.

REFUND APPLICATION RECEIVED

[Week of March 6 to March 10, 1995]

Date

received Name of refund proceeding/Name of refund application Case No.

3/6/95 Keller Construction Co ................................................................................................................................................ RG272–00032

3/7/95 Airport Texaco ............................................................................................................................................................. RF321–21060

3/8/95 Wes & Diane Eral ....................................................................................................................................................... RG272–00033

3/10/95 Conrad Co-Op ............................................................................................................................................................. RG272–00034

[FR Doc. 95–11918 Filed 5–12–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

[FRL–5207–1]

Agency Information Collection

Activities Under OMB Review

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: In compliance with the

Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C.

3501 et seq.), this notice announces that

the Information Collection Request (ICR)

abstracted below has been forwarded to

the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB) for review and comment. The

ICR describes the nature of the

information collection and its expected

cost and burden.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on

or before June 14, 1995. For further

information, or to obtain a copy of this

ICR, contact: Sandy Farmer at EPA,

(202) 260–2740.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Office of Air and Radiation

Title: New Source Performance

Standards (NSPS) for Asphalt

Processing and Asphalt Roofing

Manufacturers (Subpart UU)—

Information Requirements (EPA ICR