Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 28, 1995 / Notices 10847

Name Case No.

Syd Smith ......................................................................................................................................................................................... RF321–14088

Vitamilk Dairy ................................................................................................................................................................................... RF272–90917

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: February 21, 1995.

George B. Breznay,

Director, Office of Hearings and Appeals.

[FR Doc. 95–4878 Filed 2–27–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P

Issuance of Decisions and Orders

During the Week of January 2 Through

January 6, 1995

During the week of January 2 through

January 6, 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

Howard W. Spaletta, 01/04/95, LWA–

0010

Howard W. Spaletta filed a

whistleblower complaint against EG&G

Idaho, Inc. in which he alleged that the

contractor retaliated against him for

making health and safety disclosures.

After investigating the complaint, the

Office of Contractor Employee

Protection found that Spaletta had made

protected disclosures and that thereafter

the contractor had retaliated against him

by referring fewer work assignments to

him and by reducing his annual merit

pay increases. At the same time OCEP

also found that Spaletta had not shown

that the contractor had retaliated against

him by failing to assign him important

and meaningful work, by requiring him

to solicit work, or by requiring him to

take unpaid leave during a Christmas

holiday curtailment of work. Spaletta

requested a hearing to challenge OCEP’s

finding and conclusions.

Subsequent to the hearing, an OHA

Hearing Officer issued an Initial Agency

Decision, setting forth his findings. As

explained below, in the Initial Agency

Decision, the OHA Hearing Officer

found that some of Spaletta’s claims

were meritorious.

The OHA Hearing Officer found that

Spaletta’s disclosures were protected by

the DOE’s contractor employee

protection program. In that regard, the

Hearing Officer found that Spaletta

made his disclosures with a good faith

belief that a final report concerning the

evaluation of welds at the Tennessee

Valley Authority’s Watts Bar nuclear

power plant did not disclose that the

evaluation used a weld inspection code

that was not mentioned in the plant’s

Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR)

and, as a consequence, evaluated

employee weld safety concerns against

a standard different from the standard

contained in the FSAR. The Hearing

Officer also found that Spaletta believed

that these conditions impacted on safety

at the Watts Bar plant.

The Hearing Officer also found that

the contractor retaliated against Spaletta

by referring fewer work assignments to

him and by reducing his annual merit

pay increases for a three-year period.

The Hearing Officer rejected Spaletta’s

claims (i) that the contractor retaliated

against him by requiring him to take

leave during a Christmas holiday

curtailment of work and (ii) that

Spaletta was constructively terminated.

The Hearing Officer also rejected

Spaletta’s request that the Hearing

Officer order the contractor to withdraw

the report in question. Finally, the

Hearing Officer directed the parties to

submit additional information

concerning the amount of back pay,

attorney’s fees, and costs that should be

awarded in the case.

Refund Application

Standard Oil Company (Indiana) et al./

Oklahoma, 01/04/95, RM21–277 et

al.

The DOE issued a Decision and Order

granting a Motion for Modification

(Motion) filed by the State of Oklahoma

in the Standard Oil Company (Indiana),

Belridge Oil Company, Palo Pinto Oil &

Gas, OKC Corporation, and Vickers

Energy Corporation refund proceedings.

In its Motion, Oklahoma proposed to

reallocate $21,080 in interest from funds

which the State received for other

second-stage refund plans to provide a

transportation service for individuals

departing from three self-help

organizations in downtown Oklahoma

City and traveling to jobs outside the

inner city. The vehicle to be used is a

15-passenger compressed natural gas

(CNG) van. In accordance with prior

Decisions, where we have noted the

benefits of alternative fuel vehicles and

the increased use of public

transportation, the DOE approved

Oklahoma’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/Edmonds Arco ..................................................................................................... RF304–13881 01/06/95

Florence Car Wash ............................................................................................................................................... RF304–13908 .......................

Smith Motor Sales ............................................................................................................................................... RF304–13998 .......................

Enron Corp./Nixon Company ............................................................................................................................. RF340–74 01/04/95

Pioneer Energy, Inc .............................................................................................................................................. RF340–88 .......................

Bonesteel Oil Company ....................................................................................................................................... RF340–117 .......................

Gulf Oil Corporation/Vic’s Gulf Service et al .................................................................................................... RF300–21603 01/06/95

Shellabarger Chevrolet ........................................................................................................................................ RF272–94629 01/03/95

Texaco Inc./Norm’s Texaco et al ........................................................................................................................ RF321–20582 01/04/95

Texaco Inc./Rommel’s Holiday Inn Texaco et al ............................................................................................... RF321–11298 01/04/95

Texaco Inc./Von’s Texaco Service et al ............................................................................................................. RF321–20610 01/06/95

Town of Oelwein et al ......................................................................................................................................... RF272–96608 01/06/95
10848 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 28, 1995 / Notices

Dismissals

The following submissions were dismissed:

Name Case No.

Bill’s Texaco ..................................................................................................................................................................................... RF321–19630

Les Texaco ....................................................................................................................................................................................... RF321–19705

Marathon Letourneau Company ...................................................................................................................................................... RF272–95057

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, SW., Washington, DC 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: February 21, 1995.

George B. Breznay,

Director, Office of Hearings and Appeals.

[FR Doc. 95–4879 Filed 2–27–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

[FRL–5161–4]

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; where appropriate, it

includes the actual data collection

instrument.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on

or before March 30, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For

further information, or a copy of this

ICR, contact Sandy Farmer at (202) 260–

2740.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Office of Air and Radiation

Title: California Pilot Program:

Vehicle Credit Program EPA ICR

#1590.02; OMB #2060–0229). This ICR

requests renewal of the existing

clearance.

Abstract: Manufacturers who sell

more clean-fuel vehicles in California

than the law requires or who sell

vehicles in California which are cleaner

than the law requires may earn credits

which may be banked and applied to

future years’ sales requirements or

traded to other manufacturers. These

manufacturers will submit annual

reports containing information on

vehicle sales in California and the

number of credits created, banked,

traded and/or used. EPA will use the

information to determine compliance

with the sales requirements and the

credit program.

Burden Statement: Public reporting

and recordkeeping burden for this

collection of information is estimated to

average 30 minutes per response,

including time for reviewing

instructions, searching existing data

sources, gathering and maintaining the

data needed, and completing the

collection of information.

Respondents: Manufacturers of cleanfueled vehicles sold in California.

Estimated Number of Respondents:

20.

Estimated Total Annual Burden on

Respondents: 10 hours.

Frequency of Collection: Annually.

Send comments regarding the burden

estimate, or any other aspect of this

information collection, including

suggestions for reducing the burden, to:

Sandy Farmer, U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, Information Policy

Branch (2136), 401 M Street, SW.,

Washington, DC 20460

and

Troy Hillier, Office of Management and

Budget, Office of Information and

Regulatory Affairs, 725 17th Street,

NW.,Washington, DC 20503.

Dated: February 22, 1995.

Paul Lapsley,

Director, Regulation Management Division.

[FR Doc. 95–4895 Filed 2–27–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–F

[FRL–5162–6]

Common Sense Initiative Council,

Petroleum Refining Sector

Subcommittee; Meeting

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Amended Notice of Meeting—

Common Sense Initiative Council,

Petroleum Refining Sector

Subcommittee.

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection

Agency established the Common Sense

Initiative Council (CSIC) on October 17,

1994, to provide independent advice

and counsel to EPA on environmental

issues associated with the petroleum

refining industry and other industrial

sectors. The charter for the CSIC was

authorized through October 17, 1996,

under regulations established by the

Federal Advisory Committee Act

(FACA). The Petroleum Refining Sector

(PRS) Subcommittee operates as a

subcommittee of the CSIC.

AMENDED OPEN MEETING NOTICE: Notice is

hereby given of a change in dates for the

upcoming CSIC-PRS Subcommittee

meeting from a one day meeting, March

10, 1995, to a two day meeting to be

held March 9 and 10, 1995. The meeting

was previously noticed in the Federal

Register for a one day meeting on

Friday, March 10, 1995, from 9:00 a.m.

to 5:30 p.m. at the Radisson Inn Hotel,

2150 Veterans Blvd., Kenner, LA 70062

(1–800–333–3333 or 504–467–3111).

The meeting is now scheduled for two

days, March 9 and 10 in the same

location. An additional day is needed to

conduct the full range of committee

business and to convene in workgroups

that will begin identifying specific

issues and formulating a CSIC-PRS

subcommittee workplan. Seating will be

available on a first come, first served

basis.

INSPECTION OF SUBCOMMITTEE

DOCUMENTS: Documents relating to the

topics above will be publicly available

at the meeting. Thereafter, these

documents, together with the CSIC-PRS

meeting minutes, will be available for

public inspection in Room 2417M of

EPA Headquarters, 401 M Street, SW.,

Washington, D.C., Mail Code 6101,

phone (202) 260–7417.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Anyone who would like further

information should contact the Common

Sense Initiative Program Staff office by

phone on (202) 260–7417, or by FAX on

(202) 260–9766. Members of the public

may submit written comments of any