Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Appeal
On July 7, 2016, OHA issued a decision denying an Appeal from a FOIA determination issued by the Richland Operations Office (ROO). In its determination, the ROO released one document, a spreadsheet containing badge information for employees of a subcontractor at the Hanford Site. However, the ROO also redacted the names and badge identification numbers of the individuals pursuant to Exemption 6 of the FOIA. In its Appeal, the Appellant challenged the ROO’s redactions. OHA found that the ROO properly redacted the information because the privacy interests that would be compromised by disclosing the information significantly outweighed any public interest in disclosure. Accordingly, OHA denied the Appeal. OHA Case No. FIA-16-0036
Applications for Exception
On July 5, 2016, OHA granted an Application for Exception filed by Visual Sound LLC dba Truetone (Truetone). Truetone, a manufacturer of specialized noise free external power supplies (EPSs) for musical equipment, requested exception relief from the applicable provisions of 10 CFR Part 430, Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for External Power Supplies (EPS) (EPS Final Rule), codified at 10 CFR § 430.32(w). Truetone showed that compliance with the EPS Final Rule, applicable to EPSs manufactured on or before February 10, 2016, would introduce unwanted noise caused by high frequency harmonics into the signal path. Musicians would then discontinue buying Truetone’s EPS products, which would in turn cause a serious hardship, a gross inequity, and an unfair distribution of burdens for Truetone. Consequently, OHA granted Truetone’s Application for Exception. OHA Case No. EXC-16-0010
On July 5, 2016, OHA denied an Application for Exception filed by Avocent Corporation (Avocent)
On July 5, 2016, OHA granted an Application for Stay filed by Siemens Medical Solutions USA Inc. and Siemens Healthcare Diagnostics Inc. (Siemens) in which the firm requested a stay of enforcement of the applicable provisions of DOE’s Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for Commercial and Industrial Electric Motors (Electric Motor Efficiency Standards), published on May 29, 2014, 79 Fed. Reg. 30934, and codified at 10 C.F.R. Part 431. In evaluating Siemens’ stay request, OHA found that the firm had satisfied the five criteria for the approval of a stay specified in OHA procedural regulations, including that: (1) Siemens had demonstrated irreparable injury, (2) denial of relief would result in an immediate hardship to Siemens, (3) granting a stay was desirable for public policy reasons, (4) it was impossible for the firm to fulfill the requirements of the Electric Motor Efficiency Standards, and (5) there was a likelihood of Siemens prevailing on the merits with respect to its accompanying Application for Exception from the Electric Motor Efficiency Standards. See 10 CFR § 1003.43(b). OHA therefore granted Siemens’ Application for Stay. OHA Case No. EXS-16-0012