federal register - U.S. Government Printing Office

Recommendations

Info

Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 28 / Tuesday, February 11, 1997 / Notices6243LIST OF CASES RECEIVED BY THE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS[Week of December 23 through December 27, 1996]Date Name and location of applicant Case No. Type of submission12/23/96 ..... Harold Bibeau Troutdale, Oregon ...... VFA–0255 Appeal of an Information Request Denial. If Granted: The December 4,1996 Freedom of Information Request Denial issued by the ArgonneGroup would be rescinded, and Harold Bibeau would receive access tocertain DOE information.12/24/96 ..... Cascade Scientific, Inc. Redmond,Washington.12/24/96 ..... Crooker & Sons, Inc. Santa Barbara,California.12/24/96 ..... James R. Hutton, Oak Ridge, Tennessee.12/24/96 ..... W. Gordon Smith Co. Eden Prairie,Minnesota.VFA–0257 Appeal of an Information Request Denial. If Granted: The November 21,1996 Freedom of Information Request Denial issued by Richland OperationsOffice would be rescinded, and Cascade Scientific, Inc. would receiveaccess to certain DOE information.RR272–272Request for Modification/Rescission in the Crude Oil Refund Proceeding. IfGranted: The November 15, 1996 Dismissal, Case No. RG272–918, issuedto Crooker & Sons, Inc. would be modified regarding the firm’s applicationfor refund submitted in the crude oil refund proceeding.VFA–0256 Appeal of an Information Request Denial. If Granted: The December 6,1996 Freedom of Information Request Denial issued by Oak Ridge OperationsOffice would be rescinded, and James R. Hutton would receive accessto certain DOE information.VEE–0037Exception to the Reporting Requirements. If Granted: W. Gordon Smith Co.would be granted an extension of time in which to file Form EIA–782BRepeller’s/Retailer’s Monthly Petroleum Product Sales Report.[FR Doc. 97–3309 Filed 2–10–97; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 6450–01–PNotice of Cases Filed; Week ofDecember 30, 1996 Through January 3,1997During the Week of December 30,1996 through January 3, 1997, theappeals, applications, petitions or otherrequests listed in this Notice were filedwith the Office of Hearings and Appealsof the Department of Energy.Any person who will be aggrieved bythe DOE action sought in any of thesecases may file written comments on theapplication within ten days ofpublication of this Notice or the date ofreceipt of actual notice, whicheveroccurs first. All such comments shall befiled with the Office of Hearings andAppeals, Department of Energy,Washington, DC. 20585–0107.Dated: February 3, 1997.George B. Breznay,Director, Office of Hearings and Appeals.LIST OF CASES RECEIVED BY THE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS[Week of December 30, 1996 through January 3, 1997]DateName and Location of applicantCase No.Type of submission1/2/97 ........ Eugene Maples, Alexandria,Virginia.VFA–0258Appeal of an Information Request Denial. If Granted: The November 25, 1996, Freedomof Information Request Denial issued by the Assistant Inspector General forInvestigations would be rescinded, and Eugene Maples would receive access tocertain portions of an investigative report on the fraudulent use of oil overchargefunds in South Carolina.[FR Doc. 97–3312 Filed 2–10–97; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 6450–01–PNotice of Issuance of Decisions andOrders; Week of December 23 ThroughDecember 27, 1996During the week of December 23through December 27, 1996, thedecisions and orders summarized belowwere issued with respect to appeals,applications, petitions, or other requestsfiled with the Office of Hearings andAppeals of the Department of Energy.The following summary also contains alist of submissions that were dismissedby the Office of Hearings and Appeals.Copies of the full text of thesedecisions and orders are available in thePublic Reference Room of the Office ofHearings and Appeals, Room 1E–234,Forrestal Building, 1000 IndependenceAvenue, SW, Washington, D.C. 20585–0107, Monday through Friday, betweenthe hours of 1:00 p.m. and 5:00 p.m.,except federal holidays. They are alsoavailable in Energy Management:Federal Energy Guidelines, acommercially published loose leafreporter system. Some decisions andorders are available on the Office ofHearings and Appeals World Wide Website at http://www.oha.doe.gov.Dated: February 3, 1997.George B. Breznay,Director, Office of Hearings and Appeals.Decision List No. 13AppealsMichael A. Grosche, 12/23/96, VFA–0193Michael A. Grosche filed an Appealfrom a determination issued by theOffice of the Inspector General (OIG) ofthe Department of Energy (DOE) inresponse to a Request for Informationsubmitted under the Freedom ofInformation Act. OIG had withheldnames and other information frommemoranda on the outcome of a closedinvestigation into alleged misbilling bysub-contractor employees whichrevealed no pecuniary loss to the
6244 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 28 / Tuesday, February 11, 1997 / Noticesgovernment. In considering the Appeal,the DOE determined that all of thedocuments were generated for a lawenforcement purpose and that underthose conditions, review would beunder Exemption 7(C). In applyingExemption 7(C), the DOE found thatOIG properly withheld the names ofpersons interviewed and investigated.However, the DOE remanded to the OIGfor further consideration thewithholding of names of federalemployees who did not appear to bepersons OIG either investigated orinterviewed, but who only seemed to beperforming their official functions. TheDOE also remanded for furtherconsideration all other withheldmaterial such as subcontract numbersand billing accounts because none of thematerial appeared on its face to involveany privacy interest, but did appear toaddress a public interest in whethercertain governmental-funded activitieswere well or poorly managed and howthe Federal Acquisition Regulation mayhave been violated. Accordingly, theAppeal was denied in part, granted inpart and remanded to OIG for furtherconsideration.Glen Milner, 12/23/96, VFA–0238Glen Milner (Appellant) filed anAppeal of two Determinations issued tohim by the Department of Energy (DOE)in response to a request under theFreedom of Information Act. In therequest, the Appellant asked for alldocuments, generated from 1985 to thepresent, concerning the ‘‘White Train’’,which carried nuclear weapons until the1980’s. He also requested a fee waiverfor costs associated with processing theFOIA request. On appeal, the OHAfound that there is no provision in theDOE FOIA regulations permitting aconditional fee waiver, such as thatrequested by the Appellant. However,the OHA also found that disclosure ofsome of the information requested bythe Appellant would be in the publicinterest, because it was likely tocontribute significantly to governmentoperations and activities. Under thesecircumstances the OHA determined thata fee waiver was appropriate withrespect to the limited number ofdocuments meeting those conditions.Accordingly, the DOE granted theAppeal in part.The following submissions were dismissed.DismissalsCase nameJames H. Stebbings ..........................................................................................................................................................................James R. Hutton ...............................................................................................................................................................................L.N. Asphalt Co., Inc .........................................................................................................................................................................Marlene Flor ......................................................................................................................................................................................Merlon Management Corp ................................................................................................................................................................Case No.VFA–0242VFA–0256RG272–981VFA–0253RG272–997[FR Doc. 97–3310 Filed 2–10–97; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 6450–01–PNotice of Issuance of Decisions andOrders; Week of January 13 throughJanuary 17, 1997During the week of January 13through January 17, 1997, the decisionsand orders summarized below wereissued with respect to appeals,applications, petitions, or other requestsfiled with the Office of Hearings andAppeals of the Department of Energy.The following summary also contains alist of submissions that were dismissedby the Office of Hearings and Appeals.Copies of the full text of thesedecisions and orders are available in thePublic Reference Room of the Office ofHearings and Appeals, Room 1E–234,Forrestal Building, 1000 IndependenceAvenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20585–0107, Monday through Friday, betweenthe hours of 1:00 p.m. and 5:00 p.m.,except federal holidays. They are alsoavailable in Energy Management:Federal Energy Guidelines, acommercially published loose leafreporter system. Some decisions andorders are available on the Office ofHearings and Appeals World Wide Website at http://www.oha.doe.gov.Dated: February 3, 1997.George B. Breznay,Director, Office of Hearings and Appeals.Decision List No. 16AppealsDigital City Communications, Inc.,1/14/97, VFA–0254Digital City Communications, Inc.(Digital) filed an Appeal of aDetermination issued to it by theDepartment of Energy (DOE) in responseto a request under the Freedom ofInformation Act (FOIA). In the request,the Appellant asked for NetworkIntrusion Detector software and theaccompanying manual. In itsDetermination, DOE’s OaklandOperations Office (Oakland) found thatthe requested items should be withheldunder Exemption 4 of the FOIA. OnAppeal, the Office of Hearings andAppeals (OHA) found that the caseshould be remanded because Oaklandhad failed to determine whether thesoftware was a ‘‘record’’ under theFOIA. OHA further found thatOakland’s Exemption 4 determinationwas inadequate. Therefore, the DOEgranted the Appeal and remanded thematter to Oakland for further action.Gretchen Lee Coles, 1/15/97, VFA–0251Gretchen Lee Coles filed an Appealfrom determinations issued by the OakRidge Operations Office and theAlbuquerque Operations Officeindicating that they had been unable tolocate records that would reflectwhether the federal government hademployed Lee H. Coles and whether Mr.Coles had been exposed to radiation.The DOE denied the Appeal because itfound that the searches conducted inresponse to the Appellant’s Freedom ofInformation Act (FOIA) request werereasonable. The DOE found that theFOIA Officers contacted people whowould have knowledge of whetherrelevant documents exist, and that theseindividuals used appropriateprocedures to search for the recordsrequested.Harold Bibeau, 1/17/97 VFA–0255The Department of Energy denied anAppeal of a determination that nodocuments responsive to the appellant’srequest could be located. DOE foundthat the search conducted wasreasonably calculated to uncovermaterial responsive to the request.I.B.E.W., 1/15/97, VFA–0250The International Brotherhood ofElectrical Workers (I.B.E.W.) filed anAppeal from a determination, dated
Page 2 and 3:
IIFederal Register / Vol. 62, No. 2
Page 4 and 5:
IVFederal Register / Vol. 62, No. 2
Page 6 and 7:
VIFederal Register / Vol. 62, No. 2
Page 8 and 9:
6099Rules and RegulationsFederal Re
Page 12 and 13:
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 28
Page 14 and 15:
Page 16 and 17:
Page 18 and 19:
Page 20 and 21:
Page 22 and 23:
Page 24 and 25:
Page 26 and 27:
Page 28 and 29:
Page 30 and 31:
Page 32 and 33:
Page 34 and 35:
Page 36 and 37:
Page 38 and 39:
Page 40 and 41:
Page 42 and 43:
Page 44 and 45:
Page 46 and 47:
Page 48 and 49:
Page 50 and 51:
Page 52 and 53:
Page 54 and 55:
Page 56 and 57:
Page 58 and 59:
Page 60 and 61:
Page 62 and 63:
Page 64 and 65:
Page 66 and 67:
Page 68 and 69:
Page 70 and 71:
Page 72 and 73:
Page 74 and 75:
Page 76 and 77:
Page 78 and 79:
Page 80 and 81:
Page 82 and 83:
Page 84 and 85:
Page 86 and 87:
Page 88 and 89:
Page 90 and 91:
Page 92 and 93:
Page 94 and 95:
Page 96 and 97:
Page 98 and 99:
Page 100 and 101:
Page 102 and 103: Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 28
Page 202 and 203:
Page 204 and 205:
Page 206 and 207:
Page 208 and 209:
Page 210 and 211:
Page 212 and 213:
Page 214 and 215:
Page 216 and 217:
6308 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No
Page 218 and 219:
Page 220 and 221:
Page 222 and 223:
Page 224 and 225:
Page 226 and 227:
Page 228 and 229:
Page 230 and 231:
Page 232 and 233:
Page 234 and 235:
Page 236 and 237:
Page 238 and 239:
Page 240 and 241:
Page 242 and 243:
Page 244 and 245:
Page 246 and 247:
Page 248 and 249:
Page 250 and 251:
Page 252 and 253:
Page 254 and 255:
Page 256 and 257:
Page 258 and 259:
Page 260 and 261:
Page 262 and 263:
Page 264 and 265:
Page 266 and 267:
Page 268 and 269:
Page 270 and 271:
Page 272 and 273:
federal registerTuesdayFebruary 11,
Page 274 and 275:
Page 276 and 277:
Page 278 and 279:
Page 280 and 281:
Page 282 and 283:
Page 284 and 285:
Page 286 and 287:
Page 288 and 289:
Page 290 and 291:
Page 292 and 293:
Page 294 and 295:
Page 296 and 297:
Page 298 and 299:
Page 300 and 301:
Page 302 and 303:
Page 304 and 305:
Page 306 and 307:
Page 308 and 309:
Page 310 and 311:
Page 312 and 313:
Page 314 and 315:
Page 316 and 317:
Page 318 and 319:
Page 320 and 321:
Page 322 and 323:
Page 324 and 325:
Page 326 and 327:
Page 328 and 329:
Page 330 and 331:
Page 332 and 333:
Page 334 and 335:
Page 336 and 337:
Page 338 and 339:
Page 340 and 341:
Page 342 and 343:
Page 344 and 345:
Page 346 and 347:
Page 348 and 349:
Page 350 and 351:
iiFederal Register / Vol. 62, No. 2
Page 352:
ivFederal Register / Vol. 62, No. 2
show all

federal register - U.S. Government Printing Office

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?