federal register - U.S. Government Printing Office

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