48084 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 177 / Friday, September 12, 1997 / Notices

encouraged to notify their constituents

of this proposed action and encourage

them to comment on their areas of

concern.

The EA will discuss impacts that

could occur as a result of the

construction and operation of the

proposed project under these general

headings:

• Geology and soils

• Water resources, fisheries and

wetlands

• Vegetation and wildlife

• Endangered and threatened species

• Public safety

• Land use

• Curtural resources

• Air quality and noise

• Hazardous waste

We will also evaluate possible

alternatives to the proposed project and

make recommendations on how to

lessen or avoid impacts on the various

resource areas.

Our independent analysis of the

issues will be in the EA. Depending on

the comments received during the

scoping process, the EA may be

published and mailed to Federal, state,

and local agencies, public interest

groups, interested individuals, affected

landowners, newspapers, libraries, and

the Commission’s official service list for

this proceeding. A comment period will

be allotted for review if the EA is

published. We will consider all

comments on the EA before we make

our recommendations to the

Commission.

Currently Identified Environmental

Issues

We have already identified one issue

that we think deserves attention based

on a preliminary review of the proposed

facilities and the environmental

information provided by Texas Gas.

Additional issues may be included

based on your comments and our

analysis.

• Noise levels at the nearest noisesensitive areas would exceed a daynight sound level of 55 dBA (decibels of

the A-weighted scale) with the

construction of the additional

compressor unit.

Also, we have made a preliminary

decision to not address the impacts of

the nonjurisdictional facilities. We will

briefly describe their location and status

in the EA.

Public Participation

You can make a difference by sending

a letter addressing your specific

comments or concerns about the project.

You should focus on the potential

environmental effects of the proposal,

alternatives to the proposal, and

measures to avoid or lessen

environmental impact. The more

specific your comments, the more useful

they will be. Please carefully follow

these instructions to ensure that your

comments are received in time and

properly recorded:

• Send two copies of your letter to:

Lois Cashell, Secretary, Federal Energy

Regulatory Commission, 888 First St.,

NE., Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426;

• Label one copy of the comments for

the attention of the Environmental

Review and Compliance Branch, PR–

11.2;

• Reference Docket No. CP97–656–

000; and

• Mail your comments so that they

will be received in Washington, DC on

or before October 6, 1997.

Becoming an Intervenor

In addition to involvement in the EA

scoping process, you may want to

become an official party to the

proceeding or become an ‘‘intervenor.’’

Among other things, intervenors have

the right to receive copies of caserelated Commission documents and

filing by other intervenors. Likewise,

each intervenor must provide copies of

its filings to all other parties. If you

want to become an intervenor you must

file a motion to intervene according to

Rule 214 of the Commission’s Rules of

Practice and Procedure (18 CFR

385.214) (see appendix 2).

The date for filing timely motions to

intervene in this proceeding has passed.

Therefore, parties now seeking to file

late interventions must show good

cause, as required by section

385.214(b)(3), why this time limitation

should be waived. Environmental issues

have been viewed as good cause for late

intervention. You do not need

intervenor status to have your

comments considered.

Lois D. Cashell,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 97–24181 Filed 9–11–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717–01–M

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Office of Hearings and Appeals

Notice of Issuance of Decisions and

Orders; Week of July 28 Through

August 1, 1997

During the week of July 28 through

August 1, 1997, the decisions and orders

summarized below were issued with

respect to appeals, applications,

petitions, or other requests 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.

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, D.C. 20585–

0107, 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. Some decisions and

orders are available on the Office of

Hearings and Appeals World Wide Web

site at http://www.oha.doe.gov.

Dated: September 3, 1997.

George B. Breznay,

Director, Office of Hearings and Appeals.

Decision List No. 44—Week of July 28

Through August 1, 1997

Appeals

The Cincinnati Enquirer, 7/29/97, VFA–

0307

The Cincinnati Enquirer (Appellant)

filed an Appeal concerning its request

under the Freedom of Information Act

(FOIA). The Appellant had requested

documentation for all sole-source

contracts at the Fernald Environmental

Management Project (FEMP). The DOE’s

Ohio Field Office (DOE/OFO) released

some documents but found that other

documents were owned by FEMP’s

management and operating contractor,

Fluor Daniel Fernald (FDF). On appeal,

the Appellant argued that FDF is an

agency and that the withheld

documents are agency records. The DOE

rejected both of these arguments and

found that the documents were not

subject to release under DOE

regulations. Accordingly, the Appeal

was denied.

Personnel Security Hearings

Personnel Security Hearing, 7/31/97

VSO–0146

An Office of Hearings and Appeals

Hearing Officer issued an opinion

regarding the eligibility of an individual

employed by a contractor at a DOE

facility to maintain an access

authorization under the provisions of 10

CFR Part 710. The individual’s access

authorization had been suspended

because the individual had consumed

alcohol habitually to excess in the past.

The Hearing Officer found that the

individual had mitigated the concerns

raised by the DOE with respect to his

alcohol use by presenting documentary

and testimonial evidence indicating that
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 177 / Friday, September 12, 1997 / Notices 48085

his alcohol problem was in remission

and that he did not need further

rehabilitation. Accordingly, the Hearing

Officer recommended that the

individual’s access authorization be

restored.

Personnel Security Hearing, 7/30/97

VSO–0152

An Office of Hearings and Appeals

Hearing Officer issued an Opinion

under 10 CFR Part 710 concerning the

continued eligibility of an individual to

hold an access authorization. The

Hearing Officer found that the

individual: (1) Had deliberately

misrepresented, falsified, or omitted

significant information during a

personnel security interview, in

responding to an official inquiry on a

matter regarding his eligibility for DOE

access authorization; (2) had a mental

condition of a nature which caused, and

may continue to cause, a significant

defect in judgment or reliability; and (3)

had engaged in unusual conduct which

tended to show that the individual is

not honest, reliable, or trustworthy. The

Hearing Officer further found that the

individual had failed to mitigate the

legitimate security concerns of DOE

relating to these matters. Accordingly,

the Hearing Officer recommended that

the individual’s access authorization,

which had been suspended, not be

restored.

Motion for Reconsideration

Greenville Automatic Gas Co., Inc.,

7/30/97 VER–0002

Greenville Automatic Gas Co., Inc.

filed a Motion for Reconsideration of a

Decision denying its Application for

Exception from the Energy Information

Administration requirement that it file

Form EIA–782B, the ‘‘Resellers’/

Retailers’’ Monthly Petroleum Product

Sales Report.’’ In considering

Greenville’s Motion, the DOE found that

the firm had not demonstrated that

completing the form would cause it to

experience a serious hardship or gross

inequity. Accordingly, the Motion for

Reconsideration was denied.

Refund Application

Chesebrough-Pond’s USA Co., 7/29/97

RF272–97101

The DOE issued a Decision and Order

considering an Application for Refund

in the crude oil overcharge proceeding

filed by Chesebrough-Pond’s USA Co.

(CP). The DOE rejected a refund claim

based on CP’s purchases of petrolatum,

finding that the firm did nothing more

than heat and cool that substance in

order to turn it into Vaseline. As such,

the DOE found that CP was a reseller of

petrolatum and not an end-user. The

DOE did approve the firm’s refund

request based on purchases of motor

gasoline and motor oil that it used in its

vehicles. The total refund granted was

$930,063.

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.

CAPELETTI BROTHERS, INC. ET AL ................................................................................................................ RF272–98602 7/30/97

COLTRANS, INC .................................................................................................................................................. RA272–78 7/30/97

ENRON CORPORATION/NEBRASKA PUBLIC POWER DIST ......................................................................... RF340–196 7/29/97

UNITED LP GAS CORPORATION ...................................................................................................................... RF340–201

Dismissals

The following submissions were dismissed.

Name Case No.

CITIZEN ACTION ............................................................................................................................................................................. VFA–0320

DEGUSSA CORPORATION ............................................................................................................................................................. RG272–00577

DUVAL ASPHALT PRODUCTS INC. ............................................................................................................................................... RG272–00574

HAARMANN & REIMER CORP. ...................................................................................................................................................... RG272–00575

PERSONNEL SECURITY HEARING ............................................................................................................................................... VSO–0160

PERSONNEL SECURITY HEARING ............................................................................................................................................... VSO–0165

PERSONNEL SECURITY HEARING ............................................................................................................................................... VSO–0169

SANDORE LANE GARDENS ........................................................................................................................................................... RG272–00576

ST. AUGUSTINE TRAWLERS, INC. ................................................................................................................................................ RF272–57064

[FR Doc. 97–24222 Filed 9–11–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

[FRL–5891–7]

Agency Information Collection

Activities: Submission for OMB

Review; Comment Request; Collection

of Economic and Regulatory Impact

Support Data Under RCRA

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 following Information Collection

Request (ICR) has been forwarded to the

Office of Management and Budget

(OMB) for review and approval:

‘‘Collection of Economic and Regulatory

Impact Support Data Under RCRA,’’

OMB No. 2050–0136, expiring 10/31/97.

The ICR describes the nature of the

information collection and its expected

burden and cost; where appropriate, it

includes the actual data collection

instrument.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on

or before October 14, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION OR A COPY

CALL: Sandy Farmer at EPA, (202) 260–

2740, and refer to EPA ICR No. 1641.02.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Title: ‘‘Collection of Economic and

Regulatory Impact Support Data Under

RCRA,’’ (OMB Control No. 2050–0136;

EPA ICR No. 1641.02) expiring 10/31/

97. This is a request for extension of a

currently approved collection.

Abstract: EPA’s Office of Solid Waste

(OSW) is requesting renewal for a

generic clearance to collect economic

and regulatory impact data through

surveys, interviews, or focus group

meetings with industry or other parties