6244 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 28 / Tuesday, February 11, 1997 / Notices

government. In considering the Appeal,

the DOE determined that all of the

documents were generated for a law

enforcement purpose and that under

those conditions, review would be

under Exemption 7(C). In applying

Exemption 7(C), the DOE found that

OIG properly withheld the names of

persons interviewed and investigated.

However, the DOE remanded to the OIG

for further consideration the

withholding of names of federal

employees who did not appear to be

persons OIG either investigated or

interviewed, but who only seemed to be

performing their official functions. The

DOE also remanded for further

consideration all other withheld

material such as subcontract numbers

and billing accounts because none of the

material appeared on its face to involve

any privacy interest, but did appear to

address a public interest in whether

certain governmental-funded activities

were well or poorly managed and how

the Federal Acquisition Regulation may

have been violated. Accordingly, the

Appeal was denied in part, granted in

part and remanded to OIG for further

consideration.

Glen Milner, 12/23/96, VFA–0238

Glen Milner (Appellant) filed an

Appeal of two Determinations issued to

him by the Department of Energy (DOE)

in response to a request under the

Freedom of Information Act. In the

request, the Appellant asked for all

documents, generated from 1985 to the

present, concerning the ‘‘White Train’’,

which carried nuclear weapons until the

1980’s. He also requested a fee waiver

for costs associated with processing the

FOIA request. On appeal, the OHA

found that there is no provision in the

DOE FOIA regulations permitting a

conditional fee waiver, such as that

requested by the Appellant. However,

the OHA also found that disclosure of

some of the information requested by

the Appellant would be in the public

interest, because it was likely to

contribute significantly to government

operations and activities. Under these

circumstances the OHA determined that

a fee waiver was appropriate with

respect to the limited number of

documents meeting those conditions.

Accordingly, the DOE granted the

Appeal in part.

Dismissals

The following submissions were dismissed.

Case name Case No.

James H. Stebbings .......................................................................................................................................................................... VFA–0242

James R. Hutton ............................................................................................................................................................................... VFA–0256

L.N. Asphalt Co., Inc ......................................................................................................................................................................... RG272–981

Marlene Flor ...................................................................................................................................................................................... VFA–0253

Merlon Management Corp ................................................................................................................................................................ RG272–997

[FR Doc. 97–3310 Filed 2–10–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P

Notice of Issuance of Decisions and

Orders; Week of January 13 through

January 17, 1997

During the week of January 13

through January 17, 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, S.W., 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: February 3, 1997.

George B. Breznay,

Director, Office of Hearings and Appeals.

Decision List No. 16

Appeals

Digital City Communications, Inc., 

1/14/97, VFA–0254

Digital City Communications, Inc.

(Digital) filed an Appeal of a

Determination issued to it by the

Department of Energy (DOE) in response

to a request under the Freedom of

Information Act (FOIA). In the request,

the Appellant asked for Network

Intrusion Detector software and the

accompanying manual. In its

Determination, DOE’s Oakland

Operations Office (Oakland) found that

the requested items should be withheld

under Exemption 4 of the FOIA. On

Appeal, the Office of Hearings and

Appeals (OHA) found that the case

should be remanded because Oakland

had failed to determine whether the

software was a ‘‘record’’ under the

FOIA. OHA further found that

Oakland’s Exemption 4 determination

was inadequate. Therefore, the DOE

granted the Appeal and remanded the

matter to Oakland for further action.

Gretchen Lee Coles, 1/15/97, VFA–0251

Gretchen Lee Coles filed an Appeal

from determinations issued by the Oak

Ridge Operations Office and the

Albuquerque Operations Office

indicating that they had been unable to

locate records that would reflect

whether the federal government had

employed Lee H. Coles and whether Mr.

Coles had been exposed to radiation.

The DOE denied the Appeal because it

found that the searches conducted in

response to the Appellant’s Freedom of

Information Act (FOIA) request were

reasonable. The DOE found that the

FOIA Officers contacted people who

would have knowledge of whether

relevant documents exist, and that these

individuals used appropriate

procedures to search for the records

requested.

Harold Bibeau, 1/17/97 VFA–0255

The Department of Energy denied an

Appeal of a determination that no

documents responsive to the appellant’s

request could be located. DOE found

that the search conducted was

reasonably calculated to uncover

material responsive to the request.

I.B.E.W., 1/15/97, VFA–0250

The International Brotherhood of

Electrical Workers (I.B.E.W.) filed an

Appeal from a determination, dated
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 28 / Tuesday, February 11, 1997 / Notices 6245

November 8, 1996, by the Authorizing

Official of the Savannah River

Operations Office of the Department of

Energy. In that determination, the

Authorizing Official denied a request for

information and fee waiver filed by the

I.B.E.W. In considering the Appeal, the

DOE denied the request for a fee waiver

and remanded the matter to Savannah

River for a further search of documents

based on a request clarified on appeal.

James L. Hecht, 1/15/97, VFA–0244

The Department of Energy (DOE)

issued a Decision and Order (D&O)

granting a Freedom of Information Act

(FOIA) Appeal that was filed by James

L. Hecht. In his Appeal, Mr. Hecht

challenged the adequacy of the search

for responsive documents that was

conducted by the DOE’s Office of

Energy Efficiency and Renewable

Energy (EE) in response to Mr. Hecht’s

FOIA request. In the Decision, the OHA

found that the EE interpreted Mr.

Hecht’s request in an unreasonably

narrow manner in order to reduce the

scope of that request. The OHA

remanded the case to the EE so that the

EE could confer with Mr. Hecht in an

attempt to reformulate the request so

that it would be less burdensome and

disruptive to the operations of that

Office.

J.B. Truher, 1/15/97, VFA–0245

J.B. Truher filed an Appeal from a

determination, dated October 23, 1996,

by the Deputy Inspector General for

Inspections of the Office of Inspector

General (Deputy IG) of the Department

of Energy (DOE). In that determination,

the Deputy IG partially granted a request

for information filed by Mr. Truher. In

considering the Appeal, the DOE

ordered that Deputy IG to release title

headings in four documents.

Keci Corporation, 1/14/97, VFA–0246

Keci Corporation (Keci) filed an

Appeal from a denial by the Department

of Energy’s (DOE’s) Office of Inspector

General (OIG) of a Request for

Information submitted under the

Freedom of Information Act and the

Privacy Act. Keci requested information

provided to DOE by a named individual

regarding alleged irregularities in a DOE

procurement, and any other relevant

records. In considering the Appeal, the

DOE found that OIG properly invoked

the Glomar response to protect the

individual’s privacy rights and neither

confirmed nor denied the existence of

responsive records. Therefore, the

Appeal was denied.

Request for Exception

Kalamazoo Oil Co., 1/16/97 VEE–0036

Kalamazoo Oil Co. (Kalamazoo) filed

an Application for Exception from the

Energy Information Administration

(EIA) requirement that it file Form EIA–

782B, the ‘‘Resellers’/Retailers’’

Monthly Petroleum Product Sales

Report.’’ In considering the request, the

DOE found that the firm was not

suffering a gross inequity or serious

hardship. Therefore, the DOE denied

Kalamazoo’s Application for Exception.

Personnel Security Hearing

Personnel Security Hearing, 1/16/97,

VSO–0116

Under the provisions of 10 C.F.R. Part

710, the Department of Energy (DOE)

suspended an individual’s access

authorization (a ‘‘Q’’ level security

clearance) pending administrative

review, based upon derogatory

information received by the DOE which

revealed illegal drug use on the part of

the individual. More specifically, DOE

found that pursuant to a random drug

screening performed by the individual’s

employer, a DOE contractor, a urine

specimen provided by the individual

tested positive for marijuana. In

addition, the individual signed an

Acknowledgement of Positive Drug

Screen and during a subsequent

Personnel Security Interview (PSI)

concerning this matter, the individual

admitted using marijuana. On this basis,

DOE suspended the individual’s access

authorization under 10 C.F.R. § 710.8(k),

finding that the individual ‘‘[t]rafficked

in, sold, transferred, possessed, used, or

experimented with a drug or other

substance listed in the Schedule of

Controlled Substance established

pursuant to section 202 of the

Controlled Substance Act of 1970 (such

as marijuana, cocaine, amphetamines,

barbiturates, narcotics, etc.) except as

prescribed or administered by a

physician licensed to dispense drugs in

the practice of medicine, or as otherwise

authorized by law.’’ Following a hearing

convened at the request of the

individual, the Office of Hearings and

Appeals Hearing Officer found in his

Opinion that: (i) the individual’s

marijuana use was an isolated, one-time

occurrence, and (ii) the record of the

proceeding contained sufficient

supporting evidence to accept the

individual’s assurance that the

individual would never use marijuana

again. Accordingly, the Hearing Officer

concluded in the Opinion that the

individual’s access authorization should

be restored.

Refund Application

Dixie Hauling Co., Inc., 1/16/97, RF272–

97810

The DOE issued a Decision and Order

granting four Applications for Refund in

the crude oil refund proceeding. In two

of the cases, additional claimants signed

applications previously filed in the

crude oil proceeding, but did not do so

until after the crude oil refund

proceeding deadline. These claimants

were granted a portion of the refunds

because they joined applications which:

(1) Were submitted prior to the crude oil

refund proceeding deadline; (2)

contained accurate information

supporting the companies’’ rights to

refunds; and (3) had yet to be granted by

the DOE prior to their amendment by

the signatures of the additional

claimants.

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.

Brader Hauling Service, Inc ................................................................................................................................ RG272–00928 1/16/97

Crude Oil Supple. Refund Dist ........................................................................................................................... RB272–00097 1/16/97

Cruce Oil Supple. Refund Dist ............................................................................................................................ RB272–00098 1/16/97

Gulf Oil Corporation/Cabot Corporation ............................................................................................................ RF300–16719 1/16/97

Indianapolis Baptist Schools ............................................................................................................................... RF272–95103 1/14/97

Warren Brothers Road Company, et al ............................................................................................................... RF272–93484 1/16/97

Dismissals

The following submissions were dismissed.

Name Case No.

A-DEC, Inc ........................................................................................................................................................................................ RG272–916

Green Holdings, Inc .......................................................................................................................................................................... RD272–25553
6246 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 28 / Tuesday, February 11, 1997 / Notices

Name Case No.

Green Holdings, Inc .......................................................................................................................................................................... RF272–25553

Personnel Security Review ............................................................................................................................................................... VSA–0074

Scappoose Sand & Gravel Co ......................................................................................................................................................... RG272–984

Wilkins, Kaiser & Olsen, Inc ............................................................................................................................................................. RG272–983

[FR Doc. 97–3311 Filed 2–10–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS

COMMISSION

Notice of Public Information

Collections Being Reviewed by the

Federal Communications Commission

February 5, 1997.

SUMMARY: The Federal Communications

Commission, as part of its continuing

effort to reduce paperwork burden

invites the general public and other

Federal agencies to take this

opportunity to comment on the

following information collection, as

required by the Paperwork Reduction

Act of 1995, Public Law 104–13. An

agency may not conduct or sponsor a

collection of information unless it

displays a currently valid control

number. No person shall be subject to

any penalty for failing to comply with

a collection of information subject to the

Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) that

does not display a valid control number.

Comments are requested concerning (a)

Whether the proposed collection of

information is necessary for the proper

performance of the functions of the

Commission, including whether the

information shall have practical utility;

(b) the accuracy of the Commission’s

burden estimate; (c) ways to enhance

the quality, utility, and clarify of the

information collected; and (d) ways to

minimize the burden of the collection of

information on the respondents,

including the use of automated

collection techniques or other forms of

information technology.

DATES: Persons wishing to comment on

this information collection should

submit comments April 14, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Direct all comments to

Dorothy Conway, Federal

Communications Commission, Room

234, 1919 M St., NW., Washington, DC

20554 or via internet to

dconway@fcc.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For

additional information or copies of the

information collections contact Dorothy

Conway at 202–418–0217 or via internet

at dconway@fcc.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

OMB Approval Number: 3060–0685.

Title: Annual Updating of Maximum

Permitted Rates for Regulated Cable

Services.

Form No.: FCC Form 1240.

Type of Review: Extension of approval

of a currently approved collection.

Respondents: Business or other forprofit entities; state and local

governments.

Number of Respondents: 4,500. (3,000

cable operators and 1,500 local

franchise authorities (‘‘LFAs’’).

Estimated Time Per Response: 1–15

hours.

Total Annual Burden: 47,250 hours.

We report the burden for all aspects of

this information collection as follows:

The modification of the Form 1240 rate

methodology requirement only pertains

to first-time filings of FCC Form 1240.

The modification merely results in

permitting operators to project and

recoup certain costs sooner, rather than

later; therefore there is no measurable

burden revision for this information

collection. If there were an additional

burden significant enough to be

measured, any burden added to an

operator’s first Form 1240 filing would

be negated by the decreased burden in

completing the operator’s second Form

1240 filing. The Commission therefore

reports no revised burden to complete

Form 1240 on a per filing basis.

However, based on latest data available,

the Commission adjusts the estimated

number of Form 1240 filings that are

annually filed by operators.

The Commission estimates that there

are no more than 3,000 Form 1240s filed

annually; roughly 1,500 (50%) with the

Commission and roughly 1,500 (50%)

with LFAs. Burden for operators: We

estimate that 25% of operators will

contract out the burden of filing and

that it will take 1 hour to coordinate

information with those contractors. The

remaining 75% of operators are

estimated to employ in house staff to

complete the filing. 750 filings (25%

contracted out) × 1 hour = 750 hours.

2,250 filings (75% in house) × 15 hours

= 33,750 hours. Additionally,

76.933(g)(2) states: If an LFA has taken

no action within the 90-day review

period, then the proposed rates may go

into effect at the end of the review

period, subject to a prospective rate

reduction and refund if the LFA

subsequently issues a written decision

disapproving any portion of such rates.

However, if an operator inquires as to

whether the LFA intends to issue a rate

order after the initial review period, the

LFA or its designee must notify the

operator of its intent in this regard

within 15 days of the operator’s inquiry.

We estimate this will occur in 25% of

the instances when Form 1240s are filed

by cable operators with their LFAs. 25%

of 1,500 = 375 inquiries at an estimated

1 burden for each inquiry = 375 hours.

Total burden hours to operators = 750

+ 33,750 + 375 = 34,875 hours.

Burden to LFAs: The Commission

estimates there will be 1,500 FCC Form

1240s filed with LFAs, annually.

Average LFA reviewing time for each

FCC Form 1240 is estimated to be 8

hours. 1,500 × 8 hours = 12,000 burden

hours. Additionally, we estimate 375

responses to operator requests pursuant

to 76.933(g)(2). 375 notifications at an

estimated 1 burden hour for each

notification = 375 hours.

Total burden hours to LFAs = (1,500

× 8 hrs.) + (375 × 1 hr.) = 12,375 hrs.

Total burden hours for all

respondents = 34,875 + 12,375 = 47,250

hours.

Total costs for Respondents:

$1,139,000. We estimate an annual

purchase of 1,000 diskette versions of

FCC Form 1240 @ $5 per diskette =

$5,000. Printing, photocopying and

postage costs incurred by operators and

LFAs is estimated to be $2 per entity

(4,500 entities × $2) = $9,000. We

estimate that assistance for completing

Form 1240 filings will be performed by

legal and accounting contractors at an

average of $100/hour for 25% of the

filings. $100/hour × 750 filings (25% of

Form 1240 filings) × 15 hours =

$1,125,000.

Total respondent costs: $5,000 +

$9,000 + $1,125,000 = $1,139,000.

Needs and Uses: On September 22,

1995, the Commission released the

Thirteenth Order on Reconsideration

(‘‘Order’’), FCC 95–397, MM Docket No.

92–266, which adopted a new optional

rate adjustment methodology permitting

cable operators to make annual rate

changes to their basic service tiers

(‘‘BSTs’’) and cable programming