Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 86 / Wednesday, May 3, 2000 / Notices 25711

Access at: http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/

index.html

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant

to the Randolph-Sheppard Act (the Act),

(20 U.S.C. 107d-2(c)), the Secretary

publishes in the Federal Register a

synopsis of each arbitration panel

decision affecting the administration of

vending facilities on Federal and other

property.

Background

This dispute concerns the alleged

failure of the U.S. Department of

Defense, Department of the Army

(Army), to award a priority under the

Act to the Hawaii Division of Vocational

Rehabilitation, Department of Human

Services, the State licensing agency

(SLA), for a contract to operate a

cafeteria at Schofield Barracks,

Wahiawa, Oahu, Hawaii.

A summary of the facts is as follows:

On October 29, 1996, the SLA requested

a meeting with the Army’s Contracting

Officer (CO) and Army staff to discuss

the possibility of direct negotiations

under the Act regarding the operation of

a cafeteria facility at the Schofield

Barracks in Wahiawa, Oahu, Hawaii.

Subsequently, on November 6, 1996,

a meeting was held between the SLA

and the Army’s CO. At the meeting, the

CO mentioned that the previous

cafeteria contract had been solicited

pursuant to the Small Business

Administration Section 8(a) set-aside

program. In a May 6, 1997 letter from

the Army, the SLA was informed that

the Army would continue to rely upon

a memorandum from the Office of the

Assistant Secretary, Research

Development and Acquisition, dated

April 15, 1997. This memorandum

stated that, because the Act did not

apply to appropriated-fund contracts,

military mess hall contracts would be

awarded based upon general

procurement principles, including

preferences under the Section 8(a) setside program. On May 6, 1997, the

Army solicited proposals under these

general procurement principles, thereby

not awarding a priority under the Act to

the SLA. By letter dated August 21,

1997, the SLA filed with the Secretary

of Education a request for arbitration of

this dispute. A Federal arbitration

hearing on this matter was held on July

9 and 10, 1998.

Arbitration Panel Decision

The central issue before the

arbitration panel was whether the

Randolph-Sheppard Act, 20 U.S.C.

107d-3(e), is applicable to appropriatedfund contracts covering military dining

facilities, which are basically used by

military personnel. If so, is the Army

then required to permit the SLA an

opportunity to bid on a contract

covering military dining facilities in

Hawaii on an unrestricted basis under

the priority provisions of the Act?

The majority of the panel ruled that,

as defined in the regulations of the

Department of Education and

Department of Defense, all of the

facilities covered under the agreement

provide cafeteria services, which

include a broad variety of prepared

foods and beverages. These foods are

dispensed primarily through the use of

a serving line where the customer serves

or selects food items for himself or

herself from displayed selections.

In this case, the military dining

facilities covered under the Hawaii

contract used contractor personnel to

provide full food service, including food

preparation, serving, and cleanup

services. The use of the facilities was

limited to authorized military

personnel. On the other hand,

Randolph-Sheppard vending facilities,

whether a stand, automatic food

dispensing machine, or cafeteria, are

open for use by the general public.

However, they are used most frequently

by the employees working at the facility

and are not supported by appropriated

funds, but rather by payments for goods

and services.

Further, the majority of the panel

noted that the Federal Government’s

procurement process for goods and

services to be paid for by appropriated

funds is subject to procurement laws

and regulations. These laws and

regulations seek to standardize

procedures for awarding contracts,

thereby assuring quality in meeting

specifications and economy of price.

Exceptions are permitted by Congress

for certain groups, such as those who

qualify under the Small Business

Administration or those who employ

severely handicapped or blind

individuals under the Javits-WagnerO’Day Act.

The 1974 amendments to the Act

expanded the opportunities for blind

persons to operate vending facilities,

including vending machines and

cafeterias on Federal property, and

required Federal agencies to provide

locations for vending facilities to be

operated by blind licensees.

The panel ruled that if Congress had

intended the Act to apply to

appropriated-fund contracts, it would

have included very specific language

authorizing those contracts because

such a reading would substantially

change the administration of Federal

procurement law. Because that language

is not included, the best reading of the

statute is that it was not intended. Thus,

while not entitled to assert a priority

under the Act in bidding on an

appropriated-fund contract for dining

facilities, the SLA would not be

precluded from applying for a

preference under the Javits-WagnerO’Day Act.

One panel member dissented.

The views and opinions expressed by

the panel do not necessarily represent

the views and opinions of the U.S.

Department of Education.

Dated: April 28, 2000.

Judith E. Heumann,

Assistant Secretary for Special Education and

Rehabilitative Services.

[FR Doc. 00–11015 Filed 5–2–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4000–01–U

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Notice of Floodplain and Wetlands

Involvement for the Floodplain Strip

Adjoining the Boeing Property in

Roane County, TN

AGENCY: U.S. Department of Energy.

ACTION: Notice of involvement.

SUMMARY: DOE proposes to convey to

the abutting landowner, an approximate

182-acre parcel of land within the 500-

year floodplain of the Clinch River, in

Roane County, Tennessee. In

accordance with 10 CFR 1022,

Compliance with Floodplain Wetlands/

Environmental Review Requirements,

DOE will prepare a floodplain and

wetlands assessment and will perform

this proposed action in a manner that

will avoid or minimize potential harm

to or within the affected floodplain and

wetlands.

DATES: Comments are due to the address

below no later than May 18, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Written comments should

be directed to Katy Kates, Realty Officer,

U.S. Department of Energy, Oak Ridge

Operations Office, P.O. Box 2001, Oak

Ridge, Tennessee 37831, or by facsimile

at 865–576–9204.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Katy

Kates, Realty Officer, U.S. Department

of Energy, Oak Ridge Operations Office,

P.O. Box 2001, Oak Ridge, Tennessee

37831.

For Further Information on

Floodplain/Wetlands Environmental

Review Requirements, Contact:

Carol M. Borgstrom, Director, Office of

NEPA Policy and Assistance, EH–42,

U.S. Department of Energy, 1000

Independence Avenue, SW,

Washington, DC 20585

Ms. Borgstrom can also be reached at

202–586–4600, or by leaving a message

at 1–800–472–2756

25712 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 86 / Wednesday, May 3, 2000 / Notices

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: DOE

proposes to convey to the abutting

landowner, an approximate 182-acre

parcel of land within the 500-year

floodplain of the Clinch River, in Roane

County, Tennessee. The conveyed

property would be used as a ‘‘green

space’’ buffer adjacent to a proposed

1,217-acre mixed-use development.

In accordance with DOE regulations

for compliance with floodplain and

wetlands environmental review

requirements (10 CFR part 1022), DOE

will prepare a floodplain and wetlands

assessment for this proposed DOE

action. The assessment will be included

in the environmental assessment being

prepared for the proposed project in

accordance with the requirements of the

National Environmental Policy Act. A

floodplain statement of findings will be

published in the Federal Register.

The potentially affected floodplain

property lies along the banks of the

Clinch River and adjoins the property

presently identified as the Boeing

property in Roane County, Tennessee.

The property is situated across the

Clinch River from the DOE’s East

Tennessee Technology Park (formerly

known as the K–25 Site). In 1987,

Boeing acquired the 1,217-acre property

from the City of Oak Ridge, who had

previously acquired the property from

DOE on the same date. A tentative

purchaser of the property proposes to

develop lots for single-family homes,

areas for apartments and

condominiums, a hotel and conference

center, a golf course, and a shopping

district. About 500 acres of the site

would be reserved for industrial

purposes.

To provide a buffer and ‘‘green space’’

around the development, the proposed

purchaser is also seeking to acquire title

to the floodplain property under the

jurisdictional control of DOE. The DOE

Oak Ridge Operations Office would

convey the property to whomever the

owner of the Boeing parcel is at the time

the excess parcel is ready for

conveyance providing environmental or

administrative considerations do not

preclude such conveyance. In February

2000, the Oak Ridge City Council voted

to rezone the Boeing site for mixed-use

development.

Issued in Oak Ridge, Tennessee on April

24, 2000.

James L. Elmore,

Alternate National Environmental Policy Act

Compliance Officer.

[FR Doc. 00–10999 Filed 5–2–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory

Commission

[Docket No. RP98–54–000]

Colorado Interstate Gas Company;

Notice of Informal Settlement

Conference

April 28, 2000.

On March 13 and 28, 2000, the Kansas

Corporation Commission (KCC)

sponsored two informal settlement

conferences for the purpose of initiating

settlement discussions potentially

leading to a resolution of all the Kansas

ad valorem proceedings. During the

March 28 conference, the participants

agreed that settlement negotiations

among all interested parties should be

pursued separately for each pipeline

involved with the Kansas ad valorem

tax refund issues.

The participants interested in the

Colorado Interstate Gas Company docket

also reached a consensus that the

informal settlement conference agreed

upon should be noticed by the Secretary

of the Federal Energy Regulatory

Commission (Commission) and that the

Commission’s settlement regulations

apply to the informal settlement

process. The participants also agreed

that, as with the previous two

settlement conferences, the Director of

the Commission’s Dispute Resolution

Service and the KCC attend the

conference and facilitate the settlement

negotiations.

The informal settlement conference

will be held on May 23, 2000, at the

offices of Shook, Hardy & Bacon, 1

Kansas City Place, 1200 Main Street,

Kansas, Missouri. The conference will

begin at 10:00 a.m. To insure that the

facilities are adequately sized all parties

that plan to attend the settlement

conference are requested to contact John

McNish at 785–271–3218 or by email at

j.mcnish@kcc.state.ks.us, or Cynthia

King at cking@shb.com by May 11,

2000.

All interested parties in the above

dockets are requested to attend the

informal settlement conference. If a

party has any questions respecting the

conference, please call Richard Miles,

the Director of the Dispute Resolution

Service. His telephone number is 1 877

FERC ADR (337–2237) or 202–208–0702

and his e-mail address is

richard.miles@ferc.fed.us.

Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,

Acting Secretary.

[FR Doc. 00–10995 Filed 5–2–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717–01–M

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory

Commission

[Docket Nos. RP00–254–000 and RP00–254–

001]

Dauphin Island Gathering Partners;

Notice of Tariff Filing and Stipulation

and Agreement

April 27, 2000.

Take notice that on April 24, 2000,

Dauphin Island Gathering Partners

(Dauphin) tendered for filing as part of

its FERC Gas Tariff, First Revised

Volume No. 1, the following tariff

sheets, in Docket No. RP00–254–000,

with an effective date of May 1, 2000:

First Revised Sheet No. 6

First Revised Sheet No. 8

First Revised Sheet No. 178

First Revised Sheet No. 179

Dauphin and the Sponsoring Parties

also tender for filing a Stipulation and

Agreement (Settlement) in Docket No.

RP00–254–001.

Dauphin states that First Revised

Sheet No. 6 and First Revised Sheet No.

8 are being filed in compliance with the

requirements of Section 3.01 of the

Settlement, and reflect an effective

decrease of approximately 14 percent in

Dauphin’s DI and MP First

Transportation Service rates. Dauphin

further states that First Revised Sheet

No. 178 and First Revised Sheet No. 179

and being filed in compliance with the

requirement of Section 1.02 of the

Settlement and reflect the Settling

Parties’ agreement that Dauphin adopt a

more customer-friendly cash out

provision.

Dauphin states that the offer of

settlement reflects a decrease of

approximately 14 percent in Dauphin’s

Firm Transportation Service rates for

Rate Schedules FT–1, FT–2, FT–3 and

IT–1(MP) and FT–1, FT–2 and IT–1(DI)

and also adopts a more customerfriendly cash out provision.

Dauphin states that copies of the

filing are being served on all

participants listed on the service list in

this proceeding and on all persons who

are required by the Commission’s

regulations to be served with the

application initiating these proceedings.

Dauphin has requested that the

comment period on the Settlement in

Docket No. RP00–254–001 be shortened

to provide for Initial Comments to be

filed on May 4, 2000 and Reply

Comments due on May 8, 2000.

Dauphin also requests motions to

intervene and protests to the tariff filing

in Docket No. RP00–254–000 be due on

May 4, 2000.