18336 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 72 / Tuesday, April 15, 1997 / Notices

at the hospital consisted of a dry stand

in the main building and approximately

24 satellite vending machines located in

other buildings throughout the hospital

complex.

The machines were provided by a

commercial vending company, and Mr.

Smalley restocked some of the machines

and received a monthly commission. In

June 1993, the hospital undertook an

extensive construction and renovation

program resulting in the hospital

administration requesting additional

vending machines from the New York

Commission for the Blind and Visually

Handicapped, the State licensing agency

(SLA). The SLA provided those

machines at a new leased building

located at Main and Virginia Streets.

Previously when additional machines

were provided, Mr. Smalley received

commissions from the vending

machines. However, with respect to the

machines at the new leased building,

Mr. Smalley did not receive

commissions.

In September 1993, the Tower

Building, which previously housed

vending machines operated by the

complainant, was demolished.

Complainant alleged that he lost income

from those machines.

In October 1993, vending machines

were placed in the new leased building

at Main and Virginia Streets. At that

time, the SLA determined that the

income from those machines would

accrue directly to the SLA. The SLA

determined that the new leased building

was geographically separate from Mr.

Smalley’s vending facility.

Consequently, Mr. Smalley would not

be receiving the commissions from the

machines since, in the opinion of the

SLA, the machines in the new leased

building were not in direct competition

with his operation.

The complainant objected to this new

arrangement. He made inquiries to the

SLA regarding the matter and received

a written explanation from the SLA on

February 3, 1994, concerning the

placement of the new machines at the

leased building and the reassignment of

the commissions. Mr. Smalley requested

and received an administrative review

of the matter. The SLA, in a decision

dated April 29, 1994, affirmed its earlier

determination. Subsequently,

complainant requested and received a

State fair hearing on June 30, 1994. By

decision rendered August 4, 1994, the

New York Department of Social Services

upheld the Commission for the Blind

and Visually Handicapped decision

concerning the allocation of the vending

machine income. Mr. Smalley requested

the Secretary of Education to convene a

Federal arbitration panel to hear this

grievance. An arbitration hearing was

held on August 13, 1996.

Arbitration Panel Decision

The issue heard by the arbitration

panel as stipulated by the parties was as

follows: Whether the determination of

the New York State Department of

Social Services confirming the action of

the Commission for the Blind and

Visually Handicapped with respect to

the allocation of vending machine

income at leased property on Main and

Virginia Streets was arbitrary,

capricious, or unlawful; and if so, what

should the remedy be?

The majority of the panel ruled that

the scope of Chester Smalley’s vending

operation on the Roswell Park property

was defined in the license granted to

him by the SLA in 1986. The

complainant’s vending facility at that

time included the newsstand and

vending machines in five ‘‘free

standing’’ buildings. The panel noted

that these properties continue to be

within the scope of Mr. Smalley’s

facility and will also continue when the

construction project has been completed

and personnel returned from the leased

property at Main and Virginia Streets to

the Roswell Park complex.

The panel further ruled that the SLA

erred in its interpretation of Federal

regulations in 34 CFR 395.1(f) and (h)

and 395.32 regarding the definition of

‘‘individual location, installation or

facility’’ and the definition of ‘‘direct

competition.’’ Specifically, the panel

ruled that the SLA’s interpretation of

these definitions to determine that the

leased space at Main and Virginia

Streets was a separate individual

location or facility and that the

commissions from the vending

machines should accrue to the SLA was

arbitrary.

The panel stated that under the

Federal regulations, in order for the

revenues from the vending machines at

the leased building to accrue to the SLA,

the SLA would have to show that there

was no blind vendor on that property.

The panel ruled that Chester Smalley’s

original and longstanding license

included the outlying buildings on

Roswell Park property. Therefore, the

panel found that the determination of

the New York State Department of

Social Services confirming the action of

the SLA to allocate the vending machine

income from the leased property at

Main and Virginia Streets to the SLA

was arbitrary.

Based upon the foregoing, the panel

reversed the decision of the New York

State Department of Social Services.

Additionally, the majority of the

panel ordered the SLA to make

complainant whole for the vending

machine commissions from the leased

site during the period of October 1,

1993, to the date of the decision and

prospectively. The panel also directed

the SLA to pay complainant the cost of

bringing this action and attorney’s fees.

One panel member dissented.

The views and opinions expressed by

the panel do not necessarily represent

the views of the Department of

Education.

Dated: April 9, 1997.

Judith E. Heumann,

Assistant Secretary for Special Education and

Rehabilitative Services.

[FR Doc. 97–9650 Filed 4–14–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4000–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory

Commission

[Docket No. CP–97–319–000]

ANR Pipeline Company; Notice of

Application

April 9, 1997.

Take notice that on March 31, 1997,

ANR Pipeline Company (ANR), 500

Renaissance Center, Detroit, Michigan

48243, filed in Docket No. CP97–319–

000 an application pursuant to Section

7(c) of the Natural Gas Act, for a

certificate of public convenience and

necessity authorizing the construction

and operation of a total of

approximately 73 miles of mainline

looping and additional compression, all

as more fully set forth in the application

which is on file with the Commission

and open to public inspection.

ANR states that the proposed facilities

are designed to increase its transmission

capacity by up to 750,000 Mcf per day

(Mcfd) to provide additional west to east

transportation service on its mainline

between the Chicago area and western

Ohio. ANR further states that the

proposed expansion is a companion to,

and is filed concurrently with, the new

pipeline system being proposed by

Independence Pipeline (Independence)

in Docket No. CP97–319–000 to provide

additional new capacity to the eastern

United States (from western Ohio to

central Pennsylvania). It is stated that

the additional capacity being proposed

by ANR will link the Independence

project with the recent pipeline

expansion proposals designed to bring

new pipeline capacity primarily from

Canadian producing regions into the

Midwest.

Specifically, ANR proposes to

construct new pipeline looping facilities
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 72 / Tuesday, April 15, 1997 / Notices 18337

on two parts of its Mainline Area

facilities referred to as the ‘‘Michigan

Leg South’’ and the ‘‘Tieline’’. ANR

proposes to extend its 42-inch Michigan

Leg South loopline by adding: (1) 15.9

miles in a westerly direction from

Milepost 820.2 near Joliet, Illinois; (2)

5.5 miles between Joliet, Illinois and its

St. John, Indiana compressor station.

Further, on its Tieline, ANR proposes to

start a new 30-inch loopline which will

parallel its existing 22-inch mainline

and 24-inch loopline and consist of: (1)

16.0 miles immediately east of its

Bridgman, Michigan compressor station

and (2) 14.1 immediately west of its

Defiance, Ohio compressor station.

In addition to these loopline facilities,

ANR states that the proposed project

requires: (1) The addition of 15,000

nominal horsepower at its Bridgman

compressor station located in Berrien

County, Michigan; (2) the modification

of station yard piping at its Lagrange

compressor station; (3) and the addition

of aftercooling at its Defiance

compressor station.

ANR requests a predetermination that

the cost of these new facilities will be

treated on a rolled-in basis in ANR’s

next rate case.

ANR is conducting an open season

from April 2, 1997 through May 30,

1997. ANR intends to make the

proposed expansion capacity available

on a non-discriminatory basis to any

shipper that has executed a

transportation service agreement with

ANR.

ANR estimates a construction cost of

approximately $124.8 million, which it

will finance from internally generated

funds. ANR plans to commence

construction of the project by June 1,

1989, in order to meet a proposed

November, 1989 in-service date.

ANR has submitted a draft Request for

Proposal (RFP) for the subject project

and the companion Independence

project in Docket No. CP97–315–000 to

hire a third-party contractor to assist in

the preparation of an Environmental

Impact Statement (EIS).

With the exception of the RFP

process, which may proceed, the

Commission staff will defer all other

processing of ANR’s application until

ANR advises the Commission of the

results of the open season and

demonstrates contract commitments in

support of the project.

Any person desiring to be heard or to

make any protest with reference to said

application should on or before April

30, 1997, file with the Federal Energy

Regulatory Commission, Washington,

DC 20426, a motion to intervene or a

protest in accordance with the

requirements of the Commission’s Rules

of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR

385.214 or 385.211) and the Regulations

under the Natural Gas Act (18 CFR

157.10). All protests filed with the

Commission will be considered by it in

determining the appropriate action to be

taken but will not serve to make the

protestants parties to the proceeding.

Any person wishing to become a party

to a proceeding or to participate as a

party in any hearing therein must file a

motion to intervene in accordance with

the Commission’s Rules.

Take further notice that, pursuant to

the authority contained in and subject to

jurisdiction conferred upon the Federal

Energy Regulatory Commission by

Sections 7 and 15 of the Natural Gas Act

and the Commission’s Rules of Practice

and procedure, a hearing will be held

without further notice before the

Commission or its designee on this

application if no motion to intervene is

filed within the time required herein, if

the Commission on its own review of

the matter finds that approval for the

proposed application is required by the

public convenience and necessity. If a

motion for leave to intervene is timely

filed, or if the Commission on its own

motion believes that a formal hearing is

required, further notice of such hearing

will be duly given.

Under the procedure herein provided

for, unless otherwise advised, it will be

unnecessary for ANR to appear or be

represented at the hearing.

Lois D. Cashell,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 97–9609 Filed 4–14–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717–01–M

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory

Commission

Notice of Temporary Suspension of

Minimum Flow and Reservoir Elevation

Requirements

April 9, 1997.

Take notice that the following

hydroelectric application has been filed

with the Commission and is available

for public inspection:

a. Type of Application: Temporary

Suspension of Minimum Flow and

Reservoir Elevation Requirements.

b. Project No: 2466–017.

c. Dated Filed: March 26, 1997.

d. Applicant: Appalachian Power

Company.

e. Name of Project: Niagara

Hydroelectric Project.

f. Location: Roanoke River, Roanoke

County, Virginia.

g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power

Act, 16 U.S.C. 791(a)–825(r).

h. Applicant Contact: Mr. Frank

Simms, American Electric Power, One

Riverside Plaza, Columbus, OH 43215,

(614) 223–2918.

i. FERC Contact: Robert J. Fletcher,

(202) 219–1206.

j. Comment Date: April 25, 1997.

k. Description of Proposed Action:

Appalachian Power Company, licensee

for the Niagara Project, requests

approval to lower the reservoir surface

elevation down six feet from its normal

operating level of 885 feet NGVD and to

suspend its 8 cfs minimum flow. The

six-foot drawdown and suspension of

the 8 cfs minimum flow would be for

the duration of the construction period

from July 1, 1997 through December

1997. Construction will encompass

spillway stability improvements for the

rehabilitation of the dam and spillway.

l. This notice also consists of the

following standard paragraphs: B, C1,

and D2.

B. Comments, Protests, or Motions to

Intervene—Anyone may submit

comments, a protest, or a motion to

intervene in accordance with the

requirements of Rules of Practice and

Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211, .214.

In determining the appropriate action to

take, the Commission will consider all

protests or other comments filed, but

only those who file a motion to

intervene in accordance with the

Commission’s Rules may become a

party to the proceeding. Any comments,

protests, or motions to intervene must

be received on or before the specified

comment date for the particular

application.

C1. Filing and Service of Responsive

Documents—Any filings must bear in

all capital letters the title

‘‘COMMENTS’’,

‘‘RECOMMENDATIONS FOR TERMS

AND CONDITIONS’’, ‘‘PROTEST’’, OR

‘‘MOTION TO INTERVENE’’, as

applicable, and the Project Number of

the particular application to which the

filing refers. Any of the above-named

documents must be filed by providing

the original and the number of copies

provided by the Commission’s

regulations to: The Secretary, Federal

Energy Regulatory Commission, 888

First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.

A copy of any motion to intervene must

also be served upon each representative

of the Applicant specified in the

particular application.

D2. Agency Comments—Federal,

state, and local agencies are invited to

file comments on the described

application. A copy of the application

may be obtained by agencies directly

from the Applicant. If an agency does

not file comments within the time

specified for filing comments, it will be