Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 72 / Tuesday, April 15, 1997 / Notices 18335

contaminated sediment dredged from

the Chicago River, Chicago Harbor, and

Calumet River and Harbor. The CDF was

discussed in a Final Environmental

Impact Statement released in May 1982.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mr. Keith Ryder, 312/353–6400 ext.

2020; U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,

Chicago District; 111 North Canal Street;

Chicago, Illinois 60606–7206.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 1. The

Supplement Environmental Impact

Statement will document deviations (in

construction and operation) from the

project as it was discussed in the 1982

impact statement; proposed

improvements to the project’s operating

plan (regarding water quality

monitoring, vegetation control,

sediment management, and endangered

species); and interagency coordination

during 1984–1996.

2. The SEIS is expected to be available

to the public in June 1997.

Dated: March 26, 1997.

Roger A. Gerber,

Lieutenant Colonel, U.S. Army, District

Engineer.

[FR Doc. 97–9652 Filed 4–14–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3710–HN–M

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Department of the Army; Corps of

Engineers

Intent to Prepare a Draft Revised Final

Supplement to the Environmental

Impact Statement (DSEIS) for the St.

Johns Bayou and New Madrid

Floodway Project, East Prairie Phase

AGENCY: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,

Department of Defense.

ACTION: Notice of intent.

SUMMARY: The purpose of this

reevaluation is to develop a plan that

provides flood control in the St. Johns

Bayou and New Madrid Floodway

Basins, Missouri. This project was

authorized for construction by the Water

Resources Development Act of 1986

(P.L. 99–662), Section 401(a). The

authorized project is based on the

Report of the Chief of Engineers, dated

January 4, 1983, which is part of the

Phase I General Design Memorandum

(GDM) documents prepared in response

to Section 101(a) of the Water Resources

Development Act of 1976 (P.L. 94–587).

The Phase II GDM is based on the Phase

I GDM project recommendations, and it

was prepared under the Chief’s

authority for continuing planning and

engineering studies on a viable project

while awaiting project authorization.

Revisions were made in the Phase II

GDM to indicate the non-Federal cost

sharing requirements reflected in the

authorizing Act PL 99–662. The original

EIS was filed with the Council of

Environmental Quality in 1976, and the

supplement was filed in 1981. The

purpose of this DSEIS is to revise and

supplement previous environmental

documentation. The recent designation

of East Prairie, Missouri, as an

Enterprise Community by the President

has provided the momentum to move

the East Prairie Phase of the overall

project toward implementation.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mr. Eddie Belk, telephone (901) 544–

3798, CELMM–DD–PM, 167 North Main

Street B–202, Memphis, TN 38103–

1894. Questions regarding the DSEIS

may be directed to Mr. John Rumancik,

telephone (901) 544–3975, CELMM–PD–

R.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

1. Proposed Action

The St. Johns Bayou Basin and New

Madrid Floodway are located in

southeast Missouri and include all or

portions of New Madrid, Scott and

Mississippi Counties. The basis are

adjacent to the Mississippi River,

extending from the vicinity of

Commerce, Missouri, to New Madrid,

Missouri. The recommended plan of

improvement for the East Prairie Phase

work, which this DSEIS will address,

includes about 28 miles of channel

modification, a 1,000 cfs pumping

station for the St. Johns Bayou area, a

1,500 cfs pumping station for the New

Madrid Floodway area, and a 1,500 foot

closure levee at the southern end of the

New Madrid Floodway.

2. Alternatives

Alternatives were evaluated in the

previous EIS. The purpose of this DSEIS

is to evaluate and provide updated

documentation and coordination for the

selected plan for flood control and

compare it to the No Action alternative.

3. Scoping Process

An intensive public involvement

program has been set up to (1) Solicit

input from individuals and interested

parties so that problems, needs, and

opportunities within the project area

can be properly identified and

addressed and (2) provide status

updates to concerned organizations and

the public. Meetings with the local

sponsor, public coordination meetings,

interagency environmental meetings,

and public project briefings/

presentations have been conducted. A

public scoping meeting will be

scheduled for May 1997, and

interagency environmental meetings

will continue to be held as needed.

Significant issues being analyzed

include potential project impacts

(negative and positive) to fisheries,

water quality, wetlands, waterfowl,

endangered species, and cultural

resources. It is anticipated that the

DSEIS will be available for public

review early 1998. A public meeting

will be held during the review period to

receive comments and address

questions concerning the DSEIS.

Dated: April 4, 1997.

Gregory G. Bean,

Colonel, Corps of Engineers, District Engineer.

[FR Doc. 97–9653 Filed 4–14–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3710–KS–M

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

Arbitration Panel Decision Under the

Randolph-Sheppard Act

AGENCY: Department of Education

ACTION: Notice of Arbitration Panel

Decision Under the Randolph-Sheppard

Act

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that on

November 20, 1996, an arbitration panel

rendered a decision in the matter of

Chester Smalley v. New York State

Commission for the Blind and Visually

Handicapped (Docket No. R-S/95–7).

This panel was convened by the U. S.

Department of Education pursuant to 20

U.S.C. 107d-1(a), upon receipt of a

complaint filed by petitioner, Chester

Smalley.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A

copy of the full text of the arbitration

panel decision may be obtained from

George F. Arsnow, U.S. Department of

Education, 600 Independence Avenue,

S.W., Room 3230, Mary E. Switzer

Building, Washington D.C. 20202–2738.

Telephone: (202) 205–9317. Individuals

who use a telecommunications device

for the deaf (TDD) may call the TDD

number at (202) 205–8298.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant

to the Randolph-Sheppard 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

Mr. Chester Smalley, complainant,

has operated a vending facility at the

Roswell Park Cancer Institute, Buffalo,

New York, from January 1981 to the

present. Until September 1993,

complainant’s vending facility operation
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