26724 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 96 / Thursday, May 18, 1995 / Notices

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

October 20, 1993, an arbitration panel

rendered a decision in the matter of

Michael Lawyer v. Illinois Department

of Rehabilitation Services, (Docket No.

R-S/92–14). This panel was convened by

the Secretary of the U.S. Department of

Education pursuant to 20 U.S.C. 107d–

2, upon receipt of a complaint filed by

petitioner Michael Lawyer.

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

SW., Room 3230, 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 a synopsis of arbitration panel

decisions affecting the administration of

vending facilities on Federal property.

Background

Michael Lawyer, complainant, is a

blind vendor licensed by the Illinois

Department of Rehabilitation Services

(DORS), which is the State licensing

agency under the Randolph-Sheppard

Act. Mr. Lawyer began operation of the

vending facility at the Cook County

Hospital on October 1, 1990.

Mr. Lawyer was given a safe to be

used to deposit monies from the facility.

The safe subsequently broke, and Mr.

Lawyer was advised by DORS that they

could not furnish another one and that

he would have to replace it. The facility

had a rolltop safe that was used by other

vendors to deposit their monies at the

end of their workday. Instead of

replacing the broken safe, the

complainant began depositing his

monies into this rolltop safe if he had

a witness to verify the amount of his

deposit. If complainant did not have a

witness to verify the amount, he took

the money home with him and returned

it in the morning. Complainant believed

this practice was accepted by his lead

manager and carried it out on several

occasions, without incident. On

February 3, 1992, the lead manager

issued complainant $500.00 for use as

working capital in order to make

change. Mr. Lawyer was to return this

money to the lead manager at the end

of his workday. Instead of returning the

money, complainant took it home,

where later that evening he was robbed

and the money stolen. Mr. Lawyer was

hurt during the struggle and had to be

hospitalized for his injuries. A police

report was filed that same day. Only

after returning home from the hospital

did he realize that the money had been

stolen.

On March 17, 1992, DORS terminated

complainant’s license for violation of its

rules governing facility money. Chapter

IV, Sec. 650.100(m), 89 Ill. Adm. Code,

states that facility money, product,

equipment, or program assets shall not

be removed from the facility by the

vendor for personal use and that

violation shall result in termination of

the vendor’s license. Mr. Lawyer

contested the decision to revoke his

license and was provided a Level II

hearing on May 27, 1992, pursuant to

DORS rules. The hearing officer found

that DORS had properly terminated

complainant’s license. Mr. Lawyer then

appealed the DORS decision to the U.S.

Department of Education, and a hearing

was convened on July 27, 1993.

Arbitration Panel Decision

The panel unanimously found that

complainant did not have permission to

remove the money in question from the

facility and failed to use an available

secure place to safeguard the facility

assets. A majority of the panel members

found that, although the complainant

did not maliciously intend to

appropriate the money for personal use,

once the facility assets were removed

from the facility, complainant took full

control and possession of the assets for

personal use in violation of Chapter IV,

Sec. 650.100(m), 89 Ill. Adm. Code.

However, one panel member dissented

and held that personal use under the

regulations means that the funds had to

be used for direct personal gain such as

purchasing goods or using the funds in

a similar personal manner.

In recognizing that the loss of a

vendor’s license to a legally blind

person with limited opportunity for

gainful employment is a very severe

penalty, the panel recommended that

DORS convene another panel to review

complainant’s employment record to

determine if his license should be

returned. It also recommended that if

DORS elects to return complainant’s

license, he should repay the $500.00.

The views and opinions expressed by

the panel do not necessarily represent

the views and opinions of the U.S.

Department of Education.

Dated: May 12, 1995.

Judith E. Heumann,

Assistant Secretary for Special Education and

Rehabilitative Services.

[FR Doc. 95–12178 Filed 5–17–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4000–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory

Commission

[Docket No. CP95–484–000]

ANR Pipeline Co.; Notice of

Application

May 12, 1995.

Take notice that on May 4, 1995, ANR

Pipeline Company (ANR), 500

Renaissance Center, Detroit, Michigan

48243 filed an application pursuant to

Section 7(b) of the Natural Gas Act for

permission and approval to abandon an

exchange service between ANR,

formerly Michigan Wisconsin Pipe Line

Company and Transwestern Pipeline

Company (Transwestern), all as more

fully set forth in the application which

is on file with the Commission and open

to public inspection.

ANR states that, in Docket No. CP79–

422, the Commission authorized an

exchange between ANR and

Transwestern dated August 15, 1978, as

amended. It is stated that the service is

designated as Rate Schedule X–89 under

Original Volume No. 2 of ANR’s FERC

Gas Tariff, and Rate Schedule X–15

under Original Volume No. 2 of

Transwestern’s FERC Gas Tariff. ANR

states that, in a letter dated June 16,

1993, Transwestern exercised its right to

terminate the service. ANR contends

that, on November 14, 1994,

Transwestern filed an application in

Docket No. CP95–70–000 to abandon,

inter alia, exchange service with ANR

under its Rate Schedule X–15, which

corresponds to ANR’s Rate Schedule

X–89. Accordingly, ANR requests

permission to abandon the above

described exchange service. It is stated

that no facilities are proposed to be

abandoned.

Any person desiring to be heard or to

make any protest with reference to said

application should on or before June 2,

1995, file with the Federal Energy

Regulatory Commission, Washington,

D.C. 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