29562 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 105 / Thursday, May 31, 2001 / Notices

Printing Office (GPO), toll free, at 1–

888–293–6498; or in Washington, DC,

area at (202) 512–1530.

Note: The official version of this document

is the document published in the Federal

Register. Free Internet access to the official

edition of the Federal Register and the Code

of Federal Regulations is available on GPO

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

index.html

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance

Numbers: 84.007 Federal Supplemental

Educational Opportunity Grant; 84.032

Federal Family Education Loan Program;

84.033 Federal Work-Study Program; 84.038

Federal Perkins Loan Program; 84.063

Federal Pell Grant Program; William D. Ford

Federal Direct Loan Program, 84.268)

Dated: May 25, 2001.

Greg Woods,

Chief Operating Officer, Student Financial

Assistance.

[FR Doc. 01–13636 Filed 5–30–01; 8:45am]

BILLING CODE 4000–01–P

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

March 17, 2000, an arbitration panel

rendered a decision in the matter of

Idaho Commission for the Blind and

Visually Impaired v. United States

Postal Service (Docket No. R–S/99–7).

This panel was convened by the U.S.

Department of Education pursuant to 20

U.S.C. 107d–1(b) upon receipt of a

complaint filed by petitioner, the Idaho

Commission for the Blind.

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, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW.,

room 3230, Mary E. Switzer Building,

Washington, DC 20202–2738.

Telephone: (202) 205–9317. If you use a

telecommunications device for the deaf

(TDD), you may call the TDD number at

(202) 205–8298.

Individuals with disabilities may

obtain this document in an alternative

format (e.g., Braille, large print,

audiotape, or computer diskette) on

request to the contact person listed in

the preceding paragraph.

Electronic Access to This Document:

You may view this document, as well as

all other Department of Education

documents published in the Federal

Register, in text or Adobe Portable

Document Format (PDF) on the Internet

at the following site: www.ed.gov/

legislation/FedRegister

To use PDF you must have Adobe

Acrobat Reader, which is available free

at this site. If you have questions about

using PDF, call the U.S. Government

Printing Office (GPO), toll free, at 1–

888–293–6498; or in the Washington,

DC, area at (202) 512–1530.

Note: The official version of this document

is the document published in the Federal

Register. Free Internet access to the official

edition of the Federal Register and the Code

of Federal Regulations is available on GPO

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

index.html

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant

to the Randolph-Sheppard Act (20

U.S.C. 107d–2(c)) (the Act), 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

In 1998, the Idaho Commission for the

Blind and Visually Impaired, the State

licensing agency (SLA), alleged that it

made repeated requests for information

to the United States Postal Service

(USPS) concerning the construction of

the new U.S. Postal Service Processing

and Distribution Center located at 2201

South Cole Road in Boise, Idaho.

Receiving no response to its inquiries or

notice of a possible vending facility

location as required by the Act, the SLA

submitted a letter to the Postal Service

District Manager requesting information

about the Processing and Distribution

Center.

On December 2, 1998, the Postal

Service District Manager responded to

the SLA’s letter requesting information

and apologized for the lack of

notification. On March 17, 1999, the

SLA submitted an application for a

vending facility at the Processing and

Distribution Center. USPS responded to

the SLA’s application on March 23,

1999, indicating that they would not

agree to the terms of the SLA’s

application for the permit. On March 29,

1999, representatives from the SLA and

USPS met to discuss the application.

USPS’s position concerning the

application was that the vendor selected

for the location at the Processing and

Distribution Center would be required

to physically be present at the facility 40

hours per week (the ‘‘on-site support’’

provision), and the vendor would be

precluded from operating any other

vending facility location on the property

(the ‘‘exclusivity’’ provision). USPS

further indicated that these terms were

non-negotiable and would be required

to be included in the application and

the resulting vending permit.

On March 30, 1999, the SLA

contacted USPS about the pending

negotiations on the vending permit and

was informed that the on-site support

and exclusivity provisions were new

permit terms required of blind vendors,

but not commercial vendors.

On April 16, 1999, the SLA requested

in writing that USPS either approve or

deny its application for a vending

permit at the Processing and

Distribution Center. The SLA did not

receive a response from USPS and

subsequently filed a request with the

Secretary of the Department of

Education (Department) to convene a

Federal arbitration panel. The SLA

alleged that the priority provisions of

the Act and its implementing

regulations had been violated. An

arbitration pre-hearing on this matter

was held on December 7, 1999, which

resulted in a Stipulated Agreement

concerning the issues and facts of the

dispute. The parties agreed that the

arbitration panel’s written award on the

stipulated issues would dispose of the

dispute without the need for an

arbitration hearing. The panel submitted

a Final Award and Decision to the

Department on March 17, 2000. On May

16, 2000, the Department received a

copy, signed by all parties, of the

Stipulated Agreement.

Arbitration Panel Decision

The stipulated issues addressed by

the arbitration panel were:

1(A). Have limitations been placed on

blind vendors as defined by the

Randolph-Sheppard Act?

(B). If so, does the U.S. Postal Service

have a legal requirement to submit those

limitations to the U.S. Department of

Education for the Secretary’s

determination that they are justified?

2. Is the Postal Service in violation of

the Act and the U.S. Constitution by

requiring on-site support and

exclusivity provisions of RandolphSheppard vendors, but not of

commercial vendors?

3. If the Postal Service did violate the

Randolph-Sheppard Act on any of these

issues, what is the authority of the

arbitration panel to determine the

appropriate remedy or remedies?

The arbitration panel ruled that the

on-site support and exclusivity

provisions required by USPS were

limitations as provided in the Act and

must be approved by the Secretary of

Education and published in the Federal

Register before they could be required

as conditions of approval for the SLA’s

application. The panel further ruled that

by requiring the on-site support and

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 105 / Thursday, May 31, 2001 / Notices 29563

exclusivity provisions of blind vendors

represented by the SLA, USPS was in

violation of the Act.

The panel stated that it is the

obligation of the head of the United

States Postal Service to cause the

improper acts or practices to be

terminated promptly and to take any

other action that is necessary to carry

out the Arbitration Panel’s award.

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 25, 2001.

Francis V. Corrigan,

Deputy Director, National Institute on

Disability and Rehabilitation Research.

[FR Doc. 01–13637 Filed 5–30–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4000–01–U

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

[Docket No. EA–239]

Application to Export Electric Energy;

Aroostook Valley Electric Company

AGENCY: Office of Fossil Energy, DOE.

ACTION: Notice of application.

SUMMARY: Aroostook Valley Electric

Company (AVEC) has applied for

authority to transmit electric energy

from the United States to Canada

pursuant to section 202(e) of the Federal

Power Act.

DATES: Comments, protests or requests

to intervene must be submitted on or

before June 15, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Comments, protests or

requests to intervene should be

addressed as follows: Office of Coal &

Power Im/Ex (FE–27), Office of Fossil

Energy, U.S. Department of Energy,

1000 Independence Avenue, SW.,

Washington, DC 20585–0350 (FAX 202–

287–5736).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Steven Mintz (Program Office) 202–586–

9506 or Michael Skinker (Program

Attorney) 202–586–6667.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Exports of

electricity from the United States to a

foreign country are regulated and

require authorization under section

202(e) of the Federal Power Act (FPA)

(16 U.S.C. 824a(e)).

On April 27, 2001, the Office of Fossil

Energy (FE) of the Department of Energy

(DOE) received an application from

AVEC to transmit electric energy from

the United States to Canada. AVEC, a

Maine corporation, owns and operates a

31–MW wood-burning generation

facility located in Fort Fairfield, Maine

(‘‘the Plant’’). This Plant originally was

owned by Fairfield Energy Venture

(Fairfield).

On October 8, 1985, DOE issued an

order (ERA Docket PP–83EA)

authorizing Fairfield and Maine Public

Service Company (MPSC) jointly to

export the electrical output of the Plant

to Canada over the MPSC electric

system. On December 4, 1985, DOE

approved a request by Fairfield to

remove its name from that export

authorization, leaving MPSC the sole

entity authorized to export the Plant’s

electrical output to Canada. On October

26, 1994, Fairfield sold the Plant to

AVEC; however, the Plant remained

connected to the MPSC electric system

and AVEC continued to rely upon

MPSC’s export authorization for

delivery of the Plant’s electrical output

to Canada. AVEC now requests its own

and separate authority to export the

output of the Plant to Canada using the

existing MPSC transmission facilities.

Procedural Matters

Any person desiring to become a

party to this proceeding or to be heard

by filing comments or protests to this

application should file a petition to

intervene, comment or protest at the

address provided above in accordance

with §§ 385.211 or 385.214 of the

FERC’s Rules of Practice and Procedures

(18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Fifteen

copies of each petition and protest

should be filed with the DOE on or

before the date listed above.

Comments on the AVEC application

to export electric energy to Canada

should be clearly marked with Docket

EA–239. Additional copies are to be

filed directly with Edward F. Tancer,

Secretary, Aroostook Valley Electric

Company, c/o FPL Energy, LLC, 700

Universe Blvd., Juno Beach, Florida

33408, and Glenn J. Berger, Victor A.

Contract, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher

& Flom LLP, 1440 New York Avenue,

NW., Washington, DC 20005–2111.

A final decision will be made on this

application after the environmental

impacts have been evaluated pursuant

to the National Environmental Policy

Act of 1969, and a determination is

made by the DOE that the proposed

action will not adversely impact on the

reliability of the U.S. electric power

supply system.

Copies of this application will be

made available, upon request, for public

inspection and copying at the address

provided above or by accessing the

Fossil Energy Home Page at http://

www.fe.doe.gov. Upon reaching the

Fossil Energy Home page, select

‘‘Regulatory Programs,’’ then

‘‘Electricity Regulation,’’ and then

‘‘Pending Proceedings’’ from the options

menus.

Issued in Washington, DC, on May 23,

2001.

Anthony J. Como,

Deputy Director, Electric Power Regulation,

Office of Coal & Power Im/Ex, Office of Coal

& Power Systems, Office of Fossil Energy.

[FR Doc. 01–13627 Filed 5–30–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory

Commission

[Docket Nos. RP98–44–000 and GP98–38–

000]

EL Paso Natural Gas Company, Vastar

Gas Marketing, Inc. and Atlantic

Richfield Company; Notice of

Settlement Agreement

May 24, 2001.

Take notice that on May 16, 2001, El

Paso Natural Gas Company (El Paso),

Vastar Gas Marketing, Inc. (Vastar) and

Atlantic Richfield Company (ARCO)

(collectively referred to as the Signatory

Parties) filed, for the Commission’s

approval a Settlement Agreement

(Settlement) under Rule 602 of the

Commission’s Rules of Practice and

Procedure in the captioned dockets. A

copy of the Settlement is available for

public inspection in the Commission’s

Public Reference Room and may be

viewed on the web at http://

www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm (call

202–208–2222 for assistance).

Signatory Parties state that the

Settlement resolves the Kansas ad

valorem refund claims raised by El Paso

against Vastar and ARCO. El Paso

originally sought refunds of

approximately $6.6 million from Vastar

and/or ARCO. The Settlement resolves

these claims, and the related defense of

Vastar and ARCO, in exchange for

Vastar’s and ARCO’s lump sum

payment of $4.1 million. In addition,

the Settlement will result in the full and

complete release of Vastar’s and ARCO’s

claims against its royalty owners with

respect to Kansas ad valorem tax

refunds on El Paso’s system, and the

termination of all related proceedings

pending before the Commission as they

relate to EL Paso’s claims.

Initial comments are due June 5, 2001;

relay comments are due June 15, 2001.

Davis P. Boergers,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 01–13593 Filed 5–30–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717–01–M