32610 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 116 / Friday, June 15, 2001 / Notices

(TDD) may call the Federal Information

Relay Service (FIRS) at 1–800–877–

8339.

[FR Doc. 01–15093 Filed 6–14–01; 8:45 am]

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

October 20, 2000, an arbitration panel

rendered a decision in the matter of

Alabama Department of Rehabilitation

Services v. Department of Veterans

Affairs, Veterans Canteen Service

(Docket No. R–S/98–7). This panel was

convened by the U.S. Department of

Education pursuant to 20 U.S.C. 107d1(b) upon receipt of a complaint filed by

petitioner, the Alabama Department of

Rehabilitation Services.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION: 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 the PDF you must have the

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

This dispute concerns the alleged

violation by the Department of Veterans

Affairs (DVA), Veterans Canteen Service

(VCS), of the priority provisions of the

Act (20 U.S.C. 107 et seq.) and

implementing regulations in 34 CFR

part 395 at DVA/VCS Medical Centers

in Alabama.

A summary of the facts is as follows:

In 1995, the Alabama Department of

Rehabilitation Services, the State

licensing Agency (SLA), submitted

permit applications to establish

Randolph-Sheppard vending facilities

on four Federal properties maintained

and operated by DVA and VCS in

Alabama. The permits were for the

Veterans Administration Medical

Center, Tuskegee; the Regional Office

and DVA Medical Center, Montgomery;

the Veterans Hospital, Birmingham; and

the Veterans Administration Hospital,

Tuscaloosa.

By letter dated July 11, 1996, DVA

acknowledged receipt of the permit

applications and informed the SLA that

a decision would be made after a review

had been conducted to determine

whether there were any plans to

acquire, occupy, or otherwise engage in

any substantial alterations or

renovations of the involved buildings.

The SLA did not receive any further

communication from DVA or VCS until

March 4, 1998. On that date, DVA wrote

to the SLA advising that the

Montgomery and Tuskegee facilities did

not plan any construction that would

require notice to the SLA and indicating

that there was no suitable existing space

available for the location of blind

vending facilities at those centers. The

letter informed the SLA that the

hospitals at Birmingham and Tuscaloosa

planned substantial alterations and

renovations. The DVA forwarded the

SLA’s applications for permits at these

hospitals to the directors of those

facilities.

Following receipt of DVA’s March 4th

letter, representatives of the SLA met

with the Directors or their designees of

the DVA Medical Centers located in

Birmingham and Tuscaloosa. On May

21, 1998, the SLA wrote each Director

asking for a response to the applications

that had been pending since 1995. The

SLA did not receive any response and

in June 1998 filed with the Department

of Education a request for arbitration of

the matter.

In July 1998, the Tuscaloosa Director

notified the SLA that DVA/VCS

intended to occupy a building that

might contain a satisfactory site for the

establishment of a vending location for

a blind vendor. On July 20, 1998, the

SLA responded that it would send a

representative to develop a site specific

survey. In September 1998, the attorney

for the SLA contacted the attorney for

DVA and requested a meeting to

negotiate a resolution to the issues.

In a letter dated November 9, 1998,

the DVA denied the SLA’s second

application filed in August 1998 to

establish vending locations at the

Tuscaloosa facility. Based upon

information that the average income for

its blind vendors was $25,000, the SLA

previously had determined that it would

take $100,000 in gross sales at the

Tuscaloosa facility to provide a net

income of $25,000 for a blind vendor. In

the letter, the DVA indicated to the SLA

that the $100,000 gross sales

requirement for a possible vending

location at the Tuscaloosa facility would

include practically all of the gross sales,

and the DVA would not give up the

operation.

The SLA notified the Department of

Education by letter dated December 8,

1998 that no decision had been issued

by DVA on its request to establish

vending facilities at the DVA Medical

Centers. Therefore, the SLA requested

that the arbitration should proceed. A

hearing on this matter was held on

January 11–12, 2000.

Arbitration Panel Decision

The central issue before the

arbitration panel was whether DVA/

VCS’s determination that no existing

suitable space was available for blind

vending facilities at DVA’s Montgomery

and Tuskegee locations and the failure

of DVA’s Medical Directors at the

Birmingham and Tuscaloosa locations

to approve the permit applications for

blind vending facilities were contrary to

and in violation of the RandolphSheppard Act, 20 U.S.C. 107 et seq., and

the implementing regulations in 34 CFR

part 395.

The arbitration panel found that DVA/

VCS did not comply with the Act in

processing the SLA’s 1995 permit 1

applications. Nor did DVA/VCS give

reasons for its denial of permits at the

Montgomery and Tuskegee Medical

Centers as required by the Act and

regulations in 34 CFR 395.16.

The panel also concluded that, at the

Tuscaloosa and Birmingham locations,

DVA/VCS did not provide the SLA with

timely notice of the substantial

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 116 / Friday, June 15, 2001 / Notices 32611

renovations at these sites as required by

the Act and implementing regulations in

34 CFR 395.31(c). Furthermore, during

the renovations at the Birmingham and

Tuscaloosa Medical Centers, DVA/VCS

failed to provide the SLA with access to

the facilities, personnel numbers, or

financial data pertaining to the vending

operations, as required by the Act, to

determine if a suitable site existed.

Therefore, for the previously stated

reasons, the arbitration panel ruled that

DVA/VCS had violated the RandolphSheppard Act. However, the panel

stated that it did not have the authority

to prescribe remedies. It noted that

DVA/VCS’ current position is that it is

presently in compliance with the

Randolph-Sheppard Act.

The views and opinions expressed by

the panel do not necessarily represent

the views and opinions of the U.S.

Department of Education.

Dated: June 12, 2001.

Francis V. Corrigan,

Deputy Director, National Institute on

Disability and Rehabilitation Research.

[FR Doc. 01–15153 Filed 6–14–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4000–01–U

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

National Energy Technology

Laboratory; ‘‘Identification and

Demonstration of Preferred Upstream

Management Practices II (Pump II) for

the Oil Industry’

AGENCY: National Energy Technology

Laboratory (NETL), Department of

Energy (DOE).

ACTION: Notice of availability of a

financial assistance solicitation.

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given of the

intent to issue Financial Assistance

Solicitation No. DE–PS26–01BC15300

entitled ‘‘Identification and

Demonstration of Preferred Upstream

Management Practices II (PUMP II) for

the Oil Industry.’’ The Department of

Energy (DOE) National Energy

Technology Laboratory (NETL), on

behalf of its National Petroleum

Technology Office (NTPO), seeks costshared research and development

applications for identification of

preferred management practices (PMP)

and technology solutions addressing a

production barrier in a region and the

documentation of these practices for use

by the oil industry. Applications will

address either the development of

public play portfolios addressing a

region where the application of

preferred geologic and engineering

practices will identify significant

exploration and development reserves

or demonstrations of new methods/

protocols for data sharing among

operators, organizations and agencies to

improve the processing of information

necessary for approving and managing

the operations of the industry. As in the

PUMP I solicitation in 2000, the nearterm goal is to advance technology

capabilities and to increase current

domestic oil production quickly.

An Information Package is available

on the NETL’s Homepage at http://

www.netl.doe.gov/business for viewing

and downloading. The Information

Package contains general information

regarding the proposed solicitation.

DATES: The solicitation will be available

on the DOE/NETL’s Internet address at

http://www.netl.doe.gov/business on or

about June 12, 2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Keith R. Miles, U.S. Department of

Energy, National Energy Technology

Laboratory, P.O. Box 10940, MS 921–

166, Pittsburgh, PA 15236–0940, E-mail

Address: miles@netl.doe.gov, Telephone

Number: 412/386–5984.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

National Petroleum Technology Office

of the Department of Energy (DOE)

Office of Fossil Energy (FE) National

Energy Technology Lab (NETL) is

soliciting cost-shared applications for

identification of preferred management

practices (PMP) and technology

solutions addressing information-related

barriers and data-sharing solutions to a

production barrier in a region and the

documentation of these practices for use

by the industry. The near-term goal is to

increase current domestic oil

production quickly.

The mission of the Department of

Energy’s Fossil Energy Oil Program is

driven by the needs of the oil producers.

The overall program is designed to

develop unique technologies and

processes to locate untapped resources;

to extend the life of domestic energy

resources; and to reduce well

abandonment-all essential to

maximizing the production of domestic

resources while protecting our

environment. The National Petroleum

Technology Office’s Preferred Upstream

Management Practices (PUMP) program

as a part of this overall goal is designed

to facilitate production of existing oil

reserves more quickly without

sacrificing efficiency or environmental

protection.

Based on prior successful results from

demonstrations of under-utilized or

advanced technology coupled with

reservoir characterization, the DOE Oil

Program seeks to demonstrate that the

identification and use of PMP can

overcome regional constraints to

increased production.

The program will accept proposals

that combine the identification of public

play portfolios using preferred advanced

geologic and engineering practices and

technology to overcome regional

production constraints and aggressive

technology transfer that will promote

the use of those practices. In addition,

the program will accept proposals that

demonstrate preferred management

practices and technology to encourage

data-sharing in the industry and

government regulating oil and gas

production. Barriers can be identified as

technical, physical, regulatory,

environmental, or economic. The

selected projects are expected to employ

the following four (4) strategies in order

to have a rapid impact on production:

(1) Focus on regions that present the

biggest potential for additional oil

production quickly, (2) integrate

solutions to technological, economic,

regulatory, and data constraints, (3)

demonstrate the validity of these

practices either through field

demonstration during the project or

documentation of well-run successful

past demonstration, and (4) use known

technology transfer mechanisms.

Using a regional approach where the

projects will have a wide applicability,

an integrated approach scheduling tasks

along parallel paths to facilitate a

quicker response, and operating with

existing networks, the production

results in the field should be

accelerated. The documentation and

evaluation of the PMP will be a valuable

resource to all producers in the

applicable area and possibly other

regions as well.

This program expects near-term

results and actions that will create data

or technological resources suitable for

long-term use. Teaming is encouraged

and the proposal partners could

include, but not be limited to,

producers, producer organizations,

universities, service companies, State

agencies or organizations, non-Federal

research laboratories, and Native

American Tribes or Corporations. They

will demonstrate practices and/or

technologies that can increase

production, increase cost savings, or

rapid returns on the capital investments

of the operators. New technologies/

processes or under-used but effective

applications of existing technologies/

processes critical to a region will be

demonstrated. The DOE will make

publicly available over the Internet the

data on preferred practices resulting

from this program. The resulting

publicly available databases of the

preferred practices will be interactive,