Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 153 / Tuesday, August 9, 2011 / Notices 48831 

75.720(c). For specific requirements on 

reporting, please go to http:// 

www.ed.gov/fund/grant/apply/ 

appforms/appforms.html. 

4. Performance Measures: Under the 

Government Performance and Results 

Act of 1993 (GPRA), the Department has 

established a set of performance 

measures, including long-term 

measures, that are designed to yield 

information on various aspects of the 

effectiveness and quality of the 

Technical Assistance and Dissemination 

to Improve Services and Results for 

Children with Disabilities program. 

These measures focus on the extent to 

which projects provide high-quality 

products and services, the relevance of 

project products and services to 

educational and early intervention 

policy and practice, and the use of 

products and services to improve 

educational and early intervention 

policy and practice. 

Grantees will be required to report 

information on their project’s 

performance in annual reports to the 

Department (34 CFR 75.590). 

5. Continuation Awards: In making a 

continuation award, the Secretary may 

consider, under 34 CFR 75.253, the 

extent to which a grantee has made 

‘‘substantial progress toward meeting 

the objectives in its approved 

application.’’ This consideration 

includes the review of a grantee’s 

progress in meeting the targets and 

projected outcomes in its approved 

application, and whether the grantee 

has expended funds in a manner that is 

consistent with its approved application 

and budget. In making a continuation 

grant, the Secretary also considers 

whether the grantee is operating in 

compliance with the assurances in its 

approved application, including those 

applicable to Federal civil rights laws 

that prohibit discrimination in programs 

or activities receiving Federal financial 

assistance from the Department (34 CFR 

100.4, 104.5, 106.4, 108.8, and 110.23). 

VII. Agency Contact 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Michael F. Slade, U.S. Department of 

Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., 

room 4083, Potomac Center Plaza (PCP), 

Washington, DC 20202–2550. 

Telephone: (202) 245–7527. 

If you use a TDD, call the Federal 

Relay Service (FRS), toll free, at 1–800– 

877–8339. 

VIII. Other Information 

Accessible Format: Individuals with 

disabilities can obtain this document 

and a copy of the application package in 

an accessible format (e.g., braille, large 

print, audiotape, or computer diskette) 

by contacting the Grants and Contracts 

Services Team, U.S. Department of 

Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., 

room 5075, PCP, Washington, DC 

20202–2550. Telephone: (202) 245– 

7363. If you use a TDD, call the FRS, toll 

free, at 1–800–877–8339. 

Electronic Access to This Document: 

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 via the Federal Digital System 

at: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys. At this 

site you can view this document, as well 

as all other documents of this 

Department published in the Federal 

Register, in text or Adobe Portable 

Document Format (PDF). To use PDF 

you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, 

which is available free at the site. 

You may also access documents of the 

Department published in the Federal 

Register by using the article search 

feature at: http:// 

www.federalregister.gov. Specifically, 

through the advanced search feature at 

this site, you can limit your search to 

documents published by the 

Department. 

Dated: August 4, 2011. 

Alexa Posny, 

Assistant Secretary for Special Education and 

Rehabilitative Services. 

[FR Doc. 2011–20184 Filed 8–8–11; 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 

decisions under the Randolph-Sheppard 

Act. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Education 

(Department) gives notice that on May 3, 

2010, and April 19, 2011, an arbitration 

panel rendered decisions in the matter 

of Art Stevenson v. Oregon Commission 

for the Blind, Case no. R–S/07–4. This 

panel was convened by the Department 

under 20 U.S.C. 107d–1(a), after the 

Department received a complaint filed 

by the petitioner, Art Stevenson. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: You 

may obtain a copy of the full text of the 

arbitration panel decisions from Suzette 

E. Haynes, U.S. Department of 

Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., 

Room 5022, Potomac Center Plaza, 

Washington, DC 20202–2800. 

Telephone: (202) 245–7374. If you use a 

telecommunications device for the deaf 

(TDD), call the Federal Relay Service 

(FRS), toll-free, at 1–800–877–8339. 

Individuals with disabilities can 

obtain this document in an accessible 

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

audiotape, or computer diskette) on 

request to the contact person listed 

under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under 

section 6(c) of the Randolph-Sheppard 

Act (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 

Art Stevenson (Complainant) alleged 

that the Oregon Commission for the 

Blind, the State licensing agency (SLA), 

violated the Act and its implementing 

regulations in 34 CFR part 395. 

Specifically, Complainant alleged that 

the SLA improperly administered the 

transfer and promotion policies and 

procedures of the Oregon RandolphSheppard Vending Facility Program in 

violation of the Act, implementing 

regulations under the Act, and State 

rules and regulations in Complainant’s 

bid to manage the Marion County 

vending route comprised of vending 

machines at the Oregon Department of 

Public Safety Standards and Training 

(DPSST). 

On May 1, 2006, the SLA issued a 

vacancy announcement for the DPSST 

vending route. While the posting did 

not indicate that the DPSST campus 

would be closed, i.e., that trainees 

would not be permitted to return home 

on weekends, the SLA communicated 

this information at an early May 

meeting with the Blind Enterprise 

Consumer Committee, of which 

Complainant was a member. On May 20, 

2006, the SLA informed Complainant 

that his bid had been accepted. On July 

27, 2006, Complainant signed a vendor’s 

operating agreement with the SLA to 

manage the DPSST vending route. 

Subsequently, on August 1, 2006, 

Complainant informed the SLA that he 

would continue to operate his current 

vending route in Multnomah County 

(Multnomah) until September 30, 2006. 

On August 10, 2006, staff of the SLA 

informed Complainant that the 

Multnomah vending route was being 

put out to bid. On August 22, 2006, a 

vacancy announcement was sent to all 

eligible vendors. Another vendor 

submitted the only bid for the 

Multnomah vending route and he was 

awarded the Multnomah vending route 

contract on September 6, 2006. 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
48832 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 153 / Tuesday, August 9, 2011 / Notices 

On September 28, 2006, Complainant 

requested from the SLA a two-week 

extension on relinquishing the 

Multnomah vending route to the new 

vendor, citing low sales figures for the 

DPSST vending route. The SLA agreed 

to the extension of Complainant’s 

request to delay turning over the 

Multnomah vending route to the new 

vendor. 

At a meeting on October 3, 2006, a 

DPSST official informed the blind 

vendor and SLA for the first time that 

the DPSST had decided to operate the 

DPSST facility as an open campus in 

which trainees were allowed to go home 

on weekends. At the same time, the SLA 

learned that the DPSST cafeteria was 

selling items in competition with 

Complainant’s vending machines. 

On October 4, 2006, Complainant 

filed a grievance with the SLA 

requesting an administrative review 

indicating that ‘‘there are several issues 

that must be addressed before I 

relinquish my current status as the 

Multnomah County vending route 

manager.’’ Following Complainant’s 

request for an administrative review, 

staff of the SLA met with him and 

suggested alternatives to supplement 

Complainant’s income at DPSST. 

However, Complainant declined the 

offer and requested that he be permitted 

to continue operating the Multnomah 

vending route. The SLA denied 

Complainant’s request. However, 

Complainant continued to operate the 

Multnomah vending route until mid2008. On June 13, 2008, SLA staff 

directed Complainant to turn over keys 

to the Multnomah vending route to the 

new vendor and Complainant complied 

with the SLA’s request. 

Subsequently, Complainant filed for a 

State fair hearing. The SLA held a State 

hearing on this matter. The SLA 

adopted the hearing officer’s decision to 

deny Complainant’s request to continue 

operating the Multnomah vending route 

as final agency action. It is this decision 

on which Complainant sought review by 

a Federal arbitration panel. 

Arbitration Panel Decisions 

After hearing testimony and 

reviewing all of the evidence, the panel 

majority ruled on May 3, 2010, that 

Complainant did not have the right to 

rescind the August 1, 2006, notice of 

termination of his operating agreement 

with the SLA for the Multnomah 

vending route. The panel majority 

concluded that the change in 

circumstances in the DPSST vending 

route was the result of DPSST’s 

unilateral decision to open the campus. 

It was undisputed that DPSST decided 

to open the campus after the bidding 

ended and that it did not inform the 

SLA of this change until after the 

vendor complained of unexpected low 

earnings soon after he began operating 

the vending machines. 

Thus, according to the panel, the SLA 

was not responsible for the change 

simply because it occurred at the outset 

of the operation of the DPSST vending 

route instead of a month or a year into 

the operation. Moreover, based on 

information at the time of the bid, 

Complainant had no reasonable 

expectation that he would receive 

sufficient income from just servicing the 

DPSST vending route—especially since 

the vacancy announcement for DPSST 

informed bidders that additional 

vending would be a significant part of 

the DPSST vending route. Finally, when 

the SLA official became aware of the 

decision to open the campus, he 

immediately mitigated the impact by 

offering additional vending and also 

promptly objected upon learning that 

the cafeteria was selling similar items. 

The panel majority also ruled that 

Complainant was not entitled to be 

restored as the manager of the 

Multnomah vending route. This was 

based upon the finding that significant 

inequities would have ensued had 

Complainant been allowed to rescind 

his decision to relinquish the 

Multnomah vending route. By the time 

the SLA learned of DPSST’s change to 

an open campus, the new vendor at the 

Multnomah vending route had already 

incurred significant cost to prepare to 

service the Multnomah vending route. 

Therefore, allowing Complainant to 

retain the Multnomah vending route 

would have caused real economic harm 

to the new vendor. 

Accordingly, the panel majority 

concluded that the SLA did not violate 

the Randolph-Sheppard Act. The panel 

majority denied Complainant’s motion 

for summary judgment and granted the 

SLA’s motion for summary judgment. 

One panel member dissented from the 

panel majority’s decision stating that 

Complainant had a right to rescind his 

agreement to operate the Multnomah 

vending route. This panel member 

concluded that, if the SLA had acted 

upon Complainant’s rescission request 

promptly, no additional harm would 

have occurred to Complainant or the 

other vendor. As a remedy, this panel 

member would have awarded damages 

in an appropriate amount to 

Complainant for the SLA’s failure to 

rescind his agreement in a timely 

manner. 

On July 27, 2010, following the 

panel’s submitting the final decision to 

the Department, Complainant submitted 

to the panel a Request for 

Reconsideration. However, the request 

did not identify any specific issues that 

remained to be addressed. After 

consultation, the panel requested by 

e-mail, dated August 2, 2010, that 

Complainant articulate the specific 

issues in his view that were within the 

panel’s jurisdiction under the 

Randolph-Sheppard Act and identify 

remaining issues in light of the panel 

majority’s ruling on May 3, 2010. 

On August 17, 2010, Complainant 

responded to the panel with a list of 

eleven issues. After reviewing the list, 

the panel majority concluded on April 

19, 2011, that Complainant had not 

presented issues warranting further 

hearing in this matter. Specifically, the 

panel determined that it did not have 

jurisdiction to consider three of the 

issues because they had not been 

addressed at the State level first. For the 

remainder of the issues, the panel 

determined that they had either already 

been resolved or were moot. Therefore, 

Complainant’s Request for 

Reconsideration was denied. 

One panel member dissented in part 

and concurred in part from the panel 

majority. This panel member dissented 

stating that Complainant had not 

waived his right to a hearing on the 

SLA’s alleged inappropriate 

administration of the RandolphSheppard vending facility program 

regarding the DPSST vending route. 

The views and opinions expressed by 

the panel do not necessarily represent 

the views and opinions of the 

Department. 

Electronic Access to This Document: 

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 via the Federal Digital System 

at: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys. At this 

site you can view this document, as well 

as all other documents of this 

Department published in the Federal 

Register, in text or Adobe Portable 

Document Format (PDF). To use PDF 

you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, 

which is available free at this site. 

You may also access documents of the 

Department published in the Federal 

Register by using the article search 

feature at http:// 

www.federalregister.gov. Specifically, 

through the advanced search feature at 

this site, you can limit your search to 

documents published by the 

Department. 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 153 / Tuesday, August 9, 2011 / Notices 48833 

Dated: August 4, 2011. 

Alexa Posny, 

Assistant Secretary for Special Education and 

Rehabilitative Services. 

[FR Doc. 2011–20231 Filed 8–8–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4000–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

[Certification Notice—221] 

Notice of Filings of Self-Certifications 

of Coal Capability Under the 

Powerplant and Industrial Fuel Use Act 

AGENCY: Office Electricity Delivery and 

Energy Reliability, DOE. 

ACTION: Notice of Filings. 

SUMMARY: The owners of three new base 

load electric powerplants submitted 

coal capability self-certifications to the 

Department of Energy (DOE) pursuant to 

section 201(d) of the Powerplant and 

Industrial Fuel Use Act of 1978 (FUA), 

as amended, and DOE regulations in 10 

CFR 501.60, 61. Section 201(d) of FUA 

requires DOE to publish a notice of 

receipt of self-certifications in the 

Federal Register. 

ADDRESSES: Copies of coal capability 

self-certification filings are available for 

public inspection, upon request, in the 

Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy 

Reliability, Mail Code OE–20, Room 

8G–024, Forrestal Building, 1000 

Independence Avenue, SW., 

Washington, DC 20585. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Christopher Lawrence at (202) 586– 

5260. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Title II of 

FUA, as amended (42 U.S.C. 8301 et 

seq.), provides that no new base load 

electric powerplant may be constructed 

or operated without the capability to use 

coal or another alternate fuel as a 

primary energy source. 

Pursuant to FUA section 201(d), in 

order to meet the requirement of coal 

capability, the owner or operator of such 

a facility proposing to use natural gas or 

petroleum as its primary energy source 

shall certify to the Secretary of Energy 

(Secretary) prior to construction, or 

prior to operation as a base load electric 

powerplant, that such powerplant has 

the capability to use coal or another 

alternate fuel. Such certification 

establishes compliance with FUA 

section 201(a) as of the date it is filed 

with the Secretary. The Secretary is 

required to publish a notice in the 

Federal Register reciting that the 

certification has been filed. 

The following owners of proposed 

new base load electric powerplants have 

filed self-certifications of coal-capability 

with DOE pursuant to FUA section 

201(d) and in accordance with DOE 

regulations in 10 CFR 501.60, 61: 

Owner: Los Esteros Critical Energy 

Facility, LLC. 

Capacity: 307 megawatts (MW). 

Plant Location: Santa Clara County, 

California. 

In-Service Date: June 2013. 

Owner: Russell City Energy Company, 

LLC. 

Capacity: 620 megawatts (MW). 

Plant Location: City of Hayward, 

California. 

In-Service Date: June 2013. 

Owner: El Segundo Energy Center 

LLC. 

Capacity: 550 megawatts (MW). 

Plant Location: City of El Segundo, 

Los Angeles County, California. 

In-Service Date: June 2013. 

Issued in Washington, DC on August 2, 

2011. 

Anthony J. Como, 

Director, Permitting and Siting, Office of 

Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability. 

[FR Doc. 2011–20123 Filed 8–8–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission 

[Docket No. CP11–519–000] 

El Paso Natural Gas Company; Notice 

of Application 

Take notice that on July 20, 2011, El 

Paso Natural Gas Company (El Paso), 

P.O. Box 1087, Colorado Springs, 

Colorado 80944, filed in Docket No. 

CP11–519–000, a request for authority, 

pursuant to 18 CFR part 157 and section 

7(b) of the Natural Gas Act, to abandon, 

in place, El Paso’s El Paso-Douglas Line 

(Line No. 1004) in Dona Ana and Luna 

Counties, New Mexico. Specifically, El 

Paso proposes to abandon 

approximately 34.2 miles of 12.75-inch 

diameter pipeline Line No. 1004 and the 

related appurtenances between the 

Afton and Florida Compressor Stations. 

El Paso states that the abandonment of 

Line No. 1004 will have no impact on 

capacity and service, all as more fully 

set forth in the application, which is on 

file with the Commission and open to 

public inspection. The filing may also 

be viewed on the web at http:// 

www.ferc.gov using the ‘‘eLibrary’’ link. 

Enter the docket number excluding the 

last three digits in the docket number 

field to access the document. For 

assistance, contact FERC at 

FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov or call 

toll-free, (866) 208–3676 or TTY, (202) 

502–8659. 

Any questions regarding this 

application should be directed to Susan 

C. Stires, Director, Regulatory Affairs 

Department, Colorado Interstate Gas 

Company, P.O. Box 1087, Colorado 

Springs, CO 80944, telephone no. (719) 

667–7514, facsimile no. (719) 667–7534, 

and e-mail: 

EPMGregulatoryaffairs@elpaso.com. 

Pursuant to section 157.9 of the 

Commission’s rules, 18 CFR 157.9, 

within 90 days of this Notice the 

Commission staff will either: complete 

its environmental assessment (EA) and 

place it into the Commission’s public 

record (eLibrary) for this proceeding; or 

issue a Notice of Schedule for 

Environmental Review. If a Notice of 

Schedule for Environmental Review is 

issued, it will indicate, among other 

milestones, the anticipated date for the 

Commission staff’s issuance of the final 

environmental impact statement (FEIS) 

or EA for this proposal. The filing of the 

EA in the Commission’s public record 

for this proceeding or the issuance of a 

Notice of Schedule for Environmental 

Review will serve to notify federal and 

state agencies of the timing for the 

completion of all necessary reviews, and 

the subsequent need to complete all 

federal authorizations within 90 days of 

the date of issuance of the Commission 

staff’s FEIS or EA. 

There are two ways to become 

involved in the Commission’s review of 

this project. First, any person wishing to 

obtain legal status by becoming a party 

to the proceedings for this project 

should, on or before the comment date 

stated below file with the Federal 

Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 

First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, 

a motion to intervene 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 NGA (18 

CFR 157.10). A person obtaining party 

status will be placed on the service list 

maintained by the Secretary of the 

Commission and will receive copies of 

all documents filed by the applicant and 

by all other parties. A party must submit 

7 copies of filings made in the 

proceeding with the Commission and 

must mail a copy to the applicant and 

to every other party. Only parties to the 

proceeding can ask for court review of 

Commission orders in the proceeding. 

However, a person does not have to 

intervene in order to have comments 

considered. The second way to 

participate is by filing with the 

Secretary of the Commission, as soon as 

possible, an original and two copies of 

comments in support of or in opposition 

to this project. The Commission will 

consider these comments in 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES