Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 178 / Friday, September 12, 2008 / Notices 52973 

modern diesel submarines; and train 

with the actual sensors and weapons 

systems used in combat to mimic 

realistic wartime conditions. 

The Draft OEIS/EIS evaluates the 

potential impacts of five alternatives for 

USWTR including the No Action 

Alternative. The alternatives were 

evaluated in the Draft OEIS/EIS to 

ensure they met the purpose and need, 

giving due consideration to the 

following: physiographic features (water 

depth, range area length/width ratio, 

shallow/deep water depth ratio, and 

range orientation to the shoreline), 

adequacy of support infrastructure 

(shore landing site for trunk cable and 

helicopter training and recovery 

support), climatological criteria 

(visibility, wind speeds, and wave 

height), proximity to homeports/air 

stations (helicopter, submarine, and 

surface ship homeports), range 

installation and use (commercial 

fishing, ocean currents, and bottom 

type), and non-critical support 

infrastructure (air space control, shore 

landing site, and proximity to docking 

facility for range support craft). 

These alternatives include: The No 

Action Alternative, under which no 

USWTR would be installed off the east 

coast of the U.S., although ASW 

training, including active sonar 

activities, would continue across Navy 

operating areas (OPAREAs) and adjacent 

areas; Site A (Preferred Alternative) 

which would be located offshore of 

northeastern Florida in the Jacksonville 

OPAREA; Site B, located offshore of 

Charleston, South Carolina in the 

Charleston OPAREA; Site C, located 

offshore of southeastern North Carolina, 

within the Cherry Point OPAREA; and 

Site D, located offshore of the 

northeastern coast of Virginia in the 

VACAPES OPAREA. Two alternative 

sites, Gulf of Mexico and Gulf of Maine, 

were eliminated from further 

consideration because of distance and 

climatology. 

The Draft OEIS/EIS analyzed potential 

impacts on multiple resources 

including, but not limited to: The 

marine environment; biological 

resources, including threatened and 

endangered species; and socioeconomic 

resources. No significant adverse 

impacts were identified for any resource 

area for any of the alternatives that 

cannot be mitigated, with the exception 

of exposure of marine mammals to 

underwater sound. 

The Navy has applied to NMFS under 

the Marine Mammal Protection Act for 

a Letter of Authorization and governing 

regulations to authorize incidental takes 

of marine mammals that may result 

from operation of the proposed USWTR. 

The Navy is consulting with NMFS 

under section 7 of the Endangered 

Species Act on the potential for effects 

on sea turtles from installation and 

operation of the proposed range. 

The USWTR Draft OEIS/EIS was 

distributed to Federal, State, and local 

agencies, elected officials, and other 

interested individuals and organizations 

on September 12, 2008. The public 

comment period will end on October 27, 

2008. Copies of the USWTR Draft OEIS/ 

EIS are available for public review at the 

following libraries: Chincoteague Island 

Library, 4077 Main Street, 

Chincoteague, VA; Eastern Shore Public 

Library, 23610 Front Street, Accomac, 

VA; Virginia Beach Central Library, 

4100 Virginia Beach Boulevard, Virginia 

Beach, VA; Worcester County Library, 

Ocean City Branch, 200 14th Street, 

Ocean City, MD; Wicomico County Free 

Library, 122 South Division Street, 

Salisbury, MD; Carteret County Public 

Library, 210 Turner Street, Beaufort, NC; 

Onslow County Public Library, 58 Doris 

Avenue East, Jacksonville, NC; 

Charleston County Library, 68 Calhoun 

Street, Charleston, SC; and Jacksonville 

Public Library, Regency Square Branch, 

9900 Regency Boulevard, Jacksonville, 

FL. 

The USWTR Draft OEIS/EIS is also 

available for electronic public viewing 

at http://projects.earthtech.com/uswtr/. 

A paper copy of the Executive Summary 

or a single CD with the USWTR Draft 

OEIS/EIS will be made available upon 

written request by contacting Naval 

Facilities Engineering Command, 

Atlantic Division; Attention: Code 

EV22LL (USWTR OEIS/EIS PM); 6506 

Hampton Blvd; Norfolk, VA 23508– 

1278. Facsimile: 804–200–5568. 

Federal, State, and local agencies and 

interested parties are invited to be 

present or represented at the public 

hearing. Written comments can also be 

submitted during the open house 

sessions preceding the public hearings. 

Oral statements will be heard and 

transcribed by a stenographer; however, 

to ensure the accuracy of the record, all 

statements should be submitted in 

writing. All statements, both oral and 

written, will become part of the public 

record on the Draft OEIS/EIS and will be 

responded to in the Final OEIS/EIS. 

Equal weight will be given to both oral 

and written statements. In the interest of 

available time, and to ensure all who 

wish to give an oral statement have the 

opportunity to do so, each speaker’s 

comments will be limited to three (3) 

minutes. If a long statement is to be 

presented, it should be summarized at 

the public hearing with the full text 

submitted either in writing at the 

hearing, or mailed or faxed to Naval 

Facilities Engineering Command, 

Atlantic Division; Attention: Code 

EV22LL (USWTR OEIS/EIS PM); 6506 

Hampton Blvd; Norfolk, VA 23508– 

1278. Facsimile: 804–200–5568. 

In addition, comments may be 

submitted on-line at http:// 

projects.earthtech.com/uswtr/ during 

the comment period. All written 

comments must be postmarked by 

October 27, 2008 to ensure they become 

part of the official record. All comments 

will be addressed in the Final OEIS/EIS. 

Dated: September 5, 2008. 

T. M. Cruz, 

Lieutenant Commander, Judge Advocate 

General’s Corps, U.S. Navy, Federal Register 

Liaison Officer. 

[FR Doc. E8–21344 Filed 9–11–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3810–FF–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: The Department of Education 

(Department) gives notice that on 

December 5, 2007, an arbitration panel 

rendered a decision in the matter of 

Hawaii Department of Human Services, 

Vocational Rehabilitation and Services 

for the Blind Division v. United States 

Department of Defense, Department of 

the Navy (Case No. R-S/06–4). This 

panel was convened by the Department 

under 20 U.S.C. 107d-1(b), after the 

Department received a complaint filed 

by the petitioner, the Hawaii 

Department of Human Services, 

Vocational Rehabilitation and Services 

for the Blind Division. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: You 

may obtain a copy of the full text of the 

arbitration panel decision 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), you may call the Federal Relay 

Service (FRS) at 1–800–877–8339. 

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 

under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under 

section 6(c) of the Randolph-Sheppard 


ebenthall on PROD1PC60 with NOTICES
52974 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 178 / Friday, September 12, 2008 / Notices 

Act (the 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 

The Hawaii Department of Human 

Services, Vocational Rehabilitation and 

Services for the Blind Division, the State 

Licensing Agency (SLA) alleged 

violations by the United States 

Department of Defense, Department of 

the Navy (Navy) of the Act, and the 

implementing regulations in 34 CFR 

part 395. Specifically, the SLA alleged 

the Navy improperly denied the SLA’s 

request to establish a RandolphSheppard vending facility at three 

parcels of real property located at the 

Pearl Harbor Naval Base. The Navy 

owned the parcels but leased them to 

private entities as described in this 

notice. 

In 1999, Congress gave the Navy 

authority to lease or convey real and 

personal property in Hawaii that was 

not needed for Navy operations. On 

June 30, 2003, the Navy entered into a 

lease with Fluor Hawaii, LLC, which 

was terminated in April 2007, covering 

an area of property at Pearl Harbor 

immediately adjacent to the USS 

Arizona Memorial Visitor Center that is 

known as Halawa Landing. The lease 

granted exclusive use and possession of 

the property for a term of 65 years and 

provided that the property be used 

solely for a support facility for visitor 

attractions. 

In November 2004, the lessee entered 

into an agreement with the Pearl Harbor 

Visitor Center (PHVC) providing for the 

provision of visitors services at Halawa 

Landing including but not limited to 

food, beverage, bag storage, and visitor 

information. Between late 2004 and 

early 2007, PHVC operated several food 

concessions and other visitor services in 

a large white tent constructed on a 

portion of the Halawa Landing property 

adjacent to the primary parking lot used 

by visitors. A blind vendor operated a 

food stand at the entrance to that 

complex pursuant to a concession 

granted by the National Park Service. 

In June 2003, the Navy entered into a 

lease with a private party for Ford 

Island, which covered certain Pearl 

Harbor property on which old and 

underutilized airplane hangars stood. In 

2006, the lessee subleased a portion of 

the area to the Pacific Aviation Museum 

(PAM) at Pearl Harbor. The PAM 

included a cafe, which sold a variety of 

food and beverages. 

On July 7, 1986, the Navy leased 

certain property near Halawa Landing 

for the sole purpose of establishing a 

museum. Inside the museum, known as 

the USS Bowfin Museum, was a hot dog 

cart where, in addition to hot dogs, 

sandwiches, snacks, beverages, and ice 

cream, some nonfood items were sold. 

The SLA alleged that the three parcels 

of real property at the Pearl Harbor 

Naval base leased by Navy to a private 

entity were in violation of the Act that 

authorizes blind persons to operate 

vending facilities on any Federal 

property. Navy responded that the Act 

did not apply to leased property. After 

several informal attempts to resolve this 

dispute, the SLA filed for Federal 

arbitration in February 2006. A hearing 

on this matter was held on July 25, 

2007. 

The issues heard by the arbitration 

panel were: whether the act applies to 

real property owned by Navy if leased 

to a private entity and whether an 

arbitration panel convened under the 

Act can award monetary damages. 

Arbitration Panel Decision 

After reviewing all of the records and 

hearing testimony of witnesses, the 

panel ruled for the Navy. While finding 

the Act ambiguous with regard to 

whether the priority provisions of the 

Act at 20 U.S.C. 107(b) applies to 

Federally owned property that has been 

leased to a private entity, the panel 

concluded, based on legislative history 

as well as the text of the Act and its 

implementing regulations, that the 

priority applies only on property 

‘‘controlled, maintained, or operated by 

Federal agencies.’’ 

Specifically, the panel majority found 

that Congress had authorized the 

Secretary of the Navy to sell or lease any 

property in excess of the needs of the 

Navy. The Navy entered into lease 

agreements granting exclusive use and 

possession of the leased properties. 

With respect to the USS Bowfin 

Museum, the arbitration panel 

determined that, because no cafe or 

cafeteria was planned for the museum, 

the SLA’s claims regarding the museum 

were moot. With respect to the Halawa 

Landing and PAM properties, the 

majority concluded that the priority did 

not apply because the Navy did not 

control the leased properties. 

Furthermore, the panel concluded 

that the satisfactory site provisions of 

the Act did not apply because no 

Federal employees used the properties 

and there was not any Federal office 

space located there. Based upon the 

foregoing, the panel ruled that the Act’s 

priority did not apply to these 

properties leased by the Navy. 

Lastly, although stating that the 

concession area in the white tent at 

Halawa Landing apparently damaged 

the blind vendor financially, the panel 

concluded that the Act does not prohibit 

competition except in instances where 

vending machines are in direct 

competition with a blind vendor’s 

facility, which did not occur here. In 

addition, the panel concluded that the 

SLA would not be entitled to damages 

even if the Navy violated the Act 

because the Act does not authorize the 

panel to make damages awards. One 

panel member concurred with the 

majority opinion and one panel member 

dissented. 

The views and opinions expressed by 

the panel do not necessarily represent 

the views and opinions of the 

Department. 

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: http://www.ed.gov/ 

news/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.gpoaccess.gov/nara/ 

index.html. 

Dated: September 8, 2009. 

Tracy R. Justesen, 

Assistant Secretary for Special Education and 

Rehabilitative Services. 

[FR Doc. E8–21142 Filed 9–11–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4000–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission 

[Project No. 12569–001] 

Public Utility District No. 1 of 

Okanogan County; Notice of 

Application Tendered for Filing With 

the Commission 

September 5, 2008. 

Take notice that the following 

hydroelectric application has been filed 

with the Commission and is available 

for public inspection. 

a. Type of Application: Major License. 

b. Project No.: P–12569–001. 


ebenthall on PROD1PC60 with NOTICES