Arbitration Panel Decision Under the Randolph-Sheppard Act, 48831-48833 [2011-20231]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 153 / Tuesday, August 9, 2011 / Notices
75.720(c). For specific requirements on
reporting, please go to https://
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
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
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)
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:06 Aug 08, 2011
Jkt 223001
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: https://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: https://
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
Department of Education.
Notice of arbitration panel
decisions under the Randolph-Sheppard
Act.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
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
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00043
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
48831
(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.
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.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
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.
E:\FR\FM\09AUN1.SGM
09AUN1
48832
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 153 / Tuesday, August 9, 2011 / Notices
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with 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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:06 Aug 08, 2011
Jkt 223001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00044
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
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: https://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 https://
www.federalregister.gov. Specifically,
through the advanced search feature at
this site, you can limit your search to
documents published by the
Department.
E:\FR\FM\09AUN1.SGM
09AUN1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 153 / Tuesday, August 9, 2011 / Notices
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
Office Electricity Delivery and
Energy Reliability, DOE.
ACTION: Notice of Filings.
AGENCY:
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
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
SUMMARY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:06 Aug 08, 2011
Jkt 223001
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 https://
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.
PO 00000
Frm 00045
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
48833
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
E:\FR\FM\09AUN1.SGM
09AUN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 153 (Tuesday, August 9, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 48831-48833]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-20231]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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 Randolph-Sheppard 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.
[[Page 48832]]
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 mid-2008. 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 Randolph-Sheppard 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: https://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 https://www.federalregister.gov. Specifically, through the advanced search
feature at this site, you can limit your search to documents published
by the Department.
[[Page 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
