Arbitration Panel Decision Under the Randolph-Sheppard Act, 70747-70748 [E6-20680]

Download as PDF Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 234 / Wednesday, December 6, 2006 / Notices SYSTEM MANAGER AND ADDRESS: data for this system on computers and in hard copy. Records in this system are indexed by a number assigned to each individual, which is cross-referenced by the individual’s name on a separate list. Associate Commissioner, Evaluation Division, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education, 555 New Jersey Avenue, NW., Room 502D, Washington, DC 20208. SAFEGUARDS: NOTIFICATION PROCEDURE: All physical access to the Department’s site, and the site of the Department’s contractor where this system of records is maintained, is controlled and monitored by security personnel. The computer system employed by the Department offers a high degree of resistance to tampering and circumvention. This computer system limits data access to Department and contract staff on a ‘‘need to know’’ basis, and controls individual users’’ ability to access and alter records within the system. The contractor, Westat, has established a set of procedures to ensure confidentiality of data. The system ensures that information identifying individuals is in files physically separated from other research data. Westat will maintain security of the complete set of all master data files and documentation. Access to individually identifiable data will be strictly controlled. All data will be kept in locked file cabinets during nonworking hours, and work on hardcopy data will take place in a single room, except for data entry. Physical security of electronic data will also be maintained. Security features that protect project data include: password-protected accounts that authorize users to use the Westat system but to access only specific network directories and network software; user rights and directory and file attributes that limit those who can use particular directories and files and determine how they can use them; e-mail passwords that authorize the user to access mail services; and additional security features that the network administrator establishes for projects as needed. The contractor employees who maintain (collect, maintain, use, or disseminate) data in this system must comply with the requirements of the confidentiality standards in section 183 of the ESRA (20 U.S.C. 9573). If you wish to determine whether a record exists regarding you in the system of records, contact the systems manager. Your request must meet the requirements of regulations at 34 CFR 5b.5, including proof of identity. RETENTION AND DISPOSAL: SUMMARY: The Department gives notice that on March 30, 2006, an arbitration panel rendered a decision in the matter of Gary DeFalco v. Nevada Department of Employment, Training and Rehabilitation (Docket No. R–S/05–2). This panel was convened by the U.S. Department of Education, under 20 U.S.C. 107d–1(a), after the Department PWALKER on PRODPC60 with NOTICES RETRIEVABILITY: Records are maintained and disposed of in accordance with the Department of Education’s Records Disposition Schedules (ED/RDS). In particular, the Department will follow the schedules outlined in Part 3 (Research Projects and Management Study Records) and Part 14 (Electronic Records) of ED/RDS. VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:03 Dec 05, 2006 Jkt 211001 RECORD ACCESS PROCEDURE: If you wish to gain access to your record in the system of records, contact the system manager. Your request must meet the requirements of regulations at 34 CFR 5b.5, including proof of identity. CONTESTING RECORD PROCEDURE: If you wish to contest the content of a record regarding you in the system of records, contact the system manager. Your request must meet the requirements of regulations at 34 CFR 5b.7, including proof of identity. RECORD SOURCE CATEGORIES: Information is obtained from interviews with Even Start CLIO study participants, staff, and kindergarten and first grade teachers of CLIO children and direct assessments of Even Start CLIO study participants. Even Start programs participating in CLIO also provide information to the CLIO study on who is participating in the program at each data collection point and their attendance in the program’s services. EXEMPTIONS CLAIMED FOR THE SYSTEM: None. [FR Doc. E6–20681 Filed 12–5–06; 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 decision under the Randolph-Sheppard Act. AGENCY: ACTION: PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 70747 received a complaint filed by the complainant, Gary DeFalco. 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 in the preceding paragraph. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under section 6(c) of the Randolph-Sheppard 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. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Background This dispute concerned alleged violations of the Act (20 U.S.C. 107 et seq.), the implementing regulations in 34 CFR part 395, and State rules and regulations by the Nevada Department of Employment, Training and Rehabilitation concerning complainant’s management of Facility #43, a vending machine route. A summary of the facts is as follows: Complainant has been a licensed vendor in the Nevada Department of Employment, Training and Rehabilitation’s Randolph-Sheppard vending facility program since 1987. On January 29, 2002, complainant filed a grievance with the Nevada Department of Employment, Training and Rehabilitation, the State licensing agency (SLA), alleging that the SLA—(1) denied his right as the Southern Nevada Representative to manage a vending facility at the Las Vegas Water District; (2) denied his right as the Southern Nevada Representative to manage a vending site at the Las Vegas Department of Energy Support Facility; (3) denied his right as the Southern Nevada Representative to service all vending sites in southern Nevada since May 1999; and (4) placed him on a corrective action plan concerning his alleged improper management of Facility #43 prior to his receiving a notice of non-compliance from the SLA or being given the opportunity for corrective action. On February 15, 2002, the SLA rejected complainant’s four grievances. E:\FR\FM\06DEN1.SGM 06DEN1 70748 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 234 / Wednesday, December 6, 2006 / Notices PWALKER on PRODPC60 with NOTICES Subsequently, complainant filed for a State fair hearing with the SLA. A hearing on this matter was held on May 22 and June 19, 2002. On April 11, 2003, the hearing officer affirmed that complainant failed to establish any violations by the SLA regarding complainant’s four grievances and the SLA’s administration of the Nevada Randolph-Sheppard vending facility program. However, the hearing officer ruled that the complainant should not be responsible for the lease payments for his business vehicle for Facility #43 while a vending company serviced his vending route. The SLA adopted the hearing officer’s decision as final agency action. The complainant sought review of that decision by a Federal arbitration panel. Arbitration Panel Decision After reviewing all of the records and hearing testimony of witnesses, the panel majority ruled that—(1) The complainant was never appointed the Southern Nevada Representative and, therefore, had no first right of refusal for new vending routes in southern Nevada; (2) because the complainant completed all of the requirements of the corrective action plan, the SLA must place him back to work either into his previous position or in a suitable route but that there should be no damages because his net compensation during the time he was removed from the route had not diminished; (3) the SLA had fulfilled the order of the State hearing officer by paying for lease and insurance payments on complainant’s vehicle because the complainant had been deducting these expenses from the setaside normally paid to the SLA; (4) the loaning of start-up funds to the vendor by the SLA was not in violation of the Act; and (5) the arbitration hearing was not the proper venue for allegations that one of the panel members should have recused himself from the panel. One panel member dissented from one of the panel’s rulings—that the SLA should return the complainant to his previous vending route or a similar vending route—based upon the belief that an arbitration panel does not have the authority to specify an award to the vendor even when a violation of the Act has been found. One panel member dissented from the entirety of panel’s decision with the exception of the panel’s ruling that the SLA should return the complainant to his previous vending route or a similar vending route. The views and opinions expressed by the panel do not necessarily represent the views and opinions of the U.S. Department of Education. VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:03 Dec 05, 2006 Jkt 211001 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: December 1, 2006. John H. Hager, Assistant Secretary for Special Education and Rehabilitative Services. [FR Doc. E6–20680 Filed 12–5–06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000–01–P and tiered to BPA’s Business Plan Final Environment Impact Statement (BP EIS) (DOE/EIS–0183, June 1995), and the Business Plan Record of Decision (BP ROD, August 15, 1995). ADDRESSES: Copies of the ROD may be obtained by calling BPA’s toll-free document request line, 1–800–622– 4520. The ROD is also available on our Web site, http://www.efw.bpa.gov. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nancy Wittpenn, Bonneville Power Administration—KEC–4, P.O. Box 3621, Portland, Oregon, 97208–3621; toll-free telephone number 1–800–282–3713; fax number 503–230–5699; or e-mail nawittpen@bpa.gov. Issued in Portland, Oregon, on November 29, 2006. Stephen J. Wright, Administrator and Chief Executive Officer. [FR Doc. E6–20654 Filed 12–5–06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450–01–P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. RP00–305–030] DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Bonneville Power Administration Windy Point Wind Energy Project; November 2006 CenterPoint Energy—Mississippi River Transmission Corporation; Notice of Negotiated Rate November 29, 2006. Bonneville Power Administration (BPA), Department of Energy. ACTION: Notice of Record of Decision (ROD). AGENCY: SUMMARY: This notice announces the availability of the ROD to offer contract terms for interconnection of up to 250 megawatts of power to be generated by the proposed Windy Point Wind Energy Project (Wind Project) into the Federal Columbia River Transmission System (FCRTS). BPA has considered both the economic and environmental consequences of taking action to integrate power from the Wind Project into the FCRTS. The Wind Project would be interconnected at BPA’s Rock Creek Substation (under construction) along BPA’s Wautoma—John Day No. 1 500-kilovolt transmission line. The Wind Project would be located between 6 to 15 miles southeast of Goldendale, Washington, north and northwest of the community of Goodnoe Hills. The project would be east of Highway 97 and south of Hoctor Road, and would be constructed on and next to a high ridgeline overlooking the Columbia River. This decision is consistent with PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 Take notice that on November 22, 2006, CenterPoint Energy—Mississippi River Transmission Corporation (MRT) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Third Revised Volume No. 1, the following tariff sheets to be effective November 22, 2006: First Revised Sheet No. 10E First Revised Sheet No. 10F Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed in accordance with the provisions of Section 154.210 of the Commission’s regulations (18 CFR 154.210). Anyone filing an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on or before the intervention or protest date need not serve motions to intervene or E:\FR\FM\06DEN1.SGM 06DEN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 234 (Wednesday, December 6, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Pages 70747-70748]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-20680]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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 gives notice that on March 30, 2006, an 
arbitration panel rendered a decision in the matter of Gary DeFalco v. 
Nevada Department of Employment, Training and Rehabilitation (Docket 
No. R-S/05-2). This panel was convened by the U.S. Department of 
Education, under 20 U.S.C. 107d-1(a), after the Department received a 
complaint filed by the complainant, Gary DeFalco.

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 in the preceding 
paragraph.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under section 6(c) of the Randolph-Sheppard 
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

    This dispute concerned alleged violations of the Act (20 U.S.C. 107 
et seq.), the implementing regulations in 34 CFR part 395, and State 
rules and regulations by the Nevada Department of Employment, Training 
and Rehabilitation concerning complainant's management of Facility 
43, a vending machine route.
    A summary of the facts is as follows: Complainant has been a 
licensed vendor in the Nevada Department of Employment, Training and 
Rehabilitation's Randolph-Sheppard vending facility program since 1987. 
On January 29, 2002, complainant filed a grievance with the Nevada 
Department of Employment, Training and Rehabilitation, the State 
licensing agency (SLA), alleging that the SLA--(1) denied his right as 
the Southern Nevada Representative to manage a vending facility at the 
Las Vegas Water District; (2) denied his right as the Southern Nevada 
Representative to manage a vending site at the Las Vegas Department of 
Energy Support Facility; (3) denied his right as the Southern Nevada 
Representative to service all vending sites in southern Nevada since 
May 1999; and (4) placed him on a corrective action plan concerning his 
alleged improper management of Facility 43 prior to his 
receiving a notice of non-compliance from the SLA or being given the 
opportunity for corrective action. On February 15, 2002, the SLA 
rejected complainant's four grievances.

[[Page 70748]]

    Subsequently, complainant filed for a State fair hearing with the 
SLA. A hearing on this matter was held on May 22 and June 19, 2002. On 
April 11, 2003, the hearing officer affirmed that complainant failed to 
establish any violations by the SLA regarding complainant's four 
grievances and the SLA's administration of the Nevada Randolph-Sheppard 
vending facility program. However, the hearing officer ruled that the 
complainant should not be responsible for the lease payments for his 
business vehicle for Facility 43 while a vending company 
serviced his vending route. The SLA adopted the hearing officer's 
decision as final agency action. The complainant sought review of that 
decision by a Federal arbitration panel.

Arbitration Panel Decision

    After reviewing all of the records and hearing testimony of 
witnesses, the panel majority ruled that--(1) The complainant was never 
appointed the Southern Nevada Representative and, therefore, had no 
first right of refusal for new vending routes in southern Nevada; (2) 
because the complainant completed all of the requirements of the 
corrective action plan, the SLA must place him back to work either into 
his previous position or in a suitable route but that there should be 
no damages because his net compensation during the time he was removed 
from the route had not diminished; (3) the SLA had fulfilled the order 
of the State hearing officer by paying for lease and insurance payments 
on complainant's vehicle because the complainant had been deducting 
these expenses from the set-aside normally paid to the SLA; (4) the 
loaning of start-up funds to the vendor by the SLA was not in violation 
of the Act; and (5) the arbitration hearing was not the proper venue 
for allegations that one of the panel members should have recused 
himself from the panel.
    One panel member dissented from one of the panel's rulings--that 
the SLA should return the complainant to his previous vending route or 
a similar vending route--based upon the belief that an arbitration 
panel does not have the authority to specify an award to the vendor 
even when a violation of the Act has been found.
    One panel member dissented from the entirety of panel's decision 
with the exception of the panel's ruling that the SLA should return the 
complainant to his previous vending route or a similar vending route.
    The views and opinions expressed by the panel do not necessarily 
represent the views and opinions of the U.S. Department of Education.

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: December 1, 2006.
John H. Hager,
Assistant Secretary for Special Education and Rehabilitative Services.
 [FR Doc. E6-20680 Filed 12-5-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P