Arbitration Panel Decision Under the Randolph-Sheppard Act, 78754-78755 [E8-30551]
Download as PDF
78754
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 247 / Tuesday, December 23, 2008 / Notices
V. Application Review Information
Selection Criteria: The selection
criteria for this competition are from 34
CFR 75.210 of EDGAR and are listed in
the application package.
performance report, information with
respect to these performance measures.
VII. Agency Contact
VI. Award Administration Information
1. Award Notices: If your application
is successful, we notify your U.S.
Representative and U.S. Senators and
send you a Grant Award Notice (GAN).
We may notify you informally, also.
If your application is not evaluated or
not selected for funding, we notify you.
2. Administrative and National Policy
Requirements: We identify
administrative and national policy
requirements in the application package
and reference these and other
requirements in the Applicable
Regulations section of this notice.
We reference the regulations outlining
the terms and conditions of an award in
the Applicable Regulations section of
this notice and include these and other
specific conditions in the GAN. The
GAN also incorporates your approved
application as part of your binding
commitments under the grant.
3. Reporting: At the end of your
project period, you must submit a final
performance report, including financial
information, as directed by the
Secretary. If you receive a multi-year
award, you must submit an annual
performance report that provides the
most current performance and financial
expenditure information as directed by
the Secretary in 34 CFR 75.118. The
Secretary may also require more
frequent performance reports under 34
CFR 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 (GPRA), the Department developed
the following performance measures to
evaluate the overall effectiveness of the
HEP: (1) The percentage of HEP program
exiters receiving a General Education
Development (GED) credential, and (2)
the percentage of HEP GED recipients
who enter postsecondary education
programs, upgraded employment, or the
military.
Applicants may wish to demonstrate
a sound capacity to provide reliable data
on these measures, including the
project’s annual performance targets for
addressing the GPRA performance
measures, as is required by the OMB
approved annual performance report
that is included in the application
package.
All grantees will be required to
submit, as part of their annual
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:29 Dec 22, 2008
Jkt 217001
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
David De Soto, U.S. Department of
Education, Office of Migrant Education,
400 Maryland Avenue, SW., room
3E344, Washington, DC 20202–6135.
Telephone Number: (202) 260–8103, or
by e-mail: david.de.soto@ed.gov.
If you use a TDD, you may call the
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)
on request to the program contact
person listed under FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT in section VII of
this notice.
Electronic Access to This Document:
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) on the Internet at the
following site: https://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: https://www.gpoaccess.gov/nara/
index.html.
Dated: December 18, 2008.
Kerri L. Briggs,
Assistant Secretary for Elementary and
Secondary Education.
[FR Doc. E8–30583 Filed 12–22–08; 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:
SUMMARY: The Department of Education
(Department) gives notice that on
August 20, 2008, an arbitration panel
rendered a decision in the matter of
Dwayne Zuppardo v. Louisiana
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Department of Social Services,
Rehabilitation Services, Case no. R–S/
06–5. 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,
Dwayne Zuppardo.
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
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
Mr. Dwayne Zuppardo (Complainant)
alleged violations by the Louisiana
Department of Social Services,
Rehabilitation Services, the state
licensing agency (SLA), of the Act and
the implementing regulations in 34 CFR
part 395. Specifically, Complainant
alleged that the SLA improperly
administered the Randolph-Sheppard
Vending Facility Program concerning
his management of a snack bar in the
East Pavilion of Charity Hospital
(Charity Hospital) in New Orleans,
Louisiana. From November 1991 until
March 2004, Complainant managed the
snack bar. In March 2004, the snack bar
at Charity Hospital was closed. In April
2004, Complainant sent a letter to the
SLA requesting a determination as to
whether he should be treated as a
Displaced Manager rather than being
given another vending facility in the
main building of Charity Hospital. The
SLA denied Complainant’s request for a
determination on his Displaced Manager
status. Thereafter, Complainant
requested a state fair hearing. A hearing
was held on this matter.
In June 2004, the Administrative Law
Judge (ALJ) issued an opinion
supporting Complainant’s right to the
new vending facility in the main
building of Charity Hospital. The SLA
E:\FR\FM\23DEN1.SGM
23DEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 247 / Tuesday, December 23, 2008 / Notices
did not appeal and adopted the ALJ’s
decision. Following the ALJ’s opinion,
Complainant also alleged that the
opinion required the SLA to pay him for
his lost income at his former snack bar
facility until he was placed as the
manager of the new vending facility in
the main building of Charity Hospital.
For the period of November 1991
until July 1997, while managing the
snack bar, Complainant made monthly
utility payments, each in the amount of
$2,000, to Charity Hospital as directed
by the SLA. While there was no
requirement for Complainant to make
these payments under his Vendor
Operating Agreement with the SLA, the
permit agreement to operate the snack
bar between the SLA and Charity
Hospital contained a requirement that
the SLA would pay Charity Hospital for
utilities at the rate of $2,000 per month.
In March 2005, Complainant learned
that the SLA had reimbursed the
previous operator of the snack bar for
his utility payments to Charity Hospital.
At this time, Complainant believed that
he also was entitled to reimbursement
by the SLA of his utility payments to
Charity Hospital. Additionally,
Complainant believed that the SLA
should reimburse him for loss of income
when the snack bar was closed.
On May 27, 2005 Complainant filed a
request with the SLA to bypass the
administrative review process and
proceed with a state fair hearing on the
issues of reimbursement for utility
payments to Charity Hospital and loss of
income as the result of the snack bar
closure. On June 10, 2005, the
Administrative Law Judge Supervisor
denied Complainant’s hearing request,
citing time limitations for vendors to file
for a hearing with the SLA.
It was this decision Complainant
sought review of by a Federal arbitration
panel. Due to Hurricane Katrina, a
hearing on this matter was not held
until April 26, 2007.
According to the arbitration panel, the
issues to be resolved were as follows: (1)
Whether the Complainant is entitled to
reimbursement for utility payments paid
to Charity Hospital while he operated
the snack bar; and (2) whether
Complainant is entitled to recover lost
earnings from the time his snack bar
was closed in March 2004 until he was
given a new vending facility in
September 2004.
Arbitration Panel Decision
After reviewing all of the records and
hearing testimony of witnesses, the
panel majority ruled as follows: On
issue number one, the panel found that
the SLA was obligated to treat
Complainant in the same manner as the
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:29 Dec 22, 2008
Jkt 217001
previous snack bar manager when it
reimbursed the previous snack bar
manager for utility payments paid to
Charity Hospital. Thus, the panel
majority directed that the SLA promptly
pay Complainant the sum of $138,000 as
reimbursement for utility payments
Complainant paid to Charity Hospital
while he was the licensed manager at
the snack bar facility for the period
November 1991 to March 2004.
Regarding issue number two, the
panel majority ruled that the SLA
complied with the June 2004 ruling of
the ALJ and expeditiously provided
Complainant with a new vending
facility in the main building of Charity
Hospital. However, the panel majority
concluded that the ALJ’s ruling did not
require the SLA to pay the Complainant
for lost earnings from the time he was
displaced from the snack bar facility
until the time he began to manage the
new facility. Hence, the panel majority
denied Complainant’s claim on the
merits, ruling that there was no basis for
the SLA to pay Complainant for lost
earnings from the time when the snack
bar facility closed until he was placed
in the new vending facility.
One panel member concurred in part
and dissented in part. The panel
member dissented from the panel
majority on issue number one stating
that, ‘‘the imposition of fees for utility
service upon blind vendors is not
prohibited by either state for federal
law.’’ The panel member concurred
with the panel majority on issue number
two in denying the payment of lost
earnings to Complainant.
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: https://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: https://www.gpoaccess.gov/nara/
index.html.
PO 00000
Frm 00035
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
78755
Dated: December 18, 2008.
Tracy R. Justesen,
Assistant Secretary for Special Education and
Rehabilitative Services.
[FR Doc. E8–30551 Filed 12–22–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
Office of Elementary and Secondary
Education; Overview Information;
Indian Education Formula Grants to
Local Educational Agencies; Notice
Inviting Applications for Fiscal Year
(FY) 2009
Catalog of Federal Domestic
Assistance (CFDA) Number: 84.060A.
DATES: Part I of the Formula Grant
Electronic Application System for
Indian Education (EASIE) Applications
Available: December 23, 2008.
Deadline for Transmittal of Part I
Applications: January 30, 2009.
Part II of the Formula Grant (EASIE)
Applications Available: March 16, 2009.
Deadline for Transmittal of Part II
Applications: April 22, 2009.
Applications not meeting the deadline
for Part I applications will not be
considered for funding in the initial
allocation of awards. Part II applications
or data submissions will be accepted
only from those eligible applicants that
meet the Part I application deadline.
Deadline for Intergovernmental
Review: June 22, 2009.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Purpose of Program: The Indian
Education Formula Grants to Local
Educational Agencies program provides
grants to support local educational
agencies (LEAs) and other eligible
entities described in this notice in their
efforts to reform and improve
elementary and secondary school
programs that serve Indian students.
The Department funds programs
designed to help Indian students meet
the same challenging State academic
content and student academic
achievement standards used for all
students. In addition, under section
7116 of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act of 1965, as amended
(ESEA), the Secretary will, upon receipt
of an acceptable plan for the integration
of education and related services,
authorize the entity receiving the funds
under this program to consolidate, in
accordance with the entity’s plan, the
funds for any Federal program
exclusively serving Indian children, or
the funds reserved under any Federal
program to exclusively serve Indian
children, that are awarded under a
statutory or administrative formula to
the entity, for the purpose of providing
E:\FR\FM\23DEN1.SGM
23DEN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 247 (Tuesday, December 23, 2008)]
[NO]
[Pages 78754-78755]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-30551]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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
August 20, 2008, an arbitration panel rendered a decision in the matter
of Dwayne Zuppardo v. Louisiana Department of Social Services,
Rehabilitation Services, Case no. R-S/06-5. 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, Dwayne Zuppardo.
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
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
Mr. Dwayne Zuppardo (Complainant) alleged violations by the
Louisiana Department of Social Services, Rehabilitation Services, the
state licensing agency (SLA), of the Act and the implementing
regulations in 34 CFR part 395. Specifically, Complainant alleged that
the SLA improperly administered the Randolph-Sheppard Vending Facility
Program concerning his management of a snack bar in the East Pavilion
of Charity Hospital (Charity Hospital) in New Orleans, Louisiana. From
November 1991 until March 2004, Complainant managed the snack bar. In
March 2004, the snack bar at Charity Hospital was closed. In April
2004, Complainant sent a letter to the SLA requesting a determination
as to whether he should be treated as a Displaced Manager rather than
being given another vending facility in the main building of Charity
Hospital. The SLA denied Complainant's request for a determination on
his Displaced Manager status. Thereafter, Complainant requested a state
fair hearing. A hearing was held on this matter.
In June 2004, the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) issued an opinion
supporting Complainant's right to the new vending facility in the main
building of Charity Hospital. The SLA
[[Page 78755]]
did not appeal and adopted the ALJ's decision. Following the ALJ's
opinion, Complainant also alleged that the opinion required the SLA to
pay him for his lost income at his former snack bar facility until he
was placed as the manager of the new vending facility in the main
building of Charity Hospital.
For the period of November 1991 until July 1997, while managing the
snack bar, Complainant made monthly utility payments, each in the
amount of $2,000, to Charity Hospital as directed by the SLA. While
there was no requirement for Complainant to make these payments under
his Vendor Operating Agreement with the SLA, the permit agreement to
operate the snack bar between the SLA and Charity Hospital contained a
requirement that the SLA would pay Charity Hospital for utilities at
the rate of $2,000 per month.
In March 2005, Complainant learned that the SLA had reimbursed the
previous operator of the snack bar for his utility payments to Charity
Hospital. At this time, Complainant believed that he also was entitled
to reimbursement by the SLA of his utility payments to Charity
Hospital. Additionally, Complainant believed that the SLA should
reimburse him for loss of income when the snack bar was closed.
On May 27, 2005 Complainant filed a request with the SLA to bypass
the administrative review process and proceed with a state fair hearing
on the issues of reimbursement for utility payments to Charity Hospital
and loss of income as the result of the snack bar closure. On June 10,
2005, the Administrative Law Judge Supervisor denied Complainant's
hearing request, citing time limitations for vendors to file for a
hearing with the SLA.
It was this decision Complainant sought review of by a Federal
arbitration panel. Due to Hurricane Katrina, a hearing on this matter
was not held until April 26, 2007.
According to the arbitration panel, the issues to be resolved were
as follows: (1) Whether the Complainant is entitled to reimbursement
for utility payments paid to Charity Hospital while he operated the
snack bar; and (2) whether Complainant is entitled to recover lost
earnings from the time his snack bar was closed in March 2004 until he
was given a new vending facility in September 2004.
Arbitration Panel Decision
After reviewing all of the records and hearing testimony of
witnesses, the panel majority ruled as follows: On issue number one,
the panel found that the SLA was obligated to treat Complainant in the
same manner as the previous snack bar manager when it reimbursed the
previous snack bar manager for utility payments paid to Charity
Hospital. Thus, the panel majority directed that the SLA promptly pay
Complainant the sum of $138,000 as reimbursement for utility payments
Complainant paid to Charity Hospital while he was the licensed manager
at the snack bar facility for the period November 1991 to March 2004.
Regarding issue number two, the panel majority ruled that the SLA
complied with the June 2004 ruling of the ALJ and expeditiously
provided Complainant with a new vending facility in the main building
of Charity Hospital. However, the panel majority concluded that the
ALJ's ruling did not require the SLA to pay the Complainant for lost
earnings from the time he was displaced from the snack bar facility
until the time he began to manage the new facility. Hence, the panel
majority denied Complainant's claim on the merits, ruling that there
was no basis for the SLA to pay Complainant for lost earnings from the
time when the snack bar facility closed until he was placed in the new
vending facility.
One panel member concurred in part and dissented in part. The panel
member dissented from the panel majority on issue number one stating
that, ``the imposition of fees for utility service upon blind vendors
is not prohibited by either state for federal law.'' The panel member
concurred with the panel majority on issue number two in denying the
payment of lost earnings to Complainant.
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:
https://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: https://www.gpoaccess.gov/
nara/.
Dated: December 18, 2008.
Tracy R. Justesen,
Assistant Secretary for Special Education and Rehabilitative Services.
[FR Doc. E8-30551 Filed 12-22-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P