Arbitration Panel Decision Under the Randolph-Sheppard Act, 21871-21872 [2011-9476]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 75 / Tuesday, April 19, 2011 / Notices
DC 20503, be faxed to (202) 395–5806 or
e-mailed to
oira_submission@omb.eop.gov with a
cc: to ICDocketMgr@ed.gov. Please note
that written comments received in
response to this notice will be
considered public records.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section
3506 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of
1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 35) requires that
the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) provide interested Federal
agencies and the public an early
opportunity to comment on information
collection requests. The OMB is
particularly interested in comments
which: (1) Evaluate whether the
proposed collection of information is
necessary for the proper performance of
the functions of the agency, including
whether the information will have
practical utility; (2) Evaluate the
accuracy of the agency’s estimate of the
burden of the proposed collection of
information, including the validity of
the methodology and assumptions used;
(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and
clarity of the information to be
collected; and (4) Minimize the burden
of the collection of information on those
who are to respond, including through
the use of appropriate automated,
electronic, mechanical, or other
technological collection techniques or
other forms of information technology.
Dated: April 14, 2011.
Darrin A. King,
Director, Information Collection Clearance
Division, Information Management and
Privacy Services, Office of Management.
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES
BILLING CODE 4000–01–P
Submission for OMB Review;
Comment Request
AGENCY:
Type of Review: Extension.
Title of Collection: U.S. Department of
Education Supplemental Information for
the SF–424 Form.
OMB Control Number: 1894–0007.
Agency Form Number(s): SF–424.
Frequency of Responses: New
Awards.
Affected Public: Businesses and other
for-profit; Individuals or household;
Not-for-profit institutions, State, Local,
or Tribal Government, State Educational
Agencies or Local Educational Agencies.
Total Estimated Number of Annual
Responses: 19,000.
Total Estimated Annual Burden
Hours: 6,270.
Abstract: The U.S. Department of
Education Supplemental Information
form for the SF–424 is used together
with the SF–424, Application for
Federal Assistance. The Supplemental
Information form includes several
needed data elements/questions that are
not included on the SF–424,
Application for Federal Assistance. We
16:19 Apr 18, 2011
[FR Doc. 2011–9453 Filed 4–18–11; 8:45 am]
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
Office of the Secretary
VerDate Mar<15>2010
are requesting extension of the currently
approved version of the Supplemental
Information form.
Copies of the information collection
submission for OMB review may be
accessed from the RegInfo.gov Web site
at https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/
PRAMain or from the Department’s Web
site at https://edicsweb.ed.gov, by
selecting the ‘‘Browse Pending
Collections’’ link and by clicking on link
number 3910. When you access the
information collection, click on
‘‘Download Attachments ’’ to view.
Written requests for information should
be addressed to U.S. Department of
Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW.,
LBJ, Washington, DC 20202–4537.
Requests may also be electronically
mailed to the Internet address
ICDocketMgr@ed.gov or faxed to 202–
401–0920. Please specify the complete
title of the information collection and
OMB Control Number when making
your request.
Individuals who use a
telecommunications device for the deaf
(TDD) may call the Federal Information
Relay Service (FIRS) at 1–800–877–
8339.
Jkt 223001
ACTION:
Department of Education.
Correction notice.
On April 13, 2011, the
Department of Education published a
30-day comment period notice in the
Federal Register (Page 20635, Column
3) seeking public comment for an
information collection entitled, ‘‘Study
of the Distribution of Teacher
Effectiveness.’’ The title is hereby
corrected to ‘‘Teacher Quality
Distribution Study.’’ The Director,
Information Collection Clearance
Division, Information Management and
Privacy Services, Office of Management,
hereby issues a correction notice as
required by the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995.
SUMMARY:
Dated: April 14, 2011.
Darrin A. King,
Director, Information Collection Clearance
Division, Information Management and
Privacy Services, Office of Management.
[FR Doc. 2011–9452 Filed 4–18–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
21871
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:
The Department of Education
(Department) gives notice that on
December 15, 2010 an arbitration panel
rendered a decision in the matter of
Richard Thelen v. Michigan
Commission for the Blind, Case no. R–
S/08–7. 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,
Richard Thelen.
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), 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.
SUMMARY:
Background
Richard Thelen (Complainant) alleged
violations by the Michigan Commission
for the Blind, the State licensing agency
(SLA), under the Act and its
implementing regulations in 34 CFR
part 395. The Complainant alleged that
the SLA violated the Act, the
implementing regulations, and State
rules and regulations by suspending his
vending operator’s license at a vending
facility at the Capitol View building
under management of The Department
of Community Health (DCH) in Lansing,
Michigan (Capitol View).
On February 12, 2008, the SLA
received a complaint from DCH alleging
that the Complainant had poor sanitary
conditions at Capitol View and
demanded that Complainant be
removed from the vending facility. On
E:\FR\FM\19APN1.SGM
19APN1
21872
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 75 / Tuesday, April 19, 2011 / Notices
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES
February 13, 2008, the SLA suspended
Complainant from the facility.
Complainant then requested a full
evidentiary hearing from the SLA on
this matter. On August 4, 2008, the
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) issued
a recommended decision.
On November 14, 2008, the SLA
adopted the ALJ’s recommendation as
final agency action. Specifically, the
SLA reimbursed Complainant for lost
wages for the five-week period from the
time that complainant was removed
from his facility in February 2008 until
his eligibility was restored in March
2008 and for the two additional weeks
for a transition period to allow
Complainant after his eligibility
restoration to bid on other locations. In
addition, the SLA reimbursed
Complainant for attorney’s fees and
service time credit for time lost during
his license suspension. Also, the SLA
agreed to provide complainant
assistance with bidding on new vending
locations. However, the SLA denied the
complainant’s request for punitive
damages.
Subsequently, Complainant filed with
the Department a request for federal
arbitration seeking an appeal of the state
fair hearing decision based upon the
following reasons: (1) Complainant
alleged that the attorney fees of $3,550
awarded to him by the SLA were
inadequate; (2) Complainant requested
service time for retirement alleging he
would have been working if he had not
been improperly removed from his
facility; (3) Complainant requested that
he receive a priority bid for another
vending facility; (4) Complainant
requested loss wages from the time he
was removed from his facility to the
time of his retirement several years in
the future; (5) Complainant requested
punitive damages because he asserts
that the SLA summarily removed him
from the facility and awarded it to
another vendor before the SLA
determined the validity of the complaint
against him by DCH; and (6)
Complainant alleged that he did not
receive due process from the SLA.
Arbitration Panel Decision
After reviewing all of the evidence
and testimony, the panel unanimously
ruled:
(1) Complainant was entitled to be
reimbursed for one Additional hour of
attorney’s fees in the amount of $200.00.
(2) Complainant’s request for service
time for Retirement was under the
authority of the Office of Retirement
Services (ORS) and not under the
authority ofthe Federal arbitration
panel. However, the SLA agreed to
recommend service credit to ORS for the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:19 Apr 18, 2011
Jkt 223001
time Complainant’s license was
suspended.
(3) Complainant was not entitled to
receive a a priority bid for another
vending facility based upon the findings
that a priority bid would harm other
vendors and there was no basis to
determine that Complainant needed a
priority bid in order to be successful.
(4) Complainant’s request to be
awarded lost wages from the time he
was removed from his facility to the
time of his later retirement was denied.
However, the panel also ruled that the
SLA’s calculation of lost wages was
unreasonable. The SLA had granted
Complainant seven weeks of lost wage.
This was based on the five-week period
from the time the Complainant was
removed from his facility in February
2008, until his eligibility was restored in
March 2008, plus two additional weeks
for a transition period to allow
Complainant to bid on other locations
once the SLA restored his eligibility.
The panel ruled that the transition
period approved by the SLA was
unreasonable in that it only allowed
Complainant two weeks to bid on
another location. Thus, the panel
awarded the Complainant an additional
ten weeks of lost wages at $192.32 per
week or a total amount of $1,923.20.
(5) Complainant’s request for punitive
damages was denied based upon the
finding that the SLA did not engage in
extreme or outrageous behavior.
(6) Complainant had not been denied
due process concerning his complaint
given that any procedural errors were
rectified based upon the timely
restoration of his eligibility and
compensatory damages.
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.
Dated: April 14, 2011.
Alexa Posny,
Assistant Secretary for Special Education and
Rehabilitative Services.
[FR Doc. 2011–9476 Filed 4–18–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000–01–P
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
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:
The Department of Education
(Department) gives notice that on
October 1, 2010, an arbitration panel
rendered a decision in the matter of
James Swartz v. Alaska Department of
Labor and Workforce Development,
Division of Vocational Rehabilitation,
Case no. R–S/08–11. 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, James Swartz.
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), 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.
SUMMARY:
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
James Swartz (Complainant) alleged
that the Alaska Department of Labor and
Workforce Development, Division of
Vocational Rehabilitation, the State
licensing agency (SLA), violated the Act
and its implementing regulations in 34
CFR part 395. The Complainant alleged
that the SLA improperly administered
the transfer and promotion policies and
procedures of the Alaska RandolphSheppard Vending Facility Program in
violation of the Act, the implementing
regulations under the Act, and State
rules and regulations in considering
Complainant’s bid to manage a snack
bar vending facility at the Nesbett
Courthouse (Nesbett), a State court
building, located in Anchorage, Alaska.
E:\FR\FM\19APN1.SGM
19APN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 75 (Tuesday, April 19, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 21871-21872]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-9476]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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 15, 2010 an arbitration panel rendered a decision in the
matter of Richard Thelen v. Michigan Commission for the Blind, Case no.
R-S/08-7. 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, Richard Thelen.
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), 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
Richard Thelen (Complainant) alleged violations by the Michigan
Commission for the Blind, the State licensing agency (SLA), under the
Act and its implementing regulations in 34 CFR part 395. The
Complainant alleged that the SLA violated the Act, the implementing
regulations, and State rules and regulations by suspending his vending
operator's license at a vending facility at the Capitol View building
under management of The Department of Community Health (DCH) in
Lansing, Michigan (Capitol View).
On February 12, 2008, the SLA received a complaint from DCH
alleging that the Complainant had poor sanitary conditions at Capitol
View and demanded that Complainant be removed from the vending
facility. On
[[Page 21872]]
February 13, 2008, the SLA suspended Complainant from the facility.
Complainant then requested a full evidentiary hearing from the SLA
on this matter. On August 4, 2008, the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)
issued a recommended decision.
On November 14, 2008, the SLA adopted the ALJ's recommendation as
final agency action. Specifically, the SLA reimbursed Complainant for
lost wages for the five-week period from the time that complainant was
removed from his facility in February 2008 until his eligibility was
restored in March 2008 and for the two additional weeks for a
transition period to allow Complainant after his eligibility
restoration to bid on other locations. In addition, the SLA reimbursed
Complainant for attorney's fees and service time credit for time lost
during his license suspension. Also, the SLA agreed to provide
complainant assistance with bidding on new vending locations. However,
the SLA denied the complainant's request for punitive damages.
Subsequently, Complainant filed with the Department a request for
federal arbitration seeking an appeal of the state fair hearing
decision based upon the following reasons: (1) Complainant alleged that
the attorney fees of $3,550 awarded to him by the SLA were inadequate;
(2) Complainant requested service time for retirement alleging he would
have been working if he had not been improperly removed from his
facility; (3) Complainant requested that he receive a priority bid for
another vending facility; (4) Complainant requested loss wages from the
time he was removed from his facility to the time of his retirement
several years in the future; (5) Complainant requested punitive damages
because he asserts that the SLA summarily removed him from the facility
and awarded it to another vendor before the SLA determined the validity
of the complaint against him by DCH; and (6) Complainant alleged that
he did not receive due process from the SLA.
Arbitration Panel Decision
After reviewing all of the evidence and testimony, the panel
unanimously ruled:
(1) Complainant was entitled to be reimbursed for one Additional
hour of attorney's fees in the amount of $200.00.
(2) Complainant's request for service time for Retirement was under
the authority of the Office of Retirement Services (ORS) and not under
the authority ofthe Federal arbitration panel. However, the SLA agreed
to recommend service credit to ORS for the time Complainant's license
was suspended.
(3) Complainant was not entitled to receive a a priority bid for
another vending facility based upon the findings that a priority bid
would harm other vendors and there was no basis to determine that
Complainant needed a priority bid in order to be successful.
(4) Complainant's request to be awarded lost wages from the time he
was removed from his facility to the time of his later retirement was
denied. However, the panel also ruled that the SLA's calculation of
lost wages was unreasonable. The SLA had granted Complainant seven
weeks of lost wage. This was based on the five-week period from the
time the Complainant was removed from his facility in February 2008,
until his eligibility was restored in March 2008, plus two additional
weeks for a transition period to allow Complainant to bid on other
locations once the SLA restored his eligibility.
The panel ruled that the transition period approved by the SLA was
unreasonable in that it only allowed Complainant two weeks to bid on
another location. Thus, the panel awarded the Complainant an additional
ten weeks of lost wages at $192.32 per week or a total amount of
$1,923.20.
(5) Complainant's request for punitive damages was denied based
upon the finding that the SLA did not engage in extreme or outrageous
behavior.
(6) Complainant had not been denied due process concerning his
complaint given that any procedural errors were rectified based upon
the timely restoration of his eligibility and compensatory damages.
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.
Dated: April 14, 2011.
Alexa Posny,
Assistant Secretary for Special Education and Rehabilitative Services.
[FR Doc. 2011-9476 Filed 4-18-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P
