Arbitration Panel Decision Under the Randolph-Sheppard Act, 20012-20014 [2012-7994]

Download as PDF 20012 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 64 / Tuesday, April 3, 2012 / Notices an index value of 161.2 in September 1997 to a value of 226.889 in September 2011. An increase of 40.75 percent in the $8.00 base figure would lead to a new figure of $11.26. However, because the statute directs that the resulting figure be rounded to the nearest $0.50, the maximum allowable charge is $11.50. The Bureau therefore determines that the maximum allowable charge for the year 2012 will be $11.50, effective April 3, 2012. Dated: March 26, 2012. Richard Cordray, Director, Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection. [FR Doc. 2012–7916 Filed 4–2–12; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4810–AM–P DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION [OMB Control No. 9000–0079; Docket 2012– 0076; Sequence 13] Federal Acquisition Regulation; Information Collection; Corporate Aircraft Costs Department of Defense (DOD), General Services Administration (GSA), and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). ACTION: Notice of request for public comments regarding an extension to an existing OMB clearance. AGENCY: Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, the Regulatory Secretariat will be submitting to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) a request to review and approve an extension of a previously approved information collection requirement concerning corporate aircraft costs. Public comments are particularly invited on: Whether this collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of functions of the FAR, and whether it will have practical utility; whether our estimate of the public burden of this collection of information is accurate, and based on valid assumptions and methodology; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways in which we can minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, through the use of appropriate technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology. mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES SUMMARY: VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:19 Apr 02, 2012 Jkt 226001 Submit comments on or before June 4, 2012. ADDRESSES: Submit comments identified by Information Collection 9000–0079, Corporate Aircraft Costs, by any of the following methods: • Regulations.gov: https:// www.regulations.gov. Submit comments via the Federal eRulemaking portal by inputting ‘‘Information Collection 9000–0079, Corporate Aircraft Costs’’ under the heading ‘‘Enter Keyword or ID’’ and selecting ‘‘Search’’. Select the link ‘‘Submit a Comment’’ that corresponds with ‘‘Information Collection 9000– 0079, Corporate Aircraft Costs’’. Follow the instructions provided at the ‘‘Submit a Comment’’ screen. Please include your name, company name (if any), and ‘‘Information Collection 9000–0079, Corporate Aircraft Costs’’ on your attached document. • Fax: 202–501–4067. • Mail: General Services Administration, Regulatory Secretariat (MVCB), 1275 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20417. ATTN: Hada Flowers/IC 9000–0079, Corporate Aircraft Costs. Instructions: Please submit comments only and cite Information Collection 9000–0079, Corporate Aircraft Costs, in all correspondence related to this collection. All comments received will be posted without change to https:// www.regulations.gov, including any personal and/or business confidential information provided. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Edward Chambers, Contract Policy Division, GSA, (202) 501–3221 or via email edward.chambers@gsa.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: DATES: A. Purpose Government contractors that use company aircraft must maintain logs of flights containing specified information (e.g., destination, passenger name, purpose of trip, etc.). This information, as required by FAR 31.205–46, Travel Costs, is used to ensure that costs of owned, leased or chartered aircraft are properly charged against Government contracts and that directly associated costs of unallowable activities are not charged to such contracts. B. Annual Reporting Burden Number of Respondents: 3,000. Responses per Respondent: 1. Total Responses: 3,000. Average Burden per Response: 6 hours. Total Burden Hours: 18,000. Obtaining Copies of Proposals: Requesters may obtain a copy of the PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 information collection documents from the General Services Administration, Regulatory Secretariat Division (MVCB), 1275 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20417, telephone (202) 501–4755. Please cite OMB Control No. 9000–0079, Corporate Aircraft Costs, in all correspondence. Dated: March 27, 2012. Laura Auletta, Director, Office of Governmentwide Acquisition Policy, Office of Acquisition Policy, Office of Governmentwide Policy. [FR Doc. 2012–7944 Filed 4–2–12; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6820–EP–P DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Arbitration Panel Decision Under the Randolph-Sheppard Act Department of Education. Notice of decision. AGENCY: ACTION: The Department of Education (Department) gives notice that, on May 23, 2011, an arbitration panel rendered a decision in the matter of Carole Morris v. Kentucky Office for the Blind, Case No. R–S/09–5. This panel was convened by the Department under the RandolphSheppard Act (Act) after the Department received a complaint filed by Carole Morris (Complainant). FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: You may obtain a copy of the full text of the arbitration panel decision from Mary Yang, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., room 5162, Potomac Center Plaza, Washington, DC 20202–2800. Telephone: (202) 245– 6327. 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 compact disc) on request to the contact person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under section 6(c) of 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. SUMMARY: Background Complainant alleged that the Kentucky Office for the Blind, the State licensing agency (SLA), violated the Act and its implementing regulations in 34 CFR part 395. Complainant alleged that the SLA violated the Act, implementing regulations and State rules and E:\FR\FM\03APN1.SGM 03APN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 64 / Tuesday, April 3, 2012 / Notices regulations by improperly administering the policies and procedures of the Kentucky Randolph-Sheppard Vending Facility Program in Complainant’s bid to manage the laundry services at the United States Penitentiary McCreary (McCreary Prison) at Pine Knot, Kentucky, administered by United States Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Prisons. Complainant was licensed as a Randolph-Sheppard vendor on March 8, 2004. In April 2004, the SLA was approached by McCreary Prison regarding the possibility of installing a laundry vending facility consisting of washer and dryer vending machines at McCreary Prison. The SLA informed staff at McCreary Prison that the SLA would provide the services or would work out an arrangement with a third-party contractor. McCreary Prison informed the SLA that it would require a 15 percent commission on the gross sales up front. In May 2005, the SLA agreed to McCreary Prison’s terms and the SLA and McCreary Prison officials entered into an Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) whereby the SLA would provide the laundry services at McCreary Prison. Following the signing of the IGA between the SLA and McCreary Prison officials, the SLA negotiated a contract with the third-party contractor to install, operate and repair the laundry vending machines for McCreary Prison. Additionally, the SLA developed a subcontract with the third-party contractor to pay 5 percent commission on laundry royalties to Complainant in exchange for the assignment of laundry vending rights. Thereafter, the laundry vending facility at McCreary Prison produced income and Complainant received commissions. The SLA also received 5 percent of the net proceeds of the laundry vending facility income as set aside fees from Complainant. The set aside fees were used to help pay for the health insurance costs of the vendors. On May 19, 2006, McCreary Prison decided to terminate the laundry vending facility contract and requested that the SLA remove the laundry vending machines by July 1, 2006. On July 25, 2007, the third-party contractor filed a lawsuit against the SLA for alleged injuries suffered because of the contract termination. The third-party contractor also filed a lawsuit against Complainant for breach of contract since she received commissions from the sales at the laundry vending facility at McCreary Prison. On August 8, 2007, Complainant contacted the SLA to request legal services or payment of legal fees. VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:19 Apr 02, 2012 Jkt 226001 However, legal counsel for the SLA informed Complainant that the SLA would not pay her legal expenses since she was not an employee of the State. On March 25, 2008, Complainant filed a request for an evidentiary hearing with the SLA concerning its denial of her request for payment of legal fees. On September 30, 2008, Complainant filed an amended grievance with the SLA adding additional issues to her original evidentiary hearing request. The new issues alleged by Complainant were that: (1) The SLA had denied Complainant the opportunity to maximize her vocational potential; and, (2) as a result, Complainant could have realized a larger income with the appropriate training by the SLA to manage laundry equipment. On February 6, 2009, a hearing officer denied Complainant’s request for payment of legal fees, reimbursement for lost profits and her claim that the SLA had not maximized her vocational potential. Complainant appealed this decision. On December 4, 2009, the same hearing officer ruled that the SLA must establish a training assistance program to help Complainant maximize her vocational potential. On March 1, 2010, the SLA denied Complainant’s claims as final agency action. Complainant then requested the Department to convene a Federal arbitration panel to appeal her grievance. The Federal arbitration panel initially heard the following issues: (1) Whether Complainant’s claim is barred under the doctrine of sovereign immunity as alleged by Respondent; and (2) whether Complainant’s request for an evidentiary hearing is time-barred. The panel then determined that, if both of these issues were resolved in Complainant’s favor, it must hear the following issues: (1) Whether the SLA allegedly failed to maximize Complainant’s vocational potential in a timely manner; and (2) whether the SLA was responsible for the legal expenses of Complainant in the lawsuit brought against her by the third-party vendor. The panel then concluded that, if Complainant prevails on one or both of these claims, it must determine what remedy she should receive. Arbitration Panel Decision After hearing testimony and reviewing all of the evidence, the panel majority denied the SLA’s claim of sovereign immunity. Specifically, the panel majority found that, under the Eleventh Amendment, a State is free to waive its sovereign immunity rights. However, under the Kentucky constitution, the power to waive PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 20013 sovereign immunity is vested in the State legislature. The Kentucky legislature enacted a statute that states in relevant part that, ‘‘Any person, firm or corporation, having a lawfully authorized written contract with the Commonwealth at the time of or after June 21, 1974, may bring an action against the Commonwealth on the contract, including but not limited to actions either for breach of contracts or enforcement of contracts or for both.’’ Accordingly, the panel majority ruled that both the SLA in negotiating the subcontract with the third-party contractor and Complainant receiving commissions from that contract constituted a contract agreement between the SLA and Complainant. Regarding the timeliness of Complainant’s request for an evidentiary hearing, the panel majority concluded that Complainant’s deadline to request an evidentiary hearing expired no later than the date the SLA signed the subcontract with the thirdparty contractor in 2004. Therefore, Complainant’s original request for an evidentiary hearing and her amended request were untimely. Also, the panel majority concluded that the subcontract with the third-party contractor was initiated by the SLA, including making all of the arrangements with the third-party contractor, drafting the subcontract, and having Complainant sign the subcontract. As a result, the panel majority ruled that Complainant was not provided guidance from the SLA regarding the ramifications for entering into a subcontract, nor did the SLA assist Complainant when McCreary Prison dissolved the subcontract and the third-party contractor sued Complainant. Accordingly, after consideration, the panel majority ruled that Complainant shall provide the SLA with evidence regarding the amount of legal expenses paid by her to be reimbursed by the SLA. One panel member concurred with the panel majority’s decision regarding the issues of sovereign immunity, 15day time limit for Complainant to request an evidentiary hearing and maximization of vocational potential. This panel member dissented from the panel majority’s decision regarding Complainant’s request for legal fees, stating that there was no evidence that Complainant pursued her rights diligently or that there were extraordinary circumstances that prevented a timely filing. The panel member also noted that, based on the evidence presented at the hearing, there did not appear to be official E:\FR\FM\03APN1.SGM 03APN1 20014 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 64 / Tuesday, April 3, 2012 / Notices documentation or proof on file of the amount of legal fees and expenses paid by 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: 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: 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: www.federalregister.gov. Specifically, through the advanced search feature at this site, you can limit your search to documents published by the Department. Dated: March 29, 2012. Alexa Posny, Assistant Secretary for Special Education and Rehabilitative Services. [FR Doc. 2012–7994 Filed 4–2–12; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000–01–P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Environmental Management SiteSpecific Advisory Board, Paducah, KY Department of Energy (DOE). Notice of open meeting. AGENCY: ACTION: This notice announces a meeting of the Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board (EM SSAB), Paducah. The Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92–463, 86 Stat. 770) requires that public notice of this meeting be announced in the Federal Register. DATES: Thursday, April 26, 2012, 6 p.m. ADDRESSES: Barkley Centre, 111 Memorial Drive, Paducah, Kentucky 42001. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Reinhard Knerr, Deputy Designated Federal Officer, Department of Energy Paducah Site Office, Post Office Box 1410, MS–103, Paducah, Kentucky 42001, (270) 441–6825. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Purpose of the Board: The purpose of the Board is to make recommendations to DOE–EM and site management in the mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES SUMMARY: VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:19 Apr 02, 2012 Jkt 226001 areas of environmental restoration, waste management and related activities. Tentative Agenda • Call to Order, Introductions, Review of Agenda • Deputy Designated Federal Officer’s Comments • Federal Coordinator’s Comments • Liaisons’ Comments • Administrative Issues • Subcommittee Chairs’ Comments • Public Comments • Final Comments • Adjourn Breaks Taken As Appropriate. Public Participation: The EM SSAB, Paducah, welcomes the attendance of the public at its advisory committee meetings and will make every effort to accommodate persons with physical disabilities or special needs. If you require special accommodations due to a disability, please contact Reinhard Knerr as soon as possible in advance of the meeting at the telephone number listed above. Written statements may be filed with the Board either before or after the meeting. Individuals who wish to make oral statements pertaining to agenda items should contact Reinhard Knerr at the telephone number listed above. Requests must be received as soon as possible prior to the meeting and reasonable provision will be made to include the presentation in the agenda. The Deputy Designated Federal Officer is empowered to conduct the meeting in a fashion that will facilitate the orderly conduct of business. Individuals wishing to make public comments will be provided a maximum of five minutes to present their comments. The EM SSAB, Paducah, will hear public comments pertaining to its scope (clean-up standards and environmental restoration; waste management and disposition; stabilization and disposition of nonstockpile nuclear materials; excess facilities; future land use and long-term stewardship; risk assessment and management; and clean-up science and technology activities). Comments outside of the scope may be submitted via written statement as directed above. Minutes: Minutes will be available by writing or calling Reinhard Knerr at the address and phone number listed above. Minutes will also be available at the following Web site: https:// www.pgdpcab.energy.gov/ 2011Meetings.html. PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 Issued at Washington, DC, on March 27, 2012. LaTanya R. Butler, Acting Deputy Committee Management Officer. [FR Doc. 2012–7953 Filed 4–2–12; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450–01–P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST): Correction Department of Energy. Notice of Open Teleconference: Correction. AGENCY: ACTION: The Department of Energy (DOE) published in the Federal Register on March 28, 2012, a notice of an open conference call for the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST). The notice is being corrected to change the time and to add an additional purpose. SUMMARY: Correction In the Federal Register of March 28, 2012, in FR DOC. 2012–7433, on pages 18798–18799, please make the following corrections: In the SUMMARY heading, page 18798, third column, first paragraph, twelfth line, after the word ‘‘report’’, please add the following language, ‘‘and Advancing Innovation in Drug Development and Evaluation.’’ In the DATES heading, page 18798, third column, first paragraph, third line, please remove, ‘‘5 p.m.’’ and add in its place ‘‘5:30 p.m.,’’ In the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION, Proposed Schedule and Agenda heading, page 18799, first column, first paragraph, sixth line, please remove ‘‘5 p.m.’’ and in its place add ‘‘5:30 p.m.’’ Issued in Washington, DC, on March 28, 2012. LaTanya R. Butler, Acting Deputy Committee Management Officer. [FR Doc. 2012–7957 Filed 4–2–12; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450–01–P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy State Energy Advisory Board (STEAB) Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of Energy. ACTION: Notice of open teleconference. AGENCY: E:\FR\FM\03APN1.SGM 03APN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 64 (Tuesday, April 3, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 20012-20014]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-7994]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION


Arbitration Panel Decision Under the Randolph-Sheppard Act

AGENCY: Department of Education.

ACTION: Notice of decision.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Education (Department) gives notice that, on 
May 23, 2011, an arbitration panel rendered a decision in the matter of 
Carole Morris v. Kentucky Office for the Blind, Case No. R-S/09-5. This 
panel was convened by the Department under the Randolph-Sheppard Act 
(Act) after the Department received a complaint filed by Carole Morris 
(Complainant).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: You may obtain a copy of the full text 
of the arbitration panel decision from Mary Yang, U.S. Department of 
Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., room 5162, Potomac Center Plaza, 
Washington, DC 20202-2800. Telephone: (202) 245-6327. 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 compact 
disc) on request to the contact person listed under FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under section 6(c) of 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

    Complainant alleged that the Kentucky Office for the Blind, the 
State licensing agency (SLA), violated the Act and its implementing 
regulations in 34 CFR part 395. Complainant alleged that the SLA 
violated the Act, implementing regulations and State rules and

[[Page 20013]]

regulations by improperly administering the policies and procedures of 
the Kentucky Randolph-Sheppard Vending Facility Program in 
Complainant's bid to manage the laundry services at the United States 
Penitentiary McCreary (McCreary Prison) at Pine Knot, Kentucky, 
administered by United States Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of 
Prisons.
    Complainant was licensed as a Randolph-Sheppard vendor on March 8, 
2004. In April 2004, the SLA was approached by McCreary Prison 
regarding the possibility of installing a laundry vending facility 
consisting of washer and dryer vending machines at McCreary Prison.
    The SLA informed staff at McCreary Prison that the SLA would 
provide the services or would work out an arrangement with a third-
party contractor. McCreary Prison informed the SLA that it would 
require a 15 percent commission on the gross sales up front. In May 
2005, the SLA agreed to McCreary Prison's terms and the SLA and 
McCreary Prison officials entered into an Intergovernmental Agreement 
(IGA) whereby the SLA would provide the laundry services at McCreary 
Prison.
    Following the signing of the IGA between the SLA and McCreary 
Prison officials, the SLA negotiated a contract with the third-party 
contractor to install, operate and repair the laundry vending machines 
for McCreary Prison. Additionally, the SLA developed a subcontract with 
the third-party contractor to pay 5 percent commission on laundry 
royalties to Complainant in exchange for the assignment of laundry 
vending rights.
    Thereafter, the laundry vending facility at McCreary Prison 
produced income and Complainant received commissions. The SLA also 
received 5 percent of the net proceeds of the laundry vending facility 
income as set aside fees from Complainant. The set aside fees were used 
to help pay for the health insurance costs of the vendors. On May 19, 
2006, McCreary Prison decided to terminate the laundry vending facility 
contract and requested that the SLA remove the laundry vending machines 
by July 1, 2006.
    On July 25, 2007, the third-party contractor filed a lawsuit 
against the SLA for alleged injuries suffered because of the contract 
termination. The third-party contractor also filed a lawsuit against 
Complainant for breach of contract since she received commissions from 
the sales at the laundry vending facility at McCreary Prison. On August 
8, 2007, Complainant contacted the SLA to request legal services or 
payment of legal fees. However, legal counsel for the SLA informed 
Complainant that the SLA would not pay her legal expenses since she was 
not an employee of the State. On March 25, 2008, Complainant filed a 
request for an evidentiary hearing with the SLA concerning its denial 
of her request for payment of legal fees.
    On September 30, 2008, Complainant filed an amended grievance with 
the SLA adding additional issues to her original evidentiary hearing 
request. The new issues alleged by Complainant were that: (1) The SLA 
had denied Complainant the opportunity to maximize her vocational 
potential; and, (2) as a result, Complainant could have realized a 
larger income with the appropriate training by the SLA to manage 
laundry equipment.
    On February 6, 2009, a hearing officer denied Complainant's request 
for payment of legal fees, reimbursement for lost profits and her claim 
that the SLA had not maximized her vocational potential. Complainant 
appealed this decision. On December 4, 2009, the same hearing officer 
ruled that the SLA must establish a training assistance program to help 
Complainant maximize her vocational potential. On March 1, 2010, the 
SLA denied Complainant's claims as final agency action. Complainant 
then requested the Department to convene a Federal arbitration panel to 
appeal her grievance.
    The Federal arbitration panel initially heard the following issues: 
(1) Whether Complainant's claim is barred under the doctrine of 
sovereign immunity as alleged by Respondent; and (2) whether 
Complainant's request for an evidentiary hearing is time-barred. The 
panel then determined that, if both of these issues were resolved in 
Complainant's favor, it must hear the following issues: (1) Whether the 
SLA allegedly failed to maximize Complainant's vocational potential in 
a timely manner; and (2) whether the SLA was responsible for the legal 
expenses of Complainant in the lawsuit brought against her by the 
third-party vendor. The panel then concluded that, if Complainant 
prevails on one or both of these claims, it must determine what remedy 
she should receive.

Arbitration Panel Decision

    After hearing testimony and reviewing all of the evidence, the 
panel majority denied the SLA's claim of sovereign immunity. 
Specifically, the panel majority found that, under the Eleventh 
Amendment, a State is free to waive its sovereign immunity rights. 
However, under the Kentucky constitution, the power to waive sovereign 
immunity is vested in the State legislature. The Kentucky legislature 
enacted a statute that states in relevant part that, ``Any person, firm 
or corporation, having a lawfully authorized written contract with the 
Commonwealth at the time of or after June 21, 1974, may bring an action 
against the Commonwealth on the contract, including but not limited to 
actions either for breach of contracts or enforcement of contracts or 
for both.''
    Accordingly, the panel majority ruled that both the SLA in 
negotiating the subcontract with the third-party contractor and 
Complainant receiving commissions from that contract constituted a 
contract agreement between the SLA and Complainant.
    Regarding the timeliness of Complainant's request for an 
evidentiary hearing, the panel majority concluded that Complainant's 
deadline to request an evidentiary hearing expired no later than the 
date the SLA signed the subcontract with the third-party contractor in 
2004. Therefore, Complainant's original request for an evidentiary 
hearing and her amended request were untimely.
    Also, the panel majority concluded that the subcontract with the 
third-party contractor was initiated by the SLA, including making all 
of the arrangements with the third-party contractor, drafting the 
subcontract, and having Complainant sign the subcontract. As a result, 
the panel majority ruled that Complainant was not provided guidance 
from the SLA regarding the ramifications for entering into a 
subcontract, nor did the SLA assist Complainant when McCreary Prison 
dissolved the subcontract and the third-party contractor sued 
Complainant.
    Accordingly, after consideration, the panel majority ruled that 
Complainant shall provide the SLA with evidence regarding the amount of 
legal expenses paid by her to be reimbursed by the SLA.
    One panel member concurred with the panel majority's decision 
regarding the issues of sovereign immunity, 15-day time limit for 
Complainant to request an evidentiary hearing and maximization of 
vocational potential.
    This panel member dissented from the panel majority's decision 
regarding Complainant's request for legal fees, stating that there was 
no evidence that Complainant pursued her rights diligently or that 
there were extraordinary circumstances that prevented a timely filing. 
The panel member also noted that, based on the evidence presented at 
the hearing, there did not appear to be official

[[Page 20014]]

documentation or proof on file of the amount of legal fees and expenses 
paid by 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: 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: 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: 
www.federalregister.gov. Specifically, through the advanced search 
feature at this site, you can limit your search to documents published 
by the Department.

    Dated: March 29, 2012.
Alexa Posny,
Assistant Secretary for Special Education and Rehabilitative Services.
[FR Doc. 2012-7994 Filed 4-2-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.