2890 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 11 / Tuesday, January 18, 2011 / Notices 

counter top, and floor coverings or 

components; and insulations. The field 

of use of paint means the use of 

Halloysite Microtubules for the elution 

of any and all substances in paints, 

sealers, fillers, varnishes, shellac, 

polyurethane coatings, and any and all 

‘‘paint-like’’ coatings applied in liquid 

form to any and all surfaces for the 

beautification or protection of surfaces 

in structures or components thereof, 

including but not limited to, buildings, 

marine structures (including boats), 

furniture and other normally ‘‘painted’’ 

materials in the United States. 

DATES: Anyone wishing to object to the 

grant of this license must file written 

objections along with supporting 

evidence, if any, not later than February 

2, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: Written objections are to be 

filed with the Naval Research 

Laboratory, Code 1004, 4555 Overlook 

Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20375– 

5320. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rita 

Manak, Head, Technology Transfer 

Office, NRL Code 1004, 4555 Overlook 

Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20375– 

5320, telephone 202–767–3083. Due to 

U.S. Postal delays, please fax 202–404– 

7920, e-mail: rita.manak@nrl.navy.mil 

or use courier delivery to expedite 

response. 

Authority: 35 U.S.C. 207, 37 CFR part 404. 

Dated: January 7, 2011. 

D.J. Werner, 

Lieutenant Commander, Judge Advocate 

General’s Corps, U.S. Navy, Federal Register 

Liaison Officer. 

[FR Doc. 2011–889 Filed 1–14–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3810–FF–P 

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 March 

31, 2010, an arbitration panel rendered 

a decision in the matter of Daniel 

Czubak v. Illinois Department of Human 

Services, Division of Rehabilitation 

Services, Case no. R–S/08–5. 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, Daniel Czubak. 

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), toll-free, at 1–800–877– 

8339. 

Individuals with disabilities may 

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 (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 

Daniel Czubak (Complainant) alleged 

violations by the Illinois Department of 

Human Services, Division of 

Rehabilitation Services, the State 

licensing agency (SLA), under the Act 

and implementing regulations at 34 CFR 

part 395. The allegations pertained to 

his operation of a vending facility 

comprised of vending machines at the 

Shapiro Developmental Center (SDC) 

from November 2005 until February 

2009 when his vending operator’s 

agreement at the SDC was terminated by 

the SLA. 

The Complainant began operation of 

the vending facility at SDC when 

granted a Temporary Income 

Opportunity in 2005. Later, after being 

the successful bidder and signing a 

vending operator’s agreement in May 

2006, he continued operating the facility 

until February 2009. 

Appended to the May 2006 vending 

operator’s agreement was a 

Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) 

dated April 2004 between the SLA and 

the SDC. As a part of the MOU, the SDC 

required that the SLA ensure that the 

vendor operating the vending machines 

would make monthly commission 

payments to the SDC in the amount of 

$3,699.00 based upon the following: (a) 

Current vending machines at the SDC, 

(b) current prices established for items 

sold in the vending machines, and (c) 

the current amount of sales from the 

vending operation. This formula and the 

commission amount were based on a 

report from the private commercial 

operator, who previously operated the 

vending machines and made monthly 

commission payments to SDC based on 

a percentage of its vending sales. 

Additionally, the MOU limited the 

ability of the vendor to change prices on 

vended products without prior 

concurrence by the SDC. Moreover, the 

MOU stipulated that price changes 

could only reflect the increased cost of 

products provided for the vending 

facility. The MOU also stated that the 

SLA or the vendor would pay any and 

all claims, losses, liabilities, or other 

expenses, including repair expenses 

arising from the operation of the 

vending machine facility. 

The vending facility operator’s 

agreement signed by the Complainant in 

May 2006 required Complainant to 

comply with the MOU between the SLA 

and the SDC, including the amount of 

commissions to be paid to the SDC. 

In mid-2007, after operating the 

vending machine facility for almost a 

year, the Complainant began having 

problems paying the commission to the 

SDC. The Complainant alleged that the 

resident population at the SDC had 

declined considerably since he began 

managing the facility. At the same time, 

the Complainant alleged that his costs 

for goods and supplies had increased. 

On September 1, 2007, an agreement 

was reached between the SLA, the SDC, 

and the Complainant to reduce his 

monthly commission payments to 

$2,500 with the SLA paying the $1,199 

difference to the SDC. From September 

2007 through March 2008, the SLA 

made the payments of $1,199 to the SDC 

out of Vocational Rehabilitation, Section 

110 (VR 110) funds until the SLA was 

advised by the U.S. Department of 

Education, Rehabilitation Services 

Administration, that VR 110 funds 

could not be used for vendor 

commission payments. 

Thus, beginning April 2008, the 

Complainant was again required to 

make the $3,699 monthly payment to 

the SDC. In early September 2008, the 

director at the SDC sent a formal request 

to the SLA asking that the Complainant 

be removed, citing a combination of 

factors, including late commission 

payments, bounced checks, spoiled 

food, and safety-related operational 

problems based upon complaints that 

the director had received. The SLA 

contacted the director at the SDC and he 

withdrew his request for the 

Complainant’s removal with the 

stipulation that the Complainant would 

be more closely supervised and that he 

would become current with his 

commission payments. However, after 

October 2008, the Complainant ceased 

making commission payments to the 

SDC. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 11 / Tuesday, January 18, 2011 / Notices 2891 

Subsequently, both the Complainant 

and the Illinois Committee of Blind 

Vendors (ICBV) filed a complaint with 

the SLA alleging that staff of the 

Business Enterprise Program for the 

Blind (BEPB) entered into an illegal 

agreement with the Department of 

Mental Health regarding vending 

services at the SDC. The Complainant 

alleged that the SLA agreement with the 

Department of Mental Health had 

severely affected the Complainant’s 

ability to earn a living. On November 

12, 2008, a hearing on this matter was 

held. 

On December 30, 2008, the hearing 

officer denied both the Complainant and 

ICBV’s complaint stating that neither 

party had met the burden of proof 

required to show that BEPB’s actions 

were not in accordance with State laws, 

regulations, or policy, were 

inappropriate, or violated any rights of 

the Complainant. On December 31, 

2008, the SLA adopted the hearing 

officer’s decision as final agency action. 

It was this decision that the 

Complainant sought review on appeal 

by a Federal arbitration panel. 

Arbitration Panel Decision 

After hearing testimony and 

reviewing all of the evidence, the panel 

majority ruled that the Illinois 

Department of Human Services, 

Division of Rehabilitation Services’ 

determination that a blind vendor could 

be required to make monthly 

commission payments to the SDC 

regarding the vending machine facility 

was appropriate. 

However, the panel majority 

concluded that the commission was too 

high, the manner in which the 

commission was calculated and 

assessed was inconsistent with the 

manner in which commission amounts 

being charged to blind vendors at other 

State facilities were being calculated 

and assessed, and that the commission 

payments were based on the private 

vendor’s monthly payments without 

regard for the Complainant’s seasonal 

costs or changes in the cost of 

purchasing products. Accordingly, the 

panel majority ruled that the SLA’s 

actions were not in accordance with the 

Randolph-Sheppard Act, implementing 

regulations, and State laws, rules, and 

regulations. 

Thus, the panel majority awarded the 

Complainant $22,589 in compensatory 

damages for overpayment of 

commissions to the SDC, plus $7,000 in 

partial compensation for attorney fees 

for a total award amount of $29,589. The 

panel also retained jurisdiction for 60 

days from the date of the final decision 

and award to monitor compliance with 

the terms of the decision. 

One panel member dissented from the 

panel majority’s decision stating that the 

commission structure as a whole and 

the way the commission payments were 

determined did not violate the Act, 

implementing regulations, and State 

law, rules, and regulations. With regard 

to the remedy, the dissenter concluded 

that there is no authority for the 

arbitration panel to order any payments 

to the 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 can 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. 

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: January 12, 2011. 

Alexa Posny, 

Assistant Secretary for Special Education and 

Rehabilitative Services. 

[FR Doc. 2011–922 Filed 1–14–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4000–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Blue Ribbon Commission on 

America’s Nuclear Future 

AGENCY: Office of Nuclear Energy, 

Department of Energy. 

ACTION: Notice of open meeting. 

SUMMARY: This notice announces an 

open meeting of the Blue Ribbon 

Commission on America’s Nuclear 

Future (the Commission). The 

Commission was organized pursuant to 

the Federal Advisory Committee Act 

(Pub. L. 92–463, 86 Stat. 770) (the Act). 

This notice is provided in accordance 

with the Act. 

DATES: Tuesday, February 1, 2011, 9 

a.m.–4 p.m.; Wednesday, February 2, 

2011, 8:30 a.m.–12:15 p.m. 

ADDRESSES: Washington Marriott Metro 

Center, 775 12th Street, NW., 

Washington, DC 20005. Telephone: 

(202) 737–2200. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Timothy A. Frazier, Designated Federal 

Officer, U.S. Department of Energy, 

1000 Independence Avenue, SW., 

Washington, DC 20585; telephone (202) 

586–4243 or facsimile (202) 586–0544; 

e-mail CommissionDFO@nuclear.

energy.gov. Additional information will 

be available at http://www.brc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background: The President directed 

that the Commission be established to 

conduct a comprehensive review of 

policies for managing the back end of 

the nuclear fuel cycle. The Commission 

will provide advice and make 

recommendations on issues including 

alternatives for the storage, processing, 

and disposal of civilian and defense 

spent nuclear fuel and nuclear waste. 

The Commission is scheduled to submit 

a draft report to the Secretary of Energy 

in July 2011 and a final report in 

January 2012. 

This is the sixth full Commission 

meeting. Previous meetings were held in 

March, May, July, September, and 

November 2010. Webcasts of the 

previous meetings along with meeting 

transcripts and presentation are 

available at http://www.brc.gov. 

Purpose of the Meeting: The main 

purpose of this meeting is to further 

investigate several of the cross-cutting 

issues that affect the three 

subcommittees of the Commission. The 

Commission will hear from a series of 

speakers and panelists who can provide 

insights on the organization and scope 

of the nation’s nuclear waste 

management entity, waste program 

funding, and the site selection and 

development process. 

Tentative Agenda: The meeting is 

expected to start at 9 a.m. on Tuesday, 

February 1, 2011. The schedule for 

February 1st will include presentations 

and statements to the Commission, as 

well as roundtable discussion. The 

meeting will resume at 8:30 a.m. on 

Wednesday, February 2, 2011, with 

presentations and statements to the 

Commission and Commission 

discussions lasting until about 11:15 

a.m. The meeting will conclude with 

public statements and will end about 

12:15 p.m. 

Public Participation: Individuals and 

representatives of organizations who 

would like to offer comments and 

suggestions may do so at the end of the 

public session on Wednesday, February 

2, 2011. Approximately 1 hour will be 

reserved for public comments from 

11:15 a.m. to 12:15 p.m. Time allotted 

per speaker will depend on the number 

who wish to speak but will not exceed 

5 minutes. The Designated Federal 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES