Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 17, 2012 / Notices 2279 

exercise the waiver authority in 

subsection (d) on the basis of the 

applicability of paragraph (2) or (3) of 

that subsection, only if the waiver is 

made for a particular item listed in 

subsection (a) and for a particular 

foreign country. Subsection (d) 

authorizes a waiver if the Secretary 

determines that application of the 

limitation ‘‘would impede the reciprocal 

procurement of defense items under a 

memorandum of understanding 

providing for reciprocal procurement of 

defense items’’ and if he determines that 

‘‘that country does not discriminate 

against defense items produced in the 

United States to a greater degree than 

the United States discriminates against 

defense items produced in that 

country.’’ The Secretary of Defense has 

delegated the waiver authority of 10 

U.S.C. 2534(d) to the Under Secretary of 

Defense (Acquisition, Technology, and 

Logistics). 

DoD has had a Reciprocal Defense 

Procurement Memorandum of 

Understanding (MOU) with the UK 

since 1975, most recently renewed on 

December 16, 2004. 

The Under Secretary of Defense 

(Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics) 

finds that the UK does not discriminate 

against defense items produced in the 

United States to a greater degree than 

the United States discriminates against 

defense items produced in the UK, and 

also finds that application of the 

limitation in 10 U.S.C. 2534 against 

defense items produced in the UK 

would impede the reciprocal 

procurement of defense items under the 

MOU. 

Under the authority of 10 U.S.C. 2534, 

the Under Secretary of Defense 

(Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics) 

has determined that application of the 

limitation of 10 U.S.C. 2534(a) to the 

procurement of any defense item 

produced in the UK that is listed below 

would impede the reciprocal 

procurement of defense items under the 

MOU with the UK. 

On the basis of the foregoing, the 

Under Secretary of Defense 

(Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics) 

is waiving the limitation in 10 U.S.C. 

2534(a) for procurements of any defense 

item listed below that is produced in the 

UK. This waiver applies only to the 

limitations in 10 U.S.C. 2534(a). It does 

not apply to any other limitation, 

including section 8016 of the DoD 

Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2012 

(Pub. L. 112–74). This waiver applies to 

procurements under solicitations issued 

during the period from February 1, 

2012, to February 1, 2013. Similar 

waivers have been granted since 1998, 

most recently in 2010 (75 FR 76447, 

December 8, 2010). 

List of Items to Which This Waiver 

Applies 

1. Air circuit breakers. 

2. Welded shipboard anchor and 

mooring chain with a diameter of four 

inches or less. 

3. Gyrocompasses. 

4. Electronic navigation chart systems. 

5. Steering controls. 

6. Pumps. 

7. Propulsion and machinery control 

systems. 

8. Totally enclosed lifeboats. 

Ynette R. Shelkin, 

Editor, Defense Acquisition Regulations 

System. 

[FR Doc. 2012–647 Filed 1–13–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 5001–06–P 

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 

September 18, 2010, an arbitration panel 

rendered a decision in the matter of 

John Bell, et al. v. New Jersey 

Commission for the Blind and Visually 

Impaired, Case no. R–S/07–14. 

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) by 

contacting the program contact person 

listed in this section. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This 

arbitration panel was convened by the 

Department under 20 U.S.C. 107d-l(a), 

after receiving a complaint from the 

Complainant, John Bell. 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 

John Bell (Complainant) alleged 

violations by the New Jersey 

Commission for the Blind and Visually 

Impaired, the State licensing agency 

(SLA), under the Act and implementing 

regulations in 34 CFR part 395. 

Complainant alleged that the SLA 

violated the Act, the implementing 

regulations and the New Jersey 

Administrative Code concerning 

Complainant’s management of a facility 

comprised of laundry equipment and 

vending machines at the Fairton Federal 

Correction Institution (Fairton) operated 

by the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) 

at Fairton, New Jersey. 

Specifically, Complainant alleged that 

the SLA unlawfully (1) entered into an 

‘‘intergovernmental agreement’’ with 

BOP rather than a ‘‘permit’’ for the 

Fairton facility; (2) allowed BOP to 

collect 15 percent of Complainant’s net 

sales, as opposed to net profit; (3) 

allowed BOP to improperly change the 

rate charged for laundry services; (4) 

failed to pay the cost of replacing 

certain laundry machines in 2003 and/ 

or failed to reimburse Complainant for 

$48,000 for the lease purchase 

agreement he signed to replace the 

laundry machines himself; (5) required 

Complainant to pay the first $200 in 

repair costs for each machine 

breakdown; and (6) failed to provide 

Complainant with a State fair hearing. 

Complainant requested that the 

arbitration panel grant the following 

relief: (1) Damages of approximately 

$440,000; (2) an order directing the SLA 

to file an arbitration against the BOP 

regarding the 15 percent that 

Complainant paid to BOP; (3) a 

recommendation from the panel to the 

Secretary of Education that the New 

Jersey Commission for the Blind and 

Visually Impaired be removed as the 

SLA under the Act based upon its 

failure to provide Complainant with a 

full State fair hearing; and (4) costs 

incurred in this proceeding, including 

reasonable attorney’s fees. 

Complainant filed for a State fair 

hearing of his complaint, which was 

held on October 23, 2007. The 

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) set 

January 15, 2008, as the date for the 

parties to submit post-hearing briefs. 

However, prior to the decision, the SLA 

requested that the ALJ return the case to 

it. Complainant opposed the request, 

but the ALJ advised Complainant that 

under New Jersey law he was required 

to relinquish the case back to the SLA. 

Subsequently, Complainant filed with 

the Department a request for Federal 

arbitration seeking an appeal of the 

State fair hearing decision. A Federal 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
2280 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 17, 2012 / Notices 

arbitration panel was convened on 

December 8 and December 9, 2009. 

Synopsis of the Arbitration Panel 

Decision 

After reviewing all of the testimony 

and evidence, the panel found that most 

of the grievances were time barred, 

either by operation of the 15-day time 

limit set forth in the New Jersey 

Administrative Code, the doctrine of 

latches, or both. The panel further 

determined that Complainant did not 

show that the SLA had violated the Act 

or the Federal and State implementing 

regulations. Accordingly, the panel 

majority concluded that Complainant 

was not entitled to any remedy with the 

exception of Complainant’s claim for 

the costs, including reasonable 

attorney’s fees, he incurred in the State 

evidentiary hearing. 

However, with respect to the State fair 

hearing, the panel majority concluded 

that the SLA knew, or had reason to 

know, prior to the commencement of 

the ALJ hearing, that Complainant’s case 

would require the ALJ to interpret two 

potentially conflicting Federal statutes 

and, as a result, that the ALJ might lack 

subject matter jurisdiction. Yet, the SLA 

allowed the ALJ hearing to take place 

and asked the ALJ to return the case 

after Complainant had submitted his 

post-hearing brief requiring significant 

time and resources to no avail. Thus, the 

panel majority ruled that fundamental 

principles of fairness require that the 

SLA reimburse Complainant for the 

costs expended by Complainant in the 

State fair hearing, including reasonable 

attorney’s fees. 

The panel also retained jurisdiction of 

this matter for the sole purpose of 

resolving any disputes regarding the 

amount the SLA must pay Complainant 

for those costs. 

One panel member dissented in part 

and concurred in part. This panel 

member dissented from the panel’s 

determination that the commission 

payment was neither timely protested 

by Complainant nor a violation of the 

Act but concurred with the panel 

majority regarding the SLA’s 

reimbursement to Complainant for costs 

incurred in the State fair hearing, 

including reasonable attorney’s fees. 

On January 11, 2011, the SLA sought 

reconsideration of the portion of the 

panel’s award granting Complainant the 

costs he incurred in the State fair 

hearing, including reasonable attorney’s 

fees. 

The panel agreed to consider the 

SLA’s motion and granted Complainant 

the opportunity to reply, which he did 

on or about March 2, 2011. 

On March 25, 2011, the panel 

conferred via conference call. After 

reviewing the parties’ motions including 

the legal authority cited, the panel 

unanimously denied the SLA’s motion 

for reconsideration on the merits and 

affirmed its initial decision of 

September 18, 2010, to award 

Complainant his costs for the State fair 

hearing, including reasonable attorney’s 

fees. 

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 the 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: January 11, 2012. 

Alexa Posny, 

Assistant Secretary for Special Education and 

Rehabilitative Services. 

[FR Doc. 2012–749 Filed 1–13–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4000–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 

[Docket ID: ED–2012–OESE–0003] 

Request for Information To Gather 

Technical Expertise Pertaining to 

Testing Integrity 

AGENCY: Office of Elementary and 

Secondary Education, Department of 

Education. 

ACTION: Request for information. 

SUMMARY: In light of recent, high-profile 

reports of misconduct by school officials 

in the test administration process, the 

U.S. Department of Education (‘‘the 

Department’’ or ‘‘we’’) is seeking to 

collect and share information about best 

practices that have been used to 

prevent, detect, and respond to 

irregularities in academic testing. To 

that end, the Department is taking 

several steps, described below, to collect 

information and gather suggestions to 

assist State educational agencies (SEAs), 

local educational agencies (LEAs), and 

the testing-integrity-focused 

organizations that service them. The 

Department anticipates making use of 

this information to facilitate further 

dialogue and to help SEAs and LEAs 

identify, share, and implement best 

practices for preventing, detecting, and 

investigating irregularities in academic 

testing. 

First, the Department is issuing this 

request for information (RFI) to collect 

information about the integrity of 

academic testing. We pose a series of 

questions to which we invite interested 

members of the public to respond. 

Second, the Department will host a 

symposium where external experts can 

engage in further discussion and probe 

these issues in greater depth. 

Third, the Department will publish a 

document that contains a summary of 

the recommendations that were 

developed as a result of the RFI and the 

symposium, as well as other resources 

identified by external experts 

participating in the symposium. 

DATES: Written submissions must be 

received by the Department on or before 

5 p.m., Washington, DC time, on 

February 16, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments 

through the Federal eRulemaking Portal 

or via postal mail, commercial delivery, 

or hand delivery. We will not accept 

comments by fax or by email. To ensure 

that we do not receive duplicate copies, 

please submit your comments only one 

time. In addition, please include the 

Docket ID and the term ‘‘Testing 

Integrity response’’ at the top of your 

comments. 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 

http://www.regulations.gov to submit 

your comments electronically. 

Information on using Regulations.gov, 

including instructions for accessing 

agency documents, submitting 

comments, and viewing the docket, is 

available on the site under ‘‘How To Use 

This Site.’’ 

• Postal Mail, Commercial Delivery, 

or Hand Delivery: If you mail or deliver 

your comments, address them to Carlos 

Martinez, Office of Elementary and 

Secondary Education, Attention: Testing 

Integrity RFI, U.S. Department of 

Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., 

room 3W104, Washington, DC 20202– 

6132. 

• Privacy Note: The Department’s 

policy for comments received from 

members of the public (including 

comments submitted by mail, 

commercial delivery, or hand delivery) 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES