Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 116 / Friday, June 15, 2001 / Notices 32609

use of Government helium cannot be

monitored and enforced effectively.

B. Annual Reporting Burden

Respondents: 20.

Responses Per Respondent: 1.

Total Responses: 20.

Hours Per Response: 1.

Total Burden Hours: 20.

Obtaining Copies of Proposals

Requester may obtain a copy of the

proposal from the General Services

Administration, FAR Secretariat (MVP),

Room 4035, 1800 F Street, Washington,

DC 20405, telephone (202) 501–4755.

Please cite OMB Control No. 9000–0113,

Acquisition of Helium, in all

correspondence.

Dated: May 29, 2001.

Al Matera,

Director, Acquisition Policy Division.

[FR Doc. 01–15188 Filed 6–14–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6820–34–U

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Department of the Army; Army Corps

of Engineers

Grant of Exclusive Licenses

AGENCY: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,

DOD.

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: In accordance with 37 CFR

404.7(b)(1)(i), announcement is made of

a prospective exclusive license in each

of the following countries covered by

European Patent Office application

number 94926514.4, title ‘‘Concrete

Armor Unit to Protect Coastal and

Hydraulic Structures and Shorelines.’’

The countries are: Austria, Belgium,

Denmark, Germany, Greece, Ireland,

Luxembourg, Netherlands, Sweden, and

Switzerland.

DATES: Written objections must be filed

not later than August 14, 2001.

ADDRESSES: U.S. Army Waterways

Experiment Station, 3909 Halls Ferry

Road, Vicksburg, MS 39180–6199,

ATTN: CEWES–OC.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.

Phil Stewart (601) 634–4113, emailstewarp@exl.wes.army.mil.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Jeffrey A.

Melby and George F. Turk invented The

Concrete Armor Unit. Rights to the

patent application identified above has

been assigned to the United States of

America as represented by the Secretary

of the Army. The United States of

America as represented by the Secretary

of the Army intends to grant an

exclusive license for all fields of use, in

the manufacture, use, and sale in the

territories and possessions, including

territorial waters of Russia to W.F. Baird

and Associates, a Delaware corporation

with principal offices at 2981 Yarmouth

Greenway, Madison, Wisconsin 53711.

Pursuant to 37 CFR 404.7(b)(1)(I), any

interested party may file a written

objection to this prospective exclusive

license agreement.

Richard L. Frenette,

Counsel.

[FR Doc. 01–15189 Filed 6–14–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3710–92–M

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

Notice of Proposed Information

Collection Requests

AGENCY: Department of Education.

SUMMARY: The Leader, Regulatory

Information Management Group, Office

of the Chief Information Officer, invites

comments on the proposed information

collection requests as required by the

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

DATES: Interested persons are invited to

submit comments on or before August

14, 2001.

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. OMB may amend or

waive the requirement for public

consultation to the extent that public

participation in the approval process

would defeat the purpose of the

information collection, violate State or

Federal law, or substantially interfere

with any agency’s ability to perform its

statutory obligations. The Leader,

Regulatory Information Management

Group, Office of the Chief Information

Officer, publishes that notice containing

proposed information collection

requests prior to submission of these

requests to OMB. Each proposed

information collection, grouped by

office, contains the following: (1) Type

of review requested, e.g. new, revision,

extension, existing or reinstatement; (2)

Title; (3) Summary of the collection; (4)

Description of the need for, and

proposed use of, the information; (5)

Respondents and frequency of

collection; and (6) Reporting and/or

Recordkeeping burden. OMB invites

public comment.

The Department of Education is

especially interested in public comment

addressing the following issues: (1) is

this collection necessary to the proper

functions of the Department; (2) will

this information be processed and used

in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate

of burden accurate; (4) how might the

Department enhance the quality, utility,

and clarity of the information to be

collected; and (5) how might the

Department minimize the burden of this

collection on the respondents, including

through the use of information

technology.

Dated: June 11, 2001.

John Tressler,

Leader, Regulatory Information Management,

Office of the Chief Information Officer.

Office of the Undersecretary

Type of Review: New.

Title: Study of State Administration of

Even Start and Statewide Family

Literacy Initiative Grants.

Frequency: On Occasion.

Affected Public: State, Local, or Tribal

Gov’t, SEAs or LEAs (primary).

Reporting and Recordkeeping Hour

Burden: Responses: 94; Burden Hours:

240.

Abstract: The Study of State

Administration of Even Start and

Statewide Family Literacy Initiative

Grants will systematically describe the

structure and processes associated with

all major areas of Even Start

administration at the state level. This

information is needed by the U.S.

Department of Education to enhance its

capacity to monitor the development

and improvement of the Even Start

program and provide guidance and

assistance to the states. This study will

involve two data collection components:

(1) Survey of State Even Start

Coordinators which will include Even

Start state coordinators and (2) State

Even Start Case Study Interviews

(telephone interviews with six state

coordinators, and site visit interviews

with six additional state coordinators

and up to five additional state staff per

each of these six states).

Requests for copies of the proposed

information collection request may be

accessed from http://edicsweb.ed.gov, or

should be addressed to Vivian Reese,

Department of Education, 400 Maryland

Avenue, SW, Room 4050, Regional

Office Building 3, Washington, D.C.

20202–4651. Requests may also be

electronically mailed to the internet

address OCIO_RIMG@ed.gov or faxed to

202–708–9346. Please specify the

complete title of the information

collection when making your request.

Comments regarding burden and/or

the collection activity requirements

should be directed to Jackie Montague at

202–708–5359. Individuals who use a

telecommunications device for the deaf

32610 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 116 / Friday, June 15, 2001 / Notices

(TDD) may call the Federal Information

Relay Service (FIRS) at 1–800–877–

8339.

[FR Doc. 01–15093 Filed 6–14–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4000–01–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: Notice is hereby given that on

October 20, 2000, an arbitration panel

rendered a decision in the matter of

Alabama Department of Rehabilitation

Services v. Department of Veterans

Affairs, Veterans Canteen Service

(Docket No. R–S/98–7). This panel was

convened by the U.S. Department of

Education pursuant to 20 U.S.C. 107d1(b) upon receipt of a complaint filed by

petitioner, the Alabama Department of

Rehabilitation Services.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION: A copy of the

full text of the arbitration panel decision

may be obtained from George F.

Arsnow, U.S. Department of Education,

400 Maryland Avenue, SW., room 3230,

Mary E. Switzer Building, Washington,

DC 20202–2738. Telephone: (202) 205–

9317. If you use a telecommunications

device for the deaf (TDD), you may call

the TDD number at (202) 205–8298.

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 in

the preceding paragraph.

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: www.ed.gov/

legislation/FedRegister.

To use the PDF you must have the

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: http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/

index.html.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant

to the Randolph-Sheppard Act (20

U.S.C. 107d-2(c)) (the Act), 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

This dispute concerns the alleged

violation by the Department of Veterans

Affairs (DVA), Veterans Canteen Service

(VCS), of the priority provisions of the

Act (20 U.S.C. 107 et seq.) and

implementing regulations in 34 CFR

part 395 at DVA/VCS Medical Centers

in Alabama.

A summary of the facts is as follows:

In 1995, the Alabama Department of

Rehabilitation Services, the State

licensing Agency (SLA), submitted

permit applications to establish

Randolph-Sheppard vending facilities

on four Federal properties maintained

and operated by DVA and VCS in

Alabama. The permits were for the

Veterans Administration Medical

Center, Tuskegee; the Regional Office

and DVA Medical Center, Montgomery;

the Veterans Hospital, Birmingham; and

the Veterans Administration Hospital,

Tuscaloosa.

By letter dated July 11, 1996, DVA

acknowledged receipt of the permit

applications and informed the SLA that

a decision would be made after a review

had been conducted to determine

whether there were any plans to

acquire, occupy, or otherwise engage in

any substantial alterations or

renovations of the involved buildings.

The SLA did not receive any further

communication from DVA or VCS until

March 4, 1998. On that date, DVA wrote

to the SLA advising that the

Montgomery and Tuskegee facilities did

not plan any construction that would

require notice to the SLA and indicating

that there was no suitable existing space

available for the location of blind

vending facilities at those centers. The

letter informed the SLA that the

hospitals at Birmingham and Tuscaloosa

planned substantial alterations and

renovations. The DVA forwarded the

SLA’s applications for permits at these

hospitals to the directors of those

facilities.

Following receipt of DVA’s March 4th

letter, representatives of the SLA met

with the Directors or their designees of

the DVA Medical Centers located in

Birmingham and Tuscaloosa. On May

21, 1998, the SLA wrote each Director

asking for a response to the applications

that had been pending since 1995. The

SLA did not receive any response and

in June 1998 filed with the Department

of Education a request for arbitration of

the matter.

In July 1998, the Tuscaloosa Director

notified the SLA that DVA/VCS

intended to occupy a building that

might contain a satisfactory site for the

establishment of a vending location for

a blind vendor. On July 20, 1998, the

SLA responded that it would send a

representative to develop a site specific

survey. In September 1998, the attorney

for the SLA contacted the attorney for

DVA and requested a meeting to

negotiate a resolution to the issues.

In a letter dated November 9, 1998,

the DVA denied the SLA’s second

application filed in August 1998 to

establish vending locations at the

Tuscaloosa facility. Based upon

information that the average income for

its blind vendors was $25,000, the SLA

previously had determined that it would

take $100,000 in gross sales at the

Tuscaloosa facility to provide a net

income of $25,000 for a blind vendor. In

the letter, the DVA indicated to the SLA

that the $100,000 gross sales

requirement for a possible vending

location at the Tuscaloosa facility would

include practically all of the gross sales,

and the DVA would not give up the

operation.

The SLA notified the Department of

Education by letter dated December 8,

1998 that no decision had been issued

by DVA on its request to establish

vending facilities at the DVA Medical

Centers. Therefore, the SLA requested

that the arbitration should proceed. A

hearing on this matter was held on

January 11–12, 2000.

Arbitration Panel Decision

The central issue before the

arbitration panel was whether DVA/

VCS’s determination that no existing

suitable space was available for blind

vending facilities at DVA’s Montgomery

and Tuskegee locations and the failure

of DVA’s Medical Directors at the

Birmingham and Tuscaloosa locations

to approve the permit applications for

blind vending facilities were contrary to

and in violation of the RandolphSheppard Act, 20 U.S.C. 107 et seq., and

the implementing regulations in 34 CFR

part 395.

The arbitration panel found that DVA/

VCS did not comply with the Act in

processing the SLA’s 1995 permit 1

applications. Nor did DVA/VCS give

reasons for its denial of permits at the

Montgomery and Tuskegee Medical

Centers as required by the Act and

regulations in 34 CFR 395.16.

The panel also concluded that, at the

Tuscaloosa and Birmingham locations,

DVA/VCS did not provide the SLA with

timely notice of the substantial