Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 201 / Wednesday, October 19, 2005 / Notices 60803 

‘‘Download Attachments’’ to view. 

Written requests for information should 

be addressed to U.S. Department of 

Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., 

Potomac Center, 9th Floor, Washington, 

DC 20202–4700. Requests may also be 

electronically mailed to the Internet 

address OCIO_RIMG@ed.gov or faxed to 

202–245–6621. 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 Kathy Axt at her 

e-mail address Kathy.Axt@ed.gov. 

Individuals who use a 

telecommunications device for the deaf 

(TDD) may call the Federal Information 

Relay Service (FIRS) at 1–800–877–

8339. 

[FR Doc. 05–20942 Filed 10–18–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4000–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 

Submission for OMB Review; 

Comment Request 

AGENCY: Department of Education. 

SUMMARY: The Leader, Information 

Management Case Services Team, 

Regulatory Information Management 

Services, Office of the Chief Information 

Officer invites comments on the 

submission for OMB review as required 

by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 

1995. 

DATES: Interested persons are invited to 

submit comments on or before 

November 18, 2005. 

ADDRESSES: Written comments should 

be addressed to the Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs, 

Attention: Rachel Potter, Desk Officer, 

Department of Education, Office of 

Management and Budget, 725 17th 

Street, NW., Room 10222, New 

Executive Office Building, Washington, 

DC 20503 or faxed to (202) 395–6974. 

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, 

Information Management Case Services 

Team, Regulatory Information 

Management Services, 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. 

Dated: October 13, 2005. 

Angela C. Arrington, 

Leader, Information Management Case 

Services Team, Regulatory Information 

Management Services, Office of the Chief 

Information Officer. 

Institute of Education Sciences 

Type of Review: Revision. 

Title: Education Longitudinal Study 

of 2002, Second Followup Full Scale. 

Frequency: One time. 

Affected Public: Individuals or 

household; Not-for-profit institutions; 

State, Local, or Tribal Gov’t, SEAs or 

LEAs. 

Reporting and Recordkeeping Hour 

Burden: 

Responses: 15,044. 

Burden Hours: 7,021. 

Abstract: The ELS:2002 second 

followup is the third time this cohort of 

students who were in 10th grade in 

2002 will be interviewed and assessed. 

Data will be collected from students, 

dropouts, and school administrators. 

The field test for this study will be 

conducted in spring 2005. The full scale 

first followup study will be conducted 

in spring 2006. This longitudinal study 

is intended to measure school 

effectiveness and impact on 

postsecondary and labor market 

outcomes. 

Requests for copies of the information 

collection submission for OMB review 

may be accessed from http:// 

edicsweb.ed.gov, by selecting the 

‘‘Browse Pending Collections’’ link and 

by clicking on link number 2903. 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., Potomac Center, 9th Floor, 

Washington, DC 20202–4700. Requests 

may also be electronically mailed to the 

Internet address OCIO_RIMG@ed.gov or 

faxed to 202–245–6623. 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 Katrina Ingalls at 

her e-mail address 

Katrina.Ingalls@ed.gov. Individuals who 

use a telecommunications device for the 

deaf (TDD) may call the Federal 

Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 

1–800–877–8339. 

[FR Doc. 05–20943 Filed 10–18–05; 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: The Department gives notice 

that on June 17, 2005, an arbitration 

panel rendered a decision in the matter 

of Arizona Department of Economic 

Security, Rehabilitation Services 

Division v. United States Postal Service 

(Docket No. R–S/03–4). This panel was 

convened by the U.S. Department of 

Education, under 20 U.S.C. 107d–1(b), 

after the Department received a 

complaint filed by the petitioner, 

Arizona Department of Economic 

Security, Rehabilitation Services 

Division. 

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) at 1–800–877–8339. 

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. 

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 

This dispute concerns the alleged 

improper payment of commissions to 

the United States Postal Service (USPS) 

by two blind licensees in violation of 

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

60804 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 201 / Wednesday, October 19, 2005 / Notices 

implementing regulations in 34 CFR 

part 395. 

A summary of the facts is as follows: 

The Arizona Department of Economic 

Security, Rehabilitation Services 

Division, the State licensing agency 

(SLA), alleged that between December 

1995 and July 2001, Mr. Robert Kunau 

operated a vending facility at the Rio 

Salado Post Office and paid to USPS a 

10 percent commission on his gross 

sales totaling $116,684.02. 

Similarly, the SLA alleged that since 

1988 Mr. Scott Weber operated a 

vending facility at the Phoenix General 

Mail Facility (PGMF). In 1995, Mr. 

Weber assumed the operation of 

additional vending machines at PGMF. 

From October 1995 to May 2001, Mr. 

Weber also paid to USPS a 10 percent 

commission on his gross sales totaling 

$88,444.57. Both vendors alleged that 

they paid the 10 percent commission to 

USPS as required by the agency until 

they were advised by their attorney to 

cease payment. 

Arbitration Panel Decision 

The issue heard by the panel was 

whether the actions taken by USPS 

violated the Act and implementing 

regulations concerning the placement 

and operation of vending facilities at the 

Rio Salado Post Office and the Phoenix 

General Mail Facility. If there was a 

violation, the panel was asked to 

determine the appropriate remedy. 

After reviewing all of the records and 

hearing testimony of witnesses, the 

panel concluded that the Act requires 

Federal agencies to give priority to blind 

vendors in the operation of vending 

facilities on Federal properties. To 

accomplish this, Federal agencies and 

SLAs enter into permit agreements 

authorizing the operation of vending 

facilities by licensed blind vendors. 

However, the panel noted that the Act 

does not authorize Federal agencies to 

collect commissions from a blind 

vendor or the SLA without the 

authorization of the Secretary of 

Education. Moreover, Federal agencies 

are not permitted to go outside the 

Department of Education’s regulations 

and substitute a negotiated vending 

agreement in place of the permit system. 

Therefore, because USPS failed to 

obtain authorization from the Secretary 

of Education, the collection of 

commissions was a violation of the Act. 

Accordingly, the panel ruled that both 

Mr. Kunau and Mr. Weber were 

damaged by USPS’s violation of the Act 

in the amounts of $116,684.02 and 

$88,444.57, respectively. 

The panel further directed that, 

subject to any future finding by a court 

of competent jurisdiction that this order 

exceeds the panel’s authority under the 

Act, USPS must reimburse Mr. Kunau 

and Mr. Weber the amounts that they 

were damaged as a result of USPS’s 

violation of the Act. 

One panel member dissented. 

The views and opinions expressed by 

the panel do not necessarily represent 

the views and opinions of the U.S. 

Department of Education. 

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: http://www.ed.gov/ 

news/fedregister. 

To use PDF you must have 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.gpoaccess.gov/nara/ 

index.html. 

Dated: October 14, 2005. 

John H. Hager, 

Assistant Secretary for Special Education and 

Rehabilitative Services. 

[FR Doc. 05–20929 Filed 10–18–05; 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: The Department gives notice 

that on October 18, 2004, an arbitration 

panel rendered a decision in the matter 

of Bert Hansen, et al. v. Nevada 

Department of Rehabilitation, Bureau of 

Services to the Blind (Docket No. R–S/ 

03–05 and 03–07 consolidated). This 

panel was convened by the U.S. 

Department of Education, under 20 

U.S.C. 107d–1(a), after the Department 

received a complaint filed by the 

petitioners, Bert Hansen, et al. 

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) at 1–800–877–8339. 

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. 

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 

This dispute concerned two separate 

complaints that were consolidated into 

one case in the interest of judicial 

economy. The complainants alleged 

violations of the Act (20 U.S.C. 107 et 

seq.), the implementing regulations in 

34 CFR part 395, and State rules and 

regulations by the Nevada Department 

of Employment, Training and 

Rehabilitation, Bureau of Services to the 

Blind and Visually Impaired, the State 

licensing agency (SLA). 

A summary of the facts in the first 

part of the complaint is as follows: On 

January 11, 2002, Mr. Bert Hansen, 

Chairman of the Nevada Committee of 

Blind Vendors, wishing to ensure that 

the 2002 election of Elected Committee 

of Blind Vendors (Committee) would be 

carried out in accordance with State 

rules and policy, wrote to the SLA on 

behalf of the Committee. 

In his letter, Mr. Hansen noted that 

the 1999 bylaws of the Committee were 

not certified as required by the Nevada 

Administrative Code, section 426.080.2. 

Mr. Hansen suggested that, since 

clarification of the 1999 bylaws was 

needed, the 1983 certified bylaws be 

used for the 2002 election process. 

However, by memorandum dated 

January 30, 2002, the SLA rejected the 

Committee’s proposal and indicated that 

the SLA would conduct its own 

Committee election. On February 24, 

2002, under the leadership of Mr. 

Hansen, the Committee held the 2002 

election. 

Subsequently, the SLA informed the 

Committee it was holding a new 

election that took place on April 7, 

2002. The complainants alleged that the 

SLA election was held without the 

participation of the Committee and that 

the individuals elected on April 7 were 

different from those elected on February 

24. The complainants further alleged 

that the April 7 election was improperly