Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 177 / Thursday, September 11, 2008 / Notices 52849 

Management, 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: September 8, 2008. 

Angela C. Arrington, 

IC Clearance Official, Regulatory Information 

Management Services, Office of Management. 

Office of Elementary and Secondary 

Education 

Type of Review: New Collection. 

Title: Leveraging Educational 

Technology to Keep America 

Competitive: National Teacher 

Technology Study. 

Frequency: On Occasion. 

Affected Public: Individuals or 

household. 

Reporting and Recordkeeping Hour 

Burden: 

Responses: 2300. 

Burden Hours: 750. 

Abstract: The purpose of this study is 

to invesigate the technology experiences 

included in pre-service teacher 

preparation programs, as well as how 

teachers use technology in the 

classroom. A three-phase grounded 

theory research design employs (1) 

educational technology faculty and 

general induction teacher surveys, (2) 

educational technology faculty and 

accomplished technology-using teacher 

phone interviews, and (3) case studies 

of teacher education programs and 

accomplished technology-using 

teachers. 

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. 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., 

LBJ, Washington, DC 20202–4537. 

Requests may also be electronically 

mailed to ICDocketMgr@ed.gov or faxed 

to 202–401–0920. Please specify the 

complete title of the information 

collection when making your request. 

Comments regarding burden and/or 

the collection activity requirements 

should be electronically mailed to 

WASHINGTONICDocketMgr@ed.gov 

202–401–1097. 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. E8–21230 Filed 9–10–08; 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 of Education 

(Department) gives notice that on April 

7, 2008, an arbitration panel rendered a 

decision in the matter of David 

Zelickson v. California Department of 

Rehabilitation, Case no. R–S/06–10). 

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, David 

Zelickson. 

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 

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 

Mr. David Zelickson (complainant) 

alleged violations by the California 

Department of Rehabilitation, the state 

licensing agency (SLA) of the RandolphSheppard Act (Act), and the 

implementing regulations in 34 CFR 

part 395. Complainant alleged that the 

SLA failed to enforce the arbitration 

panel decision and award in the case of 

California Department of Education v. 

General Services Administration, Case 

no. R–S/99–1. The aforementioned 

grievance was a complaint filed by the 

SLA regarding management of a vending 

facility at the Roybal Federal Building 

(Roybal) in Los Angeles, California 

where complainant was assigned as the 

licensed blind vendor. 

Specifically, complainant received a 

permit from the SLA to operate the 

Roybal building in 1993. The permit 

was renewed in 1996. In November 

1997, the General Services 

Administration (GSA) requested the 

removal of complainant from the Roybal 

building indicating its right to do so 

because of a change in the nature of the 

food service provided at the vending 

facility. 

The SLA requested the Secretary of 

Education to convene a federal 

arbitration panel to hear this matter. A 

panel was convened. On December 26, 

2000, the panel found that GSA was in 

violation of the act concerning the 

removal of complainant from the Roybal 

building. In the decision and award, the 

panel ruled that complainant should be 

reinstated to the Roybal building and 

that GSA was obligated to make both the 

complainant and the SLA whole for 

their economic losses. GSA did not 

contest the award that was final and 

binding. 

For six years, the SLA attempted to 

secure voluntary compliance by GSA 

with the December 2000 decision and 

award. GSA refused until March 2006 to 

allow complainant to return to the 

Roybal building. GSA claiming 

sovereign immunity, also maintained 

that it never agreed to compensate 

complainant for his economic losses. 

Shortly after March 2006, 

complainant filed a request for Federal 

arbitration with the secretary of 

Education regarding this matter. A 

Federal arbitration panel heard this case 

on August 10, 2007. 

According to the arbitration panel, the 

issues to be resolved were as follows: (1) 

To what extent, if any was the SLA 

obligated to enforce the 2000 arbitration 

decision and award; (2) did the SLA 

meet its obligation to complainant; and 

(3) if not, what was the appropriate 

remedy. 

Arbitration Panel Decision 

After reviewing all of the records and 

hearing testimony of witnesses, the 

panel majority found that the SLA was 

obligated to enforce the 2000 arbitration 

decision and award and failed to meet 

its obligation to the complainant by not 

suing for enforcement of the arbitration 

decision and award. As discussed by the 

panel, a lawsuit is the only way an SLA 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with NOTICES
52850 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 177 / Thursday, September 11, 2008 / Notices 

can protect its interest in a facility it 

established, as well as protecting a blind 

vendor’s interest because a blind vendor 

has no right to enforce an arbitration 

decision and award favorable to the SLA 

against a federal agency. As a result of 

this failure to protect the vendor’s 

interest, the SLA became liable for 

damages that were afforded to 

complainant pursuant to the 2000 

arbitration decision and award, which 

had directed GSA to pay complainant 

for his lost earnings. The panel 

determined the amount of wages lost by 

the vendor, but then stated that the 

vendor had a duty to mitigate damages. 

Based on the following circumstances, 

the panel ruled that complainant failed 

to mitigate his damages. 

On or about August 1, 2002, the SLA 

had offered the complainant an 

opportunity to apply for another 

permanent facility without waiving his 

rights to return to the Roybal building. 

However, complainant argued that he 

lacked the financial ability to make a 

new vending facility operable. The 

panel majority rejected this argument 

based on complainant’s previous 

experience in the business enterprise 

program and the SLA’s past assistance 

to him. The majority concluded that it 

was complainant’s obligation to request 

financial assistance from the SLA to 

start a new vending facility and he 

failed to do so. Thus, because 

complainant failed to mitigate his 

damages, the panel majority concluded 

that the appropriate period for 

computing damages should end as of 

August 2002, the time the SLA offered 

complainant the opportunity to manage 

a new permanent facility. 

Accordingly, the panel majority ruled 

that the appropriate period for 

calculating damages was from December 

1, 1997 to August 1, 2002 or a period 

of 56 months. Thus, the panel majority 

ruled that compensatory damages must 

be paid to the complainant by the SLA 

within 30 days from the date of the 

panel’s decision calculated at the rate of 

$2500 per month for 56 months or 

$140,000. Also, the panel majority ruled 

that if the SLA failed to pay 

complainant within 30 days of the final 

decision, interest would be attached 

equivalent to what the National Labor 

Relations Boards computes on its 

awards of back pay. 

Additionally, the panel majority ruled 

that the SLA must give the complainant 

a permit to operate a vending facility at 

the Roybal building, if the Roybal 

building was currently part of the 

business enterprise program and 

available, or in the alternative provide 

complainant a comparable vending 

facility. This was to be accomplished 

with 90 days from the date of the 

panel’s decision. Further, the panel 

retain jurisdiction for a period not to 

exceed 90 days from the date of the 

award to resolve any issues relating to 

or compliance with the final decision 

and award by the SLA. 

One panel member dissented. 

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 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: September 8, 2008. 

Tracy R. Justesen, 

Assistant Secretary for Special Education and 

Rehabilitative Services. 

[FR Doc. E8–21145 Filed 9–10–08; 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 of Education 

(Department) gives notice that on May 

15, 2008, an arbitration panel rendered 

a decision in the matter of Arizona 

Department of Economic Security, 

Rehabilitation Services Administration 

v. United States Postal Service (Case No. 

R–S/06–3). This panel was convened by 

the Department under 20 U.S.C. 107d–

1(b), after the Department received a 

complaint filed by the petitioner, the 

Arizona Department of Economic 

Security, Rehabilitation Services 

Administration. 

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 

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 

The Arizona Department of Economic 

Security, Rehabilitation Services 

Administration, the State Licensing 

Agency (SLA) alleged violations by the 

United States Postal Service (USPS) of 

the Randolph-Sheppard Act (Act), and 

the implementing regulations in 34 CFR 

part 395. Specifically, the SLA alleged 

that USPS improperly denied the SLA’s 

request to establish vending facilities 

comprised of vending machines at 

postal locations in Mesa and Tucson, 

Arizona in violation of the priority 

provisions of the Act at 20 U.S.C. 

107(b). 

On October 22, 2002, USPS notified 

the SLA that the Mesa Postal Service 

was seeking a new vendor for nine 

postal locations in Mesa, Arizona. On 

October 29, 2002, the SLA informed 

USPS that it was exercising its priority 

under the Act and would be providing 

vending services to the nine Mesa postal 

locations. However, on December 16, 

2002, USPS sent the SLA a letter to 

notify them of a change in the projected 

start up date for the SLA to begin 

operating the Mesa vending locations. 

On April 22, 2003, USPS again 

notified the SLA that it was in need of 

vending food service for 15 postal 

locations in Tucson, Arizona. Following 

this notification, the SLA and USPS 

staff met on June 18, 2003. At that time, 

USPS informed the SLA that it had 

issued a directive stating that each of 

the 15 Tucson vending locations would 

have a permit and each location would 

require a separate blind vendor to 

manage the facility. 

On July 31, 2003, the SLA sent a letter 

to USPS indicating that it did not intend 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with NOTICES