[Federal Register: May 31, 2001 (Volume 66, Number 105)]
[Notices]
[Page 29562-29563]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr31my01-51]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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 March 17, 2000, an arbitration
panel rendered a decision in the matter of Idaho Commission for the
Blind and Visually Impaired v. United States Postal Service (Docket No.
R-S/99-7). This panel was convened by the U.S. Department of Education
pursuant to 20 U.S.C. 107d-1(b) upon receipt of a complaint filed by
petitioner, the Idaho Commission for the Blind.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 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 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.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
In 1998, the Idaho Commission for the Blind and Visually Impaired,
the State licensing agency (SLA), alleged that it made repeated
requests for information to the United States Postal Service (USPS)
concerning the construction of the new U.S. Postal Service Processing
and Distribution Center located at 2201 South Cole Road in Boise,
Idaho. Receiving no response to its inquiries or notice of a possible
vending facility location as required by the Act, the SLA submitted a
letter to the Postal Service District Manager requesting information
about the Processing and Distribution Center.
On December 2, 1998, the Postal Service District Manager responded
to the SLA's letter requesting information and apologized for the lack
of notification. On March 17, 1999, the SLA submitted an application
for a vending facility at the Processing and Distribution Center. USPS
responded to the SLA's application on March 23, 1999, indicating that
they would not agree to the terms of the SLA's application for the
permit. On March 29, 1999, representatives from the SLA and USPS met to
discuss the application.
USPS's position concerning the application was that the vendor
selected for the location at the Processing and Distribution Center
would be required to physically be present at the facility 40 hours per
week (the ``on-site support'' provision), and the vendor would be
precluded from operating any other vending facility location on the
property (the ``exclusivity'' provision). USPS further indicated that
these terms were non-negotiable and would be required to be included in
the application and the resulting vending permit.
On March 30, 1999, the SLA contacted USPS about the pending
negotiations on the vending permit and was informed that the on-site
support and exclusivity provisions were new permit terms required of
blind vendors, but not commercial vendors.
On April 16, 1999, the SLA requested in writing that USPS either
approve or deny its application for a vending permit at the Processing
and Distribution Center. The SLA did not receive a response from USPS
and subsequently filed a request with the Secretary of the Department
of Education (Department) to convene a Federal arbitration panel. The
SLA alleged that the priority provisions of the Act and its
implementing regulations had been violated. An arbitration pre-hearing
on this matter was held on December 7, 1999, which resulted in a
Stipulated Agreement concerning the issues and facts of the dispute.
The parties agreed that the arbitration panel's written award on the
stipulated issues would dispose of the dispute without the need for an
arbitration hearing. The panel submitted a Final Award and Decision to
the Department on March 17, 2000. On May 16, 2000, the Department
received a copy, signed by all parties, of the Stipulated Agreement.
Arbitration Panel Decision
The stipulated issues addressed by the arbitration panel were:
1(A). Have limitations been placed on blind vendors as defined by
the Randolph-Sheppard Act?
(B). If so, does the U.S. Postal Service have a legal requirement
to submit those limitations to the U.S. Department of Education for the
Secretary's determination that they are justified?
2. Is the Postal Service in violation of the Act and the U.S.
Constitution by requiring on-site support and exclusivity provisions of
Randolph-Sheppard vendors, but not of commercial vendors?
3. If the Postal Service did violate the Randolph-Sheppard Act on
any of these issues, what is the authority of the arbitration panel to
determine the appropriate remedy or remedies?
The arbitration panel ruled that the on-site support and
exclusivity provisions required by USPS were limitations as provided in
the Act and must be approved by the Secretary of Education and
published in the Federal Register before they could be required as
conditions of approval for the SLA's application. The panel further
ruled that by requiring the on-site support and
[[Page 29563]]
exclusivity provisions of blind vendors represented by the SLA, USPS
was in violation of the Act.
The panel stated that it is the obligation of the head of the
United States Postal Service to cause the improper acts or practices to
be terminated promptly and to take any other action that is necessary
to carry out the Arbitration Panel's award.
The views and opinions expressed by the panel do not necessarily
represent the views and opinions of the U.S. Department of Education.
Dated: May 25, 2001.
Francis V. Corrigan,
Deputy Director, National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation
Research.
[FR Doc. 01-13637 Filed 5-30-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-U