34 C.F.R. § 395.13

Evidentiary hearings and arbitration of vendor complaints

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) The State licensing agency shall specify in writing and maintain procedures whereby such agency affords an opportunity for a full evidentiary hearing to each blind vendor (which procedures shall also apply to cases under § 395.6(e)) dissatisfied with any State licensing agency action arising from the operation or administration of the vending facility program. When such blind vendor is dissatisfied with any action taken or decision rendered as a result of such hearing, he may file a complaint with the Secretary. Such complaint shall be accompanied by all available supporting documents, including a statement of the decision which was rendered and the reasons in support thereof.

(b) The filing of a complaint under paragraph (a) of this section with either the State licensing agency or the Secretary shall indicate consent by the blind vendor for the release of such information as is necessary for the conduct of a full evidentiary hearing or the hearing of an ad hoc arbitration panel.

(c) Upon receipt of a complaint filed by a blind vendor which meets the requirements established by the Secretary, the Secretary shall convene an ad hoc arbitration panel which shall, in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. chapter 5, subchapter II, give notice, conduct a hearing, and render its decision which shall be final and binding on the parties except that such decision shall be subject to appeal and review as a final agency action for purposes of the provisions of 5 U.S.C. chapter 7.

(d) The arbitration panel convened by the Secretary to hear the grievances of blind vendors shall be composed of three members appointed as follows:

(1) One individual designated by the State licensing agency;

(2) One individual designated by the blind vendor; and

(3) One individual not employed by the State licensing agency or, where appropriate, its parent agency, who shall be jointly designated by the other members of the panel and who shall serve as chairman of the panel.

(e) If either the State licensing agency or the blind vendor fails to designate a member of an arbitration panel, the Secretary shall designate such member on behalf of such party.

(f) The decisions of an arbitration panel convened by the Secretary under this section shall be matters of public record and shall be published in the Federal Register.

(g) The Secretary shall pay all reasonable costs of arbitration under this section in accordance with a schedule of fees and expenses which shall be published in the Federal Register.

(h) The provisions of this section shall not require the participation of grantors of permits for the operation of vending facilities on property other than Federal property.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 14 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1984–2026 · leading case: Comm. of Blind Vendors of the Dist. of Columbia v. Dist. of Columbia, 28 F.3d 130 (D.C. Cir. 1994).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Comm. of Blind Vendors of the Dist. of Columbia v. Dist. of Columbia, 28 F.3d 130 (D.C. Cir. 1994). · cites it 3× “At that time, DCRSA had not adopted procedures to govern Randolph-Sheppard Act hearings as required by 34 C.F.R. § 395.13 . On August 19, 1988, DCRSA published proposed procedures in the D.”

Tamashiro v. Dep't of Human Servs., 146 P.3d 103 (Haw. 2006). · cites it 2× “§ 107 (b)(6) and 34 C.F.R. § 395.13 (a) (1984), filed a grievance, which resulted in a full evidentiary hearing before a state hearing examiner on February 24, 1981.”

Schlank v. Williams, 572 A.2d 101 (D.C. 1990). · cites it 2× “§ 107b(6); 34 C.F.R. § 395.13 (a). 3 At the time of the proceedings in this case, RSA had established no such procedures in the District of Columbia.”

Brooks v. Dist. of Columbia, 375 F. Supp. 3d 41 (D.C. Cir. 2019). · cites it 2× “§ 107b(6) (requiring SLAs to provide "dissatisfied" licensees with "an opportunity for a fair hearing"); 34 C.F.R. § 395.13 (same). To implement these requirements, the District of Columbia provides for an "[i]nformal due process hearing before the D.”

Texas State Comm'n v. United States, 6 Cl. Ct. 730 (Ct. Cl. 1984). · cites it 2× “§ 701 ; 34 C.F.R. §§ 395.13 (c), 395.-37(b) (1982).”

Delaware Dep't of Health & Soc. Servs., Div. for the Visually Impaired v. United States Dep't of Educ., 772 F.2d 1123 (3rd Cir. 1985). “107b(6) and 34 C.F.R. 395.13(a) (1984), filed a grievance, which resulted in a full evidentiary hearing before a state hearing examiner on February 24, 1981.”

Delaware Dep't of Health & Soc. Servs. v. United States Dep't of Educ., 772 F.2d 1123 (3rd Cir. 1985). · cites it 2× “13 [ 34 C.F.R. § 395.13 ] of the federal regulations issued under the Randolph-Sheppard Act, as amended.”

Georgia Dep't of Human Resources v. Nash, 915 F.2d 1482 (11th Cir. 1990). · cites it 2× “As 34 C.F.R. § 395.13 states, section 107d-l(a) applies when a vendor is "dissatisfied with any State licensing agency action arising from the operation or administration of the vending facility program.”

Kolb v. United States (Fed. Cl. 2022). · cites it 4× “The corollary federal regulation is similar, but specifies that SLAs are required to provide hearing procedures for “each blind vendor … dissatisfied with any State licensing agency action arising from the operation or administration of the vending facility program,” 34 C.F.R. §…”

Bolden v. Dist. of Columbia (D.D.C. 2019). · cites it 2× “§ 107b(6) (requiring SLAs to provide “dissatisfied” licensees with “an opportunity for a fair hearing”); 34 C.F.R. § 395.13 (same). To implement these requirements, the District of Columbia provides for an “[i]nformal due process hearing before the D.”

Calvette Brown v. IL Dept of Human Servs. (7th Cir. 2018). “§ 107d‐1(a), § 107d‐2; 34 C.F.R. § 395.13 . Arbitral awards are subject to review as a final agency action under the Administrative Procedure Act.”

Brooks v. Dist. of Columbia (D.D.C. 2024). “§ 107b(6) (requiring SLAs to provide “dissatisfied” licensees with “an opportunity for a fair hearing”); 34 C.F.R. § 395.13 (same). To implement these requirements, the District of Columbia provides for an “[i]nformal due process hearing before the D.”

Show all 14 citing cases →

— 34 C.F.R. § 395.13(a) — 2 cases

Blind Vendors v. NH (D.N.H. 1998).

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.