34 C.F.R. § 395.16

Permit for the establishment of vending facilities

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

Prior to the establishment of each vending facility, other than a cafeteria, the State licensing agency shall submit an application for a permit setting forth the location, the amount of space necessary for the operation of the vending facility; the type of facility and equipment, the number, location and type of vending machines and other terms and conditions desired to be included in the permit. Such application shall be submitted for the approval of the head of the Federal property managing department, agency, or instrumentality. When an application is not approved, the head of the Federal property managing department, agency, or instrumentality shall advise the State licensing agency in writing and shall indicate the reasons for the disapproval.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 9 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1985–2024 · leading case: Randolph-Sheppard Vendors of Am. v. Caspar W. Weinberger, Nat'l Council of State Agencies for the Blind v. Caspar W. Weinberger, 795 F.2d 90 (D.C. Cir. 1986).
Randolph-Sheppard Vendors of Am. v. Caspar W. Weinberger, Nat'l Council of State Agencies for the Blind v. Caspar W. Weinberger, 795 F.2d 90 (D.C. Cir. 1986). “§ 107a(c); 34 C.F.R. §§ 395.16 , 395.35. A dispute resolution system established by the Act is similarly two-tiered, and operates under the auspices of the Secretary.”
Sauer v. United States Dep't of Educ., 668 F.3d 644 (9th Cir. 2012). “§ 107a(c); 34 C.F.R. § 395.16 . State participation in the Randolph-Sheppard program is voluntary.”
Alabama Dep't of Rehab. Servs. v. United States Dep't of Vets. Affairs, 165 F. Supp. 2d 1262 (M.D. Ala. 2001). “The first arbitration panel issued its findings on October 20, 2000, concluding that the VA and the VCS had violated the Randolph-Sheppard Act in three ways: (1) the VA and the VCS did not timely process the ADRS’s 1995 applications; (2) the VA and the VCS did not give reasons…”
New York v. United States Postal Serv., 690 F. Supp. 1346 (S.D.N.Y. 1988). “§ 107a(c); 34 C.F.R. §§ 395.16 , 395.35. When a dispute arises, the Act provides that: (a) Any blind licensee who is dissatisfied with any action arising from the operation or administration of the vending facility program may submit to a State licensing agency a request for a…”
Randolph-Sheppard Vendors of Am. v. Weinberger, 602 F. Supp. 1007 (D.D.C. 1985). “They seek permits for the establishment of vending facilities on federal property, 34 C.F.R. § 395.16 , 395.35, and issue operating licenses to blind vendors.”
Kentucky State Univ. v. Kentucky Dep't for the Blind, 923 S.W.2d 296 (Ky. Ct. App. 1996). “34 C.F.R. § 395.16 . If the federal department that manages the property approves the application, the department issues a permit to the state agency and a blind person licensed by the state agency operates the vending facility.”
Minnesota, Dep't of Jobs & Training v. Riley, 18 F.3d 606 (8th Cir. 1994). · cites it 2× “34 C.F.R. § 395.16 . If the federal department that manages the property approves the application, the department issues a permit to the state agency and a blind person licensed by the state agency operates the vending facility.”
Application of the Randolph-Sheppard Act to the United States Mint (OLC 2024). “34 C.F.R. § 395.16 ; see Vending Facility Program for the Blind on Federal and Other Property, 42 Fed.”
Hudson v. Boxer, 632 F. Supp. 1569 (D. Colo. 1986). “They seek permits for the establishment of vending facilities on federal property, 34 C.F.R. § 395.16 , 395.35, and issue operating licenses to blind vendors.”
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.