34 C.F.R. § 395.30

The location and operation of vending facilities for blind vendors on Federal property

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

(a) Each department, agency, or instrumentality of the United States in control of the maintenance, operation, and protection of Federal property shall take all steps necessary to assure that, wherever feasible, in light of appropriate space and potential patronage, one or more vending facilities for operation by blind licensees shall be located on all Federal property Provided that the location or operation of such facility or facilities would not adversely affect the interests of the United States. Blind persons licensed by State licensing agencies shall be given priority in the operation of vending facilities on any Federal property.

(b) Any limitation on the location or operation of a vending facility for blind vendors by a department, agency or instrumentality of the United States based on a finding that such location or operation or type of location or operation would adversely affect the interests of the United States shall be fully justified in writing to the Secretary who shall determine whether such limitation is warranted. A determination made by the Secretary concerning such limitation shall be binding on any department, agency, or instrumentality of the United States affected by such determination. The Secretary shall publish such determination in the Federal Register along with supporting documents directly relating to the determination.

(c) Priority in the operation of vending facilities in areas administered by the National Park Service or the National Aeronautics and Space Administration shall be given to blind vendors. Priority in the awarding of contracts for the operation of concessions in such areas when such concessions provide accommodations, facilities, and services of a scope or of a character not generally available in vending facilities operated by blind vendors shall be given in accordance with the provisions of the Concession Policy Act (Pub. L. 98-249, 16 U.S.C. 1) or the National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958, as amended (Pub. L. 85-568, 42 U.S.C. 2473). The provisions of this part shall not apply when all accommodations, facilities, or services in such areas are operated by a single responsible concessioner.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 10 cases, 1986–2020 · leading case: Texas State Comm'n for the Blind & State of Texas v. The United States, 796 F.2d 400 (Fed. Cir. 1986).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Texas State Comm'n for the Blind & State of Texas v. The United States, 796 F.2d 400 (Fed. Cir. 1986). · cites it 2× “On the other hand, HEW did exempt (without an explicit statutory basis) stamp vending machine, copy machines, pay telephones, coin-operated game machines, juke boxes and certain NASA and National Park Service concessions, 34 C.F.R. § 395.30 (1985), citing such reasons as…”

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). “Her letter stated that: the Department of Education has made no determination about the ability of any State Licensing Agency to provide nationally franchised food items nor has the Department of Education approved a limitation under Section 1(b) of the Randolph-Sheppard Act or…”

Alabama Dep't of Rehab. Servs. v. United States Dep't of Vets. Affairs, 165 F. Supp. 2d 1262 (M.D. Ala. 2001). “Although the panel noted that this reason could be a valid one under 34 C.F.R. § 395.30 (b), the panel did not consider it because the VA and the VCS did not argue it.”

Comm. of Blind Vendors v. Dist. of Columbia, 736 F. Supp. 292 (D.D.C. 1990). “§ 107a(d)(l); 34 C.F.R. § 395.30 (a); 42 Fed. Reg. 15802 , 15807-08 (Mar.”

Nish v. Cohen, 95 F. Supp. 2d 497 (E.D. Va. 2000). “§ 107(b)(2); 34 C.F.R. § 395.30 (a) (1999). The extension of the Act in 1974 to include military dining facilities created, among other things, an opportunity for blind business owners to develop managerial and entrepreneurial skills.”

Nish & Goodwill Servs., Inc. v. Cohen, 191 F.R.D. 94 (E.D. Va. 2000). “§ 107 (b)(2) (West 2000); 34 C.F.R. § 395.30 (a) (1999). The extension of the Act in 1974 to include military dining facilities created an opportunity for blind business owners to develop managerial and entrepreneurial skills.”

United States v. Mississippi Vocational Rehab. for Blind, 794 F. Supp. 1344 (S.D. Miss. 1992). “34 C.F.R. Section 395.30(a) (1989) (emphasis in original).”

Georgia Dep't of Human Resources v. Nash, 915 F.2d 1482 (11th Cir. 1990). “” 34 C.F.R. § 395.30 (a) (1988). The Act also establishes procedures for placing blind vendors in such facilities: the Secretary designates state agencies to license and train blind vendors; once the state agency licenses vendors, they become eligible for employment at available…”

SourceAmerica v. Elisabeth Devos (4th Cir. 2020). “§ 107(b) (emphasis supplied); see also 34 C.F.R. § 395.30 (b). There are no qualifiers as to the type or degree of limitations.”

State of Hawaii, Dep't of Human Servs., Div. of Vocational Rehab., Hoopono-Servs. for the Blind v. United States Marine Corps (D. Haw. 2019). “34 C.F.R. § 395.30 (a)-(b) (emphasis in original).”

— 34 C.F.R. § 395.30(a) — 1 case

United States v. Mississippi Vocational Rehab. for Blind, 794 F. Supp. 1344 (S.D. Miss. 1992). “34 C.F.R. Section 395.30(a) (1989) (emphasis in original).”

— 34 C.F.R. § 395.30(b) — 1 case

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.