Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 95 / Wednesday, May 17, 1995 / Notices 26413

are requested to register with the

Secretary prior to the hearing.

Dated: May 9, 1995.

Susan M. Weisman,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 95–12070 Filed 5–16–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6360–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

Office of Special Education and

Rehabilitative Services; Office of

Administrative Law Judges; Intent To

Compromise Claims, South Carolina

Commission for the Blind

AGENCY: Department of Education.

ACTION: Notice of intent to compromise

claims.

SUMMARY: The Department intends to

compromise claims against the South

Carolina Commission for the Blind

(Commission) now pending before the

Office of Administrative Law Judges

(OALJ), Docket Nos. 93–131–R and 93–

141–R (20 U.S.C. 1234a(j)).

DATES: Interested persons may comment

on the proposed action by submitting

written data, views, or arguments on or

before July 3, 1995.

ADDRESSES: All comments concerning

this notice should be addressed to

Jeffrey B. Rosen, Office of the General

Counsel, U.S. Department of Education,

600 Independence Avenue SW., Room

5411, FB–10B, Washington, D.C. 20202–

2242.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Jeffrey B. Rosen. Telephone: (202) 401–

6009. Individuals who use a

telecommunications device for the deaf

(TDD) may call the Federal Information

Relay Service (FIRS) at 1–800–877–8339

between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m., Eastern time,

Monday through Friday.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant

to the Single Audit Act of 1984 (P.L. 98–

502) and the provisions of Office of

Management and Budget (OMB)

Circular A–128, the Office of the State

Auditor, State of South Carolina,

conducted an audit of the Commission

for the period July 1, 1987 through June

30, 1989. A final audit report was issued

on February 11, 1993 (ACN: 04–23147

SC) (hereinafter ‘‘SC I’’).

Based upon this audit report, the

Regional Commissioner, Region IV,

Rehabilitation Services Commission,

U.S. Department of Education (ED),

issued a Preliminary Department

Decision (PDD) on September 28, 1993

in which he requested that the

Commission repay $294,232 of funds

misspent under Title I of the

Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended

(the Act), 29 U.S.C. 701 et seq. There

were seven different monetary findings

as follows:

a. Finding 1(b)—$8,528.23—

Unallowable vehicle purchase.

b. Finding 2—$1,217.00—Purchases not

properly allocated to particular cost

objectives.

c. Finding 4—$51,294.74—Time

distribution records not maintained

for employees.

d. Finding 6(a)—$205,640.00—

Documentation not maintained for

Federal activities.

e. Finding 8—$8,109.41—Computer

lease payments not properly

allocated.

f. Finding 9—$17,614.62—Expenditures

obligated after project end.

g. Finding 12—$1,828.00—Unallowable

interest charges.

On October 27, 1993 the Commission

filed an application for review of the

PDD with the Office of Administrative

Law Judges (OALJ). On September 26,

1994, the Regional Commissioner filed a

Notice of Reduction of Claim notifying

the OALJ that, based upon new

information submitted by the

Commission, Finding 6(a) was reduced

by $139,353.37. Thus, the total amount

outstanding in the appeal was reduced

to $154,878.63.

The Office of the State Auditor

conducted another audit covering the

period July 1, 1990 through June 30,

1991. A final audit report was issued on

February 23, 1993 (ACN: 04–23165G

SC) (hereinafter ‘‘SC II’’). In SC II, the

Regional Commissioner issued a PDD on

September 29, 1993 in which he

requested that the Commission repay

$129,369.26 of funds under the Act.

There were three different monetary

findings as follows:

a. Finding 1—$88,805.26—Time

distribution records not maintained

for employees.

b. Finding 2—$18,156.80—Using funds

under the Act for unallowable

expenditures.

c. Finding 3—$22,407.20—Purchases

not properly allocated to particular

cost objectives.

The Commission filed an appeal of

the PDD with the OALJ on November 3,

1993.

The Commission and ED have agreed

to settle all of the issues in these cases.

The outstanding amounts in the two

cases are covered by the Settlement

Agreements.

Under the terms of the proposed

agreement in SC I, the Commission

owes ED a total of $68,955. This

repayment amount, including four

percent interest accruing from July 15,

1995, is to be paid in three equal annual

payments of $23,904 beginning July 15,

1995 and continuing through July 15,

1997. The Commission would be

assessed interest at a rate of four percent

per year if any of the foregoing

payments are not made in a timely

fashion. Failure to make timely payment

within 20 days would result in a late

payment fee of 10 percent of the

payment due. Finally, under the

agreement, the parties would jointly

move for dismissal of the appeal.

For the following reasons, ED

recommends approval of the proposed

Settlement Agreement in SC I. The

Commission has agreed to repay in full

the cost disallowances in Findings 1, 2,

8, and 12. In Finding 9, ED determined

that there was insufficient evidence of

harm to the Federal interest and, as a

result, agreed not to seek any recovery

on this issue in the agreement.

With respect to Finding 4, which

pertains to a time distribution issue for

employees, the parties agreed that the

Commission should repay $15,826,

which represents a repayment of greater

than 30 percent of the original

disallowed amount of $51,294.74. The

evidence presented by the Commission

demonstrated that the employees in

question worked a substantial portion of

time on grant activities. Although the

Commission clearly had an obligation to

keep time distribution records, it

presented other less reliable and

circumstantial evidence that could

persuade an administrative law judge or

a Federal court to rule in substantial

part or in full for its position.

With respect to the final issue,

Finding 6(a), ED originally

recommended a cost disallowance of

$205,640 for the failure of the

Commission to maintain proper

documentation for Federal activities.

Following an on-site review of the

documentation in question in this issue,

ED agreed to reduce the cost

disallowance to $66,286.63, which

consisted of obligations the liquidation

of which the Commission had been

unable to verify. Notwithstanding the

Commission’s failure to satisfy its

burden of providing this information,

ED did not have evidence demonstrating

that all of these outstanding obligations

were, in fact, unliquidated or detailing

the extent to which the Federal interest

was harmed. In order to reach a

settlement of all the issues in this case,

ED agreed to a 50 percent payback of

$33,143 on this issue.

Based upon the foregoing, ED believes

that it is prudent to accept the

settlement offer in SC I, which

represents almost 45 percent of the

disallowed costs outstanding in this

case.
26414 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 95 / Wednesday, May 17, 1995 / Notices

Under the terms of the proposed

agreement in SC II, the Commission

owes ED a total of $71,044. This

repayment amount, including four

percent interest accruing from July 15,

1995, is to be paid in three equal annual

payments of $24,628 beginning July 15,

1995 and continuing through July 15,

1997. The Commission would be

assessed interest at a rate of four percent

per year if any of the foregoing

payments are not made in a timely

fashion. Failure to make timely payment

within 20 days would result in a late

payment fee of 10 percent of the

payment due. Finally, under the

agreement, the parties would jointly

move for dismissal of the appeal.

For the following reasons, ED

recommends approval of the proposed

Settlement Agreement in SC II. The

Commission has agreed to repay in full

the cost disallowances in Findings 2

and 3. With respect to Finding 1, which

pertains to a time distribution issue for

employees, the parties agreed that the

Commission should repay $30,480,

which represents a repayment of over 30

percent of the original disallowed

amount of $88,805.26. The evidence

presented by the Commission

demonstrated that the employees in

question worked a substantial portion of

time on grant activities. Although the

Commission clearly had an obligation to

keep time distribution records, it

presented other less reliable and

circumstantial evidence that could

persuade an administrative law judge or

a Federal court to rule in substantial

part or in full for its position.

Based upon the foregoing, ED believes

that it is prudent to accept the

settlement offer in SC II, which

represents almost 55 percent of the

original costs disallowed in the PDD for

this finding.

If these issues are not settled, ED will

incur further litigation costs. Additional

discovery efforts would be necessary

before these cases can be litigated.

Furthermore, it is unlikely that ED

would be able to recover 100 percent of

the cost disallowance for the time

distribution issues in SC I and SC II and

the failure to maintain documentation

issue in SC I. The recovery amounts for

these issues not only reflect the

demonstrated harm to the Federal

interest, but were essential to the overall

settlements that were agreed to by the

parties.

There are even litigation risks with

respect to the issues the Commission

has conceded in the Settlement

Agreements. If these issues are litigated,

ED would run the risk of not recovering

100 percent. Moreover, the Commission

would have the right to appeal any

decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals.

See 20 U.S.C. 1234g. There is no

certainty that ED would recover 100

percent on these issues as is

contemplated in the Settlement

Agreements.

After weighing the risks in litigating

the issues that are the subject of the

settlements, it is ED’s assessment that

the proposed Settlement Agreements are

the most advantageous resolution of the

outstanding issues in these cases.

The public is invited to comment on

the Department’s intent to compromise

these claims. Additional information

may be obtained by writing to Jeffrey B.

Rosen at the address given at the

beginning of this notice.

Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1234a(j)

(1990)

Dated: May 11, 1995.

Donald R. Wurtz,

Chief Financial Officer.

[FR Doc. 95–12068 Filed 5–16–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4000–01–P

Notice of Proposed Information

Collection Requests

AGENCY: Department of Education.

ACTION: Notice of proposed information

collection requests.

SUMMARY: The Director, Information

Resources Group, invites comments on

proposed information collection

requests as required by the Paperwork

Reduction Act of 1980.

DATES: An expedited review has been

requested in accordance with the Act,

since allowing for the normal review

period would adversely affect the public

interest. Approval by the Office of

Management and Budget (OMB) has

been requested by May 17, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Written comments should

be addressed to the Office of

Information and Regulatory Affairs,

Attention: Dan Chenok, Desk Officer,

Department of Education, Office of

Management and Budget, 725 17th

Street NW., Room 3208, New Executive

Office Building, Washington, DC 20503.

Requests for copies of the proposed

information collection request should be

addressed to Patrick J. Sherrill,

Department of Education, 600

Independence Avenue SW., Room 5624,

Regional Office Building 3, Washington

DC 20202–4651.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Patrick J. Sherrill, (202) 708–9915.

Individuals who use a

telecommunications device for the deaf

(TDD) may call the Federal Information

Relay Service (FIRS) at 1–800–877–8339

between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m., Eastern time,

Monday through Friday.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section

3517 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of

1980 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 3517) requires

that the Director of OMB provide

interested Federal agencies and persons

an early opportunity to comment on

information collection requests. OMB

may amend or waive the requirement

for public consultation to the extent that

public participation in the approval

process would defeat the purpose of the

information collection, violate State or

Federal law, or substantially interfere

with any agency’s ability to perform its

statutory obligations.

The Director, Information Resources

Group, publishes this notice with the

attached proposed information

collection request prior to submission of

this request to OMB. This notice

contains the following information: (1)

Type of review requested, e.g.,

expedited; (2) Title; (3) Abstract; (4)

Additional Information; (5) Frequency

of collection; (6) Affected public; and (7)

Reporting and/or Recordkeeping

burden. Because an expedited review

has been requested, a description of the

information to be collected is also

included as an attachment to this notice.

Dated: May 11, 1995.

Gloria Parker,

Director, Information Resources Group.

Office of Management

Type of Review: Expedited

Title: Epidemiological Study of Office of

Educational Research and

Improvement (OERI) Employees

Frequency: One time

Affected Public: Individual and

households

Reporting Burden:

Responses: 600

Burden Hours: 200

Recordkeeping Burden:

Recordkeepers: 0

Burden Hours: 0

Abstract: Federal employees in OERI are

concerned about a continuing

increase in the number of diagnosed

cancer cases and adverse reproductive

outcomes in their workplace since

1988. This study will determine the

variation from comparable prevalence

and mortality profiles.

Additional Information: Clearance for

this information collection is

requested for May 17, 1995. An

expedited review is requested in order

to implement the survey as soon as

possible.

[FR Doc. 95–12064 Filed 5–16–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4000–01–M