18804 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 71 / Thursday, April 13, 1995 / Notices

Respondent Neptune Fireworks Co., Inc.

Itzhak Dickstein,

President, Neptune Fireworks Company, Inc.

Commission Staff.

David Schmeltzer,

Assistant Executive Director, Office of

Compliance and Enforcement.

Eric L. Stone,

Acting Director, Division of Administrative

Litigation, Office of Compliance and

Enforcement.

Dated: March 24, 1995.

Dennis C. Kacoyanis,

Trial Attorney, Division of Administrative

Litigation, Office of Compliance and

Enforcement.

Order

Upon consideration of the Settlement

Agreement entered into between

respondent Neptune Fireworks

Company, Inc., a corporation, and the

staff of the Consumer Product Safety

Commission; and the Commission

having jurisdiction over the subject

matter and Neptune Fireworks

Company Inc.; and it appearing that the

Settlement Agreement and Order is in

the public interest, it is

Ordered, That the Settlement

Agreement be and hereby is accepted;

and it is

Further ordered, That upon final

acceptance of the Settlement Agreement

and Order, Neptune Fireworks

Company, Inc. shall pay to the

Commission a civil penalty in the

amount of Forty-Five Thousand and 00/

100 Dollars ($45,000.00) in three (3)

payments each. The first payment of

Fifteen Thousand and 00/100 dollars

($15,000.00) shall be paid by August 15,

1995 or within twenty (20) days after

service of the Final Order of the

Commission accepting the Settlement

Agreement (hereinafter, the

‘‘anniversary date’’), whichever is later.

The second payment of fifteen thousand

and 00/100 dollars ($15,000.00) shall be

paid on August 15, 1996 or within one

(1) year of the anniversary date. The

third payment of fifteen thousand and

00/100 dollars ($15,000.00) shall be

paid on August 15, 1997 or within (2)

years of the anniversary date. Upon the

failure by Neptune Fireworks Company,

Inc. to make a payment or upon the

making of a late payment by Neptune

Fireworks Company, Inc. (a) the entire

amount of the civil penalty shall be due

and payable, and (b) interest on the

outstanding balance shall accrue and be

paid at the federal legal rate of interest

under the provision of 28 U.S.C. 1961

(a) and (b).

Provisionally accepted and Provisional

Order issued on the 75 day of April, 1995.

By order of the Commission.

Sadye E. Dunn,

Secretary, Consumer Product Safety

Commission.

[FR Doc. 95–9047 Filed 4–12–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6335–01–M

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

GENERAL SERVICES

ADMINISTRATION

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND

SPACE ADMINISTRATION

[OMB Control No. 9000–0077]

Clearance Request for Quality

Assurance Requirements

AGENCIES: Department of Defense (DOD),

General Services Administration (GSA),

and National Aeronautics and Space

Administration (NASA).

ACTION: Notice of request for an

extension to an existing OMB clearance

(9000–0077).

SUMMARY: Under the provisions of the

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (44

U.S.C. 3501), the Federal Acquisition

Regulation (FAR) Secretariat has

submitted to the Office of Management

and Budget (OMB) a request to review

and approve an extension of a currently

approved information collection

requirement concerning Quality

Assurance Requirements.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Beverly Fayson, Office of Federal

Acquisition Policy, GSA (202) 501–

4755.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

A. Purpose

Supplies and services acquired under

Government contracts must conform to

the contract’s quality and quantity

requirements. FAR Part 46 prescribes

inspection, acceptance, warranty, and

other measures associated with quality

requirements. Standard clauses related

to inspection (a) require the contractor

to provide and maintain an inspection

system that is acceptable to the

Government; (b) give the Government

the right to make inspections and test

while work is in process; and (c) require

the contractor to keep complete, and

make available to the Government,

records of its inspection work.

B. Annual Reporting Burden

Public reporting burden for this

collection of information is estimated to

average .25 hours per response,

including the time for reviewing

instructions, searching existing data

sources, gathering and maintaining the

data needed, and completing and

reviewing the collection of information.

Send comments regarding this burden

estimate or any other aspect of this

collection of information, including

suggestions for reducing this burden, to

General Services Administration, FAR

Secretariat, 18th & F Streets, NW, Room

4037, Washington, DC 20405, and to the

FAR Desk Officer, Office of Information

and Regulatory Affairs, Office of

Management and Budget, Washington,

DC 20503.

The annual reporting burden is

estimated as follows: Respondents, 960;

responses per respondent, 1; total

annual responses, 950; preparation

hours per response, .25; and total

response burden hours, 237.5 (238).

C. Annual Recordkeeping Burden

The annual recordkeeping burden is

estimated as follows: Recordkeepers,

58,060; hours per recordkeeper, .68; and

total recordkeeping burden hours,

39,481. The total annual burden is

238+39,481=39,719.

OBTAINING COPIES OF PROPOSALS:

Requester may obtain copies of OMB

applications or justifications from the

General Services Administration, FAR

Secretariat (VRS), Room 4037,

Washington, DC 20405, telephone (202)

501–4755. Please cite OMB Control No.

9000–0077, Quality Assurance

Requirements, in all correspondence.

Dated: April 6, 1995.

Beverly Fayson,

FAR Secretariat.

[FR Doc. 95–9084 Filed 4–12–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6820–EP–M

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Department of the Army

Army Science Board; Closed Meeting

In accordance with Section 10(a)(2) of

the Federal Advisory Committee Act

(Pub. L. 92–463), announcement is

made of the following Committee

Meeting:

Name of committee: Army Science Board

(ASB).

Date of meeting: 2 & 3 May 1995.

Time of meeting: 0930–1700, 2 May 1995;

0800–1700, 3 May 1995.

Place: 2 May 1995—Norfolk, VA—Atlantic

Command (ACOM); Ft. Monroe, VA–

TRADOC. 3 May 1995—Ft. Lee, VA—

Combined Arms Support Command

(CASCOM)

Agenda: The Army Science Board’s

Logistics and Sustainability Subgroup will

meet on current doctrine, missions,

functions, force structures and modules, and

technologies reference ‘‘Army Logistical

Support to Military Operations Other Than

War.’’ Discussions will cover the ACOM,

TRADOC and CASCOM logistics
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 71 / Thursday, April 13, 1995 / Notices 18805

perspectives on Military Operations Other

Than War. These meetings will be closed to

the public in accordance with Section

552b(c) of title 5, U.S.C., specifically

subparagraph (1) thereof, and Title 5, U.S.C.,

Appendix 2, subsection 10(d). The classified

and unclassified matter to be discussed is so

inextricably intertwined so as to preclude

opening any portions of these meetings. The

ASB Administrative Officer, Sally Warner,

may be contacted for further information at

(703) 695–0781.

Sally A. Warner,

Administrative Officer, Army Science Board.

[FR Doc. 95–9052 Filed 4–12–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3710–08–M

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

Office of Special Education and

Rehabilitative Services

Office of Administrative Law Judges;

Intent to Compromise a Claim,

Resource, Inc.

AGENCY: Department of Education.

ACTION: Notice of intent to compromise

a claim.

SUMMARY: The Department intends to

compromise a claim against Resource,

Inc. now pending before the Office of

Administrative Law Judges (OALJ),

Docket No. 94–103–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 May 30, 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: In

September 1991 the Rehabilitation

Services Administration (RSA), U.S.

Department of Education (ED),

conducted a compliance review of the

grantee, Resource, Inc., in accordance

with the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as

amended (the Act), and ‘‘RSA

Procedures for the Recovery of

Disallowed Costs Identified Through

Program Monitoring Activities’’

(Information Memorandum RSA-IM–

92–04). The review covered the

grantee’s performance during fiscal year

1991 under a Projects With Industry

(PWI) program grant authorized under

Title VI of the Act, 29 U.S.C 795g. RSA

issued a Final Monitoring Report on

March 24, 1992.

Based upon this monitoring report,

the Regional Commissioner, Region V,

RSA, and the Director, Grants Division,

Grants and Contracts Service, issued a

Notice of Disallowance Decision (NDD)

on May 31, 1994, in which Resource,

Inc. was requested to repay $218,517 of

funds misspent under Title VI of the

Act. A total of $204,416 was disallowed

because the grantee did not meet the

requisite cost sharing or matching

requirement under the PWI program. In

addition, ED disallowed $115,585 for

the failure of the grantee to keep time

distribution records for its employees

who worked on the PWI program.

However, because $101,484 of these

funds were included in the prior

disallowance, the total cost

disallowance ($218,517) was less than

the total of the costs disallowed for each

of the two findings. On June 30, 1994

Resource, Inc. filed an appeal of the

NDD with the OALJ.

On November 17, 1994 ED filed a

Notice of Reduction of Claim notifying

the OALJ that, based upon new

information submitted by the grantee,

the first issue concerning the matching

requirement was resolved. Thus, the

total amount outstanding in the appeal

was reduced to $115,585, which is

covered by the Settlement Agreement.

Under the terms of the proposed

agreement, Resource, Inc. owes ED a

total of $31,682. The grantee has agreed

to make payment in 2 installments over

a 1-year period, the first payment to be

made within 30 days of execution of the

agreement by ED. Resource, Inc. would

be assessed interest at a rate of three

percent per year if both installment

payments are not made in a timely

fashion. Failure to make timely

payments within 40 days of the due

dates would result in a late payment fee

of 10 percent of the principal. 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.

There is clearly a litigation risk in

attempting to uphold the original

finding. The evidence presented by

Resource, Inc. demonstrates that the

employees in question worked a

substantial portion of the time on the

PWI grant. While Resource, Inc. clearly

had an obligation to keep time

distribution records, its evidence, which

often was less reliable and

circumstantial, could persuade an

administrative law judge or a Federal

court to rule in substantial part or in full

for its position.

Resource, Inc. has agreed to repay

$31,682. Based upon the foregoing, ED

believes that it is prudent to accept the

settlement offer, which represents a

recovery of over 27 percent of the

original costs disallowed in the PDD for

this finding. If this issue is not settled,

ED will incur further litigation costs,

and there will be some litigation risk

during the administrative process.

Moreover, Resource, Inc. also would

have the right to appeal any decision to

the U.S. Court of Appeals. See 20 U.S.C.

1234g. In addition, the grantee has

certified in the Settlement Agreement

that it is presently in compliance with

the time distribution requirements that

gave rise to the disallowance at issue in

this agreement.

After weighing the risks in litigating

the issue that is the subject of the

settlement, it is ED’s assessment that the

proposed Settlement Agreement is the

most advantageous resolution.

The public is invited to comment on

the ED’s intent to compromise this

claim. 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: April 7, 1995.

Donald R. Wurtz,

Chief Financial Officer.

[FR Doc. 95–9050 Filed 4–12–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4000–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Notice of Floodplain Involvement For

Operable Unit 2 Removal Action No. 30

At the Fernald Environmental

Management Project

AGENCY: U.S. Department of Energy

(DOE), Fernald Area Office.

ACTION: Notice of floodplain

involvement.

SUMMARY: This is to give notice of DOE’s

actions planned for the Fernald

Environmental Management Project

(FEMP), located approximately 18 miles

(29 kilometers) northwest of downtown

Cincinnati, Ohio. The subject of this

Notice of Involvement is Operable Unit

2 which is defined by five subunits or

areas: the Solid Waste Landfill, Lime

Sludge Ponds, Inactive Flyash Pile,

South Field, and Active Flyash Pile. The

proposed Removal Action No. 30 for

Operable Unit 2 involves excavation

and construction activities that could