Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 91 / Thursday, May 9, 1996 / Notices 21209

1The record is defined in sec. 207.2(f) of the

Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (19

CFR § 207.2(f)).

2Chairman Peter Watson and Vice Chairman

Janet Nuzum dissenting.

By order of the Commission.

Issued: May 3, 1996.

Donna R. Koehnke,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 96–11518 Filed 5–8–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P

[Investigation No. 701–TA–367

(Preliminary)]

Certain Laminated Hardwood Flooring

From Canada

Determination

On the basis of the record 1 developed

in the subject investigation, the

Commission determines2, pursuant to

section 703(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930

(19 U.S.C. § 1671b(a)), that there is a

reasonable indication that an industry

in the United States is materially

injured or threatened with material

injury by reason of imports from Canada

of certain laminated hardwood flooring,

provided for in subheading 4421.90.98

of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of

the United States, that are alleged to be

subsidized by the Government of

Canada.

Background

On March 7, 1996, a petition was filed

with the Commission and the

Department of Commerce by the Ad Hoc

Committee on Laminated Hardwood

Trailer Flooring (Anderson-Tully Co.

(Tully), Memphis, TN; Cloud Corp.

(Cloud), Harrison, AK; Havco Wood

Products, Inc. (Havco), Cape Girardeau,

MO; Industrial Hardwoods Products Inc.

(IHP), Redwing, MN; and Lewisohn

Sales Co. Inc. (Lewisohn), North Bergen,

NJ), alleging that an industry in the

United States is materially injured or

threatened with material injury by

reason of subsidized imports of

laminated hardwood flooring from

Canada. Accordingly, effective March 7,

1996, the Commission instituted

countervailing duty investigation No.

701–TA–367 (Preliminary).

Notice of the institution of the

Commission’s investigation and of a

public conference to be held in

connection therewith was given by

posting copies of the notice in the Office

of the Secretary, U.S. International

Trade Commission, Washington, DC,

and by publishing the notice in the

Federal Register of March 20, 1996 (61

FR 11430). The conference was held in

Washington, DC, on March 28, 1996,

and all persons who requested the

opportunity were permitted to appear in

person or by counsel.

The Commission transmitted its

determination in this investigation to

the Secretary of Commerce on April 22,

1996. The views of the Commission are

contained in USITC Publication 2956

(April 1996), entitled ‘‘Certain

Laminated Hardwood Flooring from

Canada: Investigation No. 701–TA–367

(Preliminary).’’

By order of the Commission.

Issued: April 30, 1996.

Donna R. Koehnke,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 96–11522 Filed 5–8–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7020–02–U

Submission for OMB Review;

Comment Request

AGENCY: United States International

Trade Commission.

ACTION: Agency proposal for the

collection of information submitted to

the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB) for review; comment request.

SUMMARY: In accordance with the

provisions of the Paperwork Reduction

Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), the

Commission has submitted a proposal

for the collection of information to OMB

for review. The proposed information

collection is a ‘‘generic clearance’’

under which the Commission can issue

questionnaires for the following types of

statutory investigations: countervailing

duty, antidumping, escape clause,

NAFTA safeguard, market disruption,

and ‘‘interference with programs of the

USDA.’’ Comments concerning the

proposed information collection are

requested in accordance with 5 CFR

1320.5(a)(1)(iv) and 1320.10(a). Any

comments should be specific, indicating

which part of the questionnaires or

study plan are objectionable, describing

the problem in detail, and including

specific revisions or language changes.

DATES: To be assured of consideration,

comments should be submitted to OMB

on or before June 10, 1996.

ADDRESSES: Comments about the

proposal should be directed to the

Office of Information and Regulatory

Affairs, Office of Management and

Budget, New Executive Office Building,

Washington, DC 20503, Attention:

Victoria Baecher-Wassmer, Desk Officer

for U.S. International Trade

Commission. Copies of any comments

should be provided to Robert Rogowsky

(United States International Trade

Commission, 500 E Street, S.W.,

Washington, DC 20436).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Copies of the proposed collection of

information and supporting

documentation may be obtained from

Debra Baker, (USITC, tel. no. 202–205–

3180).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

(1) The proposed information

collection consists of three forms,

namely the Sample Producers’, Sample

Importers’, and Sample Purchasers’

questionnaires. Each ‘‘sample’’ is an

aggregate of the information that is

likely to be collected in a series of

questionnaires issued under the generic

clearance.

(2) The types of items contained

within the sample questionnaires are

largely determined by statute. Actual

questions formulated for use in a

specific investigation depend upon such

factors as the nature of the industry, the

relevant issues, the ability of

respondents to supply the data, and the

availability of data from secondary

sources.

(3) The data collected through the

questionnaires issued under the generic

clearance are consolidated and form

much of the statistical base for the

Commission’s determinations in its

statutory investigations. Affirmative

Commission determinations in

countervailing duty and antidumping

investigations result in the imposition of

additional duties on imports entering

the United States. The data developed

in escape-clause, market disruption, and

interference-with-USDA-program

investigations (if the Commission finds

affirmatively) are used by the President/

U.S. Trade Representative to determine

the type of relief, if any, to be provided

to domestic industries.

(4) Likely respondents consist of

businesses or farms that produce,

import, or purchase products under

investigation. Estimated reporting

burden that will result from the

collection of information is presented

below.

Producers Importers Purchasers

Estimated average burden (hours) per response .............................................................................. 36.4 37.2 22.0

Proposed frequency of response ....................................................................................................... 1 1 1
21210 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 91 / Thursday, May 9, 1996 / Notices

Producers Importers Purchasers

Estimated number of respondents ..................................................................................................... 940 980 880

Estimated total annual burden (hours) ............................................................................................... 34,200 36,450 19,350

No recordkeeping burden is known to

result from the proposed collection of

information.

Hearing impaired individuals are

advised that information on this matter

can be obtained by contacting our TDD

terminal on 202–205–1810.

Issued: May 2, 1996.

By order of the Commission.

Donna R. Koehnke

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 96–11519 Filed 5–8–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND

SPACE ADMINISTRATION

[Notice (96–048]

Notice of Prospective Patent License

AGENCY: National Aeronautics and

Space Administration.

ACTION: Notice of prospective patent

license.

SUMMARY: NASA hereby gives notice

that ARCO Chemical Company, of

Newtown Square, Pennsylvania, has

applied for an exclusive license to

practice the inventions described and

claimed in NASA Case No. ARC–

12,069–1, ‘‘Environmentally-Friendly

Deicing Fluid’’; NASA Case No. ARC–

12,069–2, ‘‘Environmentally-Friendly

Deicing Fluid’’, and NASA Case No.

ARC–12,069–3, Anti-Icing or Deicing

Fluid’’; which are all assigned to the

United States of America as represented

by the Administrator of the National

Aeronautics and Space Administration.

Written objections to the prospective

grant of a license should be sent to Mr.

Ken Warsh, Patent Counsel, Ames

Research Center.

DATES: Responses to this notice must be

received by July 8, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.

Ken Warsh, Patent Counsel, Ames

Research Center, Mail Code 202A–3,

Moffett Field, CA 94035; telephone

(415) 604–1592.

Dated: April 30, 1996.

Edward A. Frankle,

General Counsel.

[FR Doc. 96–11541 Filed 5–8–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7510–01–M

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

[Docket No. 70–1201; License No. SNM–

1168; EAs 95–236 and 95–215]

B&W Fuel Company d/b/a Framatome

Cogema Fuels; Order Imposing Civil

Monetary Penalty

I

B&W Fuel Company (Licensee) is the

holder of Special Nuclear Material

License No. SNM–1168 issued by the

Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC

or Commission) in September 1969. The

license authorizes the Licensee to

possess and use special nuclear material

in accordance with the conditions

specified therein. The license was last

renewed on September 24, 1990, and is

due to expire on September 30, 2000.

II

Inspections of the Licensee’s activities

were conducted during the period of

June 12 through October 6, 1995. The

results of these inspections indicated

that the Licensee had not conducted its

activities in full compliance with NRC

requirements. A written Notice of

Violation and Proposed Imposition of

Civil Penalty (Notice) was served upon

the Licensee by letter dated January 30,

1996. The Notice states the nature of the

violations, the provisions of the NRC’s

requirements that the Licensee had

violated, and the amount of the civil

penalty proposed for the violations.

The Licensee responded to the Notice

in a letter dated February 23, 1996. In

its response, the Licensee admitted

Violations B, and C, and questioned the

regulatory basis for Violation A. In

addition, the Licensee requested the

NRC to reconsider both the severity

level of the violations and the proposed

civil penalty based on the stated

minimal safety significance of the

violations and the Licensee’s corrective

action.

III

After consideration of the Licensee’s

response and the statements of fact,

explanation, and argument for

mitigation contained therein, the NRC

staff has determined, as set forth in the

Appendix to this Order, that the

violations occurred as stated and that

the penalty proposed for the violations

designated in the Notice should be

imposed.

IV

In view of the foregoing and pursuant

to Section 234 of the Atomic Energy Act

of 1954, as amended (Act), 42 U.S.C.

2282, and 10 CFR 2.205, IT IS HEREBY

ORDERED THAT:

The Licensee pay a civil penalty in

the amount of $12,500 within 30 days

of the date of this Order, by check, draft,

money order, or electronic transfer,

payable to the Treasurer of the United

States and mailed to Mr. James

Lieberman, Director, Office of

Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission, One White Flint North,

11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD

20852–2738.

V

The Licensee may request a hearing

within 30 days of the date of this Order.

Where good cause is shown,

consideration will be given to extending

the time to request a hearing. A request

for extension of time must be made in

writing to the Director, Office of

Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission Washington, D.C. 20555,

and include a statement of good cause

for the extension. A request for a

hearing should be clearly marked as a

‘‘Request for an Enforcement Hearing’’

and shall be addressed to the Director,

Office of Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear

Regulatory Commission Washington,

D.C. 20555, with a copy to the

Commission’s Document Control Desk,

Washington, D.C. 20555. Copies also

shall be sent to the Assistant General

Counsel for Hearings and Enforcement

at the same address and to the Regional

Administrator, NRC Region II, 101

Marietta Street, N.W., Suite 2900,

Atlanta, Georgia 30323.

If a hearing is requested, the

Commission will issue an Order

designating the time and place of the

hearing. If the Licensee fails to request

a hearing within 30 days of the date of

this Order (or if written approval of an

extension of time in which to request a

hearing has not been granted), the

provisions of this Order shall be

effective without further proceedings. If

payment has not been made by that

time, the matter may be referred to the

Attorney General for collection.

In the event the Licensee requests a

hearing as provided above, the issues to

be considered at such hearing shall be: