27374 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 106 / Friday, May 31, 1996 / Notices

Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission, One White Flint North,

11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD

20852–2738.

V

Bemis 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 IV, 611

Ryan Plaza Drive, Suite 400, Arlington,

Texas 76011.

If a hearing is requested, the

Commission will issue an Order

designating the time and place of the

hearing. If Bemis 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 Bemis requests a hearing

as provided above, the issue to be

considered at such hearing shall be:

whether, on the basis of the violation

admitted by Bemis, this Order should be

sustained.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 23rd day

of May 1996.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

James Lieberman,

Director, Office of Enforcement.

Appendix—Evaluation and Conclusions

On March 19, 1996, a Notice of Violation

and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty

(Notice) in the amount of $2,500 was issued

to Bemis Construction, Inc., (Bemis) for a

violation identified during an NRC

inspection and investigation. Bemis

responded to the Notice in a letter dated

April 17, 1996. Bemis admitted the violation

but requested mitigation of the proposed civil

penalty based on its contention that the

violation was not intentional and on

assurances that Bemis is in compliance now

and will not, in the future, violate the rules

which were cited.

Restatement of Violation Assessed a Civil

Penalty

10 CFR 30.3 requires in relevant part, that

no person shall possess or use byproduct

material except as authorized by a specific or

general license issued by the NRC.

10 CFR 150.20(a) provides in part that any

person who holds a specific license from an

Agreement State is granted an NRC general

license to conduct the same activity in nonAgreement States subject to the provisions of

10 CFR 150.20(b).

10 CFR 150.20(b)(1) requires, in part, that

any person engaging in activities in nonAgreement States shall, at least 3 days before

engaging in each such activity, file 4 copies

of NRC Form-241, ‘‘Report of Proposed

Activities in Non-Agreement States,’’ with

the Regional Administrator of the appropriate

NRC regional office.

Contrary to the above,

A. From March 1991 through August 1992,

Bemis Construction, Inc. a licensee of

Kansas, used cesium-137 and americium-241

sealed sources in Oklahoma, a nonAgreement State, without a specific license

issued by the NRC and without filing Form241 with the NRC.

B. From March 1991 through July 1995,

Bemis Construction, Inc. a licensee of

Kansas, stored cesium-137 and americium241 sealed sources in Oklahoma, a nonAgreement State, without a specific license

issued by the NRC and without filing Form241 with the NRC. (01013)

This is a Severity Level III violation

(Supplement VI). Civil Penalty—$2,500

Summary of Bemis’s Request for Mitigation

Bemis responded to the violation in a letter

from Mr. Thomas J. Berscheidt, Attorney At

Law, dated April 17, 1996. Mr. Berscheidt

stated that he represents Bemis and that he

had reviewed the March 19, 1996, letter from

the NRC and the enclosed Notice. Mr.

Berscheidt’s letter stated that there was no

intent to avoid compliance with the

regulations. There was ‘‘simply a

misunderstanding and lack of information

concerning these regulations.’’ Bemis stated

that it will not, now or in the future,

regardless of the oversight or lack of

knowledge, intentionally violate any of the

rules and regulations of the NRC. Further,

Bemis’s response stated that it is recognized

that each party is responsible for being aware

of the rules and regulations, but there are

times when, regardless of the effort and

honest intent of any individual or

corporation, all rules and regulations cannot

be known or at least readily obtained and

usually the awareness factor does not surface

until the violation has been identified. With

the assurance that Bemis is in compliance

and will not violate the rules which were

cited, the licensee requested mitigation of the

civil penalty. The letter also noted that this

was the first time that Bemis has violated

NRC requirements.

NRC Evaluation of Licensee’s Request for

Mitigation

The Kansas license provided that material

‘‘may be used at Railroad & McKinley, Great

Bend, Kansas and at temporary job sites of

the licensee anywhere in the State of Kansas

where the State of Kansas, Department of

Health and Environment maintains

jurisdiction for regulating the use of

radioactive material.’’ This provision does

not authorize operations in the State of

Oklahoma, which is under NRC jurisdiction.

Therefore, it is not clear why there was any

misunderstanding. The fact that Bemis did

not attempt to verify its understanding by

merely telephoning the NRC, or make any

other effort to verify its understanding, was

the basis for NRC’s conclusion that the

violation was the result of, at least, careless

disregard for the involved requirements.

Even in the absence of willfulness, the

NRC considers the failure to obtain

authorization to use byproduct materials in

areas under its jurisdiction to be a matter of

significant regulatory concern. This is

because the failure to obtain NRC

authorization for such activities denies the

NRC the opportunity to assure that the

activities are conducted in compliance with

all NRC requirements. Furthermore, the

failure to obtain authorization resulted in

Bemis’s failure to pay fees in each of the

years that Bemis was in violation. We note

that the civil penalty is approximately the

same amount as the delinquent fees.

Bemis concludes its April 17 letter with its

assurances of compliance (with the cited

requirements), now and in the future, and

respectfully requested that the civil penalty

be reduced. The NRC’s Enforcement Policy

does provide for mitigation of civil penalties

under certain conditions, through the

consideration of the identification and

corrective action factors (reference Section

VI.B.2 of the enforcement policy). The NRC’s

March 19, 1996 letter that accompanied the

Notice described the NRC’s analysis of these

identification and corrective action factors,

and concluded that the base penalty should

be assessed. The licensee’s April 17 letter did

not provide any additional information that

would change the civil penalty assessment.

NRC Conclusion

After consideration of all of the arguments

made by Bemis, the NRC concludes that the

civil penalty that was proposed should not be

mitigated.

[FR Doc. 96–13673 Filed 5–30–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

OFFICE OF PERSONNEL

MANAGEMENT

Submission for OMB Review;

Comment Request for Review of an

Expiring Information Collection

Reemployment of Annutants, 5 CFR

837.103

AGENCY: Office of Personnel

Management.

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: In accordance with the

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub.

L. 104–13, May 22, 1995), this notice
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 106 / Friday, May 31, 1996 / Notices 27375

announces that the Office of Personnel

Management (OPM) will submit to the

Office of Management and Budget a

request for a clearance of an expiring

information collection. Section 837.103

of Title 5, Code of Federal Regulations,

requires agencies to collect information

from retirees who become employed in

Government positions. Agencies need to

collect timely information regarding the

type and amount of annuity being

received so the correct rate of pay can

be determined. Agencies provide this

information to OPM so a determination

can be made whether the reemployed

retiree’s annuity must be terminated.

We estimate 3000 reemployed retirees

are asked this information annually. It

takes each reemployed retiree

approximately 1 minute to complete for

an annual estimated burden of 50 hours.

For copies of this proposal, contact

Jim Farron on (202) 418–3208, or E–

Mail to jmfarron@,mail.opm.gov

DATES: Comments on this proposal

should be received on or before July 1,

1996.

ADDRESSES: Send or deliver comments

to—

John Landers, Chief, Retirement Policy

Division, Retirement and Insurance

Service, 1900 E Street, NW., Room

4351, Washington, DC 20415–0001

and

Joseph Lackey, OPM Desk Officer,

Office of Information & Regulatory

Affairs, Office of Management and

Budget, New Executive Office

Building NW., Room 10235,

Washington, DC 20503.

FOR INFORMATION REGARDING

ADMINISTRATIVE COORDINATION—CONTACT:

Mary Beth Smith-Toomey, Team Leader,

Management Services Division, (202)

606–0623.

Office of Personnel Management.

Lorraine A. Green,

Deputy Director.

[FR Doc. 96–13679 Filed 5–30–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6325–01–M

Submission for OMB Review;

Comment Request Review of a

Revised Information Collection: Forms

RI 34–1 and RI 34–3

AGENCY: Office of Personnel

Management.

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: In accordance with the

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub.

L. 104–13, May 22, 1995), this notice

announces that the Office of Personnel

Management has submitted to the Office

of Management and Budget a request for

clearance of a revised information

collection: Forms RI 34–1 and RI 34–3.

RI 34–1, Financial Resources

Questionnaire, collects detailed

financial information for use by OPM in

determining whether to agree to a

waiver, compromise, or adjustment of

the collection of erroneous payments

from the Civil Service Retirement and

Disability Fund. RI 34–3, Notice of Debt

Due Because of Annuity Overpayment,

informs the annuitant that a debt is due,

describes the cause for the overpayment,

and collects information from the

annuitant regarding payment of the

debt.

Approximately 1,561 RI 34–1 and 520

RI 34–3 forms will be completed per

year. Each form requires approximately

1 hour to complete. The annual burden

is 1,561 hours and 520 hours

respectively.

For copies of this proposal, contact

Jim Farron on (202) 418–3208, or E-mail

to jmfarron@mail.opm.gov

DATES: Comments on this proposal

should be received on or before July 1,

1996.

ADDRESSES: Send or deliver comments

to—

Lorraine E. Dettman, Chief, Operations

Support Division, Retirement and

Insurance Service, U.S. Office of

Personnel Management, 1900 E Street

NW., Room 3349, Washington, DC

20415

and

Joseph Lackey, OPM Desk Officer,

Office of Information & Regulatory

Affairs, Office of Management &

Budget, New Executive Office

Building NW., Room 10235,

Washington, DC 20503.

FOR INFORMATION REGARDING

ADMINISTRATIVE COORDINATION—CONTACT:

Mary Beth Smith-Toomey, Management

Services Division, (202) 606–0623.

Office of Personnel Management.

Lorraine A. Green,

Deputy Director.

[FR Doc. 96–13680 Filed 5–30–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6325–01–M

Submission for OMB Review;

Comment Request for Review of an

Expiring Information Collection: SF

2823

AGENCY: Office of Personnel

Management.

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: In accordance with the

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub.

L. 104–13, May 22, 1995), this notice

announces that the Office of Personnel

Management will submit to the Office of

Management and Budget a request for a

clearance of an expiring information

collection. SF 2823, Designation of

Beneficiary for Federal Employees

Group Life Insurance, is used by any

Federal employee or retiree covered by

the Federal Employees Group Life

Insurance Program to instruct the Office

of Federal Employees Group Life

Insurance how to distribute the

proceeds of his or her life insurance

when the statutory order of precedence

does not meet his or her needs.

We estimate 1,000 SF 2823 forms are

completed annually by annuitants. Each

form takes approximately 15 minutes to

complete for an annual estimated

burden of 250 hours.

For copies of this proposal, contact

Jim Farron on (202) 418–3208, or E-Mail

to jmfarron@mail.opm.gov

DATES: Comments on this proposal

should be received on or before July 1,

1996.

ADDRESSES: Send or deliver comments

to—

Kenneth H. Glass, Chief, Insurance

Operations Division, Retirement and

Insurance Service, 1900 E Street NW.,

Room 3415, Washington, DC 20415–

0001

and

Joseph Lackey, OPM Desk Officer,

Office of Information & Regulatory

Affairs, Office of Management and

Budget, New Executive Office

Building, NW., Room 10235,

Washinton, DC 20503.

FOR INFORMATION REGARDING

ADMINISTRATIVE COORDINATION—CONTACT:

Mary Beth Smith-Toomey, Team Leader,

Management Services Division, (202)

606–0623.

Office of Personnel Management.

Lorraine A. Green,

Deputy Director.

[FR Doc. 96–13681 Filed 5–30–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6325–01–M

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE

COMMISSION

[Investment Company Act Release No.

21983; International Series Release No. 984/

812–9966]

Bankers Trust Australia Limited;

Notice of Application

May 24, 1996.

AGENCY: Securities and Exchange

Commission (‘‘SEC’’).

ACTION: Notice of application for

exemption under the Investment

Company Act of 1940 (the ‘‘Act’’).

APPLICANT: Bankers Trust Australia

Limited (‘‘BTAL’’).