Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 10 / Wednesday, January 15, 1997 / Notices 2181

for substantially all imports of this

product from Japan, wherein each

signatory producer/exporter agreed

either to revise its prices to eliminate

completely sales of this merchandise to

the United States at less than fair value

or to cease exports of this merchandise

to the United States. Accordingly, the

United States International Trade

Commission gives notice of the

suspension of its antidumping

investigation involving imports from

Japan of sodium azide, provided for in

subheading 2850.00.50 of the

Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the

United States.

EFFECTIVE DATE: January 7, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Fred

Ruggles (202–205–3187), Office of

Investigations, U.S. International Trade

Commission, 500 E Street SW,

Washington, DC 20436. Hearingimpaired individuals are advised that

information on this matter can be

obtained by contacting the

Commission’s TDD terminal on 202–

205–1810. Persons with mobility

impairments who will need special

assistance in gaining access to the

Commission should contact the Office

of the Secretary at 202–205–2000.

General information concerning the

Commission may also be obtained by

accessing its internet server (http://

www.usitc.gov or ftp://ftp.usitc.gov).

Authority: This investigation is being

suspended under authority of title VII of the

Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published

pursuant to section 207.40 of the

Commission’s rules (19 CFR 207.40).

Issued: January 9, 1997.

By order of the Commission.

Donna R. Koehnke,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 97–970 Filed 1–14–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

Agency Information Collection

Activities: Submission for OMB

Review; Comment Request

AGENCY: U. S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (NRC).

ACTION: Notice of the OMB review of

information collection and solicitation

of public comment.

SUMMARY: The NRC has recently

submitted to OMB for review the

following proposal for the collection of

information under the provisions of the

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44

U.S.C. Chapter 35). The NRC hereby

informs potential respondents that an

agency may not conduct or sponsor, and

that a person is not required to respond

to, a collection of information unless it

displays a currently valid OMB control

number.

1. Type of submission, new, revision,

or extension: Revision.

2. The title of the information

collection: Billing Instructions for NRC

Cost Type Contracts.

3. The form number if applicable:

N/A.

4. How often the collection is

required: Monthly.

5. Who will be required or asked to

report: NRC Contractors.

6. An estimate of the number of

responses: 4308.

7. The estimated number of annual

respondents: 106.

8. An estimate of the total number of

hours needed annually to complete the

requirement or request: 2,000 hours

(Billing Instructions—1384 + 616

License Fee Recovery Cost Summary).

9. An indication of whether Section

3507(d), Pub. L. 104–13 applies: N/A.

10. Abstract: The NRC Division of

Contracts in administering its contracts

provides Billing Instructions for its

contractors to follow in preparation of

invoices. These instructions stipulate

the level of detail in which supporting

cost data must be submitted for NRC

review. The review of this information

ensures that all payments made by NRC

for valid and reasonable costs in

accordance with the contract terms and

conditions.

A copy of the submittal may be

viewed free of charge at the NRC Public

Document Room, 2120 L Street, NW

(Lower Level), Washington, DC.

Members of the public who are in the

Washington, DC, area can access the

submittal via modem on the Public

Document Room Bulletin Board (NRC’s

Advanced Copy Document Library) NRC

subsystem at FedWorld, 703–321–3339.

Members of the public who are located

outside of the Washington, DC, area can

dial FedWorld, 1–800–303–9672, or use

the FedWorld Internet address:

fedworld.gov (Telnet). The document

will be available on the bulletin board

for 30 days after the signature date of

this notice. If assistance is needed in

accessing the document, please contact

the FedWorld help desk at 703–487–

4608. Additional assistance in locating

the document is available from the NRC

Public Document Room, nationally at 1–

800–397–4209, or within the

Washington, DC, area at 202–634–3273.

Comments and questions should be

directed to the OMB reviewer by

February 14, 1997. Edward Michlovich,

Office of Information and Regulatory

Affairs (3150–0109), NEOB–10202,

Office of Management and Budget,

Washington, DC 20503.

Comments can also be submitted by

telephone at (202) 395–3084.

The NRC Clearance Officer is Brenda

Jo. Shelton, (301) 415–7233.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 7th day

of January, 1997.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Gerald F. Cranford,

Designated Senior Official for Information

Resources Managememt.

[FR Doc. 97–981 Filed 1–14–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

[Docket No. 030–32908, License No. 29–

28784–01, EAs 96–152 and 96–301]

Shashi K. Agarwal, M.D., Orange, New

Jersey; Settlement Order Terminating

License and Prohibiting Involvement in

Licensed Activities

I

Shashi K. Agarwal, M.D. (Dr. Agarwal

or licensee) is the holder of Byproduct

Materials License No. 29–28784–01

(license) issued by the Nuclear

Regulatory Commission (NRC or

Commission) pursuant to 10 CFR Parts

30 and 35. The license authorizes the

possession and use of any byproduct

material identified in 10 CFR 35.200 for

any imaging and localization procedure

approved in 10 CFR 35.200. The license

was issued on November 27, 1992, and

is due to expire on December 31, 1997.

II

On September 12, 1996, an Order

Suspending License (Effective

Immediately) and Demand for

Information (Order and Demand) was

issued to the licensee based on the

licensee’s: (1) Failure to comply with

numerous NRC requirements, as

identified during an NRC inspection

conducted at the licensee’s facility April

18 and 30, 1996; (2) providing apparent

inaccurate information to the NRC; and

(3) failure to cooperate with the NRC or

appear for a predecisional enforcement

conference. The Order and Demand

required that the licensee provide

responses in writing by October 2, 1996,

and contained instructions for providing

the responses. To date, the licensee has

not provided the required written

responses.

III

On October 7, 1996, Dr. Agarwal,

through his attorney, contacted the NRC

and indicated that he desired to

terminate his license and resolve all

matters pending between himself and

the NRC. As the parties desire to resolve

all matters pending between them, the
2182 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 10 / Wednesday, January 15, 1997 / Notices

licensee has entered into a Settlement

Agreement with the NRC executed on

January 3, 1997. Under the terms of the

Settlement Agreement, Dr. Agarwal

agrees to the termination of his NRC

license and that he will not apply for an

NRC license or engage in NRC-licensed

activities for a period of five years from

the date of the execution of the

Settlement Agreement; and the NRC

agrees that it will take no further

enforcement action for the matters set

forth in the Order and Demand.

IV

Accordingly, pursuant to sections 81,

161b, 161i, 161o, 186, and 234 of the

Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended,

and the Commission’s regulations in 10

CFR 2.202, 2.204, and 10 CFR Parts 30

and 35, It is hereby ordered that:

A. By February 7, 1997, Dr. Agarwal

shall transfer all NRC-licensed material

to an authorized recipient.

B. Within seven days following the

completion of the transfer, Dr. Agarwal

shall provide to the Regional

Administrator, Region I:

1. a completed NRC Form 314 to

certify that the licensed material has

been transferred, and

2. the results of a radiation survey,

conducted and prepared in accordance

with 10 CFR 30.36(j)(2), of the premises

where licensed activities were carried

out.

C. Upon written approval by NRC

Region I of the information submitted

under Section IV.B., NRC Byproduct

Materials License No. 29–28784–01 is

hereby terminated.

D. For a period of five years from

November 22, 1996, neither Dr. Agarwal

nor a successor entity shall be involved

in or exercise any control over licensed

activities within the jurisdiction of the

NRC, including, but not limited to,

involvement as owner, authorized user,

controlling shareholder, or radiation

safety officer.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 6th day

of January 1997.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

James Lieberman,

Director, Office of Enforcement.

[FR Doc. 97–980 Filed 1–14–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

Docket No. 50–286

Power Authority of the State of New

York; Notice of Consideration of

Issuance of Amendment to Facility

Operating License, Proposed No

Significant Hazards Consideration

Determination, and Opportunity for a

Hearing

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (the Commission) is

considering issuance of an amendment

to Facility Operating License No. DPR–

64 issued to the Power Authority of the

State of New York for operation of the

Indian Point Nuclear Generating Station

Unit No. 3 (IP3) located in Westchester

County, New York.

The proposed amendment would

revise the IP3 Technical Specifications

(TS) to allow the storage of fuel

assemblies with nominal enrichments

up to 5.0 weight percent (w/o) Uranium235 (U–235).

Before issuance of the proposed

license amendment, the Commission

will have made findings required by the

Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended

(the Act) and the Commission’s

regulations.

The Commission has made a

proposed determination that the

amendment request involves no

significant hazards consideration. Under

the Commission’s regulations in 10 CFR

50.92, this means that operation of the

facility in accordance with the proposed

amendment would not (1) involve a

significant increase in the probability or

consequences of an accident previously

evaluated; or (2) create the possibility of

a new or different kind of accident from

any accident previously evaluated; or

(3) involve a significant reduction in a

margin of safety. As required by 10 CFR

50.91(a), the licensee has provided its

analysis of the issue of no significant

hazards consideration, which is

presented below:

(1) Does the proposed license amendment

involve a significant increase in the

probability or consequences of any accident

previously evaluated?

Response:

The proposed license amendment does not

involve a significant increase in the

probability or consequences of any accident

previously evaluated. This statement is based

on an evaluation of relevant hypothetical

accident scenarios, the NRC’s evaluation of

Westinghouse extended burnup fuel, and the

criticality analysis of the Indian Point 3 fresh

and spent fuel pits.

Evaluation of Relevant Hypothetical

Accident Scenarios

Increasing the enrichment of fuel stored in

the spent fuel pit will not increase the

probability of occurrence of the following

hypothetical accident scenarios:

1. misload of a fuel assembly;

2. spent fuel assembly drop in the spent

fuel pit;

3. spent fuel cask drop;

4. loss of spent fuel pit cooling system

flow; or

5. seismic event.

1. Misload of a Fuel Assembly

Detailed instructions and administrative

controls govern refueling operations,

precluding the misload of an assembly. The

proposed storage of extended burnup fuel

will not result in these administrative

controls being relaxed in any manner. The

probability of inserting an assembly into the

wrong location is not impacted by the

enrichment and burnup of the fuel.

Consequently, the proposed changes will not

increase the probability of misloading a fuel

assembly.

2. Spent Fuel Assembly Drop in the Spent

Fuel Pit

The probability of a spent fuel assembly

drop in the spent fuel pit is a function of the

structural integrity of the fuel storage

building overhead crane and the integrity of

the crane-assembly coupling. The probability

of such a drop is not affected by the

enrichment or burnup of the fuel. Therefore,

the use and storage of extended burnup fuel

will not increase the probability of a fuel

assembly drop.

3. Spent Fuel Cask Drop

The probability of a spent fuel cask drop

will not be affected by the increased

enrichment of the fuel. The probability of

such an event occurring is a function of the

overhead crane’s integrity, which will not be

affected by this amendment. In addition,

administrative controls are in place to

preclude the occurrence of such an event.

4. Loss of Spent Fuel Pit Cooling System Flow

A reevaluation of the Indian Point Unit 3

decay heat removal analysis to address the

storage of extended burnup fuel concluded

that the existing spent fuel pit cooling system

is adequate to handle the heat load associated

with extended burnup fuel since any

incremental increase in decay heat for

extended burnup fuel is more than

compensated for by the greater time interval

between refueling outages. In the unlikely

event the cooling system should experience

a failure, adequate time is available to

provide an alternate cooling system, which is

not affected by the fuel’s enrichment. In

addition, an existing off normal operating

procedure (ONOP) is available to compensate

for any postulated loss of spent fuel pit

cooling. Consequently, the storage of

extended burnup fuel in the spent fuel pit

will not involve a significant increase in the

probability or consequences of a loss of

cooling system flow event.

5. Seismic Event

The enrichment of the fuel has no effect on

the probability of a seismic event occurring.

In support of Amendment 90 to Indian Point

3’s Operating License, a seismic analysis of

the spent fuel storage racks was performed.

This analysis, which was summarized in