2180 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 10 / Wednesday, January 15, 1997 / Notices

Both complainants and respondents

filed petitions for review of the final ID,

and complainants and the Commission

investigative attorney filed responses to

the petitions. On December 19, 1996,

complainants filed a motion for leave to

file a reply to the investigative

attorney’s response. There is no

provision in the Commission’s rules for

such a reply. See 19 C.F.R. 210.43(c).

Moreover, complainants’ reply fails to

raise any arguments that could not have

been raised before the ALJ or in their

petition for review. Accordingly, the

Commission has determined to deny

complainants’ motion for leave to file a

reply.

Having examined the record in this

investigation, including the ID, the

Commission has determined to review

(1) the finding of no infringement with

respect to the KBT model L200 tractor;

and (2) the decision to limit

infringement analysis to 25 models of

accused tractors rather than all models

of KBT tractors as to which there is

evidence of importation and sale in the

United States. The Commission has

determined not to review the ID in all

other respects. On review, the

Commission will consider the following

issues:

(1) whether the fact that gray market

KBT L200 tractors are imported and

sold bearing Japanese-language labels

constitutes a ‘‘material difference’’ from

the authorized KTC L200 model tractors

sufficient to establish a likelihood of

confusion;

(2) whether evidence on the record in

this investigation demonstrates that

specific KBT models other than the 25

identified on SX–1 have been imported

and sold in the United States; and, if so,

(3) whether evidence on the record in

this investigation demonstrates that any

specific KBT model identified in

number (2) above was imported and

sold in the United States bearing

Japanese-language labels or is otherwise

materially different than the closest

corresponding KTC model with respect

to any of the differences found to be

‘‘material’’ in the ID.

In connection with final disposition

of this investigation, the Commission

may issue (1) an order that could result

in the exclusion of the subject articles

from entry into the United States, and/

or (2) cease and desist orders that could

result in respondents being required to

cease and desist from engaging in unfair

acts in the importation and sale of such

articles. Accordingly, the Commission is

interested in receiving written

submissions that address the form of

remedy, if any, that should be ordered.

If a party seeks exclusion of an article

from entry into the United States for

purposes other than entry for

consumption, the party should so

indicate and provide information

establishing that activities involving

other types of entry either are adversely

affecting it or are likely to do so. For

background, see the Commission

Opinion in In the Matter of Certain

Devices for Connecting Computers via

Telephone Lines, Inv. No. 337–TA–360.

If the Commission contemplates some

form of remedy, it must consider the

effects of that remedy upon the public

interest. The factors the Commission

will consider include the effect that an

exclusion order and/or cease and desist

orders would have on (1) the public

health and welfare, (2) competitive

conditions in the U.S. economy, (3) U.S.

production of articles that are like or

directly competitive with those that are

subject to investigation, and (4) U.S.

consumers. The Commission is

therefore interested in receiving written

submissions that address the

aforementioned public interest factors

in the context of this investigation.

If the Commission orders some form

of remedy, the President has 60 days to

approve or disapprove the

Commission’s action. During this

period, the subject articles would be

entitled to enter the United States under

a bond, in an amount determined by the

Commission and prescribed by the

Secretary of the Treasury. The

Commission is therefore interested in

receiving submissions concerning the

amount of the bond that should be

imposed.

Written Submissions

The parties to the investigation are

requested to file written submissions on

the issues under review. The

submissions should be concise and

thoroughly referenced to the record in

this investigation, including references

to specific exhibits and testimony.

Additionally, the parties to the

investigation, interested government

agencies, and any other interested

persons are encouraged to file written

submissions on the issues of remedy,

the public interest, and bonding. Such

submissions should address the

November 22, 1996, recommended

determination by the ALJ on remedy

and bonding. Complainants and the

Commission investigative attorney are

also requested to submit proposed

remedial orders for the Commission’s

consideration. The written submissions

and proposed remedial orders must be

filed no later than the close of business

on January 23, 1997. Reply submissions

must be filed no later than the close of

business on January 30, 1997. No further

submissions will be permitted unless

otherwise ordered by the Commission.

Persons filing written submissions

must file with the Office of the Secretary

the original document and 14 true

copies thereof on or before the deadlines

stated above. Any person desiring to

submit a document (or portion thereof)

to the Commission in confidence must

request confidential treatment unless

the information has already been

granted such treatment during the

proceedings. All such requests should

be directed to the Secretary of the

Commission and must include a full

statement of the reasons why the

Commission should grant such

treatment. See 19 C.F.R. 201.6.

Documents for which confidential

treatment is granted by the Commission

will be treated accordingly. All

nonconfidential written submissions

will be available for public inspection at

the Office of the Secretary.

This action is taken under the

authority of section 337 of the Tariff Act

of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337),

and sections 210.45-.51 of the

Commission’s Rules of Practice and

Procedure (19 C.F.R. 210.45-.51).

Copies of the public version of the ID

and all other nonconfidential

documents filed in connection with this

investigation are or will be available for

inspection during official business

hours (8:45 a.m. to 5:15 p.m.) in the

Office of the Secretary, U.S.

International Trade Commission, 500 E

Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20436,

telephone 202–205–2000. Hearing

impaired persons are advised that

information on the matter can be

obtained by contacting the

Commission’s TDD terminal at 202–

205–1810.

Issued: January 9, 1997.

By order of the Commission.

Donna R. Koehnke,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 97–969 Filed 1–14–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P ′

[Investigation No. 731–TA–740 (Final)]

Sodium Azide From Japan

AGENCY: United States International

Trade Commission.

ACTION: Suspension of investigation.

SUMMARY: On January 7, 1997, the

Department of Commerce published

notice of the suspension of its

antidumping investigation on sodium

azide from Japan (62 FR 973). The basis

for the suspension is an agreement

between the Department of Commerce

and producers/exporters which account
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