The meeting will include reports from the fuels and restoration subcommittees, and a discussion of proposed projects for Fiscal Year 2005. The meeting is open to the public. Opportunity for public input will be provided and individuals will have the opportunity to address the committee at that time.

The business meeting on May 21, at the Super 8 Motel, Grangeville, ID, begins at 10 a.m. (PST). Agenda topics will include discussion of potential projects. A public forum will begin at 2:30 p.m. (PST).

The Department's procedures for the conduct of sunset reviews are set forth in 19 CFR 351.218. Guidance on methodological or analytical issues relevant to the Department's conduct of sunset reviews is set forth in the Department's Policy Bulletin 98.3— Policies Regarding the Conduct of Five- Year (“Sunset”) Reviews of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Orders; Policy Bulletin, 63 FR 18871 (April 16, 1998) (“ Sunset Policy Bulletin ”).

In accordance with 19 CFR 351.218(c), we are initiating sunset reviews of the following antidumping and countervailing duty orders and suspended investigations. The suspended investigations are denoted by an asterisk (“*”).

As a courtesy, we are making information related to sunset proceedings, including copies of the Department's regulations regarding sunset reviews (19 CFR 351.218) and Sunset Policy Bulletin , the Department's schedule of sunset reviews, case history information ( i.e. , previous margins, duty absorption determinations, scope language, import volumes), and service lists available to the public on the Department's sunset Internet Web site at the following address: http://ia.ita.doc.gov/sunset/.

All submissions in these sunset reviews must be filed in accordance with the Department's regulations regarding format, translation, service, and certification of documents. These rules can be found at 19 CFR 351.303. Also, we suggest that parties check the Department's sunset Web site for any updates to the service list before filing any submissions. The Department will make additions to and/or deletions from the service list provided on the sunset Web site based on notifications from parties and participation in these reviews. Specifically, the Department will delete from the service list all parties that do not submit a substantive response to the notice of initiation.

Because deadlines in a sunset review are, in many instances, very short, we urge interested parties to apply for access to proprietary information under administrative protective order (“APO”) immediately following publication in the Federal Register of the notice of initiation of the sunset review. The Department's regulations on submission of proprietary information and eligibility to receive access to business proprietary information under APO can be found at 19 CFR 351.304-306.

Domestic interested parties (defined in 19 CFR 351.102(b) and section 771(9)(C), (D), (E), (F), and (G) of the Act) wishing to participate in these sunset reviews must respond not later than 15 days after the date of publication in the Federal Register of the notice of initiation by filing a notice of intent to participate. The required contents of the notice of intent to participate are set forth at 19 CFR 351.218(d)(1)(ii). In accordance with the Department's regulations, if we do not receive a notice of intent to participate from at least one domestic interested party by the 15-day deadline, the Department will automatically revoke the orders without further review. See 19 CFR 351.218(d)(1)(iii).

If we receive an order-specific notice of intent to participate from a domestic interested party, the Department's regulations provide that all parties wishing to participate in the sunset review must file complete substantive responses not later than 30 days after the date of publication in the Federal Register of the notice of initiation. The required contents of a substantive response, on an order-specific basis, are set forth at 19 CFR 351.218(d)(3). Note that certain information requirements differ for respondent and domestic parties. Also, note that the Department's information requirements are distinct from the International Trade Commission's information requirements. Please consult the Department's regulations for information regarding the Department's conduct of sunset reviews. 1 Please consult the Department's regulations at 19 CFR Part 351 for definitions of terms and for other general information concerning antidumping and countervailing duty proceedings at the Department.

This notice of initiation is being published in accordance with section 751(c) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218(c).

In an NME antidumping proceeding, the Department presumes that all companies within the country are subject to governmental control and should be assigned a single antidumping duty rate unless an exporter demonstrates the absence of both de jure and de facto governmental control over its export activities. See Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Bicycles from the People's Republic of China , 61 FR 19026, 19027 (April 30, 1996). The Department's separate rates test is not concerned, in general, with macroeconomic border-type controls ( e.g. , export licenses, quotas, and minimum export prices), particularly if these controls are imposed to prevent the dumping of merchandise in the United States. Rather, the test focuses on controls over the decision-making process on export-related investment, pricing, and output decisions at the individual firm level. See Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from Ukraine , 62 FR 61754, 61757 (November 19, 1997); Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, from the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review , 62 FR 61276, 61279 (November 17, 1997); and Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Honey from the People's Republic of China , 60 FR 14725, 14727 (March 20, 1995).

To establish whether a firm is sufficiently independent from government control in its export activities to be entitled to a separate rate, the Department analyzes each exporting entity under a test arising from the Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Sparklers from the People's Republic of China , 56 FR 20588 (May 6, 1991), as modified in the Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Silicon Carbide from the People's Republic of China , 59 FR 22585, 22587 (May 2, 1994) ( Silicon Carbide ). Under this test, the Department assigns separate rates in NME cases only if an exporter can demonstrate the absence of both de jure and de facto governmental control over its export activities. See Silicon Carbide and Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Furfuryl Alcohol from the People's Republic of China , 60 FR 22544, 22545 (May 8, 1995). In order to request and qualify for a separate rate, a company must have exported the subject merchandise to the United States during the period of investigation or review, and provide information responsive to the following considerations:

1. Absence of De Jure Control: The Department considers the following de jure criteria in determining whether an individual company may be granted a separate rate: (1) An absence of restrictive stipulations associated with an individual exporter's business and export licenses; (2) any legislative enactments decentralizing control of companies; and (3) any other formal measures by the government decentralizing control of companies.

2. Absence of De Facto Control: Typically, the Department considers four factors in evaluating whether each respondent is subject to de facto governmental control of its export functions: (1) Whether the export prices are set by, or subject to, the approval of a governmental authority; (2) whether the respondent has authority to negotiate and sign contracts and other agreements; (3) whether the respondent has autonomy from the government in making decisions regarding the selection of its management; and (4) whether the respondent retains the proceeds of its export sales and makes independent decisions regarding disposition of profits or financing of losses.

In an antidumping investigation or review, we assign a weighted-average of the individually calculated rates, excluding any rates that were zero, de minimis , or based entirely on facts available, to exporters fulfilling two requirements. Firstly, they must submit a request for separate rates treatment, along with a timely response to section A of the Department's questionnaire, but not have been selected as mandatory respondents. Secondly, the Department must determine, after reviewing the requesting companies' submissions, that separate rates treatment is warranted. See Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Circular Welded Carbon-Quality Steel Pipe from the People's Republic of China, 67 FR 36570, 36571 (May 24, 2002).

The Department is considering changes to the practice detailed above, in particular with respect to the treatment of exporters submitting only section A responses and requesting separate rate treatment, but that are not individually investigated or reviewed (hereafter referred to as “Section A respondents”). The Department has received increasing numbers of requests for separate rates from section A respondents in recent years and is facing an exceptionally large number of such requests in two ongoing investigations. See Initiation of Certain Frozen and Canned Warmwater Shrimp from Brazil, Ecuador, India, Thailand, the People's Republic of China, and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam 69 FR 3876 (January 27, 2004) and Initiation of Wooden Bedroom Furniture from the People's Republic of China 68 FR 70228 (December 17, 2003). These developments have led parties to raise two concerns. The first is that the Department lacks the resources to evaluate the typically large number of section A respondents which request a separate rate. The second concern parties now have raised is that, independent of the number of separate rate requests the Department receives in any given case, current implementation of the separate rates test may not offer the most effective means of determining whether exporters act, de facto, independently of the government in their export activities.

In order to address these concerns, the Department is considering changes to its practice in these areas. Therefore, we are providing an opportunity for the public to participate through comments which should be submitted by the date specified above. The Department is particularly interested in comments relating to the possible approaches set forth in the Appendix to this notice, including comments on their consistency with the statute.

Persons wishing to comment should file a signed original and six copies of each set of comments by the date specified above. The Department will consider all comments received before the close of the comment period. Comments received after the end of the comment period will be considered, if possible, but their consideration cannot be assured. The Department will not accept comments accompanied by a request that a part or all of the material be treated confidentially because of its business proprietary nature or for any other reason. The Department will return such comments and materials to the persons submitting the comments and will not consider them in development of any changes to its practice. All comments responding to this notice will be a matter of public record and will be available for public inspection and copying at Import Administration's Central Records Unit, Room B-099, between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 5 p.m. on business days. The Department requires that comments be submitted in written form. The Department recommends submission of comments in electronic form to accompany the required paper copies. Comments filed in electronic form should be submitted either by e-mail to the webmaster below, or on CD-ROM, as comments submitted on diskettes are likely to be damaged by postal radiation treatment.

Comments received in electronic form will be made available to the public in Portable Document Format (PDF) on the Internet at the Import Administration Web site at the following address: http://ia.ita.doc.gov/.

Any questions concerning file formatting, document conversion, access on the Internet, or other electronic filing issues should be addressed to Andrew Lee Beller, Import Administration Webmaster, at (202) 482-0866, e-mail address: webmaster-support@ita.doc.gov.

At the request of interested parties, the Department initiated administrative reviews of the antidumping duty orders on antifriction bearings and parts thereof from France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Singapore, and the United Kingdom for the period May 1, 2002, through April 30, 2003. See, Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Requests for Revocation in Part, 68 FR 39055, (July 1, 2003), and Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews, Requests for Revocation in Part and Deferral of Administrative Reviews, 68 FR 44524, (July 29, 2003). On February 9, 2004, the Department published its preliminary findings. See Antifriction Bearings and Parts Thereof from France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Singapore, and the United Kingdom: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews, Partial Rescission of Administrative Reviews, Notice of Intent to Rescind Administrative Reviews, and Notice of Intent to Revoke Order in Part, 69 FR 5950, (February 9, 2004). The final results of reviews were originally scheduled for June 8, 2040.

Section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), requires the Department to issue the final results of an antidumping duty annual review within 120 days of the date on which the preliminary results are published. If the Department concludes that it is not practicable to issue the results by the original deadline, it may extend the 120-day period to 180 days. Completion of the final results of these reviews within this 120-day period is not practicable because of the large number of respondents and the complexity of the issues raised in these reviews. Therefore, we are extending the time period for issuing the final results of the review by 60 days, until August 9, 2004.

This notice is published in accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act and § 351.213(h)(2) of the Department's regulations.

On February 9, 1995, the Department published in the Federal Register the antidumping duty order on coumarin from the PRC. See Notice of Antidumping Order: Coumarin from the People's Republic of China , 60 FR 7751. On June 23, 2003, Berjé Incorporated (Berjé), a U.S. importer of subject merchandise and an interested party in this proceeding, requested that the Department conduct a changed circumstances review for the purpose of revoking the antidumping duty order on coumarin from the PRC. According to Berjé, Rhone-Poulenc Specialty Chemicals Company (Rhone-Poulenc), the petitioner, was the only domestic coumarin producer at the time of the original investigation. Berjé also indicated that since the original investigation, Rhone-Poulenc had changed its company name and now does business under the name Rhodia, Inc. (Rhodia) and that Rhodia remained the only producer of coumarin in the United States. Berjé informed the Department that Rhodia, in a press release dated November 28, 2001, announced its intent to cease production of coumarin in 2002. Berjé provided further information obtained from Rhodia indicating that Rhodia no longer produces coumarin in the United States.

Based on Berjé's June 23, 2003 submission, the Department initiated this changed circumstances review on July 31, 2003. See Notice of Initiation of Changed Circumstances Review and Consideration of Revocation of the Antidumping Duty Order: Coumarin From the Peoples's Republic of China , 68 FR 46579 ( Initiation ). On August 26, 2003, Rhodia submitted comments on the initiation of this changed circumstances review. Also on August 26, 2003, H. Reynaud & Fils USA Co. (H. Reynaud), an importer of the subject merchandise, submitted comments regarding the effective date of the revocation of the order. No other parties commented on our Initiation.

On January 26, 2004, we published Coumarin From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results of Changed Circumstances Review and Intent to Revoke the Antidumping Order , 69 FR 3543 ( Preliminary Results ). In the Preliminary Results we announced our intent to revoke the antidumping order on Coumarin from the PRC, effective February 1, 2003. Both Berjé and H. Reynaud submitted comments on the Preliminary Results on February 25, 2004. H. Reynaud submitted rebuttal comments on March 1, 2004. We have addressed the comments of the parties in the Issues and Decision Memo , which is on file in the Central Records Unit, room B-099 of the main Commerce Building. In addition, a complete version of the Issues and Decision Memo can be accessed directly on the Web at http://ia.ita.doc.gov. The paper copy and electronic version of the Issues and Decision Memo are identical in content.

The product covered by this order is coumarin. Coumarin is an aroma chemical with the chemical formula (C9H6O2) that is also known by other names, including 2H-1-benzopyran-2-one, 1, 2-benzopyrone, cis-o-coumaric acid lactone, coumarinic anhydride, 2-Oxo-1, 2-benzopyran, 5, 6-benzo-alpha-pyrone, ortho-hydroxyc innamic acid lactone, cis-ortho-coumaric acid anhydride, and tonka bean camphor.

All forms and variations of coumarin are included within the scope of the order, such as coumarin in crystal, flake, or powder form, and “crude” or unrefined coumarin ( i.e. , prior to purification or crystallization). Excluded from the scope of this order are ethylcoumarins (C11H10O2) and methylcoumarins (C10H8O2). Coumarin is classifiable under subheading 2932.21.0000 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). Although the HTSUS subheading is provided for convenience and customs purposes, our written description of the scope of this investigation is dispositive.

In the Preliminary Results, we indicated our intent to revoke the antidumping order on coumarin from the PRC, effective February 1, 2003. We have considered the comments of the parties and we determine that February 1, 2003, is still the appropriate date on which to make the revocation of the antidumping order on coumarin effective. See Issues and Decision Memo .

In accordance with section 351.222 of the Department's regulations, the Department will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to terminate the suspension of liquidation and to liquidate, without regard to antidumping duties, all unliquidated entries of coumarin from the PRC, entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after February 1, 2003, the effective date of the revocation of the order. The Department will further instruct CBP to refund with interest any estimated duties collected with respect to unliquidated entries of coumarin from the PRC entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after February 1, 2003, in accordance with section 778 of the Act.

This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective orders (APOs) of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with section 351.306 of the Department's regulations. Timely written notification of the return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.

This notice of final results of changed circumstances review and revocation of the antidumping duty order is in accordance with sections 751(b) and (d), and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 351.216(d) and 351.222(g)of the Department's regulations.

Background

We published in the Federal Register the preliminary results of this new shipper review on December 4, 2003. See Notice of Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review: Honey From the People's Republic of China, 68 FR 67832 (December 4, 2003) ( Preliminary Results ). On February 25, 2004, the Department extended the final results of this new shipper review by 30 days until March 25, 2004. See Notice of Extension of Time Limit on Final Results of New Shipper Review: Honey From the People's Republic of China, 69 FR 8625 (February 25, 2004). On March 31, 2004, the Department extended the final results of this new shipper review by 14 days until April 8, 2004. See Notice of Extension of Time Limit on Final Results of New Shipper Review: Honey From the People's Republic of China, 69 FR 16892 (March 31, 2004). On April 14, 2004, the Department extended the final results of this new shipper review by 16 days until April 26, 2004. See Notice of Extension of Time Limit on Final Results of New Shipper Review: Honey From the People's Republic of China, 69 FR 19814 (April 14, 2004).

The period of review (POR) is February 10, 2001 through November 30, 2002. We invited parties to comment on our Preliminary Results. We received case briefs from petitioners (the American Honey Producers Association and the Sioux Honey Association (collectively, petitioners)), on January 21, 2004. We received rebuttal briefs from Dubao and Shanghai Xiuwei on January 27, 2004. On February 27, 2004, we invited petitioners to comment on the new information in Shanghai Xiuwei's rebuttal brief, but we did not receive any comments.

The products covered by this order are natural honey, artificial honey containing more than 50 percent natural honey by weight, preparations of natural honey containing more than 50 percent natural honey by weight, and flavored honey. The subject merchandise includes all grades and colors of honey whether in liquid, creamed, comb, cut comb, or chunk form, and whether packaged for retail or in bulk form.

The merchandise subject to this review is currently classifiable under subheadings 0409.00.00, 1702.90.90, and 2106.90.99 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) purposes, the Department's written description of the merchandise under order is dispositive.

All issues raised in the briefs are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum, which is hereby adopted by this notice. A list of the issues raised, all of which are in the Issues and Decision Memorandum, is attached to this notice as Appendix I. Parties can find a complete discussion of all issues raised in the briefs and the corresponding recommendations in this public memorandum which is on file in the Central Records Unit, room B-099 of the main Department building. In addition, a complete version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly on the Web at http://ia/ita/doc/gov. The paper copy and electronic version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum are identical in content.

Based on the comments received from the interested parties, we have made changes to the margin calculation for Shanghai Xiuwei and for Dubao. For Shanghai Xiuwei, we are now applying an AFA rate. See the AFA rate section below for details. For Dubao, we are calculating an antidumping margin based only on its first sale and not its second sale because we have determined that its second sale was not a bona fide transaction. For this second sale, we are applying an adverse facts available rate of 183.80 percent for assessment purposes because the U.S. importer is an interested party, according to 771(9)(A) of the Act, and failed to cooperate with the Department's numerous requests for it to respond to the Department's importer questionnaire. See the discussion below on the specifics of this U.S. importer's failure to cooperate. Also, with respect to Dubao's other sale, we are changing the labor wage rate. See the discussion below for specifics on the labor wage rate change. For a detailed discussion of the Shanghai Xiuwei AFA rate and an analysis of the bona fides of Dubao's second sale, see Issues and Decision Memorandum. For business proprietary details of our analysis of the change described below to Dubao's preliminary margin calculation, see Memo to the File regarding Analysis of the Data Submitted by Sichuan-Dujiangyan Dubao Bee Industrial Co., Ltd. (April 26, 2004) (“Dubao Final Analysis Memo”). For details on the proprietary information for Shanghai Xiuwei, see Memo to the File regarding Analysis of the Data Submitted by Shanghai Xiuwei International Trading Co., Ltd. (“Shanghai Xiuwei Final Analysis Memo”) (April 26, 2004).

For labor, during the Preliminary Results, we used the PRC regression-based wage rate at Import Administration's home page, Import Library, Expected Wages of Selected NME Countries, revised in September 2002 and corrected in February 2003. On February 10, 2004, the Expected Wages of Selected NME Countries was updated. For these Final Results, we are using the PRC regression-based wage rate in the Expected Wages of Selected NME Countries, revised in September 2003.

The Department has determined that the application of adverse facts available is warranted with respect to Dubao's U.S. importer for its second sale.

Dubao's importer for its second sale failed to respond to the Department's questionnaires or participate in any way in this proceeding. Indeed, the Department made numerous attempts to contact the U.S. importer for Dubao's second U.S. sale, yet found the importer to be unavailable and/or unwilling to assist in the conduct of this administrative review. See the Department's bona fide memorandum from Brandon Farlander and Dena Aliadinov through Abdelali Elouaradia to the File regarding the New Shipper Review on Honey from the People's Republic of China (“PRC”) (“Bona Fide Memo”), dated November 26, 2003. On June 13, 2003, the Department issued an importer questionnaire to White & Case, the legal counsel for Dubao, and instructed that it be forwarded to Dubao's importers. On June 30, 2003, the Department received an importer questionnaire response for Dubao's U.S. customer, but this entity was not the U.S. importer for the second sale. In Dubao's second supplemental questionnaire, Dubao stated that its U.S. customer was not the importer of record for its second sale and provided a Customs Form 7501, which listed the importer of record and an address for this importer. The Department sent an importer questionnaire twice to the 7501 Form address but did not get a response. In addition, the Department sent an importer questionnaire to the address for this U.S. importer listed with the California Secretary of State's office and it was returned, with FedEx indicating that no business existed at that location. The Department located the owner of the 7501 Form address, via the Los Angeles Office of the Assessor's property ownership records and called this owner and he stated that he had lived at that address for two years and had never heard of the U.S. importer, nor was he employed by or an owner of the U.S. importer. At Dubao's verification, the Department informed Dubao that we were unable to locate the U.S. importer and we requested Dubao's contact names and numbers for this U.S. importer. The Department called this person provided by Dubao and she stated that the U.S. importer's address was the address listed on the Customs Form 7501, except for a slight address difference. We sent the importer questionnaire a second time to the Customs Form 7501 address and, again, did not get a response. Also, we left a message with this contact person and asked her to provide another address if necessary. The Department did not hear from this contact, nor did the U.S. importer respond to the Department's importer questionnaire.

The Department was successful in locating a website for this U.S. importer and called the phone number appearing on that website, but discovered that the number had been disconnected. Furthermore, the Department e-mailed the company but no one responded. Finally, the Department called information for the greater Los Angeles area and the operator could not locate the U.S. importer in its phone directory.

Section 771(9) of the Act defines an “interested party” under the antidumping duty law as including producers, exporters, or “United States importer of subject merchandise.” The U.S. importer for Dubao's second sale was an interested party. Section 776(a)(2) of the Act, provides that if an interested party or any other person (A) withholds information that has been requested by the administering authority; (B) fails to provide such information by the deadlines for the submission of the information or in the form and manner requested, subject to subsections (c)(1) and (e) of section 782; (C) significantly impedes a proceeding under this title; or (D) provides such information but the information cannot be verified as provided in section 782(i), the administering authority shall, subject to section 782(d), use facts otherwise available in reaching the applicable determination.

Further, section 776(b) of the Act provides that the Department may use in inference adverse to the interests of a party that has failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability to comply with the Department's request for information. See also Statement of Administrative Action (SAA) accompanying the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA), H.R. Rep. No. 103-316 at 870 (1994).

Clearly, Dubao's importer for its second transaction failed to participate in any way in this review and did not act to the best of its ability. Accordingly, we are applying the adverse facts available rate of 183.80 percent as an assessment rate for the U.S. importer for Dubao's second sale, which we have determined is not a bona fide sale.

An adverse inference may include reliance on information derived from the petition, the final determination in the investigation, any previous review, or any other information placed on the record. See section 776(b) of the Act. It is the Department's practice to assign the highest rate from any segment of a proceeding as total adverse facts available when a respondent rails to cooperate to the best of its ability. ( See e.g., Certain Forged Stainless Steel Flanges From India: Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 67 FR 10358 (March 7, 2002) (“Because we were unable to calculate margins for these respondents, we have assigned them the highest margin from any segment of this proceeding, in accordance with our practice.”); Stainless Steel Plate in Coils From Taiwan; Preliminary Results and Rescission in Part of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 67 FR 5789 (February 7, 2002) (“Consistent with Department practice in cases where a respondent fails to cooperate to the best of its ability, and in keeping with section 776(b)(3) of the Act, as adverse facts available we have applied a margin based on the highest margin from this or any prior segment of the proceeding.”)

In keeping with Department precedent, for this new shipper review, we have determined that is appropriate to assign Dubao's U.S. importer for the second sale the rate of 183.80 percent—the highest rate determined in any segment of this proceeding. This rate was established in the LTFV investigation based on information contained in the petition. See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value; Honey from the PRC, 66 FR 50608 (October 4, 2001) and accompanying Issues and Decisions Memorandum (Final Determination). In selecting a rate for adverse facts available, the Department selects a rate that is sufficiently adverse “as to effectuate the purpose of the facts available rule to induce respondents to provide the Department with complete and accurate information in a timely manner.” See Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Static Random Access Memory Semiconductors from Taiwan, 63 FR 8909, 8932 (February 23, 1998).

We note that information from a prior segment of this proceeding constitutes “secondary information”, and section 776(c) of the Act provides that, when the Department relies on such secondary information rather than on information obtained in the course of a review, the Department shall, to the extent practicable, corroborate that information from independent sources that are reasonably at its disposal. (Secondary information is described in the SAA as “information derived from the petition that gave rise to the investigation or review, the final determination concerning the subject merchandise, or any previous review under section 751 concerning the subject merchandise.” See SAA at 870.) The SAA states that the independent sources may include published price lists, official import statistics and customs data, and information obtained from interested parties during the particular investigation or review. The SAA also clarifies that “corroborate” means that the Department will satisfy itself that the secondary information to be used has probative value. See SAA at 870. As noted in Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, from Japan, and Tapered Roller Bearings, Four Inches or Less in Outside Diameter, and Components Thereof, from Japan; Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews and Partial Termination of Administrative Reviews, 61 FR 57391, 57392 (November 6, 1996) (“TRBs”), to corroborate secondary information, the Department will, to the extent practicable, examine the reliability and relevance of the information used.

As noted above, we are applying as AFA the highest rate from any segment of this administrative proceeding, which is the petition rate from the LTFV investigation. We note that in the LTFV investigation, the Department corroborated the information in the petition that formed the basis of the 183.80 percent PRC-wide entity rate. See Final Determination. Specifically, in the LTFV investigation, the Department compared the prices in the petition to the prices submitted by individual respondents for comparable merchandise. Moreover, the information upon which the AFA rate we are applying for the current review was corroborated again during the 2001-2002 administrative review, and found to be both reasonable and reliable. See Honey from the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results of First Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 68 FR 69988, 69992 (December 16, 2003) (“01-02 Preliminary Results”). No information has been presented in the current review that calls into question the reliability of this information. Thus, the Department finds that the information is reliable.

We further note that, with respect to the relevance aspect of corroboration, the Department stated in TRBs that it will “consider information reasonably at its disposal as to whether there are circumstances that would render a margin irrelevant. Where circumstances indicate that the selected margin is not appropriate as adverse facts available, the Department will disregard the margin and determine an appropriate margin.” See TRBs at 61 FR 57392. See also Fresh Cut Flowers from Mexico; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 61 FR 6812, 6814 (February 22, 1996) (disregarding the highest margin in the case as best information available because the margin was based on another company's uncharacteristic business expense resulting in an unusually high margin). Similarly, the Department does not apply a margin that has been discredited. See D&L Supply Co. v. United States, 113 F.3d 1220, 1221 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (the Department will not use a margin that has been judicially invalidated). The information used in calculating this margin was based on information from the petition, which was deemed reliable as compared to the selling prices of actual PRC exporters of the subject merchandise. This rate is also currently applicable to all exporters subject to the PRC-wide rate. Moreover, as there is no information on the record of this review that demonstrates that this rate is not appropriately used as adverse facts available, we determine that this rate has relevance.

As the rate is both reliable and relevant, we determine that it has probative value. Accordingly, we determine that the highest rate from any segment of this administrative proceeding) i.e., the petition rate of 193.80 percent, which is the current PRC-wide rate) is in accordance with section 776(c)'s requirement that secondary information be corroborated ( i.e., that it have probative value).

For Shanghai Xiuwei, we conducted verification of its questionnaire responses on August 4-7, 2003. See Verification of U.S. Sale for respondent Shanghai Xiuwei International Trading Co., Ltd. (“Shanghai Xiuwei”) and Factors of Production Information Submitted by Henan Oriental Bee Products Co., Ltd. (“Henan Oriental”) (“Shanghai Xiuwei verification report”). Despite certain inconsistencies on the record, for the preliminary determination, the Department calculated a margin for Shanghai Xiuwei's U.S. sale. See Preliminary Results. However, upon further review of the record and, in particular CBP information on the record, Commerce has revisited its findings. See Bona Fide Memo for the CBP data. Commerce now has determined for these final results that Shanghai Xiuwei failed to provide at verification complete and accurate information about its total shipments of honey to the United States. Moreover, we have determined that Shanghai Xiuwei failed to report in its questionnaire responses and at verification that one of its owners also owned a U.S. importer of subject merchandise and that these two companies are affiliates based on this common ownership. For these reasons, we believe that the application of facts available is warranted.

Shanghai Xiuwei withheld information that was specifically requested by the Department. It is extremely important that an exporter provide all requested information to the agency at verification and in questionnaire responses, and that includes information pertaining to all U.S. affiliates. In particular, this is very important when the U.S. affiliate or affiliates are involved in the production, distribution or sales of subject merchandise. Shanghai Xiuwei did not provide the Department with the identity of its affiliate and did not report its shipments of subject merchandise to that affiliate. Therefore, by withholding this important data from the Department, Shanghai Xiuwei significantly impeded this proceeding, and other information which it provided at verification was called into question, pursuant to sections 776(a)(2)(A), (B), (C), and (D) of the Act. Accordingly, for the reasons discussed in detail in the attached Issues and Decision memorandum, we find that the application of facts available is necessary in this case to determine the antidumping duty rate for Shanghai Xiuwei.

Furthermore, as provided above, the Department has determined, pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act, that an adverse inference is warranted in this case because Shanghai Xiuwei failed to cooperate to the best of its ability to provide the information requested by the Department in this new shipper review. As discussed in detail in the attached Issues and Decision Memorandum, we determine that Shanghai Xiuwei could have complied with the Department's request to respond accurately to the Department's initial questionnaire, requests for supplemental information, and questions asked at verification, but failed to do so. Moreover, at no point in the administrative review, prior to or during verification, did Shanghai Xiuwei notify the Department of the existence of any inaccuracies in information it reported to the Department, or seek guidance on the applicable reporting requirements, as contemplated in section 782(c)(1) of the Act. Furthermore, Shanghai Xiuwei was the only party which had access to this information and, therefore, the only party that could have complied with the Department's request for information on Shanghai Xiuwei's affiliate and additional U.S. sales. For all of the aforementioned reasons, the Department finds that Shanghai Xiuwei failed to cooperate to the best of its ability. See Issues and Decision Memorandum.

In keeping with Department precedent, for this administrative review, we have determined that it is appropriate to assign Shanghai Xiuwei the rate of 183.80 percent—the highest rate determined in any segment of this proceeding. See, e.g., Rescission of Second New Shipper Review and Final Results and Partial Rescission of First Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Brake Rotors from the People's Republic of China, 64 FR 61581, 61584 (November 12, 1999). This rate was established in the LTFV investigation based on information contained in the petition. See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value; Honey from the PRC, 66 FR 50608 (October 4, 2001) and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum (Final Determination). In selecting a rate for adverse facts available, the Department selects a rate that is sufficiently adverse “as to effectuate the purpose of the facts available rule to induce respondents to provide the Department with complete and accurate information in a timely manner.” See Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Static Random Access Memory Semiconductors from Taiwan, 63 FR 8909, 8932 (February 23, 1998).

For complete details of the Department's application of adverse facts available and its corroboration of the rate selected, see the Issues and Decision Memorandum, dated April 26, 2004. For business proprietary information related to Shanghai Xiuwei, see Shanghai Xiuwei Final Analysis Memo.

We determine that the following antidumping margin percentage exists for Shanghai Xiuwei and Dubao during the period February 10, 2001 through November 30, 2002:

The Department shall determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), we have calculated an exporter/importer specific assessment rate for merchandise subject to this review. The Department will issue appropriate assessment instructions directly to CBP within 15 days of publication of the final results of review. We will direct CBP to assess the resulting assessment rates against the CBP entered values for the subject merchandise on each of the importer's/customer's entries during the review period. For assessment purposes for Dubao's second sale, which we have determined is not a bona fide transaction, we are applying an adverse facts available rate of 183.80 percent.

Bonding will no longer be permitted to fulfill security requirements for shipments from Shanghai Xiuwei and Dubao of honey from the PRC entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption in the United States on or after the publication of this notice in the Federal Register .

The following cash deposit rates shall be required for merchandise subject to the order entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of these final results for this new shipper review, as provided for by section 751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rates for Dubao ( i.e., for subject merchandise both manufactured and exported by Dubao only) and Shanghai Xiuwei ( i.e., for subject merchandise manufactured by Henan Oriental Bee Products Co., Ltd. and exported by Shanghai Xiuwei) will be the rates indicated above; (2) the cash deposit rate for PRC exporters who received a separate rate in a prior segment of the proceeding will continue to be the rate assigned in that segment of the proceeding; (3) the cash deposit rate for the PRC NME entity and for subject merchandise exported by Dubao and Shanghai Xiuwei but not manufactured by Dubao and Henan Oriental, respectively, will continue to be the PRC-wide rate ( i.e., 183.80 percent); and (4) the cash deposit rate for non-PRC exporters of subject merchandise form the PRC will be the rate applicable to the PRC exporter that supplied that exporter. In addition, for all honey imported by the U.S. importer (company A) for Dubao's second sale, the cash deposit rate is the PRC-wide rate of 183.80 percent. These deposit requirements shall remain in effect until publication of the final results of the next administrative review. There are no changes to the rates applicable to any other company under this antidumping duty order.

The Department will disclose calculations performed in connection with these final results of review within five days of the date of publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). This notice serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.

This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with § 351.305(a)(3) of the Department's regulations. Timely written notification of the return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.

This new shipper review and notice are in accordance with sections 751(a)(2)(B) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

On March 5, 2004, the Department of Commerce (“the Department”) published the preliminary results of the administrative review and new shipper review of the antidumping duty order on certain preserved mushrooms from the People's Republic of China. See Certain Preserved Mushrooms from the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results of Sixth New Shipper Review and Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission of Fourth Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 69 FR 10410. The current deadline for the final results in these reviews is July 3, 2004. 1 These reviews have been aligned. See 68 FR 15152.

Pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”), the Department shall make a final determination in an administrative review of an antidumping duty order within 120 days after the date on which the preliminary determination is published. If it is not practicable to complete the review within the foregoing time, the administering authority may extend that 120-day period to 180 days. Furthermore, pursuant to 751(a)(2)(B)(iv) of the Act, the Department shall make a final determination in a new shipper review within 90 days after the date the preliminary determination is issued, except that if the administering authority concludes that the case is extraordinarily complicated, it may extend the 90-day period to 150 days.

The Department finds that it is not practicable to complete the final results in the administrative review of certain preserved mushrooms from the PRC within the current time frame due to the fact that a sales and factors-of-production verification has been re-scheduled to take place in early June, which will set back the briefing schedule in this review until a period after the issuance of the verification report. Furthermore, the Department finds that it would be extraordinarily complicated to complete the final results of the new shipper review within this time frame because, to retain alignment of these reviews, the briefing schedule in this review will have to be set back as well.

Therefore, in accordance with sections 751(a)(3)(A) and 751(a)(2)(B)(iv) of the Act, the Department is extending the time for completion of the final results of these reviews until September 1, 2004, which is 180 days after the date on which notice of the preliminary results was published in the Federal Register .

At the April 21, 2004 meeting of the U.S.-China Joint Commission on Commerce and Trade, representatives of the governments of the United States and the People's Republic of China agreed to establish a working group to hold a dialogue on the range of issues that are relevant to considering China's desire to no longer be treated as a non-market economy country (“NME”) under U.S. antidumping law. Among the more specific issues that would be taken up under this agenda would be structural characteristics of the Chinese economy that appear to be inconsistent with the normal experience of a market economy, as well as Chinese government policies and practices which have the potential to distort the market and U.S.-China trade. Examples of the types of structural issues envisioned for these discussions include China's banking sector and state-owned enterprises, as well as central, provincial, and regional governmental policies such as tax incentives and other export promotion instruments. The Department is requesting public comment in advance of a public hearing that will be held on June 3, 2004, for the purpose of identifying relevant topics and issues for discussion in the working group. We encourage parties to limit their comments to factual information that supports the issue or topic raised.

Persons wishing to comment should file a signed original and six copies of each set of comments by May 19, 2004. Comments should be limited to twenty pages. The Department will consider all comments received before the close of the comment period. Comments received after the end of the comment period will not be considered. The Department will not accept comments accompanied by a request that a part or all of the material be treated confidentially because of its business proprietary nature or for any other reason. The Department will return such comments and materials to the persons submitting the comments and will not consider them. All comments responding to this notice will be a matter of public record and will be available for public inspection and copying at Import Administration's Central Records Unit, Room B-099, between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 5 p.m. on business days. The Department requires that comments be submitted in written form, but also recommends submission of comments in electronic form to accompany the required paper copies. Comments filed in electronic form should be submitted either by e-mail to the webmaster below, or on CD-ROM, as comments submitted on diskettes are likely to be damaged by postal radiation treatment. Comments received in electronic form will be made available to the public in Portable Document Format (PDF) on the Internet at the import administration web site at the following address: http://ia.ita.doc.gov/. Any questions concerning file formatting, document conversion, access on the Internet, or other electronic filing issues should be addressed to Andrew Lee Beller, Import Administration Webmaster, at (202) 482-0866, email address: webmaster-support@ita.doc.gov.

The public hearing on June 3, 2004, will be begin at 9 a.m. in the auditorium at the Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Ave, NW., Washington, DC 20230. Individual hearing presentations will be limited to five minutes, to allow for possible questions from the Chair and the panel. Additional time for oral presentations may be granted as time and the number of participants permit. Parties wishing to testify orally at the hearing must provide written comments (subject to the requirements described above) on which their testimony will be based, and must include with their comments a written notification of their intent to testify.

All comments and submissions (including written notification of intent to testify) should be mailed to James J. Jochum, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration; Subject: Public Hearings on U.S.-China Joint Commission on Commerce and Trade Working Group on Structural Issues; Room 1870, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC, by no later than 5 p.m., May 19, 2004. The notification should include (1) the name of the person presenting the testimony, their address and telephone number; (2) the organization or company they are representing, if appropriate; and (3) if applicable, any request for an extension of the time limitation on the oral presentation. In addition, please send a copy of this notification via facsimile to Lawrence Norton and Anthony Hill at (202) 482-501-1377.

The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) proposes to collect information about vessel expenses and earnings in the Gulf of Mexico reef fish and coastal pelagic (mackerel) fisheries with which to conduct economic analyses that will improve fishery management in those fisheries; will satisfy NMFS' legal mandates under Executive Order 12866, the Magnuson-Steven Fishery Conservation and Management Act (U.S.C. 1801 et seq. ), the Regulatory Flexibility Act, the Endangered Species Act, and the National Environmental Policy Act; and will quantify achievement of the performances measures in the NMFS Strategic Operating Plans. These data will be collected in conjunction with catch and effort data already being collected in this fishery as part of its logbook program, and will be used to assess how fishermen will be impacted by and respond to regulations likely to be considered by fishery managers.

Owners of selected vessels with Federal commercial permits in the Gulf of Mexico reef fish and coastal pelagics fisheries will be required to report information about trip costs, input usage, input prices, and dockside prices as part of the logbook reporting requirements in this fishery. In addition, these vessel owners will be required to complete and submit by mail a separate form about annual fixed cost information such as expenditures for repair and maintenance, gear purchase and repair, fishing licenses and permits, insurance, dock fees, repayment on boat and business loans, office expenses and so forth.

OMB Number: 0648-0016.

Form Number: None.

Type of Review: Regular submission.

Affected Public: Business and other for-profit organizations.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 350.

Estimated Time Per Response: 10 minutes per trip report; and 30 minutes for the annual fixed-cost survey.

Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 1,400.

Estimated Total Annual Cost to Public: $0.

Comments are invited on: (a) whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information has practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the collection of information burden on respondents through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they also will become a matter of public record.

NOAA's National Ocean Service produces nautical charts to ensure safe navigation. Small-craft charts are designed for recreational boaters and include information on local marina facilities and the services they provide (fuel, repairs, etc.). NOAA must collect information to update the charts.

A web-based utility has been created that facilitates the voluntary submission of user (facility owner/operator) data for available marina services.

OMB Number: 0648-0021.

Form Number: None.

Type of Review: Regular submission.

Affected Public: Businesses and other for-profit organizations (small-craft facilities or marinas).

Estimated Number of Respondents: 1,600.

Estimated Time Per Response: 10 minutes.

Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 230.

Estimated Total Annual Cost to Public: $0.

Comments are invited on: (a) whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information has practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the collection of information burden on respondents through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they also will become a matter of public record.

The Virginia Institute of Marine Science (VIMS) submitted an application for an EFP on April 12, 2004, with final revisions received April 21, 2004. This is the second year of a 2-year study. A summary report of the 2003 study was received on April 21, 2004. The experimental fishing application requests authorization to allow the collection of undersized (juvenile) black sea bass for research into the reproductive biology and population dynamics of black sea bass. The VIMS researchers propose to enlist three fishing vessels to retain 25-50 lb (12-23 kg) of undersized black sea bass each month during the participation period (June 1-December 31, 2004). This would result in a maximum retention of 350 lb (159 kg) of undersized black sea bass for the 2004 fishing year. The collections would take place using handline and fish pot fishing gear during the normal fishing operations of the participating vessels. The collections would take place off the coasts of Virginia and North Carolina in 30-minute squares 11, 12, 15, 16, 19, 20, 25, and 26. The participating vessels would be required to comply with applicable state landing laws and report all landings on the Federal Fishing Vessel Trip Report.

On March 31, 2004, NAVSTA Roosevelt Roads closed pursuant to the Department of Defense Appropriations Act of FY04, Public Law 108-87, Section 8132 (a). The closure provided for in Section 8132(a), and subsequent disposal, shall be carried out in accordance with the procedures and authorities contained in the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990 (DBCRA), as amended. On April 16, 2004, approximately 8,422.5 acres were determined surplus to the Federal government. It was made available for use by (a) non-Federal public agencies pursuant to various statutes which authorize conveyance of property for public projects, and (b) homeless assistance providers pursuant to the Base Closure Community Redevelopment and Homeless Assistance Act of 1994.

Redevelopment Authority: The Local Redevelopment Authority (LRA) for the former NAVSTA Roosevelt Roads, Ceiba, PR, for purposes of implementing the provisions of the DBCRA is the Puerto Rico Department of Economic Development and Commerce. The LRA point of contact is Ms. Lilly A. Oronoz Rodriguez, Assistant Secretary, Federal and International Affairs, Department of Economic Development and Commerce, 355 Ave F. D. Roosevelt, Hato Rey, PR 00918, telephone 787-765-2900 X4752.

Surplus Property Descriptions: The following is a listing of the land and facilities at former NAVSTA Roosevelt Roads, Ceiba, PR, that were declared surplus to the Federal government on April 16, 2004.

Land: Approximately 8,422.5 acres of improved and unimproved land at the former NAVSTA Roosevelt Roads, Ceiba, PR.

Buildings and Structures: The following is a summary of the facilities located on the above-described land. There are approximately 1,617 buildings and structures. This includes public works buildings, housing, visitor lodging, recreational areas, commissary and exchange, hospital, schools, fire stations, airfield with an 11,000-foot runway and hangars, warehouses, marina, cargo and fuel piers, pistol ranges, fuel tanks, wastewater treatment plants, water filtration plant, water reservoir, sanitary landfill, and electric utility systems.

Expressions of Interest: Pursuant to Section 2905(b)(7)(C) of the DBCRA, state and local governments, representatives of the homeless, and other interested parties located in the vicinity of the former NAVSTA Roosevelt Roads, Ceiba, PR, shall submit to the said local redevelopment authority a notice of interest, if any, of such governments, representatives, and parties in the above-described surplus property, or any portion thereof. A notice of interest shall describe the need of the government, representative, or party concerned for the desired surplus property. Pursuant to Section 2905(b)(7)(C) and (D) of DBCRA, the redevelopment authority shall assist interested parties in evaluating the surplus property for the intended use and publish in a newspaper of general circulation in PR, the date by which expressions of interest must be submitted. In accordance with Section 2905(b)(7)(D)(ii) of said act, the submission date established by the LRA shall be no earlier than three months and not later than six months after the date of publication by the Department of Defense of the notice of surplus property at the former NAVSTA Roosevelt Roads in a newspaper of general circulation in PR.

Section 3506 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 35) requires that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) provide interested Federal agencies and the public an early opportunity to comment on information collection requests. OMB may amend or waive the requirement for public consultation to the extent that public participation in the approval process would defeat the purpose of the information collection, violate State or Federal law, or substantially interfere with any agency's ability to perform its statutory obligations. The Leader, Regulatory Information Management Group, Office of the Chief Information Officer, publishes that notice containing proposed information collection requests prior to submission of these requests to OMB. Each proposed information collection, grouped by office, contains the following: (1) Type of review requested, e.g. new, revision, extension, existing or reinstatement; (2) title; (3) summary of the collection; (4) description of the need for, and proposed use of, the information; (5) respondents and frequency of collection; and (6) reporting and/or recordkeeping burden. OMB invites public comment.

Section 3506 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 35) requires that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) provide interested Federal agencies and the public an early opportunity to comment on information collection requests. OMB may amend or waive the requirement for public consultation to the extent that public participation in the approval process would defeat the purpose of the information collection, violate State or Federal law, or substantially interfere with any agency's ability to perform its statutory obligations. The Leader, Regulatory Information Management Group, Office of the Chief Information Officer, publishes that notice containing proposed information collection requests prior to submission of these requests to OMB. Each proposed information collection, grouped by office, contains the following: (1) Type of review requested, e.g. , new, revision, extension, existing or reinstatement; (2) title; (3) summary of the collection; (4) description of the need for, and proposed use of, the information; (5) respondents and frequency of collection; and (6) Reporting and/or Recordkeeping burden. OMB invites public comment.

Type of Review: Extension.

Title: Guaranty Agency Financial Report.

Frequency: Monthly; Quarterly; Annually.

Affected Public: State, local, or tribal gov't, SEAs or LEAs; Businesses or other for-profit.

Reporting and Recordkeeping Hour Burden:

Responses:  612.

Burden Hours:  33,660.

Abstract: The Guaranty Agency Financial Report is used to request payments from and make payments to the Department of Education under the FFEL program authorized by Title IV, Part B of the HEA of 1965, as amended. The report is also used to monitor the agency's financial activities, including activities concerning its federal fund; operating fund and the agency's restricted account.

Requests for copies of the submission for OMB review; comment request may be accessed from http://edicsweb.ed.gov , by selecting the “Browse Pending Collections” link and by clicking on link number 2439. When you access the information collection, click on “Download Attachments” to view. Written requests for information should be addressed to Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., Potomac Center Plaza, 9th Floor, Washington, DC 20202. Requests may also be electronically mailed to the Internet address OCIO_RIMG@ed.gov or faxed to 202-245-6623. Please specify the complete title of the information collection when making your request.

Comments regarding burden and/or the collection activity requirements should be directed to Joseph Schubart at his e-mail address Joe.Schubart@ed.gov . Individuals who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339.

Purpose of the Board: The purpose of the Board is to make recommendations to DOE and its regulators in the areas of environmental restoration, waste management, and related activities.

Public Participation: The meeting is open to the public. Written statements may be filed with the Board either before or after the meeting. Individuals who wish to make oral statements pertaining to agenda items should contact Yvonne Sherman's office at the address or telephone number listed above. Requests must be received five days prior to the meeting and reasonable provision will be made to include the presentation in the agenda. The Deputy Designated Federal Officer is empowered to conduct the meeting in a fashion that will facilitate the orderly conduct of business. Each individual wishing to make public comment will be provided equal time to present their comments.

Minutes: The minutes of this meeting will be available for public review and copying at the Freedom of Information Public Reading Room, 1E-190, Forrestal Building, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585 between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday-Friday, except Federal holidays. Minutes will also be available by writing to Yvonne Sherman, Department of Energy Richland Operation Office, 825 Jadwin, MSIN A7-75, Richland, WA 99352, or by calling her at (509) 376-1563.

Purpose of the Board: The purpose of the Board is to make recommendations to DOE and its regulators in the areas of environmental restoration, waste management, and related activities.

If needed, time will be allotted after public comments for items added to the agenda, and administrative details. A final agenda will be available at the meeting Monday, May 24, 2004.

Public Participation: The meeting is open to the public. Written statements may be filed with the Board either before or after the meeting. Individuals who wish to make the oral state-ments pertaining to agenda items should contact Gerri Flemming's office at the address or telephone listed above. Requests must be received five days prior to the meeting and reasonable provision will be made to include the presentation in the agenda. The Deputy Designated Federal Officer is empowered to conduct the meeting in a fashion that will facilitate the orderly conduct business. Each individual wishing to make public comment will be provided equal time to present their comments.

Minutes: The minutes of this meeting will be available for public review and copying at the Freedom of Information Public Reading Room, 1E-190, Forrestal Building, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585 between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Minutes will also be available by writing to Gerri Flemming, Department of Energy Savannah River Operations Office, PO Box A, Aiken, SC 29802, or by calling her at (803) 952-7886.

The Amistad and Falcon Dams are features of international water storage projects located on the Rio Grande River between Texas and Mexico. Western markets the power from these dams under the terms of Contract No. 7-07-50-P0890 (Contract) dated August 9, 1977, and amended on April 10, 1986. The rate formula of that Contract was approved by the Federal Power Commission (FPC), predecessor to the Commission, for a 5-year period beginning with the date of initial operation of Amistad Power Plant, in Docket No. E-9566 on August 12, 1977. A 5-year rate extension approving this same rate formula through June 7, 1993, was ordered by the Commission on July 20, 1988, in 44 FERC 62,058. Subsequent 5-year renewals of the rate formula have been approved by the Commission. The most recent approval was on January 21, 2000, in Docket No. EF-99-5101-000, which approved the same power rate formula through June 7, 2004.

According to article 9(a) of the Contract, Western calculates the annual installment to be paid by the South Texas Electric Cooperative, Inc. (STEC), and the Medina Electric Cooperative, Inc. (MEC), for the power generated at the Amistad and Falcon power plants on or before August 31 of the year preceding the fiscal year to which it pertains. Each annual installment pays the annual amortized portion of the United States' investment in the Amistad and Falcon hydroelectric facilities with interest, and the associated operation, maintenance, and administrative costs. This repayment schedule is not dependent upon the power and energy made available for sale or the rate of generation each year. Western will continue to provide STEC/MEC with a revised Exhibit A by August 31 of each year using the same methodology.

By Delegation Order No. 00-037.00, effective December 6, 2001, the Secretary of Energy delegated: (1) The authority to develop power and transmission rates to Western's Administrator; (2) the authority to confirm, approve, and place such rates into effect on an interim basis to the Deputy Secretary; and (3) the authority to confirm, approve, and place into effect on a final basis, to remand, or to disapprove such rates to the Commission. Existing DOE procedures for public participation in power rate adjustments (10 CFR 903) were published on September 18, 1985 (50 FR 37835).

Pursuant to Delegation Order Nos. 00-037.00 and 00-001.00A, 10 CFR part 903, and 18 CFR part 300, I hereby confirm, approve, and place Rate Order No. WAPA-111 into effect on an interim basis. The extension of the rate formula will be promptly submitted to the Commission for confirmation and approval on a final basis.

The Western Area Power Administration (Western) developed this power rate formula under the Department of Energy Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7152). This Act transferred the power marketing functions of the Secretary of the Interior and the Bureau of Reclamation under the Reclamation Act of 1902 (ch. 1093, 32 Stat.388), as amended and supplemented by subsequent enactments, particularly section 9(c) of the Reclamation Act of 1939, (43 U.S.C. 485h(c)), and other Acts specifically applicable to the Amistad Project and the Falcon Project, to the Secretary.

By Delegation Order No. 00-037.00, effective December 6, 2001, the Secretary of Energy delegated: (1) The authority to develop power and transmission rates to Western's Administrator; (2) the authority to confirm, approve, and place such rates into effect on an interim basis to the Deputy Secretary; and (3) the authority to confirm, approve, and place into effect on a final basis, to remand, or to disapprove such rates to the Commission. Existing DOE procedures for public participation in power rate adjustments (10 CFR 903) were published on September 18, 1985 (50 FR 37835).

As used in this rate order, the following acronyms and definitions apply:

Commission: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

Contract: Contract No. 7-07-50-P0890 dated August 9, 1977, and amended on April 10, 1986, between Western, STEC, and MEC, for firm power.

Customers: STEC and MEC.

DOE: Department of Energy.

DOE Order RA 6120.2: An order dealing with power marketing administration financial reporting used in determining revenue requirements for rate development.

FPC: Federal Power Commission.

FY: Fiscal year; October 1 to September 30.

kWh: Kilowatthour.

MEC: Medina Electric Cooperative, Inc.

Mills/kWh: Mills per kilowatthour.

NEPA: National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321, et seq. ).

O&M: Operation and maintenance.

PRS: Power repayment study.

Reclamation: Bureau of Reclamation, U.S. Department of the Interior.

Secretary: Secretary of Energy.

STEC: South Texas Electric Cooperative, Inc.

U.S. Section: U.S. Section of the International Boundary and Water Commission.

Western: Western Area Power Administration, U.S. Department of Energy.

This power rate formula will become effective on an interim basis on June 8, 2004, and will be in effect pending the Commission's approval of this or a substitute rate formula on a final basis for a 5-year period through June 7, 2009, or until superseded.

Paragraph 903.23(a) of 10 CFR 903 does not require either a consultation and comment period, or public information or comment forums for rate extensions. The Customers have expressed their desire to continue using the rate formula through correspondence and letters of concurrence dated December 9, 2003. In addition, on March 17, 2004, Western met with the Customers in San Antonio, Texas, where Western notified them of its intent to continue the power rate formula. Western also discussed the number of years covered in the annual installments, operation and maintenance funding, answered questions, and received comments and suggestions. The customers expressed support to continue the power rate formula.

The Amistad and Falcon Dams are features of international water storage projects located on the Rio Grande River between Texas and Mexico. Western markets the power from these dams under the terms of the Contract.

On August 12, 1977, in Docket No. E-9566, the FPC approved for a 5-year period the rate formula contained in the Contract between Reclamation and the two electric cooperatives, to become effective on the date of initial operation of Amistad Power Plant (June 8, 1983). The Customers agreed to purchase the output of the Amistad and Falcon Power Plants for a 50-year period, beginning when initial electric service became available from Amistad. The cooperatives agreed to take all Amistad and Falcon power and to pay the United States an annual installment as discussed in the Contract.

The power marketing functions of Reclamation were transferred to Western on October 1, 1977, and Western became responsible for the administration of the above Contract.

Western and the Customers executed Supplement No. 1 to the Contract on April 10, 1986, to clarify the method for determining the annual installment consistent with DOE Order No. RA 6120.2. Those clarifications address repayment of Falcon hydroelectric facilities within the remaining period, establish interest during construction at 7 percent, capitalize major replacements and additions at current interest rates, and specify the actual date of initial service as June 8, 1983.

Supplement No. 1 requires the amount of each annual installment be established in advance by the contracting officer in consultation with the U.S. Section and submitted to the cooperatives as Exhibit A on or before August 31 of the year preceding the appropriate fiscal year in accordance with the following:

The amount of each annual installment shall be the sum of:

The billing procedures contained in Supplement No. 1 require Western to submit bills to the cooperatives for each monthly payment on the annual installment on or before the tenth day of the month for which such payment is due. Payments are due and payable by the cooperatives on the first day of the following month. Western divides the calculated annual installment by 12 and bills the customer monthly for this amount.

The rate formula of that Contract was approved by the FPC, for a 5-year period beginning with the date of initial operations of Amistad Power Plant, and subsequent 5-year renewals of the rate formula have been approved by the Commission through June 2004.

Consequently, Commission approval is now sought for an additional 5-year period. The effective date is scheduled to be June 8, 2004, through June 7, 2009.

The Contract requires that Western calculate the annual installment to be paid by the customers for the power generated at the Amistad and Falcon Power Plants, in consultation with the U.S. Section, and submit it to STEC and MEC in the form of a contract exhibit on or before August 31 of the year preceding the FY to which it pertains.

Western calculates the annual installment based on 2 years of data. The calculation includes the projected costs of the rate installment year (future fiscal year) and an adjustment from the last historic fiscal year. The adjustment is the surplus or deficit that occurs in the last historic year when actual costs and repayment obligations are subtracted from actual revenues. This surplus or deficit is combined with the projected rate installment year costs to arrive at the rate installment.

The following table provides a summary of revenues and expenses for the current 6-year rate formula and the actual revenues and expenses for the same period.

The following table provides a summary of the projected revenues and expenses during the provisional rate formula period.

In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321, et seq. ); Council on Environmental Quality Regulations (40 CFR 1500-1508); and DOE NEPA Regulations (10 CFR 1021), Western has determined that this action is categorically excluded from the preparation of an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement.

Western has an exemption from centralized regulatory review under Executive Order 12866; accordingly, no clearance of this notice by the Office of Management and Budget is required.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ) requires Federal agencies to perform a regulatory flexibility analysis if a final rule is likely to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities and there is a legal requirement to issue a general notice of proposed rulemaking. Western has determined that this action does not require a regulatory flexibility analysis since it is a rulemaking of particular applicability involving rates or services applicable to public property.

Western has determined that this rule is exempt from congressional notification requirements under 5 U.S.C. 801 because the action is a rulemaking of particular applicability relating to rates or services and involves matters of procedure.

Information regarding this rate formula extension is available for public review in the Colorado River Storage Project Management Center, Western Area Power Administration, 150 East Social Hall Avenue, Suite 300, Salt Lake City, UT 84111. Some of these documents are also available at http://www.wapa.gov/crsp/rateanal.htm under CRSP Rate Adjustment documents for the Amistad and Falcon Projects section.

The rate formula extension herein confirmed, approved, and placed into effect on an interim basis, together with supporting documents, will be submitted to the Commission for confirmation and approval on a final basis.

In view of the foregoing and pursuant to the authority delegated to me, I confirm and approve and place into effect on an interim basis a renewal of the rate formula provisions contained in the Contract and supplemented. The rate formula has been in effect since June 8, 1999. The rate formula provisions shall remain in effect on an interim basis, pending the Commission's confirmation and approval of this or a substitute rate formula on a final basis through June 7, 2009.

EPA has submitted the following ICR to OMB for review and approval according to the procedures prescribed in 5 CFR 1320.12. On November 3, 2003, (68 FR 62289), EPA sought comments on this ICR pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.8(d). EPA received no comments.

EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID Number OECA-2003-0143, which is available for public viewing at the Enforcement and Compliance Docket and Information Center in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the Enforcement and Compliance Docket and Information Center is (202) 566-1752. An electronic version of the public docket is available through EPA Dockets (EDOCKET) at http://www.epa.gov/edocket. Use EDOCKET to submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the public docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically. When in the system, select “search,” then key in the docket ID number identified above.

Any comments related to this ICR should be submitted to EPA and OMB within 30 days of this notice. EPA's policy is that public comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made available for public viewing in EDOCKET as EPA receives them and without change, unless the comment contains copyrighted material, CBI, or other information whose public disclosure is restricted by statute. When EPA identifies a comment containing copyrighted material, EPA will provide a reference to that material in the version of the comment that is placed in EDOCKET. The entire printed comment, including the copyrighted material, will be available in the public docket. Although identified as an item in the official docket, information claimed as CBI, or whose disclosure is otherwise restricted by statute, is not included in the official public docket, and will not be available for public viewing in EDOCKET. For further information about the electronic docket, see EPA's Federal Register notice describing the electronic docket at 67 FR 38102 (May 31, 2002), or go to http://www.epa.gov/edocket.

Title: NSPS for Stationary Gas Turbines (40 CFR Part 60, Subpart GG) (Renewal).

Abstract: Owners and operators of stationary gas turbines subject to New Source Performance Standard (NSPS) subpart GG must submit a one-time-only notification of construction/reconstruction, modification, and startup date, initial performance test date, physical or operational changes, and demonstration of a continuous monitoring system. They also must provide a report on initial performance test results, monitoring results and any excess emissions. Records must be maintained of startups, shutdowns, malfunctions; periods when the continuous monitoring system is inoperative; sulfur and nitrogen content of the fuel; fuel to water ratio; rate of fuel consumption; and ambient conditions. Records must be maintained for two years. Responses to this information collection are deemed to be mandatory, per section 114(a) of the Clean Air Act. This information is being collected to assure compliance with 40 CFR part 60, subpart GG.

An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. The OMB Control Numbers for EPA's regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15, and are identified on the form and/or instrument, if applicable.

Burden Statement: The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 56 hours per response. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.

Respondents/Affected Entities: Owners and Operators of stationary gas turbines with a heat input at peak load equal to or greater than 10.7 gigajoules per hour.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 535.

Frequency of Response: Semiannual.

Estimated Total Annual Hour Burden: 59,519 hours.

Estimated Total Annual Costs: $3,837,190, which includes $0 annualized capital/startup costs, $0 annual O&M costs, and $3,837,190 annual labor costs.

Changes in the Estimates: There is a decrease of 33,920 hours in the total estimated burden currently identified in the OMB Inventory of Approved ICR Burdens. This decrease is due to a reduction in the number of existing sources resulting from a more accurate estimate of the average number of existing and anticipated new sources.

EPA has submitted the following ICR to OMB for review and approval according to the procedures prescribed in 5 CFR 1320.12. On Wednesday, November 19, 2003 (68 FR 65276), EPA sought comments on this ICR pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.8(d). EPA received no comments.

EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID No. OAR-2003-0213, which is available for public viewing at the Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center is (202) 566-1742. An electronic version of the public docket is available through EPA Dockets (EDOCKET) at http://www.epa.gov/edocket. Use EDOCKET to submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the public docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically. Once in the system, select “search,” then key in the docket ID number identified above.

Any comments related to this ICR should be submitted to EPA and OMB within 30 days of this notice. EPA's policy is that public comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made available for public viewing in EDOCKET as EPA receives them and without change, unless the comment contains copyrighted material, CBI, or other information whose public disclosure is restricted by statute. When EPA identifies a comment containing copyrighted material, EPA will provide a reference to that material in the version of the comment that is placed in EDOCKET. The entire printed comment, including the copyrighted material, will be available in the public docket. Although identified as an item in the official docket, information claimed as CBI, or whose disclosure is otherwise restricted by statute, is not included in the official public docket, and will not be available for public viewing in EDOCKET. For further information about the electronic docket, see EPA's Federal Register notice describing the electronic docket at 67 FR 38102 (May 31, 2002), or go to http://www.epa.gov/edocket.

Title: Regulation of Fuel and Fuel Additives (Renewal).

Abstract: Gasoline combustion is the major source of air pollution in most urban areas. In the 1990 amendments to the Clean Air Act (Act), section 211(k), Congress required that gasoline dispensed in nine areas with severe air quality problems, and areas that opt in, be reformulated to reduce toxic and ozone-forming emissions. (Ozone is also known as smog.) Congress also required that, in the process of producing reformulated gasoline (RFG), dirty components removed in the reformulation process not be “dumped” into the remainder of the country's gasoline, known as conventional gasoline (CG). The Environmental Protection Agency promulgated regulations at 40 CFR part 80, subpart D—Reformulated Gasoline, subpart E—Anti-Dumping, and subpart F—Attest Engagements, implementing the statutory requirements, which include standards for RFG (80.41) and CG (80.101). The regulations also contain reporting and recordkeeping requirements for the production, importation, transport and storage of gasoline, in order to demonstrate compliance and facilitate compliance and enforcement. The program is run by the Transportation and Regional Programs Division, Office of Transportation and Air Quality, Office of Air and Radiation. Enforcement is done by the Air Enforcement Division, Office of Regulatory Enforcement, Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance. This program excludes California, which has separate requirements for gasoline.

An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and are identified on the form and/or instrument, if applicable.

Burden Statement: The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1.8 hours per response. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.

Respondents/Affected Entities: Entities that produce, import or distribute gasoline.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 1,190.

Frequency of Response: Annually, quarterly, on occasion.

Estimated Total Annual Hour Burden: 96,625.

Estimated Total Annual Cost: $29,266,307 includes $4,800,000 annualized capital costs, $18,184,357 O&M costs, and $6,281,950 Respondent Labor costs.

Changes in the Estimates: There is a decrease of 4,946 hours in the total estimated burden currently identified in the OMB Inventory of Approved ICR Burdens. This decrease is due to adjustments, primarily in that the date for filing petitions had passed, so no burden for those activities could be expected.

On July 22, 2003, CDC published 68 FR 43356, “Proposed Airborne Exposure Limits for Chemical Warfare Agents H, HD, HT (Sulfur Mustard)”  1 seeking public comment. Today's notice discusses major comments received, describes decisions regarding the public comments, and provides interim recommendations. CDC received comments from the U.S. Army, the State of Utah, the State of Colorado, and one employee union.

The comments fell into the following general categories: risk management assumptions used in CDC's deliberations, selection of uncertainty factors, determination of the cancer potency factor for the mustard AELs, and practical concerns of conducting air monitoring at the lower exposure limits. The key comments potentially impacting CDC's recommendations are summarized and discussed below:

1. One reviewer remarked that the 5-minute ceiling (Ceiling-5M) may require too short of an analytical cycle for use with dual-agent air monitoring instrumentation.

Discussion: The Ceiling-5M was defined to provide a ceiling value for near-real-time (NRT) corrective action that would protect worker health in the short term and meet the long-term goal of keeping the carcinogenicity risk below one in one million. The 8-hour time-weighted average (TWA) exposure limit recommended by CDC in 1988 was implemented by the chemical demilitarization program as a ceiling value, monitored by NRT instruments having a sampling and analysis cycle time of under 5 minutes. CDC's proposal sought to reflect this conservative implementation of the 1988 criteria.

CDC closely examined the various implicit exposure doses, measured in terms of concentration multiplied by time of exposure (Ct), for various potential exposure scenarios. The ceiling-5M was based upon the analytic cycle times used in the stockpile demilitarization program. Longer sampling and analytic cycle times, such as those used in the monitoring programs for chemical agent storage facilities or nonstockpile program, could be considered in a similar manner, that is, by evaluating the effect on the Ct by changing duration of potential exposure with varying instrument cycle times.

CDC examined the implication of applying the ceiling-5M agent concentration with cycle times greater than 5 minutes. Comments received from the Army, indicated that the dual agent monitors use cycle times of up to 10 minutes. Accordingly, CDC reviewed the impact of using 10- to 15-minute cycle times at the same concentration used with the ceiling-5M. Both the short-term and long-term health protection goals were met; that is, the effective dose or Ct associated at this level and duration are still well under the Ct for the acute threshold of effects level (referenced in the July 22, 2003, support document for the proposed sulfur mustard AELs) and the carcinogenicity risk per episode would be well under one in one million.

The above analysis would suggest that a longer analytic cycle time, even up to the 15 minutes, associated with the Army's NRT monitoring definitions, would be acceptable at the concentration proposed with the ceiling-5M. However, real-world leaks, spills, or other unplanned agent releases do not follow a defined pattern of gradual airborne concentration increase. The first cycle of a monitoring alarm could be at much higher concentrations than the ceiling-5M. Consequently, to limit potential agent exposure durations at higher level exposures, analytic cycle time should be kept as short as practicable.

The final factor considered in CDC's review of this issue is the overall risk management implication of modifying the implied cycle time associated with the ceiling AEL. Clearly, the degree of protectiveness increases as the cycle time decreases, assuming all other quality control criteria remain constant. However, if programmatic delays or extraordinary new personnel protective measures are introduced as interim measures in the pursuit of more ideal monitoring capabilities, overall risk could increase to both workers and the public.

In summary, CDC believes that the proposed ceiling-5M was overly proscriptive and possibly counterproductive. Accordingly, CDC redesignated this AEL as a 15-minute short-term exposure limit (STEL). The concentration value, 0.003 mg/m 3 , from the ceiling-5M is retained. This STEL is to be monitored with NRT technology using the shortest practicable instrument cycle time. For the maximum 15-minute duration of the STEL, the Ct is 0.045 mg-min/m 3 .

2. One reviewer remarked that using the proposed general population limit (GPL) for worker protection could result in excessive false-positive situations and attendant disruptions wherever significant interferences might be located.

Discussion: The GPL is a criterion that is set to protect the general public. Community exposure limits are set lower than worker limits to reflect wider variation in human susceptibility than that of the healthy worker population.

CDC premised its proposal to use the new GPL as a worker protection criterion on two basic considerations. First, because the GPL is designed to protect the community, it would also be adequate for a worker population. Second, CDC believed that historic monitoring for the GPL for demilitarization perimeter monitoring similarly could be implemented in worker locations to accommodate longer 12-hour shifts.

As discussed in CDC's proposal, the GPL for sulfur mustard was driven largely by the goal of protecting the public at a cancer risk level of less than one cancer incidence in a million exposures at the GPL for 3 continuous years, a risk level that is considered to be negligible. Three years was chosen for the duration of the potential exposure at a GPL because it was believed to be the maximum duration of a campaign where sulfur mustard munitions would be handled and processed for destruction on a continuing basis. This assumed exposure scenario is conservative for both the public and workers for a number of reasons:

• No one worker works continuously for 3 years; actual time at work is probably well under one-third of all available hours per year when weekends, holidays, and vacations are considered.

• Demilitarization plant workers, storage site workers, non-stockpile site workers, or others who might reasonably be exposed to chemical agent do not remain stationary at one duty location for extended periods.

• Similarly, the individuals within the general community would not normally be anticipated to stay at one location continuously for 3 years.

• Varying meteorological conditions would preclude constant exposure conditions.

• With the rigorous active demilitarization site monitoring and the ongoing routine storage site inspection program, unplanned releases of chemical agent are unlikely to be sustained for any significant duration.

• CDC assumed exposure at the full GPL in its carcinogenicity evaluation even though detection at this level would result in investigation and remedial action. Typically, risk assessment professionals use some fraction of a “practical quantification limit” or detection level.

The above mitigating factors suggest that long-term exposure scenarios (up to 3 years) used to estimate sulfur mustard carcinogenicity review overstates the true risk. Accordingly, CDC recommends retaining the proposed GPL for perimeter monitoring stations at demilitarization facilities and evaluation of the allowable stack concentrations.

For worker protection against low-level exposure, CDC now recommends a separate 8-hour TWA for a worker protection limit (WPL) rather than applying the GPL as originally proposed. In the earlier proposal for mustard AELs, CDC investigated the development of a WPL using the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Categorical Regression (CatReg) method. The value derived from this method is 0.0003 mg/m 3 . This value is in reasonably close agreement with the U.S. Army Center for Health Promotion and Preventive Medicine (CHPPM) reference concentration-derived (RfC) WPL of 0.0004 mg/m 3 and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) acute inhalation minimum risk level (MRL)  2 of 0.0007 mg/m 3 (1,2). CDC believes that the CHPPM-recommended value for an 8-hour TWA is protective for noncarcinogenic effects and should be implemented for worker protection.

3. The Army noted that, although CDC specified that the proposed AELs were developed for and based upon agent stockpile demilitarization practice, other non-stockpile and storage situations existed to which the AELs would be applied within other Army programs. Illustrations of a number of such situations and some suggested resolutions were provided for CDC's consideration.

Discussion: In CDC's proposal, the use of Ct evaluations was emphasized as an indication of potential acute exposure dose. For potential applications beyond strict stockpile demilitarization, adjustments to implementation of AELs might be warranted on the bases of site-specific or activity-specific conditions. However, any such potential AEL implementation and adjustment for site-specific conditions must ensure that the new monitoring action level protects at the potential exposure dose (Ct) so that the recommended 8-hour WPL is not exceeded. Also, any NRT monitors should not have action levels set above the recommended STEL.

4. Two reviewers commented that CDC's selection of the National Academy of Science (NAS) cancer potency factor (CPF) was inappropriate because the benzo-a-pyrene (BaP) index value used was based upon oral, not inhalation, exposure. They also believed that CDC should use the 30-year exposure assumption described in EPA's risk assessment guidelines.

Discussion: To estimate cancer risk, exposure assumptions and a numeric estimate of the potency of carcinogenicity of a substance are necessary. The reviewers believed that CDC should have used a 30-year duration for such exposure at the lifetime adjusted daily dose. CDC appreciates the general desirability to be consistent with established guidelines in risk assessment, but EPA has acknowledged in its 1999 Carcinogen Risk Assessment Guidelines (RAG), that “in the face of scientific uncertainty, common sense and reasonable application of assumptions and policies are essential to avoid unrealistic estimates of risk” (3). CDC believes that a 30-year, or even a 10-year, exposure assumption significantly overestimates potential exposures by one or more orders of magnitude. For example, members of the general public are highly unlikely to be continually exposed to sulfur mustard, night and day, for 10 or 30 years. Similarly, atmospheric stability, wind speed, and direction are not fixed for years on end. No agent reduction is assumed for environmental degradations or rainfall that would reduce concentrations. No agent reduction is assumed for low temperature environmental conditions where mustard agent would not significantly volatilize. No agent reduction is assumed for agent dilution beyond the perimeter of a facility. At agent storage sites, GPL readings are taken daily at the facility perimeter. Levels of agent approaching GPL should be detected within days, not years, of occurrence and corrective action would be initiated. Historically, agent releases to the environment have been episodic; no indication exists that continuous, long term low-level agent releases routinely occur.

CDC's examination of the potential cancer risk associated with proposed AELs considered only incremental potential risk. That is, historic risk to workers and the public in the vicinity of stockpile storage facilities was not examined. This was because each site would have to be considered individually regarding amount, nature and age of stored mustard items; local spatial, and meteorologic conditions and their relation to area demographics; and the nature and capabilities of historic storage facility inspection programs. These site-specific factors, coupled with a weak quantification of cancer potency (see discussion below) of sulfur mustard, suggested limited utility in attempting to quantify such potential risk.

The other major criticism received by CDC regarding carcinogenicity analysis pertained to the use of the NAS recommended CPF (2000) based upon sulfur mustard relative potency compared with BaP. The NAS recommendation was predicated upon oral dosage, not inhalation. CDC believed that the other published studies used to support attempts at developing numeric estimates of the CPF for sulfur mustard seriously lacked merit for this application. Although an averaging estimate (i.e., geometric mean) for all the CPFs developed might provide a reasonable estimate, CDC believes that a mathematic manipulation of questionable numbers in no way ensures that the new number is appropriate. Furthermore, CDC believes that without a reasonable basis to suggest the estimates used in the averaging method bracket the true CPF as applied to humans; CDC should not arbitrarily rely on a number developed in this manner.

CDC agrees with the reviewers that extrapolation between exposure routes is undesirable when examining cancer risk. EPA's 1999 Carcinogen RAG addresses this issue briefly: “In the absence of contrary data, the qualitative default assumption is that, if the agent is absorbed by a route to give an internal dose, it may be carcinogenic by that route” (3). Furthermore, EPA states that, “For screening or hazard ranking, route-to-route extrapolation may be based on assumed quantitative comparability as a default, as long as it is reasonable to assume absorption by compared routes” (3). In light of CDC's reluctance to use CPF averaged numbers as described above, and in the absence of other, better data, CDC recognized that a route-to-route extrapolation was needed if the carcinogenicity risk through inhalation was to be examined and consequently based its analysis upon the NAS-recommended potency value.

CDC believes that the reviewers raise a valid point regarding the use of the indexed value as done in the Federal Register proposal. The reasonableness of the assumption that both exposure routes result in comparable agent absorption is debatable. CDC does not believe strongly that such an assumption is valid; consequently, CDC is open to further examination of this issue. CDC does not believe that the CPF geometric mean offers any demonstrable scientific improvement over the route-to route extrapolation originally used in CDC's proposal. The reviewers recommend that a range of inhalation cancer slope factors be described according to EPA's Carcinogen RAG. CHPPM presented such a range of factors in the “Evaluation of Airborne Exposure Limits for Sulfur Mustard: Occupational and General Population Exposure Criteria,” November 2000 and can be referred to by the reader for insight into the variability of postulated risk dependent upon a range the exposure assumptions and CPFs (1). The CHPPM examination is consistent with EPA's guidance. CDC must caution the reader, however, that these numeric estimates are tenuous. Oak Ridge National Laboratory's 1993 discussion of this issue for sulfur mustard carcinogenicity illustrates CDC's concerns:

“Unfortunately, quantitative human cancer risk estimates are impractical because the experimental data from animal studies have three large uncertainties:

• Only a few experiments were conducted;

• Many were in a mouse strain that exhibited a high genetic susceptibility to spontaneous pulmonary tumors;

• Routes of administration tested and duration of follow-up observations are not comparable to the human exposures of concern.” (4)

In 1991, EPA examined cancer risk estimates that cover the range of cancer slope factors presented in the CHPPM document. EPA observed, “Depending on the unknown true shape of the dose-response curve at low doses, actual risks may be anywhere from this upper bound down to zero”(5). Similarly, in the 2003 ATSDR Toxicological Profile for Sulfur Mustard, the inhalation cancer effects discussion states, “ * * * in no case was the exposure level or duration quantified, and therefore, these data are inadequate for deriving dose-response relationships”(2).

CDC recommends that a better characterization of an appropriate cancer slope factor needs to be conducted to set exposure limits. CDC is aware of proposed forthcoming animal research by DoD to examine the chronic impact of long-term exposure to sulfur mustard. CDC encourages this research and the examination of results for possible insights and refinement of an estimate of a more accurate CPF.

5. All four reviewers provided opinions regarding the use of uncertainty factors to derive AELs. One reviewer believed that rationale was sufficient to reduce the total uncertainty used by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) to derive the Immediately Dangerous to Life or Health (IDLH) criterion by a factor of three, which would result in an increase to a value of 2.0 mg/m 3 . Another reviewer wanted to lower the IDLH by a factor of two because of limitations of military studies used to derive the value. Another reviewer believed strongly that the proposed GPL should be reduced by at least an additional factor of 10 to reflect uncertainties not adequately represented by either the CHPPM examination using the RfC method or the CDC examination using the CatReg method. Finally, another reviewer believed that CDC's total uncertainty factor of 300 used to derive the GPL was appropriate but recommended that the uncertainty factor for intrahuman variation be decreased from 10 to 3 and the data quality factor be increased from 3 to 10. Supporting rationale was provided for all these opinions.

Discussion: Professional judgment is needed in the application of uncertainty factors. As discussed in CDC's original support document, considerable deliberation is ongoing regarding the use of uncertainty factors in risk assessment. No validated or calibrated means exist to precisely quantify total uncertainty used in deriving AELs. This was why CDC considered not only at the RfC, CatReg, and carcinogenicity considerations, but also the risk management aspects of safely managing sulfur mustard agent as associated with the demilitarization program.

The reviewer who recommended the minimal 10-fold decrease in the GPL also believed that AELs should be developed independent of risk management considerations. CDC agrees that ideally developed AELs should be independent of existing risk management conditions. One could argue that CDC should “safe-side” the AELs by using highest uncertainty factors recommended by all reviewers and ignore any recommendations for reduction of uncertainty factors. Except for compounds exhibiting hormesis, this approach always would be theoretically safer than using a number derived using uncertainty factors that are not on the most conservative end of the spectrum of professional judgment.

CDC's mission is to enhance public and worker health protection for people associated with or living near chemical agent demilitarization facilities. CDC believes that real-world risk management must be factored into its deliberations. Otherwise, CDC could increase or extend actual risk in the real world to minimize theoretical or undemonstrated risk. EPA's Carcinogenic RAG noted that, “While it is appropriate to err on the side of protection of health and the environment in the face of scientific uncertainty, common sense and reasonable application of assumptions and policies are essential to avoid unrealistic estimates of risk”(3,6). Furthermore, CDC/NIOSH policy for potential occupational carcinogens states that “ * * * policy will be the development, whenever possible, of quantitative RELs (recommended exposure limits) that are based on human and/or animal data, as well as on the consideration of technological feasibility for controlling workplace exposures to the REL” (emphasis added).

Although CDC received only 4 sets of comments on the proposed mustard AELs, these reviewers clearly tried diligently to represent their perspectives and concerns. Three sets of comments focused primarily upon the process used to develop the proposed AELs, and the fourth focused primarily on the practical implications of the proposed values. In addition to the solicited comments described above, CDC had the original proposal reviewed by other government and professional health risk assessment personnel. With the exception of one reviewer, the CDC approach to developing AELs in concert with ongoing risk management provisions of the chemical demilitarization program was not questioned.

The examination of the carcinogenicity issue is problematic in that CDC believes that a numeric estimation of a cancer slope factor for mustard is not well supported. The CHPPM review of this issue, through the evaluation of the range of attempts at quantifying upper bound cancer risk from exposure to sulfur mustard, has been referenced herein to provide the reader with that perspective; however, CDC cannot say with confidence that the numeric range of slope factors is likely to provide a reasonable estimate of the true carcinogenic potency of this agent.

Because of the uncertainties discussed above, especially the characterization of cancer potency of sulfur mustard, CDC has decided to issue its recommended AELs as interim values pending better understanding of the CPF for this agent. CDC believes that for noncancer effects, the recommended AELs protect worker and public health.

Regarding the implied carcinogenicity risk, CDC believes that the strong risk management provisions, such as engineering and administrative controls within demilitarization facilities, extensive low-level air monitoring, and the previously discussed mitigating factors, minimize cancer risk at the interim AELs.

In summary, CDC recommends the following:

• Defer recommending a cancer potency factor until better data are available.

• Redesignate the ceiling-5M value as a 15-minute STEL, limited to one occurrence per day; CDC encourages shortest practicable analytic cycle times.

• Apply the U.S. Army CHPPM-derived 8-hour WPL for workplace; retain GPL as proposed for use in protecting the general public.

• Implement the recommended AELs as interim values, to go into effect on July 1, 2005; values to remain interim until better cancer potency characterization is available or research data indicate the need for revision.

• Continue to recommend rigorous risk management analysis and practice as has been associated with the chemical agent demilitarization program practice.

• Given the uncertainty in the risk assessment regarding cancer potency, reduced exposures to sulfur mustard to the lowest practicable level.

Table 1 below contains the numeric values for the interim recommended AELs.

Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. “Collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)) requires Federal agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information, including each proposed extension of an existing collection, before submitting the collection to OMB for approval. To comply with this requirement, FDA is publishing notice of the proposed collection of information set forth in this document.

With respect to the following collection of information, FDA invites comments on these topics: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of FDA's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of FDA's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques, when appropriate, and other forms of information technology.

Under section 740 of the act, as amended by the Animal Drug User Fee Act (ADUFA) (21 U.S.C. 379j-12), FDA has the authority to assess and collect certain animal drug user fees. Because the submission of user fees concurrently with applications and supplements is required, review of an application cannot begin until the fee is submitted. Under the new statutory provisions (section 740(e) of the act, as amended by ADUFA), animal drug applications and supplemental animal drug applications for which the required fee has not been paid are considered incomplete and are not to be accepted for review by the agency. The types of fees that require a cover sheet are certain animal drug application fees and certain supplemental animal drug application fees. The cover sheet, FDA Form 3546, is designed to provide the minimum necessary information to determine whether a fee is required for the review of an application or supplement, to determine the amount of the fee required, and to assure that each animal drug user fee payment and each animal drug application for which payment is made, is appropriately linked to the payment that is made. The form, when completed electronically, will result in the generation of a unique payment identification number used in tracking the payment. FDA will use the information collected, to initiate administrative screening of new animal drug applications and supplements to determine if payment has been received. Inability to collect this information would delay the review process and would also delay receipt of revenue that is to be used to fund the review of animal drug applications during the current fiscal year. Respondents to this collection of information are new animal drug applicants or manufacturers.

FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as follows:

Based on FDA's database system, there are an estimated 140 manufacturers of products or sponsors of new animal drugs potentially subject to ADUFA. However, not all manufacturers or sponsors will have any submissions in a given year and some may have multiple submissions. The total number of annual responses is based on the number of submissions received by FDA in fiscal year 2003. FDA's Center for Veterinary Medicine estimates 69 annual responses that include 28 new animal drug premarket approval applications and 41 supplements. The estimated hours per responses are based on past FDA experience with the various submissions and range from 30 minutes to 1 hour. The hours per response are based on the average of these estimates.

Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. “Collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506 (c)(2)(A)) requires Federal agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information, including each proposed extension of an existing collection, before submitting the collection to OMB for approval. To comply with this requirement, FDA is publishing notice of the proposed collection of information set forth in this document.

With respect to the following collection of information, FDA invites comments on these topics: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of FDA's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of FDAs estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques, when appropriate, and other forms of information technology.

Enacted on November 18, 2003, the Animal Drug User Fee Act (ADUFA) (Public Law 108-130) amended the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the act) and requires FDA to assess and collect user fees for certain applications, products, establishments, and sponsors. It also requires the agency to grant a waiver from, or a reduction of those fees in certain circumstances. Thus, to implement this statutory provision of ADUFA, FDA developed a guidance entitled “Guidance for Industry: Animal Drug User Fees and Fee Waivers and Reductions.” This document provides guidance on the types of fees FDA is authorized to collect under ADUFA, and how to request waivers and reductions from FDA's animal drug user fees. Further, this guidance also describes the types of fees and fee waivers and reductions; what information FDA recommends be submitted in support of a request for a fee waiver or reduction; how to submit such a request; and FDA's process for reviewing requests. Respondents to this collection of information are new animal drug sponsors. Requests for waivers or reductions may be submitted by a person paying any of the animal drug user fees assessed—application fees, product fees, establishment fees, or sponsor fees.

FDA estimates the burden for this collection of information as follows:

Based on FDA's data base system, there are an estimated 250 sponsors of products subject to ADUFA. However, not all sponsors will have any submissions in a given year and some may have multiple submissions. The total number of waiver requests is based on the number of submission types received by FDA in fiscal year 2003. FDA's Center for Veterinary Medicine estimates 30 waiver requests that include the following: 5 significant barriers to innovation, 1 fee exceed cost, 5 free choice feeds, 10 minor use or minor species, 2 small business waiver requests, 5 requests for reconsideration of a decision, and 2 requests for user fee appeal officer. The estimated hours per response are based on past FDA experience with the various waiver requests in FDA's Center for Drug Evaluation and Research. The hours per response are based on the average of these estimates.

In the Federal Register of June 28, 1999 (64 FR 34608), the agency announced that the proposed information collection had been submitted to OMB for review and clearance under 44 U.S.C. 3507. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. OMB has now approved the information collection and has assigned OMB control number 0910-0538. The approval expires on March 31, 2007. A copy of the supporting statement for this information collection is available on the Internet at http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets .

At this time the agency has incorporated the information collection's reporting burden, previously identified by OMB control number 0910-0431, entitled “Changes to an Approved NDA or ANDA,” into this collection of information, identified by OMB control number 0910-0538.

The Program provides a system of no-fault compensation for certain individuals who have been injured by specified childhood vaccines. Subtitle 2 of Title XXI of the PHS Act, 42 U.S.C. 300aa-10 et seq. , provides that those seeking compensation are to file a petition with the U.S. Court of Federal Claims and to serve a copy of the petition on the Secretary of Health and Human Services, who is named as the respondent in each proceeding. The Secretary has delegated his responsibility under the Program to HRSA. The Court is directed by statute to appoint special masters who take evidence, conduct hearings as appropriate, and make initial decisions as to eligibility for, and amount of, compensation.

A petition may be filed with respect to injuries, disabilities, illnesses, conditions, and deaths resulting from vaccines described in the Vaccine Injury Table (the Table) set forth at section 2114 of the PHS Act or as set forth at 42 CFR 100.3, as applicable. This Table lists for each covered childhood vaccine the conditions which will lead to compensation and, for each condition, the time period for occurrence of the first symptom or manifestation of onset or of significant aggravation after vaccine administration. Compensation may also be awarded for conditions not listed in the Table and for conditions that are manifested outside the time periods specified in the Table, but only if the petitioner shows that the condition was caused by one of the listed vaccines.

Section 2112(b)(2) of the PHS Act, 42 U.S.C. 300aa-12(b)(2), requires that the Secretary publish in the Federal Register a notice of each petition filed. Set forth below is a list of petitions received by HRSA on October 1, 2003, through December 31, 2003.

Section 2112(b)(2) also provides that the special master “shall afford all interested persons an opportunity to submit relevant, written information” relating to the following:

1. The existence of evidence “that there is not a preponderance of the evidence that the illness, disability, injury, condition, or death described in the petition is due to factors unrelated to the administration of the vaccine described in the petition,” and

2. Any allegation in a petition that the petitioner either:

(a) “Sustained, or had significantly aggravated, any illness, disability, injury, or condition not set forth in the Vaccine Injury Table but which was caused by” one of the vaccines referred to in the Table, or

(b) “Sustained, or had significantly aggravated, any illness, disability, injury, or condition set forth in the Table the first symptom or manifestation of the onset or significant aggravation of which did not occur within the time period set forth in the Table but which was caused by a vaccine” referred to in the Table.

This notice will also serve as the special master's invitation to all interested persons to submit written information relevant to the issues described above in the case of the petitions listed below. Any person choosing to do so should file an original and three (3) copies of the information with the Clerk of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims at the address listed above (under the heading FOR FUTHER INFORMATION CONTACT ), with a copy to HRSA addressed to Director, Division of Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, Special Programs Bureau, 5600 Fishers Lane, Room 16C-17, Rockville, MD 20857. The Court's caption (Petitioner's Name v. Secretary of Health and Human Services) and the docket number assigned to the petition should be used as the caption for the written submission.

Chapter 35 of title 44, United States Code, related to paperwork reduction, does not apply to information required for purposes of carrying out the Program.

In an April 9, 2004, Federal Register Notice (69 FR 18923 April 9, 2004), the Department of Homeland Security provided notice that the Secretary was establishing the Data Integrity, Privacy, and Interoperability Advisory Committee and requested that qualified individuals interested in serving should apply for membership by April 30, 2004. Potential candidates have requested more time to submit applications. Therefore, we are extending the period to submit applications to May 15, 2004. Applications should be received on or before that date but will be accepted for a limited time after May 15.

44 CFR 61.17 sets the amount of coverage under a Group Flood Insurance Policy (GFIP). Although the current version of § 61.17 sets this amount as equivalent to the maximum grant amount established under section 408 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, (42 U.S.C. 5174,) prior to October 15, 2002, this regulation set the amount of coverage as equivalent to the maximum grant amount under the Individual and Family Grant (IFG) program under section 411 of the Stafford Act (42 U.S.C. 5178,) see 67 FR 61462, Sept. 30, 2002. Section 411 was repealed as of October 15, 2002. Because FEMA's policy is to apply regulations in force on the date of a disaster declaration to all assistance provided during that disaster (which in this case is also the time that the policies were issued), we will set the coverage for GFIP based upon the same criteria used to adjust the maximum IFG grant amount under section 411 for GFIP polices issued for those disasters declared prior to the repeal of section 411. Since section 411 has been repealed this adjustment is made solely for purposes of establishing the GFIP coverage amount for policies issues for disasters declared on or before October 14, 2002.

The Stafford Act prescribed for the annual adjustment of grants made under Section 411, IFG Program, to reflect changes in the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers published by the Department of Labor. If the IFG program were still in effect, the maximum grant amount for the IFG Program under Section 411 of the Act, would have been increased to $15,300 for fiscal year 2004. As a result the coverage amount for GFIP is adjusted to $15,300.

FEMA bases the adjustments on an increase in the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers of 2.2 percent for the 12-month period ended in August 2003. The Bureau of Labor Statistics of the U.S. Department of Labor released the information on September 18, 2003.

The King County DDES, acting under authority of Section 104(g) of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 5304(g)), Section 26 of the United States Housing Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437x), and HUD's regulations at 24 CFR part 58, in cooperation with other interested agencies, has prepared a Final EIS to analyze potential impacts of redevelopment of the Park Lake Homes public housing community (Greenbridge Redevelopment Project-Proposed Master Plan). The Final EIS is a joint NEPA and Washington SEPA document intended to satisfy requirements of federal and state environmental statutes. HUD has allowed the assumption of its NEPA authority and NEPA lead agency responsibility by King County (DDES) as the Responsible Entity in cooperation with the Recipient, KCHA, as the SEPA lead agency.

Park Lake Homes is KCHA's oldest and largest public housing development. Built in 1942 to serve as temporary housing for World War II defense workers, structures have been renovated several times. The KCHA received a HOPE VI grant award from HUD in November of 2001 to initiate planning for the revitalization of this public housing development.

The Proposed Master Plan includes redevelopment of the existing approximately 94-acre project site located in the White Center area of unincorporated King County, Washington. The proposed redevelopment is consistent with requirements for a mixed-use, mixed-income housing project as described in the HOPE VI grant. The project site currently contains 569 residential units, a Community Center, a maintenance shop, a Head Start School, and a secondary building containing a food bank and administrative offices. The residential units are in primarily single story duplex structures.

The plan is to replace all existing low-income housing either within the site or elsewhere in King County through construction of public housing units on-site and project-based Section 8 vouchers in existing or new housing complexes. Existing residents would be relocated and assisted with benefits according to the provisions of the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act. Where possible, displaced residents in good standing would be allowed to return to the public housing units once redevelopment is complete.

Most of the current buildings on the site would be demolished in phases, unless renovation for community services use is feasible. The existing Jim Wiley Community Center building will likely be renovated. In addition, much of the existing infrastructure would be demolished, abandoned, or replaced, also in phases. The project site would be redeveloped to provide approximately 900 to 1,100 dwelling units of rental and for-sale housing, in attached and detached forms, to meet a wide range of needs. Rental housing could include public housing units (attached townhouses, over/under flats, over/under townhouses, cottages) and workforce housing (attached townhouses, over/under flats, over/under townhouses, and apartments). For-sale housing could include single family detached cottages, attached townhouses, condominium flats and condominium townhouses.

An estimated 2,235,000 square feet of net buildable area is associated with the Proposed Master Plan. Non-residential development would include an estimated 80,000-100,000 square feet of community-oriented uses. Such uses may include: A branch library, renovated community center, youth and family facilities, Head Start and child care facility, Sheriff's office, food bank, career development center and meeting/gathering space. Approximately 22,300 square feet of neighborhood-scale retail, to meet the everyday needs of residents, is also proposed. A new elementary school (White Center Heights Elementary) is presently under construction; this is an independent proposal for purposes of land use permitting and SEPA review (although the site is included within the Greenbridge Preliminary Plat). A SEPA Determination of Nonsignificance was published on September 18th and 25th, 2002, for the new elementary school.

No significant unavoidable adverse impacts are anticipated for all elements of the environment analyzed in the Final EIS. The Proposed Master Plan would generate impacts to various elements of the environment that can be mitigated so as to not be significant. Existing traffic noise levels on SW. Roxbury Street, which affect the Greenbridge site, exceed levels generally considered desirable by HUD guidelines.

The State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) concurs with the Heritage Resources Report (Appendix I of the Draft EIS) finding that the project site is not eligible for the National Register of Historic Places ( see Section IV and Appendix 2 of the Final EIS). The SHPO response letter also states that further coordination with the Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation is not necessary unless additional information becomes available or any archaeological resources are uncovered during construction.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NOAA Fisheries) concur with the BE determination of “may affect, but not likely to adversely affect” for Puget Sound chinook salmon ( Oncorhynchus tshawytscha ), which is listed as ESA “threatened” species (see Section IV and Appendix 2 of the Final EIS). The NOAA response letter also states that because the habitat requirements for the Magnuson Stevens Fisheries Conservation Act (MSA) managed species are similar to that of Endangered Species Act (ESA) “listed” species, and because the conservation measures that the DDES included as part of the Proposed Action to address ESA concerns are also adequate to avoid, minimize or otherwise offset potential adverse effects to designated Essential Fish Habitat, conservation recommendations pursuant to MSA are not necessary.

Noise control measures (site planning, noise attenuation, or construction techniques) will be required and implemented to reduce noise from traffic on SW. Roxbury Street so that day-night sound levels at outdoor use locations and onsite residences would meet HUD requirements for attenuation, and/or would satisfy HUD's criteria for exceptions (24 CFR 51.105).

Some consider the HOPE VI program and implementing projects to be controversial. Similarly, land use changes, socioeconomic issues, and housing displacement/relocation associated with redevelopment may also be viewed as controversial. Relevant land use, socioeconomic, and housing issues are discussed in Section 4.9 of the Draft EIS and are summarized in Section I of the Final EIS.

Issuance of the Final EIS will trigger a 30-day review period, after which the ROD will be issued. Issuance of the ROD will conclude a planning and environmental review process that started with the Notice of Intent (NOI) to prepare an EIS, dated January 24, 2003. A 30-day scoping period was initiated subsequent to the NOI and a public scoping meeting was held on February 26, 2003. The Draft EIS was made available on November 21, 2003 for a 45-day comment period. A public comment meeting to take oral comments on the Draft EIS was held on December 17, 2003.

Questions may be directed to the individual named above under the heading FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT .

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) regulations at 5 CFR part 1320, which implement provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ), require that interested members of the public and affected agencies have an opportunity to comment on information collection and recordkeeping activities ( see 5 CFR 1320.8(d)). We have submitted a request to OMB to renew approval of a collection of information for the Service's permit application forms, and related report forms, for migratory bird and eagle permits.

Our request to OMB asks for its approval of the collection of information for: (1) The Service's permit application form numbers 3-200-6 through 3-200-18, and 3-200-67 through 3-200-70; report forms 3-202-1 through 3-202-9; and forms 3-186 and 3-186A, which are all currently approved under OMB control number 1018-0022; (2) the addition of form 3-200-10b(sup.) and forms 3-202-10 through 3-202-12; and (3) the deletion of form 3-200-14b. We are requesting a 3-year term of approval for this information collection activity.

A previous 60-day notice on this information collection requirement was published in the November 13, 2003, Federal Register (68 FR 64362) inviting public comment. In addition to publishing the Federal Register notice, we asked certain migratory bird or eagle permittees to review forms relating to the permits they hold and comment on the clarity and relevance of the information collection, the burden associated with the collection, and whether there is something the Service could do to minimize the burden. Comments were received on the Federal Register notice and from the permittees we contacted from a total of 14 individuals and one organization, the Ornithological Council. As a result of the comments, numerous revisions were made to the applications, instructions, and report forms. In addition, several items of information previously collected or proposed for collection on annual reports were reassessed by the Service and eliminated. The Disposition information requirement was eliminated from the scientific collecting annual report (3-202-2) and certain information about programs given and attendees was eliminated from the special purpose possession annual report (3-202-5), which will reduce the burden on holders of these permits. As a result, the time burden was adjusted for several forms. Finally, in response to comments, the Service will not finalize the proposed Donation to Public Museum form.

The Ornithological Council suggested that the number of applications be reduced to one for migratory birds and one for eagles, with a check-off list of the activities proposed to be conducted. The Service disagrees that this would benefit applicants. Many different types of permits are authorized under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) (16 U.S.C. 704) and the Bald and Golden Eagle Act (BGEPA) (16 U.S.C. 668) regulations (50 CFR parts 21 and 22, respectively), as well as other permit regulations, each with different application requirements and issuance criteria. The vast majority of permittees request a permit for a single type of activity, such as taxidermy, falconry, or scientific collecting. The Service has developed a variety of activity-specific application forms for the express purpose of reducing the paperwork burden on applicants and simplifying application requirements. Tailoring application forms to specific types of activities makes it easier for an applicant to understand the information required for the Service to issue a permit under any particular regulatory provision and to complete the application with minimal confusion. A single application form addressing all activities allowed under a given statute would be extremely confusing for applicants and result in a greater public burden. However, in response to this comment, we consolidated the eagle scientific research application (3-200-14b) into the migratory bird scientific collecting application (3-2007), and we also added to this application the ability to request authorization to import or export migratory bird specimens (except eagles) for scientific purposes. This will eliminate the need for scientific collecting applicants to refer to those applications to request this additional authorization. These revisions will streamline application requirements for scientists.

This notice provides an additional 30 days in which to comment on the information collection.

All of these forms are used by the Regional Migratory Bird Permit Offices. Federal agencies may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control number for this collection of information is 1018-0022.

The information obtained from the applications and report forms will be used by the Service to determine eligibility of applicants for permits they are requesting according to criteria in various Federal wildlife conservation laws, international treaties, and regulations on the issuance, suspension, revocation, or denial of permits, to monitor permit compliance, and to track species taken from the wild.

The information collection requirements in this submission implement the regulatory requirements of the Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. 1539), the MBTA (16 U.S.C. 704), the Lacey Act (18 U.S.C. 42-44), the BGEPA (16 U.S.C. 668), the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) (27 UST 108), and are contained in Service regulations in Chapter I, Subchapter B of Title 50 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). Generic permit application and record keeping requirements shared by our permit-issuing offices have been consolidated in 50 CFR part 13.

OMB Control Number: 1018-0022.