The meeting is open to the public. Committee discussion is limited to Forest Service staff, project proponents, and Committee members. However, persons who wish to bring Public Law 106-393 related matters to the attention of the Committee may file written statements with the Committee staff before or after the meeting. Public input sessions will be provided and individuals who made written requests by January 1, 2004, will have the opportunity to address the Committee at those sessions.

The Environmental Assessment of this federally assisted action indicates that the project will not cause significant local, regional, or national impacts on the environment. As a result of these findings, Niles Glasgow, State Conservationist, has determined that the preparation and review of an Environmental Impact Statement is not needed for this project.

Proposed is the implementation of conservation practices on cow/calf farms and dairies in order to reduce phosphorus loads in the watershed and assist in achieving the Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) for Lake Okeechobee.

The Notice of a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) has been forwarded to the Environmental Protection Agency and to various Federal, State, and local agencies and other interested parties. A limited number of copies of the FONSI are available to fill single copy requests at the above address. Basic data developed during the Environmental Assessment are on file and may be reviewed by contacting Jessica Bertine, Agricultural Economist, Gainesville, FL, (352) 338-9513.

No administrative action on implementation of the proposal will be taken until 30 days after the date of this publication in the Federal Register .

The Department published in the Federal Register an antidumping duty order on honey from the People's Republic of China (“PRC”) on December 10, 2001. See Notice of Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Antidumping Duty Order; Honey from the People's Republic of China, 66 FR 63670 (December 10, 2001). On December 31, 2002, the Department received properly filed requests from Shanghai Xiuwei and Sichuan Dubao for new shipper reviews under the antidumping duty order on honey from the PRC, in accordance with section 751(a)(2)(B) of the Act and § 351.214(c) of the Department's regulations. Shanghai Xiuwei identified itself as an exporter of processed honey produced by its supplier, Henan Oriental Bee Products Co., Ltd. (“Henan Oriental”). Sichuan Dubao identified itself as the producer of the processed honey that it exports.

Under the new shipper provisions, an exporter or an exporter that is also a producer of the subject merchandise, in requesting a new shipper review, must certify to the following: (i) It did not export the merchandise to the United States during the period of investigation (POI); and (ii) it is not affiliated with any exporter or producer who exported the subject merchandise during that period. In addition, if the exporter is not the producer, then the person that produced or supplied the subject merchandise must also submit these same certifications. Moreover, in an antidumping proceeding involving imports from a non-market economy country, the new shipper must also certify that its (and its producers’) export activities are not controlled by the central government. If these provisions are met, the Department will conduct a new shipper review to establish an individual weighted-average dumping margin for such new shipper, if the Department has not previously established such a margin for the exporter or producer. ( See generally § 351.214(b)(2) of the Department's regulations.)

The regulations further require that the person making the request include in its request documentation establishing: (i) The date on which the merchandise was first entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption, or, if it cannot establish the date of first entry, the date on which it first shipped the merchandise for export to the United States; (ii) the volume of that and subsequent shipments; and (iii) the date of the first sale to an unaffiliated customer in the United States. See § 351.214(b)(2)(iv).

Shanghai Xiuwei's and Sichuan Dubao's requests were accompanied by information and certifications establishing that neither they nor their suppliers exported the subject merchandise to the United States during the POI, and that they were not affiliated with any company which exported subject merchandise to the United States during the POI. Shanghai Xiuwei and Sichuan Dubao provided information and certifications that demonstrated the date on which they first shipped and entered honey for consumption in the United States, the volume of that shipment, and the date of the first sale to the unaffiliated customer in the United States. Additionally, Shanghai Xiuwei and Sichuan Dubao certified that neither their nor their suppliers' export activities are controlled by the central government.

Because the Department determined that Shanghai Xiuwei's and Sichuan Dubao's requests met the requirements of § 351.214 of its regulations, on February 5, 2003, the Department published its initiation of this new shipper review for the period February 10, 2001 through November 30, 2002. See Honey from the People's Republic of China: Initiation of New Shipper Antidumping Duty Reviews (68 FR 5868, February 5, 2003). Accordingly, the Department is now conducting this new shipper review in accordance with section 751(a)(2)(B) of the Act and § 351.214 of its regulations.

On February 20, 2003, we issued the Department's antidumping duty questionnaire to Shanghai Xiuwei and Sichuan Dubao. Shanghai Xiuwei and Sichuan Dubao submitted their Section A questionnaire responses on March 20, 2003 and March 28, 2003, respectively. On April 3, 2003, Shanghai Xiuwei submitted its Section C and D questionnaire responses. Also on April 3, 2003, petitioners submitted comments on Shanghai Xiuwei's Section A response. On April 4, 2003, Sichuan Dubao submitted its Section C and D questionnaire responses. On April 15, 2003 petitioners submitted comments on Sichuan Dubao's Section A, C, and D questionnaire responses. On April 18, 2003, petitioners submitted comments on Shanghai Xiuwei's Section C and D questionnaire responses.

On May 1, 2003, petitioners requested that the Department align the period of review for this new shipper review with the antidumping duty review. On May 2, 2003 (for Shanghai Xiuwei) and May 13, 2003 (for Sichuan Dubao), we issued the first supplemental questionnaire covering Shanghai Xiuwei's and Sichuan Dubao's Section A, C, and D questionnaire responses. We received Shanghai Xiuwei's first supplemental questionnaire response on May 15, 2003, and received Sichuan Dubao's first supplemental questionnaire response on June 3, 2003. On May 30, petitioners submitted comments on Shanghai Xiuwei's first supplemental questionnaire response. On June 13, petitioners submitted comments on Sichuan Dubao's first supplemental questionnaire response. We issued the second supplemental questionnaires to Shanghai Xiuwei and Sichuan Dubao, covering their first supplemental responses, on June 27, 2003 and June 26, 2003, respectively. We received Shanghai Xiuwei's second supplemental questionnaire response on July 12, 2003, and received Sichuan Dubao's second supplemental questionnaire response on July 10, 2003.

On June 10, 2003, the Department provided the parties with an opportunity to submit publicly available information regarding surrogate country selection and factors of production surrogate values for consideration in the preliminary results of this review. On June 24, 2003, petitioners submitted comments on the surrogate country selection. On July 7, 2003, petitioners submitted information on factors of production surrogate values for consideration. On July 11, 2003, petitioners submitted a declaration executed by a market researcher that gathered information regarding the Indian honey industry. We did not receive any comments or information from Shanghai Xiuwei or Sichuan Dubao.

On June 13, 2003, the Department issued supplemental questionnaires to Shanghai Xiuwei and Sichuan Dubao to forward to their importers (“importer questionnaire”). We received responses to the importer questionnaires from Shanghai Xiuwei's importer and one of Sichuan Dubao's importers on June 30, 2003. Petitioners submitted comments on the importer questionnaire responses on July 10, 2003 (for Sichuan Dubao) and July 30, 2003 (for Shanghai Xiuwei).

On July 21, 2003, the Department extended the preliminary results of this new shipper review 300 days until November 26, 2003. See Honey from the People's Republic of China: Extension of Time Limits for Preliminary Results of New Shipper Antidumping Duty Review, 68 FR 43086 (July 21, 2003). Petitioners submitted comments for consideration in the Department's verification of Shanghai Xiuwei's and Sichuan Dubao's questionnaire responses on July 22, 2003 and July 28, 2003, respectively.

The products covered by this review 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 U.S. Customs Service (renamed the U.S. Customs and Border Protection) (“CBP”) purposes, the Department's written description of the merchandise under order is dispositive.

As provided in section 782(i)(3) of the Act and § 351.307 of the Department's regulations, we conducted verification of the questionnaire responses of Shanghai Xiuwei (August 4 through 7, 2003) and Sichuan Dubao (August 4 through 6, 2003 and August 8, 2003). We used standard verification procedures, including on-site inspection of the production facilities of Henan Oriental (Shanghai Xiuwei's supplier of processed honey) and Sichuan Dubao, the sales office of Shanghai Xiuwei in Shanghai and the sales office of Sichuan Dubao in Dujiangyan, and the examination of relevant sales and financial records. Our verification results are outlined in the New Shipper Review of Honey from the People's Republic of China (PRC) (A-570-863): 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), dated September 30, 2003 (“Shanghai Xiuwei Verification Report”); and the New Shipper Review of Honey from the People's Republic of China (PRC) (A-570-863): Verification of U.S. Sales and Factors of Production Information Submitted by Sichuan-Dujiangyan Dubao Bee Industrial Co., Ltd. (Sichuan Dubao), dated September 23, 2003 (“Sichuan Dubao Verification Report”). Public versions of these reports are on file in the Central Records Unit (“CRU”) located in room B-099 of the Main Commerce Building.

Based on questionnaire responses submitted by Shanghai Xiuwei and Sichuan Dubao, and our verification thereof, we preliminarily determine that Shanghai Xiuwei and Sichuan Dubao have met the requirements to qualify as new shippers during the POR. We have determined that Shanghai Xiuwei and Sichuan Dubao made their first sale and/or shipment of subject merchandise to the United States during the POR, and that neither was affiliated with any exporter or producer that previously shipped to the United States. We also determined that Henan Oriental did not export subject merchandise during the POI, nor was it affiliated with any other exporter or producer that did so.

In submissions dated April 3, 2003 (for Shanghai Xiuwei) and July 10, 2003 (for Sichuan Dubao), petitioners allege that Shanghai Xiuwei's and Sichuan Dubao's sales to the United States during the POR do not reflect bona fide commercial transactions. For Shanghai Xiuwei, petitioners raise issues regarding Shanghai Xiuwei's customer and the shipment destination, and allege that the sales price was too high. For Sichuan Dubao, petitioners raise issues regarding Sichuan Dubao's customers, the sales prices, and whether the sales transactions between Sichuan Dubao and the importers were arm's-length transactions. As an initial matter, the Department examined the average unit values (“AUVs”) and quantities of imports into the United States of comparable merchandise from the PRC during the POR. We note that in comparison to shipments from other PRC honey exporters/producers, the quantities of Shanghai Xiuwei's and Sichuan Dubao's shipments are among the highest and the prices are about average.

For Shanghai Xiuwei, the Department was unable to complete its analysis of all factors relevant to the bona fides of Shanghai Xiuwei's new shipper sale. The Department is concerned about the fact that Shanghai Xiuwei and its U.S. customer, who acted as importer of record, were created in a short period of time and that the sales was consummated close to the dates both entities were formed. The Department is requesting comments on this timing issue and will carefully examine these facts for the final results.

For Sichuan Dubao, the Department was unable to complete its analysis of all factors relevant to the bona fides of its second sale. The Department is experiencing difficulties contacting the importer of record, who has not responded to the Department's importer questionnaire. For a full review of our research and the efforts the Department has made to locate this importer, see the Memorandum from Brandon Farlander and Dena Aliadinov to the File, dated November 26, 2003. The Department is requesting comments on this issue and we will carefully examine this second sale for the final results.

In summary, for purposes of these preliminary results of review, we are treating Shanghai Xiuwei's and Sichuan Dubao's sales of honey to the United States as bona fide transactions. However, as noted above, the Department intends to continue to carefully examine this issue for the final results of this review.

In proceedings involving NME countries, the Department begins with a presumption that all companies within the country are subject to government control and, thus, should be assigned a single antidumping duty rate unless an exporter can affirmatively demonstrate an absence of government control, both in law ( de jure ) and in fact ( de facto ), with respect to its export activities. In this review, Shanghai Xiuwei and Sichuan Dubao both requested a separate company-specific rate.

To establish whether a company is sufficiently independent in its export activities from government control to be entitled to a separate, company-specific rate, the Department analyzes the exporting entity in an NME country under the test established in the Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Sparklers from the People's Republic of China, 56 FR 20588, 20589 (May 6, 1991) ( Sparklers ), and amplified by the Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Silicon Carbide from the People's Republic of China, 59 FR 22585, 22586-22587 (May 2, 1994) ( Silicon Carbide ).

Shanghai Xiuwei and Sichuan Dubao provided separate-rate information in their responses to our original and supplemental questionnaires. Accordingly, we performed a separate-rates analysis to determine whether this exporter and producer/exporter are independent from government control ( see Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Bicycles From the People's Republic of China, 61 FR 56570 (April 30, 1996)).

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. See Sparklers, 56 FR 20588, 20589.

Shanghai Xiuwei and Sichuan Dubao have placed on the record a number of documents to demonstrate absence of de jure control, including the “Foreign Trade Law of the People's Republic of China” (May 12, 1994) and the “Administrative Regulations of the People's Republic of China Governing the Registration of Legal Corporations' (June 3, 1998). The Department has analyzed such PRC laws and found that they establish an absence of de jure control. See, e.g., Preliminary Results of New Shipper Review: Certain Preserved Mushrooms From the People's Republic of China, 66 FR 30695, 30696 (June 7, 2001). At verification, we found that Shanghai Xiuwei's and Sichuan Dubao's business licenses and “Certificate of Approval—For Enterprises with Foreign Trade Rights in the People's Republic of China” were granted in accordance with these laws. Moreover, the results of verification support the information provided regarding these PRC laws. See Shanghai Xiuwei Verification Report at 9-10 and Sichuan Dubao Verification Report at 10-11. Therefore, we preliminarily determine that there is an absence of de jure control over Shanghai Xiuwei's and Sichuan Dubao's export activities.

Typically, the Department considers four factors in evaluating whether a 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. See Silicon Carbide at 22587.

As stated in previous cases, there is some evidence that certain enactments of the PRC central government have not been implemented uniformly among different sectors and/or jurisdictions in the PRC. See Silicon Carbide at 22586-22587. Therefore, the Department has determined that an analysis of de facto control is critical in determining whether respondents are, in fact, subject to a degree of governmental control which would preclude the Department from assigning separate rates.

Shanghai Xiuwei and Sichuan Dubao have both asserted the following: (1) They are privately-owned companies; (2) there is no government participation in their setting of export prices; (3) their chief executive officers and authorized employees have the authority to bind sales contracts; (4) they do not have to notify any government authorities of their management selection; (5) there are no restrictions on the use of their export revenue; and (6) they are responsible for financing their own losses. Shanghai Xiuwei's and Sichuan Dubao's questionnaire responses do not suggest that pricing is coordinated among exporters. Furthermore, our analysis of the responses during verification reveal no other information indicating the existence of government control. See Shanghai Xiuwei Verification Report at 10-11 and Sichuan Dubao Verification Report at 11-13. Consequently, because evidence on the record indicates an absence of government control, both in law and in fact, over Shanghai Xiuwei's and Sichuan Dubao's export activities, we preliminarily determine that Shanghai Xiuwei and Sichuan Dubao have both met the criteria for the application of a separate rate.

To determine whether the respondent's sale of the subject merchandise to the United States was made at a price below normal value, we compared their United States price to normal value, as described in the “United States Price” and “Normal Value” sections of this notice.

For both Shanghai Xiuwei and Sichuan Dubao, we based the United States price on export price (“EP”) in accordance with section 772(a) of the Act, because the first sale to an unaffiliated purchaser was made prior to importation, and constructed export price (“CEP”) was not otherwise warranted by the facts on the record. We calculated EP based on the packed price from the exporter to the first unaffiliated customer in the United States. For Sichuan Dubao, we deducted foreign inland freight from the starting price (gross unit price), in accordance with section 772(c) of the Act. For Shanghai Xiuwei, we deducted foreign inland freight and brokerage and handling expenses incurred in the PRC from the starting price.

Section 773(c)(1) of the Act provides that the Department shall determine normal value (“NV”) using a factors-of-production methodology if (1) the merchandise is exported from an NME country, and (2) available information does not permit the calculation of NV using home-market prices, third-country prices, or constructed value under section 773(a) of the Act.

In every case conducted by the Department involving the PRC, the PRC has been treated as an NME country. Pursuant to section 771(18)(C)(i) of the Act, any determination that a foreign country is an NME country shall remain in effect until revoked by the administering authority. Shanghai Xiuwei and Sichuan Dubao did not contest such treatment in this review. Accordingly, we have applied surrogate values to the factors of production to determine NV. See the Factor Valuation Memorandum for the Preliminary Results of the Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review of Honey from the People's Republic of China, dated November 26, 2003 (“Factor Valuation Memo”). A public version of this memorandum is on file in the CRU located in room B-099 of the Main Commerce Building.

We calculated NV based on factors of production in accordance with section 773(c)(4) of the Act and § 351.408(c) of our regulations. Consistent with the original investigation of this order, we determine that India (1) is comparable to the PRC in level of economic development, and (2) is a significant producer of comparable merchandise. Accordingly, we valued the factors of production using publicly available information from India.

In selecting the surrogate values, we considered the quality, specificity, and contemporaneity of the data, in accordance with our practice. Where appropriate, we adjusted Indian import prices by adding foreign inland freight expenses to make them delivered prices. When we used Indian import values to value inputs sourced domestically by PRC suppliers, we added to Indian surrogate values a surrogate freight cost calculated using the shorter of the reported distance from the domestic supplier to the factory or the distance from the nearest port of export to the factory. This adjustment is in accordance with the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's decision in Sigma Corp. v. United States, 117 F. 3d 1401 (Fed. Cir. 1997). When we used non-import surrogate values for factors sourced domestically by PRC suppliers, we based freight for inputs on the actual distance from the input supplier to the site at which the input was used. When we relied on Indian import values to value inputs, in accordance with the Department's practice, we excluded imports from both NMEs and countries deemed to have generally available export subsidies ( i.e. , Indonesia, Korea, and Thailand) from our surrogate value calculations. For those surrogate values not contemporaneous with the POR, we adjusted for inflation using the wholesale price indices for India, as published in the International Monetary Fund's publication, International Financial Statistics.

We valued the factors of production as follows:

To value raw honey, we continue to use the average of the highest and lowest price for one kilogram (“kg.”) of raw honey stated in an article published in The Tribune of India on March 1, 2000, entitled, “Apiculture, a major foreign exchange earner.” (later republished in The Agricultural Tribune on May 1, 2000). Consistent with the methodology established in the previous proceedings, to account for raw honey price increases in India, we have inflated the average raw honey price from the March 2000, Tribune of India article ( i.e. , Rs. 35 per kg.) to December 2001 by dividing the Indian WPI for December 2001 by the Indian WPI for March 2000. To account for increases in Indian raw honey prices from December 2001 through May 2002 in excess of inflation, we averaged raw honey purchase prices from the Tiwana and Jallowal Bee Farms submitted by petitioners in Exhibit 1 of its July 7, 2003 response to calculate a total average raw honey price for each month from December 2001 through May 2002. Next, we calculated monthly price increases on a percentage-basis, and then applied these price increases (percentage) to our adjusted raw honey price from the March 2000, Tribune of India article. Then, we calculated a simple average of these adjusted monthly raw honey prices to derive our raw honey surrogate value for the period we had raw honey purchase pricing data ( i.e. , December 1, 2001-May 31, 2002). In order to make this value fully-contemporaneous to the POR, we further adjusted the raw honey surrogate value for inflation during the period of June 2002 through November 2002 by the Indian WPI for May 2002. Finally, we converted the raw honey value from a per kg.-basis to a per metric ton-(“MT”) basis. See Attachments 2, 3, and 15 of the Factor Valuation Memo for further details. See also Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review: Honey from the People's Republic of China, 68 FR 62053 (October 31, 2003 ) (“Wuhan NSR Final Results”) and Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value; Honey From the People's Republic of China, 66 FR 50608 (October 4, 2001). However, the Department intends to examine this issue further for the final results of this review. The Department therefore invites interested parties to submit comments on this issue for purposes of the final results.

To value beeswax, a raw honey by-product, we used the average per kilogram import value of beeswax into India for the POR.

To value coal, we relied upon contemporaneous Indian import values of “steam coal” under the Indian Customs' heading of “27011902” obtained from the World Trade Atlas, which notes that its data was obtained from the Ministry of Commerce of India. We also adjusted the surrogate value for coal to include freight costs incurred between the supplier and the factory. To value electricity, we used the 2000 total average price per kilowatt hour (“KWH”), adjusted for inflation, for “Electricity for Industry” as reported in the International Energy Agency's publication, Energy Prices and Taxes, Second Quarter, 2002. To value water, we used the water tariff rate, as reported on the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai's Web site. See http://www.mcgm.gov.in/Stat%20&%20Fig/Revnue.htm and Attachment X of the Factor Valuation Memo for source documents.

To value packing materials ( i.e. , paint and steel drums), we relied upon contemporaneous Indian import data under the Indian Customs' heading “3209,” and a price quote from an Indian steel drum manufacturer, respectively. We adjusted the surrogate value for steel drums to reflect inflation. We also adjusted the surrogate values of packing materials to include freight costs incurred between the supplier and the factory.

To value factory overhead, selling, general, and administrative expenses (“SG&A”), and profit, we relied upon publicly-available information in the 2001-2002 annual report of the Mahabaleshwar Honey Producers Cooperative Society, Ltd. (“MHPC”), a producer of the subject merchandise in India. We applied these rates to the calculated cost of manufacture and cost of production using the same methodology established in Wuhan NSR Final Results.

For labor, 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. Because of the variability of wage rates in countries with similar per capita gross domestic products, § 351.408(c)(3) of the Department's regulations requires the use of a regression-based wage rate. The source of these wage rate data on the Import Administration's web site is the Year Book of Labour Statistics 2001, International Labour Office (Geneva: 2001), Chapter 5B: Wages in Manufacturing.

To value truck freight, we used an average truck freight cost based on Indian market truck freight rates on a per metric ton basis published in the Iron and Steel Newsletter, April 2002.

For details on factor of production valuation calculations, see the Factor Valuation Memo, dated November 26, 2003.

We made currency conversions pursuant to § 351.415 of the Department's regulations at the rates certified by the Federal Reserve Bank.

We preliminarily determine that the following antidumping duty margins exist:

For details on the calculation of the antidumping duty margins, see the Analysis of Data Submitted by Shanghai Xiuwei International Trading Co., Ltd. (“Shanghai Xiuwei”) in the Preliminary Results of New Shipper Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Honey from the People's Republic of China (“Shanghai Xiuwei Analysis Memo”), dated November 26, 2003; and the Analysis of Data Submitted by Sichuan-Dujiangyan Dubao Bee Industrial Co., Ltd. (“Sichuan Dubao”) in the Preliminary Results of New Shipper Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Honey from the People's Republic of China (“Sichuan Dubao Analysis Memo”), dated November 26, 2003. Public versions of these memoranda are on file in the CRU.

Pursuant to § 351.212(b), the Department calculates an assessment rate for each importer of the subject merchandise. Upon issuance of the final results of this new shipper review, if any importer-specific assessment rates calculated in the final results are above de minimis ( i.e. , at or above 0.5 percent), the Department will issue appraisement instructions directly to CBP to assess antidumping duties on appropriate entries by applying the assessment rate to the entered value of the merchandise. For assessment purposes, we calculated importer-specific assessment rates for the subject merchandise by aggregating the dumping duties due for all U.S. sales to each importer and dividing the amount by the total entered value of the sales to that importer. If these preliminary results are adopted in our final results of review, we will direct CBP to assess the resulting rate against the entered customs value for the subject merchandise on each of Shanghai Xiuwei's and Sichuan Dubao's importer's/customer's entries during the POR.

Shanghai Xiuwei and Sichuan Dubao may continue to post a bond or other security in lieu of cash deposits for certain entries of subject merchandise exported by Shanghai Xiuwei or Sichuan Dubao. As Sichuan Dubao has certified that it both produced and exported the subject merchandise, Sichuan Dubao's bonding option is limited only to such merchandise for which it is both the producer and exporter. For Shanghai Xiuwei, which has identified Henan Oriental as the producer of subject merchandise for the sale under review, Shanghai Xiuwei's bonding option is limited only to entries of subject merchandise from Shanghai Xiuwei that were produced by Henan Oriental. Bonding will no longer be permitted to fulfill security requirements for Shanghai Xiuwei's and Sichuan Dubao's shipments after publication of the final results of this new shipper review. The following cash-deposit rates will be effective upon publication of the final results of this new shipper review for all shipments of honey from the PRC entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after publication date, as provided for by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) For subject merchandise produced and exported by Sichuan Dubao, or produced by Henan Oriental and exported by Shanghai Xiuwei, the cash-deposit rate will be that established in the final results of this review; (2) for all other subject merchandise exported by Shanghai Xiuwei or Sichuan Dubao, the cash-deposit rate will be the PRC country-wide rate, which is 183.80 percent; (3) for all other PRC exporters which have not been found to be entitled to a separate rate, the cash-deposit rate will be the PRC country-wide rate; and (4) for all non-PRC exporters of subject merchandise, the cash-deposit rate will be the rate applicable to the PRC exporter that supplied that exporter. These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until publication of the final results of the next administrative review.

The Department will disclose calculations performed in connection with the preliminary results of this review within five days of the date of publication of this notice in accordance with § 351.224(b). Any interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of publication of this notice in accordance with § 351.310(c) of the Department's regulations. Any hearing would normally be held 37 days after the publication of this notice, or the first workday thereafter, at the U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230. Individuals who wish to request a hearing must submit a written request within 30 days of the publication of this notice in the Federal Register to the Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Room 1870, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230. Requests for a public hearing should contain: (1) The party's name, address, and telephone number; (2) the number of participants; and (3) to the extent practicable, an identification of the arguments to be raised at the hearing.

Unless otherwise notified by the Department, interested parties may submit case briefs within 30 days of the date of publication of this notice in accordance with § 351.309(c)(ii) of the Department's regulations. As part of the case brief, parties are encouraged to provide a summary of the arguments not to exceed five pages and a table of statutes, regulations, and cases cited. Rebuttal briefs, which must be limited to issues raised in the case briefs, must be filed within five days after the case brief is filed. If a hearing is held, an interested party may make an affirmative presentation only on arguments included in that party's case brief and may make a rebuttal presentation only on arguments included in that party's rebuttal brief. Parties should confirm by telephone the time, date, and place of the hearing within 48 hours before the scheduled time. The Department will issue the final results of this new shipper review, which will include the results of its analysis of issues raised in the briefs, within 90 days from the date of the preliminary results, unless the time limit is extended.

This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their responsibility under § 351.402(f) of the Department's regulations to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during these review periods. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.

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

Any individual or organization participating in federally-controlled fisheries is required to obtain permits. The purpose and use of permits is to: (1) Register fishermen, fishing vessels, fish dealers, and processors; (2) List the characteristics of fishing vessels and/or dealer/processor operations; (3) Exercise influence over compliance ( e.g. , withhold issuance pending collection of unpaid penalties); (4) Provide a mailing list for the dissemination of important information to the industry; (5) Register participants to be considered for limited entry; and (6) Provide a universe for data collection samples. Identification of the participants, their gear types, vessels, and expected activity levels is an effective tool in the enforcement of fishery regulations. This information is needed to measure the consequences of management controls as well. The participants in certain fisheries may also be required to notify NMFS before fishing trips for the purpose of observer placement and to make other reports on fishing activities.

Initial permit applications are made by a signed paper form. After initial permit issuance, a pre-printed permit renewal form is generated via computer, using current permit information. This form is then sent to the permit holder for updating. If no changes to the pre-printed form are required, the applicant simply needs to sign the form and return it with any other information ( e.g. , current state registration or U.S. Coast Guard document) required for permit renewal.

Automated reporting by means of a vessel monitoring system (VMS) is required for all vessels issued a full-time or part-time limited access sea scallop permit, or scallop vessels fishing under the small dredge program. All remaining limited access Northeast (NE) multispecies, monkfish, red crab, and scallop vessels are required to report via a days-at-sea (DAS) call-in system. Vessel owners issued a limited access NE multispecies, monkfish, occasional scallop, or combination permit may voluntarily elect to use the VMS in place of the DAS call-in system. This reporting is required in order to monitor: (1) Usage of DAS allocations; (2) Compliance with vessel layover requirements; (3) Compliance with days out of the fishery requirements; (4) Compliance with closed area regulations; and (5) Compliance with exempted fishery regulations.

OMB Number : 0648-0202.

Form Number : None.

Type of Review : Regular submission.

Affected Public : Business and other for-profit organizations; individuals or households; and State, Local, or Tribal Government.

Estimated Number of Respondents : 42,334.

Estimated Time Per Response: An initial vessel permit application requires an estimated 45 minutes to complete and preprinted vessel permit renewal forms require an estimated 30 minutes per response. Initial dealer permit applications take an estimated 15 minutes to complete and preprinted dealer permit renewal forms require an estimated 5 minutes to complete. The initial and renewal vessel operator permit applications are estimated to take an average of 1 hour to complete due to the color photograph submission requirement. Limited access vessel upgrade or replacement applications take approximately 3 hours to complete. Applications for retention of limited access permit history require an estimated 30 minutes.

Limited access NE multispecies, combination, occasional scallop, and monkfish vessels must notify NMFS via the call-in system of the start date and end date for each fishing trip. The estimated time per response is 2 minutes. It is estimated to take NE multispecies and monkfish vessels approximately 3 minutes to declare of blocks of time out of the gillnet fishery. The burden of vessel monitoring for full-time and part-time limited access scallop vessels or authorized NE multispecies, combination, and occasional scallop vessels is estimated to be 1 hour for installation of a VMS unit, 5 minutes for verification of installation of the VMS unit, and 30 seconds per poll for automated polling of vessel position. Vessels required to have a fully functional VMS unit at all times may request to turn off the VMS (power-down exemption) at approximately 30 minutes per request. Requests for observer coverage are estimated to require 2 minutes per request.

Limited access vessels fishing under DAS requirements that have assisted in U.S. Coast Guard search and rescue operations or assisted in towing a disabled vessel may apply for Good Samaritan DAS credits at a burden of 30 minutes per application. Owners or operators of vessels seeking a Letter of Authorization (LOA) to participate in any of the exemption programs must request an LOA from the Administrator, Northeast Region, NMFS (Regional Administrator). The estimated time required to request an LOA is 5 minutes. Vessels fishing in the North Atlantic Fisheries Organization (NAFO) Regulatory Area that wish to be exempt from NE multispecies regulations while transiting the EEZ with NE multispecies on board, or landing NE multispecies in U.S. ports, must request an LOA (5 minutes) in addition to possessing a valid High Seas Fishing Compliance permit under 50 CFR part 300. An LOA (5 minutes) is also required for permitted vessels intending to transfer selected species from one vessel to another, as follows: Loligo and butterfish moratorium permit, or Illex moratorium permit, and vessels issued a mackerel or squid/butterfish incidental catch permit that intend to transfer Loligo , Illex , or butterfish; vessels issued a NE multispecies or scallop permit that intend to transfer species other than regulated species; and NE multispecies vessels intending to transfer up to 500 lb (227 kg) of combined small-mesh NE multispecies per trip for use as bait.

Owners of charter/party vessels intending to fish in the Nantucket Lightship Closure Area must request an LOA from the Regional Administrator, with an estimated time of 5 minutes per request. Vessels fishing under Charter/Party regulations in Gulf of Maine (GOM) closed areas must obtain a Charter/Party Exemption Certificate for GOM Closed Areas, at an estimated 2 minutes per request.

Limited access sea scallop vessels wishing to participate in either the state waters DAS exemption program or the state waters gear exemption program must notify the Regional Administrator by VMS or call-in notification. Participants in the sea scallop state waters exemption programs using VMS notification must notify the Regional Administrator prior to the first trip in the exemption program and prior to the first planned trip in the EEZ, at an estimated 2 minutes per response. Participants in these exemption programs using the call-in system must notify the Regional Administrator at least 7 days prior to fishing under the exemption, at an estimated 2 minutes per call. If participants using the call-in system wish to withdraw from either state waters exemption program prior to the end of the 7-day designated exemption period requirement, they must also call the Regional Administrator to notify of early withdrawal, at an estimated 2 minutes per call.

Surfclam and ocean quahog vessel owners or operators are required to call the NMFS Office of Law Enforcement (OLE) nearest to the point of offloading prior to the departure of the vessel from the dock. It requires approximately 2 minutes for a vessel owner or operator to notify OLE of the vessel's departure from the dock to fish for surf clams or ocean quahogs in the EEZ.

In the American lobster fishery, initial lobster area designations are estimated to take 5 minutes, requests for additional tags is estimated to take 2 minutes, and notification of lost tags is estimated to take 3 minutes.

In the NE multispecies fishery, a request for change in permit category designation requires approximately 2 minutes, and a request for transit to another port by a vessel required to remain in the GOM cod trip limit takes 2 minutes.

In the gillnet fisheries for NE multispecies and monkfish, the burden estimate for calling out of the fishery is 3 minutes. Gillnet category designation, including initial requests for gillnet tags, requires approximately 10 minutes. Requests for additional tags require an estimated 2 minutes. Notification of lost tags and requests for replacement tag numbers also require an estimated 2 minutes. It will take approximately 1 minute to attach each gillnet tag.

Requests for state quota transfers in the bluefish and summer flounder fisheries are estimated to require 1 hour.

Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours : 20,212.

Estimated Total Annual Cost to Public : $1,348,473.

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 shall have 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 burden of the collection of information on respondents, including 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 Cape Cod Commercial Hook Fishermen's Association submitted an application for an EFP to NMFS on November 13, 2003. The application was complete as received. The experimental fishing application requests authorization to allow the catch, tag, and release of Atlantic cod using rod and reel only. The primary goal of the study is to provide high quality scientific data on the current distribution and movement patterns of Atlantic cod on GB. In the long term, it is hoped that the improved understanding of the cod stock that may result from this study would enable better and more effective management of the cod fishery.

The study proposes to catch, tag, and release 30,000 individual cod during 300 dedicated tagging trips, using up to 60 commercial fishing vessels. The participating vessels would catch cod using rod and reel, with treble hooks eliminated from the jigs, temporarily hold caught cod live in tanks aboard the vessel while processing and tagging the fish, and return the fish alive to the sea. Any other species caught would be released as soon as practicable. During the study, no fish of any species would be landed or retained for commercial sale. Cod would be tagged on dedicated tagging trips in four main areas: The Cape Cod/Chatham area; the Great South Channel area; the Nantucket Shoals area; and the Coxes Ledge area. The study would likely have minimal impacts to the target species in the area due to the use of rod and reel as the catch method and efforts to minimize trauma and release all specimens alive. Tagging program staff would be on board the vessel for training purposes and to observe 20 percent of the dedicated trips to assist with tagging operations.

The research study would occur between December 1, 2003, and June 15, 2004, in the area defined by straight lines connecting the points 42°00′ N. lat. 70°00′ W. long., the northern border of the Nantucket Lightship Closed Area at 70°00′ W. long., the northern border of the Nantucket Lightship Closed Area at 69°00′ W. long., the western border of Closed Area I at 69°00′ W. long., 42°00′ N. lat. at Loran C 13700, and then back to 42°00′ N. lat. 70°00′ W. long. This area excludes the NE multispecies year-round closed areas but includes the GB Seasonal Closure Area (May 1-May 31). The rationale for needing to access this seasonal closure area is to capture and tag fish from aggregating schools of spawning cod prior to their post-spawning migration.

Therefore, the EFP would allow for exemptions from the FMP as follows: the Georges Bank (GB) seasonal closure area specified at 50 CFR 648.81(n); the DAS notification requirements specified at § 648.10; the effort-control program (DAS) as specified at § 648.82(a); and minimum fish-size restrictions specified at § 648.83(a) for the temporary retention of undersized fish for data collection purposes.

Section 4314(c)(1) through (5) of Title 5, U.S.C., requires each agency to establish, in accordance with regulations, one or more Senior Executive Service performance review boards. The boards shall review and evaluate the initial appraisal of senior executives' performance by supervisors and make recommendations to the appointing authority or rating official relative to the performance of these executives.

The members of the Performance Review Board for the U.S. Army, Chief of Staff of the Army, are:

1. MG Lawrence R. Adair, Assistant Deputy Chief of Staff, G-1.

2. MG Dorian T. Anderson, Commanding General, United States Army Human Resources Command.

3. BG Harry B. Axson, Jr., Deputy Director for Operations, J-3, U.S. Central Command.

4. Mr. Brian Barr, Technical Director, U.S. Army Test and Evaluation Command.

5. Ms. Jean M. Bennett, Director, Resources and Infrastructure, Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff, G-2.

6. Mr. Vernon M. Bettencourt, Jr., Technical Advisor to the Deputy Chief of Staff, G-3, Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff, G-3.

7. MG Robert W. Chesnut, Assistant Deputy Chief of Staff, G3 (Mobilization), Office of the Chief, Army Reserves.

8. MG Peter W. Chiarelli, Commanding General, 1st Cavalry Division.

9. LTG Claude V. Christianson, Deputy Chief of Staff, G-4.

10. Dr. Craig E. College, Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army (Infrastructure Analysis), Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Installations and Environment).

11. Mr. William F. Crain, Technical Director, U.S. Army Center for Army Analysis.

12. BG Bruce Davis Deputy Director, Operations, Readiness, and Mobilization, National Guard Bureau.

13. MG B. Sue Dueitt, Director, Personnel Transformation.

14. Mr. Terrance M. Ford Assistant Deputy Chief of Staff, G-2

15. MG James J. Grazioplene, Director, Force Development Office of the Deputy of the Deputy Chief of Staff, G-8.

16. LTG Benjamin S. Griffin, Deputy Chief of Staff, G-8.

17. BG Dennis E. Hardy, Commanding General, 24th Infantry Division (Mechanized ) and Fort Riley.

18. MG David H. Huntoon, Jr., Commandant, U.S. Army War College.

19. BG Kenneth W. Hunzeker, Vice Director for Force Structure, Resources and Assessment, J-8, The Joint Staff.

20. BG Jerome Johnson, Director of Plans, Operations and Readiness, Office of the G-4.

21. LTG John M. Le Moyne, Deputy Chief of Staff, G-1.

22. Mr. Mark R. Lewis, Director of Plans, Resources, and Operations, Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff, G-1.

23. Ms. Maureen T. Lischke, Program Executive Officer for Information Systems and Chief Information Officer, National Guard Bureau.

24. MG James J. Lovelace, Jr., Director of the Army Staff.

25. Mr. Wendell Lunceford, Director, Army Model and Simulation Office, Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff, G-3.

26. LTG Charles S. Mahan, Jr., Deputy Chief of Staff, G-4.

27. BG Jesus A. Mangual, Director of Force Projection and Distribution, Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff, G-4.

28. Mr. John W. Matthews, Director, Army Declassification Activity, Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff, G-1.

29. MG David F. Melcher, Director, Program Analysis and Evaluation, Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff, G-8

30. Mr. William P. Neal, Associate Director, Force Projection and Distribution, Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff, G-4.

31. Mr. Mark J. O'Konski, Director of Research and Development, Directorate of Research and Development, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

32. MG Elbert N. Perkins, Commanding General, U.S. Army Japan and 9th Theater Support Command.

33. BG Steven P. Schook, Chief of Staff, KFOR (Main), Film City, Camp Bondsteel.

34. Mr. David L. Snyder, Assistant G1 for Civilian Personnel Policy, Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff, G-1.

35. Mr. John C. Speedy, III, Deputy Director for Army International Affairs, Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff, G-3.

36. Mr. James J. Streilein, Director, Army Evaluation Center, U.S. Army Test and Evaluation Command.

37. Ms. Elizabeth B. Throckmorton, Director, Civilian Personnel Management, Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff, G-1.

38. MG James D. Thurman, Director of Training, Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff, G-3.

39. Mr. Donald C. Tison, Assistant Deputy Chief of Staff for Programs, Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff, G-8.

40. Mr. Edgar B. Vandiver, III, Director, U.S. Army Center for Army Analysis.

41. BG Lloyd T. Waterman, Director of Sustainment, Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff, G-4.

42. MG David P. Wherley, Jr., Commander, DC National Guard.

43. Mr. Daniel F. Wiener, II, Chief Information Officer, Chief Army Reserve.

a. Authorization: Section 601 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (Pub. L. 106-541) authorized the implementation of the Decomp Project.

b. Study Area: The study area is the WCA-3 and the northeast section of Everglades National Park, in Broward and Miami-Dade Counties.

c. Project Scope: The scope is to investigate alternatives to reduce barriers to sheet flow through modifications to the canals and levees in WCA-3, and modifications to the section of Tamiami Trail south of WCA-3B. Also, seepage control features may be constructed, as needed, along L-30 to prevent project-induced increased flood damages downstream. The evaluation of alternatives and selection of a recommended plan will be documented in the PIR and EIS.

d. Preliminary Alternatives: The conceptual design features of the project presented in the 1999 C&SF Comprehensive Review Study include backfilling all or portions of the Miami Canal between S-8 and the east coast protective levee (L-33); increasing the conveyance capacity of four sections of the North New River Conveyance System to compensate for conveyance lost from the Miami Canal: (1) Along L-38 canal from S-7 to S-34; (2) across Interstate 75; (3) on L-37 canal from I-75 to C-11; and (4) on L-33 canal from C-9 to C-6; constructing additional structures to pass flow from WCA-3A to WCA-3B through the L-67A Levee; degrading all or portions of the L-29 Levee from S-333 east to S-334 and filling in all or portions of the L-29 borrow canal; raising and bridging all or portions of the Tamiami Trail from S-333 east to S-334; and constructing seepage control features along L-30. Alternative plans to be developed and evaluated may include a combination of these features to greater or lesser degrees, such as leaving canals in place, partial canal filling, strategic placement of fill plugs, the creation of tree islands from levee material, and exploring other possibilities that can meet the goals and objectives of the project.

e. Issues: The EIS will address the following issues: The relation between this project and related projects including Modified Water Deliveries to ENP and other Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan projects; impacts to recreational fishing and hunting; impacts to aquatic and wetland habitats; water flows; hazardous and toxic waste; water quality; flood protection; aesthetics; fish and wildlife resources, including protected species; tree island habitat, cultural resources; socioeconomic issues; water supply; and other impacts identified through Scoping, public involvement and interagency coordination.

f. Scoping: A Scoping letter and public workshops will be used to invite comments on alternatives and issues from Federal, State, and local agencies, affected Indian tribes, and other interested private organizations and individuals.

g. DEIS Preparation: The integrated draft PIR, including a DEIS, is currently scheduled for publication in the second quarter of 2007.

EPA has submitted the following ICR to OMB for review and approval according to the procedures prescribed in 5 CFR 1320.12. On May 19, 2003 (68 FR 27059), EPA sought comments on this ICR pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.8(d). EPA has addressed the comments received.

EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID No. OECA-2003-0025, 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) 566-1514. 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 comment, 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, Confidential Business Information (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 www.epa.gov/edocket.

Title: NSPS for Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste Incineration Units (40 CFR Part 60, Subpart CCCC).

Abstract: The New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) for Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste Incineration Units (CISWI) (40 CFR part 60, subpart CCCC), was proposed on December 1, 2000, and promulgated on March 27, 2001. The standards require initial performance tests for 10 pollutants, annual performance testing for particulate matter (PM), hydrogen chloride (HCl), opacity continuous operating parameter monitoring, annual operator training and annual reporting (deviation reports are required if any of the emission limitations or operating limits are exceeded).

This standard applies to owners or operators of new stationary sources, that is, incineration units that meet either of the two criteria: (1) Sources for which construction begins after the NSPS is proposed which is November 30, 1999, or (2) sources that are reconstructed or modified on or after June 1, 2001. The standard applies to combustion devices that combust commercial and industrial waste. Commercial and industrial waste is a solid waste combusted in an enclosed device using controlled flame combustion without energy recovery, which is a distinct operating unit of any commercial or industrial facility, including field-erected, modular, and custom-built incineration units operating with starved or excess air, or solid waste combusted in an air curtain incinerator without energy recovery.

Owners or operators subject to the provisions of this part will perform annual performance testing on an ongoing basis, ensuring that the air pollution control device is operating properly and its performance has not deteriorated. To minimize the burden of the annual performance testing, the rule only required those respondent tests for PM, HCl, and opacity. Annual performance testing is not required for dioxins/furans, cadmium (Cd), carbon monoxide (CO), lead (Pb), mercury (Hg), nitrogen oxides (NO X ), and sulfur dioxide (SO 2 ). This significantly reduces the testing costs while still providing the EPA with sufficient data to adequately assess compliance. The rule allows respondents to skip two annual tests for a pollutant if all performance tests over the previous three years show compliance with the emission limit. The owner or operator must establish maximum or minimum values for each operating parameter during the initial performance tests for PM, dioxins/furans, opacity, HCl, Cd, Pb, Hg, CO, NO X and SO 2 .

Owners or operators subject to this provision must perform the following activities: Conduct performance tests, monitor operating parameters, prepare siting analysis, prepare waste management plan, operator training and qualifications, one-time and periodic reports, and the maintenance of records. Reports are submitted annually and semiannually. With the exception of requiring records to be maintained for more than three years, none of the guidelines in CFR 1320.5 are being exceeded. In 40 CFR subpart A, “General Provisions for National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Source Categories,” and under section 129 of the Act, CISWI facilities are subject to similar MACT-based regulations, requiring all records to be maintained at the source for a period of five years. In addition, Title V permit programs also require records to be retained for five years.

The proposed standards include annual operator training requirements for incinerator unit operators (rule requires at least one qualified operator or supervisor per facility). The annual training requirements include annual refresher training to maintain operator qualification and an annual review of site-specific documentation. The way in which an incinerator is operated has a significant impact on the emissions from that incinerator. The annual operator training is essential to ensure that the incinerator is being operated properly.

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 325 hours per response. Burdens 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: Commercial and industrial solid waste incineration units.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 30.

Frequency of Response: Initial, annual, and semiannual.

Estimated Total Annual Hour Burden: 16,899.

Estimated Total Annual Cost: $1,343,000, includes $13,000 annualized capital/startup costs, $5,000 annual O&M costs, and $1,325,000 labor costs.

Changes in the Estimates: There is an increase of 5,690 hours in the total estimated burden currently identified in the OMB Inventory of Approved ICR Burdens. Approximately six new CISWI units are constructed each year. Therefore, the average number of respondents has increased to 30 in this ICR. In addition, a revised hourly labor rate from the United States Department of Labor, resulted in an increase over the three-year period from the previous ICR.

EPA has submitted the following ICR to OMB for review and approval according to the procedures prescribed in 5 CFR 1320.12. On August 7, 2003 (68 FR 47058), 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-2003-0176, 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, confidential business information (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 www.epa.gov/edocket .

Title: Registration of Fuels and Fuel Additives: Requirements for Manufacturers.

Abstract: In accordance with the regulations at 40 CFR part 79, subparts A, B, C, and D, Registration of Fuels and Fuel Additives, manufacturers (including importers) of gasoline or diesel fuel for use in motor vehicles, and manufacturers (including importers) of additives for such gasoline or diesel fuel, are required to have these products registered by the EPA prior to their introduction into commerce. Registration involves providing a chemical description of the fuel or additive, certain technical and marketing information, and any health-effects information in possession of the manufacturer. The development of heath-effects data, as required by 40 CFR part 79, subpart F, is covered by a separate information collection. Manufacturers are also required to submit periodic reports (annually for additives, quarterly and annually for fuels) on production volume and related information. The information is used to identify products whose evaporative or combustion emissions may pose an unreasonable risk to public health, thus meriting further investigation and potential regulation. The information is also used to ensure that gasoline additives comply with EPA requirements for protecting catalytic converters and other automotive emission controls. The data have been used to construct a comprehensive data base on fuel and additive composition. The Mine Safety and Health Administration of the Department of Labor restricts the use of diesel additives in underground coal mines to those registered by EPA. Most of the information is confidential since it deals with the proprietary formulations of fuels and additives.

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 reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to average two 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: Manufacturers and importers of gasoline and diesel fuel for use in motor vehicles, and manufacturers and importers of additives for those fuels.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 820.

Frequency of Response: On occasion, quarterly, annually.

Estimated Total Annual Hour Burden: 14,810.

Estimated Total Annual Cost: $1 million (rounded), includes $0 annualized capital/startup costs, $29,280 annualized O&M costs and $977,460 labor costs.

Changes in Estimates: There is a decrease of 3,690 hours in the total estimated burden currently identified in the OMB inventory of Approved ICR Burdens. This decrease is due to a decrease in the number of registered fuels.

Regarding the proposed administrative settlement under section 122(h)(1) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. 9622(h)(1): In accordance with section 122(i) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. 9622(i), notice is hereby given that the terms of the Agreement have been agreed to by the following settling parties, for the following amounts (where the name of one party is followed by one or more names grouped under it, the main name listed is the name that appears on the settlement signature page or is the name of the party that is assuming liability under the settlement):

By the terms of the proposed Agreement, the Settling Parties will pay a combined total of $2,710,542.59 to the Hazardous Substance Superfund. This payment represents approximately 53% of the $5,086,748,001.01 in past response costs incurred through September 30, 2002. The Settling Parties manifested 1,461,777.75 gallons of hazardous substances to the Site. This amount represents approximately 94% of the 1,552,849.32 gallons of hazardous substances manifested to the Site by all generators. The amount that each individual PRP will pay, as shown above, was based upon the number of gallons of hazardous substances manifested to the Site. To be eligible for the settlement, each generator must have submitted a response to EPA's Request for Information.

This collection is in accordance with Executive Order 12862 that requires all Federal agencies to survey customers to determine the kind and quality of services they want and their level of satisfaction with existing services. The Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) requires agencies to set missions and goals and measure performance against them. FEMA will fulfill these requirements by collecting customer service and program information through surveys of the Recovery (RE) Division's external customers.

Title: Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Public Assistance Program Evaluation and Customer Satisfaction Surveys and Individual Assistance Customer Satisfaction Surveys.

Type of Information Collection: Extension.

OMB Number: 1660-0036.

Form Numbers: Public Assistance Program Evaluation and Customer Satisfaction Survey, Registration Intake Survey, Helpline Survey, End of Disaster Survey, Housing Inspection Services Survey. ( Note: There are no form numbers.)

Abstract: Federal agencies are required to survey their customers to determine the kind and quality of services customers want and their level of satisfaction with existing services. FEMA Managers use the survey results to measure program performance against standards for performance and customer service; measure achievement of GPRA objectives; and generally gauge and make improvements to disaster services that increase customer satisfaction and program effectiveness.

Affected Public: Individuals and households, businesses or other for-profit companies, not-for-profit institutions, farms, Federal Government, and State, Local or Tribal Governments.

Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 12, 210.

Estimated Cost: $1,503,080.

Comments: Written comments are solicited to (a) evaluate whether the proposed data collection is necessary for the proper performance of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g. , permitting electronic submission of responses. Comments should be received within 60 days of the date of this notice.

The Department has submitted the proposal for the collection of information, as described below, to OMB for review, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. chapter 35). The notice lists the following information: (1) The title of the information collection proposal; (2) the office of the agency to collect the information; (3) the OMB approval number, if applicable; (4) the description of the need for the information and its proposed use; (5) the agency form number, if applicable; (6) what members of the public will be affected by the proposal; (7) how frequently information submissions will be required; (8) an estimate of the total number of hours needed to prepare the information submission including number of respondents, frequency of response, and hours of response; (9) whether the proposal is new, an extension, reinstatement, or revision of an information collection requirement; and (10) the name and telephone number of an agency official familiar with the proposal and of the OMB Desk Officer for the Department.

This notice also lists the following information:

Title of Proposal: Public Housing, Contracting with RESIDENT-Owned Business.

OMB Approval Number: 2577-0161.

Form Numbers: None.

Description of the Need for the Information and Its Proposed Use: Eligible resident-owned businesses must submit application information to Housing Agencies (HAs) to be approved for noncompetitive contracting for work to be performed on public housing sites with an alternative to HUD's otherwise-required competitive procurement procedures.

Respondents: Business or other for-profit, not-for-profit institutions, State, local or tribal government.

Frequency of Submission: On occasion, quarterly.

Reporting Burden: Number of respondents—40; average annual responses per respondent—2.8; total annual responses—115; average burden per response—16 hrs.

Total Estimated Burden Hours: 1,870.

Status: Extension of a currently approved collection.

The Department has submitted the proposal for the collection of information, as described below, to OMB for review, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. chapter 35). The notice lists the following information: (1) The title of the information collection proposal; (2) the office of the agency to collect the information; (3) the OMB approval number, if applicable; (4) the description of the need for the information and its proposed use; (5) the agency form number, if applicable; (6) what members of the public will be affected by the proposal; (7) how frequently information submissions will be required; (8) an estimate of the total number of hours needed to prepare the information submission including number of respondents, frequency of response, and hours of response; (9) whether the proposal is new, an extension, reinstatement, or revision of an information collection requirement; and (10) the name and telephone number of an agency official familiar with the proposal and of the OMB Desk Officer for the Department.

This notice also lists the following information:

Title of Proposal: Application and Re-certification Packages for Approval of Nonprofit Organizations in FHA Activities.

OMB Approval Number: 2502-0540.

Form Numbers: None.

Description of the Need for the Information and its Proposed Use: This information collection is and application and/or re-certification criteria for nonprofit organizations seeking approval to participate as FHA insured mortgagors or provide downs payment assistance to home buyers, which can be achieved by secondary financing. This information collection also provides standardized information and procedures to ensure equal treatment of applicants throughout the nation and gives HUD sufficient information to ascertain an organization's management and fiscal abilities.

Respondents: Individuals or household, business or other for-profit, not-for-profit institutions, Federal government, State, local or tribal government.

Frequency of Submission: Annually.

Reporting Burden: Number of respondents 700; average annual responses per respondent 4.85; total annual responses 3,400; average burden per response 6.82 hrs.

Total Estimated Burden Hours: 23,200.

Status: Extension or a currently approved collection.

Authority: Section 3507 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 35, as amended.

The Department has submitted the proposal for the collection of information, as described below, to OMB for review, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. chapter 35). The notice lists the following information: (1) The title of the information collection proposal; (2) the office of the agency to collect the information; (3) the OMB approval number, if applicable; (4) the description of the need for the information and its proposed use; (5) the agency form number, if applicable; (6) what members of the public will be affected by the proposal; (7) how frequently information submissions will be required; (8) an estimate of the total number of hours needed to prepare the information submission including number of respondents, frequency of response, and hours of response; (9) whether the proposal is new, an extension, reinstatement, or revision of an information collection requirement; and (10) the name and telephone number of an agency official familiar with the proposal and of the OMB Desk Officer for the Department.

This notice also lists the following information:

Title of Proposal: Resident Opportunities and Self-Sufficiency (ROSS) Grant Program.

OMB Approval Number: 2577-0229.

Form Numbers: HUD-52751, HUD-52752, HUD-52753, HUD-52754, HUD-52755, HUD-52756, HUD-52757, HUD-52758, HUD-52759, HUD-52760, HUD-52761, HUD-52762, HUD-52763, HUD-52764, HUD-52765, HUD-52766, HUD-52767, HUD-52768.

Description of the Need for the Information and its Proposed Use: Applicants for ROSS grant funds submit applications for the following grant categories: Resident Service Delivery Models-Family, Resident Service Delivery Models-Elderly/Persons with Disabilities, Homeownership Supportive Services, and Neighborhood Networks, and for one additional funding category: Family Self-Sufficiency for Public Housing. Applicants describe the activities they will undertake; provide a work plan with a timeline for their activities; indicate their expected outputs and outcomes; provide a budget; and indicate, in the case of nonprofit applicants, which resident groups support their application (per Congressional statute).

Respondents: Not-for-profit institutions, State, local or tribal government.

Frequency of Submission: On occasion.

Total Estimated Burden Hours: 215,900.

Status: Revision of a currently approved collection.

Authority: Section 3507 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 35, as amended.

A CCP is required by the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, as amended by the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (16 U.S.C. 668dd et seq. ). The purpose in developing CCPs is to provide refuge managers with a 15-year strategy for achieving refuge purposes and contributing toward the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System, consistent with sound principles of fish and wildlife science, conservation, legal mandates, and Service policies. In addition to outlining broad management direction on conserving wildlife and their habitats, the CCPs identify wildlife-dependent recreational opportunities available to the public, including opportunities for hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography, and environmental education and interpretation. These CCPs will be reviewed and updated at least every 15 years in accordance with the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, as amended by the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (16 U.S.C. 668dd et seq. ), and the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969.

On February 13, 2003, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service issued a Biological Opinion (FWS-ERIV-3354.1), in accordance with section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, addressing effects on the endangered Peninsular Ranges bighorn sheep ( Ovis canadensis ) from a proposed joint trails and recreation use plan prepared by the City of Palm Desert and the Bureau of Land Management (the joint plan). As part of the proposed action, and consistent with the Biological Opinion, the City of Palm Desert (City) and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) agreed to close portions of City and BLM-managed public lands to recreation and casual use to prevent hikers from accessing ridges that overlook bighorn sheep breeding pens on the property of the Bighorn Institute.

The population of bighorn sheep in the United States' Peninsular Ranges was listed as an endangered species on March 18, 1998. The Recovery Plan for Bighorn Sheep in the Peninsular Ranges, California, was issued on October 25, 2000. On October 25, 2000, the Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains National Monument was established by an Act of Congress that was signed into law by President Clinton (Pub. L. 106-351). BLM completed the California Desert Conservation Area Plan Amendment for the Coachella Valley (Coachella Valley Plan) on December 27, 2002. The Coachella Valley Plan covered portions of the Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountain National Monument and addresses recovery of the bighorn sheep.

Because bighorn sheep evolved with canine predators, they are particularly sensitive to the presence of dogs. This has created a conflict between bighorn sheep conservation management and recreational use of public lands. In 2000, BLM issued a temporary closure of public lands prohibiting dogs in designated critical bighorn sheep habitat, except in a few designated areas. Recreational hiking with dogs had been a popular use on City owned lands and public lands south of the Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains National Monument Visitor Center on Highway 74. This situation caused a conflict with the Bighorn Institute, a captive bighorn sheep breeding facility located north of the Visitor Center. The director of the Bighorn Institute expressed concern over the nearness of dogs south of the Visitor Center and requested that they be moved to a different location. BLM and the City proposed to construct a loop trail south of the Visitor Center that would be off-limits to dogs, and to construct an additional trail, open to hikers with dogs, on the west side of Highway 74 that would connect the City's Homme-Adams Park with the Cahuilla Hills Park. Dogs would be allowed on the Homme-Adams Park Trail and Cahuilla Hills Park Trail. Under agreements with the Bighorn Institute and the City, BLM proposed to discourage hiking access by reclaiming an unauthorized road and enforce a closure along the saddle immediately south of the BLM property line that leads to an overlook on BLM lands above the Bighorn Institute's sheep pens. The proposed action for trail realignments, new trail construction, and blocking access to the ridge overlooking the Bighorn Institute was analyzed under an environmental assessment ( Homme-Adams and Visitor Center Trail Loops, EA-660-03-08 ). The BLM initiated consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) on the effects of the proposed project on the endangered Peninsular Ranges bighorn sheep, in accordance with section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA), on December 30, 2002. The Service issued a Biological Opinion based on the BLM and City environmental assessments, information in Service files, and on information and agreements obtained in meetings, telephone conversations, and e-mails prior to and during the consultation period. Under the Terms and Conditions of the Biological Opinion, and to meet the requirement of section 9 of the ESA, the BLM must take reasonable and prudent measures to minimize the impact of incidental take by minimizing the adverse effects of human disturbance to wild and captive bighorn sheep, through the proposed actions referenced in EA-660-03-08. These actions include BLM and City commitments: (1) To block human access to the old “Shirley” road on their lands through a combination of signage, fencing and physical barriers, including deconstructing and recontouring the road sufficient to discourage access and reinforce the closure along the saddle immediately south of the BLM property line that leads to an overlook on BLM lands of the Bighorn Institute's sheep pens, and (2) to employ a progressive management strategy to prevent hiking off the designated trail system and towards or overlooking captive sheep in the Bighorn Institute pens, including signage, stricter enforcement and penalties when legally feasible, physical barriers and fencing at strategic locations. The BLM issued a Decision Record to implement the proposed action, including the Terms and Conditions of the Biological Opinion, on March 7, 2003. The City issued an ordinance (Ordinance No. 1034) and a resolution (Resolution No. 03-12), approving construction of a new trail and closing portions of City lands between the National Monument Visitor Center and the ridge overlooking the Bighorn Institute, on January 23, 2003 (mitigation measures B-5 and B-6).

In compliance with 43 CFR 8364.1(c), notice is hereby given that BLM is closing portions of public lands in the Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains National Monument. The public lands hereby closed are those lands within the north 1/2 of the north 1/2 of Section 7, Township 6 South, Range 6 East, San Bernardino Meridian (SBM). These restrictions will be in effect year-round from December 4, 2003 until rescinded by the authorized officer. The order to close these lands is needed to protect the resources of the public lands and to minimize conflicts among various uses of the public lands.

BLM finds good cause to publish this closure notice effective the date of publication and without providing for public comment due to the immediate need to protect the Peninsular Range bighorn sheep from the stress that is likely to be caused by recreational use of land overlooking their captive breeding pens. A 30-day public comment on the subject of this action began on December 30, 2002, through publication of an environmental assessment ( Homme-Adams and Visitor Center Trail Loops, EA-660-03-08). A Biological Opinion issued by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on February 13, 2003 (FWS-ERIV-3354.1) supported BLM's proposed action as a reasonable and prudent measure to minimize the adverse effects of human disturbance to wild and captive bighorn sheep. All public comments received were considered prior to BLM's issuance of its Decision Record (DR) on March 7, 2003. BLM provided the public notification of this DR and the procedures for appeals through a news release issued March 11, 2003. No appeals were filed. Furthermore, the public was fully involved in the development of the joint plan. Also, the regulations on Closures and Restrictions at 43 CFR 8364.1 do not require publication of a request for comments.

The BLM lands covered by this closure order cannot be accessed except by crossing closed City lands. In compliance with the proposed action described in Homme-Adams and Visitor Center Trail Loops, EA-660-03-08, the Biological Opinion (FWS-ERIV-3354.1) dated February 13, 2003, and the City of Palm Desert ordinance, BLM hereby closes the described public lands to recreational and casual use. Any person who fails to comply with this order may be subject to the penalties provided in CFR 8360.0-7.

The following are exempt from this order: (1) fire, emergency, or law enforcement personnel when engaged in emergency or patrol activities; and (2) persons or uses expressly authorized by BLM.

Title: NPS National Underground Railroad Network to Freedom Application.

Bureau Form Number: n/a.

OMB Number: 1024-0232.

Expiration Date: 11/30/2003.

Type of request: Extension of a currently approved information collection.

Description of need: The NPS has identified guidelines and criteria for associated elements to qualify for the Network. The application form documents sites, programs, and facilities and demonstrates that they meet the criteria established for inclusion. The documentation will be incorporated into a database that will be available to the general public for information purposes. The proposed information to be collected regarding these sites, facilities, and programs is not available from existing records, sources, or observations.

Automated data collection: Respondents must verify associations and characteristics through descriptive texts that are the result of historical research. Evaluations are based on subjective analysis of the information provided, which often includes copies of rare documents and photographs. Much of the information is submitted in electronic format, but at the present time, there is capacity to gather all of the required information electronically.

Description of respondents: The affected publics are state, tribal, and local governments, federal agencies, businesses, non-profit organizations, and individuals throughout the United States. Nominations to the Network are voluntary.

Estimated average number of respondents: 80.

Estimated average number of responses: 80.

Estimated average burden hours per response: 15.

Estimated frequency of response: Once per respondent.

Estimated annual reporting burden: 1200 hours.

The FHWA, in cooperation with the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT), will prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the proposed improvement of US 421 to multi-lanes from NC 105 Bypass to east of SR 1514 (Bamboo Road) in Watauga County (approximately 5.3 miles). The proposed action is to upgrade this section of US 421 to a high speed, multi-lane facility. US 421, the primary east-west corridor in the north-western part of the state, connects the North Carolina coastal region (Wilmington) to the western part of the state and, ultimately, to Tennessee. This proposed project is a portion of the projects proposed for US 421 in the NCDOT's 2004-2010 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP).

Alternatives under consideration include: (1) “no-build”, (2) widening the existing facility, and (3) multiple bypass alternatives for a four-lane divided facility control of access.

Letters describing the proposed action and soliciting comments have been sent to appropriate Federal, State and local agencies. A Citizens Informational Workshop and meetings with local officials and neighborhood groups will be held in the study area. Public hearings will also be held. Information on the time and place of the public hearings will be provided in the local news media and project newsletters. The draft EIS will be available for public and agency review and comment at the time of the hearing. No formal scoping meeting is planned at this time.

To ensure the full range of issues related to the proposed action are addressed and all significant issues identified, comments and suggestions are invited from all interested parties. Comments and questions concerning the proposed action should be directed to the FHWA at the address provided above.

Title: Application for Extension of Time To File Certain Excise, Income, Information, and Other Returns.

OMB Number: 1545-0148.

Form Number: 2758.

Abstract: Internal Revenue Code section 6081 allows a reasonable extension of time for filing any return, declaration, statement, or other document. Form 2758 is used by fiduciaries, trustees, and certain other organizations to request an extension of time to file their returns. The information is used to determine whether the extension should be granted.

Current Actions: There are no changes being made to the form at this time.

Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

Affected Public: Business or other for-profit organizations and not-for-profit institutions.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 70,371.

Estimated Time Per Respondent: 5 hours, 21 minutes.

Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 375,923.

The following paragraph applies to all of the collections of information covered by this notice:

An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB control number. Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103.

Request for Comments: Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will become a matter of public record. Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and (e) estimates of capital or start-up costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information.

Notice is hereby given pursuant to Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (1988) that an open meeting of the Area 1 Taxpayer Advocacy Panel will be held Tuesday, December 23, 2003 from 11 a.m. to 12 p.m. e.t. via a telephone conference call. Individual comments will be limited to 5 minutes. If you would like to have the TAP consider a written statement, please call 1-888-912-1227 or 718-488-3557, or write Marisa Knispel, TAP Office, 10 MetroTech Center, 625 Fulton Street, Brooklyn, NY 11201. Due to limited conference lines, notification of intent to participate in the telephone conference call meeting must be made with Marisa Knispel.

The agenda will include various IRS issues.