5316 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 23 / Wednesday, February 4, 2004 / Notices 

A copy of the application and 

accompanying exhibits will be available 

during this time for public inspection at 

the Office of the Foreign-Trade Zones 

Board’s Executive Secretary at address 

Number 1 listed above, and Port of 

Galveston, 123 Rosenberg Avenue, 8th 

Floor, Galveston, Texas 77550.

Dated: January 26, 2004. 

Dennis Puccinelli, 

Executive Secretary.

[FR Doc. 04–2276 Filed 2–3–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Bureau of Industry and Security 

Report of Requests for Restrictive 

Trade Practice or Boycott— Single or 

Multiple Transactions

ACTION: Notice and request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: The Department of 

Commerce, as part of its continuing 

effort to reduce paperwork and 

respondent burden, invites the general 

public and other Federal agencies to 

take this opportunity to comment on 

proposed and/or continuing information 

collections, as required by the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 

Public Law 104–13 (44 U.S.C. 

3506(c)(2)(A)).

DATES: Written comments must be 

submitted on or before April 5, 2004.

ADDRESSES: Direct all written comments 

to Diana Hynek, DOC Paperwork 

Clearance Officer, Room 6025, 14th and 

Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington 

DC 20230.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Requests for additional information or 

copies of the information collection 

instrument(s) and instructions should 

be directed to Marna Dove, ICB Liaison 

for BIS, Department of Commerce, Room 

6622, 14th & Constitution Avenue, NW, 

Washington, DC 20230.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Abstract 

The information obtained from this 

collection authorization is used to 

carefully and accurately monitor 

requests for participation in foreign 

boycotts against countries friendly to 

the U.S. which are received by U.S. 

persons. The information is also used to 

identify trends in such boycott activity 

and to assist in carrying out U.S. policy 

of opposition to such boycotts. 

II. Method of Collection 

Submitted on forms. 

III. Data 

OMB Number: 0694–0012. 

Form Number: BIS 621–P, BXA 621–

P, BIS 6051–P, BXA 6051–P, BIS–6051 

P–a, BXA–6051 P–a. 

Type of Review: Regular submission 

for extension of a currently approved 

collection. 

Affected Public: Individuals, 

businesses or other for-profit and notfor-profit institutions. 

Estimated Number of Respondents:

1,243. 

Estimated Time Per Response: 1 to 1.5 

hours per response. 

Estimated Total Annual Burden 

Hours: 1,371. 

Estimated Total Annual Cost: No 

start-up capital expenditures. 

IV. Request for Comments 

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 will also become a matter of public 

record.

Dated: January 30, 2004. 

Madeleine Clayton, 

Management Analyst, Office of the Chief 

Information Officer.

[FR Doc. 04–2282 Filed 2–3–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DT–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-588–865]

Notice of Initiation of Antidumping 

Duty Investigation: Outboard Engines 

from Japan

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Initiation of Antidumping Duty 

Investigation.

EFFECTIVE DATE: February 4, 2004.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

James Kemp at (202) 482–5346 or Salim 

Bhabhrawala at (202) 482–1784, AD/

CVD Enforcement Office 5, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230.

INITIATION OF INVESTIGATION:

The Petition

On January 8, 2004, the U.S. 

Department of Commerce (the 

Department) received a petition filed in 

proper form by Mercury Marine, a 

division of Brunswick Corporation (the 

petitioner). The Department received 

supplemental information from the 

petitioner on

January 20, and January 22, 2004.

In accordance with section 732(b)(1) 

of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended 

(the Act), the petitioner alleges that 

imports of outboard engines from Japan 

are, or are likely to be, sold in the 

United States at less than fair value 

within the meaning of section 731 of the 

Act, and that imports from Japan are 

materially injuring, or are threatening to 

materially injure, an industry in the 

United States.

The Department finds that the 

petitioner filed the petition on behalf of 

the domestic industry because the 

petitioner is an interested party as 

defined in section 771(9)(C) of the Act 

and the petitioner demonstrated 

sufficient industry support with respect 

to the antidumping investigation that 

the petitioner is requesting the 

Department to initiate. See infra, 

‘‘Determination of Industry Support for 

the Petition.’’

Period of Investigation

The period of investigation (POI) is 

January 1, 2003, through December 31, 

2003.

Scope of Investigation

For the purpose of this investigation, 

the products covered are outboard 

engines (also referred to as outboard 

motors), whether assembled or 

unassembled; and powerheads, whether 

assembled or unassembled. The subject 

engines are gasoline-powered sparkignition, internal combustion engines 

designed and used principally for 

marine propulsion for all types of light 

recreational and commercial boats, 

including, but not limited to, canoes, 

rafts, inflatable, sail and pontoon boats. 

Specifically included in this scope are 

two-stroke, direct injection two-stroke, 

and four-stroke outboard engines.

Outboard engines are comprised of (1) 

a powerhead assembly, or an internal 

combustion engine, (2) a midsection

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 23 / Wednesday, February 4, 2004 / Notices 5317

1See USEC, Inc., v. United States, 132 F. Supp. 

2d 1,8 (CIT 2001), citing Algoma Steel Corp. Ltd., 

v. United States, 688 F. Supp. 639, 642-44 (CIT 

1988). See also High Information Content Flat Panel 

Displays and Display Glass from Japan: Final 

Determination; Rescission of Investigation and 

Partial Dismissal of Petition, 56 FR 32376, 32380-

81 (July 16, 1991).

assembly, by which the outboard engine 

is attached to the vehicle it propels, and 

(3) a gearcase assembly, which typically 

includes a transmission and propeller 

shaft, and may or may not include a 

propeller. To the extent that these 

components are imported together, but 

unassembled, they collectively are 

covered within the scope of this 

investigation. An ‘‘unassembled’’

outboard engine consists of a 

powerhead as defined below, and any 

other parts imported with the 

powerhead that may be used in the 

assembly of an outboard engine.

Powerheads are comprised of, at a 

minimum, (1) a cylinder block, (2) 

pistons, (3) connecting rods, and (4) a 

crankshaft. Importation of these four 

components together, whether 

assembled or unassembled, and whether 

or not accompanied by additional 

components, constitute a powerhead for 

purposes of this investigation. An 

‘‘unassembled’’ powerhead consists of, 

at a minimum, the four powerhead 

components listed above, and any other 

parts imported with it that may be used 

in the assembly of a powerhead.

The scope does not include parts or 

components (other than powerheads) 

imported separately.

The outboard engines and 

powerheads subject to this investigation 

are typically classified in the 

Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the 

United States (HTSUS) at subheadings 

8407.21.0040 and 8407.21.0080. 

Although the HTSUS subheadings are 

provided for convenience and customs 

purposes, the written description of the 

merchandise under investigation is 

dispositive.

Product Coverage

During our review of the petition, we 

discussed the scope with the petitioner 

to ensure that it is an accurate reflection 

of the products for which the domestic 

industry is seeking relief. As discussed 

in the preamble to the Department’s 

regulations (Antidumping Duties; 

Countervailing Duties; Final Rule, 62 FR 

27296, 27323 (May 19, 1997)), we are 

setting aside a period for parties to raise 

issues regarding product coverage. The 

Department encourages all parties to 

submit such comments within 20 

calendar days of publication of this 

notice. Comments should be addressed 

to Import Administration’s Central 

Records Unit, Room 1870, U.S. 

Department of Commerce, 14th Street 

and Constitution Avenue, NW, 

Washington, DC 20230, following the 

filing requirements outlined in section 

351.303 of the Department’s regulations. 

The period of scope consultations is 

intended to provide the Department 

with ample opportunity to consider all 

comments and consult with parties 

prior to the issuance of a preliminary 

determination.

Determination of Industry Support for 

the Petition

Section 732(b)(1) of the Act requires 

that a petition be filed on behalf of the 

domestic industry. Section 732(c)(4)(A) 

of the Act provides that the 

Department’s industry support 

determination, which is to be made 

before the initiation of the investigation, 

be based on whether a minimum 

percentage of the relevant industry 

supports the petition. A petition 

satisfies this requirement if the domestic 

producers or workers who support the 

petition account for: (1) at least 25 

percent of the total production of the 

domestic like product; and (2) more 

than 50 percent of the production of the 

domestic like product produced by that 

portion of the industry expressing 

support for, or opposition to, the 

petition. Moreover, section 732(c)(4)(D) 

of the Act provides that, if the petition 

does not establish support of domestic 

producers or workers accounting for 

more than 50 percent of the total 

production of the domestic like product, 

the Department shall either poll the 

industry or rely on other information in 

order to determine if there is support for 

the petition.

Section 771(4)(A) of the Act defines 

the ‘‘industry’’ as the producers of a 

domestic like product. Thus, to 

determine whether a petition has the 

requisite industry support, the statute 

directs the Department to look to 

producers and workers who produce the 

domestic like product. The U.S. 

International Trade Commission (ITC), 

which is responsible for determining 

whether the domestic industry has been 

injured, must also determine what 

constitutes a domestic like product in 

order to define the industry. While both 

the Department and the ITC must apply 

the same statutory definition regarding 

the domestic like product (section 

771(10) of the Act), they do so for 

different purposes and pursuant to 

separate and distinct authority. In 

addition, the Department’s 

determination is subject to limitations of 

time and information. Although this 

may result in different definitions of the 

like product, such differences do not 

render the decision of either agency 

contrary to the law.1

Section 771(10) of the Act defines the 

domestic like product as ‘‘a product 

which is like, or in the absence of like, 

most similar in characteristics and uses 

with, the article subject to an 

investigation under this title.’’ Thus, the 

reference point from which the 

domestic like product analysis begins is 

‘‘the article subject to an investigation,’’

i.e., the class or kind of merchandise to 

be investigated, which normally will be 

the scope as defined in the petition.

In this case, the petition covers a 

single class or kind of merchandise, 

outboard engines, as defined in the 

‘‘Scope of Investigation’’ section, above. 

The petitioner does not offer a 

definition of the domestic like product 

distinct from the scope of the 

investigation. Further, based on our 

analysis of the information presented to 

the Department by the petitioner, we 

have determined that there is a single 

domestic like product which is 

consistent with the definition of the 

‘‘Scope of the Investigation’’ section 

above and have analyzed industry 

support in terms of this domestic like 

product.

The Department has determined that 

the petitioner has established industry 

support representing over 50 percent of 

total production of the domestic like 

product, requiring no further action by 

the Department pursuant to section 

732(c)(4)(D) of the Act. In addition, the 

Department received no opposition to 

the petition from domestic producers of 

the like product. Therefore, the 

domestic producers or workers who 

support the petition account for at least 

25 percent of the total production of the 

domestic like product, and the 

requirements of section 732(c)(4)(A)(i) 

of the Act are met. Furthermore, the 

domestic producers or workers who 

support the petition account for more 

than 50 percent of the production of the 

domestic like product produced by that 

portion of the industry expressing 

support for or opposition to the petition. 

Thus, the requirements of section 

732(c)(4)(A)(ii) of the Act also are met.

Accordingly, we determine that the 

petition is filed on behalf of the 

domestic industry within the meaning 

of section 732(b)(1) of the Act. See 

Office 5 AD/CVD Enforcement, 

Initiation Checklist: Outboard Engines 

from Japan (January 28, 2004) (Initiation 

Checklist) at Attachment I, on file in the 

Central Records Unit, Room B-099 of the 

Department of Commerce.

5318 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 23 / Wednesday, February 4, 2004 / Notices 

Constructed Export Price and Normal 

Value

The following are descriptions of the 

allegations of sales at less than fair value 

upon which the Department based its 

decision to initiate this investigation. 

The sources of data for the deductions 

and adjustments relating to U.S. and 

home market prices are discussed in 

greater detail in the Initiation Checklist. 

Should the need arise to use any of this 

information as facts available under 

section 776 of the Act in our 

preliminary or final determination, we 

may re-examine the information and 

revise the margin calculations, if 

appropriate.

Constructed Export Price

The petitioner based constructed 

export price (CEP) on U.S. dealer list 

prices issued by Japanese companies 

during the POI. The petitioner 

determined that CEP was appropriate 

because sales were made in the United 

States through affiliated resellers. 

Starting with base prices from the dealer 

lists, the petitioner made adjustments 

for various discounts and rebates, 

foreign inland freight, ocean freight 

(including insurance), and indirect 

selling expenses incurred in the United 

States. The petitioner made no 

adjustment to CEP for U.S. inland 

freight charges because this information 

was not readily available.

Normal Value

With respect to normal value (NV), 

the petitioner also started with Japanese 

dealer list prices issued during the POI 

by Japanese producers of outboard 

engines. The petitioner stated the prices 

in yen, their original currency, and 

converted them to U.S. dollars, using a 

single average exchange rate for the POI 

derived from monthly average exchange 

rates published by the Board of 

Governors of the Federal Reserve Board, 

after making adjustments for discounts 

and inland freight.

Although the petitioner provided 

margins based on a price-to-price 

comparisons, the petitioner also 

provided information demonstrating 

reasonable grounds to believe or suspect 

that sales of outboard engines in the 

home market were made at prices below 

the fully absorbed cost of production 

(COP), within the meaning of section 

773(b) of the Act, and requested that the 

Department conduct a country-wide 

sales-below-cost investigation. See

‘‘Initiation of Cost Investigation’’ section 

infra for further discussion.

The estimated dumping margins for 

subject merchandise from Japan, based 

on a comparison of CEP and NV, ranged 

from 11.80 percent to 41.50 percent.

Fair Value Comparisons

Based on the data provided by the 

petitioner, there is reason to believe that 

imports of outboard engines from Japan 

are being, or are likely to be, sold at less 

than fair value in the United States.

Initiation of Cost Investigation

As noted above, pursuant to section 

773(b) of the Act, the petitioner 

provided information demonstrating 

reasonable grounds to believe or suspect 

that sales in the home market were 

made at prices below the fully absorbed 

COP and, accordingly, requested that 

the Department conduct a country-wide 

sales-below-COP investigation in 

connection with the requested 

antidumping investigation. Pursuant to 

section 773(b)(3) of the Act, COP 

consists of cost of manufacture (COM), 

selling, general, and administrative 

(SG&A) expenses, and packing 

expenses. The petitioner based its cost 

buildup on an outboard engine model 

produced by Yamaha Motor Co., Ltd. 

(Yamaha). However, the petitioner was 

unable to obtain Yamaha’s 

manufacturing costs and, instead, 

calculated COM based on the 

experience of a U.S. producer of 

outboard engines, adjusted for known 

differences between costs incurred to 

manufacture outboard engines in the 

United States and Japan. See Petition at 

Exhibit I-10-A and Initiation Checklist 

at 9. To calculate the depreciation, 

SG&A, and financial expenses, which 

were also included in the cost buildup, 

the petitioner used information from 

Yamaha’s 2003 financial statements.

The Statement of Administrative 

Action (SAA), submitted to the U.S. 

Congress in connection with the 

interpretation and application of the 

Uruguay Round Agreement Action, 

states that an allegation of sales below 

COP need not be specific to individual 

exporters or producers. SAA, H.R. Doc. 

No. 103–316 at 833 (1994). The SAA 

states that ‘‘Commerce will consider 

allegations of below-cost sales in the 

aggregate for a foreign country, just as 

Commerce currently considers 

allegations of sales at less than fair value 

on a country-wide basis for purposes of 

initiating an antidumping 

investigation.’’ Id.

Further, the SAA provides that ‘‘new 

section 773(b)(2)(A) retains the current 

requirement that Commerce have 

’reasonable grounds to believe or 

suspect’ that below cost sales have 

occurred before initiating such an 

investigation. ’Reasonable grounds’ ... 

exist when an interested party provides 

specific factual information on costs and 

prices, observed or constructed, 

indicating that sales in the foreign 

market in question are at below-cost 

prices.’’ Id.

Based upon a comparison of the price 

of the foreign like product in the home 

market to the calculated COP of the 

product, we find reasonable grounds to 

believe or suspect that sales of the 

foreign like product were made below 

the COP, within the meaning of section 

773(b)(2)(A)(i) of the Act. Accordingly, 

the Department is initiating a countrywide cost investigation.

Allegations and Evidence of Material 

Injury and Causation

The petitioner alleges that the U.S. 

industry producing the domestic like 

product is being materially injured, or is 

threatened with material injury, by 

reason of the imports of the subject 

merchandise from Japan and sold at less 

than NV.

The petitioner contends that the 

industry’s injured condition is evident 

in the declining trends in operating 

profits, net sales volumes, domestic 

prices, revenue, production 

employment, capacity utilization, and 

domestic market share. The allegation of 

injury and causation is supported by 

relevant evidence including U.S. import 

data, lost sales, and pricing information.

The Department has assessed the 

allegation and supporting evidence 

regarding material injury and causation 

and determined that this allegation is 

properly supported by adequate 

evidence and meets the statutory 

requirements for initiation. See the 

Initiation Checklist at Attachment II.

Initiation of Antidumping Investigation

Based upon our examination of the 

petition, we have found that it meets the 

requirements of section 732 of the Act. 

See the Initiation Checklist. Therefore, 

we are initiating an antidumping duty 

investigation to determine whether 

imports of outboard engines from Japan 

are being, or are likely to be, sold in the 

United States at less than fair value. 

Unless this deadline is extended, we 

will make our preliminary 

determination no later than 140 days 

after the date of this initiation.

Distribution of Copies of the Petition

In accordance with section 

732(b)(3)(A) of the Act, a copy of the 

public version of the petition has been 

provided to the representative of the 

government of Japan. We will attempt to 

provide a copy of the public version of 

the petition to each exporter named in 

the petition, as provided for under 19 

CFR 351.203(c)(2).

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 23 / Wednesday, February 4, 2004 / Notices 5319

ITC Notification

We have notified the ITC of our 

initiation as required by section 732(d) 

of the Act.

Preliminary Determination by the ITC

The ITC will determine no later than 

February 23, 2004, whether there is a 

reasonable indication that imports of 

outboard engines from Japan are causing 

material injury, or threatening to cause 

material injury, to a U.S. industry. A 

negative ITC determination will result 

in the investigation being terminated; 

otherwise, this investigation will 

proceed according to statutory and 

regulatory time limits.

This notice is issued and published 

pursuant to section 777(i) of the Act.

Dated: January 28, 2004.

James Jochum,

Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration.

[FR Doc. 04–2277 Filed 2–3–04; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration 

[C–533–829] 

Notice of Countervailing Duty Order: 

Prestressed Concrete Steel Wire 

Strand From India

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce.

EFFECTIVE DATE: February 4, 2004.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Robert Copyak at (202) 482–2209 or 

Alicia Kinsey at (202) 482–4793, Office 

of AD/CVD Enforcement VI, Group II, 

Import Administration, International 

Trade Administration, U.S. Department 

of Commerce, Room 4012, 14th Street 

and Constitution Avenue, NW., 

Washington, DC 20230.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Scope of Order 

The merchandise subject to this order 

is prestressed concrete steel wire (PC 

strand), which is steel strand produced 

from wire of non-stainless, nongalvanized steel, which is suitable for 

use in prestressed concrete (both pretensioned and post-tensioned) 

applications. The product definition 

encompasses covered and uncovered 

strand and all types, grades, and 

diameters of PC strand. 

The merchandise under this order is 

currently classifiable under subheadings 

7312.10.3010 and 7312.10.3012 of the 

Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the 

United States (HTSUS). Although the 

HTSUS subheadings are provided for 

convenience and customs purposes, the 

written description of the merchandise 

under investigation is dispositive. 

Countervailing Duty Order 

In accordance with section 705(d) of 

the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the 

Act), on December 8, 2003, the 

Department published its final 

determination in the countervailing 

duty investigation of prestressed 

concrete steel wire strand from India. 

See Notice of Final Affirmative 

Countervailing Duty Determination: 

Prestressed Concrete Steel Wire Strand 

From India, 68 FR 68356 (December 8, 

2003). On January 21, 2003, the United 

States International Trade Commission 

(USITC) notified the Department of its 

final determination, pursuant to section 

705(b)(1)(A)(i) of the Act, that an 

industry in the United States suffered 

material injury as a result of subsidized 

imports of prestressed concrete steel 

wire strand from India. 

Therefore, countervailing duties will 

be assessed on all unliquidated entries 

of prestressed concrete steel wire strand 

from India entered, or withdrawn from 

warehouse, for consumption on or after 

July 8, 2003, the date on which the 

Department published its preliminary 

affirmative countervailing duty 

determination in the Federal Register,

and before November 5, 2003, the date 

the Department instructed the U.S. 

Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to 

discontinue the suspension of 

liquidation in accordance with section 

703(d) of the Act, and on all entries of 

subject merchandise made on or after 

the date of publication of the USITC’s 

final injury determination in the 

Federal Register. Section 703(d) of the 

Act states that the suspension of 

liquidation pursuant to a preliminary 

determination may not remain in effect 

for more than four months. Entries of 

prestressed concrete steel wire strand 

made on or after November 5, 2003, and 

prior to the date of publication of the 

USITC’s final injury determination in 

the Federal Register are not liable for 

the assessment of countervailing duties 

due to the Department’s 

discontinuation, effective November 5, 

2003, of the suspensions of liquidation. 

In accordance with section 706 of the 

Act, the Department will direct the CBP 

to reinstitute the suspension of 

liquidation for prestressed concrete steel 

wire strand from India effective the date 

of the USITC’s final injury 

determination in the Federal Register

and to assess, upon further advice by 

the Department pursuant to section 

706(a)(1) of the Act, countervailing 

duties for each entry of the subject 

merchandise in an amount based on the 

net countervailable subsidy rate for the 

subject merchandise. 

On or after the date of publication of 

the USITC’s final injury determination 

in the Federal Register, the CBP must 

require, at the same time as importers 

would normally deposit estimated 

duties on this merchandise, a cash 

deposit equal to the rate noted below. 

The cash deposit rate is as follows:

Producer/exporter Cash deposit rate 

All Producers/Exporters.62.92 percent ad valorem

This notice constitutes the 

countervailing duty order with respect 

to prestressed concrete steel wire strand 

from India, pursuant to section 706(a) of 

the Act. Interested parties may contact 

the Central Records Unit of the Main 

Commerce Building for copies of an 

updated list of countervailing duty 

orders currently in effect. 

This countervailing duty order is 

issued and published in accordance 

with sections 706(a) and 705 of the Act 

and 19 CFR 351.211 and 351.224.

Dated: January 29, 2004. 

James J. Jochum, 

Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration.

[FR Doc. 04–2278 Filed 2–3–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration

[I.D. 123103B]

Endangered Species; Permit No. 1190

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce.

ACTION: Scientific research permit 

modification.

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that a 

request for modification of scientific 

research permit no. 1190 submitted by 

the NMFS Pacific Islands Region, 1601 

Kapiolani Blvd., Ste. 1110, Honolulu, HI 

96814 has been granted.

ADDRESSES: The amendment and related 

documents are available for review 

upon written request or by appointment 

in the following offices: Permits, 

Conservation and Education Division, 

Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, 

1315 East-West Highway, Room 13705, 

Silver Spring, MD 20910; phone (301) 

713–2289, fax (301) 713–0376; and 

Pacific Islands Region, NMFS, 1601