Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 52 / Friday, March 17, 1995 / Notices 14421

interested parties an opportunity to

comment on the preliminary results of

this changed circumstances review. We

received no comments.

Scope of the Review

Ceiling fans are electric fans that

direct a downward and/or upward flow

of air using a fan blade/motor unit.

Ceiling fans incorporate a self-contained

electric motor of an output not

exceeding 125 watts. Ceiling fans are

designed for permanent or semipermanent installation. Industrial

ceiling fans are defined as ceiling fans

that meet six or more of the following

criteria in any combination: A

maximum speed of greater than 280

revolutions per minute (RPMs); a

minimum air delivery capacity of 8000

cubic feet per minute (CFM); no

reversible motor switch; controlled by

wall-mounted electronic switch; no

built-in motor controls; no decorative

features; not light adaptable; fan blades

greater than 52 inches in diameter;

metal fan blades; downrod mounting

only—no hugger mounting capability;

three fan blades; fan blades mounted on

top of motor housing; single-speed

motor.

The Harmonized Tariff Schedule

(HTS) subheading under which ceiling

fans are classifiable is 8414.51.0030.

Although the HTS subheading is

provided for convenience and Customs

purposes, our written description of the

scope of this proceeding is dispositive.

This changed circumstances

administrative review covers all

manufacturers/exporters of ceiling fans

from the PRC.

Final Results of Review; Revocation of

Antidumping Duty Order

The affirmative statement of no

interest by Lasko, the petitioner,

constitutes changed circumstances

sufficient to warrant revocation of the

order. Therefore, the Department is

revoking the order on ceiling fans from

the PRC in accordance with sections 751

(b) and (c) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (the

Act) and 19 CFR 353.25(d)(1). This

revocation applies to all entries of

subject merchandise entered, or

withdrawn from warehouse, for

consumption on or after June 5, 1991.

The Department will instruct the

Customs Service to proceed with

liquidation, without regard to

antidumping duties, of all unliquidated

entries of subject merchandise entered,

or withdrawn from warehouse, for

consumption on or after June 5, 1991.

The Department will further instruct the

Customs Service to refund with interest

any estimated duties collected with

respect to unliquidated entries of

subject merchandise entered, or

withdrawn from warehouse, for

consumption on or after December 9,

1991, in accordance with section 778 of

the Act.

This changed circumstances review,

revocation of the antidumping duty

order, and notice are in accordance with

sections 751 (b) and (c) of the Act (19

U.S.C. 1675 (b) and (c)) and sections

353.22(f) and 353.25(d) of the

Department’s regulations.

Dated: March 10, 1995.

Joseph A. Spetrini,

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Compliance.

[FR Doc. 95–6681 Filed 3–16–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

[A–580–811]

Steel Wire Rope From the Republic of

Korea; Preliminary Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of preliminary results of

antidumping duty administrative

review.

SUMMARY: In response to a request from

the petitioner, the Department of

Commerce (the Department) is

conducting an administrative review of

the antidumping duty order on steel

wire rope from Korea. The review

covers 25 manufacturers/exporters of

the subject merchandise to the United

States. The review period is September

30, 1992, through February 28, 1994 (the

POR).

We have preliminarily determined

that sales have been made below the

foreign market value (FMV). If these

preliminary results are adopted in our

final results of the administrative

review, we will instruct U.S. Customs to

assess antidumping duties equal to the

difference between the United States

price (USP) and the FMV.

Interested parties are invited to

comment on these preliminary results.

EFFECTIVE DATE: March 17, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Jacqueline Arrowsmith, Davina

Friedmann, Matthew Rosenbaum, or

Michael Rill, Office of Antidumping

Compliance, Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th

Street and Constitution Avenue,

Washington, D.C. 20230; telephone:

(202) 482–4733.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On March 26, 1993, the Department

published in the Federal Register (58

FR 16398) the antidumping duty order

on steel wire rope from the Republic of

Korea. On March 4, 1994, the

Department published a notice of

‘‘Opportunity to Request an

Administrative Review’’ (59 FR 10368)

of this antidumping duty order for the

period September 30, 1992, through

February 28, 1994. On March 14, 1994,

the petitioner, the Committee of

Domestic Steel Wire Rope & Specialty

Cable Manufacturers, requested an

administrative review for 25

manufacturers/exporters of steel wire

rope from Korea.

We published a notice of initiation of

the review on May 12, 1994 (59 FR

24683). The Department is now

conducting this review in accordance

with section 751 of the Tariff Act of

1930, as amended (the Act).

Unlocated Companies

We were unable to obtain addresses

for Atlantic & Pacific, Dong-Il Metal,

Dong Yong, Kwang Shin Industrial, and

Seo Hae Industrial. In accordance with

our practice with respect to companies

to which we cannot send a

questionnaire, we are assigning to these

companies the ‘‘All Others’’ rate from

the less-than-fair-value (LTFV)

investigation, which is 1.51 percent. See

Sweaters Wholly or in Chief Weight of

Man-Made Fiber From Hong Kong; Final

Results of Antidumping Duty

Administrative Review, 59 FR 13926

(March 24, 1994).

Scope of Review

The product covered by this review is

steel wire rope. Steel wire rope

encompasses ropes, cables, and cordage

of iron or carbon steel, other than

stranded wire, not fitted with fittings or

made up into articles, and not made up

of brass-plated wire. Imports of these

products are currently classifiable under

the following Harmonized Tariff

Schedule (HTS) subheadings:

7312.10.9030, 7312.10.9060, and

7312.10.9090.

Excluded from this review is stainless

steel wire rope, i.e., ropes, cables and

cordage other than stranded wire, of

stainless steel, not fitted with fittings or

made up into articles, which is

classifiable under HTS subheading

7312.10.6000. Although HTS

subheadings are provided for

convenience and Customs purposes, our

own written description of the scope of

this review is dispositive.
14422 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 52 / Friday, March 17, 1995 / Notices

United States Price

In calculating USP, the Department

used purchase price as defined in

section 772 of the Act, because the

subject merchandise was sold to

unrelated U.S. purchasers prior to

importation and the exporter’s sales

price (ESP) methodology was not

indicated by other circumstances.

Purchase price was based on exfactory, f.o.b. Korea, f.o.b. customer’s

specific delivery point, c.i.f., c&f, or

delivered prices to unrelated purchasers

in, or for exportation to, the United

States. We adjusted these prices for

billing adjustments. We made

adjustments, where applicable, for

domestic brokerage and handling, ocean

freight, marine insurance, terminal

handling charges, stevedoring charges,

wharfage expenses, bill of lading issuing

fees, export license fees, export

insurance, domestic inland freight,

containerization expenses and container

taxes, container freight station charges,

and shoring charges in accordance with

section 772(d)(2) of the Act. For certain

companies we also deducted bank

charges, postage fees, letter of credit

advice charges, and delay charges when

they were not reported separately from

movement expenses. We also added

duty drawback, where applicable, for

Manho Rope and Wire, Ltd. (Manho),

and Chun Kee Steel & Wire Rope Co.,

Ltd. (Chun Kee), pursuant to section

772(d)(1)(B) of the Act. We did not make

any duty drawback adjustments for

Chung Woo Rope Co., Ltd., Hanboo

Wire Rope, Inc., Kumho Rope, Sung Jin

Company, Ssang Yong Steel Wire Co.,

Ltd., and Yeonsin Metal, because they

were unable to demonstrate a

connection between imports for which

they paid duties and exports of steel

wire rope.

We adjusted USP for taxes in

accordance with our practice as

outlined in Silicomanganese from

Venezuela, Preliminary Determination

of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 59 FR

31204 (June 17, 1994).

No other adjustments were claimed or

allowed.

Foreign Market Value

In order to determine whether there

were sufficient sales of steel wire rope

in the home market to serve as a viable

basis for calculating FMV, we compared

the volume of home market sales of steel

wire rope to the volume of third-country

sales of steel wire rope, in accordance

with section 773(a)(1) of the Act and 19

CFR 353.48(a). Based on this

comparison we determined that the

home market was viable.

Because the Department disregarded

certain of Manho’s home market sales

that were determined to have been made

below the cost of production (COP)

during the original investigation, the

Department initiated a COP

investigation of Manho for purposes of

this administrative review, in

accordance with section 773(b) of the

Act and Department practice. See, e.g.,

Antifriction Bearings (Other Than

Tapered Roller Bearings) and Parts

Thereof from Thailand; Preliminary

Results of Antidumping Duty

Administrative Review, 56 FR 11195,

11196 (March 15, 1991). Furthermore,

based on allegations by petitioner, we

also determined that reasonable grounds

existed to believe or suspect that Chun

Kee and Boo Kook made sales below

cost. Thus, we initiated COP

investigations with respect to Chun Kee

and Boo Kook. However, we are using

best information available (BIA) for Boo

Kook and are not calculating a specific

rate for that company (see ‘‘Best

Information Available’’ section below).

We calculated the COP for the

merchandise using Manho’s and Chun

Kee’s cost of manufacturing (COM) and

general expenses, in accordance with

section 353.51(c) of the Department’s

regulations (19 CFR 353.51(c)(1994)).

Respondents’ COM consisted of

materials, labor, and factory overhead

costs incurred in steel wire rope

production. General expenses consisted

of general and administrative expenses

as well as net interest expenses

normally included in general expenses

for COP.

We performed a model-specific COP

test, in which we examined whether

each home market sale was priced

below the merchandise’s COP. The

Department defines the COP as the sum

of direct material, direct labor, variable

and fixed factory overhead, general

expenses, and packing. See Stainless

Steel Hollow Products From Sweden;

Preliminary Results of Antidumping

Duty Administrative Review, 59 FR

40521 (August 9, 1994). For each model,

we compared this sum to the reported

home market unit price, net of price

adjustments and movement expenses. In

accordance with section 773(b) of the

Act, we also examined whether the

home market sales of each model were

made at prices below their COP in

substantial quantities over an extended

period of time. None of these companies

submitted evidence that such sales were

made at prices which would permit

recovery of all costs within a reasonable

period of time in the normal course of

trade.

For each model where less than 10

percent, by quantity, of the home market

sales during the POR were made at

prices below the COP, we included all

sales of that model in the computation

of FMV. For each model where 10

percent or more, but not more than 90

percent, of the home market sales

during the POR were priced below the

merchandise’s COP, we excluded from

the calculation of FMV those home

market sales which were priced below

the merchandise’s COP, provided that

these below-cost sales were made over

an extended period of time. For each

model where more than 90 percent of

the home market sales during the POR

were priced below the COP and over an

extended period of time, we disregarded

all sales of the model from our

calculation of FMV and used the

constructed value (CV) of those models

as described below. See Antifriction

Bearings (Other Than Tapered Roller

Bearings) and Part Thereof From France,

et al.; Preliminary Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Reviews, Partial Termination of

Administrative Reviews, and Notice of

Intent To Revoke Orders (in Part) 59 FR

9463 (February 28, 1994).

In order to determine whether belowcost sales had been made over an

extended period of time, we compared

the number of months in which each

product was sold below cost to the

number of months during the POR in

which each model was sold. If a product

was sold in fewer than three months

during the review period, we did not

exclude the below-cost sales unless

there were below-cost sales in each

month of sale. If a product was sold in

three or more months, we did not

exclude the below-cost sales unless

there were below-cost sales in at least

three months during the POR. We found

certain of Manho’s and Chun Kee’s

home market sales to be below the COP

and excluded these sales.

For those models that had sufficient

above-cost sales, we calculated FMV

based on delivered prices and ex-factory

prices to unrelated customers. In

calculating FMV, we made adjustments,

where appropriate, for rebates. Manho

reported domestic pre-sale freight for

certain sales. We consider pre-sale

freight to be an indirect expense where

respondent does not demonstrate that it

is a direct expense. Therefore, since all

of Manho’s U.S. sales are purchase price

sales, and 19 CFR 353.56(b)(1) (the

commission offset provision) does not

apply, we have not adjusted FMV for

pre-sale freight. We adjusted for Korean

value-added tax in accordance with our

decision in Silicomanganese from

Venezuela, Preliminary Determination

of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 59 FR

31204 (June 17, 1994). We deducted

home market packing costs from the

home market price and added U.S.
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 52 / Friday, March 17, 1995 / Notices 14423

packing costs to the FMV. We also made

adjustments, where applicable, for

differences in the physical

characteristics of merchandise.

Pursuant to 19 CFR 353.56, we made

circumstance-of-sale adjustments to

FMV. We deducted home market credit

expenses, inspection fees, domestic

post-sale inland freight, warranty and

servicing expenses and where

appropriate, added U.S postage fees,

U.S. letter of credit fees, U.S. bank

charges, U.S. credit expenses, U.S.

inspection fees, U.S. warranty and

servicing expenses, and U.S. product

liability insurance except where they

were not reported separately from

movement expenses. We used CV as

FMV for those U.S. sales for which there

were no contemporaneous sales of the

comparison home market model or

insufficient sales at or above the COP.

We calculated CV, in accordance with

section 773(e) of the Act, as the sum of

the COM of the product sold in the

United States, home market selling,

general and administrative (SG&A)

expenses, home market profit and U.S.

packing. The COM of the product sold

in the United States is the sum of direct

material, direct labor, and variable and

fixed factory overhead expenses. For

home market SG&A expenses, we used

the larger of the actual SG&A expenses

reported by the respondents or 10

percent of the COM, the statutory

minimum for general expenses. For

home market profit, we used the larger

of the actual profit reported by the

respondents or the statutory minimum

of eight percent of the sum of COM and

general expenses. We deducted home

market direct selling expenses and

added U.S direct selling expenses to CV.

No other adjustments were claimed or

allowed.

Best Information Available

In accordance with section 776(c) of

the Act, we have preliminarily

determined that the use of BIA is

appropriate for certain firms.

In determining what to use as BIA, the

Department employs a two-tiered

methodology. The Department uses one

method to determine the BIA margin for

those respondents who cooperate in a

review, while it uses a different method

to determine the BIA margin for those

respondents who do not cooperate, or

who significantly impede the review.

In the case of uncooperative

respondents, we use as BIA the higher

of (1) the highest of the rates found for

any firm for the same class or kind of

merchandise in the LTFV investigation

or prior administrative reviews; or (2)

the highest calculated rate in the current

review for any firm (see Final Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Reviews and Revocation in Part of an

Antidumping Duty Order, Antifriction

Bearings (Other Than Tapered Roller

Bearings) and Parts Thereof From

France, et al., 58 FR 39729 (July 26,

1993)). When a company substantially

cooperates with our requests for

information, but fails to provide all

information requested in a timely

manner or in the form requested, we use

as BIA the higher of (1) the highest rate

(including the ‘‘all others’’ rate) ever

applicable to the firm for the same class

or kind of merchandise from the same

country from either the LTFV

investigation or a prior administrative

review; or (2) the highest calculated rate

in the current review for any firm for the

class or kind of merchandise from the

same country.

Boo Kook submitted timely responses

to our original and supplemental sales

questionnaires. However, Boo Kook

failed to respond to the COP

questionnaire. Furthermore, several

days before the scheduled verification,

Boo Kook requested that we postpone

our verification for 60 to 90 days. In its

request for this delay, Boo Kook claimed

that it had learned that several

employees who have been indicted for

embezzlement had destroyed many of

the company’s financial records, and

that the remaining records were in

police custody. Boo Kook requested the

delay in verification in order to enable

it to reconstruct its records for

verification. Because postponement of

the verification posed a substantial

burden to the Department, we could not

grant the requested delay, and thus we

could not verify Boo Kook’s response.

Therefore, in accordance with section

776(c) of the Act, we have determined

that the use of BIA is appropriate for

Boo Kook. Because Boo Kook submitted

timely responses to the Department’s

original and supplemental sales

questionnaires, we determine Boo Kook

to be a cooperative respondent.

Accordingly, a margin of 2.72 percent,

which is the highest calculated rate for

this review, has been applied to Boo

Kook.

We sent Dae Kyung and Myung Jin a

questionnaire and received a

confirmation of receipt through the

United States Postal Service and the

U.S. Embassy in Seoul, respectively. We

did not receive a response from these

two companies. Therefore we have

considered these companies to be

uncooperative respondents.

Accordingly, a margin of 2.72 percent

has been applied to Dae Kyung and

Myung Jin, which is the highest

calculated rate for this review.

We sent Dong-Il Steel Mfg. Co., Ltd.

(Dong-Il), a questionnaire. It requested

that it be excused from the review

process because it no longer

manufactures steel wire rope. We sent

the company a letter explaining that it

is responsible for responding to the

questionnaire for any sales or shipments

that occurred during the POR. However,

the company did not respond to the

questionnaire. Therefore, we have

considered Dong-Il to be an

uncooperative respondent. Accordingly,

a margin of 2.72 percent has been

applied to Dong-Il, which is the highest

calculated rate for this review.

We sent Kwangshin Rope a

questionnaire and three weeks after the

due date received a response indicating

that it was bankrupt. We rejected the

response because it was untimely and

had not been properly submitted or

served. However, we sent Kwangshin

Rope a supplemental questionnaire

requesting clarification of its bankruptcy

status. We did not receive a response.

Therefore, we have considered

Kwangshin Rope to be an uncooperative

respondent. Accordingly, a margin of

2.72 percent has been applied to

Kwangshin Rope, which is the highest

calculated rate for this review.

We sent Seo Jin a questionnaire and

received confirmation of receipt from

the U.S. Embassy. One month after the

deadline for the questionnaire response,

we received a letter requesting an

extension from Seo Jin. We denied this

request because the request was

untimely, was not served as required by

our regulations, and was not filed in our

Central Records Unit as required by our

regulations. Therefore, we have

considered Seo Jin to be an

uncooperative respondent. Accordingly,

a margin of 2.72 percent has been

applied to Seo Jin, which is the highest

calculated rate for this review.

Preliminary Results of Reviews

As a result of this review, we

preliminarily determine that the

following margins exist for the period

September 30, 1992, through February

28, 1994:

Manufacturer/exporter Margin

(percent)

Atlantic & Pacific ......................... 1.51

Boo Kook Corporation ................ 2.72

Chun Kee Steel & Wire Rope

Co., Ltd ................................... 2.72

Chung Woo Rope Co., Ltd ......... 0.16

Dae Heung Industrial Co ............ (1)

Dae Kyung Metal ........................ 2.72

Dong-Il Metal .............................. 1.51

Dong-Il Steel Manufacturing Co.,

Ltd ........................................... 2.72

Dong Young ................................ 1.51
14424 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 52 / Friday, March 17, 1995 / Notices

Manufacturer/exporter Margin

(percent)

Hanboo Wire Rope, Inc .............. 0.45

Jinyang Wire Rope, Inc .............. (1)

Korea Sangsa Co ....................... (1)

Korope Co .................................. (1)

Kumho Rope ............................... 0.07

Kwang Shin Ind .......................... 1.51

Kwangshin Rope ........................ 2.72

Manho Rope & Wire, Ltd ............ 0.03

Myung Jin Co ............................. 2.72

Seo Hae Ind ............................... 1.51

Seo Jin Rope .............................. 2.72

Ssang Yong Steel Wire Co., Ltd 0.09

Sung Jin ...................................... 0.04

Sungsan Special Steel Processing Inc ..................................... (1)

TSK (Korea) Co., Ltd .................. (1)

Yeonsin Metal ............................. 0.17

1 No shipments or sales subject to this review.

The Department shall determine, and

the Customs Service shall assess,

antidumping duties on all appropriate

entries. Individual differences between

USP and FMV may vary from the

percentages stated above. Upon

completion of the review the

Department will issue appraisement

instructions on each exporter directly to

the Customs Service.

Furthermore, the following deposit

requirements will be effective for all

shipments of the subject merchandise

entered, or withdrawn from warehouse,

for consumption on or after the

publication date of the final results of

this administrative review, as provided

by section 751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) The

cash deposit rates for the reviewed

companies will be those rates

established in the final results of the

review (except that if the rate for a firm

is de minimis, i.e., less than 0.5 percent,

no cash deposit will be required for that

firm); (2) for previously reviewed or

investigated companies not listed above,

the cash deposit rate will continue to be

the company-specific rate published for

the most recent period; (3) if the

exporter is not a firm covered in this

review, a prior review, or the original

LTFV investigation, but the

manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate

will be the rate established for the most

recent period for the manufacturer of

the merchandise; and (4) if neither the

exporter nor the manufacturer is a firm

covered in this or any previous review

or the original investigation, the cash

deposit rate will be 1.51 percent, the

‘‘All Others’’ rate established in the

LTFV investigation (58 FR 11029).

These deposit requirements shall

remain in effect until publication of the

final results of the next administrative

review.

Interested parties may request

disclosure within 5 days of the date of

publication of this notice and may

request a hearing within 10 days of the

date of publication. Any hearing, if

requested, will be held as early as

convenient for the parties but not later

than 44 days after the date of

publication or the first work day

thereafter. Case briefs or other written

comments from interested parties may

be submitted not later than 30 days after

the date of publication of this notice.

Rebuttal briefs and rebuttal comments,

limited to issues in the case briefs, may

be filed not later than 37 days after the

date of publication. The Department

will publish the final results of this

administrative review, including the

results of its analysis of issues raised in

any such written comments.

This notice also serves as a

preliminary reminder to importers of

their responsibility under 19 CFR

353.26 to file a certificate regarding the

reimbursement of antidumping duties

prior to liquidation of the relevant

entries during this review period.

Failure to comply with this requirement

could result in the Secretary’s

presumption that reimbursement of

antidumping duties occurred and the

subsequent assessment of double

antidumping duties.

This administrative review and notice

are in accordance with section 751(a)(1)

of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)(1)) and 19

CFR 353.22(c)(5).

Dated: March 13, 1995.

Susan G. Esserman,

Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 95–6682 Filed 3–16–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration

[I.D. 031095B]

Marine Mammals

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),

Commerce.

ACTION: Request to export nonreleasable

beached and stranded marine mammals

(P583).

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that

Shimoda Floating Aquarium, Fujita

Tourist Enterprises Co., 3–22–31

Shimoda, Shizuoka 415, Japan, has

requested authorization to export for

public display purposes two

nonreleasable beached and stranded

California sea lions from a U.S.

rehabilitation facility.

ADDRESSES: The request for

authorization and related documents are

available for review upon written

request to the Chief, Permits Division,

F/PR1, Office of Protected Resources,

NMFS, 1335 East-West Highway, Silver

Spring, MD 20910–3226 (301/713–

2289).

Relevant written comments about this

request should be submitted to the

above address April 17, 1995.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Shimoda

Floating Aquarium, Fujita Tourist

Enterprises Co., is requesting

authorization for the export of two

nonreleasable rehabilitated female

California sea lions (Zalophus

californianus) for the purpose of public

display under the Marine Mammal

Protection Act of 1972 (MMPA), as

amended (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.).

The permanent retention or export for

public display purposes of a beached or

stranded marine mammal taken for the

purpose of rehabilitation under section

109(h) of the MMPA must be authorized

by NMFS. Under the 1994 amendments

to the MMPA, in order to obtain any

marine mammal for public display

purposes, the recipient must: (1) Offer a

program for education or conservation

purposes that is based on professionally

recognized standards of the public

display community; (2) be registered or

hold a license issued under 7 U.S.C.

2131 et seq.; i.e., from the Animal and

Plant Health Inspection Service

(APHIS), U.S. Department of Agriculture

(or, for foreign facilities, meet

comparable standards); and (3) maintain

facilities for the public display of

marine mammals that are open to the

public on a regularly scheduled basis

and to which access is not limited or

restricted other than by charging of an

admission fee.

In this regard, the required

certifications and statements provided

by Shimoda Floating Aquarium and the

Japanese Fisheries Agency have been

submitted to NMFS and APHIS, and

have been found appropriate and

sufficient to allow consideration of the

request.

Dated: March 13, 1995.

Art Jeffers,

Acting Chief, Division of Permits and

Documentation, National Marine Fisheries

Service.

[FR Doc. 95–6666 Filed 3–16–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–22–F

[I.D. 031095C]

Marine Mammals

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and