52076 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 169 / Thursday, September 1, 2005 / Notices 

1This determination was subsequently amended 

to reflect the correction of a ministerial error. See, 

Notice of Amended Final Antidumping Duty 

Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and 

Antidumping Duty Order: Polyethylene 

Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip from India, 67 

Fed. Reg. 44175 (July 1, 2002). 

2This section of the statute requires U.S. price to 

be increased by the amount of any countervailing 

duty imposed to offset export subsidies. In the Final 

Determination, the Department accounted for the 

countervailing duty on export subsidies by 

adjusting the AD cash deposit rate, rather than U.S. 

price. 

the period April 1, 2000, through March 

31, 2001.1 In that determination, the 

Department calculated a dumping 

margin of 10.34 percent for Polyplex 

Corporation Limited (Polyplex); 

however, it excluded Polyplex from the 

AD order on PET film from India 

because its AD cash deposit rate was 

zero percent. The Department calculated 

the zero percent AD cash deposit rate by 

reducing the dumping margin of 10.34 

percent by the 18.66 percent 

countervailing duty (CVD) rate on 

export subsidies that was established in 

the companion CVD investigation. See, 

Issues and Decision Memorandum 

accompanying the Final Determination 

at Comment 2. The petitioners filed a 

motion for judgment upon the agency 

record contesting the Final 

Determination, claiming that the 

Department should not have excluded 

Polyplex from the AD order based on a 

zero cash deposit rate when Polyplex’s 

dumping margin is greater than de 

minimis. The Court of International 

Trade (CIT) held that the Department’s 

exclusion of Polyplex from the order 

was in error, noting that the Department 

cannot exclude an exporter from an 

order because its cash deposit rate is 

zero. See, Dupont Teijin Films USA, LP, 

et al, v. United States and Polyplex 

Corp. Ltd., 273 F. Supp. 2d 1347, 1352 

(CIT July 9, 2003). In remanding the 

case to the Department, the CIT stated 

that the Department must calculate 

Polyplex’s dumping margin after 

considering the applicability of 19 

U.S.C. § 1677a2 and must find 

Polyplex’s merchandise to be subject to 

the AD order on PET film from India if 

the Department continues to calculate a 

dumping margin for the company of 

10.34 percent. 

On August 11, 2003, the Department 

issued its Final Results of 

Redetermination Pursuant to Court 

Remand in which it explained that 

countervailing duties are imposed upon 

the issuance of a CVD order, and that, 

at the time the Department issued its 

Final Determination, the order in the 

companion CVD investigation had not 

yet been issued. Thus, the Department 

argued, Polyplex’s sales were not 

subject to a CVD order, and the decision 

not to increase U.S. price by the amount 

of the countervailing duty on export 

subsidies that was established in the 

companion CVD investigation was 

consistent with 19 U.S.C. § 1677a. 

Because Polyplex’s dumping margin 

was 10.34 percent, the Department 

determined, consistent with the finding 

of the CIT decision, that Polyplex is 

subject to the AD order on PET film 

from India. In Dupont Teijin Films USA, 

LP, et al, v. United States and Polyplex 

Corp. Ltd., 297 F. Supp. 2d 1367 

(Dupont Teijin II), the CIT sustained the 

Department’s determination in part, but 

remanded the case in part, instructing 

the Department to address certain 

concerns regarding the application of its 

new interpretation of ‘‘imposed.’’

On March 3, 2004, the Department 

issued its second Final Results of 

Redetermination Pursuant to Court 

Remand (Second Remand 

Determination) in which it addressed 

the CIT’s concerns. On June 18, 2004, 

the CIT sustained the Department’s 

Second Remand Determination in its 

entirety. See, Dupont Teijin Films USA, 

LP, et al, v. United States and Polyplex 

Corp. Ltd., No. 02–00463, 2004 WL 

1368838 (CIT June 18, 2004)(Dupont 

Teijin III). Polyplex timely appealed this 

decision to the CAFC. 

On May 12, 2005, the CAFC affirmed 

the decision of the CIT in Dupont Teijin 

III, thereby sustaining the Department’s 

Second Remand Determination and its 

determination that Polyplex is subject to 

the AD duty order on PET film from 

India. 

As the litigation in this case has 

concluded, the Department is amending 

the Final Determination. Because the 

Department calculated a weighted–

average dumping margin of 10.34 

percent for Polyplex, Polyplex is subject 

to the AD order on PET film from India. 

However, as discussed above, for cash 

deposit purposes, the Department is 

subtracting from Polyplex’s cash deposit 

rate the CVD rate on export subsidies 

that was established in the companion 

affirmative CVD determination (i.e., 

18.66 percent). After this adjustment, 

the cash deposit rate for Polyplex is 

zero. 

This notice is issued and published in 

accordance with sections 735(d) and 

777(i) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 

amended. 

Dated: August 26, 2005. 

Joseph A. Spetrini, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. E5–4799 Filed 8–31–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

Environmental Technologies Trade 

Advisory Committee (ETTAC) 

AGENCY: International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Cancellation Notice of 

September 16, 2005 Open Meeting. 

Date: September 16, 2005. 

Time: 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m. 

Place: Department of Commerce, 14th 

and Constitution NW., Washington DC 

20230, Room 4830. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental 

Technologies Trade Advisory 

Committee (ETTAC) has elected to 

cancel its previously scheduled 

September 16, 2005 plenary meeting. 

The meeting will be rescheduled for a 

later time to be determined in 2005. 

The ETTAC is mandated by Public 

Law 103–392. It was created to advise 

the U.S. government on environmental 

trade policies and programs, and to help 

it to focus its resources on increasing 

the exports of the U.S. environmental 

industry. ETTAC operates as an 

advisory committee to the Secretary of 

Commerce and the Trade Promotion 

Coordinating Committee (TPCC). 

ETTAC was originally chartered in 

May of 1994. It was most recently 

rechartered until May 30, 2006. 

For further information phone Joseph 

Ayoub, Office of Energy and 

Environmental Technologies Industries 

(OEEI), International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce at (202) 482–5225 or 

Joseph.Ayoub@mail.doc.gov. 

Dated: August 26, 2005. 

Carlos F. Montoulieu, 

Director, Office of Energy and Environmental 

Industries. 

[FR Doc. E5–4798 Filed 8–31–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

Science Advisory Board 

AGENCY: Office of Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Research (OAR), National 

Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration (NOAA), Department of 

Commerce (DOC). 

ACTION: Notice of charter renewal. 

SUMMARY: The Department of 

Commerce’s Chief Financial Officer and 

Assistant Secretary for Administration 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 169 / Thursday, September 1, 2005 / Notices 52077 

has renewed the charter for the Science 

Advisory Board (SAB) for a 2-year 

period, through August 9, 2007. The 

SAB is a federal advisory committee 

under the Federal Advisory Committee 

Act (Pub. L. 92–463). 

DATES: Renewed through August 9, 

2007. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

charter has evolved since the SAB’s 

inception in 1997 so as to accurately 

describe the SAB’s purpose, 

membership, and administrative 

provisions. To more fully align the 

charter with the current state of the SAB 

and NOAA, the renewal charter has 

been modified as follows: (1) The first 

Objective has been changed to: ‘‘The 

SAB will advise the Under Secretary of 

Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere 

on strategies for research, education, 

and application of science to operations 

and information services, so as to better 

understand and predict changes in the 

Earth’s environment and conserve and 

manage coastal and marine resources to 

meet the Nation’s economic, social, and 

environmental needs.’’ This change 

aligns the charter with NOAA’s mission 

statement. (2) The SAB’s Objectives and 

Duties now authorize the SAB to 

conduct NOAA Cooperative Institute 

reviews, in addition to those of NOAA 

laboratories and programs. (3) The 

Administrative Provisions have been 

modified to clarify that the SAB reports 

only to the Under Secretary, and so 

strengthens its senior advisory role 

within NOAA. (4) The Administrative 

Provisions have also been modified to 

clarify that, when deemed appropriate, 

the SAB can choose to appoint NOAA 

employees to task forces and working 

groups. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. 

Michael Uhart, Executive Director, 

Science Advisory Board, NOAA, Rm. 

11152, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver 

Spring, Maryland 20910. (Phone: 301–

713–9121, Fax: 301–713–3515, E-mail: 

Michael.uhart@noaa.gov); or visit the 

NOAA SAB Web site at http:// 

www.sab.noaa.gov. 

Dated: August 26, 2005. 

Louisa Koch, 

Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of 

Oceanic and Atmospheric Research, National 

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 

[FR Doc. 05–17443 Filed 8–31–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–KD–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

Patent and Trademark Office 

Submission for OMB Review; 

Comment Request 

The United States Patent and 

Trademark Office (USPTO) has 

submitted to the Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) for clearance the 

following proposal for collection of 

information under the provisions of the 

Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 

Chapter 35). 

Agency: United States Patent and 

Trademark Office (USPTO). 

Title: Representative and Address 

Provisions. 

Form Number(s): PTO/SB/80/81/82/ 

83/84/122/123/124A/124B/125A/125B. 

Agency Approval Number: 0651–

0035. 

Type of Request: Revision of a 

currently approved collection. 

Burden: 23,668 hours annually. 

Number of Respondents: 370,766 

responses per year. 

Avg. Hours Per Response: The USPTO 

estimates that it will take the public 

approximately 3 to 12 minutes (0.05 to 

0.2 hours) to gather the necessary 

information, prepare the form, and 

submit a completed request involving a 

power of attorney, correspondence 

address, or Customer Number. The 

USPTO estimates that it will take the 

public approximately 1 hour to prepare 

and submit a petition related to power 

of attorney and 1 hour and 30 minutes 

(1.5 hours) to submit a Customer 

Number Upload Spreadsheet, including 

the time to prepare the spreadsheet file 

on diskette or CD and to produce a 

signed cover letter. 

Needs and Uses: Under 35 U.S.C. 2 

and 37 CFR 1.31–1.36 and 1.363, this 

information collection is used by the 

public to grant or revoke power of 

attorney in a patent application, to 

withdraw as attorney or agent of record, 

to authorize a practitioner to act in a 

representative capacity, to designate or 

change the correspondence address or 

fee address for one or more applications 

or patents, to request a Customer 

Number, and to designate or change the 

correspondence address, fee address, or 

list of practitioners associated with a 

Customer Number. The Customer 

Number practice permits authorized 

individuals to change the 

correspondence address, fee address, or 

representatives of record for a number of 

patents or applications with one change 

request instead of filing separate 

requests for each patent or application. 

The USPTO uses the information in this 

collection to determine who is 

authorized to take action in an 

application or patent on behalf of the 

applicant or assignee and where to send 

correspondence regarding an 

application or patent. This information 

collection currently contains eight paper 

forms, and customers may also submit 

information using the Customer Number 

Upload Spreadsheet format. The USPTO 

is adding the Authorization to Act in a 

Representative Capacity (PTO/SB/84), 

two petitions, and electronic power of 

attorney submissions to this collection. 

Affected Public: Individuals or 

households, businesses or other forprofits, not-for-profit institutions, farms, 

the Federal Government, and state, local 

or tribal governments. 

Frequency: On occasion. 

Respondent’s Obligation: Required to 

obtain or retain benefits. 

OMB Desk Officer: David Rostker, 

(202) 395–3897. 

Copies of the above information 

collection proposal can be obtained by 

any of the following methods: 

• E-mail: Susan.Brown@uspto.gov. 

Include ‘‘0651–0035 copy request’’ in 

the subject line of the message. 

• Fax: 571–273–0112, marked to the 

attention of Susan Brown. 

• Mail: Susan K. Brown, Records 

Officer, Office of the Chief Information 

Officer, Office of Data Architecture and 

Services, Data Administration Division, 

U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, P.O. 

Box 1450, Alexandria, VA 22313–1450. 

Written comments and 

recommendations for the proposed 

information collection should be sent on 

or before October 3, 2005 to David 

Rostker, OMB Desk Officer, Room 

10202, New Executive Office Building, 

725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 

20503. 

Dated: August 26, 2005. 

Susan K. Brown, 

Records Officer, USPTO, Office of the Chief 

Information Officer, Office of Data 

Architecture and Services, Data 

Administration Division. 

[FR Doc. 05–17408 Filed 8–31–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–16–P 

CORPORATION FOR NATIONAL AND 

COMMUNITY SERVICE 

Proposed Information Collection; 

Comment Request 

AGENCY: Corporation for National and 

Community Service. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: The Corporation for National 

and Community Service (hereinafter the 

‘‘Corporation’’), as part of its continuing 

effort to reduce paperwork and