Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 215 / Tuesday, November 8, 2005 / Notices 67665 

Imports of the products covered by this 

order are currently classifiable under 

the following Harmonized Tariff 

Schedule (HTS) subheadings: 

7306.30.10.00, 7306.30.50.25, 

7306.30.50.32, 7306.30.50.40, 

7306.30.50.55, 7306.30.50.85, and 

7306.30.50.90. 

Although the HTS subheadings are 

provided for convenience and customs 

purposes, our written description of the 

scope of this order is dispositive. 

Taiwan -- Circular Welded Non–Alloy 

Steel Pipe and Tube (A–583–814) 

The products covered by this order are 

(1) circular welded non–alloy steel 

pipes and tubes, of circular cross section 

over 114.3 millimeters (4.5 inches), but 

not over 406.4 millimeters (16 inches) in 

outside diameter, with a wall thickness 

of 1.65 millimeters (0.065 inches) or 

more, regardless of surface finish (black, 

galvanized, or painted), or end–finish 

(plain end, beveled end, threaded, or 

threaded and coupled); and (2) circular 

welded non–alloy steel pipes and tubes, 

of circular cross–section less than 406.4 

millimeters (16 inches), with a wall 

thickness of less than 1.65 millimeters 

(0.065 inches), regardless of surface 

finish (black, galvanized, or painted) or 

end–finish (plain end, beveled end, 

threaded, or threaded and coupled). 

These pipes and tubes are generally 

known as standard pipes and tubes and 

are intended for the low pressure 

conveyance of water, steam, natural gas, 

air, and other liquids and gases in 

plumbing and heating systems, air 

conditioning units, automatic sprinkling 

systems, and other related uses, and 

generally meet ASTM A–53 

specifications. Standard pipe may also 

be used for light load–bearing 

applications, such as for fence–tubing 

and as structural pipe tubing used for 

framing and support members for 

construction, or load–bearing purposes 

in the construction, shipbuilding, 

trucking, farm–equipment, and related 

industries. Unfinished conduit pipe is 

also included in this order. All carbon 

steel pipes and tubes within the 

physical description outlined above are 

included within the scope of this 

investigation, except line pipe, oil 

country tubular goods, boiler tubing, 

mechanical tubing, pipe and tube 

hollows for redraws, finished 

scaffolding, and finished conduit. 

Standard pipe that is dual or triple 

certified/stenciled that enters the U.S. as 

line pipe of a kind or used for oil and 

gas pipelines is also not included in this 

investigation. 

Imports of the products covered by this 

order are currently classifiable under 

the following Harmonized Tariff 

Schedule (HTS) subheadings, 

7306.30.10.00, 7306.30.50.25, 

7306.30.50.32, 7306.30.50.40, 

7306.30.50.55, 7306.30.50.85, 

7306.30.50.90. 

Although the HTS subheadings are 

provided for convenience and customs 

purposes, our written description of the 

scope of this proceeding is dispositive. 

[FR Doc. 05–22241 Filed 11–7–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE: 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–489–807] 

Certain Steel Concrete Reinforcing 

Bars From Turkey; Final Results, 

Rescission of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review in Part, and 

Determination To Revoke in Part 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: On May 6, 2005, the 

Department of Commerce (the 

Department) published the preliminary 

results of the administrative review of 

the antidumping duty order on certain 

steel concrete reinforcing bars (rebar) 

from Turkey (70 FR 23990). This review 

covers four producers/exporters of the 

subject merchandise to the United 

States. The period of review (POR) is 

April 1, 2003, through March 31, 2004. 

We are rescinding the review with 

respect to 18 companies because they 

had no shipments of subject 

merchandise to the United States during 

the POR. In addition, we have 

determined to revoke the antidumping 

duty order with respect to an additional 

exporter, ICDAS Celik Enerji Tersane ve 

Ulasim Sanayi, A.S. (ICDAS). 

Based on our analysis of the 

comments received, we have made 

changes in the margin calculations. 

Therefore, the final results differ from 

the preliminary results. The final 

weighted–average dumping margins for 

the reviewed firms are listed below in 

the section entitled ‘‘Final Results of 

Review.’’

EFFECTIVE DATE: November 8, 2005. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Irina 

Itkin or Alice Gibbons, Office of AD/ 

CVD Operations, Office 2, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW, Washington, DC, 20230; 

telephone (202) 482–0656 and (202) 

482–0498, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

This review covers the following four 

producers/exporters: Colakoglu 

Metalurji A.S. and Colakoglu Dis Ticaret 

(collectively ‘‘Colakoglu’’); Diler Demir 

Celik Endustrisi ve Ticaret A.S., Yazici 

Demir Celik Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S., and 

Diler Dis Ticaret A.S. (collectively 

‘‘Diler’’); Habas Tibbi ve Sinai Gazlar 

Istihsal Endustrisi A.S. (Habas); and 

ICDAS. 

On May 6, 2005, the Department 

published in the Federal Register the 

preliminary results of administrative 

review of the antidumping duty order 

on rebar from Turkey. See Certain Steel 

Concrete Reinforcing Bars from Turkey; 

Preliminary Results and Partial 

Rescission of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review and Notice of 

Intent To Revoke in Part, 70 FR 23990 

(May 6, 2005) (Preliminary Results). 

Prior to the preliminary results, the 

following companies informed the 

Department that they had no shipments 

to the United States during the POR: 

Cebitas Demir Celik Endustrisi A.S. 

(Cebitas); Cemtas Celik Makina Sanayi 

ve Ticaret A.S. (Cemtas); Demirsan 

Haddecilik Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S. 

(Demirsan); Ege Celik Endustrisi Sanayi 

ve Ticaret A.S. (Ege Celik); Ekinciler 

Holding A.S. and Ekinciler Demir Celik 

San A.S. (collectively ‘‘Ekinciler’’); 

Iskenderun Iron & Steel Works Co. 

(Iskenderun); Izmir Demir Celik Sanayi 

A.S. (Izmir); Kaptan Demir Celik 

Endustrisi ve Ticaret A.S. (Kaptan); 

Metas Izmir Metalurji Fabrikasi Turk 

A.S. (Metas); Nurmet Celik Sanayi ve 

Ticaret A.S. (Nurmet); Nursan Celik 

Sanayi ve Haddecilik A.S. (Nursan); 

Sivas Demir Celik Isletmeleri A.S. 

(Sivas); and Tosyali Demir Celik Sanayi 

A.S. (Tosyali). We reviewed U.S. 

Customs and Border Protection (CBP) 

data and confirmed that there were no 

entries of subject merchandise from any 

of these companies. We also confirmed 

with CBP data that Ege Metal Demir 

Celik Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S. (Ege Metal); 

Kardemir--Karabuk Demir Celik Sanayi 

ve Ticaret A.S. (Karabuk); Kroman Celik 

Sanayi A.S. (Kroman); Kurum Demir 

Sanayi ve Ticaret Metalenerji A.S. 

(Kurum); and Ucel Haddecilik Sanayi ve 

Ticaret A.S. (Ucel) did not have entries 

of subject merchandise during the POR. 

Consequently, in accordance with 19 

CFR 351.213(d)(3) and consistent with 

our practice, we are rescinding our 

review for Cebitas, Cemtas, Demirsan, 

Ege Celik, Ege Metal, Ekinciler, 

Iskenderun, Izmir, Kaptan, Karabuk, 

Kroman, Kurum, Metas, Nurmet, 

Nursan, Sivas, Tosyali, and Ucel. For 

further discussion, see the ‘‘Partial 

67666 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 215 / Tuesday, November 8, 2005 / Notices 

Rescission of Review’’ section of this 

notice, below. 

We invited parties to comment on our 

preliminary results of review. In June 

and July 2005, we received case briefs 

from the petitioners (i.e., Gerdau 

AmeriSteel Corporation, Commercial 

Metals Company (SMI Steel Group), and 

Nucor Corporation), Diler, Habas, and 

ICDAS, and rebuttal briefs from the 

petitioners, Colakoglu, Diler, Habas, and 

ICDAS. 

The Department has conducted this 

administrative review in accordance 

with section 751 of the Act. 

Scope of the Order 

The product covered by this order is 

all stock deformed steel concrete 

reinforcing bars sold in straight lengths 

and coils. This includes all hot–rolled 

deformed rebar rolled from billet steel, 

rail steel, axle steel, or low–alloy steel. 

It excludes (i) plain round rebar, (ii) 

rebar that a processor has further 

worked or fabricated, and (iii) all coated 

rebar. Deformed rebar is currently 

classifiable in the Harmonized Tariff 

Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) 

under item numbers 7213.10.000 and 

7214.20.000. The HTSUS subheadings 

are provided for convenience and 

customs purposes. The written 

description of the scope of this 

proceeding is dispositive. 

Period of Review 

The POR is April 1, 2003, through 

March 31, 2004. 

Partial Rescission of Review 

As noted above, Cebitas, Cemtas, 

Demirsan, Ege Celik, Ege Metal, 

Ekinciler, Iskenderun, Izmir, Kaptan, 

Karabuk, Kroman, Kurum, Metas, 

Nurmet, Nursan, Sivas, Tosyali, and 

Ucel had no shipments and/or entries of 

subject merchandise to the United 

States during the POR. We have 

confirmed this with CBP data. 

Therefore, in accordance with 19 CFR 

351.213(d)(3) and consistent with the 

Department’s practice, we are 

rescinding our review with respect to 

these companies. See, e.g., Certain Steel 

Concrete Reinforcing Bars from Turkey; 

Final Results, Rescission of 

Antidumping Administrative Review in 

Part, and Determination Not to Revoke 

in Part, 69 FR 64731, 64732 (Nov. 8, 

2004) (2002–2003 Rebar Final). 

Determination To Revoke Order, in 

Part 

The Department may revoke, in whole 

or in part, an antidumping duty order 

upon completion of a review under 

section 751 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 

amended (the Act). While Congress has 

not specified the procedures that the 

Department must follow in revoking an 

order, the Department has developed a 

procedure for revocation that is 

described in 19 CFR 351.222. This 

regulation requires, inter alia, that a 

company requesting revocation must 

submit the following: (1) A certification 

that the company has sold the subject 

merchandise at not less than normal 

value (NV) in the current review period 

and that the company will not sell 

subject merchandise at less than NV in 

the future; (2) a certification that the 

company sold commercial quantities of 

the subject merchandise to the United 

States in each of the three years forming 

the basis of the request; and (3) an 

agreement to immediate reinstatement 

of the order if the Department concludes 

that the company, subsequent to the 

revocation, sold subject merchandise at 

less than NV. See 19 CFR 351.222(e)(1). 

Upon receipt of such a request, the 

Department will consider: (1) Whether 

the company in question has sold 

subject merchandise at not less than NV 

for a period of at least three consecutive 

years; (2) whether the company has 

agreed in writing to its immediate 

reinstatement in the order, as long as 

any exporter or producer is subject to 

the order, if the Department concludes 

that the company, subsequent to the 

revocation, sold the subject 

merchandise at less than NV; and (3) 

whether the continued application of 

the antidumping duty order is otherwise 

necessary to offset dumping. See 19 CFR 

351.222(b)(2)(i). See Sebacic Acid From 

the People’s Republic of China: Final 

Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review and 

Determination To Revoke Order in Part, 

67 FR 69719, 69720 (Nov. 19, 2002). 

We have determined that the request 

from ICDAS meets all of the criteria 

under 19 CFR 351.222. With regard to 

the criteria of subsection 19 CFR 

351.222(b)(2), our final margin 

calculations show that ICDAS sold rebar 

at not less than NV during the current 

review period. In addition, ICDAS sold 

rebar at not less than NV in the two 

previous administrative reviews in 

which it was involved (i.e., ICDAS’s 

dumping margin was zero or de 

minimis). See 2002–2003 Rebar Final 

and Certain Steel Concrete Reinforcing 

Bars From Turkey; Final Results, 

Rescission of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review in Part, and 

Determination Not To Revoke in Part, 68 

FR 53127 (Sept. 9, 2003). Also, we find 

that application of the antidumping 

duty order to ICDAS is no longer 

warranted for the following reasons: (1) 

the company had zero or de minimis 

margins for a period of at least three 

consecutive years; (2) the company has 

agreed to immediate reinstatement of 

the order if the Department finds that it 

has resumed making sales at less than 

NV; and (3) the continued application of 

the order is not otherwise necessary to 

offset dumping. For further discussion, 

see Comment 18 of the accompanying 

‘‘Issues and Decision Memorandum’’

(Decision Memo) from Stephen J. 

Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for 

Import Administration, to Joseph A. 

Spetrini, Acting Assistant Secretary for 

Import Administration, dated November 

2, 2005. Therefore, we find that ICDAS 

qualifies for revocation of the 

antidumping duty order on rebar under 

19 CFR 351.222(b)(2). Accordingly, we 

are revoking the order with respect to 

subject merchandise produced and 

exported by ICDAS. 

Effective Date of Revocation 

This revocation applies to all entries 

of subject merchandise that are 

produced and exported by ICDAS, and 

are entered, or withdrawn from 

warehouse, for consumption on or after 

April 1, 2004. The Department will 

order the suspension of liquidation 

ended for all such entries and will 

instruct CBP to release any cash 

deposits or bonds. The Department will 

further instruct CBP to refund with 

interest any cash deposits on entries 

made on or after April 1, 2004. 

Cost of Production 

As discussed in the Preliminary 

Results, we conducted an investigation 

to determine whether the respondents 

participating in the review made home 

market sales of the foreign like product 

during the POR at prices below their 

costs of production (COP) within the 

meaning 

of section 773(b)(1) of the Act. We 

performed the cost test for these final 

results following the same methodology 

as in the Preliminary Results, except as 

discussed in the Decision Memo. 

We found 20 percent or more of each 

respondent’s sales of a given product 

during the reporting period were at 

prices less than the weighted–average 

COP for this period. Thus, we 

determined that these below–cost sales 

were made in ‘‘substantial quantities’’

within an extended period of time and 

at prices which did not permit the 

recovery of all costs within a reasonable 

period of time in the normal course of 

trade. See section 773(b)(2)(B) - (D) of 

the Act. 

Therefore, for purposes of these final 

results, we found that Colakoglu, Diler, 

Habas and ICDAS made below–cost 

sales not in the ordinary course of trade. 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 215 / Tuesday, November 8, 2005 / Notices 67667 

Consequently, we disregarded these 

sales for each respondent and used the 

remaining sales as the basis for 

determining NV pursuant to section 

773(b)(1) of the Act. 

Analysis of Comments Received 

All issues raised in the case briefs by 

parties to this administrative review and 

to which we have responded are listed 

in the Appendix to this notice and 

addressed in the Decision Memo, which 

is adopted by this notice. Parties can 

find a complete discussion of all issues 

raised in this review and the 

corresponding recommendations in this 

public memorandum, which is on file in 

the Central Records Unit, room B–099, 

of the main Department building. 

In addition, a complete version of the 

Decision Memo can be accessed directly 

on the Web at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn. 

The paper copy and electronic version 

of the Decision Memo are identical in 

content. 

Changes Since the Preliminary Results 

Based on our analysis of comments 

received, we have made certain changes 

in the margin calculations. These 

changes are discussed in the relevant 

sections of the Decision Memo. 

Final Results of Review 

We determine that the following 

weighted–average margin percentages 

exist for the period April 1, 2003, 

through March 31, 2004: 

Manufacturer/producer/ 

exporter Margin percentage 

Colakoglu ...................... 0.00 

Diler .............................. 0.31 

Habas ........................... 26.07 

ICDAS ........................... 0.16 

The Department shall determine, and 

CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on 

all appropriate entries. Pursuant to 19 

CFR 351.212(b)(1), for all of Habas’s 

sales and certain of ICDAS’s sales and 

because we have the reported entered 

value of the U.S. sales, we have 

calculated importer–specific assessment 

rates based on the ratio of the total 

amount of antidumping duties 

calculated for the examined sales to the 

total entered value of those sales. 

Regarding all of Colakoglu’s and 

Diler’s sales, as well as certain of 

ICDAS’s sales, we note that these 

companies did not report the entered 

value for the U.S. sales in question. 

Accordingly, we have calculated 

importer–specific assessment rates for 

the merchandise in question by 

aggregating the dumping margins 

calculated for all U.S. sales to each 

importer and dividing this amount by 

the total quantity of those sales. To 

determine whether the duty assessment 

rates were de minimis, in accordance 

with the requirement set forth in 19 CFR 

351.106(c)(2), we calculated importer–

specific ad valorem ratios based on the 

export prices. 

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2), we 

will instruct CBP to liquidate without 

regard to antidumping duties any 

entries for which the assessment rate is 

de minimis (i.e., less than 0.50 percent). 

The Department will issue appraisement 

instructions directly to CBP. 

Cash Deposit Requirements 

Because we have revoked the order 

with respect to subject merchandise 

produced and exported by ICDAS, we 

will order CBP to terminate the 

suspension of liquidation for exports of 

such merchandise entered, or 

withdrawn from warehouse, for 

consumption on or after April 1, 2004, 

and to refund all cash deposits 

collected. 

The following deposit requirements 

will be effective upon publication of 

this notice of final results of 

administrative review for all shipments 

of rebar from Turkey (except shipments 

from ICDAS noted above) entered, or 

withdrawn from warehouse, for 

consumption on or after the date of 

publication, as provided by section 

751(a)(1) of the Act: 1) The cash deposit 

rates for the reviewed companies will be 

the rates indicated above (except for 

ICDAS and Diler, whose weighted–

average margins are de minimis, where 

no cash deposit will be required); 2) for 

previously 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, or in the less–

than-fair–value (LTFV) investigation, 

but the manufacturer is, then the cash 

deposit rate will be the rate established 

for the most recent period for the 

manufacturer of the merchandise; and 4) 

the cash deposit rate for all other 

manufacturers or exporters will 

continue to be 16.06 percent, the all 

others rate established in the LTFV 

investigation. 

These deposit requirements, when 

imposed, shall remain in effect until 

publication of the final results of the 

next administrative review. 

This notice also serves as a final 

reminder to importers of their 

responsibility under 19 CFR 

351.402(f)(2) 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 doubled antidumping duties. 

This notice also serves as the only 

reminder to parties subject to 

administrative protective order (APO) of 

their responsibility concerning the 

disposition of proprietary information 

disclosed under APO in accordance 

with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely 

notification of return/destruction of 

APO materials or conversion to judicial 

protective order is hereby requested. 

Failure to comply with the regulations 

and the terms of an APO is a 

sanctionable violation. 

We are issuing and publishing this 

determination and notice in accordance 

with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i) of the 

Act. 

Dated: November 2, 2005. 

Joseph A. Spetrini, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

Appendix Issues in Decision 

Memorandum 

General Issues 

1. Cost Averaging Periods for Habas and 

ICDAS 

2. Depreciation Expenses 

3. Matching Criteria 

4. Exchange Rates 

5. Universe of Sales 

6. Date of Sale for Habas and ICDAS 

7. Ministerial Errors in the Preliminary 

Results 

Company–Specific Issues 

8. Cost of Billets for Colakoglu 

9. Financing Expenses for Colakoglu 

10. Movement Expenses Provided by an 

Affiliate of Diler 

11. Affiliated Party Billet Purchases for 

Diler 

12. Edge and Defective Rebar Offsets to 

Cost of Manufacturing (COM) for Diler 

13. Offsets to General and 

Administrative (G&A) Expenses for 

Diler 

14. Denominator of the G&A and 

Interest Expense Calculations for Diler 

15. Interest Expense Calculation for 

Diler 

16. Omitted Costs for Diler 

17. Offsets to G&A Expenses for Habas 

18. Revocation for ICDAS 

19. Affiliated Party Sales in ICDAS’s 

Home Market 

20. Arm’s–Length Test for ICDAS 

21. Level of Trade (LOT) for ICDAS 

22. Whether to Treat ICDAS’s U.S. Sales 

as Export Price (EP) or Constructed 

Export Price (CEP) Sales 

67668 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 215 / Tuesday, November 8, 2005 / Notices 

23. Collapsing Issue for ICDAS 

24. Startup Adjustment for ICDAS 

25. Gain on Sale of Ship for ICDAS 

26. Calculation of G&A Expenses for 

ICDAS 

27. Exchange Rate Gains for ICDAS 

[FR Doc. 05–22242 Filed 11–7–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

A–570–601 

Notice of Extension of Final Results of 

the 2003–2004 Administrative Review 

of Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts 

Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, from 

the People’s Republic of China 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: November 8, 2005. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Robert Bolling or Laurel LaCivita, AD/ 

CVD Operations, Office 8, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW, Washington DC 20230; 

telephone: (202) 482–3434 and (202) 

482–4243, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On July 11, 2005, the Department 

published the preliminary results of 

review and partial rescission of this 

administrative review of TRBs from the 

PRC. See Tapered Roller Bearings and 

Parts Thereof, Finished or Unfinished, 

from the People’s Republic of China: 

Preliminary Results of Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review and Notice 

of Intent to Rescind in Part, 70 FR 39744 

(July 11, 2005) (‘‘Preliminary Results’’). 

In the Preliminary Results we stated that 

we would make our final determination 

for the antidumping duty review no 

later than 120 days after the date of 

publication of the preliminary results 

(i.e., November 8, 2005). 

Extension of Time Limit for Final 

Results 

The Department of Commerce (‘‘the 

Department’’) is extending the time 

limit for the final results of the 

administrative review of the 

antidumping duty order on tapered 

roller bearings and parts thereof, 

finished and unfinished (‘‘TRBs’’), from 

the People’s Republic of China (‘‘PRC’’). 

This review covers the period June 1, 

2003, through May 31, 2004. 

Section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act states 

that if it is not practicable to complete 

the review within the time specified, the 

administering authority may extend the 

120-day period, following the date of 

publication of the preliminary results, to 

issue its final results by an additional 60 

days. Completion of the final results 

within the 120-day period is not 

practicable due to issues arising from 

verification. 

Therefore, in accordance with section 

751(a)(3)(A) of the Act, the Department 

is extending the time period for issuing 

the final results of review by an 

additional sixty days until no later than 

January 7, 2006. 

Dated: November 2, 2005. 

Stephen J. Claeys, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. 05–22251 Filed 11–7–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

(C–533–844, C–560–819) 

Certain Lined Paper Products from 

India and Indonesia: Extension of Time 

Limit for Preliminary Determinations in 

the Countervailing Duty Investigations 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: November 8, 2005. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Maura Jeffords or Robert Copyak (India), 

and David Layton or David Neubacher 

(Indonesia) AD/CVD Operations, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; 

telephone: (202) 482–3146 or (202) 482–

2209, and (202) 482–0371 or (202) 482–

5823, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On September 29, 2005, the 

Department of Commerce (‘‘the 

Department’’) initiated the 

countervailing duty investigations of 

lined paper products from India and 

Indonesia. See Notice of Initiation of 

Countervailing Duty Investigation: 

Certain Lined Paper Products from India 

and Indonesia, 70 FR 58690 (October 7, 

2005). Currently, the preliminary 

determinations are due no later than 

December 5, 2005. 

Extension of Due Date for Preliminary 

Determination 

On October 20, 2005, the Association 

of American School Paper Suppliers 

(‘‘Petitioner’’) submitted a letter 

requesting that the Department 

postpone the preliminary 

determinations of the countervailing 

duty investigations of certain lined 

paper products from India and 

Indonesia by 65 days. Under section 

703(c)(1)(A) of the Act, the Department 

may extend the period for reaching a 

preliminary determination in a 

countervailing duty investigation until 

not later than the 130th day after the 

date on which the administering 

authority initiates an investigation if the 

petitioner makes a timely request for an 

extension of the period within which 

the determination must be made under 

subsection (b) (section 703(b) of the 

Act). Accordingly, we are extending the 

due date for the preliminary 

determinations by 65 days to no later 

than February 6, 2006. 

This notice is issued and published 

pursuant to section 703(c)(2) of the Act. 

Dated: November 1, 2005. 

Stephen J. Claeys, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. 05–22243 Filed 11–7–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

Availability of Seats for the Gulf of the 

Farallones National Marine Sanctuary 

Advisory Council 

AGENCY: National Marine Sanctuary 

Program (NMSP), National Ocean 

Service (NOS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration, 

Department of Commerce (DOC). 

ACTION: Notice and request for 

applications. 

SUMMARY: The Gulf of the Farallones 

National Marine Sanctuary (GFNMS or 

Sanctuary) is seeking applicants for the 

following seats on its Sanctuary 

Advisory Council (Advisory Council): 

At Large for Marin/Sonoma Counties 

(Primary and Alternate). 

At Large for San Francisco/San Mateo 

Counties (Primary and Alternate). 

Conservation (two Primary seats and 

two Alternates). 

Education (Primary and Alternate). 

Maritime Activities/Commercial 

(Primary and Alternate). 

Maritime Activities/Recreational 

(Primary and Alternate).