Certain Welded Stainless Steel Pipe From Korea and Taiwan, 73452-73453 [E5-7245]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
73452
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 237 / Monday, December 12, 2005 / Notices
Benchmarks That Reflect Market
Conditions in Jurisdiction in Which the
Good Is Provided
Comment 21: Whether Private Standing
Timber in the Marities is Comparable to
Standing Timber in Provinces East of
British Columbia
Comment 22: Whether Quebec’s Private
Forest Is More Competitive than That of
the Maritimes
Comment 23: Whether the Department
Market Conditions in New Brunswick
and Nova Scotia Are Similar Enough to
Be Combined into a Single Benchmark
Price
Comment 24: Whether the Private
Stumpage Prices in the Maritimes, as
Reported by AGFOR, Reflect Actual
Stumpage Transactions
Comment 25: Whether Tree Diameters
in Alberta and the Maritimes are
Sufficiently Comparable
4. Use of U.S. Prices as Benchmark for
Measuring the Adequacy of
Remuneration
Comment 26: Montana as an Alternate
Benchmark for Alberta
Comment 27: Use of Cross-Border
Benchmark
Comment 28: Whether Fundamental
Differences in Log Market Conditions
Exist in the U.S. Pacific Northwest and
British Columbia
Comment 29: Whether U.S. Log Price
Data Are Complete, Representative, and
Reliable
Comment 30: B.C. Log Import and
Export Data
D. Stumpage Calculation Issues
1. Calculation of Maritime Benchmark
Comment 31: Data Used to Index Private
Maritime Stumpage Prices to the POR
Comment 32: Rounding of the
Maritimes Stumpage Index
Comment 33: Method Used to Weight
Average Benchmark Prices in New
Brunswick
Comment 34: Weighting of Benchmark
Studwood Stumpage Prices in Nova
Scotia
Comment 35: Method for Deriving a
Single Weight Average Price for
Standing Timber Prices from New
Brunswick and Nova Scotia
Comment 36: Application of Marketing
Fees Added to Maritimes Benchmark
Comment 37: Calculation of Marketing
Board Levies Added to Private
Stumpage Prices in New Brunswick
Comment 38: Calculation of Silviculture
Fee Added to Private Stumpage Prices
in Nova Scotia
2. Calculation of British Columbia
Benchmark
Comment 39: Factor Used to Convert
from Tons to Thousand Board Feet
Comment 40: Log Market Report Data
Relate Only to Small Log Sales
Comment 41: High Value of Cypress
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:51 Dec 09, 2005
Jkt 208001
Comment 42: Log Price Data from Other
States that Border British Columbia
Comment 43: Negative Species-Specific
Benefit
Comment 44: Volume Conversion
Factors Used for U.S. Log Prices
Expressed in Thousand Board Feet
Comment 45: Pond Values
Comment 46: Stud Log Values
Comment 47: Additional U.S. Log Price
Data
Comment 48: Averaging of U.S.
Benchmark Log Values
3. Adjustments to Government
Stumpage Prices
a. Alberta
Comment 49: Whether the Department
Properly Adjusted the GOA’s
Administered Stumpage Price
b. British Columbia
Comment 50: Old-Growth Adjustment
Comment 51: Other Harvesting Costs for
B.C. Interior
Comment 52: Proper Calculation of
Profit Earned by B.C. Tenureholders
c. Saskatchewan
Comment 53: Whether the Department
Properly Adjusted the GOS’s
Administered Stumpage Price
d. Manitoba
Comment 54: Whether the Department
Properly Adjusted the GOM’s
Administered Stumpage Price
e. Ontario
Comment 55: Whether the Department
Properly Adjusted the GOO’s
Administered Stumpage Price to
Account for Road Costs
Comment 56: Whether the Department
Properly Adjusted the GOO’s
Administered Stumpage Price to
Account for Longer Distances from
Stump to Mill and Mill to Market
Comment 57: Whether Maritimes
‘‘Studwood’’ Is More Comparable To
Timber Entering Ontario Sawmills Than
Maritimes ‘‘Sawlogs’’
f. Quebec
Comment 58: Quebec Road Costs
E. Whether to Measure the Adequacy of
Remuneration of the Administered
Stumpage Programs Under Tier III of
the Department’s Regulations
Comment 59: Market Principles as
Benchmark Under Third-Tier Category
F. Miscellaneous Comment
Comment 60: Tenure Security
G. Non-Stumpage Program Issues
Comment 61: Whether Loans Provided
by Community Futures Development
Corporations Provide a Countervailable
Subsidy
Comment 62: Western Economic
Diversification Program
Comment 63: Whether the Canadian
Forest Service Industry, Trade and
Economics Program Provides a
Countervailable Subsidy
Comment 64: Article 28 of
Investissement Quebec
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Comment 65: SGF-Rexfor
Comment 66: Whether the Land Base
Investment Program (LBIP) is
Countervailable
Comment 67: Whether the Private Forest
Development Program (PFDP) Is
Countervailable
Comment 68: Natural Resources Canada
(NRCan) Softwood Lumber Marketing
Research Subsidies Under the Value-toWood Program (VWP) and the National
Research Institutes Initiative (NRII)
Comment 69: Whether Forestry
Innovation Investment (‘‘FII’’)
Expenditures Are Countervailable
Comment 70: Denominator Used to
Calculate the FII Subsidies
Comment 71: Litigation-Related
Payments to Forest Products
Association of Canada (FPAC)
Comment 72: British Columbia Private
Forest Land Tax Program
[FR Doc. 05–23921 Filed 12–9–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S
INTERNATIONAL TRADE
COMMISSION
[Investigation Nos. 731–TA–540 and 541
(Second Review)]
Certain Welded Stainless Steel Pipe
From Korea and Taiwan
United States International
Trade Commission.
ACTION: Notice of Commission
determination to conduct full five-year
reviews concerning the antidumping
duty orders on certain welded stainless
steel pipe from Korea and Taiwan.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: The Commission hereby gives
notice that it will proceed with full
reviews pursuant to section 751(c)(5) of
the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C.
1675(c)(5)) to determine whether
revocation of the antidumping duty
orders on certain welded stainless steel
pipe from Korea and Taiwan would be
likely to lead to continuation or
recurrence of material injury within a
reasonably foreseeable time. A schedule
for the reviews will be established and
announced at a later date. For further
information concerning the conduct of
these reviews and rules of general
application, consult the Commission’s
Rules of Practice and Procedure, part
201, subparts A through E (19 CFR part
201), and part 207, subparts A, D, E, and
F (19 CFR part 207).
EFFECTIVE DATE: December 5, 2005.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mary Messer (202–205–3193), Office of
Investigations, U.S. International Trade
Commission, 500 E Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20436. Hearing-
E:\FR\FM\12DEN1.SGM
12DEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 237 / Monday, December 12, 2005 / Notices
impaired persons can obtain
information on this matter by contacting
the Commission’s TDD terminal on 202–
205–1810. Persons with mobility
impairments who will need special
assistance in gaining access to the
Commission should contact the Office
of the Secretary at 202–205–2000.
General information concerning the
Commission may also be obtained by
accessing its Internet server (https://
www.usitc.gov). The public record for
these reviews may be viewed on the
Commission’s electronic docket (EDIS)
at https://edis.usitc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On
December 5, 2005, the Commission
determined that it should proceed to
full reviews in the subject five-year
reviews pursuant to section 751(c)(5) of
the Act. The Commission found that the
domestic interested party group
response to its notice of institution (70
FR 52124, September 1, 2005) was
adequate but that the respondent
interested party group response was
inadequate. However, the Commission
found that other circumstances
warranted conducting full reviews.1 A
record of the Commissioners’ votes, the
Commission’s statement on adequacy,
and any individual Commissioner’s
statements will be available from the
Office of the Secretary and at the
Commission’s Web site.
Authority: These reviews are being
conducted under authority of title VII of the
Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published
pursuant to section 207.62 of the
Commission’s rules.
Issued: December 7, 2005.
By order of the Commission.
Marilyn R. Abbott,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. E5–7245 Filed 12–9–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020–02–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Technology Administration
Request for Nominations of Members
to Serve on the National Medal of
Technology Nomination Evaluation
Committee
Technology Administration,
Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of request for
nominations.
AGENCY:
The Department of Commerce
(Technology Administration) is
requesting nominations of individuals
SUMMARY:
1 Chairman Stephen Koplan and Commissioners
Jennifer A. Hillman and Shara L. Aranoff
dissenting.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:51 Dec 09, 2005
Jkt 208001
to serve on the National Medal of
Technology Nomination Evaluation
Committee. Technology Administration
will consider nominations received in
response to this notice as well as from
other sources. The SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section of this notice
provides Committee and membership
criteria.
Please submit nominations
within 30 days of the publication of this
notice.
ADDRESSES: Submit nominations to
Mildred Porter, Director, National
Medal of Technology Program,
Technology Administration, U.S.
Department of Commerce, 1401
Constitution Avenue, NW., Room 4817,
Washington, DC 20230. Nominations
also may be submitted via fax at 202–
482–6275, or e-mail to:
nmt@technology.gov.
DATES:
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mildred Porter, Director, National
Medal of Technology Program,
Technology Administration, U.S.
Department of Commerce, 1401
Constitution Avenue, NW., Room 4817,
Washington, DC 20230, telephone (202)
482–5572.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
Committee was established in
accordance with the Federal Advisory
Committee Act (FACA) (Title 5, United
States Code, Appendix 2). The following
provides information about the
Committee and membership.
1. Committee members are appointed
by and serve at the discretion of the
Secretary of Commerce. The Committee
provides advice to the Secretary on the
implementation of Public Law 96–480
(15 U.S.C. 3711). Public Law 105–309;
15 U.S.C. 3711, Section 10, approved by
the 105th Congress in 1998, added the
National Technology Medal for
Environmental Technology.
2. The Committee functions solely as
an advisory body under the FACA.
Members are appointed to the 12member Committee for a period of
three-years. Each will be reevaluated at
the conclusion of the three-year term
with the prospect of renewal, pending
Advisory Committee needs and the
Secretary’s concurrence. Selection of
membership is made in accordance with
applicable Department of Commerce
guidelines.
3. Members are responsible for
reviewing nominations and making
recommendations for the Nation’s
highest honor for technological
innovation, awarded annually by the
President of the United States. Members
of the Committee have an understanding
of, and experience in, developing and
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
73453
utilizing technological innovation and/
or they are familiar with the education,
training, employment and management
of technological human resources.
4. Under the FACA, membership in a
committee must be balanced. To achieve
balance, the Department is seeking
additional nominations of candidates
from small, medium-sized, and large
businesses or with special expertise in
the following sub sectors of the
technology enterprise:
• Medical Innovations/
Bioengineering and Biomedical
Technology
• Technology Management/
Computing/IT/Manufacturing
Innovation
• Technology Manpower/Workforce
Training/Education
Committee members are present or
former Chief Executive Officers, former
winners of the National Medal of
Technology; presidents or distinguished
faculty of universities; or senior
executives of non-profit organizations.
As such, they not only offer the stature
of their positions but also possess
intimate knowledge of the forces
determining future directions for their
organizations and industries. The
Committee as a whole is balanced in
representing geographical, professional,
and diversity interests.
Nomination Information:
1. Nominees must be U.S. citizens,
must be able to fully participate in
meetings pertaining to the review and
selection of finalists for the National
Medal of Technology, and must uphold
the confidential nature of an
independent peer review and
competitive selection process.
2. The Department of Commerce is
committed to equal opportunity in the
workplace and seeks a broad-based and
diverse Committee membership.
Michelle O’Neill,
Acting Under Secretary for Technology,
Technology Administration.
[FR Doc. E5–7185 Filed 12–9–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–18–P
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Office of the Secretary
Proposed Collection; Comment
Request
Office of the Under Secretary of
Defense (Personnel and Readiness),
DoD.
ACTION: Notice.
AGENCY:
In compliance with section
3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995, the Office of the
E:\FR\FM\12DEN1.SGM
12DEN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 237 (Monday, December 12, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 73452-73453]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E5-7245]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
[Investigation Nos. 731-TA-540 and 541 (Second Review)]
Certain Welded Stainless Steel Pipe From Korea and Taiwan
AGENCY: United States International Trade Commission.
ACTION: Notice of Commission determination to conduct full five-year
reviews concerning the antidumping duty orders on certain welded
stainless steel pipe from Korea and Taiwan.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Commission hereby gives notice that it will proceed with
full reviews pursuant to section 751(c)(5) of the Tariff Act of 1930
(19 U.S.C. 1675(c)(5)) to determine whether revocation of the
antidumping duty orders on certain welded stainless steel pipe from
Korea and Taiwan would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence
of material injury within a reasonably foreseeable time. A schedule for
the reviews will be established and announced at a later date. For
further information concerning the conduct of these reviews and rules
of general application, consult the Commission's Rules of Practice and
Procedure, part 201, subparts A through E (19 CFR part 201), and part
207, subparts A, D, E, and F (19 CFR part 207).
EFFECTIVE DATE: December 5, 2005.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mary Messer (202-205-3193), Office of
Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20436. Hearing-
[[Page 73453]]
impaired persons can obtain information on this matter by contacting
the Commission's TDD terminal on 202-205-1810. Persons with mobility
impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the
Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at 202-205-2000.
General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by
accessing its Internet server (https://www.usitc.gov). The public record
for these reviews may be viewed on the Commission's electronic docket
(EDIS) at https://edis.usitc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On December 5, 2005, the Commission
determined that it should proceed to full reviews in the subject five-
year reviews pursuant to section 751(c)(5) of the Act. The Commission
found that the domestic interested party group response to its notice
of institution (70 FR 52124, September 1, 2005) was adequate but that
the respondent interested party group response was inadequate. However,
the Commission found that other circumstances warranted conducting full
reviews.\1\ A record of the Commissioners' votes, the Commission's
statement on adequacy, and any individual Commissioner's statements
will be available from the Office of the Secretary and at the
Commission's Web site.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Chairman Stephen Koplan and Commissioners Jennifer A.
Hillman and Shara L. Aranoff dissenting.
Authority: These reviews are being conducted under authority of
title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
pursuant to section 207.62 of the Commission's rules.
Issued: December 7, 2005.
By order of the Commission.
Marilyn R. Abbott,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. E5-7245 Filed 12-9-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
