Request for Public Comment, 30863-30864 [E6-8313]

Download as PDF Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 104 / Wednesday, May 31, 2006 / Notices the public regarding specific questions relating to the issues selected for Commission study. DATES: Comments are due by June 30, 2006. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Forest Service Tehama County Resource Advisory Committee SUMMARY: The Tehama County Resource Advisory Committee (RAC) will meet in Red Bluff, California. Agenda items to be covered include: (1) Introductions, (2) Approval of Minutes, (3) Public Comment, (4) Discussion of Funding Projects for next year, (5) Chairman’s Perspective, (6) General Discussion, (7) Next Agenda. DATES: The meeting will be held on June 8, 2006 from 9 a.m. and end at approximately 12 p.m. ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the Lincoln Street School, Conference Room A, 1135 Lincoln Street, Red Bluff, CA. Individuals wishing to speak or propose agenda items must send their names and proposals to Janet Flanagan, Acting DFO, 825 N. Humboldt Ave., Willows, CA 95988. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bobbin Gaddini, Committee Coordinator, USDA, Mendocino National Forest, Grindstone Ranger District, P.O. Box 164, Elk Creek, CA 95939. (530) 968–5329; e-mail ggaddin@fs.fed.us. The meeting to the public. Committee discussion is limited to Forest Service staff and Committee members. However, persons who wish to bring matters to the attention of the Committee may file written statements with the Committee staff before or after the meeting. Public input sessions will be provided and individuals who made written requests by June 6, 2006 will have the opportunity to address the committee at those sessions. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Dated: May 23, 2006. Janet Flanagan, Acting Designated Federal Official. [FR Doc. 06–4971 Filed 5–30–06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410–11–M ANTITRUST MODERNIZATION COMMISSION jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES Request for Public Comment Antitrust Modernization Commission. ACTION: Request for public comment. AGENCY: SUMMARY: The Antitrust Modernization Commission requests comments from VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:52 May 30, 2006 Jkt 208001 By electronic mail: comments@amc.gov. By mail: Antitrust Modernization Commission, Attn: Public Comments, 1120 G Street, NW., Suite 810, Washington, DC 20005. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Andrew J. Heimert, Executive Director & General Counsel, Antitrust Modernization Commission. Telephone: (202) 233–0701; e-mail: info@amc.gov. Internet: http://www.amc.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Antitrust Modernization Commission was established to ‘‘examine whether the need exists to modernize the antitrust laws and to identify and study related issues.’’ Antitrust Modernization Commission Act of 2002, Public Law No. 107–273, § 11053, 116 Stat. 1856. In conducting its review of the antitrust laws, the Commission is required to ‘‘solicit the views of all parties concerned with the operation of the antitrust laws.’’ Id. By this request for comments, the Commission seeks to provide a full opportunity for interested members of the public to provide input regarding certain issues selected for Commission study. From time to time, the Commission may issue additional requests for comment on issues selected for study. Comments should be submitted in written form. Comments should identify the topic to which it relates. Comments need not address every question within the topic. Comments exceeding 1500 words should include a brief (less than 250 word) summary. Commenters may submit additional background materials (such as articles, data, or other information) relating to the topic by separate attachment. Comments should identify the person or organization submitting the comments. If comments are submitted by an organization, the submission should identify a contact person within the organization. Comments should include the following contact information for the submitter: An address, telephone number, and e-mail address (if available). Comments submitted to the Commission will be made available to the public in accordance with Federal laws. Comments may be submitted either in hard copy or electronic form. Electronic submissions may be sent by electronic mail to comments@amc.gov. Comments submitted in hard copy should be delivered to the address specified above, ADDRESSES: Forest Service, USDA. ACTION: Notice of meeting. AGENCY: PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 30863 and should enclose, if possible, a CD– ROM or a 31⁄2 inch computer diskette containing an electronic copy of the comment. The Commission prefers to receive electronic documents (whether by e-mail or on CD–ROM/diskette) in portable document format (.pdf), but also will accept comments in Microsoft Word format. The AMC has issued this request for comments pursuant to its authorizing statute and the Federal Advisory Committee Act. Antitrust Modernization Commission Act of 2002, Public Law No. 107–273, § 11053, 116 Stat. 1758, 1856; Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App., § 10(a)(3). Topic for Comment The Commission requests comment on the following topic. Criminal Remedies 1. Some observers have opined that application of 18 U.S.C. 3571(d) consistent with the Constitution may be difficult in all but the most unusual circumstances after United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), given Booker’s requirement that the gain or loss be proven to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. Should 18 U.S.C. 3571(d) be amended so that it is not applicable in Sherman Act prosecutions? If Section 3571(d) were made inapplicable to Sherman Act prosecutions, should the maximum fine under the Sherman Act be increased? If so, what should be the revised fine amount? 2. In responding to the first question, please also comment on the following: a. What is the practical difficulty of proving gain or loss from an antitrust violation beyond a reasonable doubt? b. If evaluation of the amount of gain or loss requires or warrants expert testimony, can it be said as a matter of law that gain or loss cannot, in such a case, be proven beyond a reasonable doubt? c. Why do businesses agree, postBooker, to pay fine amounts in excess of the $10 million (now $100 million) statutory maximum? d. Is the threat of criminal prosecution of a greater number of individuals employed by a business, or of more serious sentences for the business’s individuals, a factor that leads some businesses to agree to pay fine amounts in excess of the $10 million or $100 million maxima? Dated: May 24, 2006. E:\FR\FM\31MYN1.SGM 31MYN1 30864 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 104 / Wednesday, May 31, 2006 / Notices By direction of the Antitrust Modernization Commission. Andrew J. Heimert, Executive Director and General Counsel, Antitrust Modernization Commission. [FR Doc. E6–8313 Filed 5–30–06; 8:45 am] Administrative Reviews and Request for Revocation in Part The Department of Commerce has received requests to conduct administrative reviews of various antidumping and countervailing duty orders and findings with April anniversary dates. In accordance with the Department’s regulations, we are initiating those administrative reviews. The Department of Commerce also received a request to revoke one antidumping duty order in part. DATES: May 31, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sheila E. Forbes, Office of AD/CVD Operations, Office 4, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230, telephone: (202) 482–4697. The Department has received timely requests, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b)(2002), for administrative reviews of various antidumping and countervailing duty orders and findings with April anniversary dates. The Department also received timely requests to revoke in part the antidumping duty order on Certain Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars from Turkey with respect to two exporters. SUMMARY: BILLING CODE 6820–YH–P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Request for Revocation in Part Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. ACTION: Notice of Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty AGENCY: SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background INITIATION OF REVIEWS: In accordance with section 19 CFR 351.221(c)(1)(i), we are initiating administrative reviews of the following antidumping and countervailing duty orders and findings. We intend to issue the final results of these reviews not later than April 30, 2007. jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES Antidumping Duty Proceedings Period to be Reviewed RUSSIA: Magnesium Metal. A–821–819 ......................................................................................................................... PSC VSMPO–AVISMA Corporation. Solikamsk Magnesium Works. THE PEOPLE’S REPUBLIC OF CHINA: Brake Rotors1. A–570–846 ......................................................................................................................... National Automotive Industry Import & Export Corporation or China National Automotive Industry Import & Export Corporation, and manufactured by any company other than Shandong Laizhou CAPCO Industry (‘‘Laizhou CAPCO’’). Laizhou CAPCO, and manufactured by any company other than Laizhou CAPCO. Laizhou Luyuan Automobile Fittings Co., and manufactured by any company other than Laizhou Luyuan Automobile Fittings Co., or Shenyang Honbase Machinery Co., Ltd.. Shenyang Honbase Machinery Co., Ltd., and manufactured by any company other than Laizhou Luyuan Automobile Fittings Co., or Shenayang Honbase Machinery Co., Ltda.,. China National Industrial Machinery Import & Export Company. Laizhou Auto Brake Equipment Factory. Laizhou Auto Brake Equipment Company. Qingdao Gren Co.. Yantai Winhere Auto–Part Manufacturing Co., Ltd.. Longkou Haimeng Machinery Co., Ltd.. Zibo Luzhou Automobile Parts Co., Ltd.. Laizhou Hongda Auto Replacement Parts Co., Ltd.. Hongfa Machinery (Dalian) Co., Ltd.. Qingdao Meita Automotive Industry Co., Ltd.. Shangdong Huanri Group Co., Ltd.. Shangdong Huanri Group General Company. Longkou TLC Machinery Co., Ltd.. Zibo Golden Harvest Machinery Limited Company. Shanxi Zhongding Auto Parts Co., Ltd.. Xianghe Xumingyuan Auto Parts Co., Ltd.. Xiangfen Hengtai Brake System Co., Ltd.. Laizhou City Luqi Machinery Co., Ltd.. Qingdao Rotec Auto Parts Co., Ltd.. Shenyang Yinghao Machinery Co.. Longkou Jinzheng Machinery Co.. Laizhou Wally Automobile Co., Ltd.. Laizhou Huanri Automobile Parts Co., Ltd.. THE PEOPLE’S REPUBLIC OF CHINA: Non–Malleable Cast Iron Pipe Fittings2. A–570–875 ......................................................................................................................... Buxin Myland (Foundry) Ltd.. Jinan Meide Corporation. Myland Industrial Co., Ltd.. SFTEC. TURKEY: Certain Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars. VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:52 May 30, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\31MYN1.SGM 10/4/04 - 3/31/06 4/1/05 - 3/31/06 4/1/05 - 3/31/06 31MYN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 104 (Wednesday, May 31, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Pages 30863-30864]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-8313]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ANTITRUST MODERNIZATION COMMISSION


Request for Public Comment

AGENCY: Antitrust Modernization Commission.

ACTION: Request for public comment.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Antitrust Modernization Commission requests comments from 
the public regarding specific questions relating to the issues selected 
for Commission study.

DATES: Comments are due by June 30, 2006.

ADDRESSES: By electronic mail: comments@amc.gov. By mail: Antitrust 
Modernization Commission, Attn: Public Comments, 1120 G Street, NW., 
Suite 810, Washington, DC 20005.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Andrew J. Heimert, Executive Director 
& General Counsel, Antitrust Modernization Commission. Telephone: (202) 
233-0701; e-mail: info@amc.gov. Internet: http://www.amc.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Antitrust Modernization Commission was 
established to ``examine whether the need exists to modernize the 
antitrust laws and to identify and study related issues.'' Antitrust 
Modernization Commission Act of 2002, Public Law No. 107-273, Sec.  
11053, 116 Stat. 1856. In conducting its review of the antitrust laws, 
the Commission is required to ``solicit the views of all parties 
concerned with the operation of the antitrust laws.'' Id. By this 
request for comments, the Commission seeks to provide a full 
opportunity for interested members of the public to provide input 
regarding certain issues selected for Commission study. From time to 
time, the Commission may issue additional requests for comment on 
issues selected for study.
    Comments should be submitted in written form. Comments should 
identify the topic to which it relates. Comments need not address every 
question within the topic. Comments exceeding 1500 words should include 
a brief (less than 250 word) summary. Commenters may submit additional 
background materials (such as articles, data, or other information) 
relating to the topic by separate attachment.
    Comments should identify the person or organization submitting the 
comments. If comments are submitted by an organization, the submission 
should identify a contact person within the organization. Comments 
should include the following contact information for the submitter: An 
address, telephone number, and e-mail address (if available). Comments 
submitted to the Commission will be made available to the public in 
accordance with Federal laws.
    Comments may be submitted either in hard copy or electronic form. 
Electronic submissions may be sent by electronic mail to 
comments@amc.gov. Comments submitted in hard copy should be delivered 
to the address specified above, and should enclose, if possible, a CD-
ROM or a 3\1/2\ inch computer diskette containing an electronic copy of 
the comment. The Commission prefers to receive electronic documents 
(whether by e-mail or on CD-ROM/diskette) in portable document format 
(.pdf), but also will accept comments in Microsoft Word format.
    The AMC has issued this request for comments pursuant to its 
authorizing statute and the Federal Advisory Committee Act. Antitrust 
Modernization Commission Act of 2002, Public Law No. 107-273, Sec.  
11053, 116 Stat. 1758, 1856; Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. 
App., Sec.  10(a)(3).

Topic for Comment

    The Commission requests comment on the following topic.

Criminal Remedies

    1. Some observers have opined that application of 18 U.S.C. 3571(d) 
consistent with the Constitution may be difficult in all but the most 
unusual circumstances after United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 
(2005), given Booker's requirement that the gain or loss be proven to a 
jury beyond a reasonable doubt. Should 18 U.S.C. 3571(d) be amended so 
that it is not applicable in Sherman Act prosecutions? If Section 
3571(d) were made inapplicable to Sherman Act prosecutions, should the 
maximum fine under the Sherman Act be increased? If so, what should be 
the revised fine amount?
    2. In responding to the first question, please also comment on the 
following:
    a. What is the practical difficulty of proving gain or loss from an 
antitrust violation beyond a reasonable doubt?
    b. If evaluation of the amount of gain or loss requires or warrants 
expert testimony, can it be said as a matter of law that gain or loss 
cannot, in such a case, be proven beyond a reasonable doubt?
    c. Why do businesses agree, post-Booker, to pay fine amounts in 
excess of the $10 million (now $100 million) statutory maximum?
    d. Is the threat of criminal prosecution of a greater number of 
individuals employed by a business, or of more serious sentences for 
the business's individuals, a factor that leads some businesses to 
agree to pay fine amounts in excess of the $10 million or $100 million 
maxima?

    Dated: May 24, 2006.


[[Page 30864]]


    By direction of the Antitrust Modernization Commission.
Andrew J. Heimert,
Executive Director and General Counsel, Antitrust Modernization 
Commission.
[FR Doc. E6-8313 Filed 5-30-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6820-YH-P