Notice of Final Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review: Certain Softwood Lumber Products from Canada, 73448-73452 [05-23921]
Download as PDF
73448
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 237 / Monday, December 12, 2005 / Notices
The Department shall determine, and
the U.S. Customs and Border Protection
(‘‘CBP’’) shall assess, antidumping
duties on all appropriate entries. In
accordance with section 351.212(b)(1) of
the Department’s regulations, we have
calculated importer-specific assessment
rates by dividing the dumping margin
found on the subject merchandise
examined by the entered value of such
merchandise. Where the importerspecific assessment rate is above de
minimis we will instruct CBP to assess
antidumping duties on that importer’s
entries of subject merchandise. The
Department will issue appropriate
assessment instructions directly to CBP
within 15 days of publication of these
final results of review.
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entered, or withdrawn from warehouse,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 these final results of
administrative review, as provided by
section 751(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930,
as amended (‘‘the Act’’): (1) for the
companies named above, the cash
deposit rate will be the rate listed above,
except where the margin is zero or de
minimis no cash deposit will be
required; (2) for merchandise exported
by manufacturers or exporters not
covered in this review but covered in a
previous segment of this proceeding, the
cash deposit rate will continue to be the
company-specific rate published in the
most recent final results in which that
manufacturer or exporter participated;
(3) if the exporter is not a firm covered
in this review or in any previous
segment of this proceeding, but the
manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate
will be that established for the
manufacturer of the merchandise in
these final results of review or in the
most recent segment of the proceeding
in which that manufacturer
participated; and (4) if neither the
exporter nor the manufacturer is a firm
covered in this review or in any
previous segment of this proceeding, the
cash deposit rate will be 14.74 percent,
the ‘‘All-others’’ rate established in the
less-than-fair-value investigation. These
deposit requirements 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 section 351.402(f)
of the Department’s regulations to file a
certificate regarding the reimbursement
of antidumping and countervailing
duties prior to liquidation of the
relevant entries during this review
period. Failure to comply with this
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:51 Dec 09, 2005
Jkt 208001
requirement could result in the
Secretary’s presumption that
reimbursement of antidumping and
countervailing duties occurred, and in
the subsequent assessment of
antidumping duties increased by the
amount of antidumping and/or
countervailing duties reimbursed.
This notice also is the only reminder
to parties subject to administrative
protective order (‘‘APO’’) of their
responsibility concerning the return/
destruction or conversion to judicial
protective order of proprietary
information disclosed under APO in
accordance with section 351.305(a)(3) of
the Department’s regulations. Failure to
comply is a violation of the APO.
This determination is issued and
published in accordance with sections
751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Dated: December 5, 2005.
Joseph A. Spetrini,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration.
APPENDIX
List of Comments in the Issues and
Decision Memorandum
Comment 1: Date of Sale
Comment 2: ASTM Pipe in the Home
Market
Comment 3: Weighting Factors in the
Model Match Program
Comment 4: CVD Adjustment
Comment 5: Certain United States and
Home Market Sales
Comment 6: Cash Deposit Rate
Comment 7: Duty Drawback
Comment 8: Test for Below-Cost Sales
[FR Doc. 05–23923 Filed 12–9–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[C–122–839]
Notice of Final Results of
Countervailing Duty Administrative
Review: Certain Softwood Lumber
Products from Canada
Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On June 7, 2005, the
Department of Commerce (the
Department) published in the Federal
Register its preliminary results of
administrative review of the
countervailing duty order on certain
softwood lumber products (subject
merchandise) from Canada for the
period April 1, 2003, through March 31,
2004. See Notice of Preliminary Results
AGENCY:
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
of Countervailing Duty Administrative
Review: Certain Softwood Lumber
Products from Canada, 70 FR 33088
(June 7, 2005) (Preliminary Results). The
Department has now completed this
administrative review in accordance
with section 751(a) of the Tariff Act of
1930, as amended (the Act).
Based on information received since
the Preliminary Results and our analysis
of comments received, the Department
has revised the net subsidy rate. For
further discussion, see the
accompanying Issues and Decision
Memorandum from Stephen Claeys,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration, to Joseph A. Spetrini,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration, concerning the final
results of the second countervailing
duty administrative review of certain
softwood lumber products from Canada
(Decision Memorandum) dated
December 5, 2005. The final net subsidy
rate is listed below in the section
entitled ‘‘Final Results of Review.’’
EFFECTIVE DATE: December 12, 2005.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Robert Copyak (202) 482–2209, AD/CVD
Operations, Office 3, Import
Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, Room 4012, 14th Street and
Constitution Avenue, N.W.,
Washington, D.C. 20230.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On June 7, 2005, the Department
published in the Federal Register the
Preliminary Results. We invited
interested parties to comment on the
results. Since the Preliminary Results,
the following events have occurred.
On June 10, 2005, petitioners
submitted, pursuant to 19 CFR
351.301(c), rebuttal/clarifying evidence
in response to new factual information
placed on the record of the review by
the Department at the time of the
Preliminary Results.1 On June 20, 2005,
Canadian parties submitted factual
information in response to petitioners’
June 10, 2005 filing. On July 1, 2005, the
Department extended the deadline for
filing case and rebuttal briefs until
August 11 and August 18, respectively.
See the July 1, 2005 memorandum to the
file from Eric B. Greynolds, Program
Manager, Office of AD/CVD
Enforcement III.
On November 2, 2005, we issued a
supplemental questionnaire to the GOC
as well to the provincial governments in
which we requested that they respond
1 Petitioners are the Coalition for Fair Lumber
Imports Executive Committee.
E:\FR\FM\12DEN1.SGM
12DEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 237 / Monday, December 12, 2005 / Notices
to the pass-through appendix included
in the Department’s September 8, 2004
initial questionnaire. On November 10,
2005, the Canadian parties responded to
our supplemental questionnaire.
Further, pursuant to the due dates
established in our November 2, 2005
supplemental questionnaire, on
November 16, 2005, interested parties
submitted case briefs limited to the
Canadian parties’ questionnaire
response. Interested parties submitted
rebuttal comments on November 18,
2005.
Scope of the Order
The products covered by this order
are softwood lumber, flooring and
siding (softwood lumber products).
Softwood lumber products include all
products classified under subheadings
4407.1000, 4409.1010, 4409.1090, and
4409.1020, respectively, of the
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the
United States (HTSUS), and any
softwood lumber, flooring and siding
described below. These softwood
lumber products include:
(1) Coniferous wood, sawn or chipped
lengthwise, sliced or peeled,
whether or not planed, sanded or
finger-jointed, of a thickness
exceeding six millimeters;
(2) Coniferous wood siding (including
strips and friezes for parquet
flooring, not assembled)
continuously shaped (tongued,
grooved, rabbeted, chamfered, vjointed, beaded, molded, rounded
or the like) along any of its edges or
faces, whether or not planed,
sanded or finger-jointed;
(3) Other coniferous wood (including
strips and friezes for parquet
flooring, not assembled)
continuously shaped (tongued,
grooved, rabbeted, chamfered, vjointed, beaded, molded, rounded
or the like) along any of its edges or
faces (other than wood moldings
and wood dowel rods) whether or
not planed, sanded or fingerjointed; and
(4) Coniferous wood flooring
(including strips and friezes for
parquet flooring, not assembled)
continuously shaped (tongued,
grooved, rabbeted, chamfered, vjointed, beaded, molded, rounded
or the like) along any of its edges or
faces, whether or not planed,
sanded or finger-jointed.
Although the HTSUS subheadings are
provided for convenience and customs
purposes, the written description of the
merchandise subject to this order is
dispositive.
As specifically stated in the Issues
and Decision Memorandum
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:51 Dec 09, 2005
Jkt 208001
accompanying the Notice of Final
Determination of Sales at Less Than
Fair Value: Certain Softwood Lumber
Products from Canada, 67 FR 15539
(April 2, 2002) (see comment 53, item D,
page 116, and comment 57, item B–7,
page 126), available at
www.ia.ita.doc.gov/frn, drilled and
notched lumber and angle cut lumber
are covered by the scope of this order.
The following softwood lumber
products are excluded from the scope of
this order provided they meet the
specified requirements detailed below:
(1) Stringers (pallet components used
for runners): if they have at least
two notches on the side, positioned
at equal distance from the center, to
properly accommodate forklift
blades, properly classified under
HTSUS 4421.90.98.40.
(2) Box-spring frame kits: if they
contain the following wooden
pieces - two side rails, two end (or
top) rails and varying numbers of
slats. The side rails and the end
rails should be radius-cut at both
ends. The kits should be
individually packaged, they should
contain the exact number of
wooden components needed to
make a particular box spring frame,
with no further processing required.
None of the components exceeds 1’’
in actual thickness or 83’’ in length.
(3) Radius-cut box-spring-frame
components, not exceeding 1’’ in
actual thickness or 83’’ in length,
ready for assembly without further
processing. The radius cuts must be
present on both ends of the boards
and must be substantial cuts so as
to completely round one corner.
(4) Fence pickets requiring no further
processing and properly classified
under HTSUS 4421.90.70, 1’’ or less
in actual thickness, up to 8’’ wide,
6’ or less in length, and have finials
or decorative cuttings that clearly
identify them as fence pickets. In
the case of dog-eared fence pickets,
the corners of the boards should be
cut off so as to remove pieces of
wood in the shape of isosceles right
angle triangles with sides
measuring 3/4 inch or more.
(5) U.S. origin lumber shipped to
Canada for minor processing and
imported into the United States, is
excluded from the scope of this
order if the following conditions are
met: 1) the processing occurring in
Canada is limited to kiln-drying,
planing to create smooth-to-size
board, and sanding, and 2) if the
importer establishes to the
satisfaction of U.S. Customs and
Border Protection (CBP) that the
lumber is of U.S. origin.
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
73449
(6) Softwood lumber products
contained in single family home
packages or kits,2 regardless of tariff
classification, are excluded from the
scope of this order if the importer
certifies to items 6 A, B, C, D, and
requirement 6 E is met:
A. The imported home package or kit
constitutes a full package of the
number of wooden pieces specified
in the plan, design or blueprint
necessary to produce a home of at
least 700 square feet produced to a
specified plan, design or blueprint;
B. The package or kit must contain all
necessary internal and external
doors and windows, nails, screws,
glue, sub floor, sheathing, beams,
posts, connectors, and if included
in the purchase contract, decking,
trim, drywall and roof shingles
specified in the plan, design or
blueprint.
C. Prior to importation, the package or
kit must be sold to a retailer of
complete home packages or kits
pursuant to a valid purchase
contract referencing the particular
home design plan or blueprint, and
signed by a customer not affiliated
with the importer;
D. Softwood lumber products entered
as part of a single family home
package or kit, whether in a single
entry or multiple entries on
multiple days, will be used solely
for the construction of the single
family home specified by the home
design matching the entry.
E. For each entry, the following
documentation must be retained by
the importer and made available to
CBP upon request:
i. A copy of the appropriate home
design, plan, or blueprint matching
the entry;
ii. A purchase contract from a retailer
of home kits or packages signed by
a customer not affiliated with the
importer;
iii. A listing of inventory of all parts
of the package or kit being entered
that conforms to the home design
package being entered;
iv. In the case of multiple shipments
on the same contract, all items
listed in E(iii) which are included
in the present shipment shall be
identified as well.
Lumber products that CBP may
classify as stringers, radius cut box2 To ensure administrability, we clarified the
language of exclusion number 6 to require an
importer certification and to permit single or
multiple entries on multiple days as well as
instructing importers to retain and make available
for inspection specific documentation in support of
each entry.
E:\FR\FM\12DEN1.SGM
12DEN1
73450
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 237 / Monday, December 12, 2005 / Notices
this notice as Appendix I. 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 CRU. In addition, a complete
version of the Decision Memorandum
can be accessed directly on the World
Wide Web at https://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn.
The paper copy and electronic version
of the Decision Memorandum are
identical in content.
spring-frame components, and fence
pickets, not conforming to the above
requirements, as well as truss
components, pallet components, and
door and window frame parts, are
covered under the scope of this order
and may be classified under HTSUS
subheadings 4418.90.45.90,
4421.90.70.40, and 4421.90.97.40.
Finally, as clarified throughout the
course of the investigation, the
following products, previously
identified as Group A, remain outside
the scope of this order. They are:
1. Trusses and truss kits, properly
classified under HTSUS 4418.90;
2. I-joist beams;
3. Assembled box spring frames;
4. Pallets and pallet kits, properly
classified under HTSUS 4415.20;
5. Garage doors;
6. Edge-glued wood, properly
classified under HTSUS
4421.90.98.40;
Final Results of Review
7. Properly classified complete door
frames;
8. Properly classified complete
window frames;
9. Properly classified furniture.
In addition, this scope language was
further clarified to specify that all
softwood lumber products entered from
Canada claiming non-subject status
based on U.S. country of origin will be
treated as non-subject U.S.-origin
merchandise under the countervailing
duty order, provided that these
softwood lumber products meet the
following condition: upon entry, the
importer, exporter, Canadian processor
and/or original U.S. producer establish
to CBP’s satisfaction that the softwood
lumber entered and documented as
U.S.-origin softwood lumber was first
produced in the United States as a
lumber product satisfying the physical
parameters of the softwood lumber
scope.3 The presumption of non-subject
status can, however, be rebutted by
evidence demonstrating that the
merchandise was substantially
transformed in Canada.
Analysis of Comments Received
All issues raised in the case and
rebuttal briefs by parties to this review
are addressed in the Decision
Memorandum, which is hereby adopted
by this notice. A list of issues which
parties have raised and to which we
have responded, all of which are in the
Decision Memorandum, is attached to
3 See the scope clarification message (# 3034202),
dated February 3, 2003, to CBP, regarding treatment
of U.S. origin lumber on file in Room B-099 of the
Central Records Unit (CRU) of the Main Commerce
Building.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:51 Dec 09, 2005
Jkt 208001
In accordance with section
777(A)(e)(2)(B) of the Act, we have
calculated a single country-wide ad
valorem subsidy rate of 8.70 percent to
be applied to all producers and
exporters of the subject merchandise
from Canada, other than those
producers that have been excluded from
the order.
The Department has previously
excluded the following companies from
this order:
• Armand Duhamel et fils Inc.
• Bardeaux et Cedres
• Beaubois Coaticook Inc.
• Busque & Laflamme Inc.
• Carrier & Begin Inc.
• Clermond Hamel
• J.D. Irving, Ltd.
• Les Produits Forestiers D.G., Ltee
• Marcel Lauzon Inc.
• Mobilier Rustique
• Paul Vallee Inc.
• Rene Bernard, Inc.
• Roland Boulanger & Cite. Ltee
• Scierie Alexandre Lemay
• Scierie La Patrie, Inc.
• Scierie Tech, Inc.
• Wilfrid Paquet et fils, Ltee
• B. Luken Logging Ltd.
• Frontier Lumber
• Sault Forest Products Ltd.
• Interbois Inc.
• Les Moulures Jacomau
• Richard Lutes Cedar Inc.
• Boccam Inc.
• Indian River Lumber
• Sechoirs de Beauce Inc.
See Notice of Amended Final
Affirmative Countervailing Duty
Determination and Notice of
Countervailing Duty Order: Certain
Softwood Lumber Products from
Canada, 67 FR 36068 (May 22, 2002), as
corrected (67 FR 37775, May 30, 2002),
Final Results of Countervailing Duty
Expedited Reviews: Certain Softwood
Lumber Products from Canada, 68 FR
24436 (May 7, 2003), and Final Results,
Reinstatement, Partial Rescission of
Countervailing Duty Expedited Reviews,
and Company Exclusions: Certain
Softwood Lumber Products From
Canada, 69 FR 10982 (March 9, 2004).
The exclusion applies to all subject
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
merchandise produced and exported by
the companies listed above.
Finally, certain softwood lumber
products from the Maritime Provinces
are exempt from this countervailing
duty order. This exemption, however,
does not apply to softwood lumber
products produced in the Maritime
Provinces from Crown timber harvested
in any other province.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 356.8, the
Department shall not order liquidation
until the ‘‘forty-first day after the date of
publication of the notice ...’’ following
an administrative review of
merchandise exported from Canada or
Mexico. Accordingly, we will instruct
CBP, on or after the 41st day after
publication of the final results of this
review, to liquidate shipments of certain
softwood lumber products from Canada
entered, or withdrawn from warehouse,
for consumption from April 1, 2003,
through March 31, 2004, at the above
indicated aggregate ad valorem net
subsidy rate. We will direct CBP to
exempt from the application of the order
only entries of softwood lumber
products from Canada which are
accompanied by an original Certificate
of Origin issued by the Maritime
Lumber Bureau (MLB), and those of the
excluded companies listed above.
In addition, we will instruct CBP to
collect cash deposits of estimated
countervailing duties in the amounts
indicated above of the f.o.b. price on all
shipments of the subject merchandise
entered, or withdrawn from warehouse,
for consumption on or after the date of
publication of these final results of
review.
Return or Destruction of Proprietary
Information
This notice serves as a 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
written notification of return/
destruction of APO material or
conversion to judicial protective order is
hereby requested. Failure to comply is
a violation of the APO.
This administrative review and this
notice are issued and published in
accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and
777(i) of the Act.
E:\FR\FM\12DEN1.SGM
12DEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 237 / Monday, December 12, 2005 / Notices
Dated: December 5, 2005.
Joseph A. Spetrini,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration.
Prices of the Crown Stumpage
Program Administered by the GOBC
G. Calculation of Provincial and
Country-Wide Rate
Appendix I
METHODOLOGY AND BACKGROUND
INFORMATION
Subsidies Valuation Information
A. Allocation Period
B. Recurring and Non-Recurring
Benefits
C. Benchmarks for Loans
D. Aggregate Subsidy Rate
Calculations
1. Provincial Crown Stumpage
Programs
2. Other Programs
E. Numerator and Denominator Used
for Calculating the Stumpage
Programs’ Net Subsidy Rates4
1. Aggregate Numerator and
Denominator
2. Adjustments to Account for
Companies Excluded from the
Countervailing Duty Order
3. Pass-Through
ANALYSIS OF PROGRAMS
A. Financial Contribution and
Specificity
B. Benefit
1. Use of First-Tier Benchmarks in
Measuring Stumpage Programs
Administered by the GOA, GOBC,
GOO, GOQ, GOM, and GOS
2. Private Stumpage Prices in New
Brunswick and Nova Scotia May
Serve as a First-Tier Benchmark in
Alberta, Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec,
and Saskatchewan
C. Application of Maritime Prices
1. Indexing
2. Costs That Must Be Paid in Order
to Harvest Private Standing Timber
in New Brunswick and Nova Scotia
3. Weighting of Studwood in the Nova
Scotia Benchmark
D. Selection of Benchmark Price Used
for British Columbia
E. Application of U.S. Log Prices
1. Selection of Data Sources
2. Derivation of U.S. Log Prices on a
per Unit Basis for Use in
Comparison to Log Prices on the
B.C. Coast and Interior
F. Calculation of Provincial Benefits
1. Methodology for Adjusting the Unit
Prices of the Crown Stumpage
Programs Administered by the
GOA, GOS, GOM, GOO, and GOQ
2. Methodology for Adjusting the Unit
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:51 Dec 09, 2005
Jkt 208001
A. Programs Administered by the
Government of Canada
1. Western Economic Diversification
Program (WDP): Grants and
Conditionally Repayable
Contributions
2. Natural Resources Canada
(NRCAN) Softwood Marketing
Subsidies
B. Programs Administered by the
Government of British Columbia
1. Forestry Innovation Investment
Program (FIIP)
2. British Columbia Private Forest
Property Tax Program
C. Programs Administered by the
Government of Quebec
Private Forest Development Program
III. Programs Determined Not to Confer
a Benefit
A. Programs of the Government of
Canada
I. Provincial Stumpage Programs
Determined to Confer Subsidies
4 The denominators used for non-stumpage
programs are discussed below in the individual
program write-ups.
II. Non-Stumpage Programs Determined
To Confer Subsidies
1. Federal Economic Development
Initiative in Northern Ontario
(FEDNOR)
2. Payments to the Canadian Lumber
Trade Alliance (CLTA) &
Independent Lumber
Remanufacturing Association
(ILRA)
B. Programs of the Government of
British Columbia
Forest Renewal B.C. Program/Land
Base Investment Program
C. Programs of the Government of
Quebec
1. Assistance Under Article 28 of
Investment Quebec
2. Assistance from the Societe de
Recuperation d’Exploitation et de
Developpement Forestiers du
Quebec (Rexfor)
IV. Total Ad Valorem Rate
V. Analysis of Comments
A. Company-Specific Review Comments
Comment 1: Company-Specific Reviews
B. Subsidy Valuation Comments
1. Numerator
a. Treatment of Company-Specific
Data of Excluded Companies
Comment 2: Whether Benefits to
Excluded Companies Should Be
Deducted from Numerator of Net
Subsidy Calculation
b. Pass-Through
Comment 3: U.S. Law and WTO
Agreements Require the Department to
Conduct a Pass-Through Analysis
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
73451
Comment 4: Whether the Department’s
Evaluation Criteria Is Relevant to a Passthrough Analysis
Comment 5: Whether Company-Specific
Details are Required for the Department
to Conduct a Pass-through Analysis
Comment 6: Benchmark to Be Used
When Conducting a Pass-through
Analysis
Comment 7: Whether the Department
Rejected The GOO’s Pass-through Claim
Based on an Incorrect Understanding of
Record Evidence
Comment 8: Whether the Department’s
November 2, 2005, Supplemental
Questionnaire Imposed Unreasonable
Burdens on Canadian Parties
2. Denominator
Comment 9: Attribution of Stumpage
Benefit
C. Provincial Stumpage Program
Comments
1. Scope and Specificity
Comment 10: Scope of the Order
Comment 11: Whether the Provincial
Stumpage Programs Are Specific
2. Whether Private Stumpage Prices
from Inside the Respective Subject
Provinces Are Viable Benchmarks5
a. Alberta
Comment 12: Whether Timber Damage
Assessment Data May Serve as a
Benchmark in Alberta
b. British Columbia
Comment 13: Whether the BCTS
Auction Sales Are Distorted or
Suppressed by Crown Stumpage Rates
Comment 14: Whether BCTS Auction
Prices for Timber are Valid First-Tier
benchmarks
Comment 15: B.C. Domestic Log Prices
Constitute Valid Third-Tier Benchmark
c. Ontario
Comment 16: The Department Should
Compare the Price for Ontario Crown
Softwood Timber with Private
Stumpage Prices in Ontario
Comment 17: Ontario Crown Stumpage
Was Provided for More than Adequate
Remuneration in Comparison to
Ontario’s Unsubsidized Domestic Log
Market
d. Quebec
Comment 18: Whether Prices for Private
Standing Timber in Quebec Are
Distorted by Prices Charged in Quebec’s
Public Forest
Comment 19: Basis for the Department’s
Findings Regarding Quebec’s Private
Forest
3. Private Stumpage Prices from the
Maritime Provinces
Comment 20: Whether the Law Requires
That the Benefit Be Determined Using
5 The GOS and GOM did not submit any private
stumpage prices for consideration by the
Department. Therefore, these provinces are not
addressed in this section of the decision
memorandum.
E:\FR\FM\12DEN1.SGM
12DEN1
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
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 237 (Monday, December 12, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 73448-73452]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-23921]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[C-122-839]
Notice of Final Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative
Review: Certain Softwood Lumber Products from Canada
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On June 7, 2005, the Department of Commerce (the Department)
published in the Federal Register its preliminary results of
administrative review of the countervailing duty order on certain
softwood lumber products (subject merchandise) from Canada for the
period April 1, 2003, through March 31, 2004. See Notice of Preliminary
Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review: Certain Softwood
Lumber Products from Canada, 70 FR 33088 (June 7, 2005) (Preliminary
Results). The Department has now completed this administrative review
in accordance with section 751(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended
(the Act).
Based on information received since the Preliminary Results and our
analysis of comments received, the Department has revised the net
subsidy rate. For further discussion, see the accompanying Issues and
Decision Memorandum from Stephen Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for
Import Administration, to Joseph A. Spetrini, Acting Assistant
Secretary for Import Administration, concerning the final results of
the second countervailing duty administrative review of certain
softwood lumber products from Canada (Decision Memorandum) dated
December 5, 2005. The final net subsidy rate is listed below in the
section entitled ``Final Results of Review.''
EFFECTIVE DATE: December 12, 2005.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert Copyak (202) 482-2209, AD/CVD
Operations, Office 3, Import Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Room 4012, 14\th\ Street
and Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20230.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On June 7, 2005, the Department published in the Federal Register
the Preliminary Results. We invited interested parties to comment on
the results. Since the Preliminary Results, the following events have
occurred.
On June 10, 2005, petitioners submitted, pursuant to 19 CFR
351.301(c), rebuttal/clarifying evidence in response to new factual
information placed on the record of the review by the Department at the
time of the Preliminary Results.\1\ On June 20, 2005, Canadian parties
submitted factual information in response to petitioners' June 10, 2005
filing. On July 1, 2005, the Department extended the deadline for
filing case and rebuttal briefs until August 11 and August 18,
respectively. See the July 1, 2005 memorandum to the file from Eric B.
Greynolds, Program Manager, Office of AD/CVD Enforcement III.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Petitioners are the Coalition for Fair Lumber Imports
Executive Committee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On November 2, 2005, we issued a supplemental questionnaire to the
GOC as well to the provincial governments in which we requested that
they respond
[[Page 73449]]
to the pass-through appendix included in the Department's September 8,
2004 initial questionnaire. On November 10, 2005, the Canadian parties
responded to our supplemental questionnaire. Further, pursuant to the
due dates established in our November 2, 2005 supplemental
questionnaire, on November 16, 2005, interested parties submitted case
briefs limited to the Canadian parties' questionnaire response.
Interested parties submitted rebuttal comments on November 18, 2005.
Scope of the Order
The products covered by this order are softwood lumber, flooring
and siding (softwood lumber products). Softwood lumber products include
all products classified under subheadings 4407.1000, 4409.1010,
4409.1090, and 4409.1020, respectively, of the Harmonized Tariff
Schedule of the United States (HTSUS), and any softwood lumber,
flooring and siding described below. These softwood lumber products
include:
(1) Coniferous wood, sawn or chipped lengthwise, sliced or peeled,
whether or not planed, sanded or finger-jointed, of a thickness
exceeding six millimeters;
(2) Coniferous wood siding (including strips and friezes for
parquet flooring, not assembled) continuously shaped (tongued, grooved,
rabbeted, chamfered, v-jointed, beaded, molded, rounded or the like)
along any of its edges or faces, whether or not planed, sanded or
finger-jointed;
(3) Other coniferous wood (including strips and friezes for parquet
flooring, not assembled) continuously shaped (tongued, grooved,
rabbeted, chamfered, v-jointed, beaded, molded, rounded or the like)
along any of its edges or faces (other than wood moldings and wood
dowel rods) whether or not planed, sanded or finger-jointed; and
(4) Coniferous wood flooring (including strips and friezes for
parquet flooring, not assembled) continuously shaped (tongued, grooved,
rabbeted, chamfered, v-jointed, beaded, molded, rounded or the like)
along any of its edges or faces, whether or not planed, sanded or
finger-jointed.
Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and
customs purposes, the written description of the merchandise subject to
this order is dispositive.
As specifically stated in the Issues and Decision Memorandum
accompanying the Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than
Fair Value: Certain Softwood Lumber Products from Canada, 67 FR 15539
(April 2, 2002) (see comment 53, item D, page 116, and comment 57, item
B-7, page 126), available at www.ia.ita.doc.gov/frn, drilled and
notched lumber and angle cut lumber are covered by the scope of this
order.
The following softwood lumber products are excluded from the scope
of this order provided they meet the specified requirements detailed
below:
(1) Stringers (pallet components used for runners): if they have at
least two notches on the side, positioned at equal distance from the
center, to properly accommodate forklift blades, properly classified
under HTSUS 4421.90.98.40.
(2) Box-spring frame kits: if they contain the following wooden
pieces - two side rails, two end (or top) rails and varying numbers of
slats. The side rails and the end rails should be radius-cut at both
ends. The kits should be individually packaged, they should contain the
exact number of wooden components needed to make a particular box
spring frame, with no further processing required. None of the
components exceeds 1'' in actual thickness or 83'' in length.
(3) Radius-cut box-spring-frame components, not exceeding 1'' in
actual thickness or 83'' in length, ready for assembly without further
processing. The radius cuts must be present on both ends of the boards
and must be substantial cuts so as to completely round one corner.
(4) Fence pickets requiring no further processing and properly
classified under HTSUS 4421.90.70, 1'' or less in actual thickness, up
to 8'' wide, 6' or less in length, and have finials or decorative
cuttings that clearly identify them as fence pickets. In the case of
dog-eared fence pickets, the corners of the boards should be cut off so
as to remove pieces of wood in the shape of isosceles right angle
triangles with sides measuring 3/4 inch or more.
(5) U.S. origin lumber shipped to Canada for minor processing and
imported into the United States, is excluded from the scope of this
order if the following conditions are met: 1) the processing occurring
in Canada is limited to kiln-drying, planing to create smooth-to-size
board, and sanding, and 2) if the importer establishes to the
satisfaction of U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) that the
lumber is of U.S. origin.
(6) Softwood lumber products contained in single family home
packages or kits,\2\ regardless of tariff classification, are excluded
from the scope of this order if the importer certifies to items 6 A, B,
C, D, and requirement 6 E is met:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ To ensure administrability, we clarified the language of
exclusion number 6 to require an importer certification and to
permit single or multiple entries on multiple days as well as
instructing importers to retain and make available for inspection
specific documentation in support of each entry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. The imported home package or kit constitutes a full package of
the number of wooden pieces specified in the plan, design or blueprint
necessary to produce a home of at least 700 square feet produced to a
specified plan, design or blueprint;
B. The package or kit must contain all necessary internal and
external doors and windows, nails, screws, glue, sub floor, sheathing,
beams, posts, connectors, and if included in the purchase contract,
decking, trim, drywall and roof shingles specified in the plan, design
or blueprint.
C. Prior to importation, the package or kit must be sold to a
retailer of complete home packages or kits pursuant to a valid purchase
contract referencing the particular home design plan or blueprint, and
signed by a customer not affiliated with the importer;
D. Softwood lumber products entered as part of a single family home
package or kit, whether in a single entry or multiple entries on
multiple days, will be used solely for the construction of the single
family home specified by the home design matching the entry.
E. For each entry, the following documentation must be retained by
the importer and made available to CBP upon request:
i. A copy of the appropriate home design, plan, or blueprint
matching the entry;
ii. A purchase contract from a retailer of home kits or packages
signed by a customer not affiliated with the importer;
iii. A listing of inventory of all parts of the package or kit
being entered that conforms to the home design package being entered;
iv. In the case of multiple shipments on the same contract, all
items listed in E(iii) which are included in the present shipment shall
be identified as well.
Lumber products that CBP may classify as stringers, radius cut box-
[[Page 73450]]
spring-frame components, and fence pickets, not conforming to the above
requirements, as well as truss components, pallet components, and door
and window frame parts, are covered under the scope of this order and
may be classified under HTSUS subheadings 4418.90.45.90, 4421.90.70.40,
and 4421.90.97.40.
Finally, as clarified throughout the course of the investigation,
the following products, previously identified as Group A, remain
outside the scope of this order. They are:
1. Trusses and truss kits, properly classified under HTSUS 4418.90;
2. I-joist beams;
3. Assembled box spring frames;
4. Pallets and pallet kits, properly classified under HTSUS
4415.20;
5. Garage doors;
6. Edge-glued wood, properly classified under HTSUS 4421.90.98.40;
7. Properly classified complete door frames;
8. Properly classified complete window frames;
9. Properly classified furniture.
In addition, this scope language was further clarified to specify
that all softwood lumber products entered from Canada claiming non-
subject status based on U.S. country of origin will be treated as non-
subject U.S.-origin merchandise under the countervailing duty order,
provided that these softwood lumber products meet the following
condition: upon entry, the importer, exporter, Canadian processor and/
or original U.S. producer establish to CBP's satisfaction that the
softwood lumber entered and documented as U.S.-origin softwood lumber
was first produced in the United States as a lumber product satisfying
the physical parameters of the softwood lumber scope.\3\ The
presumption of non-subject status can, however, be rebutted by evidence
demonstrating that the merchandise was substantially transformed in
Canada.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See the scope clarification message ( 3034202),
dated February 3, 2003, to CBP, regarding treatment of U.S. origin
lumber on file in Room B-099 of the Central Records Unit (CRU) of
the Main Commerce Building.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Analysis of Comments Received
All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties to
this review are addressed in the Decision Memorandum, which is hereby
adopted by this notice. A list of issues which parties have raised and
to which we have responded, all of which are in the Decision
Memorandum, is attached to this notice as Appendix I. 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 CRU. In addition, a complete version of the Decision
Memorandum can be accessed directly on the World Wide Web at https://
ia.ita.doc.gov/frn. The paper copy and electronic version of the
Decision Memorandum are identical in content.
Final Results of Review
In accordance with section 777(A)(e)(2)(B) of the Act, we have
calculated a single country-wide ad valorem subsidy rate of 8.70
percent to be applied to all producers and exporters of the subject
merchandise from Canada, other than those producers that have been
excluded from the order.
The Department has previously excluded the following companies from
this order:
Armand Duhamel et fils Inc.
Bardeaux et Cedres
Beaubois Coaticook Inc.
Busque & Laflamme Inc.
Carrier & Begin Inc.
Clermond Hamel
J.D. Irving, Ltd.
Les Produits Forestiers D.G., Ltee
Marcel Lauzon Inc.
Mobilier Rustique
Paul Vallee Inc.
Rene Bernard, Inc.
Roland Boulanger & Cite. Ltee
Scierie Alexandre Lemay
Scierie La Patrie, Inc.
Scierie Tech, Inc.
Wilfrid Paquet et fils, Ltee
B. Luken Logging Ltd.
Frontier Lumber
Sault Forest Products Ltd.
Interbois Inc.
Les Moulures Jacomau
Richard Lutes Cedar Inc.
Boccam Inc.
Indian River Lumber
Sechoirs de Beauce Inc.
See Notice of Amended Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty
Determination and Notice of Countervailing Duty Order: Certain Softwood
Lumber Products from Canada, 67 FR 36068 (May 22, 2002), as corrected
(67 FR 37775, May 30, 2002), Final Results of Countervailing Duty
Expedited Reviews: Certain Softwood Lumber Products from Canada, 68 FR
24436 (May 7, 2003), and Final Results, Reinstatement, Partial
Rescission of Countervailing Duty Expedited Reviews, and Company
Exclusions: Certain Softwood Lumber Products From Canada, 69 FR 10982
(March 9, 2004). The exclusion applies to all subject merchandise
produced and exported by the companies listed above.
Finally, certain softwood lumber products from the Maritime
Provinces are exempt from this countervailing duty order. This
exemption, however, does not apply to softwood lumber products produced
in the Maritime Provinces from Crown timber harvested in any other
province.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 356.8, the Department shall not order
liquidation until the ``forty-first day after the date of publication
of the notice ...'' following an administrative review of merchandise
exported from Canada or Mexico. Accordingly, we will instruct CBP, on
or after the 41\st\ day after publication of the final results of this
review, to liquidate shipments of certain softwood lumber products from
Canada entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption from April
1, 2003, through March 31, 2004, at the above indicated aggregate ad
valorem net subsidy rate. We will direct CBP to exempt from the
application of the order only entries of softwood lumber products from
Canada which are accompanied by an original Certificate of Origin
issued by the Maritime Lumber Bureau (MLB), and those of the excluded
companies listed above.
In addition, we will instruct CBP to collect cash deposits of
estimated countervailing duties in the amounts indicated above of the
f.o.b. price on all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or
withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of
publication of these final results of review.
Return or Destruction of Proprietary Information
This notice serves as a 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 written
notification of return/destruction of APO material or conversion to
judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply is a
violation of the APO.
This administrative review and this notice are issued and published
in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i) of the Act.
[[Page 73451]]
Dated: December 5, 2005.
Joseph A. Spetrini,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
Appendix I
METHODOLOGY AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION
Subsidies Valuation Information
A. Allocation Period
B. Recurring and Non-Recurring Benefits
C. Benchmarks for Loans
D. Aggregate Subsidy Rate Calculations
1. Provincial Crown Stumpage Programs
2. Other Programs
E. Numerator and Denominator Used for Calculating the Stumpage
Programs' Net Subsidy Rates\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ The denominators used for non-stumpage programs are
discussed below in the individual program write-ups.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Aggregate Numerator and Denominator
2. Adjustments to Account for Companies Excluded from the
Countervailing Duty Order
3. Pass-Through
ANALYSIS OF PROGRAMS
I. Provincial Stumpage Programs Determined to Confer Subsidies
A. Financial Contribution and Specificity
B. Benefit
1. Use of First-Tier Benchmarks in Measuring Stumpage Programs
Administered by the GOA, GOBC, GOO, GOQ, GOM, and GOS
2. Private Stumpage Prices in New Brunswick and Nova Scotia May
Serve as a First-Tier Benchmark in Alberta, Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec,
and Saskatchewan
C. Application of Maritime Prices
1. Indexing
2. Costs That Must Be Paid in Order to Harvest Private Standing
Timber in New Brunswick and Nova Scotia
3. Weighting of Studwood in the Nova Scotia Benchmark
D. Selection of Benchmark Price Used for British Columbia
E. Application of U.S. Log Prices
1. Selection of Data Sources
2. Derivation of U.S. Log Prices on a per Unit Basis for Use in
Comparison to Log Prices on the B.C. Coast and Interior
F. Calculation of Provincial Benefits
1. Methodology for Adjusting the Unit Prices of the Crown Stumpage
Programs Administered by the GOA, GOS, GOM, GOO, and GOQ
2. Methodology for Adjusting the Unit Prices of the Crown Stumpage
Program Administered by the GOBC
G. Calculation of Provincial and Country-Wide Rate
II. Non-Stumpage Programs Determined To Confer Subsidies
A. Programs Administered by the Government of Canada
1. Western Economic Diversification Program (WDP): Grants and
Conditionally Repayable Contributions
2. Natural Resources Canada (NRCAN) Softwood Marketing Subsidies
B. Programs Administered by the Government of British Columbia
1. Forestry Innovation Investment Program (FIIP)
2. British Columbia Private Forest Property Tax Program
C. Programs Administered by the Government of Quebec
Private Forest Development Program
III. Programs Determined Not to Confer a Benefit
A. Programs of the Government of Canada
1. Federal Economic Development Initiative in Northern Ontario
(FEDNOR)
2. Payments to the Canadian Lumber Trade Alliance (CLTA) &
Independent Lumber Remanufacturing Association (ILRA)
B. Programs of the Government of British Columbia
Forest Renewal B.C. Program/Land Base Investment Program
C. Programs of the Government of Quebec
1. Assistance Under Article 28 of Investment Quebec
2. Assistance from the Societe de Recuperation d'Exploitation et de
Developpement Forestiers du Quebec (Rexfor)
IV. Total Ad Valorem Rate
V. Analysis of Comments
A. Company-Specific Review Comments
Comment 1: Company-Specific Reviews
B. Subsidy Valuation Comments
1. Numerator
a. Treatment of Company-Specific Data of Excluded Companies
Comment 2: Whether Benefits to Excluded Companies Should Be Deducted
from Numerator of Net Subsidy Calculation
b. Pass-Through
Comment 3: U.S. Law and WTO Agreements Require the Department to
Conduct a Pass-Through Analysis
Comment 4: Whether the Department's Evaluation Criteria Is Relevant to
a Pass-through Analysis
Comment 5: Whether Company-Specific Details are Required for the
Department to Conduct a Pass-through Analysis
Comment 6: Benchmark to Be Used When Conducting a Pass-through Analysis
Comment 7: Whether the Department Rejected The GOO's Pass-through Claim
Based on an Incorrect Understanding of Record Evidence
Comment 8: Whether the Department's November 2, 2005, Supplemental
Questionnaire Imposed Unreasonable Burdens on Canadian Parties
2. Denominator
Comment 9: Attribution of Stumpage Benefit
C. Provincial Stumpage Program Comments
1. Scope and Specificity
Comment 10: Scope of the Order
Comment 11: Whether the Provincial Stumpage Programs Are Specific
2. Whether Private Stumpage Prices from Inside the Respective
Subject Provinces Are Viable Benchmarks\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ The GOS and GOM did not submit any private stumpage prices
for consideration by the Department. Therefore, these provinces are
not addressed in this section of the decision memorandum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
a. Alberta
Comment 12: Whether Timber Damage Assessment Data May Serve as a
Benchmark in Alberta
b. British Columbia
Comment 13: Whether the BCTS Auction Sales Are Distorted or Suppressed
by Crown Stumpage Rates
Comment 14: Whether BCTS Auction Prices for Timber are Valid First-Tier
benchmarks
Comment 15: B.C. Domestic Log Prices Constitute Valid Third-Tier
Benchmark
c. Ontario
Comment 16: The Department Should Compare the Price for Ontario Crown
Softwood Timber with Private Stumpage Prices in Ontario
Comment 17: Ontario Crown Stumpage Was Provided for More than Adequate
Remuneration in Comparison to Ontario's Unsubsidized Domestic Log
Market
d. Quebec
Comment 18: Whether Prices for Private Standing Timber in Quebec Are
Distorted by Prices Charged in Quebec's Public Forest
Comment 19: Basis for the Department's Findings Regarding Quebec's
Private Forest
3. Private Stumpage Prices from the Maritime Provinces
Comment 20: Whether the Law Requires That the Benefit Be Determined
Using
[[Page 73452]]
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
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
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-to-Wood 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