[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 137 (Wednesday, July 17, 2002)]
[Notices]
[Pages 46955-46957]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-18043]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[C-122-839]


Notice of Initiation of Expedited Reviews of the Countervailing 
Duty Order: Certain Softwood Lumber Products From Canada

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of Initiation of Expedited Reviews.

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

SUMMARY: On May 22, 2002, the Department of Commerce (the Department) 
published in the Federal Register its amended final affirmative 
countervailing duty determination and countervailing duty order 
covering softwood lumber products (subject merchandise) from Canada (67 
FR 36068), as corrected (67 FR 37775, May 30, 2002).
    Included with the amended final affirmative determination and 
countervailing duty order was an announcement that we would be 
accepting applications for company-specific expedited reviews. The 
purpose of such reviews is the calculation of company-specific cash 
deposit rates. By this notice, the Department is initiating expedited 
reviews of companies that submitted timely and complete applications 
pursuant to our announcement.

EFFECTIVE DATE: July 17, 2002.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carrie Farley at (202) 482-0395 or 
Gayle Longest at (202) 482-3338, Office of AD/CVD Enforcement VI, 
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. 
Department of Commerce, Room 4012, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, 
NW., Washington, DC 20230.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Applicable Statute and Regulations

    Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the statute are 
references to the provisions effective January 1, 1995, the effective 
date of the amendments made to the Tariff Act of 1930 (the Act) by the 
Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA). In addition, unless otherwise 
indicated, all citations to the Department's regulations are to the 
regulations codified at 19 CFR part 351 (2002).

Background

    On May 22, 2002, the Department published the countervailing duty 
order on softwood lumber from Canada. See

[[Page 46956]]

67 FR 36070. In that Federal Register notice, we indicated that 
individual exporters of subject merchandise could request expedited 
reviews for the purpose of establishing individual cash deposit rates. 
We stated that we had posted, on the IA website, an electronic 
application form and requested that all applicants submit their review 
requests in electronic format. All such requests were to be filed with 
the Department by June 21, 2002.
    In response, the Department received a total of 100 timely requests 
for expedited review. A total of 73 of these requests contained all of 
the information requested by the Department and are therefore timely 
and complete. By this notice, the Department is initiating reviews of 
the exporters that filed timely and complete requests for expedited 
review (see listing below).
    For those requests that were timely but incomplete, we are 
providing each applicant with one, and only one, opportunity to file an 
amended request for expedited review. We will notify these applicants 
of the deficiencies in their submissions. The amended requests must be 
received by the Department within two weeks of the date of the 
Department's notification. We intend to initiate expedited reviews of 
companies that properly and timely resubmit their applications.

Conduct of Reviews

    The concept of expedited reviews in countervailing duty proceedings 
is very recent; it arose in the context of the Uruguay Round 
multilateral trade negotiations. Although section 751(a) of the Act 
provides clear authority for the conduct of such reviews, the 
Department has not yet had an opportunity to conduct one, either in a 
proceeding such as this in which the investigation was conducted on an 
aggregate basis, or in a proceeding in which the investigation was 
conducted on a company-specific basis. In addition, because aggregate 
cases are rare, the Department has not yet promulgated regulations 
governing expedited reviews in such cases. Consequently, we find 
ourselves in the position of having few guideposts in developing an 
approach to these reviews that strikes an appropriate balance between 
our dual mandates of (1) calculating company-specific rates and (2) 
conducting the reviews on an expedited basis.
    In a normal countervailing duty administrative review, the 
Department examines no more than a handful of respondents. Expedited 
reviews of potentially 100 lumber exporters, accounting for 
approximately 50 percent of Canadian softwood lumber exports to the 
United States, present the Department with an enormous challenge. 
Although ideally we would conduct full-scale reviews--and, in fact, 
could do so for an extremely limited number of companies--it is simply 
not possible, as a practical matter, for the Department to conduct such 
reviews of 100 companies on an expedited basis. Given our statutory 
obligations, an undertaking of that magnitude would put an unmanageable 
strain on the Department's resources. For this reason, the Department 
recognized at the outset that it could only fulfill its dual mandates 
of company-specific rates and expeditious processing by developing 
streamlined methodologies and procedures for these reviews.
    In fact, many of the interested parties who have contacted us 
regarding our approach to these reviews fully understand that we must 
develop streamlined methodologies and procedures. They have recommended 
a variety of means to accomplish our twin objectives. Even petitioners, 
while generally objecting to these reviews, suggested that, were the 
Department to conduct these reviews, it would need to categorize 
applicants into various groups based on their respective circumstances. 
Our approach, as fully set forth below, incorporates many of the 
suggestions of the interested parties and attempts to protect the 
equities on all sides.
    We begin by discussing how we arrived at our approach. As mentioned 
above, our approach should provide a practicable balance between our 
twin objectives of (1) assigning companies individualized rates and (2) 
conducting the reviews in an expeditious manner.
    In addressing the first of these objectives, we note that these 
reviews cover the same period as the investigation, and are intended 
solely to provide individual cash deposit rates. Accordingly, we will, 
to the extent possible, track the methodology used in the 
investigation. Consequently, we considered measuring the company-
specific stumpage benefit by applying the investigation methodology 
strictly, only substituting company data for aggregate data. Under this 
approach, we would not revisit issues addressed in the investigation 
such as the selection of the benchmarks and the allowable adjustments.
    Even with this simplification, the investigation methodology 
applied to a company-specific analysis would still require extensive 
data collection and an examination of complex issues that did not arise 
under the aggregate methodology used in the investigation. 
Consideration of these issues in the context of expedited reviews would 
jeopardize the fulfillment of our second mandate--to conduct the 
reviews in an expeditious manner. We therefore consider it to be 
appropriate to conduct company-specific analyses of stumpage programs 
only on the portion of Crown timber that was harvested by the exporter 
under tenure contracts. Following the investigation methodology, this 
calculation can be done in a relatively straightforward and expeditious 
manner.
    For Crown timber acquired from other sources and for lumber from 
all sources (except from the United States, the Maritime Provinces, and 
excluded Canadian companies), we considered the suggestion made by 
several parties to use the more streamlined exclusion methodology. 
Under that methodology, the benefit is calculated by multiplying the 
volume of Crown logs (except those from the exporter's tenure) and 
lumber (except from the sources listed above) used as inputs by the 
province-specific stumpage benefit calculated in the investigation. We 
noted that the advantages of the exclusion methodology, as compared 
with the full investigation methodology, are that it involves 
significantly less data collection and requires a less complicated, and 
less time-consuming, analysis. This allows us to satisfy our second 
mandate of conducting the reviews expeditiously.
    We also considered an additional factor: the degree to which the 
company utilized inputs from the United States, the Maritime provinces, 
and Canadian private lands. These sources are easily identifiable, and 
the Department has already determined that these sources do not give 
rise to subsidies. For companies that primarily utilize inputs from 
these sources, because the exclusion methodology is based on the 
average Province-wide stumpage benefit, the calculated company-specific 
benefit would not vary significantly whether we utilize the exclusion 
methodology or do an additional analysis of the companies' own tenures.
    Based on the above considerations, and with a view to accommodating 
as many of the concerns expressed by the parties as possible, we have 
devised an approach which involves separating the reviews into two 
groups. The first group includes: (a) Companies that obtain the 
majority of their wood (over 50 percent of their inputs) from the 
United States, the Maritime Provinces, Canadian private lands, and/or 
Canadian companies excluded from the order, and (b) companies that 
source less than a majority of their wood from these

[[Page 46957]]

sources and do not have tenure. The second group is comprised of 
companies that source less than a majority of their wood from these 
sources and have acquired Crown timber through their own tenure 
contracts.
    For the first group, we will calculate company-specific rates based 
on the exclusion methodology used in the investigation. That is, we 
will multiply the quantity of Crown logs and the total quantity of 
lumber inputs by the province-specific stumpage benefit, i.e., the 
average per-unit price differential between the calculated adjusted 
stumpage fee for the relevant province and the appropriate benchmark 
for that province, to obtain the company-specific stumpage benefit. We 
will not, however, attribute a benefit to lumber acquired from the 
Maritime Provinces and accompanied by the appropriate certification, 
from the United States, or from one of the excluded mills. We will 
divide the total company benefit by the appropriate value of the 
company's sales to determine the subsidy rate from stumpage and add any 
benefit from other programs for each company in the first group.
    For the second group, we will follow the exclusion methodology as 
described above with respect to purchases of Crown logs from all 
sources other than the companies' own tenures, and for purchases of 
lumber. For logs obtained from a company's own tenure, however, we will 
follow the investigation methodology, using company-specific data 
instead of aggregate data to the extent possible. In light of the 
expedited nature of this process, however, we will not revisit the 
issues already addressed in the investigation, such as the selection of 
the benchmark or the types of allowable adjustments. We will request 
from each company in this group the total amount of Crown timber 
harvested under its own tenure contract, the fees paid according to 
species, and the costs incurred in harvesting and maintaining the 
tenure. To derive a per-unit benefit, we will then compare the per-unit 
acquisition cost to the benchmark used in the investigation. We will 
multiply that dollar amount by the quantity of Crown timber harvested 
by the company to calculate the benefit to the company derived from its 
own tenure. This benefit will be combined with the benefit, calculated 
in accordance with the methodology described for group one, for all 
wood inputs from other sources. To derive the company-specific rate, 
the resulting total will be divided by the appropriate amount of the 
company's total sales and combined with the benefit from other 
programs.
    This two-track, streamlined approach will enable us to review the 
maximum number of companies in the shortest possible time. We expect to 
issue the final results of review for companies in group one in 
September, with preliminary results issued by the end of July. We 
expect to complete the analysis for companies in group two within six 
to nine months, with preliminary results in November.
    We invite comments on our approach and will consider alternative 
methodologies proposed by interested parties. Parties that file such 
comments should (1) describe each proposal in detail and (2) explain 
how it represents a practicable approach that strikes an appropriate 
balance between the calculation of individualized rates and 
expeditiousness. All interested parties should submit comments within 
10 days of the publication of this notice in the Federal Register. 
Comments should be addressed to Import Administration's Central Records 
Unit at Room 1870, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230. All submissions should 
be made in accordance with the filing requirements outlined in section 
351.303 of the Department's Regulations, which are available on the 
Internet at www.ia.ita.doc.gov.

Initiation

    At this time, we are initiating expedited reviews of the following 
companies:

Alexandre C[ocirc]t[eacute] Lt[eacute]e.
American Bayridge Corporation
Apollo Forest Products Ltd.
Aspen Planers Ltd.
Blanchette & Blanchette Inc.
Boccam Inc.
Bois Daaquam Inc.
Bois Omega Lt[eacute]e
Byrnexo Inc.
Cambie Cedar Products Ltd.
Canadian Forest Products Ltd
Cando Contracting Ltd.
City Lumber Sales & Services Limited
Commonwealth Plywood Co. Ltd.
Davron Forest Products Ltd.
Domtar Inc.
Downie Timber Ltd.
Dunkley Lumber Ltd.
E. Tremblay et fils Lt[eacute]e
Federated Co-operatives Limited
Francois Gigu[egrave]re Inc.
Fraser Pacific Forest Products Inc
Frontier Mills Inc.
Goodfellow Inc.
Gorman Bros. Lumber Ltd.
Greenwood Forest Products (1983) Ltd.
Haida Forest Products Ltd.
Herridge Sawmills Ltd.
Interbois, Inc.
J. A. Fontaine et fils Inc.
Jackpine Engineered Wood Products Inc.
Jackpine Forest Products Ltd.
Jointfor (3207021 Canada Inc.)
Kalesnikoff Lumber Co. Ltd.
Kenora Forest Products Ltd.
Kootenay Innovative Wood Ltd.
Landmark Truss & Lumber Inc
Les Bois d'Oeuvre Beaudoin & Gauthier Inc.
Les Bois S&P Grondin Inc.
Les Industries P.F. Inc.
Les Moulures Jacomau 2000, Inc.
Les Produits Forestiers Dube Inc
Liskeard Lumber Limited
Lonestar Lumber Inc.
Lulumco Inc.
Maibec Industries, Inc.
Materiaux Blanchet Inc.
Meunier Lumber Company Ltd.
MF Bernard Inc.
Mid America Lumber
Mill & Timber Products Ltd.
North Enderby Timber Ltd.
Olav Haavaldsrud Timber Company Limited
R. Fryer Forest Products Limited
Richard Lutes Cedar, Inc.
Riverside Forest Products Limited
Scierie Lapointe & Roy Ltee.
Scierie Nord-Sud Inc.
Scierie West-Brome Inc.
S[eacute]choirs de Beauce Inc.
Selkirk Specialty Wood Ltd.
Slocan Forest Products Ltd.
Tembec Inc.
Terminal Forest Products Ltd.
Tolko Industries Ltd.
Treeline Wood Products Ltd.
Tyee Timber Products Ltd.
Uphill Wood Supply Inc.
Usine Sartigan Inc.
West Bay Forest Products & Manufacturing Ltd.
West Fraser Mills Ltd.
West Can Rail Ltd.
Western Commercial Millwork Inc.

    This notice is in accordance with section 751(a) of the Tariff Act 
of 1930.

    Dated: July 11, 2002.
Faryar Shirzad,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 02-18043 Filed 7-16-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P