[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 46 (Tuesday, March 9, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Pages 10985-10988]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-5281]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[C-122-839]


Final Results and Partial Rescission of Countervailing Duty 
Expedited Reviews: Certain Softwood Lumber Products From Canada

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

ACTION: Notice of final results and partial rescission of 
countervailing duty expedited reviews.

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

SUMMARY: On November 24, 2003, the Department of Commerce (the 
Department) published the preliminary results of the expedited reviews 
of 16 Group 2 companies and rescinded the reviews of five companies. 
See Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission of Countervailing Duty 
Expedited Reviews: Certain Softwood Lumber Products from Canada, 68 FR 
65879 (November 24, 2003) (Preliminary Results). We are now issuing the 
final results of review of 14 companies and rescinding the reviews of 
two additional companies. Based on our analysis of the comments 
received on the Preliminary Results, we have made changes to the 
estimated net subsidy rates determined in the Preliminary Results. For 
information on estimated net subsidies, see the ``Final Results of 
Reviews'' section of this notice.

EFFECTIVE DATE: March 9, 2004.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stephanie Moore or Cindy Lai Robinson, 
Office of AD/CVD Enforcement VI, Group II, Import Administration, 
International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th 
Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: 
(202) 482-3692 or (202) 482-3797.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On November 24, 2003, the Department published the preliminary 
results of review of 16 Group 2 companies and rescinded the review of 
five companies. See Preliminary Results, 68 FR 65879 (November 24, 
2003). Since the publication of the Preliminary Results, the Department 
has received timely requests to rescind the expedited review for R. 
Fryer Forest Products Ltd., and Federated Co-operatives Ltd.
    We provided interested parties an opportunity to comment on the 
Preliminary Results. We received comments filed on behalf of the 
Ontario Forest Industries Association, the Ontario Lumber Manufacturers 
Association, Aspen Planers Ltd., Downie Timber Ltd., Gorman Bros. 
Lumber Ltd., Haida Forest Products Ltd., Kenora Forest Products Ltd. 
(Kenora), Liskeard Lumber Limited, Mill & Timber Products Ltd., North 
Enderby Timber Ltd., Olav Haavaldsrud Timber Company Limited, Selkirk 
Specialty Wood Ltd., Tembec Inc., and Tyee Timber Products Ltd. (the 
B&H Group) and from the Coalition for Fair Lumber Imports Executive 
Committee (petitioner). We also received comments filed on behalf of 
the Gouvernement du Quebec (GOQ). In addition, we received rebuttal 
comments from Canadian Forest Products, Ltd. (Canfor) and Terminal 
Forest Products (Terminal), the Government of Canada (GOC), and the B&H 
Group. We also received ministerial error allegations from Federated 
Co-operatives Ltd. (Federated) and Kenora.

Companies Addressed in These Final Results

    This notice includes the final results of review for 14 of the 16 
companies examined in the Preliminary Results. The following 11 
companies from Group 2, Round 1 are included:

Cambie Cedar Products Ltd.;
Canadian Forest Products Ltd.;
Commonwealth Plywood Co. Ltd.;
E. Tremblay et fils ltee;
Greenwood Forest Products Ltd.;
Kalesnikoff Lumber Co. Ltd.;
Kenora Forest Products Ltd.;
Lakeland Mills Ltd.;
Lulumco Inc.;
Terminal Forest Products Ltd.;
The Pas Lumber Company Ltd.

    These final results also include the final results of review of the 
following three Group 2, Round 2 companies:

Shawood Lumber Inc.;
St. Jean Lumber (1984) Ltd.;
Wynndel Box & Lumber Co. Ltd.

    In addition, the expedited reviews of the following two Round 1 
companies included in the Preliminary Results, were rescinded:

Federated Co-operatives Ltd.;
R. Fryer Forest Products Ltd.

    These final results also include the rescission of the expedited 
review of five additional companies:

Kootenay Innovate Wood Inc. (Group 1, Round 1);
Lukwa Mills Ltd. (Group 2, Round 2);
South East Forest Products Ltd. (Group 2, Round 2);
Teal Cedar Products Ltd. (Group 2, Round 2);
West Fraser Mills Ltd. (Group 1, Round 2).

[[Page 10986]]

Scope of the Reviews

    The products covered by this order are softwood lumber, flooring 
and siding (softwood lumber products). Softwood lumber products include 
all products classified under headings 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, 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 heading 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 the United States 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,\1\ 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:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 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 the 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 the CBP may classify as stringers, radius cut 
box-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 item 
4421.90.98.40;
    7. Properly classified complete door frames;
    8. Properly classified complete window frames;
    9. Properly classified furniture.

[[Page 10987]]

    In addition, this scope language has been further clarified to now 
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.\2\ The 
presumption of non-subject status can, however, be rebutted by evidence 
demonstrating that the merchandise was substantially transformed in 
Canada.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See the scope clarification message (3034202), 
dated February 3, 2003, to the CBP, regarding treatment of U.S. 
origin lumber on file in the Central Records Unit, Room B-099 of the 
main Commerce Building.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Methodology

Stumpage Programs

    These final results include companies that source less than a 
majority of their wood (less than 50 percent of their inputs) from the 
United States, the Maritime Provinces, Canadian private lands, and/or 
Canadian companies excluded from the order, and have acquired Crown 
timber through their own tenure contracts. We included in our subsidy 
calculations only harvested softwood sawlogs processed by the firm's 
sawmills. We calculated company-specific benefit rates as follows: for 
logs harvested under a company's own tenure, we first calculated, on a 
species-specific basis, an average unit benefit from ``Crown land 
harvesting.'' We divided the stumpage fees each company paid by the 
total quantity harvested from Crown land to obtain the stumpage price. 
The resulting unit stumpage price was adjusted by the company-specific 
unit tenure costs to derive an adjusted stumpage price for each 
species.\3\ The adjusted species-specific stumpage price then was 
compared to the appropriate benchmark for that province to determine 
the species-specific per-unit benefit, which was multiplied by the 
harvest volume \4\ for each species to obtain the total species-
specific benefit. Species-specific benefits were summed up to derive 
the total benefit from Crown land harvesting. For all wood inputs (logs 
and lumber) acquired from other subsidized sources, we applied the same 
methodology used in Group1: we calculated the benefit by multiplying 
the quantity purchased by the province-specific stumpage benefit amount 
calculated in the underlying investigation (i.e., the average per-unit 
differential between the calculated adjusted stumpage fee for the 
relevant province and the appropriate benchmark for that province). 
Also see Notice of Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination 
and Final Negative Critical Circumstances Determination: Certain 
Softwood Lumber Products From Canada, 67 FR 15545 (April 2, 2002) 
(Final Determination), and Issues and Decision Memorandum: Final 
Results of the Countervailing Duty Investigation of Certain Softwood 
Lumber Products from Canada (Investigation Decision Memo).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ These cost adjustments were limited to those granted in the 
underlying investigation.
    \4\ Certain companies reported that certain harvested softwood 
sawlogs were not used in lumber production. These were excluded from 
our calculations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We then divided the combined stumpage benefit resulting from 
harvesting under a company's own tenure and from purchases of logs and 
lumber through other subsidized sources by the appropriate value of the 
company's sales (scope and non-scope softwood lumber products, net of 
resales, and softwood lumber by-products) to determine the company's 
estimated subsidy rate from stumpage and then added any benefit from 
other programs to obtain the net subsidy rate for the company.
    As indicated in the Notice of Initiation of Expedited Reviews of 
the Countervailing Duty Order: Certain Softwood Lumber Products From 
Canada, 67 FR 46955 (July 17, 2002), we have not attributed a benefit 
to (1) logs or lumber acquired from the Maritime Provinces, (2) logs or 
lumber of U.S. origin, (3) lumber produced by companies excluded in the 
investigation, and (4) logs from Canadian private land. Furthermore, as 
already stated, we are not including logs which the companies claim to 
have acquired and resold without any processing in our subsidy rate 
calculations. In addition, we are also not including in our 
calculations of company-specific subsidy rates lumber purchased and 
resold without any further manufacturing.

Other Programs

    In the underlying investigation, the Department determined that the 
province of British Columbia provided countervailable benefits under 
the Forest Renewal program and the Job Protection program, while the 
province of Quebec provided countervailable benefits under the Private 
Forest Development Program (PFDP). In addition, the Department examined 
loans issued by Investment Quebec, lending under Article 28 of the 
Society for the Industrial Development of Quebec (SDI), and loans 
issued by the Society for the Recuperation and Development of Quebec 
Forests (Rexfor). Based upon our decision in the underlying 
investigation, the Department requested information from companies 
regarding the use of these programs.
    Kalesnikoff was the only company that reported using one such 
program, the Forest Renewal program. However, Kalesnikoff reported that 
it did not receive any grants or loans under this program during the 
POR; rather it acted as a delivery agent for silviculture and resource 
inventory activities. Kalesnikoff was reimbursed for non-profit 
activities on behalf of the Forest Renewal Program for the 
administration and overhead costs incurred in delivering this program 
to the Province. On this basis, we find that Kalesnikoff did not 
receive countervailable benefits under this program. No other company 
reported using any of the British Columbia or Quebec programs during 
the POR.

Analysis of Comments Received

    Issues raised by interested parties in comments submitted in 
response to the Preliminary Results are addressed in the ``Issues and 
Decision Memorandum: Final Results of Expedited Review of 16 Group 2 
Companies,'' dated concurrently with this notice, which is hereby 
adopted by this notice. A list of the issues which interested 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. The 
Decision Memorandum is on file in the Central Records Unit in room B-
099 of the Main Commerce Building. In addition, a complete version of 
the Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly on the World Wide Web 
at http://ia.ita.doc.gov, under the heading ``Federal Register 
Notices.'' The paper copy and electronic version of the Decision 
Memorandum are identical in content.

Final Results of Review

    In accordance with 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4)(i), we calculated an 
individual subsidy rate for each producer/exporter subject to these 
expedited reviews. For the period April 1, 2000 to March 31, 2001, we

[[Page 10988]]

determine the net subsidy to be as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  Net
                                                                subsidy
               Net subsidies--producer/exporter                   rate
                                                                percent
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cambie Cedar Products Ltd....................................      14.59
Canadian Forest Products Ltd.................................      12.24
Commonwealth Plywood Co. Ltd.................................       2.89
E. Tremblay et fils ltee.....................................       6.36
Greenwood Forest Products Ltd................................       7.95
Kalesnikoff Lumber Co. Ltd...................................      12.10
Kenora Forest Products Ltd...................................       7.39
Lakeland Mills Ltd...........................................       8.85
Lulumco Inc..................................................      13.74
Terminal Forest Products Ltd.................................      10.00
The Pas Lumber Company Ltd...................................       7.45
Shawood Lumber Inc...........................................       5.46
St. Jean Lumber (1984) Ltd...................................      33.27
Wynndel Box & Lumber Co. Ltd.................................      12.89
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department will instruct the CBP to collect cash deposits of 
estimated countervailing duties in the amounts indicated above of the 
f.o.b. invoice price on all shipments of the subject merchandise 
produced by the reviewed companies, entered, or withdrawn from 
warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of the 
final results of these reviews.
    These results of expedited reviews cover only those companies that 
we have specifically identified. We will address in the final results 
of the expedited reviews, the issue of the adjustment of the cash 
deposit rate for all other non-reviewed companies subject to the 
country-wide rate to account for the benefit and the sales values of 
the companies that have received company-specific rates.
    These expedited reviews and notice are issued and published in 
accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 
1675(a)(1) and 19 U.S.C. 1677(i)(1)).

    Dated: March 2, 2004.
James J. Jochum,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.

Appendix I

List of Comments and Issues in the Decision Memorandum

List of Comments

    1. Use of Cross-Border Benchmarks
    2. Correction of Kenora's Ministerial Errors
    3. Canadian Forest Products, Ltd. (Canfor) Merger
    4. Unprocessed Sales
    5. Cash Deposit Rates
    6. Verification
    7. Lumber versus Log Inputs
    8. Recalculated Country-Wide Rate
    9. Countervailable Benefits of Certain Non-Stumpage Programs in 
Quebec

[FR Doc. 04-5281 Filed 3-8-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P