[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 243 (Monday, December 20, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Pages 75917-75921]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E4-3748]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[C-122-839]


Notice of Final Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative 
Review and Rescission of Certain Company-Specific Reviews: Certain 
Softwood Lumber Products From Canada

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On June 14, 2004, 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 May 22, 2002, through March 31, 2003 (see Notice of Preliminary 
Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review: Certain Softwood 
Lumber Products From Canada, 69 FR 33204 (June 14, 2004) (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 of the changes we have made since 
the Preliminary Results, see the ``Issues and Decision Memorandum from 
Barbara E. Tillman, Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import 
Administration, to James J. Jochum, Assistant Secretary for Import 
Administration, concerning the ``Final Results of Countervailing Duty 
Administrative Review: Certain Softwood Lumber Products from Canada'' 
(Decision Memorandum) dated December 13, 2004. The final net subsidy 
rate is listed below in the section entitled ``Final Results of 
Review.''

DATES: Effective Date: December 20, 2004.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kristen Johnson (202) 482-4793, or 
James Terpstra (202) 482-3965, AD/CVD Operations, Office 3, Import 
Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of 
Commerce, Room 4012, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., 
Washington, DC 20230.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On June 14, 2004, 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.
    In the Preliminary Results we stated that, in order to provide 
parties an opportunity to comment, the Department intended to issue a 
decision memorandum related to subsidy rate calculations involving the 
companies selected for individual review prior to issuing the final 
results of this review (69 FR at 33206). On October 8, 2004, we issued 
a memorandum detailing our analysis of Fontaine Inc. (formerly J.A. 
Fontaine), Les Produits Forestiers Dube Inc., Scierie West Brome Inc., 
and Scierie Lapointe & Roy Ltee. and announcing our intent to rescind 
the reviews with respect to Bear Lumber Ltd., Bois Daaquam Inc., Cambie 
Cedar Products Ltd., Midway Lumber Mills Ltd., Nickel Lake Lumber, Twin 
Rivers Cedar Products Ltd., and Uphill Wood Supply Inc.
    In the Preliminary Results we stated that we had not yet received 
any responses to our request for sales data for the period of review 
(POR) from the companies that were excluded from the countervailing 
duty order as a result of the exclusion and expedited review process 
(69 FR at 33207). On June 28, 2004, we received a response from only 
one of the companies. See J.D. Irving, Limited (J.D. Irving) June 28, 
2004, submission.
    In connection with the Human Resources & Skills Development Worker 
Assistance Programs administered by

[[Page 75918]]

the Government of Canada (GOC), in the Preliminary Results we stated 
that we intended to seek further information to confirm the GOC's claim 
regarding the retraining obligations that softwood lumber producers 
have assumed (69 FR at 33232). On August 16, 2004, we received 
responses to our supplemental questionnaire.
    On August 13, 2004, the Department granted the petitioner's \1\ 
request to allow interested parties to submit new information relevant 
to the use of data from the provinces of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick 
and the comparability of this data to similar data in other Canadian 
provinces subject to this review. We received such new information on 
August 31 and September 10, 2004.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The petitioner is the Executive Committee of the Coalition 
for Fair Lumber Imports, an ad hov coalition of softwood lumber 
producers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, we conducted verification 
of the information regarding New Brunswick and Nova Scotia from 
September 13 to September 16, 2004, and from September 21 to September 
24, 2004. We used standard verification procedures, including meeting 
with government officials and examining relevant records and original 
source documents. Our verification results are outlined in detail in 
the public versions of the verification reports, which are on file in 
the Central Records Unit (CRU), room B-099 of the main Department 
building.
    On September 20, 2004, we issued a supplemental questionnaire to 
the GOC and the government of British Columbia (GBC) regarding B.C.'s 
Private Forest Land Property Tax Program. We received a response on 
October 5, 2004, and, on October 22, 2004, we issued a memorandum 
detailing our analysis of this program.
    On October 28, 2004, we rejected untimely filed, new factual 
information submitted by petitioners on October 22, 2004, and by the 
GOC on October 26, 2004.
    We received case briefs and rebuttal briefs from parties. A public 
hearing was held on November 4, 2004.

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 http://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

[[Page 75919]]

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-
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 (30304202), 
dated February 3, 2003, to CBP, regarding treatment of U.S. origin 
lumber on file in the CRU.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 http://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 17.18 
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 and those producers receiving an individual 
rate in this review.
    We have determined that Fontaine Inc., Les Produits Forestiers Dube 
Inc., Scierie West Brome Inc., and Scierie Lapointe & Roy Ltee. each 
received zero or de minimis net subsidies during the POR. We have also 
determined to rescind the reviews with respect to Bear Lumber Ltd., 
Bois Daaquam Inc., Cambie Cedar Products Ltd., Midway Lumber Mills 
Ltd., Nickel Lake Lumber, Twin Rivers Cedar Products Ltd., and Uphill 
Wood Supply Inc.
    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).
    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.
    We will instruct CBP, within 15 days of 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 May 22, 2002, through March 31, 2003, at the above 
indicated company-specific and aggregate ad valorem net subsidy rates. 
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,

[[Page 75920]]

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.

    Dated: December 13, 2004.
James J. Jochum,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.

Appendix I

Summary

Methodology And Background Information

I. Company-Specific Reviews
II. Subsidies Valuation Information
    A. Aggregation and Company-Specific Rates
    B. Allocation Period
    C. Recurring and Non-Recurring Benefits
    D. Benchmarks for Loans and Discount Rate
    E. Aggregate Subsidy Rate Calculation
    1. Provincial Crown Stumpage Programs
    2. Other Programs
    3. Excluded Companies
    F. Pass-through
III. Denominator

Analysis Of Programs

I. Provincial Stumpage Programs Determined to Confer Subsidies1
    A. Financial Contribution and Specificity
    B. Benefit--Benchmark
Private Provincial Market Prices
Private Stumpage Prices in New Brunswick and Nova Scotia
Benchmark Prices for B.C.
    1. The Maritimes Benchmarks Are Not the Most Appropriate for 
B.C.
    2. World Market Prices
    3. B.C. Log Prices Are Not An Appropriate Benchmark
    4. U.S. Log Prices are a More Appropriate Benchmark
    5. Comparative Advantage
    C. Benefit--Calculations
Adjustments
Calculation of the Benefit
Country-Wide Rate for Stumpage

Other Non-Stumpage Programs

Other Programs Determined To Confer Subsidies

Programs Administered by the Government of Canada

1. Federal Economic Development Initiative in Northern Ontario 
(FEDNOR)
2. Western Economic Diversification Program Grants and Conditionally 
Repayable Contributions (WDP)
3. Natural Resources Canada (NRCAN) Softwood Marketing Subsidies
4. Payments to the Canadian Lumber Trade Alliance (CLTA) & 
Independent Lumber Remanufacturers Association (ILRA)

Programs Administered by the Province of British Columbia

1. Forest Renewal British Columbia (FRBC)
2. Forestry Innovation Investment Program (FIIP)
3. British Columbia Private Forest Property Tax Program

Programs Administered by the Province of Quebec

1. Private Forest Development Program

Programs Determined Not To Be Countervailable

Program Administered by the Government of Canada

1. Human Resources & Skills Development Worker Assistance Programs 
(HRSD)
2. Litigation-Related Payments to Forest Products Association of 
Canada (FPAC)

Program Administered by the Province of Alberta

1. Timber Damage Compensation for Forest Management Agreement (FMA) 
Holders

Programs Determined Not to Confer A Benefit During the POR

Program Administered by the Province of Manitoba

1. Timber Damage Compensation for Timber Licensees

Programs Administered by the Province of Quebec

1. Assistance from the Societe de Recuperation d'Exploitation et de 
Developpement Forestiers du Quebec (Rexfor)
2. Assistance under Article 28 of Investissement Quebec

Other Programs

Program Administered by the Province of British Columbia

1. ``Allowances'' for Harvesting Beetle-Infested Timber

Program Administered by the Province of British Columbia

2. Land Base Investment Program (LBIP)

Programs Determined Not to Be Used

Program Administered by the Government of Canada

1. Canadian Forest Service Industry, Trade & Economics Program (CFS-
ITE)

Total Ad Valorem Rate

Analysis of Comments

A. Company-Specific Review Issues

    Comment 1: Legal and International Obligations to Conduct 
Company Reviews
    Comment 2: Rescission of Company-Specific Reviews Was Unlawful 
and Unreasonable
    Comment 3: Burden and Difficulty of Company-Specific Reviews Was 
Exaggerated
    Comment 4: Review of Bois Daaquam Inc.
    Comment 5: Reconsideration of Midway Lumber's Company-Specific 
Review is Not Supported
    Comment 6: Zero/De Minimis Rate Companies Should be Verified
    Comment 7: Decision Not to Review Leggett & Platt was Based on a 
Factual Error
    Comment 8: Quebec Border Mills' Wood Sourcing is Unique and 
Warrants Individual Reviews
    Comment 9: Individual Calculations for Blanchet and Maibec

B. Subsidies Valuation Issues

    1. Numerator Issues
    a. Pass-through
    Comment 10: Record Evidence Demonstrates the Existence of Arm's-
Length Purchases of Logs
    Comment 11: Definition of a Log Sale Transaction
    b. Alberta
    Comment 12: Timber Going to Non-Sawmills
    c. Quebec
    Comment 13: Numerator of the Subsidy Benefit Calculation Should 
be Recalculated
    Comment 14: Whether the Calculation of Numerator is Sufficient 
to Produce the Volume in the Denominator
    d. Excluded Companies
    Comment 15: Benefits to Excluded Companies Should be Deducted in 
the Calculations
    2. Denominator Issues
    a. Attribution of Stumpage Benefit
    Comment 16: Attribution of Stumpage Subsidies to All Products 
from Subsidized Logs
    b. Use of Adverse Facts Available for Manitoba and Saskatchewan
    Comment 17: Use of Adverse Facts Available to Derive Lumber and 
Co-Product Shipment Data

C. Provincial Stumpage Program Issues

    1. Specificity
    Comment 18: Stumpage Program is Not Specific
    2. Benchmark: In-Province Stumpage Prices
    a. Alberta
    Comment 19: Timber Damage Assessment Data as a Provincial 
Benchmark
    b. Ontario
    Comment 20: DGM Survey Prices are Useable Private Prices under 
the First Tier of the Benchmark Hierarchy
    Comment 21: Whether Ontario Crown Supply is Inelastic and 
Whether Marginal Demand is Met by the Private Market
    c. Quebec
    Comment 22: Effect That Mills Sourcing Exclusively from the 
Private Forest Have on

[[Page 75921]]

the Price of Standing Timber in Quebec's Private Forest
    Comment 23: Effect That Mills Sourcing from Both the Public and 
Private Forests Have on the Price of Standing Timber in Quebec's 
Private Forest
    Comment 24: Whether Quebec's Public Forests Are Residual to 
Private Forests
    Comment 25: Annual Allowable Cut in Quebec is Binding
    Comment 26: Incentive Structure of Dual-Source Mills
    Comment 27: Relevance of Collusion Concerning the Analysis of 
Quebec's Private Forest
    Comment 28: Barriers to Entry in Quebec's Private Forests
    Comment 29: Relevance of Log Exports Concerning the Analysis of 
Quebec's Private Forest
    Comment 30: Whether Quebec's Forest Marketing Boards and 
Syndicates Mitigates the Market Power Held by Tenure Holding Mills
    Comment 31: The Significance of Log Imports Into Quebec
    Comment 32: Whether Anecdotal Evidence Cited by Department is 
Relevant
    Comment 33: Whether the Department Acted As An Impartial Fact 
Finder
    3. Maritimes Stumpage Prices
    a. Distortion
    Comment 34: Whether the Market Conditions for Private Standing 
Prices in New Brunswick and Nova Scotia Are Distinct from Those in 
Quebec
    b. Country vs. Province
    Comment 35: Maritimes ``In-country'' Prices: Tier One of 
Benchmark Hierarchy
    Comment 36: Quebec Province-Specific Rate
    c. Non-representative
    Comment 37: Use of AGFOR Reports of Maritimes Stumpage Prices
    Comment 38: Maritimes Do Not Reflect Prevailing Market 
Conditions
    d. Adjustments
    Comment 39: Benchmark Adjustments
    Adjustments for British Columbia
    Adjustments for Alberta
    Adjustments for Quebec
    Adjustments for Manitoba
    Adjustments for Saskatchewan
    Adjustments to Ontario
    e. Calculation of Maritimes Prices
    Comment 40: Errors Using Maritimes Benchmark
    f. Ministerial Errors
    Comment 41: Errors Concerning Quebec's Forestry Fund Adjustment 
and Non-credited Silviculture Costs
    Comment 42: Volume and Value Data for B.C. Softwood Logs
    g. East-West Adjustment
    1. Alberta
    Comment 43: Timber in Western Alberta: East-West Adjustment for 
Quality
    4. Tier Three Benchmarks
    Comment 44: Market Principles under Third-tier Category as 
Benchmark

D. Other Program Issues

    Comment 45: Federal Economic Development Initiative in Northern 
Ontario (FEDNOR)
    Comment 46: Western Economic Diversification Program Grants and 
Conditionally Repayable Contributions (WDP)
    Comment 47: Natural Resources Canada (NRCAN) Softwood Lumber 
Marketing Research Subsidies Under the Value-to-Wood Program (VWP) 
and the National Research Institutes Initiative (NRII)
    Comment 48: Payments to the Canadian Lumber Trade Alliance 
(CLTA) & Independent Lumber Remanufacturers Association (ILRA)
    Comment 49: Denominator Used to Calculate the Forest Renewal 
B.C. Subsidy Rate
    Comment 50: Whether the Land Base Investment Program is (LBIP) 
Countervailable
    Comment 51: Whether Forestry Innovation Investment (``FII'') 
Expenditures Are Countervailable
    Comment 52: Denominator Used to Calculate the FII Subsidies
    Comment 53: Whether the Private Forest Development Program 
(PFDP) Is Countervailable
    Comment 54: Worker Assistance Programs Administered by Human 
Resources & Skills Development (HRSD)
    Comment 55: Litigation-Related Payments to Forest Products 
Association of Canada (FPAC)
    Comment 56: Whether Timber Damage Assessments (TDA) Confer a 
Countervailable Benefit
    Comment 57: Affirm Preliminary Findings for Timber Damage 
Compensation for Timber Licensees
    Comment 58: Whether Assistance Under Article 28 of 
Investissement Quebec is a Countervailable Program
    Comment 59: Canadian Forest Service Industry, Trade & Economics 
Program (IT&E)
    Comment 60: British Columbia Private Forest Land Tax Program
    Comment 61: Tenureholders Underreporting Volumes of Timber 
Harvested in Quebec
    Comment 62: Whether British Columbia's Skeena Cellulose and NWBC 
Timber & Pulp Ltd Received Any Benefits During the POR
 [FR Doc. E4-3748 Filed 12-17-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P