[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 237 (Monday, December 12, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 73448-73452]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing 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 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 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