03-508

68 FR 24717, May 8, 2003

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[C-122-839]

Preliminary 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 preliminary results and partial recission of
countervailing duty expedited reviews.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting
expedited reviews of the countervailing duty order on certain softwood
lumber products from Canada for the period April 1, 2000, through March
31, 2001. This notice includes the preliminary results for 28
companies. These preliminary results include 14 companies in Round 1 of
the proceeding. See Notice of Initiation of Expedited Reviews of the
Countervailing Duty Order: Certain Softwood Lumber Products From Canada
(67 FR 46955; July 17, 2002) (Notice of Initiation/Round 1). In
addition, these preliminary results of expedited review include 14
companies in Round 2 of the proceeding. See Notice of Initiation of
Expedited Reviews of the Countervailing Duty Order: Certain Softwood
Lumber Products from Canada (67 FR 59252; September 20, 2002) (Notice
of Initiation/Round 2). For all 28 companies we applied the Group 1
methodology. For information on estimated net subsidies, see the
``Preliminary Results of Reviews'' section of this notice. If the final
results remain the same as these preliminary results of reviews, we
will instruct the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection (BCBP) to
amend the cash deposit for each reviewed company as detailed in the
``Preliminary Results of Reviews'' section of this notice. Interested
parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results. In
addition, the Department is rescinding expedited reviews of five
companies in Round 1 and seven companies in Round 2.

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 8, 2003.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gayle Longest or Tipten Troidl, Office
of AD/CVD Enforcement VI, Import Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-
3338 or (202) 482-1767.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On May 22, 2002, the Department published in the Federal Register
its amended final affirmative countervailing duty determination and
countervailing duty order on certain softwood lumber products (subject
merchandise) from Canada (67 FR 36070), as corrected (67 FR 37775; May
30, 2002) (Amended Final Determination). On July 17, 2002, the
Department published the Notice of Initiation/Round 1 which covered 73
companies that filed complete and timely review applications. See 67 FR
46955. On September 20, 2002, the Department published the Notice of
Initiation/Round 2, which covered 31 additional companies. See 67 FR
59252. This notice included 23 companies that had corrected incomplete
applications

[[Page 24718]]

as well as eight companies whose requests were received beyond the
initial application deadline for reasons outside the requesters'
control.
As explained in the Notice of Initiation/Round 1, we segregated
applicants into two groups. Group 1 consists of 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
Canadian companies excluded from the order, and companies that source
less than a majority of their wood from these sources and do not have
tenure. Group 2 includes companies that source less than a majority of
their wood from these sources and have acquired Crown timber through
their own tenure contracts. In Round 1, we found that 45 companies
satisfied the requirements of Group 1 and 28 companies satisfied the
requirements of Group 2. In Round 2, we found that 22 companies
satisfied the requirements of Group 1 and nine companies satisfied the
requirement of Group 2.
In our review of the applications in Group 1 in Round 1, we noted
that, in order to conduct our analysis, we required only minimal
supplemental data for 24 of the 45 companies. The other Group 1
companies required additional information and more extensive analysis.
We issued questionnaires to the 24 companies requiring only minimal
information and set a short deadline for the response. Of the 24
companies, 18 were able to supply the supplemental information by the
deadline. We completed our preliminary analysis of those 18 companies,
using the Group 1 methodology (see ``Methodology'' section below). See
Preliminary Results of Countervailing Duty Expedited Reviews: Certain
Softwood Lumber Products from Canada (67 FR 52945; August 14, 2002)
(August Preliminary Results). On November 5, 2002, we published the
final results for 13 of the 18 companies covered by the August
Preliminary Results. See Final Results and Partial Recission of
Countervailing Duty Expedited Reviews: Certain Softwood Lumber Products
From Canada (November Final Results) (67 FR 67388; November 5, 2002).
Concurrent with this notice, we are publishing the final results on
three additional companies.
Subsequent to the August Preliminary Results, nine Group 1
companies in Round 1 requested an analysis of whether they benefitted
from subsidies bestowed on their inputs: American Bayridge Corporation,
Blanchette and Blanchette Inc., Goodfellow Inc., Les Bois d'Oeuvre
Beaudoin & Gauthier, Meunier Lumber Company Ltd., Mid-America Lumber,
Olav Haavaldsrud Timber Company Limited, Treeline Wood Products
Limited, and Usine Sartigan Inc. Subsequent to the Notice of
Initiation/Round 2, three Group 1 companies in Round 2 requested an
analysis of whether they benefitted from subsidies bestowed on their
inputs: Carson Lake Lumber Limited, Winnipeg Forest Products, Inc., and
W.I. Woodtone Industries. We are not including in this notice any of
the companies that requested an analysis of whether they benefitted
from subsidies bestowed on their inputs.
This notice includes the preliminary results for 28 Group 1
companies (14 in Round 1 and 14 in Round 2).
We received comments and rebuttal comments on the August
Preliminary Results, on September 6, 2002, and September 18, 2002,
respectively, from petitioners and several respondents. We addressed
the issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs in the ``Issues and
Decision Memorandum'' (Decision Memorandum), dated concurrently with
the November Final Results notice. However, we only addressed those
issues that were of a general nature or that specifically affected
those 13 reviews. We also received comments from petitioners on
November 4, 2002, and December 12, 2002. On January 23, 2003, West Bay
Forest Products & Manufacturing Ltd. (West Bay), a company covered by
these preliminary results, submitted rebuttal comments to petitioners
December 12, 2002, comments. In these preliminary results, we are
addressing petitioners' November 4, 2002, and December 12, 2002,
comments concerning the companies in these preliminary results, West
Bay's rebuttal comments, as well as outstanding methodological issues
related to Group 1 companies.

Partial Rescission

On October 18, 2002, Doman Industries Limited, a respondent company
in Round 2, withdrew its request for review. On October 29, 2002,
Jackpine Engineered Wood Products Inc. and Jackpine Forest Products
Limited, respondent companies in Round 1, withdrew their requests for
review. On February 5, 2002, Domtar Inc., another respondent company in
Round 1, withdrew its request for review.
In addition, after examining information submitted by the companies
in these expedited reviews proceedings, we find that one company,
Francois Giguere Inc., a company in Round 1 did not ship the subject
merchandise to the United States during the period of review (April 1,
2000, through March 31, 2001) (POR). In accordance with the
Department's practice, companies that did not ship subject merchandise
during the period covered by the investigation or review are not
eligible to participate in that segment of the proceeding. See, e.g.,
Final Results and Partial Rescission of Countervailing Duty
Administrative Review: Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip from the
Republic of Korea (68 FR 13267; March 19, 2002). Moreover, the
application to request an expedited review specifically listed exports
of subject merchandise to the United States during the POR as one of
the eligibility requirements. Therefore, we are rescinding the
expedited review for Francois Giguere Inc.
Similarly, two companies in Round 2, 2859-8936 Quebec Inc. Les
Cedre Basques and 9027-7971 Quebec Inc., stated in their applications
that they did not have any sales of the subject merchandise to the
United States during the POR. Instead, they claim that a wholesaler
sold their subject merchandise to the United States during the POR;
however, they did not provide a completed application for this
wholesaler who exported their subject merchandise, as specifically
requested in the application form. Because they did not provide the
necessary information with regard to this wholesaler, we are not able
to proceed with their expedited reviews. See Letter from Melissa
Skinner, Director, Office VI, to 2859-8936 Quebec Inc. Les Cedre
Basques and Letter from Melissa Skinner to 9027-7971 Quebec Inc., both
dated April 11, 2003, on file in the Central Records Unit, Room B-099
of the main Commerce Building. Therefore, we are rescinding the
expedited reviews for 2859-8936 Quebec Inc. Les Cedre Basques and 9027-
7971 Quebec Inc.
Further, one of the Round 2 companies, Hollcan Millworks Ltd.
(Hollcan) did not respond to our January 15, 2003, questionnaire which
was due on January 29, 2003. We attempted to contact the company to
follow up on the questionnaire and found that the phone line was
disconnected and email messages were returned as undeliverable. See the
Department's March 17, 2003 memorandum to the file regarding Expedited
Reviews in the Countervailing Duty Order on Softwood Lumber from Canada
(C-122-839), which is on file in room B-099 of the Central Records Unit
of the Main Commerce Building. Because Hollcan did not provide the
necessary information, we are not able to proceed.

[[Page 24719]]

Therefore, we are rescinding the expedited review for Hollcan.
Our analysis of the information submitted by Group 1 companies in
Round 1 and Round 2 also indicates that there are several companies
that performed no processing or manufacturing with respect to the
subject merchandise they sold to the United States during the POR, but
rather these companies resold softwood lumber processed/manufactured by
other companies. As we clearly indicated in our May 24, 2002, Expedited
Review Application, in instances involving resales activity, we require
information from all of the reseller's suppliers in order to calculate
a net subsidy rate for the reseller. The pure resellers (i.e.,
companies with no lumber production or manufacturing of their own)
identified below did not provide the information originally requested
in the Expedited Review Application. In fact, contrary to the
Department's instructions in the Expedited Review Application, several
of the companies listed below did not fully disclose their resale
activities in the application. Moreover, with respect to some
companies, it was not until we had analyzed sales information contained
in several supplemental questionnaire responses that we realized that
they were, in fact, pure resellers. Therefore, we are rescinding the
expedited review for the following Round 1 company: Cando Contracting
Ltd. In addition, we are rescinding the expedited reviews for the
following Round 2 companies: Antrim Cedar Corporation, Goldwood
Industries Ltd., and Westwood Wholesale Lumber Ltd.
Finally, we note that one Group 1 company, Kootenay Innovate Wood
Inc., is cross-owned with a Group 2 company. As explained below in
Comment 1 of the ``Analysis of Comments Received'' section of these
preliminary results, Group 1 companies that are cross-owned with Group
2 companies will be processed with the Group 2 companies. Thus,
Kootenay has not received a company-specific rate in these preliminary
results.

Companies Addressed in These Preliminary Results

This notice includes the preliminary results of review for the
following 14 Group 1 companies in Round 1:

Alexandre Cote Ltee.
Boccam Inc.
Byrnexco Inc.
Davron Forest Products Ltd.
Fraser Pacific Forest Products Inc.
Frontier Mills Inc.
Haida Forest Products Ltd.
Landmark Truss & Lumber Inc.
Les Bois S&P Grondin Inc.
Les Industries P.F. Inc.
Sechoirs de Beauce Inc.
Tyee Timber Products Ltd.
West Bay Forest Products and Manufacturing Ltd.
West Can Rail Ltd.

These preliminary results also include the preliminary results of
review for the following 14 Group 1 companies in Round 2:

Central Cedar Ltd.
Forstex Industries Inc.
Hudson Mitchell & Sons Lumber Inc.
Indian River Lumber
Les Scieries Jocelyn Lavoie Inc.
Leslie Forest Products Ltd.
Lyle Forest Products Ltd.
Power Wood Corp.
Precision Moulding Products
Ram Co. Lumber Ltd.
Rielly Industrial Lumber Inc.
Sylvanex Lumber Products Inc.
United Wood Frames Inc.
Williamsburg Woods & Garden

Further we are rescinding on the following five companies in Round
1:

Cando Contracting Ltd.
Domtar Inc.
Francois Giguere Inc.
Jackpine Engineered Wood Products Inc.
Jackpine Forest Products Limited

We are also rescinding on the following seven companies in Round 2:

2859-8936 Quebec Inc. Les Cedre Basques 9027-7971 Quebec Inc.
Antrim Cedar Corporation
Doman Industries Limited
Goldwood Industries Ltd.
Hollcan Millworks Ltd.
Westwood Wholesale Lumber Ltd.

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
BCBP 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.enforcement.trade.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

[[Page 24720]]

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 BCBP'
satisfaction 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 BCBP 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 BCBP 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.

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 BCBP'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 BCBP, 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 preliminary results include: (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 sources and do not
have tenure. We calculated company-specific rates based on the
methodology described in the November Final Results. To obtain the
company-specific stumpage benefit, we multiplied the quantity of Crown
logs and the quantity of lumber inputs (except for those specified
below) by the province-specific stumpage benefit 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. For those provinces,
such as British Columbia and Ontario, for which we calculated more than
one per-unit benefit in the investigation, we calculated one province-
wide per-unit benefit by weight-averaging the previously calculated
values by the corresponding volumes of harvested softwood (this was
done in the November Final Results). As indicated in the Notice of
Initiation/Round 1, 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 mills excluded in the investigation, and
(4) logs from Canadian private land. See 67 FR 46955, 46957.
Furthermore, we are not including in our subsidy rate calculations logs
which the companies demonstrate to have acquired and resold without any
processing. In addition, we are also not including in the subsidy
calculations lumber purchased and resold without any further production
or manufacturing because, as explained below, the companies in these
preliminary results failed to submit information regarding their
suppliers as originally requested in our expedited review application.
We divided the stumpage benefit by the appropriate value of the
company's sales (scope and non-scope softwood lumber products and
softwood lumber by-products, net of resales) to determine the company's
estimated subsidy rate from stumpage and then added any benefit from
other programs to obtain the cash deposit rate for the company.
Several companies reported that they are cross-owned with other
companies

[[Page 24721]]

that produce and/or manufacture subject merchandise. Specifically,
Fraser Pacific Forest Products Inc., Frontier Mills Inc., and Landmark
Truss & Lumber Inc. (Landmark Companies) stated that they were cross-
owned. Similarly, West Bay Forest Products & Manufacturing Ltd.
indicated that it is cross-owned with two companies that produce and/or
manufacture subject merchandise, Gold Mountain and Cedarshed (West Bay
Companies). With respect to the Landmark and the West Bay Companies, in
accordance with Sec. 351.525(b)(6) of the Department's Regulations, we
first calculated the benefits for each of the cross-owned companies
using the approach described in the ``Methodology'' section of these
Preliminary Results. We then summed the benefits attributable to the
consolidated, cross-owned entity and divided the total by the entity's
consolidated sales denominator (scope and non-scope softwood lumber
products and softwood lumber by-products, net of resales).
As discussed above in the ``Partial Rescission'' section of these
preliminary results, companies with reselling activities were
instructed in the Expedited Review Application to provide information
pertaining to their suppliers. However, the Group 1 companies with
resale and production activities failed to provide such information.
Therefore, the Department is not in a position to calculate the benefit
on the portion of their sales attributable to resales. For this reason,
lumber that was resold by these companies without any further
production or manufacturing will remain subject to the country-wide
rate established in the Amended Final Determination. Regarding lumber
actually produced or manufactured by these companies, we have
calculated a company-specific benefit that is based solely on the
lumber that the companies have produced. Accordingly, for each Group 1
company included in these preliminary results that produces its own
lumber and performs resale activities, we calculated a company-
specific-rate for all lumber that the company produces. Lumber that is
resold by these companies without any further manufacturing will be
subject to the ``Country-Wide Rate'' calculated in the Final Amended
Determination.
For the period April 1, 2000, to March 31, 2001, we preliminarily
determine the net subsidy rate for this program to be as follows for
Group 1 companies in Round 1:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Net
Net subsidies--Producer/exporter subsidy
rate %
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alexandre Cote Ltee.......................................... 9.07
Boccam Inc................................................... 0.41
Byrnexco Inc................................................. 8.40
Davron Forest Products Ltd................................... 10.94
Fraser Pacific Forest Products Inc........................... 8.58
Frontier Mills Inc........................................... 8.58
Haida Forest Products Ltd.................................... 2.45
Landmark Truss & Lumber Inc.................................. 8.58
Les Bois S&P Grondin Inc..................................... 4.62
Les Industries P.F. Inc...................................... 8.03
Sechoirs de Beauce Inc....................................... 0.60
Tyee Timber Products Ltd..................................... 4.10
West Bay Forest Products and Manufacturing Ltd............... 5.34
West Can Rail Ltd............................................ 0.00
------------------------------------------------------------------------

For the period April 1, 2000, to March 31, 2001, we preliminarily
determine the net subsidy rate for this program to be as follows for
Group 1 companies in Round 2:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Net
Net subsidies--producer/exporter Subsidy
rate %
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Central Cedar Ltd............................................ 4.91
Forstex Industries Inc....................................... 4.51
Hudson Mitchell & Sons Lumber Inc............................ 4.31
Indian River Lumber.......................................... 0.00
Les Scieries Jocelyn Lavoie Inc.............................. 0.00
Leslie Forest Products Ltd................................... 13.62
Lyle Forest Products Ltd..................................... 3.37
Power Wood Corp.............................................. 6.73
Precision Moulding Products.................................. 1.41
Ram Co. Lumber Ltd........................................... 8.92
Rielly Industrial Lumber Inc................................. 55.15
Sylvanex Lumber Products Inc................................. 7.09
United Wood Frames Inc....................................... 10.69
Williamsburg Woods & Garden.................................. 11.95
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Other Programs

In the underlying investigation, the Department determined that the
provinces of British Columbia and Quebec provided countervailable
benefits under certain programs. British Columbia provided
countervailable benefits under the Forest Renewal Program and Quebec
provided countervailable benefits under the Private Forest Development
Program (PFDP), loans issued by Investment Quebec, lending under
Article 28 of the Society for the Industrial Development of Quebec
(SDI) and loans issues 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. Four companies from
British Columbia reported using the Forest Renewal Program. These were
the only companies in these preliminary results that reported using
previously investigated non-stumpage programs during the POR.
Consistent with our approach in the underlying investigation, we are
treating benefits received under the Forest Renewal Program as
countervailable grants. In accordance with Sec. 351.524(2), we have
allocated all of the benefits provided under this program to the year
of receipt because the total amount approved under the subsidy program
is less than 0.5 percent of the relevant sales denominator (i.e., total
sales of softwood lumber products, net of resales). To calculate the
net subsidy rate received under this program, we divided the benefit by
the companies' total sales of softwood lumber products, net of resales.
For the period April 1, 2000, to March 31, 2001, we preliminarily
determine the net subsidy rate to be as follows for Group 1 companies
in Round 1:

For the period April 1, 2000, to March 31, 2001, we preliminarily
determine the net subsidy rate to be as follows for Group 1 companies
in Round 2:

Analysis of Comments Received

I. Methodological Comments

The following comments address methodological issues related to
Group 1 companies as well as issues concerning the general
methodologies the Department is applying in these expedited reviews.
Comment 1: Whether the Same Methodology Should Be Applied to Cross-
owned Companies When One Is Assigned to Group 1 and the Other to Group
2. Tembec Inc., Dowie Timber Ltd., Selkirk Specialty Wood Ltd., Mill &
Timber Products Ltd., R. Fryer Forest Products Limited, and Liskeard
Lumber Ltd. (the Tembec Group) argue that treatment of Group 2
companies becomes more complicated in instances in which a Group 2
company is cross-owned with a Group 1 company. The Tembec Group
contends that there is no

[[Page 24722]]

indication as to which methodology will be employed for each company in
these types of cases. The Tembec Group maintains that if the Department
uses the simplified methodology for the Group 1 company and the cost
methodology for the Group 2 company, the Department would be in
conflict with its own policy to treat cross-owned companies as one
entity.
With respect to the treatment of cross-owned companies when one
company is in Group 1 and one company is in Group 2, petitioners assert
that all cross-owned companies in this situation should be examined
using the Group 2 methodology. Petitioners argue that the Group 2
methodology is the most accurate of the two methods and should apply in
such cases.
Department's position: We disagree with both respondents and

petitioners. The Group 1 and Group 2 benefit calculation methodologies
are, more or less, the same, the only difference being that the Group 2
methodology involves the calculation of a benefit attributable to
timber harvested from Crown lands based on the company's actual
experience. Thus, for Group 1 companies cross-owned with Group 2
companies, the Department will apply the Group 1 benefit calculation
methodology to the Group 1 company and apply the Group 2 benefit
calculation methodology to the cross-owned company in Group 2. To
derive the net subsidy rate applicable to both the Group 1 and Group 2
company that are cross-owned, the Department will sum the two benefit
amounts and divide the total by the two companies' consolidated sales
denominator (scope and non-scope softwood lumber products and softwood
lumber by-products, net of resales). Therefore, with respect to the
methodology to be applied to companies whose cross-owned companies may
be assigned to a different group, the Department, when calculating the
benefit, will apply to each Group 1 or Group 2 company the methodology,
regardless of cross-ownership, of the group to which the company is
assigned. The rate for the cross-owned companies will be calculated
taking into account the results of the two separate calculations. Given
this approach, we are unable in these preliminary results to calculate
a consolidated net subsidy rate for Group 1 companies that are cross-
owned with Group 2 companies because we are still processing and
receiving data from Group 2 companies.
Comment 2: Whether Subsidy Amounts Attributed to Logs on the Basis
of Volume Should be Equal to Subsidies Amounts Attributed to Lumber and
Sawdust. Petitioners argue that the Department was in error in the
Issues and Decision Memorandum issued in conjunction with the November
Final Results in saying ``the Department made no distinction between
the amount of subsidy attributed to one cubic meter of lumber and the
amount of subsidy attributed to one cubic meter of sawdust.'' See page
15 of the Issues and Decision Memorandum: Final Results of Expedited
Reviews of 13 Companies Covered by the August 14, 2002 Notice of
Preliminary Results Under the Countervailing Duty Order on Certain
Softwood Lumber from Canada (November Issues and Decision Memorandum).
Petitioners contend that this is not supported by the facts and is
inconsistent with the countervailing duty methodology and economics.
Petitioners contend that the allocation of subsidies is based upon the
value of products of the subsidized mills. High-value products are
recognized as being more highly subsidized and the majority of the
subsidy is allocated to these products. In contrast, the allocation of
the subsidy to low-value products is much less.
Petitioners contend that in the lumber investigation, the subsidy
was attributed to the value of the lumber products produced from
preferentially provided inputs. Moreover, they state that the subsidy
calculation is always performed on a value, not a volume basis. They
cite to 19 CFR 351.525(a) which states ``the Secretary will calculate
the ad valorem subsidy rate by dividing the amount of the benefit
allocated to the period of investigation or review by the sales value *
* *'' Therefore, they argue that the subsidy calculation should be
based on the value of the entire input and the value of the entire
output since the whole log is required to produce softwood lumber.
Petitioners maintain that the Department should clarify that the
correct methodology of allocating the subsidy between lumber and by-
products, consistent with the underlying investigation, is based on
value and not volume.
Moreover, petitioners assert that in the expedited reviews the
Department correctly calculated the subsidy by multiplying the per
cubic meter benefit on sawtimber by the volume of sawlogs used by the
sawmills. However, petitioners contend that the Department also
multiplied the province-wide per-cubic-meter benefit on sawtimber by
the volume of lumber used as an input by the reviewed lumber company.
Petitioners argue that the per-unit benefit on logs is not the same as
the per-unit benefit on lumber because it may take as much as two cubic
meters of sawtimber to make a cubic meter of lumber.
Petitioners contend that this methodology is inconsistent with the
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). They claim that the Department's methodology
understates the subsidy amount on lumber. Petitioners argue that the
application of a per-unit benefit based on logs to lumber inputs
acquired by, for example, a Canadian lumber remanufacturer, would not
reflect the full value of the subsidy received when the lumber in
question was resold. Petitioners maintain that this methodology is not
supported mathematically. Moreover, the fact that this calculation
methodology was used in the exclusion process in the underlying
investigation provides no basis to continue this error. Although,
assert petitioners, they did not have time to address this erroneous
methodology in calculating the company-specific exclusions in their
briefs, they claim this methodology should be subject to correction in
these expedited reviews.
Department's position: We have carefully considered petitioners'
comments on the amount of subsidies attributable to lumber acquired as
an input. We remain, however, of the view that the methodology that has
been followed by the Department is reasonable and in accordance with
our practice.
In these expedited reviews, just as in the exclusion process in the
investigation, one of the tasks before the Department is to estimate
the amount of subsidy attributable to lumber as an input into the
manufacturing process. No such value was derived in determining the
country-wide rate in the investigation. In that context, we simply
calculated the amount of subsidy attributed to timber; we did not--
because we did not need to--derive a value for the subsidy attributable
to lumber produced from subsidized timber.
In the exclusion process, we estimated the amount of benefit on
lumber as an input into the manufacturing process based on the only
value available from the investigation, i.e. the benefit on timber
expressed as a specific dollar amount per cubic meter. Because the
amount of the benefit calculated in the investigation was based on
volume, we attributed the benefit to lumber on a volume (not value)
basis. We applied

[[Page 24723]]

this benefit to all lumber, not only to lumber of Crown origin,
because, as we stated in the February 20, 2002, Decision Memorandum
(Memorandum from Bernard Carreau, Deputy Assistant Secretary, to Faryar
Shirzad, Assistant Secretary, regarding Countervailing Duty
Investigation on Softwood Lumber Products from Canada), ``as a
practical matter it is impossible to distinguish lumber produced from
private logs and lumber produced from Crown timber, once it is
processed in potentially subsidized mills.'' We used this methodology
in the exclusion process and clearly described it in the first
initiation notice of the expedited reviews (Notice of Initiation/Round
1).
As previously stated in Comment 4 of the November Issues and
Decision Memorandum, we believe that petitioners had ample opportunity
to comment on the accuracy of this methodology during the investigation
and in earlier stages of these expedited reviews, particularly when we
requested comments on our proposed methodology in the first initiation
notice. We received no comments on this issue; therefore, we proceeded
with issuing the preliminary results for 18 companies. Petitioners
commented after the publication of the August Preliminary Results;
however, we disagreed with petitioners' position and applied the same
methodology in the final results for 13 of those companies.
We find no compelling reason in petitioners' arguments to modify
the methodology applied so far. In particular, petitioners have not
demonstrated that--given the information that is reasonably available
to the Department within the time constraints applicable to these
reviews--their approach to attributing subsidies to lumber used as an
input is more accurate than the approach used by the Department.
Moreover, the Department finds that a change in methodology at this
time could be detrimental to the companies under review, who have
relied on the current methodology to make a number of decisions, such
as whether or not to withdraw from the expedited reviews and whether or
not to apply for an upstream analysis. For all these reasons, we are
continuing to apply the province-wide stumpage benefit to a unit of
lumber in these preliminary results, as we did in the August
Preliminary Results and the investigation.
Comment 3: Whether Group 1 Companies That Did Not Request an
Analysis of Whether They Benefitted From Subsidies Bestowed on Their
Inputs Should Be Able To Reassess This Decision. Landmark Truss &
Lumber Inc. (Landmark) and its subsidiaries Frontier Mills Inc. and
Fraser Pacific Forest Products Inc. maintain that they did not request
an analysis of whether they benefitted from subsidies bestowed on their
inputs based on their understanding that the final results for Group 1
companies would be issued within the time frames previously announced
by the Department. Furthermore, Landmark understood that any results
based on an analysis of whether they benefitted from subsidies bestowed
on their inputs would not be issued until after the final results of
Group 2 companies.
Landmark notes that petitioners have argued in their case brief
that the final results of expedited reviews for all companies should be
issued simultaneously. Landmark asserts that if the Department decides
not to follow its schedule for Group 1 companies and instead issues all
expedited reviews simultaneously, then Group 1 companies with the same
circumstances as Landmark should be allowed to reassess their decision
with respect to requesting an analysis of whether subsidies bestowed on
their inputs benefitted them.
Landmark also notes that the Government of Canada (GOC) has argued
in case briefs submitted during the course of this proceeding that an
analysis of whether the companies benefitted from subsidies bestowed on
their inputs should not extend the existing timelines for the expedited
reviews and that the Department should issue a proposed methodology for
the conduct of this type of analysis. If the Department agrees to
complete the analysis on the established schedule or if the Department
issues a proposed methodology for the conduct of this type of analysis,
Landmark submits that companies similarly situated should be given the
opportunity to reassess their decision and to request such an analysis.
Department's Position: In their September 6, 2002, case brief at
page 16, the GOC maintained that the Department should allow companies
purchasing inputs through arm's length transactions to request
expedited reviews subsequent to initiation of the expedited reviews. In
the November Final Results, we emphasized that allowing other companies
to request expedited reviews at that time would complicate and delay an
already elaborate and cumbersome process. Similarly, giving companies
the opportunity to reassess and request an analysis of whether
subsidies bestowed on their inputs benefitted them at this stage in the
expedited review process, as Landmark suggests, would further
complicate and delay the expedited review process. Therefore, we are
not adopting these suggestions.

II. Individual Company Comments

Comment 1: Antrim Cedar Corporation. Petitioners assert that Antrim
Cedar's exclusion request in the underlying investigation indicated
that it was a reseller of lumber during the POR, however, in these
expedited reviews, Antrim reported that it had no resales of logs or
lumber.
Department's Position: Antrim's application and subsequent
questionnaire responses indicate resales of subject merchandise.
However, as indicated above, we are rescinding Antrim's expedited
review. The basis of our determination with respect to Antrim's
expedited review is explained in the ``Partial Recission'' section of
this notice.
Comment 2: Central Cedar Ltd. Petitioners contend that the total
value of all sales of subject merchandise reported in Central Cedar's
exclusion request differs from the amount reported in its expedited
review application.
Department's Position: The exclusion request was in a different
segment of the proceeding from these expedited reviews. Therefore, the
figures provided in the two segments of the proceeding are not directly
comparable. The numbers reported for purposes of these expedited
reviews are F.O.B. values and we have sent several questionnaires to
the companies clarifying exactly how the sales data should be derived
for purposes of these expedited reviews. Companies have provided the
clarified data to the Department and we have used it in these
preliminary results.
Comment 3: Fraser Pacific Forest Products. Petitioners contend that
in the exclusion process, Fraser reported that it was a wholly-owned
subsidiary of Landmark Truss and reported total sales of subject
merchandise for itself and its affiliated companies. However,
petitioners point out that in these expedited reviews, Landmark Truss
by itself claimed total sales of subject merchandise without mention of
any affiliates. Petitioners assert that the sum of total sales of
subject merchandise for these three companies' expedited review
applications is a substantial increase over the amount reported for
total sales of subject merchandise in the exclusion process.
Department's Position: Fraser Pacific Forest Products has reported
in these expedited reviews that it is a wholly-owned subsidiary of
Landmark and also cross-owned with Frontier Mills. In

[[Page 24724]]

these expedited review proceedings, we have sent several questionnaires
to Fraser Pacific, Frontier Mills, and Landmark to clarify the data
that was submitted. We have calculated the rate for this company using
our cross-owned methodology as described above in the methodology
section of this notice. Thus, we have accounted for not only its cross-
ownership with Landmark, but also its cross-ownership with Frontier
Mills.
Comment 4: Power Wood Corporation (Power Wood) and Rielly
Industrial Lumber Inc. (Rielly). Petitioners assert that the total
sales of subject merchandise reported in Power Wood's and Rielly's
exclusion request differs from the amount reported in the expedited
review process. Moreover, petitioners contend that in the company
exclusion process these two companies certified that they received no
benefit from provincial Crown stumpage in British Columbia. Yet,
petitioners point out that in the Power Wood's and Rielly's expedited
review application, they reported that they acquired Crown-origin logs
from British Columbia during the POR.
Department's Position: As noted in Comment 2 above concerning
Central Cedar, these expedited review proceedings are different from
the exclusion process. We have provided in these expedited reviews
specific instructions how to derive the data for sales. In addition, we
have taken into account Power Wood's and Rielly's Crown-origin logs
reported in the company's questionnaire response in our calculation for
this company's individual cash deposit rate.
Comment 5: Sylvanex Lumber Products Inc. Petitioners argue that in
the company exclusion proceeding, Sylvanex Lumber Products Inc.
(Sylvanex) reported that they had received government assistance while
in these expedited reviews, Sylvanex indicates that they received no
government assistance.
Department's Position: As noted in numerous company-specific
comments above, the company exclusion segment of the proceeding was
different from the expedited review segment of the proceeding. Contrary
to petitioners' assertion, during the exclusion process and by letter
dated August 21, 2001, Sylvanex reported that it ``did not benefit from
other programs subject to this investigation.'' See the GOC's October
29, 2001, submission, of which a public version is on file in room B-
099 of the Central Records Unit in the main Commerce Building. In
addition, the October 10, 2001 certification supplied by Forest Renewal
BC indicated that Sylvanex received zero benefits from Forest Renewal
BC. The benefit that petitioner states that Sylvanex reported during
the exclusion process resulted from the reporting, by Forest Renewal BC
of sums provided to various associations within British Columbia. These
amounts were allocated to members of the associations for purposes of
the exclusion applications alone. In these expedited reviews, the
participating companies have submitted program usage information based
on their own financial records and experience. Under this approach,
Sylvanex again has reported that it did not use the Forest Renewal
Program during the POR. Given the difference in reporting methodologies
between the two proceedings and the fact that Sylvanex based its
questionnaire response on its own financial data, we find the
discrepancy raised by petitioners is adequately explained and, thus,
does not call into question the veracity of the information submitted
by Sylvanex in these expedited reviews.
Comment 6: Tyee Timber Products Ltd. According to petitioners, Tyee
Timber Products (Tyee) indicated in the exclusion process that they
were affiliated with another company. However, petitioners point out
that in these expedited reviews, Tyee does not indicate that they are
affiliated with any company. Moreover, the total sales of subject
merchandise reported in the exclusion proceeding differs from the total
sales of subject merchandise reported in their expedited review
application. Lastly, petitioners argue that in Tyee's expedited review
application the company indicated that no logs were used or purchased,
however, they report in another section of the application that the
company used British Columbian timber as inputs.
Department's Position: As explained above, the exclusion process
was a different segment of the proceeding from these expedited reviews,
and we have clarified in our questionnaires how the sales data should
be derived for purposes of our analysis as well as how to report data
related to logs harvested and purchased. With respect to whether Tyee
reported affiliates in its expedited review application, as explained
above, the reporting methodologies used by participating companies
differed between the exclusion process and the expedited review
process. In the exclusion process, companies signed certifications
regarding their affiliation and cross-ownership status that were based
on questionnaires and guidelines compiled and issued by the GOC. See
the GOC's October 29, 2001, submission. In contrast, in the expedited
reviews, the Department has sent questionnaires directly to the
participating companies that contain specific definitions and
instructions regarding the issue of affiliation and cross-ownership.
Therefore, it is entirely reasonable, since different authorities
issued separate and different questionnaires, that some discrepancies
would exist between the two proceedings. However, what is germane to
the instant proceeding is what Tyee has stated regarding its
affiliation and cross-ownership with other companies based on the
definitions and instructions that were directly provided to it by the
Department. On this point, Tyee has made clear in its application and
questionnaire responses that it was not affiliated or cross-owned with
any companies.
Comment 7: West Bay Forest Products and Manufacturing Ltd.
Petitioners contend that West Bay Forest Products reported in the
exclusion process different values for total sales of subject
merchandise from the value they reported in their application for
expedited review.
In response, West Bay Forest Products asserts that the financial
information reported in their exclusion application reported total
sales of all remanufactured softwood lumber. With respect to the
expedited reviews, the company reported the combined total of
remanufactured and resale sales amounts. Moreover, the company found an
additional error in the total value of remanufactured sales reported in
their original expedited review filing. In addition, the company
provided a reconciliation of the difference between the figures in the
two segments of the proceeding.
Department's Position: As explained above, we provided specific
instructions on how to calculate sales figures in these expedited
reviews. Therefore, the figures provided in the two segments of the
proceeding are not directly comparable. Further, we find that the
information submitted by West Bay Forest Products accounts for the
differences in total sales values between the two segments of the
proceeding.

Verification

In accordance with 782(I)(3) of the Act, we may verify information
submitted by respondents who preliminarily received a de minimis
subsidy rate, prior to making our final determination.

[[Page 24725]]

Preliminary Results of Reviews

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
preliminarily determine the net subsidy to be as follows for Group 1
companies in Round 1:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Net
Net subsidies--producer/exporter subsidy
rate %
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alexandre Cote Ltee.......................................... 9.07
Boccam Inc................................................... 0.41
Byrnexco Inc................................................. 8.40
Davron Forest Products Ltd................................... 10.94
Fraser Pacific Forest Products Inc........................... 8.61
Frontier Mills Inc........................................... 8.61
Haida Forest Products Ltd.................................... 2.45
Landmark Truss & Lumber Inc.................................. 8.61
Les Bois S&P Grondin Inc..................................... 4.62
Les Industries P.F. Inc...................................... 8.03
Sechoirs de Beauce Inc....................................... 0.60
Tyee Timber Products Ltd..................................... 4.10
West Bay Forest Products and Manufacturing Ltd............... 5.50
West Can Rail Ltd............................................ 0.00
------------------------------------------------------------------------

For the period April 1, 2000, to March 31, 2001, we preliminarily
determine the net subsidy to be as follows for Group 1 companies in
Round 2:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Net
Net subsidies--producer/exporter subsidy
rate %
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Central Cedar Ltd............................................ 4.96
Forstex Industries Inc....................................... 4.51
Hudson Mitchell & Sons Lumber Inc............................ 4.31
Indian River Lumber.......................................... 0.00
Les Scieries Jocelyn Lavoie Inc.............................. 0.00
Leslie Forest Products Ltd................................... 13.72
Lyle Forest Products Ltd..................................... 3.37
Power Wood Corp.............................................. 6.73
Precision Moulding Products.................................. 1.41
Ram Co. Lumber Ltd........................................... 8.92
Rielly Industrial Lumber Inc................................. 5.15
Sylvanex Lumber Products Inc................................. 7.09
United Wood Frames Inc....................................... 10.69
Williamsburg Woods & Garden.................................. 11.95
------------------------------------------------------------------------

If the final results of these reviews remain the same as these
preliminary results, the Department intends to instruct the BCBP 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 and exported 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 rates
will not apply to merchandise produced by the reviewed companies but
exported by other entities.
Those producers/exporters whose final estimated net subsidy rate,
based on verified information, is zero or de minimis will be excluded
from the order. Because, in the Department's view, there is no relevant
difference for purposes of the de minimis rule between expedited
reviews of orders resulting from investigations conducted on an
aggregate basis and expedited reviews of orders resulting from
investigations conducted on a company-specific basis, we believe it is
appropriate in these reviews to treat de minimis rates, one percent ad
valorem in this case, in accordance with section 19 CFR
351.214(k)(3)(iv). Therefore, after the issuance of its final results,
the Department intends to instruct BCBP to liquidate, without regard to
countervailing duties, all outstanding shipments of the subject
merchandise produced and exported by excluded companies.
These expedited reviews cover only those companies that we have
specifically identified as qualifying for expedited reviews. The cash
deposit rate for all other non-reviewed companies subject to the
country-wide rate will be adjusted in the final results of the
expedited reviews to account for the benefit and the sales values of
the companies that have received company-specific rates. We will
instruct the BCBP to collect cash deposits for all non-reviewed
companies at the new cash deposit rates established in the final
results of these reviews.

Public Comment

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.224(b), the Department will disclose to
parties to the proceeding any calculations performed in connection with
these preliminary results within five days after the date of
publication of this notice. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309, interested
parties may submit written comments in response to these preliminary
results. Parties who submit argument in this proceeding are requested
to submit with the argument: (1) a statement of the issue, and (2) a
brief summary of the argument. Case and rebuttal briefs must be served
on interested parties in accordance with 19 CFR 351.303(f). The due
dates for the case briefs will be announced at a later date.
Individuals who wish to request a hearing must submit a written
request within 14 days of the publication of this notice in the Federal
Register to the Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, U.S.
Department of Commerce, Room 1870, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue,
NW., Washington, DC 20230. The time, date, and place of the hearing
will be announced after the Department has released the dates of the
briefing schedule. However, any party that wants to participate in a
hearing must submit a written request within the time period specified
above.
Requests for a public hearing should contain: (1) The party's name,
address, and telephone number; (2) the number of participants; and, (3)
to the extent practicable, an identification of the arguments to be
raised at the hearing. In addition, ten copies of the business
proprietary version and six copies of the non-proprietary version of
the case briefs must be submitted to the Assistant Secretary.
Representatives of parties to the proceeding may request disclosure
of proprietary information under administrative protective order no
later than 10 days after the representative's client or employer
becomes a party to the proceeding, but in no event later than the date
the case briefs, under 19 CFR 351.309(c)(ii), are due. The Department
will include the results of its analysis of issues raised in any case
or rebuttal briefs in the final results of these expedited reviews. The
Department will ensure that interested parties are informed of the
briefing schedule.
In the interests of giving each respondent an informed opportunity
to request rescission of their expedited review, we have amended the
timeline announced in the application form to request rescission of an
expedited review. Requests of rescission must be received by the
Department no later than 30 days after the date of publication of the
preliminary results of the relevant expedited review.
These expedited reviews and notice are issued and published in
accordance with section 751(a)(1) and 777(I)(1) of the Act (19 U.S.C.
1675(a)(1) and 19 U.S.C. 1677(f)(I)).

Dated: April 29, 2003.
Joseph A. Spetrini,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 03-11353 Filed 5-7-03; 8:45 am]