We did not receive any comments from interested parties in the Preliminary Results of this CVD new shipper review. As a result, we have made no modifications to our Preliminary Results. Below is the “Analysis of Programs” section of this memorandum that describes the decisions made in this new shipper review.
ANALYSIS OF PROGRAMS I. Programs Determined to Be Countervailable A. Private Forest Development Program (PFDP) In the underlying investigation, the Department found the PFDP to be countervailable. See the “Program Administered by the Province of Quebec” section of the March 21, 2002, Issues and Decision Memorandum that accompanied 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) (Lumber Final). Specifically, in the underlying investigation, the Department determined that the PFDP provides silviculture support to private woodlot owners through payments, either made directly to forest engineers or via reimbursement to the woodlot owner, for silviculture treatments performed on private land. Thus, we found that payments under the PFDP constitute a financial contribution under section 771(5)(D)(i) of the Act and that the benefit conferred under the PFDP is equal to the grant of funds provided during the review period. We further found in the underlying investigation that because the PFDP is limited to private woodlot owners, the assistance is specific under section 771(5A)(D) of the Act. In its April 4, 2003, questionnaire response, La Pointe & Roy reported that it received assistance from an agency known as the Agence de Mise en Valeur de la Foret Privee de L’Estrie (AMFE) during calendar year 2002, the period of review (POR). Specifically, AMFE arranged for a company called the A.F.A. Des Appalaches Inc. (AFA) to perform silviculture work on a private woodlot held by La Pointe & Roy. La Pointe & Roy paid AFA for a portion of the work while AMFE directly compensated AFA for the remaining amount. La Pointe & Roy received similar assistance from the Agence de Mise en Valuer des Foret Privees de Chaudiere (AMFC) in 1999. La Pointe & Roy received assistance from AMFE and AMFC. We preliminarily determined that the PFDP assistance is countervailable. Further, we preliminarily determined that the assistance received by La Pointe & Roy conferred a benefit in the form of a grant. Finally, we continued to find that this program is specific under section 771(5A)(D) of the Act, because assistance under this program is limited to private woodlot owners. At verification we confirmed the dollar amount of the assistance provided under the PFDP program. Based on record evidence and information collected during verification, we find that La Pointe & Roy received a countervailable subsidy under the PFDP. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.524(b)(2), we have allocated all of the grants provided under the PFDP to the year of receipt because the total amounts approved under the program are less than 0.5 percent of the company’s total sales of softwood lumber products in the year of receipt, net of resales. Using this methodology, the net subsidy rate attributable to La Pointe & Roy under the PFDP is 0.08 percent ad valorem. II. Programs Determined to Be Not Used We preliminarily determined that La Pointe & Roy did not use the following programs. A. Provincial Stumpage Program
__________ __________ Agree Disagree _______________________ James J. Jochum Assistant Secretary for Import Administration _______________________ Date