70 FR 73448, December 12, 2005
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 http://www.enforcement.trade.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 https://enforcement.trade.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