. /.  WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  G/SCM/Q2/USA/28/Suppl.1 
24 February 2004 
 (04-0776) 
Committee on Subsidies 
and Countervailing Measures Original:   English 
 
 
 
SUBSIDIES 
Additional Questions from CANADA Regarding the  
New and Full Notification of the UNITED STATES1 
 
Supplement  
  The following communication, dated 23 February 2004, is being circulated at the request of 
the Delegation of Canada.  
_______________ 
 
 MEDICAL SUBSIDIES, page 39
:  new issue - NIH medical research support. 
 
Question :  Canada notes that funding to the US pharmaceutical industry by the US National 
Institutes of Health (NIH) is not included in the US subsidies notification.  Given that the NIH 
has a substantial budget, and that these funds a re used to advance medical research, possibly to 
the benefit of the US pharmaceutical industry, wh at is the rationale for excluding these monies 
from the notification? 
 STEEL SUBSIDIES
:  Emergency Steel Loan Guarantee Programme, 2002 loan guarantees of at least 
$250 million, page 45.   
Question
:  Could the US confirm whether the Emergency Steel Loan Guarantee Act of 1999 has 
been extended past the 31 December 2003 deadline mentioned in the US notification? 
 US ENERGY AND FUELS SUBSIDIES, page 15
:  Renewable Energy Resources, 2002 
appropriation of $357.4 million, page 15;  Energy  Conservation Programmes - Transportation Sector, 
2002 appropriation of $242.5 million, page 17 ; Energy Conservation Programmes - Building 
Technology, State and Community Sector, 2002 a ppropriation of $365.2 million, page 19;  and 
Energy Conservation - Industry Sector, 2002 appropriation of $131.7 million, page 20.  
 
Questions :  
 
 What are the “various competitive procedures ” used to determine participation in these 
energy programmes?  
 
 Are foreign-owned firms operating in the US eligible to receive these subsidies?  
  Do these procedures include a "Buy American" requirement?  
 
                                                     
 
1G/SCM/N/95/USA G/SCM/Q2/USA/28/Suppl.1 
Page 2  
 
  Do the amounts awarded under these federa l support programmes take into account 
funding received through stat e administered programmes? 
 
LUMBER AND TIMBER, page 37
:  new issue - no-cost extension of federal timber harvesting 
contracts. 
 
Questions :   Canada understands that in August of 2002 the US Forest Service announced its 
intention to extend for three years National Fo rest System contracts for timber harvesting in 
Alaska.  This would have the effect of allowing  firms to defer harvesting, and thus sales of 
timber, in anticipation of an upswing in the timber market, and was done with the explicit 
intention of assisting pulp mills in the region.  Given that this decision appears to confer a 
subsidy on the firms concerned, why was it not li sted in the US submission?  Are there other 
similar decisions on the part of the US Forest Service which were also not listed?" 
 
New issue - Forestry Incentive Programme (F IP) and Stewardship Incentive Programme (SIP)  
 
Question : Canada understands that the Forestry Incentive Programme and Stewardship 
Incentive Programme were allocated $10 millio n dollars in FY 2002.  Given that research 
undertaken by the US Forest Service, as well as others, suggests that these funds play an 
important role in the decision on the part of private individuals to grow timber on non-industrial private forest (NIPF) lands, which can subsequently be harvested for timber, should 
this assistance not be included in the US submission as a subsidy?  
New issue - US Forest Service Salvage Fund
 
 
Question : A recent NGO report has stated that, in 2002, a number of sales under the US Forest 
Service’s Salvage Fund failed to cover significant portio ns of their costs.  Is this the case, and, if 
so, should the unrecovered costs not be incl uded in the US submission as a subsidy?  
 
__________