21332 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 83 / Monday, April 30, 2001 / Notices

1The Coalition for Fair Lumber Imports Executive

Committee is comprised of Hood Industries,

International Paper Company, Moose River Lumber

Company, New South Incorporated, Plum Creek

Timber Company, Polatch Corporation, Seneca

Sawmill Company, Shearer Lumber Products,

Shuqualak Lumber Company, Sierra Pacific

Industries, Swift Lumber Incorporated, TempleInland Forest Products, and Tolleson Lumber

Company, Incorporated.

imports of certain softwood lumber

products from Canada are being, or are

likely to be, sold in the United States at

less than fair value. Unless this deadline

is extended, we will make our

preliminary determination no later than

140 days after the date of this initiation.

Distribution of Copies of the Petition

In accordance with section

732(b)(3)(A) of the Act, a copy of the

public version of the petition has been

provided to the representatives of the

Government of Canada.

International Trade Commission

Notification

We have notified the ITC of our

initiation, as required by section 732(d)

of the Act.

Preliminary Determination by the ITC

The ITC will determine, no later than

May 17, 2001, whether there is a

reasonable indication that imports of

certain softwood lumber products from

Canada are causing material injury, or

threatening to cause material injury, to

a U.S. industry. A negative ITC

determination will result in the

investigation being terminated;

otherwise, the investigation will

proceed according to statutory and

regulatory time limits.

This notice is published pursuant to

section 777(i) of the Act. Effective

January 20, 2001, Bernard T. Carreau is

fulfilling the duties of the Assistant

Secretary for Import Administration.

April 23, 2001.

Bernard T. Carreau,

Deputy Assistant Secretary, Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 01–10688 Filed 4–27–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[C–122–839]

Notice of Initiation of Countervailing

Duty Investigation: Certain Softwood

Lumber Products from Canada

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

EFFECTIVE DATE: April 30, 2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eric

B. Greynolds at (202) 482–6071 or James

Terpstra at (202) 482–3965, Office of

AD/CVD Enforcement VI, Group II,

Import Administration, International

Trade Administration, U.S. Department

of Commerce, Room 1870, 14th Street

and Constitution Avenue, NW.,

Washington, DC 20230.

Initiation of Investigation

The Applicable Statute and Regulations

Unless otherwise indicated, all

citations to the statute are references to

the provisions effective January 1, 1995,

the effective date of the amendments

made to the Tariff Act of 1930 (the Act)

by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act

(URAA). In addition, unless otherwise

indicated, all citations to the

Department of Commerce (the

Department) regulations are references

to the provisions codified at 19 CFR part

351 (2001).

The Petition

On April 2, 2001, the Department

received a petition filed in proper form

by the Coalition for Fair Lumber Imports

Executive Committee,1 the United

Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners,

and the Paper, Allied-Industrial,

Chemical and Energy Workers

International Union (collectively, the

petitioners). On April 20, 2001, the

petition was amended to include the

following four companies individually

as petitioners: Moose River Lumber Co.,

Shearer Lumber Products, Shuqualak

Lumber Co. and Tolleson Lumber Co.,

Inc. The Department received

information supplementing the petition

during the twenty-day initiation period.

In accordance with section 702(b) of the

Act, petitioners allege that Canadian

producers of softwood lumber products

received countervailable subsidies

within the meaning of section 701 of the

Act, and that such imports are

materially injuring an industry in the

United States.

The Department finds that the

petitioners have standing to file this

petition on behalf of the domestic

industry because they are interested

parties as defined in sections 771(9)(C),

(D) and (E) of the Act and have

demonstrated sufficient industry

support with respect to the

countervailing duty investigation that

they are requesting the Department to

initiate. See Determination of Industry

Support for the Petition, below.

Scope of Investigation

The products covered by this

investigation 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 fingerjointed;

(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 mouldings 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 U.S.

Customs purposes, the written

description of the merchandise under

investigation is dispositive.

During our review of the petition, we

discussed the scope with the petitioners

to ensure that it accurately reflects the

products for which the domestic

industry is seeking relief. Moreover, as

discussed in the preamble to the

Department’s regulations (62 FR 27323),

we are setting aside a period for parties

to raise issues regarding product

coverage. The Department encourages

all interested parties to submit such

comments within twenty days after the

date of publication of this notice in the

Federal Register. Comments should be

addressed to Import Administration’s

Central Records Unit at Room 1870, U.S.

Department of Commerce, 14th Street

and Constitution Avenue, NW.,

Washington, DC 20230. The period for

scope comments is intended to provide

the Department with ample opportunity

to consider all comments and consult

with parties prior to the issuance of the

preliminary determination.

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 83 / Monday, April 30, 2001 / Notices 21333

2See Algoma Steel Corp. Ltd., v. United States,

688 F. Supp. 639, 642–44 (CIT 1988); High

Information Content Flat Panel Displays and

Display Glass from Japan: Final Determination;

Rescission of Investigation and Partial Dismissal of

Petition, 56 FR 32376, 32380–81 (July 16, 1991).

Consultations

Pursuant to section 702(b)(4)(A)(ii) of

the Act, the Department invited

representatives of the Government of

Canada (GOC) for consultations with

respect to the countervailing duty

investigation. The Department held

consultations with representatives of the

GOC on April 18, 2001. See the April

19, 2001, memorandum to the file

regarding these consultations (public

documents on file in the Central

Records Unit (CRU) of the Department

of Commerce, Room B–099). In

addition, on April 19 and 20, 2001, the

Government of Canada submitted

additional written comments pursuant

to the consultations.

Determination of Industry Support for

the Petition

Section 771(4)(A) of the Act defines

the ‘‘industry’’ as the producers of a

domestic like product. Thus, when

determining the degree of industry

support, the statute directs the

Department to look to producers and

workers who produce the domestic like

product. The International Trade

Commission (ITC), which is responsible

for determining whether ‘‘the domestic

industry’’ has been injured, must also

determine what constitutes a domestic

like product in order to define the

industry. While both the Department

and the ITC must apply the same

statutory definition regarding the

domestic like product (section 771(10)

of the Act), they do so for different

purposes and pursuant to separate and

distinct authority. In addition, the

Department’s determination is subject to

limitations of time and information.

Although this may result in different

definitions of the like product, such

differences do not render the decision of

either agency contrary to the law.2

Section 771(10) of the Act defines the

domestic like product as ‘‘a product

which is like, or in the absence of like,

most similar in characteristics and uses

with, the article subject to an

investigation under this subtitle.’’ Thus,

the reference point from which the

domestic like product analysis begins is

‘‘the article subject to an investigation,’’

i.e., the class or kind of merchandise to

be investigated, which normally will be

the scope as defined in the petition.

The petition covers softwood lumber

as defined in the Scope of Investigation

section, above, a single class or kind of

merchandise. The petitioners define the

domestic like product as the class or

kind of merchandise covered by the

scope of the investigation. The

Department has no basis on the record

to find the petitioners’ definition of the

domestic like product to be inaccurate.

The Department, therefore, has

adopted the domestic like product

definition set forth in the petition.

Section 702(b)(1) of the Act requires

that a petition be filed on behalf of the

domestic industry. Section 702(c)(4)(A)

of the Act provides that a petition meets

this requirement if the domestic

producers or workers who support the

petition account for: (1) At least 25

percent of the total production of the

domestic like product; and (2) more

than 50 percent of the production of the

domestic like product produced by that

portion of the industry expressing

support for, or opposition to, the

petition. Finally, section 702(c)(4)(D) of

the Act provides that if the petition does

not establish support of domestic

producers or workers accounting for

more than 50 percent of the total

production of the domestic like product,

the administering agency shall: (i) Poll

the industry or rely on other

information in order to determine if

there is support for the petition as

required by subparagraph (A), or (ii)

determine industry support using a

statistically valid sampling method.

In this case, the Department has

determined that the petition (and

subsequent amendments) contain

adequate evidence of industry support;

therefore, polling is unnecessary. See

Attachment I to Initiation of

Countervailing Duty Investigation:

Certain Softwood Lumber Products from

Canada (April 23, 2001) (Initiation

Checklist), a public document on file in

the CRU. To estimate total domestic

production of softwood lumber

products, the petitioners relied on year

2000 production figures published by

the American Forest and Paper

Association (AF&PA). The petitioners

also made an upward adjustment to this

figure to account, conservatively, for

flooring and siding that may or may not

otherwise be included in the AF&PA

total production figure, but which is

included in the definition of domestic

like product. In a letter dated April 20,

2001, the Government of Canada

attempted to show that this upward

adjustment to the year 2000 total

production figure was inadequate, and

argued that numerous other product

categories should also be added to the

total production figure. We analyzed the

claim made by the Government of

Canada and have concluded that it

would result in significant doublecounting. Further, we have found no

other evidence through independent

research that would indicate that the

petitioners’ figure for total U.S.

production is in any way understated.

We therefore conclude that 67 percent

of the U.S. softwood lumber-producing

industry supports the petition. Because

the petition has support from more than

50 percent of the entire domestic

industry, we are not required to

consider any expression of opposition

in our determination to initiate this

investigation. Accordingly, the

Department determines that this

petition is filed on behalf of the

domestic industry within the meaning

of section 702(b)(1) of the Act.

Injury Test

Because Canada is a ‘‘Subsidies

Agreement Country’’ within the

meaning of section 701(b) of the Act,

section 701(a)(2) applies to this

investigation. Accordingly, the ITC must

determine whether imports of the

subject merchandise from Canada

materially injure, or threaten material

injury to, a U.S. industry.

Allegations of Subsidies

Section 702(b) of the Act requires the

Department to initiate a countervailing

duty proceeding whenever an interested

party files, on behalf of an industry, a

petition that: (1) Alleges the elements

necessary for an imposition of a duty

under section 701(a); and (2) is

accompanied by information reasonably

available to petitioners supporting the

allegations.

We are initiating an investigation of

the following programs alleged in the

petition to have provided

countervailable subsidies to producers

and exporters of the subject

merchandise in Canada (a full

description of each program is provided

in the Initiation Checklist):

A. Federal and Provincial Timber

Management Systems

This includes stumpage provided for

less than adequate remuneration in the

Provinces of British Columbia, Quebec,

Ontario, Alberta, Manitoba,

Saskatchewan, and the Yukon Territory

and Northwest Territories. With respect

to the Provinces of British Columbia,

Quebec, Ontario, and Alberta, if we

determine that cross-border is not an

appropriate benchmark, we will also

examine log export restrictions under

the criteria of 771(5)(B). See Initiation

Checklist.

21334 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 83 / Monday, April 30, 2001 / Notices

B. Programs Administered by the

Government of Canada

1. Non-Repayable Grants and

Conditionally Repayable

Contributions from the Department of

Western Economic Diversification

2. Canadian Forest Service: Industry,

Trade and Economics Program

3. Federal Economic Development

Initiative in Northern Ontario

C. Programs Administered by the

Province of British Columbia

1. Grants, Loans and Loan Guarantees

Provided from Forest Renewal B.C.

2. Job Protection Act

3. Subsidies to Skeena Cellulose Inc.

D. Programs Administered by the

Province of Quebec

1. Societe de Recuperation,

d’Exploitation et Developpement

Forestiers du Quebec (REXFOR)

2. Assistance under Article 7 of the

Societe de Developpement Industriel

du Quebec (SDI)

3. Export Assistance under SDI

4. Export Assistance from

Investissement Quebec

5. Redemption by Tembec, Inc. of

Preferred Stock Held by SDI

6. Private Forest Development Program

7. Funds to Create Jobs in Forest

Industry under Budget of Quebec

E. Programs Administered by the

Province of Ontario

1. Development Corporations of the

Government of Ontario: Export

Support Loan Program

2. Sales Tax Exemption for Seedlings

F. Program Administered by the

Province of Alberta

1. Loan Guarantees to Attract New Mills

We are not initiating an investigation

of the following programs alleged in the

petition to have provided

countervailable subsidies to producers

and exporters of the subject

merchandise in Canada (a full

description of each program and the

reason for not initiating an investigation

of the program is provided in the

Initiation Checklist):

A. Programs Administered by the

Government of Canada

1. Loan Gurantees, Loan Insurance and

Credit Insurance from the Department

of Western Economic Diversification

2. Northern Ontario Business

Development Loan Fund for Small to

Medium Sized Businesses

3. Logging Tax Deduction

B. Programs Administered by the

Province of British Columbia

1. B.C. Rail Volume Incentive Program

for Lumber

2. Forest Science Program

3. Identified Wildlife Management

Strategy and Landscape Unit Planning

4. B.C. Council of Forest Industries

Marketing Plan

5. Toleration of Timber Theft

6. Excessive Contract Payments to

Producers from Forest Renewal B.C.

C. Programs Administered by the

Province of Quebec

1. Small-Wood Subsidy

2. Timber Under-Scaling

3. Financing Assistance from

Investissement Quebec

4. Preferential Loans to Tembec, Inc.

5. APEX Program

6. Refinancing of Domtar Inc: New

Share Subscription by Crown

Corporations

7. Refinancing of Domtar Inc:

Conversion of SDI Loan into Preferred

Shares

D. Programs Administered by the

Province of Alberta

1. Industrial Electricity Rebate Program

2. Infrastructure Grants to Attract New

Mills

Critical Circumstances

In their submission, the petitioners

claim that, following the March 31,

2001, expiration of the U.S.-Canada

Softwood Lumber Agreement (SLA),

there is a reasonable basis to believe or

suspect that critical circumstances will

exist with regard to imports of softwood

lumber from Canada.

Section 703(e)(1) of the Act states that

the Department will find that critical

circumstances exist, at any time after

the date of initiation, when there is a

reasonable basis to believe or suspect

that under paragraph (A) the alleged

countervailable subsidies are

inconsistent with the Subsidies

Agreement and that under paragraph (B)

there have been massive imports of the

subject merchandise over a relatively

short period of time. Section 351.206(h)

of our regulations defines ‘‘massive

imports’’ as imports that have increased

by at least by 15 percent over the

imports during an immediately

preceding period of comparable

duration. Section 351.206(i) of the

regulations states that ‘‘relatively short

period’’ will normally be defined as the

period beginning on the date the

proceeding begins and ending at least

three months later.

In the petition, petitioners allege

various export subsidy programs. We

have initiated investigations on the

following alleged export subsidy

programs: (1) Export Assistance from

the SDI, (2) Export Assistance from

Investissement Quebec, and (3) the

Development Corporations of the

Government of Ontario Export Support

Loan Program. Petitioners have alleged

that these programs are inconsistent

with the Subsidies Agreement.

The petitioners request that the

Department immediately begin

reviewing import data of the subject

merchandise and that the Department

request the U.S. Customs Service to

compile information on an expedited

basis regarding entries of subject

merchandise. We note that section

702(e) of the Act states that when there

is a reasonable basis to believe or

suspect that the alleged countervailable

subsidies are inconsistent with the

Subsidies Agreement, the Department

may request the Commissioner of

Customs to compile information on an

expedited basis regarding entries of the

subject merchandise.

Taking into consideration the

foregoing, we will analyze this matter

further and continue to monitor imports

of softwood lumber from Canada. If at

any time, the criteria for a finding of

critical circumstances are established,

we will issue a critical circumstances

finding at the earliest possible date. See

Policy Bulletin 98/4, 63 FR 55364,

(October 15, 1998) (determination of

critical circumstances may be made any

time after initiation).

Allegations and Evidence of Material

Injury and Causation

The petitioners allege that the U.S.

industry producing the domestic like

product is being materially injured, or is

threatened with material injury, by

reason of the subsidization of individual

and cumulated imports of the subject

merchandise. Petitioners contend that

the industry’s injured condition is

evident in the declining trends in net

operating profits, net sales volumes,

profit-to-sales ratios, and capacity

utilization. The allegations of injury and

causation are supported by relevant

evidence including U.S. Customs import

data, lost sales, and pricing information.

We have assessed the allegations and

supporting evidence regarding material

injury and causation, and have

determined that these allegations are

properly supported by accurate and

adequate evidence and meet the

statutory requirements for initiation. See

Attachment II of the Initiation Checklist.

Initiation of Countervailing Duty

Investigation

The Department has examined the

countervailing duty petition on certain

softwood lumber products from Canada,

and found that it complies with the

requirements of section 702(b) of the

Act. Therefore, in accordance with

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 83 / Monday, April 30, 2001 / Notices 21335

section 702(b) of the Act, we are

initiating a countervailing duty

investigation to determine whether

manufacturers, producers, or exporters

of certain softwood lumber products

from Canada receive countervailable

subsidies.

Exclusion Requests

Due to the extraordinarily large

number of Canadian producers, the

Department anticipates that it will

conduct this countervailing duty

investigation on an aggregate basis

consistent with section 777A(e)(2)(B) of

the Act. If so, the Department expects

that it will receive numerous requests

for exclusions during the course of this

investigation. In light of petitioners’

allegation that 75 percent of timber

harvest in the Maritime Provinces are

from private lands, we anticipate a

particularly large percentage of

exclusion requests from the Maritimes.

The circumstances that warranted a

general exclusion for the Maritimes in

the past are not present in this case.

Therefore, the Department anticipates

creating a system that will allow us to

expeditiously process and rule on these

exclusion requests without

compromising the integrity of the CVD

law, while, at the same time, ensuring

fairness and transparency in the

treatment of the exclusion requests. We

will seek the cooperation of the

Government of Canada and the

provincial governments in Canada in

implementing any such system, which

could involve, for example, province

and/or company certifications.

Comments on this issue should be

submitted to the Department within 15

days of the publication of this notice in

the Federal Register. Comments should

be addressed to Import Administration’s

Central Records Unit at Room 1870, U.S.

Department of Commerce, 14th Street

and Constitution Avenue, NW.,

Washington, DC 20230.

Distribution of Copies of the Petitions

In accordance with section

702(b)(3)(A) of the Act, a copy of the

public version of the petition has been

provided to the representatives of the

GOC.

ITC Notification

We have notified the ITC of our

initiation, as required by section 702(d)

of the Act.

Preliminary Determination by the ITC

The ITC will determine, no later than

May 17, 2001, whether there is a

reasonable indication that imports of

certain softwood lumber products from

Canada are causing material injury, or

threatening to cause material injury, to

a U.S. industry. A negative ITC

determination will result in the

investigation being terminated;

otherwise, the investigation will

proceed according to statutory and

regulatory time limits.

This notice is published pursuant to

section 777(i) of the Act. Effective

January 20, 2001, Bernard T. Carreau is

fulfilling the duties of the Assistant

Secretary for Import Administration.

Dated: April 23, 2001.

Bernard T. Carreau,

Deputy Assistant Secretary, Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 01–10687 Filed 4–27–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration,

Commerce

Export Trade Certificate of Review

ACTION: Notice of issuance of an

amended Export Trade Certificate of

Review, Application No. 88–4A012.

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce

has issued an amendment to the Export

Trade Certificate of Review granted to

The National Tooling and Machining

Association (‘‘NTMA’’) on April 5, 2001.

Notice of issuance of the original

Certificate was published in the Federal

Register on October 25, 1988 (53 FR

43140).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Vanessa M. Bachman, Acting Director,

Office of Export Trading Company

Affairs, International Trade

Administration, (202) 482–5131. This is

not a toll-free number.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Title III of

the Export Trading Company Act of

1982 (15 U.S.C. 4001–21) authorizes the

Secretary of Commerce to issue Export

Trade Certificates of Review. The

regulations implementing Title III are

found at 15 CFR part 325 (2000).

The Office of Export Trading

Company Affairs (‘‘OETCA’’) is issuing

this notice pursuant to 15 CFR 325.6(b),

which requires the Department of

Commerce to publish a summary of a

Certificate in the Federal Register.

Under Section 305(a) of the Act and 15

CFR 325.11(a), any person aggrieved by

the Secretary’s determination may,

within 30 days of the date of this notice,

bring an action in any appropriate

district court of the United States to set

aside the determination on the ground

that the determination is erroneous.

Description of Amended Certificate:

Export Trade Certificate of Review

No. 88–00012, was originally issued to

NTMA on October 18, 1988 (53 FR

43140, October 25, 1988).

NTMA’s Export Trade Certificate of

Review has been amended so that the

attached list will constitute the

‘‘Members’’ of the Certificate within the

meaning of section 325.2(1) of the

Regulations (15 CFR 325.2(1)).

Effective Date: December 5, 2000.

Dated: April 23, 2001.

Vanessa M. Bachman,

Acting Director, Office of Export Trading

Company Affairs.

BILLING CODE 3510–D–R–F

NTMA CERTIFICATE MEMBER LIST APPLICATION 88–4A012

Name Location

A & A Industries, Inc ......................................................................................................................................... Peabody, MA.

A & A Machine Company, Inc .......................................................................................................................... Southampton, PA.

A & A Machine Shop, Inc ................................................................................................................................. La Marque, TX.

A & B Machine .................................................................................................................................................. Van Nuys, CA.

A & B Machine Shop ........................................................................................................................................ Rockford, IL.

A & B Tool & Manufacturing Corp .................................................................................................................... Toledo, OH.

A & D Precision ................................................................................................................................................. Fremont, CA.

A & E Custom Manufacturing ........................................................................................................................... Kansas City, KS.

A & E Machine Shop, Inc ................................................................................................................................. Lone Star, TX.

A & G Machine, Inc ........................................................................................................................................... Auburn, WA.

A & S Tool & Die Company, Inc ....................................................................................................................... Kernersville, NC.

A A Precisioneering, Inc ................................................................................................................................... Meadville, PA.

A B A Division ................................................................................................................................................... Manchester, CT.