Quiero saber acerca de...

lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 229 / Thursday, December 2, 2021 / Notices Companies Under Review IX. Analysis of Comments Comment 1: Whether Commerce Should Have Used a Sampling Methodology to Select Respondents for This Review Comment 2: Whether Commerce Properly Required Respondents to Report Other Assistance Comment 3: Whether Electricity Is a Good or a Service Comment 4: Whether Electricity Curtailment Programs Are Countervailable Comment 5: Whether Ontario and Quebec Agreements with Consumers to Reduce GHG Are Grants Comment 6: Whether Commerce Should Include Fontaine and Mobilier Rustique in the Final Customs Instructions Comment 7: Whether Various Grant Programs Are Government Purchases of Services Comment 8: Whether Stumpage Is an Untied Subsidy Comment 9: Whether to Compare Government Transaction-Specific Prices to an Average Benchmark Price Comment 10: Whether Commerce Should Calculate Negative Benefits in the Stumpage for LTAR Program Comment 11: Whether the Alberta Stumpage Market Is Distorted Comment 12: Whether There Is a Useable Tier-One Benchmark in British Columbia Comment 13: Whether There Is a Useable Tier-One Benchmark in British Columbia Comment 14: Whether the Private Stumpage Market in New Brunswick Is Distorted and Should Be Used as a TierOne Benchmark Comment 15: Whether Ontarios Crown Stumpage Market Is Distorted Comment 16: Whether Ontarios Stumpage Prices Distort the Log Market Comment 17: Whether the Ontario Standing Timber Market Is Distorted and Whether the MNP Ontario Survey Prices May Serve as an Appropriate Tier One Benchmark Comment 18: Whether Commerce Should Revise Resolutes Stumpage Benefit Calculation Regarding Corrected Transactions Comment 19: Whether Quebecs Stumpage Market Is Distorted Comment 20: Whether Quebecs Auction Prices are an Appropriate Tier-One Benchmark to Measure Whether the GOO sold Crown-Origin Standing Timber for LTAR
Comment 21: Whether Commerce Should Use F2M Pricing Data for a U.S. PNW
Log Benchmark Comment 22: Whether Commerce Should Continue to Use a Beetle-Killed Benchmark Price for the Final Results Comment 23: Whether Commerces Selection of a Log Volume Conversion Factor Was Appropriate Comment 24: Whether Commerce Should Adjust for Tenure Security in British Columbia Comment 25: Whether Commerce Should Adjust the BC Log Benchmark Price for Scaling and G&A Costs Comment 26: Whether to Account for BCs Stand-as-a-whole Stumpage Pricing
VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:49 Dec 01, 2021

Jkt 256001

Comment 27: Whether the 20172018
Private Stumpage Survey Is Sufficiently Contemporaneous for Use as a Tier-One Benchmark Comment 28: Whether Nova Scotia Is Comparable to Quebec, Ontario, and Alberta in Terms of Haulage Costs and Whether to Otherwise Adjust the Nova Scotia Benchmark to Account for Such Differences Comment 29: Whether to Revise the Conversion Factor Used in Calculation of the Nova Scotia Benchmark Comment 30: Whether Commerce Should Adjust the Method Used to Index the Nova Scotia Benchmark Comment 31: Whether to Adjust the Nova Scotia Benchmark to Account for FireKilled Timber Harvested in Alberta Comment 32: Whether to Adjust the Nova Scotia Benchmark to Account for BeetleKilled-Timber Harvested in Alberta Comment 33: Whether to Adjust the Nova Scotia Benchmark to Account for Beetle Killed-Timber Harvested in Quebec Comment 34: Whether Commerce Should Adjust the Nova Scotia Benchmark to Account for Log Product Characteristics Comment 35: Whether SPF Tree Species in Nova Scotia Are Comparable to SPF Tree Species in Quebec, Ontario, and Alberta Comment 36: Whether to Adjust the Nova Scotia Benchmark to Account for Species Differences Comment 37: Whether Log Pricing Differences Between Nova Scotia and New Brunswick Require an Adjustment to the Nova Scotia Benchmark Utilized in JDILs Stumpage Benefit Analysis Comment 38: Whether Commerce Should Adjust the Nova Scotia Benchmark for Regional Price Disparities Within Nova Scotia Comment 39: Whether Private Standing Timber Prices in Nova Scotia Are Available in the Provinces at Issue Comment 40: Whether the Tree Size in Nova Scotia, as Measured by Diameter, Is Comparable to Tree Size in Quebec, Ontario, and Alberta Comment 41: Whether Nova Scotias Forest Is Comparable to the Forests of New Brunswick, Quebec, Ontario, and Alberta Comment 42: Whether Pulpmill Consumption of Standing Timber in Nova Scotia Creates Unique Market Conditions that Are Not Comparable to Market Conditions in Quebec, Ontario, and Alberta Comment 43: Whether There Is a Fragmented and Shrinking Market for Private Timber in Nova Scotia That Has Caused Standing Timber Prices to Increase Comment 44: Reliability of Nova Scotia Private-Origin Standing Timber Benchmark Comment 45: Whether Commerce Should Publicly Disclose the Anonymized Data that Comprise the 20172018 Private Market Survey and the Price Index Used to Calculate the Nova Scotia Benchmark Comment 46: Whether Commerce Should Make Adjustments to Stumpage Rates Paid by the Respondents to Account for Total Remuneration in Alberta, New Brunswick, Ontario, and Quebec
PO 00000

Frm 00010

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

68469

Comment 47: Whether Commerce Should Find Restrictions on Log Exports in Alberta, New Brunswick, Ontario, and Quebec to Be Countervailable Subsidies Comment 48: Whether the LER in British Columbia Results in a Financial Contribution Comment 49: Whether Log Export Restraints Have an Impact in British Columbia Comment 50: Whether Commerce Correctly Calculated a Benefit for BC Hydro EPAs Comment 51: Whether Benefits Under the BC Hydro EPA Program Are Tied to Electricity Production and Not Lumber Products Comment 52: Whether Resolutes Ontario and Quebec Electricity PPAs Are Tied to Non-Subject Merchandise Comment 53: Whether Commerces Specificity and Benchmark Analyses Were Inconsistent for Ontarios and Quebecs Electricity PPA Programs Comment 54: Whether Commerce Applied the Correct Benchmark to Calculate the Benefit Under IESOs CHP III Program Comment 55: Whether IESOs CHP III
Program Is Specific Comment 56: Whether Commerce Applied the Correct Benchmark to Calculate the Benefit Under Hydro-Quebecs PAE
201101 Program Comment 57: Whether Hydro-Quebecs PAE 201101 Program Is Specific Comment 58: Whether the Payments Made from AESO to West Fraser for Load Shedding Constitute a Financial Contribution Comment 59: Whether the AESO Load Shedding Program Is a Grant Comment 60: Whether the Benefit for Load Shedding Payments to West Fraser Should Be Adjusted for West Frasers Costs Incurred Comment 61: Whether the Canada-Alberta Job Grant Is Regionally Specific Comment 62: Whether the CES Program Is Specific Comment 63: Whether the BC Hydro PowerSmart Incentives Subprogram Is Specific Comment 64: Whether the Purchase of Carbon Offsets from Canfor Is Countervailable Comment 65: Whether Payments Made to West Fraser for Cruising and Block Layout Are Countervailable Comment 66: Whether Commerce Should Continue to Find the Silviculture and License Management Programs Countervailable Comment 67: Whether Commerce Should Find LIREPP Countervailable Comment 68: Whether Disaster Relief Provided to JDIL to Repair Roads Is Countervailable Comment 69: Whether the DTI Settlement with JDIL Was Countervailable Comment 70: Whether the OFRFP Is Countervailable Comment 71: Whether the TargetGHG
Program Is Specific Comment 72: Whether the TargetGHG Is Tied to Non-Subject Merchandise Comment 73: Whether the IESO Retrofit Program Is Specific
E:FRFM02DEN1.SGM

02DEN1