Certain Softwood Lumber Products From Canada: Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination, and Final Negative Determination of Critical Circumstances, 51814-51819 [2017-24204]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
51814
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 215 / Wednesday, November 8, 2017 / Notices
date of publication of this notice, unless
the deadline is extended.5
Assessment Rates
Upon issuance of the final results, the
Department shall determine, and U.S.
Customs and Border Protection (CBP)
shall assess, antidumping duties on all
appropriate entries covered by this
review.6
We will calculate importer-specific ad
valorem duty assessment rates based on
the ratio of the total amount of
antidumping duties calculated for the
examined sales to the total entered
value of the examined sales to that
importer. Where either the respondent’s
weighted-average dumping margin is
zero or de minimis within the meaning
of 19 CFR 351.106(c), or an importerspecific assessment rate is zero or de
minimis, we will instruct CBP to
liquidate the appropriate entries
without regard to antidumping duties.7
The final results of this review shall be
the basis for the assessment of
antidumping duties on entries of
merchandise covered by the final results
of this review and for future deposits of
estimated duties, where applicable.8
We intend to issue instructions to
CBP 15 days after the publication date
of the final results of this review.
ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES
Cash Deposit Requirements
The following cash deposit
requirements will be effective for all
shipments of the subject merchandise
entered, or withdrawn from warehouse,
for consumption on or after the
publication date of the final results of
this administrative review, as provided
by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1)
The cash deposit rate for LGE will be
the rate established in the final results
of this review, except if the rate is less
than 0.50 percent and, therefore, de
minimis within the meaning of 19 CFR
351.106(c)(1), in which case the cash
deposit rate will be zero; (2) for
previously reviewed or investigated
companies not participating in this
review, the cash deposit rate will
continue to be the company-specific rate
published for the most recent period; (3)
if the exporter is not a firm covered in
this review, a prior review, or the lessthan-fair-value (LTFV) investigation, but
the manufacturer is, the cash deposit
rate will be the rate established for the
5 See section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR
351.213(h).
6 See 19 CFR 351.212(b).
7 See Antidumping Proceedings: Calculation of
the Weighted-Average Dumping Margin and
Assessment Rate in Certain Antidumping Duty
Proceedings; Final Modification, 77 FR 8101, 8103
(February 14, 2012).
8 See section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:26 Nov 07, 2017
Jkt 244001
most recent period for the manufacturer
of the merchandise; and (4) the cash
deposit rate for all other manufacturers
or exporters will continue to be 11.80
percent, the all-others rate established
in the LTFV investigation.9 These
deposit requirements, when imposed,
shall remain in effect until further
notice.
Notification to Importers
This notice also serves as a
preliminary reminder to importers of
their responsibility under 19 CFR
351.402(f) to file a certificate regarding
the reimbursement of antidumping and/
or countervailing duties prior to
liquidation of the relevant entries
during this review period. Failure to
comply with this requirement could
result in the Secretary’s presumption
that reimbursement of antidumping
duties and/or countervailing duties
occurred and the subsequent assessment
of double antidumping duties.
We are issuing and publishing these
results in accordance with sections
751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act, and 19
CFR 351.221(b)(4).
Dated: October 31, 2017.
Gary Taverman,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping
and Countervailing Duty Operations,
performing the non-exclusive functions and
duties of the Assistant Secretary for
Enforcement and Compliance.
Appendix
List of Topics Discussed in the Preliminary
Decision Memorandum
I. Summary
II. Background
III. Scope of the Order
IV. Discussion of the Methodology
A. Comparisons to Normal Value
1. Determination of Comparison Method
2. Results of the Differential Pricing
Analysis
B. Product Comparisons
C. Export Price and Constructed Export
Price
D. Normal Value
1. Home Market Viability and Selection of
Comparison Market
2. Affiliated Party Transactions and Arm’sLength Test
3. Level of Trade
E. Cost of Production Analysis
1. Calculation of COP
2. Test of Comparison Market Sales Prices
3. Results of the COP Test
F. Calculation of NV Based on Comparison
Market Prices
G. Calculation of NV Based on CV
H. Currency Conversion
V. Recommendation
[FR Doc. 2017–24200 Filed 11–7–17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
9 See Large Residential Washers from Mexico and
the Republic of Korea: Antidumping Duty Orders,
78 FR 11148 (February 15, 2013).
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[C–122–858]
Certain Softwood Lumber Products
From Canada: Final Affirmative
Countervailing Duty Determination,
and Final Negative Determination of
Critical Circumstances
Enforcement and Compliance,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce
(the Department) determines that
countervailable subsidies are being
provided to producers and exporters of
certain softwood lumber products
(softwood lumber) from Canada. The
period of investigation is January 1,
2015, through December 31, 2015.
DATES: Applicable: November 8, 2017.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Lana Nigro (Tolko), Toby Vandall
(Canfor), Justin Neuman (JDIL), Patricia
Tran (West Fraser), and Kristen Johnson
(Resolute), AD/CVD Operations, Offices
I and III, Enforcement and Compliance,
International Trade Administration,
U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401
Constitution Avenue NW., Washington,
DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–1779,
(202) 482–1664, (202) 482–0486, (202)
482–1503, and (202) 482–4793,
respectively.
AGENCY:
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On April 26, 2017, the Department
published the Preliminary
Determination of Critical
Circumstances.1 On April 28, 2017, the
Department published the Preliminary
Determination in this countervailing
duty (CVD) investigation, in which the
Department preliminarily found that
countervailable subsidies are being
provided to producers and exporters of
softwood lumber from Canada.2 A
summary of the events that have
occurred since the Department
published the Preliminary
Determination, as well as a full
discussion of the issues raised by parties
1 See Antidumping and Countervailing Duty
Investigations of Certain Softwood Lumber Products
from Canada: Preliminary Determinations of
Critical Circumstances, 82 FR 19219 (April 26,
2017) (Preliminary Determination of Critical
Circumstances).
2 See Certain Softwood Lumber Products from
Canada: Preliminary Affirmative Countervailing
Duty Determination, and Alignment of Final
Determination With Final Antidumping Duty
Determination, 82 FR 19657 (April 28, 2017) and
accompanying Preliminary Decision Memorandum
(Preliminary Decision Memorandum) (collectively,
Preliminary Determination).
E:\FR\FM\08NON1.SGM
08NON1
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 215 / Wednesday, November 8, 2017 / Notices
for this final determination, may be
found in the Issues and Decision
Memorandum.3 The Issues and Decision
Memorandum is a public document and
is on file electronically via Enforcement
and Compliance’s Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Centralized
Electronic Service System (ACCESS).
ACCESS is available to registered users
at https://access.trade.gov, and to all
parties in the Central Records Unit,
Room B8024 of the main Department of
Commerce building. In addition, a
complete version of the Issues and
Decision Memorandum can be accessed
directly at https://enforcement.trade.gov/
frn/.
Scope of the Investigation
The product covered by this
investigation is softwood lumber from
Canada. For a complete description of
the scope of this investigation, see
Appendix I.
Scope Comments
In accordance with the Preliminary
Determination, Preliminary Scope
Decision Memorandum, and ALB
Decision Memorandum,4 the
Department set aside a period of time
for parties to raise issues regarding
product coverage (i.e., proposed
exclusions from the scope). Certain
interested parties commented on the
scope of the investigation as it appeared
in the Preliminary Determination,
Preliminary Scope Decision
Memorandum, and ALB Decision
Memorandum. Therefore, the scope of
this investigation has been modified for
this final determination. For a summary
of the product coverage comments and
rebuttal responses submitted to the
record for this final determination, and
accompanying discussion and analysis
of all comments timely received, see the
Issues and Decision Memorandum and
Final Scope Decision Memorandum.5
Verification
As provided in section 782(i) of the
Tariff Act of 1930 (the Act), during June
2017, the Department conducted
verification of the information
submitted by the Government of British
Columbia, Government of Alberta,
Government of Ontario, Government of
Quebec, Government of New
Brunswick, Government of Nova Scotia,
the respondent companies Canfor
Corporation (Canfor), Resolute FP
Canada Inc. (Resolute), Tolko Marketing
and Sales Ltd. and Tolko Industries Ltd.
(Tolko), and West Fraser Timber Co.
Ltd. (West Fraser), and voluntary
respondent J.D. Irving, Limited (JDIL)
for use in the Department’s final
determination.6 The Department used
standard verification procedures,
including an examination of original
source documents provided by the
respondents.
Analysis of Subsidy Programs and
Comments Received
The subsidy programs under
investigation and all issues raised in the
case and rebuttal briefs that were
submitted by parties in this
investigation are addressed in the Issues
and Decision Memorandum. A list of
these issues is attached to this notice as
Appendix II.
Changes Since the Preliminary
Determination
Based on the Department’s analysis of
the comments received and
consideration of the verification reports,
the Department made certain changes to
the subsidy rate calculations for each of
the respondents. For a discussion of the
Department’s changes, see the Issues
and Decision Memorandum. As a result
of these changes, the Department has
also revised the ‘‘All-Others’’ rate
calculated for the non-individually
examined companies as discussed
below.
All-Others Rate
In accordance with section
705(c)(1)(B)(i)(I) of the Act, the
Department must determine an
estimated all-others rate for all exporters
and producers not individually
examined. Pursuant to section
705(c)(5)(A) of the Act, this rate is
normally an amount equal to the
weighted average of the estimated
subsidy rates established for those
exporters and producers individually
examined, excluding any zero and de
minimis countervailable subsidy rates,
and any rates based entirely under
section 776 of the Act.
In this investigation, the Department
calculated individual estimated
countervailable subsidy rates for Canfor,
JDIL,7 Resolute, Tolko, and West Fraser,
that are not zero, de minimis, or based
entirely on facts otherwise available.
Therefore, pursuant to section
705(c)(5)(A) of the Act, the Department
calculated the all-others rate using a
weighted-average of the individual
estimated subsidy rates calculated for
the examined respondents using each
company’s business proprietary data for
the merchandise under consideration.8
Final Determination
The Department determines that the
following estimated countervailable
subsidy rates exist:
Subsidy
rate
(%)
Company
ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES
Canfor Corporation and its cross-owned affiliates 9 ............................................................................................................................
J.D. Irving, Limited and its cross-owned affiliates 10 ...........................................................................................................................
Resolute FP Canada Inc. and its cross-owned affiliates 11 ................................................................................................................
Tolko Marketing and Sales Ltd. and its cross-owned affiliates 12 .......................................................................................................
3 See Memorandum, ‘‘Issues and Decision
Memorandum for the Final Determination in the
Countervailing Duty Investigation of Certain
Softwood Lumber Products from Canada,’’ dated
concurrently with, and hereby adopted by, this
notice (Issues and Decision Memorandum).
4 See Memorandum, ‘‘Certain Softwood Lumber
Products from Canada: Scope Decision,’’ dated June
23, 2017 (Preliminary Scope Decision
Memorandum). In the Preliminary Scope Decision
Memorandum, the Department preliminarily
adopted certain exclusions from the scope of the
antidumping duty (AD) and CVD investigations and
stated its intention to consider expanded
exclusionary language covering bed-frame
components, and exclusionary language for crating
ladder components, if submitted by interested
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:26 Nov 07, 2017
Jkt 244001
parties. See also Memorandum, ‘‘Decision
Memorandum for Exclusion of Certain Softwood
Lumber Products Certified By the Atlantic Lumber
Board in the Antidumping Duty and Countervailing
Duty Investigations of Certain Softwood Lumber
Products from Canada,’’ dated June 23, 2017 (ALB
Decision Memorandum), where the Department
preliminarily excluded from the scope softwood
lumber products certified by the Atlantic Lumber
Board (ALB) as being first produced in the
Provinces of Newfoundland and Labrador, Nova
Scotia, or Prince Edward Island from logs harvested
in these three provinces.
5 See Issues and Decision Memorandum; see also
Memorandum, ‘‘Certain Softwood Lumber Products
from Canada: Scope Decision,’’ dated concurrently
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4703
51815
Sfmt 4703
13.24
3.34
14.70
14.85
with, and hereby adopted by, this notice (Final
Scope Decision Memorandum).
6 See Memorandum to All Interested Parties titled
‘‘Countervailing Duty Investigation of Certain
Softwood Lumber Products from Canada:
Verification Schedule,’’ dated May 12, 2017.
7 See MacLean-Fogg Co. v. United States, 753
F.3d 1237 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (holding that voluntary
respondents are considered ‘‘individually
investigated’’ for purposes of calculating the allothers rate). The Department accepted JDIL as a
voluntary respondent in this investigation.
8 See Memorandum to the File, ‘‘Calculation of
the ‘‘All-Others’’ Rate in the Final Determination of
the Countervailing Duty Investigation of Softwood
Lumber Products from Canada’’ dated concurrently
with this notice.
E:\FR\FM\08NON1.SGM
08NON1
51816
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 215 / Wednesday, November 8, 2017 / Notices
Subsidy
rate
(%)
Company
West Fraser Mills Ltd. and its cross-owned affiliates 13 ......................................................................................................................
All-Others .............................................................................................................................................................................................
Final Negative Determination of
Critical Circumstances
In accordance with section 703(e) of
the Act, the Department preliminarily
found that critical circumstances existed
with respect to JDIL and the nonindividually examined companies
receiving the ‘‘All-Others’’ rate in this
investigation and did not exist with
respect to the respondents Canfor,
Resolute, Tolko, and West Fraser. The
Department received comments
concerning the preliminary affirmative
determination of critical circumstances.
For the final determination, the
Department finds that, in accordance
with 705(a)(2) of the Act, critical
circumstances do not exist for all
individually-examined respondents and
the non-individually examined
companies receiving the ‘‘All-Others’’
rate in this investigation. A discussion
of the determination can be found in the
Issues and Decision Memorandum.
ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES
Suspension of Liquidation
As a result of our Preliminary
Determination, and pursuant to sections
703(d)(1)(B) and (2) of the Act, we
instructed U.S. Customs and Border
Protection (CBP) to suspend liquidation
of all entries of merchandise under
consideration from Canada that were
entered or withdrawn from warehouse,
for consumption, on or after April 28,
2017, the date of publication of the
Preliminary Determination in the
Federal Register.
9 The Department has found the following
companies to be cross-owned with Canfor
Corporation: Canadian Forest Products, Ltd., and
Canfor Wood Products Marketing, Ltd.
10 The Department has found the following
companies to be cross-owned with JDIL: Miramichi
Timber Holdings Limited, The New Brunswick
Railway Company, Rothesay Paper Holdings Ltd.,
St. George Pulp & Paper Limited, and Irving Paper
Limited.
11 The Department has found the following
companies to be cross-owned with Resolute:
Resolute Growth Canada Inc., Resolute Sales Inc.,
Abitibi-Bowater Canada Inc., Bowater Canadian
Ltd., Resolute Forest Products Inc., Produits
Forestiers Maurice S.E.C., and 9192–8515 Quebec
Inc.
12 The Department has found the following
companies to be cross-owned with Tolko: Tolko
Industries Ltd., and Meadow Lake OSB Limited
Partnership.
13 The Department has found the following
companies to be cross-owned with West Fraser:
West Fraser Timber Co. Ltd., West Fraser Alberta
Holdings, Ltd., Blue Ridge Lumber Inc., Manning
Forest Products, Ltd., Sunpine Inc., and Sundre
Forest Products Inc.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:26 Nov 07, 2017
Jkt 244001
We preliminarily determined that
critical circumstances existed with
respect to entries of softwood lumber
from Canada made by JDIL and the nonindividually examined companies
receiving the ‘‘All-Others’’ rate in this
investigation. As a result, we instructed
CBP to suspend liquidation of entries
that were entered, or withdrawn from
warehouse, for consumption on or after
January 28, 2017, which is 90 days
before the date of the publication of the
Preliminary Determination in the
Federal Register. At that time, we
instructed CBP to collect cash deposits
of estimated countervailing duties for
such entries at the rates determined in
the Preliminary Determination.
In accordance with section 703(d) of
the Act, we later issued instructions to
CBP to discontinue the suspension of
liquidation for CVD purposes for subject
merchandise entered, or withdrawn
from warehouse, on or after August 26,
2017, but to continue the suspension of
liquidation of all entries between
January 28, 2017 (for JDIL and allothers) or April 28, 2017 (for the other
individually examined respondents),
and August 25, 2017, as appropriate.
Because we find critical
circumstances do not exist for JDIL and
the non-individually examined
companies receiving the ‘‘All-Others’’
rate in this investigation, we will direct
CBP to terminate the retroactive
suspension of liquidation ordered at the
Preliminary Determination and release
any cash deposits that were required
prior to April 28, 2017, consistent with
section 705(c)(3) of the Act.
If the International Trade Commission
(ITC) makes a final determination that
material injury or threat of material
injury does not exist, the proceeding
will be terminated and all securities
posted will be refunded or canceled. If
the ITC issues a final affirmative injury
determination, we will issue a CVD
order, reinstate the suspension of
liquidation under section 706(a) of the
Act, and require a cash deposit of
estimated CVDs for such entries of
subject merchandise in the amounts
indicated above.
Exclusion of Certain Softwood Lumber
Products Certified by the Atlantic
Lumber Board (ALB)
As noted in the scope of the
investigation (Appendix I), the
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
18.19
14.25
Department has excluded from the
scope of the investigation softwood
lumber products certified by the ALB as
being first produced in the Provinces of
Newfoundland and Labrador, Nova
Scotia, or Prince Edward Island from
logs harvested in Newfoundland and
Labrador, Nova Scotia, or Prince
Edward Island. We will instruct CBP to
require that the ALB certificate be
included with each entry and require
that the ALB certificate of origin number
be identified on each CBP Form 7501,
for such entries to be excluded from the
scope of the order, if issued. Further, if
an order is issued, we will instruct CBP
to refund cash deposits collected on any
suspended entries between April 28,
2017 (for the other individually
examined respondents), and August 25,
2017, as appropriate, that are
accompanied by the ALB certificate.
Disclosure
The Department intends to disclose to
interested parties its calculations and
analysis performed in this final
determination within five days of any
public announcement in accordance
with 19 CFR 351.224(b).
ITC Notification
In accordance with section 705(d) of
the Act, we will notify the ITC of our
determination. In addition, we are
making available to the ITC all nonprivileged and non-proprietary
information related to this investigation.
We will allow the ITC access to all
privileged and business proprietary
information in our files, provided the
ITC confirms that it will not disclose
such information, either publicly or
under an administrative protective order
(APO), without the written consent of
the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement
and Compliance.
Notification to Interested Parties
This notice serves as a reminder to
parties subject to an APO of their
responsibility concerning the
disposition of proprietary information
disclosed under APO in accordance
with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely
notification of the return or destruction
of APO materials, or conversion to
judicial protective order, is hereby
requested. Failure to comply with the
regulations and the terms of an APO is
a violation subject to sanction.
E:\FR\FM\08NON1.SGM
08NON1
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 215 / Wednesday, November 8, 2017 / Notices
This determination and notice are
issued and published pursuant to
sections 705(d) and 777(i) of the Act.
Dated: November 1, 2017.
Gary Taverman,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping
and Countervailing Duty Operations,
performing the non-exclusive functions and
duties of the Assistant Secretary for
Enforcement and Compliance.
ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES
Appendix I
Scope of the Investigation
The merchandise covered by this
investigation is softwood lumber, siding,
flooring and certain other coniferous wood
(softwood lumber products). The scope
includes:
• Coniferous wood, sawn, or chipped
lengthwise, sliced or peeled, whether or not
planed, whether or not sanded, or whether or
not finger-jointed, of an actual thickness
exceeding six millimeters.
• Coniferous wood siding, flooring, and
other coniferous wood (other than moldings
and dowel rods), including strips and friezes
for parquet flooring, that is continuously
shaped (including, but not limited to,
tongued, grooved, rebated, chamfered, Vjointed, beaded, molded, rounded) along any
of its edges, ends, or faces, whether or not
planed, whether or not sanded, or whether or
not end-jointed.
• Coniferous drilled and notched lumber
and angle cut lumber.
• Coniferous lumber stacked on edge and
fastened together with nails, whether or not
with plywood sheathing.
• Components or parts of semi-finished or
unassembled finished products made from
subject merchandise that would otherwise
meet the definition of the scope above.
Finished products are not covered by the
scope of this investigation. For the purposes
of this scope, finished products contain, or
are comprised of, subject merchandise and
have undergone sufficient processing such
that they can no longer be considered
intermediate products, and such products
can be readily differentiated from
merchandise subject to this investigation at
the time of importation. Such differentiation
may, for example, be shown through marks
of special adaptation as a particular product.
The following products are illustrative of the
type of merchandise that is considered
‘‘finished,’’ for the purpose of this scope: Ijoists; assembled pallets; cutting boards;
assembled picture frames; garage doors.
The following items are excluded from the
scope of this investigation:
• Softwood lumber products certified by
the Atlantic Lumber Board as being first
produced in the Provinces of Newfoundland
and Labrador, Nova Scotia, or Prince Edward
Island from logs harvested in Newfoundland
and Labrador, Nova Scotia, or Prince Edward
Island.
• U.S.-origin lumber shipped to Canada for
processing and imported into the United
States if the processing occurring in Canada
is limited to one or more of the following: (1)
Kiln drying; (2) planing to create smooth-tosize board; or (3) sanding.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:26 Nov 07, 2017
Jkt 244001
• 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 must
be radius-cut at both ends. The kits must be
individually packaged and must 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.
• 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 substantially cut so as to
completely round one corner.
Softwood lumber product imports are
generally entered under Chapter 44 of the
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United
States (HTSUS). This chapter of the HTSUS
covers ‘‘Wood and articles of wood.’’
Softwood lumber products that are subject to
this investigation are currently classifiable
under the following ten-digit HTSUS
subheadings in Chapter 44:
4407.10.01.01; 4407.10.01.02;
4407.10.01.15; 4407.10.01.16; 4407.10.01.17;
4407.10.01.18; 4407.10.01.19; 4407.10.01.20;
4407.10.01.42; 4407.10.01.43; 4407.10.01.44;
4407.10.01.45; 4407.10.01.46; 4407.10.01.47;
4407.10.01.48; 4407.10.01.49; 4407.10.01.52;
4407.10.01.53; 4407.10.01.54; 4407.10.01.55;
4407.10.01.56; 4407.10.01.57; 4407.10.01.58;
4407.10.01.59; 4407.10.01.64; 4407.10.01.65;
4407.10.01.66; 4407.10.01.67; 4407.10.01.68;
4407.10.01.69; 4407.10.01.74; 4407.10.01.75;
4407.10.01.76; 4407.10.01.77; 4407.10.01.82;
4407.10.01.83; 4407.10.01.92; 4407.10.01.93;
4409.10.05.00; 4409.10.10.20; 4409.10.10.40;
4409.10.10.60; 4409.10.10.80; 4409.10.20.00;
4409.10.90.20; 4409.10.90.40; and
4418.99.10.00.
Subject merchandise as described above
might be identified on entry documentation
as stringers, square cut box-spring-frame
components, fence pickets, truss
components, pallet components, flooring,
and door and window frame parts. Items so
identified might be entered under the
following ten-digit HTSUS subheadings in
Chapter 44:
4415.20.40.00; 4415.20.80.00;
4418.99.90.05; 4418.99.90.20; 4418.99.90.40;
4418.99.90.95; 4421.99.70.40; and
4421.99.97.80.
Although these HTSUS subheadings are
provided for convenience and customs
purposes, the written description of the
scope of this investigation is dispositive.
Appendix II
List of Topics Discussed in the Issues and
Decision Memorandum
Summary
Background
Case History
Period of Investigation
Scope of the Investigation
I. Scope Comments
Subsidies Valuation Information
A. Allocation Period
B. Attribution of Subsidies
C. Denominators
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
51817
D. Loan Interest Rate Benchmarks and
Discount Rates
Analysis of Programs
A. Programs Determined To Be
Countervailable
B. Programs Determined To Be Tied to
Non-Subject Merchandise
C. Programs Determined Not To Provide
Countervailable Benefits During the POI
D. Programs Determined Not To Be Used
During the POI
E. Program Determined To Be Not
Countervailable
F. Programs Deferred Until a Subsequent
Administrative Review
G. New Subsidy Allegations
Analysis of Comments
General Issues
Comment 1: Whether Critical Circumstances
Exist
Comment 2: Whether the Department Should
Consider Company-Specific Exclusion
Requests
Comment 3: Whether the Department Has the
Authority To Countervail Future
Assistance
Comment 4: Whether the Department Should
Countervail and Apply AFA to Certain
Untimely Reported Programs by JDIL and
Resolute
Comment 5: Whether the Department
Properly Requested Respondent
Interested Parties To Report ‘‘Other
Assistance’’
Comment 6: Whether the Department Should
Defer Examination of Certain Programs
Comment 7: Whether the Department Should
Make a Finding on the NSAs
Comment 8: Whether the Department
Correctly Determined if Certain Programs
are Specific
Comment 9: Whether the Department
Erroneously Applied its Attribution
Regulations
Comment 10: Whether the Department
Should Rely on Expert Reports
General Stumpage Issues
Comment 11: Whether the Provision of
Stumpage Rights Is a Financial
Contribution
Comment 12: Whether Evidence Establishes
No Market Distortion and Tier-One
Benchmarks Should Be Applied
Comment 13: Whether the Department Must
Compare Average Benchmark Prices to
Average Transaction Prices
Comment 14: Whether the Department Must
Conduct a Pass-Through Analysis
Comment 15: Whether the Net Benefit
Calculation for Stumpage for LTAR Is
Correct
Alberta Stumpage Issues
Comment 16: Benchmarking Alberta
Comment 17: Whether the Department
Should Use a U.S. Log Benchmark To
Compare Respondents’ Alberta
Stumpage Purchases
British Columbia Stumpage Issues
Comment 18: Whether Crown Auctions in
British Columbia Generate Valid Market
Prices
Comment 19: Whether the Department
Should Use Conversion Factors From the
BC Dual Scale Study
Comment 20: Whether the Department
Should Rely on Log Prices From
E:\FR\FM\08NON1.SGM
08NON1
ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES
51818
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 215 / Wednesday, November 8, 2017 / Notices
Forest2Market Instead of WDNR Prices
as a Benchmark To Compare
Respondents’ BC Stumpage Purchases
Comment 21: Whether U.S. PNW Log Prices
Should Not Be Used as a Benchmark
Because They Do Not Reflect Prevailing
Market Conditions in British Columbia
Comment 22: Whether the Department
Should Use a Timbermark-Specific
Annual Average Stumpage Price
Comment 23: Whether the Department
Should Consider BC Stumpage Prices on
a ‘‘Stand as a Whole’’ Basis
Comment 24: Whether the Department
Should Grant Cost Adjustments in
British Columbia
Comment 25: Whether the Department
Should Account for Differences in
Grading Systems in British Columbia
and the United States
Comment 26: Whether the Department
Should Adjust for a Non-Contract Profit
Rate
Comment 27: Whether the Department
Should Adjust the U.S. Benchmark Price
To Account for Tenure Security
New Brunswick Stumpage Issues
Comment 28: Whether Private Stumpage
Prices in New Brunswick Should Be
Used as Tier-One Benchmarks
Comment 29: Whether the Department
Should Use the New Brunswick Survey
as a Benchmark for Stumpage for LTAR
Ontario Stumpage Issues
Comment 30: Whether Stumpage for Ontario
Crown Timber Was Subsidized During
the Period of Investigation
Comment 31: Whether Ontario’s Private
Market Is Distorted and Whether
Ontario’s Private Prices Are an
Appropriate Benchmark
Comment 32: Whether the Ontario Log
Benchmark Relied on by the Department
in Lumber IV Would Demonstrate That
Ontario Crown Timber Is Not Subsidized
Comment 33: Whether Stumpage Charges
Distort Ontario’s Domestic Log Market
and Whether a Log Price Benchmark
Shows No Subsidy
Comment 34: Whether To Estimate Ontario’s
´
Crown Timber Prices With Quebec’s
Transposition Equation
´
Quebec Stumpage Issues
´
Comment 35: Whether the Quebec Stumpage
Market Is Distorted
Comment 36: Whether the Department Made
a Clerical Error in Its Calculation of the
´
Quebec Stumpage Benefit That It Should
Correct in Its Final Determination
Comment 37: Whether Resolute Pays
Competitive Prices for Its Purchases of
Non-TSG or Non-Tenured Timber
Comment 38: Whether the Department
Should Account for the Premiums
Resolute Pays Over Auction Prices in
´
Quebec
Nova Scotia Benchmark Issues
Comment 39: Whether NS Private Stumpage
Prices Can Serve as a Tier-One
Benchmark
Comment 40: Whether the Nova Scotia
Benchmark Is Comparable to the
Provinces at Issue
Comment 41: Whether Nova Scotia’s Private
Stumpage Survey Data Are Flawed
Comment 42: Whether the Department
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:26 Nov 07, 2017
Jkt 244001
Should Make Adjustments to the Nova
Scotia Benchmark
Comment 43: Whether the Department
Should Make Adjustments to Stumpage
´
Rates in Alberta, Ontario, Quebec, and
New Brunswick
Log Export Restraint Issues
Comment 44: Whether the Log Export
Restraint in British Columbia Restrains
Log Exports
Comment 45: Whether Log Export Restraints
Impact the British Columbia Interior
Comment 46: Whether the Log Export
Process in British Columbia Is a
Financial Contribution
Comment 47: Whether the Constructed
Benchmark for Log Export Restraints in
the Preliminary Determination Was
Correct
Purchase of Goods for MTAR Issues
Comment 48: Whether Electricity Is a Service
and Therefore Whether the Purchase of
Electricity by BC Hydro Is a Financial
Contribution
Comment 49: Whether BC Hydro’s Purchase
of Electricity Is Tied to Electricity
Comment 50: Whether BC Hydro’s EPA
Program Is Specific
Comment 51: Which Benchmark Should the
Department Use for the Purchase of
Electricity for MTAR by BC Hydro
Comment 52: Whether the GOQ’s Purchase of
Electricity Is Specific
Comment 53: Whether Resolute’s Electricity
Sales Are Tied to Non-Subject
Merchandise
Comment 54: Whether the Department
Should Use the Industrial L Rate as the
Benchmark for the GOQ’s Purchase of
Electricity Under PAE 2011–01
Comment 55: Whether the Industrial L Rate
Benchmark Was Improperly Calculated
Grant Program Issues
Comment 56: Whether the Canada-New
Brunswick Job Grant Program Is
Regionally Specific
Comment 57: Whether the Alberta Bioenergy
Producer Credit Program Is
Countervailable
Comment 58: Whether the Department
Incorrectly Analyzed the BC Hydro
Power Smart: Load Curtailment Program
Comment 59: Whether the Department
Correctly Found That the Three BC
Hydro Power Smart Programs
Countervailed in the Preliminary
Determination Are De Jure Specific
Comment 60: Whether Benefits Under the
Load Displacement Component of the BC
Hydro Power Smart Incentives
Subprogram Were Tied to Non-Subject
Merchandise
Comment 61: Whether the GNB’s
Reimbursement of Silviculture and
License Management Expenses Is
Countervailable
Comment 62: Whether the New Brunswick
Workforce Expansion Program and the
New Brunswick Youth Employment
Fund Are De Facto Specific
Comment 63: Whether the PCIP Is
Countervailable
Tax Program Issues
Comment 64: Whether the Federal and
Provincial SR&ED Tax Credits Are
Specific
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Comment 65: Whether the Department
Should Countervail the Federal and
Provincial SR&ED Tax Credits That Are
Purportedly Tied to Non-Subject
Merchandise
Comment 66: Whether the Department Is
Using the Correct Applicable Tax Rate
for ACCA for Class 29 Assets
Comment 67: Whether the Department
Should Use an Alternative Methodology
for Calculating the Benefit of the ACCA
for Class 29 Assets
Comment 68: Whether the ACCA for Class 29
Assets Program Is Specific
Comment 69: Whether the ACCA for Class 29
Assets Is a Tax Deferral
Comment 70: Whether the AJCTC Is Specific
Comment 71: Whether the Department Must
Account for Gains and Losses in Tax
Savings in the AITC Program
Comment 72: Whether the Benefit for the
Atlantic Investment Tax Credit Should
Be Adjusted
Comment 73: Whether the Alberta TEFU
Marked Fuel Program Provides a
Countervailable Subsidy
Comment 74: Whether the Coloured Fuel
Program Evaluated in the Preliminary
Determination Provides Countervailable
Subsidies
Comment 75: Whether the GNB’s Gasoline
and Fuel Tax Exemptions and Refund
Program Provides a Financial
Contribution and Is Specific
Comment 76: Whether LIREPP Constitutes a
Financial Contribution and Confers a
Benefit on Irving Companies
Comment 77: Whether LIREPP Is Tied to
Non-Subject Merchandise
Comment 78: Whether Credits for Road
Construction Are a Countervailable
Subsidy
Comment 79: Whether the Benefit of the
´
Quebec Private Forest Tax Incentive Was
Overstated
Comment 80: Whether the M&P ITC and
MITC Are De Jure Specific
Company-Specific Issues
Comment 81: Whether To Include Kent
Building Supplies Division’s Sales in
JDIL’s Denominator
Comment 82: Whether the Department
Intended To Address the AIF Program
Rather Than the Business Development
Program in Its Preliminary
Determination
Comment 83: Whether To Include Sales of
Downstream Products by JDIL’s CrossOwned Companies
Comment 84: Whether To Continue To Find
Programs Not Used or Not Measurable
for Resolute
Comment 85: Whether the Department Was
Correct To Not Countervail Certain
Ontario Programs
Comment 86: Whether Discrepancies
Identified at Resolute’s Verification
Should Be Corrected
Comment 87: Whether the Department Was
Correct To Not Countervail Certain
´
Quebec Programs
Comment 88: Whether the Department
Should Use Tolko’s Final Stumpage
Prices and Updated Supplemental Data
for the Final Determination
Scope Issues
E:\FR\FM\08NON1.SGM
08NON1
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 215 / Wednesday, November 8, 2017 / Notices
Comment 89: Definition and Examples of
Finished Products in Scope Language
Comment 90: Exclusions Requested for
Certain Types of Lumber Harvested From
Western Red Cedar, Douglas Fir, and
Hemlock Trees
Comment 91: Previous Scope Determinations
Comment 92: Whether Certain Products Are
Finished Products
Comment 93: Craft Kits
Comment 94: Whether Certain Scope
Language Should Be Removed
Comment 95: Wood Shims
Comment 96: Pre-Painted Wood Products
Comment 97: I-Joists
Comment 98: Miscellaneous Products
Discussed by the Government of British
Columbia (GBC) and the BC Lumber
Trade Council (BCLTC)
Comment 99: Bed-Frame Components/
Crating Ladder Components
Comment 100: U.S.-Origin Lumber Sent to
Canada for Further Processing
Comment 101: Softwood Lumber Produced
in Canada From U.S.-Origin Logs
Comment 102: Remanufactured Goods
Comment 103: Eastern White Pine
Comment 104: Whether the Department
Should Conduct a Pass-Through
Analysis for Independent
Remanufacturers That Purchase
Softwood Lumber at Arm’s Length
Comment 105: Whether Countervailing
Duties Should Only Be Applicable on a
First Mill Basis
Comment 106: Whether the Department
Should Exclude Softwood Lumber
Products From New Brunswick
Comment 107: Whether the Department
Should Finalize the Exclusion of
Softwood Lumber Products From the
Atlantic Provinces
Conclusion
[FR Doc. 2017–24204 Filed 11–7–17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
made sales of subject merchandise at
less than normal value (NV) during the
POR. We also preliminarily determine
that AMLT made no shipments of
subject merchandise during the POR.
We invite interested parties to comment
on these preliminary results.
DATES: Applicable: November 8, 2017.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Keith Haynes, AD/CVD Operations,
Office III, Enforcement and Compliance,
International Trade Administration,
U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401
Constitution Avenue NW., Washington,
DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–5139.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On December 16, 2016, the
Department initiated an administrative
review of the antidumping duty order of
wire rod from Mexico for three
producer/exporters.1 On February 27,
2017, based on a timely withdrawal
request, the Department rescinded the
review for one producer/exporter for
which the review was initiated.2 On
June 30, 2017, the Department extended
the time limit for the preliminary results
by 60 days 3 and on August 9, 2017, the
Department extended the time limit for
the preliminary results by an additional
60 days, pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A)
of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended
(the Act), to October 31, 2017.4 For a
complete description of the events that
followed the initiation of this review,
see the Preliminary Decision
Memorandum.5 A list of topics included
in the Preliminary Decision
Memorandum is included as an
Appendix to this notice.
Scope of the Order 6
The product covered by the order is
wire rod, in coils, of approximately
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A–201–830]
Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire
Rod From Mexico: Preliminary Results
and Preliminary Determination of No
Shipments; 2015–2016
Enforcement and Compliance,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce
(Department) is conducting an
administrative review of the
antidumping duty order on carbon and
certain alloy steel wire rod (wire rod)
from Mexico. The period of review
(POR) is October 1, 2015, through
September 30, 2016. This review covers
two producers/exporters of the subject
merchandise: Deacero S.A.P.I. de C.V.
(Deacero) and ArcelorMittal Las
Truchas, S.A. de C.V. (AMLT). We
preliminarily determine that Deacero
ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES
AGENCY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:26 Nov 07, 2017
Jkt 244001
1 See Initiation of Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews, 81 FR
91122 (December 16, 2016) (Initiation Notice).
2 See letter from the petitioners, ‘‘Carbon and
Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Mexico:
Withdrawal of Request for Administrative Review,’’
dated February 3, 2017 (Petitioners’ Withdrawal
Request); see also Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel
Wire Rod from Mexico: Notice of Partial Rescission
of the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review;
2015–2016, 82 FR 11904 (February 27, 2017).
3 See Memorandum, ‘‘Extension of Deadline for
Preliminary Results of the 2015–2016 Antidumping
Duty Administrative Review,’’ dated June 30, 2017.
4 See Memorandum, ‘‘Extension of Deadline for
Preliminary Results of the 2015–2016 Antidumping
Duty Administrative Review,’’ dated August 9,
2017.
5 See Memorandum, ‘‘Decision Memorandum for
Preliminary Results of 2015–2016 Antidumping
Duty Administrative Review: Carbon and Certain
Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Mexico’’ (Preliminary
Decision Memorandum), dated concurrently with,
and hereby adopted by, this notice.
6 For the full text of the scope of the order, see
the Preliminary Decision Memorandum.
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
51819
round cross section, 5.00 mm or more,
but less than 19.00 mm, in solid crosssectional diameter.7 The subject
merchandise is currently classifiable
under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule
of the United States (HTSUS)
subheadings: 7213.91.3000,
7213.91.3010, 7213.91.3011,
7213.91.3015, 7213.91.3020,
7213.91.3090, 7213.91.3091,
7213.91.3092, 7213.91.3093,
7213.91.4500, 7213.91.4510,
7213.91.4590, 7213.91.6000,
7213.91.6010, 7213.91.6090,
7213.99.0030, 7213.99.0031,
7213.99.0038, 7213.99.0090,
7227.20.0000, 7227.20.0010,
7227.20.0020, 7227.20.0030,
7227.20.0080, 7227.20.0090,
7227.20.0095, 7227.90.6010,
7227.90.6020, 7227.90.6030,
7227.90.6035, 7227.90.6050,
7227.90.6051, 7227.90.6053,
7227.90.6058, 7227.90.6059,
7227.90.6080, and 7227.90.6085. The
HTSUS subheadings are provided for
convenience and customs purposes
only; the written product description
remains dispositive.
Preliminary Determination of No
Shipments
On January 3, 2017, we received a
timely-filed submission from AMLT
reporting to the Department that it made
no exports, sales, or entries of subject
merchandise to the United States during
the POR.8 To confirm AMLT’s no
shipment claim, the Department issued
a no-shipment inquiry to U.S. Customs
and Border Protection (CBP) requesting
that it review AMLT’s no-shipment
claim.9 CBP did not report that it had
any information to contradict AMLT’s
claim of no shipments during the POR.
Based on record evidence, we
preliminarily determine that AMLT had
7 The Department determined that Deacero’s
shipments to the United States of narrow gauge
wire rod (4.75 mm to 5.00 mm) constitute
merchandise altered in form or appearance in such
minor respects that it is subject merchandise. See
Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod From
Mexico: Affirmative Final Determination of
Circumvention of the Antidumping Order, 77 FR
59892 (October 1, 2012) and accompanying Issues
and Decision Memorandum. This determination
was upheld by the Federal Circuit; see Deacero S.A.
de C.V. v. United States, No. 15–1362 (Federal
Circuit) (April 5, 2016) at 12. Because there were
no changes to the facts which supported that
decision since that determination, we continue to
find Deacero’s narrow gauge wire rod (4.75 mm to
5.00 mm) subject merchandise.
8 See letter from AMLT, ‘‘Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review of Carbon and Certain Alloy
Steel Wire Rod from Mexico: AMLT No-Shipment
Certification,’’ dated January 3, 2017 (AMLT NoShipment Certification).
9 No Shipments Inquiry for Carbon and Certain
Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Mexico Produced and/
or Exported by AMLT (A–201–830), message
number 7009302 (January 9, 2017).
E:\FR\FM\08NON1.SGM
08NON1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 215 (Wednesday, November 8, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 51814-51819]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-24204]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[C-122-858]
Certain Softwood Lumber Products From Canada: Final Affirmative
Countervailing Duty Determination, and Final Negative Determination of
Critical Circumstances
AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (the Department) determines that
countervailable subsidies are being provided to producers and exporters
of certain softwood lumber products (softwood lumber) from Canada. The
period of investigation is January 1, 2015, through December 31, 2015.
DATES: Applicable: November 8, 2017.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lana Nigro (Tolko), Toby Vandall
(Canfor), Justin Neuman (JDIL), Patricia Tran (West Fraser), and
Kristen Johnson (Resolute), AD/CVD Operations, Offices I and III,
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S.
Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC
20230; telephone: (202) 482-1779, (202) 482-1664, (202) 482-0486, (202)
482-1503, and (202) 482-4793, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On April 26, 2017, the Department published the Preliminary
Determination of Critical Circumstances.\1\ On April 28, 2017, the
Department published the Preliminary Determination in this
countervailing duty (CVD) investigation, in which the Department
preliminarily found that countervailable subsidies are being provided
to producers and exporters of softwood lumber from Canada.\2\ A summary
of the events that have occurred since the Department published the
Preliminary Determination, as well as a full discussion of the issues
raised by parties
[[Page 51815]]
for this final determination, may be found in the Issues and Decision
Memorandum.\3\ The Issues and Decision Memorandum is a public document
and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's
Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service
System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at https://access.trade.gov, and to all parties in the Central Records Unit, Room
B8024 of the main Department of Commerce building. In addition, a
complete version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum can be accessed
directly at https://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Investigations of
Certain Softwood Lumber Products from Canada: Preliminary
Determinations of Critical Circumstances, 82 FR 19219 (April 26,
2017) (Preliminary Determination of Critical Circumstances).
\2\ See Certain Softwood Lumber Products from Canada:
Preliminary Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination, and
Alignment of Final Determination With Final Antidumping Duty
Determination, 82 FR 19657 (April 28, 2017) and accompanying
Preliminary Decision Memorandum (Preliminary Decision Memorandum)
(collectively, Preliminary Determination).
\3\ See Memorandum, ``Issues and Decision Memorandum for the
Final Determination in the Countervailing Duty Investigation of
Certain Softwood Lumber Products from Canada,'' dated concurrently
with, and hereby adopted by, this notice (Issues and Decision
Memorandum).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scope of the Investigation
The product covered by this investigation is softwood lumber from
Canada. For a complete description of the scope of this investigation,
see Appendix I.
Scope Comments
In accordance with the Preliminary Determination, Preliminary Scope
Decision Memorandum, and ALB Decision Memorandum,\4\ the Department set
aside a period of time for parties to raise issues regarding product
coverage (i.e., proposed exclusions from the scope). Certain interested
parties commented on the scope of the investigation as it appeared in
the Preliminary Determination, Preliminary Scope Decision Memorandum,
and ALB Decision Memorandum. Therefore, the scope of this investigation
has been modified for this final determination. For a summary of the
product coverage comments and rebuttal responses submitted to the
record for this final determination, and accompanying discussion and
analysis of all comments timely received, see the Issues and Decision
Memorandum and Final Scope Decision Memorandum.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ See Memorandum, ``Certain Softwood Lumber Products from
Canada: Scope Decision,'' dated June 23, 2017 (Preliminary Scope
Decision Memorandum). In the Preliminary Scope Decision Memorandum,
the Department preliminarily adopted certain exclusions from the
scope of the antidumping duty (AD) and CVD investigations and stated
its intention to consider expanded exclusionary language covering
bed-frame components, and exclusionary language for crating ladder
components, if submitted by interested parties. See also Memorandum,
``Decision Memorandum for Exclusion of Certain Softwood Lumber
Products Certified By the Atlantic Lumber Board in the Antidumping
Duty and Countervailing Duty Investigations of Certain Softwood
Lumber Products from Canada,'' dated June 23, 2017 (ALB Decision
Memorandum), where the Department preliminarily excluded from the
scope softwood lumber products certified by the Atlantic Lumber
Board (ALB) as being first produced in the Provinces of Newfoundland
and Labrador, Nova Scotia, or Prince Edward Island from logs
harvested in these three provinces.
\5\ See Issues and Decision Memorandum; see also Memorandum,
``Certain Softwood Lumber Products from Canada: Scope Decision,''
dated concurrently with, and hereby adopted by, this notice (Final
Scope Decision Memorandum).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Verification
As provided in section 782(i) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (the Act),
during June 2017, the Department conducted verification of the
information submitted by the Government of British Columbia, Government
of Alberta, Government of Ontario, Government of Quebec, Government of
New Brunswick, Government of Nova Scotia, the respondent companies
Canfor Corporation (Canfor), Resolute FP Canada Inc. (Resolute), Tolko
Marketing and Sales Ltd. and Tolko Industries Ltd. (Tolko), and West
Fraser Timber Co. Ltd. (West Fraser), and voluntary respondent J.D.
Irving, Limited (JDIL) for use in the Department's final
determination.\6\ The Department used standard verification procedures,
including an examination of original source documents provided by the
respondents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ See Memorandum to All Interested Parties titled
``Countervailing Duty Investigation of Certain Softwood Lumber
Products from Canada: Verification Schedule,'' dated May 12, 2017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Analysis of Subsidy Programs and Comments Received
The subsidy programs under investigation and all issues raised in
the case and rebuttal briefs that were submitted by parties in this
investigation are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum. A
list of these issues is attached to this notice as Appendix II.
Changes Since the Preliminary Determination
Based on the Department's analysis of the comments received and
consideration of the verification reports, the Department made certain
changes to the subsidy rate calculations for each of the respondents.
For a discussion of the Department's changes, see the Issues and
Decision Memorandum. As a result of these changes, the Department has
also revised the ``All-Others'' rate calculated for the non-
individually examined companies as discussed below.
All-Others Rate
In accordance with section 705(c)(1)(B)(i)(I) of the Act, the
Department must determine an estimated all-others rate for all
exporters and producers not individually examined. Pursuant to section
705(c)(5)(A) of the Act, this rate is normally an amount equal to the
weighted average of the estimated subsidy rates established for those
exporters and producers individually examined, excluding any zero and
de minimis countervailable subsidy rates, and any rates based entirely
under section 776 of the Act.
In this investigation, the Department calculated individual
estimated countervailable subsidy rates for Canfor, JDIL,\7\ Resolute,
Tolko, and West Fraser, that are not zero, de minimis, or based
entirely on facts otherwise available. Therefore, pursuant to section
705(c)(5)(A) of the Act, the Department calculated the all-others rate
using a weighted-average of the individual estimated subsidy rates
calculated for the examined respondents using each company's business
proprietary data for the merchandise under consideration.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ See MacLean-Fogg Co. v. United States, 753 F.3d 1237 (Fed.
Cir. 2014) (holding that voluntary respondents are considered
``individually investigated'' for purposes of calculating the all-
others rate). The Department accepted JDIL as a voluntary respondent
in this investigation.
\8\ See Memorandum to the File, ``Calculation of the ``All-
Others'' Rate in the Final Determination of the Countervailing Duty
Investigation of Softwood Lumber Products from Canada'' dated
concurrently with this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Final Determination
The Department determines that the following estimated
countervailable subsidy rates exist:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subsidy rate
Company (%)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Canfor Corporation and its cross-owned affiliates \9\... 13.24
J.D. Irving, Limited and its cross-owned affiliates \10\ 3.34
Resolute FP Canada Inc. and its cross-owned affiliates 14.70
\11\...................................................
Tolko Marketing and Sales Ltd. and its cross-owned 14.85
affiliates \12\........................................
[[Page 51816]]
West Fraser Mills Ltd. and its cross-owned affiliates 18.19
\13\...................................................
All-Others.............................................. 14.25
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Final Negative Determination of Critical Circumstances
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ The Department has found the following companies to be
cross-owned with Canfor Corporation: Canadian Forest Products, Ltd.,
and Canfor Wood Products Marketing, Ltd.
\10\ The Department has found the following companies to be
cross-owned with JDIL: Miramichi Timber Holdings Limited, The New
Brunswick Railway Company, Rothesay Paper Holdings Ltd., St. George
Pulp & Paper Limited, and Irving Paper Limited.
\11\ The Department has found the following companies to be
cross-owned with Resolute: Resolute Growth Canada Inc., Resolute
Sales Inc., Abitibi-Bowater Canada Inc., Bowater Canadian Ltd.,
Resolute Forest Products Inc., Produits Forestiers Maurice S.E.C.,
and 9192-8515 Quebec Inc.
\12\ The Department has found the following companies to be
cross-owned with Tolko: Tolko Industries Ltd., and Meadow Lake OSB
Limited Partnership.
\13\ The Department has found the following companies to be
cross-owned with West Fraser: West Fraser Timber Co. Ltd., West
Fraser Alberta Holdings, Ltd., Blue Ridge Lumber Inc., Manning
Forest Products, Ltd., Sunpine Inc., and Sundre Forest Products Inc.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In accordance with section 703(e) of the Act, the Department
preliminarily found that critical circumstances existed with respect to
JDIL and the non-individually examined companies receiving the ``All-
Others'' rate in this investigation and did not exist with respect to
the respondents Canfor, Resolute, Tolko, and West Fraser. The
Department received comments concerning the preliminary affirmative
determination of critical circumstances. For the final determination,
the Department finds that, in accordance with 705(a)(2) of the Act,
critical circumstances do not exist for all individually-examined
respondents and the non-individually examined companies receiving the
``All-Others'' rate in this investigation. A discussion of the
determination can be found in the Issues and Decision Memorandum.
Suspension of Liquidation
As a result of our Preliminary Determination, and pursuant to
sections 703(d)(1)(B) and (2) of the Act, we instructed U.S. Customs
and Border Protection (CBP) to suspend liquidation of all entries of
merchandise under consideration from Canada that were entered or
withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption, on or after April 28, 2017,
the date of publication of the Preliminary Determination in the Federal
Register.
We preliminarily determined that critical circumstances existed
with respect to entries of softwood lumber from Canada made by JDIL and
the non-individually examined companies receiving the ``All-Others''
rate in this investigation. As a result, we instructed CBP to suspend
liquidation of entries that were entered, or withdrawn from warehouse,
for consumption on or after January 28, 2017, which is 90 days before
the date of the publication of the Preliminary Determination in the
Federal Register. At that time, we instructed CBP to collect cash
deposits of estimated countervailing duties for such entries at the
rates determined in the Preliminary Determination.
In accordance with section 703(d) of the Act, we later issued
instructions to CBP to discontinue the suspension of liquidation for
CVD purposes for subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from
warehouse, on or after August 26, 2017, but to continue the suspension
of liquidation of all entries between January 28, 2017 (for JDIL and
all-others) or April 28, 2017 (for the other individually examined
respondents), and August 25, 2017, as appropriate.
Because we find critical circumstances do not exist for JDIL and
the non-individually examined companies receiving the ``All-Others''
rate in this investigation, we will direct CBP to terminate the
retroactive suspension of liquidation ordered at the Preliminary
Determination and release any cash deposits that were required prior to
April 28, 2017, consistent with section 705(c)(3) of the Act.
If the International Trade Commission (ITC) makes a final
determination that material injury or threat of material injury does
not exist, the proceeding will be terminated and all securities posted
will be refunded or canceled. If the ITC issues a final affirmative
injury determination, we will issue a CVD order, reinstate the
suspension of liquidation under section 706(a) of the Act, and require
a cash deposit of estimated CVDs for such entries of subject
merchandise in the amounts indicated above.
Exclusion of Certain Softwood Lumber Products Certified by the Atlantic
Lumber Board (ALB)
As noted in the scope of the investigation (Appendix I), the
Department has excluded from the scope of the investigation softwood
lumber products certified by the ALB as being first produced in the
Provinces of Newfoundland and Labrador, Nova Scotia, or Prince Edward
Island from logs harvested in Newfoundland and Labrador, Nova Scotia,
or Prince Edward Island. We will instruct CBP to require that the ALB
certificate be included with each entry and require that the ALB
certificate of origin number be identified on each CBP Form 7501, for
such entries to be excluded from the scope of the order, if issued.
Further, if an order is issued, we will instruct CBP to refund cash
deposits collected on any suspended entries between April 28, 2017 (for
the other individually examined respondents), and August 25, 2017, as
appropriate, that are accompanied by the ALB certificate.
Disclosure
The Department intends to disclose to interested parties its
calculations and analysis performed in this final determination within
five days of any public announcement in accordance with 19 CFR
351.224(b).
ITC Notification
In accordance with section 705(d) of the Act, we will notify the
ITC of our determination. In addition, we are making available to the
ITC all non-privileged and non-proprietary information related to this
investigation. We will allow the ITC access to all privileged and
business proprietary information in our files, provided the ITC
confirms that it will not disclose such information, either publicly or
under an administrative protective order (APO), without the written
consent of the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.
Notification to Interested Parties
This notice serves as a reminder to parties subject to an APO of
their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary
information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR
351.305(a)(3). Timely notification of the return or destruction of APO
materials, or conversion to judicial protective order, is hereby
requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an
APO is a violation subject to sanction.
[[Page 51817]]
This determination and notice are issued and published pursuant to
sections 705(d) and 777(i) of the Act.
Dated: November 1, 2017.
Gary Taverman,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty
Operations, performing the non-exclusive functions and duties of the
Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.
Appendix I
Scope of the Investigation
The merchandise covered by this investigation is softwood
lumber, siding, flooring and certain other coniferous wood (softwood
lumber products). The scope includes:
Coniferous wood, sawn, or chipped lengthwise, sliced or
peeled, whether or not planed, whether or not sanded, or whether or
not finger-jointed, of an actual thickness exceeding six
millimeters.
Coniferous wood siding, flooring, and other coniferous
wood (other than moldings and dowel rods), including strips and
friezes for parquet flooring, that is continuously shaped
(including, but not limited to, tongued, grooved, rebated,
chamfered, V-jointed, beaded, molded, rounded) along any of its
edges, ends, or faces, whether or not planed, whether or not sanded,
or whether or not end-jointed.
Coniferous drilled and notched lumber and angle cut
lumber.
Coniferous lumber stacked on edge and fastened together
with nails, whether or not with plywood sheathing.
Components or parts of semi-finished or unassembled
finished products made from subject merchandise that would otherwise
meet the definition of the scope above.
Finished products are not covered by the scope of this
investigation. For the purposes of this scope, finished products
contain, or are comprised of, subject merchandise and have undergone
sufficient processing such that they can no longer be considered
intermediate products, and such products can be readily
differentiated from merchandise subject to this investigation at the
time of importation. Such differentiation may, for example, be shown
through marks of special adaptation as a particular product. The
following products are illustrative of the type of merchandise that
is considered ``finished,'' for the purpose of this scope: I-joists;
assembled pallets; cutting boards; assembled picture frames; garage
doors.
The following items are excluded from the scope of this
investigation:
Softwood lumber products certified by the Atlantic
Lumber Board as being first produced in the Provinces of
Newfoundland and Labrador, Nova Scotia, or Prince Edward Island from
logs harvested in Newfoundland and Labrador, Nova Scotia, or Prince
Edward Island.
U.S.-origin lumber shipped to Canada for processing and
imported into the United States if the processing occurring in
Canada is limited to one or more of the following: (1) Kiln drying;
(2) planing to create smooth-to-size board; or (3) sanding.
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 must be radius-
cut at both ends. The kits must be individually packaged and must
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.
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 substantially cut so as to completely
round one corner.
Softwood lumber product imports are generally entered under
Chapter 44 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States
(HTSUS). This chapter of the HTSUS covers ``Wood and articles of
wood.'' Softwood lumber products that are subject to this
investigation are currently classifiable under the following ten-
digit HTSUS subheadings in Chapter 44:
4407.10.01.01; 4407.10.01.02; 4407.10.01.15; 4407.10.01.16;
4407.10.01.17; 4407.10.01.18; 4407.10.01.19; 4407.10.01.20;
4407.10.01.42; 4407.10.01.43; 4407.10.01.44; 4407.10.01.45;
4407.10.01.46; 4407.10.01.47; 4407.10.01.48; 4407.10.01.49;
4407.10.01.52; 4407.10.01.53; 4407.10.01.54; 4407.10.01.55;
4407.10.01.56; 4407.10.01.57; 4407.10.01.58; 4407.10.01.59;
4407.10.01.64; 4407.10.01.65; 4407.10.01.66; 4407.10.01.67;
4407.10.01.68; 4407.10.01.69; 4407.10.01.74; 4407.10.01.75;
4407.10.01.76; 4407.10.01.77; 4407.10.01.82; 4407.10.01.83;
4407.10.01.92; 4407.10.01.93; 4409.10.05.00; 4409.10.10.20;
4409.10.10.40; 4409.10.10.60; 4409.10.10.80; 4409.10.20.00;
4409.10.90.20; 4409.10.90.40; and 4418.99.10.00.
Subject merchandise as described above might be identified on
entry documentation as stringers, square cut box-spring-frame
components, fence pickets, truss components, pallet components,
flooring, and door and window frame parts. Items so identified might
be entered under the following ten-digit HTSUS subheadings in
Chapter 44:
4415.20.40.00; 4415.20.80.00; 4418.99.90.05; 4418.99.90.20;
4418.99.90.40; 4418.99.90.95; 4421.99.70.40; and 4421.99.97.80.
Although these HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience
and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of this
investigation is dispositive.
Appendix II
List of Topics Discussed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum
Summary
Background
Case History
Period of Investigation
Scope of the Investigation
I. Scope Comments
Subsidies Valuation Information
A. Allocation Period
B. Attribution of Subsidies
C. Denominators
D. Loan Interest Rate Benchmarks and Discount Rates
Analysis of Programs
A. Programs Determined To Be Countervailable
B. Programs Determined To Be Tied to Non-Subject Merchandise
C. Programs Determined Not To Provide Countervailable Benefits
During the POI
D. Programs Determined Not To Be Used During the POI
E. Program Determined To Be Not Countervailable
F. Programs Deferred Until a Subsequent Administrative Review
G. New Subsidy Allegations
Analysis of Comments
General Issues
Comment 1: Whether Critical Circumstances Exist
Comment 2: Whether the Department Should Consider Company-Specific
Exclusion Requests
Comment 3: Whether the Department Has the Authority To Countervail
Future Assistance
Comment 4: Whether the Department Should Countervail and Apply AFA
to Certain Untimely Reported Programs by JDIL and Resolute
Comment 5: Whether the Department Properly Requested Respondent
Interested Parties To Report ``Other Assistance''
Comment 6: Whether the Department Should Defer Examination of
Certain Programs
Comment 7: Whether the Department Should Make a Finding on the NSAs
Comment 8: Whether the Department Correctly Determined if Certain
Programs are Specific
Comment 9: Whether the Department Erroneously Applied its
Attribution Regulations
Comment 10: Whether the Department Should Rely on Expert Reports
General Stumpage Issues
Comment 11: Whether the Provision of Stumpage Rights Is a Financial
Contribution
Comment 12: Whether Evidence Establishes No Market Distortion and
Tier-One Benchmarks Should Be Applied
Comment 13: Whether the Department Must Compare Average Benchmark
Prices to Average Transaction Prices
Comment 14: Whether the Department Must Conduct a Pass-Through
Analysis
Comment 15: Whether the Net Benefit Calculation for Stumpage for
LTAR Is Correct
Alberta Stumpage Issues
Comment 16: Benchmarking Alberta
Comment 17: Whether the Department Should Use a U.S. Log Benchmark
To Compare Respondents' Alberta Stumpage Purchases
British Columbia Stumpage Issues
Comment 18: Whether Crown Auctions in British Columbia Generate
Valid Market Prices
Comment 19: Whether the Department Should Use Conversion Factors
From the BC Dual Scale Study
Comment 20: Whether the Department Should Rely on Log Prices From
[[Page 51818]]
Forest2Market Instead of WDNR Prices as a Benchmark To Compare
Respondents' BC Stumpage Purchases
Comment 21: Whether U.S. PNW Log Prices Should Not Be Used as a
Benchmark Because They Do Not Reflect Prevailing Market Conditions
in British Columbia
Comment 22: Whether the Department Should Use a Timbermark-Specific
Annual Average Stumpage Price
Comment 23: Whether the Department Should Consider BC Stumpage
Prices on a ``Stand as a Whole'' Basis
Comment 24: Whether the Department Should Grant Cost Adjustments in
British Columbia
Comment 25: Whether the Department Should Account for Differences in
Grading Systems in British Columbia and the United States
Comment 26: Whether the Department Should Adjust for a Non-Contract
Profit Rate
Comment 27: Whether the Department Should Adjust the U.S. Benchmark
Price To Account for Tenure Security
New Brunswick Stumpage Issues
Comment 28: Whether Private Stumpage Prices in New Brunswick Should
Be Used as Tier-One Benchmarks
Comment 29: Whether the Department Should Use the New Brunswick
Survey as a Benchmark for Stumpage for LTAR
Ontario Stumpage Issues
Comment 30: Whether Stumpage for Ontario Crown Timber Was Subsidized
During the Period of Investigation
Comment 31: Whether Ontario's Private Market Is Distorted and
Whether Ontario's Private Prices Are an Appropriate Benchmark
Comment 32: Whether the Ontario Log Benchmark Relied on by the
Department in Lumber IV Would Demonstrate That Ontario Crown Timber
Is Not Subsidized
Comment 33: Whether Stumpage Charges Distort Ontario's Domestic Log
Market and Whether a Log Price Benchmark Shows No Subsidy
Comment 34: Whether To Estimate Ontario's Crown Timber Prices With
Qu[eacute]bec's Transposition Equation
Qu[eacute]bec Stumpage Issues
Comment 35: Whether the Qu[eacute]bec Stumpage Market Is Distorted
Comment 36: Whether the Department Made a Clerical Error in Its
Calculation of the Qu[eacute]bec Stumpage Benefit That It Should
Correct in Its Final Determination
Comment 37: Whether Resolute Pays Competitive Prices for Its
Purchases of Non-TSG or Non-Tenured Timber
Comment 38: Whether the Department Should Account for the Premiums
Resolute Pays Over Auction Prices in Qu[eacute]bec
Nova Scotia Benchmark Issues
Comment 39: Whether NS Private Stumpage Prices Can Serve as a Tier-
One Benchmark
Comment 40: Whether the Nova Scotia Benchmark Is Comparable to the
Provinces at Issue
Comment 41: Whether Nova Scotia's Private Stumpage Survey Data Are
Flawed
Comment 42: Whether the Department Should Make Adjustments to the
Nova Scotia Benchmark
Comment 43: Whether the Department Should Make Adjustments to
Stumpage Rates in Alberta, Ontario, Qu[eacute]bec, and New Brunswick
Log Export Restraint Issues
Comment 44: Whether the Log Export Restraint in British Columbia
Restrains Log Exports
Comment 45: Whether Log Export Restraints Impact the British
Columbia Interior
Comment 46: Whether the Log Export Process in British Columbia Is a
Financial Contribution
Comment 47: Whether the Constructed Benchmark for Log Export
Restraints in the Preliminary Determination Was Correct
Purchase of Goods for MTAR Issues
Comment 48: Whether Electricity Is a Service and Therefore Whether
the Purchase of Electricity by BC Hydro Is a Financial Contribution
Comment 49: Whether BC Hydro's Purchase of Electricity Is Tied to
Electricity
Comment 50: Whether BC Hydro's EPA Program Is Specific
Comment 51: Which Benchmark Should the Department Use for the
Purchase of Electricity for MTAR by BC Hydro
Comment 52: Whether the GOQ's Purchase of Electricity Is Specific
Comment 53: Whether Resolute's Electricity Sales Are Tied to Non-
Subject Merchandise
Comment 54: Whether the Department Should Use the Industrial L Rate
as the Benchmark for the GOQ's Purchase of Electricity Under PAE
2011-01
Comment 55: Whether the Industrial L Rate Benchmark Was Improperly
Calculated
Grant Program Issues
Comment 56: Whether the Canada-New Brunswick Job Grant Program Is
Regionally Specific
Comment 57: Whether the Alberta Bioenergy Producer Credit Program Is
Countervailable
Comment 58: Whether the Department Incorrectly Analyzed the BC Hydro
Power Smart: Load Curtailment Program
Comment 59: Whether the Department Correctly Found That the Three BC
Hydro Power Smart Programs Countervailed in the Preliminary
Determination Are De Jure Specific
Comment 60: Whether Benefits Under the Load Displacement Component
of the BC Hydro Power Smart Incentives Subprogram Were Tied to Non-
Subject Merchandise
Comment 61: Whether the GNB's Reimbursement of Silviculture and
License Management Expenses Is Countervailable
Comment 62: Whether the New Brunswick Workforce Expansion Program
and the New Brunswick Youth Employment Fund Are De Facto Specific
Comment 63: Whether the PCIP Is Countervailable
Tax Program Issues
Comment 64: Whether the Federal and Provincial SR&ED Tax Credits Are
Specific
Comment 65: Whether the Department Should Countervail the Federal
and Provincial SR&ED Tax Credits That Are Purportedly Tied to Non-
Subject Merchandise
Comment 66: Whether the Department Is Using the Correct Applicable
Tax Rate for ACCA for Class 29 Assets
Comment 67: Whether the Department Should Use an Alternative
Methodology for Calculating the Benefit of the ACCA for Class 29
Assets
Comment 68: Whether the ACCA for Class 29 Assets Program Is Specific
Comment 69: Whether the ACCA for Class 29 Assets Is a Tax Deferral
Comment 70: Whether the AJCTC Is Specific
Comment 71: Whether the Department Must Account for Gains and Losses
in Tax Savings in the AITC Program
Comment 72: Whether the Benefit for the Atlantic Investment Tax
Credit Should Be Adjusted
Comment 73: Whether the Alberta TEFU Marked Fuel Program Provides a
Countervailable Subsidy
Comment 74: Whether the Coloured Fuel Program Evaluated in the
Preliminary Determination Provides Countervailable Subsidies
Comment 75: Whether the GNB's Gasoline and Fuel Tax Exemptions and
Refund Program Provides a Financial Contribution and Is Specific
Comment 76: Whether LIREPP Constitutes a Financial Contribution and
Confers a Benefit on Irving Companies
Comment 77: Whether LIREPP Is Tied to Non-Subject Merchandise
Comment 78: Whether Credits for Road Construction Are a
Countervailable Subsidy
Comment 79: Whether the Benefit of the Qu[eacute]bec Private Forest
Tax Incentive Was Overstated
Comment 80: Whether the M&P ITC and MITC Are De Jure Specific
Company-Specific Issues
Comment 81: Whether To Include Kent Building Supplies Division's
Sales in JDIL's Denominator
Comment 82: Whether the Department Intended To Address the AIF
Program Rather Than the Business Development Program in Its
Preliminary Determination
Comment 83: Whether To Include Sales of Downstream Products by
JDIL's Cross-Owned Companies
Comment 84: Whether To Continue To Find Programs Not Used or Not
Measurable for Resolute
Comment 85: Whether the Department Was Correct To Not Countervail
Certain Ontario Programs
Comment 86: Whether Discrepancies Identified at Resolute's
Verification Should Be Corrected
Comment 87: Whether the Department Was Correct To Not Countervail
Certain Qu[eacute]bec Programs
Comment 88: Whether the Department Should Use Tolko's Final Stumpage
Prices and Updated Supplemental Data for the Final Determination
Scope Issues
[[Page 51819]]
Comment 89: Definition and Examples of Finished Products in Scope
Language
Comment 90: Exclusions Requested for Certain Types of Lumber
Harvested From Western Red Cedar, Douglas Fir, and Hemlock Trees
Comment 91: Previous Scope Determinations
Comment 92: Whether Certain Products Are Finished Products
Comment 93: Craft Kits
Comment 94: Whether Certain Scope Language Should Be Removed
Comment 95: Wood Shims
Comment 96: Pre-Painted Wood Products
Comment 97: I-Joists
Comment 98: Miscellaneous Products Discussed by the Government of
British Columbia (GBC) and the BC Lumber Trade Council (BCLTC)
Comment 99: Bed-Frame Components/Crating Ladder Components
Comment 100: U.S.-Origin Lumber Sent to Canada for Further
Processing
Comment 101: Softwood Lumber Produced in Canada From U.S.-Origin
Logs
Comment 102: Remanufactured Goods
Comment 103: Eastern White Pine
Comment 104: Whether the Department Should Conduct a Pass-Through
Analysis for Independent Remanufacturers That Purchase Softwood
Lumber at Arm's Length
Comment 105: Whether Countervailing Duties Should Only Be Applicable
on a First Mill Basis
Comment 106: Whether the Department Should Exclude Softwood Lumber
Products From New Brunswick
Comment 107: Whether the Department Should Finalize the Exclusion of
Softwood Lumber Products From the Atlantic Provinces
Conclusion
[FR Doc. 2017-24204 Filed 11-7-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
