Certain Softwood Lumber Products From Canada: Final Results of the Countervailing Duty Administrative Review, 2019, 68467-68471 [2021-26152]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 229 / Thursday, December 2, 2021 / Notices
of the Secretary. Members shall be
appointed by the Under Secretary for
Economic Affairs in consultation with
the agencies. Committee members shall
be professionals in appropriate
disciplines, including economists,
statisticians, survey methodologists,
computer scientists, data scientists, and
behavioral scientists who are experts in
their fields, recognized for their
scientific, professional, and operational
achievements and objectivity.
Membership will represent data users
with expertise from the public sector,
academia, and the private sector.
Members will be chosen to achieve a
balanced membership that will meet the
needs of the agencies.
Members shall serve as Special
Government Employees (SGEs) and
shall be subject to ethics rules
applicable to SGEs.
A FESAC member term is three years.
Members may serve more than one
term as described in the FESAC Charter,
available at: https://apps.bea.gov/
fesac/.
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
Compensation for Members
Members of the Committee serve
without compensation but may receive
reimbursement for Committee-related
travel and lodging expenses.
Solicitation of Nominations
The Committee is currently filling one
or more positions on the FESAC.
The Under Secretary of Economic
Affairs, in consultation with the
agencies will consider nominations of
all qualified individuals to ensure that
the Committee includes the areas of
experience noted above. Individuals
may nominate themselves or other
individuals, and professional
associations and organizations may
nominate one or more qualified persons
for membership on the Committee.
Nominations shall state that the
nominee is willing to serve as a member
and carry out the duties of the
Committee. A nomination package
should include the following
information for each nominee:
1. A letter of nomination stating the
name, affiliation, and contact
information for the nominee, the basis
for the nomination (i.e., what specific
attributes recommend the nominee for
service in this capacity), and the
nominee’s field(s) of experience
2. a biographical sketch of the
nominee;
3. a copy of the nominee’s curriculum
vitae; and
4. the name, return address, email
address, and daytime telephone number
at which the nominator can be
contacted.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:09 Dec 01, 2021
Jkt 256001
The Committee aims to have a
balanced representation among its
members, considering such factors as
geography, age, sex, race, ethnicity,
technical expertise, community
involvement, and knowledge of
programs and/or activities related to
FESAC. Individuals will be selected
based on their expertise in or
representation of specific areas as
needed by FESAC.
All nomination information should be
provided in a single, complete package.
Interested applicants should send their
nomination package to Gianna Marrone,
Committee Management Official, at
Gianna.Marrone@bea.gov (subject line
‘‘FESAC Nomination’’).
Dated: November 29, 2021.
Sabrina L. Montes,
Bureau of Economic Analysis, Designated
Federal Official, Federal Economic Statistics
Advisory Committee.
[FR Doc. 2021–26213 Filed 12–1–21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–06–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Foreign-Trade Zones Board
68467
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Foreign-Trade Zones Board
[B–56–2021]
Foreign-Trade Zone (FTZ) 38—
Spartanburg County, South Carolina;
Authorization of Production Activity;
BMW Manufacturing Company, LLC
(Passenger Motor Vehicles);
Spartanburg, South Carolina
On July 28, 2021, BMW
Manufacturing Company, LLC
submitted a notification of proposed
production activity to the FTZ Board for
its facility within Subzone 38A, in
Spartanburg, South Carolina.
The notification was processed in
accordance with the regulations of the
FTZ Board (15 CFR part 400), including
notice in the Federal Register inviting
public comment (86 FR 43520, August
9, 2021). On November 26, 2021, the
applicant was notified of the FTZ
Board’s decision that no further review
of the activity is warranted at this time.
The production activity described in the
notification was authorized, subject to
the FTZ Act and the FTZ Board’s
regulations, including Section 400.14.
Dated: November 26, 2021.
Elizabeth Whiteman,
Acting Executive Secretary.
[B–57–2021]
Foreign-Trade Zone (FTZ) 75—
Phoenix, Arizona; Authorization of
Production Activity; VIAVI Solutions,
Inc. (Optically Variable Pigments);
Chandler, Arizona
[FR Doc. 2021–26151 Filed 12–1–21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
On July 29, 2021, VIAVI Solutions,
Inc. submitted a notification of
proposed production activity to the FTZ
Board for its facility within FTZ 75, in
Chandler, Arizona.
The notification was processed in
accordance with the regulations of the
FTZ Board (15 CFR part 400), including
notice in the Federal Register inviting
public comment (86 FR 44345, August
12, 2021). On November 26, 2021, the
applicant was notified of the FTZ
Board’s decision that no further review
of the activity is warranted at this time.
The production activity described in the
notification was authorized, subject to
the FTZ Act and the FTZ Board’s
regulations, including Section 400.14.
Dated: November 26, 2021.
Elizabeth Whiteman,
Acting Executive Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021–26150 Filed 12–1–21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
[C–122–858]
Certain Softwood Lumber Products
From Canada: Final Results of the
Countervailing Duty Administrative
Review, 2019
Enforcement and Compliance,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce
(Commerce) determines that producers
and exporters of certain softwood
lumber products (softwood lumber)
from Canada received countervailable
subsidies during the period of review,
January 1, 2019, through December 31,
2019.
DATES: Applicable December 2, 2021.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Jonathan Hall-Eastman (Canfor), John
Hoffner (JDIL), Kristen Johnson/Samuel
Brummitt (Resolute), and Laura Griffith
(West Fraser), AD/CVD Operations,
Office III, Enforcement and Compliance,
International Trade Administration,
U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401
AGENCY:
E:\FR\FM\02DEN1.SGM
02DEN1
68468
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 229 / Thursday, December 2, 2021 / Notices
Constitution Avenue NW, Washington,
DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–1468,
(202) 482–3315, (202) 482–4793/(202)
482–7851, and (202) 482–6430,
respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Commerce published the preliminary
results of this countervailing duty (CVD)
administrative review of softwood
lumber from Canada on May 27, 2021,
and invited interested parties to
comment.1 For a summary of the events
that occurred since the Preliminary
Results and a full discussion of the
issues raised by parties for the final
results, see the Issues and Decision
Memorandum.2
Scope of the Order 3
The product covered by the Order is
certain softwood lumber products from
Canada. For a complete description of
the scope of the Order, see the Issues
and Decision Memorandum.
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
Analysis of Subsidy Programs and
Comments Received
Commerce conducted this CVD
administrative review in accordance
with section 751(a)(1)(A) of the Tariff
Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). The
subsidy programs under review, and the
issues raised in case and rebuttal briefs
submitted by the interested parties, are
discussed in the Issues and Decision
Memorandum. A list of the issues that
the parties raised, and to which we
responded in the Issues and Decision
Memorandum, is attached to this notice
at Appendix I. Based on our analysis of
the comments received from the
interested parties, we made changes to
the subsidy rates calculated for certain
respondents. For a discussion of these
changes, see the Issues and Decision
Memorandum.
1 See Certain Softwood Lumber Products from
Canada: Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission
of the Countervailing Duty Administrative Review;
2019, 86 FR 28556 (May 27, 2021) (Preliminary
Results).
2 See Memorandum, ‘‘Issues and Decision
Memorandum for the Final Results of the
Administrative Review of the Countervailing Duty
Order on Certain Softwood Lumber Products from
Canada; 2019,’’ dated concurrently with, and
hereby adopted by, this notice (Issues and Decision
Memorandum). 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. In addition, members of the public
may access the IDM at https://access.trade.gov/
public/FRNoticesListLayout.aspx.
3 See Certain Softwood Lumber Products from
Canada: Amended Final Affirmative Countervailing
Duty Determination and Countervailing Duty Order,
83 FR 347 (January 3, 2018) (Order).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:49 Dec 01, 2021
Jkt 256001
Rate for Non-Selected Companies
Under Review
Because the rates calculated for the
companies selected for individual
review are above de minimis and not
based entirely on facts available, we
applied a subsidy rate based on a
weighted average of the subsidy rates
calculated for the reviewed companies
using sales data submitted by those
companies to calculate a rate for the
companies not selected for review. This
is consistent with the methodology that
we would use in an investigation to
establish the all-others rate, pursuant to
section 705(c)(5)(A) of the Act. A list of
all non-selected companies is included
in Appendix II.
For further information on the
calculation of the non-selected rate, see
‘‘Final Ad Valorem Rate for NonSelected Companies under Review’’ in
the Issues and Decision Memorandum.
Final Results of Administrative Review
In accordance with section
751(a)(1)(A) and of the Act and 19 CFR
351.221(b)(5), we determine that the
following total estimated
countervailable subsidy rates exist for
2019:
Subsidy
rate 2019
ad valorem
(percent)
Companies
Canfor Corporation and its
cross-owned affiliates 4 ...........
J.D. Irving, Limited and its crossowned affiliates 5 .....................
Resolute FP Canada Inc. and its
cross-owned affiliates 6 ...........
West Fraser Mills Ltd. and its
cross-owned affiliates 7 ...........
Non-Selected Companies ...........
2.42
3.41
18.07
5.06
6.31
Disclosure
Commerce intends to disclose the
calculations performed for these final
results of review within five days of the
date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register, in accordance with 19
CFR 351.244(b).
4 Commerce finds the following companies to be
cross-owned with Canfor Corporation: Canadian
Forest Products., Ltd. and Canfor Wood Products
Marketing, Ltd.
5 Commerce finds the following companies to be
cross-owned with J.D. Irving, Limited: Miramichi
Timber Holdings Limited, The New Brunswick
Railway Company, Rothesay Paper Holdings Ltd.,
and St. George Pulp & Paper Limited.
6 Commerce finds the following companies to be
cross-owned with Resolute: Resolute Growth
Canada Inc., Produits Forestiers Maurice SEC., and
Resolute Forest Products Inc.
7 Commerce finds the following companies to be
cross-owned with West Fraser: West Fraser Timber
Co., Ltd., Blue Ridge Lumber Inc., Sunpine Inc.,
Sundre Forest Products Inc., Manning Forest
Products, and West Fraser Alberta Holdings.
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Assessment Rates
Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(C) of the
Act and 19 CFR 351.212(b)(2),
Commerce will determine, and U.S.
Customs and Border Protection (CBP)
shall assess, countervailing duties on all
appropriate entries of subject
merchandise covered by this review.
Commerce intends to issue
assessment instructions to CBP no
earlier than 41 days after the date of
publication of the final results of this
review in the Federal Register, in
accordance with 19 CFR 356.8(a).
Cash Deposit Requirements
In accordance with section
751(a)(2)(C) of the Act, Commerce
intends to instruct CBP to collect cash
deposits of estimated countervailing
duties in the amounts shown for the
companies subject to this review. For all
non-reviewed companies, we will
instruct CBP to continue to collect cash
deposits of estimated countervailing
duties at the most recent companyspecific or all-others rate applicable to
the company, as appropriate. These cash
deposits, when imposed, shall remain in
effect until further notice.
Administrative Protective Order (APO)
This notice also serves as a final
reminder to parties subject to APO of
their responsibility concerning the
return or destruction of proprietary
information disclosed under APO in
accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3).
Timely written 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 sanctionable violation.
Notification to Interested Parties
Commerce is issuing and publishing
these final results of administrative
review in accordance with sections
751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act, and 19
CFR 351.213(d)(4) and 351.221(b)(5).
Dated: November 23, 2021.
Ryan Majerus,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy and
Negotiations, performing the non-exclusive
functions and duties of the Assistant
Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.
Appendix I
List of Topics Discussed in the Issues and
Decision Memorandum
I. Summary
II. List of Issues
III. Case History
IV. Period of Review
V. Scope of the Order
VI. Subsidies Valuation
VII. Analysis of Programs
VIII. Final Ad Valorem Rate for Non-Selected
E:\FR\FM\02DEN1.SGM
02DEN1
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 Que´bec
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 Ontario’s Crown
Stumpage Market Is Distorted
Comment 16: Whether Ontario’s 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 Resolute’s Stumpage Benefit
Calculation Regarding Corrected
Transactions
Comment 19: Whether Que´bec’s Stumpage
Market Is Distorted
Comment 20: Whether Que´bec’s 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 Commerce’s
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 BC’s
‘‘Stand-as-a-whole’’ Stumpage Pricing
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:49 Dec 01, 2021
Jkt 256001
Comment 27: Whether the 2017–2018
Private Stumpage Survey Is Sufficiently
Contemporaneous for Use as a Tier-One
Benchmark
Comment 28: Whether Nova Scotia Is
Comparable to Que´bec, 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 Que´bec
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 Que´bec, 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 JDIL’s 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 Que´bec,
Ontario, and Alberta
Comment 41: Whether Nova Scotia’s Forest
Is Comparable to the Forests of New
Brunswick, Que´bec, 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 Que´bec, 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 2017–2018 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 Que´bec
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
Que´bec 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 Resolute’s Ontario
and Que´bec Electricity PPAs Are Tied to
Non-Subject Merchandise
Comment 53: Whether Commerce’s
Specificity and Benchmark Analyses
Were Inconsistent for Ontario’s and
Que´bec’s Electricity PPA Programs
Comment 54: Whether Commerce Applied
the Correct Benchmark to Calculate the
Benefit Under IESO’s CHP III Program
Comment 55: Whether IESO’s CHP III
Program Is Specific
Comment 56: Whether Commerce Applied
the Correct Benchmark to Calculate the
Benefit Under Hydro-Que´bec’s PAE
2011–01 Program
Comment 57: Whether Hydro-Que´bec’s
PAE 2011–01 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 Fraser’s
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:\FR\FM\02DEN1.SGM
02DEN1
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
68470
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 229 / Thursday, December 2, 2021 / Notices
Comment 74: Whether the IESO IEI Is
Specific
Comment 75: Whether the IESO Demand
Response Is Countervailable
Comment 76: Whether the PCIP Is
Countervailable
Comment 77: Whether the Paix des Braves
Is Countervailable
Comment 78: Whether the Coˆte-Nord
Wood Residue Program Is
Countervailable
Comment 79: Whether Que´bec’s
Investment Program in Public Forests
Affected by Natural or Anthropogenic
Disturbances Is Countervailable
Comment 80: Whether Que´bec’s MCRP Is
Countervailable
Comment 81: Whether Road Clearing
Contracts with Hydro-Que´bec Are
Countervailable
Comment 82: Whether the PAMVFP Is
Countervailable
Comment 83: Whether the Formabois/
FDRCMO Is Countervailable
Comment 84: Whether the MFOR Is De
Facto Specific
Comment 85: Whether the MFOR Is a NonRecurring Subsidy
Comment 86: Whether the PIB Is
Countervailable
Comment 87: Whether the SOPFEU/
SOPFIM Is Countervailable
Comment 88: Whether Hydro-Que´bec’s IRR
Program Is Countervailable
Comment 89: Whether Hydro-Que´bec’s
ISEE Program Is Countervailable
Comment 90: Whether Hydro-Que´bec’s
EDL Is Countervailable
Comment 91: Whether Hydro-Que´bec’s
Special L Rate Is Tied to Pulp and Paper
Comment 92: Whether Hydro-Que´bec’s
Special L Rate Confers a Benefit
Comment 93: Whether Hydro-Que´bec’s IEO
Is Countervailable
Comment 94: Whether the Federal and
Provincial SR&ED Tax Credits Are
Specific
Comment 95: Whether Class 43.2 Assets
Are Tied to Non-Subject Merchandise
Comment 96: Whether the Class 43.2
Assets Program Is De Facto Specific
Comment 97: Whether the ACCA for Class
29 and Class 53 Assets Program Is
Specific
Comment 98: Whether Commerce Was
Correct to Treat the Both the ACCA and
Class 1 Additional CCA as Individual
Programs
Comment 99: Whether the Class 1
Additional CCA Program Provides a
Financial Contribution that Confers a
Benefit
Comment 100: Whether the Class 1
Additional CCA Program Is Specific
Comment 101: Whether the FLTC and
PLTC Are Countervailable
Comment 102: Whether Alberta’s TEFU
and British Columbia’s Coloured Fuel
Program Are Countervailable
Comment 103: Whether the Benefit
Calculation for Tax Savings Under
Alberta’s TEFU Is Correct
Comment 104: Whether the EOA Property
Tax Is Countervailable
Comment 105: Whether Tax Savings Under
Alberta’s Schedule D Are
Countervailable
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:49 Dec 01, 2021
Jkt 256001
Comment 106: Whether the IPTC Is
Countervailable
Comment 107: Whether Class 7 Managed
Forest Lands Assessment Rates
Constitute a Financial Contribution
Comment 108: Whether the CleanBC
Industrial Incentive Program Is
Countervailable
Comment 109: Whether Commerce Should
Find New Brunswick’s Property Tax
Incentives for Private Forest Producers
Program Countervailable
Comment 110: Whether the Gasoline and
Fuel Tax Program Provides a Financial
Contribution in the Form of Revenue
Forgone or Can Be Found Specific
Comment 111: Whether Ontario’s Tax
Credit for Manufacturing and Processing
Is De Jure Specific
Comment 112: Whether Que´bec’s Refund
of Fuel Tax Paid on Fuel Used for
Stationary Purposes Is Specific
Comment 113: Whether Que´bec’s Research
Consortium Tax Credit Is De Facto
Specific
Comment 114: Whether Que´bec’s Tax
Credit for Investments Relating to
Manufacturing and Processing
Equipment Is Specific
Comment 115: Whether Commerce Should
Include HST in JDIL’s Benefit
Calculations
Comment 116: Whether Sales of Byproducts in the Stumpage for LTAR
Sales Denominator Were in the Proper
Currency
Comment 117: Whether Countervailing
Road Credit Reimbursements Imposes a
Double Remedy on Resolute
Comment 118: Whether the Benefits of
Certain Tax Credits Received by Resolute
Were Extinguished In the AbitibiBowater
Bankruptcy
Comment 119: Whether Commerce Should
Reconsider if the GOO Forgave Debt
Owed by Resolute
Comment 120: Whether Payments Made by
the GOO to Resolute Based on Gaming
the IESO System Constitute a
Countervailable Subsidy
Comment 121: Whether Commerce Should
Correct the Benefit Calculation for
Certain Non-Stumpage Programs Used by
Resolute
Comment 122: Whether Commerce
Properly Calculated West Fraser’s
Benefit Under the Class 1 CCA and Class
29/53 ACCA
X. Recommendation
Appendix II
Non-Selected Exporters/Producers
1. 1074712 BC Ltd.
2. 258258 B.C. Ltd., dba Pacific Coast Cedar
Products
3. 5214875 Manitoba Ltd.
4. 752615 B.C Ltd., Fraserview
Remanufacturing Inc., dba Fraserview
Cedar Products.
5. 9224–5737 Quebec Inc. (aka A.G. Bois)
6. A.B. Cedar Shingle Inc.
7. Absolute Lumber Products, Ltd.
8. AJ Forest Products Ltd.
9. Alberta Spruce Industries Ltd.
10. Aler Forest Products, Ltd.
11. Alpa Lumber Mills Inc.
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
12. AM Lumber Brokerage
13. American Pacific Wood Products
14. Anbrook Industries Ltd.
15. Andersen Pacific Forest Products Ltd.
16. Anglo-American Cedar Products, Ltd.
17. Antrim Cedar Corporation
18. Aquila Cedar Products, Ltd.
19. Arbec Lumber Inc.
20. Aspen Planers Ltd.
21. B&L Forest Products Ltd.
22. B.B. Pallets Inc.
23. Babine Forest Products Limited
24. Bakerview Forest Products Inc.
25. Bardobec Inc.
26. BarretteWood Inc.
27. Barrette-Chapais Ltee
28. Benoit & Dionne Produits Forestiers Ltee
29. Best Quality Cedar Products Ltd.
30. Blanchet Multi Concept Inc.
31. Blanchette & Blanchette Inc.
32. Bois Aise de Montreal Inc.
33. Bois Bonsai Inc.
34. Bois Daaquam Inc.
35. Bois D’oeuvre Cedrico Inc. (aka Cedrico
Lumber Inc.)
36. Bois et Solutions Marketing SPEC, Inc.
37. Boisaco Inc.
38. Boscus Canada Inc.
39. BPWood Ltd.
40. Bramwood Forest Inc.
41. Brink Forest Products Ltd.
42. Brunswick Valley Lumber Inc.
43. Busque & Laflamme Inc.
44. C&C Wood Products Ltd.
45. Caledonia Forest Products Inc.
46. Campbell River Shake & Shingle Co., Ltd.
47. Canadian American Forest Products Ltd.
48. Canadian Wood Products Inc.
49. Canasia Forest Industries Ltd
50. Canusa cedar inc.
51. Canyon Lumber Company, Ltd.
52. Careau Bois Inc.
53. Carrier & Begin Inc.
54. Carrier Forest Products Ltd.
55. Carrier Lumber Ltd.
56. Cedar Valley Holdings Ltd.
57. Cedarline Industries, Ltd.
58. Central Alberta Pallet Supply
59. Central Cedar Ltd.
60. Central Forest Products Inc.
61. Centurion Lumber, Ltd.
62. Chaleur Sawmills LP
63. Channel-ex Trading Corporation
64. Clair Industrial Development Corp. Ltd.
65. Clermond Hamel Ltee
66. CNH Products Inc.
67. Coast Clear Wood Ltd.
68. Coast Mountain Cedar Products Ltd.
69. Columbia River Shake & Shingle Ltd./
Teal Cedar Products Ltd., dba The Teal
Jones Group
70. Commonwealth Plywood Co. Ltd.
71. Comox Valley Shakes Ltd./Comox Valley
Shakes (2019) Ltd.
72. Conifex Fibre Marketing Inc.
73. Cowichan Lumber Ltd.
74. CS Manufacturing Inc., dba Cedarshed
75. CWP—Industriel Inc.
76. CWP—Montreal Inc.
77. D & D Pallets, Ltd.
78. Dakeryn Industries Ltd.
79. Decker Lake Forest Products Ltd.
80. Delco Forest Products Ltd.
81. Delta Cedar Specialties Ltd.
82. Devon Lumber Co. Ltd.
83. DH Manufacturing Inc.
E:\FR\FM\02DEN1.SGM
02DEN1
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 229 / Thursday, December 2, 2021 / Notices
84. Direct Cedar Supplies Ltd.
85. Doubletree Forest Products Ltd.
86. Downie Timber Ltd.
87. Dunkley Lumber Ltd.
88. EACOM Timber Corporation
89. East Fraser Fiber Co. Ltd.
90. Edgewood Forest Products Inc.
91. ER Probyn Export Ltd.
92. Eric Goguen & Sons Ltd.
93. Falcon Lumber Ltd.
94. Fontaine Inc.
95. Foothills Forest Products Inc.
96. Fornebu Lumber Company Inc.
97. Fraser Specialty Products Ltd.
98. FraserWood Inc.
99. FraserWood Industries Ltd.
100. Furtado Forest Products Ltd.
101. G & R Cedar Ltd.
102. Galloway Lumber Company Ltd.
103. Gilbert Smith Forest Products Ltd.
104. Glandell Enterprises Inc.
105. Goat Lake Forest Products Ltd.
106. Goldband Shake & Shingle Ltd.
107. Golden Ears Shingle Ltd.
108. Goldwood Industries Ltd.
109. Goodfellow Inc.
110. Gorman Bros. Lumber Ltd.
111. Groupe Crete Chertsey Inc.
112. Groupe Crete Division St-Faustin Inc.
113. Groupe Lebel Inc.
114. Groupe Lignarex Inc.
115. H.J. Crabbe & Sons Ltd.
116. Haida Forest Products Ltd.
117. Harry Freeman & Son Ltd.
118. Hornepayne Lumber LP
119. Imperial Cedar Products, Ltd.
120. Imperial Shake Co. Ltd.
121. Independent Building Materials Dist.
122. Interfor Corporation
123. Island Cedar Products Ltd
124. Ivor Forest Products Ltd.
125. J&G Log Works Ltd.
126. J.H. Huscroft Ltd.
127. Jan Woodlands (2001) Inc.
128. Jasco Forest Products Ltd.
129. Jazz Forest Products Ltd.
130. Jhajj Lumber Corporation
131. Kalesnikoff Lumber Co. Ltd.
132. Kan Wood, Ltd.
133. Kebois Ltee/Ltd.
134. Keystone Timber Ltd.
135. Kootenay Innovative Wood Ltd.
136. L’Atelier de Readaptation au Travail de
Beauce Inc.
137. Lafontaine Lumber Inc.
138. Langevin Forest Products Inc.
139. Lecours Lumber Co. Limited
140. Ledwidge Lumber Co. Ltd.
141. Leisure Lumber Ltd.
142. Les Bois d’oeuvre Beaudoin Gauthier
inc.
143. Les Bois Martek Lumber
144. Les Bois Traites M.G. Inc.
145. Les Chantiers de Chibougamau Ltd.
146. Leslie Forest Products Ltd.
147. Lignum Forest Products LLP
148. Linwood Homes Ltd.
149. Longlac Lumber Inc.
150. Lulumco Inc.
151. Magnum Forest Products, Ltd.
152. Maibec inc.
153. Manitou Forest Products Ltd.
154. Marwood Ltd.
155. Materiaux Blanchet Inc.
156. Matsqui Management and Consulting
Services Ltd., dba Canadian Cedar
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:49 Dec 01, 2021
Jkt 256001
Roofing Depot
157. Metrie Canada Ltd.
158. Mid Valley Lumber Specialties, Ltd.
159. Midway Lumber Mills Ltd.
160. Mill & Timber Products Ltd.
161. Millar Western Forest Products Ltd.
162. Mobilier Rustique (Beauce) Inc.
163. MP Atlantic Wood Ltd.
164. Multicedre ltee
165. Murray Brothers Lumber Company Ltd
166. Nakina Lumber Inc.
167. National Forest Products Ltd.
168. New Future Lumber Ltd.
169. Nicholson and Cates Ltd
170. Norsask Forest Products Limited
Partnership
171. North American Forest Products Ltd.
(located in Abbotsford, British Columbia)
172. North Enderby Timber Ltd.
173. Oikawa Enterprises Ltd.
174. Olympic Industries, Inc./Olympic
Industries Inc-Reman Code/Olympic
Industries ULC/Olympic Industries ULCReman/Olympic Industries ULC-Reman
Code
175. Oregon Canadian Forest Products
176. Pacific Coast Cedar Products, Ltd.
177. Pacific Pallet, Ltd.
178. Pacific Western Wood Works Ltd.
179. Parallel Wood Products Ltd.
180. Pat Power Forest Products Corporation
181. Phoenix Forest Products Inc.
182. Pine Ideas Ltd.
183. Pioneer Pallet & Lumber Ltd.
184. Porcupine Wood Products Ltd.
185. Power Wood Corp.
186. Precision Cedar Products Corp.
187. Prendiville Industries Ltd. (aka, Kenora
Forest Products)
188. Produits Forestiers Petit Paris Inc.
189. Produits forestiers Temrex, s.e.c.
190. Produits Matra Inc. and Sechoirs de
Beauce Inc.
191. Promobois G.D.S. inc.
192. Quadra Cedar
193. Rayonier A.M. Canada GP
194. Rembos Inc.
195. Rene Bernard Inc.
196. Richard Lutes Cedar Inc.
197. Rielly Industrial Lumber Inc.
198. S & K Cedar Products Ltd.
199. S&R Sawmills Ltd
200. S&W Forest Products Ltd.
201. San Industries Ltd.
202. Sawarne Lumber Co. Ltd.
203. Scierie P.S.E. lnc.
204. Scierie St-Michel inc.
205. Scierie West Brome Inc.
206. Scotsburn Lumber Co. Ltd.
207. Scott Lumber Sales
208. Serpentine Cedar Ltd.
209. Sexton Lumber Co. Ltd.
210. Sigurdson Forest Products Ltd.
211. Silvaris Corporation
212. Silver Creek Premium Products Ltd.
213. Sinclar Group Forest Products Ltd.
214. Skana Forest Products Ltd.
215. Skeena Sawmills Ltd
216. Sound Spars Enterprise Ltd.
217. South Beach Trading Inc.
218. Specialiste de Bardeau de Cedre Inc.
219. Spruceland Millworks Inc.
220. Star Lumber Canada Ltd.
221. Sundher Timber Products Ltd.
222. Surrey Cedar Ltd.
223. T.G. Wood Products, Ltd.
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
68471
224. Taan Forest LP/Taan Forest Products
225. Taiga Building Products Ltd.
226. Tall Tree Lumber Company
227. Tembec Inc.
228. Temrex Produits Forestiers s.e.c.
229. Terminal Forest Products Ltd.
230. The Wood Source Inc.
231. Tolko Industries Ltd. and Tolko
Marketing and Sales Ltd.
232. Trans-Pacific Trading Ltd.
233. Triad Forest Products Ltd.
234. Twin Rivers Paper Co. Inc.
235. Tyee Timber Products Ltd.
236. Universal Lumber Sales Ltd.
237. Usine Sartigan Inc.
238. Vaagen Fibre Canada, ULC
239. Valley Cedar 2 Inc./Valley Cedar 2 ULC
240. Vancouver Island Shingle, Ltd.
241. Vancouver Specialty Cedar Products
Ltd.
242. Vanderhoof Specialty Wood Products
Ltd.
243. Visscher Lumber Inc
244. W.I. Woodtone Industries Inc.
245. Waldun Forest Product Sales Ltd.
246. Watkins Sawmills Ltd.
247. West Bay Forest Products Ltd.
248. West Wind Hardwood Inc.
249. Western Forest Products Inc.
250. Western Lumber Sales Limited
251. Western Wood Preservers Ltd.
252. Weston Forest Products Inc.
253. Westrend Exteriors Inc.
254. Weyerhaeuser Co.
255. White River Forest Products L.P.
256. Winton Homes Ltd.
257. Woodline Forest Products Ltd.
258. Woodstock Forest Products/Woodstock
Forest Products Inc.
259. Woodtone Specialties Inc.
260. Yarrow Wood Ltd.
[FR Doc. 2021–26152 Filed 12–1–21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A–122–857]
Certain Softwood Lumber Products
From Canada: Final Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review; 2019
Enforcement and Compliance,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce
(Commerce) determines that producers
and/or exporters subject to this
administrative review made sales of
subject merchandise at less than normal
value during the period of review (POR),
January 1, 2019, through December 31,
2019.
DATES: Applicable December 2, 2021.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeff
Pedersen (Canfor) or Maisha Cryor
(West Fraser), AD/CVD Operations,
Office IV, Enforcement and Compliance,
International Trade Administration,
AGENCY:
E:\FR\FM\02DEN1.SGM
02DEN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 229 (Thursday, December 2, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 68467-68471]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-26152]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[C-122-858]
Certain Softwood Lumber Products From Canada: Final Results of
the Countervailing Duty Administrative Review, 2019
AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (Commerce) determines that
producers and exporters of certain softwood lumber products (softwood
lumber) from Canada received countervailable subsidies during the
period of review, January 1, 2019, through December 31, 2019.
DATES: Applicable December 2, 2021.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jonathan Hall-Eastman (Canfor), John
Hoffner (JDIL), Kristen Johnson/Samuel Brummitt (Resolute), and Laura
Griffith (West Fraser), AD/CVD Operations, Office III, Enforcement and
Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 1401
[[Page 68468]]
Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-
1468, (202) 482-3315, (202) 482-4793/(202) 482-7851, and (202) 482-
6430, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Commerce published the preliminary results of this countervailing
duty (CVD) administrative review of softwood lumber from Canada on May
27, 2021, and invited interested parties to comment.\1\ For a summary
of the events that occurred since the Preliminary Results and a full
discussion of the issues raised by parties for the final results, see
the Issues and Decision Memorandum.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See Certain Softwood Lumber Products from Canada:
Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission of the Countervailing
Duty Administrative Review; 2019, 86 FR 28556 (May 27, 2021)
(Preliminary Results).
\2\ See Memorandum, ``Issues and Decision Memorandum for the
Final Results of the Administrative Review of the Countervailing
Duty Order on Certain Softwood Lumber Products from Canada; 2019,''
dated concurrently with, and hereby adopted by, this notice (Issues
and Decision Memorandum). 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. In addition, members
of the public may access the IDM at https://access.trade.gov/public/FRNoticesListLayout.aspx.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scope of the Order 3
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See Certain Softwood Lumber Products from Canada: Amended
Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination and
Countervailing Duty Order, 83 FR 347 (January 3, 2018) (Order).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The product covered by the Order is certain softwood lumber
products from Canada. For a complete description of the scope of the
Order, see the Issues and Decision Memorandum.
Analysis of Subsidy Programs and Comments Received
Commerce conducted this CVD administrative review in accordance
with section 751(a)(1)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the
Act). The subsidy programs under review, and the issues raised in case
and rebuttal briefs submitted by the interested parties, are discussed
in the Issues and Decision Memorandum. A list of the issues that the
parties raised, and to which we responded in the Issues and Decision
Memorandum, is attached to this notice at Appendix I. Based on our
analysis of the comments received from the interested parties, we made
changes to the subsidy rates calculated for certain respondents. For a
discussion of these changes, see the Issues and Decision Memorandum.
Rate for Non-Selected Companies Under Review
Because the rates calculated for the companies selected for
individual review are above de minimis and not based entirely on facts
available, we applied a subsidy rate based on a weighted average of the
subsidy rates calculated for the reviewed companies using sales data
submitted by those companies to calculate a rate for the companies not
selected for review. This is consistent with the methodology that we
would use in an investigation to establish the all-others rate,
pursuant to section 705(c)(5)(A) of the Act. A list of all non-selected
companies is included in Appendix II.
For further information on the calculation of the non-selected
rate, see ``Final Ad Valorem Rate for Non-Selected Companies under
Review'' in the Issues and Decision Memorandum.
Final Results of Administrative Review
In accordance with section 751(a)(1)(A) and of the Act and 19 CFR
351.221(b)(5), we determine that the following total estimated
countervailable subsidy rates exist for 2019:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subsidy
rate 2019
Companies ad valorem
(percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Canfor Corporation and its cross-owned affiliates \4\....... 2.42
J.D. Irving, Limited and its cross-owned affiliates \5\..... 3.41
Resolute FP Canada Inc. and its cross-owned affiliates \6\.. 18.07
West Fraser Mills Ltd. and its cross-owned affiliates \7\... 5.06
Non-Selected Companies...................................... 6.31
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disclosure
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Commerce finds the following companies to be cross-owned
with Canfor Corporation: Canadian Forest Products., Ltd. and Canfor
Wood Products Marketing, Ltd.
\5\ Commerce finds the following companies to be cross-owned
with J.D. Irving, Limited: Miramichi Timber Holdings Limited, The
New Brunswick Railway Company, Rothesay Paper Holdings Ltd., and St.
George Pulp & Paper Limited.
\6\ Commerce finds the following companies to be cross-owned
with Resolute: Resolute Growth Canada Inc., Produits Forestiers
Maurice SEC., and Resolute Forest Products Inc.
\7\ Commerce finds the following companies to be cross-owned
with West Fraser: West Fraser Timber Co., Ltd., Blue Ridge Lumber
Inc., Sunpine Inc., Sundre Forest Products Inc., Manning Forest
Products, and West Fraser Alberta Holdings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commerce intends to disclose the calculations performed for these
final results of review within five days of the date of publication of
this notice in the Federal Register, in accordance with 19 CFR
351.244(b).
Assessment Rates
Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act and 19 CFR
351.212(b)(2), Commerce will determine, and U.S. Customs and Border
Protection (CBP) shall assess, countervailing duties on all appropriate
entries of subject merchandise covered by this review.
Commerce intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP no earlier
than 41 days after the date of publication of the final results of this
review in the Federal Register, in accordance with 19 CFR 356.8(a).
Cash Deposit Requirements
In accordance with section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act, Commerce
intends to instruct CBP to collect cash deposits of estimated
countervailing duties in the amounts shown for the companies subject to
this review. For all non-reviewed companies, we will instruct CBP to
continue to collect cash deposits of estimated countervailing duties at
the most recent company-specific or all-others rate applicable to the
company, as appropriate. These cash deposits, when imposed, shall
remain in effect until further notice.
Administrative Protective Order (APO)
This notice also serves as a final reminder to parties subject to
APO of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of
proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR
351.305(a)(3). Timely written 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 sanctionable violation.
Notification to Interested Parties
Commerce is issuing and publishing these final results of
administrative review in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and
777(i)(1) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.213(d)(4) and 351.221(b)(5).
Dated: November 23, 2021.
Ryan Majerus,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy and Negotiations, performing the
non-exclusive functions and duties of the Assistant Secretary for
Enforcement and Compliance.
Appendix I
List of Topics Discussed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum
I. Summary
II. List of Issues
III. Case History
IV. Period of Review
V. Scope of the Order
VI. Subsidies Valuation
VII. Analysis of Programs
VIII. Final Ad Valorem Rate for Non-Selected
[[Page 68469]]
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 Qu[eacute]bec 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 Tier-One Benchmark
Comment 15: Whether Ontario's Crown Stumpage Market Is Distorted
Comment 16: Whether Ontario's 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 Resolute's Stumpage
Benefit Calculation Regarding Corrected Transactions
Comment 19: Whether Qu[eacute]bec's Stumpage Market Is Distorted
Comment 20: Whether Qu[eacute]bec's 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 Commerce's 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 BC's ``Stand-as-a-whole''
Stumpage Pricing
Comment 27: Whether the 2017-2018 Private Stumpage Survey Is
Sufficiently Contemporaneous for Use as a Tier-One Benchmark
Comment 28: Whether Nova Scotia Is Comparable to Qu[eacute]bec,
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 Fire-Killed Timber Harvested in Alberta
Comment 32: Whether to Adjust the Nova Scotia Benchmark to
Account for Beetle-Killed-Timber Harvested in Alberta
Comment 33: Whether to Adjust the Nova Scotia Benchmark to
Account for Beetle Killed-Timber Harvested in Qu[eacute]bec
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 Qu[eacute]bec, 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 JDIL's 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 Qu[eacute]bec, Ontario, and
Alberta
Comment 41: Whether Nova Scotia's Forest Is Comparable to the
Forests of New Brunswick, Qu[eacute]bec, 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 Qu[eacute]bec, 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 2017-2018 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 Qu[eacute]bec
Comment 47: Whether Commerce Should Find Restrictions on Log
Exports in Alberta, New Brunswick, Ontario, and Qu[eacute]bec 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 Resolute's Ontario and Qu[eacute]bec
Electricity PPAs Are Tied to Non-Subject Merchandise
Comment 53: Whether Commerce's Specificity and Benchmark
Analyses Were Inconsistent for Ontario's and Qu[eacute]bec's
Electricity PPA Programs
Comment 54: Whether Commerce Applied the Correct Benchmark to
Calculate the Benefit Under IESO's CHP III Program
Comment 55: Whether IESO's CHP III Program Is Specific
Comment 56: Whether Commerce Applied the Correct Benchmark to
Calculate the Benefit Under Hydro-Qu[eacute]bec's PAE 2011-01
Program
Comment 57: Whether Hydro-Qu[eacute]bec's PAE 2011-01 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 Fraser's 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
[[Page 68470]]
Comment 74: Whether the IESO IEI Is Specific
Comment 75: Whether the IESO Demand Response Is Countervailable
Comment 76: Whether the PCIP Is Countervailable
Comment 77: Whether the Paix des Braves Is Countervailable
Comment 78: Whether the C[ocirc]te-Nord Wood Residue Program Is
Countervailable
Comment 79: Whether Qu[eacute]bec's Investment Program in Public
Forests Affected by Natural or Anthropogenic Disturbances Is
Countervailable
Comment 80: Whether Qu[eacute]bec's MCRP Is Countervailable
Comment 81: Whether Road Clearing Contracts with Hydro-
Qu[eacute]bec Are Countervailable
Comment 82: Whether the PAMVFP Is Countervailable
Comment 83: Whether the Formabois/FDRCMO Is Countervailable
Comment 84: Whether the MFOR Is De Facto Specific
Comment 85: Whether the MFOR Is a Non-Recurring Subsidy
Comment 86: Whether the PIB Is Countervailable
Comment 87: Whether the SOPFEU/SOPFIM Is Countervailable
Comment 88: Whether Hydro-Qu[eacute]bec's IRR Program Is
Countervailable
Comment 89: Whether Hydro-Qu[eacute]bec's ISEE Program Is
Countervailable
Comment 90: Whether Hydro-Qu[eacute]bec's EDL Is Countervailable
Comment 91: Whether Hydro-Qu[eacute]bec's Special L Rate Is Tied
to Pulp and Paper
Comment 92: Whether Hydro-Qu[eacute]bec's Special L Rate Confers
a Benefit
Comment 93: Whether Hydro-Qu[eacute]bec's IEO Is Countervailable
Comment 94: Whether the Federal and Provincial SR&ED Tax Credits
Are Specific
Comment 95: Whether Class 43.2 Assets Are Tied to Non-Subject
Merchandise
Comment 96: Whether the Class 43.2 Assets Program Is De Facto
Specific
Comment 97: Whether the ACCA for Class 29 and Class 53 Assets
Program Is Specific
Comment 98: Whether Commerce Was Correct to Treat the Both the
ACCA and Class 1 Additional CCA as Individual Programs
Comment 99: Whether the Class 1 Additional CCA Program Provides
a Financial Contribution that Confers a Benefit
Comment 100: Whether the Class 1 Additional CCA Program Is
Specific
Comment 101: Whether the FLTC and PLTC Are Countervailable
Comment 102: Whether Alberta's TEFU and British Columbia's
Coloured Fuel Program Are Countervailable
Comment 103: Whether the Benefit Calculation for Tax Savings
Under Alberta's TEFU Is Correct
Comment 104: Whether the EOA Property Tax Is Countervailable
Comment 105: Whether Tax Savings Under Alberta's Schedule D Are
Countervailable
Comment 106: Whether the IPTC Is Countervailable
Comment 107: Whether Class 7 Managed Forest Lands Assessment
Rates Constitute a Financial Contribution
Comment 108: Whether the CleanBC Industrial Incentive Program Is
Countervailable
Comment 109: Whether Commerce Should Find New Brunswick's
Property Tax Incentives for Private Forest Producers Program
Countervailable
Comment 110: Whether the Gasoline and Fuel Tax Program Provides
a Financial Contribution in the Form of Revenue Forgone or Can Be
Found Specific
Comment 111: Whether Ontario's Tax Credit for Manufacturing and
Processing Is De Jure Specific
Comment 112: Whether Qu[eacute]bec's Refund of Fuel Tax Paid on
Fuel Used for Stationary Purposes Is Specific
Comment 113: Whether Qu[eacute]bec's Research Consortium Tax
Credit Is De Facto Specific
Comment 114: Whether Qu[eacute]bec's Tax Credit for Investments
Relating to Manufacturing and Processing Equipment Is Specific
Comment 115: Whether Commerce Should Include HST in JDIL's
Benefit Calculations
Comment 116: Whether Sales of By-products in the Stumpage for
LTAR Sales Denominator Were in the Proper Currency
Comment 117: Whether Countervailing Road Credit Reimbursements
Imposes a Double Remedy on Resolute
Comment 118: Whether the Benefits of Certain Tax Credits
Received by Resolute Were Extinguished In the AbitibiBowater
Bankruptcy
Comment 119: Whether Commerce Should Reconsider if the GOO
Forgave Debt Owed by Resolute
Comment 120: Whether Payments Made by the GOO to Resolute Based
on Gaming the IESO System Constitute a Countervailable Subsidy
Comment 121: Whether Commerce Should Correct the Benefit
Calculation for Certain Non-Stumpage Programs Used by Resolute
Comment 122: Whether Commerce Properly Calculated West Fraser's
Benefit Under the Class 1 CCA and Class 29/53 ACCA
X. Recommendation
Appendix II
Non-Selected Exporters/Producers
1. 1074712 BC Ltd.
2. 258258 B.C. Ltd., dba Pacific Coast Cedar Products
3. 5214875 Manitoba Ltd.
4. 752615 B.C Ltd., Fraserview Remanufacturing Inc., dba Fraserview
Cedar Products.
5. 9224-5737 Quebec Inc. (aka A.G. Bois)
6. A.B. Cedar Shingle Inc.
7. Absolute Lumber Products, Ltd.
8. AJ Forest Products Ltd.
9. Alberta Spruce Industries Ltd.
10. Aler Forest Products, Ltd.
11. Alpa Lumber Mills Inc.
12. AM Lumber Brokerage
13. American Pacific Wood Products
14. Anbrook Industries Ltd.
15. Andersen Pacific Forest Products Ltd.
16. Anglo-American Cedar Products, Ltd.
17. Antrim Cedar Corporation
18. Aquila Cedar Products, Ltd.
19. Arbec Lumber Inc.
20. Aspen Planers Ltd.
21. B&L Forest Products Ltd.
22. B.B. Pallets Inc.
23. Babine Forest Products Limited
24. Bakerview Forest Products Inc.
25. Bardobec Inc.
26. BarretteWood Inc.
27. Barrette-Chapais Ltee
28. Benoit & Dionne Produits Forestiers Ltee
29. Best Quality Cedar Products Ltd.
30. Blanchet Multi Concept Inc.
31. Blanchette & Blanchette Inc.
32. Bois Aise de Montreal Inc.
33. Bois Bonsai Inc.
34. Bois Daaquam Inc.
35. Bois D'oeuvre Cedrico Inc. (aka Cedrico Lumber Inc.)
36. Bois et Solutions Marketing SPEC, Inc.
37. Boisaco Inc.
38. Boscus Canada Inc.
39. BPWood Ltd.
40. Bramwood Forest Inc.
41. Brink Forest Products Ltd.
42. Brunswick Valley Lumber Inc.
43. Busque & Laflamme Inc.
44. C&C Wood Products Ltd.
45. Caledonia Forest Products Inc.
46. Campbell River Shake & Shingle Co., Ltd.
47. Canadian American Forest Products Ltd.
48. Canadian Wood Products Inc.
49. Canasia Forest Industries Ltd
50. Canusa cedar inc.
51. Canyon Lumber Company, Ltd.
52. Careau Bois Inc.
53. Carrier & Begin Inc.
54. Carrier Forest Products Ltd.
55. Carrier Lumber Ltd.
56. Cedar Valley Holdings Ltd.
57. Cedarline Industries, Ltd.
58. Central Alberta Pallet Supply
59. Central Cedar Ltd.
60. Central Forest Products Inc.
61. Centurion Lumber, Ltd.
62. Chaleur Sawmills LP
63. Channel-ex Trading Corporation
64. Clair Industrial Development Corp. Ltd.
65. Clermond Hamel Ltee
66. CNH Products Inc.
67. Coast Clear Wood Ltd.
68. Coast Mountain Cedar Products Ltd.
69. Columbia River Shake & Shingle Ltd./Teal Cedar Products Ltd.,
dba The Teal Jones Group
70. Commonwealth Plywood Co. Ltd.
71. Comox Valley Shakes Ltd./Comox Valley Shakes (2019) Ltd.
72. Conifex Fibre Marketing Inc.
73. Cowichan Lumber Ltd.
74. CS Manufacturing Inc., dba Cedarshed
75. CWP--Industriel Inc.
76. CWP--Montreal Inc.
77. D & D Pallets, Ltd.
78. Dakeryn Industries Ltd.
79. Decker Lake Forest Products Ltd.
80. Delco Forest Products Ltd.
81. Delta Cedar Specialties Ltd.
82. Devon Lumber Co. Ltd.
83. DH Manufacturing Inc.
[[Page 68471]]
84. Direct Cedar Supplies Ltd.
85. Doubletree Forest Products Ltd.
86. Downie Timber Ltd.
87. Dunkley Lumber Ltd.
88. EACOM Timber Corporation
89. East Fraser Fiber Co. Ltd.
90. Edgewood Forest Products Inc.
91. ER Probyn Export Ltd.
92. Eric Goguen & Sons Ltd.
93. Falcon Lumber Ltd.
94. Fontaine Inc.
95. Foothills Forest Products Inc.
96. Fornebu Lumber Company Inc.
97. Fraser Specialty Products Ltd.
98. FraserWood Inc.
99. FraserWood Industries Ltd.
100. Furtado Forest Products Ltd.
101. G & R Cedar Ltd.
102. Galloway Lumber Company Ltd.
103. Gilbert Smith Forest Products Ltd.
104. Glandell Enterprises Inc.
105. Goat Lake Forest Products Ltd.
106. Goldband Shake & Shingle Ltd.
107. Golden Ears Shingle Ltd.
108. Goldwood Industries Ltd.
109. Goodfellow Inc.
110. Gorman Bros. Lumber Ltd.
111. Groupe Crete Chertsey Inc.
112. Groupe Crete Division St-Faustin Inc.
113. Groupe Lebel Inc.
114. Groupe Lignarex Inc.
115. H.J. Crabbe & Sons Ltd.
116. Haida Forest Products Ltd.
117. Harry Freeman & Son Ltd.
118. Hornepayne Lumber LP
119. Imperial Cedar Products, Ltd.
120. Imperial Shake Co. Ltd.
121. Independent Building Materials Dist.
122. Interfor Corporation
123. Island Cedar Products Ltd
124. Ivor Forest Products Ltd.
125. J&G Log Works Ltd.
126. J.H. Huscroft Ltd.
127. Jan Woodlands (2001) Inc.
128. Jasco Forest Products Ltd.
129. Jazz Forest Products Ltd.
130. Jhajj Lumber Corporation
131. Kalesnikoff Lumber Co. Ltd.
132. Kan Wood, Ltd.
133. Kebois Ltee/Ltd.
134. Keystone Timber Ltd.
135. Kootenay Innovative Wood Ltd.
136. L'Atelier de Readaptation au Travail de Beauce Inc.
137. Lafontaine Lumber Inc.
138. Langevin Forest Products Inc.
139. Lecours Lumber Co. Limited
140. Ledwidge Lumber Co. Ltd.
141. Leisure Lumber Ltd.
142. Les Bois d'oeuvre Beaudoin Gauthier inc.
143. Les Bois Martek Lumber
144. Les Bois Traites M.G. Inc.
145. Les Chantiers de Chibougamau Ltd.
146. Leslie Forest Products Ltd.
147. Lignum Forest Products LLP
148. Linwood Homes Ltd.
149. Longlac Lumber Inc.
150. Lulumco Inc.
151. Magnum Forest Products, Ltd.
152. Maibec inc.
153. Manitou Forest Products Ltd.
154. Marwood Ltd.
155. Materiaux Blanchet Inc.
156. Matsqui Management and Consulting Services Ltd., dba Canadian
Cedar Roofing Depot
157. Metrie Canada Ltd.
158. Mid Valley Lumber Specialties, Ltd.
159. Midway Lumber Mills Ltd.
160. Mill & Timber Products Ltd.
161. Millar Western Forest Products Ltd.
162. Mobilier Rustique (Beauce) Inc.
163. MP Atlantic Wood Ltd.
164. Multicedre ltee
165. Murray Brothers Lumber Company Ltd
166. Nakina Lumber Inc.
167. National Forest Products Ltd.
168. New Future Lumber Ltd.
169. Nicholson and Cates Ltd
170. Norsask Forest Products Limited Partnership
171. North American Forest Products Ltd. (located in Abbotsford,
British Columbia)
172. North Enderby Timber Ltd.
173. Oikawa Enterprises Ltd.
174. Olympic Industries, Inc./Olympic Industries Inc-Reman Code/
Olympic Industries ULC/Olympic Industries ULC-Reman/Olympic
Industries ULC-Reman Code
175. Oregon Canadian Forest Products
176. Pacific Coast Cedar Products, Ltd.
177. Pacific Pallet, Ltd.
178. Pacific Western Wood Works Ltd.
179. Parallel Wood Products Ltd.
180. Pat Power Forest Products Corporation
181. Phoenix Forest Products Inc.
182. Pine Ideas Ltd.
183. Pioneer Pallet & Lumber Ltd.
184. Porcupine Wood Products Ltd.
185. Power Wood Corp.
186. Precision Cedar Products Corp.
187. Prendiville Industries Ltd. (aka, Kenora Forest Products)
188. Produits Forestiers Petit Paris Inc.
189. Produits forestiers Temrex, s.e.c.
190. Produits Matra Inc. and Sechoirs de Beauce Inc.
191. Promobois G.D.S. inc.
192. Quadra Cedar
193. Rayonier A.M. Canada GP
194. Rembos Inc.
195. Rene Bernard Inc.
196. Richard Lutes Cedar Inc.
197. Rielly Industrial Lumber Inc.
198. S & K Cedar Products Ltd.
199. S&R Sawmills Ltd
200. S&W Forest Products Ltd.
201. San Industries Ltd.
202. Sawarne Lumber Co. Ltd.
203. Scierie P.S.E. lnc.
204. Scierie St-Michel inc.
205. Scierie West Brome Inc.
206. Scotsburn Lumber Co. Ltd.
207. Scott Lumber Sales
208. Serpentine Cedar Ltd.
209. Sexton Lumber Co. Ltd.
210. Sigurdson Forest Products Ltd.
211. Silvaris Corporation
212. Silver Creek Premium Products Ltd.
213. Sinclar Group Forest Products Ltd.
214. Skana Forest Products Ltd.
215. Skeena Sawmills Ltd
216. Sound Spars Enterprise Ltd.
217. South Beach Trading Inc.
218. Specialiste de Bardeau de Cedre Inc.
219. Spruceland Millworks Inc.
220. Star Lumber Canada Ltd.
221. Sundher Timber Products Ltd.
222. Surrey Cedar Ltd.
223. T.G. Wood Products, Ltd.
224. Taan Forest LP/Taan Forest Products
225. Taiga Building Products Ltd.
226. Tall Tree Lumber Company
227. Tembec Inc.
228. Temrex Produits Forestiers s.e.c.
229. Terminal Forest Products Ltd.
230. The Wood Source Inc.
231. Tolko Industries Ltd. and Tolko Marketing and Sales Ltd.
232. Trans-Pacific Trading Ltd.
233. Triad Forest Products Ltd.
234. Twin Rivers Paper Co. Inc.
235. Tyee Timber Products Ltd.
236. Universal Lumber Sales Ltd.
237. Usine Sartigan Inc.
238. Vaagen Fibre Canada, ULC
239. Valley Cedar 2 Inc./Valley Cedar 2 ULC
240. Vancouver Island Shingle, Ltd.
241. Vancouver Specialty Cedar Products Ltd.
242. Vanderhoof Specialty Wood Products Ltd.
243. Visscher Lumber Inc
244. W.I. Woodtone Industries Inc.
245. Waldun Forest Product Sales Ltd.
246. Watkins Sawmills Ltd.
247. West Bay Forest Products Ltd.
248. West Wind Hardwood Inc.
249. Western Forest Products Inc.
250. Western Lumber Sales Limited
251. Western Wood Preservers Ltd.
252. Weston Forest Products Inc.
253. Westrend Exteriors Inc.
254. Weyerhaeuser Co.
255. White River Forest Products L.P.
256. Winton Homes Ltd.
257. Woodline Forest Products Ltd.
258. Woodstock Forest Products/Woodstock Forest Products Inc.
259. Woodtone Specialties Inc.
260. Yarrow Wood Ltd.
[FR Doc. 2021-26152 Filed 12-1-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
