Certain Softwood Lumber Products From Canada: Final Results and Final Rescission, in Part, of the Countervailing Duty Administrative Review, 2020, 48455-48459 [2022-17066]

Download as PDF Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 152 / Tuesday, August 9, 2022 / Notices briefs, no later than 120 days after the date of publication of this notice, pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213(h), unless this deadline is extended. jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES Assessment Rates In accordance with 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4)(i), we preliminarily assigned subsidy rates in the amounts shown above for the producers/ exporters shown above. Upon completion of the administrative review, consistent with section 751(a)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.212(b)(2), Commerce shall determine, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess, countervailing duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review. For the companies for which this review is rescinded, we will instruct CBP to assess countervailing duties on all appropriate entries at a rate equal to the cash deposit of estimated countervailing duties required at the time of entry, or withdrawal from warehouse, for consumption, during the period January 1, 2020, through December 31, 2020, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(c)(l)(i). For the companies remaining in the review, Commerce intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP no earlier than 35 days after the date of publication of the final results of this review in the Federal Register. If a timely summons is filed at the U.S. Court of International Trade, the assessment instructions will direct CBP not to liquidate relevant entries until the time for parties to file a request for a statutory injunction has expired (i.e., within 90 days of publication). with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4). Dated: July 29, 2022. Lisa W. Wang, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. Appendix—List of Topics Discussed in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum I. Summary II. Background III. Partial Rescission of Administrative Review IV. Non-Selected Rate V. Scope of the Order VI. Subsidies Valuation Information VII. Analysis of Programs VIII. Recommendation [FR Doc. 2022–17020 Filed 8–8–22; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [C–122–858] Certain Softwood Lumber Products From Canada: Final Results and Final Rescission, in Part, of the Countervailing Duty Administrative Review, 2020 Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: The U.S. 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 (POR), January 1, 2020, through December 31, 2020. With respect to 18 companies, we are rescinding this administrative review because none of the companies had a reviewable entry during the POR. DATES: Applicable August 9, 2022. 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 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–1468, (202) 482–3315, (202) 482–4793/(202) 482–7851, and (202) 482–6430, respectively. AGENCY: Cash Deposit Requirements In accordance with section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act, Commerce intends, upon publication of the final results, to instruct CBP to collect cash deposits of estimated countervailing duties in the amounts shown for each of the respondents listed above on shipments of subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of the final results of this administrative review. For all nonreviewed firms, CBP will 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 deposit instructions, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice. Background Notification to Interested Parties These preliminary results and notice are issued and published in accordance Commerce published the preliminary results of this countervailing duty (CVD) administrative review of softwood VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:04 Aug 08, 2022 Jkt 256001 SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 48455 lumber from Canada on February 4, 2022, 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 The product covered by this order is certain softwood lumber products from Canada. For a complete description of the scope of the Order, see the Issues and Decision Memorandum. Final Rescission of Administrative Review, in Part Based on our analysis of U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) data and comments received from interested parties, we determine that the 18 companies listed below had no reviewable shipments, sales, or entries of subject merchandise during the POR. Absent evidence of shipments on the record, we are rescinding the administrative review of these companies, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3). For further information, see ‘‘Final Rescission of Administrative Review, in Part’’ in the Issues and Decision Memorandum. AA Trading Ltd. Blanchette & Blanchette Inc. Canada Pallet Corp. Careau Bois Inc. Cedarcoast Lumber Products CWP—Montreal inc. Goldband Shake & Shingle Ltd. Imperial Cedar Products, Ltd. Les Produits Forestiers D&G Lte´e (aka, D&G Forest Products Ltd.) Marcel Lauzon Inc. North American Forest Products Ltd. (located in Saint-Quentin, New Brunswick) Sapphire Lumber Company Scierie Alexandre Lemay & Fils Inc. Skeena Sawmills Ltd Sonora Logging Ltd. 1 See Certain Softwood Lumber Products from Canada: Preliminary Results, Partial Rescission, and Preliminary Intent to Rescind, in Part, the Countervailing Duty Administrative Review; 2020, 87 FR 6500 (February 4, 2022) (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; 2020,’’ 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 directly at https:// access.trade.gov/public/FRNoticesListLayout.aspx. E:\FR\FM\09AUN1.SGM 09AUN1 48456 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 152 / Tuesday, August 9, 2022 / Notices Suncoast Industries Inc. Western Timber Products, Inc. WWW Timber Products Ltd. 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 NonSelected Companies under Review’’ in the Issues and Decision Memorandum. For a list of the non-selected companies, see Appendix II to this notice. Final Results of Administrative Review jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES 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 2020: Companies Canfor Corporation and its cross-owned affiliates 3 ..... J.D. Irving, Limited and its cross-owned affiliates 4 ..... VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:04 Aug 08, 2022 Subsidy rate ad valorem (percent) 0.95 percent 2.41 percent Jkt 256001 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 10.10 percent conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply 3.62 percent with the regulations and the terms of an 3.83 percent APO is a sanctionable violation. Subsidy rate ad valorem (percent) Companies Resolute FP Canada Inc. and its cross-owned affiliates 5 ................................. West Fraser Mills Ltd. and its cross-owned affiliates 6 ..... Non-Selected Companies ..... 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 351.224(b). Assessment Rates Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.212(b)(2), Commerce will determine, and 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 3 Commerce finds the following companies to be cross-owned with Canfor Corporation: Canadian Forest Products., Ltd. and Canfor Wood Products Marketing, Ltd. 4 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. 5 Commerce finds the following companies to be cross-owned with Resolute FP Canada Inc.: Produits Forestiers Maurice SEC. and Resolute Forest Products Inc. 6 Commerce finds the following companies to be cross-owned with West Fraser Mills Ltd.: West Fraser Timber Co., Ltd., Blue Ridge Lumber Inc., Sunpine Inc., Sundre Forest Products Inc., Manning Forest Products, Ltd., and West Fraser Alberta Holdings, Ltd. PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 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: August 3, 2022. Ryan Majerus, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy and Negotiations. 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. Final Rescission of Administrative Review, in Part VI. Scope of the Order VII. Subsidies Valuation VIII. Analysis of Programs IX. Final Ad Valorem Rate for Non-Selected Companies Under Review X. Analysis of Comments A. General Issues Comment 1: Whether Commerce Respects Canadian Sovereignty Comment 2: Whether Commerce’s Specificity Analysis for Certain Que´bec Programs Is Consistent With the Law Comment 3: Whether Commerce’s Countervailable Findings for Que´bec’s Grant Programs Are Appropriate Comment 4: Whether Electricity Curtailment Programs Are Countervailable Comment 5: Whether Agreements with Consumers to Reduce Energy Consumption and GHG Are Grants Comment 6: Whether Commerce Should Rescind Lemay’s Review Comment 7: Whether Commerce Should Consider Climate Change Goals Comment 8: Whether Commerce Should Have Used a Sampling Methodology to Select Respondents for This Review B. General Stumpage Issues Comment 9: Whether Stumpage Is an Untied Subsidy C. Alberta Stumpage Issues Comment 10: Whether the Alberta Stumpage Market Is Distorted Comment 11: Whether TDA Survey Prices Are an Appropriate Benchmark for Alberta Crown-Origin Stumpage Comment 12: Whether FRIAA Dues are Part of the Alberta Stumpage Price D. British Columbia Stumpage Issues Comment 13: Whether There Is a Useable Tier-One Benchmark in British Columbia E:\FR\FM\09AUN1.SGM 09AUN1 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 152 / Tuesday, August 9, 2022 / Notices E. New Brunswick Stumpage Issues Comment 14: Whether the Private Stumpage Market in New Brunswick Is Distorted and Should be Used as Tier-One Benchmarks F. Ontario Stumpage Issues Comment 15: Whether Ontario’s Crown Stumpage Market Is Distorted Comment 16: Whether the MNP Ontario Survey Prices May Serve as an Appropriate Tier One Benchmark Comment 17: Whether Ontario’s Stumpage Prices Distort the Log Market G. Que´bec Stumpage Issues Comment 18: Whether Que´bec’s Stumpage Market Is Distorted Comment 19: Whether Que´bec’s Auction Prices Are an Appropriate Tier-One Benchmark to Measure Whether the GOO and the GOQ Sold Crown-Origin Standing Timber for LTAR H. British Columbia Stumpage Benchmark Issues Comment 20: Whether Commerce Should Use F2M Pricing Data as a Benchmark for BC Stumpage and the BC LER Comment 21: Use and Selection of a BeetleKilled Benchmark Price for the Final Results Comment 22: Whether Commerce’s Selection of a Log Volume Conversion Factor Was Appropriate Comment 23: Whether Commerce Should Adjust the BC Log Benchmark Price for Certain Scaling and G&A Costs Comment 24: Whether to Account for BC’s ‘‘Stand-as-a-Whole’’ Stumpage Pricing jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES I. Nova Scotia Stumpage Benchmark Issues Comment 25: Whether Private Standing Timber Prices in Nova Scotia Are Available in the Provinces at Issue Comment 26: Whether the Tree Size in Nova Scotia, as Measured by Diameter, Is Comparable to Tree Size in Que´bec, Ontario, and Alberta Comment 27: Whether SPF Tree Species in Nova Scotia Are Comparable to SPF Tree Species in Que´bec, Ontario, and Alberta Comment 28: Whether Nova Scotia’s Forest Is Comparable to the Forests of New Brunswick, Que´bec, Ontario, and Alberta 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 the Nova Scotia Benchmark is Comparable or Should Be Adjusted to Account for Log Product Characteristics Comment 32: Reliability of Nova Scotia Private-Origin Standing Timber Benchmark Comment 33: 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 34: Whether to Adjust the Nova Scotia Benchmark to Account for Spruce Budworm-Infested Timber VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:04 Aug 08, 2022 Jkt 256001 Comment 35: Whether to Adjust the Nova Scotia Benchmark to Account for BeetleKilled-Timber Harvested in Alberta Comment 36: Whether Pulp Mill 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 37: Whether to Add a C$3.00/m3 Silviculture Fee to the Nova Scotia Benchmark Comment 38: Whether to Compare Government Transaction-Specific Prices to an Average Benchmark Price or Offset the LTAR Benefit Using Negative Benefits Comment 39: Whether the Nova Scotia Benchmark Adequately Accounts for Regional and Country-Level Differences Comment 40: 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 41: 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 42: 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 J. Log Export Restraint Issues Comment 43: Whether Commerce Should Find Restrictions on Log Exports in Alberta, New Brunswick, Ontario, and Que´bec to Be Countervailable Subsidies Comment 44: Whether the LER in British Columbia Results in a Financial Contribution Comment 45: Whether Log Export Restraints Have an Impact in British Columbia K. Purchase of Goods for MTAR Issues • British Columbia Comment 46: Whether Commerce Correctly Calculated a Benefit for BC Hydro EPAs Comment 47: Whether Benefits Under the BC Hydro EPA Program Are Tied to Electricity Production and Not Lumber Products • Ontario and Que´bec Comment 48: Whether Resolute’s Ontario and Que´bec Electricity PPAs Are Tied to Non-Subject Merchandise Comment 49: Whether Commerce Applied the Correct Benchmark to Calculate the Benefit Under the IESO CHP III Program Comment 50: Whether the IESO CHP III Program Is Specific Comment 51: Whether Commerce Applied the Correct Benchmark to Calculate the Benefit Under the Hydro-Que´bec PAE 2011–01 Program Comment 52: Whether the Hydro-Que´bec PAE 2011–01 Program Is Specific L. Grant Program Issues • Federal Comment 53: Whether Funds West Fraser Received for a Lignin Plant through the SDTC Program are Tied to Non-Subject Merchandise PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 48457 Comment 54: Whether the SDTC Program Is Specific Comment 55: Whether the Green Jobs Program Is Countervailable • Alberta Comment 56: Whether the CES Program Is Specific Comment 57: Whether the TIER Program Is Countervailable 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 Calculation For Load Shedding Payments to West Fraser Should Be Adjusted For West Fraser’s Costs Incurred Comment 61: Whether the AESO Load Shedding Program Is Specific • British Columbia Comment 62: Whether the Purchase of Carbon Offsets From Canfor Is Countervailable • New Brunswick Comment 63: Whether Commerce Should Continue to Find the Silviculture and License Management Programs Countervailable Comment 64: Whether Commerce Should Find LIREPP Countervailable • Ontario Comment 65: Whether the IESO Demand Response Provides a Benefit and Is Specific Comment 66: Whether the IESO IEI Is Specific Comment 67: Whether the OFRFP Is Countervailable Comment 68: Whether the TargetGHG Is Specific Comment 69: Whether the TargetGHG Is Tied to Non-Subject Merchandise • Que´bec Comment 70: Whether the PCIP and PIAF Are Countervailable Comment 71: Whether the PDB Is Countervailable Comment 72: Whether the Coˆte-Nord Wood Residue Program Is Countervailable Comment 73: Whether the Investment Program in Public Forests Affected by Natural or Anthropogenic Disturbances Is Countervailable Comment 74: Whether the MCRP Is Countervailable Comment 75: Whether the PIB Is Countervailable Comment 76: Whether the E´coPerformance Is Specific Comment 77: Whether the FDRCMO Is Countervailable Comment 78: Whether the MFOR Is De Facto Specific Comment 79: Whether FDRCMO and MFOR Are Non-Recurring Subsidies Comment 80: Whether the Hydro-Que´bec IEO Provides a Benefit and Is Specific Comment 81: Whether the Hydro-Que´bec Special L Rate Is Tied to the Production of Paper E:\FR\FM\09AUN1.SGM 09AUN1 48458 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 152 / Tuesday, August 9, 2022 / Notices Comment 82: Whether the Hydro-Que´bec Special L Rate Confers a Benefit Comment 83: Whether the Hydro-Que´bec EDL Is De Jure Specific Comment 84: Whether Road Clearing Contracts with Hydro-Que´bec Are Countervailable N. Company-Specific Issues • Resolute Comment 105: Whether Commerce Should Reconsider If the GOO Forgave Debt Owed by Resolute Comment 106: Whether Commerce Erred in Calculating Resolute’s Benefit Under the Additional CCA Relating to Manufacturing and Processing Equipment Program M. Tax and Other Revenue Foregone Programs Issues • Federal Comment 85: Whether the Federal and Provincial SR&ED Tax Credits Are Specific Comment 86: Whether the ACCA for Class 29 and Class 53 Assets Program Is Specific Comment 87: Whether Commerce Was Correct to Treat the ACCA as an Individual Program Comment 88: Whether the Class 1 Additional CCA Program Provides a Financial Contribution that Confers a Benefit Comment 89: Whether the Class 1 Additional CCA Program Is Specific • Alberta Comment 90: Whether Tax Savings Under Alberta’s Schedule D Are Countervailable Comment 91: Whether Alberta’s TEFU Program Is Countervailable Comment 92: Whether the Property Tax EOA Is Countervailable • British Columbia Comment 93: Whether BCAA Section 9 Closure Allowance Provides a Financial Contribution and Is Specific Comment 94: Whether British Columbia’s Coloured Fuel Program Is Countervailable Comment 95: Whether the CleanBC CIIP and CIF Are Countervailable • New Brunswick Comment 96: Whether Commerce Correctly Calculated the Benefit JDIL Received from the Atlantic Investment Tax Credit Comment 97: Whether Commerce Correctly Calculated the Benefit JDIL Received from the New Brunswick Research & Development Tax Credit Comment 98: Whether Commerce Should Find New Brunswick’s Property Tax Incentives for Private Forest Producers Program Countervailable Comment 99: Whether the Gasoline and Fuel Tax Program Provides a Financial Contribution in the Form of Revenue Forgone or Can Be Found Specific jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES • Que´bec Comment 100: Whether the Tax Credit for Investments Relating to Manufacturing and Processing Equipment Is Specific Comment 101: Whether the Tax Credit for an On-the-Job Training Is Specific Comment 102: Whether the Research Consortium Tax Credit Is De Facto Specific Comment 103: Whether the Refund of Fuel Tax Paid on Fuel Used for Stationary Purposes Is Specific Comment 104: Whether the Additional CCA Relating to Manufacturing and Processing Equipment Is Specific VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:04 Aug 08, 2022 Jkt 256001 • West Fraser Comment 107: Whether to Revise West Fraser’s Sales Denominators XI. Recommendation Appendix II—Non-Selected Exporters/ Producers 1074712 BC Ltd. 5214875 Manitoba Ltd.7 54 Reman 752615 B.C Ltd., Fraserview Remanufacturing Inc., dba Fraserview Cedar Products. 9224–5737 Quebec Inc. (aka A.G. Bois) Absolute Lumber Products, Ltd. Adwood Manufacturing Ltd. Aler Forest Products, Ltd. All American Forest Products Inc. Alpa Lumber Mills Inc. Andersen Pacific Forest Products Ltd. Anglo-American Cedar Products, Ltd. Antrim Cedar Corporation Aquila Cedar Products, Ltd. Arbec Lumber Inc. (aka Arbec Bois Doeuvre Inc.) Aspen Planers Ltd. B&L Forest Products Ltd B.B. Pallets Inc. Babine Forest Products Limited Bakerview Forest Products Inc. Bardobec Inc. BarretteWood Inc. Barrette-Chapais Ltee Benoit & Dionne Produits Forestiers Ltee Best Quality Cedar Products Ltd. Blanchet Multi Concept Inc. Bois Aise de Montreal Inc. Bois Bonsai Inc. Bois Daaquam inc. (aka Daaquam Lumber Inc.) Bois D’oeuvre Cedrico Inc. (aka Cedrico Lumber Inc.) Bois et Solutions Marketing SPEC, Inc. (aka SPEC Wood & Marketing Solution or SPEC Wood and Marketing Solutions Inc.) Boisaco Inc. Boscus Canada Inc. Boucher Bros. Lumber Ltd. BPWood Ltd. Bramwood Forest Inc. Brunswick Valley Lumber Inc. Burrows Lumber (CD) Ltd., Theo A. Burrows Lumber Company Limited (aka Burrows Lumber Inc.) Busque & Laflamme Inc. Campbell River Shake & Shingle Co., Ltd. Canasia Forest Industries Ltd. Canyon Lumber Company, Ltd. 7 In the Initiation Notice, AM Lumber Brokerage was not included. Subsequently, we determined that 5214875 Manitoba was doing business under the name AM Lumber Brokerage. Thus, entries made under company name AM Lumber Brokerage should be entered under 5214875 Manitoba. See Initiation Notice, 86 FR at 12610. PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 Carrier & Begin Inc. Carrier Forest Products Ltd. Carrier Lumber Ltd. Carter Forest Products Inc. Cedar Island Forest Products Ltd. Cedar Valley Holdings Ltd. Cedarland Forest Products Ltd. Cedarline Industries, Ltd. Central Cedar Ltd. Central Forest Products Inc. Centurion Lumber, Ltd. Chaleur Forest Products Inc.8 Chaleur Forest Products LP 9 Channel-ex Trading Corporation Clair Industrial Development Corp. Ltd. Clermond Hamel Ltee CNH Products Inc. Coast Mountain Cedar Products Ltd. Columbia River Shake & Shingle Ltd./Teal Cedar Products Ltd., dba The Teal Jones Group 10 Commonwealth Plywood Co. Ltd. Comox Valley Shakes (2019) Ltd. Conifex Fibre Marketing Inc. Cowichan Lumber Ltd. CS Manufacturing Inc., dba Cedarshed CWP—Industriel Inc. D & D Pallets Ltd. Dakeryn Industries Ltd. Decker Lake Forest Products Ltd. Delco Forest Products Ltd. Delta Cedar Specialties Ltd. Devon Lumber Co. Ltd. DH Manufacturing Inc. Direct Cedar Supplies Ltd. Distribution Rioux Inc. Doubletree Forest Products Ltd. Downie Timber Ltd. Dunkley Lumber Ltd. EACOM Timber Corporation East Fraser Fiber Co. Ltd. Edgewood Forest Products Inc. Elrod Cartage Ltd. ER Probyn Export Ltd. Falcon Lumber Ltd. Fontaine Inc. Foothills Forest Products Inc. Fraser Specialty Products Ltd. FraserWood Industries Ltd. Furtado Forest Products Ltd. Gilbert Smith Forest Products Ltd. Glandell Enterprises Inc. Goldwood Industries Ltd. Goodfellow Inc. Gorman Bros. Lumber Ltd. Greendale Industries Inc. Greenwell Resources Inc. Griff Building Supplies Ltd. 8 In the Initiation Notice, we included the company name ‘‘Fornebu Lumber Co. Ltd.’’ See Initiation Notice, 86 FR at 12608. Subsequently, we determined that the successor-in-interest to Fornebu Lumber Co. Ltd. is Chaleur Forest Products Inc. See Certain Softwood Lumber Products from Canada: Notice of Final Results of Countervailing Duty Changed Circumstances Review, 86 FR 43189 (August 6, 2021) (Chaleur CCR Final). 9 In the Initiation Notice, we included the company name ‘‘Chaleur Sawmills LP.’’ See Initiation Notice, 86 FR at 12607. Subsequently, we determined that the successor-in-interest to Chaleur Sawmills LP is Chaleur Forest Products LP. See Chaleur CCR Final. 10 In the Initiation Notice, ‘‘Teal Cedar Products Ltd.’’ and ‘‘The Teal-Jones Group’’ were inadvertently listed separately. See Initiation Notice, 86 FR at 12610. E:\FR\FM\09AUN1.SGM 09AUN1 jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 152 / Tuesday, August 9, 2022 / Notices Groupe Crete Chertsey Inc. Groupe Crete Division St-Faustin Inc. Groupe Lebel Inc. Groupe Lignarex inc. H.J. Crabbe & Sons Ltd. Haida Forest Products Ltd. Hampton Tree Farms, LLC dba Hampton Lumber Sales Canada Hornepayne Lumber LP Hudson Mitchell & Sons Lumber Inc. Hy Mark Wood Products Inc. Interfor Corporation Interfor Sales & Marketing Ltd. Intertran Holdings Ltd. dba Richmond Terminal Island Cedar Products Ltd J&G Log Works Ltd. J.H. Huscroft Ltd. Jan Woodlands (2001) Inc. Jasco Forest Products Ltd. Jazz Forest Products Ltd. Jhajj Lumber Corporation Kalesnikoff Lumber Co. Ltd. Kan Wood, Ltd. Kebois Ltd (aka Kebois Ltee) Kelfor Industries Ltd. Kermode Forest Products Ltd. Keystone Timber Ltd. L’Atelier de Readaptation au Travail de Beauce Inc. Lafontaine Lumber Inc. Langevin Forest Products Inc. Lecours Lumber Co. Limited Leisure Lumber Ltd. Les Bardeaux Lajoie Inc. Les Bois d’oeuvre Beaudoin Gauthier inc. Les Bois Martek Lumber Les Bois Traites M.G. Inc. Les Chantiers de Chibougamau ltd. Les Industries P.F. Inc. Leslie Forest Products Ltd. Lignum Forest Products LLP Linwood Homes Ltd. Lonestar Lumber Inc. Lulumco Inc. Magnum Forest Products, Ltd. Maibec inc. Manitou Forest Products Ltd. Marwood Ltd. Materiaux Blanchet Inc. Mid Valley Lumber Specialties, Ltd. Midway Lumber Mills Ltd. Mill & Timber Products Ltd. Millar Western Forest Products Ltd. Mirax Lumber Products Ltd. Mobilier Rustique (Beauce) Inc. Monterra Lumber Mills Limited Morwood Forest Products Inc. Multicedre ltee Nakina Lumber Inc. National Forest Products Ltd. Nicholson and Cates Ltd Norsask Forest Products Limited Partnership North American Forest Products Ltd. (located in Abbotsford, British Columbia) North Enderby Timber Ltd. Northland Forest Products Ltd. Olympic Industries, Inc./Olympic Industries Inc-Reman Code/Olympic Industries ULC/ Olympic Industries ULC-Reman/Olympic Industries ULC-Reman Code Oregon Canadian Forest Products Inc. dba Oregon Canadian Forest Products Pacific Coast Cedar Products, Ltd. Pacific Lumber Remanufacturing Inc. Pacific Pallet, Ltd. VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:04 Aug 08, 2022 Jkt 256001 Pacific Western Wood Works Ltd. PalletSource Inc. Parallel Wood Products Ltd. Pat Power Forest Products Corporation Phoenix Forest Products Inc. Pioneer Pallet & Lumber Ltd. Porcupine Wood Products Ltd. Portbec Forest Products Ltd (aka Les Produits Forestiers Portbec Ltee) Power Wood Corp. Precision Cedar Products Corp. Prendiville Industries Ltd. (aka Kenora Forest Products) Produits Forestiers Petit Paris Inc. Produits forestiers Temrex, s.e.c. (aka Temrex Forest Products LP) Produits Matra Inc. and Sechoirs de Beauce Inc. Promobois G.D.S. inc. Rayonier A.M. Canada GP Rembos Inc. Rene Bernard Inc. Rick Dubois Rielly Industrial Lumber Inc. River City Remanufacturing Inc. S&R Sawmills Ltd S&W Forest Products Ltd. San Industries Ltd. Sawarne Lumber Co. Ltd. Scierie St-Michel inc. Scierie West Brome Inc. Scott Lumber Sales Shakertown Corp. Sigurdson Forest Products Ltd. Silvaris Corporation Sinclar Group Forest Products Ltd. Skana Forest Products Ltd. Source Forest Products South Beach Trading Inc. South Coast Reman Ltd. South Fraser Container Terminals Specialiste du Bardeau de Cedre Inc (aka SBC) Spruceland Millworks Inc. Star Lumber Canada Ltd. Suncoh Custom Lumber Ltd. Sundher Timber Products Inc. Surplus G Rioux Surrey Cedar Ltd. Taan Forest Limited Partnership Taiga Building Products Ltd. Tall Tree Lumber Company Terminal Forest Products Ltd. The Wood Source Inc. Tolko Industries Ltd. and Tolko Marketing and Sales Ltd. Trans-Pacific Trading Ltd. Triad Forest Products Ltd. Twin Rivers Paper Co. Inc. Tyee Timber Products Ltd. Usine Sartigan Inc. Vaagen Fibre Canada, ULC Valley Cedar 2 Inc. Vancouver Specialty Cedar Products Ltd. Visscher Lumber Inc W.I. Woodtone Industries Inc. Waldun Forest Product Sales Ltd. Watkins Sawmills Ltd. West Bay Forest Products Ltd. Western Forest Products Inc. Western Lumber Sales Limited Westminster Industries Ltd. Weston Forest Products Inc. Weyerhaeuser Co. White River Forest Products L.P. Winton Homes Ltd. PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 48459 Woodline Forest Products Ltd. Woodstock Forest Products Woodtone Specialties Inc. [FR Doc. 2022–17066 Filed 8–8–22; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (Commerce) has received requests to conduct administrative reviews of various antidumping duty (AD) and countervailing duty (CVD) orders with June anniversary dates. In accordance with Commerce’s regulations, we are initiating those administrative reviews. DATES: Applicable August 9, 2022. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brenda E. Brown, AD/CVD Operations, Customs Liaison Unit, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230, telephone: (202) 482–4735. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: AGENCY: Background Commerce has received timely requests, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b), for administrative reviews of various AD and CVD orders with June anniversary dates. All deadlines for the submission of various types of information, certifications, or comments or actions by Commerce discussed below refer to the number of calendar days from the applicable starting time. Notice of No Sales With respect to antidumping administrative reviews, if a producer or exporter named in this notice of initiation had no exports, sales, or entries during the period of review (POR), it must notify Commerce within 30 days of publication of this notice in the Federal Register. All submissions must be filed electronically at https:// access.trade.gov, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.303.1 Such submissions are subject to verification, in accordance with section 782(i) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). Further, in 1 See Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Electronic Filing Procedures; Administrative Protective Order Procedures, 76 FR 39263 (July 6, 2011). E:\FR\FM\09AUN1.SGM 09AUN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 152 (Tuesday, August 9, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 48455-48459]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-17066]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[C-122-858]


Certain Softwood Lumber Products From Canada: Final Results and 
Final Rescission, in Part, of the Countervailing Duty Administrative 
Review, 2020

AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.

SUMMARY: The U.S. 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 (POR), January 1, 2020, through December 31, 2020. 
With respect to 18 companies, we are rescinding this administrative 
review because none of the companies had a reviewable entry during the 
POR.

DATES: Applicable August 9, 2022.

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 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 
February 4, 2022, 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, Partial Rescission, and Preliminary Intent to 
Rescind, in Part, the Countervailing Duty Administrative Review; 
2020, 87 FR 6500 (February 4, 2022) (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; 2020,'' 
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 directly at https://access.trade.gov/public/FRNoticesListLayout.aspx.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Scope of the Order

    The product covered by this order is certain softwood lumber 
products from Canada. For a complete description of the scope of the 
Order, see the Issues and Decision Memorandum.

Final Rescission of Administrative Review, in Part

    Based on our analysis of U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) 
data and comments received from interested parties, we determine that 
the 18 companies listed below had no reviewable shipments, sales, or 
entries of subject merchandise during the POR. Absent evidence of 
shipments on the record, we are rescinding the administrative review of 
these companies, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3). For further 
information, see ``Final Rescission of Administrative Review, in Part'' 
in the Issues and Decision Memorandum.

AA Trading Ltd.
Blanchette & Blanchette Inc.
Canada Pallet Corp.
Careau Bois Inc.
Cedarcoast Lumber Products
CWP--Montreal inc.
Goldband Shake & Shingle Ltd.
Imperial Cedar Products, Ltd.
Les Produits Forestiers D&G Lt[eacute]e (aka, D&G Forest Products Ltd.)
Marcel Lauzon Inc.
North American Forest Products Ltd. (located in Saint-Quentin, New 
Brunswick)
Sapphire Lumber Company
Scierie Alexandre Lemay & Fils Inc.
Skeena Sawmills Ltd
Sonora Logging Ltd.

[[Page 48456]]

Suncoast Industries Inc.
Western Timber Products, Inc.
WWW Timber Products Ltd.

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. For a list of the non-
selected companies, see Appendix II to this notice.

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 2020:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           Subsidy rate
                        Companies                           ad valorem
                                                             (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Canfor Corporation and its cross-owned affiliates \3\...    0.95 percent
J.D. Irving, Limited and its cross-owned affiliates \4\.    2.41 percent
Resolute FP Canada Inc. and its cross-owned affiliates     10.10 percent
 \5\....................................................
West Fraser Mills Ltd. and its cross-owned affiliates       3.62 percent
 \6\....................................................
Non-Selected Companies..................................    3.83 percent
------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 
351.224(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Commerce finds the following companies to be cross-owned 
with Canfor Corporation: Canadian Forest Products., Ltd. and Canfor 
Wood Products Marketing, Ltd.
    \4\ 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.
    \5\ Commerce finds the following companies to be cross-owned 
with Resolute FP Canada Inc.: Produits Forestiers Maurice SEC. and 
Resolute Forest Products Inc.
    \6\ Commerce finds the following companies to be cross-owned 
with West Fraser Mills Ltd.: West Fraser Timber Co., Ltd., Blue 
Ridge Lumber Inc., Sunpine Inc., Sundre Forest Products Inc., 
Manning Forest Products, Ltd., and West Fraser Alberta Holdings, 
Ltd.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Assessment Rates

    Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act and 19 CFR 
351.212(b)(2), Commerce will determine, and 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: August 3, 2022.
Ryan Majerus,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy and Negotiations.

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. Final Rescission of Administrative Review, in Part
VI. Scope of the Order
VII. Subsidies Valuation
VIII. Analysis of Programs
IX. Final Ad Valorem Rate for Non-Selected Companies Under Review
X. Analysis of Comments

A. General Issues

Comment 1: Whether Commerce Respects Canadian Sovereignty
Comment 2: Whether Commerce's Specificity Analysis for Certain 
Qu[eacute]bec Programs Is Consistent With the Law
Comment 3: Whether Commerce's Countervailable Findings for 
Qu[eacute]bec's Grant Programs Are Appropriate
Comment 4: Whether Electricity Curtailment Programs Are 
Countervailable
Comment 5: Whether Agreements with Consumers to Reduce Energy 
Consumption and GHG Are Grants
Comment 6: Whether Commerce Should Rescind Lemay's Review
Comment 7: Whether Commerce Should Consider Climate Change Goals
Comment 8: Whether Commerce Should Have Used a Sampling Methodology 
to Select Respondents for This Review

B. General Stumpage Issues

Comment 9: Whether Stumpage Is an Untied Subsidy

C. Alberta Stumpage Issues

Comment 10: Whether the Alberta Stumpage Market Is Distorted
Comment 11: Whether TDA Survey Prices Are an Appropriate Benchmark 
for Alberta Crown-Origin Stumpage
Comment 12: Whether FRIAA Dues are Part of the Alberta Stumpage 
Price

D. British Columbia Stumpage Issues

Comment 13: Whether There Is a Useable Tier-One Benchmark in British 
Columbia

[[Page 48457]]

E. New Brunswick Stumpage Issues

Comment 14: Whether the Private Stumpage Market in New Brunswick Is 
Distorted and Should be Used as Tier-One Benchmarks

F. Ontario Stumpage Issues

Comment 15: Whether Ontario's Crown Stumpage Market Is Distorted
Comment 16: Whether the MNP Ontario Survey Prices May Serve as an 
Appropriate Tier One Benchmark
Comment 17: Whether Ontario's Stumpage Prices Distort the Log Market

G. Qu[eacute]bec Stumpage Issues

Comment 18: Whether Qu[eacute]bec's Stumpage Market Is Distorted
Comment 19: Whether Qu[eacute]bec's Auction Prices Are an 
Appropriate Tier-One Benchmark to Measure Whether the GOO and the 
GOQ Sold Crown-Origin Standing Timber for LTAR

H. British Columbia Stumpage Benchmark Issues

Comment 20: Whether Commerce Should Use F2M Pricing Data as a 
Benchmark for BC Stumpage and the BC LER
Comment 21: Use and Selection of a Beetle-Killed Benchmark Price for 
the Final Results
Comment 22: Whether Commerce's Selection of a Log Volume Conversion 
Factor Was Appropriate
Comment 23: Whether Commerce Should Adjust the BC Log Benchmark 
Price for Certain Scaling and G&A Costs
Comment 24: Whether to Account for BC's ``Stand-as-a-Whole'' 
Stumpage Pricing

I. Nova Scotia Stumpage Benchmark Issues

Comment 25: Whether Private Standing Timber Prices in Nova Scotia 
Are Available in the Provinces at Issue
Comment 26: Whether the Tree Size in Nova Scotia, as Measured by 
Diameter, Is Comparable to Tree Size in Qu[eacute]bec, Ontario, and 
Alberta
Comment 27: Whether SPF Tree Species in Nova Scotia Are Comparable 
to SPF Tree Species in Qu[eacute]bec, Ontario, and Alberta
Comment 28: Whether Nova Scotia's Forest Is Comparable to the 
Forests of New Brunswick, Qu[eacute]bec, Ontario, and Alberta
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 the Nova Scotia Benchmark is Comparable or 
Should Be Adjusted to Account for Log Product Characteristics
Comment 32: Reliability of Nova Scotia Private-Origin Standing 
Timber Benchmark
Comment 33: 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 34: Whether to Adjust the Nova Scotia Benchmark to Account 
for Spruce Budworm-Infested Timber
Comment 35: Whether to Adjust the Nova Scotia Benchmark to Account 
for Beetle-Killed-Timber Harvested in Alberta
Comment 36: Whether Pulp Mill 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 37: Whether to Add a C$3.00/m3 Silviculture Fee to the Nova 
Scotia Benchmark
Comment 38: Whether to Compare Government Transaction-Specific 
Prices to an Average Benchmark Price or Offset the LTAR Benefit 
Using Negative Benefits
Comment 39: Whether the Nova Scotia Benchmark Adequately Accounts 
for Regional and Country-Level Differences
Comment 40: 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 41: 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 42: 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

J. Log Export Restraint Issues

Comment 43: Whether Commerce Should Find Restrictions on Log Exports 
in Alberta, New Brunswick, Ontario, and Qu[eacute]bec to Be 
Countervailable Subsidies
Comment 44: Whether the LER in British Columbia Results in a 
Financial Contribution
Comment 45: Whether Log Export Restraints Have an Impact in British 
Columbia

K. Purchase of Goods for MTAR Issues

 British Columbia

Comment 46: Whether Commerce Correctly Calculated a Benefit for BC 
Hydro EPAs
Comment 47: Whether Benefits Under the BC Hydro EPA Program Are Tied 
to Electricity Production and Not Lumber Products

 Ontario and Qu[eacute]bec

Comment 48: Whether Resolute's Ontario and Qu[eacute]bec Electricity 
PPAs Are Tied to Non-Subject Merchandise
Comment 49: Whether Commerce Applied the Correct Benchmark to 
Calculate the Benefit Under the IESO CHP III Program
Comment 50: Whether the IESO CHP III Program Is Specific
Comment 51: Whether Commerce Applied the Correct Benchmark to 
Calculate the Benefit Under the Hydro-Qu[eacute]bec PAE 2011-01 
Program
Comment 52: Whether the Hydro-Qu[eacute]bec PAE 2011-01 Program Is 
Specific

L. Grant Program Issues

 Federal

Comment 53: Whether Funds West Fraser Received for a Lignin Plant 
through the SDTC Program are Tied to Non-Subject Merchandise
Comment 54: Whether the SDTC Program Is Specific
Comment 55: Whether the Green Jobs Program Is Countervailable

 Alberta

Comment 56: Whether the CES Program Is Specific
Comment 57: Whether the TIER Program Is Countervailable
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 Calculation For Load Shedding 
Payments to West Fraser Should Be Adjusted For West Fraser's Costs 
Incurred
Comment 61: Whether the AESO Load Shedding Program Is Specific

 British Columbia

    Comment 62: Whether the Purchase of Carbon Offsets From Canfor 
Is Countervailable

 New Brunswick

Comment 63: Whether Commerce Should Continue to Find the 
Silviculture and License Management Programs Countervailable
Comment 64: Whether Commerce Should Find LIREPP Countervailable

 Ontario

Comment 65: Whether the IESO Demand Response Provides a Benefit and 
Is Specific
Comment 66: Whether the IESO IEI Is Specific
Comment 67: Whether the OFRFP Is Countervailable
Comment 68: Whether the TargetGHG Is Specific
Comment 69: Whether the TargetGHG Is Tied to Non-Subject Merchandise

 Qu[eacute]bec

Comment 70: Whether the PCIP and PIAF Are Countervailable
Comment 71: Whether the PDB Is Countervailable
Comment 72: Whether the C[ocirc]te-Nord Wood Residue Program Is 
Countervailable
Comment 73: Whether the Investment Program in Public Forests 
Affected by Natural or Anthropogenic Disturbances Is Countervailable
Comment 74: Whether the MCRP Is Countervailable
Comment 75: Whether the PIB Is Countervailable
Comment 76: Whether the [Eacute]coPerformance Is Specific
Comment 77: Whether the FDRCMO Is Countervailable
Comment 78: Whether the MFOR Is De Facto Specific
Comment 79: Whether FDRCMO and MFOR Are Non-Recurring Subsidies
Comment 80: Whether the Hydro-Qu[eacute]bec IEO Provides a Benefit 
and Is Specific
Comment 81: Whether the Hydro-Qu[eacute]bec Special L Rate Is Tied 
to the Production of Paper

[[Page 48458]]

Comment 82: Whether the Hydro-Qu[eacute]bec Special L Rate Confers a 
Benefit
Comment 83: Whether the Hydro-Qu[eacute]bec EDL Is De Jure Specific
Comment 84: Whether Road Clearing Contracts with Hydro-Qu[eacute]bec 
Are Countervailable

M. Tax and Other Revenue Foregone Programs Issues

 Federal

Comment 85: Whether the Federal and Provincial SR&ED Tax Credits Are 
Specific
Comment 86: Whether the ACCA for Class 29 and Class 53 Assets 
Program Is Specific
Comment 87: Whether Commerce Was Correct to Treat the ACCA as an 
Individual Program
Comment 88: Whether the Class 1 Additional CCA Program Provides a 
Financial Contribution that Confers a Benefit
Comment 89: Whether the Class 1 Additional CCA Program Is Specific

 Alberta

Comment 90: Whether Tax Savings Under Alberta's Schedule D Are 
Countervailable
Comment 91: Whether Alberta's TEFU Program Is Countervailable
Comment 92: Whether the Property Tax EOA Is Countervailable

 British Columbia

Comment 93: Whether BCAA Section 9 Closure Allowance Provides a 
Financial Contribution and Is Specific
Comment 94: Whether British Columbia's Coloured Fuel Program Is 
Countervailable
Comment 95: Whether the CleanBC CIIP and CIF Are Countervailable

 New Brunswick

Comment 96: Whether Commerce Correctly Calculated the Benefit JDIL 
Received from the Atlantic Investment Tax Credit
Comment 97: Whether Commerce Correctly Calculated the Benefit JDIL 
Received from the New Brunswick Research & Development Tax Credit
Comment 98: Whether Commerce Should Find New Brunswick's Property 
Tax Incentives for Private Forest Producers Program Countervailable
Comment 99: Whether the Gasoline and Fuel Tax Program Provides a 
Financial Contribution in the Form of Revenue Forgone or Can Be 
Found Specific

 Qu[eacute]bec

Comment 100: Whether the Tax Credit for Investments Relating to 
Manufacturing and Processing Equipment Is Specific
Comment 101: Whether the Tax Credit for an On-the-Job Training Is 
Specific
Comment 102: Whether the Research Consortium Tax Credit Is De Facto 
Specific
Comment 103: Whether the Refund of Fuel Tax Paid on Fuel Used for 
Stationary Purposes Is Specific
Comment 104: Whether the Additional CCA Relating to Manufacturing 
and Processing Equipment Is Specific

N. Company-Specific Issues

 Resolute

Comment 105: Whether Commerce Should Reconsider If the GOO Forgave 
Debt Owed by Resolute
Comment 106: Whether Commerce Erred in Calculating Resolute's 
Benefit Under the Additional CCA Relating to Manufacturing and 
Processing Equipment Program

 West Fraser

Comment 107: Whether to Revise West Fraser's Sales Denominators
XI. Recommendation

Appendix II--Non-Selected Exporters/Producers

1074712 BC Ltd.
5214875 Manitoba Ltd.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ In the Initiation Notice, AM Lumber Brokerage was not 
included. Subsequently, we determined that 5214875 Manitoba was 
doing business under the name AM Lumber Brokerage. Thus, entries 
made under company name AM Lumber Brokerage should be entered under 
5214875 Manitoba. See Initiation Notice, 86 FR at 12610.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

54 Reman
752615 B.C Ltd., Fraserview Remanufacturing Inc., dba Fraserview 
Cedar Products.
9224-5737 Quebec Inc. (aka A.G. Bois)
Absolute Lumber Products, Ltd.
Adwood Manufacturing Ltd.
Aler Forest Products, Ltd.
All American Forest Products Inc.
Alpa Lumber Mills Inc.
Andersen Pacific Forest Products Ltd.
Anglo-American Cedar Products, Ltd.
Antrim Cedar Corporation
Aquila Cedar Products, Ltd.
Arbec Lumber Inc. (aka Arbec Bois Doeuvre Inc.)
Aspen Planers Ltd.
B&L Forest Products Ltd
B.B. Pallets Inc.
Babine Forest Products Limited
Bakerview Forest Products Inc.
Bardobec Inc.
BarretteWood Inc.
Barrette-Chapais Ltee
Benoit & Dionne Produits Forestiers Ltee
Best Quality Cedar Products Ltd.
Blanchet Multi Concept Inc.
Bois Aise de Montreal Inc.
Bois Bonsai Inc.
Bois Daaquam inc. (aka Daaquam Lumber Inc.)
Bois D'oeuvre Cedrico Inc. (aka Cedrico Lumber Inc.)
Bois et Solutions Marketing SPEC, Inc. (aka SPEC Wood & Marketing 
Solution or SPEC Wood and Marketing Solutions Inc.)
Boisaco Inc.
Boscus Canada Inc.
Boucher Bros. Lumber Ltd.
BPWood Ltd.
Bramwood Forest Inc.
Brunswick Valley Lumber Inc.
Burrows Lumber (CD) Ltd., Theo A. Burrows Lumber Company Limited 
(aka Burrows Lumber Inc.)
Busque & Laflamme Inc.
Campbell River Shake & Shingle Co., Ltd.
Canasia Forest Industries Ltd.
Canyon Lumber Company, Ltd.
Carrier & Begin Inc.
Carrier Forest Products Ltd.
Carrier Lumber Ltd.
Carter Forest Products Inc.
Cedar Island Forest Products Ltd.
Cedar Valley Holdings Ltd.
Cedarland Forest Products Ltd.
Cedarline Industries, Ltd.
Central Cedar Ltd.
Central Forest Products Inc.
Centurion Lumber, Ltd.
Chaleur Forest Products Inc.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ In the Initiation Notice, we included the company name 
``Fornebu Lumber Co. Ltd.'' See Initiation Notice, 86 FR at 12608. 
Subsequently, we determined that the successor-in-interest to 
Fornebu Lumber Co. Ltd. is Chaleur Forest Products Inc. See Certain 
Softwood Lumber Products from Canada: Notice of Final Results of 
Countervailing Duty Changed Circumstances Review, 86 FR 43189 
(August 6, 2021) (Chaleur CCR Final).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Chaleur Forest Products LP \9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ In the Initiation Notice, we included the company name 
``Chaleur Sawmills LP.'' See Initiation Notice, 86 FR at 12607. 
Subsequently, we determined that the successor-in-interest to 
Chaleur Sawmills LP is Chaleur Forest Products LP. See Chaleur CCR 
Final.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Channel-ex Trading Corporation
Clair Industrial Development Corp. Ltd.
Clermond Hamel Ltee
CNH Products Inc.
Coast Mountain Cedar Products Ltd.
Columbia River Shake & Shingle Ltd./Teal Cedar Products Ltd., dba 
The Teal Jones Group \10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ In the Initiation Notice, ``Teal Cedar Products Ltd.'' and 
``The Teal-Jones Group'' were inadvertently listed separately. See 
Initiation Notice, 86 FR at 12610.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commonwealth Plywood Co. Ltd.
Comox Valley Shakes (2019) Ltd.
Conifex Fibre Marketing Inc.
Cowichan Lumber Ltd.
CS Manufacturing Inc., dba Cedarshed
CWP--Industriel Inc.
D & D Pallets Ltd.
Dakeryn Industries Ltd.
Decker Lake Forest Products Ltd.
Delco Forest Products Ltd.
Delta Cedar Specialties Ltd.
Devon Lumber Co. Ltd.
DH Manufacturing Inc.
Direct Cedar Supplies Ltd.
Distribution Rioux Inc.
Doubletree Forest Products Ltd.
Downie Timber Ltd.
Dunkley Lumber Ltd.
EACOM Timber Corporation
East Fraser Fiber Co. Ltd.
Edgewood Forest Products Inc.
Elrod Cartage Ltd.
ER Probyn Export Ltd.
Falcon Lumber Ltd.
Fontaine Inc.
Foothills Forest Products Inc.
Fraser Specialty Products Ltd.
FraserWood Industries Ltd.
Furtado Forest Products Ltd.
Gilbert Smith Forest Products Ltd.
Glandell Enterprises Inc.
Goldwood Industries Ltd.
Goodfellow Inc.
Gorman Bros. Lumber Ltd.
Greendale Industries Inc.
Greenwell Resources Inc.
Griff Building Supplies Ltd.

[[Page 48459]]

Groupe Crete Chertsey Inc.
Groupe Crete Division St-Faustin Inc.
Groupe Lebel Inc.
Groupe Lignarex inc.
H.J. Crabbe & Sons Ltd.
Haida Forest Products Ltd.
Hampton Tree Farms, LLC dba Hampton Lumber Sales Canada
Hornepayne Lumber LP
Hudson Mitchell & Sons Lumber Inc.
Hy Mark Wood Products Inc.
Interfor Corporation
Interfor Sales & Marketing Ltd.
Intertran Holdings Ltd. dba Richmond Terminal
Island Cedar Products Ltd
J&G Log Works Ltd.
J.H. Huscroft Ltd.
Jan Woodlands (2001) Inc.
Jasco Forest Products Ltd.
Jazz Forest Products Ltd.
Jhajj Lumber Corporation
Kalesnikoff Lumber Co. Ltd.
Kan Wood, Ltd.
Kebois Ltd (aka Kebois Ltee)
Kelfor Industries Ltd.
Kermode Forest Products Ltd.
Keystone Timber Ltd.
L'Atelier de Readaptation au Travail de Beauce Inc.
Lafontaine Lumber Inc.
Langevin Forest Products Inc.
Lecours Lumber Co. Limited
Leisure Lumber Ltd.
Les Bardeaux Lajoie Inc.
Les Bois d'oeuvre Beaudoin Gauthier inc.
Les Bois Martek Lumber
Les Bois Traites M.G. Inc.
Les Chantiers de Chibougamau ltd.
Les Industries P.F. Inc.
Leslie Forest Products Ltd.
Lignum Forest Products LLP
Linwood Homes Ltd.
Lonestar Lumber Inc.
Lulumco Inc.
Magnum Forest Products, Ltd.
Maibec inc.
Manitou Forest Products Ltd.
Marwood Ltd.
Materiaux Blanchet Inc.
Mid Valley Lumber Specialties, Ltd.
Midway Lumber Mills Ltd.
Mill & Timber Products Ltd.
Millar Western Forest Products Ltd.
Mirax Lumber Products Ltd.
Mobilier Rustique (Beauce) Inc.
Monterra Lumber Mills Limited
Morwood Forest Products Inc.
Multicedre ltee
Nakina Lumber Inc.
National Forest Products Ltd.
Nicholson and Cates Ltd
Norsask Forest Products Limited Partnership
North American Forest Products Ltd. (located in Abbotsford, British 
Columbia)
North Enderby Timber Ltd.
Northland Forest Products Ltd.
Olympic Industries, Inc./Olympic Industries Inc-Reman Code/Olympic 
Industries ULC/Olympic Industries ULC-Reman/Olympic Industries ULC-
Reman Code
Oregon Canadian Forest Products Inc. dba Oregon Canadian Forest 
Products
Pacific Coast Cedar Products, Ltd.
Pacific Lumber Remanufacturing Inc.
Pacific Pallet, Ltd.
Pacific Western Wood Works Ltd.
PalletSource Inc.
Parallel Wood Products Ltd.
Pat Power Forest Products Corporation
Phoenix Forest Products Inc.
Pioneer Pallet & Lumber Ltd.
Porcupine Wood Products Ltd.
Portbec Forest Products Ltd (aka Les Produits Forestiers Portbec 
Ltee)
Power Wood Corp.
Precision Cedar Products Corp.
Prendiville Industries Ltd. (aka Kenora Forest Products)
Produits Forestiers Petit Paris Inc.
Produits forestiers Temrex, s.e.c. (aka Temrex Forest Products LP)
Produits Matra Inc. and Sechoirs de Beauce Inc.
Promobois G.D.S. inc.
Rayonier A.M. Canada GP
Rembos Inc.
Rene Bernard Inc.
Rick Dubois
Rielly Industrial Lumber Inc.
River City Remanufacturing Inc.
S&R Sawmills Ltd
S&W Forest Products Ltd.
San Industries Ltd.
Sawarne Lumber Co. Ltd.
Scierie St-Michel inc.
Scierie West Brome Inc.
Scott Lumber Sales
Shakertown Corp.
Sigurdson Forest Products Ltd.
Silvaris Corporation
Sinclar Group Forest Products Ltd.
Skana Forest Products Ltd.
Source Forest Products
South Beach Trading Inc.
South Coast Reman Ltd.
South Fraser Container Terminals
Specialiste du Bardeau de Cedre Inc (aka SBC)
Spruceland Millworks Inc.
Star Lumber Canada Ltd.
Suncoh Custom Lumber Ltd.
Sundher Timber Products Inc.
Surplus G Rioux
Surrey Cedar Ltd.
Taan Forest Limited Partnership
Taiga Building Products Ltd.
Tall Tree Lumber Company
Terminal Forest Products Ltd.
The Wood Source Inc.
Tolko Industries Ltd. and Tolko Marketing and Sales Ltd.
Trans-Pacific Trading Ltd.
Triad Forest Products Ltd.
Twin Rivers Paper Co. Inc.
Tyee Timber Products Ltd.
Usine Sartigan Inc.
Vaagen Fibre Canada, ULC
Valley Cedar 2 Inc.
Vancouver Specialty Cedar Products Ltd.
Visscher Lumber Inc
W.I. Woodtone Industries Inc.
Waldun Forest Product Sales Ltd.
Watkins Sawmills Ltd.
West Bay Forest Products Ltd.
Western Forest Products Inc.
Western Lumber Sales Limited
Westminster Industries Ltd.
Weston Forest Products Inc.
Weyerhaeuser Co.
White River Forest Products L.P.
Winton Homes Ltd.
Woodline Forest Products Ltd.
Woodstock Forest Products
Woodtone Specialties Inc.

[FR Doc. 2022-17066 Filed 8-8-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.