[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 231 (Tuesday, December 1, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 77163-77167]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-26451]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[C-122-858]
Certain Softwood Lumber Products From Canada: Final Results of
the Countervailing Duty Administrative Review, 2017-2018
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, April 28, 2017 through December 31, 2018.
DATES: Applicable December 1, 2020.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Peter Zukowski (Canfor), Nicholas
Czajkowski (JDIL), Kristen Johnson (Resolute), and Laura Griffith (West
Fraser), AD/CVD Operations, Offices I and III, Enforcement and
Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone:
(202) 482-0189, (202) 482-1395, (202) 482-4793, and (202) 482-1167,
respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Commerce published the Preliminary Results of this administrative
review of softwood lumber from Canada on February 7, 2020.\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; 2017-2018, 85 FR 7273 (February 7, 2020)
(Preliminary Results).
\2\ See Memorandum, ``Issues and Decision Memorandum for the
Final Results of Administrative Review of the Countervailing Duty
Order on Certain Softwood Lumber Products from Canada; 2017-2018,''
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 and is available to all
parties in the Central Records Unit, room B8024 of the main Commerce
building. In addition, a complete version of the Issues and Decision
Memorandum can be accessed directly on the internet at http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/index.html. The signed and electronic
versions of the Issues and Decision Memorandum are identical in
content.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On April 24, 2020, Commerce tolled all deadlines in administrative
reviews by 50 days.\3\ On June 3, 2020, Commerce extended the deadline
for the final results of this administrative review.\4\ On July 21,
2020, Commerce tolled all deadlines in administrative reviews by an
additional 60 days.\5\ The revised deadline for the final results of
this administrative review is now November 23, 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See Memorandum, ``Tolling of Deadlines for Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews in Response to
Operational Adjustments Due to COVID-19,'' dated April 24, 2020.
\4\ See Memorandum, ``Certain Softwood Lumber Products from
Canada: Extension of Deadline for Final Results of the 2017-2018
Countervailing Duty Administrative Review,'' dated June 3, 2020.
\5\ See Memorandum, ``Tolling of Deadlines for Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews,'' dated July 21, 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
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. 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, a complete
version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly
at http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/index.html. The signed and
electronic versions of the Issues and Decision Memorandum are identical
in content.
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.
Companies Not Selected for Individual Review
Because the rates calculated for the companies selected for
individual reviewed 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
[[Page 77164]]
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) of the Act and 19 CFR
351.221(b)(5), we determine that the following total estimated
countervailable subsidy rates exist for 2017 and 2018:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Commerce finds the following companies to be cross-owned
with Canfor Corporation: Canadian Forest Products, Ltd., and Canfor
Wood Products Marketing, Ltd.
\7\ 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.
\8\ Commerce finds the following companies to be cross-owned
with Resolute: Resolute Growth Canada Inc., Produits Forestiers
Maurice S.E.C., Abitibi-Bowater Canada Inc., Bowater Canadian Ltd.,
and Resolute Forest Products Inc.
\9\ Commerce finds the following companies to be cross-owned
with West Fraser: West Fraser Timber Co. Ltd., West Fraser Alberta
Holdings, Ltd., Blue Ridge Lumber Inc., Manning Forest Products,
Ltd., Sunpine Inc., and Sundre Forest Products Inc.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subsidy rate Subsidy rate
Companies 2017 ad 2018 ad
valorem (%) valorem (%)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Canfor Corporation and its cross-owned 2.94 2.63
affiliates \6\.........................
J.D. Irving, Limited and its cross-owned 3.43 2.66
affiliates \7\.........................
Resolute FP Canada Inc. and its cross- 18.71 19.10
owned affiliates \8\...................
West Fraser Mills Ltd. and its cross- 6.76 7.57
owned affiliates \9\...................
Non-selected Companies.................. 7.26 7.42
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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).
Assessment Rates
In accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(2), Commerce intends to issue
appropriate assessment instructions to U.S. Customs and Border
Protection (CBP) 15 days after the date of publication of these final
results in the Federal Register to liquidate shipments of subject
merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption for
the period on or after April 28, 2017 through December 31, 2017, and
for the period on or after January 1, 2018 through December 31, 2018,
for the above-listed companies at the ad valorem assessment rates
listed.
Cash Deposit Requirements
Commerce also intends to instruct CBP to collect cash deposits of
estimated countervailing duties in the amount calculated for the year
2018 from the companies identified above, on shipments of subject
merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or
after the date of publication of the final results in the Federal
Register, as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act. For all non-
reviewed companies, we will instruct CBP to collect cash deposits of
estimated countervailing duties at the most recent company-specific or
all-others rate applicable to the company, as appropriate. Accordingly,
the cash deposit rates that will be applied to the companies covered by
this order, but not examined in this review, are those established in
the most recently completed segment of the proceeding for each company.
These cash deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect
until further notice.
Notification Regarding Administrative Protective Order (APO)
This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to APO of
their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary
information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR
351.305(a)(3), which continues to govern business proprietary
information in this segment of the proceeding. 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
These final results are issued and published in accordance with
sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.213 and
351.221(b)(5).
Dated: November 23, 2020.
Joseph A. Laroski Jr.,
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. Scope of the Order
VI. Subsidies Valuation
VII. Analysis of Programs
VIII. Final Ad Valorem Rate for Non-Selected Companies Under Review
IX. Analysis of Comments
Comment 1: Whether Commerce Must Update the Regulations
Implementing the NAFTA Prior To Issuance of the Final Results
Comment 2: Whether Commerce Sufficiently Considered Expert
Reports
Comment 3: Whether Commerce Applied Appropriate Standards for De
Facto and De Jure Specificity
Comment 4: Whether Commerce Properly Required Respondents To
Report ``Other Assistance''
Comment 5: Whether the Purchase of Electricity Is a Purchase of
a Good or Service
Comment 6: Attribution of Benefits From the Sale of Electricity
Comment 7: Applying the Benefit-to-the-Recipient Standard to the
Purchase of Electricity for MTAR Programs
Comment 8: Whether Electricity Curtailment Programs Are Grants
Comment 9: Revisions to Draft Customs Instructions
Comment 10: Whether Commerce Should Allocate Stumpage Benefits
Over Total Sales
Comment 11: Whether Commerce Should Calculate Negative Benefits
in the Stumpage for LTAR and LER Programs
Comment 12: Whether the Alberta Stumpage Market Is Distorted
Comment 13: Whether TDA Survey Prices Are an Appropriate
Benchmark for Alberta Crown-Origin Stumpage
Comment 14: Whether There Is a Useable Tier-One Benchmark in
British Columbia
Comment 15: Whether Commerce Should Revise Its Selection of a
U.S. PNW Delivered Log Benchmark Price
Comment 16: Whether Commerce Should Account for GBC's ``Stand as
a Whole'' Pricing as a Significant ``Prevailing Market Condition''
[[Page 77165]]
Comment 17: Whether Private Stumpage Prices in New Brunswick
Should be Used as Tier-One Benchmarks
Comment 18: Whether the Ontario Crown Timber Market Is Distorted
Comment 19: Whether the Qu[eacute]bec Timber Market Is Distorted
Comment 20: Whether Commerce Should Account for Spruce Budworm
Infestation Conditions That Affect Resolute's SDO Sawmill
Comment 21: Whether Commerce Should Continue To Use 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 Scaling and G&A Costs
Comment 24: Whether Commerce Should Adjust for Tenure Security
in British Columbia
Comment 25: Whether Private-Origin Standing Timber in Nova
Scotia Is Available in the Provinces at Issue
Comment 26: Whether the Tree Size in Nova Scotia, as Measured by
DBH, 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 the Provinces at Issue
Comment 28: Whether Nova Scotia's Forest Is Comparable to the
Forests of New Brunswick, Qu[eacute]bec, Ontario, and Alberta
Comment 29: Reliability of Nova Scotia Private-Origin Standing
Timber Benchmark
Comment 30: Whether High Demand for Pulplogs in Nova Scotia
Creates High Demand for Sawlogs Which Makes Market Conditions for
Nova Scotia Sawlogs Incomparable to the Market Conditions of Sawlogs
in Other Provinces
Comment 31: Classification of Timber Purchases in Nova Scotia
Compared to Qu[eacute]bec, Ontario, and Alberta
Comment 32: Conversion Factor Used in Nova Scotia Benchmark
Comment 33: Whether Differences in Nova Scotia's Harvest and
Haulage Costs Impact Its Comparability or Require an Adjustment
Comment 34: Whether Commerce Should Adjust the Nova Scotia
Benchmark for Differences in Logging Camp Costs
Comment 35: Whether Commerce Should Revise the Indexing Method
Employed in the Derivation of the Nova Scotia Benchmark
Comment 36: Whether Commerce Should Revise the Nova Scotia
Benchmark To Account for Regional Differences
Comment 37: Whether To Add a C$3.00/m3 Silviculture Fee to the
Nova Scotia Benchmark
Comment 38: Whether Fuelwood Should Be Included in the Stumpage
Benefit Calculation
Comment 39: Whether Commerce Should Account for JDIL's
Treelength Purchases in the Stumpage Benefit Calculation
Comment 40: Whether Commerce Should Revise the Product
Comparisons Used in the Stumpage Benefit Calculation To Account for
Log Quality
Comment 41: Whether Commerce Should Revise the Price Comparisons
Used in the Stumpage Benefit Calculation Involving Crown-Origin
Standing Timber in Qu[eacute]bec, Ontario, and Alberta
Comment 42: Whether Commerce Should Use Log Price Data From the
HC Haynes Survey as the Basis for the Nova Scotia Standing Timber
Benchmark
Comment 43: 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 44: Whether Commerce Should Find Restrictions on Log
Exports in Alberta, New Brunswick, Ontario, and Qu[eacute]bec To Be
Countervailable Subsidies
Comment 45: Whether the LER in British Columbia Results in a
Financial Contribution
Comment 46: Whether the Log Export Restraint Has an Impact in
British Columbia
Comment 47: Whether the U.S. Log Benchmark Is a World Market
Price Available in British Columbia
Comment 48: Whether AESO Electricity Purchases for MTAR Are
Countervailable
Comment 49: Whether BC Hydro EPAs Are Countervailable
Comment 50: Whether Commerce Applied the Correct Benchmark To
Calculate the Benefit Under BC Hydro EPAs
Comment 51: Whether Commerce's Specificity and Benchmark
Analyses for the Ontario and Qu[eacute]bec Electricity MTAR Programs
Were Arbitrary
Comment 52: Whether Commerce Applied the Correct Benchmark To
Calculate the Benefit Under the IESO CHP III
Comment 53: Whether Ontario's IESO CHP III Is Specific
Comment 54: Whether Commerce Correctly Attributed Benefits Under
the IESO CHP III Program
Comment 55: Whether Commerce Applied the Correct Benchmark To
Calculate the Benefit Under the PAE 2011-01 Program
Comment 56: Whether Hydro-Qu[eacute]bec's PAE 2011-01 Program Is
Specific
Comment 57: Whether Commerce Correctly Attributed Benefits Under
the PAE 2011-01
Comment 58: Whether the BC ETG/Canada--BC Job Grant Is Specific
Comment 59: Whether Funds West Fraser Received for a Lignin
Plant Through the SDTC, IFIT, and ABF Programs Are Tied to Non-
Subject Merchandise
Comment 60: Whether the Bioenergy Producer Program Is
Countervailable
Comment 61: Whether Payments for Aerial Inventory Photography
and LiDar Are Countervailable
Comment 62: Whether FRPA Section 108 Payments to Canfor Are
Countervailable
Comment 63: Whether the Purchase of Carbon Offsets From Canfor
Is Countervailable
Comment 64: Whether the Miscellaneous Payment From BC Hydro to
West Fraser Is Countervailable
Comment 65: Whether the BC Hydro Power Smart Subprograms Provide
a Financial Contribution and Are Specific
Comment 66: Whether Payments for Cruising and Block Layout
Provide a Financial Contribution
Comment 67: Whether Payments for Fire Suppression Are
Countervailable
Comment 68: Whether the FESBC Payment Is a Countervailable
Subsidy
Comment 69: Whether Commerce Should Continue To Find the
Silviculture and License Management Programs Countervailable
Comment 70: Whether Commerce Should Find the Workforce Expansion
Programs To Be Countervailable or Specific
Comment 71: Whether Ontario's Forest Roads Funding Program Is
Countervailable
Comment 72: Whether Ontario's TargetGHG Is Specific
Comment 73: Whether Ontario's IESO Demand Response Is
Countervailable
Comment 74: Whether Ontario's IEI Program Is Specific
Comment 75: Whether Qu[eacute]bec's PCIP Confers a Benefit
Comment 76: Whether Qu[eacute]bec's Paix des Braves Confers a
Benefit
Comment 77: Whether Qu[eacute]bec's MCRP Confers a Benefit
Comment 78: Whether Qu[eacute]bec's Investment Program in Public
Forests Affected by Natural or Anthropogenic Disturbances Confers a
Benefit
Comment 79: Whether Qu[eacute]bec's PIB Is Countervailable
Comment 80: Whether Qu[eacute]bec's [Eacute]coPerformance Is
Countervailable
Comment 81: Whether Qu[eacute]bec's FDRCMO and MFOR Are Specific
Comment 82: Whether Qu[eacute]bec's FDRCMO and MFOR Are
Recurring
Comment 83: Whether Hydro-Qu[eacute]bec's GDP New Demand-Side
Management Program Is Specific and Conferred a Benefit
Comment 84: Whether Hydro-Qu[eacute]bec's IEO Is Specific and
Conferred a Benefit
Comment 85: Whether Hydro-Qu[eacute]bec's Electricity Discount
Program for Rate L Customers Is Countervailable
Comment 86: Whether Hydro-Qu[eacute]bec's ISEE Is
Countervailable
Comment 87: Whether Hydro-Qu[eacute]bec's Special L Rate Is Tied
to Pulp and Paper Production
Comment 88: Whether Hydro-Qu[eacute]bec's Special L Rate
Conferred a Benefit
Comment 89: Whether the Federal and Provincial SR&ED Tax Credits
Are Specific
Comment 90: Whether the FLTC and PLTC Are Countervailable
Comment 91: Whether the Refund for the BC Logging Tax in 2017
Related to Prior Years Is Countervailable
Comment 92: Whether the ACCA Is De Jure Specific
Comment 93: Whether Commerce Was Correct To Treat the Both the
ACCA and Class 1 Additional CCA as Individual Programs
Comment 94: Whether the AJCTC Is Specific
[[Page 77166]]
Comment 95: Whether the Class 1 Additional CCA Program Is
Specific
Comment 96: Whether the Class 1 Additional CCA Program Provides
a Benefit
Comment 97: Whether Alberta's TEFU and British Columbia's
Coloured Fuel Programs Are Countervailable
Comment 98: Whether Schedule D Depreciation Constitutes a
Financial Contribution and Confers a Benefit
Comment 99: Whether Schedule D Depreciation Is Specific
Comment 100: Whether the IPTC Is Countervailable
Comment 101: Whether the BC Training Tax Credit Is Specific
Comment 102: Whether Class 9 Farm Property Assessment Rates Are
Specific
Comment 103: Whether New Brunswick's Property Tax Incentives for
Private Forest Producers Is Countervailable
Comment 104: Whether Commerce Correctly Calculated the Benchmark
for New Brunswick's Property Tax Incentives for Private Forest
Producers Program
Comment 105: Whether Commerce Omitted JDIL's Program Rate for
the Total Capital Cost Allowance for Class 1 Acquisitions Program
From JDIL's Total Net Subsidy Rate for 2018
Comment 106: Whether Commerce Should Find LIREPP Countervailable
Comment 107: Whether the Gasoline and Fuel Tax Program Provides
a Financial Contribution in the Form of Revenue Forgone or Can Be
Found Specific
Comment 108: Whether the OTCMP Is Specific
Comment 109: Whether Qu[eacute]bec's Credits for the
Construction and Major Repair of Public Access Roads and Bridges in
Forest Areas Confer a Benefit
Comment 110: Whether Qu[eacute]bec's Refund of Fuel Tax Paid on
Fuel Used for Stationary Purposes Is Specific
Comment 111: Whether Qu[eacute]bec's Property Tax Refund for
Forest Producers on Private Woodlands Confers a Countervailable
Benefit
Comment 112: Whether Qu[eacute]bec's Tax Credit for Fees and
Dues Paid To Research Consortium Is Specific
Comment 113: Whether Benefits of Unaffiliated Suppliers Should
Be Cumulated With Canfor's Benefit and Whether Canfor's U.S. Sales
of Subject Merchandise Produced by Unaffiliated Suppliers Should Be
Included in the Denominator of Canfor's Subsidy Rate Calculation
Comment 114: Whether Commerce Should Include Sales by Cross-
Owned Producers of Downstream Products in JDIL's Sales Denominator
When Calculating Countervailable Subsidy Rates
Comment 115: Whether Countervailing Road Credit Reimbursements
Imposes a Double Remedy
Comment 116: Whether the Contracts Between Resolute and
Rexfor[ecirc]t Confer a Benefit
Comment 117: Whether the Benefit of SR&ED Tax Credits Claimed by
Resolute Was Extinguished When AbitibiBowater Emerged From
Bankruptcy
Comment 118: GOO's Debt Forgiveness of Resolute's Fort Frances
Mill
Comment 119: Whether Commerce Should Correct a Clerical Error in
Resolute's LER Benefit Calculation
X. Recommendation
Appendix II
Non-Selected Exporters/Producers
1074712 BC Ltd.
5214875 Manitoba Ltd.
752615 B.C Ltd, Fraserview Remanufacturing Inc, dba
Fraserview Cedar Products.
9224-5737 Qu[eacute]bec inc. (aka A.G. Bois)
A.B. Cedar Shingle Inc.
Absolute Lumber Products, Ltd.
AJ Forest Products Ltd.
Alberta Spruce Industries Ltd.
Aler Forest Products, Ltd.
Alpa Lumber Mills Inc.
American Pacific Wood Products
Anbrook Industries Ltd.
Andersen Pacific Forest Products Ltd.
Anglo American Cedar Products Ltd.
Anglo-American Cedar Products, LTD.
Antrim Cedar Corporation
Aquila Cedar Products, Ltd.
Arbec Lumber 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
Beno[icirc]t & Dionne Produits Forestiers Ltee
Best Quality Cedar Products Ltd.
Blanchet Multi Concept Inc.
Blanchette & Blanchette Inc.
Bois Aise de Montreal inc.
Bois Bonsai inc.
Bois Daaquam inc.
Bois D'oeuvre Cedrico Inc. (aka Cedrico Lumber Inc.)
Bois et Solutions Marketing SPEC, Inc.
Boisaco
Boscus Canada Inc.
BPWood Ltd.
Bramwood Forest Inc.
Brunswick Valley Lumber Inc.
Busque & Laflamme Inc.
C&C Wood Products Ltd.
Caledonia Forest Products Inc.
Campbell River Shake & Shingle Co., Ltd.
Canadian American Forest Products Ltd.
Canadian Wood Products Inc.
Canusa cedar inc.
Canyon Lumber Company, Ltd.
Careau Bois inc.
Carrier & Begin Inc.
Carrier Forest Products Ltd.
Carrier Lumber Ltd.
Cedar Valley Holdings Ltd.
Cedarline Industries, Ltd.
Central Cedar Ltd.
Centurion Lumber, Ltd.
Clair Industrial Development Corp. Ltd.
Chaleur Sawmills LP
Channel-ex Trading Corporation
Clermond Hamel Ltee
Coast Clear Wood Ltd.
Coast Mountain Cedar Products Ltd.
Commonwealth Plywood Co. Ltd.
Comox Valley Shakes Ltd.
Conifex Fibre Marketing Inc.
Cowichan Lumber Ltd.
CS Manufacturing Inc., dba Cedarshed
CWP--Industriel inc.
CWP--Montreal 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.
Doubletree Forest Products Ltd.
Downie Timber Ltd.
Dunkley Lumber Ltd.
EACOM Timber Corporation
East Fraser Fiber Co. Ltd.
Edgewood Forest Products Inc.
ER Probyn Export Ltd.
Eric Goguen & Sons Ltd.
Falcon Lumber Ltd.
Foothills Forest Products Inc.
Fornebu Lumber Co. Ltd.
Fraser Specialty Products Ltd.
Fraserview Cedar Products
Furtado Forest Products Ltd.
G & R Cedar Ltd.
Galloway Lumber Company Ltd.
Gilbert Smith Forest Products Ltd.
Glandell Enterprises Inc.
Goat Lake Forest Products Ltd.
Goldband Shake & Shingle Ltd.
Golden Ears Shingle Ltd.
Goldwood Industries Ltd.
Goodfellow Inc.
Gorman Bros. Lumber Ltd.
Groupe Crete Chertsey
Groupe Crete division St-Faustin
Groupe Lebel inc.
Groupe Lignarex inc.
H.J. Crabbe & Sons Ltd.
Haida Forest Products Ltd.
Harry Freeman & Son Ltd.
Hornepayne Lumber LP
Imperial Cedar Products, Ltd.
Imperial Shake Co. Ltd.
Independent Building Materials Dist.
Interfor Corporation
Island Cedar Products Ltd
Ivor Forest Products Ltd.
J&G Log Works Ltd.
J.H. Huscroft Ltd.
Jan Woodland (2001) inc.
Jhajj Lumber Corporation
Kalesnikoff Lumber Co. Ltd.
Kan Wood, Ltd.
Kebois Ltee/Ltd
Keystone Timber Ltd.
Kootenay Innovative Wood Ltd.
L'Atelier de Readaptation au travil de Beauce Inc.
Lafontaine Lumber Inc.
Langevin Forest Products Inc.
Lecours Lumber Co. Limited
Ledwidge Lumber Co. Ltd.
Leisure Lumber Ltd.
Les Bois d'oeuvre Beaudoin Gauthier inc.
Les Bois Martek Lumber
Les Bois Traites M.G. Inc.
Les Chantiers de Chibougamau ltd.
Leslie Forest Products Ltd.
Lignum Forest Products LLP
Linwood Homes Ltd.
Longlac Lumber Inc.
Lulumco inc.
[[Page 77167]]
Magnum Forest Products, Ltd.
Maibec inc.
Manitou Forest Products Ltd.
Marwood Ltd.
Materiaux Blanchet Inc.
Matsqui Management and Consulting Services Ltd., dba
Canadian Cedar Roofing Depot
Metrie Canada Ltd.
Mid Valley Lumber Specialties, Ltd.
Midway Lumber Mills Ltd.
Mill & Timber Products Ltd.
Millar Western Forest Products Ltd.
MP Atlantic Wood Ltd.
Multicedre ltee
Nakina Lumber Inc.
National Forest Products Ltd.
New Future Lumber Ltd.
Nicholson and Cates Ltd
Norsask Forest Products Limited Partnership
North American Forest Products Ltd.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ North American Forest Products Ltd. is located in
Abbotsford, British Columbia. Imports of softwood lumber produced
and exported by North American Forest Products Ltd. of Saint-
Quentin, New Brunswick, which is a separate entity, have been
excluded from the CVD order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
North Enderby Timber Ltd.
Olympic Industries, Inc./Olympic Industries Inc-Reman Code/
Olympic Industries ULC/Olympic Industries ULC-Reman/Olympic
Industries ULC-Reman Code
Pacific Coast Cedar Products Ltd.
Pacific Pallet, Ltd.
Pacific Western Wood Works Ltd.
Parallel Wood Products Ltd.
Pat Power Forest Products Corporation
Phoenix Forest Products Inc.
Pine Ideas Ltd.
Pioneer Pallet & Lumber Ltd
Porcupine Wood Products Ltd.
Power Wood Corp.
Precision Cedar Products Corp.
Prendiville Industries Ltd. (aka Kenora Forest Products)
Produits Forestiers Mauricie
Produits Forestiers Petit Paris
Produits forestiers Temrex, s.e.c.
Produits Matra Inc. and Sechoirs de Beauce Inc.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ In the Expedited Review, Commerce found these companies to
be cross-owned. See Certain Softwood Lumber Products from Canada:
Final Results of Countervailing Duty Expedited Review, 84 FR 32121,
32122 (July 5, 2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Promobois G.D.S. inc.
Rayonier A.M. Canada GP
Rembos Inc.
Rene Bernard Inc.
Richard Lutes Cedar Inc.
Rielly Industrial Lumber Inc.
S & K Cedar Products Ltd.
S&R Sawmills Ltd
S&W Forest Products Ltd.
San Industries Ltd.
Sawarne Lumber Co. Ltd.
Scierie St[hyphen]Michel inc.
Scierie West Brome Inc.
Scotsburn Lumber Co. Ltd.
Serpentine Cedar Ltd.
Serpentine Cedar Roofing Ltd.
Sexton Lumber Co. Ltd.
Sigurdson Forest Products Ltd.
Silvaris Corporation
Silver Creek Premium Products Ltd.
Sinclar Group Forest Products Ltd.
Skana Forest Products Ltd.
Skeena Sawmills Ltd
Sound Spars Enterprise Ltd.
South Beach Trading Inc.
Specialiste du Bardeau de Cedre Inc
Spruceland Millworks Inc.
Surrey Cedar Ltd.
T.G. Wood Products, Ltd
Taan Forest Products
Taiga Building Products Ltd.
Tall Tree Lumber Company
Teal Cedar Products Ltd.
Tembec Inc.
Terminal Forest Products Ltd.
The Teal-Jones Group
The Wood Source Inc.
Tolko Marketing and Sales Ltd.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ In the underlying investigation, Commerce found the
following companies to be cross-owned with Tolko Marketing and Sales
Ltd.: Tolko Industries Ltd. and Meadow Lake OSB Limited Partnership.
See Certain Softwood Lumber Products from Canada: Final Affirmative
Countervailing Duty Determination, and Final Negative Determination
of Critical Circumstances, 82 FR 51814, 51816 (November 8, 2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Trans-Pacific Trading Ltd.
Triad Forest Products Ltd.
Twin Rivers Paper Co. Inc.
Tyee Timber Products Ltd.
Universal Lumber Sales Ltd.
Usine Sartigan Inc.
Vaagen Fibre Canada, ULC
Valley Cedar 2 ULC
Vancouver Island Shingle, Ltd.
Vancouver Specialty Cedar Products Ltd.
Visscher Lumber Inc
W.I. Woodtone Industries Inc.
Waldun Forest Product Sales Ltd.
Waldun Forest Products Ltd.
Watkins Sawmills Ltd.
West Bay Forest Products Ltd.
West Wind Hardwood Inc.
Western Forest Products Inc.
Western Lumber Sales Limited
Western Wood Preservers Ltd.
Weston Forest Products Inc.
Westrend Exteriors Inc.
Weyerhaeuser Co.
White River Forest Products L.P.
Winton Homes Ltd.
Woodline Forest Products Ltd.
Woodstock Forest Products
Woodtone Specialties Inc.
Yarrow Wood Ltd.
[FR Doc. 2020-26451 Filed 11-30-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P