[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 229 (Thursday, December 2, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 68467-68471]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-26152]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[C-122-858]


Certain Softwood Lumber Products From Canada: Final Results of 
the Countervailing Duty Administrative Review, 2019

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (Commerce) determines that 
producers and exporters of certain softwood lumber products (softwood 
lumber) from Canada received countervailable subsidies during the 
period of review, January 1, 2019, through December 31, 2019.

DATES: Applicable December 2, 2021.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jonathan Hall-Eastman (Canfor), John 
Hoffner (JDIL), Kristen Johnson/Samuel Brummitt (Resolute), and Laura 
Griffith (West Fraser), AD/CVD Operations, Office III, Enforcement and 
Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of 
Commerce, 1401

[[Page 68468]]

Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-
1468, (202) 482-3315, (202) 482-4793/(202) 482-7851, and (202) 482-
6430, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    Commerce published the preliminary results of this countervailing 
duty (CVD) administrative review of softwood lumber from Canada on May 
27, 2021, and invited interested parties to comment.\1\ For a summary 
of the events that occurred since the Preliminary Results and a full 
discussion of the issues raised by parties for the final results, see 
the Issues and Decision Memorandum.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Certain Softwood Lumber Products from Canada: 
Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission of the Countervailing 
Duty Administrative Review; 2019, 86 FR 28556 (May 27, 2021) 
(Preliminary Results).
    \2\ See Memorandum, ``Issues and Decision Memorandum for the 
Final Results of the Administrative Review of the Countervailing 
Duty Order on Certain Softwood Lumber Products from Canada; 2019,'' 
dated concurrently with, and hereby adopted by, this notice (Issues 
and Decision Memorandum). The Issues and Decision Memorandum is a 
public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and 
Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized 
Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to 
registered users at https://access.trade.gov. In addition, members 
of the public may access the IDM at https://access.trade.gov/public/FRNoticesListLayout.aspx.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Scope of the Order 3
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Certain Softwood Lumber Products from Canada: Amended 
Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination and 
Countervailing Duty Order, 83 FR 347 (January 3, 2018) (Order).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Analysis of Subsidy Programs and Comments Received

    Commerce conducted this CVD administrative review in accordance 
with section 751(a)(1)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the 
Act). The subsidy programs under review, and the issues raised in case 
and rebuttal briefs submitted by the interested parties, are discussed 
in the Issues and Decision Memorandum. A list of the issues that the 
parties raised, and to which we responded in the Issues and Decision 
Memorandum, is attached to this notice at Appendix I. Based on our 
analysis of the comments received from the interested parties, we made 
changes to the subsidy rates calculated for certain respondents. For a 
discussion of these changes, see the Issues and Decision Memorandum.

Rate for Non-Selected Companies Under Review

    Because the rates calculated for the companies selected for 
individual review are above de minimis and not based entirely on facts 
available, we applied a subsidy rate based on a weighted average of the 
subsidy rates calculated for the reviewed companies using sales data 
submitted by those companies to calculate a rate for the companies not 
selected for review. This is consistent with the methodology that we 
would use in an investigation to establish the all-others rate, 
pursuant to section 705(c)(5)(A) of the Act. A list of all non-selected 
companies is included in Appendix II.
    For further information on the calculation of the non-selected 
rate, see ``Final Ad Valorem Rate for Non-Selected Companies under 
Review'' in the Issues and Decision Memorandum.

Final Results of Administrative Review

    In accordance with section 751(a)(1)(A) and of the Act and 19 CFR 
351.221(b)(5), we determine that the following total estimated 
countervailable subsidy rates exist for 2019:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Subsidy
                                                               rate 2019
                          Companies                           ad valorem
                                                               (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Canfor Corporation and its cross-owned affiliates \4\.......        2.42
J.D. Irving, Limited and its cross-owned affiliates \5\.....        3.41
Resolute FP Canada Inc. and its cross-owned affiliates \6\..       18.07
West Fraser Mills Ltd. and its cross-owned affiliates \7\...        5.06
Non-Selected Companies......................................        6.31
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Disclosure
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Commerce finds the following companies to be cross-owned 
with Canfor Corporation: Canadian Forest Products., Ltd. and Canfor 
Wood Products Marketing, Ltd.
    \5\ Commerce finds the following companies to be cross-owned 
with J.D. Irving, Limited: Miramichi Timber Holdings Limited, The 
New Brunswick Railway Company, Rothesay Paper Holdings Ltd., and St. 
George Pulp & Paper Limited.
    \6\ Commerce finds the following companies to be cross-owned 
with Resolute: Resolute Growth Canada Inc., Produits Forestiers 
Maurice SEC., and Resolute Forest Products Inc.
    \7\ Commerce finds the following companies to be cross-owned 
with West Fraser: West Fraser Timber Co., Ltd., Blue Ridge Lumber 
Inc., Sunpine Inc., Sundre Forest Products Inc., Manning Forest 
Products, and West Fraser Alberta Holdings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Commerce intends to disclose the calculations performed for these 
final results of review within five days of the date of publication of 
this notice in the Federal Register, in accordance with 19 CFR 
351.244(b).

Assessment Rates

    Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act and 19 CFR 
351.212(b)(2), Commerce will determine, and U.S. Customs and Border 
Protection (CBP) shall assess, countervailing duties on all appropriate 
entries of subject merchandise covered by this review.
    Commerce intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP no earlier 
than 41 days after the date of publication of the final results of this 
review in the Federal Register, in accordance with 19 CFR 356.8(a).

Cash Deposit Requirements

    In accordance with section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act, Commerce 
intends to instruct CBP to collect cash deposits of estimated 
countervailing duties in the amounts shown for the companies subject to 
this review. For all non-reviewed companies, we will instruct CBP to 
continue to collect cash deposits of estimated countervailing duties at 
the most recent company-specific or all-others rate applicable to the 
company, as appropriate. These cash deposits, when imposed, shall 
remain in effect until further notice.

Administrative Protective Order (APO)

    This notice also serves as a final reminder to parties subject to 
APO of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of 
proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 
351.305(a)(3). Timely written notification of the return or destruction 
of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby 
requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an 
APO is a sanctionable violation.

Notification to Interested Parties

    Commerce is issuing and publishing these final results of 
administrative review in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 
777(i)(1) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.213(d)(4) and 351.221(b)(5).

    Dated: November 23, 2021.
Ryan Majerus,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy and Negotiations, performing the 
non-exclusive functions and duties of the Assistant Secretary for 
Enforcement and Compliance.

Appendix I

List of Topics Discussed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum

I. Summary
II. List of Issues
III. Case History
IV. Period of Review
V. Scope of the Order
VI. Subsidies Valuation
VII. Analysis of Programs
VIII. Final Ad Valorem Rate for Non-Selected

[[Page 68469]]

Companies Under Review
IX. Analysis of Comments
    Comment 1: Whether Commerce Should Have Used a Sampling 
Methodology to Select Respondents for This Review
    Comment 2: Whether Commerce Properly Required Respondents to 
Report ``Other Assistance''
    Comment 3: Whether Electricity Is a Good or a Service
    Comment 4: Whether Electricity Curtailment Programs Are 
Countervailable
    Comment 5: Whether Ontario and Qu[eacute]bec Agreements with 
Consumers to Reduce GHG Are Grants
    Comment 6: Whether Commerce Should Include Fontaine and Mobilier 
Rustique in the Final Customs Instructions
    Comment 7: Whether Various Grant Programs Are Government 
Purchases of Services
    Comment 8: Whether Stumpage Is an Untied Subsidy
    Comment 9: Whether to Compare Government Transaction-Specific 
Prices to an Average Benchmark Price
    Comment 10: Whether Commerce Should Calculate Negative Benefits 
in the Stumpage for LTAR Program
    Comment 11: Whether the Alberta Stumpage Market Is Distorted
    Comment 12: Whether There Is a Useable Tier-One Benchmark in 
British Columbia
    Comment 13: Whether There Is a Useable Tier-One Benchmark in 
British Columbia
    Comment 14: Whether the Private Stumpage Market in New Brunswick 
Is Distorted and Should Be Used as a Tier-One Benchmark
    Comment 15: Whether Ontario's Crown Stumpage Market Is Distorted
    Comment 16: Whether Ontario's Stumpage Prices Distort the Log 
Market
    Comment 17: Whether the Ontario Standing Timber Market Is 
Distorted and Whether the MNP Ontario Survey Prices May Serve as an 
Appropriate Tier One Benchmark
    Comment 18: Whether Commerce Should Revise Resolute's Stumpage 
Benefit Calculation Regarding Corrected Transactions
    Comment 19: Whether Qu[eacute]bec's Stumpage Market Is Distorted
    Comment 20: Whether Qu[eacute]bec's Auction Prices are an 
Appropriate Tier-One Benchmark to Measure Whether the GOO sold 
Crown-Origin Standing Timber for LTAR
    Comment 21: Whether Commerce Should Use F2M Pricing Data for a 
U.S. PNW Log Benchmark
    Comment 22: Whether Commerce Should Continue to Use a Beetle-
Killed Benchmark Price for the Final Results
    Comment 23: Whether Commerce's Selection of a Log Volume 
Conversion Factor Was Appropriate
    Comment 24: Whether Commerce Should Adjust for Tenure Security 
in British Columbia
    Comment 25: Whether Commerce Should Adjust the BC Log Benchmark 
Price for Scaling and G&A Costs
    Comment 26: Whether to Account for BC's ``Stand-as-a-whole'' 
Stumpage Pricing
    Comment 27: Whether the 2017-2018 Private Stumpage Survey Is 
Sufficiently Contemporaneous for Use as a Tier-One Benchmark
    Comment 28: Whether Nova Scotia Is Comparable to Qu[eacute]bec, 
Ontario, and Alberta in Terms of Haulage Costs and Whether to 
Otherwise Adjust the Nova Scotia Benchmark to Account for Such 
Differences
    Comment 29: Whether to Revise the Conversion Factor Used in 
Calculation of the Nova Scotia Benchmark
    Comment 30: Whether Commerce Should Adjust the Method Used to 
Index the Nova Scotia Benchmark
    Comment 31: Whether to Adjust the Nova Scotia Benchmark to 
Account for Fire-Killed Timber Harvested in Alberta
    Comment 32: Whether to Adjust the Nova Scotia Benchmark to 
Account for Beetle-Killed-Timber Harvested in Alberta
    Comment 33: Whether to Adjust the Nova Scotia Benchmark to 
Account for Beetle Killed-Timber Harvested in Qu[eacute]bec
    Comment 34: Whether Commerce Should Adjust the Nova Scotia 
Benchmark to Account for Log Product Characteristics
    Comment 35: Whether SPF Tree Species in Nova Scotia Are 
Comparable to SPF Tree Species in Qu[eacute]bec, Ontario, and 
Alberta
    Comment 36: Whether to Adjust the Nova Scotia Benchmark to 
Account for Species Differences
    Comment 37: Whether Log Pricing Differences Between Nova Scotia 
and New Brunswick Require an Adjustment to the Nova Scotia Benchmark 
Utilized in JDIL's Stumpage Benefit Analysis
    Comment 38: Whether Commerce Should Adjust the Nova Scotia 
Benchmark for Regional Price Disparities Within Nova Scotia
    Comment 39: Whether Private Standing Timber Prices in Nova 
Scotia Are Available in the Provinces at Issue
    Comment 40: Whether the Tree Size in Nova Scotia, as Measured by 
Diameter, Is Comparable to Tree Size in Qu[eacute]bec, Ontario, and 
Alberta
    Comment 41: Whether Nova Scotia's Forest Is Comparable to the 
Forests of New Brunswick, Qu[eacute]bec, Ontario, and Alberta
    Comment 42: Whether Pulpmill Consumption of Standing Timber in 
Nova Scotia Creates Unique Market Conditions that Are Not Comparable 
to Market Conditions in Qu[eacute]bec, Ontario, and Alberta
    Comment 43: Whether There Is a Fragmented and Shrinking Market 
for Private Timber in Nova Scotia That Has Caused Standing Timber 
Prices to Increase
    Comment 44: Reliability of Nova Scotia Private-Origin Standing 
Timber Benchmark
    Comment 45: Whether Commerce Should Publicly Disclose the 
Anonymized Data that Comprise the 2017-2018 Private Market Survey 
and the Price Index Used to Calculate the Nova Scotia Benchmark
    Comment 46: Whether Commerce Should Make Adjustments to Stumpage 
Rates Paid by the Respondents to Account for ``Total Remuneration'' 
in Alberta, New Brunswick, Ontario, and Qu[eacute]bec
    Comment 47: Whether Commerce Should Find Restrictions on Log 
Exports in Alberta, New Brunswick, Ontario, and Qu[eacute]bec to Be 
Countervailable Subsidies
    Comment 48: Whether the LER in British Columbia Results in a 
Financial Contribution
    Comment 49: Whether Log Export Restraints Have an Impact in 
British Columbia
    Comment 50: Whether Commerce Correctly Calculated a Benefit for 
BC Hydro EPAs
    Comment 51: Whether Benefits Under the BC Hydro EPA Program Are 
Tied to Electricity Production and Not Lumber Products
    Comment 52: Whether Resolute's Ontario and Qu[eacute]bec 
Electricity PPAs Are Tied to Non-Subject Merchandise
    Comment 53: Whether Commerce's Specificity and Benchmark 
Analyses Were Inconsistent for Ontario's and Qu[eacute]bec's 
Electricity PPA Programs
    Comment 54: Whether Commerce Applied the Correct Benchmark to 
Calculate the Benefit Under IESO's CHP III Program
    Comment 55: Whether IESO's CHP III Program Is Specific
    Comment 56: Whether Commerce Applied the Correct Benchmark to 
Calculate the Benefit Under Hydro-Qu[eacute]bec's PAE 2011-01 
Program
    Comment 57: Whether Hydro-Qu[eacute]bec's PAE 2011-01 Program Is 
Specific
    Comment 58: Whether the Payments Made from AESO to West Fraser 
for Load Shedding Constitute a Financial Contribution
    Comment 59: Whether the AESO Load Shedding Program Is a Grant
    Comment 60: Whether the Benefit for Load Shedding Payments to 
West Fraser Should Be Adjusted for West Fraser's Costs Incurred
    Comment 61: Whether the Canada-Alberta Job Grant Is Regionally 
Specific
    Comment 62: Whether the CES Program Is Specific
    Comment 63: Whether the BC Hydro PowerSmart Incentives 
Subprogram Is Specific
    Comment 64: Whether the Purchase of Carbon Offsets from Canfor 
Is Countervailable
    Comment 65: Whether Payments Made to West Fraser for Cruising 
and Block Layout Are Countervailable
    Comment 66: Whether Commerce Should Continue to Find the 
Silviculture and License Management Programs Countervailable
    Comment 67: Whether Commerce Should Find LIREPP Countervailable
    Comment 68: Whether Disaster Relief Provided to JDIL to Repair 
Roads Is Countervailable
    Comment 69: Whether the DTI Settlement with JDIL Was 
Countervailable
    Comment 70: Whether the OFRFP Is Countervailable
    Comment 71: Whether the TargetGHG Program Is Specific
    Comment 72: Whether the TargetGHG Is Tied to Non-Subject 
Merchandise
    Comment 73: Whether the IESO Retrofit Program Is Specific

[[Page 68470]]

    Comment 74: Whether the IESO IEI Is Specific
    Comment 75: Whether the IESO Demand Response Is Countervailable
    Comment 76: Whether the PCIP Is Countervailable
    Comment 77: Whether the Paix des Braves Is Countervailable
    Comment 78: Whether the C[ocirc]te-Nord Wood Residue Program Is 
Countervailable
    Comment 79: Whether Qu[eacute]bec's Investment Program in Public 
Forests Affected by Natural or Anthropogenic Disturbances Is 
Countervailable
    Comment 80: Whether Qu[eacute]bec's MCRP Is Countervailable
    Comment 81: Whether Road Clearing Contracts with Hydro-
Qu[eacute]bec Are Countervailable
    Comment 82: Whether the PAMVFP Is Countervailable
    Comment 83: Whether the Formabois/FDRCMO Is Countervailable
    Comment 84: Whether the MFOR Is De Facto Specific
    Comment 85: Whether the MFOR Is a Non-Recurring Subsidy
    Comment 86: Whether the PIB Is Countervailable
    Comment 87: Whether the SOPFEU/SOPFIM Is Countervailable
    Comment 88: Whether Hydro-Qu[eacute]bec's IRR Program Is 
Countervailable
    Comment 89: Whether Hydro-Qu[eacute]bec's ISEE Program Is 
Countervailable
    Comment 90: Whether Hydro-Qu[eacute]bec's EDL Is Countervailable
    Comment 91: Whether Hydro-Qu[eacute]bec's Special L Rate Is Tied 
to Pulp and Paper
    Comment 92: Whether Hydro-Qu[eacute]bec's Special L Rate Confers 
a Benefit
    Comment 93: Whether Hydro-Qu[eacute]bec's IEO Is Countervailable
    Comment 94: Whether the Federal and Provincial SR&ED Tax Credits 
Are Specific
    Comment 95: Whether Class 43.2 Assets Are Tied to Non-Subject 
Merchandise
    Comment 96: Whether the Class 43.2 Assets Program Is De Facto 
Specific
    Comment 97: Whether the ACCA for Class 29 and Class 53 Assets 
Program Is Specific
    Comment 98: Whether Commerce Was Correct to Treat the Both the 
ACCA and Class 1 Additional CCA as Individual Programs
    Comment 99: Whether the Class 1 Additional CCA Program Provides 
a Financial Contribution that Confers a Benefit
    Comment 100: Whether the Class 1 Additional CCA Program Is 
Specific
    Comment 101: Whether the FLTC and PLTC Are Countervailable
    Comment 102: Whether Alberta's TEFU and British Columbia's 
Coloured Fuel Program Are Countervailable
    Comment 103: Whether the Benefit Calculation for Tax Savings 
Under Alberta's TEFU Is Correct
    Comment 104: Whether the EOA Property Tax Is Countervailable
    Comment 105: Whether Tax Savings Under Alberta's Schedule D Are 
Countervailable
    Comment 106: Whether the IPTC Is Countervailable
    Comment 107: Whether Class 7 Managed Forest Lands Assessment 
Rates Constitute a Financial Contribution
    Comment 108: Whether the CleanBC Industrial Incentive Program Is 
Countervailable
    Comment 109: Whether Commerce Should Find New Brunswick's 
Property Tax Incentives for Private Forest Producers Program 
Countervailable
    Comment 110: Whether the Gasoline and Fuel Tax Program Provides 
a Financial Contribution in the Form of Revenue Forgone or Can Be 
Found Specific
    Comment 111: Whether Ontario's Tax Credit for Manufacturing and 
Processing Is De Jure Specific
    Comment 112: Whether Qu[eacute]bec's Refund of Fuel Tax Paid on 
Fuel Used for Stationary Purposes Is Specific
    Comment 113: Whether Qu[eacute]bec's Research Consortium Tax 
Credit Is De Facto Specific
    Comment 114: Whether Qu[eacute]bec's Tax Credit for Investments 
Relating to Manufacturing and Processing Equipment Is Specific
    Comment 115: Whether Commerce Should Include HST in JDIL's 
Benefit Calculations
    Comment 116: Whether Sales of By-products in the Stumpage for 
LTAR Sales Denominator Were in the Proper Currency
    Comment 117: Whether Countervailing Road Credit Reimbursements 
Imposes a Double Remedy on Resolute
    Comment 118: Whether the Benefits of Certain Tax Credits 
Received by Resolute Were Extinguished In the AbitibiBowater 
Bankruptcy
    Comment 119: Whether Commerce Should Reconsider if the GOO 
Forgave Debt Owed by Resolute
    Comment 120: Whether Payments Made by the GOO to Resolute Based 
on Gaming the IESO System Constitute a Countervailable Subsidy
    Comment 121: Whether Commerce Should Correct the Benefit 
Calculation for Certain Non-Stumpage Programs Used by Resolute
    Comment 122: Whether Commerce Properly Calculated West Fraser's 
Benefit Under the Class 1 CCA and Class 29/53 ACCA
X. Recommendation

Appendix II

Non-Selected Exporters/Producers

1. 1074712 BC Ltd.
2. 258258 B.C. Ltd., dba Pacific Coast Cedar Products
3. 5214875 Manitoba Ltd.
4. 752615 B.C Ltd., Fraserview Remanufacturing Inc., dba Fraserview 
Cedar Products.
5. 9224-5737 Quebec Inc. (aka A.G. Bois)
6. A.B. Cedar Shingle Inc.
7. Absolute Lumber Products, Ltd.
8. AJ Forest Products Ltd.
9. Alberta Spruce Industries Ltd.
10. Aler Forest Products, Ltd.
11. Alpa Lumber Mills Inc.
12. AM Lumber Brokerage
13. American Pacific Wood Products
14. Anbrook Industries Ltd.
15. Andersen Pacific Forest Products Ltd.
16. Anglo-American Cedar Products, Ltd.
17. Antrim Cedar Corporation
18. Aquila Cedar Products, Ltd.
19. Arbec Lumber Inc.
20. Aspen Planers Ltd.
21. B&L Forest Products Ltd.
22. B.B. Pallets Inc.
23. Babine Forest Products Limited
24. Bakerview Forest Products Inc.
25. Bardobec Inc.
26. BarretteWood Inc.
27. Barrette-Chapais Ltee
28. Benoit & Dionne Produits Forestiers Ltee
29. Best Quality Cedar Products Ltd.
30. Blanchet Multi Concept Inc.
31. Blanchette & Blanchette Inc.
32. Bois Aise de Montreal Inc.
33. Bois Bonsai Inc.
34. Bois Daaquam Inc.
35. Bois D'oeuvre Cedrico Inc. (aka Cedrico Lumber Inc.)
36. Bois et Solutions Marketing SPEC, Inc.
37. Boisaco Inc.
38. Boscus Canada Inc.
39. BPWood Ltd.
40. Bramwood Forest Inc.
41. Brink Forest Products Ltd.
42. Brunswick Valley Lumber Inc.
43. Busque & Laflamme Inc.
44. C&C Wood Products Ltd.
45. Caledonia Forest Products Inc.
46. Campbell River Shake & Shingle Co., Ltd.
47. Canadian American Forest Products Ltd.
48. Canadian Wood Products Inc.
49. Canasia Forest Industries Ltd
50. Canusa cedar inc.
51. Canyon Lumber Company, Ltd.
52. Careau Bois Inc.
53. Carrier & Begin Inc.
54. Carrier Forest Products Ltd.
55. Carrier Lumber Ltd.
56. Cedar Valley Holdings Ltd.
57. Cedarline Industries, Ltd.
58. Central Alberta Pallet Supply
59. Central Cedar Ltd.
60. Central Forest Products Inc.
61. Centurion Lumber, Ltd.
62. Chaleur Sawmills LP
63. Channel-ex Trading Corporation
64. Clair Industrial Development Corp. Ltd.
65. Clermond Hamel Ltee
66. CNH Products Inc.
67. Coast Clear Wood Ltd.
68. Coast Mountain Cedar Products Ltd.
69. Columbia River Shake & Shingle Ltd./Teal Cedar Products Ltd., 
dba The Teal Jones Group
70. Commonwealth Plywood Co. Ltd.
71. Comox Valley Shakes Ltd./Comox Valley Shakes (2019) Ltd.
72. Conifex Fibre Marketing Inc.
73. Cowichan Lumber Ltd.
74. CS Manufacturing Inc., dba Cedarshed
75. CWP--Industriel Inc.
76. CWP--Montreal Inc.
77. D & D Pallets, Ltd.
78. Dakeryn Industries Ltd.
79. Decker Lake Forest Products Ltd.
80. Delco Forest Products Ltd.
81. Delta Cedar Specialties Ltd.
82. Devon Lumber Co. Ltd.
83. DH Manufacturing Inc.

[[Page 68471]]

84. Direct Cedar Supplies Ltd.
85. Doubletree Forest Products Ltd.
86. Downie Timber Ltd.
87. Dunkley Lumber Ltd.
88. EACOM Timber Corporation
89. East Fraser Fiber Co. Ltd.
90. Edgewood Forest Products Inc.
91. ER Probyn Export Ltd.
92. Eric Goguen & Sons Ltd.
93. Falcon Lumber Ltd.
94. Fontaine Inc.
95. Foothills Forest Products Inc.
96. Fornebu Lumber Company Inc.
97. Fraser Specialty Products Ltd.
98. FraserWood Inc.
99. FraserWood Industries Ltd.
100. Furtado Forest Products Ltd.
101. G & R Cedar Ltd.
102. Galloway Lumber Company Ltd.
103. Gilbert Smith Forest Products Ltd.
104. Glandell Enterprises Inc.
105. Goat Lake Forest Products Ltd.
106. Goldband Shake & Shingle Ltd.
107. Golden Ears Shingle Ltd.
108. Goldwood Industries Ltd.
109. Goodfellow Inc.
110. Gorman Bros. Lumber Ltd.
111. Groupe Crete Chertsey Inc.
112. Groupe Crete Division St-Faustin Inc.
113. Groupe Lebel Inc.
114. Groupe Lignarex Inc.
115. H.J. Crabbe & Sons Ltd.
116. Haida Forest Products Ltd.
117. Harry Freeman & Son Ltd.
118. Hornepayne Lumber LP
119. Imperial Cedar Products, Ltd.
120. Imperial Shake Co. Ltd.
121. Independent Building Materials Dist.
122. Interfor Corporation
123. Island Cedar Products Ltd
124. Ivor Forest Products Ltd.
125. J&G Log Works Ltd.
126. J.H. Huscroft Ltd.
127. Jan Woodlands (2001) Inc.
128. Jasco Forest Products Ltd.
129. Jazz Forest Products Ltd.
130. Jhajj Lumber Corporation
131. Kalesnikoff Lumber Co. Ltd.
132. Kan Wood, Ltd.
133. Kebois Ltee/Ltd.
134. Keystone Timber Ltd.
135. Kootenay Innovative Wood Ltd.
136. L'Atelier de Readaptation au Travail de Beauce Inc.
137. Lafontaine Lumber Inc.
138. Langevin Forest Products Inc.
139. Lecours Lumber Co. Limited
140. Ledwidge Lumber Co. Ltd.
141. Leisure Lumber Ltd.
142. Les Bois d'oeuvre Beaudoin Gauthier inc.
143. Les Bois Martek Lumber
144. Les Bois Traites M.G. Inc.
145. Les Chantiers de Chibougamau Ltd.
146. Leslie Forest Products Ltd.
147. Lignum Forest Products LLP
148. Linwood Homes Ltd.
149. Longlac Lumber Inc.
150. Lulumco Inc.
151. Magnum Forest Products, Ltd.
152. Maibec inc.
153. Manitou Forest Products Ltd.
154. Marwood Ltd.
155. Materiaux Blanchet Inc.
156. Matsqui Management and Consulting Services Ltd., dba Canadian 
Cedar Roofing Depot
157. Metrie Canada Ltd.
158. Mid Valley Lumber Specialties, Ltd.
159. Midway Lumber Mills Ltd.
160. Mill & Timber Products Ltd.
161. Millar Western Forest Products Ltd.
162. Mobilier Rustique (Beauce) Inc.
163. MP Atlantic Wood Ltd.
164. Multicedre ltee
165. Murray Brothers Lumber Company Ltd
166. Nakina Lumber Inc.
167. National Forest Products Ltd.
168. New Future Lumber Ltd.
169. Nicholson and Cates Ltd
170. Norsask Forest Products Limited Partnership
171. North American Forest Products Ltd. (located in Abbotsford, 
British Columbia)
172. North Enderby Timber Ltd.
173. Oikawa Enterprises Ltd.
174. Olympic Industries, Inc./Olympic Industries Inc-Reman Code/
Olympic Industries ULC/Olympic Industries ULC-Reman/Olympic 
Industries ULC-Reman Code
175. Oregon Canadian Forest Products
176. Pacific Coast Cedar Products, Ltd.
177. Pacific Pallet, Ltd.
178. Pacific Western Wood Works Ltd.
179. Parallel Wood Products Ltd.
180. Pat Power Forest Products Corporation
181. Phoenix Forest Products Inc.
182. Pine Ideas Ltd.
183. Pioneer Pallet & Lumber Ltd.
184. Porcupine Wood Products Ltd.
185. Power Wood Corp.
186. Precision Cedar Products Corp.
187. Prendiville Industries Ltd. (aka, Kenora Forest Products)
188. Produits Forestiers Petit Paris Inc.
189. Produits forestiers Temrex, s.e.c.
190. Produits Matra Inc. and Sechoirs de Beauce Inc.
191. Promobois G.D.S. inc.
192. Quadra Cedar
193. Rayonier A.M. Canada GP
194. Rembos Inc.
195. Rene Bernard Inc.
196. Richard Lutes Cedar Inc.
197. Rielly Industrial Lumber Inc.
198. S & K Cedar Products Ltd.
199. S&R Sawmills Ltd
200. S&W Forest Products Ltd.
201. San Industries Ltd.
202. Sawarne Lumber Co. Ltd.
203. Scierie P.S.E. lnc.
204. Scierie St-Michel inc.
205. Scierie West Brome Inc.
206. Scotsburn Lumber Co. Ltd.
207. Scott Lumber Sales
208. Serpentine Cedar Ltd.
209. Sexton Lumber Co. Ltd.
210. Sigurdson Forest Products Ltd.
211. Silvaris Corporation
212. Silver Creek Premium Products Ltd.
213. Sinclar Group Forest Products Ltd.
214. Skana Forest Products Ltd.
215. Skeena Sawmills Ltd
216. Sound Spars Enterprise Ltd.
217. South Beach Trading Inc.
218. Specialiste de Bardeau de Cedre Inc.
219. Spruceland Millworks Inc.
220. Star Lumber Canada Ltd.
221. Sundher Timber Products Ltd.
222. Surrey Cedar Ltd.
223. T.G. Wood Products, Ltd.
224. Taan Forest LP/Taan Forest Products
225. Taiga Building Products Ltd.
226. Tall Tree Lumber Company
227. Tembec Inc.
228. Temrex Produits Forestiers s.e.c.
229. Terminal Forest Products Ltd.
230. The Wood Source Inc.
231. Tolko Industries Ltd. and Tolko Marketing and Sales Ltd.
232. Trans-Pacific Trading Ltd.
233. Triad Forest Products Ltd.
234. Twin Rivers Paper Co. Inc.
235. Tyee Timber Products Ltd.
236. Universal Lumber Sales Ltd.
237. Usine Sartigan Inc.
238. Vaagen Fibre Canada, ULC
239. Valley Cedar 2 Inc./Valley Cedar 2 ULC
240. Vancouver Island Shingle, Ltd.
241. Vancouver Specialty Cedar Products Ltd.
242. Vanderhoof Specialty Wood Products Ltd.
243. Visscher Lumber Inc
244. W.I. Woodtone Industries Inc.
245. Waldun Forest Product Sales Ltd.
246. Watkins Sawmills Ltd.
247. West Bay Forest Products Ltd.
248. West Wind Hardwood Inc.
249. Western Forest Products Inc.
250. Western Lumber Sales Limited
251. Western Wood Preservers Ltd.
252. Weston Forest Products Inc.
253. Westrend Exteriors Inc.
254. Weyerhaeuser Co.
255. White River Forest Products L.P.
256. Winton Homes Ltd.
257. Woodline Forest Products Ltd.
258. Woodstock Forest Products/Woodstock Forest Products Inc.
259. Woodtone Specialties Inc.
260. Yarrow Wood Ltd.

[FR Doc. 2021-26152 Filed 12-1-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P