Certain Softwood Lumber Products From Canada: Final Results and Final Rescission, in Part, of the Countervailing Duty Administrative Review; 2021
The U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) determines that producers and exporters of certain softwood lumber products (softwood lumber) from Canada received countervailable sub...
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, 2021, through December 31, 2021. With respect to one company, we are rescinding this administrative review because the company did not have a reviewable entry during the POR.
DATES:
Applicable August 1, 2023.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Kristen Johnson or Samuel Brummitt, 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) 482-4793 or (202) 482-7851, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Commerce published the preliminary results of this countervailing duty administrative review of softwood lumber from Canada on January 27, 2023, and invited interested parties to comment.[1]
For a summary of the events that occurred since the
Preliminary Results, see
the Issues and Decision Memorandum.[2]
A list of topics discussed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum is included as Appendix I to this notice. 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
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, we determine that North American Forest Products Ltd. (located in Saint-Quentin, New Brunswick) 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 this company, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3). For further information,
see
the section, “Final Rescission of Administrative Review, in Part” in the Issues and Decision Memorandum.
Analysis of Subsidy Programs and Comments Received
Commerce conducted this 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. 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
( printed page 50104)
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.
For further information on the calculation of the non-selected rate,
see
the section, “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 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 the period January 1, 2021, through December 31, 2021:
Companies
Subsidy rate
(percent
ad valorem)
Canfor Corporation and its cross-owned affiliates 3
1.36
J.D. Irving, Limited and its cross-owned affiliates 4
1.72
West Fraser Mills Ltd. and its cross-owned affiliates 5
2.19
Non-Selected Companies
1.79
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).
For North American Forest Products Ltd. (located in Saint-Quentin, New Brunswick), the company for which this review is rescinded, Commerce 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, 2021, through December 31, 2021, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(c)(1)(i). Commerce intends to issue rescission instructions to CBP no earlier than 41 days after the date of publication of the notice of rescission in the
Federal Register
.
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 an 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: July 26, 2023.
Abdelali Elouaradia,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.
Appendix I
List of Topics Discussed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum
I. Summary
II. Case History
III. Period of Review
IV. Final Rescission of Administrative Review, in Part
V. Scope of the
Order
VI. Subsidies Valuation
VII. Analysis of Programs
VIII. Final
Ad Valorem
Rate for Non-Selected Companies Under Review
IX. Discussion of Issues
A. General Issues
Comment 1: Whether Commerce Selected an Appropriate Number of Respondents
Comment 2: Whether Commerce's Specificity Analysis Is Consistent With the Law
Comment 3: Whether Commerce Should Consider Climate Change Goals
B. General Stumpage Issues
Comment 4: Whether Stumpage Is an Untied Subsidy
Comment 5: Whether Commerce Was Correct to Treat the GOA and GBC's Timber Tenure Systems as Part of Stumpage Subsidy Programs
Comment 6: The Appropriate Methodology to Calculate a Benefit in the Event Commerce Treats the GOA and GBC's Timber Tenures as Separate from Stumpage Subsidy Programs
Comment 7: Whether Commerce Should Make Adjustments to Stumpage Rates Paid by the Respondents to Account for “Total Remuneration” in Alberta and New Brunswick
C. Alberta Stumpage Issues
Comment 8: Whether Commerce Should Annualize Alberta Stumpage Purchase and Benchmark Prices
Comment 9: Whether the Alberta Stumpage Market Is Distorted
Comment 10: Whether TDA Survey Prices Are an Appropriate Benchmark for Alberta Crown-Origin Stumpage
D. British Columbia Stumpage Issues
Comment 11: Whether British Columbia's Stumpage Market Is Distorted
Comment 12: Whether Commerce Should Use the 2017-2018 Private Market Survey as a Benchmark for BC Stumpage for LTAR
Comment 13: Whether to Continue to Use a Tier-Three U.S. PNW Log Benchmark for BC Stumpage
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
Comment 15: Whether Commerce Should Use JDIL's Own Purchases of Sawlogs in Nova Scotia or the 2017-2018 Private Market Survey as a Benchmark for New Brunswick Crown Stumpage
Comment 16: 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
F. British Columbia Stumpage Benchmark Issues
Comment 17: Whether Commerce Should Use Log Prices from F2M as a Benchmark for BC Stumpage for LTAR
Comment 18: Whether Commerce Should Use/Selection of a Beetle-Killed Benchmark Price
( printed page 50105)
Comment 19: Whether Commerce's Selection of a Log Volume Conversion Factor Was Appropriate
G. Nova Scotia Stumpage Benchmark Issues
Comment 20: Whether Commerce Should Adjust the Method Used to Index the Nova Scotia Benchmark
Comment 21: 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 22: Whether Private Standing Timber Prices in Nova Scotia Are Available in Alberta
Comment 23: Whether to Revise the Conversion Factor Used in the Calculation of the Nova Scotia Benchmark
Comment 24: Whether to Compare Government Transaction-Specific Prices to an Average Benchmark Price or Offset the LTAR Benefit Using Negative Benefits
Comment 25: Whether the Nova Scotia Benchmark is Comparable or Should Be Adjusted to Account for Log Product Characteristics
Comment 26: Whether the Nova Scotia Benchmark Adequately Accounts for Regional and County-Level Differences
Comment 27: Whether Nova Scotia Is Comparable to Alberta in Terms of Haulage Costs and Whether to Otherwise Adjust the Nova Scotia Benchmark To Account for Such Differences
Comment 28: Whether to Adjust the Nova Scotia Benchmark To Account for Beetle- Killed- and Fire-Killed Timber Harvested in Alberta
Comment 29: Whether Nova Scotia's Forest Is Comparable to Alberta's Forest
Comment 30: Whether the Tree Size in Nova Scotia, as Measured by Diameter, Is Comparable to Tree Size in Alberta
Comment 31: Whether SPF Species in Nova Scotia Are Comparable to SPF Species in Alberta
Comment 32: Reliability of Nova Scotia Private-Origin Standing Timber Benchmark
H. Log Export Restraint Issues
Comment 33: Whether Commerce Should Find Restrictions on Log Exports in Alberta and New Brunswick to Be Countervailable Subsidies
Comment 34: Whether the LER in British Columbia Results in a Financial Contribution
Comment 35: Whether the LER Has an Impact in British Columbia
I. Purchase of Goods for MTAR Issues
Comment 36: Whether Benefits Under the BC Hydro EPA Program Are Tied to West Fraser's Overall Production
Comment 37: Whether Commerce Properly Calculated the Benefit Conferred Under the BC Hydro EPAs
J. Grant Program Issues
Federal
Comment 38: Whether the Green Jobs Program Is Countervailable
Alberta
Comment 39: Whether the AESO Load Shedding Program Is Countervailable
British Columbia
Comment 40: Whether the Purchase of Carbon Offsets from Canfor Is Countervailable
Comment 41: Whether British Columbia's Coloured Fuel Program Is Countervailable
New Brunswick
Comment 42: Whether Commerce Should Continue to Find the Silviculture and License Management Programs Countervailable
Comment 43: Whether Commerce Should Find LIREPP Countervailable
K. Tax and Other Revenue Forgone Program Issues
Federal
Comment 44: Whether the ACCA for Class 53 Assets Program Is Specific
Comment 45: Whether the AJCTC Is Specific
Comment 46: Whether the CCA for Class 1 Assets Is Countervailable
Comment 47: Whether the Federal and Provincial SR&ED Tax Credits Are Specific
Comment 48: Whether the FLTC and PLTC Are Countervailable
Alberta
Comment 49: Whether the TEFU Program Is Countervailable
Comment 50: Whether the Property Tax EOA Is Countervailable
Comment 51: Whether Tax Savings Under Alberta's Schedule D Are Countervailable
British Columbia
Comment 52: Whether the CleanBC CIIP and CIF Subprograms Are Countervailable
Comment 53: Whether the IPTC Is Countervailable
New Brunswick
Comment 54: Whether the Gasoline and Fuel Tax Program Provides a Financial Contribution in the Form of Revenue Forgone or Can Be Found Specific
Comment 55: Whether Commerce Correctly Calculated the Benefit JDIL Received from the Atlantic Investment Tax Credit
Comment 56: Whether the New Brunswick R&D Tax Credit Is Specific
Comment 57: Whether Commerce Should Find New Brunswick's Property Tax Incentives for Private Forest Producers Program Countervailable
Québec
Comment 58: Whether the Research Consortium Tax Credit Is
De Facto
Specific
Comment 59: Whether the Federal CCA for Class 1 Assets and the ACCA for Class 29 and Class 53 Contain a Ministerial Error
L. Company-Specific Issues
Canfor
Comment 60: Whether Commerce Should Correct a Ministerial Error in the British Columbia Stumpage Calculations for Canfor
Comment 61: Whether Commerce Should Correct a Ministerial Error in the Federal and British Columbia SR&ED Tax Credit Programs
West Fraser
Comment 62: Whether Commerce Correctly Calculated West Fraser's Benefit Under the ACCA for Class 53 Assets Program
Comment 63: Whether To Revise West Fraser's Sales Denominators
Comment 64: Whether To Revise West Fraser's BC Stumpage and LER Calculations
198. Tolko Industries Ltd.; Tolko Marketing and Sales Ltd.
199. Top Quality Lumber Ltd.
200. Trans-Pacific Trading Ltd.
201. Triad Forest Products Ltd.
202. Twin Rivers Paper Co. Inc.
203. Tyee Timber Products Ltd.
204. Usine Sartigan Inc.
205. Vaagen Fibre Canada, ULC.
206. Vancouver Specialty Cedar Products Ltd.
207. Vanderhoof Specialty Wood Products Ltd.
208. Visscher Lumber Inc.
209. W.I. Woodtone Industries Inc.
210. West Bay Forest Products Ltd.
211. Western Forest Products Inc.
212. Western Lumber Sales Limited.
213. Westminster Industries Ltd.
214. Weston Forest Products Inc.
215. Weyerhaeuser Co.
216. White River Forest Products L.P.
217. Woodline Forest Products Ltd.
218. Woodstock Forest Products.
219. Woodtone Specialties Inc.
Footnotes
1.
See Certain Softwood Lumber Products from Canada: Preliminary Results, Partial Rescission, and Preliminary Intent to Rescind, in Part, the Countervailing Duty Administrative Review; 2021,88 FR 5302 (January 27, 2023) (
Preliminary Results).
2.
See
Memorandum, “Decision Memorandum for the Final Results of the Administrative Review of the Countervailing Duty Order on Certain Softwood Lumber Products from Canada; 2021,” dated concurrently with, and hereby adopted by, this notice (Issues and Decision Memorandum).
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 West Fraser Mills Ltd.: Blue Ridge Lumber Inc.; Manning Forest Products, Ltd.; Sundre Forest Products Inc.; Sunpine Inc.; and West Fraser Alberta Holdings, Ltd.; and West Fraser Timber Co., Ltd.
Use this for formal legal and research references to the published document.
88 FR 50103
Web Citation
Suggested Web Citation
Use this when citing the archival web version of the document.
“Certain Softwood Lumber Products From Canada: Final Results and Final Rescission, in Part, of the Countervailing Duty Administrative Review; 2021,” thefederalregister.org (August 1, 2023), https://thefederalregister.org/documents/2023-16297/certain-softwood-lumber-products-from-canada-final-results-and-final-rescission-in-part-of-the-countervailing-duty-admin.