Certain Softwood Lumber Products From Canada: Final Results of the Countervailing Duty Administrative Review; 2022
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, 2022, through December 31, 2022.
DATES:
Applicable August 19, 2024.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Samuel Brummitt or Kristen Johnson, 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) 482-7851 or (202) 482-4793, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On February 6, 2024, Commerce published the preliminary results of this administrative review in the
Federal Register
and invited interested parties to comment.[1]
On April 25, 2024, Commerce extended the deadline for issuing the final results of this review until August 2, 2024, which was tolled by seven days until August 9, 2024.[2]
On August 7, 2024, Commerce extended the deadline for the final results of this review until August 12, 2024.[3]
For a complete description of the events that occurred since the
Preliminary Results, see
the Issues and Decision Memorandum.[4]
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
5
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 administrative review in accordance with section 751(a)(1)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). For each of the subsidy programs found to be countervailable, we find that there is a subsidy,
i.e.,
a government-provided financial contribution that gives rise to a benefit to the recipient, and that the subsidy is specific.[6]
Changes Since the Preliminary Results
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 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 titled “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 net countervailable subsidy rates exist for the period January 1, 2022, through December 31, 2022:
Company
Subsidy rate
(percent
ad valorem)
Canfor Corporation and its cross-owned affiliates 7
6.14
J.D. Irving, Limited and its cross-owned affiliates 8
3.88
Tolko Marketing and Sales Ltd. and Tolko Industries Ltd.9
9.61
West Fraser Mills Ltd. and its cross-owned affiliates 10
6.85
Non-Selected Companies 11
6.74
( printed page 67063)
Disclosure
Commerce intends to disclose the calculations performed for these final results of review within five days of any public announcement or, if there is no public announcement, 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 has determined, 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). 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).
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 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 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 351.221(b)(5).
Dated: August 12, 2024.
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. Background
III. Scope of the
Order
IV. Subsidies Valuation
V. Analysis of Programs
VI. Final
Ad Valorem
Rate for Non-Selected Companies Under Review
VII. Analysis of Comments
A. General Issues
Comment 1: Whether Commerce Should Have Deferred the New Subsidy Allegations
Comment 2: Whether Respondent Selection Was Proper
Comment 3: Whether Commerce Should Consider Climate Change Goals
Comment 4: Whether Commerce's Specificity Analysis Is Consistent with the Law
B. General Stumpage Issues
Comment 5: Whether Stumpage Is an Untied Subsidy
Comment 6: Whether to Compare Government Transaction-Specific Prices to an Average Benchmark Price or Offset the Less Than Adequate Remuneration (LTAR) Benefit Using Negative Benefits
C. Alberta Stumpage Issues
Comment 7: Whether the Alberta Stumpage Market Is Distorted
Comment 8: Whether Private Standing Timber Prices in Nova Scotia Are Available in Alberta
Comment 9: Whether the Tree Size in Nova Scotia, as Measured by Diameter, Is Comparable to Tree Size in Alberta
Comment 10: Whether Spruce-Pine-Fir (SPF) Species in Nova Scotia Are Comparable to SPF Species in Alberta
Comment 11: Whether the Nova Scotia Benchmark Is Comparable or Should Be Adjusted to Account for Log Product Characteristics
Comment 12: Whether Nova Scotia's Forest Is Comparable to Alberta's Forest
Comment 13: Whether Timber Damage Assessment Survey Prices Are an Appropriate Benchmark for Alberta Crown-Origin Stumpage
Comment 14: Whether Commerce Should Annualize Alberta Stumpage Purchase and Benchmark Prices
Comment 15: Whether to Adjust the Nova Scotia Benchmark to Account for Beetle-Damaged and Fire-Damaged Timber Harvested in Alberta
Comment 16: 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 17: Whether Commerce Should Make Adjustments to Stumpage Rates Paid by the Respondents to Account for “Total Remuneration” in Alberta and New Brunswick
D. British Columbia (BC) Stumpage Issues
Comment 18: Whether Commerce Should Continue to Use Washington State Department of Revenue (WDOR) Data for a BC Stumpage Benchmark
Comment 19: Whether Commerce Should Make Adjustments to the WDOR Data
Comment 20: Whether to Change Commerce's Calculations Relating to Third Party Tenures
Comment 21: Whether to Account for BC's “Stand-as-a-Whole” Stumpage Pricing
Comment 22: Whether Commerce's Selection of a Log Volume Conversion Factor Was Appropriate
E. New Brunswick Stumpage Issues
Comment 23: Whether the Private Stumpage Market in New Brunswick Is Distorted and Should Be Used as Tier-One Benchmarks
Comment 24: Whether Commerce Should Use JDIL's Own Purchases of Sawlogs in Nova Scotia or the
2021-2022 Private Market Survey
as a Benchmark for New Brunswick Crown Stumpage
Comment 25: 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. Nova Scotia Stumpage Benchmark Issues
Comment 26: Whether to Revise the Conversion Factor Used in the Calculation of the Nova Scotia Benchmark
Comment 27: Whether Commerce Should Index the Nova Scotia Benchmark
Comment 28: Whether Commerce Should Publicly Disclose the Anonymized Data that Comprise the
2021-2022 Private Market Survey
Comment 29: Whether the Nova Scotia Benchmark Adequately Accounts for Regional and County-Level Differences
Comment 30: Reliability of Nova Scotia Private-Origin Standing Timber Benchmark
G. Log Export Restraint (LER) Issues
( printed page 67064)
Comment 31: Whether the LER in British Columbia (BC) Results in a Financial Contribution
Comment 32: Whether the LER Has an Impact in BC
H. Purchase of Goods for More Than Adequate Remuneration Issues
Comment 33: Whether Benefits Under the BC Hydro Electricity Purchase Agreements (EPA) Program Are Tied to Overall Production
Comment 34: Whether Commerce Properly Calculated the Benefit Conferred Under the BC Hydro EPAs
I. Grant Program Issues
Federal
Comment 35: Whether the Sustainable Development Technology Canada Is Countervailable
Comment 36: Whether the Forest Machines Connectivity Master Project Is
De Facto
Specific
Comment 37: Whether the Green Jobs Program Is Countervailable
Alberta
Comment 38: Whether the AESO Load Shedding Program Is Countervailable
Comment 39: Whether the Technology Innovation and Emissions Reduction Program Is Countervailable
British Columbia
Comment 40: Whether BC's Coloured Fuel Program Is Countervailable
New Brunswick
Comment 41: Whether Commerce Should Continue to Find the Silviculture and License Management Programs Countervailable
J. Tax and Other Revenue Forgone Programs Issues
Federal
Comment 42: Whether the Accelerated Capital Cost Allowance (ACCA) for Class 53 Assets Program Is Specific
Comment 43: Whether Commerce Is Applying the Correct Benchmark for the ACCA for Class 53 Assets Program
Comment 44: Whether the Benefit Methodology for the ACCA Class 53 Assets Program Is Correct
Comment 45: Whether the Capital Cost Allowance for Class 1 Assets Program Is Countervailable
Comment 46: Whether the Federal and Provincial Research and Development (R&D) Tax Credits Are Specific
Comment 47: Whether Attribution of the R&D Tax Credits Is Correct
Comment 48: Whether the Federal Logging Tax Credit and Provincial Logging Tax Credit Are Countervailable
Alberta
Comment 49: Whether the Tax Exempt Fuel Use Is Countervailable
Comment 50: Whether the Property Tax Economic Obsolescence Allowance Is Countervailable
Comment 51: Whether Tax Savings Under Alberta's Schedule D Are Countervailable
British Columbia
Comment 52: Whether the CleanBC's Industrial Incentive Program Is Countervailable
New Brunswick
Comment 53: Whether the Gasoline and Motive Fuel Tax (GMFT) Program Provides a Financial Contribution in the Form of Revenue Forgone or Can Be Found Specific
Comment 54: Whether Commerce Should Revise the GMFT Benefit Calculation
Comment 55: Whether Commerce Should Find New Brunswick's Property Tax Incentives for Private Forest Producers Program Countervailable
Comment 56: Whether Commerce Should Find the Large Industrial Renewable Energy Purchase Program Countervailable
K. Company-Specific Issues
Comment 57: Whether Commerce Correctly Calculated the Benefit JDIL Received from the Atlantic Investment Tax Credit, Scientific Research and Experimental Development, and New Brunswick R&D Tax Credit Programs
Comment 58: Whether Commerce Should Correct an Error in Tolko's BC Coloured Fuel Calculation
Comment 59: Whether Commerce Should Correct Errors in West Fraser's BC Stumpage Calculation
2.
See
Memorandum, “Extension of Deadline for Final Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review; 2022,” dated April 25, 2024;
see also
Memorandum, “Tolling of Deadlines for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings,” dated July 22, 2024.
4.
See
Memorandum, “Decision Memorandum for the Final Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review of the Countervailing Duty Order on Certain Softwood Lumber Products from Canada; 2022,” dated concurrently with, and herby adopted by, this notice (Issues and Decision Memorandum).
5.
See Certain Softwood Lumber Products from Canada: Amended Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination and Countervailing Duty Order,83 FR 347 (January 3, 2018) (
Order).
6.
See
sections 771(5)(B) and (D) of the Act regarding financial contribution; section 771(5)(E) of the Act regarding benefit; and section 771(5A) of the Act regarding specificity.
7.
Commerce finds the following companies to be cross-owned with Canfor Corporation: Canadian Forest Products; Ltd. and Canfor Wood Products Marketing, Ltd.
8.
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.
9.
Commerce finds Meadow Lake OSB Mill Corp. and several holding companies, the identities of which are business proprietary information, to be cross-owned with Tolko Marketing and Sales Ltd. and Tolko Industries Ltd.
10.
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.
11.
For a list of these companies,
see
Appendix II.
12.
On March 21, 2023, Olympic Industries, Inc. and Olympic Industries ULC (collectively, Olympic) notified Commerce that Olympic Industries Inc-Reman Code, Olympic Industries ULC-Reman, and Olympic Industries ULC-Reman Code are no longer used by Olympic to export softwood lumber to the United States.
See
Olympic's Letter, “Response to Department of Commerce's Clarification Request,” dated March 21, 2023.
Use this for formal legal and research references to the published document.
89 FR 67062
Web Citation
Suggested Web Citation
Use this when citing the archival web version of the document.
“Certain Softwood Lumber Products From Canada: Final Results of the Countervailing Duty Administrative Review; 2022,” thefederalregister.org (August 19, 2024), https://thefederalregister.org/documents/2024-18442/certain-softwood-lumber-products-from-canada-final-results-of-the-countervailing-duty-administrative-review-2022.