```

[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
```