Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 1, 2020 / Notices 77163 

Economy Countries,’’ available at http://

ia.ita.doc.gov/policy/bull05-l.pdf. 

13The Act was amended by the Trade Facilitation 

and Trade Enforcement Act of 2015 which removed 

from section 751(a)(2)(B) of the Act the provision 

directing Commerce to instruct CBP to allow an 

importer the option of posting a bond or security 

in lieu of a cash deposit during the pendency of an 

NSR. 

1See 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). 

2See 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. 

3See Memorandum, ‘‘Tolling of Deadlines for 

Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 

Administrative Reviews in Response to Operational 

Adjustments Due to COVID–19,’’ dated April 24, 

2020. 

4See 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. 

5See Memorandum, ‘‘Tolling of Deadlines for 

Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 

Administrative Reviews,’’ dated July 21, 2020. 

Accordingly, Commerce will issue 

questionnaires to Hualing requesting, 

inter alia, information regarding its 

export activities for the purpose of 

determining whether it is eligible for a 

separate rate. The review of the exporter 

will proceed if the response provides 

sufficient indication that the exporter is 

not subject to either de jure or de facto 

government control with respect to its 

exports of wooden cabinets and 

vanities. 

We intend to conduct this NSR in 

accordance with section 751(a)(2)(B) of 

the Act.13 Because Hualing certified that 

it exported subject merchandise, the 

sale of which is the basis for its NSR 

request, Commerce will instruct CBP to 

continue to suspend liquidation of all 

entries of subject merchandise exported 

by Hualing. To assist in its analysis of 

the bona fide nature of Hualing’s sale(s), 

upon initiation of this NSR, Commerce 

will require Hualing to submit, on an 

ongoing basis, complete transaction 

information concerning any sales of 

subject merchandise to the United 

States that were made subsequent to the 

POR. 

Interested parties requiring access to 

proprietary information in this NSR 

should submit applications for 

disclosure under administrative 

protective order in accordance with 19 

CFR 351.305 and 351.306. This 

initiation notice is published in 

accordance with section 751(a)(2)(B) of 

the Act and 19 CFR 351.214 and 

351.221(c)(1)(i). 

Dated: November 25, 2020. 

James Maeder, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping 

and Countervailing Duty Operations. 

[FR Doc. 2020–26479 Filed 11–30–20; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

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

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. 

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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES4
77164 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 1, 2020 / Notices 

6Commerce finds the following companies to be 

cross-owned with Canfor Corporation: Canadian 

Forest Products, Ltd., and Canfor Wood Products 

Marketing, Ltd. 

7Commerce 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. 

8Commerce 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. 

9Commerce 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. 

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 NonSelected 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: 

Companies 

Subsidy rate 

2017 

ad valorem 

(%) 

Subsidy rate 

2018 

ad valorem 

(%) 

Canfor Corporation and its cross-owned affiliates 6 ................................................................................................ 2.94 2.63 

J.D. Irving, Limited and its cross-owned affiliates 7 ................................................................................................. 3.43 2.66 

Resolute FP Canada Inc. and its cross-owned affiliates 8 ...................................................................................... 18.71 19.10 

West Fraser Mills Ltd. and its cross-owned affiliates 9 ........................................................................................... 6.76 7.57 

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 nonreviewed companies, we will instruct 

CBP to collect cash deposits of 

estimated countervailing duties at the 

most recent company-specific or allothers 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-theRecipient 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’’ 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES4
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 1, 2020 / Notices 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 Que ́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 Que ́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, Que ́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 

Que ́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 Que ́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 Que ́bec 

Comment 44: Whether Commerce Should 

Find Restrictions on Log Exports in 

Alberta, New Brunswick, Ontario, and 

Que ́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 Que ́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-Que ́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 Que ́bec’s PCIP 

Confers a Benefit 

Comment 76: Whether Que ́bec’s Paix des 

Braves Confers a Benefit 

Comment 77: Whether Que ́bec’s MCRP 

Confers a Benefit 

Comment 78: Whether Que ́bec’s 

Investment Program in Public Forests 

Affected by Natural or Anthropogenic 

Disturbances Confers a Benefit 

Comment 79: Whether Que ́bec’s PIB Is 

Countervailable 

Comment 80: Whether Que ́bec’s 

E ́ coPerformance Is Countervailable 

Comment 81: Whether Que ́bec’s FDRCMO 

and MFOR Are Specific 

Comment 82: Whether Que ́bec’s FDRCMO 

and MFOR Are Recurring 

Comment 83: Whether Hydro-Que ́bec’s 

GDP New Demand-Side Management 

Program Is Specific and Conferred a 

Benefit 

Comment 84: Whether Hydro-Que ́bec’s IEO 

Is Specific and Conferred a Benefit 

Comment 85: Whether Hydro-Que ́bec’s 

Electricity Discount Program for Rate L 

Customers Is Countervailable 

Comment 86: Whether Hydro-Que ́bec’s 

ISEE Is Countervailable 

Comment 87: Whether Hydro-Que ́bec’s 

Special L Rate Is Tied to Pulp and Paper 

Production 

Comment 88: Whether Hydro-Que ́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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES4
77166 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 1, 2020 / Notices 

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 Que ́bec’s Credits 

for the Construction and Major Repair of 

Public Access Roads and Bridges in 

Forest Areas Confer a Benefit 

Comment 110: Whether Que ́bec’s Refund 

of Fuel Tax Paid on Fuel Used for 

Stationary Purposes Is Specific 

Comment 111: Whether Que ́bec’s Property 

Tax Refund for Forest Producers on 

Private Woodlands Confers a 

Countervailable Benefit 

Comment 112: Whether Que ́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 Rexforeˆt 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 Que ́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 

• Benoıˆt & 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. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES4
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 1, 2020 / Notices 77167 

10North 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. 

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). 

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). 

1See Twist Ties from the People’s Republic of 

China: Initiation of Countervailing Duty 

Investigation, 85 FR 45188 (July 27, 2020) 

(Initiation Notice). 

2See Twist Ties from the People’s Republic of 

China: Postponement of Preliminary Determination 

of Antidumping Duty Investigation, 85 FR 54352 

(September 1, 2020). 

3See Memorandum, ‘‘Decision Memorandum for 

the Affirmative Preliminary Determination of the 

Countervailing Duty Investigation of Twist Ties 

from the People’s Republic of China,’’ dated 

concurrently with, and hereby adopted by, this 

notice (Preliminary Decision Memorandum). 

• 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

• North Enderby Timber Ltd. 

• Olympic Industries, Inc./Olympic 

Industries Inc-Reman Code/Olympic 

Industries ULC/Olympic Industries ULCReman/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

• 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-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

• 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 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[C–570–132] 

Twist Ties From the People’s Republic 

of China: Preliminary Affirmative 

Countervailing Duty Determination and 

Alignment of Final Determination With 

Final Antidumping Duty Determination 

AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce 

(Commerce) preliminarily determines 

that countervailable subsidies are being 

provided to producers and exporters of 

twist ties from the People’s Republic of 

China (China). The period of 

investigation is January 1, 2019 through 

December 31, 2019. Interested parties 

are invited to comment on this 

preliminary determination. 

DATES: Applicable December 1, 2020. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ajay 

Menon or Adam Simons, AD/CVD 

Operations, Office II, Enforcement and 

Compliance, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue 

NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: 

(202) 482–1993 or (202) 482–6172, 

respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

This preliminary determination is 

made in accordance with section 703(b) 

of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended 

(the Act). Commerce initiated this 

investigation on July 16, 2020.1 On 

September 1, 2020, Commerce 

postponed the preliminary 

determination of this investigation and 

the revised deadline is November 23, 

2020.2 For a complete description of 

events following the initiation of this 

investigation, see the Preliminary 

Decision Memorandum.3 A list of topics 

discussed in the Preliminary Decision 

Memorandum is included as Appendix 

II to this notice. The Preliminary 

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 http://

access.trade.gov. In addition, a complete 

version of the Preliminary Decision 

Memorandum can be accessed directly 

at http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/. 

The signed and electronic versions of 

the Preliminary Decision Memorandum 

are identical in content. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES4