51814 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 215 / Wednesday, November 8, 2017 / Notices 

5See section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 

351.213(h). 

6See 19 CFR 351.212(b). 

7See Antidumping Proceedings: Calculation of 

the Weighted-Average Dumping Margin and 

Assessment Rate in Certain Antidumping Duty 

Proceedings; Final Modification, 77 FR 8101, 8103 

(February 14, 2012). 

8See section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act. 

9See Large Residential Washers from Mexico and 

the Republic of Korea: Antidumping Duty Orders, 

78 FR 11148 (February 15, 2013). 

1See Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 

Investigations of Certain Softwood Lumber Products 

from Canada: Preliminary Determinations of 

Critical Circumstances, 82 FR 19219 (April 26, 

2017) (Preliminary Determination of Critical 

Circumstances). 

2See Certain Softwood Lumber Products from 

Canada: Preliminary Affirmative Countervailing 

Duty Determination, and Alignment of Final 

Determination With Final Antidumping Duty 

Determination, 82 FR 19657 (April 28, 2017) and 

accompanying Preliminary Decision Memorandum 

(Preliminary Decision Memorandum) (collectively, 

Preliminary Determination). 

date of publication of this notice, unless 

the deadline is extended.5

Assessment Rates 

Upon issuance of the final results, the 

Department shall determine, and U.S. 

Customs and Border Protection (CBP) 

shall assess, antidumping duties on all 

appropriate entries covered by this 

review.6

We will calculate importer-specific ad 

valorem duty assessment rates based on 

the ratio of the total amount of 

antidumping duties calculated for the 

examined sales to the total entered 

value of the examined sales to that 

importer. Where either the respondent’s 

weighted-average dumping margin is 

zero or de minimis within the meaning 

of 19 CFR 351.106(c), or an importerspecific assessment rate is zero or de 

minimis, we will instruct CBP to 

liquidate the appropriate entries 

without regard to antidumping duties.7

The final results of this review shall be 

the basis for the assessment of 

antidumping duties on entries of 

merchandise covered by the final results 

of this review and for future deposits of 

estimated duties, where applicable.8

We intend to issue instructions to 

CBP 15 days after the publication date 

of the final results of this review. 

Cash Deposit Requirements 

The following cash deposit 

requirements will be effective for all 

shipments of the subject merchandise 

entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, 

for consumption on or after the 

publication date of the final results of 

this administrative review, as provided 

by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) 

The cash deposit rate for LGE will be 

the rate established in the final results 

of this review, except if the rate is less 

than 0.50 percent and, therefore, de 

minimis within the meaning of 19 CFR 

351.106(c)(1), in which case the cash 

deposit rate will be zero; (2) for 

previously reviewed or investigated 

companies not participating in this 

review, the cash deposit rate will 

continue to be the company-specific rate 

published for the most recent period; (3) 

if the exporter is not a firm covered in 

this review, a prior review, or the lessthan-fair-value (LTFV) investigation, but 

the manufacturer is, the cash deposit 

rate will be the rate established for the 

most recent period for the manufacturer 

of the merchandise; and (4) the cash 

deposit rate for all other manufacturers 

or exporters will continue to be 11.80 

percent, the all-others rate established 

in the LTFV investigation.9 These 

deposit requirements, when imposed, 

shall remain in effect until further 

notice. 

Notification to Importers 

This notice also serves as a 

preliminary reminder to importers of 

their responsibility under 19 CFR 

351.402(f) to file a certificate regarding 

the reimbursement of antidumping and/ 

or countervailing duties prior to 

liquidation of the relevant entries 

during this review period. Failure to 

comply with this requirement could 

result in the Secretary’s presumption 

that reimbursement of antidumping 

duties and/or countervailing duties 

occurred and the subsequent assessment 

of double antidumping duties. 

We are issuing and publishing these 

results in accordance with sections 

751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act, and 19 

CFR 351.221(b)(4). 

Dated: October 31, 2017. 

Gary Taverman, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping 

and Countervailing Duty Operations, 

performing the non-exclusive functions and 

duties of the Assistant Secretary for 

Enforcement and Compliance. 

Appendix 

List of Topics Discussed in the Preliminary 

Decision Memorandum 

I. Summary 

II. Background 

III. Scope of the Order 

IV. Discussion of the Methodology 

A. Comparisons to Normal Value 

1. Determination of Comparison Method 

2. Results of the Differential Pricing 

Analysis 

B. Product Comparisons 

C. Export Price and Constructed Export 

Price 

D. Normal Value 

1. Home Market Viability and Selection of 

Comparison Market 

2. Affiliated Party Transactions and Arm’sLength Test 

3. Level of Trade 

E. Cost of Production Analysis 

1. Calculation of COP 

2. Test of Comparison Market Sales Prices 

3. Results of the COP Test 

F. Calculation of NV Based on Comparison 

Market Prices 

G. Calculation of NV Based on CV 

H. Currency Conversion 

V. Recommendation 

[FR Doc. 2017–24200 Filed 11–7–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[C–122–858] 

Certain Softwood Lumber Products 

From Canada: Final Affirmative 

Countervailing Duty Determination, 

and Final Negative Determination of 

Critical Circumstances 

AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce 

(the Department) determines that 

countervailable subsidies are being 

provided to producers and exporters of 

certain softwood lumber products 

(softwood lumber) from Canada. The 

period of investigation is January 1, 

2015, through December 31, 2015. 

DATES: Applicable: November 8, 2017. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Lana Nigro (Tolko), Toby Vandall 

(Canfor), Justin Neuman (JDIL), Patricia 

Tran (West Fraser), and Kristen Johnson 

(Resolute), 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) 482–1779, 

(202) 482–1664, (202) 482–0486, (202) 

482–1503, and (202) 482–4793, 

respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On April 26, 2017, the Department 

published the Preliminary 

Determination of Critical 

Circumstances.1 On April 28, 2017, the 

Department published the Preliminary 

Determination in this countervailing 

duty (CVD) investigation, in which the 

Department preliminarily found that 

countervailable subsidies are being 

provided to producers and exporters of 

softwood lumber from Canada.2 A 

summary of the events that have 

occurred since the Department 

published the Preliminary 

Determination, as well as a full 

discussion of the issues raised by parties 


ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 215 / Wednesday, November 8, 2017 / Notices 51815 

3See Memorandum, ‘‘Issues and Decision 

Memorandum for the Final Determination in the 

Countervailing Duty Investigation of Certain 

Softwood Lumber Products from Canada,’’ dated 

concurrently with, and hereby adopted by, this 

notice (Issues and Decision Memorandum). 

4See Memorandum, ‘‘Certain Softwood Lumber 

Products from Canada: Scope Decision,’’ dated June 

23, 2017 (Preliminary Scope Decision 

Memorandum). In the Preliminary Scope Decision 

Memorandum, the Department preliminarily 

adopted certain exclusions from the scope of the 

antidumping duty (AD) and CVD investigations and 

stated its intention to consider expanded 

exclusionary language covering bed-frame 

components, and exclusionary language for crating 

ladder components, if submitted by interested 

parties. See also Memorandum, ‘‘Decision 

Memorandum for Exclusion of Certain Softwood 

Lumber Products Certified By the Atlantic Lumber 

Board in the Antidumping Duty and Countervailing 

Duty Investigations of Certain Softwood Lumber 

Products from Canada,’’ dated June 23, 2017 (ALB 

Decision Memorandum), where the Department 

preliminarily excluded from the scope softwood 

lumber products certified by the Atlantic Lumber 

Board (ALB) as being first produced in the 

Provinces of Newfoundland and Labrador, Nova 

Scotia, or Prince Edward Island from logs harvested 

in these three provinces. 

5See Issues and Decision Memorandum; see also 

Memorandum, ‘‘Certain Softwood Lumber Products 

from Canada: Scope Decision,’’ dated concurrently 

with, and hereby adopted by, this notice (Final 

Scope Decision Memorandum). 

6See Memorandum to All Interested Parties titled 

‘‘Countervailing Duty Investigation of Certain 

Softwood Lumber Products from Canada: 

Verification Schedule,’’ dated May 12, 2017. 

7See MacLean-Fogg Co. v. United States, 753 

F.3d 1237 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (holding that voluntary 

respondents are considered ‘‘individually 

investigated’’ for purposes of calculating the allothers rate). The Department accepted JDIL as a 

voluntary respondent in this investigation. 

8See Memorandum to the File, ‘‘Calculation of 

the ‘‘All-Others’’ Rate in the Final Determination of 

the Countervailing Duty Investigation of Softwood 

Lumber Products from Canada’’ dated concurrently 

with this notice. 

for this final determination, may be 

found in the Issues and Decision 

Memorandum.3 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 http://access.trade.gov, and to all 

parties in the Central Records Unit, 

Room B8024 of the main Department of 

Commerce building. In addition, a 

complete version of the Issues and 

Decision Memorandum can be accessed 

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

frn/. 

Scope of the Investigation 

The product covered by this 

investigation is softwood lumber from 

Canada. For a complete description of 

the scope of this investigation, see 

Appendix I. 

Scope Comments 

In accordance with the Preliminary 

Determination, Preliminary Scope 

Decision Memorandum, and ALB 

Decision Memorandum,4 the 

Department set aside a period of time 

for parties to raise issues regarding 

product coverage (i.e., proposed 

exclusions from the scope). Certain 

interested parties commented on the 

scope of the investigation as it appeared 

in the Preliminary Determination, 

Preliminary Scope Decision 

Memorandum, and ALB Decision 

Memorandum. Therefore, the scope of 

this investigation has been modified for 

this final determination. For a summary 

of the product coverage comments and 

rebuttal responses submitted to the 

record for this final determination, and 

accompanying discussion and analysis 

of all comments timely received, see the 

Issues and Decision Memorandum and 

Final Scope Decision Memorandum.5

Verification 

As provided in section 782(i) of the 

Tariff Act of 1930 (the Act), during June 

2017, the Department conducted 

verification of the information 

submitted by the Government of British 

Columbia, Government of Alberta, 

Government of Ontario, Government of 

Quebec, Government of New 

Brunswick, Government of Nova Scotia, 

the respondent companies Canfor 

Corporation (Canfor), Resolute FP 

Canada Inc. (Resolute), Tolko Marketing 

and Sales Ltd. and Tolko Industries Ltd. 

(Tolko), and West Fraser Timber Co. 

Ltd. (West Fraser), and voluntary 

respondent J.D. Irving, Limited (JDIL) 

for use in the Department’s final 

determination.6 The Department used 

standard verification procedures, 

including an examination of original 

source documents provided by the 

respondents. 

Analysis of Subsidy Programs and 

Comments Received 

The subsidy programs under 

investigation and all issues raised in the 

case and rebuttal briefs that were 

submitted by parties in this 

investigation are addressed in the Issues 

and Decision Memorandum. A list of 

these issues is attached to this notice as 

Appendix II. 

Changes Since the Preliminary 

Determination 

Based on the Department’s analysis of 

the comments received and 

consideration of the verification reports, 

the Department made certain changes to 

the subsidy rate calculations for each of 

the respondents. For a discussion of the 

Department’s changes, see the Issues 

and Decision Memorandum. As a result 

of these changes, the Department has 

also revised the ‘‘All-Others’’ rate 

calculated for the non-individually 

examined companies as discussed 

below. 

All-Others Rate 

In accordance with section 

705(c)(1)(B)(i)(I) of the Act, the 

Department must determine an 

estimated all-others rate for all exporters 

and producers not individually 

examined. Pursuant to section 

705(c)(5)(A) of the Act, this rate is 

normally an amount equal to the 

weighted average of the estimated 

subsidy rates established for those 

exporters and producers individually 

examined, excluding any zero and de 

minimis countervailable subsidy rates, 

and any rates based entirely under 

section 776 of the Act. 

In this investigation, the Department 

calculated individual estimated 

countervailable subsidy rates for Canfor, 

JDIL,7 Resolute, Tolko, and West Fraser, 

that are not zero, de minimis, or based 

entirely on facts otherwise available. 

Therefore, pursuant to section 

705(c)(5)(A) of the Act, the Department 

calculated the all-others rate using a 

weighted-average of the individual 

estimated subsidy rates calculated for 

the examined respondents using each 

company’s business proprietary data for 

the merchandise under consideration.8

Final Determination 

The Department determines that the 

following estimated countervailable 

subsidy rates exist: 

Company 

Subsidy 

rate 

(%) 

Canfor Corporation and its cross-owned affiliates 9 ............................................................................................................................ 13.24 

J.D. Irving, Limited and its cross-owned affiliates 10 ........................................................................................................................... 3.34 

Resolute FP Canada Inc. and its cross-owned affiliates 11 ................................................................................................................ 14.70 

Tolko Marketing and Sales Ltd. and its cross-owned affiliates 12 ....................................................................................................... 14.85 


ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES
51816 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 215 / Wednesday, November 8, 2017 / Notices 

9The Department has found the following 

companies to be cross-owned with Canfor 

Corporation: Canadian Forest Products, Ltd., and 

Canfor Wood Products Marketing, Ltd. 10The Department has found the following 

companies to be cross-owned with JDIL: Miramichi 

Timber Holdings Limited, The New Brunswick 

Railway Company, Rothesay Paper Holdings Ltd., 

St. George Pulp & Paper Limited, and Irving Paper 

Limited. 11The Department has found the following 

companies to be cross-owned with Resolute: 

Resolute Growth Canada Inc., Resolute Sales Inc., 

Abitibi-Bowater Canada Inc., Bowater Canadian 

Ltd., Resolute Forest Products Inc., Produits 

Forestiers Maurice S.E.C., and 9192–8515 Quebec 

Inc. 12The Department has found the following 

companies to be cross-owned with Tolko: Tolko 

Industries Ltd., and Meadow Lake OSB Limited 

Partnership. 

13The Department has found 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. 

Company 

Subsidy 

rate 

(%) 

West Fraser Mills Ltd. and its cross-owned affiliates 13 ...................................................................................................................... 18.19 

All-Others ............................................................................................................................................................................................. 14.25 

Final Negative Determination of 

Critical Circumstances 

In accordance with section 703(e) of 

the Act, the Department preliminarily 

found that critical circumstances existed 

with respect to JDIL and the nonindividually examined companies 

receiving the ‘‘All-Others’’ rate in this 

investigation and did not exist with 

respect to the respondents Canfor, 

Resolute, Tolko, and West Fraser. The 

Department received comments 

concerning the preliminary affirmative 

determination of critical circumstances. 

For the final determination, the 

Department finds that, in accordance 

with 705(a)(2) of the Act, critical 

circumstances do not exist for all 

individually-examined respondents and 

the non-individually examined 

companies receiving the ‘‘All-Others’’ 

rate in this investigation. A discussion 

of the determination can be found in the 

Issues and Decision Memorandum. 

Suspension of Liquidation 

As a result of our Preliminary 

Determination, and pursuant to sections 

703(d)(1)(B) and (2) of the Act, we 

instructed U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection (CBP) to suspend liquidation 

of all entries of merchandise under 

consideration from Canada that were 

entered or withdrawn from warehouse, 

for consumption, on or after April 28, 

2017, the date of publication of the 

Preliminary Determination in the 

Federal Register. 

We preliminarily determined that 

critical circumstances existed with 

respect to entries of softwood lumber 

from Canada made by JDIL and the nonindividually examined companies 

receiving the ‘‘All-Others’’ rate in this 

investigation. As a result, we instructed 

CBP to suspend liquidation of entries 

that were entered, or withdrawn from 

warehouse, for consumption on or after 

January 28, 2017, which is 90 days 

before the date of the publication of the 

Preliminary Determination in the 

Federal Register. At that time, we 

instructed CBP to collect cash deposits 

of estimated countervailing duties for 

such entries at the rates determined in 

the Preliminary Determination. 

In accordance with section 703(d) of 

the Act, we later issued instructions to 

CBP to discontinue the suspension of 

liquidation for CVD purposes for subject 

merchandise entered, or withdrawn 

from warehouse, on or after August 26, 

2017, but to continue the suspension of 

liquidation of all entries between 

January 28, 2017 (for JDIL and allothers) or April 28, 2017 (for the other 

individually examined respondents), 

and August 25, 2017, as appropriate. 

Because we find critical 

circumstances do not exist for JDIL and 

the non-individually examined 

companies receiving the ‘‘All-Others’’ 

rate in this investigation, we will direct 

CBP to terminate the retroactive 

suspension of liquidation ordered at the 

Preliminary Determination and release 

any cash deposits that were required 

prior to April 28, 2017, consistent with 

section 705(c)(3) of the Act. 

If the International Trade Commission 

(ITC) makes a final determination that 

material injury or threat of material 

injury does not exist, the proceeding 

will be terminated and all securities 

posted will be refunded or canceled. If 

the ITC issues a final affirmative injury 

determination, we will issue a CVD 

order, reinstate the suspension of 

liquidation under section 706(a) of the 

Act, and require a cash deposit of 

estimated CVDs for such entries of 

subject merchandise in the amounts 

indicated above. 

Exclusion of Certain Softwood Lumber 

Products Certified by the Atlantic 

Lumber Board (ALB) 

As noted in the scope of the 

investigation (Appendix I), the 

Department has excluded from the 

scope of the investigation softwood 

lumber products certified by the ALB as 

being first produced in the Provinces of 

Newfoundland and Labrador, Nova 

Scotia, or Prince Edward Island from 

logs harvested in Newfoundland and 

Labrador, Nova Scotia, or Prince 

Edward Island. We will instruct CBP to 

require that the ALB certificate be 

included with each entry and require 

that the ALB certificate of origin number 

be identified on each CBP Form 7501, 

for such entries to be excluded from the 

scope of the order, if issued. Further, if 

an order is issued, we will instruct CBP 

to refund cash deposits collected on any 

suspended entries between April 28, 

2017 (for the other individually 

examined respondents), and August 25, 

2017, as appropriate, that are 

accompanied by the ALB certificate. 

Disclosure 

The Department intends to disclose to 

interested parties its calculations and 

analysis performed in this final 

determination within five days of any 

public announcement in accordance 

with 19 CFR 351.224(b). 

ITC Notification 

In accordance with section 705(d) of 

the Act, we will notify the ITC of our 

determination. In addition, we are 

making available to the ITC all nonprivileged and non-proprietary 

information related to this investigation. 

We will allow the ITC access to all 

privileged and business proprietary 

information in our files, provided the 

ITC confirms that it will not disclose 

such information, either publicly or 

under an administrative protective order 

(APO), without the written consent of 

the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement 

and Compliance. 

Notification to Interested Parties 

This notice serves as a reminder to 

parties subject to an APO of their 

responsibility concerning the 

disposition of proprietary information 

disclosed under APO in accordance 

with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely 

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 violation subject to sanction. 


ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 215 / Wednesday, November 8, 2017 / Notices 51817 

This determination and notice are 

issued and published pursuant to 

sections 705(d) and 777(i) of the Act. 

Dated: November 1, 2017. 

Gary Taverman, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping 

and Countervailing Duty Operations, 

performing the non-exclusive functions and 

duties of the Assistant Secretary for 

Enforcement and Compliance. 

Appendix I 

Scope of the Investigation 

The merchandise covered by this 

investigation is softwood lumber, siding, 

flooring and certain other coniferous wood 

(softwood lumber products). The scope 

includes: 

• Coniferous wood, sawn, or chipped 

lengthwise, sliced or peeled, whether or not 

planed, whether or not sanded, or whether or 

not finger-jointed, of an actual thickness 

exceeding six millimeters. 

• Coniferous wood siding, flooring, and 

other coniferous wood (other than moldings 

and dowel rods), including strips and friezes 

for parquet flooring, that is continuously 

shaped (including, but not limited to, 

tongued, grooved, rebated, chamfered, Vjointed, beaded, molded, rounded) along any 

of its edges, ends, or faces, whether or not 

planed, whether or not sanded, or whether or 

not end-jointed. 

• Coniferous drilled and notched lumber 

and angle cut lumber. 

• Coniferous lumber stacked on edge and 

fastened together with nails, whether or not 

with plywood sheathing. 

• Components or parts of semi-finished or 

unassembled finished products made from 

subject merchandise that would otherwise 

meet the definition of the scope above. 

Finished products are not covered by the 

scope of this investigation. For the purposes 

of this scope, finished products contain, or 

are comprised of, subject merchandise and 

have undergone sufficient processing such 

that they can no longer be considered 

intermediate products, and such products 

can be readily differentiated from 

merchandise subject to this investigation at 

the time of importation. Such differentiation 

may, for example, be shown through marks 

of special adaptation as a particular product. 

The following products are illustrative of the 

type of merchandise that is considered 

‘‘finished,’’ for the purpose of this scope: Ijoists; assembled pallets; cutting boards; 

assembled picture frames; garage doors. 

The following items are excluded from the 

scope of this investigation: 

• Softwood lumber products certified by 

the Atlantic Lumber Board as being first 

produced in the Provinces of Newfoundland 

and Labrador, Nova Scotia, or Prince Edward 

Island from logs harvested in Newfoundland 

and Labrador, Nova Scotia, or Prince Edward 

Island. 

• U.S.-origin lumber shipped to Canada for 

processing and imported into the United 

States if the processing occurring in Canada 

is limited to one or more of the following: (1) 

Kiln drying; (2) planing to create smooth-tosize board; or (3) sanding. 

• Box-spring frame kits if they contain the 

following wooden pieces—two side rails, two 

end (or top) rails and varying numbers of 

slats. The side rails and the end rails must 

be radius-cut at both ends. The kits must be 

individually packaged and must contain the 

exact number of wooden components needed 

to make a particular box-spring frame, with 

no further processing required. None of the 

components exceeds 1′′ in actual thickness or 

83′′ in length. 

• Radius-cut box-spring-frame 

components, not exceeding 1′′ in actual 

thickness or 83′′ in length, ready for assembly 

without further processing. The radius cuts 

must be present on both ends of the boards 

and must be substantially cut so as to 

completely round one corner. 

Softwood lumber product imports are 

generally entered under Chapter 44 of the 

Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United 

States (HTSUS). This chapter of the HTSUS 

covers ‘‘Wood and articles of wood.’’ 

Softwood lumber products that are subject to 

this investigation are currently classifiable 

under the following ten-digit HTSUS 

subheadings in Chapter 44: 

4407.10.01.01; 4407.10.01.02; 

4407.10.01.15; 4407.10.01.16; 4407.10.01.17; 

4407.10.01.18; 4407.10.01.19; 4407.10.01.20; 

4407.10.01.42; 4407.10.01.43; 4407.10.01.44; 

4407.10.01.45; 4407.10.01.46; 4407.10.01.47; 

4407.10.01.48; 4407.10.01.49; 4407.10.01.52; 

4407.10.01.53; 4407.10.01.54; 4407.10.01.55; 

4407.10.01.56; 4407.10.01.57; 4407.10.01.58; 

4407.10.01.59; 4407.10.01.64; 4407.10.01.65; 

4407.10.01.66; 4407.10.01.67; 4407.10.01.68; 

4407.10.01.69; 4407.10.01.74; 4407.10.01.75; 

4407.10.01.76; 4407.10.01.77; 4407.10.01.82; 

4407.10.01.83; 4407.10.01.92; 4407.10.01.93; 

4409.10.05.00; 4409.10.10.20; 4409.10.10.40; 

4409.10.10.60; 4409.10.10.80; 4409.10.20.00; 

4409.10.90.20; 4409.10.90.40; and 

4418.99.10.00. 

Subject merchandise as described above 

might be identified on entry documentation 

as stringers, square cut box-spring-frame 

components, fence pickets, truss 

components, pallet components, flooring, 

and door and window frame parts. Items so 

identified might be entered under the 

following ten-digit HTSUS subheadings in 

Chapter 44: 

4415.20.40.00; 4415.20.80.00; 

4418.99.90.05; 4418.99.90.20; 4418.99.90.40; 

4418.99.90.95; 4421.99.70.40; and 

4421.99.97.80. 

Although these HTSUS subheadings are 

provided for convenience and customs 

purposes, the written description of the 

scope of this investigation is dispositive. 

Appendix II 

List of Topics Discussed in the Issues and 

Decision Memorandum 

Summary 

Background 

Case History 

Period of Investigation 

Scope of the Investigation 

I. Scope Comments 

Subsidies Valuation Information 

A. Allocation Period 

B. Attribution of Subsidies 

C. Denominators 

D. Loan Interest Rate Benchmarks and 

Discount Rates 

Analysis of Programs 

A. Programs Determined To Be 

Countervailable 

B. Programs Determined To Be Tied to 

Non-Subject Merchandise 

C. Programs Determined Not To Provide 

Countervailable Benefits During the POI 

D. Programs Determined Not To Be Used 

During the POI 

E. Program Determined To Be Not 

Countervailable 

F. Programs Deferred Until a Subsequent 

Administrative Review 

G. New Subsidy Allegations 

Analysis of Comments 

General Issues 

Comment 1: Whether Critical Circumstances 

Exist 

Comment 2: Whether the Department Should 

Consider Company-Specific Exclusion 

Requests 

Comment 3: Whether the Department Has the 

Authority To Countervail Future 

Assistance 

Comment 4: Whether the Department Should 

Countervail and Apply AFA to Certain 

Untimely Reported Programs by JDIL and 

Resolute 

Comment 5: Whether the Department 

Properly Requested Respondent 

Interested Parties To Report ‘‘Other 

Assistance’’ 

Comment 6: Whether the Department Should 

Defer Examination of Certain Programs 

Comment 7: Whether the Department Should 

Make a Finding on the NSAs 

Comment 8: Whether the Department 

Correctly Determined if Certain Programs 

are Specific 

Comment 9: Whether the Department 

Erroneously Applied its Attribution 

Regulations 

Comment 10: Whether the Department 

Should Rely on Expert Reports 

General Stumpage Issues 

Comment 11: Whether the Provision of 

Stumpage Rights Is a Financial 

Contribution 

Comment 12: Whether Evidence Establishes 

No Market Distortion and Tier-One 

Benchmarks Should Be Applied 

Comment 13: Whether the Department Must 

Compare Average Benchmark Prices to 

Average Transaction Prices 

Comment 14: Whether the Department Must 

Conduct a Pass-Through Analysis 

Comment 15: Whether the Net Benefit 

Calculation for Stumpage for LTAR Is 

Correct 

Alberta Stumpage Issues 

Comment 16: Benchmarking Alberta 

Comment 17: Whether the Department 

Should Use a U.S. Log Benchmark To 

Compare Respondents’ Alberta 

Stumpage Purchases 

British Columbia Stumpage Issues 

Comment 18: Whether Crown Auctions in 

British Columbia Generate Valid Market 

Prices 

Comment 19: Whether the Department 

Should Use Conversion Factors From the 

BC Dual Scale Study 

Comment 20: Whether the Department 

Should Rely on Log Prices From 


ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES
51818 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 215 / Wednesday, November 8, 2017 / Notices 

Forest2Market Instead of WDNR Prices 

as a Benchmark To Compare 

Respondents’ BC Stumpage Purchases 

Comment 21: Whether U.S. PNW Log Prices 

Should Not Be Used as a Benchmark 

Because They Do Not Reflect Prevailing 

Market Conditions in British Columbia 

Comment 22: Whether the Department 

Should Use a Timbermark-Specific 

Annual Average Stumpage Price 

Comment 23: Whether the Department 

Should Consider BC Stumpage Prices on 

a ‘‘Stand as a Whole’’ Basis 

Comment 24: Whether the Department 

Should Grant Cost Adjustments in 

British Columbia 

Comment 25: Whether the Department 

Should Account for Differences in 

Grading Systems in British Columbia 

and the United States 

Comment 26: Whether the Department 

Should Adjust for a Non-Contract Profit 

Rate 

Comment 27: Whether the Department 

Should Adjust the U.S. Benchmark Price 

To Account for Tenure Security 

New Brunswick Stumpage Issues 

Comment 28: Whether Private Stumpage 

Prices in New Brunswick Should Be 

Used as Tier-One Benchmarks 

Comment 29: Whether the Department 

Should Use the New Brunswick Survey 

as a Benchmark for Stumpage for LTAR 

Ontario Stumpage Issues 

Comment 30: Whether Stumpage for Ontario 

Crown Timber Was Subsidized During 

the Period of Investigation 

Comment 31: Whether Ontario’s Private 

Market Is Distorted and Whether 

Ontario’s Private Prices Are an 

Appropriate Benchmark 

Comment 32: Whether the Ontario Log 

Benchmark Relied on by the Department 

in Lumber IV Would Demonstrate That 

Ontario Crown Timber Is Not Subsidized 

Comment 33: Whether Stumpage Charges 

Distort Ontario’s Domestic Log Market 

and Whether a Log Price Benchmark 

Shows No Subsidy 

Comment 34: Whether To Estimate Ontario’s 

Crown Timber Prices With Que ́bec’s 

Transposition Equation 

Que ́bec Stumpage Issues 

Comment 35: Whether the Que ́bec Stumpage 

Market Is Distorted 

Comment 36: Whether the Department Made 

a Clerical Error in Its Calculation of the 

Que ́bec Stumpage Benefit That It Should 

Correct in Its Final Determination 

Comment 37: Whether Resolute Pays 

Competitive Prices for Its Purchases of 

Non-TSG or Non-Tenured Timber 

Comment 38: Whether the Department 

Should Account for the Premiums 

Resolute Pays Over Auction Prices in 

Que ́bec 

Nova Scotia Benchmark Issues 

Comment 39: Whether NS Private Stumpage 

Prices Can Serve as a Tier-One 

Benchmark 

Comment 40: Whether the Nova Scotia 

Benchmark Is Comparable to the 

Provinces at Issue 

Comment 41: Whether Nova Scotia’s Private 

Stumpage Survey Data Are Flawed 

Comment 42: Whether the Department 

Should Make Adjustments to the Nova 

Scotia Benchmark 

Comment 43: Whether the Department 

Should Make Adjustments to Stumpage 

Rates in Alberta, Ontario, Que ́bec, and 

New Brunswick 

Log Export Restraint Issues 

Comment 44: Whether the Log Export 

Restraint in British Columbia Restrains 

Log Exports 

Comment 45: Whether Log Export Restraints 

Impact the British Columbia Interior 

Comment 46: Whether the Log Export 

Process in British Columbia Is a 

Financial Contribution 

Comment 47: Whether the Constructed 

Benchmark for Log Export Restraints in 

the Preliminary Determination Was 

Correct 

Purchase of Goods for MTAR Issues 

Comment 48: Whether Electricity Is a Service 

and Therefore Whether the Purchase of 

Electricity by BC Hydro Is a Financial 

Contribution 

Comment 49: Whether BC Hydro’s Purchase 

of Electricity Is Tied to Electricity 

Comment 50: Whether BC Hydro’s EPA 

Program Is Specific 

Comment 51: Which Benchmark Should the 

Department Use for the Purchase of 

Electricity for MTAR by BC Hydro 

Comment 52: Whether the GOQ’s Purchase of 

Electricity Is Specific 

Comment 53: Whether Resolute’s Electricity 

Sales Are Tied to Non-Subject 

Merchandise 

Comment 54: Whether the Department 

Should Use the Industrial L Rate as the 

Benchmark for the GOQ’s Purchase of 

Electricity Under PAE 2011–01 

Comment 55: Whether the Industrial L Rate 

Benchmark Was Improperly Calculated 

Grant Program Issues 

Comment 56: Whether the Canada-New 

Brunswick Job Grant Program Is 

Regionally Specific 

Comment 57: Whether the Alberta Bioenergy 

Producer Credit Program Is 

Countervailable 

Comment 58: Whether the Department 

Incorrectly Analyzed the BC Hydro 

Power Smart: Load Curtailment Program 

Comment 59: Whether the Department 

Correctly Found That the Three BC 

Hydro Power Smart Programs 

Countervailed in the Preliminary 

Determination Are De Jure Specific 

Comment 60: Whether Benefits Under the 

Load Displacement Component of the BC 

Hydro Power Smart Incentives 

Subprogram Were Tied to Non-Subject 

Merchandise 

Comment 61: Whether the GNB’s 

Reimbursement of Silviculture and 

License Management Expenses Is 

Countervailable 

Comment 62: Whether the New Brunswick 

Workforce Expansion Program and the 

New Brunswick Youth Employment 

Fund Are De Facto Specific 

Comment 63: Whether the PCIP Is 

Countervailable 

Tax Program Issues 

Comment 64: Whether the Federal and 

Provincial SR&ED Tax Credits Are 

Specific 

Comment 65: Whether the Department 

Should Countervail the Federal and 

Provincial SR&ED Tax Credits That Are 

Purportedly Tied to Non-Subject 

Merchandise 

Comment 66: Whether the Department Is 

Using the Correct Applicable Tax Rate 

for ACCA for Class 29 Assets 

Comment 67: Whether the Department 

Should Use an Alternative Methodology 

for Calculating the Benefit of the ACCA 

for Class 29 Assets 

Comment 68: Whether the ACCA for Class 29 

Assets Program Is Specific 

Comment 69: Whether the ACCA for Class 29 

Assets Is a Tax Deferral 

Comment 70: Whether the AJCTC Is Specific 

Comment 71: Whether the Department Must 

Account for Gains and Losses in Tax 

Savings in the AITC Program 

Comment 72: Whether the Benefit for the 

Atlantic Investment Tax Credit Should 

Be Adjusted 

Comment 73: Whether the Alberta TEFU 

Marked Fuel Program Provides a 

Countervailable Subsidy 

Comment 74: Whether the Coloured Fuel 

Program Evaluated in the Preliminary 

Determination Provides Countervailable 

Subsidies 

Comment 75: Whether the GNB’s Gasoline 

and Fuel Tax Exemptions and Refund 

Program Provides a Financial 

Contribution and Is Specific 

Comment 76: Whether LIREPP Constitutes a 

Financial Contribution and Confers a 

Benefit on Irving Companies 

Comment 77: Whether LIREPP Is Tied to 

Non-Subject Merchandise 

Comment 78: Whether Credits for Road 

Construction Are a Countervailable 

Subsidy 

Comment 79: Whether the Benefit of the 

Que ́bec Private Forest Tax Incentive Was 

Overstated 

Comment 80: Whether the M&P ITC and 

MITC Are De Jure Specific 

Company-Specific Issues 

Comment 81: Whether To Include Kent 

Building Supplies Division’s Sales in 

JDIL’s Denominator 

Comment 82: Whether the Department 

Intended To Address the AIF Program 

Rather Than the Business Development 

Program in Its Preliminary 

Determination 

Comment 83: Whether To Include Sales of 

Downstream Products by JDIL’s CrossOwned Companies 

Comment 84: Whether To Continue To Find 

Programs Not Used or Not Measurable 

for Resolute 

Comment 85: Whether the Department Was 

Correct To Not Countervail Certain 

Ontario Programs 

Comment 86: Whether Discrepancies 

Identified at Resolute’s Verification 

Should Be Corrected 

Comment 87: Whether the Department Was 

Correct To Not Countervail Certain 

Que ́bec Programs 

Comment 88: Whether the Department 

Should Use Tolko’s Final Stumpage 

Prices and Updated Supplemental Data 

for the Final Determination 

Scope Issues 


ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 215 / Wednesday, November 8, 2017 / Notices 51819 

1See Initiation of Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews, 81 FR 

91122 (December 16, 2016) (Initiation Notice). 

2See letter from the petitioners, ‘‘Carbon and 

Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Mexico: 

Withdrawal of Request for Administrative Review,’’ 

dated February 3, 2017 (Petitioners’ Withdrawal 

Request); see also Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel 

Wire Rod from Mexico: Notice of Partial Rescission 

of the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 

2015–2016, 82 FR 11904 (February 27, 2017). 

3See Memorandum, ‘‘Extension of Deadline for 

Preliminary Results of the 2015–2016 Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review,’’ dated June 30, 2017. 

4See Memorandum, ‘‘Extension of Deadline for 

Preliminary Results of the 2015–2016 Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review,’’ dated August 9, 

2017. 

5See Memorandum, ‘‘Decision Memorandum for 

Preliminary Results of 2015–2016 Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review: Carbon and Certain 

Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Mexico’’ (Preliminary 

Decision Memorandum), dated concurrently with, 

and hereby adopted by, this notice. 

6For the full text of the scope of the order, see 

the Preliminary Decision Memorandum. 

7The Department determined that Deacero’s 

shipments to the United States of narrow gauge 

wire rod (4.75 mm to 5.00 mm) constitute 

merchandise altered in form or appearance in such 

minor respects that it is subject merchandise. See 

Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod From 

Mexico: Affirmative Final Determination of 

Circumvention of the Antidumping Order, 77 FR 

59892 (October 1, 2012) and accompanying Issues 

and Decision Memorandum. This determination 

was upheld by the Federal Circuit; see Deacero S.A. 

de C.V. v. United States, No. 15–1362 (Federal 

Circuit) (April 5, 2016) at 12. Because there were 

no changes to the facts which supported that 

decision since that determination, we continue to 

find Deacero’s narrow gauge wire rod (4.75 mm to 

5.00 mm) subject merchandise. 

8See letter from AMLT, ‘‘Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review of Carbon and Certain Alloy 

Steel Wire Rod from Mexico: AMLT No-Shipment 

Certification,’’ dated January 3, 2017 (AMLT NoShipment Certification). 

9No Shipments Inquiry for Carbon and Certain 

Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Mexico Produced and/ 

or Exported by AMLT (A–201–830), message 

number 7009302 (January 9, 2017). 

Comment 89: Definition and Examples of 

Finished Products in Scope Language 

Comment 90: Exclusions Requested for 

Certain Types of Lumber Harvested From 

Western Red Cedar, Douglas Fir, and 

Hemlock Trees 

Comment 91: Previous Scope Determinations 

Comment 92: Whether Certain Products Are 

Finished Products 

Comment 93: Craft Kits 

Comment 94: Whether Certain Scope 

Language Should Be Removed 

Comment 95: Wood Shims 

Comment 96: Pre-Painted Wood Products 

Comment 97: I-Joists 

Comment 98: Miscellaneous Products 

Discussed by the Government of British 

Columbia (GBC) and the BC Lumber 

Trade Council (BCLTC) 

Comment 99: Bed-Frame Components/ 

Crating Ladder Components 

Comment 100: U.S.-Origin Lumber Sent to 

Canada for Further Processing 

Comment 101: Softwood Lumber Produced 

in Canada From U.S.-Origin Logs 

Comment 102: Remanufactured Goods 

Comment 103: Eastern White Pine 

Comment 104: Whether the Department 

Should Conduct a Pass-Through 

Analysis for Independent 

Remanufacturers That Purchase 

Softwood Lumber at Arm’s Length 

Comment 105: Whether Countervailing 

Duties Should Only Be Applicable on a 

First Mill Basis 

Comment 106: Whether the Department 

Should Exclude Softwood Lumber 

Products From New Brunswick 

Comment 107: Whether the Department 

Should Finalize the Exclusion of 

Softwood Lumber Products From the 

Atlantic Provinces 

Conclusion 

[FR Doc. 2017–24204 Filed 11–7–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–201–830] 

Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire 

Rod From Mexico: Preliminary Results 

and Preliminary Determination of No 

Shipments; 2015–2016 

AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce 

(Department) is conducting an 

administrative review of the 

antidumping duty order on carbon and 

certain alloy steel wire rod (wire rod) 

from Mexico. The period of review 

(POR) is October 1, 2015, through 

September 30, 2016. This review covers 

two producers/exporters of the subject 

merchandise: Deacero S.A.P.I. de C.V. 

(Deacero) and ArcelorMittal Las 

Truchas, S.A. de C.V. (AMLT). We 

preliminarily determine that Deacero 

made sales of subject merchandise at 

less than normal value (NV) during the 

POR. We also preliminarily determine 

that AMLT made no shipments of 

subject merchandise during the POR. 

We invite interested parties to comment 

on these preliminary results. 

DATES: Applicable: November 8, 2017. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Keith Haynes, 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) 482–5139. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On December 16, 2016, the 

Department initiated an administrative 

review of the antidumping duty order of 

wire rod from Mexico for three 

producer/exporters.1 On February 27, 

2017, based on a timely withdrawal 

request, the Department rescinded the 

review for one producer/exporter for 

which the review was initiated.2 On 

June 30, 2017, the Department extended 

the time limit for the preliminary results 

by 60 days 3 and on August 9, 2017, the 

Department extended the time limit for 

the preliminary results by an additional 

60 days, pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) 

of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended 

(the Act), to October 31, 2017.4 For a 

complete description of the events that 

followed the initiation of this review, 

see the Preliminary Decision 

Memorandum.5 A list of topics included 

in the Preliminary Decision 

Memorandum is included as an 

Appendix to this notice. 

Scope of the Order 6

The product covered by the order is 

wire rod, in coils, of approximately 

round cross section, 5.00 mm or more, 

but less than 19.00 mm, in solid crosssectional diameter.7 The subject 

merchandise is currently classifiable 

under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule 

of the United States (HTSUS) 

subheadings: 7213.91.3000, 

7213.91.3010, 7213.91.3011, 

7213.91.3015, 7213.91.3020, 

7213.91.3090, 7213.91.3091, 

7213.91.3092, 7213.91.3093, 

7213.91.4500, 7213.91.4510, 

7213.91.4590, 7213.91.6000, 

7213.91.6010, 7213.91.6090, 

7213.99.0030, 7213.99.0031, 

7213.99.0038, 7213.99.0090, 

7227.20.0000, 7227.20.0010, 

7227.20.0020, 7227.20.0030, 

7227.20.0080, 7227.20.0090, 

7227.20.0095, 7227.90.6010, 

7227.90.6020, 7227.90.6030, 

7227.90.6035, 7227.90.6050, 

7227.90.6051, 7227.90.6053, 

7227.90.6058, 7227.90.6059, 

7227.90.6080, and 7227.90.6085. The 

HTSUS subheadings are provided for 

convenience and customs purposes 

only; the written product description 

remains dispositive. 

Preliminary Determination of No 

Shipments 

On January 3, 2017, we received a 

timely-filed submission from AMLT 

reporting to the Department that it made 

no exports, sales, or entries of subject 

merchandise to the United States during 

the POR.8 To confirm AMLT’s no 

shipment claim, the Department issued 

a no-shipment inquiry to U.S. Customs 

and Border Protection (CBP) requesting 

that it review AMLT’s no-shipment 

claim.9 CBP did not report that it had 

any information to contradict AMLT’s 

claim of no shipments during the POR. 

Based on record evidence, we 

preliminarily determine that AMLT had 


ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES