Voglio sapere a riguardo di…

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 165 / Monday, August 30, 2021 / Notices After determining that it had statutory authority to conduct the expedited review, Commerce found that among the eight companies subject to the CVD
expedited review, five of the companies each had a de minimis subsidy rate and were, therefore, excluded from the CVD
Order.6 The five companies are D&G, MLI, NAFB located in New Brunswick, Roland, and Lemay and their crossowned affiliates.7 The other three companies and their cross-owned affiliates subject to the review that received individual above de minimis rates are Fontaine Inc. Fontaine, Mobilier Rustique Beauce Inc.
Mobilier Rustique, and Produits Matra Inc. and Sechoirs de Beauce Inc.
Produits Matra.8
The Committee Overseeing Action for Lumber International Trade Investigations or Negotiations appealed Commerces Final Results of Expedited Review. On November 19, 2020, the CIT
held that Commerce exceeded its authority in promulgating 19 CFR
351.214k pursuant to section 103a of the URAA.9 Specifically, the CIT
explained that because section 103a of the URAA only authorizes Commerce to issue regulations for enacted provisions of the URAA, and because the URAA
does not contain a provision explicitly authorizing CVD expedited reviews, section 103a cannot be the basis of Commerces authority for promulgating its CVD expedited review regulations.10
The CIT remanded the Final Results of Expedited Review to Commerce for Commerce to either take action in conformity with its opinion, or to consider alternative legal authorities
interested parties had presented to the CIT as the basis for Commerces promulgation of its CVD expedited review regulations at 19 CFR 351.214k to determine individual subsidy rates for companies not individually examined in an investigation.11 These alternative legal authorities included sections 101a, 101b, and 103b of the URAA; sections 705c, 751a, 751b, and 77Ae of the Act; and the inherent authority of agencies to reconsider prior decisions.12
In its final remand redetermination, issued in February 2021, Commerce determined that, in accordance with the CITs opinion and interpretation of the URAA, section 103a of the URAA, as well as the other legal authorities presented to the CIT, are not adequate bases for the promulgation of the CVD
expedited review regulations under 19
CFR 351.214k.13 The CIT sustained Commerces final redetermination;
vacated the CVD expedited review regulations at 19 CFR 351.214k;
vacated the Final Results of Expedited Review; ordered that the companies excluded from the CVD Order as a result of the expedited review be reinstated under the CVD Order prospectively; and for all companies that were covered by the Final Results of Expedited Review, impose a cash deposit requirement based on the all-others rate from the investigation or the company-specific rate determined in the most recently completed administrative review in which the company was reviewed.14
Consequently, Commerce is reinstating the five excluded companies in the CVD
Order prospectively D&G, MLI, NAFB

located in New Brunswick, Roland, and Lemay and imposing on those companies a 14.19 percent ad valorem cash deposit requirement based on the all-others rate from the investigation.15
Commerce is also assigning as the cash deposit rate for Fontaine, Mobilier Rustique, and Produits Matra either the all-others rate from the investigation, or the rate determined for the company in the most recently completed administrative review in which the company was reviewed.
Notice In its decision in Timken,16 as clarified by Diamond Sawblades,17 the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that, pursuant to section 516Ac and e of the Act, Commerce must publish a notice of court decision that is not in harmony with a Commerce determination and must suspend liquidation of entries pending a conclusive court decision. The CITs August 18, 2021, judgment constitutes a final decision of the CIT that is not in harmony with Commerces Final Results of Expedited Review. We are issuing this notice consistent with section 516Ac of the Act and in accordance with the CITs order.
Cash Deposit Rates Because there is now a final court judgment vacating the Final Results of Expedited Review, Commerce is reassigning the countervailable subsidy rates for the companies subject to the Final Results of Expedited Review as follows:
Subsidy rate percent ad valorem
Producer/exporter
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES

Les Produits Forestiers D&G Ltee and its cross-owned affiliates 18
Marcel Lauzon Inc. and its cross-owned affiliates 19
North American Forest Products Ltd. located in New Brunswick and its cross-owned affiliates 20
Roland Boulanger & Cie Ltee and its cross-owned affiliates 21
Scierie Alexandre Lemay & Fils Inc. and its cross-owned affiliates 22
Fontaine Inc. and its cross-owned affiliates 23
Mobilier Rustique Beauce Inc. and its cross-owned affiliates 24
6 See Final Results of Expedited Review, 84 FR at 32122.
7 Id.
8 Id.
9 See Committee Overseeing Action for Lumber International Trade Investigations or Negotiations, et al. v. United States, et al., Court No. 1900122, Slip Op. 20167 CIT 2020, at 17. The CIT also held that because the SAA does not propose any actions for the implementation of CVD expedited reviews, Commerce was not authorized to promulgate 19 CFR 351.214k under section 103b of the URAA, which provides for the issuance of any interim regulation necessary or appropriate to carry out any action proposed in the SAA. Id.
at 2324.
10 Id. at 1718, 2021.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:40 Aug 27, 2021

Jkt 253001

11 Id.

at 34, 3335.
at 33. Although the CIT ruled that section 103b of the URAA does not provide Commerce authority to promulgate its CVD expedited review regulations, the CIT allowed Commerce to further elaborate on its arguments regarding section 103b on remand. Id.
13 See Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Court Remand, Committee Overseeing Action for Lumber International Trade Investigations or Negotiations, et al. v. United States, et al., Court No.
1900122, Slip Op. 20167 CIT 2020, dated February 17, 2021.
14 See Committee Overseeing Action for Lumber International Trade Investigations or Negotiations, et al. v. United States, et al., Court No. 1900122, Slip Op. 21104 CIT 2021. Although the CIT
12 Id.

PO 00000

Frm 00013

Fmt 4703

48397

Sfmt 4703

14.19
14.19
14.19
14.19
14.19
14.19
14.19

vacated 19 CFR 351.214k, it explained that because notice and comment procedure is not required when a court vacates a rule after making a finding on the merits, the CIT declined to order Commerce to formally repeal 19 CFR 351.214k. Id.
at fn. 28 citing Natl Parks Cons. Assn v. Salazar, 660 F. Supp. 2d 3, 5 D.D.C. 2009 citing Cement Kiln Recycling Coal. v. EPA, 255 F.3d 855, 872 D.C.
Cir. 2001.
15 See CVD Order, 83 FR at 349.
16 See Timken Co. v. United States, 893 F.2d 337
Fed. Cir. 1990 Timken.
17 See Diamond Sawblades Manufacturers Coalition v. United States, 626 F.3d 1374 Fed. Cir.
2010 Diamond Sawblades.

E:FRFM30AUN1.SGM

30AUN1