47460 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 174 / Tuesday, September 9, 1997 / Notices

1Avesta Sheffield Inc.; Bristol Metals; Damascus

Tube Division, Damascus-Bishop Tube Co.; Trent

Tube Division, Crucible Materials Corporation; and

United Steelworkers of America (AFL–CIO/CLC).

to collect a reasonable approximation of

the antidumping duties which would

have been determined if the Department

had reviewed those sales of

merchandise actually entered during the

POR. The Department will issue

appropriate appraisement instructions

directly to the Customs Service upon

completion of the review.

Furthermore, the following deposit

requirements will be effective upon

completion of the final results if these

administrative reviews for all shipments

of TRBs from Japan entered, or

withdrawn from warehouse, for

consumption on or after the publication

date of the final results of these

administrative reviews, as provided by

section 751(a)(1) of the Act:

(1) The cash deposit rates for the

reviewed companies will be those rates

established in the final results of these

reviews;

(2) For previously reviewed or

investigated companies not listed above,

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 these reviews, a prior review,

or the LTFV investigations, 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) If neither the exporter nor the

manufacturer is a firm covered in these

or any previous reviews conducted by

the Department, the cash deposit rate for

the A–588–054 case will be 18.07

percent, and 36.52 percent for the A–

588–604 case (see Preliminary Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Reviews; Tapered Roller Bearings,

Finished and Unfinished, and Parts

Thereof, from Japan and Tapered Roller

Bearings, Four Inches or less in Outside

Diameter, and Components Thereof,

From Japan, 58 FR 51061 (September

30, 1993)).

This notice serves as a preliminary

reminder to importers of their

responsibility to file a certificate

regarding the reimbursement of

antidumping 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

occurred and the subsequent assessment

of double antidumping duties. These

administrative reviews and this notice

are in accordance with section 751(a)(1)

of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)(1)) and 19

CFR 353.22.

Dated: September 2, 1997.

Robert S. LaRussa,

Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 97–23852 Filed 9–8–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–580–810]

Certain Welded Stainless Steel Pipe

From Korea; Termination of

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review

AGENCY: International Trade

Administration/Import Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of termination of

antidumping duty administrative

review.

SUMMARY: In response to a request from

petitioners, the Department of

Commerce (the Department) published

in the Federal Register (62 FR 9413,

March 3, 1997) the notice of initiation

of the administrative review of the

antidumping duty order on certain

welded stainless steel pipe from Korea,

for the period December 1, 1995 through

November 30, 1996. On May 6, 1997, we

received a request for withdrawal of this

review from petitioners. Because this

request was timely submitted and

because no other interested party

requested a review, we are terminating

this review.

EFFECTIVE DATE: September 9, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: G.

Leon McNeill or Maureen Flannery, AD/

CVD Enforcement, International Trade

Administration, U.S. Department of

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution

Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20230;

telephone: (202) 482–4733.

Applicable Regulations: Unless

otherwise indicated, all citations to the

Department’s regulations are to the

regulations codified at 19 CFR part 353

(April 1, 1997).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On December 31, 1996, petitioners 1

requested an administrative review

pursuant to 19 CFR 353.22(a) with

respect to the following manufacturers/

exporters: Hyundai Pipe Co., Ltd.; L.G.

Metals; Pusan Steel Pipe Co., Ltd.;

Sammi Metal Products Co., Ltd.; and

SEAH Steel Corporation. On March 3,

1997, in accordance with 19 CFR

353.22(c), we initiated an administrative

review of this order. On May 6, 1997,

we received a timely withdrawal of

request for review from petitioners.

Pursuant to 19 CFR 353.22(a)(5) of the

Department’s regulations, the

Department may allow a party that

requests an administrative review to

withdraw such request not later than 90

days after the date of publication of the

notice of initiation of the administrative

review.

Because petitioners’ request for

termination was submitted within the

90-day time limit and there were no

requests for review from other interested

parties, we are terminating this review.

This termination of administrative

review and notice are in accordance

with 19 CFR 353.22(a)(5).

Dated: September 3, 1997.

Roland L. MacDonald,

Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary,

Enforcement Group III.

[FR Doc. 97–23854 Filed 9–8–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[C–122–404]

Live Swine From Canada; Preliminary

Results of Countervailing Duty

Administrative Review

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of Preliminary Results of

Countervailing Duty Administrative

Review.

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce

(the Department) is conducting an

administrative review of the

countervailing duty order on live swine

from Canada for the period April 1,

1995 through March 31, 1996. For

information on the net subsidy for all

producers covered by this order, see the

Preliminary Results of Review section of

this notice. If the final results remain

the same as these preliminary results of

administrative review, we will instruct

the U.S. Customs Service to assess

countervailing duties as detailed in the

Preliminary Results of Review section of

this notice. Interested parties are invited

to comment on these preliminary

results. See Public Comment section of

this notice.

EFFECTIVE DATE: September 9, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Gayle Longest or Lorenza Olivas, Office
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 174 / Tuesday, September 9, 1997 / Notices 47461

CVD/AD Enforcement VI, Import

Administration, International Trade

Administration, U.S. Department of

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution

Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230;

telephone: (202) 482–2786.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On August 15, 1985, the Department

published in the Federal Register (50

FR 32880) the countervailing duty order

on live swine from Canada. On August

12, 1996, the Department published a

notice of ‘‘Opportunity to Request

Administrative Review’’ (61 FR 41768)

of this countervailing duty order. We

received timely requests for review and

we initiated the review, covering the

period April 1, 1995 through March 31,

1996, on September 17, 1996 (61 FR

48884).

The Department has determined that

it is not practicable to conduct a

company-specific review of this order

because a large number of producers

and exporters requested the review.

Therefore, pursuant to section

777A(e)(2)(B) of the Tariff Act of 1930,

as amended (the Act), we are

conducting a review of all producers

and exporters of subject merchandise

covered by this order on the basis of

aggregate data. This review covers 26

programs.

On April 28, 1997, we extended the

period for completion of the preliminary

results pursuant to section 751(a)(3) of

the Act. See Live Swine from Canada;

Extension of Time Limit for

Countervailing Duty Administrative

Review, 62 FR 23220. Therefore, the

deadline for these preliminary results is

no later than September 2, 1997, and the

deadline for the final results of this

review is no later than 120 days from

the date on which these preliminary

results are published in the Federal

Register.

Applicable Statute and Regulations

Unless otherwise indicated, all

citations to the statute are references to

the provisions of the Tariff Act of 1930,

as amended by the Uruguay Round

Agreements Act (URAA) effective

January 1, 1995 (the Act). The

Department is conducting this

administrative review in accordance

with section 751(a) of the Act.

Scope of the Review

The merchandise covered by this

order is live swine, except U.S.

Department of Agriculture (USDA)

certified purebred breeding swine,

slaughter sows and boars, and

weanlings, (weanlings are swine

weighing up to 27 kilograms or 59.5

pounds) from Canada. The merchandise

subject to the order is classifiable under

the Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS)

item numbers 0103.91.00 and

0103.92.00. The HTS item numbers are

provided for convenience and U.S.

Customs Service (Customs) purposes.

The written description of the scope

remains dispositive.

Verification

As provided in section 782(i) of the

Act, we verified information submitted

by the Government of Canada (GOC)

and the Government of Quebec (GOQ)

related to their claim for ‘‘green box’’

treatment pursuant to section 771(5B)(F)

of the Act, of the programs covered by

the Canada/Quebec Subsidiary

Agreement on Agri-Food Development

(Agri-Food) (see discussion under

‘‘Analysis of Programs’’ section below).

We followed standard verification

procedures, including meeting with

government officials and examining

relevant accounting and financial

records and other original source

documents. Our verification results are

outlined in the public version of the

Verification Report, dated August 27,

1997, which is on file in the Central

Records Unit (Room B–099 of the Main

Commerce Building).

Analysis of Programs

Allocation Methodology

In British Steel plc. v. United States,

879 F. Supp. 1254 (February 9, 1995)

(British Steel), the U.S. Court of

International Trade (the Court) ruled

against the allocation period

methodology for non-recurring

subsidies that the Department has

employed for the past decade, a

methodology that was articulated in the

Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty

Determination: Certain Steel Products

from Austria (General Issues Appendix),

58 FR 37217, 37226 (July 9, 1993)

(General Issues Appendix). In

accordance with the Court’s decision on

remand, the Department determined

that the most reasonable method of

deriving the allocation period for nonrecurring subsidies is a companyspecific average useful life (AUL). This

remand determination was affirmed by

the Court on June 4, 1996. British Steel,

929 F. Supp. 426, 439 (CIT 1996).

Accordingly, the Department has

decided to acquiesce to the British Steel

decision where reasonable and

practicable. In Live Swine from Canada;

Preliminary Results of Countervailing

Duty Administrative Review (62 FR

52426; October 7, 1996) and Live Swine

from Canada; Final Results of

Countervailing Duty Administrative

Review (62 FR 18087; April 14, 1997)

(Swine Tenth Review Results), the

Department determined that it is not

reasonable and practicable to allocate

non-recurring subsidies using companyspecific AUL data because it is not

possible to apply a company-specific

AUL in an aggregate case (such as the

case at hand). Accordingly, in this

review, the Department has continued

to use as the allocation period the

average useful life of depreciable assets

used in the swine industry, as set forth

in the U.S. Internal Revenue Service

(IRS) Class Life Asset Depreciation

Range System (see Swine Tenth Review

Results). We invite the parties to

comment on the selection of this

methodology and to provide any other

reasonable and practicable approaches

for complying with the Court’s ruling.

Calculation Methodology for

Assessment and Cash Deposit Purposes

For the period of review (POR), we

calculated the net subsidy on a countrywide basis by determining the subsidy

rate for each program subject to the

administrative review in the following

manner. We first calculated the subsidy

rate on a province by province basis; we

then weight-averaged the rate received

by each province using the province’s

share of total Canadian exports to the

United States of market hogs (which

excludes slaughter sows and boars). We

then summed the individual provinces’

weight-averaged rates to determine the

subsidy rate of each program. To obtain

the country-wide rate, we then summed

the subsidy rates from all programs.

Respondents’ Claim for ‘‘Green Box’’

Treatment of the Canada/Quebec

Subsidiary Agreement on Agri-Food

Development (Agri-Food Agreement)

On November 5, 1996, the GOQ made

a submission pursuant to section

771(5B)(F) of the Act claiming that the

Agri-Food Agreement met the criteria

for ‘‘green box’’ treatment under Annex

2 of the Agreement on Agriculture of the

World Trade Organization (WTO). On

January 21, 1997, the GOQ indicated

that the GOC also supported the green

box claim.

Under section 771(5B)(F) of the Act,

the domestic support measures

provided with respect to the agricultural

products listed in Annex 1 to the 1994

WTO Agreement on Agriculture shall be

treated as non-countervailable if the

Department determines that the

measures conform fully with the

provisions of Annex 2. Accordingly, the

GOQ and the GOC posited that funding

under the Agri-Food Agreement should

be noncountervailable pursuant to

section 771(5B)(F) of the Act.
47462 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 174 / Tuesday, September 9, 1997 / Notices

The initial Agri-Food Agreement was

signed on February 17, 1987 and

remained in effect from 1987 to 1991.

On August 26, 1993, a new Agri-Food

Agreement was enacted by the

governments of Canada and Quebec

covering the period April 1, 1993

through March 31, 1998. Funding for

this agreement is shared 50/50 by the

federal and provincial governments.

Through this Agreement, grants are

made to private businesses and

academic organizations to fund projects

under the following program areas:

(1) Research: The purpose of this

program area is to increase and diversify

scientific and technical expertise, in

both the area of industrial production

and in university-based studies. Specific

areas of expertise to be covered include:

food production, processing, storage and

marketing.

(2) Technology Innovation: The

purpose of this program area is to speed

up the rate of adoption and

dissemination of technologies and

innovation and the development of new

products. This program operates

through awarding financial assistance

and technical support to groups wishing

to carry out testing projects or develop

new technologies to promote agri-food

development.

(3) Support for Strategic Alliances:

The purpose of this program area is to

stimulate cooperation and promote

strategic activities intended to improve

competitiveness in domestic and foreign

markets. Funding for projects is made

available to an ‘‘industry network’’

(which includes all stakeholders in an

agri-food industry, from the producer of

the raw material to the final processor),

through an application and approval

process.

The Department has previously

examined each of the three components

under the Agri-Food Agreement

(Research, Technology Innovation, and

Support for Strategic Alliances) as three

separate programs. See Swine Tenth

Review Results (62 FR 52433). No new

information or evidence of changed

circumstances has been submitted in

this proceeding to warrant

reconsideration of that finding.

With regard to the GOQ’s and the

GOC’s claim from green box treatment,

we preliminarily determine that it is not

necessary to reach a decision on

whether the Agri-Food Agreement and

its component programs qualify for

green box status, and are, therefore, noncountervailable because none of the

component programs has any impact on

the overall subsidy rate attributable to

the subject merchandise during the

POR.

Specifically, with regard to the

Research program under the Agri-Food

Agreement, as discussed below in the

section II. A., we have preliminarily

determined that this program does not

confer countervailable subsidies

because the results of the research are

publicly available. As such, there is no

need to address whether it is noncountervailable in the context of section

771(5B)(F). Further, with regard to the

Technology Innovation program,

although we found this program to be

specific in the last administrative

review (see section I.A.2.c. below), the

benefit under this program is so small

(Can$ 0. 00000045 per kilogram) that it

has no impact on the overall subsidy

rate calculated for this POR. Similarly,

even though we have never made a

decision with regard to the specificity of

the Support for Strategic Alliance (SSA)

program (see section II.B. below), any

benefit to the subject merchandise

under the SSA program would be so

small (Can$ 0.00000055 per kilogram)

that there would be no impact on the

overall subsidy rate. Because neither the

Technology Innovations program nor

the Support for Strategic Alliances

program (either separately or

collectively) affect the overall subsidy

rate calculated for this review, there is

no reason to consider whether these two

programs meet the green box criteria

pursuant to section 771(5B)(F).

Under these circumstances, an

analysis of whether the programs under

the Agri-Food Agreement qualify for

green box treatment is not warranted

because any decision we would render

would not change the overall subsidy

rate. (See, e.g., Certain Carbon Steel

Products from Sweden; Preliminary

Results of Countervailing Duty

Administrative Review (61 FR 64062,

64065; December 3, 1996) and Certain

Carbon Steel Products from Sweden;

Final Results of Countervailing Duty

Administrative Review (62 FR 16549;

April 7, 1997); Final Negative

Countervailing Duty Determination:

Certain Laminated Hardwood Trailer

Flooring (‘‘LHF’’) From Canada (62 FR

5201; February 4, 1997); Industrial

Phosphoric Acid From Israel;

Preliminary Results of Countervailing

Duty Administrative Review (61 FR

28845; June 6, 1996) and Industrial

Phosphoric Acid From Israel; Final

Results of Countervailing Duty

Administrative Review (61 FR 53351;

October 11, 1996).

I. Programs Conferring Subsidies

A. Programs Previously Determined to

Confer Subsidies

1. Federal Program: Feed Freight

Assistance Program

The Feed Freight Assistance Program

(FFA) is administered by the Livestock

Feed Board of Canada (the Board) under

the Livestock Feed Assistance Act of

1966 (LFA). The Board acts to ensure:

(1) The availability of feed grain to meet

the needs of livestock feeders; (2) the

availability of adequate storage space in

Eastern Canada to meet the needs of

livestock feeders; (3) reasonable stability

in the price of feed grain in Eastern

Canada to meet the needs of livestock

feeders; and (4) equalization of feed

grain prices to livestock feeders in

Eastern Canada, British Columbia, the

Yukon Territory and the Northwest

Territories. Although this program is

clearly designed to benefit livestock

feeders, FFA payments are also made to

grain mills that transform the feed grain

into livestock feed whenever these mills

are the first purchasers of this grain. The

Board makes payments related to the

cost of feed grain storage in Eastern

Canada, and payments related to the

cost of feed grain transportation to, or

for the benefit of, livestock feeders in

Eastern Canada, British Columbia, the

Yukon Territory and the Northwest

Territories, in accordance with the

regulations of the LFA.

In Live Swine from Canada;

Preliminary Results of Countervailing

Duty Administrative Review (55 FR

20812; May 21, 1990) and Live Swine

from Canada; Final Results of

Countervailing Duty Administrative

Review (56 FR 10410; March 12, 1991)

(Swine Second and Third Review

Results), the Department found this

program de jure specific, and thus

countervailable, because, based on the

language of the LFA, benefits are only

available to a specific group of

enterprises or industries (livestock

feeders and feed mills). Subsequently, a

U.S.-Canada Free Trade Agreement

binational panel (see In the Matter of

Live Swine From Canada, USA–91–

1904–03 (June 11, 1993) at 33–36)

affirmed the Department’s

determination in Live Swine from

Canada; Preliminary Results of

Countervailing Duty Administrative

Review (56 FR 29224; June 26, 1991),

and Live Swine from Canada; Final

Results of Countervailing Duty

Administrative Review (56 FR 50560;

October 7, 1991) (Swine Fifth Review

Results), regarding the

countervailability of this program. No

new information or evidence of changed
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 174 / Tuesday, September 9, 1997 / Notices 47463

circumstances has been submitted in

this proceeding to warrant

reconsideration of this finding.

To determine the FFA benefit in the

POR, we first calculated a benefit per

kilogram of live swine within each

province eligible for FFA assistance

using each province’s total production.

Next, we adjusted each province’s rate

per kilogram based on each province’s

share of total Canadian exports of

market hogs to the United States during

the POR. Finally, these individual

provincial rates were summed to obtain

a total rate for the FFA program. On this

basis, we preliminarily determine the

net subsidy for this program to be less

than Can$0.0001 per kilogram for the

POR.

The FAA was terminated effective

January 9, 1996. The last date for which

a producer could claim benefits was

February 15, 1996, and the last date by

which payments could be received was

March 31, 1996. Therefore, we consider

this program terminated. Moreover,

there is no evidence on the record

which would indicate that residual

benefits are being bestowed or that a

substitute program has been

implemented. Accordingly, because of

this program-wide change, the cash

deposit rate will be adjusted to zero for

this program. See e.g., Swine Tenth

Review Results at 18098 and Final

Affirmative Countervailing Duty

Determination: Certain Pasta from

Turkey, 61 FR 30366, 30370; June 14,

1996 (Pasta from Turkey).

2. Federal/Provincial Programs

a. National Tripartite Stabilization

Scheme for Hogs

The National Tripartite Stabilization

Program (NTSP) was created in 1985 by

an amendment to the Agricultural

Stabilization Act (ASA). This

amendment, codified at section 10.1 of

the ASA, provides for the introduction

of cost-sharing tripartite or bipartite

stabilization schemes involving the

producer, the federal government, and

the provinces. Pursuant to this

amendment, federal and provincial

ministers signed NTSP agreements

covering specific commodities.

The general terms of the NTSP for

Hogs are as follows: all participating hog

producers receive the same level of

support per market-hog unit; the cost of

the scheme is shared equally between

the federal government, the provincial

government, and the producers;

producer participation in the scheme is

voluntary; the provinces may not offer

separate stabilization plans or other ad

hoc assistance for hogs (with the

exception of Quebec’s Farm Income

Stabilization Insurance Program); the

federal government may not offer

compensation to swine producers in a

province not party to an agreement; and

the scheme must operate at a level that

limits losses but does not stimulate

over-production.

Stabilization payments are made

when the market price falls below the

calculated support price. The difference

between the support price and the

market price is the amount of the

stabilization payment. Hogs eligible for

stabilization payments under NTSP

must index above 80 on a hog carcass

grading scale.

In Live Swine From Canada;

Preliminary Results of Countervailing

Duty Administrative Review (58 FR

54112; October 20, 1993 ) and Live

Swine From Canada; Final Results of

Countervailing Duty Administrative

Review (59 FR 12243; March 16, 1994)

(Swine Sixth Review Results), the

Department determined that NTSP was

de facto specific. No new information or

evidence of changed circumstances has

been submitted in this proceeding to

warrant reconsideration of this finding.

NTSP Agreement Amendment No. 3

terminated the plan as of July 2, 1994,

but allowed provinces to terminate their

participation in the plan effective April

2, 1994. The plan ended with a surplus.

Under the terms of the NTSP, this

surplus was to be distributed in equal

shares (33.3 percent) among the federal

and provincial governments and the

producers, because each was to have

contributed one-third of the funds.

In Swine Tenth Review Results, we

examined the NTSP—Hogs Schedule of

Operations (Schedule of Operations)

which showed the federal and

provincial governments’ and the

producers’ contributions to the NTSP

Hog Plan for the period January 1986

through May 29, 1996. This Schedule of

Operations showed that the federal

government contributed 36.6 percent

and the producers and provinces

contributed 31.7 percent each, of the

total tripartite contributions during this

ten-year period. Thus, the producers

received a share of the surplus which is

in excess of their actual contributions to

the plan.

Accordingly, the Department found

that the retroactive surplus payments

constitute a benefit conferred under

NTSP in the form of a grant to producers

in the amount of the difference between

what the producers actually are

receiving, 33.3 percent of the surplus,

and what they should have received,

31.7 percent of the surplus (the

percentage producers actually

contributed to NTSP). No new

information or evidence of changed

circumstances has been submitted in

this proceeding to warrant

reconsideration of this finding. During

the POR, producers received NTSP

surplus payments in the following

provinces which exported live swine:

Alberta, Manitoba, and Quebec.

To calculate the subsidy, we used the

methodology applied in Swine Tenth

Review Results (61 FR 52426). We

subtracted the amount that the producer

should have received (31.7 percent)

from the amount that they actually

received (33.3 percent). The difference

is the amount of the grant. The

Department’s policy with respect to

grants is (1) to expense recurring grants

in the year of receipt, or (2) to allocate

non-recurring grants over the average

useful life of assets in the industry,

unless the sum of grants provided under

a particular program is less than 0.50

percent of a firm’s total or export sales

(depending on whether the program is

a domestic or export subsidy) in the

year in which the grants were received.

(See General Issues Appendix at 37226).

In determining whether a grant is

recurring or non-recurring, we apply a

test set out in the General Issues

Appendix at 37226. We consider grants

to be non-recurring if the benefits are

exceptional, the recipient cannot expect

to receive benefits on an ongoing basis

from POR to POR, and the provision of

funds by the government must be

approved every year. In Swine Tenth

Review Results, the Department found

that this grant is non-recurring because

the benefit is exceptional, and the

recipient cannot expect to receive

benefits on an ongoing basis. No new

information or evidence of changed

circumstances has been submitted in

this proceeding to warrant

reconsideration of this finding.

During this review, the benefit

received from this program was less

than 0.50 percent of the value of total

live swine sales in those provinces

receiving benefits under this program.

On this basis, we are allocating the

benefit to the year of receipt (See

General Issues Appendix 58 FR 37226).

We divided each province’s benefit by

the total weight of market hogs

produced in that province. We used

only the weight of market hogs because

only market hogs were eligible to

receive NTSP payments. We then

weight-averaged the benefits by each

province’s share of total Canadian

exports of market hogs to the United

States during the POR and then summed

the weighted averages. On this basis, we

preliminarily determine the net subsidy

for this program to be less than

Can$0.0001 per kilogram for the POR.

Because the NTSP program has been
47464 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 174 / Tuesday, September 9, 1997 / Notices

terminated, there is no evidence on the

record which would indicate that

residual benefits continue to be

provided or received, and there is no

evidence that a substitute program has

been implemented, the cash deposit rate

will continue to be zero for this

program.

b. National Transition Scheme for Hogs

After termination of the NTSP for

Hogs in July 1994, hog producers

became eligible to participate in the

National Transition Scheme for Hogs

(Transition Scheme), which provided

for one-time payments to producers of

hogs marketed between April 3, 1994

through December 31, 1994. The

Transition Scheme provided payments

to hog producers of Can$1.50 per hog

from the federal government and a

matching Can$1.50 from the provincial

government.

In Swine Tenth Review Results, the

Department found this program to be de

jure specific, and thus countervailable,

because the Transition Scheme

Agreement expressly limits its

availability to a specific industry

(swine). We determined that the

amounts provided by both the federal

and provincial governments to the hog

producers during the POR under the

Transition Scheme represent a grant. No

new information or evidence of changed

circumstances has been submitted in

this proceeding to warrant

reconsideration of this finding.

During the POR, the following

provinces received benefits under this

program: Alberta, Manitoba, New

Brunswick, Ontario, Quebec, and

Saskatchewan. In Swine Tenth Review

Results, the Department found that

these grants are non-recurring because

the transitional payments are

exceptional, the recipient cannot expect

to receive benefits on an ongoing basis

from POR to POR, and the government

has approved funding under the

Transition Scheme for one year only.

During this review, the amount received

under this program by live swine

producers was greater than 0.50 percent

of the value of total live swine sales in

the provinces receiving benefits under

this program. On this basis, we allocated

the benefit from this grant over three

years, which is the average useful life of

depreciable assets used in the swine

industry, as set out in the IRS Class Life

Asset Depreciation Range System. For

purposes of this review, we are

continuing to calculate the discount rate

using the same methodology applied in

Swine 7,8,9 Review Results. We used, as

a discount rate, the simple average of

the monthly medium-term corporate

bond rates (for the eleventh POR, during

which the write-off occurred) from the

Bank of Canada Review Autumn (1996),

published by the Bank of Canada. We

applied our standard grant methodology

to calculate each province’s benefit. We

then calculated each province’s total

weight of market hogs produced, and

calculated a benefit per kilogram for

each province. We used only the weight

of market hogs because only market

hogs were eligible to receive NTSP

benefits. We then weight averaged the

benefits by each province’s share of total

Canadian exports of market hogs to the

United States during the POR and

summed the weighted averages. On this

basis, we preliminarily determine the

net subsidy for this program to be

Can$0.0047 per kilogram for the POR.

For the province of Quebec, both the

GOC and the GOQ paid the portion of

the benefits accrued under the National

Transition Scheme for Quebec

producers enrolled in FISI to the Regie

des Assurances Agricoles du Quebec

(Regie) , as instructed by the producers.

The GOC also paid the portion of the

benefits accrued to producers not

enrolled in FISI directly to the

producers. The payments to the Regie

involved monies that were due to

producers according to the provisions of

the NTSP agreement (See Questionnaire

Response of the GOC (December 23,

1996), Appendix 27). As the record

indicates, the producers simply chose to

devolve these payments directly to the

Regie rather than receive cash

payments. Therefore, we have

countervailed these payments as

payments attributable to producers.

The Transition Scheme program has

been terminated. This termination does

not constitute a program-wide change,

however, because residual benefits may

continue to accrue. Therefore, the cash

deposit rate will not be adjusted as a

result of the termination of this

program.

c. Technology Innovation Program

Under the Agri-Food Agreement

In Swine Tenth Review Results, we

determined that the federal

contributions to this program are

specific because this assistance is

provided to industries located within a

designated geographical region of

Canada (i.e., Quebec). No new

information or evidence of changed

circumstances has been submitted in

this proceeding to warrant

reconsideration of this finding.

In Swine Tenth Review Results, we

also determined that the grants received

under this program are non-recurring

because they are exceptional, the

government must approve the grants

every year, and the recipient cannot

expect to receive benefits on an ongoing

basis. However, because the amount

received by live swine producers in this

POR is less than 0.50 percent of the

value of live swine sales in this

province, we are allocating the benefit

to the year of receipt (See General Issues

Appendix 58 FR 37226). We divided the

total grant amount provided to swine

producers during the POR by the total

weight of live swine produced in

Quebec during the POR. We then

weight-averaged the results by Quebec’s

share of Canadian exports of market

hogs to the United States during the

POR. On this basis, we preliminarily

determine that the subsidy rate is less

than Can$0.0001 per kilogram for this

program for the POR.

3. Provincial Income Stabilization

Programs

a. Saskatchewan Hog Assured Returns

Program (SHARP)

SHARP was established in 1976,

pursuant to the Saskatchewan

Agricultural Returns Stabilization Act

which authorized provincial

governments to establish stabilization

plans for any agricultural commodity.

SHARP provided income stabilization

payments to hog producers in

Saskatchewan when market prices fell

below a designated ‘‘floor price,’’

calculated quarterly. The program was

administered by the Saskatchewan Pork

Producers’ Marketing Board (the Board)

on behalf of the Saskatchewan

Department of Agriculture. The program

was funded by levies from participating

producers on the sale of hogs and were

matched by the provincial government.

When the balance in the SHARP

account was insufficient to cover

payments to producers, the provincial

government provided financing on

commercial terms. The principal and

interest on these loans was to be repaid

by the Board from the producer and

provincial contributions. After the

NTSP for Hogs was implemented on

July 1, 1986, SHARP payments were

reduced by the amount of the NTSP

payments.

In Live Swine From Canada;

Preliminary Results of Countervailing

Duty Administrative Review (53 FR

22192; June 14, 1988) and Live Swine

From Canada; Final Results of

Countervailing Duty Administrative

Review (54 FR 651; January 9, 1989)

(Swine First Review Results), the

Department found the SHARP program

to be de jure specific, and thus

countervailable, because the legislation

expressly made the program available

only to a single industry (hog

producers). No new information or
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 174 / Tuesday, September 9, 1997 / Notices 47465

evidence of changed circumstances has

been submitted in this proceeding to

warrant reconsideration of this finding.

In accordance with the NTSP

agreement, SHARP was terminated on

March 31, 1991. At the time of

termination, the SHARP fund had a

sizeable deficit because of the

cumulation over the operating years of

loans from the provincial government.

During the 1993–94 POR, the

government canceled the outstanding

SHARP deficit. To calculate the benefit

from the loan forgiveness, we treated

one-half of the amount written off, plus

interest accrued during the 1993–94

POR, as a grant. See Swine 7,8,9 Review

Results (61 FR 26879, 26884; May 29,

1996). We took into account only half of

the amount because this was the share

of the outstanding loans that the

producers were responsible for

repaying.

In Swine 7,8,9 Review Results, the

Department determined that the writeoff of the SHARP deficit is a nonrecurring grant because debt forgiveness

is exceptional, and it is a one-time

event. On this basis, we allocated the

benefit from this grant over three years,

which is the average useful life of

depreciable assets used in the swine

industry, as set out in the IRS Class Life

Asset Depreciation Range System. We

used, as a discount rate, the simple

average of the monthly medium-term

corporate bond rates (for the ninth POR,

the POR during which the write-off

occurred) from the Bank of Canada

Review (1993–1994), published by the

Bank of Canada.

To calculate the benefit for the POR,

we divided the benefit amount allocated

to the POR under the grant allocation

methodology by the total weight of

market hogs produced in Saskatchewan

during the POR to obtain the average

benefit per kilogram. We then weight

averaged the per kilogram benefit by

Saskatchewan’s share of total Canadian

exports of market hogs to the United

States during the POR. On this basis, we

preliminarily determine the net subsidy

to be Can$0.0015 per kilogram for the

POR.

Because the SHARP program has been

terminated, there is no evidence on the

record which would indicate that

residual benefits continue to be

provided or received, and there is no

evidence that a substitute program has

been implemented, the cash deposit rate

will continue to be zero for this

program. (See Swine Tenth Review

Results).

b. Quebec Farm Income Stabilization

Insurance Program (FISI)

FISI was established in 1976 under

the ‘‘Loi sur l’assurance-stabilisation des

revenues agricoles.’’ The program is

administered by the Regie. The purpose

of the program is to guarantee a positive

net annual income to participants when

their income falls below the stabilized

net annual income. Since Quebec joined

the federal government’s NTSP for Hogs

in February 1989, the FISI scheme for

hogs has been covering only the

difference between payments made

under the NTSP for Hogs and what FISI

payments would have been in the

absence of the NTSP. There are two FISI

schemes which provide payments to the

subject merchandise, the FISI scheme

for Hogs and the FISI scheme for Piglets.

Two-thirds of the funding for the FISI

program is provided by the provincial

government and one-third by producer

assessments. Participation in FISI is

voluntary. However, once enrolled in

the program, a producer must make a

five-year commitment. Each farmer may

insure a maximum of 5,000 feeder hogs

and 400 sows. Whenever the balance in

the FISI account is insufficient to make

payments to participants, the provincial

government lends the needed funds to

the program at market rates. The

principal and interest on these loans are

repaid by the Regie using the producer

and provincial contributions.

In Swine Sixth Review Results (58 FR

54112), we determined FISI to be de

facto specific, and thus countervailable.

Moreover, in Swine 7,8,9 Review

Results, we found that the FISI program

is not integrally linked to the crop

insurance and supply management

programs. No new information or

evidence of changed circumstances has

been submitted in this proceeding to

warrant reconsideration of these

findings.

During the POR, the GOQ contributed

additional funds to the FISI program for

the swine plans. The GOQ did not

stipulate any conditions of repayment

regarding these funds. This additional

infusion of funds by the GOQ changes

the two-to-one provincial to producer

ratio of the contribution of funds to the

FISI program. Therefore, any future

payouts to producers from the FISI

program for the hog sector will reflect a

provincial contribution of more than

two thirds. We preliminarily determine

that this additional infusion of funds to

the FISI program by the GOQ is a grant

and is de jure specific, and thus

countervailable, because benefits are

only available to a specific group of

enterprises or industries (swine

producers). Furthermore, we

preliminarily determine that it is a nonrecurring grant because the availability

of these additional provincial funds to

FISI is exceptional, and it is a one-time

event. (See General Issues Appendix at

37226.) Since this amount was greater

than 0.50 percent of the value of total

live swine sales in Quebec during the

POR, we are allocating the benefit from

this grant over three years, which is the

average useful life of depreciable assets

used in the swine industry, as set out in

the IRS Class Life Asset Depreciation

Range System. We used, as a discount

rate, the simple average of the monthly

medium-term corporate bond rates (for

the eleventh POR, during which the

write-off occurred) from the Bank of

Canada Review Autumn (1996),

published by the Bank of Canada.

Using our standard grant

methodology, we calculated the benefit

amount from this grant during the POR.

To this amount, we added the benefit

received by swine producers from

standard FISI payments during the POR.

To calculate the benefit from standard

FISI payments, we used the

methodology applied in Swine Sixth

Review Results and subsequent reviews.

We multiplied the total payments made

under both the piglet and feeder hog

schemes during the POR by two thirds

(representing the provincial

contribution). We then divided the total

benefit amount by the total weight of

market hogs and sows produced in

Quebec during the POR, to get the

average benefit per kilogram. We then

weight-averaged the benefit by Quebec’s

share of total Canadian exports of

market hogs to the United States during

the POR. On this basis, we preliminarily

determine the benefit from this program

to be Can$0.0008 per kilogram for the

POR.

4. Other Provincial Programs

a. Alberta Crow Benefit Offset Program

(ACBOP)

This program, administered by the

Alberta Department of Agriculture, is

designed to compensate producers and

users of feed grain for market distortions

in feed grain prices, created by the

federal government’s policy on grain

transportation. Assistance is provided

for feed grain produced in Alberta, feed

grain produced outside Alberta but sold

in Alberta, and feed grain produced in

Alberta to be fed to livestock on the

same farm. The government provides

‘‘A’’ certificates to registered feed grain

users and ‘‘B’’ certificates to registered

feed grain merchants to use as partial

payments for grain purchased from

grain producers. Feed grain producers

who feed their grain to their own
47466 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 174 / Tuesday, September 9, 1997 / Notices

livestock submit a Farm Fed Claim

directly to the government for payment.

Hog producers receive benefits in one

of three ways: hog producers who do

not grow any of their own feed grain

receive ‘‘A’’ certificates which are used

to cover part of the cost of purchasing

grain; hog producers who grow all of

their own grain submit a Farm Fed

Claim to the government of Alberta for

direct payment; and hog producers who

grow part of their own grain but also

purchase grain receive both ‘‘A’’

certificates and direct payments.

In Swine Second and Third Review

Results (56 FR 10412), the Department

found this program to be de jure

specific, and thus countervailable,

because the legislation expressly makes

it available only to a specific group of

enterprises or industries (producers and

users of feed grain). No new information

or evidence of changed circumstances

has been submitted in this proceeding to

warrant reconsideration of this finding.

To determine the benefit to swine

producers from this program, we

followed the methodology used in

Swine Tenth Review Results. Using the

Alberta Supply and Disposition Tables,

we first estimated the quantity of grain

consumed by livestock in Alberta

during the POR. Then we multiplied the

number of swine produced in Alberta

during the POR by the estimated average

grain consumption per hog, and divided

the result by the amount of total grains

used to feed livestock during the POR.

We thus calculated the percentage of

total livestock consumption of all grains

in Alberta attributable to live swine

during the POR. We then multiplied this

percentage by the total value of ‘‘A’’

certificates and farm-fed claim

payments received by producers during

the POR. We divided this amount by the

total weight of live swine produced in

Alberta during the POR. We then

weight-averaged this per-kilo benefit by

Alberta’s share of total Canadian exports

of market hogs to the United States. On

this basis, we preliminarily determine

the benefit to be less than Can$0.0001

per kilogram for the POR.

ACBOP was terminated on March 31,

1994. Benefits for ‘‘A’’ certificates had to

be claimed by June 30, 1994, and

benefits tied to farm-fed grains had to be

claimed by August 31, 1994. The

original deadline for any payment of

benefits under the program was March

31, 1996, however, producers could

receive payments until May 17, 1996.

Since no payments could be received

after the publication of these

preliminary results, we consider this

program terminated. Moreover, there is

no evidence on the record which would

indicate that residual benefits are being

provided or received or that a substitute

program has been implemented.

Accordingly, because of this programwide change, the cash deposit rate will

be adjusted to zero for this program.

b. Ontario Livestock and Poultry and

Honeybee Compensation Program

This program, administered by the

Farm Assistance Programs Branch of the

Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food,

and Rural Affairs, provides assistance in

the form of grants which compensate

producers for livestock and poultry

injured or killed by wolves, coyotes, or

dogs. Swine producers apply for and

receive compensation through the local

municipal government. The Ontario

Ministry of Agriculture, Food, and Rural

Affairs reimburses the municipality.

In Swine Fifth Review Results (56 FR

29227), the Department found this

program to be de jure specific, and thus

countervailable, because the legislation

expressly makes it available only to a

specific group of enterprises or

industries (livestock, poultry farmers,

and beekeepers). No new information or

evidence of changed circumstances has

been submitted in this proceeding to

warrant reconsideration of this finding.

To calculate the benefit, we used the

methodology applied in Swine Sixth

Review Results (58 FR 54119) and

subsequent reviews. We divided the

total payment to hog producers during

the POR by the total weight of live

swine produced in Ontario. We then

weight-averaged the result by Ontario’s

share of Canadian exports of market

hogs to the United States during the

POR. On this basis, we preliminarily

determine the benefit from this program

to be less than Can$0.0001 per kilogram

for the POR.

c. Ontario Bear Damage to Livestock

Compensation Program

This program, administered by the

Farm Assistance Programs Branch of the

Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food,

and Rural Affairs, provides

compensation for the destruction of, or

injury to, certain types of livestock by

bears. Swine producers apply for

compensation through their local

Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food,

and Rural Affairs office. Local personnel

then evaluate the damage and prepare a

report. Based on this report and the

farmer’s application, the Livestock

Commissioner may pay a grant to

compensate for the amount of damage.

Grants for damage to live swine cannot

exceed Can$200 per head.

In Swine Tenth Review Results, we

found this program to be de jure

specific, and thus countervailable,

because the legislation expressly makes

it available only to livestock producers,

a specific group of enterprises or

industries (cattle, goats, horses, sheep,

swine, and poultry). No new

information or evidence of changed

circumstances has been submitted in

this proceeding to warrant

reconsideration of this finding.

To calculate the benefit, we divided

the total payment to hog producers

during the POR by the total weight of

live swine produced in Ontario. We

then weight-averaged the result by

Ontario’s share of Canadian exports of

market hogs to the United States during

the POR. On this basis, we preliminarily

determine the benefit from this program

to be less than Can$0.0001 per kilogram

for the POR.

d. Saskatchewan Livestock Investment

Tax Credit

Saskatchewan’s 1984 Livestock Tax

Credit Act provides tax credits to

individuals, partnerships, cooperatives,

and corporations who owned and fed

livestock marketed or slaughtered by

December 31, 1989. Claimants had to be

residents of Saskatchewan and pay

Saskatchewan income taxes. Eligible

claimants received credits of Can$3 for

each hog. Although this program was

terminated on December 31, 1989, tax

credits are carried forward for up to

seven years. In Swine First Review

Results (53 FR 22198), the Department

found this program to be de jure

specific, and thus countervailable,

because the program’s legislation

expressly made it available only to

livestock producers. No new

information or evidence of changed

circumstances has been submitted in

this proceeding to warrant

reconsideration of this finding.

To calculate the benefit for the POR,

we used the methodology applied in

Swine Sixth Review Results (58 FR

54120) and subsequent reviews (see

Swine Tenth Review Results). In the

questionnaire responses, the GOC

provided estimates of the amount of tax

credits used by hog producers in

Saskatchewan during the POR, since the

actual amounts cannot be determined.

We divided the amount of benefit by the

total weight of live swine produced in

Saskatchewan during the POR. We then

weight-averaged the result by

Saskatchewan’s share of total exports of

market hogs to the United States. On

this basis, we preliminarily determine

the benefit from this program to be

Can$0.0001 per kilogram for the POR.

The Saskatchewan Livestock

Investment Tax Credit was terminated

on December 31, 1989 and the last year

for disbursement of benefits was fiscal

year 1996 ( that is, April 1, 1995 through
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 174 / Tuesday, September 9, 1997 / Notices 47467

March 31, 1996). Therefore, we consider

this program terminated. Moreover,

there is no evidence on the record

which would indicate that residual

benefits are being provided or received

or that a substitute program has been

implemented. Accordingly, because of

this program-wide change, the cash

deposit rate will be adjusted to zero for

this program.

e. Saskatchewan Livestock Facilities

Tax Credit

This program, which was terminated

on December 31, 1989, provided tax

credits to livestock producers based on

their investments in livestock

production facilities. The tax credits can

only be used to offset provincial taxes

and may be carried forward for up to

seven years or until no later than fiscal

year 1996 (that is, April 1, 1995 through

March 31, 1996). Livestock covered by

this program includes cattle, horses,

sheep, swine, goats, poultry, bees, furbearing animals raised in captivity, or

any other designated animals; covered

livestock can be raised for either

breeding or slaughter. Investments

covered under the program include new

buildings, improvements to existing

livestock facilities, and any stationary

equipment related to livestock facilities.

The program pays 15 percent of 95

percent of project costs, or 14.25 percent

of total costs.

In Swine Second and Third Review

Results (55 FR 20820), the Department

found this program to be de jure

specific, and thus countervailable,

because the program’s legislation

expressly made it available only to

livestock producers. No new

information or evidence of changed

circumstances has been submitted in

this proceeding to warrant

reconsideration of this finding.

To calculate the benefit, we used the

methodology applied in Swine Sixth

Review Results (58 FR 54121) and

subsequent reviews (see Swine Tenth

Review Results). In the questionnaire

responses, the GOC provided estimates

of the amount of tax credits used by hog

producers in Saskatchewan, since the

actual amounts cannot be determined.

We divided the amount of benefit by the

total weight of live swine produced in

Saskatchewan during the POR. We then

weight-averaged the result by

Saskatchewan’s share of total exports of

market hogs to the United States. On

this basis, we preliminarily determine

the benefit from this program to be less

than Can$0.0001 per kilogram for the

POR.

The Saskatchewan Livestock

Facilities Tax Credit was terminated on

December 31, 1989 and the last year for

use of tax credits was fiscal year 1996

(that is, April 1, 1995 through March 31,

1996). Therefore, we consider this

program terminated. Moreover, there is

no evidence on the record which would

indicate that residual benefits are being

provided or received or that a substitute

program has been implemented.

Accordingly, because of this programwide change, the cash deposit rate will

be adjusted to zero for this program.

f. New Brunswick Livestock Incentives

Program

This program, which operates under

the Livestock Incentives Act, provides

loan guarantees to livestock producers

purchasing cattle, sheep, swine, foxes,

and mink for breeding purposes, and for

feeding and finishing livestock for

slaughter. Loans, in amounts ranging

from Can$1,000 to Can$90,000, are

granted by commercial banks or credit

unions and guaranteed by the

Government of New Brunswick (GONB)

to an individual, partnership,

corporation or incorporated co-operative

association engaged in farming in New

Brunswick. Swine producers submit an

application for a loan under this

program to a bank. The bank evaluates

the loan application based upon

standard loan criteria and either

approves or rejects the application. A

consideration for obtaining the loan is

the presentation to the GONB of a farm

plan established at the time the loan is

taken out. For loans given for the

purchase of animals for breeding

purposes, the term of the loan is not

more than seven years and the first

payment of the principal is due two

years after the date on which the loan

was given. For loans given for the

purchase of animals for feeding

purposes, the loan is due when the

animals have been sold which shall not

exceed a period of eighteen months. The

interest rate for these loans is set at the

prime rate plus one percentage point.

At the end of three years after loans

are issued, the GONB may give 20

percent of the loan amount to the farmer

in the form of a grant. To be eligible for

this grant, the farmer had to have

implemented, in a satisfactory manner,

the farm plan established at the time the

loan was taken out. The grant portion of

this program was terminated for loans

issued after July 15, 1992. However,

grants were still being provided during

the POR.

In Swine Second and Third Review

Results (55 FR 20817), the Department

found this program to be de jure

specific, and therefore countervailable,

because the program’s legislation

expressly made it available only to

livestock producers. No new

information or evidence of changed

circumstances has been submitted in

this proceeding to warrant

reconsideration of this finding.

In accordance with section

771(5)(E)(iii) of the Act, a benefit from

a loan obtained with a government

guarantee shall normally be treated as

conferred ‘‘if there is a difference, after

adjusting for any difference in guarantee

fees, between the amount the recipient

of the guarantee pays on the guaranteed

loan and the amount the recipient

would pay for a comparable commercial

loan if there were no guarantee by the

authority.’’ While there are no guarantee

fees, the recipients are paying interest at

the rate of prime rate plus one

percentage point. In Swine Tenth

Review Results, we found that the

predominant lending rates in Canada for

comparable long-term variable-rate

loans are based on the prime rate plus

a one or two-point spread. Therefore, in

accordance with the Swine Tenth

Review Results methodology, as our

benchmark during the POR, we used the

prime rate as published by the Bank of

Canada in the Bank of Canada Review

Autumn, (1996) plus one and one-half

percentage points. This rate represents

the simple average of the spread above

prime charged by commercial banks on

comparable loans. Comparing the

benchmark interest rate to the interest

rate charged on these loans, we

preliminarily determine that the amount

the recipient paid on these loans is less

than the recipient would have paid on

a comparable commercial loan.

We calculated the benefit from the

loan portion of this program as follows.

For loans outstanding during the POR,

either without repayments or paid off

during the POR, we followed the

methodology outlined in Swine Tenth

Review Results. Specifically, for loans

outstanding during the POR, we

determined the amount of the benefit

attributable to the POR by calculating

the difference between what the

recipient paid during the POR under

loans guaranteed by the GONB and what

the recipient would have paid during

the POR under the benchmark loan. We

divided the benefit from all outstanding

loans and loans paid off during the POR

by the total weight of live swine

produced in New Brunswick during the

POR. We then weight-averaged the

benefit by New Brunswick’s share of

Canadian exports of market hogs to the

United States during the POR.

During the POR, loans to live swine

producers were written-off by the GONB

under this program. We have added to

the total amount of written-off loans, the

amount of interest accrued from the

beginning of the POR until the date on
47468 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 174 / Tuesday, September 9, 1997 / Notices

which the loans were written-off. (See

Swine Tenth Review Results.) The

Department determines that the amount

written off and interest accrued during

the POR is a non-recurring grant

because debt forgiveness is exceptional,

and it is a one-time event. (See General

Issues Appendix, 58 FR at 37226 and

Swine Tenth Review Results).

In addition, swine producers received

grants under the grant portion of this

program. We determine that the grants

received under this program are nonrecurring because the recipient cannot

expect to receive benefits on an ongoing

basis from year to year. (See General

Issues Appendix at 37226 and Swine

Tenth Review Results). We summed the

amount of the written-off loans and the

amount of the grants. Because the result

is less than 0.50 percent of the value of

live swine sales from this province, we

are allocating the benefit to the year of

receipt. (See General Issues Appendix at

37226.) Therefore, we divided the total

amount of the grants and forgiven loans

provided during the POR by the total

weight of live swine sold in New

Brunswick during the POR. We then

weight-averaged the result by the New

Brunswick’s share of total exports of

market hogs to the United States during

the POR.

To calculate the total benefit to live

swine producers under this program, we

summed the weight-averaged benefit

calculated for the loans and grants. On

this basis, we preliminarily determine

the net subsidy from this program to be

less than Can$0.0001 per kilogram.

h. New Brunswick Swine Industry

Financial Restructuring and

Agricultural Development Act—Swine

Assistance Program

The Swine Assistance program was

established in fiscal year 1981–82, by

the Farm Adjustment Board, under the

Farm Adjustment Act, to provide

interest subsidies on medium-term

loans to hog producers. The program

was available only to hog producers

who entered production or underwent

expansion after 1979. In 1985, the Farm

Adjustment Act changed to the

Agricultural Development Act. In 1984–

85, this program was combined with the

Swine Industry Financial Restructuring

program under the New Brunswick

Regulation 85–19. At that time, all

obligations and outstanding loans under

the Swine Assistance program were

rolled over into the Swine Industry

Financial Restructuring program.

The Swine Industry Financial

Restructuring program was created by

the Farm Adjustment Act (OC 85–98)

and became effective April 1, 1985.

Under this program the Government of

New Brunswick granted hog producers

indebted to the Board a rebate of the

interest on that portion of their total

debt (the residual debt) that, on March

31, 1984, exceeded the ‘‘standard debt

load.’’ The standard debt load is defined

in the program’s regulations as the

amount of debt which the farmer, in the

opinion of the Board, can reasonably be

expected to service. The residual debt

does not begin to accrue interest again

until the debt load is no longer

‘‘excessive.’’

In Swine Second and Third Review

Results (55 FR 20816, 20817), the

Department examined these two

programs separately. The Department

found: (1) The Swine Assistance

program to be countervailable because

loans were provided to a specific

industry on terms inconsistent with

commercial considerations, and (2) the

New Brunswick Swine Industry

Financial Restructuring program to be

countervailable because it was limited

to a specific industry and the

government’s rebate of interest and the

interest repayment holiday were loan

terms inconsistent with commercial

considerations. No new information or

evidence of changed circumstances has

been submitted in this proceeding to

warrant reconsideration of this finding.

In Swine Tenth Review Results, we

found that no new loans were provided

for the past ten years, and that there was

no recent activity on the outstanding

loans. The loans given to producers

were ‘‘set aside’’ in a provincial account

and were not accruing any interest. The

Department found that interest not

accruing on the outstanding loan

balance constituted a benefit to live

swine producers. No changes to this

program were reported in the instant

review.

To calculate the benefit from this

program, we multiplied the total

outstanding debt at the beginning of the

POR by the benchmark interest rate. We

used, as a benchmark interest rate, the

prime rate, as published by the Bank of

Canada in the Bank of Canada Review

Autumn (1996), plus one and one-half

percentage points. This rate represents

the simple average of the commercially

available rates for comparable loans.

(See Swine Tenth Review Results). Next,

we divided the benefit by the total

weight of live swine produced in New

Brunswick during the POR. We then

weight-averaged the benefit by New

Brunswick’s share of Canadian exports

of market hogs to the United States

during the POR. On this basis, we

preliminarily determine the benefit to

be less than Can$0.0001 per kilogram

for the POR.

i. New Brunswick Swine Assistance

Policy on Boars

The New Brunswick Swine

Assistance Policy on Boars program is

administered by the New Brunswick

Department of Agriculture and Rural

Development, Animal Industry Branch,

for the purpose of encouraging breeding

stock producers to produce quality

boars at reasonable prices for use in

commercial swine herds. This program

provides assistance in the form of grants

to swine producers for the purchases of

boars. Eligible producers are entitled to

receive up to Can$110 for the purchase

of boars.

In Swine Second and Third Review

Results (55 FR 20817), the Department

found this program to be specific. No

new information or evidence of changed

circumstances has been submitted in

this proceeding to warrant

reconsideration of this finding.

To calculate the benefit, we used the

grant methodology applied in Swine

Sixth Review Results (58 FR 54119) and

Swine Tenth Review Results (61 FR

52426). In Swine Tenth Review Results,

the Department found that the grants

received under this program are nonrecurring because the recipient cannot

expect to receive benefits on an ongoing

basis from review period to review

period. In the prior review, grants were

less than 0.50 percent, therefore, they

were allocated to the years of receipt.

(See Swine Tenth Review Results)

During this POR, the amount received

by live swine producers is also less than

0.50 percent of the value of live swine

sales in this province as such, we are

allocating the grant to the year of

receipt. (See General Issues Appendix at

37226). We divided the total payment to

hog producers during the POR by the

total weight of live swine produced in

New Brunswick during the POR. We

then weight-averaged the result by New

Brunswick’s share of Canadian exports

of market hogs to the United States

during the POR. On this basis, we

preliminarily determine the benefit from

this program to be less than Can$0.0001

per kilogram for the POR.

j. Nova Scotia Improved Sire Policy

This program is administered by the

Nova Scotia Department of Agriculture

and Marketing Livestock Services

Branch, for the purpose of improving

the quality of hog production. The

program provides grants to purebred

and commercial swine producers for the

purchase of boars. Qualifying animals

measure at least 90 on an Estimated

Breeding Value Index (this index

estimates growth, back fat thickness and

days to market weight). Qualifying
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 174 / Tuesday, September 9, 1997 / Notices 47469

animals must be used for breeding stock

purposes. Producers file an application

on prescribed forms with the

Department of Agriculture and

Marketing. The boars are then inspected

and, if approved, assistance is provided

in the form of a premium. The higher

the Estimated Breeding Value Index, the

higher the premium. In Swine Second

and Third Review Results (55 FR

20817), the Department found this

program to be countervailable because

this program is limited to a specific

industry. No new information or

evidence of changed circumstances has

been submitted in this proceeding to

warrant reconsideration of this finding.

To calculate the benefit, we divided

the total payment to hog producers

during the POR by the total weight of

live swine produced in Nova Scotia. We

then weight-averaged the result by Nova

Scotia’s share of Canadian exports of

market hogs to the United States during

the POR. On this basis, we preliminarily

determine the benefit from this program

to be less than Can$0.0001 per kilogram

for the POR.

k. Nova Scotia Swine Herd Health

Policy

The Nova Scotia Department of

Agriculture and Marketing administers a

herd health program whereby it

reimburses veterinarians for house calls

made to producers of commercial and

purebred breeding livestock. The

purpose of this program is to upgrade

herd health through the use of herd

inspection, prevention and eradication

techniques. All farmers registered under

the Farm Registration Act may

participate in the program. Once

approved for the program, farmers are

required to follow specified health

practices and to maintain health records

of all their hogs. The government

designates a veterinarian to oversee the

enrolled herd and the veterinarian is

responsible for making at least six visits

annually, performing any and all

necessary examinations and informing

the farmers of their findings. The

veterinarian is paid by the farmer for

each visit, and also receives payment

from the government. During the POR,

veterinarians were paid by the

government for services provided under

the program.

In Swine Second and Third Review

Results (55 FR 20817), the Department

found this program not to be

countervailable because this program is

limited to producers of commercial and/

or purebred breeding livestock. At that

time, we determined that breeding

livestock were not covered by the order

on live swine. Since these reviews, the

scope of the order has been clarified to

exclude only USDA-certified purebred

breeding swine (See, e.g., Swine Tenth

Review Results.) Commercial breeding

swine are covered by the order.

During the POR, producers of the

subject merchandise used this program.

Because the legislation for this program

indicates that it is only available to live

swine producers, we preliminarily

determine this program to be de jure

specific within the meaning of section

771(5A)(D)(i) of the Act.

To calculate the benefit, we divided

the total payment to hog producers

during the POR by the total weight of

live swine produced in Nova Scotia. We

then weight-averaged the result by Nova

Scotia’s share of Canadian exports of

market hogs to the United States during

the POR. On this basis, we preliminarily

determine the benefit from this program

to be less than Can$0.0001 per kilogram

for the POR.

The Nova Scotia Swine Herd Health

Policy was terminated on March 31,

1996, however, benefits under the

program will continue until March 31,

1998. Because benefits will continue to

be bestowed under this program, the

cash deposit rate will not be adjusted.

II. Programs Preliminarily Determined

Not To Confer Subsidies

A. Research Program Under the AgriFood Agreement

In Swine Tenth Review Results, we

found that none of the research projects

funded under this program had been

completed. We were therefore unable to

determine whether or not the results of

the research were publicly available due

to their incomplete status. At

verification, we found that five projects

related to live swine were completed

during the POR. We examined official

documentation from the GOQ that

indicates that the results of these

research projects were made publicly

available. (See Verification Report,

dated August 27, 1997). Because the

research results are publicly available,

we preliminarily determine that the

Research program did not confer

countervailable subsidies to live swine

during the POR. (See e.g., Certain Cutto-Length Carbon Steel Plate from

Sweden; Preliminary Results of

Countervailing Duty Administrative

Review, 62 FR 51683 (October 3, 1996)

at 51683 and Certain Cut-to-Length

Carbon Steel Plate from Sweden; Final

Results of Countervailing Duty

Administrative Review, 62 FR 16551

(April 7, 1997).

B. Support for Strategic Alliances

Program Under the Agri-Food

Agreement

The Support for Strategic Alliances

(SSA) program is administered by the

GOC. The objective of this program is to

stimulate cooperation and strategic

alliance among the various stakeholders

in an agri-food ‘‘industry network’’

through activities intended to improve

efficiency and competitiveness in

domestic and foreign markets. The GOC

indicated in its questionnaire response

that no payments were made to

producers under this program (See

Response of the Government of Canada,

May 13, 1997, at p. 16). However, we

found at verification that some

payments had been made under this

program during the POR for projects

that benefitted the swine industry as a

whole (See Verification Report, (August

27, 1997) at p. 6). Therefore, we have

determined that this program was used

during the POR. However, we

preliminarily determine that any benefit

provided by this program during the

POR is so small as to have no

measurable impact on the overall

subsidy rate for the POR. Therefore, we

need not reach a decision on the

countervailability of this program in this

review.

III. Programs Preliminarily Determined

To Be Not Used

We also examined the following

programs and preliminarily determined

that the producers and/or exporters of

the subject merchandise did not apply

for or receive benefits under these

programs during the POR:

A. Western Diversification Program;

B. Federal Atlantic Livestock Feed

Initiative;

C. Agricultural Products Board

Program;

D. Ontario Export Sales Aid Program;

E. Ontario Rabies Indemnification

Program;

F. Ontario Swine Sales Assistance

Policy;

G. Newfoundland Hog Price Support

Program;

H. Newfoundland Weanling Bonus

Incentive Policy;

I. Newfoundland Hog Price

Stabilization Program.

IV. Programs Preliminarily Determined

To Be Terminated

We have examined the following

programs and preliminarily determine

they were terminated prior to the

beginning of the POR (April 1, 1995),

and there is no evidence on the record

which would indicate that residual

benefits are being bestowed or that a
47470 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 174 / Tuesday, September 9, 1997 / Notices

substitute program has been

implemented:

A. Prince Edward Island Hog Price

Stabilization Program

B. Canada/British Columbia AgriFood Regional Development Subsidiary

Agreement;

C. Canada/Manitoba Agri-Food

Development Agreement;

D. New Brunswick Agricultural

Development Act-Swine Assistance

Program.

Preliminary Results of Review

We preliminarily determine the total

net subsidy on live swine from Canada

to be Can$0.0071 per kilogram for the

period April 1, 1995 through March 31,

1996. If the final results of this review

remain the same as these preliminary

results, the Department intends to

instruct the Customs to assess

countervailing duties as indicated

above.

Due to the program-wide changes

noted above, the cash deposit rate will

be Can$0.0055 per kilogram which is de

minimis. Accordingly, for all shipments

of the subject merchandise from Canada,

entered, or withdrawn from warehouse,

for consumption on or after the date of

publication of the final results of this

review, the cash deposits of estimated

countervailing duties will be zero.

Public Comment

Parties to the proceeding may request

disclosure of the calculation

methodology and interested parties may

request a hearing not later than 10 days

after the date of publication of this

notice. Interested parties may submit

written arguments in case briefs on

these preliminary results within 30 days

of the date of publication. Rebuttal

briefs, limited to arguments raised in

case briefs, may be submitted seven

days after the time limit for filing the

case brief. Parties who submit argument

in this proceeding are requested to

submit with the argument (1) a

statement of the issue and (2) a brief

summary of the argument. Any hearing,

if requested, will be held seven days

after the scheduled date for submission

of rebuttal briefs. Copies of case briefs

and rebuttal briefs must be served on

interested parties in accordance with 19

CFR 355.38.

Representatives of parties to the

proceeding may request disclosure of

proprietary information under

administrative protective order no later

than 10 days after the representative’s

client or employer becomes a party to

the proceeding, but in no event later

than the date the case briefs, under 19

CFR 355.38, are due. The Department

will publish the final results of this

administrative review, including the

results of its analysis of issues raised in

any case or rebuttal brief or at a hearing.

This administrative review and notice

are in accordance with section 751(a)(1)

of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)(1)).

Dated: September 2, 1997.

Robert S. LaRussa,

Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 97–23850 Filed 9–8–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration

National Estuarine Reserve System

AGENCY: Office of Ocean and Coastal

Resource Management (OCRM),

National Ocean Service (NOS), National

Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration, Department of

Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of proposed boundary

expansion for the Elkhorn Slough

National Estuarine Research Reserve.

SUMMARY: The Sanctuaries and Reserves

Division of OCRM is considering a

request by the California Department of

Fish and Game to include a 54.56 acre

parcel that is adjacent to the current

northern boundary of the Elkhorn

Slough National Estuarine Research

Reserve (ESNERR) within the ESNERR

boundary. The parcel, currently in state

ownership and located in the

unincorporated area of Elkhorn in

Monterey County, California, is

primarily salt marsh habitat (90%) with

a small amount of upland habitat (10%).

This parcel of land supports important

foraging, roosting, and nesting habitat

for wetland-dependent birds.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Becky Christianson, Acting Manager,

Elkhorn Slough National Estuarine

Research Reserve, 1700 Elkhorn Road,

Watsonville, CA 95076; Phone (408)

728–2822 or Nina Garfield, Sanctuaries

and Reserves Division, National Oceanic

and Atmospheric Administration,

SSMC4, 11th Floor, Silver Spring, MD

20910; Phone (301) 713–3141 ext. 171.

TEXT: SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

Elkhorn Slough National Estuarine

Research Reserve (ESNERR) was

designated in 1979 pursuant to section

315 of the Coastal Zone Management

Act of 1972, as amended, 16 U.S.C.

1461. The ESNERR includes more than

1400 acres including oak woodland, salt

marsh, grassland, mudflats, freshwater

ponds, Monterey pine groves and

coastal scrub.

The State of California requested

NOAA approval to amend the ESNERR’s

boundary to include the state-owned

parcel adjacent to the northern

boundary of the ESNERR. The land was

purchased by the state in 1993 for

inclusion in the Moss Landing Wildlife

Area. However, the state now believes

that this parcel is better suited for

inclusion in the ESNERR.

The ESNERR expansion would

enhance the opportunities for research,

monitoring, and education, as well as

enhancing the State’s resource

protection efforts in the Elkhorn Slough

watershed.

The expansion proposes inclusion of

54.56 acres of land at the northern end

of the ESNERR boundary. This property

is dominated by saltmarsh (90%) and

some upland habitat (10%).

Any person wishing to comment on

the proposed boundary expansion may

forward written comments to Ms. Nina

Garfield, Sanctuaries and Reserves

Division, Office of Ocean and Coastal

Resource Management, National

Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration, 1305 East West

Highway, SSMC4, 11th Floor, Silver

Spring, MD 20910. Comments must be

submitted no later than thirty (30)

calendar days from issuance of this

notice.

Federal Domestic Assistance Catalog

Number 11.420 (Coastal Zone Management)

Research Reserves.

Dated: August 28, 1997.

Nancy Foster,

Assistant Administrator, NOS.

[FR Doc. 97–23782 Filed 9–8–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–08–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration

[I.D. 090297B]

Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management

Council; Meetings

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),

Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of public meeting.

SUMMARY: The Mid-Atlantic Fishery

Management Council (Council) and its

Executive and Information and

Education Committees will hold a

public meetings.

DATES: The meetings will be held on

September 23–25, 1997. See

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for

specific dates and times.