Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 83 /Thursday, April 30, 1998 / Notices 23723

351.222, based on an affirmative

statement of no interest by the petitioner

in continuing the order with respect to

PVA imported from Japan for use as a

pharmaceutical excipient or for use in

the manufacture of film coating systems

which are components of a drug or

dietary supplement, we are initiating

this changed circumstances

administrative review. Based on the fact

that no other interested parties have

objected to the position taken by the

petitioner, we have determined that

expedited action is warranted, and we

are combining these notices of initiation

and preliminary results. We have

preliminarily determined that there are

changed circumstances sufficient to

warrant partial revocation of the

antidumping duty order on PVA from

Japan. Therefore, we are hereby

notifying the public of our intent to

revoke, in part, the antidumping duty

order as it relates to imports of PVA for

use as a pharmaceutical excipient or for

use in the manufacture of film coating

systems which are components of a drug

or dietary supplement.

If final revocation, in part, occurs, we

intend to instruct the Customs Service

to end, effective on the date of

publication in the Federal Register of

the final notice of partial revocation, the

suspension of liquidation and to refund

any estimated antidumping duties

collected for all unliquidated entries of

the above described PVA not subject to

final results of an administrative review.

We will also instruct the Customs

Service to pay interest on such refunds

in accordance with section 778 of the

Act. The current requirement for a cash

deposit of estimated antidumping duties

will continue until publication of the

final results of this changed

circumstances review.

Public Comment

Interested parties may submit case

briefs and/or written comments no later

than 30 days after the date of

publication of these results. Rebuttal

briefs and rebuttals to written

comments, limited to issues raised in

such briefs or comments, may be filed

no later than 37 days after the date of

publication of these results. The

Department will issue the final results

of this changed circumstances review,

which will include the results of its

analysis raised in any such written

comments, no later than 270 days after

the date on which this review was

initiated, or within 45 days if all parties

agree to our preliminary results.

This initiation of review and notice

are in accordance with section 751(b) of

the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(b)), and 19 CFR

351.216, 351.221, and 351.222.

Dated: April 22, 1998.

Robert S. LaRussa,

Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 98–11529 Filed 4–29–98; 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,

1996 through March 31, 1997. 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: April 30, 1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Gayle Longest or Lorenza Olivas, Office

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

4, 1997, the Department published a

notice of ‘‘Opportunity to Request

Administrative Review’’ (62 FR 41925)

of this countervailing duty order. We

received timely requests for review and

on September 25, 1997, we initiated the

review, covering the period April 1,

1996 through March 31, 1997 (62 FR

50292).

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 27

programs.

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). In addition,

unless otherwise indicated, all citations

to the Department’s regulations are to

the regulations codified at 19 CFR

section 351, published in the Federal

Register at 62 FR 27296 (May 19, 1997).

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.

Analysis of Programs

Allocation Methodology

In the past, the Department has relied

on information from the U.S. Internal

Revenue Service (IRS) on the industryspecific average useful life of assets in

determining the allocation period for

nonrecurring grant benefits. See General

Issues Appendix appended to Final

Countervailing Duty Determination;

Certain Steel Products from Austria, 58

FR 37063, 37226 (July 9, 1993).

However, in British Steel plc. v. United

States, 879 F. Supp. 1254 (CIT 1995)

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

International Trade (the Court) ruled

against this allocation methodology. In

accordance with the Court’s remand

order, the Department calculated a

company-specific allocation period for
23724 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 83 /Thursday, April 30, 1998 / Notices

1We note that the provinces of British Columbia,

Manitoba, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Prince

Edward Island and Saskatchewan received

payments under this program during the 1994–1995

POR which were expensed in the year of receipt.

See Swine Tenth Review Results.

nonrecurring subsidies based on the

average useful life (AUL) of nonrenewable physical assets. This remand

determination was affirmed by the Court

on June 4, 1996. See British Steel, 929

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

The Department has not appealed the

Court’s decision and, as such, we intend

to determine the allocation period for

nonrecurring subsidies using companyspecific AUL data 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), which is a period of three

years.

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 the subject

merchandise. We then summed the

individual provinces’ weight-averaged

rates to determine the subsidy rate of

each program. To obtain the countrywide rate, we then summed the subsidy

rates from all programs.

I. Programs Conferring Subsidies

A. Programs Previously Determined to

Confer Subsidies

1. Federal/Provincial Programs

a. National Transition Scheme for

Hogs. After termination of the National

Tripartite Stabilization Program (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 from 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 that POR under the

Transition Scheme represented a grant.

We also found that these grants were

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 approved funding under the

Transition Scheme for one year only. No

new information or evidence of changed

circumstances has been submitted in

this proceeding to warrant

reconsideration of this finding.

In Live Swine From Canada;

Preliminary Results of Countervailing

Duty Administrative Review 62 FR

47460 (September 9, 1997) and Live

Swine From Canada; Final Results of

Countervailing Duty Administrative

Review 63 FR 2204 (January 14, 1998)

(Swine Eleventh Review Results) the

following provinces received benefits

under this program: Alberta, Manitoba,

New Brunswick, Ontario, Quebec, and

Saskatchewan.1 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

Canada. 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

calculated the discount rate using the

same methodology applied in previous

reviews. (See Live Swine From Canada;

Notice of Preliminary Results of

Countervailing Duty Administrative

Reviews; Initiation and Preliminary

Results of Changed Circumstances

Review and Intent To Revoke Order in

Part 61 FR 26879, 26884 (May 29, 1996)

and Live Swine From Canada; Final

Results of Countervailing Duty

Administrative Reviews 61 FR 52408

(October 7, 1996) Swine 7,8,9 Review

Results. We used, as a discount rate, the

simple average of the monthly mediumterm corporate bond rates for the

eleventh POR, 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.

During the POR, there were no

payments given under this program.

However, residual benefits from

provinces receiving payments in the

1995–1996 POR continue to provide

countervailable benefits during the POR

now under review, which is the second

year of the three-year allocation period.

To derive the benefit in this review, we

took the portion of the benefit allocated

to this POR from the Swine Eleven

Review Results and, using each

province’s calculated total weight of

market hogs produced during the POR,

derived 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$0.0041 per

kilogram for the POR.

The Transition Scheme program has

been terminated. Because the last date

residual benefits may accrue is the last

day of the three-year allocation period,

which is March 31, 1998, prior to the

publication of these preliminary results,

we determine that this program is

terminated with no residual benefits.

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. See e.g., Swine

Eleventh Review Results. Therefore, for

cash deposit purposes, the cash deposit

rate for this program will be adjusted to

zero due to the program-wide change

which became effective April 1, 1998.

However, we will continue to examine

this program in the subsequent

administrative review, if conducted,

which would cover the last year of the

three-year allocation period for

purposes of duty assessment.

2. 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
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 83 /Thursday, April 30, 1998 / Notices 23725

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

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 determine this

program terminated with no residual

benefits. 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. Therefore, we will

not examine this program in the future,

and the cash deposit rate will continue

to be zero for this program. (See Swine

Eleventh Review Results).

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, and 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. 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 through the end of fiscal

year 1996 (April 1, 1995 through March

31, 1996). 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 less

than 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 (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.

Therefore, we will not examine this

program in the future, and the cash

deposit rate will continue to be zero for

this program.

d. 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 (April 1, 1995

through March 31, 1996). Livestock

covered by this program includes cattle,

horses, sheep, swine, goats, poultry,

bees, fur-bearing 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
23726 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 83 /Thursday, April 30, 1998 / Notices

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

(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.

Therefore, we will not examine this

program in the future, and the cash

deposit rate will continue to be zero for

this program.

e. 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 must 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. No grants

were provided during the POR and the

GOC reported that no further grants will

be issued under this program.

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 prime rate plus one percentage

point. In Swine Tenth Review Results

we found that the predominant lending

rates in Canada for comparable longterm 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 Summer (1997)

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 note that because this review

is conducted on an aggregate basis we

are using a national-average short-term

benchmark rather than a companyspecific benchmark rate.

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. 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 interest rate. 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. On this basis, we

preliminarily determine the net subsidy

from this program to be less than

Can$0.0001 per kilogram.

f. 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
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 83 /Thursday, April 30, 1998 / Notices 23727

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 these

findings.

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

Summer (1997), 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.

II. Programs Preliminarily Determined

Not to Confer Subsidies

A. Research Program under the Canada/

Quebec Subsidiary Agreement on AgriFood Development

The GOC and the GOQ reported that

all projects completed under the

Research program during the POR were

made publicly available. 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)

and Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel

Plate from Sweden; Final Results of

Countervailing Duty Administrative

Review, 62 FR 16551 (April 7, 1997).

III. Programs Preliminarily Determined

to be Not Used

We also examined the following

programs and preliminarily determine

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. Farm Income Stabilization

Insurance

C. Federal Atlantic Livestock Feed

Initiative

D. Agricultural Products Board

Program

E. Newfoundland Farm Products

Corporation Hog Price Support Program

F. Newfoundland Hog Price

Stabilization Program

G. Newfoundland Weanling Bonus

Incentive Policy

H. Nova Scotia Improve Sire Policy

I. Ontario Bear Damage to Livestock

Compensation Program

J. Ontario Rabies Indemnification

Program

K. Ontario Swine Sales Assistance

Policy

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, 1996),

and there is no evidence which would

indicate that residual benefits are being

bestowed or that a substitute program

has been implemented:

A. New Brunswick Swine Assistance

Policy on Boars

B. Ontario Export Sales Aid

V. Other Programs Examined

On November 17, 1997, the GOC and

the GOQ requested ‘‘green box’’

treatment for the Agri-Food Agreement.

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

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 of that same

Agreement. The GOQ and the GOC

claimed that the Agri-Food Agreement

met these criteria, and therefore,

funding under the Agri-Food Agreement

should be noncountervailable pursuant

to section 771(5B)(F) of the Act.

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 universitybased 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
23728 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 83 /Thursday, April 30, 1998 / Notices

separate programs. See Swine Tenth

Review Results. During the POR,

producers of the subject merchandise

received assistance under the three

component programs of the Agri-Food

Agreement for which the GOC and the

GOQ have requested green box

treatment.

Specifically, with regard to the

Research program as discussed above in

the section II, we have preliminarily

determined that this program does not

confer countervailable benefits 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). With regard to the

Technology Innovations program and

the Support for Strategic Alliances

program, any benefit to the subject

merchandise under either program or

both programs combined is so small

(Can$ 0.0000013 and Can$ 0.0000008

per kilogram, respectively) that there is

no cumulative impact on the overall

subsidy rate. Accordingly, because there

is no impact on the overall subsidy rate

in the instant review, we have not

included the benefits from Technology

Innovations program and the Support

for Strategic Alliances program in the

calculated subsidy rate for the POR, and

do not consider it necessary to address

the issue of whether benefits under

these programs are noncountervailable

as green box subsidies pursuant to

section 771(5B)(F) of the Act. See, e.g.,

Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty

Determination: Steel Wire Rod from

Germany, 62 FR 54990, 54995 (October

22, 1997); 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).

In addition, some farmers in Prince

Edward Island received payments

during the POR under the Agricultural

Disaster Insurance Program (ADIP),

which is authorized under section 12(5)

of the Farm Income Protection Act

(FIPA) and a provincial statute. ADIP is

a voluntary whole farm program under

which a farmer may apply for income

support when his current income

margin falls below 70 percent of the

average of the three previous years.

Because ADIP provides income

assistance based on a ‘‘whole farm’’

basis, it is not possible to segregate out

benefits to individual agricultural

products. Furthermore, it is not clear

whether live swine producers benefitted

from this program during the POR. The

GOC stated that this program was

designed to meet the ‘‘green box’’

criteria under the 1994 WTO Agreement

on Agriculture. With regard to the ADIP

program, any benefit to the subject

merchandise under this program is so

small (Can$ 0.0000081 per kilogram)

that there is no impact on the overall

subsidy rate, even when taking into

account the assistance provided under

the Technology Innovations program

and the Support for Strategic Alliances

program. In other words, when the

benefits from the Technology

Innovations program and the Support

for Strategic Alliances program and the

ADIP program are summed, the

aggregate benefit from these three

programs has no impact on the overall

subsidy rate. Accordingly, because there

is no impact on the overall subsidy rate

in the instant review, we have not

included the benefits from ADIP in the

calculated subsidy rate for the POR, and

do not consider it necessary to address

the issue of whether benefits under this

program are countervailable in this

review.

Preliminary Results of Review

We preliminarily determine the total

net subsidy on live swine from Canada

to be Can$0.0041 per kilogram for the

period April 1, 1996 through March 31,

1997. This rate is de minimis. If the final

results of this review remain the same

as these preliminary results, the

Department intends to instruct Customs

to liquidate without regard to

countervailing duties all shipments of

the subject merchandise from Canada.

Because the calculated net subsidy of

Can$0.0041 per kilogram is de minimis,

the cash deposit rate will be zero.

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, if the

final results remain the same as the

preliminary results.

Public Comment

Parties to the proceeding may request

disclosure of the calculation

methodology and interested parties may

request a hearing not later than 30 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 five 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 two 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 351.303(f).

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 351.309(c)(ii), 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. section 1675(a)(1)),

19 CFR section 351.213.

Dated: April 23, 1998.

Robert S. LaRussa,

Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 98–11528 Filed 4–29–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[C–122–815]

Preliminary Results of the Fifth

Countervailing Duty Administrative

Reviews; Pure Magnesium and Alloy

Magnesium From Canada

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of Preliminary Results of

Countervailing Duty Administrative

Reviews.

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce

is conducting administrative reviews of

the countervailing duty orders on pure

magnesium and alloy magnesium from

Canada. For information on the net

subsidy for the reviewed company, as