Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 125 / Thursday, June 28, 2001 / Notices 34423

1See Algoma Steel Corp. Ltd. v. United States,

688 F. Supp. 639, 642–44 (CIT 1988); High

Information Content Flat Panel Displays and

Display Glass from Japan: Final Determination;

Rescission of Investigation and Partial Dismissal of

Petition, 56 FR 32376, 32380–81 (July 16, 1991).

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[C–337–807]

Initiation of Countervailing Duty

Investigation: IQF Red Raspberries

From Chile

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Initiation of countervailing duty

investigation.

EFFECTIVE DATE: June 28, 2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Craig W. Matney or Jennifer D. Jones at

(202) 482–1778 and (202) 482–4194,

respectively, Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

U.S. Department of Commerce, Room

3099, 14th Street and Constitution

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230.

Initiation of Investigation

The Applicable Statute and Regulations

Unless otherwise indicated, all

citations to the statute are references to

the provisions effective January 1, 1995,

the effective date of the amendments

made to the Tariff Act of 1930 (the Act)

by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act.

In addition, unless otherwise indicated,

all citations to the Department’s

regulations are references to the

provisions codified at 19 CFR part 351

(April 2000).

The Petition

On May 31, 2001, the Department

received a petition filed in proper form

by the IQF Red Raspberry Fair Trade

Committee (hereinafter ‘‘the

petitioner’’). The Department received

information supplementing the petition

throughout the initiation period.

In accordance with section 702(b)(1)

of the Act, the petitioner alleges that

manufacturers, producers, or exporters

of the subject merchandise from Chile

receive countervailable subsidies within

the meaning of section 701 of the Act,

and that such imports are materially

injuring, or threatening material injury

to, an industry in the United States.

The Department finds that the

petitioner and its members filed this

petition on behalf of the domestic

industry because they are interested

parties as defined in sections 771(9)(C)

of the Act and they have demonstrated

sufficient industry support. See infra,

‘‘Determination of Industry Support for

the Petition.’’

Scope of Investigation

The products covered by this petition

are imports of individually quick frozen

(IQF) whole or broken red raspberries

from Chile, with or without the addition

of sugar or syrup, regardless of variety,

grade, size or horticulture method (e.g.,

organic or not), the size of the container

in which packed, or the method of

packing. The scope of the petition

excludes fresh red raspberries and block

frozen red raspberries (i.e., puree,

straight pack, juice stock, and juice

concentrate).

The merchandise subject to this

investigation is classifiable under

0811.20.2020 of the Harmonized Tariff

Schedule of the United States (HTSUS).

Although the HTSUS subheading is

provided for convenience and customs

purposes, the written description of the

merchandise under investigation is

dispositive.

During our review of the petition, we

discussed the scope with the petitioner

to ensure that it accurately reflects the

product for which the domestic industry

is seeking relief. Moreover, as discussed

in the preamble to the Department’s

regulations (see Antidumping Duties;

Countervailing Duties; Final Rule, 62 FR

27295, 27323 (May 19, 1997)), we are

setting aside a period for parties to raise

issues regarding product coverage. The

Department encourages all parties to

submit such comments within 20

calendar days of publication of this

notice. Comments should be addressed

to Import Administration’s Central

Records Unit at Room 1870, U.S.

Department of Commerce, 14th Street

and Constitution Avenue, NW,

Washington, DC 20230. The period of

scope consultations is intended to

provide the Department with ample

opportunity to consider all comments

and consult with parties prior to the

issuance of the preliminary

determination.

Consultations

On June 13, 2001, the Department

held consultations with representatives

of the Government of Chile (GOC)

pursuant to section 702(b)(4)(ii) of the

Act. During these consultations, the

GOC submitted copies of public laws

relating to certain programs alleged in

the petition. The points raised in the

consultations are described in the

Memorandum to the File, ‘‘CVD

Consultations with Officials from the

Government of Chile,’’ dated June 13,

2001, and in the subsequent ‘‘Letter to

Susan H. Kuhbach,’’ dated June 14,

2001.

Determination of Industry Support for

the Petition

Section 702(b)(1) of the Act requires

that a petition be filed on behalf of the

domestic industry. Section 702(c)(4)(A)

of the Act provides that a petition meets

this requirement if the domestic

producers or workers who support the

petition account for: (1) At least 25

percent of the total production of the

domestic like product, and (2) more

than 50 percent of the production of the

domestic like product produced by that

portion of the industry expressing

support for, or opposition to, the

petition.

Section 771(4)(A) of the Act defines

the ‘‘industry’’ as the producers of a

domestic like product. Thus, to

determine whether the petition has the

requisite industry support, the statute

directs the Department to look to

producers and workers who produce the

domestic like product. The International

Trade Commission (ITC), which is

responsible for determining whether

‘‘the domestic industry’’ has been

injured, must also determine what

constitutes a domestic like product in

order to define the industry. While both

the Department and the ITC must apply

the same statutory definition regarding

the domestic like product (section

771(10) of the Act), they do so for

different purposes and pursuant to

separate and distinct authority. In

addition, the Department’s

determination is subject to limitations of

time and information. Although this

may result in different definitions of the

domestic like product, such differences

do not render the decision of either

agency contrary to the law.1

Section 771(10) of the Act defines the

domestic like product as ‘‘a product

which is like, or in the absence of like,

most similar in characteristics and uses

with, the article subject to an

investigation under this subtitle.’’ Thus,

the reference point from which the

domestic like product analysis begins is

‘‘the article subject to an investigation,’’

i.e., the class or kind of merchandise to

be investigated, which normally will be

the scope as defined in the petition.

The domestic like product referred to

in the petition is the single domestic

like product defined in the ‘‘Scope of

Investigation’’ section above. No party

has commented on the petition’s

definition of the domestic like product,

and there is nothing on the record to

indicate that this definition is

inaccurate. The Department, therefore,

has adopted the domestic like product

definition set forth in the petition.

Moreover, the Department has

determined that the petition contains

34424 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 125 / Thursday, June 28, 2001 / Notices

adequate evidence of industry support;

therefore, polling is unnecessary (see

Initiation Checklist, dated June 20, 2001

(Initiation Checklist), at Industry

Support). The petitioner indicated that

there may be several additional small

U.S. producers accounting for less than

10 percent of U.S. production who are

not petitioners. We have no knowledge

of any other domestic producers.

Accordingly, the Department

determines that this petition is filed on

behalf of the domestic industry within

the meaning of section 732(b)(1) of the

Act.

Injury Test

Because Chile is a ‘‘Subsidies

Agreement Country’’ within the

meaning of section 701(b) of the Act,

section 701(a)(2) applies to this

investigation. Accordingly, the ITC must

determine whether imports of the

subject merchandise from Chile

materially injure, or threaten material

injury to, a U.S. industry.

Allegations and Evidence of Material

Injury and Causation

The petition alleges that the U.S.

industry producing the domestic like

product is being materially injured, or is

threatened with material injury, by

reason of the imports of the subject

merchandise. The petitioner contends

that the industry’s injured condition is

evident in the declining trends in net

operating income, net sales volume and

value, profit to sales ratios, and capacity

utilization. The allegations of injury and

causation are supported by relevant

evidence including U.S. Customs import

data, lost sales, and pricing information.

We have assessed the allegations and

supporting evidence regarding material

injury and causation, and have

determined that these allegations are

properly supported by accurate and

adequate evidence, and meet the

statutory requirements for initiation (see

Initiation Checklist).

Allegations of Subsidies

Section 702(b) of the Act requires the

Department to initiate a countervailing

duty proceeding whenever an interested

party files a petition on behalf of an

industry, that (1) alleges the elements

necessary for an imposition of a duty

under section 701(a), and (2) is

accompanied by information reasonably

available to the petitioner supporting

the allegations.

Initiation of Countervailing Duty

Investigation

The Department has examined the

countervailing duty petition on IQF red

raspberries from Chile and found that it

complies with the requirements of

section 702(b) of the Act. Therefore, in

accordance with section 702(b) of the

Act, we are initiating a countervailing

duty investigation to determine whether

manufacturers, producers, or exporters

of IQF red raspberries from Chile

receive countervailable subsidies.

We are including in our investigation

the following programs alleged in the

petition to have provided

countervailable subsidies to producers

and exporters of the subject

merchandise in Chile:

1. Suppliers Development Program

2. Export Promotion by ProChile

3. Corporacion de Fomento de la

Produccion (CORFO) Export

Subsidies

4. Law 18,576 Export Credit Limits

5. Law 18,634 Import Duties on Capital

Goods

6. Law 18,480 Simplified Duty

Drawback

We are not including in our

investigation the following programs

alleged to benefit producers and

exporters of the subject merchandise in

Chile:

1. Law 18,645 Loan Guarantees

The petition alleges that Law 18,645

provides to Chilean exporters of nontraditional goods loan guarantees of up

to 50 percent of a loan’s value, for loans

which do not exceed U.S.$150,000. The

petition further alleges that these

guarantees are specific because they are

limited to exporters. According to

information provided by the petitioner,

only products which qualify for

simplified duty drawback under Law

18,480 are within the scope of Law

18,645.

The GOC states that the regulations

implementing Law 18,645 (which are

reasonably available to the petitioner)

set conditions for receipt of these loan

guarantees. Either the product must be

eligible for simplified duty drawback

(see above) or the industry must have

exported less than U.S.$16.7 million on

average over the past two years. The IQF

red raspberry industry does not meet

either criterion. Moreover, the same

allegation was made in Salmon, and was

rejected by the Department because the

petitioners failed to identify any

preferential treatment or benefit from

the program. (See Notice of Initiation of

Countervailing Duty Investigation: Fresh

Atlantic Salmon From Chile, 62 FR

36772, 36775 (July 9, 1997). Therefore,

the Department is not initiating an

investigation of Law 18,645.

2. Start-up Assistance of Fundacio ́n

Chile

The petition alleges that Fundacio ́n

Chile has participated in the

development of the Chilean raspberry

industry since 1980 when production,

processing and marketing tests of

raspberries began. The petition further

alleges that in 1985, Fundacio ́n Chile

created two new producer/exporter

berry companies in regions IX and X

under its ‘‘Development of New Species

for Export’’ program. However, the

petition does not allege any potential

assistance subsequent to 1985. Under 19

CFR 351.524(b), non-recurring subsidies

are allocated over a period

corresponding to the average useful life

(AUL) of the renewable physical assets

used to produce the subject

merchandise. 19 CFR 351.524(d)(2)

creates a rebuttable presumption that

the AUL will be taken from the U.S.

Internal Revenue Service’s 1977 Class

Life Asset Depreciation Range System

(the ‘‘IRS Tables’’). For the asset class

which includes IQF red raspberries,

‘‘manufacture of other food products,’’

the IRS Tables prescribe an AUL of 12

years. Therefore, the Department is not

initiating an investigation of Fundacio ́n

Chile start-up assistance because any

potential benefit would have been

received outside the applicable AUL.

However, we will reexamine the

allegation if the petitioner provides

sufficient information that either

extends the AUL to incorporate the

period during which a benefit was

received or if additional information is

provided indicating that start-up

assistance was provided to a producer

or exporter during the appropriate

period.

Distribution of Copies of the Petition

In accordance with section

702(b)(4)(A)(i) of the Act, a copy of the

public version of the petition has been

provided to the GOC. We will attempt

to provide a copy of the public version

of the petition to each exporter named

in the petition, as provided for under

section 351.203(c)(2) of the

Department’s regulations.

ITC Notification

We have notified the ITC of our

initiation, as required by section 702(d)

of the Act.

Preliminary Determination by the ITC

The ITC will determine no later than

July 16, 2001, whether there is a

reasonable indication that imports of

IQF red raspberries from Chile are

causing material injury, or threatening

to cause material injury to, a U.S.

industry. A negative ITC determination

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 125 / Thursday, June 28, 2001 / Notices 34425

will result in the investigation being

terminated; otherwise, the investigation

will proceed according to statutory and

regulatory time limits.

This notice is issued and published

pursuant to section 777(i) of the Act.

Dated: June 20, 2001.

Faryar Shirzad,

Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 01–16297 Filed 6–27–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration

Guidance for Fiscal Year 2001 Coral

Reef Management Funding

AGENCY: National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Announcement of funding

opportunity for financial assistance for

Island coral reef conservation and

management cooperative agreements.

SUMMARY: The purpose of this notice is

to advise the public that the National

Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration (NOAA) and the U.S.

Department of the Interior (DOI) are

soliciting proposals from the U.S. Flag

Island jurisdiction of American Samoa,

the Commonwealth of the Northern

Mariana Islands, Guam, Hawaii, Puerto

Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands for the

purpose of coral reef conservation and

management.

DATES: NOAA and DOI must receive

Applications for cooperative agreements

according to the following schedule:

Draft applications received by NOAA

and DOI: June 29, 2001

NOAA and DOI comments back to

Islands: July 20, 2001

Final complete application received by

NOAA and DOI: August 3, 2001

Cooperative agreements awarded on or

before: October 1, 2001

ADDRESSES: Applications should be sent

to: John King, Acting Chief, CPD/OCRM,

N/ORM–3, National Ocean Service,

1305 East-West Highway, Silver Spring,

MD 20910, and Karen Koltes, Coral Reef

Program Manager, Office of Insular

Affairs, MS 4328 Department of the

Interior, Washington, DC 20240.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For

NOAA: Bill Millhouser, Pacific Regional

Manager, CPD/OCRM, N–ORM–3,

National Ocean Service, 1305 East-West

Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910;

301–713–3155 x 189; Internet:

bill.millhouser@noaa.gov.

For DOI: Karen Koltes, Coral Reef

Program Manager, Office of Insular

Affairs, MS 4328, Department of the

Interior, Washington, DC 20240; 202–

208–5345; Internet:

karen_koltes@ios.doi.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: (1)

Program Authorities: Specific authority

for this Announcement is found in 16

U.S.C. 1442, Executive Order 13089

(June 11, 1998), Coral Reef Protection,

for NOAA.

(2) Catalog of Federal Domestic

Assistance Numbers: 11.419 for NOAA

Coastal Zone Management Program

Administration.

(3) Program Description: This notice

provides guidance for applying for

funding appropriated by Congress to the

National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration (NOAA) and the

Department of the Interior (DOI) in

Fiscal Year (FY) 2001 to support the

conservation and management of coral

reefs and associated fisheries by the

island jurisdictions of Puerto Rico, the

U.S. Virgin Islands, Hawaii, Guam, the

Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana

Islands, and American Samoa.

Congress appropriated $26,941,000 in

FY 2001 funding to NOAA in support of

the Administration’s budget request for

Coral Reef Conservation activities. The

Department of the Interior Office of

Insular Affairs (OIA) also received

funding in FY 2001 to enhance coral

reef protection and management.

Among the top coral reef conservation

priorities for both agencies is support

for State and Territorial coral reef

conservation activities as envisioned in

the 1999, U.S. All Islands Coral Reef

Initiative Strategy, and subsequent

locally generated management

strategies. NOAA and DOI will jointly

award $2,435,000 in FY 2001 to support

priority island coral reef ecosystem

conservation efforts. Of this total,

NOAA’s National Centers for Coastal

Ocean Science (NCCOS) will award

$350,000 to support Monitoring and

Assessment cooperative agreements

with the Islands. As was the case last

year, NCCOS will award a separate

Monitoring and Assessment award to

each jurisdiction. NOAA’s Office of

Ocean and Coastal Resource

Management (OCRM), the National

Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) Office

of Protected Resources (PR), and Office

of Insular Affairs (OIA/DOI) will

provide an additional $1,885,000 in

funding for cooperative agreements to

support Island coral reef and coral reef

fishery management and conservation

activities as listed below.

Program purpose Agency Amount

(in millions)

Coral reef management.OCRM

OIA/DOI

$1.200

.350

Coral reef fishery management.PR/NMFS .335

Total .......... 1.885

OCRM, PR/NMFS and OIA/DOI will

coordinate their funding such that each

Island will need to develop only one

coral reef and coral reef fishery

management application. The Federal

agencies will coordinate their review of

both cooperative agreements to ensure

comparability and continuity between

the two processes. It is anticipated

OCRM will make awards to three of the

six jurisdictions and that DOI will make

awards to the remaining three

jurisdictions.

To allow each Island the ability to

continue projects initiated with last

year’s awards, each jurisdiction is

eligible to receive an award ranging

from a minimum of $225,000 to a

maximum of approximately $400,000.

To be eligible for the award, the

jurisdiction must have made reasonable

progress in completing tasks under their

FY 1999 and FY 2000 coral management

awards, as evidenced in the required

performance and financial reports.

(4) Funding Availability: Funding is

contingent upon the availability of

Federal appropriations. It is estimated

that approximately $1,885,000 in FY

2001 funding is available for Coral Reef

and Coral Reef Fishery Management

cooperative agreements. Support in

outyears after FY 2001 is contingent

upon the availability of funds and the

requirements of the agency supporting

the project.

(5) Matching Requirements: None.

(6) Type of Funding Instrument:

Cooperative agreements.

(7) Eligibility Criteria: Eligible

applicants are government jurisdictions

of American Samoa, the Commonwealth

of Northern Mariana Islands, Guam,

Hawaii, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin

Islands.

(8) Award Period: Full Proposals

should cover a project period of 12 to

18 months with an anticipated start date

of October 1, 2001.

(9) Indirect Costs: If indirect costs are

proposed, the total dollar amount of the

indirect costs proposed in an

application must not exceed the indirect

cost rate negotiated and approved by a

cognizant Federal agency prior to the

proposed effective date of the award.

(10) Application Forms: Applications

should reflect the strategy developed in