11072 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 40 / Wednesday, March 1, 1995 / Notices

Mathew Rosenbaum at (202) 482–

4377

Chile

Standard Carnations, A–337–602, 52

FR 8939, March 20, 1987, Contact:

Joe Fargo at (202) 482–5345

France

Brass Sheet & Strip, A–427–602, 52

FR 6995, March 6, 1987, Contact:

Chip Hayes at (202) 482–5047

Italy

Brass Fire Protection Equipment, A–

475–401, 50 FR 8354, March 1,

1985 Contact: Leon McNeill at (202)

482–4236

The People’s Republic of China

Chloropicrin, A–570–002, 49 FR

10691, March 22, 1984, Contact:

Andrea Chu at (202) 482–4733

If no interested party requests an

administrative review in accordance

with the Department’s notice of

opportunity to request administrative

review, and no domestic interested

party objects to the Department’s intent

to revoke or terminate pursuant to this

notice, we shall conclude that the

antidumping duty orders, findings, and

suspended investigations are no longer

of interest to interested parties and shall

proceed with the revocation or

termination.

Opportunity to Object

Domestic interested parties, as

defined in § 353.2(k) (3), (4), (5), and (6)

of the Department’s regulations, may

object to the Department’s intent to

revoke these antidumping duty orders

and findings or to terminate the

suspended investigations by the last day

of March 1995. Any submission to the

Department must contain the name and

case number of the proceeding and a

statement that explains how the

objecting party qualifies as a domestic

interested party under § 353.2(k) (3), (4),

(5), and (6) of the Department’s

regulations.

Seven copies of such objections

should be submitted to the Assistant

Secretary for Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Room B–099, U.S. Department of

Commerce, Washington, DC 20230. You

must also include the pertinent

certification(s) in accordance with

§ 353.31(g) and § 353.31(i) of the

Department’s regulations. In addition,

the Department requests that a copy of

the objection be sent to Michael F.

Panfeld in Room 4203. This notice is in

accordance with 19 CFR 353.25(d)(4)(i).

Dated: February 15, 1995.

Joseph A. Spetrini,

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Compliance.

[FR Doc. 95–5054 Filed 2–28–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS-P

[C–614–503]

Lamb Meat From New Zealand;

Preliminary Results of Countervailing

Duty Administrative Review and Intent

To Revoke the Countervailing Duty

Order

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of preliminary results of

countervailing duty administrative

review and intent to revoke

countervailing duty order.

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce

(the Department) is conducting an

administrative review of the

countervailing duty order on lamb meat

from New Zealand for the period April

1, 1992 through March 31, 1993. We

preliminarily determine the total

subsidy to be 0.0013 percent ad valorem

for all firms for the review period. In

accordance with 19 CFR 355.7, any rate

less than 0.50 percent ad valorem is de

minimis.

In addition, we preliminarily

determine that the Government of New

Zealand (GONZ) has met the

requirements for revocation of the

countervailing duty order, including

undergoing administrative review for

three consecutive years during which

the Department has determined that

there has been no net subsidy on lamb

meat and all subsidies on lamb meat

have been abolished. If these

preliminary results are sustained in the

final results of this review and the

Department is satisfied that the GONZ is

not likely to reinstate or substitute other

subsidy programs on lamb meat, we will

revoke the countervailing duty order

pursuant to 19 CFR 355.25(a)(1). We

invite interested parties to comment on

these preliminary results.

EFFECTIVE DATE: March 1, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Gayle Longest or Kelly Parkhill, Office

of Countervailing Compliance, 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 September 7, 1993, the

Department published a notice of

‘‘Opportunity to Request Administrative

Review’’ (58 FR 47116) for the

countervailing duty order on lamb meat

from New Zealand (50 FR 37708;

September 17, 1985). On September 30,

1993, we received a request for review

from the New Zealand Meat Producers

Board. The GONZ also requested

revocation of the countervailing duty

order on lamb meat from New Zealand

pursuant to 19 CFR 355.25(b) and

certified that all countervailable

programs for lamb meat had been

eliminated and that it will not reinstate

those countervailable programs or

substitute other countervailable

programs. We initiated the review,

covering the period April 1, 1992

through March 31, 1993, on October 18,

1993 (58 FR 53710). The Department is

conducting this review in accordance

with section 751 of the Tariff Act of

1930, as amended (the Act). The review

period is April 1, 1992, through March

31, 1993. The review involves nine

companies and five programs.

Revocation of the Order

After carefully examining the

September 30, 1993, request for

revocation of the order, including the

certification, the Department

determined that certain modifications

with respect to the revocation request

were necessary. On May 12, 1994, the

GONZ resubmitted its certification that

met the minimum threshold

requirements to be considered for

revocation under 19 CFR 355.25(b).

According to 19 CFR 355.25(b), a

government meets the minimum

threshold requirement for revocation of

an order if, in requesting the third

consecutive administrative review of the

order, the government submits a

certification that the government has

abolished all subsidy programs for the

subject merchandise for a period of

three consecutive years, and that the

government will not reinstate the

abolished programs or substitute other

countervailable programs. Under 19

CFR 355.25(a)(1)(i), the Department

must have also found that there was no

net subsidy for lamb meat in the two

consecutive administrative reviews

prior to the year in which the

government requests revocation, and in

the third consecutive administrative

review, the Department must also

determine that there is no net subsidy.

If the foregoing threshold requirements

are met, and the Department determines

in the review during which revocation

has been requested that the GONZ has

eliminated all subsidies on lamb meat

for the third consecutive year, and is not

likely to substitute or replace formerly

countervailable programs with new

subsidies, then the Department will

revoke the order.

With respect to the countervailing

duty order on lamb meat, the GONZ met

the minimum threshold requirements

for consideration of the order for

revocation. The Department verified
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 40 / Wednesday, March 1, 1995 / Notices 11073

that all programs that were determined

to be countervailable in past

administrative reviews of the order have

been terminated. The Department has

reviewed these programs in three

consecutive administrative reviews of

this order (including this review). In

each of the past two reviews, the

Department determined that all

countervailable programs have been

eliminated and there was no net subsidy

on lamb meat. In this review, we

preliminarily determine that all

countervailable programs on lamb meat

have been terminated and have not been

replaced with other countervailable

programs. We also preliminarily

determine that it is not likely that in the

future the GONZ will reinstate for lamb

meat those programs or substitute other

countervailable programs. In addition,

we preliminarily determine that the net

subsidy during the review period was

de minimis. Therefore, if the final

results of this review remain unchanged

from these preliminary results, the

Department intends to revoke the order

pursuant to 19 CFR 355.25(a)(1).

Scope of Review

Imports covered by this review are

shipments of lamb meat, other than

prepared, preserved or processed, from

New Zealand. This merchandise is

currently classifiable under item

numbers 0204.10.0000, 0204.22.2000,

0204.23.2000, 0204.30.0000,

0204.42.2000, and 0204.43.2000 of the

Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS). The

HTS item numbers are provided for

convenience and Customs purposes.

The written description remains

dispositive.

Verification

As required under 19 CFR

355.36(a)(ii) of the Department’s

regulations, we verified the elimination

of programs that had been found

countervailable in past administrative

reviews and examined the

countervailability of other programs that

may have replaced these programs. We

also selected several companies for

verification to ensure that there were no

net subsidies and that no residual

benefits were being provided to lamb

meat producers under the terminated

programs.

Analysis of Programs

I. Program Preliminarily Determined to

Confer Subsidies

(A) Livestock Incentive Scheme

The Livestock Incentive Scheme (LIS)

was introduced in 1976 in order to

encourage farmers to increase

permanently their number of livestock.

Under the scheme, a farmer engaged in

a stock increase program, for a

minimum of one and a maximum of

three years, could opt for one of two

incentives: (1) An interest-free

suspensory loan of NZ$12 for each

additional stock unit carried; or (2) a

deduction of NZ$24 from taxable

income for each additional stock unit

carried. If the livestock increase was

met, farmers who elected to take out

loans wrote the loans off as tax-free

grants. For farmers electing the tax

option, the provisional tax deduction

could be applied toward tax liability in

any of the three years after completion

of the development program.

Applications to participate in the LIS

program were accepted until March 31,

1982. No new loans have been given

under this program since 1983, and no

tax credits have been authorized since

the 1983/84 government fiscal year. The

last loan was forgiven in 1988; these

forgiven loans are treated by the

Department as grants. During the 1991/

92 government fiscal year (the review

period), we verified that there were no

outstanding loans that had not been

converted to grants and no tax credits

remaining to be claimed by lamb

producers.

The Department has previously found

this program to be countervailable

because benefits under this program are

available only to farmers with livestock

herds, and, as such, are limited to a

specific enterprise on industry, or group

of enterprises or industries (See

Preliminary Affirmative Countervailing

Duty Determination; Lamb Meat From

New Zealand (50 FR 28236, June 25,

1985 and Final Affirmative

Countervailing Duty Determination and

Countervailing Duty Order; Lamb Meat

From New Zealand (50 FR 37708,

September 17, 1985)). No new

information or evidence of changed

circumstances has been submitted to

warrant reconsideration of this

determination.

To calculate the benefit, we treated

the loan amounts forgiven in prior years

as grants and allocated those amounts

over five years, the average useful life of

breeding stock. This methodology is

described in § 355.49(g) of

Countervailing Duties; Notice of

Proposed Rulemaking and Request for

Public Comments (51 FR 23366, 23385;

May 31, 1989). Because the 1988 grant

under this program was allocated over

five years, we find that a benefit was

conferred during the review period;

however, this is the last year of the fiveyear benefit stream and no further

benefits will be provided under these

forgiven LIS loans. The discount rate

chosen was the average interest rate on

overdrafts during the year in which the

loans were forgiven.

The methodology and discount rate

are the same used in previous

administrative reviews (see e.g. Lamb

Meat from New Zealand; Preliminary

Results of Countervailing Duty

Administrative Review (56 FR 27243;

June 13, 1991) and Lamb Meat from

New Zealand; Final Results of

Countervailing Duty Administrative

Review (56 FR 38423; August 13, 1991).

We added the value of the benefits from

the grants and multiplied the results by

a factor determined to represent the

value of lamb meat as a percentage of

the total value of all livestock

production. We then divided that result

by the total value of lamb meat

production during the review period.

On this basis, we preliminarily

determine the benefit from this program

to be 0.0013 percent ad valorem for all

firms.

II. Programs Preliminarily Determined

Not To Confer Subsidies

(A) Regional Development Suspensory

Loan Scheme (RDSL)

The GONZ established the Regional

Development Assistance Program to

encourage utilization of resources in

priority regions of New Zealand.

Regions designated by the government

as non-priority did not qualify for

regional development assistance. The

RDSL program, one of a variety of

regional development programs

administered by the Development

Finance Corporation (DFC), provided

interest-free loans which were later

converted to grants if development

objectives are met.

The Department previously found this

program to be countervailable because it

provided government-funded financing

to specific regions in New Zealand on

terms inconsistent with commercial

considerations (See Final Affirmative

Countervailing Duty Determination and

Countervailing Duty Order; Lamb Meat

from New Zealand (50 FR 37708,

September 17, 1985)). The RDSL was

terminated on April 21, 1986, by the

GONZ and the Regional Development

Investigation Grants Scheme (RDIGS)

was established as its replacement (See

Verification Report on Lamb Meat from

New Zealand (Public Version) dated

April 13, 1988).

In 1988, the Ministry of Commerce

(MOC) became the administrator of the

RDIGS, and the name of the program

was changed to the Business

Development Investigation Grant

Scheme (BDIGS). Unlike its predecessor,

the RDSL, under BDIGS, all New

Zealand taxpayers from any region are
11074 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 40 / Wednesday, March 1, 1995 / Notices

eligible to apply for this program. The

criteria for eligible projects under the

program are: (1) The project must be a

lawful activity, and (2) the activity must

be new to the region in that its technical

feasibility and/or commercial viability

has yet to be established in the region.

The BDIGS assists applicants in

assessing the feasibility of a new activity

by providing grants to cover expenses

such as accountant fees, Ministry of

Agriculture and Fisheries (MAF) soil

studies, pilot plant costs, marketing

consultant fees, and travel costs of

visiting a similar operation in another

country. These grants may cover up to

50 percent of the costs related to the

project feasibility studies. We verified

that as of June 1989, there are no

regional distinctions made by this

program or the government with respect

to eligibility for these grants.

Although the lamb meat industry is

not a new or unproven activity in any

region in New Zealand, the introduction

of an advanced technology to the lamb

industry could be funded through this

scheme. At verification, we examined

the use of BDIGS and found that no

producers or exporters of lamb meat

used the program at any time between

early 1991 to June 1994. We found that

the program was available to all sectors

of the economy and all regions within

New Zealand. During the review period,

we verified that this program was used

in a wide variety of different economic

sectors for the development of such

projects as tree surgery products, a

holiday home exchange program, a

plastic bag holder, Mediterranean bread,

and an intelligent radio modem and that

these projects were conducted across all

regions in New Zealand (See

Verification of the Countervailing Duty

Order on Lamb Meat from New Zealand

(Public Version) dated December 13,

1994). Therefore, because this program

is not limited to a specific enterprise or

industry, or group of enterprises or to

companies in specific regions, we find

that it is not countervailable.

(B) Expert Assistance Grant Scheme

(EAGS)

The EAGS is a program established in

1992 by the MOC to assist small

businesses, those with 10 employees or

less, in their efforts to become more

competitive. Under the EAGS program,

grants are provided to small firms in any

industry throughout New Zealand.

Grants are provided to firms that are

hiring ‘‘experts’’ to help improve quality

and provide expertise that is not

available within the firm.

At verification, we examined the

EAGS and found that no producers or

exporters of lamb meat used the

program at any time between early 1991

to June 1994. We found that the program

was available to all sectors of the

economy and all regions within New

Zealand. During the review period, we

verified that this program was used in

a wide variety of different economic

sectors of the economy including

foundries, data systems, and

engineering projects and that companies

using EAGS were located across all

regions of New Zealand (See

Verification of the Countervailing Duty

Order on Lamb Meat from New Zealand

(Public Version) dated December 13,

1994). Therefore, because this program

is not limited to a specific enterprise or

industry, or group of enterprises or to

companies in specific regions, we find

that it is not countervailable.

III. Programs Preliminarily Determined

To Be Terminated

(A) The Export Market Development

Taxation Incentive (EMDTI)

Under the EMDTI, established in the

1979 Amendment to the Income Tax Act

of 1976, exporters have received tax

credits for a certain percentage of their

export market development

expenditures. Qualifying expenditures

included those incurred principally for

seeking and developing new markets,

retaining existing markets and obtaining

market information. An exporter who

took advantage of this tax credit could

not deduct the qualifying expenditures

as ordinary business expenses in

calculating taxable income. Because the

program was contingent upon

exportation, the Department previously

found this program to confer a

countervailable grant or subsidy (See

Lamb Meat From New Zealand;

Preliminary Results of Countervailing

Duty Administrative Review (56 FR

27243; June 13, 1991) and Lamb Meat

From New Zealand; Final Results of

Countervailing Duty Administrative

Review (56 FR 38423; August 13, 1991).

Effective with the government fiscal

year beginning April 1, 1990, the GONZ

eliminated the EMDTI tax credit, and all

formerly eligible expenditures are

subject to the rules for ordinary business

expenses in calculating taxable income.

Because certain corporate fiscal years do

not correspond with the GONZ’s fiscal

year, some residual benefits were still

possible. However, according to the

questionnaire response, no exporters of

the subject merchandise claimed

benefits under this program on their tax

return during the review period.

Moreover, at verification, we saw no

evidence that EMDTI tax credits were

given or that they existed during the

review period. Furthermore, we verified

that there can be no residual benefits

after our review period. Accordingly, we

preliminarily determine that this

program has been terminated and that

there are no residual benefits to lamb

meat producers or exporters.

(B) Export Suspensory Loan Scheme

(ESLS)

The ESLS administered by the

Department of Trade & Industry and the

DFC, was established in the 1973 budget

and modified by Cabinet decision in

1978. The purpose of the program is to

provide loans to assist exporters in

purchasing equipment needed to

expand their production of export

goods. The loans covered up to 40

percent of eligible expenditures and

were converted to grants if predetermined export targets were met. If

the export targets were not met, the

loans could be partially converted to

grants or called in full at the DFC’s longterm interest rates. The ESLS terminated

on March 31, 1985; we have verified

that no new loans under this program

were granted after that date.

The Department has previously found

this program to be countervailable

because benefits under this program are

contingent on export performance and

the program provided loans that: (1)

Could be at rates lower than those

available from commercial sources, and

(2) could be converted to grants (See

Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty

Determination and Countervailing Duty

Order; Lamb Meat from New Zealand

(50 FR 37708, September 17, 1985)).

At verification, we examined this

program and found that there were no

outstanding ESLS loans during the

review period. The final payments on

loans under this program were made

during the 1990–91 New Zealand

Government fiscal year. (See

Verification of the Countervailing Duty

Order on Lamb Meat from New Zealand

(Public Version) dated December 13,

1994.) Furthermore, we saw no evidence

that ESLS loans were used by lamb meat

exporters during the review period.

Accordingly, we preliminarily

determine that this program has been

terminated and that there are no

residual benefits to lamb meat

producers or exporters.

(C) Export Programme Grant Scheme

(EPGS/Export Programme Suspensory

Loan Scheme (EPSLS)

The EPGS was established in the 1979

Budget to encourage marketing research

in targeted foreign markets. The grants,

amounting to 64 percent of budgeted

expenditures, were available for up to

three years. In 1982, the grant program

was converted to the EPSLS, a
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 40 / Wednesday, March 1, 1995 / Notices 11075

suspensory loan program. Loans

covering up to 40 percent of eligible

expenditures were available to

established exporters who increased

their net foreign exchanged earnings

through the marketing of specific goods

or services in a designated foreign

market. If a predetermined sales forecast

was accomplished, the suspensory loan

was converted into a grant; if the

forecast was not met, the exporter

repaid the loan with interest.

During our administrative review

covering the period April 1, 1986,

through March 31, 1987, the Department

verified the EPSLS program and found

that on May 23, 1985, the GONZ

terminated the EPSLS. In addition, the

GONZ announced that its commitments

made under the program prior to that

date would be met. (See Verification

Report Concerning Lamb Meat From

New Zealand (Public Version) dated

April 13, 1988, which has been placed

on the public record of this proceeding.)

No lamb meat exporters were using this

program at the time it was terminated.

(See Verification Report Concerning

Lamb Meat From New Zealand (Public

Version) dated April 13, 1988; Lamb

Meat From New Zealand; Preliminary

Results of Countervailing Duty

Administrative Review, (54 FR 1402;

January 13, 1989) and Lamb Meat From

New Zealand; Final Results of

Countervailing Duty Administrative

Review, (54 FR 19590; May 8, 1989).)

Further, during this review period, we

found no evidence that this program

was used by lamb meat exporters.

Accordingly, we preliminarily

determine that this program has been

terminated and that there are no

residual benefits to lamb meat

producers or exporters.

Preliminary Results of Review

As a result of our review, we

preliminarily determine that total

subsidy to be 0.0013 percent ad valorem

for all firms during the period April 1,

1992, through March 31, 1993. In

accordance with 19 CFR 355.7, any rate

less than 0.50 percent is de minimis and

will be disregarded.

Therefore, as provided for by section

751(a)(1) of the Act, the Department

intends to instruct the Customs Service

to liquidate, upon publication of the

final results of this review in the

Federal Register, without regard to

countervailing duties, all shipments of

the subject merchandise from New

Zealand exported by all companies on

or after April 1, 1992, and on or before

March 31, 1993.

The Department also intends to

instruct the Customs Service not to

collect cash deposits of estimated

countervailing duties on any shipments

of the subject merchandise from New

Zealand entered, or withdrawn from

warehouse, for consumption on or after

the date of publication of the final

results of this administrative review.

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. Pursuant to 19 CFR 355.38(c),

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. 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(e).

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 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)) and 19

CFR 355.22.

Dated: February 22, 1995.

Susan G. Esserman,

Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 95–5056 Filed 2–28–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

Intent To Revoke Countervailing Duty

Orders and Terminate Suspended

Countervailing Duty Investigation

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of intent to revoke

countervailing duty orders.

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce

(the Department) is notifying the public

of its intent to revoke the countervailing

duty orders and terminate the

suspended countervailing duty

investigation listed below. Domestic

interested parties who object to

revocation of any of these orders or to

termination of the suspended

investigation must submit their

comments in writing not later than the

last day of March 1995.

EFFECTIVE DATE: March 1, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Brian Albright or Megan Waters, Office

of Countervailing Compliance, Import

Administration, International Trade

Administration, U.S. Department of

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution

Avenue, NW., Washington, D.C. 20230;

telephone: (202) 482–2786.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

The Department may revoke a

countervailing duty order or terminate a

suspended countervailing duty

investigation if the Secretary of

Commerce concludes that it is no longer

of interest to interested parties.

Accordingly, as required by the

Department’s regulations (at 19 CFR

355.25(d)(4)), we are notifying the

public of our intent to revoke the

countervailing duty orders and to

terminate the suspended countervailing

duty investigation listed below, for

which the Department has not received

a request to conduct an administrative

review for the most recent four

consecutive annual anniversary months.

In accordance with § 355.25(d)(4)(iii)

of the Department’s regulations, if no

domestic interested party (as defined in

§§ 355.2 (i)(3), (i)(4), (i)(5), and (i)(6) of

the regulations) objects to the

Department’s intent to revoke these

orders or terminate this suspended

investigation pursuant to this notice,

and no interested party (as defined in

§ 355.2(i) of the regulations) requests an

administrative review in accordance

with the Department’s notice of

opportunity to request administrative

review, we shall conclude that the

countervailing duty orders and

suspended countervailing duty

investigation are no longer of interest to

interested parties and proceed with the

revocations. However, if an interested

party does request an administrative

review in accordance with the

Department’s notice of opportunity to

request administrative review, or a

domestic interested party does object to

the Department’s intent to revoke or

terminate pursuant to this notice, the

Department will not revoke the order or

terminate the suspended investigation.

Countervailing duty orders

Chile ............ Standard

Carnations.

03/19/87

(C–337–601) 52 FR 8635

Iran .............. Raw Pistachios.03/11/86