Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 88 / Monday, May 6, 1996 / Notices 20411

institutional guarantor, not as a lender

itself, providing guarantees only when

the security offered by the farmer is

inadequate for the total loan amount. A

loan application may be made to the

Fund only after all of the farmer’s own

securities or collateral have been

provided for the loan. If an application

is approved under the Fund, the

guarantee applies only to the portion of

the loan not originally approved by the

bank. This program was originally

found countervailable in the

Netherlands Flowers.

In the 1990 administrative review, we

found that the average long-term annual

interest rates charged on loans under

this Fund were consistent with the

average interest rates charged on longterm bank loans, as reported by De

Nederlandsche Bank. (See 1990

Preliminary and Final Results).

Based on verification of the 1992

review and on our analysis of

information provided in the 1993

review, we again determine that the

average long-term annual interest rates

charged on loans under this Fund were

consistent with the average interest rates

charged on long-term bank loans. On

this basis, we determine that this

program does not provide a

countervailable benefit. Because this

program has not been terminated, we

will continue to review it in subsequent

administrative reviews.

III. Programs Preliminarily Found Not to

be Used

We determine that the producers or

exporters of the subject merchandise did

not apply for or receive countervailable

benefits under these programs during

these review periods:

A. Investment Incentive (WIR)—

Regional Program.

B. Loans at preferential interest rates.

Preliminary Results of Reviews

For the period January 1, 1992,

through December 31, 1992, we

preliminarily determine the total net

subsidy to be 0.43 percent ad valorem.

For the period January 1, 1993 through

December 31, 1993, we preliminarily

determine the net subsidy to be 0.80

percent ad valorem.

If the final results of these reviews

remain the same as these preliminary

results, the Department intends to

instruct the Customs Service to assess

countervailing duties of 0.43 percent of

the f.o.b. invoice price on shipments of

the subject merchandise exported on or

after January 1, 1992, and on or before

December 31, 1992, and 0.80 for all

shipments of the subject merchandise

exported on or after January 1, 1993,

and on or before December 31, 1993.

The Department also intends to

instruct Customs to collect cash

deposits of estimated countervailing

duties, as provided for by section

751(a)(1) of the Act, of 0.80 percent of

the f.o.b. invoice price on all shipments

of the subject merchandise from the

Netherlands entered, or withdrawn from

warehouse, for consumption on or after

the date of publication of the final

results of these administrative reviews.

Parties to the proceeding may request

disclosure of the calculation

methodology and interested parties may

request a hearing not later than 10 days

after the date of publication of this

notice. Interested parties may submit

written arguments in case briefs on

these preliminary results within 30 days

of the date of publication. Rebuttal

briefs, limited to arguments raised in

case briefs, may be submitted 7 days

after the time limit for filing the case

brief. Parties who submit written

arguments in these proceedings are

requested to submit with the argument

(1) a statement of the issue and (2) a

brief summary of the argument. Written

arguments that are intended to comment

on the preliminary results for both the

1992 and 1993 reviews must be

submitted to the file for each

proceeding. Any hearing, if requested,

will be held 7 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, under 19

CFR 355.38(c), are due. The Department

will publish the final results of these

administrative reviews including the

results of its analysis of issues raised in

any case or rebuttal brief or at a hearing.

These administrative reviews and

notice are in accordance with section

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

1675(a)(1)) and 19 CFR 355.22.

Dated: April 29, 1996.

Susan G. Esserman,

Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 96–11242 Filed 5–3–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[C–421–601]

Standard Chrysanthemums From the

Netherlands; 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 standard

chrysanthemums from the Netherlands.

We preliminarily determine the net

subsidy to be de minimis for all exports

of the subject merchandise to the United

States for the period January 1, 1994,

through December 31, 1994. If the final

results of this review remain the same

as these preliminary results, the

Department intends to instruct the U.S.

Customs Service to liquidate, without

regard to countervailing duties, all

shipments of the subject merchandise

from the Netherlands exported on or

after January 1, 1994, and on or before

December 31, 1994. Interested parties

are invited to comment on these

preliminary results.

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 6, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Lorenza Olivas or Richard Herring,

Office of Countervailing Compliance,

Import Administration, International

Trade Administration, U.S. Department

of Commerce, 14th Street and

Constitution Avenue, N.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20230, telephone:

(202) 482–2786.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On March 12, 1987, the Department

published in the Federal Register (52

FR 7646) the countervailing duty order

on standard chrysanthemums from the

Netherlands. On March 7, 1995, the

Department published a notice of

‘‘Opportunity to Request Administrative

Review’’ (60 FR 12540) of this

countervailing duty order. We received

a timely request for review from

petitioner, Floral Trade Council, and we

initiated the review, covering the period

January 1, 1994, through December 31,

1994, on April 14, 1995 (60 FR 19018).

On November 2, 1995, we fully

extended the period for completion of

the preliminary and final results,
20412 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 88 / Monday, May 6, 1996 / Notices

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

Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (see

Extension of the Time Limit for Certain

Countervailing Duty Administrative

Reviews (60 FR 55699). As explained in

the memoranda from the Assistant

Secretary for Import Administration

dated November 22, 1995, and

January11, 1996, all deadlines were

further extended to take into account

the partial shutdowns of the Federal

Government from November 15 through

November 21, 1995, and December 15,

1995, through January 6, 1996.

Therefore, the deadline for these

preliminary results is no later than April

30, 1996, and the deadline for the final

results of this review is no later than

180 days from the date on which these

preliminary results are published. This

review is being conducted on an

aggregate basis. See Preliminary Results

of Review section of this notice.

Applicable Statute and Regulations

Unless otherwise indicated, all

citations to the statute are references to

the provisions of the Tariff Act of 1930,

as amended by the Uruguay Round

Agreements Act (URAA), effective

January 1, 1995 (the Act). The

Department is conducting this

administrative review in accordance

with section 751(a) of the Act.

References to the Countervailing Duties;

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and

Request for Public Comments (54 FR

23366; May 31, 1989) (Proposed

Regulations) are provided solely for

further explanation of the Department’s

countervailing duty practice. Although

the Department has withdrawn the

particular rulemaking proceeding

pursuant to which the Proposed

Regulations were issued, the subject

matter of these regulations is being

considered in connection with an

ongoing rulemaking proceeding which,

among other things, is intended to

conform the Department’s regulations to

the URAA. See 60 FR 80 (January 3,

1995).

Scope of Review

Imports covered by this review are

shipments of Dutch standard

chrysanthemums. Such merchandise is

classifiable under item number

0603.10.70 of the Harmonized Tariff

Schedule (HTS). The HTS item number

is provided for convenience and

Customs purposes. The written

description remains dispositive.

Subsidy Calculations for Assessment

and Cash Deposit Purposes

Because this review is being

conducted on an aggregate basis, we

calculated the net subsidy on a countrywide basis by first calculating the

subsidy rate for each program. We then

summed the subsidy rates from all

programs benefitting exports of the

subject merchandise to the United

States. The rate will be applied to all

exports of the subject merchandise as

discussed in the Preliminary Results of

Review section of this notice.

Analysis of Programs

I. Programs Conferring Subsidies

Programs Previously Determined To

Confer Subsidies

1. Aids for the Creation of Cooperative

Organizations

Under European Community (EC)

Regulation 355/77, the EC has provided

grants to Dutch auction houses, which

are flower grower cooperatives. These

funds were provided by the EC through

the Agricultural Guidance and

Guarantee Fund, with matching grant

contributions from EC member states.

The purpose of the program was to

improve the processing, marketing and

distribution of agricultural products in

member states. This program was

terminated on January 1, 1986, and no

grants were disbursed after 1987.

In the 1986 and 1987 reviews, the

Department determined that this grant

program was countervailable because it

was limited to a specific enterprise or

industry, or group of enterprises or

industries, in the Netherlands. (See

Standard Chrysanthemums From the

Netherlands; Preliminary Results of

Countervailing Duty Administrative

Review (54 FR 43977, 43978; October

30, 1989) and Standard

Chrysanthemums From the

Netherlands; Final Results of

Countervailing Duty Administrative

Review (55 FR 462; January 5, 1990)

(1987 Preliminary and Final Results)).

We have received no new information

or evidence of changed circumstances to

warrant reconsideration of this finding.

Although this program was officially

terminated in 1986, under our grant

methodology, benefits are still accruing

from this program.

To calculate the benefit, we used a

declining balance grant methodology, as

determined in Final Affirmative

Countervailing Duty Determination;

Certain Fresh Cut Flowers From the

Netherlands (52 FR 3301; February 3,

1987) (Netherlands Flowers). We

allocated the benefits from each grant

over 10 years, the average useful life of

renewable physical assets in the

agricultural sector as determined under

the U.S. Internal Revenue Service’s

Asset Depreciation Range System. This

methodology is in accordance with the

Proposed Regulations (51 FR at 23385).

We used the average interest rate for

long-term commercial loans published

by the Netherlands Bank (the Central

Bank) as the discount rate for each year

in which grants were provided. We

divided the sum of these benefits by the

f.o.b. value of total auction sales in the

relevant review period. On this basis,

we preliminarily determine the net

subsidy to be 0.03 percent ad valorem

for the period January 1, 1994, through

December 31, 1994.

2. Glasshouse Enterprises Program

Under the Glasshouse Enterprises

Program, the Ministry of Agriculture,

Nature Management and Fisheries

(MAF) provided grants to greenhouse

growers to stimulate private investment

in energy saving methods in the

horticulture industry. This program was

terminated in June 1985. However,

grants approved prior to the termination

were disbursed through 1987.

Because this program was available

only to greenhouse growers, we

previously determined that this program

was limited to a specific enterprise or

industry, or group of enterprises or

industries, and provided a

countervailable domestic subsidy. (See

1987 Preliminary and Final Results). We

have received no new information or

evidence of changed circumstances to

warrant reconsideration of this finding.

Although this program officially was

terminated in 1985, under our grant

methodology, benefits are still accruing

from this program.

To calculate the benefit from this

program, we used the grant

methodology described in section 1.

above. We divided the total benefits

from these grants by the value of total

greenhouse sales in the relevant review

period. On this basis, we preliminarily

determine the net subsidy to be 0.05

percent ad valorem for the period

January 1, 1994, through December 31,

1994.

3. Aids for the Reduction of Glass

Surface

Under the Aids for the Reduction of

Glass Surface program, the MAF

provided grants to greenhouse growers

for the purpose of increasing the energy

efficiency of greenhouses by replacing

existing glass with modern energysaving glass. The program was

terminated in November 1984. However,

grants approved prior to the termination

of the program were disbursed through

1987.

We previously determined that this

program was countervailable because it

was limited to a specific enterprise or

industry, or group of enterprises or
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 88 / Monday, May 6, 1996 / Notices 20413

industries. (See 1987 Preliminary and

Final Results). We have received no new

information or evidence of changed

circumstances to warrant

reconsideration of this finding.

Although this program was officially

terminated in 1984, under our grant

methodology, benefits are still accruing

under this program.

To calculate the benefit from this

program, we used the grant

methodology described in section 1.

above. We divided the total benefits

from these grants by the value of total

greenhouse sales in the relevant review

period. On this basis, we preliminarily

determine the net subsidy to be less

than 0.005 percent ad valorem for the

period January 1, 1994, through

December 31, 1994.

4. Steam Drainage Systems

In January 1981, the Government of

the Netherlands (GON) banned the use

of methylbromide as a means of soil

disinfection due to the potential health

hazards caused by the chemical. In

December of that year, the MAF

established a program making available

cash grants to encourage the use of

steam drainage as an alternative method

of soil disinfection for greenhouses. The

program was terminated in September

1984. However, some grants were

disbursed through 1987.

In the 1990 administrative review of

this case, we determined that this

program was countervailable because it

was limited to a specific enterprise or

industry, or group of enterprises or

industries. See Standard

Chrysanthemums From the

Netherlands; Preliminary Results of

Countervailing Duty Administrative

Review (57 FR 9539; March 19, 1992)

and Standard Chrysanthemums From

the Netherlands; Final Results of

Countervailing Duty Administrative

Review (57 FR 24249; June 8, 1992)

(1990 Preliminary and Final Results).

We have received no new information

or evidence of changed circumstances to

warrant reconsideration of this finding.

Although this program was officially

terminated in 1984, under our grant

methodology, benefits are still accruing

under this program.

To calculate the benefit from this

program, we used the grant

methodology described in section 1.

above. We divided the benefits from

these grants by the value of total

greenhouse sales in the relevant review

period. On this basis, we preliminarily

determine the net subsidy to be less

than 0.005 percent ad valorem for the

period January 1, 1994, through

December 31, 1994.

5. Stimulation for the Innovation of

Electric Energy (SES)

The SES program was implemented in

1988 to stimulate energy conservation.

Under the administration of the

Ministry of Economic Affairs (MEA), the

program is designed to encourage the

installation of cogeneration equipment

by providing payments of up to 25

percent of the equipment cost, with a

cap of 20 million guilders per project.

Cogeneration equipment reduces energy

consumption by up to 30 percent.

The Department preliminarily

determined that this program is

countervailable in Standard

Chrysanthemums From the

Netherlands; Preliminary Results of

Administrative Review for the 1992 and

1993 periods (1992/93 Preliminary

Results), being simultaneously

published with this notice, because

horticulture received a disproportionate

share of benefits under this program.

Our policy with respect to grants is (1)

to expense recurring grants in the year

of receipt and (2) to allocate nonrecurring grants over the average useful

life of assets in the industry, unless the

sum of grants provided under a

particular program is less than 0.50

percent of a firm’s total or export sales

(depending on whether the program is

a domestic or export subsidy) in the

year in which the grants were received.

See section 355.49(a) of the Proposed

Regulations and the General Issues

Appendix, at 37226, which is attached

to Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty

Determination: Certain Steel Products

from Austria (58 FR 37217; July 9, 1993)

(General Issues Appendix).

In the 1992 review, we determined

that SES grants were nonrecurring. For

the 1992 administrative review, we

found that the amount of grants received

under this program was not less than

0.50 percent of greenhouse sales.

Following our grant methodology, we

allocated the grants over the average

useful life of assets in the industry. See

1992/93 Preliminary Results. As a

result, residual benefits from the

program are allocable to 1994.

Greenhouse growers also received SES

grants in 1994. We determine that the

total amount of SES grants received was

less than 0.50 percent of greenhouse

sales in 1994. Therefore, following our

grant methodology, the total value of all

grants provided under this program in

1994 has been allocated to that year.

To calculate the benefit for 1994, we

added the benefit from the 1992 grants

that were allocable to 1994 and the total

value of grants provided in 1994. We

then divided the results by the value of

greenhouse sales in 1994. On this basis,

we preliminarily determine the net

subsidy to be 0.35 percent ad valorem

for the period January 1, 1994, through

December 31, 1994.

II. Programs Preliminarily Determined

Not to Confer Subsidies

Guarantee Fund for Agriculture

The Stichting Borgstellingsfonds voor

de Landbouw (Foundation Security

Fund for Agriculture, or ‘‘Fund’’) is

used to guarantee the servicing and

repayment of loans made by banks to

farmers. The Fund acts as an

institutional guarantor, not as a lender

itself, providing guarantees only when

the security offered by the farmer is

inadequate for the total loan amount. A

loan application may be made to the

Fund only after all of the farmer’s own

securities or collateral have been

provided for the loan. If an application

is approved under the Fund, the

guarantee applies only to the portion of

the loan not originally approved by the

bank. This program was originally

found countervailable in Netherlands

Flowers because it was administered in

such a way as to confer a benefit on a

specific group of industries (i.e.,

horticulture).

In reviews subsequent to Netherlands

Flowers, we found that the average longterm annual interest rates charged on

loans under this Fund were consistent

with the average interest rates charged

on long-term bank loans, as reported by

De Nederlandsche Bank. See 1990

Preliminary and Final Results and 1992/

93 Preliminary Results.

Based on our analysis of information

provided in the 1994 review, we again

determine that the average long-term

annual interest rates charged on loans

under this Fund were consistent with

the average interest rates charged on

long-term bank loans. On this basis, we

determine that this program does not

provide a countervailable benefit.

Because this program has not been

terminated, we will continue to review

it in subsequent administrative reviews

to determine whether the interest rates

on these loans are consistent with the

interest rates on comparable commercial

loans.

III. Programs Preliminarily Found Not to

be Countervailable

We examined the following programs

during the 1992 review (See 1992/93

Preliminary Results) and determined

these programs not to be

countervailable:

A. Arrangement for Stimulation of

Innovation Projects

B. Arrangement for Structural

Improvement and the Complementary
20414 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 88 / Monday, May 6, 1996 / Notices

Scheme for Investment in Agricultural

Holdings

C. Natural Gas Provided at Preferential

Rates

D. Income Tax Deduction

E. Value-Added Tax (VAT) Reduction of

6 Percent for Natural Gas Users and

Partial Restitution of VAT for Mineral

Oils, Fuels, Bulk or Bottled Gas.

IV. Programs Preliminarily Determined

To Be Not Used

We 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 period of review:

A. Investment Incentive (WIR)—

Regional Program

B. Loans at preferential interest rates.

Preliminary Results of Review

For the period January 1, 1994,

through December 31, 1994, we

preliminarily determine the net

subsidies to be 0.43 percent ad valorem.

In accordance with the Act, any rate less

than 0.5 percent ad valorem in an

administrative review is de minimis.

The URAA replaced the general rule

in favor of a country-wide rate with a

general rule in favor of individual rates

for investigated and reviewed

companies. The procedures for

countervailing duty cases are now

essentially the same as those in

antidumping cases, except as provided

for in section 777A(e)(2)(B) of the Act.

In the original investigation of this

order, it was determined that there were

over 8,000 flower growers in the

Netherlands. Therefore, we requested

that the GON provide information on an

aggregate basis. See Netherlands

Flowers. Consistent with the decision

made in the investigation,

administrative reviews of this order

have been conducted on an aggregate

basis. In accordance with section

777A(e)(2)(B) of the Act, we have also

conducted this administrative review on

an aggregate basis because of the large

number of producers and exporters, and

on the basis of the aggregate information

submitted by the GON, we have

determined a single country-wide

subsidy rate to be applied to all

producers and exporters of the subject

merchandise.

If the final results of this review

remain the same as these preliminary

results, the Department intends to

instruct the U.S. Customs Service to

liquidate, without regard to

countervailing duties, all shipments of

the subject merchandise from the

Netherlands exported on or after

January 1, 1994, and on or before

December 31, 1994. Because we

preliminarily determine that all net

subsidies are de minimis for the period

January 1, 1994, through December 31,

1994, no cash deposit will be required.

Public Comment

Parties to the proceeding may request

disclosure of the calculation

methodology and interested parties may

request a hearing not later than 10 days

after the date of publication of this

notice. Interested parties may submit

written arguments in case briefs on

these preliminary results within 30 days

of the date of publication. Rebuttal

briefs, limited to arguments raised in

case briefs, may be submitted seven

days after the time limit for filing the

case briefs. Parties who submit written

arguments in these proceedings 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 ordinarily be

held seven days after the scheduled date

for submission of rebuttal briefs. Copies

of case briefs and rebuttal briefs must be

served on interested parties in

accordance with 19 CFR 355.38.

Representatives of parties to the

proceeding may request disclosure of

proprietary information under

administrative protective order no later

than 10 days after the representative’s

client or employer becomes a party to

the proceeding, but in no event later

than the date the case briefs, under 19

CFR 355.38, are due. The Department

will publish the final results of this

administrative review, including the

results of its analysis of issues raised in

any case or rebuttal brief or at a hearing.

This administrative review and notice

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

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

Dated: April 30, 1996.

Susan G. Esserman,

Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 96–11243 Filed 5–3–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P