natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Den pågældende lovgivning tillader finansiering af demonstrationsprojekter vedrørende integrerede bioraffinaderier med henblik på at demonstrere kommerciel anvendelse af integrerede bioraffinaderier med fokus på lignocelluloseholdige råvarer, kommerciel anvendelse af biomasseteknologi til en vifte af anvendelsesformål, herunder flydende transportbrændstoffer, biobaserede kemikalier af høj værdi, erstatninger for mineraloliebaserede råvarer og produkter og energi i form af el eller nyttevarme, samt indsamling og behandling af forskellige biomasseråvarer.
The relevant legislation authorises the funding of 'Integrated Biorefinery Demonstration Projects' to demonstrate: the commercial application of integrated biorefineries with a focus on lignocellulosic feedstock; the commercial application of biomass technologies for a variety of uses, including liquid transportations fuels, high-value bio-based chemicals, substitutes for petroleum-based feedstock and products, and energy in the form of electricity or useful heat; and the collection and treatment of a variety of biomass feedstock.
Energy Policy Act of 2005, sections 931-932, er retsgrundlaget for energiministeriets tilskud til bioraffinaderiprojekter.
Energy Policy Act of 2005, sections 931-932 is the legal basis for the Department of Energy Biorefinery Project Grants.
Hvert projekt skal være specifikt støtteberettiget i henhold til meddelelsen om finansieringsvinduet (funding opportunity announcement – FOA), som de relevante myndigheder under energiministeriet bekendtgør.
Eligibility is specific to the funding opportunity announcement (FOA) for each project published by the relevant authorities of the Department of Energy.
Med hensyn til FOA'er, der er relevante for bioethanol, skal modtagerne anvende celluloseholdig biomasse og producere et biobrændstof. Den enkelte støtteberettigede biomasse og det eller de enkelte støtteberettigede biobrændstoffer er detaljeret beskrevet i den enkelte FOA.
Regarding FOAs relevant to bioethanol, recipients must use cellulosic biomass and produce a biofuel; the particular eligible biomass and biofuel(s) are delineated in each FOA.
Ordningen forvaltes gennem en række årlige forslagsindkaldelser eller FOA'er, hvorefter de afsatte midler uddeles.
The scheme is administered through a series of annual competitive solicitations or FOAs that distribute appropriated funds.
Indkaldelserne er åbne for støtteberettigede ansøgere fra erhvervslivet, den akademiske verden og nationale laboratorier.
The competitive solicitations are open to eligible applicants from industry, academia and national laboratories.
Støtteberettigede ansøgere indsender forslag, som gennemgås og holdes op imod kriterierne i FOA'en.
Eligible applicants submit proposals that are reviewed against the criteria set out in the FOA.
Når tilskuddet er bevilget, overvåger de relevante myndigheder under energiministeriet modtagerens resultater og holder dem op mod bevillingens rammer, tidsplan og omkostninger i hele tilskudsperioden.
Once an award has been granted, the relevant authorities of the Department of Energy monitor the performance of the recipient against the scope, schedule and cost through the life of the award.
Omkostninger, der påløber hos modtageren under udførelsen af projektet, refunderes efterfølgende.
Payment for costs incurred by the recipient in performance of the project is made on a reimbursement basis.
Dette program rummer ingen aftaler om finansiel bistand til støtte for udvikling af teknologier til udvinding af bioethanol fra majs.
No financial assistance agreements under this program support the development of corn bioethanol process technologies.
Bistanden er alene rettet mod celluloseholdige avancerede biobrændstoffer.
The assistance is solely focused on cellulosic advanced biofuels.
Modtagerne skal anvende celluloseholdig biomasse og producere et biobrændstof. Den enkelte støtteberettigede biomasse og det eller de enkelte støtteberettigede biobrændstoffer er detaljeret beskrevet i den enkelte FOA.
Recipients must use cellulosic biomass and produce a biofuel; the particular eligible biomass and biofuel(s) are delineated in each FOA.
I UP modtog fem store bioethanolprojekter støtte under denne ordning.
During the IP there were five large scale bioethanol projects funded under this scheme.
En af virksomhederne i stikprøven modtog støtte fra ordningen i UP.
One of the companies in the sample received benefits from this scheme during the IP.
Denne ordning betragtes som et subsidie i den betydning, der er anvendt i grundforordningens artikel 3, stk. 1, litra a), nr. i), da ordningen indebærer, at USA's regering giver et finansielt bidrag i form af direkte tilskud.
This scheme is considered to be a subsidy in the sense of Article 3(1)(a)(i) of the basic Regulation as the scheme provides a financial contribution by the Government of the USA in the form of grants.
Det blev imidlertid fastslået i undersøgelsen, at der ikke blev solgt kommerciel celluloseholdig bioethanol på markedet i UP.
However, the investigation established that during the IP there was no commercial cellulosic bioethanol sold on the market.
I lyset af de særlige omstændigheder i dette tilfælde, dvs. det forhold, at ordningen er rettet mod f.eks. celluloseholdige biobrændstoffer, og manglen på kommerciel produktion af celluloseholdig bioethanol, vurderes det, at der ikke blev ydet støtte i henhold til ordningen i UP til kommercielle producenter af bioethanol i USA, og at ordningen derfor ikke havde nogen indvirkning på eksporten af bioethanol til EU i UP.
In view of the particular circumstances in the present case, i.e. the fact that the scheme focuses for example on cellulosic biofuels, and the lack of commercial cellulosic bioethanol production, it is considered that during the IP this scheme did not confer any benefit on commercial producers of bioethanol in the USA and consequently did not have any impact on exports of bioethanol to the EU during the IP.
Det bemærkes også, at subsidiebeløbet, der blev udbetalt i henhold til ordningen, var ubetydeligt set i forhold til den omsætning, som virksomhederne i stikprøven havde på den pågældende vare.
It is also noted that in relation to the turnover of the product concerned by the sampled companies, the amount of subsidies provided under this scheme was insignificant.
Konklusion vedrørende de føderale ordninger
Conclusion on Federal Schemes
Det blev fastslået, at den amerikanske regering i UP ydede en fritagelse på 0,45 USD pr. gallon ethanol, der anvendes til at producere en alkoholholdig brændstofblanding.
It was established that during the IP the US Government provided a credit of 0,45 USD for each gallon of ethanol used in producing alcohol fuel mixture.
Det betyder, at producenter af bioethanolblandinger fik nedsat deres afgiftssats på salgstidspunktet eller modtog en direkte betaling til udligning af en del af deres normale afgiftspligt på benzin.
This means that bioethanol blenders benefited from a reduced tax rate at the time of sale or received a direct payment, which offset their normal liability for a part of the excise duty on gasoline fuel.
Afgiftsfritagelsen for brændstofblandinger blev kun i mindre grad brugt til udligning af indkomstskattepligt.
Only to a lesser extent the mixture tax credit was used to offset income tax liability.
Dette er et finansielt bidrag i form af betalbare statsindtægter, som imidlertid ikke opkræves, hvilket giver modtageren en fordel i form af en nedsat afgifts- eller skattepligt.
This is a financial contribution, in the form of Government revenue foregone, which confers a benefit to the recipients in the form of a reduced tax liability.
Ordningen er begrænset til virksomheder, som er involveret i bioethanolindustrien, dvs. blanding af bioethanol, og er derfor udligningsberettiget.
The scheme is limited to companies that are involved in the bioethanol industry, i.e. the blending of bioethanol, and is therefore countervailable.
Ved undersøgelsen blev det dog fastslået, at den primære subsidieordning, afgiftsfritagelsen for bioethanolblandinger, udløb med udgangen af 2011 og ikke er blevet genindført.
The investigation established, however, that the main subsidy scheme, the bioethanol mixture tax credit, expired in the end of 2011 and has not been reintroduced.
Efter fremlæggelse af de vigtigste kendsgerninger og betragtninger, på grundlag af hvilke Kommissionen besluttede at fortsætte undersøgelsen uden indførelse af midlertidige foranstaltninger, hævdede en part, at forskellige afgiftsformer stadig gjorde det muligt for modtagere at gøre krav på dette subsidie efter den 31. december 2011.
Following the disclosure of the essential facts and considerations on the basis of which the Commission has decided to continue the investigation without the imposition of provisional measures, one party claimed that various tax forms allow recipients to still claim this subsidy later than 31 December 2011.
Som svar på denne påstand skal det bemærkes, at ifølge undersøgelsen anmodede blandingsproducenter hovedsagelig om afgiftsfritagelse for bioethanolblandinger som en punktafgiftsfritagelse på det tidspunkt, hvor bioethanol blandes med benzin, for at reducere ansøgerens punktafgifter.
In reply to this claim it is noted that the investigation showed that the bioethanol mixture tax credit was predominantly claimed as an excise tax credit by a blender at the time of the blending of bioethanol with gasoline in order to reduce the excise tax liability of the claimant.
Afgiftsfritagelsen for bioethanolblandinger blev kun i begrænset omfang brugt til udligning af ansøgerens indkomstskat.
Only to a limited extent the bioethanol mixture tax credit would be used to offset the income tax liability of the claimant.
Der går naturligvis en vis tid fra blandingstidspunktet til det tidspunkt, hvor udligningen udbetales til ansøgeren.
It goes without saying that there is a certain time span between the time of blending and the time when the credit is paid to the claimant.
Afgiftsfritagelsen for blandinger indrømmet i UP vedrører også blandinger foretaget før UP.
The amount of mixture tax credits provided during the IP also relates to blending taking place before the IP.
Medmindre ordningen genindføres med tilbagevirkende kraft, vil eventuelle krav om afgiftsfritagelse for blandinger på det tidspunkt, hvor det skal afgøres, hvorvidt der skal træffes endelige foranstaltninger i 2012, således være af ubetydeligt omfang.
Consequently, unless the scheme is retroactively reinstated, at the time of the decision whether or not to impose definitive measures in 2012, any claims for the mixture tax credit would be insignificant.
Derfor er der ikke belæg for, at subsidieringen fortsatte.
Therefore, there are no elements to say that the subsidy continued.
Den samme part hævdede med henvisning til bestemmelserne i artikel 15, stk. 1, fjerde afsnit, at subsidier helt klart ikke bør anses for at være "trukket tilbage", før den forsvarende part har fremlagt overbevisende dokumentation for, at der ikke længere kunne foretages udbetalinger i henhold til subsidieordninger til fordel for producenter/eksportører af den pågældende vare.
The same party argued that it is clear from the provisions of Article 15(1), fourth subparagraph, that a subsidy should not be considered as "withdrawn" until the defending party has brought convincing evidence that no payments, under any subsidy scheme benefitting producers/exporters of the product concerned, could still be made.
Det bør dog bemærkes, at afgiftsfritagelsen for bioethanolblandinger var den eneste subsidieordning, som kunne have ført til eventuelt udligningsberettigede subsidier i UP, og denne ordning er udløbet.
It should be noted, however, that the bioethanol mixture tax credit was the only subsidy scheme which provided potentially countervailable subsidies during the IP and this scheme has expired.
De øvrige undersøgte ordninger, som indebar direkte fordele for bioethanolindustrien, var ubetydelige.
The other investigated schemes which provided benefits directly to the bioethanol industry were insignificant.
Den pågældende part hævdede også, at indkomstskattefritagelsen for producenter af celluloseholdig bioethanol, som er beskrevet i betragtning 79-85, er beregnet til at erstatte ordningen med afgiftsfritagelse for blandinger med henblik på at subsidiere den pågældende vare.
The party has also claimed that the income tax credit for producers of cellulosic bioethanol, which is described in recitals (79) to (85) above, is a scheme designed to replace the mixture tax credit scheme as a means of subsidising the product concerned.
Som svar på denne påstand skal det bemærkes, at selv om støtten til førstegenerationsbioethanol stort set er udfaset, er antallet af ordninger for andengenerationsbiobrændstoffer steget.
In reply to this claim it is noted that, while support for first generation bioethanol has been mostly phased out, schemes for second generation biofuels has increased.
Men produktionen af andengenerationsbiobrændstoffer er ubetydelig, og subsidierne er på indeværende tidspunkt meget begrænsede.
However, the production of second generation biofuels is not significant and therefore granted subsidies are at this stage very limited.
Det bør præciseres, at indkomstskattefritagelse for producenter af celluloseholdig bioethanol ikke er en erstatning for ordningen med afgiftsfritagelse for blandinger af den gode grund, at ordningen allerede eksisterer.
It should be clarified that the income tax credit for producers of cellulosic bioethanol is not a replacement scheme for the mixture tax credit scheme for the simple reason that it is already in existence.
Endvidere er indkomstskattefritagelse for producenter af celluloseholdig bioethanol, som navnet antyder, et incitament til producenter af celluloseholdig bioethanol.
Moreover, income tax credit for producers of cellulosic bioethanol is, as the name of scheme suggest, an incentive to producers of cellulosic bioethanol.
Afgiftsfritagelsen for blandinger er et incitament til blandingsproducenter.
The mixture tax credit provides an incentive to blenders.
Undersøgelsen viste, at ansøgere om afgiftsfritagelse for blandinger i de fleste tilfælde var punktafgiftspligtige blandingsproducenter/forhandlere, f.eks. en petrokemisk virksomhed.
The investigation showed that in the majority of cases the one claiming the mixture tax credit was a blender/trader with excise tax liability such as a petrochemical company.
Det var med andre ord ikke bioethanolproducenterne, som ansøgte om hovedparten af afgiftsfritagelsen for blandinger i UP.
In other words, it was not bioethanol producers who claimed the bulk of the mixture tax credit during the IP.
Derfor kan det ikke hævdes, at indkomstskattefritagelsen for producenter af celluloseholdig bioethanol erstatter afgiftsfritagelsen for blandinger.
Therefore, it cannot be argued that the income tax credit for producers of cellulosic bioethanol replaces the mixture tax credit.
Derfor afvises denne påstand.
Consequently, this claim is rejected.
Endelig hævdede den pågældende part, at fordelene fortsat kan udløses efter afslutningen på afgiftsfritagelsen for blandinger på grund af fortsat brug af faste aktiver finansieret over subsidiet.
Finally, the party has claimed that the benefits can still be conferred after the end of the mixture tax credit scheme due to the continued utilization of fixed assets paid by the subsidy.
Det blev fremført, at der i tilfælde af tilbagevendende subsidier i forbindelse med erhvervelse af faste aktiver ved beregningen af fordelen burde tages højde for fordelene fra tidligere år i afskrivningsperioden.
It was argued that in case of recurring subsidies linked to the acquisition of fixed assets, benefits accruing from previous years within the depreciation period should be taken into account when calculating the benefit.
For det første skal det bemærkes, at subsidiet ikke er forbundet med erhvervelse af faste aktiver.
First of all it is noted that the subsidy is not linked to the acquisition of fixed assets.
Afgiftsfritagelsen for blandinger er et tilbagevendende subsidie sådan at forstå, at den er periodisk, og fordelene formodes at blive optjent i det år, de opnås.
The mixture tax credit is a recurring subsidy in the sense that it is periodic and the benefits are presumed to accrue in the year in which they are granted.
Endvidere var ansøgerne i UP som nævnt ovenfor kun i meget begrænset omfang bioethanolproducenter.
Moreover, as mentioned above, during the IP, the claimants were only to a very little extent bioethanol producers.
Derfor afvises denne påstand.
Therefore, this claim is rejected.
Andre føderale ordninger
Other Federal Schemes
Ved undersøgelsen blev det fastslået, at det amerikanske landbrugsministeriums bioenergiprogram udløb i 2006 og ikke blev genindført.
The investigation established that the US Department of Agriculture's Bioenergy Program expired in 2006 and was not re-introduced.
Hvad angår det amerikanske landbrugsministeriums bioenergiprogram for avancerede brændstoffer, bistandsprogram for bioraffinaderier, bistandsprogram for biomasseafgrøder og energiprogram for amerikanske landdistrikter og energiministeriets tilskudsprogram til bioraffinaderiprojekter, viste undersøgelsen, at subsidiebeløbet, der blev ydet i henhold til disse seks ordninger til produktion af bioethanol i UP, var ubetydeligt.
As regards the USDA Bioenergy for Advanced Biofuels, the USDA Biorefinery Assistance Program, the USDA Biomass Crop Assistance Program, the USDA Rural Energy for America Program and the Department of Energy Biorefinery Project Grants, the investigation showed that to the extent these six schemes provided benefits to production of bioethanol during the IP, the amount of subsidies was insignificant.
Undersøgelsen viste, at tre statslige ordninger, dvs. E85 Infrastructure Grants, som drives af staten Illinois, Biofuels Infrastructure Grants drevet af staten Iowa og E85 Fuelling Infrastructure Grants drevet af staten Minnesota, ikke gælder bioethanolproducenter.
The investigation showed that three State schemes, i.e. the E85 Infrastructure Grants run by the State of Illinois, the Biofuels Infrastructure grants run by the State of Iowa and the E85 Fuelling Infrastructure Grans run by the State of Minnesota are not applicable to bioethanol producers.
Disse ordninger giver detailforhandlere af brændstoffer støtte til installering af brændstofpumper, som kan levere brændstof med højt indhold af bioethanol, og er begrænset til detailforhandlere af bioethanol.
These schemes provide fuel retail establishments with support for the installation of fuel pumps capable of delivering high-ethanol content fuel and are limited to bioethanol retailers.
Derfor modtager bioethanolproducenter ingen støtte fra disse ordninger.
Consequently, bioethanol producers receive no benefits from these schemes.
Det bemærkes i den forbindelse, at virksomhederne i stikprøven hverken modtog direkte eller indirekte støtte fra disse ordninger.
In this regard, it is noted that none of the companies in the sample received benefits from these schemes directly or indirectly.
Desuden blev det klarlagt af de amerikanske myndigheder, at staten Minnesota ikke har en ordning for skatte- og afgiftsfritagelse i forbindelse med investeringer i celluloseholdig ethanol, sådan som en klager har angivet.
Moreover, it was clarified by the US authorities that the State of Minnesota does not have a Cellulosic Ethanol Investments Tax Credit scheme as claimed by the complainant.
Det blev klarlagt, at staten Minnesota primo 2010 indførte en lov om skatte- og afgiftsfritagelse i forbindelse med investeringer i små virksomheder, "Small Business Investment Tax Credit", som oftest omtalt som "Angel Investment Tax Credit".
It was clarified that the State of Minnesota enacted a law in early 2010 called the 'Small Business Investment Tax Credit' commonly referred to as the 'Angel Investment Tax Credit'.
I modsætning til hvad klageren hævder, ydes der i henhold til Angel Investment Tax Credit ikke skatte- og afgiftsfritagelse til virksomheder, men til investorer, som investerer i små virksomheder.
Contrary to what is alleged in the complaint, the Angel Investment Tax Credit provides no tax credits to businesses, but rather to investors who invest in small businesses.
I henhold til de amerikanske myndigheder var denne tilskudsordning ikke i funktion i UP, har ikke modtaget bevillinger siden juli 2007 og har været ude af funktion siden 2008, da midlerne var opbrugt.
According to the authorities of the USA, this scheme was not in operation during the IP, has not received funding since July 2007 and has been inoperative since 2008 when funds were exhausted.
Da ordningen fungerede, ydede den tilskud til opførelse af nye anlæg til produktion af fornyeligt brændstof eller udvidelse af eksisterende anlæg.
When operative, the scheme authorised grants for the construction of new renewable fuel production facilities or the expansion of existing facilities.
Der blev ydet to tilskud i 2008, da ordningen stadig fungerede, og to virksomheder uden for stikprøven, beliggende i Illinois, fik hver et tilskud.
Two grants were granted in 2008 when the scheme was still in operation, and two companies outside the sample located in Illinois each received a grant.
Imidlertid er ordningen ikke længere i kraft, og ingen af virksomhederne i stikprøven modtog fordele i henhold til ordningen i UP.
However, this scheme is no longer in operation and none of the sampled companies availed of benefits under this scheme during the IP.
Section 476.46 i Code of Iowa 1997 som ændret er retsgrundlaget for låneprogrammet AERLP (Alternate Energy Revolving Loan Program).
The Alternate Energy Revolving Loan Program (AERLP) is authorized by section 476.46 Code of Iowa 1997 as amended.
Ifølge denne lov skal Iowas energicenter etablere og forvalte et program for revolverende lån til alternativ energi og oprette en fond til samme formål hos delstatens finansminister, som skal forvaltes af energicentret.
This code states that the Iowa Energy Center shall establish and administer an alternate energy revolving loan program and creates an alternative energy revolving loan fund in the office of the Treasurer of State to be administered by the Energy Center.
Midlerne i AERLP-fonden kan bruges til at yde lån til opførelse af produktionsanlæg til alternative energiformer eller små vandkraftanlæg som defineret i section 476.46 Code of Iowa 1997, som ændret.
Money in the AERLP fund may be used to provide loans for the construction of alternate energy production facilities or small hydro facilities as defined in section 476.46 Code of Iowa 1997, as amended.
Ifølge de amerikanske myndigheder var der ingen bioethanolproduktionsanlæg, der modtog lån i henhold til AERLP i årene 2008, 2009, 2010 og i UP.
According to the authorities of the United States, no bioethanol production facilities received loans pursuant to the AERLP for the years 2008, 2009, 2010 and the IP.
Ingen af virksomhederne i stikprøven fik støtte i henhold til denne ordning.
None of the sampled companies received benefits under this scheme.
Derfor blev det besluttet, at ordningen ikke skulle undersøges yderligere i forbindelse med denne procedure.
Consequently, it was decided not to further investigate this scheme in the context of this proceeding.
Nebraskas aktuelle statslige afgiftssats for motorbrændstoffer er 0,267 USD pr. gallon for al benzin, gasohol, dieselbrændstof, bioethanol og komprimerede gasser solgt i denne delstat.
The current Nebraska State motor fuels tax rate is 0,267 USD per gallon for all gasoline, gasohol, diesel fuel, bioethanol and compressed gases sold in the State.
Den fordelsordning vedrørende ethanolproduktion, der gjaldt i UP, giver en afgiftsfritagelse på 0,18 USD pr. gallon til støtteberettigede ethanolproduktionsanlæg, der var i drift senest den 30. juni 2004.
The Ethanol Production Incentive scheme in effect during the IP provides a 0,18 USD per gallon tax credit to qualifying ethanol production facilities in operation on or before 30 June 2004.
Denne ordning kom ikke nogen af virksomhederne i stikprøven til gode.
This scheme did not benefit any of the companies in the sample.