[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 195 (Monday, October 7, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 52426-52435]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-25649]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
[C-122-404]


Live Swine From Canada; Preliminary Results of Countervailing 
Duty Administrative Review

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of preliminary results of countervailing duty 
administrative review.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (``the Department'') is conducting 
an administrative review of the countervailing duty order on live swine 
from Canada. For information on the net subsidy for all producers 
covered by this order, see the Preliminary Results of Review section of 
this notice. If the final results remain the same as these preliminary 
results of administrative review, we will instruct the U.S. Customs 
Service to assess countervailing duties as detailed in the Preliminary 
Results of Review section of this notice. Interested parties are 
invited to comment on these preliminary results.

EFFECTIVE DATE: October 7, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stephanie Moore, Cameron Cardozo, 
Brian Albright or Norma Curtis, Office of Countervailing Duty/
Antidumping Enforcement VI, Import Administration, International Trade 
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-
2849 or (202) 482-2786.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On August 15, 1985, the Department published in the Federal 
Register (50 FR 32880) the countervailing duty order on live swine from 
Canada. On August 1, 1995, the Department published a notice of 
``Opportunity to Request Administrative Review'' (60 FR 39150) of this 
countervailing duty order. We received timely requests for review and 
we initiated the review, covering the period April 1, 1994 through 
March 31, 1995, on September 15, 1995 (60 FR 47930).
    As explained in the notice of initiation, the Department has 
determined that it is not practicable to conduct a company-specific 
review of this order because a large number of producers and exporters 
requested the review. Therefore, pursuant to section 777(e)(2)(B) of 
the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), we are conducting a 
review of all producers and exporters of subject merchandise covered by 
this order on the basis of aggregate data. This review covers 33 
programs.
    On May 1, 1996, we extended the period for completion of the 
preliminary and final results pursuant to section 751(a)(3) of the Act 
(see Live Swine from Canada; Extension of Time Limit for Countervailing 
Duty Administrative Review, 61 FR 19261). As explained in the memoranda 
from the Assistant Secretary for Import Administration to the File, 
dated November 22, 1995, and January 11, 1996 (on file in the Central 
Records Unit (CRU), Room B-099 of the Main Commerce Building), 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 September 
27, 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 in the Federal Register.

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 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) (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 1989 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 Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Request for 
Public Comments, 60 FR 80 (January 3, 1995); Antidumping Duties; 
Countervailing Duties: Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Request for 
Public Comments, 61 FR 7308 (February 27, 1996).

Scope of the Review

    On August 29, 1996, the Final Results of Changed Circumstances 
Countervailing Duty Administrative Review, and Partial Revocation were 
published (61 FR 45402), in which we revoked the order, in part, 
effective

[[Page 52427]]

April 1, 1991, with respect to slaughter sows and boars and weanlings 
(weanlings are swine weighing up to 27 kilograms or 59.5 pounds) from 
Canada, because this portion of the order was no longer of interest to 
domestic interested parties. As a result, the merchandise now covered 
by this order is live swine, except U.S. Department of Agriculture-
certified purebred breeding swine, slaughter sows and boars, and 
weanlings, as defined above, from Canada. The merchandise subject to 
the order is classifiable under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS) 
item numbers 0103.91.00 and 0103.92.00. The HTS item numbers are 
provided for convenience and Customs purposes. The written description 
remains dispositive.

Verification

    As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, we verified information 
submitted in the questionnaire responses. We followed standard 
verification procedures, including meeting with government officials 
and examination of relevant accounting and financial records and other 
original source documents. Our verification results are outlined in the 
public version of the Verification Report, which is on file in the CRU.

Allocation Methodology

    In the past, the Department has relied upon information from the 
U.S. Internal Revenue Service (IRS) on the industry-specific average 
useful life of assets in determining the allocation period for 
nonrecurring grant benefits. See General Issues Appendix appended to 
Final Countervailing Duty Determination; Certain Steel Products from 
Austria (58 FR 37063, 37226; July 9, 1993). However, in British Steel 
plc. v. United States, 879 F. Supp. 1254 (CIT 1995) (British Steel), 
the U.S. Court of International Trade (the Court) ruled against this 
allocation methodology. In accordance with the Court's remand order, 
the Department calculated a company-specific allocation period for 
nonrecurring subsidies based on the average useful life (AUL) of non-
renewable physical assets. This remand determination was affirmed by 
the Court on June 4, 1996. British Steel, 929 F. Supp. 426, 439 (CIT 
1996).
    The Department has decided to acquiesce to the Court's decision 
and, as such, we intend to determine the allocation period for 
nonrecurring subsidies using company-specific AUL data where reasonable 
and practicable. In this proceeding, the Department preliminarily 
determines that it is not reasonable and practicable to allocate 
nonrecurring grants using company-specific AUL data because it is not 
possible to apply a company-specific AUL in an aggregate case (such as 
the case at hand). On August 23, 1996, we requested comments on what 
the appropriate allocation methodology should be in an aggregate case. 
On September 3, 1996, we received one response from the National Pork 
Producers Council, petitioners, which urged the Department to continue 
using the three-year period set out in the IRS tax tables. Accordingly, 
the Department is using the original allocation period assigned to each 
grant. We invite the parties to comment on the selection of this 
methodology and provide any other reasonable and practicable approaches 
for complying with the Court's ruling.

Calculation Methodology for Assessment and Cash Deposit Purposes

    For the period of review (POR), we calculated the net subsidy on a 
country-wide basis by first calculating the subsidy rate for each 
province subject to the administrative review. We then weight-averaged 
the rate received by each province using as the weight the province's 
share of total Canadian exports to the United States of subject 
merchandise. We summed the individual provinces' weight-averaged rates 
to determine the subsidy rate from all programs benefitting exports of 
the subject merchandise to the United States.

Analysis of Programs

I. Programs Conferring Subsidies

A. Programs Previously Determined to Confer Subsidies

1. Federal Program

Feed Freight Assistance Program

    The Feed Freight Assistance Program (FFA) is administered by the 
Livestock Feed Board of Canada (the Board) under the Livestock Feed 
Assistance Act of 1966 (LFA). The Board acts to ensure: (1) the 
availability of feed grain to meet the needs of livestock feeders; (2) 
the availability of adequate storage space in Eastern Canada to meet 
the needs of livestock feeders; (3) reasonable stability in the price 
of feed grain in Eastern Canada to meet the needs of livestock feeders; 
and (4) equalization of feed grain prices to livestock feeders in 
Eastern Canada, British Columbia, the Yukon Territory and the Northwest 
Territories. Although this program is clearly designed to benefit 
livestock feeders, FFA payments are also made to grain mills that 
transform the feed grain into livestock feed whenever these mills are 
the first purchasers of this grain. The Board makes payments related to 
the cost of feed grain storage in Eastern Canada, and payments related 
to the cost of feed grain transportation to, or for the benefit of, 
livestock feeders in Eastern Canada, British Columbia, the Yukon 
Territory and the Northwest Territories, in accordance with the 
regulations of the LFA.
    In Live Swine from Canada; Preliminary Results of Countervailing 
Duty Administrative Review (55 FR 20812; May 21, 1990) and Live Swine 
from Canada; Final Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review 
(56 FR 10410; March 12, 1991) (Swine Second and Third Review Results), 
the Department found this program de jure specific and thus 
countervailable because, based on the language of the LFA, benefits are 
only available to a specific group of enterprises or industries 
(livestock feeders and feed mills). Subsequently, a U.S.-Canada Free 
Trade Agreement (FTA) binational panel (See In the Matter of Live Swine 
From Canada, USA-91-1904-04 (June 11, 1993) at 33-36)) affirmed the 
Department's determination in Live Swine from Canada; Preliminary 
Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review (56 FR 29224) 
(June 26, 1991), and Live Swine from Canada; Final Results of 
Countervailing Duty Administrative Review (56 FR 50560; October 7, 
1991) (Swine Fifth Review Results), regarding the countervailability of 
this program. No new information or evidence of changed circumstances 
has been submitted in this proceeding to warrant reconsideration of 
this finding.
    To determine the FFA benefit in the POR, we used the methodology 
applied in Live Swine from Canada; Preliminary Results of 
Countervailing Duty Administrative Review (58 FR 54112, 54114; October 
20, 1993)), and Live Swine from Canada; Final Results of Countervailing 
Duty Administrative Review (59 FR 12243; March 16, 1994)) (Swine Sixth 
Review Results). We first divided the amount of feed transportation 
assistance to live swine producers by the total weight of live swine 
produced in the FFA-eligible areas of Canada during the POR. We then 
weight-averaged the benefit by the corresponding provinces' share of 
total Canadian exports of live swine to the United States. On this 
basis, we preliminarily determine the benefits from this program to be 
Can$0.0006 per kilogram for the POR.

[[Page 52428]]

2. Federal/Provincial Programs

National Tripartite Stabilization Scheme for Hogs

    The National Tripartite Stabilization Program (NTSP) was created in 
1985 by an amendment to the Agricultural Stabilization Act (ASA). This 
amendment, codified at section 10.1 of the ASA, provides for the 
introduction of cost-sharing tripartite or bipartite stabilization 
schemes involving the producer, the federal government, and the 
provinces. Pursuant to this amendment, federal and provincial ministers 
signed NTSP agreements covering specific commodities.
    The general terms of the NTSP for Hogs are as follows: all 
participating hog producers receive the same level of support per 
market-hog unit; the cost of the scheme is shared equally between the 
federal government, the provincial government, and the producers; 
producer participation in the scheme is voluntary; the provinces may 
not offer separate stabilization plans or other ad hoc assistance for 
hogs (with the exception of Quebec's FISI program); the federal 
government may not offer compensation to swine producers in a province 
not party to an agreement; and the scheme must operate at a level that 
limits losses but does not stimulate over-production.
    Stabilization payments are made when the market price falls below 
the calculated support price. The difference between the support price 
and the market price is the amount of the stabilization payment. Hogs 
eligible for stabilization payments under NTSP must index above 80 on a 
hog carcass grading scale.
    In Swine Sixth Review Results (58 FR 54115), the Department 
determined that NTSP was de facto specific because benefits were being 
provided to a specific enterprise or industry or group thereof. No new 
information or evidence of changed circumstances has been submitted in 
this proceeding to warrant reconsideration of this finding.
    During the POR payouts were made to producers from sales that 
occurred in earlier fiscal years. (See Verification Report dated 
September 23, 1996, at page 4). To calculate the benefit, we first 
divided two-thirds (representing the federal and provincial portions) 
of the payments made during the POR to producers in each province by 
the total weight of market hogs produced in that province during the 
POR, and calculated a benefit per kilogram on a province-by-province 
basis. We then weight-averaged each exporting province's per-kilo 
benefit by that province's share of total Canadian exports of market 
hogs to the United States.
    NTSP Agreement Amendment No. 3 terminated the plan as of July 2, 
1994, but allowed provinces to terminate their participation in the 
plan effective April 2, 1994. The plan, which terminated prior to its 
originally scheduled termination date of December 31, 1995, ended with 
a surplus. Under the terms of the NTSP, this surplus was to be 
distributed in equal shares (33.3 percent) among the federal and 
provincial governments and the producers, because each was to have 
contributed one-third of the funds.
    During verification, we examined the NTSP--Hogs Schedule of 
Operations (Schedule of Operations) which showed the federal and 
provincial governments' and the producers' contributions to the NTSP 
Hog Plan for the period January 1986 through May 29, 1996. This 
Schedule of Operations showed that the federal government contributed 
36.6 percent and the producers and provinces contributed 31.7 percent 
each, of the total tripartite contributions during this ten-year 
period. Thus, the producers received a share of the surplus which is in 
excess of their actual contributions to the plan.
    Accordingly, the Department preliminarily determines that the 
retroactive surplus payments constitute a benefit conferred under NTSP 
in the form of a grant to producers in the amount of the difference 
between what the producers actually are receiving, 33.3 percent of the 
surplus, and what they should have received, 31.7 percent of the 
surplus (the percentage producers actually contributed to NTSP). During 
the POR, producers received NTSP surplus payments in the following 
provinces which exported live swine: New Brunswick, Ontario, Manitoba, 
British Columbia, and Saskatchewan.
    To calculate the subsidy, we subtracted the amount that the 
producer should have received (31.7 percent) from the amount that they 
actually received (33.3 percent). The difference is the amount of the 
grant. The Department's policy with respect to grants is (1) to expense 
recurring grants in the year of receipt, or (2) to allocate non-
recurring 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 1989 
Proposed Regulations and the General Issues Appendix, at 37226). In 
determining whether a grant is recurring or non-recurring, we apply a 
test set out in the General Issues Appendix at 37226. We consider 
grants to be non-recurring if the benefits are exceptional, the 
recipient cannot expect to receive benefits on an ongoing basis from 
POR to POR, and the provision of funds by the government must be 
approved every year. In this case, while it is possible that some 
producers may receive additional residual benefits during a subsequent 
review period, these benefits would be exceptional rather than on an 
ongoing basis. Therefore, the Department preliminarily determines that 
this grant is non-recurring because the benefit is exceptional, and the 
recipient cannot expect to receive benefits on an ongoing basis.
    However, because the amount received by live swine producers is 
less than 0.50 percent of the value of total live swine sales, we are 
allocating the benefit to the year of receipt. Therefore, we divided 
the benefit received by each province by the total weight of market 
hogs produced in that province. We used only the weight of market hogs 
because only market hogs were eligible to receive NTSP payments. We 
then weight-averaged the benefits by these provinces' share of total 
Canadian exports of market hogs to the United States during the POR. We 
then summed the benefit calculated for the residual payments and for 
the retroactive surplus. On this basis, we preliminarily determine the 
total benefit for the NTSP program to be Can$0.0172 per kilogram.
    While the termination of the NTSP for Hogs constitutes a program-
wide change, residual benefits may continue to be bestowed under this 
terminated program. For this reason, the cash deposit rate will not be 
adjusted as a result of the termination of this program. (19 CFR 
355.50(1)(d) of the 1989 Proposed Regulations).
3. Provincial Income Stabilization Programs

a. British Columbia Farm Income Insurance Program (FIIP)

    The FIIP was established in 1979 in accordance with the Farm Income 
Insurance Act of 1973 (Farm Act) in order to assure income to farmers 
when commodity market prices fluctuate below the basic costs of 
production. Schedule B of the Farm Act lists the guidelines for the 
individual commodities receiving benefits; Schedule B section 4 is the 
guideline for swine producers.
    The program is administered by the provincial Ministry of 
Agriculture and Food and the British Columbia

[[Page 52429]]

Federation of Agriculture and is funded equally by producers and the 
provincial government. Premiums are paid in all quarters regardless of 
market returns.
    In Swine Second and Third Review Results (55 FR 20814), the 
Department found this program to be countervailable because the program 
is limited to producers of commodities listed in Schedule B, a specific 
group of enterprises or industries. No new information or evidence of 
changed circumstances has been submitted in these proceedings to 
warrant reconsideration of this finding.
    Since the government of British Columbia funds one-half of this 
program, we calculated the benefit for the POR by dividing one-half of 
the total stabilization payments by the total weight of live swine 
produced in British Columbia. We then weight-averaged the result by 
British Columbia's share of total exports of live swine to the United 
States. On this basis, we preliminarily determine the benefit from this 
program to be less than Can$0.0001 per kilogram for the POR.
    The FIIP was terminated effective July 2, 1994 to correspond with 
the termination of the NTSP for hogs. The last date for which a 
producer could claim benefits was June 30, 1994, and the last date by 
which payments could be received was December 31, 1994. Therefore, we 
consider this program terminated with no residual benefits and will not 
examine this program in the future. The termination of FIIP constitutes 
a program-wide change; and because there are no residual benefits, the 
cash deposit rate will be adjusted to zero for this program. (See 19 
CFR 355.50(1)(d) of the 1989 Proposed Regulations).

b. Saskatchewan Hog Assured Returns Program (SHARP)

    SHARP was established in 1976, pursuant to the Saskatchewan 
Agricultural Returns Stabilization Act which authorized provincial 
governments to establish stabilization plans for any agricultural 
commodity. SHARP provided income stabilization payments to hog 
producers in Saskatchewan when market prices fell below a designated 
``floor price,'' calculated quarterly. The program was administered by 
the Saskatchewan Pork Producers' Marketing Board (the Board) on behalf 
of the Saskatchewan Department of Agriculture. The program was funded 
by levies from participating producers on the sale of hogs covered by 
the program; they ranged from 1.5 to 4.5 percent of market returns and 
were matched by the provincial government. When the balance in the 
SHARP account was insufficient to cover payments to producers, the 
provincial government provided financing on commercial terms. The 
principal and interest on these loans was to be repaid by the Board 
from the producer and provincial contributions. After the NTSP for Hogs 
was implemented on July 1, 1986, SHARP payments were reduced by the 
amount of the NTSP payments.
    In Swine First Review Results (53 FR 22192, 22193), the Department 
found the SHARP program to be de jure specific, and thus 
countervailable, because the legislation expressly made the program 
available only to a single industry (hog producers). No new information 
or evidence of changed circumstances was submitted to warrant 
reconsideration of these findings.
    In accordance with the NTSP agreement, SHARP was terminated on 
March 31, 1991. At the time of termination, the SHARP fund had a 
sizeable deficit because of the cumulation over the operating years of 
loans from the provincial government. During the 1993-94 POR, the 
government canceled the outstanding SHARP deficit. To calculate the 
benefit from the loan forgiveness, we treated one-half of the amount 
written off, plus interest accrued during the 1993-94 POR, as a grant 
in accordance with section 355.49(b)(1) of the 1989 Proposed 
Regulations. We took into account only half of the amount because this 
was the share of the outstanding loans that the producers were 
responsible for repaying.
    In Live Swine from Canada; Notice of Preliminary Results of 
Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews; Initiation and Preliminary 
Results of Changed Circumstances Review and Intent to Revoke Order in 
Part (61 FR 26879; May 29, 1996) and Live Swine from Canada; Final 
Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews, which is being 
published concurrently with this notice (Swine Seventh, Eighth, and 
Ninth), the Department determined that the write-off of the SHARP 
deficit is a non-recurring grant because debt forgiveness is 
exceptional, and it is a one-time event. On this basis, we allocated 
the benefit from this grant over three years, which is the average 
useful life of depreciable assets used in the swine industry, as set 
out in the U.S. Internal Revenue Service Class Life Asset Depreciation 
Range System. We used, as a discount rate, the simple average of the 
monthly medium-term corporate bond rates (for the ninth POR, during 
which the write-off occurred) from the Bank of Canada Review (1993-
1994), published by the Bank of Canada.
    To calculate the benefit for the POR, we divided the benefit 
allocated to the POR under the grant allocation method by the total 
weight of market hogs produced in Saskatchewan during the POR to obtain 
the average benefit per kilogram. We then weight-averaged the per-
kilogram benefit by Saskatchewan's share of total Canadian exports of 
market hogs to the United States during the POR. On this basis, we 
preliminarily determine the benefit to be Can$0.0028 per kilogram for 
the POR. While the termination of the SHARP constitutes a program-wide 
change, benefits from this terminated program will continue. For this 
reason, the cash deposit rate will not be adjusted as a result of the 
termination of this program. (19 CFR 355.50(1)(d) of the 1989 Proposed 
Regulations).
4. Other Provincial Programs

a. Alberta Crow Benefit Offset Program (ACBOP)

    This program, administered by the Alberta Department of 
Agriculture, is designed to compensate producers and users of feed 
grain for market distortions in feed grain prices, created by the 
federal government's policy on grain transportation. Assistance is 
provided for feed grain produced in Alberta, feed grain produced 
outside Alberta but sold in Alberta, and feed grain produced in Alberta 
to be fed to livestock on the same farm. The government provides ``A'' 
certificates to registered feed grain users and ``B'' certificates to 
registered feed grain merchants to use as partial payments for grain 
purchased from grain producers. Feed grain producers who feed their 
grain to their own livestock submit a Farm Fed Claim directly to the 
government for payment.
    Hog producers receive benefits in one of three ways: hog producers 
who do not grow any of their own feed grain receive ``A'' certificates 
which are used to cover part of the cost of purchasing grain; hog 
producers who grow all of their own grain submit a Farm Fed Claim to 
the government of Alberta for direct payment; and hog producers who 
grow part of their own grain but also purchase grain receive both ``A'' 
certificates and direct payments.
    In Swine Second and Third Review Results (56 FR 10412), the 
Department found this program to be de jure specific, and thus 
countervailable, because the legislation expressly makes it available 
only to a specific group of enterprises or industries (producers and 
users of feed grain). No new information or evidence of changed 
circumstances has been submitted in this proceeding to warrant 
reconsideration of this finding.

[[Page 52430]]

    To determine the benefit to swine producers from this program, we 
followed the methodology used in Swine Seventh, Eighth and Ninth Review 
Results. Using the Alberta Supply and Disposition Tables, we first 
estimated the quantity of grain consumed by livestock in Alberta during 
the POR. Then, we multiplied the number of swine produced in Alberta 
during the POR by the estimated average grain consumption per hog, and 
divided the result by the amount of total grains used to feed livestock 
during the POR. We thus calculated the percentage of total livestock 
consumption of all grains in Alberta attributable to live swine during 
the POR. We then multiplied this percentage by the total value of ``A'' 
certificates and farm-fed claim payments received by producers during 
the POR. We divided this amount by the total weight of live swine 
produced in Alberta during the POR. We then weight-averaged this per-
kilo benefit by Alberta's share of total Canadian exports of live swine 
to the United States. On this basis, we preliminarily determine the 
benefit to be Can$0.0009 per kilogram for the POR.
    ACBOP was terminated on March 31, 1994. Benefits for ``A'' 
certificates had to be claimed by June 30, 1994, and benefits tied to 
farm-fed grains had to be claimed by August 31, 1994. Most claims have 
been paid, but there are some claims still outstanding. (See 
Verification Report at page 41). While the termination of the ACBOP 
program constitutes a program-wide change, residual benefits will 
continue to be bestowed under this program. For this reason, the cash 
deposit rate will not be adjusted as a result of the termination of 
this program. (19 CFR 355.50(1)(d) of the 1989 Proposed Regulations).

b. Ontario Livestock and Poultry and Honeybee Compensation Program

    This program, administered by the Farm Assistance Programs Branch 
of the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food, and Rural Affairs, 
provides assistance in the form of grants which compensate producers 
for livestock and poultry injured or killed by wolves, coyotes, or 
dogs. Swine producers apply for and receive compensation through the 
local municipal government. The Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food, 
and Rural Affairs reimburses the municipality.
    In Swine Fifth Review Results (56 FR 29227), the Department found 
this program to be de jure specific, and thus countervailable, because 
the legislation expressly makes it available only to a specific group 
of enterprises or industries (livestock and poultry farmers). No new 
information or evidence of changed circumstances has been submitted in 
this proceeding to warrant reconsideration of this finding.
    To calculate the benefit, we used the methodology applied in Swine 
Sixth Review Results (58 FR 54119) and subsequent reviews. We divided 
the total payment to hog producers during the POR by the total weight 
of live swine produced in Ontario. We then weight-averaged the result 
by Ontario's share of Canadian exports of live swine to the United 
States during the POR. On this basis, we preliminarily determine the 
benefit from this program to be less than Can$0.0001 per kilogram for 
the POR.

c. Ontario Bear Damage to Livestock Compensation Program

    This program, administered by the Farm Assistance Programs Branch 
of the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food, and Rural Affairs, 
provides compensation for the destruction of, or injury to, certain 
types of livestock by bears. Swine producers apply for compensation 
through their local Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food, and Rural 
Affairs office. Local personnel then evaluate the damage and prepare a 
report. Based on this report and the farmer's application, the 
Livestock Commissioner may pay a grant to compensate for the amount of 
damage. Grants for damage to live swine cannot exceed Can$200 per head.
    On January 14, 1991, during the fifth administrative review, 
petitioners submitted allegations of new programs, including the Bear 
Damage to Livestock Compensation Program, that may have provided 
countervailable benefits with respect to the production of live swine. 
However, in Swine Fifth Review Results, and subsequent reviews, the 
Department found this program not used. During the instant review, this 
program was used by producers of live swine. We preliminarily determine 
that this program is de jure specific, and thus countervailable, 
because the legislation expressly makes it available only to livestock 
producers, a specific group of enterprises or industries (cattle, 
goats, horses, sheep, swine, and poultry).
    To calculate the benefit, we divided the total payment to hog 
producers during the POR by the total weight of live swine produced in 
Ontario. We then weight-averaged the result by Ontario's share of 
Canadian exports of live swine to the United States during the POR. On 
this basis, we preliminarily determine the benefit from this program to 
be less than Can$0.0001 per kilogram for the POR.

d. Ontario Export Sales Aid Program

    The Ontario Export Sales Aid Program was established in 1987 to 
assist producers and processors of Ontario agricultural and food 
products to develop their export markets. This program is administered 
by the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs which 
reimburses producers or processors for the costs they incur in 
developing their export marketing materials. Grants are made on a per-
project basis, limited to two projects per producer or company, per 
fiscal year. The Ministry provides reimbursements for up to 50 percent 
of the project costs, with a maximum dollar amount. Producers submit a 
completed application form outlining the objectives of the market 
development plan, anticipated costs, and forecasted benefits to a 
review committee for approval. Upon approval, the producer or company 
receives the grant and initiates the project.
    In Swine Seventh, Eighth, and Ninth Review Results, the Department 
determined this program to be a countervailable subsidy because receipt 
of benefits is contingent upon actual or anticipated exportation. The 
Department has also determined that these are non-recurring grants 
because the recipient cannot expect to receive benefits on an ongoing 
basis from review period to review period. In this review, because the 
amount received by live swine producers is less than 0.50 percent of 
the value of live swine exports from this province, we are allocating 
the benefit to the year of receipt.
    To calculate the benefit received during the POR, we divided the 
total grant amount by the total weight of exports of live swine from 
Ontario during the POR. We then weight-averaged the result by Ontario's 
share of total exports of live swine to the United States during the 
POR. On this basis, we preliminarily determine the benefit from this 
program to be Can$0.0001 per kilogram.

e. Saskatchewan Livestock Investment Tax Credit

    Saskatchewan's 1984 Livestock Tax Credit Act provides tax credits 
to individuals, partnerships, cooperatives, and corporations who owned 
and fed livestock marketed or slaughtered by December 31, 1989. 
Claimants had to be residents of Saskatchewan and pay Saskatchewan 
income taxes. Eligible claimants received credits of Can$3 for each 
hog. Although this program was terminated on December 31, 1989, tax 
credits are carried forward for up to

[[Page 52431]]

seven years. In Swine First Review Results (53 FR 22198), the 
Department found this program to be de jure specific, and thus 
countervailable, because the program's legislation expressly made it 
available only to livestock producers. No new information or evidence 
of changed circumstances has been submitted in this proceeding to 
warrant reconsideration of this finding.
    To calculate the benefit for the POR, we used the methodology 
applied in Swine Sixth Review Results (58 FR 54120) and subsequent 
reviews. In the questionnaire responses, the GOC provided estimates of 
the amount of tax credits used by hog producers in Saskatchewan during 
the POR, since the actual amounts cannot be determined. At 
verification, we reviewed the methodology used to calculate these 
estimates and found it reasonable and consistent with that used in 
prior reviews. (See Verification Report at page 37). We divided the 
amount of benefit by the total weight of live swine produced in 
Saskatchewan during the POR. We then weight-averaged the result by 
Saskatchewan's share of total exports of live swine to the United 
States. On this basis, we preliminarily determine the benefit from this 
program to be Can$0.0001 per kilogram for the POR.

f. Saskatchewan Livestock Facilities Tax Credit

    This program, which was terminated on December 31, 1989, provided 
tax credits to livestock producers based on their investments in 
livestock production facilities. The tax credits can only be used to 
offset provincial taxes and may be carried forward for up to seven 
years. Livestock covered by this program includes cattle, horses, 
sheep, swine, goats, poultry, bees, fur-bearing animals raised in 
captivity, or any other designated animals; covered livestock can be 
raised for either breeding or slaughter. Investments covered under the 
program include new buildings, improvements to existing livestock 
facilities, and any stationary equipment related to livestock 
facilities. The program pays 15 percent of 95 percent of project costs, 
or 14.25 percent of total costs.
    In Swine Second and Third Review Results (55 FR 20820), the 
Department found this program to be de jure specific, and thus 
countervailable, because the program's legislation expressly made it 
available only to livestock producers. No new information or evidence 
of changed circumstances has been submitted in this proceeding to 
warrant reconsideration of this finding.
    To calculate the benefit, we used the methodology applied in Swine 
Sixth Review Results (58 FR 54121) and subsequent reviews. In the 
questionnaire responses, the GOC provided estimates of the amount of 
tax credits used by hog producers in Saskatchewan, since the actual 
amounts cannot be determined. At verification, we reviewed the 
methodology used to calculate these estimates and found it reasonable 
and consistent with that used in prior reviews. (See Verification 
Report at page 37). We divided the amount of benefit by the total 
weight of live swine produced in Saskatchewan during the POR. We then 
weight-averaged the result by Saskatchewan's share of total exports of 
live swine to the United States. On this basis, we preliminarily 
determine the benefit from this program to be Can$0.0001 per kilogram 
for the POR.

g. Saskatchewan Interim Red Meat Production Equalization Program

    The Saskatchewan Interim Red Meat Production Equalization Program 
(IRMPEP), administered by the Saskatchewan Department of Agriculture 
and Food, was established by the Government of Saskatchewan (GOS) in 
November 1992. IRMPEP provides grants to livestock producers who raise 
and feed their livestock in Saskatchewan. In order to qualify for 
IRMPEP, producers must have sold a minimum number of the eligible 
livestock which includes steers, heifers and virgin bulls, cull cows, 
hogs, lambs, kid goats, and horses. Once the minimum number of eligible 
livestock has been sold, the producer fills out an application and, if 
the criteria are met, is automatically eligible to receive grants under 
this program.
    In Swine Seventh, Eighth, and Ninth Review Results, the Department 
found this program de jure specific, and thus countervailable, because 
the program's legislation expressly limits its availability to a 
specific group of enterprises or industries (livestock producers). No 
new information or evidence of changed circumstances has been submitted 
in this proceeding to warrant reconsideration of this finding.
    The Department determined that these grants are recurring because 
the recipient can expect to receive benefits on an ongoing basis from 
POR to POR. (See General Issues Appendix (58 FR at 37226)). Therefore, 
to calculate the benefit, we have allocated the amounts of the grants 
to the year of receipt. Consequently, we divided the amount of IRMPEP 
grants to live swine producers for the POR by the total weight of live 
swine produced in Saskatchewan in the POR. We then weight-averaged the 
result by Saskatchewan's share of total exports of live swine to the 
United States during the POR. On this basis, we preliminarily determine 
the benefit from this program to be Can$0.0010 per kilogram for the 
POR.
    Saskatchewan phased out the Interim Red Meat Production 
Equalization Program. The last date producers could apply for or claim 
benefits was November 30, 1994 and the last date that producers could 
receive benefits was March 31, 1995. Because IRMPEP has been terminated 
and there are no residual benefits being provided, the cash deposit 
rate will be adjusted to zero to reflect a program-wide change. (19 CFR 
355.50(1)(d) of the 1989 Proposed Regulations).

h. New Brunswick Livestock Incentives Program

    This program, which operates under the Livestock Incentives Act, 
provides loan guarantees to livestock producers purchasing cattle, 
sheep, swine, foxes, and mink for breeding purposes, and for feeding 
and finishing livestock for slaughter. Loans, in amounts ranging from 
Can$1,000 to Can$90,000, are granted by commercial banks or credit 
unions and guaranteed by the Government of New Brunswick (GONB) to an 
individual, partnership, corporation or incorporated co-operative 
association engaged in farming in New Brunswick. Swine producers submit 
an application for a loan under this program to a bank. The bank 
evaluates the loan application based upon standard loan criteria and 
either approves or rejects the application. A consideration for 
obtaining the loan is the presentation to the GONB of a farm plan 
established at the time the loan is taken out. For loans given for the 
purchase of animals for breeding purposes, the term of the loan is not 
more than seven years and the first payment of the principal is due two 
years after the date on which the loan was given. For loans given for 
the purchase of animals for feeding purposes, the loan is due when the 
animals have been sold which shall not exceed a period of eighteen 
months. The interest rate for these loans is set at the prime rate plus 
one percentage point.
    At the end of three years after loans are issued, the GONB may give 
20 percent of the loan amount to the farmer in the form of a grant. To 
be eligible for this grant, the farmer had to have implemented, in a 
satisfactory manner, the farm plan established at the time the loan was 
taken out. The grant portion of

[[Page 52432]]

this program has been terminated. Grants are not provided for loans 
given after July 15, 1992, but grants were still being provided during 
the POR.
    In Swine Second and Third Review Results (55 FR 20817), the 
Department found this program to be specific because it is limited to 
livestock producers. No new information or evidence of changed 
circumstances has been submitted in this proceeding to warrant 
reconsideration of this finding.
    In accordance with section 771(5)(E)(iii) of the Act, a benefit 
from a loan obtained with a government guarantee shall normally be 
treated as conferred ``if there is a difference, after adjusting for 
any difference in guarantee fees, between the amount the recipient of 
the guarantee pays on the guaranteed loan and the amount the recipient 
would pay for a comparable commercial loan if there were no guarantee 
by the authority''. While there are no guarantee fees, the recipients 
are paying interest at the rate of prime rate plus one percentage 
point. As we learned at verification, the predominant lending rates in 
Canada for comparable long-term variable-rate loans are based on the 
prime rate plus a one or two-point spread. (See Verification Report at 
pages 9 and 22.) Therefore, as our benchmark, we used the prime rate as 
published by the Bank of Canada in the Bank of Canada Review, Winter 
1995-96 plus one and one half percentage point. This rate represents 
the simple average of the spread above prime charged by commercial 
banks on comparable loans. Comparing the benchmark interest rate to the 
interest rate charged on these loans, we preliminarily determine that 
the amount the recipient paid on these loans is less than the recipient 
would have paid on a comparable commercial loan.
    We calculated the benefit from the loan portion of this program as 
follows. For loans outstanding during the POR, either without 
repayments or paid off during the POR, we followed the methodology 
described in section 355.49 (d) (1) of the 1989 Proposed Regulations. 
For outstanding loans on which partial repayments were made during the 
POR, because no information was available on the timing of the 
repayment, we estimated the benefit by taking half of the interest 
amount that would have accrued during the POR, had no payment been made 
on the principal. Next, we divided the benefit from all outstanding 
loans by the total weight of live swine produced in New Brunswick 
during the POR. We then weight-averaged the benefit by New Brunswick's 
share of Canadian exports of live swine to the United States during the 
POR.
    During the POR loans to live swine producers were written-off by 
the GONB under this program. We have added to the total amount of 
written-off loans, the amount of interest accrued from the beginning of 
the POR until the date on which the loans were written-off. (See 
section 355.44(k) of the 1989 Proposed Regulations.) The Department 
preliminarily determines that the amount written off and interest 
accrued during the POR is a non-recurring grant because debt 
forgiveness is exceptional, and it is a one-time event. In addition, 
swine producers received grants under the grant portion of this 
program. We preliminarily determine that the grants received under this 
program are non-recurring because the recipient cannot expect to 
receive benefits on an ongoing basis from year to year. We summed the 
amount of the written-off loans and the amount of the grants. Because 
the result is less than 0.50 percent of the value of live swine sales 
from this province, we are allocating the benefit to the year of 
receipt. (See General Issues Appendix 58 FR 37226.) Therefore, we 
divided the total amount of the grants provided during the POR by the 
total weight of live swine produced in New Brunswick during the POR. We 
then weight-averaged the result by the New Brunswick's share of total 
exports of live swine to the United States during the POR
    To calculate the total benefit to live swine producers under this 
program, we summed the weight-averaged benefit calculated for the loans 
and grants. On this basis, we preliminarily determine the total benefit 
from this program to be less than Can$0.0001 per kilogram for this POR.

i. New Brunswick Swine Industry Financial Restructuring and 
Agricultural Development Act--Swine Assistance Program

    The Swine Assistance program was established in fiscal year 1981-
82, by the Farm Adjustment Board, under the Farm Adjustment Act, to 
provide interest subsidies on medium-term loans to hog producers. The 
program was available only to hog producers who entered production or 
underwent expansion after 1979. In 1985, the Farm Adjustment Act 
changed to the Agricultural Development Act. In 1984-85, this program 
was combined with the Swine Industry Financial Restructuring program 
under the New Brunswick Regulation 85-19. At that time, all obligations 
and outstanding loans under the Swine Assistance program were rolled 
over into the Swine Industry Financial Restructuring program.
    The Swine Industry Financial Restructuring program was created by 
the Farm Adjustment Act (OC 85-98) and became effective April 1, 1985. 
Under this program the Government of New Brunswick granted hog 
producers indebted to the Board a rebate of the interest on that 
portion of their total debt (the residual debt) that, on March 31, 
1984, exceeded the ``standard debt load.'' The standard debt load is 
defined in the program's regulations as the amount of debt which the 
farmer, in the opinion of the Board, can reasonably be expected to 
service. The residual debt does not begin to accrue interest again 
until the debt load is no longer ``excessive.''
    In Swine Second and Third Review Results (55 FR 20816, 20817), the 
Department examined these two programs separately. The Department found 
(1) the Swine Assistance program to be countervailable because loans 
were provided to a specific industry on terms inconsistent with 
commercial considerations, and (2) the New Brunswick Swine Industry 
Financial Restructuring program to be countervailable because it was 
limited to a specific industry and the government's rebate of interest 
and the interest repayment holiday were loan terms inconsistent with 
commercial considerations. No new information or evidence of changed 
circumstances has been submitted in this proceeding to warrant 
reconsideration of this finding.
    At verification, we examined documentation that showed that no new 
loans were provided for the past ten years, and that there was no 
recent activity on the outstanding loans. The loans given to producers 
were ``set aside'' in a provincial account and were not accruing any 
interest. The Department preliminarily determines that interest not 
accruing on the outstanding loan balance constitutes a benefit to live 
swine producers.
    To calculate the benefit from this program, we multiplied the total 
outstanding debt at the beginning of the POR by the benchmark interest 
rate. We used, as a benchmark interest rate, the prime rate, as 
published by the Bank of Canada in the Bank of Canada Review, Winter 
1994-95, plus one and one-half percentage point. This rate represents 
the simple average of the commercially available rates for comparable 
loans. (See Verification Report at page 22). Next, we divided the 
benefit by the total weight of live swine produced in New Brunswick 
during the POR. We then weight-averaged the benefit by New Brunswick's 
share of Canadian exports

[[Page 52433]]

of live swine to the United States during the POR. On this basis, we 
preliminarily determine the benefit to be less than Can$0.0001 per 
kilogram for the POR.

j. New Brunswick Swine Assistance Policy on Boars

    The New Brunswick Swine Assistance Policy on Boars program is 
administered by the New Brunswick Department of Agriculture and Rural 
Development, Animal Industry Branch, for the purpose of encouraging 
breeding stock producers to produce quality boars at reasonable prices 
for use in commercial swine herds. This program provides assistance in 
the form of grants to swine producers for the purchases of boars. 
Eligible producers are entitled to receive up to Can$110 for the 
purchase of boars.
    In Swine Second and Third Review Results (55 FR 20817), the 
Department found this program to be countervailable because it is 
limited to a specific industry. No new information or evidence of 
changed circumstances has been submitted in this proceeding to warrant 
reconsideration of this finding.
    To calculate the benefit, we used the grant methodology applied in 
Swine Sixth Review Results (58 FR 54119). The Department has 
preliminarily determined that the grants received under this program 
are non-recurring because the recipient cannot expect to receive 
benefits on an ongoing basis from review period to review period. 
However, because the amount received by live swine producers in this 
POR is less than 0.50 percent of the value of live swine sales in this 
province, we are allocating the benefit to the year of receipt. (See 
General Issues Appendix 58 FR 37226). We divided the total payment to 
hog producers during the POR by the total weight of live swine produced 
in New Brunswick during the POR. We then weight-averaged the result by 
New Brunswick's share of Canadian exports of live swine to the United 
States during the POR. On this basis, we preliminarily determine the 
benefit from this program to be less than Can$0.0001 per kilogram for 
the POR.

B. New Programs Preliminarily Determined To Confer Subsidies

Federal/Provincial Programs

a. National Transition Scheme for Hogs

    After termination of the NTSP for Hogs in July 1994, hog producers 
became eligible to participate in the National Transition Scheme for 
Hogs (Transition Scheme). This is a new program that provided for one-
time payments to producers of hogs marketed between April 3, 1994 
through December 31, 1994. This program was a temporary support program 
to encourage producers to join the Net Income Stabilization Account 
program (NISA). The Transition Scheme provided payments to hog 
producers of Can$1.50 per hog from the federal government and a 
matching Can$1.50 from the provincial government.
    Because the Transition Scheme Agreement expressly limits its 
availability to a specific industry (swine), we preliminarily determine 
that the benefits from this program are de jure specific in accordance 
with section 771(5A)(D). The amounts provided by both the federal and 
provincial governments to the hog producers during the POR under the 
Transition Scheme represent a grant. Therefore, this program is 
countervailable.
    The Department preliminarily determines that these grants are non-
recurring because the transitional payments are exceptional, the 
recipient cannot expect to receive benefits on an ongoing basis from 
POR to POR, and the government has approved funding under the 
Transition Scheme for one year only. However, because the amount 
received by live swine producers is less than 0.50 percent of the value 
of total live swine sales in Canada, we are allocating the benefit to 
the year of receipt. Therefore, we divided the benefit provided during 
the POR to hog producers by the total weight of market hogs produced in 
that province, and calculated a benefit per-kilogram on a province-by-
province basis. We used only the weight of market hogs because only 
market hogs were eligible to receive NTSP benefits. We then weight-
averaged each exporting province's per kilogram benefit by that 
province's share of total Canadian exports of market hogs to the United 
States during the POR. On this basis, we preliminarily determine the 
benefit from this program to be Can$0.0042 per kilogram for the POR.

b. Technological Innovation Program Under the Canada/Quebec Subsidiary 
Agreement on Agri-Food Development (Agri-Food Agreement)

    On December 14, 1984, the Government of Canada entered into an 
Economic and Regional Development Agreement (ERDA) with the Province of 
Quebec. Pursuant to this ERDA, the initial Agri-Food Agreement was 
signed on February 17, 1987 and remained in effect from 1987 to 1991. 
On August 26, 1993 a new Agri-Food Agreement was enacted by the 
governments of Canada and Quebec covering the period April 1, 1993 
through March 31, 1998. Funding for this agreement is shared 50/50 by 
the federal and provincial governments. Through this agreement, grants 
are made to private businesses and academic organizations to fund 
projects in the following areas:
    (1) Research: The objectives of this program area are to increase 
and diversify scientific and technical expertise, in both the industry 
and universities, in the areas of food production, processing, storage 
and marketing.
    (2) Technological Innovation: The purpose of this program area is 
to speed up the rate of adoption and dissemination of technologies and 
innovation and the development of new products.
    (3) Support for Strategic Alliances: The purpose of this program 
area is to stimulate cooperation and strategic alliances among the 
various stakeholders in an agri-food ``industry network'' (including 
all participants from the producer of the raw material to the final 
processor) through strategic activities intended to improve 
competitiveness in domestic and foreign markets.
    Although the Agri-Food Agreement provides the authority for the 
three components, there are distinct differences in the purposes, 
funding, eligibility requirements and application and approval 
processes across the three components. Therefore, the Department 
considers it appropriate to examine each of the three components 
(Research, Technological Innovation, and Support for Strategic 
Alliances) as separate programs. See Memorandum on Canada/Quebec 
Subsidiary Agreement on Agri-Food Development, to Robert S. LaRussa 
from CVD/AD Team dated September 25, 1996, which is on file in the CRU.
    We verified that during the POR, producers of live swine received 
grants under the Research Program and the Technological Innovation 
program. For a discussion of our preliminary determination with respect 
to the Research program, see Section II of this notice, ``New Programs 
Preliminarily Determined Not to Confer Subsidies.''

Technological Innovation Program

    The Technological Innovation program is administered by the GOQ. 
This program has two components: testing and experimentation, and 
testing networks. Although the legislation states that ``the two 
governments will provide financial assistance and technical support to 
agricultural enterprises,'' we verified that since its inception this 
program has been funded solely by the federal government. Since 
assistance under this program is

[[Page 52434]]

provided by the federal government to industries located within a 
designated geographical region of Canada (i.e., Quebec), we 
preliminarily determine that the federal contributions are 
countervailable. See section 771(5A)(D)(iv); Statement of 
Administrative Action accompanying the URAA, reprinted in H.R. Doc. No. 
316, 103d Cong., 2d Sess. 932 (1994).
    To calculate the benefit from this program, we preliminarily 
determine that the grants received under this program are non-recurring 
because they are exceptional, the government must approve the grants 
every year, and the recipient cannot expect to receive benefits on an 
ongoing basis. However, because the amount received by live swine 
producers in this POR is less than 0.50 percent of the value of live 
swine sales in this province, we are allocating the benefit to the year 
of receipt (See General Issues Appendix 58 FR 37226). We divided the 
total grant amount provided to swine producers during the POR by the 
total weight of live swine produced in Quebec during the POR. We then 
weight-averaged the results by Quebec's share of Canadian exports of 
live swine to the United States during the POR. On this basis, we 
preliminarily determine the benefit from the Technological Innovation 
program to be less than Can$0.0001 per kilogram for the POR.

II. Programs Preliminarily Determined Not to Confer Subsidies Research 
Program under the Canada/Quebec Subsidiary Agreement on Agri-Food 
Development (Agri-Food Agreement)

    The Research program under the Agri-Food Agreement is administered 
by the Government of Quebec (GOQ) and grants are funded jointly by the 
GOQ and Government of Canada (GOC). The objectives of this program are 
to increase and diversify scientific and technical expertise, in both 
the industry and universities, in the area of food production, 
processing, storage and marketing. Under this program, grants are made 
to private businesses and academic organizations to fund research 
projects. During the POR, grants were provided for research projects 
involving live swine.
    In the Department's questionnaire for this review, respondents were 
offered an opportunity to claim greenlight status under section 771(5B) 
of the Act. (See Department's Questionnaire, September 25, 1995, 
Section III.4 at III.4-2.) However, because the GOQ did not claim 
greenlight status, we proceeded to examine whether the results of the 
research are made publicly available. (See Section 355.44(l) of the 
1989 Proposed Regulations.) In this case, the results of research are 
usually made publicly available. We have verified that publication of 
the results of the research is required by the Agri-Food Agreement, 
which specifies that ``the Government of Canada and the Government of 
Quebec agree to announce jointly all authorized projects, as well as 
project and program reports and results.'' In addition, we have also 
verified that the results are published in an annual report upon 
completion. However, the Agreement also indicates, under Section 8 of 
the Research program guidelines, that participants have the right to 
patent protection for the results of the research if divulging the 
information will reduce the commercial value of those results. (See 
Verification Report at page 28.) Therefore, the determination of 
whether benefits under this program are countervailable can only be 
made at the completion of the projects. It is only upon completion that 
it will be known whether the results of research have been made 
publicly available. See e.g., Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty 
Determinations: Certain Steel Products from Sweden (58 FR 37385; July 
9, 1993).
    We verified that all projects involving live swine were still 
ongoing during the POR. Therefore, we will continue to examine these 
research grants in future reviews and upon completion will determine 
whether they are countervailable. On this basis, we preliminarily 
determine that the Research program did not confer countervailable 
benefits on live swine during the POR.

III. Programs Preliminarily Determined to be Not Used

    We also examined the following programs and preliminarily determine 
that the producers and/or exporters of the subject merchandise did not 
apply for or receive benefits under these programs during the POR:

a. Quebec Farm Income Stabilization Insurance Program (FISI)

    We verified that during the POR the only FISI payments made to 
producers were for live swine slaughtered in Canada. Because there were 
no payments made for live swine exported to the United States during 
the POR, we preliminarily determine that the FISI program was not used 
during the POR. See Memorandum to File from Team A regarding the Farm 
Income Stabilization Program dated September 25, 1996, which is on file 
in CRU.

b. Other Programs

    (1) Support for Strategic Alliances Program under the Canada/Quebec 
Subsidiary Agreement on Agri-Food Development; (2) Western 
Diversification Program; (3) Federal Atlantic Livestock Feed 
Initiative; (4) Agricultural Products Board Program; (5) Ontario Rabies 
Indemnification Program; (6) Ontario Swine Sales Assistance Policy; (7) 
Newfoundland Hog Price Support Program; (8) Newfoundland Weanling Bonus 
Incentive Policy; (9) Newfoundland Hog Price Stabilization Program; 
(10) Nova Scotia Swine Herd Health Policy; (11) Nova Scotia Improved 
Sire Policy.

IV. Programs Preliminarily Determined to be Terminated

    We have examined the following programs and preliminarily determine 
that they were terminated prior to April 1, 1994, and that no residual 
benefits were provided during the POR: (1) Alberta Livestock and 
Beeyard Compensation Program; (2) British Columbia Special Hog Payment 
Program; (3) British Columbia Swine Herd Improvement Program.

Preliminary Results of Review

    We preliminarily determine the total net subsidy on live swine from 
Canada to be Can$0.0271 per kilogram for the period April 1, 1994 
through March 31, 1995. If the final results of this review remain the 
same as these preliminary results, the Department intends to instruct 
the U.S. Customs Service (``Customs'') to assess countervailing duties 
as indicated above.
    The Department also intends to instruct Customs to collect cash 
deposits of estimated countervailing duties of Can$0.0261 on all 
shipments of the subject merchandise from Canada, entered, or withdrawn 
from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of 
the final results of this review. We have adjusted the cash deposit 
rate to reflect program-wide changes.

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 brief. Parties who 
submit argument in this proceeding are requested to

[[Page 52435]]

submit with the argument (1) a statement of the issue and (2) a brief 
summary of the argument. Any hearing, if requested, will be held 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 Sec. 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 Sec. 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 Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)(1)).

    Dated: September 25, 1996.
Robert S. LaRussa,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 96-25649 Filed 10-04-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P