[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 213 (Thursday, November 4, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 60301-60309]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-28775]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration
[C-122-404]


Final Results of Full Sunset Review: Live Swine From Canada

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

ACTION: Notice of final results of full sunset review: live swine from 
Canada.

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

SUMMARY: On June 25, 1999, the Department of Commerce (``the 
Department'') published a notice of preliminary results of the full 
sunset review of the countervailing duty order on live swine from 
Canada (64 FR 34209) pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 
1930, as amended (``the Act''). We provided interested parties an 
opportunity to comment on our preliminary results. We received comments 
from both domestic and respondent interested parties and held a public 
hearing. As a result of this review, the Department finds that 
revocation of this order would not be likely to lead to continuation or 
recurrence of a countervailable subsidy.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Scott E. Smith or Melissa G. Skinner, 
Office of Policy for Import Administration, International Trade 
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-
6397 or (202) 482-1560, respectively.

EFFECTIVE DATE: November 4, 1999.

Statute and Regulations

    This review was conducted pursuant to sections 751(c) and 752 of 
the Act. The Department's procedures for the conduct of sunset reviews 
are set forth in Procedures for Conducting Five-year (``Sunset'') 
Reviews of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Orders, 63 FR 13516 
(March 20, 1998) (``Sunset Regulations'') and in 19 CFR part 351 (1998) 
in general. Guidance on methodological or analytical issues relevant to 
the Department's conduct of sunset reviews is set forth in the 
Department's Policy Bulletin 98:3--Policies Regarding the Conduct of 
Five-year (``Sunset'') Reviews of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 
Orders; Policy Bulletin, 63 FR 18871 (April 16, 1998) (``Sunset Policy 
Bulletin'').

Scope

    The merchandise subject to this countervailing duty order is 
shipments of live swine, except U.S. Department of Agriculture 
(``USDA'') certified purebred breeding swine, slaughter sows and boars, 
and weanlings from Canada.1 Weanlings are swine weighing up 
to 27 kilograms or 59.5 pounds.2 This merchandise is 
currently 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ On August 29, 1996, the Department issued the final results 
of a changed circumstances review revoking the order, in part, with 
respect to slaughter sows and boars. The revocation became effective 
on April 1, 1991 (see Live Swine from Canada; Final Results of 
Changed Circumstances Countervailing Duty Administrative Review, and 
Partial Revocation In Part of Countervailing Duty Order, 61 FR 45402 
(August 29, 1996).
    \2\ In the Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination; 
Live Swine and Fresh, Chilled and Frozen Pork Products from Canada, 
50 FR 25097 (June 17, 1985), the Department also calculated a net 
subsidy for dressed-weight swine. However, the Department terminated 
its investigation with respect to fresh, chilled, and frozen pork 
products from Canada based on a finding by the Commission that no 
material injury, threat of material injury, or retardation of an 
infant industry existed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Background

    On June 25, 1999, the Department issued the Preliminary Results of 
Full Sunset Review: Live Swine from Canada (64 FR 34209) (``Preliminary 
Results''). In our preliminary results, we found that revocation of the 
order would likely result in the continuation or recurrence of a 
countervailable subsidy. In addition, we preliminarily determined that 
the net countervailable subsidy likely to prevail if the order were 
revoked would be Can$0.01802234/lb.
    On August 9, 1999, within the deadline specified in 19 CFR 
351.209(c)(1)(i), we received comments on behalf of National Pork 
Producers Council (``NPPC'').3 We also received comments 
from the Gouvernement du Quebec (``GOQ''), the Government of Canada 
(``GOC'') and the Canadian Pork Council and its Members (``CPC''), the 
Canadian respondents in this proceeding (collectively, ``the Canadian 
respondents''). On August 16, 1999, within the deadline specified in 19 
CFR 351.309(d), the Department received rebuttal comments from the NPPC 
and each of the Canadian respondents. On August 18, 1999, the 
Department held a public hearing. We have addressed the comments 
received below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The NPPC is a trade organization representing U.S. hog and 
pork producers through a federation of 44 affiliated state pork 
producer associations with a total membership of 85,000. NPPC's 
membership consists of small family farms and large hog operations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As a result of our reconsideration, we find that the net subsidy 
rate likely to prevail were the order revoked is de minimis. Because 
any subsidy rate would be de minimis, we find that it is not likely 
that revocation would result in the continuation or recurrence of a 
countervailable subsidy.

Comments

    Comment 1: The NPPC states that it agrees with the Department's 
preliminary finding that revocation of the countervailing duty order 
would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of a 
countervailable subsidy. The NPPC argues that given the extensive 
federal and provincial programs available, there can be little question 
that the Department properly found that subsidization would be likely 
to continue if the order were revoked.
    The Canadian respondents argue that, when corrected for errors in 
the Preliminary Results, any net countervailable subsidy likely to 
prevail is zero or de minimis. As such, the Department should find that 
subsidization would not be likely to continue or recur if the order 
were revoked.
    Department Response: Based on comments received, we have 
recalculated the net countervailable subsidy likely to prevail were the 
order revoked. Because, as discussed below, we find that the subsidy 
likely to prevail is de minimis, for our final results of full sunset 
review we determine that revocation of this countervailing duty order 
would not be likely to result in the continuation or recurrence of a 
countervailable subsidy.
    Comment 2: The NPPC argues that although, in the Preliminary 
Results, the Department identified the Newfoundland Hog Price 
Stabilization Program as a program that was created after the 
imposition of the order which still exists, the Department failed to 
include this program in its net subsidy calculation. The NPPC requests 
the Department correct this error for its final determination.
    As discussed in more detail below, the CPC argues that the 
Newfoundland Hog Price Stabilization Program was terminated on March 
31, 1994.

[[Page 60302]]

    Department Response: We disagree that we incorrectly failed to 
include a subsidy rate from the Newfoundland Hog Price Stabilization 
Program in our preliminary calculation of the net subsidy likely to 
prevail if the order were revoked. Leaving aside the question of 
termination, we note that the Department never calculated a subsidy 
rate for this program because it had not been used. Therefore, we do 
not believe it appropriate to include a rate from this program in the 
calculation of the net countervailable subsidy likely to prevail were 
the order revoked.
    Comment 3: The NPPC notes that, in addition to the ten programs 
used in the net subsidy calculation in the Preliminary 
Results,4 the Department identified six programs for which 
no subsidy rate has ever been calculated--the Newfoundland Farm 
Products Corporation Hog Price Support Program, Western Diversification 
Program, Agricultural Products Board Program, Newfoundland Weanling 
Bonus Incentive Policy, Federal Atlantic Livestock Initiative, and 
Ontario Swine Sales Assistance Program. Further, the NPPC argues that 
the Department acknowledged that none of these six programs has been 
found to be terminated or modified in such a way that they would not 
confer any countervailable benefit in the future. Therefore, to ensure 
the most accurate net countervailable subsidy rate is reported to the 
Commission, the NPPC requests that the Department include in its final 
calculation of the net countervailable subsidy likely to prevail a rate 
for each of these programs. The NPPC recommends the use of neutral 
``facts available'' in order to identify a subsidy rate for each of the 
six programs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The ten programs used in the net subsidy calculation in the 
Preliminary Results were: Technology Innovation Program under the 
Agri-Food Agreement, Ontario Livestock and Poultry and Honeybee 
Compensation Program, Ontario Bear Damage to Livestock Compensation 
Program, Ontario Rabies Indemnification Program, New Brunswick Swine 
Industry Financial Restructuring Program, Newfoundland Hog Price 
Support Program, Quebec Farm Income Stabilization Insurance Program, 
New Brunswick Livestock Incentives Program, Support for Strategic 
Alliances Program under the Agri-Food Agreement, and Nova Scotia 
Improved Sire Program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As discussed in more detail below, the Canadian respondents assert 
that the Western Diversification Program, Agricultural Products Board 
Program, and Federal Atlantic Livestock Initiative were never found to 
provide a countervailable subsidy on the subject merchandise and, 
therefore, cannot be included in any rate likely to prevail. Further, 
they argue that there has been a long track record on non-use of the 
Ontario Swine Sales Assistance Program. Therefore, this program should 
not be included in the calculation. Finally, with respect to the 
Newfoundland Farm Products Corporation Hog Price Support Program and 
the Newfoundland Weanling Bonus Incentive Policy, the Canadian 
respondents argue that these programs have been terminated and should 
thus be excluded from any calculation. We note that the CPC alleges 
that the Newfoundland Farm Products Corporation Hog Price Support 
Program is the same as the Newfoundland Hog Price Support Program.
    Department Response: The Department disagrees with the NPPC that we 
should include a neutral facts available rate for these programs in 
calculating the net subsidy likely to prevail were the order revoked. 
In the Preliminary Results the Department did not include these six 
programs in the calculation of the net subsidy rate on the basis that, 
despite no finding that any of these programs had been terminated, the 
Department had never calculated a subsidy rate for any of these 
programs because the Department has never been presented with evidence 
establishing the countervailability of these programs and/or these 
programs have not been used.
    As discussed below, over the life of this order the Department has 
never been presented with sufficient evidence that the Western 
Diversification Program, Agricultural Products Board Program, or 
Federal Atlantic Livestock Initiative provide a countervailable subsidy 
with respect to subject merchandise. In addition, with respect to the 
Newfoundland Weanling Bonus Incentive Policy, and the Ontario Swine 
Sales Assistance Program, although found countervailable, the 
Department has never calculated a subsidy rate during the POI or any 
administrative review because the Department had determined the 
programs had not been used. Additionally, as discussed below, we agree 
with the CPC that the Newfoundland Farm Products Corporation Hog Price 
Support Program is the same as the Newfoundland Hog Price Support 
Program.
    Over the fourteen year life of the order, neither of these programs 
has been found to provide a measurable countervailable subsidy. The 
NPPC has provided no convincing argument or evidence that, were the 
order revoked, these programs would be used and found to provide a 
measurable countervailable subsidy. Therefore, the Department does not 
agree that it is appropriate to calculate a facts available subsidy 
rate likely to prevail for these programs were the order revoked.
    Comment 4: The NPPC argues that the Department prematurely decided 
that British Columbia Feed Grain Market Development Program (``Program 
1''); (2) Canada/Alberta Swine Improvement Programs Study (``Program 
2''); (3) Prince Edward Island Interest Payments on Assembly Yard Loan 
Program (``Program 3''); and (4) British Columbia Special Hog Payment 
Program (``Program 4'') were terminated. The NPPC argues that the 
Department should utilize different criteria in the course of sunset 
reviews with respect to determinations regarding program termination. 
Specifically, the NPPC asserts that the sunset criteria for program 
termination should be more rigorous than for administrative reviews 
because sunset determinations may have the effect of terminating the 
order. Termination through administrative action, rather than through 
legislative means, the NPPC argues, is insufficient for the Department, 
in the course of a sunset review, to determine that the program has 
indeed been terminated.
    The GOQ argues that the Department applied the appropriate standard 
to programs determined terminated in administrative reviews. The GOQ 
asserts that neither the statute nor its legislative history supports 
the argument that the Department may apply a more stringent standard to 
programs that the Department previously determined to be terminated 
before they may be considered terminated for sunset review purposes. 
Further, the GOQ argues that, in the context of a sunset review, the 
Department's prior determination that a program is terminated is 
sufficient to support revocation of an order unless contrary evidence 
has been shown that the program is likely to be reinstated.
    Department Response: The Department agrees with the NPPC, in part. 
The Department agrees that the elimination of a program 
administratively is not as strong a basis for a finding of termination 
as elimination through legislative action (see Sunset Policy Bulletin). 
However, where a program was put in place administratively, it is 
reasonable to expect that the government would terminate the program in 
the same manner (see Final Results of Expedited Sunset Review: Heavy 
Iron Construction Castings from Brazil, 64 FR 30313 (June 7, 1999)). In 
these circumstances, unless there is a basis for concluding that the 
government is likely to reinstate the program, we continue to believe 
it is appropriate to treat a program previously found to be terminated 
in an

[[Page 60303]]

administrative review as terminated for the purpose of sunset reviews.
    With respect to Program 1, the Department determined that the 
program was terminated with no residual benefits in the 1990-1991 
administrative review. The Department has information on the record of 
this proceeding which indicates that this program was terminated at the 
end of the 1988 crop year and that final payments were made in 
February, 1990. Since the Department's determination in the 1990-1991 
administrative review regarding this program's termination, the 
Department has not found any grounds for reconsideration of this 
program or its termination. Based on these facts, the Department 
continues to find this program terminated.
    With respect to Program 2 and Program 3, the Department determined 
that these programs were terminated with no residual benefits in the 
1991-1992 administrative review. Specifically, the Department found 
that these programs were terminated prior to April 1, 1991, with no 
residual benefits after this date. Since the Department's determination 
in the 1991-1992 administrative review regarding the termination of 
these programs, the Department has not found any grounds for a 
reconsideration of these programs or their termination. Based on these 
facts, the Department continues to find these programs terminated.
    With respect to the Program 4, the Department determined that the 
program was terminated with no residual benefits in the 1994-1995 
administrative review. Specifically, the Department found that this 
program was terminated prior to April 1, 1994, with no residual 
benefits after this date. Further, information on the record indicates 
that this program was only in existence during fiscal year 1988-1989 
and that all benefits were countervailed during the 1988-1989 
administrative review. Since the Department's determination in the 
1994-1995 administrative review regarding this program's termination, 
the Department has not found any grounds for a reconsideration of this 
program or its termination. Based on these facts, the Department 
continues to find this program terminated.
    Comment 5: The NPPC argues that the Department should take into 
consideration new programs that have not been investigated and include 
such programs in its analysis. The NPPC argues that the Department 
should consider new programs proposed by both federal and provincial 
governments and should consider programs determined to provide 
subsidies in other proceedings.
    Specifically, the NPPC alleges that the Farm Improvement and 
Marketing Cooperative Loans Act (``FIMCLA''), identified in the 
Department's Preliminary Negative Countervailing Duty Determination; 
Live Cattle from Canada (64 FR 25279, May 11, 1999) (``Cattle 
Prelim''), provides countervailable benefits to Canadian hog producers. 
In addition, the NPPC alleges that the Manitoba Pork Council will 
impose a twenty cent levy on each iso-wean and weanling pig exported 
out of the province. This export tax is apparently being used to fund 
Manitoba manure disposal. Therefore, the NPPC requests that the 
Department include these programs in its final sunset determination as 
programs likely to provide a countervailable subsidy were the order 
revoked.
    The CPC asserts that the news release, relied upon by the NPPC in 
its request that the Department identify subsidy rates from levies 
being imposed by the Manitoba Pork Council, does not discuss a new 
government program, but rather, on-going producer-funded activities. 
The CPC argues that the NPPC has not identified a new program, nor has 
it even attempted to explain how producer-collected and producer-funded 
promotion, education and research activities could ever provide a 
countervailable benefit. On this basis, the CPC argues that the 
statutory likelihood the Department must have in making its 
calculations is not present.
    With respect to the program currently under investigation in the 
live cattle investigation, the CPC argues that the Department need not 
consider such programs and, in the Preliminary Results, correctly 
rejected the NPPC's suggestion to do so.
    Department Response: The Department disagrees with the NPPC. With 
respect to new programs proposed by the federal and provincial 
governments of Canada, the NPPC merely claims that these governments 
are discussing the possibility of establishing new subsidies for 
Canada's hog farmers. Furthermore, the NPPC argues that the Canadian 
federal government is contemplating a recovery plan that would include 
a comprehensive financial aid package that could potentially provide 
subsidies. The Department finds that reports of mere ``contemplation'' 
or ``possibility'' of new programs do not provide sufficient 
justification for the Department to determine that new programs will 
provide a countervailable subsidy were the order revoked.
    With respect to FIMCLA, the Department disagrees with the NPPC. 
First, the FIMCLA program was enacted in 1987 with the purpose of 
increasing the availability of loans for the improvement and 
development of farms and the processing, distribution or marketing of 
farm products by cooperative associations. The SAA at 889 states that 
``subsidy allegations normally should be made in the context of 
[administrative] reviews . . . however, where there have been no recent 
[administrative] reviews or where the alleged countervailable subsidy 
program came into existence after the most recently completed 
[administrative] review, [the Department] may consider new subsidy 
allegations in the context of a . . . [sunset] review.'' However, the 
FIMCLA program has been in existence for over a decade, providing ample 
opportunity for domestic interested parties to allege countervailable 
benefits to swine producers during the course of administrative 
reviews.
    In addition, the information included in the verification report of 
our investigation of live cattle from Canada relates only to benefits 
received by cattle producers, not cattle and swine producers (see 
Verification Report: Live Cattle from Canada, dated August 27, 1999). 
Thus, the Department has no information regarding the extent of usage 
of the FIMCLA program, if any, by swine producers and, therefore, 
whether there is any benefit provided to swine producers. Because the 
Department has no information with which to make a determination 
regarding any countervailable benefits of this program with respect to 
live swine because NPPC provided no evidence that this program was used 
by swine producers, and because domestic interested parties had ample 
opportunity but failed during the administrative review process to 
allege the countervailability of this program, the Department finds 
that an analysis of this program, in the context of this sunset review, 
is not warranted.
    Comment 6: The CPC and GOC claim that four programs identified in 
the Department's Preliminary Results as providing countervailable 
subsidies have been terminated.5 The CPC argues that it has 
repeatedly provided documentation demonstrating that these programs 
have been terminated (with no residual benefits) over the past three 
successive administrative reviews, although the Department did not make

[[Page 60304]]

a determination regarding termination in any of the administrative 
reviews. The CPC re-submitted the documentation concerning the 
termination of these programs for this sunset review and requests that 
the Department make a determination concerning their termination in the 
course of this sunset review.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The four programs are: Nova Scotia Improved Sire Policy, 
Newfoundland Hog Price Support Program, Newfoundland Weanling Bonus 
Incentive Policy, and Newfoundland Hog Price Stabilization Program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The NPPC argues that the Department, even applying the less 
rigorous standards of administrative reviews, has never made a formal 
finding that these programs were officially terminated. Further, the 
NPPC argues that the documentation provided by the CPC to support a 
finding of termination is insufficient to demonstrate that these 
programs have been terminated in such a way that they would not be 
reinstituted, as the SAA and the Department's policy bulletin 
anticipate.
    Department Response: The Department agrees with the CPC that it is 
appropriate to consider possible termination of these programs during 
the course of this sunset review. Because there were no exports of the 
subject merchandise from the provinces in question during 
administrative reviews in which the CPC raised the issue of program 
termination, the fact that the Department did not consider possible 
termination during the reviews could not have had an effect on the 
outcome of those administrative reviews. Thus, the Department has not 
had a real opportunity to address respondents' evidence of termination. 
However, because the existence or termination of these programs may 
have an effect on the outcome of this sunset review, the Department 
will consider such information during the course of this review.
    According to documentation presented by the Government of the 
Province of Newfoundland, the Newfoundland Hog Price Support Program 
was terminated on March 18, 1993, the Newfoundland Weanling Bonus 
Incentive Policy was terminated on March 31, 1993, and the Newfoundland 
Hog Price Stabilization Program was terminated on March 31, 
1994.6 According to documentation presented by the 
Government of the Province of Nova Scotia, the Nova Scotia Improved 
Sire Policy was terminated on May 15, 1996.7
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Questionnaire Response for the Government of the 
Province of Newfoundland, 1996-1997 administrative review and as 
submitted by the CPC in its August 9, 1999, case brief.
    \7\ See Supplemental Questionnaire Response for the Government 
of the Province of Nova Scotia, 1996-1997 administrative review and 
as submitted by the CPC in its August 9, 1999, case brief.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to the Newfoundland programs, the Government of the 
Province of Newfoundland submitted, in support of its argument for 
termination, a provincial budget report from 1993 indicating that 
production subsidies to hog producers were eliminated in 1993. Given 
this documentation submitted by the Government of the Province of 
Newfoundland, we are satisfied that the three Newfoundland programs 
have been terminated. Further, because the benefits from these programs 
would not be allocated over time, we find no residual benefits from any 
of these programs.
    With respect to the Nova Scotia Improved Sire Program, the 
Government of the Province of Nova Scotia submitted an affidavit in 
support of its argument that this program had been terminated. No other 
evidence in support of termination was provided. We do not find an 
affidavit, in and of itself, sufficient for the Department to consider 
this program terminated. Therefore, the Department will not consider 
this program terminated in this sunset review and will include the 
subsidy rate for this program in its net subsidy calculation.
    Comment 7: The CPC and GOC argue with respect to the Western 
Diversification Program, the Agricultural Products Board Program, and 
the Federal Atlantic Livestock Feed Initiative, that the Department 
never made a determination that any of these programs conferred a 
countervailable subsidy to producers and exporters of swine. Rather, 
although each of the programs was included in one or more 
administrative review questionnaires, none of the programs has ever 
been used or found countervailable with respect to exports of subject 
merchandise. As such, the CPC argues that the existence of these 
programs cannot support a decision that revocation of the order would 
likely lead to continuation or recurrence of a countervailable subsidy.
    The NPPC suggests that the status of a program that has yet to be 
countervailed should not be treated differently from a program that has 
not been used in recent administrative reviews. The NPPC argues that 
the order acts as a general deterrent to the continued use of 
countervailable programs or to exporting products that are subject to 
an order and thus it should not be viewed as unusual that a particular 
program has never conferred a benefit on exported products. On this 
basis, the NPPC contends that simply because some programs have not 
been countervailed does not mean that the programs are not likely to 
confer a benefit in the future if the order were revoked. The NPPC 
therefore requests that for the purpose of the final results, the 
Department should calculate a proposed benefit for each such program.
    In rebuttal, the Canadian respondents argue that there is no 
factual basis for including a subsidy rate from programs that have not 
been found to confer subsidies. Moreover, the GOQ argues that the 
Department must reject NPPC's argument and proposed facts available 
rates. Referring to the language of the SAA regarding the undue 
speculation associated with the calculation of future net 
countervailable subsidies, the GOQ asserts that the NPPC is asking the 
Department to unduly speculate what the subsidy rates might be for 
programs that never had subsidy rates calculated throughout the 
investigation and twelve administrative reviews. The GOQ further argues 
that the NPPC has submitted no evidence for the record that its 
proposed facts available rates bear any relation whatsoever to the 
rates likely to prevail for these programs.
    Department Response: We do not agree with the NPPC that we should 
include a proposed benefit from any of these three programs in our 
final calculation of the net subsidy likely to prevail. Rather, the 
Department agrees with the CPC that these programs, having never been 
found to be countervailable with respect to exports of the subject 
merchandise, do not support a likelihood finding. Further, we agree 
with the GOQ that calculation of a rate for any of these programs would 
be unduly speculative. Therefore, we are not including a proposed 
benefit for any of these programs in our final results.
    Comment 8: The CPC argues that the Ontario Swine Sales Assistance 
Program should be excluded from the Department's determination 
concerning the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of a 
countervailable subsidy. The CPC claims that benefits from this grant 
program were last provided to producers and/or exporters of the subject 
merchandise in 1982. Thus, the length of non-use of this program is in 
accordance with the Department's policy concerning a ``long track 
record'' of non-use of a program. The CPC, therefore, requests that 
this program be excluded from the Department's final determination.
    The NPPC argues that other factors outweigh the CPC's objections to 
the inclusion of this program. Specifically, the NPPC argues that, by 
its own title, the Ontario Swine Sales Assistance Program is 
specifically related to swine. Further, despite its non-use, this 
program has remained in existence for

[[Page 60305]]

one particular industry for an extensive period of time and is 
indicative of the special nature and special benefits that have been 
and continue to be available to this industry. The NPPC argues that a 
hog farmer's decision not to a avail itself of one particular program 
that has remained in existence while a variety of other programs are 
available and have been widely used does not demonstrate the requisite 
track record of non-use. Rather, it suggests that hog farmers have not 
been required to use that particular program because they have been 
able to benefit from the wide variety of other programs available. 
Under these circumstances, the NPPC argues that a long track record of 
non-use has not been established.
    Department Response: We disagree with the NPPC's argument that a 
long track record of non-use cannot be established in cases where 
exporters benefit from other countervailable programs that exist. We 
believe that such a standard would inappropriately make moot the 
question of program non-use in cases where any program continues to be 
used.
    Further, we agree with the CPC that there is a long track record of 
non-use of the Ontario Swine Sales Assistance Program. During the 
original investigation of live swine from Canada, the Department found 
that countervailable subsidies in the form of grants were provided 
under this program during 1982, a period prior to the fiscal year 1984 
period of investigation (``POI''). The Department has not found this 
program used during the POI or during any subsequent administrative 
review period (a period of over 14 years). As stated in the Sunset 
Policy Bulletin, where a company has a long track record of not using a 
program, including during the investigation, the Department normally 
will determine that the mere availability of the program does not, by 
itself, indicate likelihood of continuation or recurrence of a 
countervailable subsidy. Because the Ontario Swine Sales Assistance 
Program was not used during the POI or in any subsequent administrative 
review of the countervailing duty order on live swine from Canada, the 
Department determines that there is a ``long track record'' of non-use. 
Therefore, we find that the mere availability of this program does not, 
by itself, indicate likelihood of continuation or recurrence of a 
countervailable subsidy. Further, because we have determined that the 
program is not likely to provide a countervailable subsidy were the 
order revoked, we have not included a subsidy rate from this program in 
our calculation of the net subsidy likely to prevail if the order were 
revoked.
    Comment 9: The GOQ argues that three programs which the Department 
preliminarily found likely to provide a countervailable benefit, 
specifically the Quebec Farm Income Stabilization Insurance Program, 
the Ontario Bear Damage to Livestock Compensation Program, and the 
Ontario Rabies Indemnification Program, in fact, have a ``long track 
record'' of non-use and should be excluded from the Department's final 
determination. The GOQ acknowledges that the Sunset Policy Bulletin 
states that where a company has a long track record of not using a 
program, including during the investigation, the Department normally 
will determine that the mere availability of the program does not, by 
itself, indicate likelihood of continuation or recurrence of a 
countervailable subsidy. The GOQ claims, however, that holding 
transition orders (i.e. orders in place as of January 1, 1995) to the 
same standard as non-transition orders places an unreasonable and 
inappropriate time-specific burden on parties that was not intended by 
Congress. According to the GOQ, the long track record standard was 
clearly established for non-transition orders, orders that will be 
reviewed after five years. As such, the Department is unjustified in 
requiring a more lengthy long track record of non-use for transition 
orders based solely on the fact that the order is a transition order. 
Further, the GOQ argues that an order may be otherwise revoked through 
administrative review based on non-receipt or non-application for 
benefits for a period of five years. As such, the appropriate standard 
for determining long track record of non-use in a sunset review should 
be whether, for a majority of the recent five years, there is non-use. 
Based on this standard, the GOQ requests the Department determine that 
these three programs have a long track record of non-use and, as a 
result, exclude them from the Department's final determination.
    The NPPC argues that the continued existence of these programs is 
not in question. Further, the NPPC asserts that the non-use of one 
particular program among many other programs suggests only that the hog 
farmers have not been required to use that particular program because 
they have been able to benefit from other programs available. Under 
these circumstances, the NPPC asserts that a long track record of non-
use has not been established and, therefore, the Department properly 
included these programs as likely to provide a countervailable subsidy 
were the order revoked.
    Department Response: The Department disagrees with the GOQ that two 
of these programs have a long track record of non-use. The Ontario Bear 
Damage to Livestock Compensation Program was found to provide a 
countervailable subsidy during the 1994-1995 administrative review (62 
FR 18087, April 14, 1997). The Quebec Farm Income Stabilization 
Insurance Program provided a countervailable subsidy as recently as 
April 1, 1996 (see Substantive Response of GOQ at 11). Therefore, even 
if the appropriate standard for determining long track record was five 
years, these two programs do not have a long track record of non-use.
    With respect to the Ontario Rabies Indemnification Program, this 
program was last found to provide a countervailable subsidy during the 
1993-1994 administrative review (61 FR 52408, October 7, 1996; Amended, 
61 FR 58383, November 14, 1996). Although the Department does not agree 
with the GOQ that because an order could be revoked through 
administrative review based on five years of non-use, the long track 
record standard in sunset reviews must be five years, we do agree that 
there is a long track record of non-use of the Ontario Rabies 
Indemnification Program. Therefore, we have not included a subsidy rate 
from this program in our calculation of the net countervailable subsidy 
likely to prevail if the order were revoked. Department does not agree 
that this constitutes a long track record of non-use.
    Comment 10: The GOC and GOQ argue that the Department has twice 
refused to consider the requests of the GOQ and the GOC for ``green-
box'' treatment for the Support for Strategic Alliances and Technology 
Innovation programs under the Agri-Food Agreement because the benefits 
conferred by them are de minimis and would not affect the subsidy rate. 
Having refused to consider requests for green-box treatment, the GOC 
and GOQ argue, the Department cannot now find these programs to be 
countervailable. If the Department is to consider these programs, the 
GOQ asserts that the Department must make a determination regarding its 
``green-box'' requests and the countervailability of these programs in 
the course of this sunset review.
    In addition, the GOC and GOQ argue that these programs expired 
March 31, 1998. The GOQ states that the Department, in its 1996-1997 
administrative review, noted that the Agri-Food Agreement was enacted 
by both the governments of Canada and Quebec for the period April 1, 
1993

[[Page 60306]]

through March 31, 1998. The GOQ states that this program has not been 
replaced. The GOQ also provided an affidavit from a Quebec government 
official stating that the program has expired and has not been 
replaced. As such, the GOQ requests that the Department find the Agri-
Food Agreement has expired and eliminate it from the Department's final 
sunset determination.
    The NPPC did not address these programs.
    Department Response: With regard to the Technology Innovations 
program and the Support for Strategic Alliances program, the Department 
continues to find that any benefit to the subject merchandise under 
either program, or both programs combined, is so small that there is no 
cumulative impact on the overall subsidy rate. Accordingly, because 
there is no impact on the overall subsidy rate in this sunset review, 
we have not included the benefits from Technology Innovations program 
and the Support for Strategic Alliances program in the calculated net 
subsidy for this review. Therefore, as in prior administrative reviews, 
we determine that it is not necessary to address the issue of whether 
benefits under these programs are non-countervailable as green box 
subsidies pursuant to section 771(5B)(F) of the Act.8
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See, e.g., Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty 
Determination: Steel Wire Rod from Germany, 62 FR 54990, 54995 
(October 22, 1997); Certain Carbon Steel Products from Sweden; 
Preliminary Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review, 61 
FR 64062, 64065 (December 3, 1996) and Certain Carbon Steel Products 
from Sweden; Final Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative 
Review, 62 FR 16549 (April 7, 1997); Final Negative Countervailing 
Duty Determination: Certain Laminated Hardwood Trailer Flooring 
(``LHF'') From Canada, 62 FR 5201 (February 4, 1997); Industrial 
Phosphoric Acid From Israel; Preliminary Results of Countervailing 
Duty Administrative Review, 61 FR 28845 (June 6, 1996) and 
Industrial Phosphoric Acid From Israel; Final Results of 
Countervailing Duty Administrative Review, 61 FR 53351 (October 11, 
1996).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment 11: The Canadian respondents argue that the Department's 
decision to continue to treat the Quebec Farm Income Stabilization 
Insurance (``FISI'') program as countervailable is contrary to law. The 
GOQ states that in two administrative reviews, the Department treated 
the FISI program as non-countervailable as instructed by Binational 
Panels convened under the United States-Canada Free Trade Agreement. 
Furthermore, the GOQ adds, the Department has never found an above de 
minimis net subsidy for FISI in any administrative review of this 
order. Based on this information, the GOQ argues, the Department should 
determine that the FISI program is not countervailable.
    Department Response: The Department disagrees with the Canadian 
respondents. As we explained in Live Swine from Canada; Final Results 
of Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews, 61 FR 52408 (October 7, 
1996), the remand determinations issued pursuant to panel decisions in 
prior reviews requested the Department to reconsider certain aspects of 
the underlying methodology used in those determinations. Because panel 
decisions are binding only on the proceeding of that respective review, 
none of these remand determinations requires the Department to 
establish a policy affecting all subsequent reviews, as they are based 
on different administrative records. Therefore, because the Department 
is not bound by these panel decisions with respect to its decision in 
this sunset review, because the Department has found the FISI program 
countervailable even after the latest remand determination concerning 
FISI and because the FISI program continues to exist, the Department 
continues to find the FISI program countervailable.
    Furthermore, as explained in Live Swine from Canada; Final Results 
of Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews, 61 FR 52408 (October 7, 
1996), where the Department has determined a program to be 
countervailable, it is the Department's policy not to reexamine the 
issue in subsequent reviews unless new information or evidence of 
changed circumstances is submitted which warrants reconsideration. In 
this sunset review, the GOQ has presented essentially the same 
arguments as in previous reviews but provided no new information or 
evidence of changed circumstances concerning the countervailability of 
FISI. Because the cumulative information on the record of this 
proceeding provides no evidence that FISI is not countervailable, the 
Department will continue to treat this program as a countervailable 
subsidy.
    Comment 12: The CPC argues that the Newfoundland Hog Price Support 
Program and the Newfoundland Farm Products Corporation Hog Price 
Support Program, identified separately by the Department in its 
Preliminary Results are, in actuality, the same program. The CPC 
requests that the Department correct this error in the final results of 
this sunset review.
    The NPPC did not address this issue. However, as discussed above, 
the NPPC requested that the Department apply a neutral facts available 
rate to this program.
    Department Response: As discussed above, for the purposes of these 
final results, we determine that the Newfoundland Hog Price Support 
Program was terminated without residual benefits. Therefore, we have 
not included any benefit from this program in our calculation of the 
net countervailable subsidy likely to prevail were the order to be 
revoked. With respect to the Newfoundland Farm Products Corporation Hog 
Price Support Program, the Department agrees with the CPC that this is 
the same program as the Newfoundland Hog Price Support Program. In the 
notice of preliminary results of the 1987-1988 administrative review, 
the Department first identifies the program by name as the Newfoundland 
Hog Price Support Program Farm and then discusses the Newfoundland Farm 
Products Corporation Hog Price Support Program (see 55 FR 20812 (May 
21, 1990)).
    Comment 13: The Canadian respondents argue that three program rates 
from the original investigation, which used a different calculation 
methodology, must be trade weighted in order to be combined with rates 
from subsequent administrative reviews. The CPC argues that the subsidy 
rates calculated in the original investigation of this order use a 
methodology which the Department subsequently reexamined and ultimately 
rejected in the first administrative review. This new methodology 
weight-averages benefits from individual provincial programs by that 
province's share of exports to the United States (``trade-weighting''). 
This trade-weighted methodology has been used in every administrative 
review of this order. The CPC argues that the inclusion of three 
programs from the original investigation, which were not trade-
weighted, and seven programs from subsequent administrative reviews, 
which were trade-weighted, is illogical. The CPC argues that the 
Department is combining the rates of programs that were calculated in 
completely different manners. As such, the CPC requests that the rates 
from the original investigation be trade-weighted to reflect the 
Department's most current and accepted methodology.
    The NPPC argues that the Department properly used the rates found 
in the investigation, or review. Acknowledging that different 
calculation methodologies may have been used in subsequent proceedings, 
the NPPC argues nonetheless that the Department should not undertake to 
recalculate these rates based on different methodologies in different 
administrative reviews that are based on different records. The NPPC 
asserts that, accordingly, the

[[Page 60307]]

Department's preliminary calculations are correct and should not be 
revised.
    Department Response: The Department agrees with the Canadian 
respondents. Following the original investigation, the Department 
adopted a trade-weighting methodology for the calculation of subsidy 
rates for the programs benefitting live swine from Canada. The 
Department stated, in Live Swine from Canada; Final Results of 
Countervailing Duty Administrative Review, 54 FR 651 (January 9, 1989), 
that the trade-weighted methodology provides a better measure of the 
subsidy on exports to the United States than the methodology used in 
the original investigation. This is because it gives greater weight to 
those provinces which export more hogs to the United States and 
therefore more accurately reflects the level of subsidy on the subject 
merchandise. The Department continues to find this true. Therefore, for 
purposes of combining subsidy rates from the investigation (which were 
not trade-weighted) with those calculated in the administrative 
reviews, the Department finds that it is appropriate to trade weight 
the rates from the original investigation. We do not view this as the 
calculation of new rates. Rather, the Department is using the rates 
from the original investigation as adjusted by the methodology 
currently in use. The two programs from the original investigation 
which the Department applied the trade-weighting methodology to are the 
Quebec Farm Income Stabilization Insurance Program (``FISI'') and the 
New Brunswick Livestock Incentives Program (``NBLI''). The trade-
weighted subsidy rate for FISI is Can$0.00320542/lb. and the trade-
weighted subsidy rate for NBLI is Can$0.00000054/lb.
    Comment 14: The CPC argues that the remaining eight programs 
9 used by the Department in its preliminary net subsidy 
calculation have never collectively provided more than a de minimis 
level of benefit in any of the twelve administrative reviews of this 
order. As such, the existence of these programs does not support a 
finding of likelihood of continuation or recurrence of a 
countervailable subsidy were the order revoked.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ The eight programs are: Quebec Farm Income Stabilization 
Program, New Brunswick Livestock Incentives Program, New Brunswick 
Swine Industry Financial Restructuring Program, Technology 
Innovation Program under the Agri-Food Agreement, Support for 
Strategic Alliances Program under the Agri-Food Agreement, Ontario 
Livestock and Poultry and Honeybee Compensation Program, Ontario 
Bear Damage to Livestock Compensation Program, and Ontario Rabies 
Indemnification Program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The CPC argues that the fact that none of these programs is 
national in scope but, rather, each is limited to a particular 
province, is crucial to the Department's sunset analysis. Asserting 
that the SAA contemplates that the Department will take into account a 
company's history of use or non-use of a particular program, the CPC 
argues that, because the order is administered and rates are calculated 
on a country-wide basis, the Department should take into account 
provincial shares of exports over time to determine use or non-use of 
particular provincial programs.
    The CPC notes that the Department has never calculated an above de 
minimis benefit from the two New Brunswick programs and argues that the 
minimal exports from New Brunswick have never contributed to the 
overall CVD rate. Thus, Canadian exports have a long history of not 
benefitting from these provincial programs. Additionally, the CPC 
asserts that, based on the fact that Quebec has virtually no exports of 
the subject merchandise to the United States, as with the New Brunswick 
programs, Canadian exports have a long history of not using Quebec 
programs. The CPC adds that the reason for both New Brunswick's and 
Quebec's consistently very low share of exports is the growth of the 
pork packing industry in Quebec and the constant demand by packers in 
that province for live swine. This factor has been constant and will 
not change according to the CPC.
    With respect to Ontario, the CPC argues that although Ontario 
exports significant numbers of live swine to the United States, because 
of the very small nature of benefits from the Ontario programs, the 
Department has never calculated an above de minimis benefit for these 
programs over the history of these proceedings. In conclusion, the CPC 
argues that the existence of these eight programs do not support a 
finding of a likelihood of continuation or recurrence of a 
countervailable subsidy were the order to be revoked.
    The NPPC argues that in an administrative review, the Department 
properly weight-averages the subsidy rate on the basis of actual 
shipments because it is attempting to calculate a precise cash deposit 
rate that will actually be applied to exports. However, the NPPC argues 
that the sunset proceeding is substantially different from an 
administrative review, and thus the calculations in a sunset review are 
also substantially different from the calculations made in an 
administrative review. Given the objective of the sunset review is to 
calculate an estimated rate that would result if the order were 
revoked, the NPPC argues that it would not be proper to weight average 
the rate on the basis of past levels of exports given that the absence 
of exports may have been the direct result of the countervailing duty 
order and elimination of the order would likely result in the 
resumption of shipments. Accordingly, the NPPC argues that the 
Department has properly calculated the net subsidy rate.
    Department Response: The Department continues to find that where a 
countervailable subsidy program continues to exist and provides 
benefits to producers and/or exporters of the subject merchandise, it 
is appropriate to include such a program in the calculation of the net 
countervailable subsidy likely to prevail were the order revoked. 
Despite the limited use of some of these eight programs, producers and/
or exporters of live swine from Canada have received, and/or have the 
potential to receive, countervailable benefits from each of these 
programs.10 However, because the Department is combining 
rates calculated during administrative reviews, during which benefits 
were weighted based on province-specific exports, and the Department 
has determined it is appropriate to trade-weight the benefits from the 
original investigation in order to make a comparison based on the same 
methodology over the life of the order, we believe that the CPC's 
arguments and concerns are adequately addressed. As to the NPPC's 
arguments, while we agree that any rate calculated in a sunset review 
will not be applied to entries, we do not agree that our calculations 
should not be as precise as possible. Because the Department 
administers this order on a country-wide basis and has consistently, in 
every administrative review, determined that it is appropriate to trade 
weight benefits by province-specific exports, for the purpose of 
determining the net countervailable subsidy likely to prevail were the 
order revoked, as discussed above, we determine that trade weighting of 
benefits is appropriate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ The CPC claims that the Technology Innovation Program under 
the Agri-Food Agreement and the Support for Strategic Alliances 
Program under the Agri-Food Agreement were terminated on March 31, 
1998 and argue that neither program can provide a basis of support 
for the Department's Preliminary Results.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment 15: The Canadian respondents disagree with the Department's 
use of the de minimis rate from the 1989-1990 administrative review for 
the purpose of this sunset review. The CPC asserts that the Department 
provided no explanation for its choice of $0.0030/lb. as the de minimis 
rate. The CPC further asserts that the Department revised the

[[Page 60308]]

methodology used to calculate the de minimis rates in the 1995-1996 
administrative review so that the weighted-average selling price used 
in the calculation reflects the weight of a live swine. The CPC argues 
that the Department should, using pricing data from the most recently 
completed review, determine that the de minimis rate is C$0.0035/lb.
    The NPPC did not address this issue.
    Department Response: The Department agrees with the CPC that the de 
minimis rate from the 1989-1990 administrative review, by itself, is 
not the appropriate de minimis rate for the purpose of this sunset 
review. Because the net subsidy has never been reported on an ad 
valorem basis over the life of this order, the Department calculated 
the de minimis rate in terms of cents per pound (or kilogram) in the 
administrative reviews. We agree with the CPC that the Department 
adjusted the methodology for calculating the de minimis rate so that 
the weighted-average selling price used in the calculation reflects the 
weight of a live swine. However, we are not persuaded that such a 
change in methodology negates the validity of de minimis rates 
calculated prior to the change in methodology. Nor are we convinced 
that the use of the most recently calculated rate is appropriate. In 
considering the appropriate de minimis rate for purposes of this sunset 
review, we note that the de minimis rates have fluctuated over the life 
of the order, ranging from C$0.0028/lb. to C$0.0041/lb. Therefore, we 
determined not to rely on any one rate, but rather to apply as the de 
minimis standard in this sunset review an average of previously 
calculated rates. For this purpose, we calculated the simple average of 
the rate from the 1986-1997 administrative reviews,11 in 
terms of cents per pound. As a result, we find the de minimis rate to 
be C$0.0033/lb. (see Memo to File, RE: De Minimis Calculation, dated 
October 28, 1999).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Of the twelve administrative reviews of this order, the 
Department is creating an average of the de minimis levels using the 
last eleven. The de minimis level calculations are not available 
from the first administrative review (1985-1986 administrative 
review). The Department attempted to obtain the de minimis level 
calculations from the sunset review participants, however, these 
calculations either do not exist or could not be located (see Memo 
to File, RE: Request for De Minimis Calculations, dated October 28, 
1999).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment 16: The CPC claims that mathematical errors exist in the 
Department's calculations of the subsidy rates for six programs cited 
in the Preliminary Results.12 Specifically, the CPC argues 
that the Department's conversions from Canadian cents per kilogram to 
Canadian cents per pound in its Preliminary Results were done 
incorrectly for these six programs. They request that the Department 
correct these errors for its final determination. In addition, the CPC 
states that the Department, in its Preliminary Results, used both 
subsidy rates rounded to the fourth decimal place and subsidy rates 
rounded to the eighth decimal place.13 The CPC requests that 
the Department round all subsidy rate calculations to the same decimal 
place.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ The six programs are: Nova Scotia Improved Sire Program, 
Technology Innovation Program under the Agri-Food Agreement, Support 
for Strategic Alliances Program under the Agri-Food Agreement, 
Ontario Livestock and Poultry and Honeybee Compensation Program, the 
Ontario Bear Damage to Livestock Compensation Program, and Ontario 
Rabies Indemnification Program.
    \13\ The Department used subsidy rates rounded to the fourth 
decimal place for the following subsidy programs: Nova Scotia 
Improved Sire Program, Technology Innovation Program under the Agri-
Food Agreement, Ontario Rabies Indemnification Program, Ontario Bear 
Damage to Livestock Compensation, and Ontario Livestock and Poultry 
and Honeybee Compensation Program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The NPPC did not address these issues.
    Department Response: The Department agrees with the CPC and will 
correct for the final the conversion of the subsidy rates from cents 
per kilogram to cents per pound. As a result of our corrections, we 
find the net countervailable subsidies likely to prevail were the order 
revoked: Can$0.00000003/lb. for the Ontario Bear Damage to Livestock 
Compensation; Can$0.00000004/lb. for Ontario Livestock and Poultry and 
Honeybee Compensation Program; and Can$0.00000013/lb. for Ontario 
Rabies Indemnification; and Can$0.00000002/lb. for Nova Scotia Improved 
Sire Program. As such, the Department will rely on these values for its 
net subsidy calculations in its final determination.

Final Results of Review

    As discussed more fully above, we determine that the Technology 
Innovation and Support for Strategic Alliances Programs under the Agri-
Food Agreement are programs that, even if countervailable, would not 
have a measurable impact on the Department's net subsidy calculation. 
Further, we find that the Newfoundland Hog Price Support Program, the 
Newfoundland Hog Price Stabilization Program, and the Newfoundland 
Weanling Bonus Incentive Program are programs that have been terminated 
without residual benefits and we note that, even if these programs had 
been found to continue, they would have no measurable impact on the 
Department's net subsidy calculation. Additionally, we find there is a 
long track record of non-use of the Ontario Rabies Indemnification 
Program.
    We find that the Ontario Livestock and Poultry and Honeybee 
Compensation Program, the Ontario Bear Damage to Livestock Compensation 
Program, the New Brunswick Swine Industry Financial Restructuring 
Program, the Quebec Farm Income Stabilization Insurance Program, and 
the New Brunswick Livestock Incentives Program continue to exist and 
provide, or have the potential to provide, countervailable benefits 
were the order revoked. We combined the subsidy rates from these 
programs and found the net countervailable subsidy to be Can$0.0032/
lb., below the de minimis level of Can$0.0033/lb. (see Memo to File, 
RE: Final Net Subsidy Calculations).
    Based on the reasons cited above and those set forth in our 
Preliminary Results, the Department finds that the net countervailable 
subsidy likely to prevail were the order revoked is de minimis. 
Therefore, as a result of this sunset review, the Department finds that 
revocation of the countervailing duty order would not be likely to lead 
to continuation or recurrence of a countervailable subsidy.
    As result of this determination by the Department that revocation 
of the countervailing duty order on live swine from Canada would not be 
likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of a countervailable 
subsidy, the Department, pursuant to section 751(d)(2) of the Act, will 
revoke this countervailing duty order. Pursuant to 751(c)(6)(A)(iv) of 
the Act, this revocation is effective January 1, 2000. The Department 
will instruct the U.S. Customs Service to discontinue suspension of 
liquidation and collection of cash deposits on entries of the subject 
merchandise entered or withdrawn from warehouse on or after January 1, 
2000 (the effective date). The Department will complete any pending 
administrative reviews of this order and will conduct administrative 
reviews of subject merchandise entered prior to the effective date of 
revocation in response to appropriately filed requests for review.
    This notice serves as the only reminder to parties subject to 
administrative protective order (``APO'') of their responsibility 
concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under 
APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305 of the Department's regulations. 
Timely notification of return/destruction of APO materials or 
conversion to judicial

[[Page 60309]]

protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the 
regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.
    This five-year (``sunset'') review and notice are in accordance 
with sections 751(c), 752, and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: October 28, 1999.
Richard W. Moreland,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 99-28775 Filed 11-3-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P