(Cite as: 56 FR 50560)
NOTICES
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
[C-122-404]
Live Swine From Canada; Final Results of Countervailing Duty, Administrative
Review
Monday, October 7, 1991
*50560
(Cite as: 56 FR 50560, *50560)
AGENCY: International Trade Administration/Import Administration, Department of Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of final results of countervailing duty administrative review.
SUMMARY: On June 26, 1991, the Department of Commerce published the preliminary results of its administrative review
of the countervailing duty order on live
(Cite as: 56 FR 50560, *50560)
swine from Canada (56 FR 29224). We have now completed that review and determined the net subsidy during the
period April 1, 1989 through March 31, 1990 to be Can$0.0049/lb. for slaughter sows and boars and Can$0.0932/lb. for all
other live swine.
EFFECTIVE DATE: October 7, 1991.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Beth Chalecki, Sylvia Chadwick, or Maria MacKay, Office of Countervailing
Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, DC 20230;
telephone: (202) 377-2786.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On June 26, 1991, the Department of Commerce (the Department) published in the Federal Register (56 FR 29224) the
preliminary results of its administrative review of the countervailing duty order on live swine from Canada
(50 FR 32880; August 15, 1985). The Department has now completed this administrative review in accordance with section
751 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the
(Cite as: 56 FR 50560, *50560)
Tariff Act).
Scope of Review
Imports covered by this review are shipments of live swine from Canada. This merchandise is classifiable under
item numbers 0103.91.00 and 0103.92.00 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS). The HTS item numbers are provided for
convenience and Customs purposes. The written description remains dispositive.
The review covers the period April 1, 1989 through March 31, 1990 and 38 programs: (1) Feed Freight Assistance Program;
(2) Agricultural Stabilization Act (ASA)--National Tripartite Stabilization Scheme for Hogs; (3) British Columbia Farm Income
Insurance Plan-Swine Producer's Farm Income Stabilization Program (FIIP); (4) Quebec Farm Income Stabilization
Insurance Programs (FISI); (5) Saskatchewan Hog Assured Returns Program (SHARP); (6) Alberta Crow Benefit Offset
Program; (7) Alberta Livestock and Beeyard Compensation Program (Livestock Predator Compensation Sub-program); (8)
Alberta Farm Water Grant Program; (9) British Columbia (B.C.) Feed Grain Market Development Program; (10) Ontario Farm
Tax Rebate Program; (11) Ontario Pork Industry Improvement Plan (OPIIP); (12) Ontario Dog Licensing and Livestock and
Poultry Compensation Program; (13) Ontario Rabies Indemnification Program; (14) Ontario Soil Conservation and
Environmental Protection Assistance Program (Manure Storage
(Cite as: 56 FR 50560, *50560)
Subprogram); (15) Quebec Productivity Improvement and Consolidation of Livestock Production Program; (16)
Saskatchewan Livestock Investment Tax Credit; (17) Saskatchewan Livestock Facilities Tax Credit Program; (18) New
Brunswick Livestock Incentives Program; (19) New Brunswick Agricultural Development Act--Swine Assistance Program;
(20) New Brunswick Hog Marketing Program; (21) New Brunswick Swine Industry Financial Restructuring Program; (22)
Ontario Bear Damage to Livestock Compensation Program; (23) Newfoundland Weanling Bonus Incentive Policy; (24)
Newfoundland Hog Price Stabilization Program; (25) Nova Scotia Swine Herd Health Policy; (26) Nova Scotia Improved Sire
Policy; (27) Prince Edward Island Hog Price Stabilization Program; (28) Prince Edward Island Swine Development Program;
(29) Prince Edward Island Interest Payments on Assembly Yard Loan; (30) Ontario Export Sales Aid; (31) Western
Diversification Program; (32) Federal Atlantic Livestock Feed Initiative; (33) Canada-Saskatchewan Agri-Food
Development Agreement; (34) Canada-Manitoba Agri-Food Development Agreement; (35) Agricultural Products Board
Program; (36) Canada-Ontario Canadian Western Agribition Livestock Transportation Assistance Program; (37) Prince
Edward Island Swine Incentive Policy; and (38) *50561
(Cite as: 56 FR 50560, *50561)
New Brunswick Swine Assistance Policy on Boars.
Analysis of Comments Received
(Cite as: 56 FR 50560, *50561)
We gave interested parties an opportunity to comment on the preliminary results. Case briefs were timely submitted by the
petitioner, the National Pork Producers Council (NPPC), and by four of the interested parties, the Government of Quebec
(GOQ), the Canadian Pork Council (CPC), P. Quintaine & Son Ltd., of Brandon, Manitoba (Quintaine), and Pryme Pork Ltd., of
St. Malo, Manitoba (Pryme). Rebuttal briefs were timely submitted by the NPPC, the GOQ, the CPC, and Pryme. At the request
of the NPPC, the GOQ, the CPC, Pryme, and Quintaine, we held a public hearing on August 9, 1991.
Comment 1: CPC argues that petitioner's request for review should have been rejected because it was improperly filed.
Therefore, the Department's initiation of this administrative review is invalid and the review should be terminated.
NPPC rebuts that its review request was properly accompanied by a certificate of service and that failure of delivery does not
negate service. NPPC further states that no parties were prejudiced by any purported failure of service.
Department's Position: We disagree with the CPC. There is no requirement under the Department's regulations that a request
for an administrative review be served on other interested parties. CPC's citation to the service requirements for "factual
information" in 19 CFR 355.31(g) is inapposite. On August 17, 1990, we received a timely request for review from the NPPC.
Based on this request, we published a notice in the Federal Register, in accordance with
(Cite as: 56 FR 50560, *50561)
355.22(c), stating that a review had been initiated.
Comment 2: CPC disagrees with the Department's finding that the National Tripartite Price Stabilization Scheme (Tripartite) is
de facto specific. According to CPC, the Department's determination that selective treatment exists and Tripartite is
countervailable is not based on the record of this review. CPC further alleges that the Department ignored relevant
information provided by the Government of Canada.
CPC argues that the Tripartite Scheme does not meet the "specificity test" set forth in § 355.43(b)(2) of the Department's
proposed regulations. With regard to selective treatment, the CPC contends that the Department has not defined "enterprise"
or "industry" in the context of this review. Instead the Department has focused too narrowly on the number of commodities
for which there are already finalized Tripartite agreements, and not recognized Tripartite as a relatively new program with an
expanding number of plans. Furthermore, the Department has not attempted to analyze the de facto specificity of Tripartite
as the binational panel instructed it must (See, Memorandum Opinion and Order, In the Matter of Fresh, Chilled, and Frozen
Pork, United States-Canada Binational Panel Review, USA-89-1904-06, September 28, 1990 (hereinafter Pork)).
With regard to the existence of dominant users or disproportionate benefits, the CPC argues that the Department's analysis of
dominance is incomplete
(Cite as: 56 FR 50560, *50561)
because the Department has made no attempt to define the universe in which dominant users (or disproportionate benefits)
are to be measured. While hog producers may indeed have received more benefits than other commodities, they have
contributed more to the Tripartite fund than any other producers. Furthermore, CPC claims that the Department fails to
recognize the effect of the hog cycle on Tripartite payouts by not taking into account those review periods when no payouts
were made to hog producers. To put in context the amount of benefits received by hog producers with respect to other
commodities, CPC suggests that the Department use farm cash receipts statistics.
With regard to the extent of government discretion in conferring benefits, CPC argues that the Department cites to nothing in
the record of this review to support the statement that there are no explicit or standard procedures and criteria for
evaluating Tripartite agreement requests and that there is no evidence that Tripartite agreements involve undue
governmental discretion.
NPPC agrees with the Department's analysis of disproportionality and contends that the proportion of producer premiums
paid into the Tripartite fund is irrelevant in this context because the Department's concern is with government money paid to
producers, not with the producers' own contributions. NPPC states that the Department is directed to calculate the extent of
subsidization provided to a particular industry, not the relative value of government
(Cite as: 56 FR 50560, *50561)
subsidies to individual industries. Differences in the size of the industry or the value of the product are captured in the duty
rate, which is applied on an ad valorem basis. In support of its claim that the Government of Canada exercised discretion
with respect to awarding Tripartite agreements, NPPC notes that three commodities, asparagus, sour cherries, and corn,
applied for Tripartite agreements and were rejected. Although this information was obtained in the course of another
proceeding, petitioner claims that the Department has full authority to place this information in the record of this
proceeding.
Department's Position: The Department addressed the de facto specificity issue of the Tripartite program in Live Swine
from Canada; Final Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review (56 FR 28531; June 21, 1991;
hereinafter Live Swine Final Results). In that notice, we specifically stated that, in conducting its specificity analysis, the
Department looks at the actual number of commodities covered during the particular period under review and that the
Department has no authority to take into account predictions about the future expansion of the Tripartite program.
With regard to specificity analysis, in Pork the binational panel asked the Department to determine the predictable number of
products or enterprises that would be expected to apply for a Tripartite agreement in light of the availability of alternative
types of aid and the relevant economic conditions
(Cite as: 56 FR 50560, *50561)
of the covered industries. However, in the course of the same proceedings, the panel subsequently recognized the
complexities involved in such analysis and accepted the Department's rationale as sufficient to justify its findings.
With regard to the existence of dominant users, we agree with petitioners that the Department is directed to calculate the
extent of subsidization provided to a particular industry, not the relative value of government subsidies to individual
industries. In fact, the hog producers accounted for a dominant share of all federal Tripartite contributions in each review
period since 1986- 87. Furthermore, the same producers accounted for over 81 percent of the total payouts made in all
agreements in FY 1989-90, and 72 percent of total payouts in all schemes since the inception of the program. On this basis,
the Department found that the hog producers were dominant users of this program. For those years in which hog producers
did not receive any payouts, while still finding the program countervailable, the benefits accruing to the producers are not
quantifiable and therefore no benefit rate is calculated.
With respect to government discretion, we cited in the preliminary notice of this review and in prior reviews "conditions"
outlined in the ASA that indicate under what general *50562
(Cite as: 56 FR 50560, *50562)
circumstances the government may enter into agreements with provinces or producers, or provinces and producers, to
provide price stabilization schemes for any agricultural commodity. Specifically, the legislation states that the Minister of
Agriculture "may"
(Cite as: 56 FR 50560, *50562)
enter into agreements that will not give some producers an advantage over others or be an incentive to overproduce.
However, those are broad principles that "may" be taken into account in entering into agreements. The record is silent with
regard to specific criteria used to evaluate applications and select producers/enterprises for Tripartite agreements.
Based on the record in this review, only 11 out of more than 100 agricultural commodities receive Tripartite benefits; hog
producers were dominant users of this program; and no explicit or standard criteria for evaluating Tripartite agreement
requests were submitted to the Department. We therefore continue to find the Tripartite agreement countervailable because
it is limited to a specific group of enterprises or industries.
Comment 3: CPC asserts that the payments made under the Alberta Crow Benefit Offset Program (ACBOP) are inseparably
linked with the federal government Crow Benefit payments made under the Western Grains Transportation Act (WTGA).
Because the ACBOP payments only compensate for disadvantages caused by a mandated federal government program,
payments made from ACBOP are not countervailable. The Department has found that no countervailable subsidy exists when
the benefits of one governmental program merely counteract the disadvantages of a related program, thus resulting in no
overall "economic benefit" (See, Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination; Certain Steel Products from the
Federal Republic of Germany, 47 FR 39345; September 7,
(Cite as: 56 FR 50560, *50562)
1982). CPC also contends that this program is designed for feed grains, not for livestock feed. Consequently, any benefit
would flow to an input in the hog production process. Therefore, an upstream subsidy investigation would be necessary to
measure the benefit, if any, to hog producers.
CPC further argues that the methodology used by the Department to calculate the amount of benefit is based on an
inappropriate and unreliable source and contains a significant error. By asserting that 3.5 pounds of grain, not feed, are
required to produce one pound of weight gain, the Department has significantly overstated the amount of grain consumed by
hogs in Alberta. CPC contends that although other information exists that CPC believes is more accurate, the Department
rejected such information as untimely in the 1988-89 review. CPC did not have the opportunity to present that information in
this review, because the preliminary notice was issued immediately after the 1988-89 final determination.
NPPC argues that the Department has previously rejected the same arguments on the countervailability of ACBOP in Live
Swine Final Results. NPPC further argues that the fact that Alberta's feed grain users would pay significantly less for grain if
the federal Crow Benefit program did not exist is irrelevant to the question of whether ACBOP is countervailable. Because the
federal program affects all of the grain produced and consumed in Alberta, absent ACBOP, all Alberta grain users would pay
the same price for grain. With
(Cite as: 56 FR 50560, *50562)
ACBOP, however, feed grain users pay substantially less than all other grain users.
NPPC maintains that the Department's reliance on a U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) publication for an appropriate
grain-consumption-to-weight- gain ratio is reasonable; however, NPPC point out that there is a clerical error in the
Department's calculation concerning the amount of grain fed to livestock in Alberta.
Department's Position: The Department fully addressed the same arguments on the countervailability of ACBOP, the need for
an upstream subsidy investigation, and the USDA document used in support of our calculations of the benefits from this
program in Live Swine Final Results. In that notice the Department stated that the fact that a program is designed to
offset the economic effect of another government program does not exempt it from investigation under countervailing
duty law. Furthermore, the Department stated that it is not required to conduct an upstream subsidy analysis in this case,
because the countervailed benefits are paid directly to hog producers, thus reducing their production costs. Finally, the
Department explained that it continued to use the USDA document because the information obtained at verification was
inadequate. The CPC has submitted no new information regarding this program; therefore, our determination that this
program is limited to a specific group of enterprises or industries, and is therefore
(Cite as: 56 FR 50560, *50562)
countervailable, remains unchanged. We have corrected the clerical error concerning grain fed to livestock in Alberta; this
adjustment does not alter the amount of the benefit.
Comment 4: CPC argues that the Feed Freight Assistance Program (FFA) is not a countervailable subsidy. FFA benefits are
provided to grain users (commercial mills and livestock producers) with regard to the manufacture of feed from grain. Feed
grain is obviously a different product from live swine. There is no evidence that the grain is imported into the United
States. CPC argues that to countervail benefits paid to producers of feed grain for livestock, the Department would have to
conduct a separate investigation or an upstream subsidy analysis.
Furthermore, the CPC maintains that the Department's calculation methodology is in error. CPC states that the percent of FFA
benefits countervailed by the Department is based on the Livestock Feed Board's estimate of payments made to livestock
producers who indicated that they raise hogs and, therefore, is not necessarily representative of the actual amount of grain
fed to hogs. In addition, the two-thirds of Ontario production and all of Quebec production included in the FFA calculations
significantly overstate the number of counties in those provinces which are eligible for FFA. According to the CPC, the
percentages of one-fourth of Ontario production and one-half of Quebec production would reflect more accurately the
production of the areas currently
(Cite as: 56 FR 50560, *50562)
eligible for FFA.
Finally, CPC requests that the description of the program in the preliminary determination be amended to better reflect the
language of the Livestock Feed Assistance Act of 1966. The Board action described in the preliminary results should be
revised as follows: "The Board acts to insure * * * (4) fair equalization of feed grain prices in Eastern Canada, British
Columbia, the Yukon, and Northwest Territories." In addition, the preliminary determination states that "(t)he Board makes
payments related to the cost of feed grain storage * * *" CPC points out that while the Board is authorized to make such
payments, none were made during the review period.
Department's Position: The arguments raised by the CPC regarding the countervailability of FFA and the need for an upstream
subsidy investigation have been fully addressed in Live Swine Final Results. As the Department stated in that notice, the
FFA benefits paid to feed producers who indicate that they raise live swine are countervailable because they result in
reduced costs for live swine producers. For this reason, no *50563
(Cite as: 56 FR 50560, *50563)
upstream subsidy investigation is required.
With regard to the calculation methodology used by the Department, we used the share of benefits paid to feed grain users
who raise hogs as "best information available" in absence of more precise information to determine the actual amount of grain
consumed in the production of hogs. Regarding areas eligible
(Cite as: 56 FR 50560, *50563)
for FFA, CPC failed to provide the Department with documentation supporting the proposed percentages. It is not readily
apparent, for instance, why seven counties out of 49 in Ontario are covered by FFA, and yet CPC proposes one- fourth of
Ontario production as the correct representation. We are therefore unable to take CPC's suggestion into consideration in
these final results.
For these reasons, the amount of benefit received from this program remains unchanged. We have, however, taken note of
the amendments proposed by the CPC in the language describing the program.
Comment 5: CPC argues that the Department should characterize the countervailing benefit to swine resulting from the
Ontario Farm Tax Rebate Program in the same method as in previous reviews, namely as a regional subsidy within the
province.
Department's Position: We agree with CPC that this program provides a provincial regional subsidy and that the only
countervailable benefit is to farmers in eastern and northern Ontario whose annual output is at least Can $5,000 but less than
Can$8,000. Our calculations reflect this determination.
Comment 6: CPC argues that the British Columbia Farm Income Insurance Program (FIIP) does not provide countervailable
benefits to hog procedures because it is generally available to producers of any viable commodity with an interest in and
demonstrated need for such programs. CPC also states that because over 80 percent of the farm cash receipts for the
province are provided by commodities
(Cite as: 56 FR 50560, *50563)
participating in FIIP, supply management, or crop insurance, enormous changes in the identity of FIIP producers are
unlikely. The Department can cite to no affirmative evidence in the record that the B.C. Ministry of Agriculture has denied
FIIP coverage to any commodity, nor that such denial involved undue discretion. With regard to the issue of the integral
linkage between FIIP, supply management, and crop insurance, CPC argues that once one type of program is chosen, the
others become superfluous to any particular producer group. In addition, CPC asserts that there is no supporting evidence
on the record that income stabilization programs encourage production.
NPPC argues that if the program were generally available, there would be no need for the Schedule B guidelines to the Farm
Income Insurance Act of 1973, which list all products whose producers are eligible to receive benefits under this program.
NPPC argues that FIIP, crop insurance, and supply management programs are different programs with different aims and
market effects, and that income stabilization programs do encourage farmers to produce more than they would in a totally
free market because they guarantee farmers a certain return on their covered commodities regardless of actual market
conditions.
Department's Position: We have addressed the issue of the general availability of FIIP in Live Swine Final Results. In that
notice, the Department found that the program is limited to a specific group of enterprises or industries, and, therefore, is
countervailable, because it is only available to farmers
(Cite as: 56 FR 50560, *50563)
producing commodities specified under Schedule B guidelines to the Farm Income Insurance Act of 1973. Therefore, since
this program is de jure specific, no determination is undue government discretion is required.
In the same notice, the Department also stated that, "it is our view that crop insurance and supply management are
sufficiently different so as to make the linkage with FIIP inappropriate." Our reasoning was based on an analysis of the
economic effects of these programs. Supply management programs aim to stabilize the market price of a commodity by
restricting its supply to the market; crop insurance and income stabilization tend to stabilize the production of a commodity
at levels higher than what would occur in a totally free market, because they offset income losses to the farmers, due either to
natural disasters or downward fluctuations in the market price. The CPC has submitted no new information for the
Department's consideration of this issue and therefore we stand by our preliminary determination that FIIP is
countervailable.
Comment 7: CPC argues that the British Columbia Feed Grain Market Development Program is not countervailable because,
like the Alberta Crow Benefit Offset Program, it attempts to counteract the disadvantage to B.C. grain producers and feed
users, including hog producers, caused by the Western Grains Transportation Act.
Department's Position: We have fully addressed the countervailability of the
(Cite as: 56 FR 50560, *50563)
British Columbia Feed Grain Market Development Program in Live Swine Final Results. In that notice, we stated that this
program is limited to grain producers and grain users in British Columbia and thus is limited to a specific group of enterprises
or industries. CPC has submitted no new information regarding this program, and therefore our determination of
countervailability remains unchanged.
Comment 8: CPC argues that benefits received under the Ontario Soil Conservation and Environmental Protection Assistance
Programs (OSCEP) are not countervailable. CPC maintains that the Department inaccurately described this project as a
separate program when, in fact, it is part of the OSCEP which is generally available to all provincial farmers producing
agricultural products having a gross value of at least Can$12,000. CPC asserts that the eligibility requirement of a minimum
gross value insures that all applicants are commercially viable farms, and that the existence of an eligibility requirement does
not automatically imply a countervailable program.
Department's Position: We have reexamined this program and find that the OSCEP is de jure available to all farmers in the
province. However, no information was provided to indicate that the program is de facto generally available. For this reason,
the Department is deferring the determination of the countervailability of this program until the next review. This decision
has no effect on the overall benefit found in this review, because the benefit
(Cite as: 56 FR 50560, *50563)
calculated for this program in the preliminary determination was effectively zero.
Comment 9: The Government of Quebec (GOQ) argues that the evidence on the record is contrary to the Department's
conclusion that the Quebec Farm Income Stabilization Insurance (FISI) program is countervailable. In fact, according to the
GOQ, the record shows that 87.8 percent of the total value of Quebec's farm production is insured under either FISI or crop
insurance, and 79.2 percent is insured under FISI or supply management. Therefore, the Department failed to take into
account in its determination all information provided on the record. GOQ further states that the Department's determination
is not supported by substantial evidence. The fact that a specific number of commodities enroll in FISI and others do not
does not constitute evidence to the GOQ, why some producers do not enroll in FISI, and demonstrate how or why the
*50564
(Cite as: 56 FR 50560, *50564)
number of commodities enrolled is a fact that proves targeting.
Furthermore, the GOQ claims that the Department has applied an improper test of specificity because the Department failed
to draw any regional connection between its alleged fact that FISI has been consistently providing benefits to the same group
of commodities over the majority of the program's life, and its finding of specificity and, thus, of countervailability.
Department's Position: We disagree with the GOQ. This is the fifth review of this case in which we have determined that FISI
benefits are de facto specific
(Cite as: 56 FR 50560, *50564)
to a group of enterprises or industries. As in previous reviews, we noted that the program provides benefits to a relatively
limited number of the commodities produced in Quebec (11 schemes covering 15 products) and that products accounting for
a large portion of Quebec's agricultural production eggs, poultry, and dairy products) are not covered by this program. In
addition to these facts, we noted that this program has been consistently providing benefits to the same group of
commodities (with the exception of the addition of soybeans during this period of review) over the last nine years. The
Department finds this fact inconsistent with the GOQ claim that FISI is available to all 45 commodities produced in Quebec. In
fact, if that were the case, it would be reasonable to expect that over a decade different commodities would have used the
program, as the production of individual commodities faced more or less favorable market conditions and different products
were affected to varying degrees by natural disasters and economic cycles.
We are not persuaded by Quebec's argument that benefits provided by the supply management and crop insurance programs
are relevant to this determination. As we have stated in Live Swine Final Results, we continue to believe that supply
management and crop insurance are separate programs which are not integrally linked with FISI.
Comment 10: The GOQ argues that the legal principle of estoppel prevents the Department from countervailing FISI on the
same evidence and using the same
(Cite as: 56 FR 50560, *50564)
reasoning as in Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination and Countervailing Duty Order: Fresh
Chilled and Frozen Pork from Canada (54 FR 30774; July 24, 1989). The GOQ contends that the evidence and principles
upon which the Department found FISI countervailable have been adjudicated and found to be inadequate by the FTA
binational panel in Pork, and hence the Department is estopped from relying on the same argument in this review.
NPPC argues that the FTA binational panel decision in Pork is not bending in a separate administrative review. Therefore, the
Department is not bound by the Pork panel decision in its administrative reviews of the order on live swine.
Department's Position: We agree with the NPPC. The Court of International Trade has stated that "the burden on the party
seeking issue preclusion is and should be exacting," particularly in trade cases. PPG Industries, Inc. v United States, 712 F.
Supp. 195, 199 (CIT 1989). The ITC determined live swine to be a product distinctly different from fresh, chilled, and
frozen pork. (See, Live Swine and Pork from Canada, USITC Pub. 1733 at 4.) The decision in this review is based on
an administrative record different from that compiled for the investigation reviewed by the binational panel in the Pork case.
Furthermore, the Department's determination of de facto specificity in this case is not based upon facts or reasoning identical
to that relied upon in the Pork case. See Department's Response to Comment 9.
Comment 11: Pryme argues that weanling pigs (weanlings) do not benefit from
(Cite as: 56 FR 50560, *50564)
specific countervailable grants, bounties, or subsidies, and are therefore not subject to countervailing duties in this
case. Specifically, Pryme argues that weanlings are outside the scope of the countervailing duty order because the
International Trade Commission's (ITC) definition of "live swine" was based on animals destined for immediate
slaughter; therefore, a review of the scope of this order cannot be justified. Furthermore, weanlings are classified under a
different subheading of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule than slaughter hogs.
Pryme also argues that if weanlings of less than 40 pounds in weight are not removed from the scope of the order, they should
constitute a separate subclass of merchandise, since they are not indexed and do not qualify for subsidies under most of the
programs, including Tripartite, covered in the reviews of this order. Therefore there can be no justification for applying to
weanlings countervailing duties calculated on the basis of bounties or grants awarded to indexed slaughter hogs.
Finally, Pryme argues that, if weanlings are not broken out into a separate subclass and given a separate rate, then the
Department should assign Pryme a company-specific rate. Pryme claims that regulatory constraints do not limit the time
period for a scope determination, and that the Secretary is directed to calculate a separate rate for producers/exporters
when a significant differential exists.
NPPC argues that weanlings are part of the same class or kind of merchandise as live swine, that weanlings do not
constitute a separate
(Cite as: 56 FR 50560, *50564)
subclass, and that Pryme has not overcome the presumption against company- specific countervailing duty rates.
Department's Position: First, the Department has already determined that weanlings are included in the scope of this order
(see, Live Swine Final Results Comment 9). Pryme has submitted no new information which would require the
Department to reexamine this issue. Consequently, we stand by our previous determination.
Second, Pryme's request for a separate rate for weanlings was submitted immediately after the publication of the preliminary
results of this review. The Department has considered Pryme's request, but determines that further information would be
required to reach a determination, and that it would be inappropriate to delay the processing of the reveiw to solicit such
information.
Finally, in this review, there is no basis for determining an individual rate for Pryme, since the Department did not request,
and was not provided with, company-specific information. In fact, in the reviews of this order, the subsidy calculations are
not based on benefits received by individual producers, but on benefits provided to live swine producers on a
province-by- province basis; the country-wide rate represents the cumulative benefit provided to all producers exporting
live swine to the United States. Pryme did not request a review nor did the questionnaire responses submitted by the
(Cite as: 56 FR 50560, *50564)
Government of Canada contain any company-specific information on Pryme. Thus we have no basis on which to evaluate
whether Pryme would even be eligible for a separate rate.
Comment 12: Quintaine argues that sows and boars are outside the scope of the ITC's definition of the industry and hence are
not subject to the order. Quintaine claims that the ITC must have intended to exclude all sows and boars from its injury
determination, since in the ITC investigation price trends were discussed solely in terms of barrows (castrated male swine)
and gilts (unfarrowed female swine). The ITA is therefore under legal obligation to conduct a scope review and exclude sows
and boars from the order.
NPPC contends that since the Department already found sows and *50565
(Cite as: 56 FR 50560, *50565)
boars to be within the scope of the order, the Department has no obligation to initiate a scope review. Furthermore, NPPC
points out that in the first review, Quintaine supported the Department's decision to separate slaughter sows and boars into a
separate subclass.
Department's Position: In the first administrative review of this order, the Department determined that slaughter sows and
boars constitute a separate subclass within the scope of the order. (See, Live Swine from Canada: Final Results of
Countervailing Duty Administrative Review, 54 FR 651; January 9, 1989). Quintaine has submitted no new
information. Therefore our scope determination remains unchanged.
(Cite as: 56 FR 50560, *50565)
Comment 13: CPC requests that the Department correct its description of the methodology followed in the calculation of
benefits provided by the Saskatchewan Livestock Investment Tax Credit and the Saskatchewan Livestock Facilities Tax Credit
programs to accurately reflect the actual calculations of the benefit. In fact, in this review the benefit was obtained by
dividing the total amount of hog credits issued during the review period by the total weight of live swine (minus sows
and boars) produced in Saskatchewan. In previous reviews, the Department had used either actual or estimated hog credits
used.
Department's Position: The Department has changed its calculation methodology with regard to the Saskatchewan Tax Credit
programs from the preliminary notice. Since Saskatchewan provided the amount of credits issued, but did not provide the
amount of hog credits used during the period of review, we are using as "best information available" the ratio of credits
claimed to credits issued from five previous years as provided in the 1986-88 review to determine an estimated percentage of
credits used during the present period of review. Therefore, the description of our calculation methodology applied to the
Saskatchewan Tax Credit programs should read as follows "To calculate the benefit, we divided the estimated total amount of
hog credits used by total weight of live swine (minus sows and boars in the Investment Tax Credit Program) produced in
Saskatchewan." The changed calculation for the Investment Tax Credit Program resulted in a benefit of $0.00022101 and
$0.00004860 for the
(Cite as: 56 FR 50560, *50565)
Livestock Facilities Tax Credit Program.
Comment 14: CPC argues that the Department erred in its conversion of swine prices from a per-kilogram to a per-pound
basis in the calculation of the de minimis rate. Further, CPC suggests that all numbers used in the determination of the de
minimis rate be calculated to four decimal places.
Department's Position: We agree with the CPC. We have adjusted our calculations of the de minimis rate to accurately report
swine prices on a per- pound basis and included all digits to the fourth decimal place in our calculations. The amended de
minimis rate for slaughter sows and boars is Can $0.0022 and the de minimis rate for all other live swine remains
Can$0.0030.
Final Results of Review
After reviewing the comments received, we determine the net subsidy for the period April 1, 1989 through March 31, 1990 to
be Can$0.0049/lb. for slaughter sows and boars and Can$0.0932/lb. for all other live swine.
Therefore, the Department will instruct the Customs Service to assess countervailing duties of Can$0.0049/lb. on all
shipments of slaughter sows and boars, and Can$0.0932/lb. on all shipments of all other live swine, exported on or after
April 1, 1989, and on or before March 31, 1990.
The Department will also instruct the Customs Service to collect a cash
(Cite as: 56 FR 50560, *50565)
deposit of estimated countervailing duties of Can$0.0049/lb. on all shipments of slaughter sows and boars, and
Can$0.0932/lb. on all shipments of all other live swine, entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or
after the date of publication of this notice. This deposit requirement shall remain in effect until publication of the final results
of the next administrative review. This administrative review and notice are in accordance with section 751(a)(1) of the Tariff
Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)(1)) and 19 CFR 355.22.
Dated: September 30, 1991.
Marjorie A. Chorlins,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 91-24087 Filed 10-4-91; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-M