(Cite as: 58 FR 54112)

NOTICES

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

(C-122-404)

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

Wednesday, October 20, 1993

*54112 AGENCY: International Trade Administration/Import Administration, Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of preliminary results of countervailing duty administrative review SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce is conducting an administrative review of the countervailing duty order on live swine from Canada for the period April 1, 1990 through March 31, 1991. We preliminarily determine the net subsidy to be Can$0.0289 per kilogram for all live swine. We invite interested parties to comment on these preliminary results.

EFFECTIVE DATE: October 20, 1993.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dana Mermelstein or Stephanie Moore, *54113 Office of Countervailing Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-2786.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On August 21, 1991, the Department of Commerce (the Department) published in the Federal Register a notice of "Opportunity to Request Administrative Review" (56 FR 41506) of the countervailing duty order on live swine from Canada (50 FR 32880; August 15, 1985). On August 12, 1991, the Government of Canada requested an administrative review of the order. On August 27, 1991, Pryme Pork Ltd., a Canadian exporter of live swine, requested an individual administrative review, and the National Pork Producers Council requested an administrative review of the order. We initiated the review, covering the period April 1, 1990 through March 31, 1991, on September 18, 1991 (56 FR 47185). The Department is conducting this administrative review in accordance with section 751(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act).

Scope of Review

Imports covered by this review are shipments of all live swine, except breeding sows and boars, from Canada. Such merchandise is classifiable under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS) item numbers 0103.91.00 and 0103.92.00. The HTS item numbers are provided for convenience and Customs purposes. The written description remains dispositive. The review covers the period April 1, 1990 through March 31, 1991 and 43 programs.

Request for Exclusion of or Separate Rate for Weanling Pigs, or a Separate Company Rate

On August 27, 1991, Pryme Pork Ltd. (Pryme) requested that the Department exclude weanling pigs (swine weighing under 40 kg.) from the scope of the order, or calculate a separate countervailing duty rate for weanlings, or calculate a separate countervailing duty rate for Pryme. The Department examined Pryme's arguments and preliminarily determines as follows: With regard to the request for the exclusion of weanlings from the order, Pryme has provided no new information which would warrant reconsideration of the scope determination reached in Live Swine from Canada; Final Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review (56 FR 28531; June 21, 1991) (Swine Fourth Review Final Results). In that review we determined, and the FTA Binational Panel reviewing that determination has affirmed, that weanlings are within the scope of the order. See Live Swine From Canada, USA-91-1904-03 (May 19, 1992) (Swine Fourth Review Panel). We have also considered and now preliminarily deny Pryme's request that the Department calculate a separate rate of countervailing duty for weanlings. The Department's general practice, as prescribed by the Act, is to calculate one countervailing duty rate for the entire class or kind of merchandise subject to an order. See 19 U.S.C. 1677e(a). The separate rate calculated for slaughter sows and boars in the first administrative review of this order represents the only instance in which the Department has calculated a product- specific rate within a class or kind of merchandise. See Live Swine From Canada; Preliminary Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review (53 FR 22189; June 14, 1988) (Swine First Review Preliminary Results); Live Swine From Canada; Final Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review (54 FR 651; January 9, 1989) (Swine First Review Final Results). The test used to establish the slaughter sows and boars exception consisted of two parts. First, we applied the criteria adopted in Diversified Products Corp. v. U.S., 572 F. Supp. 883 (CIT 1983) (Diversified Products). These criteria are: (1) The general physical characteristics of the product; (2) the expectations of the ultimate purchaser; (3) the ultimate use of the product in question; and (4) the channels of trade in which the product moves. Second, we compared the amount of subsidies received on the product (slaughter sows and boars) with the amount received on the other products within the class or kind of merchandise. Subsequently, we have determined that the Diversified Products criteria were designed to differentiate between classes or kinds of merchandise, not among products within a class or kind. We believe that it is only in the context of distinguishing between classes or kinds that the criteria can be effectively applied. If a product is within a class or kind of merchandise covered by a countervailing duty order by means of the clear intent of the original investigation, as expressed by the relevant descriptions of the merchandise, we have determined that the intent of the statute is that the class or kind of merchandise not be divided into subclasses on the basis of perceived differences in products based upon the Diversified Products criteria. Since the Department has expressly made the determination that both sows and boars and weanlings are within the scope of the order based on the descriptions of the merchandise in the original petition, the countervailing duty order (50 FR 32880 (1985)), and the final affirmative determination of the International Trade Commission, we conclude that it was inappropriate for the Department to grant the slaughter sows and boars "subclass" exception on the basis of a Diversified Products criteria analysis. Further, there is no statutory or regulatory authority requiring the Department to draw a distinction on the basis of product differences within a class or kind of merchandise covered by a countervailing duty order. In fact, the statute contains a presumption in favor of country-wide countervailing duty rates, and the statute and the regulations are silent on whether the class or kind of merchandise subject to a countervailing duty order may be separated into sub-categories. However, while the Department may further analyze the issue of granting separate product-specific rates in future cases, the Department has definitely determined that the Diversified Products criteria are only appropriate for distinguishing between classes or kinds of merchandise. They are not appropriate for distinguishing among products within a class or kind of merchandise. For these reasons, we preliminarily deny Pryme's request to establish a subclass for weanlings and to calculate a separate subsidy rate for weanlings. For similar reasons, we preliminarily determine that it is no longer appropriate to grant slaughter sows and boars a separate rate based upon the previous determination that the product constituted a "subclass." See Decision Memorandum on Product-Specific Rates in Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews, dated July 19, 1993. Finally, we have considered Pryme's request for a company-specific rate. Pryme certified, pursuant to 19 CFR 355.22(a)(2)(i), that it had not received any subsidies on its production or sales of "subject merchandise (i.e. weanlings, or swine under 40 kg.)" during the review period. At verification, we found that, during the review period, Pryme sold only weanlings, but received benefits under the National Tripartite Stabilization Scheme for Hogs on market hogs sold in the previous year. Since the class or kind of merchandise subject to the order includes all live swine, except breeding sows and boars, we determine that Pryme's certification that it "did not receive any benefits" was incorrect. See Memorandum to the *54114 File regarding request of Pryme Pork, Ltd. for Individual Review of Countervailing Duty Order, dated April 7, 1993. The Department therefore preliminarily determines the applicable rate for Pryme to be the country-wide rate applicable to all live swine, in accordance with 19 CFR 355.22(f)(5)(i).

Request for Scope Exclusion of Slaughter Sows and Boars

P. Quintaine & Son, Ltd. requested that the Department conduct a scope analysis for the purpose of excluding slaughter sows and boars from the scope of this countervailing duty order. As explained above, the Department has determined and the panels have affirmed that "sows and boars are clearly within the scope of the order. The order covers all live swine except breeding swine." See Swine First Review Preliminary Results (53 FR 22189; June 14, 1988); Swine First Review Final Results (54 FR 651; January 9, 1989). P. Quintaine & Son did not submit any new information that would lead the Department to reconsider its earlier determination. Therefore, the Department finds no reason to reexamine the scope determination made in the first administrative review.

Request for Exclusion by ManitobaPork, est.

ManitobaPork, est., the provincial hog marketing board, has requested that the Department exclude from the countervailing duty order weanling pigs weighing less than 40 kg. produced and grown in Manitoba and exported to the United States. ManitobaPork cites as authority the exemption of the Maritime provinces from the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the United States and Canada on softwood lumber products from Canada; the countervailing duty investigation on that same product; and subsequent U.S. Trade Representative actions involving the United States' reaction to Canada's unilateral termination of that MOU. See Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination: Certain Softwood Lumber Products from Canada (57 FR 22570; May 28, 1992) (Lumber). We are unable to grant ManitobaPork's request for several reasons. First, the Department's regulations, at 19 CFR 355.14, provide for exclusions of producers or exporters only when the request for exclusion is submitted within 30 days of the publication date of the Department's initiation notice in the investigation. There are no provisions for exclusions after a countervailing duty order has been issued. In addition, ManitobaPork is neither a producer nor an exporter within the meaning of 355.2(o). There are no provisions for exclusions of other parties. For these reasons, the Department cannot consider ManitobaPork's request for exclusion. Also, ManitobaPork's reliance on Lumber is misplaced. The Department excluded the Maritime Provinces from the Lumber investigation and the resulting countervailing duty order based upon the fact that those provinces were expressly exempted from the MOU by agreement between the governments of the United States and Canada. Therefore, as the Department found, the "special circumstances" necessary for self-initiation of a countervailing duty investigation under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) did not exist for the Maritime Provinces, "and the Department was precluded from self- initiating against these provinces." (Lumber, 57 FR at 22622). The binational panel reviewing the Department's final determination in Lumber has upheld this finding. In the Matter of Certain Softwood Lumber Products From Canada, USA- 92-1904-02 (May 6, 1992), at 136.

Request for Rescission of Initiation of Administrative Review With Respect to Quebec Programs

The Government of Quebec (GOQ) requested that the Department rescind its initiation of review of the Quebec Regional Development Assistance Program and Quebec's Farm Income Stabilization Insurance Program (FISI). The GOQ contends that rescission would be consistent with established Department practice as well as with the terms of the U.S.-Canada Free Trade Agreement. The GOQ cites the Department's determination in a prior administrative review of this order that the Regional Development Assistance Program did not provide countervailable benefits to live swine exported to the United States. The Department agrees; the Department found that this program was not countervailable in the Fourth Review. See Swine Fourth Review Final Results, 56 FR 28531 (1991). For this reason, absent new facts or evidence of changed circumstances, the Department will not examine this program further. As support for its request for rescission of the initiation of review of the FISI program, the GOQ cites Fresh, Chilled, and Frozen Pork from Canada, USA- 89-1904-06 (March 8, 1991) at 19, in which, it claims, the Department determined FISI to be non-countervailable. The GOQ further contends that its request for rescission is supported by the panel's statement that "(i)f Commerce nevertheless examines FISI in an ongoing or future administrative review, Quebec may have an argument available to it relating to deviation from administrative practice." In the Matter of Fresh, Chilled and Frozen Pork from Canada (Pork), USA-89-1904-06 (June 3, 1991). The GOQ's reliance on Pork is misplaced. First, Binational Panel Decisions do not bind subsequent proceedings. Therefore, the panel's instructions and findings in the Pork proceeding are not binding beyond that proceeding. Second, the Department did not find FISI non-countervailable in Pork. Rather, the Department removed FISI from the subsidy calculations in response to the panel's determination that there was insufficient evidence in that record to support the Department's determination that FISI was countervailable. More importantly, the administrative record in this review contains substantial evidence not present in Pork, demonstrating that FISI is provided de facto to a specific industry or group thereof. This analysis is presented below.

Analysis of Programs

I. Federal Program

Feed Freight Assistance Program

The Feed Freight Assistance Program (FFA) is administered by the Livestock Feed Board of Canada (the Board) under the Livestock Feed Assistance Act of 1966 (LFA). The Board acts to ensure: (1) The availability of feed grain to meet the needs of livestock feeders; (2) the availability of adequate storage space in Eastern Canada to meet the needs of livestock feeders; (3) reasonable stability in the price of feed grain in Eastern Canada to meet the needs of livestock feeders; and (4) equalization of feed grain prices to livestock feeders in Eastern Canada, British Columbia, the Yukon Territory and the Northwest Territories. Although this program is clearly designed to benefit livestock feeders, FFA payments are also made to grain mills that transform the feed grain into livestock feed whenever these mills are the first purchasers of this grain. The Board makes payments related to the cost of feed grain storage in Eastern Canada, and payments related to the cost of feed grain transportation to, or for the benefit of, livestock feeders in Eastern Canada, British Columbia, the Yukon Territory and the Northwest Territories, in accordance with the regulations of the LFA. In Live Swine from Canada; Final Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review (56 FR 10410; *54115 March 12, 1991) (Swine Second and Third Reviews Final Results), the Department found this program de jure specific and thus countervailable because, based on the written language of the LFA, benefits are only available to a specific group of enterprises or industries (livestock feeders and feed mills). The GOC provided no new information during this review to cause the Department to reconsider this finding. The questionnaire response indicates that the Board calculated that 3.25 percent of the total transportation expenditures for feed grain users receiving assistance under this program in FY 1990/91 benefitted live swine producers in the designated areas of Canada. Therefore, we divided the amount of feed transportation expenditures attributable to live swine producers by the total weight of live swine produced in the FFA-eligible areas of Canada during the review period. We then weight-averaged the benefit by these areas' share of total Canadian exports of live swine to the United States. On this basis, we preliminarily determine the benefits from this program during the review period to be Can $0.0007 per kilogram for all live swine.

II. Federal/Provincial Program

National Tripartite Stabilization Scheme for Hogs

The National Tripartite Stabilization Program (Tripartite) was created in 1985 by an amendment to the Agricultural Stabilization Act (ASA). This amendment, codified at section 10.1, provides for the introduction of cost- sharing tripartite or bipartite stabilization schemes involving the producer, the federal government and the provinces. Pursuant to this amendment, federal and provincial ministers have signed Tripartite agreements covering: (1) Apples; (2) beans (including kidney/cranberry, white pea, and other colored beans); (3) beef (including cow-calf, feeder cattle, and slaughter cattle); (4) hogs; (5) sugar beets; (6) lambs; (7) onions; and (8) honey. No new agreements have been signed in the last four years. The following provinces are signatories to the National Tripartite Stabilization Scheme for Hogs: Alberta, British Columbia, Manitoba, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Ontario, Prince Edward Island, Quebec, and Saskatchewan. As of the date of the questionnaire response, January 21, 1992, Newfoundland was in the process of negotiating an agreement. The general terms of the Tripartite Scheme for Hogs are as follows: All participating hog producers receive the same level of support per market-hog unit; the cost of the scheme is shared equally between the federal government, the provincial government, and the producers, with each government contribution capped at three percent of aggregate market value; producer participation in the scheme is voluntary; the provinces may not offer separate stabilization plans or other ad hoc assistance for hogs (with the exception of Quebec's FISI program); the federal government may not offer compensation to swine producers in a province not party to an agreement; and the scheme must operate at a level that limits losses but does not stimulate over-production. The Tripartite Scheme for Hogs provides for a five-year phase-in period to adjust for differences between the scheme and any provincial programs still in effect. All existing provincial stabilization programs except FISI were completely phased out by March 31, 1991. During the review period, two provincial stabilization programs remained in effect in provinces that exported live swine to the United States (see Section III). Stabilization payments are made when the market price falls below the calculated support price. The difference between the support price and the average market price is the amount of the stabilization payment. Hogs eligible for stabilization payments under the Tripartite Scheme must index above 80. Weanlings are not indexed. However, section 2.7 of the Tripartite Scheme for Hogs allows for provinces to divide payments between weanling producers and finishers (farmers who buy weanlings and raise them to market weight). Two provinces, Ontario and Quebec, utilize this provision, known as the "weaner split." The GOC has claimed that Tripartite is integrally linked to the ASA, the Western Grain Stabilization Act (Western Grain Act), and Canada's supply management programs, within the meaning of the Department's Proposed Regulations at s355.43(b)(6). See Countervailing Duties; Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Request for Public Comments, 54 FR 23366, 23380 (section 355.43(b)(6)) (1989) (Proposed Rules). The Department conducted its analysis of this claim based on the information which the GOC provided in its submission of March 16, 1992. For purposes of determining the specificity of a program pursuant to section 771(5) of the Act, the Department currently considers a claim of integral linkage by examining, among other factors, the following: (1) Administration of the programs; (2) evidence of a government policy to treat industries equally; (3) the purposes of the programs as stated in their enabling legislation; and (4) the manner of funding of the programs. In determining whether there is a government policy to treat industries equally, we look first for a documentary statement demonstrating the existence of "an overall government policy or national development plan," which would clearly indicate a government policy to treat industries equally. See Carbon Steel Wire Rod From Saudi Arabia; Final Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review, 57 FR 8303, 8304 (1992). As detailed more thoroughly in an analysis memorandum, we determined that the GOC did not provide any evidence to this effect regarding any of the three programs that the GOC alleged were integrally linked with Tripartite. Further, in examining Tripartite and the named and designated provisions of the ASA, we find that there are unexplained differences in the provision of benefits which can result in unequal treatment of different commodities. Regarding the Tripartite and Western Grain programs, they are neither funded by the same entities nor available everywhere in Canada. In addition, Tripartite payments are triggered differently than Western Grain payments. With its integral linkage claim, the GOC provided no information with regard to the Supply Management program which would show a government policy to treat industries covered under this program in the same manner as those covered by Tripartite. Indeed, record evidence demonstrates that the Supply Management program operates on a completely different basis than Tripartite. Based upon our application of the proposed integral linkage criteria to the information submitted by the GOC in support of its claim, we find that the evidence does not support a determination that any of these three programs were designed to function as complementary programs in conjunction with Tripartite. Therefore, the Department preliminarily determines that the programs are not integrally linked. See Decision Memorandum on Integral Linkage, October 12, 1993. Having preliminarily determined that Tripartite is not integrally linked with any other program, our analysis focuses on determining whether Tripartite, viewed separately, provides a domestic subsidy in law or in fact to a specific industry or enterprise, or group thereof. To reach a determination, the Department must interpret the phrases *54116 "domestic subsidy" and " specific enterprise or industry, or group of enterprises or industries." See 19 U.S.C. 1677(5)(A)(ii) and (B). The Act does not attempt to define these key phrases precisely. Instead, Congress delegated "wide latitude" to the Department to establish the parameters of these phrases and to determine whether a countervailable subsidy is being provided in the context of a particular case. See United States v. Zenith Radio Corp., 562 F.2d 1209, 1216 (CCPA 1977), aff'd, 437 U.S. 443 (1977). To implement this statutory directive, the Department set forth in its Proposed Regulations four factors at section 355.43(b)(2) that it will consider, among other things, in determining whether a domestic program is specific. See Proposed Rules at 23379-80. As the Department stated at the time they were published, the Proposed Regulations codified the Department's existing practice for determining the existence of countervailable subsidies. As the Department explained in the Lumber determination and elsewhere, in codifying its practice in the Proposed Regulations, the Department relied in part upon the Final Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review; Carbon Black From Mexico, 51 FR 30385 (1986) (Carbon Black). In Carbon Black, the Department determined, and based its affirmative finding solely upon the fact that, there were too few users of the domestic benefit program at issue to justify a finding of nonspecificity. Id.; see also Cabot Corp. v. United States, 620 F. Supp. 722 (1985), appeal dis., 788 F.2d 1539 (Fed. Cir. 1986), vacated as moot, Order dated Nov. 20, 1986 (predating the 1988 amendment to the Act and implicitly accepting specificity determinations based solely upon a single factor). The legislative history underlying the 1988 amendment to section 771(5)(b) of the Act makes clear that Congress understood what the Court had instructed the Department to find in Carbon Black, and that Congress regarded that determination to be a reasonable approach to specificity. S. Rep. No. 71, 100th Cong., 1st Sess. 122-23 (1987). We note that a recent binational panel in Pure and Alloy Magnesium from Canada, USA-92-1904-03 (August 16, 1993), at 35, stated that "Commerce need not continue to consider other factors once it determines that under one factor the subsidy is specific." In accordance with section 771(5) of the Act, the Department conducts a dual analysis in order to evaluate specificity. First, we seek to determine whether a program is de jure specific. In this regard, the Department has consistently interpreted subsection 355.43(b)(2)(i) of the Proposed Regulations, the first enumerated factor, as providing for the de jure analysis. See, e.g., Fresh, Chilled, and Frozen Pork from Canada, 54 FR 30744, 30777 (1989). Thus, if after considering this first factor we reach an affirmative finding that the program at issue is limited on the face of the law to a specific enterprise, industry, or group thereof, we consider this sufficient to warrant a determination of specificity. In prior reviews, we have determined that the Tripartite program is de jure not specific based upon the fact that on the face of the law, the benefits are available to all industries which comprise the agricultural sector in Canada. See, e.g., Swine Fourth Review Final Results, 56 FR 28531 (1991). Petitioners have presented no reason for us to reexamine this determination during the present review. Therefore, we turn to whether the benefits under the Tripartite agreement are de facto specific. As with our analysis of de jure specificity under the first proposed factor, we have consistently interpreted the statute as permitting a finding of de facto specificity based entirely upon any one of the other enumerated factors, or upon a different, unenumerated factor. In the 1989-1990 (fifth) review of the order on live swine from Canada, the binational panel upheld the Department's determination in its final results that hog producers were dominant beneficiaries of Tripartite during that period of review as supported by substantial evidence. In the Matter of Live Swine From Canada, USA-91-1904-04 (August 26, 1992) at 28. In its subsequent redetermination pursuant to remand, the Department explained that under its interpretation of section 771(5) of the Act, the fact that hog producers were dominant users of Tripartite, standing alone, justified determining that the program provided a de facto specific subsidy. Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Panel Remand, USA-91-1904-04 (October 30, 1992) at 12. In our remand, we also determined that because only 11 out of over 100 agricultural commodities received benefits under Tripartite, the program was de facto specific on that basis as well. Although, due to lack of record evidence, the panel could not accept our finding that the universe of agriculture was comprised of 100 commodities, the panel affirmed the Department's redetermination pursuant to remand, agreeing that, as a factual matter, "the number of users of Tripartite was small relative to the universe of eligible users." In the Matter of Live Swine From Canada, USA-91-1904-04 (June 11, 1993) at 11. Although our practice is not to reexamine a specificity determination (affirmative or negative) made in the investigation or in a review absent new facts or evidence of changed circumstances, the record in the prior reviews did not contain all of the information we consider necessary to define the agricultural universe in Canada. Therefore, we collected documentation on the agricultural universe as well as additional information. The analysis which follows is based on the Department's full consideration of that information. The same number of agricultural commodities (which the GOC now disaggregates into 13, rather than 11 items) received benefits under Tripartite during this review period as in previous review periods. In our questionnaire, the Department asked the GOC to define the universe of agricultural commodities produced in Canada; the GOC responded that "(i)t is not possible to provide a definitive total number of commodities, and a definitive value, for every * * * commodity * * * grown in Canada during the review period." We have examined the record of this proceeding, including information from Statistics Canada, in an effort to approximate the extent of the Canadian agricultural universe. Our analysis shows that over 80 agricultural commodities are produced in Canada, and are eligible to enter into Tripartite agreements. See Agricultural Universe Memorandum to the File, dated October 12, 1993. On the basis of this evidence, we therefore preliminarily determine that the number of users of the Tripartite program is too few, in relation to the large number of potential users, and that benefits are provided under Tripartite to a specific enterprise or industry or group thereof. In this case, a finding that Tripartite has too few users compared to the universe of eligible users supports a preliminary determination that the program is de facto specific and thus countervailable. Moreover, evidence on the record regarding other relevant factors supports, rather than detracts from, a finding of specificity on the basis of too few users. With respect to disproportionate and dominant use, the Department considers the history of payments under a particular income stabilization program to be probative of disproportionate or dominant use. See Pork, USA-89-1904-06 (March 8, 1991). In the case of Tripartite, benefits are received as *54117 insurance payments against income losses incurred by hog producers as a result of fluctuations in the market price of the commodity. The amount of the payment is strictly determined by the difference between the market price and the support price for hogs, which is calculated on the basis of the Tripartite cost of production model. Under these circumstances, the distribution of benefit payments among Tripartite participants during any single review period is more indicative of the price level maintained by the various commodities on the market during that period than of the tendency of a program to benefit some commodities more than others. For this reason, based on the assumption that over time market fluctuations may even out among covered commodities, the Department takes into account the history of payments under the Tripartite program. Hog producers have received 70 percent of all benefits paid out since the inception of Tripartite. This fact indicates not only that they have received significantly more benefits than any other producers, but also that they have received more benefits than all other producers combined. In addition, we note that 40 percent of Tripartite participants are producers of live swine. They are clearly dominant users of the program. These facts support the finding that Tripartite is de facto specific. Regarding discretion, the Department historically has not placed great emphasis on this factor for determining de facto specificity. In determining whether a government has retained discretion in its administration of a subsidy program, the Department first examines the enabling legislation of a program. If it appears the government may have retained discretion, the Department examines the manner in which the program has been administered. If it appears that the government may have retained the ability to arbitrarily deny benefits, we review the procedures for approving or rejecting applications for benefits. In so doing, we seek to determine whether certain applications either have been or may be rejected or discouraged, and if so, on what basis and why. Certain Fresh Cut Flowers From the Netherlands, 52 FR 3301, 3304 (1987). The ASA states that the Minister of Agriculture "may" enter into a Tripartite agreement when a plan meets two guidelines: one concerned with not giving enrolled producers a financial advantage over other producers in Canada, the other concerned with not providing an incentive for enrolled producers to overproduce. There are no definitions of "financial advantage" and no criteria for determining under what circumstances an agreement might stimulate overproduction. Moreover, even when the Minister of Agriculture determines, at her or his discretion, that these stipulations are met in a proposed agreement, based on the language of the legislation, the Minister of Agriculture may still choose not to enter into an agreement. The legislative history of the Tripartite program indicates that legislators were aware of the great amount of discretion afforded to the Minister of Agriculture under this arrangement. Therefore, we specifically asked the GOC about the negotiating process which leads to a Tripartite agreement. Producer groups must approach the Minister of Agriculture requesting a Tripartite agreement. Participation in Tripartite is not automatic. The GOC has not demonstrated that there are explicit or standard criteria for evaluating Tripartite agreement requests. The GOC did not reach agreement with at least four producer groups which expressed an initial interest in the program. Even once an Agreement is in place, as a Tripartite Agreement for Hogs has been since 1986, it may still take months or years of negotiations before a party may sign the agreement. For instance, at the time of the GOC questionnaire response (January 1992), Newfoundland had been negotiating to sign the Hog agreement since February 1991. Given the above evidence, we find that the government of Canada may exercise discretion in the administration of Tripartite. While these findings by themselves are not dispositive of the de facto specificity of the Tripartite program, they do not detract from the finding of specificity based either upon the small number of Tripartite users or upon the fact that hog producers are dominant users of the program. Finally, our review of the record indicates that respondents have not provided or indicated any other evidence which might detract from a finding of specificity. Therefore, during this review period, based on the above analysis, we preliminarily determine that the National Tripartite Stabilization Scheme for Hogs provides benefits which are de facto specific. During the review period, payouts for hogs were made under the Tripartite Scheme for Hogs in each of the nine signatory provinces, Alberta, British Columbia, Manitoba, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Ontario, P.E.I., Quebec, and Saskatchewan. Alberta, Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec, and Saskatchewan exported live swine to the United States during the review period. To calculate the benefit, we first divided two-thirds (representing the federal and provincial portions) of the payments made in during the review period to producers in each province by the total weight of live swine produced in that province during the review period, and calculated a benefit per kilogram on a province-by-province basis. We then weight-averaged each exporting province's per-kilo benefit by that province's share of total Canadian exports of live swine to the United States to calculate the average benefit per kilogram. On this basis, we preliminarily determine the benefit during the review period to be Can$0.0191 per kilogram.

III. Provincial Price/Income Stabilization Programs

1. Quebec Farm Income Stabilization Insurance Program (FISI)

The FISI program was established in 1976 under the "Loi sur l'assurance- stabilisation des revenus agricoles." The program is administered by the Re1gie des Assurances Agricoles du Que1bec (Re1gie). The purpose of the program is to guarantee a positive net annual income to participants whose income is lower than the stabilized net annual income. Since Quebec joined the federal government's Tripartite Price Stabilization Scheme for Hogs in February 1989, the FISI scheme for hogs has operated by covering only the difference between payments made under the Tripartite Scheme for Hogs and what FISI payments would have been in the absence of the Tripartite scheme. FISI is the only provincial stabilization scheme that continues to operate in conjunction with the Tripartite Scheme for Hogs. The FISI scheme for piglets insures sows as well, by applying a technical coefficient to estimate piglet production. Two-thirds of the funding for the FISI program is provided by the provincial government and one-third by producer assessments. Participation in FISI is voluntary. However, once enrolled in the program, a producer must make a five-year commitment. Each farmer may insure a maximum of 5,000 feeder hogs and 400 sows. Whenever the balance in the FISI account is insufficient to make payments to participants, the provincial government lends the needed funds to the program at market rates. The principal and interest on these loans are repaid by the Re1gie using the producer and provincial contributions. Although our practice is not to reexamine a specificity determination (affirmative or negative) made in the *54118 investigation or in a review absent new fact or evidence of changed circumstances, the record in the prior reviews did not contain all of the information we consider necessary to define the agricultural universe in Que1bec. Therefore, we collected documentation on the agricultural universe as well as additional information. The analysis which follows is based on the Department's full consideration of that information. In Swine First Review Final Results (54 FR 22651; January 9, 1989), the Department found FISI to be de jure not specific. Therefore the Department must examine whether FISI benefits are provided de facto to a specific group of enterprises or industries. As outlined above in our discussion of Tripartite (see Section II), a program can be found specific, as the CIT stated in Carbon Black, on the grounds that it has "too few users" to be considered non- specific. FISI benefits are provided through 11 insurance schemes covering the following fifteen products: (1) Feeder calves; (2) feeder cattle and slaughter cattle; (3) grain-fed calves; (4) milk-fed calves; (5) piglets; (6) feeder hogs; (7) lambs; (8) potatoes; (9) grain corn; (10) silage wheat; (11) barley; (12) oats and mixed grains; (13) sugar beets; (14) wheat for human consumption; and (15) soybeans. Although the number of commodities covered under FISI appears to have increased from 11 to 15 from 1988 to 1991, in fact this difference results primarily from a different method of counting the same commodities. Soybeans are the only new commodity to be enrolled in FISI since 1981. Otherwise, the same commodities have benefitted from FISI over the majority of the program's life. We have determined that there are over 80 agricultural commodities produced in Que1bec and potentially eligible for FISI. See Agricultural Universe Memorandum to the File dated October 12, 1993. We therefore preliminarily determine that the number of FISI users is too few, in relation to the large number of potential users, and that benefits are provided under FISI de facto to a specific enterprise or industry or group thereof. In addition, we are aware of no evidence in the record which would detract from a finding of specificity on this basis. For instance, an examination of coverage across all insured commodities reveals that producers of live swine are dominant users of the FISI program. Hogs and piglets account for 51 percent of the total value of the 15 commodities insured under the FISI program. Not only are they insured to a greater extent than any other commodity, the insured value of live swine exceeds that of all other FISI- insured commodities combined. These facts alone also support a finding that FISI is de facto specific. In addition, we note that the Act Respecting Farm Income Stabilization Insurance (FISI Act) appears to allow the GOQ considerable discretion in determining which products receive schemes. Schemes are established for any product or group of products which the GOQ "indicates." Neither the FISI Act nor any other record evidence provides any indication of what criteria the government considers in making this determination. The GOQ may also stipulate which region or regions of Quebec will be covered by a scheme. Also, the hog scheme is the only one for which a maximum level of insurance has not been set by the GOQ. Finally, according to the FISI Act, the method of computing net annual income and stabilized net annual income, in addition to eligibility and participation requirements, may be determined separately for each scheme. In fact, the stabilized net annual income, which is the level below which income must drop before FISI benefits will be paid, does vary across schemes. Based on the statutory provisions, we find that the government may exercise discretion in granting and designing FISI schemes. As with Tripartite, while these findings by themselves are not dispositive of the de facto specificity of the FISI program, they do not detract from a finding of specificity based upon either the small number of FISI users or the fact that hog producers were dominant users of the program. Therefore, since benefits under this program are provided, de facto, to a specific group of enterprises or industries, we determine that FISI benefits are countervailable. To calculate the benefit, we multiplied the total payments made under both the piglet and feeder hog schemes during the review period by two-thirds (representing the provincial portion). We divided this amount by the total weight of live swine produced in Quebec to get the average benefit per kilogram. We then weight-averaged the benefit by Quebec's share of total Canadian exports of live swine to the United States. On this basis, we preliminarily determine the benefit to be Can$0.0042 per kilogram during the review period.

2. Saskatchewan Hog Assured Returns Program (SHARP)

SHARP was established in 1976 pursuant to the Saskatchewan Agricultural Returns Stabilization Act, to establish stabilization plans for any agricultural commodity. SHARP provided stabilization payments to hog producers in Saskatchewan at times when market prices fell below a designated "floor price." The program was administered by the Saskatchewan Pork Producers' Marketing Board (the Board) on behalf of the provincial Department of Agriculture. In accordance with the Tripartite Scheme for Hogs, SHARP was terminated on March 31, 1991. At the time of its termination, only hogs and cattle had stabilization plans. The program was funded by levies on the sale of hogs covered by the program. Levies from participating producers ranged from 1.5 to 4.5 percent of market returns on the sale of hogs and were matched by the province. After the Tripartite Scheme for Hogs was implemented on July 1, 1986, SHARP payments were reduced by the amount of Tripartite Scheme for Hogs payments. The floor price for this program was calculated quarterly, and stabilization payments were made when the market price fell below the floor price. Payments were made to hog producers in each quarter of the review period. Whenever the balance in the SHARP account was insufficient to make payments to participants, the provincial government lent the needed funds to the program at terms consistent with commercial considerations. The principal and interest on these loans were to be repaid by the Board using the producer and provincial contributions. In Swine First Review Final Results (54 FR 651; January 9, 1989), the Department found the SHARP hog plan to be de jure specific and thus countervailable because the legislation expressly makes the program available only to a single industry (hog producers). The GOC has provided no new information to warrant reconsideration of this finding. To calculate the benefit, we added the provincial government's annual contribution to the amount the provincial government loaned to the hog plan account to cover the total amount paid out during the review period. We divided this amount by the total weight of live swine produced in Saskatchewan. We then weight- averaged the benefit by Saskatchewan's share of total Canadian exports of live swine to the United States. On this basis, we preliminarily determine the benefit to be Can$0.0007 per kilogram for all live swine during the review period. As of the program's termination date, the provincial SHARP fund had a sizeable deficit. Since no arrangements *54119 have been made for the disposition of this deficit, there may be residual benefits to swine producers in future review periods. Although termination of a program would normally require a change in the cash deposit rate, given these circumstances, we have not adjusted the cash deposit rate for this program.

IV. Other Provincial Programs

1. Alberta Crow Benefit Offset Program (ACBOP)

This program, administered by the Alberta Department of Agriculture, is designed to compensate for market distortions in feed grain prices created by the federal government's policy on grain transportation. Assistance is provided on feed grain produced in Alberta, feed grain produced outside Alberta but sold in Alberta, and feed grain produced in Alberta to be fed to livestock on the same farm. The government provides "A" certificates to registered feed grain users and "B" certificates to registered feed grain merchants, which can be used as partial payments for grains purchased from grain producers. Feed grain producers who feed their grain to their own livestock submit a Farm Fed Claim directly to the government for payment. Hog producers receive benefits in one of three ways. Hog producers who do not grow any of their own feed grain receive "A" Certificates which are used to cover part of the cost of purchasing grain. Second, hog producers who grow all of their own grain submit a Farm Fed Claim to the government of Alberta for direct payment. Finally, hog producers who grow part of their own grain but also purchase grain receive both "A" certificates and direct payments. In Swine Second and Third Review Final Results (56 FR 10410; March 12, 1991), the Department found this program to be de jure specific and thus countervailable because the legislation expressly makes it available only to a specific group of enterprises or industries (producers and users of feed grain). The GOC has provided no new information to warrant reconsideration of this finding. To determine the benefit to swine producers from this program, we used the methodology which we used in calculating ACBOP benefits in our redetermination on remand during the Binational Panel proceedings in the 1989- 1990 (fifth) review period. The Panel affirmed this methodology. In the Matter of Live Swine From Canada, USA-91-1904-04 (June 11, 1993) at 33-36. We first calculated a hog grain consumption-to-weight-gain ratio, using information from Diets for Swine, a University of Guelph, Ontario, publication submitted in the supplemental questionnaire response. The Department believes this document provides the most accurate description of the swine diet, which consists of grain (usually barley in Alberta) and protein/vitamin supplements. This document allows us to estimate the total consumption of feed grain per hog. Using the Alberta Supply and Disposition Tables, we estimated the quantity of grain consumed by livestock in Alberta during the review period. We multiplied the number of swine produced in Alberta by the average total grain consumption per hog as estimated above, and divided the result by total grain used to feed livestock. We thus calculated the percentage of total livestock consumption of grain in Alberta attributable to live swine to be 12.92 percent. We then multiplied this percentage by the total value of certificates and payments received during the review period to calculate the amount of benefit attributable to swine producers from this program. We weight-averaged the benefit by Alberta's share of total Canadian exports of live swine to the United States. On this basis, we preliminarily determine the benefit during the review period to be Can$0.0030 per kilogram.

2. Alberta Livestock and Beeyard Compensation Program (Livestock Predator Compensation Sub-Program)

This program compensates Alberta livestock producers for loss of food- producing livestock, including cattle, sheep, hogs, goats, rabbits and poultry, to predators. The Alberta Department of Agriculture administers this program, and provides assistance in the form of grants. As of June 1, 1990, a farmer may be compensated for up to 100 percent of the value of the killed livestock. Compensation for missing animals (previously 30 percent of commercial value) has been discontinued. In Live Swine from Canada; Final Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review (56 FR 50560; October 7, 1991) (Swine Fifth Review Final Results), the Department found this program to be de jure specific and thus countervailable because the legislation expressly makes it available only to a specific group of enterprises or industries (livestock farmers). The GOC has provided no new information to warrant reconsideration of this finding. To calculate the benefit, we divided the total payment to hog producers under this program by the total weight of live swine produced in Alberta during the review period. We then weight-averaged the result by Alberta's share of Canadian exports of live swine to the United States during the review period. On this basis, we preliminarily determine the benefits from this program during the review period to be significantly less than Can$0.0001 per kilogram.

3. Ontario Farm Tax Rebate Program

This program replaced the Ontario Farm Tax Reduction Program. Eligible farmers receive a rebate of up to 75 percent of property taxes levied on farm properties for municipal and school purposes, levied for local improvements under the Local Improvement Act, levied under the Provincial Land Tax Act or the Local Roads Boards Act, and imposed under the Local Services Boards Act, with rebate reductions for off-farm income above set levels. Farm property includes farm lands and outbuildings, whether owned or rented. Eligible properties include farms that produce food, fish, breeding horses and donkeys, pregnant mare's urine, fur-bearing animals, tobacco, flowers, nursery stock (sod or ornamental). Any resident of Ontario may receive a rebate if he or she owns or rents and pays taxes on eligible properties. Beginning on April 1, 1991, the minimum gross production value was set at Can$7,000 for all of Ontario. Before April 1, 1991, and therefore during the review period, residents of Southern and Western Ontario must have produced farm products with a gross value of at least Can$8,000 and residents of Northern and Eastern Ontario must have produced products with a gross value of at least Can$5,000. In Swine First Review Preliminary Results (53 FR 22189; June 14, 1988), the Department found this program to be de jure specific, and thus countervailable, because the benefits provided varied depending on the region of Ontario in which the farm was located. This finding was unchanged in the final results of that review. The GOC has provided no new information to warrant reconsideration of this finding for this review period. To calculate the benefit, we divided total rebates to swine producers in Eastern and Northern Ontario with sales within the Can$5,000 to Can$8,000 range by the total weight of live swine produced in Ontario during the review period. We then weight-averaged the result by Ontario's share of Canadian exports of live swine to the United States during the review period. On this basis, we preliminarily determine the benefits from this program during the review period to be significantly less than Can$0.0001 per kilogram.

*54120 4. Livestock Improvement Program for Northern Ontario

To improve the quality of livestock in Northern Ontario, this program reimburses farmers for up to 20 percent of the purchase cost of breeding stock, including dairy cows, heifers, beef bulls, rams, ewes, boars, and gilts. The maximum grant payable to an applicant is Can$1,700. This program was terminated on April 1, 1991. In Swine First Review Preliminary Results (53 FR 22189; June 14, 1988), the Department found this program to be de jure specific and thus countervailable, because only livestock farmers in Northern Ontario are eligible. This finding was unchanged in the final results of that review. The GOC has provided no new information to warrant reconsideration of this finding. To calculate the benefit, we divided the total payment to hog producers under this program by the total weight of live swine produced in Ontario during the review period. We then weight-averaged the result by Ontario's share of Canadian exports of live swine to the United States during the review period. On this basis, we preliminarily determine the benefit to be significantly less than Can$0.0001 per kilogram.

5. Ontario Pork Industry Improvement Plan (OPIIP)

This five-year plan commenced on April 1, 1986, and was terminated on March 31, 1991. The plan provided grants to Ontario swine producers to enable them to improve their productivity, profitability, and competitive position by increasing their efficiency. To be eligible for the plan, producers must be residents of Ontario, own or lease facilities in Ontario for swine production and have at least 20 sow equivalents. One sow equivalent is equal to one sow or 15 market-weight hogs marketed annually. Ten types of grants are available to swine producers under this plan. During the review period, Ontario swine producers received grants under the following programs: swine production analysis, enterprise analysis, swine ventilation, productivity and quality improvement, artificial insemination, rodent control, private veterinary herd health program, education, and restocking. In Live Swine from Canada; Preliminary Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review (55 FR 20812; May 21, 1990) (Swine Second and Third Review Preliminary Results), the Department found this program to be de jure specific and thus countervailable, because the program's legislation expressly makes it available only to swine producers. This finding was unchanged in the final results of that review. The GOC has provided no new information to warrant reconsideration of this finding. To calculate the benefit, we divided the total value of all grants provided to swine producers during the review period by the total weight of live swine produced in Ontario during this period. We then weight-averaged the result by Ontario's share of total Canadian exports of live swine to the United States during the review period. On this basis, we preliminarily determine the benefits from this program to be Can$0.0004 per kilogram during the review period.

6. Ontario Rabies Indemnification Program

This program, administered by the Farm Assistance Branch of the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food, compensates livestock producers, including producers of cattle, horses, sheep, swine, and goats, for damage caused by rabies. Producers apply for compensation through a federal inspector, who determines that the animal is suffering from rabies and orders the animal to be destroyed. A maximum of Can$100 may be paid by the province of Ontario per hog under this program, with the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture (OMAF) reimbursing the province for 40 percent of the total amount paid. In Live Swine from Canada; Preliminary Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review (56 FR 29224; June 26, 1991) (Swine Fifth Review Preliminary Results), the Department found this program to be de jure specific and thus countervailable, because the program's legislation expressly makes it available only to livestock producers. This finding was unchanged in the final results of that review. The GOC has provided no new information to warrant reconsideration of this finding. To calculate the benefit, we divided the total payments to swine producers under this program by the total weight of live swine produced in Ontario during the review period. We then weight- averaged the result by Ontario's share of total Canadian exports of live swine to the United States during the review period. On this basis, we preliminarily determine the benefits from this program during the review period to be significantly less than Can$0.0001 per kilogram.

7. Saskatchewan Livestock Investment Tax Credit

Saskatchewan's 1984 Livestock Tax Credit Act provides tax credits to individuals, partnerships, cooperatives and corporations who owned and fed livestock marketed or slaughtered by December 31, 1989. This program was terminated on December 31, 1989. Claimants must be residents of Saskatchewan and pay Saskatchewan income taxes. Eligible claimants can receive credits of Can$25 for each bull, steer or heifer, Can$2 for each lamb and Can$3 for each hog. The tax credits may be carried forward for up to seven years. In Swine First Review Preliminary Results (53 FR 22189; June 14, 1988), the Department found this program to be de jure specific and thus countervailable, because the program's legislation expressly makes it available only to livestock producers. This finding was unchanged in the final results of that review. The GOC has provided no new information to warrant reconsideration of this finding. In the questionnaire response, the GOC estimated the amount of tax credits used by hog producers in Saskatchewan during the review period, since the actual amount was unavailable. To calculate the benefit, we divided this amount by the total weight of live swine produced in Saskatchewan. We then weight-averaged the result by Saskatchewan's share of total exports of live swine to the United States. On this basis, we preliminarily determine the benefit from this program to be Can$0.0005 per kilogram during the review period.

8. Saskatchewan Livestock Facilities Tax Credit Program

This program was implemented on January 1, 1986 and provides tax credits to livestock producers applying before December 31, 1989, for investment in livestock production facilities. The credit may only be used to offset provincial taxes. Applications for tax credits must be received by the Saskatchewan Ministry of Agriculture no later than six months after the project is completed. This program was terminated on December 31, 1989. Livestock covered by this program can be raised for either breeding or slaughter. Eligible livestock include cattle, horses, sheep, swine, goats, poultry, bees, fur-bearing animals raised in captivity, or any other designated animals. Investments covered under the program include new buildings, improvements to existing livestock facilities, and any stationary equipment related to livestock facilities. The program pays 15 percent of 95 percent of project costs, or 14.25 percent of total costs, so that it will not overlap with the Business Investment Tax Credit Program, a federal program. Participants *54121 may carry forward any unused credit for up to seven years. In Swine Second and Third Review Preliminary Results (55 FR 20812; May 21, 1990), the Department found this program to be de jure specific and thus countervailable, because the program's legislation expressly makes it available only to livestock producers. This finding was unchanged in the final results of that review. The GOC has provided no new information to warrant reconsideration of this finding. In the questionnaire response, the GOC estimated the amount of tax credits used by hog producers in Saskatchewan during the review period, since the actual amount was unavailable. To calculate the benefit, we divided this amount by the total weight of live swine produced in Saskatchewan during the review period. We then weight-averaged the result by Saskatchewan's share of total exports of live swine to the United States during the review period. On this basis, we preliminarily determine the benefits from this program during the review period to be Can$0.0003 per kilogram.

Other Programs

We have examined the following programs and preliminarily determine that Canadian exporters of live swine to the United States did not use them during the review period: (1) Canada/British Columbia Agri-Food Regional Development Subsidiary Agreement; (2) Canada/Quebec Subsidiary Agreement of Agri-food Development; (3) Canada/Manitoba Agri-Food Development Agreement; (4) Western Diversification Program; (5) Agricultural Products Board Program; (6) Canada/Alberta Swine Improvement Programs Study; (7) Canada/Ontario Canadian Western Agribition Livestock Transportation Assistance Program; (8) British Columbia Swine Herd Improvement Program; (9) Ontario Export Sales Aid; (10) Ontario Bear Damage to Livestock Program; (11) Ontario Dog Licensing and Livestock and Poultry Compensation Program; (12) New Brunswick Agriculture Development Act--Swine Assistance Program; (13) New Brunswick Swine Industry Financial Restructuring Program; (14) British Columbia Farm Income Insurance Program; (15) New Brunswick Livestock Incentives Program; (16) New Brunswick Hog Marketing Program; (17) New Brunswick Hog Price Stabilization Program; (18) New Brunswick Swine Assistance Policy on Boars; (19) Prince Edward Island Hog Price Stabilization Program; (20) Prince Edward Island Swine Development Program; (21) Prince Edward Island Interest Payment on Assembly Yard Program; (22) Nova Scotia Swine Herd Health Policy; (23) Nova Scotia Improved Sire Policy (24) Newfoundland Farm Products Corporation Hog Price Support Program; and (25) Newfoundland Weanling Bonus Incentive Policy. We have examined the following programs and preliminarily determine that they have been terminated or that swine producers are no longer eligible: (26) Canada-Saskatchewan Agri-Food Development Agreement; (27) British Columbia Feed Grain Market Development Program; (28) Ontario Soil Conservation and Environmental Assistance Program; (29) Ontario Weaner Pig Stabilization Plan; (30) Nova Scotia Natural Products Act--Pork Price Stabilization Program; (31) Quebec Productivity and Consolidation of Livestock Production Program.

Preliminary Results of Review

Based on a request by the U.S. Customs Service, we are calculating the benefits for this and all future reviews on the basis of kilograms rather than pounds. As a result of our review, we preliminarily determine the net subsidy for the period April 1, 1990 through March 31, 1991 to be Can$0.0289 per kilogram. Upon completion of this review, the Department intends to instruct the Customs Service to assess countervailing duties of Can$0.0289 per kilogram on shipments of all live swine exported on or after April 1, 1990 and on or before March 31, 1991. For assessment purposes, we also intend to instruct the Customs Service to use the exchange rate of Can$1.1603/US$1.00, which is the simple average annual exchange rate calculated for the review period using the rates reported monthly by the Federal Reserve Board in the Federal Reserve Bulletin. The Department also intends to instruct the Customs Service to collect a cash deposit of estimated countervailing duties of Can$0.0289 per kilogram on shipments of all live swine entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of the final results of this review. For cash deposit purposes, the Customs Service is to use the exchange rate in effect on the date the shipment is entered. Parties to the proceeding may request disclosure of the calculation methodology and interested parties may request a hearing not later than 10 days after the date of publication of this notice. Interested parties may submit written arguments in case briefs on these preliminary results within 30 days of the date of publication. Rebuttal briefs, limited to arguments raised in case briefs, may be submitted seven days after the time limit for filing the case brief. Any hearing, if requested, will be held seven days after the scheduled date for submission of rebuttal briefs. Copies of case briefs and rebuttal briefs must be served on interested parties in accordance with 19 CFR 355.38(e) of the Department's regulations. Representatives of parties to the proceeding may request disclosure of proprietary information under administrative protective order no later than 10 days after the representative's client or employer becomes a party to the proceeding, but in no event later than the date the case briefs are due under 19 CFR 355.38(c). The Department will publish the final results of this administrative review including the results of its analysis of issues raised in any case or rebuttal briefs. This administrative review and notice are in accordance with section 751(a)(1) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)(1)) and 19 CFR 355.22.

Dated: October 13, 1993.

Joseph A. Spetrini,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.

(FR Doc. 93-25711 Filed 10-19-93; 8:45 am)

BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P