Certain Pasta from Italy: Final Results of the Ninth Countervailing Duty Administrative Review and Notice of Revocation of Order, in Part, 36318-36321 [E6-10030]

Download as PDF 36318 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 122 / Monday, June 26, 2006 / Notices one foot would be necessary to maintain the same volume as that above the sediment pool. Removal of sediment was determined to be an unreasonable component of any proposed action due to a lack of safe disposal sites, high risk of not meeting Clean Water Act laws, and unpredictable costs per unit volume of sediment removed. It was also determined the volumes of sediment proposed to be removed would have little to no benefit towards flood storage and reducing the amount of rehabilitation work required to bring the structure into compliance with the Federal Dam Safety Program. Eleven alternatives were considered with all eleven being analyzed of having a one foot rise above the current elevation. All these alternatives were considered in the evaluation process by NRCS, project sponsors, Federal, State, and county agencies who were involved in part or all of the planning processes related to Supplement No. 2, the proposed rehabilitation of Flood Water Retarding Structure M–4. Certain Pasta From Italy: Preliminary Results of the Ninth Countervailing Duty Administrative Review and Notice of Intent to Revoke Order, In Part, 71 FR 17440 (April 6, 2006) (‘‘Preliminary Results’’). We preliminarily found that the countervailing duty rates during the period of review (‘‘POR’’) for all of the producers/exporters under review are less than 0.5 percent and are, consequently, zero or de minimis. We did not receive any comments on our preliminary results, and we have made no revisions. The final net subsidy rates for the reviewed companies are listed below in the section entitled ‘‘Final Results of Review.’’ EFFECTIVE DATE: June 26, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Audrey Twyman or Brandon Farlander, AD/CVD Operations, Office 1, Import Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–3534 and (202) 482–0182, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Conclusion The environmental assessment summarized above indicates this Federal action will not cause significant local, regional, or National impacts on the environment. Therefore, based on the above findings, I have determined that an environmental impact Statement for the Tongue River Watershed (Renwick Dam), Supplement No. 2 is not required. Background On July 24, 1996, the Department published a countervailing duty order on certain pasta (‘‘pasta’’ or ‘‘subject merchandise’’) from Italy. See Notice of Countervailing Duty Order and Amended Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination: Certain Pasta From Italy, 61 FR 38544 (July 24, 1996). On July 1, 2005, the Department published a notice of ‘‘Opportunity to Request Administrative Review’’ of this countervailing duty order for calendar year 2004, the POR. See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity to Request Administrative Review, 70 FR 38099 (July 1, 2005). On July 28, 2005, we received a request for review from Pastificio Laporta S.a.s (‘‘Laporta’’). On July 29, 2005, we received requests for reviews from the following four producers/exporters of subject merchandise: Pastificio Antonio Pallante S.r.l. (‘‘Pallante’’), Corticella Molini e Pastifici S.p.a. (‘‘Corticella’’)/ Pasta Combattenti S.p.a. (‘‘Combattenti’’) (collectively, ‘‘Corticella/Combattenti’’), Atar S.r.l. (‘‘Atar’’), and Moline e Pastificio Tomasello S.r.l. (‘‘Tomasello’’). On August 1, 2005, we received a request for review and a request for revocation from Pasta Lensi S.r.l. (‘‘Pasta Lensi’’).1 Dated: June 15, 2006. James E. Schmidt, Assistant State Conservationist for Water Resources. [FR Doc. E6–10015 Filed 6–23–06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410–16–P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [C–475–819] Certain Pasta from Italy: Final Results of the Ninth Countervailing Duty Administrative Review and Notice of Revocation of Order, in Part Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: On April 6, 2006, the U.S. Department of Commerce (‘‘the Department’’) published in the Federal Register its preliminary results of the administrative review of the countervailing duty order on certain pasta from Italy for the period January 1, 2004, through December 31, 2004. See rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES AGENCY: VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:00 Jun 23, 2006 Jkt 208001 1 Pasta Lensi is the successor-in-interest to IAPC Italia S.r.l. See Notice of Final Results of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Changed Circumstances Reviews: Certain Pasta from Italy, 68 FR 41553 (July 14, 2003). PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 (See the ‘‘Partial Revocation’’ section, below.) In accordance with 19 CFR 351.221(c)(1)(i), we published a notice of initiation of the review on August 29, 2005. See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Requests for Revocation in Part, 70 FR 51009 (August 29, 2005). On August 31, 2005, we issued countervailing duty questionnaires to the Commission of the European Union, the Government of Italy (‘‘GOI’’), Pallante, Corticella/Combattenti, Pasta Lensi, Tomasello, Laporta, and Atar. We received all responses to our questionnaire in October 2005. We issued supplemental questionnaires to the respondents in November 2005, and we received responses to our supplemental questionnaires in November and December 2005. On September 15, 2005, Laporta withdrew its request for review. On September 29, 2005, Tomasello withdrew its request for review. On October 25, 2005, Pallante withdrew its request for review. Based on withdrawals of the requests for review, we rescinded this administrative review for Laporta, Tomasello, and Pallante. See Certain Pasta from Italy: Notice of Partial Rescission of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review, 70 FR 59723 (October 13, 2005) (rescinding review for Laporta); Certain Pasta from Italy: Notice of Partial Rescission of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review, 70 FR 61788 (October 26, 2005) (rescinding review for Tomasello); and Certain Pasta from Italy: Notice of Partial Rescission of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review, 70 FR 69515 (November 16, 2005) (rescinding review for Pallante). We have instructed U.S. Customs and Border Protection (‘‘CBP’’) to liquidate any entries from Pallante, Laporta, and Tomasello during the POR and to assess countervailing duties at the rate that was applied at the time of entry. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.222(f)(2)(ii) and 351.307(b)(1)(iii), we verified information submitted by the GOI for Pasta Lensi, Atar, Corticella, and Combattenti in Rome, Italy on February 13–15, 2006. See ‘‘Verification of the Questionnaire Responses of the Government of Italy in the 9th Administrative Review,’’ (March 31, 2006). We verified information submitted by Pasta Lensi in Verolanuova, Italy on February 17 and 20, 2006. See ‘‘Verification of the Questionnaire Responses of Pasta Lensi S.r.l. in the 9th Administrative Review,’’ dated March 31, 2006. Since the publication of the Preliminary Results, we invited interested parties to submit briefs or E:\FR\FM\26JNN1.SGM 26JNN1 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 122 / Monday, June 26, 2006 / Notices request a hearing. The Department did not conduct a hearing in this review because none was requested, and no briefs were received. Period of Review The period for which we are measuring subsidies, or POR, is January 1, 2004, through December 31, 2004. rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES Scope of the Order Imports covered by the order are shipments of certain non–egg dry pasta in packages of five pounds four ounces or less, whether or not enriched or fortified or containing milk or other optional ingredients such as chopped vegetables, vegetable purees, milk, gluten, diastasis, vitamins, coloring and flavorings, and up to two percent egg white. The pasta covered by this scope is typically sold in the retail market, in fiberboard or cardboard cartons, or polyethylene or polypropylene bags of varying dimensions. Excluded from the scope of the order are refrigerated, frozen, or canned pastas, as well as all forms of egg pasta, with the exception of non–egg dry pasta containing up to two percent egg white. Also excluded are imports of organic pasta from Italy that are accompanied by the appropriate certificate issued by the Instituto Mediterraneo Di Certificazione, Bioagricoop S.r.l., QC&I International Services, Ecocert Italia, Consorzio per il Controllo dei Prodotti Biologici, Associazione Italiana per l’Agricoltura Biologica, or Codex S.r.l. In addition, based on publicly available information, the Department has determined that, as of August 4, 2004, imports of organic pasta from Italy that are accompanied by the appropriate certificate issued by Bioagricert S.r.l. are also excluded from this order. See Memorandum from Eric B. Greynolds to Melissa G. Skinner, dated August 4, 2004, which is on file in the Department’s Central Records Unit (‘‘CRU’’) in Room B–099 of the main Department building. In addition, based on publicly available information, the Department has determined that, as of March 13, 2003, imports of organic pasta from Italy that are accompanied by the appropriate certificate issued by Instituto per la Certificazione Etica e Ambientale (ICEA) are also excluded from this order. See Memorandum from Audrey Twyman to Susan Kuhbach, dated February 28, 2006, entitled ‘‘Recognition of Instituto per la Certificazione Etica e Ambientale (ICEA) as a Public Authority for Certifying Organic Pasta from Italy’’ which is on file in the Department’s Central Records Unit (‘‘CRU’’) in Room B–099 of the main Department building. VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:00 Jun 23, 2006 Jkt 208001 The merchandise subject to review is currently classifiable under items 1901.90.90.95 and 1902.19.20 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (‘‘HTSUS’’). Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the merchandise subject to the order is dispositive. Scope Rulings The Department has issued the following scope rulings to date: (1) On August 25, 1997, the Department issued a scope ruling that multicolored pasta, imported in kitchen display bottles of decorative glass that are sealed with cork or paraffin and bound with raffia, is excluded from the scope of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders. See Memorandum from Edward Easton to Richard Moreland, dated August 25, 1997, which is on file in the CRU. (2) On July 30, 1998, the Department issued a scope ruling finding that multipacks consisting of six one–pound packages of pasta that are shrink– wrapped into a single package are within the scope of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders. See Letter from Susan H. Kuhbach to Barbara P. Sidari, dated July 30, 1998, which is available in the CRU. (3) On October 23, 1997, the petitioners filed an application requesting that the Department initiate an anti–circumvention investigation of Barilla S.r.l. (‘‘Barilla’’), an Italian producer and exporter of pasta. The Department initiated the investigation on December 8, 1997. See Initiation of Anti–Circumvention Inquiry on Antidumping Duty Order on Certain Pasta From Italy, 62 FR 65673 (December 15, 1997). On October 5, 1998, the Department issued its final determination that, pursuant to section 781(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (‘‘URAA’’), effective January 1, 1995 (‘‘the Act’’), circumvention of the antidumping order on pasta from Italy was occurring by reason of exports of bulk pasta from Italy produced by Barilla that subsequently were repackaged in the United States into packages of five pounds or less for sale in the United States. See Anti–Circumvention Inquiry of the Antidumping Duty Order on Certain Pasta from Italy: Affirmative Final Determination of Circumvention of the Antidumping Duty Order, 63 FR 54672 (October 13, 1998). (4) On October 26, 1998, the Department self–initiated a scope inquiry to determine whether a package weighing over five pounds as a result of PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 36319 allowable industry tolerances is within the scope of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders. On May 24, 1999, we issued a final scope ruling finding that, effective October 26, 1998, pasta in packages weighing or labeled up to (and including) five pounds four ounces is within the scope of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders. See Memorandum from John Brinkmann to Richard Moreland, dated May 24, 1999, which is available in the CRU. (5) On April 27, 2000, the Department self–initiated an anti–circumvention inquiry to determine whether Pastificio Fratelli Pagani S.p.A.’s importation of pasta in bulk and subsequent repackaging in the United States into packages of five pounds or less constitutes circumvention with respect to the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on pasta from Italy pursuant to section 781(a) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.225(b). See Certain Pasta from Italy: Notice of Initiation of Anti– Circumvention Inquiry of the Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Orders, 65 FR 26179 (May 5, 2000). On September 19, 2003, we published an affirmative finding of the anti– circumvention inquiry. See Anti– Circumvention Inquiry of the Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Orders on Certain Pasta from Italy: Affirmative Final Determinations of Circumvention of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Orders, 68 FR 54888 (September 19, 2003). Partial Revocation On August 1, 2005, Pasta Lensi requested revocation of the countervailing duty order as it pertains to its sales. Under section 751(d)(1) of the Act, the Department ‘‘may revoke, in whole or in part’’ a countervailing duty order upon completion of a review. Although Congress has not specified the procedures that the Department must follow in revoking an order, the Department has developed a procedure for revocation that is set forth under 19 CFR 351.222. Under 19 CFR 351.222(c)(3)(i), in determining whether to revoke a countervailing duty order in part, the Secretary will consider: (A) whether one or more exporters or producers covered by the order have not applied for or received any net countervailable subsidy on the subject merchandise for a period of at least five consecutive years; (B) whether, for any exporter or producer that the Secretary previously has determined to have received any net countervailable subsidy on the subject merchandise, the exporter or producer agrees in writing to their immediate reinstatement in the E:\FR\FM\26JNN1.SGM 26JNN1 rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES 36320 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 122 / Monday, June 26, 2006 / Notices order, if the Secretary concludes that the exporter or producer, subsequent to the revocation, has received any net countervailable subsidy on the subject merchandise; and (C) whether the continued application of the countervailing duty order is otherwise necessary to offset subsidization. A request for revocation of an order in part must address these four elements, per 19 CFR 351.222(e)(2)(iii), in writing: (A) The company’s certification that it has not applied for or received any net countervailable subsidy on the subject merchandise for a period of at least five consecutive years; (B) the company’s certification that it will not apply for or receive any net countervailable subsidy on the subject merchandise from any program the Secretary has found countervailable; (C) the company’s certification that during each of the consecutive years, the company sold the subject merchandise to the United States in commercial quantities; and (D) the company’s agreement in writing to their immediate reinstatement in the order, if the Secretary concludes that the exporter or producer, subsequent to the revocation, has received any net countervailable subsidy on the subject merchandise. We find that the request from Pasta Lensi meets all of the criteria under 19 CFR 351.222. Pasta Lensi’s revocation request includes the necessary certifications in accordance with 19 CFR 351.222(e)(2)(iii). With regard to the criteria of 19 CFR 351.222(e)(2)(iii)(A), our final results show that Pasta Lensi did not receive countervailable subsidies during the POR and, therefore, the net subsidy rate for Pasta Lensi is zero. See ‘‘Final Results of Review’’ section, below. In addition, Pasta Lensi had zero net subsidy rates in the four previous administrative reviews in which it was involved. See Certain Pasta from Italy: Final Results of the Eighth Countervailing Duty Administrative Review, 70 FR 37084 (June 28, 2005), covering the period January 1, 2003, through December 31, 2003; Certain Pasta from Italy: Final Results of the Seventh Countervailing Duty Administrative Review, 69 FR 70657 (December 7, 2004), covering the period January 1, 2002, through December 31, 2002; Certain Pasta from Italy: Final Results of the Sixth Countervailing Duty Administrative Review, 68 FR 48599 (August 14, 2003), covering the period January 1, 2001, through December 31, 2001; and Certain Pasta from Italy: Final Results of the Fifth Countervailing Duty Administrative Review, 67 FR 52452 (August 12, 2002), covering the period VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:00 Jun 23, 2006 Jkt 208001 January 1, 2000, through December 31, 2000. Based on our examination of the data submitted by Pasta Lensi, we find that Pasta Lensi qualifies for revocation of the order pursuant to 19 CFR 351.222(c)(3) and 351.222(e)(2)(iii). Therefore, we are revoking the order, in part, with respect to pasta from Italy produced and exported by Pasta Lensi. Final Results of Review Neither the petitioners nor respondents commented on the preliminary results, and we found that no changes were warranted. Therefore, we have made no changes to the net countervailable subsidy rates for the POR. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.221(b)(5), we calculated an individual subsidy rate for Atar and Corticella/Combattenti. Pasta Lensi had no countervailable subsidies. Listed below are the programs we examined in the review and our findings with respect to each of these programs. For a complete analysis of the programs found to be countervailable, and the basis for the Department’s determination, see Preliminary Results. C. European Regional Development Fund Grants D. Law 236/93 Training Grants E. Law 1329/65 Interest Contributions (Sabatini Law) (Formerly Lump–Sum Interest Payment Under the Sabatini Law for Companies in Southern Italy) F. Development Grants Under Law 30 of 1984 G. Law 908/55 Fondo di Rotazione Iniziative Economiche (Revolving Fund for Economic Initiatives) Loans H. Industrial Development Grants Under Law 64/86 I. Law 317/91 Benefits for Innovative Investments J. Brescia Chamber of Commerce Training Grants K. Ministerial Decree 87/02 L. Law 10/91 Grants to Fund Energy Conservation M. Export Restitution Payments N. Export Credits Under Law 227/77 O. Capital Grants Under Law 675/77 P. Retraining Grants Under Law 675/77 Q. Interest Contributions on Bank Loans Under Law 675/77 R. Preferential Financing for Export Promotion Under Law 394/81 S. Urban Redevelopment Under Law 181 Net Subsidy Rate Producer/Exporter T. Industrial Development Grants under Law 183/76 U. Interest Subsidies Under Law 598/94 V. Duty–Free Import Rights 0.12 percent W. European Social Fund Grants (de minimis) X. Law 113/86 Training Grants Atar S.r.l. ............................... 0.20 percent Y.European Agricultural Guidance and (de minimis) Guarantee Fund Z. Law 341/95 Interest Contributions on Debt Consolidation Loans (Formerly I. Program Determined to be Debt Consolidation Law 341/95) Countervailable AA. Interest Grants Financed by IRI Bonds A. Export Marketing Grants Under Law 304/90 ---------- 0.12 percent BB. Grant Received Pursuant to the Note: applies to Corticella/ Community Initiative Concerning the Combattenti only. Preparation of Enterprises for the Single B. Social Security Reductions and Market (PRISMA) Exemptions IV. Programs Determined To Have Been - Sgravi (Article 44 of Law 448/01) -Terminated -------- 0.20 percent A. Regional Tax Exemptions Under Note: applies to Atar only. II. Programs Determined to be Not IRAP Countervailable B. VAT Reductions Under Laws 64/86 A. Social Security Reductions and and 675/55 C. Corporate Income Tax (IRPEG) Exemptions - Sgravi (Law 407/90, Law Exemptions 223/91, Law 337/90, and Article 120 of Law 388/00) D. Remission of Taxes on Export Credit B. Brescia Chamber of Commerce Fairs Insurance Under Article 33 of Law 227/ and Exhibition Grants C. Tremonti Law 383/01 (Formerly Law 77 E. Export Marketing Grants Under Law 357/94 and 489/94) III. Programs Determined to Not be Used 304/90 A. Industrial Development Grants Under F. Tremonti Law 383/01 The calculations will be disclosed to Law 488/92 B. Industrial Development Loans Under the interested parties in accordance Law 64/86 with 19 CFR 351.224(b). Pasta Lensi S.r.l. .................. Corticella Molini e Pastifici S.p.a./Pasta Combattenti S.p.a. ................................. PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 0.00 percent E:\FR\FM\26JNN1.SGM 26JNN1 rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 122 / Monday, June 26, 2006 / Notices Because the countervailing duty rates for all of the above–noted companies are either less than 0.5 percent and, consequently, de minimis, or zero, we will instruct CBP to liquidate entries of these companies during the period January 1, 2004, through December 31, 2004, without regard to countervailing duties in accordance with 19 CFR 351.106(c). The Department will issue appropriate instructions directly to CBP within 15 days of publication of these final results of this review. For all other companies that were not reviewed (except Barilla G. e R. F.lli S.p.A. and Gruppo Agricoltura Sana S.r.L., which are excluded from the order), the Department has directed CBP to assess countervailing duties on all entries between January 1, 2004, and December 31, 2004, at the rates in effect at the time of entry. We are revoking the order, in part, with respect to pasta from Italy produced and exported by Pasta Lensi. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.222(f)(3), we will terminate the suspension of liquidation for pasta produced and exported by Pasta Lensi that was entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after January 1, 2005, and will instruct CBP to refund any cash deposits for such entries. Since the countervailable subsidy rates for Corticella/Combattenti and Atar are de minimis, the Department will instruct CBP to continue to suspend liquidation of entries, but to collect no cash deposits of estimated countervailing duties for the above– noted companies on all shipments of the subject merchandise that are entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of the final results of this administrative review. For all non–reviewed firms (except Barilla G. e R. F.lli S.p.A. and Gruppo Agricoltura Sana S.r.L., which are excluded from the order), we will instruct CBP to collect cash deposits of estimated countervailing duties at the most recent company–specific or all– others rate applicable to the company. These rates shall apply to all non– reviewed companies until a review of a company assigned these rates is requested. This notice serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (‘‘APO’’) of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written notification of return or destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is VerDate Aug<31>2005 20:24 Jun 23, 2006 Jkt 208001 36321 hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation. We are issuing and publishing these results in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dated: June 20, 2006. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E6–10030 Filed 6–23–06; 8:45 am] Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.) direct the Secretary of Commerce to allow, upon request, the incidental, but not intentional taking of small numbers of marine mammals by U.S. citizens who engage in a specified activity (other than commercial fishing) within a specified geographical region if certain findings are made and either regulations are issued or, if the taking is limited to harassment, notice of a proposed authorization is provided to the public for review. Authorization for incidental takings may be granted if NMFS finds that the taking will have no more than a negligible impact on the species or stock(s), will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the species or stock(s) for subsistence uses, and that the permissible methods of taking and requirements pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring and reporting of such taking are set forth. NMFS has defined ‘‘negligible impact’’ in 50 CFR 216.103 as: BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [I.D. 060806C] Small Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities; Harbor Activities Related to the Delta IV/Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle at Vandenberg Air Force Base, CA National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Notice; issuance of incidental harassment authorization. AGENCY: SUMMARY: In accordance with the provisions of the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) as amended, notification is hereby given that NMFS has issued an Incidental Harassment Authorization (IHA) to The Boeing Company (Boeing) to take small numbers of marine mammals, by Level B harassment, incidental to harbor activities related to the Delta IV/Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle (EELV) at south Vandenberg Air Force Base, CA (VAFB). Effective June 21, 2006, to June 20, 2007. ADDRESSES: A copy of the IHA and the application are available by writing to Michael Payne, Chief, Permits, Conservation, and Education Division, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service, 1315 EastWest Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910–3225, or by telephoning the contact listed here. A copy of the application containing a list of references used in this document may be obtained by writing to this address, by telephoning the contact listed here (See FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT) or online at: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/ pr/permits/incidental.htm. Documents cited in this notice may be viewed, by appointment, during regular business hours, at the aforementioned address. DATES: PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 Jolie Harrison, (301) 713–2289, ext. 166 or Monica DeAngelis, (562) 980–3232. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background an impact resulting from the specified activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival. Section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA established an expedited process by which citizens of the United States can apply for an authorization to incidentally take small numbers of marine mammals by harassment. Except for certain categories of activities not pertinent here, the MMPA defines ‘‘harassment’’ as: any act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance which (i) has the potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild [‘‘Level A harassment’’]; or (ii) has the potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing disruption of behavioral patterns, including, but not limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering [‘‘Level B harassment’’]. Section 101(a)(5)(D) establishes a 45day time limit for NMFS review of an application followed by a 30-day public notice and comment period on any proposed authorizations for the incidental harassment of small numbers of marine mammals. Within 45 days of the close of the comment period, NMFS must determine whether to issue the authorization with appropriate conditions. E:\FR\FM\26JNN1.SGM 26JNN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 122 (Monday, June 26, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Pages 36318-36321]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-10030]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[C-475-819]


Certain Pasta from Italy: Final Results of the Ninth 
Countervailing Duty Administrative Review and Notice of Revocation of 
Order, in Part

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On April 6, 2006, the U.S. Department of Commerce (``the 
Department'') published in the Federal Register its preliminary results 
of the administrative review of the countervailing duty order on 
certain pasta from Italy for the period January 1, 2004, through 
December 31, 2004. See Certain Pasta From Italy: Preliminary Results of 
the Ninth Countervailing Duty Administrative Review and Notice of 
Intent to Revoke Order, In Part, 71 FR 17440 (April 6, 2006) 
(``Preliminary Results''). We preliminarily found that the 
countervailing duty rates during the period of review (``POR'') for all 
of the producers/exporters under review are less than 0.5 percent and 
are, consequently, zero or de minimis. We did not receive any comments 
on our preliminary results, and we have made no revisions. The final 
net subsidy rates for the reviewed companies are listed below in the 
section entitled ``Final Results of Review.''

EFFECTIVE DATE: June 26, 2006.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Audrey Twyman or Brandon Farlander, 
AD/CVD Operations, Office 1, Import Administration, U.S. Department of 
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 
20230; telephone: (202) 482-3534 and (202) 482-0182, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On July 24, 1996, the Department published a countervailing duty 
order on certain pasta (``pasta'' or ``subject merchandise'') from 
Italy. See Notice of Countervailing Duty Order and Amended Final 
Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination: Certain Pasta From 
Italy, 61 FR 38544 (July 24, 1996). On July 1, 2005, the Department 
published a notice of ``Opportunity to Request Administrative Review'' 
of this countervailing duty order for calendar year 2004, the POR. See 
Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended 
Investigation; Opportunity to Request Administrative Review, 70 FR 
38099 (July 1, 2005). On July 28, 2005, we received a request for 
review from Pastificio Laporta S.a.s (``Laporta''). On July 29, 2005, 
we received requests for reviews from the following four producers/
exporters of subject merchandise: Pastificio Antonio Pallante S.r.l. 
(``Pallante''), Corticella Molini e Pastifici S.p.a. (``Corticella'')/
Pasta Combattenti S.p.a. (``Combattenti'') (collectively, ``Corticella/
Combattenti''), Atar S.r.l. (``Atar''), and Moline e Pastificio 
Tomasello S.r.l. (``Tomasello''). On August 1, 2005, we received a 
request for review and a request for revocation from Pasta Lensi S.r.l. 
(``Pasta Lensi'').\1\ (See the ``Partial Revocation'' section, below.) 
In accordance with 19 CFR 351.221(c)(1)(i), we published a notice of 
initiation of the review on August 29, 2005. See Initiation of 
Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Requests 
for Revocation in Part, 70 FR 51009 (August 29, 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Pasta Lensi is the successor-in-interest to IAPC Italia 
S.r.l. See Notice of Final Results of Antidumping and Countervailing 
Duty Changed Circumstances Reviews: Certain Pasta from Italy, 68 FR 
41553 (July 14, 2003).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On August 31, 2005, we issued countervailing duty questionnaires to 
the Commission of the European Union, the Government of Italy 
(``GOI''), Pallante, Corticella/Combattenti, Pasta Lensi, Tomasello, 
Laporta, and Atar. We received all responses to our questionnaire in 
October 2005. We issued supplemental questionnaires to the respondents 
in November 2005, and we received responses to our supplemental 
questionnaires in November and December 2005.
    On September 15, 2005, Laporta withdrew its request for review. On 
September 29, 2005, Tomasello withdrew its request for review. On 
October 25, 2005, Pallante withdrew its request for review. Based on 
withdrawals of the requests for review, we rescinded this 
administrative review for Laporta, Tomasello, and Pallante. See Certain 
Pasta from Italy: Notice of Partial Rescission of Countervailing Duty 
Administrative Review, 70 FR 59723 (October 13, 2005) (rescinding 
review for Laporta); Certain Pasta from Italy: Notice of Partial 
Rescission of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review, 70 FR 61788 
(October 26, 2005) (rescinding review for Tomasello); and Certain Pasta 
from Italy: Notice of Partial Rescission of Countervailing Duty 
Administrative Review, 70 FR 69515 (November 16, 2005) (rescinding 
review for Pallante). We have instructed U.S. Customs and Border 
Protection (``CBP'') to liquidate any entries from Pallante, Laporta, 
and Tomasello during the POR and to assess countervailing duties at the 
rate that was applied at the time of entry.
    In accordance with 19 CFR 351.222(f)(2)(ii) and 351.307(b)(1)(iii), 
we verified information submitted by the GOI for Pasta Lensi, Atar, 
Corticella, and Combattenti in Rome, Italy on February 13-15, 2006. See 
``Verification of the Questionnaire Responses of the Government of 
Italy in the 9th Administrative Review,'' (March 31, 2006). We verified 
information submitted by Pasta Lensi in Verolanuova, Italy on February 
17 and 20, 2006. See ``Verification of the Questionnaire Responses of 
Pasta Lensi S.r.l. in the 9th Administrative Review,'' dated March 31, 
2006.
    Since the publication of the Preliminary Results, we invited 
interested parties to submit briefs or

[[Page 36319]]

request a hearing. The Department did not conduct a hearing in this 
review because none was requested, and no briefs were received.

Period of Review

    The period for which we are measuring subsidies, or POR, is January 
1, 2004, through December 31, 2004.

Scope of the Order

    Imports covered by the order are shipments of certain non-egg dry 
pasta in packages of five pounds four ounces or less, whether or not 
enriched or fortified or containing milk or other optional ingredients 
such as chopped vegetables, vegetable purees, milk, gluten, diastasis, 
vitamins, coloring and flavorings, and up to two percent egg white. The 
pasta covered by this scope is typically sold in the retail market, in 
fiberboard or cardboard cartons, or polyethylene or polypropylene bags 
of varying dimensions.
    Excluded from the scope of the order are refrigerated, frozen, or 
canned pastas, as well as all forms of egg pasta, with the exception of 
non-egg dry pasta containing up to two percent egg white. Also excluded 
are imports of organic pasta from Italy that are accompanied by the 
appropriate certificate issued by the Instituto Mediterraneo Di 
Certificazione, Bioagricoop S.r.l., QC&I International Services, 
Ecocert Italia, Consorzio per il Controllo dei Prodotti Biologici, 
Associazione Italiana per l'Agricoltura Biologica, or Codex S.r.l. In 
addition, based on publicly available information, the Department has 
determined that, as of August 4, 2004, imports of organic pasta from 
Italy that are accompanied by the appropriate certificate issued by 
Bioagricert S.r.l. are also excluded from this order. See Memorandum 
from Eric B. Greynolds to Melissa G. Skinner, dated August 4, 2004, 
which is on file in the Department's Central Records Unit (``CRU'') in 
Room B-099 of the main Department building. In addition, based on 
publicly available information, the Department has determined that, as 
of March 13, 2003, imports of organic pasta from Italy that are 
accompanied by the appropriate certificate issued by Instituto per la 
Certificazione Etica e Ambientale (ICEA) are also excluded from this 
order. See Memorandum from Audrey Twyman to Susan Kuhbach, dated 
February 28, 2006, entitled ``Recognition of Instituto per la 
Certificazione Etica e Ambientale (ICEA) as a Public Authority for 
Certifying Organic Pasta from Italy'' which is on file in the 
Department's Central Records Unit (``CRU'') in Room B-099 of the main 
Department building.
    The merchandise subject to review is currently classifiable under 
items 1901.90.90.95 and 1902.19.20 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of 
the United States (``HTSUS''). Although the HTSUS subheadings are 
provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description 
of the merchandise subject to the order is dispositive.

Scope Rulings

    The Department has issued the following scope rulings to date:
    (1) On August 25, 1997, the Department issued a scope ruling that 
multicolored pasta, imported in kitchen display bottles of decorative 
glass that are sealed with cork or paraffin and bound with raffia, is 
excluded from the scope of the antidumping and countervailing duty 
orders. See Memorandum from Edward Easton to Richard Moreland, dated 
August 25, 1997, which is on file in the CRU.
    (2) On July 30, 1998, the Department issued a scope ruling finding 
that multipacks consisting of six one-pound packages of pasta that are 
shrink-wrapped into a single package are within the scope of the 
antidumping and countervailing duty orders. See Letter from Susan H. 
Kuhbach to Barbara P. Sidari, dated July 30, 1998, which is available 
in the CRU.
    (3) On October 23, 1997, the petitioners filed an application 
requesting that the Department initiate an anti-circumvention 
investigation of Barilla S.r.l. (``Barilla''), an Italian producer and 
exporter of pasta. The Department initiated the investigation on 
December 8, 1997. See Initiation of Anti-Circumvention Inquiry on 
Antidumping Duty Order on Certain Pasta From Italy, 62 FR 65673 
(December 15, 1997). On October 5, 1998, the Department issued its 
final determination that, pursuant to section 781(a) of the Tariff Act 
of 1930, as amended by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (``URAA''), 
effective January 1, 1995 (``the Act''), circumvention of the 
antidumping order on pasta from Italy was occurring by reason of 
exports of bulk pasta from Italy produced by Barilla that subsequently 
were repackaged in the United States into packages of five pounds or 
less for sale in the United States. See Anti-Circumvention Inquiry of 
the Antidumping Duty Order on Certain Pasta from Italy: Affirmative 
Final Determination of Circumvention of the Antidumping Duty Order, 63 
FR 54672 (October 13, 1998).
    (4) On October 26, 1998, the Department self-initiated a scope 
inquiry to determine whether a package weighing over five pounds as a 
result of allowable industry tolerances is within the scope of the 
antidumping and countervailing duty orders. On May 24, 1999, we issued 
a final scope ruling finding that, effective October 26, 1998, pasta in 
packages weighing or labeled up to (and including) five pounds four 
ounces is within the scope of the antidumping and countervailing duty 
orders. See Memorandum from John Brinkmann to Richard Moreland, dated 
May 24, 1999, which is available in the CRU.
    (5) On April 27, 2000, the Department self-initiated an anti-
circumvention inquiry to determine whether Pastificio Fratelli Pagani 
S.p.A.'s importation of pasta in bulk and subsequent repackaging in the 
United States into packages of five pounds or less constitutes 
circumvention with respect to the antidumping and countervailing duty 
orders on pasta from Italy pursuant to section 781(a) of the Act and 19 
CFR 351.225(b). See Certain Pasta from Italy: Notice of Initiation of 
Anti-Circumvention Inquiry of the Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 
Orders, 65 FR 26179 (May 5, 2000). On September 19, 2003, we published 
an affirmative finding of the anti-circumvention inquiry. See Anti-
Circumvention Inquiry of the Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Orders 
on Certain Pasta from Italy: Affirmative Final Determinations of 
Circumvention of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Orders, 68 FR 
54888 (September 19, 2003).

Partial Revocation

    On August 1, 2005, Pasta Lensi requested revocation of the 
countervailing duty order as it pertains to its sales. Under section 
751(d)(1) of the Act, the Department ``may revoke, in whole or in 
part'' a countervailing duty order upon completion of a review. 
Although Congress has not specified the procedures that the Department 
must follow in revoking an order, the Department has developed a 
procedure for revocation that is set forth under 19 CFR 351.222. Under 
19 CFR 351.222(c)(3)(i), in determining whether to revoke a 
countervailing duty order in part, the Secretary will consider: (A) 
whether one or more exporters or producers covered by the order have 
not applied for or received any net countervailable subsidy on the 
subject merchandise for a period of at least five consecutive years; 
(B) whether, for any exporter or producer that the Secretary previously 
has determined to have received any net countervailable subsidy on the 
subject merchandise, the exporter or producer agrees in writing to 
their immediate reinstatement in the

[[Page 36320]]

order, if the Secretary concludes that the exporter or producer, 
subsequent to the revocation, has received any net countervailable 
subsidy on the subject merchandise; and (C) whether the continued 
application of the countervailing duty order is otherwise necessary to 
offset subsidization.
    A request for revocation of an order in part must address these 
four elements, per 19 CFR 351.222(e)(2)(iii), in writing: (A) The 
company's certification that it has not applied for or received any net 
countervailable subsidy on the subject merchandise for a period of at 
least five consecutive years; (B) the company's certification that it 
will not apply for or receive any net countervailable subsidy on the 
subject merchandise from any program the Secretary has found 
countervailable; (C) the company's certification that during each of 
the consecutive years, the company sold the subject merchandise to the 
United States in commercial quantities; and (D) the company's agreement 
in writing to their immediate reinstatement in the order, if the 
Secretary concludes that the exporter or producer, subsequent to the 
revocation, has received any net countervailable subsidy on the subject 
merchandise.
    We find that the request from Pasta Lensi meets all of the criteria 
under 19 CFR 351.222. Pasta Lensi's revocation request includes the 
necessary certifications in accordance with 19 CFR 351.222(e)(2)(iii). 
With regard to the criteria of 19 CFR 351.222(e)(2)(iii)(A), our final 
results show that Pasta Lensi did not receive countervailable subsidies 
during the POR and, therefore, the net subsidy rate for Pasta Lensi is 
zero. See ``Final Results of Review'' section, below. In addition, 
Pasta Lensi had zero net subsidy rates in the four previous 
administrative reviews in which it was involved. See Certain Pasta from 
Italy: Final Results of the Eighth Countervailing Duty Administrative 
Review, 70 FR 37084 (June 28, 2005), covering the period January 1, 
2003, through December 31, 2003; Certain Pasta from Italy: Final 
Results of the Seventh Countervailing Duty Administrative Review, 69 FR 
70657 (December 7, 2004), covering the period January 1, 2002, through 
December 31, 2002; Certain Pasta from Italy: Final Results of the Sixth 
Countervailing Duty Administrative Review, 68 FR 48599 (August 14, 
2003), covering the period January 1, 2001, through December 31, 2001; 
and Certain Pasta from Italy: Final Results of the Fifth Countervailing 
Duty Administrative Review, 67 FR 52452 (August 12, 2002), covering the 
period January 1, 2000, through December 31, 2000.
    Based on our examination of the data submitted by Pasta Lensi, we 
find that Pasta Lensi qualifies for revocation of the order pursuant to 
19 CFR 351.222(c)(3) and 351.222(e)(2)(iii). Therefore, we are revoking 
the order, in part, with respect to pasta from Italy produced and 
exported by Pasta Lensi.

Final Results of Review

    Neither the petitioners nor respondents commented on the 
preliminary results, and we found that no changes were warranted. 
Therefore, we have made no changes to the net countervailable subsidy 
rates for the POR.
    In accordance with 19 CFR 351.221(b)(5), we calculated an 
individual subsidy rate for Atar and Corticella/Combattenti. Pasta 
Lensi had no countervailable subsidies. Listed below are the programs 
we examined in the review and our findings with respect to each of 
these programs. For a complete analysis of the programs found to be 
countervailable, and the basis for the Department's determination, see 
Preliminary Results.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Net Subsidy
                    Producer/Exporter                          Rate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pasta Lensi S.r.l.......................................    0.00 percent
Corticella Molini e Pastifici S.p.a./Pasta Combattenti      0.12 percent
 S.p.a..................................................    (de minimis)
Atar S.r.l..............................................    0.20 percent
                                                            (de minimis)
------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Program Determined to be Countervailable
A. Export Marketing Grants Under Law 304/90 ---------- 0.12 percent
    Note: applies to Corticella/Combattenti only.
B. Social Security Reductions and Exemptions
    - Sgravi (Article 44 of Law 448/01) ---------- 0.20 percent
    Note: applies to Atar only.
II. Programs Determined to be Not Countervailable
A. Social Security Reductions and Exemptions - Sgravi (Law 407/90, Law 
223/91, Law 337/90, and Article 120 of Law 388/00)
B. Brescia Chamber of Commerce Fairs and Exhibition Grants
C. Tremonti Law 383/01 (Formerly Law 357/94 and 489/94)
III. Programs Determined to Not be Used
A. Industrial Development Grants Under Law 488/92
B. Industrial Development Loans Under Law 64/86
C. European Regional Development Fund Grants
D. Law 236/93 Training Grants
E. Law 1329/65 Interest Contributions (Sabatini Law) (Formerly Lump-Sum 
Interest Payment Under the Sabatini Law for Companies in Southern 
Italy)
F. Development Grants Under Law 30 of 1984
G. Law 908/55 Fondo di Rotazione Iniziative Economiche (Revolving Fund 
for Economic Initiatives) Loans
H. Industrial Development Grants Under Law 64/86
I. Law 317/91 Benefits for Innovative Investments
J. Brescia Chamber of Commerce Training Grants
K. Ministerial Decree 87/02
L. Law 10/91 Grants to Fund Energy Conservation
M. Export Restitution Payments
N. Export Credits Under Law 227/77
O. Capital Grants Under Law 675/77
P. Retraining Grants Under Law 675/77
Q. Interest Contributions on Bank Loans Under Law 675/77
R. Preferential Financing for Export Promotion Under Law 394/81
S. Urban Redevelopment Under Law 181
T. Industrial Development Grants under Law 183/76
U. Interest Subsidies Under Law 598/94
V. Duty-Free Import Rights
W. European Social Fund Grants
X. Law 113/86 Training Grants
Y.European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund
Z. Law 341/95 Interest Contributions on Debt Consolidation Loans 
(Formerly Debt Consolidation Law 341/95)
AA. Interest Grants Financed by IRI Bonds
BB. Grant Received Pursuant to the Community Initiative Concerning the 
Preparation of Enterprises for the Single Market (PRISMA)
IV. Programs Determined To Have Been Terminated
A. Regional Tax Exemptions Under IRAP
B. VAT Reductions Under Laws 64/86 and 675/55
C. Corporate Income Tax (IRPEG) Exemptions
D. Remission of Taxes on Export Credit Insurance Under Article 33 of 
Law 227/77
E. Export Marketing Grants Under Law 304/90
F. Tremonti Law 383/01
    The calculations will be disclosed to the interested parties in 
accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).

[[Page 36321]]

    Because the countervailing duty rates for all of the above-noted 
companies are either less than 0.5 percent and, consequently, de 
minimis, or zero, we will instruct CBP to liquidate entries of these 
companies during the period January 1, 2004, through December 31, 2004, 
without regard to countervailing duties in accordance with 19 CFR 
351.106(c). The Department will issue appropriate instructions directly 
to CBP within 15 days of publication of these final results of this 
review.
    For all other companies that were not reviewed (except Barilla G. e 
R. F.lli S.p.A. and Gruppo Agricoltura Sana S.r.L., which are excluded 
from the order), the Department has directed CBP to assess 
countervailing duties on all entries between January 1, 2004, and 
December 31, 2004, at the rates in effect at the time of entry.
    We are revoking the order, in part, with respect to pasta from 
Italy produced and exported by Pasta Lensi. In accordance with 19 CFR 
351.222(f)(3), we will terminate the suspension of liquidation for 
pasta produced and exported by Pasta Lensi that was entered, or 
withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after January 1, 2005, 
and will instruct CBP to refund any cash deposits for such entries.
    Since the countervailable subsidy rates for Corticella/Combattenti 
and Atar are de minimis, the Department will instruct CBP to continue 
to suspend liquidation of entries, but to collect no cash deposits of 
estimated countervailing duties for the above-noted companies on all 
shipments of the subject merchandise that are entered, or withdrawn 
from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of 
the final results of this administrative review.
    For all non-reviewed firms (except Barilla G. e R. F.lli S.p.A. and 
Gruppo Agricoltura Sana S.r.L., which are excluded from the order), we 
will instruct CBP to collect cash deposits of estimated countervailing 
duties at the most recent company-specific or all-others rate 
applicable to the company. These rates shall apply to all non-reviewed 
companies until a review of a company assigned these rates is 
requested.
    This notice serves as a reminder to parties subject to 
administrative protective order (``APO'') of their responsibility 
concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under 
APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written 
notification of return or destruction of APO materials or conversion to 
judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with 
the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.
    We are issuing and publishing these results in accordance with 
sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: June 20, 2006.
David M. Spooner,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. E6-10030 Filed 6-23-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S