Certain Pasta from Italy: Preliminary Results of the 12th (2007) Countervailing Duty Administrative Review, 25489-25497 [E9-12405]

Download as PDF Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 101 / Thursday, May 28, 2009 / Notices capacity) is located at 3322 Road ‘‘N’’ NE, Moses Lake, Washington. The facility is used for the manufacturing and warehousing of solar grade polysilicon and silane gas using domestic and imported silicon metal (duty rate ranges from 5.3–5.5%). Pursuant to Section 400.33 of the Board’s regulations, any silicon metal subject to antidumping or countervailing duties would be required to be admitted to the subzone in privileged foreign status (19 CFR 146.41). FTZ procedures could exempt REC Silicon from customs duty payments on the silicon metal used in export production. The company anticipates that over 95% of polysilicon and 90% of silane gas shipped from the plant will be exported. On its domestic sales, REC Silicon would be able to choose the duty rates during customs entry procedures that apply to polysilicon and silane gas (duty rate ranges from duty– free to 3.7%) for the foreign inputs noted above. FTZ designation would further allow REC Silicon to realize logistical benefits through the use of weekly customs entry procedures. Customs duties also could possibly be deferred or reduced on foreign status production equipment. The request indicates that the savings from FTZ procedures would help improve the plant’s international competitiveness. In accordance with the Board’s regulations, Elizabeth Whiteman of the FTZ Staff is designated examiner to investigate the application and report to the Board. Public comment is invited from interested parties. Submissions (original and 3 copies) shall be addressed to the Board’s Executive Secretary at the address below. The closing period for their receipt is July 27, 2009. Rebuttal comments in response to material submitted during the foregoing period may be submitted during the subsequent 15-day period to August 11, 2009. A copy of the application will be available for public inspection at the Office of the Executive Secretary, Foreign–Trade Zones Board, Room 2111, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230–0002, and in the ‘‘Reading Room’’ section of the Board’s website, which is accessible via www.trade.gov/ftz. For further information, contact Elizabeth Whiteman at ElizabethlWhiteman@ita.doc.gov or (202) 482–0473. VerDate Nov<24>2008 20:16 May 27, 2009 Jkt 217001 25489 Dated: May 21, 2009. Andrew McGilvray, Executive Secretary. [FR Doc. E9–12456 Filed 5–27–09; 8:45 am] DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S Certain Pasta from Italy: Preliminary Results of the 12th (2007) Countervailing Duty Administrative Review DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Foreign-Trade Zones Board [Order No. 1622] Approval of Manufacturing Authority Within Foreign-Trade Zone 50 Long Beach, CA; Phoenix MC, Inc. d/b/a Phoenix Motorcars, Inc. (Motor Vehicles) Pursuant to its authority under the ForeignTrade Zones Act of June 18, 1934, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a–81u) (the Act), the Foreign-Trade Zones Board (the Board) adopts the following Order: Whereas, the Board of Harbor Commissioners of the Port of Long Beach, grantee of FTZ 50, has requested authority under Section 400.28(a)(2) of the Board’s regulations on behalf of Phoenix MC, Inc. d/b/a Phoenix Motorcars, Inc., to assemble light-duty passenger electric vehicles under FTZ procedures within FTZ 50—Site 2, Ontario, California (FTZ Docket 40– 2008, filed 6–13–2008); Whereas, notice inviting public comment has been given in the Federal Register (73 FR 34916, 6–19–2008); Whereas, the Board adopts the findings and recommendations of the examiner’s report, and finds that the requirements of the FTZ Act and the Board’s regulations are satisfied, and that approval of the application is in the public interest; Now, therefore, the Board hereby grants authority for the assembly of light-duty passenger electric vehicles within FTZ 50 for Phoenix MC, Inc. d/ b/a Phoenix Motorcars, Inc., as described in the application and Federal Register notice, subject to the Act and the Board’s regulations, including Section 400.28. Signed at Washington, DC, this 15th day of May 2009. Ronald K. Lorentzen, Acting Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Import Administration, Alternate Chairman, Foreign-Trade Zones Board. Attest: Andrew McGilvray, Executive Secretary. [FR Doc. E9–12404 Filed 5–27–09; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 International Trade Administration [C–475–819] AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (‘‘Department’’) is conducting an administrative review of the countervailing duty order on certain pasta from Italy for the period January 1, 2007, through December 31, 2007. We preliminarily find that De Matteis Agroalimentare S.p.A. (‘‘De Matteis’’) received countervailable subsidies. See the ‘‘Preliminary Results of Review’’ section, below. Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results. See the ‘‘Public Comment’’ section of this notice. DATES: Effective Date: May 28, 2009. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brandon Farlander or Shelly Atkinson, AD/CVD Operations, Office 1, Import Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–0182 and (202) 482–0116, 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 11, 2008, the Department published a notice of ‘‘Opportunity to Request Administrative Review’’ of this countervailing duty order for calendar year 2007, the period of review (‘‘POR’’). See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity To Request Administrative Review, 73 FR 39948 (July 11, 2008). On July 28, 2008, we received such a request from F.lli De Cecco di Filippo Fara San Martino S.p.A. (‘‘De Cecco’’). On July 31, 2008, we received a request for review from De Matteis. On July 31, 2008, we received a request for review from petitioners New World Pasta Company, American Italian Pasta Company, and Dakota Growers Pasta Company for De Matteis. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.221(c)(1)(i), we E:\FR\FM\28MYN1.SGM 28MYN1 25490 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 101 / Thursday, May 28, 2009 / Notices published a notice of initiation of this review on August 26, 2008. See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews, 73 FR 50308 (August 26, 2008). On September 15, 2008, we issued countervailing duty questionnaires to the Commission of the European Union (‘‘EU’’), the Government of Italy (‘‘GOI’’), De Matteis, and De Cecco. We received responses to our questionnaires in October and November 2008. On December 22, 2008, De Cecco withdrew its request for review. On January 27, 2009, we rescinded the review with respect to De Cecco. See Certain Pasta From Italy: Notice of Partial Rescission of Twelfth (2007) Countervailing Duty Administrative Review, 74 FR 4734 (January 27, 2009). We issued supplemental questionnaires to De Matteis and the GOI in December 2008, January 2009, and March 2009, and we received responses to our supplemental questionnaires in December 2008, February 2009, March 2009, and April 2009. Period of Review The POR for which we are measuring subsidies is January 1, 2007, through December 31, 2007. 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 the scope of the order 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 VerDate Nov<24>2008 17:11 May 27, 2009 Jkt 217001 Bioagricert S.r.l. are also excluded from the 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 1117 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 are also excluded from the 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 CRU. 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 finding 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 shrinkwrapped 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 on file in the CRU. (3) 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 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 orders. See Memorandum from John Brinkmann to Richard Moreland, dated May 24, 1999, which is on file in the CRU. (4) 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 Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (‘‘the Act’’), and 19 CFR 351.225(b). See Certain Pasta From Italy: Notice of Initiation of AntiCircumvention Inquiry on the Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Orders, 65 FR 26179 (May 5, 2000). On September 19, 2003, we published an affirmative finding of the anticircumvention inquiry. See AntiCircumvention 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). Subsidies Valuation Information Allocation Period Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.524(b), benefits from non-recurring subsidies are allocated over a period corresponding to the average useful life (‘‘AUL’’) of the renewable physical assets used to produce the subject merchandise. The Department’s regulations create a rebuttable presumption that the AUL will be taken from the U.S. Internal Revenue Service’s 1977 Class Life Asset Depreciation Range System (‘‘IRS Tables’’). See 19 CFR 351.524(d)(2). For pasta, the IRS Tables prescribe an AUL of 12 years. None of the responding companies or other interested parties objected to this allocation period. Therefore, we have used a 12-year allocation period. Attribution of Subsidies Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.525(b)(6), the Department will attribute subsidies received by certain companies to the combined sales of those companies. Based on our review of the responses, we preliminarily find that ‘‘crossownership’’ exists with respect to the respondent company. De Matteis has reported that it is affiliated with De Matteis Construzioni S.r.L. (‘‘Construzioni’’) by virtue of being 100 percent owned by Construzioni. See De Matteis’s October 22, 2008, questionnaire response (‘‘De Matteis’s E:\FR\FM\28MYN1.SGM 28MYN1 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 101 / Thursday, May 28, 2009 / Notices In 1992, the Italian Parliament abrogated Law 64/86 and replaced it with Law 488/92 (see section I.B., below). This decision became effective in 1993. However, companies whose projects had been approved prior to 1993 were authorized to continue Discount Rates receiving grants under Law 64/86 after For discount rates, the respondent 1993. De Matteis received grants under company did not take out any loans in Law 64/86 that conferred a benefit the years in which the GOI agreed to during the POR. provide the subsidies in question. In the Pasta Investigation,1 the Therefore, pursuant to 19 CFR Department determined that these 351.524(d)(3)(i)(B), we used the national grants confer a countervailable subsidy average cost of long-term, fixed-rate within the meaning of section 771(5) of loans to allocate non-recurring benefits the Act. They are a direct transfer of over time. funds from the GOI bestowing a benefit Consistent with past practice in this in the amount of the grant. See Section proceeding, for grants approved in 771(5)(D)(i) of the Act; see also 19 CFR 1995–2004, we used the Italian Bankers’ 351.504(a). Also, these grants were Association (‘‘ABI’’) prime interest rate found to be regionally specific within (as reported by the Bank of Italy), the meaning of section 771(5A)(D)(iv) of increased by the mark-up an Italian the Act. commercial bank would charge a As stated in Live Swine from Canada,2 corporate customer and an amount for ‘‘it is well-established that where the bank charges. See, e.g., Certain Pasta Department has determined that a From Italy: Preliminary Results and program is * * * countervailable, it is Partial Rescission of the Eighth the Department’s policy not to reCountervailing Duty Administrative examine the issue of that program’s Review, 70 FR 17971 (April 8, 2005); countervailability in subsequent reviews unchanged in Certain Pasta from Italy: unless new information or evidence of Final Results of the Eighth changed circumstances is submitted Countervailing Duty Administrative which warrants reconsideration.’’ Also, Review, 70 FR 37084 (June 28, 2005). this policy is reflected in the The Bank of Italy ceased reporting this Department’s standard questionnaire rate starting in 2004. Because the ABI used in countervailing duty prime rate was no longer reported after administrative reviews which states that 2004, for grants approved in 2005–2007, ‘‘absent new information or evidence of we have used the ‘‘Bank Interest Rates changed circumstances, we do not on Euro Loans: Outstanding Amounts, intend to reexamine the Non-Financial Corporations, Loans With countervailability of programs Original Maturity More Than Five previously found to be Years’’ published by the Bank of Italy countervailable.’’ 3 and provided by the GOI in its October In this review, neither the GOI nor the 22, 2008, questionnaire response (‘‘GOI respondent company has provided new QR’’) at Exhibit 5. We increased this rate information that would warrant by the mark-up and bank charges reconsideration of our determination described above. that these grants are countervailable subsidies. Analysis of Programs In the Pasta Investigation, the I. Programs Preliminarily Determined To Department treated the industrial Be Countervailable development grants as non-recurring. A. Industrial Development Grants Under No new information has been placed on the record of this review that would Law 64/86 cause us to depart from this treatment. Law 64/86 provided assistance to Therefore, we have followed the promote development in the methodology described in 19 CFR Mezzogiorno (the south of Italy). Grants 351.524(b)(2), which directs us to were awarded to companies allocate over time those non-recurring constructing new plants or expanding or grants whose total authorized amount modernizing existing plants. Pasta exceeds 0.5 percent of the recipient’s companies were eligible for grants to expand existing plants but not to 1 Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty establish new plants because the market Determination: Certain Pasta (‘‘Pasta’’) From Italy, 61 FR 30288 (June 14, 1996) (‘‘Pasta Investigation’’). for pasta was deemed to be close to 2 Live Swine from Canada; Final Results of saturated. Grants were made only after Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews, 61 FR a private credit institution chosen by the 52408, 52420 (October 7, 1996). applicant made a positive assessment of 3 See Department’s September 15, 2008, letter to the Embassy of Italy, at enclosure. the project. QR’’) at 2–3. De Matteis has reported that Construzioni did not receive any subsidies during the POR or AUL period. See generally De Matteis’s QR. Therefore, we are attributing De Matteis’s subsidies to its sales only. VerDate Nov<24>2008 17:11 May 27, 2009 Jkt 217001 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 25491 sales in the year of authorization. Where the total amount authorized is less than 0.5 percent of the recipient’s sales in the year of authorization, the benefit is countervailed in full (‘‘expensed’’) in the year of receipt. We determine that grants received by De Matteis under Law 64/86 exceeded 0.5 percent of its sales in the year in which the grants were approved. We used the grant methodology described in 19 CFR 351.524(d) to allocate the benefit from those grants. We divided the benefit received by De Matteis in the POR by its total sales in the POR. On this basis, we preliminarily determine the countervailable subsidy from the Law 64/86 industrial development grants to be 0.03 percent ad valorem for De Matteis. See Memorandum to the File, ‘‘2007 Preliminary Results Calculation Memorandum for De Matteis Agroalimentare S.p.A.,’’ dated May 21, 2009 (‘‘De Matteis Preliminary Calc Memo’’). B. Industrial Development Grants Under Law 488/92 In 1986, the EU initiated an investigation of the GOI’s regional subsidy practices. As a result of this investigation, the GOI changed the regions eligible for regional subsidies to include depressed areas in central and northern Italy in addition to the Mezzogiorno. After this change, the areas eligible for regional subsidies are the same as those classified as Objective 1 (underdeveloped regions), Objective 2 (declining industrial regions), or Objective 5(b) (declining agricultural regions) areas by the EU. The new policy was given legislative form in Law 488/92 under which Italian companies in the eligible sectors (manufacturing, mining, and certain business services) may apply for industrial development grants. Law 488/92 grants are made only after a preliminary examination by a bank authorized by the Ministry of Industry. On the basis of the findings of this preliminary examination, the Ministry of Industry ranks the companies applying for grants. The ranking is based on indicators such as the amount of capital the company will contribute from its own funds, the number of jobs created, regional priorities, etc. Grants are then made based on this ranking. De Matteis received grants under Law 488/ 92 that conferred a benefit during the POR. E:\FR\FM\28MYN1.SGM 28MYN1 25492 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 101 / Thursday, May 28, 2009 / Notices In the Second Administrative Review,4 the Department determined that these grants confer a countervailable subsidy within the meaning of section 771(5) of the Act. They are a direct transfer of funds from the GOI bestowing a benefit in the amount of the grant. See Section 771(5)(D)(i) of the Act; see also 19 CFR 351.504(a). Also, these grants were found to be regionally specific within the meaning of section 771(5A)(D)(iv) of the Act. In this review, neither the GOI nor the respondent company has provided new information which would warrant reconsideration of our determination that these grants are countervailable subsidies. See Live Swine from Canada, 61 FR at 52420. In the Second Administrative Review, the Department treated the industrial development grants as non-recurring. No new information has been placed on the record of this review that would cause us to depart from this treatment. Therefore, we have followed the methodology described in 19 CFR 351.524(b)(2) which directs us to allocate over time those non-recurring grants whose total authorized amount exceeds 0.5 percent of the recipient’s sales in the year of authorization. We determine that grants received by De Matteis under Law 488/92 exceeded 0.5 percent of its sales in the year in which the grants were approved. We used the grant methodology described in 19 CFR 351.524(d) to allocate the benefits over time. We divided the benefit received by De Matteis in the POR by its total sales in the POR. On this basis, we preliminarily determine the countervailable subsidy from the Law 488/92 industrial development grants to be 0.76 percent ad valorem for De Matteis. See De Matteis Preliminary Calc Memo. C. European Regional Development Fund (‘‘ERDF’’) Programma Operativo Plurifondo (‘‘P.O.P.’’) Grant The ERDF is one of the EU’s Structural Funds. It was created pursuant to the authority in Article 130 of the Treaty of Rome to reduce regional disparities in socio-economic performance within the EU. The ERDF program provides grants to companies located within regions that meet the criteria, as described above, of Objective 4 See Certain Pasta From Italy: Preliminary Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review, 64 FR 17618 (April 12, 1999) (‘‘Second Administrative Review’’); Certain Pasta From Italy: Final Results of the Second Countervailing Duty Administrative Review, 64 FR 44489 (August 16, 1999). VerDate Nov<24>2008 17:11 May 27, 2009 Jkt 217001 1, Objective 2, or Objective 5(b) under the Structural Funds. De Matteis received a P.O.P. grant from the Regione Campania in 1998.5 The P.O.P. grant was funded by the EU, the GOI, and the Regione Campania. In the Pasta Investigation, the Department determined that the ERDF P.O.P. grant confers a countervailable subsidy within the meaning of section 771(5) of the Act. It is a direct transfer of funds from the GOI bestowing a benefit in the amount of the grant. See Section 771(5)(D)(i) of the Act; see also 19 CFR 351.504(a). Also, this grant was found to be regionally specific within the meaning of section 771(5A)(D)(iv) of the Act. In this review, neither the EU, the GOI, nor the respondent company has provided new information which would warrant reconsideration of our determination that ERDF grants are countervailable subsidies. See Live Swine from Canada, 61 FR at 52420. In the Pasta Investigation, the Department treated ERDF grants as nonrecurring. No new information has been placed on the record of this review that would cause us to depart from this treatment. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.524(b)(2), we determined that the ERDF P.O.P. grant received by De Matteis exceeded 0.5 percent of its sales in the year in which the grant was approved, as was the case in the Fourth Administrative Review. We used the grant methodology described in 19 CFR 351.524(d) to allocate the benefits over time. We divided the benefit received by De Matteis in the POR by its total sales in the POR. On this basis, we preliminarily determine the countervailable subsidy from the ERDF P.O.P. grant to be 0.03 percent ad valorem for De Matteis. See De Matteis Preliminary Calc Memo. D. Social Security Reductions and Exemptions—Sgravi Italian law allows companies, particularly those located in the Mezzogiorno, to use a variety of exemptions from and reductions of payroll contributions that employers make to the Italian social security system for health care benefits, pensions, etc. The sgravi benefits are regulated by a complex set of laws and regulations, and are sometimes linked to conditions such as creating more jobs. 5 See Certain Pasta From Italy: Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review, 66 FR 40987 (August 6, 2001) (‘‘Fourth Administrative Review’’); unchanged in Certain Pasta From Italy: Final Results of the Fourth Countervailing Duty Administrative Review, 66 FR 64214 (December 12, 2001). PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 We have found in past segments of this proceeding that benefits under some of these laws (e.g., Laws 183/76, 449/97, and 223/91) are available only to companies located in the Mezzogiorno and other disadvantaged regions. Certain other laws (e.g., Laws 407/90 and 863/84) provide benefits to companies all over Italy, but the level of benefits is higher for companies in the Mezzogiorno and other disadvantaged regions than for companies in other parts of the country. Still, other laws provide benefits that are not linked to any region. In the Pasta Investigation and subsequent reviews, the Department determined that certain types of social security reductions and exemptions confer countervailable subsidies within the meaning of section 771(5) of the Act. They represent revenue foregone by the GOI bestowing a benefit in the amount of the savings received by the companies. See Section 771(5)(D)(ii) of the Act. Also, they were found to be regionally specific within the meaning of section 771(5A)(D)(iv) of the Act because they were limited to companies in the Mezzogiorno or because the higher levels of benefits were limited to companies in the Mezzogiorno. In the instant review, no party in this proceeding challenged our past determinations in the Pasta Investigation and subsequent reviews that sgravi benefits, generally, were countervailable for companies located within the Mezzogiorno. See Live Swine from Canada, 61 FR at 52420. However, the GOI has submitted information claiming that benefits provided under Articles 8 and 25 of Law 223/91 and Leg. Decree 276/03 should be found not countervailable. See GOI’s February 18, 2009 supplemental questionnaire response (‘‘SQR’’) at 2–13 and Exhibits n. 2a–2h; see also GOI’s March 23, 2009 SQR; see also GOI’s April 9, 2009 SQR at 1–2. The laws under which sgravi benefits were provided during the POR are the following: Law 196/97 and Law 407/90. (1) Law 196/97 Law 196/97 is closely related to Law 863/84. See section IV.A.1 below for a discussion of Law 863/84. Law 196/97 provides additional exemptions for employers in the Mezzogiorno that hire employees under ‘‘skilling’’ contracts on a long-term (or permanent) basis. As discussed below, skilling contracts under Law 863/84 occur when a company hires a worker under a nonrenewable contract with a term of 24 months or less and the contract includes an educational or training component. E:\FR\FM\28MYN1.SGM 28MYN1 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 101 / Thursday, May 28, 2009 / Notices Law 196/97 permits such employers a total exemption from social security contributions for an additional 12month period. Benefits from Law 196/97 could only be requested after an employee had participated in a 24month skilling contract under Law 863/ 84. As noted below in the discussion of Law 863/84, no new skilling contracts under Law 863/84 could be made after October 31, 2004. However, the last possible date to request exemptions under Law 196/97 was October 31, 2006. Moreover, because the exemption granted under Law 196/97 only lasts for 12 months, benefits were set to expire by October 31, 2007. In the Fourth Administrative Review, we determined Law 196/97 confers a countervailable subsidy within the meaning of section 771(5) of the Act. The reduction or exemption of taxes is revenue forgone that is otherwise due and is, therefore, a financial contribution within the meaning of section 771(5)(D)(ii) of the Act . The benefit is the amount of the tax savings in accordance with 19 CFR 351.509(a). Additionally, the program is regionally specific within the meaning of section 771(5A)(D)(iv) of the Act because benefits are limited to companies in the Mezzogiorno. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.524(c) and consistent with our methodology in the Pasta Investigation and in subsequent administrative reviews, we have treated social security reductions and exemptions as recurring benefits. To calculate the countervailable subsidy, we divided De Matteis’s savings in social security contributions during the POR by its total sales in the POR. On this basis, we preliminarily determine the countervailable subsidy from Law 196/97 to be 0.01 percent ad valorem for De Matteis. See De Matteis Preliminary Calc Memo. Because benefits expired during the POR, we preliminary determine that Law 196/97 has been terminated during the POR and there will be no subsidy benefits from this program after the POR. Further, there is no indication of any substitute or replacement program. (2) Law 407/90 Law 407/90 grants an exemption from social security taxes for three years when a company hires a worker who (1) has received wage supplementation for a period of at least two years, or (2) has been previously unemployed for a period of two years. A 100-percent exemption is allowed for companies in the Mezzogiorno, while companies located in the rest of Italy receive a 50percent reduction. VerDate Nov<24>2008 17:11 May 27, 2009 Jkt 217001 In the Pasta Investigation, we determined Law 407/90 confers a countervailable subsidy within the meaning of section 771(5) of the Act. The reduction or exemption of taxes is revenue forgone that is otherwise due and is, therefore, a financial contribution within the meaning of section 771(5)(D)(ii) of the Act. The benefit is the difference in the amount of the tax savings between companies located in the Mezzogiorno and companies located in the rest of Italy in accordance with 19 CFR 351.509(a). Additionally, the program is regionally specific within the meaning of section 771(5A)(D)(iv) of the Act because higher levels of benefits are limited to companies in the Mezzogiorno. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.524(c) and consistent with our methodology in the Pasta Investigation and in subsequent administrative reviews, we have treated social security reductions and exemptions as recurring benefits. To calculate the countervailable subsidy for De Matteis, we divided the difference during the POR between the savings for the respondent company located in the Mezzogiorno and the savings a company located in the rest of Italy would have received. This amount was divided by De Matteis’s total sales in the POR. On this basis, we preliminarily determine the countervailable subsidy from Law 407/90 to be 0.01 percent ad valorem for De Matteis. See De Matteis Preliminary Calc Memo. E. Law 289/02 (1) Article 62—Investments in Disadvantaged Areas Article 62 of Law 289/02 provides a benefit in the form of a credit towards direct taxes, indirect taxes, or social security contributions. The credit must be used within three years. The law was established to promote investment in disadvantaged areas by providing credits to companies that undertake new investment by purchasing capital goods, equipment, patents, licenses, or ‘‘know how.’’ The granting of new benefits under Article 62 of Law 289/02 expired as of December 31, 2006, but the credits obtained prior to this date may be used in future years. In the Tenth Administrative Review,6 we determined that Article 62 of Law 289/02 confers a countervailable subsidy. The credits are a financial 6 See Certain Pasta from Italy: Preliminary Results of the Tenth Countervailing Duty Administrative Review, 72 FR 43616 (August 6, 2007) (‘‘Tenth Administrative Review’’); unchanged in Certain Pasta from Italy: Final Results of the Tenth (2005) Countervailing Duty Administrative Review, 73 FR 7251 (February 7, 2008). PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 25493 contribution within the meaning of section 771(5)(D)(ii) of the Act because they represent revenue foregone that is otherwise due to the GOI, and a benefit is conferred in the amount of the tax savings in accordance with 19 CFR 351.509(a). Finally, the program is specific within the meaning of 751(5A)(D)(iv) of the Act because it is limited to certain geographical regions in Italy, specifically, the regions of Calabria, Campania, Basilicata, Pugilia, Sicilia, and Sardegna, and certain municipalities in the Abruzzo and Molise regions, and certain municipalities in central and northern Italy. No new information has been placed on the record of this review that would cause us to depart from this treatment. See Live Swine from Canada, 61 FR at 52420. De Matteis is located in Campania and took advantage of this program. It did so by constructing a new semolina milling facility, including wheat silos, byproduct storage silos, semolina silos, and milling equipment. A tax credit for De Matteis was approved in 2005 and a portion was used to reduce the company’s income taxes in 2005, 2006, and 2007. In the Tenth Administrative Review, the Department treated the amount credited against 2005 income as a nonrecurring grant in accordance with the criteria in 19 CFR 351.524(c)(2)(i)–(iii). Specifically, the tax credit is exceptional because it was only available for a limited period of time, and was dependent upon companies making specific investments. Further, the tax credit required the GOI’s authorization, and was tied to capital assets of the firm. Moreover, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.524(b)(2), we determined that the tax credit received by De Matteis exceeded 0.5 percent of its sales in the year in which the tax credit was approved. Therefore, we treated the portion of the tax credit used to offset income in 2005 as a grant received in that year and allocated the benefit over the AUL using the formula described in 19 CFR 351.524(d). We have followed the same methodology for the portion of the tax credit used to offset income earned during the POR. Consequently, we divided the benefit received by De Matteis from the 2005, 2006, and 2007 grants in the POR by the company’s total sales in the POR. On this basis, we preliminarily determine the countervailable subsidy from Law 289/ 02, Article 62 to be 0.76 percent ad valorem for De Matteis. See De Matteis Preliminary Calc Memo. E:\FR\FM\28MYN1.SGM 28MYN1 25494 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 101 / Thursday, May 28, 2009 / Notices (2) Article 63—Increase in Employment Article 63 of Law 289/02 provides a benefit in the form of a credit towards direct taxes, indirect taxes, or Social Security contributions. The law was established to promote employment by providing a tax credit to companies that increase the number of employees at the company by hiring new workers to longterm contracts. The monthly credit is 100 euros for a new hire for any company in Italy. If the employee is 45 years old or older, the monthly amount increases to 150 euros. The monthly credit is 300 euros if the company is located in the Mezzogiorno. Under the law, the granting of new credits ceased as of December 31, 2006. There is no limit as to when the credits can be applied as these credits carry over from one year to the next. However, as of 2007, the credits must be used as soon as possible and failure to do so forfeits the portion of the credit that could have been taken during the given year. In the Tenth Administrative Review, we determined that Article 63 of Law 289/02 confers a countervailable subsidy. The credits are a financial contribution within the meaning of section 771(5)(D)(ii) of the Act because they represent revenue foregone that is otherwise due to the GOI, and a benefit is conferred in the amount of the tax savings in accordance with 19 CFR 351.509(a). Finally, the program is specific within the meaning of 751(5A)(D)(iv) of the Act because the greater benefit amount is limited to certain geographical regions in Italy, specifically, Campania, Basilicata, Puglia, Calabria, Sicilia, Sardegna, Abruzzo, Molise, and the municipalities of Tivoli, Formia, Sora, Cassino, Frosnone, Viterbo, and Massa. No new information has been placed on the record of this review that would cause us to depart from this treatment. See Live Swine from Canada, 61 FR at 52420. De Matteis is located in Campania and claimed the higher tax credits on the income tax forms filed during the POR. Consistent with the Tenth Administrative Review, we are treating these benefits as recurring subsidies and attributing the benefit to the year in which the taxes would otherwise have been due, i.e., the year in which the company filed its tax form.7 To calculate the countervailable subsidy for De Matteis, we divided the difference during the POR between the savings for the respondent company located in the Mezzogiorno and the savings a company located in the rest of Italy would have 7 See 19 CFR 351.509(b). VerDate Nov<24>2008 17:11 May 27, 2009 Jkt 217001 received. This amount was divided by De Matteis’s total sales in the POR. On this basis, we preliminarily determine the countervailable subsidy from Law 289/02, Article 63 to be 0.03 percent ad valorem for De Matteis. See De Matteis Preliminary Calc Memo. F. Law 662/96—Patti Territoriali The GOI describes Patti Territoriali grants (Law 662/96 Article 2, Paragraph 203, Letter d) as being provided to companies for entrepreneurial initiatives such as new plants, additions, modernization, restructuring, conversion, reactivation, or transfer. To be eligible for these grants companies must be involved in mining, manufacturing, production of thermal or electric power from biomasses, service companies, tourist companies, agricultural, maritime and salt-water fishing businesses, aquaculture enterprises, or their associations. The Patti Territoriali provides grants to companies located within regions which meet the criteria of Objective 1 or Objective 2 under the Structural Funds or Article 87.3.c. of the Treaty of Rome. A Patti Territoriali is signed between the provincial government and the GOI. Based upon project submissions, the provincial government ranks the projects and selects the projects it considers to be the best. The provincial government submits the detailed plans to the GOI and, if approved, a special authorizing decree is issued for each company specifying the investment required and a schedule of the benefits. The GOI reported that De Matteis received disbursements from the Patti Territoriali in 2000, 2004, and 2007, from a grant approved on January 29, 1999. In the Tenth Administrative Review, the Department determined that this grant confers a countervailable subsidy within the meaning of section 771(5) of the Act. It is a direct transfer of funds from the GOI bestowing a benefit in the amount of the grant. See Section 771(5)(D)(i) of the Act; see also 19 CFR 351.504(a). Also, this grant was found to be regionally specific within the meaning of section 771(5A)(D)(iv) of the Act because it is limited to companies located within regions which meet the criteria of Objective 1 or Objective 2 under the Structural Funds or Article 87.3.c. of the Treaty of Rome. In this review, neither the GOI nor the responding company has provided new information which would warrant reconsideration of our determination that these grants are countervailable subsidies. See Live Swine from Canada, 61 FR at 52420. PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 In the Tenth Administrative Review, the Department treated the Patti Territoriali grant as non-recurring. No new information has been placed on the record of this review that would cause us to depart from this treatment. We have followed the methodology described in 19 CFR 351.524(b)(2) which directs us to allocate over time those non-recurring grants whose total authorized amount exceeds 0.5 percent of the recipient’s sales in the year of authorization. We determined that the grant received by De Matteis under Law 662/96 exceeded 0.5 percent of its sales in the year in which the grant was approved. We used the grant methodology described in 19 CFR 351.524(d) to allocate the benefits over time. We divided the benefit received by De Matteis in the POR by its total sales in the POR. On this basis, we preliminarily determine the countervailable subsidy from the Patti Territoriali grant to be 0.39 percent ad valorem for De Matteis. See De Matteis Preliminary Calc Memo. G. Law 662/96—Contratto di Programma The GOI describes Contratto di Programma (Law 662/96, Article 2, Paragraph 203, Letter e) as an instrument provided for the expansion of existing facilities in regions that meet the criteria of Objective 1 or Objective 2 under the Structural Funds or Article 87.3.c. of the Treaty of Rome. See Memorandum to the File, ‘‘Relevant Portions of GOI’s Public Questionnaire Responses in the Tenth (2005) Countervailing Duty Administrative Review,’’ dated March 2, 2009, at 30 (‘‘Program Contracts Memo’’); see also GOI’s March 23, 2009, SQR. The expenses eligible for these grants are design, study, company land, brickwork, machinery, plants, and equipment. See Program Contracts Memo at 30. There are three types of entities eligible for these grants: (1) Large businesses operating in the industrial sector (mining, manufacturing, construction, production and distribution of power, vapor, and hot water), services, tourism, agriculture, fishing, and aquaculture industries; (2) associations of small and medium businesses operating in one or more of the above-indicated sectors; or (3) representatives of industrial, agricultural, agri-food, and fishing districts in which beneficiaries are small, medium, and large enterprises. Id. During the first stage, an entity must apply for the grant through the Ministry of Economic Development (‘‘MED’’) (formerly the Ministry of Productive E:\FR\FM\28MYN1.SGM 28MYN1 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 101 / Thursday, May 28, 2009 / Notices Activities) which verifies the technical and economic validity of the proposed project, the entrepreneurship requirements of the proposing party, and the adequacy of the allocated funds. Id. at 32; see also GOI’s March 23, 2009, SQR. The MED files a report with the Interministerial Committee for Economic Planning to approve the financial contribution. See Program Contracts Memo at 32. During the second stage, the proposing party provides an Executive Project for the implementation of the Project Plan. See GOI’s March 23, 2009, SQR. Following approval, the Contratto di Programma is signed by the entity or entities receiving grants and the GOI. See Program Contracts Memo at 32. The grant is disbursed based on the progress of the work, except for the first installment which is made as an advance payment. Id. De Matteis received a disbursement from the Contratto di Programma in 2007 as a result of a grant approved on March 27, 2006. See GOI’s March 23, 2009, SQR; De Matteis’s February 19, 2009, SQR at 5 and Exhibit 1. Under this Contratto di Programma, the GOI agreed to contribute half of the approved amount, while Regione Campania agreed to contribute the other half. See GOI’s March 23, 2009, SQR. We preliminarily determine that this grant confers a countervailable subsidy within the meaning of section 771(5) of the Act. It is a direct transfer of funds from the GOI and Regione Campania bestowing a benefit in the amount of the grant. See Section 771(5)(D)(i) of the Act; see also 19 CFR 351.504(a). Also, this grant is regionally specific within the meaning of section 771(5A)(D)(iv) of the Act because it is limited to companies located within regions which meet the criteria of Objective 1 or Objective 2 under the Structural Funds or Article 87.3.c. of the Treaty of Rome. On this basis, we preliminarily determine the countervailable subsidy from the Contratto di Programma grant to be 0.46 percent ad valorem for De Matteis. See De Matteis Preliminary Calc Memo. II. Programs Preliminarily Determined To Be Not Countervailable A. Social Security Reductions and Exemptions—Sgravi (1) Law 223/91 Law 223/91 is designed to increase employment by providing benefits to companies that hire unemployed workers on a special mobility list. The mobility list comprises recently fired workers in certain sectors of the VerDate Nov<24>2008 17:11 May 27, 2009 Jkt 217001 economy, but companies in any sector may hire workers off the mobility list. (a) Article 8, Paragraph 2 Under Law 223/91, Article 8, Paragraph 2, the employer is exempted from social security contributions when a mobility-listed worker is hired under a short-term contract of up to 12 months. The employer receives such benefits for the length of the contract to a maximum of 12 months. But, if the short-term contract is converted to a permanent contract, the employer receives benefits for an additional 12 months. Seventh Administrative Review,8 we determined that Law 223/91 conferred a countervailable subsidy within the meaning of section 771(5) of the Act. The reduction or exemption of taxes was treated as revenue forgone and was, therefore, a financial contribution within the meaning of section 771(5)(D)(ii) of the Act. The benefit was the amount of tax savings in accordance with 19 CFR 351.509(a). Additionally, we found that the program was regionally specific within the meaning of section 771(5A)(D)(iv) of the Act because it was limited to companies in the Mezzogiorno or because the higher levels of benefits were limited to companies in the Mezzogiorno. In the Eleventh Administrative Review,9 although we provided the GOI with two opportunities to demonstrate that this program was not countervailable, the GOI did not respond to the industry usage portion of the supplemental questionnaires. Therefore, we found no reason to reconsider our prior finding that benefits under Law 223/91, Article 8, Paragraph 2 are countervailable in the Eleventh Administrative Review. Based on the GOI’s responses in this administrative review, we determine that this program is not specific and, hence, not countervailable. In particular, Article 8, Paragraph 2 evidences no de jure or regional specificity. See GOI QR at Exhibit 24; see also GOI’s February 18, 2009 SQR at 2–4, 9–10. Also, we find no evidence of de facto specificity. Information submitted by the GOI shows that, during the POR, there were numerous 8 See Certain Pasta from Italy: Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission of the Seventh Countervailing Duty Administrative Review, 69 FR 45676, 45683 (July 30, 2004) (‘‘Seventh Administrative Review’’); unchanged in Certain Pasta from Italy: Final Results of the Seventh Countervailing Duty Administrative Review, 69 FR 70657 (December 7, 2004). 9 See Certain Pasta from Italy: Final Results of the Eleventh (2006) Countervailing Duty Administrative Review, 74 FR 5922 (February 3, 2009) (‘‘Eleventh Administrative Review’’), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum. PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 25495 recipients of the benefits and neither pasta companies nor De Matteis were predominate users or received a disproportionately large share of the benefits. See GOI’s February 18, 2009 SQR at Exhibit 2; see also De Matteis Preliminary Calc Memo. Further, during the POR, the benefits provided to ‘‘Industry,’’ the economic sector to which pasta companies belong, were not a disproportionately large amount. Id. (2) Legislative Decree (‘‘L.D.’’) 276/03 (modification to Law 25/55) L.D. 276/03 is aimed at making the labor market more flexible by providing incentives to companies hiring workers under apprentice contracts that mix work and training components. Specifically, the three categories of employee contracts recognized under this decree are: (1) Working toward completion of compulsory schooling; (2) working toward completion of trade schooling; and (3) high-level training of special skills for a worker. Except for a weekly flat fee paid by the employer on behalf of the employee, the employer receives a total exemption from its social security contribution. The contributions are applied in equal measure across Italy and the decree may be used in all economic sectors. The GOI stated that L.D. 276/03 is a continuation of Law 25/55,10 a program previously found countervailable in the Seventh Administrative Review. Although we provided the GOI with an opportunity to demonstrate that this program was not countervailable in the Eleventh Administrative Review, the GOI did not respond to the industry usage portion of the supplemental questionnaire. Therefore, we found no reason to reconsider our prior finding that benefits under Law 25/55 11 are countervailable in the Eleventh Administrative Review. Based on the GOI’s responses in this administrative review, we determine that this program is not specific and, hence, not countervailable. In particular, Law 25/55 as modified by L.D. 276/03 evidences no de jure or regional specificity. See GOI’s February 18, 2009 SQR at 4–9; see also GOI’s March 23, 2009 SQR and April 9, 2009 SQR at 1. Also, we find no evidence of de facto specificity. Similar to Law 223/ 91, Article 8, Paragraph 2, information submitted by the GOI shows that, during the POR, there were numerous recipients of the benefits and neither 10 See GOI’s April 9, 2009 SQR at 1. the record of the eleventh review was not fully developed, in the final results, we also stated that, alternatively, L.D. 276/03 could be a continuation of another countervailable program, i.e., Law 56/87. 11 Because E:\FR\FM\28MYN1.SGM 28MYN1 25496 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 101 / Thursday, May 28, 2009 / Notices pasta companies nor De Matteis were predominate users or received a disproportionately large share of the benefits. See GOI’s April 9, 2009 SQR at 2; see also De Matteis Preliminary Calc Memo. Further, during the POR, the benefits provided to the ‘‘Industry’’ economic sector were not a disproportionately large amount. Id. III. Programs Preliminarily Determined To Not Be Used We examined the following programs and preliminarily determine that the producer and/or exporter of the subject merchandise under review did not apply for or receive benefits under these programs during the POR: A. Grant Received Pursuant to the Community Initiative Concerning the Preparation of Enterprises for the Single Market (‘‘PRISMA’’) B. European Regional Development Fund (‘‘ERDF’’) Programma Operativo Multiregionale (‘‘P.O.M.’’) Grant C. Certain Social Security Reductions and Exemptions—Sgravi (including Law 223/91, Article 8, Paragraph 4 and Article 25, Paragraph 9) D. Law 236/93 Training Grants E. Law 1329/65 Interest Contributions (Sabatini Law) (Formerly LumpSum 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. Law 317/91 Benefits for Innovative Investments I. Brescia Chamber of Commerce Training Grants J. Ministerial Decree 87/02 K. Law 10/91 Grants to Fund Energy Conservation L. Export Restitution Payments M. Export Credits Under Law 227/77 N. Capital Grants Under Law 675/77 O. Retraining Grants Under Law 675/77 P. Interest Contributions on Bank Loans Under Law 675/77 Q. Preferential Financing for Export Promotion Under Law 394/81 R. Urban Redevelopment Under Law 181 S. Industrial Development Grants under Law 183/76 T. Interest Subsidies Under Law 598/94 U. Duty-Free Import Rights V. European Social Fund Grants W. Law 113/86 Training Grants X. European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund Y. Law 341/95 Interest Contributions on Debt Consolidation Loans (Formerly Debt Consolidation Law 341/95) VerDate Nov<24>2008 17:11 May 27, 2009 Jkt 217001 Z. Interest Grants Financed by IRI Bonds AA. Article 44 of Law 448/01 IV. Programs Preliminarily Determined To Have Been Terminated A. Social Security Reductions and Exemptions—Sgravi (1) Law 863/84 Law 863/84 provides social security reductions or exemptions when a company hires a worker under a nonrenewable contract with a term of 24 months or less and the contract includes an educational or training component. The GOI refers to these as ‘‘skilling’’ contracts. The employer may receive reductions or exemptions from social security contributions for a period of up to 24 months. Typically, employees hired under these contracts must be no more than 29 years old, but in the Mezzogiorno, the maximum age is 32 years old. Also, a company in the Mezzogiorno is exempted from making social security contributions for employees hired under these skilling contracts, while companies in other areas of Italy receive a 25 percent reduction in social security contributions. L.D. 276/03 repealed the provision related to skilling contracts by private companies and, as of November 2004, no new skilling contracts could be made. However, for skilling contracts entered into as of October 2004, benefits could be realized for the duration of the two-year period. Because benefits expired prior to the POR (i.e., October 2006) and because there is no evidence of substitute or replacement programs, we preliminary determine that Law 863/84 has been terminated prior to the POR and there are no subsidy benefits from this program during or after this POR. V. Previously Terminated Programs A. Regional Tax Exemptions Under IRAP B. VAT Reductions Under Laws 64/86 and 675/55 C. Corporate Income Tax (‘‘IRPEG’’) 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 G. Social Security Reductions and Exemptions—Sgravi (1) Article 44 of Law 448/01 (2) Law 337/90 Preliminary Results of Review In accordance with 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4)(i), we calculated an individual subsidy rate for De Matteis. PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 For the period January 1, 2007, through December 31, 2007, we preliminarily find the net subsidy rate for the producer/exporter under review to be that specified in the chart shown below: Producer/Exporter De Matteis Agroalimentare S.p.A. ................................ All-Others Rate ..................... Net Subsidy Rate (percent) 2.48 3.85 Assessment Rates If these preliminary results are adopted in our final results of this review, the Department will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (‘‘CBP’’) to assess countervailing duties at these net subsidy rates. The Department will issue appropriate assessment instructions directly to CBP 15 days after publication of the 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, and Pasta Lensi S.r.l. which was revoked from the order), the Department has directed CBP to assess countervailing duties on all entries between January 1, 2007, and December 31, 2007, at the rates in effect at the time of entry. Cash Deposit Instructions The Department also intends to instruct CBP to collect cash deposits of estimated countervailing duties at the ad valorem rates shown above on all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of these final results of 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, and Pasta Lensi S.r.l. which was revoked from the order), we intend to 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. Public Comment Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.224(b), the Department will disclose to parties to the proceeding any calculations performed in connection with these preliminary results within five days after the date of the public announcement of this notice. E:\FR\FM\28MYN1.SGM 28MYN1 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 101 / Thursday, May 28, 2009 / Notices Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309(c)(ii), interested parties may submit written arguments in case briefs within 30 days of the date of publication of this notice. Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in case briefs, may be filed no later than five days after the date of filing the case briefs, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.309(d). Parties who submit briefs in this proceeding should provide a summary of the arguments not to exceed five pages and a table of statutes, regulations, and cases cited. Copies of case briefs and rebuttal briefs must be served on interested parties in accordance with 19 CFR 351.303(f). Interested parties may request a hearing within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c). Any hearing, if requested, will be held two days after the scheduled date for submission of rebuttal briefs. The Department will publish a notice of the final results of this administrative review within 120 days from the publication of these preliminary results, in accordance with section 751(a)(3) of the Act. We are issuing and publishing these results in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4). Dated: May 21, 2009. Ronald K. Lorentzen, Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E9–12405 Filed 5–27–09; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P RIN: 0648–XP48 Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council (Council); Public Meetings AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Notice of public meetings. SUMMARY: The Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council will convene public meetings. DATES: The meetings will be held June 15 - 18, 2009. ADDRESSES: The meetings will be held at the Quorum, 700 N. Westshore Blvd., Tampa, FL 33609. Council address: Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council, 2203 North Lois Avenue, Suite 1100, Tampa, FL 33607. Jkt 217001 1 p.m., The Council meeting will begin with a review of the agenda and minutes. From 1:15 p.m. - 5:30 p.m., the Council will receive public testimony on exempted fishing permits (EFPs), if any; Final Reef Fish Amendment 31, and the Council will hold an Open Public Comment Period regarding any fishery issue of concern. People wishing to speak before the Council should complete a public comment card prior to the comment period. Thursday, June 18, 2009 From 8:30 a.m. - 12:15 p.m. and 1:30 p.m. - 2:30 p.m., the Council will review and discuss reports from the committee meetings as follows: Reef Fish Management; Outreach & Education; Budget/Personnel; Administrative Policy; Mackerel Management; Spiny Lobster Management; CLOSED SESSION SSC Selection; Data Collection; Sustainable Fisheries/ Ecosystem; and SSC Selection. From 2:30 p.m. - 3 p.m., they will discuss the Atlantic Sea Turtle Strategy. From 3 p.m. - 3:30 p.m., Other Business items will follow. The Council will conclude its meeting at approximately 3:30 p.m. 12 p.m. - 1 p.m. - The Outreach & Education Committee will receive a Report from the O&E AP Meeting and an Update on Efforts to Provide Online Coverage of the Council Meetings. 1 p.m. - 2 p.m. - The Budget/ Personnel Committee will review the 2009 Budget and the 5-year Budget. They will also discuss the Status of SSC Stipends and receive a Report of the Administrative Officer’s Meeting. 2 p.m. - 2:30 p.m. - The Administrative Policy Committee will discuss Comments on the Proposed Rule on Council Operations. 2:30 p.m. - 3:30 p.m. - Mackerel Management Committee will discuss a Scoping Document for Joint Mackerel Amendment 18 and Select Scoping Meeting locations. 3:30 p.m. - 5 p.m. - The Data Collection Committee will discuss the Report of the GSMFC FIN Meeting, Discuss Status Report from the SEDAR PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 Steering Committee Meeting and Listen to the Report on MRIP Program. 5 p.m. - 5:30 p.m. - CLOSED SESSION - The SSC Selection Committee will consider Appointment of SSC/SEP/SAP Members. Tuesday, June 16, 2009 Wednesday, June 17, 2009 Monday, June 15, 2009 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 17:11 May 27, 2009 Council Committees DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE VerDate Nov<24>2008 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Stephen Bortone, Executive Director, Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council; telephone: (813) 348–1630. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 25497 8:30 a.m. - 12 p.m. & 1:30 p.m. - 5:30 p.m. - The Reef Fish Management Committee will meet to discuss the Final Action on the Reef Fish Amendment 31/DEIS to Address Longline/Turtle Interactions; Receive a Presentation on Consultation Assessment - Draft Effects Analysis and Draft Loggerhead Population Assessment; discuss the Status of the Emergency Rule for Longlining; Discuss Initiating Action to Encompass all Remaining Reef Fish into and IFQ Program; Discuss the Gag/Red Grouper Update Assessment and Holding a SSC Workshop on Venting/Safe Release Methods; and Receive a Presentation on the Status of Goliath Grouper Research/ Assessment Preparation. 5:30 p.m. - 6:30 p.m. - There will be an Informal Open Public Question and Answer Session. Wednesday, June 17, 2009 8:30 a.m. - 11 a.m. - The Sustainable Fisheries/Ecosystem Committee will discuss the Scoping Document for Generic ACL/AM Amendment; Select Scoping Hearing Locations and receive a Report on the CRCP Meeting. 11 a.m. - 12 p.m. - The Spiny Lobster/ Stone Crab Management Committee will discuss the Scoping Document for the Joint Spiny Lobster Amendment 9 and Select Scoping Meeting Locations. Although other non-emergency issues not on the agendas may come before the Council and Committees for discussion, in accordance with the MagnusonStevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnsuon-Stevens Act), those issues may not be the subject of formal action during these meetings. Actions of the Council and Committees will be restricted to those issues specifically identified in the agendas and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under Section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council’s intent to take action to address the emergency. The established times for addressing items on the agenda may be adjusted as necessary to accommodate the timely completion of discussion relevant to the agenda items. In order to further allow for such adjustments and completion of all items on the agenda, the meeting may be extended from, or E:\FR\FM\28MYN1.SGM 28MYN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 101 (Thursday, May 28, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 25489-25497]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-12405]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[C-475-819]


Certain Pasta from Italy: Preliminary Results of the 12th (2007) 
Countervailing Duty Administrative Review

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (``Department'') is conducting an 
administrative review of the countervailing duty order on certain pasta 
from Italy for the period January 1, 2007, through December 31, 2007. 
We preliminarily find that De Matteis Agroalimentare S.p.A. (``De 
Matteis'') received countervailable subsidies. See the ``Preliminary 
Results of Review'' section, below. Interested parties are invited to 
comment on these preliminary results. See the ``Public Comment'' 
section of this notice.

DATES: Effective Date: May 28, 2009.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brandon Farlander or Shelly Atkinson, 
AD/CVD Operations, Office 1, Import Administration, U.S. Department of 
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 
20230; telephone: (202) 482-0182 and (202) 482-0116, 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 11, 2008, the Department 
published a notice of ``Opportunity to Request Administrative Review'' 
of this countervailing duty order for calendar year 2007, the period of 
review (``POR''). See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, 
Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity To Request 
Administrative Review, 73 FR 39948 (July 11, 2008). On July 28, 2008, 
we received such a request from F.lli De Cecco di Filippo Fara San 
Martino S.p.A. (``De Cecco''). On July 31, 2008, we received a request 
for review from De Matteis. On July 31, 2008, we received a request for 
review from petitioners New World Pasta Company, American Italian Pasta 
Company, and Dakota Growers Pasta Company for De Matteis. In accordance 
with 19 CFR 351.221(c)(1)(i), we

[[Page 25490]]

published a notice of initiation of this review on August 26, 2008. See 
Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative 
Reviews, 73 FR 50308 (August 26, 2008).
    On September 15, 2008, we issued countervailing duty questionnaires 
to the Commission of the European Union (``EU''), the Government of 
Italy (``GOI''), De Matteis, and De Cecco. We received responses to our 
questionnaires in October and November 2008. On December 22, 2008, De 
Cecco withdrew its request for review. On January 27, 2009, we 
rescinded the review with respect to De Cecco. See Certain Pasta From 
Italy: Notice of Partial Rescission of Twelfth (2007) Countervailing 
Duty Administrative Review, 74 FR 4734 (January 27, 2009).
    We issued supplemental questionnaires to De Matteis and the GOI in 
December 2008, January 2009, and March 2009, and we received responses 
to our supplemental questionnaires in December 2008, February 2009, 
March 2009, and April 2009.

Period of Review

    The POR for which we are measuring subsidies is January 1, 2007, 
through December 31, 2007.

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 the scope of the order 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 the 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 1117 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 are also excluded from the 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 CRU.
    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 
finding 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 on file in 
the CRU.
    (3) 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 on file in the CRU.
    (4) 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 Tariff Act 
of 1930, as amended (``the Act''), and 19 CFR 351.225(b). See Certain 
Pasta From Italy: Notice of Initiation of Anti-Circumvention Inquiry on 
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).

Subsidies Valuation Information

Allocation Period

    Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.524(b), benefits from non-recurring 
subsidies are allocated over a period corresponding to the average 
useful life (``AUL'') of the renewable physical assets used to produce 
the subject merchandise. The Department's regulations create a 
rebuttable presumption that the AUL will be taken from the U.S. 
Internal Revenue Service's 1977 Class Life Asset Depreciation Range 
System (``IRS Tables''). See 19 CFR 351.524(d)(2). For pasta, the IRS 
Tables prescribe an AUL of 12 years. None of the responding companies 
or other interested parties objected to this allocation period. 
Therefore, we have used a 12-year allocation period.

Attribution of Subsidies

    Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.525(b)(6), the Department will attribute 
subsidies received by certain companies to the combined sales of those 
companies. Based on our review of the responses, we preliminarily find 
that ``cross-ownership'' exists with respect to the respondent company. 
De Matteis has reported that it is affiliated with De Matteis 
Construzioni S.r.L. (``Construzioni'') by virtue of being 100 percent 
owned by Construzioni. See De Matteis's October 22, 2008, questionnaire 
response (``De Matteis's

[[Page 25491]]

QR'') at 2-3. De Matteis has reported that Construzioni did not receive 
any subsidies during the POR or AUL period. See generally De Matteis's 
QR. Therefore, we are attributing De Matteis's subsidies to its sales 
only.

Discount Rates

    For discount rates, the respondent company did not take out any 
loans in the years in which the GOI agreed to provide the subsidies in 
question. Therefore, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.524(d)(3)(i)(B), we used 
the national average cost of long-term, fixed-rate loans to allocate 
non-recurring benefits over time.
    Consistent with past practice in this proceeding, for grants 
approved in 1995-2004, we used the Italian Bankers' Association 
(``ABI'') prime interest rate (as reported by the Bank of Italy), 
increased by the mark-up an Italian commercial bank would charge a 
corporate customer and an amount for bank charges. See, e.g., Certain 
Pasta From Italy: Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission of the 
Eighth Countervailing Duty Administrative Review, 70 FR 17971 (April 8, 
2005); unchanged in Certain Pasta from Italy: Final Results of the 
Eighth Countervailing Duty Administrative Review, 70 FR 37084 (June 28, 
2005). The Bank of Italy ceased reporting this rate starting in 2004. 
Because the ABI prime rate was no longer reported after 2004, for 
grants approved in 2005-2007, we have used the ``Bank Interest Rates on 
Euro Loans: Outstanding Amounts, Non-Financial Corporations, Loans With 
Original Maturity More Than Five Years'' published by the Bank of Italy 
and provided by the GOI in its October 22, 2008, questionnaire response 
(``GOI QR'') at Exhibit 5. We increased this rate by the mark-up and 
bank charges described above.

Analysis of Programs

I. Programs Preliminarily Determined To Be Countervailable

A. Industrial Development Grants Under Law 64/86
    Law 64/86 provided assistance to promote development in the 
Mezzogiorno (the south of Italy). Grants were awarded to companies 
constructing new plants or expanding or modernizing existing plants. 
Pasta companies were eligible for grants to expand existing plants but 
not to establish new plants because the market for pasta was deemed to 
be close to saturated. Grants were made only after a private credit 
institution chosen by the applicant made a positive assessment of the 
project.
    In 1992, the Italian Parliament abrogated Law 64/86 and replaced it 
with Law 488/92 (see section I.B., below). This decision became 
effective in 1993. However, companies whose projects had been approved 
prior to 1993 were authorized to continue receiving grants under Law 
64/86 after 1993. De Matteis received grants under Law 64/86 that 
conferred a benefit during the POR.
    In the Pasta Investigation,\1\ the Department determined that these 
grants confer a countervailable subsidy within the meaning of section 
771(5) of the Act. They are a direct transfer of funds from the GOI 
bestowing a benefit in the amount of the grant. See Section 
771(5)(D)(i) of the Act; see also 19 CFR 351.504(a). Also, these grants 
were found to be regionally specific within the meaning of section 
771(5A)(D)(iv) of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination: Certain 
Pasta (``Pasta'') From Italy, 61 FR 30288 (June 14, 1996) (``Pasta 
Investigation'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As stated in Live Swine from Canada,\2\ ``it is well-established 
that where the Department has determined that a program is * * * 
countervailable, it is the Department's policy not to re-examine the 
issue of that program's countervailability in subsequent reviews unless 
new information or evidence of changed circumstances is submitted which 
warrants reconsideration.'' Also, this policy is reflected in the 
Department's standard questionnaire used in countervailing duty 
administrative reviews which states that ``absent new information or 
evidence of changed circumstances, we do not intend to reexamine the 
countervailability of programs previously found to be 
countervailable.'' \3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Live Swine from Canada; Final Results of Countervailing Duty 
Administrative Reviews, 61 FR 52408, 52420 (October 7, 1996).
    \3\ See Department's September 15, 2008, letter to the Embassy 
of Italy, at enclosure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In this review, neither the GOI nor the respondent company has 
provided new information that would warrant reconsideration of our 
determination that these grants are countervailable subsidies.
    In the Pasta Investigation, the Department treated the industrial 
development grants as non-recurring. No new information has been placed 
on the record of this review that would cause us to depart from this 
treatment. Therefore, we have followed the methodology described in 19 
CFR 351.524(b)(2), which directs us to allocate over time those non-
recurring grants whose total authorized amount exceeds 0.5 percent of 
the recipient's sales in the year of authorization. Where the total 
amount authorized is less than 0.5 percent of the recipient's sales in 
the year of authorization, the benefit is countervailed in full 
(``expensed'') in the year of receipt. We determine that grants 
received by De Matteis under Law 64/86 exceeded 0.5 percent of its 
sales in the year in which the grants were approved.
    We used the grant methodology described in 19 CFR 351.524(d) to 
allocate the benefit from those grants. We divided the benefit received 
by De Matteis in the POR by its total sales in the POR.
    On this basis, we preliminarily determine the countervailable 
subsidy from the Law 64/86 industrial development grants to be 0.03 
percent ad valorem for De Matteis. See Memorandum to the File, ``2007 
Preliminary Results Calculation Memorandum for De Matteis 
Agroalimentare S.p.A.,'' dated May 21, 2009 (``De Matteis Preliminary 
Calc Memo'').
B. Industrial Development Grants Under Law 488/92
    In 1986, the EU initiated an investigation of the GOI's regional 
subsidy practices. As a result of this investigation, the GOI changed 
the regions eligible for regional subsidies to include depressed areas 
in central and northern Italy in addition to the Mezzogiorno. After 
this change, the areas eligible for regional subsidies are the same as 
those classified as Objective 1 (underdeveloped regions), Objective 2 
(declining industrial regions), or Objective 5(b) (declining 
agricultural regions) areas by the EU. The new policy was given 
legislative form in Law 488/92 under which Italian companies in the 
eligible sectors (manufacturing, mining, and certain business services) 
may apply for industrial development grants.
    Law 488/92 grants are made only after a preliminary examination by 
a bank authorized by the Ministry of Industry. On the basis of the 
findings of this preliminary examination, the Ministry of Industry 
ranks the companies applying for grants. The ranking is based on 
indicators such as the amount of capital the company will contribute 
from its own funds, the number of jobs created, regional priorities, 
etc. Grants are then made based on this ranking. De Matteis received 
grants under Law 488/92 that conferred a benefit during the POR.

[[Page 25492]]

    In the Second Administrative Review,\4\ the Department determined 
that these grants confer a countervailable subsidy within the meaning 
of section 771(5) of the Act. They are a direct transfer of funds from 
the GOI bestowing a benefit in the amount of the grant. See Section 
771(5)(D)(i) of the Act; see also 19 CFR 351.504(a). Also, these grants 
were found to be regionally specific within the meaning of section 
771(5A)(D)(iv) of the Act. In this review, neither the GOI nor the 
respondent company has provided new information which would warrant 
reconsideration of our determination that these grants are 
countervailable subsidies. See Live Swine from Canada, 61 FR at 52420.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Certain Pasta From Italy: Preliminary Results of 
Countervailing Duty Administrative Review, 64 FR 17618 (April 12, 
1999) (``Second Administrative Review''); Certain Pasta From Italy: 
Final Results of the Second Countervailing Duty Administrative 
Review, 64 FR 44489 (August 16, 1999).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the Second Administrative Review, the Department treated the 
industrial development grants as non-recurring. No new information has 
been placed on the record of this review that would cause us to depart 
from this treatment. Therefore, we have followed the methodology 
described in 19 CFR 351.524(b)(2) which directs us to allocate over 
time those non-recurring grants whose total authorized amount exceeds 
0.5 percent of the recipient's sales in the year of authorization. We 
determine that grants received by De Matteis under Law 488/92 exceeded 
0.5 percent of its sales in the year in which the grants were approved.
    We used the grant methodology described in 19 CFR 351.524(d) to 
allocate the benefits over time. We divided the benefit received by De 
Matteis in the POR by its total sales in the POR.
    On this basis, we preliminarily determine the countervailable 
subsidy from the Law 488/92 industrial development grants to be 0.76 
percent ad valorem for De Matteis. See De Matteis Preliminary Calc 
Memo.
C. European Regional Development Fund (``ERDF'') Programma Operativo 
Plurifondo (``P.O.P.'') Grant
    The ERDF is one of the EU's Structural Funds. It was created 
pursuant to the authority in Article 130 of the Treaty of Rome to 
reduce regional disparities in socio-economic performance within the 
EU. The ERDF program provides grants to companies located within 
regions that meet the criteria, as described above, of Objective 1, 
Objective 2, or Objective 5(b) under the Structural Funds.
    De Matteis received a P.O.P. grant from the Regione Campania in 
1998.\5\ The P.O.P. grant was funded by the EU, the GOI, and the 
Regione Campania.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Certain Pasta From Italy: Preliminary Results and 
Partial Rescission of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review, 66 
FR 40987 (August 6, 2001) (``Fourth Administrative Review''); 
unchanged in Certain Pasta From Italy: Final Results of the Fourth 
Countervailing Duty Administrative Review, 66 FR 64214 (December 12, 
2001).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the Pasta Investigation, the Department determined that the ERDF 
P.O.P. grant confers a countervailable subsidy within the meaning of 
section 771(5) of the Act. It is a direct transfer of funds from the 
GOI bestowing a benefit in the amount of the grant. See Section 
771(5)(D)(i) of the Act; see also 19 CFR 351.504(a). Also, this grant 
was found to be regionally specific within the meaning of section 
771(5A)(D)(iv) of the Act. In this review, neither the EU, the GOI, nor 
the respondent company has provided new information which would warrant 
reconsideration of our determination that ERDF grants are 
countervailable subsidies. See Live Swine from Canada, 61 FR at 52420.
    In the Pasta Investigation, the Department treated ERDF grants as 
non-recurring. No new information has been placed on the record of this 
review that would cause us to depart from this treatment. In accordance 
with 19 CFR 351.524(b)(2), we determined that the ERDF P.O.P. grant 
received by De Matteis exceeded 0.5 percent of its sales in the year in 
which the grant was approved, as was the case in the Fourth 
Administrative Review.
    We used the grant methodology described in 19 CFR 351.524(d) to 
allocate the benefits over time. We divided the benefit received by De 
Matteis in the POR by its total sales in the POR.
    On this basis, we preliminarily determine the countervailable 
subsidy from the ERDF P.O.P. grant to be 0.03 percent ad valorem for De 
Matteis. See De Matteis Preliminary Calc Memo.
D. Social Security Reductions and Exemptions--Sgravi
    Italian law allows companies, particularly those located in the 
Mezzogiorno, to use a variety of exemptions from and reductions of 
payroll contributions that employers make to the Italian social 
security system for health care benefits, pensions, etc. The sgravi 
benefits are regulated by a complex set of laws and regulations, and 
are sometimes linked to conditions such as creating more jobs. We have 
found in past segments of this proceeding that benefits under some of 
these laws (e.g., Laws 183/76, 449/97, and 223/91) are available only 
to companies located in the Mezzogiorno and other disadvantaged 
regions. Certain other laws (e.g., Laws 407/90 and 863/84) provide 
benefits to companies all over Italy, but the level of benefits is 
higher for companies in the Mezzogiorno and other disadvantaged regions 
than for companies in other parts of the country. Still, other laws 
provide benefits that are not linked to any region.
    In the Pasta Investigation and subsequent reviews, the Department 
determined that certain types of social security reductions and 
exemptions confer countervailable subsidies within the meaning of 
section 771(5) of the Act. They represent revenue foregone by the GOI 
bestowing a benefit in the amount of the savings received by the 
companies. See Section 771(5)(D)(ii) of the Act. Also, they were found 
to be regionally specific within the meaning of section 771(5A)(D)(iv) 
of the Act because they were limited to companies in the Mezzogiorno or 
because the higher levels of benefits were limited to companies in the 
Mezzogiorno.
    In the instant review, no party in this proceeding challenged our 
past determinations in the Pasta Investigation and subsequent reviews 
that sgravi benefits, generally, were countervailable for companies 
located within the Mezzogiorno. See Live Swine from Canada, 61 FR at 
52420. However, the GOI has submitted information claiming that 
benefits provided under Articles 8 and 25 of Law 223/91 and Leg. Decree 
276/03 should be found not countervailable. See GOI's February 18, 2009 
supplemental questionnaire response (``SQR'') at 2-13 and Exhibits n. 
2a-2h; see also GOI's March 23, 2009 SQR; see also GOI's April 9, 2009 
SQR at 1-2.
    The laws under which sgravi benefits were provided during the POR 
are the following: Law 196/97 and Law 407/90.
(1) Law 196/97
    Law 196/97 is closely related to Law 863/84. See section IV.A.1 
below for a discussion of Law 863/84. Law 196/97 provides additional 
exemptions for employers in the Mezzogiorno that hire employees under 
``skilling'' contracts on a long-term (or permanent) basis. As 
discussed below, skilling contracts under Law 863/84 occur when a 
company hires a worker under a non-renewable contract with a term of 24 
months or less and the contract includes an educational or training 
component.

[[Page 25493]]

    Law 196/97 permits such employers a total exemption from social 
security contributions for an additional 12-month period. Benefits from 
Law 196/97 could only be requested after an employee had participated 
in a 24-month skilling contract under Law 863/84. As noted below in the 
discussion of Law 863/84, no new skilling contracts under Law 863/84 
could be made after October 31, 2004. However, the last possible date 
to request exemptions under Law 196/97 was October 31, 2006. Moreover, 
because the exemption granted under Law 196/97 only lasts for 12 
months, benefits were set to expire by October 31, 2007.
    In the Fourth Administrative Review, we determined Law 196/97 
confers a countervailable subsidy within the meaning of section 771(5) 
of the Act. The reduction or exemption of taxes is revenue forgone that 
is otherwise due and is, therefore, a financial contribution within the 
meaning of section 771(5)(D)(ii) of the Act . The benefit is the amount 
of the tax savings in accordance with 19 CFR 351.509(a). Additionally, 
the program is regionally specific within the meaning of section 
771(5A)(D)(iv) of the Act because benefits are limited to companies in 
the Mezzogiorno.
    In accordance with 19 CFR 351.524(c) and consistent with our 
methodology in the Pasta Investigation and in subsequent administrative 
reviews, we have treated social security reductions and exemptions as 
recurring benefits. To calculate the countervailable subsidy, we 
divided De Matteis's savings in social security contributions during 
the POR by its total sales in the POR.
    On this basis, we preliminarily determine the countervailable 
subsidy from Law 196/97 to be 0.01 percent ad valorem for De Matteis. 
See De Matteis Preliminary Calc Memo.
    Because benefits expired during the POR, we preliminary determine 
that Law 196/97 has been terminated during the POR and there will be no 
subsidy benefits from this program after the POR. Further, there is no 
indication of any substitute or replacement program.
(2) Law 407/90
    Law 407/90 grants an exemption from social security taxes for three 
years when a company hires a worker who (1) has received wage 
supplementation for a period of at least two years, or (2) has been 
previously unemployed for a period of two years. A 100-percent 
exemption is allowed for companies in the Mezzogiorno, while companies 
located in the rest of Italy receive a 50-percent reduction.
    In the Pasta Investigation, we determined Law 407/90 confers a 
countervailable subsidy within the meaning of section 771(5) of the 
Act. The reduction or exemption of taxes is revenue forgone that is 
otherwise due and is, therefore, a financial contribution within the 
meaning of section 771(5)(D)(ii) of the Act. The benefit is the 
difference in the amount of the tax savings between companies located 
in the Mezzogiorno and companies located in the rest of Italy in 
accordance with 19 CFR 351.509(a). Additionally, the program is 
regionally specific within the meaning of section 771(5A)(D)(iv) of the 
Act because higher levels of benefits are limited to companies in the 
Mezzogiorno.
    In accordance with 19 CFR 351.524(c) and consistent with our 
methodology in the Pasta Investigation and in subsequent administrative 
reviews, we have treated social security reductions and exemptions as 
recurring benefits. To calculate the countervailable subsidy for De 
Matteis, we divided the difference during the POR between the savings 
for the respondent company located in the Mezzogiorno and the savings a 
company located in the rest of Italy would have received. This amount 
was divided by De Matteis's total sales in the POR.
    On this basis, we preliminarily determine the countervailable 
subsidy from Law 407/90 to be 0.01 percent ad valorem for De Matteis. 
See De Matteis Preliminary Calc Memo.
 E. Law 289/02
(1) Article 62--Investments in Disadvantaged Areas
    Article 62 of Law 289/02 provides a benefit in the form of a credit 
towards direct taxes, indirect taxes, or social security contributions. 
The credit must be used within three years. The law was established to 
promote investment in disadvantaged areas by providing credits to 
companies that undertake new investment by purchasing capital goods, 
equipment, patents, licenses, or ``know how.'' The granting of new 
benefits under Article 62 of Law 289/02 expired as of December 31, 
2006, but the credits obtained prior to this date may be used in future 
years.
    In the Tenth Administrative Review,\6\ we determined that Article 
62 of Law 289/02 confers a countervailable subsidy. The credits are a 
financial contribution within the meaning of section 771(5)(D)(ii) of 
the Act because they represent revenue foregone that is otherwise due 
to the GOI, and a benefit is conferred in the amount of the tax savings 
in accordance with 19 CFR 351.509(a). Finally, the program is specific 
within the meaning of 751(5A)(D)(iv) of the Act because it is limited 
to certain geographical regions in Italy, specifically, the regions of 
Calabria, Campania, Basilicata, Pugilia, Sicilia, and Sardegna, and 
certain municipalities in the Abruzzo and Molise regions, and certain 
municipalities in central and northern Italy. No new information has 
been placed on the record of this review that would cause us to depart 
from this treatment. See Live Swine from Canada, 61 FR at 52420.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Certain Pasta from Italy: Preliminary Results of the 
Tenth Countervailing Duty Administrative Review, 72 FR 43616 (August 
6, 2007) (``Tenth Administrative Review''); unchanged in Certain 
Pasta from Italy: Final Results of the Tenth (2005) Countervailing 
Duty Administrative Review, 73 FR 7251 (February 7, 2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    De Matteis is located in Campania and took advantage of this 
program. It did so by constructing a new semolina milling facility, 
including wheat silos, by-product storage silos, semolina silos, and 
milling equipment. A tax credit for De Matteis was approved in 2005 and 
a portion was used to reduce the company's income taxes in 2005, 2006, 
and 2007.
    In the Tenth Administrative Review, the Department treated the 
amount credited against 2005 income as a non-recurring grant in 
accordance with the criteria in 19 CFR 351.524(c)(2)(i)-(iii). 
Specifically, the tax credit is exceptional because it was only 
available for a limited period of time, and was dependent upon 
companies making specific investments. Further, the tax credit required 
the GOI's authorization, and was tied to capital assets of the firm. 
Moreover, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.524(b)(2), we determined that 
the tax credit received by De Matteis exceeded 0.5 percent of its sales 
in the year in which the tax credit was approved. Therefore, we treated 
the portion of the tax credit used to offset income in 2005 as a grant 
received in that year and allocated the benefit over the AUL using the 
formula described in 19 CFR 351.524(d).
    We have followed the same methodology for the portion of the tax 
credit used to offset income earned during the POR. Consequently, we 
divided the benefit received by De Matteis from the 2005, 2006, and 
2007 grants in the POR by the company's total sales in the POR. On this 
basis, we preliminarily determine the countervailable subsidy from Law 
289/02, Article 62 to be 0.76 percent ad valorem for De Matteis. See De 
Matteis Preliminary Calc Memo.

[[Page 25494]]

(2) Article 63--Increase in Employment
    Article 63 of Law 289/02 provides a benefit in the form of a credit 
towards direct taxes, indirect taxes, or Social Security contributions. 
The law was established to promote employment by providing a tax credit 
to companies that increase the number of employees at the company by 
hiring new workers to long-term contracts. The monthly credit is 100 
euros for a new hire for any company in Italy. If the employee is 45 
years old or older, the monthly amount increases to 150 euros. The 
monthly credit is 300 euros if the company is located in the 
Mezzogiorno. Under the law, the granting of new credits ceased as of 
December 31, 2006. There is no limit as to when the credits can be 
applied as these credits carry over from one year to the next. However, 
as of 2007, the credits must be used as soon as possible and failure to 
do so forfeits the portion of the credit that could have been taken 
during the given year.
    In the Tenth Administrative Review, we determined that Article 63 
of Law 289/02 confers a countervailable subsidy. The credits are a 
financial contribution within the meaning of section 771(5)(D)(ii) of 
the Act because they represent revenue foregone that is otherwise due 
to the GOI, and a benefit is conferred in the amount of the tax savings 
in accordance with 19 CFR 351.509(a). Finally, the program is specific 
within the meaning of 751(5A)(D)(iv) of the Act because the greater 
benefit amount is limited to certain geographical regions in Italy, 
specifically, Campania, Basilicata, Puglia, Calabria, Sicilia, 
Sardegna, Abruzzo, Molise, and the municipalities of Tivoli, Formia, 
Sora, Cassino, Frosnone, Viterbo, and Massa. No new information has 
been placed on the record of this review that would cause us to depart 
from this treatment. See Live Swine from Canada, 61 FR at 52420.
    De Matteis is located in Campania and claimed the higher tax 
credits on the income tax forms filed during the POR.
    Consistent with the Tenth Administrative Review, we are treating 
these benefits as recurring subsidies and attributing the benefit to 
the year in which the taxes would otherwise have been due, i.e., the 
year in which the company filed its tax form.\7\ To calculate the 
countervailable subsidy for De Matteis, we divided the difference 
during the POR between the savings for the respondent company located 
in the Mezzogiorno and the savings a company located in the rest of 
Italy would have received. This amount was divided by De Matteis's 
total sales in the POR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See 19 CFR 351.509(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On this basis, we preliminarily determine the countervailable 
subsidy from Law 289/02, Article 63 to be 0.03 percent ad valorem for 
De Matteis. See De Matteis Preliminary Calc Memo.
F. Law 662/96--Patti Territoriali
    The GOI describes Patti Territoriali grants (Law 662/96 Article 2, 
Paragraph 203, Letter d) as being provided to companies for 
entrepreneurial initiatives such as new plants, additions, 
modernization, restructuring, conversion, reactivation, or transfer. To 
be eligible for these grants companies must be involved in mining, 
manufacturing, production of thermal or electric power from biomasses, 
service companies, tourist companies, agricultural, maritime and salt-
water fishing businesses, aquaculture enterprises, or their 
associations.
    The Patti Territoriali provides grants to companies located within 
regions which meet the criteria of Objective 1 or Objective 2 under the 
Structural Funds or Article 87.3.c. of the Treaty of Rome. A Patti 
Territoriali is signed between the provincial government and the GOI. 
Based upon project submissions, the provincial government ranks the 
projects and selects the projects it considers to be the best. The 
provincial government submits the detailed plans to the GOI and, if 
approved, a special authorizing decree is issued for each company 
specifying the investment required and a schedule of the benefits.
    The GOI reported that De Matteis received disbursements from the 
Patti Territoriali in 2000, 2004, and 2007, from a grant approved on 
January 29, 1999.
    In the Tenth Administrative Review, the Department determined that 
this grant confers a countervailable subsidy within the meaning of 
section 771(5) of the Act. It is a direct transfer of funds from the 
GOI bestowing a benefit in the amount of the grant. See Section 
771(5)(D)(i) of the Act; see also 19 CFR 351.504(a). Also, this grant 
was found to be regionally specific within the meaning of section 
771(5A)(D)(iv) of the Act because it is limited to companies located 
within regions which meet the criteria of Objective 1 or Objective 2 
under the Structural Funds or Article 87.3.c. of the Treaty of Rome. In 
this review, neither the GOI nor the responding company has provided 
new information which would warrant reconsideration of our 
determination that these grants are countervailable subsidies. See Live 
Swine from Canada, 61 FR at 52420.
    In the Tenth Administrative Review, the Department treated the 
Patti Territoriali grant as non-recurring. No new information has been 
placed on the record of this review that would cause us to depart from 
this treatment. We have followed the methodology described in 19 CFR 
351.524(b)(2) which directs us to allocate over time those non-
recurring grants whose total authorized amount exceeds 0.5 percent of 
the recipient's sales in the year of authorization. We determined that 
the grant received by De Matteis under Law 662/96 exceeded 0.5 percent 
of its sales in the year in which the grant was approved.
    We used the grant methodology described in 19 CFR 351.524(d) to 
allocate the benefits over time. We divided the benefit received by De 
Matteis in the POR by its total sales in the POR.
    On this basis, we preliminarily determine the countervailable 
subsidy from the Patti Territoriali grant to be 0.39 percent ad valorem 
for De Matteis. See De Matteis Preliminary Calc Memo.
G. Law 662/96--Contratto di Programma
    The GOI describes Contratto di Programma (Law 662/96, Article 2, 
Paragraph 203, Letter e) as an instrument provided for the expansion of 
existing facilities in regions that meet the criteria of Objective 1 or 
Objective 2 under the Structural Funds or Article 87.3.c. of the Treaty 
of Rome. See Memorandum to the File, ``Relevant Portions of GOI's 
Public Questionnaire Responses in the Tenth (2005) Countervailing Duty 
Administrative Review,'' dated March 2, 2009, at 30 (``Program 
Contracts Memo''); see also GOI's March 23, 2009, SQR. The expenses 
eligible for these grants are design, study, company land, brickwork, 
machinery, plants, and equipment. See Program Contracts Memo at 30. 
There are three types of entities eligible for these grants: (1) Large 
businesses operating in the industrial sector (mining, manufacturing, 
construction, production and distribution of power, vapor, and hot 
water), services, tourism, agriculture, fishing, and aquaculture 
industries; (2) associations of small and medium businesses operating 
in one or more of the above-indicated sectors; or (3) representatives 
of industrial, agricultural, agri-food, and fishing districts in which 
beneficiaries are small, medium, and large enterprises. Id.
    During the first stage, an entity must apply for the grant through 
the Ministry of Economic Development (``MED'') (formerly the Ministry 
of Productive

[[Page 25495]]

Activities) which verifies the technical and economic validity of the 
proposed project, the entrepreneurship requirements of the proposing 
party, and the adequacy of the allocated funds. Id. at 32; see also 
GOI's March 23, 2009, SQR. The MED files a report with the 
Interministerial Committee for Economic Planning to approve the 
financial contribution. See Program Contracts Memo at 32. During the 
second stage, the proposing party provides an Executive Project for the 
implementation of the Project Plan. See GOI's March 23, 2009, SQR. 
Following approval, the Contratto di Programma is signed by the entity 
or entities receiving grants and the GOI. See Program Contracts Memo at 
32. The grant is disbursed based on the progress of the work, except 
for the first installment which is made as an advance payment. Id.
    De Matteis received a disbursement from the Contratto di Programma 
in 2007 as a result of a grant approved on March 27, 2006. See GOI's 
March 23, 2009, SQR; De Matteis's February 19, 2009, SQR at 5 and 
Exhibit 1. Under this Contratto di Programma, the GOI agreed to 
contribute half of the approved amount, while Regione Campania agreed 
to contribute the other half. See GOI's March 23, 2009, SQR.
    We preliminarily determine that this grant confers a 
countervailable subsidy within the meaning of section 771(5) of the 
Act. It is a direct transfer of funds from the GOI and Regione Campania 
bestowing a benefit in the amount of the grant. See Section 
771(5)(D)(i) of the Act; see also 19 CFR 351.504(a). Also, this grant 
is regionally specific within the meaning of section 771(5A)(D)(iv) of 
the Act because it is limited to companies located within regions which 
meet the criteria of Objective 1 or Objective 2 under the Structural 
Funds or Article 87.3.c. of the Treaty of Rome.
    On this basis, we preliminarily determine the countervailable 
subsidy from the Contratto di Programma grant to be 0.46 percent ad 
valorem for De Matteis. See De Matteis Preliminary Calc Memo.

II. Programs Preliminarily Determined To Be Not Countervailable

A. Social Security Reductions and Exemptions--Sgravi
(1) Law 223/91
    Law 223/91 is designed to increase employment by providing benefits 
to companies that hire unemployed workers on a special mobility list. 
The mobility list comprises recently fired workers in certain sectors 
of the economy, but companies in any sector may hire workers off the 
mobility list.
(a) Article 8, Paragraph 2
    Under Law 223/91, Article 8, Paragraph 2, the employer is exempted 
from social security contributions when a mobility-listed worker is 
hired under a short-term contract of up to 12 months. The employer 
receives such benefits for the length of the contract to a maximum of 
12 months. But, if the short-term contract is converted to a permanent 
contract, the employer receives benefits for an additional 12 months.
    Seventh Administrative Review,\8\ we determined that Law 223/91 
conferred a countervailable subsidy within the meaning of section 
771(5) of the Act. The reduction or exemption of taxes was treated as 
revenue forgone and was, therefore, a financial contribution within the 
meaning of section 771(5)(D)(ii) of the Act. The benefit was the amount 
of tax savings in accordance with 19 CFR 351.509(a). Additionally, we 
found that the program was regionally specific within the meaning of 
section 771(5A)(D)(iv) of the Act because it was limited to companies 
in the Mezzogiorno or because the higher levels of benefits were 
limited to companies in the Mezzogiorno. In the Eleventh Administrative 
Review,\9\ although we provided the GOI with two opportunities to 
demonstrate that this program was not countervailable, the GOI did not 
respond to the industry usage portion of the supplemental 
questionnaires. Therefore, we found no reason to reconsider our prior 
finding that benefits under Law 223/91, Article 8, Paragraph 2 are 
countervailable in the Eleventh Administrative Review.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See Certain Pasta from Italy: Preliminary Results and 
Partial Rescission of the Seventh Countervailing Duty Administrative 
Review, 69 FR 45676, 45683 (July 30, 2004) (``Seventh Administrative 
Review''); unchanged in Certain Pasta from Italy: Final Results of 
the Seventh Countervailing Duty Administrative Review, 69 FR 70657 
(December 7, 2004).
    \9\ See Certain Pasta from Italy: Final Results of the Eleventh 
(2006) Countervailing Duty Administrative Review, 74 FR 5922 
(February 3, 2009) (``Eleventh Administrative Review''), and 
accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on the GOI's responses in this administrative review, we 
determine that this program is not specific and, hence, not 
countervailable. In particular, Article 8, Paragraph 2 evidences no de 
jure or regional specificity. See GOI QR at Exhibit 24; see also GOI's 
February 18, 2009 SQR at 2-4, 9-10. Also, we find no evidence of de 
facto specificity. Information submitted by the GOI shows that, during 
the POR, there were numerous recipients of the benefits and neither 
pasta companies nor De Matteis were predominate users or received a 
disproportionately large share of the benefits. See GOI's February 18, 
2009 SQR at Exhibit 2; see also De Matteis Preliminary Calc Memo. 
Further, during the POR, the benefits provided to ``Industry,'' the 
economic sector to which pasta companies belong, were not a 
disproportionately large amount. Id.
(2) Legislative Decree (``L.D.'') 276/03 (modification to Law 25/55)
    L.D. 276/03 is aimed at making the labor market more flexible by 
providing incentives to companies hiring workers under apprentice 
contracts that mix work and training components. Specifically, the 
three categories of employee contracts recognized under this decree 
are: (1) Working toward completion of compulsory schooling; (2) working 
toward completion of trade schooling; and (3) high-level training of 
special skills for a worker. Except for a weekly flat fee paid by the 
employer on behalf of the employee, the employer receives a total 
exemption from its social security contribution. The contributions are 
applied in equal measure across Italy and the decree may be used in all 
economic sectors.
    The GOI stated that L.D. 276/03 is a continuation of Law 25/55,\10\ 
a program previously found countervailable in the Seventh 
Administrative Review. Although we provided the GOI with an opportunity 
to demonstrate that this program was not countervailable in the 
Eleventh Administrative Review, the GOI did not respond to the industry 
usage portion of the supplemental questionnaire. Therefore, we found no 
reason to reconsider our prior finding that benefits under Law 25/55 
\11\ are countervailable in the Eleventh Administrative Review.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See GOI's April 9, 2009 SQR at 1.
    \11\ Because the record of the eleventh review was not fully 
developed, in the final results, we also stated that, alternatively, 
L.D. 276/03 could be a continuation of another countervailable 
program, i.e., Law 56/87.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on the GOI's responses in this administrative review, we 
determine that this program is not specific and, hence, not 
countervailable. In particular, Law 25/55 as modified by L.D. 276/03 
evidences no de jure or regional specificity. See GOI's February 18, 
2009 SQR at 4-9; see also GOI's March 23, 2009 SQR and April 9, 2009 
SQR at 1. Also, we find no evidence of de facto specificity. Similar to 
Law 223/91, Article 8, Paragraph 2, information submitted by the GOI 
shows that, during the POR, there were numerous recipients of the 
benefits and neither

[[Page 25496]]

pasta companies nor De Matteis were predominate users or received a 
disproportionately large share of the benefits. See GOI's April 9, 2009 
SQR at 2; see also De Matteis Preliminary Calc Memo. Further, during 
the POR, the benefits provided to the ``Industry'' economic sector were 
not a disproportionately large amount. Id.

III. Programs Preliminarily Determined To Not Be Used

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

A. Grant Received Pursuant to the Community Initiative Concerning the 
Preparation of Enterprises for the Single Market (``PRISMA'')
B. European Regional Development Fund (``ERDF'') Programma Operativo 
Multiregionale (``P.O.M.'') Grant
C. Certain Social Security Reductions and Exemptions--Sgravi (including 
Law 223/91, Article 8, Paragraph 4 and Article 25, Paragraph 9)
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. Law 317/91 Benefits for Innovative Investments
I. Brescia Chamber of Commerce Training Grants
J. Ministerial Decree 87/02
K. Law 10/91 Grants to Fund Energy Conservation
L. Export Restitution Payments
M. Export Credits Under Law 227/77
N. Capital Grants Under Law 675/77
O. Retraining Grants Under Law 675/77
P. Interest Contributions on Bank Loans Under Law 675/77
Q. Preferential Financing for Export Promotion Under Law 394/81
R. Urban Redevelopment Under Law 181
S. Industrial Development Grants under Law 183/76
T. Interest Subsidies Under Law 598/94
U. Duty-Free Import Rights
V. European Social Fund Grants
W. Law 113/86 Training Grants
X. European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund
Y. Law 341/95 Interest Contributions on Debt Consolidation Loans 
(Formerly Debt Consolidation Law 341/95)
Z. Interest Grants Financed by IRI Bonds
AA. Article 44 of Law 448/01

IV. Programs Preliminarily Determined To Have Been Terminated

A. Social Security Reductions and Exemptions--Sgravi
(1) Law 863/84
    Law 863/84 provides social security reductions or exemptions when a 
company hires a worker under a non-renewable contract with a term of 24 
months or less and the contract includes an educational or training 
component. The GOI refers to these as ``skilling'' contracts. The 
employer may receive reductions or exemptions from social security 
contributions for a period of up to 24 months. Typically, employees 
hired under these contracts must be no more than 29 years old, but in 
the Mezzogiorno, the maximum age is 32 years old. Also, a company in 
the Mezzogiorno is exempted from making social security contributions 
for employees hired under these skilling contracts, while companies in 
other areas of Italy receive a 25 percent reduction in social security 
contributions.
    L.D. 276/03 repealed the provision related to skilling contracts by 
private companies and, as of November 2004, no new skilling contracts 
could be made. However, for skilling contracts entered into as of 
October 2004, benefits could be realized for the duration of the two-
year period.
    Because benefits expired prior to the POR (i.e., October 2006) and 
because there is no evidence of substitute or replacement programs, we 
preliminary determine that Law 863/84 has been terminated prior to the 
POR and there are no subsidy benefits from this program during or after 
this POR.

V. Previously Terminated Programs

A. Regional Tax Exemptions Under IRAP
B. VAT Reductions Under Laws 64/86 and 675/55
C. Corporate Income Tax (``IRPEG'')
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
G. Social Security Reductions and Exemptions--Sgravi
(1) Article 44 of Law 448/01
(2) Law 337/90

Preliminary Results of Review

    In accordance with 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4)(i), we calculated an 
individual subsidy rate for De Matteis.
    For the period January 1, 2007, through December 31, 2007, we 
preliminarily find the net subsidy rate for the producer/exporter under 
review to be that specified in the chart shown below:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Net Subsidy
                    Producer/Exporter                          Rate
                                                             (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
De Matteis Agroalimentare S.p.A.........................            2.48
All-Others Rate.........................................            3.85
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Assessment Rates

    If these preliminary results are adopted in our final results of 
this review, the Department will instruct U.S. Customs and Border 
Protection (``CBP'') to assess countervailing duties at these net 
subsidy rates. The Department will issue appropriate assessment 
instructions directly to CBP 15 days after publication of the 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, and Pasta Lensi S.r.l. which was revoked from the 
order), the Department has directed CBP to assess countervailing duties 
on all entries between January 1, 2007, and December 31, 2007, at the 
rates in effect at the time of entry.

Cash Deposit Instructions

    The Department also intends to instruct CBP to collect cash 
deposits of estimated countervailing duties at the ad valorem rates 
shown above on all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or 
withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of 
publication of these final results of 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, and Pasta Lensi S.r.l. which 
was revoked from the order), we intend to 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.

Public Comment

    Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.224(b), the Department will disclose to 
parties to the proceeding any calculations performed in connection with 
these preliminary results within five days after the date of the public 
announcement of this notice.

[[Page 25497]]

    Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309(c)(ii), interested parties may submit 
written arguments in case briefs within 30 days of the date of 
publication of this notice. Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised 
in case briefs, may be filed no later than five days after the date of 
filing the case briefs, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.309(d). Parties 
who submit briefs in this proceeding should provide a summary of the 
arguments not to exceed five pages and a table of statutes, 
regulations, and cases cited. Copies of case briefs and rebuttal briefs 
must be served on interested parties in accordance with 19 CFR 
351.303(f).
    Interested parties may request a hearing within 30 days after the 
date of publication of this notice, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c). Any 
hearing, if requested, will be held two days after the scheduled date 
for submission of rebuttal briefs.
    The Department will publish a notice of the final results of this 
administrative review within 120 days from the publication of these 
preliminary results, in accordance with section 751(a)(3) of the Act.
    We are issuing and publishing these results in accordance with 
sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4).

    Dated: May 21, 2009.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. E9-12405 Filed 5-27-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P