Certain Pasta From Italy: Final Results, and Rescission, in Part, of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review; 2013, 8918-8920 [2016-03750]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 35 / Tuesday, February 23, 2016 / Notices
industrial grade amorphous silica fabric,
which contains a minimum of 90 percent
silica (SiO2) by nominal weight, and a
nominal width in excess of 8 inches. The
investigation covers industrial grade
amorphous silica fabric regardless of other
materials contained in the fabric, regardless
of whether in roll form or cut-to-length,
regardless of weight, width (except as noted
above), or length. The investigation covers
industrial grade amorphous silica fabric
regardless of whether the product is
approved by a standards testing body (such
as being Factory Mutual (FM) Approved), or
regardless of whether it meets any
governmental specification.
Industrial grade amorphous silica fabric
may be produced in various colors. The
investigation covers industrial grade
amorphous silica fabric regardless of whether
the fabric is colored. Industrial grade
amorphous silica fabric may be coated or
treated with materials that include, but are
not limited to, oils, vermiculite, acrylic latex
compound, silicone, aluminized polyester
(Mylar®) film, pressure-sensitive adhesive, or
other coatings and treatments. The
investigation covers industrial grade
amorphous silica fabric regardless of whether
the fabric is coated or treated, and regardless
of coating or treatment weight as a percentage
of total product weight. Industrial grade
amorphous silica fabric may be heat-cleaned.
The investigation covers industrial grade
amorphous silica fabric regardless of whether
the fabric is heat-cleaned.
Industrial grade amorphous silica fabric
may be imported in rolls or may be cut-tolength and then further fabricated to make
welding curtains, welding blankets, welding
pads, fire blankets, fire pads, or fire screens.
Regardless of the name, all industrial grade
amorphous silica fabric that has been further
cut-to-length or cut-to-width or further
finished by finishing the edges and/or adding
grommets, is included within the scope of
this investigation.
Subject merchandise also includes (1) any
industrial grade amorphous silica fabric that
has been converted into industrial grade
amorphous silica fabric in China from
fiberglass cloth produced in a third country;
and (2) any industrial grade amorphous silica
fabric that has been further processed in a
third country prior to export to the United
States, including but not limited to treating,
coating, slitting, cutting to length, cutting to
width, finishing the edges, adding grommets,
or any other processing that would not
otherwise remove the merchandise from the
scope of the investigation if performed in the
country of manufacture of the in-scope
industrial grade amorphous silica fabric.
Excluded from the scope of the
investigation is amorphous silica fabric that
is subjected to controlled shrinkage, which is
also called ‘‘pre-shrunk’’ or ‘‘aerospace
grade’’ amorphous silica fabric. In order to be
excluded as a pre-shrunk or aerospace grade
amorphous silica fabric, the amorphous silica
fabric must meet the following exclusion
criteria: (l) The amorphous silica fabric must
contain a minimum of 98 percent silica
(SiO2) by nominal weight; (2) the amorphous
silica fabric must have an areal shrinkage of
4 percent or less; (3) the amorphous silica
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:06 Feb 22, 2016
Jkt 238001
fabric must contain no coatings or treatments;
and (4) the amorphous silica fabric must be
white in color. For purposes of this scope,
‘‘areal shrinkage’’ refers to the extent to
which a specimen of amorphous silica fabric
shrinks while subjected to heating at 1800
degrees F for 30 minutes.
Areal shrinkage is expressed as the
following percentage:
Also excluded from the scope are
amorphous silica fabric rope and tubing (or
sleeving). Amorphous silica fabric rope is a
knitted or braided product made from
amorphous silica yarns. Silica tubing (or
sleeving) is braided into a hollow sleeve from
amorphous silica yarns.
The subject imports are normally classified
in subheadings 7019.59.4021, 7019.59.4096,
7019.59.9021, and 7019.59.9096 of the
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United
States (HTSUS), but may also enter under
HTSUS subheadings 7019.40.4030,
7019.40.4060, 7019.40.9030, 7019.40.9060,
7019.51.9010, 7019.51.9090, 7019.52.9010,
7019.52.9021, 7019.52.9096 and
7019.90.1000. HTSUS subheadings are
provided for convenience and customs
purposes only; the written description of the
scope of this investigation is dispositive.
[FR Doc. 2016–03756 Filed 2–22–16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[C–475–819]
Certain Pasta From Italy: Final Results,
and Rescission, in Part, of
Countervailing Duty Administrative
Review; 2013
Enforcement and Compliance,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
ACTION: Notice.
AGENCY:
The Department of Commerce
(Department) has conducted an
administrative review of the
countervailing duty (CVD) order on
certain pasta from Italy. On August 10,
2015, we published the Preliminary
Results for this administrative review.1
The period of review (POR) is January
1, 2013, through December 31, 2013. We
find that DeMatteis Agroalimentare
SUMMARY:
1 See Certain Pasta From Italy: Preliminary
Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative
Review, Rescission in Part, and Preliminary Intent
to Rescind in Part; 2013, 80 FR 47900 (August 10,
2015) (Preliminary Results). See also Memorandum
from Jennifer Meek, International Trade Analyst, to
the File, ‘‘Preliminary Results Program
Description,’’ for details regarding program ‘‘Law
488/92—Industrial Development Grants,’’ August 4,
2015.
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
S.p.A. (also known as, De Matteis
Agroalimentare SpA) (DeMatteis)
received countervailable subsidies and
La Molisana S.p.A. (La Molisana)
received de minimis countervailable
subsidies during the POR. These rates
are shown below in the final results of
review section. As discussed below, we
are rescinding the review with respect
to La Molisana Industrie Alimentari
S.p.A. (LMIA).
DATES: Effective Date: February 23,
2016.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Jennifer Meek or Joseph Shuler, AD/
CVD Operations, Office I, Enforcement
and Compliance, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution
Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230;
telephone: (202) 482–2778 or (202) 482–
1293, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
In the Preliminary Results, we
indicated that we would seek
clarification regarding La Molisana’s use
of Article 14 of Law 46/1982 and
additional historical sales data from La
Molisana and its parent company. We
invited interested parties to file case
briefs and rebuttal briefs following the
release of the Preliminary Results. La
Molisana filed a case brief. No other
parties commented on the Preliminary
Results. We also invited interested
parties to comment on the additional
information we solicited from La
Molisana following the Preliminary
Results; no additional comments were
provided.
Scope of the Order
The scope of the Order consists of
certain pasta from Italy.2 The
merchandise subject to the order 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
is dispositive. A full description of the
scope of the Order is contained in the
‘‘Issues and Decision Memorandum for
Final Results of Countervailing Duty
Administrative Review: Certain Pasta
from Italy,’’ from Christian Marsh,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for
Antidumping and Countervailing Duty
Operations, to Paul Piquado, Assistant
Secretary for Enforcement and
Compliance, dated February 12, 2016
2 See Notice of Countervailing Duty Order and
Amended Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty
Determination: Certain Pasta (‘‘Pasta’’) From Italy,
61 FR 38544 (July 24, 1996) (Order).
E:\FR\FM\23FEN1.SGM
23FEN1
EN23FE16.001</GPH>
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
8918
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 35 / Tuesday, February 23, 2016 / Notices
(Issues and Decision Memorandum),
and hereby adopted by this notice.
The Issues and Decision
Memorandum is a public document and
is on file electronically via Enforcement
and Compliance’s Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Centralized
Electronic Service System (ACCESS).
ACCESS is available to registered users
at https://access.trade.gov and available
to all parties in the Central Records
Unit, room 7046 of the main Department
building. In addition, a complete
version of the Issues and Decision
Memorandum can be accessed directly
on the internet at https://
enforcement.trade.gov/frn/.
The signed and electronic versions of
the Issues and Decision Memorandum
are identical in content. A list of topics
discussed in the Issues and Decision
Memorandum is provided in the
Appendix to this notice.
Analysis of Comments Received
All issues raised in the case brief filed
by La Molisana in this review are
addressed in the Issues and Decision
Memorandum, which is incorporated
herein by reference. A list of the issues
which parties raised, and to which we
respond in the Issues and Decision
Memorandum, follows as an appendix
to this notice.
Changes Since the Preliminary Results
Based on additional information
provided by La Molisana after the
Preliminary Results at the Department’s
request, the Department corrected
certain program calculations which
affected the countervailable subsidy rate
to be applied to La Molisana. For a full
explanation of the changes made, see
the Issues and Decision Memorandum.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Methodology
We have conducted this review in
accordance with section 751(a)(1)(A) of
the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the
Act). For each of the subsidy programs
found countervailable, we determine
that there is a subsidy, i.e., a
government-provided financial
contribution that gives rise to a benefit
to the recipient, and that the subsidy is
specific.3 In making these findings, we
have relied, in part, on an adverse
inference in selecting from among the
facts otherwise available because we
find that the GOI did not act to the best
of its ability to respond to our requests
3 See sections 771(5)(B) and (D) of the Act
regarding financial contribution; section 771(5)(E)
of the Act regarding benefit; and section 771(5A) of
the Act regarding specificity. For a full description
of the methodology underlying our conclusions, see
Issues and Decision Memorandum.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:06 Feb 22, 2016
Jkt 238001
for information regarding certain
programs.4
Partial Rescission
In the Preliminary Results, we
announced our intent to recind the
administrative review with respect to
LMIA. As we stated in the Preliminary
Results, the record demonstrates that
LMIA ceased operations prior to the
POR. Moreover, La Molisana reported
that all entries shown in the entry data
from Customs and Border Protection
(CBP) as entries made by LMIA were of
subject merchandise produced and
exported by La Molisana. There is no
record evidence that LMIA made entries
of subject merchandise during the POR.
Therefore, we are now rescinding the
review with respect to LMIA.
Final Results of the Review
In accordance with 19 CFR
351.221(b)(5), we calculated individual
subsidy rates for the mandatory
respondents, DeMatteis and La
Molisana.
We find the net countervailable
subsidy rate for the producers and/or
exporters under review to be as follows:
Producer/exporter
Net
subsidy
rate
8919
Cash Deposit Requirements
In accordance with section
751(a)(2)(C) of the Act, we intend to
instruct CBP to collect cash deposits of
estimated countervailing duties in the
amounts shown above, for the
companies listed above, with the
exception of La Molisana, on shipments
of subject merchandise entered, or
withdrawn from warehouse, for
consumption on or after the date of
publication of the final results of this
review. Because the countervailable
subsidy rate for La Molisana is de
minimis, the Department will instruct
CBP to collect cash despoits at a rate of
zero for La Molisana for all shipments
of the subject merchandise that are
entered, or withdrawn from warehouse,
for consumption on or after the date of
publication of the final results of this
administrative review. For all nonreviewed companies (except Barilla G. e
R. F.lli S.p.A. and Gruppo Agricoltura
Sana S.r.l., which are excluded from the
order,5 and Pasta Lensi S.r.l., which was
revoked from the Order 6), we will
instruct CBP to continue to collect cash
deposits at the most recently assigned
company-specific or all-others rate
applicable to the company. These cash
deposit requirements, when imposed,
shall remain in effect until further
notice.
DeMatteis Agroalimentare S.p.A.
(also known as De Matteis
Agroalimentare SpA) ...............
La Molisana S.p.A ......................
Administrative Protective Order
This notice serves as a final reminder
2.12
0.26 to parties subject to administrative
protective order (APO) of their
responsibility concerning the
Disclosure
disposition of proprietary information
We intend to disclose the calculations disclosed under APO in accordance
performed to interested parties within
with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely
five days of the publication of these
written notification of return or
final results in accordance with 19 CFR
destruction of APO materials or
351.224(b).
conversion to judicial protective order is
hereby requested. Failure to comply
Assessment Rates
with the regulations and the terms of an
Consistent with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(2), APO is a sanctionable violation.
we intend to issue assessment
We are issuing and publishing these
instructions to the U.S. Customs and
results in accordance with sections
Border Protection (CBP) fifteen days
751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19
after the date of publication of these
CFR 351.213.
final results. Because we have
Dated: February 12, 2016.
calculated a de minimis countervailable
Paul Piquado,
subsidy rate for La Molisana in the final
Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and
results of this review, in accordance
Compliance.
with 19 CFR 351.212 we will instruct
CBP to liquidate the appropriate entries Appendix
without regard to countervailing duties. List of Topics Discussed in the Issues and
For DeMatteis, we will instruct CBP to
Decision Memorandum
assess countervailing duties on the
1. Summary
value of POR entries at the rate shown
2. Background
above.
5 See
4 See
sections 776(a) and (b) of the Act. For
further discussion, see Issues and Decision
Memorandum at ‘‘Use of Facts Otherwise Available
and Adverse Inferences.’’
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Order, 61 FR 38545.
Certain Pasta from Italy: Final Results of the
Ninth Countervailing Duty Administrative Review
and Notice of Revocation of Order, in Part, 71 FR
36318 (June 26, 2006).
6 See
E:\FR\FM\23FEN1.SGM
23FEN1
8920
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 35 / Tuesday, February 23, 2016 / Notices
3. Changes Since the Preliminary Results
4. Scope of the Order
5. Partial Rescission of the Administrative
Review
6. Use of Facts Otherwise Available and
Adverse Inferences
7. Subsidy Valuation Information
8. Loan Benchmarks and Discount Rates
9. Analysis of Programs
10. Analysis of Comments
Comment 1: Whether to Rescind the
Review of LMIA
Comment 2: Entries Covered in La
Molisana’s Liquidation Instructions
Comment 3: Application of the
Appropriate Sales Denominator
11. Recommendation
[FR Doc. 2016–03750 Filed 2–22–16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
RIN 0648–XD124
National Environmental Policy Act
Compliance for Council-Initiated
Fishery Management Actions Under
the Magnuson-Stevens Act
National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of availability.
AGENCY:
The purpose of this notice is
to notify the public that NOAA/NMFS
has finalized revisions to the NOAA
policy and procedures for complying
with the National Environmental Policy
Act (NEPA) in the context of MagnusonStevens Act (MSA) fishery management
actions. This notice provides a summary
of the public comments received and
the agency’s responses. The final
revised and updated NEPA procedures
for MSA actions are available online at
https://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/msa2007/
nepa.htm.
DATES: The final policy is effective
February 23, 2016.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Steve Leathery, 301–427–8014.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
SUMMARY:
Background
On February 19, 2013, in compliance
with section 304(i), NMFS issued an
internal policy pertaining to complying
with NEPA in the context of MSA
fishery management actions. This
policy, entitled ‘‘Policy Directive 30–
132: National Environmental Policy Act
Compliance for Council-Initiated
Fishery Management Actions under the
Magnuson-Stevens Act’’ (the policy):
Clarified roles and responsibilities of
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:06 Feb 22, 2016
Jkt 238001
NMFS and the Regional Fishery
Management Councils (Councils);
explained timing and procedural
linkages; provided guidance on
documentation needs; and provided
guidance for fostering partnerships and
cooperation between NMFS and the
Councils on NEPA compliance.
After consulting with the Councils
and with the Council on Environmental
Quality (CEQ) on proposed revisions to
the 2013 NMFS NEPA policy, NMFS
proposed using this policy as a basis for
issuing revised and updated NEPA
procedures for MSA actions in the form
of a line-office supplement to NOAA
Administrative Order (NAO) 216–6),
which contains NOAA’s policies and
procedures for complying with the
NEPA. On June 30, 2014, NMFS
published a notice in the Federal
Register inviting public comments for a
90-day period on a proposed
supplement to the NAO (NAO
supplement) intended to satisfy fully
the requirements of section 304(i) of the
Magnuson-Stevens Act (MSA). Section
304(i) requires NMFS, in consultation
with the Councils and Council on
Environmental Quality (CEQ), to revise
and update agency NEPA procedures to
conform to the timelines for review and
approval of fishery management plans
and to integrate applicable
environmental analytical procedures. 16
U.S.C. 1854(i). After careful
consideration of the public comments
received in response to the 2014 notice,
NOAA/NMFS has decided to finalize
the NAO supplement with editorial, but
no substantive, changes to the June 30,
2014 draft.
NMFS received comments from 5
environmental non-governmental
organizations and 2 fishery management
councils. The key issues are
summarized below along with NMFS’s
responses. We note that many
comments are similar to those raised
previously either as comments on a
proposed rule (73 FR 27998, May14,
2008), (which was subsequently
withdrawn (79 FR 40703, Jul. 14, 2014)),
or as comments on the 2013 NMFS
NEPA policy. When NMFS issued the
2013 NMFS NEPA policy directive, it
developed a background document that
addressed many of these comments. A
copy of the background document for
2013 Policy Directive can be viewed and
downloaded at the following site:
https://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/laws_
policies/msa/nepa.html.
In this notice, we will limit our
discussion to those comments that
specifically address issues pertaining to
the NAO supplement. Many of these
comments pertain broadly to
transparency in the NEPA process.
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
NMFS is supportive of these comments
and will explore ways to improve public
access to NEPA documents and
information on the status of ongoing
NEPA analyses. However, NMFS
believes that, given the limited purpose
of the draft NAO supplement—to revise
and update agency NEPA procedures to
conform to the timelines for review and
approval of fishery management plans
and to integrate applicable
environmental analytical procedures—
the NAO supplement is not the
appropriate vehicle for addressing all
such issues. As NOAA generally works
to revise and update its NEPA
procedures through the NAO, the
agency will continue seeking ways to
enhance public access, participation
and process transparency through all
appropriate mechanisms.
Key Issues Raised In Comments:
NMFS notes that since the initiation of
efforts to comply with section 304(i),
commenters have expressed widely
divergent opinions on how best to
proceed. When introducing Policy
Directive 30–132, ‘‘National
Environmental Policy Act Compliance
for Fishery Management Actions under
the Magnuson-Stevens Act (2/19/
2013),’’ NMFS provided a background
document that summarized NMFS’s
consideration of key issues and
concerns, ‘‘Introduction to NMFS Policy
Directive: National Environmental
Policy Act Compliance for Fishery
Management Actions under the
Magnuson-Stevens Act.’’ Some of the
same issues and concerns were reintroduced as comments on the draft
Supplement. For additional context
regarding NMFS’s treatment of these
concerns, please see the background
document, available at: https://www.
nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/management/
councils/ccc/2013/2013_md_
agenda.htm.
Comments and Responses
Comment 1: Ultimate Responsibility for
NEPA Lies With NMFS
Comment: Commenters expressed
support for the position emphasized in
the NMFS NEPA procedures that NMFS
retains ultimate responsibility for NEPA
compliance. Some comments requested
that the procedures be revised to
indicate that NMFS must remain
primary author of the NEPA documents,
that NMFS must oversee the NEPA
process, and that the Councils should
not conduct NEPA scoping during
Council meetings.
Response: The NAO supplement
clearly states that ‘‘ultimate legal
responsibility for NEPA lies . . . with
NMFS.’’ However, for reasons stated in
E:\FR\FM\23FEN1.SGM
23FEN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 35 (Tuesday, February 23, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 8918-8920]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-03750]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[C-475-819]
Certain Pasta From Italy: Final Results, and Rescission, in Part,
of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review; 2013
AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
ACTION: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (Department) has conducted an
administrative review of the countervailing duty (CVD) order on certain
pasta from Italy. On August 10, 2015, we published the Preliminary
Results for this administrative review.\1\ The period of review (POR)
is January 1, 2013, through December 31, 2013. We find that DeMatteis
Agroalimentare S.p.A. (also known as, De Matteis Agroalimentare SpA)
(DeMatteis) received countervailable subsidies and La Molisana S.p.A.
(La Molisana) received de minimis countervailable subsidies during the
POR. These rates are shown below in the final results of review
section. As discussed below, we are rescinding the review with respect
to La Molisana Industrie Alimentari S.p.A. (LMIA).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See Certain Pasta From Italy: Preliminary Results of
Countervailing Duty Administrative Review, Rescission in Part, and
Preliminary Intent to Rescind in Part; 2013, 80 FR 47900 (August 10,
2015) (Preliminary Results). See also Memorandum from Jennifer Meek,
International Trade Analyst, to the File, ``Preliminary Results
Program Description,'' for details regarding program ``Law 488/92--
Industrial Development Grants,'' August 4, 2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DATES: Effective Date: February 23, 2016.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jennifer Meek or Joseph Shuler, AD/CVD
Operations, Office I, Enforcement and Compliance, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC
20230; telephone: (202) 482-2778 or (202) 482-1293, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
In the Preliminary Results, we indicated that we would seek
clarification regarding La Molisana's use of Article 14 of Law 46/1982
and additional historical sales data from La Molisana and its parent
company. We invited interested parties to file case briefs and rebuttal
briefs following the release of the Preliminary Results. La Molisana
filed a case brief. No other parties commented on the Preliminary
Results. We also invited interested parties to comment on the
additional information we solicited from La Molisana following the
Preliminary Results; no additional comments were provided.
Scope of the Order
The scope of the Order consists of certain pasta from Italy.\2\ The
merchandise subject to the order 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 is dispositive. A full description of the scope of the
Order is contained in the ``Issues and Decision Memorandum for Final
Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review: Certain Pasta
from Italy,'' from Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for
Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, to Paul Piquado,
Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, dated February 12,
2016
[[Page 8919]]
(Issues and Decision Memorandum), and hereby adopted by this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ See Notice of Countervailing Duty Order and Amended Final
Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination: Certain Pasta
(``Pasta'') From Italy, 61 FR 38544 (July 24, 1996) (Order).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Issues and Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on
file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS).
ACCESS is available to registered users at https://access.trade.gov and
available to all parties in the Central Records Unit, room 7046 of the
main Department building. In addition, a complete version of the Issues
and Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly on the internet at
https://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/. The signed and electronic
versions of the Issues and Decision Memorandum are identical in
content. A list of topics discussed in the Issues and Decision
Memorandum is provided in the Appendix to this notice.
Analysis of Comments Received
All issues raised in the case brief filed by La Molisana in this
review are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum, which is
incorporated herein by reference. A list of the issues which parties
raised, and to which we respond in the Issues and Decision Memorandum,
follows as an appendix to this notice.
Changes Since the Preliminary Results
Based on additional information provided by La Molisana after the
Preliminary Results at the Department's request, the Department
corrected certain program calculations which affected the
countervailable subsidy rate to be applied to La Molisana. For a full
explanation of the changes made, see the Issues and Decision
Memorandum.
Methodology
We have conducted this review in accordance with section
751(a)(1)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). For each
of the subsidy programs found countervailable, we determine that there
is a subsidy, i.e., a government-provided financial contribution that
gives rise to a benefit to the recipient, and that the subsidy is
specific.\3\ In making these findings, we have relied, in part, on an
adverse inference in selecting from among the facts otherwise available
because we find that the GOI did not act to the best of its ability to
respond to our requests for information regarding certain programs.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See sections 771(5)(B) and (D) of the Act regarding
financial contribution; section 771(5)(E) of the Act regarding
benefit; and section 771(5A) of the Act regarding specificity. For a
full description of the methodology underlying our conclusions, see
Issues and Decision Memorandum.
\4\ See sections 776(a) and (b) of the Act. For further
discussion, see Issues and Decision Memorandum at ``Use of Facts
Otherwise Available and Adverse Inferences.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Partial Rescission
In the Preliminary Results, we announced our intent to recind the
administrative review with respect to LMIA. As we stated in the
Preliminary Results, the record demonstrates that LMIA ceased
operations prior to the POR. Moreover, La Molisana reported that all
entries shown in the entry data from Customs and Border Protection
(CBP) as entries made by LMIA were of subject merchandise produced and
exported by La Molisana. There is no record evidence that LMIA made
entries of subject merchandise during the POR. Therefore, we are now
rescinding the review with respect to LMIA.
Final Results of the Review
In accordance with 19 CFR 351.221(b)(5), we calculated individual
subsidy rates for the mandatory respondents, DeMatteis and La Molisana.
We find the net countervailable subsidy rate for the producers and/
or exporters under review to be as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Net
Producer/exporter subsidy
rate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DeMatteis Agroalimentare S.p.A. (also known as De Matteis 2.12
Agroalimentare SpA)........................................
La Molisana S.p.A........................................... 0.26
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disclosure
We intend to disclose the calculations performed to interested
parties within five days of the publication of these final results in
accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).
Assessment Rates
Consistent with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(2), we intend to issue assessment
instructions to the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) fifteen
days after the date of publication of these final results. Because we
have calculated a de minimis countervailable subsidy rate for La
Molisana in the final results of this review, in accordance with 19 CFR
351.212 we will instruct CBP to liquidate the appropriate entries
without regard to countervailing duties. For DeMatteis, we will
instruct CBP to assess countervailing duties on the value of POR
entries at the rate shown above.
Cash Deposit Requirements
In accordance with section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act, we intend to
instruct CBP to collect cash deposits of estimated countervailing
duties in the amounts shown above, for the companies listed above, with
the exception of La Molisana, on shipments of subject merchandise
entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the
date of publication of the final results of this review. Because the
countervailable subsidy rate for La Molisana is de minimis, the
Department will instruct CBP to collect cash despoits at a rate of zero
for La Molisana for all shipments of the subject merchandise that are
entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the
date of publication of the final results of this administrative review.
For all non-reviewed companies (except Barilla G. e R. F.lli S.p.A. and
Gruppo Agricoltura Sana S.r.l., which are excluded from the order,\5\
and Pasta Lensi S.r.l., which was revoked from the Order \6\), we will
instruct CBP to continue to collect cash deposits at the most recently
assigned company-specific or all-others rate applicable to the company.
These cash deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect
until further notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ See Order, 61 FR 38545.
\6\ See Certain Pasta from Italy: Final Results of the Ninth
Countervailing Duty Administrative Review and Notice of Revocation
of Order, in Part, 71 FR 36318 (June 26, 2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Administrative Protective Order
This notice serves as a final reminder to parties subject to
administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility
concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under
APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written
notification of return or destruction of APO materials or conversion to
judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with
the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.
We are issuing and publishing these results in accordance with
sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213.
Dated: February 12, 2016.
Paul Piquado,
Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.
Appendix
List of Topics Discussed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum
1. Summary
2. Background
[[Page 8920]]
3. Changes Since the Preliminary Results
4. Scope of the Order
5. Partial Rescission of the Administrative Review
6. Use of Facts Otherwise Available and Adverse Inferences
7. Subsidy Valuation Information
8. Loan Benchmarks and Discount Rates
9. Analysis of Programs
10. Analysis of Comments
Comment 1: Whether to Rescind the Review of LMIA
Comment 2: Entries Covered in La Molisana's Liquidation
Instructions
Comment 3: Application of the Appropriate Sales Denominator
11. Recommendation
[FR Doc. 2016-03750 Filed 2-22-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
