[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 153 (Tuesday, August 8, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 48479-48487]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-19948]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[C-475-819]


Certain Pasta From Italy: Preliminary Results and Partial 
Rescission of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of preliminary results and partial rescission of 
countervailing duty administrative review.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce is conducting an administrative 
review of the countervailing duty order on certain pasta from Italy for 
the period January 1, 1998, through December 31, 1998. We have 
preliminarily determined that certain producers/exporters have received 
net subsidies during the period of review. If the final results remain 
the same as these preliminary results, we will instruct the U.S. 
Customs Service to assess countervailing duties as detailed in the 
Preliminary Results of Review section of this notice.
    Because its request for review was withdrawn, we are rescinding 
this review for La Molisana Industrie Alimentari S.p.A. (``La 
Molisana'').
    Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary 
results (see the Public Comment section of this notice).

EFFECTIVE DATE: August 8, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Craig Matney, Sally Hastings, Annika 
O'Hara, or Andrew Covington, AD/CVD Enforcement, Group I, Office 1, 
Import Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone (202) 482-
1778, 482-3464, 482-3798, or 482-3534, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Applicable Statute and Regulations

    Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the statute are 
references to the provisions of section 751(a) of the Tariff Act of 
1930, as amended by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (``URAA'') 
effective January 1, 1995 (``the Act''). Unless otherwise indicated, 
all citations to the Department's regulations are to the regulations 
codified at 19 CFR part 351 (1999).

Case History

    On July 24, 1996, the Department of Commerce (``the Department'') 
published in the Federal Register (61 FR 38544) the countervailing duty 
order on certain pasta from Italy. On July 15, 1999, the Department 
published a notice of ``Opportunity to Request Administrative Review'' 
of this countervailing duty order (64 FR 38181). We received requests 
for review and initiated the review, covering calendar year 1998, on 
August 30, 1999 (64 FR 47167). Corrections to the initiation notice 
were published in the Federal Register on September 8, 1999 (64 FR 
48897) and November 4, 1999 (64 FR 60161). In accordance with 19 CFR 
351.213(b), this review of the order covers the following producers or 
exporters of the subject merchandise for which a review was 
specifically requested: Delverde S.p.A. (``Delverde''), Tamma Industrie 
Alimentari S.r.L. (``Tamma''), Rummo S.p.A. Molino e Pastaficio 
(``Rummo''), and Pastificio Riscossa F.lli Mastromauro S.r.L. 
(``Riscossa''). La Molisana, which had requested to be included in this 
review, withdrew its request on October 14, 1999 (see Partial 
Rescission of Review section, below). This review covers 29 programs.
    On October 4, 1999, we issued countervailing duty questionnaires to 
the Government of Italy (``GOI''), the Commission of the European Union 
(``EC''), and the above-named companies under review. We received 
responses to our questionnaires and issued supplemental questionnaires 
throughout the period November 1999 through January 2000. Responses to 
the supplemental questionnaires were received in January and February 
2000.
    On April 6, 2000, the Department published a notice in the Federal 
Register extending the time limit for issuing these preliminary results 
until no later than July 31, 2000 (65 FR 18069). We issued a second set 
of supplementary questionnaires to Delverde and Tamma on June 6, 2000, 
and to the GOI on June 9, 2000. We received responses to these 
supplemental questionnaires on June 23, 2000.

Partial Rescission

    On October 14, 1999, La Molisana submitted a timely request for 
withdrawal from this administrative review. Therefore, consistent with 
the Department's regulations and practice, we are rescinding this 
review with respect to La Molisana. See 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1).

Scope of the Review

    Imports covered by this review are shipments of certain non-egg dry 
pasta in packages of five pounds (2.27 kilograms) or less, whether or 
not enriched or fortified or containing milk or other optional 
ingredients such as chopped vegetables, vegetable purees, milk, gluten, 
diastases, vitamins, coloring and flavorings, and up to two percent egg 
white. The pasta covered by this scope is typically sold in the retail 
market, in fiberboard or cardboard cartons, or polyethylene or 
polypropylene bags, of varying dimensions.
    Excluded from the scope of this review 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 (``IMC''), by Bioagricoop Scrl, by QC&I International 
Services, by Ecocert Italia, or by the Conzorzio per il Controllo dei 
Prodotti Biologici.
    The merchandise subject to review is currently classifiable under 
item 1902.19.20 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States 
(``HTSUS''). Although the HTSUS subheading is provided for convenience 
and customs purposes, the written description of the merchandise 
subject to the order is dispositive.

Scope Rulings

    The Department has issued the following scope rulings to date:
    (1) On August 25, 1997, the Department issued a scope ruling that 
multicolored pasta, imported in kitchen display bottles of decorative 
glass that are sealed with cork or paraffin and bound with raffia, is 
excluded from the scope of the countervailing duty order. (See August 
25, 1997 memorandum from Edward Easton to Richard Moreland, which is on 
file in the Central Records Unit (``CRU'') in Room B-099 of the main 
Commerce building.)
    (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 
countervailing duty order. (See July 30, 1998 letter from Susan H. 
Kuhbach, Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, 
to Barbara P. Sidari, Vice President, Joseph A. Sidari

[[Page 48480]]

Company, Inc., 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 may be within the scope of the 
countervailing duty order. 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 countervailing duty order. (See May 24, 1999 
memorandum from John Brinkmann to Richard Moreland, which is on file in 
the CRU.)

Period of Review

    The period of review (``POR'') for which we are measuring subsidies 
is from January 1, 1998, through December 31, 1998.

Reorganization of Delverde

    Delverde began a company reorganization during the POR that 
continued through 1999. Although Delverde did not operate under its new 
organization during the POR, the company made the reorganization 
legally effective for accounting and tax purposes as of January 1, 
1998.
    Prior to the reorganization, Delverde was a wholly-owned subsidiary 
of a non-producing holding company, Sangralimenti S.r.L. 
(``Sangralimenti''). This holding company also held an ownership 
interest in Pietro Rotunno, S.r.L. (``Rotunno'') which ceased producing 
pasta in 1994. The principal result of the reorganization was the 
merger of Delverde S.r.L. and Sangralimenti. The new, merged entity is 
known as Delverde S.p.A. As part of the reorganization, Sangralimenti's 
ownership interest in Rotunno was sold to an unrelated company. Except 
for the merger with Sangralimenti, the ownership structure of Delverde 
changed little as a result of the reorganization.

Cross-Ownership

    In previous segments of this proceeding, the Department found that 
Delverde and Tamma warranted treatment as a single company because of 
Tamma's \1\ ownership in Delverde's holding company, Sangralimenti, and 
common corporate officers. Therefore, in the investigation and previous 
reviews of this case, we calculated a single countervailing duty rate 
for these two companies. See Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty 
Determination: Certain Pasta (``Pasta'') from Italy, 61 FR 30287 (June 
14, 1996) (``Pasta Investigation''); Certain Pasta from Italy: Final 
Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review, 63 FR 43905 
(August 17, 1998) (``Pasta First Review''); and Certain Pasta From 
Italy: Final Results of the Second Countervailing Duty Administrative 
Review, 64 FR 44489 (August 16, 1999) (``Pasta Second Review'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ ``Tamma's ownership'' refers to the shares in Delverde owned 
by individual Tamma family members as well as shares owned by the 
Tamma company.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    However, in this administrative review, we are applying the 1998 
countervailing duty regulations which are effective for the first time 
in this proceeding. See 19 CFR 702(a)(2). These regulations require 
``cross-ownership'' before the Department will assign subsidies 
received by one company to another company (see preamble to 
Countervailing Duties; Final Rule, 63 FR 65348, 65401 (November 25, 
1998)). According to section 351.525(b)(6)(vi) of the Department's 
regulations, cross-ownership exists between two or more corporations 
where one corporation can use or direct the individual assets of the 
other corporation in essentially the same ways it can use its own 
assets. The regulations state that this standard will normally be met 
where there is a majority voting ownership interest between two 
corporations. The preamble to the Department's regulations identifies 
situations where cross ownership may exist even though there is less 
than a majority voting interest between two corporations: ``in certain 
circumstances, a large minority interest (for example, 40 percent) or a 
`golden share' may also result in cross-ownership.'' (See 63 FR 65401.)
    Based on our new regulations and for purposes of these preliminary 
results, we do not believe that Tamma's ownership interest in Delverde 
is sufficient to establish cross-ownership between Tamma and Delverde. 
Although Tamma's ownership in Delverde is significant, it does not have 
a majority ownership interest; nor does it have a ``golden share'' in 
Delverde. Additionally, there is a small number of other shareholders 
which, together, effectively control more shares in Delverde than 
Tamma.
    Our treatment of Delverde and Tamma is consistent with our finding 
in Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination: Certain Cut-to-
Length Carbon-Quality Steel Plate from France, 64 FR 73277 (December 
29, 1999). At issue in that case was the relationship between two 
respondents, Usinor and GTS, a company in which Usinor indirectly owned 
48 percent. We treated Usinor and GTS as two separate companies because 
Usinor was not the majority shareholder in GTS and because, despite its 
large ownership position, Usinor did not control GTS directly or 
indirectly. Due to the high level of Usinor's ownership interest in 
GTS, we also examined a number of factors in making our determination 
that cross-ownership did not exist. Among them was whether Usinor 
controlled GTS via control over its Board of Directors and its 
management decision making process.
    Despite our preliminary decision to calculate separate rates for 
Delverde and Tamma, we intend to examine this issue further. Although 
Tamma's ownership interest in Delverde is less than fifty percent, it 
is substantial. Moreover, other aspects of the corporate relationship, 
such as common corporate officers, in combination with Tamma's 
ownership interest, raises a concern as to whether cross-ownership 
exists. Therefore, for the final results, we will further consider the 
issue and seek additional information, if necessary, to fully address 
whether or not cross-ownership exists between these two companies. We 
invite comments from all interested parties.

Subsidies Valuation Information

    Benchmarks for Long-term Loans and Discount Rates: The companies 
under review did not take out any long-term, fixed-rate, lira-
denominated loans or other debt obligations which could be used as 
benchmarks in any of the years in which the government grants or loans 
under review were received. Therefore, for years prior to 1995, we used 
the Bank of Italy reference rate, adjusted upward to reflect the mark-
up an Italian commercial bank would charge a corporate customer, as the 
benchmark interest rate for long-term loans and as the discount rate. 
For subsidies received in 1995 and later, we used the Italian Bankers' 
Association (``ABI'') interest rate, increased by the average spread 
charged by banks on loans to commercial customers plus an amount for 
bank charges.
    Allocation Period: In the investigation of this case, the 
Department used, as the allocation period for non-recurring subsidies, 
the average useful life (``AUL'') of renewable physical assets in the 
food-processing industry as recorded in the Internal Revenue Service's 
1977 Class Life Asset Depreciation Range System (``the IRS tables''), 
i.e., 12 years. However, the U.S. Court of International Trade 
(``CIT'') subsequently ruled against this allocation methodology for 
non-recurring subsidies (see British Steel plc v. United States, 879 
F.Supp. 1254,

[[Page 48481]]

1289 (CIT 1995) (``British Steel I'')). In accordance with the CIT's 
remand order, the Department determined that the most reasonable method 
of deriving the allocation period for non-recurring subsidies was a 
company-specific AUL of renewable physical assets. This remand 
determination was affirmed by the CIT on June 4, 1996 (see British 
Steel plc v. United States, 929 F.Supp. 426, 439 (CIT 1996) (``British 
Steel II'')).
    Therefore, in past administrative reviews of this case, we used a 
company-specific AUL to allocate non-recurring subsidies that were not 
countervailed in the investigation. However, for non-recurring 
subsidies which had already been countervailed in the investigation, 
the Department used the original allocation period, i.e., 12 years, 
because it was deemed neither reasonable nor practicable to reallocate 
those subsidies over a different time period. This methodology was 
consistent with our approach in Certain Carbon Steel Products from 
Sweden; Final Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review, 62 
FR 16549 (April 7, 1997).
    As mentioned above, the Department is operating under new 
countervailing duty regulations in this review. Pursuant to section 
351.524(d)(2) of these regulations, the Department will use the AUL in 
the IRS tables as the allocation period unless a party can show that 
the IRS tables do not reasonably reflect the company-specific AUL or 
the country-wide AUL for the industry. If a party can show that either 
of these time periods differs from the AUL in the IRS tables by one 
year or more, the Department will use the company-specific AUL or the 
country-wide AUL for the industry as the allocation period.
    Riscossa and Rummo do not contest the 12-year allocation period in 
the IRS tables. Delverde and Tamma, however, have urged the Department 
to apply the methodology used in previous administrative reviews. To 
this end, Delverde and Tamma have resubmitted their calculation of the 
company-specific AUL from Pasta Second Review based on the depreciation 
and value of productive assets as reported in their financial 
statements. Delverde and Tamma have not stated which allocation period 
they believe is appropriate for subsidies received during the current 
POR.
    Pursuant to our new regulations, information submitted in the 
questionnaire responses, and our practice to not reallocate subsidies, 
we have preliminarily decided to allocate non-recurring subsidies as 
follows:
    (a) Subsidies countervailed in the investigation (i.e., subsidies 
received in 1994 and earlier) will continue to be allocated over 12 
years.
    (b) Subsidies countervailed in the first two administrative reviews 
(i.e., subsidies received in 1995, 1996, and 1997), which were 
allocated over the respondents' company-specific AULs, will continue to 
be allocated over the company-specific AULs.
    (c) Subsidies received during the current POR (i.e., 1998) will be 
allocated over 12 years as specified in the IRS tables, in accordance 
with our regulations because no company demonstrated that its AUL 
differed from the 12-year period in the IRS tables.
    Benefits to Mills: During the POR, Tamma and Riscossa owned 
semolina mills (semolina is the main input product in pasta). Neither 
Tamma nor Riscossa's mills were separately incorporated, i.e., both the 
semolina and the downstream product (pasta) were produced within a 
single corporate entity. Therefore, in accordance with section 
351.525(b)(6)(i) of the regulations, the Department has attributed 
subsidies provided for the production of semolina and pasta to the 
sales by the corporate entities that received them.

Change in Ownership

    One of the companies under review, Delverde, purchased an existing 
pasta factory from an unaffiliated party in 1991. The previous owner of 
the purchased factory had received non-recurring countervailable 
subsidies prior to the transfer of ownership. In Pasta Investigation, 
we calculated the amount of the prior subsidies that passed through to 
Delverde with the acquisition of the factory, following the spin-off 
methodology described in the Restructuring section of the General 
Issues Appendix (``GIA''), appended to Final Countervailing Duty 
Determination; Certain Steel Products from Austria, 58 FR 37225, 37265 
(July 9, 1993). We followed the same methodology in Pasta First Review 
and Pasta Second Review.
    After the Department's final determination in Pasta Investigation, 
Delverde sued in the CIT, arguing that the Department's spin-off 
methodology was erroneous and inconsistent with the Act. Initially, the 
CIT agreed with Delverde and remanded the case to the Department. See 
Delverde I, 989 F.Supp. at 234. However, after the Department had 
explained its spin-off methodology in more detail and further argued 
its reasonableness on remand, the CIT affirmed the Department's 
methodology. See Delverde II, 24 F.Supp.2d at 315 (``Delverde II''). 
Delverde appealed the CIT's decision to the Court of Appeals for the 
Federal Circuit (``CAFC'') which held on February 2, 2000, that the 
Department may not presume that non-recurring subsidies survive a 
transfer in a subsidized company's ownership. Accordingly, the CAFC 
vacated the CIT's decision in Delverde II and stated that it would 
instruct the CIT to remand the case to the Department. See Delverde v. 
United States, 202 F.3rd 1360, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2000). On June 20, 2000, 
the CAFC denied the Department's petition for rehearing and suggestion 
for rehearing en banc. See Delverde, S.r.L. v. United States, Court No. 
99-1186 (Fed. Cir. 2000).
    The Department has not received a remand from the CIT and has, 
thus, not yet addressed what revisions to our change-in-ownership 
methodology are necessary. We are examining what information may be 
relevant to the change in ownership issue decided in Delverde and, if 
necessary, will issue a questionnaire as soon as possible. For these 
preliminary results, we have continued to use the spin-off methodology 
described in the GIA in the same way as it was used in Pasta 
Investigation and previous administrative reviews. We invite comments 
from interested parties on revisions to our change of ownership 
methodology.

Analysis of Programs

I. Programs Preliminarily Determined To Confer Subsidies

1. Law 64/86 Industrial Development Grants
    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. (Loans were also provided under Law 64/86; see below.)
    In 1992, the Italian Parliament abrogated Law 64/86 and replaced it 
with Law 488/92 (see below). This decision became effective in 1993. 
However, companies whose projects had been approved prior to 1993 were 
authorized to receive grants under Law 64/86 after 1993. Delverde, 
Tamma, and Riscossa benefitted from industrial

[[Page 48482]]

development grants under Law 64/86 during the POR.
    In Pasta Investigation, the Department determined that these grants 
conferred a countervailable subsidy within the meaning of section 
771(5) of the Act. They provided a direct transfer of funds from the 
GOI bestowing a benefit in the amount of the grant. Also, these grants 
were found to be regionally specific within the meaning of section 
771(5A) of the Act. In this review, neither the GOI nor the responding 
companies have provided new information which would warrant 
reconsideration of this determination.
    In Pasta Investigation, the Department treated the industrial 
development grants as non-recurring based on the analysis set forth in 
the Allocation section of the GIA, 58 FR at 37226. In the current 
review, no new information has been placed on the record that would 
cause us to depart from this treatment. In Pasta Investigation and 
previous administrative reviews, we applied the methodology described 
in our old (proposed) countervailing duty regulations when determining 
whether to allocate non-recurring grants over time or expense them in 
the year of receipt (``the 0.5 percent test''). Accordingly, grant 
disbursements exceeding 0.5 percent of a company's sales in the year of 
receipt were allocated over time while grants below or equal to 0.5 
percent of sales were countervailed in full (``expensed'') in the year 
of receipt (see Countervailing Duties (Proposed Rules), 54 FR 23366, 
23384 (19 CFR 355.49(a)(3)) (May 31, 1989)). However, section 
351.524(b)(2) of our new countervailing duty regulations directs us to 
allocate over time those non-recurring grants whose total authorized 
amount exceeds 0.5 percent of a company's sales in the year of 
authorization. We applied this new regulation only to disbursements 
received during the POR, i.e., we did not redo the 0.5 percent test for 
disbursements received prior to the POR because we had already 
calculated a benefit stream for those disbursements in the 
investigation or in a previous administrative review.
    Pursuant to section 351.504(c) of our regulations, we used our 
standard grant methodology as described in section 351.524(d) of the 
regulations to calculate the countervailable subsidy from those grants 
that passed the 0.5 percent test. We divided the benefit attributable 
to each company in the POR by its total sales, or total pasta sales, as 
appropriate, in the POR. On this basis, we preliminarily determine the 
countervailable subsidy from the Law 64/86 industrial development 
grants to be 1.73 percent ad valorem for Delverde, 3.10 percent ad 
valorem for Tamma, and 0.77 percent ad valorem for Riscossa.
2. Law 488/92 Industrial Development Grants
    In 1986, the European Union (``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, 
Objective 2, and Objective 5(b) areas by the EU (see below). 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. (Loans 
are not provided under Law 488/92.) 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.
    Delverde and Tamma benefitted from Law 488/92 industrial 
development grants in the POR. The grants were provided for 
modernization of both companies' pasta factories and Tamma's warehouse.
    Industrial development grants under Law 488/92 were found 
countervailable in Pasta Second Review. The grants were a direct 
transfer of funds from the GOI bestowing a benefit in the amount of the 
grant. Also, these grants were found to be regionally specific within 
the meaning of section 771(5A) of the Act. In this review, neither the 
GOI nor the responding companies have provided new information which 
would warrant reconsideration of this determination.
    In Pasta Second Review, the Department treated industrial 
development grants under Law 488/92 as non-recurring based on the 
analysis set forth in the Allocation section of the GIA, 58 FR at 
37226. In the current review, no new information has been placed on the 
record that would cause us to depart from this treatment. We allocated 
the grant over time because it met the 0.5 percent test, as described 
above. Pursuant to section 351.504(c) of our regulations, we used our 
standard grant methodology as described in section 351.524(d) of the 
regulations to calculate the countervailable subsidy. We divided the 
benefits attributable to each company 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 0.28 
percent ad valorem from Delverde and 0.09 percent ad valorem for Tamma.
3. Law 183/76 Industrial Development Grants
    Law 183/76 is known to the Department as a law that authorizes 
companies located in the Mezzogiorno to take reductions or exemptions 
in social security contributions for the hiring of new employees. Law 
183/76 also allows for the provision of industrial development grants.
    In 1983, Riscossa applied for an industrial development grant under 
Law 183/76. The GOI approved the application and disbursed the grant in 
tranches. Only the last of these disbursements, received by Riscossa in 
1988, falls within that company's 12-year AUL period. Therefore, only 
this last disbursement has been countervailed in the current review.
    In Pasta Investigation and the prior review, the Department 
determined that the industrial development grant received by Riscossa 
conferred a countervailable subsidy within the meaning of section 
771(5) of the Act. It was a direct transfer of funds from the GOI 
bestowing a benefit in the amount of the grant. Also, we found this 
grant to be regionally specific within the meaning of section 771(5A) 
of the Act. The Department has not received any new information in this 
review which would merit a reexamination of this determination.
    We have previously treated Riscossa's industrial development grant 
as a non-recurring grant based on the analysis set forth in the 
Allocation section of the GIA, 58 FR at 37226. In the current review, 
no new information has been placed on the record that would cause us to 
depart from this treatment. We allocated the last disbursement of this 
grant over time because it met the 0.5 percent test, as described 
above. Pursuant to section 351.504(c) of our regulations, we calculated 
the countervailable subsidy using our standard grant methodology, as 
described in section 351.524(d) of the regulations. We divided the 
benefit attributable to Riscossa in the POR by the company's total 
sales in the POR. On this basis, we preliminarily determine the 
countervailable subsidy

[[Page 48483]]

from the Law 183/76 industrial development grant to be 0.08 percent ad 
valorem for Riscossa.
4. Law 64/86 Industrial Development Loans
    In addition to the industrial development grants discussed above, 
Law 64/86 also provided reduced rate industrial development loans with 
interest contributions paid by the GOI on loans taken by companies 
constructing new plants or expanding or modernizing existing plants in 
the Mezzogiorno. For the reasons discussed above, pasta companies were 
eligible for interest contributions to expand existing plants, but not 
to establish new plants. The interest rate on these loans was set at 
the reference rate with the GOI's interest contributions serving to 
reduce this rate. In 1992, the Italian parliament abrogated Law 64/86. 
This decision became effective in 1993. Project approved prior to 1993, 
however, were authorized to receive interest subsidies after 1993.
    Delverde and Tamma benefitted from outstanding Law 64/86 industrial 
development loans during the POR.
    In Pasta Investigation, the Department determined that the Law 64/
86 loans conferred a countervailable subsidy within the meaning of 
section 771(5) of the Act. They were a direct transfer of funds from 
the GOI providing a benefit in the amount of the difference between the 
benchmark interest rate and the interest rate paid by the companies 
after accounting for the GOI's interest contributions. Also, they were 
found to be regionally specific within the meaning of section 771(5A) 
of the Act. In this review, neither the GOI nor the responding 
companies have provided new information which would warrant 
reconsideration of this determination.
    In accordance with section 351.505(c)(2) of our regulations, we 
calculated the benefit for the POR by computing the difference between 
the payments Delverde and Tamma made on their Law 64/86 loans during 
the POR and the payments the companies would have made on a comparable 
commercial loan. We divided Delverde's and Tamma's benefits 
attributable to the POR by their total sales or total pasta sales, as 
appropriate, in the POR. On this basis, we preliminarily determine the 
countervailable subsidy from the Law 64/86 industrial development loans 
to be 0.56 percent ad valorem for Delverde and 0.23 percent ad valorem 
for Tamma.
5. Law 304/90 Export Marketing Grants
    Under Law 304/90, the GOI provided grants to promote the sale of 
Italian food and agricultural products in foreign markets. The grants 
were given for pilot projects aimed at developing links and integrating 
marketing efforts between Italian food producers and foreign 
distributors. The emphasis was on assisting small- and medium-sized 
producers.
    Delverde received a grant under this program for an export sales 
pilot project in the United States. The purpose of the project was to 
increase the presence of all Delverde's products in the U.S. market, 
not only pasta.
    In Pasta Investigation, the Department determined that these export 
marketing grants conferred a countervailable subsidy within the meaning 
of section 771(5) of the Act. They were a direct transfer of funds from 
the GOI bestowing a benefit in the amount of the grant. Also, these 
grants were found to be specific within the meaning of section 771(5A) 
of the Act because their receipt was contingent upon exportation. In 
this review, neither the GOI nor the responding companies have provided 
new information which would warrant reconsideration of this 
determination.
    Each project funded by Law 304/90 grants requires a separate 
application and approval, and the projects represent one-time events in 
that they involve an effort to establish warehouses, sales offices, and 
a selling network in overseas markets. Therefore, in Pasta 
Investigation, the Department treated the grant received under this 
program as non-recurring based on the analysis set forth in the 
Allocation section of the GIA, 58 FR at 37226. In the current review, 
we have found no reason to depart from this treatment. We allocated the 
grant over time because it met the 0.5 percent test, as described 
above.
    Pursuant to section 351.504 (c) of our regulations, we used our 
standard grant methodology as described in section 351.524(d) of the 
regulations to calculate the countervailable subsidy. We divided the 
benefit attributable to the POR by the value of Delverde's total 
exports to the United States in the POR. On this basis, we 
preliminarily determine the countervailable subsidy from the Law 304/90 
export marketing grants to be 0.26 percent ad valorem for Delverde.
6. Social Security Reductions and Exemptions--Sgravi
    Italian law allows companies, particularly those located in the 
Mezzogiorno, to use a variety of exemptions and reductions (``sgravi'') 
of the 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. The benefits 
under some of these laws (e.g., Laws 1089/68, 183/76, 30/97, and 449/
97) are available only to companies located in the Mezzogiorno. 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 
south than for companies in other parts of the country. All the 
respondent companies in this review benefitted from the sgravi program 
during the POR.
    In Pasta Investigation, the Department determined that the various 
forms of social security reductions and exemptions conferred 
countervailable subsidies within the meaning of section 771(5) of the 
Act. They represent revenue foregone by the GOI and confer a benefit in 
the amount of the savings received by the companies. Also, they were 
found to be regionally specific within the meaning of section 771(5A) 
of the Act because they were limited to companies in the Mezzogiorno. 
In this review, neither the GOI nor the responding companies provided 
new information which would warrant reconsideration of this 
determination.
    In the investigation and previous reviews, we treated social 
security reductions and exemptions as recurring benefits. In the 
current review, we have found no reason to depart from this treatment. 
To calculate the countervailable subsidy, we divided each company's 
savings in social security contributions during the POR by that 
company's total sales in the POR. In those instances where the 
applicable law provided a higher level of benefits to companies in the 
south, we divided the amount of the asgravi benefits that exceeded the 
amount available to companies in other parts of Italy by the recipient 
company's total sales in the POR, in accordance with section 351.503(d) 
of the regulations. On this basis, we preliminarily determine the 
countervailable subsidy from the sgravi program to be 0.30 percent ad 
valorem for Delverde, 0.21 percent ad valorem for Tamma, 0.36 percent 
ad valorem for Rummo, and 0.26 percent ad valorem for Riscossa.
7. Law 598/94 Interest Subsidies
    Under Law 598/94, the GOI pays a portion of the interest on certain 
loans granted to small- and medium-sized industrial companies. These 
loans are to be used for investments related to technological 
innovation and/or environmental protection. Rummo received interest 
subsidies under this

[[Page 48484]]

program in the POR in connection with a long-term, variable-rate loan 
obtained prior to the POR. The GOI paid the interest subsidies directly 
to the lending bank shortly after Rummo had made the full twice-yearly 
interest payments to the bank. The bank then credited the amount of the 
GOI's payments to Rummo's account.
    The GOI has stated that the general level of subsidies under Law 
598/94 is 30 percent of the initial interest payable, but is 45 percent 
for companies in disadvantaged regions of Italy. Because Rummo is 
located in a disadvantaged region it received the higher level of 
benefits.
    We preliminarily determine that the higher level of interest 
subsidies for companies in disadvantaged regions under Law 598/94 
confers a countervailable benefit within the meaning of section 771(5) 
of the Act. It is a direct transfer of funds from the GOI. As discussed 
in section 351.508 of the regulations, because the interest subsidy is 
tied to a particular loan and because Rummo knew that it would receive 
the subsidy when it applied for the loan, we are treating the interest 
subsidy as a reduced-interest loan in accordance with section 
351.508(c)(2) of the regulations.
    Because the higher level of subsidies under Law 598/94 is limited 
to companies in certain regions of Italy, we preliminarily determine 
that this program is regionally specific within the meaning of section 
771(5A) of the Act. In accordance with sections 351.503(d) and 
351.505(c)(2) of our regulations, we calculated the benefit for the POR 
by dividing the portion of the interest subsidy that exceeded the 
amount available to companies in non-disadvantaged regions by Rummo's 
total sales in the POR. On this basis, we preliminarily determine the 
countervailable subsidy from the Law 598/94 interest subsidies to be 
0.10 percent ad valorem for Rummo.
8. Law 236/93 Training Grants
    Under Law 236/93, which is administered by the regional governments 
but funded by the GOI, grants are provided to Italian companies for 
worker training. Delverde received a grant under this program during 
the POR. The company submitted an application to the Regional Council 
of Abruzzo where Delverde is located. The application was examined by 
an evaluating committee appointed by the Regional Council, which 
approved the application in 1997. The grant was disbursed in tranches, 
the first of which was received by Delverde in the POR. Since the grant 
did not cover the entire training cost, Delverde also contributed its 
own funds.
    The Department considers worker training programs to provide a 
countervailable benefit to a company when the company is relieved of an 
obligation it otherwise would have incurred. See section 351.513(a) of 
the regulations. Companies normally incur the costs of training to 
enhance the job-related skills of their own employees. Therefore, we 
preliminarily determine that the Law 236/93 training grant relieved 
Delverde of an obligation that the company otherwise would have 
incurred.
    The Department has not received any information from the GOI or the 
Regional Government of Abruzzo (``GOA'') showing how the funds under 
Law 236/93 were distributed across Italian regions and industries. 
Delverde has stated that assistance under the program was available to 
production facilities in the region of Abruzzo, but there is no 
information on the record as to whether funding under Law 236/93 was 
also available to companies in other regions of Italy. Because this 
information is not on the record, we must base our preliminary 
specificity determination on facts available pursuant to section 776(a) 
of the Act.
    Pursuant to section 776 (b) of the Act, we preliminarily determine 
that it is appropriate to use adverse facts available because the GOI 
and the GOA did not cooperate to the best of their ability to provide 
information requested on the distribution of benefits by industry and 
by region as requested by the Department. Specifically, in our January 
12, 2000, supplemental questionnaire to the GOI, we asked that certain 
questions be forwarded to the GOA concerning the Law 236/93 training 
grants, including a request for information about which other 
industries received benefits under the program. We received a partial 
response from the GOA, but, as noted above, we did not receive a 
response to our question about which other industries had received 
benefits under this law. We, therefore, preliminarily determine that 
the GOI and the GOA have failed to cooperate by not acting to the best 
of their abilities to comply with our request for information regarding 
this program (see 19 CFR 351.308). On this basis, as adverse facts 
available, we preliminarily find the Law 236/93 grant received by 
Delverde to be specific.
    We also preliminarily determine that the Law 236/93 grant confers a 
countervailable subsidy within the meaning of section 771(5) of the 
Act. It provides a direct transfer of funds from the GOI bestowing a 
benefit in the amount of the grant.
    Under section 351.524(c)(1) of the regulations, the Department 
normally considers worker training subsidies to provide recurring 
benefits. Therefore, to calculate the countervailable subsidy, we 
divided the amount received by Delverde in the POR by the company's 
total sales in the POR. On this basis, we preliminarily determine the 
countervailable subsidy from the Law 236/93 training grant to be 0.02 
percent ad valorem for Delverde.
9. European Social Fund
    The European Social Fund (``ESF''), one of the EU's structural 
funds, was created under Article 123 of the Treaty of Rome to improve 
employment opportunities for workers and to help raise their living 
standards. There are six different objectives identified for the 
structural funds: Objective 1 covers projects located in underdeveloped 
regions; Objective 2 addresses areas in industrial decline; Objective 3 
relates to the employment of persons under the age of 25; Objective 4 
funds training for employees in companies undergoing restructuring; 
Objective 5 pertains to agricultural areas; and Objective 6 applies to 
regions with very low population (i.e., the far north).
    Delverde and Riscossa received ESF grants during the POR. 
Riscossa's grant was provided under Objective 4; there is no 
information on the record about the EU objective pertaining to 
Delverde's grant.
    In the case of Riscossa, the Regional Government of Puglia 
(``GOP'') approved a program in 1997, allowing Riscossa to receive an 
employee training grant jointly funded by the ESF, the GOP, and the GOI 
through the National Rotational Fund. The GOP published the details and 
goals of the program in the Official Bulletin of the Puglia Region on 
January 30, 1997. Riscossa arranged for a private company to organize a 
training course and requested the GOP to provide funds to cover the 
cost of the course, as allowed by the program. These funds were given 
to Riscossa, which in turn paid the company offering the course. 
Riscossa itself was responsible for covering about 20 percent of the 
cost of the course.
    In the case of Delverde, the company received a grant for employee 
training which was disbursed to the company in several tranches. The 
grant, which was provided under a regional operational program, was 
jointly funded by the ESF and the GOI through the National Rotational 
Fund. Previous tranches of this grant were found to be countervailable 
in Pasta First Review.

[[Page 48485]]

    The Department considers worker training programs to provide a 
countervailable benefit to a company when the company is relieved of an 
obligation it otherwise would have incurred. See 19 CFR 351.513(a). 
Companies normally incur the costs of training to enhance the job-
related skills of their own employees. Riscossa in particular has 
stated that it would have paid for the training using its own funds in 
the absence of the grant. Therefore, we preliminarily determine that 
the training grants relieved Riscossa and Delverde of an obligation 
that the companies otherwise would have incurred.
    The Department has requested, but has not received, information 
from the GOI and the EC showing how ESF funds under Objective 4 were 
distributed across Italian regions and industries. Nor, despite 
requests, have we received such information regarding payments from the 
National Rotational Fund, the GOP, or the regional operational program 
under which Delverde received its grant. Therefore, because this 
information is not on the record, we must base our preliminary 
specificity determination on facts available pursuant to section 776 
(a) of the Act.
    Pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act, we preliminarily determine 
that it is appropriate to use adverse facts available because the EC, 
the GOI and the GOP did not cooperate to the best of their ability to 
provide information requested on the distribution of benefits by 
industry and by region as requested by the Department. In its 
questionnaire response, the EC has stated that it does not maintain any 
company-specific data. For information on how EU funds are distributed 
within individual EU member countries, the EC refers to the national or 
regional government authorities in the country in question. Therefore, 
in our January 12, 2000, supplemental questionnaire, we asked the GOI 
to provide such information. In addition, we asked that certain 
questions be forwarded to the GOP concerning the training grant 
provided to Riscossa, including a request for information on which 
other industries in the region received benefits under the program. As 
noted above, we did not receive a response to any of these questions 
from either the GOI or the GOP. We, therefore, preliminarily determine 
that the GOI and the GOP have failed to cooperate by not acting to the 
best of their abilities to comply with our request for information 
regarding this program (see 19 CFR 351.308(a)). On this basis, as 
adverse facts available, we preliminarily find the ESF grants received 
by Delverde and Riscossa to be specific.
    Accordingly, we preliminarily determine that the ESF grants confer 
a countervailable subsidy within the meaning of section 771(5) of the 
Act. They provide a direct transfer of funds from the GOI, the GOP, and 
the EU bestowing a benefit a in the amount of the grant.
    Pursuant to section 351.524(c)(1) of the regulations, the 
Department normally considers worker training subsidies to provide 
recurring benefits. Therefore, to calculate the countervailable 
subsidy, we divided the amounts received by Delverde and Riscossa in 
the POR by the companies' total sales in the POR. On this basis, we 
preliminarily determine the countervailable subsidy for this program to 
be 0.01 percent ad valorem for Delverde and 0.02 percent ad valorem for 
Riscossa.
10. Export Restitution Payments
    Since 1962, the EU has operated a subsidy program which provides 
restitution payments to EU pasta exporters based on the durum wheat 
content of their exported pasta products. The program is designed to 
compensate pasta producers for the difference between EU prices and 
world market prices for durum wheat. Generally, under this program, a 
restitution payment is available to any EU exporter of pasta products, 
regardless of whether the pasta was made with imported wheat or wheat 
grown within the EU. The amount of the restitution payment is 
calculated by multiplying the prevailing restitution payment rate on 
the date of exportation by the weight of the unmilled durum wheat used 
to produce the exported pasta. The weight of the unmilled durum wheat 
is calculated by applying a conversion factor to the weight of the 
pasta. The EU calculates the restitution payment rate on a monthly 
basis by first computing the difference between the world market price 
of durum wheat and an internal EU price and then adding a monthly 
increment (in all months except June and July, which are harvest 
months). The EU will not normally allow the restitution payment rate to 
be higher than the levy that the EU imposes on imported durum wheat, as 
such a situation would lead to circular trade.
    Because there was no significant price difference between the EU 
price and the world market price on durum wheat during most of the POR, 
the restitution payment rate was zero until mid-October 1998 when it 
was set at 0.91 percent for exports to the United States. The export 
restitution payments received by the respondents in the POR included 
restitution for exports made prior to the POR.
    In Pasta Investigation, the Department determined that export 
restitution payments conferred a countervailable subsidy within the 
meaning of section 771(5) of the Act. Each payment represents a direct 
transfer of funds from the EU bestowing a benefit in the amount of the 
payment. The restitution payments were found to be specific because 
their receipt is contingent upon export performance. In this review, 
the GOI, the EU, and the responding companies have not provided new 
information which would warrant reconsideration of this determination.
    Delverde and Rummo received export restitution payments during the 
POR for shipments of pasta to the United States.
    In Pasta Investigation, we treated the export restitution payments 
as recurring benefits pursuant to 19 CFR 351.524(c). We have found no 
reason to depart from this treatment in the current review. Therefore, 
to calculate the countervailable subsidy, we divided the export 
restitution payments received by Delverde and Rummo in the POR for 
pasta shipments to the United States by the value of each company's 
pasta exports to the United States in the POR. On this basis, we 
preliminarily determine the countervailable subsidy from the export 
restitution program to be 0.70 percent ad valorem for Delverde, and 
0.07 percent ad valorem for Rummo.

II. Programs Preliminarily Determined Not To Confer Countervailable 
Subsidies in the POR

1. Social Security Reductions and Exemptions--Fiscalizzazione
    Fiscalizzazione is a nationwide program that allows for a reduction 
of certain social security payments similar to the sgravi program 
discussed above. In Pasta Investigation and previous administrative 
reviews, the Department found the fiscalizzazione program to confer a 
countervailable subsidy on companies in the Mezzogiorno because 
manufacturing enterprises in the south were allowed to take higher 
deductions for certain categories of social security payments than 
companies in the north.
    The questionnaire responses submitted in the current review show 
that the particular category of social security contributions for which 
higher deductions were allowed for companies in the south was abolished 
as of January 1, 1998. The only remaining fiscalizzazione program in 
1998 was related to orphans of Italian workers (``ENAOLI''). 
Contributions under this

[[Page 48486]]

program were the same for all companies in the manufacturing sector 
regardless of where they were located. Thus, the particular deductions 
under the fiscalizzazione program which we previously found 
countervailable no longer exist. We, therefore, preliminarily determine 
that the fiscalizzazione program did not confer a countervailable 
subsidy in the POR.
2. Law 113/86 Training Grant
    Rummo reported receiving grants under Law 113/86 in 1990 and 1994 
to offset the cost of worker training. The program, which no longer is 
in effect, according to Rummo, was available only to companies located 
in the Mezzogiorno.
    Pursuant to section 351.524(c)(1) of the regulations, the 
Department normally considers worker training subsidies to provide 
recurring benefits. Because Rummo did not receive any training grants 
under Law 113/86 in the POR, we preliminarily determine that this 
program did not confer a countervailable subsidy in the POR.
3. Law 64/86 VAT Reductions
    During the period 1987 through 1991, Rummo was allowed to reduce 
the value added tax (``VAT'') the company paid on the purchase of fixed 
assets in accordance with Law 64/86. The VAT reduction was eight 
percent of the value of the asset.
    Pursuant to section 351.524(c)(1) of the regulations, the 
Department normally considers rebates of indirect taxes to provide 
recurring benefits. Because Rummo did not receive the VAT reductions 
under Law 64/86 in the POR, we preliminarily determine that this 
program did not confer a countervailable subsidy in the POR.
4. Law 357/94 Tax Benefits
    Rummo has stated that it received VAT tax benefits under Law 357/94 
in 1995 and 1996 but that no benefits were received in the POR. No 
other information on this program has been made available to the 
Department.
    Pursuant to section 351.524(c)(1) of the regulations, the 
Department normally considers tax programs to provide recurring 
benefits. Because Rummo did not use the tax benefits under Law 357/94 
in the POR, we preliminarily determine that this program did not confer 
a countervailable subsidy in the POR.

III. Programs Preliminarily Determined To Be Not Used

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

1. Local Income Tax (``ILOR'') Exemptions
2. Remission of Taxes on Export Credit Insurance under Article 33 of 
Law 227/77
3. Export Credits under Law 227/77
4. Capital Grants under Law 675/77
5. Retraining Grants under Law 675/77
6. Interest Contributions on Bank Loans under Law 675/77
7. Interest Grants Financed by IRI Bonds
8. Preferential Financing for Export Promotion under Law 394/81
9. Corporate Income Tax (``IRPEG'') Exemptions
10. Urban Redevelopment under Law 181
11. Debt Consolidation Law 341/95
12. Interest Contributions under Law 1329/65
13. Grant Received Pursuant to the Community Initiative Concerning the 
Preparation of Enterprises for the Single Market (``PRISMA'')
14. European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (``EAGGF'')
15. European Regional Development Fund (``ERDF'')

Preliminary Results of Review

    In accordance with 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4)(i), we calculated an 
individual subsidy rate for each producer/exporter subject to this 
administrative review. For the period January 1, 1998 through December 
31, 1998, we preliminarily determine the net subsidy rates for 
producers/exporters under review to be those specified in the chart 
shown below. If the final results of this review remain the same as 
these preliminary results, the Department intends to instruct the U.S. 
Customs Service (``Customs'') to assess countervailing duties at these 
net subsidy rates. The Department also intends to instruct Customs to 
collect cash deposits of estimated countervailing duties at these rates 
on the f.o.b. value of all shipments of the subject merchandise from 
the producers/exporters under review entered, or withdrawn from 
warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of the 
final results of this administrative review.
    Because the URAA replaced the general rule in favor of a country-
wide rate with a general rule in favor of individual rates for 
investigated and reviewed companies, the procedures for establishing 
countervailing duty rates, including those for non-reviewed companies, 
are now essentially the same as those in antidumping cases, except as 
provided for in section 777A(e)(2)(B) of the Act. The requested reviews 
will normally cover only those companies specifically named. See 19 CFR 
351.213(b). Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(c), for all companies for which 
a review was not requested, duties must be assessed at the cash deposit 
rate, and cash deposits must continue to be collected, at the rate 
previously ordered. As such, the countervailing duty cash deposit rate 
applicable to a company can no longer change, except pursuant to a 
request for a review of that company. See Federal-Mogul Corporation and 
The Torrington Company v. United States, 822 F.Supp. 782 (CIT 1993), 
and Floral Trade Council v. United States, 822 F.Supp. 766 (CIT 1993) 
(interpreting 19 CFR 353.22(e), the antidumping regulation on automatic 
assessment, which is identical to 19 CFR 355.22(g), the predecessor to 
19 CFR 351.212(c)). Therefore, the cash deposit rates for all 
companies, except those covered by this review, will be unchanged by 
the results of this review.
    We will instruct Customs to continue to collect cash deposits for 
non-reviewed companies (except Barilla G. e R. F.lli S.p.A. 
(``Barilla'') and Gruppo Agricoltura Sana S.r.L. (``Gruppo'') which 
were excluded from the order during the investigation) at the most 
recent company-specific or country-wide rate applicable to the company. 
Accordingly, the cash deposit rates that will be applied to non-
reviewed companies covered by this order are those established in the 
Notice of Countervailing Duty Order and Amended Final Affirmative 
Countervailing Duty Determination: Certain Pasta from Italy, 61 FR 
38544 (July 24, 1996) or the company-specific rate published in the 
most recent final results of an administrative review in which a 
company participated. These rates shall apply to all non-reviewed 
companies until a review of a company assigned these rates is 
requested. In addition, for the period January 1, 1998 through December 
31, 1998, the assessment rates applicable to all non-reviewed companies 
covered by this order are the cash deposit rates in effect at the time 
of entry, except for Barilla and Gruppo which were excluded from the 
order during the original investigation.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Ad valorem
                          Company                                rate
                                                              (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Delverde S.p.A./Delverde S.r.L.............................         3.86
Tamma Industrie Alimentari S.r.L...........................         3.63
Pastificio Riscossa F.lli Mastromauro S.r.L................         1.14

[[Page 48487]]

 
Rummo S.p.A. Molino e Pastaficio...........................         0.53
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The calculations will be disclosed to the interested parties in 
accordance with section 351.224(b) of the regulations.
    Because we are rescinding the review with respect to La Molisana, 
the company-specific rate for this company remains unchanged.

Public Comment

    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 not later 
than five days after the date of filing the case briefs. 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. Any hearing, if requested, will be 
held two days after the scheduled date for submission of rebuttal 
briefs.
    Representatives of parties to the proceeding may request disclosure 
of proprietary information under administrative protective order no 
later than 10 days after the representative's client or employer 
becomes a party to the proceeding, but in no event later than the date 
the case briefs, under 19 CFR 351.309(c)(ii), are due.
    The Department will publish a notice of the final results of this 
administrative review within 120 days from the publication of these 
preliminary results.
    This administrative review and notice are in accordance with 
sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: July 31, 2000.
Richard W. Moreland,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 00-19948 Filed 8-7-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P