SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

On April 9, 2026, Commerce published in the Federal Register the Preliminary Results of this administrative review and invited comments from interested parties.^[1] For a detailed description of the events that occurred since the Preliminary Results, see the Issues and Decision Memorandum.^[2] 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), which is available to registered users at access.trade.gov. In addition, a complete version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly at access.trade.gov/​frnotices.

Scope of the Order ^[3]

The products covered by the scope of the Order are forged steel fluid end blocks. For a full description of the scope of the Order, see the Issues and Decision Memorandum.

Analysis of Comments Received

Commerce addressed all issues raised in interested parties' case and rebuttal briefs in the Issues and Decision Memorandum. A list of the issues raised by parties, to which Commerce responded in the Issues and Decision Memorandum, is provided in the appendix to this notice.

Methodology

Commerce conducted this administrative 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 to be 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.^[4] For a complete description of the methodology underlying all of Commerce's conclusions, including our reliance, in part, on facts otherwise available, including adverse facts available, pursuant to sections 776(a) and (b) of the Act, see the Issues and Decision Memorandum.

Changes Since the Preliminary Results

Based on a review of the record and comments received from interested parties regarding the Preliminary Results, and for the reasons explained in the Issues and Decision Memorandum, we made certain changes to the calculations for Lucchini Mame Forge S.p.A. (Lucchini) and non-selected companies for these final results of review. However, no changes were made to the methodology used in the Preliminary Results for Metalcam S.p.A. (Metalcam). Further, we are applying facts available, with adverse inferences, to Officina Meccanica Roselli S.r.l. (Roselli). For a more detailed discussion of comments, see the Issues and Decision Memorandum.

Companies Not Selected for Individual Review

The statute does not address the establishment of a rate to be applied to companies not selected for individual examination when Commerce limits its examination in an administrative review pursuant to section 777A(e)(2) of the Act. However, Commerce's regulation at 19 CFR 351.109(g) states that Commerce will determine the rate for non-selected companies by following the process set forth in 19 CFR 351.109(f)(1)-(2), which generally parallels the process for determining the all-others rate in an investigation under section 705(c)(5) of the Act. Section 705(c)(5)(A)(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.109(f)(1) instruct Commerce, as a general rule, to calculate the all-others rate equal to the weighted average of the countervailable subsidy rates established for exporters and producers individually investigated, excluding any zero or de minimis countervailable subsidy rates, and any rates determined entirely on the basis of facts available.

Cogne Acciai Speciali S.p.A. (CAS) is a non-selected company under review with reviewable entries, and not found to be cross-owned with a mandatory respondent. Because the rates calculated for the mandatory respondents, Lucchini and Metalcam, were above de ( printed page 60085) minimis and not based entirely on facts available, we continue to apply to CAS the weighted average of the net subsidy rates calculated for the mandatory respondents, which are based on the publicly-ranged sales data submitted by Lucchini and Metalcam.^[5] This methodology is consistent with 19 CFR 351.109(g) and 351.109(f)(2)(ii).^[6]

Final Results of the Administrative Review

We find the following net countervailable subsidy rates exist for the period January 1, 2024, through December 31, 2024:

Disclosure

Commerce intends to disclose the calculations performed in connection with these final results of review to parties in this review within five days after public announcement of the final results or, if there is no public announcement, within five days of the date of publication of this notice in the Federal Register , in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).

Assessment Requirements

In accordance with section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.212(b)(2), Commerce has determined, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess, countervailing duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review.^[9] Commerce intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP no earlier than 35 days after publication of the final results of this review in the Federal Register . If a timely summons is filed at the U.S. Court of International Trade, the assessment instructions will direct CBP not to liquidate relevant entries until the time for parties to file a request for a statutory injunction has expired ( i.e., within 90 days of publication).

Cash Deposit Requirements

In accordance with section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act, Commerce intends to instruct CBP to collect cash deposits of estimated countervailing duties with regard to shipments of subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of the final results of this administrative review, as follows: (1) the cash deposit rate for the companies listed above will be equal to the company-specific estimated individual countervailable subsidy rates determined in the final results of this review, except if the rate is less than 0.50 percent and, therefore, de minimis within the meaning of 19 CFR 351.106(c)(1), in which case the cash deposit rate will be zero; (2) if both the producer and exporter of the subject merchandise have company-specific estimated subsidy rates assigned, and their rates differ, then the applicable cash deposit rate will be the higher of these two rates; (3) if either the producer or the exporter, but not both, of the subject merchandise has a company-specific estimated subsidy rate assigned, the applicable cash deposit rate will be that company's company-specific rate; and (4) the cash deposit rate for all other producers and exporters will continue to be 3.52 percent, the all-others subsidy rate established in the investigation.^[10] These cash deposit requirements, effective upon publication of these final results, shall remain in effect until further notice.

Administrative Protective Order

This notice also serves as a final reminder to parties subject to an 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 the return or destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order, is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation subject to sanction.

Notification to Interested Parties

The final results are issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(5).

Appendix

List of Topics Discussed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum

I. Summary

II. Background

III. Scope of the Order

IV. Non-Selected Rate

V. Subsidies Valuation

VI. Use of Facts Otherwise Available and Application of Adverse Inference

VII. Analysis of Programs

VIII. Discussion of the Issues

Comment 1: Whether To Find Certain Programs De Facto Specific

Comment 2: Whether To Countervail the Free Allowances Under European Union Emissions Trading System Allowances

Comment 3: Whether To Countervail the Electricity Purchases Through the Interconnector Program

Comment 4: Whether To Revise its Benefit Calculation for Metalcam with Respect to the Tax Credit for Energy Users and Tax Credit for Gas Users

Comment 5: Whether To Rescind the Administrative Review with Respect to Roselli

Comment 6: Whether To Countervail Tax Credits Used by Metalcam During the POR to Offset Taxes Otherwise Due Rather than the Amount Report in Metalcam's Tax Returns Filed in the POR

IX. Recommendation

91 FR 60084