Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 10 / Friday, January 14, 2011 / Notices 2655 

results. In accordance with 19 CFR 

351.301(c)(1), if an interested party 

submits factual information less than 

ten days before, on, or after (if the 

Department has extended the deadline), 

the applicable deadline for submission 

of such factual information, an 

interested party has ten days to submit 

factual information to rebut, clarify, or 

correct the factual information no later 

than ten days after such factual 

information is served on the interested 

party. However, the Department notes 

that 19 CFR 351.301(c)(1), permits new 

information only insofar as it rebuts, 

clarifies, or corrects information 

recently placed on the record. See, e.g., 

Glycine from the People’s Republic of 

China: Final Results of Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review and Final 

Rescission, in Part, 72 FR 58809 

(October 17, 2007), and accompanying 

Issues and Decision Memorandum at 

Comment 2. Furthermore, the 

Department generally will not accept 

business proprietary information in 

either the surrogate value submissions 

or the rebuttals thereto, as the regulation 

regarding the submission of surrogate 

values allows only for the submission of 

publicly available information. 

Assessment Rates 

Upon issuing the final results of the 

review, the Department shall determine, 

and CBP shall assess, antidumping 

duties on all appropriate entries. The 

Department intends to issue assessment 

instructions to CBP 15 days after the 

date of publication of the final results of 

review. Pursuant to 19 CFR 

351.212(b)(1), we will calculate 

importer-specific ad valorem duty 

assessment rates based on the ratio of 

the total amount of the dumping 

margins calculated for the examined 

sales to the total entered value of those 

same sales. We will instruct CBP to 

assess antidumping duties on all 

appropriate entries covered by this 

review if any importer-specific 

assessment rate calculated in the final 

results of this review is above de 

minimis. However, the final results of 

this review shall be the basis for the 

assessment of antidumping duties on 

entries of merchandise covered by the 

final results of this review and for future 

deposits of estimated duties, where 

applicable. 

Cash Deposit Requirements 

The following cash deposit 

requirements, when imposed, will apply 

to all shipments of subject merchandise 

entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, 

for consumption on or after the 

publication of the final results of this 

administrative review, as provided by 

section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) The 

cash deposit rate for New-Tec will be 

the rate established in the final results 

of this administrative review; (2) for any 

previously reviewed or investigated PRC 

or non-PRC exporter, not covered in this 

administrative review, with a separate 

rate, the cash deposit rate will be the 

company-specific rate established in the 

most recent segment of this proceeding; 

(3) for all other PRC exporters, the cash 

deposit rate will continue to be the PRCwide rate (i.e., 383.60 percent); and (4) 

the cash-deposit rate for any non-PRC 

exporter of subject merchandise from 

the PRC will be the rate applicable to 

the PRC exporter that supplied that 

exporter. These cash deposit 

requirements, when imposed, shall 

remain in effect until further notice. 

Notification to Importers 

This notice serves as a preliminary 

reminder to importers of their 

responsibility under 19 CFR 

351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate 

regarding the reimbursement of 

antidumping duties prior to liquidation 

of the relevant entries during this 

review period. Failure to comply with 

this requirement could result in the 

Secretary’s presumption that 

reimbursement of antidumping duties 

occurred and the subsequent assessment 

of double antidumping duties. 

This administrative review and notice 

are in accordance with sections 

751(a)(1) and 777(i) of the Act and 19 

CFR 351.213. 

Dated: January 7, 2011. 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. 2011–791 Filed 1–13–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–357–812] 

Honey From Argentina: Preliminary 

Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: In response to requests by 

interested parties, the Department of 

Commerce (the Department) is 

conducting an administrative review of 

the antidumping duty order on honey 

from Argentina. The review covers 

imports of subject merchandise from 

three firms (see ‘‘Background’’ section of 

this notice for further explanation). The 

period of review (POR) is December 1, 

2008, through November 30, 2009. We 

preliminarily determine that sales of 

honey from Argentina have not been 

made below normal value (NV) by 

TransHoney S.A. (TransHoney), 

Compania Inversora Platense S.A. 

(CIPSA), or Patagonik S.A. (Patagonik) 

during the POR. If these preliminary 

results are adopted in our final results 

of administrative review, we will issue 

appropriate assessment instructions to 

U.S. Customs and Border Protection 

(CBP). Interested parties are invited to 

comment on these preliminary results. 

Parties who submit argument in this 

review are requested to submit with the 

argument: (1) A statement of the issues; 

(2) a brief summary of the argument; 

and (3) a table of authorities. 

DATES: Effective Date: January 14, 2011. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

David Cordell (Patagonik), Dena 

Crossland (CIPSA), or Patrick Edwards 

(TransHoney), AD/CVD Operations, 

Office 7, Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th 

Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., 

Room 7850, Washington, DC 20230; 

telephone (202) 482–0408, (202) 482– 

3362, or (202) 482–8029, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On December 10, 2001, the 

Department published the antidumping 

duty order on honey from Argentina. 

See Notice of Antidumping Duty Order: 

Honey From Argentina, 66 FR 63672 

(December 10, 2001). On December 1, 

2009, the Department published in the 

Federal Register its notice of 

opportunity to request an administrative 

review of this order. See Antidumping 

or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, 

or Suspended Investigation; 

Opportunity To Request Administrative 

Review, 74 FR 62743 (December 1, 

2009). In response, on December 31, 

2009, Asociacion de Cooperativas 

Argentinas (ACA), Nexco S.A. (Nexco), 

CIPSA, Patagonik, and TransHoney 

requested an administrative review of 

the antidumping duty order on honey 

from Argentina for the period December 

1, 2008, through November 30, 2009. In 

addition, on December 31, 2009, the 

American Honey Producers Association 

and Sioux Honey Association 

(collectively, petitioners) requested an 

administrative review of the 

antidumping duty order on honey from 

Argentina for the period December 1, 

2008, through November 30, 2009. 

Specifically, the petitioners requested 

that the Department conduct an 

administrative review of entries of 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

2656 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 10 / Friday, January 14, 2011 / Notices 

1 In accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(c), the 

Department deferred for one year the initiation of 

the administrative review with respect to ACA. See 

Honey From Argentina: Notice of Extension of Time 

Limit for Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission 

of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 75 FR 

55741, 55741 n.1 (September 14, 2010) (Honey 

Extension Notice). 

2The withdrawal of the request for review was 

submitted by ACA based on the Department’s 

notification in the Federal Register revoking the 

antidumping duty order with respect to honey 

exported by ACA effective December 1, 2008. 

Because the order covering honey from Argentina 

is revoked with respect to ACA, all entries of 

subject merchandise exported by ACA will be 

liquidated without regard to antidumping duties. 

Accordingly, there will be no relevant entries that 

might be subject to an antidumping review. See 

Honey from Argentina: Final Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and 

Determination to Revoke Order in Part, 75 FR 23674 

(May 4, 2010). 

3See Honey from Argentina: Final Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and 

Determination to Revoke Order in Part, 74 FR 

32107, 32108–09 (July 7, 2009) (06–07 Final 

Results). 

4For a detailed discussion of Patagonik’s 

relationship with Azul, see the ‘‘Affiliation’’ section 

below. 

subject merchandise made by 18 

Argentine producers/exporters. ACA, 

Nexco, CIPSA, Patagonik, and 

TransHoney were included in the 

petitioners’ request for review. 

On January 29, 2010, the Department 

initiated a review of 17 of the 18 

companies for which an administrative 

review was requested.1 See Initiation of 

Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 

Administrative Reviews, Request for 

Revocation in Part, and Deferral of 

Initiation of Administrative Review, 75 

FR 4770, 4772 (January 29, 2010) 

(Initiation Notice). 

On February 17, 2010, Mielar S.A. 

(Mielar) and Compania Apicola 

Argentina S.A. (CAA) submitted a letter 

certifying that during the POR, neither 

made any shipment, sale, or U.S. entry 

of subject merchandise, and requested 

that the Department rescind the 

administrative review with respect to 

Mielar and CAA. 

Also on February 17, 2010, the 

Department issued a memorandum to 

the file indicating its intention to limit 

the number of respondents selected for 

review and to select mandatory 

respondents based on CBP data for U.S. 

imports of Argentine honey during the 

POR. The Department encouraged all 

interested parties to submit comments 

regarding the use of CBP entry data for 

respondent selection purposes. See 

Memorandum to the File through 

Richard Weible, Director, Office 7, AD/ 

CVD Operations, regarding ‘‘Honey from 

Argentina—United States Customs and 

Border Protection Entry Data for 

Selection of Respondents for Individual 

Review,’’ dated February 17, 2010. 

On March 5, 2010, the Department 

selected the four producers/exporters 

with the largest export volume during 

the POR as mandatory respondents: 

HoneyMax S.A. (HoneyMax), Nexco, 

Patagonik, and TransHoney. See 

Memorandum to Richard Weible, 

‘‘Administrative Review of the 

Antidumping Duty Order on Honey 

from Argentina: Respondent Selection 

Memorandum,’’ dated March 5, 2010. 

On March 9, 2010, the Department 

issued its antidumping questionnaire to 

all four mandatory respondents. 

On March 31, 2010, and pursuant to 

19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), the petitioners 

timely withdrew their request for review 

of HoneyMax. 

On April 7, 2010, the petitioners and 

Nexco timely withdrew their requests 

for review of Nexco. 

On April 16, 2010, the petitioners 

timely withdrew their request for review 

with respect to all companies except 

TransHoney, Patagonik, CIPSA, and 

ACA. Accordingly, the Department 

informed interested parties of its intent 

to rescind the review for all companies 

except TransHoney, Patagonik, and 

CIPSA, to continue with its deferral of 

the review with respect to ACA, and to 

select CIPSA as a mandatory respondent 

in place of Nexco. See Memorandum to 

the File, ‘‘2008/2009 Administrative 

Review of the Antidumping Duty Order 

on Honey from Argentina: Selection of 

New Mandatory Respondent,’’ dated 

April 19, 2010. On April 19, 2010, the 

Department issued sections A, B, and C 

of its antidumping questionnaire to 

CIPSA. 

On April 29, 2010, ACA timely 

withdrew its request for review 

submitted on December 31, 2009.2

On September 14, 2010, the 

Department rescinded the 

administrative review with respect to 

fifteen companies: AGLH S.A., 

Algodonera Avellaneda S.A., Alimentos 

Naturales-Natural Foods, Alma Pura, 

Bomare S.A., CAA, El Mana S.A., 

Interrupcion S.A., Mielar, Miel Ceta 

SRL., Productos Afer S.A., Seabird 

Argentina S.A., HoneyMax, Nexco, and 

ACA. This rescission, in part, was based 

on the timely withdrawal of the request 

for review by the interested parties that 

requested the review. See Honey 

Extension Notice. Additionally, the 

Department extended the preliminary 

results of this administrative review to 

no later than January 7, 2011. Id. 

On October 6, 2010, the Department 

determined that a ‘‘particular market 

situation’’ with respect to the honey 

market existed in Argentina during the 

POR for certain exporters under review. 

See Memorandum to Richard Weible, 

Director AD/CVD Operations, Office 7, 

from David Cordell and Dena Crossland, 

entitled ‘‘Whether a particular market 

situation exists such that the Argentine 

honey market is not an appropriate 

comparison market for establishing 

normal value,’’ dated October 6, 2010 

(Particular Market Situation 

Memorandum). See also the discussion 

of ‘‘Selection of Comparison Market’’ 

under ‘‘Normal Value’’ below. 

Below is the company-specific 

background information with respect to 

Patagonik, CIPSA, and TransHoney. 

Patagonik 

On April 6, 2010, Patagonik filed its 

response to the Department’s section A 

questionnaire (Patagonik AQR). On May 

7, 2010, Patagonik filed its response to 

sections B and C of the Department’s 

questionnaire. Between April 2010 and 

November 2010, the Department issued 

supplemental questionnaires to 

Patagonik, to which it filed timely 

responses. 

In accordance with section 

773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Tariff Act of 1930, 

as amended (the Act), we automatically 

initiated a cost investigation in this 

segment of the proceeding with respect 

to Patagonik because we disregarded 

sales by Patagonik that were below the 

cost of production (COP) in the most 

recently completed segment of this 

proceeding.3 On June 22, 2010, the 

Department selected the two largest 

beekeeper suppliers (by volume) of 

honey to Patagonik as cost respondents. 

See Memorandum to Richard Weible, 

‘‘Selection of Cost of Production 

Respondents,’’ dated June 22, 2010 (Cost 

Respondents Selection Memorandum). 

We also recommended examining 

Patagonik’s affiliated middleman, Azul 

Agronegocios S.A. (Azul).4

On July 1, 2010, the Department 

revised its selection of the cost 

respondents in response to Patagonik’s 

July 1, 2010 letter noting that Azul had 

incorrectly identified one of the selected 

cost respondents. See ‘‘Revision of Cost 

of Production Respondent Selection: 

Addendum to Memorandum of June 22, 

2010,’’ dated July 1, 2010 (Revision of 

Cost Respondent Selection 

Memorandum). 

On July 14, 2010, the Department 

issued its cost questionnaire to the 

selected beekeepers and middleman to 

which Patagonik’s suppliers responded 

on August 25, 2010. The Department 

issued a supplemental cost 

questionnaire to Patagonik’s suppliers 

in November 2010 and December 2010, 

to which they timely responded. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 10 / Friday, January 14, 2011 / Notices 2657 

CIPSA 

On May 24, 2010, CIPSA filed its 

response to section A of the 

Department’s questionnaire (CIPSA 

AQR). On June 9, 2010, CIPSA filed its 

response to sections B and C of the 

Department’s questionnaire. Between 

July 2010 and October 2010, the 

Department issued supplemental 

questionnaires to CIPSA, to which it 

filed timely responses. 

TransHoney 

On April 26, 2010, TransHoney filed 

its response to the Department’s section 

A questionnaire (TransHoney AQR). On 

May 7, 2010, TransHoney filed its 

response to sections B and C of the 

Department’s questionnaire 

(TransHoney BQR and TransHoney 

CQR). Between May 2010 and October 

2010, the Department issued 

supplemental questionnaires to 

TransHoney, to which it filed timely 

responses. On June 8, 2010, TransHoney 

also filed comments regarding the 

identification of organic honey versus 

standard honey. 

Period of Review 

The POR is December 1, 2008, 

through November 30, 2009. 

Tolling of Deadlines 

As explained in the memorandum 

from the Deputy Assistant Secretary 

(DAS) for Import Administration, the 

Department exercised its discretion to 

toll deadlines for the duration of the 

closure of the federal government from 

February 5, 2010 through February 12, 

2010. Thus, all deadlines in this 

segment of the proceeding were 

extended by seven days. See 

Memorandum to the Record from 

Ronald Lorentzen, DAS for Import 

Administration, regarding ‘‘Tolling of 

Administrative Deadlines As a Result of 

the Government Closure During the 

Recent Snowstorm,’’ dated February 12, 

2010. 

On September 14, 2010, the 

Department published in the Federal 

Register a notice extending the time 

limits for the preliminary results of this 

review. See Honey Extension Notice, 75 

FR at 55741. This extension established 

the deadline for these preliminary 

results as January 7, 2011. Id. at 55742. 

Scope of the Order 

The merchandise covered by the order 

is honey from Argentina. The products 

covered are natural honey, artificial 

honey containing more than 50 percent 

natural honey by weight, preparations of 

natural honey containing more than 50 

percent natural honey by weight, and 

flavored honey. The subject 

merchandise includes all grades and 

colors of honey whether in liquid, 

creamed, comb, cut comb, or chunk 

form, and whether packaged for retail or 

in bulk form. 

The merchandise covered by the order 

is currently classifiable under 

subheadings 0409.00.00, 1702.90.90, 

and 2106.90.99 of the Harmonized 

Tariff Schedule of the United States 

(HTSUS). Although the HTSUS 

subheadings are provided for 

convenience and customs purposes, the 

Department’s written description of the 

merchandise under the order is 

dispositive. 

Product Comparisons 

In accordance with section 771(16) of 

the Act, we considered all sales of 

honey covered by the description in the 

‘‘Scope of the Order’’ section of this 

notice, supra, which were sold in the 

appropriate third-country markets 

during the POR to be the foreign like 

product for the purpose of determining 

appropriate product comparisons to 

honey sold in the United States. For our 

discussion of market viability and 

selection of comparison markets, see the 

‘‘Normal Value’’ section of this notice, 

infra. We matched products based on 

the physical characteristics reported by 

CIPSA, Patagonik, and TransHoney. 

Where there were no sales of identical 

merchandise in the third-country 

market to compare to U.S. sales, we 

compared U.S. sales to the next most 

similar foreign like product on the basis 

of the characteristics and reporting 

instructions listed in the antidumping 

duty questionnaire and instructions, or 

to constructed value (CV), as 

appropriate. 

Level of Trade 

In accordance with section 

773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, to the extent 

practicable, we determine NV based on 

sales in the comparison market at the 

same level of trade (LOT) as export price 

(EP) or the constructed export price 

(CEP). The NV LOT is based on the 

starting price of the sales in the 

comparison market or, when NV is 

based on CV, that of the sales from 

which we derive selling, general and 

administrative expenses and profit. See 

also 19 CFR 351.412(c)(1)(iii). For CEP, 

it is the level of the constructed sale 

from the exporter to an affiliated 

importer after the deductions required 

under section 772(d) of the Act. See 19 

CFR 351.412(c)(1)(ii). For EP, it is the 

starting price. See 19 CFR 

351.412(c)(1)(i). In this review, all 

mandatory respondents claimed only EP 

sales. 

To determine whether NV sales are at 

a different LOT than EP, we examine 

stages in the marketing process and 

selling functions along the chain of 

distribution between the producer and 

the unaffiliated customer. See 19 CFR 

351.412(c)(2). If the comparison market 

sales are at a different LOT and the 

difference affects price comparability, as 

manifested in a pattern of consistent 

price differences between the sales on 

which NV is based and comparison 

market sales at the LOT of the export 

transaction, we make a LOT adjustment 

under section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act. 

CIPSA reported that all of its thirdcountry and U.S. market sales were 

made to importers/packers at essentially 

the same LOT. See CIPSA AQR at A–10 

to A–11. Patagonik also reported that all 

of its third-country and U.S. market 

sales were made to importers/packers at 

essentially the same LOT. See Patagonik 

AQR at A–11 to A–13. TransHoney 

reported a single LOT for all U.S. and 

third-country market sales and the same 

channel of distribution. See TransHoney 

AQR at A–13. 

The Department has determined that 

differing channels of distribution, alone, 

do not qualify as separate LOTs when 

selling functions performed for each 

customer class are sufficiently similar. 

See Notice of Preliminary Results and 

Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review: Ninth 

Administrative Review of the 

Antidumping Duty Order on Certain 

Pasta from Italy, 71 FR 45017, 45022 

(August 8, 2006) (unchanged in Notice 

of Final Results of the Ninth 

Administrative Review of the 

Antidumping Duty Order on Certain 

Pasta from Italy, 72 FR 7011 (February 

14, 2007)); see also 19 CFR 

351.412(c)(2). Patagonik and CIPSA 

reported a single LOT for all U.S. and 

third-country sales. Patagonik and 

CIPSA claimed that their selling 

activities in both markets are essentially 

identical, and nothing on the record 

appears to suggest otherwise. 

TransHoney also reported a single LOT 

for all its U.S. and third-country market 

sales. Therefore, for TransHoney, 

Patagonik and CIPSA, we preliminarily 

determine that all reported sales are 

made at the same LOT, and have not 

made a LOT adjustment. See Patagonik 

AQR at A–11 to A–13, and CIPSA AQR 

at A–10 to A–12. For a further 

discussion of LOT, see Memorandum to 

the File, ‘‘Analysis Memorandum for 

Preliminary Results of the Antidumping 

Duty Review on Honey from Argentina 

for Patagonik S.A., dated January 7, 

2011 (Patagonik Preliminary Analysis 

Memorandum); Memorandum to the 

File, ‘‘Analysis Memorandum for 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

2658 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 10 / Friday, January 14, 2011 / Notices 

5See ‘‘Affiliation’’ discussion section below. 

6As noted above, TransHoney reported that it had 

no domestic sales during the POR. 

7See ‘‘Affiliation’’ section, infra. 

Preliminary Results of the Antidumping 

Duty Review on Honey from Argentina 

for Compania Inversora Platense S.A., 

dated January 7, 2011 (CIPSA 

Preliminary Analysis Memorandum); 

and Memorandum to the File, ‘‘Analysis 

Memorandum for Preliminary Results of 

the Antidumping Duty Review on 

Honey from Argentina for TransHoney 

S.A., dated January 7, 2011 (TransHoney 

Preliminary Analysis Memorandum). 

Date of Sale 

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.401(i), the 

Department normally will use the date 

of invoice, as recorded in the exporter’s 

or producer’s records kept in the 

ordinary course of business, as the date 

of sale, but may use a date other than 

the date of invoice if it better reflects the 

date on which the material terms of sale 

are established. For Patagonik and 

CIPSA, the Department used the invoice 

date as the date of sale for both its 

comparison and U.S. market sales for 

these preliminary results. Patagonik and 

CIPSA assert that changes in ordered 

terms have occurred in the past and 

their customers know they can request 

changes to an order prior to shipment. 

See Patagonik’s June 14, 2010, 

supplemental questionnaire response at 

BC–5 and 6, and CIPSA’s August 2, 

2010, supplemental questionnaire 

response at 14, 22, and 23. As in past 

segments of this proceeding, we 

determine that there is potential for 

change to the essential terms of sale 

between the contract date and invoice 

date and therefore invoice date 

continues to be the appropriate date of 

sale with respect to Patagonik’s sales in 

the U.S. and comparison markets. 

Additionally, we preliminarily 

determine that invoice date is the 

appropriate date of sale with respect to 

CIPSA’s sales in the U.S. and thirdcountry markets because of the potential 

for change to the essential terms of sale 

between the order date and invoice date. 

However, in some instances for 

Patagonik’s sales, shipment occurred 

prior to invoice and, consistent with 

past segments of this proceeding and the 

Department’s practice, we used the 

shipment date as the date of sale for 

those sales. 

For TransHoney, the Department, 

consistent with its practice, used the 

reported date of invoice as the date of 

sale for both the third-country and U.S. 

markets. We thoroughly examined the 

date of sale issue for TransHoney and 

found that changes to the essential 

terms of sale can and did occur between 

the order date and invoice date, which 

is coincident with the date of actual 

shipment. See TransHoney BQR at B–12 

and TransHoney CQR at C–11; see also 

TransHoney AQR at A–16 and 

TransHoney July 26, 2010, 

supplemental questionnaire response at 

5–6. Consequently, we preliminarily 

find that invoice date is the appropriate 

date of sale with respect to 

TransHoney’s and its affiliated entity’s 5

sales in the U.S. and comparison 

markets. 

Export Price 

Section 772(a) of the Act defines EP 

as ‘‘the price at which the subject 

merchandise is first sold (or agreed to be 

sold) before the date of importation by 

the producer or exporter of subject 

merchandise outside of the United 

States to an unaffiliated purchaser in the 

United States or to an unaffiliated 

purchaser for exportation to the United 

States, as adjusted under {section 772(c) 

of the Act}.’’ Section 772(b) of the Act 

defines CEP as ‘‘the price at which the 

subject merchandise is first sold (or 

agreed to be sold) in the United States 

before or after the date of importation by 

or for the account of the producer or 

exporter of such merchandise or by a 

seller affiliated with the producer or 

exporter, to a purchaser not affiliated 

with the producer or exporter,’’ as 

adjusted under sections 772(c) and (d). 

For purposes of this administrative 

review, CIPSA, Patagonik and 

TransHoney classified their U.S. sales as 

EP because all of their sales were made 

before the date of importation directly to 

unaffiliated purchasers in the U.S. 

market. For purposes of these 

preliminary results, we have accepted 

these classifications. We based EP on 

prices to unaffiliated customers in the 

United States and made adjustments for 

movement expenses. 

Normal Value 

1. Selection of Comparison Market 

In accordance with section 

773(a)(1)(C) of the Act, to determine 

whether there was a sufficient volume 

of sales in the home market to serve as 

a viable basis for calculating NV (i.e., 

the aggregate volume of home market 

sales of the foreign like product is 

greater than or equal to five percent of 

the aggregate volume of U.S. sales), we 

compared Patagonik, CIPSA, and 

TransHoney’s respective aggregate 

volume of home market sales of the 

foreign like product to their respective 

aggregate volume of U.S. sales of subject 

merchandise. Patagonik and CIPSA’s 

volume of home market sales were both 

greater than five percent of the aggregate 

volume of U.S. sales; however, 

TransHoney had no home market sales 

during the POR. As a result, we 

preliminarily find that TransHoney’s 

home market does not provide a viable 

basis for calculating NV. 

With respect to CIPSA and Patagonik, 

section 773(a)(1)(c)(iii) of the Act 

provides that the Department may 

determine that home market sales are 

inappropriate as a basis for determining 

NV if the particular market situation 

would not permit a proper comparison 

with EP and CEP. In its supplemental 

questionnaires dated April 16, 2010, 

and July 8, 2010, the Department asked 

Patagonik and CIPSA to provide further 

information in order to evaluate the 

market situation in Argentina with 

respect to honey, to which responses 

were filed on May 18, 2010, and August 

2, 2010, respectively. 

On October 6, 2010, the Department 

determined that a particular market 

situation does, in fact, exist with respect 

to CIPSA’s and Patagonik’s sales of 

honey in Argentina, rendering the 

Argentine market inappropriate for 

purposes of determining NV.6 See 

Particular Market Situation 

Memorandum. 

When sales in the home market are 

not suitable to serve as the basis for NV, 

section 773(a)(1)(B)(ii) of the Act 

provides that sales to a third-country 

market may be utilized if: (i) The prices 

in such market are representative; (ii) 

the aggregate quantity of the foreign like 

product sold by the producer or 

exporter in the third-country market is 

five percent or more of the aggregate 

quantity of the subject merchandise sold 

in or to the United States; and (iii) the 

Department does not determine that a 

particular market situation in the thirdcountry market prevents a proper 

comparison with the EP or CEP. In 

terms of volume of sales (and with five 

percent or more of sales by quantity to 

the United States), TransHoney reported 

Germany as its largest third country 

market, CIPSA reported Italy as its 

third-country market during the POR, 

and Patagonik reported the United 

Kingdom as its third-country market 

during the POR. 

The record shows the aggregate 

quantity of TransHoney’s and its 

affiliate 7 Einsof Trade S.A. (Einsof)’s 

sales to Germany is greater than five 

percent of TransHoney’s sales to the 

United States. In addition, the 

Department preliminarily determines 

there is no evidence on the record to 

demonstrate that these prices in 

Germany are not representative. See 

TransHoney AQR at Exhibit A.1. Nor is 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 10 / Friday, January 14, 2011 / Notices 2659 

there evidence that any other third 

country market to which TransHoney 

sells would offer greater similarity of 

product to that sold to the United States. 

Further, we find there is no particular 

market situation in Germany with 

respect to TransHoney or Einsof that 

would prevent a proper comparison to 

EP. As a result, we preliminarily find 

TransHoney’s and its affiliate’s sales to 

Germany serve as the most appropriate 

basis for NV. 

In addition to looking at volume, we 

also examined product similarity for 

Patagonik and CIPSA, and found that 

the product sold to the largest third 

country market was similar to that sold 

to the United States. See Patagonik’s 

May 18, 2010, supplemental section A 

questionnaire response at A–1 to A–3, 

CIPSA AQR at A–17, and CIPSA’s June 

9, 2010, section B questionnaire 

response at Exhibit B.3. Thus, the 

Department determines to select Italy as 

the appropriate comparison market for 

CIPSA and the United Kingdom as the 

appropriate comparison market for 

Patagonik. 

Therefore, NV for all companies is 

based on its third-country sales to 

unaffiliated purchasers made in 

commercial quantities and in the 

ordinary course of trade. For NV, we 

used the prices at which the foreign like 

product was first sold for consumption 

in the usual commercial quantities, in 

the ordinary course of trade, and at the 

same LOT as the EP. We calculated NV 

as noted in the ‘‘Price-to-Price 

Comparisons’’ section of this notice, 

infra. 

2. Cost of Production 

In the previous segment of this 

proceeding, the Department disregarded 

sales made by Patagonik that were 

found to be below its COP. See 06–07 

Final Results. Therefore, pursuant to 

section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act, there 

were reasonable grounds to believe or 

suspect that the respondent made sales 

of the foreign like product in the home 

market at prices below the COP within 

the meaning of section 773(b) of the Act, 

as below cost sales made by Patagonik 

were disregarded in the most recently 

completed investigation. Id. On June 22, 

2010, the Department selected the two 

largest beekeeper suppliers (by volume) 

of honey to Patagonik as cost 

respondents. See Cost Respondents 

Selection Memorandum and Revision of 

Cost Respondent Selection 

Memorandum. Accordingly, on July 14, 

2010, the Department requested that 

Patagonik’s beekeepers and middleman 

respond to section D (Cost of 

Production/Constructed Value) of the 

Department’s antidumping duty 

questionnaire. 

A. Cost of Production Analysis 

To calculate a COP and CV for the 

merchandise under consideration, the 

Department selected the two largest 

beekeepers by volume and the largest 

middleman, all of whom provided 

honey to Patagonik during the POR. See 

Cost Respondents Selection 

Memorandum and Revision of Cost 

Respondent Selection Memorandum. 

B. Calculation of COP 

We relied on the COP data submitted 

by the two beekeeper respondents and 

the middleman in their questionnaire 

responses. For additional details, see 

Memorandum to Neal M. Halper, 

Director of Office of Accounting, ‘‘Cost 

of Production and Constructed Value 

Calculation Adjustments for the 

Preliminary Results—Patagonik S.A.’s 

Beekeeper Respondents/Collector of 

Honey,’’ dated January 7, 2011. 

C. Test of Third-Country Prices and 

Results of the Cost of Production Test 

We calculated a simple average COP 

using the COP of Patagonik’s two 

respondent suppliers (Beekeeper 1 and 

Beekeeper 2) and the costs of the 

middleman supplier. This average COP 

was applied to these beekeepers as well 

as to all other beekeeper suppliers from 

whom information was not requested. In 

determining whether to disregard thirdcountry market sales made at prices 

below the COP, in accordance with 

sections 773(b)(1)(A) and (B) of the Act, 

we examined: (1) Whether, within an 

extended period of time, such sales 

were made in substantial quantities; and 

(2) whether such sales were made at 

prices which permitted the recovery of 

all costs within a reasonable period of 

time in the normal course of trade. 

Where less than 20 percent of the 

respondent’s third-country market sales 

of a given model (i.e., control number, 

or CONNUM) were at prices below the 

COP during the POR, we did not 

disregard any below-cost sales of that 

model because we determined that the 

below-cost sales were not made within 

an extended period of time and in 

‘‘substantial quantities.’’ Where 20 

percent or more of the respondent’s 

third-country market sales of a given 

model were at prices less than COP 

during the POR, we disregarded the 

below-cost sales because: (1) They were 

made within an extended period of time 

in ‘‘substantial quantities,’’ in 

accordance with sections 773(b)(2)(B) 

and (C) of the Act; and (2) based on our 

comparison of prices to the COP for the 

POR, they were at prices which would 

not permit the recovery of all costs 

within a reasonable period of time, in 

accordance with section 773(b)(2)(D) of 

the Act. 

We found Patagonik did not have any 

models for which 20 percent or more of 

sales volume (by weight) were below 

cost during the POR. Therefore we did 

not disregard any of Patagonik’s thirdcountry sales and included all such 

sales in our calculation of NV. 

Affiliation 

According to section 771(33) of the 

Act, the Department determines 

affiliation using a variety of criteria. 

TransHoney submitted, as part of its 

sales database, the third-country market 

sales made by another Argentine 

exporter, Einsof, a company with which 

TransHoney claims to be affiliated. To 

determine affiliation between 

companies, the Department analyzed 

TransHoney’s responses and found that, 

pursuant to section 771(33)(F) of the 

Act, TransHoney and Einsof are 

affiliated because they are under 

common control. Specific matters 

related to the common control are 

proprietary in nature. For further 

details, see Memorandum to Richard 

Weible, ‘‘Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review of Honey from 

Argentina: Analysis of the Relationship 

Between TransHoney S.A. (TransHoney) 

and Einsof Trade S.A. (Einsof),’’ dated 

January 7, 2011 (TransHoney/Einsof 

Affliation Memorandum). 

Furthermore, in certain circumstances 

the Department will treat two or more 

affiliated producers as a single entity 

and determine a single weightedaverage margin for that entity, in order 

to determine margins accurately and to 

prevent manipulation that would 

undermine the effectiveness of the 

antidumping law. See 19 CFR 

351.401(f). 

While 19 CFR 351.401(f) applies only 

to producers, the Department has found 

it to be instructive in determining 

whether non-producers should be 

collapsed and has used the criteria in 

the regulation in its analysis. See 

TransHoney/Einsof Affliation 

Memorandum; see e.g., Honey from 

Argentina: Final Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review, 70 FR 19926, 19926 (April 15, 

2005); and Notice of Final 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value: Certain Frozen and Canned 

Warmwater Shrimp From Brazil, 69 FR 

76910 (December 23, 2004) and 

accompanying Issues and Decision 

Memorandum at Comment 5. The U.S. 

Court of International Trade (CIT) has 

found that collapsing exporters is 

consistent with a ‘‘reasonable 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

2660 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 10 / Friday, January 14, 2011 / Notices 

8Where we note ‘‘that certain claimed direct 

expenses in the third-country market are being reclassified as either indirect selling expenses or as 

part of the cost of production, for the reasons 

outlined in the accompanying Analysis 

Memoranda.’’ 

interpretation of the {antidumping 

duty} statute.’’ See Hontex Enterprises, 

Inc. v. United States, 248 F. Supp. 2d. 

1323, 1338 (CIT 2003) (Hontex). The CIT 

further noted that ‘‘to the extent that 

Commerce has followed its market 

economy collapsing regulations the 

{non-market economy (NME)} exporter 

collapsing methodology is necessarily 

permissible.’’ See Hontex, 248 F. Supp. 

2d at 1342. 

During the POR, TransHoney and 

Einsof collectively purchased honey for 

export sales from beekeepers and other 

collectors. See TransHoney AQR at A– 

3, A–8, and A–9. As a result, none of the 

affiliated parties possess production 

facilities that manufacture subject 

merchandise. Rather, they act as 

resellers of the product. In addition, 

TransHoney and Einsof did not operate 

independently as evidenced by shared 

facilities, employees and management, 

See TransHoney AQR at A–10 and 

TransHoney’s June 8, 2010, 

supplemental questionnaire response at 

SA–5. Given these factors, the 

Department preliminarily concludes 

that the factors laid out in 19 CFR 

351.401(f)(2)(ii) and (iii) are relevant to 

the issue of whether TransHoney and 

Einsof are affiliated exporters/resellers 

that should be treated as a single entity 

for purposes of establishing dumping 

duties. The Department preliminarily 

finds that, based on management 

overlap and intertwined relations, the 

relationship between these companies is 

such that both should be treated as a 

single entity for purposes of this 

administrative review and should 

receive a single antidumping duty rate. 

For further details, see TransHoney/ 

Einsof Affiliation Memorandum. 

With respect to Patagonik, Patagonik 

reported that under the Department’s 

rules, Patagonik is considered to be 

affiliated with Azul, a honey collector, 

warehouser, processor, and reseller. See 

Patagonik’s AQR at A–4. Patagonik cites 

Azul’s 2008 acquisition of the assets of 

Colmenares Santa Rosa, the affiliated 

company from which Patagonik 

previously obtained warehousing and 

inventory management services. Id. 

Patagonik notes that during the POR, 

Azul only supplied Patagonik with 

honey although Patagonik did purchase 

honey from other unaffiliated 

beekeepers during the POR. Id. at A–3 

and A–5. In addition, the testing and 

classification of the honey is carried out 

by a laboratory owned by Patagonik, 

which is located at Azul’s warehouse. 

Id. at A–5. Patagonik also reported that 

Azul was granted an export license in 

November 2009. See Patagonik’s 

November 29, 2010, supplemental 

questionnaire response at 1. 

In terms of ownership, Patagonik 

states Azul is owned by six equal 

partners, one of whom, Mauricio Bign ̃ e, 

is both president of Azul and Patagonik, 

and manages certain operations of Azul. 

Id. at A–6. In terms of Patagonik, the 

company states that Patagonik is owned 

by two equal shareholders, but that 

Mauricio Bign ̃ e served as president of 

Patagonik and that the other investor 

had no day-to-day management 

responsibilities during the POR. Id. at 

A–4 and 6. 

The Department has analyzed 

Patagonik’s responses and, pursuant to 

section 771(33)(F) of the Act, 

determines that Patagonik and Azul are 

affiliated. The Department analyzed 

whether to determine to treat Patagonik 

and Azul as a single entity for purposes 

of this administrative review and 

whether Patagonik and Azul should 

receive a single antidumping duty rate. 

The Department preliminarily 

concludes that the factors laid out in 19 

CFR 351.401(f)(2)(ii) and (iii) are 

relevant to the issue of whether 

Patagonik and Azul are affiliated 

exporters/resellers that should be 

treated as a single entity. The 

Department preliminarily finds, based 

on management overlap and intertwined 

operations, as well as the fact that Azul 

also has an export license and thus has 

the ability to export on its own account, 

that these companies should be treated 

as a single entity for purposes of this 

administrative review and should 

receive a single antidumping duty rate. 

For further details, see Memorandum to 

Richard Weible, ‘‘Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review of Honey from 

Argentina: Analysis of the Relationship 

Between Patagonik S.A. (Patagonik) and 

Azul Agronegocios S.A. (Azul),’’ dated 

January 7, 2011. 

Price-to-Price Comparisons 

Patagonik 

We based NV on the third-country 

prices to unaffiliated purchasers. We 

made adjustments, where applicable, for 

movement expenses in accordance with 

section 773(a)(6)(B) of the Act. Where 

appropriate, we made circumstance-ofsale adjustments for credit pursuant to 

section 773(a)(6)(C) of the Act. We also 

made adjustments, where applicable, for 

other direct selling expenses, in 

accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C) of 

the Act. Additionally, we adjusted gross 

unit price for billing adjustments and 

freight reveune, where applicable. See 

19 CFR 351.401(c). 

We preliminarily reclassified some of 

Patagonik’s reported direct selling 

expenses (namely, certain testing 

expenses) as indirect selling expenses, 

consistent with our treatment of testing 

expenses in prior reviews with respect 

to Patagonik. See, e.g., Honey From 

Argentina: Preliminary Results of New 

Shipper Review, 71 FR 67850, 67853 

(November 24, 2006) (New Shipper 

Preliminary Results) 8 (unchanged in 

Honey from Argentina: Final Results of 

New Shipper Review, 72 FR 19177 

(April 17, 2007)). Thus, we have not 

included certain of Patagonik’s testing 

expenses among the direct selling 

expenses for which we made 

adjustments in these preliminary 

results. For more information, see 

Patagonik Preliminary Analysis 

Memorandum. 

CIPSA 

We calculated NV based on prices to 

unaffiliated purchasers in the thirdcountry market and matched U.S. sales 

to NV. We made adjustments, where 

applicable, for movement expenses in 

accordance with section 773(a)(6)(B) of 

the Act. Where appropriate, we made 

circumstances-of-sale adjustments for 

credit and other direct selling expenses 

(e.g., certain Argentine governmentrequested testing expenses) in 

accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C) of 

the Act. Additionally, we reclassified 

one of CIPSA’s reported direct selling 

expenses (e.g., certain customerrequested testing expenses) as an 

indirect selling expense. We also 

disregarded a certain claimed direct 

selling expense (i.e., blending), which 

we determined in prior decisions is 

more appropriately treated as a COP 

expense. See, e.g., New Shipper 

Preliminary Results, 71 FR at 67853; see 

also CIPSA Preliminary Analysis 

Memorandum. 

TransHoney 

We calculated NV based on prices to 

unaffiliated purchasers on the thirdcountry market and matched U.S. sales 

to NV. We made adjustments, where 

applicable, for movement expenses in 

accordance with section 773(a)(6)(B) of 

the Act. Where appropriate, we made 

circumstances-of-sale adjustments for 

credit and other direct selling expenses 

(e.g., certain Argentine governmentrequested testing expenses) in 

accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C) of 

the Act. Additionally, we reclassified 

one of TransHoney’s reported direct 

selling expenses (namely, certain 

customer-requested testing expenses) as 

an indirect selling expense. We also 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 10 / Friday, January 14, 2011 / Notices 2661 

disregarded a certain claimed direct 

selling expenses (i.e., blending), which 

we determined in prior decisions is 

more appropriately treated as a COP 

expense. See, e.g., New Shipper 

Preliminary Results, 71 FR at 67853; see 

also TransHoney Preliminary Analysis 

Memorandum. 

With respect to TransHoney’s request 

to incorporate organic honey as a model 

match criterion, the Department 

preliminarily determines not to consider 

organic source as a criterion for 

matching honey sold in the thirdcountry and U.S. markets because 

TransHoney did not provide sufficient 

evidence (i.e., quantitative and 

qualitative features, etc.) to support its 

claim that there is a physical difference 

reflected in a cost differential between 

organic and non-organic honey. 

Therefore, we found an insufficient 

basis to consider the request for 

purposes of our product matching 

criteria. Accordingly, we have 

preliminarily disregarded the field 

ORGANICT/U and are relying solely on 

the product characteristics specified in 

the Department’s questionnaire (i.e., 

type, color, and form). 

Currency Conversions 

The Department’s preferred source for 

daily exchange rates is the Federal 

Reserve Bank. See Preliminary Results 

of Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review: Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip 

in Coils from France, 68 FR 47049, 

47055 (August 7, 2003) (unchanged in 

Notice of Final Results of Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review: Stainless 

Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils From 

France, 68 FR 69379 (December 12, 

2003)). However, the Federal Reserve 

Bank does not track or publish exchange 

rates for the Argentine peso. Therefore, 

we made currency conversions from 

Argentine pesos to U.S. dollars based on 

the daily exchange rates from Factiva, a 

Dow Jones retrieval service. Factiva 

publishes exchange rates for Monday 

through Friday only. We used the rate 

of exchange on the most recent Friday 

for conversion dates involving Saturday 

through Sunday where necessary. 

Preliminary Results of Review 

As a result of our review, we 

preliminarily determine the following 

weighted-average dumping margins 

exists for the period December 1, 2008, 

through November 30, 2009: 

Exporter Weighted-Average margin 

(percentage) 

Compania 

Inversora 

Platense S.A.

0.00. 

Exporter Weighted-Average margin 

(percentage) 

Patagonik S.A. 

and Azul 

Agronegocios 

S.A.

0.27 (de minimis). 

TransHoney S.A. 

and Einsof 

Trade S.A.

0.00. 

Disclosure and Request for Public 

Hearing and Comments 

The Department will disclose the 

calculations performed within five days 

of the date of publication of this notice 

in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). 

An interested party may request a 

hearing within thirty days of 

publication. See 19 CFR 351.310(c). Any 

hearing, if requested, will be held 37 

days after the date of publication, or the 

first business day thereafter, unless the 

Department alters the date pursuant to 

19 CFR 351.310(d). Interested parties 

may submit case briefs or written 

comments no later than 30 days after the 

date of publication of these preliminary 

results of review. Rebuttal briefs and 

rebuttals to written comments, limited 

to issues raised in the case briefs and 

comments may be filed no later than 35 

days after the date of publication of this 

notice. Parties who submit arguments in 

these proceedings are requested to 

submit with the argument: (1) A 

statement of the issues, (2) a brief 

summary of the argument, and (3) a 

table of authorities. Further, parties 

submitting case briefs, rebuttal briefs, 

and written comments should provide 

the Department with an additional copy 

of the public version of any such 

argument on diskette. The Department 

will issue final results of this 

administrative review, including the 

results of our analysis of the issues in 

any such case briefs, rebuttal briefs, and 

written comments or at a hearing, 

within 120 days of publication of these 

preliminary results. 

Assessment 

The Department shall determine, and 

CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on 

all appropriate entries. In accordance 

with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), where 

entered values were reported, we 

calculated importer-specific ad valorem 

assessment rates for the merchandise 

based on the ratio of the total amount of 

antidumping duties calculated for the 

examined sales made during the POR to 

the total customs value of the sales used 

to calculate those duties. Where entered 

values were not reported, we calculated 

importer- or customer- (where the 

importer was unknown) specific perunit assessment rates for the 

merchandise based on the ratio of the 

total amount of antidumping duties 

calculated for the examined sales made 

during the POR to the total quantity of 

the sales used to calculate those duties. 

These rates will be assessed uniformly 

on all of Patagonik’s, CIPSA’s, and 

TransHoney’s entries made during the 

POR. The Department intends to issue 

assessment instructions to CBP 15 days 

after the date of publication of the final 

results of this review. 

The Department clarified its 

‘‘automatic assessment’’ regulation on 

May 6, 2003. See Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Proceedings: 

Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68 

FR 23954 (May 6, 2003). This 

clarification will apply to entries of 

subject merchandise during the POR 

produced by companies included in 

these final results of review for which 

the reviewed companies did not know 

their merchandise was destined for the 

United States. In such instances, we will 

instruct CBP to liquidate unreviewed 

entries at the all-others rate if there is no 

rate for the intermediate company(ies) 

involved in the transaction. 

Cash Deposit Requirements 

The following cash deposit 

requirements will be effective upon 

completion of the final results of this 

administrative review for all shipments 

of honey from Argentina entered, or 

withdrawn from warehouse, for 

consumption on or after the publication 

date of the final results of this 

administrative review, as provided by 

section 751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) The cash 

deposit rate for each specific company 

listed above will be that established 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) for any previously-reviewed or 

investigated company not listed above, 

the cash deposit rate will continue to be 

the company-specific rate published for 

the most recent period; (3) if the 

exporter is not a firm covered in this 

review or the less-than-fair-value 

investigation, but the manufacturer is, 

the cash deposit rate will be the rate 

established for the most recent period 

for the manufacturer of the 

merchandise; and (4) if neither the 

exporter nor the manufacturer is a firm 

covered in this or any previous review 

conducted by the Department, the cash 

deposit rate will be the all-others rate 

from the investigation (30.24 percent). 

See Notice of Antidumping Duty Order; 

Honey From Argentina, 66 FR at 63673. 

These cash deposit requirements, when 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

2662 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 10 / Friday, January 14, 2011 / Notices 

imposed, shall remain in effect until 

further notice. 

Notification to Importers 

This notice also serves as a 

preliminary reminder to importers of 

their responsibility under 19 CFR 

351.402(f) to file a certificate regarding 

the reimbursement of antidumping 

duties prior to liquidation of the 

relevant entries during this review 

period. Failure to comply with this 

requirement could result in the 

Secretary’s presumption that 

reimbursement of antidumping duties 

occurred and the subsequent assessment 

of double antidumping duties. 

We are issuing and publishing this 

notice in accordance with sections 

751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. 

Dated: January 7, 2011. 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. 2011–790 Filed 1–13–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

Minority Business Development 

Agency 

National Advisory Council for Minority 

Business Enterprise; Meeting 

AGENCY: Minority Business 

Development Agency (MBDA), 

Department of Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice of an open meeting. 

SUMMARY: The National Advisory 

Council for Minority Business 

Enterprise (NACMBE) will hold its 

inaugural meeting to provide an 

orientation of new committee members, 

discuss administrative procedures and 

future work products to fulfill the 

NACMBE’s charter mandate. 

DATES: The meeting will be held on 

Wednesday, February 2, 2011, from 10 

a.m. to 5 p.m. Eastern Standard Time 

(EST). 

ADDRESSES: This meeting will be held at 

the U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 

Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, 

DC 20230. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bria 

Bailey, Office of Legislative, Education 

and Intergovernmental Affairs, Minority 

Business Development Agency, U.S. 

Department of Commerce at (202) 482– 

2943; e-mail: bbailey@mbda.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background: The Secretary of 

Commerce established the NACMBE 

pursuant to his discretionary authority 

and in accordance with the Federal 

Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 

U.S.C. App. 2) on April 28, 2010. The 

NACMBE is to provide the Secretary of 

Commerce with consensus advice from 

the private sector on a broad range of 

policy issues that affect minority 

businesses and their ability to 

successfully access the domestic and 

global marketplace. 

Topics to be considered: The agenda 

for the February 2, 2011, NACMBE 

meeting is as follows: 

1. Welcome and introduction of 

council members. 

2. Council orientation and Ethics 

Briefing. 

3. Discussion of NACMBE priorities. 

4. Establish working groups. 

5. Public comment period. 

Public Participation: The meeting is 

open to the public from 1 p.m.–5 p.m. 

Public seating is limited and available 

on a first-come, first-served basis. 

Members of the public wishing to attend 

the meeting must notify Bria Bailey at 

the contact information above by 5 p.m. 

EST on Thursday, January 27, 2011, in 

order to preregister for clearance into 

the building. Please specify any requests 

for reasonable accommodation at least 

five (5) business days in advance of the 

meeting. Last minute requests will be 

accepted, but may be impossible to fill. 

A limited amount of time, from 4:15 

p.m.–4:45 p.m. will be available for 

pertinent brief oral comments from 

members of the public attending the 

meeting. Any member of the public may 

submit pertinent written comments 

concerning the NACMBE’s affairs at any 

time before or after the meeting. 

Comments may be submitted to the 

National Advisory Council on Minority 

Business Enterprises Office of 

Legislative, Education and 

Intergovernmental Affairs, Minority 

Business Development Agency, Room 

5065, 1401 Constitution Avenue, NW., 

Washington, DC 20230. To be 

considered during the meeting, 

comments must be received no later 

than 5 p.m. EST on Thursday, January 

27, 2011, to ensure transmission to the 

Council prior to the meeting. Comments 

received after that date will be 

distributed to the members but may not 

be considered at the meeting. 

This meeting is physically accessible 

to people with disabilities. Requests for 

sign language interpretation or other 

auxiliary aids should be directed to Bria 

Bailey, at (202) 482–2943, or bbailey@ 

mbda.gov, at least five (5) days before 

the meeting date. 

Copies of the NACMBE open meeting 

minutes will be available to the public 

upon request. 

Dated: January 11, 2011. 

David A. Hinson, 

National Director, Minority Business 

Development Agency. 

[FR Doc. 2011–757 Filed 1–13–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Institute of Standards and 

Technology 

Visiting Committee on Advanced 

Technology 

AGENCY: National Institute of Standards 

and Technology, Department of 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice of partially closed 

meeting. 

SUMMARY: The Visiting Committee on 

Advanced Technology (VCAT), National 

Institute of Standards and Technology 

(NIST), will meet Tuesday, February 1, 

2011, from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. and 

Wednesday, February 2, 2011, from 8:30 

a.m. to 2 p.m. The Visiting Committee 

on Advanced Technology is composed 

of fifteen members appointed by the 

Director of NIST who are eminent in 

such fields as business, research, new 

product development, engineering, 

labor, education, management 

consulting, environment, and 

international relations. 

DATES: The VCAT will meet on 

Tuesday, February 1, 2011, from 8:30 

a.m. to 5 p.m. and Wednesday, February 

2, 2011, from 8:30 a.m. to 2 p.m. The 

portion of the meeting that is closed to 

the public will take place on 

Wednesday, February 2, 2011, from 8:30 

a.m. to 10:45 a.m. 

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held in 

the Portrait Room, Administration 

Building, at NIST, Gaithersburg, 

Maryland. Please note admittance 

instructions under the SUPPLEMENTARY

INFORMATION section of this notice. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Stephanie Shaw, Visiting Committee on 

Advanced Technology, National 

Institute of Standards and Technology, 

Gaithersburg, Maryland 20899–1060, 

telephone number (301) 975–2667. Ms. 

Shaw’s e-mail address is 

stephanie.shaw@nist.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Authority: 15 U.S.C. 278. 

The purpose of this meeting is to 

review and make recommendations 

regarding general policy for the 

Institute, its organization, its budget, 

and its programs within the framework 

of applicable national policies as set 

forth by the President and the Congress. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES