Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 152 / Monday, August 8, 2011 / Notices 48125 

In this review, there are no 

circumstances present to indicate that 

the selected margin is not appropriate as 

AFA. The margin we have selected is 

the margin we determined for Terphane 

in the LTFV investigation and 

represents the highest margin alleged in 

the petition. This is also the margin we 

assigned to Terphane in the 

immediately preceding administrative 

review. Moreover, because Terphane 

refused to respond to the Department’s 

questionnaire, there is no information 

on the record of this review that 

demonstrates that 44.36 percent is not 

an appropriate AFA rate for Terphane. 

Thus, the Department considers this 

dumping margin relevant for the use of 

AFA for this administrative review. 

As the AFA rate is both reliable and 

relevant, we find it has probative value. 

Therefore, with the information at our 

disposal for the corroboration of this 

AFA rate, we find the rate of 44.36 

percent is corroborated to the extent 

practicable in accordance with section 

776(c) of the Act. We preliminarily find 

that use of the rate of 44.36 percent as 

AFA is sufficiently high to ensure that 

Terphane does not benefit from failing 

to cooperate in our review by choosing 

not to respond to the Department’s 

antidumping questionnaire and 

otherwise participate in the 

Department’s administrative review. 

Preliminary Results of Review 

We preliminarily determine that the 

following antidumping duty margin 

exists for the period November 1, 2009, 

through October 31, 2010: 

Producer/Exporter Margin 

(percent) 

Terphane, Inc. ...................... 44.36 

Disclosure and Public Comment 

Interested parties may submit case 

briefs no later than 30 days after the 

date of publication of these preliminary 

results of review. See 19 CFR 

351.309(c)(1)(ii). Rebuttal briefs, limited 

to issues raised in the case briefs, may 

be filed no later than five days after the 

time limit for filing the case briefs. See 

19 CFR 351.309(d)(1). Parties who 

submit case or rebuttal briefs in this 

proceeding are requested to submit with 

each argument a statement of the issue. 

Parties are also encouraged to provide a 

summary of the arguments not to exceed 

five pages and a table of statutes, 

regulations, and cases cited. See 19 CFR 

351.309(c)(2). Furthermore, the 

Department requests that parties 

provide the public versions of their case 

and rebuttal briefs in electronic format 

(e.g., Microsoft Word, .pdf, etc.). 

Interested parties who wish to request 

a hearing or to participate if one is 

requested must submit a written request 

to the Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration within 30 days of 

publication of these preliminary results. 

See 19 CFR 351.310(c). Requests should 

contain the following information: (1) 

The party’s name, address, and 

telephone number; (2) the number of 

participants; and (3) a list of the issues 

to be discussed. Issues raised in the 

hearing will be limited to those raised 

in the case and rebuttal briefs. 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)(1). 

The Department intends to issue the 

final results of this administrative 

review, which will include the results of 

its analysis of issues raised in any such 

comments, within 120 days of 

publication of these preliminary results, 

pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the 

Act. 

Assessment Rates 

Upon issuance of the final results, the 

Department will determine, and CBP 

shall assess, antidumping duties on all 

appropriate entries. We preliminarily 

intend to instruct CBP to apply a 

dumping margin of 44.36 percent ad 

valorem to PET film from Brazil that 

was produced and/or exported by 

Terphane and entered, or withdrawn 

from warehouse, for consumption 

during the POR. The Department 

intends to issue appropriate assessment 

instructions directly to CBP 15 days 

after the date of publication of the final 

results of this review. 

Cash Deposit Requirements 

The following cash deposit 

requirements will be effective upon 

publication of the notice of final results 

of administrative review for all 

shipments of the subject merchandise 

entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, 

for consumption on or after the 

publication date of the final results, as 

provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the 

Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for 

Terphane will be the rate established in 

the final results of this review; (2) for 

other previously reviewed or 

investigated companies, 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 

LTFV 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; (4) if neither the 

exporter nor the manufacturer has its 

own rate, the cash deposit rate will be 

28.72 percent, the all-others rate 

established in the Final Determination. 

These cash deposit requirements, when 

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)(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. 

These preliminary results of 

administrative review are issued and 

published in accordance with sections 

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

Dated: July 29, 2011. 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. 2011–20072 Filed 8–5–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–475–818] 

Certain Pasta From Italy: Notice of 

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 certain 

pasta (‘‘pasta’’) from Italy for the period 

of review (‘‘POR’’) July 1, 2009, through 

June 30, 2010. This review covers two 

producers/exporters of subject 

merchandise: Molino e Pastificio 

Tomasello S.p.A. (‘‘Tomasello’’) and 

Pastificio Lucio Garofalo S.p.A. 

(‘‘Garofalo’’). We preliminarily 

determine that during the POR, 

Tomasello and Garofalo sold subject 

merchandise at less than normal value 

(‘‘NV’’). If these preliminary results are 

adopted in the final results of this 

administrative review, we will instruct 

U.S. Customs and Border Protection 

(‘‘CBP’’) to assess antidumping duties 

on all appropriate entries of subject 

merchandise during the POR. Interested 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

48126 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 152 / Monday, August 8, 2011 / Notices 

1See Notice of Antidumping Duty Order and 

Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less 

Than Fair Value: Certain Pasta From Italy, 61 FR 

38547 (July 24, 1996). 2See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, 

Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity 

To Request Administrative Review, 75 FR 38074 

(July 1, 2010). 3The petitioners include New World Pasta 

Company, Dakota Growers Pasta Company and 

American Italian Pasta Company (collectively, 

‘‘Petitioners’’). 4See Initiation of Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and 

Deferral of Initiation of Administrative Review, 75 

FR 53274, (August 31, 2010) (‘‘Initiation Notice’’). 5See Memorandum from Christopher Hargett to 

Melissa Skinner titled ‘‘Customs and Border 

Protection Data for Selection of Respondents for 

Individual Review,’’ dated September 13, 2010. 

6See Memorandum from Christopher Hargett to 

Melissa Skinner titled ‘‘Selection of Respondents 

for Individual Review,’’ dated October 10, 2010. 

7See Certain Pasta from Italy: Notice of Partial 

Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review, 76 FR 23973 (April 29, 2011) (‘‘Partial 

Rescission Notice’’). 

8The antidumping duty questionnaire issued to 

respondents includes Section A (i.e., the section 

covering general information about the company) of 

the antidumping duty questionnaire, Section B (i.e., 

the section covering comparison market sales), 

Section C (i.e., the section covering U.S. sales), and 

Section D (i.e., the section covering the cost of 

production (‘‘COP’’) and constructed value (‘‘CV’’)). 

9See Certain Pasta From Italy: Extension of Time 

Limits for the Preliminary Results of Fourteenth 

Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 76 FR 

10879 (February 28, 2011). 

parties are invited to comment on these 

preliminary results. 

DATES: Effective Date: August 8, 2011. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joy 

Zhang or George McMahon AD/CVD 

Operations, Office 3, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; 

telephone: (202) 482–1168 or (202) 482– 

1167, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On July 24, 1996, the Department 

published in the Federal Register the 

antidumping duty order on pasta from 

Italy.1 On July 1, 2010, the Department 

published a notice of opportunity to 

request an administrative review of the 

antidumping duty order on certain pasta 

from Italy.2 Pursuant to requests from 

interested parties,3 the Department 

published in the Federal Register the 

notice of initiation of this antidumping 

duty administrative review with respect 

to the following companies for the 

period July 1, 2009, through June 30, 

2010: Agritalia S.r.L. (‘‘Agritalia’’), 

Domenico Paone fu Erasmo S.p.A. 

(‘‘Erasmo’’), Industria Alimentare 

Colavita, S.p.A. (‘‘Indalco’’), Labor S.r.L. 

(‘‘Labor’’), Molino e Pastificio 

Tomasello, S.p.A. (‘‘Tomasello’’), PAM 

S.p.A. and its affiliate, Liguori Pastificio 

dal 1820 SpA (‘‘PAM’’), P.A.P. SNC Di 

Pazienza G.B. & C. (‘‘P.A.P.’’), Premiato 

Pastificio Afeltra S.r.L. (‘‘Afeltra’’), Pasta 

Zara SpA (‘‘Zara’’), Pastificio Di Martino 

Gaetano & F.lli SpA (‘‘Di Martino’’), 

Pastificio Fabianelli S.p.A. 

(‘‘Fabianelli’’), Pastificio Felicetti SrL 

(‘‘Felicetti’’), Pastificio Lucio Garofalo 

S.p.A. (‘‘Garofalo’’), Pastificio Riscossa 

F.lli Mastromauro S.p.A. (‘‘Riscossa’’), 

Rummo S.p.A. Molino e Pastificio 

(‘‘Rummo’’), and Rustichella d’Abruzzo 

S.p.A (‘‘Rustichella’’).4

On September 13, 2010, the 

Department announced its intention to 

select mandatory respondents based on 

CBP data.5 On October 10, 2010, the 

Department selected Garofalo and 

Tomasello as mandatory respondents.6

On November 12, 2010, Afeltra, 

Agritalia, Di Martino, Felicetti, Labor, 

PAM, Erasmo, P.A.P., Riscossa, 

Rustichella, and Zara (collectively 

‘‘certain non-mandatory respondents’’) 

requested that the Department extend 

the deadline to withdraw from the 

instant review for 45 days. The 

Department declined this request to 

modify the 90-day deadline for parties 

to withdraw their requests for review. 

See the Department’s letter to David L. 

Simon, counsel for the certain nonmandatory respondents, dated 

November 24, 2010. On November 29, 

2010, Di Martino, Felicetti, and Zara 

withdrew its request for a review. 

As a result of withdrawals of request 

for review, we rescinded this review, in 

part, with respect to Di Martino, 

Felicetti, and Zara.7 The instant review 

continues with respect to Agritalia, 

Erasmo, Indalco, Labor, Tomasello, 

PAM, P.A.P., Afeltra, Fabianelli, 

Garofalo, Riscossa, Rummo, and 

Rustichella. Id. As referenced above, 

Garofalo and Tomasello were selected as 

mandatory respondents. 

Between October 2010 and July 2011, 

the Department issued its initial 

questionnaire 8 and supplemental 

questionnaires to each respondent, as 

applicable. The Department issued 

Section D to Garofalo and Tomasello 

because we disregarded sales by these 

companies that were below the COP in 

the most recently completed 

administrative review of each respective 

company. We received responses to the 

Department’s initial questionnaire on 

December 10, 2010 and December 20, 

2010, from Garofalo. We received 

responses to the Department’s initial 

questionnaire on December 10, 2010 

from Tomasello. We issued section A, B, 

C, and D supplemental questionnaires, 

to which Garofalo and Tomasello 

responded during December 2010, 

February, March, April, May and July 

2011. 

On February 28, 2011, the Department 

fully extended the due date for the 

preliminary results of review from April 

2, 2011, to August 1, 2011.9

The Department conducted the sales 

verification of Tomasello from June 6, 

2011, through June 10, 2011, in 

Casteldaccia, Italy. The Department 

conducted the cost verification of 

Tomasello from June 13, 2011, through 

June 17, 2011, in Casteldaccia, Italy. We 

verified the information upon which we 

relied in making our preliminary 

determination. 

Scope of the Order 

Imports covered by this order are 

shipments of certain non-egg dry pasta 

in packages of five pounds four ounces 

or less, whether or not enriched or 

fortified or containing milk or other 

optional ingredients such as chopped 

vegetables, vegetable purees, milk, 

gluten, diastasis, vitamins, coloring and 

flavorings, and up to two percent egg 

white. The pasta covered by 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 order 

are refrigerated, frozen, or canned 

pastas, as well as all forms of egg pasta, 

with the exception of non-egg dry pasta 

containing up to two percent egg white. 

Also excluded are imports of organic 

pasta from Italy that are accompanied by 

the appropriate certificate issued by the 

Instituto Mediterraneo Di Certificazione, 

by QC&I International Services, by 

Ecocert Italia, by Consorzio per il 

Controllo dei Prodotti Biologici, by 

Associazione Italiana per l’Agricoltura 

Biologica, by Codex S.r.L., by 

Bioagricert S.r.L., or by Instituto per la 

Certificazione Etica e Ambientale. 

Effective July 1, 2008, gluten free pasta 

is also excluded from this order. See 

Certain Pasta from Italy: Notice of Final 

Results of Antidumping Duty Changed 

Circumstances Review and Revocation, 

in Part, 74 FR 41120 (August 14, 2009). 

The merchandise subject to this order 

is currently classifiable under items 

1902.19.20 and 1901.90.9095 of the 

Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the 

United States (‘‘HTSUS’’). Although the 

HTSUS subheadings are provided for 

convenience and customs purposes, the 

written description of the merchandise 

subject to the order is dispositive. 

Product Comparisons 

In accordance with section 771(16) of 

the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (‘‘the 

Act’’), we first attempted to match 

contemporaneous sales of products sold 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 152 / Monday, August 8, 2011 / Notices 48127 

in the United States and comparison 

markets that were identical with respect 

to the following characteristics: (1) Pasta 

shape; (2) wheat species; (3) milling 

form; (4) protein content; (5) additives; 

and (6) enrichment. When there were no 

sales of identical merchandise in the 

comparison market to compare with 

U.S. sales, we compared U.S. sales with 

the most similar product based on the 

characteristics listed above, in 

descending order of priority. When 

there were no appropriate comparison 

market sales of comparable 

merchandise, we compared the 

merchandise sold in the United States to 

CV, in accordance with section 773(a)(4) 

of the Act. 

For purposes of the preliminary 

results, where appropriate, we have 

calculated the adjustment for 

differences in merchandise based on the 

difference in the variable cost of 

manufacturing (‘‘VCOM’’) between each 

U.S. model and the most similar home 

market model selected for comparison. 

Comparisons to Normal Value 

To determine whether sales of certain 

pasta from Italy were made in the 

United States at less than NV, we 

compared the export price (‘‘EP’’) of 

each sale to the NV, as described in the 

‘‘Export Price’’ and ‘‘Normal Value’’ 

sections of this notice. 

Pursuant to sections 773(a)(1)(B)(i) 

and 777A(d)(2) of the Act, for Tomasello 

and Garofalo, we compared the EPs of 

individual transactions, as applicable, to 

the weighted-average NV of the foreign 

like product in the appropriate 

corresponding calendar month where 

there were sales made in the ordinary 

course of trade, as discussed in the 

‘‘Cost of Production Analysis’’ section 

below. 

Export Price 

For the price to the United States, we 

used export price, as defined in section 

772(a) of the Act. Section 772(a) defines 

EP as the price at which the subject 

merchandise is first 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. We calculated an EP 

for Tomasello’s and Garofalo’s U.S. sales 

because they were made directly to the 

first unaffiliated purchasers in the 

United States prior to importation and 

constructed export price (‘‘CEP’’) was 

not otherwise warranted based on the 

facts on the record. 

For EP sales, we made deductions 

from the starting price (gross unit price), 

where appropriate, for movement 

expenses in accordance with section 

772(c)(2) of the Act. Movement 

expenses included foreign inland freight 

(from plant or warehouse, and from 

plant to port of exportation), foreign 

warehousing expenses, foreign 

brokerage, international freight, U.S. 

brokerage and handling and charges, 

and U.S. customs duties. With respect to 

Tomasello, we capped the 

transportation recovery amounts by the 

amount of U.S. freight expenses, 

incurred on the subject merchandise, in 

accordance with our practice. See 

Certain Orange Juice from Brazil: Final 

Results and Partial Rescission of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review, 73 FR 46584 (August 11, 2008), 

and accompanying Issues and Decision 

Memorandum (‘‘2005–2007 OJ from 

Brazil’’) at Comment 7. 

In addition, when appropriate, we 

increased EP by an amount equal to the 

countervailing duty (‘‘CVD’’) rate 

attributed to export subsidies in the 

most recently completed CVD 

administrative review, in accordance 

with section 772(c)(1)(C) of the Act. 

Normal Value 

A. Selection of Comparison Markets 

Section 773(a)(1) of the Act directs 

that NV be based on the price of the 

foreign like product sold in the home 

market, provided that the merchandise 

is sold in sufficient quantities (or value, 

if quantity is inappropriate) and that 

there is no particular market situation 

that prevents a proper comparison with 

the export price or constructed export 

price. The statute contemplates that 

quantities (or value) normally be 

considered insufficient if they are less 

than five percent of the aggregate 

quantity (or value) of sales of the subject 

merchandise to the United States. To 

determine whether there was a 

sufficient volume of sales in the home 

market to serve as a viable basis for 

calculating NV, we compared each 

respondent’s volume of home market 

sales of the foreign like product to the 

volume of its U.S. sales of the subject 

merchandise. Pursuant to section 

773(a)(1)(B) of the Act, because Garofalo 

and Tomasello each had an aggregate 

volume of home market sales of the 

foreign like product that was greater 

than five percent of its aggregate volume 

of U.S. sales of the subject merchandise, 

we determined that the home market 

was viable for both Garofalo and 

Tomasello. 

Ordinary Course of Trade 

On January 14, 2011, petitioners 

submitted comments alleging that a 

‘‘particular market situation’’ existed 

with respect to sales made in Italy by 

Garofalo. In petitioners’ April 13, 2011, 

comments, petitioners stated that they 

withdraw their January 14 allegation of 

a particular market situation, under the 

stipulation that the Department conduct 

an analysis for the alleged aberrational 

home market sales under the ordinary 

course of trade provision of the statute. 

See petitioners’ April 13, 2011, 

comments at 2–3, footnote 1. We have 

examined Garofalo’s sales within the 

context of the ordinary course of trade 

provision; therefore, we are not 

addressing the ‘‘particular market 

situation’’ allegation that petitioners 

withdrew. 

Petitioners argue that Garofalo’s sales 

of pasta in Italy with a protein content 

of less than 12.5 percent should be 

excluded from the calculation of normal 

value because petitioners allege that 

they are sales that are outside the 

ordinary course of trade. Petitioners 

claim that these sales have unusual 

product specifications, aberrational 

prices and unusual terms of sale. Id. at 

2. We have considered the comments 

submitted by petitioners and Garofalo. 

Based on our analysis of Garofalo’s 

home market sales data and the 

comments submitted on the record, we 

find Garofalo’s home market sales to be 

within the ordinary course of trade. 

Because the discussion of this issue 

contains business proprietary 

information (‘‘BPI’’), see memorandum 

from the Team through Melissa Skinner, 

Director, Office 3, to Christian Marsh, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for 

Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 

Operations, titled, ‘‘Analysis 

Memorandum for the Preliminary 

Results of the Fourteenth 

Administrative Review of the 

Antidumping Duty Order on Certain 

Pasta from Italy (2009–2010)’’ for 

additional details. 

B. Arm’s-Length Sales 

Garofalo reported that all of its sales 

to the Italian market are to unaffiliated 

customers; however, it made a few sales 

to employees and shareholders and 

coded such sales as affiliated sales. See 

Garofalo’s Section B Questionnaire 

Response, dated December 20, 2010, at 

page B–11. In accordance with the 

Department’s practice, we have 

excluded such sales from consideration. 

See Garofalo’s Prelim Sales Analysis 

Memorandum, dated August 1, 2011. 

C. Cost of Production Analysis 

Because we disregarded below-cost 

sales in the most recently completed 

segment of the proceeding, we had 

reasonable grounds to believe or suspect 

that home market sales of the foreign 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

48128 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 152 / Monday, August 8, 2011 / Notices 

10See Certain Pasta From Italy: Notice of 

Amended Final Results of the Thirteenth 

Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 76 FR 

6601, February 7, 2011 (‘‘Pasta Thirteen’’); see also 

Notice of Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission 

of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and 

Intent Not to Revoke in Part: For the Sixth 

Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty 

Order on Certain Pasta from Italy, 68 FR 47020, 

47029, August 7, 2003, and Notice of Final Results 

and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty 

Order on Certain Pasta from Italy and 

Determination Not to Revoke in Part, 69 FR 6255, 

February 10, 2004. 

like product by the respondents were 

made at prices below the COP during 

the POR, in accordance with section 

773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act. Therefore, we 

required Garafalo and Tomasello to 

submit a response to Section D of the 

Department’s questionnaire. The 

Department disregarded sales below the 

COP in the last completed review in 

which Garofalo and Tomasello 

participated.10

1. Calculation of COP 

In accordance with section 773(b)(3) 

of the Act, we calculated the weightedaverage COP by model based on the sum 

of materials, fabrication, general and 

administrative (‘‘G&A’’), and interest 

expenses. We relied on the COP data 

submitted by both Garofalo and 

Tomasello except the following 

adjustments. We increased Garofalo’s 

cost of manufacturing (‘‘COM’’) to 

account for the unreconciled difference 

between the COM from its normal books 

and records and the reported COM. For 

more details, see Memorandum from 

James Balog to Neal M. Halper, Director 

of Office of Accounting, titled ‘‘Cost of 

Production and Constructed Value 

Calculation Adjustments for the 

Preliminary Results—Pastificio Lucio 

Garofalo S.p.A,’’ dated August 1, 2011. 

Also, we have increased Tomasello’s 

reported direct materials and conversion 

costs to incorporate a revised yield loss 

ratio resulting from a revised total 

production quantity for finished pasta 

products. For additional details, see 

Memorandum from Stephanie Arthur to 

Neal M. Halper, Director of Office of 

Accounting, titled ‘‘Cost of Production 

and Constructed Value Calculation 

Adjustments for the Preliminary 

Results—Molino e Pastificio Tomasello, 

S.p.A.,’’ dated August 1, 2011. 

Based on the review of record 

evidence, Garofalo and Tomasello did 

not appear to experience significant 

changes in COM during the POR. 

Therefore, we followed our normal 

methodology of calculating an annual 

weighted-average cost. 

2. Test of Comparison Market Prices 

We compared the weighted-average 

COPs for the respondents to their home 

market sales prices of the foreign like 

product, as required under section 

773(b) of the Act, to determine whether 

these sales had been made at prices 

below the COP within an extended 

period of time (i.e., normally a period of 

one year) in substantial quantities and 

whether such prices were sufficient to 

permit the recovery of all costs within 

a reasonable period of time. On a modelspecific basis, we compared the COP to 

the home market prices, less any 

applicable movement charges, 

discounts, rebates, and direct and 

indirect selling expenses. 

3. Results of COP Test 

We disregard below-cost sales where: 

(1) 20 percent or more of the 

respondent’s sales of a given product 

during the POR were made at prices 

below the COP in accordance with 

sections 773(b)(2)(B) and (C) of the Act; 

and (2) based on comparisons of price 

to weighted-average COPs for the POR, 

we determine that the below-cost sales 

of the product were at prices that would 

not permit recovery of all costs within 

a reasonable time period, in accordance 

with section 773(b)(2)(D) of the Act. We 

found that Tomasello and Garofalo 

made sales below cost and we 

disregarded such sales where 

appropriate. See Tomasello and 

Garofalo Prelim Cost Memorandum. 

D. Calculation of Normal Value Based 

on Comparison Market Prices 

We calculated NV based on ex-works, 

free on board (‘‘FOB’’) or delivered 

prices to comparison market customers. 

We made deductions from the starting 

price, when appropriate, for discounts 

and rebates. We deducted home market 

packing costs and added U.S. packing 

costs, in accordance with sections 

773(a)(6)(A) and (B) of the Act. We also 

deducted home market movement 

expenses pursuant to section 

773(a)(6)(B) of the Act. In addition, we 

made adjustments for differences in 

circumstances of sale (‘‘COS’’) pursuant 

to section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act. 

Specifically, we made adjustments to 

normal value for comparison to 

Tomasello’s and Garofalo’s EP 

transactions by deducting direct selling 

expenses incurred for home market 

sales (i.e., credit expenses) and adding 

U.S. direct selling expenses (i.e., credit 

expenses) and U.S. commissions. See 

section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act, and 

19 CFR 351.410(c). We also made 

adjustments for Garofalo and Tomasello, 

in accordance with 19 CFR 351.410(e), 

for indirect selling expenses incurred in 

the home market or the United States 

where commissions were granted on 

sales in one market but not in the other, 

the ‘‘commission offset.’’ Specifically, 

where commissions are incurred in one 

market, but not in the other, we will 

limit the amount of such allowance to 

the amount of either the selling 

expenses incurred in the one market or 

the commissions allowed in the other 

market, whichever is less. 

When comparing U.S. sales with 

comparison market sales of similar, but 

not identical, merchandise, we also 

made adjustments for physical 

differences in the merchandise in 

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

of the Act and 19 CFR 351.411. We 

based this adjustment on the difference 

in the VCOM for the foreign like 

product and subject merchandise, using 

weighted-average costs. 

Sales of pasta purchased by Garofalo 

from unaffiliated producers and resold 

in the comparison market were 

disregarded. See Garofalo Sales Analysis 

Memo. 

E. Level of Trade 

In accordance with section 

773(a)(1)(B) of the Act, we determine 

NV based on sales in the comparison 

market at the same level of trade 

(‘‘LOT’’) as the EP and CEP sales, to the 

extent practicable. When there are no 

sales at the same LOT, we compare U.S. 

sales to comparison market sales at a 

different LOT. When NV is based on CV, 

the NV LOT is that of the sales from 

which we derive SG&A expenses and 

profit. 

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.412(c)(2), to 

determine whether comparison market 

sales were at a different LOT, we 

examine stages in the marketing process 

and selling functions along the chain of 

distribution between the producer and 

the unaffiliated (or arm’s-length 

affiliated) customers. The Department 

identifies the LOT based on: The 

starting price or constructed value (for 

normal value); the starting price (for EP 

sales); and the starting price, as adjusted 

under section 772(d) of the Act (for CEP 

sales). If the comparison-market sales 

were at a different LOT and the 

differences affect price comparability, as 

manifested in a pattern of consistent 

price differences between the sales on 

which NV is based and comparisonmarket sales at the LOT of the export 

transaction, we will make a LOT 

adjustment under section 773(a)(7)(A) of 

the Act. 

Finally, if the NV LOT is more remote 

from the factory than the CEP LOT and 

there is no basis for determining 

whether the differences in LOT between 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 152 / Monday, August 8, 2011 / Notices 48129 

11The antidumping duty margin for Tomasello 

incorporates an adjustment for the countervailing 

duty offset to account for the export subsidy portion 

of the countervailing duties applied to this 

company, which Tomasello reported in the field 

CVDU. 

12This rate is a weighted-average percentage 

margin (calculated based on the publicly ranged 

U.S. Values of the two reviewed companies with an 

affirmative dumping margin) for the period July 1, 

2009, through June 30, 2010. See Memorandum to 

the File, titled, ‘‘Pasta from Italy: Margin for 

Respondents Not Selected for Individual 

Examination,’’ from Joy Zhang and George 

McMahon, Case Analysts, through James Terpstra, 

Program Manager, dated August 1, 2011. 

NV and CEP affected price 

comparability, we will grant a CEP 

offset, as provided in section 

773(a)(7)(B) of the Act. See Notice of 

Final Determination of Sales at Less 

Than Fair Value: Certain Cut-to-Length 

Carbon Steel Plate from South Africa, 

62 FR 61731, 61732–33 (November 19, 

1997). 

Tomasello indicated there was a 

single level of trade for all sales in both 

markets, and petitioner has not claimed 

that multiple levels of trade existed for 

Tomasello. Tomasello provided 

information regarding channels of 

distribution and selling activities 

performed for different categories of 

customers. See Tomasello’s December 

10, 2010, Section A response, at Exhibit 

4. Tomasello’s chart of specific selling 

functions indicates the selling functions 

performed for sales in both markets are 

virtually identical, with no significant 

variation across the broader categories 

of sales process/marketing support, 

freight and delivery, inventory and 

warehousing, and quality assurance/ 

warranty services. For more details, see 

Tomasello Preliminary Analysis 

Memorandum. We have preliminarily 

determined there is one single level of 

trade for all sales in both the home 

market and the U.S. market and, 

therefore, that no basis exists for a level 

of trade adjustment. 

Garofalo reported that it sells to one 

LOT in the home market. In the home 

market, Garofalo reported that it sold 

through three channels of distribution to 

four customer categories. Garofalo 

provided information regarding its 

selling functions and channels of 

distribution by customer category. See 

Garofalo’s Supplemental Questionnaire 

response, dated June 28, 2011, at Exhibit 

SS–1. 

In the U.S. market, Garofalo reported 

that it sold through two channels of 

distribution to one customer category, 

and therefore, at one LOT. Garofalo 

claims that it sold to a different level of 

trade in the United States than it does 

in Italy and reported a separate code for 

its LOT in its U.S. sales database. Based 

on our analysis of the selling activities 

for Garofalo, we find that Garofalo’s 

selling functions performed for sales in 

both markets are comparable and do not 

show a significant pattern of variation 

across the sales categories. Furthermore, 

we find that there is overlap in these 

activities for channels of distribution 

and customer categories. Garofalo 

performs similar selling activities for the 

reported customer categories and 

channels of distribution. Although there 

are differences in intensity of these 

activities for some of the claimed 

customer categories, this, in and of 

itself, does not show a substantial 

difference in selling activities that 

would form the basis for finding a 

different LOT. See, e.g., Certain Frozen 

Warmwater Shrimp from Ecuador: Final 

Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review, 72 FR 52070 

(September 12, 2007), and 

accompanying Issues and Decision 

Memorandum at Comment 4. Due to the 

proprietary nature of this issue, please 

refer to Garofalo’s Sales Analysis Memo 

for further discussion. 

We have preliminarily determined 

there is one single level of trade for all 

sales in both the home market and the 

U.S. market and, therefore, that no basis 

exists for a level of trade adjustment. 

Currency Conversion 

For purposes of these preliminary 

results, we made currency conversions 

in accordance with section 773A(a) of 

the Act, based on the official exchange 

rates published by the Federal Reserve 

Bank. See Garofalo’s Sales Analysis 

Memo; see also Tomasello Sales 

Analysis Memo. 

Preliminary Results of Review 

As a result of our review, we 

preliminarily determine that the 

following weighted-average percentage 

margins exist for the period July 1, 2009, 

through June 30, 2010: 

Manufacturer/exporter Margin 

(percent) 11

Garofalo .................................... 3.20 

Tomasello ................................. 4.18 

Review-Specific Average 

Rate 12 Applicable to the Following Companies: Agritalia, 

Erasmo, Indalco, Labor, 

PAM, P.A.P., Afeltra, 

Fabianelli, Riscossa, 

Rummo, and Rustichella ....... 3.57 

The Department intends to disclose 

the calculations performed for these 

preliminary results within five days of 

the date of publication of this notice to 

the parties of this proceeding, in 

accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). An 

interested party may request a hearing 

within 30 days of publication of these 

preliminary results. See 19 CFR 

351.310(c). 

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(h), the 

Department intends to issue the final 

results of this administrative review, 

which will include the results of its 

analysis of issues raised in any such 

comments, or at a hearing, if requested, 

within 120 days of publication of these 

preliminary results. 

Assessment Rate 

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b), the 

Department calculated an assessment 

rate for each importer of the subject 

merchandise. Upon issuance of the final 

results of this administrative review, if 

any importer-specific assessment rates 

calculated in the final results are above 

de minimis (i.e., at or above 0.5 percent), 

the Department will issue appraisement 

instructions directly to CBP to assess 

antidumping duties on appropriate 

entries by applying the assessment rate 

to the entered value of the merchandise. 

For assessment purposes, we calculated 

importer-specific assessment rates for 

the subject merchandise by aggregating 

the dumping margins for all U.S. sales 

to each importer and dividing the 

amount by the total entered value of the 

sales to that importer. Where 

appropriate, to calculate the entered 

value, we subtracted international 

movement expenses (e.g., international 

freight) from the gross sales value. 

The Department clarified its 

‘‘automatic assessment’’ regulation on 

May 6, 2003 (68 FR 23954). This 

clarification will apply to entries of 

subject merchandise during the POR 

produced by companies included in 

these preliminary 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. For a full discussion of this 

clarification, see Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Proceedings: 

Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68 

FR 23954 (May 6, 2003). 

Cash Deposit Requirements 

To calculate the cash deposit rate for 

Tomasello and Garofalo, we divided its 

total dumping margin by the total net 

value of its sales during the review 

period. 

The following deposit rates will be 

effective upon publication of the final 

results of this administrative review for 

all shipments of pasta from Italy 

entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, 

for consumption on or after the 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

48130 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 152 / Monday, August 8, 2011 / Notices 

publication date, as provided by section 

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

deposit rate for companies subject to 

this review will be the rate established 

in the final results of this review, except 

if the rate is less than 0.5 percent and, 

therefore, de minimis, no cash deposit 

will be required; (2) for previously 

reviewed or investigated companies not 

listed above, the cash deposit rate will 

continue to be the company-specific rate 

published for the most recent final 

results for a review in which that 

manufacturer or exporter participated; 

(3) if the exporter is not a firm covered 

in this review, a prior review, or the 

original less-than-fair-value (‘‘LTFV’’) 

investigation, but the manufacturer is, 

the cash deposit rate will be the rate 

established for the most recent final 

results 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 15.45 percent, the 

all-others rate established in the LTFV 

investigation. See Implementation of the 

Findings of the WTO Panel in US— 

Zeroing (EC): Notice of Determination 

Under Section 129 of the Uruguay 

Round Agreements Act and Revocations 

and Partial Revocations of Certain 

Antidumping Duty Orders, 72 FR 25261 

(May 4, 2007). 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) 

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 

increase the subsequent assessment of 

the antidumping duties by the amount 

of antidumping duties reimbursed. 

These preliminary results of 

administrative review are issued and 

published in accordance with sections 

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

CFR 351.221(b)(4). 

Dated: August 1, 2011. 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. 2011–20067 Filed 8–5–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

Southern Illinois University, et al.; 

Notice of Decision on Applications for 

Duty-Free Entry of Scientific 

Instruments 

This is a decision pursuant to Section 

6(c) of the Educational, Scientific, and 

Cultural Materials Importation Act of 

1966 (Pub. L. 89–651, as amended by 

Pub. L. 106–36; 80 Stat. 897; 15 CFR 

part 301). Related records can be viewed 

between 8:30 a.m. and 5 p.m. in Room 

3720, U.S. Department of Commerce, 

14th and Constitution Ave., NW., 

Washington, DC 20230. 

Comments: None received. Decision: 

Approved. Reasons: We know of no 

instruments of equivalent or comparable 

scientific value to the foreign 

instruments described below, for the 

intended purposes, that were being 

manufactured in the United States at the 

time of their order. 

Docket Number: 11–032. Applicant: 

Southern Illinois University, Integrated 

Microscopy and Graphic Expertise 

(IMAGE) Center, 750 Communications 

Drive—Mailcode 4402, Carbondale, IL 

62901. Instrument: Quanta 450 scanning 

electron microscope. Manufacturer: FEI 

Company, Czech Republic. Intended 

Use: See application notice at 76 FR 

39070, July 5, 2011. 

Docket Number: 11–037. Applicant: 

Tulane University, 6823 St. Charles 

Avenue, New Orleans, LA 70118. 

Instrument: Field-emission transmission 

electron microscope. Manufacturer: FEI 

Company, the Netherlands. Intended 

Use: See application notice at 76 FR 

39070, July 5, 2011. 

Docket Number: 11–038. Applicant: 

Battelle Memorial Institute, Pacific 

Northwest National Laboratory, 3335 Q 

Avenue, Richland, WA 99354. 

Instrument: Scanning transmission 

electron microscope. Manufacturer: FEI 

Company, the Netherlands. Intended 

Use: See application notice at 76 FR 

39070, July 5, 2011. 

Dated: July 28, 2011. 

Supriya Kumar, 

Acting Director, Subsidies Enforcement 

Office, Office of Policy, Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. 2011–19932 Filed 8–5–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[C–475–819] 

Certain Pasta From Italy: Preliminary 

Results of the 14th (2009) 

Countervailing Duty Administrative 

Review 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce 

(‘‘Department’’) is conducting an 

administrative review of the 

countervailing duty order on certain 

pasta from Italy for the period January 

1, 2009, through December 31, 2009. We 

preliminarily find that Molino e 

Pastificio Tomasello S.p.A. 

(‘‘Tomasello’’) and Pastificio Antonio 

Pallante S.r.L. (‘‘Pallante’’) received 

countervailable subsidies and that F.lli 

De Cecco di Filippo Fara San Martino 

S.p.A. (‘‘De Cecco’’) received de 

minimis countervailable subsidies. We 

also find that Pastificio Fabianelli S.p.A. 

(‘‘Fabianelli’’) received countervailable 

subsidies that were expensed prior to 

2009 and did not confer any benefit to 

Fabianelli during the period of review 

(‘‘POR’’). See the ‘‘Preliminary Results 

of Review’’ section of this notice below. 

Interested parties are invited to 

comment on these preliminary results. 

See the ‘‘Disclosure and Public 

Comment’’ section of this notice below. 

DATES: Effective Date: August 8, 2011. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Mahnaz Khan or Christopher Siepmann, 

AD/CVD Operations, Office 1, Import 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; 

telephone: (202) 482–0914 and (202) 

482–7958, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On July 24, 1996, the Department 

published a countervailing duty order 

on certain pasta (‘‘pasta’’ or ‘‘subject 

merchandise’’) from Italy. See Notice of 

Countervailing Duty Order and 

Amended Final Affirmative 

Countervailing Duty Determination: 

Certain Pasta From Italy, 61 FR 38544 

(July 24, 1996). On July 1, 2010, the 

Department published a notice of 

‘‘Opportunity to Request Administrative 

Review’’ of this countervailing duty 

order for the POR corresponding to 

calendar year 2009. See Antidumping or 

Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or 

Suspended Investigation; Opportunity 

To Request Administrative Review, 75 

FR 38074 (July 1, 2010). On July 29, 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES