9542 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 34 / Friday, February 18, 2011 / Notices 

represent the primary source of facts 

about the structure and function of the 

U.S. economy, providing essential 

information to government and the 

business community in making sound 

decisions. This information helps build 

the foundation for the calculation of 

Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and other 

economic indicators. Crucial to its 

success is the accuracy and reliability of 

the Business Register data, which 

provides the Economic Census and 

current business surveys with their 

establishment lists. 

Critical to the quality of data in the 

Business Register is that establishments 

are assigned an accurate economic 

classification, based on the North 

American Industry Classification 

System (NAICS). The primary purpose 

of the ‘‘2012 Economic Census General 

Classification Report’’ or NC–99023, is 

to meet this need. 

New businesses are assigned NAICS 

codes by the Social Security 

Administration (SSA); however, many 

of these businesses cannot be assigned 

detailed NAICS codes, because 

insufficient data are provided by 

respondents on the Internal Revenue 

Service (IRS) Form SS–4. This report, 

conducted in fiscal years 2012 and 

2013, will mail approximately 100,000 

businesses per year that are unclassified 

or have been partially classified. 

Businesses selected for the sample will 

be asked to provide data on primary 

business activity in order to assign 

proper industry classification, thus 

maintaining proper coverage of the 

business universe. 

There are few changes to the NC– 

99023 form since the last request was 

submitted for an OMB clearance in 

2006. Changes will be made to the 

wording and organization of existing 

economic activity descriptions. Also, for 

the first time, respondents will have the 

option to report electronically via the 

Internet. 

The NC–99023 form will be used to 

update the classification codes 

contained in the Business Register, 

ensuring establishments will be 

tabulated in the correct detailed 

industry for the 2012 Economic Census 

and in succeeding economic surveys. 

Information obtained from these 

establishments will also be included in 

the Census Bureau’s County Business 

Patterns (CBP) publications. CBP 

publications provide annual data on 

establishment counts, employment, and 

payroll for all sectors of the economy at 

national, State, and county levels. The 

failure to collect this information will 

have an adverse effect on the quality 

and usefulness of economic statistics 

provided by the Census Bureau. 

Affected Public: Business or other forprofit organizations; Not-for-profit 

institutions. 

Frequency: Every 5 years. 

Respondent’s Obligation: Mandatory. 

Legal Authority: Title 13 U.S.C., 

Sections 131 and 224. 

OMB Desk Officer: Brian HarrisKojetin, (202) 395–7314. 

Copies of the above information 

collection proposal can be obtained by 

calling or writing Diana Hynek, 

Departmental Paperwork Clearance 

Officer, (202) 482–0266, Department of 

Commerce, Room 6616, 14th and 

Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, 

DC 20230 (or via the Internet at 

dhynek@doc.gov). 

Written comments and 

recommendations for the proposed 

information collection should be sent 

within 30 days of publication of this 

notice to Brian Harris-Kojetin, OMB 

Desk Officer either by fax (202–395– 

7245) or e-mail (bharrisk@omb.eop.gov). 

Dated: February 15, 2011. 

Gwellnar Banks, 

Management Analyst, Office of the Chief 

Information Officer. 

[FR Doc. 2011–3693 Filed 2–17–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–07–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–201–822] 

Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils 

From Mexico; Notice of Amended Final 

Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

DATES: Effective Date: February 18, 

2011. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Patrick Edwards, Brian Davis, or 

Angelica Mendoza, AD/CVD 

Operations, Office 7, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; 

telephone: (202) 482–8029, (202) 482– 

7924, and (202) 482–3019, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Amendment to the Final Results 

In accordance with sections 751(a) 

and 777(i)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, 

as amended, (the Act), on January 5, 

2011, the Department issued its final 

results in the administrative review of 

the antidumping duty order on stainless 

steel sheet and strip in coils (S4 in coils) 

from Mexico, covering the period July 1, 

2008, to June 30, 2009. The final results 

were subsequently released to all parties 

in the proceeding, and published in the 

Federal Register on January 13, 2011. 

See Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in 

Coils from Mexico; Final Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review, 76 FR 2332 (January 13, 2011) 

(S4 from Mexico 2008–2009 Final 

Results). On January 14, 2011, and 

pursuant to 19 CFR 351.224(c)(2), we 

received a timely-filed allegation from 

the respondent in this administrative 

review, ThyssenKrupp Mexinox S.A. de 

C.V. (Mexinox SA) and Mexinox USA, 

Inc. (Mexinox USA) (collectively 

referred to as Mexinox), that the 

Department made ministerial errors 

with respect to several aspects of 

Mexinox’s margin calculation. See 

Letter from Mexinox to the Department 

of Commerce, titled ‘‘Ministerial Error 

Comments,’’ dated January 14, 2011 

(Mexinox Ministerial Letter). On 

January 20, 2011, we received 

comments from Allegheny Ludlum 

Corporation, AK Steel Corporation, and 

North American Stainless (collectively 

referred to as petitioners) regarding the 

ministerial errors alleged by Mexinox. 

See Letter from petitioners to the 

Department of Commerce, regarding 

‘‘Response to Mexinox’s Ministerial 

Error Allegations,’’ dated January 20, 

2011 (Petitioners’ Response Letter). For 

a discussion of the Department’s 

analysis of the allegations in the 

Mexinox Ministerial Letter and rebuttal 

comments in the Petitioners’ Response 

Letter, see Memorandum from Patrick 

Edwards and Brian Davis, Case 

Analysts, through Angelica Mendoza, 

Program Manager, to Richard Weible, 

Office Director, entitled, ‘‘Ministerial 

Errors Allegation in the Final Results of 

the Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review of Stainless Steel Sheet and 

Strip in Coils from Mexico: 

ThyssenKrupp Mexinox S.A. de C.V.,’’ 

dated February 14, 2011 (Ministerial 

Error Allegation Memo). 

A ministerial error, as defined at 

section 751(h) of the Act, includes 

‘‘errors in addition, subtraction, or other 

arithmetic function, clerical errors 

resulting from inaccurate copying, 

duplication, or the like, and any other 

type of unintentional error which {the 

Department} considers ministerial.’’ See 

also 19 CFR 351.224(f). In its Ministerial 

Letter, Mexinox alleges that the 

Department made five ministerial errors 

in calculating Mexinox’s antidumping 

duty margin. First, Mexinox alleges that 

the Department made a ministerial error 

by incorrectly placing a parenthesis in 

its calculation of cost of goods sold to 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 34 / Friday, February 18, 2011 / Notices 9543 

1With regard to Mexinox’s error allegation 

involving U.S. indirect selling expenses, we note 

that Mexinox raised four separate issues concerning 

our calculation. Three of these we are correcting as 

ministerial errors. However, the fourth issue, 

pertaining to offsetting Mexinox’s indirect selling 

expenses for service revenue received from its U.S. 

affiliates, is methodological in nature and the 

Department’s intent to deny Mexinox’s requested 

offset is reflected in the final results. Therefore, we 

are not adjusting for this allegation (i.e., we are 

continuing to deny Mexinox’s requested offset). 

derive constructed export price profit, 

effectively failing to extend the per-unit 

cost of production and per-unit packing 

expenses by the quantity sold. See 

Mexinox Ministerial Letter at 2. Second, 

Mexinox alleges that the Department 

incorrectly derived quarterly cost data 

by assigning a production quantity to 

those products which were sold, but not 

produced in certain quarters, thus 

overstating Mexinox’s production 

quantities and miscalculating the 

indexed quarterly costs. Id. at 3. Third, 

Mexinox alleges several errors with 

regard to the Department’s calculation 

of its U.S. indirect selling expenses. 

Specifically, Mexinox contends that the 

Department a) failed to include ‘‘other 

income/expenses’’ specific to Mexinox 

USA, b) double-counted certain service 

fee expenses incurred by Mexinox’s 

affiliates in the United States, and c) 

applied the wrong raw material service 

fee in its calculation of Mexinox’s total 

indirect selling expenses. Id. at 6. 

Fourth, Mexinox contends that the 

Department incorrectly accounted for 

employee profit sharing in its 

calculation of Mexinox’s general and 

administrative (G&A) ratio. Id. at 9. 

Fifth, and finally, Mexinox alleges that 

the Department’s margin calculation 

programs caused certain variables to be 

overwritten when comparison market 

sales were merged with Mexinox’s 

reported costs. Id. at 10. 

In their rebuttal letter, petitioners 

commented on only two of Mexinox’s 

alleged errors. First, petitioners argue 

that Mexinox’s allegation with regard to 

the inclusion of ‘‘other income/ 

expenses’’ specific to Mexinox USA is 

methodological in nature and, therefore, 

does not constitute a ministerial error. 

See Petitioners’ Response Letter at 2–3. 

Petitioners further argue that the 

Department did use the correct raw 

material services fee in its calculation of 

Mexinox’s U.S. indirect selling expenses 

and, therefore, Mexinox’s alleged error 

is incorrect. Id. at 4. Second, petitioners 

allege that, should the Department agree 

with Mexinox’s allegation that the 

Department inadvertently overstated 

production quantities and consequently 

calculated incorrect quarterly cost 

indices, Mexinox’s suggested 

programming changes would cause 

several errors in the Department’s 

margin calculation programs and would 

continue to calculate incorrect quarterly 

cost indices. Id. at 6. 

After analyzing Mexinox’s ministerial 

error comments and petitioners’ rebuttal 

comments, we have determined, in 

accordance with section 751(h) of the 

Act and 19 CFR 351.224(e), that we 

made ministerial errors with respect to 

our calculation for cost of goods sold 

and our quarterly costs indices, as well 

as certain aspects of Mexinox’s indirect 

selling expenses incurred in the United 

States, and Mexinox’s G&A ratio 

calculation.1 See Mexinox’s Ministerial 

Letter; see also Memorandum to the 

File, ‘‘Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review of Stainless Steel Sheet and 

Strip in Coils from Mexico—Amended 

Final Results Analysis Memorandum for 

ThyssenKrupp Mexinox S.A. de C.V.,’’ 

dated February 14, 2011 (2008–2009 S4 

from Mexico Amended Final Results 

Analysis Memorandum), for a further 

discussion. Therefore, the Department 

has corrected both the Comparison 

Market Program and the U.S. Margin 

Program and, where appropriate, the 

relevant Macros Program to reflect the 

correction of these errors. 

Therefore, in accordance with 19 CFR 

351.224(e), we are amending the final 

results in this antidumping duty 

administrative review of S4 in coils 

from Mexico. After correcting for the 

noted ministerial errors with respect to 

cost of goods sold, quarterly costs, U.S. 

indirect selling expenses, and G&A 

expenses, the amended final weightedaverage dumping margin has changed: 

Manufacturer/exporter 

Final results 

weightedaverage margin 

percentage 

Amended final 

weightedaverage margin 

percentage 

ThyssenKrupp Mexinox S.A. de C.V ....................................................................................................... 21.14 12.13 

Assessment Rates 

The Department will determine, and 

U.S. Customs and Border Protection 

(CBP) shall assess, antidumping duties 

on all appropriate entries, pursuant to 

section 751(a)(1) of the Act, and 19 CFR 

351.212(b). Where entered values are 

missing for some sales and reported for 

others, the Department calculates a perunit assessment rate on an importerspecific basis. The Department 

calculated an importer-specific per-unit 

duty assessment rate by aggregating the 

total amount of antidumping duties 

calculated for the examined sales and 

dividing this amount by the total 

quantity of those sales. Where the duty 

assessment rates are above de minimis, 

we will instruct CBP to assess duties on 

all entries of subject merchandise by 

that importer in accordance with the 

requirements set forth in 19 CFR 

351.106(c)(2). 

After issuance of the amended final 

results of this review, for any importerspecific assessment rates calculated in 

the amended final results that are above 

de minimis (i.e., at or above 0.50 

percent), we will issue appraisement 

instructions directly to CBP to assess 

antidumping duties on appropriate 

entries by applying the per-unit dollar 

amount against each unit of 

merchandise on each of that importer’s 

entries during the review period. See 19 

CFR 351.212(b)(1). Pursuant to 19 CFR 

356.8(a), the Department intends to 

issue assessment instructions to CBP 41 

days after the date of publication of 

these amended final results of 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 Mexinox for which 

Mexinox did not know the merchandise 

was destined for the United States. In 

such instances, we will instruct CBP to 

liquidate unreviewed entries at the 

30.69 percent all others rate if there is 

no company-specific rate for an 

intermediary involved in the 

transaction. 

Cash Deposit Requirements 

The following deposit requirements 

continue to be effective on any entries 

made on or after February 14, 2011, the 

date of publication of these amended 

final results, for all shipments of subject 

merchandise entered, or withdrawn 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with NOTICES

9544 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 34 / Friday, February 18, 2011 / Notices 

1See Certain Woven Electric Blankets From the 

People’s Republic of China (‘‘PRC’’): Final 

Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value 

(‘‘Blankets from the PRC’’), 75 FR 38459 (July 2, 

2010) and accompanying Issues and Decision 

Memorandum at Comment 13. 

2Between July 2010 and October 2010, the 

Department implemented an interim wage rate 

methodology that reflected a simple average of 

national wage rates from countries found to meet 

both criteria under section 733(c)(4) of the Act. 

Industry-specific data, if available, is now the 

presumptive surrogate data used in the 

Department’s calculations. See Certain New 

Pneumatic Off-the-Road-Tires from the People’s 

Republic of China: Preliminary Results of the 

Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 75 FR 

64259 (October 19, 2010) (‘‘Tires from the PRC’’); see 

also Certain Activated Carbon from the People’s 

Republic of China: Final Results and Partial 

Rescission of Second Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review, 75 FR 70208 (November 18, 

2010) and accompanying Issues and Decision 

Memorandum at Comment 4f (‘‘Activated Carbon 

Final’’). 

from warehouse, for consumption as 

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

Act: (1) For Mexinox, which has a 

separate rate, the cash deposit rate will 

be the company-specific rate shown 

above; (2) for previously reviewed or 

investigated companies not listed above 

that have a separate rate, the cash 

deposit rate will continue to be the 

company-specific rate published for the 

most recent period; (3) the cash deposit 

rate for all other Mexican exporters will 

be 30.69 percent, the all others rate from 

the less-than-fair-value investigation; 

and (4) the cash deposit rate for all nonMexican exporters will be the rate 

applicable to the Mexican exporter that 

supplied that exporter. These cash 

deposit requirements continue to 

remain in effect until further notice. 

Notification of Interested Parties 

This notice also serves as a final 

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 the antidumping 

duties occurred and the subsequent 

assessment of double antidumping 

duties. 

This notice also serves as a reminder 

to parties subject to administrative 

protective orders (APOs) of their 

responsibility concerning the return or 

destruction of proprietary information 

disclosed under APO in accordance 

with 19 CFR 351.305, which continues 

to govern business proprietary 

information in this segment of the 

proceeding. Timely written notification 

of the return/destruction of APO 

materials or conversion to judicial 

protective order is hereby requested. 

Failure to comply with the regulations 

and terms of an APO is a violation that 

is subject to sanction. 

We are issuing and publishing these 

amended final results of review and 

notice in accordance with sections 751 

and 777(i) of the Act. 

Dated: February 14, 2011. 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. 2011–3750 Filed 2–17–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

Antidumping Methodologies in 

Proceedings Involving Non-Market 

Economies: Valuing the Factor of 

Production: Labor; Request for 

Comment 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

ACTION: Request for comments. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce 

(‘‘the Department’’) requests public 

comment on the means by which it can 

best capture the cost of labor in its wage 

rate methodology in antidumping 

proceedings involving non-market 

economy (‘‘NME’’) countries. As part of 

this process, the Department invites 

comments on the interim methodology 

for determining a surrogate value for 

wage rates that is currently being 

applied in antidumping proceedings for 

companies in NME countries. 

DATES: To be assured of consideration, 

comments must be received no later 

than March 21, 2011. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Christopher Mutz, (202) 482–0235, 

Office of Policy, Import Administration, 

Julia Hancock, (202) 482–1394, Office of 

Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 

Operations, Import Administration, U.S. 

Department of Commerce, 14th Street 

and Constitution Avenue, NW., 

Washington, DC 20230. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

Section 733(c) of the Tariff Act of 

1930, as amended (‘‘the Act’’), provides 

that the Department will value the 

factors of production (‘‘FOPs’’) in NME 

cases using the best available 

information regarding the value of such 

factors in a market economy (‘‘ME’’) 

country or countries considered to be 

appropriate by the administering 

authority. The Act requires that when 

valuing the FOPs, the Department 

utilize, to the extent possible, the prices 

or costs of factors of production in one 

or more ME countries that are (1) at a 

comparable level of economic 

development and (2) significant 

producers of comparable merchandise. 

See section 733(c)(4) of the Act. 

Previously, the Department calculated 

wages using a regression analysis that 

captured the worldwide relationship 

between per capita Gross National 

Income (‘‘GNI’’) and hourly wage rates in 

manufacturing pursuant to 19 CFR 

351.408(c)(3). See Antidumping 

Methodologies: Market Economy Inputs, 

Expected Non-Market Economy Wages, 

Duty Drawback; and Request for 

Comments (‘‘Antidumping 

Methodologies Notice’’), 71 FR 61716 

(October 19, 2006). On May 14, 2010, 

the Court of Appeals for the Federal 

Circuit (‘‘CAFC’’), in Dorbest Ltd. v. 

United States, 604 F. 3d 1363, 1372 

(Fed. Cir. 2010) (‘‘Dorbest I’’), 

invalidated 19 CFR 351.408(c)(3). 

Subsequently, the Department issued a 

remand redetermination in the Dorbest 

litigation, and on February 9, 2011, the 

Court of International Trade (‘‘CIT’’) 

affirmed in part, and remanded in part, 

the Department’s wage rate 

methodology applied in that 

redetermination. See Dorbest Ltd. v. 

United States, Slip Op. 11–14 (CIT Feb. 

9, 2011) (‘‘Dorbest II’’). As a consequence 

of the CAFC’s ruling in Dorbest I, the 

Department is no longer relying on the 

wage rate methodology described in its 

regulations. Since July 2010, the 

Department has applied an interim wage 

rate methodology that derives a 

surrogate wage rate from countries that 

are both economically comparable and 

significant producers of merchandise 

comparable to the merchandise subject 

to the antidumping duty proceeding.1 In 

October 2010, the Department modified 

its calculations to apply a simpleaverage of industry-specific wage rates 

from those countries.2

Request for Comment on International 

Labor Organization (‘‘ILO’’) Chapter 6A 

Data 

As part of the on-going process of 

evaluating options for determining labor 

values, the Department is considering 

methodologies that will best capture all 

labor costs. Currently, the Department 

uses earnings or wage data as reported 

in ‘‘Chapter 5B: Wages in 

Manufacturing’’ of the International 

Labor Organization (‘‘ILO’’) Yearbook of 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with NOTICES