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

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 34 / Friday, February 18, 2011 / Notices 9545 

3See http://laborsta.ilo.org/applv8/data/c5e.html 

(emphasis added). 

4 Id (emphasis added). 

5See Folding Metal Tables and Chairs from the 

People’s Republic of China: Final Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 71 FR 

2905 (January 18, 2006) and accompanying Issues 

and Decision Memorandum, at Comment 1. 

6See http://laborsta.ilo.org/applv8/data/c6e.html. 

7See Antidumping Methodologies Notice, 71 FR 

at 61721. 

8See e.g., International Labor Organization, 

Global Wage Report: 2009 Update, (2009) at 5, 7, 

10. http://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/- 

dgreports/-dcomm/documents/publication/wcms116500.pdf. 

9Both the statute and our regulations recognize 

the need to source factor data from more than one 

country where appropriate. See Sections 773(c)(1) 

and (c)(4) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.408(c)(2). 

10See Antidumping Methodologies Notice, 71 FR 

at 61721. 

Labor Statistics. Chapter 5B captures the 

pre-tax monetary remuneration received 

by the employee. 

Chapter 5B data includes two types of 

compensation: (1) Direct wages and 

salaries (‘‘wages’’), as well as (2) earnings 

data, which include wages plus bonuses 

and gratuities (‘‘earnings’’). The 

Department prefers ‘‘earnings’’ data, 

when available, since it more accurately 

reflects the full remuneration received 

by workers. See Antidumping 

Methodologies Notice, 71 FR at 61721. 

The ILO defines Chapter 5B wage rate 

data to include: 

Basic wages, cost-of-living allowances and 

other guaranteed and regularly paid 

allowances, but exclude overtime payments, 

bonuses and gratuities, family allowances 

and other social security payments made by 

employers. Ex gratia payments in kind, 

supplementary to normal wage rates, are also 

excluded.3

The ILO defines Chapter 5B earnings 

data to include: 

Remuneration in cash and in kind paid to 

employees, as a rule at regular intervals, for 

time worked or work done together with 

remuneration for time not worked, such as 

for annual vacation, other paid leave or 

holidays. Earnings exclude employers’ 

contributions in respect of their employees 

paid to social security and pension schemes 

and also the benefits received by employees 

under these schemes. Earnings also exclude 

severance and termination pay.4

The ILO Chapter 5B data that the 

Department currently uses in its 

interim, simple-average industryspecific wage rate methodology for 

valuing labor is comprehensive (i.e., this 

dataset includes annual earnings and 

wage data reported by most countries in 

the world). Additionally, the ILO 

Chapter 5B data is reported both on a 

national and an industry-specific level 

for each reporting country. 

Under the current interim wage rate 

methodology, the Department assumes 

that indirect labor costs (i.e., employer 

expenses for social benefits, pensions 

and training, etc.) are included in the 

calculated surrogate financial ratios (i.e., 

factory overhead (‘‘OH’’), selling, general 

and administrative (‘‘SG&A’’) expenses, 

and profit) for the NME producer. When 

the OH and SG&A line items are 

disaggregated, the Department has a 

practice of adjusting the surrogate 

financial ratios for OH, SG&A, and 

profit by categorizing all identifiable 

labor costs not included in the ILO’s 

definition of Chapter 5B data as 

overhead expenses.5 However, when 

OH and SG&A are aggregated, the 

Department is unable to determine 

whether adjustments are needed to 

account for all of the indirect laborrelated costs. 

Due to concerns that reliance on data 

from Chapter 5B of the ILO may undercount the NME producer’s labor costs, 

the Department is considering 

alternative data sources for valuing 

labor to ensure all labor costs incurred 

by the NME producer are accounted for 

in the normal value (‘‘NV’’) calculation. 

The Department proposes relying on 

labor and wage data that include all 

costs incurred by the producer related to 

labor including wages, benefits, 

housing, training, etc. One example of 

such a data source is ‘‘Chapter 6A: Labor 

Cost in Manufacturing’’ from the ILO 

Yearbook of Labour Statistics. 

The ILO defines Chapter 6A data to 

include: 

The cost incurred by the employer in the 

employment of labour. The statistical 

concept of labour cost comprises 

remuneration for work performed, payments 

in respect of time paid for but not worked, 

bonuses and gratuities, the cost of food, drink 

and other payments in kind, cost of workers’ 

housing borne by employers, employers’ 

social security expenditures, cost to the 

employer for vocational training, welfare 

services and miscellaneous items, such as 

transport of workers, work clothes and 

recruitment, together with taxes regarded as 

labour cost * * *.6

The ILO Chapter 6A data include all 

costs related to labor including wages, 

benefits, housing, training, etc.7 To the 

extent that Chapter 6A data includes 

some of the expenses that may already 

be captured in the surrogate financial 

ratios, there is a possibility that the use 

of Chapter 6A data may overstate the 

cost of labor in certain cases. The 

Department’s ability to identify and 

adjust for such individual labor costs is 

fact-specific in nature and subject to the 

available information on the record of 

the specific proceeding. See 

Antidumping Methodologies Notice, 71 

FR at 61721. There will be some cases 

where information is available to make 

such adjustments, but there will be 

other cases where the Department 

cannot make such an adjustment due to 

a lack of available data. However, if the 

Department does not use an all 

inclusive data source, such as the ILO 

Chapter 6A data, the NME producer’s 

total labor cost will be understated in 

cases where the surrogate financial 

statements do not include certain 

indirect labor costs that are also 

excluded from ILO Chapter 5B data. 

The Department further notes its 

preference for data from as many 

countries as possible when considering 

alternative data sources for valuing 

labor, such as the ILO Chapter 6A data. 

Although information from a single 

surrogate country can reliably be used to 

value other FOPs, wage data from a 

single surrogate country does not 

normally constitute the best available 

information for purposes of valuing the 

labor input due to the variability that 

exists across wages from countries with 

similar GNI.8 As a result, we do not find 

reliance on wage data from a single 

country to be preferable where data 

from multiple countries are available for 

the Department to use.9 Although the 

Department discounted the use of the 

ILO Chapter 6A data in 2006 because 

very few market economy countries 

reported labor data, this may no longer 

be the case.10 As of January 2011, sixtysix market economy countries reported 

ILO Chapter 6A data at the national 

level. Though it is improbable that all of 

these countries would be considered 

economically comparable to the country 

subject to an investigation or review, 

sixty-six is not an insignificant number 

of initial countries. The Department also 

notes that some market economy 

countries report industry-specific data 

under ILO Chapter 6A, which is in 

keeping with the Department’s current, 

interim practice of relying on industryspecific data within the existing ILO 

source where available. The Department 

is aware that there may be data 

constraints using industry-specific data 

classified under ILO Chapter 6A 

because fewer market economy 

countries that are found to be 

economically comparable to a subject 

country report industry-specific under 

ILO Chapter 6A than under ILO Chapter 

5B. Accordingly, in determining 

whether to source wage data from 

alternative data sources, such as ILO 

Chapter 6A, the Department will need to 

evaluate how to address situations 

where there are significant data 

constraints in light of its current 

preference for data from multiple 

countries at the industry-specific level. 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with NOTICES

9546 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 34 / Friday, February 18, 2011 / Notices 

11See Policy Bulletin 04.1: Non-Market Economy 

Surrogate Country Selection Process, March 1, 2004 

(‘‘Policy Bulletin’’). 

12 It is Departmental practice, pursuant to 19 CFR 

408, to use per capita GNI, rather than per capita 

GDP, because while the two measures are very 

similar, per capita GNI is reported across almost all 

countries by an authoritative source (the World 

Bank), and because the Department believes that the 

per capita GNI represents the single best measure 

of a country’s level of total income and, thus, level 

of economic development. See Antidumping 

Methodologies Notice, 71 FR 61716, 61716 at n. 2. 

13The Department notes that this initial list of 

countries is part of a non-exhaustive list of 

countries that are at a level of economic 

development comparable to the subject country. 

14Cf. Dorbest II, at *10–17. Parties are invited to 

address this case in their comments. 

15 Indicator: GNI per capita, Atlas Method 

(current US$) is obtained from http:// 

data.worldbank.org/indicator/. 

16The CIT in Dorbest II affirmed the Department’s 

decision to use industry-specific data as ‘‘reasonable 

and in compliance with the statutory requirements 

’’ set forth in Section 773(c)(4) of the Act. Dorbest 

II, at *25–27. 

17The ISIC identifies different industry 

classifications. The ISIC provides industry 

classifications by section (i.e., A—Agriculture, 

hunting, and forestry), then at the two-digit division 

level (i.e., 01—Agriculture, hunting, and related 

service activities), then further sub-detail at the 

three-digit major group level (i.e., 011—Growing of 

crops; market gardening; horticulture), and 

sometimes a four-digit group level (i.e., 0111— 

Growing of cereals and other crops, nec.). There are 

explanatory notes at the two-digit division level, 

three-digit major group level, and four-digit group 

level that provide a detailed list of the industries 

covered in and excluded from each classification. 

The ISIC also has different revisions of this 

classification system: Rev. 2 (1968); Rev. 3 (1989); 

Rev. 3.1 (2002); and Rev. 4 (2008). 

18The Department filters the data based on ILO 

data parameters in the following order: 

1. ‘‘Type of Data—I,’’ i.e., reported under the 

categories earnings or wages. We use earnings data 

if available and wages data where earnings data are 

not available; 

2. ‘‘Sex,’’ i.e., male/female coverage (we eliminate 

male only, female only, and indices data); 

3. ‘‘Contemporaneity,’’ i.e., the Department uses 

the most recent earnings/wage rate data point 

available; 

4. ‘‘Worker Coverage,’’ i.e., the Department selects 

from the following categories in the following 

hierarchy: (1) Wage earners; (2) employees; (3) 

salaried employees; and (4) total employment; 

5. ‘‘Type of Data—II,’’ i.e., the unit of time for 

which the wage is reported. The Department selects 

from the following categories in the following 

hierarchy: (1) Per hour; (2) per day; (3) per week; 

or (4) per month. Where data is not available on a 

per-hour basis, the Department converts that data to 

an hourly basis based on the premise that there are 

8 working hours per day, 5.5 working days a week 

and 24 working days per month. 

‘‘Source ID,’’ i.e., a code for the source of the data. 

The Department prioritizes data with a ‘‘Source ID’’ 

value of ‘‘no value’’ over ‘‘1,’’ ‘‘2’’ and ‘‘3,’’ in that 

order. 

19The CPI for each country is obtained from the 

International Monetary Fund (‘‘IMF’’)’s International 

Financial Statistics (‘‘IFS’’) database, located at 

http://www.imfstatistics.org/imf. 

20The exchange rate for each country is obtained 

from the IMF’s IFS database by selecting: (1) 

‘‘Economic Concept View;’’ (2) ‘‘Country Exchange 

Rates;’’ (3) ‘‘National Currency Per US$ (Per Avg);’’ 

and (4) ‘‘RF.ZF NC/US$, Period Average.’’ 

The Department invites parties to 

comment on these methodological 

issues described above. 

Request for Comment on Interim 

Industry-Specific Wage Rate 

Methodology 

As discussed above, the Department’s 

interim methodology for valuing labor 

in NME antidumping proceedings 

utilizes a simple-average industryspecific wage rate calculated with data 

reported in Chapter 5B of the ILO 

Yearbook of Labour Statistics. Under 

this interim methodology, the 

Department calculates an hourly wage 

rate by averaging industry-specific 

earnings and/or wages in countries that 

are economically comparable to the 

subject country and are significant 

producers of the comparable 

merchandise, pursuant to section 

773(c)(4) of the Act. The following steps 

explain the current interim industryspecific methodology. 

First, in order to determine the 

economically comparable surrogate 

countries from which to calculate a 

surrogate wage rate, the Department 

reviews the Surrogate Country Memo 

issued in each proceeding. Early in each 

case, the Department selects a number 

of countries for consideration as the 

surrogate country for that case.11 To 

determine which countries are at a level 

of economic development comparable to 

that of the NME country in question, the 

Department places primary emphasis on 

per capita GNI.12 The Department relies 

on GNI from the most recent year 

available, currently 2008, to generate an 

initial limited list of countries 

considered to be economically 

comparable to the subject country.13

From this list of countries contained in 

the Surrogate Country Memo, the 

Department identifies the country with 

the highest GNI and the lowest GNI as 

‘‘bookends’’ for economic 

comparability.14 Relying on the World 

Bank’s World Development Report,15

the Department then identifies all 

countries with per capita incomes from 

the same year that fall between the 

country with the highest GNI, and the 

country with the lowest GNI (commonly 

referred to as the ‘‘bookend’’ countries). 

This is the ‘‘GNI band’’ of countries that 

the Department considers to be 

economically comparable to the country 

in question for calculating wage rates. 

Second, regarding the ‘‘significant 

producer’’ prong of the antidumping 

statute (section 773(c)(4)(B) of the Act), 

the Department identifies all countries 

that had exports based on value data for 

exports of comparable merchandise (i.e., 

exports of any goods, by value, under 

the six-digit Harmonized Tariff 

Schedule (‘‘HTS’’) categories contained 

in the scope of the investigation or 

review). The Department obtains this 

export data for the last three years of 

available data. After obtaining total 

exports by value of comparable 

merchandise for all reporting countries, 

the Department filters the dataset to 

include only countries that are listed 

within the ‘‘GNI band.’’ If any of these 

countries had exports of the comparable 

merchandise for the last three years, that 

country is considered to be a significant 

producer. 

Third, the Department selects the 

most appropriate industry-specific wage 

data based on the scope of the 

investigation or review, and the 

availability of industry-specific data.16

Industry-specific wage/earning data is 

reported by countries to the ILO under 

the United Nations’ International 

Standard Classification of All Economic 

Activities (ISIC).17 The Department 

determines the most appropriate 

industry-specific wage rate/earning data 

for the subject industry by examining 

the ISIC industry classifications and 

determining which classification is most 

specific to the subject product for the 

most recent revision (currently Rev. 4). 

If no wage data is available for that 

industry, the examination moves to the 

next most recent revision, (i.e., Rev. 3.1, 

Rev. 3, and Rev. 2, etc.). 

Fourth, using the selected industryspecific wage rate data for the countries 

that are economically comparable to the 

subject country and significant 

producers of comparable merchandise, 

the Department chooses an earnings/ 

wage rate that is most contemporaneous 

with the period of the subject 

proceeding. Various types of earnings/ 

wages in that industry-specific wage 

rate data are sorted by a set of filters to 

arrive at the most appropriate single 

earnings/wage rate.18

Fifth, the Department inflates the 

selected single earnings or wage rate for 

each country to the year that covers the 

majority of the period of the proceeding 

using the relevant Consumer Price Index 

(‘‘CPI’’).19 Next, the Department converts 

these inflation-adjusted hourly earnings 

or wage rate data for each country, 

which are denominated in each 

country’s national currency, to U.S. 

dollars using annual exchange rates 20 as 

reported by the IMF’s IFS for the year 

that covers the majority of the period of 

investigation or review. Finally, the 

Department calculates a simple-average, 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 34 / Friday, February 18, 2011 / Notices 9547 

1See Initiation of Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and 

Request for Revocation in Part, 74 FR 48224, 48225 

(September 22, 2009). 

2These parties identified themselves as Atlas 

Tube, Bull Moose Tube Company, and Searing 

Industries, Inc., in their August 28, 2009, request for 

an administrative review. 

industry-specific wage rate across the 

selected countries. 

Since implementing this interim 

industry-specific wage rate 

methodology, the Department has 

encountered a number of 

methodological and practical challenges 

that must be considered in evaluating 

whether this methodology should be 

adopted for the longer term. For 

example, the Department normally 

prefers using multiple data points when 

evaluating labor data, because of the 

large variance in wage rates, as 

explained above. However, relying on 

industry-specific data necessarily 

constrains the amount of available data. 

Additionally, the Department notes that 

the interim method is a significant 

endeavor that requires screening 

hundreds of data points in each case. 

Given the statutory time constraints 

present in every proceeding, the 

Department will also be evaluating this 

methodology in relation to its long-term 

administrative feasibility. Based on the 

challenges described above by the 

Department regarding the interim 

industry-specific wage rate 

methodology, the Department invites 

comments by parties on these issues. 

Submission of Comments 

To be assured of consideration, 

comments must be received no later 

than March 21, 2011. All comments 

must be submitted through the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal at http:// 

www.regulations.gov, Docket No. ITA– 

2010–0010, unless the commenter does 

not have access to the Internet. 

Commenters that do not have access to 

the Internet may submit the original and 

two copies of each set of comments by 

mail or hand delivery/courier. All 

comments should be addressed to the 

Secretary of Commerce, Attention: 

Christopher Mutz, Office of Policy, 

Room 1870, Import Administration, U.S. 

Department of Commerce, 14th Street 

and Constitution Ave., NW., 

Washington, DC 20230. 

The Department will consider all 

comments received before the close of 

the comment period. The Department 

will not accept comments accompanied 

by a request that part or all of the 

material be treated confidentially 

because of its business proprietary 

nature or for any other reason. All 

comments responding to this notice will 

be a matter of public record and will be 

available for inspection at Import 

Administration’s Central Records Unit 

(Room 7046 of the Herbert C. Hoover 

Building) and on the Department’s Web 

site at http://www.trade.gov/ia/. 

Any questions concerning file 

formatting, document conversion, 

access on the Internet, or other 

electronic filing issues should be 

addressed to Andrew Lee Beller, Import 

Administration Webmaster, at (202) 

482–0866, e-mail address: webmastersupport@ita.doc.gov. 

Dated: February 14, 2011. 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. 2011–3743 Filed 2–17–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–201–836] 

Light-Walled Rectangular Pipe and 

Tube From Mexico; Final Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

DATES: Effective Date: February 18, 

2011. 

SUMMARY: On September 13, 2010, the 

Department of Commerce (the 

Department) published the preliminary 

results of the administrative review of 

the antidumping duty order on lightwalled rectangular pipe and tube from 

Mexico. This first administrative review 

covers nine manufacturers/exporters 

and has a period of review (POR) from 

January 30, 2008, through July 31, 2009. 

On January 6, 2011, the Department 

published a notice in which it extended 

the time limit for completion of the final 

results of the review until no later than 

February 10, 2011. 

Based on our analysis of the 

comments received on the preliminary 

results, we have made changes to the 

margin calculations for two companies 

and, as a result, the final results of 

review differ from the preliminary 

results for all companies. The final 

dumping margins for all companies are 

listed below in the section entitled 

‘‘Final Results of Review.’’ 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John 

Drury/Brian Davis (Regiopytsa) or 

Edythe Artman (Maquilacero), 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) 482–0195, (202) 482– 

7924, or (202) 482–3931, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On September 13, 2010, the 

Department published the preliminary 

results of the administrative review of 

the antidumping duty order on lightwalled rectangular pipe and tube from 

Mexico. See Light-Walled Rectangular 

Pipe and Tube From Mexico: 

Preliminary Results of Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review, 75 FR 

55559 (September 13, 2010) 

(Preliminary Results). This first 

administrative review of the order 

covers sales of subject merchandise, as 

described in the ‘‘Scope of the Order’’ 

section below, made during the POR 

from January 30, 2008, through July 31, 

2009. Although we named nine 

companies in the notice of initiation for 

this review,1 we only examined the 

individual sales of two companies— 

Maquilacero S.A. de C.V. (Maquilacero) 

and Regiomontana de Perfiles y Tubos 

S.A. de C.V. (Regiopytsa). See 

‘‘Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review of Light-Walled Rectangular 

Pipe and Tube from Mexico: 

Respondent Selection Memorandum’’ 

from Ericka Ukrow, International Trade 

Compliance Analyst, AD/CVD 

Operations, Office 7, to Richard O. 

Weible, Director, AD/CVD Operations, 

Office 7, dated October 15, 2009 

(Respondent Selection Memorandum). 

We invited parties to comment on the 

Preliminary Results (75 at 55567) and 

received case and rebuttal briefs from 

the respondent companies, companies 

not selected for individual examination, 

and the domestic interested parties.2

None of the parties requested a hearing 

on the issues raised in comments. 

On January 6, 2011, the Department 

published a notice in which it extended 

the limit for completion of the final 

results of review until no later than 

February 10, 2011. See Light-Walled 

Rectangular Pipe and Tube From 

Mexico: Extension of Time Limit for 

Final Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review, 76 FR 774 

(January 6, 2011). 

Period of Review 

The POR is from January 30, 2008, 

through July 31, 2009. 

Scope of the Order 

The merchandise that is the subject of 

this order is certain welded carbonquality light-walled steel pipe and tube, 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with NOTICES