29670 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 119 / Tuesday, June 23, 2009 / Notices 

1 120 days from July 3, 2009, is October 31, 2009. 

However, Department practice dictates that where 

a deadline falls on a weekend, the appropriate 

deadline is the next business day. See Notice of 

Clarification: Application of ‘‘Next Business Day’’ 

Rule for Administrative Determination Deadlines 

Pursuant to the Tariff Act of 1930, As Amended, 70 

FR 24533 (May 10, 2005). 

Background 

On November 24, 2008, the 

Department of Commerce (‘‘the 

Department’’) published a notice of 

initiation of an administrative review of 

the antidumping duty order on certain 

helical spring lock washers from the 

People’s Republic of China covering the 

period October 1, 2007, through 

September 30, 2008. See Initiation of 

Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 

Administrative Reviews, 73 FR 70964 

(November 24, 2008). The preliminary 

results for this administrative review are 

currently due no later than July 3, 2009. 

Extension of Time Limits for 

Preliminary Results 

Section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act 

of 1930, as amended (‘‘the Act’’), 

requires the Department to issue the 

preliminary results of an administrative 

review within 245 days after the last day 

of the anniversary month of an 

antidumping duty order for which a 

review is requested and issue the final 

results within 120 days after the date on 

which the preliminary results are 

published. However, if it is not 

practicable to complete the review 

within the time period, section 

751(a)(3)(A) of the Act allows the 

Department to extend these deadlines to 

a maximum of 365 days and 180 days, 

respectively. 

Because the Department is analyzing 

the questionnaire response and will 

issue a supplemental questionnaire 

shortly, it is not practicable to complete 

the preliminary results of this review 

within the original time limit (i.e., July 

3, 2009). Therefore, the Department is 

extending the time limit for completion 

of the preliminary results to no later 

than November 2, 2009,1 in accordance 

with section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act. 

We are issuing and publishing this 

notice in accordance with sections 

751(a)(3)(A) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. 

Dated: June 12, 2009. 

John M. Andersen, 

Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for 

Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 

Operations. 

[FR Doc. E9–14730 Filed 6–22–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[C–570–946] 

Prestressed Concrete Steel Wire 

Strand From the People’s Republic of 

China: Initiation of Countervailing Duty 

Investigation 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

DATES: Effective Date: June 16, 2009. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Robert Copyak, AD/CVD Operations, 

Office 3, Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th 

Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., 

Room 4014, Washington, DC 20230; 

telephone: (202) 482–2209. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

The Petition 

On May 27, 2009, the Department of 

Commerce (‘‘Department’’) received a 

petition filed in proper form by 

American Spring Wire Corp., Insteel 

Wire Products Company, and Sumiden 

Wire Products Corp (collectively, 

‘‘Petitioners’’), domestic producers of 

prestressed concrete steel wire strand 

(‘‘PC Strand’’). On June 1, 2009, the 

Department issued a request for 

additional information and clarification 

of certain areas of the Petition. Based on 

the Department’s request, Petitioners 

filed supplements to the Petition on 

June 4, 2009 (‘‘Supplement to the AD 

Petition’’ and ‘‘Supplement to the AD/ 

CVD Petitions’’). On June 4, 2009, the 

Department requested further 

clarification of Petitioners’ subsidy 

allegations. Based on the Department’s 

request, Petitioners filed supplements to 

the countervailing duty (‘‘CVD’’) 

petition on June 11, 2009 (‘‘Supplement 

to the CVD Petition’’). On June 8, 2009, 

the Department requested further 

clarifications of industry support and 

producers/exporters identified in the 

Petitions. Based on the Department’s 

request, Petitioners filed supplements to 

the Petition on June 9, 2009 (‘‘Second 

Supplement to the AD/CVD Petitions’’). 

On June 12, 2009 the Department again 

asked for clarification regarding the 

scope. Based on the Department’s 

request, Petitioners filed an additional 

supplement to the Petition on June 15, 

2009 (‘‘Third Supplement to the AD/ 

CVD Petitions’’). 

In accordance with section 702(b)(1) 

of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended 

(‘‘the Act’’), Petitioners allege that 

manufacturers, producers, or exporters 

of PC Strand in the People’s Republic of 

China (‘‘PRC’’) receive countervailable 

subsidies within the meaning of section 

701 of the Act, and that such imports 

are materially injuring, or threatening 

material injury to, an industry in the 

United States. 

The Department finds that Petitioners 

filed the Petition on behalf of the 

domestic industry because they are 

interested parties as defined in section 

771(9)(C) of the Act, and Petitioners 

have demonstrated sufficient industry 

support with respect to the CVD 

investigation (see ‘‘Determination of 

Industry Support for the Petition’’ 

section below). 

Period of Investigation 

The period of investigation is January 

1, 2008, through December 31, 2008. 

Scope of Investigation 

The products covered by this 

investigation are PC Strand from the 

PRC. For a full description of the scope 

of the investigation, please see the 

‘‘Scope of the Investigation’’ in 

Appendix I of this notice. 

Comments on Scope of Investigation 

During our review of the Petition, we 

discussed the scope with Petitioners to 

ensure that it is an accurate reflection of 

the products for which the domestic 

industry is seeking relief. Moreover, as 

discussed in the preamble to the 

regulations (Antidumping Duties; 

Countervailing Duties; Final Rule, 62 FR 

27296, 27323 (May 19, 1997)), we are 

setting aside a period for interested 

parties to raise issues regarding product 

coverage. The Department encourages 

all interested parties to submit such 

comments by July 6, 2009, twenty 

calendar days from the signature date of 

this notice. Comments should be 

addressed to Import Administration’s 

APO/Dockets Unit, Room 1870, U.S. 

Department of Commerce, 14th Street 

and Constitution Avenue, NW., 

Washington, DC 20230. The period of 

scope consultations is intended to 

provide the Department with ample 

opportunity to consider all comments 

and to consult with parties prior to the 

issuance of the preliminary 

determinations. 

Consultations 

Pursuant to section 702(b)(4)(A)(ii) of 

the Act, the Department invited 

representatives of the Government of the 

PRC for consultations with respect to 

the CVD Petition. The Department held 

these consultations in Washington, DC, 

on June 1, 2009. See the Memorandum 

from Dana S. Mermelstein to the Files, 

entitled, ‘‘Countervailing Duty Petitions 

on Pre-Stressed Concrete Steel Wire 

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 119 / Tuesday, June 23, 2009 / Notices 29671 

Strand and Certain Grating from the 

People’s Republic of China: 

Consultations with the Government of 

the People’s Republic of China,’’ (June 

3, 2009), which is on file in the Central 

Records Unit (‘‘CRU’’) of the main 

Department of Commerce building, 

Room 1117. 

Determination of Industry Support for 

the Petition 

Section 702(b)(1) of the Act requires 

that a petition be filed on behalf of the 

domestic industry. Section 702(c)(4)(A) 

of the Act provides that a petition meets 

this requirement if the domestic 

producers or workers who support the 

petition account for: (i) At least 25 

percent of the total production of the 

domestic like product; and (ii) more 

than 50 percent of the production of the 

domestic like product produced by that 

portion of the industry expressing 

support for, or opposition to, the 

petition. Moreover, section 702(c)(4)(D) 

of the Act provides that, if the petition 

does not establish support of domestic 

producers or workers accounting for 

more than 50 percent of the total 

production of the domestic like product, 

the Department shall: (i) Poll the 

industry or rely on other information in 

order to determine if there is support for 

the petition, as required by 

subparagraph (A); or (ii) determine 

industry support using a statistically 

valid sampling method. 

Section 771(4)(A) of the Act defines 

the ‘‘industry’’ as the producers as a 

whole of a domestic like product. Thus, 

to determine whether a petition has the 

requisite industry support, the statute 

directs the Department to look to 

producers and workers who produce the 

domestic like product. The U.S. 

International Trade Commission 

(‘‘ITC’’), which is responsible for 

determining whether ‘‘the domestic 

industry’’ has been injured, must also 

determine what constitutes a domestic 

like product in order to define the 

industry. While both the Department 

and the ITC must apply the same 

statutory definition regarding the 

domestic like product (section 771(10) 

of the Act), they do so for different 

purposes and pursuant to a separate and 

distinct authority. In addition, the 

Department’s determination is subject to 

limitations of time and information. 

Although this may result in different 

definitions of the like product, such 

differences do not render the decision of 

either agency contrary to law. See 

USEC, Inc. v. United States, 132 F. 

Supp. 2d 1, 8 (CIT 2001), citing Algoma 

Steel Corp. Ltd. v. United States, 688 F. 

Supp. 639, 644 (CIT 1988), aff’d 865 

F.2d 240 (Fed. Cir. 1989), cert. denied 

492 U.S. 919 (1989). 

Section 771(10) of the Act defines the 

domestic like product as ‘‘a product 

which is like, or in the absence of like, 

most similar in characteristics and uses 

with, the article subject to an 

investigation under this subtitle.’’ Thus, 

the reference point from which the 

domestic like product analysis begins is 

‘‘the article subject to an investigation’’ 

(i.e., the class or kind of merchandise to 

be investigated, which normally will be 

the scope as defined in the petition). 

With regard to the domestic like 

product, Petitioners do not offer a 

definition of domestic like product 

distinct from the scope of the 

investigation. Based on our analysis of 

the information submitted on the 

record, we have determined that PC 

strand constitutes a single domestic like 

product and we have analyzed industry 

support in terms of that domestic like 

product. For a discussion of the 

domestic like product analysis in this 

case, see Countervailing Duty 

Investigation Initiation Checklist: PC 

Strand from the PRC (‘‘Initiation 

Checklist’’) at Attachment II (‘‘Industry 

Support’’), dated concurrently with this 

notice and on file in the Central Records 

Unit (‘‘CRU’’), Room 1117 of the main 

Department of Commerce building. 

In determining whether Petitioners 

have standing, under section 

702(c)(4)(A) of the Act, we considered 

the industry support data contained in 

the Petition with reference to the 

domestic like product as defined in the 

‘‘Scope of Investigation’’ section above. 

To establish industry support, 

Petitioners provided their production of 

the domestic like product for the year 

2008, and compared this to total 

production of the domestic like product 

for the entire domestic industry. See 

Volume I of the Petition, at 4, and 

Exhibit General-1. Petitioners calculated 

total domestic production based on their 

own production plus information 

provided by the two other nonpetitioning companies that produce the 

domestic like product in the United 

States, who are supporters of the 

Petition. See Volume I of the Petition, at 

Exhibit General-1, and Supplement to 

the AD/CVD Petitions, at 5–6, and 

Attachment 3, and Second Supplement 

to the AD/CVD Petitions, dated June 9, 

2009, at 5, and Attachment 1; see also 

Initiation Checklist as Attachment II, 

Industry Support. 

Our review of the data provided in the 

Petition, supplemental submissions, and 

other information readily available to 

the Department indicates that 

Petitioners have established industry 

support. First, the Petition established 

support from domestic producers (or 

workers) accounting for more than 50 

percent of the total production of the 

domestic like product and, as such, the 

Department is not required to take 

further action in order to evaluate 

industry support (e.g., polling). See 

section 702(c)(4)(D) of the Act and 

Initiation Checklist at Attachment II. 

Second, the domestic producers (or 

workers) have met the statutory criteria 

for industry support under section 

702(c)(4)(A)(i) of the Act because the 

domestic producers (or workers) who 

support the Petitions account for at least 

25 percent of the total production of the 

domestic like product. See Initiation 

Checklist at Attachment II. Finally, the 

domestic producers (or workers) have 

met the statutory criteria for industry 

support under section 702(c)(4)(A)(ii) of 

the Act because the domestic producers 

(or workers) who support the Petition 

account for more than 50 percent of the 

production of the domestic like product 

produced by that portion of the industry 

expressing support for, or opposition to, 

the Petition. Accordingly, the 

Department determines that the Petition 

was filed on behalf of the domestic 

industry within the meaning of section 

702(b)(1) of the Act. See id. 

The Department finds that Petitioners 

filed the Petition on behalf of the 

domestic industry because they are 

interested parties as defined in section 

771(9)(C) of the Act and they have 

demonstrated sufficient industry 

support with respect to the antidumping 

investigation that they are requesting 

the Department initiate. See id. 

Allegations and Evidence of Material 

Injury and Causation 

Petitioners allege that imports of PC 

strand from the PRC are benefitting from 

countervailable subsidies and that such 

imports are causing or threaten to cause, 

material injury to the domestic 

industries producing PC strand. In 

addition, Petitioners allege that 

subsidized imports exceed the 

negligibility threshold provided for 

under section 771(24)(A) of the Act. 

Petitioners contend that the industry’s 

injured condition is illustrated by 

reduced market share, increased import 

penetration, underselling and price 

depressing and suppressing effects, lost 

sales and revenue, reduced production, 

capacity, and capacity utilization, 

reduced employment, and an overall 

decline in financial performance. We 

have assessed the allegations and 

supporting evidence regarding material 

injury, threat of material injury, and 

causation, and we have determined that 

these allegations are properly supported 

by adequate evidence and meet the 

29672 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 119 / Tuesday, June 23, 2009 / Notices 

statutory requirements for initiation. See 

Initiation Checklist at Attachment III 

(Analysis of Allegations and Evidence of 

Material Injury and Causation for the 

Petition). 

Initiation of Countervailing Duty 

Investigation 

Section 702(b) of the Act requires the 

Department to initiate a CVD proceeding 

whenever an interested party files a 

petition on behalf of an industry that: 

(1) Alleges the elements necessary for an 

imposition of a duty under section 

701(a) of the Act; and (2) is 

accompanied by information reasonably 

available to the petitioner(s) supporting 

the allegations. 

The Department has examined the 

CVD Petition on PC Strand from the 

PRC and finds that it complies with the 

requirements of section 702(b) of the 

Act. Therefore, in accordance with 

section 702(b) of the Act, we are 

initiating a CVD investigation to 

determine whether manufacturers, 

producers, or exporters of PC Strand in 

the PRC receive countervailable 

subsidies. For a discussion of evidence 

supporting our initiation determination, 

see Initiation Checklist. 

We are including in our investigation 

the following programs alleged in the 

petition to have provided 

countervailable subsidies to producers 

and exporters of the subject 

merchandise in the PRC: 

A. Loan Programs 

1. Policy Lending at the Federal Level 

to PC Strand Industry. 

2. Policy Lending at the Provincial 

and Municipal Level. 

3. Preferential Loans for State-Owned 

Enterprises. 

4. Treasury Bond Loans. 

5. Honorable Enterprises Program. 

6. Preferential Loans for Key Projects 

and Technologies. 

B. Government Provision of Goods and 

Services for Less Than Adequate 

Remuneration (LTAR) 

1. Government Provision of Wire Rod 

for LTAR. 

2. Provision of Land Use Rights for 

LTAR to Foreign Invested Enterprises 

(‘‘FIEs’’) in Jiangxi and the City of 

Xinyu. 

3. Federal Provision of Electricity for 

LTAR. 

4. Provision of Electricity and Water 

at LTAR for FIEs and ‘‘Technologically 

Advanced’’ Enterprises by Jiangsu 

Province. 

C. Income and Other Direct Taxes 

1. Income Tax Credits for 

Domestically Owned Companies 

Purchasing Domestically Produced 

Equipment. 

2. Income Tax Exemption for 

Investment in Domestic Technological 

Renovation. 

3. Reduction in or exemption from 

Fixed Assets Investment Orientation 

Regulatory Tax. 

D. Indirect Tax and Tariff Exemption 

Programs 

1. Stamp Exemption on Share 

Transfers Under Non-Tradable Share 

Reform. 

2. Deed Tax Exemption for State 

Owned Enterprises (SOEs) Undergoing 

Mergers or Restructurings. 

3. Export Incentive Payments 

Characterized as ‘‘VAT Rebates.’’ 

4. Import Tariff and VAT Exemptions 

for FIEs and Certain Domestic 

Enterprises Using Imported Equipment 

in Encouraged Industries. 

5. Import Tariff and VAT Refunds to 

Promote the Development of Equipment 

Manufacturing in China. 

E. Grant Programs 

1. The State Key Technology Project 

Fund. 

2. Subsidies for Development of 

Famous Export Brands and China World 

Top Brands. 

3. Sub-Central Government Programs 

to Promote Famous Export Brands and 

China World Top Brands. 

4. Exemptions for SOEs from 

Distributing Dividends to the State. 

5. Grants to Loss-Making SOEs. 

6. Program to Rebate Antidumping 

Fees. 

F. Preferential Income Tax Subsidies 

for Foreign Invested Entities (FIEs) 

1. Two Free, Three Half Program. 

2. Income Tax Exemption Program for 

Export-Oriented FIEs. 

3. Local Income Tax Exemption and 

Reduction Programs for ‘‘Productive’’ 

Foreign-Invested Enterprises. 

4. Preferential Tax Programs for 

Foreign-Invested Enterprises 

Recognized as High or New Technology 

Enterprises. 

5. Income Tax Subsidies for FIE’s 

Based on Geographic Location. 

6. VAT Refunds for FIE’s Purchasing 

Domestically-Produced Equipment. 

For further information explaining 

why the Department is investigating 

these programs, see the Initiation 

Checklist. 

We are not including in our 

investigation the following programs 

alleged to benefit producers and 

exporters of the subject merchandise in 

the PRC: 

A. Export Loans 

Petitioners allege that in Line Pipe 

from the PRC, the Department found 

that a number of companies benefitted 

from export-contingent loans from 

SOCBs and that Chinese PC strand 

producers would be eligible for such 

loans. See Circular Welded Carbon 

Quality Steel Line Pipe from the 

People’s Republic of China: Final 

Affirmative Countervailing Duty 

Determination, 73 FR 70961 (Nov. 24, 

2008) (‘‘Line Pipe from the PRC’’), and 

accompanying Issues and Decision 

Memorandum (Line Pipe from PRC 

Decision Memorandum) at ‘‘Export 

Loans’’ section. According to 

Petitioners, this program has not been 

eliminated by any reforms to the 

Chinese banking system. Petitioners 

support their allegation by citing to Line 

Pipe from the PRC. However, in a 

subsequent initiation of a CVD 

investigation, the Department made 

clear the producers identified in that 

petition were the same as those 

investigated in Line Pipe from the PRC. 

See Certain Oil Country Tubular Goods 

from the People’s Republic of China: 

Initiation of Countervailing Duty 

Investigation, 74 FR 20678 (May 5, 

2009) (‘‘OCTG Initiation’’), and 

accompanying Initiation Checklist 

(OCTG Initiation Checklist) at ‘‘Export 

Loans’’ section. The producers 

investigated in Line Pipe from the PRC 

and identified in the OCTG Initiation 

are not identified in the petition filed on 

the record of this proceeding. Therefore, 

we find that the support relied on in the 

OCTG Initiation to initiate an 

investigation of export loans does not 

apply to the facts of this proceeding. 

The petitioners have provided 

insufficient evidence indicating that PC 

strand producers can benefit from this 

alleged program. 

B. Stamp Tax Exemption and Waiver of 

Administrative Charges for SOEs 

Undergoing Mergers or Restructurings 

Petitioners allege that the GOC 

imposes charges on companies that 

undergo a restructuring or 

reorganization in China for various 

administrative items that include a 

business registration change, trademark 

registration change, tax registration, 

property rights, and land registration. 

Petitioners allege that, pursuant to Cai 

Shui (2003) No. 184 and Ji Jia Fei (1998) 

No. 1077, SOEs are exempted from 

certain fees associated with land 

registration, such as land registration 

fees, survey fees, and measurement 

registration fees. The legislation cited by 

petitioners refers to stamp tax 

exemptions provided by the 

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 119 / Tuesday, June 23, 2009 / Notices 29673 

1See Circular Welded Carbon Quality Steel Pipe 

from the People’s Republic of China: Final 

Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination and 

Final Affirmative Determination of Critical 

Circumstances, 73 FR 31966 (June 5, 2008) (‘‘CWP 

from the PRC’’), and accompanying Issues and 

Decision Memorandum (CWP from the PRC 

Decision Memorandum) at ‘‘Export Assistance 

Grants.’’ 

2Citation to Certain New Pneumatic Off-the-Road 

Tires From the People’s Republic of China: 

Initiation of Countervailing Duty Investigation, 72 

FR 44122, 44124 (August 7, 2007) (‘‘OTR from the 

PRC Initiation’’), and accompanying Initiation 

Checklist (OTR from the PRC Initiation Checklist) 

at ‘‘Provision of Land and Utilities to SOEs for Less 

than Adequate Remuneration.’’ 

municipality of Shenzhen. The 

petitioners did not provide copies of Cai 

Shui (2003) No. 184 and Ji Jia Fei (1998) 

No. 1077. The only documentation 

provided by petitioners refers to stamp 

tax exemptions provided by the 

municipality of Shenzhen. However, 

petitioners have not identified a 

producer of PC strand that is located in 

the municipality of Shenzhen. 

C. Export Assistance Grants 

Petitioners allege that the Department 

found this program conferred 

countervailable benefits on Chinese 

pipe producers in the CWP from the 

PRC investigation.1 Petitioners contend 

that there is no reason to believe this 

program has been terminated, and the 

Department should investigate it 

accordingly. Aside from citing to CWP 

from the PRC, petitioners have not 

identified the administrating authority 

that is allegedly providing the export 

assistance grants. Therefore, Petitioners 

have not provided any indication 

whether the program is administered at 

the municipal, provincial, or Federal 

level. Nor have the petitioners shown 

that PC strand producers are located 

within the area or regions in which 

these assistance grants are made 

available. 

D. Provision of Land to SOEs for Less 

Than Adequate Remuneration 

According to petitioners, the 

Department initiated an investigation of 

the provision of land to SOEs for LTAR 

in OTR Tires from the PRC.2 Petitioners 

contend that, to the extent that it does 

not consider this program a subset of the 

provision of land for LTAR generally, 

the Department should investigate this 

as a separate program. Petitioners’ sole 

support for this allegation is the 

Department’s initiation in the OTR from 

the PRC Initiation, which we find does 

not constitute sufficient evidence that 

PC strand producers can benefit from 

this alleged program. We note that the 

information reviewed by the 

Department in the OTR from the PRC 

Initiation, included company-specific 

information pertaining to OTR 

producers as well as other 

documentation that is not on the record 

of the current proceeding. 

E. Government Provision of Land at 

Less Than Adequate Remuneration to 

Companies Located in Development 

Zones 

Petitioners allege that local and 

provincial governments sell land for 

LTAR to firms located in designated 

geographical areas. We have 

recommended initiating an investigation 

into the Province of Jiangxi and the City 

of Xinyu’s provision of land to FIEs for 

less than adequate remuneration in the 

context of the ‘‘Provision of Land Use 

Rights for Less Than Adequate 

Remuneration’’ program. Further, 

petitioner has provided no additional 

information to support its allegation of 

the provision of land for LTAR to 

companies located in other geographical 

regions outside the Province of Jiangxi 

and the City of Xinyu. 

F. Government Restraints on Exports of 

Wire Rod 

Petitioners allege that the GOC 

imposes export restrictions, such as 

export quotas, related export licensing 

and bidding requirements, minimum 

export prices and export duties, on the 

raw materials used for producing PC 

strand. Petitioners contend that these 

restrictions have resulted in artificially 

suppressing raw material prices of wire 

rod within the PRC. Petitioners have not 

adequately shown how these particular 

export taxes and licenses constitute 

entrustment or direction of private 

entities by the GOC to provide a 

financial contribution to producers of 

subject merchandise. Moreover, 

petitioners have not provided sufficient 

data regarding historic price and export 

trends demonstrating, e.g., price 

decreases or decreased exports (as a 

whole, from China) correlated with the 

imposition of the alleged export 

restraints. 

G. Tax Reduction for Enterprises 

Making Little Profit 

According to China’s WTO subsidies 

notification, enterprises with annual 

taxable incomes between RMB 30,000 

and 100,000 are eligible for a 3 percent 

reduction in their annual income tax 

rate. Petitioners have not established 

with reasonably available information 

that ‘‘enterprises making little profit’’ 

are a de jure specific group because 

petitioners have provided no 

explanation of why companies with 

access to this program comprise an 

enterprise or industry, or group of 

enterprises or industries. See, e.g., 

Preamble to Countervailing Duty 

Regulations, 63 FR 65348, 65357 

(November 25, 1998) ‘‘* * * because 

the user represented numerous and 

diverse industries, the program was 

found not to be specific.’’ 

H. China’s Enforced Undervaluation of 

Its Currency 

Petitioners allege that the GOCmaintained exchange rate effectively 

prevents the appreciation of the Chinese 

currency (‘‘RMB’’) against the U.S. 

dollar. In addition, petitioners allege 

that the GOC requires that foreign 

exchange earned from export activities 

be converted to RMB at the government 

prescribed rate. Therefore, when 

producers in the PRC sell their dollars 

at official foreign exchange banks, as 

required by law, the producers receive 

more RMB than they otherwise would if 

the value of the RMB were set by market 

mechanisms. Petitioners have not 

sufficiently alleged the elements 

necessary for the imposition of a 

countervailing duty and did not support 

the allegation with reasonably available 

information. 

Respondent Selection 

For this investigation, the Department 

expects to select respondents based on 

U.S. Customs and Border Protection 

(CBP) data for U.S. imports during the 

period of investigation. We intend to 

make our decision regarding respondent 

selection within 20 days of publication 

of this Federal Register notice. The 

Department invites comments regarding 

the CBP data and respondent selection 

within seven calendar days of 

publication of this Federal Register 

notice. 

Distribution of Copies of the Petition 

In accordance with section 

702(b)(4)(A)(i) of the Act, a copy of the 

public version of the petition has been 

provided to the Government of the PRC. 

As soon as and to the extent practicable, 

we will attempt to provide a copy of the 

public version of the petition to each 

exporter named in the petition, 

consistent with section 351.203(c)(2) of 

the Department’s regulations. 

ITC Notification 

We have notified the ITC of our 

initiation, as required by section 702(d) 

of the Act. 

Preliminary Determination by the ITC 

The ITC will preliminarily determine, 

within 25 days after the date on which 

it receives notice of the initiation, 

whether there is a reasonable indication 

that imports of subsidized PC Strand 

from the PRC are causing material 

29674 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 119 / Tuesday, June 23, 2009 / Notices 

injury, or threatening to cause material 

injury, to a U.S. industry. See section 

703(a)(2) of the Act. A negative ITC 

determination will result in the 

investigation being terminated; 

otherwise, the investigation will 

proceed according to statutory and 

regulatory time limits. 

This notice is issued and published 

pursuant to section 777(i) of the Act. 

Dated: June 16, 2009. 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

Appendix I 

Scope of the Investigation 

For purposes of this investigation, 

prestressed concrete steel wire strand (PC 

strand) is steel wire strand, other than of 

stainless steel, which is suitable for use in, 

but not limited to, prestressed concrete (both 

pretensioned and post-tensioned) 

applications. The scope of this investigation 

encompasses all types and diameters of PC 

strand whether uncoated (uncovered) or 

coated (covered) by any substance, including 

but not limited to, grease, plastic sheath, or 

epoxy. This merchandise includes, but is not 

limited to, PC strand produced to the 

American Society for Testing and Materials 

(ASTM) A–416 specification, or comparable 

domestic or foreign specifications. PC strand 

made from galvanized wire is excluded from 

the scope if the zinc and/or zinc oxide 

coating meets or exceeds the 0.40 oz./ft2

standard set forth in ASTM–A–475. 

The PC strand subject to this investigation 

is currently classifiable under subheadings 

7312.10.3010 and 7312.10.3012 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 scope of this investigation 

is dispositive. 

[FR Doc. E9–14743 Filed 6–22–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

RIN 0648–XP88 

Magnuson–Stevens Act Provisions; 

General Provisions for Domestic 

Fisheries; Application for Exempted 

Fishing Permit 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice; request for comments. 

SUMMARY: The Assistant Regional 

Administrator for Sustainable Fisheries, 

Northeast Region, NMFS, has made a 

preliminary determination that the 

subject exempted fishing permit (EFP) 

application contains all the required 

information and warrants further 

consideration. Therefore, NMFS 

announces that the Assistant Regional 

Administrator proposes to recommend 

that an EFP be issued that would allow 

four commercial fishing vessel to 

conduct fishing operations that are 

otherwise restricted by the regulations 

governing the fisheries of the 

Northeastern United States. The EFP, 

which would enable the applicants to 

land more than one standard tote of 

female red crabs and to conduct at–sea 

sampling and tagging, would allow for 

exemptions for up to four vessels from 

the Atlantic Deep–sea Red Crab Fishery 

Management Plan (FMP). 

Regulations under the Magnuson– 

Stevens Fishery Conservation and 

Management Act require publication of 

this notification to provide interested 

parties the opportunity to comment on 

applications for proposed EFPs. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before July 8, 2009. 

ADDRESSES: Comments on this notice 

may be submitted by e–mail to 

RedCrabEFP@noaa.gov. Include in the 

subject line of the e–mail comment the 

following document identifier: 

‘‘Comments on Red Crab EFP.’’ Written 

comments should be sent to Patricia A. 

Kurkul, Regional Administrator, NMFS, 

Northeast Regional Office, 55 Great 

Republic Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930. 

Mark the outside of the envelope 

‘‘Comments on Red Crab EFP.’’ 

Comments may also be sent via 

facsimile (fax) to (978) 281–9135. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Moira Kelly, Fishery Policy Analyst, 

phone: 978–281–9218, fax: 978–281– 

9135. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: An 

application for an EFP was submitted on 

November 19, 2008, by Dr. Richard 

Wahle of the Bigelow Laboratory for 

Ocean Sciences; Dr. Yong Chen of the 

School of Marine Sciences, University 

of Maine; and Mr. Jon Williams of the 

New England Red Crab Harvesters’ 

Association. A supplementary proposal 

was received on February 10, 2009, that 

provided greater detail on the harvest of 

female red crabs (Chaceon 

quinquidens). 

This project is fully funded by the 

New England Red Crab Harvesters’ 

Association. The primary goal of the 

experimental fishery is to begin 

harvesting non–egg bearing females to 

expand the red crab market and increase 

efficiency in the harvesting process. In 

addition, an experimental fishery that 

includes non–egg bearing females 

would provide an opportunity to 

conduct at–sea sampling, renewed 

tagging, and model development to 

better evaluate the growth and 

reproductive performance of the 

population, as well as the impact of 

current and proposed harvesting on 

yields and egg production. This aspect 

of the project would be conducted by an 

onboard researcher under the direction 

of Dr. Wahle. The objectives of this 

project are as follows: 

1. Characterize regional variability in 

the reproductive characteristics of the 

red crab population along the 

geographic range of the fishery on the 

New England and mid–Atlantic shelf 

break; 

2. Conduct tagging to evaluate growth 

rates that will facilitate the development 

of growth and yield and egg production 

models for the fishery; and 

3. Develop yield and egg per recruit 

models to identify potential biological 

reference points for red crab stock 

assessment and to evaluate impacts of 

fishing on the female red crab resource. 

The experimental design calls for 

normal commercial fishing operations, 

with the addition of retaining females. 

The research and experimental fishing 

would occur within the constraints of 

the current management measures, 

including possession limits and days– 

at–sea limits. The research would occur 

during normal fishing operations by 

sampling the catch to evaluate the size 

and sex composition of the catch, 

including the number of egg–bearing 

females. Further, the applicants propose 

to tag up to 20,000 crabs over 2 years 

to analyze growth. In order to allow for 

sufficient numbers of crabs for the 

tagging project, a small number of traps 

would be fitted with small mesh to trap 

smaller crabs. All crabs would be sorted 

and weighed, and crabs of marketable 

size would be retained for sale. All 

discards would be released as quickly as 

practicable to reduce incidental 

mortality. All at–sea research would be 

conducted from one of the four active 

red crab fishing vessels, fishing under 

that vessel’s DAS. 

The applicant may make requests to 

NMFS for minor modifications and 

extensions to the EFP throughout the 

year. EFP modifications and extensions 

may be granted by NMFS without 

further notice if they are deemed 

essential to facilitate completion of the 

proposed research and result in only a 

minimal change in the scope or impact 

of the initially approved EFP request. In 

accordance with NOAA Administrative 

Order 216–6, a Categorical Exclusion or 

other appropriate NEPA document 

would be completed prior to the 

issuance of the EFP. Further review and 

consultation may be necessary before a