Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 129 / Wednesday, July 8, 2009 / Notices 32539 

1See Notice of Antidumping Duty Order: Tapered 

Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished or 

Unfinished, From the People’s Republic of China, 

52 FR 22667 (June 15, 1987). 

Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68 

FR 23954 (May 6, 2003). This 

clarification will apply to entries of 

subject merchandise during the POR 

produced by Ta Chen or by any of the 

companies for which we are rescinding 

this review and for which Ta Chen or 

each no-shipment respondent did not 

know its merchandise would be 

exported by another company to the 

United States. In such instances, we will 

instruct CBP to liquidate unreviewed 

entries at the all-others rate if there is no 

rate for the intermediate company(ies) 

involved in the transaction. 

Cash Deposit Requirements 

The following cash deposit 

requirements will be effective upon 

publication of the final results of this 

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withdrawn from warehouse, for 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 of this 

administrative review, as provided by 

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

deposit rate for the reviewed company 

will be the rate listed in the final results 

of review; (2) for previously investigated 

companies not listed above, the cash 

deposit rate will continue to be the 

company-specific rate published for the 

most recent period; (3) if the exporter is 

not a firm covered in this review, a prior 

review, or the original 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; and (4) the cash deposit 

rate for all other manufacturers or 

exporters will continue to be the ‘‘all 

others’’ rate of 51.01 percent, which is 

the ‘‘all others’’ rate established in the 

LTFV investigation. See LTFV Order. 

These deposit requirements, when 

imposed, shall remain in effect until 

further notice. 

Notification to Interested Parties 

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 the antidumping 

duties occurred and the subsequent 

assessment of double antidumping 

duties. 

We are issuing and publishing this 

notice in accordance with sections 

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

Dated: June 30, 2009. 

John M. Andersen, 

Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for AD/ 

CVD Operations. 

[FR Doc. E9–16114 Filed 7–7–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–570–601] 

Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts 

Thereof, Finished or Unfinished, from 

the People’s Republic of China: 

Preliminary Results of the 2007–2008 

Administrative Review of the 

Antidumping Duty Order 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce 

(‘‘Department’’) is currently conducting 

the 2007–2008 administrative review of 

the antidumping duty order on tapered 

roller bearings and parts thereof, 

finished or unfinished (‘‘TRBs’’), from 

the People’s Republic of China (‘‘PRC’’), 

covering the period June 1, 2007, 

through May 31, 2008. This 

administrative review covers one 

producer/exporter of the subject 

merchandise, i.e. Peer Bearing Company 

Changshan (‘‘CPZ’’). We preliminarily 

determine that CPZ made sales below 

normal value (‘‘NV’’). If these 

preliminary results are adopted in our 

final results of this review, we will 

instruct U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection (‘‘CBP’’) to assess 

antidumping duties on entries of subject 

merchandise during the period of 

review (‘‘POR’’) for which the importer– 

specific assessment rates are above de 

minimis. 

Interested parties are invited to 

comment on these preliminary results. 

We will issue final results no later than 

120 days from the date of publication of 

this notice. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: July 8, 2009. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Frances Veith or Brendan Quinn, AD/ 

CVD Operations, Office 8, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; 

telephone: (202) 482–4295 or (202) 482– 

5848, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On June 15, 1987, the Department 

published in the Federal Register the 

antidumping duty order on TRBs from 

the PRC.1 On June 9, 2008, the 

Department published a notice of 

opportunity to request an administrative 

review of the antidumping duty order 

on tapered roller bearings from the PRC. 

See Antidumping or Countervailing 

Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended 

Investigation; Opportunity To Request 

Administrative Review, 73 FR 32557 

(June 9, 2008). On June 30, 2008, CPZ, 

an exporter of TRBs, requested that the 

Department conduct an administrative 

review of its sales. Additionally, on June 

30, 2008, the Timken Company, of 

Canton, Ohio (‘‘Petitioner’’) requested 

that the Department conduct an 

administrative review of all entries of 

subject merchandise produced and/or 

exported by CPZ. On July 30, 2008, the 

Department published in the Federal 

Register a notice of the initiation of the 

antidumping duty administrative review 

of TRBs from the PRC for the period 

June 1, 2007, through May 31, 2008, for 

CPZ. See Initiation of Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Administrative 

Reviews, Request for Revocation in Part, 

and Deferral of Administrative Review, 

73 FR 44220 (July 30, 2008). 

On September 9, 2008, the 

Department issued its antidumping duty 

questionnaire to CPZ. CPZ submitted its 

Section A questionnaire response on 

October 8, 2008, a supplement to its 

Section A submission on October 15, 

2008, its Section C questionnaire 

response on October 24, 2008, and its 

Section D questionnaire response on 

October 29, 2008. The Department 

issued CPZ a supplemental Section A 

questionnaire on January 29, 2009, a 

supplemental Section C questionnaire 

on February 17, 2009, and a 

supplemental Section D questionnaire 

and second supplemental Section A 

questionnaire on March 11, 2009. CPZ 

submitted its supplemental Section A 

questionnaire response on February 20, 

2009, its supplemental Section C 

response on March 12, 2009, its second 

supplemental Section A questionnaire 

response on March 26, 2009, the first 

part of the supplemental Section D 

response and a revised Section C 

database on April 2, 2009, and the 

second part of the supplemental Section 

D response on April 16, 2009. 

On February 19, 2009, the Department 

published a notice in the Federal 

Register extending the time limit for the 

preliminary results of review by 90 days 

until June 1, 2009. See Tapered Roller 

Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished or 

Unfinished, from the People’s Republic 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

32540 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 129 / Wednesday, July 8, 2009 / Notices 

2See, e.g., Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts 

Thereof, Finished or Unfinished, from the People’s 

Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review, 74 FR 3987 (January 

22, 2009). 

3See also the Department’s memorandum 

entitled, ‘‘Preliminary Results of the 2007-2008 

Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty 

Order on Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts 

Thereof, Finished or Unfinished, from the People’s 

Republic of China: Surrogate Value Memorandum,’’ 

dated June 30, 2009 (‘‘Surrogate Value Memo’’). 

4See the Department’s Policy Bulletin No. 04.1, 

regarding, ‘‘Non-Market Economy Surrogate 

Country Selection Process,’’ (March 1, 2004) 

(‘‘Policy Bulletin 04.1’’), available on the 

Department’s Website at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/ 

policy/bull04-1.html. 

5See the Department’s Memorandum from Carol 

Showers, Acting Director, Office of Policy, to 

Wendy Frankel, Office Director, AD/CVD 

Operations, Office 8, regarding, ‘‘Request for a List 

of Surrogate Countries for an Administrative 

Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Tapered 

Roller Bearings (‘‘TRB’’) from the People’s Republic 

of China (‘‘PRC’’),’’ dated December 22, 2008 

(‘‘Surrogate Countries Memo’’). 6See the Department’s letter regarding, ‘‘2007- 

2008 Administrative Review of the Antidumping 

Duty Order on Tapered Roller Bearings from the 

People’s Republic of China’’ requesting all 

interested parties to provide comments on 

surrogate-country selection and provide surrogate 

FOP values from the potential surrogate countries 

(i.e., India, Indonesia, the Philippines, Thailand, 

Colombia, and Peru), dated December 22, 2008. 7See Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United 

States (2007) (Rev. 2), available at www.usitc.gov. 

of China: Extension of Time Limit for 

the Preliminary Results of the 2007– 

2008 Administrative Review of the 

Antidumping Duty Order, 74 FR 7661 

(February 19, 2009). On April 27, 2009, 

the Department published a notice in 

the Federal Register extending the time 

limit for the preliminary results of 

review by an additional 30 days until 

June 30, 2009. See Tapered Roller 

Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished or 

Unfinished, from the People’s Republic 

of China: Extension of Time Limit for 

the Preliminary Results of the 2007– 

2008 Administrative Review of the 

Antidumping Duty Order, 74 FR 19046 

(April 27, 2009). The Department 

verified the accuracy of CPZ’s 

submissions on April 29, 2009 and 

April 30, 2009 in Waukegan, Illinois, at 

the offices of Peer Bearing Company, 

CPZ’s U.S. affiliate, and on May 28, 

2009, through June 5, 2009, at CPZ’s 

offices in Changshan, China. At the 

conclusion of the aforementioned 

verification, the Department verbally 

requested that CPZ submit a corrected 

U.S. sales and FOP database to include 

changes resulting from both the U.S. 

and Chinese verifications. On June 16, 

2009, CPZ submitted the requested 

revised U.S. sales and FOP databases. 

Period of Review 

The POR is June 1, 2007, through May 

31, 2008. 

Scope of the Order 

Imports covered by this order are 

shipments of tapered roller bearings and 

parts thereof, finished and unfinished, 

from the PRC; flange, take up cartridge, 

and hanger units incorporating tapered 

roller bearings; and tapered roller 

housings (except pillow blocks) 

incorporating tapered rollers, with or 

without spindles, whether or not for 

automotive use. These products are 

currently classifiable under Harmonized 

Tariff Schedule of the United States 

(‘‘HTSUS’’) item numbers 8482.20.00, 

8482.91.00.50, 8482.99.15, 8482.99.45, 

8483.20.40, 8483.20.80, 8483.30.80, 

8483.90.20, 8483.90.30, 8483.90.80, 

8708.99.80.15 and 8708.99.80.80. 

Although the HTSUS item numbers are 

provided for convenience and customs 

purposes, the written description of the 

scope of the order is dispositive. 

Non–Market Economy Country Status 

In every case conducted by the 

Department involving the PRC, the PRC 

has been treated as a non–market 

economy (‘‘NME’’) country.2 In 

accordance with section 771(18)(C)(i) of 

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

Act’’), any determination that a foreign 

country is an NME country shall remain 

in effect until revoked by the 

administering authority. See, e.g., Brake 

Rotors from the People’s Republic of 

China: Final Results and Partial 

Rescission of the 2004/2005 

Administrative Review and Notice of 

Rescission of 2004/2005 New Shipper 

Review, 71 FR 66304 (November 14, 

2006). No party to this proceeding has 

contested such treatment. Accordingly, 

we calculated NV in accordance with 

section 773(c) of the Act, which applies 

to NME countries. 

Surrogate Country 

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

Department to base NV on the NME 

producer’s factors of production 

(‘‘FOPs’’), valued in a surrogate market 

economy country or countries 

considered to be appropriate by the 

Department. In accordance with section 

773(c)(4) of the Act, in valuing the 

FOPs, the Department shall use, to the 

extent possible, the prices or costs of the 

FOPs in one or more market economy 

countries that are: (1) at a level of 

economic development comparable to 

that of the NME country; and (2) 

significant producers of comparable 

merchandise. The sources of the 

surrogate factor values are discussed 

under the ‘‘Normal Value’’ section 

below.3

The Department’s practice with 

respect to determining economic 

comparability is explained in Policy 

Bulletin 04.1,4 which states that ‘‘OP 

{Office of Policy} determines per capita 

economic comparability on the basis of 

per capita gross national income, as 

reported in the most current annual 

issue of the World Development Report 

(The World Bank).’’ 

On December 22, 2008, the 

Department identified six countries as 

being at a level of economic 

development comparable to the PRC for 

the specified POR: India, the 

Philippines, Indonesia, Colombia, 

Thailand, and Peru.5 The Department 

considers the six countries identified in 

the Surrogate Countries Memo as 

‘‘equally comparable in terms of 

economic development.’’ See Policy 

Bulletin 04.1 at 2. Thus, we find that 

India, the Philippines, Indonesia, 

Colombia, Thailand, and Peru are all at 

an economic level of development 

equally comparable to that of the PRC. 

On December 22, 2008, the 

Department invited all interested parties 

to submit comments on the surrogate 

country selection.6 We also invited all 

interested parties to submit publicly 

available information to value factors of 

production for consideration in the 

Department’s preliminary results of 

review. 

On January 9, 2009, both Petitioner 

and CPZ submitted comments regarding 

the Department’s selection of a surrogate 

country for the preliminary results. 

Petitioner requested that India be 

considered as the primary surrogate 

country, while CPZ requested the 

Department also consider Indonesia as a 

potential surrogate. With regard to the 

valuation of individual factors, 

Petitioner submitted publicly available 

information for the Department to 

consider for the preliminary results on 

November 14, 2008, December 3, 2008, 

and January 29, 2009. CPZ submitted 

publicly available information for the 

Department to consider on January 30, 

2009, and on February 04, 2009. In its 

February 4, 2009, submission, CPZ 

requested that the Department also 

consider surrogate value data from 

Thailand. 

The Department’s Policy Bulletin 04.1 

provides guidance on identifying 

comparable merchandise and selecting a 

producer of comparable merchandise. 

The merchandise subject to the scope of 

the order is currently classifiable under 

subheadings 8482.20.00, 8482.91.00.50, 

8482.99.15, 8482.99.45, 8483.20.40, 

8483.20.80, 8483.30.80, 8483.90.20, 

8483.90.30, 8483.90.80, 8708.99.80.15 

and 8708.99.80.80 of the HTSUS.7 For 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 129 / Wednesday, July 8, 2009 / Notices 32541 

8WTA export statistics for India, the Philippines, 

Indonesia, Colombia, Thailand, and Peru only offer 

a basket category for all categories other than 

8482.20.00 ‘‘Tapered roller bearings, including cone 

and tapered roller assemblies.’’ In the case of the 

categories beginning with the four digit 8482 and 

8483 heading, similar ‘NESOI’ or ‘Other’ 

subheadings were used in the alternative, though 

typically not as specific as that of the HTSUS 

category. However, in the case of the categories 

beginning with the four digit 8708 heading, WTA 

export statistics for each of the potential surrogate 

country candidates could only be found to the 

broadly defined 8708.99 subheading. Furthermore, 

WTA data showed that the Philippines did not have 

any exports for HTS categories 8482.20 (‘‘Tapered 

roller bearings, including cone and tapered roller 

assemblies≥) or 8482.91 (‘‘Balls needles and rollers 

for bearings’’). 

9See Surrogate Value Memo. 10See Surrogate Value Memo. 

11 In accordance with 19 CFR 351.301(c)(1), for 

the final results of this administrative review, 

interested parties may submit factual information to 

rebut, clarify, or correct factual information 

submitted by an interested party less than ten days 

before, on, or after, the applicable deadline for 

submission of such factual information. However, 

the Department notes that 19 CFR 351.301(c)(1) 

permits new information only insofar as it rebuts, 

clarifies, or corrects information recently placed on 

the record. The Department generally will not 

accept the submission of additional, previously 

absent-from-the-record alternative surrogate value 

information pursuant to 19 CFR 351.301(c)(1). See 

Glycine from the People’s Republic of China: Final 

Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review and Final Rescission, in Part, 72 FR 58809 

(October 17, 2007), and accompanying Issues and 

Decision Memorandum at Comment 2. 

purposes of comparable merchandise 

analysis, the Department obtained world 

export data from World Trade Atlas, 

published by Global Trade Information 

Services, Inc. (‘‘WTA’’) for harmonized 

tariff schedule (‘‘HTS’’) subheadings 

8482.20, 8482.20.00, 8482.91, 

8482.91.00, 8482.99, 8482.99.00, 

8483.20, 8483.20.00, 8483.20.90, 

8483.30, 8483.30.00, 8483.30.90, 

8483.90, 8483.90.00, 8708.99, 

8708.99.99, 8708.99.19,8 which show 

that India, the Philippines, Indonesia, 

Colombia, Thailand, and Peru are 

producers of comparable merchandise.9

Thus, all countries listed in the 

Surrogate Countries Memo are 

considered as appropriate surrogates 

because each exported comparable 

merchandise. The Department used 

export data in its comparable 

merchandise analysis because the 

Department was unable to find 

production data for the potential 

surrogate countries. Therefore, we relied 

on each country’s WTA export data of 

TRBs as a substitute for overall 

production data in the comparable 

merchandise analysis. 

The Policy Bulletin 04.1 also provides 

some guidance on identifying 

significant producers of comparable 

merchandise and selecting a producer of 

comparable merchandise. Further 

analysis was required to determine 

whether any of the countries which 

produce comparable merchandise are 

significant producers of that comparable 

merchandise. The data we obtained 

show that, in 2007, worldwide exports 

for HTS 8482.20 and 8482.20.00 

‘‘Tapered roller bearings, including cone 

and roller assemblies’’ from: India was 

approximately 10,073,266 units; 

Indonesia was approximately 6,631 Kg; 

Colombia was 683 units; the Philippines 

was 0 Kg; Thailand was approximately 

570,362 units, and Peru was 719 units. 

From this analysis, only India and 

Thailand appear to be significant 

producers of comparable merchandise. 

Although CPZ submitted information on 

the record to demonstrate that Indonesia 

is a significant producer of comparable 

merchandise and should be considered 

for use as the primary surrogate country, 

we find that, while the information 

submitted by CPZ does show Indonesia 

to be a producer of comparable 

merchandise, the aforementioned WTA 

data shows that Indonesia is not a 

significant producer of said 

merchandise. CPZ also submitted 

production information to demonstrate 

that Thailand is a significant producer 

of comparable merchandise. However, 

CPZ submitted this Thai production 

data in support of its contention that the 

Department should consider Thai 

information to value certain FOPs (see 

‘‘Factor Valuations’’ section below), but 

did not request that Thailand be 

considered for use as the primary 

surrogate country. 

With respect to data considerations in 

selecting a surrogate country, it is the 

Department’s practice that, ‘‘if more 

than one country has survived the 

selection process to this point, the 

country with the best factors data is 

selected as the primary surrogate 

country.’’ For the purpose of assessing 

data sources from potential surrogate 

countries, ‘‘it is the Department’s stated 

practice to use investigation or review 

period–wide price averages, prices 

specific to the input in question, prices 

that are net of taxes and import duties, 

prices that are contemporaneous with 

the period of investigation or review, 

and publicly available data.’’ See Policy 

Bulletin 04.1 at 4. Currently, the record 

contains surrogate value information 

from India, Thailand, and Indonesia. At 

present, the Indian information 

submitted to the record contains the 

most complete set of surrogate value 

information, as surrogate Indian import 

values have been submitted for nearly 

all of the relevant FOPs, and surrogate 

financial statements are available from 

an Indian producer of identical 

merchandise. Thus, the Department is 

preliminarily selecting India as the 

surrogate country on the basis that: (1) 

it is at a similar level of economic 

development to the PRC, pursuant to 

773(c)(4) of the Act; (2) it is a significant 

producer of comparable merchandise; 

and (3) we have reliable data from India 

that we can use to value the factors of 

production. Therefore, we have 

calculated normal value using Indian 

prices when available and appropriate 

to value CPZ’s factors of production.10

In accordance with 19 CFR 

351.301(c)(3)(ii), for the final results of 

an administrative review, interested 

parties may submit publicly available 

information to value the factors of 

production within 20 days after the date 

of publication of the preliminary 

results.11

Separate Rates 

In proceedings involving NME 

countries, the Department has a 

rebuttable presumption that all 

companies within the country are 

subject to government control and thus 

should be assigned a single 

antidumping duty rate. It is the 

Department’s policy to assign all 

exporters of merchandise subject to 

review in an NME country this single 

rate unless an exporter can demonstrate 

that it is sufficiently independent so as 

to be entitled to a separate rate. 

Exporters can demonstrate this 

independence through the absence of 

both de jure and de facto government 

control over export activities. The 

Department analyzes each entity 

exporting the subject merchandise 

under a test arising from the Final 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value: Sparklers from the People’s 

Republic of China, 56 FR 20588 (May 6, 

1991) (‘‘Sparklers’’), as further 

developed in the Final Determination of 

Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Silicon 

Carbide from the People’s Republic of 

China, 59 FR 22585 (May 2, 1994) 

(‘‘Silicon Carbide’’). However, if the 

Department determines that a company 

is wholly foreign–owned or located in a 

market economy, then a separate–rate 

analysis is not necessary to determine 

whether it is independent from 

government control. 

The sole respondent in this review, 

CPZ, stated that it is a China–Foreign 

joint venture, owned by two 

shareholders: Changshan Jingmi Bearing 

Group Co., Ltd., a Chinese company, 

and Illinois Peer Bearing Company LLC, 

a U.S. company. Therefore, the 

Department must analyze whether CPZ 

has demonstrated the absence of both de 

jure and de facto government control 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

32542 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 129 / Wednesday, July 8, 2009 / Notices 

12See the Department’s memorandum entitled, 

‘‘2007-2008 Administrative Review of the 

Antidumping Duty Order on Tapered Roller 

Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished or Unfinished, 

from the People’s Republic of China: Analysis of the 

Preliminary Determination Margin Calculation for 

Peer Bearing Company - Changshan,’’ dated June 

30, 2009 (‘‘Program Analysis Memo’’). 

13See Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, 

Finished and Unfinished, From the People’s 

Republic of China: Final Results of the 

Administrative Review, 74 FR 3987 (January 22, 

2009), and accompanying Issues and Decision 

Memorandum at Comment 3. 

14See Program Analysis Memo. 

over export activities, and is entitled to 

a separate rate. 

a. Absence of De Jure Control 

The Department considers the 

following de jure criteria in determining 

whether an individual company may be 

granted a separate rate: (1) an absence of 

restrictive stipulations associated with 

an individual exporter’s business and 

export licenses; (2) any legislative 

enactments decentralizing control of 

companies; and (3) other formal 

measures by the government 

decentralizing control of companies. See 

Sparklers, 56 FR at 20589. 

The evidence provided by CPZ 

supports a preliminary finding of de 

jure absence of government control 

based on the following: (1) an absence 

of restrictive stipulations associated 

with the individual exporter’s business 

and export licenses; (2) there are 

applicable legislative enactments 

decentralizing control of the company; 

and (3) there are formal measures by the 

government decentralizing control of 

the company. See CPZ’s Section A 

Questionnaire Response, dated October 

8, 2008. 

b. Absence of De Facto Control 

Typically the Department considers 

four factors in evaluating whether each 

respondent is subject to de facto 

government control of its export 

functions: (1) Whether the export prices 

are set by or are subject to the approval 

of a government agency; (2) whether the 

respondent has authority to negotiate 

and sign contracts and other 

agreements; (3) whether the respondent 

has autonomy from the government in 

making decisions regarding the 

selection of management; and (4) 

whether the respondent retains the 

proceeds of its export sales and makes 

independent decisions regarding 

disposition of profits or financing of 

losses. See Silicon Carbide, 59 FR at 

22586–87; see also Notice of Final 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value: Furfuryl Alcohol From the 

People’s Republic of China, 60 FR 

22544, 22545 (May 8, 1995). 

The Department has determined that 

an analysis of de facto control is critical 

in determining whether respondents 

are, in fact, subject to a degree of 

government control over export 

activities which would preclude the 

Department from assigning separate 

rates. We determine for CPZ that the 

evidence on the record supports a 

preliminary finding of de facto absence 

of government control based on record 

statements and supporting 

documentation showing the following: 

(1) CPZ sets its own export prices 

independent of the government and 

without the approval of a government 

authority; (2) CPZ retains the proceeds 

from its sales and makes independent 

decisions regarding disposition of 

profits or financing of losses; (3) CPZ 

has the authority to negotiate and sign 

contracts and other agreements; and (4) 

CPZ has autonomy from the government 

regarding the selection of management. 

See CPZ’s Section A Questionnaire 

Response, dated October 8, 2008. 

The evidence placed on the record of 

this review by CPZ demonstrates an 

absence of de jure and de facto 

government control with respect to its 

exports of the merchandise under 

review, in accordance with the criteria 

identified in Sparklers and Silicon 

Carbide. Therefore, we are preliminarily 

granting CPZ a separate rate. 

Fair Value Comparisons 

To determine whether sales of TRBs 

to the United States by CPZ were made 

at less than fair value (‘‘LTFV’’), we 

compared constructed export price 

(‘‘CEP’’) and export price (‘‘EP’’) to NV, 

as described in the ‘‘U.S. Price’’ and 

‘‘Normal Value’’ sections of this notice, 

below, and pursuant to section 771(35) 

of the Act. 

U.S. Price 

Constructed Export Price 

In accordance with section 772(b) of 

the Act, CEP is the price at which the 

subject merchandise is first sold (or 

agreed to be sold) in the United States 

before or after the date of importation by 

or for the account of the producer or 

exporter of such merchandise or by a 

seller affiliated with the producer or 

exporter, to a purchaser not affiliated 

with the producer or exporter, as 

adjusted under sections 772(c) and (d) 

of the Act. In accordance with section 

772(b) of the Act, we used CEP for CPZ’s 

sales where CPZ first sold subject 

merchandise to its affiliated company in 

the United States, which in turn sold 

subject merchandise to unaffiliated U.S. 

customers. We calculated CEP for CPZ 

based on delivered prices to unaffiliated 

purchasers in the United States. We 

made deductions from the U.S. sales 

price for movement expenses in 

accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of 

the Act. These included foreign inland 

freight from the plant to the port of 

exportation, international freight, 

marine insurance, other U.S. 

transportation, U.S. customs duty, 

where applicable, U.S. inland freight 

from port to the warehouse, and U.S. 

inland freight from the warehouse to the 

customer. In accordance with section 

772(d)(1) of the Act, the Department 

deducted credit expenses, inventory 

carrying costs and indirect selling 

expenses from the U.S. price, all of 

which relate to commercial activity in 

the United States. Finally, we deducted 

CEP profit, in accordance with sections 

772(d)(3) and 772(f) of the Act.12

In section D of its questionnaire 

response, dated October 29, 2008, CPZ 

requested that the Department compare 

NV to CEP on a Product Code 

(‘‘PRODCOD’’) basis, claiming that 

calculating dumping margins using 

Control Number (‘‘CONNUM’’) is 

distortive. Consistent with our 

determination in the prior review,13 we 

have preliminarily determined to use 

PRODCOD as a basis for comparing NV 

to CEP. 

Additionally, we have preliminarily 

determined to exclude certain CEP sales 

transactions CPZ reported in its section 

C sales data file from CPZ’s preliminary 

margin calculation. Due to the 

proprietary nature of the information 

pertaining to these sales transactions, 

see Program Analysis Memo. 

Export Price 

Because CPZ also sold subject 

merchandise to unaffiliated purchasers 

in the United States prior to importation 

into the United States and use of a CEP 

methodology was not otherwise 

appropriate, we used EP for these 

transactions in accordance with section 

772(a) of the Act.14 We calculated EP 

based on the delivery method reported 

to the first unaffiliated purchaser in the 

United States. Where appropriate, we 

made deductions from the starting price 

(gross unit price) for foreign inland 

freight and foreign brokerage and 

handling charges in the PRC, 

international freight, and U.S. customs 

duty, where applicable, pursuant to 

section 772(c)(2)(A) and (B) of the Act. 

Where foreign inland freight, foreign 

brokerage and handling fees, or marine 

insurance were provided by PRC service 

providers or paid for in renminbi, we 

based those charges on surrogate rates 

from India. See ‘‘Factor Valuations’’ 

section below for further discussion of 

surrogate rates. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 129 / Wednesday, July 8, 2009 / Notices 32543 

15See The Department’s memorandum entitled, 

‘‘Tapered Roller Bearings from the People’s 

Republic of China, Country of Origin Decision for 

Tapered Roller Bearings Finished in a Third 

Country,’’ dated June 30, 2009 (‘‘Substantial 

Transformation Memo’’). 

Normal Value 

We compared NV to individual EP 

and CEP transactions in accordance 

with section 777A(d)(2) of the Act. 

Section 773(c)(1) of the Act provides 

that the Department shall determine NV 

using an FOP methodology if: (1) the 

merchandise is exported from an NME 

country; and (2) the information does 

not permit the calculation of NV using 

home market prices, third country 

prices, or constructed value under 

section 773(a) of the Act. When 

determining NV in an NME context, the 

Department will base NV on FOPs 

because the presence of government 

controls on various aspects of these 

economies renders price comparisons 

and the calculation of production costs 

invalid under our normal 

methodologies. Under section 773(c)(3) 

of the Act, FOPs include but are not 

limited to: (1) hours of labor required; 

(2) quantities of raw materials 

employed; (3) amounts of energy and 

other utilities consumed; and (4) 

representative capital costs. The 

Department used FOPs reported by the 

respondent for materials, energy, labor 

and packing. 

In accordance with 19 CFR 

351.408(c)(1), the Department will 

normally use publicly available 

information to find an appropriate SV to 

value FOPs, but when a producer 

sources an input from a market 

economy and pays for it in market– 

economy currency, the Department may 

value the factor using the actual price 

paid for the input. See 19 CFR 

351.408(c)(1); see also Shakeproof 

Assembly Components Div of Ill v. 

United States, 268 F.3d 1376, 1382– 

1383 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (affirming the 

Department’s use of market–based 

prices to value certain FOPs). 

With regard to both import–based SVs 

and market–economy import values, it 

is the Department’s consistent practice 

that, where the facts developed in the 

United States or third country 

countervailing duty findings include the 

existence of subsidies that appear to be 

used generally (in particular, broadly 

available, non–industry-specific export 

subsidies), it is reasonable for the 

Department to find that it has particular 

and objective evidence to support a 

reason to believe or suspect that prices 

of the inputs from the country granting 

the subsidies may be subsidized. See 

China National Machinery Imp. & Exp. 

Corp. v. United States, 293 F. Supp. 2d 

1334, 1338–39 (CIT 2003). 

In avoiding the use of prices that may 

be subsidized, the Department does not 

conduct a formal investigation to ensure 

that such prices are not subsidized, but 

rather relies on information that is 

generally available at the time of its 

determination. See H.R. Rep. 100–576, 

at 590 (1988), reprinted in 1988 

U.S.C.C.A.N. 1547, 1623–24. The 

Department has reason to believe or 

suspect that prices of inputs from 

Indonesia, South Korea, and Thailand 

may have been subsidized. Through 

other proceedings, the Department has 

learned that these countries maintain 

broadly available, non–industry-specific 

export subsidies and, therefore, 

preliminarily finds it reasonable to infer 

that all exports to all markets from these 

countries may be subsidized. See Brake 

Rotors From the People’s Republic of 

China: Final Results of Antidumping 

Duty Administrative and New Shipper 

Reviews and Partial Rescission of the 

2005–2006 Administrative Review, 72 

FR 42386 (August 2, 2007), and 

accompanying Issues and Decision 

Memorandum at Comment 1. 

Accordingly, the Department has 

disregarded prices from Indonesia, 

South Korea and Thailand in calculating 

NV. 

There are certain sales that were 

further manufactured or assembled in a 

third country. Because we preliminarily 

find that this further manufacture or 

assembly does not constitute a 

substantial transformation of the 

merchandise, the merchandise sold in 

this manner is subject merchandise. See 

Substantial Transformation Memo.15

Because CPZ knew at the time of sale 

that the merchandise was destined for 

exportation, we have determined 

normal value for such sales based on the 

country of origin (i.e., the PRC), 

pursuant to section 773(a)(3)(A) of the 

Act. For such merchandise, normal 

value also includes the cost of further 

manufacturing or assembly in the third 

country and the expense of transporting 

the merchandise from the factory in the 

PRC to the further manufacturing 

processing plant in the third country. 

See Program Analysis Memo for further 

discussion of this issue. 

Factor Valuations 

In accordance with section 773(c) of 

the Act, we calculated NV based on 

FOPs reported by CPZ for the POR. To 

calculate NV, the reported per–unit 

factor quantities were multiplied by 

publicly available Indian SVs (except as 

noted below). Unless indicated 

otherwise, we valued direct materials, 

energy, and packing materials 

purchased from NME sources using 

publicly available import data reported 

in WTA, utilizing data obtained from 

the Directorate General of Commercial 

Intelligence and Statistics, Ministry of 

Commerce of India. Among the FOPs for 

which the Department calculated SVs 

using Indian import statistics are cage 

steel, steel by–product, cone spacer, 

coal, anti–rust oil, and all packing 

materials. For a detailed description of 

all SVs used for respondents, see 

Surrogate Value Memo. 

In selecting the SVs, we considered 

the quality, specificity, and 

contemporaneity of the data. As 

appropriate, we adjusted input prices by 

including freight costs to make them 

delivered prices. Specifically, we added 

to Indian import SVs a surrogate freight 

cost using the shorter of the reported 

distance from the domestic supplier to 

the factory or the distance from the 

nearest seaport to the factory where 

appropriate (i.e., where the sales terms 

for the market–economy inputs were not 

delivered to the factory). This 

adjustment is in accordance with the 

decision of the Federal Circuit in Sigma 

Corp. v. United States, 117 F.3d 1401 

(Fed. Cir. 1997). 

On May 21, 2009, CPZ submitted 

comments regarding SV selection for 

bearing quality steel bar, as well as 

roller quality wire rod. These comments 

reiterated CPZ’s concerns that the SV 

data submitted by Petitioner for Indian 

HTS 7228.30.29 and 7228.50.90 are 

aberrational due to the relatively high 

value when benchmarked against 

similar bearing and roller quality steel 

HTS categories in both the U.S. and 

other potential surrogate country 

candidates. On June 9, 2009, Petitioner 

submitted a response to CPZ’s 

comments. For the preliminary results, 

we have determined to use 

contemporaneous Indian import data 

from HTS category 7228.30.29 and 

contemporaneous Thai import data from 

HTS category 7228.50.90.00, to calculate 

an SV for bearing quality steel bar and 

roller quality wire rod, respectively. A 

review of the Indian import statistics for 

HTS category 7228.50.90 shows wide 

variations in the average unit values 

(‘‘AUVs’’) between the individual 

countries listed as exporters in the data. 

Alternatively, Thai import statistics, 

under Thai HTS category 7228.50.90.00, 

do not exhibit the wide level of AUV 

variance between individual exporters 

that is seen in the Indian data. Thus, we 

have determined to use comparable 

Thai data in the alternative. Using the 

same method of analysis, Indian import 

statistics for steel bar appear to be 

reasonably consistent. As it is our 

preference to use SVs from within the 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

32544 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 129 / Wednesday, July 8, 2009 / Notices 

16See ‘‘International Financial Statistics,’’ by the 

International Monetary Fund (IMF), available at: 

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

067EDEA8-7166-48F5-B357-1462F20A0BEF/ 

IFSlTablel38775.0625136.xls. See also Surrogate 

Value Memo for further discussion. 

17See Expected Wages of Selected NME Countries 

(May 14, 2008) (available at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/ 

wages). The source of these wage rate data on the 

Import Administration’s web site is the Yearbook of 

Labour Statistics 2005, ILO, (Geneva: 2005), Chapter 

5B: Wages in Manufacturing. The years of the 

reported wage rates range from 2004 to 2005. 

primary surrogate country, we 

preliminarily determine to value steel 

bar from Indian HTS category 

7228.30.29. For further analysis, see 

Surrogate Value Memo. 

The Department has instituted a 

rebuttable presumption that market 

economy input prices are the best 

available information for valuing an 

input when the total volume of the 

input purchased from all market 

economy sources during the POR 

exceeds 33 percent of the total volume 

of the input purchased from all sources 

during the same period. In these cases, 

unless case–specific facts provide 

adequate grounds to rebut the 

Department’s presumption, the 

Department will use the weighted– 

average market economy purchase price 

to value the input. Alternatively, when 

the volume of an NME firm’s purchases 

of an input from market economy 

suppliers during the period is equal to 

or below 33 percent of its total volume 

of purchases of the input during the 

period, but where these purchases are 

otherwise valid and there is no reason 

to disregard the prices, the Department 

will weight average the weighted– 

average market economy purchase price 

with an appropriate SV according to 

their respective shares of the total 

volume of purchases, unless case– 

specific facts provide adequate grounds 

to rebut the presumption. When a firm 

has made market economy input 

purchases that may have been dumped 

or subsidized, are not bona fide, or are 

otherwise not acceptable for use in a 

dumping calculation, the Department 

will exclude them from the numerator 

of the ratio to ensure a fair 

determination of whether valid market 

economy purchases meet the 33–percent 

threshold. See Antidumping 

Methodologies: Market Economy Inputs, 

Expected Non–Market Economy Wages, 

Duty Drawback; and Request for 

Comments, 71 FR 61716, 61717–19 

(October 19, 2006). Also, where the 

quantity of the input purchased from 

market–economy suppliers is 

insignificant, the Department will not 

rely on the price paid by an NME 

producer to a market–economy supplier 

because it cannot have confidence that 

a company could fulfill all its needs at 

that price. Id. During the POR, CPZ 

purchased a certain quantity of steel 

from a market economy supplier in a 

market economy currency. Accordingly, 

the Department will weight average the 

market economy steel price with the 

appropriate surrogate value. For further 

analysis, see Surrogate Value Memo. 

Where the Department could not 

obtain information contemporaneous 

with the POR with which to value FOPs, 

the Department adjusted the SVs using, 

where appropriate, the Indian 

Wholesale Price Index (‘‘WPI’’) as 

published by the International Monetary 

Fund (‘‘IMF’’).16

We used the truck freight rates 

published by www.infobanc.com, ‘‘The 

Great Indian Bazaar, Gateway to 

Overseas Markets,’’ to value truck 

freight. See Surrogate Value Memo. 

Since the truck freight rates are not 

contemporaneous with the POR, we 

deflated the rates using Indian WPI. 

We valued inland water freight using 

price data for barge freight reported in 

a March 19, 2007, article published in 

The Hindu Business Line. We inflated 

the inland water transportation rate 

using the appropriate WPI inflator. See 

Surrogate Value Memo. 

We valued brokerage and handling 

using a simple average of the brokerage 

and handling costs that were reported in 

public submissions that were filed in 

three antidumping duty cases. 

Specifically, we averaged the public 

brokerage and handling expenses 

reported by Navneet Publications (India) 

Ltd. in the 2007–2008 administrative 

review of certain lined paper products 

from India, Essar Steel Limited in the 

2006–2007 antidumping duty 

administrative review of hot–rolled 

carbon steel flat products from India, 

and Himalya International Ltd. in the 

2005–2006 administrative review of 

certain preserved mushrooms from 

India. We inflated the brokerage and 

handling rate using the appropriate WPI 

inflator. See Surrogate Value Memo. 

To value electricity, we used price 

data for small, medium, and large 

industries, as published by the Central 

Electricity Authority of the Government 

of India in its publication entitled 

‘‘Electricity Tariff & Duty and Average 

Rates of Electricity Supply in India,’’ 

dated July 2006. These electricity rates 

represent actual country–wide, 

publicly–available information on tax– 

exclusive electricity rates charged to 

industries in India. See Surrogate Value 

Memo. 

For direct labor, indirect labor and 

packing labor, consistent with 19 CFR 

351.408(c)(3), we used the PRC 

regression–based wage rate as reported 

on Import Administration’s web site.17

Because this regression–based wage rate 

does not separate the labor rates into 

different skill levels or types of labor, 

we have applied the same wage rate to 

all skill levels and types of labor 

reported by each respondent. See 

Surrogate Value Memo. 

To value factory overhead, selling, 

general and administrative expenses 

and profit, the Department used audited 

financial statements for the years ending 

on December 31, 2007, for an Indian 

producer of bearings, SKF India 

Limited. See Surrogate Value Memo for 

a full discussion of the surrogate 

financial ratio calculations. 

CPZ reported it recovered steel scrap 

as a by–product of the production of 

subject merchandise. We found in this 

administrative review, as confirmed at 

verification, that CPZ has appropriately 

reported its by–products and, therefore, 

we have granted CPZ a by–product 

offset for the quantities of these reported 

by–products, valued using Indian WTA 

data. See Surrogate Value Memo. 

Currency Conversion 

Where appropriate, we made currency 

conversions into U.S. dollars, in 

accordance with section 773A(a) of the 

Act, based on the exchange rates in 

effect on the dates of the U.S. sales as 

certified by the Federal Reserve Bank. 

Preliminary Results of Review 

We preliminarily determine that the 

following weighted–average dumping 

margin exists for the period June 1, 

2007, through May 31, 2008: 

TRBS FROM THE PRC 

Exporter Weighted–Average 

Margin 

Peer Bearing Company 

Changshan ................ 32.02 Percent 

Disclosure and Public Comment 

The Department will disclose 

calculations performed for these 

preliminary results to the parties within 

five days of the date of publication of 

this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 

351.224(b). Interested parties may 

submit written comments no later than 

30 days after the date of publication of 

these preliminary results of review. See 

19 CFR 351.309(c). Rebuttals to written 

comments may be filed no later than 

five days after the written comments are 

filed. See 19 CFR 351.309(d). Further, 

parties submitting written comments 

and rebuttal comments are requested to 

provide the Department with an 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 129 / Wednesday, July 8, 2009 / Notices 32545 

additional copy of those comments on 

diskette. 

Any interested party may request a 

hearing within 30 days of publication of 

this notice. See 19 CFR 351.310(c). 

Hearing 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. Oral 

presentations will be limited to issues 

raised in the briefs. If a request for a 

hearing is made, parties will be notified 

of the time and date for the hearing to 

be held at the U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230. 

See 19 CFR 351.310(d). 

The Department will 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 

The Department will determine, and 

CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on 

all appropriate entries of subject 

merchandise in accordance with the 

final results of this review. For 

assessment purposes, we calculated 

exporter/importer- (or customer) 

-specific assessment rates for 

merchandise subject to this review. 

Where appropriate, we calculated an ad 

valorem rate for each importer (or 

customer) by dividing the total dumping 

margins for reviewed sales to that party 

by the total entered values associated 

with those transactions. For duty– 

assessment rates calculated on this 

basis, we will direct CBP to assess the 

resulting ad valorem rate against the 

entered customs values for the subject 

merchandise. Where appropriate, we 

calculated a per–unit rate for each 

importer (or customer) by dividing the 

total dumping margins for reviewed 

sales to that party by the total sales 

quantity associated with those 

transactions. For duty–assessment rates 

calculated on this basis, we will direct 

CBP to assess the resulting per–unit rate 

against the entered quantity of the 

subject merchandise. Where an 

importer- (or customer) -specific 

assessment rate is de minimis (i.e., less 

than 0.50 percent), the Department will 

instruct CBP to assess that importer (or 

customer’s) entries of subject 

merchandise without regard to 

antidumping duties. We intend to 

instruct CBP to liquidate entries 

containing subject merchandise 

exported by the PRC–wide entity at the 

PRC–wide rate we determine in the final 

results of this review. The Department 

intends to issue appropriate assessment 

instructions directly to CBP 15 days 

after publication of the final results of 

this review. 

Cash–Deposit Requirements 

The following cash–deposit 

requirements will be effective upon 

publication of the final results of this 

administrative review for all shipments 

of the subject merchandise from the PRC 

entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, 

for consumption on or after the 

publication date, as provided by section 

751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) for CPZ, the 

cash deposit rate will be that established 

in the final results of this review, except 

if the rate is zero or de minimis no cash 

deposit will be required; (2) for 

previously investigated or reviewed PRC 

and non–PRC exporters not listed above 

that have separate rates, the cash 

deposit rate will continue to be the 

exporter–specific rate published for the 

most recent period; (3) for all PRC 

exporters of subject merchandise which 

have not been found to be entitled to a 

separate rate, the cash deposit rate will 

be the PRC–wide rate of 92.84 percent; 

and (4) for all non–PRC exporters of 

subject merchandise which have not 

received their own rate, the cash deposit 

rate will be the rate applicable to the 

PRC exporters that supplied that non– 

PRC exporter. These 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) to file a certificate regarding 

the reimbursement of antidumping 

duties prior to liquidation of the 

relevant entries during this review 

period. Failure to comply with this 

requirement could result in the 

Secretary’s presumption that 

reimbursement of antidumping duties 

occurred and the subsequent assessment 

of double antidumping duties. 

We are issuing and publishing these 

preliminary results of review in 

accordance with sections 751(a)(2)(B) 

and 777(i)(1) of the Act, and 19 CFR 

351.221(b). 

Dated: June 30, 2009. 

John M. Andersen, 

Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for 

Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 

Operations. 

[FR Doc. E9–16096 Filed 7–7–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Telecommunications and 

Information Administration 

RIN 0660–ZA29 

State Broadband Data and 

Development Grant Program 

AGENCY: The National 

Telecommunications and Information 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice of funds availability 

(Notice) and solicitation of applications. 

SUMMARY: The National 

Telecommunications and Information 

Administration (NTIA), U.S. 

Department of Commerce, publishes 

this Notice to announce the availability 

of funds pursuant to the American 

Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 

(Recovery Act), Public Law 111–5 (Feb. 

17, 2009), and the Broadband Data 

Improvement Act (BDIA), Title I of 

Public Law 110–385, 122 Stat. 4096 

(Oct. 10, 2008) and to provide 

guidelines for the State Broadband Data 

and Development Grant Program (State 

Broadband Data Program or Program). 

The State Broadband Data Program is a 

competitive, merit-based matching grant 

program that effects the joint purposes 

of the Recovery Act and the BDIA by 

funding projects that collect 

comprehensive and accurate State-level 

broadband mapping data, develop Statelevel broadband maps, aid in the 

development and maintenance of a 

national broadband map, and fund 

statewide initiatives directed at 

broadband planning. 

DATES: Applications will be accepted 

from July 14, 2009 at 8 a.m. Eastern 

Time (ET) until August 14, 2009 at 

11:59 p.m. ET. 

ADDRESSES: All applications must be 

submitted through the online Grants.gov 

system no later than 11:59 p.m. ET on 

August 14, 2009, as more fully 

described in the section entitled 

‘‘Request for Application Package’’ 

below. Failure to properly register and 

apply for State Broadband Data Program 

funds by the deadlines may result in 

forfeiture of the grant opportunity. 

Applications are accepted until the 

deadline and processed as received. 

Applications submitted by hand 

delivery, mail, email or facsimile will 

not be accepted. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

general inquiries regarding the State 

Broadband Data Program, applicants 

may contact Edward ‘‘Smitty’’ Smith, 

Program Director, State Broadband Data 

and Development Grant Program, 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES