27280 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 109 / Tuesday, June 9, 2009 / Notices 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–427–801] 

Ball Bearings and Parts Thereof from 

France: Preliminary Results of 

Changed–Circumstances Review 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce 

is conducting a changed–circumstances 

review of the antidumping duty order 

on ball bearings and parts thereof from 

France pursuant to section 751(b) of the 

Tariff Act of 1930, as amended. We 

preliminarily determine that SKF 

Aeroengine France S.A.S.U. is the 

successor–in-interest to SNFA France 

S.A.S.U. Interested parties are invited to 

comment on these preliminary results. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: June 9, 2009. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Kristin Case or Richard Rimlinger, AD/ 

CVD Operations, Office 5, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; 

(202) 482–3174 or (202) 482–4477, 

respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

The Department of Commerce (the 

Department) published an antidumping 

duty order on ball bearings and parts 

thereof from France on May 15, 1989. 

See Antidumping Duty Orders: Ball 

Bearings, Cylindrical Roller Bearings, 

Spherical Plain Bearings, and Parts 

Thereof From France, 54 FR 20902 (May 

15, 1989). On August 11, 2000, the 

Department revoked the order, effective 

May 1, 1999, with respect to sales of ball 

bearings by SNFA S.A. (subsequently 

SNFA S.A.S.U.). See Antifriction 

Bearings (Other Than Tapered Roller 

Bearings) and Parts Thereof From 

France, Germany, Italy, Japan, 

Romania, Singapore, Sweden, and the 

United Kingdom; Final Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Reviews and Revocation of Orders in 

Part, 65 FR 49219, 49221 (August 11, 

2000). 

On March 2, 2007, pursuant to a 

request from SNFA S.A.S.U. (SNFA), 

SKF France S.A., and SKF Aerospace 

France S.A.S., we initiated a changed– 

circumstances review in order to 

determine whether SNFA was a 

successor–in-interest to SKF France S.A. 

following SNFA’s acquisition by that 

company or, alternatively, that post– 

acquisition SNFA was the successor–ininterest to the pre–acquisition SNFA. 

See Ball Bearings and Parts Thereof 

from France: Initiation of an 

Antidumping Duty Changed– 

Circumstances Review, 72 FR 9513 

(March 2, 2007). During the course of 

the changed–circumstances review, the 

companies informed the Department 

that SNFA would be changing its name 

to SKF Aeroengine France S.A.S.U. 

(SKF Aeroengine). 

On June 29, 2007, we initiated an 

administrative review of the 

antidumping duty order on ball bearings 

and parts thereof from France for the 

period May 1, 2006, through April 30, 

2007, with respect to SKF France S.A. 

and SKF Aerospace France S.A.S. See 

Initiation of Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Administrative 

Reviews, Request for Revocation in Part 

and Deferral of Administrative Review, 

72 FR 35690 (June 29, 2007). On 

October 26, 2007, we rescinded the 

changed–circumstances review initiated 

on March 2, 2007, and explained that, 

because we had initiated an 

administrative review with respect to 

SKF France S.A. and SKF Aerospace 

France S.A.S., we would address any 

issues that had arisen during the course 

of the changed–circumstances review in 

the context of the administrative review. 

See Ball Bearings and Parts Thereof 

from France and Italy: Rescission of 

Antidumping Duty Changed– 

Circumstances Reviews, 72 FR 60798, 

60799 (October 26, 2007). In the final 

results of the 2006/07 administrative 

review, we determined that post– 

acquisition SNFA was the successor–ininterest to pre–acquisition SNFA and 

that SNFA had not changed its name to 

SKF Aeroengine until after the period of 

review. See Ball Bearings and Parts 

Thereof From France, Germany, Italy, 

Japan, and the United Kingdom: Final 

Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Reviews and Rescission 

of Reviews in Part, 73 FR 52823 

(September 11, 2008), and 

accompanying Issues and Decision 

Memorandum at Comment 12 (AFBs 

Final Results). 

On February 6, 2009, SKF Aeroengine 

requested that, because the Department 

appeared to have left open the effect of 

the name change on its determination in 

AFBs Final Results, the Department 

either confirm that its determination 

encompassed the name change or, in the 

alternative, the Department initiate a 

changed–circumstances review to 

determine whether SKF Aeroengine is 

the successor–in-interest to SNFA. 

Along with its request, SKF Aeroengine 

provided detailed information 

comparing pre- and post–name change 

operational management, production 

facilities, supplier relationships, and 

customer bases. 

On March 30, 2009, we initiated a 

changed–circumstances review. See Ball 

Bearings and Parts Thereof from France: 

Initiation of Antidumping Duty 

Changed–Circumstances Review, 74 FR 

14107 (March 30, 2009) (CCR Initiation). 

Since the initiation of the review, no 

other interested party has submitted 

comments. 

Scope of the Order 

The products covered by the order are 

ball bearings (other than tapered roller 

bearings) and parts thereof. These 

products include all bearings that 

employ balls as the rolling element. 

Imports of these products are classified 

under the following categories: 

antifriction balls, ball bearings with 

integral shafts, ball bearings (including 

radial ball bearings) and parts thereof, 

and housed or mounted ball bearing 

units and parts thereof. 

Imports of these products are 

classified under the following 

Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the 

United States (HTSUS) subheadings: 

3926.90.45, 4016.93.00, 4016.93.10, 

4016.93.50, 6909.19.5010, 8431.20.00, 

8431.39.0010, 8482.10.10, 8482.10.50, 

8482.80.00, 8482.91.00, 8482.99.05, 

8482.99.2580, 8482.99.35, 8482.99.6595, 

8483.20.40, 8483.20.80, 8483.50.8040, 

8483.50.90, 8483.90.20, 8483.90.30, 

8483.90.70, 8708.50.50, 8708.60.50, 

8708.60.80, 8708.70.6060, 8708.70.8050, 

8708.93.30, 8708.93.5000, 8708.93.6000, 

8708.93.75, 8708.99.06, 8708.99.31, 

8708.99.4960, 8708.99.50, 8708.99.5800, 

8708.99.8080, 8803.10.00, 8803.20.00, 

8803.30.00, 8803.90.30, and 8803.90.90. 

Although the HTSUS item numbers 

above are provided for convenience and 

customs purposes, the written 

description of the scope of the order is 

dispositive. 

Preliminary Results 

In conducting this changed– 

circumstances review pursuant to 

section 751(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, 

as amended (the Act), the Department 

has conducted a successor–in-interest 

analysis. In making a successor–ininterest determination, the Department 

examines several factors including, but 

not limited to, changes in the following: 

(1) management; (2) production 

facilities; (3) supplier relationships; (4) 

customer base. See, e.g., Brake Rotors 

From the People’s Republic of China: 

Final Results of Changed Circumstances 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review, 70 FR 69941 (November 18, 

2005), and Notice of Final Results of 

Changed Circumstances Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review: 

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 109 / Tuesday, June 9, 2009 / Notices 27281 

Polychloroprene Rubber From Japan, 67 

FR 58 (January 2, 2002). While no single 

factor or combination of factors will 

necessarily provide a dispositive 

indication of a successor–in-interest 

relationship, the Department will 

generally consider the new company to 

be the successor to the previous 

company if the new company’s resulting 

operation is not materially dissimilar to 

that of its predecessor. See Fresh and 

Chilled Atlantic Salmon From Norway; 

Final Results of Changed Circumstances 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review, 64 FR 9979 (March 1, 1999), 

and Industrial Phosphoric Acid From 

Israel: Final Results of Antidumping 

Duty Changed Circumstances Review, 

59 FR 6944 (February 14, 1994). 

Thus, if the evidence demonstrates 

that, with respect to the production and 

sale of subject merchandise, the new 

company operates as the same business 

entity as the former company, the 

Department will accord the new 

company the same antidumping 

treatment as its predecessor. 

Additionally, in changed–circumstances 

reviews where the Department 

determines that a successor company is 

a successor–in-interest to a predecessor 

company that had not been subject to 

the order previously, the Department’s 

practice is to apply the determination 

back to the date of the occurrence that 

prompted the changed–circumstances 

review. See Certain Carbon Steel Butt– 

Weld Pipe Fittings From Thailand: Final 

Results of Changed–Circumstances 

Antidumping Duty Review, 74 FR 8904 

(February 27, 2009), and accompanying 

Issues and Decision Memorandum at 

Comment 1; see also Stainless Steel 

Wire Rod from Italy: Notice of Final 

Results of Changed Circumstances 

Antidumping Duty Review, 71 FR 

24643, 24644 (April 26, 2006), and 

Certain Hot–Rolled Lead and Bismuth 

Carbon Steel Products From the United 

Kingdom: Final Results of Changed– 

Circumstances Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Administrative 

Reviews, 64 FR 66880, 66881 (November 

30, 1999). 

We preliminarily determine that SKF 

Aeroengine is the successor–in-interest 

to SNFA. In its February 6, 2009, 

submission, SKF Aeroengine provided 

evidence supporting its claim to be the 

successor–in-interest to SNFA. 

Specifically, SKF Aeroengine submitted 

its Managing Director’s declaration that 

the September 3, 2007, name change of 

the company did not result in changes 

in management, production facilities, 

product mix, sales channels, supplier 

base, or customer base. Moreover, in the 

declaration, the Managing Director also 

stated that there are no plans to alter 

either the production facilities or 

product mix of SKF Aeroengine, there 

are no plans to integrate SKF 

Aeroengine’s production with that of 

either SKF France S.A. or SKF 

Aerospace France S.A.S., and that SKF 

Aeroengine continues to operate as a 

separate and distinct business apart 

from the other SKF entities located in 

France. According to the declaration, 

SKF Aeroengine employs the same 

channels of distribution, payment terms, 

and delivery modes to serve the same 

customer base as SNFA had used. SKF 

Aeroengine also submitted an outline of 

its senior officers and board of directors 

both before and after its name change to 

demonstrate that the name change did 

not affect its senior management. 

Finally, SKF Aeroengine submitted an 

outline of the senior officers and boards 

of directors of SKF France S.A. and SKF 

Aerospace France S.A.S. both before 

and after the name change to 

demonstrate that the name change did 

not result in changes to the senior 

management of either SKF France S.A. 

or SKF Aerospace France S.A.S. 

In summary, SKF Aeroengine has 

presented evidence to establish a prima 

facie case of its successorship status. 

The record indicates that SNFA’s name 

change to SKF Aeroengine has not 

changed the operations of the company 

in a meaningful way. SKF Aeroengine’s 

management, production facilities, 

supplier relationships, and customer 

base are substantially unchanged from 

those of SNFA. The record evidence 

demonstrates that the new entity 

operates essentially in the same manner 

as the predecessor company. 

Consequently, we preliminarily 

determine that SKF Aeroengine should 

be assigned the same antidumping–duty 

treatment as SNFA. 

Public Comment 

Case briefs from interested parties 

may be submitted not later than 30 days 

after the date of publication of this 

notice of preliminary results of 

changed–circumstances review. 

Rebuttal briefs from interested parties, 

limited to the issues raised in the case 

briefs, may be submitted not later than 

five days after the time limit for filing 

the case briefs or comments. Parties who 

submit case briefs or rebuttal briefs in 

this proceeding are requested to submit 

with each argument a statement of the 

issue, a summary of the arguments not 

exceeding five pages, and a table of 

statutes, regulations, and cases cited. 

Interested parties who wish to request 

a hearing or to participate in a hearing 

if a hearing is requested must submit a 

written request to the Assistant 

Secretary for Import Administration 

within 30 days of the date of publication 

of this notice. See 19 CFR 351.310(c). 

Such requests should contain the 

following information: (1) the party’s 

name, address, and telephone number; 

(2) the number of participants; (3) a list 

of issues to be discussed. Issues raised 

in the hearing will be limited to those 

discussed in the case briefs. If 

requested, any hearing will be held two 

days after the scheduled date for 

submission of rebuttal briefs. 

The Department will publish in the 

Federal Register a notice of the final 

results of this changed–circumstances 

review, including the results of its 

analysis of issues raised in any written 

briefs or at the hearing if requested. 

As indicated in the CCR Initiation, 

during the course of this changed– 

circumstances review we will not 

change any cash–deposit requirements 

on entries of merchandise subject to the 

antidumping duty order unless a change 

is determined to be warranted pursuant 

to the final results of this review. 

We are issuing and publishing these 

preliminary results and notice in 

accordance with sections 751(b) and 

777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.216. 

Dated: June 2, 2009. 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. E9–13493 Filed 6–8–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–580–839] 

Certain Polyester Staple Fiber from the 

Republic of Korea: Preliminary Results 

of the 2007/2008 Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce 

is conducting an administrative review 

of the antidumping duty order on 

certain polyester staple fiber from the 

Republic of Korea. The period of review 

is May 1, 2007, through April 30, 2008. 

This review covers imports of certain 

polyester staple fiber from one 

producer/exporter. We preliminarily 

find that sales of the subject 

merchandise have been made below 

normal value. If these preliminary 

results are adopted in our final results, 

we will instruct U.S. Customs and 

Border Protection (‘‘CBP’’) to assess 

antidumping duties. Interested parties 

are invited to comment on these