Ball Bearings and Parts Thereof from France: Preliminary Results of Changed-Circumstances Review, 27280-27281 [E9-13493]

Download as PDF 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–in- VerDate Nov<24>2008 14:45 Jun 08, 2009 Jkt 217001 interest 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 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 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: E:\FR\FM\09JNN1.SGM 09JNN1 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 109 / Tuesday, June 9, 2009 / Notices 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 VerDate Nov<24>2008 14:45 Jun 08, 2009 Jkt 217001 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 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 27281 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 E:\FR\FM\09JNN1.SGM 09JNN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 109 (Tuesday, June 9, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 27280-27281]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-13493]



[[Page 27280]]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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-in-interest 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-in-interest 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-
in-interest 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:

[[Page 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