26582 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 89 / Monday, May 8, 2000 / Notices

section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act and 19

CFR 351.411.

Where NV was based on CV, we

deducted from CV the weighted-average

foreign market direct selling expenses

and commissions, in accordance with

sections 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) and 773(a)(8).

In accordance with section 773(a)(7)(B)

of the Act, we granted a CEP offset

adjustment, calculated as explained

above. Where applicable, we offset any

commission paid on a U.S. sale by

reducing the NV by any home market

indirect selling expenses remaining after

the deduction for the CEP offset, up to

the amount of the U.S. commission.

Currency Conversion

We made currency conversions into

U.S. dollars based on the exchange rates

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

as certified by the Federal Reserve Bank.

Section 773A of the Act directs the

Department to use a daily exchange rate

in order to convert foreign currencies

into U.S. dollars unless the daily rate

involves a fluctuation. It is the

Department’s practice to find that a

fluctuation exists when the daily

exchange rate differs from the

benchmark rate by 2.25 percent. The

benchmark is defined as the moving

average of rates for the past 40 business

days. When we determine a fluctuation

to have existed, we substitute the

benchmark for the daily rate, in

accordance with established practice.

Preliminary Results of Review

As a result of our review, we

preliminarily determine that the

following margins exist for the period

October 1, 1997, through March 31,

1999 (for G-Link and Winbond) and the

period October 1, 1998, through March

31, 1999 (for GSI Technology):

Manufacturer/exporter Percent

margin

G-Link Technology ....................... 21.74

GSI Technology, Inc. .................... 33.85

Winbond Electronics Corp. ........... 0.60

The Department will disclose to

parties the calculations performed in

connection with these preliminary

results within five days of the date of

publication of this notice. Interested

parties may request a hearing within 30

days of the publication. Any hearing, if

requested, will be held two days after

the date rebuttal briefs are filed.

Interested parties may submit case briefs

not later than 30 days after the date of

publication of this notice. Rebuttal

briefs, limited to issues raised in the

case briefs, may be filed not later than

35 days after the date of publication of

this notice. The Department will

publish a notice of the final results of

this administrative review, which will

include the results of its analysis of

issues raised in any such case briefs,

within 120 days of the publication of

these preliminary results.

Upon completion of this

administrative review, the Department

shall determine, and the Customs

Service shall assess, antidumping duties

on all appropriate entries. We have

calculated importer-specific assessment

rates based on the ratio of the total

amount of antidumping duties

calculated for the examined sales to the

total entered value of each importer’s

sales during the POR. These rates will

be assessed uniformly on all entries of

particular importers made during the

POR. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2),

we will instruct the Customs Service to

liquidate without regard to antidumping

duties all entries for any importer for

whom the assessment rate is de minimis

(i.e., less than 0.50 percent). The

Department will issue appraisement

instructions directly to the Customs

Service.

Further, the following deposit

requirements will be effective for all

shipments of SRAMs from Taiwan

entered, or withdrawn from warehouse,

for consumption on or after the

publication date of the final results of

this administrative review, as provided

for by section 751(a)(1) of the Act: (1)

The cash deposit rates for G-Link, GSI

Technology, and Winbond will be the

rates established in the final results of

this review, except if the rate is less

than 0.50 percent and, therefore, de

minimis within the meaning of 19 CFR

351.106, the cash deposit will be zero;

(2) for previously reviewed or

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 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 41.75

percent, the all others rate established in

the LTFV investigation.

These deposit requirements, when

imposed, shall remain in effect until

publication of the final results of the

next administrative review.

This notice 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 this

determination in accordance with

sections 751(i)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the

Act.

Dated: May 1, 2000.

Troy H. Cribb,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 00–11465 Filed 5–5–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–469–807]

Stainless Steel Wire Rod From Spain:

Extension of Time Limit for Preliminary

Results of Antidumping Duty

Administrative Review

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 8, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Howard Smith at (202) 482–5193 or

Timothy Finn at (202) 482–0065, Import

Administration, International Trade

Administration, U.S. Department of

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution

Ave, NW, Washington, DC 20230.

Time Limits

Statutory Time Limits

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

of 1930, as amended (‘‘the Act’’),

requires the Department of Commerce

(‘‘the Department’’) to make a

preliminary determination within 245

days after the last day of the anniversary

month of an order or finding for which

a review is requested. However, if it is

not practicable to complete the

preliminary results of review within this

time period, section 751(a)(3)(A) of the

Act allows the Department to extend the

time limit for the preliminary

determination to a maximum of 365

days.

Background

On November 4, 1999, the Department

published a notice of initiation of

administrative review of the

antidumping duty order on stainless

steel wire rod from Spain, covering the

period March 5, 1998 through August

31, 1999 (64 FR 60161). The preliminary

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 89 / Monday, May 8, 2000 / Notices 26583

results are currently due no later than

June 1, 2000.

Extension of Time Limit for Preliminary

Results of Review

We determine that it is not practicable

to complete the preliminary results of

this review within the original time

limit. See Decision Memorandum from

Tom Futtner to Holly A. Kuga, dated

April 28, 2000, which is on file in the

Central Records Unit, Room B–099 of

the main Commerce building. Therefore

the Department is extending the time

limit for completion of the preliminary

results until no later than September 29,

2000. We intend to issue the final

results no later than 120 days after the

publication of the preliminary results

notice.

This extension is in accordance with

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

Dated: April 28, 2000.

Holly A. Kuga,

Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary, Import

Administration, Group II.

[FR Doc. 00–11459 Filed 5–5–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

University of Vermont Notice of

Decision on Application for Duty-Free

Entry of Scientific Instrument

This is a decision pursuant to Section

6(c) of the Educational, Scientific and

Cultural Materials Importation Act of

1966 (Pub. L. 89–651, 80 Stat. 897; 15

CFR part 301). Related records can be

viewed between 8:30 a.m. and 5:00 p.m.

in Room 4211, U.S. Department of

Commerce, 14th and Constitution

Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C.

Decision: Denied. Applicant has failed

to establish that domestic instruments of

equivalent scientific value to the foreign

instrument for the intended purposes

are not available.

Reasons: Section 301.5(e)(4) of the

regulations requires the denial of

applications that have been denied

without prejudice to resubmission if

they are not resubmitted within the

specified time period. This is the case

for the following docket.

Docket Number: 99–031. Applicant:

University of Vermont, Burlington, VT

05405. Instrument: HVS Video Tracking

System, Pool and Platform, Model 2020.

Manufacturer: HVS Image Ltd., United

Kingdom. Date of Denial Without

Prejudice to Resubmission: February 14,

2000.

Frank W. Creel,

Director, Statutory Import Programs Staff.

[FR Doc. 00–11466 Filed 5–5–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

University of Delaware; Notice of

Decision on Application for Duty-Free

Entry of Electron Microscope

This is a decision pursuant to Section

6(c) of the Educational, Scientific, and

Cultural Materials Importation Act of

1966 (Pub. L. 89–651, 80 Stat. 897; 15

CFR part 301). Related records can be

viewed between 8:30 A.M. and 5 P.M.

in Room 4211, U.S. Department of

Commerce, 14th and Constitution

Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C.

Docket Number: 00–008. Applicant:

University of Delaware, Newark, DE

19716. Instrument: Electron Microscope,

Model JEM-2010F. Manufacturer: JEOL

Ltd., Japan. Intended Use: See notice at

65 FR 21397, April 21, 2000. Order

Date: November 1, 1999.

Comments: None received. Decision:

Approved. No instrument of equivalent

scientific value to the foreign

instrument, for such purposes as the

instrument is intended to be used, was

being manufactured in the United States

at the time the instrument was ordered.

Reasons: The foreign instrument is a

conventional transmission electron

microscope (CTEM) and is intended for

research or scientific educational uses

requiring a CTEM. We know of no

CTEM, or any other instrument suited to

these purposes, which was being

manufactured in the United States at the

time of order of the instrument.

Frank W. Creel,

Director, Statutory Import Programs Staff.

[FR Doc. 00–11467 Filed 5–5–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

Applications for Duty-Free Entry of

Scientific Instruments

Pursuant to Section 6(c) of the

Educational, Scientific and Cultural

Materials Importation Act of 1966 (Pub.

L. 89–651; 80 Stat. 897; 15 CFR part

301), we invite comments on the

question of whether instruments of

equivalent scientific value, for the

purposes for which the instruments

shown below are intended to be used,

are being manufactured in the United

States.

Comments must comply with 15 CFR

301.5(a)(3) and (4) of the regulations and

be filed within 20 days with the

Statutory Import Programs Staff, U.S.

Department of Commerce, Washington,

D.C. 20230. Applications may be

examined between 8:30 a.m. and 5:00

p.m. in Room 4211, U.S. Department of

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution

Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C.

Docket Number: 00–011. Applicant:

University of Michigan, 930 N.

University Avenue, Ann Arbor, MI

48109–1055. Instrument: Electron Beam

Evaporator, Model EGN4. Manufacturer:

Oxford Applied Research, United

Kingdom. Intended Use: The instrument

is intended to be used for studies of how

various materials interact with thin

metal films. Application accepted by

Commissioner of Customs: April 21,

2000.

Docket Number: 00–013. Applicant:

Allegheny-Singer Research Institute,

320 East North Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA

15212–4772. Instrument: Robot and

Microplate Manipulator, Model Q-Bot.

Manufacturer: Genetix Limited, United

Kingdom. Intended Use: The instrument

is intended to be used to prepare

addressable libraries of DNA clones

(both genomic and cDNA) for

comparative gene expression studies

(the basis of the science of functional

genomics) to understand the differences

between normal physiologic processes.

The instrument will also be used for

educational objectives through teaching

trainees in the most current means to

comparatively evaluate differences in

gene expression. Application accepted

by Commissioner of Customs: April 21,

2000.

Frank W. Creel,

Director, Statutory Import Programs Staff.

[FR Doc. 00–11468 Filed 5–5–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Evaluation of Coastal Zone

Management Programs and National

Estuarine Research Reserves

AGENCY: Office of Ocean and Coastal

Resource Management, National Ocean

Service, National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),

DOC.

ACTION: Notice of intent to evaluate.

SUMMARY: The NOAA Office of Ocean

and Coastal Resource Management

(OCRM) announces its intent to evaluate

the performance of the Ohio Coastal