34440 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 104 / Tuesday, May 30, 2000 / Notices

1See Extension of Time Limit for Preliminary

Results of Full Five-Year Reviews, 65 FR 10048

(February 25, 2000).

25, 2000, the Department determined

that the sunset review of the

antidumping duty order on DRAMs

from Korea is extraordinarily

complicated and extended the time

limit for completion of the preliminary

results of this review until not later than

May 22, 2000, in accordance with

section 751(c)(5)(B) of the Act.1

Scope of Review

The products covered by this order

include DRAMs of one megabit and

above from Korea. Assembled DRAMs

include all package types. Unassembled

DRAMs include processed wafers, uncut

die, and cut die. Processed wafers

produced in Korea, but packaged or

assembled into memory modules in a

third country, are included in the scope;

wafers produced in a third country and

assembled or packaged in Korea are not

included in the scope. The scope of this

review includes memory modules. A

memory module is a collection of

DRAMs, the sole function of which is

memory. Modules include single in-line

processing modules (‘‘SIPs’’), single inline memory modules (‘‘SIMMs’’), or

other collections of DRAMs, whether

unmounted or mounted on a circuit

board. Modules that contain other parts

that are needed to support the function

of memory are covered. Only those

modules which contain additional items

which alter the function of the module

to something other than memory, such

as video graphics adapter (‘‘VGA’’)

boards and cards, are not included in

the scope. The scope of this review also

includes video random access memory

semiconductors (‘‘VRAMS’’), as well as

any future packaging and assembling of

DRAMs, and removable memory

modules placed on motherboards, with

or without a central processing unit

(‘‘CPU’’), unless the importer of

motherboards certifies with the Customs

Service that neither it nor a party related

to it or under contract to it will remove

the modules from the motherboards

after importation. The scope of this

review does not include DRAMs or

memory modules that are re-imported

for repair or replacement. The DRAMs

and modules subject to this review are

currently classifiable under subheadings

8471.50.0085, 8471.91.8085,

8542.11.0024, 8542.11.8026,

8542.13.8034, 8471.50.4000,

8473.30.1000, 8542.11.0026,

8542.11.8034, 8471.50.8095,

8473.30.4000, 8542.11.0034,

8542.13.8005, 8471.91.0090,

8473.30.8000, 8542.11.8001,

8542.13.8024, 8471.91.4000,

8542.11.0001, 8542.11.8024 and

8542.13.8026 of the Harmonized Tariff

Schedule of the United States

(‘‘HTSUS’’).

Although the HTSUS subheadings are

provided for convenience and customs

purposes, the Department’s written

description of the scope of this order

remains dispositive.

Analysis of Comments Received

All issues raised in substantive

responses and rebuttals by parties to

this sunset review are addressed in the

Issues and Decision Memorandum

(‘‘Decision Memo’’) from Jeffrey A. May,

Director, Office of Policy, Import

Administration, to Troy H. Cribb, Acting

Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration, dated May 22, 2000,

which is hereby adopted by this notice.

The issues discussed in the attached

Decision Memo include the likelihood

of continuation or recurrence of

dumping and the magnitude of the

margin likely to prevail were the order

revoked. Parties can find a complete

discussion of all issues raised in this

review and the corresponding

recommendations in this public

memorandum which is on file in B–099,

the Central Records Unit, of the main

Commerce Building.

In addition, a complete version of the

Decision Memo can be accessed directly

on the Web at www.ita.doc.gov/

import_admin/records/frn. The paper

copy and electronic version of the

Decision Memorandum are identical in

content.

Preliminary Results of Review

We preliminarily determine that

revocation of the antidumping duty

order would be likely to lead to

continuation or recurrence of dumping

at the following percentage weightedaverage margins:

Manufacturer/exporter Margin

(percent)

Hyundai ..................................... 20.88

All Others .................................. 4.55

Any interested party may request a

hearing within 30 days of publication of

this notice in accordance with 19 CFR

351.310(c). Any hearing, if requested,

will be held on July 19, 2000. Interested

parties may submit case briefs no later

than July 11, 2000, in accordance with

19 CFR 351.309(c)(1)(i). Rebuttal briefs,

which must be limited to issues raised

in the case briefs, may be filed not later

than July 17, 2000. The Department will

issue a notice of final results of this

sunset review, which will include the

results of its analysis of issues raised in

any such comments, no later than

September 29, 2000.

We are issuing and publishing this

determination and notice in accordance

with sections section 751(c), 752, and

777(i) of the Act.

Dated May 22, 2000.

Troy H. Cribb,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 00–13462 Filed 5–26–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–823–805]

Preliminary Results of Full Sunset

Review: Silicomanganese From

Ukraine

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

U.S. Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of preliminary results of

full sunset review: silicomanganese

from Ukraine.

SUMMARY: On November 2, 1999, the

Department of Commerce (‘‘the

Department’’) initiated a sunset review

of the suspended antidumping

investigation on silicomanganese from

Ukraine pursuant to section 751(c) of

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

Act’’). On the basis of a notice of intent

to participate filed on behalf of the

domestic parties and adequate

substantive comments filed on behalf of

both domestic and respondent

interested parties, the Department is

conducting a full sunset review. As a

result of this review, the Department

preliminarily finds that termination of

the suspended antidumping

investigation would be likely to lead to

continuation or recurrence of dumping

at the levels indicated in the

Preliminary Results of Review section of

this notice.

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 30, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Martha Douthit, Office of Policy for

Import Administration, International

Trade Administration, U.S. Department

of Commerce, 14th St. & Constitution

Ave., NW, Washington, D.C. 20230;

telephone (202) 482–5050.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Statute and Regulations

Unless otherwise indicated, all

citations to the Act, are references to the

provisions effective January 1, 1995, the

effective date of the amendments made

to the Act by the Uruguay Round

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 104 / Tuesday, May 30, 2000 / Notices 34441

1Eramet asserts that on June 30, 1999, Elkem

Metals Company (‘‘Elkem’’), the original petitioner,

sold its silicomanganese operations to Eramet SA.

As a result, Eramet, a subsidiary of Eramet SA, now

owns these operations.

2On December 2, 1999, the Department received

a request for an extension of the deadline for filing

a substantive response from the respondent

interested parties. On December 7, 1999, the

Department granted the respondent interested

parties an extension, and required them to file both

their substantive response and rebuttal comments

by December 13, 1999. See December 7, 1999, letter

from Jeffrey A. May, Director of Office of Policy, to

Kieran Sharpe, of Aitken, Irvin, Lewin, Berlin,

Vrooman, & Cohn, LLP.

3Because the respondent interested parties filed

a joint substantive response and rebuttal comments

on December 13, 1999, supra, the Department

granted Eramet an extended deadline for filing

rebuttal comments until December 20, 1999.

Agreements Act (‘‘URAA’’). In addition,

unless otherwise indicated, all citations

to the Department of Commerce’s (‘‘the

Department’s’’) regulations are to 19

CFR Part 351 (1999). Guidance on

methodological or analytical issues

relevant to the Department’s conduct of

sunset reviews is set forth in the

Department’s Policy Bulletin 98:3—

Policies Regarding the Conduct of Fiveyear (‘‘Sunset’’) Reviews of

Antidumping and Countervailing Duty

Orders; Policy Bulletin, 63 FR 18871

(April 16, 1998) (‘‘Sunset Policy

Bulletin’’).

Background

On November 2, 1999, the Department

initiated a sunset review of the

suspended antidumping investigation

on silicomanganese from Ukraine (64 FR

59160), pursuant to section 751(c) of the

Act. On November 17, 1999 we received

a Notice of Intent to Participate on

behalf of Eramet Marietta Inc.

(‘‘Eramet’’), within the deadline

specified in 19 CFR 351.218(d)(1)(i).

Eramet claimed interested party status

under section 771(9)(C) of the Act, as a

domestic producer of silicomanganese.1

We received a complete substantive

response to the notice of initiation on

December 2, 1999, on behalf of Eramet,

within the 30-day deadline specified in

the Sunset Regulations under 19 CFR

351.218(d)(3)(i). In its substantive

response, Eramet indicated that Elkem,

now Eramet, was the petitioner in the

original investigation and actively

participated in the suspended

antidumping investigation. We received

a substantive response to the notice of

initiation on December 13, 1999, on

behalf of Ronly Holdings LTD.

(‘‘Ronly’’), Nikopol Ferroalloys Plant

(‘‘Nikopol’’), Zaporozhye Ferroalloys

Plant (‘‘Zaporozhye’’), and the Ministry

of Industrial Policy of the Government

of Ukraine (‘‘GOU’’) (collectively the

‘‘respondent interested parties’’).2

Ronly, Zaporozhye, and Nikopol

claimed interested party statues within

the meaning of 771(9)(A) of the Act as

foreign manufacturers and/or exporters

of silicomanganese from Ukraine.

Zaporozhye and Nikopol assert that they

participated in the original antidumping

investigation that led to the suspension

agreement. On December 20, 1999, we

received rebuttal comments from

Eramet.3

In accordance with section

751(c)(5)(C)(v) of the Act, the

Department may treat a review as

extraordinarily complicated if it is a

review of a transition order (i.e., an

order in effect on January 1, 1995). The

review at issue concerns a transition

order within the meaning of section

751(c)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act. Therefore, the

Department determined that the sunset

review of the suspension agreement on

silicomanganese from Ukraine is

extraordinarily complicated and

extended the time limit for completion

of the preliminary results of this review

until not later than May 22, 2000, in

accordance with section 751(c)(5)(B) of

the Act.

Scope

The merchandise covered by this

sunset review is silicomanganese.

Silicomanganese, which is sometimes

called ferrosilicon manganese, is a

ferroalloy composed principally of

manganese, silicon, and iron, and

normally containing much smaller

proportions of minor elements, such as

carbon, phosphorous, and sulfur.

Silicomanganese generally contains by

weight not less than four percent iron,

more than 30 percent manganese, more

than eight percent silicon, and not more

than three percent phosphorous. All

compositions, forms, and sizes of

silicomanganese are included within the

scope of this review, including

silicomanganese slag, fines, and

briquettes. Silicomanganese is used

primarily in steel production as a source

of both silicon and manganese. This

sunset review covers all

silicomanganese, regardless of its tariff

classification. Most silicomanganese is

currently classifiable under subheading

7202.30.0000 of the Harmonized Tariff

Schedule of the United States

(‘‘HTSUS’’). Some silicomanganese may

also currently be classifiable under

HTSUS subheading 7202.99.5040.

Although the HTSUS subheadings are

provided for convenience and customs

purposes, our written description of the

subject merchandise remains

dispositive.

Analysis of Comments Received

All issues raised in this case by

parties to this sunset review are

addressed in the ‘‘Issues and Decision

Memorandum’’ (‘‘Decision Memo’’)

from Jeffrey A. May, Director, Office of

Policy, Import Administration, to Troy

H. Cribb, Acting Assistant Secretary for

Import Administration, dated May 22,

2000, which is hereby adopted by this

notice. The issues discussed in the

Decision Memo include adequacy, the

likelihood of continuation or recurrence

of dumping, and the magnitude of the

margin likely to prevail were the

suspension agreement terminated.

Parties can find a complete discussion

of all issues raised in this review and

the corresponding recommendations in

this public memorandum, which is on

file in room B–099 of the Commerce

Building.

In addition, a complete version of the

Decision Memo can be accessed directly

on the Web at www.ita.doc.gov/

import_admin/records/frn/. The paper

copy and electronic version of the

Decision Memo are identical in content.

Preliminary Results of Review

The Department preliminarily

determines that if the suspended

antidumping investigation is

terminated, it is likely that dumping

will continue or recur at the levels

indicated below:

Manufacturer/exporter Margin

(percent)

All Manufacturers/Producers/

Exporters ............................... 163.00

An interested party may request a

hearing within 30 days of publication of

this notice in accordance with 19 CFR

351.310(c). Any hearing, if requested,

will be held on July 17, 2000. Interested

parties may submit case briefs no later

than July 10, 2000, in accordance with

19 CFR 351.309(c)(1)(i). Rebuttal briefs,

which must be limited to issues raised

in the case briefs, may be filed not later

than July 14, 2000. The Department will

issue a notice of final results of this

sunset review, which will include the

results of its analysis of issues raised in

any such comments, no later than

September 27, 2000.

We are issuing and publishing these

results and notice in accordance with

sections 751(c), 752, and 777(i)(1) of the

Act.

Dated: May 22, 2000.

Troy H. Cribb,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 00–13463 Filed 5–26–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P