13598 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 55 / Friday, March 21, 1997 / Notices

SG&A includes the company’s net

financing expense.

Petitioner calculated COM for each of

the Korean and Taiwanese producers for

whom it obtained sales data based on its

own production experience, adjusted for

labor and utility costs in Korea and

Taiwan. Petitioner also adjusted

production costs for known differences

in wafer size, where applicable, die size,

and yields. Petitioner used each

producer/exporter’s most recently

available financial statements in order

to derive SG&A and research and

development expenses. Petitioner based

intellectual property expenses on its

own experience.

We made the following revisions to

petitioner’s COP calculations for both

the Korean and Taiwanese companies:

(1) eliminated intellectual property

expenses from the calculation because

petitioner provided insufficient

evidence that the foreign producers

incurred such expenses; and (2) used

the higher of petitioner’s actual yield

experience or petitioner’s estimate of

foreign producers’ yields as a

conservative measure because petitioner

did not sufficiently substantiate its

estimates of the foreign companies’

production yields. We also disallowed

petitioner’s adjustment of the Korean

company’s fabrication equipment

depreciation expense based on wafer

size because petitioner was unable to

provide adequate support for this

adjustment. Instead, we relied on

petitioner’s own experience for this

expense in the COM calculation.

Because petitioner did not provide

SG&A information for one Taiwanese

producer, we relied on the experience of

the other SRAMs producer in

calculating COP and CV.

The allegation that the Korean and

Taiwanese producers are selling the

foreign like product in their home

markets at prices below their COP is

based upon a comparison of the home

market prices with the calculated COP.

Based upon our analysis of the COP

information in the petition, we find

reasonable grounds to believe or suspect

that sales of the foreign like product

may have been made at prices below

COP in accordance with section

773(b)(2)(A)(i) of the Act. Accordingly,

the Department is initiating cost

investigations with respect to both

Korea and Taiwan.

To calculate constructed value

(‘‘CV’’), petitioner used the same

information used to calculate COP. For

purposes of the petition, petitioner used

a profit rate of zero in its calculation of

CV. The Department made the same

revisions to CV as it did to COP, as

discussed above. Because the home

market prices of each producer are less

than the COP, the Department based NV

on CV.

Based on comparisons of EP to NV,

the calculated dumping margin for

SRAMs from Korea is 55.36 percent ad

valorem. The calculated dumping

margins for SRAMs from Taiwan range

from 93.54 to 113.85 percent ad

valorem.

Initiations of Investigations

We have examined the petition on

SRAMs from Korea and Taiwan and

have found that it meets the

requirements of section 732 of the Act,

including the requirements concerning

allegations of the material injury or

threat of material injury to the domestic

producers of a domestic like product by

reason of the complained-of imports,

allegedly sold at less than fair value.

Therefore, we are initiating

antidumping duty investigations to

determine whether imports of SRAMs

from Korea and Taiwan are being, or are

likely to be, sold in the United States at

less than fair value. Unless extended,

we will make our preliminary

determinations by August 4, 1997.

Distribution of Copies of the Petition

In accordance with section

732(b)(3)(A) of the Act, a copy of the

public version of the petition has been

provided to the representatives of the

government of Korea, as well as to the

authorities of Taiwan. We will attempt

to provide a copy of the public version

of the petition to each exporter named

in the petition (as appropriate).

ITC Notification

We have notified the ITC of our

initiations, as required by section 732(d)

of the Act.

Preliminary Determinations by the ITC

The ITC will determine by April 11,

1997, whether there is a reasonable

indication that imports of SRAMs from

Korea and Taiwan are causing material

injury, or threatening to cause material

injury, to a U.S. industry. A negative

ITC determination in either of the

investigations will result in that

investigation being terminated;

otherwise, the investigations will

proceed according to statutory and

regulatory time limits.

Dated: March 17, 1997.

Robert S. LaRussa,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 97–7251 Filed 3–20–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

National Institutes of Health, et al.;

Notice of Consolidated Decision on

Applications for Duty-Free Entry of

Electron Microscopes

This is a decision consolidated

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.

Docket Number: 96–133. Applicant:

National Institutes of Health, Bethesda,

MD 20892. Instrument: Electron

Microscope, Model CM120.

Manufacturer: Philips, The Netherlands.

Intended Use: See notice at 62 FR 4032,

January 28, 1997. Order Date: August

20, 1996.

Docket Number: 96–135. Applicant:

Medical University of South Carolina,

Charleston, SC 29425. Instrument:

Electron Microscope, Model JEM–1210.

Manufacturer: JEOL, Ltd., Japan.

Intended Use: See notice at 62 FR 4032,

January 28, 1997. Order Date: October

17, 1996.

Docket Number: 96–140. Applicant:

Associated Universities, Inc., Upton, NY

11973. Instrument: Electron Microscope

with Accessories, Model JEM–3000F.

Manufacturer: JEOL, Ltd., Japan.

Intended Use: See notice at 62 FR 5619,

February 6, 1997. Order Date:

September 24, 1996.

Comments: None received.

Decision: Approved. No instrument of

equivalent scientific value to the foreign

instrument, for such purposes as these

instruments are intended to be used,

was being manufactured in the United

States at the time the instruments were

ordered.

Reasons: Each 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 each instrument.

Frank W. Creel,

Director, Statutory Import Programs Staff.

[FR Doc. 97–7247 Filed 3–20–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

Oklahoma State University, et al.;

Notice of Consolidated Decision on

Applications for Duty-Free Entry of

Scientific Instruments

This is a decision consolidated

pursuant to Section 6(c) of the