Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Postponement of Final Determination: Dynamic Random Access Memory Semiconductors of One Megabit and Above (``DRAMs'') From Taiwan

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-583-832]

Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and

Postponement of Final Determination: Dynamic Random Access Memory

Semiconductors of One Megabit and Above (``DRAMs'') From Taiwan

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 28, 1999.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thomas Futtner at (202) 482-3814,

Alexander Amdur at (202) 482-5346 (Etron), Ronald Trentham at (202)

482-6320 (MVI), Nova Daly at (202) 482-0989 (Nanya), or John Conniff at

(202) 482-1009 (Vanguard), Group II, Office 4, Import Administration,

International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th

Street and Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20230.

The Applicable Statute

Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the Tariff Act of

1930, as amended (``the Act''), are references to the provisions

effective January 1, 1995, the effective date of the Uruguay Round

Agreements Act (``URAA''). In addition, unless otherwise indicated, all

citations to the Department's regulations are to the regulations at 19

CFR Part 351 (1998).

Preliminary Determination

We preliminarily determine that DRAMs from Taiwan are being, or are

likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value

(``LTFV''), as provided in section 733 of the Act. The estimated

margins of sales at LTFV are shown in the ``Suspension of Liquidation''

section of this notice.

Period of Investigation

The period of investigation (``POI'') is October 1, 1997 to

September 30, 1998.

Case History

Since the initiation of this investigation on November 18, 1998

(Notice of Initiation of Antidumping Investigations: Dynamic Random

Access Memory Semiconductors From Taiwan, 63 FR 64040 (November 18,

1998) (Notice of Initiation)), the following events have occurred:

On November 13, 1998, the Department sent a cable to the American

Institute in Taiwan requesting information identifying producers/

exporters of the subject merchandise. We did not receive a response to

our request. On November 17, 1998, the Department requested comments

from the petitioner and potential respondents regarding model matching

criteria. In the Notice of Initiation, the Department requested that

parties submit any comments regarding the scope of the investigation.

On December 1, 1998, the respondents, Powerchip Semiconductor Corp.,

Mitsubishi Electric Corporation, Mitsubishi Electronics America, Inc.,

Mitsubishi Semiconductor America, Inc., Alliance Semiconductor

Corporation and Taiwan Semiconductor Industry Association submitted

comments on the model matching criteria. We did not receive any

comments regarding the scope language used for this investigation.

In December 1998, the International Trade Commission (``ITC'')

issued its preliminary determination that there is a reasonable

indication that an industry in the United States is materially injured

by reason of imports of the subject merchandise from Taiwan. See ITC

investigation No. 731-TA-811, 63 FR, 69304 (December 16, 1998).

On December 4, 1998, Acer Semiconductor Manufacturing Inc.

(``Acer'') requested that the Department not issue Acer a

questionnaire.

On December 8, 1998, based on information contained in the

petition, the Department issued questionnaires to the following

companies: Acer, Alliance Semiconductor Corporation

[[Page 28984]]

(``Alliance''), Etron Technology, Inc. (``Etron''), G-Link Technology

Corp. (``G-Link''), Macronix International Co., Ltd. (``Macronix''),

Mosel-Vitelic, Inc (``MVI''), Nan Ya Technology Corporation

(``Nanya''), Powerchip Semiconductor Corp. (``Powerchip''), Taiwan

Memory Technology, Inc. (``TMT''), Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing

Corporation (``TSMC''), United Microelectronics Corporation (``UMC''),

Vanguard International Semiconductor Corp. (``Vanguard''), and Winbond

Electronics (``Winbond'').

On December 18, 1998, based on additional research, the Department

issued partial Section A questionnaires to the following companies:

Fujitsu Ltd. (``Fujitsu''), Integrated Silicon Solutions, Inc.

(``ISSI''), Matsushita Electronics Corporation (``Matsushita''),

Monolithic Technology Systems, Inc. (``MoSys''), Siemens A.G.

(``Siemens''), and Toshiba Corporation (``Toshiba'').

In January 1999, the Department received responses to Section A and

partial Section A questionnaires from all of the respondents. On

January 6, 1999, Etron requested that it be selected as a mandatory

respondent. On January 15, 1999, the Department decided to limit the

number of respondents and notified Etron, MVI, Nanya and Vanguard that

they had been selected as mandatory respondents in this investigation.

On January 21, 1999, the Department notified Acer, Alliance, Fujitsu,

G-Link, ISSI, Macronix, Matsushita, Mosys, Powerchip, Siemens, TMT,

TSMC, Toshiba, UMC and Winbond that they had not been selected as

mandatory respondents. See Memorandum on Respondent Selection, dated

January 15, 1999 (``Respondent Selection Memo''). On January 21, 1999,

Powerchip requested that it be selected as a mandatory respondent. On

January 26, 1999, Powerchip withdrew its request.

In its January 5, 1999 Section A response, MVI requested that it

not be required to report certain U. S. sales made by an affiliate

during the last five days of the POI, and all U.S. sales of memory

modules that were further-manufactured in the United States by an

affiliate. On January 26, 1999, the petitioner submitted a letter to

the Department opposing only the exclusion request of MVI's U.S. sales

of memory modules that were further-manufactured in the United States

by an affiliate. On February 2, 1999, the Department granted MVI's

request. See ``Transactions Excluded'' section of this notice.

On January 25, 1999, Etron requested that the Department exclude

from its analysis and from the reporting requirements that portion of

Etron's U.S. sales which Etron characterized as constructed export

price (``CEP'') sales. On January 28, 1999, the petitioner submitted a

letter to the Department opposing Etron's request to exclude these

sales. On February 2, 1999, the Department granted Etron's request. See

``Transactions Excluded'' section of this notice.

We received comments from the petitioner concerning the information

reported in the respondents' Section A questionnaire responses in

February 1999. In February 1999, we received comments from Etron, MVI

and Siemens in reply to the petitioner's comments.

On February 4, 1999, Compaq Computer Corporation (``Compaq'')

requested that the Department establish per megabit cash deposit rates

for imports of certain memory modules containing DRAMs from Taiwan. See

``Per Megabit Cash Deposit Rates for Certain Memory Modules'' section

of this notice.

On February 11, 1999, the Department issued supplemental Section A

questionnaires to the respondents and received responses to these

questionnaires in February and March of 1999.

On February 18, 1999, pursuant to section 733(c)(1)(A) of the Act,

the petitioner made a timely request to postpone the preliminary

determination. On February 22, 1999, we granted this request and

postponed the preliminary determination until no later than May 21,

1999. See 64 FR 10443, March 4, 1999.

In March 1999, we received comments from the petitioner concerning

the information reported in the respondents' Section B, C and D

questionnaire responses. We issued supplemental Section B, C and D

questionnaires in March, April and May 1999, and received responses to

these questionnaires in those same months.

On May 3, 1999, we received comments from the petitioner on the

calculation of the respondents' dumping margins. On May 12 and 13,

1999, Vanguard and Etron, respectively, submitted rebuttals to the

petitioner's comments.

On May 14, 1999, we received information from the petitioner

concerning cross-fertilization of research and development (``R&D'')

among semiconductor products.

On May 14, 1999, we also received responses from all of the

respondents to supplemental Section D questionnaires. Due to the lack

of time to analyze these responses before the preliminary

determination, we will consider these responses for the purposes of

verification and the final determination.

Respondent Selection

Based on the information received from the responding companies in

their Section A responses, the Department determined that it did not

have the administrative resources to investigate all known producers

and/or exporters of DRAMs from Taiwan during the POI. Accordingly, the

Department decided to limit the number of mandatory respondents in this

investigation to four companies which had the largest sales volumes of

DRAMs to the United States during the POI, pursuant to section 777A(c)

of the Act. See Respondent Selection Memorandum. These companies are:

Etron, MVI, Nanya and Vanguard.

On March 29, 1999, MoSys requested that it be selected as a

respondent in this investigation. The Department denied MoSys' request

on the basis that it did not meet the selection criteria as explained

above, and that the request was untimely.

Postponement of Final Determination and Extension of Provisional

Measures

Pursuant to section 735(a)(2) of the Act, on May 10, 1999, MVI,

Nanya and Vanguard, and on May 12, 1999, Etron, requested that, in the

event of an affirmative preliminary determination in this

investigation, the Department postpone its final determination until

not later than 135 days after the date of the publication of an

affirmative preliminary determination in the Federal Register, and

extend the provisional measures from a four-month period to not more

than six months. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.210(b)(2), because (1)

our preliminary determination is affirmative, (2) Etron, MVI, Nanya and

Vanguard account for a significant proportion of exports of the subject

merchandise, and (3) no compelling reasons for denial exist, we are

granting the respondents' request and are postponing the final

determination until no later than 135 days after the publication of

this notice in the Federal Register. Suspension of liquidation will be

extended accordingly.

Scope of Investigation

The products covered by this investigation are DRAMs of one megabit

or above from Taiwan, whether assembled or unassembled. Assembled DRAMs

include all package types. Unassembled DRAMs include processed wafers,

uncut die and cut die. Processed wafers fabricated in Taiwan, but

packaged or assembled into finished semiconductors in a third country,

are included in the scope. Wafers fabricated

[[Page 28985]]

in a third country and assembled or packaged in Taiwan are not included

in the scope.

The scope of this investigation 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

in-line memory modules (``SIMMs''), dual in-line memory modules

(``DIMMs''), memory cards or other collections of DRAMs whether mounted

or unmounted on a circuit board. Modules that contain other parts that

are needed to support the function of memory are covered. Only those

modules that contain additional items that 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. Modules

containing DRAMs made from wafers fabricated in Taiwan, but either

assembled or packaged into finished semiconductors in a third country,

are also included in the scope.

The scope includes, but is not limited to, video RAM (``VRAM''),

Windows RAM (``WRAM''), synchronous graphics RAM (``SGRAM''), as well

as various types of DRAMs, including fast page-mode (``FPM''), extended

data-out (``EDO''), burst extended data-out (``BEDO''), synchronous

dynamic RAM (``SDRAMs''), and ``Rambus'' DRAMs (``RDRAMs''). The scope

of this investigation also includes any future density, packaging or

assembling of DRAMs. The scope of this investigation does not include

DRAMs or memory modules that are reimported for repair or replacement.

The DRAMs subject to this investigation are currently classifiable

under subheadings 8542.13.80.05 and 8542.13.80.24 through 8542.13.80.34

of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (``HTSUS'').

Also included in the scope are Taiwanese DRAMs modules, described

above, entered into the United States under subheading 8473.30.10

through 8473.30.90 of the HTSUS or possibly other HTSUS numbers.

Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs

purposes, the written description of the scope of this investigation is

dispositive.

Affiliation and Collapsing

Pursuant to section 771 (33) of the Act, the Department shall

consider the following persons to be ``affiliated'' or ``affiliated

persons'':

(A) Members of a family, including brothers and sisters (whether

by the whole or half blood), spouse, ancestors, and lineal

descendants.

(B) Any officer or director of an organization and such

organization.

(C) Partners.

(D) Employer and employee.

(E) Any person directly or indirectly owning, controlling, or

holding with power to vote, five percent or more of the outstanding

voting stock or shares of any organization and such organization.

(F) Two or more persons directly or indirectly controlling,

controlled by, or under common control with, any person.

(G) Any person who controls any other person and such other

person.

For the purposes of this paragraph, a person shall be considered to

control another person if the person is legally or operationally in a

position to exercise restraint or direction over the other person.

Section 351.401(f) of the Department's regulations outlines the

criteria for collapsing (i.e., treating as a single entity) affiliated

producers. Pursuant to section 351.401(f), the Department will treat

two or more affiliated producers as a single entity where (1) those

producers have production facilities for similar or identical products

that would not require substantial retooling of either facility in

order to restructure manufacturing priorities, and (2) the Department

concludes that there is a significant potential for the manipulation of

price or production.

In identifying a significant potential for the manipulation of

price or production, the Department may consider the following factors:

(i) the level of common ownership;

(ii) the extent to which managerial employees or board members

of one firm sit on the board of directors of an affiliated firm; and

(iii) whether operations are intertwined, such as through the

sharing of sales information, involvement in production and pricing

decisions, the sharing of facilities or employees, or significant

transactions between the affiliated producers.

A. Etron and Vanguard

The Department has preliminarily determined that Etron and Vanguard

were not under the common control of the Lu family, and not affiliated,

under section 771(33)(F) of the Act during the POI. Based upon the

information contained in the administrative record, the Department

found that the Lu family, including Chau-Chun Lu, the Chairman and CEO

of Etron, was in position of legal and operational control of Etron

during the POI. However, the Department also determined that the Lu

family, and specifically, C.Y. Lu, the President of Vanguard during the

last five months of the POI, was not in a position to exercise

restraint or direction over Vanguard. As a result, we have preliminary

determined that Etron and Vanguard are not affiliated. Because of the

proprietary nature of certain aspects of these relationships, for a

detailed discussion, see Memorandum on Whether Etron Technology, Inc.

and Vanguard International Semiconductor Corporation are Affiliated

Under Section 771(33) of the Act, dated May 21, 1999.

B. MVI and ProMOS Technologies Inc. (``ProMOS'')

ProMOS is a joint venture between MVI and Siemens. Pursuant to

section 771(33)(E) of the Act and the Department's practice in this

area, the Department has preliminarily determined that MVI is

affiliated with ProMOS because MVI has a 59 percent equity interest in

ProMOS.

C. MVI and Siemens

As noted above, MVI and Siemens are partners in the joint venture,

ProMOS. MVI has a 59 percent equity interest in ProMOS, while Siemens

retains a 37 percent equity share in the venture. The Department has

preliminarily determined that, under section 771(33)(F) of the Act, MVI

and Siemens are affiliated by virtue of their joint control of ProMOS.

However, we have preliminarily determined not to collapse these

entities, given that we found that there is no potential to influence

the pricing or production decisions between MVI and Siemens. See

Memorandum Re: Affiliation Between Mosel Vitelic, Inc. (MVI), and

ProMOS Technologies, Inc. (ProMOS), Affiliation Between MVI and Siemens

Aktiengesellschaft (Siemens) and Whether to collapse ProMOS with MVI,

dated May 21, 1999 (``MVI, ProMOS, Siemens Affiliation Memo'').

D. Collapsing MVI and ProMOS

In determining whether to collapse affiliated producers of the

subject merchandise, the Department's regulations provide a two-prong

test. According to 19 CFR 351.401(f)(1), the Department will treat two

or more affiliated producers as a single entity where (1) those

producers have production facilities for similar or identical products

that would not require substantial retooling of either facility in

order to restructure manufacturing priorities, and (2) the Department

concludes that there is a significant potential for the manipulation of

price or production.

Section 771(28) of the Act explains that the term ``producer''

means the ``producer of the subject merchandise.'' As further clarified

under 19 CFR 351.401(h), the Department ``will not

[[Page 28986]]

consider a toller or subcontractor to be a manufacturer or producer

where the toller or subcontractor does not acquire ownership, and does

not control the relevant sale of, the subject merchandise or foreign

like product.''

Based upon our analysis of the terms of the shareholders and

purchase agreements between MVI and Siemens, we find that ProMOS is not

a ``producer'' of the subject merchandise within the meaning of section

771(28) of the Act. Rather, the terms of the agreements indicate that

ProMOS is a ``subcontractor,'' as defined by 19 CFR 351.401(h). Given

that ProMOS did not acquire ownership and did not control the sale of

its merchandise, we preliminary determine that, under 19 CFR

351.401(h), ProMOS served as a subcontractor to MVI and should be

treated as such in our analysis. See MVI, ProMOS, Siemens Affiliation

Memo.

Our determination is consistent with the Department's current

policy on subcontracted operations. For example, in the Notice of Final

Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Static Random Access

Memory Semiconductor from Taiwan, 63 FR 8909 (February 23, 1998)

(``SRAMs from Taiwan''), the Department decided to exclude a foundry,

as a respondent, because it did not control the production of wafers.

The Department determined that it was the design house, rather than the

foundry, which retained ownership of the wafers at all stages of

production. The design house in that case subcontracted the production

of processed wafers with the foundry and determined how many wafers

would be produced. The foundry had no right to sell the wafers to any

party other than the design house. Further, the design house arranged

for the subsequent steps in the production process. See also Notice of

Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, Certain forged

Stainless Steel Flanges from India, 58 FR 68853, 68855 (Dec. 29, 1993).

Given that ProMOS is not a producer but a subcontractor under 19

CFR 351.401(h) and that it does not sell subject merchandise, we

determine that the collapsing is not appropriate in this case. See MVI,

ProMOS, Siemens Affiliation Memo.

E. MVI and ChipMOS Technologies Inc., (``ChipMOS'')

ChipMOS is a joint venture between MVI and Silconware Precision

Industries Co., Ltd. (``SPI''), pursuant to a joint venture agreement

between MVI and SPI. Pursuant to section 771(33)(E) of the Act and the

Department's practice in this area, the Department has preliminarily

determined that MVI is affiliated with ChipMOS because MVI has a 48

percent equity interest in ChipMOS.

According to information on the record, ChipMOS is engaged in the

testing and packaging of integrated circuits. As such, ChipMOS is not a

producer of the subject merchandise. Because ChipMOS is neither a

producer or seller of the subject merchandise, the question of

collapsing MVI and ChipMOS is moot. See Memorandum Re: Affiliation

Between Mosel Vitelic, Inc. (MVI), and ChipMOS Technologies, Inc.

(ChipMOS), Affiliation Between MVI and Siliconware Precision Industries

Co., Ltd. (SPI), and Collapsing MVI and ChipMOS, dated, May 21, 1999

(``MVI, ChipMOS, SPI Affiliation Memo''). However, as mentioned above,

we intend to examine the relationship between MVI, ChipMOS and SPI more

closely at verification.

F. MVI and SPI

As noted above, MVI and SPI are partners in the joint venture,

ChipMOS. According to the joint venture agreement, MVI and SPI own 48

percent and 30 percent of ChipMOS, respectively. The Department has

preliminarily determined that, under section 771(33)(F) of the Act, MVI

and SPI are affiliated by virtue of their joint control of ChipMOS.

According to information on the record, SPI is engaged in the

testing and packaging of integrated circuits. As such, SPI is not a

producer of the subject merchandise. Because SPI is neither a producer

or seller of the subject merchandise, the question of collapsing MVI

and SPI is moot. See MVI, ChipMOS, SPI Affiliation Memo.

Treatment of Foundry Sales

During the course of this investigation, we found that Nanya and

Vanguard, two of the companies selected as respondents, also acted as

foundries for DRAM design houses. As foundries, they processed DRAM

wafers according to designs provided by the design houses. In other

words, they did not control the production of the processed wafers in

question but merely translated the design of other companies into

actual products. The record evidence indicates that the design houses

then arranged for the probing, testing and assembly of the processed

wafers into individual DRAMs that the design houses ultimately sold to

unaffiliated purchasers.

In accordance with 19 CFR 351.401(h), and consistent with the

Department's determination in SRAMs from Taiwan, 63 FR at 8918-8919, we

have determined that, for the transactions in question, the design

house controls the production, and ultimate sale, of the subject

merchandise. Consequently, we did not include these foundry sales in

our analysis of sales of subject merchandise by Nanya and Vanguard for

purposes of this investigation. For further discussion, see Memorandum

Regarding Design Houses and Foundries, dated May 21, 1999.

Per Megabit Cash Deposit Rates for Certain Memory Modules

On February 4, 1999, Compaq requested that the Department establish

per megabit cash deposit rates for imports of certain memory modules

containing DRAMs from Taiwan, consistent with the Department's decision

in the LTFV investigation of DRAMs from the Republic of Korea. See

Final Determination of Sales at LTFV: Dynamic Random Access Memory

Semiconductors of One Megabit and Above from the Republic of Korea, 58

FR 15467 (March 23, 1993) (``DRAMs from Korea''). Compaq noted that

non-subject DRAMs or components could be subject to cash deposit

requirements when individual memory modules imported into the United

States include subject DRAMs as well as other non-subject components.

Compaq states that the per megabit cash deposit method would allow

Compaq and other importers to limit their cash deposits solely to

subject merchandise that the Department finds is dumped.

Consistent with the practice established in the LFTV investigation

of DRAMs from Korea, the Department is establishing per megabit cash

deposit rates to be applied to memory modules containing subject and

non-subject merchandise. For a detailed discussion, see Memorandum on

Application of a Per Megabit Cash Deposit Rate on Memory Modules, dated

May 21, 1999.

Level of Trade

In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B) of the Act, to the extent

practicable, we determine normal value (``NV'') based on sales in the

comparison market at the same level of trade (``LOT'') as the export

price (``EP'') or CEP. The NV LOT is that of the starting-price sales

in the comparison market or, when NV is based on constructed value

(``CV''), that of the sales from which we derive selling, general and

administrative (``SG&A'') expenses and profit. For EP, the U.S. LOT is

also the level of the starting-price sale, which is usually from the

exporter to the importer. For CEP, it is

[[Page 28987]]

the level of the constructed sale from the exporter to the importer.

To determine whether NV sales are at a different LOT than EP or

CEP, we examine stages in the marketing process and selling functions

along the chain of distribution between the producer and the

unaffiliated customer. If the comparison-market sales are at a

different LOT, and the difference affects price comparability, as

manifested in a pattern of consistent price differences between the

sales on which NV is based and comparison-market sales at the LOT of

the export transaction, we make a LOT adjustment under section

773(a)(7)(A) of the Act. Finally, for CEP sales, if the NV level is

more remote from the factory than the CEP level and there is no basis

for determining whether the difference in the levels between NV and CEP

affects price comparability, we adjust NV under section 773(a)(7)(B) of

the Act (the CEP offset provision). See Notice of Final Determination

of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cut-to-Length Steel Plate

from South Africa, 62 FR 61731 (Nov.19, 1997).

None of the respondents claimed a LOT adjustment. Nevertheless, we

evaluated whether a LOT adjustment was necessary by examining each

respondent's distribution system, including selling functions, classes

of customers, and selling expenses. For Etron, we found that the

selling functions are sufficiently similar in the United States and the

home market to consider them at the same LOT in the two markets.

Accordingly, all comparisons are at the same LOT and an adjustment

pursuant to section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act is not warranted. For

further discussion, see Memorandum on Level of Trade Analysis--Etron

Technology, Inc., dated May 21, 1999.

For MVI, Nanya and Vanguard, after making deductions pursuant to

section 772(d) of the Act, we found that the selling functions

performed at the CEP LOT were sufficiently different from the selling

functions performed at the NV LOT to consider these to be different

LOTs. We therefore evaluated whether the difference in LOT affected

price comparability. The effect on price comparability must be

demonstrated by a pattern of consistent price differences between sales

at the two relevant LOTs in the comparison market. However, because the

POI sales of the merchandise under investigation in the comparison

market for all three respondents were at only one LOT, we were unable

to determine whether there was a pattern of consistent price

differences.

The Statement of Administrative Action (``SAA'') provides that,

``if information on the same product and company is not available, the

LOT adjustment may also be based on sales of other products by the same

company. In the absence of any sales, including those in recent time

periods, to different LOTs by the exporter or producer under

investigation, the Department may further consider the selling expenses

of other producers in the foreign market for the same product or other

products.'' See SAA at 830. In accordance with the SAA, we have

considered alternative sources of information to make the necessary LOT

adjustment. However, we did not have information on the record that

would allow us to examine or apply these alternative methods for

calculating a LOT adjustment.

Since we were unable to quantify a LOT adjustment based on a

pattern of consistent price differences, in accordance with section

773(a)(7)(B) of the Act, we granted a CEP offset to MVI, Nanya and

Vanguard, given that all of the comparison sales in the home market

were at a more advanced LOT than the sales to the United States. For

further discussion of these issues, see Memoranda on Level of Trade

Analyses--Mosel-Vitelic, Inc., Nan Ya Technology Corporation, and

Vanguard International Semiconductor Corp., dated May 21, 1999.

Transactions Excluded

The Department granted Etron's and MVI's requests not to report

certain U.S. sales based on their representation that these

transactions account for an insignificant portion of their U.S. sales.

Specifically, the Department granted Etron's request not to report that

portion of Etron's U.S. sales which Etron characterized in its Section

A response as CEP sales. The Department also granted MVI's request not

to report certain home market and U.S. sales made by an affiliate

during the last five days of the POI, and all U.S. sales of memory

modules that were further-manufactured in the United States by an

affiliate. See letters from the Department to Etron and MVI dated

February 2, 1999.

In addition, the Department excluded certain other sales from its

analysis. Etron and MVI reported sales of non-prime merchandise in the

home market during the POI. However, given the limited home market

sales quantity of non-prime merchandise, and the fact that no such

sales were made to the United States during the POI, we excluded non-

prime sales from our analysis in accordance with our past practice.

See, e.g., Final Determinations of Sales at Less Than Fair Value:

Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products, Certain Cold-Rolled

Carbon Steel Flat Products, Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel

Flat Products, and Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from Korea,

58 FR 37176, 37180 (July 9, 1993).

We also excluded from our analysis free samples provided for no

consideration in either the home or U.S. markets, in accordance with

NSK Ltd. v. United States, 969 F.Supp. 34 (CIT 1997). For a detailed

discussion and analysis of Etron's free samples, see Memorandum on

Etron Technology, Inc.: Company-Specific Issues for the Preliminary

Determination, dated May 21, 1999 (``Etron Issue Memo''). For Etron, we

also excluded from our analysis certain sales that Etron made to third

countries but originally reported as home market sales. See Memorandum

on Etron Technology, Inc.: Calculations for the Preliminary

Determination, dated May 21, 1999.

For Nanya, we excluded from our analysis those sales to affiliated

customers in the home market which were not made at arm's-length prices

because we considered them to be outside the ordinary course of trade.

See 19 CFR 351.102(b). To test whether these sales were made at arm's-

length prices, we compared, on a model-specific basis, prices of sales

to affiliated and unaffiliated customers net of discounts, all movement

charges, direct selling expenses, and packing. Where, for the tested

models of subject merchandise, prices to an affiliated party were on

average 99.5 percent or more of the price to the unaffiliated parties,

we determined that sales made to the affiliated party were at arm's

length. See 19 CFR 351.403(c) and Preamble to the Department's

regulations; 62 FR at 27355. In instances where no affiliated-customer

price ratio could be constructed for an affiliated customer because

identical merchandise was not sold to unaffiliated customers, we were

unable to determine that these sales were made at arm's-length prices

and, therefore, excluded them from our LTFV analysis. See Final

Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cold-Rolled

Carbon Steel Flat Products from Argentina, 58 FR 37062, 37077 (July 9,

1993). Where the exclusion of such sales eliminated all sales of the

most appropriate comparison product, we made a comparison to the next

most similar model.

[[Page 28988]]

Time Period for Cost and Price Comparisons

Section 777A(d) of the Act states that, in an investigation, the

Department will compare the weighted average of the normal values to

the weighted average of the EPs or CEPs. Generally, the Department will

compare sales and conduct the sales below cost test using annual

averages. However, where prices have moved significantly over the

course of the POI, it has been the Department's practice to use shorter

time periods. 19 CFR 351.414(d)(3) See, e.g., Final Determination of

Sales at Less Than Fair Value; Erasable Programmable Read Only Memories

(EPROMs) from Japan, 51 FR 39680, 39682 (October 30, 1986); DRAMs from

Korea, 58 FR at 15476 and SRAMs from Taiwan; 63 FR 8911. As was

demonstrated in each of these cases, the semiconductor industry is

characterized by significant and consistent price and cost declines

over time. The evidence on the record in this investigation shows the

same pattern. Therefore, for this case, the Department has compared

prices and conducted the sales below cost test using quarterly data.

However, in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(D) of the Act, we

conducted the recovery of cost test using annual cost data.

Fair Value Comparisons

To determine whether sales of DRAMs from Taiwan to the United

States were made at LTFV, we compared the EP or the CEP to the NV, as

described in the ``Export Price,'' ``Constructed Export Price'' and

``Normal Value'' sections of this notice, below. In accordance with

section 777A(d)(1)(A)(i) of the Act, we calculated weighted-average EPs

or CEPs for comparison to weighted-average NVs.

In making our comparisons, in accordance with section 771(16) of

the Act, we considered all products sold in the home market, fitting

the description specified in the ``Scope of Investigation'' section of

this notice, above, to be foreign like products for purposes of

determining appropriate product comparisons to U.S. sales. Where there

were no sales of identical merchandise in the home market to compare to

U.S. sales, we compared U.S. sales to the next most similar foreign

like product, based on the characteristics listed in Sections B and C

of the Department's antidumping questionnaire.

Export Price/Constructed Export Price

For Etron, we based our calculations on EP, in accordance with

section 772(a) of the Act, when the subject merchandise was first sold

(or offered for sale) by the exporter outside of the United States to

an unaffiliated purchaser before the date of importation into the

United States, and CEP methodology was not otherwise indicated. In

addition, for Etron, MVI, Nanya and Vanguard, when the subject

merchandise was first sold in the United States by or for the account

of the producer or exporter of such merchandise, or by a seller

affiliated with the producer or exporter, to an unaffiliated purchaser,

we used CEP, in accordance with section 772(b) of the Act.

Vanguard classified some of its sales of DRAMs in the United States

as EP sales in its questionnaire response, including those sales made

prior to importation through a U.S. affiliate or, in some cases,

unaffiliated U.S. sales agents. Etron classified all of its sales of

DRAMs in the United States as EP sales in its questionnaire response,

including those sales made prior to importation through an unaffiliated

U.S. sales representative. To determine whether Etron's and Vanguard's

sales involving affiliates, agents or sales representatives are

properly classified as EP sales, we have examined three criteria: (1)

whether the merchandise was shipped directly from the manufacturer to

the unaffiliated U.S. customer; (2) whether the sales follow customary

commercial channels between the parties involved; and (3) whether the

function of the U.S. affiliate or selling agent is limited to that of a

``processor of sales-related documentation'' and a ``communication

link'' with the unrelated U.S. buyer. Only when all criteria are met

does the Department treat the sales as EP sales. See, e.g., E.I. Du

Pont v. United States, 841 F. Supp. 1237, 1248-50 (CIT 1993); AK Steel

Corp. v. United States, Consolidated Court No. 97-05-00865, 1998 WL

846764 at 6 (CIT 1998). In other words, where the factors indicate that

the activities of the U.S. affiliate and selling agent are ancillary to

the sale (e.g., arranging transportation or customs clearance), we

treat the transactions as EP sales. Where the U.S. affiliate or selling

agent is substantially involved in the sales process (e.g., negotiating

prices), we treat the transactions as CEP sales. See Certain Cut-to-

Length Carbon Steel Plate from Germany: Final Results of Antidumping

Administrative Review, 62 FR 18389, 18391 (April 15, 1997).

Based on our review of the selling activities of Vanguard's U.S.

affiliate and unaffiliated U.S. selling agents, we reclassified

Vanguard's U.S. sales of DRAMs through its U.S. affiliate and

unaffiliated U.S. selling agents as CEP sales because the agents and

the affiliate acted as more than a ``processor of sales-related

documentation'' and a ``communication link'' with the unaffiliated U.S.

customer. For further discussion of this issue, see Memorandum on

Whether to Treat Vanguard International Semiconductors' (Vanguard's)

U.S. Sales of Subject Merchandise During the Period of Investigation as

Export Price Sales, as Claimed by Vanguard, or as Constructed Export

Price Sales, dated March 26, 1999.

Furthermore, we reclassified Etron's U.S. sales of DRAMs through

its unaffiliated U.S. sales representative as CEP sales because the

sales representative acted as more than a ``processor of sales-related

documentation'' and a ``communication link'' with the unaffiliated U.S.

customer. For further discussion of this issue, see Memorandum on

Whether Etron Technology's U.S. Sales Made Through An Unaffiliated

Sales Representative Are Export Price or Constructed Export Price

Sales, dated May 21,1999.

A. Export Price

For Etron, we calculated EP based on packed, delivered and FOB

prices to unaffiliated purchasers in the United States. We made

adjustments to the starting price for discounts and other price

adjustments. We made deductions from the starting price, where

appropriate, for discounts, foreign inland freight, foreign brokerage

and handling expenses, international freight, marine insurance pursuant

to section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act.

B. Constructed Export Price

For all respondents, we calculated CEP based on the packed,

delivered and FOB price to the first unaffiliated customer in the

United States in accordance with section 772(b) of the Act. We made

adjustments to the starting price for discounts and other price

adjustments. We made deductions from the starting price for discounts,

science-industrial park charges, postal charges, foreign inland freight

and insurance, foreign brokerage and handling, international freight,

marine insurance, U.S. duty and U.S. brokerage and warehousing

expenses, as appropriate, in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of

the Act.

In accordance with section 772(d)(1) of the Act, we made additional

adjustments to the starting price by deducting direct and indirect

selling expenses associated with economic activities occurring in the

United States, including credit expenses and

[[Page 28989]]

commissions. Finally, we made an adjustment for CEP profit in

accordance with sections 772(d)(3) and 772(f) of the Act. However, for

Etron and Vanguard, because the deduction of the commission results, in

certain cases, in a price corresponding to an EP, in these cases we

have not made any additional deduction of CEP profit. See Certain Fresh

Cut Flowers from Colombia: Final Results of Antidumping Duty

Administrative Review, 62 FR 53287 (October 14, 1997).

Normal Value

After testing home market viability, whether sales to affiliates

were at arm's-length prices, and whether home market sales were at

below-cost prices, we calculated NV as noted in the ``Price-to-Price

Comparisons'' and ``Price-to-CV Comparisons'' sections of this notice.

1. Home Market Viability

In order to determine whether there is a sufficient volume of sales

in the home market to serve as a viable basis for calculating NV, we

compared each respondent's volume of home market sales of the foreign

like product to the volume of U.S. sales of the subject merchandise, in

accordance with section 773(a)(1)(C) of the Act. Because each

respondent's aggregate volume of home market sales of the foreign like

product was greater than five percent of its aggregate volume of U.S.

sales for the subject merchandise, we determined that the home market

was viable for each respondent.

Cost-of-Production Analysis

Based on the cost allegation contained in the petition, the

Department found reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that sales in

the home market were made at prices below the cost of production

(``COP''), in accordance with section 773(b)(1) of the Act. As a

result, the Department initiated an investigation to determine whether

the respondents made home market sales during the POI at prices below

their respective COPs, within the meaning of section 773(b) of the Act.

See Notice of Initiation. We conducted the COP analysis described

below.

A. Calculation of COP

In accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act, we calculated a

quarterly weighted-average COP based on the sum of each respondent's

cost of materials and fabrication for the foreign like product, plus

amounts for SG&A and packing costs. We preliminarily determine that R&D

related to semiconductors benefits all semiconductor products, and that

allocation of R&D on a product-specific basis was not appropriate. In

support of our methodology, we have placed on the record information

regarding the cross-fertilization of semiconductor R&D. See Memorandum

regarding Cross Fertilization of Research and Development in the

Semiconductor Industry, dated May 21, 1999.

We relied on the COP and CV data submitted by Etron, MVI, Nanya and

Vanguard, adjusted as discussed below, to compute quarterly weighted-

average COPs during the POI. In cases where there was no production

within the same quarter as a given sale, we referred to the most recent

quarter, prior to the sale, for which costs had been reported. In cases

where there was no cost reported for either the same quarter as the

sale, or for a prior quarter, we used the reported costs from the

closest subsequent quarter in which production occurred.

We made company-specific adjustments to the reported COP as

follows:

Etron: 1. We included stock bonuses paid to employees in the

calculation of Etron's cost of manufacturing (``COM'').

2. We recalculated Etron's R&D expense rate by excluding revenue

earned from R&D projects performed for outside parties from the R&D

expenses, and dividing the recalculated R&D expenses by cost of goods

sold plus R&D expenses and the bonus adjustment.

3. We adjusted Etron's general and administrative (``G&A'') expense

ratio to include an amount for inventory write-offs.

4. We adjusted Etron's G&A and interest expense rates after

increasing the cost of goods sold by the amount of the bonus

adjustment.

See Preliminary Determination Cost Calculation Memo for Etron

dated, May 21, 1999.

MVI: 1. MVI claimed a startup adjustment for wafers produced at

ProMOS, its new fab facility. We disallowed the claimed startup

adjustment because ProMOS reached commercial production levels prior to

the start of the POI.

2. We included ProMOS'' G&A and R&D expenses in the COP for wafers

purchased from ProMOS.

3. Pursuant to section 773(f)(2) of the Act, and section 351.407(b)

of the Department's regulations, we compared the transfer price paid by

MVI to ProMOS for wafers to ProMOS'' COP for these wafers. For the

fourth quarter of the POI, we increased MVI's reported cost for these

wafers to the higher of COP or transfer price.

4. We recalculated the stock bonuses using the market value at the

declaration date. We included the stock bonus amount (i.e. profit

sharing) in COM. We excluded packing costs from the cost of goods sold

used in the denominator of the rate.

5. We recalculated the G&A rate based on unconsolidated amounts and

excluded packing costs from the denominator.

6. We recalculated the financial expense rate by excluding the

dividend income offset from the net financial expense used in the

numerator of the rate, and by excluding packing costs from the cost of

goods sold used in the denominator of the rate. In addition, we also

excluded the net exchange gains offset since the claimed offset did not

agree with the amount presented on the audited financial statements.

7. We recalculated MVI's R&D expense rate using R&D for all

semiconductors divided by MVI's unconsolidated cost of goods sold plus

bonuses. We also excluded packing costs from the cost of goods sold

used in the denominator of the R&D rate.

See Preliminary Determination Cost Calculation Memo for MVI dated,

May 21, 1999.

Nanya: Pursuant to section 773(f)(2) of the Act, and section

351.407(b) of the Department's regulations, for DRAM assembly and test

performed by affiliates, we used the higher of cost, transfer price, or

market price.

2. We adjusted the reported R&D rate to include all of Nanya's

semiconductor R&D expenses divided by company-wide cost of goods sold.

3. We reclassified expenses incurred by Genesis Semiconductor, Inc.

(GSI), a U.S. affiliate of Nanya that performs DRAM R&D, as R&D

expense.

4. We adjusted Nanya's reported G&A expenses to include certain

``other revenue'' items.

5. We recalculated Nanya's reported production-related royalty

expense ratio by dividing the total expense incurred by the cost of

goods sold for DRAMs.

6. Since wafers processed in a country other than Taiwan are not

subject to this investigation, we have excluded the costs and sales of

fully-processed wafers purchased from a third country.

See Preliminary Determination Cost Calculation Memo for Nanya,

dated May 21, 1999.

Vanguard: 1. Pursuant to section 773(f)(2) of the Act, and section

351.407(b) of the Department's regulations, for DRAM assembly performed

by an affiliate, we adjusted the reported cost to the highest of cost,

transfer price, or market price.

2. We adjusted the R&D expense rate by including all R&D expenses

divided by cost of goods sold.

[[Page 28990]]

3. We reduced G&A expenses by other operating income and sales

administrative fees and included losses on sales of fixed assets and

other non-operating charges.

See Preliminary Determination Cost Calculation Memo for Vanguard

dated, May 21, 1999.

B. Test of Home Market Sales Prices

We compared the weighted-average quarterly COP figures for each

respondent, adjusted where appropriate (see above), to home market

sales of the foreign like product, as required under section 773(b) of

the Act, in order to determine whether these sales had been made at

prices below the COP. In determining whether to disregard home market

sales made at prices below the COP, we examined whether such sales were

made (1) within an extended period of time in substantial quantities,

and (2) at prices which permitted the recovery of all costs within a

reasonable period of time in the normal course of trade, in accordance

with sections 773(b)(1)(A) and (B) of the Act. On a product-specific

basis, we compared the COP to home market prices, less any applicable

movement charges, discounts and rebates, other selling expenses and

home market packing.

C. Results of the COP Test

Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C) of the Act, where less than 20

percent of the respondent's sales of a given product were at prices

less than the COP, we did not disregard any below-cost sales of that

product because we determined that the below-cost sales were not made

in substantial quantities. Where 20 percent or more of the respondent's

sales of a given product during the POI were at prices less than the

COP, we found that sales of that model were made in ``substantial

quantities'' within an extended period of time, in accordance with

section 773(b)(2)(B) of the Act. To determine whether the below cost

sales were at prices which permit recovery of costs within a reasonable

period of time, we tested whether the prices which were below the per-

unit COP at the time of the sale (i.e., the quarterly cost) were below

the weighted-average per-unit COP for the POI, in accordance with

section 773 (b)(2)(D). If they were, we disregarded below-cost sales in

determining NV.

We found that, for all respondents, for certain models of DRAMs,

more than 20 percent of the home market sales within an extended period

of time were at prices less than COP. Further, the prices did not

permit for the recovery of costs within a reasonable period of time. We

therefore disregarded the below-cost sales and used the remaining

above-cost sales as the basis for determining NV, in accordance with

section 773(b)(1). For those U.S. sales of DRAMs for which there were

no comparable home market sales in the ordinary course of trade, we

compared EPs or CEPs to CV in accordance with section 773(a)(4) of the

Act.

D. Calculation of CV

In accordance with section 773(e)(1) of the Act, we calculated CV

based on the sum of each respondent's cost of materials, fabrication,

G&A expenses, U.S. packing costs, direct and indirect selling expenses,

interest expenses, R&D expenses and profit. We made adjustments to each

respondent's reported cost as indicated above in the COP section. In

accordance with section 773(e)(2)(A) of the Act, we based SG&A expenses

and profit on the amounts incurred and realized by each respondent in

connection with the production and sale of the foreign like product in

the ordinary course of trade, for consumption in Taiwan. Where

respondents made no home market sales in the ordinary course of trade

(i.e., all sales failed the cost test), we based profit and SG&A

expenses on the weighted average of the profit and SG&A data computed

for those respondents with home market sales of the foreign like

product made in the ordinary course of trade in accordance with section

773(e)(2)(B)(ii) of the Act.

Price-to-Price Comparisons

For each company, we calculated NV based on packed, delivered and

FOB prices to unaffiliated home market customers and, for Nanya, on

prices to affiliated customers that were determined to be at arm's

length. For Etron, we calculated NV based on the unit prices, and the

currency of those unit prices, that were listed on its invoices. For

all respondents, we made adjustments to the starting price for

discounts and other price adjustments. We made deductions for foreign

inland freight, insurance, industrial park charges and bonded warehouse

expenses, where appropriate, pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(B) of the

Act.

Pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act and 19 CFR

351.410(c), we made circumstance-of-sale adjustments, where

appropriate, for differences in royalties, commissions credit,

discounts and bank charges. In cases where a respondent paid a

commission on U.S. sales, and paid no commission on the matching home

market sales, in calculating NV, we offset these commissions using the

weighted-average amount of indirect selling expenses incurred on the

home market sales for the comparison product, up to the amount of the

U.S. commissions. In cases where a respondent paid a commission on home

market sales, and paid no commission on the matching U.S. sales, in

calculating NV, we offset these commissions using the weighted-average

amount of indirect selling expenses and inventory carrying costs

incurred on the U.S. sales (or for CEP sales, the weighted-average

amount of such expenses that are not associated with economic

activities in the United States) for the comparison product, up to the

amount of the home market commissions. See 19 CFR 351.410(e) and Notice

of Final Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty

Administrative Review: Canned Pineapple Fruit From Thailand, 63 FR

43661, 43670-43671 (August 14, 1998).

For Etron, MVI and Vanguard, where the respondent has not yet

received payment for certain transactions, we used the date of the

preliminary determination as the date of payment to calculate credit,

in accordance with the Department's established practice. See, e.g.,

SRAMs from Taiwan, 62 FR at 51446. We also adjusted Etron's and MVI's

inventory carrying costs to account for the adjustments made to the

COM, as specified above. For Etron, we also reclassified reported home

market warranty expense as an inventory write-off (see Etron Issue

Memo) and recalculated U.S. indirect selling expenses using the amount

of the gross sales prices in U.S. dollars, the currency in which Etron

made its U.S. sales.

We deducted home market packing costs and added U.S. packing costs,

in accordance with section 773(a)(6) of the Act. Where appropriate, we

made adjustments to NV to account for differences in physical

characteristics of the merchandise, in accordance with section

773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.411.

Price-to-CV Comparisons

For price-to-CV comparisons, we made adjustments to CV in

accordance with section 773(a)(8) of the Act. Where CV was compared to

EP, we deducted from CV the weighted-average home market direct selling

expenses incurred on sales made in the ordinary course of trade and

added the weighted-average U.S. product-specific direct selling

expenses in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act. Where

CV was compared to CEP, we deducted from CV the weighted-average home

market direct selling expenses (which included credit expenses)

incurred on sales made in the ordinary course of trade.

[[Page 28991]]

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(a) 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

rate for the daily rate, in accordance with established practice.

Further, section 773A(b) directs the Department to allow a 60-day

adjustment period when a currency has undergone a sustained movement. A

sustained movement has occurred when the weekly average of actual daily

rates exceeds the weekly average of benchmark rates by more than five

percent for eight consecutive weeks. (For an explanation of this

method, see Policy Bulletin 96-1: Currency Conversions, 61 FR 9434

(March 8, 1996).) Such an adjustment period is required only when a

foreign currency is appreciating against the U.S. dollar. The use of an

adjustment period was not warranted in this case because the New Taiwan

dollar and, for Vanguard, the Japanese Yen, did not undergo a sustained

movement during the POI.

Verification

As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, we will verify all

information determined to be acceptable for use in making our final

determination.

Suspension of Liquidation

In accordance with section 733(d) of the Act, we are directing the

Customs Service to suspend liquidation of all imports of subject

merchandise that are entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for

consumption on or after the date of publication of this notice in the

Federal Register. We will instruct the Customs Service to require a

cash deposit or the posting of a bond equal to the weighted-average

amount by which the NV exceeds the U.S. price, as indicated in the

chart below. For memory modules containing both subject and non-subject

merchandise, we will instruct Customs to require a cash deposit or the

posting of a bond equal to the weighted-average dollar amount per

megabit by which the NV exceeds the U.S. price, as indicated in the

chart below (see ``Per Megabit Cash Deposit Rates for Certain Memory

Modules'' section of this notice). These suspension-of-liquidation

instructions will remain in effect until further notice. The weighted-

average dumping margins are as follows:

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

Weighted- Weighted-

Exporter/manufacturer average margin average per

percentage megabit rate

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

Etron Technology, Inc............... 4.96 $0.03

Mosel-Vitelic, Inc.................. 30.89 0.11

Nan Ya Technology Corporation....... 9.03 0.01

Vanguard International Semiconductor 10.36 0.24

Corp...............................

All Others.......................... 16.65 0.06

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

ITC Notification

In accordance with section 733(f) of the Act, we have notified the

ITC of our determination. If our final determination is affirmative,

the ITC will determine before the later of 120 days after the date of

this preliminary determination or 45 days after our final determination

whether these imports are materially injuring, or threaten material

injury to, the U.S. industry.

Public Comment

Case briefs or other written comments in at least ten copies must

be submitted to the Assistant Secretary for Import Administration no

later than July 19, 1999, and rebuttal briefs no later than July 26,

1999. A list of authorities used and an executive summary of issues

must accompany any briefs submitted to the Department. Such summary

should be limited to five pages total, including footnotes. In

accordance with section 774 of the Act, we will hold a public hearing,

if requested, to afford interested parties an opportunity to comment on

arguments raised in case or rebuttal briefs. Tentatively, the hearing

will be held on July 27, 1999, with the time and room to be determined,

at the U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution

Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20230. Parties should confirm by

telephone the time and place of the hearing 48 hours before the

scheduled date.

Interested parties who wish to request a hearing, or to participate

if one is requested, must submit a written request to the Assistant

Secretary for Import Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Room

1870, within thirty days of the publication of this notice. Requests

should contain: (1) the party's name, address and telephone number; (2)

the number of participants; and (3) a list of the issues to be

discussed. Oral presentations will be limited to issues raised in the

briefs. If this investigation proceeds normally, we will make our final

determination no later than 135 days after the publication of this

notice in the Federal Register.

This determination is issued and published in accordance with

sections 773(d) and 777(i) of the Act.

Dated: May 21, 1999.

Richard W. Moreland,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.

[FR Doc. 99-13684 Filed 5-27-99; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P