[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 39 (Monday, February 28, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 10473-10475]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-4619]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-821-802]


Uranium From Russia; Preliminary Results of Sunset Review of 
Suspended Antidumping Duty Investigation

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of preliminary results of full sunset review: Uranium 
from Russia.

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

SUMMARY: On August 2, 1999, the Department of Commerce (``the 
Department'') initiated a sunset review of the antidumping duty 
suspension agreement on uranium from Russia (64 FR 41915) 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 
domestic and respondent interested parties, the Department determined 
to conduct a full review. As a result of this review, the Department 
preliminarily finds that revocation of the antidumping duty suspension 
agreement would likely lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping at 
the levels indicated in the Preliminary Results of Review section of 
this notice.

EFFECTIVE DATE: February 28, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kathryn B. McCormick or Melissa G. 
Skinner, Office of Policy for Import Administration, International 
Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, D.C. 20230; telephone: (202) 482-
1930 or (202) 482-1560, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Statute and Regulations

    This review is being conducted pursuant to sections 751(c) and 752 
of the Act. The Department's procedures for the conduct of sunset 
reviews are set forth in Procedures for Conducting Five-year 
(``Sunset'') Reviews of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Orders, 63 
FR 13516 (March 20, 1998) (``Sunset Regulations'') and in CFR Part 351 
(1999) in general. 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 Five-year (``Sunset'') Reviews of Antidumping and Countervailing 
Duty Orders; Policy Bulletin, 63 FR 18871 (April 16, 1998) (``Sunset 
Policy Bulletin'').

Background

    On August 2, 1999, the Department initiated a sunset review of the 
antidumping duty suspension agreement on uranium from Russia (64 FR 
41915), pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act. The Department received 
Notices of Intent to Participate on behalf of domestic interested 
parties, the Ad Hoc Committee,\1\ USEC, Inc. and its subsidiary, the 
United States Enrichment Corporation (collectively, ``USEC''), and 
Paper, Allied-Industrial, Chemical and Energy Workers International 
Union, AFL-CIO (``PACE''), within the applicable deadline (August 17, 
1999) specified in section 351.218(d)(1)(i) of the Sunset Regulations. 
On August 27, 1999, we received a notice of intent to participate on 
behalf of AHUG.\2\ The Ad Hoc Committee claimed interested-party status 
under section 771(9)(C) of the Act, as the only U.S. producers of a 
domestic like product; the AHUG claimed interested-party status as 
industrial users of uranium; \3\ PACE claimed interested-party status 
as a union representing workers of two domestic gaseous diffusion 
plants that produce uranium products.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The Ad Hoc Committee consists of Rio Algom Mining 
Corporation, Uranium Resources Inc., and Cotter Corporation.
    \2\ The AHUG consists of Ameren UE, Baltimore Gas and Electric 
Co., Carolina Power and Light Co., Commonwealth Edison Co., 
Consumers Energy, Duke Power Co., Entergy Services, Inc., 
FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Co., Florida Power and Light Co., 
Northern States Power Co., PECO Energy Co., Southern Nuclear 
Operating Co., Texas Utilities Electric Co., and Virginia Power.
    \3\ The Department notes that, although industrial users are 
allowed to participate in sunset reviews, they are not considered 
``interested parties'' as defined in the statute and regulations. 
See section 771(9) and 771(h) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.312.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Ad Hoc Committee claims that, along with the Oil, Chemical and 
Atomic Workers International Union, it was the original petitioner in 
the suspended antidumping investigation and resulting suspension 
agreement under review (see September 1, 1999, Substantive Response of 
the Ad Hoc Committee at 4).
    USEC notes that it was created, in 1993, as a U.S. government-owned 
company to operate the enrichment facilities then owned by the 
Department of Energy (``DOE'') and privatized in July 1998. While USEC 
was not in existence when the petition in the original proceeding was 
filed in 1991, the DOE participated in the original proceeding and 
provided comments regarding the implementation of the original Russian 
suspension agreement. After its creation, USEC commented on subsequent 
amendments to the agreement and, on March 13, 1998, requested that the 
Department determine that enriched uranium derived from the re-
enrichment of depleted uranium tails in Russia should be treated as 
Russian-origin material covered by the Russian suspension agreement 
(see September 1, 1999, Substantive Response of USEC at 7). On August 
6, 1999, USEC requested that the Department issue a scope ruling to 
clarify that enriched uranium located in Kazakhstan at the time of the 
dissolution of the Soviet Union is within the scope of the Russian 
suspension agreement. Id.
    AHUG did not submit a summary of their past participation in the 
proceedings.
    On September 1, 1999, the Ministry of the Russian Federation for 
Atomic Energy (``Minatom''), AO Technsnabexport, (``Tenex''), and Globe 
Nuclear Services and Supply GNSS, Limited (``GNSS'') (collectively, 
``respondent interested parties'') notified the Department of their 
intent to participate in the review. Minatom is an interested party 
pursuant to section 771(9)(B) of the Act, as the government of a 
country in which subject merchandise is produced and exported; Tenex 
claims interested-party status pursuant to section 771(9)(A) of the Act 
as the exclusive producer and exporter; and GNSS imports into the 
United States from Russia.
    Minatom and Tenex claim that they have been involved in all aspects 
of the suspended investigation through their compliance with the terms 
of the suspension agreement and through ongoing consultations with the 
United States. GNSS claims that it has participated as an importer by 
reporting sales of the subject merchandise under

[[Page 10474]]

the agreement and by submitting comments to the Department on various 
aspects of the suspended investigation.
    On September 1, 1999, we received complete substantive responses 
from the above domestic and respondent interested parties, and 
industrial users with the exception of PACE,\4\ within the 30-day 
deadline specified in the Sunset Regulations under section 
351.218(d)(3)(i). On September 2, 1999, we received a request for an 
extension to file rebuttal comments from AHUG.\5\ Pursuant to 19 CFR 
351.302(b)(1999), the Department extended the deadline for all 
participants eligible to file rebuttal comments until September 13, 
1999.\6\ On September 14, 1999, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.218 
(e)(1)(ii)(A), the Department determined to conduct a full (240-day) 
sunset review of this suspension agreement.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See September 9, 1999, Letter to the Secretary from Philip 
H. Potter withdrawing PACE from participation in the sunset reviews 
of uranium from Russia, Uzbekistan, and Ukraine.
    \5\ See September 2, 1999, Request for an Extension to File 
Rebuttal Comments in the Sunset Reviews of Uranium from Russia, 
Uzbekistan, and Ukraine from Shaw Pittman to the Office of Policy.
    \6\ See September 3, 1999, Letter from Jeffrey A. May, Director 
of the Office of Policy to Nancy A. Fischer of Shaw Pittman.
    \7\ See May 24, 1999, Memoranda for Jeffrey A. May, Re: Sunset 
Reviews of Uranium from Russia and Uzbekistan: Adequacy of 
Respondent Interested Party Response to the Notice of Initiation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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). Accordingly, on November 22, 1999, the Department determined 
that the sunset review of the uranium investigation is extraordinarily 
complicated, and extended the time limit for completion of the 
preliminary results of this review until not later than February 18, 
2000, in accordance with section 751(c)(5)(B) of the Act. \8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See Extension of Time Limit for Preliminary Results of Full 
Five-Year Reviews, 64 FR 66879 (November 30, 1999).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Scope of Review

    The merchandise covered in the June 3, 1992, preliminary 
determination of the suspension investigation includes natural uranium 
in the form of uranium ores and concentrates; natural uranium metal and 
natural uranium compounds; alloys, dispersions (including cermets), 
ceramic products, and mixtures containing natural uranium or natural 
uranium compound; uranium enriched in U\235\ and its compounds; alloys 
dispersions (including cermets), ceramic products and mixtures 
containing uranium enriched in U\235\ or compounds or uranium enriched 
in U\235\; and any other forms of uranium within the same class or 
kind. According to the Department's preliminary determination, the 
uranium subject to these investigations is provided for under 
subheadings 2612.10.00.00, 2844.10.10.00, 2844.10.20.10, 2844.10.20.25, 
2844.10.20.50, 2844.10.20.55, 2844.10.50, 2844.20.00.10, 2844.20.00.20, 
2844.20.00.30, and 2844.20.00.50 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of 
the United States (``HTSUS''). \9\ Although the above HTSUS subheadings 
are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written 
description remains dispositive. In addition, the Department 
preliminarily determined that highly-enriched uranium (``HEU'') is not 
covered within the scope of the investigation, and that the subject 
merchandise constitutes a single class or kind of merchandise.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 
Value: Uranium from Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Russia, Tajikistan, 
Ukraine and Uzbekistan; and Preliminary Determination of Sales at 
Not Less Than Fair Value: Uranium from Armenia, Azerbaijan, 
Byelarus, Georgia, Moldova and Turkmenistan, 57 FR 23380, 23381 
(June 3, 1992).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On October 30, 1992, the Department issued a suspension of the 
antidumping duty investigation of uranium from Russia and an amendment 
of the preliminary determination. \10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See Antidumping; Uranium from Kazakhstan, Kyrgyszstan, 
Russia, Tajikistan, Ukraine, and Uzbekistan; Suspension of 
Investigations and Amendment of Preliminary Determinations, 57 FR 
49220 (October 30, 1992).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The suspension agreement (the ``Agreement'') provided that uranium 
ore from Russia that is milled into U3O8 and/or 
converted into UF6 in another country prior to direct and/or 
indirect importation into the United States is considered uranium from 
Russia and is subject to the terms of the Agreement. \11\ Further, 
uranium enriched in U\235\ or compounds of uranium enriched in Russia 
are covered by the Agreement, regardless of their subsequent 
modification or blending. Uranium enriched in U\235\ in another country 
prior to direct and/or indirect importation into the United States is 
not considered uranium from Russia and is not subject to the terms of 
this Agreement. \12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Id. at 49235.
    \12\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    HEU is within the scope of this investigation, and HEU is covered 
by this Agreement. For the purpose of this Agreement, HEU means uranium 
enriched to 20 percent or greater in the isotope uranium-235. Imports 
of uranium ores and concentrates, natural uranium compounds, and all 
other forms of enriched uranium are currently classifiable under HTSUS 
subheadings 2612.10.00, 2844.10.20, 2844.20.00, respectively. Imports 
of natural uranium metal and forms of natural uranium other than 
compounds are currently classifiable under HTSUS subheadings 2844.10.10 
and 2844.10.50. Id. Although the above HTSUS subheadings are provided 
for convenience and customs purposes, the written description remains 
dispositive.
    On August 6, 1999, USEC, Inc. and its subsidiary, United States 
Enrichment Corporation (collectively, ``USEC'') requested that the 
Department issue a scope ruling to clarify that enriched uranium 
located in Kazakstan at the time of the dissolution of the Soviet Union 
is within the scope of the Russian suspension agreement. Respondent 
interested parties filed an opposition to the scope request on August 
27, 1999. That scope request is pending before the Department at this 
time.

Analysis of Comments Received

    All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs 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 Robert S. La Russa, Assistant 
Secretary for Import Administration, dated February 18, 2000, which is 
hereby adopted and incorporated by reference into 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 suspension investigation 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 B-099.
    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/, under the heading ``Russia.'' The paper copy and electronic 
version of the Decision Memo are identical in content.

Preliminary Results of Review

    We determine that revocation of the antidumping duty suspension 
agreement on uranium from Russia would be likely to lead to 
continuation or recurrence of dumping at the following percentage 
weighted-average margin:

[[Page 10475]]



------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Margin
                   Manufacturer/exporters                     (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
All Russian manufacturers/exporters........................      115.82
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 April 19, 2000, in accordance 
with 19 CFR 351.310(d). Interested parties may submit case briefs no 
later than April 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 April 12, 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, no 
later than June 27, 2000.
    This five-year (``sunset'') review and notice are in accordance 
with sections 751(c), 752, and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: February 18, 2000.
Robert S. LaRussa,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 00-4619 Filed 2-25-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P