[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 43 (Friday, March 3, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 11552-11553]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-5210]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-823-802]


Uranium From Ukraine; Final Results of Expedited Sunset Review of 
Antidumping Duty Order

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

ACTION: Notice of Final Results of Expedited Sunset Review: Uranium 
from Ukraine.

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

SUMMARY: On August 2, 1999, the Department of Commerce (``the 
Department'') initiated a sunset review of the antidumping duty order 
on uranium from Ukraine (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 and adequate substantive comments filed on 
behalf of domestic interested parties and inadequate response (in this 
case, no response) from respondent interested parties, the Department 
determined to conduct an expedited review. As a result of this review, 
the Department finds that revocation of the antidumping duty order 
would likely lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping at the 
levels indicated in the Final Results of Review section of this notice.

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, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-
1930 or (202) 482-1560, respectively.

EFFECTIVE DATE: March 3, 2000.

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 order on uranium from Ukraine (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 of Domestic Uranium Producers (``the Ad Hoc Committee''), 
including Rio Algom Mining Corporation (``Rio Algom'') and Uranium 
Resources Inc. (``URI''),\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 the Ad Hoc Utilities Group (``AHUG'').\2\ The Ad Hoc 
Committee claimed interested-party status under section 771(9)(C) of 
the Act, as the only

[[Page 11553]]

U.S. producers of a domestic like product; 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 included Cotter corporation in its 
Notice of Intent to Participate; however, Cotter Corporation was not 
included in the Ad Hoc Committee's substantive response of September 
1, 1999.
    \2\ 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 sections 771(9) and 777(h) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.32.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Ad Hoc Committee claims that it was the original petitioner in 
the underlying antidumping investigation (see September 1, 1999, 
Substantive Response of the Ad Hoc Committee at 1). AHUG did not submit 
a summary of its past participation in the proceeding.
    On September 1, 1999, we received complete substantive responses 
from the above domestic interested parties and industrial users, with 
the exception of USEC and 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\ Without a substantive 
response from respondent interested parties, the Department, pursuant 
to 19 CFR 351.218(e)(1)(ii)(C), determined to conduct an expedited, 
120-day review of this order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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 Nancy A. Fischer, Shaw Pittman, to 
Jeffrey A. May, Office of Policy.
    \6\ See September 3, 1999, Letter from Jeffrey A. May, Director, 
Office of Policy to Nancy A. Fischer, Shaw Pittman.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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). This review concerns a transition order within the meaning of 
section 751(c)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act. Accordingly, on December 3, 1999, 
the Department determined that the sunset review of this order is 
extraordinarily complicated, and extended the time limit for completion 
of the final results of this review until not later than February 28, 
2000, in accordance with section 751(c)(5)(B) of the Act.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Extension of Time Limit for Final Results of Five-Year 
Reviews, 64 FR 67847 (December 3, 1999).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Scope of Review

    The merchandise subject to this antidumping duty order includes 
Ukrainian 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 compounds; 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\. Low enriched uranium 
(``LEU'') is included within the scope of the order; highly enriched 
uranium (``HEU'') is not. LEU is uranium enriched in U\235\ to a level 
of up to 20 percent, while HEU is uranium enriched in U\235\ to a level 
of 20 percent or more. The uranium subject to this order 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, 2844.10.50.00, 
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'').\8\ 
Although the above HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and 
customs purposes, the written description remains dispositive.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department clarified, in the scope of the order, that: 
``milling'' or ``conversion'' performed in a third country does not 
change the country of origin for the purposes of this order. Milling 
consists of processing uranium ore into uranium concentrate. Conversion 
consists of transforming uranium concentrate into natural uranium 
hexafluoride (UF6). Since milling or conversion does not 
change the country of origin, uranium ore or concentrate of Ukrainian 
origin that is subsequently milled and/or converted in a third country 
will still be considered of Ukrainian origin and subject to antidumping 
duties (58 FR 45483, August 30, 1993).

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 28, 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 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 the Central Records Unit, room B-099, 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/, under the heading ``Ukraine.'' The paper copy and electronic 
version of the Decision Memo are identical in content.

Final Results of Review

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

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Margin
                   Manufacturer/exporters                      (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
All Ukrainian manufacturers/exporters.......................      129.29
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This five-year (``sunset'') review and notice are in accordance 
with sections 751(c), 752, and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: February 28, 2000.
Joseph A. Spetrini,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 00-5210 Filed 3-2-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P