[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 129 (Wednesday, July 5, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 41439-41441]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-16948]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-821-802]


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

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

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

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

[[Page 41440]]

SUMMARY: On February 28, 2000, the Department of Commerce (``the 
Department'') published a notice of preliminary results of the full 
sunset review of the antidumping duty suspension agreement on uranium 
from Russia (65 FR 10473) pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act 
of 1930, as amended (``the Act''). We provided interested parties an 
opportunity to comment on our preliminary results. We received comments 
from both domestic and respondent interested parties. As a result of 
this review, the Department finds that revocation of the antidumping 
duty suspension agreement would likely lead to continuation or 
recurrence of dumping at the levels indicated in the Final Results of 
Review section of this notice.

EFFECTIVE DATE: July 5, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kathryn B. McCormick or James Maeder, 
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) 482-3330, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Statute and Regulations

    This review was 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 February 28, 2000, the Department of Commerce (``the 
Department'') published in the Federal Register a notice of preliminary 
results of the full sunset review of the suspended antidumping duty 
investigation on uranium from Russia (65 FR 10473) pursuant to section 
751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (``the Act''). In our 
preliminary results, we found that termination of the agreement 
suspending the antidumping duty investigation would likely result in 
continuation or recurrence of dumping at a weighted-average margin of 
115.82 percent for all producers/exporters of uranium from Russia.
    On March 15, 2000, we received a request from 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'') for an 
extension of time for filing rebuttal comments to case briefs until 
April 17, 2000. The Department agreed to extend the deadline to April 
17, 2000.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Letter from Jeffrey A. May, Director, Office of Policy, 
to Mark D. Herlach, Sutherland, Asbill & Brennan, granting an 
extension for time for filing rebuttal comments to the case briefs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On March 29, 2000, the Ad Hoc Committee of Domestic Uranium 
Producers (the ``Ad Hoc Committee''), including Rio Algom Mining 
Corporation (``Rio Algom'') and Uranium Resources Inc. (``URI''), and 
USEC, Inc., and its subsidiary, United States Enrichment Corporation 
(together, ``USEC''), each requested a hearing in this review.
    On April 10, 2000, we received a case brief on behalf of the Ad Hoc 
Committee and USEC. We also received a case brief on behalf of the Ad 
Hoc Utilities Group (``AHUG''),\2\ and respondent interested parties.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ AHUG consists of industrial users Ameren UE, Baltimore Gas 
and Electric Co., Carolina Power and Light Co., Commonwealth Edison 
Co., Consumers Energy, Duke Power Co., Entergy Services, Ins., 
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On April 14, 2000, the Ad Hoc Committee formally withdrew its March 
29, 2000, request for a hearing in this review. On April 18, 2000, 
within the deadline specified in 19 CFR 351.309(d), the Department 
received rebuttal comments from the Ad Hoc Committee, USEC, AHUG, and 
respondent interested parties. In its rebuttal, USEC also withdrew its 
March 29, 2000, request for a hearing. Therefore, the Department 
canceled the public hearing. We have addressed the comments received 
below.

Scope of Review

    According to the June 3, 1992, preliminary determination, the 
suspended investigation encompassed one class or kind of 
merchandise.\3\ The merchandise included 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 U235 and its compounds; alloys 
dispersions (including cermets), ceramic products and mixtures 
containing uranium enriched in U235 or compounds or uranium 
enriched in U235; and any other forms of uranium within the 
same class or kind. The uranium subject to these investigations was 
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'').\4\ In 
addition, the Department preliminarily determined that highly-enriched 
uranium (``HEU'') is not within the scope of the investigation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The Department based its analysis of the comments on class 
or kind submitted during the proceeding and determined that the 
product under investigation constitutes a single class or kind of 
merchandise. The Department based its analysis on the 
``Diversified'' criteria (see Diversified Products Corp. v. United 
States, 6 CIT 1555 (1983)) and case precedent) (57 FR 23380, 23382, 
June 3, 1992).
    \4\ 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.\5\ The notice amended the scope of 
the investigation to include HEU.\6\ The merchandise covered by the 
agreement suspending the antidumping investigation on uranium from the 
Russian Federation included 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 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).
    \6\ Id. at 49235.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, Section III of the suspension agreement provides that 
uranium ore from Russia that is milled into U3O8 
and/or converted into UF6 in

[[Page 41441]]

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 Russian agreement, regardless of any subsequent 
modification or blending.\7\ Uranium enriched in U\235\ in another 
country prior to direct and/or indirect importation into the United 
States is not considered uranium from the Russian Federation and is not 
subject to the terms of the Russian agreement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Id. at 49235.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under the terms of suspension agreement HEU is within the scope of 
this investigation, and HEU is covered by this Russian suspension 
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 were 
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 were classifiable under HTSUS 
subheadings 2844.10.10 and 2844.10.50. Id.
    In addition, Section M.1 of the Russian suspension agreement in no 
way prevents the Russian Federation from selling directly or indirectly 
any or all of the HEU in existence at the time of the signing of the 
agreement and/or LEU produced in Russia from HEU to the Department of 
Energy (``DOE''), its governmental successor, its contractors, assigns, 
or U.S. private parties acting in association with DOE or the USEC and 
in a manner not inconsistent with the Agreement between the United 
States of America and the Russian Federation concerning the disposition 
of HEU resulting from the dismantlement of nuclear weapons in Russia.
    There were three amendments to the Agreement suspending the 
antidumping duty investigation on Russian uranium. In particular, the 
second amendment to the Russian suspension agreement, on November 4, 
1996, permitted, among other things, the sale in the United States of 
Russian low-enriched uranium (``LEU'') derived from HEU and included 
within the scope of the suspension agreement Russian uranium which has 
been enriched in a third country prior to importation into the United 
States.\8\ According to the amendment, these modifications would remain 
in effect until October 3, 1998.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See Amendments to the Agreement Suspending the Antidumping 
Investigation on Uranium from the Russian Federation, 61 FR 56665 
(November 4, 1996).
    \9\ Id. 61 FR at 56667.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 Troy H. Cribb, Acting Assistant 
Secretary for Import Administration, dated June 27, 2000, which is 
hereby adopted by this notice. The issues discussed in the attached 
Decision Memo include the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of 
dumping and the magnitude of the margin likely to prevail were the 
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 memo are identical in content.

Final 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:

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

    This notice serves as the only reminder to parties subject to 
administrative protective order (``APO'') of their responsibility 
concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under 
APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305 of the Department's regulations. 
Timely notification of return/destruction of APO material or conversion 
to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply 
with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable 
violation.
    This five-year (``sunset'') review and notice are in accordance 
with sections 751(c), 752, and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: June 27, 2000.
Troy H. Cribb,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 00-16948 Filed 7-3-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P