[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 129 (Wednesday, July 5, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 41441-41443]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-16949]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-844-802]


Uranium From Uzbekistan; 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 
Uzbekistan.

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

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 Uzbekistan (65 FR 10471) 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

[[Page 41442]]

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 antidumping duty investigation 
on uranium from Uzbekistan (65 FR 10471) 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 from Uzbekistan.
    On March 24, 2000, we received a request from Navoi Mining and 
Metallurgical Combinat (``Navoi'') and the Government of Uzbekistan 
(``GOU'') (together, ``respondent interested parties'') for an 
extension of time for filing rebuttal comments to case briefs until 
April 18, 2000. The Department agreed to extend the deadline to April 
18, 2000.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See April 4, 2000, Letter from Jeffrey A. May, Director, 
Office of Policy, to Carolyn B. Lamm, 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''), requested a hearing in this 
review. On April 14, 2000, the Ad Hoc Committee formally withdrew its 
March 29, 2000, request for a hearing in this review; therefore, the 
Department canceled the public hearing.
    On April 10, 2000, we received case briefs on behalf of the Ad Hoc 
Committee, the Ad Hoc Utilities Group (``AHUG''),\2\ and respondent 
interested parties. On April 18, 2000, within the deadline specified in 
19 CFR 351.309(d), the Department received rebuttal comments from the 
Ad Hoc Committee and respondent interested parties.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ AHUG consists of U.S. 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Scope of Review

    According to the June 3, 1992, preliminary determination the 
suspended investigation 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'').\3\ In 
addition, the Department preliminarily determined that highly-enriched 
uranium (``HEU'') was not covered within the scope of the 
investigation, and that the subject merchandise constituted a single 
class or kind of merchandise.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 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 23381, 23382 
(June 3, 1992).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On October 30, 1992, the Department issued a suspension of the 
antidumping duty investigation of uranium from Uzbekistan and an 
amendment of the preliminary determination.\4\ The notice amended the 
scope of the investigation to include HEU.\5\ The suspension agreement 
provided that uranium ore from Uzbekistan 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 
Uzbekistan and is subject to the terms of the Agreement.\6\ Further, 
uranium enriched in U235 in another country prior to direct 
and/or indirect importation into the United States was not considered 
uranium from Uzbekistan and was not subject to the terms of the 
suspension agreement.\7\ In this suspension agreement, imports of 
uranium ores and concentrates, natural uranium compounds, and all forms 
of enriched uranium are 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 2844.44.10.50.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 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).
    \5\ Id. at 49221.
    \6\ Id. at 49255.
    \7\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On October 13, 1995, the Department issued an amendment to the 
suspension agreement on uranium from Uzbekistan. Among other things, 
this amendment modifies the agreement to include Uzbek uranium enriched 
in a third country prior to importation into the United States.

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 ``Uzbekistan.'' 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 Uzbekistan would be likely to lead to 
continuation or recurrence of dumping at the following percentage 
weighted-average margin:

[[Page 41443]]



------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Margin
                      Producers/Exporters                        percent
------------------------------------------------------------------------
All Uzbek Producer/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. 00-16949 Filed 7-5-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P