Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 129 / Wednesday, July 5, 2000 / Notices 41441

7 Id. at 49235.

8See 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.

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 U235 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.

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

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:

Manufacturer/exporters

Margin

(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

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

41442 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 129 / Wednesday, July 5, 2000 / Notices

1See 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.

2AHUG 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. 3See 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). 4See 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.

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 Fiveyear (‘‘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

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.

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.

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.

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:

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 129 / Wednesday, July 5, 2000 / Notices 41443

Producers/Exporters Margin

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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

Quarterly Update to Annual Listing of

Foreign Government Subsidies on

Articles of Cheese Subject to an InQuota Rate of Duty

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Publication of quarterly update

to annual listing of foreign government

subsidies on articles of cheese subject to

an in-quota rate of duty.

SUMMARY: The Department of

Commerce, in consultation with the

Secretary of Agriculture, has prepared

its quarterly update to the annual list of

foreign government subsidies on articles

of cheese subject to an in-quota rate of

duty during the period January 1, 2000

through March 31, 2000. We are

publishing the current listing of those

subsidies that we have determined exist.

EFFECTIVE DATE: July 5, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Tipten Troidl or Russell Morris, Office

of AD/CVD Enforcement VI, Import

Administration, International Trade

Administration, U.S. Department of

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution

Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20230,

telephone: (202) 482–2786.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section

702(a) of the Trade Agreements Act of

1979 (as amended) (‘‘the Act’’) requires

the Department of Commerce (‘‘the

Department’’) to determine, in

consultation with the Secretary of

Agriculture, whether any foreign

government is providing a subsidy with

respect to any article of cheese subject

to an in-quota rate of duty, as defined

in section 702(g)(b)(4) of the Act, and to

publish an annual list and quarterly

updates of the type and amount of those

subsidies. We hereby provide the

Department’s quarterly update of

subsidies on cheeses that were imported

during the period January 1, 2000

through March 31, 2000.

The Department has developed, in

consultation with the Secretary of

Agriculture, information on subsidies

(as defined in section 702(g)(b)(2) of the

Act) being provided either directly or

indirectly by foreign governments on

articles of cheese subject to an in-quota

rate of duty. The appendix to this notice

lists the country, the subsidy program or

programs, and the gross and net

amounts of each subsidy for which

information is currently available.

The Department will incorporate

additional programs which are found to

constitute subsidies, and additional

information on the subsidy programs

listed, as the information is developed.

The Department encourages any

person having information on foreign

government subsidy programs which

benefit articles of cheese subject to an

in-quota rate of duty to submit such

information in writing to the Assistant

Secretary for Import Administration,

U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th

Street and Constitution Avenue, NW.,

Washington, DC 20230.

This determination and notice are in

accordance with section 702(a) of the

Act.

Dated: June 27, 2000.

Troy H. Cribb,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

APPENDIX.—SUBSIDY PROGRAMS ON CHEESE SUBJECT TO AN IN-QUOTA RATE OF DUTY

Country Program(s) Gross 1 Subsidy

($/lb)

Net 2 Subsidy

($/lb)

Austria .......................................... European Union Restitution Payments ............................................. $0.17 $0.17

Belgium ........................................ EU Restitution Payments .................................................................. 0.06 0.06

Canada ........................................ Export Assistance on Certain Types of Cheese ............................... 0.24 0.24

Denmark ...................................... EU Restitution Payments .................................................................. 0.11 0.11

Finland ......................................... EU Restitution Payments .................................................................. 0.23 0.23

France .......................................... EU Restitution Payments .................................................................. 0.13 0.13

Germany ...................................... EU Restitution Payments .................................................................. 0.17 0.17

Greece ......................................... EU Restitution Payments .................................................................. 0.00 0.00

Ireland .......................................... EU Restitution Payments .................................................................. 0.14 0.14

Italy .............................................. EU Restitution Payments .................................................................. 0.13 0.13

Luxembourg ................................. EU Restitution Payments .................................................................. 0.07 0.07

Netherlands .................................. EU Restitution Payments .................................................................. 0.10 0.10

Norway ......................................... Indirect (Milk) Subsidy ....................................................................... 0.31 0.31

Consumer Subsidy ............................................................................ 0.14 0.14

Total ............................................. ............................................................................................................ 0.45 0.45

Portugal ........................................ EU Restitution Payments .................................................................. 0.10 0.10

Spain ............................................ EU Restitution Payments .................................................................. 0.09 0.09

Switzerland .................................. Deficiency Payments ......................................................................... 0.12 0.12

U.K. .............................................. EU Restitution Payments .................................................................. 0.11 0.11

1 Defined in 19 U.S.C. 1677(5).

2 Defined in 19 U.S.C. 1677(6).