Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 129 / Wednesday, July 5, 2000 / Notices 41439

www.ita.doc.gov/import–admin/

records/frn/. The paper copy and

electronic version of the Decision Memo

are identical in content.

Continuation of Suspension of

Liquidation

In accordance with section

735(c)(1)(A) of the Act, we are directing

the U.S. Customs Service (‘‘Customs’’)

to suspend liquidation of all imports of

the subject merchandise from South

Korea that are entered, or withdrawn

from warehouse, for consumption on or

after the date of publication of this

notice in the Federal Register. Customs

shall require a cash deposit or the

posting of a bond equal to the weightedaverage amount by which the NV

exceeds the EP and CEP as indicated in

the chart below. These suspension of

liquidation instructions will remain in

effect until further notice.

Article VI.5 of the General Agreement

on Tariffs and Trade (GATT 1994)

provides that ‘‘[n]o product * * *

shall be subject to both antidumping

and countervailing duties to compensate

for the same situation of dumping or

export subsidization.’’ This provision is

implemented in section 772(c)(1)(C) of

the Tariff Act. Since antidumping duties

cannot be assessed on the portion of the

margin attributed to export subsidies

there is no reason to require a cash

deposit or bond for that amount. The

Department has determined in its

concurrent countervailing duty

investigation for structural steel beams

from Korea that the product under

investigation benefitted from export

subsidies. Normally, where the product

under investigation is also subject to a

concurrent countervailing duty

investigation, we instruct the Customs

Service to require a cash deposit or

posting of a bond equal to the weightedaverage amount by which the NV

exceeds the EP, as indicated below,

minus the amount determined to

constitute an export subsidy. See, e.g.

Notice of Antidumping Duty Order:

Stainless Steel Wire Rod From Italy, 63

FR 49327 (September 15, 1998).

Accordingly, for cash deposit purposes

we are subtracting from Kangwon’s cash

deposit rate that portion of the rate

attributable to the export subsidies

found in the countervailing duty

investigation involving Kangwon(i.e.,

0.09 percent). We have made the same

adjustment to the ‘‘All Others’’ cash

deposit rate by subtracting the rate

attributable to export subsidies found in

the countervailing duty investigation of

Kangwon.

We will instruct the Customs Service

to require a cash deposit or the posting

of a bond for each entry equal to the

weighted-average amount by which the

NV exceeds the EP or CEP, adjusting for

the export subsidy rate, as indicated

below. These suspension-of-liquidation

instructions will remain in effect until

further notice. The weighted-average

dumping margins are as follows:

[In percent]

Exporter/manufacturer

Weightedaverage

margin

Bonding/

cash deposit rate

Inchon ............... 25.51 25.51

Kangwon ........... 49.73 49.64

All others ........... 37.72 37.67

The rate for all other producers and

exporters applies to all entries of the

subject merchandise except for entries

from exporters that are identified

individually above.

ITC Notification

In accordance with section 735(d) of

the Act, we have notified the

International Trade Commission (‘‘ITC’’)

of our determination. As our final

determination is affirmative, the ITC

will, within 45 days, determine whether

these imports are materially injuring, or

threaten material injury to, the U.S.

industry. If the ITC determines that

material injury, or threat of material

injury, does not exist, the proceeding

will be terminated and all securities

posted will be refunded or canceled. If

the ITC determines that such injury

does exist, the Department will issue an

antidumping duty order.

This determination is issued and

published in accordance with sections

735(d) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

Dated: June 26, 2000.

Troy H. Cribb,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

APPENDIX

List of Comments and Issues in the

Decision Memo

I. Issues Specific to Inchon Iron & Steel

Co., Ltd.

A. Cost of Production/Constructed

Value Issues

Comment 1: Applicant of Major Input

Rule

Comment 2: Application of Major

Input Rule to Other Affiliated-Party

Transactions

Comment 3: Description

Comment 4: Overhead

Comment 5: SG&A Expenses

Comment 6: R&D Expenses

Comment 7: Interest Expense

(Securities)

Comment 8: Interest Expense (SalesRelated Activities)

Comment 9: Loan Guarantees

Comment 10: Affiliated-Party Services

for an Input

B. Sales and General Issues

Comment 11: Sales Price and

Adjustments for U.S. Channel 3

Comment 12: Billing Adjustments for

U.S. Channel 2 sales

Comment 13: U.S. Movement

Expenses

Comment 14: Recalculation of Home

Market and U.S. Indirect Selling

Expenses

Comment 15: Home Market Sales to

an Affiliated Customer

Comment 16: Fees to a Home Market

Customer

Comment 17: Home Market Inland

Freight

Comment 18: Application of Total

Adverse Facts Available

Comment 19: Packing Expenses for

U.S. Sales

Comment 20: Clarification of Home

Market and U.S. Verification

Reports

II. Issues Specific to Kangwon Industries

Ltd.

A. Sales and General Issues

Comment 21: Commissions

Comment 22: Duty Drawback

Comment 23: Home Market Freight

Comment 24: Corrections to

Kangwon’s Response

Comment 25: Over- and UnderReporting of Home Market Sales

B. Cost of Production/Constructed Value

Issues

Comment 26: Gain on Exemption of

Debt

Comment 27: G&A Expenses

III. Issues Applicable to Both

Respondents

Comment 28: EP vs. CEP Sales

Comment 29: Cash Deposit Rate/

Successorship

Comment 30: Home Market Sales of

ASTM-Grade Merchandise

Comment 31: Banking Negotiation

Fees

[FR Doc. 00–16952 Filed 7–3–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–M

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.

41440 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 129 / Wednesday, July 5, 2000 / Notices

1See 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.

2AHUG 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.

3The 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).

4See 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).

5See 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.

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

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.

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.

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 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.

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

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