Low Enriched Uranium From Germany, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom: Preliminary Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Intent To Revoke the Countervailing Duty Orders, 10062-10065 [E6-2781]

Download as PDF 10062 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 28, 2006 / Notices Dated: February 3, 2006. Michael D. Snyder, Regional Director, Intermountain Region, National Park Service. [FR Doc. 06–1899 Filed 2–27–06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4312–CB–M DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [(C–428–829); (C–421–809); (C–412–821)] Low Enriched Uranium From Germany, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom: Preliminary Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Intent To Revoke the Countervailing Duty Orders Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting administrative reviews of the countervailing duty (CVD) orders on low enriched uranium (LEU) from Germany, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom (UK) for the period January 1, 2004, through December 31, 2004. For information on the net subsidy for the reviewed companies, please see the ‘‘Preliminary Results of Reviews’’ section of this notice. In addition, we preliminarily determine that the Governments of Germany, the Netherlands, and the UK have met the requirements for revocation of these CVD orders. For further information, please refer to the ‘‘Revocation of the Orders’’ section of this notice. Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results. See the ‘‘Public Comment’’ section of this notice. EFFECTIVE DATE: February 28, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Darla Brown, AD/CVD Operations, Office 3, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Room 4012, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington DC 20230; telephone: 202–482–2786. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: AGENCY: wwhite on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES Background On February 13, 2002, the Department published in the Federal Register the CVD orders on LEU from Germany, the Netherlands, and the UK. See Notice of Amended Final Determinations and Notice of Countervailing Duty Orders: Low Enriched Uranium from Germany, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom, 67 FR 6688 (February 13, 2002) (Amended Final). On February 1, 2005, the Department published a notice VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:06 Feb 27, 2006 Jkt 208001 of opportunity to request an administrative review of these CVD orders. See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity To Request Administrative Review, 70 FR 5136 (February 1, 2005). On February 23, 2005, we received timely requests for review from Urenco Deutschland GmbH of Germany (UD), Urenco Nederland B.V. of the Netherlands (UNL), Urenco (Capenhurst) Limited (UCL) of the UK, Urenco Ltd., Urenco Inc., and Urenco Enrichment Company Ltd. (UEC) (collectively, the Urenco Group or Urenco), the producers and exporters of the subject merchandise. We note that this request covered all subject merchandise produced by Urenco in Germany, the Netherlands, and the UK. On February 25, 2005, we received a timely request for review from petitioners.1 On February 25, 2005, we received timely requests for revocation of the CVD orders from the Governments of Germany, the Netherlands, and the UK. On March 23, 2005, the Department initiated administrative reviews of the CVD orders on LEU from Germany, the Netherlands, and the UK. See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Requests for Revocation in Part, 70 FR 14643 (March 23, 2005). On April 13, 2005, the Department issued a questionnaire to the Government of the United Kingdom (UKG) and UCL, Urenco’s producer of subject merchandise in the UK. On May 2, 2005, the Department issued a separate questionnaire to the Government of the Netherlands (GON) and UNL, Urenco’s producer of subject merchandise in the Netherlands. On June 13, 2005, the Department issued a questionnaire to the Government of Germany (GOG) and UD, Urenco’s producer of subject merchandise in Germany. We received questionnaire responses from the UKG and UCL on May 20, 2005, from the GON and UNL on June 8, 2005, from the GOG on July 18, 2005, and from UD on July 20, 2005. On October 17, 2005, we extended the due date for these preliminary results from October 31, 2005, to February 28, 2006. See Low Enriched Uranium from France, Germany, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom: Extension of Preliminary Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews, 70 FR 60284 (October 17, 2005) (Extension Notice). 1 Petitioners are the United States Enrichment Corporation (USEC) and USEC Inc. PO 00000 Frm 00063 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 In accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b), these reviews cover only those producers or exporters for which a review was specifically requested. The companies subject to these reviews are UD, UNL, UCL, Urenco Ltd., and Urenco Inc. These reviews cover four programs. Scope of the Order The product covered by these orders is all LEU. LEU is enriched uranium hexafluoride (UF6) with a U235 product assay of less than 20 percent that has not been converted into another chemical form, such as UO2, or fabricated into nuclear fuel assemblies, regardless of the means by which the LEU is produced (including LEU produced through the down-blending of highly enriched uranium). Certain merchandise is outside the scope of these orders. Specifically, these orders do not cover enriched uranium hexafluoride with a U235 assay of 20 percent or greater, also known as highly enriched uranium. In addition, fabricated LEU is not covered by the scope of these orders. For purposes of these orders, fabricated uranium is defined as enriched uranium dioxide (UO2), whether or not contained in nuclear fuel rods or assemblies. Natural uranium concentrates (U3O8) with a U235 concentration of no greater than 0.711 percent and natural uranium concentrates converted into uranium hexafluoride with a U235 concentration of no greater than 0.711 percent are not covered by the scope of these orders. Also excluded from these orders is LEU owned by a foreign utility end-user and imported into the United States by or for such end-user solely for purposes of conversion by a U.S. fabricator into uranium dioxide (UO2) and/or fabrication into fuel assemblies so long as the uranium dioxide and/or fuel assemblies deemed to incorporate such imported LEU (i) remain in the possession and control of the U.S. fabricator, the foreign end-user, or their designed transporter(s) while in U.S. customs territory, and (ii) are reexported within eighteen (18) months of entry of the LEU for consumption by the end-user in a nuclear reactor outside the United States. Such entries must be accompanied by the certifications of the importer and end-user. The merchandise subject to these orders is currently classifiable in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) at subheading 2844.20.0020. Subject merchandise may also enter under 2844.20.0030, 2844.20.0050, and 2844.40.00. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, E:\FR\FM\28FEN1.SGM 28FEN1 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 28, 2006 / Notices the written description of the merchandise is dispositive. Period of Review The period of review (POR) for these administrative reviews is January 1, 2004, through December 31, 2004. International Consortium In our Notice of Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determinations: Low Enriched Uranium from Germany, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom, 66 FR 65903 (December 21, 2001) (LEU Final), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum (LEU Decision Memo) at Comment 2: International Consortium Provision, we found that the Urenco Group operates as an international consortium within the meaning of section 701(d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). No new information or evidence of changed circumstances has been presented since the LEU Final which would persuade us to reconsider this conclusion. Therefore, we continue to find that the Urenco Group of companies constitutes an international consortium. Accordingly, we have continued to cumulate all countervailable subsidies received by the member companies from the GOG, the GON, and the UKG, pursuant to section 701(d) of the Act. Subsidies Valuation Information wwhite on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES Allocation Period Under section 351.524(d)(2) of the Department’s regulations, we will presume the allocation period for nonrecurring subsidies to be the average useful life (AUL) of renewable physical assets for the industry concerned, as listed in the Internal Revenue Service’s (IRS) 1977 Class Life Asset Depreciation Range System (IRS Tables), as updated by the Department of the Treasury. The presumption will apply unless a party claims and establishes that these tables do not reasonably reflect the AUL of the renewable physical assets for the company or industry under investigation, and the party can establish that the difference between the company-specific or country-wide AUL for the industry under investigation is significant. In this instance, however, the IRS Tables do not provide a specific asset guideline class for the uranium enrichment industry. In the LEU Final, we derived an AUL of 10 years for the Urenco Group (see LEU Decision Memo at Comment 3: Average Useful Life). The AUL issue is currently subject to litigation related to the investigation. Because there has been no final and conclusive court decision changing the AUL, and no new VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:06 Feb 27, 2006 Jkt 208001 information or evidence of changed circumstances has been submitted, for these reviews, we continue to apply the 10-year AUL that was calculated in the LEU Final. Revocation of the Orders On February 25, 2005, we received requests for revocation of the CVD orders on LEU from the GOG, the GON, and the UKG. Their requests were filed in accordance with 19 CFR 351.222(c). The Department may revoke, in whole or in part, a CVD order upon completion of one or more reviews under section 751 of the Act. While Congress has not specified the procedures that the Department must follow in revoking an order, the Department has developed a procedure for revocation that is described in 19 CFR 351.222, which was amended on September 22, 1999. See Amended Regulation Concerning the Revocation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Orders, 64 FR 51236 (September 22, 1999). Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.222(e)(2)(i), during the third and subsequent annual anniversary months of the publication of the CVD order, the government of the affected country may request in writing that the Department revoke an order under 351.222(c)(1) if the government submits with the request its certification that it has satisfied, during the period of review, the requirements set out in 351.222(c)(1)(i) and that it will not reinstate for the subject merchandise those programs or substitute other countervailable subsidy programs. The GOG, the GON, and the UKG provided the certifications required by 19 CFR 351.222(e)(2)(i). Upon receipt of such a request, the Department, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.222(c), will consider the following in determining whether to revoke the order: (1) whether the government of the affected country has eliminated all countervailable subsidies on the subject merchandise by abolishing for the subject merchandise, for a period of at least three consecutive years, all programs previously found countervailable; (2) whether exporters and producers of the subject merchandise are continuing to receive any net countervailable subsidy from an abolished program; and (3) whether the continued application of the CVD order is otherwise necessary to offset subsidization. In the instant reviews, we preliminarily determine, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.222(c)(1)(i)(A), that all programs found by the Department to have provided countervailable subsidies on LEU from Germany, the Netherlands, and the UK have been abolished for at PO 00000 Frm 00064 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 10063 least three consecutive years. Specifically, in the underlying investigations, the Department found that the GOG provided measurable countervailable benefits to Urenco through agreements between the GOG and Uranitisotopentrennungsgeselleschaft mbH (Uranit)2 for (1) enrichment technology research and development and (2) forgiveness of centrifuge enrichment capacity subsidies. Under the enrichment technology program, the GOG provided grants to Uranit from 1980 through 1993. Under the forgiveness program, the GOG waived the contingent liability associated with monies provided from 1975 to 1993. These agreements ended with the September 1993 formation of Urenco Ltd., thus effectively abolishing all the subsidy programs within the meaning of 19 CFR 351.222(c)(1)(i)(A). Since the issuance of the order, the Department has not initiated a review of, nor identified, any additional or replacement subsidies. We also preliminarily determine that the net countervailable subsidy rate during the POR of the instant reviews is zero, and, therefore, that the exporters and producers are no longer receiving any net countervailable subsidy from the abolished programs within the meaning of 19 CFR 351.222(c)(1)(i)(B). Because we have allocated all nonrecurring subsidies over a 10-year AUL, the benefit streams from these agreements were fully allocated at the end of 2002, i.e., prior to the POR of these reviews. Finally, we preliminarily determine that there is no evidence currently on the record of the instant reviews indicating that these CVD orders are necessary to offset subsidization. For these reasons, we preliminarily find, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.222(c)(1)(i)(C), that the continued application of these CVD orders is not necessary to offset subsidization. Therefore, if the final results of these reviews remain unchanged from these preliminary results, the Department intends to revoke these CVD orders pursuant to 19 CFR 351.222(c)(1)(ii). Analysis of Programs I. Programs Preliminarily Determined Not to Confer a Benefit From the Government of Germany 1. Enrichment Technology Research and Development Program In the first administrative reviews, we determined that grant disbursements made under this program prior to 1992, 2 The E:\FR\FM\28FEN1.SGM predecessor German company. 28FEN1 10064 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 28, 2006 / Notices wwhite on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES including the 1985 disbursement made under the ‘‘Financing Agreement,’’ no longer provided a benefit during those reviews’ POR, i.e., January 14, 2001, through December 31, 2002. We also determined that only the grant disbursements made in 1992 and 1993 continued to provide benefits during the 2001–2002 POR. See Final Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews: Low Enriched Uranium From Germany, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom, 69 FR 40869 (July 7, 2004) (2001–2002 LEU) and the accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum (2001–2002 LEU Decision Memo) at the ‘‘Analysis of Programs’’ section. In the second administrative reviews, we continued to find that each of these grants has been fully allocated prior to the POR. See Final Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews: Low Enriched Uranium From Germany, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom, 70 FR 40000 (July 12, 2005) (2003 LEU). In 2001–2002 LEU and 2003 LEU, we determined that Urenco would not benefit from Enrichment Technology Research and Development Program subsidies from the GOG after 2002 because the grants were fully allocated at the end of 2002. See 2001–2002 LEU Decision Memo at Comment 3: Cash Deposit Rate for Future Urenco Imports. Because the grant disbursements under this program were made between 1980 and 1993, the 10-year allocation period for each grant disbursement expired prior to the POR. Therefore, we preliminarily determine that each of these grants has been fully allocated prior to the POR, and, therefore, no benefit was received under this program during the POR. 2. Forgiveness of Centrifuge Enrichment Capacity Subsidies In 2001–2002 LEU and 2003 LEU, we determined that Urenco would not benefit from Forgiveness of Centrifuge Enrichment Capacity subsidies from the GOG after 2002 because the grants were fully allocated at the end of 2002. See 2001–2002 LEU Decision Memo at Comment 3: Cash Deposit Rate for Future Urenco Imports. Therefore, we preliminarily determine that the grant has been fully allocated prior to the POR, and, therefore, no benefit was received under this program during the POR. asked UNL if it received or used benefits under this program during the POR. In its June 8, 2005, questionnaire response, UNL responded that it did not apply for, use, or receive benefits from the WIR program during the POR. Furthermore, UNL reported that the WIR program ended in 1988 and investment credits could only be claimed through the 1989 tax year. Therefore, we preliminarily find that the WIR was not used during the POR. 2. Regional Investment Premium In the Amended Final, we found that, after correcting for a ministerial error in the LEU Final, the subsidy from the Regional Investment Program (IPR) was less than 0.5 percent of the Urenco Group’s combined sales and, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.524(b)(2), was allocable to the year of receipt (1985). As a result of this revision, the net subsidy for this program decreased from 0.03 percent ad valorem to 0.00 percent ad valorem. See Amended Final, 67 FR 6688. Moreover, in the instant reviews, UNL reported in its June 8, 2005, questionnaire response that it did not apply for nor did it use the IPR program during the POR. Therefore, we preliminarily determine that UNL did not use the IPR program during the POR. III. Programs from the Government of the United Kingdom We preliminarily determine that UCL neither received any subsidies nor benefitted from any subsides during the POR. Preliminary Results of Reviews In accordance with 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4)(i), we calculated an individual subsidy rate for UD, UNL, UCL, Urenco Ltd., and Urenco Inc, the only producers/exporters subject to these administrative reviews, for the POR, i.e., calendar year 2004. We preliminarily determine that the total estimated net countervailable subsidy rate is 0.00 percent ad valorem. If the final results of these reviews remain the same as these preliminary results, the Department intends to instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), within 15 days of publication of the final results of these reviews, to liquidate without regard to countervailing duties all shipments of subject merchandise from the producers/exporters under review, II. Programs Preliminarily Determined entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, To Be Not Used From the Government for consumption during the POR. of the Netherlands Moreover, should the final results of 1. Wet Investeringsrekening Law (WIR) these reviews remain the same as these preliminary results, the Department also In the 2003 LEU, we found that the will instruct CBP not to collect cash WIR program was not used. In the deposits of estimated countervailing instant administrative reviews, we VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:06 Feb 27, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00065 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 duties on all shipments of the subject merchandise from the reviewed entity, entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of the final results of these reviews. Public Comment Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.224(b), the Department will disclose to parties to the proceeding any calculations performed in connection with these preliminary results within five days after the date of the public announcement of this notice. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309, interested parties may submit written comments in response to these preliminary results. Unless otherwise indicated by the Department, case briefs must be submitted within 30 days after the publication of these preliminary results. Rebuttal briefs, which are limited to arguments raised in case briefs, must be submitted no later than five days after the time limit for filing case briefs, unless the Department alters this time limit. Parties who submit argument in this proceeding are requested to submit with the argument: (1) a statement of the issue, and (2) a brief summary of the argument. Parties submitting case and/ or rebuttal briefs are requested to provide the Department copies of the public version on disk. Case and rebuttal briefs must be served on interested parties in accordance with 19 CFR 351.303(f). Also, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310, within 30 days of the date of publication of this notice, interested parties may request a public hearing on arguments to be raised in the case and rebuttal briefs. Unless the Department specifies otherwise, the hearing, if requested, will be held two days after the date for submission of rebuttal briefs. See 19 CFR 351.310(d). Representatives of parties to the proceeding may request disclosure of proprietary information under administrative protective order no later than 10 days after the representative’s client or employer becomes a party to the proceeding, but in no event later than the date the case briefs, under 19 CFR 351.309(c)(ii), are due. The Department will publish the final results of these administrative reviews, including the results of its analysis of issues raised in any case or rebuttal brief or at a hearing. These administrative reviews and this notice are issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1), 751(a)(3) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4). E:\FR\FM\28FEN1.SGM 28FEN1 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 28, 2006 / Notices Dated: February 22, 2006. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E6–2781 Filed 2–27–03; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION [Inv. No. 337–TA–548] In the Matter of Certain Tissue Converting Machinery, Including Rewinders, Tail Sealers, Trim Removers, and Components Thereof; Notice of Commission Decision Not To Review an Initial Determination Granting Adding a Complainant and Amending the Notice of Investigation U.S. International Trade Commission. ACTION: Notice. wwhite on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES AGENCY: SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission has determined not to review an initial determination (‘‘ID’’) issued by the presiding administrative law judge (‘‘ALJ’’) adding Fabio Perini S.p.A. as a complainant and amending the notice of investigation in the abovecaptioned investigation accordingly. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jonathan Engler, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street, SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205–3112. Copies of non-confidential documents filed in connection with this investigation are or will be available for inspection during official business hours (8:45 a.m. to 5:15 p.m.) in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street, SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205–2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its Internet server (http://www.usitc.gov). The public record for this investigation may be viewed on the Commission’s electronic docket (EDIS) at http:// edis.usitc.gov. Hearing-impaired persons are advised that information on this matter can be obtained by contacting the Commission’s TDD terminal on (202) 205–1810. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This investigation was instituted by the Commission based on a complaint filed by Fabrio Perini North America Inc. (‘‘Perini-NA’’) of Green Bay, Wisconsin. 70 FR 46884 (August 11, 2005). The complaint alleged violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, 19 U.S.C. 1337, in the importation into the United VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:06 Feb 27, 2006 Jkt 208001 States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of certain tissue converting machinery, including rewinders, tail sealers, trim removers, and components thereof by reason of infringement of claims 1, 3, 6, 7, 8, 13, 14, and 15 of U.S. Patent No. 5,979,818, claims 1–5 of U.S. Patent No. Re. 35,729, and Claim 5 of U.S. Patent No. 5,475,917. The complaint and notice of investigation named Chan Li Machinery, Co., Ltd. (‘‘Chan Li’’) of Taipei Hsien, Taiwan as the respondent. On January 17, 2006, Chan Li moved to compel Fabio Perini S.p.A. (‘‘PeriniItaly’’) to join as a complainant, arguing that it is an indispensable party for purposes of this litigation. On January 23, 2006, Perini-NA represented that Perini-Italy consented to joinder as a complainant. The Commission Investigative Staff indicated that it supported adding Perini-Italy as a complainant. On January 25, 2006, the ALJ issued an ID (Order No. 11) adding Perini-Italy as a complainant and amending the notice of investigation accordingly. This action is taken under the authority of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, 19 U.S.C. 1337, and Commission Rule 210.42, 19 CFR 210.42. Issued: February 22, 2006. By order of the Commission. Marilyn R. Abbott, Secretary to the Commission. [FR Doc. E6–2796 Filed 2–27–06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7020–02–P INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION [Inv. No. 337–TA–548] In the Matter of Certain Tissue Converting Machinery, Including Rewinders, Tail Sealers, Trim Removers, and Components Thereof; Notice of Commission Decision Not To Review an Initial Determination Granting Complainants’ Motion To Amend the Complaint and Notice of Investigation U.S. International Trade Commission. ACTION: Notice. AGENCY: SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission has determined not to review an initial determination (‘‘ID’’) issued by the presiding administrative law judge (‘‘ALJ’’) granting complainants’’ motion to amend the PO 00000 Frm 00066 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 10065 complaint and notice of investigation in the above-captioned investigation. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jonathan Engler, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street, SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205–3112. Copies of non-confidential documents filed in connection with this investigation are or will be available for inspection during official business hours (8:45 a.m. to 5:15 p.m.) in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street, SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205–2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its Internet server (http://www.usitc.gov). The public record for this investigation may be viewed on the Commission’s electronic docket (EDIS) at http:// edis.usitc.gov. Hearing-impaired persons are advised that information on this matter can be obtained by contacting the Commission’s TDD terminal on (202) 205–1810. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This investigation was instituted by the Commission based on a complaint filed by Fabrio Perini North America Inc. (‘‘Perini-NA’’) of Green Bay, Wisconsin. 70 FR 46884 (August 11, 2005). The complaint alleged violations section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, 19 U.S.C. 1337, in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of certain tissue converting machinery, including rewinders, tail sealers, trim removers, and components thereof by reason of infringement of claims 1, 3, 6, 7, 8, 13, 14, and 15 of U.S. Patent No. 5,979,818, claims 1–5 of U.S. Patent No. Re. 35,729, and Claim 5 of U.S. Patent No. 5,475,917. The complaint and notice of investigation named Chan Li Machinery, Co., Ltd. (‘‘Chan Li’’) of Taipei Hsien, Taiwan as the respondent. On November 15, 2005, Perini-NA filed a ‘‘Motion to File a First Amended Complaint’’ to add an additional patent to this investigation, i.e. United States Patent No. 6,948,677 (the ‘‘677 patent’’), which issued on September 27, 2005. On December 5, 2005, the ALJ denied this motion, finding that Perini-NA had failed to provide a sufficient basis to allege that machines practicing the ‘677 patent had been imported or sold since issuance of the patent, or would be imported or sold in the future. On January 4, 2006, Perini-NA filed its ‘‘Renewed Motion to Amend the Complaint and Notice of Investigation’’, based on additional discovery. On January 17, 2006, Chan Li filed its E:\FR\FM\28FEN1.SGM 28FEN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 39 (Tuesday, February 28, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Pages 10062-10065]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-2781]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[(C-428-829); (C-421-809); (C-412-821)]


Low Enriched Uranium From Germany, the Netherlands, and the 
United Kingdom: Preliminary Results of Countervailing Duty 
Administrative Reviews and Intent To Revoke the Countervailing Duty 
Orders

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting 
administrative reviews of the countervailing duty (CVD) orders on low 
enriched uranium (LEU) from Germany, the Netherlands, and the United 
Kingdom (UK) for the period January 1, 2004, through December 31, 2004. 
For information on the net subsidy for the reviewed companies, please 
see the ``Preliminary Results of Reviews'' section of this notice. In 
addition, we preliminarily determine that the Governments of Germany, 
the Netherlands, and the UK have met the requirements for revocation of 
these CVD orders. For further information, please refer to the 
``Revocation of the Orders'' section of this notice. Interested parties 
are invited to comment on these preliminary results. See the ``Public 
Comment'' section of this notice.

EFFECTIVE DATE:  February 28, 2006.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Darla Brown, AD/CVD Operations, Office 
3, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. 
Department of Commerce, Room 4012, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue 
NW., Washington DC 20230; telephone: 202-482-2786.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On February 13, 2002, the Department published in the Federal 
Register the CVD orders on LEU from Germany, the Netherlands, and the 
UK. See Notice of Amended Final Determinations and Notice of 
Countervailing Duty Orders: Low Enriched Uranium from Germany, the 
Netherlands and the United Kingdom, 67 FR 6688 (February 13, 2002) 
(Amended Final). On February 1, 2005, the Department published a notice 
of opportunity to request an administrative review of these CVD orders. 
See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended 
Investigation; Opportunity To Request Administrative Review, 70 FR 5136 
(February 1, 2005). On February 23, 2005, we received timely requests 
for review from Urenco Deutschland GmbH of Germany (UD), Urenco 
Nederland B.V. of the Netherlands (UNL), Urenco (Capenhurst) Limited 
(UCL) of the UK, Urenco Ltd., Urenco Inc., and Urenco Enrichment 
Company Ltd. (UEC) (collectively, the Urenco Group or Urenco), the 
producers and exporters of the subject merchandise. We note that this 
request covered all subject merchandise produced by Urenco in Germany, 
the Netherlands, and the UK. On February 25, 2005, we received a timely 
request for review from petitioners.\1\ On February 25, 2005, we 
received timely requests for revocation of the CVD orders from the 
Governments of Germany, the Netherlands, and the UK.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Petitioners are the United States Enrichment Corporation 
(USEC) and USEC Inc.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On March 23, 2005, the Department initiated administrative reviews 
of the CVD orders on LEU from Germany, the Netherlands, and the UK. See 
Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative 
Reviews and Requests for Revocation in Part, 70 FR 14643 (March 23, 
2005).
    On April 13, 2005, the Department issued a questionnaire to the 
Government of the United Kingdom (UKG) and UCL, Urenco's producer of 
subject merchandise in the UK. On May 2, 2005, the Department issued a 
separate questionnaire to the Government of the Netherlands (GON) and 
UNL, Urenco's producer of subject merchandise in the Netherlands. On 
June 13, 2005, the Department issued a questionnaire to the Government 
of Germany (GOG) and UD, Urenco's producer of subject merchandise in 
Germany.
    We received questionnaire responses from the UKG and UCL on May 20, 
2005, from the GON and UNL on June 8, 2005, from the GOG on July 18, 
2005, and from UD on July 20, 2005.
    On October 17, 2005, we extended the due date for these preliminary 
results from October 31, 2005, to February 28, 2006. See Low Enriched 
Uranium from France, Germany, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom: 
Extension of Preliminary Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative 
Reviews, 70 FR 60284 (October 17, 2005) (Extension Notice).
    In accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b), these reviews cover only 
those producers or exporters for which a review was specifically 
requested. The companies subject to these reviews are UD, UNL, UCL, 
Urenco Ltd., and Urenco Inc. These reviews cover four programs.

Scope of the Order

    The product covered by these orders is all LEU. LEU is enriched 
uranium hexafluoride (UF6) with a U\235\ product assay of 
less than 20 percent that has not been converted into another chemical 
form, such as UO2, or fabricated into nuclear fuel 
assemblies, regardless of the means by which the LEU is produced 
(including LEU produced through the down-blending of highly enriched 
uranium).
    Certain merchandise is outside the scope of these orders. 
Specifically, these orders do not cover enriched uranium hexafluoride 
with a U\235\ assay of 20 percent or greater, also known as highly 
enriched uranium. In addition, fabricated LEU is not covered by the 
scope of these orders. For purposes of these orders, fabricated uranium 
is defined as enriched uranium dioxide (UO2), whether or not 
contained in nuclear fuel rods or assemblies. Natural uranium 
concentrates (U3O8) with a U\235\ concentration 
of no greater than 0.711 percent and natural uranium concentrates 
converted into uranium hexafluoride with a U\235\ concentration of no 
greater than 0.711 percent are not covered by the scope of these 
orders.
    Also excluded from these orders is LEU owned by a foreign utility 
end-user and imported into the United States by or for such end-user 
solely for purposes of conversion by a U.S. fabricator into uranium 
dioxide (UO2) and/or fabrication into fuel assemblies so 
long as the uranium dioxide and/or fuel assemblies deemed to 
incorporate such imported LEU (i) remain in the possession and control 
of the U.S. fabricator, the foreign end-user, or their designed 
transporter(s) while in U.S. customs territory, and (ii) are re-
exported within eighteen (18) months of entry of the LEU for 
consumption by the end-user in a nuclear reactor outside the United 
States. Such entries must be accompanied by the certifications of the 
importer and end-user.
    The merchandise subject to these orders is currently classifiable 
in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) at 
subheading 2844.20.0020. Subject merchandise may also enter under 
2844.20.0030, 2844.20.0050, and 2844.40.00. Although the HTSUS 
subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes,

[[Page 10063]]

the written description of the merchandise is dispositive.

Period of Review

    The period of review (POR) for these administrative reviews is 
January 1, 2004, through December 31, 2004.

International Consortium

    In our Notice of Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty 
Determinations: Low Enriched Uranium from Germany, the Netherlands, and 
the United Kingdom, 66 FR 65903 (December 21, 2001) (LEU Final), and 
accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum (LEU Decision Memo) at 
Comment 2: International Consortium Provision, we found that the Urenco 
Group operates as an international consortium within the meaning of 
section 701(d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). No new 
information or evidence of changed circumstances has been presented 
since the LEU Final which would persuade us to reconsider this 
conclusion. Therefore, we continue to find that the Urenco Group of 
companies constitutes an international consortium. Accordingly, we have 
continued to cumulate all countervailable subsidies received by the 
member companies from the GOG, the GON, and the UKG, pursuant to 
section 701(d) of the Act.

Subsidies Valuation Information

Allocation Period

    Under section 351.524(d)(2) of the Department's regulations, we 
will presume the allocation period for non-recurring subsidies to be 
the average useful life (AUL) of renewable physical assets for the 
industry concerned, as listed in the Internal Revenue Service's (IRS) 
1977 Class Life Asset Depreciation Range System (IRS Tables), as 
updated by the Department of the Treasury. The presumption will apply 
unless a party claims and establishes that these tables do not 
reasonably reflect the AUL of the renewable physical assets for the 
company or industry under investigation, and the party can establish 
that the difference between the company-specific or country-wide AUL 
for the industry under investigation is significant. In this instance, 
however, the IRS Tables do not provide a specific asset guideline class 
for the uranium enrichment industry.
    In the LEU Final, we derived an AUL of 10 years for the Urenco 
Group (see LEU Decision Memo at Comment 3: Average Useful Life). The 
AUL issue is currently subject to litigation related to the 
investigation. Because there has been no final and conclusive court 
decision changing the AUL, and no new information or evidence of 
changed circumstances has been submitted, for these reviews, we 
continue to apply the 10-year AUL that was calculated in the LEU Final.

Revocation of the Orders

    On February 25, 2005, we received requests for revocation of the 
CVD orders on LEU from the GOG, the GON, and the UKG. Their requests 
were filed in accordance with 19 CFR 351.222(c). The Department may 
revoke, in whole or in part, a CVD order upon completion of one or more 
reviews under section 751 of the Act. While Congress has not specified 
the procedures that the Department must follow in revoking an order, 
the Department has developed a procedure for revocation that is 
described in 19 CFR 351.222, which was amended on September 22, 1999. 
See Amended Regulation Concerning the Revocation of Antidumping and 
Countervailing Duty Orders, 64 FR 51236 (September 22, 1999).
    Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.222(e)(2)(i), during the third and 
subsequent annual anniversary months of the publication of the CVD 
order, the government of the affected country may request in writing 
that the Department revoke an order under 351.222(c)(1) if the 
government submits with the request its certification that it has 
satisfied, during the period of review, the requirements set out in 
351.222(c)(1)(i) and that it will not reinstate for the subject 
merchandise those programs or substitute other countervailable subsidy 
programs. The GOG, the GON, and the UKG provided the certifications 
required by 19 CFR 351.222(e)(2)(i).
    Upon receipt of such a request, the Department, pursuant to 19 CFR 
351.222(c), will consider the following in determining whether to 
revoke the order: (1) whether the government of the affected country 
has eliminated all countervailable subsidies on the subject merchandise 
by abolishing for the subject merchandise, for a period of at least 
three consecutive years, all programs previously found countervailable; 
(2) whether exporters and producers of the subject merchandise are 
continuing to receive any net countervailable subsidy from an abolished 
program; and (3) whether the continued application of the CVD order is 
otherwise necessary to offset subsidization.
    In the instant reviews, we preliminarily determine, in accordance 
with 19 CFR 351.222(c)(1)(i)(A), that all programs found by the 
Department to have provided countervailable subsidies on LEU from 
Germany, the Netherlands, and the UK have been abolished for at least 
three consecutive years. Specifically, in the underlying 
investigations, the Department found that the GOG provided measurable 
countervailable benefits to Urenco through agreements between the GOG 
and Uranitisotopentrennungsgeselleschaft mbH (Uranit)\2\ for (1) 
enrichment technology research and development and (2) forgiveness of 
centrifuge enrichment capacity subsidies. Under the enrichment 
technology program, the GOG provided grants to Uranit from 1980 through 
1993. Under the forgiveness program, the GOG waived the contingent 
liability associated with monies provided from 1975 to 1993. These 
agreements ended with the September 1993 formation of Urenco Ltd., thus 
effectively abolishing all the subsidy programs within the meaning of 
19 CFR 351.222(c)(1)(i)(A). Since the issuance of the order, the 
Department has not initiated a review of, nor identified, any 
additional or replacement subsidies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The predecessor German company.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We also preliminarily determine that the net countervailable 
subsidy rate during the POR of the instant reviews is zero, and, 
therefore, that the exporters and producers are no longer receiving any 
net countervailable subsidy from the abolished programs within the 
meaning of 19 CFR 351.222(c)(1)(i)(B). Because we have allocated all 
non-recurring subsidies over a 10-year AUL, the benefit streams from 
these agreements were fully allocated at the end of 2002, i.e., prior 
to the POR of these reviews. Finally, we preliminarily determine that 
there is no evidence currently on the record of the instant reviews 
indicating that these CVD orders are necessary to offset subsidization. 
For these reasons, we preliminarily find, in accordance with 19 CFR 
351.222(c)(1)(i)(C), that the continued application of these CVD orders 
is not necessary to offset subsidization. Therefore, if the final 
results of these reviews remain unchanged from these preliminary 
results, the Department intends to revoke these CVD orders pursuant to 
19 CFR 351.222(c)(1)(ii).

Analysis of Programs

I. Programs Preliminarily Determined Not to Confer a Benefit From the 
Government of Germany
    1. Enrichment Technology Research and Development Program
    In the first administrative reviews, we determined that grant 
disbursements made under this program prior to 1992,

[[Page 10064]]

including the 1985 disbursement made under the ``Financing Agreement,'' 
no longer provided a benefit during those reviews' POR, i.e., January 
14, 2001, through December 31, 2002. We also determined that only the 
grant disbursements made in 1992 and 1993 continued to provide benefits 
during the 2001-2002 POR. See Final Results of Countervailing Duty 
Administrative Reviews: Low Enriched Uranium From Germany, the 
Netherlands, and the United Kingdom, 69 FR 40869 (July 7, 2004) (2001-
2002 LEU) and the accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum (2001-
2002 LEU Decision Memo) at the ``Analysis of Programs'' section. In the 
second administrative reviews, we continued to find that each of these 
grants has been fully allocated prior to the POR. See Final Results of 
Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews: Low Enriched Uranium From 
Germany, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom, 70 FR 40000 (July 12, 
2005) (2003 LEU).
    In 2001-2002 LEU and 2003 LEU, we determined that Urenco would not 
benefit from Enrichment Technology Research and Development Program 
subsidies from the GOG after 2002 because the grants were fully 
allocated at the end of 2002. See 2001-2002 LEU Decision Memo at 
Comment 3: Cash Deposit Rate for Future Urenco Imports.
    Because the grant disbursements under this program were made 
between 1980 and 1993, the 10-year allocation period for each grant 
disbursement expired prior to the POR. Therefore, we preliminarily 
determine that each of these grants has been fully allocated prior to 
the POR, and, therefore, no benefit was received under this program 
during the POR.
    2. Forgiveness of Centrifuge Enrichment Capacity Subsidies
    In 2001-2002 LEU and 2003 LEU, we determined that Urenco would not 
benefit from Forgiveness of Centrifuge Enrichment Capacity subsidies 
from the GOG after 2002 because the grants were fully allocated at the 
end of 2002. See 2001-2002 LEU Decision Memo at Comment 3: Cash Deposit 
Rate for Future Urenco Imports. Therefore, we preliminarily determine 
that the grant has been fully allocated prior to the POR, and, 
therefore, no benefit was received under this program during the POR.
II. Programs Preliminarily Determined To Be Not Used From the 
Government of the Netherlands
    1. Wet Investeringsrekening Law (WIR)
    In the 2003 LEU, we found that the WIR program was not used. In the 
instant administrative reviews, we asked UNL if it received or used 
benefits under this program during the POR. In its June 8, 2005, 
questionnaire response, UNL responded that it did not apply for, use, 
or receive benefits from the WIR program during the POR. Furthermore, 
UNL reported that the WIR program ended in 1988 and investment credits 
could only be claimed through the 1989 tax year. Therefore, we 
preliminarily find that the WIR was not used during the POR.
    2. Regional Investment Premium
    In the Amended Final, we found that, after correcting for a 
ministerial error in the LEU Final, the subsidy from the Regional 
Investment Program (IPR) was less than 0.5 percent of the Urenco 
Group's combined sales and, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.524(b)(2), 
was allocable to the year of receipt (1985). As a result of this 
revision, the net subsidy for this program decreased from 0.03 percent 
ad valorem to 0.00 percent ad valorem. See Amended Final, 67 FR 6688. 
Moreover, in the instant reviews, UNL reported in its June 8, 2005, 
questionnaire response that it did not apply for nor did it use the IPR 
program during the POR. Therefore, we preliminarily determine that UNL 
did not use the IPR program during the POR.
III. Programs from the Government of the United Kingdom
    We preliminarily determine that UCL neither received any subsidies 
nor benefitted from any subsides during the POR.

Preliminary Results of Reviews

    In accordance with 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4)(i), we calculated an 
individual subsidy rate for UD, UNL, UCL, Urenco Ltd., and Urenco Inc, 
the only producers/exporters subject to these administrative reviews, 
for the POR, i.e., calendar year 2004. We preliminarily determine that 
the total estimated net countervailable subsidy rate is 0.00 percent ad 
valorem.
    If the final results of these reviews remain the same as these 
preliminary results, the Department intends to instruct U.S. Customs 
and Border Protection (CBP), within 15 days of publication of the final 
results of these reviews, to liquidate without regard to countervailing 
duties all shipments of subject merchandise from the producers/
exporters under review, entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for 
consumption during the POR. Moreover, should the final results of these 
reviews remain the same as these preliminary results, the Department 
also will instruct CBP not to collect cash deposits of estimated 
countervailing duties on all shipments of the subject merchandise from 
the reviewed entity, entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for 
consumption on or after the date of publication of the final results of 
these reviews.

Public Comment

    Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.224(b), the Department will disclose to 
parties to the proceeding any calculations performed in connection with 
these preliminary results within five days after the date of the public 
announcement of this notice. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309, interested 
parties may submit written comments in response to these preliminary 
results. Unless otherwise indicated by the Department, case briefs must 
be submitted within 30 days after the publication of these preliminary 
results. Rebuttal briefs, which are limited to arguments raised in case 
briefs, must be submitted no later than five days after the time limit 
for filing case briefs, unless the Department alters this time limit. 
Parties who submit argument in this proceeding are requested to submit 
with the argument: (1) a statement of the issue, and (2) a brief 
summary of the argument. Parties submitting case and/or rebuttal briefs 
are requested to provide the Department copies of the public version on 
disk. Case and rebuttal briefs must be served on interested parties in 
accordance with 19 CFR 351.303(f). Also, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310, 
within 30 days of the date of publication of this notice, interested 
parties may request a public hearing on arguments to be raised in the 
case and rebuttal briefs. Unless the Department specifies otherwise, 
the hearing, if requested, will be held two days after the date for 
submission of rebuttal briefs. See 19 CFR 351.310(d).
    Representatives of parties to the proceeding may request disclosure 
of proprietary information under administrative protective order no 
later than 10 days after the representative's client or employer 
becomes a party to the proceeding, but in no event later than the date 
the case briefs, under 19 CFR 351.309(c)(ii), are due. The Department 
will publish the final results of these administrative reviews, 
including the results of its analysis of issues raised in any case or 
rebuttal brief or at a hearing.
    These administrative reviews and this notice are issued and 
published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1), 751(a)(3) and 
777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4).


[[Page 10065]]


    Dated: February 22, 2006.
David M. Spooner,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. E6-2781 Filed 2-27-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S