Preliminary Results of Sunset Review of Suspended Antidumping Duty Investigation on Uranium From the Russian Federation, 16560-16562 [E6-4738]

Download as PDF 16560 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 63 / Monday, April 3, 2006 / Notices DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A–821–802] Preliminary Results of Sunset Review of Suspended Antidumping Duty Investigation on Uranium From the Russian Federation Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: On July 1, 2005, the Department of Commerce (‘‘the Department’’) initiated the second sunset review of the Agreement Suspending the Antidumping Investigation on Uranium from the Russian Federation (‘‘Suspension Agreement’’) pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (‘‘the Act’’). See Notice of Initiation of Five-year (‘‘Sunset’’) Reviews, 70 FR 38101 (July 1, 2005) (‘‘Sunset Initiation’’). On January 17, 2006, the Department determined that it would conduct a full sunset review of the Suspension Agreement. As a result of this review, the Department preliminarily finds that revocation of the antidumping duty suspension agreement would likely lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping at the levels indicated in the Preliminary Results of Review section of this notice. EFFECTIVE DATE: April 3, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sally Gannon or Aishe Allen, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, D.C. 20230; telephone: (202) 482–0162, or 482–0172, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: AGENCY: wwhite on PROD1PC61 with NOTICES History of the Suspension Agreement On December 5, 1991, the Department published in the Federal Register a notice of initiation of the antidumping duty investigation on uranium from the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (‘‘USSR’’) (56 FR 63711). On December 10, 1992, the Department received a letter of appearance on behalf of Techsnabexport Ltd. (‘‘TENEX’’), NUEXCO Trading Corporation (‘‘NUEXCO’’) and Global Nuclear Services and Supply Ltd. (‘‘GNSS’’). On December 23, 1991, the U.S. International Trade Commission (‘‘ITC’’) issued an affirmative preliminary injury determination. On December 25, 1991, the USSR dissolved and the United States subsequently recognized the twelve VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:30 Mar 31, 2006 Jkt 208001 newly independent states (‘‘NIS’’) which emerged: Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Moldova, the Russian Federation (Russia), Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Ukraine, and Uzbekistan. The Department continued the investigations against each of these twelve countries. On June 3, 1992, the Department issued an affirmative preliminary determination that uranium from Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Russia, Tajikistan, Ukraine, and Uzbekistan was being sold at less–than-fair–value by a weighted–average dumping margin of 115.82 percent, and a negative determination regarding the sale of uranium from Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, Moldova, and Turkmenistan (57 FR 23380). On October 30, 1992, the Department suspended the antidumping duty investigations involving uranium from Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Russia, Tajikistan, Ukraine, and Uzbekistan on the bases of agreements by the countries’ respective governments to restrict the volume of direct or indirect exports to the United States in order to prevent the suppression or undercutting of price levels of United States domestic uranium. See Antidumping; Uranium from Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Russia, Tajikistan, Ukraine, and Uzbekistan; Suspension of Investigations and Amendment of Preliminary Determinations, 57 FR 49220 (October 30, 1992). The Department also amended its preliminary determination to include highly–enriched uranium (‘‘HEU’’) in the scope of the investigations (57 FR 49220, 49235). The first amendment to the Suspension Agreement, effective on March 11, 1994, authorized matched sales in the United States of Russian– origin and U.S.-origin natural uranium and separative work units (‘‘SWU’’). See Amendment to Agreement Suspending the Antidumping Investigation on Uranium from the Russian Federation, 59 FR 15373 (April 1, 1994). The amendment also extended the duration of the Suspension Agreement to March 31, 2004. See Id. The Suspension Agreement was amended a second time, effective on October 3, 1996. The Department and the Government of Russia agreed to: (1) permit the sale in the United States of Russian low–enriched uranium (‘‘LEU’’) derived from HEU, making the suspension agreement consistent with the USEC Privatization Act; (2) restore previously unused quotas for SWU, and (3) include within the scope of the Suspension Agreement, Russian uranium which has been enriched in a third country. See Amendments to the PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 Agreement Suspending the Antidumping Investigation on Uranium from the Russian Federation, 61 FR 56665 (November 4, 1996). According to the amendment, these modifications would remain in effect until the date two years after the effective date of this amendment. See Id. 61 FR at 56667. A third amendment to the Suspension Agreement, effective on May 7, 1997, doubled the amount of Russian–origin uranium that may be imported into the United States for further processing prior to re–exportation, and lengthened the period of time uranium may remain in the United States for such processing to up to three years. See Amendment to Agreement Suspending the Antidumping Investigation on Uranium from the Russian Federation, 62 FR 37879 (July 15, 1997). On July 31, 1998, the Department notified interested parties of a change in the administration of matched sales in that the Department would, effective immediately, use a calendar year quota accounting rather than the previously– used delivery year quota accounting. See Agreement Suspending the Antidumping Investigation on Uranium from the Russian Federation, 63 FR 40879 (July 31, 1998). On August 2, 1999, the Department published a notice of initiation of the first five-year sunset review of the Suspension Agreement. See Notice of Initiation of Five-year (‘‘Sunset’’) Reviews, 64 FR 41915 (August 2, 1999). On July 5, 2000, the Department published its notice of the final results of the full sunset review, finding that revocation of the antidumping duty suspension agreement would likely lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping at a percentage weighted– average margin of 115.82 percent for all Russian manufacturers/exporters. See Notice of Final Results of Full Sunset Review: Uranium from Russia, 65 FR 41439 (July 5, 2000). On August 22, 2000, the Department published a notice of continuation of the suspended antidumping duty investigation on uranium from Russia pursuant to the Department’s affirmative determination and the ITC’s affirmative determination that termination of the Suspension Agreement would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to an industry in the United States within a reasonably foreseeable time. See Notice of Continuation of Suspended Antidumping Duty Investigation: Uranium from Russia, 65 FR 50958 (August 22, 2000). There have been no completed administrative reviews of the Suspension Agreement. The Suspension Agreement remains in effect for all E:\FR\FM\03APN1.SGM 03APN1 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 63 / Monday, April 3, 2006 / Notices manufacturers, producers, and exporters of uranium from Russia. wwhite on PROD1PC61 with NOTICES Scope of the Review According to the June 3, 1992, preliminary determination, the suspended investigation of uranium from Russia encompassed one class or kind of merchandise.1 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 this investigation 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’’).2 In addition, the Department preliminarily determined that HEU (uranium enriched to 20 percent or greater in the isotope uranium–235) 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.3 The notice amended the scope of the investigation to include HEU.4 Imports of uranium ores and 1 The Department based its analysis of the comments on class or kind submitted during the proceeding and determined that the product under investigation constitutes a single class or kind of merchandise. The Department based its analysis on the ‘‘Diversified’’ criteria (see Diversified Products Corp. v. United States, 6 CIT 1555 (1983); see also 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, 23382 (June 3, 1992). 2 See Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Uranium from Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Russia, Tajikistan, Ukraine and Uzbekistan; and Preliminary Determination of Sales at Not Less Than Fair Value: Uranium from Armenia, Azerbaijan, Byelarus, Georgia, Moldova and Turkmenistan, 57 FR 23380, 23381 (June 3, 1992). 3 See Antidumping; Uranium from Kazakhstan, Kyrgyszstan, Russia, Tajikistan, Ukraine, and Uzbekistan; Suspension of Investigations and Amendment of Preliminary Determinations, 57 FR 49220 (October 30, 1992). 4 See Id. at 49235. VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:30 Mar 31, 2006 Jkt 208001 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 2844.10.50.5 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 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 Suspension Agreement, regardless of any subsequent modification or blending. In addition, Section M.1 of the Suspension Agreement in no way prevents Russia 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, or U.S. private parties acting in association with DOE or the USEC and in a manner not inconsistent with the Suspension Agreement between the United States and Russia concerning the disposition of HEU resulting from the dismantlement of nuclear weapons in Russia. There were three amendments to the Suspension Agreement on Russian uranium. In particular, the second amendment to the Suspension Agreement, on November 4, 1996, permitted, among other things, the sale in the United States of Russian 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.7 According to the amendment, these modifications remained in effect until October 3, 1998.8 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 Kazakhstan 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 5 See Id. Id. at 49235. 7 See Amendments to the Agreement Suspending the Antidumping Investigation on Uranium from the Russian Federation, 61 FR 56665 (November 4, 1996). 8See Id at 56667. 6 See PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 16561 the scope request on August 27, 1999. That scope request is pending before the Department at this time. Statute and Regulations This review is being 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 Fiveyear (‘‘Sunset’’) Reviews of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Orders, 63 FR 13516 (March 20, 1998) (‘‘Sunset Regulations’’) and in CFR Part 351 (1999) in general. Background On July 1, 2005, the Department initiated the second sunset review of the Suspension Agreement pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930. See Sunset Initiation. We invited parties to comment. On July 18, 2005, we received Notices of Intent to Participate on behalf of Power Resources, Inc. (‘‘PRI’’) and Crow Butte Resources, Inc. (‘‘Crow Butte’’), U.S. producers of natural uranium; USEC, a U.S. producer of uranium products covered by the scope of the suspended investigation and the only U.S. enricher; and the United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied– Industrial and Service Workers International Union, AFL–CIO, CLC (‘‘USW’’), a domestic interested party.9 On July 26, 2005, the Department extended the deadline for all interested parties to submit substantive responses from July 31, 2005 to August 30, 2005 and the deadline for rebuttal comments to September 6, 2005. See Memorandum from Sally C. Gannon to Interested Parties dated July 26, 2005. On August 30, 2005, the Department received complete substantive responses to the Sunset Initiation from USEC, a U.S. producer primarily of enriched uranium hexafluoride (i.e., LEU), and PRI and Crow Butte, U.S. producers of natural uranium. On August 30, 2005, the Department also received a complete substantive response to the Sunset Initiation from the Ad Hoc Utilities Group (‘‘AHUG’’), which is comprised of owners and operators of nuclear power plants that procure Russian 9 USW notes that it is the successor-in-interest to the Paper, Allied-Industrial, Chemical & Energy Workers International Union, AFL-CIO, CLC (PACE), following a merger of the two unions on April 12, 2005. Furthermore, USW notes that PACE was the successor-in-interest to the Oil, Chemical and Atomic Workers International Union (OCAW), the original co-petitioner in the antidumping duty investigation, following a merger with the Paperworkers International Union in January 1999. E:\FR\FM\03APN1.SGM 03APN1 16562 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 63 / Monday, April 3, 2006 / Notices wwhite on PROD1PC61 with NOTICES uranium feed and contract for uranium enrichment services (i.e., SWU).10 The Department did not receive a substantive response to the Sunset Initiation from the Ministry of the Russian Federation for Atomic Energy (‘‘MINATOM’’), the original Russian government signatory to the Suspension Agreement, its successor agency, the Russian Federal Atomic Energy Agency (‘‘Rosatom’’), or any Russian exporter of subject merchandise. On September 9, 2005, USEC and AHUG submitted rebuttal comments regarding the August 30, 2005 substantive responses. On November 10, 2005, the Department determined that the sunset review of the Suspension Agreement was extraordinarily complicated and required additional time for the Department to complete its analysis. Therefore, the Department extended the deadlines in this proceeding, stating that it intended to issue either the preliminary results of the full sunset review on January 17, 2006, and the final results on May 30, 2006, or the final results of the expedited review on January 27, 2006. See Extension of Time Limit for Sunset Review of the Agreement Suspending the Antidumping Investigation on Uranium from the Russian Federation, 70 FR 68397 (November 10, 2005) (Review Extension). On January 13, 2006, AHUG submitted a letter to the Department with respect to recent court actions which occurred in the case of Eurodif v. United States (U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (‘‘CAFC’’) Case Nos. 01–1209, -1210). In its letter, AHUG states that the Department should remove SWU transactions from the scope of this Russian sunset review and the underlying restrictions imposed on uranium from Russia to be consistent with the CAFC’s legal holdings in Eurodif v. United States and the direction of the U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT) on remand to the Department. On January 17, 2006, the Department determined that it would conduct a full sunset review in this case. See Memorandum from Sally C. Gannon to 10 The following companies are members of AHUG: Ameren UE, Arizona Public Service, Constellation Energy Group, Inc., Dominion Energy Kewaunee, Inc., Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc., Duke Energy Corp., Entergy Services, Inc., Exelon Corp., Florida Power & Light Co., FPL Energy Seabrook, LLC, Nebraska Public Power District, Nuclear Management Company, Pacific Gas & Electric Company, PPL Susquehanna, LLC, Progress Energy Carolinas, Inc., Progress Energy Florida, Inc., Southern California Edison Co., Southern Nuclear Operating Co., and TXU Generation Company LP, Virginia Electric & Power Co. VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:30 Mar 31, 2006 Jkt 208001 Ronald K. Lorentzen entitled ‘‘Sunset Review of Uranium from the Russian Federation: Adequacy of Domestic and Respondent Interested Party Responses to the Notice of Initiation and Decision to Conduct Full Sunset Review’’ (January 17, 2006). The Department also determined on January 17, 2006, that it needed an additional 30 days to complete the preliminary results of this full sunset review. See Extension of Time Limit for Sunset Review of the Agreement Suspending the Antidumping Investigation on Uranium from the Russian Federation, 71 FR 3824 (January 24, 2006). On January 26, 2006, the Department notified the ITC of its decision to conduct a full review. See Letter from Sally C. Gannon to Robert Carpenter (January 26, 2006). On February 24, 2006, the Department extended the deadline for the preliminary results of this sunset review by an additional 35 days, until no later than March 24, 2006. See Extension of Time Limit for Sunset Review of the Agreement Suspending the Antidumping Investigation on Uranium from the Russian Federation, 71 FR 9522 (February 24, 2006). Analysis of Comments Received All issues raised by parties to this sunset review are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Sunset Review of the Agreement Suspending the Antidumping Investigation on Uranium from the Russian Federation; Preliminary Results (‘‘Decision Memorandum’’) from Joseph A. Spetrini, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy and Negotiations, Import Administration, to David Spooner, Assistant Secretary, Import Administration, dated March 24, 2006, which is adopted by this notice. The issues discussed in the Decision Memorandum include the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of dumping and the magnitude of the margin likely to prevail were the suspended antidumping duty investigation to be terminated. Parties may find a complete discussion of all issues raised in this review and the corresponding recommendations in this public memorandum which is on file in the Central Records Unit, room B–099, of the main Department of Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly on the Web at https://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn, under the heading ‘‘April 2006.’’ The paper copy and electronic version of the Decision Memorandum are identical in content. PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 Preliminary Results of Review We preliminarily determine that termination of the suspended antidumping duty investigation on uranium from Russia would likely lead to a continuation or recurrence of dumping at the following percentage weighted–average margin: Exporter/manufacturer Weighted–average margin (percent) Russia–Wide ................. 115.82 Any interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of publication of this notice in accordance with section 351.310(c) of the Department’s regulations. Interested parties may submit case briefs no later than April 17, 2006, in accordance with section 351.309(c)(1)(i) of the Department’s regulations. Rebuttal briefs, which must be limited to issues raised in the case briefs, may be filed not later than April 24, 2006. Any hearing, if requested, will be held on April 26, 2006, in accordance with section 351.310(d) of the Department’s regulations. The Department will issue a notice of final results of this sunset review, which will include the results of its analysis of issues raised in any such comments, no later than May 30, 2006. This sunset review and notice are in accordance with sections 751(c), 752, and 777(i)(1) of the Act. Dated: March 24, 2006. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E6–4738 Filed 3–31–06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [Docket No.: 030602141–6087–37; I.D. 061505A] RIN 0648–ZB55 Availability of Grant Funds for Fiscal Year 2006; Correction National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Department of Commerce (DOC). ACTION: Notice; availability of grant funds; correction. AGENCY: SUMMARY: This notice corrects two errors contained in the notice of availability of funds published in the Federal Register on March 27, 2006. That notice announced two project competitions: the National Sea Grant E:\FR\FM\03APN1.SGM 03APN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 63 (Monday, April 3, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Pages 16560-16562]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-4738]



[[Page 16560]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-821-802]


Preliminary Results of Sunset Review of Suspended Antidumping 
Duty Investigation on Uranium From the Russian Federation

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On July 1, 2005, the Department of Commerce (``the 
Department'') initiated the second sunset review of the Agreement 
Suspending the Antidumping Investigation on Uranium from the Russian 
Federation (``Suspension Agreement'') pursuant to section 751(c) of the 
Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (``the Act''). See Notice of Initiation 
of Five-year (``Sunset'') Reviews, 70 FR 38101 (July 1, 2005) (``Sunset 
Initiation''). On January 17, 2006, the Department determined that it 
would conduct a full sunset review of the Suspension Agreement. As a 
result of this review, the Department preliminarily finds that 
revocation of the antidumping duty suspension agreement would likely 
lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping at the levels indicated 
in the Preliminary Results of Review section of this notice.

EFFECTIVE DATE: April 3, 2006.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sally Gannon or Aishe Allen, Import 
Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of 
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, D.C. 
20230; telephone: (202) 482-0162, or 482-0172, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

History of the Suspension Agreement

    On December 5, 1991, the Department published in the Federal 
Register a notice of initiation of the antidumping duty investigation 
on uranium from the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (``USSR'') (56 
FR 63711). On December 10, 1992, the Department received a letter of 
appearance on behalf of Techsnabexport Ltd. (``TENEX''), NUEXCO Trading 
Corporation (``NUEXCO'') and Global Nuclear Services and Supply Ltd. 
(``GNSS''). On December 23, 1991, the U.S. International Trade 
Commission (``ITC'') issued an affirmative preliminary injury 
determination.
    On December 25, 1991, the USSR dissolved and the United States 
subsequently recognized the twelve newly independent states (``NIS'') 
which emerged: Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, Kazakhstan, 
Kyrgyzstan, Moldova, the Russian Federation (Russia), Tajikistan, 
Turkmenistan, Ukraine, and Uzbekistan. The Department continued the 
investigations against each of these twelve countries. On June 3, 1992, 
the Department issued an affirmative preliminary determination that 
uranium from Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Russia, Tajikistan, Ukraine, and 
Uzbekistan was being sold at less-than-fair-value by a weighted-average 
dumping margin of 115.82 percent, and a negative determination 
regarding the sale of uranium from Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, 
Georgia, Moldova, and Turkmenistan (57 FR 23380).
    On October 30, 1992, the Department suspended the antidumping duty 
investigations involving uranium from Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Russia, 
Tajikistan, Ukraine, and Uzbekistan on the bases of agreements by the 
countries' respective governments to restrict the volume of direct or 
indirect exports to the United States in order to prevent the 
suppression or undercutting of price levels of United States domestic 
uranium. See Antidumping; Uranium from Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Russia, 
Tajikistan, Ukraine, and Uzbekistan; Suspension of Investigations and 
Amendment of Preliminary Determinations, 57 FR 49220 (October 30, 
1992). The Department also amended its preliminary determination to 
include highly-enriched uranium (``HEU'') in the scope of the 
investigations (57 FR 49220, 49235).
    The first amendment to the Suspension Agreement, effective on March 
11, 1994, authorized matched sales in the United States of Russian-
origin and U.S.-origin natural uranium and separative work units 
(``SWU''). See Amendment to Agreement Suspending the Antidumping 
Investigation on Uranium from the Russian Federation, 59 FR 15373 
(April 1, 1994). The amendment also extended the duration of the 
Suspension Agreement to March 31, 2004. See Id.
    The Suspension Agreement was amended a second time, effective on 
October 3, 1996. The Department and the Government of Russia agreed to: 
(1) permit the sale in the United States of Russian low-enriched 
uranium (``LEU'') derived from HEU, making the suspension agreement 
consistent with the USEC Privatization Act; (2) restore previously 
unused quotas for SWU, and (3) include within the scope of the 
Suspension Agreement, Russian uranium which has been enriched in a 
third country. See Amendments to the Agreement Suspending the 
Antidumping Investigation on Uranium from the Russian Federation, 61 FR 
56665 (November 4, 1996). According to the amendment, these 
modifications would remain in effect until the date two years after the 
effective date of this amendment. See Id. 61 FR at 56667.
    A third amendment to the Suspension Agreement, effective on May 7, 
1997, doubled the amount of Russian-origin uranium that may be imported 
into the United States for further processing prior to re-exportation, 
and lengthened the period of time uranium may remain in the United 
States for such processing to up to three years. See Amendment to 
Agreement Suspending the Antidumping Investigation on Uranium from the 
Russian Federation, 62 FR 37879 (July 15, 1997).
    On July 31, 1998, the Department notified interested parties of a 
change in the administration of matched sales in that the Department 
would, effective immediately, use a calendar year quota accounting 
rather than the previously-used delivery year quota accounting. See 
Agreement Suspending the Antidumping Investigation on Uranium from the 
Russian Federation, 63 FR 40879 (July 31, 1998).
    On August 2, 1999, the Department published a notice of initiation 
of the first five-year sunset review of the Suspension Agreement. See 
Notice of Initiation of Five-year (``Sunset'') Reviews, 64 FR 41915 
(August 2, 1999). On July 5, 2000, the Department published its notice 
of the final results of the full sunset review, finding that revocation 
of the antidumping duty suspension agreement would likely lead to 
continuation or recurrence of dumping at a percentage weighted-average 
margin of 115.82 percent for all Russian manufacturers/exporters. See 
Notice of Final Results of Full Sunset Review: Uranium from Russia, 65 
FR 41439 (July 5, 2000). On August 22, 2000, the Department published a 
notice of continuation of the suspended antidumping duty investigation 
on uranium from Russia pursuant to the Department's affirmative 
determination and the ITC's affirmative determination that termination 
of the Suspension Agreement would be likely to lead to continuation or 
recurrence of material injury to an industry in the United States 
within a reasonably foreseeable time. See Notice of Continuation of 
Suspended Antidumping Duty Investigation: Uranium from Russia, 65 FR 
50958 (August 22, 2000).
    There have been no completed administrative reviews of the 
Suspension Agreement. The Suspension Agreement remains in effect for 
all

[[Page 16561]]

manufacturers, producers, and exporters of uranium from Russia.

Scope of the Review

    According to the June 3, 1992, preliminary determination, the 
suspended investigation of uranium from Russia encompassed one class or 
kind of merchandise.\1\ 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 this investigation 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'').\2\ In addition, the Department 
preliminarily determined that HEU (uranium enriched to 20 percent or 
greater in the isotope uranium-235) 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.\3\ The notice amended the 
scope of the investigation to include HEU.\4\ 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.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The Department based its analysis of the comments on class 
or kind submitted during the proceeding and determined that the 
product under investigation constitutes a single class or kind of 
merchandise. The Department based its analysis on the 
``Diversified'' criteria (see Diversified Products Corp. v. United 
States, 6 CIT 1555 (1983); see also 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, 23382 (June 3, 1992).
    \2\ See Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 
Value: Uranium from Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Russia, Tajikistan, 
Ukraine and Uzbekistan; and Preliminary Determination of Sales at 
Not Less Than Fair Value: Uranium from Armenia, Azerbaijan, 
Byelarus, Georgia, Moldova and Turkmenistan, 57 FR 23380, 23381 
(June 3, 1992).
    \3\ See Antidumping; Uranium from Kazakhstan, Kyrgyszstan, 
Russia, Tajikistan, Ukraine, and Uzbekistan; Suspension of 
Investigations and Amendment of Preliminary Determinations, 57 FR 
49220 (October 30, 1992).
    \4\ See Id. at 49235.
    \5\ See Id.
    \6\ See Id. at 49235.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, Section III of the Suspension Agreement provides that 
uranium ore from Russia that is milled into U3O8 and/or converted into 
UF6 in 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 Suspension Agreement, regardless of any subsequent 
modification or blending. In addition, Section M.1 of the Suspension 
Agreement in no way prevents Russia 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, or U.S. 
private parties acting in association with DOE or the USEC and in a 
manner not inconsistent with the Suspension Agreement between the 
United States and Russia concerning the disposition of HEU resulting 
from the dismantlement of nuclear weapons in Russia.
    There were three amendments to the Suspension Agreement on Russian 
uranium. In particular, the second amendment to the Suspension 
Agreement, on November 4, 1996, permitted, among other things, the sale 
in the United States of Russian 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.\7\ According to the amendment, these modifications remained in 
effect until October 3, 1998.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Amendments to the Agreement Suspending the Antidumping 
Investigation on Uranium from the Russian Federation, 61 FR 56665 
(November 4, 1996).
    \8\See Id at 56667.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On August 6, 1999, USEC, Inc. and its subsidiary, United States 
Enrichment Corporation (collectively, ``USEC'') requested that the 
Department issue a scope ruling to clarify that enriched uranium 
located in Kazakhstan 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.

Statute and Regulations

    This review is being 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.

Background

    On July 1, 2005, the Department initiated the second sunset review 
of the Suspension Agreement pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff 
Act of 1930. See Sunset Initiation. We invited parties to comment. On 
July 18, 2005, we received Notices of Intent to Participate on behalf 
of Power Resources, Inc. (``PRI'') and Crow Butte Resources, Inc. 
(``Crow Butte''), U.S. producers of natural uranium; USEC, a U.S. 
producer of uranium products covered by the scope of the suspended 
investigation and the only U.S. enricher; and the United Steel, Paper 
and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied-Industrial and 
Service Workers International Union, AFL-CIO, CLC (``USW''), a domestic 
interested party.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ USW notes that it is the successor-in-interest to the Paper, 
Allied-Industrial, Chemical & Energy Workers International Union, 
AFL-CIO, CLC (PACE), following a merger of the two unions on April 
12, 2005. Furthermore, USW notes that PACE was the successor-in-
interest to the Oil, Chemical and Atomic Workers International Union 
(OCAW), the original co-petitioner in the antidumping duty 
investigation, following a merger with the Paperworkers 
International Union in January 1999.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On July 26, 2005, the Department extended the deadline for all 
interested parties to submit substantive responses from July 31, 2005 
to August 30, 2005 and the deadline for rebuttal comments to September 
6, 2005. See Memorandum from Sally C. Gannon to Interested Parties 
dated July 26, 2005.
    On August 30, 2005, the Department received complete substantive 
responses to the Sunset Initiation from USEC, a U.S. producer primarily 
of enriched uranium hexafluoride (i.e., LEU), and PRI and Crow Butte, 
U.S. producers of natural uranium. On August 30, 2005, the Department 
also received a complete substantive response to the Sunset Initiation 
from the Ad Hoc Utilities Group (``AHUG''), which is comprised of 
owners and operators of nuclear power plants that procure Russian

[[Page 16562]]

uranium feed and contract for uranium enrichment services (i.e., 
SWU).\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ The following companies are members of AHUG: Ameren UE, 
Arizona Public Service, Constellation Energy Group, Inc., Dominion 
Energy Kewaunee, Inc., Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc., Duke 
Energy Corp., Entergy Services, Inc., Exelon Corp., Florida Power & 
Light Co., FPL Energy Seabrook, LLC, Nebraska Public Power District, 
Nuclear Management Company, Pacific Gas & Electric Company, PPL 
Susquehanna, LLC, Progress Energy Carolinas, Inc., Progress Energy 
Florida, Inc., Southern California Edison Co., Southern Nuclear 
Operating Co., and TXU Generation Company LP, Virginia Electric & 
Power Co.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department did not receive a substantive response to the Sunset 
Initiation from the Ministry of the Russian Federation for Atomic 
Energy (``MINATOM''), the original Russian government signatory to the 
Suspension Agreement, its successor agency, the Russian Federal Atomic 
Energy Agency (``Rosatom''), or any Russian exporter of subject 
merchandise. On September 9, 2005, USEC and AHUG submitted rebuttal 
comments regarding the August 30, 2005 substantive responses.
    On November 10, 2005, the Department determined that the sunset 
review of the Suspension Agreement was extraordinarily complicated and 
required additional time for the Department to complete its analysis. 
Therefore, the Department extended the deadlines in this proceeding, 
stating that it intended to issue either the preliminary results of the 
full sunset review on January 17, 2006, and the final results on May 
30, 2006, or the final results of the expedited review on January 27, 
2006. See Extension of Time Limit for Sunset Review of the Agreement 
Suspending the Antidumping Investigation on Uranium from the Russian 
Federation, 70 FR 68397 (November 10, 2005) (Review Extension).
    On January 13, 2006, AHUG submitted a letter to the Department with 
respect to recent court actions which occurred in the case of Eurodif 
v. United States (U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 
(``CAFC'') Case Nos. 01-1209, -1210). In its letter, AHUG states that 
the Department should remove SWU transactions from the scope of this 
Russian sunset review and the underlying restrictions imposed on 
uranium from Russia to be consistent with the CAFC's legal holdings in 
Eurodif v. United States and the direction of the U.S. Court of 
International Trade (CIT) on remand to the Department.
    On January 17, 2006, the Department determined that it would 
conduct a full sunset review in this case. See Memorandum from Sally C. 
Gannon to Ronald K. Lorentzen entitled ``Sunset Review of Uranium from 
the Russian Federation: Adequacy of Domestic and Respondent Interested 
Party Responses to the Notice of Initiation and Decision to Conduct 
Full Sunset Review'' (January 17, 2006). The Department also determined 
on January 17, 2006, that it needed an additional 30 days to complete 
the preliminary results of this full sunset review. See Extension of 
Time Limit for Sunset Review of the Agreement Suspending the 
Antidumping Investigation on Uranium from the Russian Federation, 71 FR 
3824 (January 24, 2006). On January 26, 2006, the Department notified 
the ITC of its decision to conduct a full review. See Letter from Sally 
C. Gannon to Robert Carpenter (January 26, 2006). On February 24, 2006, 
the Department extended the deadline for the preliminary results of 
this sunset review by an additional 35 days, until no later than March 
24, 2006. See Extension of Time Limit for Sunset Review of the 
Agreement Suspending the Antidumping Investigation on Uranium from the 
Russian Federation, 71 FR 9522 (February 24, 2006).

Analysis of Comments Received

    All issues raised by parties to this sunset review are addressed in 
the Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Sunset Review of the 
Agreement Suspending the Antidumping Investigation on Uranium from the 
Russian Federation; Preliminary Results (``Decision Memorandum'') from 
Joseph A. Spetrini, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy and 
Negotiations, Import Administration, to David Spooner, Assistant 
Secretary, Import Administration, dated March 24, 2006, which is 
adopted by this notice. The issues discussed in the Decision Memorandum 
include the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of dumping and the 
magnitude of the margin likely to prevail were the suspended 
antidumping duty investigation to be terminated. Parties may find a 
complete discussion of all issues raised in this review and the 
corresponding recommendations in this public memorandum which is on 
file in the Central Records Unit, room B-099, of the main Department of 
Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Decision 
Memorandum can be accessed directly on the Web at https://
ia.ita.doc.gov/frn, under the heading ``April 2006.'' The paper copy 
and electronic version of the Decision Memorandum are identical in 
content.

Preliminary Results of Review

    We preliminarily determine that termination of the suspended 
antidumping duty investigation on uranium from Russia would likely lead 
to a continuation or recurrence of dumping at the following percentage 
weighted-average margin:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       Weighted-average
                Exporter/manufacturer                  margin (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Russia-Wide.........................................              115.82
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Any interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of 
publication of this notice in accordance with section 351.310(c) of the 
Department's regulations. Interested parties may submit case briefs no 
later than April 17, 2006, in accordance with section 351.309(c)(1)(i) 
of the Department's regulations. Rebuttal briefs, which must be limited 
to issues raised in the case briefs, may be filed not later than April 
24, 2006. Any hearing, if requested, will be held on April 26, 2006, in 
accordance with section 351.310(d) of the Department's regulations. The 
Department will issue a notice of final results of this sunset review, 
which will include the results of its analysis of issues raised in any 
such comments, no later than May 30, 2006.
    This sunset review and notice are in accordance with sections 
751(c), 752, and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: March 24, 2006.
David M. Spooner,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. E6-4738 Filed 3-31-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S