Final Results of Five-Year Sunset Review of Suspended Antidumping Duty Investigation on Uranium From the Russian Federation, 32517-32519 [E6-8758]

Download as PDF Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 108 / Tuesday, June 6, 2006 / Notices market gross unit price net of discounts. See FET Calculation Memorandum. FET reported its U.S. credit expenses based on the New Taiwan Dollar denominated gross unit price. Because FET’s U.S. sales were invoiced in U.S. dollars, we recalculated FET’s U.S. credit expenses by applying the standard credit formula to FET’s reported U.S. dollar denominated gross unit price. See FET Calculation Memorandum. We calculated NV based on the price to unaffiliated customers. We deducted discounts, where applicable, from the gross unit price. We made adjustments for packing expenses in accordance with sections 773(a)(6)(A) and 773(a)(6)(B)(i) of the Act. We also made adjustments, consistent with section 773(a)(6)(B)(ii) of the Act, for inland freight from the plant to the customer. In addition, we made adjustments for differences in circumstances of sale (‘‘COS’’), in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.410. We made COS adjustments, where appropriate, by deducting direct selling expenses incurred on home market sales (i.e., credit expenses and warranties) and adding U.S. direct selling expenses (i.e., credit expenses and other credit expenses). Preliminary Results of the Review We find that the following dumping margin exists for the period May 1, 2004, through April 30, 2005: Exporter/manufacturer Weightedaverage margin percentage Far Eastern Textile Limited ...... 3.13 sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES Public Comment Any interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of publication of this notice. Any hearing, if requested, will be held 42 days after the publication of this notice, or the first workday thereafter. Issues raised in the hearing will be limited to those raised in the case and rebuttal briefs. Interested parties may submit case briefs within 30 days of the date of publication of this notice. Rebuttal briefs, which must be limited to issues raised in the case briefs, may be filed not later than 35 days after the date of publication of this notice. Parties who submit case briefs or rebuttal briefs in this proceeding are requested to submit with each argument (1) a statement of the issue and (2) a brief summary of the argument with an electronic version included. The Department will issue the final results of this administrative review, VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:06 Jun 05, 2006 Jkt 208001 including the results of its analysis of issues raised in any such written briefs or hearing, within 120 days of publication of these preliminary results. Assessment Rates Upon completion of the administrative review, the Department shall determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. FET has indicated that it was not the importer of record for any of its sales to the United States during the POR. FET reported the name of its U.S. customer as the importer of record for all U.S. sales. As such, FET did not report the entered value for any of its U.S. sales. Accordingly, we have calculated importer-specific assessment rates for the merchandise in question by aggregating the dumping margins calculated for all U.S. sales to each importer and dividing this amount by the total quantity of those sales. To determine whether the duty assessment rates were de minimis, in accordance with the requirement set forth in 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2), we calculated importerspecific ad valorem ratios based on the estimated entered value. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2), we will instruct CBP to liquidate without regard to antidumping duties any entries for which the assessment rate is de minimis (i.e., less than 0.50 percent). The Department will issue appraisement instructions directly to CBP. The Department clarified its ‘‘automatic assessment’’ regulation on May 6, 2003. See Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68 FR 23954 (May 6, 2003). This clarification will apply to entries of subject merchandise during the period of review produced by the respondent for which it did not know its merchandise was destined for the United States. In such instances, we will instruct CBP to liquidate unreviewed entries at the all-others rate if there is no rate for the intermediate company(ies) involved in the transaction. For a full discussion of this clarification, see Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68 FR 23954 (May 6, 2003). Cash Deposit Requirements The following deposit requirements will be effective upon completion of the final results of this administrative review for all shipments of PSF from Taiwan entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the final results of this administrative review, as PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 32517 provided by section 751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for the reviewed company will be the rate established in the final results of this administrative review (except no cash deposit will be required if its weightedaverage margin is de minimis, i.e., less than 0.5 percent); (2) for merchandise exported by manufacturers or exporters not covered in this review but covered in the original less-than-fair-value investigation, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the most recent rate published in the final determination for which the manufacturer or exporter received an individual rate; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review or the original investigation, but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recent period for the manufacturer of the merchandise; and (4) if neither the exporter nor the manufacturer is a firm covered in this review, the cash deposit rate will be 7.31 percent, the ‘‘all others’’ rate established in PSF Orders. Notification to Importers This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary’s presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties. We are issuing and publishing these results in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. Dated: May 31, 2006. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E6–8762 Filed 6–5–06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A–821–802] Final Results of Five–Year 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 AGENCY: E:\FR\FM\06JNN1.SGM 06JNN1 32518 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 108 / Tuesday, June 6, 2006 / Notices 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 finds that revocation of the Suspension Agreement on uranium from the Russian Federation (‘‘Russia’’) would likely lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping at the levels indicated in the Final Results of Review section of this notice. EFFECTIVE DATE: June 6, 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, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–0162, or 482–0172, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: sroberts on PROD1PC70 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, 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). VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:06 Jun 05, 2006 Jkt 208001 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 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.6 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 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. PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 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, published on November 4, 1996, provided for, among other things, the sale in the United States of the natural uranium feed associated with the 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 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. 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 April 3, 2006, the Department of Commerce (‘‘Department’’) published in the Federal Register a notice of preliminary results of the full sunset review of the Suspension Agreement pursuant to Section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (‘‘the Act’’) (63 FR 16560) (Preliminary Sunset Notice). This notice was accompanied by the ‘‘Issues and Decision Memo for the Sunset Review of the Agreement Suspending the Antidumping Investigation on Uranium from the Russian Federation; Preliminary Results,’’ from Joseph A. Spetrini, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy and Negotiations, to David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, (March 24, 2006), which can be found at http:// 7 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, the latter modification remained in effect until October 3, 1998. E:\FR\FM\06JNN1.SGM 06JNN1 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 108 / Tuesday, June 6, 2006 / Notices ia.ita.doc.gov/frn/summary/russia/E6– 4738–1.pdf. In our preliminary results, we found that revocation of the antidumping duty Suspension Agreement on uranium from Russia would likely lead to a continuation or recurrence of dumping at the weighted– average margin of 115.82 percent for all producers/exporters from Russia. On April 17, 2006, we received case briefs on behalf of Power Resources, Inc. (‘‘PRI’’) and Crow Butte Resources, Inc. (‘‘Crow Butte’’); USEC Inc. and United States Enrichment Corporation (collectively, ‘‘USEC’’); the Ad Hoc Utilities Group (‘‘AHUG’’); and AO Techsnabexport (‘‘Tenex’’).8 On April 24, 2006, we received rebuttal briefs on behalf of Power Resources and Crow Butte, USEC, and AHUG. On April 26, 2006, USEC requested that the Department reject AHUG’s rebuttal brief because it contained new information not permissible under the Department’s regulations. On May 24, 2006, the Department notified AHUG that it was returning AHUG’s rebuttal brief because it contained information not timely filed under the regulations and offered AHUG the opportunity to redact the new information and to re–submit the brief to the Department within two days. On May 26, 2006, AHUG re–submitted its rebuttal brief; however it failed to redact all references to the new information that appeared in its May 24, 2006 rebuttal brief. We requested again that AHUG re–submit its rebuttal brief without the references to the new information, by the close–of-business on May 30, 2006. On, May 30, 2006, AHUG filed its rebuttal brief and redacted all new information. Additionally, on May 26, 2006, AHUG submitted a letter to the Department which also contained new and untimely filed information. On May 30, 2006, the Department notified AHUG that it was returning this additional May 26, 2006 letter because it contained information not timely filed under the Department’s regulations. No interested party requested a hearing in this sunset review. sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES 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; Final Results’’ from Joseph A. Spetrini, Deputy Assistant 8 We note that Tenex did not file either a waiver of intent to participate in this sunset review pursuant to Section 351.218(d)(2) of the Department’s sunset regulations or a complete substantive response to the notice of initiation pursuant to Section 351.218(d) (3). VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:06 Jun 05, 2006 Jkt 208001 Secretary for Policy and Negotiations, to David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration (May 30, 2006) (‘‘Final Results Decision Memorandum’’), which is adopted by this notice. The issues discussed in the Final Results Decision Memorandum include the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of dumping, scope of the subject merchandise, and the magnitude of the margins likely to prevail were the Suspension Agreement 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 Final Results Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly on the Web at http:// ia.ita.doc.gov/frn. The paper copy and electronic version of the Final Results Decision Memorandum are identical in content. 32519 DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [C–580–818] Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products From Korea: Final Results of Expedited Five-Year (‘‘Sunset’’) Review of the Countervailing Duty Order Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: On November 1, 2005, the Department of Commerce (‘‘the Department’’) published in the Federal Register the notice of initiation of the second five-year sunset review of the countervailing duty order on certain corrosion-resistant carbon steel flat products (CORE) from the Republic of Korea (‘‘Korea’’), pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (‘‘the Act’’). See Initiation of Five-Year (‘‘Sunset’’) Reviews, 70 FR 65884 (November 1, 2005) (‘‘Second Sunset Review’’). On the basis of a Final Results of Review notice of intent to participate and an adequate substantive response filed on We determine that termination of the behalf of domestic interested parties, Suspension Agreement on uranium and an inadequate response from from Russia would likely lead to a respondent interested parties (in this continuation or recurrence of dumping case, no response), the Department has at the following percentage weighted– conducted an expedited sunset review average margin: of this order pursuant to section 751(c)(3)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR Weighted–average 351.218(e)(1)(ii)(B). As a result of this Exporter/manufacturer margin (percent) sunset review, the Department finds that Russia–Wide ................. 115.82 revocation of the countervailing duty order is likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of a countervailable subsidy This notice also serves as the only at the level indicated in the ‘‘Final reminder to parties subject to Results of Review’’ section of this administrative protective order (‘‘APO’’) notice. of their responsibility concerning the DATES: Effective Date: June 6, 2006. return or destruction of proprietary FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: information disclosed under APO in Stephanie Moore or Brandon Farlander, accordance with 19 CFR 351.305 of the AD/CVD Operations, Import Department’s regulations. Timely Administration, International Trade notification of the return or destruction Administration, U.S. Department of of APO materials or conversion to Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution judicial protective order is hereby Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20230; requested. Failure to comply with the telephone: (202) 482–3692 or (202) 482– regulations and terms of an APO is a 5439, respectively. violation which is subject to sanction. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This sunset review and notice are in Background accordance with sections 751(c), 752, The countervailing duty order which and 777(i)(1) of the Act. covers CORE from Korea, was published Dated: May 30, 2006. in the Federal Register on August 17, David M. Spooner, 1993. See Countervailing Duty Orders Assistant Secretary for Import and Amendments to Final Affirmative Administration. Countervailing Duty Determinations: [FR Doc. E6–8758 Filed 6–5–06; 8:45 am] Certain Steel Products from Korea, 58 FR 43752 (August 17, 1993). On BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S November 1, 2005, the Department initiated the second sunset review of the PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 AGENCY: E:\FR\FM\06JNN1.SGM 06JNN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 108 (Tuesday, June 6, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Pages 32517-32519]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-8758]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-821-802]


Final Results of Five-Year 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

[[Page 32518]]

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 
finds that revocation of the Suspension Agreement on uranium from the 
Russian Federation (``Russia'') would likely lead to continuation or 
recurrence of dumping at the levels indicated in the Final Results of 
Review section of this notice.

EFFECTIVE DATE: June 6, 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, DC 
20230; telephone: (202) 482-0162, or 482-0172, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.\6\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Id. at 49235.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    There were three amendments to the Suspension Agreement on Russian 
uranium. In particular, the second amendment to the Suspension 
Agreement, published on November 4, 1996, provided for, among other 
things, the sale in the United States of the natural uranium feed 
associated with the 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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 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, the latter 
modification remained in effect until October 3, 1998.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.

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 April 3, 2006, the Department of Commerce (``Department'') 
published in the Federal Register a notice of preliminary results of 
the full sunset review of the Suspension Agreement pursuant to Section 
751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (``the Act'') (63 FR 
16560) (Preliminary Sunset Notice). This notice was accompanied by the 
``Issues and Decision Memo for the Sunset Review of the Agreement 
Suspending the Antidumping Investigation on Uranium from the Russian 
Federation; Preliminary Results,'' from Joseph A. Spetrini, Deputy 
Assistant Secretary for Policy and Negotiations, to David M. Spooner, 
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, (March 24, 2006), which 
can be found at http://

[[Page 32519]]

ia.ita.doc.gov/frn/summary/russia/E6-4738-1.pdf. In our preliminary 
results, we found that revocation of the antidumping duty Suspension 
Agreement on uranium from Russia would likely lead to a continuation or 
recurrence of dumping at the weighted-average margin of 115.82 percent 
for all producers/exporters from Russia.
    On April 17, 2006, we received case briefs on behalf of Power 
Resources, Inc. (``PRI'') and Crow Butte Resources, Inc. (``Crow 
Butte''); USEC Inc. and United States Enrichment Corporation 
(collectively, ``USEC''); the Ad Hoc Utilities Group (``AHUG''); and AO 
Techsnabexport (``Tenex'').\8\ On April 24, 2006, we received rebuttal 
briefs on behalf of Power Resources and Crow Butte, USEC, and AHUG. On 
April 26, 2006, USEC requested that the Department reject AHUG's 
rebuttal brief because it contained new information not permissible 
under the Department's regulations. On May 24, 2006, the Department 
notified AHUG that it was returning AHUG's rebuttal brief because it 
contained information not timely filed under the regulations and 
offered AHUG the opportunity to redact the new information and to re-
submit the brief to the Department within two days. On May 26, 2006, 
AHUG re-submitted its rebuttal brief; however it failed to redact all 
references to the new information that appeared in its May 24, 2006 
rebuttal brief. We requested again that AHUG re-submit its rebuttal 
brief without the references to the new information, by the close-of-
business on May 30, 2006. On, May 30, 2006, AHUG filed its rebuttal 
brief and redacted all new information. Additionally, on May 26, 2006, 
AHUG submitted a letter to the Department which also contained new and 
untimely filed information. On May 30, 2006, the Department notified 
AHUG that it was returning this additional May 26, 2006 letter because 
it contained information not timely filed under the Department's 
regulations. No interested party requested a hearing in this sunset 
review.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ We note that Tenex did not file either a waiver of intent to 
participate in this sunset review pursuant to Section 351.218(d)(2) 
of the Department's sunset regulations or a complete substantive 
response to the notice of initiation pursuant to Section 351.218(d) 
(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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; Final Results'' from Joseph A. Spetrini, Deputy 
Assistant Secretary for Policy and Negotiations, to David M. Spooner, 
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration (May 30, 2006) (``Final 
Results Decision Memorandum''), which is adopted by this notice. The 
issues discussed in the Final Results Decision Memorandum include the 
likelihood of continuation or recurrence of dumping, scope of the 
subject merchandise, and the magnitude of the margins likely to prevail 
were the Suspension Agreement 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 Final Results 
Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly on the Web at http://
ia.ita.doc.gov/frn. The paper copy and electronic version of the Final 
Results Decision Memorandum are identical in content.

Final Results of Review

    We determine that termination of the Suspension Agreement 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
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This notice also serves as the only reminder to parties subject to 
administrative protective order (``APO'') of their responsibility 
concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information 
disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305 of the 
Department's regulations. Timely notification of the return or 
destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order 
is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms 
of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction.
    This sunset review and notice are in accordance with sections 
751(c), 752, and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: May 30, 2006.
David M. Spooner,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. E6-8758 Filed 6-5-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S