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
<![CDATA[
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 https://
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 https://
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 https://
[[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 https://
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
