[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 63 (Monday, April 3, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Pages 16560-16562]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing 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 http://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