[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 108 (Tuesday, June 6, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Pages 32517-32519]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing 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