71 FR 38626, July 7, 2006
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[C-428-829; C-421-809; C-412-821]
Low Enriched Uranium from Germany, the Netherlands, and the
United Kingdom: Final Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative
Reviews and Revocation of Countervailing Duty Orders
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On February 28, 2006, the Department of Commerce (the
Department) published in the Federal Register its preliminary results
of administrative reviews of the countervailing duty (CVD) orders on
low enriched uranium (LEU) from Germany, the Netherlands, and the
United Kingdom (UK) for the period January 1, 2004, through December
31, 2004 (see Low Enriched Uranium from Germany, the Netherlands, and
the United Kingdom: Preliminary Results of Countervailing Duty
Administrative Reviews and Intent to Revoke the Countervailing Duty
Orders, 71 FR 10062 (February 28, 2006) (Preliminary Results)). The
Department has now completed these administrative reviews in accordance
with section 751(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act).
Based on information received since the Preliminary Results and our
analysis of the comments received, the Department has not revised the
net subsidy rate for Urenco Deutschland GmbH of Germany (UD), Urenco
Nederland B.V. of the Netherlands (UNL), Urenco (Capenhurst) Limited
(UCL) of the UK, Urenco Ltd., Urenco Inc., and Urenco Enrichment
Company Ltd. (UEC) (collectively, the Urenco Group or respondents), the
producers/exporters of subject merchandise covered by these reviews.
For further discussion of our positions, see the ``Issues and Decision
Memorandum'' from Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for
Import Administration, to David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for
Import Administration, concerning ``Low Enriched Uranium from Germany,
the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom: Final Results of
Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Revocation of
Countervailing Duty Orders'' (Decision Memorandum), dated June 28,
2006. The final net subsidy rate for the reviewed companies is listed
below in the section entitled ``Final Results of Reviews.''
EFFECTIVE DATE: January 1, 2005.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Darla Brown, AD/CVD Operations, Office
3, Import Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Room 4012, 14th
Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone:
(202) 482-2849.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On February 28, 2006, the Department published in the Federal
Register its Preliminary Results. We invited interested parties to
comment on the
[[Page 38627]]
results. Since the Preliminary Results, the following events have
occurred.
On March 30, 2006, we received case briefs from petitioners\1\ and
respondents. In their case briefs, both petitioners and respondents
requested a public hearing, although respondents stated that it was
their intention to withdraw their hearing request if no other
interested party requested a hearing. On April 4, 2006, we received
rebuttal briefs from petitioners, respondents, and the Governments of
the Netherlands and the UK (GON and UKG, respectively). On April 25,
2006, petitioners withdrew their request for a hearing. On April 26,
2006, respondents withdrew their request for a hearing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Petitioners are the United States Enrichment Corporation
(USEC) and USEC Inc.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(b), these reviews cover only those
producers or exporters of the subject merchandise for which a review
was specifically requested. Accordingly, these reviews cover the Urenco
Group. These reviews cover the period January 1, 2004, through December
31, 2004, and four programs.
Scope of the Orders
For purposes of these orders, the product covered is LEU. LEU is
enriched uranium hexafluoride (UF6) with a U\235\ product
assay of less than 20 percent that has not been converted into another
chemical form, such as UO2, or fabricated into nuclear fuel
assemblies, regardless of the means by which the LEU is produced
(including LEU produced through the down-blending of highly enriched
uranium).
Certain merchandise is outside the scope of these orders.
Specifically, these orders do not cover enriched uranium hexafluoride
with a U\235\ assay of 20 percent or greater, also known as highly
enriched uranium. In addition, fabricated LEU is not covered by the
scope of these orders. For purposes of these orders, fabricated uranium
is defined as enriched uranium dioxide (UO2), whether or not
contained in nuclear fuel rods or assemblies. Natural uranium
concentrates (U3O8) with a U\235\ concentration
of no greater than 0.711 percent and natural uranium concentrates
converted into uranium hexafluoride with a U\235\ concentration of no
greater than 0.711 percent are not covered by the scope of these
orders.
Also excluded from these orders is LEU owned by a foreign utility
end-user and imported into the United States by or for such end-user
solely for purposes of conversion by a U.S. fabricator into uranium
dioxide (UO2) and/or fabrication into fuel assemblies so
long as the uranium dioxide and/or fuel assemblies deemed to
incorporate such imported LEU (i) remain in the possession and control
of the U.S. fabricator, the foreign end-user, or their designated
transporter(s) while in U.S. customs territory, and (ii) are re-
exported within eighteen months of entry of the LEU for consumption by
the end-user in a nuclear reactor outside the United States. Such
entries must be accompanied by the certifications of the importer and
end user.
The merchandise subject to these orders is currently classifiable
in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) at
subheading 2844.20.0020. Subject merchandise may also enter under HTSUS
subheadings 2844.20.0030, 2844.20.0050, and 2844.40.00. Although the
HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes,
the written description of the merchandise is dispositive.
Revocation of the Orders
On February 25, 2005, we received requests for revocation of the
CVD orders on LEU from the Government of Germany (GOG), the GON, and
the UKG. Their requests were filed in accordance with 19 CFR
351.222(c). The Department may revoke, in whole or in part, a CVD order
upon completion of one or more reviews under section 751 of the Act.
Although Congress has not specified the procedures that the Department
must follow in revoking an order, the Department has developed a
procedure for revocation that is described in 19 CFR 351.222, which was
amended on September 22, 1999. See Amended Regulation Concerning the
Revocation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Orders, 64 FR 51236
(September 22, 1999).
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.222(e)(2)(i), during the third and
subsequent annual anniversary months of the publication of the CVD
order, the government of the affected country may request in writing
that the Department revoke an order under 351.222(c)(1) if the
government submits with the request its certification that it has
satisfied, during the period of review, the requirements set out in
351.222(c)(1)(i) and that it will not reinstate for the subject
merchandise those programs or substitute other countervailable subsidy
programs. The GOG, the GON, and the UKG provided the certifications
required by 19 CFR 351.222(e)(2)(i).
Upon receipt of such a request, the Department, pursuant to 19 CFR
351.222(c), will consider the following in determining whether to
revoke the order: (1) whether the government of the affected country
has eliminated all countervailable subsidies on the subject merchandise
by abolishing for the subject merchandise, for a period of at least
three consecutive years, all programs previously found countervailable;
(2) whether exporters and producers of the subject merchandise are
continuing to receive any net countervailable subsidy from an abolished
program; and (3) whether the continued application of the CVD order is
otherwise necessary to offset subsidization.
In our Preliminary Results, we preliminarily determined, in
accordance with 19 CFR 351.222(c)(1)(i)(A), that all programs found by
the Department to have provided countervailable subsidies on LEU from
Germany, the Netherlands, and the UK have been abolished for at least
three consecutive years. Moreover, we preliminarily determined that the
net countervailable subsidy rate during the POR of the instant reviews
is zero, and, therefore, that the exporters and producers are no longer
receiving any net countervailable subsidy from the abolished programs
within the meaning of 19 CFR 351.222(c)(1)(i)(B). Because we have
allocated all non-recurring subsidies over a 10-year AUL, the benefit
streams from these agreements were fully allocated at the end of 2002,
i.e., prior to the POR of these reviews. Finally, in accordance with 19
CFR 351.222(c)(1)(i)(C), we preliminarily determined that there is no
evidence currently on the record of the instant reviews indicating that
continuing these CVD orders is necessary to offset subsidization.
Parties have commented on our preliminary intent to revoke these
CVD orders. See the Decision Memorandum at Comment 2. However, we have
not been persuaded by parties' arguments to deviate from our finding in
the Preliminary Results. Therefore, we find, in accordance with 19 CFR
351.222(c)(1)(ii), that the continued application of these CVD orders
is no longer warranted, and we are revoking these CVD orders.
Verification
The Department previously verified all of the relevant factual
information relied upon in these administrative reviews, consistent
with the requirements of the statute and the Department's regulations.
Analysis of Comments Received
All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties to
these reviews are addressed in the Decision Memorandum, which is hereby
adopted by this notice. A list of the issues
[[Page 38628]]
contained in the Decision Memorandum is attached to this notice as
Appendix I. Parties can find a complete discussion of all issues raised
in these reviews and the corresponding recommendations in this public
memorandum, which is on file in the Central Records Unit (CRU), room B-
099 of the main Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of
the Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly on the World Wide Web
at https://enforcement.trade.gov/frn. The paper copy and electronic version of
the Decision Memorandum are identical in content.
Final Results of Reviews
In accordance with section 777A(e)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR
351.221(b)(5), we calculated an ad valorem subsidy rate for the Urenco
Group for calendar year 2004. The total net subsidy rate for the Urenco
Group in these reviews is 0.00 percent ad valorem for the POR.
We will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), within
15 days of publication of the final results of these reviews, to
liquidate shipments of low enriched uranium by Urenco from Germany, the
Netherlands, and the United Kingdom entered, or withdrawn from
warehouse, for consumption from January 1, 2004, through December 31,
2004, without regard to countervailing duties. Moreover, the Department
also will instruct CBP to discontinue the suspension of liquidation on
all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from
warehouse, for consumption on or after January 1, 2005. In addition,
for the period January 1, 2004, through December 31, 2004, the
assessment rates applicable to all non-reviewed companies covered by
this order are the cash deposit rates in effect at the time of entry.
This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to
administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility
concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under
APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written
notification of return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to
judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with
the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.
These administrative reviews and this notice are issued and
published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1), 751(a)(3) and
777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(5).
Dated: June 28, 2006.
David M. Spooner,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
Appendix I - Issues and Decision Memorandum
I. Methodology And Background Information
A. International Consortium
II. Subsidies Valuation Information
A. Allocation Period
B. Revocation of the Orders
III. Analysis Of Programs
A. Programs Determined Not to Confer a Benefit from the Government
of Germany
1. Enrichment Technology Research and Development Program
2. Forgiveness of Centrifuge Enrichment Capacity Subsidies
B. Programs Determined Not to Be Used from the Government of the
Netherlands
1. Wet Investeringsrekening Law (WIR)
2. Regional Investment Premium
IV. Total Ad Valorem Rate
V. Analysis of Comments
Comment 1: Net Countervailable Subsidy Rate
Comment 2: Revocation of the Orders
Comment 3: Draft Revocation and Liquidation Instructions
Comment 4: Enrichment Services
Comment 5: Allocation Period
Comment 6: Centrifuge Enrichment Capacity Subsidies by the
Government of Germany
[FR Doc. E6-10574 Filed 7-6-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S