Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 90 / Thursday, May 10, 2007 / Notices 26593 

Changes Since the Preliminary Results 

Based on our analysis of comments 

received, we have corrected a 

programming error identified by Ivaco. 

Due to an error in the programing 

language, no level of trade adjustments 

were applied to any of Ivaco’s sales in 

our preliminary margin calculation. 

Consequently, we have corrected the 

programming language for Ivaco for 

purposes of the final results. The 

changes are discussed in detail in the 

accompanying Decision Memorandum. 

Final Results of Review 

As a result of our review, we 

determine that the following weighted–

average margin exists for the period 

October 1, 2004, through September 30, 

2005: 

Producer 

Weighted–Average 

Margin (Percentage) 

Ivaco ............................. 2.06 

Assessment 

The Department will determine, and 

U.S. Customs and Border Protection 

(‘‘CBP’’) shall assess, antidumping 

duties on all appropriate entries, 

pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b). The 

Department calculated importer–

specific duty assessment rates on the 

basis of the ratio of the total amount of 

antidumping duties calculated for the 

examined sales to the total entered 

value of the examined sales for that 

importer. Where the assessment rate is 

above de minimis, we will instruct CBP 

to assess duties on all entries of subject 

merchandise by that importer. In 

accordance with 19 CFR 356.8(a), the 

Department will issue appropriate 

assessment instructions directly to CBP 

on or after 41 days following the date of 

publication of these final results of 

review. 

Cash Deposits 

Furthermore, the following deposit 

requirements will be effective upon 

publication of this notice of final results 

of administrative review for all 

shipments of carbon and certain alloy 

steel wire rod from Canada entered, or 

withdrawn from warehouse, for 

consumption on or after the date of 

publication, as provided by section 

751(a)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 

amended (‘‘the Act’’): (1) For the 

company covered by this review, the 

cash deposit rate will be the rate listed 

above; (2) for previously reviewed or 

investigated companies not listed above, 

the cash deposit rate will continue to be 

the company–specific rate published for 

the most recent period; (3) if the 

exporter is not a firm covered in this 

review, a prior review, or the 

investigation, but the producer is, the 

cash deposit rate will be that established 

for the producer of the merchandise in 

these final results of review, a prior 

review, or in the final determination; 

and (4) if neither the exporter nor the 

producer is a firm covered in this 

review, a prior review, or the 

investigation, the cash deposit rate will 

be 8.11 percent, the ‘‘All Others’’ rate 

established in the less–than-fair–value 

investigation. These deposit 

requirements shall remain in effect until 

further notice. 

This notice also serves as a final 

reminder to importers of their 

responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) 

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 in the 

subsequent assessment of double 

antidumping duties. 

This notice also is the only reminder 

to parties subject to the 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(a)(3). Timely 

written notification of the 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. 

We are issuing and publishing these 

results in accordance with sections 

751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. 

Dated: May 3, 2007. 

David M. Spooner, 

Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

APPENDIX 

I. Level of Trade 

Comment 1: Statutory Requirements for 

a Level of Trade Adjustment 

Comment 2: Pattern of Price Differences 

Analysis 

Comment 3: Pattern of Price Differences 

Methodology 

Comment 4: Post–Sale Price 

Adjustments 

II. Programing 

Comment 5: Level of Trade Adjustment 

in the Programing Language 

[FR Doc. E7–9039 Filed 5–9–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–427–818] 

Low Enriched Uranium From France: 

Final Results of Expedited Sunset 

Review of the Antidumping Duty Order 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

U.S. Department of Commerce. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 10, 2007. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Myrna Lobo or Douglas Kirby, Office 6, 

AD/CVD Operations, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; 

telephone: (202) 482–2371, or (202) 

482–3782, respectively. 

SUMMARY: On January 3, 2007, the 

Department of Commerce (the 

Department) initiated a sunset review of 

the antidumping duty order on low 

enriched uranium (LEU) from France 

pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff 

Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). On 

the basis of a notice of intent to 

participate and an adequate substantive 

response filed on behalf of domestic 

interested parties and an inadequate 

response from respondent interested 

party, the Department has conducted an 

expedited (120-day) sunset review of 

this order pursuant to section 

751(c)(3)(B) and section 

351.218(e)(1)(ii)(C)(2) of the 

Department’s regulations. As a result of 

this sunset review, the Department finds 

that revocation of the antidumping duty 

order is likely to lead to continuation or 

recurrence of dumping at the level 

indicated in the ‘‘Final Results of 

Review’’ section of this notice. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On January 3, 2007, the Department 

published the notice of initiation of the 

first sunset review of the antidumping 

duty order on LEU from France 

pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act. 

See Initiation of Five-year (Sunset) 

Reviews, 72 FR 100 (January 3, 2007). 

The Department received a notice of 

intent to participate from USEC Inc. and 

its subsidiary United States Enrichment 

Corporation (collectively USEC), the 

domestic party, within the deadline 

specified in section 351.218(d)(1)(i) of 

the Department’s regulations (Sunset 

Regulations). USEC claimed interested 

party status under section 771(9)(C) of 

the Act, as a domestic producer of LEU. 

The Department also received a timely 

notice of appearance from respondent 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with NOTICES
26594 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 90 / Thursday, May 10, 2007 / Notices 

1Eurodif S.A.’s affiliate companies are AREVA 

(formerly Compagnie Generale des Matieres 

Nucleaires (COGEMA)), an owner of Eurodif, 

AREVA NC and AREVA NC, Inc., sellers of 

enrichment services. 2The members of AHUG are Constellation Energy 

Group, Inc., Dominion Energy Kewaunee, Inc., 

Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc., Duke Energy 

Corp., Entergy Services, Inc., Exelon Generation 

Co., LLC, Nebraska Public Power District, Pacific 

Gas & Electric Co., PPL Susquehanna, LLC, Progress 

Energy Carolinas, Inc., Progress Energy Florida, 

Inc., Southern California Edison Co., Southern 

Nuclear Operating Co., Union Electric Co. (d/b/a/ 

Ameren UE), TXU Generation Co. LP, and Virginia 

Electric & Power Co. 

interested party Eurodif S.A.1 (Eurodif), 

a French producer and exporter of LEU. 

Eurodif claimed interested party status 

under section 771(9)(A) of the Act. On 

February 2, 2007, the Department 

received a complete substantive 

response from USEC, within the 30-day 

deadline specified in section 

351.218(d)(3)(i) of the Department’s 

regulations. On the same day, the 

Department received a substantive 

response from Eurodif. In addition, on 

the same day, the Department received 

a notice of appearance and a substantive 

response from the Ad Hoc Utilities 

Group 2 (AHUG), an industry group 

comprised of owners and operators of 

U.S. nuclear power plants. Although 

AHUG claimed respondent interested 

party status under section 771(9)(A) of 

the Act, the Department determined it 

was not a respondent or an interested 

party pursuant to section 771(9)(A) of 

the Act. See Memorandum to Stephen J. 

Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for 

Import Administration; Sunset Review 

of the Antidumping Duty Order on Low 

Enriched Uranium from France: 

Adequacy Determination dated 

February 22, 2007 (Adequacy 

Memorandum), which is on file in B–

099, the Central Records Unit of the 

main Commerce building (CRU). Also 

see Memorandum to Stephen J. Claeys, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration; Comments Regarding 

Adequacy Determination: Sunset 

Review of the Antidumping Duty Order 

on Low Enriched Uranium from France, 

dated April 5, 2007 (Comments to 

Adequacy Memorandum), which is also 

on file in the CRU. The Department 

found that Eurodif’s response was not 

adequate and therefore determined to 

conduct an expedited review. See 

Adequacy Memorandum. Subsequently, 

comments to the Department’s 

Adequacy Memorandum were received 

from all parties. In those comments, 

USEC supported the Department’s 

determination to conduct an expedited 

review, while Eurodif and AHUG 

argued in favor of a full sunset review. 

The Department responded to these 

comments, affirming it would not 

reverse its decision to conduct an 

expedited review in its Comments to 

Adequacy Memorandum. Accordingly, 

pursuant to section 751(c)(3)(B) of the 

Act and section 351.218(e)(1)(ii)(C)(2) of 

the Department’s regulations, the 

Department conducted an expedited 

(120-day) sunset review of this order. 

Scope of the Order 

The product covered by this order is 

all low enriched uranium (LEU). LEU is 

enriched uranium hexafluoride (UF6) 

with a U235 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 downblending of highly enriched uranium). 

Certain merchandise is outside the 

scope of this order. Specifically, this 

order does not cover enriched uranium 

hexafluoride with a U235 assay of 20 

percent or greater, also known as highly 

enriched uranium. In addition, 

fabricated LEU is not covered by the 

scope of this order. For purposes of this 

order, 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 U235

concentration of no greater than 0.711 

percent and natural uranium 

concentrates converted into uranium 

hexafluoride with a U235 concentration 

of no greater than 0.711 percent are not 

covered by the scope of this order. 

Also excluded from this order 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 

designed transporter(s) while in U.S. 

customs territory, and (ii) are reexported within eighteen (18) 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 this order 

is currently classifiable in the 

Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the 

United States (HTSUS) at subheading 

2844.20.0020. Subject merchandise may 

also enter under 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. 

Analysis of Comments Received 

All issues raised in this review are 

addressed in the Issues and Decision 

Memorandum for Final Results of 

Expedited Sunset Review of the 

Antidumping Duty Order on Low 

Enriched Unranium from France 

(Decision Memorandum) from Stephen 

J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for 

Import Administration, to David M. 

Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration, dated May 3, 2007, 

which is hereby 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 margins likely 

to prevail if the order were to be 

revoked. Parties can 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 

CRU. In addition, a complete version of 

the Decision Memorandum can be 

accessed directly on the Web at http:// 

ia.ita.doc.gov/frn. The paper copy and 

electronic versions of the Decision 

Memorandum are identical in content. 

Final Results of Review 

The Department determines that 

revocation of the antidumping duty 

order on low enriched uranium from 

France would be likely to lead to 

continuation or recurrence of dumping 

at the following weighted-average 

percentage margins: 

Manufacturers/exporters/ 

producers 

Weighted 

average 

margin 

(percent) 

Eurodif/AREVA ..................... 19.95 

All Others .............................. 19.95 

International Trade Commission (ITC) 

Notification 

Pursuant to section 752(c)(3) of the 

Act, we will notify the ITC of the final 

results of this expedited sunset review. 

Notification Regarding Administrative 

Protective Order 

This notice serves as the only 

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. Timely 

notification of return/destruction of 

APO materials or conversion to judicial 

protective order is hereby requested. 

Failure to comply with the regulations 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 90 / Thursday, May 10, 2007 / Notices 26595 

1The following companies upon which we 

initiated an administrative review, except Deseado, 

withdrew their requests for review after the 

issuance of the quantity and value (‘‘Q&V’’) 

questionnaire: Amstar Business Company Limited 

(‘‘Amstar’’), Apex Enterprises International Ltd. 

(‘‘Apex’’) and Apex’s producer, Golden Industrial 

Co., Ltd. (‘‘Golden’’), Fuzhou Eastown Arts Co., Ltd. 

(‘‘Fuzhou’’), Gift Creative Company, Ltd. (‘‘Gift’’), 

Maverick Enterprise Co., Ltd. (‘‘Maverick’’) and 

Maverick’s producer Great Founder International 

Co. (‘‘Great Founder’’), Qingdao Kingking Applied 

Chemistry Co., Ltd. (‘‘KingKing’’), Shantou Jinyuan 

Mingfeng Handicraft Co. (‘‘Shantou Jinyuan’’), 

Shanghai Shen Hong Arts and Crafts Co., Ltd. 

(‘‘Shen Hong’’) and Shen Hong’s producer Shanghai 

Changran Enterprise, Ltd . (‘‘Changran’’), Shenzhen 

Sam Lick Manufactory (and affiliated exporter 

Prudential (HK) Candles Manufacturing Co., Ltd). 

(‘‘Sam Lick,’’ collectively), Transfar International 

Corp. (‘‘Transfar’’); 

2The original deadline for the quantity and value 

questionnaire was October 26, 2006. 

3See Letter dated October 30, 2006, to Deseado 

regarding the missed deadline for Q&V 

questionnaire response. 

4Sections A (Organization, Accounting Practices, 

Markets and Merchandise), C (Sales to the United 

States), D (Factors of Production), E (Cost of Further 

Manufacturing Performed in the United States) and 

Sales and Factors of Production Reconciliations. 

5See Deseado’s Section A questionnaire response 

dated January 4, 2007, at 19. 

6 In its March 19, 2007, letter, Deseado stated that 

it was unable to provide the information requested 

in the Department’s March 8, 2007, letter due to its 

supplier’s unwillingness to cooperate and provide 

the information. 

and the terms of an APO is a violation 

which is subject to sanction. 

This notice is issued and published in 

accordance with sections 751(c), 752, 

and 777(i)(1) of the Act. 

Dated: May 3, 2007. 

David M. Spooner, 

Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. E7–9038 Filed 5–9–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–570–504] 

Petroleum Wax Candles from the 

People’s Republic of China: 

Preliminary Results and Partial 

Rescission of the Eighth 

Administrative Review 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce 

(‘‘the Department’’) is currently 

conducting an administrative review of 

the antidumping duty order on 

petroleum wax candles from the 

People’s Republic of China (‘‘PRC’’) 

covering the period August 1, 2005, 

through July 31, 2006. This review 

covers imports of subject merchandise 

from one manufacturer/exporter: 

Deseado International, Ltd. (‘‘Deseado’’). 

If these preliminary results are adopted 

in our final results of review, we will 

instruct U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection (‘‘CBP’’) to assess 

antidumping duties on all appropriate 

entries in accordance with these results. 

We invite interested parties to comment 

on these preliminary review results and 

will issue the final review results no 

later than 120 days from the date of 

publication of this notice. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 10, 2007. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Irene Gorelik, AD/CVD Operations, 

Office 9, Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th 

Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, 

Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 

482–6905. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On August 28, 1986, the Department 

published in the Federal Register the 

antidumping duty order on petroleum 

wax candles from the PRC. See 

Antidumping Duty Order: Petroleum 

Wax Candles From the People’s 

Republic of China, 51 FR 30686 (August 

28, 1986) (‘‘Candles Order’’). 

On August 31, 2006, Deseado 

submitted a timely request for an 

administrative review. On September 

29, 2006, in response to Deseado’s 

request and in accordance with section 

751(a)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 

amended (the ‘‘Act’’), and section 

351.213(b) of the Department’s 

regulations, the Department initiated the 

eighth administrative review of 

petroleum wax candles from the PRC on 

14 companies.1 See Initiation of 

Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 

Administrative Reviews, 71 FR 57465 

(September 29, 2006). 

On October 12, 2006, the Department 

issued a Q&V questionnaire to Deseado 

and the other 13 companies upon which 

we initiated the review.2 On October 30, 

2006, the Department sent a letter to 

Deseado notifying the company of its 

failure to submit a Q&V questionnaire 

response by the deadline date.3 We 

provided Deseado with a new deadline 

of November 3, 2006, to submit a Q&V 

questionnaire response, which Deseado 

timely submitted. On December 7, 2006, 

the Department issued its standard non–

market economy (‘‘NME’’) questionnaire 

to Deseado. On January 4, 2007, 

Deseado submitted its section A 

response to the Department’s 

antidumping duty questionnaire.4 In its 

section A questionnaire response, 

Deseado informed the Department that 

it is a trading company/exporter of the 

merchandise under consideration with 

an unaffiliated manufacturer/supplier in 

the PRC.5

On January 8, 2007, the National 

Candle Association (‘‘Petitioner’’) 

submitted deficiency comments with 

respect to Deseado’s Separate Rates 

Application. On January 26, 2007, 

Petitioner submitted additional 

deficiency comments with respect to 

Deseado’s separate rates application and 

its section A response. 

On January 29, 2007, Deseado 

submitted the CBP 7501 entry 

summaries for its sales of subject 

merchandise to the United States, as 

requested by the Department, as well as 

its sections C and D questionnaire 

responses. On February 6, 2007, 

Petitioner submitted deficiency 

comments with respect to Deseado’s 

section C response. On February 16, 

2007, Petitioner submitted additional 

deficiency comments regarding 

Deseado’s section C response relative to 

Deseado’s submission of its CBP 7501 

entry summaries. On February 16, 2007, 

the Department issued a supplemental 

section A questionnaire to Deseado. On 

March 6, 2007, Deseado submitted its 

supplemental section A response. 

On March 8, 2007, the Department 

issued a letter to Deseado stating that, 

upon review of Deseado’s sections C 

and D questionnaire responses, Deseado 

had not provided any data that the 

Department could use to calculate an 

antidumping duty margin. The 

Department provided instructions 

within this letter for Deseado to correct 

its data deficiencies by March 19, 2007. 

On March 19, 2007, Deseado informed 

the Department that it was unable to 

provide the information requested by 

the Department in the March 8, 2007, 

letter.6 On April 3, 2007, Petitioner 

submitted a request to terminate the 

administrative review with respect to 

Deseado. On April 10, 2007, Deseado 

submitted a letter stating that because it 

was the only party to have requested the 

administrative review, Petitioner had no 

grounds upon which to request a 

termination of the administrative 

review. 

Period of Review 

The period of review (‘‘POR’’) covers 

August 1, 2005, through July 31, 2006. 

Scope of the Order 

The products covered by Candles 

Order are certain scented or unscented 

petroleum wax candles made from 

petroleum wax and having fiber or 

paper–cored wicks. They are sold in the 

following shapes: tapers, spirals, and 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with NOTICES