Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 69 / Thursday, April 10, 1997 / Notices 17589

affirmed by the CIT. Therefore, CEMEX

argues, a margin established by the

Department in remand results may not

serve as the basis for first or second-tier

BIA unless they are affirmed. CEMEX

asserts that the Department’s use of the

61.85 percent rate continues to be the

appropriate margin upon which to base

first-tier BIA.

Department’s Position

We agree with Petitioners and

CEMEX. As noted in our response to

comment four, the Department is

applying a first-tier BIA rate of 109.43

percent, (the results from the second

court ordered remand). This rate has

been approved by the CIT. See CEMEX,

S.A. v. United States, Slip Op. 96–179

(CIT Oct. 24, 1996), appeal pending,

Appeal No. 97–1151 (Fed. Cir.)

Final Results of Review

As a result of our review, we

determine the weighted-average

dumping margin for CEMEX, S.A. for

the period August 1, 1993, through July

31, 1994, to be 109.43 percent and the

all other rate to be 61.35. The

Department will instruct the Customs

Service to assess antidumping duties on

all appropriate entries. The Department

will issue appraisement instructions

directly to the Customs Service.

Furthermore, the following deposit

requirements will be effective for all

shipments of the subject merchandise

entered, or withdrawn from warehouse,

for consumption on or after the

publication date of these final results of

review, as provided for by section

751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit

rate for the reviewed company 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

original LTFV 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; (4) the cash deposit

rate for all other manufacturers or

exporters will be 61.35 percent (LFTV

remand results). These deposit

requirements shall remain in effect until

publication of the final results of the

next administrative review.

This notice also serves as a final

reminder to importers of their

responsibility under 19 CFR 353.26 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 the

antidumping duties occurred and the

subsequent assessment of double

antidumping duties.

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 353.34(d). Timely written

notification of return/destruction of

APT materials or conversion to judicial

protective order is hereby requested.

Failure to comply with the regulations

and the terms of the APT is a

sanctionable violation.

This administrative review and notice

are in accordance with section 751(a)(1)

of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)(1)) and 19

CFR 353.22.

Dated: April 2, 1997.

Robert S. LaRussa,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 97–9258 Filed 4–9–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–834–802, A–835–802, A–844–802]

Agreement Suspending the

Antidumping Investigation on Uranium

from Kazakstan, Kyrgyzstan and

Uzbekistan

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

U.S. Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of price determination on

Uranium from Kazakstan, Kyrgyzstan

and Uzbekistan.

SUMMARY: Pursuant to Section IV.C.1. of

the antidumping suspension agreement

on uranium from Kazakstan,

Kyrgyzstan, and Uzbekistan, the

Department of Commerce (the

Department) calculated a price for

uranium of $15.34/lb. On the basis of

this price, the export quota for uranium

pursuant to Section IV.A. of the

Kazakstani agreement, as amended on

March 27, 1995, is 700,000 lbs. for the

period April 1, 1997, through September

30, 1997. The export quota for uranium

pursuant to Section IV.A. of the Uzbek

agreement, as amended on October 13,

1995, remains 940,000 lbs. for the

period October 13, 1996, through

October 12, 1997. Exports pursuant to

other provisions of these agreements are

not affected by this price.

EFFECTIVE DATE: April 1, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Alexander Braier or Cindy Sonmez,

Office of Agreements Compliance,

Import Administration, International

Trade Administration, U.S. Department

of Commerce, 14th Street & Constitution

Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20230;

telephone: (202) 482–3818 or (202) 482–

0961, respectively.

PRICE CALCULATION:

Background

Section IV.C.1. of the antidumping

suspension agreements on uranium

from Kazakstan, Kyrgyzstan, and

Uzbekistan specifies that the

Department will issue its observed

market price on April 1, 1997, and use

it to determine the quota applicable to

exports from Kazakstan and Kyrgyzstan

during the period April 1, 1997, to

September 30, 1997 and from

Uzbekistan during the period of October

13, 1996 to October 12, 1997. Consistent

with the February 22, 1993, letter of

interpretation, the Department provided

interested parties with the preliminary

price determination on March 12, 1997.

Calculation Summary

Section IV.C.1. of these agreements

specifies how the components of the

market price are reached. In order to

determine the spot market price, the

Department utilized the monthly

average of the Uranium Price

Information System Spot Price Indicator

(UPIS SPI) and the weekly average of

the Uranium Exchange Spot Price (Ux

Spot). In order to determine the longterm market price, the Department

utilized the weighted-average long-term

price as determined by the Department

on the basis of information provided by

market participants and a simple

average of the UPIS U.S. Base Price for

the months in which there were new

contracts reported. The Department’s

letters to market participants provided a

contract summary sheet and directions

requesting the submitter to report his/

her best estimate of the future price of

merchandise to be delivered in

accordance with the contract delivery

schedules (in U.S. dollars per pound

U3O8 equivalent). Using the information

reported in the proprietary summary

sheets, the Department calculated the

present value of the prices reported for

any future deliveries assuming an

annual inflation rate of 2.34 percent,

which was derived from a rolling

average of the annual GDP Implicit Price

Deflator index from the past four years.

The Department used the base

quantities reported on the summary

sheet for the purpose of weightaveraging the prices of the long-term
17590 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 69 / Thursday, April 10, 1997 / Notices

contracts submitted by market

participants. The Department then

calculated a simple average of the UPIS

U.S. Base Price and the long-term price

as determined by the Department.

Weighting

The Department used the average spot

and long-term volumes of U.S. utility

and domestic supplier purchases, as

reported by the Energy Information

Administration (EIA), to weight the spot

and long-term components of the

observed price. We have continued to

use data which reflects the period from

1992–1995, as no more recent data is

available. During this period, the spot

market accounted for 73.74 percent of

total purchases, and the long-term

market for 26.26 percent. As in previous

determinations, the Department used

the Energy Information Administration’s

(EIA) Uranium Industry Annual to

determine the available average spotand long-term volumes of U.S. utility

purchases. We have continued to use

data which reflects the period 1992

through 1995. The EIA has withheld

certain contracting data from the public

versions of the Uranium Industry

Annual 1993, Uranium Industry Annual

1994, and the Uranium Industry Annual

1995 (the most recent edition) because

this data was business proprietary. The

EIA, however, provided this data to the

Department and the Department has

used it to update its weighting

calculation. Accordingly, it may only be

released under Administrative

Protective Order.

Calculation Announcement

The Department determined, using

the methodology and information

described above, that the observed

market price is $15.34. This reflects an

average spot market price of $14.97,

weighted at 73.74 percent, and an

average long-term contract price of

$16.38, weighted at 26.26 percent. The

decrease in the observed market price

from our preliminary determination

reflects the correction of clerical errors,

as discussed below, and our inclusion

in the calculation of one other contract

that was received after our preliminary

price calculation. Since this price is

between $15.00/lb and $15.99/lb

expressed in Appendix A of the

suspension agreement with Kazakstan,

as amended, Kazakstan receives a quota

of 700,000 lbs for the period April 1,

1997, to September 30, 1997. The

suspension agreement with Uzbekistan,

as amended, specifies that Uzbekistan

shall have access to its Appendix A

quota of 940,000 lbs for the period of

October 13, 1996 to October 12, 1997,

provided that the calculated price is at

or above $12.00 per pound.

Comments

Consistent with the February 22,

1993, letter of interpretation, the

Department provided interested parties

the preliminary price determination for

this period on March 12, 1997. One

interested party submitted comments.

UPIS Index Used

Comment 1: The Ad Hoc Committee

of Domestic Uranium Producers (the

producers) request that the Department

correct a minor data error in its spot

price segment of the calculation.

According to the producers, the

Department inadvertently used the UPIS

Short-Term Price Indicator data rather

than the UPIS Spot Price Indicator data,

which is consistent with previous

calculations.

Department’s Position: The

Department agrees with the producers

and has corrected the data error.

Long-Term UPIS Indicators

Comment 2: The producers claimed

that the Department erred in its

calculation of the simple average of the

long-term UPIS indicators.

Department’s Position: The

Department agrees with the producers

and has corrected the clerical error in

question.

Long-Term Contract

Comment 3: The producers request

that the Department carefully review its

calculation of the price for contract #2

because the reported price is higher

than prices seen in the UPIS indicator

and other similar transactions. The

producers request the Department to

review the terms of the contract to

determine whether the contract is a

renegotiated contract, whether the

transaction was part of or related to

another transaction which was not

reported, and whether the reported

contract is between related parties. The

Department was also asked to verify

whether an appropriate deflator has

been used in reporting prices with

respect to this particular transaction.

Department’s Position: In response to

the producers’ comments, the

Department contacted the respondent

and confirmed that the survey response

contained accurate information, that the

contract in question was not a

renegotiated contract, was not part of or

related to another transaction, did not

involve related parties, and that an

industry standard deflater was used.

Therefore, the Department continues to

use price-related information regarding

contract #2 in its long-term price

determination.

Finally, the Department corrected a

clerical error regarding a delivery year

in its calculation of the long-term price

for contract #3. The Department notes

that its response to the producer’s third

comment applies to this contract as

well.

After the analysis of the above

comments, the Department has

determined that the observed market

price for uranium, effective April 1,

1997, is $15.34/lb.

Dated: April 1, 1997.

Joseph A. Spetrini,

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping

Countervailing Duty—Group III.

[FR Doc. 97–9259 Filed 4–9–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–549–502]

Certain Welded Carbon Steel Pipes

and Tubes From Thailand: Preliminary

Results of Antidumping Duty

Administrative Review

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of preliminary results of

antidumping duty administrative

review; Certain welded carbon steel

pipes and tubes from Thailand.

SUMMARY: In response to requests by

Thai Union Steel Co., Ltd. (‘‘Thai

Union’’), Saha Thai Steel Pipe Co., Ltd.

(‘‘Saha Thai’’) and its affiliated exporter,

S.A.F. Pipe Export Co., Ltd., (‘‘SAF’’),

respondents, and two importers, Ferro

Union Inc. (‘‘Ferro Union’’), and

ASOMA Corp. (‘‘ASOMA’’), the

Department of Commerce (‘‘the

Department’’) is conducting an

administrative review of the

antidumping duty order on certain

welded carbon steel pipes and tubes

from Thailand. This review covers the

following manufacturers/exporters of

the subject merchandise to the United

States: Saha Thai/SAF and Thai Union.

The period of review (POR) is March 1,

1995 through February 29, 1996.

We have preliminarily determined

that respondents sold subject

merchandise at less than normal value

(NV) during the POR. If these

preliminary results are adopted in our

final results, we will instruct U.S.

Customs to assess antidumping duties

equal to the differences between the

export price and NV.