66 FR 36748, July 13, 2001

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-421-808; A-412-820; A-428-828]

Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 
Value: Low Enriched Uranium From the United Kingdom; Preliminary 
Determinations of Sales at Not Less Than Fair Value: Low Enriched 
Uranium From Germany and the Netherlands; and Postponement of Final 
Determinations

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.

EFFECTIVE DATE: August 13, 2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Frank Thomson or James Terpstra, 
Office of AD/CVD Enforcement VI, Import Administration, International 
Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, D.C. 20230; telephone: (202) 482-
4793 or (202) 482-3965, respectively.
    The Applicable Statute and Regulations: Unless otherwise indicated, 
all citations to the statute are references to the provisions effective 
January 1, 1995, the effective date of the amendments made to the 
Tariff Act of 1930 (the Act) by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act 
(URAA). In addition, unless otherwise indicated, all citations to 
Department of Commerce (Department) regulations refer to the 
regulations codified at 19 CFR part 351 (April 2000).
    Preliminary Determinations: We preliminarily determine that low-
enriched uranium (LEU) from Germany and the Netherlands is not being 
sold, or is not likely to be sold, in the United States at less than 
fair value (LTFV), as provided in section 733 of the Act.
    We preliminarily determine that LEU from the United Kingdom is 
being sold, or is likely to be sold, in the United States at less than 
fair value (LTFV), as provided in section 733 of the Act. The estimated 
margins of sales at LTFV are shown in the Suspension of Liquidation 
section of this notice.

Case History

    These investigations were initiated on December 27, 2000.\1\ See 
Notice of Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigations: Low Enriched 
Uranium from France, Germany, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom, 
66 FR 1080 (January 5, 2001). (Initiation Notice).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The petitioners in this investigation are USEC Inc. and its 
wholly-owned subsidiary, the United States Enrichment Corp. 
(collectively USEC), and the Paper, Allied-Industrial, Chemical and 
Energy Workers International Union, AFL-CIO, CLC, Local 5-550 and 
Local 5-689 (collectively PACE) (the petitioners).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the initiation notice, we invited interested parties to comment 
on the scope of these investigations by January 17, 2001. On January 
17, 2001, we received a letter with comments from Urenco Ltd., Urenco 
(Capenhurst) Ltd., Urenco Nederland BV, and Urenco Deutschland GmbH 
(collectively, ``Urenco'' or ``the respondent''), as well as from the 
petitioners. In addition, on April 5, 2001, we received comments from 
the Ad Hoc Utilities Group (Ad Hoc Group), an industrial user/consumer 
of subject merchandise. Our analysis of these comments is in a 
memorandum from the team to Bernard Carreau, dated May 7, 2001, which 
is on file in the Central Records Unit, Room B-099, of the Main 
Commerce Building.
    On January 22, 2001, the United States International Trade 
Commission (ITC) preliminarily determined that there is a reasonable 
indication that an industry in the United States is threatened with 
material injury by

[[Page 36749]]

reason of imports of the products subject to each of these antidumping 
investigations. See Low Enriched Uranium From France, Germany, The 
Netherlands, and the United Kingdom, 66 FR 8424 (January 31, 2001).
    On January 29, 2001, the Department invited interested parties to 
submit comments on model matching criteria and proposed modifications 
to the standard questionnaire. We received comments from Urenco and the 
petitioners on January 31, 2001. On February 5, 2001, after considering 
those comments, the Department requested additional information from 
Urenco for purposes of formulating antidumping questionnaires 
appropriate to the unique nature of the uranium industry. We received 
Urenco's response to that request on February 13, 2001. After 
considering this information, on February 26, 2001, the Department 
issued its antidumping questionnaires to Urenco.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Section A of the antidumping questionnaire requests general 
information concerning a company's corporate structure and business 
practices, the merchandise under investigation that it sells, and 
the manner in which it sells that merchandise in all of its markets. 
Section B requests a complete listing of all home market sales, or, 
if the home market is not viable, then a listing of sales in the 
most appropriate third-country market. Section C requests a complete 
listing of U.S. sales. Section D requests information on the cost of 
production of the foreign like product and the constructed value of 
the merchandise under investigation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We issued supplemental questionnaires where appropriate. Responses 
to those supplemental questionnaires were timely filed on May 30, 2001 
and June 4, 2001, and we have incorporated the information provided in 
those responses into this preliminary determination. On May 5, 2001, 
Urenco requested an extension of time to respond to certain questions 
in the supplemental questionnaires. On May 29, 2001, the Department 
granted Urenco a five-day extension to respond to certain questions in 
the Department's supplemental questionnaires.
    On April 18, 2001, the Department concluded, consistent with 
section 733(c)(1)(B) of the Act, that these cases concerning LEU from 
Germany, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom are extraordinarily 
complicated, and that additional time was necessary to issue the 
preliminary determinations. Consequently, we extended the deadline for 
the preliminary determinations to July 5, 2001. See Notice of 
Postponement of Preliminary Antidumping Duty Determinations: Low 
Enriched Uranium from France, Germany, the Netherlands, and the United 
Kingdom, 66 FR 20969 (April 26, 2001).
    In addition to the principal events listed above, petitioners and 
respondent have filed numerous submissions suggesting alternative 
calculation methodologies, the appropriate treatment of separative work 
unit (SWU) contracts, and the possible calculation of a consolidated 
rate for the Urenco group. These comments have been addressed insofar 
as we have made a specific determination on how to handle each aspect 
of the calculations. One suggestion not elsewhere addressed is 
petitioners' request that we rely on adverse facts available for these 
preliminary determinations based on Urenco's failure to respond to the 
questionnaire to the best of its ability. Petitioners cite numerous 
instances of Urenco's failure to initially provide information, most 
notably a lack of full disclosure about affiliated party transactions. 
Although we agree with petitioners that there were deficiencies in the 
information provided by Urenco, which are detailed in our supplemental 
questionnaires, we preliminarily determine that Urenco's questionnaire 
responses are not so deficient as to be unuseable or that reliance on 
facts available is appropriate for purposes of these preliminary 
determinations.

Postponement of Final Determination

    Section 735(a)(2)(B) of the Act provides that a final determination 
may be postponed until no later than 135 days after the date of the 
publication of the preliminary determination if, in the event of a 
negative preliminary determination, as in the case for Germany and the 
case for the Netherlands, a request for such postponement is made by 
the petitioner. On July 5, 2001, the petitioners made such a request. 
Since these preliminary determinations are negative, with respect with 
Germany and the Netherlands, and there is no compelling reason to deny 
the petitioners' request, we have extended the deadline for issuance of 
these final determinations until the 135th day after the date of 
publication of these preliminary determinations in the Federal 
Register.
    In the event of an affirmative preliminary determination, as is the 
case for the United Kingdom, section 735(a)(2)(A) of the Act states 
that the Department may postpone making the final determination until 
no later than the 135th day after publication of the preliminary 
determination if a request in writing for such postponement is made by 
exporters who account for a significant proportion of exports of the 
subject merchandise. On June 29, 2001, Urenco Ltd., the sole producer/
exporter of subject merchandise from the United Kingdom, made such a 
request. In its request, the respondent consented to the extension of 
provisional measures to no longer than six months. Since this 
preliminary determination is affirmative, with respect with the United 
Kingdom, and there is no compelling reason to deny respondent's 
request, we have extended the deadline for issuance of the final 
determination until the 135th day after the date of publication of this 
preliminary determination in the Federal Register.

Period of Investigation

    The period of investigation (POI) is October 1, 1999, through 
September 30, 2000. This period corresponds to the four most recent 
fiscal quarters prior to the month of the filing of the petition (i.e., 
December 2000).

Scope of Investigation

    The scope of these investigations covers 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 down-
blending of highly enriched uranium).
    Certain merchandise is outside the scope of these investigations. 
Specifically, these investigations 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 investigations. For purposes of these 
investigations, 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 investigations.
    The merchandise subject to these investigations is classified 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.

[[Page 36750]]

    The Ad Hoc Group contends that certain sales subject to these 
investigations are in actuality transactions for separative work units 
(SWU) of enrichment, and therefore constitute the provision of 
services, not the production or sale of goods subject to the 
antidumping law. In particular, the Ad Hoc Group focuses upon the 
relevant sale to be used in determining whether LEU is sold at less 
than fair value. The Ad Hoc Group contends that sales of SWU or 
enrichment do not constitute sales of subject merchandise. They argue 
further that because ``toll-produced LEU'' is consumed by the parties 
who contract for the tolling, such LEU is never sold in the United 
States. The Ad Hoc Group cites the Department's tolling regulation and 
practice to support its conclusion that such sales should be excluded 
from the scope of these investigations.
    This is an exceptionally complicated issue. Based upon our analysis 
of the record and the arguments of the parties, we preliminarily 
determine that all LEU entering the United States from Germany, the 
Netherlands, the United Kingdom, and France is subject to these 
investigations regardless of the way in which the sales for such 
merchandise are structured.\3\ This preliminary determination is based 
on several factors. First, no party disputes that LEU entering the 
United States is a good. As the product yield of a manufacturing 
operation, LEU is a tangible product. Moreover, under the U.S. Customs 
regulations, any item that is within a tariff category of the 
Harmonized Tariff System constitutes merchandise for customs purposes. 
See 19 CFR 141.4 (2000). In this case, LEU is normally classified under 
HTSUS 2844.20.0020, but also satisfies three other HTSUS 
classifications described as enriched uranium compounds, enriched 
uranium, and radioactive elements, isotopes, and compounds.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ This statement is limited to imports of LEU that were 
enriched in the respective countries.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Second, it is well established that the enrichment process is a 
major manufacturing operation that is required to produce LEU. No party 
disputes that the enrichment operation constitutes substantial 
transformation of the uranium feedstock, nor does any party dispute 
that the country of origin for LEU is based upon where that substantial 
transformation takes place. Thus, the LEU exported from Germany, the 
Netherlands, the United Kingdom, and France are products of those 
respective countries, and are therefore subject to these 
investigations.
    Third, in these investigations there are significant volumes of LEU 
sold pursuant to contracts that expressly provide separate prices for 
SWU and feedstock, and no party disputes that such sales constitute 
sales of subject merchandise.\4\ Rather, it is only for those 
transactions in which utility companies arguably obtain LEU through 
separate transactions of SWU and feedstock from separate entities that 
the Ad Hoc Group contends that such LEU entering the United States 
cannot be subject to the antidumping law. The Department has considered 
whether it would be appropriate to include in these investigations only 
the former type of transactions and exclude the latter. We believe, 
however, that, based on the petitioners' arguments, discussed below, 
there is little substantive commercial difference between these types 
of transactions, and, therefore, we have preliminarily included both. 
Simply because an unaffiliated customer purchases subject merchandise 
arguably in the form of two transactions, instead of a single, 
conventional type of transaction, does not mean that the merchandise 
entering the United States is not subject to the antidumping law. The 
purpose of the antidumping law is to provide a remedy to U.S. 
industries injured by unfairly priced goods. Subject merchandise 
purchased in the form of two transactions, instead of one, does not 
eliminate the possibility of unfair pricing, nor does it alleviate the 
need for the remedy established under the antidumping law.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ This is also true of a contract for enriched uranium product 
(EUP) that provides one price for both components.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Fourth, contrary to the Ad Hoc Group's claim, the tolling 
regulation does not provide a basis to exclude merchandise from the 
scope of an investigation. The purpose of the tolling regulation is to 
identify the seller of the subject merchandise for purposes of 
establishing export price, constructed export price, and normal value. 
Under Sec. 351.401(h), therefore, the Department focuses upon which 
party controls the relevant sale of the subject merchandise and foreign 
like product. See, e.g., Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less 
Than Fair Value: Stainless Steel Plate in Coils from Taiwan, 64 FR 
15493, 15498 (Mar. 31, 1999)). Thus, under the tolling regulation the 
issue is not whether the LEU in question is subject to the antidumping 
law, but rather who is the seller of the subject merchandise for 
determining U.S. price and normal value or, more specifically, what is 
the appropriate way in which to value subject merchandise and foreign 
like product. To the extent that sales of subject merchandise are 
structured as two transactions, the Department would combine such 
transactions to obtain the relevant price of subject merchandise, or 
normal value, as appropriate. On the other hand, to the extent that a 
company located in the United States sells the subject merchandise that 
is toll-processed in a country subject to investigation, the company in 
the United States would be the seller of subject merchandise. Even if 
in these cases we considered the utilities to be the producers of the 
subject merchandise within the meaning of the tolling regulation, this 
would not mean the antidumping law is not applicable. Regardless of the 
appropriate seller identified or how the sales are structured, the 
merchandise entering the United States is subject to the antidumping 
law.
    The petitioners maintain that enrichers are the sellers of LEU in 
both types of contracts--either as an exchange of SWU and uranium 
feedstock for cash, or as an exchange of SWU for cash and a swap of 
uranium feedstock. The petitioners contend that the two transactions 
are essentially identical. First, regardless of whether the utility 
company pays in cash or in kind for the natural uranium content, the 
petitioners point out that the LEU is delivered under essentially the 
same contract terms, including warranties and guarantees pertaining to 
the complete LEU product. Second, enrichers do not use the uranium 
feedstock provided by the utility companies. Instead, the petitioners 
note that the natural uranium is typically delivered shortly before, or 
even after, delivery of the LEU, making the delivery of such uranium a 
payment in kind for the natural uranium component of the LEU. Third, 
the petitioners contend that the utility company does not have control 
over the process used to produce LEU that the utility company receives. 
Rather, the petitioners point out that the enrichers control the 
manufacture of LEU, as demonstrated by the fact that the product assay 
under the contract (transactional assay) differs from the product assay 
produced and delivered by the enricher (operational assay). According 
to the petitioners, the enricher makes the decision of the particular 
product assay based upon its own operational requirements and input 
costs. Taken together, these facts indicate that enrichers are in 
effect selling LEU under both types of contractual arrangements.
    We have preliminarily treated the sales at issue as sales of 
subject

[[Page 36751]]

merchandise for the reasons stated above and based upon the 
petitioners' arguments. In all transactions concerning LEU, regardless 
of how the sales are structured, the utility companies purchase LEU for 
use in the production and sale of electricity to consumers. 
Accordingly, the Department has established the value of the subject 
merchandise and foreign like product for purposes of determining U.S. 
price and normal value based on these transactions. We will further 
examine this issue for the final determination, and we invite comments 
on this issue. For purposes of these preliminary determinations, we 
have assigned a value to the natural uranium feedstock where no price 
was provided. We also invite comments from interested parties as to the 
valuation of the uranium feedstock for such transactions.

Fair Value Comparisons

    To determine whether sales of low enriched uranium from Germany, 
the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom were made in the United States 
at less than fair value, we compared the export price (EP) to the 
constructed value (CV), as described in the Export Price and 
Constructed Value sections of this notice. In accordance with section 
777A(d)(1)(A)(i) of the Act, we calculated weighted-average EPs and 
compared them to CV.
    We note that during the POI, the respondent sold LEU pursuant to 
different types of contracts. For some contracts, the respondent 
undertook to manufacture and deliver LEU for a cash payment covering 
both the value of the enrichment component and the value of the natural 
uranium feedstock deemed to be contained in the LEU (referred to as EUP 
contracts). For other contracts, the respondent undertook to 
manufacture and deliver LEU for a cash payment covering only the value 
of the enrichment component; for the natural uranium feedstock 
component, the respondent received an amount of natural uranium 
equivalent \5\ to the amount deemed to be used to produce the LEU 
shipped (referred to as SWU contracts). For both types of transactions, 
the product manufactured and delivered by the respondent was LEU. For 
purposes of our antidumping analysis, we have translated prices and 
costs involved in SWU contracts to an LEU basis. To value the natural 
uranium component for SWU contracts we have made our calculations based 
upon the presumption that the value of this natural uranium was equal 
to the value of natural uranium paid by Urenco's customers pursuant to 
EUP contracts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The actual quantity of feedstock used by enrichers to 
produce the LEU they ship is normally different from the quantity of 
feedstock they receive from their utility customers. This 
difference, between the operational and transactional tails assays, 
is adjusted for in the constructed value calculation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Export Price

Germany, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom

    For the price to the United States, we used EP in accordance with 
section 772(a) of the Act because the merchandise was sold by the 
producer or exporter outside the United States to the first 
unaffiliated purchaser in the United States prior to importation. In 
addition, constructed export price was not otherwise warranted based on 
the facts on the record. Consistent with this definition, we found that 
Urenco made EP sales during the POI.
    We based the date of sale on the date of the contract with the U.S. 
customer; i.e., the date that the terms of sale were established. 
Section 351.401(i) of the Department's regulations provide that the 
date of sale will normally be the date of invoice, unless the material 
terms of sale are set on some other date. In the instant cases, we 
preliminarily determine the material terms of sale are set by contract.
    We note that some of the sales during the POI involved pre-existing 
contracts which were amended during the POI. The petitioners argue 
that, while the Department typically includes in its dumping analysis 
the entire sales quantity covered by an amended contract, the long-term 
nature of uranium contracts warrants including in the analysis only the 
additional quantities associated with the amendments.\6\ Further, the 
petitioners argue that the Department should isolate the prices for the 
additional quantities called for by the amendments, segregating them 
from prices specified by the pre-existing contracts. For purposes of 
these preliminary determinations, we have considered the amended 
contract to constitute an entirely new sale, and have included in the 
dumping analysis all deliveries to date pursuant to the amended 
contract. We will examine this issue further at verification, and 
invite comment from interested parties for the final determinations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Due to the fact that many long-term contracts covering an 
existing quantity are renegotiated when newer quantities are 
purchased, price reductions are taken on existing contracts that are 
related to new sales in the POI.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Because many of these contracts are long-term, spanning over five 
years, in most instances there have been only partial deliveries to 
date pursuant to contracts entered into during the POI. Based on the 
nature of the contracts, the specifications for the desired enrichment 
level of the LEU (i.e. ``product assay'' of the LEU) and, therefore, 
the per-kilogram price for the LEU, are not known, until the customer 
requests delivery.\7\ Given the speculative nature of estimating the 
product assays and prices associated with future deliveries, coupled 
with the fact that we are unable to determine the country of origin 
until delivery actually occurs, we have preliminarily decided to base 
the dumping analysis on completed deliveries only.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Prices, exchange rates, selling expenses, and costs of 
production for future deliveries pursuant to POI contracts would 
also have to be estimated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We made deductions from the starting price for movement expenses in 
accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act. These include foreign 
inland freight from the plant to the port of export, international 
freight, international air freight/insurance, charges for shipment of 
samples, U.S. brokerage and handling fees, and port charges. We also 
deducted any discounts from the starting price.

Normal Value

A. Selection of Comparison Markets

    Section 773(a)(1) of the Act directs that normal value (NV) be 
based on the price at which the foreign like product is sold in the 
home market (or third country market), provided that the merchandise is 
sold in sufficient quantities (or value, if quantity is inappropriate) 
and that there is no particular market situation that prevents a proper 
comparison with the EP. The statute contemplates that quantities (or 
value) will normally be considered insufficient if they are less than 
five percent of the aggregate quantity (or value) of sales of the 
subject merchandise to the United States.
Germany
    Pursuant to section 773(a)(1) of the Act, because Urenco 
Deutschland GmbH's (UD) aggregate volume of home market sales of the 
foreign like product was greater than five percent of its aggregate 
volume of U.S. sales of the subject merchandise, we determined that the 
home market was viable.
The Netherlands
    Urenco Nederland B.V. (UN) had no sales in its home market. Japan 
was its largest third-country market, and, following our normal 
practice, it was selected as the comparison market.

[[Page 36752]]

The United Kingdom
    Urenco (Capenhurst) Ltd. (UCL) had no sales in its home market. 
Japan was its largest third-country market and, following our normal 
practice, it was selected as the comparison market.

B. Constructed Value

    For Germany and the Netherlands, Urenco reported no actual 
shipments in the respective comparison markets. Because, as discussed 
above, we limited our analysis to actual shipments, we therefore used 
constructed value as the basis for normal value. For the United 
Kingdom, although UCL had actual shipments to Japan, we have 
preliminarily determined not to rely on these sales for determining 
normal value. Due to the differences in product and tails assays and 
the unique manner in which LEU is sold, a difference in merchandise 
adjustment (diffmer) will not adequately reflect price differentials. 
Accordingly, we have also relied on constructed value as the basis for 
normal value for the United Kingdom. We will examine this issue further 
at verification and invite comment from interested parties for the 
final determination. See ``Calculation Memorandum''.

C. Calculation of Normal Value Based on Constructed Value

    Section 773(a)(4) of the Act provides that where NV cannot be based 
on comparison market sales, NV may be based on CV. Section 773(e) of 
the Act provides that CV shall be based on the sum of the cost of 
materials and fabrication for the merchandise, plus amounts for 
selling, general, and administrative expenses (SG&A), profit, and U.S. 
packing costs. We calculated a weighted-averaged cost of production 
(COP) for each control number of low enriched uranium, based on the sum 
of the cost of materials, fabrication and general expenses, and packing 
costs.
    We relied on the data submitted by respondents in their 
supplementary cost questionnaire responses, except, as noted below, in 
specific instances where the submitted costs were not appropriately 
quantified or valued.
Common
    We adjusted the reported general and administrative expenses (G&A) 
rate to include certain non-operating income and expense amounts which 
appear to relate to the general operations of each of the companies.
Urenco (Capenhurst) Limited
    1. We increased UCL's depreciation expense to account for the 
effect of acquiring fixed assets from affiliates at less than full 
cost.
    2. We adjusted UCL's reported cost of manufacturing by including 
the portion of the centrifuge losses allocated to the POI.
Urenco Nederland B.V.
    1. We increased UNL's reported costs by including the unreconciled 
difference between the audited financial statement cost of 
manufacturing and the total costs reported.
    2. We increased UNL's reported cost of manufacturing to account for 
foreign exchange losses that were excluded from the reported costs.
Urenco Deutschland GmbH
    We increased UD's reported cost to include depreciation expense 
calculated in accordance with German GAAP rather then that in 
accordance with UK GAAP.
    In accordance with section 773(e)(2)(B)(iii) of the Act, we 
calculated Urenco's SG&A and profit using the individual company's 
audited financial statements. For further details, see calculation 
Memorandum from Ernest Gziryan to Neal Halper, dated July 5, 2001.

Level of Trade

    In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B) of the Act, to the extent 
practicable, we determine CV based on sales in the comparison market at 
the same level of trade (LOT) as the EP transaction. The CV LOT is that 
of the sales from which we derive SG&A expenses and profit. For EP, the 
U.S. LOT is also the level of the starting-price sale, which is usually 
from exporter to importer.
    To determine whether CV sales are at a different LOT than EP, we 
examine stages in the marketing process and selling functions along the 
chain of distribution between the producer and the unaffiliated 
customer. If the comparison-market sales are at a different LOT, and 
the difference affects price comparability, as manifested in a pattern 
of consistent price differences between the sales on which CV is based 
and comparison-market sales at the LOT of the export transaction, we 
make an LOT adjustment under section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act.
    In the U.S. market, we found selling expenses associated with 
strategic planning and marketing, customer sales contact, production 
planning and evaluation, and contract administration. Urenco reported 
one channel of distribution in the U.S. market (i.e., from Urenco Ltd. 
to U.S. utilities). Therefore, we found all U.S. sales to be made at 
single level of trade.
    For the comparison markets Urenco reported one channel of 
distribution (i.e., from Urenco Ltd. to the utility companies). 
Moreover all the companies in the Urenco group sell through Urenco Inc. 
and have similar marketing processes and selling activities in these 
comparison markets (i.e., strategic planning, marketing, and customer 
sales contact). Therefore, we found a single level of trade. Moreover, 
since the Urenco group sells to the United States and in the comparison 
markets through Urenco Ltd., where the marketing activities and selling 
functions are similar, we found the level of trade in the comparison 
markets comparable to that of the U.S. market.

Currency Conversions

    We made currency conversions into U.S. dollars in accordance with 
section 773A of the Act based on exchange rates in effect on the dates 
of the U.S. sales, as obtained from the Federal Reserve Bank (the 
Department's preferred source for exchange rates).

Verification

    In accordance with section 782(i) of the Act, we intend to verify 
all information relied upon in making our final determinations.

Suspension of Liquidation

    In accordance with section 733(d) of the Act, we are directing the 
Customs Service to suspend liquidation of all entries of low enriched 
uranium, with the exception of those exported from Germany and the 
Netherlands, that are entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for 
consumption on or after the date of publication of this notice in the 
Federal Register.\8\ We are also instructing the Customs Service to 
require a cash deposit or the posting of a bond equal to the weighted-
average amount by which the NV exceeds the EP, as indicated in the 
chart below. These instructions suspending liquidation will remain in 
effect until further notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ On July 3, 2001, the Department received comments from the 
respondent requesting that, in the event of an affirmative 
preliminary determination, the application of any cash deposit, bond 
or other security be limited to transactions involving the sale of 
enriched uranium, and exclude imports pursuant to so-called SWU 
contracts. We will consider these comments for the final 
determination.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The weighted-average dumping margins are as follows:

[[Page 36753]]

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        Weighted-average
                 Exporter/manufacturer                       margin
                                                           percentage
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Urenco Deutschland GmbH...............................          \1\ 0.46
Urenco Netherlands B.V................................          \1\ 0.55
Urenco (Captenhurst) Ltd..............................             3.35
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ (de minimis).

Disclosure

    The Department will disclose calculations performed within five 
days of the date of publication of this notice to the parties to the 
proceedings in these investigations in accordance with 19 CFR 
351.224(b).

ITC Notification

    In accordance with section 733(f) of the Act, we have notified the 
ITC of our preliminary determinations. If our final antidumping 
determinations are affirmative, the ITC will determine whether the 
imports covered by the determinations are materially injuring, or 
threaten material injury to, the U.S. industry. The deadline for the 
ITC determinations would be the later of 120 days after the date of 
these preliminary determinations or 45 days after the date of our final 
determinations.

Public Comment

    Case briefs for these investigations must be submitted no later 
than one week after the issuance of the verification reports. Rebuttal 
briefs must be filed within five days after the deadline for submission 
of case briefs. A list of authorities used, a table of contents, and an 
executive summary of issues should accompany any briefs submitted to 
the Department. Executive summaries should be limited to five pages 
total, including footnotes.
    Section 774 of the Act provides that the Department will hold a 
hearing to afford interested parties an opportunity to comment on 
arguments raised in case or rebuttal briefs, provided that such a 
hearing is requested by any interested party. If a request for a 
hearing is made in an investigation, the hearing will tentatively be 
held two days after the deadline for submission of the rebuttal briefs, 
at the U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 
Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230. In the event that the Department 
receives requests for hearings from parties to more than one low-
enriched uranium case, the Department may schedule a single hearing to 
encompass all those cases. Parties should confirm by telephone the 
time, date, and place of the hearing 48 hours before the scheduled 
time.
    Interested parties who wish to request a hearing, or to participate 
if one is requested, must submit a written request within 30 days of 
the publication of this notice. Requests should specify the number of 
participants and provide a list of the issues to be discussed. Oral 
presentations will be limited to issues raised in the briefs.
    We will make our final determinations no later than 135 days after 
the date of publication of this notice in the Federal Register.
    These determinations are issued and published pursuant to sections 
733(f) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: July 5, 2001.
Faryar Shirzad,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 01-17624 Filed 7-12-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P