5498 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 24 / Thursday, February 5, 2004 / Notices 

1Petitioners are the United States Enrichment 

Corporation (USEC) and USEC Inc.

steel wire rod from South Korea, 

covering the period September 1, 2001, 

through August 31, 2002. See Initiation 

of Antidumping and Countervailing 

Duty Administrative Reviews, 67 FR 

65336 (October 24, 2002). The 

preliminary results were published on 

October 7, 2003. See Stainless Steel 

Wire Rod from the Republic of Korea: 

Preliminary Results of Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review, 68 FR 

57879 (October 7, 2003). The final 

results are currently due no later than 

February 4, 2004.

Extension of Time Limit for Final 

Results of Review

We determine that it is not practicable 

to complete the final results of this 

review within the original time limit. 

Therefore, the Department is extending 

the time limit for completion of the final 

results by 60 days until no later than 

April 5, 2004. See Decision 

Memorandum from Thomas F. Futtner 

to Holly A. Kuga, dated concurrently 

with this notice, which is on file in the 

Central Records Unit, Room B-099 of the 

Department’s main building.

This extension is in accordance with 

section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act.

Dated: January 30, 2004.

Holly A. Kuga,

Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration, Group II.

[FR Doc. 04–2526 Filed 2–4–04; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration 

[C–428–829, C–421–809, and C–412–821] 

Preliminary Results of Countervailing 

Duty Administrative Reviews: Low 

Enriched Uranium from Germany, the 

Netherlands, and the United Kingdom

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of preliminary results of 

countervailing duty administrative 

reviews. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce 

(the Department) is conducting 

administrative reviews of the 

countervailing duty (CVD) orders on 

low enriched uranium from Germany, 

the Netherlands, and the United 

Kingdom for the period May 14, 2001, 

through December 31, 2002. For 

information on the net subsidy for the 

reviewed companies, please see the 

Preliminary Results of Reviews section 

of this notice. Interested parties are 

invited to comment on these 

preliminary results. (See the ‘‘Public 

Comment’’ section of this notice).

EFFECTIVE DATE: February 5, 2004.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Robert Copyak (Germany) at 202–482–

2209, Tipten Troidl (the Netherlands) at 

202–482–1767, or Darla Brown (United 

Kingdom) at 202–482–2849, Office of 

AD/CVD Enforcement VI, Group II, 

Import Administration, International 

Trade Administration, U.S. Department 

of Commerce, Room 4012, 14th Street 

and Constitution Avenue, NW., 

Washington, DC 20230.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On February 13, 2002, the Department 

published in the Federal Register the 

CVD orders on low enriched uranium 

from Germany, the Netherlands, and the 

United Kingdom. See Notice of 

Amended Final Determinations and 

Notice of Countervailing Duty Orders: 

Low Enriched Uranium from Germany, 

the Netherlands and the United 

Kingdom, 67 FR 6688 (February 13, 

2002) (Amended Final). On February 3, 

2003, the Department published a notice 

of opportunity to request an 

administrative review of these CVD 

orders. See Antidumping or 

Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or 

Suspended Investigation; Opportunity 

To Request Administrative Review, 68 

FR 5272 (February 3, 2003). On 

February 5, 2003, we received a timely 

request for review from the Government 

of the United Kingdom (UKG). On 

February 27, 2003, we received a timely 

request for review from Urenco Ltd. 

(Urenco), the producer and exporter of 

subject merchandise. We note that this 

request covered all subject merchandise 

produced by Urenco in Germany, the 

Netherlands, and the United Kingdom. 

On February 28, 2003, we received a 

timely request for review from 

petitioners.1 On March 18, 2003, the 

Department initiated administrative 

reviews of the CVD orders on low 

enriched uranium from Germany, the 

Netherlands, and the United Kingdom. 

See Initiation of Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Administrative 

Reviews and Requests for Revocation in 

Part, 68 FR 14394 (March 25, 2003).

On April 4, 2003, petitioners 

submitted new subsidy allegations, 

covering the following alleged 

programs: the UKG’s sale of an uranium 

enrichment plant to Urenco Capenhurst 

Limited (UCL) for less than adequate 

remuneration, the UKG’s 

decommissioning of UCL’s centrifuge 

plants for less than adequate 

remuneration, and the UKG’s provision 

of insurance for less than adequate 

remuneration. On September 16, 2003, 

the Department declined to initiate 

investigations of petitioners’ allegations. 

For additional information, see the 

September 16, 2003, New Subsidy 

Allegations memorandum to Melissa G. 

Skinner, Director, Office of AD/CVD 

Enforcement VI, from Darla Brown, Case 

Analyst, on file in the Central Records 

Unit, Room B–099 of the Main 

Commerce Building (CRU). 

On April 21, 2003, the Department 

issued a questionnaire to the UKG and 

UCL, Urenco’s producer of subject 

merchandise in the United Kingdom. 

On April 29, 2003, the Department 

issued a questionnaire to the 

Government of the Netherlands (GON) 

and Urenco Nederland BV (UNL), 

Urenco’s producer of subject 

merchandise in the Netherlands. On 

April 30, 2003, the Department issued a 

questionnaire to the Government of 

Germany (GOG) and Urenco 

Deutschland GmbH (UD), Urenco’s 

producer of subject merchandise in 

Germany. 

We received questionnaire responses 

from the UKG and UCL on May 28, 

2003, from the GON and Urenco 

Nederland on June 5, 2003, from UD on 

June 6, 2003, and from the GOG on June 

10, 2003. The Department issued a 

supplemental questionnaire to UCL on 

October 14, 2003; UCL submitted its 

response on October 28, 2003. 

On October 23, 2003, we issued an 

extension of the due date for these 

preliminary results from October 31, 

2003, to January 29, 2004. See Low 

Enriched Uranium from France, 

Germany, the Netherlands, and the 

United Kingdom: Extension of 

Preliminary Results of Countervailing 

Duty Administrative Reviews, 68 FR 

60643 (October 23, 2003) (Extension 

Notice). We conducted verification of 

UCL in Marlow, United Kingdom on 

December 3 through December 4, 2003.

In accordance with 19 CFR 

351.213(b), these reviews cover only 

those producers or exporters for which 

a review was specifically requested. The 

companies subject to these reviews are 

Urenco, UD, UNL, and UCL. These 

reviews cover five programs. 

Scope of Reviews 

For purposes of these reviews, the 

product covered 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, 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 24 / Thursday, February 5, 2004 / Notices 5499

2For the purposes of these preliminary results, 

we have analyzed data for the period January 1, 

2001, through December 31, 2001, to determine the 

subsidy rate for exports of subject merchandise 

made during the period in 2001 when liquidation 

of entries was suspended. In addition, we have 

analyzed data for the period January 1, 2002, 

through December 31, 2002, to determine the 

subsidy rate for exports during that period. Further, 

we are using the 2002 subsidy rate to establish the 

cash deposit rate for entries of subject merchandise 

subsequent to the issuance of the final results of 

these administrative reviews.

3The subsidy benefit allocable to the POR for 

each program originally is calculated in the 

currency in which it was provided. In calculating 

the program rate, we converted the value of the 

subsidy benefit from the original currency to U.S. 

dollars.

4As discussed below, the total sales figure used 

in this equation has been adjusted depending on 

whether the subsidy was tied to R&D or capacity 

expansion sales.

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 U235 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 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 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 

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 these 

orders 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. 

Period of Review 

The period of review (POR) for these 

administrative reviews is May 14, 2001, 

through December 31, 2002.2

International Consortium 

In our Notice of Final Affirmative 

Countervailing Duty Determinations: 

Low Enriched Uranium from Germany, 

the Netherlands, and the United 

Kingdom, 66 FR 65903 (December 21, 

2001) (LEU Final) and accompanying 

Issues and Decision Memorandum: 

Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty 

Determinations: Low Enriched Uranium 

from Germany, the Netherlands, and the 

United Kingdom—Calendar Year 1999 

(LEU Decision Memo) at Comment 2: 

International Consortium Provision, we 

found that the Urenco Group operates as 

an international consortium within the 

meaning of section 701(d) of the Tariff 

Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). No 

new information or evidence of changed 

circumstances has been presented since 

the LEU Final which would persuade us 

to reconsider this conclusion. Therefore, 

we continue to find that the Urenco 

Group of companies constitutes an 

international consortium. Accordingly, 

we have continued to cumulate all 

countervailable subsidies received by 

the member companies from the GOG, 

the GON, and the UKG, pursuant to 

section 701(d) of the Act. 

Subsidies Valuation Information 

Allocation Period 

Under section 351.524(d)(2) of the 

Department’s regulations, we will 

presume the allocation period for nonrecurring subsidies to be the average 

useful life (AUL) of renewable physical 

assets for the industry concerned, as 

listed in the Internal Revenue Service’s 

(IRS) 1977 Class Life Asset Depreciation 

Range System (IRS Tables), as updated 

by the Department of the Treasury. The 

presumption will apply unless a party 

claims and establishes that these tables 

do not reasonably reflect the AUL of the 

renewable physical assets for the 

company or industry under 

investigation, and the party can 

establish that the difference between the 

company-specific or country-wide AUL 

for the industry under investigation is 

significant. In this instance, however, 

the IRS Tables do not provide a specific 

asset guideline class for the uranium 

enrichment industry. 

In the LEU Final, we derived an AUL 

of 10 years for the Urenco Group (see

LEU Decision Memorandum at 

Comment 3: Average Useful Life). The 

AUL issue is currently subject to 

litigation related to the investigation. In 

these reviews, we continue to apply the 

10-year AUL that was calculated in the 

LEU Final.

Benchmarks for Loans and Discount 

Rate 

In accordance with section 

351.524(d)(3)(i)(A) of the Department’s 

regulations, we used, where available, 

discount rates that were based on the 

cost of long-term, fixed-rate financing 

for commercial loans received by the 

Urenco Group companies. Where the 

Urenco Group companies had no 

comparable commercial loans, we used 

national average interest rates as 

provided by the companies’

corresponding government as specified 

by section 351.505(a)(3)(ii) of the 

Department’s regulations. 

Calculation of Ad Valorem Rates 

In the LEU Final, we calculated the ad 

valorem subsidy rates using the 

following formula:

A B CD

E = * / ( )

Where:

A = Ad Valorem Program Rate. 

B = Subsidy Benefit (in U.S. Dollars).3

C = Urenco Group’s Sales of Subject 

Merchandise to the United States 

during the Calendar Year (in Euros). 

D = Urenco Group’s Total Sales 

during the Calendar Year (in 

Euros).4

E = Urenco Group Sales that Entered 

the U.S. during the Calendar Year 

(in U.S. Dollars). 

We continue to apply this formula to 

calculate the ad valorem subsidy rates 

in these preliminary results. 

Programs Preliminarily Determined To 

Confer Subsidies From the Government 

of Germany 

1. Enrichment Technology Research and 

Development Program 

In the LEU Final, we determined that, 

under this program, the GOG promoted 

the research and development (R&D) of 

uranium enrichment technologies. The 

Federal Ministry for Research and 

Technology provided 

Uranitisotopentrennungsgeselleschaft 

mbH (Uranit) (the privately-held 

German arm of the Urenco Group) a 

series of grant disbursements for the 

funding of R&D projects. The funds 

were provided to encourage continuous 

improvements of centrifuge 


EN05FE04.000</MATH>
5500 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 24 / Thursday, February 5, 2004 / Notices 

5 In March 1970, the GOG, the GON, and the UKG 

signed the Treaty of Amelo, which became effective 

in July 1971. The purpose of the treaty was for the 

three governments to collaborate in the 

development and exploitation of the gas centrifuge 

process for producing enriched uranium. Prior to 

1971, the centrifuge R&D programs in each country 

were independent.

technologies and to fund the research of 

lasers and other advanced technologies. 

The grant disbursements under this 

program were made during the years 

1980 through 1993. 

Assistance under this program was 

provided for in two agreements and two 

sets of guidelines: the ‘‘Financing 

Agreement,’’ the ‘‘Operating 

Agreement,’’ the ‘‘Terms and Conditions 

for Allocations on a Cost Basis to 

Companies in Industry for Research and 

Development Projects’’ (BKFT75), and 

the ‘‘Auxiliary Terms and Conditions 

for Grants on a Cost Basis from the 

Federal Ministry for Research and 

Development to Companies in Industry 

for Research and Development Projects’’

(NKFT88), respectively. According to 

Article 4, section 6, of the ‘‘Financing 

Agreement,’’ the funds provided to 

Uranit under this agreement had 

contingent repayment obligations. The 

funds were repayable within five years 

of disbursement, contingent upon the 

company’s earnings. If the funds were 

not repaid within five years, then the 

repayment obligation lapsed. The funds 

provided under the ‘‘Operating 

Agreement’’ were not repayable. Uranit 

also received funds for laser R&D 

pursuant to the terms and conditions of 

the BKFT75 and NKFT88. 

In the LEU Final, we determined that 

the assistance provided under this 

program constitutes countervailable 

subsidies within the meaning of section 

771(5) of the Act. Specifically, we found 

that the grant disbursements constitute 

a financial contribution and confer a 

benefit, as described in sections 

771(5)(B) and 771(5)(D)(i) of the Act. We 

further found that this program is 

specific under section 771(5A)(D)(i) of 

the Act because the provision of 

assistance under this program was 

limited to one company. In addition, we 

found that the program provided nonrecurring benefits under section 

351.524(c)(2) of the Department’s 

regulations because the assistance was 

made pursuant to specific government 

agreements and was not provided under 

a program that would provide assistance 

on an ongoing basis from year to year. 

See LEU Decision Memo at the 

‘‘Enrichment Technology Research and 

Development Program’’ section. No new 

information or evidence of changed 

circumstances has been presented to 

warrant reconsideration of this 

determination; therefore, for these 

preliminary results, we continue to 

determine that this program is 

countervailable. 

We also determined in the LEU Final

that no portion of any of the 

disbursements received by Uranit was 

repaid. We determined that the 

disbursements provided under the 

‘‘Financing Agreement’’ were 

countervailable under 19 CFR 

351.505(d)(2) as grants because they 

constituted waivers of contingent 

liabilities. We determined that the 

disbursement made in 1985 conferred a 

benefit during the POI because the year 

contingent payment obligation lapsed, 

1990, fell within the ten-year allocation 

period. With regard to the subsidies 

provided for laser R&D, we determined 

that the disbursements made between 

1990 and 1993 under the NKFT88 were 

countervailable under 19 CFR 351.504 

beginning in the year of receipt because 

the repayment provisions of the 

NKFT88 were not applicable for the 

grants ATT 22279/1, ATT 2279 A/2, 

ATT 2279/2, and ATT 2281/3. Id. We 

also determined that, as a result of 

applying the 0.5 percent test, in 

accordance with 19 CFR 351.524(b)(2), 

laser grants ATT 2279 A/2 and ATT 

2281 /3 were expensed in the year of 

receipt. Id. No new information or 

evidence of changed circumstances has 

been presented to warrant 

reconsideration of these determinations. 

We calculated the benefits received 

under this program during the POR, 

pursuant to 19 CFR 351.505(d)(2) (our 

contingent liability methodology) with 

regard to the 1985 disbursement made 

under the Financing Agreement, and, 

pursuant to 19 CFR 351.504 (our 

standard grant methodology) with 

regard to the laser R&D grant 

disbursements made under the NKFT88 

in 1990 or later, and allocated both of 

them over 10 years. See the allocation 

period discussion in the ‘‘Subsidies 

Valuation Information’’ section, above. 

We used as our discount rates the longterm corporate bond rates in Germany 

because the grants were denominated in 

Deutschmarks. 

We preliminarily determine that grant 

disbursements made under this program 

prior to 1992, including the 1985 

disbursement made under the 

‘‘Financing Agreement,’’ no longer 

provide a benefit during the POR. We 

also preliminarily determine that only 

the grant disbursements made in 1992 

and 1993 continue to provide benefits 

during the POR. 

To calculate the benefit from this 

program, for each calendar year of the 

POR, we summed the benefits that 

remained as a result of the application 

of our allocation methodology. We then 

calculated an ad valorem rate for each 

calendar year of the POR using the 

methodology described in the 

‘‘Calculation of Ad Valorem Rates’’

section, above. We note that because the 

benefits were provided for the 

promotion of R&D, we have used as the 

denominator the company’s sales of 

subject merchandise as well as the sales 

of those products that were 

manufactured using the same 

technology that benefitted from the R&D 

subsidies. See LEU Decision Memo at 

Comment 14: Sales Denominator of the 

Urenco Group. On this basis, we 

preliminarily determine the net 

countervailable subsidy to be 0.03 

percent ad valorem for 2001 and 0.00 

percent ad valorem for 2002.

2. Forgiveness of Centrifuge Enrichment 

Capacity Subsidies 

In accordance with the ‘‘Risk Sharing 

Agreement’’ (RSA) and the ‘‘Profit 

Sharing Agreement’’ (PSA) signed 

between the GOG and Uranit, the GOG 

agreed to provide funds to UD to 

support the promotion of an uranium 

enrichment industry. These two 

agreements were signed on July 18, 

1975, and the GOG provided a total of 

DM 338.3 million from 1975 to 1993 to 

Uranit in support of the Treaty of 

Almelo’s goal of creating and promoting 

the enrichment industry.5 Under the 

terms of the agreements, repayment of 

the funds was conditional and based 

upon the financial performance of the 

company. However, in no case was the 

amount of the total repayments to 

exceed twice the amount of the funds 

provided to UD by the GOG.

In 1987, Uranit signed a new 

agreement with the GOG. This 

‘‘Adjustment Agreement’’ stipulated 

that Uranit would repay GOG for the 

DM 333.8 million in centrifuge capacity 

assistance and an additional agreedupon DM 31.7 million which was not 

related to the centrifuge subsidies. Prior 

to the 1993 merger of the Urenco Group, 

the GOG and Uranit negotiated a basis 

to terminate the repayment obligations 

of the RSA and the PSA. Based upon 

these negotiations, a ‘‘Termination 

Agreement’’ was signed on July 13, 

1993, and amended on October 27, 

1993. Prior to the Termination 

Agreement, Uranit had made 

repayments totaling DM 5.6 million. 

Under the terms of the Termination 

Agreement, Uranit was to pay the GOG 

DM 101.1 million, thus terminating the 

repayment obligations stipulated in the 

Adjustment Agreement. Uranit made 

this DM 101.1 million payment on July 

1, 1994. 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 24 / Thursday, February 5, 2004 / Notices 5501

In the LEU Final, we determined this 

program to be countervailable. We 

found that assistance provided under 

this program to Uranit was specific 

under section 771(5A)(D)(i) of the Act 

because the program was limited to one 

company. In addition, we determined 

that a financial contribution was 

provided under section 771(5)(D)(i) of 

the Act. We also determined that a 

benefit was provided to the company, 

within the meaning of section 771(5)(E) 

of the Act to the extent that the 

repayments made to the GOG were less 

than the amount of assistance provided 

to the company under this program. See

LEU Decision Memo at the ‘‘Forgiveness 

of Centrifuge Enrichment Capacity 

Subsidies’’ section. No new information 

or evidence of changed circumstances 

has been presented to warrant 

reconsideration of this determination; 

therefore, for these preliminary results, 

we continue to determine that this 

program is countervailable. 

In the LEU Final, we determined that 

this program provided a grant under 19 

CFR 351.505(d)(2) because there was a 

waiver of a contingent liability. We 

determined the adjusted grant amount 

to be equal to the difference between the 

original amount of centrifuge subsidies 

(DM 338.3 million) and the total amount 

of repayment attributable to those 

centrifuge subsidies (DM 97.556 

million), which we calculated to be DM 

240.744 million. We also determined 

that the first year of allocation was 1993, 

the year in which the repayment 

obligation stipulated in the Adjustment 

Agreement was waived. No new 

information or evidence of changed 

circumstances has been presented to 

warrant reconsideration of this 

determination.

To determine the benefit conferred by 

this program during the POR, we 

applied the Department’s standard grant 

methodology and allocated the adjusted 

grant amount of DM 240.744 million 

over 10 years. See the allocation period 

discussion under the ‘‘Subsidies 

Valuation Information’’ section, above. 

We used as the discount rate the longterm corporate bond rate in Germany for 

1993. We then calculated an ad valorem

rate for each calendar year of the POR 

using the methodology described in the 

‘‘Calculation of Ad Valorem Rates’’

section above. We note that because this 

subsidy was provided for the promotion 

of uranium enrichment, we have used as 

the denominator sales from enrichment 

activities only. For further explanation, 

see LEU Decision Memo at Comment 14: 

Sales Denominator of the Urenco Group. 

On this basis, we preliminarily 

determine the net countervailable 

subsidy to be 1.63 percent ad valorem

for 2001 and 1.40 percent ad valorem

for 2002. 

Program Preliminarily Determined Not 

To Confer a Benefit From the 

Government of Germany 

1. Investment Allowance Act

In the LEU Final, we determined that, 

from 1982 through 1990, the GOG 

provided countervailable grants to UD 

and Uranit under the Investment 

Allowance Act for the enrichment plant 

in Gronau and for the R&D facility in 

Julich. We found this program to be 

specific under section 771(5A)(D)(iv) of 

the Act because grants provided under 

this program are limited to companies 

located in designated regions within 

Germany. We determined that a 

financial contribution was provided by 

this program under section 771(5)(D)(i) 

of the Act and that a benefit was 

provided within the meaning of section 

771(5)(E) of the Act in the amount of 

grant disbursements received under this 

program. We determined that this 

program provided non-recurring 

benefits under 19 CFR 351.524(c)(2) of 

the Department’s regulations because 

the assistance was tied to the capital 

assets of the companies and was not 

provided on an ongoing basis from year 

to year. See LEU Decision Memo at the 

‘‘Investment Allowance Act’’ section 

and Comment 15: Investment 

Allowance Act. No new information or 

evidence of changed circumstances has 

been presented to warrant 

reconsideration of this determination; 

therefore, for these preliminary results, 

we continue to determine that this 

program is countervailable. 

As explained above in the allocation 

period section of the ‘‘Subsidies 

Valuation Information,’’ we are using 10 

years as the time period for allocating 

non-recurring benefits. Because the 

grant disbursements under this program 

were made between 1982 and 1990, the 

10-year allocation period for each grant 

disbursement expired prior to the POR. 

Therefore, we preliminarily determine 

that each of these grants has been fully 

allocated prior to the POR, and, 

therefore, no benefit was received under 

this program during the POR. 

Programs Preliminarily Determined To 

Be Not Used From the Government of 

the Netherlands 

1. Wet Investeringsrekening Law (WIR)

In the LEU Final, we found that the 

WIR program was not used. In the 

instant administrative reviews, we 

asked UNL if it received or used benefits 

under this program during the POR. 

UNL responded that it did not apply for, 

use, or receive benefits from the WIR 

program during the POR. Furthermore, 

UNL reported that the WIR program 

ended in 1988 and investment credits 

could only be claimed through the 1989 

tax year. Therefore, we preliminarily 

find that the WIR was not used during 

the POR. 

2. Regional Investment Premium

In the Amended Final, we found that, 

after correcting for a ministerial error in 

the LEU Final, the subsidy from the 

Regional Investment Program (IPR) was 

less than 0.5 percent of the Urenco 

Group’s combined sales and, in 

accordance with 19 CFR 351.524(b)(2), 

was allocable to the year of receipt 

(1985). As a result of this revision, the 

net subsidy for this program decreased 

from 0.03 percent ad valorem to 0.00 

percent ad valorem. See Amended 

Final, 67 FR 6688. Moreover, in the 

instant reviews, UNL reported that it 

did not apply for nor did it use the IPR 

program during the POR. Therefore, we 

preliminarily determine that UNL did 

not use the IPR program during the 

POR. 

Verification 

In accordance with section 782(i) of 

the Act, we conducted verification of 

UCL in Marlow, United Kingdom on 

December 3 through December 4, 2003. 

Preliminary Results of Reviews

In accordance with 19 CFR 

351.221(b)(4)(i), we calculated an 

individual subsidy rate for the Urenco 

Group Ltd., the only producer/exporter 

subject to these administrative reviews, 

for calendar years 2001 and 2002. We 

preliminarily determine that the total 

estimated net countervailable subsidy 

rate is 1.66 percent ad valorem for 2001 

and 1.40 percent ad valorem for 2002. 

If the final results of these reviews 

remain the same as these preliminary 

results, the Department intends to 

instruct the 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 

May 14, 2001, through September 11, 

2001, at 1.66 percent ad valorem and 

from February 13, 2002, through 

December 31, 2002, at 1.40 percent ad 

valorem of the f.o.b. invoice price. The 

Department also intends to instruct the 

CBP to collect cash deposits of 

estimated countervailing duties at 1.40 

percent ad valorem of the f.o.b. invoice 

price on all shipments of the subject 

merchandise from the reviewed entity, 

entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, 

5502 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 24 / Thursday, February 5, 2004 / Notices 

1Consistent with the Department’s practice, for 

the purposes of these preliminary results, we have 

analyzed data for the period January 1, 2001 

through December 31, 2001 to determine the 

subsidy rate for exports of subject merchandise 

made during the period in 2001 when liquidation 

of entries was suspended. In addition, we have 

analyzed data for the period January 1, 2002 

through December 31, 2002 to determine the 

subsidy rate for exports during that period. Further, 

we are using the 2002 subsidy rate to establish the 

cash deposit rate for entry of subject merchandise 

subsequent to the issuance of the final results of 

this administrative review.

for consumption on or after the date of 

publication of the final results of these 

reviews. In addition, for the periods 

May 14, 2001, through September 11, 

2001, and February 13, 2002, through 

December 31, 2002, 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. 

Because the Uruguay Round 

Agreements Act (URAA) replaced the 

general rule in favor of a country-wide 

rate with a general rule in favor of 

individual rates for investigated and 

reviewed companies, the procedures for 

establishing countervailing duty rates, 

including those for non-reviewed 

companies, are now essentially the same 

as those in antidumping cases, except as 

provided for in section 777A(e)(2)(B) of 

the Act. The requested review will 

normally cover only those companies 

specifically named. See 19 CFR 

351.213(b). Pursuant to 19 CFR 

351.212(c), for all companies for which 

a review was not requested, duties must 

be assessed at the cash deposit rate, and 

cash deposits must continue to be 

collected, at the rate previously ordered. 

As such, the countervailing duty cash 

deposit rate applicable to a company 

can no longer change, except pursuant 

to a request for a review of that 

company. See Federal-Mogul 

Corporation and The Torrington 

Company v. United States, 822 F. Supp. 

782 (CIT 1993), and Floral Trade 

Council v. United States, 822 F. Supp. 

766 (CIT 1993) (interpreting 19 CFR 

353.22(e), the old antidumping 

regulation on automatic assessment, 

which is identical to the current 

regulation, 19 CFR 351.212(c)(ii)(2)). 

Therefore, the cash deposit rates for all 

companies except those covered by 

these reviews will be unchanged by the 

results of these reviews.

We will instruct the CBP to continue 

to collect cash deposits for nonreviewed companies at the most recent 

company-specific or country-wide rate 

applicable to the company. Accordingly, 

the cash deposit rates that will be 

applied to non-reviewed companies 

covered by this order will be the rate for 

that company established in the most 

recently completed administrative 

proceeding. See Notice of Amended 

Final Determinations and Notice of 

Countervailing Duty Orders: Low 

Enriched Uranium from Germany, the 

Netherlands and the United Kingdom, 

67 FR 6688 (February 13, 2002). These 

cash deposit rates shall apply to all nonreviewed companies until a review of a 

company assigned these rates is 

requested. 

Public Comment 

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.224(b), the 

Department will disclose to parties to 

the proceeding any calculations 

performed in connection with these 

preliminary results within five days 

after the date of the public 

announcement of this notice. Pursuant 

to 19 CFR 351.309, interested parties 

may submit written comments in 

response to these preliminary results. 

Unless otherwise indicated by the 

Department, case briefs must be 

submitted within 30 days after the 

publication of these preliminary results. 

Rebuttal briefs, which are limited to 

arguments raised in case briefs, must be 

submitted no later than five days after 

the time limit for filing case briefs, 

unless otherwise specified by the 

Department. Parties who submit 

argument in this proceeding are 

requested to submit with the argument: 

(1) A statement of the issue, and (2) a 

brief summary of the argument. Parties 

submitting case and/or rebuttal briefs 

are requested to provide the Department 

copies of the public version on disk. 

Case and rebuttal briefs must be served 

on interested parties in accordance with 

19 CFR 351.303(f). Also, pursuant to 19 

CFR 351.310, within 30 days of the date 

of publication of this notice, interested 

parties may request a public hearing on 

arguments to be raised in the case and 

rebuttal briefs. Unless the Secretary 

specifies otherwise, the hearing, if 

requested, will be held two days after 

the date for submission of rebuttal 

briefs. 

Representatives of parties to the 

proceeding may request disclosure of 

proprietary information under 

administrative protective order no later 

than 10 days after the representative’s 

client or employer becomes a party to 

the proceeding, but in no event later 

than the date the case briefs, under 19 

CFR 351.309(c)(ii), are due. The 

Department will publish the final 

results of these administrative reviews, 

including the results of its analysis of 

issues raised in any case or rebuttal brief 

or at a hearing. 

These administrative reviews are 

issued and published in accordance 

with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of 

the Act.

Dated: January 29, 2004. 

James J. Jochum, 

Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration.

[FR Doc. 04–2522 Filed 2–4–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[C-427–819]

Preliminary Results of Countervailing 

Duty Administrative Review: Low 

Enriched Uranium from France

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of Preliminary Results of 

Countervailing Duty Administrative 

Review.

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce 

(the Department) is conducting an 

administrative review of the 

countervailing duty order on low 

enriched uranium from France for the 

period May 14, 2001 through December 

31, 20021. For information on the net 

subsidy for the reviewed company, 

please see the ‘‘Preliminary Results of 

Review’’ section of this notice. 

Interested parties are invited to 

comment on these preliminary results. 

(See the ‘‘Public Comment’’ section of 

this notice).

EFFECTIVE DATE: February 5, 2004.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Carrie Farley at (202) 482–0395 or 

Tipten Troidl at (202) 482–1767, Office 

of AD/CVD Enforcement VI, Group II, 

Import Administration, International 

Trade Administration, U.S. Department 

of Commerce, Room 4012, 14th Street 

and Constitution Avenue, N.W., 

Washington, D.C. 20230.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On February 13, 2002, the Department 

published in the Federal Register the 

countervailing duty order on low 

enriched uranium from France. See 

Amended Final Determination and 

Notice of Countervailing Duty Orders: 

Low Enriched Uranium from France, 67 

FR 6689 (February 13, 2002). On 

February 3, 2003, the Department 

published an opportunity to request an 

administrative review of this 

countervailing duty order. See 

Antidumping or Countervailing Duty