[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 24 (Thursday, February 5, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Pages 5498-5502]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-2522]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Petitioners are the United States Enrichment Corporation 
(USEC) and USEC Inc.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 
(UF<INF>6</INF>) with a U<SUP>235</SUP> product assay of less than 20 
percent that has not been converted into another chemical form, such as 
UO<INF>2</INF>, or fabricated into nuclear fuel assemblies,

[[Page 5499]]

regardless of the means by which the LEU is produced (including LEU 
produced through the down-blending of highly enriched uranium).
    Certain merchandise is outside the scope of these orders. 
Specifically, these orders do not cover enriched uranium hexafluoride 
with a U<SUP>235</SUP> 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 (UO<INF>2</INF>), 
whether or not contained in nuclear fuel rods or assemblies. Natural 
uranium concentrates (U<INF>3</INF>O<INF>8</INF>) with a 
U<SUP>235</SUP> concentration of no greater than 0.711 percent and 
natural uranium concentrates converted into uranium hexafluoride with a 
U<SUP>235</SUP> 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 (UO<INF>2</INF>) 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 re-
exported 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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ 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 entries 
of subject merchandise subsequent to the issuance of the final 
results of these administrative reviews.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 non-recurring 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:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN05FE04.000

Where:

    A = Ad Valorem Program Rate.
    B = Subsidy Benefit (in U.S. Dollars).\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ As 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

[[Page 5500]]

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 
non-recurring 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 long-term 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 
agreed-upon 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.

[[Page 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 long-
term 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,

[[Page 5502]]

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 
non-reviewed 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 non-reviewed 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