26600 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 90 / Thursday, May 10, 2007 / Notices 

merchandise covered by this review and 

future deposits of estimated duties shall 

be based on the final results of this 

review. 

Assessment Rates 

Upon issuance of the final results, the 

Department will determine, and CBP 

shall assess, antidumping duties on all 

appropriate entries. The Department 

intends to issue assessment instructions 

to CBP 15 days after the date of 

publication of the final results of 

review. If these preliminary results are 

adopted in our final results of review, 

the Department shall determine, and 

CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on 

all appropriate entries. Pursuant to 19 

CFR 351.212(b)(1), we will calculate 

importer–specific (or customer) ad 

valorem duty assessment rates based on 

the ratio of the total amount of the 

dumping margins calculated for the 

examined sales to the total entered 

value of those same sales. We will 

instruct CBP to assess antidumping 

duties on all appropriate entries covered 

by this review if any importer–specific 

assessment rate calculated in the final 

results of this review is above de 

minimis. 

Cash Deposit Requirements 

The following cash deposit 

requirements, when imposed, will be 

effective upon publication of the final 

results of this administrative review for 

all shipments of the subject 

merchandise entered, or withdrawn 

from warehouse, for consumption on or 

after the publication date, as provided 

for by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) 

For previously investigated or reviewed 

PRC and non–PRC exporters not listed 

above that have separate rates, the cash 

deposit rate will continue to be the 

exporter–specific rate published for the 

most recent period; (2) for all PRC 

exporters of subject merchandise which 

have not been found to be entitled to a 

separate rate, the cash deposit rate will 

be the PRC–wide rate of 108.30 percent; 

and (3) the cash deposit rate for all non–

PRC exporters (including Deseado) of 

subject merchandise which have not 

received their own rate, the cash deposit 

rate will be the rate applicable to the 

PRC exporters that supplied that non–

PRC exporter. These deposit 

requirements, when imposed, shall 

remain in effect until publication of the 

final results of the next administrative 

review. 

Notification to Importers 

This notice serves as a preliminary 

reminder to importers of their 

responsibility under 19 CFR 

351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate 

regarding the reimbursement of 

antidumping duties prior to liquidation 

of the relevant entries during this 

review period. Failure to comply with 

this requirement could result in the 

Secretary’s presumption that 

reimbursement of antidumping duties 

occurred and the subsequent assessment 

of double antidumping duties. 

We are issuing and publishing this 

determination in accordance with 

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

Act. 

Dated: May 2, 2007 

David A. Spooner, 

Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. E7–9040 Filed 5–9–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–557–813] 

Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from 

Malaysia: Preliminary Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: In response to a request from 

an interested party, the Department of 

Commerce (the Department) is 

conducting an administrative review of 

the antidumping duty order on 

polyethylene retail carrier bags (PRCBs) 

from Malaysia. The review covers one 

manufacturer/exporter. The period of 

review is August 1, 2005, through July 

31, 2006. We have preliminarily 

determined that sales have not been 

made below normal value by the 

company subject to this review. We 

invite interested parties to comment on 

these preliminary results. Parties who 

submit comments in this review are 

requested to submit with each argument 

a statement of each issue and a brief 

summary of the argument. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 10, 2007. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Yang Jin Chun or Richard Rimlinger, 

AD/CVD Operations, Office 5, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; 

telephone: (202) 482–5760 and (202) 

482–4477, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On August 9, 2004, we published in 

the Federal Register the antidumping 

duty order on PRCBs from Malaysia. See 

Antidumping Duty Order: Polyethylene 

Retail Carrier Bags From Malaysia, 69 

FR 48203 (August 9, 2004). On August 

1, 2006, we published in the Federal 

Register a notice of opportunity to 

request an administrative review of the 

antidumping duty order on PRCBs from 

Malaysia. See Antidumping or 

Countervailing Duty Order, Findings, or 

Suspended Investigation; Opportunity 

to Request Administrative Review, 71 

FR 43441 (August 1, 2006). Pursuant to 

section 751(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930, 

as amended (the Act), and 19 CFR 

351.213(b), Euro Plastics Malaysia Sdn. 

Bhd. (Euro Plastics) requested an 

administrative review of the 

antidumping duty order on PRCBs from 

Malaysia on August 8, 2006. On 

September 29, 2006, in accordance with 

section 751(a) of the Act and 19 CFR 

351.221(c)(1)(i), we published a notice 

of initiation of administrative review of 

this order. See Initiation of 

Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 

Administrative Reviews, 71 FR 57465 

(September 29, 2006). We are 

conducting an administrative review of 

the order on PRCBs from Malaysia for 

Euro Plastics for the period August 1, 

2005, through July 31, 2006. 

Scope of Order 

The merchandise subject to this 

antidumping duty order is PRCBs which 

may be referred to as t–shirt sacks, 

merchandise bags, grocery bags, or 

checkout bags. The subject merchandise 

is defined as non–sealable sacks and 

bags with handles (including 

drawstrings), without zippers or integral 

extruded closures, with or without 

gussets, with or without printing, of 

polyethylene film having a thickness no 

greater than 0.035 inch (0.889 mm) and 

no less than 0.00035 inch (0.00889 mm), 

and with no length or width shorter 

than 6 inches (15.24 cm) or longer than 

40 inches (101.6 cm). The depth of the 

bag may be shorter than 6 inches but not 

longer than 40 inches (101.6 cm). 

PRCBs are typically provided without 

any consumer packaging and free of 

charge by retail establishments, e.g., 

grocery, drug, convenience, department, 

specialty retail, discount stores, and 

restaurants, to their customers to 

package and carry their purchased 

products. The scope of the order 

excludes (1) polyethylene bags that are 

not printed with logos or store names 

and that are closeable with drawstrings 

made of polyethylene film and (2) 

polyethylene bags that are packed in 

consumer packaging with printing that 

refers to specific end–uses other than 

packaging and carrying merchandise 

from retail establishments, e.g., garbage 

bags, lawn bags, trash–can liners. 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 90 / Thursday, May 10, 2007 / Notices 26601 

1The Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bag Committee 

and its individual members, Hilex Poly Co., LLC, 

and Superbag Corporation. 

Imports of the subject merchandise 

are currently classifiable under 

statistical category 3923.21.0085 of the 

Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the 

United States (HTSUS). This 

subheading also covers products that are 

outside the scope of the order. 

Furthermore, although the HTSUS 

subheading is provided for convenience 

and customs purposes, the written 

description of the scope of this order is 

dispositive. 

Verification 

As provided in section 782(i) of the 

Act, we have verified Euro Plastics’s 

home–market and U.S. sales 

information using standard verification 

procedures, including on–site 

inspection of the manufacturer’s 

facilities, the examination of relevant 

sales and financial records, and the 

selection of original documentation 

containing relevant information. Our 

verification results are outlined in the 

public version of the verification report 

dated May 2, 2007, which is on file in 

the Central Records Unit (CRU), room 

B–099 of the main Department of 

Commerce building. 

Duty–Absorption Determination 

On October 30, 2006, the petitioners1

in this proceeding requested that the 

Department determine whether 

antidumping duties have been absorbed 

by Euro Plastics, pursuant to 19 CFR 

351.213(j). In making a duty–absorption 

determination, the Department will 

determine whether antidumping duties 

have been absorbed by a producer or 

exporter subject to the review if the 

subject merchandise is sold in the 

United States through an importer that 

is affiliated with such producer or 

exporter. See section 751(a)(4) of the Act 

and 19 CFR 351.213(j). Euro Plastics 

made export–price sales only to the 

United States during the period of 

review and the company did not make 

any of its U.S. sales through an affiliated 

importer. Therefore, a duty–absorption 

determination is not relevant for Euro 

Plastics for this review and we will not 

make such a determination in this 

review. 

Export Price 

To determine whether sales of PRCBs 

from Malaysia to the United States were 

made at prices less than normal value, 

we compared the U.S. price to the 

normal value. For the price of sales by 

Euro Plastics to the United States, we 

used export price as defined in section 

772(a) of the Act because the subject 

merchandise was first sold to an 

unaffiliated purchaser in the United 

States. We calculated Euro Plastics’s 

export price based on the prices of the 

subject merchandise sold to unaffiliated 

customers in, or for exportation to, the 

United States. See section 772(c) of the 

Act. We made deductions for domestic 

movement expenses incurred in 

Malaysia and domestic and 

international movement expenses 

incurred for sales to the United States in 

accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of 

the Act. 

Comparison–Market Sales 

In order to determine whether there 

was a sufficient volume of sales in the 

comparison market to serve as a viable 

basis for calculating the normal value, 

we compared the volume of home–

market sales of the foreign like product 

to the volume of the U.S. sales of the 

subject merchandise in accordance with 

section 773(a) of the Act. Based on this 

comparison of the aggregate quantities 

of the comparison–market (i.e., 

Malaysia) and U.S. sales and absent any 

information that a particular market 

situation in the exporting country did 

not permit a proper comparison, we 

determined that the quantity of the 

foreign like product sold by the 

respondent in the exporting country was 

sufficient to permit a proper comparison 

with the sales of the subject 

merchandise to the United States, 

pursuant to section 773(a)(1) of the Act. 

Thus, we determined that Euro 

Plastics’s home market was viable 

during the period of review. See section 

773(a)(1) of the Act. Therefore, in 

accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) 

of the Act, we based normal value for 

the respondent on the prices at which 

the foreign like product was first sold 

for consumption in the exporting 

country in the usual commercial 

quantities and in the ordinary course of 

trade and, to the extent practicable, at 

the same level of trade as the 

comparison–market sales. 

Cost of Production 

The petitioners in this proceeding 

filed an allegation that Euro Plastics 

made sales below its cost of production 

(COP) in the comparison market 

pursuant to section 773(b) of the Act. 

Based on the information in the 

responses, we found that we had 

reasonable grounds to believe or suspect 

that Euro Plastics’s sales of the foreign 

like product were made at prices less 

than the COP. See section 773(b)(2) of 

the Act. Therefore, pursuant to section 

773(b)(1) of the Act, we conducted a 

COP investigation to determine whether 

Euro Plastics’s sales were made at prices 

below their COP. See the COP 

Investigation Memo dated January 12, 

2007, for a full discussion of the 

decision to initiate a COP investigation. 

In accordance with section 773(b)(3) 

of the Act, we calculated Euro Plastics’s 

COP based on the sum of the costs of 

materials and fabrication employed in 

producing the foreign like product, the 

selling, general, and administrative 

(SG&A) expenses, and all costs and 

expenses incidental to packing the 

merchandise. In our COP analysis, we 

used the comparison–market sales and 

COP information provided by the 

respondent in its questionnaire 

responses. 

After calculating the COP, we tested 

whether comparison–market sales of the 

foreign like product were made at prices 

below the COP within an extended 

period of time in substantial quantities 

and whether such prices permitted the 

recovery of all costs within a reasonable 

period of time. See section 773(b)(2) of 

the Act. In order to determine whether 

the sales were made at below–cost 

prices, we compared model–specific 

COP to the reported comparison–market 

prices less any applicable movement 

charges, discounts, and rebates. See 

section 773(b) of the Act. 

Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C) of the 

Act, where less than 20 percent of the 

respondent’s sales of a given product 

were at prices less than the COP, we did 

not disregard any below–cost sales of 

that product because we determined 

preliminarily that the below–cost sales 

were not made in substantial quantities. 

Where 20 percent or more of the 

respondent’s sales of a given product 

during the period of review were at 

prices less than the COP, we 

disregarded the below–cost sales 

because we determined preliminarily 

that they were made in substantial 

quantities within an extended period of 

time, pursuant to sections 773(b)(2)(B) 

and (C) of the Act. Based on 

comparisons of prices to weighted–

average COP for the period of review, 

we determined preliminarily that these 

sales were at prices which would not 

permit recovery of all costs within a 

reasonable period of time in accordance 

with section 773(b)(2)(D) of the Act. See 

Euro Plastics Preliminary Analysis 

Memorandum dated May 3, 2007. Based 

on this test, we disregarded Euro 

Plastics’s below–cost sales and used the 

remaining sales as the basis for 

determining normal value, in 

accordance with section 773(b)(1) of the 

Act. 

Euro Plastics relied on its audited 

2005 financial statement to calculate the 

COP because its audited 2006 financial 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with NOTICES
26602 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 90 / Thursday, May 10, 2007 / Notices 

statement was not yet available. Because 

the period of review covers five months 

in 2005 and seven months in 2006, we 

requested that Euro Plastics recalculate 

its general and administrative expenses 

and net interest rates using the audited 

2006 financial statement. We also 

requested that Euro Plastics provide cost 

reconciliations using the audited 2006 

financial statements and supporting 

documents. Euro Plastics stated that its 

audited 2006 financial statement will be 

available at the end of April 2007 and, 

once the audited 2006 financial 

statement becomes available, it will 

resubmit its cost data. For the final 

results, we intend to use Euro Plastics’s 

cost data based on its audited 2006 

financial statement. 

Model–Matching Methodology 

We compared U.S. sales with sales of 

the foreign like product in the home 

market. Specifically, in making our 

comparisons, we used the following 

methodology. If an identical 

comparison–market model was 

reported, we made comparisons to 

weighted–average comparison–market 

prices that were based on all sales 

which passed the COP test of the 

identical product during the relevant or 

contemporary month. If there were no 

contemporaneous sales of an identical 

model, we identified the most similar 

comparison–market model. To 

determine the most similar model, we 

matched the foreign like product based 

on the physical characteristics reported 

by the respondent in the following order 

of importance: (1) quality, (2) bag type, 

(3) length, (4) width, (5) gusset, (6) 

thickness, (7) percentage of high–

density polyethylene resin, (8) 

percentage of low–density polyethylene 

resin, (9) percentage of low linear–

density polyethylene resin, (10) 

percentage of color concentrate, (11) 

percentage of ink coverage, (12) number 

of ink colors, (13) number of sides 

printed. 

Normal Value 

We based normal value for Euro 

Plastics on the prices of the foreign like 

products sold to its comparison–market 

customers. When applicable, we made 

adjustments for differences in packing 

and movement expenses in accordance 

with sections 773(a)(6)(A) and (B) of the 

Act. We also made adjustments for 

differences in cost attributable to 

differences in physical characteristics of 

the merchandise pursuant to section 

773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act and 19 CFR 

351.411. In addition, we made 

adjustments for differences in 

circumstances of sale in accordance 

with section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act 

and 19 CFR 351.410. For comparisons to 

export price, we made circumstance–ofsale adjustments by deducting home–

market direct selling expenses incurred 

on home–market sales from, and adding 

U.S. direct selling expenses to, normal 

value. In accordance with section 

773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, we based 

normal value on sales at the same level 

of trade as the export price. See the 

‘‘Level of Trade’’ section below. 

Level of Trade 

Section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act 

provides that, to the extent practicable, 

the Department will calculate normal 

value based on sales at the same level 

of trade as the export price. The 

normal–value level of trade is that of the 

starting–price sales in the comparison 

market before any adjustments. See 

section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act. Euro 

Plastics reported identical selling 

functions along the chain of distribution 

between the producer and the 

unaffiliated customer in the comparison 

and U.S. markets. We have reviewed the 

selling functions Euro Plastics reported 

including sales forecasting, order input/ 

processing, direct sales personnel, sales/ 

marketing support, freight and delivery, 

and packing. We examined them in 

relation to a number of expenses Euro 

Plastics reported in its responses and 

found no discrepancies. Therefore, we 

determined that Euro Plastics made all 

comparison–market sales at one level of 

trade, all U.S. sales at one level of trade, 

and all comparison–market sales at the 

same level of trade as the export–price 

sales. See sections 773(a)(1)(B)(i) and 

773(a)(7) of the Act. See Euro Plastics 

Preliminary Analysis Memorandum 

dated May 3, 2007, for more analysis. 

Preliminary Results of the Review 

As a result of our review, we 

preliminarily determine that the 

weighted–average dumping margin on 

polyethylene retail carrier bags from 

Malaysia for the period August 1, 2005, 

through July 31, 2006, for Euro Plastics 

is 0.00 percent. 

Comments 

We will disclose the calculations used 

in our analysis to parties to this review 

within five days of the date of 

publication of this notice. See 19 CFR 

351.224(b). Any interested party may 

request a hearing within 30 days of the 

date of publication of this notice. See 19 

CFR 351.310. Interested parties who 

wish to request a hearing or to 

participate in a hearing if a hearing is 

requested must submit a written request 

to the Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration within 30 days of the 

date of publication of this notice. 

Requests should contain the following: 

(1) the party’s name, address, and 

telephone number; (2) the number of 

participants; (3) a list of issues to be 

discussed. See 19 CFR 351.310(c). 

Issues raised in the hearing will be 

limited to those raised in the case and 

rebuttal briefs. See 19 CFR 351.310(c). 

Case briefs from interested parties may 

be submitted not later than 30 days after 

the date of publication of this notice of 

preliminary results of review. See 19 

CFR 351.309(c)(1)(ii). Rebuttal briefs 

from interested parties, limited to the 

issues raised in the case briefs, may be 

submitted not later than five days after 

the time limit for filing the case briefs 

or comments. See 19 CFR 351.309(d)(1) 

and 19 CFR 351.310(c). Any hearing, if 

requested, will be held two days after 

the scheduled date for submission of 

rebuttal briefs. See 19 CFR 351.310(d). 

Parties who submit case briefs or 

rebuttal briefs in this proceeding are 

requested to submit with each argument 

a statement of the issue, a summary of 

the arguments not exceeding five pages, 

and a table of statutes, regulations, and 

cases cited. See 19 CFR 351.309(c)(2). 

The Department will issue the final 

results of this administrative review, 

including the results of its analysis of 

issues raised in any such written briefs 

or at the hearing, if held, not later than 

120 days after the date of publication of 

this notice. See section 751(a)(3)(A) of 

the Act. 

Assessment Rates 

The Department will determine, and 

U.S. Customs and Border Protection 

(CBP) shall assess, antidumping duties 

on all appropriate entries. We intend to 

issue appropriate assessment 

instructions directly to CBP 15 days 

after publication of the final results of 

review. In accordance with 19 CFR 

351.212(b)(1), we have calculated an 

importer–specific assessment amount of 

0.00. If these preliminary results are 

adopted in our final results, we will 

direct CBP to liquidate the appropriate 

entries at this rate. See 19 CFR 

351.212(b)(1). 

The Department clarified its 

‘‘automatic assessment’’ regulation on 

May 6, 2003 (68 FR 23954). This 

clarification will apply to entries of 

subject merchandise during the period 

of review produced by Euro Plastics for 

which it did not know its merchandise 

was destined for the United States. In 

such instances, we will instruct CBP to 

liquidate unreviewed entries at the all–

others rate if there is no rate for the 

intermediate company(ies) involved in 

the transaction. For a full discussion of 

this clarification, see Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Proceedings: 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 90 / Thursday, May 10, 2007 / Notices 26603 

1AREVA was previously known as Compagnie 

Generale des Matieres Nucleaires (‘‘COGEMA’’). 

Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68 

FR 23954 (May 6, 2003). 

Cash–Deposit Requirements 

The following deposit requirements 

will be effective upon publication of the 

notice of final results of administrative 

review for all shipments of PRCBs from 

Malaysia entered, or withdrawn from 

warehouse, for consumption on or after 

the date of publication, as provided by 

section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) The 

cash–deposit rate for Euro Plastics will 

be the rate established in the final 

results of review; (2) for previously 

investigated companies not listed above, 

the cash–deposit rate will continue to be 

the company–specific rate published in 

the Notice of Final Determination of 

Sales at Less Than Fair Value: 

Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags From 

Malaysia, 69 FR 34128, 34129 (June 18, 

2004); (3) if the exporter is not a firm 

covered in this review or the less–thanfair–value investigation but the 

manufacturer is, the cash–deposit rate 

will be the rate established for the most 

recent period for the manufacturer of 

the merchandise; (4) if neither the 

exporter nor the manufacturer has its 

own rate, the cash–deposit rate will be 

84.94 percent, the ‘‘all others’’ rate for 

this proceeding. These deposit 

requirements, when imposed, shall 

remain in effect until further notice. 

Notification to Importer 

This notice also serves as a 

preliminary reminder to importers of 

their responsibility under 19 CFR 

351.402(f) to file a certificate regarding 

the reimbursement of antidumping 

duties prior to liquidation of the 

relevant entries during this review 

period. Failure to comply with this 

requirement could result in the 

Department’s presumption that 

reimbursement of antidumping duties 

occurred and the subsequent assessment 

of doubled antidumping duties. 

These preliminary results of 

administrative review are issued and 

published in accordance with sections 

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

Dated: May 3, 2007. 

David M. Spooner, 

Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. E7–9036 Filed 5–9–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[C–427–819] 

Final Results of Expedited Sunset 

Review: Countervailing Duty Order on 

Low Enriched Uranium from France 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: On January 3, 2007, the 

Department of Commerce (‘‘the 

Department’’) initiated a sunset review 

of the countervailing duty (‘‘CVD’’) 

order on low enriched uranium (‘‘LEU’’) 

from France, pursuant to section 751(c) 

of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended 

(‘‘the Act’’). On the basis of a notice of 

intent to participate and an adequate 

substantive response filed on behalf of 

a domestic interested party and 

inadequate response from respondent 

interested parties (in this case, no 

response), the Department determined 

to conduct an expedited sunset review 

of this CVD order pursuant to section 

751(c)(3)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 

351.218(e)(1)(ii)(B). As a result of this 

sunset review, the Department finds that 

revocation of the CVD order would be 

likely to lead to continuation or 

recurrence of a countervailable subsidy 

at the level indicated in the ‘‘Final 

Results of Review’’ section of this 

notice. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 10, 2007. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Kristen Johnson or Brandon Farlander, 

AD/CVD Operations, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street & Constitution 

Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; 

telephone: (202) 482–4793 or (202) 482–

0182, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On January 3, 2007, the Department 

initiated a sunset review of the CVD 

order on LEU from France pursuant to 

section 751(c) of the Act. See Initiation 

of Five-year (‘‘Sunset’’) Reviews, 72 FR 

100 (January 3, 2007). On January 16, 

2007, the Department received a notice 

of appearance on behalf of Eurodif S.A., 

a French producer of LEU, and its 

affiliated companies, including AREVA, 

an owner of Eurodif, and AREVA NC 

and AREVA NC, Inc., (collectively, 

‘‘Eurodif/AREVA’’).1 Eurodif/AREVA is 

an interested party under section 

771(9)(A) of the Act. On January 18, 

2007, the Department received a notice 

of intent to participate on behalf of 

USEC Inc. and its subsidiary, United 

States Enrichment Corporation 

(collectively, ‘‘USEC’’), a domestic 

interested party. USEC, a domestic 

producer of LEU, is an interested party 

under section 771(9)(C) of the Act. 

On February 2, 2007, the Department 

received a complete substantive 

response from USEC within the 30-day 

deadline specified in 19 CFR 

351.218(d)(3)(i). However, the 

Department did not receive a 

substantive response from any 

government or respondent interested 

party to this proceeding. As a result, 

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

Act and 19 CFR 351.218(e)(1)(ii)(C)(2), 

the Department conducted an expedited 

sunset review of this CVD order. 

Scope of the Order 

The product covered by this order is 

all 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 this order. Specifically, this 

order does not cover enriched uranium 

hexafluoride with a U235 assay of 20 

percent or greater, also known as highly 

enriched uranium. In addition, 

fabricated LEU is not covered by the 

scope of this order. For purposes of this 

order, fabricated uranium is defined as 

enriched uranium dioxide (UO2), 

whether or not contained in nuclear fuel 

rods or assemblies. Natural uranium 

concentrates (U3O8) with a U235

concentration of no greater than 0.711 

percent and natural uranium 

concentrates converted into uranium 

hexafluoride with a U235 concentration 

of no greater than 0.711 percent are not 

covered by the scope of this order. 

Also excluded from this order is LEU 

owned by a foreign utility end–user and 

imported into the United States by or for 

such end–user solely for purposes of 

conversion by a U.S. fabricator into 

uranium dioxide (UO2) and/or 

fabrication into fuel assemblies so long 

as the uranium dioxide and/or fuel 

assemblies deemed to incorporate such 

imported LEU (i) remain in the 

possession and control of the U.S. 

fabricator, the foreign end–user, or their 

designated 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 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with NOTICES