Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 93 / Monday, May 14, 2001 / Notices 24325

Import Administration, International

Trade Administration, U.S. Department

of Commerce, 14th Street and

Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington,

DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–4033.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Applicable Statute

Unless otherwise indicated, all

citations to the statute are references to

the provisions effective January 1, 1995,

the effective date of the amendments

made to the Tariff Act of 1930 (the Act)

by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act.

In addition, unless otherwise indicated,

all citations to the Department of

Commerce’s (the Department’s)

regulations are to 19 CFR Part 351

(2000).

Background

On March 14, 2001, the Department

published the final results of

administrative review of the

antidumping duty order on gray

portland cement and clinker from

Mexico (66 FR 14889) (Final Results).

The review covered one manufacturer/

exporter and the period August 1, 1998,

through July 31, 1999.

After publication of our final results,

we received a timely allegation from the

respondent, CEMEX, S.A. de C.V.

(CEMEX), that we had made two

ministerial errors in calculating the final

results. CEMEX alleged that: 1) the

Department used an incorrect

conversion factor at one of four places

where the computer program converted

short tons to metric tons; and 2) the

Department did not include the general

and administrative (G&A) and interest

fields for the calculation of constructed

value. We also received a timely

submission from the petitioner, The

Southern Tier Cement Committee, in

which it agreed with the first alleged

ministerial error, but opposed the

second alleged ministerial error. We

agree with the petitioner and have

corrected the first error which was the

result of using an incorrect conversion

factor. As to the second alleged

ministerial error, we disagree with the

respondent that we did not correctly

calculate constructed value. The

respondent proposes to introduce data

which is not on the record in this

review and add it to the programming

language that we used to calculate the

weighted-average margins for the final

results. We conclude that the computerprogramming language we used to

calculate the weighted-average

antidumping duty margin for the final

results does not contain a ministerial

error and correctly calculates

constructed value. See the Amended

Final Analysis Memorandum from the

analyst to the file, dated April 27, 2001,

for a description of the change we made

to correct the conversion-factor error.

Amended Final Results of Review

As a result of the correction of the

ministerial error and amended margin

calculations, the following weightedaverage margin exists for the collapsed

parties, CEMEX and CDC, for the period

August 1, 1998, through July 31, 1999:

Company Margin

(percent)

CEMEX/CDC ............................ 38.65

The Department shall determine, and

the Customs Service shall assess,

antidumping duties on all appropriate

entries. We will also direct the Customs

Service to collect cash deposits of

estimated antidumping duties on all

appropriate entries in accordance with

the procedures discussed in the final

results of review (66 FR 14889) and as

amended by this determination. The

amended deposit requirements are

effective for all shipments of the subject

merchandise entered, or withdrawn

from warehouse, for consumption on or

after the date of publication of this

notice and shall remain in effect until

publication of the final results of the

next administrative review.

We are issuing and publishing this

determination and notice in accordance

with sections 751(h) and 777(i)(1) of the

Act. Effective January 20, 2001, Bernard

T. Carreau is fulfilling the duties of the

Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

Dated: May 4, 2001.

Bernard T. Carreau,

Deputy Assistant Secretary, Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 01–12065 Filed 5–11–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[C–427–819]

Notice of Preliminary Affirmative

Countervailing Duty Determination and

Alignment with Final Antidumping

Duty Determination: Low Enriched

Uranium from France

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of Preliminary

Affirmative Countervailing Duty

Determination.

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 14, 2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Michael Grossman at (202) 482–2786,

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.

Preliminary Determination

The Department of Commerce (the

Department) preliminarily determines

that countervailable subsidies are being

provided to certain producers and

exporters of low enriched uranium

(subject merchandise) from France. For

information on the estimated

countervailing duty rates, please see the

‘‘Suspension of Liquidation’’ section of

this notice.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Petitioners

The petition in this investigation was

filed by USEC Inc., its wholly owned

subsidiary, United States Enrichment

Corporation (USEC) and the Paper,

Allied-Industrial, Chemical and Energy

Workers International Union, AFL-CIO,

CLC, and Local 5–550 and Local 5–689

(collectively PACE) (the petitioners).

Case History

Since the publication of the notice of

initiation in the Federal Register (see

Notice of Initiation of Countervailing

Duty Investigations: Low Enriched

Uranium from France, Germany, the

Netherlands, and the United Kingdom,

66 FR 1085 (January 5, 2001) (Initiation

Notice)), the following events have

occurred: On January 11, 2001, we

issued countervailing duty

questionnaires to the Government of

France (GOF) and to Eurodif, S.A.

(Eurodif), the producer/exporter of

subject merchandise cited in the

December 7, 2000 petition. On March

20, 2001, we received questionnaire

responses from Eurodif, S.A. and its

majority owner, Compagnie Generale

des Matieres Nucleaires (COGEMA), and

the GOF. COGEMA acts as a sales agent

for Eurodif’s exports to the United

States. On March 27 and April 10, 2001,

we issued supplemental questionnaires

to Eurodif/COGEMA and the GOF

(collectively respondents). On April 26,

2001, we issued an additional

supplemental questionnaire to Eurodif/

COGEMA. On April 5 (amended on

April 9), April 25, and May 1, 2001, we

received supplemental questionnaire

responses from respondents.

On February 21, 2001, we issued an

extension of the due date for this

preliminary determination from March

2, 2001 to May 7, 2001. See Low

Enriched Uranium from France,

24326 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 93 / Monday, May 14, 2001 / Notices

Germany, the Netherlands, and the

United Kingdom: Extension of Time

Limit for Preliminary Determinations in

Countervailing Duty Investigations, 66

FR 11000 (February 21, 2001)

(Extension Notice).

On May 3, 2001, consultations in

accordance with Article 13.2 of the

Agreement on Subsidies and

Countervailing Measures were held in

Geneva, Switzerland with the

Government of France and the

Delegation of the European

Commission.

In the Initiation Notice, we invited

interested parties to comment on the

scope of these investigations. We

received comments from respondents on

January 17, 2001, and from petitioners

on January 23, 2001. In addition, we

received comments from the Ad Hoc

Utilities Group, an industrial user/

consumer, on April 5, 2001. Our

analysis of these comments can be

found in the May 7, 2001 Public

Memorandum to Bernard Carreau

entitled Low Enriched Uranium from

France, Germany, the Netherlands and

the United Kingdom; Comments on the

Scope of the Investigations, on file in

the Central Records Unit, Room B–099,

of the Main Commerce Building.

On April 27, 2001, petitioners

submitted a new subsidy allegation

stemming from Eurodif’s contract with

Electricite de France (EdF). Due to the

lateness of the allegation, we have not

yet had an opportunity to fully review

petitioners’ allegation and decide

whether to initiate an investigation. We

will address it after this determination.

If we decide to initiate on this

allegation, then prior to making our

final determination, we will issue a

preliminary analysis memorandum

regarding this allegation and allow the

parties to comment.

Scope of the Investigation

For purposes of this investigation, the

product covered is low enriched

uranium (LEU). LEU is enriched

uranium hexafluoride (UF6) with a U235

product assay of less than 20 percent

that has not been converted into another

chemical form, such as UO2, or

fabricated into nuclear fuel assemblies,

regardless of the means by which the

LEU is produced (including LEU

produced through the down-blending of

highly enriched uranium).

Certain merchandise is outside the

scope of this investigation. Specifically,

this investigation 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 investigation. For

purposes of this investigation, 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 the

investigation.

The merchandise subject to this

investigation 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 U.S. Customs

purposes, the written description of the

merchandise under investigation is

dispositive.

In the Initiation Notice we invited

parties to comment on scope issues

raised by this investigation. These

comments are addressed in a scope

memo dated May 7, 2001. However, to

the extent that some of the comments on

scope issues re-argue the determination

of industry support for the petition, we

draw parties attention to Section

702(c)(4)(E) and 732(c)(4)(E) which

states in pertinent part: ‘‘after the

administering authority makes a

determination with respect to initiating

an investigation, the determination

regarding industry support shall not be

reconsidered.’’

The Applicable Statute and Regulations

Unless otherwise indicated, all

citations to the statute are references to

the provisions effective January 1, 1995,

the effective date of the amendments

made to the Tariff Act of 1930 (the Act)

by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act

(URAA). In addition, unless otherwise

indicated, all citations to the

Department’s regulations are to the

regulations codified at 19 CFR part 351

(2000).

Injury Test

Because France is a ‘‘Subsidy

Agreement Country’’ within the

meaning of section 701(b) of the Act, the

International Trade Commission (ITC) is

required to determine whether imports

of the subject merchandise from France

materially injure or threaten material

injury to a U.S. industry. On January 31,

2001, the ITC published its preliminary

determination finding that there is a

reasonable indication that an industry

in the United States is being materially

injured, or threatened with material

injury, by reason of imports from France

of subject merchandise. See Low

Enriched Uranium from France,

Germany, the Netherlands and the

United Kingdom, 66 FR 8424 (January

31, 2001).

Alignment With Final Antidumping

Duty Determination

On May 4, 2001, petitioners submitted

a letter requesting alignment of the final

determination in this investigation with

the final determination in the

companion antidumping duty

investigation. Therefore, in accordance

with section 705(a)(1) of the Act, we are

aligning the final determination in this

investigation with the final

determination in the antidumping duty

investigation of low enriched uranium

from France.

Period of Investigation

The period of investigation (POI) for

which we are measuring subsidies is

January 1, 1999, through December 31,

1999.

Company History

Eurodif was formed in 1973 by French

and foreign government agencies to

provide a secure source of LEU, in order

to facilitate the development of nuclear

energy programs in participating

countries. During the POI, Eurodif was

44.65 percent-owned by COGEMA,

which itself is principally owned by a

subsidiary of the Commissariat

d’Energie Atomique (CEA), an agency of

the GOF. Further, Eurodif was 25

percent-owned by SOFIDIF, a French

company 60 percent-owned by

COGEMA, thereby effectively placing

COGEMA’s ownership of Eurodif during

the POI at approximately 60 percent.

The remaining major shareholders of

Eurodif during the POI were ENUSA, an

entity of the Spanish government,

SYNATOM, an entity of the Belgian

government, and ENEA, an entity of the

Italian government.

Programs Preliminarily Determined To

Confer Subsidies

1. Purchase at Prices That Constitute

‘‘More Than Adequate Remuneration’’

Eurodif provides low enriched

uranium to EdF. EdF is a wholly-owned

French government agency that

supplies, imports and exports

electricity. EdF is regulated by the Gas,

Electricity and Coal Department of the

Ministry of Industry (DIGEC) and the

Budget and Treasury Departments of the

Ministry of France. EdF is the

predominant supplier of electricity in

France, having provided 94 percent of

the total electricity generated in France

in 1998. EdF’s nuclear facilities account

for approximately 75 percent of the

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 93 / Monday, May 14, 2001 / Notices 24327

1Respondents have cited several U.S. court cases

in which USEC is claimed to have represented itself

as a service provider, rather than a producer of

goods. None of the cited cases pertain to the AD/

CVD law. Rather, these cases pertain to different

laws which have separate and distinct purposes

from that of the AD/CVD law. Moreover, the parties’

own characterizations of their activities in other

contexts does not establish how the Department is

to examine such activities for purposes of the AD/

CVD law. Respondents also contend that USEC

identifies itself as an ‘‘enrichment service provider’’

in a number of other fora, including in submissions

made to the Department in the context of the

suspended antidumping duty investigation on

uranium from Kazakhstan. Regardless of how a

party has characterized itself in the past in other

contexts, the Department is charged with

determining whether the manufacturer’s activities

qualify to establish it as the producer of the subject

merchandise and must reach that determination on

the record before it.

power supplied by EdF. To date, EdF

has entered into three long-term

contracts with Eurodif to secure LEU.

The first contract was negotiated in

1975; Eurodif began enrichment at its

Georges-Besse gaseous diffusion facility

in 1979.

Petitioners have alleged that the GOF,

through EdF, purchased LEU from

Eurodif at prices that constitute ‘‘more

than adequate remuneration’’ under

section 771(5)(E)(iv) of the Act.

Petitioners have alleged that the prices

paid by EdF were established to cover

Eurodif’s depreciation charges on the

Georges-Besse plant, and to provide

Eurodif with a stable cash flow to help

meet its financial obligations.

Respondents have argued that, as

alleged, the subsidy relates to the

provision of services, not the purchase

of goods. Therefore, any such subsidy,

were it to exist, would not be

countervailable. In this context,

respondents assert that Congress, the

courts, and USEC itself have recognized

that USEC (and its predecessors) is a

service provider.1 Absent any difference

between the operations of USEC and

Eurodif, respondents assert that Eurodif

is merely a service provider, like USEC.

In our determination of industry

support at the time of initiation of this

investigation, we found that USEC is the

producer of LEU because of the nature

and extent of its manufacturing

operations. See Memorandum for Holly

A. Kuga entitled Determination of

Industry Support for the Antidumping

and Countervailing Duty Petitions on

Low Enriched Uranium from France,

Germany, the Netherlands, and the

United Kingdom (December 27, 2000).

In accordance with section 702(c)(4)(E)

of the Act, the Department cannot

revisit a determination of industry

support after initiation. Further, we

noted that the Department bases its

determination of who qualifies as a

producer upon an examination of a

company’s production operations, not

the particular configuration of the sales.

For purposes of this determination, we

accept Eurodif’s assertion that its

operations are no different from those of

USEC. Therefore, we preliminarily find

that Eurodif is the producer of LEU, the

product subject to this investigation.

We preliminarily determine that

EdF’s purchases from Eurodif constitute

a government financial contribution

because EdF is wholly-owned and

controlled by the GOF. This treatment of

EdF is consistent with our policy with

respect to the treatment of governmentowned utility companies. See, e.g., the

Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty

Determination: Certain Cut-to-Length

Carbon-Quality Steel Plate from the

Republic of Korea, 64 FR 73176

(December 29, 1999) and Final

Affirmative Countervailing Duty

Determination: Steel Wire Rod from

Venezuela, 62 FR 55014 (October 22,

1997). In addition, because this program

is available only to Eurodif, we

preliminarily determine that this

program is specific under section

771(5A)(D)(i) of the Act. Because the

government is purchasing a good from

Eurodif, a financial contribution is being

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

the Act.

Next, we must determine whether a

benefit is provided to Eurodif under this

program. Under section 771(5)(E)(iv) of

the Act, a countervailable benefit may

be provided by a government’s purchase

of a good for ‘‘more than adequate

remuneration.’’ Under section

771(5)(E)(iv) of the Act, the adequacy of

remuneration will be determined in

relation to the prevailing market

conditions for the goods being

purchased in the country which is

subject to investigation. Therefore, in

order to determine whether the prices

paid by EdF constitute ‘‘more than

adequate remuneration,’’ we must

compare the prices paid by EdF to

Eurodif with the prices paid to Eurodif

by its other customers.

Due to the difference in the pricing

structure between Eurodif and EdF, as

compared with the pricing between

Eurodif and its other customers, it is

important to make certain adjustments

to our comparison. Unlike most other

customers, EdF provides its own energy

for Eurodif to use when producing LEU

for EdF. Eurodif pays EdF for the energy

it uses and re-bills EdF an identical

amount. Respondents state that this

billing procedure for energy is done

simply for tax purposes and argue that

the actual prices paid by EdF for LEU

cover the costs of operation only, not

energy costs. Other customers that do

not provide their own electricity simply

pay one price, which takes into account

both operational and energy costs. In

order to make a proper comparison to

the prices paid by other customers to

Eurodif, the Department has included

both operational and energy prices paid

by EdF in order to determine the prices

paid by EdF.

As part of the arrangement for

obtaining LEU, customers often provide

an amount of natural uranium equal to

that which went into the LEU they are

purchasing. The record does not contain

information on the value of the natural

uranium provided by EdF or other

customers to Eurodif. Therefore, for

purposes of this comparison, we have

assumed that the value of all natural

uranium is the same, regardless of the

customer. Thus, in making the

comparison we have not included a

value for the natural uranium

component of the LEU purchased by

EdF. Additionally, to ensure that our

benchmark is representative of market

conditions, we used prices paid by

Eurodif’s customers which are not

Eurodif shareholders.

In order to determine whether a

benefit was provided to Eurodif during

the POI, we compared the price paid to

Eurodif by EdF during the POI with the

weighted-average price paid to Eurodif

by its non-shareholder customers during

the POI. Based on our analysis, we

preliminarily determine that prices paid

by EdF to Eurodif were higher than

prices Eurodif received from its nonshareholder customers. Therefore, in

accordance with section 771(5)(E)(iv) of

the Act, we preliminarily determine that

this program conferred countervailable

benefits to Eurodif during the POI.

Because EdF’s purchases of this

product from Eurodif are not

exceptional but, rather, are made on an

ongoing basis from year to year, we

determine that the benefit conferred

under this program is recurring under

section 351.524(c) of the CVD

Regulations. Therefore, the benefit is

expensed in the year of receipt, i.e., the

year in which the purchases are made.

To calculate the benefit conferred to

Eurodif, we multiplied the calculated

price differential by the quantity of

separative work units (SWUs)

component of the LEU purchased from

Eurodif by EdF during the POI.

Although the cash component of EdF’s

LEU purchases was paid on a ‘‘perSWU’’ basis, the contracts also

contained provisions for the natural

uranium component of the LEU as well

as the electricity used by Eurodif in the

production of EdF’s LEU. Because we

have determined that the value of the

natural uranium component of the LEU

is equal for both EdF and Eurodif’s other

24328 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 93 / Monday, May 14, 2001 / Notices

customers, as stated above, we did not

need to calculate a price differential for

the natural uranium component of the

LEU. Rather, the natural uranium

component of the LEU purchased by

different classes of customers cancelled

each other out.

Next, we divided this result by

Eurodif’s adjusted total sales during the

POI. Based on our review of the

responses, it appears as though

respondents did not report a value for

the natural uranium component of

certain LEU sales. Therefore, in order to

determine more accurately the level of

subsidy applicable to the subject

merchandise, we have estimated a value

for this component. Based on

petitioners’ estimation that the

enrichment component accounts for 60

percent of the value of LEU, we have

increased the reported sales value to

include an estimated value for the

natural uranium component. We

recognize that this is an estimate of the

value of LEU sold by respondents. We

intend to seek additional information

from respondents prior to our final

determination. On this basis, we

preliminarily determine a net

countervailable subsidy under this

program of 13.62 percent ad valorem for

Eurodif.

2. Exoneration/Reimbursement of

Corporate Income Taxes

Under a specific governmental

agreement entered into upon Eurodif’s

creation, Eurodif is only liable for

income taxes on the portion of its

income relating to the percentage of its

private ownership. Eurodif is fully

exonerated from payment of corporate

income taxes corresponding to the

percentage of its foreign government

ownership and is eligible for a

reimbursement of the amount of

corporate income taxes corresponding to

its percentage of French government

ownership. Based on this governmental

agreement, Eurodif was exonerated from

a portion of its 1998 corporate income

taxes filed during the POI. This tax

exemption is a financial contribution

within the meaning of section

771(5)(D)(ii) of the Act. Further, because

the tax exemption is limited to Eurodif,

the benefit is specific in accordance

with section 771(5A)(D)(i) of the Act.

Therefore, we preliminarily determine

that the exoneration of income taxes

under this program is countervailable.

As noted above, Eurodif was also

eligible for a reimbursement of the

amount of income taxes corresponding

to its percentage of French government

ownership. Eurodif reported that the

portion of its taxes attributable to

French government ownership was paid

in 1999, but was not reimbursed until

2000, which is outside the POI. In

addition, Eurodif reported that it did not

receive any reimbursements of corporate

income taxes during the POI for any

taxes previously paid. Therefore, we

preliminarily determine that Eurodif did

not receive a benefit during the POI

with respect to the portion of its income

tax corresponding to French government

ownership.

To calculate the benefit conferred

upon Eurodif from the exoneration part

of this program, we took the amount of

exonerated taxes and divided by

Eurodif’s total sales during the POI,

adjusted as noted in the ‘‘Purchase at

Prices that Constitute ‘‘More Than

Adequate Remuneration’’’ section,

above. On this basis, we preliminarily

determine a net countervailable subsidy

to Eurodif from this program of 0.32

percent ad valorem.

Verification

In accordance with section 782(i) of

the Act, we will verify the information

submitted by respondents prior to

making our final determination.

Suspension of Liquidation

In accordance with section

703(d)(1)(A)(i) of the Act, we have

calculated an individual rate for

Eurodif, the only company under

investigation. We preliminarily

determine that the total estimated net

countervailable subsidy rate is 13.94

percent ad valorem. The All Others rate

is 13.94 percent ad valorem, which is

the rate calculated for Eurodif.

In accordance with section 703(d) of

the Act, we are directing the U.S.

Customs Service to suspend liquidation

of all entries of the subject merchandise

from France, which are entered or

withdrawn from warehouse, for

consumption on or after the date of the

publication of this notice in the Federal

Register, and to require a cash deposit

or bond for such entries of the

merchandise in the amounts indicated

above. This suspension will remain in

effect until further notice.

ITC Notification

In accordance with section 703(f) of

the Act, we will notify the ITC of our

determination. In addition, we are

making available to the ITC all nonprivileged and nonproprietary

information relating to this

investigation. We will allow the ITC

access to all privileged and business

proprietary information in our files,

provided the ITC confirms that it will

not disclose such information, either

publicly or under an administrative

protective order, without the written

consent of the Assistant Secretary for

Import Administration.

In accordance with section 705(b)(2)

of the Act, if our final determination is

affirmative, the ITC will make its final

determination within 45 days after the

Department makes its final

determination.

Public Comment

In accordance with 19 CFR § 351.310,

we will hold a public hearing, if

requested, to afford interested parties an

opportunity to comment on this

preliminary determination. Any

requested hearing will be tentatively

scheduled to be held 57 days from the

date of publication of the preliminary

determination at the U.S. Department of

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230.

Individuals who wish to request a

hearing must submit a written request

within 30 days of the publication of this

notice in the Federal Register to the

Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration, U.S. Department of

Commerce, Room 1870, 14th Street and

Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington,

DC 20230. Parties should confirm by

telephone the time, date, and place of

the hearing 48 hours before the

scheduled time.

Requests for a public hearing should

contain: (1) The party’s name, address,

and telephone number; (2) the number

of participants; and, (3) to the extent

practicable, an identification of the

arguments to be raised at the hearing. In

addition, six copies of the business

proprietary version and six copies of the

non-proprietary version of the case

briefs must be submitted to the

Assistant Secretary no later than 50 days

from the date of publication of the

preliminary determination. As part of

the case brief, parties are encouraged to

provide a summary of the arguments not

to exceed five pages and a table of

statutes, regulations, and cases cited.

Six copies of the business proprietary

version and six copies of the nonproprietary version of the rebuttal briefs

must be submitted to the Assistant

Secretary no later than 5 days from the

date of filing of the case briefs. An

interested party may make an

affirmative presentation only on

arguments included in that party’s case

or rebuttal briefs. Written arguments

should be submitted in accordance with

19 CFR 351.309 and will be considered

if received within the time limits

specified above.

This determination is published

pursuant to sections 703(f) and 777(i) of

the Act. Effective January 20, 2001,

Bernard T. Carreau is fulfilling the

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 93 / Monday, May 14, 2001 / Notices 24329

1Upon the issuance of the questionnaire, we

informed the GOG, GON, and the UKG that it was

their governments’ responsibility to forward the

questionnaires to all producers/exporters that

shipped subject merchandise to the United States

during the period of investigation.

duties of the Assistant Secretary for

Import Administration.

Dated: May 7, 2001.

Bernard T. Carreau,

Deputy Assistant Secretary, Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 01–12063 Filed 5–11–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[C–428–829; C–421–809; C–412–821]

Notice of Preliminary Affirmative

Countervailing Duty Determinations

and Alignment With Final Antidumping

Duty Determinations: Low Enriched

Uranium From Germany, the

Netherlands, and the United Kingdom

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of Preliminary

Affirmative Countervailing Duty

Determination.

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 14, 2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Robert Copyak (Germany) at (202) 482–

2209, Stephanie Moore (the

Netherlands) at (202) 482–3692, and

Eric B. Greynolds (United Kingdom) at

(202) 482–6071, 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.

Preliminary Determination

The Department of Commerce (the

Department) preliminarily determines

that countervailable subsidies are being

provided to producers and exporters of

low enriched uranium (subject

merchandise) from Germany, the

Netherlands, and the United Kingdom.

For information on the estimated

countervailing duty rates, please see the

‘‘Suspension of Liquidation’’ section of

this notice.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Petitioners

The petition in this investigation was

filed by USEC Inc., its wholly-owned

subsidiary, United States Enrichment

Corporation (USEC), and Paper, AlliedIndustrial, Chemical and Energy

Workers International Union, AFL–CIO,

CLC, and Local 5–550 and Local 5–689

(collectively PACE) (the petitioners).

Case History

Since the publication of the notice of

initiation in the Federal Register (see

Notice of Initiation of Countervailing

Duty Investigations: Low Enriched

Uranium from France, Germany, the

Netherlands, and the United Kingdom,

66 FR 1085 (January 5, 2001) (Initiation

Notice)), the following events have

occurred: Beginning on January 16,

2001, we issued countervailing duty

questionnaires to the Government of

Germany (GOG), the Government of the

Netherlands (GON), and the

Government of the United Kingdom

(UKG).1 Beginning on March 22, 2001,

we received questionnaire responses

from Urenco Deutschland GmbH of

Germany (Urenco Deutschland), Urenco

Nederland BV of the Netherlands (UNL),

and Urenco (Capenhurst) Limited

(UCL), the GOG, the GON, and the UKG

(collectively referred to as respondents).

Beginning on April 9, 2001, we issued

supplemental questionnaires to

respondents. Beginning on April 23,

2001, we received supplemental

questionnaire responses from

respondents.

On February 21, 2001, we issued an

extension of the due date for this

preliminary determination from March

2, 2001 to May 7, 2001. See Low

Enriched Uranium from France,

Germany, the Netherlands, and the

United Kingdom: Extension of Time

Limit for Preliminary Determinations in

Countervailing Duty Investigations, 66

FR 11000 (February 21, 2001)

(Extension Notice).

On May 3, 2001, consultations in

accordance with Article 13.2 of the

Agreement on Subsidies and

Countervailing Measures were held in

Geneva, Switzerland with the

Governments of Germany, the

Netherlands, the United Kingdom, and

the Delegation of the European

Commission.

In our Initiation Notice, we invited

interested parties to comment on the

scope of these investigations. We

received comments from respondents on

January 17, 2001, and from petitioners

on January 23, 2001. In addition, we

received comments from the Ad Hoc

Utilities Group, an industrial user/

consumer, on April 5, 2001. Our

analysis of these comments can be

found in the May 7, 2001 Public

Memorandum to Bernard Carreau,

entitled Low Enriched Uranium from

France, Germany, the Netherlands and

the United Kingdom; Comments on the

Scope of the Investigations, on file in

the Central Records Unit, room B–099,

of the Main Commerce Building.

Petitioners’ New Subsidy Allegations

On April 23, 2001, petitioners

submitted a new subsidy allegation

involving Urenco Deutschland, UNL,

and UCL (collectively referred to as the

Urenco Group). In their submission,

they alleged that the one-third

ownership obtained by British Nuclear

Fuels Limited (BNFL) and UltraCentrifuge Nederland (UCN) along with

the shareholder loans made by the two

government-owned companies

constituted equity infusions into the

Urenco Group, which they assert was

unequityworthy at the time the alleged

infusions were made. In support of their

allegation, petitioners cite to various

annual reports of BNFL, UCN, and

Uranitisotopentrennungsgeselleschaft

mbH (Uranit) (the privately-held

German arm of the Urenco Group) as

well as several corporate studies which

they claim indicated a bleak outlook for

the LEU industry in the years preceding

the impending merger. In addition,

petitioners claim that, prior to the

merger there was no objective evidence

before BNFL or UCN indicating that the

planned restructuring and merger would

do anything to improve the efficiency

and financial prospects of the

companies involved. On this basis,

petitioners request that the Department

investigate whether the investments

constituted countervailable equity

infusions into an unequityworthy

company.

We have determined not to initiate an

investigation of this allegation. As

discussed in further detail below in the

‘‘Urenco Group Corporate History’’

section, immediately preceding the

creation of the Urenco Group, the

enrichment operations were controlled

by BNFL in the United Kingdom, UCN

in the Netherlands, and Uranit in

Germany. Both BNFL and UCN were

owned and controlled by their

respective governments while Uranit

was privately-held. On September 1,

1993, pursuant to the terms of the

merger agreement, BNFL, UCN, and

Uranit transferred their enrichment

operations to the Urenco Group. In

return, BNFL, UCN, and Uranit each

received a one-third ownership interest

in the Urenco Group. Thus, based on the

information submitted by respondents,

we find that this aspect of the merger

did not constitute an equity infusion but

rather represented a restructuring of the

Urenco Group in which the three

companies, BNFL, UCN, and Uranit,