65886 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 246 / Friday, December 21, 2001 / Notices

1The petitioners in these investigations are

USEC, Inc. and its wholly-owned subsidiary,

United States Enrichment Corporation (collectively

deliveries to correct the respondent’s

clerical errors.

(3) We revised the inventory carrying

costs for various U.S. deliveries to

account for the respondent’s clerical

errors.

(4) We adjusted the total cost of

manufacturing reported in the U.S. sales

database to be consistent with changes

made to the total cost of manufacturing

in the constructed value (CV).

(5) To reflect the opportunity cost of

a particular contract provision exercised

by one customer, we calculated an

imputed expense and applied it to the

indirect selling expense ratio of that

customer, for all deliveries to the

customer.

(6) Based on the respondent’s revised

calculation from verification, we

adjusted the home market indirect

selling expense ratio used to calculate

indirect selling expenses added to CV.

(7) We recalculated the defluorination

expenses included in CV based on the

tails produced during the POI.

(8) We excluded purchased LEU from

the calculation of the weighted-average

cost of LEU produced in the POI.

(9) We recalculated the financial

expense rate based on the financial

statements of CEA Industrie, the entity

that consolidates Cogema’s accounts.

(10) We recalculated selling, general

and administrative expenses to include

certain research and development

expenses.

Final Determination of Investigation

We determine that the following

weighted-average percentage dumping

margins exist for the period October 1,

1999, through September 30, 2000:

Manufacturer/exporter Margin

(percent)

Cogema/Eurodif ............................ 19.57

All Others ...................................... 19.57

Continuation of Suspension of

Liquidation

Pursuant to section 735(c)(1)(B) of the

Act, we are instructing the U.S. Customs

Service to continue to suspend

liquidation of all entries of LEU from

France that are entered, or withdrawn

from warehouse, for consumption on or

after July 13, 2001 (the date of

publication of the Preliminary

Determination in the Federal Register).

The Customs Service shall continue to

require a cash deposit or the posting of

a bond equal to the estimated amount by

which the normal value exceeds the

U.S. price as shown above. The

suspension of liquidation instructions

will remain in effect until further notice.

International Trade Commission

Notification

In accordance with section 735(d) of

the Act, we have notified the

International Trade Commission (ITC) of

our determination. As our final

determination is affirmative, the ITC

will determine, within 45 days, whether

imports of subject merchandise are

causing material injury, or threaten

material injury, to an industry in the

United States. If the ITC determines that

material injury or threat of injury does

not exist, the proceedings will be

terminated and all securities posted will

be refunded or canceled. If the ITC

determines that such injury does exist,

the Department will issue an

antidumping order directing Customs

Service officials to assess antidumping

duties on all imports of the subject

merchandise entered, or withdrawn

from warehouse, for consumption on or

after the effective date of the suspension

of liquidation.

This determination is issued and

published in accordance with sections

735(d) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

Dated: December 13, 2001.

Faryar Shirzad,

Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

Appendix—Issues in Decision

Memorandum

1. Common antidumping and countervailing

duty scope issues

2. Amendment of the scope to exclude

imported enriched uranium consumed in

the conversion or fabrication of exported

uranium

3. Double-counting the subsidy in the

calculation of the dumping margin

4. Treatment of ‘‘blended price’’ contracts

5. Calculation of the less than fair value

(LTFV) margin based on delivered and

undelivered sales

6. Valuation of electricity as a component of

low enriched (LEU)

7. Whether to collapse Eurodif and Cogema

8. Whether defluorination costs are at arm’s

length

9. Accrual for tails disposal

10. Calculation of a constructed export price

(CEP) offset

11. Recalculation of inventory carrying costs

12. Imputing certain expenses to Cogema/

Eurodif

13. Selling, general and administrative

(SG&A) expenses

14. Financial expenses

15. Purchased product

16. Constructed value (CV) profit

[FR Doc. 01–31509 Filed 12–20–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–412–820; A–421–808; A–428–828]

Notice of Final Determinations of Sales

at Not Less Than Fair Value: Low

Enriched Uranium From the United

Kingdom, Germany and the

Netherlands

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

EFFECTIVE DATE: December 21, 2001.

ACTION: Notice of final determinations of

sales at not less than fair value.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Frank Thomson or James Terpstra,

Office of AD/CVD Enforcement VI,

Import Administration, International

Trade Administration, U.S. Department

of Commerce, 14th Street and

Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington,

DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–4793 or

(202) 482–3965, respectively.

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

(URAA). In addition, unless otherwise

indicated, all citations to Department of

Commerce (Department) regulations

refer to the regulations codified at 19

CFR part 351 (April 2000).

Final Determination

We determine that low-enriched

uranium (LEU) from the United

Kingdom, Germany and the Netherlands

is not being sold, or is not likely to be

sold, in the United States at less than

fair value (LTFV), as provided in section

735 of the Act.

Case History

The preliminary determinations in

these investigations was published on

July 13, 2001. See Notice of Preliminary

Determination of Sales at Less Than

Fair Value: Low Enriched Uranium

From the United Kingdom; Preliminary

Determinations of Sales at Not Less

Than Fair Value: Low Enriched

Uranium From Germany and the

Netherlands; and Postponement of Final

Determinations, 66 FR 36748 (July 13,

2001) (Preliminary Determinations). The

petitioners 1 and the respondents,

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 246 / Friday, December 21, 2001 / Notices 65887

USEC), and the Paper, Allied-Industrial, Chemical

and Energy Workers International Union, AFL–CIO,

CLC, Local 5–550 and Local 5–689 (collectively

PACE).

2 In accordance with section 777(h) of the Act the

AdHoc Utilities Group, whose members include:

Arizona Public Service Co., Carolina Power & Light

Co., Dominion Generation, Duke Energy Corp., DTE

Energy, Entergy Services, Inc., Exelon Corporation,

First Energy Nuclear Operating Co., Florida Power

Corp., Florida Power and Light Co., Nebraska Public

Power District, Nuclear Management Co. LLC (on

behalf of certain member companies), PPL

Susquehanna LLC, PSEG Nuclear LLC, South Texas

Project, Southern California Edison, Southern

Nuclear Operating Co., Union Electric Company,

and Wolf Creek Nuclear Operating Corp., submitted

comments as industrial users of subject

merchandise.

Urenco Ltd., Urenco (Capenhurst) Ltd.,

Urenco Nederland BV, and Urenco

Deutschland GmbH (collectively,

Urenco or the respondents), filed case

briefs on antidumping methodological

issues on October 12, 2001, and rebuttal

briefs on October 19, 2001. A public

hearing on the antidumping

methodological issues was held on

October 23, 2001.

On October 22 and 23, 2001, the

petitioners, the Ad Hoc Utilities Group,2

and respondents filed briefs on common

scope issues in the antidumping and

countervailing duty investigations of

LEU from France, Germany, the

Netherlands and the United Kingdom.

Rebuttal briefs on these common scope

issues were filed on October 29, 2001,

and a public hearing on the common

scope issues was held on October 31,

2001.

In response to a September 28, 2001

submission by the European

Commission to Mr. Grant Aldonas,

Under Secretary for International Trade,

regarding the antidumping (AD) and

countervailing duty (CVD)

investigations of LEU from France,

Germany, the Netherlands and the

United Kingdom, and Mr. Aldonas’

November 7, 2001 reply to this letter

and the November 22, 2001 submission

from the European Commission, the

petitioners, the Ad Hoc Utilities Group,

and respondents filed briefs that

addressed the content of this

correspondence.

These final determinations were

originally due on November 26, 2001.

We subsequently tolled the final

determination deadline in these

investigations until December 13, 2001,

to accommodate certain delayed

verifications and a briefing and hearing

schedule that were delayed because of

the events of September 11, 2001.

Amended Scope of Investigation

For purposes of these investigations,

the product covered is all low enriched

uranium (LEU). LEU is enriched

uranium hexafluoride (UF6) with a U235

product assay of less than 20 percent

that has not been converted into another

chemical form, such as UO2, or

fabricated into nuclear fuel assemblies,

regardless of the means by which the

LEU is produced (including LEU

produced through the down-blending of

highly enriched uranium).

Certain merchandise is outside the

scope of these investigations.

Specifically, these investigations 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 these investigations. For

purposes of these investigations,

fabricated uranium is defined as

enriched uranium dioxide (UO2),

whether or not contained in nuclear fuel

rods or assemblies. Natural uranium

concentrates (U3O8) with a U235

concentration of no greater than 0.711

percent and natural uranium

concentrates converted into uranium

hexafluoride with a U235 concentration

of no greater than 0.711 percent are not

covered by the scope of these

investigations.

Also excluded from these

investigations is LEU owned by a

foreign utility end-user and imported

into the United States by or for such

end-user solely for purposes of

conversion by a U.S. fabricator into

uranium dioxide (UO2) and/or

fabrication into fuel assemblies so long

as the uranium dioxide and/or fuel

assemblies deemed to incorporate such

imported LEU (i) remain in the

possession and control of the U.S.

fabricator, the foreign end-user, or their

designed transporter(s) while in U.S.

customs territory, and (ii) are reexported within eighteen (18) months of

entry of the LEU for consumption by the

end-user in a nuclear reactor outside the

United States. Such entries must be

accompanied by the certifications of the

importer and end-user.

The merchandise subject to these

investigations is classified in the

Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the

United States (HTSUS) at subheading

2844.20.0020. Subject merchandise may

also enter under 2844.20.0030,

2844.20.0050, and 2844.40.00. Although

the HTSUS subheadings are provided

for convenience and customs purposes,

the written description of the

merchandise is dispositive.

Scope Clarification

For further details, see Comment 1 of

the ‘‘Issues and Decision Memorandum

for the Antidumping Duty Investigation

of Low Enriched Uranium from

Germany, Netherlands and the United

Kingdom’’ (Decision Memorandum)

from Bernard T. Carreau, Deputy

Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration, to Faryar Shirzad,

Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration, dated concurrently

with this notice.

Goods Versus Services

Parties in all eight concurrent

investigations of this product have

submitted comments on this issue. For

a full discussion see Notice of Final

Determination of Sales at Less Than

Fair Value: Low Enriched Uranium from

France that is published concurrently

with this notice.

Period of Investigation

The period of investigation (POI) is

October 1, 1999, through September 30,

2000. This period corresponds to the

four most recent fiscal quarters prior to

the month of the filing of the petition

(i.e., December 2000).

Verification

As provided in section 782(i) of the

Act, we conducted verification of the

sales and cost information submitted by

Urenco from July 16 through July 20,

2001, in the Netherlands; July 23

through July 30, 2001, in Germany; July

30 through August 10, 2001, in the

United Kingdom, and August 22, 2001,

in the United States. We used standard

verification procedures including

examination of relevant accounting and

production records, and original source

documents provided by the respondent.

Analysis of Comments Received

All issues raised in the case and

rebuttal briefs by parties to these

antidumping proceedings are listed in

the Appendix to this notice and

addressed in the Decision Memorandum

for these investigations, which is hereby

adopted by this notice. The Decision

Memorandum for these cases is on file

in room B–099 of the main Department

of Commerce building. In addition, a

complete version of the Decision

Memorandum can be accessed directly

on the World Wide Web at http://

ia.ita.doc.gov/frn/summary/list.htm.

The paper and electronic versions of the

Decision Memorandum are identical in

content.

Changes Since the Preliminary

Determinations

Based on our findings at verification

and analysis of comments received, we

have made adjustments to the

calculation methodology in calculating

the final dumping margins in these

proceedings. These adjustments are

65888 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 246 / Friday, December 21, 2001 / Notices

discussed in detail in the Decision

Memorandum. For the final

determinations, we made the following

revisions as detailed in (1)

Memorandum from Ernest Gziryan to

Neal Halper (December 13, 2001), and

(2) Final Calculation Memo, both of

which are on file in the Central Records

Unit, room B–099 of the Main

Department of Commerce Building.

Common

In deriving the net U.S. price and

constructed value, we made the

following changes:

1. We revised the feed price based on

our verification findings;

2. We did not deduct container rental

expenses or feed material transportation

costs from U.S. price;

3. We adjusted CV to account for

double-counting of movement charges;

4. We made no adjustment for credit

expenses;

5. We eliminated double-counting of

a depreciation adjustment in calculating

the G&A and interest expense.

Urenco (Capenhurst) Limited (UCL)

1. We adjusted Urenco’s reported

G&A expense rate by calculating a

separate G&A expense rate for each

Urenco company. We calculated UCL’s

G&A expense rate by combining a

Urenco Group G&A expense rate with

the UCL company-specific G&A rate. We

included certain non-operating

expenses which relate to the general

operations of the company in the

calculation of UCL’s G&A expense rate.

2. We increased UCL’s depreciation

expense associated with fixed assets

purchased from the Urenco Group

companies to reflect the market value of

these assets.

3. We recalculated Urenco’s financial

expense rate by excluding the adjusted

G&A expenses from the denominator.

4. We adjusted UCL’s reported cost to

include the amount of centrifuge losses

attributable to the POI.

Urenco Nederland B.V.’’s (UNL)

1. We adjusted Urenco’s reported

G&A expense rate by calculating a

separate G&A expense rate for each

Urenco company. We calculated UNL’s

G&A expense rate by combining a

Urenco Group G&A expense rate with

the UNL company-specific G&A rate.

2. We increased UNL’s depreciation

expense associated with fixed assets

purchased from the Urenco Group

companies to reflect the market value of

these assets.

3. We recalculated Urenco’s financial

expense rate by excluding the adjusted

G&A expenses from the denominator.

4. We adjusted UNL’s tails provision

to reflect the market value of the tails

disposal services provided by an

affiliated company.

Urenco Deutschland GmbH’s (UD)

1. We adjusted Urenco’s reported

G&A expense rate by calculating a

separate G&A expense rate for each

Urenco company. We calculated UD’s

G&A expense rate by combining a

Urenco Group G&A expense rate with

the UD company-specific G&A rate.

2. We increased UD’s depreciation

expense associated with fixed assets

purchased from the Urenco Group

companies to reflect the market value of

these assets.

3. We recalculated Urenco’s financial

expense rate by excluding the adjusted

G&A expenses from the denominator.

4. We adjusted UD’s reported costs to

include income and expense items

recorded in UD’s financial statements

prepared in accordance with German

generally accepted accounting

principles.

5. We increased UD’s cost of

production by the amount of the certain

gain used by UD to offset the reported

cost.

Final Determinations of Investigations

We determine that the following

weighted-average percentage dumping

margins for the United Kingdom,

Germany, and the Netherlands are as

follows:

Manufacturer/exporter Margin

(percent)

Urenco Deutschland GmbH ....................................................................................................................................... 0.00

Urenco Netherlands B.V. ........................................................................................................................................... 0.00

Urenco (Capenhurst) Ltd. .......................................................................................................................................... (de minimis)

Termination of Suspension of

Liquidation

Pursuant to section 735(c)(2) of the

Act, we are directing the U.S. Customs

Service to terminate suspension of

liquidation, with respect to these

antidumping investigations, and release

any bond or other security and refund

any cash deposit.

International Trade Commission

Notification

In accordance with section 735(d) of

the Act, we have notified the

International Trade Commission of our

determinations. These determinations

are published pursuant to sections

735(d) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

Dated: December 13, 2001.

Faryar Shirzad,

Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

Appendix—Issues in Decision

Memorandum

Scope Issue

1. Scope clarification

Common Sales Issues

2. Whether Urenco failed to disclose its

affiliation with U.S. customers who

participate in a joint venture

3. Whether Urenco failed to disclose sales

activity related to an affiliated U.K. reseller—

Uranium Asset Management Ltd. (‘‘UAM’’)

4. Whether Urenco never fully disclosed

the role of its affiliated U.S. fuel fabricator—

Westinghouse

5. Whether Urenco receives transportation

services from its affiliated transporters at

market rates and whether facts available

should be applied

6. Whether the Department should use

adverse facts available to calculate Urenco’s

less than fair value (‘‘LTFV’’) margins

7. Whether Urenco’s U.S. sales should be

treated as export price (‘‘EP’’) or constructed

export price (‘‘CEP’’) Sales

8. Whether the indirect selling expense

(‘‘ISE’’) ratio requires a revision

9. Whether feed material transportation

costs, cylinder rental expenses, and credit

expenses should be deducted from Urenco’s

U.S. sales price

10. Whether feed material transportation

cost is double counted

11. Treatment of ‘‘blended price’’ contracts

12. Whether to apply ‘‘discounts’’ provided

on separative work unites (‘‘SWU’’) sold

prior to the period of investigation (‘‘POI’’)

13. Whether to utilize only completed

deliveries or all sales made during the POI

Common Cost Issues

14. Affiliated Inputs

14a. Assets purchased from affiliated

companies

15. Cost of Certain Product

16. Tails disposal costs

17. Futures Hedging Contracts

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 246 / Friday, December 21, 2001 / Notices 65889

18. Gain to offset cost

19. General and administrative (‘‘G&A’’)

expenses

Urenco Deutschland Cost Issues (‘‘UD’’)

20. Affiliated electricity purchases

21. Home country Generally Accepted

Accounting Principles (‘‘GAAP’’)

Urenco Nederland Cost Issue (‘‘UNL’’)

22. UNL unreconciled costs

Urenco Capenhurst Ltd. Cost Issue (‘‘UCL’’)

23. Centrifuge failure

[FR Doc. 01–31513 Filed 12–20–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–475–818]

Notice of Amendment of Final

Determination of Sales at Less Than

Fair Value Pursuant to Court Decision

and Revocation in Part: Certain Pasta

From Italy

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of amendment to final

determination of sales at less than fair

value in accordance with decision upon

remand and revocation in part: Certain

Pasta from Italy.

SUMMARY: We are amending the

antidumping (‘‘AD’’) duty rate for

imports of pasta from Delverde S.r.l.

(‘‘Delverde’’) calculated for the final

determination of the antidumping duty

less-than-fair-value (‘‘LTFV’’)

investigation (covering the period from

May 1, 1994 through April 31, 1995).

The revised AD duty rate for Delverde

is 1.44 percent ad valorem and, thus, de

minimis. Therefore, we are revoking the

antidumping duty order (‘‘the order’’)

with respect to Delverde.

EFFECTIVE DATE: December 21, 2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Brian Ledgerwood or Geoffrey Craig,

AD/CVD Enforcement, Office VI, Group

II, Import Administration, U.S.

Department of Commerce, Room 4012,

14th Street and Constitution Avenue,

N.W., Washington, DC 20230; telephone

(202) 482–3836, or (202) 482–4161,

respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Applicable Statute

Unless otherwise indicated, all

citations to the Tariff Act of 1930, as

amended (‘‘the Act’’), are references to

the provisions effective January 1, 1995,

the effective date of the amendments

made to the Act by the Uruguay Round

Agreements Act. In addition, unless

otherwise indicated, all citations to the

Department of Commere’s (‘‘the

Department’s’’) regulations are to 19

CFR Part 351 (2000).

Background

On June 14, 1996, the Department

issued the Notice of Final Determination

of Sales at less Than Fair Value: Certain

Pasta from Italy, 61 FR 30326 (June 14,

1996) (‘‘Final Determination’’). The

Delverde AD duty rate was 2.80 percent.

Delverde challenged the Final

Determination in the Court of

International Trade (the ‘‘CIT’’). On

March 26, 1998, the CIT held that the

statutory provisions for level of trade

(‘‘LOT’’) adjustments provides that

selling expenses set forth in 19 U.S.C.

1677a(d) should not be deducted from

constructed export price (‘‘CEP’’) before

making the LOT comparison. See

Borden, Inc. v. United States, 4 F.

Supp.2d 1221, 1241–42 (CIT March 26,

1998) (‘‘Borden II’’). The United States

and Delverde appealed the CIT’s

decision to the Federal Circuit. See

Borden, Inc. v. United States, Nos. 99–

1575, –1576 (Fed. Cir. March 12, 2001).

On March 12, 2001, the Federal

Circuit reversed the CIT’s ruling. Citing

its decision in Micron Technology, Inc.

v. United States, Nos. 00–1058, –1060

(Fed. Cir. March 7, 2001), the Federal

Circuit held that the statute requires the

Department to deduct the expenses set

forth in section 772(d)(1) of the Act from

the starting price of CEP sales before

making the LOT comparison under

section 773(a)(1)(B) of the Act. The

Federal Circuit remanded the case to the

CIT stating that the Department must

comply with the statute and deduct the

expenses set forth in section 772(d)(1)

from the starting price of CEP sales

before making the LOT comparison. See

Borden, Inc., v. United States, Nos. 99–

1575, –1576 (Fed. Cir. March 12, 2001).

The CIT issued an order on May 21,

2001, instructing the Department to

comply with the decision of the Federal

Circuit. See Borden, Inc. v. United

States, Court No. 96–08–1970 (CIT May

21, 2001). On October 15, 2001, the

Department filed its results of

redetermination pursuant to the CIT’s

order. On November 2, 2001, the CIT

affirmed the final remand

redetermination in Borden, Inc. v.

United States, Consol. Court No. 96–08–

01970, Slip Op. 2001–128.

Amended Final Determination and

Revocation in Part

In light of the final and conclusive

court decision in this action, we are

amending the AD duty rate for Delverde

from 2.40 to 1.44 percent ad valorem.

The rate is less than 2.00 percent and

thus, de miminis. Therefore, we are

revoking the AD duty order in part with

respect to Delverde pursuant to section

351.204(e) of the Department’s

regulations.

We will instruct the U.S. Customs

Service (‘‘Customs’’) to terminate the

suspension of liquidation for any such

merchandise entered, or withdrawn

from warehouse, for consumption on or

after January 19, 1996, the date of

publication of the preliminary

determination in the Federal Register,

and will instruct Customs to release any

bond and refund any cash deposit for

this merchandise.

These amended final results and

notice are in accordance with sections

735(d) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

Dated: December 13, 2001.

Faryar Shirzad,

Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 01–31512 Filed 12–20–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–583–837]

Notice of Preliminary Determination of

Sales at Less Than Fair Value and

Postponement of Final Determination:

Polyethylene Terephthalate Film,

Sheet, and Strip (PET Film) From

Taiwan

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

EFFECTIVE DATE: December 21, 2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION: Ron

Trentham or Tom Futtner at (202) 482–

6320 and (202) 482–3814, respectively;

AD/CVD Enforcement Office IV, Group

II, Import Administration, Room 1870,

International Trade Administration,

U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th

Street and Constitution Avenue, NW.,

Washington, DC 20230.

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 of Commerce (the

Department) regulations refer to the

regulations codified at 19 CFR part 351

(April 2001).