[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 246 (Friday, December 21, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Pages 65901-65902]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-31510]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[C-427-819]


Notice of Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination: 
Low Enriched Uranium From France

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of final affirmative countervailing duty determination.

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

SUMMARY: On May 14, 2001, the Department of Commerce (the Department) 
published in the Federal Register its preliminary affirmative 
determination in the countervailing duty investigation on low enriched 
uranium (subject merchandise) from France for the period January 1, 
1999 through December 31, 1999.
    The net subsidy rate in the final determination differs from that 
of the Preliminary Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination and 
Alignment with Final Antidumping Duty Determination: Low Enriched 
Uranium from France, 66 FR 24325 (May 14, 2001) (Preliminary 
Determination). The revised final net subsidy rate for the investigated 
company is listed below in the ``Suspension of Liquidation'' section of 
this notice.

EFFECTIVE DATE: December 21, 2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael Grossman at (202) 482-3146 or 
Richard Herring at (202) 482-4149, Office of AD/CVD Enforcement VI, 
Group II, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
U.S. Department of Commerce, Room 4012, 14th Street and Constitution 
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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).

Background

    On May 14, 2001, the Department published the preliminary results 
of investigation on low enriched uranium from France. See Notice of 
Preliminary Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination and Alignment 
with Final Antidumping Duty Determination: Low Enriched Uranium from 
France, 66 FR 24325 (May 14, 2001) (Preliminary Determination). This 
investigation covers low enriched uranium (subject merchandise) from 
France for the period January 1, 1999, through December 31, 1999.
    We invited interested parties to comment on the Preliminary 
Determination. On October 22 and 23, 2001, the petitioners,\1\ the Ad 
Hoc Utilities Group,\2\ and respondent producers/exporters Eurodif, 
S.A. and Compagnie Generale des Matieres Nucleaires (COGEMA) 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. On October 26, 2001, we received 
comments from the petitioners and the respondents. On November 5, 2001, 
we received rebuttal comments from petitioners and respondents. A 
public hearing was held at the Department of Commerce on November 7, 
2001. On or about September 28, 2001, and November 22, 2001, we 
received letters from the EC regarding certain issues in these 
investigations. On November 7, 2001, Mr. Grant Aldonas, Under-Secretary 
for International Trade, replied to the first letter. We invited 
comments on these letters, which we received from petitioners, 
respondents, and the Ad Hoc Utilities Group, on November 15, 2001, and 
November 29, 2001.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The petitioners in this investigation are USEC, Inc. and its 
wholly-owned subsidiary, United States Enrichment Corporation 
(Collectively 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 Ad Hoc 
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, 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This final determination was originally due on November 26, 2001. 
We subsequently tolled the final determination deadline in this 
investigation until December 13, 2001, to accommodate certain 
verifications and a delayed briefing and hearing schedule that were 
delayed because of the events of September 11, 2001.

Amended Scope of Investigation

    For purposes of this investigation, the product covered is all low 
enriched uranium (LEU). LEU is enriched uranium hexafluoride 
(UF<INF>6</INF>) with a U<SUP>235</SUP> product assay of less than 20 
percent that has not been converted into another chemical form, such as 
UO<INF>2</INF>, or fabricated into nuclear fuel assemblies, 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 U<SUP>235</SUP> assay of 20 percent or greater, 
also known as highly enriched uranium. In addition, fabricated LEU is 
not covered by the scope of this investigation. For purposes of this 
investigation, fabricated uranium is defined as enriched uranium 
dioxide (UO<INF>2</INF>), whether or not contained in nuclear fuel rods 
or assemblies. Natural uranium concentrates 
(U<INF>3</INF>O<INF>8</INF>) with a U<SUP>235</SUP> concentration of no 
greater than 0.711 percent and natural uranium concentrates converted 
into uranium hexafluoride with a U<SUP>235</SUP> concentration of no 
greater than 0.711 percent are not covered by the scope of this 
investigation.
    Also excluded from this investigation 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 re-exported within 
eighteen (18) months of entry of the LEU for consumption by the end-
user in a nuclear reactor outside the United States. Such entries must 
be accompanied by the certifications of the importer and end user.
    The merchandise subject to this investigation is classified in the 
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) at subheading

[[Page 65902]]

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: Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination: Low 
Enriched Uranium from France'' (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, which is published concurrently with this notice.

Period of Investigation

    The period of investigation (POI) for which we are measuring 
subsidies is January 1, 1999 through December 31, 1999.

Verification

    As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, we conducted verification 
on October 11 through October 17, 2001. We used standard verification 
procedures, including meeting with government and company officials and 
examining relevant accounting records and original source documents 
provided by the respondent. Our verification results are outlined in 
detail in the public versions of the verification reports, which are on 
file in the Central Records Unit of the Department of Commerce (Room B-
099).

Analysis of Comments Received

    All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties to 
this investigation are addressed in the ``Issues and Decision 
Memorandum'' (Decision Memorandum) dated December 13, 2001, which is 
hereby adopted by this notice. A list of issues which parties have 
raised and to which we have responded, all of which are in the Decision 
Memorandum, is attached to this notice as Appendix I. Parties can find 
a complete discussion of all issues raised in this investigation and 
the corresponding recommendations in this public memorandum which is on 
file in room B-099 of the Main 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, under the heading 
``Federal Register Notices.'' The paper copy and electronic version of 
the Decision Memorandum are identical in content.

Suspension of Liquidation

    In accordance with 703(d)(1)(A)(i) of the Act, we have calculated 
an individual rate for Eurodif, S.A., which we have also applied to 
COGEMA, Eurodif's sales agent for sales made in the United States. The 
``all others'' rate is the same as the rate for Eurodif/COGEMA. These 
rates are summarized in the table below:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Producer/exporter                    Net Subsidy Rate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eurodif, S.A. & COGEMA....................  13.21% ad valorem.
All Others................................  13.21% ad valorem.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In accordance with our Preliminary Determination, we instructed the 
U.S. Customs Service to suspend liquidation of all entries of low 
enriched uranium from France, which were entered or withdrawn from 
warehouse, for consumption on or after May 14, 2001, the date of the 
publication of our preliminary determination in the Federal Register. 
In accordance with section 703(d) of the Act, we instructed the U.S. 
Customs Service to discontinue the suspension of liquidation for 
merchandise entered on or after September 11, 2001, but to continue the 
suspension of liquidation of entries made between May 14, 2001 and 
September 10, 2001.
    We will reinstate suspension of liquidation under section 706(a) of 
the Act for all entries if the ITC issues a final affirmative injury 
determination and will require a cash deposit of estimated 
countervailing duties for such entries of merchandise in the amounts 
indicated above. If the ITC determines that material injury, or threat 
of material injury, does not exist, this proceeding will be terminated 
and all estimated duties deposited or securities posted as a result of 
the suspension of liquidation will be refunded or canceled.

ITC Notification

    In accordance with section 705(d) of the Act, we will notify the 
ITC of our determination. In addition, we are making available to the 
ITC all non-privileged and non-proprietary information related to this 
investigation. We will allow the ITC access to all privileged and 
business proprietary information in our files, provided that the ITC 
confirms that it will not disclose such information, either publicly or 
under an administrative protective order (APO), without the written 
consent of the Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
    If the ITC determines that material injury, or threat of material 
injury, does not exist, this proceeding will be terminated. If however, 
the ITC determines that such injury does exist, we will issue a 
countervailing duty order.

Return or Destruction of Proprietary Information

    In the event that the ITC issues a final negative injury 
determination, this notice will serve as the only reminder to parties 
subject to APO of their responsibility concerning the destruction of 
proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 
351.305(a)(3). Failure to comply is a violation of the APO.
    This determination is published pursuant to sections 705(d) and 
777(i) of the Act.

    Dated: December 13, 2001.
Faryar Shirzad,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.

Appendix I--Issues and Decision Memorandum

Methodology and Background Information

I. Subsidies Valuation Information
    A. Treatment of the Ad Valorem Rate Calculation and the 
Denominator

Analysis of Programs

I. Purchase at Prices that Constitute ``More Than Adequate 
Remuneration''
II. Exoneration/Reimbursement of Corporate Income Taxes

Total Ad Valorem Rate

Analysis of Comments

    Comment 1: Scope Clarification
    Comment 2: Petitioners' Argument that Eurodif Received Non-
Recurring Benefits in the Years 1986 through 1999
    Comment 3: Petitioners' Argument that a Portion of the Subsidies 
Related to EdF's 1999 Purchases at Prices that Constitute More than 
Adequate Remuneration Should be Treated as a Recurring Subsidy
    Comment 4: Treatment of ``Part Energie'' Component of EdF's 
Price
    Comment 5: Respondents' Argument that the Department's Price 
Comparison in the Preliminary Determination was Flawed in Other 
Respects
    Comment 6: Tax Exemption from the GOF

[FR Doc. 01-31510 Filed 12-20-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P