[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 135 (Friday, July 13, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Pages 36743-36748]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-17622]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-427-818]


Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 
Value and Postponement of Final Determination: Low Enriched Uranium 
From France

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

EFFECTIVE DATE: July 13, 2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Edward Easton or Gabriel Adler, Office 
of AD/CVD Enforcement 5, Import Administration, International Trade 
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-
3003 or (202) 482-3813, respectively.
    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 
Department of Commerce (Department) regulations refer to the 
regulations codified at 19 CFR part 351 (April 2000).
    Preliminary Determination: We preliminarily determine that low 
enriched uranium is being sold, or is likely to be sold, in the United 
States at less than fair value (LTFV), as provided in section 733 of 
the Act. The estimated margins of sales at LTFV are shown in the 
Suspension of Liquidation section of this notice.

Case History

    This investigation was initiated on December 27, 2000.\1\ See 
Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigations: Low Enriched Uranium 
from France,

[[Page 36744]]

Germany, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom, 66 FR 1080 (January 
05, 2001) (Initiation Notice). Since the initiation of the 
investigation, the following events have occurred.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The petitioners in this investigation are USEC Inc. and its 
wholly-owned subsidiary, the United States Enrichment Corp. 
(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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the initiation notice, we invited interested parties to comment, 
by January 17, 2001, on the scope of this investigation. On January 17, 
2001, we received comments from Eurodif, S.A. (Eurodif), the sole 
producer/exporter of subject merchandise, and its owner, Compagnie 
Generale des Matieres Nucleaires (Cogema) (collectively, ``Eurodif/
Cogema'' or ``the respondent''), as well as from the petitioners. In 
addition, on April 5, 2001, we received comments from the Ad Hoc 
Utilities Group (Ad Hoc Group), an industrial user/consumer of subject 
merchandise. Our analysis of these comments can be found in a 
memorandum to Bernard Carreau, dated May 7, 2001, on file in the 
Central Records Unit, Room B-099, of the Main Commerce Building.
    On January 22, 2001, the United States International Trade 
Commission (ITC) preliminarily determined that there is a reasonable 
indication that an industry in the United States is threatened with 
material injury by reason of imports from France, Germany, the 
Netherlands, and the United Kingdom of low enriched uranium. See Low 
Enriched Uranium from France, Germany, the Netherlands, and the United 
Kingdom, 66 FR 8424 (January 31, 2001).
    On January 29, 2001, the Department invited interested parties to 
submit comments on model matching criteria and proposed modifications 
to the standard questionnaire. We received comments from Eurodif/Cogema 
and the petitioners on January 31, 2001. On February 5, 2001, after 
considering those comments, the Department requested additional 
information from Eurodif/Cogema for purposes of formulating an 
antidumping questionnaire appropriate to the unique nature of the 
uranium industry. We received a response to that request on February 
12, 2001. After considering this information, on February 28, 2001, we 
issued an antidumping questionnaire to Eurodif/Cogema.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Section A of the antidumping questionnaire requests general 
information concerning a company's corporate structure and business 
practices, the merchandise under investigation that it sells, and 
the manner in which it sells that merchandise in all of its markets. 
Section B requests a complete listing of all home market sales, or, 
if the home market is not viable, then a listing of sales in the 
most appropriate third-country market. Section C requests a complete 
listing of U.S. sales. Section D requests information on the cost of 
production of the foreign like product and the constructed value of 
the merchandise under investigation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The respondent submitted its initial responses to the Department's 
questionnaire in April and May of 2001. After analyzing these 
responses, we issued supplemental questionnaires to the respondent to 
clarify the initial questionnaire responses or to request more complete 
responses to the initial questions.
    On April 18, 2001, the Department postponed, by 50 days, the 
preliminary determination in this case (from May 16, 2001 to July 5, 
2001) in accordance with section 733(c) of the Act and 19 CFR 
351.205(b)(2). See Low Enriched Uranium From France, Germany, The 
Netherlands, and the United Kingdom: Notice of Extension of Preliminary 
Antidumping Duty Determinations, 66 FR 20969 (April 26, 2001).

Postponement of Final Determination

    Section 735(a)(2) of the Act provides that a final determination 
may be postponed until not later than 135 days after the date of the 
publication of the preliminary determination if, in the event of an 
affirmative preliminary determination, a request for such postponement 
is made by exporters who account for a significant proportion of 
exports of the subject merchandise. Section 351.210(e)(2) of the 
Department's regulations requires that exporters requesting 
postponement of the final determination must also request an extension 
of the provisional measures referred to in section 733(d) of the Act 
from a four-month period until not more than six months. On July 2, 
2001, Eurodif/Cogema, the sole producer/exporter of subject 
merchandise, made such a request. In its request, the respondent 
consented to the extension of provisional measures to no longer than 
six months. Since this preliminary determination is affirmative, and 
there is no compelling reason to deny the respondent's request, we have 
extended the deadline for issuance of the final determination until the 
135th day after the date of publication of this preliminary 
determination in the Federal Register.

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).

Scope of Investigation

    The scope of this investigation covers 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 (UO6), 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 
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 customs purposes, the written description 
of the merchandise is dispositive.
    The Ad Hoc Group contends that certain sales subject to these 
investigations are in actuality transactions for separative work units 
(SWU) of enrichment, and therefore constitute the provision of 
services, not the production or sale of goods subject to the 
antidumping law.
    In particular, the Ad Hoc Group focuses upon the relevant sale to 
be used in determining whether LEU is sold at less than fair value. The 
Ad Hoc Group contends that sales of SWU or enrichment do not constitute 
sales of subject merchandise. They argue further that because ``toll-
produced LEU'' is consumed by the parties who contract for the tolling, 
such LEU is never sold in the United States. The Ad Hoc Group cites the 
Department's tolling regulation and practice to support its conclusion 
that such sales should be excluded from the scope of these 
investigations.
    This is an exceptionally complicated issue. Based upon our analysis 
of the record and the arguments of the parties, we preliminarily 
determine that all LEU entering the United States from Germany, the 
Netherlands, the United

[[Page 36745]]

Kingdom, and France is subject to these investigations regardless of 
the way in which the sales for such merchandise are structured.\3\ This 
preliminary determination is based on several factors. First, no party 
disputes that LEU entering the United States is a good. As the product 
yield of a manufacturing operation, LEU is a tangible product. 
Moreover, under the U.S. Customs regulations, any item that is within a 
tariff category of the Harmonized Tariff System constitutes merchandise 
for customs purposes. See 19 CFR 141.4 (2000). In this case, LEU is 
normally classified under HTSUS 2844.20.0020, but also satisfies three 
other HTSUS classifications described as enriched uranium compounds, 
enriched uranium, and radioactive elements, isotopes, and compounds.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ This statement is limited to imports of LEU that were 
enriched in the respective countries.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Second, it is well established that the enrichment process is a 
major manufacturing operation that is required to produce LEU. No party 
disputes that the enrichment operation constitutes substantial 
transformation of the uranium feedstock, nor does any party dispute 
that the country of origin for LEU is based upon where that substantial 
transformation takes place. Thus, the LEU exported from Germany, the 
Netherlands, the United Kingdom, and France are products of those 
respective countries, and are therefore subject to these 
investigations.
    Third, in these investigations there are significant volumes of LEU 
sold pursuant to contracts that expressly provide separate prices for 
SWU and feedstock, and no party disputes that such sales constitute 
sales of subject merchandise.\4\ Rather, it is only for those 
transactions in which utility companies arguably obtain LEU through 
separate transactions of SWU and feedstock from separate entities that 
the Ad Hoc Group contends that such LEU entering the United States 
cannot be subject to the antidumping law. The Department has considered 
whether it would be appropriate to include in these investigations only 
the former type of transactions and exclude the latter. We believe, 
however, that, based on the petitioners' arguments, discussed below, 
there is little substantive commercial difference between these types 
of transactions, and, therefore, we have preliminarily included both. 
Simply because an unaffiliated customer purchases subject merchandise 
arguably in the form of two transactions, instead of a single, 
conventional type of transaction, does not mean that the merchandise 
entering the United States is not subject to the antidumping law. The 
purpose of the antidumping law is to provide a remedy to U.S. 
industries injured by unfairly priced goods. Subject merchandise 
purchased in the form of two transactions, instead of one, does not 
eliminate the possibility of unfair pricing, nor does it alleviate the 
need for the remedy established under the antidumping law.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ This is also true of a contract for enriched uranium product 
(EUP) that provides one price for both components.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Fourth, contrary to the Ad Hoc Group's claim, the tolling 
regulation does not provide a basis to exclude merchandise from the 
scope of an investigation. The purpose of the tolling regulation is to 
identify the seller of the subject merchandise for purposes of 
establishing export price, constructed export price, and normal value. 
Under Sec. 351.401(h), therefore, the Department focuses upon which 
party controls the relevant sale of the subject merchandise and foreign 
like product. See, e.g., Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less 
Than Fair Value: Stainless Steel Plate in Coils from Taiwan, 64 FR 
15493, 15498 (Mar. 31, 1999)). Thus, under the tolling regulation the 
issue is not whether the LEU in question is subject to the antidumping 
law, but rather who is the seller of the subject merchandise for 
determining U.S. price and normal value or, more specifically, what is 
the appropriate way in which to value subject merchandise and foreign 
like product. To the extent that sales of subject merchandise are 
structured as two transactions, the Department would combine such 
transactions to obtain the relevant price of subject merchandise, or 
normal value, as appropriate. On the other hand, to the extent that a 
company located in the United States sells the subject merchandise that 
is toll-processed in a country subject to investigation, the company in 
the United States would be the seller of subject merchandise. Even if 
in these cases we considered the utilities to be the producers of the 
subject merchandise within the meaning of the tolling regulation, this 
would not mean the antidumping law is not applicable. Regardless of the 
appropriate seller identified or how the sales are structured, the 
merchandise entering the United States is subject to the antidumping 
law.
    The petitioners maintain that enrichers are the sellers of LEU in 
both types of contracts--either as an exchange of SWU and uranium 
feedstock for cash, or as an exchange of SWU for cash and a swap of 
uranium feedstock. The petitioners contend that the two transactions 
are essentially identical. First, regardless of whether the utility 
company pays in cash or in kind for the natural uranium content, the 
petitioners point out that the LEU is delivered under essentially the 
same contract terms, including warranties and guarantees pertaining to 
the complete LEU product. Second, enrichers do not use the uranium 
feedstock provided by the utility companies. Instead, the petitioners 
note that the natural uranium is typically delivered shortly before, or 
even after, delivery of the LEU, making the delivery of such uranium a 
payment in kind for the natural uranium component of the LEU. Third, 
the petitioners contend that the utility company does not have control 
over the process used to produce LEU that the utility company receives. 
Rather, the petitioners point out that the enrichers control the 
manufacture of LEU, as demonstrated by the fact that the product assay 
under the contract (transactional assay) differs from the product assay 
produced and delivered by the enricher (operational assay). According 
to the petitioners, the enricher makes the decision of the particular 
product assay based upon its own operational requirements and input 
costs. Taken together, these facts indicate that enrichers are in 
effect selling LEU under both types of contractual arrangements.
    We have preliminarily treated the sales at issue as sales of 
subject merchandise for the reasons stated above and based upon the 
petitioners' arguments. In all transactions concerning LEU, regardless 
of how the sales are structured, the utility companies purchase LEU for 
use in the production and sale of electricity to consumers. 
Accordingly, the Department has established the value of the subject 
merchandise and foreign like product for purposes of determining U.S. 
price and normal value based on these transactions. We will further 
examine this issue for the final determination, and we invite comments 
on this issue. For purposes of these preliminary determinations, we 
have assigned a value to the natural uranium feedstock where no price 
was provided. We also invite comments from interested parties as to the 
valuation of the uranium feedstock for such transactions.

Fair Value Comparisons

    To determine whether sales of LEU from France were made in the 
United States at LTFV, we compared the constructed export price (CEP) 
to the constructed value (CV), as described in the Constructed Export 
Price and

[[Page 36746]]

Normal Value sections of this notice. In accordance with section 
777A(d)(1)(A)(i) of the Act, we calculated weight-average CEPs and 
compared them to CV.
    We note that during the POI, the respondent sold LEU pursuant to 
different types of contracts. For some contracts, the respondent 
undertook to manufacture and deliver LEU for a cash payment covering 
both the value of the enrichment component and the value of the natural 
uranium feedstock contained in the LEU (so-called EUP contracts). For 
other contracts, the respondent undertook to manufacture and deliver 
LEU for a cash payment covering only the value of the enrichment 
component; for the natural uranium feedstock component, the respondent 
received an amount of natural uranium equivalent to the amount used to 
produce the LEU shipped (so-called SWU contracts). For both types of 
transactions, the product manufactured and delivered by the respondent 
was LEU. For purposes of our antidumping analysis, we have translated 
prices and costs involved in SWU contracts to an LEU basis, increasing 
those values to account for the cost of the uranium feedstock involved. 
These adjustments are described in greater detail below.

Constructed Export Price

    In accordance with section 772 of the Act, we calculated a CEP. 
Section 772(b) of the Act defines CEP as the price at which the subject 
merchandise is first sold in the United States before or after the date 
of importation by or for the account of the producer or exporter of the 
merchandise or by a seller affiliated with the producer or exporter, to 
an unaffiliated purchaser, as adjusted under sections 772(c) and (d) of 
the Act. Consistent with this definition, we found that Eurodif/Cogema 
made CEP sales during the POI because the sales were made for the 
account of Eurodif/Cogema by the respondent's U.S. subsidiaries, 
Cogema, Inc. and Urangesellschaft USA, Inc. (UG Inc.), in the United 
States.
    We calculated CEP based on packed prices charged to the first 
unaffiliated customer in the United States. For sales involving cash 
payments on a SWU basis, we translated the prices to an LEU basis by 
adding a value for the uranium feedstock used in the production of the 
LEU. This value was derived from the respondent's average cost of 
uranium feedstock purchases during the POI.
    Section 351.401(i) of the Department's regulations provide that the 
date of sale will normally be the date of invoice, unless the material 
terms of sale are set on some other date. In the instant case, the 
material terms of sale are set on the date of the contract with the 
U.S. customer. Therefore, we based the date of sale on that date.
    Because many of these contracts are long-term, spanning over five 
years, in most instances there have been only partial deliveries to 
date pursuant to POI contracts. Under the long-term contracts, the LEU 
provider is obligated to supply a percentage of the utility's overall 
requirements for given periods of time. The LEU provider does not know 
the specifications for the desired enrichment level of a given shipment 
of LEU until it receives delivery instructions for particular shipments 
of LEU. The desired enrichment level (or ``product assay'') determines 
the price for each specific delivery. Given the speculative nature of 
estimating the product assays to be associated with future shipments of 
LEU for which no delivery instructions exist (as well as the fact that 
exchange rates, selling expenses, and costs of production for future 
deliveries pursuant to POI contracts would also have to be estimated), 
we have decided, preliminarily, to base the dumping analysis on 
completed deliveries only.
    We note that two of the sales during the POI involved pre-existing 
contracts, which were amended during the POI. The petitioners have 
argued that, while the Department typically includes in its dumping 
analysis the entire sales quantity covered by an amended contract, the 
long-term nature of uranium contracts warrants including in the 
analysis only the additional quantities associated with the amendments. 
Further, the petitioners argue the Department should isolate the prices 
for the additional quantities called for by the amendments, segregating 
them from prices specified by the pre-existing contracts. For purposes 
of this preliminary determination, consistent with past practice, we 
have considered the amended contract to constitute a new sale, and have 
included in the dumping analysis all deliveries pursuant to the amended 
contract up to the date of the initial questionnaire response. We will 
examine this issue further at verification, and invite comment from 
interested parties for the final determination.
    We made deductions from the starting price for movement expenses in 
accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act. These include foreign 
inland freight from the plant to the French port of exit, international 
freight, international air freight/insurance, charges for shipment of 
samples, U.S. brokerage and handling fees, and port charges. We also 
deducted any discounts from the starting price.
    In addition, in accordance with section 772(d)(1) of the Act, we 
deducted from the starting price those selling expenses that were 
incurred in selling the subject merchandise in the United States, 
including indirect selling expenses, credit expense, and inventory 
carrying costs.
    Finally, in accordance with 772(d)(3) and 772(f) of the Act, we 
made a deduction for CEP profit. The CEP profit rate is normally 
calculated on the basis of comparison market sales and U.S. sales. In 
this case, there were no home market or viable third-country market 
sales of LEU during the POI. Therefore, we based the CEP profit 
calculation on the profit rate of the respondent's U.S. affiliate(s) 
that had a profit during the POI.

Normal Value

A. Selection of Comparison Markets

    Section 773(a)(1) of the Act directs that NV be based on the price 
at which the foreign like product is sold in the home market (or third 
country market), provided that the merchandise is sold in sufficient 
quantities (or value, if quantity is inappropriate) and that there is 
no particular market situation that prevents a proper comparison with 
the CEP. The statute contemplates that quantities (or value) will 
normally be considered insufficient if they are less than five percent 
of the aggregate quantity (or value) of sales of the subject 
merchandise to the United States. Eurodif/Cogema did not have a viable 
comparison market during the POI. Therefore, we have based NV on CV. 
Adjustments made in deriving the CV are described in detail in the 
Calculation of Normal Value Based on Constructed Value, below.

B. Calculation of Normal Value Based on Constructed Value

    Section 773(a)(4) of the Act provides that where NV cannot be based 
on comparison market sales, NV may be based on CV. Section 773(e) of 
the Act provides that CV shall be based on the sum of the cost of 
materials and fabrication for the foreign like product, plus amounts 
for selling, general, and administrative expenses (SG&A), profit, and 
U.S. packing costs. We calculated a weight-averaged cost of production 
(COP) for each control number of LEU, based on the sum of the cost of 
materials, fabrication and general expenses, and packing costs. We 
relied on the data submitted by the respondent in its supplementary 
questionnaire response except in specific instances

[[Page 36747]]

where the submitted costs were not appropriately quantified or valued.
    Specifically, we adjusted the reported costs as follows:
    (1) We included the cost of centrifugal separation studies (which 
had been excluded by the respondent) in the calculation of the general 
and administrative expenses rate.
    (2) We recalculated the net interest ratio on the basis of the 
consolidated interest expenses of Cogema's parent, CEA Industrie, for 
the year ended December 31, 1999.
    For some deliveries pursuant to contracts based on SWU prices, the 
respondent's reported costs did not include a value for the uranium 
feedstock used in the production of the delivered LEU. To translate the 
reported costs to an LEU basis, we added to the reported costs a value 
for the uranium feedstock used in the production of the LEU. This value 
was derived from the respondent's average cost of uranium feedstock 
purchases during the POI.
    We note that, during the POI, Eurodif/Cogema obtained electricity 
from Electricite de France (EDF), an affiliated French utility. Section 
773(f)(2) of the Act provides that the Department may value any element 
obtained from an affiliate at the market value of the element, if the 
transfer price does not fairly reflect a market value (the 
``transactions disregarded'' rule). In the instant case, the rate 
charged by EDF to Eurodif/Cogema is below that charged to other large 
industrial users. However, the record indicates that Eurodif/Cogema is 
by far the largest consumer of electricity in France. The rate charged 
by EDF to Eurodif/Cogema appears to be commensurate with the 
respondent's massive consumption of electricity. Moreover, there is 
evidence on the record that at least one unaffiliated European 
electricity provider offered electricity to Eurodif/Cogema at rates 
even lower than that charged by EDF. Given the facts of this case, we 
have preliminarily determined to rely on the transfer price for 
electricity reported by Eurodif/Cogema. We will examine this further at 
verification.
    Because there is no viable comparison market for Eurodif/Cogema, 
and hence no actual company-specific profit data available for Eurodif/
Cogema, we calculated profit in accordance with section 
773(e)(2)(B)(iii) of the Act and the Statement of Administrative Action 
(SAA) at 841. (Where, due to the absence of data, the Department cannot 
determine amounts for profit under alternatives (i) or (ii) of section 
773(e)(2)(B) of the Act or a ``profit cap'' under alternative (iii) of 
section 773(e)(2)(B) of the Act, the Department may apply alternative 
(iii) on the basis of the facts available.) In this case, we based CV 
profit on the profit rate on the 1999 financial statements of CEA 
Industrie, a holding company for the industrial interests of the French 
Atomic Energy Commission, which consolidates the financial results of 
the respondent and other companies associated with the French nuclear 
industry.

Level of Trade/CEP Offset

    In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B) of the Act, to the extent 
practicable, we determine NV based on sales in the comparison market at 
the same level of trade (LOT) as the export price (EP) or CEP 
transaction. The NV LOT is that of the starting-price sales in the 
comparison market or, when NV is based on CV, that of the sales from 
which we derive SG&A expenses and profit. For EP, the U.S. LOT is also 
the level of the starting-price sale, which is usually from exporter to 
importer. For CEP, it is the level of the constructed sale from the 
exporter to the importer.
    To determine whether NV sales are at a different LOT than EP or 
CEP, we examine stages in the marketing process and selling functions 
along the chain of distribution between the producer and the 
unaffiliated customer. If the comparison-market sales are at a 
different LOT, and the difference affects price comparability, as 
manifested in a pattern of consistent price differences between the 
sales on which NV is based and comparison-market sales at the LOT of 
the export transaction, we make an LOT adjustment under section 
773(a)(7)(A) of the Act. Finally, for CEP sales, if the NV level is 
more remote from the factory than the CEP level and there is no basis 
for determining whether the difference in the levels between NV and CEP 
affects price comparability, we adjust NV under section 773(a)(7)(B) of 
the Act (the CEP offset provision). See Notice of Final Determination 
of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel 
Plate from South Africa, 62 FR 61731 (November 19, 1997).
    In implementing these principles in this investigation, we obtained 
information from the respondent about the marketing stages involved in 
the reported U.S. sales, as well as in the home market,\5\ including a 
description of the selling activities performed by the respondent for 
each channel of distribution. Given that all U.S. sales were CEP sales, 
we considered only the selling activities reflected in the price after 
the deduction of expenses and profit under section 772(d) of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Although the home market was not viable, for the purpose of 
calculating CV, the respondent provided POI home market selling 
expenses (related to pre-POI contracts) in its questionnaire 
responses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the U.S. market, the respondent sells to utility customers. 
After deducting expenses associated with the selling activities 
reflected in the price under section 772(d) of the Act (i.e., the 
expenses of Cogema Inc. and Urangesellschaft), we noted selling 
expenses associated with strategic planning and marketing, customer 
sales contact, production planning and evaluation, and contract 
administration. These expenses did not vary by U.S. channel of 
distribution. Therefore, we found all U.S. sales to be made at single 
LOT.
    Home market selling expenses for CV were based on the selling 
expenses of Cogema for pre-POI home market contracts. We have no basis 
for attributing different expenses to different channels of 
distribution. Therefore, we found a single LOT of trade in the home 
market.
    The respondent generally performs the same kinds of selling 
functions in both markets. Although the respondent described different 
degrees of selling activities associated with home market sales and 
U.S. sales by characterizing the levels of different activities as 
``low,'' ``medium'' or ``high,'' the respondent did not explain the 
distinctions between these terms with respect to the different 
categories of selling activities, leaving these terms ambiguous. 
Therefore, we have no basis for concluding whether or not a CEP offset 
to normal value is appropriate and we did not calculate a CEP offset. 
We will examine this further at verification.

Currency Conversions

    We made currency conversions into U.S. dollars in accordance with 
section 773A of the Act based on exchange rates in effect on the dates 
of the U.S. sales, as obtained from the Federal Reserve Bank (the 
Department's preferred source for exchange rates).

Verification

    In accordance with section 782(i) of the Act, we intend to verify 
all information relied upon in making our final determinations.

Suspension of Liquidation

    In accordance with section 733(d) of the Act, we are directing the 
Customs Service to suspend liquidation of all entries of low enriched 
uranium from France that are entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for 
consumption on or after the date of publication of this

[[Page 36748]]

notice in the Federal Register.\6\ We are also instructing the Customs 
Service to require a cash deposit or the posting of a bond equal to the 
weighted-average amount by which the NV exceeds the CEP, as indicated 
in the chart below. These instructions suspending liquidation will 
remain in effect until further notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ On July 3, 2001, the Department received comments from the 
respondent requesting that, in the event of an affirmative 
preliminary determination, the application of any cash deposit, bond 
or other security be limited to transactions involving the sale of 
enriched uranium, and exclude imports pursuant to so-called SWU 
contracts. We will consider these comments for the final 
determination.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The weighted-average dumping margins are as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        Weighted-average
                 Exporter/manufacturer                       margin
                                                           percentage
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eurodif/Cogema........................................             17.52
All Others............................................             17.52
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Disclosure

    The Department will disclose calculations performed within five 
days of the date of publication of this notice to the parties of the 
proceedings in this investigation in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).

ITC Notification

    In accordance with section 733(f) of the Act, we have notified the 
ITC of our preliminary determination. If our final antidumping 
determination is affirmative, the ITC will determine whether the 
imports covered by that determination are materially injuring, or 
threaten material injury to, the U.S. industry. The deadline for that 
ITC determination would be the later of 120 days after the date of this 
preliminary determination or 45 days after the date of our final 
determination.

Public Comment

    Case briefs for this investigation must be submitted no later than 
one week after the issuance of the verification reports. Rebuttal 
briefs must be filed within five days after the deadline for submission 
of case briefs. A list of authorities used, a table of contents, and an 
executive summary of issues should accompany any briefs submitted to 
the Department. Executive summaries should be limited to five pages 
total, including footnotes.
    Section 774 of the Act provides that the Department will hold a 
hearing to afford interested parties an opportunity to comment on 
arguments raised in case or rebuttal briefs, provided that such a 
hearing is requested by any interested party. If a request for a 
hearing is made in an investigation, the hearing will tentatively be 
held two days after the deadline for submission of the rebuttal briefs, 
at the U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230. In the event that the Department 
receives requests for hearings from parties to more than one low-
enriched uranium case, the Department may schedule a single hearing to 
encompass all those cases. Parties should confirm by telephone the 
time, date, and place of the hearing 48 hours before the scheduled 
time.
    Interested parties who wish to request a hearing, or to participate 
if one is requested, must submit a written request within 30 days of 
the publication of this notice. Requests should specify the number of 
participants and provide a list of the issues to be discussed. Oral 
presentations will be limited to issues raised in the briefs.
    We will issue our final determination no later than 135 days after 
the date of publication of this notice in the Federal Register.
    This determination is issued and published pursuant to sections 
733(f) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: July 5, 2001.
Faryar Shirzad,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 01-17622 Filed 7-12-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P