01-17622. 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: [phone] or [phone], 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, 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.

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]

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 (U₃ O₈) 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 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.

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.

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 § 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 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 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.

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 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.

The weighted-average dumping margins are as follows:

Exporter/manufacturer	Weighted-average 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.

Footnotes

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).

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.

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

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

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.

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.