[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 4 (Friday, January 5, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Pages 1080-1084]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-274]



[[Page 1080]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-427-818, A-428-828, A-421-808, A-412-820]


Notice of Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigations: Low 
Enriched Uranium From France, Germany, the Netherlands, and the United 
Kingdom

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

ACTION: Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigations.

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

EFFECTIVE DATE: January 5, 2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: James Terpstra (Germany, the 
Netherlands, the United Kingdom) at (202) 482-3965, and Gabriel Adler 
(France) at (202) 482-3813, Office 6 and 5, respectively, Group II, 
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. 
Department of Commerce, Room 1870, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, 
NW, Washington, DC 20230.

Initiation of Investigations

The Applicable Statute and Regulations

    Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the statute are 
references to the provisions effective January 1, 1995, the effective 
date of the amendments made to the Tariff Act of 1930 (the Act) by the 
Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA). In addition, unless otherwise 
indicated, all citations to the Department's regulations are references 
to the provisions codified at 19 CFR Part 351 (2000).

The Petitions

    On December 7, 2000, the Department of Commerce (the Department) 
received petitions filed in proper form by USEC Inc., and its wholly 
owned subsidiary, United States Enrichment Corporation. On December 26, 
2000, the Department received a letter from USEC amending the petitions 
to add the Paper, Allied-Industrial, Chemical and Energy Workers 
International Union, AFL-CIO, CLC, and Local 5-550 and Local 5-689 
(collectively PACE) to the petitions as an interested party pursuant to 
section 771(9)(D) of the Act. In addition, PACE filed its own letter on 
December 26, 2000, expressing support for and joining the petitions. 
The Department received from the petitioners information supplementing 
the petitions throughout the 20-day initiation period.
    In accordance with section 732(b) of the Act, the petitioners 
allege that imports of low enriched uranium from France, Germany, the 
Netherlands, and the United Kingdom are being, or are likely to be, 
sold in the United States at less than fair value within the meaning of 
section 731 of the Act, and that such imports are materially injuring 
an industry in the United States.
    The Department finds that the petitioners filed these petitions on 
behalf of the domestic industry because they are an interested party as 
defined in sections 771(9)(C) and (D) of the Act and have demonstrated 
sufficient industry support with respect to each of the antidumping 
investigations that they are requesting the Department to initiate (see 
the Determination of Industry Support for the Petitions section below).

Scope of Investigations

    For purposes of these investigations, the product covered is low 
enriched uranium (LEU). LEU is enriched uranium hexafluoride 
(UF6) with a U235 product assay of less than 20 
percent that has not been converted into another chemical form, such as 
UO2, or fabricated into nuclear fuel assemblies, regardless 
of the means by which the LEU is produced (including LEU produced 
through the down-blending of highly enriched uranium).
    Certain merchandise is outside the scope of these investigations. 
Specifically, these investigations do 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.
    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 U.S. Customs purposes, the 
written description of the merchandise under investigation is 
dispositive.
    During our review of the petitions, we discussed the scope with the 
petitioners to ensure that it accurately reflects the product for which 
the domestic industry is seeking relief. Moreover, as discussed in the 
preamble to the Department's regulations (62 FR 27323), we are setting 
aside a period for parties to raise issues regarding product coverage. 
The Department encourages all parties to submit such comments by 
January 17, 2001. Comments should be addressed to Import 
Administration's Central Records Unit at Room 1870, U.S. Department of 
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 
20230. The period for scope comments is intended to provide the 
Department with ample opportunity to consider all comments and consult 
with parties prior to the issuance of the preliminary determinations.

Determination of Industry Support for the Petitions

    Section 771(4)(A) of the Act defines the ``industry'' as the 
producers of a domestic like product. Thus, to determine whether the 
petitions have the requisite industry support, the statute directs the 
Department to look to producers and workers who produce the domestic 
like product. The International Trade Commission (ITC), which is 
responsible for determining whether ``the domestic industry'' has been 
injured, must also determine what constitutes the domestic like product 
in order to define the industry. While both the Department and the ITC 
must apply the same statutory definition regarding the domestic like 
product (section 771(10) of the Act), they do so for different purposes 
and pursuant to separate and distinct authority. In addition, the 
Department's determination is subject to greater limitations of time 
and information. Although this may result in different definitions of 
the like product, such differences do not render the decision of either 
agency contrary to the law.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Algoma Steel Corp. Ltd., v. United States, 688 F. Supp. 
639, 642-44 (CIT 1988); High Information Content Flat Panel Displays 
and Display Glass Therefore from Japan: Final Determination; 
Rescission of Investigation and Partial Dismissal of Petition, 56 FR 
32376, 32380-81 (July 16, 1991).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 771(10) of the Act defines the domestic like product as ``a 
product which is like, or in the absence of like, most similar in 
characteristics and uses with, the article subject to an investigation 
under this title.'' Thus, the reference point from which the domestic 
like product analysis begins is ``the article subject to an 
investigation,'' i.e., the class or kind of merchandise to be 
investigated, which normally will be the scope as defined in the 
petition. Moreover, the petitioners do not offer a definition of 
domestic like product

[[Page 1081]]

distinct from the scope of these investigations.
    The domestic like product referred to in the petitions is the 
single domestic like product defined in the Scope of Investigations 
section, above. The Department has no basis on the record to find the 
petitioners' definition of the domestic like product to be inaccurate. 
The Department, therefore, has adopted the domestic like product 
definition set forth in the petitions.
    Section 732(b)(1) of the Act requires that a petition be filed on 
behalf of the domestic industry. Section 732(c)(4)(A) of the Act 
provides that a petition meets this requirement if the domestic 
producers or workers who support the petition account for: (1) At least 
25 percent of the total production of the domestic like product; and 
(2) more than 50 percent of the production of the domestic like product 
produced by that portion of the industry expressing support for, or 
opposition to, the petition. Finally, section 732(c)(4)(D) of the Act 
provides that if the petition does not establish support of domestic 
producers or workers accounting for more than 50 percent of the total 
production of the domestic like product, the administering agency 
shall: (i) Poll the industry or rely on other information in order to 
determine if there is support for the petition as required by 
subparagraph (A), or (ii) determine industry support using a 
statistically valid sampling method.
    In order to estimate production for the domestic industry as 
defined for purposes of this case, the Department has relied upon not 
only the petitions and amendments thereto, but also upon ``other 
information'' it obtained through research and which is attached to the 
Initiation Checklist (See Import Administration AD Investigation 
Initiation Checklist (Initiation Checklist) and Industry Support 
Memorandum from Melissa G. Skinner to Holly A. Kuga dated December 27, 
2000 (Industry Support Memorandum). Based on information from these 
sources, the Department determined, pursuant to section 732(c)(4)(D), 
that there is support for the petition as required by subparagraph (A). 
Specifically, the Department made the following determinations. For 
France, Germany, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom, the 
petitioners established industry support representing over 50 percent 
of total production of the domestic like product. Therefore, the 
domestic producers or workers who support the petitions account for at 
least 25 percent of the total production of the domestic like product, 
and the requirements of section 732(c)(4)(A)(i) are met.
    On December 19, 2000, the Ad Hoc Utilities Group (the Utilities 
Group) (Arizona Public Service Co.; Carolina Power & Light Co.; 
Commonwealth Edison Co.; Consumers Energy; Dominion Generation, Duke 
Energy Corp.; DTE Energy; Entergy Services, Inc.; First Energy Nuclear 
Operating Co.; Nuclear Management Co.; PSEG Nuclear LLC; Southern 
Nuclear Operating Co.; Union Electric Company (d/b/a AmerenUE); and 
Wolf Creek Nuclear Operating Corp.) filed a letter asserting that the 
Utilities Group members are domestic producers of LEU and that the 
petitioners lack industry support, because USEC produces less than 25 
percent of domestic LEU. On December 20, 2000, Eurodif/Cogema and 
Urenco filed a submission claiming that the petitioners did not have 
standing in order to file the petitions. Both the Utilities Group and 
Eurodif/Cogema and Urenco argue that the petitioners are in the 
business of providing a service (i.e., the enrichment of uranium), 
rather than manufacturing a product, and the antidumping law does not 
apply to services. In addition, they argue that the vast majority of 
the petitioners' production of enriched uranium is performed under a 
tolling arrangement, whereby the utilities provide the petitioners with 
converted uranium, and retain title to the input while the petitioners 
enrich it. The utilities and foreign respondents argue that the 
utilities are the producers for these transactions.
    On December 21, 2000, the petitioners submitted a letter to rebut 
the Utilities Group's comments on industry support. The petitioners 
argue that the tolling regulation has no relevance in determining who 
is a U.S. producer or manufacturer of the domestic like product for 
standing purposes. In addition, the petitioners argue that the 
Utilities Group provided no factual support for its claim that its 
members are producers of LEU, and that it is not an interested party.
    On December 22, 2000, the petitioners submitted additional comments 
with regard to the above comments made by the Utilities Group and 
Eurodif/Cogema and Urenco.
    As explained in The Petitions section above, PACE filed a letter on 
December 26, 2000, joining the petitions.
    On December 26, 2000, Eurodif/Cogema and Urenco submitted 
additional comments regarding their December 20, 2000, submission on 
industry support.
    Based on our analysis of the comments received from the Utilities 
Group, Eurodif/Cogema, Urenco, and the petitioners, the Department 
determined that the utilities were not part of the domestic industry 
producing LEU. See Industry Support Memorandum, where we found that the 
utility companies do not engage in any manufacturing type of activities 
with respect to the production of LEU.
    Because the Department determined that the utilities were not part 
of the domestic industry, the Department received no opposition from 
the LEU industry to the petitions. Therefore, the domestic producers or 
workers who support the petitions account for more than 50 percent of 
the production of the domestic like product produced by that portion of 
the industry expressing support for or opposition to the petitions. 
Thus, the requirements of section 732(c)(4)(A)(ii) are also met.
    Accordingly, the Department determines that the petitions were 
filed on behalf of the domestic industry within the meaning of section 
732(b)(1) of the Act. See the Initiation Checklist.

Export Price and Normal Value

    The following are descriptions of the allegations of sales at less 
than fair value upon which the Department based its decision to 
initiate these investigations. The sources of data for the deductions 
and adjustments relating to home market price, U.S. price, and 
constructed value (CV) are detailed in the Initiation Checklist. Where 
the petitioners relied on data reported by a market researcher, the 
petitioners also supplied affidavits from company officials regarding 
this data. In addition, we spoke to the market researcher to establish 
that person's credentials and to confirm the validity of the 
information being provided. For purposes of these initiations, we have 
not relied on specific margins where the petitioners' sources were 
unable to firmly establish the identity of the producer. See Initiation 
Checklist and Memorandum to the File, Telephone Conversation with 
Source of Market Research used in Antidumping Petitions to Support 
Certain Factual Information, dated December 27, 2000. Should the need 
arise to use any of this information as facts available under section 
776 of the Act in our preliminary or final determinations, we may re-
examine the information and revise the margin calculations, if 
appropriate.
    The petitioners based their allegations on a 33-month period 
because of the long-term contracts that are characteristic of the 
uranium industry. See the Initiation Checklist. The Department will 
consider the appropriate period of information

[[Page 1082]]

collection in this case after initiation. As discussed below, the 
following margins are based on constructed value: France 18.28 to 53.30 
percent, Germany 19.44 to 29.52 percent, the Netherlands 10.76 to 29.22 
percent, and the United Kingdom 15.57 to 23.25 percent.

France

Export Price

    The petitioners based prices of Eurodif's/Cogema's sales to U.S. 
utilities on information obtained from market research. Although the 
petitioners stated that Eurodif/Cogema makes sales to the U.S. 
utilities through its affiliated company in the United States, making 
U.S. prices constructed export prices (CEP), the petitioners made no 
deductions to the CEP for selling expenses.

Normal Value

    With respect to normal value (NV), the petitioners stated that they 
were not aware of any sales made by Eurodif/Cogema in France since 
January 1998. Instead, the petitioners based NV on a Eurodif/Cogema 
sale to Japan, its largest third country market as reported in an 
affidavit from a company official with the petitioners. The petitioners 
did not make any adjustments to the starting price.
    Although the petitioners provided information on NV, they also 
provided information demonstrating reasonable grounds to believe or 
suspect that sales of LEU in the third country market were made at 
prices below the fully absorbed COP, within the meaning of section 
773(b) of the Act, and requested that the Department conduct a country-
wide sales-below-cost investigation.
    Pursuant to section 773(b)(3) of the Act, COP consists of the cost 
of manufacturing (COM), sales, general, and administrative (SG&A) 
expenses, and packing. The petitioners calculated Eurodif's COM 
including raw material cost, energy, labor, variable and fixed costs. 
G&A expenses were derived from the Eurodif financial statements while 
financial expenses were calculated from the consolidated parent company 
financial statements. See the Initiation of Cost Investigations section 
below.
    Based upon the comparison of the prices of the foreign like product 
in the comparison market to the calculated COP of the product, we find 
reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that sales of the foreign like 
product were made below the COP, within the meaning of section 
773(b)(2)(A)(i) of the Act. Accordingly, the Department is initiating a 
country-wide cost investigation with respect to sales in Japan. In the 
event that the Department determines that Japan is the appropriate 
market upon which to base normal value, we will conduct a COP 
investigation. Because the comparison market prices petitioners used 
for LEU sales are below the COP, the petitioners based NV on CV. The 
petitioners calculated CV incorporating the same costs used for the 
COP. The petitioners included in CV an amount for profit which was 
based on the profit of Eurodif from its financial statements.
    Based upon the comparison of EP to CV, the petitioners calculated 
estimated dumping margins ranging from 18.28 to 53.30 percent.

Germany

Export Price

    For Germany, the petitioners based EP on prices from reports of 
Urenco's U.S. sales of LEU published by the petitioners' market 
researcher. The petitioners stated that Urenco makes sales to U.S. 
utilities through its affiliated sales agent in the United States. 
Thus, the petitioners contend that the U.S. sales should be treated as 
CEP sales in the investigation. However, for purposes of the petition, 
the petitioners stated that they did not make any adjustments to the 
starting price.

Normal Value

    With respect to NV, the petitioners based Urenco's home market 
prices for LEU on an affidavit from a company official with the 
petitioners. The petitioners stated that they did not make any 
adjustments to the starting price.
    Although the petitioners provided information on home market 
prices, they also provided information demonstrating reasonable grounds 
to believe or suspect that sales of LEU in the home market were made at 
prices below the fully absorbed COP, within the meaning of section 
773(b) of the Act, and requested that the Department conduct a country-
wide sales-below-cost investigation.
    Pursuant to section 773(b)(3) of the Act, COP consists of the COM, 
SG&A expenses, and packing. The petitioners calculated Urenco 
Deutschland's COM including raw material cost, energy, labor, variable 
and fixed costs. G&A expenses were derived from the company's financial 
statements while financial expenses were calculated from the 
consolidated parent company financial statements. See the Initiation of 
Cost Investigations section below.
    Based upon the comparison of the prices of the foreign like product 
in the home market to the calculated COP of the product, we find 
reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that sales of the foreign like 
product were made below the COP, within the meaning of section 
773(b)(2)(A)(i) of the Act. Accordingly, the Department is initiating a 
country-wide cost investigation. Because the home market price is below 
the COP, the petitioners based NV on CV. The petitioners calculated CV 
incorporating the same costs used for the COP. The petitioners included 
in CV an amount for profit which was based on the profit of the Urenco 
Deutschland's financial statements.
    Based upon the comparison of EP to CV, the petitioners calculated 
estimated dumping margins ranging from 19.44 to 29.52 percent.

The Netherlands

Export Price

    For the Netherlands, the petitioners based EP on prices from 
reports of Urenco's U.S. sales of LEU published by their market 
researcher. The petitioners stated that Urenco makes sales to U.S. 
utilities through its affiliated sales agent in the United States. 
Thus, the petitioners contend that the U.S. sales should be treated as 
CEP sales in the investigation. However, for purposes of the petition, 
the petitioners stated that they did not make adjustments to the 
starting price.

Normal Value

    With respect to NV, the petitioners explained that they were not 
aware of any sales made by Urenco in the Netherlands during the 33-
month period. Instead, the petitioners based their NV on a Urenco sale 
to the Republic of Korea, its largest third country market as reported 
in an affidavit from a company official with the petitioners. The 
petitioners stated that they did not make any adjustments to the 
starting price. Although the petitioners provided information on NV, 
they also provided information demonstrating reasonable grounds to 
believe or suspect that sales of LEU in the third country market were 
made at prices below the fully absorbed COP, within the meaning of 
section 773(b) of the Act, and requested that the Department conduct a 
country-wide sales-below-cost investigation.
    Pursuant to section 773(b)(3) of the Act, COP consists of the COM, 
SG&A expenses, and packing. The petitioners calculated Urenco 
Nederland's COM including raw materials, energy, labor variable and 
fixed costs. The petitioners claimed to be unable to obtain a copy of 
Urenco Nederland's 1998 or 1999 financial statement. As a surrogate, 
all costs were derived from the Urenco

[[Page 1083]]

Deutschland's financial statements, except depreciation and financial 
expenses. See the Initiation of Cost Investigations section below.
    Based upon the comparison of the comparison market prices of the 
foreign like product to the calculated COP of the product, we find 
reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that sales of the foreign like 
product were made below the COP, within the meaning of section 
773(b)(2)(A)(i) of the Act. Accordingly, the Department is initiating a 
country-wide cost investigation with respect to Korea. In the event 
that the Department determines that Korea is the appropriate market 
upon which to base normal value, we will conduct a COP investigation. 
Because the NV petitioners used for LEU sales is below the COP, the 
petitioners based NV on CV. The petitioners calculated CV incorporating 
the same costs used for the COP. The petitioners included in CV an 
amount for profit which was based on the profit of the Urenco 
Deutschland's financial statements.
    Based upon the comparison of EP to CV, the petitioners calculated 
estimated dumping margins ranging from 10.76 to 29.22 percent.

The United Kingdom

Export Price

    For the United Kingdom, the petitioners based EP on prices from 
reports of Urenco's U.S. sales of LEU published by their market 
researcher. The petitioners stated that Urenco makes sales to U.S. 
utilities through its affiliated sales agent in the United States. 
Thus, the petitioners contend that the U.S. sales should be treated as 
CEP sales in the investigation. However, for purposes of the petition, 
the petitioners stated that they did not make any adjustments to the 
starting price.

Normal Value

    With respect to NV, the petitioners based Urenco's home market 
price for LEU on an affidavit from a company official with the 
petitioners. The petitioners stated that they did not make any 
adjustments to the starting price.
    Although the petitioners provided information on home market 
prices, they also provided information demonstrating reasonable grounds 
to believe or suspect that sales of LEU in the home market were made at 
prices below the fully absorbed COP, within the meaning of section 
773(b) of the Act, and requested that the Department conduct a country-
wide sales-below-cost investigation.
    Pursuant to section 773(b)(3) of the Act, COP consists of the COM, 
SG&A expenses, and packing. The petitioners calculated Urenco 
(Capenhurst), Ltd.'s COM including raw materials, energy, labor 
variable and fixed costs. G&A expenses were derived from the Urenco 
Ltd.'s financial statements while financial expenses were calculated 
from the consolidated parent company financial statements. See the 
Initiation of Cost Investigations section below.
    Based upon the comparison of the prices of the foreign like product 
in the home market to the calculated COP of the product, we find 
reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that sales of the foreign like 
product were made below the COP, within the meaning of section 
773(b)(2)(A)(i) of the Act. Accordingly, the Department is initiating a 
country-wide cost investigation. Because the home market price is below 
the COP, the petitioners based NV on CV. The petitioners calculated CV 
incorporating the same costs used for the COP. The petitioners included 
in CV an amount for profit which was based on the profit of the Urenco 
Ltd.'s financial statements.
    Based upon the comparison of EP to CV, the petitioners calculated 
estimated dumping margins ranging from 15.57 to 23.25 percent.

Initiation of Cost Investigations

    As noted above, pursuant to section 773(b) of the Act, the 
petitioners provided information demonstrating reasonable grounds to 
believe or suspect that sales in the home markets, or respective third 
country market of France, Germany, the Netherlands, and the United 
Kingdom were made at prices below the fully absorbed COP. The 
petitioners requested that the Department conduct country-wide sales-
below-cost investigations in connection with the requested antidumping 
investigations for these countries. The Statement of Administrative 
Action, accompanying the URAA states that an allegation of sales-below-
cost need not be specific to individual exporters or producers. SAA, H. 
Doc. 103-316, Vol. 1, 103d Cong., 2d Session, at 833(1994). The SAA, at 
833, states that ``Commerce will consider allegations of below-cost 
sales in the aggregate for a foreign country, just as Commerce 
currently considers allegations of sales at less than fair value on a 
country-wide basis for purposes of initiating an antidumping 
investigation.''
    Further, the SAA provides that ``new section 773(b)(2)(A) retains 
the current requirement that Commerce have `reasonable grounds to 
believe or suspect' that below cost sales have occurred before 
initiating such an investigation. `Reasonable grounds' * * * exist when 
an interested party provides specific factual information on costs and 
prices, observed or constructed, indicating that sales in the foreign 
market in question are at below-cost prices.'' Id. Based upon the 
comparison of the adjusted prices from the petitions for the 
representative foreign like products to their COPs, we find the 
existence of ``reasonable grounds to believe or suspect'' that sales of 
these foreign like products in the relevant markets for France, 
Germany, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom were made at prices 
below their respective COPs within the meaning of section 
773(b)(2)(A)(i) of the Act. Accordingly, the Department is initiating 
the requested country-wide cost investigations with respect to each of 
the four countries.

Fair Value Comparisons

    Based on the data provided by the petitioners, there is reason to 
believe that imports of LEU from France, Germany, the Netherlands, and 
the United Kingdom are being, or are likely to be, sold at less than 
fair value.

Allegations and Evidence of Material Injury and Causation

    The petitions allege that the U.S. industry producing the domestic 
like product is being materially injured, or is threatened with 
material injury, by reason of the individual and cumulated imports of 
the subject merchandise sold at less than NV. The petitioners contend 
that the industry's injured condition is evident in the declining 
trends in net operating profits, net sales volumes, profit-to-sales 
ratios, and capacity utilization. The allegations of injury and 
causation are supported by relevant evidence including U.S. Customs 
import data, lost sales, and pricing information. We have assessed the 
allegations and supporting evidence regarding material injury and 
causation, and have determined that these allegations are properly 
supported by accurate and adequate evidence and meet the statutory 
requirements for initiation (see Initiation Checklist at Attachment II 
Re: Material Injury).

Initiation of Antidumping Investigations

    Based upon our examination of the petitions on LEU, and the 
petitioners' responses to our supplemental questionnaire clarifying the 
petitions, as well as our conversation with the market researcher who 
provided information concerning various aspects of the petitions, we 
have found that the petitions meet the requirements of section 732 of 
the Act. Therefore, we are

[[Page 1084]]

initiating antidumping duty investigations to determine whether imports 
of LEU from France, Germany, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom 
are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less than 
fair value. Unless extended, we will make our preliminary 
determinations no later than 140 days after the date of these 
initiations.

Distribution of Copies of the Petitions

    In accordance with section 732(b)(3)(A) of the Act, a copy of the 
public version of each petition has been provided to the 
representatives of the governments of France, Germany, the Netherlands, 
and the United Kingdom. We will attempt to provide a copy of the public 
version of each petition to each exporter named in the petition, as 
appropriate.

International Trade Commission Notification

    We have notified the ITC of our initiations, as required by section 
732(d) of the Act.

Preliminary Determinations by the ITC

    The ITC will determine, no later than January 22, 2001, whether 
there is a reasonable indication that imports of LEU from France, 
Germany, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom are causing material 
injury, or threatening to cause material injury, to a U.S. industry. A 
negative ITC determination for any country will result in the 
investigation being terminated with respect to that country; otherwise, 
these investigations will proceed according to statutory and regulatory 
time limits.
    This notice is issued and published pursuant to section 777(i) of 
the Act.

    Dated: December 27, 2000.
Holly A. Kuga,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 01-274 Filed 1-4-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P