19210 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 73 / Monday, April 17, 1995 / Notices

statements previously submitted to the

Department. Toro and Guacatay

submitted copies of their income tax

returns; however, they failed to

reconcile them with their unaudited

financial statements. The remaining

respondent, Aguaje, claimed it could

not substantiate or reconcile the cost

data contained in its unaudited

financial statement because it had not

filed its income tax returns for the POR,

as required by the Mexican government.

Although Aguaje claimed that it had not

filed its returns, it provided no evidence

to demonstrate that it was exempt from

filing.

The Department relies on the

accounting system used in the

preparation of the audited financial

statements to ensure that a company’s

submitted sales and cost data are

credible. An ‘‘in-house’’ system which

has not been audited, and is not used for

tax purposes or for any purpose other

than internal deliberations of the

company, does not assure the

Department that costs have been stated

in accordance with generally accepted

accounting principles, or that all sales

and costs have been appropriately

captured by the ‘‘in-house’’ system. (See

Final Determination at Less Than Fair

Value: Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel

Flat Products and Certain Cut-To-Length

Carbon Steel Plate from Korea, 58 FR

37186 (July 9, 1993).)

For prior review periods, respondents

were not required under Mexican law to

maintain audited financial statements or

file tax returns. We accepted

respondents’ unaudited ‘‘in-house’’

statements in prior reviews because they

did not have, and therefore could not

submit, official corroboration of their

internal records. (See Notice of Final

Results of Antidumping Duty

Administrative Review; Certain Fresh

Cut Flowers from Mexico, 56 FR 29621,

59622–23 (June 28, 1991).) However,

Mexican law governing income tax

reporting changed in 1991, and the

respondents were required to have filed

tax returns covering the POR. Because

respondents made inconsistent

statements regarding their obligation to

file taxes, and further, failed to reconcile

their financial statements to their tax

records as requested by the Department,

we rejected respondents’ data in their

entirety.

For the reasons stated above, the

Department determines that Aguaje,

Guacatay, and Toro are uncooperative

respondents. As a result, in accordance

with section 776(c) of the Act, we have

determined that the use of BIA is

appropriate. Whenever, as here, a

company refuses to cooperate with the

Department, or otherwise significantly

impedes an antidumping proceeding,

we use as BIA the higher of (1) the

highest of the rates found for any firm

for the same class or kind of

merchandise in the same country of

origin in the less-than-fair-value (LTFV)

investigation or in prior administrative

reviews; or (2) the highest rate found in

this review for any firm for the same

class or kind of merchandise. (See

Antifriction Bearings from France, et al.;

Final Results of Review, 58 FR 39729

(July 26, 1993).) As BIA, we assigned the

rate of 39.95 percent, which is the

second highest rate found for any

Mexican flower producer from both the

prior reviews and the LTFV

investigation. We have selected this rate

because the highest rate found for any

Mexican flower producer in prior

reviews and the LTFV investigation,

264.43 percent, is an aberrational rate

not representative of the market. This

rate was due to a company’s

extraordinarily high business expenses

during the review period resulting from

investment activities which were

uncharacteristic of the other reviewed

companies. Therefore, we found it

inappropriate to use this rate as BIA,

both in the prior review and in this

review. (See Notice of Final Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review; Certain Fresh Cut Flowers from

Mexico, 56 FR 29621, 29623 (June 28,

1991).) We preliminarily determine that

the following dumping margins exist for

the period April 1, 1991, through March

31, 1992:

Manufacturer/Exporter

Margin

(percent)

Ranch el Aguaje ............................. 39.95

Rancho Guacatay ........................... 39.95

Rancho el Toro ............................... 39.95

Visaflor ............................................ 1 0

1 No shipments during the POR. Rate is

from the last review in which Visaflor had shipments.

Any interested party may request a

hearing within 10 days of publication of

this notice. Any hearing will be held 44

days after the date of publication of this

notice, or the first workday thereafter.

Interested parties may submit case briefs

within 30 days of the publication date

of this notice. Rebuttal briefs, limited to

issues raised in the case briefs, may be

filed not later than 37 days after the date

of publication of this notice. The

Department will publish a notice of the

final results of this administrative

review, which will include the result of

its analysis of issues raised in any such

case briefs.

The following deposit requirements

shall be effective for all shipments of the

subject merchandise that are entered, or

withdrawn from warehouse for

consumption, on or after the publication

date of the final results of this

administrative review, as provided by

section 751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) The cash

deposit rates for the reviewed

companies shall be those rates

established in the final results of this

review; (2) for previously reviewed or

investigated companies not listed above,

the cash deposit rate will continue to be

the company-specific rate published for

the most recent period; (3) if the

exporter is not a firm covered in this

review, a prior review, or the original

LTFV investigation, but the

manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate

shall be the rate established for the most

recent period for the manufacturer of

the merchandise; and (4) if neither the

exporter nor the manufacturer is a firm

covered in this or any previous review,

the cash deposit rate will be 18.28

percent, the all others rate established in

the LTFV investigation.

These deposit requirements, when

imposed, shall remain in effect until

publication of the final results of the

next administrative review.

This notice serves as a preliminary

reminder to importers of their

responsibility under 19 CFR 353.26 to

file a certificate regarding the

reimbursement of antidumping duties

prior to liquidation of the relevant

entries during this review period.

Failure to comply with this requirement

could result in the Secretary’s

presumption that reimbursement of

antidumping duties occurred and the

subsequent assessment of double

antidumping duties.

This administrative review and notice

are in accordance with section 751(a)(1)

of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)(1)) and

section 353.22 of the Department’s

regulations.

Dated: April 7, 1995.

Susan G. Esserman,

Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 95–9407 Filed 4–14–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

North American Free Trade Agreement

(NAFTA), Article 1904 Binational Panel

Reviews: Notice of Completion of

Panel Review

AGENCY: North American Free Trade

Agreement, NAFTA Secretariat, United

States Section, International Trade

Administration, Department of

Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of Completion of Panel

Review of the final dumping
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 73 / Monday, April 17, 1995 / Notices 19211

1 ‘‘The MD4 Message Digest Algorithm,’’

Advances in Cryptology-CRYPTO ’90 Proceedings,

Springer-Verlag, 1991, pp. 303–311.

determination made by the Deputy

Minister of National Revenue, Customs,

Excise and Taxation respecting Fresh,

Whole, Delicious; Red Delicious and

Golden Delicious apples, originating in

or exported from the United States of

America. The Binational Panel Review

is terminated. (Secretariat File No.

CDA–95–1904–02).

SUMMARY: On February 14, 1995, the

Northwest Horticultural Council (NHC)

filed a Request for panel review in the

above referenced matter with the

Canadian Section of the NAFTA

Secretariat. On March 17, 1995, the

NHC filed a Notice of Motion requesting

termination of this panel review. No

other interested person filed a request

for Panel Review of this final

determination. As of March 17, 1995, no

Complaint nor Notice of Appearance

had been filed by any interested person.

Therefore, pursuant to subrules 71(2)

and 78(a) of the NAFTA Article 1904

Panel Rules, this Notice of Completion

of Panel Review was effective on March

17, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

James R. Holbein, United States

Secretary, NAFTA Secretariat, Suite

2061, 14th and Constitution Avenue,

Washington, D.C. 20230, (202) 482–

5438.

Dated: April 7, 1995.

Caratina L. Alston,

Deputy U.S. Secretary, NAFTA Binational

Secretariat.

[FR Doc. 95–9408 Filed 4–14–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–GT–M

National Institute of Standards and

Technology

[Docket No. 950215050–5050–01]

RIN 0693–AB33

Approval of Federal Information

Processing Standards Publication

180–1, Secure Hash Standard (SHS)

AGENCY: National Institute of Standards

and Technology (NIST), Commerce.

ACTION: The purpose of this notice is to

announce that the Secretary of

Commerce has approved a new

standard, which will be published as

FIPS Publication 180–1, Secure Hash

Standard (SHS).

SUMMARY: On July 11, 1994 (59 FR

35317–35319), and August 5, 1994 (59

FR 40084) notices were published in the

Federal Register that a revision of

Federal Information Processing

Standards Publication FIPS PUB 180,

Secure Hash Standard (SHS), was being

proposed for Federal use.

The written comments submitted by

interested parties and other material

available to the Department relevant to

this revised standard were reviewed by

NIST. On the basis of this review, NIST

recommended that the Secretary

approve the revised standard as Federal

Information Processing Standards

Publication (FIPS PUB) 180–1, and

prepare a detailed justification

document for the Secretary’s review in

support of that recommendation.

The detailed justification document

which was presented to the Secretary is

part of the public record and is available

for inspection and copying in the

Department’s Central Reference and

Records Inspection Facility, Room 6020,

Herbert C. Hoover Building, 14th Street

between Pennsylvania and Constitution

Avenues, NW., Washington, DC 20230.

This FIPS contains two sections: (1)

An announcement section, which

provides information concerning the

applicability, implementation, and

maintenance of the standard; and (2) a

specifications section which deals with

the technical requirements of the

standard. Only the announcement

section of the standard is provided in

this notice.

EFFECTIVE DATES: This revised standard

is effective October 2, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Interested parties may

purchase copies of this standard,

including the technical specifications

section, from the National Technical

Information Service (NTIS). Specific

ordering information from NTIS for this

standard is set out in the Where to

Obtain Copies Section of the

announcement section of the standard.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mr. Miles Smid, telephone (301) 975–

2938, National Institute of Standards

and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD

20899.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: NIST has

been notified that Department of

Defense authorities have approved the

use of the SHS with the DSS to sign

unclassified data processed by ‘‘Warner

Amendment’’ systems (10 U.S.C. 2315

and 44 U.S.C. 3502(2)) as well as

classified data in selected applications.

Dated: April 11, 1995.

Samuel Kramer,

Associate Director.

Federal Information Processing

Standards Publication 180–1

(Date)

Announcing the Secure Hash Standard

Federal Information Processing

Standards Publications (FIPS PUBS) are

issued by the National Institute of

Standards and Technology (NIST) after

approval by the Secretary of Commerce

pursuant to Section 111(d) of the

Federal Property and Administrative

Services Act of 1949 as amended by the

Computer Security Act of 1987, Public

Law 100–235.

Name of Standard: Secure Hash

Standard.

Category of Standard: Computer

Security.

Explanation: This Standard specifies a

secure hash algorithm, SHA–1, for

computing a condensed representation

of a message or a data file. When a

message of any length < 264 bits is input,

the SHA–1 produces a 160–bit output

called a message digest. The message

digest can then be input to the Digital

Signature Algorithm (DSA) which

generates or verifies the signature for the

message (see Figure 1). Signing the

message digest rather than the message

often improves the efficiency of the

process because the message digest is

usually much smaller in size than the

message. The same hash algorithm must

be used by the verifier of a digital

signature as was used by the creator of

the digital signature.

The SHA–1 is called secure because it

is computationally infeasible to find a

message which corresponds to a given

message digest, or to find two different

messages which produce the same

message digest. Any change to a

message in transit will, with very high

probability, result in a different message

digest, and the signature will fail to

verify. SHA–1 is a technical revision of

SHA (FIPS 180). A circular left shift

operation has been added to the

specifications in section 7, line b, page

9 of FIPS 180 and its equivalent in

section 8, line c, page 10 of FIPS 180.

This revision improves the security

provided by this standard. The SHA–1

is based on principles similar to those

used by Professor Ronald L. Rivest of

MIT when designing the MD4 message

digest algorithm,1 and is closely

modelled after that algorithm.

BILLING CODE 3510–CN–M