Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 4 / Friday, January 5, 2001 / Notices 1085

Dated: December 29, 2000.

Joseph A. Spetrini,

Deputy Assistant Secretary, Enforcement

Group III.

[FR Doc. 01–384 Filed 1–4–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–580–834]

Notice of Extension of Time Limit for

Preliminary Results of Antidumping

Duty Administrative Review: Stainless

Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils From

Korea

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of extension of time limit

for the preliminary results of

antidumping duty administrative

review.

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce

(‘‘Department’’) is extending the time

limit for the preliminary results of the

review of stainless steel sheet and strip

in coils from the Republic of Korea. This

review covers the period January 4,

1999 through June 30, 2000.

EFFECTIVE DATE: January 5, 2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Laurel LaCivita, AD/CVD Enforcement

Group III, Office 9, Import

Administration, International Trade

Administration, U.S. Department of

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230;

telephone: (202) 482–4243.

The Applicable Statute

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’’).

Extension of Time Limit for Preliminary

Results

Because of the complex issues

enumerated in the Memorandum from

Edward C. Yang to Joseph A. Spetrini,

Extension of Time Limit for the

Preliminary Results of Administrative

Review of Certain Stainless Steel Sheet

and Strip in Coils from Korea, on file in

the Central Records Unit (CRU) of the

Main Commerce Building, Room B–099,

we find that it is not practicable to

complete this review by the scheduled

deadline of April 2, 2001. Therefore, in

accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A) of

the Act, the Department is extending the

time period for issuing the preliminary

results of review by 90 days until July

2, 2001.

Dated: December 29, 2000.

Joseph A. Spetrini,

Deputy Assistant Secretary, AD/CVD

Enforcement Group III.

[FR Doc. 01–386 Filed 1–4–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

(C–427–819, C–428–829, C–421–809, C–412–

821]

Notice of Initiation of Countervailing

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 countervailing duty

investigations.

EFFECTIVE DATE: January 5, 2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Michael Grossman (France) at (202)

482–3146; Robert Copyak (Germany) at

(202) 482–2209; Stephanie Moore (The

Netherlands) at (202) 482–3692; and

Eric B. Greynolds (United Kingdom) at

(202) 482–6071, Office 6, 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, AlliedIndustrial, 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 petitioners information

supplementing the petitions throughout

the 20-day initiation period.

In accordance with section 702(b) of

the Act, petitioners allege

manufacturers, producers, or exporters

of low enriched uranium from France,

Germany, the Netherlands, and the

United Kingdom received

countervailable subsidies within the

meaning of section 701 of the Act.

The Department finds that 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

countervailing duty 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

1086 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 4 / Friday, January 5, 2001 / Notices

1See 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).

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.

Consultations

Pursuant to section 702(b)(4)(A)(ii) of

the Act, the Department invited

representatives of the relevant foreign

governments as well as representatives

from the Delegation of the European

Commission for consultations with

respect to the countervailing duty

investigations. The Department held

consultations with representatives of the

governments of France, Germany, the

Netherlands, the United Kingdom, and

the Delegation of the European

Commission on December 21, 2000. See

the December 22, 2000, memoranda to

the file regarding these consultations

(public documents on file in the Central

Records Unit of the Department of

Commerce, Room B–099).

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 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

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

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 702(b)(1) of the Act requires

that a petition be filed on behalf of the

domestic industry. Section 702(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 702(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’’ obtained through

research, which is attached to the

Initiation Checklist (See Import

Administration CVD Investigation

Initiation Checklist (Initiation

Checklist), December 27, 2000, and the

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 702(c)(4)(D) of the Act, 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

702(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

countervailing duty 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

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 4 / Friday, January 5, 2001 / Notices 1087

petitioners enrich it. The utilities and

foreign respondents argue that the

utilities are the producers for these

transactions.

During consultations, the

governments and Delegation expressed

the same views as the Utilities Group

and Eurodif/Cogema and Urenco with

respect to USEC’s standing to file these

petitions.

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 and 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 702(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 702(b)(1)

of the Act. See the Initiation Checklist.

Injury Test

Because France, Germany, the

Netherlands, and the United Kingdom

are ‘‘Subsidies Agreement Countries’’

within the meaning of section 701(b) of

the Act, section 701(a)(2) applies to

these investigations. Accordingly, the

ITC must determine whether imports of

the subject merchandise from these

countries materially injure, or threaten

material injury to, a U.S. industry.

Allegations of Subsidies

Section 702(b) of the Act requires the

Department to initiate a countervailing

duty proceeding whenever an interested

party files, on behalf of an industry, a

petition that: (1) alleges the elements

necessary for an imposition of a duty

under section 701(a); and (2) is

accompanied by information reasonably

available to petitioners supporting the

allegations.

A. France

We are initiating an investigation of

the following programs alleged in the

petition to have provided

countervailable subsidies to producers

and exporters of the subject

merchandise in France:

1. Purchase of Enriched Uranium at

Prices that Constitute ‘‘More Than

Adequate Remuneration’’

2. Partial Exemption from Corporate

Income Taxes

B. Germany

We are initiating an investigation of

the following programs alleged in the

petition to have provided

countervailable subsidies to producers

and exporters of the subject

merchandise in Germany:

1. Enrichment Technology Research and

Development Subsidies

2. Regional and City Enrichment

Construction Subsidies

3. Forgiveness of Centrifuge Enrichment

Capacity Subsidies

4. Federal Subsidies

C. The Netherlands

We are initiating an investigation of

the following programs alleged in the

petition to have provided

countervailable subsidies to producers

and exporters of the subject

merchandise in the Netherlands:

1. Centrifuge Enrichment Technology

Research & Development

2. 1981 Equity Conversion

3. Subordinated Shareholder Loan

provided by Ultra-Centrifuge

Nederland N.V.

4. 1998 Shareholder Loan

5. Subsidized Loan Forgiveness

6. Wet Investeringsrekening Law (WIR)

Investment Incentives

7. Regional Investment Premiums

D. The United Kingdom

We are initiating an investigation of

the following programs alleged in the

petition to have provided

countervailable subsidies to producers

and exporters of the subject

merchandise in the United Kingdom:

1. Forgiveness of Decommissioning Debt

2. Extraordinary Asset Write Downs

Prior to Transfer of British Nuclear

Fuels Ltd. Enrichment Facilities

(BNFL)

3. 1993 Debt Forgiveness

4. Loan-Stock Debt Forgiveness

5. Nuclear Industry Finance Act Loans

and Loan Guarantees Under the

Atomic Energy and Nuclear Industry

Finance Acts

6. European Investment Bank Loans

7. Subordinated Shareholder Loan

Provided to Urenco Ltd. by BNFL

8. Regional Development Grants (RDGs)

to British Nuclear Fuels Limited

Enrichment Ltd. That Are Tied to the

Capenhurst Enrichment Facility and

RDGs to BNFL That Are Attributable

to Urenco Ltd.

9. Centrifuge Development Grant Tied to

Capenhurst Facility

10. Fossil Fuel Levy

11. Financial Assistance Under the

Electricity Act of 1989

We are not initiating an investigation

of the following programs alleged in the

petition to have provided

countervailable subsidies to producers

and exporters of the subject

merchandise in the United Kingdom.

1. Transfer of A3 Plant From BNFL to

Urenco Ltd. at Less Than Adequate

Remuneration

Petitioners allege that BNFL’s sale of

the A3 plant to Urenco Ltd. in 1995 was

conducted at a price that was less than

its book value, and, therefore constitutes

a sale of a good by a government entity

for less than adequate remuneration. In

support of their contention, petitioners

state that the cash price paid for the A3

plant (£29.3 million) was below the

plant’s true book value which,

according to their estimations, should

have been valued at 52.8 million.

Section 771(5)(E)(iv) of the Act states

that the adequacy of remuneration shall

be determined in relation to the

prevailing market conditions which

include price, quality, availability,

marketability, and other conditions of

purchase or sale. The mere fact that the

A3 plant was allegedly sold at a price

that was below its book value is not

enough information to warrant initiating

an investigation of a less than adequate

remuneration allegation without any

reference to prevailing market

conditions for the good in question.

1088 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 4 / Friday, January 5, 2001 / Notices

Therefore, we are not initiating on

petitioners’ less than adequate

remuneration allegation on the grounds

that petitioners have not provided

sufficient information to warrant

initiating an investigation of this

program.

2. Extraordinary Write Down Taken by

BNFL in 1993 Provided a Potential

Benefit to Urenco Ltd.

In 1993, BNFL transferred its

enrichment production at the

Capenhurst facility to Urenco Ltd. in

exchange for one-third ownership in

Urenco Ltd. Petitioners state that when

BNFL exchanged the Capenhurst facility

for ownership in Urenco Ltd., BNFL

incurred an extraordinary charge of £40

million to cover the restructuring of the

enrichment operations. Petitioners

claim that because of the nontransparency of Urenco’s restructuring,

they have been unable to determine how

to attribute the entire £40 million

written off by BNFL. However,

petitioners contend that the one-third

interest in Urenco Ltd. that BNFL

gained may not have been a fair market

exchange and that the £40 million

charge taken by BNFL may have

somehow provided subsidy benefits to

Urenco Ltd. that were not reflected in

the terms of the restructuring.

The only evidence that petitioners

have provided in support of this

allegation is a press article stating that

BNFL made a £40 million charge to

cover the merger of its Capenhurst

uranium enrichment plant. However,

petitioners provide no evidence to

indicate that this charge should have

somehow been attributed to Urenco Ltd.

Furthermore, petitioners provide no

information demonstrating how the £40

million charge allegedly taken by BNFL

resulted in BNFL obtaining its one-third

interest in Urenco Ltd. at less than

adequate remuneration. As noted above,

the adequacy of remuneration shall be

determined in relation to the prevailing

market conditions which include price,

quality, availability, marketability, and

other conditions of purchase or sale.

Petitioners have not addressed any of

these factors. On this basis, we are not

initiating an investigation of petitioners’

less than adequate remuneration

allegation. However, because the 1993

corporate restructuring of the Urenco

Group is involved in several allegations

on which we are initiating

investigations, during the course of this

investigation we will request additional

information from respondents regarding

BNFL’s extraordinary charge of £40

million.

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 subsidization of individual

and cumulated imports of the subject

merchandise. 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 Countervailing Duty

Investigations

The Department has examined the

countervailing duty petitions on low

enriched uranium from France,

Germany, the Netherlands, and the

United Kingdom, and found that they

comply with the requirements of section

702(b) of the Act. Therefore, in

accordance with section 702(b) of the

Act, we are initiating countervailing

duty investigations to determine

whether manufacturers, producers, or

exporters of low enriched uranium from

these countries receive subsidies. See

the December 27, 2000, memoranda to

the file (for each country) regarding the

initiation of each investigation (public

versions on file in the Central Records

Unit of the Department of Commerce,

Room B–099).

Distribution of Copies of the Petitions

In accordance with section

702(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,

as well as to the Delegation of the

European Community. We will attempt

to provide a copy of the public version

of each petition to each exporter named

in the petition, as appropriate.

ITC Notification

Pursuant to section 702(d) of the Act,

we have notified the ITC of these

initiations.

Preliminary Determination by the ITC

The ITC will determine by January 22,

2001, whether there is a reasonable

indication that an industry in the

United States is materially injured, or is

threatened with material injury, by

reason of imports of low enriched

uranium from France, Germany, the

Netherlands, and the United Kingdom.

A negative ITC determination for any

country will result in the investigation

being terminated with respect to that

country; otherwise, the investigations

will proceed according to statutory and

regulatory time limits.

This notice is published pursuant to

section 777(i) of the Act.

Dated: December 27, 2000.

Holly A. Kuga,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 01–385 Filed 1–4–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Institute of Standards and

Technology

[Docket No. 00092–9279–01]

RIN 0693–ZA41

Announcing a Draft Federal

Information Processing Standard for

the Keyed-Hash Message

Authentication Code (HMAC), and

Request for Comments

AGENCY: National Institute of Standards

and Technology (NIST), Commerce.

ACTION: Notice; Request for Comments.

SUMMARY: This notice announces a draft

Federal Information Processing

Standard (FIPS) for the Keyed-Hash

Message Authentication Code (HMAC),

for public review and comment.

This draft FIPS describes a keyedhash message authentication code

(HMAC), A MECHANISM FOR

MESSAGE AUTHENTICATION USING

CRYPTOGRAPHIC HASH FUNCTIONS,

HMAC can be used with any FIPSapproved cryptographic hash function,

in combination with a shared secrete

key. The cryptographic strength of

HMAC depends on the properties of the

underlying hash function. The HMAC

specification in this draft FIPS is a

generalization of HMAC as specified in

Internet RFC 2104, HMAC, KeyedHashing for Message Authentication,

and ANSI X9.71, Keyed Hash Message

Authentication Code.

Prior to the submission of this

proposed standard to the Secretary of

Commerce for review and approval, it is

essential that consideration is given to