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

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 4 / Friday, January 5, 2001 / Notices 1089

the needs and views of the public, users,

the information technology industry,

and Federal, State and local government

organizations. The purpose of this

notice is to solicit such views.

DATES: Comments must be received on

or before April 5, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Written comments may be

sent to: Chief, Computer Security

Division, Information Technology

Laboratory, Attention: Comments on the

draft FIPS for HMAC, 100 Bureau

Drive—Stop 8930 National Institute of

Standards and Technology,

Gaithersburg, MD 20899–8930.

Electronic comments may also be sent

to: ‘‘HMAC@nist.gov’’.

This draft FIPS is available

electronically at: http://www.nist.gov/

hmac/ or http://csrc.nist.gov/

publications/drafts.html.

Comments received in response to

this notice will be published

electronically at http://www.nist.gov/

hmac/.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Elaine Barker, Computer Security

Division, National Institute of Standards

and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD

20899–8930, telephone (301) 975–2911,

email: elaine.barker@nist.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This draft

FIPS for The Keyed-Hash Message

Authentication Code (HMAC) specifies

an algorithm for applications requiring

message authentication. Message

authentication is achieved via the

construction of a message

authentication code (MAC). MACs

based on cryptographic hash functions

are known as HMACs.

The purpose of a MAC is to

authenticate both the source of a

message and its integrity without the

use of any additional mechanisms.

HMACs have two functionally distinct

parameters, message input and a secret

key known only to the message

originator and intended receiver(s).

Additional applications of keyed hash

functions include their use in challegeresponse identification protocols for

computing responses. which are a

function of both a secret key and a

challenge message.

An HMAC function is used by the

originator to produce a value (the MAC)

that is formed by condensing the secret

key and the message input. The MAC is

typically sent to the message receiver

along with the message. The receiver

computes the MAC on the received

message using the same key and HMAC

function as was used by the originator,

and compares the result computed with

the received MAC. If the two values

match, the message has been correctly

received, and the receiver is assured

that the message originator is a member

of the community of users that share the

key.

Authority: Federal Information Processing

Standards Publications (FIPS PUBS) are

issued by the National Institute of Standards

and Technology after approval by the

Secretary of Commerce pursuant to section

5131 of the Information Technology

Management Reform Act of 1996 and the

Computer Security Act of 1987, Public Law

100–2235.

E.O. 12866: This notice has been

determined to be non-significant for the

purposes of E. O. 12866.

Dated: January 2, 2001.

Karen H. Brown,

Deputy Director, NIST.

[FR Doc. 01–381 Filed 1–4–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–CN–M

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

[I.D. 122800C]

Availability of a Final Environmental

Impact Statement for the Tacoma

Water Department Habitat

Conservation Plan, King County, WA

AGENCIES: National Marine Fisheries

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration,

Commerce; Fish and Wildlife Service

(FWS), Interior.

ACTION: Notice of availability.

SUMMARY: This notice announces the

availability of a Final Environmental

Impact Statement (FEIS) for public

review. The FEIS addresses the

proposed issuance of Incidental Take

Permits (permits) to the City of Tacoma,

WA, Department of Public Utilities,

Water Division (Tacoma Water). The

proposed permits relate to water

withdrawal, forest management, and

timber harvest on City of Tacoma lands

in King County, WA. Tacoma Water

submitted applications on December 23,

1999, to the FWS and the NMFS

(together, the Services) for permits

pursuant to the Endangered Species Act

(the Act). The proposed permits would

authorize take of the following

endangered or threatened species

incidental to otherwise lawful

management activities: gray wolf (Canis

lupis), bald eagle (Haliaeetus

leucocephalus), marbled murrelet

(Brachyramphus marmoratus

marmoratus), northern spotted owl

(Strix occidentalis caurina), grizzly bear

(Ursus arctos), Canada lynx (Lynx

canadensis), Puget Sound chinook

salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha),

and bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus).

Tacoma Water is also seeking coverage

for 24 currently unlisted species under

specific provisions of the permits,

should these species be listed in the

future. The duration of the proposed

permits is 50 years. This notice is

provided pursuant to the ESA, and

National Environmental Policy Act

(NEPA) regulations.

DATES: We will issue a Record of

Decision and make a final permit

decision no sooner than 30 days after

publication of this notice.

ADDRESSES: See SUPPLEMENTARY

INFORMATION for addresses of locations

where you may review copies of the

documents.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.

Tim Romanski, Project Biologist, FWS,

510 Desmond Drive. S.E., Suite 102,

Lacey, Washington, 98503–1273, (360)

753–5823; or Mike Grady, Project

Biologist, NMFS, 7600 Sand Point Way

NE, Bldg. 1, Seattle, Washington,

98115–0070, (206) 526–4645.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Availability of Documents

Copies of the Statement, and all

associated documents are available for

review at the following libraries:

The Olympia Timberland Library,

Reference Desk, 313 8th Avenue SE,

Olympia, WA, (360)352–0595

Tacoma Main Public Library, 1102

Tacoma Avenue South, Tacoma, WA,

(253)591–5666

Enumclaw City Library, 1700 1st

Street, Enumclaw, WA, (360)825–2938;

Auburn Public Library, 808 9th Street

SE, Auburn, WA, (253)931–3918

The Seattle Public Library,

Government Publications Desk, 1000

4th Avenue, Seattle, WA, (206)386–

4636.

The documents are also available

electronically on the World Wide Web

at http://www.r1.fws.gov/. Requests for

documents or CD ROMs should be made

by calling the FWS at (360)534–9330.

Section 9 of the Act and Federal

regulations prohibit the ‘‘taking’’ of a

species listed as endangered or

threatened. The term take is defined

under the Act to mean harass, harm,

pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap,

capture, or collect, or to attempt to

engage in any such conduct. Harm is

defined by the FWS to include

significant habitat modification or

degradation where it actually kills or

injures wildlife by significantly

impairing essential behavioral patterns,