Notices. Notice; amendment

5,441 words·~25 min read·/register/2005/02/08/05-2412

A research copy — for the controlling text, always check the official state or federal source. Not legal advice.

BILLING CODE 3510-JT-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-337-806] Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Individually Quick Frozen Red Raspberries From Chile AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: On August 6, 2004, the Department of Commerce (“the Department”) published the preliminary results of the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on individually quick frozen red raspberries from Chile.

We gave interested parties an opportunity to comment on the preliminary results and have made certain changes for the final results. We find that certain companies reviewed sold individually quick frozen red raspberries from Chile in the United States below normal value during the period December 31, 2001, through June 30, 2003. DATES: *Effective Date:* February 8, 2005. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Yasmin Bordas or Cole Kyle, Office 1, AD/CVD Operations, Office 1, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S.

Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington DC 20230; telephone

(202)482-3813 and

(202)482-1503, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On August 6, 2004, the Department published the *Notice of Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Individually Quick Frozen Red Raspberries From Chile,* 69 FR 47869 (August 6, 2004) (“ *Preliminary Results* ”) in the **Federal Register** . On September 7, 2004, we received case briefs from The Pacific Northwest Berry Association and each of its individual members, Curt Maberry Farm, Enfield Farms, Inc., Maberry Packing, and Rader Farms, Inc. (collectively, “petitioners”), and Fruticola Olmue, S.A. (“Olmue”). On September 17, 2004, we received rebuttal briefs from the petitioners, Olmue, H.J. Uren & Sons and Uren Chile S.A. (“Uren”), and Santiago Comercio Exterior Exportaciones Limitada (“SANCO”). On October 28, 2004, we rejected Olmue's rebuttal brief because it contained new factual information. Olmue filed a revised rebuttal brief on November 1, 2004, redacting the new factual information submitted in the original rebuttal brief. Scope of the Order The products covered by this order are imports of individually quick frozen (“IQF”) whole or broken red raspberries from Chile, with or without the addition of sugar or syrup, regardless of variety, grade, size or horticulture method ( *e.g.* , organic or not), the size of the container in which packed, or the method of packing. The scope of the order excludes fresh red raspberries and block frozen red raspberries ( *i.e.* , puree, straight pack, juice stock, and juice concentrate). The merchandise subject to this order is currently classifiable under 0811.20.2020 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”). Although the HTSUS subheading is provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the merchandise under the order is dispositive. Period of Review The period of review (“POR”) is December 31, 2001, through June 30, 2003. Analysis of Comments Received All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties to this review are addressed in the February 2, 2005 *Issues and Decision Memorandum for the First Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Individually Quick Frozen Red Raspberries from Chile* (“ *Decision Memorandum* ”), which is hereby adopted by this notice. Attached to this notice as an appendix is a list of the issues which parties have raised and to which we have responded in the *Decision Memorandum* . Parties can find a complete discussion of all issues raised in this review and the corresponding recommendations in this public memorandum which is on file in the Department's Central Records Unit, Room B-099 of the main Department building (“CRU”). In addition, a complete version of the *Decision Memorandum* can be accessed directly on the Web at *http://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn/index.html* . The paper copy and electronic version of the *Decision Memorandum* are identical in content. Facts Otherwise Available For the final results, the Department continues to find that Uren's largest supplier, which, as a producer of subject merchandise, is an interested party in this proceeding, did not act to the best of its ability by failing to provide cost of production information requested by the Department. Thus, the Department continues to find that the use of adverse facts available is warranted under section 776 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended effective January 1, 1995 (“the Act”), by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (“URAA”). *See Preliminary Results* at 69 FR 47869, 47871-47873 and *Decision Memorandum* at Comment 3. Fair Value Comparisons To determine whether sales of IQF red raspberries from Chile to the United States were made at less than normal value, we compared export price (“EP”) to the normal value (“NV”). Our calculations followed the methodologies described in the preliminary results, except as noted below, and in the final results calculation memoranda cited below, which are on file in the CRU. Export Price We used EP as defined in section 772(a) of the Act. We calculated EP for Uren and SANCO based on the same methodologies described in the preliminary results. *See* “Uren Chile, S.A. Final Results Calculation Memorandum,” dated February 2, 2005, (“ *Uren Calculation Memorandum* ”) and “Santiago Comercio Exterior Exportaciones Limitada Calculation Memorandum,” dated February 2, 2005, (“ *SANCO Calculation Memorandum* ”). For Olmue, we calculated EP based on the same methodologies described in the preliminary results, with the exception of using a revised calculation of U.S. credit expenses. *See* “Fruticola Olmue, S.A. Final Results Calculation Memorandum,” dated February 2, 2005, (“ *Olmue Calculation Memorandum* ”). Normal Value A. Cost of Production 1. Calculation of Cost of Production We calculated the cost of production (“COP”) in accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act. For SANCO and Olmue, we calculated the COP using the same methodologies described in the preliminary results. *See SANCO Calculation Memorandum* ; *see also Olmue Calculation Memorandum* . For Uren, we calculated the COP using the same methodologies described in the preliminary results, with the exception of using a revised general and administrative expenses ratio. *See Decision Memorandum* at Comment 5; *see also Uren Calculation Memorandum* . a. Test of Comparison Market Prices We tested whether comparison market sales of the foreign like product were made at prices below the COP in accordance with section 773(b) of the Act, using the same methodologies described in the preliminary results. b. Results of the COP Test Pursuant to section 773(b)(1) of the Act, where less than 20 percent of a respondent's sales of a given product during the POR were at prices less than the COP, we do not disregard any below-cost sales of that product because we determine that in such instances the below-cost sales were not made in “substantial quantities.” Where 20 percent or more of a respondent's sales of a given product are at prices less than the COP, we determine that the below-cost sales represent “substantial quantities” within an extended period of time, in accordance with section 773(b)(1)(A) of the Act. In such cases, we also determine whether such sales were made at prices which would not permit recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time, in accordance with section 773(b)(1)(B) of the Act. We found that, for Olmue, SANCO and Uren, for certain specific products, more than 20 percent of the comparison market sales were at prices less than the COP and, thus, the below-cost sales were made within an extended period of time in substantial quantities. In addition, these sales were made at prices that did not provide for the recovery of costs within a reasonable period of time. We therefore excluded these sales and used the remaining sales, if any, as the basis for determining NV, in accordance with section 773(b)(1) of the Act. For U.S. sales of subject merchandise for which there were no comparable comparison market sales in the ordinary course of trade ( *e.g.* , sales that passed the cost test), we compared those sales to constructed value (“CV”), in accordance with section 773(a)(4) of the Act. B. Calculation of Constructed Value We calculated CV in accordance with sections 773(e)(1) and (e)(2)(A) of the Act. We used the same methodologies described in the preliminary results. Where appropriate, we made the same adjustments to the CV costs as described in the “Calculation of COP” section of this notice. C. Level of Trade We continue to find that one level of trade (“LOT”) exists in the comparison and U.S. markets for Olmue and SANCO. For Uren, we continue to find that two LOTs exist in the comparison market and that one LOT exists in the U.S. market. *See Decision Memorandum* at Comment 4. Therefore, for the final results, we have continued to match Uren's U.S. sales with its comparison market sales at the same LOT, where possible, in accordance with section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act. In comparing EP sales at a different LOT in the comparison market, where available data make it practicable, we make an LOT adjustment under section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act. D. Calculation of Normal Value Based on Comparison Market Prices We calculated NV based on comparison market prices in accordance with section 773(a)(6) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.410 and 411 (2003). For SANCO and Olmue, we used the same methodologies described in the preliminary results. For Uren, we used the same methodologies described in the preliminary results, with the exception of using a we recalculated Uren'sindirect selling expenses ratio. *See Decision Memorandum* at Comment 5; *see also Uren Calculation Memorandum* . E. Calculation of Normal Value Based on Constructed Value We calculated NV based on CV using the same methodologies described in the preliminary results, in accordance with sections 773(a) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.410. Final Results of the Review For the firms listed below, we find that the following percentage margins exist for the period December 31, 2001, through June 30, 2003: Exporter/manufacturer Weighted-average margin percentage Fruticola Olmue, S.A. 1.23 Santiago Comercio Exterior Exportaciones, Ltda. 0.25 ( *de minimis* ) Uren Chile, S.A. 13.41 Assessment Rates The Department shall determine, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b), we have calculated importer (or customer)-specific assessment rates for merchandise subject to this review. To determine whether the duty assessment rates were *de minimis* ( *i.e.* , at or below 0.5 percent), in accordance with the requirement set forth in 19 CFR 351.106(C)(2), for each respondent we calculated importer (or customer)-specific *ad valorem* rates by aggregating the dumping margins calculated for all U.S. sales to that importer (or customer) and dividing this amount by the entered value of the sales to that importer (or customer). Where an importer (or customer)-specific *ad valorem* rate is greater than *de minimis* and the respondent has reported reliable entered values, we will apply the assessment rate to the entered value of the importer's/customer's entries during the review period. Where an importer (or customer)-specific *ad valorem* rate is greater than *de minimis* and we did not have entered values, we calculated a per-unit assessment rate by aggregating the dumping duties due for all U.S. sales to each importer (or customer) and dividing this amount by the total quantity sold to that importer (or customer). The Department will issue appropriate assessment instructions directly to CBP within 15 days of publication of these final results of review. Cash Deposit Requirements The following cash deposit requirements will be effective for all shipments of the subject merchandise 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 will be those established above in the “Final Results of the Review” section of this notice, except if the rate is less than 0.50 percent, and therefore, *de minimis* within the meaning of 19 CFR 351.106(c)(1), in which case the cash deposit rate will be zero;

(2)if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, but was covered in a previous review, or the original investigation, 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 previous review, or the original investigation, but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recent period for the manufacturer of the merchandise; and

(4)the cash deposit rate for all other manufacturers and/or exporters shall continue to be 6.33 percent, the “all others” rate made effective by the less-than-fair-value investigation. *See* 67 FR 45460 (July 9, 2002). These requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until publication of the final results of the next administrative review. Notification to Importers This notice serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 402(f)(2) 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. Notification Regarding APOs This notice also serves as the only reminder to parties subject to the administrative protective order (“APO”) of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3), which continues to govern business proprietary information in this segment of the proceeding. Timely written notification of return/destruction of APO material or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulation and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation. This administrative review and notice are published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(5). Dated: February 2, 2005. Barbara E. Tillman, Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. Appendix I List of Comments in the Issues and Decision Memorandum General Comments Comment 1: Calculation of Cost of Production Comments Relating to Uren Chile, S.A. Comment 2: Grower and Processor Affiliation Comment 3: Application of Adverse Facts Available for Cost of Production Comment 4: Level of Trade Comment 5: Calculation of LOT Adjustment Comment 6: Calculation of General and Administrative Expenses Comment 7: Calculation of Financial Expense Ratio Comments Relating to Fruticola Olmue, S.A. Comment 8: Valuation of Olmue's Fresh Raspberries Comment 9: Calculation of Financial Expense Ratio Comment 10: Calculation of U.S. Credit Expense Comment 11: Treatment of Unpaid Shipments Comment 12: Start-up Adjustment Comment 13: Treatment of Sales Made Above Normal Value [FR Doc. E5-515 Filed 2-7-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-201-822] Certain Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from Mexico: Final Results of the Full Sunset Review of Antidumping Duty Order AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: On November 17, 2004, the Department of Commerce (“the Department”) published a notice of preliminary results of the full sunset review of the antidumping duty order on certain stainless steel sheet and strip in coils (“SSSS”) from Mexico pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”). We provided interested parties an opportunity to comment on our preliminary results. We received case and rebuttal briefs from domestic and respondent interested parties. No hearing was requested by parties. As a result of this review, the Department finds that revocation of this order would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping. EFFECTIVE DATE: February 8, 2005. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Martha V. Douthit, Office of Policy, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street & Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC , 20230; telephone: 202-482-5050. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Scope of the Order See Appendix 1 Background On November 17, 2004, the Department of Commerce (the “Department”) published in the **Federal Register** a notice of preliminary results of the full sunset review of the antidumping duty order on SSSS from Mexico, pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”). *See Certain Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from Mexico; Preliminary Results of the Sunset Review of Antidumping Duty Order* , 69 FR 67309 (November 17, 2004) (“Preliminary Results”). In our preliminary results, we determined that revocation of the order would likely result in continuation or recurrence of dumping with a margin of 30.85 percent for Mexinox S.A. de C.V. and “all others” the margin determined in the original investigation. On January 3, 2005, respondent, ThyssenKrupp Mexinox S.A. de C.V. and Mexinox USA, Inc. (collectively “Mexinox”), submitted its case brief in response to the Department's preliminary results. On January 7, 2005, Allegheny Ludlum Corporation, North American Stainless, Local 3303 United Auto Workers, the United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO/CLC, and the Zanesville Armco Independent Organization, Inc., (collectively “domestic interested parties”) submitted rebuttal comments. No hearing was requested by parties. Analysis of Comments Received All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties to this sunset review are addressed in the “Issues and Decision Memorandum” (“Decision Memo”) from Ronald K. Lorentzen, Office of Policy, Import Administration, to Joseph A. Spetrini, Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, dated January 27, 2005, which is hereby adopted and incorporated by reference into this notice. The issues discussed in the attached Decision Memo include the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of dumping and the magnitude of the margin likely to prevail were the order revoked. Parties can find a complete discussion of all issues raised in this review and the corresponding recommendations in this public memorandum, which is on file in the Central Records Unit, room B-099, of the main Commerce Building. In addition, a complete version of the Decision Memo can be accessed directly on the Web at www.ita.doc.gov/import_admin/records/frn/ under the heading “Mexico.” The paper copy and electronic version of the Decision Memo are identical in content. Final Results of Review We determine that revocation of the antidumping duty order on SSSS from Mexico would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping at the following weighted-average margins: Manufacturer/Exporter Margin (percent) Mexinox 30.85 All Others 30.85 This five-year (“sunset”) review and notice are in accordance with sections 751(c), 752, and 777(i)(1) of the Act. This notice serves as the only reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (“APO”) of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305 of the Department's regulations. Timely notification of return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation. APPENDIX 1 STAINLESS STEEL AND SHEET AND STRIP IN COILS FROM MEXICO. SCOPE OF THE ORDER (A-201-822) For purposes of this sunset review, the products covered are certain stainless steel sheet and strip in coils. Stainless steel is an alloy steel containing, by weight, 1.2 percent or less of carbon and 10.5 percent or more of chromium, with or without other elements. The subject sheet and strip is a flat-rolled product in coils that is greater than 9.5 mm in width and less than 4.75 mm in thickness, and that is annealed or otherwise heat treated and pickled or otherwise descaled. The subject sheet and strip may also be further processed (e.g., cold-rolled, polished, aluminized, coated, etc.) provided that it maintains the specific dimensions of sheet and strip following such processing. The merchandise subject to this review is classified in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTS”) at subheadings: 7219.13.0031, 7219.13.0051, 7219.13.0071, 7219.1300.81, 7219.14.0030, 7219.14.0065, 7219.14.0090, 7219.32.0005, 7219.32.0020, 7219.32.0025, 7219.32.0035, 7219.32.0036, 7219.32.0038, 7219.32.0042, 7219.32.0044, 7219.33.0005, 7219.33.0020, 7219.33.0025, 7219.33.0035, 7219.33.0036, 7219.33.0038, 7219.33.0042, 7219.33.0044, 7219.34.0005, 7219.34.0020, 7219.34.0025, 7219.34.0030, 7219.34.0035, 7219.35.0005, 7219.35.0015, 7219.35.0030, 7219.35.0035, 7219.90.0010, 7219.90.0020, 7219.90.0025, 7219.90.0060, 7219.90.0080, 7220.12.1000, 7220.12.5000, 7220.20.1010, 7220.20.1015, 7220.20.1060, 7220.20.1080, 7220.20.6005, 7220.20.6010, 7220.20.6015, 7220.20.6060, 7220.20.6080, 7220.20.7005, 7220.20.7010, 7220.20.7015, 7220.20.7060, 7220.20.7080, 7220.20.8000, 7220.20.9030, 7220.20.9060, 7220.90.0010, 7220.90.0015, 7220.90.0060, and 7220.90.0080. Although the HTS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the Department's written description of the merchandise under review is dispositive. Excluded from the scope of this review are the following:

(1)Sheet and strip that is not annealed or otherwise heat treated and pickled or otherwise descaled,

(2)sheet and strip that is cut to length,

(3)plate (i.e., flat-rolled stainless steel products of a thickness of 4.75 mm or more),

(4)flat wire ( *i.e.* , cold-rolled sections, with a prepared edge, rectangular in shape, of a width of not more than 9.5 mm), and

(5)razor blade steel. Razor blade steel is a flat-rolled product of stainless steel, not further worked than cold-rolled (cold-reduced), in coils, of a width of not more than 23 mm and a thickness of 0.266 mm or less, containing, by weight, 12.5 to 14.5 percent chromium, and certified at the time of entry to be used in the manufacture of razor blades. 1 1 See Chapter 72 of the HTS, “Additional U.S. Note” 1(d). In response to comments by interested parties, the Department has determined that certain specialty stainless steel products are also excluded from the scope of this review. These excluded products are described below. Flapper valve steel is defined as stainless steel strip in coils containing, by weight, between 0.37 and 0.43 percent carbon, between 1.15 and 1.35 percent molybdenum, and between 0.20 and 0.80 percent manganese. This steel also contains, by weight, phosphorus of 0.025 percent or less, silicon of between 0.20 and 0.50 percent, and sulfur of 0.020 percent or less. The product is manufactured by means of vacuum arc remelting, with inclusion controls for sulphide of no more than 0.04 percent and for oxide of no more than 0.05 percent. Flapper valve steel has a tensile strength of between 210 and 300 ksi, yield strength of between 170 and 270 ksi, plus or minus 8 ksi, and a hardness

(Hv)of between 460 and 590. Flapper valve steel is most commonly used to produce specialty flapper valves in compressors. Also excluded is a product referred to as suspension foil, a specialty steel product used in the manufacture of suspension assemblies for computer disk drives. Suspension foil is described as 302/304 grade or 202 grade stainless steel of a thickness between 14 and 127 microns, with a thickness tolerance of plus-or-minus 2.01 microns, and surface glossiness of 200 to 700 percent Gs. Suspension foil must be supplied in coil widths of not more than 407 mm, and with a mass of 225 kg or less. Roll marks may only be visible on one side, with no scratches of measurable depth. The material must exhibit residual stresses of 2 mm maximum deflection, and flatness of 1.6 mm over 685 mm length. Certain stainless steel foil for automotive catalytic converters is also excluded from the scope of this review. This stainless steel strip in coils is a specialty foil with a thickness of between 20 and 110 microns used to produce a metallic substrate with a honeycomb structure for use in automotive catalytic converters. The steel contains, by weight, carbon of no more than 0.030 percent, silicon of no more than 1.0 percent, manganese of no more than 1.0 percent, chromium of between 19 and 22 percent, aluminum of no less than 5.0 percent, phosphorus of no more than 0.045 percent, sulfur of no more than 0.03 percent, lanthanum of less than 0.002 or greater than 0.05 percent, and total rare earth elements of more than 0.06 percent, with the balance iron. Permanent magnet iron-chromium-cobalt alloy stainless strip is also excluded from the scope of this review. This ductile stainless steel strip contains, by weight, 26 to 30 percent chromium, and 7 to 10 percent cobalt, with the remainder of iron, in widths 228.6 mm or less, and a thickness between 0.127 and 1.270 mm. It exhibits magnetic remanence between 9,000 and 12,000 gauss, and a coercivity of between 50 and 300 oersteds. This product is most commonly used in electronic sensors and is currently available under proprietary trade names such as “Arnokrome III.” 2 2 “Arnokrome III” is a trademark of the Arnold Engineering Company. Certain electrical resistance alloy steel is also excluded from the scope of this review. This product is defined as a non-magnetic stainless steel manufactured to American Society of Testing and Materials (“ASTM”) specification B344 and containing, by weight, 36 percent nickel, 18 percent chromium, and 46 percent iron, and is most notable for its resistance to high temperature corrosion. It has a melting point of 1390 degrees Celsius and displays a creep rupture limit of 4 kilograms per square millimeter at 1000 degrees Celsius. This steel is most commonly used in the production of heating ribbons for circuit breakers and industrial furnaces, and in rheostats for railway locomotives. The product is currently available under proprietary trade names such as “Gilphy 36.” 3 3 “Gilphy 36” is a trademark of Imphy, S.A. Certain martensitic precipitation-hardenable stainless steel is also excluded from the scope of this review. This high-strength, ductile stainless steel product is designated under the Unified Numbering System (“UNS”) as S45500- grade steel, and contains, by weight, 11 to 13 percent chromium, and 7 to 10 percent nickel. Carbon, manganese, silicon and molybdenum each comprise, by weight, 0.05 percent or less, with phosphorus and sulfur each comprising, by weight, 0.03 percent or less. This steel has copper, niobium, and titanium added to achieve aging, and will exhibit yield strengths as high as 1700 Mpa and ultimate tensile strengths as high as 1750 Mpa after aging, with elongation percentages of 3 percent or less in 50 mm. It is generally provided in thicknesses between 0.635 and 0.787 mm, and in widths of 25.4 mm. This product is most commonly used in the manufacture of television tubes and is currently available under proprietary trade names such as “Durphynox 17.” 4 4 “Durphynox 17” is a trademark of Imphy, S.A. Finally, three specialty stainless steels typically used in certain industrial blades and surgical and medical instruments are also excluded from the scope of this review. These include stainless steel strip in coils used in the production of textile cutting tools (e.g., carpet knives). 5 This steel is similar to AISI grade 420 but containing, by weight, 0.5 to 0.7 percent of molybdenum. The steel also contains, by weight, carbon of between 1.0 and 1.1 percent, sulfur of 0.020 percent or less, and includes between 0.20 and 0.30 percent copper and between 0.20 and 0.50 percent cobalt. This steel is sold under proprietary names such as “GIN4 Mo.” The second excluded stainless steel strip in coils is similar to AISI 420-J2 and contains, by weight, carbon of between 0.62 and 0.70 percent, silicon of between 0.20 and 0.50 percent, manganese of between 0.45 and 0.80 percent, phosphorus of no more than 0.025 percent and sulfur of no more than 0.020 percent. This steel has a carbide density on average of 100 carbide particles per 100 square microns. An example of this product is “GIN5” steel. The third specialty steel has a chemical composition similar to AISI 420 F, with carbon of between 0.37 and 0.43 percent, molybdenum of between 1.15 and 1.35 percent, but lower manganese of between 0.20 and 0.80 percent, phosphorus of no more than 0.025 percent, silicon of between 0.20 and 0.50 percent, and sulfur of no more than 0.020 percent. This product is supplied with a hardness of more than Hv 500 guaranteed after customer processing, and is supplied as, for example, “GIN6”. 6 5 This list of uses is illustrative and provided for descriptive purposes only. 6 “GIN4 Mo,” “GIN5” and “GIN6” are the proprietary grades of Hitachi Metals America, Ltd. Dated: January 27, 2005. Joseph A. Spetrini, Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E5-514 Filed 2-7-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Institute of Standards and Technology [Docket No.: 041220354-5020-02] Small Grant Programs, Precision Measurement Grants Program, Summer Undergraduate Research Fellowship

(SURF)Programs; Amendment AGENCY: National Institute of Standards and Technology, Commerce. ACTION: Notice; amendment. SUMMARY: The National Institute of Standards and Technology

(NIST)published a document in the **Federal Register** on January 5, 2005, announcing the availability of funds for Small Grants Programs. On December 27, 2004, NIST published two documents in the **Federal Register,** one announcing the availability of funds for the Summer Undergraduate Research Fellowships

(SURF)Programs, and the other announcing the availability of funds for the Precision Measurement Grants Program. This document amends the Supplementary Information for each notice to update the citation to the Department of Commerce Pre-Award Notification Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements printed in the notices. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For complete information about these programs and instructions for applying by paper or electronically, read the Federal Funding Opportunity

(FFO)Notices at *http://www.grants.gov.* A paper copy of the FFO notices may be obtained by calling

(301)975-6328. Grants Administration questions about these programs should be addressed to: Grants and Agreements Management Division, National Institute of Standards and Technology; 100 Bureau Drive, Stop 3580, Gaithersburg, MD 20899-3580; Tel:

(301)975-6328. For assistance with using Grants.gov contact *support@grants.gov* . For the Precision Measurement Grants Program, technical questions should be addressed to: Dr. Peter J. Mohr, Manager, NIST Precision Measurement Grants Program, National Institute of Standards and Technology, 100 Bureau Drive, Stop 8420, Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8420, Tel:

(301)975-3217, e-mail: *mohr@nist.gov.* For the SURF Gaithersburg Programs, program questions should be addressed to Ms. Anita Sweigert, Administrative Coordinator, 100 Bureau Drive, Stop 8400, Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8400, Tel:

(301)975-4200, e-mail: *anita.sweigert@nist.gov.* For the SURF Boulder Programs, program questions should be addressed to Ms. Phyllis Wright, Administrative Coordinator, National Institute of Standards and Technology, 325 Broadway, Mail Stop 104, Boulder, CO 80305-3328, Tel:

(303)497-3244, e-mail: *pkwright@boulder.nist.gov.* For the EEEL Grants Program, program questions should be addressed to Sheilda Bryner, Electronics and Electrical Engineering Laboratory, National Institute of Standards and Technology, 100 Bureau Drive, Stop 8100, Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8100, Tel:

(301)975-2220, Fax:

(301)975-4091. For the MEL Grants Program, program questions should be addressed to Mrs. Mary Lou Norris, Manufacturing Engineering Laboratory, National Institute of Standards and Technology, 100 Bureau Drive, Stop 8200, Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8200, Tel:

(301)975-3400, e-mail: *mnorris@nist.gov.* For the CSTL Grants Program, program questions should be addressed to Dr. William F. Koch, Chemical Science and Technology Laboratory, National Institute of Standards and Technology, 100 Bureau Drive, Stop 8300, Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8300, Tel

(301)975-8301, e-mail: *william.koch@nist.gov.* For the PL Grants Program, program questions should be addressed to Ms. Anita Sweigert, Physics Laboratory, National Institute of Standards and Technology, 100 Bureau Drive, Stop 8400, Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8400, Tel

(301)975-4200, e-mail: *anita.sweigert@nist.gov.* For the MSEL Grants Program, program questions should be addressed to Dr. Stephen W. Freiman, Materials Science and Engineering Laboratory, National Institute of Standards and Technology, 100 Bureau Drive, Stop 8500, Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8500, Tel:

(301)975-5658, e-mail: *stephen.freiman@nist.gov.* For the Building Research Grants and Cooperative Agreements Program, program questions should be addressed to Karen Perry, Building and Fire Research Laboratory, National Institute of Standards and Technology, 100 Bureau Drive, Stop 8602, Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8602, Tel.:

(301)975-5910, Fax:

(301)975-4032. For the Fire Research Grants Program, program questions should be addressed to Ms. Wanda Duffin-Ricks, National Institute of Standards and Technology, 100 Bureau Drive, Stop 8660, Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8660, Tel:

(301)975-6863, e-mail: *wanda.duffin@nist.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The National Institute of Standards and Technology

(NIST)recently published notices in the **Federal Register** announcing the availability of funds for Small Grants Programs (January 5, 2005), the Summer Undergraduate Research Fellowships

(SURF)Programs (December 27, 2004), and for the Precision Measurement Grants Program (December 27, 2004). This document amends each of these announcements by updating the citation to the Department of Commerce Pre-Award Notification Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements printed in the Supplementary Information section of each notice. The Department of Commerce Pre-Award Notification Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements contained in the **Federal Register** notice of December 30, 2004 (69 FR 78389) is applicable to the three notices mentioned above. On the form SF-424, the applicant's 9-digit Dun and Bradstreet Data Universal Numbering System

(DUNS)number must be entered in the Applicant Identifier block. Classification It has been determined that this rule is not significant for purposes of E.O. 12866. Prior notice and an opportunity for public comment are not required by the Administrative Procedure Act for rules concerning public property, loans, grants, benefits, and contracts (5 U.S.C. 553(a)(2)). Because notice and opportunity for comment are not required pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553 or any other law, the analytical requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 *et seq.* ) are inapplicable. Therefore, a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required and has not been prepared. Dated: February 3, 2005. Hratch G. Semerjian, Acting Director. [FR Doc. 05-2412 Filed 2-7-05; 8:45 am]

Connectionstraces to 7

Traces to 7 documents

CFR

U.S. Code

1 reference not yet in our index