(Cite as: 50 FR 53172)
NOTICES
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[C-122-505]
Preliminary Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination; Oil Country Tubular
Goods from Canada
Monday, December 30, 1985
*53172
(Cite as: 50 FR 53172, *53172)
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Commerce.
ACTION: Notice.
(Cite as: 50 FR 53172, *53172)
SUMMARY: We preliminarily determine that certain benefits which constitute subsidies within the meaning of the
countervailing duty law are being provided to manufacturers, producers, or exporters of oil country tubular goods (OCTG)
in Canada. The estimated net subsidy is 0.72 percent ad valorem.
We have notified the United States International Trade Commission (ITC) of our determination. We are directing the U.S. Customs
Service to suspend liquidation of all entries of oil country tubular goods from Canada that are entered, or withdrawn from
warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of this notice, except for companies that have been excluded from
this determination, and to require a cash deposit or bond on entries of this product in an amount equal to the estimated net
subsidy as described in the "Suspension of Liquidation" section of this notice.
If this investigation proceeds normally, we will make our final determination by March 4, 1986.
EFFECTIVE DATE: December 30, 1985.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Steven Morrison, or Barbara Tillman, Office of Investigations, Import Administration,
International Trade Administration, U.S.
(Cite as: 50 FR 53172, *53172)
Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 377-1248
(Morrison) or (202) 377-2438 (Tillman).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Preliminary Determination
Based upon our investigation, we preliminarily determine that there is reason to believe or suspect that certain benefits which
constitute subsidies within the meaning of section 701 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), are being provided to
manufacturers, producers or exporters of oil country tubular goods (OCTG) in Canada. For purposes of this investigation, the
following programs are found to confer subsidies to manufacturers, producers, and exporters of OCTG in Canada:
- Investment Tax Credits for machinery and equipment.
- Regional Development Incentives Program.
- General Development Agreement/Canada-Saskatchewan Subsidiary Agreement on Iron, Steel and Other Related Metal
Industries.
We preliminarily determine the estimated net subsidy for OCTG to be 0.72 percent ad valorem.
(Cite as: 50 FR 53172, *53172)
Case History
On July 22, 1985, we received a petition filed in proper form by the Lone Star Steel Company and CF&I Steel Corporation,
producers of oil country tubular goods. In compliance with the filing requirements of § 355.26 of our regulations (19 CFR 355.26)
the petition alleges that manufacturers, producers or exporters of oil country tubular goods in Canada directly or indirectly
receive benefits which constitute subsidies within the meaning of section 701 of the Act, and that these imports materially injure,
or threaten material injury to, a U.S. industry. In addition, the petition alleges that "critical circumstances" exist within the
meaning of section 703(e)(1) of the Act.
We found that the petition contained sufficient grounds upon which to initiate a countervailing duty investigation, and on
August 12, 1985, we initiated the investigation (50 FR 33383).
Since Canada is a "country under the Agreement" within the meaning of section 701(b) of the Act, the International Trade
Commission (ITC) is required to determine whether imports of the subject merchandise from Canada materially injure, or
threaten material injury to, a U.S. industry. Therefore, we notified the ITC of our initiation. On September 5, 1985, the ITC
determined that there is a reasonable indication that these imports materially injure a U.S. industry (50 FR 37066).
(Cite as: 50 FR 53172, *53172)
On August 21, 1985, we presented a questionnaire concerning the petitioners' allegations to the government of Canada.
Responses to the questionnaire were received on September 23, 1985 and September 24, 1985.
There are eleven known producers and/or exporters of oil country tubular goods to the United States from Canada. These are
Siegfried Kreiser Pipe and Tube, IPSCO, Inc., Stelco Inc., Sonco Steel Tube (a division of Ferrum, Inc.), Algoma Steel Corp. Ltd.,
Welded Tube of Canada, Ltd., Prudential Steel, Ltd., Frank Pipe Co., Christianson Pipe, Ltd., Dominion Steel Export Co., Ltd.,
and Matthew Tube & Pipe Supply Inc.
We received timely requests for exclusion from these eleven producers *53173
(Cite as: 50 FR 53172, *53173)
and/or exporters to which we sent copies of the detailed questionnaire. Eight respondents indicated that they received no
benefits. Algoma Steel Corporation received benefits which we preliminarily determine are de minimis. Therefore, these nine
companies are excluded from this preliminary determination. IPSCO receives countervailable benefits above the de minimis rate
of 0.50 percent and Siegfried Kreiser Pipe and Tube did not respond to our questionnaire.
On September 23, 1985, we received a timely request by petitioners for an extension of the deadline date for the preliminary
determination. An extension was granted on September 26, 1985 (50 FR 40209). We stated that we expected to issue our
preliminary determination by December 19, 1985.
(Cite as: 50 FR 53172, *53173)
Because of the extension of the preliminary determination, we were able to verify the responses to the questionnaires.
Verification was conducted in Canada from October 23, 1985 to November 14, 1985.
Scope of Investigation
The products covered by this investigation are "oil country tubular goods," which are hollow steel products of circular
cross-section intended for use in drilling for oil or gas. These products include oil well casings, tubing and drill pipe of carbon or
alloy steel, whether welded or seamless, manufactured to either American Petroleum Institute (API) or non-API (such as
proprietary) specifications as currently provided for in the Tariff Schedules of the United States, Annotated (TSUSA), under items
610.3216, 610.3219, 610.3233, 610.3234, 610.3242, 610.3243, 610.3249, 610.3252, 610.3254, 610.3256, 610.3258, 610.3262,
610.3264, 610.3721, 610.3722, 610.3751, 610.3925, 610.3935, 610.4025, 610.4035, 610.4225, 610.4235, 610.4325,
610.4335, 610.4942, 610.4944, 610.4946, 610.4954, 610.4955, 610.4956, 610.4957, 610.4966, 610.4967, 610.4968,
610.4969, 610.4970, 610.5221, 610.5222, 610.5226, 610.5234, 610.5240, 610.5242, 610.5243, 610.5244. This investigation
includes oil country tubular goods that are in both finished and unfinished condition.
(Cite as: 50 FR 53172, *53173)
Analysis of Programs
Throughout this notice, we refer to certain general principles applied to the facts of the current investigation. These principles are
described in the "Subsidies Appendix" attached to the notice of "Cold-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat- Rolled Products from Argentina;
Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination and Countervailing Duty Order," which was published in the
April 26, 1984, issue of the Federal Register (49 FR 18006).
For purposes of this preliminary determination, the period for which we are measuring subsidies (the review period) is calendar
year 1984. Based upon our analysis of the petition, the responses to our questionnaries submitted by the federal and provincial
governments as well as those of the ten responding companies, and amendments to the responses submitted after verification, we
preliminarily determine the following:
I. Programs Preliminarily Determined To Confer Subsidies
We preliminarily determine that subsidies are being provided to manufacturers, producers and/or exporters of oil country
tubular goods under the following programs:
(Cite as: 50 FR 53172, *53173)
A. Certain Investment Tax Credits for Machinery and Equipment
Under the Canadian Income Tax Act, an investment tax credit (ITC) for machinery and equipment is available to businesses. The
credit is based on a percentage of a company's investment in certain assets. The tax provision allows the business to subtract a
percentage of its applicable investments directly from business income taxes owed. All companies throughout Canada are
eligible for at least a seven percent investment tax credit. Companies are automatically eligible for a ten percent or higher
investment tax credit (for investment in machinery and equipment) if the investment is made in designated regions of the
country. Of the respondents, only two producers or exporters of OCTG have facilities in these designated regions, Algoma and
IPSCO, and both received ten percent investment tax credits for machinery and equipment. In addition to ITCs for machinery and
equipment, there is also an ITC benefit for research and development which, at the time, was at uniform rates for businesses
throughout Canada. IPSCO claimed this research and development ITC, in addition to machinery and equipment ITCs.
Canadian tax law provides that ITCs may be subtracted from taxes owed, but if no taxes are owed (either because a company is
initially in a tax loss position or because some of the ITCs have been used to satisfy all tax liability), excess ITCs earned after April
19, 1983, have a one time cash value of twenty
(Cite as: 50 FR 53172, *53173)
percent of the remaining ITC value. Algoma did redeem some post-April 19, 1983 machinery and equipment ITCs for cash on tax
returns filed in 1984.
We preliminarily determine that ITCs at 7 percent and research and development ITCs are not countervailable because they are
not limited to a specific enterprise, industry or group of enterprises or industries. The ITCs for machinery and equipment in
excess of seven percent are countervailable because they are limited to companies in specific regions. Therefore, because all
industries throughout Canada can claim at least seven percent (machinery and equipment) ITCs, only that portion of these
ITCs in excess of 7 percent is countervailable.
Under the Department's tax methodology, we allocate an income tax benefit to the year in which the tax return was filed. Thus, we
looked at the tax return filed in 1984, covering fiscal year 1983. We examined the tax return filed during the review period and
found that portion of machinery and equipment ITCs in excess of the seven percent threshold. We then divided this amount by
each company's total sales to calculate an estimated net subsidy of 0.01 percent ad valorem for Algoma and 0.01 percent ad
valorem for IPSCO.
B. Regional Development Incentive program (RDIP)
The RDIP was administered by the former Department for Regional Economic
(Cite as: 50 FR 53172, *53173)
Expansion (DREE) for the purpose of creating stable employment opportunities in areas of Canada where employment and
economic opportunities are chronically low. The program provided development incentives (grants) to manufacturers whose
capital investment projects for establishing new facilities or expanding or modernizing existing facilities would create jobs and
economic opportunities in areas designated as economically disadvantged.
The prime creation for DREE approval of a proposed project was the likelihood that the project would provide needed economic
opportunities and social adjustment. Projects which could proceed without RDIP assistance were ineligible. Although the
program was terminated in 1983, several RDIP grants were provided to two producers of the product under investigation prior to
that termination. We determine that grants provided through the RDIP program of DREE confer subsidies because the benefits are
limited to companies located within specific regions.
Two grants reported in the responses were for products other than oil country tubular goods: one for a spiral pipe facility and one
for a slab facility which would not be used in the production of oil country tubular goods. Consistent with our methodology, when
a grant is tied specifically to a product not under investigation, we do not include it in our calculation of benefits.
Additionally, two other grants were used for several facilities, not all of
(Cite as: 50 FR 53172, *53173)
them involved in the production of oil country tubular goods. We preliminarily determine that these grants are not specifically
tied to products not under investigation. Therefore, we included the full amount of these grants in our calculation of benefits.
Because RDIP grants are not provided automatically every year, we allocate the benefits received over time. To calculate the
benefits from RDIP, we used the methodology for grants outlined in the Subsidies Appendix. The average useful life of equipment
in the steel industry is 15 years. Thus, for all grants received by each company in the past 15 years, we aggregated all grants
received by each company in each year and divided by the company's total sales in that year.
If the resulting benefit was less than 0.50 percent (de minimis), we expensed that benefit to the year of receipt. If the resulting
benefit was 0.50 percent or greater, we spread the grant over the average useful life of equipment using our declining balance
methodology. We used the average long-term lending rate from data supplied by Statistics Canada for Algoma because the
firm had no commercial loans in the relevant year. We had informtion to calculate IPSCO's weighted cost of capital and used that
as our discount rate. Using this method, we preliminrily determine the estimated net subsidy to be 0.71 percent ad valorem for
IPSCO and 0.04 percent ad valorem for Algoma.
(Cite as: 50 FR 53172, *53173)
C. Grant Provided Under the General Development Agreement and the Canada- Saskatchewan Iron, Steel and Other Related
Metal Industries Subsidiary Agreement
As part of its activities to spur development in Canada, the former Department of Regional Economic Expansion entered into
a General Development Agreement (GDA) with Saskatchewan. Among the considerations of the GDA were the creation and
maintenance of employment, economic opportunities, and income levels; the improvement of the well-being of the
disadvantaged, the environment, and the quality of life; and the need for the continuing subsidization of industrial and
commercial activity. Under the GDA, there was a provision for subsidiary agreements. The Government of Canada (GOC) and
Saskatchewan entered into a subsidiary agreement of the GDA in 1974. It was intended to enhance the viability of the existing iron
and steel industry in Saskatchewan, to expand and diversify iron and steel production, and to increase employment opportunities
in the iron, steel and related metal industries in Saskatchewan. IPSCO was and is the only steel manufacturer in Saskatchewan.
We preliminarily determine that the grants through the GDA and the Iron, Steel and Related Metal Industries Subsidiary
Agreement confer subsidies because the benefits are limited to companies in specific regions. Further, we also preliminarily
determine that grants through the subsidiary agreement on steel
(Cite as: 50 FR 53172, *53173)
also confer subsidies because they are limited to a specific enterprise or industry.
IPSCO received two grants under the GDA and the Subsidiary Agreement. One grant under GDA was paid to IPSCO in 1976 and
1978. The funds received under this grant were less than one-half percent of total IPSCO sales in each of those years and therefore
the benefit would have been allocated to the year of receipt. Funds under the other grant were received in 1980, 1981, 1982 and
1983. The grant was jointly approved and funded under RDIP, and GDA and the Subsidiary Agreement. We have included benefits
from this second grant in our calculation of benefits under RDIP.
II. Programs Preliminarily Determined Not To Confer Subsidies
We preliminarily determine the following programs do not confer subsidies on manufacturers, producers or exporters of oil
country tubular goods from Canada.
A. Grant Under the Enterprise Development Program (EDP)
The EDP was established to provide loans, loan guarantees and contributions to those engaged in manufacturing or processing. In
the "Final Negative Countervailing Duty Determinations: Certain Softwood Products from Canada" (48
(Cite as: 50 FR 53172, *53173)
Fed. Reg. 24159 (1983)), we found EDP grants not countervailable and EDP loan programs not used. Based on that determination,
we initiated only on EDP loan programs and not EDP grants. However, IPSCO's 1984 annual report stated that the company was
being assisted by an EDP grant for research on a new alloy while the government of Canada response said the EDP program
was terminated in 1983. Because of this inconsistency in the information provided on the two responses we asked for additional
information in order to check whether a new EDP program had been established.
Based on information obtained after the initial responses, we learned that companies could continue to receive funds for projects
approved prior to the termination of the EDP program and that there was no new EDP program. In addition, although project
funding for the grant has been approved, IPSCO has not yet received any funds under this program. Accordingly, we are not re-
examining the EDP grant program nor changing our determination that EDP grants are not limited to a specific enterprise or
industry, or group of enterprises or industries, or to companies in specific regions.
B. Employment Development Fund (EDF)
The Employment Development Fund (EDF), which was terminated in 1982, was an Ontario provincial grant program intended to
increase long-term investment and
(Cite as: 50 FR 53172, *53173)
employment in the province. In its response, one OCTG manufacturer reported receipt of an EDF grant. As part of the application
procedure, applicants are required to predict the growth of production and exports, although information on the record indicates
that there are no default provisions if the projected export goals are not met.
We preliminarily determine that EDF was not an export subsidy because these grants were not provided only to exporters nor was
receipt of EDF grants contingent on export performance. Based on our examination of a report on recipients of EDF, funding was
provided to a wide range of industries in Ontario. We also preliminarily determine that EDF grants were not domestic subsidies
because they were not limited to a specific enterprise or industry, a group of enterprises or industries, or to companies in specific
regions.
C. Alberta Opportunity Company
The Alberta Opportunity Company (AOC), a crown corporation, issues loans and loan guarantees to companies in Alberta in order
to stimulate new businesses and assist expansion of existing enterprises when financing from other sources is unavailable. In the
"Final Negative Countervailing Duty Determinations: Certain Softwood Products from Canada," (48 FR 24159 (1983)),
we determined that AOC loans were not limited to a specific enterprise or industry or group
(Cite as: 50 FR 53172, *53173)
of enterprises or industries, or to companies in specific regions. However, we initiated on this program because we had
information that AOC loans may be intended for *53175
(Cite as: 50 FR 53172, *53175)
export promotion. According to the responses, IPSCO had a loan outstanding from the AOC during the review period.
IPSCO's AOC loan is not a part of normal AOC loan program. It is part of a settlement reached in court for IPSCO's purchase of the
physical assets of Ram Steel, a company placed into receivership by one of its creditors. The court assigned an officer of Peat
Marwick, Ltd. as the receiver to negotiate the best deal possible on behalf of Ram Steel's creditors and stockholders. AOC had two
loans outstanding with Ram, but was not the primary secured creditor. According to the receiver, the company could not be
operated by the receiver or Ram Steel at a profit and the price offered by IPSCO was the highest price they could obtain. IPSCO
made its offer to buy contingent upon receiving a loan from AOC to cover part of the purchase price. By granting that loan, AOC
was able to recover most of the money owed it by Ram and to receive the full principal and interest on deferred terms, as was a
condition of IPSCO's offer.
Given the above information, we preliminarily determine that AOC's loan to IPSCO was not inconsistent with commercial
considerations because of the commercial advantages to both the seller and the purchaser in this transaction, and because of the
apparent lack of interest by any other party to purchase Ram's assets.
(Cite as: 50 FR 53172, *53175)
III. Programs Preliminarily Determined Not To Be Used
We preliminarily determine that the following programs are not used by manufacturers, producers, and/or exporters of oil
country tubular goods in Canada.
A. Loans Under Subsidiary Agreements
Petitioners allege that under the General Development Agreement and federal- provincial subsidiary agreements, loans were
provided on terms inconsistent with commercial considerations. The responses indicate that none of the companies had
outstanding loans under the GDA or subsidiary agreements during the review period. Therefore, we preliminarily determine this
program not to be used.
B. Defense Industry Productivity Program (DIPP)
The DIPP, administered by the Department of Regional and Industrial Expansion (DRIE) has several purposes. Among these
purposes is the stimulation of exports of military hardware and the provision of assistance to upgrade
(Cite as: 50 FR 53172, *53175)
equipment, processes and facilities to make companies more competitive in bidding for military hardware contracts.
According to the responses, only Algoma received DIPP benefits. The grant was for a facility to desulfurize steel. Desulfurized steel
is used in producing OCTG and other steel products. DIPP funds were paid to Algoma in 1980 and 1981. Although the Department
may determine that DIPP grants serve as exports subsidies in other cases, there were no conditions in the Algoma DIPP grant
which were tied to export performace or which made the grant contingent on exporting. Algoma has a large home market for
desulfurized steel and products made from desulfurized steel. This DIPP grant benefits Algoma's entire production, and not
exports alone. Thus, we preliminarily determine that this grant was not an export subsidy.
Although we have preliminarily determined that this program is not an export subsidy, we must still determine whether any
benefits were received during the review period an if so whether this program is limited to a specific enterprise or industry or
group of enterprises or industries. Consistent with the Subsidies Appendix, we divide the sum of all grants received in each year
by the total sales of the company in the same year. Algoma received no other grants in the two years DIPP benefits were received.
The calculated benefits were de minimis; therefore we expensed them in the year of receipt. Because the DIPP grants received by
Algoma were expensed
(Cite as: 50 FR 53172, *53175)
prior to the review period and because no DIPP grants were received the Algoma during the review period, we preliminarily
determine this program was not used.
C. Community-Based Industrial Adjustment Program of the Industry and Labor Adjustment Program (CIAP/ILAP)
This program, now terminated, provided loans and grants to firms in designated communities affected by high unemployment.
The response and subsequently furnished information from the government of Canada stated that during the life of the
program, twelve communities were eligible for CIAP. None of the OCTG respondents were located in these communities.
Therefore, we preliminarily determine that this program was not used.
D. Promotional Projects Program (PPP)
The PPP is run by the Department of External Affairs. At selected foreign trade shows the government of Canada rents space,
furniture, and facilities which it subleases at minimal charge to Canadian exhibitors. The government of Canada reported that
one OCTG respondent, Stelco, used PPP in 1983 at one trade show in the United States where it exhibited pictures of its industrial
park locations and technologies. This benefit was received outside the period of
(Cite as: 50 FR 53172, *53175)
review and according to the responses no benefit was received during the review period. Therefore, we preliminarily determine
that this program was not used during the review period (1984) by any manufacturer, producer or exporter of OCTG.
E. Program for Export Market Development (PEMD)
The PEMD program is also run by the Department of External Affairs. One PEMD subprogram was reportedly used by Stelco, by
Algoma and by IPSCO to recover certain transportation expenses to sell specific products in potential markets. None of these trips
were for selling OCTG in the United States. Therefore, we preliminarily determine that this program was not used.
F. Industrial And Regional Development Program (IRDP)
In 1983 DRIE was created, incorporating the activities of DREE and the Department of Industry, Trade, and Commerce. At this
time RDIP and some other programs of DREE were modified and incorporated in a new program, the IRDP. IRDP's purpose is to
improve industrial development and the overall economic climate by providing funds for new facilities or for the expansion or
modernization of existing facilities. All regions of Canada are divided into
(Cite as: 50 FR 53172, *53175)
four tiers based on the level of economic development of the region. The amount of eligibility differs for each tier with the greatest
amount going to the most economically disadvantaged tier. The petitioners alleged that DRIE provides discretionary grants,
interest-free loans and loan guarantees under IRDP. No IRDP loans or loan guarantees were reported. IPSCO and Siegfried Kreiser
have been approved for IRPD grants, but have not yet received any funds. Therefore, we preliminarily determine that this
program was not used. Should these firms receive any money in the future under IRDP, the program will be considered in any
administrative review that may occur.
G. Saskatchewan Economic Development Commission (SEDCO)
SEDCO issues loans, loan guarantees and in some cases invests in Sakatchewan industries and commerce. None of the OCTG
respondents has received assistance from SEDCO. *53176
(Cite as: 50 FR 53172, *53176)
Therefore, we preliminarily determine that SEDCO programs were not used.
H. Ontario Development Corporation (ODC) Export Support Loans, Other Loans, and Loan Guarantees
The Ontario Development Corporation controls, approves and administers loan
(Cite as: 50 FR 53172, *53176)
and loan guarantee programs in addition to administering, but not approving, grant programs (such as the Employment
Development Fund, discussed earlier in this notice). According to the responses, no OCTG producer has received assistance under
these programs. Therefore, we preliminarily determine that ODC loans and loan guarantees were not used.
I. Enterprise Development Program (EDP) Loans
Petitioners alleged that loans were provided on terms inconsistent with commercial considerations under EDP. Based on
information in the responses, none of the manufacturers, producers and/or exporters of OCTG had EDP loans outstanding during
the review period.
J. Interest-Free Loans and Below-Commercial Rate Loans
Petitioners alleged that loans have been provided on terms inconsistent with commercial considerations by the government or at
the direction of the government. Based on the responses, we have no information that any government-funded or directed loan
programs were used by manufacturers, producers and/or exporters of OCTG other than those programs already addressed in this
notice.
(Cite as: 50 FR 53172, *53176)
K. Government Grants for Purchase of Fixed Assets
Petitioners alleged that government grants have been provided to IPSCO for purchase of fixed assets. Based on information in the
responses, IPSCO and Algoma received grants for acquisition of fixed assets under the RDIP and DIPP. These grant programs are
addressed elsewhere in this notice. The responses indicate that there are no other government grant programs, not specifically
cited by petitioners, for acquisition of fixed assets which have been used by respondents.
Preliminary Negative Determination of Critical Circumstances
Petitioners alleged that imports of oil country tubular goods from Canada present "critical circumstances." Under section
703(e)(1) of the Act, critical circumstances exist when the Department has a reasonable basis to believe or suspect that (1) the
alleged subsidy is inconsistent with the Agreement on Interpretation and Application of Articles VI, XVI, and XXIII of the General
Agreement of Tariffs and Trade ("the Subsidies Code"), and (2) there have been massive imports of the class or kind of merchandise
which is the subject of the investigation over a relatively short period. Based upon our analysis, there
(Cite as: 50 FR 53172, *53176)
were no export subsidies bestowed upon oil country tubular goods in Canada during the review period. Accordingly, we
preliminarily determine that the subsidies received are not inconsistent with the Subsidies Code.
Since we have determined that the subsidies are not inconsistent with Code commitments, we need not determine whether there
have been massive imports. Accordingly, we preliminarily determine that "critical circumstances" do not exist with respect to oil
country tubular goods from Canada.
Suspension of Liquidation
In accordance with section 703(d) of the Act, we are directing the U.S. Customs Service to suspend liquidation of all unliquidated
entries of OCTG from Canada which are entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption, on or after the date of
publication of this notice in the Federal Register, and to require a cash deposit or bond for each such entry of this merchandise
equal to 0.72 percent ad valorem except for OCTG from Stelco Inc., Sonco Steel Tube (a division of Ferrum Inc.), Algoma Steel
Corp., Ltd., Welded Tube of Canada, Ltd., Prudential Steel Ltd., Frank Pipe Co., Christianson Pipe, Ltd., Dominion Steel Export
Co., Ltd., and Matthew Tube & Pipe Supply Inc.
Verification
(Cite as: 50 FR 53172, *53176)
In accordance with 776(a) of the Act, we conducted a verification of the information provided in the questionnaire response. Our
final determination will be based on verified information.
ITC Notification
In accordance with section 705(d) of the Act, we will notify the ITC of our determination. In addition, we are making available to
the ITC all non- privileged and non-confidential information relating to this investigation. We will allow the ITC access to all
privileged and confidential information in our files, provided the ITC confirms that it will not disclose such information, either
publicly or under an administrative protective order, without the written consent of the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration.
If our final determination is affirmative, the ITC will determine whether these imports materially injure, or threaten material
injury to, a U.S. industry within 45 days after publication of our notice in the Federal Register.
Public Comment
(Cite as: 50 FR 53172, *53176)
In accordance with section 355.35 of our regulations, we will hold a public hearing, if requested, to afford interested parties an
opportunity to comment on this preliminary determination at 10:00 a.m. on January 14, 1986 at the U.S. Department of
Commerce, Room 3708, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230. Individuals who wish to participate in
the hearing must submit a request to the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, Room B-099, at the above
address within 10 days of the publication of this notice.
Requests for a hearing should contain: (1) The party's name, address, and telephone number; (2) the number of participants; (3)
the reason for attending; and (4) a list of the issues to be discussed. In addition, at least 10 copies of the pre-hearing briefs must be
submitted to the Deputy Assistant Secretary by January 8, 1985. Oral presentations will be limited to issues raised in the briefs.
In accordance with 19 CFR 355.33(d) and 19 CFR 355.34, written views will be considered if received not less than 30 days before
the final determination or, if a hearing is held, within 10 days after the hearing transcript is available.
This notice is published pursuant to section 703(f) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1671b(f)).
Gilbert B. Kaplan,
(Cite as: 50 FR 53172, *53176)
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
December 19, 1985.
[FR Doc. 85-30770 Filed 12-27-85; 8:45 am]