[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 15 (Tuesday, January 24, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 4600-4604]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-1763]



-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
C-433-806


Preliminary Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination and 
Alignment of Final Countervailing Duty Determination With Final 
Antidumping Duty Determinations: Oil Country Tubular Goods (``OCTG'') 
From Austria

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.

EFFECTIVE DATE: January 24, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jennifer Yeske or Daniel Lessard, 
Office of Countervailing Investigations, Import Administration, U.S. 
Department of Commerce, room 3099, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, 
NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone (202) 482-0189.

Preliminary Determination

    The Department preliminarily determines that 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 OCTG in Austria. For 
information on the estimated net subsidies, please see the Suspension 
of Liquidation section of this notice.

Case History

    Since the publication of the notice of initiation in the Federal 
Register (59 FR 37028, July 20, 1994), the following events have 
occurred.
    On August 1, 1994, we issued a countervailing duty questionnaire to 
the Government of Austria (``GOA'') in Washington, DC, concerning 
petitioners' allegations. On August 16, 1994, the GOA responded to the 
first section of our questionnaire informing us that Voest-Alpine 
Stahlrohr Kindberg (``Kindberg''), an Austrian OCTG producer, accounted 
for 100 percent of Austrian exports of the subject merchandise to the 
United States during the POI.
    The Department initiated this investigation based in part on an 
allegation that Kindberg was benefitting from subsidies given to a 
related party from whom Kindberg purchased inputs for OCTG production 
(``upstream subsidy allegation''). On August 22, 1994, the GOA and 
Kindberg submitted information pertaining to the upstream subsidy 
allegation. On August 29 and 30, 1994, we conducted a verification 
relating solely to this information. A report was issued concerning 
this verification on October 13, 1994.
    On September 15, 1994, the GOA and Kindberg submitted questionnaire 
responses. On November 23, 1994, we issued a deficiency questionnaire 
to Kindberg and the GOA. We received their responses on December 16, 
1994. On January 6, 1995, we requested that respondents submit the 
proprietary versions of certain exhibits from Final Affirmative 
Countervailing Duty Determination: Certain Steel Products from Austria, 
58 FR 37217 (July 9, 1993) (``Certain Steel''). We received this 
information on January 9, 1995.
    On August 24, 1994, we postponed the preliminary determination in 
this investigation until November 23, 1994, pursuant to section 
703(c)(1) of the Act, on the grounds that the case was extraordinarily 
complicated (59 FR 43554, August 24, 1994). The preliminary 
determination was again extended until January 17, 1995, pursuant to 
section 703(g)(1) of the Act (59 FR 60774, November 28, 1994).
    On December 5, 1994, we received a request from petitioner to 
postpone the final determination in this investigation until the date 
of the final antidumping determination in the companion antidumping 
investigation of OCTG from Austria, in accordance with 19 CFR 
355.20(c)(1).

Scope of Investigation

    The products covered by this investigation are OCTG, which are 
hollow steel products of circular cross-section. These products include 
oil well casing, tubing, and drill pipe, of iron (other than cast iron) 
or steel (both carbon and alloy), whether or not conforming to American 
Petroleum Institute (``API'') or non-API specifications, whether 
finished or unfinished (including green tubes). These investigations do 
not cover casing, tubing, or drill pipe containing 10.5 percent or more 
of chromium. The OCTG subject to these investigations are currently 
classified in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule (``HTS'') under these item 
numbers:

7304.20.10.00..........         7304.20.40.10           7304.20.10.20   
7304.20.30.80..........         7304.20.10.30           7304.20.10.40   
7304.20.10.50..........         7304.20.10.60           7304.20.10.80   
7304.20.20.00..........         7304.20.20.10           7304.20.20.20   
7304.20.20.30..........         7304.20.20.40           7304.20.20.50   
7304.20.20.60..........         7304.20.20.80           7304.20.30.00   
7304.20.30.10..........         7304.20.30.20           7304.20.30.30   
7304.20.30.40..........         7304.20.30.50           7304.20.30.60   
7304.20.30.80..........         7304.20.40.00           7304.20.40.10   
7304.20.40.20..........         7304.20.40.30           7304.20.40.40   
7304.20.40.50..........         7304.20.40.60           7304.20.40.80   
7304.20.50.10..........         7304.20.50.15           7304.20.50.30   
7304.20.50.45..........         7304.20.50.50           7304.20.50.60   
7304.20.50.75..........         7304.20.60.10           7304.20.60.15   
7304.20.60.30..........         7304.20.60.45           7304.20.60.50   
7304.20.60.60..........         7304.20.60.75           7304.20.70.00   
7304.20.80.00..........         7304.20.80.30           7304.20.80.45   
7304.20.80.60..........         7305.20.20.00           7305.20.40.00   
7305.20.60.00..........         7305.20.80.00           7306.20.10.30   
7306.20.10.90..........         7306.20.20.00           7306.20.30.00   
7306.20.40.00..........         7306.20.60.10           7306.20.60.50   
7306.20.80.10..........         7306.20.80.50                           
                                                                        

    [[Page 4601]] Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for 
convenience and U.S. Customs purposes, our written description of the 
scope of this proceeding is dispositive.

Injury Test

    Because Austria is a ``country under the Agreement'' within the 
meaning of section 701(b) of the Act, the U.S. International Trade 
Commission (``ITC'') is required to determine whether imports of OCTG 
from Austria materially injure, or threaten material injury to, a U.S. 
industry. On August 24, 1994, the ITC published its preliminary 
determination finding that there is a reasonable indication that an 
industry in the United States is being materially injured or threatened 
with material injury by reason of imports from Austria of the subject 
merchandise (59 FR 43591, August 24, 1994).

Petitioners

    The petitioners are Koppel Steel Corporation; U.S. Steel Group, a 
unit of USX Corporation; and USS/Kobe Steel. Co-petitioners in this 
investigation are IPSCO Steel, Inc.; Maverick Tube Corporation; and 
North Star Steel Company.

Corporate History of Respondent Kindberg

    Prior to 1987, the subject merchandise was produced in the steel 
division of VAAG, a large conglomerate which also had engineering and 
finished products divisions. In 1987, VAAG underwent a major 
restructuring and several new companies were formed from the three 
major divisions of VAAG. The steel division was incorporated as Voest-
Alpine Stahl GmbH, Linz (``VA Linz''). The production facilities at 
Kindberg and Voest-Alpine Stahl Donawitz GmbH (``Donawitz'') were 
separately incorporated, with Kindberg and Donawitz becoming 
subsidiaries of VA Linz. VAAG became a holding company for these new 
companies.
    In 1988, VAAG transferred its ownership interest in VA Linz to 
Voest-Alpine Stahl AG (``VAS''). At the same time, Kindberg became a 
subsidiary of Donawitz. Donawitz and other companies were owned by VAS, 
which in turn was owned by VAAG.
    In 1989, VAS and all other subholdings of VAAG were transferred to 
Industrie und Beteiligungsverwaltung GmbH (``IBVG''). In 1990, IBVG, in 
turn, was renamed Austrian Industries AG (``AI''). VAAG remained in 
existence, but separate from IBVG and AI, holding only residual 
liabilities and non-steel assets.
    In 1991, as part of the reorganization of the long products 
operations, Donawitz was split into two companies. The rail division 
remained with the existing company (i.e., Donawitz), however, the name 
of the company was changed to Voest-Alpine Schienen GmbH 
(``Schienen''). In addition to producing rails, Schienen also became 
the holding company for Kindberg and the other Donawitz subsidiaries. 
The metallurgical division of the former Donawitz was incorporated as a 
new company and was named Voest-Alpine Stahl Donawitz (``Donawitz 
II'').

Equityworthiness

    As discussed below, we have determined that the GOA provided equity 
infusions, through Osterreichische Industrieholding-Aktiengesellschaft 
(``OIAG''), to VAAG in the years 1983, 1984, and 1986, and to Kindberg 
in 1987. In order for the Department to find an equity infusion 
countervailable, it must be determined that the infusion is provided on 
terms inconsistent with commercial considerations. Petitioners have 
alleged that VAAG and Kindberg were unequityworthy in the years in 
which they received equity infusions and that the equity infusions 
were, therefore, inconsistent with commercial considerations. According 
to Sec. 355.44(e)(2) of the Department's proposed regulations, for a 
company to be equityworthy, it must show the ability to generate a 
reasonable rate of return within a reasonable period of time. A 
detailed equityworthiness analysis can be found in Appendix I of the 
Concurrence Memorandum dated January 17, 1995. A summary of that 
analysis follows.
    In Certain Steel, the Department determined VAAG to be 
unequityworthy for the years 1978-84 and 1986. Respondents have not 
questioned this determination and no additional information concerning 
that period has come to light. Therefore, we preliminarily determine 
VAAG to be unequityworthy during the period 1978-84, and for 1986.
    With respect to the equityworthiness of Kindberg in 1987, the 
Department would normally analyze financial statements of the company 
in question for three years prior to the infusion and also consider any 
outside studies. In this case, however, since Kindberg was incorporated 
effective 1987, its performance before that year is included in the 
financial statements of VAAG. An in-depth analysis of VAAG's financial 
ratios in the three years prior to the restructuring was undertaken in 
Certain Steel. In that case, the Department concluded that VAAG's 
financial statements showed poor results during the relevant period 
(see the Department's Final Concurrence Memorandum in Certain Steel, at 
Appendix 2).
    Respondents have submitted information pertaining to the expected 
results of the 1987 restructuring to be considered in making our 
equityworthiness determination for Kindberg in 1987. Specifically, they 
have provided a one page excerpt from a study titled ``VA Neu'' and a 
profit and loss forecast. However, the VA Neu study is not translated, 
and neither document contains any narrative description or analysis of 
the figures contained within it. Moreover, it is not clear from the 
responses when these plans were developed or what conclusions they 
contain. Absent this information, we are unable to conclude that a 
reasonable private investor would be able to properly analyze the 
significance of these figures. Therefore, the information contained in 
these documents has not been considered in the Department's analysis.
    Because we are not able to take this information into account, we 
are basing our preliminary equityworthy finding for Kindberg on VAAG's 
financial history. While we recognize that VAAG's financial data 
includes companies other than Kindberg, without any additional 
information we are compelled to rely on the unequityworthiness of VAAG 
alone. This is consistent with the analysis in Certain Steel, where the 
1987 equityworthiness determination for another VAAG subsidiary was 
based on the past performance of VAAG. Therefore, we preliminarily 
determine Kindberg to be unequityworthy in 1987.

Allocation of Non-Recurring Benefits

    As discussed below, we found that countervailable equity infusions 
and grants have benefited the production of the subject merchandise. 
Moreover, we found these benefits to be non-recurring because the 
benefits are exceptional and the recipient could not expect to receive 
them on an ongoing basis (see, GIA, at 37226).
    The Proposed Regulations require us to allocate non-recurring 
grants and equity infusions over a period equal to the average useful 
life of assets in the [[Page 4602]] 
industry, unless the sum of grants and equity infusions provided under 
a program in a particular year is less than 0.50 percent of a firm's 
total sales in that year. If the sum of grants and equity infusions is 
less than 0.50 percent, the benefit is expensed in the year of receipt. 
See Sec. 355.49(a) of the Proposed Regulations and the General Issues 
Appendix to the Final Countervailing Duty Determination: Certain Steel 
Products from Austria (``GIA''), 58 FR 37225, 37217 (July 9, 1993).
    For those grants and equity infusions which must be allocated over 
time, the Proposed Regulations require the Department to use as a 
discount rate a company-specific cost of long-term, fixed-rate debt or, 
absent such a rate, the average cost of long-term, fixed-rate debt in 
the country in question (see Sec. 355.49(b)(2) of Countervailing 
Duties: Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Request for Public Comments, 
54 FR 23366 (May 31, 1989) (``Proposed Regulations''). Because a 
company-specific rate was not available, we have used the bond rate 
designated as being for ``Industry and other Austrian Issuers'' by the 
Austrian National Bank Annual Report. In Certain Steel, the Department 
determined that these bond rates provide an accurate measure of what it 
would cost a large company to raise capital in a given year. The 
discount rate provided by respondents was determined in Certain Steel 
to be dominated by GOA bonds. Because governments often do not borrow 
at the same rate as private companies, we prefer to use a rate which is 
reflective of commercial, rather than government, borrowing (see, 
Certain Steel, at 37223). Therefore, for purposes of this preliminary 
determination, we have used the discount rates applied in Certain 
Steel.

I. Analysis of Direct Subsidies

Calculation Methodology
    For purposes of this preliminary determination, the period for 
which we are measuring subsidies (the POI) is calendar year 1993. In 
determining the benefits received under the various programs described 
below, we used the following calculation methodology. We first 
calculated the benefit attributable to the POI for each countervailable 
program, using the methodologies described in each program section 
below. For each program, we then divided the benefit attributable to 
Kindberg in the POI by Kindberg's total sales revenue, as none of the 
programs was limited to either certain subsidiaries or certain products 
of Kindberg. Next, we added the benefits for all programs to arrive at 
Kindberg's total subsidy rate. Because Kindberg is the only respondent 
company in this investigation, this rate is also the country-wide rate.
    Consistent with our practice in preliminary determinations, when a 
response to an allegation denies the existence of a program, receipt of 
benefits under a program, or eligibility of a company or industry under 
a program, and the Department has no persuasive evidence showing that 
the response is incorrect, we accept the response for purposes of the 
preliminary determination. All such responses, however, are subject to 
verification. If the response cannot be supported at verification, and 
the program is otherwise countervailable, the program will be 
considered a subsidy in the final determination.
    Based upon our analysis of the petition and the responses to our 
questionnaires, we preliminarily determine the following:
A. Programs Preliminarily Determined To Be Countervailable
    We preliminarily determine that subsidies are being provided to 
manufacturers, producers, or exporters in Austria of OCTG products 
under the following programs:
    1. Equity Infusions to Voest-Alpine AG (VAAG): 1983, 1984 and 1986. 
The GOA provided equity infusions through OIAG to VAAG in 1983, 1984 
and 1986, while VAAG owned the facilities which became Kindberg, the 
producer of the subject merchandise. The 1983 and 1984 infusions were 
given by OIAG pursuant to Law 589/1983. The 1986 equity infusion was 
given as an advance payment for funds to be provided under Law 298/1987 
(the OIAG Financing Act). Law 589/1983 and Law 298/1987 provide 
authority for disbursement of funds solely to companies of OIAG, of 
which VAAG is one.
    In Certain Steel, the Department determined these equity infusions 
to be de jure specific. Respondents did not provide any information 
disputing these findings in this proceeding. Moreover, since we have 
determined that VAAG was unequityworthy in these years, we 
preliminarily determine that these infusions were provided to VAAG on 
terms inconsistent with commercial considerations.
    We have also preliminarily determined that the subsidies provided 
to VAAG prior to the 1987 restructuring continue to benefit Kindberg's 
production of OCTG, in accordance with the restructuring methodology 
discussed in the GIA, at 37265-8. We have applied the following 
methodology:
    We divided Kindberg's asset value on January 1, 1987, by VAAG's 
total asset value on December 31, 1986 (i.e., pre-restructuring). This 
ratio best reflects the proportion of VAAG's total 1986 assets that 
became Kindberg in 1987.
    We applied this ratio to VAAG's subsidy amount to calculate the 
portion of these infusions allocable to Kindberg. To calculate the 
benefit for the POI, we treated each of the equity amounts as a grant 
and allocated the benefits over a 15 year period (our treatment of 
equity as grants and our choice of allocation period is discussed in 
the GIA, at 37239 and 37225, respectively). We then divided the benefit 
by total sales of Kindberg during the POI. On this basis, we determine 
the net subsidies for these equity infusions to be 1.37 percent ad 
valorem.
    2. Grants Provided to VAAG: 1981-86.
    The GOA provided grants to VAAG through OIAG pursuant to Law 602/
1981, Law 589/1983, and Law 298/1987. In Certain Steel, the Department 
found grants disbursed under Law 602/1981, Law 589/1983 and Law 298/
1987 to be provided specifically to the steel industry and, hence, 
countervailable (58 FR 37221). Respondents have not challenged the 
countervailability of these grants in this proceeding.
    In accordance with the Allocation of Non-recurring Benefits 
section, above, we have expensed the grant received in 1981 in that 
year. To calculate the benefit from the other grants, we used the 
methodology described in Equity Infusions to VAAG: 1983-84, 1986 
section, above. On this basis, we determine the net subsidies for this 
program to be 3.68 percent ad valorem.
    3. Assumption of Losses at Restructuring by VAAG on Behalf of 
Kindberg. In Certain Steel, we determined that, in connection with the 
1987 restructuring, VAAG retained all the losses carried forward on its 
balance sheet and that no losses were assigned to its newly created 
subsidiaries. VAAG later received funds from the GOA under Law 298/1987 
to offset these losses. We found that VAAG's subsidiaries benefitted 
because a portion of the losses should have been allocated to them. In 
the present investigation, petitioners allege that this assumption of 
losses provided a countervailable subsidy to Kindberg, a subsidiary of 
VAAG.
    Respondents argue that, had the losses been allocated, Kindberg 
could have used them to offset income taxes from future profits. Under 
those circumstances, the allocation of the losses would provide a 
countervailable [[Page 4603]] benefit to Kindberg. Therefore, the 
assumption of losses by VAAG did not provide a benefit to Kindberg.
    While respondents may be correct that in certain circumstances 
losses have value, we concluded in Certain Steel that, ``if VAAG had 
assigned these losses to its new companies, then each of the new 
companies would have been in a * * * precarious financial position'' 
(Certain Steel, 37221). Respondents' claim does not refute this; it 
merely posits that losses could be used to offset future tax 
liabilities (if any) of the VAAG subsidiaries. While we will review 
this argument further for the final determination, respondents' 
assertion is not sufficient to reverse the decision we reached in 
Certain Steel. Therefore, we have preliminarily determined that 
Kindberg benefitted by not assuming any losses.
    We calculated the benefit by treating the losses not distributed to 
Kindberg as a grant in 1987. Kindberg's share of the losses was 
determined by reference to its asset value relative to total VAAG 
assets.
    To allocate the benefit, we used the methodology described in 
Equity Infusions to VAAG: 1983-84, 1986 section, above. On this basis, 
we determine the net subsidies for this program to be 1.26 percent ad 
valorem.
    4. Equity Infusion to Kindberg: 1987. A direct equity infusion from 
OIAG to Kindberg was made on January 1, 1987, pursuant to Law 298/1987. 
As under Law 589/1983, funds under Law 298/1987 were provided solely to 
the steel industry. Therefore, we preliminarily find this infusion to 
be specific. Moreover, since we have preliminarily determined that 
Kindberg was unequityworthy in 1987, these infusions were made on terms 
inconsistent with commercial considerations. Thus, we preliminarily 
determine this infusion to be countervailable.
    To calculate the benefit for the POI, we treated the equity amount 
as a grant and allocated the benefit over 15 years (our treatment of 
equity as grants and our choice of allocation period is discussed in 
the GIA, at 37239 and 37225, respectively). Because the equity 
investment was made directly in Kindberg, and because Kindberg was 
separately incorporated as of that year, the entire benefit has been 
attributed to Kindberg. The portion allocated to the POI was divided by 
total sales of Kindberg during the POI to determine the ad valorem 
benefit. On this basis, we determine the net subsidies for this program 
to be 5.13 percent ad valorem.
B. Programs Preliminarily Determined Not To Benefit the Subject 
Merchandise
    We initiated an investigation of subsidies provided after 1987 to 
VA Linz, VAAG and VAS based on petitioners' allegation that subsidies 
to these companies benefitted Kindberg. Based on information provided 
in the responses, we preliminarily determine that the following 
programs did not bestow a benefit on Kindberg. (See January 17, 1995, 
Concurrence Memorandum for a further discussion of this issue.)
    1. 1987 Equity Infusion to VA Linz
    2. Post-Restructuring Equity Infusions to VAAG
    3. Post-Restructuring Grants to VAAG
    4. Post-Restructuring Grants to VAS

II. Analysis of Upstream Subsidies

    The petitioners have alleged that Kindberg receives benefits in the 
form of upstream subsidies through its purchase of steel blooms from 
Donawitz II.1 Section 771A(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 
amended (the Act), defines upstream subsidies as follows:

    \1\ Petitioners originally alleged that the corporate 
interaction between Kindberg and Donawitz II is such that subsidies 
received by either company would benefit the production of the 
subject merchandise. Based on this analysis, petitioners continue to 
argue that these companies should be treated as a single entity. 
Both approaches are discussed in our January 17, 1995, Concurrence 
Memorandum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The term ``upstream subsidy'' means any subsidy * * * by the 
government of a country that:

    (1) Is paid or bestowed by that government with respect to a 
product (hereinafter referred to as an ``input product'') that is 
used in the manufacture or production in that country of merchandise 
which is the subject of a countervailing duty proceeding;
    (2) In the judgment of the administering authority bestows a 
competitive benefit on the merchandise; and
    (3) Has a significant effect on the cost of manufacturing or 
producing the merchandise.

    Each of the three elements listed above must be satisfied in order 
for the Department to find that an upstream subsidy exists. The absence 
of any one element precludes the finding of an upstream subsidy. As 
discussed below, respondents have been able to show that a competitive 
benefit does not exist. Therefore, we have not addressed the first and 
third criteria.

Competitive Benefit

    In determining whether subsidies to the upstream supplier(s) confer 
a competitive benefit within the meaning of section 771A(a)(2) on the 
producer of the subject merchandise, section 771A(b) directs that:

* * * a competitive benefit has been bestowed when the price for the 
input product * * * is lower than the price that the manufacturer or 
producer of merchandise which is the subject of a countervailing 
duty proceeding would otherwise pay for the product in obtaining it 
from another seller in an arms-length transaction.

    The Department's proposed regulations (Countervailing Duties: 
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Request for Public Comment, 54 FR 
23366 (May 31, 1989)) offer the following hierarchy of benchmarks for 
determining whether a competitive benefit exists:

* * * In evaluating whether a competitive benefit exists pursuant to 
paragraph (a)(2) of this section, the Secretary will determine 
whether the price for the input product is lower than:
    (1) The price which the producer of the merchandise otherwise 
would pay for the input product, produced in the same country, in 
obtaining it from another unsubsidized seller in an arm's length 
transaction; or
    (2) a world market price for the input product.

In this instance, Donawitz II is the sole supplier in Austria of the 
input product, steel blooms. However, Kindberg does purchase the input 
product from an unrelated foreign supplier. Therefore, we have used the 
prices charged to Kindberg by the foreign supplier as the benchmark 
world market price.
    Because the foreign supplier's prices are delivered, we made an 
upward adjustment to the domestic supplier's ex-factory prices to 
account for the cost of freight between Kindberg and that supplier. 
Based on our comparison of these delivered prices for identical grades 
of steel blooms, we found no competitive benefit was bestowed on 
Kindberg during the POI. Therefore, we preliminarily determine that 
Kindberg did not receive an upstream subsidy.

Verification

    In accordance with section 776(b) of the Act, we will verify the 
information submitted by respondents prior to making our final 
determination.

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 entries of OCTG from 
Austria, which are entered or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption 
on or after the date of the publication of this notice in the Federal 
Register, and to require a cash deposit or bond for such entries of the 
merchandise in the amounts indicated below. This suspension will remain 
in effect until further notice. [[Page 4604]] 

OCTG

Country-Wide Ad Valorem Rate--11.44 percent

ITC Notification

    In accordance with section 703(f) of the Act, we will notify the 
ITC of our determination. In addition, we are making available to the 
ITC all nonprivileged and nonproprietary information relating to this 
investigation. We will allow the ITC access to all privileged and 
business proprietary 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 Investigations, Import 
Administration.
    If our final determination is affirmative, the ITC will make its 
final determination within 45 days after the Department makes its final 
determination.

Alignment With Companion Antidumping Investigation

    Pursuant to petitioners' request for an alignment with the 
companion antidumping investigation, in accordance with 19 CFR 
355.20(c)(1), we are postponing the final countervailing duty 
determination in this investigation until April 11, 1995, the date of 
the final antidumping duty determination in the companion antidumping 
investigation of OCTG from Austria.

Public Comment

    In accordance with 19 CFR 355.38, we will hold a public hearing, if 
requested, to afford interested parties an opportunity to comment on 
this preliminary determination. The hearing will be held on March 31, 
1995, at the U.S. Department of Commerce, Room 3708, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC. 20230. Individuals who wish 
to request a hearing must submit a written request within ten days of 
the publication of this notice in the Federal Register to the Assistant 
Secretary for Import Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, room 
B099, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230. 
Parties should confirm by telephone the time, date, and place of the 
hearing 48 hours before the scheduled time.
    Requests 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, 
ten copies of the business proprietary version and five copies of the 
nonproprietary version of the case briefs must be submitted to the 
Assistant Secretary no later than March 23, 1995. Ten copies of the 
business proprietary version and five copies of the nonproprietary 
version of the rebuttal briefs must be submitted to the Assistant 
Secretary no later than March 29, 1995. An interested party may make an 
affirmative presentation only on arguments included in that party's 
case or rebuttal briefs. Written arguments should be submitted in 
accordance with Sec. 355.38 of the Commerce Department's regulations 
and will be considered if received within the time limits specified 
above.
    This determination is published pursuant to section 703(f) of the 
Act (19 U.S.C. 1671b(f)).

    Dated: January 17, 1995.
Susan G. Esserman,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 95-1763 Filed 1-23-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P