Oil Country Tubular Goods from Argentina, Mexico, Russia, and South Korea; Inv. No. 701-TA-671-672 and 731-TA-1571-1573 (Preliminary)

=== USITC Determination – Preliminary === 67491Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 225 / Friday, November 26, 2021 / Notices 1 The record is defined in § 207.2(f) of the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 207.2(f)). 2 86 FR 60205 and 86 FR 60210 (November 1, 2021). from organizations or businesses, and from individuals identifying themselves as representatives or officials of organizations or businesses, will be made available for public disclosure in their entirety. Next Steps If we decide to issue permits to any of the applicants listed in this notice, we will publish a notice in the Federal Register. Authority We publish this notice under section 10(c) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). Stephen Small, Assistant Regional Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. [FR Doc. 2021–25793 Filed 11–24–21; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4333–15–P INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION [Investigation Nos. 701–TA–671–672 and 731–TA–1571–1573 (Preliminary)] Oil Country Tubular Goods From Argentina, Mexico, Russia, and South Korea Determinations On the basis of the record 1 developed in the subject investigations, the United States International Trade Commission (‘‘Commission’’) determines, pursuant to the Tariff Act of 1930 (‘‘the Act’’), that there is a reasonable indication that an industry in the United States is materially injured by reason of imports of oil country tubular goods from Argentina, Mexico, Russia, and South Korea, provided for in subheadings 7304.29, 7305.20, and 7306.29 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States, that are alleged to be sold in the United States at less than fair value (‘‘LTFV’’) and to be subsidized by the governments of Russia and South Korea. 2 Commencement of Final Phase Investigations Pursuant to section 207.18 of the Commission’s rules, the Commission also gives notice of the commencement of the final phase of its investigations. The Commission will issue a final phase notice of scheduling, which will be published in the Federal Register as provided in § 207.21 of the Commission’s rules, upon notice from the U.S. Department of Commerce (‘‘Commerce’’) of affirmative preliminary determinations in the investigations under §§ 703(b) or 733(b) of the Act, or, if the preliminary determinations are negative, upon notice of affirmative final determinations in those investigations under §§ 705(a) or 735(a) of the Act. Parties that filed entries of appearance in the preliminary phase of the investigations need not enter a separate appearance for the final phase of the investigations. Industrial users, and, if the merchandise under investigation is sold at the retail level, representative consumer organizations have the right to appear as parties in Commission antidumping and countervailing duty investigations. The Secretary will prepare a public service list containing the names and addresses of all persons, or their representatives, who are parties to the investigations. Background On October 6, 2021, Borusan Mannesmann Pipe U.S., Inc., Baytown, Texas; PTC Liberty Tubulars LLC, Liberty, Texas; U.S. Steel Tubular Products, Inc., Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; Welded Tube USA, Inc., Lackawanna, New York; and the United States Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers International Union, AFL–CIO, CLC, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, filed petitions with the Commission and Commerce, alleging that an industry in the United States is materially injured or threatened with material injury by reason of subsidized imports of oil country tubular goods from Russia and South Korea and LTFV imports of oil country tubular goods from Argentina, Mexico, and Russia. Accordingly, effective October 6, 2021, the Commission instituted countervailing duty investigation Nos. 701–TA–671– 672 and antidumping duty investigation Nos. 731–TA–1571–1573 (Preliminary). Notice of the institution of the Commission’s investigations and of a public conference to be held in connection therewith was given by posting copies of the notice in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, Washington, DC, and by publishing the notice in the Federal Register of October 13, 2021 (86 FR 56983). In light of the restrictions on access to the Commission building due to the COVID–19 pandemic, the Commission conducted its conference through written testimony and video conference on October 27, 2021. All persons who requested the opportunity were permitted to participate. The Commission made these determinations pursuant to §§ 703(a) and 733(a) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1671b(a) and 1673b(a)). It completed and filed its determinations in these investigations on November 22, 2021. The views of the Commission are contained in USITC Publication 5248 (November 2021), entitled Oil Country Tubular Goods from Argentina, Mexico, Russia, and South Korea: Investigation Nos. 701–TA–671–672 and 731–TA– 1571–1573 (Preliminary). By order of the Commission. Issued: November 22, 2021. Lisa Barton, Secretary to the Commission. [FR Doc. 2021–25801 Filed 11–24–21; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7020–02–P INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION [Investigation No. 337–TA–1191] Certain Audio Players and Controllers, Components Thereof, and Products Containing the Same; Commission Determination To Review In Part a Final Initial Determination Finding a Violation of Section 337; Schedule for Filing Written Submissions on Remedy, the Public Interest, and Bonding; Extension of the Target Date AGENCY : U.S. International Trade Commission. ACTION : Notice. SUMMARY : Notice is hereby given that, on August 13, 2021, the presiding chief administrative law judge (‘‘CALJ’’) issued a combined final initial determination (‘‘ID’’) finding a violation of section 337 and a recommended determination (‘‘RD’’) on remedy and bonding in the above-captioned investigation. The Commission has determined to review the final ID in part. The Commission requests briefing from the parties, interested government agencies, and interested persons on the issues of remedy, the public interest, and bonding. The Commission has also determined to extend the target date for completion of the investigation to January 6, 2022. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT : Richard P. Hadorn, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205–3179. Copies of non-confidential documents filed in connection with this investigation may be viewed on the Commission’s electronic docket (EDIS) VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:16 Nov 24, 2021 Jkt 256001 PO 00000 Frm 00062 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\26NON1.SGM 26NON1 jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES1 ──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── === USITC Institution and Scheduling === 56983Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 195 / Wednesday, October 13, 2021 / Notices developing or maintaining the records of this or a related proceeding, or (b) in internal investigations, audits, reviews, and evaluations relating to the programs, personnel, and operations of the Commission including under 5 U.S.C. Appendix 3; or (ii) by U.S. government employees and contract personnel, solely for cybersecurity purposes. All contract personnel will sign appropriate nondisclosure agreements. All nonconfidential written submissions will be available for public inspection on EDIS. This action is taken under the authority of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and in Part 210 of the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR part 210). By order of the Commission. Issued: October 7, 2021. Lisa Barton, Secretary to the Commission. [FR Doc. 2021–22244 Filed 10–12–21; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7020–02–P INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION [Investigation Nos. 701–TA–671–672 and 731–TA–1571–1573 (Preliminary)] Oil Country Tubular Goods From Argentina, Mexico, Russia, and South Korea; Institution of Anti-Dumping and Countervailing Duty Investigations and Scheduling of Preliminary Phase Investigations AGENCY : United States International Trade Commission. ACTION : Notice. SUMMARY : The Commission hereby gives notice of the institution of investigations and commencement of preliminary phase antidumping and countervailing duty investigation Nos. 701–TA–671– 672 and 731–TA–1571–1573 (Preliminary) pursuant to the Tariff Act of 1930 (‘‘the Act’’) to determine whether there is a reasonable indication that an industry in the United States is materially injured or threatened with material injury, or the establishment of an industry in the United States is materially retarded, by reason of imports of oil country tubular goods from Argentina, Mexico, Russia, and South Korea, provided for in subheadings 7304.29, 7305.20, and 7306.29 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States, that are alleged to be sold in the United States at less than fair value and alleged to be subsidized by the Governments of Russia and South Korea. Unless the Department of Commerce (‘‘Commerce’’) extends the time for initiation, the Commission must reach a preliminary determination in antidumping and countervailing duty investigations in 45 days, or in this case by November 22, 2021. The Commission’s views must be transmitted to Commerce within five business days thereafter, or by November 30, 2021. DATES : October 6, 2021. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT : Keysha Martinez ((202) 205–2136), Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436. Hearing-impaired persons can obtain information on this matter by contacting the Commission’s TDD terminal on 202– 205–1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at 202–205–2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its internet server (https:// www.usitc.gov). The public record for these investigations may be viewed on the Commission’s electronic docket (EDIS) at https://edis.usitc.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION : Background.—These investigations are being instituted, pursuant to sections 703(a) and 733(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1671b(a) and 1673b(a)), in response to a petition filed on October 6, 2021, by Borusan Mannesmann Pipe U.S., Inc., Baytown, Texas; PTC Liberty Tubulars LLC, Liberty, Texas; U.S. Steel Tubular Products, Inc., Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; Welded Tube USA, Inc., Lackawanna, New York; and the United States Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers International Union, AFL–CIO, CLC, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. For further information concerning the conduct of these investigations and rules of general application, consult the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure, part 201, subparts A and B (19 CFR part 201), and part 207, subparts A and B (19 CFR part 207). Participation in the investigations and public service list.—Persons (other than petitioners) wishing to participate in the investigations as parties must file an entry of appearance with the Secretary to the Commission, as provided in §§ 201.11 and 207.10 of the Commission’s rules, not later than seven days after publication of this notice in the Federal Register. Industrial users and (if the merchandise under investigation is sold at the retail level) representative consumer organizations have the right to appear as parties in Commission antidumping duty and countervailing duty investigations. The Secretary will prepare a public service list containing the names and addresses of all persons, or their representatives, who are parties to these investigations upon the expiration of the period for filing entries of appearance. Limited disclosure of business proprietary information (BPI) under an administrative protective order (APO) and BPI service list.—Pursuant to § 207.7(a) of the Commission’s rules, the Secretary will make BPI gathered in these investigations available to authorized applicants representing interested parties (as defined in 19 U.S.C. 1677(9)) who are parties to the investigations under the APO issued in the investigations, provided that the application is made not later than seven days after the publication of this notice in the Federal Register. A separate service list will be maintained by the Secretary for those parties authorized to receive BPI under the APO. Conference.—In light of the restrictions on access to the Commission building due to the COVID–19 pandemic, the Commission is conducting the staff conference through video conferencing on October 27, 2021. Requests to appear at the conference should be emailed to preliminaryconferences@usitc.gov (DO NOT FILE ON EDIS) on or before October 25, 2021. Please provide an email address for each conference participant in the email. Information on conference procedures will be provided separately and guidance on joining the video conference will be available on the Commission’s Daily Calendar. A nonparty who has testimony that may aid the Commission’s deliberations may request permission to participate by submitting a short statement. Please note the Secretary’s Office will accept only electronic filings during this time. Filings must be made through the Commission’s Electronic Document Information System (EDIS, https:// edis.usitc.gov). No in-person paper- based filings or paper copies of any electronic filings will be accepted until further notice. Written submissions.—As provided in §§ 201.8 and 207.15 of the Commission’s rules, any person may submit to the Commission on or before November 1, 2021, a written brief containing information and arguments pertinent to the subject matter of the investigations. Parties shall file written testimony and supplementary material in connection with their presentation at the conference no later than noon on VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:01 Oct 12, 2021 Jkt 256001 PO 00000 Frm 00099 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\13OCN1.SGM 13OCN1 jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES1 56984 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 195 / Wednesday, October 13, 2021 / Notices October 26, 2021. All written submissions must conform with the provisions of § 201.8 of the Commission’s rules; any submissions that contain BPI must also conform with the requirements of §§ 201.6, 207.3, and 207.7 of the Commission’s rules. The Commission’s Handbook on Filing Procedures, available on the Commission’s website at https:// www.usitc.gov/documents/handbook_ on_filing_procedures.pdf, elaborates upon the Commission’s procedures with respect to filings. In accordance with §§ 201.16(c) and 207.3 of the rules, each document filed by a party to the investigations must be served on all other parties to the investigations (as identified by either the public or BPI service list), and a certificate of service must be timely filed. The Secretary will not accept a document for filing without a certificate of service. Certification.—Pursuant to § 207.3 of the Commission’s rules, any person submitting information to the Commission in connection with these investigations must certify that the information is accurate and complete to the best of the submitter’s knowledge. In making the certification, the submitter will acknowledge that any information that it submits to the Commission during these investigations may be disclosed to and used: (i) By the Commission, its employees and Offices, and contract personnel (a) for developing or maintaining the records of these or related investigations or reviews, or (b) in internal investigations, audits, reviews, and evaluations relating to the programs, personnel, and operations of the Commission including under 5 U.S.C. Appendix 3; or (ii) by U.S. government employees and contract personnel, solely for cybersecurity purposes. All contract personnel will sign appropriate nondisclosure agreements. Authority: These investigations are being conducted under authority of title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published pursuant to § 207.12 of the Commission’s rules. By order of the Commission. Issued: October 7, 2021. Lisa Barton, Secretary to the Commission. [FR Doc. 2021–22242 Filed 10–12–21; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7020–02–P INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION [Investigation No. 337–TA–1219] Certain Non-Invasive Aesthetic Body- Contouring Devices, Components Thereof, and Methods of Using the Same; Notice of a Commission Determination Not To Review an Initial Determination Granting an Unopposed Motion To Terminate the Investigation in Its Entirety Based Upon Settlement; Termination of Investigation AGENCY : U.S. International Trade Commission. ACTION : Notice. SUMMARY : Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission (‘‘Commission’’) has determined not to review an initial determination (‘‘ID’’) (Order No. 31) of the presiding administrative law judge (‘‘ALJ’’) granting an unopposed motion to terminate the investigation in its entirety based upon settlement. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT : Panyin A. Hughes, Office of the General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205–3042. Copies of non-confidential documents filed in connection with this investigation may be viewed on the Commission’s electronic docket (EDIS) at https://edis.usitc.gov. For help accessing EDIS, please email EDIS3Help@usitc.gov. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its internet server at https://www.usitc.gov. Hearing-impaired persons are advised that information on this matter can be obtained by contacting the Commission’s TDD terminal, telephone (202) 205–1810. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION : On September 9, 2020, the Commission instituted this investigation based on a complaint filed by BTL Industries, Inc. (‘‘BTL’’) of Marlborough, Massachusetts. 85 FR 55687–88 (Sept. 9, 2020). The complaint alleged violations of section 337 based on the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, or the sale within the United States after importation of certain non-invasive aesthetic body-contouring devices, components thereof, and methods of using the same by reason of infringement of claims 1, 2, 4, 6–8, 10, 12–16, 20, 22, 23, and 26–28 of U.S. Patent No. 10,632,321 (‘‘the ’321 patent’’); claims 1, 9–11, 13, 15, 16, and 20–22 of U.S. Patent No. 10,695,575 (‘‘the ’575 patent’’); claims 1, 8, 10, 11, 13, 16, 18, 23–25, 27, and 28 of U.S. Patent No. 10,695,576 (‘‘the ’576 patent’’); claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 9, 10, 12, 13, 17–21, 23, 24, and 26–29 of U.S. Patent No. 10,709,894 (‘‘the ’894 patent’’); claims 1, 2–6, 9, 10, and 14–25 of U.S. Patent No. 10,709,895 (‘‘the ’895 patent’’); and claims 1, 6, 7, 16, 21, and 22 of U.S. Patent No. 10,478,634 (‘‘the ’634 patent’’). Id. at 55687. The Commission’s notice of investigation named the following six respondents: Allergan Limited of Dublin, Ireland; Allergan USA, Inc. of Madison, New Jersey; Allergan, Inc. of Madison, New Jersey; Zeltiq Aesthetics, Inc. of Pleasanton, California; Zeltiq Ireland Unlimited Company of Galway, Ireland; and Zimmer MedizinSysteme GmbH of Neu-Ulm, Germany (collectively, ‘‘Respondents’’). The Office of Unfair Import Investigations was not named as a party in this investigation. Id. On September 10, 2021, BTL and Respondents filed a joint motion to terminate the investigation in its entirety based upon settlement. The Commission previously determined not to review IDs (Order Nos. 15 and 21) terminating the investigation as to (1) all asserted claims of the ’321 patent; (2) all asserted claims of the ’575 patent; (3) claims 1, 8, 10, 11, 13, 23–25, 27, and 28 of the ’576 patent; (4) claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 10, 18, 19–24, and 26–29 of the ’894 patent; (5) claims 3, 4, 6, 9, 10, 15–18, and 20–25 of the ’895 patent; and (6) all asserted claims of the ’634 patent. See Order No. 15, unreviewed by Notice (Apr. 27, 2021); Order No. 21, unreviewed by Notice (May 19, 2021). On September 16, 2021, the ALJ issued the subject ID (Order No. 31) granting the motion. The subject ID found that the joint motion complies with Commission Rule 210.21(a)(2), which provides that ‘‘[a]ny party may move at any time to terminate an investigation in whole or in part as to any or all respondents on the basis of a settlement, a licensing or other agreement . . . .’’ ID at 1 (citing 19 CFR 210.21(a)(2)). The ID further found that in accordance with Commission Rule 210.21(b)(1) the parties state that ‘‘[A]part from this Settlement Agreement there are no agreements, written or oral, express or implied between BTL and Respondents concerning the subject matter of the investigation.’’ ID at 2 (citing 19 CFR 210.21(b)(1)). In addition, the parties provided confidential and public versions of the settlement agreement. The ID also found that there is no evidence that terminating this investigation based upon settlement would be contrary to the public interest. VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:01 Oct 12, 2021 Jkt 256001 PO 00000 Frm 00100 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\13OCN1.SGM 13OCN1 jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES1 ──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── === Initiation - AD === 60205Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 208 / Monday, November 1, 2021 / Notices 10 See 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2). 1 See Petitioners’ Letter, ‘‘Petitions for the Imposition of Antidumping and Countervailing Duties: Oil Country Tubular Goods from Argentina, Mexico, the Republic of Korea, and Russia,’’ dated October 6, 2021 (Petitions). 2 Id. 3 See Commerce’s Letters, ‘‘Petitions for the Imposition of Antidumping and Countervailing Duties on Imports of Oil Country Tubular Goods from Argentina, Mexico, the Republic of Korea, and the Russian Federation: Supplemental Questions,’’ dated October 7, 2021; and ‘‘Petitions for the Imposition of Antidumping and Countervailing Duties on Imports of Oil Country Tubular Goods from Argentina, Mexico, the Republic of Korea, and the Russian Federation: Supplemental Questions,’’ dated October 19, 2021; and Country-Specific Supplemental Questionnaires: Argentina Supplemental, Mexico Supplemental, and Russia Supplemental, dated October 8, 2021, and Russia Second Supplemental, dated October 14, 2021. 4 See Petitioners’ Letters, ‘‘Oil Country Tubular Goods from Argentina, Mexico, the Republic of Korea, and Russia: Response to General Issues Questionnaire,’’ dated October 12, 2021 (First General Issues Supplement) and ‘‘Oil Country Tubular Goods from Argentina, Mexico, the Republic of Korea, and Russia: Response to Second General Issues Questionnaire,’’ dated October 21, 2021 (Second General Issues Supplement); see also Petitioners’ Country-Specific Supplemental Responses, dated October 13, 2021; and Russia Second Supplemental Response, dated October 18, 2021. 5 See infra, section titled ‘‘Determination of Industry Support for the Petitions.’’ 6 See 19 CFR 351.204(b)(1). 7 See Memorandum, ‘‘Petitions for the Imposition of Antidumping and Countervailing Duties on Imports of Oil Country Tubular Goods from Argentina, Mexico, the Republic of Korea, and the Russian Federation: Phone Call with Counsel to the Petitioners,’’ dated October 13, 2021. 8 See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties, Final Rule, 62 FR 27296, 27323 (May 19, 1997) (Preamble). 9 See 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21) (defining ‘‘factual information’’). final and conclusive court decision, Commerce intends to instruct CBP to assess antidumping duties on unliquidated entries of subject merchandise exported by Carbon Activated, Datong Juqiang, Beijing Pacific, GHC, Ningxia Mineral, and Shanxi Sincere in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b). We will instruct CBP to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review when the importer-specific assessment rate is not zero or de minimis. Where an import-specific assessment rate is zero or de minimis,10 we will instruct CBP to liquidate the appropriate entries without regard to antidumping duties. Notification to Interested Parties This notice is issued and published in accordance with sections 516A(c) and (e) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. Dated: October 26, 2021. Ryan Majerus, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy and Negotiations, performing the non-exclusive functions and duties of the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. [FR Doc. 2021–23858 Filed 10–28–21; 4:15 pm] BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A–357–824, A–201–856, A–821–833] Oil Country Tubular Goods From Argentina, Mexico, and the Russian Federation: Initiation of Less-Than- Fair-Value Investigations AGENCY : Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. DATES : Applicable October 26, 2021. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT : Dmitry Vladimirov at (202) 482–0665 and Christopher Williams at (202) 482– 5166 (Argentina); James Hepburn at (202) 482–1882 and Preston Cox at (202) 482–5041 (Mexico); George McMahon at (202) 482–1167 and Marc Castillo at (202) 482–0519 (the Russian Federation (Russia)); AD/CVD Operations, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION : The Petitions On October 6, 2021, the Department of Commerce (Commerce) received antidumping duty (AD) petitions concerning imports of oil country tubular goods (OCTG) from Argentina, Mexico, and Russia filed in proper form on behalf of Borusan Mannesmann Pipe U.S., Inc., PTC Liberty Tubulars LLC, U.S. Steel Tubular Products, Inc., the United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers International Union, AFL–CIO, CLC (the USW), and Welded Tube USA, Inc. (the petitioners), domestic producers of OCTG and a certified union that represents workers engaged in the production of OCTG. 1 The Petitions were accompanied by countervailing duty (CVD) petitions concerning imports of OCTG from the Republic of Korea and Russia.2 On October 7, 8, 14, and 19, 2021, Commerce requested supplemental information pertaining to certain aspects of the Petitions in separate supplemental questionnaires. 3 The petitioners filed responses to the supplemental questionnaires on October 12, 13, 18, and 21, 2021. 4 In accordance with section 732(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), the petitioners allege that imports of OCTG from Argentina, Mexico, and Russia are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value (LTFV) within the meaning of section 731 of the Act, and that imports of such products are materially injuring, or threatening material injury to, the OCTG industry in the United States. Consistent with section 732(b)(1) of the Act, the Petitions are accompanied by information reasonably available to the petitioners supporting their allegations. Commerce finds that the petitioners filed the Petitions on behalf of the domestic industry, because the petitioners are interested parties, as defined in sections 771(9)(C) and 771(9)(D) of the Act. Commerce also finds that the petitioners demonstrated sufficient industry support for the initiation of the requested LTFV investigations. 5 Period of Investigation Because the Petitions were filed on October 6, 2021, the period of investigation (POI) for these LTFV investigations is October 1, 2020, through September 30, 2021, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.204(b)(1). 6 Scope of the Investigations The products covered by these investigations are OCTG from Argentina, Mexico, and Russia. For a full description of the scope of these investigations, see the appendix to this notice. Comments on the Scope of the Investigations On October 13, 2021, Commerce spoke with counsel to the petitioners regarding the proposed scope, to ensure that the scope language in the Petitions is an accurate reflection of the products for which the domestic industry is seeking relief.7 As discussed in the Preamble to Commerce’s regulations, we are setting aside a period for interested parties to raise issues regarding product coverage (i.e., scope).8 Commerce will consider all comments received from interested parties and, if necessary, will consult with interested parties prior to the issuance of the preliminary determinations. If scope comments include factual information, 9 all such factual information should be limited to public information. To facilitate preparation of its questionnaires, Commerce requests that all interested parties submit such comments by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time (ET) on November VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:03 Oct 29, 2021 Jkt 256001 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\01NON1.SGM 01NON1 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1 60206 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 208 / Monday, November 1, 2021 / Notices 10 The deadline for rebuttal comments falls on November 25, 2021, which is a Federal holiday. Commerce’s practice dictates that where a deadline falls on a weekend or Federal holiday, the appropriate deadline is the next business day (in this instance, November 26, 2021). See Notice of Clarification: Application of ‘‘Next Business Day’’ Rule for Administrative Determination Deadlines Pursuant to the Tariff Act of 1930, As Amended, 70 FR 24533 (May 10, 2005) (Notice of Clarification). 11 See Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Electronic Filing Procedures; Administrative Protective Order Procedures, 76 FR 39263 (July 6, 2011); see also Enforcement and Compliance; Change of Electronic Filing System Name, 79 FR 69046 (November 20, 2014) for details of Commerce’s electronic filing requirements, effective August 5, 2011. Information on help using ACCESS can be found at https://access.trade.gov/ help.aspx and a handbook can be found at https:// access.trade.gov/help/Handbook_on_Electronic_ Filing_Procedures.pdf. 12 The deadline for rebuttal comments falls on November 25, 2021, which is a Federal holiday. Commerce’s practice dictates that where a deadline falls on a weekend or Federal holiday, the appropriate deadline is the next business day (in this instance, November 26, 2021). See Notice of Clarification. 13 See section 771(10) of the Act. 14 See USEC, Inc. v. United States, 132 F. Supp. 2d 1, 8 (CIT 2001) (citing Algoma Steel Corp., Ltd. v. United States, 688 F. Supp. 639, 644 (CIT 1988), aff’d 865 F. 2d 240 (Fed. Cir. 1989)). 15 See Petitions at Volume I at 20–22 and Exhibits I–11, I–13, I–14, and I–18. 16 For a discussion of the domestic like product analysis as applied to these cases and information regarding industry support, see Country-Specific Checklists, ‘‘Antidumping Duty Investigation Initiation Checklists: Oil Country Tubular Goods from Argentina, Mexico, and the Russian Federation,’’ dated concurrently with this Federal Register notice and on file electronically via 15, 2021, which is 20 calendar days from the signature date of this notice. Any rebuttal comments, which may include factual information, must be filed by 5:00 p.m. ET on November 26, 2021, which is the first business day after ten calendar days from the initial comment deadline. 10 Commerce requests that any factual information that parties consider relevant to the scope of these investigations be submitted during this period. However, if a party subsequently finds that additional factual information pertaining to the scope of these investigations may be relevant, the party may contact Commerce and request permission to submit the additional information. All such submissions must be filed on the records of each of the concurrent AD and CVD investigations. Filing Requirements All submissions to Commerce must be filed electronically via Enforcement and Compliance’s Antidumping Duty and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS), unless an exception applies. 11 An electronically filed document must be received successfully in its entirety by the time and date on which it is due. Comments on Product Characteristics Commerce is providing interested parties an opportunity to comment on the appropriate physical characteristics of OCTG to be reported in response to Commerce’s AD questionnaires. This information will be used to identify the key physical characteristics of the subject merchandise in order to report the relevant costs of production accurately, as well as to develop appropriate product-comparison criteria. Interested parties may provide any information or comments that they feel are relevant to the development of an accurate list of physical characteristics. Specifically, they may provide comments as to which characteristics are appropriate to use as: (1) General product characteristics; and (2) product comparison criteria. We note that it is not always appropriate to use all product characteristics as product comparison criteria. We base product comparison criteria on meaningful commercial differences among products. In other words, although there may be some physical product characteristics utilized by manufacturers to describe OCTG, it may be that only a select few product characteristics take into account commercially meaningful physical characteristics. In addition, interested parties may comment on the order in which the physical characteristics should be used in matching products. Generally, Commerce attempts to list the most important physical characteristics first and the least important characteristics last. In order to consider the suggestions of interested parties in developing and issuing the AD questionnaires, all product characteristics comments must be filed by 5:00 p.m. ET on November 15, 2021, which is 20 calendar days from the signature date of this notice. Any rebuttal comments must be filed by 5:00 p.m. ET on November 26, 2021, which is the first business day after 10 calendar days from the initial comment deadline.12 All comments and submissions to Commerce must be filed electronically using ACCESS, as explained above, on the record of each of the LTFV investigations. Determination of Industry Support for the Petitions Section 732(b)(1) of the Act requires that a petition be filed on behalf of the domestic industry. Section 732(c)(4)(A) of the Act provides that a petition meets this requirement if the domestic producers or workers who support the petition account for: (i) At least 25 percent of the total production of the domestic like product; and (ii) more than 50 percent of the production of the domestic like product produced by that portion of the industry expressing support for, or opposition to, the petition. Moreover, section 732(c)(4)(D) of the Act provides that, if the petition does not establish support of domestic producers or workers accounting for more than 50 percent of the total production of the domestic like product, Commerce shall: (i) Poll the industry or rely on other information in order to determine if there is support for the petition, as required by subparagraph (A); or (ii) determine industry support using a statistically valid sampling method to poll the ‘‘industry.’’ Section 771(4)(A) of the Act defines the ‘‘industry’’ as the producers as a whole of a domestic like product. Thus, to determine whether a petition has the requisite industry support, the statute directs Commerce to look to producers and workers who produce the domestic like product. The International Trade Commission (ITC), which is responsible for determining whether ‘‘the domestic industry’’ has been injured, must also determine what constitutes a domestic like product in order to define the industry. While both Commerce and the ITC must apply the same statutory definition regarding the domestic like product,13 they do so for different purposes and pursuant to a separate and distinct authority. In addition, Commerce’s determination is subject to limitations of time and information. Although this may result in different definitions of the like product, such differences do not render the decision of either agency contrary to law.14 Section 771(10) of the Act defines the domestic like product as ‘‘a product which is like, or in the absence of like, most similar in characteristics and uses with, the article subject to an investigation under this title.’’ Thus, the reference point from which the domestic like product analysis begins is ‘‘the article subject to an investigation’’ (i.e., the class or kind of merchandise to be investigated, which normally will be the scope as defined in the petition). With regard to the domestic like product, the petitioners do not offer a definition of the domestic like product distinct from the scope of the investigations. 15 Based on our analysis of the information submitted on the record, we have determined that OCTG, as defined in the scope, constitutes a single domestic like product, and we have analyzed industry support in terms of that domestic like product.16 VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:03 Oct 29, 2021 Jkt 256001 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\01NON1.SGM 01NON1 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1 60207Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 208 / Monday, November 1, 2021 / Notices ACCESS (Country-Specific AD Initiation Checklists) at Attachment II, Analysis of Industry Support for the Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Petitions Covering Oil Country Tubular Goods from Argentina, Mexico, the Republic of Korea, and the Russian Federation (Attachment II). 17 See Petitions at Volume I at Exhibits I–1 and I–3; see also First General Issues Supplement at 4 and Exhibits 4 and 8; and Second General Issues Supplement at Exhibits 3–5. 18 See Petitions at Volume I at Exhibits I–1 and I–2; see also First General Issues Supplement at 6– 10 and Exhibit 1 (containing Oil Country Tubular Goods from India, Korea, Turkey, Ukraine, and Vietnam, Inv. No. 701–TA–499–500 and 731–TA– 1215–1216, 1221–1223 (Review), USITC Pub. 5090 (July 2020) (OCTG Review)) and Exhibit 8 (containing OCTG Review at Table III–5); and Second General Issues Supplement at Exhibit 5. 19 See First General Issues Supplement at 7 and Exhibit 8; see also Second General Issues Supplement at Exhibit 5. 20 See Petitions at Volume I at Exhibits I–1 and I–2; see also First General Issues Supplement at 3– 10 and Exhibits 1, 4, 5, and 8; and Second General Issues Supplement at 1–2 and Exhibits 2–5. 21 See Tenaris USA’s Letters, ‘‘Oil Country Tubular Goods from Argentina, Mexico, the Republic of Korea, and Russia: Factual Errors in Petitions,’’ dated October 8, 2021; ‘‘Oil Country Tubular Goods from Argentina, Mexico, the Republic of Korea, and Russia: Comments on Petitioners’ Standing,’’ dated October 15, 2021; and ‘‘Oil Country Tubular Goods from Mexico: Reply Comments on Petitioners’ Standing,’’ dated October 20, 2021. In addition, on October 21, 2021, Commerce met via video conference with counsel to Tenaris USA to discuss its industry support comments. See Memorandum, ‘‘Petitions for the Imposition of Antidumping and Countervailing Duties on Imports of Oil Country Tubular Goods from Argentina, Mexico, the Republic of Korea, and the Russian Federation,’’ dated October 21, 2021. 22 See Petitioners’ Letter, ‘‘Oil Country Tubular Goods from Argentina, Mexico, Russia, and the Republic of Korea: Response to Tenaris Submission Concerning Petitioners’ Standing,’’ dated October 18, 2021 (Petitioners’ Letter). 23 See Memorandum, ‘‘Countervailing Duty Petition on Oil Country Tubular Goods from the Russian Federation: Consultations with Officials from the Government of the Russian Federation,’’ dated October 21, 2021; see also GOR Letter, ‘‘Re: Countervailing Duty Investigation of Certain Oil Country Tubular Goods from the Russian Federation: Consultations,’’ dated October 25, 2021. 24 See TMK’s Letter, ‘‘Oil Country Tubular Goods from Russia: Comments on Petitioners’ Standing,’’ dated October 21, 2021. 25 See Tenaris USA’s Letter, ‘‘Oil Country Tubular Goods from Argentina, Mexico, the Republic of Korea, and Russia: Comments on Petitioners’ Second General Issues Questionnaire Response,’’ dated October 22, 2021. We note that, though Tenaris USA opposes the Petitions, it has not provided any production data for Commerce to include in the industry support calculation. See Country-Specific AD Initiation Checklists at Attachment II at footnote 47. 26 See Petitioners’ Letter, ‘‘Oil Country Tubular Goods from Russia: Response to TMK’s Comments on Petitioners’ Standing,’’ dated October 22, 2021 (Petitioners’ Letter II). 27 See Country-Specific AD Initiation Checklists at Attachment II. 28 See section 732(c)(4)(D) of the Act. 29 See Country-Specific AD Initiation Checklists at Attachment II. 30 Id. 31 Id. 32 Id. 33 See Petitions at Volume I at 28 and Exhibit I– 22. 34 Id. at 1–2, 28–48 and Exhibits I–1, I–5, I–6, I– 8, I–9, I–11, I–13, I–14, I–20, I–22 through I–34; see also First General Issues Supplement at 10. In determining whether the petitioners have standing under section 732(c)(4)(A) of the Act, we considered the industry support data contained in the Petitions with reference to the domestic like product as defined in the ‘‘Scope of the Investigations,’’ in the appendix to this notice. To establish industry support, the petitioners provided the 2020 production of OCTG for the U.S. producers that support the Petitions. 17 The petitioners estimated the 2020 production by non-petitioning companies using shipment data available for the entire OCTG industry and publicly available information on production and domestic shipments from the ITC’s 2020 report from the sunset review of OCTG from India, Korea, Turkey, Ukraine, and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam. 18 The petitioners estimated the total 2020 production of the domestic like product for the entire industry by adding their production to the estimated production of the non-petitioning producers.19 We relied on data provided by the petitioners for purposes of measuring industry support.20 On October 8, 15, and 20, 2021, we received comments on industry support from Tenaris Bay City, Inc., IPSCO Tubulars Inc., Maverick Tube Corporation, and Tenaris Global Services (U.S.A.) Corporation (collectively, Tenaris USA), U.S. producers of OCTG. 21 On October 18, 2021, the petitioners responded to the comments from Tenaris USA.22 On October 21, 2021, the Government of Russia (GOR) raised industry support comments during the consultations held regarding the Russia CVD Petition.23 On October 21, 2021, we received comments from TMK Group (TMK), a Russian producer and exporter of OCTG. 24 On October 22, 2021, Tenaris USA filed its fourth submission with Commerce and formally indicated that it opposes the Petitions.25 Also on October 22, 2021, the petitioners responded to TMK’s comments. 26 Based on the information provided in the Petitions, the First General Issues Supplement, Petitioners’ Letter, the Second General Issues Supplement, Petitioners’ Letter II, and other information readily available to Commerce, we determine that the domestic producers and workers have met the statutory criteria for industry support under section 732(c)(4)(A)(i) of the Act because the domestic producers (or workers) who support the Petitions account for at least 25 percent of the total production of the domestic like product. 27 Because the Petitions and supplemental submissions did not establish support from domestic producers (or workers) accounting for more than 50 percent of the total production of the domestic like product, Commerce was required to take further action in order to evaluate industry support.28 In this case, Commerce was able to rely on other information, in accordance with section 732(c)(4)(D)(i) of the Act, to determine industry support.29 Based on information provided in the Petitions, the First General Issues Supplement, Petitioners’ Letter, the Second General Issues Supplement, Petitioners’ Letter II, and other information readily available to Commerce, the domestic producers and workers have met the statutory criteria for industry support under section 732(c)(4)(A)(ii) of the Act because the domestic producers (or workers) who support the Petitions account for more than 50 percent of the production of the domestic like product produced by that portion of the industry expressing support for, or opposition to, the Petitions.30 We note that, even if all other U.S. producers of OCTG oppose the Petitions (including Tenaris USA), the supporters of the Petitions would still have the requisite level of industry support pursuant to section 732(c)(4)(A)(ii) of the Act. 31 Accordingly, Commerce determines that the Petitions were filed on behalf of the domestic industry within the meaning of section 732(b)(1) of the Act. 32 Allegations and Evidence of Material Injury and Causation The petitioners allege that the U.S. industry producing the domestic like product is being materially injured, or is threatened with material injury, by reason of the imports of the subject merchandise sold at LTFV. In addition, the petitioners allege that subject imports exceed the negligibility threshold provided for under section 771(24)(A) of the Act.33 The petitioners contend that the industry’s injured condition is illustrated by a significant and increasing volume of subject imports; reduced market share; underselling and price suppression; lost sales and revenues; declines in production, U.S. shipments, and capacity utilization; decline in employment; and adverse impact on the domestic industry’s financial performance. 34 We assessed the allegations and supporting evidence regarding material injury, threat of material injury, causation, as well as VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:03 Oct 29, 2021 Jkt 256001 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\01NON1.SGM 01NON1 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1 60208 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 208 / Monday, November 1, 2021 / Notices 35 See Country-Specific AD Initiation Checklists at Attachment III, Analysis of Allegations and Evidence of Material Injury and Causation for the Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Petitions Covering Oil Country Tubular Goods from Argentina, Mexico, the Republic of Korea, and the Russian Federation. 36 See Country-Specific AD Initiation Checklists. 37 In accordance with section 773(b)(2) of the Act, for these investigations, Commerce will request information necessary to calculate the CV and cost of production (COP) to determine whether there are reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that sales of the foreign like product have been made at prices that represent less than the COP of the product. 38 See Country-Specific AD Initiation Checklists. 39 See Country-Specific AD Initiation Checklists. 40 Id. 41 Id 42 Id. 43 See Volume I of the Petitions at Exhibit I–19. 44 See Memoranda, ‘‘Antidumping Duty Petition on Imports of Oil Country Tubular Goods from Argentina: Release of U.S. Customs and Border Protection Data,’’; ‘‘Antidumping Duty Petition on Imports of Oil Country Tubular Goods from Mexico: Release of U.S. Customs and Border Protection Data,’’; and ‘‘Antidumping Duty Petition on Imports of Oil Country Tubular Goods from Russia: Release of U.S. Customs and Border Protection Data,’’ dated October 19, 2021. 45 See section 733(a) of the Act. negligibility, and we have determined that these allegations are properly supported by adequate evidence and meet the statutory requirements for initiation. 35 Allegations of Sales at LTFV The following is a description of the allegations of sales at LTFV upon which Commerce based its decision to initiate these LTFV investigations of imports of OCTG from Argentina, Mexico, and Russia. The sources of data for the deductions and adjustments relating to U.S. price and normal value (NV) are discussed in greater detail in the country-specific AD Initiation Checklists. U.S. Price For Argentina, Mexico, and Russia, the petitioners established export prices (EPs) on the average unit value (AUVs) of publicly available import data. For Argentina and Mexico, the petitioners conservatively made no adjustments to the AUVs for foreign inland freight and foreign brokerage and handling expenses incurred in subject foreign countries for purposes of calculating net EPs. For Russia, the petitioners deducted expenses associated with inland freight and brokerage and handling costs incurred in Russia to calculate an ex-factory, or net, EP.36 Normal Value Based on Constructed Value 37 For Argentina, Mexico, and Russia, the petitioners stated they were unable to obtain home-market or third-country prices for OCTG to use as a basis for NV. Therefore, for Argentina, Mexico, and Russia, the petitioners calculated NV based on constructed value (CV). 38 Pursuant to section 773(e) of the Act, the petitioners calculated CV as the sum of the cost of manufacturing, selling, general, and administrative expenses, financial expenses, and profit. 39 For Argentina, Mexico, and Russia, in calculating the cost of manufacturing, the petitioners relied on the production experience and input consumption rates of a U.S. OCTG producer, valued using publicly available information applicable to each respective subject country.40 For Argentina, Mexico, and Russia, in calculating selling, general, and administrative expenses, financial expenses, and profit ratios (where applicable), the petitioners relied on the 2020 financial statements of an OCTG producer(s) domiciled in each respective subject country.41 Fair Value Comparisons Based on the data provided by the petitioners, there is reason to believe that imports of OCTG from Argentina, Mexico, and Russia are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at LTFV. Based on comparisons of EP to CV in accordance with section 773 of the Act, the estimated dumping margins for OCTG concerning each of the countries covered by this initiation are as follows: (1) Argentina—168.49 percent; (2) Mexico—59.75 percent; and (3) Russia—136.96 percent.42 Initiation of LTFV Investigations Based upon the examination of the Petitions and supplemental responses, we find that they meet the requirements of section 732 of the Act. Therefore, we are initiating these LTFV investigations to determine whether imports of OCTG from Argentina, Mexico, and Russia are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at LTFV. In accordance with section 733(b)(1)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(b)(1), unless postponed, we will make our preliminary determinations no later than 140 days after the date of this initiation. Respondent Selection In the Petitions, the petitioners identified 18 companies in Argentina, 78 companies in Mexico, and 14 companies in Russia, as producers and/or exporters of OCTG.43 Following standard practice in LTFV investigations involving market economy countries, in the event that Commerce determines that the number of exporters or producers in any individual case is large such that Commerce cannot individually examine each company based upon its resources, where appropriate, Commerce intends to select mandatory respondents in that case based on U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) data for U.S. imports under the appropriate Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States subheadings listed in the ‘‘Scope of the Investigations,’’ in the appendix. On October 19, 2021, Commerce released CBP data on imports of OCTG from Argentina, Mexico, and Russia under administrative protective order (APO) to all parties with access to information protected by APO and indicated that interested parties wishing to comment on the CBP data must do so within three business days after the publication date of the notice of initiation of these investigations.44 Commerce will not accept rebuttal comments regarding the CBP data or respondent selection. Interested parties must submit applications for disclosure under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(b). Instructions for filing such applications may be found on Commerce’s website at https://enforcement.trade.gov/apo. Comments on CBP data and respondent selection must be filed electronically using ACCESS. An electronically filed document must be received successfully in its entirety via ACCESS by 5:00 p.m. ET on the specified deadline. Distribution of Copies of the AD Petitions In accordance with section 732(b)(3)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.202(f), copies of the public version of the AD Petitions have been provided to the governments of Argentina, Mexico, and Russia via ACCESS. To the extent practicable, we will attempt to provide a copy of the public version of the AD Petitions to each exporter named in the AD Petitions, as provided under 19 CFR 351.203(c)(2). ITC Notification We will notify the ITC of our initiation, as required by section 732(d) of the Act. Preliminary Determinations by the ITC The ITC will preliminarily determine, within 45 days after the date on which the AD Petitions were filed, whether there is a reasonable indication that imports of OCTG from Argentina, Mexico, and/or Russia are materially injuring, or threatening material injury to, a U.S. industry. 45 A negative ITC determination for any country will VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:03 Oct 29, 2021 Jkt 256001 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\01NON1.SGM 01NON1 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1 60209Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 208 / Monday, November 1, 2021 / Notices 46 Id. 47 See 19 CFR 351.301(b). 48 See 19 CFR 351.301(b)(2). 49 See 19 CFR 351.301; see also Extension of Time Limits; Final Rule, 78 FR 57790 (September 20, 2013), available at http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/ FR-2013-09-20/html/2013-22853.htm. 50 See section 782(b) of the Act. 51 See Certification of Factual Information to Import Administration During Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings, 78 FR 42678 (July 17, 2013) (Final Rule). Answers to frequently asked questions regarding the Final Rule are available at http://enforcement.trade.gov/tlei/notices/factual_ info_final_rule_FAQ_07172013.pdf. 52 See Temporary Rule Modifying AD/CVD Service Requirements Due to COVID–19; Extension of Effective Period, 85 FR 41363 (July 10, 2020). result in the investigation being terminated with respect to that country. 46 Otherwise, these LTFV investigations will proceed according to statutory and regulatory time limits. Submission of Factual Information Factual information is defined in 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21) as: (i) Evidence submitted in response to questionnaires; (ii) evidence submitted in support of allegations; (iii) publicly available information to value factors under 19 CFR 351.408(c) or to measure the adequacy of remuneration under 19 CFR 351.511(a)(2); (iv) evidence placed on the record by Commerce; and (v) evidence other than factual information described in (i)–(iv). Section 351.301(b) of Commerce’s regulations requires any party, when submitting factual information, to specify under which subsection of 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21) the information is being submitted 47 and, if the information is submitted to rebut, clarify, or correct factual information already on the record, to provide an explanation identifying the information already on the record that the factual information seeks to rebut, clarify, or correct. 48 Time limits for the submission of factual information are addressed in 19 CFR 351.301, which provides specific time limits based on the type of factual information being submitted. Interested parties should review the regulations prior to submitting factual information in these investigations. Particular Market Situation Allegation Section 773(e) of the Act addresses the concept of particular market situation (PMS) for purposes of CV, stating that ‘‘if a particular market situation exists such that the cost of materials and fabrication or other processing of any kind does not accurately reflect the cost of production in the ordinary course of trade, the administering authority may use another calculation methodology under this subtitle or any other calculation methodology.’’ When an interested party submits a PMS allegation pursuant to section 773(e) of the Act, Commerce will respond to such a submission consistent with 19 CFR 351.301(c)(2)(v). If Commerce finds that a PMS exists under section 773(e) of the Act, then it will modify its dumping calculations appropriately. Neither section 773(e) of the Act, nor 19 CFR 351.301(c)(2)(v), set a deadline for the submission of PMS allegations and supporting factual information. However, in order to administer section 773(e) of the Act, Commerce must receive PMS allegations and supporting factual information with enough time to consider the submission. Thus, should an interested party wish to submit a PMS allegation and supporting new factual information pursuant to section 773(e) of the Act, it must do so no later than 20 days after submission of a respondent’s initial section D questionnaire response. Extensions of Time Limits Parties may request an extension of time limits before the expiration of a time limit established under 19 CFR 351.301, or as otherwise specified by Commerce. In general, an extension request will be considered untimely if it is filed after the expiration of the time limit established under 19 CFR 351.301. For submissions that are due from multiple parties simultaneously, an extension request will be considered untimely if it is filed after 10:00 a.m. ET on the due date. Under certain circumstances, we may elect to specify a different time limit by which extension requests will be considered untimely for submissions which are due from multiple parties simultaneously. In such a case, we will inform parties in a letter or memorandum of the deadline (including a specified time) by which extension requests must be filed to be considered timely. An extension request must be made in a separate, stand-alone submission; under limited circumstances we will grant untimely- filed requests for the extension of time limits. Parties should review Commerce’s regulations concerning factual information prior to submitting factual information in these investigations.49 Certification Requirements Any party submitting factual information in an AD or CVD proceeding must certify to the accuracy and completeness of that information.50 Parties must use the certification formats provided in 19 CFR 351.303(g). 51 Commerce intends to reject factual submissions if the submitting party does not comply with the applicable certification requirements. Notification to Interested Parties Interested parties must submit applications for disclosure under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. Parties wishing to participate in these investigations should ensure that they meet the requirements of 19 CFR 351.103(d) (e.g., by the filing a letter of appearance as discussed). Note that Commerce has temporarily modified certain of its requirements for serving documents containing business proprietary information, until further notice. 52 This notice is issued and published pursuant to sections 732(c)(2) and 777(i) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.203(c). Dated: October 26, 2021. Ryan Majerus, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy and Negotiations, Performing the Non-Exclusive Functions and Duties of the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. Appendix Scope of the Investigations The merchandise covered by the investigations is certain oil country tubular goods (OCTG), which are hollow steel products of circular cross-section, including oil well casing and tubing, of iron (other than case iron) or steel (both carbon and alloy), whether seamless or welded, regardless of end finish (e.g., whether or not plain end, threaded, or threaded and coupled) whether or not conforming to American Petroleum Institute (API) or non-API specifications, whether finished (including limited service OCTG products) or unfinished (including green tubes and limited service OCTG products), whether or not thread protectors are attached. The scope of the investigations also covers OCTG coupling stock. Subject merchandise includes material matching the above description that has been finished, packaged, or otherwise processed in a third country, including by performing any heat treatment, cutting, upsetting, threading, coupling, or any other finishing, packaging, or processing that would not otherwise remove the merchandise from the scope of the investigations if performed in the country of manufacture of the OCTG. Excluded from the scope of the investigations are: casing or tubing containing 10.5 percent or more by weight of chromium; drill pipe; unattached couplings; and unattached thread protectors. The merchandise subject to these investigations is currently classified in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) under item numbers: 7304.29.1010, 7304.29.1020, 7304.29.1030, 7304.29.1040, 7304.29.1050, 7304.29.1060, 7304.29.1080, 7304.29.2010, 7304.29.2020, 7304.29.2030, 7304.29.2040, 7304.29.2050, VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:03 Oct 29, 2021 Jkt 256001 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\01NON1.SGM 01NON1 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1 60210 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 208 / Monday, November 1, 2021 / Notices 1 See Petitioners’ Letter, ‘‘Petitions for the Imposition of Antidumping and Countervailing Duties: Oil Country Tubular Goods from Argentina, Mexico, the Republic of Korea, and Russia,’’ dated October 6, 2021 (Petitions). 2 Id. 3 See Commerce’s Letter, ‘‘Petitions for the Imposition of Antidumping and Countervailing Duties on Imports of Oil Country Tubular Goods from Argentina, Mexico, the Republic of Korea, and the Russian Federation: Supplemental Questions,’’ dated October 8, 2021 (General Issues Questionnaire); Commerce’s Letter, ‘‘Petition for the Imposition of Countervailing Duties on Imports of Oil Country Tubular Goods from the Russian Federation: Supplemental Questions,’’ dated October 8, 2021; Commerce’s Letter, ‘‘Petition for the Imposition of Countervailing Duties on Imports of Oil Country Tubular Goods from the Republic of Korea: Supplemental Questions,’’ dated October 12, 2021; and Commerce’s Letter, ‘‘Petitions for the Imposition of Antidumping and Countervailing Duties on Imports of Oil Country Tubular Goods from Argentina, Mexico, the Republic of Korea, and the Russian Federation: Supplemental Questions,’’ dated October 19, 2021. 4 See Petitioners’ Letter, ‘‘Oil Country Tubular Goods from Argentina, Mexico, the Republic of Korea, and Russia: Response to General Issues Questionnaire,’’ dated October 12, 2021 (First General Issues Supplement); Petitioners’ Letter, ‘‘Oil Country Tubular Goods from the Russian Federation: Responses to Supplemental Questions,’’ dated October 13, 2021; Petitioners’ Letter, ‘‘Oil Country Tubular Goods from the Republic of Korea: Responses to Supplemental Questions,’’ dated October 15, 2021; and Petitioners’ Letter, ‘‘Oil Country Tubular Goods from Argentina, Mexico, the Republic of Korea, and Russia: Response to Second General Issues Questionnaire,’’ dated October 21, 2021 (Second General Issues Supplement). 5 See ‘‘Determination of Industry Support for the Petitions’’ section, infra. 6 See 19 CFR 351.204(b)(2). 7 See Memorandum, ‘‘Petitions for the Imposition of Antidumping and Countervailing Duties on Imports of Oil Country Tubular Goods from Argentina, Mexico, the Republic of Korea, and the Russian Federation; Phone Call with Counsel to the Petitioners,’’ dated October 13, 2021. 8 See Countervailing Duties, 62 FR 27323 (May 19, 1997). 9 See 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21) (defining ‘‘factual information’’). 7304.29.2060, 7304.29.2080, 7304.29.3110, 7304.29.3120, 7304.29.3130, 7304.29.3140, 7304.29.3150, 7304.29.3160, 7304.29.3180, 7304.29.4110, 7304.29.4120, 7304.29.4130, 7304.29.4140, 7304.29.4150, 7304.29.4160, 7304.29.4180, 7304.29.5015, 7304.29.5030, 7304.29.5045, 7304.29.5060, 7304.29.5075, 7304.29.6115, 7304.29.6130, 7304.29.6145, 7304.29.6160, 7304.29.6175, 7305.20.2000, 7305.20.4000, 7305.20.6000, 7305.20.8000, 7306.29.1030, 7306.29.1090, 7306.29.2000, 7306.29.3100, 7306.29.4100, 7306.29.6010, 7306.29.6050, 7306.29.8110, and 7306.29.8150. The merchandise subject to the investigations may also enter under the following HTSUS item numbers: 7304.39.0024, 7304.39.0028, 7304.39.0032, 7304.39.0036, 7304.39.0040, 7304.39.0044, 7304.39.0048, 7304.39.0052, 7304.39.0056, 7304.39.0062, 7304.39.0068, 7304.39.0072, 7304.39.0076, 7304.39.0080, 7304.59.6000, 7304.59.8015, 7304.59.8020, 7304.59.8025, 7304.59.8030, 7304.59.8035, 7304.59.8040, 7304.59.8045, 7304.59.8050, 7304.59.8055, 7304.59.8060, 7304.59.8065, 7304.59.8070, 7304.59.8080, 7305.31.4000, 7305.31.6090, 7306.30.5055, 7306.30.5090, 7306.50.5050, and 7306.50.5070. The HTSUS subheadings and specifications above are provided for convenience and customs purposes only. The written description of the scope of the investigations is dispositive. [FR Doc. 2021–23715 Filed 10–29–21; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [C–580–913, C–821–834] Oil Country Tubular Goods From the Republic of Korea and the Russian Federation: Initiation of Countervailing Duty Investigations AGENCY : Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. DATES : Applicable October 26, 2021. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT : Paul Litwin (the Republic of Korea) or Allison Hollander (the Russian Federation), AD/CVD Operations, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–6002 or (202) 482–2805, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION : The Petitions On October 6, 2021, the U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) received countervailing duty (CVD) petitions concerning imports of oil country tubular goods (OCTG) from the Republic of Korea (Korea) and the Russian Federation (Russia), filed in proper form on behalf of Borusan Mannesmann Pipe U.S., Inc.; PTC Liberty Tubulars LLC; U.S. Steel Tubular Products, Inc.; the United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers International Union, AFL–CIO, CLC; and Welded Tube USA, Inc. (the petitioners), domestic producers of OCTG and a certified union that represents workers engaged in the production of OCTG. 1 The Petitions were accompanied by antidumping duty (AD) petitions concerning imports of OCTG from Argentina, Mexico, and Russia.2 On October 8, 12, and 19, 2021, Commerce requested supplemental information pertaining to certain aspects of the Petitions. 3 The petitioners filed responses to these requests on October 12, 13, 15, and 21, 2021.4 In accordance with section 702(b)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), the petitioners allege that the Government of Korea (GOK) and the Government of Russia (GOR) are providing countervailable subsidies, within the meaning of sections 701 and 771(5) of the Act, to producers of OCTG in Korea and Russia, and that such imports are materially injuring, or threatening material injury to, the domestic industry producing OCTG in the United States. Consistent with section 702(b)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.202(b), for those alleged programs on which we are initiating CVD investigations, the Petitions were accompanied by information reasonably available to the petitioners supporting their allegations. Commerce finds that the petitioners filed the Petitions on behalf of the domestic industry because the petitioners are interested parties, as defined in sections 771(9)(C) and (D) of the Act. Commerce also finds that the petitioners demonstrated sufficient industry support with respect to the initiation of the requested CVD investigations. 5 Period of Investigation Because the Petitions were filed on October 6, 2021, the period of investigation (POI) for these CVD investigations is January 1, 2020, through December 31, 2020. 6 Scope of the Investigations The merchandise covered by these investigations are oil country tubular goods from Korea and Russia. For a full description of the scope of these investigations, see the appendix to this notice. Comments on Scope of the Investigations On October 13, 2021, Commerce spoke with counsel to the petitioners regarding the proposed scope to ensure that the scope language in the Petitions is an accurate reflection of the products for which the domestic industry is seeking relief.7 As discussed in the Preamble to Commerce’s regulations, we are setting aside a period for interested parties to raise issues regarding product coverage (scope).8 Commerce will consider all comments received from interested parties and, if necessary, will consult with interested parties prior to the issuance of the preliminary determination. If scope comments include factual information, 9 all such factual information should be limited to public information. To facilitate VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:03 Oct 29, 2021 Jkt 256001 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\01NON1.SGM 01NON1 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1 ──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── === Initiation – CVD === 60210 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 208 / Monday, November 1, 2021 / Notices 1 See Petitioners’ Letter, ‘‘Petitions for the Imposition of Antidumping and Countervailing Duties: Oil Country Tubular Goods from Argentina, Mexico, the Republic of Korea, and Russia,’’ dated October 6, 2021 (Petitions). 2 Id. 3 See Commerce’s Letter, ‘‘Petitions for the Imposition of Antidumping and Countervailing Duties on Imports of Oil Country Tubular Goods from Argentina, Mexico, the Republic of Korea, and the Russian Federation: Supplemental Questions,’’ dated October 8, 2021 (General Issues Questionnaire); Commerce’s Letter, ‘‘Petition for the Imposition of Countervailing Duties on Imports of Oil Country Tubular Goods from the Russian Federation: Supplemental Questions,’’ dated October 8, 2021; Commerce’s Letter, ‘‘Petition for the Imposition of Countervailing Duties on Imports of Oil Country Tubular Goods from the Republic of Korea: Supplemental Questions,’’ dated October 12, 2021; and Commerce’s Letter, ‘‘Petitions for the Imposition of Antidumping and Countervailing Duties on Imports of Oil Country Tubular Goods from Argentina, Mexico, the Republic of Korea, and the Russian Federation: Supplemental Questions,’’ dated October 19, 2021. 4 See Petitioners’ Letter, ‘‘Oil Country Tubular Goods from Argentina, Mexico, the Republic of Korea, and Russia: Response to General Issues Questionnaire,’’ dated October 12, 2021 (First General Issues Supplement); Petitioners’ Letter, ‘‘Oil Country Tubular Goods from the Russian Federation: Responses to Supplemental Questions,’’ dated October 13, 2021; Petitioners’ Letter, ‘‘Oil Country Tubular Goods from the Republic of Korea: Responses to Supplemental Questions,’’ dated October 15, 2021; and Petitioners’ Letter, ‘‘Oil Country Tubular Goods from Argentina, Mexico, the Republic of Korea, and Russia: Response to Second General Issues Questionnaire,’’ dated October 21, 2021 (Second General Issues Supplement). 5 See ‘‘Determination of Industry Support for the Petitions’’ section, infra. 6 See 19 CFR 351.204(b)(2). 7 See Memorandum, ‘‘Petitions for the Imposition of Antidumping and Countervailing Duties on Imports of Oil Country Tubular Goods from Argentina, Mexico, the Republic of Korea, and the Russian Federation; Phone Call with Counsel to the Petitioners,’’ dated October 13, 2021. 8 See Countervailing Duties, 62 FR 27323 (May 19, 1997). 9 See 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21) (defining ‘‘factual information’’). 7304.29.2060, 7304.29.2080, 7304.29.3110, 7304.29.3120, 7304.29.3130, 7304.29.3140, 7304.29.3150, 7304.29.3160, 7304.29.3180, 7304.29.4110, 7304.29.4120, 7304.29.4130, 7304.29.4140, 7304.29.4150, 7304.29.4160, 7304.29.4180, 7304.29.5015, 7304.29.5030, 7304.29.5045, 7304.29.5060, 7304.29.5075, 7304.29.6115, 7304.29.6130, 7304.29.6145, 7304.29.6160, 7304.29.6175, 7305.20.2000, 7305.20.4000, 7305.20.6000, 7305.20.8000, 7306.29.1030, 7306.29.1090, 7306.29.2000, 7306.29.3100, 7306.29.4100, 7306.29.6010, 7306.29.6050, 7306.29.8110, and 7306.29.8150. The merchandise subject to the investigations may also enter under the following HTSUS item numbers: 7304.39.0024, 7304.39.0028, 7304.39.0032, 7304.39.0036, 7304.39.0040, 7304.39.0044, 7304.39.0048, 7304.39.0052, 7304.39.0056, 7304.39.0062, 7304.39.0068, 7304.39.0072, 7304.39.0076, 7304.39.0080, 7304.59.6000, 7304.59.8015, 7304.59.8020, 7304.59.8025, 7304.59.8030, 7304.59.8035, 7304.59.8040, 7304.59.8045, 7304.59.8050, 7304.59.8055, 7304.59.8060, 7304.59.8065, 7304.59.8070, 7304.59.8080, 7305.31.4000, 7305.31.6090, 7306.30.5055, 7306.30.5090, 7306.50.5050, and 7306.50.5070. The HTSUS subheadings and specifications above are provided for convenience and customs purposes only. The written description of the scope of the investigations is dispositive. [FR Doc. 2021–23715 Filed 10–29–21; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [C–580–913, C–821–834] Oil Country Tubular Goods From the Republic of Korea and the Russian Federation: Initiation of Countervailing Duty Investigations AGENCY : Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. DATES : Applicable October 26, 2021. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT : Paul Litwin (the Republic of Korea) or Allison Hollander (the Russian Federation), AD/CVD Operations, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–6002 or (202) 482–2805, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION : The Petitions On October 6, 2021, the U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) received countervailing duty (CVD) petitions concerning imports of oil country tubular goods (OCTG) from the Republic of Korea (Korea) and the Russian Federation (Russia), filed in proper form on behalf of Borusan Mannesmann Pipe U.S., Inc.; PTC Liberty Tubulars LLC; U.S. Steel Tubular Products, Inc.; the United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers International Union, AFL–CIO, CLC; and Welded Tube USA, Inc. (the petitioners), domestic producers of OCTG and a certified union that represents workers engaged in the production of OCTG. 1 The Petitions were accompanied by antidumping duty (AD) petitions concerning imports of OCTG from Argentina, Mexico, and Russia.2 On October 8, 12, and 19, 2021, Commerce requested supplemental information pertaining to certain aspects of the Petitions. 3 The petitioners filed responses to these requests on October 12, 13, 15, and 21, 2021.4 In accordance with section 702(b)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), the petitioners allege that the Government of Korea (GOK) and the Government of Russia (GOR) are providing countervailable subsidies, within the meaning of sections 701 and 771(5) of the Act, to producers of OCTG in Korea and Russia, and that such imports are materially injuring, or threatening material injury to, the domestic industry producing OCTG in the United States. Consistent with section 702(b)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.202(b), for those alleged programs on which we are initiating CVD investigations, the Petitions were accompanied by information reasonably available to the petitioners supporting their allegations. Commerce finds that the petitioners filed the Petitions on behalf of the domestic industry because the petitioners are interested parties, as defined in sections 771(9)(C) and (D) of the Act. Commerce also finds that the petitioners demonstrated sufficient industry support with respect to the initiation of the requested CVD investigations. 5 Period of Investigation Because the Petitions were filed on October 6, 2021, the period of investigation (POI) for these CVD investigations is January 1, 2020, through December 31, 2020. 6 Scope of the Investigations The merchandise covered by these investigations are oil country tubular goods from Korea and Russia. For a full description of the scope of these investigations, see the appendix to this notice. Comments on Scope of the Investigations On October 13, 2021, Commerce spoke with counsel to the petitioners regarding the proposed scope to ensure that the scope language in the Petitions is an accurate reflection of the products for which the domestic industry is seeking relief.7 As discussed in the Preamble to Commerce’s regulations, we are setting aside a period for interested parties to raise issues regarding product coverage (scope).8 Commerce will consider all comments received from interested parties and, if necessary, will consult with interested parties prior to the issuance of the preliminary determination. If scope comments include factual information, 9 all such factual information should be limited to public information. To facilitate VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:03 Oct 29, 2021 Jkt 256001 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\01NON1.SGM 01NON1 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1 60211Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 208 / Monday, November 1, 2021 / Notices 10 The deadline for rebuttal comments falls on November 25, 2021, which is a Federal holiday. Commerce’s practice dictates that where a deadline falls on a weekend or Federal holiday, the appropriate deadline is the next business day (in this instance, November 26, 2021). See Notice of Clarification: Application of ‘‘Next Business Day’’ Rule for Administrative Determination Deadlines Pursuant to the Tariff Act of 1930, As Amended, 70 FR 24533 (May 10, 2005). 11 See Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Electronic Filing Procedures; Administrative Protective Order Procedures, 76 FR 39263 (July 6, 2011); see also Enforcement and Compliance; Change of Electronic Filing System Name, 79 FR 69046 (November 20, 2014) for details of Commerce’s electronic filing requirements, effective August 5, 2011. Information on using ACCESS can be found at https://access.trade.gov/ help.aspx and a handbook can be found at https:// access.trade.gov/help/Handbook_on_Electronic_ Filing_Procedures.pdf. 12 See Commerce’s Letter, ‘‘Countervailing Duty Petition on Oil Country Tubular Goods from the Republic of Korea,’’ dated October 8, 2021; and Commerce’s Letter, ‘‘Invitation for Consultations,’’ dated October 7, 2021. 13 See Memorandum, ‘‘Consultations with Government of the Republic of Korea,’’ dated October 15, 2021; and Memorandum, ‘‘Countervailing Duty Petition on Oil Country Tubular Goods from the Russian Federation: Consultations with Officials from the Government of the Russian Federation,’’ dated October 21, 2021. 14 See section 771(10) of the Act. 15 See USEC, Inc. v. United States, 132 F. Supp. 2d 1, 8 (CIT 2001) (citing Algoma Steel Corp., Ltd. v. United States, 688 F. Supp. 639, 644 (CIT 1988), aff’d 865 F.2d 240 (Fed. Cir. 1989)). 16 See Petitions at Volume I at 20–22 and Exhibits I–11, I–13, I–14, and I–18. 17 For a discussion of the domestic like product analysis as applied to these cases and information regarding industry support, see Country-Specific Checklists, ‘‘Countervailing Duty Investigation Initiation Checklists: Oil Country Tubular Goods from the Republic of Korea and the Russian Federation,’’ dated concurrently with this Federal Register notice and on file electronically via ACCESS (Country-Specific CVD Initiation Checklists) at Attachment II, Analysis of Industry Support for the Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Petitions Covering Oil Country Tubular Goods from Argentina, Mexico, the Republic of Korea, and the Russian Federation (Attachment II). 18 See Petitions at Volume I at Exhibits I–1 and I–3; see also First General Issues Supplement at 4 and Exhibits 4 and 8; and Second General Issues Supplement at Exhibits 3–5. 19 See Petitions at Volume I at Exhibits I–1 and I–2; see also First General Issues Supplement at 6–10 and Exhibit 1 (containing Oil Country Tubular Goods from India, Korea, Turkey, Ukraine, and Vietnam, Inv. No. 701–TA–499–500 and 731–TA– 1215–1216, 1221–1223 (Review), USITC Pub. 5090 (July 2020) (OCTG Review)) and Exhibit 8 (containing OCTG Review at Table III–5); and Second General Issues Supplement at Exhibit 5. preparation of its questionnaires, Commerce requests that all interested parties submit scope comments by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time (ET) on November 15, 2021, which is 20 calendar days from the signature date of this notice. Any rebuttal comments, which may include factual information, must be filed by 5:00 p.m. ET on November 26, 2021, which is the first business day after 10 calendar days from the initial comment deadline. 10 Commerce requests that any factual information the parties consider relevant to the scope of the investigations be submitted during this time period. However, if a party subsequently finds that additional factual information pertaining to the scope of the investigations may be relevant, the party may contact Commerce and request permission to submit the additional information. All such comments must be filed on the records of each of the concurrent AD and CVD investigations. Filing Requirements All submissions to Commerce must be filed electronically using Enforcement and Compliance’s Antidumping Duty and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS), unless an exception applies. 11 An electronically filed document must be received successfully in its entirety by the time and date it is due. Consultations Pursuant to sections 702(b)(4)(A)(i) and (ii) of the Act, Commerce notified the GOK and the GOR of the receipt of the Petitions and provided an opportunity for consultations with respect to the Petitions.12 Commerce held consultations with the GOK and the GOR on October 14 and 21, 2021, respectively.13 Determination of Industry Support for the Petitions Section 702(b)(1) of the Act requires that a petition be filed on behalf of the domestic industry. Section 702(c)(4)(A) of the Act provides that a petition meets this requirement if the domestic producers or workers who support the petition account for: (i) At least 25 percent of the total production of the domestic like product; and (ii) more than 50 percent of the production of the domestic like product produced by that portion of the industry expressing support for, or opposition to, the petition. Moreover, section 702(c)(4)(D) of the Act provides that, if the petition does not establish support of domestic producers or workers accounting for more than 50 percent of the total production of the domestic like product, Commerce shall: (i) Poll the industry or rely on other information in order to determine if there is support for the petition, as required by subparagraph (A); or (ii) determine industry support using a statistically valid sampling method to poll the ‘‘industry.’’ Section 771(4)(A) of the Act defines the ‘‘industry’’ as the producers as a whole of a domestic like product. Thus, to determine whether a petition has the requisite industry support, the statute directs Commerce to look to producers and workers who produce the domestic like product. The International Trade Commission (ITC), which is responsible for determining whether ‘‘the domestic industry’’ has been injured, must also determine what constitutes a domestic like product in order to define the industry. While both Commerce and the ITC must apply the same statutory definition regarding the domestic like product,14 they do so for different purposes and pursuant to a separate and distinct authority. In addition, Commerce’s determination is subject to limitations of time and information. Although this may result in different definitions of the like product, such differences do not render the decision of either agency contrary to law.15 Section 771(10) of the Act defines the domestic like product as ‘‘a product which is like, or in the absence of like, most similar in characteristics and uses with, the article subject to an investigation under this title.’’ Thus, the reference point from which the domestic like product analysis begins is ‘‘the article subject to an investigation’’ (i.e., the class or kind of merchandise to be investigated, which normally will be the scope as defined in the petition). With regard to the domestic like product, the petitioners do not offer a definition of the domestic like product distinct from the scope of the investigations. 16 Based on our analysis of the information submitted on the record, we have determined that OCTG, as defined in the scope, constitutes a single domestic like product, and we have analyzed industry support in terms of that domestic like product.17 In determining whether the petitioners have standing under section 702(c)(4)(A) of the Act, we considered the industry support data contained in the Petitions with reference to the domestic like product as defined in the ‘‘Scope of the Investigations,’’ in the appendix to this notice. To establish industry support, the petitioners provided the 2020 production of OCTG for the U.S. producers that support the Petitions. 18 The petitioners estimated the 2020 production by non-petitioning companies using shipment data available for the entire OCTG industry and publicly available information on production and domestic shipments from the ITC’s 2020 report from the sunset review of OCTG from India, Korea, Turkey, Ukraine, and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam. 19 The petitioners estimated the total 2020 production of the domestic like product VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:03 Oct 29, 2021 Jkt 256001 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\01NON1.SGM 01NON1 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1 60212 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 208 / Monday, November 1, 2021 / Notices 20 See First General Issues Supplement at 7 and Exhibit 8; see also Second General Issues Supplement at Exhibit 5. 21 See Petitions at Volume I at Exhibits I–1 and I–2; see also First General Issues Supplement at 3–10 and Exhibits 1, 4, 5, and 8; and Second General Issues Supplement at 1–2 and Exhibits 2– 5. 22 See Tenaris USA’s Letters, ‘‘Oil Country Tubular Goods from Argentina, Mexico, the Republic of Korea, and Russia: Factual Errors in Petitions,’’ dated October 8, 2021; and ‘‘Oil Country Tubular Goods from Argentina, Mexico, the Republic of Korea, and Russia: Comments on Petitioners’ Standing,’’ dated October 15, 2021; and ‘‘Oil Country Tubular Goods from Mexico: Reply Comments on Petitioners’ Standing,’’ dated October 20, 2021. In addition, on October 21, 2021, Commerce met via video conference with counsel to Tenaris USA to discuss its industry support comments. See Memorandum, ‘‘Petitions for the Imposition of Antidumping and Countervailing Duties on Imports of Oil Country Tubular Goods from Argentina, Mexico, the Republic of Korea, and the Russian Federation,’’ dated October 21, 2021. 23 See Petitioners’ Letter, ‘‘Oil Country Tubular Goods from Argentina, Mexico, Russia, and the Republic of Korea: Response to Tenaris Submission Concerning Petitioners’ Standing,’’ dated October 18, 2021 (Petitioners’ Letter). 24 See Memorandum, ‘‘Countervailing Duty Petition on Oil Country Tubular Goods from the Russian Federation: Consultations with Officials from the Government of the Russian Federation,’’ dated October 21, 2021; see also GOR’s Letter, ‘‘Countervailing Duty Investigation of Certain Oil Country Tubular Goods from the Russian Federation: Consultations,’’ dated October 25, 2021. 25 See TMK’s Letter, ‘‘Oil Country Tubular Goods from Russia: Comments on Petitioners’ Standing,’’ dated October 21, 2021. 26 See Tenaris USA’s Letter, ‘‘Oil Country Tubular Goods from Argentina, Mexico, the Republic of Korea, and Russia: Comments on Petitioners’ Second General Issues Questionnaire Response,’’ dated October 22, 2021. We note that, though Tenaris USA opposes the Petitions, it has not provided any production data for Commerce to include in the industry support calculation. See Country-Specific CVD Initiation Checklists at Attachment II at footnote 47. 27 See Petitioners’ Letter, ‘‘Oil Country Tubular Goods from Russia: Response to TMK’s Comments on Petitioners’ Standing,’’ dated October 22, 2021 (Petitioners’ Letter II). 28 See Country-Specific CVD Initiation Checklists at Attachment II. 29 See section 702(c)(4)(D) of the Act. 30 See Country-Specific CVD Initiation Checklists at Attachment II. 31 Id. 32 Id. 33 Id. 34 See Petitions at Volume I at 28 and Exhibit I–22. 35 Id. at 1–2, 28–48 and Exhibits I–1, I–5, I–6, I–8, I–9, I–11, I–13, I–14, I–20, I–22 through I–34; see also First General Issues Supplement at 10. 36 See Country-Specific CVD Initiation Checklists at Attachment III, Analysis of Allegations and Evidence of Material Injury and Causation for the Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Petitions Covering Oil Country Tubular Goods from Argentina, Mexico, the Republic of Korea, and the Russian Federation. for the entire industry by adding their production to the estimated production of the non-petitioning producers. 20 We relied on data provided by the petitioners for purposes of measuring industry support.21 On October 8, 15, and 20, 2021, we received comments on industry support from Tenaris Bay City, Inc.; IPSCO Tubulars Inc.; Maverick Tube Corporation; and Tenaris Global Services (U.S.A.) Corporation (collectively, Tenaris USA), U.S. producers of OCTG. 22 On October 18, 2021, the petitioners responded to the comments from Tenaris USA. 23 On October 21, 2021, the GOR raised industry support comments during the consultations held regarding the Russia CVD Petition.24 On October 21, 2021, we received comments from TMK Group (TMK), a Russian producer and exporter of OCTG.25 On October 22, 2021, Tenaris USA filed its fourth submission with Commerce and formally indicated that it opposes the Petitions. 26 Also on October 22, 2021, the petitioners responded to TMK’s comments. 27 Based on the information provided in the Petitions, the First General Issues Supplement, Petitioners’ Letter, the Second General Issues Supplement, Petitioners’ Letter II, and other information readily available to Commerce, we determine that the domestic producers and workers have met the statutory criteria for industry support under section 702(c)(4)(A)(i) of the Act because the domestic producers (or workers) who support the Petitions account for at least 25 percent of the total production of the domestic like product.28 Because the Petitions and supplemental submissions did not establish support from domestic producers (or workers) accounting for more than 50 percent of the total production of the domestic like product, Commerce was required to take further action in order to evaluate industry support.29 In this case, Commerce was able to rely on other information, in accordance with section 702(c)(4)(D)(i) of the Act, to determine industry support.30 Based on information provided in the Petitions, the First General Issues Supplement, Petitioners’ Letter, the Second General Issues Supplement, Petitioners’ Letter II, and other information readily available to Commerce, the domestic producers and workers have met the statutory criteria for industry support under section 702(c)(4)(A)(ii) of the Act because the domestic producers (or workers) who support the Petitions account for more than 50 percent of the production of the domestic like product produced by that portion of the industry expressing support for, or opposition to, the Petitions.31 We note that, even if all other U.S. producers of OCTG oppose the Petitions (including Tenaris USA), the supporters of the Petitions would still have the requisite level of industry support pursuant to section 702(c)(4)(A)(ii) of the Act. 32 Accordingly, Commerce determines that the Petitions were filed on behalf of the domestic industry within the meaning of section 702(b)(1) of the Act. 33 Injury Test Because Korea and Russia are ‘‘Subsidies Agreement Countries’’ within the meaning of section 701(b) of the Act, section 701(a)(2) of the Act applies to these investigations. Accordingly, the ITC must determine whether imports of the subject merchandise from Korea and/or Russia materially injure, or threaten material injury to, a U.S. industry. Allegations and Evidence of Material Injury and Causation The petitioners allege that imports of the subject merchandise are benefitting from countervailable subsidies and that such imports threaten to cause material injury to the U.S. industry producing the domestic like product. In addition, the petitioners allege that subject imports exceed the negligibility threshold provided for under section 771(24)(A) of the Act.34 The petitioners contend that the industry’s injured condition is illustrated by a significant and increasing volume of subject imports; reduced market share; underselling and price suppression; lost sales and revenues; declines in production, U.S. shipments, and capacity utilization; decline in employment; and adverse impact on the domestic industry’s financial performance. 35 We assessed the allegations and supporting evidence regarding material injury, threat of material injury, causation, as well as negligibility, and we have determined that these allegations are properly supported by adequate evidence and meet the statutory requirements for initiation.36 Initiation of CVD Investigations Based upon our examination of the Petitions on OCTG from Korea and Russia, including supplemental information provided by the petitioners, we find that the Petitions meet the requirements of section 702 of the Act. Therefore, we are initiating CVD investigations to determine whether imports of OCTG from Korea and Russia benefit from countervailable subsidies conferred by the GOK and the GOR, respectively. In accordance with section 703(b)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:03 Oct 29, 2021 Jkt 256001 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\01NON1.SGM 01NON1 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1 60213Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 208 / Monday, November 1, 2021 / Notices 37 See Volume I of the Petitions at Exhibit I–19. 38 See Memoranda, ‘‘Countervailing Duty Petition on Imports of Oil Country Tubular Goods from the Russian Federation: Release of U.S. Customs and Border Protection Data,’’ dated October 19, 2021; and ‘‘Countervailing Duty Petition on Imports of Oil Country Tubular Goods from the from the Republic of Korea: Release of U.S. Customs and Border Protection Data,’’ dated October 19, 2021. 39 See section 733(a) of the Act. 40 Id. 41 See 19 CFR 351.301(b). 42 See 19 CFR 351.301; see also Extension of Time Limits; Final Rule, 78 FR 57790 (September 20, 2013), available at http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/ FR-2013-09-20/html/2013-22853.htm. 43 See section 782(b) of the Act. 44 See Certification of Factual Information to Import Administration During Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings, 78 FR 42678 (July Continued 351.205(b)(1), unless postponed, we will make our preliminary determinations no later than 65 days after the publication date of these initiations. Korea Based on our review of the Petition on Korean OCTG, we find that there is sufficient information to initiate a CVD investigation on 46 alleged programs. For a full discussion of the basis for our decision to initiate on each program, see Korea CVD Initiation Checklist. A public version of the initiation checklist for this investigation is available on ACCESS. Russia Based on our review of the Petition on Russian OCTG, we find that there is sufficient information to initiate a CVD investigation on 12 alleged programs. For a full discussion of the basis for our decision to initiate on each program, see Russia CVD Initiation Checklist. A public version of the initiation checklist for this investigation is available on ACCESS. Respondent Selection The petitioners named 287 companies in Korea and 14 companies in Russia as producers/exporters of OCTG. 37 Commerce intends to follow its standard practice in CVD investigations and calculate company-specific subsidy rates in these investigations. In the event that Commerce determines that the number of companies in Korea or Russia is large and it cannot individually examine each company based upon Commerce’s resources, where appropriate, Commerce intends to select respondents based on U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) data for U.S. imports of OCTG from Korea and Russia during the POI under the appropriate Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States subheadings listed in the ‘‘Scope of the Investigations,’’ in the appendix. On October 19, 2021, Commerce released CBP data for U.S. imports of OCTG from Korea and Russia under administrative protective order (APO) to all parties with access to information protected by APO and indicated that interested parties wishing to comment regarding the CBP data and respondent selection must do so within three business days of the publication date of the notice of initiation of these CVD investigations.38 Commerce will not accept rebuttal comments regarding the CBP data or respondent selection. Interested parties must submit applications for disclosure under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(b). Instructions for filing such applications may be found on the Commerce’s website at http://enforcement.trade.gov/ apo. Comments on CBP data and respondent selection must be filed electronically using ACCESS. An electronically filed document must be received successfully, in its entirety, by ACCESS no later than 5:00 p.m. ET on the specified deadline. Distribution of Copies of the Petitions In accordance with section 702(b)(4)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.202(f), a copy of the public version of the Petitions has been provided to the GOK and GOR via ACCESS. To the extent practicable, Commerce will attempt to provide a copy of the public version of the Petitions to each exporter named in the Petitions, as provided under 19 CFR 351.203(c)(2). ITC Notification Commerce will notify the ITC of our initiation, as required by section 702(d) of the Act. Preliminary Determination by the ITC The ITC will preliminarily determine, within 45 days after the date on which the Petitions were filed, whether there is a reasonable indication that imports of OCTG from Korea and Russia are materially injuring or threatening material injury to a U.S. industry. 39 A negative ITC determination for any country will result in the investigation being terminated with respect to that country.40 Otherwise, the investigations will proceed according to statutory and regulatory time limits. Submission of Factual Information Factual information is defined in 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21) as: (i) Evidence submitted in response to questionnaires; (ii) evidence submitted in support of allegations; (iii) publicly available information to value factors under 19 CFR 351.408(c) or to measure the adequacy of remuneration under 19 CFR 351.511(a)(2); (iv) evidence placed on the record by Commerce; and (v) evidence other than factual information described in (i)–(iv). Any party, when submitting factual information, must specify under which subsection of 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21) the information is being submitted and, if the information is submitted to rebut, clarify, or correct factual information already on the record, provide an explanation identifying the information already on the record that the factual information seeks to rebut, clarify, or correct.41 Time limits for the submission of factual information are addressed in 19 CFR 351.301, which provides specific time limits based on the type of factual information being submitted. Interested parties should review the regulations prior to submitting factual information in these investigations. Extensions of Time Limits Parties may request an extension of time limits before the expiration of a time limit established under 19 CFR 351.301 or as otherwise specified by the Secretary. In general, an extension request will be considered untimely if it is filed after the expiration of the time limit established under 19 CFR 351.301. For submissions that are due from multiple parties simultaneously, an extension request will be considered untimely if it is filed after 10:00 a.m. ET on the due date. Under certain circumstances, Commerce may elect to specify a different time limit by which extension requests will be considered untimely for submissions which are due from multiple parties simultaneously. In such a case, Commerce will inform parties in a letter or memorandum of the deadline (including a specified time) by which extension requests must be filed to be considered timely. An extension request must be made in a separate, standalone submission; under limited circumstances Commerce will grant untimely-filed requests for the extension of time limits. Parties should review Commerce’s regulations concerning the extension of time limits prior to submitting extension requests in these investigations.42 Certification Requirements Any party submitting factual information in an AD or CVD proceeding must certify to the accuracy and completeness of that information.43 Parties must use the certification formats provided in 19 CFR 351.303(g). 44 Commerce intends to VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:03 Oct 29, 2021 Jkt 256001 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\01NON1.SGM 01NON1 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1 60214 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 208 / Monday, November 1, 2021 / Notices 17, 2013) (Final Rule); see also frequently asked questions regarding the Final Rule, available at http://enforcement.trade.gov/tlei/notices/factual_ info_final_rule_FAQ_07172013.pdf. 45 See Temporary Rule Modifying AD/CVD Service Requirements Due to COVID–19; Extension of Effective Period, 85 FR 41363 (July 10, 2020). reject factual submissions if the submitting party does not comply with the applicable certification requirements. Notification to Interested Parties Interested parties must submit applications for disclosure under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. Instructions for filing such applications may be found on the Commerce website at http://enforcement.trade.gov/apo. Parties wishing to participate in these investigations should ensure that they meet the requirements of 19 CFR 351.103(d) (e.g., by filing a letter of appearance). Note that Commerce has temporarily modified certain of its requirements for serving documents containing business proprietary information until further notice. 45 This notice is issued and published pursuant to sections 702 and 777(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.203(c). Dated: October 26, 2021. Ryan Majerus, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy and Negotiations, Performing the Non-Exclusive Functions and Duties of the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. Appendix Scope of the Investigations The merchandise covered by the investigations is certain oil country tubular goods (OCTG), which are hollow steel products of circular cross-section, including oil well casing and tubing, of iron (other than case iron) or steel (both carbon and alloy), whether seamless or welded, regardless of end finish (e.g., whether or not plain end, threaded, or threaded and coupled) whether or not conforming to American Petroleum Institute (API) or non-API specifications, whether finished (including limited service OCTG products) or unfinished (including green tubes and limited service OCTG products), whether or not thread protectors are attached. The scope of the investigations also covers OCTG coupling stock. Subject merchandise includes material matching the above description that has been finished, packaged, or otherwise processed in a third country, including by performing any heat treatment, cutting, upsetting, threading, coupling, or any other finishing, packaging, or processing that would not otherwise remove the merchandise from the scope of the investigations if performed in the country of manufacture of the OCTG. Excluded from the scope of the investigations are: Casing or tubing containing 10.5 percent or more by weight of chromium; drill pipe; unattached couplings; and unattached thread protectors. The merchandise subject to these investigations is currently classified in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) under item numbers: 7304.29.1010, 7304.29.1020, 7304.29.1030, 7304.29.1040, 7304.29.1050, 7304.29.1060, 7304.29.1080, 7304.29.2010, 7304.29.2020, 7304.29.2030, 7304.29.2040, 7304.29.2050, 7304.29.2060, 7304.29.2080, 7304.29.3110, 7304.29.3120, 7304.29.3130, 7304.29.3140, 7304.29.3150, 7304.29.3160, 7304.29.3180, 7304.29.4110, 7304.29.4120, 7304.29.4130, 7304.29.4140, 7304.29.4150, 7304.29.4160, 7304.29.4180, 7304.29.5015, 7304.29.5030, 7304.29.5045, 7304.29.5060, 7304.29.5075, 7304.29.6115, 7304.29.6130, 7304.29.6145, 7304.29.6160, 7304.29.6175, 7305.20.2000, 7305.20.4000, 7305.20.6000, 7305.20.8000, 7306.29.1030, 7306.29.1090, 7306.29.2000, 7306.29.3100, 7306.29.4100, 7306.29.6010, 7306.29.6050, 7306.29.8110, and 7306.29.8150. The merchandise subject to the investigations may also enter under the following HTSUS item numbers: 7304.39.0024, 7304.39.0028, 7304.39.0032, 7304.39.0036, 7304.39.0040, 7304.39.0044, 7304.39.0048, 7304.39.0052, 7304.39.0056, 7304.39.0062, 7304.39.0068, 7304.39.0072, 7304.39.0076, 7304.39.0080, 7304.59.6000, 7304.59.8015, 7304.59.8020, 7304.59.8025, 7304.59.8030, 7304.59.8035, 7304.59.8040, 7304.59.8045, 7304.59.8050, 7304.59.8055, 7304.59.8060, 7304.59.8065, 7304.59.8070, 7304.59.8080, 7305.31.4000, 7305.31.6090, 7306.30.5055, 7306.30.5090, 7306.50.5050, and 7306.50.5070. The HTSUS subheadings above are provided for convenience and customs purposes only. The written description of the scope of the investigations is dispositive. [FR Doc. 2021–23714 Filed 10–29–21; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration Environmental Technologies Trade Advisory Committee Meeting AGENCY : International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce. ACTION : Notice of an open meeting of a Federal Advisory Committee. SUMMARY : This notice sets forth the schedule and proposed topics for a meeting of the Environmental Technologies Trade Advisory Committee (ETTAC). DATES : The meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, November 16, 2021 from 10:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Eastern Standard Time (EST). The deadline for members of the public to register to participate, including requests to make comments during the meeting and for auxiliary aids, or to submit written comments for dissemination prior to the meeting, is 5:00 p.m. EST on Tuesday, November 9, 2021. ADDRESSES : The meeting will be held virtually via Webex. Requests to register to participate (including to speak or for auxiliary aids) and any written comments should be submitted via email to Ms. Victoria Yue, Office of Energy & Environmental Industries, International Trade Administration, at Victoria.yue@trade.gov. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT : Ms. Victoria Yue, Office of Energy & Environmental Industries, International Trade Administration (Phone: 202–482– 3492; email: Victoria.yue@trade.gov). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION : The meeting will take place on Tuesday, November 16, 2021 from 10:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. EST. The general meeting is open to the public, and time will be permitted for public comment from 4:30 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. EST. Members of the public seeking to attend the meeting are required to register in advance. Those interested in attending must provide notification by Tuesday, November 9, 2021, at 5:00 p.m. EST, via the contact information provided above. This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to OEEI at Victoria.Yue@trade.gov or (202) 482–3492 no less than one week prior to the meeting. Requests received after this date will be accepted, but it may not be possible to accommodate them. Written comments concerning ETTAC affairs are welcome any time before or after the meeting. To be considered during the meeting, written comments must be received by Tuesday, November 9, 2021, at 5:00 p.m. EST to ensure transmission to the members before the meeting. Minutes will be available within 30 days of this meeting. Topics to be considered: During the November 16 meeting, which will be the third meeting of the current charter term, the Committee will review draft recommendations and conduct subcommittee breakouts under the themes of Trade Policy and Export Competitiveness, Climate Change Mitigation and Resilience Technologies, and Waste Management and Circular Economy. An agenda will be made available one week prior to the meeting upon request to Victoria Yue. Background: The ETTAC is mandated by Section 2313(c) of the Export Enhancement Act of 1988, as amended, 15 U.S.C. 4728(c), to advise the Environmental Trade Working Group of the Trade Promotion Coordinating Committee, through the Secretary of Commerce, on the development and administration of programs to expand U.S. exports of environmental VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:03 Oct 29, 2021 Jkt 256001 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\01NON1.SGM 01NON1 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1 ──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── === USITC PUB 5248 === Oil Country Tubular Goods from Argentina, Mexico, Russia, and South Korea Investigation Nos. 701-TA-671-672 and 731-TA-1571-1573 (Preliminary) Publication 5248 November 2021 U.S. International Trade Commission Washington, DC 20436 U.S. International Trade Commission COMMISSIONERS Jason E. Kearns, Chair Randolph J. Stayin, Vice Chair David S. Johanson Rhonda K. Schmidtlein Amy A. Karpel Catherine Defilippo Director of Operations Staff assigned Tyler Berard, Investigator Keysha Martinez, Investigator Mark Brininstool, Industry Analyst James Home, Economist Jennifer Brinckhaus, Accountant Emily Kim, Accountant Zachary Coughlin, Senior Statistician Jason Miller, Attorney Douglas Corkran, Supervisory Investigator Address all communications to Secretary to the Commission United States International Trade Commission Washington, DC 20436 U.S. International Trade Commission Washington, DC 20436 www.usitc.gov Oil Country Tubular Goods from Argentina, Mexico, Russia, and South Korea Investigation Nos. 701-TA-671-672 and 731-TA-1571-1573 (Preliminary) Publication 5248 November 2021 CONTENTS Page i Determinations ............................................................................................................................... 1 Views of the Commission ............................................................................................................... 3 Introduction .............................................................................................................. I-1 Background................................................................................................................................ I-1 Statutory criteria ....................................................................................................................... I-2 Organization of report............................................................................................................... I-3 Market summary ....................................................................................................................... I-3 Summary data and data sources ............................................................................................... I-4 Previous and related investigations .......................................................................................... I-4 Safeguard investigations ....................................................................................................... I-6 Nature and extent of alleged subsidies and sales at LTFV ........................................................ I-7 Alleged subsidies ................................................................................................................... I-7 Alleged sales at LTFV ........................................................................................................... I-10 The subject merchandise ........................................................................................................ I-10 Commerce’s scope .............................................................................................................. I-10 Tariff treatment ................................................................................................................... I-11 Section 232 and 301 tariff treatment .................................................................................. I-11 The product ............................................................................................................................. I-14 Description and applications ............................................................................................... I-14 Manufacturing processes .................................................................................................... I-21 Domestic like product issues................................................................................................... I-30 CONTENTS Page ii Part II: Conditions of competition in the U.S. market........................................................... II-1 U.S. market characteristics....................................................................................................... II-1 Channels of distribution ........................................................................................................... II-2 Geographic distribution ........................................................................................................... II-4 Impact of section 232 tariffs .................................................................................................... II-4 Supply and demand considerations ......................................................................................... II-6 U.S. supply ............................................................................................................................ II-6 U.S. demand ....................................................................................................................... II-13 Substitutability issues............................................................................................................. II-18 Factors affecting purchasing decisions............................................................................... II-19 Comparison of U.S.-produced and imported OCTG ........................................................... II-21 Part III: U.S. producers’ production, shipments, and employment ...................................... III-1 U.S. producers ......................................................................................................................... III-1 Production-related activities ................................................................................................... III-9 U.S. production, capacity, and capacity utilization ............................................................... III-12 Alternative products .......................................................................................................... III-19 U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments and exports ......................................................................... III-21 U.S. producers’ inventories ................................................................................................... III-24 U.S. producers’ imports and purchases ................................................................................ III-26 U.S. employment, wages, and productivity .......................................................................... III-32 CONTENTS Page iii Part IV: U.S. imports, apparent U.S. consumption, and market shares ............................... IV-1 U.S. importers.......................................................................................................................... IV-1 U.S. imports ............................................................................................................................. IV-3 Negligibility ............................................................................................................................ IV-12 Cumulation considerations ................................................................................................... IV-13 Fungibility .......................................................................................................................... IV-14 Geographical markets ....................................................................................................... IV-18 Presence in the market ..................................................................................................... IV-20 Apparent U.S. consumption .................................................................................................. IV-24 U.S. market shares ................................................................................................................ IV-26 Part V: Pricing data ............................................................................................................. V-1 Factors affecting prices ............................................................................................................ V-1 Raw material costs ............................................................................................................... V-1 Transportation costs to the U.S. market .............................................................................. V-6 U.S. inland transportation costs ........................................................................................... V-7 Pricing practices ....................................................................................................................... V-7 Pricing methods .................................................................................................................... V-7 Sales terms and discounts .................................................................................................... V-9 Price data.................................................................................................................................. V-9 Price trends......................................................................................................................... V-23 Price comparisons .............................................................................................................. V-27 Lost sales and lost revenue .................................................................................................... V-29 CONTENTS Page iv Part VI: Financial experience of U.S. producers .................................................................. VI-1 Background.............................................................................................................................. VI-1 Operations on OCTG ............................................................................................................... VI-2 Net sales ............................................................................................................................ VI-22 Cost of goods sold and gross profit or loss........................................................................ VI-24 SG&A expenses and operating income or loss.................................................................. VI-28 All other expenses and net income or loss ....................................................................... VI-29 Tolling operations .............................................................................................................. VI-30 Capital expenditures and research and development expenses .......................................... VI-43 Assets and return on assets .................................................................................................. VI-47 Capital and investment ......................................................................................................... VI-50 CONTENTS Page v Threat considerations and information on nonsubject countries .......................... VII-1 The industry in Argentina ....................................................................................................... VII-3 Changes in operations ........................................................................................................ VII-3 Operations on OCTG ........................................................................................................... VII-4 Alternative products ........................................................................................................... VII-6 Exports ................................................................................................................................ VII-7 The industry in Mexico ......................................................................................................... VII-10 Changes in operations ...................................................................................................... VII-10 Operations on OCTG ......................................................................................................... VII-11 Alternative products ......................................................................................................... VII-12 Exports .............................................................................................................................. VII-13 The industry in Russia .......................................................................................................... VII-16 Changes in operations ...................................................................................................... VII-16 Operations on OCTG ......................................................................................................... VII-17 Alternative products ......................................................................................................... VII-19 Exports .............................................................................................................................. VII-20 The industry in South Korea ................................................................................................. VII-23 Changes in operations ...................................................................................................... VII-23 Operations on OCTG ......................................................................................................... VII-23 Alternative products ......................................................................................................... VII-25 Exports .............................................................................................................................. VII-26 Subject countries combined................................................................................................. VII-29 U.S. inventories of imported merchandise .......................................................................... VII-31 U.S. importers’ outstanding orders...................................................................................... VII-32 Third-country trade actions ................................................................................................. VII-33 Information on nonsubject countries .................................................................................. VII-36 CONTENTS Page vi Appendixes A. Federal Register notices.................................................................................................. A-1 B. List of staff conference witnesses................................................................................... B-1 C. Summary data ................................................................................................................. C-1 D. Section 232 proclamations ............................................................................................. D-1 E. Semi-finished product analysis ....................................................................................... E-1 F. Oil and natural gas prices................................................................................................ F-1 G. Production-related activities by U.S. processors ............................................................ G-1 Note.—Information that would reveal confidential operations of individual concerns may not be published. Such information is identified by brackets in confidential reports and is deleted and replaced with asterisks (***) in public reports. UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION Investigation Nos. 701-TA-671-672 and 731-TA-1571-1573 (Preliminary) Oil Country Tubular Goods from Argentina, Mexico, Russia, and South Korea DETERMINATIONS On the basis of the record1 developed in the subject investigations, the United States International Trade Commission (“Commission”) determines, pursuant to the Tariff Act of 1930 (“the Act”), that there is a reasonable indication that an industry in the United States is materially injured by reason of imports of oil country tubular goods from Argentina, Mexico, Russia, and South Korea, provided for in subheadings 7304.29, 7305.20, and 7306.29 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States, that are alleged to be sold in the United States at less than fair value (“LTFV”) and to be subsidized by the governments of Russia and South Korea.2 COMMENCEMENT OF FINAL PHASE INVESTIGATIONS Pursuant to section 207.18 of the Commission’s rules, the Commission also gives notice of the commencement of the final phase of its investigations. The Commission will issue a final phase notice of scheduling, which will be published in the Federal Register as provided in § 207.21 of the Commission’s rules, upon notice from the U.S. Department of Commerce (“Commerce”) of affirmative preliminary determinations in the investigations under §§ 703(b) or 733(b) of the Act, or, if the preliminary determinations are negative, upon notice of affirmative final determinations in those investigations under §§ 705(a) or 735(a) of the Act. Parties that filed entries of appearance in the preliminary phase of the investigations need not enter a separate appearance for the final phase of the investigations. Industrial users, and, if the merchandise under investigation is sold at the retail level, representative consumer organizations have the right to appear as parties in Commission antidumping and countervailing duty investigations. The Secretary will prepare a public service list containing the names and addresses of all persons, or their representatives, who are parties to the investigations. 1 The record is defined in § 207.2(f) of the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 207.2(f)). 2 86 FR 60205 and 86 FR 60210 (November 1, 2021). BACKGROUND On October 6, 2021, Borusan Mannesmann Pipe U.S., Inc., Baytown, Texas; PTC Liberty Tubulars LLC, Liberty, Texas; U.S. Steel Tubular Products, Inc., Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; Welded Tube USA, Inc., Lackawanna, New York; and the United States Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers International Union, AFL- CIO, CLC, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, filed petitions with the Commission and Commerce, alleging that an industry in the United States is materially injured or threatened with material injury by reason of subsidized imports of oil country tubular goods from Russia and South Korea and LTFV imports of oil country tubular goods from Argentina, Mexico, and Russia. Accordingly, effective October 6, 2021, the Commission instituted countervailing duty investigation Nos. 701-TA-671-672 and antidumping duty investigation Nos. 731-TA-1571-1573 (Preliminary). Notice of the institution of the Commission’s investigations and of a public conference to be held in connection therewith was given by posting copies of the notice in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, Washington, DC, and by publishing the notice in the Federal Register of October 13, 2021 (86 FR 56983). In light of the restrictions on access to the Commission building due to the COVID–19 pandemic, the Commission conducted its conference through written testimony and video conference on October 27, 2021. All persons who requested the opportunity were permitted to participate. 3 Views of the Commission Based on the record in the preliminary phase of these investigations, we determine that there is a reasonable indication that an industry in the United States is materially injured by reason of imports of oil country tubular goods (“OCTG”) from Argentina, Mexico, and Russia that are allegedly sold in the United States at less than fair value and imports of OCTG from Russia and South Korea that are allegedly subsidized by the governments of Russia and South Korea. I. The Legal Standard for Preliminary Determinations The legal standard for preliminary antidumping and countervailing duty determinations requires the Commission to determine, based upon the information available at the time of the preliminary determinations, whether there is a reasonable indication that a domestic industry is materially injured or threatened with material injury, or that the establishment of an industry is materially retarded, by reason of the allegedly unfairly traded imports.1 In applying this standard, the Commission weighs the evidence before it and determines whether “(1) the record as a whole contains clear and convincing evidence that there is no material injury or threat of such injury; and (2) no likelihood exists that contrary evidence will arise in a final investigation.”2 II. Background The petitions in these investigations were filed on October 6, 2021, by Borusan Mannesmann Pipe U.S., Inc. (“Borusan”), PTC Liberty Tubulars LLC (“PTC”), U.S. Steel Tubular Products, Inc. (“U.S. Steel”), the United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers International Union, AFL-CIO, CLC (“USW”), and Welded Tube USA, Inc. (“Welded Tube”) (collectively, “Petitioners”). Borusan, PTC, U.S. Steel, and Welded Tube are domestic producers of OCTG; USW is a labor union representing U.S. 1 19 U.S.C. §§ 1671b(a), 1673b(a) (2000); see also American Lamb Co. v. United States, 785 F.2d 994, 1001-04 (Fed. Cir. 1986); Aristech Chem. Corp. v. United States, 20 CIT 353, 354-55 (1996). No party argues that the establishment of an industry in the United States is materially retarded by the allegedly unfairly traded imports. 2 American Lamb Co., 785 F.2d at 1001; see also Texas Crushed Stone Co. v. United States, 35 F.3d 1535, 1543 (Fed. Cir. 1994). 4 OCTG workers. Petitioners appeared at the conference and submitted a joint postconference brief.3 The following respondents appeared at the conference and submitted a joint postconference brief: Tenaris Bay City, Inc., Maverick Tube Corporation, and IPSCO Tubulars Inc. (“Tenaris USA”), domestic producers of OCTG; Tenaris Global Services (U.S.A.) Corporation (“TGS USA”), an importer of OCTG; Siderca S.A.I.C. (“Siderca”), a producer and exporter of OCTG in Argentina; and Tubos de Acero de Mexico, S.A. (“TAMSA”), a producer and exporter of OCTG in Mexico (collectively, “Tenaris”). Each of these firms is a subsidiary of the holding company Tenaris SA.4 In addition to Tenaris, Russian OCTG producer and exporter TMK Group (“TMK”) also appeared at the conference and submitted a separate postconference brief. Representatives from the governments of Mexico and Russia each submitted a postconference brief.5 U.S. industry data are based on the questionnaire responses of 17 firms that are believed to account for the large majority of U.S. OCTG production in 2020.6 U.S. import data are based on official import statistics from the U.S. Department of Commerce (“Commerce”).7 The Commission received questionnaire responses from 26 importers of OCTG, representing *** U.S. imports from Argentina, *** percent of U.S. imports from Mexico, *** percent of U.S. imports from Russia, *** percent of U.S. imports from South Korea, and *** percent of U.S. imports from nonsubject sources in 2020.8 Foreign industry data and related information are based on questionnaire responses from: one producer/exporter of OCTG in Argentina accounting for approximately *** percent of OCTG production in Argentina in 2020 and *** U.S. imports of subject merchandise from Argentina in 2020;9 one producer/exporter of OCTG 3 In light of the restrictions on access to the Commission building due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the Commission conducted its staff conference on October 27, 2021 through written witness testimony and video conference, as set forth in procedures provided to the parties and announced on its website.4 Confidential Report, Memorandum INV-TT-129 (“CR”) at Table III-2; Public Report, Oil Country Tubular Goods from Argentina, Mexico, Russia, and South Korea, Inv. Nos. 701-TA-671-672 and 731-TA- 1571-1573 (Preliminary), USITC Pub. 5248 (Nov. 2021) (“PR”) at Table III-2; Conference Transcript (“Tr.”), EDIS Doc. 755274 at 164 (Curá). 5 Additionally, a representative of the government of Argentina read a statement at the conference. 6 CR/PR at I-4. 7 CR/PR at IV-1. These statistics do not include in-scope coupling stock, which enter under HTS statistical reporting numbers that include primarily out-of-scope products. Id. at IV-1 n.3. 8 CR/PR at IV-1. In light of the questionnaire coverage, import data are based on official Commerce statistics. Id. 9 CR/PR at VII-3. 5 in Mexico reportedly accounting for *** OCTG production in Mexico in 2020 and approximately *** percent of U.S. imports of subject merchandise from Mexico in 2020;10 two producers/exporters of OCTG in Russia accounting for approximately *** percent of OCTG production in Russia in 2020 and *** U.S. imports of subject merchandise from Russia in 2020;11 and one producer/exporter of OCTG in South Korea reportedly accounting for approximately *** percent of OCTG production in South Korea in 2020 and *** percent of U.S. imports of subject merchandise from South Korea in 2020.12 III. Domestic Like Product In determining whether there is a reasonable indication that an industry in the United States is materially injured or threatened with material injury by reason of imports of the subject merchandise, the Commission first defines the “domestic like product” and the “industry.”13 Section 771(4)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Tariff Act”), defines the relevant domestic industry as the “producers as a whole of a domestic like product, or those producers whose collective output of a domestic like product constitutes a major proportion of the total domestic production of the product.”14 In turn, the Tariff Act defines “domestic like product” as “a product which is like, or in the absence of like, most similar in characteristics and uses with, the article subject to an investigation.”15 By statute, the Commission’s “domestic like product” analysis begins with the “article subject to an investigation,” i.e., the subject merchandise as determined by Commerce.16 Therefore, Commerce’s determination as to the scope of the imported merchandise that is subsidized and/or sold at less than fair value is “necessarily the starting point of the Commission’s like product analysis.”17 The Commission then defines the domestic like product 10 CR/PR at VII-10. 11 CR/PR at VII-16. 12 CR/PR at VII-23 and VII-23 n.24. This producer/exporter’s share of Korean production is likely overstated. See CR/PR at VII-23 n.24. 13 19 U.S.C. § 1677(4)(A). 14 19 U.S.C. § 1677(4)(A). 15 19 U.S.C. § 1677(10). 16 19 U.S.C. § 1677(10). The Commission must accept Commerce’s determination as to the scope of the imported merchandise that is subsidized and/or sold at less than fair value. See, e.g., USEC, Inc. v. United States, 34 Fed. App’x 725, 730 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (“The ITC may not modify the class or kind of imported merchandise examined by Commerce.”); Algoma Steel Corp. v. United States, 688 F. Supp. 639, 644 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1988), aff’d, 865 F.3d 240 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 492 U.S. 919 (1989). 17 Cleo Inc. v. United States, 501 F.3d 1291, 1298 (Fed. Cir. 2007); see also Hitachi Metals, Ltd. v. (Continued…) 6 in light of the imported articles Commerce has identified.18 The decision regarding the appropriate domestic like product(s) in an investigation is a factual determination, and the Commission has applied the statutory standard of “like” or “most similar in characteristics and uses” on a case-by-case basis.19 No single factor is dispositive, and the Commission may consider other factors it deems relevant based on the facts of a particular investigation.20 The Commission looks for clear dividing lines among possible like products and disregards minor variations.21 The Commission may, where appropriate, include domestic articles in the domestic like product in addition to those described in the scope.22 (…Continued) United States, Case No. 19-1289, slip op. at 8-9 (Fed. Circ. Feb. 7, 2020) (the statute requires the Commission to start with Commerce’s subject merchandise in reaching its own like product determination). 18 Cleo, 501 F.3d at 1298 n.1 (“Commerce’s {scope} finding does not control the Commission’s {like product} determination.”); Hosiden Corp. v. Advanced Display Mfrs., 85 F.3d 1561, 1568 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (the Commission may find a single like product corresponding to several different classes or kinds defined by Commerce); Torrington Co. v. United States, 747 F. Supp. 744, 748-52 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1990), aff’d, 938 F.2d 1278 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (affirming the Commission’s determination defining six like products in investigations where Commerce found five classes or kinds). 19 See, e.g., Cleo Inc. v. United States, 501 F.3d 1291, 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2007); NEC Corp. v. Department of Commerce, 36 F. Supp. 2d 380, 383 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1998); Nippon Steel Corp. v. United States, 19 CIT 450, 455 (1995); Torrington Co. v. United States, 747 F. Supp. 744, 749 n.3 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1990), aff’d, 938 F.2d 1278 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (“every like product determination ‘must be made on the particular record at issue’ and the ‘unique facts of each case’”). The Commission generally considers a number of factors including the following: (1) physical characteristics and uses; (2) interchangeability; (3) channels of distribution; (4) customer and producer perceptions of the products; (5) common manufacturing facilities, production processes, and production employees; and, where appropriate, (6) price. See Nippon, 19 CIT at 455 n.4; Timken Co. v. United States, 913 F. Supp. 580, 584 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1996). 20 See, e.g., S. Rep. No. 96-249 at 90-91 (1979). 21 See, e.g., Nippon, 19 CIT at 455; Torrington, 747 F. Supp. at 748-49; see also S. Rep. No. 96-249 at 90-91 (Congress has indicated that the like product standard should not be interpreted in “such a narrow fashion as to permit minor differences in physical characteristics or uses to lead to the conclusion that the product and article are not ‘like’ each other, nor should the definition of ‘like product’ be interpreted in such a fashion as to prevent consideration of an industry adversely affected by the imports under consideration.”). 22 See, e.g., Pure Magnesium from China and Israel, Inv. Nos. 701-TA-403 and 731-TA-895-96 (Final), USITC Pub. 3467 at 8 n.34 (Nov. 2001); Torrington, 747 F. Supp. at 748-49 (holding that the Commission is not legally required to limit the domestic like product to the product advocated by the petitioner, co-extensive with the scope). 7 A. Scope Definition In its notices of initiation, Commerce defined the imported merchandise within the scope of these investigations as: . . . certain oil country tubular goods (OCTG), which are hollow steel products of circular cross-section, including oil well casing and tubing, of iron (other than cast iron) or steel (both carbon and alloy), whether seamless or welded, regardless of end finish (e.g., whether or not plain end, threaded, or threaded and coupled) whether or not conforming to American Petroleum Institute (API) or non-API specifications, whether finished (including limited service OCTG products) or unfinished (including green tubes and limited service OCTG products), whether or not thread protectors are attached. The scope of the investigations also covers OCTG coupling stock. Subject merchandise includes material matching the above description that has been finished, packaged, or otherwise processed in a third country, including by performing any heat treatment, cutting, upsetting, threading, coupling, or any other finishing, packaging, or processing that would not otherwise remove the merchandise from the scope of the investigations if performed in the country of manufacture of the OCTG. Excluded from the scope of the investigations are: casing or tubing containing 10.5 percent or more by weight of chromium; drill pipe; unattached couplings; and unattached thread protectors.23 The scope language describing the physical attributes of the subject merchandise in these investigations is nearly identical to the scope descriptions of past OCTG investigations and reviews.24 The scope of the current investigations also states that imports of OCTG 23 Oil Country Tubular Goods from Argentina, Mexico, and the Russian Federation: Initiation of Less-Than-Fair-Value Investigations, 86 Fed. Reg. 60205, 60209-60210 (Nov. 1, 2021); Oil Country Tubular Goods from the Republic of Korea and the Russian Federation: Initiation of Countervailing Duty Investigations, 86 Fed. Reg. 60210, 60214 (Nov. 1, 2021). 24 See, e.g., Certain Oil Country Tubular Goods from India, Korea, The Philippines, Saudi Arabia, Taiwan, Thailand, Turkey, Ukraine, and Vietnam, Inv. Nos. 701-TA-499-500 and 731-TA-1215-1223 (Preliminary), USITC Pub. No. 4422 (Aug. 2013) (“2013 Preliminary Determinations”); Certain Oil Country (Continued…) 8 manufactured in the subject countries but packaged, finished, or processed in third countries are considered to be within the scope.25 OCTG are tubular steel products used in oil and gas wells and include casing and tubing of carbon and alloy steel. Coupling stock is also within Commerce’s scope.26 Casing is a circular pipe that serves as the structural retainer for the walls of the well with an outside diameter (“OD”) ranging from 4.5 to 20 inches. Casing is used in the well to provide a firm foundation for the drill string by supporting the walls of the hole to prevent caving in both during drilling and after the well is completed. After the casing is set, concrete is usually pumped between the outside of the casing and the wall of the hole to provide a secure anchor. Casing also serves as a surface pipe designed to prevent contamination of the recoverable oil and gas by surface water, gas, sand, or limestone.27 Tubing is a smaller-diameter pipe (between 1.050 and 4.500 inches in OD) installed inside a larger-diameter casing that is used to conduct the oil or gas to the surface either through natural flow or pumping. Tubing must be strong enough to support its own weight, that of the oil or gas, and that of any pumping equipment suspended on the string. Both tubing and casing are usually produced in accordance with American Petroleum Institute (“API”) standard 5CT.28 Coupling stock is a seamless tubular product used to make coupling blanks which, in turn, are used to produce coupling. Coupling is a thick-walled internally threaded cylinder that is used for joining two lengths of threaded pipe and typically accounts for 2-3 percent of the weight of end-finished tubing or casing. Couplings are produced and certified to the same API grade and type as the OCTG to which the couplings are joined.29 (…Continued) Tubular Goods from India, Korea, The Philippines, Taiwan, Thailand, Turkey, Ukraine, and Vietnam, Inv. Nos. 701-TA-499-500 and 731-TA-1215-12217 and 1219 -1223 (Final), USITC Pub. No. 4489 (Sep. 2014) (“2014 Final Determinations”); and Oil Country Tubular Goods from India, Korea, Turkey, Ukraine, and Vietnam, Inv. Nos. 701-TA-499-500 and 731-TA-1215-1216, 1221-1223 (Review), USITC Pub. 5090 (Jul. 2020) (“2020 Reviews”). 25 See Petitions, Vol. I at 12-13. Petitioners state that this language was added to the scope “in an effort to avoid circumvention.” Answers to Staff Questions appended to Petitioners’ Postconf. Br. at 1, n.1. 26 CR/PR at I-14 and I-21. 27 CR/PR at I-19. 28 CR/PR at 1-19. 29 CR/PR at I-21. 9 B. Arguments of the Parties Petitioners’ Arguments. Petitioners argue that the Commission should define a single domestic like product coextensive with Commerce’s scope.30 They maintain that there are no clear dividing lines between the products within the scope, including between seamless and welded OCTG,31 and between unfinished and finished OCTG.32 Petitioners emphasize that in past OCTG investigations and reviews, involving scopes nearly identical to the scope in the current investigations,33 the Commission has found a single domestic like product coextensive with the scope.34 Respondents’ Arguments. Tenaris agrees with Petitioners’ definition of the domestic like product for purposes of the preliminary phase of these investigations.35 The other respondents do not address the issue. C. Analysis 1. Whether a Clear Line Divides Seamless and Welded OCTG Physical Characteristics and Uses. The record indicates that seamless and welded OCTG share basic physical characteristics,36 are both generally produced in accordance with API specification 5CT,37 and are both used in drilling for oil or natural gas.38 As the Commission has 30 Petitioners’ Postconf. Br. at 5-6; Answers to Staff Questions appended to Petitioners’ Postconf. Br at 1-5. 31 Petitioners’ Postconf. Br. at 5-6; Answers to Staff Questions appended to Petitioners’ Postconf. Br at 1-3; Tr. at 59-63 (Bruno and Tait). 32 Petitioners’ Postconf. Br. at 5-6; Answers to Staff Questions appended to Petitioners’ Postconf. Br at 4-5. 33 Petitioners state that the only difference between the current scope and past OCTG scopes is the inclusion of the anti-circumvention language previously discussed. See Answers to Staff Questions appended to Petitioners’ Postconf. Br at 1, n.1. 34 Answers to Staff Questions appended to Petitioners’ Postconf. Br at 1-2 (discussing, e.g., the 2014 Final Determinations and the 2020 Reviews). 35 Tr. at 165 (Spak) (“for … preliminary purposes, we’re willing to take the like product as one like product … for the purposes of the prelim, we’re not going to contest that there’s one like product.”). 36 CR/PR at Figure I-4 (showing seamless product) and Figure I-5 (showing welded product); Answers to Staff Questions appended to Petitioners’ Postconf. Br at 2; Tr. at 59 (Buono). 37 CR/PR at 1-19; Answers to Staff Questions appended to Petitioners’ Postconf. Br at 1; Tr. at 56 (Buono) (“We all produce {to} the same API performance properties and certifications …”). 10 recognized in prior OCTG investigations, the principal physical difference between seamless and welded OCTG is the “weld line,” which is present in welded but not seamless OCTG.39 Manufacturing Facilities, Production Processes and Employees. U.S. mills produce seamless and welded OCTG on separate production lines.40 While some firms make both products,41 others specialize in one or the other.42 Seamless OCTG is produced from steel billets that are either pierced or extruded to form a central cavity. Welded OCTG is produced from steel sheet in coil form (referred to as “hot-rolled coil” or “HRC”) that is rolled and the edges of which are heated and welded together to form a hollow shell.43 The welded OCTG production process, known as the electric-resistance-welding (“ERW”) process, entails lower production costs than the seamless OCTG production process.44 Although the processes for the initial production of unfinished seamless and welded OCTG are different, the processes for heat treating and otherwise finishing these products are the same.45 Channels of Distribution. During the January 2018 - June 2021 period of investigation (“POI”), domestically produced OCTG of all types was primarily sold to ***, with nearly all the remainder sold to ***.46 Interchangeability. In past OCTG investigations the Commission has determined that, although there are certain more demanding applications in which only seamless and not welded OCTG can be used, the two products are nonetheless largely interchangeable.47 Nothing in the current record suggests that the characteristics or uses of seamless and welded (…Continued) 38 CR/PR at I-14; Answers to Staff Questions appended to Petitioners’ Postconf. Br at 2; Tr. at 146 (Curá) (“demand for OCTG derives from oil and gas production”). 39 2013 Preliminary Determinations at 9. Nothing in the current investigations indicates that this has changed. 40 CR/PR at I-21-22, Figure I-4 (showing seamless production process), and Figure I-5 (showing welded production process); Answers to Staff Questions appended to Petitioners’ Postconf. Br at 3. There is no information on the record on whether seamless and welded OCTG are produced in the same manufacturing facilities. 41 Tr. at 59 (Buono) (“we … make seamless and ERW {i.e., welded} pipe.”). 42 Answers to Staff Questions appended to Petitioners’ Postconf. Br at 2. 43 CR/PR at I-22. 44 CR/PR at I-21. 45 CR/PR at I-25-27; Answers to Staff Questions appended to Petitioners’ Postconf. Br at 3; Tr. at 59 (Buono) (“Once that {welded or seamless} shell has been created, there are basically no differences in the finishing of that product.”). 46 CR/PR at Table II-1; Answers to Staff Questions appended to Petitioners’ Postconf. Br at 3; Tr. at 33 (Johnson) (“the U.S. industry goes to market … through distributors.”). 47 See, e.g., 2013 Preliminary Determinations at 10 (“There is a large degree of interchangeability between the two products, although welded OCTG cannot be used in certain demanding applications.”). 11 OCTG have changed since these prior investigations such that a different conclusion is warranted.48 In fact, parties to the current investigations indicate that welded and seamless OCTG remain largely interchangeable, although they disagree as to the degree.49 Producer and Customer Perceptions. At the conference, producer and customer witnesses for the Petitioners testified that they view welded and seamless OCTG as interchangeable,50 while producer and customer witnesses for Tenaris testified that certain demanding applications require seamless OCTG.51 Price. Conference testimony indicates that, while seamless OCTG is generally more expensive than welded OCTG,52 the difference in the prices for these products diminished over 48 See CR/PR at I-14-29. Similar to past investigations, the current record reflects that “{b}oth seamless OCTG and welded OCTG are used in drilling and conveyance applications, although seamless OCTG generally is required for use in high-pressure or sour service environments.” Id. at I-14. A “sour service” well contains hydrogen sulfide gas which can potentially result in sulfide stress cracking in the welded seam of welded OCTG. Id. 49 An industry witness for the Petitioners, while acknowledging that there are certain applications that require seamless OCTG, nonetheless estimated that welded OCTG can be used in 99 percent of the applications in which seamless OCTG is normally used. See Tr. at 60-61 (Buono). While Tenaris disputes Petitioners’ estimation of a 99-percent overlap in end-use applications, and contends that there are “important limitations” on the interchangeability of welded and seamless OCTG, it does not dispute that welded OCTG is interchangeable with seamless OCTG in less-demanding applications, or that seamless OCTG is interchangeable with welded OCTG in all applications. See Tr. at 161 (Curá) (Tenaris executive characterized this estimation as a “misrepresentation”); Answers to Staff Questions appended to Tenaris’ Postconf. Br at Question 2. We also note that, while Tenaris in its postconference brief emphasizes customer testimony and reporting indicating ***, Tenaris does not argue or suggest that these customer testimony and reporting establish that welded and seamless OCTG cannot be used interchangeably in other applications. See Answers to Staff Questions appended to Tenaris’ Postconf. Br at Question 2 (highlighting the conference testimony of rig operator Tap Rock’s representative, as well as the customer report provided by Tenaris at Exhibit 11 to its postconf. brief). We further note that respondent TMK, in its postconference brief, expressly states that seamless and welded OCTG are interchangeable. See TMK’s Postconf. Br. at 11 (“… seamless and welded OCTG are considered interchangeable in their end-use …”). 50 See, e.g., Tr. 46 (Edwards) and 60 (Buono). 51 See, e.g., Tr. 152 (Lange) (representative of rig operator customer testifying that this operator “requires seamless casing for all its production and deep intermediate sections because it is a higher quality product that is more resistant to corrosion.”); Tr. at 161 (Curá) (producer testifying that “very few, if anybody, would dare to use welded pipe on a highly corrosive environment or also in a high- pressure environment.”). As discussed, Tenaris in its postconference brief provided additional statements from customers regarding ***. See Exhibit 11 to Tenaris’ Postconf. Br. 52 Tr. at 62 (Tait) (“ERW {i.e., welded OCTG} in general is sold at a little bit lower price than seamless.”). 12 the POI.53 Consistent with this testimony, quarterly pricing data on the record does not clearly show that domestically produced seamless OCTG was higher-priced than domestically produced welded OCTG, with domestic welded pricing products achieving higher prices than domestic seamless pricing products in some quarters.54 Conclusion. Seamless and welded OCTG share basic physical characteristics and are both used in oil and gas wells. While the processes used in the initial tube formation for seamless and welded OCTG differ, the processes used in finishing them are the same. They share identical channels of distribution. Although seamless OCTG may be required for certain more demanding applications, seamless and welded OCTG are otherwise interchangeable in a large number of applications, as reflected by producer and customer perceptions. Finally, the record indicates that the traditional price premium for seamless OCTG relative to welded OCTG diminished over the POI. In light of the preponderance of similarities between seamless and welded OCTG, and in the absence of any contrary argument, we define seamless and welded OCTG as a single domestic like product. 2. Whether a Clear Line Divides Unfinished OCTG from Finished OCTG The scope includes both unfinished and finished OCTG. OCTG that “are not heat treated (e.g., green tube) or are not at their final grade (i.e., upgradeable)” are considered unfinished, while OCTG that “are heat treated or are at their final grade” are considered finished.55 Because the question of whether unfinished OCTG should be treated as a separate like product from finished OCTG involves a comparison of articles at different stages of processing, we analyze this issue using the semi-finished product analysis.56 53 See Tr. at 62 (Buono) (“… in markets like we've experienced in 2019, 2020, and 2021, you know, all prices tended to get to the same low point. There is no ability to get a premium for a seamless versus an ERW product.”). 54 CR/PR at Tables V-6-11. 55 Producer Questionnaires at V-1. 56 In a semi-finished products analysis, the Commission examines the following: (1) the significance and extent of the processes used to transform the upstream into the downstream articles; (2) whether the upstream article is dedicated to the production of the downstream article or has independent uses; (3) differences in the physical characteristics and functions of the upstream and downstream articles; (4) whether there are perceived to be separate markets for the upstream and downstream articles; and (5) differences in the costs or value of the vertically differentiated articles. See, e.g., Fluid End Blocks from China, Germany, India, and Italy, Inv. Nos. 701-TA-632–635 and 731-TA- 1466–1468 (Preliminary), USITC Pub. 5017 (Feb. 2020) at 10–12; Steel Trailer Wheels from China, Inv. Nos. 701-TA-609 and 731-TA-1421 (Preliminary), USITC Pub. 4830 (Oct. 2018) at 8–10; Glycine from (Continued…) 13 Dedication for Use. All responding U.S. producers reported that unfinished OCTG is dedicated to the production of finished OCTG.57 Separate Markets. All but one domestic producer reported that there is no separate market for unfinished OCTG that is distinct from the market for finished OCTG.58 Responding domestic producers generally reported that unfinished OCTG must be finished, through heat treating and threading, prior to sale.59 Differences in Physical Characteristics and Functions of the Upstream and Downstream Articles. Unfinished OCTG is produced to a customer’s specifications, typically meeting certain basic API requirements such as those for diameter and wall thickness, so that the unfinished OCTG can be converted into the required finished OCTG product.60 Thus, the specific characteristics of the unfinished OCTG impart essential characteristics to the finished OCTG. Nevertheless, all but one domestic producer reported that there are differences in the physical characteristics of unfinished OCTG and finished OCTG.61 In describing these differences, domestic producers ***.62 Differences in the Costs or Value. All responding domestic producers reported that there are differences in the costs of unfinished and finished OCTG.63 In explaining the higher cost of finished OCTG relative to unfinished OCTG, domestic producers ***.64 Significance and Extent of Processes Used to Transform Upstream Product into Downstream Product. All but one responding U.S. producer described the processes used to transform unfinished OCTG into finished OCTG as labor or capital intensive.65 In explaining the significance of the operations required to transform unfinished OCTG into finished OCTG, responding domestic producers ***.66 Conclusion. Most domestic producers reported that unfinished OCTG is dedicated to the production of finished OCTG and that there is no separate market for unfinished OCTG. (…Continued) India, Japan, and Korea, Inv. Nos. 731-TA-1111-1113 (Preliminary), USITC Pub. No. 3921 at 7 (May 2007); Artists' Canvas from China, Inv. No. 731-TA-1091 (Final), USITC Pub. No. 3853 at 6 (May 2006). 57 CR/PR at Table E-1. 58 CR/PR at Table E-1. 59 CR/PR at Table E-2. 60 CR/PR at I-20. 61 CR/PR at Table E-1. 62 CR/PR at Table E-2. 63 CR/PR at Table E-1. 64 CR/PR at Table E-2. 65 CR/PR at Table E-1. 66 CR/PR at Table E-2. 14 Further, the record also shows that unfinished OCTG imparts essential physical characteristics to finished OCTG. On the other hand, most domestic producers reported that there are differences in the costs and physical characteristics of unfinished and finished OCTG, and that the process of transforming the former into the latter is capital and labor intensive. On balance, based on the record of the preliminary phase of the investigations, and in the absence of any contrary argument, we define unfinished and finished OCTG as a single domestic like product. In sum, we define a single domestic like product consisting of all domestically produced OCTG, coextensive with the scope, for purposes of the preliminary phase of the investigations. IV. Domestic Industry The domestic industry is defined as the domestic “producers as a whole of a domestic like product, or those producers whose collective output of a domestic like product constitutes a major proportion of the total domestic production of the product.”67 In defining the domestic industry, the Commission’s general practice has been to include in the industry producers of all domestic production of the like product, whether toll-produced, captively consumed, or sold in the domestic merchant market. These investigations raise two domestic industry issues. The first concerns whether processors, which heat treat unfinished OCTG to produce finished OCTG,68 on a tolling or non- tolling basis,69 engage in sufficient production-related activities to qualify as domestic producers. The second concerns whether appropriate circumstances exist to exclude any domestic producers from the domestic industry pursuant to the related parties provision. 67 19 U.S.C. § 1677(4)(A). 68 After OCTG pipe is formed through the mill process, the pipe body can be heat treated as part of its finishing phase. CR/PR at I-25. Heat treatment enhances particular physical characteristics, including yield and tensile strengths. Id. at I-20. Generally, as the depth and pressure in a well increases, heat treated OCTG would be required because of its higher strength. Id. The various forms of heat treatment include annealing, normalizing, quenching, and tempering. Id. at I-25. 69 In a tolling arrangement, the tollee provides the input material (retaining title to the input) to the toller. CR/PR at VI-30. The toller, in turn, processes the input to the desired form and quality. Id. In the case of OCTG, the toll processing that is performed is typically that of heat-treating unfinished OCTG (green tube) to its final API grade. Id. 15 A. Sufficient Production-Related Activities In deciding whether a firm qualifies as a domestic producer of the domestic like product, the Commission generally analyzes the overall nature of a firm’s U.S. production- related activities, although production-related activity at minimum levels could be insufficient to constitute domestic production.70 1. Arguments of the Parties Petitioners’ Arguments. Petitioners state that “for purposes of the preliminary phase of these investigations, Petitioners take the position that OCTG is produced by a domestic industry comprised of all U.S. mills and processors engaged in heat treatment.”71 Petitioners acknowledge that in prior OCTG investigations, the Commission has “expressly addressed” this issue, and has concluded that domestic heat treaters engage in sufficient production-related activities to be considered part of the domestic industry.72 Respondents’ Arguments. Tenaris indicated at the conference that it agrees for purposes of the preliminary phase with the inclusion of heat treaters in the domestic industry.73 The other respondents do not address the issue. 2. Analysis In prior OCTG investigations involving scopes that were nearly identical to the scope of the current investigations, the Commission determined that processors that heat treated unfinished OCTG engaged in sufficient production-related activities to qualify as domestic 70 The Commission generally considers six factors: (1) source and extent of the firm’s capital investment; (2) technical expertise involved in U.S. production activities; (3) value added to the product in the United States; (4) employment levels; (5) quantity and type of parts sourced in the United States; and (6) any other costs and activities in the United States directly leading to production of the like product. No single factor is determinative and the Commission may consider any other factors it deems relevant in light of the specific facts of any investigation. Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Cells and Modules from China, Inv. Nos. 701-TA-481 and 731-TA-1190 (Final), USITC Pub. 4360 at 12-13 (Nov. 2012), aff’d, 100 F. Supp. 3d 1314 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2015), aff’d, 879 F .3d 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2018). 71 Petitioners’ Postconf. Br. at 5. 72 Answers to Staff Questions appended to Petitioners’ Postconf. Br at 6-7 (citing, e.g., the 2014 Final Determinations). 73 Tr. at 180 (Spak) (“We know that in the past the processors have been part of the U.S. industry … we’re fine with that also for the prelim.”). 16 producers.74 As discussed below, the record of the preliminary phase of the current investigations provides no basis for treating processors differently than U.S. mills. Source and extent of the firm’s capital investment. U.S. non-toll processors’ capital investments ranged from $*** during the 2018-2020 period, and U.S. toll processors’ capital investments ranged from $*** during this period.75 U.S. mills’ capital investments ranged from $*** over the period.76 Technical expertise involved. All responding heat treaters rated the complexity of their operations as either *** on a 1-5 scale, with 1 being the least complex and 5 being the most complex.77 Heat treater *** reported that its activities involve “***.78 It also reported that its production operations ***.79 Heat treater *** reported that its activities require it to ***.80 Nevertheless, the hourly wages paid to production-related workers (“PRWs”) at processors over the POI were *** than the hourly wages paid to PRWs at U.S. mills over this period.81 Value added to the product in the United States. The value added by U.S. non-toll processors ranged from *** percent, and the value added by U.S. toll processors ranged from *** percent.82 The value added by U.S. mills ranged from *** percent.83 Responding domestic producers generally emphasized the ***.84 74 2013 Preliminary Determinations at 13-14; 2014 Final Determinations at 12-14. 75 CR/PR at Table III-7. Due to the way data were reported, the capital investments of non-toll processors reflect the data of ***. Id. at Note to Table III-7. 76 CR/PR at Table III-7. A portion of U.S. mills’ capital investments may in fact be capital investments in heat treatment operations, as many of the responding mills are integrated producers engaged in both tube forming and heat treatment. Id. at Note to Table III-6. See also CR/PR at Table IV- 8 (*** percent of U.S. mill shipments in 2020 were finished). 77 CR/PR at Tables III-6. The note to Table III-6 identifies *** as the responding processors. *** rated the complexity of its operations a ***; *** rated the complexity of its operations a ***; *** rated the complexity of its operations a ***; and *** did not provide a rating of the complexity of its operations. CR/PR at Table III-6. 78 CR/PR at Table G-9. 79 CR/PR at Table G-9. 80 CR/PR at Table G-7. 81 Hourly wages paid to PRWs at U.S. toll processors were $*** in 2018, $*** in 2019, and $*** in 2020; they were $*** in January-June (“interim”) 2020, and $*** in interim 2021. CR/PR at Table III- 31. Hourly wages paid to PRWs at U.S. non-toll processors were $*** in 2018, $*** in 2019, and $*** in 2020; they were $*** in interim 2020 and $*** in interim 2021. Id. at Table III-30. Hourly wages paid to PRWs at U.S. mills were $33.96 in 2018, $35.89 in 2019, and $39.48 in 2020; they were $40.26 in interim 2020, and $37.80 in interim 2021. Id. at Table III-29. 82 CR/PR at Table III-7. 83 CR/PR at Table III-7. The value added that was reported by U.S. mills likely includes the value added by heat treatment, as many of the responding mills are integrated producers engaged in both (Continued…) 17 Employment levels. The number of PRWs employed by non-toll processors was *** in 2018, *** in 2019, and *** in 2020; it was *** in interim 2021, compared to *** in interim 2020.85 The number of PRWs employed by toll processors was *** in 2018, *** in 2019, and *** in 2020; it was *** in interim 2021, compared to *** in interim 2020.86 The number of PRWs employed by U.S. mills was 6,269 in 2018, 6,468 in 2019, and 3,481 in 2020; it was 3,147 in interim 2021, compared to 4,628 in interim 2020.87 Quantity and type of parts sourced in the United States. The value of U.S. non-toll processors’ domestically sourced raw materials ranged from $*** from 2018 to 2020, and the value of U.S. toll processors’ domestically-sourced raw materials ranged from $*** over this period.88 While the range of raw material values reported by U.S. mills was ***,89 the extent to which these raw materials were sourced in the United States is unclear.90 Conclusion. We find for purposes of the preliminary phase of these investigations that heat treaters engage in sufficient production-related activities to be considered domestic producers. While the hourly wages paid to PRWs by heat treaters were *** than the hourly wages paid to PRWs by mills, heat treaters still rated their production-related activities as highly complex, indicating that heat treatment operations require a significant degree of technical expertise. Likewise, processors reported substantial levels of capital investment and employment, and that the value added by their heat treatment operations was significant, ranging from *** to *** percent. Although U.S. mills reported higher capital investment, employment, and value added, several of the responding mills are integrated producers with their own heat treatment operations, which would account for a portion of their reported capital investments, employment, and value added. Finally, processors, including both toll and non-toll heat treaters, reported that the value of their domestically sourced raw materials was (…Continued) tube forming and heat treatment. Id. at Note to Table III-6. See also CR/PR at Table IV-8 (*** percent of U.S. mill shipments in 2020 were finished). 84 CR/PR at Table E-2. 85 CR/PR at Table III-30. 86 CR/PR at Table III-31. 87 CR/PR at Table III-29. A portion of the PRWs employed by U.S. mills may be employed in heat treatment activities, as many of the responding mills are integrated producers engaged in both tube forming and heat treatment. Id. at Note to Table III-6. See also CR/PR at Table IV-8 (*** percent of U.S. mill shipments in 2020 were finished). 88 CR/PR at Table III-7. 89 The value of U.S. mills’ reported raw materials ranged from $*** for 2018-2020. CR/PR at III-7. 90 See CR/PR at Note to Table III-7 (stating that the range of values for US. mills’ raw material costs presented in the Table “assume that all reported raw materials are domestic.” (emphasis added)). 18 substantial. Based on these considerations, and in the absence of any contrary argument, we find for purposes of the preliminary phase that heat treaters engage in sufficient production- related activities to constitute part of the domestic industry. B. Related Parties We must also determine whether any producer of the domestic like product should be excluded from the domestic industry pursuant to Section 771(4)(B) of the Tariff Act. This provision allows the Commission, if appropriate circumstances exist, to exclude from the domestic industry producers that are related to an exporter or importer of subject merchandise or which are themselves importers.91 Exclusion of such a producer is within the Commission’s discretion based upon the facts presented in each investigation.92 Based on the record of the preliminary phase of the investigations, four U.S. producers (***) are subject to possible exclusion from the domestic industry under the related parties provision because they each imported subject merchandise during the POI.93 Three of these four firms, *** are additionally subject to possible exclusion under the related parties provision because they are related to exporters or importers of subject merchandise through common ownership and control.94 95 91 See Torrington Co. v. United States, 790 F. Supp. 1161, 1168 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1992), aff’d without opinion, 991 F.2d 809 (Fed. Cir. 1993); Sandvik AB v. United States, 721 F. Supp. 1322, 1331-32 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1989), aff’d mem., 904 F.2d 46 (Fed. Cir. 1990); Empire Plow Co. v. United States, 675 F. Supp. 1348, 1352 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1987). 92 The primary factors the Commission has examined in deciding whether appropriate circumstances exist to exclude a related party include the following: (1) the percentage of domestic production attributable to the importing producer; (2) the reason the U.S. producer has decided to import the product subject to investigation (whether the firm benefits from the LTFV sales or subsidies or whether the firm must import in order to enable it to continue production and compete in the U.S. market); (3) whether inclusion or exclusion of the related party will skew the data for the rest of the industry; (4) the ratio of import shipments to U.S. production for the imported product; and (5) whether the primary interest of the importing producer lies in domestic production or importation. Changzhou Trina Solar Energy Co. v. USITC, 100 F. Supp.3d 1314, 1326-31 (Ct. Int’l. Trade 2015), aff’d, 879 F.3d 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2018); see also Torrington Co. v. United States, 790 F. Supp. at 1168. 93 CR/PR at III-6. ***. 94 *** is a sister company of *** and ***, both of which export subject merchandise to the United States. See CR at Table III-4; *** foreign producer questionnaire response, EDIS Doc. ***, at I-4; *** foreign producer questionnaire response, EDIS Doc. ***, at I-4. *** is affiliated through the *** with ***, which exports subject merchandise to the United States, and with ***. See CR/PR at Table III- (Continued…) 19 1. Arguments of the Parties Petitioners’ Arguments. While Petitioners identify SeAH Steel and Tenaris USA as related parties, they do not argue for either firm’s exclusion from the domestic industry.96 Nevertheless, Petitioners caution that the Commission should consider their place in the domestic industry “with skepticism,” arguing that “SeAH’s ***,” and that “***.”97 Respondents’ Arguments. The respondents do not address the issue. 2. Analysis We discuss below for each of the related party producers whether appropriate circumstances exist to exclude it from the domestic industry. ***. *** accounted for *** percent of U.S. mill production in 2020, making it the *** largest domestic producer of OCTG.98 It *** the petitions.99 *** imports of subject merchandise were *** short tons in 2018 and *** short tons in 2019, with *** reported for the remainder of the POI.100 The ratio of its subject imports to U.S. mill production was *** percent in 2018, *** percent in 2019, and *** percent in 2020 and over the interim periods.101 *** indicated that ***.102 Given *** ratio of subject imports to U.S. production over the POI, its primary interest appears to be in domestic production. We find that appropriate circumstances do not exist to exclude *** from the domestic industry as a related party. (…Continued) 4; *** U.S. producer questionnaire response, EDIS Doc. ***, at I-6. *** is a member of the same corporate group as ***, which exports subject merchandise to the United States. See CR/PR at Table III- 4; *** U.S. producer questionnaire response, EDIS Doc. ***, at I-6. 95 An additional firm, ***, is also related to an importer of OCTG from a subject source. See CR/PR at Table III-3. However, the information available indicates that this importer only brings *** into the United States, articles explicitly excluded from the scope of the investigations. Id. 96 Petitioners’ Postconf. Br. at 9. Instead, Petitioners state that “the Commission may include {SeAH Steel and Tenaris USA} in the domestic industry when assessing injury.” Id. 97 Petioners’ Postconf. Br. at 9. 98 CR/PR at Table III-1. 99 CR/PR at Table III-1. 100 CR/PR at Table III-18. 101 CR/PR at Table III-8. 102 CR/PR at Table III-28. *** operating income to net sales ratio was *** than the industry average throughout the POI. CR/PR at Table VI-7. As a ratio to net sales, *** operating income was *** percent in 2018, *** percent in 2019, and *** percent in 2020; it was *** percent in interim 2020 and *** percent in interim 2021. Id. 20 ***. In 2019, the last year prior to ***, *** share of domestic mill production was *** percent, making it the *** largest domestic OCTG producer that year.103 ***.104 *** imports of subject merchandise were *** short tons in 2018 and *** short tons in 2019.105 The ratio of its subject imports to U.S. mill production was *** percent in 2018, and *** percent in 2019.106 During the 2018-2019 period in which ***, its primary interest appears to have been in domestic production, given its *** ratio of subject imports to U.S. production. We find that appropriate circumstances do not exist to exclude *** from the domestic industry as a related party. ***. *** accounted for *** percent of U.S. mill production in 2020, making it the *** largest domestic producer of OCTG.107 It ***.108 *** imports of subject merchandise were *** short tons in 2018, *** short tons in 2019, and *** short tons in 2020; they were *** short tons in interim 2021, compared to *** short tons in interim 2020.109 The ratio of its subject imports to U.S. mill production was *** percent in 2018, *** percent in 2019, and *** percent in 2020; it was *** percent in interim 2021, compared to *** percent in interim 2020.110 *** ratio of subject imports to domestic production, although ***, declined irregularly between 2018 and 2020. Moreover, *** increased its U.S. production of OCTG and made substantial capital expenditures in the United States during the POI, particularly in 2019,111 in order to ***.112 This suggests a commitment to domestic production. Although the question is a close one, for purposes of the preliminary phase, and in the absence of any arguments to the 103 CR/PR at Table III-8. 104 *** U.S. producer questionnaire response, EDIS Doc. ***, at I-4. 105 CR/PR at Table III-22. 106 CR/PR at Table III-22. *** did not report its reasons for importing subject merchandise. Id. at Table III-28 note. *** operating income to net sales ratio was *** than the industry average in 2018, and *** than the industry average in 2019. CR/PR at Table VI-7. As a ratio to net sales, *** operating income was *** percent in 2018 and *** percent in 2019. Id. 107 CR/PR at Table III-1. 108 *** U.S. producer questionnaire response, EDIS Doc. ***, at I-4. 109 CR/PR at Table III-24. *** did not report its reasons for importing subject merchandise. Id. at Table III-28 note. 110 CR/PR at Table III-24. *** operating income to net sales ratio was *** than the industry average in 2018, but *** in other periods. CR/PR at Table VI-7. As a ratio to net sales, *** operating income was *** percent in 2018, *** percent in 2019, and *** percent in 2020; it was *** percent in interim 2020 and *** percent in interim 2021. Id. 111 CR/PR at Table VI-15. *** capital expenditures were $*** in 2018, $*** in 2019, and $*** in 2020; they were $*** in interim 2020 and $*** in interim 2021. Id. 112 CR/PR at Table VI-16. 21 contrary, we find that appropriate circumstances do not exist to exclude *** from the domestic industry. ***. *** accounted for *** percent of U.S. mill production in 2020, making it the *** largest domestic producer of OCTG.113 ***.114 *** imports of subject merchandise were *** short tons in 2018, *** short tons in 2019, and *** short tons in 2020; they were *** short tons in interim 2021, compared to *** short tons in interim 2020.115 The ratio of its subject imports to its U.S. mill production was *** percent in 2018, *** percent in 2019, and *** percent in 2020; it was *** percent in interim 2021, compared to *** percent in interim 2020.116 *** indicated that ***.117 *** ratio of subject imports to domestic production, though initially ***, declined substantially between 2018 and 2020. Furthermore, *** ranks among the largest domestic OCTG producers, and made *** capital expenditures in the United States throughout the POI, including by ***.118 This reflects a commitment to domestic production. We find that appropriate circumstances do not exist to exclude *** from the domestic industry as a related party. In sum, we find that appropriate circumstances do not exist to exclude *** from the domestic industry for purposes of the preliminary phase of the investigations. Accordingly, based on our definition of the domestic like product, we define the domestic industry to include all U.S. producers of OCTG. 113 CR/PR at Table III-1. 114 *** U.S. producer questionnaire response, EDIS Doc. ***, at I-4. 115 CR/PR at Table III-25. 116 CR/PR at Table III-25. 117 CR/PR at Table III-28. *** operating income to net sales ratio was *** than the industry average throughout the POI. CR/PR at Table VI-7. As a ratio to net sales, *** operating income was *** percent in 2018, *** percent in 2019, and *** percent in 2020; it was *** percent in interim 2020 and *** percent in interim 2021. Id. 118 CR/PR at Table VI-16. *** capital expenditures were $*** in 2018, $*** in 2019, and $*** in 2020; they were $*** in interim 2020 and $*** in interim 2021. Id. at Table VI-15. 22 V. Cumulation119 For purposes of evaluating the volume and effects for a determination of material injury by reason of subject imports, section 771(7)(G)(i) of the Tariff Act requires the Commission to cumulate subject imports from all countries as to which petitions were filed and/or investigations self-initiated by Commerce on the same day, if such imports compete with each other and with the domestic like product in the U.S. market. In assessing whether subject imports compete with each other and with the domestic like product, the Commission generally has considered four factors: (1) the degree of fungibility between subject imports from different countries and between subject imports and the domestic like product, including consideration of specific customer requirements and other quality related questions; (2) the presence of sales or offers to sell in the same geographic markets of subject imports from different countries and the domestic like product; (3) the existence of common or similar channels of distribution for subject imports from different countries and the domestic like product; and (4) whether the subject imports are simultaneously present in the market.120 While no single factor is necessarily determinative, and the list of factors is not exclusive, these factors are intended to provide the Commission with a framework for 119 Pursuant to Section 771(24) of the Tariff Act, imports from a subject country of merchandise corresponding to a domestic like product that account for less than 3 percent of all such merchandise imported into the United States during the most recent 12 months for which data are available preceding the filing of the petition shall be deemed negligible. 19 U.S.C. §§ 1671b(a), 1673b(a), 1677(24)(A)(i), 1677(24)(B). During the 12-month period (October 2020 through September 2021) preceding the filing of the petitions, subject imports from Argentina accounted for 8.4 percent of total U.S. imports of OCTG, subject imports from Mexico for 18.7 percent, subject imports from Russia (for both the countervailing and antidumping duty investigations) for 7.1 percent, and subject imports from South Korea for 31.2 percent. CR/PR at Table IV-6. As imports for each subject investigation exceed the statutory negligibility threshold, we find that subject imports for each of the subject investigations are not negligible. 120 See Certain Cast-Iron Pipe Fittings from Brazil, the Republic of Korea, and Taiwan, Inv. Nos. 731-TA-278-280 (Final), USITC Pub. 1845 (May 1986), aff’d, Fundicao Tupy, S.A. v. United States, 678 F. Supp. 898 (Ct. Int’l Trade), aff’d, 859 F.2d 915 (Fed. Cir. 1988). 23 determining whether the subject imports compete with each other and with the domestic like product.121 Only a “reasonable overlap” of competition is required.122 A. Arguments of the Parties Petitioners’ Arguments. Petitioners argue that the Commission should cumulate subject imports because the petitions were filed on the same day and there is a reasonable overlap of competition between and among subject imports from each source and the domestic like product.123 In this regard, Petitioners argue that subject imports from each source are fungible with both each other and the domestic like product, claiming that the record supports the Commission’s recognition in prior investigations “that welded and seamless OCTG are interchangeable.”124 Petitioners also argue that subject imports from each source and the domestic like product are sold in the same channels of distribution, ***,125 overlap geographically,126 and were simultaneously present in the U.S. market.127 Respondents’ Arguments. Tenaris argues that subject imports from South Korea should not be cumulated with subject imports from Argentina and Mexico.128 It contends that, while subject imports from South Korea are largely welded OCTG sold to distributors, subject imports from Argentina and Mexico are largely seamless OCTG sold to end users.129 Tenaris likewise argues that subject imports from South Korea should not be cumulated with subject imports from Russia because subject imports from Russia compete in a similar manner as subject imports from Argentina and Mexico ***.130 TMK makes two arguments against the cumulation of subject imports from South Korea with imports from other subject countries. First, TMK argues that the 19 U.S.C. § 121 See, e.g., Wieland Werke, AG v. United States, 718 F. Supp. 50 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1989). 122 The Statement of Administrative Action (SAA) to the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA), expressly states that “the new section will not affect current Commission practice under which the statutory requirement is satisfied if there is a reasonable overlap of competition.” H.R. Rep. No. 103- 316, Vol. I at 848 (1994) (citing Fundicao Tupy, S.A. v. United States, 678 F. Supp. at 902; see Goss Graphic Sys., Inc. v. United States, 33 F. Supp. 2d 1082, 1087 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1998) (“cumulation does not require two products to be highly fungible”); Wieland Werke, AG, 718 F. Supp. at 52 (“Completely overlapping markets are not required.”). 123 Petitioners’ Postconf. Br. at 6-11. 124 Petitioners’ Postconf. Br. at 8-9. 125 Petitioners’ Postconf. Br. at 10. 126 Petitioners’ Postconf. Br. at 10. 127 Petitioners’ Postconf. Br. at 11. 128 Tenaris’ Postconf. Br. at 18-21. 129 Tenaris’ Postconf. Br. at 18-21. 130 Tenaris’ Postconf. Br. at 22. 24 1677(7)(G)(i)(I) threshold requirement for the cumulation of subject imports from South Korea with the other subject imports has not been met because the antidumping duty petition concerning OCTG from South Korea was filed “years earlier.”131 Second, TMK argues that even if the Commission determines the threshold requirement to be satisfied, it still should not cumulate subject imports from South Korea with the other subject imports because subject imports from Korea are subject to an antidumping duty order and consisted primarily of welded OCTG, which were affected by the “skyrocketing” cost of HRC, whereas other subject imports consisted primarily of seamless OCTG.132 B. Analysis and Conclusion We consider subject imports from Argentina, Mexico, Russia, and South Korea on a cumulated basis because the statutory criteria for cumulation are satisfied,133 and the record reflects a reasonable overlap of competition between and among subject imports from each source and the domestic like product. Threshold Requirement. The statutory threshold for cumulation is satisfied because the antidumping duty petitions concerning OCTG from Argentina, Mexico, and Russia, and the countervailing duty petitions concerning OCTG from Russia and South Korea, were all filed on the same day, October 6, 2021. Contrary to TMK’s argument, the prior antidumping duty petition concerning OCTG from South Korea, filed in 2013, is irrelevant to the Commission’s analysis of whether the petitions relating to the current investigations were filed on the same day.134 As the threshold requirement is satisfied, we proceed to examine whether there is a reasonable overlap of competition between and among subject imports from each source and the domestic like product. Fungibility. Substantial majorities of responding producers and importers, when comparing the domestic like product with imports of OCTG from each subject country and when comparing imports from the subject countries with each other, reported that these 131 TMK’s Postconf. Br. at 22. The antidumping duty petition concerning OCTG from South Korea was filed in 2013. See Certain Oil Country Tubular Goods from India, Korea, Philippines, Saudi Arabia, Taiwan, Thailand, Turkey, Ukraine, and Vietnam; Scheduling of the Final Phase of Countervailing Duty and Antidumping Investigations, 79 Fed. Reg. 19122 (Apr. 7, 2014). 132 TMK’s Postconf. Br. at 6. The antidumping duty order on OCTG from South Korea was recently continued. See Oil Country Tubular Goods from India, the Republic of Korea, the Republic of Turkey, Ukraine, and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Continuation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Orders, 85 Fed. Reg. 48665 (Aug. 12, 2020). 133 None of the statutory exceptions to cumulation applies. 134 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(G)(i)(I). 25 products are always or frequently interchangeable.135 Likewise, substantial majorities of producers and importers reported that factors other than price are only sometimes or never significant in customers’ purchasing decisions when choosing between and among imports from each subject country and the domestic like product.136 Moreover, OCTG, regardless of source, is generally produced in accordance with API standards.137 We also note that in 2020, imports from each subject country and the domestic like product consisted of both welded and seamless OCTG and both finished and unfinished OCTG, with the exception that there were no imports of welded OCTG from Argentina that year.138 We are unpersuaded by Tenaris’ argument that subject imports from South Korea are not fungible with other subject imports. The vast majority of responding producers and importers, when comparing subject imports from South Korea with the subject imports from the other subject countries, reported that these imports are always or frequently interchangeable with one another.139 Furthermore, the vast majority of responding producers and importers also reported that differences other than price are only sometimes or never significant in customers’ purchasing decisions when choosing between subject imports from South Korea and subject imports from other countries.140 Although subject imports from South Korea primarily comprise welded OCTG, whereas subject imports from other countries primarily comprise seamless OCTG,141 the record shows that these differences do not limit the fungibility between these subject imports. Welded OCTG accounted for nearly half of subject imports from Russia in 2020, and an appreciable volume of 135 CR/PR at Tables II-12-13. 136 CR/PR at Tables II-14-15. 137 CR/PR at I-19. An exception is “limited service” OCTG, which is OCTG that does not meet API specifications, but which can still be used in certain OCTG applications. Id. at I-21. 138 CR/PR at Tables IV-7-8. 139 Specifically, in comparing subject imports from South Korea and Argentina, 9 of 10 producers and 10 of 13 importers reported that they are always or frequently interchangeable; in comparing subject imports from South Korea and Mexico, 9 of 10 producers and 9 of 13 importers reported that they are always or frequently interchangeable; and in comparing subject imports from South Korea and Russia, 10 of 10 producers and 12 of 14 importers reported that they are always or frequently interchangeable. See CR/PR at Tables II-12-13. 140 Specifically, in comparing subject imports from South Korea and Argentina, 7 of 8 producers and 9 of 11 importers reported that differences other than price are only sometimes or never significant; in comparing subject imports from South Korea and Mexico, 7 of 8 producers and 8 of 11 importers reported that differences other than price are only sometimes or never significant; and in comparing subject imports from South Korea and Russia, 8 of 8 producers and 11 of 12 importers reported that differences other than price are only sometimes or never significant. See CR/PR at Tables II-14-15.141 CR/PR at Table IV-7. 26 subject imports from Mexico as recently as 2018.142 Furthermore, while the parties disagree on the degree, they do not dispute that welded OCTG can be substituted for seamless OCTG in many applications, or that seamless OCTG can be substituted for welded OCTG in all applications.143 144 Channels of Distribution. Domestic producers primarily sold OCTG to *** over the POI while also selling a smaller amount to ***.145 Importers of subject merchandise from Russia and South Korea likewise primarily sold OCTG to *** while also selling a smaller amount to ***.146 Importers of subject merchandise from Argentina and Mexico primarily sold OCTG to *** while also selling a smaller amount to ***.147 Thus, the domestic like product and subject imports from each country source were sold to both *** and *** over the POI.148 Geographic Overlap. Domestically produced OCTG and subject imports from both Argentina and Mexico were sold throughout the United States over the POI.149 Subject imports from Russia were sold in the Northeast and Central Southwest regions, and subject imports from South Korea were sold in the Northeast, Midwest, Southeast, Central Southwest and Mountain regions.150 Simultaneous Presence in Market. The domestic like product and subject imports from all subject countries were simultaneously present in 36 of the 42 months of the January 2018 - June 2021 POI.151 142 CR/PR at Table IV-7 (Russia) and Table IV-5 (Mexico, 2018). 143 As discussed above, an industry witness for the Petitioners testified that welded OCTG can be used in 99 percent of applications in which seamless OCTG is normally used. Tr. at 61 (Buono). Tenaris, on the other hand, highlighted the testimony and statements of its customers indicating that seamless OCTG is needed for certain more demanding applications. Answers to Staff Questions appended to Tenaris’ Postconf. Br at Question 2; Ex. 11 to Tenaris’ Postconf. Br. 144 In recent determinations for five-year reviews of orders covering OCTG, the Commission found that, while subject imports from certain sources may primarily or exclusively consist of welded OCTG, and subject imports from other sources may primarily or exclusively consist of seamless OCTG, this “does not meaningfully limit . . . fungibility” between the imports. 2020 Reviews at 16. 145 CR/PR at Table II-1. 146 CR/PR at Table II-1. 147 CR/PR at Table II-1. 148 We are unpersuaded by Tenaris’ argument that subject imports from South Korea do not sufficiently share channels of distribution with subject imports from Argentina and Mexico. A *** share of subject imports from Mexico, and *** share of subject imports from Argentina, were sold to distributors, as were *** subject imports from South Korea. CR/PR at Table II-1. Furthermore, *** subject imports from Russia were sold to distributors. Id. 149 CR/PR at Table II-2. 150 CR/PR at Table II-2. 151 CR/PR at Table IV-10. 27 Conclusion. Subject imports from Argentina, Mexico, Russia, and South Korea are generally fungible both with each other and with the domestic like product. Subject imports from each country source and the domestic like product also overlap with respect to channels of distribution and geographic markets, particularly in the Northeast and Central Southwest regions. Finally, subject imports from each country source and the domestic like product were simultaneously present throughout almost the entire POI. In light of the foregoing, we find that there is a reasonable overlap of competition between and among the domestic like product and subject imports from each country source.152 We therefore cumulate subject imports from Argentina, Mexico, Russia, and South Korea for purposes of analyzing present material injury in the preliminary phase of these investigations.153 VI. Reasonable Indication of Material Injury by Reason of Subject Imports A. Legal Standard In the preliminary phase of antidumping and countervailing duty investigations, the Commission determines whether there is a reasonable indication that an industry in the United States is materially injured or threatened with material injury by reason of the import s under investigation.154 In making this determination, the Commission must consider the volume of subject imports, their effect on prices for the domestic like product, and their impact on domestic producers of the domestic like product, but only in the context of U.S. production operations.155 The statute defines “material injury” as “harm which is not inconsequential, 152 TMK’s argument that the Commission should not cumulate OCTG imports from South Korea because they are subject to antidumping duties while the other subject imports are not, and because the raw material costs for welded OCTG increased over the POI, is unpersuasive. TMK does not explain how these considerations could detract from a finding that there is a reasonable overlap of competition between the subject imports from South Korea and the other subject imports under the factors considered by the Commission. 153 Tenaris’ argument that subject imports from Russia should not be cumulated with subject imports from South Korea because subject imports from Russia compete in a similar manner as subject imports from Argentina and Mexico is unpersuasive. Tenaris’ Postconf. Br. at 22. As discussed, there is a reasonable overlap in competition between subject imports from Argentina and Mexico and subject imports from South Korea. 154 19 U.S.C. §§ 1671b(a), 1673b(a). 155 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(B). The Commission “may consider such other economic factors as are relevant to the determination” but shall “identify each {such} factor ... and explain in full its relevance to the determination.” 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(B). 28 immaterial, or unimportant.”156 In assessing whether there is a reasonable indication that the domestic industry is materially injured by reason of subject imports, we consider all relevant economic factors that bear on the state of the industry in the United States.157 No single factor is dispositive, and all relevant factors are considered “within the context of the business cycle and conditions of competition that are distinctive to the affected industry.”158 Although the statute requires the Commission to determine whether there is a reasonable indication that the domestic industry is “materially injured or threatened with material injury by reason of” unfairly traded imports,159 it does not define the phrase “by reason of,” indicating that this aspect of the injury analysis is left to the Commission’s reasonable exercise of its discretion.160 In identifying a causal link, if any, between subject imports and material injury to the domestic industry, the Commission examines the facts of record that relate to the significance of the volume and price effects of the subject imports and any impact of those imports on the condition of the domestic industry. This evaluation under the “by reason of” standard must ensure that subject imports are more than a minimal or tangential cause of injury and that there is a sufficient causal, not merely a temporal, nexus between subject imports and material injury.161 In many investigations, there are other economic factors at work, some or all of which may also be having adverse effects on the domestic industry. Such economic factors might include nonsubject imports; changes in technology, demand, or consumer tastes; competition among domestic producers; or management decisions by domestic producers. The legislative history explains that the Commission must examine factors other than subject imports to ensure that it is not attributing injury from other factors to the subject imports, thereby 156 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(A). 157 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(C)(iii). 158 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(C)(iii). 159 19 U.S.C. §§ 1671b(a), 1673b(a). 160 Angus Chemical Co. v. United States, 140 F.3d 1478, 1484-85 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (“{T}he statute does not ‘compel the commissioners’ to employ {a particular methodology}.”), aff’g, 944 F. Supp. 943, 951 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1996). 161 The Federal Circuit, in addressing the causation standard of the statute, observed that “{a}s long as its effects are not merely incidental, tangential, or trivial, the foreign product sold at less than fair value meets the causation requirement.” Nippon Steel Corp. v. USITC, 345 F.3d 1379, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 2003). This was further ratified in Mittal Steel Point Lisas Ltd. v. United States, 542 F.3d 867, 873 (Fed. Cir. 2008), where the Federal Circuit, quoting Gerald Metals, Inc. v. United States, 132 F.3d 716, 722 (Fed. Cir. 1997), stated that “this court requires evidence in the record ‘to show that the harm occurred “by reason of” the LTFV imports, not by reason of a minimal or tangential contribution to material harm caused by LTFV goods.’” See also Nippon Steel Corp. v. United States, 458 F.3d 1345, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2006); Taiwan Semiconductor Industry Ass’n v. USITC, 266 F.3d 1339, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2001). 29 inflating an otherwise tangential cause of injury into one that satisfies the statutory material injury threshold.162 In performing its examination, however, the Commission need not isolate the injury caused by other factors from injury caused by unfairly traded imports.163 Nor does the “by reason of” standard require that unfairly traded imports be the “principal” cause of injury or contemplate that injury from unfairly traded imports be weighed against other factors, such as nonsubject imports, which may be contributing to overall injury to an industry.164 It is clear that the existence of injury caused by other factors does not compel a negative determination.165 Assessment of whether material injury to the domestic industry is “by reason of” subject imports “does not require the Commission to address the causation issue in any particular way” as long as “the injury to the domestic industry can reasonably be attributed to the subject 162 SAA at 851-52 (“{T}he Commission must examine other factors to ensure that it is not attributing injury from other sources to the subject imports.”); S. Rep. 96-249 at 75 (1979) (the Commission “will consider information which indicates that harm is caused by factors other than less- than-fair-value imports.”); H.R. Rep. 96-317 at 47 (1979) (“in examining the overall injury being experienced by a domestic industry, the ITC will take into account evidence presented to it which demonstrates that the harm attributed by the petitioner to the subsidized or dumped imports is attributable to such other factors;” those factors include “the volume and prices of nonsubsidized imports or imports sold at fair value, contraction in demand or changes in patterns of consumption, trade restrictive practices of and competition between the foreign and domestic producers, developments in technology and the export performance and productivity of the domestic industry”); accord Mittal Steel, 542 F.3d at 877. 163 SAA at 851-52 (“{T}he Commission need not isolate the injury caused by other factors from injury caused by unfair imports.”); Taiwan Semiconductor Industry Ass’n, 266 F.3d at 1345 (“{T}he Commission need not isolate the injury caused by other factors from injury caused by unfair imports ... . Rather, the Commission must examine other factors to ensure that it is not attributing injury from other sources to the subject imports.” (emphasis in original)); Asociacion de Productores de Salmon y Trucha de Chile AG v. United States, 180 F. Supp. 2d 1360, 1375 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2002) (“{t}he Commission is not required to isolate the effects of subject imports from other factors contributing to injury” or make “bright-line distinctions” between the effects of subject imports and other causes.); see also Softwood Lumber from Canada, Inv. Nos. 701-TA-414 and 731-TA-928 (Remand), USITC Pub. 3658 at 100-01 (Dec. 2003) (Commission recognized that “{i}f an alleged other factor is found not to have or threaten to have injurious effects to the domestic industry, i.e., it is not an ‘other causal factor,’ then there is nothing to further examine regarding attribution to injury”), citing Gerald Metals, 132 F.3d at 722 (the statute “does not suggest that an importer of LTFV goods can escape countervailing duties by finding some tangential or minor cause unrelated to the LTFV goods that contributed to the harmful effects on domestic market prices.”). 164 S. Rep. 96-249 at 74-75; H.R. Rep. 96-317 at 47. 165 See Nippon Steel Corp., 345 F.3d at 1381 (“an affirmative material-injury determination under the statute requires no more than a substantial-factor showing. That is, the ‘dumping’ need not be the sole or principal cause of injury.”). 30 imports.”166 The Commission ensures that it has “evidence in the record” to “show that the harm occurred ‘by reason of’ the LTFV imports,” and that it is “not attributing injury from other sources to the subject imports.” 167 The Federal Circuit has examined and affirmed various Commission methodologies and has disavowed “rigid adherence to a specific formula.”168 The question of whether the material injury threshold for subject imports is satisfied notwithstanding any injury from other factors is factual, subject to review under the substantial evidence standard.169 Congress has delegated this factual finding to the Commission because of the agency’s institutional expertise in resolving injury issues.170 B. Conditions of Competition and the Business Cycle The following conditions of competition inform our analysis of whether there is a reasonable indication of material injury by reason of subject imports. 1. Demand Conditions Demand for OCTG is cyclical and largely driven by oil and natural gas activity.171 The active U.S. rig count, which is an indicator of OCTG demand in the United States,172 decreased 166 Mittal Steel, 542 F.3d at 876 &78; see also id. at 873 (“While the Commission may not enter an affirmative determination unless it finds that a domestic industry is materially injured ‘by reason of’ subject imports, the Commission is not required to follow a single methodology for making that determination ... {and has} broad discretion with respect to its choice of methodology.”) citing United States Steel Group v. United States, 96 F.3d 1352, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1996) and S. Rep. 96-249 at 75. In its decision in Swiff-Train v. United States, 793 F.3d 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2015), the Federal Circuit affirmed the Commission’s causation analysis as comporting with the Court’s guidance in Mittal. 167 Mittal Steel, 542 F.3d at 873 (quoting from Gerald Metals, 132 F.3d at 722), 877-79. We note that one relevant “other factor” may involve the presence of significant volumes of price-competitive nonsubject imports in the U.S. market, particularly when a commodity product is at issue. In appropriate cases, the Commission collects information regarding nonsubject imports and producers in nonsubject countries in order to conduct its analysis. 168 Nucor Corp. v. United States, 414 F.3d 1331, 1336, 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2005); see also Mittal Steel, 542 F.3d at 879 (“Bratsk did not read into the antidumping statute a Procrustean formula for determining whether a domestic injury was ‘by reason’ of subject imports.”). 169 We provide in our discussion below a full analysis of other factors alleged to have caused any material injury experienced by the domestic industry. 170 Mittal Steel, 542 F.3d at 873; Nippon Steel Corp., 458 F.3d at 1350, citing U.S. Steel Group, 96 F.3d at 1357; S. Rep. 96-249 at 75 (“The determination of the ITC with respect to causation is ... complex and difficult, and is a matter for the judgment of the ITC.”). 171 CR/PR at II-13 and II-17. 172 CR/PR at II-13. 31 from 2018 to an historic low in August 2020.173 After August 2020, the active U.S. rig count began to recover through the end of the POI, while remaining well below its 2018 levels.174 U.S. operational consumption (a measure of the tonnage of OCTG used) is another common indicator of OCTG demand in the United States. U.S. operational consumption followed the same trend as the active U.S. rig count, decreasing from 2018 to August 2020, and then recovering through the end of the POI, while remaining well below its 2018 levels.175 U.S. oil and gas prices also influence demand for OCTG in the United States.176 U.S. oil prices fell irregularly from January 2018 to a period low in April 2020, and then increased irregularly through the end of the POI.177 Similarly, U.S. natural gas prices fell irregularly from January 2018 to a period low in June 2020, and then increased irregularly through the end of the POI.178 Both Petitioners and Tenaris contend that OCTG demand in the United States, after previously declining during the POI, began to recover in late 2020 and continued to strengthen though interim 2021.179 Most responding U.S. producers and importers reported that U.S. demand for OCTG has decreased overall since January 1, 2018.180 Apparent U.S. consumption of OCTG decreased by 53.5 percent from 2018 to 2020, from 5.7 million short tons in 2018 to 5.3 million short tons in 2019 and 2.7 million short tons in 2020.181 It was 23.2 percent lower in interim 2021, at 1.4 million short tons, than in interim 2020, at 1.8 million short tons, but 76.9 percent higher than in the second half of 2020, at 802,522 short tons.182 173 CR/PR at II-13, Table II-6, and Figure II-2. 174 CR/PR at II-13, Table II-6, and Figure II-2. 175 CR/PR at II-15 and Table II-7. 176 CR/PR at III-9 n.5; Tr. at 27-28 (Buono). 177 CR/PR at Table E-1. On April 20, 2020, U.S. oil prices reached negative territory for the first time. See Petitions, Exhibit I-24 (“Free Fall: Oil Prices Go Negative,” NPR.org (Apr. 20, 2020)). 178 CR/PR at Table E-2. 179 Petitioners’ Postconf. Br. at 19 (“… demand signals began to turn positive late last year.”); Tenaris’ Postconf. Br. at 4 (”Since {third quarter 2020}, the market has changed dramatically: rig count, and with it OCTG demand, {is} increasing steadily.”). Both Petitioners and Tenaris cite the COVID-19 pandemic as contributing to the waning demand for OCTG. See Petitioners’ Postconf. Br. at 12; Tenaris’ Postconf. Br. at 3. Tenaris additionally cites the 2020 “OPEC/Russia oil supply war” as a contributing factor. See Tenaris’ Postconf. Br. at 3. 180 CR/PR at Table II-9. Responding firms generally cited the COVID-19 pandemic as contributing to this decrease in demand. Id. at III-9. 181 CR/PR at Tables IV-11 and C-1. 182 Derived from CR/PR at Tables IV-11 and C-1. Apparent U.S. consumption is calculated as the aggregation of U.S. mill shipments and U.S. imports. 32 2. Supply Conditions The domestic industry was the largest supplier of OCTG to the U.S. market over the POI. Its share of the U.S. market increased by 8.3 percentage points from 2018 to 2020, from 52.1 percent in 2018 to 56.7 percent in 2019 and 60.4 percent in 2020. Its market share in interim 2021 was 9.5 percentage points lower, at 50.6 percent, than its share in interim 2020, at 60.1 percent.183 The domestic industry produced ***.184 While several U.S. producers reported plant closings, shutdowns, and curtailments,185 only four of 12 responding U.S. producers reported experiencing any supply constraints since January 1, 2018.186 Cumulated subject imports were the second largest source of supply to the U.S. market in 2020 and interim 2021, and the third largest source in the remainder of the POI. Their share of apparent U.S. consumption decreased from 23.8 percent in 2018 to 19.8 percent in 2019, before increasing to 20.1 percent in 2020, a level 3.7 percentage points lower than in 2018. Their share of apparent U.S. consumption was 16.2 percentage points higher in interim 2021, at 34.1 percent, than in interim 2020, at 18.0 percent.187 Cumulated subject imports in 2020 comprised both welded and seamless OCTG.188 Nonsubject imports were the third largest source of supply to the U.S. market in 2020 and interim 2021, and the second large source in the remainder of the POI. Their share of apparent U.S. consumption decreased by 4.7 percentage points from 2018 to 2020, from 24.2 percent in 2018 to 23.5 percent in 2019 and 19.5 percent in 2020. Their share of apparent U.S. consumption was 6.7 percentage points lower in interim 2021, at 15.2 percent, than in interim 2020, at 22.0 percent.189 The largest country sources of nonsubject imports were Austria, Brazil, Canada, and Taiwan.190 183 CR/PR at Tables IV-12 and C-1. 184 CR/PR at Table III-9. 185 CR/PR at Table III-5. 186 CR/PR at II-10. 187 CR/PR at Tables IV-2 and C-1. 188 CR/PR at Table IV-7. 189 CR/PR at Tables IV-2 and C-1. 190 CR/PR at II-20. Collectively, OCTG from these countries accounted for 50.1 percent of imports from nonsubject sources. Id. 33 3. Substitutability and Other Conditions We find that there is a high degree of substitutability between the domestic like product and cumulated subject imports.191 As previously discussed, substantial majorities of both responding U.S. producers and importers reported that the domestic like product is always or frequently interchangeable with imports from each of the subject countries.192 Further, OCTG, regardless of source, is generally produced to API specifications.193 Moreover, both domestic producers and importers offered seamless and welded OCTG, and seamless and welded OCTG are largely interchangeable in the same end use applications regardless of the source.194 We also find that price is an important factor in OCTG purchasing decisions. More purchasers ranked price as among the top three factors they consider in their purchasing decisions for OCTG than any other factor besides quality.195 Moreover, as previously discussed, substantial majorities of both responding U.S. producers and importers reported that factors other than price are only sometimes or never significant in their customers’ OCTG purchasing decisions.196 Welded OCTG is made from HRC, while seamless OCTG is made from steel billets.197 The U.S. price for HRC decreased irregularly from 2018 to mid-2020, then increased substantially through the end of the POI, for an overall increase of 144.1 percent between January 2018 and June 2021.198 The U.S. price for scrap (used to make steel billets) followed a similar pattern, although its rate of increase from mid-2020 through the end of the POI was less 191 CR/PR at II-18. 192 CR/PR at Tables II-12-13. Specifically, in comparing the domestic like product with subject imports from Argentina, 10 of 11 producers and 10 of 13 importers reported that they are always or frequently interchangeable; in comparing the domestic like product with subject imports from Mexico, 10 of 11 producers and 10 of 13 importers reported that they are always or frequently interchangeable; in comparing the domestic like product with subject imports from Russia, 11 of 11 producers and 15 of 17 importers reported that they are always or frequently interchangeable; and in comparing the domestic like product with subject imports from South Korea, 11 of 12 producers and 12 of 15 importers reported that they are always or frequently interchangeable. Id. 193 CR/PR at I-19. 194 See section V.B. above. 195 CR/PR at Table II-10. 196 CR/PR at Tables II-14-15. 197 CR/PR at V-1. 198 CR/PR at Table V-1 and Figure V-1. HRC is subject to tariffs and quantitative restrictions pursuant to Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, as amended. Id. at V-1. Most responding U.S. producers and importers reported that these Section 232 restrictions increased the raw material costs for welded OCTG. CR/PR at Table II-3. 34 pronounced.199 On a per short ton basis, raw material costs for domestically produced OCTG decreased from 2018 to 2020, but were significantly higher in interim 2021 compared to interim 2020.200 Other than in 2020 and interim 2020, raw material costs accounted for the largest share of the domestic industry’s cost of goods sold (“COGS”) throughout the POI.201 OCTG imports from Russia are subject to 25 percent ad valorem duties pursuant to Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, as amended (“Section 232”).202 OCTG imports from Argentina and South Korea are subject to annual import quotas pursuant to Section 232.203 OCTG imports from Mexico are exempt from both Section 232 duties and quotas.204 As previously noted, OCTG imports from South Korea are subject to an antidumping duty order.205 C. Volume of Subject Imports Section 771(7)(C)(i) of the Tariff Act provides that the “Commission shall consider whether the volume of imports of the merchandise, or any increase in that volume, either in absolute terms or relative to production or consumption in the United States, is significant.”206 Cumulated subject import volume declined by 60.7 percent from 2018 to 2020, from 1.4 million short tons in 2018 to 1.0 million short tons in 2019 and 532,296 short tons in 2020; it was 46.0 percent greater in interim 2021, at 484,533 short tons, than in interim 2020, at 331,812 short tons.207 Cumulated subject imports as a share of apparent U.S. consumption decreased from 23.8 percent in 2018 to 19.8 percent in 2019, but then increased to 20.1 199 CR/PR at Figure V-1. 200 CR/PR at Table VI-1. On a per short ton basis, raw material costs decreased from $757 in 2018 to $719 in 2019 and $630 in 2020; they were higher in interim 2021, at $755, than in interim 2020, at $609. Id. 201 CR/PR at Table VI-1. As a share of total COGS, raw material costs were 54.6 percent in 2018, 51.4 percent in 2019, and 42.6 percent in 2020; they were 50.3 percent in interim 2021, compared to 43.4 percent in interim 2020. Id. In 2020 and interim 2020, other factory costs accounted for the largest share of COGS, at 47.2 percent and 46.5 percent, respectively. Id. 202 CR/PR at I-12. 203 CR/PR at I-12. The import quota is 163,102 short tons per year for Argentina, and 508,020 short tons per year for South Korea. Id. 204 CR/PR at I-12. Tenaris asserts that OCTG imports from Mexico are potentially subject to the “USMCA surge mechanism.” See Tenaris’ Postconf. Br. at 28; see also Government of Mexico’s Postconf. Br. at 2.205 See Oil Country Tubular Goods from India, the Republic of Korea, the Republic of Turkey, Ukraine, and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Continuation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Orders, 85 Fed. Reg. 48665 (Aug. 12, 2020). 206 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(C)(i). 207 CR/PR at Tables IV-3 and C-1. 35 percent in 2020. Cumulated subject imports as a share of apparent U.S. consumption then reached their highest level of the entire POI in interim 2021. Cumulated subject imports as a share of apparent U.S. consumption were 16.2 percentage points higher in interim 2021, at 34.1 percent, than in interim 2020, at 18.0 percent.208 We conclude, for preliminary phase purposes, that the volume of cumulated subject imports, and the increase in that volume in interim 2021 compared to interim 2020, are significant both in absolute terms and relative to consumption in the United States. D. Price Effects of the Subject Imports Section 771(7)(C)(ii) of the Tariff Act provides that, in evaluating the price effects of subject imports, the Commission shall consider whether – (I) there has been significant price underselling by the imported merchandise as compared with the price of domestic like products of the United States, and (II) the effect of imports of such merchandise otherwise depresses prices to a significant degree or prevents price increases, which otherwise would have occurred, to a significant degree.209 As addressed in section VI.B.3. above, we find a high degree of substitutability between the domestic like product and cumulated subject imports, and that price is an important factor in purchasing decisions. The Commission collected quarterly pricing data from U.S. producers and importers for six pricing products.210 Eight domestic producers and five importers provided usable pricing 208 CR/PR at Tables IV-12 and C-1. 209 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(C)(ii). 210 The six pricing products are as follows: Product 1.-- Tubing, Grade L-80, 2 7/8" O.D., 6.5 lbs./ft., threaded and coupled, range 2, seamless sold to unrelated U.S. distributors. Product 2.-- Tubing, Grade J-55, 2 3/8" O.D., 4.7 lbs./ft., threaded and coupled, range 2, welded sold to unrelated U.S. distributors. Product 3.-- Casing, Grade P-110, 5 1/2" O.D., 20.0 lbs./ft., threaded and coupled, range 3, welded sold to unrelated U.S. distributors. Product 4.-- Casing, Grade P-110, 5 1/2" O.D., 17.0 lbs./ft., threaded and coupled, range 3, seamless sold to unrelated U.S. distributors. Product 5.-- Tubing, Grade L-80, 2 7/8" O.D., 6.5 lbs./ft., threaded and coupled, range 2, seamless sold to end users. (Continued…) 36 data, although not all firms reported pricing for all products for all quarters.211 Pricing data reported by these firms accounted for approximately 8.5 percent of U.S. shipments of OCTG from U.S. producers, 7.1 percent of U.S shipments of OCTG from Argentina, 5.0 percent of U.S shipments of OCTG from Mexico, 8.1 percent of subject imports from Russia, and 1.5 percent of subject imports from South Korea in 2020.212 Pricing data reported by U.S. producers and importers were sporadic, permitting price comparisons in only 39 of a possible 336 quarters.213 The pricing data show a mixed pattern of over- and underselling by cumulated subject imports, with overselling in a slight majority of quarterly comparisons. Cumulated subject imports undersold domestically produced OCTG in 18 of 39 quarterly comparisons, or 46.2 percent of the time, at margins averaging 18.2 percent, and quarters in which there was underselling accounted for 45.2 percent of reported subject import sales volume (12,847 short tons).214 Cumulated subject imports oversold domestically produced OCTG in 21 of 39 quarterly comparisons, or 53.8 percent of the time, at margins averaging 12.5 percent, and quarters in which there was overselling accounted for 54.8 percent of reported subject import volume (15,570 short tons).215 Purchaser questionnaire responses and confirmed lost sales of OCTG indicate that cumulated subject imports were being sold at lower prices than the domestic like product during the POI. Four of seven responding purchasers reported that they purchased subject imports instead of U.S.-produced OCTG during the POI. All four of these purchasers reported that subject imports were lower priced than U.S.-produced OCTG, and these four purchasers also reported that price was a primary reason for purchasing *** short tons of subject imports.216 This volume of confirmed lost sales is significant – nearly *** times larger than the (…Continued) Product 6.-- Casing, Grade P-110, 5 1/2" O.D., 17.0 lbs./ft., threaded and coupled, range 3, seamless sold to end users. Information concerning the same pricing items over different channels of distribution was collected to broaden the coverage of the data gathered by the Commission. CR/PR at V-9. 211 CR/PR at V-10. 212 CR/PR at V-10. 213 CR/PR at Tables V-6-12. In any final phase of the investigations, we invite parties to provide comments on the draft questionnaires regarding pricing product definitions on which to collect sales price data that may increase data coverage across the POI. 214 CR/PR at Table V-15. 215 CR/PR at Table V-15. 216 CR/PR at Table V-18. We note that the volume of subject import purchases that these purchasers reported buying due to price is likely understated because two of the purchasers, ***, did not estimate their volume of purchases of subject imports that was due to price, although both reported a significant shift in the share of their purchases from domestic producers to subject imports over the (Continued…) 37 reported volume of importers’ shipments of subject imports in the pricing product data (*** short tons), and equivalent to *** percent of total subject import volume during the POI (3.4 million short tons).217 In addition, six of seven responding U.S. purchasers reported that U.S producers had lowered their prices from *** to *** percent to compete with lower-priced subject imports during the POI.218 Given the relatively limited quarterly comparisons in the pricing data, we have also examined AUVs of subject imports and the domestic industry’s net sales with respect to seamless and welded OCTG, which indicate that subject imports were lower priced than domestically produced OCTG throughout the POI.219 In every full year of the POI, the AUVs of subject imports were lower than the AUVs of the domestic industry’s net sales, by *** to *** percent with respect to seamless OCTG, and by *** to *** percent with respect to welded OCTG.220 In interim 2021, when subject imports increased their share of apparent U.S. consumption at the domestic industry’s expense, the AUVs of subject imports were lower than the AUVs of the domestic industry’s net sales by *** percent with respect to seamless OCTG and by *** percent with respect to welded OCTG.221 While we recognize that subject import AUVs were reported at a different level of trade than domestic producer net sales, the record (…Continued) 2018-20 period. Id. at Tables V-17-18. *** reported reducing the domestic industry share of its purchases by *** percentage points between 2018 and 2020, while increasing the subject import share of its purchases by a nearly equivalent *** percentage points over the period. Id. at Table V-17. Similarly, *** reported reducing the domestic industry share of its purchases by *** percentage points between 2018 and 2020, while increasing the subject import share of its purchases by *** percentage points over the period. Id. 217 Calculated from CR/PR at Tables IV-3, V-12. 218 CR/PR at Table V-20. 219 Compare CR/PR at Table IV-4 with id. at Table VI-8 and id. at Table IV-5 with id. at Table VI-8. We recognize that import AUVs are not directly comparable to domestic industry net sales AUVs but consider these data to be additional evidence on the record regarding relative pricing of the domestic like product and subject imports. 220 Compare CR/PR at Table IV-4 with id. at Table VI-8 and id. at Table IV-5 with id. at Table VI-8. 221 Compare CR/PR at Table IV-4 with id. at Table VI-8 and id. at Table IV-5 with id. at Table VI-8. In interim 2020, the AUVs of subject imports compared to the AUVs of the domestic industry’s net sales were higher with respect to seamless OCTG, by *** percent, but lower with respect to welded OCTG, by *** percent. Id. On a dollar per short ton basis, the AUV for cumulated subject imports of welded OCTG was $812 in interim 2021, while the AUV for domestically produced welded OCTG was $*** in interim 2021. Compare CR/PR Tables IV-5 and VI-8. On a dollar per short ton basis, the AUV for cumulated subject imports of seamless OCTG was $1,027 in interim 2021, while the AUV for domestically produced seamless OCTG was $*** in interim 2021. Compare CR/PR Tables IV-4 and VI-8. 38 of the preliminary phase of the investigations does not indicate that differences in level of trade or product mix could explain AUV differentials of this magnitude.222 Consistent with the preceding evidence, Petitioners have provided contemporaneous communications indicating that subject imports were lower priced than domestically produced OCTG during the POI.223 These include, for example: (1) ***;224 (2) ***;225 and (3) ***.226 In addition, officials from both U.S. producers and distributors testified at the conference that subject imports had undersold the domestic like product during the POI.227 Given the high degree of substitutability between subject imports and the domestic like product, the importance of price in purchasing decisions, and the foregoing record evidence regarding underselling, lost sales, and contemporaneous documentation of lower-priced subject imports, we find that there has been significant price underselling by cumulated subject imports compared with the price of the domestic like product during the POI. Cumulated subject imports gained 9.5 percentage points of U.S. market share at the direct expense of the domestic industry in interim 2021 compared to interim 2020 and took a significant volume of sales from the domestic industry on the basis of price.228 We have also considered price trends during the POI. Prices for domestically produced pricing products 3 and 4 increased through the first quarter of 2019, declined through the end of 2020, and then increased through the second quarter of 2021 to a level higher than in the first quarter of 2018.229 Pricing data were insufficient to determine the domestic price trends of other products.230 Consistent with these data, the AUVs of the domestic industry’s net sales for both seamless and welded OCTG declined between 2018 and 2020 before increasing in interim 2021, but to a level still below that in 2018.231 Subject import prices declined over the POI with respect to product 1 from Argentina and Mexico, products 3 and 4 from Korea, and 222 We recognize that AUV comparisons may be influenced by differences in product mix, and changes in product mix over time, but note that comparisons between the AUVs for domestic and imported seamless products on the one hand, and between the AUVs for domestic and imported welded products on the other, would control for product mix to some extent. 223 Petitioners’ Postconf. Br. at Exh. 4 (***). 224 Petitioners’ Postconf. Br. at Exh. 4, Email Correspondence 1. 225 Petitioners’ Postconf. Br. at Exh. 4, Email Correspondence 4. 226 Petitioners’ Postconf. Br. at Exh. 4, Text Message Exchange 1. 227 See, e.g., Tr. at 25 (Buono), 32 (Johnson), and 44 (Tait). 228 CR/PR at Tables IV-12, V-18. 229 CR/PR at Tables V-8-9 and Figures V-5-6. For products 3 and 4, domestic prices increased by *** percent and *** percent over the POI, respectively. Id. at Table V-12. 230 CR/PR at V-23. 231 CR/PR at Table VI-8. 39 product 5 from Mexico, but increased with respect to product 2 from Korea and product 5 from Argentina.232 Although the limited pricing data on the record, as well as AUV data, show that domestic producers were able to reverse their declining prices in interim 2021 to some extent, six of seven responding purchasers, including the three largest purchasers, reported that U.S. producers lowered their prices during the POI to compete with lower-priced subject imports, with price reductions ranging from *** to *** percent.233 We have also considered whether subject imports prevented price increases that otherwise would have occurred. The domestic industry’s ratio of cost of goods sold (“COGS”) to net sales increased from 93.6 percent in 2018 to 98.1 percent in 2019 and 122.2 percent in 2020, and was somewhat lower in interim 2021, at 109.3 percent, than in interim 2020, at 113.2 percent, but remained elevated.234 We find it instructive that the decline in the domestic industry’s COGS to net sales ratio in interim 2021 compared to interim 2020 resulted entirely from a decline in the industry’s ratio of other factory costs to net sales, as several domestic producers reported shutting down production facilities during the period, while the industry’s ratio of raw material costs to net sales increased.235 Despite recovering demand in interim 2021, domestic producers were unable to increase their prices commensurately with their increased raw material costs, as they lost sales and market share to lower-priced subject imports. Based on the foregoing evidence, we cannot conclude that cumulated subject imports did not depress or suppress prices for the domestic like product to a significant degree. Nearly 232 CR/PR at Table V-12. For product 1, prices for subject imports from Argentina and Mexico decreased by *** percent and *** percent, respectively. Id. For products 3 and 4, prices for subject imports from South Korea decreased by *** percent and *** percent, respectively. Id. For product 5, prices for subject imports from Mexico decreased by *** percent. Id. For product 2, prices for subject imports from South Korea increased by *** percent. Id. For product 5, prices for subject imports from Argentina increased by *** percent. Id. 233 CR/PR at Table V-20. The largest domestic purchasers are ***. CR/PR at I-3. Each of these purchasers reported that U.S. producers lowered their prices to compete with lower-priced subject imports during the POI. CR/PR at Table V-20. 234 CR/PR at Tables VI-1 and C-1. 235 CR/PR at Tables III-5, VI-1, and C-1. Specifically, the domestic industry’s ratio of other factory costs to net sales was *** percentage points lower in interim 2021, at *** percent, than in interim 2020, at *** percent, as prolonged shutdowns were reported by ***. Id. at Tables III-5, VI-1. At the same time, the domestic industry’s ratio of raw material costs to net sales was *** percentage points higher in interim 2021, at *** percent, than in interim 2020, at *** percent. Id. at Table VI-1. On a dollar per short ton basis, the domestic industry’s raw material costs were $*** greater in interim 2021 than interim 2020, while its net sales value was only $*** greater in interim 2021 than in interim 2020. Id. at Table VI-2. 40 all responding purchasers reported that domestic producers reduced their prices to compete with lower-priced subject imports during the POI, and domestic producers were unable to recoup fully their higher raw material costs through higher prices in interim 2021. However, we also acknowledge that apparent U.S. consumption declined substantially in 2020, and although it started to pick up in the first half of 2021 compared to the second half of 2020, consumption still remained depressed compared to earlier in the POI,236 and it is unclear whether domestic producers could have passed through additional price increases. In sum, based upon the record of the preliminary phase of the investigations, we find that cumulated subject imports significantly undersold the domestic like product, resulting in significant lost sales over the POI and a shift in market share from the domestic industry to subject imports in interim 2021 relative to interim 2020. We therefore find that cumulated subject imports had significant price effects. Further, we cannot conclude that cumulated subject imports did not depress or suppress domestic producer prices to a significant degree. E. Impact of the Subject Imports237 Section 771(7)(C)(iii) of the Tariff Act provides that the Commission, in examining the impact of the subject imports on the domestic industry, “shall evaluate all relevant economic factors which have a bearing on the state of the industry.” These factors include output, sales, inventories, capacity utilization, market share, employment, wages, productivity, gross profits, net profits, operating profits, cash flow, return on investment, return on capital, ability to raise capital, ability to service debt, research and development, and factors affecting domestic prices. No single factor is dispositive and all relevant factors are considered “within the context of the business cycle and conditions of competition that are distinctive to the affected industry.”238 As previously discussed, U.S. demand for OCTG, as measured by rig count and operational consumption, declined from 2018 through most of 2020, before recovering in late 2020 through interim 2021 to levels still far below those in 2018.239 Consistent with declining 236 Apparent U.S. consumption in interim 2021 was still *** percent lower than in interim 2020, and consumption in full year 2020 was *** percent lower than in 2019. CR/PR at Table C-1. 237 Commerce initiated its investigations based on estimated dumping margins of 168.49 percent for subject imports from Argentina, 59.75 percent for subject imports from Mexico, and 136.96 percent for subject imports from Russia. Oil Country Tubular Goods from Argentina, Mexico, and the Russian Federation: Initiation of Less-Than-Fair-Value Investigations, 86 Fed. Reg. 60205, 60208 (Nov. 1, 2021). 238 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(C)(iii). This provision was amended by the Trade Preferences Extension Act of 2015, Pub. L. 114-27. 239 CR/PR at II-13, II-15, Tables II-6-7, and Figure II-2. 41 apparent U.S. consumption during the 2018-20 period, the domestic industry’s performance worsened by nearly every measure. Despite the nascent demand recovery in interim 2021, however, the domestic industry’s performance continued to worsen in interim 2021 compared to interim 2020, as the industry lost 9.5 percentage points of market share to subject imports. Most of the domestic industry’s output indicia, particularly for U.S. mills, declined from 2018 to 2020, and were lower in interim 2021 than in interim 2020. U.S. mills’ capacity decreased overall by 7.8 percent from 2018 to 2020, increasing from 6.67 million short tons in 2018 to 6.71 million short tons 2019, and then declining to 6.15 million short tons in 2020; it was 0.7 percent greater in interim 2021, at 3.11 million short tons, than in interim 2020 at 3.09 million short tons.240 U.S. mills’ production decreased by 49.6 percent from 2018 to 2020, falling from 3.2 million short tons in 2018 to 3.0 million short tons in 2019 and 1.6 million short tons in 2020; it was 32.9 percent lower in interim 2021, at 746,392 short tons, than in interim 2020, at 1.1 million short tons.241 U.S. mills’ capacity utilization decreased by 21.5 percentage points from 2018 to 2020, from 47.4 percent in 2018 to 45.0 percent in 2019 and 25.9 percent in 2020; it was 12.0 percentage points lower in interim 2021, at 24.0 percent, than in interim 2020, at 36.0 percent.242 Consistent with the domestic industry’s declining production, the industry’s employment indicators declined over the POI.243 Employment fell overall by 41.5 percent from 2018 to 2020,244 and was 31.9 percent lower in interim 2021 than in interim 2020.245 Total 240 CR/PR at Table III-8. U.S. processors’ capacity was constant from 2018 to 2020 at 1.8 million short tons a year; it was 1.7 percent lower in interim 2021, at 898,476 short tons, than in interim 2020, at 914,435 short tons. CR/PR at Table III-10. 241 CR/PR at Table III-8. U.S. processors’ production decreased by 59.9 percent from 2018 to 2020, from 918,314 short tons in 2018 to 770,999 short tons in 2019 and 368,446 short tons in 2020; it was 14.8 percent greater in interim 2021, at 298,449 short tons, than in interim 2020, at 259,913 short tons. CR/PR at Table III-10. 242 CR/PR at Table III-8. U.S. processors’ capacity utilization decreased by 31.2 percentage points from 2018 to 2020, from 51.4 percent in 2018 to 42.7 percent in 2019 and 20.2 percent in 2020; it was 4.8 percentage points greater in interim 2021, at 33.2 percent, than in interim 2020, at 28.4 percent. CR/PR at Table III-10. 243 For purposes of analyzing the domestic industry’s employment indicia other than productivity, we examine the combined employment-related data of both U.S. mills and processors. CR/PR at Table III-32. 244 CR/PR at Table III-32. Employment increased from 8,006 PRWs in 2018 to 8,235 PRWs in 2019, and then declined to 4,681 PRWs in 2020. Id. 245 CR/PR at Table III-32. Employment was 4,154 PRWs in interim 2021, compared to 6,102 PRWs in interim 2020. Id. 42 hours worked declined by 47.6 percent from 2018 to 2020,246 and were 21.6 percent lower in interim 2021 than in interim 2020.247 Wages paid declined overall by 40.2 percent from 2018 to 2020,248 and were 26.0 percent lower in interim 2021 than in interim 2020.249 Productivity for U.S. mills, as measured in short tons per 1,000 hours, declined by 1.5 percent from 2018 to 2020, decreasing from 208.8 in 2018 to 202.9 in 2019 and 205.7 in 2020; it was 11.4 percent lower in interim 2021, at 189.0, than in interim 2020, at 213.3.250 U.S. mills’ U.S. shipments decreased overall by 46.0 percent from 2018 to 2020, increasing from 2.97 million short tons in 2018 to 2.98 million short tons in 2019, and then decreasing to 1.6 million short tons in 2020; they were 35.3 percent lower in interim 2021, at 718,930 short tons, than in interim 2020, at 1.1 million short tons.251 The domestic industry’s share of apparent U.S. consumption increased by 8.3 percentage points from 2018 to 2020, from 52.1 percent in 2018 to 56.7 percent in 2019 and 60.4 percent in 2020; its share of apparent U.S. consumption was 9.5 percentage points lower in interim 2021, at 50.6 percent, than in interim 2020, at 60.1 percent.252 U.S. mills’ end-of-period inventories declined by 56.5 percent from 2018 to 2020, decreasing from 456,161 short tons in 2018 to 378,641 short tons in 2019 and 198,206 short tons in 2020; they were 17.6 percent lower in interim 2021, at 191,415 short tons, than in interim 2020, at 232,346 short tons.253 U.S. mills’ end-of-period inventories also declined as a 246 CR/PR at Table III-32. Total hours worked fell from 20.4 million hours in 2018 to 20.0 million hours in 2019 and 10.7 million hours in 2019. Id. 247 CR/PR at Table III-32. Total hours worked were 5.5 million hours in interim 2021, compared to 7.0 million hours in interim 2020. Id. 248 CR/PR at Table III-32. Wages paid increased from $600.8 million in 2018 to $620.4 million in 2019, and then declined to $359.1 million in 2020. Id. 249 CR/PR at Table III-32. Wage paid were $179.0 million in interim 2021, compared to $241.7 million hours in interim 2020. Id. 250 CR/PR at Table III-29. The productivity of non-toll processors, as measured in short tons per 1,000 hours, was *** in 2018, *** in 2019, and *** in 2020; it was higher, at ***, in interim 2021, than in interim 2020, at ***. CR/PR at Table III-30. The productivity of toll processors, as measured in short tons per 1,000 hours, was *** in 2018, *** in 2019, and *** in 2020; it was higher, at ***, in interim 2021, than in interim 2020, at ***. CR/PR at Table III-31. 251 CR/PR at Table III-12. U.S. non-toll processors’ U.S. shipments increased from *** short tons in 2018 to *** short tons in 2019, and then decreased to *** short tons in 2020; they were lower, at *** short tons, in interim 2021, than in interim 2020, at *** short tons. CR/PR at Table III-13. 252 CR/PR at Table IV-12. 253 CR/PR at Table III-16. U.S. non-toll processors’ inventories increased from *** short tons in 2018 to *** short tons in 2019, and then decreased to *** short tons in 2020; they were lower, at *** short tons, in interim 2021, than in interim 2020, at *** short tons. CR/PR at Table III-17. 43 share of total shipments from *** percent in 2018 to *** percent in 2019 and *** percent in 2020, but were higher in interim 2021, at *** percent, than in interim 2020, at *** percent.254 The domestic industry’s financial performance significantly declined by most measures during the POI, remaining poor, if somewhat improved with respect to certain indicia, in interim 2021 compared to interim 2020.255 The domestic industry’s total net sales revenues declined from $4.8 billion in 2018 to $4.5 billion in 2019 and $2.1 billion in 2020, a level 55.9 percent lower than in 2018, and were 29.3 percent lower in interim 2021, at $1.1 billion, than in interim 2020, at $1.5 billion.256 The industry’s operating losses increased from $169.5 million in 2018 to $280.9 million in 2019 and $754.9 million in 2020; they were lower in interim 2021, at $248.7 million, than in interim 2020, at $372.0 million.257 The industry’s ratio of operating losses to net sales worsened from negative 3.6 percent in 2018 to negative 6.2 percent in 2019 and negative 36.0 percent in 2020.258 Its ratio of operating losses to net sales was negative 23.7 percent in interim 2021, compared to negative 25.0 percent in interim 2020.259 The domestic industry’s return on assets declined from negative *** percent in 2018 to negative *** percent in 2019 and negative *** percent in 2020.260 The industry’s capital expenditures declined overall by *** percent from 2018 to 2020,261 and were *** percent lower in interim 2021 than in interim 2020,262 while its research and development expenses also declined irregularly by *** percent 254 CR/PR at Table III-16. Non-toll processors’ end-of-period inventories increased as a share of total shipments from *** percent in 2018 to *** percent in 2019 and *** percent in 2020, but were lower in interim 2021, at *** percent, than in interim 2020, at *** percent. CR/PR at Table III-17. 255 For purposes of analyzing the financial results of the domestic industry, we examine the combined operations of both U.S. mills and non-toll processors. CR/PR at Table VI-1. 256 CR/PR at Table VI-1. 257 CR/PR at Table VI-1. Gross profit decreased from $303.9 million in 2018 to $86.9 million in 2019 and negative $464.9 million in 2020; the gross loss was lower in interim 2021, at negative $97.4 million, than in interim 2020, at negative $196.6 million. Id. Net income declined from negative $*** in 2018 to negative $*** in 2019 and negative $*** in 2020; the net loss was lower in interim 2021, at negative $***, than in interim 2020, at negative $***. Id. The domestic industry’s ratio of net income to net sales decreased from negative *** percent in 2018 to negative *** percent in 2019 and negative *** percent in 2020; it was higher in interim 2021, at negative *** percent, than in interim 2020, at negative *** percent. Id. 258 CR/PR at Table VI-1. 259 CR/PR at Table VI-1. 260 CR/PR at Table VI-20. 261 CR/PR at Tables VI-15 and C-1. Its capital expenditures increased from $*** in 2018 to $*** in 2019, and then declined to $*** in 2020. Id. 262 CR/PR at Tables VI-15 and C-1. Its capital expenditures were $*** in interim 2021, compared to $*** in interim 2020. Id. 44 between 2018 and 2020, and were *** percent lower in interim 2021 than in interim 2020.263 The domestic industry also reported negative effects on investment, growth, and development due to subject imports.264 Based on the record of the preliminary phase of these investigations, we find that the significant increase in low-priced subject imports in interim 2021 compared to interim 2020 captured 9.5 percentage points of market share from the domestic industry. The domestic industry’s loss of market share to subject imports contributed to significant declines in the industry’s production, capacity utilization, U.S. shipments, employment, and net sales revenues in interim 2021 compared to interim 2020, as well as to the industry’s weak financial performance during the period, even as demand began to recover. Further, the volume of confirmed lost sales over the POI is significant, equivalent to *** percent of total subject import volume during the POI (3.4 million short tons). Consequently, the domestic industry’s output and revenues were lower than they otherwise would have been, and the domestic industry’s financial performance suffered as a result. Finally, as discussed above, we cannot conclude the significant volume of cumulated subject imports throughout the POI did not have depressing or suppressing effects on domestic prices, thus contributing to the domestic industry’s declining financial performance over the POI, with negative operating income and net income in 2019, 2020, and interim 2021. We have also considered whether there are other factors that may have had an adverse impact on the domestic industry during the POI to ensure that we are not attributing injury from such other factors to subject imports. Nonsubject imports do not explain the domestic industry’s declining performance in interim 2021 compared to interim 2020. Nonsubject imports decreased by volume and as a share of the U.S. market in interim 2021 compared to interim 2020, while subject imports increased.265 Further, the AUVs of nonsubject welded OCTG imports were higher than the AUVs of subject welded OCTG imports throughout the POI.266 Moreover, although the AUVs of nonsubject seamless OCTG imports were lower than the AUVs of subject seamless OCTG imports during the 2018-20 period, the AUV of nonsubject seamless imports was higher than the AUV of subject seamless imports in interim 2021, when subject imports captured market share from the domestic industry.267 Indeed, subject imports also captured 6.7 percentage points of market share from nonsubject imports over the interim 263 CR/PR at Tables VI-17 and C-1. 264 CR/PR at Tables VI-22-23. 265 CR/PR at Table C-1. 266 CR/PR at Table IV-5. 267 CR/PR at Table IV-4. 45 periods.268 Further, purchasers confirmed that a significant volume of sales were lost to subject imports during the POI, which cannot be attributed to nonsubject imports. We recognize that the significant decline in apparent U.S. consumption from 2018 to 2020 contributed to the domestic industry’s declining performance over the period. However, declining demand cannot explain the shift in market share from the domestic industry to subject imports in interim 2021 compared to interim 2020, the significant quantity of confirmed lost sales, or the resulting impact on the industry’s performance. Further, by capturing market share from the domestic industry, subject imports also prevented the industry from capitalizing on the nascent demand recovery in interim 2021. We are unpersuaded by Tenaris’ argument that the increase in cumulated subject imports in interim 2021 compared to interim 2020 did not injure the domestic industry because these imports were not “replacing U.S.-produced OCTG,” but rather responding to conditions of short supply.269 The record does not indicate that the domestic industry experienced significant supply constraints in interim 2021, as only four of 12 responding U.S. producers reported experiencing such constraints during the POI.270 Furthermore, the domestic industry’s reported rate of capacity utilization was lower in interim 2021 than in interim 2020 with respect to both seamless and welded OCTG, at *** and *** percent, respectively, indicating it had substantial unused capacity with which to increase production.271 Further contradicting Tenaris’ assertion that a “supply crisis” pulled subject imports into the U.S. market in interim 2021 is the decline in the AUVs of subject imports in interim 2021 compared to interim 2020, whereas importers likely would have been in a position to increase subject import prices had there been a shortage of OCTG.272 273 We are also unpersuaded by TMK’s argument that domestic producers of welded OCTG were prevented from raising their prices to cover increasing HRC costs at the end of the POI by 268 CR/PR at Table C-1. 269 Tenaris’ Postconf. Br. at 27. 270 CR/PR at II-10. 271 CR/PR at Table III-9. 272 CR/PR at Table IV-4; Tenaris’ Postconf. Br. at 27. 273 We are also unpersuaded by Tenaris’s argument that large distributor inventories, not lower- priced subject imports, caused the decline in U.S. mill production later in the POI. Tenaris’ Postconf. Br. at 23-24. The alleged liquidation of inventories by distributors did not prevent subject imports from increasing significantly in interim 2021 compared to interim 2020 at the direct expense of the domestic industry. Thus, the liquidation of distributor inventories cannot explain the shift in market share from the domestic industry to subject imports during the period. In any final phase of these investigations, we intend to further examine the impact of distributor inventories on the domestic industry during the POI. 46 the availability of interchangeable domestically produced seamless OCTG, rather than by subject import competition.274 While the record shows that the domestic industry had a substantially larger volume of net sales of seamless OCTG than of welded OCTG, particularly in interim 2021, it also shows that the industry’s net sales AUVs for its shipments of seamless OCTG were higher than its net sales AUVs for welded OCTG, which does not suggest significant pricing pressure from domestic seamless OCTG.275 Moreover, any intra-industry competition does not explain the domestic industry’s loss of market share to subject imports over the interim periods. Finally, we are unpersuaded by Tenaris’ and TMK’s argument that increasing HRC costs in the United States, not lower-priced subject imports, accounted for the domestic industry’s declining performance in interim 2021.276 Domestic producers of seamless OCTG were unaffected by increased HRC prices and capable of compensating for any decline in the domestic production of welded OCTG in interim 2021, given their low rate of capacity utilization and the interchangeability of seamless OCTG for welded OCTG.277 Consequently, increased HRC prices cannot explain the domestic industry’s loss of market share to subject imports in interim 2021 compared to interim 2020. In sum, based on the record of the preliminary phase of these investigations, we conclude that subject imports had a significant impact on the domestic industry. VII. Conclusion For the reasons stated above, we determine that there is a reasonable indication that an industry in the United States is materially injured by reason of subject imports of OCTG from Argentina, Mexico, and Russia that are allegedly sold in the United States at less than fair value and imports of the subject merchandise from Russia and South Korea that are allegedly subsidized by the governments of Russia and South Korea. 274 TMK’s Postconf. Br. at 13. 275 CR/PR at Table VI-8. 276 See Tenaris’ Postconf. Br. at 9-12; TMK’s Postconf. Br. at 15. 277 CR/PR at Table III-9. I-1 Part I: Introduction Background These investigations result from petitions filed with the U.S. Department of Commerce (“Commerce”) and the U.S. International Trade Commission (“USITC” or “Commission”) by Borusan Mannesmann Pipe U.S., Inc., Baytown, Texas; PTC Liberty Tubulars LLC, Liberty, Texas; U.S. Steel Tubular Products, Inc., Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; Welded Tube USA, Inc., Lackawanna, New York; and the United States Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers International Union, AFL-CIO, CLC, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, on October 6, 2021, alleging that an industry in the United States is materially injured and threatened with material injury by reason of subsidized imports of oil country tubular goods (“OCTG”) 1 from Russia and South Korea and less-than-fair-value (“LTFV”) imports of OCTG from Argentina, Mexico, and Russia. Table I-1 provides information relating to the background of these investigations.2 3 Table I-1 OCTG: Information relating to the background and schedule of this proceeding Effective date Action October 6, 2021 Petitions filed with Commerce and the Commission; institution of Commission investigations (86 FR 56983, October 13, 2021) October 26, 2021 Commerce’s notice of initiation (86 FR 60205 and 86 FR 60210, November 1, 2021) October 27, 2021 Commission’s conference November 19, 2021 Commission’s vote November 22, 2021 Commission’s determinations November 30, 2021 Commission’s views 1 See the section entitled “The subject merchandise” in Part I of this report for a complete description of the merchandise subject in this proceeding. 2 Pertinent Federal Register notices are referenced in appendix A, and may be found at the Commission’s website (www.usitc.gov). 3 A list of witnesses appearing at the conference is presented in appendix B of this report. I-2 Statutory criteria Section 771(7)(B) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (the “Act”) (19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(B)) provides that in making its determinations of injury to an industry in the United States, the Commission-- shall consider (I) the volume of imports of the subject merchandise, (II) the effect of imports of that merchandise on prices in the United States for domestic like products, and (III) the impact of imports of such merchandise on domestic producers of domestic like products, but only in the context of production operations within the United States; and. . . may consider such other economic factors as are relevant to the determination regarding whether there is material injury by reason of imports. Section 771(7)(C) of the Act (19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(C)) further provides that--4 In evaluating the volume of imports of merchandise, the Commission shall consider whether the volume of imports of the merchandise, or any increase in that volume, either in absolute terms or relative to production or consumption in the United States is significant.. . .In evaluating the effect of imports of such merchandise on prices, the Commission shall consider whether. . .(I) there has been significant price underselling by the imported merchandise as compared with the price of domestic like products of the United States, and (II) the effect of imports of such merchandise otherwise depresses prices to a significant degree or prevents price increases, which otherwise would have occurred, to a significant degree.. . . In examining the impact required to be considered under subparagraph (B)(i)(III), the Commission shall evaluate (within the context of the business cycle and conditions of competition that are distinctive to the affected industry) all relevant economic factors which have a bearing on the state of the industry in the United States, including, but not limited to. . . (I) actual and potential decline in output, sales, market share, gross profits, operating profits, net profits, ability to service debt, productivity, return on investments, return on assets, and utilization of capacity, (II) factors affecting domestic prices, (III) actual and potential negative effects on cash flow, inventories, employment, wages, growth, ability to raise capital, and investment, (IV) actual and potential negative effects on the existing development and production efforts of the domestic industry, including efforts to develop a derivative or more advanced version of the domestic like product, and (V) in {an antidumping investigation}, the magnitude of the margin of dumping. 4 Amended by PL 114-27 (as signed, June 29, 2015), Trade Preferences Extension Act of 2015. I-3 In addition, Section 771(7)(J) of the Act (19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(J)) provides that—5 (J) EFFECT OF PROFITABILITY.—The Commission may not determine that there is no material injury or threat of material injury to an industry in the United States merely because that industry is profitable or because the performance of that industry has recently improved. Organization of report Part I of this report presents information on the subject merchandise, alleged subsidy/dumping margins, and domestic like product. Part II of this report presents information on conditions of competition and other relevant economic factors. Part III presents information on the condition of the U.S. industry, including data on capacity, production, shipments, inventories, and employment. Parts IV and V present the volume of subject imports and pricing of domestic and imported products, respectively. Part VI presents information on the financial experience of U.S. producers. Part VII presents the statutory requirements and information obtained for use in the Commission’s consideration of the question of threat of material injury as well as information regarding nonsubject countries. Market summary OCTG generally is used in oil and natural gas wells, and consists primarily of casing and tubing.6 The leading U.S. producers of OCTG are Tenaris USA, U.S. Steel, and Vallourec. The leading producers of OCTG in subject countries include Siderca of Argentina, TAMSA of Mexico, TMK Group of Russia, and Hyundai Steel of South Korea. The leading U.S. importer of OCTG from Argentina and Mexico is ***. The leading importers of OCTG from Russia are ***, while the leading importers of OCTG from South Korea are ***. Leading importers of product from nonsubject countries (primarily Austria, Canada, and Taiwan) include ***. U.S. purchasers of OCTG are firms that distribute OCTG; leading purchasers include ***. 5 Amended by PL 114-27 (as signed, June 29, 2015), Trade Preferences Extension Act of 2015. 6 Petition, pp. 13 and 21. I-4 Apparent U.S. consumption of OCTG totaled approximately 2.7 million short tons ($3.1 billion) in 2020. U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments of OCTG totaled 1.6 million short tons ($2.1 billion) in 2020, and accounted for 60.4 percent of apparent U.S. consumption by quantity and 66.4 percent by value. U.S. imports from subject sources totaled 532,296 short tons ($493.0 million) in 2020 and accounted for 20.1 percent of apparent U.S. consumption by quantity and 15.8 percent by value. U.S. imports from nonsubject sources totaled 517,473 short tons ($555.6 million) in 2020 and accounted for 19.5 percent of apparent U.S. consumption by quantity and 17.8 percent by value. Summary data and data sources A summary of data collected in these investigations is presented in appendix C, table C- 1. Except as noted, U.S. industry data are based on questionnaire responses of 17 firms that are believed to account for the large majority of U.S. production of OCTG during 2020. U.S. imports are based on official import statistics. Previous and related investigations OCTG has been the subject of several prior countervailing and antidumping duty investigations in the United States. Table I-2 presents data on those proceedings. Table I-2 OCTG: Previous and related Commission proceedings and status of orders Date Number Country Determination Current Status of Order 1984 701-TA-215 Brazil Affirmative final Order revoked, August 21, 1985 1984 701-TA-216 South Korea Negative final --- 1984 701-TA-217 Spain Affirmative final Order revoked, July 31, 1985 1984 731-TA-191 Argentina Negative final --- 1984 731-TA-192 Brazil Affirmative preliminary Petition withdrawn 1984 731-TA-193 South Korea Affirmative preliminary Petition withdrawn 1984 731-TA-194 Mexico Affirmative preliminary Petition withdrawn 1984 731-TA-195 Spain Affirmative final Order revoked, June 30, 1985 1985 701-TA-240 Austria Affirmative preliminary Petition withdrawn 1985 701-TA-241 Venezuela Affirmative preliminary Petition withdrawn 1985 701-TA-255 Canada Affirmative final Order revoked, July 10, 1991 1985 701-TA-256 Taiwan Affirmative preliminary Negative final determination by Commerce 1985 731-TA-249 Austria Affirmative preliminary Petition withdrawn 1985 731-TA-250 Romania Affirmative preliminary Petition withdrawn 1985 731-TA-251 Venezuela Affirmative preliminary Petition withdrawn I-5 Date Number Country Determination Current Status of Order 1985 731-TA-275 Argentina Affirmative preliminary Negative final determination by Commerce 1985 731-TA-276 Canada Affirmative final Order revoked, August 22, 2000 1985 731-TA-277 Taiwan Affirmative final Order revoked, August 22, 2000 1986 701-TA-271 Israel Affirmative final Order revoked, March 1, 1993 1986 731-TA-318 Israel Affirmative final Order revoked, July 27, 1999 1995 701-TA-363 Austria Negative final --- 1995 701-TA-364 Italy Affirmative final Order revoked, December 26, 2006 1995 731-TA-711 Argentina Affirmative final Order revoked, June 22, 2007 1995 731-TA-712 Austria Negative final --- 1995 731-TA-713 Italy Affirmative final Order revoked, June 22, 2007 1995 731-TA-714 Japan Affirmative final Order revoked, June 22, 2007 1995 731-TA-715 South Korea Affirmative final Order revoked, June 22, 2007 1995 731-TA-716 Mexico Affirmative final Order revoked, June 22, 2007 1995 731-TA-717 Spain Negative final --- 2002 701-TA-428 Austria Negative preliminary --- 2002 731-TA-992 Austria Negative preliminary --- 2002 731-TA-993 Brazil Negative preliminary --- 2002 731-TA-994 China Negative preliminary --- 2002 731-TA-995 Colombia --- Petition withdrawn 2002 731-TA-996 France Negative preliminary --- 2002 731-TA-997 Germany Negative preliminary --- 2002 731-TA-998 India Negative preliminary --- 2002 731-TA-999 Indonesia Negative preliminary --- 2002 731-TA-1000 Romania Negative preliminary --- 2002 731-TA-1001 South Africa Negative preliminary --- 2002 731-TA-1002 Spain Negative preliminary --- 2002 731-TA-1003 Turkey Negative preliminary --- 2002 731-TA-1004 Ukraine Negative preliminary --- 2002 731-TA-1005 Venezuela Negative preliminary --- 2013 731-TA-1217 Philippines Negative final --- 2013 731-TA-1218 Saudi Arabia Affirmative preliminary Investigation terminated by Commerce 2013 731-TA-1219 Taiwan Affirmative final Order revoked, July 28, 2017 2013 731-TA-1220 Thailand Negative final --- I-6 Date Number Country Determination Current Status of Order 2013 701-TA-499 India Affirmative Order continued after first review, August 12, 2020 2013 701-TA-500 Turkey Affirmative Order continued after first review, August 12, 2020 2013 731-TA-1215 India Affirmative Order continued after first review, August 12, 2020 2013 731-TA-1216 South Korea Affirmative Order continued after first review, August 12, 2020 2013 731-TA-1221 Turkey Affirmative Order continued after first review, August 12, 2020 2013 731-TA-1222 Ukraine Affirmative Order continued after first review, August 12, 2020 2013 731-TA-1223 Vietnam Affirmative Order continued after first review, August 12, 2020 2020 701-TA-463 China Affirmative Order continued after second review, December 3, 2020 2020 731-TA-1159 China Affirmative Order continued after second review, December 3, 2020 Source: U.S. International Trade Commission publications and Federal Register notices. Note: “Date” refers to the year in which the investigation was instituted by the Commission. Safeguard investigations Following receipt of a request from the Office of the United States Trade Representative (“USTR”) on June 22, 2001, the Commission instituted Investigation No. TA-201-73 under Section 202 of the Trade Act of 1974 to determine whether certain steel products, including seamless and welded OCTG, were being imported into the United States in such increased quantities as to be a substantial cause of serious injury, or the threat thereof, to the domestic industries producing articles like or directly competitive with the imported article.7 On December 20, 2001, the Commission issued its determinations and remedy recommendations.8 The Commission made a negative determination with respect to OCTG. 7 66 FR 35267, July 3, 2001. 8 66 FR 67304, December 28, 2001. I-7 Nature and extent of alleged subsidies and sales at LTFV Alleged subsidies On November 1, 2021, Commerce published a notice in the Federal Register of the initiation of its countervailing duty investigations on OCTG from Russia and South Korea.9 Commerce identified the following government programs in Russia and South Korea:10 11 Russia A. Provision of Good and Services for Less Than Adequate Remuneration 1. Provision of Natural Gas for Less Than Adequate Remuneration B. Lending Programs 1. Preferential Loans Provided by State-Controlled Banks 2. Preferential Loans for “Backbone” Enterprises 3. Government Sureties For “Backbone” Enterprises C. Eximbank Programs 1. High-Technology Exports Credit Support Program 2. Tender Guarantees 3. Guarantees of Return of Advance Payment 4. Guarantees of Performance of Services Specified in Export Contract 5. Payment Guarantees D. Grant Programs 1. Transportation Grants for Designated High-Technology Products 2. Grants For “Backbone” Enterprises E. Tax Programs 1. Tax Deferments For “Backbone” Enterprises 9 For further information on the alleged subsidy programs see Commerce’s notice of initiation and related CVD Initiation Checklist. 86 FR 60210, November 1, 2021. 10 Department of Commerce Enforcement and Compliance Office of AD/CVD Operations, CVD Initiation Checklist, Oil Country Tubular Goods from the Russian Federation, Case No. C-821-834, October 26, 2021, pp. 7-17. 11 Department of Commerce Enforcement and Compliance Office of AD/CVD Operations, CVD Initiation Checklist, Oil Country Tubular Goods from the Republic of Korea, Case No. C- 580-913, October 26, 2021, pp. 7-41. I-8 South Korea A. Electricity Programs 1. Demand Response Resources Program 2. Management of Electricity Factor Load Program (EFLP) B. Export Programs 1. Korea Export-Import Bank (KEXIM) Export Growth Loans 2. KEXIM Export Project Loans 3. KEXIM Export Facilitation Loans 4. KEXIM Import Loans 5. KEXIM Import Facilitation Loans 6. KEXIM Performance Guarantees 7. KEXIM Structured Trade Financing 8. KEXIM Payment Postponement 9. KEXIM Liquidity Support Program 10. KEXIM SME Speed-Up Loan Program 11. KEXIM Emergency Financing Facility Program 12. Korea Development Bank’s (KDB’s) Short-Term Discounted Loans for Export Receivables 13. Korea Trade Insurance Corporation (K-SURE) Export Credit Insurance 14. K-SURE Export Credit Guarantees C. Restriction of Special Taxation Act (RTSA) Tax Programs 1. RSTA Article 10(1)(3) – Tax Credits for Research and Human Resources Development Expenses 2. RSTA Article 11 – Tax Credits for Investment in Facilities for Research and Human Resources Development 3. RSTA Article 22 – Exemption from Corporate Tax on Dividend Income from Investment in Overseas Resources Development 4. RSTA Article 24 – Tax Credits for Investment, in Facilities for Improving Productivity 5. RSTA Article 25 – Tax Credits for Investment, etc. in Safety Facilities 6. RSTA Article 25-2 – Tax Credits for Investment in Energy-Saving Facilities 7. RSTA Article 25-3 – Tax Credits for Investment in Facilities for Environmental Conservation 8. RSTA Article 26 – Tax Credits for Employment-Creating Investment 9. RSTA Article 104-14 – Tax Credits for Third Party Logistics Expenses I-9 10. RSTA Article 104-15 – Special Taxation for Investment in Development of Overseas Resources D. Restriction of Special Local Taxation Act (RSLTA) Programs 1. RSLTA Article 78 – Acquisition and Property Tax Benefits to Companies in Industrial Complexes 2. RSLTA Article 109 – Tax Credit for Investing in Facilities for Increasing Productivity 3. RSLTA Article 110 – Tax Credit for Investing in Safety Facilities 4. RSLTA Article 111 – Tax Credit for Investing in Energy-Saving Facilities 5. RSLTA Article 112 – Tax Credit for Investing in Facilities for Environmental Conservation 6. RSLTA Article 114 – Tax Credit for Employment-Creating Investment E. Other Programs 1. Loans for Overseas Resource Development from the Korean Energy Agency 2. Grants for Overseas Resource Development 3. Industrial Grants Pursuant to the Industrial Technology Innovation Promotion Act (ITIPA) 4. Modal Shift Program 5. Grants for Conversion into Environment-Friendly Industrial Structure 6. Grants from the Ministry of Employment and Labor 7. KDB’s Funding of Industrial Restructuring 8. KDB General Operating Financing Loans 9. Incentives for Relocation to Regions Outside of Seoul Metropolitan Area 10. Imsil Agricultural and Industrial Complex Infrastructure Expansion Project 11. Assistance and Financial Support for New Convergence Industries and Manufacturers I-10 Alleged sales at LTFV On November 1, 2021, Commerce published a notice in the Federal Register of the initiation of its antidumping duty investigations on OCTG from Argentina, Mexico, and Russia.12 Commerce has initiated antidumping duty investigations based on estimated dumping margins of 168.49 percent for OCTG from Argentina, 59.75 percent for OCTG from Mexico, and 136.96 percent for OCTG from Russia. The subject merchandise Commerce’s scope In the current proceeding, Commerce has defined the scope as follows:13 The merchandise covered by the investigations is certain oil country tubular goods (OCTG), which are hollow steel products of circular cross- section, including oil well casing and tubing, of iron (other than cast iron) or steel (both carbon and alloy), whether seamless or welded, regardless of end finish ( e.g., whether or not plain end, threaded, or threaded and coupled) whether or not conforming to American Petroleum Institute (API) or non-API specifications, whether finished (including limited service OCTG products) or unfinished (including green tubes and limited service OCTG products), whether or not thread protectors are attached. The scope of the investigations also covers OCTG coupling stock. Subject merchandise includes material matching the above description that has been finished, packaged, or otherwise processed in a third country, including by performing any heat treatment, cutting, upsetting, threading, coupling, or any other finishing, packaging, or processing that would not otherwise remove the merchandise from the scope of the investigations if performed in the country of manufacture of the OCTG. Excluded from the scope of the investigations are: Casing or tubing containing 10.5 percent or more by weight of chromium; drill pipe; unattached couplings; and unattached thread protectors. 12 86 FR 60205, November 1, 2021. 13 86 FR 60205 and 86 FR 60210, November 1, 2021. I-11 Tariff treatment Based upon the scope set forth by Commerce, information available to the Commission indicates that the merchandise subject to these investigations are imported under the following provisions of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTS”): 7304.29.1010, 7304.29.1020, 7304.29.1030, 7304.29.1040, 7304.29.1050, 7304.29.1060, 7304.29.1080, 7304.29.2010, 7304.29.2020, 7304.29.2030, 7304.29.2040, 7304.29.2050, 7304.29.2060, 7304.29.2080, 7304.29.3110, 7304.29.3120, 7304.29.3130, 7304.29.3140, 7304.29.3150, 7304.29.3160, 7304.29.3180, 7304.29.4110, 7304.29.4120, 7304.29.4130, 7304.29.4140, 7304.29.4150, 7304.29.4160, 7304.29.4180, 7304.29.5015, 7304.29.5030, 7304.29.5045, 7304.29.5060, 7304.29.5075, 7304.29.6115, 7304.29.6130, 7304.29.6145, 7304.29.6160, 7304.29.6175, 7305.20.2000, 7305.20.4000, 7305.20.6000, 7305.20.8000, 7306.29.1030, 7306.29.1090, 7306.29.2000, 7306.29.3100, 7306.29.4100, 7306.29.6010, 7306.29.6050, 7306.29.8110, and 7306.29.8150.14 The 2021 general rate of duty is “Free” for HTS subheadings 7304.29.10, 7304.29.20, 7304.29.31, 7304.29.41, 7304.29.50, 7304.29.61, 7305.20.20, 7305.20.40, 7305.20.60, 7305.20.80, 7306.29.10, 7306.29.20, 7306.29.31, 7306.29.41, 7306.29.60, and 7306.29.81.15 Decisions on the tariff classification and treatment of imported goods are within the authority of U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”). Section 232 and 301 tariff treatment OCTG Effective March 23, 2018, OCTG imports originating in Russia and most nonsubject countries are subject to a 25 percent ad valorem duty under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, as amended.16 See U.S. notes 16(a) and 16(b), subchapter III of HTS chapter 99.17 14 The merchandise subject to the investigation may also enter under the following HTS statistical reporting numbers: 7304.39.0024, 7304.39.0028, 7304.39.0032, 7304.39.0036, 7304.39.0040, 7304.39.0044, 7304.39.0048, 7304.39.0052, 7304.39.0056, 7304.39.0062, 7304.39.0068, 7304.39.0072, 7304.39.0076, 7304.39.0080, 7304.59.6000, 7304.59.8015, 7304.59.8020, 7304.59.8025, 7304.59.8030, 7304.59.8035, 7304.59.8040, 7304.59.8045, 7304.59.8050, 7304.59.8055, 7304.59.8060, 7304.59.8065, 7304.59.8070, 7304.59.8080, 7305.31.4000, 7305.31.6090, 7306.30.5055, 7306.30.5090, 7306.50.5050, and 7306.50.5070. USITC, HTSUS (2021) Basic Revision 8, Publication 5225, October 2021, pp. 73-10, 73- 13, 73-15, 73-17, 73-19. 15 USITC, HTSUS (2021) Basic Revision 8, Publication 5225, October 2021, pp. 73-6 – 73-8, 73-15 – 73- 16.16 Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, as amended (19 U.S.C. §1862), authorizes the President, on advice of the Secretary of Commerce, to adjust the imports of an article and its derivatives that are being imported into the United States in such quantities or under such circumstances as to (continued...) I-12 OCTG imports originating in Mexico are currently exempted from Section 232 duties and quotas. OCTG imports originating in Argentina or Korea are also exempted from Section 232 duties but are subject to aggregate absolute import quotas of 147,963,294 kilograms (163,102 short tons) per year for Argentina and 460,867,818 kilograms (508,020 short tons) per year for Korea.18 The history of Section 232 Presidential proclamations is included in appendix D. Finally, effective September 1, 2019, imports of nonsubject OCTG originating in China became subject to an additional 7.5 percent ad valorem duty under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended.19 (…continued) threaten to impair the national security. Adjusting Imports of Steel Into the United States, Presidential Proclamation 9705, March 8, 2018, 83 FR 11625, March 15, 2018. 17 USITC, HTSUS (2021) Basic Revision 8, Publication 5225, October 2021, pp. 99-III-5 – 99-III-6. 18 Section 232 import duties cover all countries of origin except for Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, Mexico, and Korea. Imports from Australia, Canada, and Mexico are exempted from Section 232 duties and quotas, while imports from Argentina, Brazil, and Korea are exempted from duties but are instead subject to absolute quotas. Effective January 1, 2022, Section 232 duties for EU member states will be replaced with a tariff-rate quota. Imports from EU member states of steel products subject to section 232 steel tariffs that exceed the quota will continue to be subject to a Section 232 duty of 25 percent. CBP, “Trade Remedies,” https://www.cbp.gov/trade/programs-administration/trade- remedies/section-232-trade-remedies-aluminum-and-steel; “QB 21-604 2021 Fourth Quarter Absolute Quota for Steel Mill Articles of Argentina, Brazil and South Korea,” https://www.cbp.gov/trade/quota/bulletins/qb-21-604-2021-fourth-quarter-absolute-quota-steel-mill- articles-argentina-brazil-and, retrieved October 13, 2021. Office of the United States Trade Representative, “Announcement of Actions on EU Imports Under Section 232,” October 31, 2021, https://ustr.gov/sites/default/files/files/Statements/US%20232%20EU%20Statement.pdf. 19 Section 301 of the Trade Act, as amended (19 U.S.C. § 2411) authorizes the Office of the United States Trade Representative (“USTR”), at the direction of the President, to take appropriate action to respond to a foreign country’s unfair trade practices. Following investigations into “China’s acts, policies, and practices related to technology transfer, intellectual property, and innovation” (82 FR 40213, August 24, 2017), USTR published its determination, on April 6, 2018, that the acts, policies, and practices of China under investigation are unreasonable or discriminatory and burden or restrict U.S. commerce, and are thus actionable under section 301(b) of the Trade Act (83 FR 14906, April 6, 2018). Effective September 1, 2019, USTR included OCTG in its $300 Billion Trade Action (List 4 or Tranche 4, Annex A) of products originating in China subject to an initial 10 percent ad valorem duty (84 FR 43304, August 20, 2019) which was subsequently raised to 15 percent ad valorem, with the same effective date of September 1, 2019 (84 FR 45821, August 30, 2019), but was more recently reduced to 7.5 percent ad valorem, effective February 14, 2020 (85 FR 3741, January 22, 2020). See also HTS heading 9903.88.15 and U.S. notes 20(r) and 20(s) to subchapter III of chapter 99 and related tariff provisions for this duty treatment. USITC, HTSUS (2021) Basic Revision 8, USITC Publication 5225, October 2021, pp. 99-III-82 – 99-III-84, 99-III-94, 99-III-246, 99-III-248 – 99-III-251. I-13 Hot-rolled steel sheet Hot-rolled steel sheet in coil form (“hot-rolled coil”) is not a subject product, but it is used to manufacture welded OCTG. Effective March 23, 2018, hot-rolled coil imports originating in Russia and most nonsubject countries are subject to a 25 percent ad valorem duty under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, as amended.20 See U.S. notes 16(a) and 16(b), subchapter III of HTS chapter 99.21 Hot-rolled coil imports originating in Mexico are currently exempted from Section 232 duties and quotas. Hot-rolled coil imports originating in Argentina or Korea are also exempted from Section 232 duties but are subject to aggregate absolute import quotas of 6,475,837 kilograms (7,138 short tons) per year for Argentina and 404,694,045 kilograms (446,099 short tons) per year for Korea.22 Finally, effective September 1, 2019, imports of hot-rolled coil originating in China became subject to an additional 7.5 percent ad valorem duty under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended.23 20 Adjusting Imports of Steel Into the United States, Presidential Proclamation 9705, March 8, 2018, 83 FR 11625, March 15, 2018. 21 USITC, HTSUS (2021) Basic Revision 8, Publication 5225, October 2021, pp. 99-III-5 – 99-III-6. 22 CBP, “QB 21-604 2021 Fourth Quarter Absolute Quota for Steel Mill Articles of Argentina, Brazil and South Korea,” https://www.cbp.gov/trade/quota/bulletins/qb-21-604-2021-fourth-quarter- absolute-quota-steel-mill-articles-argentina-brazil-and, retrieved October 13, 2021. 23 Effective September 1, 2019, USTR included hot-rolled coil in its $300 Billion Trade Action (List 4 or Tranche 4, Annex A) of products originating in China subject to an initial 10 percent ad valorem duty (84 FR 43304, August 20, 2019) which was subsequently raised to 15 percent ad valorem, with the same effective date of September 1, 2019 (84 FR 45821, August 30, 2019), but was more recently reduced to 7.5 percent ad valorem, effective February 14, 2020 (85 FR 3741, January 22, 2020). See also HTS heading 9903.88.15 and U.S. notes 20(r) and 20(s) to subchapter III of chapter 99 and related tariff provisions for this duty treatment. USITC, HTSUS (2021) Basic Revision 8, USITC Publication 5225, October 2021, pp. 99-III-82 – 99-III-84, 99-III-93, 99-III-246, 99-III-248 – 99-III-251. I-14 The product Description and applications24 OCTG consists primarily of casing and tubing of carbon and alloy steel used in the drilling of oil and gas wells and in the conveying of oil and gas from within the well to ground level.25 OCTG are manufactured by either the seamless or welded process. Both seamless OCTG and welded OCTG are used in drilling and conveyance applications, although seamless OCTG generally is required for use in high-pressure or sour service environments.26 A sour service well contains hydrogen sulfide gas which can potentially result in sulfide stress cracking in the welded seam of welded OCTG.27 A well containing a higher level of hydrogen sulfide gas would require seamless OCTG, but welded OCTG reportedly can be used in some sour service applications where there are lower levels of hydrogen sulfide gas present in the well.28 24 Unless otherwise noted, this information is based on Certain oil Country Tubular Goods from India, Korea, Turkey, Ukraine, and Vietnam, Inv. Nos. 701-TA-499-500 and 731-TA-1215-1216, 1221-1223 (Review), USITC Publication 5090, July 2020, pp. I-20 through I-26. 25 The American Iron and Steel Institute (AISI) has defined six end use categories for steel pipe and tube: standard pipe, line pipe, structural pipe and tubing, mechanical tubing, pressure tubing, and oil country tubular goods. Standard, line, and pressure pipe is generally intended to convey liquids and is typically tested and rated for its ability to withstand hydrostatic pressure. Structural pipe and tubing are used for load-bearing purposes and construction, and only small amounts of seamless pipe are used in structural applications. Seamless mechanical tubing is typically a custom-designed product employed within the automotive industry and by equipment manufacturers. 26 Conference transcript, pp. 100–01 (Buono, Tait), 168–69 (Lange), 206–07 (Cura), Respondent TMK’s postconference brief, p. 10. 27 Conference transcript, pp. 100–01 (Buono, Tait), 168–69 (Lange). 28 Conference transcript, pp. 100–01 (Buono, Tait). I-15 Figure I-1 shows a simplified schematic arrangement of a typical well with a system of casing and tubing. Figure I-2 presents a more detailed representation of an oil or gas well, including descriptions of different types of casing by depth and function. Advancements in oil and gas exploration technologies, including advanced horizontal drilling29 and hydraulic fracturing (figure I-3),30 have enabled oil and gas wells to reach locations that were previously deemed cost-prohibitive. In addition, the application of new technologies permits more wells per acre, thus increasing oil and gas production and recoverable reserves. 29 Horizontal drilling is a variant of directional drilling in which vertical drilling within a well turns horizontal with the reservoir rock to expose more of the wellbore to the oil or natural gas. More oil and natural gas can be produced from fewer wells with less surface disturbance. American Petroleum Institute (API), “Advanced Drilling Techniques,” found at http://www.api.org/oil-and-natural-gas- overview/exploration-and-production/natural-gas/advanced-drilling, retrieved October 15, 2021. On October 15, 2021, 90 percent of active rotary rigs (593 rigs) in the United States employed horizontal drilling, while 8 percent (23 rigs) employed directional drilling; the remaining 2 percent (7 rigs) employed vertical drilling. Baker Hughes International Inc., “North American Rotary Rig Count,” October 15, 2021, found at https://rigcount.bakerhughes.com/static-files/55ff50da-ac65-410d-924c-fe45b23db298, retrieved October 18, 2021. The footage of onshore wells drilled in the United States *** from *** feet in 2018 to *** feet in 2020. Footage drilled was projected to *** to *** feet in 2021. ***. 30 Hydraulic fracturing (commonly referred to as “fracking”) requires the high-pressure injection of a mixture of water, sand, and chemicals through the well and into the surrounding shale rock formations, creating a network of narrow fractures in the rock. The fractures allow more oil and natural gas to enter through perforations made in the casing and tubing. I-16 Figure I-1 Casing and tubing: Simplified diagrammatic representation of a well showing the casing strings and production tubing Source: Introduction to Oil and Gas Production, Fifth Edition, American Petroleum Institute, June 1996, p. 11. I-17 Figure I-2 Casing and tubing: Subsurface components of an oil or gas well, including descriptions of different types of casing by depth and function Source: The Energy Council, “Facts,” found at https://energycouncil.org/facts/#about-natural-gas, retrieved October 15, 2021. I-18 Figure I-3 Casing and tubing: Horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing Source: American Petroleum Institute (API), “The Facts About Hydraulic Fracturing and Seismic Activity,” 2013. I-19 Casing is a circular pipe that serves as a structural retainer for the walls of the well. Casing typically has an outside diameter (OD) ranging from 4.5 inches to 20 inches and a length typically ranging from 34 feet to 48 feet. Casing provides a firm foundation for the drill string31 by supporting the walls of the hole to prevent caving in or wall collapse both during drilling and after the well is completed. After the casing is set in the well hole, concrete is usually pumped into the annulus (the space between the well wall and the casing) until the annulus is filled. Casing also serves as a surface pipe designed to prevent contamination of the recoverable oil and gas by surface water, gas, sand, or limestone. Casing must be sufficiently strong to carry its own weight, as well as to resist both external pressure and pressure within the well. Casing can be threaded at both ends and connected with other casing pieces with couplings or connectors. Because the amount of open hole that can be drilled at any one time is limited, larger wells require a string of concentric layers of casing rather than a single casing. Several sizes of casing may be set inside the well after it has been drilled, with the larger sizes set at the top of the well, and the smaller sizes set toward the bottom. Tubing is a smaller-diameter pipe (between 1.050–4.5 inches OD) installed inside the larger-diameter casing that is used to conduct the oil or gas to the surface, either through natural flow or through pumping. Substances such as lubricants are also pumped into the well through the tubing for well treatment. Tubing must be strong enough to support its own weight, that of the oil or gas, and that of any pumping equipment suspended on the string. Tubing, like casing, usually is produced in accordance with API specification 5CT. The API specification 5CT designates 11 separate grades of casing and tubing, identified by a letter and a number: H40, J55, K55, N80, L80, C90, R95, T95, P110, C110, and Q125.32 The API grade letter is an arbitrary designation, while the number refers to minimum yield strength in thousands of pounds per square inch (“ksi”).33 In addition, an API grade may be further delineated by chemical composition, method of production (i.e., seamless or welded), dimension, heat treatment, testing procedures, and other engineering specifications, depending on customers’ requirements.34 Most API grades provide for seamless and welded 31 The drill string consists of drill pipe, drill collars, and the drill bit. 32 Techstreet Store, “API SPEC 5CT.” https://www.techstreet.com/standards/api-spec- 5ct?product_id=2016190. 33 Thus, Q125 has a higher yield strength than grades J55 or K55 (J55 and K55 differ with respect to minimum tensile strengths). 34 For example, Grade L80, type 9Cr must contain 8-10 percent chromium by weight, be produced by the seamless manufacturing process, and be tempered and quenched. I-20 production methods.35 API 5CT specifications require the seamless manufacturing process for grades ***, while grades *** can be produced using either the seamless or welded process.36 API grades H40, J55, and K55 generally refer to carbon grades that have lower minimum yield strengths and that do not require heat treatment. API grades N80, L80, P110, and Q125 generally refer to alloy grades (due to the inclusion of additional alloying elements in the steel) that have minimum yield strengths greater than 80,000 ksi and require heat treatment. Heat treatment enhances particular physical characteristics, including greater yield and tensile strengths. Generally, as the depth and pressure in a well increases, heat treated OCTG would be required because of its higher strength. Shallow (close to the surface) OCTG applications that are not subject to greater pressure do not require heat treated OCTG. However, in limited sour service environments where stronger OCTG does not perform well, OCTG that has not been heat treated would be required.37 Heat treated OCTG is generally more expensive than OCTG that has not been heat treated.38 As noted above, not all OCTG requires heat treatment. For OCTG that may require heat treatment there are two categories of tubular products. Tubular products in the first category are often referred to as “green tube” (or less frequently “green pipe”) and typically meet certain basic API requirements, such as those for diameter and wall thickness. The underlying steel is produced to a customer’s specification so that the green tube can be converted into the required casing or tubing product, but the green tube itself is not sold “at grade.” Tubular products in the second category already meet and are certified to API 5CT specifications for casing and tubing but are produced with a steel chemistry that allows them to be upgraded. Such upgradeable OCTG is sometimes referred to as green tube, but industry practice is less consistent, since the upgradeable product is certified to chemical and mechanical properties, has an API monogram, and (as discussed below) does not require heat treatment. Upgradeable OCTG that meets the minimum specifications for lower-grade API 5CT casing and tubing (i.e., H40 and J55) can be certified to those grades and used in applications 35 Conference transcript, pp. 60, 101–02 (Buono). 36 Grade *** must be produced by the seamless manufacturing process, while grade *** can be produced using either the seamless or welded process. Petitioners’ postconference brief, Exhibit 10. 37 A representative of B&L Pipeco Services Inc. estimated that OCTG that has not been heat treated would only be required in about 2 percent of uses. Conference transcript, pp. 102–03 (Tait). 38 Conference transcript, pp. 104 (Hanley). I-21 not requiring additional heat treatment.39 Alternatively, depending on its steel composition and wall thickness, upgradeable OCTG that meets non-heat treatable API grades of casing and tubing can be subsequently heat treated to increase yield and tensile strengths in order to meet the minimum specifications for higher-grade API 5CT casing and tubing (e.g., P110).40 Finally, finished casing and tubing typically refers to product that has been heat treated (if required), tested, threaded, and coupled. Limited service OCTG is OCTG that does not meet API specifications but can still be used in certain OCTG applications such as in shallower wells with lower pressure. Limited service OCTG is sold without the same warranties that would come with OCTG that meets API specifications.41 Coupling stock is a thick-walled, seamless tubular product used to manufacture coupling blanks. Coupling blanks, in turn, are unthreaded tube blanks used to make individual couplings. Couplings are thick-walled and internally threaded seamless cylinders that are used for joining two lengths of threaded OCTG. Couplings are produced and certified to the same API grade and type as the OCTG to which the couplings are joined. Coupling typically accounts for 2-3 percent of the weight of end-finished tubing or casing. Manufacturing processes42 OCTG mills manufacture casing and tubing by either of two distinct types of operations: the seamless process or the electric-resistance-welding (“ERW”) process, a lower-cost method than the seamless process. By contrast, mills manufacture coupling stock for OCTG couplings exclusively through the seamless process. 39 Green tube certified to these grades undergo further finishing operations, including threading. 40 API 5CT grades H40, J55, and K55 do not require heat treatment (although grades J55 and K55 can be heat treated at the manufacture’s option). API grades N80 (types I and II), L80, C90, C95, T95, P110, and Q125 require some form of heat treatment. All grades are threaded in one form or another to finish the pipe. 41 Conference transcript, pp. 97–99 (Meisner, Tait, Hanley). 42 Unless otherwise noted, this information is based on Certain oil Country Tubular Goods from India, Korea, Turkey, Ukraine, and Vietnam, Inv. Nos. 701-TA-499-500 and 731-TA-1215-1216, 1221-1223 (Review), USITC Publication 5090, July 2020, pp. I-27 through I-34. I-22 Seamless OCTG is manufactured by either of two high-temperature methods to form a central cavity in a solid steel billet; namely, the rotary piercing method or the hot extrusion method. Round or square billets serve as the input for seamless tubing (figure I-4). If a square billet is used, it is first forced through a circular roll pass, which transformed the billet from square to round for the piercing operation. In the rotary piercing method, the heating billet is gripped by angled rolls, which cause the billet to rotate and advance over a piercer point, forming a hole through the length of the billet. In the extrusion method, the billet is hot punch- pierced and then extruded axially through a die and over a mandrel, forming a hollow shell. The hollow shell produced by either method is then rolled with a fixed plug or with a continuous mandrel inside the shell to reduce the wall thickness and increase the shell’s length. Finally, the shell is rolled in a sizing mill or a stretch-reducing mill where it is formed to size. Welded OCTG is manufactured from hot-rolled steel sheet in coil form (“hot-rolled coil”) (figure I-5). The hot-rolled coil is slit to the width that corresponds to the desired diameter of tube. The slit hot-rolled coil passes through a series of rollers while at ambient temperature and forms a tubular shape. The edges are then heated by electric resistance and welded together by heat and pressure, without the addition of filler metal. The welding pressure causes some of the metal to be squeezed from the welding joint, forming a bead of metal on the inside and outside of the tube. This bead, or welding flash, is usually trimmed from both the outside and the inside surfaces. I-23 Figure I-4 Casing and tubing: Seamless manufacturing process Source: JFE Steel Corporation, OCTG (Product Catalog), found at https://www.jfe- steel.co.jp/en/products/pipes/catalog/e1e-012.pdf, retrieved October 15, 2021. I-24 Figure I-5 Casing and tubing: General schematic of the ERW manufacturing process Source: JFE Steel Corporation, OCTG (Product Catalog), found at https://www.jfe- steel.co.jp/en/products/pipes/catalog/e1e-012.pdf, retrieved October 15, 2021. I-25 Finishing phase After the forming phase, the pipe body is heat-treated, and its ends upset, threaded and coupled, as needed. U.S. pipe mills typically are equipped with the facilities necessary to perform these processes. Independent processors operate facilities that are capable of full- body heat treatment and that may upset pipe ends.43 Threaders are capable of threading and coupling, hydrostatic testing, and measuring the length of OCTG products. Some processors and threaders may also manufacture couplings that become part of finished OCTG. Processors and threaders mainly serve imports, since OCTG are often imported with plain ends, and are heat treated, upset, and threaded in the United States. This approach provides the flexibility to offer casing and tubing in compliance with a variety of specifications, thus allowing them to serve a wide range of consumer needs. Heat treatment In the steel manufacturing process, specific engineering characteristics and mechanical properties of the steel can be achieved through the application of different heat treatments. Heat treating may involve one or more heating cycles in either a continuous or batch furnace, with controlled rates of cooling. Specific heat treating requirements depend on the grade of steel being processed. For welded pipe, the heat treatment may cover the welded seam only, or the full cross section of the pipe. API standards specify a documented procedure for every particular grade and type of pipe. API-specific heat treatment processes in the production of casing and tubing include annealing, normalizing, and quench and tempering. Annealing is a single heat treatment process that prepares the steel for fabrication or service. The steel is heated to a temperature in or near a specific range and cooled at a predetermined rate or cycle. Annealing relieves internal residual stresses or hardness induced by welding, cold working, or machining. In the normalizing process, the pipe is heated above a specific temperature, held at this temperature for a specified time, and then air-cooled. Normalizing refines the steel grain size 43 API defines a processor as: “firm, company, or corporation that operates facilities capable of heat treating pipe made by a pipe mill.” Most processors typically perform threading operations, although many threaders do not perform processing operations. Discussion of independent threaders is limited in this report, as the Commission in past OCTG investigations has not deemed independent threaders to be part of the domestic industry producing casing and tubing. Oil Country Tubular Goods from Argentina, Italy, Japan, Korea, and Mexico, Investigation Nos. 731-TA-711 and 713-716 (Second Review), USITC Publication 3923, June 2007, p. 9. Certain oil Country Tubular Goods from India, Korea, Turkey, Ukraine, and Vietnam, Inv. Nos. 701-TA-499-500 and 731-TA-1215-1216, 1221-1223 (Review), USITC Publication 5090, July 2020, pp. 7–8, I-30. I-26 and obtains a carbide size and distribution that is more suitable for future heat treatment than the as-rolled structure. Quenching and tempering is a sequential process in which the pipe is heated to a specific temperature for a specified time period to modify the steel’s microstructure, and then “quenched” in a cooling medium such as water, oil, or air, depending on the thickness of the pipe. After quenching, the steel is very brittle and must be reheated and then cooled under specific conditions. This process is called “tempering.” The pipe must undergo a specified process of quenching and tempering in order to qualify for certain API grades. Depending on the pipe design, API standards may specify a single heat treatment process or a combination of processes for the pipe, such as normalizing and tempering, or quenching and tempering. After heat treatment, sizing rolls shape the tube to accurate diameter tolerances. The product is cooled and then cut to length at the end of the tube mill. Coupling stock is made to the same grade and type specifications as casing and tubing. It must also be subject to the same heat treatment as pipe, except where specified by the purchaser. Upsetting and threading Casing and tubing are finished by threading and the attachment of a suitable coupling to one end of each length. If additional strength in the joint is required, such as for some casing or tubing that is subject to severe or sour service,44 the ends of the pipe are upset before threads are cut. In the upsetting process, the end of the pipe is heated to forging temperature, and then inserted endwise into an upsetting machine. The machine pushes the hot metal back, creating a thicker wall at the end of the pipe. The upsetting may be controlled to displace the extra thickness to the inside or the outside of the pipe. Casing and tubing can be joined directly using male (outer) and female (inner) threading, or by using couplings with female threads on each end. Typically, the pipe is mounted on a lathe and threads are cut by using sharp steel cutting tools (called chasers), which are mounted on a threading die surrounding the pipe. As the pipe is turned on the lathe, the threading die moves along the pipe’s axis, producing the required spiral cut on the inner or outer surface of the pipe. Threading can be made to meet API standards, or made to proprietary standards that are designed, registered, and protected by patents or other intellectual property rights 44 Sour crude oil or sour gas is defined as an oil/gas containing common impurities such as water, carbon dioxide, hydrogen sulfide, and oxygen, which are mixed in with the oil/gas during extraction. These impurities corrode or cause cracking in steel; albeit, without any observable change in appearance prior to failure. I-27 mechanism and that are not specified by API standards. For instance, OCTG producers may market proprietary “semi-premium” or “premium” threaded connections that provide higher torsional loads, bending resistance, or greater sealability for casing in challenging drilling environments. Premium threaded connections generally refer to OCTG connections that have a metal-to-metal, gas-tight seal to ensure pressure integrity. Semi premium connections generally refer to connections that do not have a metal-to-metal seal, yet maintain water-tight sealability, and thus may be used in less demanding wells with no gas-tight sealability requirements. Examples of threaded and coupled semi premium and premium connections are shown in figures I-6 and I-7. After threading, a thread protector is applied to the threaded pipe ends during handling, transportation, or storage.45 45 Threading can be performed after transportation to avoid damage caused by movement, water, or weather. Damaged threads can cause expensive ruptures of the pipe string in casing and tubing applications where pipes are connected to one another by threaded joints. I-28 Figure I-6 Casing and tubing: Threaded and coupled semi-premium connection Source: U.S. Steel Tubular Products, “USS-CDC® Semi-Premium OCTG Connections,” found at https://usstubular.com/octg-products-and-services/octg-connections/semi-premium-connections/uss-cdc/, retrieved October 15, 2021. I-29 Figure I-7 Casing and tubing: Threaded and coupled premium connection Source: U.S. Steel Tubular Products, “USS-PATRIOT EBM® Premium OCTG Connections,” found at https://usstubular.com/octg-products-and-services/octg-connections/premium-connections-metal-to- metal-seal/uss-patriot-ebm/, retrieved October 15, 2021. I-30 Domestic like product issues No issues with respect to domestic like product have been raised in these investigations.46 Petitioners argue that the record, coupled with the Commission’s findings in previous OCTG proceedings, shows there is a single domestic like product, coextensive with the scope of the current investigations.47 Respondents stated that for the purposes of the preliminary phase of these investigations, they were not going to contest that there is a single domestic like product.48 46 Firms were asked to provide information regarding factors the Commission considers for semi- finished product analysis. U.S. producers’ responses are presented in appendix E. 47 Petitioners’ postconference brief, pp. 5-6. 48 Conference transcript, p. 165 (Spak). II-1 Part II: Conditions of competition in the U.S. market U.S. market characteristics OCTG, whether seamless or welded, includes casing and tubing for use in oil and natural gas exploration and production. Both vertical drilling and horizontal drilling employ casing for structural integrity and tubing for liquid and gas flow (including traditional extraction and hydraulic fracturing or “fracking,” which requires a high-pressure injection of fracturing fluid into the well). Since January 2000, the production of horizontal wells has increased relative to vertical wells.1 Horizontal wells now constitute the vast majority of the oil and natural gas wells in the United States.2 Moreover, horizontal wells typically require more casing and tubing than vertical wells because of the greater drilling distances (in terms of footage), which has caused the average amount of OCTG required per well to increase over time.3 Since 2018, however, apparent U.S. consumption has decreased in terms of both quantity and value. Overall apparent U.S. consumption in terms of quantity in 2020 was 53.5 percent lower than in 2018 and it was 60.4 percent lower in terms of value. Apparent consumption in the first have of 2021 was 9.5 percent higher in terms of quantity and 6.3 percent higher in terms of value compared to the first quarter of 2020. 1 EIA, https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=34732. 2 Baker-Hughes North America Rotary Rig Count. 3 EIA, https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=34732. II-2 Channels of distribution Table II-1 presents channels of distribution for OCTG in the U.S. market. U.S. mills and non-toll processors sold OCTG mainly to distributors, although mill sales directly to end users increased during 2018-21. This shift in the channels of distribution of U.S. mills reflected a decrease in sales to distributors by a plurality of U.S. producers, as opposed to an increased volume of sales to end users. Importers likewise sold OCTG predominantly to distributors. However, the *** importer of OCTG from Argentina and Mexico, Tenaris, sold OCTG *** to end users. II-3 Table II-1 OCTG: Share of U.S. shipments by source, channel of distribution, and period Shares in percent Source Channel 2018 2019 2020 Jan-Jun 2020 Jan-Jun 2021 United States: Mills Distributors *** *** *** *** *** United States: Mills Processors *** *** *** *** *** United States: Mills End users *** *** *** *** *** United States: Non- toll processors Distributors *** *** *** *** *** United States: Non- toll processors Processors *** *** *** *** *** United States: Non- toll processors End users *** *** *** *** *** Argentina Distributors *** *** *** *** *** Argentina Processors *** *** *** *** *** Argentina End users *** *** *** *** *** Mexico Distributors *** *** *** *** *** Mexico Processors *** *** *** *** *** Mexico End users *** *** *** *** *** Russia Distributors *** *** *** *** *** Russia Processors *** *** *** *** *** Russia End users *** *** *** *** *** South Korea Distributors *** *** *** *** *** South Korea Processors *** *** *** *** *** South Korea End users *** *** *** *** *** Subject Distributors *** *** *** *** *** Subject Processors *** *** *** *** *** Subject End users *** *** *** *** *** Nonsubject Distributors *** *** *** *** *** Nonsubject Processors *** *** *** *** *** Nonsubject End users *** *** *** *** *** All imports Distributors *** *** *** *** *** All imports Processors *** *** *** *** *** All imports End users *** *** *** *** *** Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. II-4 Geographic distribution U.S. producers and importers reported selling OCTG to all regions of United States, with all U.S. importers and all but one U.S. producer selling to the Central Southwest region (table II- 2). Importers of OCTG from Russia reported sales to only ***. No importers of OCTG from South Korea reported sales to the Pacific Coast region. For U.S. producers, 18.1 percent of sales were within 100 miles of their production facility, 55.1 percent were between 101 and 1,000 miles, and 26.8 percent were over 1,000 miles. Importers sold 61.9 percent within 100 miles of their U.S. point of shipment, 22.0 percent between 101 and 1,000 miles, and 16.1 percent over 1,000 miles. Table II-2 OCTG: Count of U.S. producers’ and U.S. importers’ geographic markets Region U.S. producers Argentina Mexico Russia South Korea Subject sources Northeast 8 *** *** *** *** 3 Midwest 8 *** *** *** *** 3 Southeast 5 *** *** *** *** 3 Central Southwest 11 *** *** *** *** 11 Mountain 7 *** *** *** *** 3 Pacific Coast 5 *** *** *** *** 1 Other 4 *** *** *** *** 1 All regions (except Other) 5 *** *** *** *** 1 Reporting firms 12 1 2 5 5 11 Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Note: Other U.S. markets include AK, HI, PR, and VI. Impact of section 232 tariffs U.S. producers and importers were asked to report the impact of section 232 tariffs on aluminum and steel products on the overall demand, supply, prices, and raw material costs for OCTG (table II-3). The majority of U.S. producers and importers reported that section 232 tariffs caused the supply of domestic OCTG to increase and the supply of imported OCTG to decrease. U.S. producers’ responses on the impact of section 232 tariffs on the price of OCTG were mixed while a majority of importers reported that section 232 tariffs had increased the price of OCTG. U.S. producers’ and importers’ responses on the impact of section 232 tariffs on domestic demand were mixed. U.S. producers’ responses on the impact of section 232 tariffs on raw material costs for seamless OCTG were mixed while a majority of U.S. producers reported that raw material costs for welded OCTG increased as a result of section 232 tariffs. A majority of II-5 importers reported that section 232 tariffs had increased raw material costs for seamless and welded OCTG. Table II-3 OCTG: Firms' responses regarding the impact of the 232 tariffs Count in number of firms reporting Factor Firm type Increase No change Decrease Fluctuate Supply of domestic OCTG U.S. producers 6 2 2 0 Supply of domestic OCTG Importers 13 3 2 2 Supply of imported OCTG U.S. producers 2 0 6 1 Supply of imported OCTG Importers 1 0 18 2 Prices for OCTG U.S. producers 2 3 1 5 Prices for OCTG Importers 12 4 1 6 Domestic demand for OCTG U.S. producers 1 5 3 2 Domestic demand for OCTG Importers 0 8 6 8 Raw material costs for seamless OCTG U.S. producers 2 1 1 3 Raw material costs for seamless OCTG Importers 11 1 1 5 Raw material costs for welded OCTG U.S. producers 7 0 0 3 Raw material costs for welded OCTG Importers 15 1 0 5 Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. II-6 Supply and demand considerations U.S. supply Table II-4 provides a summary of the supply factors regarding OCTG from U.S. producers and from subject countries. Capacity utilization in the United States and subject countries decreased noticeably from 2018 to 2020, a period of diminished oil and gas exploration and production. Parties provided information in the staff conference regarding OCTG production capacity. Petitioners stated that it takes 30 to 45 days to raise capacity by adding a shift to active mill.4 They stated that it takes approximately 3 months to bring an idled mill back to a one crew steady state and 6 months to bring an idled mill to a multi-crew steady state.5 Respondents stated that it takes 3 to 6 months to raise capacity by adding a shift to an active mill.6 Petitioners characterized a capacity utilization rate 80 to 90 percent as a high level that would require running three shifts.7 Respondents reported that capacity utilization rates of 85 percent were healthy but rates should not exceed 95 percent.8 4 Conference transcript p. 84 (Johnson). 5 Conference transcript p. 87 (Buono). 6 Conference transcript p. 193 (Gernand). 7 Conference transcript p. 83 (Hart). 8 Conference transcript p. 191 (Cura). II-7 Table II-4 OCTG: Supply factors that affect the ability to increase shipments to the U.S. market, by country Quantity in short tons; ratio and share in percent; count is number of “yes” responses Factor Measure United States mills Argentina Mexico Russia South Korea Subject suppliers Capacity 2018 Quantity *** *** *** *** *** *** Capacity 2020 Quantity *** *** *** *** *** *** Capacity utilization 2018 Ratio *** *** *** *** *** *** Capacity utilization 2020 Ratio *** *** *** *** *** *** Inventories to total shipments 2018 Ratio *** *** *** *** *** *** Inventories to total shipments 2020 Ratio *** *** *** *** *** *** Home market shipments 2020 Share *** *** *** *** *** *** Non-US export market shipments 2020 Share *** *** *** *** *** *** Ability to shift production (firms reporting “yes”) Count *** *** *** *** *** *** Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Note: Responding U.S. producers accounted for the vast majority of U.S. production of OCTG in 2020. Responding foreign producer/exporter firms accounted the following percentages of U.S. imports from subject countries in 2020: Argentina, virtually all; Mexico, over 75 percent; Russia, over 75 percent; and South Korea, over 50 percent. For additional data on the number of responding firms and their share of U.S. production and of U.S. imports from each subject country, please refer to Part I, “Summary Data and Data Sources.” II-8 Domestic production Based on available information, U.S. producers of OCTG have the ability to respond to changes in demand with large changes in the quantity of shipments of U.S.-produced OCTG to the U.S. market. The main contributing factors to this degree of responsiveness of supply are the availability of large amounts of unused capacity, moderate inventory levels, and the ability to shift production from producing other products to OCTG. The limited ability to divert shipments from other markets mitigates the responsiveness of supply. U.S. producers reported decreased capacity and capacity utilization from 2018 to 2020. U.S producers’ inventories relative to total shipments decreased from 2018 to 2020. Exports of U.S. produced OCTG remained at or below *** percent of total shipments throughout the period. The majority of U.S. producers (9 of 16) reported that they were able to switch production to or from other products to OCTG. These firms reported being able to produce line pipe, structural pipe, pressure pipe, drill pipe, mechanical pipe, and drill stems. Subject imports from Argentina Based on available information, the responding producer of OCTG from Argentina has the ability to respond to changes in demand with large changes in the quantity of shipments of OCTG to the U.S. market. The main contributing factors to this degree of responsiveness of supply are the availability of unused capacity, moderate inventory levels and the ability to divert shipments from other markets. The limited ability to shift production to or from alternate products mitigates the responsiveness of supply. Argentine production capacity *** while capacity utilization *** from 2018 to 2020. The Argentine producer’s inventory relative to total shipments increased by just under *** percentage points from 2018 to 2020. The responding Argentine producer reported selling just under *** of total shipments in its home market and just under *** of total shipments to markets other than the United States in 2020. It reported selling just over*** percent of total shipments to the United States in 2020. Other markets include ***. It reported it was *** to shift production to or from alternate products. Subject imports from Mexico Based on available information, the responding producer of OCTG from Mexico has the ability to respond to changes in demand with large changes in the quantity of shipments of II-9 OCTG to the U.S. market. The main contributing factors to this degree of responsiveness of supply are the availability of unused capacity, moderate inventory and the ability to divert shipments from other markets. The limited ability to shift production to or from alternate products mitigates the responsiveness of supply. Mexican production capacity and capacity utilization decreased from 2018 to 2020. The Mexican producer’s inventory relative to total shipments increased by just under *** percentage points from 2018 to 2020. The responding Mexican producer reported selling just under *** of total shipments in its home market and just under *** of total shipments to markets other than the United States in 2020. Other markets include ***. The Mexican producer reported selling just under *** of total shipments to the United States in 2020. The responding Mexican producer reported it was unable to shift production to or from alternate products. Subject imports from Russia Based on available information, producers of OCTG from Russia have the ability to respond to changes in demand with moderate-to-large changes in the quantity of shipments of OCTG to the U.S. market. The main contributing factors to this degree of responsiveness of supply are the availability of some unused capacity, low inventory levels, the ability to divert limited shipments from other markets and the ability to shift production to or from alternate products. Russian production capacity increased while capacity utilization decreased from 2018 to 2020. Russian producers’ inventory relative to total shipments decreased by just under *** percentage point from 2018 to 2020. Responding Russian producers reported that most of their shipments went to their home market (more than *** percent). Russian producers reported selling under *** percent of total shipments to the United States in 2020. Other markets include Germany, Kyrgyzstan, the Netherlands, France, and Switzerland, Kazakhstan, UAE, and Belarus. One of the two responding Russian producers reported being able to shift production to or from alternate products. JSC Vyksa reported being able to produce *** on the same equipment used to produce OCTG. Subject imports from South Korea Based on available information, producers of OCTG from South Korea have the ability to respond to changes in demand with large changes in the quantity of shipments of OCTG to the II-10 U.S. market. The main contributing factors to this degree of responsiveness of supply are the availability of unused capacity and ability to shift production to or from alternate products. Factors that mitigate the responsiveness of supply are a low inventory levels and a limited ability to divert shipments from other markets. South Korean production capacity increased while capacity utilization decreased from 2018 to 2020. The South Korean producer’s inventory relative to total shipments decreased by just over *** percentage points from 2018 to 2020. The responding South Korean producer reported that its ***, with just under *** percent of total shipments to the United States in 2020. Hyundai reported it was able to shift production to or from alternate products and reported that it is able to produce line pipe and standard pipe on the same equipment as OCTG. Imports from nonsubject sources Imports from nonsubject sources accounted for 49.3 percent of total U.S. imports in 2020. The four largest sources of imports from nonsubject sources in 2020 were Taiwan, Brazil, Austria, and Canada and account for 50.1 percent of imports from nonsubject sources. Supply constraints Four of 12 U.S. producers and 7 of 25 importers reported that they had experienced supply constraints since January 1, 2018. U.S. producer *** reported that the cyclical nature of the oil and gas sector leads suppliers to overshoot demand signals when demand is low and that it takes weeks or months to rebalance the flow of goods through the supply chain when demand recovers. Importer *** reported that there were supply constraints in the first and second quarters of 2021 due to hot rolled coil being unavailable. Importer *** reported that it has to be selective as to whom it sells to when there are sudden changes in demand as it supplies customers from inventory and the product can takes up to 9 to 12 months to arrive. Inventories Inventories are held domestically by U.S. producers, distributors, importers, and end users in the United States. Distributors will typically stock OCTG from producers and importers and try to maintain inventory levels that are neither too small (risking missed delivery time II-11 frames or lost sales) or too large (risking price fluctuations that affect the valuation of any held stock).9 Table II-5 and figure II-1 presents the inventory of OTCG in net tons reported by ***. After some declines in 2018, inventories of OCTG generally increased in 2019, 2020 and the first half of 2021. Figure II-1 OCTG: U.S inventory level, by month, January 2018-June 2021 * * * * * * * Source: *** 9 Certain Oil County Tubular Goods from India, Korea, Philippines, Saudi Arabia, Taiwan, Thailand, Turkey, Ukraine, and Vietnam 731-TA-1215-1223 (Final), USITC Publication 4489, September 2014, p. II- 11. II-12 Table II-5 OCTG: U.S inventory level, by month, January 2018-June 2021 Inventory level in net tons Year Month Inventory level 2018 January *** 2018 February *** 2018 March *** 2018 April *** 2018 May *** 2018 June *** 2018 July *** 2018 August *** 2018 September *** 2018 October *** 2018 November *** 2018 December *** 2019 January *** 2019 February *** 2019 March *** 2019 April *** 2019 May *** 2019 June *** 2019 July *** 2019 August *** 2019 September *** 2019 October *** 2019 November *** 2019 December *** 2020 January *** 2020 February *** 2020 March *** 2020 April *** 2020 May *** 2020 June *** 2020 July *** 2020 August *** 2020 September *** 2020 October *** 2020 November *** 2020 December *** 2021 January *** 2021 February *** 2021 March *** 2021 April *** 2021 May *** 2021 June *** Source: *** II-13 U.S. demand Based on available information, the overall demand for OCTG is likely to experience small changes in response to changes in price. The main contributing factors are the lack of substitute products and the small cost share of OCTG in most of its end-use products. Demand determinants Demand for OCTG is driven by oil and gas exploration and production, specifically the number of feet drilled. While the number of feet drilled varies between rigs such as the well type (vertical, horizontal, or directional), and the region where the well is being drilled, the active rig count for oil and gas rigs is an indicator of the demand for OCTG and a standard indicator for oil and gas exploration and production. The active oil and gas rig count, generally decreased from January 2018 to August 2020, when it reached historic lows.10 The active rig count then began to recover through June 2021 while remaining well below 2018 levels (table II-6 and figure II-2). 10 Reuters, https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-rigs-baker-hughes/u-s-drillers-cut-oil-gas-rigs-to- historic-low-baker-hughes-idUSKBN22K0IL (accessed November 2, 2021). II-14 Table II-6 Rig count: Baker Hughes U.S. oil and gas rig count, by month, January 2018- June 2021 Count in number of oil and gas rigs Year Month Oil and gas combined rig count 2018 January 937 2018 February 969 2018 March 989 2018 April 1,011 2018 May 1,046 2018 June 1,056 2018 July 1,050 2018 August 1,050 2018 September 1,053 2018 October 1,063 2018 November 1,077 2018 December 1,077 2019 January 1,065 2019 February 1,048 2019 March 1,023 2019 April 1,013 2019 May 986 2019 June 970 2019 July 955 2019 August 926 2019 September 878 2019 October 848 2019 November 810 2019 December 804 2020 January 791 2020 February 790 2020 March 771 2020 April 565 2020 May 348 2020 June 274 2020 July 255 2020 August 250 2020 September 257 2020 October 280 2020 November 311 2020 December 339 2021 January 369 2021 February 397 2021 March 408 2021 April 436 2021 May 453 2021 June 464 Source: Baker-Hughes North America Rotary Rig Count, https://rigcount.bakerhughes.com/na-rig-count, accessed October 19, 2021. II-15 Figure II-2 Rig count: Baker Hughes U.S. oil and gas rig count, by month, January 2018- June 2021 Source: Baker-Hughes North America Rotary Rig Count, https://rigcount.bakerhughes.com/na-rig-count, accessed October 19, 2021. Operational consumption, a measure of tonnage of OCTG used, is another common indicator of demand for OCTG. Operational consumption generally decreased from January 2018 to August 2020. Operational consumption then began to recover through June 2021 while remaining well below 2018 levels (table II-7). 0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun 2018 2019 2020 2021 Count (number of oil and gas rigs) Oil and gas rig count II-16 Table II-7 OCTG: Operational consumption, January 2018- June 2021 Operational consumption in net tons Year Month Operational consumption 2018 January *** 2018 February *** 2018 March *** 2018 April *** 2018 May *** 2018 June *** 2018 July *** 2018 August *** 2018 September *** 2018 October *** 2018 November *** 2018 December *** 2019 January *** 2019 February *** 2019 March *** 2019 April *** 2019 May *** 2019 June *** 2019 July *** 2019 August *** 2019 September *** 2019 October *** 2019 November *** 2019 December *** 2020 January *** 2020 February *** 2020 March *** 2020 April *** 2020 May *** 2020 June *** 2020 July *** 2020 August *** 2020 September *** 2020 October *** 2020 November *** 2020 December *** 2021 January *** 2021 February *** 2021 March *** 2021 April *** 2021 May *** 2021 June *** Source: *** II-17 The type of wells drilled also impacts the demand for OCTG. Horizonal wells on average require a greater number of feet of OCTG than vertical and directional wells. The percentage of horizontal wells relative to vertical and directional wells has increased since 2000, and continued to increase during 2018-20; as a result the average footage per well has also increased.11 Rigs drilling horizonal wells as a percentage of all rigs has increased from 2018 to 2021 (table II-8). Table II-8 OCTG: Share of active rigs by well type and period Shares in percent Year Horizontal Vertical Other 2018 87.2 6.2 6.7 2019 87.6 5.7 6.7 2020 88.7 4.7 6.6 Source: Baker-Hughes North America Rotary Rig Count, https://rigcount.bakerhughes.com/na-rig-count, accessed October 19, 2021. End uses and cost share As discussed above, U.S. demand for OCTG depends on the demand from the energy sector, specifically oil exploration and production. OCTG accounts for a small-to-moderate share of the cost of drilling an oil or gas well. U.S. producers and importers reported that OCTG accounted for between 7 and 25 percent of the cost of an oil rig or oil and gas well. Business cycles Ten of 12 U.S. producers and 16 of 25 importers indicated that the market was subject to business cycles or conditions of competition. Specifically, U.S. producer *** reported that the OCTG market is highly cyclical as it is exposed to highly volatile demand cycles led by the oil and natural gas sectors, and highly volatile raw material costs which include coking coal, iron ore, scrap steel and hot rolled coil. U.S. producers *** reported that the demand for OCTG followed rig activity, which is linked to oil and gas prices. Demand trends The majority of U.S. producers and importers reported a decrease in U.S. demand for OCTG since January 1, 2018 (table II-9). 11 EIA, https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=44236 (accessed November 2, 2021) II-18 Table II-9 OCTG: Count of firms’ responses regarding overall domestic and foreign demand Count in number of firms reporting Market Firm type Increase No change Decrease Fluctuate Domestic demand U.S. producers 0 0 9 3 Domestic demand Importers 2 0 17 5 Foreign demand U.S. producers 0 0 5 1 Foreign demand Importers 0 1 12 5 Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Substitute products All responding U.S. producers and importers reported that there were no substitutes. Substitutability issues This section will assess the degree to which U.S.-produced OCTG and imports of OCTG from subject countries can be substituted for one another by examining the importance of certain purchasing factors and the comparability of OCTG from domestic and imported sources based on those factors. Based on available data, staff believes that there is a high degree of substitutability between domestically produced OCTG and OCTG imported from subject sources.12 Factors contributing to this level of substitutability include a high degree of interchangeability between U.S. and imported OCTG and limited differences other the price. 12 The degree of substitution between domestic and imported OCTG depends upon the extent of product differentiation between the domestic and imported products and reflects how easily purchasers can switch from domestically produced OCTG to the OCTG imported from subject countries (or vice versa) when prices change. The degree of substitution may include such factors as relative prices (discounts/rebates), quality differences (e.g., grade standards, defect rates, etc.), and differences in sales conditions (e.g., lead times between order and delivery dates, reliability of supply, product services, etc.). II-19 Factors affecting purchasing decisions Most important purchase factors Purchasers responding to lost sales lost revenue allegations13 were asked to identify the main purchasing factors their firm considered in their purchasing decisions for OCTG. The most often cited top three factors firms consider in their purchasing decisions for OCTG were quality (5 firms), price (4 firms), U.S.-produced, and availability/supply (2 firms each) as shown in table II-10. U.S-produced product and price were the most frequently cited first-most important factors (cited by 2 firms each), followed by quality (1 firm each); quality and availability were the most frequently reported second-most important factor (1 firm each); and quality was the most frequently reported third-most important factor (3 firms). Table II-10 OCTG: Count of ranking of factors used in purchasing decisions as reported by U.S. purchasers, by factor Count in number of firms reporting Factor First Second Third Total Quality 1 1 3 5 Price 2 0 2 4 U.S.-produced 2 0 0 2 Availability / Supply 0 1 1 2 All other factors 1 3 1 NA Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Note: Other factors include lead times, vendor relationship, reputation, and customer specifications and preference. Lead times U.S. producers primarily produce OCTG to order, while importers primarily sell OCTG from U.S. inventories. U.S. producers reported that *** percent of their U.S. commercial shipments were produced-to-order, with lead times averaging *** days. The remaining *** percent of came from inventories, with lead times averaging *** days. Importers reported that *** percent of their commercial shipments were from U.S. inventories, with lead times averaging *** days; *** percent were produced-to-order, with lead times averaging *** days; and the remaining *** percent were from foreign inventories, with lead times averaging *** days. 13 This information is compiled from responses by purchasers identified by Petitioners or other U.S. producers to the lost sales lost revenue allegations. See Part V for additional information. II-20 Changes in purchasing patterns Purchasers responding to the LSLR survey were asked about changes in their purchasing patterns from different sources since 2018 (table II-11). Purchaser *** reported that it had decreased purchases of OCTG imported from Argentina as increased U.S. production reduced the need to import. Purchaser *** reported that they had increased purchases of OCTG imported from South Korea due to a loss in U.S. manufacturing as a result of a Tenaris acquisition of TMK. Purchaser *** reported that they had constant purchases of OCTG imported from South Korea for items that domestic manufacturers did not produce (such as tubing). II-21 Table II-11 OCTG: Count of changes in purchase patterns from U.S., subject, and nonsubject countries Count in number of firms reporting Source of purchases Decreased Increased Constant Fluctuated Did not purchase United States 2 0 3 1 1 Argentina 1 0 0 1 4 Mexico 0 0 0 2 4 Russia 2 0 0 2 2 South Korea 0 1 2 1 2 All other sources 2 1 0 3 1 Sources unknown 0 0 0 1 2 Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Comparison of U.S.-produced and imported OCTG In order to determine whether U.S.-produced OCTG can generally be used in the same applications as imports from Argentina, Mexico, Russia, and South Korea, U.S. producers and importers were asked whether the products can always, frequently, sometimes, or never be used interchangeably. As shown in tables II-12 and II-13, the majority of U.S. producers and importers reported that OCTG from the United States, subject countries, and nonsubject countries was always or frequently interchangeable. U.S. producer *** reported that all products are interchangeable but many operators prefer not to mix different manufacturers. Importer *** reported that manufacturers in each country can theoretically manufacture to industry standards and be interchangeable, however each supplier is different in terms of price, size range, and pipe performance. Importer *** reported that local mills do not provide specified outer diameter OCTG products that Korean mills provide. II-22 Table II-12 OCTG: Count of U.S. producers reporting the interchangeability between OCTG produced in the United States and in other countries, by country pair Count in number of firms reporting Country pair Always Frequently Sometimes Never United States vs. Argentina 8 2 1 0 United States vs. Mexico 8 2 1 0 United States vs. Russia 9 2 0 0 United States vs. South Korea 9 2 1 0 Argentina vs. Mexico 7 3 0 0 Argentina vs. Russia 7 2 1 0 Argentina vs. South Korea 7 2 1 0 Mexico vs. Russia 7 2 1 0 Mexico vs. South Korea 7 2 1 0 Russia vs. South Korea 8 2 0 0 United States vs. Other 7 3 1 0 Argentina vs. Other 6 2 2 0 Mexico vs. Other 6 2 2 0 Russia vs. Other 6 3 1 0 South Korea vs. Other 6 3 1 0 Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Table II-13 OCTG: Count of importers reporting the interchangeabilit between OCTG produced in the United States and in other countries, by country pair Count in number of firms reporting Country pair Always Frequently Sometimes Never United States vs. Argentina 8 2 3 0 United States vs. Mexico 8 2 3 0 United States vs. Russia 10 5 2 0 United States vs. South Korea 9 3 3 0 Argentina vs. Mexico 7 4 1 0 Argentina vs. Russia 7 4 3 0 Argentina vs. South Korea 7 3 2 1 Mexico vs. Russia 7 5 2 0 Mexico vs. South Korea 7 2 3 1 Russia vs. South Korea 8 4 1 1 United States vs. Other 7 7 4 0 Argentina vs. Other 6 4 4 0 Mexico vs. Other 6 4 4 0 Russia vs. Other 6 6 3 0 South Korea vs. Other 6 6 3 1 Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. II-23 In addition, U.S. producers and importers were asked to assess how often differences other than price were significant in sales of OCTG from the United States, subject, or nonsubject countries. As seen in tables II-14 and II-15, the majority of U.S. producers and importers reported that there sometimes or never differences other than price between OCTG produced in the United States, subject countries and nonsubject countries. Importers *** both reported that high quality, wide product range and strong technical support and service were frequently a difference between OCTG from Russia and OCTG from the United States, Argentina, Mexico and nonsubject countries. Importer *** reported that lead times, quotas, and logistical challenges were frequently a difference between OCTG from South Korea and OCTG from the United States. Table II-14 OCTG: Perceived importance of factors other than price between product produced in the United States and in other countries reported by U.S. producers, by country pair Count in number of firms reporting Country pair Always Frequently Sometimes Never United States vs. Argentina 0 1 4 5 United States vs. Mexico 0 1 4 5 United States vs. Russia 0 0 4 6 United States vs. South Korea 0 0 5 6 Argentina vs. Mexico 0 0 3 5 Argentina vs. Russia 1 0 3 4 Argentina vs. South Korea 1 0 3 4 Mexico vs. Russia 1 0 3 4 Mexico vs. South Korea 1 0 3 4 Russia vs. South Korea 0 0 3 5 United States vs. Other 0 1 5 4 Argentina vs. Other 0 1 4 4 Mexico vs. Other 0 1 4 4 Russia vs. Other 0 1 4 4 South Korea vs. Other 0 1 4 4 Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. II-24 Table II-15 OCTG: Perceived importance of factors other than price between product produced in the United States and in other countries reported by U.S. importers, by country pair Count in number of firms reporting Country pair Always Frequently Sometimes Never United States vs. Argentina 1 2 4 4 United States vs. Mexico 1 2 4 4 United States vs. Russia 2 3 5 5 United States vs. South Korea 2 0 6 5 Argentina vs. Mexico 0 0 4 6 Argentina vs. Russia 1 2 5 4 Argentina vs. South Korea 2 0 4 5 Mexico vs. Russia 1 2 5 4 Mexico vs. South Korea 2 1 4 4 Russia vs. South Korea 1 0 6 5 United States vs. Other 2 4 8 4 Argentina vs. Other 0 4 6 4 Mexico vs. Other 0 5 5 4 Russia vs. Other 0 4 7 4 South Korea vs. Other 1 5 6 4 Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. III-1 Part III: U.S. producers’ production, shipments, and employment The Commission analyzes a number of factors in making injury determinations (see 19 U.S.C. §§ 1677(7)(B) and 1677(7)(C)). Information on the alleged subsidies and dumping margins was presented in Part I of this report and information on the volume and pricing of imports of the subject merchandise is presented in Part IV and Part V. Information on the other factors specified is presented in this section and/or Part VI and (except as noted) is based on the questionnaire responses of seventeen firms that accounted for the large majority of U.S. production of OCTG during 2020. U.S. producers The Commission issued a U.S. producer questionnaire to the 17 firms identified in the petition and an additional eight firms that maintain API certification1 to manufacture or process products in accordance with specification 5CT. Seventeen firms provided usable data on their OCTG operations.2 3 Staff believes that these responses represent the large majority of U.S. OCTG production during 2020. 1 American Petroleum Institute, Composite List, https://mycerts.api.org/Search/CompositeSearch, accessed October 7, 2021. 2 ***. 3 U.S. processor *** did not provide a complete questionnaire response. However, *** reported that in 2020 its heat treatment capacity was *** short tons and its heat treatment production was *** short tons. *** further reported that roughly ***. Staff correspondence with ***, November 2, 2021. *** submitted *** revisions to its U.S. producer questionnaire after it had inadvertently reported trade data based on its fiscal year *** rather than calendar year. Staff received these revisions too late to incorporate in the report. Staff correspondence with ***, November 4, 2021. III-2 OCTG producers as presented in this chapter include both U.S. mills and U.S. processors (toll and non-toll). Mills own and operate machinery to form welded or seamless OCTG in the United States. Processors own and operate finishing lines necessary to heat treat OCTG. While most of the larger U.S. producers maintain a balance between their tube forming and their heat-treating capacity,4 other producers utilize a portion of their heat treat capability on imported OCTG, or utilize available heat treat capacity at other facilities to finish their own mills’ casing and tubing. Table III-1 lists U.S. producers of OCTG, their production locations, positions on the petition, and shares of total production. 4 Conference transcript, pp. 57-58 (Buono, Hart, Johnson, Hanley, and Tait). III-3 Table III-1 OCTG: U.S. producers, their positions on the petition, production locations, and shares of reported production, 2020 Shares in percent Firm Position on petition Production location(s) Share of mill production Share of non-toll processor production Share of toll processor production Axis *** Bryan, TX *** *** *** Aztec Manufacturing *** Crowley, TX *** *** *** Benteler *** Shreveport, LA *** *** *** Borusan Petitioner Baytown, TX *** *** *** EVRAZ *** Pueblo, CO *** *** *** IPSCO *** --- *** *** *** Paragon *** Sapulpa, OK *** *** *** PTC Liberty Petitioner Liberty, TX Houston, TX *** *** *** RDT *** Beasley, TX *** *** *** SeAH Steel *** Houston, TX *** *** *** Splendora *** Cleveland, TX *** *** *** Tenaris USA *** Blytheville, AR Conroe TX Houston, TX Bay City, TX Koppel, PA Ambridge, PA *** *** *** Texas Steel Conversion *** Houston, TX Bryan, TX *** *** *** Texas Tubular *** Lone Star, TX *** *** *** Tubular Services *** Houston, TX Channelview Houston, TX *** *** *** U.S. Steel Petitioner Fairfield, AL Lorain, OH Lone Star, TX Houston, TX Pine Bluff, AR *** *** *** Vallourec *** Youngstown, OH Houston, TX Muskogee, OK *** *** *** Welded Tube USA Petitioner Lackawanna, NY *** *** *** Wheatland Petitioner Warren, OH Niles, OH *** *** *** All firms Various Various 100.0 100.0 100.0 Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Note: Shares and ratios shown as "0.0" represent values greater than zero, but less than "0.05" percent. Zeroes, null values, and undefined calculations are suppressed and shown as “---“. Note: ***. III-4 Tables III-2 through III-4 present information on U.S. producers’ ownership, related and/or affiliated firms. Fifteen firms reported ownership information. Six firms (***) reported being related to an importer/exporter. Ten firms reported related foreign producers: ***; ***; ***; ***; ***; ***; ***; ***; ***; and ***. Table III-2 OCTG: U.S. producers’ ownership Reporting firm Related firm Details of relationship *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. III-5 Table III-3 OCTG: U.S. producers’ related importers/exporters Reporting firm Related firm Details of relationship *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. III-6 Table III-4 OCTG: U.S. producers’ related producers Reporting firm Related firm Details of relationship *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. As indicated in tables III-3 and III-4, three U.S. producers (***) are related to foreign producers of the subject merchandise and *** three U.S. producers (***) are related to importers/exporters of the subject merchandise. In addition, as discussed in greater detail below, four U.S. producers (***) directly import the subject merchandise and one U.S. producer (***) purchases the subject merchandise from U.S. importers. III-7 Table III-5 presents U.S. producers’ reported changes in operations since January 1, 2018. Table III-5 OCTG: U.S. producers’ reported changes in operations, since January 1, 2018 Item Firm name and narrative response on changes in operations Plant openings *** Plant closings *** Plant closings *** Plant closings *** Plant closings *** Relocations *** Expansions *** Expansions *** Expansions *** Expansions *** Acquisitions *** Acquisitions *** Acquisitions *** Consolidations *** Prolonged shutdowns *** III-8 Item Firm name and narrative response on changes in operations Prolonged shutdowns *** Prolonged shutdowns *** Prolonged shutdowns *** Prolonged shutdowns *** Prolonged shutdowns *** Prolonged shutdowns *** Prolonged shutdowns *** Prolonged curtailments *** Prolonged curtailments *** Prolonged curtailments *** Prolonged curtailments *** III-9 Item Firm name and narrative response on changes in operations Revised labor agreements *** Revised labor agreements *** Other *** Other *** Other *** Other *** Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Firms were also asked about the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on their OCTG operations. Fourteen of sixteen responding U.S. producers reported changes in their supply chain arrangements, production, employment, and/or shipments relating to OCTG. The most commonly cited impact related to the COVID-19 pandemic was a substantial decrease in demand for OCTG products caused by a global decline in energy demand,5 accompanied by reductions in production and employment levels, as well as some firms having to temporarily shut down facilities. Production-related activities U.S. producers were asked to rate the complexity, intensity, and importance of their production-related activities. Their responses are presented in table III-6.6 5 Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, there was a decline in oil and gas prices that prompted a drop in oil and gas rig activity and, in turn, OCTG demand beginning in 2019. These declines were further exacerbated by the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic. Conference transcript, pp. 27-28 (Buono). 6 U.S. producers were also asked to describe the complexity, intensity, and importance of their production-related activities. Responses by processors are presented in appendix G. III-10 Table III-6 OCTG: Count of U.S. producers’ rating complexity of production-related activities Count in number of firms reporting Firm Rank 1 Rank 2 Rank 3 Rank 4 Rank 5 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** All producers --- --- --- 6 7 Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Note: Ratings are on a scale of 1-5 with 1 being the least complex and 5 the most. Note: Of the 17 firms that submitted a questionnaire response: seven firms (***) are mills engaged in tube forming and heat-treating operations, five firms (***) are mills engaged in tube forming operations only, and four firms (***) are processors engaged in heat-treating operations. ***. III-11 U.S. producers were further asked to provide information on the factors relevant to sufficient production-related activities analysis. Table III-7 presents information on U.S. producers’ domestic production-related activities. Table III-7 OCTG: U.S. producers' aggregate data for capital investments, R&D-related technical expertise, value added, employment, and quantity, type, and source of parts, 2018-20 Firm U.S. mill operations U.S. non-toll processors U.S. toll processors Capital investments (Value in 1,000 dollars) *** *** *** R&D-related technical expertise (Value in 1,000 dollars) *** *** *** Value added (percent) *** *** *** Employment (number of production related workers) *** *** *** Quantity, type and source of parts (Value in 1,000 dollars) *** *** *** Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Note: Capital investments are the aggregate range of capital expenditures reported from 2018-2020. ***. Technical expertise is the aggregated range of research and development expenses (“R&D expenses”) reported from 2018-2020. ***. Value added data are the range of aggregate annual total conversion costs divided by total COGS percentages reported from 2018-2020. For U.S. toll processors, the cost of tolling services (“COTS”) was adjusted using unfinished OCTG unit values, as reported by mills and U.S. importers, so that value added calculations accounted for the input value of the unfinished OCTG. Employment data are aggregate annual production and related workers (PRWs) range from 2018-2020. Quantity, type, and source of parts data are the aggregate annual domestic raw materials costs for 2018- 2020. U.S. mills raw material costs assume that all reported raw materials are domestic. ***. Toller domestic raw material costs do not include the input product supplied by tollee. III-12 U.S. production, capacity, and capacity utilization Table III-8 and figure III-1 present U.S. mills’ production, capacity, and capacity utilization. U.S. mills’ capacity decreased by 7.8 percent from 2018 to 2020, increasing by 0.6 percent during 2018-19 before falling by 8.4 percent during 2019-20. The overall decrease largely corresponds with several temporary shutdowns reported by firms caused by the oil and gas downturn and the COVID-19 pandemic, as well as Tenaris USA’s acquisition of IPSCO that was completed in January 2020.7 U.S. mills’ capacity was 0.7 percent higher in January-June 2021 compared with January-June 2020. The majority of responding U.S. mills reported declining production during 2018-20 and lower production during January-June 2021 compared with January-June 2020. Production decreased by 4.6 percent from 2018 to 2019 and then declined sharply by 47.2 percent from 2019 to 2020, resulting in an overall decrease of 49.6 percent during 2018-20. The sharp decrease in production from 2019 to 2020 occurred while the effects of the oil and gas downturn and the COVID-19 pandemic on the OCTG industry were reportedly at their highest. U.S. mills’ production was 32.9 percent lower during January-June 2021 than in January-June 2020. While U.S. mills’ capacity and production both declined from 2018 to 2020, production fell to a greater degree, resulting in an overall decline in capacity utilization during that period. U.S. mills’ capacity utilization declined from 47.4 percent in 2018 to 45.0 percent in 2019 and then further to 25.9 percent in 2020, decreasing by 21.5 percentage points during 2018-20. Capacity utilization was lower in January-June 2021 (24.0 percent) than in January-June 2020 (36.0 percent). 7 Respondents Tenaris, TGS USA, Siderca, and TAMSA’s postconference brief, exh. 9. Tenaris USA completed its acquisition of IPSCO from TMK in January 2020. Data related to IPSCO’s OCTG mill operations prior to the acquisition are presented separately. III-13 Table III-8 OCTG: U.S. mills’ capacity, by firm and period Capacity in short tons Firm 2018 2019 2020 Jan-Jun 2020 Jan-Jun 2021 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** All firms 6,671,276 6,713,448 6,149,233 3,088,431 3,109,098 Table continued. Table III-8 Continued OCTG: U.S. mills’ production, by firm and period Production in short tons Firm 2018 2019 2020 Jan-Jun 2020 Jan-Jun 2021 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** All firms 3,165,424 3,018,608 1,595,070 1,112,330 746,392 Table continued. III-14 Table III-8 Continued OCTG: U.S. mills’ capacity utilization, by firm and period Capacity utilization ratio is production to production capacity in percent Firm 2018 2019 2020 Jan-Jun 2020 Jan-Jun 2021 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** All firms 47.4 45.0 25.9 36.0 24.0 Table continued. Table III-8 Continued OCTG: U.S. mills’ share of production, by firm and period Share of production in percent Firm 2018 2019 2020 Jan-Jun 2020 Jan-Jun 2021 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** All firms 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Note: As previously mentioned, Tenaris USA completed its acquisition of IPSCO from TMK in January 2020. Data related to IPSCO’s OCTG mill operations prior to the acquisition are presented separately. Note: Capacity utilization ratio represents the ratio of the U.S. producers’ production to its production capacity. Note: Shares and ratios shown as "0.0" represent values greater than zero, but less than "0.05" percent. Zeroes, null values, and undefined calculations are suppressed and shown as “---“. III-15 Figure III-1 OCTG: U.S. mills’ production, capacity, and capacity utilization, by period Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Table III-9 presents U.S. mills’ capacity, production, and capacity utilization by product type. While U.S. mills’ capacity is relatively evenly divided between seamless and welded OCTG, reported data shows that seamless OCTG’s share of total OCTG production increased overall from *** percent in 2018 to *** percent in 2020 and was higher during January-June 2021 (*** percent) compared with January-June 2020 (*** percent). U.S. mills’ capacity to produce seamless OCTG increased by *** percent from 2018 to 2019 and then decreased by *** percent from 2019 to 2020, ending *** percent higher in 2020 than in 2018. In contrast, U.S. mills’ production of seamless OCTG fell by *** percent during 2018-20. The decrease in production, combined with the increase in capacity, resulted in U.S. mills’ seamless OCTG capacity utilization falling by *** percentage points from 2018 to 2020. U.S. mills’ seamless OCTG capacity, production, and capacity utilization were all lower in January-June 2021 than in January-June 2020. U.S. mills’ capacity to produce welded OCTG and their production of welded OCTG declined by *** percent and *** percent, respectively, during 2018-20. Welded capacity was higher in January-June 2021 than in January-June 2020, while production and capacity utilization were lower. U.S. mills’ welded capacity utilization increased modestly from *** III-16 percent in 2018 to *** percent in 2019 before falling to *** percent in 2020, and was only *** percent in January-June 2021. Table III-9 OCTG: U.S. mills’ capacity, production, and capacity utilization, by product type and period Quantity in short tons; Ratio and shares in percent Production type Measure 2018 2019 2020 Jan-Jun 2020 Jan-Jun 2021 Seamless capacity Quantity *** *** *** *** *** Welded capacity Quantity *** *** *** *** *** All OCTG capacity Quantity 6,671,276 6,713,448 6,149,233 3,088,431 3,109,098 Seamless production Quantity *** *** *** *** *** Welded production Quantity *** *** *** *** *** All OCTG production Quantity 3,165,424 3,018,608 1,595,070 1,112,330 746,392 Seamless capacity utilization Ratio *** *** *** *** *** Welded capacity utilization Ratio *** *** *** *** *** All OCTG capacity utilization Ratio 47.4 45.0 25.9 36.0 24.0 Seamless share of capacity Share *** *** *** *** *** Welded share of capacity Share *** *** *** *** *** All OCTG share of capacity Share 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Seamless share of production Share *** *** *** *** *** Welded share of production Share *** *** *** *** *** All OCTG share of production Share 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. III-17 Table III-10 and figure III-2 present U.S. processors’ production, capacity, and capacity utilization and includes residual heat treatment by mills that process OCTG furnished from other sources. U.S. processors’ capacity increased by 2.1 percent during 2018-20, while production decreased by 59.9 percent. Conversely, U.S. processors’ capacity was lower in January-June 2021 than in January-June 2020, while production was higher. U.S. processors’ capacity utilization decreased from 51.4 percent in 2018 to 42.7 percent in 2019 before sharply declining to 20.2 percent in 2020, ending 31.2 percentage points lower in 2020 than in 2018. In contrast, capacity utilization was somewhat higher in January-June 2021 (33.2 percent) than in January-June 2020 (28.4) percent. Table III-10 OCTG: U.S. processors’ capacity, by firm and period Capacity in short tons Firm 2018 2019 2020 Jan-Jun 2020 Jan-Jun 2021 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** All firms 1,786,952 1,806,970 1,824,769 914,435 898,476 Table continued. Table III-10 Continued OCTG: U.S. processors’ production, by firm and period Production in short tons Firm 2018 2019 2020 Jan-Jun 2020 Jan-Jun 2021 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** All firms 918,314 770,999 368,446 259,913 298,449 Table continued. III-18 Table III-10 Continued OCTG: U.S. processors’ capacity utilization ratio, by firm and period Capacity utilization ratios in percent Firm 2018 2019 2020 Jan-Jun 2020 Jan-Jun 2021 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** All firms 51.4 42.7 20.2 28.4 33.2 Table continued. Table III-10 Continued OCTG: U.S. processors’ share of production, by firm and period Share of production in percent Firm 2018 2019 2020 Jan-Jun 2020 Jan-Jun 2021 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** All firms 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Note: Capacity utilization ratio represents the ratio of the U.S. producers’ production to its production capacity. Note: Zeroes, null values, and undefined calculations are suppressed and shown as “---“. III-19 Figure III-2 OCTG: U.S. processors’ production, capacity, and capacity utilization, by period Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Alternative products As shown in table III‐11, 77.3 percent of the product produced on the same equipment as subject production during 2020 by U.S. producers was OCTG. Seamless OCTG accounted for the majority of total production on the same equipment as subject production, reaching its highest share in January-June 2021 at *** percent. Nine firms reported producing other products on the same equipment used to produce OCTG; these alternative products include: ***. While the majority of responding U.S. producers indicated an ability to switch production between OCTG and other products, several firms reported higher profitability associated with the production of OCTG as a motivation to focus their operations on OCTG relative to alternative products. III-20 Table III-11 OCTG: U.S. mills’ overall capacity and production on the same equipment as subject production, by period Quantity in short tons; Ratio is production to production capacity in percent; Share is share of total production in percent Item Measure 2018 2019 2020 Jan-Jun 2020 Jan-Jun 2021 Seamless capacity Quantity *** *** *** *** *** Welded capacity Quantity *** *** *** *** *** Overall capacity Quantity 7,914,910 7,953,034 7,689,694 3,846,348 3,821,348 Seamless OCTG production Quantity *** *** *** *** *** Welded OCTG production Quantity *** *** *** *** *** All OCTG production Quantity 3,165,424 3,018,608 1,595,070 1,112,330 746,392 Other production Quantity 1,108,471 838,056 469,490 314,425 188,657 Total production Quantity 4,273,895 3,856,664 2,064,560 1,426,755 935,049 Overall capacity utilization Ratio 54.0 48.5 26.8 37.1 24.5 Seamless OCTG production Share *** *** *** *** *** Welded OCTG production Share *** *** *** *** *** All OCTG production Share 74.1 78.3 77.3 78.0 79.8 Other production Share 25.9 21.7 22.7 22.0 20.2 Total production Share 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. III-21 U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments and exports Table III-12 presents U.S. mills’ U.S. shipments, export shipments, and total shipments. U.S. mills’ shipments of OCTG were *** in the domestic market during the period for which data were collected. By quantity, U.S. shipments accounted for *** percent of U.S. mills’ total shipments of OCTG.8 Table III-12 OCTG: U.S. mills’ shipments, by destination and period Quantity in short tons; Value in 1,000 dollars; Unit value in dollars per short ton; share of quantity is the share of total shipments by quantity in percent; share of value is the share of total shipments by value in percent Item Measure 2018 2019 2020 Jan-Jun 2020 Jan-Jun 2021 U.S. shipments Quantity 2,966,430 2,982,996 1,601,064 1,110,651 718,930 Export shipments Quantity *** *** *** *** *** Total shipments Quantity *** *** *** *** *** U.S. shipments Value 4,465,187 4,307,646 1,971,371 1,402,367 989,983 Export shipments Value *** *** *** *** *** Total shipments Value *** *** *** *** *** U.S. shipments Unit value 1,505 1,444 1,231 1,263 1,377 Export shipments Unit value *** *** *** *** *** Total shipments Unit value *** *** *** *** *** U.S. shipments Share of quantity *** *** *** *** *** Export shipments Share of quantity *** *** *** *** *** Total shipments Share of quantity 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 U.S. shipments Share of value *** *** *** *** *** Export shipments Share of value *** *** *** *** *** Total shipments Share of value 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. 8 ***. ***’s U.S. producer questionnaire response, section II-19. ***. ***’s U.S. importer questionnaire response, section II-11a. III-22 Table III-13 presents U.S. non-toll processors’ U.S. shipments, export shipments, and total shipments. U.S. non-toll processors’ shipments of OCTG were *** in the domestic market, accounting for *** percent of total U.S. shipments during the period for which data were collected. U.S. non-toll processors’ U.S. shipments, by volume, increased by *** percent from 2018 to 2019 before falling by *** percent, ending slightly higher (*** percent) in 2020 than in 2018. In contrast, U.S. non-toll processors’ U.S. shipments, by value, increased by *** percent during 2018-19, but then fell by *** percent during 2019-20, ending *** percent lower in 2020 than in 2018. U.S. shipments, by volume and value, were lower during January-June 2021 compared with January-June 2020. The unit value for U.S. non-toll processors’ U.S. shipments fell from $*** in 2018 to $*** in 2019 and further to $*** in 2020, representing a decrease of *** percent during 2018-20. Conversely, the unit value for U.S. non-toll processors’ U.S. shipments was higher in January-June 2021 ($***) than in January-June 2020 ($***). Table III-13 OCTG: U.S. non-toll processors' shipments, by location of shipment and period Quantity in short tons; Value in 1,000 dollars; Unit values in dollars per short ton; Shares in percent Item Measure 2018 2019 2020 Jan-Jun 2020 Jan-Jun 2021 U.S. shipments Quantity *** *** *** *** *** Export shipments Quantity *** *** *** *** *** Total shipments Quantity *** *** *** *** *** U.S. shipments Value *** *** *** *** *** Export shipments Value *** *** *** *** *** Total shipments Value *** *** *** *** *** U.S. shipments Unit value *** *** *** *** *** Export shipments Unit value *** *** *** *** *** Total shipments Unit value *** *** *** *** *** U.S. shipments Share of quantity *** *** *** *** *** Export shipments Share of quantity *** *** *** *** *** Total shipments Share of quantity 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 U.S. shipments Share of value *** *** *** *** *** Export shipments Share of value *** *** *** *** *** Total shipments Share of value 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Note: Zeroes, null values, and undefined calculations are suppressed and shown as “---“. III-23 Table III-14 presents U.S. toll processors’ U.S. shipments (specifically returns to the tollee). U.S. toll processors’ U.S. shipments to U.S. importers accounted for more than *** of total shipments during the period for which data were collected Table III-14 OCTG: U.S. toll processors' U.S. shipments, by shipment type and period Quantity in short tons; Value in 1,000 dollars; Unit values in dollars per short ton; Shares in percent Item Measure 2018 2019 2020 Jan-Jun 2020 Jan-Jun 2021 For U.S. mills Quantity *** *** *** *** *** For U.S. importers Quantity *** *** *** *** *** For other customers Quantity *** *** *** *** *** All shipments returned to tollee Quantity *** *** *** *** *** For U.S. mills Value *** *** *** *** *** For U.S. importers Value *** *** *** *** *** For other customers Value *** *** *** *** *** All shipments returned to tollee Value *** *** *** *** *** For U.S. mills Unit value *** *** *** *** *** For U.S. importers Unit value *** *** *** *** *** For other customers Unit value *** *** *** *** *** All shipments returned to tollee Unit value *** *** *** *** *** For U.S. mills Share of quantity *** *** *** *** *** For U.S. importers Share of quantity *** *** *** *** *** For other customers Share of quantity *** *** *** *** *** All shipments returned to tollee Share of quantity 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 For U.S. mills Share of value *** *** *** *** *** For U.S. importers Share of value *** *** *** *** *** For other customers Share of value *** *** *** *** *** All shipments returned to tollee Share of value 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. III-24 Table III-15 presents U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments for use in apparent U.S. consumption. As detailed in the table note, staff adjusted U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments to avoid double counting the value of imported unfinished OCTG that is further processed in the United States already reported as an import. Table III-15 OCTG: U.S. producers' U.S. shipments for use in apparent U.S. consumption, by period Quantity in short tons; Value in 1,000 dollars Item Measure 2018 2019 2020 Jan-Jun 2020 Jan-Jun 2021 U.S. shipments Quantity 2,966,430 2,982,996 1,601,064 1,110,651 718,930 U.S. shipments fully domestic Value *** *** *** *** *** U.S. shipments incremental value from processing imports Value *** *** *** *** *** U.S. shipments total Value 4,696,392 4,507,968 2,069,871 1,461,148 1,066,776 Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Note: Quantity for U.S. producers' U.S. shipments reflects mills’ U.S. shipment quantities. Value for U.S. producers' U.S. shipments reflects OCTG products sold in the United States from domestically manufactured OCTG (including the incremental value from U.S. processors’ heat treatment of domestic OCTG), as well as the incremental value added by U.S. processors to imported OCTG. In measuring consumption and market share this methodology avoids reclassifying and/or double counting merchandise already reported as an import. U.S. producers’ inventories Table III-16 presents U.S. mills’ end-of-period inventories and the ratio of these inventories to U.S. mills’ production, U.S. shipments, and total shipments. U.S. mills’ end-of- period inventories fell by 17.0 percent from 2018 to 2019 and sharply decreased by 47.7 percent from 2019 to 2020, representing a decrease of 56.5 percent during 2018-20.9 Similarly, U.S. mills’ end-of-period inventories were 17.6 percent lower during January-June 2021 compared with January-June 2020. Inventory ratios to U.S. production, U.S. shipments, and total shipments were all lower in 2020 than in 2018. Conversely, these inventory ratios were all higher in January-June 2021 than in January-June 2020. 9 Inventories of OCTG are mostly held by distributors. Conference transcript, pp. 108, 200 (Tait and Curá). III-25 Table III-16 OCTG: U.S. mills’ inventories and their ratio to select items, by period Quantity in short tons; Ratios are inventories to production and shipments in percent Item 2018 2019 2020 Jan-Jun 2020 Jan-Jun 2021 End-of-period inventory quantity 456,161 378,641 198,206 232,346 191,415 Inventory ratio to U.S. production 14.4 12.5 12.4 10.4 12.8 Inventory ratio to U.S. shipments 15.4 12.7 12.4 10.5 13.3 Inventory ratio to total shipments *** *** *** *** *** Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Table III-17 presents U.S. non-toll processors’ end-of-period inventories and the ratio of these inventories to U.S. non-toll processors’ production, U.S. shipments, and total shipments. U.S. non-toll processors’ end-of-period inventories increased by *** percent during 2018-19, but then decreased by *** percent during 2019-20, ending *** percent higher in 2020 compared with 2018.10 Conversely, end-of-period inventories were *** percent lower in January-June 2021 compared with January-June 2020. U.S. non-toll processors’ inventory ratios to U.S. production, U.S. shipments, and total shipments were all higher in 2020 than in 2018. Conversely, these inventory ratios were all lower in January-June 2021 than in January-June 2020. Table III-17 OCTG: U.S. non-toll processors’ inventories and their ratio to select items, by period Quantity in short tons; Ratios are inventories to production and shipments in percent Item 2018 2019 2020 Jan-Jun 2020 Jan-Jun 2021 End-of-period inventory quantity *** *** *** *** *** Inventory ratio to U.S. production *** *** *** *** *** Inventory ratio to U.S. shipments *** *** *** *** *** Inventory ratio to total shipments *** *** *** *** *** Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. 10 *** held the majority of reported inventories among U.S. non-toll processors for all periods except for 2019, when *** held the majority. III-26 U.S. producers’ imports and purchases Three firms (***) reported importing OCTG from subject sources, six firms (***) reported importing OCTG from nonsubject sources, and one firm (***) reported importing OCTG from both subject and nonsubject sources. U.S. producers’ imports of OCTG are presented in tables III-18 through III-27 and their reasons for importing are presented in table III-28. One firm (***) reported purchases *** amounting to *** short tons in 2020, *** short tons in January-June 2020, and *** short tons in January-June 2021.11 Table III-18 OCTG: ***’s U.S. production, U.S. imports, and ratio of imports to production, by period Quantity in short tons; Ratios are ratios of imports to U.S. production in percent Item Measure 2018 2019 2020 Jan-Jun 2020 Jan-Jun 2021 *** Quantity *** *** *** *** *** *** Quantity *** *** *** *** *** *** Ratio *** *** *** *** *** Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Note: ***. Table III-19 OCTG: ***’s U.S. production, imports, and purchases, by period Quantity in short tons; Ratios are ratios of imports to U.S. production in percent Item Measure 2018 2019 2020 Jan-Jun 2020 Jan-Jun 2021 *** Quantity *** *** *** *** *** *** Quantity *** *** *** *** *** *** Ratio *** *** *** *** *** Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Note: Zeroes, null values, and undefined calculations are suppressed and shown as “---“. 11 ***. ***’s U.S. producer questionnaire response, section II-17. III-27 Table III-20 OCTG: ***’s U.S. production, U.S. imports, and ratio of imports to production, by period Quantity in short tons; Ratios are ratios of imports to U.S. production in percent Item Measure 2018 2019 2020 Jan-Jun 2020 Jan-Jun 2021 *** Quantity *** *** *** *** *** *** Quantity *** *** *** *** *** *** Quantity *** *** *** *** *** *** Ratio *** *** *** *** *** *** Ratio *** *** *** *** *** Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Table III-21 OCTG: ***’s U.S. production, U.S. imports, and ratio of imports to production, by period Quantity in short tons; Ratios are ratios of imports to U.S. production in percent Item Measure 2018 2019 2020 Jan-Jun 2020 Jan-Jun 2021 *** Quantity *** *** *** *** *** *** Quantity *** *** *** *** *** *** Ratio *** *** *** *** *** Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Note: Zeroes, null values, and undefined calculations are suppressed and shown as “---“. III-28 Table III-22 OCTG: ***’s U.S. production, U.S. imports, and ratio of imports to production, by period Quantity in short tons; Ratios are ratios of imports to U.S. production in percent Item Measure 2018 2019 2020 Jan-Jun 2020 Jan-Jun 2021 *** Quantity *** *** *** *** *** *** Quantity *** *** *** *** *** *** Ratio *** *** *** *** *** Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Note: Zeroes, null values, and undefined calculations are suppressed and shown as “---“. Table III-23 OCTG: ***’s U.S. production, U.S. imports, and ratio of imports to production, by period Quantity in short tons; Ratios are ratios of imports to U.S. production in percent Item Measure 2018 2019 2020 Jan-Jun 2020 Jan-Jun 2021 *** Quantity *** *** *** *** *** *** Quantity *** *** *** *** *** *** Ratio *** *** *** *** *** Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Note: Zeroes, null values, and undefined calculations are suppressed and shown as “---“. Table III-24 OCTG: ***’s U.S. production, U.S. imports, and ratio of imports to production, by period Quantity in short tons; Ratios are ratios of imports to U.S. production in percent Item Measure 2018 2019 2020 Jan-Jun 2020 Jan-Jun 2021 *** Quantity *** *** *** *** *** *** Quantity *** *** *** *** *** *** Quantity *** *** *** *** *** *** Ratio *** *** *** *** *** *** Ratio *** *** *** *** *** Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Note: ***. III-29 Table III-25 OCTG: ***’s U.S. production, U.S. imports, and ratio of imports to production, by period Quantity in short tons; Ratios are ratios of imports to U.S. production in percent Item Measure 2018 2019 2020 Jan-Jun 2020 Jan-Jun 2021 *** Quantity *** *** *** *** *** *** Quantity *** *** *** *** *** *** Quantity *** *** *** *** *** *** Quantity *** *** *** *** *** *** Quantity *** *** *** *** *** *** Quantity *** *** *** *** *** *** Ratio *** *** *** *** *** *** Ratio *** *** *** *** *** *** Ratio *** *** *** *** *** *** Ratio *** *** *** *** *** *** Ratio *** *** *** *** *** Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Note: ***. III-30 Table III-26 OCTG: ***’s U.S. production, U.S. imports, and ratio of imports to production, by period Quantity in short tons; Ratios are ratios of imports to U.S. production in percent Item Measure 2018 2019 2020 Jan-Jun 2020 Jan-Jun 2021 *** Quantity *** *** *** *** *** *** Quantity *** *** *** *** *** *** Quantity *** *** *** *** *** *** Quantity *** *** *** *** *** *** Ratio *** *** *** *** *** Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Table III-27 OCTG: ***’s U.S. production, U.S. imports, and ratio of imports to production, by period Quantity in short tons; Ratios are ratios of imports to U.S. production in percent Item Measure 2018 2019 2020 Jan-Jun 2020 Jan-Jun 2021 *** Quantity *** *** *** *** *** *** Quantity *** *** *** *** *** *** Ratio *** *** *** *** *** Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. III-31 Table III-28 OCTG: U.S. producers’ reasons for importing, by firm Item Narrative response on reasons for importing ***'s reason for importing *** ***'s reason for importing *** ***'s reason for importing *** ***'s reason for importing *** ***'s reason for importing *** ***'s reason for importing *** ***'s reason for importing *** ***'s reason for importing *** ***'s reason for importing *** ***'s reason for importing *** Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Note: *** did not directly provide reasons for importing OCTG in their questionnaire responses. ***. III-32 U.S. employment, wages, and productivity Table III-29 presents U.S. mills’ employment-related data. Between 2018 and 2020, U.S. mills’ average production and related workers (“PRWs”), total hours worked, hours worked per PRW, wages paid, and productivity all decreased overall, while hourly wages and unit labor costs increased. Average PRWs, total hours worked, wages paid, hourly wages, and productivity were lower in January-June 2021 compared with January-June 2020, while hours worked per PRW and unit labor costs were higher. U.S. mills’ average PRWs increased by 3.2 percent from 2018 to 2019 before sharply falling by 46.2 percent from 2019 to 2020, ending 44.5 percent lower in 2020 than in 2018. Average PRWs were 32.0 percent lower in January-June 2021 than in January-June 2020. Table III-29 OCTG: U.S. mills’ employment related data, by period Item 2018 2019 2020 Jan-Jun 2020 Jan-Jun 2021 Production and related workers (PRWs) (number) 6,269 6,468 3,481 4,628 3,147 Total hours worked (1,000 hours) 15,162 14,880 7,756 5,214 3,949 Hours worked per PRW (hours) 2,419 2,301 2,228 1,127 1,255 Wages paid ($1,000) 514,958 534,096 306,237 209,908 149,279 Hourly wages (dollars per hour) $33.96 $35.89 $39.48 $40.26 $37.80 Productivity (short tons per 1,000 hours) 208.8 202.9 205.7 213.3 189.0 Unit labor costs (dollars per short ton) $163 $177 $192 $189 $200 Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Table III-30 presents U.S. non-toll processors’ employment-related data. Between 2018 and 2020, U.S. non-toll processors’ average PRWs, total hours worked, hours worked per PRW, wages paid, and unit labor costs were all lower in 2020 relative to 2018, while productivity was higher. Average PRWs, total hours worked, hours worked per PRW, wages paid, and unit labor costs were all lower in January-June 2021 compared with January-June 2020, while hourly wages and productivity were higher. III-33 Table III-30 OCTG: U.S. non-toll processors’ employment related data, by period Item 2018 2019 2020 Jan-Jun 2020 Jan-Jun 2021 Production and related workers (PRWs) (number) *** *** *** *** *** Total hours worked (1,000 hours) *** *** *** *** *** Hours worked per PRW (hours) *** *** *** *** *** Wages paid ($1,000) *** *** *** *** *** Hourly wages (dollars per hour) *** *** *** *** *** Productivity (short tons per 1,000 hours) *** *** *** *** *** Unit labor costs (dollars per short ton) *** *** *** *** *** Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Table III-31 presents U.S. toll processors’ employment-related data. U.S. toll processors’ average PRWs fluctuated but decreased during 2018-20, falling by *** percent. Conversely, during the same period U.S. toll processors’ total hours worked, hours worked per PRW, wages paid, and productivity decreased by *** percent, *** percent, *** percent, and *** percent, respectively. Hourly wages and unit labor costs, however, increased by *** percent and *** percent, respectively, from 2018 to 2020. U.S. toll processors’ average PRWs, total hours worked, and unit labor costs were lower during January-June 2021 compared with January-June 2020, while hours worked per PRW, wages paid, hourly wages, and productivity were all higher. Table III-31 OCTG: U.S. toll processors’ employment related data, by period Item 2018 2019 2020 Jan-Jun 2020 Jan-Jun 2021 Production and related workers (PRWs) (number) *** *** *** *** *** Total hours worked (1,000 hours) *** *** *** *** *** Hours worked per PRW (hours) *** *** *** *** *** Wages paid ($1,000) *** *** *** *** *** Hourly wages (dollars per hour) *** *** *** *** *** Productivity (short tons per 1,000 hours) *** *** *** *** *** Unit labor costs (dollars per short ton) *** *** *** *** *** Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. III-34 Table III-32 presents U.S. producers’ combined employment-related data. U.S. producers’ combined average PRWs and wages paid fluctuated but decreased during 2018-20, falling by 41.5 percent and 40.2 percent, respectively. Total hours worked and hours worked per PRW both decreased from 2018 to 2020, falling by 47.6 percent, 10.5 percent, respectively. Hourly wages, however, increased by 14.2 percent during the same period. U.S. producers’ combined average PRWs, total hours worked, wages paid, and hourly wages were all lower in January-June 2021 compared with January-June 2020, while hours worked per PRW was higher. Table III-32 OCTG: U.S. producers’ combined employment related data, by period Item 2018 2019 2020 Jan-Jun 2020 Jan-Jun 2021 Production and related workers (PRWs) (number) 8,006 8,235 4,681 6,102 4,154 Total hours worked (1,000 hours) 20,408 19,967 10,685 7,016 5,499 Hours worked per PRW (hours) 2,549 2,425 2,283 1,150 1,324 Wages paid ($1,000) 600,802 620,365 359,123 241,711 178,967 Hourly wages (dollars per hour) $29.44 $31.07 $33.61 $34.45 $32.55 Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. IV-1 Part IV: U.S. imports, apparent U.S. consumption, and market shares U.S. importers The Commission issued importer questionnaires to 65 firms believed to be importers of subject OCTG, as well as to all U.S. producers of OCTG.1 Usable questionnaire responses were received from 26 companies, representing approximately 66.8 percent of U.S. imports from Argentina, Mexico, Russia, and South Korea and 61.5 percent of total U.S. imports in 2020 under HTS subheadings 7304.29, 7305.20, and 7306.29.2 Firms responding to the Commission’s questionnaire accounted for the following shares of imports of OCTG by source during 2020, based on official Commerce statistics—Argentina, ***; Mexico, *** percent; Russia, *** percent; South Korea, *** percent; and all other, *** percent. In light of the questionnaire coverage, import data presented in this report are based on official Commerce statistics.3 Table IV-1 lists all responding U.S. importers of OCTG from Argentina, Mexico, Russia, South Korea, and other sources, their locations, and their shares of subject imports, in 2020. Table IV-2 presents equivalent information with respect to aggregated imports from subject sources, nonsubject sources, and all sources. 1 The Commission issued questionnaires to those firms identified in the petitions, along with firms that, based on a review of data from third-party sources, may have accounted for more than one percent of total imports under HTS subheadings 7304.29, 7305.20, and 7306.29 since 2018. 2 The Commission also received importer questionnaire responses from ***. These firms confirmed that they were not the importer of record and thus are not included in the importer dataset. Staff correspondence with ***, November 2, 2021 and ***, October 26, 2021. 3 Official Commerce statistics presented in this report do not include in-scope coupling stock, which enter under HTS statistical reporting numbers that include primarily out-of-scope products. Coupling stock accounted for approximately *** percent of total OCTG imports between 2018 and June 2021, based on responses to the Commission’s importer questionnaire. Responding firms reported coupling stock imports of *** short tons in 2018, *** short tons in 2019, *** short tons in 2020, *** short tons in January-June 2020, and *** short tons in January-June 2021. In addition, imports from Canada may include ***. IV-2 Table IV-1 OCTG: U.S. importers, their headquarters, and share of subject imports by source, 2020 Shares in percent Firm Headquarters Argentina Mexico Russia South Korea Arvedi Cremona, IT *** *** *** *** Atlas Robstown, TX *** *** *** *** Axis Bryan, TX *** *** *** *** Benteler Houston, TX *** *** *** *** Borusan Baytown, TX *** *** *** *** CPW America Houston, TX *** *** *** *** EVRAZ Chicago, IL *** *** *** *** Hyundai Steel USA Houston, TX *** *** *** *** IPSCO Houston, TX *** *** *** *** Marubeni Houston, TX *** *** *** *** NOV Houston, TX *** *** *** *** OFS Houston, TX *** *** *** *** OMK Houston, TX *** *** *** *** Optima Pleasant Hill, CA *** *** *** *** Posco Teaneck, NJ *** *** *** *** SeAH Steel Irvine, CA *** *** *** *** SDB Trade Houston, TX *** *** *** *** Tenaris Global Houston, TX *** *** *** *** Thyssenkrupp Southfield, MI *** *** *** *** TMK Overseas Houston, TX *** *** *** *** TMK-ARTROM Slatina, Olt, Romania *** *** *** *** Tubos Reunidos Houston, TX *** *** *** *** Vallourec STAR Houston, TX *** *** *** *** Vallourec USA Houston, TX *** *** *** *** Voestalpine Houston, TX *** *** *** *** Welded Tube of Canada Concord, ON *** *** *** *** All firms Various *** *** *** *** Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Note: In January 2020, IPSCO was acquired by Tenaris USA. IPSCO’s importer questionnaire response is based on information provided in the Commission’s recent five-year reviews on OCTG from India, Korea, Turkey, Ukraine, and Vietnam. Note: *** submitted *** revisions to its U.S. importer questionnaire after it had inadvertently reported trade data based on its fiscal year *** rather than calendar year. Staff received these revisions too late to incorporate in the report. Staff correspondence with ***, November 4, 2021. Note: Shares and ratios shown as "0.0" represent values greater than zero, but less than "0.05" percent. Zeroes, null values, and undefined calculations are suppressed and shown as “---“. IV-3 Table IV-2 OCTG: U.S. importers, their headquarters, and share of total imports by source, 2020 Shares in percent Firm Headquarters Subject sources Nonsubject sources All import sources Arvedi Cremona, IT *** *** *** Atlas Robstown, TX *** *** *** Axis Bryan, TX *** *** *** Benteler Houston, TX *** *** *** Borusan Baytown, TX *** *** *** CPW America Houston, TX *** *** *** EVRAZ Chicago, IL *** *** *** Hyundai Steel USA Houston, TX *** *** *** IPSCO Houston, TX *** *** *** Marubeni Houston, TX *** *** *** NOV Houston, TX *** *** *** OFS Houston, TX *** *** *** OMK Houston, TX *** *** *** Optima Pleasant Hill, CA *** *** *** Posco Teaneck, NJ *** *** *** SeAH Steel Irvine, CA *** *** *** SDB Trade Houston, TX *** *** *** Tenaris Global Houston, TX *** *** *** Thyssenkrupp Southfield, MI *** *** *** TMK Overseas Houston, TX *** *** *** TMK-ARTROM Slatina, Olt, Romania, *** *** *** Tubos Reunidos Houston, TX *** *** *** Vallourec STAR Houston, TX *** *** *** Vallourec USA Houston, TX *** *** *** Voestalpine Houston, TX *** *** *** Welded Tube Concord, ON *** *** *** All firms Various *** *** *** Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Note: Shares and ratios shown as "0.0" represent values greater than zero, but less than "0.05" percent. Zeroes, null values, and undefined calculations are suppressed and shown as “---“. U.S. imports Table IV-3 and figure IV-1 present data for U.S. imports of OCTG from Argentina, Mexico, Russia, South Korea, and all other sources. During 2018-20, total U.S. imports decreased by 61.6 percent and were 5.0 percent lower in January-June 2021 than in January- June 2020. Subject imports decreased by 60.7 percent between 2018 and 2020 but were 46.0 percent higher in interim 2021 than in interim 2020. Imports from nonsubject sources decreased by 62.4 percent during 2018-20 and were 46.6 percent lower in interim 2021 than in IV-4 interim 2020. Leading nonsubject sources of imports include Austria, Canada, and Taiwan. Average unit values (“AUVs”) from subject and nonsubject sources decreased between 2018 and 2020, by 18.2 percent and 10.6 percent respectively. Subject AUVs were 3.9 percent lower in interim 2021 than in interim 2020 while nonsubject AUVs were 15.5 percent higher. Subject imports as a share of total imports increased by 1.2 percentage points, from 49.6 percent in 2018 to 50.7 percent in 2020 and were 24.1 percentage points higher in interim 2021 than in interim 2020. South Korea was the largest source of subject imports in each period; its share of total imports increased from 18.5 percent in 2018 to 28.7 percent in 2020 and was 31.0 percent in interim 2021 compared to 22.6 percent in interim 2020. The ratio of subject imports to U.S. production decreased by 9.4 percentage points during 2018-20 and was 35.1 percentage points higher in interim 2021 than in interim 2020. Table IV-3 OCTG: U.S. imports by source and period Quantity in short tons; value in 1,000 dollars; unit value in dollars per short tons Source Measure 2018 2019 2020 Jan-Jun 2020 Jan-Jun 2021 Argentina Quantity 161,851 162,875 16,735 10,515 81,015 Mexico Quantity 423,173 214,197 164,874 109,672 127,771 Russia Quantity 263,730 215,339 49,340 45,203 58,081 South Korea Quantity 504,216 450,082 301,347 166,422 217,666 Subject sources Quantity 1,352,970 1,042,492 532,296 331,812 484,533 Nonsubject sources Quantity 1,377,308 1,238,082 517,473 405,848 216,536 All import sources Quantity 2,730,277 2,280,575 1,049,769 737,660 701,068 Argentina Value 197,616 216,803 20,331 13,553 79,842 Mexico Value 625,650 350,487 222,982 157,807 153,229 Russia Value 280,683 230,773 40,376 37,078 42,669 South Korea Value 428,053 398,171 209,346 115,045 178,149 Subject sources Value 1,532,002 1,196,233 493,035 323,483 453,889 Nonsubject sources Value 1,654,526 1,442,969 555,606 423,668 261,120 All import sources Value 3,186,528 2,639,202 1,048,641 747,151 715,010 Argentina Unit value 1,221 1,331 1,215 1,289 986 Mexico Unit value 1,478 1,636 1,352 1,439 1,199 Russia Unit value 1,064 1,072 818 820 735 South Korea Unit value 849 885 695 691 818 Subject sources Unit value 1,132 1,147 926 975 937 Nonsubject sources Unit value 1,201 1,165 1,074 1,044 1,206 All import sources Unit value 1,167 1,157 999 1,013 1,020 Table continued on next page. IV-5 Table IV-3 Continued OCTG: U.S. imports by source and period Shares and ratios in percent Source Measure 2018 2019 2020 Jan-Jun 2020 Jan-Jun 2021 Argentina Share of quantity 5.9 7.1 1.6 1.4 11.6 Mexico Share of quantity 15.5 9.4 15.7 14.9 18.2 Russia Share of quantity 9.7 9.4 4.7 6.1 8.3 South Korea Share of quantity 18.5 19.7 28.7 22.6 31.0 Subject sources Share of quantity 49.6 45.7 50.7 45.0 69.1 Nonsubject sources Share of quantity 50.4 54.3 49.3 55.0 30.9 All import sources Share of quantity 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Argentina Share of value 6.2 8.2 1.9 1.8 11.2 Mexico Share of value 19.6 13.3 21.3 21.1 21.4 Russia Share of value 8.8 8.7 3.9 5.0 6.0 South Korea Share of value 13.4 15.1 20.0 15.4 24.9 Subject sources Share of value 48.1 45.3 47.0 43.3 63.5 Nonsubject sources Share of value 51.9 54.7 53.0 56.7 36.5 All import sources Share of value 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Argentina Ratio *** *** *** *** *** Mexico Ratio *** *** *** *** *** Russia Ratio *** *** *** *** *** South Korea Ratio *** *** *** *** *** Subject sources Ratio *** *** *** *** *** Nonsubject sources Ratio *** *** *** *** *** All import sources Ratio *** *** *** *** *** Source: Official U.S. import statistics of the U.S. Department of Commerce Census Bureau using HTS statistical reporting numbers 7304.29.1010, 7304.29.1020, 7304.29.1030, 7304.29.1040, 7304.29.1050, 7304.29.1060, 7304.29.1080, 7304.29.2010, 7304.29.2020, 7304.29.2030, 7304.29.2040, 7304.29.2050, 7304.29.2060, 7304.29.2080, 7304.29.3110, 7304.29.3120, 7304.29.3130, 7304.29.3140, 7304.29.3150, 7304.29.3160, 7304.29.3180, 7304.29.4110, 7304.29.4120, 7304.29.4130, 7304.29.4140, 7304.29.4150, 7304.29.4160, 7304.29.4180, 7304.29.5015, 7304.29.5030, 7304.29.5045, 7304.29.5060, 7304.29.5075, 7304.29.6115, 7304.29.6130, 7304.29.6145, 7304.29.6160, 7304.29.6175, 7305.20.2000, 7305.20.4000, 7305.20.6000, 7305.20.8000, 7306.29.1030, 7306.29.1090, 7306.29.2000, 7306.29.3100, 7306.29.4100, 7306.29.6010, 7306.29.6050, 7306.29.8110, and 7306.29.8150, accessed November 9, 2021. Import quantities are based on the imports for consumption data series. Value data reflect landed duty-paid values. Note: Effective September 10, 2014, imports of OCTG from South Korea were subject to an antidumping duty order. 79 FR 53691, September 10, 2014. Note: Share of quantity is the share of U.S. imports by quantity; share of value is the share of U.S. imports by value; ratio are U.S. imports to mill production. Note: Shares and ratios shown as "0.0" represent values greater than zero, but less than "0.05" percent. Zeroes, null values, and undefined calculations are suppressed and shown as “---“. IV-6 Figure IV-1 OCTG: U.S. import quantities and average unit values, by source and period Source: Official U.S. import statistics of the U.S. Department of Commerce Census Bureau using HTS statistical reporting numbers 7304.29.1010, 7304.29.1020, 7304.29.1030, 7304.29.1040, 7304.29.1050, 7304.29.1060, 7304.29.1080, 7304.29.2010, 7304.29.2020, 7304.29.2030, 7304.29.2040, 7304.29.2050, 7304.29.2060, 7304.29.2080, 7304.29.3110, 7304.29.3120, 7304.29.3130, 7304.29.3140, 7304.29.3150, 7304.29.3160, 7304.29.3180, 7304.29.4110, 7304.29.4120, 7304.29.4130, 7304.29.4140, 7304.29.4150, 7304.29.4160, 7304.29.4180, 7304.29.5015, 7304.29.5030, 7304.29.5045, 7304.29.5060, 7304.29.5075, 7304.29.6115, 7304.29.6130, 7304.29.6145, 7304.29.6160, 7304.29.6175, 7305.20.2000, 7305.20.4000, 7305.20.6000, 7305.20.8000, 7306.29.1030, 7306.29.1090, 7306.29.2000, 7306.29.3100, 7306.29.4100, 7306.29.6010, 7306.29.6050, 7306.29.8110, and 7306.29.8150, accessed November 9, 2021. Import quantities are based on the imports for consumption data series. Value data reflect landed duty-paid values. Table IV-4 and figure IV-2 present data for U.S. imports of seamless OCTG while table IV- 5 and figure IV-3 present data for U.S. imports of welded OCTG. Imports of seamless OCTG from both subject and nonsubject sources decreased during 2018-20, by 72.7 percent and 70.1 percent respectively. Subject seamless OCTG imports were 98.6 percent higher in interim 2021 than in interim 2020 while nonsubject seamless OCTG imports were 17.2 percent lower. Imports of welded OCTG from both subject and nonsubject sources decreased during 2018-20, by 44.6 percent and 50.3 percent respectively. Subject welded OCTG imports were 6.8 percent higher in interim 2021 than in interim 2020 while nonsubject welded OCTG imports were 70.2 percent lower. IV-7 Subject imports of seamless OCTG accounted for 45.4 percent of total seamless OCTG imports in 2020 and accounted for 65.4 percent of total seamless OCTG imports in interim 2021 compared to 44.0 percent in interim 2020. Mexico was the largest subject source of seamless OCTG imports, accounting for 35.3 percent in 2020. Subject imports of welded OCTG accounted for 54.9 percent of total welded OCTG imports in 2020 and accounted for 75.1 percent of total welded OCTG imports in interim 2021 compared to 45.7 percent in interim 2020. South Korea was the largest subject source of welded OCTG imports, accounting for 50.8 percent in 2020 and 72.3 percent in interim 2021 compared to 39.9 percent in interim 2020. Table IV-4 Seamless OCTG: U.S. imports, by source and by period Quantity in short tons; Value in 1,000 dollars; Unit values in dollars per short ton Source Measure 2018 2019 2020 Jan-Jun 2020 Jan-Jun 2021 Argentina Quantity 161,707 162,875 16,735 10,515 81,015 Mexico Quantity 395,282 209,751 163,683 108,481 127,771 Russia Quantity 177,587 143,560 26,269 22,132 50,607 South Korea Quantity 37,185 22,254 3,845 707 22,290 Subject sources Quantity 771,762 538,439 210,532 141,835 281,683 Nonsubject sources Quantity 845,272 663,592 253,112 180,403 149,300 All import sources Quantity 1,617,034 1,202,031 463,644 322,237 430,983 Argentina Value 197,528 216,803 20,331 13,553 79,842 Mexico Value 598,388 345,874 221,991 156,816 153,229 Russia Value 196,677 154,896 22,102 18,803 35,054 South Korea Value 37,597 24,839 2,813 521 21,051 Subject sources Value 1,030,190 742,412 267,236 189,693 289,176 Nonsubject sources Value 1,122,524 864,402 304,199 209,132 180,512 All import sources Value 2,152,714 1,606,813 571,435 398,825 469,689 Argentina Unit value 1,222 1,331 1,215 1,289 986 Mexico Unit value 1,514 1,649 1,356 1,446 1,199 Russia Unit value 1,107 1,079 841 850 693 South Korea Unit value 1,011 1,116 731 736 944 Subject sources Unit value 1,335 1,379 1,269 1,337 1,027 Nonsubject sources Unit value 1,328 1,303 1,202 1,159 1,209 All import sources Unit value 1,331 1,337 1,232 1,238 1,090 Table continued on next page. IV-8 Table IV-4 Continued Seamless OCTG: U.S. imports, by source and by period Shares and ratios in percent Source Measure 2018 2019 2020 Jan-Jun 2020 Jan-Jun 2021 Argentina Share of quantity 10.0 13.5 3.6 3.3 18.8 Mexico Share of quantity 24.4 17.4 35.3 33.7 29.6 Russia Share of quantity 11.0 11.9 5.7 6.9 11.7 South Korea Share of quantity 2.3 1.9 0.8 0.2 5.2 Subject sources Share of quantity 47.7 44.8 45.4 44.0 65.4 Nonsubject sources Share of quantity 52.3 55.2 54.6 56.0 34.6 All import sources Share of quantity 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Argentina Share of value 9.2 13.5 3.6 3.4 17.0 Mexico Share of value 27.8 21.5 38.8 39.3 32.6 Russia Share of value 9.1 9.6 3.9 4.7 7.5 South Korea Share of value 1.7 1.5 0.5 0.1 4.5 Subject sources Share of value 47.9 46.2 46.8 47.6 61.6 Nonsubject sources Share of value 52.1 53.8 53.2 52.4 38.4 All import sources Share of value 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Argentina Ratio *** *** *** *** *** Mexico Ratio *** *** *** *** *** Russia Ratio *** *** *** *** *** South Korea Ratio *** *** *** *** *** Subject sources Ratio *** *** *** *** *** Nonsubject sources Ratio *** *** *** *** *** All import sources Ratio *** *** *** *** *** Source: Official U.S. import statistics of the U.S. Department of Commerce Census Bureau using HTS statistical reporting numbers 7304.29.1010, 7304.29.1020, 7304.29.1030, 7304.29.1040, 7304.29.1050, 7304.29.1060, 7304.29.1080, 7304.29.2010, 7304.29.2020, 7304.29.2030, 7304.29.2040, 7304.29.2050, 7304.29.2060, 7304.29.2080, 7304.29.3110, 7304.29.3120, 7304.29.3130, 7304.29.3140, 7304.29.3150, 7304.29.3160, 7304.29.3180, 7304.29.4110, 7304.29.4120, 7304.29.4130, 7304.29.4140, 7304.29.4150, 7304.29.4160, 7304.29.4180, 7304.29.5015, 7304.29.5030, 7304.29.5045, 7304.29.5060, 7304.29.5075, 7304.29.6115, 7304.29.6130, 7304.29.6145, 7304.29.6160, and 7304.29.6175, accessed November 9, 2021. Import quantities are based on the imports for consumption data series. Value data reflect landed duty-paid values. Note: Share of quantity is the share of U.S. imports by quantity; share of value is the share of U.S. imports by value; ratio are U.S. imports to mill production. Note: Shares and ratios shown as "0.0" represent values greater than zero, but less than "0.05" percent. Zeroes, null values, and undefined calculations are suppressed and shown as “---“. IV-9 Figure IV-2 Seamless OCTG: U.S. import quantities and average unit values, by source and period Source: Official U.S. import statistics of the U.S. Department of Commerce Census Bureau using HTS statistical reporting numbers 7304.29.1010, 7304.29.1020, 7304.29.1030, 7304.29.1040, 7304.29.1050, 7304.29.1060, 7304.29.1080, 7304.29.2010, 7304.29.2020, 7304.29.2030, 7304.29.2040, 7304.29.2050, 7304.29.2060, 7304.29.2080, 7304.29.3110, 7304.29.3120, 7304.29.3130, 7304.29.3140, 7304.29.3150, 7304.29.3160, 7304.29.3180, 7304.29.4110, 7304.29.4120, 7304.29.4130, 7304.29.4140, 7304.29.4150, 7304.29.4160, 7304.29.4180, 7304.29.5015, 7304.29.5030, 7304.29.5045, 7304.29.5060, 7304.29.5075, 7304.29.6115, 7304.29.6130, 7304.29.6145, 7304.29.6160, and 7304.29.6175, accessed November 9, 2021. Import quantities are based on the imports for consumption data series. Value data reflect landed duty-paid values. IV-10 Table IV-5 Welded OCTG: U.S. imports, by source and by period Quantity in short tons; Value in 1,000 dollars; Unit values in dollars per short ton Source Measure 2018 2019 2020 Jan-Jun 2020 Jan-Jun 2021 Argentina Quantity 144 --- --- --- --- Mexico Quantity 27,891 4,446 1,191 1,191 --- Russia Quantity 86,143 71,779 23,071 23,071 7,474 South Korea Quantity 467,031 427,828 297,502 165,714 195,376 Subject sources Quantity 581,208 504,053 321,765 189,977 202,850 Nonsubject sources Quantity 532,036 574,490 264,361 225,446 67,236 All import sources Quantity 1,113,244 1,078,543 586,125 415,423 270,086 Argentina Value 89 --- --- --- --- Mexico Value 27,262 4,613 991 991 --- Russia Value 84,006 75,877 18,274 18,274 7,615 South Korea Value 390,455 373,332 206,534 114,525 157,097 Subject sources Value 501,812 453,822 225,799 133,790 164,713 Nonsubject sources Value 532,001 578,567 251,407 214,536 80,608 All import sources Value 1,033,814 1,032,389 477,206 348,326 245,321 Argentina Unit value 618 --- --- --- --- Mexico Unit value 977 1,037 832 832 --- Russia Unit value 975 1,057 792 792 1,019 South Korea Unit value 836 873 694 691 804 Subject sources Unit value 863 900 702 704 812 Nonsubject sources Unit value 1,000 1,007 951 952 1,199 All import sources Unit value 929 957 814 838 908 Table continued on next page. IV-11 Table IV-5 Continued Welded OCTG: U.S. imports, by source and by period Shares and ratios in percent Source Measure 2018 2019 2020 Jan-Jun 2020 Jan-Jun 2021 Argentina Share of quantity 0.0 --- --- --- --- Mexico Share of quantity 2.5 0.4 0.2 0.3 --- Russia Share of quantity 7.7 6.7 3.9 5.6 2.8 South Korea Share of quantity 42.0 39.7 50.8 39.9 72.3 Subject sources Share of quantity 52.2 46.7 54.9 45.7 75.1 Nonsubject sources Share of quantity 47.8 53.3 45.1 54.3 24.9 All import sources Share of quantity 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Argentina Share of value 0.0 --- --- --- --- Mexico Share of value 2.6 0.4 0.2 0.3 --- Russia Share of value 8.1 7.3 3.8 5.2 3.1 South Korea Share of value 37.8 36.2 43.3 32.9 64.0 Subject sources Share of value 48.5 44.0 47.3 38.4 67.1 Nonsubject sources Share of value 51.5 56.0 52.7 61.6 32.9 All import sources Share of value 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Argentina Ratio *** *** *** *** *** Mexico Ratio *** *** *** *** *** Russia Ratio *** *** *** *** *** South Korea Ratio *** *** *** *** *** Subject sources Ratio *** *** *** *** *** Nonsubject sources Ratio *** *** *** *** *** All import sources Ratio *** *** *** *** *** Source: Official U.S. import statistics of the U.S. Department of Commerce Census Bureau using HTS statistical reporting numbers 7305.20.2000, 7305.20.4000, 7305.20.6000, 7305.20.8000, 7306.29.1030, 7306.29.1090, 7306.29.2000, 7306.29.3100, 7306.29.4100, 7306.29.6010, 7306.29.6050, 7306.29.8110, and 7306.29.8150, accessed November 9, 2021. Import quantities are based on the imports for consumption data series. Value data reflect landed duty-paid values. Note: Share of quantity is the share of U.S. imports by quantity; share of value is the share of U.S. imports by value; ratio are U.S. imports to mill production. Note: Shares and ratios shown as "0.0" represent values greater than zero, but less than "0.05" percent. Zeroes, null values, and undefined calculations are suppressed and shown as “---“. IV-12 Figure IV-3 Welded OCTG: U.S. import quantities and average unit values, by source and period Source: Official U.S. import statistics of the U.S. Department of Commerce Census Bureau using HTS statistical reporting numbers 7305.20.2000, 7305.20.4000, 7305.20.6000, 7305.20.8000, 7306.29.1030, 7306.29.1090, 7306.29.2000, 7306.29.3100, 7306.29.4100, 7306.29.6010, 7306.29.6050, 7306.29.8110, and 7306.29.8150, accessed November 9, 2021. Import quantities are based on the imports for consumption data series. Value data reflect landed duty-paid values. Negligibility The statute requires that an investigation be terminated without an injury determination if imports of the subject merchandise are found to be negligible.4 Negligible imports are generally defined in the Act, as amended, as imports from a country of merchandise corresponding to a domestic like product where such imports account for less than 3 percent of the volume of all such merchandise imported into the United States in the most recent 12-month period for which data are available that precedes the filing of the petition or the initiation of the investigation. However, if there are imports of such merchandise from a number of countries subject to investigations initiated on the same day that individually account for less than 3 percent of the total volume of the subject merchandise, and if the imports from those countries collectively account for more than 7 percent of the volume of all such merchandise imported into the United States during the applicable 12-month period, then 4 Sections 703(a)(1), 705(b)(1), 733(a)(1), and 735(b)(1) of the Act (19 U.S.C. §§ 1671b(a)(1), 1671d(b)(1), 1673b(a)(1), and 1673d(b)(1)). IV-13 imports from such countries are deemed not to be negligible.5 Table IV-6 presents the individual shares of total imports by source, during October 2020 through September 2021. Table IV-6 OCTG: U.S. imports in the twelve-month period preceding the filing of the petitions, October 2020 through September 2021 Quantity in short tons; share of quantity is the share of total imports by quantity in percent Source of imports Quantity Share of quantity Argentina 119,059 8.4 Mexico 264,809 18.7 Russia 100,610 7.1 South Korea 441,957 31.2 All other sources 489,792 34.6 All import sources 1,416,228 100.0 Source: Official U.S. import statistics of the U.S. Department of Commerce Census Bureau using HTS statistical reporting numbers 7304.29.1010, 7304.29.1020, 7304.29.1030, 7304.29.1040, 7304.29.1050, 7304.29.1060, 7304.29.1080, 7304.29.2010, 7304.29.2020, 7304.29.2030, 7304.29.2040, 7304.29.2050, 7304.29.2060, 7304.29.2080, 7304.29.3110, 7304.29.3120, 7304.29.3130, 7304.29.3140, 7304.29.3150, 7304.29.3160, 7304.29.3180, 7304.29.4110, 7304.29.4120, 7304.29.4130, 7304.29.4140, 7304.29.4150, 7304.29.4160, 7304.29.4180, 7304.29.5015, 7304.29.5030, 7304.29.5045, 7304.29.5060, 7304.29.5075, 7304.29.6115, 7304.29.6130, 7304.29.6145, 7304.29.6160, 7304.29.6175, 7305.20.2000, 7305.20.4000, 7305.20.6000, 7305.20.8000, 7306.29.1030, 7306.29.1090, 7306.29.2000, 7306.29.3100, 7306.29.4100, 7306.29.6010, 7306.29.6050, 7306.29.8110, and 7306.29.8150, accessed November 9, 2021. Import quantities are based on the imports for consumption data series. Cumulation considerations In assessing whether imports should be cumulated, the Commission determines whether U.S. imports from the subject countries compete with each other and with the domestic like product and has generally considered four factors: (1) fungibility, (2) presence of sales or offers to sell in the same geographical markets, (3) common or similar channels of distribution, and (4) simultaneous presence in the market. Information regarding channels of distribution, market areas, and interchangeability appear in Part II. Additional information concerning fungibility, geographical markets, and simultaneous presence in the market is presented below. 5 Section 771 (24) of the Act (19 U.S.C § 1677(24)). IV-14 Fungibility Table IV-7 and figure IV-4 present U.S. producers’ mill production and U.S. importers’ imports of OCTG by type. U.S. imports of OCTG from Argentina and Mexico were predominantly or exclusively seamless; in contrast, U.S. imports of OCTG from South Korea were predominantly welded. In addition, seamless and welded OCTG were both available from nonsubject sources. The majority of U.S. producers’ mill production consisted of seamless OCTG, accounting for *** percent in 2020. The majority of U.S. importers’ U.S. shipments consisted of welded OCTG, accounting for 60.4 percent of subject imports and 51.1 percent of nonsubject imports. Table IV-7 OCTG: U.S. mills' production and U.S. importers' imports, by source and product type, 2020 Quantity in short tons Source Seamless Welded All types U.S. producers *** *** 1,595,070 Argentina 16,735 --- 16,735 Mexico 163,683 1,191 164,874 Russia 26,269 23,071 49,340 South Korea 3,845 297,502 301,347 Subject sources 210,532 321,765 532,296 Nonsubject sources 253,112 264,361 517,473 All import sources 463,644 586,125 1,049,769 All sources *** *** 2,644,839 Table continued. Table IV-7 Continued OCTG: U.S. mills' production and U.S. importers' imports, by source and product type, 2020 Share across in percent Source Seamless Welded All types U.S. producers *** *** 100.0 Argentina 100.0 --- 100.0 Mexico 99.3 0.7 100.0 Russia 53.2 46.8 100.0 South Korea 1.3 98.7 100.0 Subject sources 39.6 60.4 100.0 Nonsubject sources 48.9 51.1 100.0 All import sources 44.2 55.8 100.0 All sources *** *** 100.0 Table continued. IV-15 Table IV-7 Continued OCTG: U.S. mills' production and U.S. importers' imports, by source and product type, 2020 Share down in percent Source Seamless Welded All types U.S. producers *** *** 60.3 Argentina 1.1 --- 0.6 Mexico 10.5 0.1 6.2 Russia 1.7 2.1 1.9 South Korea 0.2 27.4 11.4 Subject sources 13.5 29.7 20.1 Nonsubject sources 16.2 24.4 19.6 All import sources 29.7 54.0 39.7 All sources 100.0 100.0 100.0 Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires and from official U.S. import statistics of the U.S. Department of Commerce Census Bureau using HTS statistical reporting numbers 7304.29.1010, 7304.29.1020, 7304.29.1030, 7304.29.1040, 7304.29.1050, 7304.29.1060, 7304.29.1080, 7304.29.2010, 7304.29.2020, 7304.29.2030, 7304.29.2040, 7304.29.2050, 7304.29.2060, 7304.29.2080, 7304.29.3110, 7304.29.3120, 7304.29.3130, 7304.29.3140, 7304.29.3150, 7304.29.3160, 7304.29.3180, 7304.29.4110, 7304.29.4120, 7304.29.4130, 7304.29.4140, 7304.29.4150, 7304.29.4160, 7304.29.4180, 7304.29.5015, 7304.29.5030, 7304.29.5045, 7304.29.5060, 7304.29.5075, 7304.29.6115, 7304.29.6130, 7304.29.6145, 7304.29.6160, 7304.29.6175, 7305.20.2000, 7305.20.4000, 7305.20.6000, 7305.20.8000, 7306.29.1030, 7306.29.1090, 7306.29.2000, 7306.29.3100, 7306.29.4100, 7306.29.6010, 7306.29.6050, 7306.29.8110, and 7306.29.8150, accessed November 9, 2021. Import quantities are based on the imports for consumption data series. Note: Shares and ratios shown as "0.0" represent values greater than zero, but less than "0.05" percent. Zeroes, null values, and undefined calculations are suppressed and shown as “---“. IV-16 Figure IV-4 OCTG: U.S. mills' production and U.S. importers' imports, by source and product type, 2020 * * * * * * * Table IV-8 and figure IV-5 present U.S. producers’ mill production and U.S. importers’ imports by level of finishing. The majority of U.S. producers’ mill production and U.S. importers’ imports from subject and nonsubject sources consisted of finished OCTG, with the exception of U.S. imports from South Korea. IV-17 Table IV-8 OCTG: U.S. mills' production and U.S. importers' imports, by source and level of finishing, 2020 Quantity in short tons Source Finished Unfinished All levels of finishing U.S. producers *** *** *** Argentina *** *** *** Mexico *** *** *** Russia *** *** *** South Korea *** *** *** Subject sources *** *** *** Nonsubject sources *** *** *** All import sources *** *** *** All sources *** *** *** Table continued. Table IV-8 Continued OCTG: U.S. mills' production and U.S. importers' imports, by source and level of finishing, 2020 Share across in percent Source Finished Unfinished All levels of finishing U.S. producers *** *** *** Argentina *** *** *** Mexico *** *** *** Russia *** *** *** South Korea *** *** *** Subject sources *** *** *** Nonsubject sources *** *** *** All import sources *** *** *** All sources *** *** *** Table continued. Table IV-8 Continued OCTG: U.S. mills' production and U.S. importers' imports, by source and level of finishing, 2020 Share down in percent Source Finished Unfinished All levels of finishing U.S. producers *** *** *** Argentina *** *** *** Mexico *** *** *** Russia *** *** *** South Korea *** *** *** Subject sources *** *** *** Nonsubject sources *** *** *** All import sources *** *** *** All sources *** *** *** Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. IV-18 Figure IV-5 OCTG: U.S. mills' production and U.S. importers' imports, by source and level of finishing, 2020 * * * * * * * Geographical markets OCTG produced in the United States are shipped nationwide (see Part II for more information on geographic markets). Table IV-9 presents U.S. imports of OCTG, by source and border of entry in 2020, based on official Commerce statistics. U.S. imports of subject OCTG from Argentina, Mexico, Russia, and South Korea entered multiple U.S. ports of entry across the nation. The vast majority of OCTG from each subject country entered through Southern borders of entry, specifically the Houston-Galveston, Texas Customs district. IV-19 Table IV-9 OCTG: Quantity of U.S. imports by border of entry, 2020 Quantity in short tons Source East North South West All borders Argentina --- 530 16,205 --- 16,735 Mexico 19,020 1,558 144,295 --- 164,874 Russia --- --- 49,340 --- 49,340 South Korea --- --- 299,320 2,027 301,347 Subject sources 19,020 2,088 509,161 2,027 532,296 Nonsubject sources 57,228 19,991 437,340 2,914 517,473 All import sources 76,248 22,079 946,501 4,941 1,049,769 Table continued. Table IV-9 Continued OCTG: Quantity of U.S. imports by border of entry, 2020 Share in percent Source East North South West All borders Argentina --- 3.2 96.8 --- 100.0 Mexico 11.5 0.9 87.5 --- 100.0 Russia --- --- 100.0 --- 100.0 South Korea --- --- 99.3 0.7 100.0 Subject sources 3.6 0.4 95.7 0.4 100.0 Nonsubject sources 11.1 3.9 84.5 0.6 100.0 All import sources 7.3 2.1 90.2 0.5 100.0 Table continued. IV-20 Table IV-9 Continued OCTG: Quantity of U.S. imports by border of entry, 2020 Share in percent Source East North South West All borders Argentina --- 2.4 1.7 --- 1.6 Mexico 24.9 7.1 15.2 --- 15.7 Russia --- --- 5.2 --- 4.7 South Korea --- --- 31.6 41.0 28.7 Subject sources 24.9 9.5 53.8 41.0 50.7 Nonsubject sources 75.1 90.5 46.2 59.0 49.3 All import sources 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Source: Compiled from official U.S. import statistics of the U.S. Department of Commerce Census Bureau using HTS statistical reporting numbers 7304.29.1010, 7304.29.1020, 7304.29.1030, 7304.29.1040, 7304.29.1050, 7304.29.1060, 7304.29.1080, 7304.29.2010, 7304.29.2020, 7304.29.2030, 7304.29.2040, 7304.29.2050, 7304.29.2060, 7304.29.2080, 7304.29.3110, 7304.29.3120, 7304.29.3130, 7304.29.3140, 7304.29.3150, 7304.29.3160, 7304.29.3180, 7304.29.4110, 7304.29.4120, 7304.29.4130, 7304.29.4140, 7304.29.4150, 7304.29.4160, 7304.29.4180, 7304.29.5015, 7304.29.5030, 7304.29.5045, 7304.29.5060, 7304.29.5075, 7304.29.6115, 7304.29.6130, 7304.29.6145, 7304.29.6160, 7304.29.6175, 7305.20.2000, 7305.20.4000, 7305.20.6000, 7305.20.8000, 7306.29.1030, 7306.29.1090, 7306.29.2000, 7306.29.3100, 7306.29.4100, 7306.29.6010, 7306.29.6050, 7306.29.8110, and 7306.29.8150, accessed November 9, 2021. Import quantities are based on the imports for consumption data series. Note: Shares and ratios shown as "0.0" represent values greater than zero, but less than "0.05" percent. Zeroes, null values, and undefined calculations are suppressed and shown as “---“. Presence in the market OCTG produced in the United States were present in the market throughout the period for which data were collected. Table IV-10 and figures IV-6 and IV-7 present monthly data for U.S. imports of OCTG from subject and nonsubject sources between January 2018 and September 2021. Subject imports of OCTG from Argentina were present in 41 of 45 months between January 2018 and September 2021, while subject imports from Russia and South Korea were present in 43 and 44 of 45 months, respectively. Subject imports of OCTG from Mexico were present in each month during this period. IV-21 Table IV-10 OCTG: Quantity of U.S. imports, by month Quantity in short tons Year Month Argentina Mexico Russia South Korea Subject sources Nonsubject sources All import sources 2018 January 27,661 40,091 23,258 123,746 214,756 149,873 364,629 2018 February 8,610 40,950 13,245 85,370 148,174 85,086 233,260 2018 March 19,567 37,084 13,718 81,349 151,719 148,661 300,380 2018 April 13,283 30,301 10,009 107,859 161,452 167,207 328,659 2018 May 5,821 52,338 31,951 21,778 111,888 147,797 259,685 2018 June 8,146 18,664 21,256 53,682 101,747 95,959 197,707 2018 July 15,987 43,122 30,079 14,453 103,641 109,745 213,386 2018 August 15,360 58,759 33,189 2,160 109,468 99,495 208,964 2018 September 11,313 32,394 25,186 5,663 74,555 84,572 159,127 2018 October 10,859 23,893 31,849 --- 66,600 103,580 170,180 2018 November 11,462 22,670 25,163 7,637 66,933 96,642 163,575 2018 December 13,782 22,907 4,827 520 42,037 88,688 130,725 2019 January 4,568 33,713 48,622 77,980 164,883 158,484 323,368 2019 February 12,191 14,996 6,198 17,415 50,800 139,315 190,115 2019 March 17,317 15,855 35,868 45,891 114,931 118,223 233,154 2019 April 5,235 19,231 42,205 59,730 126,401 120,687 247,088 2019 May 5,139 28,049 28,929 46,245 108,362 106,374 214,736 2019 June 28,269 11,777 15,122 12,944 68,111 124,611 192,722 2019 July 12,131 20,951 21,595 17,816 72,493 126,467 198,961 2019 August 13,117 11,764 12,589 44,534 82,003 106,023 188,026 2019 September 23,365 10,864 56 23,839 58,124 84,563 142,688 2019 October 11,158 17,418 1,870 21,033 51,478 60,514 111,992 2019 November 11,973 14,944 2,286 43,335 72,538 53,285 125,823 2019 December 18,411 14,634 --- 39,321 72,366 39,534 111,900 Table continued. IV-22 Table IV-10 Continued OCTG: Quantity of U.S. imports, by month Quantity in short tons Year Month Argentina Mexico Russia South Korea Subject sources Nonsubject sources All import sources 2020 January 5,210 24,933 5,139 7,926 43,207 74,002 117,209 2020 February 4,755 16,672 13,483 5,635 40,545 41,285 81,830 2020 March 114 21,115 2,101 59,345 82,675 104,103 186,778 2020 April 413 20,570 10,882 9,373 41,238 43,555 84,793 2020 May 23 13,396 5,860 53,329 72,608 88,066 160,674 2020 June --- 12,987 7,738 30,814 51,539 54,837 106,376 2020 July 36 2,983 145 38,654 41,817 24,905 66,722 2020 August 22 7,316 --- 16,140 23,478 21,537 45,015 2020 September --- 9,098 174 576 9,848 8,924 18,772 2020 October --- 8,299 488 25,211 33,998 21,163 55,161 2020 November 1,404 5,801 272 10,927 18,404 17,928 36,332 2020 December 4,758 21,705 3,058 43,418 72,940 17,168 90,108 2021 January 7,872 19,277 7,794 11,450 46,393 33,732 80,125 2021 February 12,660 14,683 2 41,343 68,688 15,230 83,918 2021 March 12,481 24,836 16,424 48,763 102,504 24,629 127,133 2021 April 24,920 20,274 506 33,058 78,759 38,229 116,988 2021 May 11,034 28,527 15,686 28,494 83,742 40,617 124,360 2021 June 12,047 20,174 17,668 54,557 104,446 64,097 168,544 2021 July 23,938 33,400 16,714 58,088 132,140 46,248 178,389 2021 August --- 20,985 13,110 8,987 43,081 72,638 115,719 2021 September 7,944 46,848 8,888 77,660 141,340 98,111 239,451 Source: Compiled from official U.S. import statistics of the U.S. Department of Commerce Census Bureau using HTS statistical reporting numbers 7304.29.1010, 7304.29.1020, 7304.29.1030, 7304.29.1040, 7304.29.1050, 7304.29.1060, 7304.29.1080, 7304.29.2010, 7304.29.2020, 7304.29.2030, 7304.29.2040, 7304.29.2050, 7304.29.2060, 7304.29.2080, 7304.29.3110, 7304.29.3120, 7304.29.3130, 7304.29.3140, 7304.29.3150, 7304.29.3160, 7304.29.3180, 7304.29.4110, 7304.29.4120, 7304.29.4130, 7304.29.4140, 7304.29.4150, 7304.29.4160, 7304.29.4180, 7304.29.5015, 7304.29.5030, 7304.29.5045, 7304.29.5060, 7304.29.5075, 7304.29.6115, 7304.29.6130, 7304.29.6145, 7304.29.6160, 7304.29.6175, 7305.20.2000, 7305.20.4000, 7305.20.6000, 7305.20.8000, 7306.29.1030, 7306.29.1090, 7306.29.2000, 7306.29.3100, 7306.29.4100, 7306.29.6010, 7306.29.6050, 7306.29.8110, and 7306.29.8150, accessed November 9, 2021. Import quantities are based on the imports for consumption data series. Note: Zeroes, null values, and undefined calculations are suppressed and shown as “---“. IV-23 Figure IV-6 OCTG: U.S. imports from individual subject sources, by month Source: Compiled from official U.S. import statistics of the U.S. Department of Commerce Census Bureau using HTS statistical reporting numbers 7304.29.1010, 7304.29.1020, 7304.29.1030, 7304.29.1040, 7304.29.1050, 7304.29.1060, 7304.29.1080, 7304.29.2010, 7304.29.2020, 7304.29.2030, 7304.29.2040, 7304.29.2050, 7304.29.2060, 7304.29.2080, 7304.29.3110, 7304.29.3120, 7304.29.3130, 7304.29.3140, 7304.29.3150, 7304.29.3160, 7304.29.3180, 7304.29.4110, 7304.29.4120, 7304.29.4130, 7304.29.4140, 7304.29.4150, 7304.29.4160, 7304.29.4180, 7304.29.5015, 7304.29.5030, 7304.29.5045, 7304.29.5060, 7304.29.5075, 7304.29.6115, 7304.29.6130, 7304.29.6145, 7304.29.6160, 7304.29.6175, 7305.20.2000, 7305.20.4000, 7305.20.6000, 7305.20.8000, 7306.29.1030, 7306.29.1090, 7306.29.2000, 7306.29.3100, 7306.29.4100, 7306.29.6010, 7306.29.6050, 7306.29.8110, and 7306.29.8150, accessed November 9, 2021. Import quantities are based on the imports for consumption data series. IV-24 Figure IV-7 OCTG: U.S. imports from aggregated subject and nonsubject sources, by month Source: Compiled from official U.S. import statistics of the U.S. Department of Commerce Census Bureau using HTS statistical reporting numbers 7304.29.1010, 7304.29.1020, 7304.29.1030, 7304.29.1040, 7304.29.1050, 7304.29.1060, 7304.29.1080, 7304.29.2010, 7304.29.2020, 7304.29.2030, 7304.29.2040, 7304.29.2050, 7304.29.2060, 7304.29.2080, 7304.29.3110, 7304.29.3120, 7304.29.3130, 7304.29.3140, 7304.29.3150, 7304.29.3160, 7304.29.3180, 7304.29.4110, 7304.29.4120, 7304.29.4130, 7304.29.4140, 7304.29.4150, 7304.29.4160, 7304.29.4180, 7304.29.5015, 7304.29.5030, 7304.29.5045, 7304.29.5060, 7304.29.5075, 7304.29.6115, 7304.29.6130, 7304.29.6145, 7304.29.6160, 7304.29.6175, 7305.20.2000, 7305.20.4000, 7305.20.6000, 7305.20.8000, 7306.29.1030, 7306.29.1090, 7306.29.2000, 7306.29.3100, 7306.29.4100, 7306.29.6010, 7306.29.6050, 7306.29.8110, and 7306.29.8150, accessed November 9, 2021. Import quantities are based on the imports for consumption data series. Apparent U.S. consumption Table IV-11 and figure IV-8 present data on apparent U.S. consumption and U.S. market shares for OCTG. The quantity of apparent U.S. consumption decreased by 7.6 percent during 2017-18 then decreased further by 49.6 percent during 2019-20, decreasing overall by 53.5 percent. Apparent U.S. consumption was 23.2 percent lower in January-June 2021 than in January-June 2020. IV-25 Table IV-11 OCTG: Apparent U.S. consumption, by source and period Quantity in short tons; value in 1,000 dollars Source Measure 2018 2019 2020 Jan-Jun 2020 Jan-Jun 2021 U.S. producers Quantity 2,966,430 2,982,996 1,601,064 1,110,651 718,930 Argentina Quantity 161,851 162,875 16,735 10,515 81,015 Mexico Quantity 423,173 214,197 164,874 109,672 127,771 Russia Quantity 263,730 215,339 49,340 45,203 58,081 South Korea Quantity 504,216 450,082 301,347 166,422 217,666 Subject sources Quantity 1,352,970 1,042,492 532,296 331,812 484,533 Nonsubject sources Quantity 1,377,308 1,238,082 517,473 405,848 216,536 All import sources Quantity 2,730,277 2,280,575 1,049,769 737,660 701,068 All sources Quantity 5,696,707 5,263,571 2,650,833 1,848,311 1,419,998 U.S. producers fully domestic value Value *** *** *** *** *** U.S. producers incremental value from processing imports Value *** *** *** *** *** U.S. producers total Value 4,696,392 4,507,968 2,069,871 1,460,947 1,066,776 Argentina Value 197,616 216,803 20,331 13,553 79,842 Mexico Value 625,650 350,487 222,982 157,807 153,229 Russia Value 280,683 230,773 40,376 37,078 42,669 South Korea Value 428,053 398,171 209,346 115,045 178,149 Subject sources Value 1,532,002 1,196,233 493,035 323,483 453,889 Nonsubject sources Value 1,654,526 1,442,969 555,606 423,668 261,120 All import sources Value 3,186,528 2,639,202 1,048,641 747,151 715,010 All sources Value 7,882,920 7,147,170 3,118,512 2,208,098 1,781,785 Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires and from official U.S. import statistics of the U.S. Department of Commerce Census Bureau using HTS statistical reporting numbers 7304.29.1010, 7304.29.1020, 7304.29.1030, 7304.29.1040, 7304.29.1050, 7304.29.1060, 7304.29.1080, 7304.29.2010, 7304.29.2020, 7304.29.2030, 7304.29.2040, 7304.29.2050, 7304.29.2060, 7304.29.2080, 7304.29.3110, 7304.29.3120, 7304.29.3130, 7304.29.3140, 7304.29.3150, 7304.29.3160, 7304.29.3180, 7304.29.4110, 7304.29.4120, 7304.29.4130, 7304.29.4140, 7304.29.4150, 7304.29.4160, 7304.29.4180, 7304.29.5015, 7304.29.5030, 7304.29.5045, 7304.29.5060, 7304.29.5075, 7304.29.6115, 7304.29.6130, 7304.29.6145, 7304.29.6160, 7304.29.6175, 7305.20.2000, 7305.20.4000, 7305.20.6000, 7305.20.8000, 7306.29.1030, 7306.29.1090, 7306.29.2000, 7306.29.3100, 7306.29.4100, 7306.29.6010, 7306.29.6050, 7306.29.8110, and 7306.29.8150, accessed November 9, 2021. Import quantities are based on the imports for consumption data series. Note: Quantity for U.S. producers' U.S. shipments reflects mill's U.S. shipment quantities. Value for U.S. producers' U.S. shipments reflects OCTG products sold in the United States from domestically manufactured OCTG (including the incremental value from U.S. processors’ heat treatment of domestic OCTG), as well as the incremental value from U.S. processors’ heat treatment of imported OCTG. In measuring consumption and market share this methodology avoids reclassifying and/or double counting merchandise already reported as an import. IV-26 Figure IV-8 OCTG: Apparent U.S. consumption, by source and period Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires and from official U.S. import statistics of the U.S. Department of Commerce Census Bureau using HTS statistical reporting numbers 7304.29.1010, 7304.29.1020, 7304.29.1030, 7304.29.1040, 7304.29.1050, 7304.29.1060, 7304.29.1080, 7304.29.2010, 7304.29.2020, 7304.29.2030, 7304.29.2040, 7304.29.2050, 7304.29.2060, 7304.29.2080, 7304.29.3110, 7304.29.3120, 7304.29.3130, 7304.29.3140, 7304.29.3150, 7304.29.3160, 7304.29.3180, 7304.29.4110, 7304.29.4120, 7304.29.4130, 7304.29.4140, 7304.29.4150, 7304.29.4160, 7304.29.4180, 7304.29.5015, 7304.29.5030, 7304.29.5045, 7304.29.5060, 7304.29.5075, 7304.29.6115, 7304.29.6130, 7304.29.6145, 7304.29.6160, 7304.29.6175, 7305.20.2000, 7305.20.4000, 7305.20.6000, 7305.20.8000, 7306.29.1030, 7306.29.1090, 7306.29.2000, 7306.29.3100, 7306.29.4100, 7306.29.6010, 7306.29.6050, 7306.29.8110, and 7306.29.8150, accessed November 9, 2021. Import quantities are based on the imports for consumption data series. U.S. market shares U.S. market share data are presented in table IV-12. U.S. producers’ market share increased by 8.3 percentage points by quantity and 6.8 percentage points by value between 2018 and 2020. Subject import market share decreased by 3.7 percentage points by quantity and 3.6 percentage points by value during the same period. U.S. producers’ market share was 9.5 percentage points lower in January-June 2021 than in January-June 2020, while subject import market share was 16.2 percentage points higher. IV-27 Table IV-12 OCTG: Market shares, by source and period Shares in percent Source Measure 2018 2019 2020 Jan-Jun 2020 Jan-Jun 2021 U.S. producers Share of quantity 52.1 56.7 60.4 60.1 50.6 Argentina Share of quantity 2.8 3.1 0.6 0.6 5.7 Mexico Share of quantity 7.4 4.1 6.2 5.9 9.0 Russia Share of quantity 4.6 4.1 1.9 2.4 4.1 South Korea Share of quantity 8.9 8.6 11.4 9.0 15.3 Subject sources Share of quantity 23.8 19.8 20.1 18.0 34.1 Nonsubject sources Share of quantity 24.2 23.5 19.5 22.0 15.2 All import sources Share of quantity 47.9 43.3 39.6 39.9 49.4 All sources Share of quantity 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 U.S. producers fully domestic value Share of value *** *** *** *** *** U.S. producers incremental value from processing imports Share of value *** *** *** *** *** U.S. producers total Share of value 59.6 63.1 66.4 66.2 59.9 Argentina Share of value 2.5 3.0 0.7 0.6 4.5 Mexico Share of value 7.9 4.9 7.2 7.1 8.6 Russia Share of value 3.6 3.2 1.3 1.7 2.4 South Korea Share of value 5.4 5.6 6.7 5.2 10.0 Subject sources Share of value 19.4 16.7 15.8 14.6 25.5 Nonsubject sources Share of value 21.0 20.2 17.8 19.2 14.7 All import sources Share of value 40.4 36.9 33.6 33.8 40.1 All sources Share of value 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires and from official U.S. import statistics of the U.S. Department of Commerce Census Bureau using HTS statistical reporting numbers 7304.29.1010, 7304.29.1020, 7304.29.1030, 7304.29.1040, 7304.29.1050, 7304.29.1060, 7304.29.1080, 7304.29.2010, 7304.29.2020, 7304.29.2030, 7304.29.2040, 7304.29.2050, 7304.29.2060, 7304.29.2080, 7304.29.3110, 7304.29.3120, 7304.29.3130, 7304.29.3140, 7304.29.3150, 7304.29.3160, 7304.29.3180, 7304.29.4110, 7304.29.4120, 7304.29.4130, 7304.29.4140, 7304.29.4150, 7304.29.4160, 7304.29.4180, 7304.29.5015, 7304.29.5030, 7304.29.5045, 7304.29.5060, 7304.29.5075, 7304.29.6115, 7304.29.6130, 7304.29.6145, 7304.29.6160, 7304.29.6175, 7305.20.2000, 7305.20.4000, 7305.20.6000, 7305.20.8000, 7306.29.1030, 7306.29.1090, 7306.29.2000, 7306.29.3100, 7306.29.4100, 7306.29.6010, 7306.29.6050, 7306.29.8110, and 7306.29.8150, accessed November 9, 2021. Import quantities are based on the imports for consumption data series. Note: Quantity for U.S. producers' U.S. shipments reflects mill's U.S. shipment quantities. Value for U.S. producers' U.S. shipments reflects OCTG products sold in the United States from domestically manufactured OCTG (including the incremental value from U.S. processors’ heat treatment of domestic OCTG), as well as the incremental value from U.S. processors’ heat treatment of imported OCTG. In measuring consumption and market share this methodology avoids reclassifying and/or double counting merchandise already reported as an import. V-1 Part V: Pricing data Factors affecting prices Raw material costs Raw materials, primarily hot-rolled steel or billets (and associated inputs such as coke, scrap, pig iron, and hot-briqueted iron), account for the majority of the cost of OCTG. Raw material costs as a share of cost of goods sold for domestic producers decreased from 54.6 percent in 2018 percent to 42.6 percent in 2020. However, raw material costs as a share of the costs of goods were 50.3 percent in January-June 2021 compared to 43.4 percent in January- June 2020. The majority of U.S. producers and importers reported that raw material costs for seamless and welded OCTG increased or fluctuated since January 2018. U.S. producer *** reported that after a short-term decrease in 2019 and 2020, raw material prices for seamless OCTG steadily increased in 2021 to some of the highest levels in a decade. U.S. producer *** reported that raw material prices for seamless OCTG varied due to cyclical business conditions. U.S. producer *** reported that the price of scrap used to produce seamless OCTG increased 50 to 70 percent since January 2018. U.S. producer *** reported that certain base metals used to produce seamless OCTG increased in price and others decreased in price and there is no unifying trend that affects its selling price. U.S. producer *** reported that the cost of hot- rolled coil used to produce welded OCTG has quadrupled since 2018. U.S. producer *** reported that the cost of hot-rolled coiled used to produce welded OCTG steel has increased greatly since 2018. Importer *** reported that the prices for scrap, coking coal, and iron ore used to produce seamless OCTG have been increasing. Importer *** reported that raw material prices are generally correlated with the selling price of OCTG. The cost of hot-rolled steel, which is used to make welded OCTG, increased substantially from January 2018 and June 2021. The cost of scrap, which is used to make hot rolled billets in the manufacturing of seamless OCTG, also increased over the same period (table V-1 and figure V-1). As discussed in greater detail in parts I and II, hot-rolled steel, like seamless and welded OCTG, is subject to tariffs and quantitative restrictions pursuant to Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, as amended. Natural gas and oil prices are presented in appendix F. V-2 Table V-1 Raw material prices: ***, by month, January 2018-June 2021 Prices in dollars per short ton Year Month Steel scrap No1 heavy melt price Steel hot-rolled coil price 2018 January *** *** 2018 February *** *** 2018 March *** *** 2018 April *** *** 2018 May *** *** 2018 June *** *** 2018 July *** *** 2018 August *** *** 2018 September *** *** 2018 October *** *** 2018 November *** *** 2018 December *** *** 2019 January *** *** 2019 February *** *** 2019 March *** *** 2019 April *** *** 2019 May *** *** 2019 June *** *** 2019 July *** *** 2019 August *** *** 2019 September *** *** 2019 October *** *** 2019 November *** *** 2019 December *** *** 2020 January *** *** 2020 February *** *** 2020 March *** *** 2020 April *** *** 2020 May *** *** 2020 June *** *** 2020 July *** *** 2020 August *** *** 2020 September *** *** 2020 October *** *** 2020 November *** *** 2020 December *** *** 2021 January *** *** 2021 February *** *** 2021 March *** *** 2021 April *** *** 2021 May *** *** 2021 June *** *** Source: ***, retrieved October 13, 2021. V-3 Figure V-1 Raw materials prices: ***, by month, January 2018-June 2021 * * * * * * * Source: ***, retrieved October 13, 2021. In addition to steel, energy (mainly natural gas and electricity) accounts for a portion of OCTG production costs. The price of both natural gas and electricity decreased from 2018 to 2020 but then increased in 2021 (table V-2). V-4 Table V-2 Energy prices: Industrial sector average annual natural gas and electricity prices, by year, 2018- 21 Natural gas prices in dollars per thousand cubic feet; electricity prices in cents per kilowatt hour Year Industrial Sector Natural Gas Price Industrial Sector Electricity Price 2018 4.19 6.92 2019 3.90 6.81 2020 3.29 6.66 2021 5.05 6.97 Source: EIA, https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/steo/data/browser/#?v=8 (accessed October 13, 2021). Seamless OCTG producers generally produce their own billets. Billets are not typically sold in the United States. Table V-3 and figure V-2 presents one measure of the cost of billets, though it should be noted this may be a proxy for the use of a firm’s billets, not a direct cost of buying them.1 1 Certain Oil Country Tubular Goods from India, Korea, Philippines, Saudi Arabia, Taiwan, Thailand, Turkey, Ukraine, and Vietnam 731-TA-1215-1217 (Final), USITC Publication 4489, September 2014, p. V- 3. V-5 Table V-3 Billet prices: ***, by month, January 2018- June 2021 Prices in dollars per short ton Year Month Steel billet export prices (f.o.b. main port Turkey) 2018 January *** 2018 February *** 2018 March *** 2018 April *** 2018 May *** 2018 June *** 2018 July *** 2018 August *** 2018 September *** 2018 October *** 2018 November *** 2018 December *** 2019 January *** 2019 February *** 2019 March *** 2019 April *** 2019 May *** 2019 June *** 2019 July *** 2019 August *** 2019 September *** 2019 October *** 2019 November *** 2019 December *** 2020 January *** 2020 February *** 2020 March *** 2020 April *** 2020 May *** 2020 June *** 2020 July *** 2020 August *** 2020 September *** 2020 October *** 2020 November *** 2020 December *** 2021 January *** 2021 February *** 2021 March *** 2021 April *** 2021 May *** 2021 June *** Source: ***, retrieved October 13, 2021. V-6 Figure V-2 Billet prices: ***, by month, January 2018- June 2021 * * * * * * * Source: ***, retrieved October 13, 2021. Transportation costs to the U.S. market Transportation costs for OCTG shipped from subject countries to the United States averaged 5.8 percent for Argentina, 5.1 percent for Mexico, 11.1 percent for Russia, and 7.6 percent for South Korea during 2020. These estimates were derived from official import data and represent the transportation and other charges on imports.2 2 The estimated transportation costs were obtained by subtracting the customs value from the c.i.f. value of the imports for 2020 and then dividing by the customs value based on the HTS statistical reporting numbers 7304.29.1010, 7304.29.1020, 7304.29.1030, 7304.29.1040, 7304.29.1050, 7304.29.1060, 7304.29.1080, 7304.29.2010, 7304.29.2020, 7304.29.2030, 7304.29.2040, 7304.29.2050, 7304.29.2060, 7304.29.2080, 7304.29.3110, 7304.29.3120, 7304.29.3130, 7304.29.3140, 7304.29.3150, 7304.29.3160, 7304.29.3180, 7304.29.4110, 7304.29.4120, 7304.29.4130, 7304.29.4140, 7304.29.4150, 7304.29.4160, 7304.29.4180, 7304.29.5015, 7304.29.5030, 7304.29.5045, 7304.29.5060, 7304.29.5075, 7304.29.6115, 7304.29.6130, 7304.29.6145, 7304.29.6160, 7304.29.6175, 7305.20.2000, 7305.20.4000, 7305.20.6000, 7305.20.8000, 7306.29.1030, 7306.29.1090, 7306.29.2000, 7306.29.3100, 7306.29.4100, 7306.29.6010, 7306.29.6050, 7306.29.8110, and 7306.29.8150. V-7 U.S. inland transportation costs Half of responding U.S. producers (6 of 12) and the majority of importers (14 of 21) reported that purchasers typically arrange transportation. Most U.S. producers reported that their U.S. inland transportation costs ranged from 0.1 to 10.0 percent while most importers reported costs of 1.4 to 10.0 percent. Pricing practices Pricing methods Most U.S. producers and importers reported setting prices using transaction-by- transaction negotiations, with a smaller number of firms reporting using contracts and other methods3 (table V-4). Table V-4 OCTG: U.S. producers’ and importers’ reported price setting methods, count Method U.S. producers Importers Transaction-by-transaction 11 20 Contract 1 6 Set price list 0 0 Other 2 4 Responding firms 12 25 Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Note: The sum of responses down may not add up to the total number of responding firms as each firm was instructed to check all applicable price setting methods employed. U.S. producers sold mostly under short-term contracts, followed by spot sales, and then long-term contracts. Importers sold mostly under long-term contracts, followed by spot sales, and then short-term contracts. (table V-5). Importers from different sources varied in the way they sold OCTG in the U.S. market. Importer *** reported selling the majority of OCTG sold under long-term contracts, while importers ***, report selling the majority of their OCTG sold in the spot market. 3 Other methods include internal transfers and master distribution agreements. V-8 Table V-5 OCTG: U.S. producers’ and importers’ shares of U.S. commercial shipments by type of sale, 2020 Share in percent Type of sale U.S. producers Importers Long-term contracts *** *** Annual contracts *** *** Short-term contracts *** *** Spot sales *** *** Total 100.0 100.0 Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Note: Because of rounding, figures may not add to the totals shown. Nine U.S. producers reported using short-term contracts to sell OCTG and that short- term contracts typically last between 40 and 360 days; Six of these producers reported that short-term contracts last 90 days. Two U.S. producers reported that they renegotiated price during a short-term contract. Two U.S. producers reported that they fix prices for short-term contracts. Six U.S. producers reported fixing price and quantity. Two U.S. producers reported that they indexed prices to raw materials. Four U.S. producers reported using annual contracts to sell OCTG. All four U.S. producers reported renegotiating prices for annual contracts. One U.S. producer reported fixing quantities for annual contracts and one reported fixing both quantity and price. Three U.S. producers reported indexing the price of OCTG to raw materials. Three U.S. producers reported using long-term contracts to sell OCTG and that long- term contracts that typically last between 2 and 3 years. Three U.S. producers reported that they renegotiate prices during long-term contracts. U.S. producers stated that they did not index the price of OCTG to raw materials, however two U.S. producers reported that they index the price of OCTG to raw materials.4 Nine importers reported using short-term contracts to sell OCTG and short-term contracts typically last 30 to 150 days; four of these importers reported that short-term contracts typically last 90 days. Two importers reported that they renegotiate prices for short- term contracts. One importer reported fixing price, one reported fixing quantity and six reported fixing quantity and price. One reported indexing the price of OCTG to raw materials. One importer reported using annual contracts to sell OCTG and indexing the price of OCTG to raw materials. Three importers reported using long-term contracts to sell OCTG. One importer reported fixing quantities in long-term contracts and two reported indexing the price of OCTG to raw materials. 4 Conference transcript pp. 117-188 (Buono, Croix, Hanley, and Tait). V-9 The three U.S. producers (***) and two importers (***) who reported indexing the price of OCTG to raw materials reported that they used PipeLogix, AMM scrap, OSR, hot-rolled coil, the West Texas Intermediate, ferro manganese, ferro molybdenum, ferrochrome, and shredded scrap. Sales terms and discounts The majority of responding U.S. producers (8 of 12) and half of responding importers (7 of 14) typically quote prices on an f.o.b. basis, while 4 U.S. producers and 7 importers typically quote prices on a delivered basis. Half of U.S. producers (6 of 12) and the majority of importers (13 of 25) reported having no discount policy. One U.S. producer, ***, and two importers, *** and ***, reported offering annual total volume discounts. One importer, *** reported offering quantity discounts. Five U.S. producers and nine importers reported offering other discounts including terms discounts or early payment discounts, which were typically between 1-2 percent for paying within 10 days. Price data The Commission requested U.S. producers and importers to provide quarterly data for the total quantity and f.o.b. value of the following OCTG products shipped to unrelated U.S. customers during January 2018 to June 2021.5 Product 1.-- Tubing, Grade L-80, 2 7/8" O.D., 6.5 lbs./ft., threaded and coupled, range 2, seamless sold to unrelated U.S. distributors. Product 2.-- Tubing, Grade J-55, 2 3/8" O.D., 4.7 lbs./ft., threaded and coupled, range 2, welded sold to unrelated U.S. distributors. Product 3.-- Casing, Grade P-110, 5 1/2" O.D., 20.0 lbs./ft., threaded and coupled, range 3, welded sold to unrelated U.S. distributors. Product 4.-- Casing, Grade P-110, 5 1/2" O.D., 17.0 lbs./ft., threaded and coupled, range 3, seamless sold to unrelated U.S. distributors. Product 5-- Tubing, Grade L-80, 2 7/8" O.D., 6.5 lbs./ft., threaded and coupled, range 2, seamless sold to end users. 55 Staff include pricing items with multiple, differentiated channels of distribution to broaden the coverage of the data collected by the Commission. V-10 Product 6-- Casing, Grade P-110, 5 1/2" O.D., 17.0 lbs./ft., threaded and coupled, range 3, seamless sold to end users. Eight U.S. producers and five importers provided usable pricing data for sales of the requested products, although not all firms reported pricing for all products for all quarters.6 7 8 Pricing data reported by these firms accounted for approximately 8.5 percent of U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments of OCTG, 7.1 percent of U.S. shipments of subject imports from Argentina, 5.0 percent of U.S. shipments of subject imports from Mexico, 8.1 percent of subject imports from Russia, and 1.5 percent of subject imports from South Korea in 2020.9 Price data for products 1- 6 are presented in tables V-6 to V-11 and figures V-3 to V-8. Reported pricing data varied between firms for the same pricing product in the same period. Petitioners stated that this was due to the volatile nature of the OCTG where there can be large monthly price changes and that variations can also be attributed to pricing products covering a mix of spot and contract prices.10 6 Per-unit pricing data are calculated from total quantity and total value data provided by U.S. producers and importers. The precision and variation of these figures may be affected by rounding, limited quantities, and producer or importer estimates. 7 U.S. producer *** provided price data for products 1-3 that were different from the pricing product definitions. Staff has excluded this data below. 8 The eight U.S. producers who provided pricing data were *** 9 Pricing coverage is based on U.S. shipments reported in questionnaires. 10 Petitioners’ postconference brief, p. 12. V-11 Table V-6 OCTG: Weighted-average f.o.b. prices and quantities of domestic and imported product 1 and margins of underselling/(overselling), by quarter Price in dollars per short ton; quantity in short tons; margin in percent. Period US price US quantity Argentina price Argentina quantity Argentina margin Mexico price Mexico quantity Mexico margin 2018 Q1 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2018 Q2 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2018 Q3 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2018 Q4 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2019 Q1 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2019 Q2 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2019 Q3 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2019 Q4 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2020 Q1 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2020 Q2 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2020 Q3 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2020 Q4 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2021 Q1 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2021 Q2 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Period Russia price Russia quantity Russia margin South Korea price South Korea quantity South Korea margin Subject sources price Subject sources quantity Subject sources margin 2018 Q1 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2018 Q2 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2018 Q3 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2018 Q4 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2019 Q1 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2019 Q2 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2019 Q3 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2019 Q4 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2020 Q1 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2020 Q2 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2020 Q3 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2020 Q4 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2021 Q1 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2021 Q2 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Note: Product 1: Tubing, Grade L-80, 2 7/8" O.D., 6.5 lbs./ft., threaded and coupled, range 2, seamless sold to unrelated U.S. distributors. V-12 Figure V-3 OCTG: Weighted-average prices and quantities of domestic and imported product 1, by quarter Price of product 1 * * * * * * * Volume of product 1 * * * * * * * Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Note: Product 1: Tubing, Grade L-80, 2 7/8" O.D., 6.5 lbs./ft., threaded and coupled, range 2, seamless sold to unrelated U.S. distributors. V-13 Table V-7 OCTG: Weighted-average f.o.b. prices and quantities of domestic and imported product 2 and margins of underselling/(overselling), by quarter Price in dollars per short ton; quantity in short tons; margin in percent. Period US price US quantity Argentina price Argentina quantity Argentina margin Mexico price Mexico quantity Mexico margin 2018 Q1 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2018 Q2 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2018 Q3 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2018 Q4 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2019 Q1 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2019 Q2 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2019 Q3 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2019 Q4 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2020 Q1 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2020 Q2 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2020 Q3 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2020 Q4 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2021 Q1 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2021 Q2 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Period Russia price Russia quantity Russia margin South Korea price South Korea quantity South Korea margin Subject sources price Subject sources quantity Subject sources margin 2018 Q1 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2018 Q2 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2018 Q3 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2018 Q4 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2019 Q1 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2019 Q2 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2019 Q3 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2019 Q4 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2020 Q1 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2020 Q2 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2020 Q3 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2020 Q4 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2021 Q1 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2021 Q2 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Note: Product 2: Tubing, Grade J-55, 2 3/8" O.D., 4.7 lbs./ft., threaded and coupled, range 2, welded sold to unrelated U.S. distributors. V-14 Figure V-4 OCTG: Weighted-average prices and quantities of domestic and imported product 2, by quarter Price of product 2 * * * * * * * Volume of product 2 * * * * * * * Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Note: Product 2: Tubing, Grade J-55, 2 3/8" O.D., 4.7 lbs./ft., threaded and coupled, range 2, welded sold to unrelated U.S. distributors. V-15 Table V-8 OCTG: Weighted-average f.o.b. prices and quantities of domestic and imported product 3 and margins of underselling/(overselling), by quarter Price in dollars per short ton; quantity in short tons; margin in percent. Period US price US quantity Argentina price Argentina quantity Argentina margin Mexico price Mexico quantity Mexico margin 2018 Q1 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2018 Q2 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2018 Q3 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2018 Q4 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2019 Q1 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2019 Q2 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2019 Q3 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2019 Q4 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2020 Q1 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2020 Q2 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2020 Q3 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2020 Q4 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2021 Q1 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2021 Q2 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Period Russia price Russia quantity Russia margin South Korea price South Korea quantity South Korea margin Subject sources price Subject sources quantity Subject sources margin 2018 Q1 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2018 Q2 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2018 Q3 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2018 Q4 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2019 Q1 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2019 Q2 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2019 Q3 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2019 Q4 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2020 Q1 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2020 Q2 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2020 Q3 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2020 Q4 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2021 Q1 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2021 Q2 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Note: Product 3: Casing, Grade P-110, 5 1/2" O.D., 20.0 lbs./ft., threaded and coupled, range 3, welded sold to unrelated U.S. distributors. V-16 Figure V-5 OCTG: Weighted-average prices and quantities of domestic and imported product 3, by quarter Price of product 3 * * * * * * * Volume of product 3 * * * * * * * Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Note: Product 3: Casing, Grade P-110, 5 1/2" O.D., 20.0 lbs./ft., threaded and coupled, range 3, welded sold to unrelated U.S. distributors. V-17 Table V-9 OCTG: Weighted-average f.o.b. prices and quantities of domestic and imported product 4 and margins of underselling/(overselling), by quarter Price in dollars per short ton; quantity in short tons; margin in percent. Period US price US quantity Argentina price Argentina quantity Argentina margin Mexico price Mexico quantity Mexico margin 2018 Q1 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2018 Q2 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2018 Q3 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2018 Q4 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2019 Q1 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2019 Q2 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2019 Q3 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2019 Q4 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2020 Q1 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2020 Q2 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2020 Q3 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2020 Q4 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2021 Q1 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2021 Q2 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Period Russia price Russia quantity Russia margin South Korea price South Korea quantity South Korea margin Subject sources price Subject sources quantity Subject sources margin 2018 Q1 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2018 Q2 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2018 Q3 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2018 Q4 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2019 Q1 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2019 Q2 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2019 Q3 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2019 Q4 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2020 Q1 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2020 Q2 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2020 Q3 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2020 Q4 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2021 Q1 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2021 Q2 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Note: Product 4: Casing, Grade P-110, 5 1/2" O.D., 17.0 lbs./ft., threaded and coupled, range 3, seamless sold to unrelated U.S. distributors. V-18 Figure V-6 OCTG: Weighted-average prices and quantities of domestic and imported product 4, by quarter Price of product 4 * * * * * * * Volume of product 4 * * * * * * * Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Note: Product 4: Casing, Grade P-110, 5 1/2" O.D., 17.0 lbs./ft., threaded and coupled, range 3, seamless sold to unrelated U.S. distributors. V-19 Table V-10 OCTG: Weighted-average f.o.b. prices and quantities of domestic and imported product 5 and margins of underselling/(overselling), by quarter Price in dollars per short ton; quantity in short tons; margin in percent. Period US price US quantity Argentina price Argentina quantity Argentina margin Mexico price Mexico quantity Mexico margin 2018 Q1 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2018 Q2 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2018 Q3 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2018 Q4 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2019 Q1 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2019 Q2 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2019 Q3 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2019 Q4 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2020 Q1 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2020 Q2 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2020 Q3 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2020 Q4 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2021 Q1 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2021 Q2 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Period Russia price Russia quantity Russia margin South Korea price South Korea quantity South Korea margin Subject sources price Subject sources quantity Subject sources margin 2018 Q1 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2018 Q2 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2018 Q3 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2018 Q4 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2019 Q1 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2019 Q2 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2019 Q3 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2019 Q4 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2020 Q1 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2020 Q2 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2020 Q3 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2020 Q4 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2021 Q1 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2021 Q2 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Note: Product 5: Tubing, Grade L-80, 2 7/8" O.D., 6.5 lbs./ft., threaded and coupled, range 2, seamless sold to end users. V-20 Figure V-7 OCTG: Weighted-average prices and quantities of domestic and imported product 5, by quarter Price of product 5 * * * * * * * Volume of product 5 * * * * * * * Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Note: Product 5: Tubing, Grade L-80, 2 7/8" O.D., 6.5 lbs./ft., threaded and coupled, range 2, seamless sold to end users. V-21 Table V-11 OCTG: Weighted-average f.o.b. prices and quantities of domestic and imported product 6 and margins of underselling/(overselling), by quarter Price in dollars per short ton; quantity in short tons; margin in percent. Period US price US quantity Argentina price Argentina quantity Argentina margin Mexico price Mexico quantity Mexico margin 2018 Q1 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2018 Q2 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2018 Q3 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2018 Q4 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2019 Q1 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2019 Q2 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2019 Q3 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2019 Q4 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2020 Q1 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2020 Q2 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2020 Q3 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2020 Q4 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2021 Q1 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2021 Q2 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Period Russia price Russia quantity Russia margin South Korea price South Korea quantity South Korea margin Subject sources price Subject sources quantity Subject sources margin 2018 Q1 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2018 Q2 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2018 Q3 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2018 Q4 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2019 Q1 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2019 Q2 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2019 Q3 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2019 Q4 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2020 Q1 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2020 Q2 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2020 Q3 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2020 Q4 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2021 Q1 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2021 Q2 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Note: Product 6: Casing, Grade P-110, 5 1/2" O.D., 17.0 lbs./ft., threaded and coupled, range 3, seamless sold to end users. V-22 Figure V-8 OCTG: Weighted-average prices and quantities of domestic and imported product 6, by quarter Price of product 6 * * * * * * * Volume of product 6 * * * * * * * Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Note: Product 6: Casing, Grade P-110, 5 1/2" O.D., 17.0 lbs./ft., threaded and coupled, range 3, seamless sold to end users. V-23 Price trends Table V-12 summarizes the price trends, by country and by product. As shown in the table, there was only sufficient pricing data to determine trends for domestic prices for product 3 and 4. Domestic prices increased for product 3 by *** percent and increased by *** percent for product 4. Import price decreases ranged from *** to *** percent and import price increased ranged from *** to *** percent. For pricing products for which data were reported in the first quarter of 2018, indexed domestic and imported prices are presented in tables V-13 and V-14 and figures V-9 and V-20. V-24 Table V-12 OCTG: Summary of price data, by product and source Volume in short tons; price in dollars per short ton Product Source Number of quarters Quantity Low price High price First quarter price Last quarter price Change over period Product 1 United States *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Product 1 Argentina *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Product 1 Mexico *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Product 1 Russia *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Product 1 South Korea *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Product 2 United States *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Product 2 Argentina *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Product 2 Mexico *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Product 2 Russia *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Product 2 South Korea *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Product 3 United States *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Product 3 Argentina *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Product 3 Mexico *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Product 3 Russia *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Product 3 South Korea *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Product 4 United States *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Product 4 Argentina *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Product 4 Mexico *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Product 4 Russia *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Product 4 South Korea *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Product 5 United States *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Product 5 Argentina *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Product 5 Mexico *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Product 5 Russia *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Product 5 South Korea *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Product 6 United States *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Product 6 Argentina *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Product 6 Mexico *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Product 6 Russia *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Product 6 South Korea *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Note: Percent change column is percentage change from the first quarter 2018 to the third quarter in 2021. V-25 Figure V-9 OCTG: Indexed U.S. producer prices, by quarter * * * * * * * Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Figure V-10 OCTG: Indexed subject U.S. importer prices, by quarter * * * * * * * Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. V-26 Table V-13 OCTG: Indexed U.S. producer prices, by quarter Changes in percent Period Product 1 Product 2 Product 3 Product 4 Product 5 Product 6 2018 Q1 *** *** *** *** *** *** 2018 Q2 *** *** *** *** *** *** 2018 Q3 *** *** *** *** *** *** 2018 Q4 *** *** *** *** *** *** 2019 Q1 *** *** *** *** *** *** 2019 Q2 *** *** *** *** *** *** 2019 Q3 *** *** *** *** *** *** 2019 Q4 *** *** *** *** *** *** 2020 Q1 *** *** *** *** *** *** 2020 Q2 *** *** *** *** *** *** 2020 Q3 *** *** *** *** *** *** 2020 Q4 *** *** *** *** *** *** 2021 Q1 *** *** *** *** *** *** 2021 Q2 *** *** *** *** *** *** Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires Note: Prices are indexed off the January to March 2018 starting Table V-14 OCTG: Indexed U.S. importer prices, by quarter Changes in percent Period Product 1 Product 2 Product 3 Product 4 Product 5 Product 6 2018 Q1 *** *** *** *** *** *** 2018 Q2 *** *** *** *** *** *** 2018 Q3 *** *** *** *** *** *** 2018 Q4 *** *** *** *** *** *** 2019 Q1 *** *** *** *** *** *** 2019 Q2 *** *** *** *** *** *** 2019 Q3 *** *** *** *** *** *** 2019 Q4 *** *** *** *** *** *** 2020 Q1 *** *** *** *** *** *** 2020 Q2 *** *** *** *** *** *** 2020 Q3 *** *** *** *** *** *** 2020 Q4 *** *** *** *** *** *** 2021 Q1 *** *** *** *** *** *** 2021 Q2 *** *** *** *** *** *** Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Note: Indexed prices were calculated with a base of Q1 2018 equal to 100. V-27 Price comparisons Prices for product imported from subject countries were below those for U.S.-produced product in 18 of 39 instances (12,847 short tons); margins of underselling ranged from 0.3 to 43.9 percent. In the remaining 21 instances (15,570 short tons), prices for product from subject countries were between 1.2 and 38.2 percent above prices for the domestic product (tables V- 15 and V-16). V-28 Table V-15 OCTG: Instances of underselling and overselling and the range and average of margins, by product Quantity in short tons; margin in percent Item Type Number of quarters Quantity Average margin Minimum margin Maximum margin Product 1 Underselling *** *** *** *** *** Product 2 Underselling *** *** *** *** *** Product 3 Underselling *** *** *** *** *** Product 4 Underselling *** *** *** *** *** Product 5 Underselling *** *** *** *** *** Product 6 Underselling *** *** *** *** *** Total, underselling Underselling 18 12,847 18.2 0.3 43.9 Product 1 Overselling *** *** *** *** *** Product 2 Overselling *** *** *** *** *** Product 3 Overselling *** *** *** *** *** Product 4 Overselling *** *** *** *** *** Product 5 Overselling *** *** *** *** *** Product 6 Overselling *** *** *** *** *** Total, overselling Overselling 21 15,570 (12.5) (1.2) (38.2) Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Note: These data include only quarters in which there is a comparison between the U.S. and subject product. Table V-16 OCTG: Instances of underselling and overselling and the range and average of margins, by country Quantity in short tons; margin in percent Item Type Number of quarters Quantity Average margin Minimum margin Maximum margin Argentina Underselling *** *** *** *** *** Mexico Underselling *** *** *** *** *** Russia Underselling *** *** *** *** *** South Korea Underselling *** *** *** *** *** Total, underselling Underselling 18 12,847 18.2 0.3 43.9 Argentina Overselling *** *** *** *** *** Mexico Overselling *** *** *** *** *** Russia Overselling *** *** *** *** *** South Korea Overselling *** *** *** *** *** Total, overselling Overselling 21 15,570 (12.5) (1.2) (38.2) Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Note: These data include only quarters in which there is a comparison between the U.S. and subject product. V-29 Lost sales and lost revenue The Commission requested that U.S. producers of OCTG report purchasers with which they experienced instances of lost sales or revenue due to competition from imports of OCTG from subject countries since January 1, 2018. Of the 17 responding U.S. producers, eight reported that they had to either reduce prices or roll back announced price increases, and eight reported that they had lost sales. One U.S. producer (***) submitted lost sales and lost revenue allegations, and identified eight firms with which it lost sales. It reported that seven of these lost sales were lost to imports from Argentina and Mexico; and one lost sale was lost to imports from South Korea and Russia. Staff contacted eight purchasers and received responses from seven of them. Responding purchasers reported purchasing *** short tons of OCTG during 2018-20 (table V- 17). During 2020, responding purchasers purchased *** percent from U.S. producers, *** percent from subject countries, *** percent from nonsubject countries, and *** percent from “unknown source” countries. Purchasers were asked about changes in their purchasing patterns from different sources since 2018. Of the responding purchasers, two reported decreasing purchases from domestic producers, three reported no change, one reported fluctuating purchases, and one did not purchase any domestic product.11 Explanations for decreasing purchases of domestic product included decreasing purchases due to market conditions and idling of domestic capacity. Four of seven responding purchasers reported that they had purchased subject imports instead of U.S.-produced OCTG since 2018. All four purchasers reported that subject imports were lower priced than U.S.-produced OCTG and price was the basis for their choice. Two responding purchasers reported that they had purchased *** short tons of OCTG from subject countries instead of the United States (table V-18). With respect to each subject country, of the seven responding purchasers, one reported that it had purchased imported OCTG from Argentina instead of U.S.-produced product, two responding purchasers reported that they had purchased OCTG from Mexico instead of U.S.- produced product, four responding purchasers reported that they had purchased imported OCTG from Russia, and four reported they had purchased imported OCTG from South Korea instead of U.S.-produced product since 2018. One purchaser reported that subject import prices from Argentina were lower than U.S.-produced product. Two purchasers reported that 11 Of the seven responding purchasers, two purchasers indicated that they did not know the source of the OCTG they purchased. V-30 subject import prices from Mexico were lower than U.S.-produced product. Four purchasers reported that subject imports prices from Russia were lower than U.S.-produced product and three purchasers reported that subject import prices from South Korea were lower than U.S.- produced product. One purchaser reported that price was the primary reason for the decision to purchase imported product from Mexico rather than U.S.-produced product. Four purchasers reported that price was the primary reason for the decision to purchase imported product from Russia rather than U.S.-produced product. Two purchasers reported that price was the primary reason for the decision to purchase imported product from South Korea rather than U.S.- produced product. One purchaser estimated that the quantity of OCTG purchased from Mexico instead of domestic product was *** short tons. Two purchasers estimated that the quantity of OCTG purchased from Russia instead of domestic product was *** short tons. One purchaser reported that the quantity of OCTG purchased from South Korea instead of domestic product was *** short tons. The responding purchasers that reported purchasing OCTG from Argentina instead of domestic product *** (table V-19). Purchaser *** reported that South Korea imported carbon surface casing since U.S. producers idled production for this product. Of the seven responding purchasers, six reported that U.S. producers had reduced prices in order to compete with lower-priced imports from subject countries; one reported that it did not know (table V-20). The reported estimated price reductions ranged from *** to *** percent (table V-21). Purchaser *** reported that Siderca had offered lower prices than domestic firms often forcing domestic producers to lower prices. Purchaser *** reported that it was difficult to estimate the reduction in price because imports have historically been a meaningful portion of the U.S. OCTG market. V-31 Table V-17 OCTG: U.S. purchasers' U.S. purchases and U.S. imports, 2018-20 Quantity in short tons; Change in shares in percentage points Firm Domestic quantity Subject quantity All other quantity Change in domestic share Change in subject share *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** All firms *** *** *** *** *** Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Note: All other includes all other sources and unknown sources. Change is the percentage point change in the share of the firm’s total purchases of domestic and/or subject country imports between first and last years. V-32 Table V-18 OCTG: Purchasers' responses to purchasing subject instead of domestic, by firm Quantity in short tons Firm Purchased subject imports instead of domestic Imports priced lower Choice based on price Quantity Narrative on reasons for purchasing imports *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** All firms Yes--4; No--3 Yes--4; No--0 Yes--4; No--0 *** NA Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Table V-19 OCTG: Purchasers' responses to purchasing subject instead of domestic, by country Quantity in short tons Source Purchased subject imports instead of domestic Imports priced lower Choice based on price Quantity Argentina 1 1 --- --- Mexico 2 2 1 *** Russia 3 3 3 *** South Korea 3 2 2 *** Subject sources 3 3 3 409,919 Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. V-33 Table V-20 OCTG: Purchasers’ responses to U.S. producer price reductions, by firm Firm U.S. producers lowered prices Price reduction Narrative on producer price reductions *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** All firms Yes--6; No— 0; Don’t know- -1 Average- *** NA Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Table V-21 OCTG: Purchasers’ responses to U.S. producer price reductions, by country Source Count of purchasers reporting U.S. producers reduced prices Average percent of estimated U.S. price reduction Range of percent of estimated U.S. price reductions Argentina *** *** *** Mexico *** *** *** Russia *** *** *** South Korea *** *** *** Subject sources 6 22.5 *** Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. In responding to the lost sales lost revenue survey, some purchasers provided additional information on purchases and market dynamics. Purchaser *** reported that Tenaris brought OCTG into the United States from Mexico, Argentina, and Russia below cost to “aggressively secure the market share” from domestic mills. VI-1 Part VI: Financial experience of U.S. producers Background1 Sixteen firms provided usable financial results on their OCTG operations.2 3 Nine of the responding U.S. producers provided their financial data on the basis of GAAP.4 Thirteen of the firms reported financial data on a calendar year basis.5 Revenue primarily reflects commercial sales, but also includes a small volume of transfers to related firms reported by ***. Transfers to related firms accounted for *** percent of the industry’s combined net sales value and net tolling revenue during the period for which data were collected, and are not shown separately in this section of the report. Figure VI-1 presents each responding mill and non-toll processors’ share of the total reported net sales quantity in 2020. Overall, sales of OCTG are concentrated among a few firms. The top three firms, *** accounted for *** percent of total net sales by quantity in 2020. 1 The following abbreviations may be used in the tables and/or text of this section: generally accepted accounting principles (“GAAP”), fiscal year (“FY”), net sales (“NS”), cost of goods sold (“COGS”), selling, general, and administrative expenses (“SG&A expenses”), average unit values (“AUVs”), research and development expenses (“R&D expenses”), and return on assets (“ROA”). 2 ***. ***. ***. 3 These firms include nine OCTG-producing mills; three stand-alone toll-processors; two firms (***) which produced OCTG and processed unfinished OCTG that they did not produce internally on a non-toll basis; one firm (***) which produced OCTG and processed unfinished OCTG on a toll basis; one firm (***) which processed unfinished OCTG on toll and non-toll basis. ***. U.S. producers’ questionnaire response of ***, question III-14. 4 Of the remaining companies, *** reported their financial results on the basis of International Financial Reporting Standards (“IFRS”) and *** reported on a tax basis. ***. 5 *** reported their financial results on the basis of fiscal years that end on October 31 and September 30, respectively. ***. VI-2 Figure VI-1 OCTG: Share of U.S. mills and non-toll processors’ net sales quantity in 2020, by firm * * * * * * * Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Operations on OCTG Table VI-1 presents the combined data for U.S. producers’ mill operations and non-toll processing operations in relation to OCTG.6 Tables VI-3 and VI-5 present the data for U.S. producers’ mill operations (table VI-3) and non-toll processing operations (VI-5), separately. Tables VI-2, VI-4, and VI-6 each present the corresponding changes in AUVs for tables VI-1, VI-3, and VI-5, respectively. Table VI-7 presents selected company-specific financial data. 6 In this section/report, the term non-toll processing operations refers to the processing (typically heat treating) of unfinished OCTG produced by a company other than the one performing the processing. VI-3 Table VI-1 OCTG: Results of operations of U.S. mills and non-toll processing operations, by item and period Quantity in short tons; value in 1,000 dollars; ratios in percent Item Measure 2018 2019 2020 Jan-Jun 2020 Jan-Jun 2021 Total net sales Quantity 3,213,742 3,158,673 1,730,911 1,198,444 764,338 Total net sales Value 4,754,024 4,504,072 2,095,259 1,485,454 1,050,836 Raw material costs Value 2,431,479 2,270,905 1,090,947 730,355 577,085 Cost of tolling services Value 479 9,522 5,282 5,137 108 Direct labor costs Value 412,288 438,261 255,030 164,463 124,247 Other factory costs Value 1,605,908 1,698,451 1,208,891 782,077 446,839 COGS Value 4,450,154 4,417,139 2,560,150 1,682,032 1,148,279 Gross profit or (loss) Value 303,870 86,933 (464,891) (196,578) (97,443) SG&A expenses Value 473,385 367,857 289,983 175,396 151,263 Operating income or (loss) Value (169,515) (280,924) (754,874) (371,974) (248,706) Other expense / (income), net Value *** *** *** *** *** Net income or (loss) Value *** *** *** *** *** Depreciation/amortization Value 463,714 330,911 382,359 176,917 174,634 Cash flow Value *** *** *** *** *** Raw material costs Ratio to NS 51.1 50.4 52.1 49.2 54.9 Direct labor costs Ratio to NS 8.7 9.7 12.2 11.1 11.8 Other factory costs Ratio to NS 33.8 37.7 57.7 52.6 42.5 COGS Ratio to NS 93.6 98.1 122.2 113.2 109.3 Gross profit Ratio to NS 6.4 1.9 (22.2) (13.2) (9.3) SG&A expense Ratio to NS 10.0 8.2 13.8 11.8 14.4 Operating income or (loss) Ratio to NS (3.6) (6.2) (36.0) (25.0) (23.7) Net income or (loss) Ratio to NS *** *** *** *** *** Table continued. VI-4 Table VI-1 Continued OCTG: Results of operations of U.S. mills and non-toll processing operations, by item and period Shares in percent; unit values in dollars per short ton; count in number of firms reporting Item Measure 2018 2019 2020 Jan-Jun 2020 Jan-Jun 2021 Raw material costs Share 54.6 51.4 42.6 43.4 50.3 Cost of tolling services Share 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.0 Direct labor costs Share 9.3 9.9 10.0 9.8 10.8 Other factory costs Share 36.1 38.5 47.2 46.5 38.9 COGS Share 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Total net sales Unit value 1,479 1,426 1,210 1,239 1,375 Raw material costs Unit value 757 719 630 609 755 Direct labor costs Unit value 128 139 147 137 163 Other factory costs Unit value 500 538 698 653 585 Cost of goods sold Unit value 1,385 1,398 1,479 1,404 1,502 Gross profit or (loss) Unit value 95 28 (269) (164) (127) SG&A expenses Unit value 147 116 168 146 198 Operating income or (loss) Unit value (53) (89) (436) (310) (325) Net income or (loss) Unit value *** *** *** *** *** Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Note: Shares represent the share of COGS. The cost of tolling service is not shown as a ratio to NS or on a unit value basis. Tolling services were not used for the majority of OCTG net sales, therefore ratios and unit values based on total net sales are not meaningful. VI-5 Table VI-2 OCTG: Changes in AUVs for U.S. mill and non-toll processing operations between comparison periods Changes in percent Item 2018-20 2018-19 2019-20 Jan-Jun 2020-21 Total net sales ▼(18.2) ▼(3.6) ▼(15.1) ▲10.9 Raw material costs ▼(16.7) ▼(5.0) ▼(12.3) ▲23.9 Direct labor costs ▲14.8 ▲8.2 ▲6.2 ▲18.5 Other factory costs ▲39.8 ▲7.6 ▲29.9 ▼(10.4) COGS ▲6.8 ▲1.0 ▲5.8 ▲7.0 Table continued. Table VI-2 Continued OCTG: Changes in AUVs for U.S. mill and non-toll processing operations between comparison periods Changes in dollars per short ton Item 2018-20 2018-19 2019-20 Jan-Jun 2020-21 Total net sales ▼(269) ▼(53) ▼(215) ▲135 Raw material costs ▼(126) ▼(38) ▼(89) ▲146 Direct labor costs ▲19 ▲10 ▲9 ▲25 Other factory costs ▲199 ▲38 ▲161 ▼(68) COGS ▲94 ▲14 ▲81 ▲99 Gross profit or (loss) ▼(363) ▼(67) ▼(296) ▲37 SG&A expense ▲20 ▼(31) ▲51 ▲52 Operating income or (loss) ▼(383) ▼(36) ▼(347) ▼(15) Net income or (loss) *** *** *** *** Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. VI-6 Table VI-3 OCTG: Results of operations of U.S. mills, by item and period Quantity in short tons; value in 1,000 dollars; ratios in percent Item Measure 2018 2019 2020 Jan-Jun 2020 Jan-Jun 2021 Total net sales Quantity *** *** *** *** *** Total net sales Value *** *** *** *** *** Raw materials: steel sheet/coil Value *** *** *** *** *** Raw materials: steel billets Value *** *** *** *** *** Raw materials: all other Value *** *** *** *** *** Raw materials: total Value *** *** *** *** *** Cost of tolling services Value *** *** *** *** *** Direct labor costs Value *** *** *** *** *** Other factory costs Value *** *** *** *** *** COGS Value *** *** *** *** *** Gross profit or (loss) Value *** *** *** *** *** SG&A expenses Value *** *** *** *** *** Operating income or (loss) Value *** *** *** *** *** Other expense / (income), net Value *** *** *** *** *** Net income or (loss) Value *** *** *** *** *** Depreciation/amortization Value *** *** *** *** *** Cash flow Value *** *** *** *** *** Raw material costs Ratio to NS *** *** *** *** *** Direct labor costs Ratio to NS *** *** *** *** *** Other factory costs Ratio to NS *** *** *** *** *** COGS Ratio to NS *** *** *** *** *** Gross profit Ratio to NS *** *** *** *** *** SG&A expense Ratio to NS *** *** *** *** *** Operating income or (loss) Ratio to NS *** *** *** *** *** Net income or (loss) Ratio to NS *** *** *** *** *** Table continued. VI-7 Table VI-3 Continued OCTG: Results of operations of U.S. mills, by item and period Shares in percent; unit values in dollars per short ton; count in number of firms reporting Item Measure 2018 2019 2020 Jan-Jun 2020 Jan-Jun 2021 Raw materials: steel sheet/coil Share *** *** *** *** *** Raw materials: steel billets Share *** *** *** *** *** Raw materials: all other Share *** *** *** *** *** Raw materials: total Share *** *** *** *** *** Cost of tolling services Share *** *** *** *** *** Direct labor costs Share *** *** *** *** *** Other factory costs Share *** *** *** *** *** COGS Share *** *** *** *** *** Total net sales Unit value *** *** *** *** *** Raw material costs Unit value *** *** *** *** *** Direct labor costs Unit value *** *** *** *** *** Other factory costs Unit value *** *** *** *** *** Cost of goods sold Unit value *** *** *** *** *** Gross profit or (loss) Unit value *** *** *** *** *** SG&A expenses Unit value *** *** *** *** *** Operating income or (loss) Unit value *** *** *** *** *** Net income or (loss) Unit value *** *** *** *** *** Operating losses Count *** *** *** *** *** Net losses Count *** *** *** *** *** Data Count *** *** *** *** *** Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Note: Shares represent the share of COGS. The individual components of raw materials (i.e., steel sheet/coil, steel billets, all other raw materials) and the cost of tolling services are not shown as ratios to NS or as unit values. The individual components of raw materials and tolling services were each used for a fluctuating portion of OCTG net sales. Therefore, ratios and unit values for these items that are based on total net sales are not meaningful. VI-8 Table VI-4 OCTG: Changes in AUVs for U.S. mill operations between comparison periods Changes in percent Item 2018-20 2018-19 2019-20 Jan-Jun 2020-21 Total net sales *** *** *** *** Raw material costs *** *** *** *** Direct labor costs *** *** *** *** Other factory costs *** *** *** *** COGS *** *** *** *** Table continued. Table VI-4 Continued OCTG: Changes in AUVs for U.S. mill operations between comparison periods Changes in dollars per short ton Item 2018-20 2018-19 2019-20 Jan-Jun 2020-21 Total net sales *** *** *** *** Raw material costs *** *** *** *** Direct labor costs *** *** *** *** Other factory costs *** *** *** *** COGS *** *** *** *** Gross profit or (loss) *** *** *** *** SG&A expense *** *** *** *** Operating income or (loss) *** *** *** *** Net income or (loss) *** *** *** *** Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. VI-9 Table VI-5 OCTG: Results of non-toll processing operations, by item and period Quantity in short tons; value in 1,000 dollars; ratios in percent Item Measure 2018 2019 2020 Jan-Jun 2020 Jan-Jun 2021 Total net sales Quantity *** *** *** *** *** Total net sales Value *** *** *** *** *** Raw materials: unfinished OCTG Value *** *** *** *** *** Raw materials: all other Value *** *** *** *** *** Raw materials: total Value *** *** *** *** *** Direct labor costs Value *** *** *** *** *** Other factory costs Value *** *** *** *** *** COGS Value *** *** *** *** *** Gross profit or (loss) Value *** *** *** *** *** SG&A expenses Value *** *** *** *** *** Operating income or (loss) Value *** *** *** *** *** Other expense / (income), net Value *** *** *** *** *** Net income or (loss) Value *** *** *** *** *** Depreciation/amortization Value *** *** *** *** *** Cash flow Value *** *** *** *** *** Raw materials: unfinished OCTG Ratio to NS *** *** *** *** *** Raw materials: all other Ratio to NS *** *** *** *** *** Raw materials: total Ratio to NS *** *** *** *** *** Direct labor costs Ratio to NS *** *** *** *** *** Other factory costs Ratio to NS *** *** *** *** *** COGS Ratio to NS *** *** *** *** *** Gross profit Ratio to NS *** *** *** *** *** SG&A expense Ratio to NS *** *** *** *** *** Operating income or (loss) Ratio to NS *** *** *** *** *** Net income or (loss) Ratio to NS *** *** *** *** *** Table continued. VI-10 Table VI-5 Continued OCTG: Results of non-toll processing operations, by item and period Shares in percent; unit values in dollars per short ton; count in number of firms reporting Item Measure 2018 2019 2020 Jan-Jun 2020 Jan-Jun 2021 Raw materials: unfinished OCTG Share *** *** *** *** *** Raw materials: all other Share *** *** *** *** *** Raw materials: total Share *** *** *** *** *** Direct labor costs Share *** *** *** *** *** Other factory costs Share *** *** *** *** *** COGS Share *** *** *** *** *** Total net sales Unit value *** *** *** *** *** Raw materials: unfinished OCTG Unit value *** *** *** *** *** Raw materials: all other Unit value *** *** *** *** *** Raw materials: total Unit value *** *** *** *** *** Direct labor costs Unit value *** *** *** *** *** Other factory costs Unit value *** *** *** *** *** Cost of goods sold Unit value *** *** *** *** *** Gross profit or (loss) Unit value *** *** *** *** *** SG&A expenses Unit value *** *** *** *** *** Operating income or (loss) Unit value *** *** *** *** *** Net income or (loss) Unit value *** *** *** *** *** Operating losses Count *** *** *** *** *** Net losses Count *** *** *** *** *** Data Count *** *** *** *** *** Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Note: Shares represent the share of COGS. All raw materials of unfinished OCTG were reported to be ***. VI-11 Table VI-6 OCTG: Changes in AUVs for non-toll processing operations between comparison periods Changes in percent Item 2018-20 2018-19 2019-20 Jan-Jun 2020-21 Total net sales *** *** *** *** Raw materials: unfinished OCTG *** *** *** *** Raw materials: all other *** *** *** *** Raw materials: total *** *** *** *** Direct labor costs *** *** *** *** Other factory costs *** *** *** *** COGS *** *** *** *** Table continued. Table VI-6 Continued OCTG: Changes in AUVs for non-toll processing operations between comparison periods Changes in dollars per short ton Item 2018-20 2018-19 2019-20 Jan-Jun 2020-21 Total net sales *** *** *** *** Raw materials: unfinished OCTG *** *** *** *** Raw materials: all other *** *** *** *** Raw materials: total *** *** *** *** Direct labor costs *** *** *** *** Other factory costs *** *** *** *** COGS *** *** *** *** Gross profit or (loss) *** *** *** *** SG&A expense *** *** *** *** Operating income or (loss) *** *** *** *** Net income or (loss) *** *** *** *** Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. VI-12 Table VI-7 OCTG: U.S. mills and non-toll processors: Total net sales quantity, by firm and period Net sales quantity Quantity in short tons Firm 2018 2019 2020 Jan-Jun 2020 Jan-Jun 2021 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** All firms 3,213,742 3,158,673 1,730,911 1,198,444 764,338 Table continued. Table VI-7 Continued OCTG: U.S. mills and non-toll processors: Total net sales value, by firm and period Net sales value Value in 1,000 dollars Firm 2018 2019 2020 Jan-Jun 2020 Jan-Jun 2021 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** All firms 4,754,024 4,504,072 2,095,259 1,485,454 1,050,836 Table continued. VI-13 Table VI-7 Continued OCTG: U.S. mills and non-toll processors firm-by-firm: COGS, by firm and period COGS Value in 1,000 dollars Firm 2018 2019 2020 Jan-Jun 2020 Jan-Jun 2021 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** All firms 4,450,154 4,417,139 2,560,150 1,682,032 1,148,279 Table continued. Table VI-7 Continued OCTG: U.S. mills and non-toll processors firm-by-firm: Gross profit or (loss), by firm and period Gross profit or (loss) Value in 1,000 dollars Firm 2018 2019 2020 Jan-Jun 2020 Jan-Jun 2021 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** All firms 303,870 86,933 (464,891) (196,578) (97,443) Table continued. VI-14 Table VI-7 Continued OCTG: U.S. mills and non-toll processors firm-by-firm: SG&A expenses, by firm and period SG&A expenses Value in 1,000 dollars Firm 2018 2019 2020 Jan-Jun 2020 Jan-Jun 2021 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** All firms 473,385 367,857 289,983 175,396 151,263 Table continued. Table VI-7 Continued OCTG: U.S. mills and non-toll processors firm-by-firm: Operating income or (loss), by firm and period Operating income or (loss) Value in 1,000 dollars Firm 2018 2019 2020 Jan-Jun 2020 Jan-Jun 2021 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** All firms (169,515) (280,924) (754,874) (371,974) (248,706) Table continued. VI-15 Table VI-7 Continued OCTG: U.S. mills and non-toll processors firm-by-firm: Net income or (loss), by firm and period Net income or (loss) Value in 1,000 dollars Firm 2018 2019 2020 Jan-Jun 2020 Jan-Jun 2021 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** All firms *** *** *** *** *** Table continued. Table VI-7 Continued OCTG: U.S. mills and non-toll processors firm-by-firm: Ratio of COGS to net sales value, by firm and period COGS to net sales ratio Ratios in percent Firm 2018 2019 2020 Jan-Jun 2020 Jan-Jun 2021 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** All firms 93.6 98.1 122.2 113.2 109.3 Table continued. VI-16 Table VI-7 Continued OCTG: U.S. mills and non-toll processors firm-by-firm: Ratio of gross profit or (loss) to net sales value, by firm and period Gross profit or (loss) to net sales ratio Ratios in percent Firm 2018 2019 2020 Jan-Jun 2020 Jan-Jun 2021 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** All firms 6.4 1.9 (22.2) (13.2) (9.3) Table continued. Table VI-7 Continued OCTG: U.S. mills and non-toll processors firm-by-firm: Ratio of SG&A expenses to net sales value, by firm and period SG&A expenses to net sales ratio Ratios in percent Firm 2018 2019 2020 Jan-Jun 2020 Jan-Jun 2021 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** All firms 10.0 8.2 13.8 11.8 14.4 Table continued. VI-17 Table VI-7 Continued OCTG: U.S. mills and non-toll processors firm-by-firm: Ratio of operating income or (loss) to net sales value, by firm and period Operating income or (loss) to net sales ratio Ratios in percent Firm 2018 2019 2020 Jan-Jun 2020 Jan-Jun 2021 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** All firms (3.6) (6.2) (36.0) (25.0) (23.7) Table continued. Table VI-7 Continued OCTG: U.S. mills and non-toll processors firm-by-firm: Ratio of net income or (loss) to net sales value, by firm and period Net income or (loss) to net sales ratio Ratios in percent Firm 2018 2019 2020 Jan-Jun 2020 Jan-Jun 2021 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** All firms *** *** *** *** *** Table continued. VI-18 Table VI-7 Continued OCTG: U.S. mills and non-toll processors firm-by-firm: Unit net sales value, by firm and period Unit net sales value Unit values in dollars per short ton Firm 2018 2019 2020 Jan-Jun 2020 Jan-Jun 2021 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** All firms 1,479 1,426 1,210 1,239 1,375 Table continued. Table VI-7 Continued OCTG: U.S. mills and non-toll processors firm-by-firm: Unit raw material costs, by firm and period Unit raw material costs Unit values in dollars per short ton Firm 2018 2019 2020 Jan-Jun 2020 Jan-Jun 2021 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** All firms 757 719 630 609 755 Table continued. VI-19 Table VI-7 Continued OCTG: U.S. mills and non-toll processors firm-by-firm: Unit direct labor costs, by firm and period Unit direct labor costs Unit values in dollars per short ton Firm 2018 2019 2020 Jan-Jun 2020 Jan-Jun 2021 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** All firms 128 139 147 137 163 Table continued. Table VI-7 Continued OCTG: U.S. mills and non-toll processors firm-by-firm: Unit other factory costs, by firm and period Unit other factory costs Unit values in dollars per short ton Firm 2018 2019 2020 Jan-Jun 2020 Jan-Jun 2021 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** All firms 500 538 698 653 585 Table continued. VI-20 Table VI-7 Continued OCTG: U.S. mills and non-toll processors firm-by-firm: Unit COGS, by firm and period Unit COGS Unit values in dollars per short ton Firm 2018 2019 2020 Jan-Jun 2020 Jan-Jun 2021 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** All firms 1,385 1,398 1,479 1,404 1,502 Table continued. Table VI-7 Continued OCTG: U.S. mills and non-toll processors firm-by-firm: Unit gross profit or (loss), by firm and period Unit gross profit or (loss) Unit values in dollars per short ton Firm 2018 2019 2020 Jan-Jun 2020 Jan-Jun 2021 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** All firms 95 28 (269) (164) (127) Table continued. VI-21 Table VI-7 Continued OCTG: U.S. mills and non-toll processors firm-by-firm: Unit SG&A expenses, by firm and period Unit SG&A expenses Unit values in dollars per short ton Firm 2018 2019 2020 Jan-Jun 2020 Jan-Jun 2021 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** All firms 147 116 168 146 198 Table continued. Table VI-7 Continued OCTG: U.S. mills and non-toll processors firm-by-firm: Unit operating income or (loss), by firm and period Unit operating income or (loss) Unit values in dollars per short ton Firm 2018 2019 2020 Jan-Jun 2020 Jan-Jun 2021 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** All firms (53) (89) (436) (310) (325) Table continued. VI-22 Table VI-7 Continued OCTG: U.S. mills and non-toll processors firm-by-firm: Unit net income or (loss), by firm and period Unit net income or (loss) Unit values in dollars per short ton Firm 2018 2019 2020 Jan-Jun 2020 Jan-Jun 2021 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** All firms *** *** *** *** *** Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Net sales As seen in table VI-1, the net sales quantity of the U.S. mills and non-toll processors declined from 3.2 million short tons in 2018 to 1.7 million short tons in 2020 and was lower in January-June 2021 than in January-June 2020. Total net sales value also declined from $4.8 billion in 2018 to $2.1 billion in 2020 and was lower in January-June 2021 than in January-June 2020. On a company-specific basis, as shown in table VI-7, all U.S. mills and non-toll processors except *** reported similar directional trends in net sales (an overall decline from 2018 to 2020 and lower net sales quantity and value in January-June 2021 than in January-June 2020).7 *** reported plant closings and/or prolonged shutdowns during the reporting period. The U.S. mills’ and non-toll processors’ net sales AUV also declined from $1,479 in 2018 to $1,210 in 2020 but was higher in January-June 2021 than in January-June 2020. On a company-specific basis, as shown in table VI-7, all U.S. mills and non-toll processors except *** showed a decline in their net sales AUVs from 2018 to 2020 and higher net sales AUVs in January-June 2021 than in January-June 2020. 7 ***. VI-23 During the reporting period, *** mills reported producing welded OCTG and *** mills reported producing seamless OCTG. There is some overlap as *** produce both seamless and welded OCTG.8 9 10 Table VI-8 presents the U.S. mills’ net sales of welded and seamless OCTG, the net sales AUVs of each, and their relative shares of the net sales quantity and value. Table VI-8 OCTG: U.S. mills’ net sales by product type and period Quantity in short tons; value in 1,000 dollars; unit value in dollars per short ton; shares in percent Net sales Measure 2018 2019 2020 Jan-Jun 2020 Jan-Jun 2021 Welded OCTG Quantity *** *** *** *** *** Seamless OCTG Quantity *** *** *** *** *** All OCTG Quantity *** *** *** *** *** Welded OCTG Value *** *** *** *** *** Seamless OCTG Value *** *** *** *** *** All OCTG Value *** *** *** *** *** Welded OCTG Unit value *** *** *** *** *** Seamless OCTG Unit value *** *** *** *** *** All OCTG Unit value *** *** *** *** *** Welded OCTG Share of quantity *** *** *** *** *** Seamless OCTG Share of quantity *** *** *** *** *** All OCTG Share of quantity *** *** *** *** *** Welded OCTG Share of value *** *** *** *** *** Seamless OCTG Share of value *** *** *** *** *** All OCTG Share of value *** *** *** *** *** Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. 8 ***. 9 ***. *** U.S. producer questionnaire, sections II-13 and III-9c. 10 *** of the U.S. mills (***) produce only welded OCTG and *** U.S. mills (***) produce only seamless OCTG. VI-24 Table VI-8 shows that welded OCTG accounted for a smaller and decreasing share of the U.S. mills’ total net sales quantity and value during the reporting period, while seamless OCTG accounted for a larger and increasing share. Net sales of both welded and seamless OCTG decreased from 2018 to 2020, and were lower in interim 2021 compared to interim 2020, however, net sales of welded OCTG decreased at a faster rate.11 The net sales AUVs of both welded and seamless OCTG decreased from 2018 to 2020, but were higher in interim 2021 than in interim 2020. However, compared with seamless OCTG, the net sales AUV of welded OCTG decreased by a larger amount between 2018 and 2020 and increased by a smaller amount between the comparable interim periods. Cost of goods sold and gross profit or loss Raw materials As seen in table VI-1, the total raw material cost for U.S. mills and non-toll processors is the largest component of cost of goods sold (“COGS”) during most of the reporting period, ranging from 42.6 percent (2020) to 54.6 percent (2018) of total COGS. On a per-short ton basis, raw material costs decreased from 2018 to 2020 but were higher in January-June 2021 than in January-June 2020. On a company-specific basis, as shown in table VI-7, all U.S. mills except *** reported a decline in their per-short ton raw material costs from 2018 to 2020 and all U.S. mills except *** reported higher per-short ton raw material costs in January-June 2021 than in January-June 2020. Non-toll processors reported an irregular increase in their per-short ton raw material costs from 2018 to 2020 and lower per-short ton raw material costs in January-June 2021 than in January-June 2020.12 Raw materials for U.S. mills consist of steel sheet/coil (for the production of welded OCTG), steel billets (for the production of seamless OCTG), and a small amount of other raw material inputs. Raw materials for non-toll processors consists of unfinished OCTG. Tables VI-9 and VI-10 provide the U.S. mills’ raw material costs for welded OCTG and seamless OCTG, respectively. 11 Welded OCTG and seamless OCTG quantities decreased from 2018 to 2020 by *** percent and *** percent, respectively. Welded OCTG and seamless OCTG values decreased from 2018 to 2020 by *** percent and *** percent, respectively. 12 The increase in raw material AUVs for non-toll processors is primarily due to ***. VI-25 Table VI-9 Welded OCTG: U.S. mills’ net sales and main raw material input cost, by item and period Quantity in short tons; value in 1,000 dollars; unit value in dollars per short ton; ratios in percent Item Measure 2018 2019 2020 Jan-Jun 2020 Jan-Jun 2021 Total net sales Quantity *** *** *** *** *** Total net sales Value *** *** *** *** *** Steel sheet/coil Value *** *** *** *** *** Total net sales Unit value *** *** *** *** *** Steel sheet/coil Unit value *** *** *** *** *** Steel sheet/coil Ratio to NS *** *** *** *** *** Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Note: ***. Therefore, the 2020, interim 2020, and interim 2021 steel sheet/coil unit values and ratios to net sales are likely understated. Table VI-10 Seamless OCTG: U.S. mills’ net sales and main raw material input cost, by item and period Quantity in short tons; value in 1,000 dollars; unit value in dollars per short ton; ratios in percent Item Measure 2018 2019 2020 Jan-Jun 2020 Jan-Jun 2021 Total net sales Quantity *** *** *** *** *** Total net sales Value *** *** *** *** *** Steel billets Value *** *** *** *** *** Total net sales Unit value *** *** *** *** *** Steel billets Unit value *** *** *** *** *** Steel billets Ratio to NS *** *** *** *** *** Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Note: ***. Therefore, the 2020, interim 2020, and interim 2021 steel billet unit values and ratios to net sales are likely understated. VI-26 As seen in table VI-9, the raw material cost for steel sheet/coil declined from $*** per short ton in 2018 to $*** per short ton in 2020 but was higher in January-June 2021 ($***) than in January-June 2020 ($***). Table VI-10 shows that the raw material cost of steel billets decreased from $*** per short ton in 2018 to $*** per short ton in 2020 but was higher in January-June 2021 ($***) than in January-June 2020 ($***).13 Direct labor and other factory costs The U.S. mills and non-toll processors’ direct labor is the smallest component of COGS in each period, ranging from 9.3 percent (2018) to 10.8 percent (January-June 2021) of total COGS. The per-short ton cost of direct labor increased from 2018 to 2020 and was higher in January-June 2021 compared to January-June 2020. Other factory costs were the second largest component of COGS during most of the reporting period and accounted for between 36.1 percent (2018) and 47.2 percent (2020) of total COGS during the period for which data were collected.14 As a ratio to sales and on a per- short ton basis, other factory costs increased from 2018 to 2020 but were lower in January-June 2021 than in January-June 2020. ***.15 In general, the producers of welded OCTG reported lower per-short ton other factory costs than the companies that either exclusively or mostly produced seamless OCTG. 13 Six of the responding U.S. producers reported purchasing inputs from related suppliers. ***. U.S. producers’ questionnaire responses, sections III-7 and III-8. 14 Other factory costs were the largest component of COGS in 2020. During that year, when net sales of OCTG decreased precipitously, all components of COGS decreased on a value basis. However, due to the fact that other factory costs contain both variable and fixed costs, it decreased proportionally less than raw materials and direct labor. 15 Email from ***, October 25, 2021. VI-27 COGS and gross profit or loss The U.S. mills and non-toll processors’ total COGS decreased from $4.4 billion in 2018 to $2.6 billion in 2020. Between 2018 and 2020, the decrease in total COGS did not keep pace with the sharper decrease in total net sales value. This resulted in the mills and non-toll processors experiencing a decrease in gross profit from $303.9 million in 2018 to a gross loss of $464.9 million in 2020. The U.S. mills and non-toll processors’ total COGS were lower in January-June 2021 ($1.1 billion) than in January-June 2020 ($1.7 billion). As total COGS declined more than total net sales value, the total gross loss improved in January-June 2021 (a loss of $97.4 million) compared to January-June 2020 (a loss of $196.6 million). The gross profit margin (gross profit divided by total net sales) exhibited the same trend. On a company-specific basis (table VI-7), all U.S. mills and non-toll processors with sales throughout the period examined reported a decline in their gross profit and gross profit margins from 2018 to 2020. Six firms reported lower gross profit and gross profit margins in January-June 2021 than in January-June 2020.16 17 16 The combined gross profit for U.S. mills, non-toll processing operations, and toll processors was $*** in 2018, $*** in 2019, $*** in 2020, $*** in January-June 2020, and $*** in January-June 2021. The gross profit margin for the combined data of the U.S. mills, non-toll processing operations, and toll processors was *** percent in 2018, *** percent in 2019, *** percent in 2020, *** percent in January- June 2020, and *** percent in January-June 2021. 17 The average ratio of gross profit to net sales for the *** U.S. mills that exclusively or primarily produce welded OCTG was *** percent in 2018, *** percent in 2019, *** percent in 2020, *** percent in interim 2020, and *** percent in interim 2021. The average ratio of gross profit to net sales for the *** U.S. mills that exclusively produce seamless OCTG was *** percent in 2018, *** percent in 2019, *** percent in 2020, *** percent in interim 2020, and *** percent in interim 2021. The average ratio of gross profit to net sales for the *** U.S. mills that produce both welded and seamless OCTG was *** percent in 2018, *** percent in 2019, *** percent in 2020, *** percent in interim 2020, and *** percent in interim 2021. VI-28 SG&A expenses and operating income or loss The U.S. mills and non-toll processors’ total SG&A expenses decreased from 2018 to 2020 and were lower in January-June 2021 than in January-June 2020. *** accounted for the large majority of the noticeable decline in SG&A expenses from 2018 to 2019. The decrease in the company’s SG&A expenses was mostly the result of a $*** nonrecurring item that was included in the company’s 2018 SG&A expenses.18 As a ratio to net sales, SG&A expenses increased irregularly from 2018 to 2020 and were higher in January-June 2021 than in January- June 2020. The U.S. mills and non-toll processors’ operating loss worsened from a loss of $169.5 million in 2018 to a loss of $754.9 million in 2020 but improved in January-June 2021 (a loss of $248.7 million) compared to January-June 2020 (a loss of $372.0 million). The operating loss margin (operating loss divided by total net sales) exhibited the same directional trends. On a company-specific basis, as shown in table VI-7, all U.S. mills and non-toll processors with sales throughout the period examined experienced a decline in their operating income and operating income margin from 2018 to 2020. Six firms reported higher operating income in January-June 2021 than in January-June 2020.19 20 18 This nonrecurring item was related to ***. U.S. producers’ questionnaire response of ***, question III-10. 19 The combined operating income for U.S. mills, non-toll processing operations, and toll processors was $*** in 2018, $*** in 2019, $*** in 2020, $*** in January-June 2020, and $*** in January-June 2021. The operating income margin for the combined data of the U.S. mills, non-toll processing operations, and toll processors was *** percent in 2018, *** percent in 2019, *** percent in 2020, *** percent in January-June 2020, and *** percent in January-June 2021. 20 The average ratio of operating income to net sales for the *** U.S. mills that exclusively or primarily produce welded OCTG was *** percent in 2018, *** percent in 2019, *** percent in 2020, *** percent in interim 2020, and *** percent in interim 2021. The average ratio of operating income to net sales for the *** U.S. mills that exclusively produce seamless OCTG was *** percent in 2018, *** percent in 2019, *** percent in 2020, *** percent in interim 2020, and *** percent in interim 2021. The average ratio of operating income to net sales for the *** U.S. mills that produce both welded and seamless OCTG was *** percent in 2018, *** percent in 2019, *** percent in 2020, *** percent in interim 2020, and *** percent in interim 2021. VI-29 All other expenses and net income or loss Classified below the operating income level are interest expense, other expense, and other income, which are often allocated to the product line from high levels in the corporation. In table VI-1 these items are aggregated and only the net amount is shown. The U.S. mills and non-toll processors’ net amount of all other expenses irregularly increased overall from $196.7 million in 2018 to $516.7 million in 2020 and was lower in January-June 2021 ($22.2 million) than in January-June 2020 ($471.4 million). The vast majority of the increase in all other expenses in 2020 was due to nonrecurring charges reported by ***. ***.21 The net loss worsened from a loss of $366.2 million in 2018 to a loss of $1.3 billion in 2020 but was improved in January-June 2021 (a loss of $270.9 million) compared to January- June 2020 (a loss of $843.4 million). The net loss margin (net loss divided by total net sales) exhibited the same directional trends. On a company-specific basis, as shown in table VI-7, all U.S. mills and non-toll processors with sales throughout the period examined experienced a decline in their net income and net income margin from 2018 to 2020. Six firms reported higher net income in January-June 2021 than in January-June 2020.22 23 21 ***. 22 The average ratio of net income to net sales for the *** U.S. mills that exclusively or primarily produce welded OCTG was *** percent in 2018, *** percent in 2019, *** percent in 2020, *** percent in interim 2020, and *** percent in interim 2021. The average ratio of net income to net sales for the *** U.S. mills that exclusively produce seamless OCTG was *** percent in 2018, *** percent in 2019, *** percent in 2020, *** percent in interim 2020, and *** percent in interim 2021. The average ratio of net income to net sales for the *** U.S. mills that produce both welded and seamless OCTG was *** percent in 2018, *** percent in 2019, *** percent in 2020, *** percent in interim 2020, and *** percent in interim 2021. 23 Due to the differences in cost structures between U.S. mills and non-toll processing operations, a variance analysis would not be meaningful, and is therefore not shown. VI-30 Tolling operations In a tolling arrangement, the tollee provides the input material (retaining title to the input) to the toller. The toller, in turn, upgrades the input to the desired form and quality. In the case of OCTG, the toll processing that is performed is typically that of heat-treating of unfinished OCTG (green tube) to its final API grade. *** firms reported data on their tolling operations.24 Figure VI-2 presents each responding toll processors’ share of the reported tolling revenue in 2020. Table VI-11 presents aggregated data on the toll-processors’ operations in relation to OCTG, while table VI-12 presents the corresponding changes in the AUVs from table VI-11. Table VI-13 presents selected company-specific financial data. Figure VI-2 OCTG: Share of tolling revenue in 2020, by firm * * * * * * * Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. 24 ***. *** U.S. producers’ questionnaire response, section VI-4a-b. VI-31 Table VI-11 OCTG: Results of operations of U.S. toll processors, by item and period Quantity in short tons; value in 1,000 dollars; ratios in percent Item Measure 2018 2019 2020 Jan-Jun 2020 Jan-Jun 2021 Net tolling quantity Quantity *** *** *** *** *** Net tolling revenue Value *** *** *** *** *** Raw materials not supplied by tollee Value *** *** *** *** *** Direct labor costs Value *** *** *** *** *** Other factory costs Value *** *** *** *** *** Total cost of tolling services (COTS) Value *** *** *** *** *** Gross profit or (loss) Value *** *** *** *** *** G&A expenses Value *** *** *** *** *** Operating income or (loss) Value *** *** *** *** *** Raw materials not supplied by tollee Ratio to tolling revenue *** *** *** *** *** Direct labor costs Ratio to tolling revenue *** *** *** *** *** Other factory costs Ratio to tolling revenue *** *** *** *** *** COTS Ratio to tolling revenue *** *** *** *** *** Gross profit or (loss) Ratio to tolling revenue *** *** *** *** *** G&A expenses Ratio to tolling revenue *** *** *** *** *** Operating income or (loss) Ratio to tolling revenue *** *** *** *** *** Table continued. VI-32 Table VI-11 Continued OCTG: Results of operations of U.S. toll processors, by item and period Shares in percent; unit values in dollars per short ton; count in number of firms reporting Item Measure 2018 2019 2020 Jan-Jun 2020 Jan-Jun 2021 Raw materials not supplied by tollee Share *** *** *** *** *** Direct labor costs Share *** *** *** *** *** Other factory costs Share *** *** *** *** *** Total cost of tolling services Share *** *** *** *** *** Net tolling revenue Unit value *** *** *** *** *** Raw materials not supplied by tollee Unit value *** *** *** *** *** Direct labor costs Unit value *** *** *** *** *** Other factory costs Unit value *** *** *** *** *** COTS Unit value *** *** *** *** *** Gross profit or (loss) Unit value *** *** *** *** *** G&A expenses Unit value *** *** *** *** *** Operating income or (loss) Unit value *** *** *** *** *** Operating losses Count *** *** *** *** *** Data Count *** *** *** *** *** Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Note: Shares represent the share of COGS. VI-33 Table VI-12 OCTG: U.S. toll processors' changes in average unit values between comparison periods Changes in percent Item 2018-20 2018-19 2019-20 Jan-Jun 2020-21 Net tolling revenue *** *** *** *** Raw materials not supplied by tollee *** *** *** *** Direct labor costs *** *** *** *** Other factory costs *** *** *** *** COTS *** *** *** *** Table continued. Table VI-12 Continued OCTG: U.S. toll processors' changes in average unit values between comparison periods Changes in dollars per short ton Item 2018-20 2018-19 2019-20 Jan-Jun 2020-21 Net tolling revenue *** *** *** *** Raw materials not supplied by tollee *** *** *** *** Direct labor costs *** *** *** *** Other factory costs *** *** *** *** COTS *** *** *** *** Gross profit or (loss) *** *** *** *** G&A expenses *** *** *** *** Operating income or (loss) *** *** *** *** Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. VI-34 Table VI-13 OCTG: U.S. toll processors firm-by-firm: Net tolling quantity, by firm and period Net tolling quantity Quantity in short tons Firm 2018 2019 2020 Jan-Jun 2020 Jan-Jun 2021 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Table continued. Table VI-13 Continued OCTG: U.S. toll processors firm-by-firm: Net tolling revenue, by firm and period Net tolling revenue Value in 1,000 dollars Firm 2018 2019 2020 Jan-Jun 2020 Jan-Jun 2021 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Table continued. Table VI-13 Continued OCTG: U.S. toll processors firm-by-firm: COTS, by firm and period COTS Value in 1,000 dollars Firm 2018 2019 2020 Jan-Jun 2020 Jan-Jun 2021 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Table continued. VI-35 Table VI-13 Continued OCTG: U.S. toll processors firm-by-firm: Gross profit or (loss), by firm and period Gross profit or (loss) Value in 1,000 dollars Firm 2018 2019 2020 Jan-Jun 2020 Jan-Jun 2021 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Table continued. Table VI-13 Continued OCTG: U.S. toll processors firm-by-firm: G&A expenses, by firm and period G&A expenses Value in 1,000 dollars Firm 2018 2019 2020 Jan-Jun 2020 Jan-Jun 2021 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Table continued. Table VI-13 Continued OCTG: U.S. toll processors firm-by-firm: Operating income or (loss), by firm and period Operating income or (loss) Value in 1,000 dollars Firm 2018 2019 2020 Jan-Jun 2020 Jan-Jun 2021 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Table continued. VI-36 Table VI-13 Continued OCTG: U.S. toll processors firm-by-firm: Ratio of COTS to net tolling revenue, by firm and period COTS to net tolling revenue ratio Ratios in percent Firm 2018 2019 2020 Jan-Jun 2020 Jan-Jun 2021 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Table continued. Table VI-13 Continued OCTG: U.S. toll processors firm-by-firm: Ratio of gross profit or (loss) to net tolling revenue, by firm and period Gross profit or (loss) to net tolling revenue ratio Ratios in percent Firm 2018 2019 2020 Jan-Jun 2020 Jan-Jun 2021 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Table continued. Table VI-13 Continued OCTG: U.S. toll processors firm-by-firm: Ratio of G&A expenses to net tolling revenue, by firm and period G&A expenses to net tolling revenue ratio Ratios in percent Firm 2018 2019 2020 Jan-Jun 2020 Jan-Jun 2021 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Table continued. VI-37 Table VI-13 Continued OCTG: U.S. toll processors firm-by-firm: Ratio of operating income or (loss) to net tolling revenue, by firm and period Operating income or (loss) to net tolling revenue ratio Ratios in percent Firm 2018 2019 2020 Jan-Jun 2020 Jan-Jun 2021 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Table continued. Table VI-13 Continued OCTG: U.S. toll processors firm-by-firm: Unit net tolling revenue, by firm and period Unit net tolling revenue Unit values in dollars per short ton Firm 2018 2019 2020 Jan-Jun 2020 Jan-Jun 2021 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Table continued. Table VI-13 Continued OCTG: U.S. toll processors firm-by-firm: Unit raw material costs not supplied by tollee, by firm and period Unit raw material costs not supplied by tollee Unit values in dollars per short ton Firm 2018 2019 2020 Jan-Jun 2020 Jan-Jun 2021 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Table continued. VI-38 Table VI-13 Continued OCTG: U.S. toll processors firm-by-firm: Unit direct labor costs, by firm and period Unit direct labor costs Unit values in dollars per short ton Firm 2018 2019 2020 Jan-Jun 2020 Jan-Jun 2021 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Table continued. Table VI-13 Continued OCTG: U.S. toll processors firm-by-firm: Unit other factory costs, by firm and period Unit other factory costs Unit values in dollars per short ton Firm 2018 2019 2020 Jan-Jun 2020 Jan-Jun 2021 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Table continued. Table VI-13 Continued OCTG: U.S. toll processors firm-by-firm: Unit COTS, by firm and period Unit COTS Unit values in dollars per short ton Firm 2018 2019 2020 Jan-Jun 2020 Jan-Jun 2021 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Table continued. VI-39 Table VI-13 Continued OCTG: U.S. toll processors firm-by-firm: Unit gross profit or (loss), by firm and period Unit gross profit or (loss) Unit values in dollars per short ton Firm 2018 2019 2020 Jan-Jun 2020 Jan-Jun 2021 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Table continued. Table VI-13 Continued OCTG: U.S. toll processors firm-by-firm: Unit G&A expenses, by firm and period Unit G&A expenses Unit values in dollars per short ton Firm 2018 2019 2020 Jan-Jun 2020 Jan-Jun 2021 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Table continued. Table VI-13 Continued OCTG: U.S. toll processors firm-by-firm: Unit operating income or (loss), by firm and period Unit operating income or (loss) Unit values in dollars per short ton Firm 2018 2019 2020 Jan-Jun 2020 Jan-Jun 2021 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. VI-40 As seen in table VI-11, the net tolling quantity and value of OCTG followed a similar directional trend as the U.S. mills and non-toll processors’ net sales quantity and value. Net tolling quantity decreased from *** short tons in 2018 to *** short tons in 2020 but was higher in January-June 2021 (*** short ton) than in January-June 2020 (*** short ton). Net tolling revenue (the fees paid by the tollee to the toller) decreased from $*** in 2018 to $*** in 2020 but was higher in January-June 2021 ($***) than in January-June 2020 ($***).25 The average unit value of the tolling revenues increased from $*** per short ton in 2018 to $*** per short ton in 2020 and was higher in January-June 2021 ($***) than in January-June 2020 ($***). The total cost of tolling services includes direct labor, other factory costs, and any additional raw materials the toller uses in its processing activities, outside of the raw materials provided by the tollee (i.e., the unfinished OCTG). The additional raw materials, reported by ***, were minor on an aggregated basis, and accounted for between *** percent to *** percent of the total cost of tolling services during the period for which data were collected.26 The tollers’ direct labor costs accounted for between *** percent and *** percent of the total cost of tolling services during the reporting period while other factory costs accounted for between *** percent and *** percent. Toll processors’ gross profit decreased from $*** in 2018 to $*** in 2020 but was higher in January-June 2021 ($***) than in January-June 2020 ($***). The gross profit margin exhibited the same directional trends. Toll processors’ G&A expenses decreased from $*** in 2018 to $*** in 2020 but were higher in January-June 2021 ($***) than in January-June 2020 ($***).27 Toll processors’ operating income decreased from $*** in 2018 to *** in 2020 but improved from *** in January-June 2020 25 The majority of toll-processed OCTG was ***. OCTG that was processed for *** accounted for between *** percent of the total quantity of toll-processed OCTG during the period for which data were collected, and *** percent of the U.S. mills’ total net sales volume of OCTG. 26 While ***. Email from ***, October 25, 2021. 27 ***. VI-41 to *** in January-June 2021.28 Table VI-14 presents the U.S. producers’ narrative responses regarding the effects on financial performance of COVID-19. Table VI-14 OCTG: U.S. producers’ narrative responses relating to COVID-19 pandemic effects on U.S. producers' financial performance Firm Impact Narrative response *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 28 Due to *** a variance analysis would not be meaningful, and is therefore not shown. VI-42 Firm Impact Narrative response *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. VI-43 Capital expenditures and research and development expenses Table VI-15 presents capital expenditures, by firm, and table VI-17 presents R&D expenses, by firm. Tables VI-16 and VI-18 present the firms’ narrative explanations of the nature, focus, and significance of their capital expenditures and R&D expenses, respectively. Table VI-15 OCTG: U.S. producers’ capital expenditures, by firm and period Value in 1,000 dollars Firm 2018 2019 2020 Jan-Jun 2020 Jan-Jun 2021 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** All mills and non-toll processors 245,813 264,352 203,691 121,536 54,922 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. VI-44 Table VI-16 OCTG: Narrative descriptions of U.S. producers’ capital expenditures, by firm Firm Narrative on capital expenditures *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. VI-45 Table VI-17 OCTG: U.S. producers’ R&D expenses, by firm and period Value in 1,000 dollars Firm 2018 2019 2020 Jan-Jun 2020 Jan-Jun 2021 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. VI-46 Table VI-18 OCTG: Narrative descriptions of U.S. producers’ R&D expenses, by firm Firm Narrative on R&D expenses *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. VI-47 Assets and return on assets Table VI-19 presents data on the U.S. producers’ total assets while table VI-20 presents their operating ROA.29 Table VI-21 presents U.S. producers’ narrative responses explaining their major asset categories and any significant changes in asset levels over time. Table VI-19 OCTG: U.S. producers’ total net assets, by firm and period Value in 1,000 dollars Firm 2018 2019 2020 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** All mills and non-toll processors 7,358,183 8,442,427 7,991,699 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. 29 The operating ROA is calculated as operating income divided by total assets. With respect to a firm’s overall operations, the total asset value reflects an aggregation of a number of assets which are generally not product specific. Thus, high-level allocations are generally required in order to report a total asset value for OCTG. VI-48 Table VI-20 OCTG: U.S. producers’ ROA, by firm and period Ratio in percent Firm 2018 2019 2020 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** All mills and non-toll processors (2.3) (3.3) (9.4) *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. VI-49 Table VI-21 OCTG: Narrative descriptions of U.S. producers’ total net assets, by firm Firm Narrative on assets *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. VI-50 Capital and investment The Commission requested U.S. producers of OCTG to describe any actual or potential negative effects of imports of OCTG from Argentina, Mexico, Russia, and Korea on their firms’ growth, investment, ability to raise capital, development and production efforts, or the scale of capital investments. Table VI-22 presents the number of firms reporting an impact in each category and table VI-23 provides the U.S. producers’ narrative responses. Table VI-22 OCTG: Count of firms indicating actual and anticipated negative effects of imports from subject sources on investment, growth, and development since January 1, 2018, by effect Number of firms reporting Effect Category Count Cancellation, postponement, or rejection of expansion projects Investment 6 Denial or rejection of investment proposal Investment 0 Reduction in the size of capital investments Investment 2 Return on specific investments negatively impacted Investment 3 Other investment effects Investment 4 Any negative effects on investment Investment 8 Rejection of bank loans Growth 1 Lowering of credit rating Growth 1 Problem related to the issue of stocks or bonds Growth 0 Ability to service debt Growth 2 Other growth and development effects Growth 3 Any negative effects on growth and development Growth 5 Anticipated negative effects of imports Future 9 Note: *** did not respond “yes” or “no” to the questions that asked if the firm experienced negative effects on investment and negative effects on growth and development. *** did not respond “yes” or “no” to the questions that asked if the firm anticipated negative effects of imports. Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. VI-51 Table VI-23 OCTG: Narratives relating to actual and anticipated negative effects of imports on investment, growth, and development, since January 1, 2018 Item Firm name and narrative on impact of imports Cancellation, postponement, or rejection of expansion projects *** Cancellation, postponement, or rejection of expansion projects *** Cancellation, postponement, or rejection of expansion projects *** Cancellation, postponement, or rejection of expansion projects *** Cancellation, postponement, or rejection of expansion projects *** Cancellation, postponement, or rejection of expansion projects *** Reduction in the size of capital investments *** Reduction in the size of capital investments *** Return on specific investments negatively impacted *** Return on specific investments negatively impacted *** Return on specific investments negatively impacted *** Other negative effects on investments *** Other negative effects on investments *** VI-52 Item Firm name and narrative on impact of imports Other negative effects on investments *** Other negative effects on investments *** Rejection of bank loans *** Lowering of credit rating *** Ability to service debt *** Ability to service debt *** Other effects on growth and development *** Other effects on growth and development *** Other effects on growth and development *** Anticipated effects of imports *** Anticipated effects of imports *** Anticipated effects of imports *** Anticipated effects of imports *** Anticipated effects of imports *** Anticipated effects of imports *** Anticipated effects of imports *** Anticipated effects of imports *** Anticipated effects of imports *** Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. VII-1 Part VII: Threat considerations and information on nonsubject countries Section 771(7)(F)(i) of the Act (19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(F)(i)) provides that— In determining whether an industry in the United States is threatened with material injury by reason of imports (or sales for importation) of the subject merchandise, the Commission shall consider, among other relevant economic factors1-- (I) if a countervailable subsidy is involved, such information as may be presented to it by the administering authority as to the nature of the subsidy (particularly as to whether the countervailable subsidy is a subsidy described in Article 3 or 6.1 of the Subsidies Agreement), and whether imports of the subject merchandise are likely to increase, (II) any existing unused production capacity or imminent, substantial increase in production capacity in the exporting country indicating the likelihood of substantially increased imports of the subject merchandise into the United States, taking into account the availability of other export markets to absorb any additional exports, (III) a significant rate of increase of the volume or market penetration of imports of the subject merchandise indicating the likelihood of substantially increased imports, (IV) whether imports of the subject merchandise are entering at prices that are likely to have a significant depressing or suppressing effect on domestic prices, and are likely to increase demand for further imports, (V) inventories of the subject merchandise, 1 Section 771(7)(F)(ii) of the Act (19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(F)(ii)) provides that “The Commission shall consider {these factors} . . . as a whole in making a determination of whether further dumped or subsidized imports are imminent and whether material injury by reason of imports would occur unless an order is issued or a suspension agreement is accepted under this title. The presence or absence of any factor which the Commission is required to consider . . . shall not necessarily give decisive guidance with respect to the determination. Such a determination may not be made on the basis of mere conjecture or supposition.” VII-2 (VI) the potential for product-shifting if production facilities in the foreign country, which can be used to produce the subject merchandise, are currently being used to produce other products, (VII) in any investigation under this title which involves imports of both a raw agricultural product (within the meaning of paragraph (4)(E)(iv)) and any product processed from such raw agricultural product, the likelihood that there will be increased imports, by reason of product shifting, if there is an affirmative determination by the Commission under section 705(b)(1) or 735(b)(1) with respect to either the raw agricultural product or the processed agricultural product (but not both), (VIII) the actual and potential negative effects on the existing development and production efforts of the domestic industry, including efforts to develop a derivative or more advanced version of the domestic like product, and (IX) any other demonstrable adverse trends that indicate the probability that there is likely to be material injury by reason of imports (or sale for importation) of the subject merchandise (whether or not it is actually being imported at the time).2 Information on the nature of the alleged subsidies was presented earlier in this report; information on the volume and pricing of imports of the subject merchandise is presented in Parts IV and V; and information on the effects of imports of the subject merchandise on U.S. producers’ existing development and production efforts is presented in Part VI. Information on inventories of the subject merchandise; foreign producers’ operations, including the potential for “product-shifting;” any other threat indicators, if applicable; and any dumping in third- country markets, follows. Also presented in this section of the report is information obtained for consideration by the Commission on nonsubject countries. 2 Section 771(7)(F)(iii) of the Act (19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(F)(iii)) further provides that, in antidumping investigations, “. . . the Commission shall consider whether dumping in the markets of foreign countries (as evidenced by dumping findings or antidumping remedies in other WTO member markets against the same class or kind of merchandise manufactured or exported by the same party as under investigation) suggests a threat of material injury to the domestic industry.” VII-3 The industry in Argentina The Commission issued foreign producers’ or exporters’ questionnaires to 10 firms believed to produce and/or export OCTG from Argentina.3 Usable responses to the Commission’s questionnaire were received from one firm: Siderca.4 Siderca’s exports to the United States accounted for virtually all U.S. imports of OCTG from Argentina in 2020.5 Siderca estimates that it accounted for approximately *** percent of overall production of OCTG in Argentina in 2020. Table VII-1 presents information on the OCTG operations of the responding producer/exporter in Argentina. Table VII-1 OCTG: Summary data for producer in Argentina, 2020 Quantity in short tons; share in percent Firm Production (short tons) Share of reported production (percent) Exports to the United States (short tons) Share of reported exports to the United States (percent) Total shipments (short tons) Share of firm's total shipments exported to the United States (percent) Siderca *** *** *** *** *** *** All firms *** *** *** *** *** *** Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Changes in operations Table VII-2 presents the Argentinian producer’s reported operational and organizational changes since January 1, 2018. 3 These firms were identified through a review of information submitted in the petition and presented in third-party sources. All firms are API 5CT certified. One firm, ***, confirmed that it is a welded pipe manufacturer in Argentina that does not produce OCTG. Staff correspondence with ***, October 22, 2021. 4 Siderca is part of the Tenaris group of companies and is affiliated with U.S. producer Tenaris USA, U.S. importer Tenaris Global, and Mexican producer TAMSA. 5 Siderca’s exports to the United States *** U.S. imports from Argentina in 2020, based on official Commerce statistics. This may be due to timing differences in shipping/Customs clearance and recordkeeping. VII-4 Table VII-2 OCTG: Reported changes in operations by producer in Argentina, since January 1, 2018 Item Firm name and accompanying narrative response Prolonged curtailments *** Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Operations on OCTG Table VII-3 presents information on the OCTG operations of the responding producer in Argentina. Capacity for OCTG was stable during the period for which data were collected. Production decreased by *** percent during 2018-20 and was *** percent higher in January- June 2021 than in January-June 2020. Production is projected to increase in 2022 while capacity is projected to remain the same. As mentioned previously, Siderca attributed its production trends during 2018-20 to ***. Siderca also noted that ***.6 Total home market shipments accounted for more than *** percent of total shipments in each period. Export shipments to the United States as a share of total shipments decreased from *** percent in 2018 to *** percent in 2020, were *** percent in interim 2021 compared to *** percent in interim 2020, and are projected to be *** percent in 2022.7 6 Siderca’s foreign producer questionnaire response, II-2. 7 Siderca reported that ***. Siderca’s foreign producer questionnaire response, II-10. VII-5 Table VII-3 OCTG: Data for producer in Argentina, by period Quantity in short tons Item 2018 2019 2020 Jan-Jun 2020 Jan-Jun 2021 Projected 2021 Projected 2022 Capacity *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Production *** *** *** *** *** *** *** End-of-period inventories *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Internal consumption *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Commercial home market shipments *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Home market shipments *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Exports to the United States *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Exports to all other markets *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Export shipments *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Total shipments *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Table continued. VII-6 Table VII-3 Continued OCTG: Data for producer in Argentina, by period Shares and ratios in percent Item 2018 2019 2020 Jan-Jun 2020 Jan-Jun 2021 Projected 2021 Projected 2022 Capacity utilization ratio *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Inventory ratio to production *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Inventory ratio to total shipments *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Internal consumption share *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Commercial home market shipments share *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Home market shipments share *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Exports to the United States share *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Exports to all other markets share *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Export shipments share *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Total shipments share *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Alternative products Table VII-4 presents the responding producer’s production of other products on the same equipment and machinery used to produce OCTG. Siderca reported production of alternative products, including ***. The majority of Siderca’s *** capacity is dedicated to the production of OCTG. Regarding its ability to switch production from OCTG to alternative products, Siderca reported that ***.8 8 Siderca’s foreign producer questionnaire response, II-4. VII-7 Table VII-4 OCTG: Argentinian producer’s overall capacity and production on the same equipment as subject production, by period Quantity in short tons; shares and ratios in percent Item Measure 2018 2019 2020 Jan-Jun 2020 Jan-Jun 2021 Seamless capacity Quantity *** *** *** *** *** Welded capacity Quantity *** *** *** *** *** Overall capacity Quantity *** *** *** *** *** Seamless OCTG production Quantity *** *** *** *** *** Welded OCTG production Quantity *** *** *** *** *** All OCTG production Quantity *** *** *** *** *** Other production Quantity *** *** *** *** *** Total production Quantity *** *** *** *** *** Overall capacity utilization Ratio *** *** *** *** *** Seamless OCTG production Share *** *** *** *** *** Welded OCTG production Share *** *** *** *** *** All OCTG production Share *** *** *** *** *** Other production Share *** *** *** *** *** Total production Share *** *** *** *** *** Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Note: Shares and ratios shown as "0.0" represent values greater than zero, but less than "0.05" percent. Zeroes, null values, and undefined calculations are suppressed and shown as “---“. Exports Table VII-5 presents the leading export markets for casing and tubing from Argentina.9 During 2019, the United States, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE were the top export markets for casing and tubing from Argentina, accounting for 52.2 percent, 21.5 percent, and 6.1 percent, respectively.10 9 HS subheadings 7304.29, 7305.20, and 7306.29 do not include coupling stock. 10 Global Trade Atlas (“GTA”) data for 2020 are not yet available for several countries with sizeable imports from Argentina, including Saudi Arabia and the UAE. VII-8 Table VII-5 Casing and tubing: Exports from Argentina, by period Quantity in short tons; value in 1,000 dollars Destination market Measure 2018 2019 United States Quantity 161,851 158,306 Saudi Arabia Quantity 119,516 65,287 UAE Quantity 7,480 18,525 Brazil Quantity 1,015 9,267 Romania Quantity 10,385 8,756 Thailand Quantity 15,534 7,917 Norway Quantity 136 5,158 China Quantity 1,918 4,613 Qatar Quantity 5,325 3,692 All other destination markets Quantity 62,166 21,596 All destination markets Quantity 385,324 303,117 United States Value 188,882 202,479 Saudi Arabia Value 158,268 80,999 UAE Value 17,880 35,335 Brazil Value 5,105 9,783 Romania Value 16,630 10,745 Thailand Value 19,919 10,588 Norway Value 521 16,218 China Value 3,894 7,807 Qatar Value 8,111 6,057 All other destination markets Value 81,283 38,753 All destination markets Value 500,493 418,764 Table continued. VII-9 Table VII-5 Continued Casing and tubing: Exports from Argentina, by period Unit values in dollars per short ton; shares in percent Destination market Measure 2018 2019 United States Unit value 1,167 1,279 Saudi Arabia Unit value 1,324 1,241 UAE Unit value 2,390 1,907 Brazil Unit value 5,029 1,056 Romania Unit value 1,601 1,227 Thailand Unit value 1,282 1,337 Norway Unit value 3,846 3,144 China Unit value 2,030 1,692 Qatar Unit value 1,523 1,641 All other destination markets Unit value 1,308 1,794 All destination markets Unit value 1,299 1,382 United States Share of quantity 42.0 52.2 Saudi Arabia Share of quantity 31.0 21.5 UAE Share of quantity 1.9 6.1 Brazil Share of quantity 0.3 3.1 Romania Share of quantity 2.7 2.9 Thailand Share of quantity 4.0 2.6 Norway Share of quantity 0.0 1.7 China Share of quantity 0.5 1.5 Qatar Share of quantity 1.4 1.2 All other destination markets Share of quantity 16.1 7.1 All destination markets Share of quantity 100.0 100.0 Source: Official imports statistics of imports from Argentina (constructed export statistics for Argentina) under HS subheadings 7304.29, 7305.20, and 7306.29 as reported by various statistical reporting authorities in the Global Trade Atlas database, accessed October 20, 2021. Note: Shares and ratios shown as "0.0" represent values greater than zero, but less than "0.05" percent. Zeroes, null values, and undefined calculations are suppressed and shown as “---“. United States is shown at the top, all remaining top export destinations shown in descending order of 2020 data. Note: Direct exports for Argentina as reported by INDEC – National Institute of Statistics & Census were unavailable for both 2019 and 2020. The mirror data of imports from Argentina as reported by all other responding reporters was more accurate. However, Saudi Arabia and UAE were the 2nd and 3rd largest importers from Argentina in 2019 and their data are not yet available in the Global Trade Atlas database for 2020. Therefore, export data from Argentina are understated for 2020. VII-10 The industry in Mexico The Commission issued foreign producers’ or exporters’ questionnaires to seven firms believed to produce and/or export OCTG from Mexico.11 Usable responses to the Commission’s questionnaire were received from one firm: TAMSA.12 TAMSA’s exports to the United States accounted for *** percent of U.S. imports of OCTG from Mexico in 2020. TAMSA estimates that it accounted for *** overall production of OCTG in Mexico in 2020. Table VII-6 presents information on the OCTG operations of the responding producer in Mexico. Table VII-6 OCTG: Summary data for producer in Mexico, 2020 Quantity in short tons; share in percent Firm Production (short tons) Share of reported production (percent) Exports to the United States (short tons) Share of reported exports to the United States (percent) Total shipments (short tons) Share of firm's total shipments exported to the United States (percent) TAMSA *** *** *** *** *** *** All firms *** *** *** *** *** *** Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Changes in operations Table VII-7 presents the Mexican producer’s reported operational and organizational changes since January 1, 2018. Table VII-7 OCTG: Reported changes in operations by producers in Mexico, since January 1, 2018 Item Firm name and accompanying narrative response Prolonged curtailments *** Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. 11 These firms were identified through a review of information submitted in the petition and presented in third-party sources. All firms are API 5CT certified. Two firms, ***, certified that they did not produce or export OCTG at any time since January 1, 2018. 12 TAMSA is part of the Tenaris group of companies and is affiliated with U.S. producer Tenaris USA, U.S. importer Tenaris Global, and Argentinian producer Siderca. VII-11 Operations on OCTG Table VII-8 presents information on the OCTG operations of the responding producer in Mexico. Capacity for OCTG decreased slightly during 2018-20 and was slightly higher in January- June 2021 than in January-June 2020. Production decreased by *** percent during 2018-20 and was *** percent higher in January-June 2021 than in January-June 2020. Production is projected to increase in 2022 while capacity is projected to decrease. TAMSA attributed its production trends during 2018-20 to ***. TAMSA also reported that ***.13 Home market shipments as a share of total shipments increased during 2018-20, from *** percent to *** percent. Export shipments to the United States as a share of total shipments decreased from *** percent in 2018 to *** percent in 2020, were *** percent in interim 2021 compared to *** percent in interim 2020, and are projected to reach *** percent in 2022. Table VII-8 OCTG: Data for producer in Mexico, by period Quantity in short tons Item 2018 2019 2020 Jan-Jun 2020 Jan-Jun 2021 Projected 2021 Projected 2022 Capacity *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Production *** *** *** *** *** *** *** End-of-period inventories *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Internal consumption *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Commercial home market shipments *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Home market shipments *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Exports to the United States *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Exports to all other markets *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Export shipments *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Total shipments *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Table continued. 13 TAMSA’s foreign producer questionnaire response, II-2. VII-12 Table VII-8 Continued OCTG: Data for producer in Mexico, by period Shares and ratios in percent Item 2018 2019 2020 Jan-Jun 2020 Jan-Jun 2021 Projected 2021 Projected 2022 Capacity utilization ratio *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Inventory ratio to production *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Inventory ratio to total shipments *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Internal consumption share *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Commercial home market shipments share *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Home market shipments share *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Exports to the United States share *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Exports to all other markets share *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Export shipments share *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Total shipments share *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Alternative products Table VII-9 presents the responding producer’s production of other products on the same equipment and machinery used to produce OCTG. TAMSA reported production of alternative products, including ***. The large majority of TAMSA’s *** capacity is dedicated to the production of OCTG. TAMSA reported that ***.14 14 TAMSA’s foreign producer questionnaire response, II-4. VII-13 Table VII-9 OCTG: Mexican producer’s overall capacity and production on the same equipment as subject production, by period Quantity in short tons; shares and ratios in percent Item Measure 2018 2019 2020 Jan-Jun 2020 Jan-Jun 2021 Seamless capacity Quantity *** *** *** *** *** Welded capacity Quantity *** *** *** *** *** Overall capacity Quantity *** *** *** *** *** Seamless OCTG production Quantity *** *** *** *** *** Welded OCTG production Quantity *** *** *** *** *** All OCTG production Quantity *** *** *** *** *** Other production Quantity *** *** *** *** *** Total production Quantity *** *** *** *** *** Overall capacity utilization Ratio *** *** *** *** *** Seamless OCTG production Share *** *** *** *** *** Welded OCTG production Share *** *** *** *** *** All OCTG production Share *** *** *** *** *** Other production Share *** *** *** *** *** Total production Share *** *** *** *** *** Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Note: Shares and ratios shown as "0.0" represent values greater than zero, but less than "0.05" percent. Zeroes, null values, and undefined calculations are suppressed and shown as “---“. Exports Table VII-10 presents the leading export markets for casing and tubing from Mexico.15 During 2019, the United States, Canada, and Kuwait were the top export markets for casing and tubing from Mexico, accounting for 47.8 percent, 11.0 percent, and 7.6 percent, respectively.16 15 HS subheadings 7304.29, 7305.20, and 7306.29 do not include coupling stock. 16 2020 GTA data are not yet available for several countries with sizeable imports from Mexico. VII-14 Table VII-10 Casing and tubing: Exports from Mexico, by period Quantity in short tons; value in 1,000 dollars Destination market Measure 2018 2019 United States Quantity 422,506 210,858 Canada Quantity 118,308 48,510 Kuwait Quantity 12,825 33,663 Colombia Quantity 21,280 18,122 India Quantity 2,344 15,741 Qatar Quantity 3,703 12,137 Ecuador Quantity 11,908 11,958 United Kingdom Quantity 15,259 10,094 Thailand Quantity 1,283 8,619 All other destination markets Quantity 68,394 71,663 All destination markets Quantity 677,811 441,365 United States Value 538,739 296,325 Canada Value 189,125 83,573 Kuwait Value 13,714 40,259 Colombia Value 33,417 30,526 India Value 3,821 25,229 Qatar Value 5,156 20,961 Ecuador Value 15,134 17,807 United Kingdom Value 38,119 21,986 Thailand Value 1,285 12,143 All other destination markets Value 114,702 130,602 All destination markets Value 953,210 679,411 Table continued. VII-15 Table VII-10 Continued Casing and tubing: Exports from Mexico, by period Unit values in dollars per short ton; Shares in percent Destination market Measure 2018 2019 United States Unit value 1,275 1,405 Canada Unit value 1,599 1,723 Kuwait Unit value 1,069 1,196 Colombia Unit value 1,570 1,684 India Unit value 1,630 1,603 Qatar Unit value 1,392 1,727 Ecuador Unit value 1,271 1,489 United Kingdom Unit value 2,498 2,178 Thailand Unit value 1,001 1,409 All other destination markets Unit value 1,677 1,822 All destination markets Unit value 1,406 1,539 United States Share of quantity 62.3 47.8 Canada Share of quantity 17.5 11.0 Kuwait Share of quantity 1.9 7.6 Colombia Share of quantity 3.1 4.1 India Share of quantity 0.3 3.6 Qatar Share of quantity 0.5 2.7 Ecuador Share of quantity 1.8 2.7 United Kingdom Share of quantity 2.3 2.3 Thailand Share of quantity 0.2 2.0 All other destination markets Share of quantity 10.1 16.2 All destination markets Share of quantity 100.0 100.0 Source: Official imports statistics of imports from Mexico (constructed export statistics for Argentina) under HS subheadings 7304.29, 7305.20, and 7306.29 as reported by various statistical reporting authorities in the Global Trade Atlas database, accessed October 20, 2021. Note: Direct exports data from Mexico as reported by INEGI were incomplete for both 2019 and 2020 (only reported exports to the United States). The mirror data of imports from Mexico as reported by all other responding countries was more accurate. However, several countries with sizeable imports from Mexico in 2019 did not yet have data available in the Global Trade Atlas database for 2020. Therefore, exports from Mexico data are still understated for 2020. VII-16 The industry in Russia The Commission issued foreign producers’ or exporters’ questionnaires to 13 firms believed to produce and/or export OCTG from Russia.17 Usable responses to the Commission’s questionnaire were received from two firms: JSC Vyksa and TMK Group. These firms’ exports to the United States accounted for *** U.S. imports of OCTG from Russia in 2020.18 According to estimates requested of the responding producers in Russia, the production of OCTG in Russia reported in questionnaires accounted for approximately *** percent of overall production of OCTG in Russia in 2020. Table VII-11 presents information on the OCTG operations of the responding producers in Russia. Table VII-11 OCTG: Summary data for producers in Russia, 2020 Quantity in short tons; share in percent Firm Production (short tons) Share of reported production (percent) Exports to the United States (short tons) Share of reported exports to the United States (percent) Total shipments (short tons) Share of firm's total shipments exported to the United States (percent) JSC Vyksa *** *** *** *** *** *** TMK Group *** *** *** *** *** *** All firms *** *** *** *** *** *** Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Changes in operations As presented in table VII-12, producers in Russia reported several operational and organizational changes since January 1, 2018. In addition to the changes listed in table VII-12, in April 2019, JSC Vyksa began construction of a new seamless pipe mill with planned capacity of 500,000 metric tons per year with commissioning planned for some time in 2021. The total investment in the seamless pipe mill was reported to be $871 million.19 17 These firms were identified through a review of information submitted in the petition and presented in third-party sources. All firms are API 5CT certified. 18 These firms’ exports to the United States *** U.S. imports from Russia in 2020, based on official Commerce statistics. This may be due to timing differences in shipping/Customs clearance and recordkeeping. 19 AO OMK, “OMK Proceeding with Seamless Facility Construction in Nizhniy Novgorod Region,” April 22, 2019, file://s1p-fsc- 01/Home/mark.brininstool/Downloads/OMK%20Proceeding%20with%20Seamless%20Facility%20Constru (continued...) VII-17 Table VII-12 OCTG: Reported changes in operations by producers in Russia, since January 1, 2018 Item Firm name and accompanying narrative response Expansions *** Acquisitions *** Consolidations *** Revised labor agreements *** Other *** Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Operations on OCTG Table VII-13 presents information on the OCTG operations of the responding producers and exporters in Russia. Capacity for OCTG increased by *** percent during 2018-20 and was *** percent lower in January-June 2021 than in January-June 2020. Production decreased by *** percent during 2018-20 and was *** percent lower in January-June 2021 than in January- June 2020. Production is projected to increase in 2022 when compared to 2020, while capacity is projected to decrease. Both firms reported that ***.20 Home market shipments as a share of total shipments increased during 2018-20, from *** percent to *** percent. Export shipments to the United States as a share of total shipments decreased from *** percent in 2018 to *** percent in 2020, were *** percent in interim 2021 compared to *** percent in interim 2020, and are projected to increase to *** percent in 2022. (…continued) ction%20in%20Nizhniy%20Novgorod%20Region.pdf. AO OMK, “Russia's OMK targets oil and gas companies with new OCTG operations,” January 10, 2020, https://omk.ru/vyksa/smi/27237/. 20 JSC Vyksa and TMK Group’s foreign producer questionnaire response, II-2b. VII-18 Table VII-13 OCTG: Data for producers in Russia, by period Quantity in short tons Item 2018 2019 2020 Jan-Jun 2020 Jan-Jun 2021 Projected 2021 Projected 2022 Capacity *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Production *** *** *** *** *** *** *** End-of-period inventories *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Internal consumption *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Commercial home market shipments *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Home market shipments *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Exports to the United States *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Exports to all other markets *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Export shipments *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Total shipments *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Table continued. VII-19 Table VII-13 Continued OCTG: Data for producers in Russia, by period Shares and ratios in percent Item 2018 2019 2020 Jan-Jun 2020 Jan-Jun 2021 Projected 2021 Projected 2022 Capacity utilization ratio *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Inventory ratio to production *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Inventory ratio to total shipments *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Internal consumption share *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Commercial home market shipments share *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Home market shipments share *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Exports to the United States share *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Exports to all other markets share *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Export shipments share *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Total shipments share *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Note: Shares and ratios shown as "0.0" represent values greater than zero, but less than "0.05" percent. Zeroes, null values, and undefined calculations are suppressed and shown as “---“. Alternative products As shown in table VII-14, responding firms in Russia produced other products on the same equipment and machinery used to produce OCTG. Responding firms in Russia reported production of alternative products, including ***. The majority of Russian producers’ capacity is dedicated to the production of OCTG. JSC Vyksa reported ***.21 21 JSC Vyksa and TMK Group’s foreign producer questionnaire response, II-4. VII-20 Table VII-14 OCTG: Russian producers’ overall capacity and production on the same equipment as subject production, by period Quantity in short tons; shares and ratios in percent Item Measure 2018 2019 2020 Jan-Jun 2020 Jan-Jun 2021 Seamless capacity Quantity *** *** *** *** *** Welded capacity Quantity *** *** *** *** *** Overall capacity Quantity *** *** *** *** *** Seamless OCTG production Quantity *** *** *** *** *** Welded OCTG production Quantity *** *** *** *** *** All OCTG production Quantity *** *** *** *** *** Other production Quantity *** *** *** *** *** Total production Quantity *** *** *** *** *** Overall capacity utilization Ratio *** *** *** *** *** Seamless OCTG production Share *** *** *** *** *** Welded OCTG production Share *** *** *** *** *** All OCTG production Share *** *** *** *** *** Other production Share *** *** *** *** *** Total production Share *** *** *** *** *** Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Exports According to GTA, the leading export markets for casing and tubing from Russia are Kazakhstan, the United States, and Uzbekistan (table VII-15).22 During 2020, Kazakhstan, the United States, and Uzbekistan accounted for 24.9 percent, 21.3 percent, and 15.0 percent. 22 HS subheadings 7304.29, 7305.20, and 7306.29 do not include coupling stock. VII-21 Table VII-15 Casing and tubing: Exports from Russia, by period Quantity in short tons; value in 1,000 dollars Destination market Measure 2018 2019 2020 United States Quantity 268,792 190,364 49,444 Kazakhstan Quantity 108,358 113,268 57,964 Uzbekistan Quantity 49,838 30,870 34,817 Belarus Quantity 20,082 17,952 23,997 Turkmenistan Quantity --- 6,902 21,647 Egypt Quantity 11,902 23,437 11,933 Iraq Quantity --- 5,783 8,832 Azerbaijan Quantity 21,390 19,844 6,037 Vietnam Quantity 5,853 3,499 5,005 All other destination markets Quantity 32,701 28,327 12,733 All destination markets Quantity 518,914 440,245 232,409 United States Value 212,287 153,995 31,116 Kazakhstan Value 97,794 103,358 46,756 Uzbekistan Value 54,687 39,307 34,750 Belarus Value 20,493 20,143 21,510 Turkmenistan Value --- 9,300 23,333 Egypt Value 10,543 18,169 10,023 Iraq Value --- 6,724 7,230 Azerbaijan Value 23,737 21,738 6,556 Vietnam Value 5,430 3,742 4,884 All other destination markets Value 31,349 25,907 10,016 All destination markets Value 456,320 402,383 196,174 Table continued. VII-22 Table VII-15 Continued Casing and tubing: Exports from Russia, by period Unit values in dollars per short ton; shares in percent Destination market Measure 2018 2019 2020 United States Unit value 790 809 629 Kazakhstan Unit value 903 913 807 Uzbekistan Unit value 1,097 1,273 998 Belarus Unit value 1,020 1,122 896 Turkmenistan Unit value --- 1,347 1,078 Egypt Unit value 886 775 840 Iraq Unit value --- 1,163 819 Azerbaijan Unit value 1,110 1,095 1,086 Vietnam Unit value 928 1,069 976 All other destination markets Unit value 959 915 787 All destination markets Unit value 879 914 844 United States Share of quantity 51.8 43.2 21.3 Kazakhstan Share of quantity 20.9 25.7 24.9 Uzbekistan Share of quantity 9.6 7.0 15.0 Belarus Share of quantity 3.9 4.1 10.3 Turkmenistan Share of quantity --- 1.6 9.3 Egypt Share of quantity 2.3 5.3 5.1 Iraq Share of quantity --- 1.3 3.8 Azerbaijan Share of quantity 4.1 4.5 2.6 Vietnam Share of quantity 1.1 0.8 2.2 All other destination markets Share of quantity 6.3 6.4 5.5 All destination markets Share of quantity 100.0 100.0 100.0 Source: Official exports statistics under HS subheadings 7304.29, 7305.20, and 7306.29 as reported by Customs Committee of Russia in the Global Trade Atlas database, accessed October 20, 2021. Note: Shares and ratios shown as "0.0" represent values greater than zero, but less than "0.05" percent. Zeroes, null values, and undefined calculations are suppressed and shown as “---“. United States is shown at the top, all remaining top export destinations shown in descending order of 2020 data. VII-23 The industry in South Korea The Commission issued foreign producers’ or exporters’ questionnaires to nine firms believed to produce and/or export OCTG from South Korea.23 Usable responses to the Commission’s questionnaire were received from one firm: Hyundai Steel. Hyundai Steel’s exports to the United States accounted for *** percent of U.S. imports of OCTG from South Korea in 2020.24 Table VII-16 presents information on the OCTG operations of the responding producer/exporter in South Korea. Table VII-16 OCTG: Summary data for producer in South Korea, 2020 Quantity in short tons; share in percent Firm Production (short tons) Share of reported production (percent) Exports to the United States (short tons) Share of reported exports to the United States (percent) Total shipments (short tons) Share of firm's total shipments exported to the United States (percent) Hyundai Steel *** *** *** *** *** *** All firms *** *** *** *** *** *** Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Changes in operations Hyundai Steel did not report any operational and organizational changes since January 1, 2018. Operations on OCTG Table VII-17 presents information on the OCTG operations of the responding producer in South Korea. Capacity for OCTG decreased slightly during 2018-20. Production decreased by *** percent during 2018-20 and was *** percent lower in January-June 2021 than in January- June 2020. Production is projected to increase in 2022 when compared to 2020, while capacity is projected to decrease. 23 These firms were identified through a review of information submitted in the petition and resented in third-party sources. All firms are API 5CT certified. 24 Hyundai Steel estimated that it accounted for *** percent of overall production of OCTG in South Korea in 2020. This estimate is likely overstated as it does not take into account production of known OCTG producers in South Korea, such as ***. VII-24 Export shipments to the United States accounted for *** shipments during the period for which data were collected. Table VII-17 OCTG: Data for producer in South Korea, by period Quantity in short tons Item 2018 2019 2020 Jan-Jun 2020 Jan-Jun 2021 Projected 2021 Projected 2022 Capacity *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Production *** *** *** *** *** *** *** End-of-period inventories *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Internal consumption *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Commercial home market shipments *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Home market shipments *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Exports to the United States *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Exports to all other markets *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Export shipments *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Total shipments *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Table continued. VII-25 Table VII-17 Continued OCTG: Data for producer in South Korea, by period Shares and ratios in percent Item 2018 2019 2020 Jan-Jun 2020 Jan-Jun 2021 Projected 2021 Projected 2022 Capacity utilization ratio *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Inventory ratio to production *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Inventory ratio to total shipments *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Internal consumption share *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Commercial home market shipments share *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Home market shipments share *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Exports to the United States share *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Exports to all other markets share *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Export shipments share *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Total shipments share *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Note: Shares and ratios shown as "0.0" represent values greater than zero, but less than "0.05" percent. Zeroes, null values, and undefined calculations are suppressed and shown as “---“. Alternative products Table VII-18 presents the responding producer’s production of other products on the same equipment and machinery used to produce OCTG. Hyundai Steel reported production of alternative products, including ***. The large majority of Hyundai Steel’s *** capacity is dedicated to the production of other products. Regarding factors impacting its ability to switch production included market conditions, orders, and sales strategy. VII-26 Table VII-18 OCTG: South Korean producer’s overall capacity and production on the same equipment as subject production, by period Quantity in short tons; shares and ratios in percent Item Measure 2018 2019 2020 Jan-Jun 2020 Jan-Jun 2021 Seamless capacity Quantity *** *** *** *** *** Welded capacity Quantity *** *** *** *** *** Overall capacity Quantity *** *** *** *** *** Seamless OCTG production Quantity *** *** *** *** *** Welded OCTG production Quantity *** *** *** *** *** All OCTG production Quantity *** *** *** *** *** Other production Quantity *** *** *** *** *** Total production Quantity *** *** *** *** *** Overall capacity utilization Ratio *** *** *** *** *** Seamless OCTG production Share *** *** *** *** *** Welded OCTG production Share *** *** *** *** *** All OCTG production Share *** *** *** *** *** Other production Share *** *** *** *** *** Total production Share *** *** *** *** *** Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Note: Shares and ratios shown as "0.0" represent values greater than zero, but less than "0.05" percent. Zeroes, null values, and undefined calculations are suppressed and shown as “---“. Exports According to GTA, the leading export markets for casing and tubing from South Korea are the United States and Kuwait (table VII-19).25 During 2020, the United States and Kuwait accounted for 90.4 percent and 9.4 percent, respectively. 25 HS subheadings 7304.29, 7305.20, and 7306.29 do not include coupling stock. VII-27 Table VII-19 Casing and tubing: Exports from South Korea, by period Quantity in short tons; value in 1,000 dollars Destination market Measure 2018 2019 2020 United States Quantity 381,946 380,379 325,769 Kuwait Quantity 9,890 28,217 33,750 Colombia Quantity --- --- 291 Oman Quantity 414 --- 75 Bangladesh Quantity --- --- 69 India Quantity --- 0 61 Singapore Quantity 971 129 55 Vietnam Quantity 165 159 50 Thailand Quantity 17 7 23 All other destination markets Quantity 6,594 1,100 40 All destination markets Quantity 399,997 409,991 360,184 United States Value 347,644 312,601 215,565 Kuwait Value 8,491 25,004 26,415 Colombia Value --- --- 283 Oman Value 422 --- 908 Bangladesh Value --- --- 3,691 India Value --- 6 256 Singapore Value 793 140 126 Vietnam Value 630 132 308 Thailand Value 20 13 315 All other destination markets Value 21,075 1,824 939 All destination markets Value 379,074 339,720 248,804 Table continued. VII-28 Table VII-19 Continued Casing and tubing: Exports from South Korea, by period Unit values in dollars per short ton; shares in percent Destination market Measure 2018 2019 2020 United States Unit value 910 822 662 Kuwait Unit value 859 886 783 Colombia Unit value --- --- 973 Oman Unit value 1,018 --- 12,138 Bangladesh Unit value --- --- 53,456 India Unit value --- 47,020 4,173 Singapore Unit value 816 1,087 2,285 Vietnam Unit value 3,817 830 6,213 Thailand Unit value 1,201 2,011 13,676 All other destination markets Unit value 3,196 1,658 23,261 All destination markets Unit value 948 829 691 United States Share of quantity 95.5 92.8 90.4 Kuwait Share of quantity 2.5 6.9 9.4 Colombia Share of quantity --- --- 0.1 Oman Share of quantity 0.1 --- 0.0 Bangladesh Share of quantity --- --- 0.0 India Share of quantity --- 0.0 0.0 Singapore Share of quantity 0.2 0.0 0.0 Vietnam Share of quantity 0.0 0.0 0.0 Thailand Share of quantity 0.0 0.0 0.0 All other destination markets Share of quantity 1.6 0.3 0.0 All destination markets Share of quantity 100.0 100.0 100.0 Source: Official exports statistics under HS subheadings 7304.29, 7305.20, and 7306.29 as reported by Korea Trade Statistics Promotion Institute (KTSPI) in the Global Trade Atlas database, accessed October 20, 2021. Note: Shares and ratios shown as "0.0" represent values greater than zero, but less than "0.05" percent. Zeroes, null values, and undefined calculations are suppressed and shown as “---". United States is shown at the top, all remaining top export destinations shown in descending order of 2020 data. VII-29 Subject countries combined Tables VII-20 and VII-21 present summary data on OCTG operations of the reporting subject producers in the subject countries. Table VII-20 OCTG: Data on the industry in subject countries, by period Quantity in short tons Item 2018 2019 2020 Jan-Jun 2020 Jan-Jun 2021 Projected 2021 Projected 2022 Capacity *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Production *** *** *** *** *** *** *** End-of-period inventories *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Internal consumption *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Commercial home market shipments *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Home market shipments *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Exports to the United States *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Exports to all other markets *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Export shipments *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Total shipments *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Table continued. VII-30 Table VII-20 Continued OCTG: Data on the industry in subject countries, by period Shares and ratios in percent Item 2018 2019 2020 Jan-Jun 2020 Jan-Jun 2021 Projected 2021 Projected 2022 Capacity utilization ratio *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Inventory ratio to production *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Inventory ratio to total shipments *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Internal consumption share *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Commercial home market shipments share *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Home market shipments share *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Exports to the United States share *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Exports to all other markets share *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Export shipments share *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Total shipments share *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. VII-31 Table VII-21 OCTG: Overall capacity and production on the same equipment as in-scope production by producers in aggregated subject countries, by period Quantity in short tons; Shares and ratios in percent Item Measure 2018 2019 2020 Jan-Jun 2020 Jan-Jun 2021 Seamless capacity Quantity *** *** *** *** *** Welded capacity Quantity *** *** *** *** *** Overall capacity Quantity *** *** *** *** *** Seamless OCTG production Quantity *** *** *** *** *** Welded OCTG production Quantity *** *** *** *** *** All OCTG production Quantity *** *** *** *** *** Other production Quantity *** *** *** *** *** Total production Quantity *** *** *** *** *** Overall capacity utilization Ratio *** *** *** *** *** Seamless OCTG production Share *** *** *** *** *** Welded OCTG production Share *** *** *** *** *** All OCTG production Share *** *** *** *** *** Other production Share *** *** *** *** *** Total production Share *** *** *** *** *** Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. U.S. inventories of imported merchandise Table VII-22 presents data on U.S. importers’ reported inventories of OCTG. Inventories of subject imports decreased by *** percent between 2018 and 2020 and were *** percent lower in interim 2021 than in interim 2020. The ratio of subject importers’ inventories to imports increased from *** percent in 2018 to *** percent in 2020 and was lower in interim 2021 (*** percent) than in interim 2020 (*** percent). VII-32 Table VII-22 OCTG: U.S. importers’ inventories, by period Quantity in short tons; ratios in percent Measure Source 2018 2019 2020 Jan-Jun 2020 Jan-Jun 2021 Inventories quantity Argentina *** *** *** *** *** Ratio to imports Argentina *** *** *** *** *** Ratio to U.S. shipments of imports Argentina *** *** *** *** *** Ratio to total shipments of imports Argentina *** *** *** *** *** Inventories quantity Mexico *** *** *** *** *** Ratio to imports Mexico *** *** *** *** *** Ratio to U.S. shipments of imports Mexico *** *** *** *** *** Ratio to total shipments of imports Mexico *** *** *** *** *** Inventories quantity Russia *** *** *** *** *** Ratio to imports Russia *** *** *** *** *** Ratio to U.S. shipments of imports Russia *** *** *** *** *** Ratio to total shipments of imports Russia *** *** *** *** *** Inventories quantity South Korea *** *** *** *** *** Ratio to imports South Korea *** *** *** *** *** Ratio to U.S. shipments of imports South Korea *** *** *** *** *** Ratio to total shipments of imports South Korea *** *** *** *** *** Inventories quantity Subject *** *** *** *** *** Ratio to imports Subject *** *** *** *** *** Ratio to U.S. shipments of imports Subject *** *** *** *** *** Ratio to total shipments of imports Subject *** *** *** *** *** Inventories quantity Nonsubject *** *** *** *** *** Ratio to imports Nonsubject *** *** *** *** *** Ratio to U.S. shipments of imports Nonsubject *** *** *** *** *** Ratio to total shipments of imports Nonsubject *** *** *** *** *** Inventories quantity All *** *** *** *** *** Ratio to imports All *** *** *** *** *** Ratio to U.S. shipments of imports All *** *** *** *** *** Ratio to total shipments of imports All *** *** *** *** *** Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. U.S. importers’ outstanding orders The Commission requested importers to indicate whether they imported or arranged for the importation of OCTG after June 30, 2021 (table VII-23). Fifteen of 26 responding firms indicated that they had arranged such imports. Eight firms reported arranged imports from subject sources, while 10 firms reported arranged imports from nonsubject sources. VII-33 Table VII-23 OCTG: Quantity of U.S. importers’ arranged imports, by period Quantity in short tons Source Jul-Sep 2021 Oct-Dec 2021 Jan-Mar 2022 Apr-Jun 2022 Total Argentina *** *** *** *** *** Mexico *** *** *** *** *** Russia *** *** *** *** *** South Korea *** *** *** *** *** Subject sources *** *** *** *** *** Nonsubject sources *** *** *** *** *** All import sources *** *** *** *** *** Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Third-country trade actions Canada In Canada, OCTG originating in or exported from South Korea is subject to antidumping duties and OCTG originating in or exported from Mexico is subject to provisional antidumping duties. On December 14, 2015, The Canadian Border Services Agency (CBSA) concluded a re- investigation of antidumping orders for certain OCTG originating in or exported from South Korea (as well as India, Indonesia, Taiwan, the Philippines, Thailand, Turkey, Ukraine, and Vietnam). CBSA announced that it would continue the antidumping orders at a rate of 37.4 percent for exporters from all subject countries, with the exception of certain companies that were instead subject to individually determined duties.26 On May 25, 2020, the CBSA concluded a re-investigation of those anti-dumping duties and announced that it would continue the antidumping orders at the rate of 37.4 percent for exporters from all subject countries, with the exception of certain companies that will instead be subject to individually determined duties.27 On September 28, 2021, CBSA made a preliminary determination of dumping of OCTG originating in or exported from Mexico and imposed provisional antidumping duties on the subject products. The provisional antidumping duties were determined to be 51.1 percent for Tubos de Acero de Mexico S.A. and 128.4 percent for all other Mexican exporters. CBSA also 26 Canada Border Services Agency, “Notice of Conclusion of Re-investigation,” December 14, 2015,” https://www.cbsa-asfc.gc.ca/sima-lmsi/ri-re/ad1371-1385-1390-1404/ad1371-1385-1390-1404-ri15-nc- eng.html. The following South Korean companies were subject to duties determined based on specific normal values: Daewoo International Corp., Hyundai Hysco, NEXTEEL Co. Ltd., and SeAH Steel Corp. 27 Canada Border Services Agency, “Notice of Conclusion of Re-investigation,” May 25, 2020, https://www.cbsa-asfc.gc.ca/sima-lmsi/ri-re/os2019/os2019-nc-eng.html. In this re-investigation, SeAH Steel Corp. was the only South Korean companies subject to duties determined based on specific normal values. VII-34 stated that it would continue its investigation into OCTG originating in or exported from Mexico and make a final decision by December 24, 2021.28 European Union On July 18, 2018, the EU imposed provisional safeguard measures on imports of certain steel products, including OCTG.29 On February 1, 2019, the EU imposed definitive safeguard measures on imports of certain steel products and later extended those safeguard measures for three years beginning on July 1, 2021.30 The EU safeguard measures are in the form of tariff- rate quotas, and imports of certain steel products exceeding the quotas are subject to an additional duty of 25 percent. The EU safeguard measures divide steel products into 28 product categories, of which 3 categories contain OCTG: Other Seamless Tubes, Large Welded Tubes, and Other Welded Pipes. These 3 categories also contain steel products that are not OCTG. Russia and South Korea are subject to EU safeguard measures for all three categories of steel products that contain OCTG. Argentina is not subject to the EU safeguard measures on certain steel products because it is included in a list of developing country members of the World Trade Organization (“WTO”) which are excluded from the safeguard measures. Mexico is also included in the list of developing country members of the WTO, but because imports into the EU of Other Seamless Tubes from Mexico exceed 3 percent of total imports into the EU of that product, it is subject to tariff-rate quotas for Other Seamless Tubes. Mexico is exempt from safeguard measures on Large Welded Tubes and Other Welded Pipes.31 Imports into the EU of Other Seamless Tubes from Mexico, Russia, South Korea, and all other countries subject to the safeguard measures other than Belarus, China, Japan, Ukraine, and the United States were subject to shared tariff-rate quotas of 55,345.57 metric tons from February 2, 2019 to June 30, 2019, 142,356.97 metric tons from July 1, 2019 to June 30, 2020, 28 Canada Border Services Agency, “Statement of Reasons–preliminary determination,” October 13, 2021, https://www.cbsa-asfc.gc.ca/sima-lmsi/i-e/octg32021/octg32021-pd-eng.pdf. 29 European Commission, “Commission implementing regulation (EU) 2018/1013 of 17 July 2018 imposing provisional safeguard measures with regard to imports of certain steel products,” July 18, 2018, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32018R1013&from=EN. 30 European Commission, “Commission implementing regulation (EU) 2019/159 of 31 January 2019 imposing definitive safeguard measures with regard to imports of certain steel products,” February 1, 2019, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32019R0159&from=EN. European Commission, “EU prolongs steel safeguard for three years,” June 25, 2021, https://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/press/index.cfm?id=2280. 31 European Commission, “Commission implementing regulation (EU) 2019/159 of 31 January 2019 imposing definitive safeguard measures with regard to imports of certain steel products,” pp. 28, 36, February 1, 2019, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal- content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32019R0159&from=EN. VII-35 and 149,474.82 metric tons from July 1, 2020 to June 30, 2021.32 After July 1, 2021, the tariff rate quotas on certain steel products increase by 3 percent annually.33 Imports into the EU of Large Welded Tubes from Russia were subject to country-specific tariff-rate quotas of 140,602.32 metric tons from February 2, 2019 to June 30, 2019, 361,649.91 metric tons from July 1, 2019 to June 30, 2020, and 379,732.41 metric tons from July 1, 2020 to June 30, 2021. Imports into the EU of Large Welded Tubes from South Korea and all other countries subject to the safeguard measures other than China, Russia, and Turkey were subject to shared tariff-rate quotas of 34,011.86 metric tons from February 2, 2019 to June 30, 2019, 87,483.52 metric tons from July 1, 2019 to June 30, 2020, and 91,857.70 metric tons from July 1, 2020 to June 30, 2021.34 After July 1, 2021, the tariff rate quotas on certain steel products increase by 3 percent annually.35 Imports into the EU of Other Welded Pipes from Russia, South Korea, and all other countries subject to the safeguard measures other than China, India, Switzerland, Taiwan, Turkey, and the United Arab Emirates were subject to shared tariff-rate quotas of 36,898.57 metric tons from February 2, 2019 to June 30, 2019, 94,908.57 metric tons from July 1, 2019 to June 30, 2020, and 99,653.99 metric tons from July 1, 2020 to June 30, 2021.36 After July 1, 2021, the tariff rate quotas on certain steel products increase by 3 percent annually.37 32 Belarus, China, Japan, Ukraine, and the United States were subject to country-specific tariff-rate quotas for Other Seamless Tubes. European Commission, “Commission implementing regulation (EU) 2019/159 of 31 January 2019 imposing definitive safeguard measures with regard to imports of certain steel products,” p. 44, February 1, 2019, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal- content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32019R0159&from=EN. 33 European Commission, “EU prolongs steel safeguard for three years,” June 25, 2021, https://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/press/index.cfm?id=2280. 34 China, Russia, and Turkey were subject to country-specific tariff-rate quotas for Large Welded Tubes. European Commission, “Commission implementing regulation (EU) 2019/159 of 31 January 2019 imposing definitive safeguard measures with regard to imports of certain steel products,” p. 44, February 1, 2019, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal- content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32019R0159&from=EN. 35 European Commission, “EU prolongs steel safeguard for three years,” June 25, 2021, https://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/press/index.cfm?id=2280. 36 China, India, Switzerland, Taiwan, Turkey, and the United Arab Emirates were subject to country- specific tariff-rate quotas for Other Welded Pipes. European Commission, “Commission implementing regulation (EU) 2019/159 of 31 January 2019 imposing definitive safeguard measures with regard to imports of certain steel products,” p. 45, February 1, 2019, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal- content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32019R0159&from=EN. 37 European Commission, “EU prolongs steel safeguard for three years,” June 25, 2021, https://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/press/index.cfm?id=2280. VII-36 Information on nonsubject countries Austria In 2020, the United States and Canada were the top destination markets for casing and tubing from Austria, accounting for 46.1 percent and 22.0 percent, respectively, of Austria’s casing and tubing exports under HS subheadings 7304.29, 7305.20, and 7306.29, by quantity (table VII-24).38 According to GTA, Austria was the seventh largest global exporter of casing and tubing, by quantity, in 2020 (table VII-29). Table VII-24 Casing and tubing: Exports from Austria, by period Quantity in short tons; value in 1,000 dollars Destination market Measure 2018 2019 2020 United States Quantity 178,767 100,702 62,599 Canada Quantity 63,433 48,384 29,956 Egypt Quantity 16,590 11,395 7,934 Saudi Arabia Quantity 4,772 2,604 5,784 Russia Quantity 21,151 28,926 5,398 Ukraine Quantity 6,765 9,709 4,402 Libya Quantity --- 1,342 4,124 Poland Quantity 1,928 827 3,134 Kuwait Quantity --- 1,327 2,592 All other destination markets Quantity 34,396 41,759 9,993 All destination markets Quantity 327,803 246,976 135,915 United States Value 217,658 112,779 58,726 Canada Value 77,078 63,556 36,736 Egypt Value 24,099 16,960 10,342 Saudi Arabia Value 6,876 3,797 7,855 Russia Value 24,782 33,744 6,437 Ukraine Value 9,661 13,744 6,431 Libya Value --- 1,778 5,289 Poland Value 2,255 989 4,231 Kuwait Value --- 1,719 3,154 All other destination markets Value 49,901 63,513 15,237 All destination markets Value 412,311 312,580 154,437 Table continued. 38 HS subheadings 7304.29, 7305.20, and 7306.29 do not include coupling stock. VII-37 Table VII-24 Continued Casing and tubing: Exports from Austria, by period Unit values in dollars per short ton; shares in percent Destination market Measure 2018 2019 2020 United States Unit value 1,218 1,120 938 Canada Unit value 1,215 1,314 1,226 Egypt Unit value 1,453 1,488 1,304 Saudi Arabia Unit value 1,441 1,458 1,358 Russia Unit value 1,172 1,167 1,193 Ukraine Unit value 1,428 1,416 1,461 Libya Unit value --- 1,324 1,283 Poland Unit value 1,170 1,195 1,350 Kuwait Unit value --- 1,295 1,217 All other destination markets Unit value 1,451 1,521 1,525 All destination markets Unit value 1,258 1,266 1,136 United States Share of quantity 54.5 40.8 46.1 Canada Share of quantity 19.4 19.6 22.0 Egypt Share of quantity 5.1 4.6 5.8 Saudi Arabia Share of quantity 1.5 1.1 4.3 Russia Share of quantity 6.5 11.7 4.0 Ukraine Share of quantity 2.1 3.9 3.2 Libya Share of quantity --- 0.5 3.0 Poland Share of quantity 0.6 0.3 2.3 Kuwait Share of quantity --- 0.5 1.9 All other destination markets Share of quantity 10.5 16.9 7.4 All destination markets Share of quantity 100.0 100.0 100.0 Source: Official exports statistics under HS subheadings 7304.29, 7305.20, and 7306.29 as reported by Eurostat in the Global Trade Atlas database, accessed October 20, 2021. Note: Shares and ratios shown as "0.0" represent values greater than zero, but less than "0.05" percent. Zeroes, null values, and undefined calculations are suppressed and shown as “---“. United States is shown at the top, all remaining top export destinations shown in descending order of 2020 data. Canada In 2020, the United States was the top destination market for casing and tubing from Canada, accounting for 90.5 percent of Canada’s casing and tubing exports under HS subheadings 7304.29, 7305.20, and 7306.29, by quantity (table VII-25).39 According to GTA, Canada was the fourteenth largest global exporter of casing and tubing, by quantity, in 2020.40 39 HS subheadings 7304.29, 7305.20, and 7306.29 do not include coupling stock. 40 Global Trade Atlas database, accessed October 20, 2021. VII-38 Table VII-25 Casing and tubing: Exports from Canada, by period Quantity in short tons; value in 1,000 dollars Destination market Measure 2018 2019 2020 United States Quantity 181,153 85,963 57,255 Norway Quantity 0.1 --- 4,692 Australia Quantity 673 803 693 France Quantity 180 274 192 Indonesia Quantity --- 3 126 China Quantity 560 2 63 Germany Quantity --- --- 46 Netherlands Quantity --- 77 45 India Quantity 10 155 37 All other destination markets Quantity 473 700 83 All destination markets Quantity 183,051 87,978 63,231 United States Value 229,192 109,478 63,459 Norway Value 1 --- 13,971 Australia Value 3,567 5,242 5,933 France Value 632 988 692 Indonesia Value --- 6 280 China Value 882 20 1,102 Germany Value --- --- 97 Netherlands Value --- 530 97 India Value 24 647 602 All other destination markets Value 2,432 3,983 968 All destination markets Value 236,731 120,894 87,203 Table continued. VII-39 Table VII-25 Continued Casing and tubing: Exports from Canada, by period Unit values in dollars per short ton; shares in percent Destination market Measure 2018 2019 2020 United States Unit value 1,265 1,274 1,108 Norway Unit value 9,652 --- 2,977 Australia Unit value 5,297 6,530 8,565 France Unit value 3,503 3,599 3,598 Indonesia Unit value --- 2,043 2,233 China Unit value 1,573 9,116 17,413 Germany Unit value --- --- 2,110 Netherlands Unit value --- 6,918 2,186 India Unit value 2,361 4,172 16,130 All other destination markets Unit value 5,145 5,686 11,723 All destination markets Unit value 1,293 1,374 1,379 United States Share of quantity 99.0 97.7 90.5 Norway Share of quantity 0.0 --- 7.4 Australia Share of quantity 0.4 0.9 1.1 France Share of quantity 0.1 0.3 0.3 Indonesia Share of quantity --- 0.0 0.2 China Share of quantity 0.3 0.0 0.1 Germany Share of quantity --- --- 0.1 Netherlands Share of quantity --- 0.1 0.1 India Share of quantity 0.0 0.2 0.1 All other destination markets Share of quantity 0.3 0.8 0.1 All destination markets Share of quantity 100.0 100.0 100.0 Source: Official exports statistics under HS subheadings 7304.29, 7305.20, and 7306.29 as reported by Statistics Canada in the Global Trade Atlas database, accessed October 20, 2021. Note: Shares and ratios shown as "0.0" represent values greater than zero, but less than "0.05" percent. Zeroes, null values, and undefined calculations are suppressed and shown as “---“. United States is shown at the top, all remaining top export destinations shown in descending order of 2020 data. China In 2020, Kuwait and Oman were the top destination markets for casing and tubing from China, accounting for 18.6 percent and 13.5 percent, respectively, of China’s casing and tubing exports under HS subheadings 7304.29, 7305.20, and 7306.29, by quantity (table VII-26).41 According to GTA, China was the largest global exporter of casing and tubing, by quantity, in 2020 (table VII-29). 41 HS subheadings 7304.29, 7305.20, and 7306.29 do not include coupling stock. VII-40 Table VII-26 Casing and tubing: Exports from China, by period Quantity in short tons; value in 1,000 dollars Destination market Measure 2018 2019 2020 United States Quantity 9,012 9,139 4,297 Kuwait Quantity 106,075 202,070 168,917 Oman Quantity 147,594 223,720 122,326 Australia Quantity 109,065 61,530 62,082 Thailand Quantity 83,447 45,195 51,281 Egypt Quantity 113,780 84,134 48,043 Turkmenistan Quantity 2,662 22,810 38,631 Turkey Quantity 31,684 50,001 35,519 Indonesia Quantity 32,842 57,726 33,143 All other destination markets Quantity 746,394 686,332 343,412 All destination markets Quantity 1,382,554 1,442,657 907,652 United States Value 18,569 19,185 7,241 Kuwait Value 91,915 185,872 151,161 Oman Value 130,768 203,830 95,270 Australia Value 95,000 56,817 47,053 Thailand Value 79,439 48,256 51,482 Egypt Value 90,080 70,809 34,341 Turkmenistan Value 3,029 25,654 33,540 Turkey Value 30,043 50,705 28,480 Indonesia Value 27,652 46,150 26,160 All other destination markets Value 826,867 807,483 396,673 All destination markets Value 1,393,362 1,514,760 871,400 Table continued. VII-41 Table VII-26 Continued Casing and tubing: Exports from China, by period Unit values in dollars per short ton; shares in percent Destination market Measure 2018 2019 2020 United States Unit value 2,060 2,099 1,685 Kuwait Unit value 867 920 895 Oman Unit value 886 911 779 Australia Unit value 871 923 758 Thailand Unit value 952 1,068 1,004 Egypt Unit value 792 842 715 Turkmenistan Unit value 1,138 1,125 868 Turkey Unit value 948 1,014 802 Indonesia Unit value 842 799 789 All other destination markets Unit value 1,108 1,177 1,155 All destination markets Unit value 1,008 1,050 960 United States Share of quantity 0.7 0.6 0.5 Kuwait Share of quantity 7.7 14.0 18.6 Oman Share of quantity 10.7 15.5 13.5 Australia Share of quantity 7.9 4.3 6.8 Thailand Share of quantity 6.0 3.1 5.6 Egypt Share of quantity 8.2 5.8 5.3 Turkmenistan Share of quantity 0.2 1.6 4.3 Turkey Share of quantity 2.3 3.5 3.9 Indonesia Share of quantity 2.4 4.0 3.7 All other destination markets Share of quantity 54.0 47.6 37.8 All destination markets Share of quantity 100.0 100.0 100.0 Source: Official exports statistics under HS subheadings 7304.29, 7305.20, and 7306.29 as reported by China Customs in the Global Trade Atlas database, accessed October 20, 2021. Note: Shares and ratios shown as "0.0" represent values greater than zero, but less than "0.05" percent. Zeroes, null values, and undefined calculations are suppressed and shown as “---“. United States is shown at the top, all remaining top export destinations shown in descending order of 2020 data. Japan In 2020, Kuwait and Norway were the top destination markets for casing and tubing from Japan, accounting for 27.2 percent and 21.5 percent, respectively, of Japan’s casing and tubing exports under HS subheadings 7304.29, 7305.20, and 7306.29, by quantity (table VII- 27).42 According to GTA, Japan was the third largest global exporter of casing and tubing, by quantity, in 2020 (table VII-29). 42 HS subheadings 7304.29, 7305.20, and 7306.29 do not include coupling stock. VII-42 Table VII-27 Casing and tubing: Exports from Japan, by period Quantity in short tons; value in 1,000 dollars Destination market Measure 2018 2019 2020 United States Quantity 91,558 41,380 14,372 Kuwait Quantity 76,769 76,513 87,343 Norway Quantity 48,368 69,873 69,031 Iraq Quantity 7,783 53,105 32,439 Oman Quantity 47,198 35,624 21,650 Malaysia Quantity 7,700 24,063 13,434 United Kingdom Quantity 14,069 15,898 11,219 Azerbaijan Quantity 11,563 8,039 10,567 UAE Quantity 51,219 49,202 10,437 All other destination markets Quantity 144,973 110,142 50,553 All destination markets Quantity 501,202 483,839 321,044 United States Value 132,151 58,197 20,250 Kuwait Value 83,025 96,703 105,394 Norway Value 68,894 103,152 105,325 Iraq Value 9,074 75,866 46,895 Oman Value 61,004 59,538 36,079 Malaysia Value 9,116 27,980 20,736 United Kingdom Value 21,593 25,662 21,501 Azerbaijan Value 22,327 15,267 20,255 UAE Value 68,089 70,864 19,931 All other destination markets Value 163,870 132,481 73,139 All destination markets Value 639,144 665,710 469,505 Table continued. VII-43 Table VII-27 Continued Casing and tubing: Exports from Japan, by period Unit values in dollars per short ton; shares in percent Destination market Measure 2018 2019 2020 United States Unit value 1,443 1,406 1,409 Kuwait Unit value 1,081 1,264 1,207 Norway Unit value 1,424 1,476 1,526 Iraq Unit value 1,166 1,429 1,446 Oman Unit value 1,293 1,671 1,666 Malaysia Unit value 1,184 1,163 1,544 United Kingdom Unit value 1,535 1,614 1,917 Azerbaijan Unit value 1,931 1,899 1,917 UAE Unit value 1,329 1,440 1,910 All other destination markets Unit value 1,130 1,203 1,447 All destination markets Unit value 1,275 1,376 1,462 United States Share of quantity 18.3 8.6 4.5 Kuwait Share of quantity 15.3 15.8 27.2 Norway Share of quantity 9.7 14.4 21.5 Iraq Share of quantity 1.6 11.0 10.1 Oman Share of quantity 9.4 7.4 6.7 Malaysia Share of quantity 1.5 5.0 4.2 United Kingdom Share of quantity 2.8 3.3 3.5 Azerbaijan Share of quantity 2.3 1.7 3.3 UAE Share of quantity 10.2 10.2 3.3 All other destination markets Share of quantity 28.9 22.8 15.7 All destination markets Share of quantity 100.0 100.0 100.0 Source: Official exports statistics under HS subheadings 7304.29, 7305.20, and 7306.29 as reported by Japan Ministry of Finance in the Global Trade Atlas database, accessed October 20, 2021. Note: Shares and ratios shown as "0.0" represent values greater than zero, but less than "0.05" percent. Zeroes, null values, and undefined calculations are suppressed and shown as “---“. United States is shown at the top, all remaining top export destinations shown in descending order of 2020 data. Taiwan In 2020, the United States was the top destination market for casing and tubing from Taiwan, accounting for 98.0 percent of Taiwan’s casing and tubing exports under HS subheadings 7304.29, 7305.20, and 7306.29, by quantity (table VII-28).43 According to GTA, Taiwan was the twelfth largest global exporter of casing and tubing, by quantity, in 2020.44 43 HS subheadings 7304.29, 7305.20, and 7306.29 do not include coupling stock. 44 Global Trade Atlas database, accessed October 20, 2021. VII-44 Table VII-28 Casing and tubing: Exports from Taiwan, by period Quantity in short tons; value in 1,000 dollars Destination market Measure 2018 2019 2020 United States Quantity 224,771 200,295 84,679 Canada Quantity 8,422 5,573 1,242 Vietnam Quantity --- --- 331 All other destination markets Quantity 120 106 138 All destination markets Quantity 233,313 205,974 86,390 United States Value 165,546 144,749 43,576 Canada Value 5,849 3,952 913 Vietnam Value --- 1 100 All other destination markets Value 129 133 96 Table continued. Table VII-28 Continued Casing and tubing: Exports from Taiwan, by period Unit values in dollars per short ton; shares in percent Destination market Measure 2018 2019 2020 United States Unit value 737 723 515 Canada Unit value 694 709 735 Vietnam Unit value --- --- 303 All other destination markets Unit value 1,070 1,258 695 All destination markets Unit value 735 723 517 United States Share of quantity 96.3 97.2 98.0 Canada Share of quantity 3.6 2.7 1.4 Vietnam Share of quantity --- --- 0.4 All other destination markets Share of quantity 0.1 0.1 0.2 All destination markets Share of quantity 100.0 100.0 100.0 Source: Official exports statistics under HS subheadings 7304.29, 7305.20, and 7306.29 as reported by Taiwan Directorate General of Customs in the Global Trade Atlas database, accessed October 20, 2021. Note: Shares and ratios shown as "0.0" represent values greater than zero, but less than "0.05" percent. Zeroes, null values, and undefined calculations are suppressed and shown as “---“. United States is shown at the top, all remaining top export destinations shown in descending order of 2020 data. Global exports Table VII-29 presents the largest global export sources of casing and tubing. China and South Korea were the largest exporters in 2020 and accounted for 25.1 percent and 10.0 percent of total global exports by quantity, respectively. Mexico and Russia were other subject countries among the top ten exporters of casing and tubing in 2020. Mexico was the fourth largest exporter, representing 8.8 percent of total global exports in 2020, and Russia was the sixth largest exporter, representing 6.4 percent of total global exports in 2020. Argentina was VII-45 the thirteenth largest exporter of casing and tubing in 2020 and accounted for 1.9 percent of total global exports. Table VII-29 Casing and tubing: Global exports by exporter and period Quantity in short tons; value in 1,000 dollars Exporting country Measure 2018 2019 2020 United States Quantity 271,797 204,171 134,209 Argentina Quantity 385,324 303,117 67,579 Mexico Quantity 677,811 441,365 318,051 Russia Quantity 518,914 440,245 232,409 South Korea Quantity 399,997 409,991 360,184 Subject sources Quantity 1,982,046 1,594,718 978,223 China Quantity 1,382,554 1,442,657 907,652 Japan Quantity 501,202 483,839 321,044 Brazil Quantity 294,995 457,760 248,665 Austria Quantity 327,803 246,976 135,915 Italy Quantity 173,021 153,427 122,273 Indonesia Quantity 86,871 63,204 104,448 Singapore Quantity 91,070 123,230 88,307 All other exporters Quantity 1,398,545 1,268,468 571,926 All reporting exporters Quantity 6,509,904 6,038,450 3,612,663 United States Value 463,553 370,845 255,012 Argentina Value 500,493 418,764 100,559 Mexico Value 953,210 679,411 449,424 Russia Value 456,320 402,383 196,174 South Korea Value 379,074 339,720 248,804 Subject sources Value 2,289,096 1,840,278 994,963 China Value 1,393,362 1,514,760 871,400 Japan Value 639,144 665,710 469,505 Brazil Value 333,865 524,396 301,078 Austria Value 412,311 312,580 154,437 Italy Value 248,711 245,530 216,798 Indonesia Value 199,555 78,311 140,709 Singapore Value 173,331 244,361 209,776 All other exporters Value 1,861,813 1,729,536 809,722 All reporting exporters Value 8,014,740 7,526,306 4,423,400 Table continued. VII-46 Table VII-29 Continued Casing and tubing: Global exports by exporter and period Unit values in dollars per short ton; shares in percent Exporting country Measure 2018 2019 2020 United States Unit value 1,706 1,816 1,900 Argentina Unit value 1,299 1,382 1,488 Mexico Unit value 1,406 1,539 1,413 Russia Unit value 879 914 844 South Korea Unit value 948 829 691 Subject sources Unit value 1,155 1,154 1,017 China Unit value 1,008 1,050 960 Japan Unit value 1,275 1,376 1,462 Brazil Unit value 1,132 1,146 1,211 Austria Unit value 1,258 1,266 1,136 Italy Unit value 1,437 1,600 1,773 Indonesia Unit value 2,297 1,239 1,347 Singapore Unit value 1,903 1,983 2,376 All other exporters Unit value 1,331 1,363 1,416 All reporting exporters Unit value 1,231 1,246 1,224 United States Share of quantity 4.2 3.4 3.7 Argentina Share of quantity 5.9 5.0 1.9 Mexico Share of quantity 10.4 7.3 8.8 Russia Share of quantity 8.0 7.3 6.4 South Korea Share of quantity 6.1 6.8 10.0 Subject sources Share of quantity 30.4 26.4 27.1 China Share of quantity 21.2 23.9 25.1 Japan Share of quantity 7.7 8.0 8.9 Brazil Share of quantity 4.5 7.6 6.9 Austria Share of quantity 5.0 4.1 3.8 Italy Share of quantity 2.7 2.5 3.4 Indonesia Share of quantity 1.3 1.0 2.9 Singapore Share of quantity 1.4 2.0 2.4 All other exporters Share of quantity 21.5 21.0 15.8 All reporting exporters Share of quantity 100.0 100.0 100.0 Source: Official exports statistics under HS subheadings 7304.29, 7305.20, and 7306.29 and official global imports statistics from Argentina under HS subheadings 7304.29, 7305.20, and 7306.29 as reported by various national statistical authorities in the Global Trade Atlas database, accessed October 20, 2021. Note: Shares and ratios shown as "0.0" represent values greater than zero, but less than "0.05" percent. Zeroes, null values, and undefined calculations are suppressed and shown as “---". United States is shown at the top followed by the countries under investigation, all remaining top exporting countries in descending order of 2020 data. VII-47 Consumption Data on global OCTG consumption are generally not available. However, because OCTG is used in oil and gas wells, the demand for OCTG is related to the number of oil and gas rigs in use. Total worldwide annual average rig counts decreased by 39 percent, from 2,211 in 2018 to 1,352 in 2020 (table VII-30). In addition, total worldwide average rig counts decreased by 10 percent, from 1,447 in the first three quarters of 2020 to 1,302 in the first three quarters of 2021. The reduced rig count in 2020 occurred as oil prices declined and as global economic activity slowed down as a result of measures taken to slow the spread of the coronavirus.45 However, in 2021 total monthly worldwide average rig counts increased by 22 percent from 1,183 in January to 1,448 in September as oil and gas prices rose.46 Global footage of onshore well drilling *** from *** feet in 2018 to *** feet in 2020. Global footage of onshore well drilling was projected to increase to *** feet in 2021 (Table IV-31). 45 Reuters, “U.S. oil rig count drops to lowest since December 2016: Baker Hughes,” April 9, 2020, https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-rigs-baker-hughes/us-oil-rig-count-drops-to-lowest-since- december-2016-baker-hughes-idUSKCN21R30O. 46 Baker Hughes, “Worldwide Rig Count,” October 1, 2021, https://rigcount.bakerhughes.com/static- files/220e6a99-3dc6-42c9-850f-fb3afecdf7d1. Reuters, “U.S. drillers add oil and gas rigs for fifth week in a row -Baker Hughes,” October 8, 2021. https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/us-drillers-add-oil- gas-rigs-fifth-week-row-baker-hughes-2021-10-08/. VII-48 Table VII-30 OCTG: Baker Hughes international rotary rig count, by country or region and period Average number of rigs Country / Region 2018 2019 2020 Jan-Sept 2020 Jan-Sept 2021 United States 1,032 944 436 478 447 Canada 191 135 90 89 121 Latin America 190 190 107 110 131 Europe 85 149 112 116 101 Africa 98 117 76 82 64 Middle East 396 414 337 369 261 Asia Pacific 219 228 193 203 178 Total 2,211 2,177 1,352 1,447 1,302 Source: Baker Hughes, "Worldwide Rig Count," October 1, 2021, https://rigcount.bakerhughes.com/static- files/220e6a99-3dc6-42c9-850f-fb3afecdf7d1. Note: Oil and gas drilling activity in Canada is higher in the winter when the ground is frozen. In the spring, the movement of equipment is restricted by thawing which causes fields and roads to soften. Therefore, drilling activity often stops in the spring until the ground dries. Canadian Association of Oilwell Drilling Contractors, "Working on a Drilling Rig," accessed October 26, 2021, https://caodc.ca/drilling_rig_work. Table VII-31 OCTG: Onshore well footage drilled, by country or region and year Millions of feet Country / Region 2018 2019 2020 2021 United States *** *** *** *** Canada *** *** *** *** Latin America *** *** *** *** Europe *** *** *** *** Africa *** *** *** *** Middle East *** *** *** *** Asia Pacific *** *** *** *** Russia *** *** *** *** Central Asia *** *** *** *** China *** *** *** *** Total *** *** *** *** Source: ***. Note: Data for 2021 are projected. A-1 APPENDIX A FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICES A-3 The Commission makes available notices relevant to its investigations and reviews on its website, www.usitc.gov. In addition, the following tabulation presents, in chronological order, Federal Register notices issued by the Commission and Commerce during the current proceeding. Citation Title Link 86 FR 56983, October 13, 2021 Oil Country Tubular Goods From Argentina, Mexico, Russia, and South Korea; Institution of Anti-Dumping and Countervailing Duty Investigations and Scheduling of Preliminary Phase Investigations https://www.govinfo.gov/co ntent/pkg/FR-2021-10- 13/pdf/2021-22242.pdf 86 FR 60205, November 1, 2021 Oil Country Tubular Goods From Argentina, Mexico, and the Russian Federation: Initiation of Less-Than-Fair-Value Investigations https://www.govinfo.gov/co ntent/pkg/FR-2021-11- 01/pdf/2021-23715.pdf 86 FR 60210, November 1, 2021 Oil Country Tubular Goods From the Republic of Korea and the Russian Federation: Initiation of Countervailing Duty Investigations https://www.govinfo.gov/co ntent/pkg/FR-2021-11- 01/pdf/2021-23714.pdf B-1 APPENDIX B LIST OF STAFF CONFERENCE WITNESSES B-3 CALENDAR OF PUBLIC PRELIMINARY CONFERENCE Those listed below appeared in the United States International Trade Commission’s preliminary conference via videoconference: Subject: Oil Country Tubular Goods from Argentina, Mexico, Russia, and South Korea Inv. Nos.: 701-TA-671-672 and 731-TA-1571-1573 (Preliminary) Date and Time: October 27, 2021 - 9:30 a.m. FOREIGN GOVERNMENT APPEARANCE: The Government of Argentina Washington, DC Minister Adrián Nador OPENING REMARKS: In Support of Imposition (Thomas M. Beline, Cassidy Levy Kent (USA) LLP) In Opposition to Imposition (Gregory J. Spak, White & Case LLP) In Support of the Imposition of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Orders: Schagrin Associates Washington, DC on behalf of Borusan Mannesmann Pipe U.S., Inc.; PTC Liberty Tubulars LLC; the United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers International Union, AFL-CIO, CLC; and Welded Tube USA, Inc.: Joel Johnson. President and Chief Executive Officer, Borusan Mannesmann Pipe U.S., Inc. Josh Croix, Chief Commercial Officer, Borusan Mannesmann Pipe U.S., Inc. Cary Hart, Chief Executive Officer, PTC Liberty Tubulars LLC Vincent Fera, General Counsel, PTC Liberty Tubulars LLC B-4 In Support of the Imposition of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Orders (continued): Jeff Hanley, Vice President Sales - Energy Tubular Products, Welded Tube USA Roy Houseman, Legislative Director, United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers International Union, AFL-CIO, CLC Randall Edwards, President and Chief Executive Officer, P2 Energy Services Frank Sams, President, JD Rush Corporation Steve Tait, President, B&L Pipeco Services Inc. Roger Schagrin ) Jeffrey Gerrish ) ) – OF COUNSEL Luke Meisner ) Benjamin Bay ) Cassidy Levy Kent (USA) LLP Washington, DC on behalf of United States Steel Tubular Products, Inc. (“USSTP”) William M. Buono, Director of Marketing Analysis and Strategy, USSTP Thomas M. Beline ) Myles S. Getlan ) – OF COUNSEL Mary Jane Alves ) B-5 In Opposition to the Imposition of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Orders: White & Case LLP Washington, DC On behalf of Tenaris Bay City, Inc.; Maverick Tube Corporation; and IPSCO Tubulars Inc. (“Tenaris USA”) Tenaris Global Services (USA) Corporation (“TGS USA”) Siderca S.A.I.C. (“Siderca”) Tubos de Acero de Mexico, S.A. (“TAMSA”) German Cura, Vice-Chairman, Tenaris Jason Gernand, Industrial Relations Director, Tenaris Adam Lange, Vice President of Drilling, Tap Rock Operating, LLC Gregory J. Spak ) Frank J. Schweitzer ) – OF COUNSEL Kristina Zissis ) Sidley Austin LLP Washington, DC on behalf of TMK Group Rajib Pal ) Richard Weiner ) ) – OF COUNSEL Justin Becker ) Lindsey Ricchi ) REBUTTAL/CLOSING REMARKS: In Support of Imposition (Roger B. Schagrin, Schagrin Associates) In Opposition to Imposition (Frank J. Schweitzer, White & Case LLP) -END- C-1 APPENDIX C SUMMARY DATA Table C-1 OCTG: Summary data concerning the U.S. market, 2018-20, January to June 2020, and January to June 2021 Jan-Jun 2018 2019 2020 2020 2021 2018-20 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 U.S. consumption quantity: Amount..................................................... 5,696,707 5,263,571 2,650,833 1,848,311 1,419,998 ▼(53.5) ▼(7.6) ▼(49.6) ▼(23.2) Producers' share (fn1)............................. 52.1 56.7 60.4 60.1 50.6 ▲8.3 ▲4.6 ▲3.7 ▼(9.5) Importers' share (fn1): Argentina............................................. 2.8 3.1 0.6 0.6 5.7 ▼(2.2) ▲0.3 ▼(2.5) ▲5.1 Mexico................................................. 7.4 4.1 6.2 5.9 9.0 ▼(1.2) ▼(3.4) ▲2.2 ▲3.1 Russia.................................................. 4.6 4.1 1.9 2.4 4.1 ▼(2.8) ▼(0.5) ▼(2.2) ▲1.6 South Korea........................................ 8.9 8.6 11.4 9.0 15.3 ▲2.5 ▼(0.3) ▲2.8 ▲6.3 Subject sources.............................. 23.8 19.8 20.1 18.0 34.1 ▼(3.7) ▼(3.9) ▲0.3 ▲16.2 Nonsubject sources........................ 24.2 23.5 19.5 22.0 15.2 ▼(4.7) ▼(0.7) ▼(4.0) ▼(6.7) All import sources....................... 47.9 43.3 39.6 39.9 49.4 ▼(8.3) ▼(4.6) ▼(3.7) ▲9.5 U.S. consumption value: Amount..................................................... 7,882,920 7,147,170 3,118,512 2,208,098 1,781,785 ▼(60.4) ▼(9.3) ▼(56.4) ▼(19.3) Producers' share (fn1): Fully domestic value............................ *** *** *** *** *** ▲*** ▲*** ▲*** ▼*** Incremental value added to imports... *** *** *** *** *** ▼*** ▼*** ▲*** ▲*** Total value...................................... 59.6 63.1 66.4 66.2 59.9 ▲6.8 ▲3.5 ▲3.3 ▼(6.3) Importers' share (fn1): Argentina............................................. 2.5 3.0 0.7 0.6 4.5 ▼(1.9) ▲0.5 ▼(2.4) ▲3.9 Mexico................................................. 7.9 4.9 7.2 7.1 8.6 ▼(0.8) ▼(3.0) ▲2.2 ▲1.5 Russia.................................................. 3.6 3.2 1.3 1.7 2.4 ▼(2.3) ▼(0.3) ▼(1.9) ▲0.7 South Korea........................................ 5.4 5.6 6.7 5.2 10.0 ▲1.3 ▲0.1 ▲1.1 ▲4.8 Subject sources.............................. 19.4 16.7 15.8 14.6 25.5 ▼(3.6) ▼(2.7) ▼(0.9) ▲10.8 Nonsubject sources........................ 21.0 20.2 17.8 19.2 14.7 ▼(3.2) ▼(0.8) ▼(2.4) ▼(4.5) All import sources....................... 40.4 36.9 33.6 33.8 40.1 ▼(6.8) ▼(3.5) ▼(3.3) ▲6.3 U.S. imports from: Argentina: Quantity............................................... 161,851 162,875 16,735 10,515 81,015 ▼(89.7) ▲0.6 ▼(89.7) ▲670.5 Value................................................... 197,616 216,803 20,331 13,553 79,842 ▼(89.7) ▲9.7 ▼(90.6) ▲489.1 Unit value............................................. $1,221 $1,331 $1,215 $1,289 $986 ▼(0.5) ▲9.0 ▼(8.7) ▼(23.5) Ending inventory quantity.................... *** *** *** *** *** ▼*** ▲*** ▼*** ▲*** Mexico: Quantity............................................... 423,173 214,197 164,874 109,672 127,771 ▼(61.0) ▼(49.4) ▼(23.0) ▲16.5 Value................................................... 625,650 350,487 222,982 157,807 153,229 ▼(64.4) ▼(44.0) ▼(36.4) ▼(2.9) Unit value............................................. $1,478 $1,636 $1,352 $1,439 $1,199 ▼(8.5) ▲10.7 ▼(17.3) ▼(16.7) Ending inventory quantity.................... *** *** *** *** *** ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** ▲*** Russia: Quantity............................................... 263,730 215,339 49,340 45,203 58,081 ▼(81.3) ▼(18.3) ▼(77.1) ▲28.5 Value................................................... 280,683 230,773 40,376 37,078 42,669 ▼(85.6) ▼(17.8) ▼(82.5) ▲15.1 Unit value............................................. $1,064 $1,072 $818 $820 $735 ▼(23.1) ▲0.7 ▼(23.6) ▼(10.4) Ending inventory quantity.................... *** *** *** *** *** ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** South Korea: Quantity............................................... 504,216 450,082 301,347 166,422 217,666 ▼(40.2) ▼(10.7) ▼(33.0) ▲30.8 Value................................................... 428,053 398,171 209,346 115,045 178,149 ▼(51.1) ▼(7.0) ▼(47.4) ▲54.9 Unit value............................................. $849 $885 $695 $691 $818 ▼(18.2) ▲4.2 ▼(21.5) ▲18.4 Ending inventory quantity.................... *** *** *** *** *** ▼*** ▲*** ▼*** ▼*** Subject sources: Quantity............................................... 1,352,970 1,042,492 532,296 331,812 484,533 ▼(60.7) ▼(22.9) ▼(48.9) ▲46.0 Value................................................... 1,532,002 1,196,233 493,035 323,483 453,889 ▼(67.8) ▼(21.9) ▼(58.8) ▲40.3 Unit value............................................. $1,132 $1,147 $926 $975 $937 ▼(18.2) ▲1.3 ▼(19.3) ▼(3.9) Ending inventory quantity.................... *** *** *** *** *** ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** Nonsubject sources: Quantity............................................... 1,377,308 1,238,082 517,473 405,848 216,536 ▼(62.4) ▼(10.1) ▼(58.2) ▼(46.6) Value................................................... 1,654,526 1,442,969 555,606 423,668 261,120 ▼(66.4) ▼(12.8) ▼(61.5) ▼(38.4) Unit value............................................. $1,201 $1,165 $1,074 $1,044 $1,206 ▼(10.6) ▼(3.0) ▼(7.9) ▲15.5 Ending inventory quantity.................... *** *** *** *** *** ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** All import sources: Quantity............................................... 2,730,277 2,280,575 1,049,769 737,660 701,068 ▼(61.6) ▼(16.5) ▼(54.0) ▼(5.0) Value................................................... 3,186,528 2,639,202 1,048,641 747,151 715,010 ▼(67.1) ▼(17.2) ▼(60.3) ▼(4.3) Unit value............................................. $1,167 $1,157 $999 $1,013 $1,020 ▼(14.4) ▼(0.8) ▼(13.7) ▲0.7 Ending inventory quantity.................... *** *** *** *** *** ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** Table continued. Quantity=short tons; Value=1,000 dollars; Unit values, unit labor costs, and unit expenses=dollars per short ton; Productivity=short tons per 1,000 hours; Period changes=percent--exceptions noted Reported data Period changes Calendar year Jan-Jun Comparison years C-3 All producers Table C-1 continued OCTG: Summary data concerning the U.S. market, 2018-20, January to June 2020, and January to June 2021 Jan-Jun 2018 2019 2020 2020 2021 2018-20 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 U.S. mills' and U.S. processors': Mills: Average capacity quantity.............. 6,671,276 6,713,448 6,149,233 3,088,431 3,109,098 ▼(7.8) ▲0.6 ▼(8.4) ▲0.7 Mills: Production quantity......................... 3,165,424 3,018,608 1,595,070 1,112,330 746,392 ▼(49.6) ▼(4.6) ▼(47.2) ▼(32.9) Mills: Capacity utilization (fn1).................. 47.4 45.0 25.9 36.0 24.0 ▼(21.5) ▼(2.5) ▼(19.0) ▼(12.0) Processors: Average capacity quantity... 1,786,952 1,806,970 1,824,769 914,435 898,476 ▲2.1 ▲1.1 ▲1.0 ▼(1.7) Processors: Production quantity.............. 918,314 770,999 368,446 259,913 298,449 ▼(59.9) ▼(16.0) ▼(52.2) ▲14.8 Processors: Capacity utilization (fn1)...... 51.4 42.7 20.2 28.4 33.2 ▼(31.2) ▼(8.7) ▼(22.5) ▲4.8 U.S. shipments (fn2): Quantity............................................... 2,966,430 2,982,996 1,601,064 1,110,651 718,930 ▼(46.0) ▲0.6 ▼(46.3) ▼(35.3) Value: Fully domestic value....................... *** *** *** *** *** ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** Incremental value added to imports *** *** *** *** *** ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** ▲*** Total value.................................. 4,696,392 4,507,968 2,069,871 1,460,947 1,066,776 ▼(55.9) ▼(4.0) ▼(54.1) ▼(27.0) Unit value............................................. $1,511 $1,452 $1,240 $1,270 $1,385 ▼(17.9) ▼(3.9) ▼(14.6) ▲9.1 Export shipments: Quantity............................................... *** *** *** *** *** ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** Value................................................... *** *** *** *** *** ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** ▲*** Unit value............................................. *** *** *** *** *** ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** ▲*** Mills: Ending inventory quantity............... 456,161 378,641 198,206 232,346 191,415 ▼(56.5) ▼(17.0) ▼(47.7) ▼(17.6) Mills: Inv./total shipments (fn1)................ *** *** *** *** *** ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** ▲*** Processors: Ending inventory quantity.... *** *** *** *** *** ▲*** ▲*** ▼*** ▼*** Processors: Inv./total shipments (fn1)..... *** *** *** *** *** ▲*** ▲*** ▲*** ▼*** Production workers.................................. 8,006 8,235 4,681 6,102 4,154 ▼(41.5) ▲2.9 ▼(43.2) ▼(31.9) Hours worked (1,000s)............................ 20,408 19,967 10,685 7,016 5,499 ▼(47.6) ▼(2.2) ▼(46.5) ▼(21.6) Wages paid ($1,000)............................... 600,802 620,365 359,123 241,711 178,967 ▼(40.2) ▲3.3 ▼(42.1) ▼(26.0) Hourly wages (dollars per hour).............. $29.44 $31.07 $33.61 $34.45 $32.55 ▲14.2 ▲5.5 ▲8.2 ▼(5.5) Mills: Productivity..................................... 208.8 202.9 205.7 213.3 189.0 ▼(1.5) ▼(2.8) ▲1.4 ▼(11.4) Mills: Unit labor costs............................... $163 $177 $192 $189 $200 ▲18.0 ▲8.8 ▲8.5 ▲6.0 Non-toll processors: Productivity............. *** *** *** *** *** ▲*** ▼*** ▲*** ▲*** Non-toll processors: Unit labor costs....... *** *** *** *** *** ▼*** ▲*** ▼*** ▼*** Toll processors: Productivity.................... *** *** *** *** *** ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** ▲*** Toll processors: Unit labor costs............. *** *** *** *** *** ▲*** ▲*** ▲*** ▼*** U.S. mills' and non-toll processors': Net sales: Quantity............................................... 3,213,742 3,158,673 1,730,911 1,198,444 764,338 ▼(46.1) ▼(1.7) ▼(45.2) ▼(36.2) Value................................................... 4,754,024 4,504,072 2,095,259 1,485,454 1,050,836 ▼(55.9) ▼(5.3) ▼(53.5) ▼(29.3) Unit value............................................. $1,479 $1,426 $1,210 $1,239 $1,375 ▼(18.2) ▼(3.6) ▼(15.1) ▲10.9 Cost of goods sold (COGS)..................... 4,450,154 4,417,139 2,560,150 1,682,032 1,148,279 ▼(42.5) ▼(0.7) ▼(42.0) ▼(31.7) Gross profit or (loss) (fn3)........................ 303,870 86,933 (464,891) (196,578) (97,443) ▼*** ▼(71.4) ▼*** ▲*** SG&A expenses...................................... 473,385 367,857 289,983 175,396 151,263 ▼(38.7) ▼(22.3) ▼(21.2) ▼(13.8) Operating income or (loss) (fn3).............. (169,515) (280,924) (754,874) (371,974) (248,706) ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** ▲*** Net income or (loss) (fn3)........................ *** *** *** *** *** ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** ▲*** Unit COGS............................................... $1,385 $1,398 $1,479 $1,404 $1,502 ▲6.8 ▲1.0 ▲5.8 ▲7.0 Unit SG&A expenses............................... $147 $116 $168 $146 $198 ▲13.7 ▼(20.9) ▲43.9 ▲35.2 Unit operating income or (loss) (fn3)....... $(53) $(89) $(436) $(310) $(325) ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** Unit net income or (loss) (fn3)................. *** *** *** *** *** ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** ▲*** COGS/sales (fn1).................................... 93.6 98.1 122.2 113.2 109.3 ▲28.6 ▲4.5 ▲24.1 ▼(4.0) Operating income or (loss)/sales (fn1).... (3.6) (6.2) (36.0) (25.0) (23.7) ▼(32.5) ▼(2.7) ▼(29.8) ▲1.4 Net income or (loss)/sales (fn1).............. *** *** *** *** *** ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** ▲*** Capital expenditures................................ *** *** *** *** *** ▼*** ▲*** ▼*** ▼*** Research and development expenses... *** *** *** *** *** ▼*** ▲*** ▼*** ▼*** Net assets................................................ *** *** *** *** *** ▲*** ▲*** ▼*** *** Table continued. Calendar year Jan-Jun Comparison years Quantity=short tons; Value=1,000 dollars; Unit values, unit labor costs, and unit expenses=dollars per short ton; Productivity=short tons per 1,000 hours; Period changes=percent--exceptions noted Reported data Period changes C-4 Table C-1 continued OCTG: Summary data concerning the U.S. market, 2018-20, January to June 2020, and January to June 2021 Jan-Jun 2018 2019 2020 2020 2021 2018-20 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 U.S. toll processors': Net tolling: Quantity............................................... *** *** *** *** *** ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** ▲*** Value................................................... *** *** *** *** *** ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** ▲*** Unit value............................................. *** *** *** *** *** ▲*** ▲*** ▲*** ▲*** Total cost of tolling services (COTS)....... *** *** *** *** *** ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** ▲*** Gross profit or (loss) (fn3)........................ *** *** *** *** *** ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** ▲*** G&A expenses......................................... *** *** *** *** *** ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** ▲*** Operating income or (loss) (fn3).............. *** *** *** *** *** ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** ▲*** Unit COTS................................................ *** *** *** *** *** ▲*** ▲*** ▲*** ▲*** Unit G&A expenses................................. *** *** *** *** *** ▲*** ▲*** ▲*** ▼*** Unit operating income or (loss) (fn3)....... *** *** *** *** *** ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** ▲*** COTS/sales (fn1)..................................... *** *** *** *** *** ▲*** ▲*** ▲*** ▼*** Operating income or (loss)/sales (fn1).... *** *** *** *** *** ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** ▲*** Capital expenditures................................ *** *** *** *** *** ▼*** ▲*** ▼*** ▲*** Research and development expenses... *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Net assets................................................ *** *** *** *** *** ▼*** ▼*** ▲*** *** fn1.--Reported data are in percent and period changes are in percentage points. Quantity=short tons; Value=1,000 dollars; Unit values, unit labor costs, and unit expenses=dollars per short ton; Productivity=short tons per 1,000 hours; Period changes=percent--exceptions noted Reported data Period changes Calendar year Jan-Jun Comparison years Note.--Shares and ratios shown as “0.0” percent represent non-zero values less than “0.05” percent (if positive) and greater than “(0.05)” percent (if negative). Zeroes, null values, and undefined calculations are suppressed and shown as “---“. Period changes preceded by a “▲” represent an increase, while period changes preceded by a “▼” represent a decrease. fn2.--Quantity for U.S. producers' U.S. shipments reflects mill's U.S. shipment quantities. Value for U.S. producers' U.S. shipments reflects OCTG products sold in the United States from domestically manufactured OCTG (including the incremental value added by U.S. processors to domestic OCTG), as well as the incremental value added by U.S. processors to imported OCTG. In measuring consumption and market share this methodology avoids reclassifying and/or double counting merchandise already reported as an import. Unit values are based on the fully domestic value. fn3.--Percent changes only calculated when both comparison values represent profits; The directional change in profitability provided when one or both comparison values represent a loss. Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires and from official U.S. import statistics of the U.S. Department of Commerce Census Bureau using HTS statistical reporting numbers 7304.29.1010, 7304.29.1020, 7304.29.1030, 7304.29.1040, 7304.29.1050, 7304.29.1060, 7304.29.1080, 7304.29.2010, 7304.29.2020, 7304.29.2030, 7304.29.2040, 7304.29.2050, 7304.29.2060, 7304.29.2080, 7304.29.3110, 7304.29.3120, 7304.29.3130, 7304.29.3140, 7304.29.3150, 7304.29.3160, 7304.29.3180, 7304.29.4110, 7304.29.4120, 7304.29.4130, 7304.29.4140, 7304.29.4150, 7304.29.4160, 7304.29.4180, 7304.29.5015, 7304.29.5030, 7304.29.5045, 7304.29.5060, 7304.29.5075, 7304.29.6115, 7304.29.6130, 7304.29.6145, 7304.29.6160, 7304.29.6175, 7305.20.2000, 7305.20.4000, 7305.20.6000, 7305.20.8000, 7306.29.1030, 7306.29.1090, 7306.29.2000, 7306.29.3100, 7306.29.4100, 7306.29.6010, 7306.29.6050, 7306.29.8110, and 7306.29.8150, accessed November 9, 2021. Imports quantities are based on the imports for consumption data series and value data reflect landed duty-paid values. C-5 Table C-2 OCTG: Summary data concerning the U.S. market excluding two U.S. producers ***, 2018-20, January to June 2020, and January to June 2021 Jan-Jun 2018 2019 2020 2020 2021 2018-20 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 U.S. consumption quantity: Amount..................................................... *** *** *** *** *** ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** Producers' share (fn1): Included producers............................. *** *** *** *** *** ▲*** ▲*** ▲*** ▲*** Excluded producers............................ *** *** *** *** *** ▲*** ▲*** ▲*** ▼*** All producers................................... *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Importers' share (fn1): Argentina............................................. *** *** *** *** *** ▼*** ▲*** ▼*** ▲*** Mexico................................................. *** *** *** *** *** ▼*** ▼*** ▲*** ▲*** Russia.................................................. *** *** *** *** *** ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** ▲*** South Korea........................................ *** *** *** *** *** ▲*** ▼*** ▲*** ▲*** Subject sources.............................. *** *** *** *** *** ▼*** ▼*** ▲*** ▲*** Nonsubject sources........................ *** *** *** *** *** ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** All import sources....................... *** *** *** *** *** ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** ▲*** U.S. consumption value: Amount..................................................... *** *** *** *** *** ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** Producers' share (fn1): Included producers............................. *** *** *** *** *** ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** Excluded producers............................ *** *** *** *** *** ▲*** ▲*** ▲*** ▲*** All producers................................... *** *** *** *** *** ▲*** ▲*** ▲*** ▼*** Importers' share (fn1): Argentina............................................. *** *** *** *** *** ▼*** ▲*** ▼*** ▲*** Mexico................................................. *** *** *** *** *** ▼*** ▼*** ▲*** ▲*** Russia.................................................. *** *** *** *** *** South Korea........................................ *** *** *** *** *** Subject sources.............................. *** *** *** *** *** ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** ▲*** Nonsubject sources........................ *** *** *** *** *** ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** All import sources....................... *** *** *** *** *** ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** ▲*** U.S. imports from: Argentina: Quantity............................................... 161,851 162,875 16,735 10,515 81,015 ▼(89.7) ▲0.6 ▼(89.7) ▲670.5 Value................................................... 197,616 216,803 20,331 13,553 79,842 ▼(89.7) ▲9.7 ▼(90.6) ▲489.1 Unit value............................................. $1,221 $1,331 $1,215 $1,289 $986 ▼(0.5) ▲9.0 ▼(8.7) ▼(23.5) Ending inventory quantity.................... *** *** *** *** *** ▼*** ▲*** ▼*** ▲*** Mexico: Quantity............................................... 423,173 214,197 164,874 109,672 127,771 ▼(61.0) ▼(49.4) ▼(23.0) ▲16.5 Value................................................... 625,650 350,487 222,982 157,807 153,229 ▼(64.4) ▼(44.0) ▼(36.4) ▼(2.9) Unit value............................................. $1,478 $1,636 $1,352 $1,439 $1,199 ▼(8.5) ▲10.7 ▼(17.3) ▼(16.7) Ending inventory quantity.................... *** *** *** *** *** ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** ▲*** Russia: Quantity............................................... 263,730 215,339 49,340 45,203 58,081 ▼(81.3) ▼(18.3) ▼(77.1) ▲28.5 Value................................................... 280,683 230,773 40,376 37,078 42,669 ▼(85.6) ▼(17.8) ▼(82.5) ▲15.1 Unit value............................................. $1,064 $1,072 $818 $820 $735 ▼(23.1) ▲0.7 ▼(23.6) ▼(10.4) Ending inventory quantity.................... *** *** *** *** *** ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** South Korea: Quantity............................................... 504,216 450,082 301,347 166,422 217,666 ▼(40.2) ▼(10.7) ▼(33.0) ▲30.8 Value................................................... 428,053 398,171 209,346 115,045 178,149 ▼(51.1) ▼(7.0) ▼(47.4) ▲54.9 Unit value............................................. $849 $885 $695 $691 $818 ▼(18.2) ▲4.2 ▼(21.5) ▲18.4 Ending inventory quantity.................... *** *** *** *** *** ▼*** ▲*** ▼*** ▼*** Subject sources: Quantity............................................... 1,352,970 1,042,492 532,296 331,812 484,533 ▼(60.7) ▼(22.9) ▼(48.9) ▲46.0 Value................................................... 1,532,002 1,196,233 493,035 323,483 453,889 ▼(67.8) ▼(21.9) ▼(58.8) ▲40.3 Unit value............................................. $1,132 $1,147 $926 $975 $937 ▼(18.2) ▲1.3 ▼(19.3) ▼(3.9) Ending inventory quantity.................... *** *** *** *** *** ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** Nonsubject sources: Quantity............................................... 1,377,308 1,238,082 517,473 405,848 216,536 ▼(62.4) ▼(10.1) ▼(58.2) ▼(46.6) Value................................................... 1,654,526 1,442,969 555,606 423,668 261,120 ▼(66.4) ▼(12.8) ▼(61.5) ▼(38.4) Unit value............................................. $1,201 $1,165 $1,074 $1,044 $1,206 ▼(10.6) ▼(3.0) ▼(7.9) ▲15.5 Ending inventory quantity.................... *** *** *** *** *** ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** All import sources: Quantity............................................... 2,730,277 2,280,575 1,049,769 737,660 701,068 ▼(61.6) ▼(16.5) ▼(54.0) ▼(5.0) Value................................................... 3,186,528 2,639,202 1,048,641 747,151 715,010 ▼(67.1) ▼(17.2) ▼(60.3) ▼(4.3) Unit value............................................. $1,167 $1,157 $999 $1,013 $1,020 ▼(14.4) ▼(0.8) ▼(13.7) ▲0.7 Ending inventory quantity.................... *** *** *** *** *** ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** Table continued. Quantity=short tons; Value=1,000 dollars; Unit values, unit labor costs, and unit expenses=dollars per short ton; Productivity=short tons per 1,000 hours; Period changes=percent--exceptions noted Reported data Period changes Calendar year Jan-Jun Comparison years C-6 Related party exclusion: Two producers Table C-2 continued OCTG: Summary data concerning the U.S. market excluding two U.S. producers ***, 2018-20, January to June 2020, and January to June 2021 Jan-Jun 2018 2019 2020 2020 2021 2018-20 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 Included U.S. mills' and U.S. processors': Mills: Average capacity quantity.............. *** *** *** *** *** ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** Mills: Production quantity......................... *** *** *** *** *** ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** Mills: Capacity utilization (fn1).................. *** *** *** *** *** ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** Processors: Average capacity quantity... *** *** *** *** *** ▲*** ▲*** ▲*** ▼*** Processors: Production quantity.............. *** *** *** *** *** ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** ▲*** Processors: Capacity utilization (fn1)...... *** *** *** *** *** ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** ▲*** U.S. shipments (fn2): Quantity............................................... *** *** *** *** *** ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** Value................................................... *** *** *** *** *** ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** Unit value............................................. *** *** *** *** *** ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** ▲*** Export shipments: Quantity............................................... *** *** *** *** *** ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** Value................................................... *** *** *** *** *** ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** ▲*** Unit value............................................. *** *** *** *** *** ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** ▲*** Mills: Ending inventory quantity............... *** *** *** *** *** ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** Mills: Inv./total shipments (fn1)................ *** *** *** *** *** ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** ▲*** Processors: Ending inventory quantity.... *** *** *** *** *** ▲*** ▲*** ▼*** ▼*** Processors: Inv./total shipments (fn1)..... *** *** *** *** *** ▲*** ▲*** ▲*** ▼*** Production workers.................................. *** *** *** *** *** ▼*** ▲*** ▼*** ▼*** Hours worked (1,000s)............................ *** *** *** *** *** ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** Wages paid ($1,000)............................... *** *** *** *** *** ▼*** ▲*** ▼*** ▼*** Hourly wages (dollars per hour).............. *** *** *** *** *** ▲*** ▲*** ▲*** ▼*** Mills: Productivity..................................... *** *** *** *** *** ▲*** ▼*** ▲*** ▼*** Mills: Unit labor costs............................... *** *** *** *** *** ▲*** ▲*** ▼*** ▲*** Non-toll processors: Productivity............. *** *** *** *** *** ▲*** ▼*** ▲*** ▲*** Non-toll processors: Unit labor costs....... *** *** *** *** *** ▼*** ▲*** ▼*** ▼*** Toll processors: Productivity.................... *** *** *** *** *** ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** ▲*** Toll processors: Unit labor costs............. *** *** *** *** *** ▲*** ▲*** ▲*** ▼*** Included U.S. mills' and non-toll processors': Net sales: Quantity............................................... *** *** *** *** *** ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** Value................................................... *** *** *** *** *** ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** Unit value............................................. *** *** *** *** *** ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** ▲*** Cost of goods sold (COGS)..................... *** *** *** *** *** ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** Gross profit or (loss) (fn3)........................ *** *** *** *** *** ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** ▲*** SG&A expenses...................................... *** *** *** *** *** ▼*** ▲*** ▼*** ▼*** Operating income or (loss) (fn3).............. *** *** *** *** *** ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** ▲*** Net income or (loss) (fn3)........................ *** *** *** *** *** ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** ▲*** Unit COGS............................................... *** *** *** *** *** ▲*** ▲*** ▲*** ▲*** Unit SG&A expenses............................... *** *** *** *** *** ▲*** ▲*** ▲*** ▲*** Unit operating income or (loss) (fn3)....... *** *** *** *** *** ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** ▲*** Unit net income or (loss) (fn3)................. *** *** *** *** *** ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** ▲*** COGS/sales (fn1).................................... *** *** *** *** *** ▲*** ▲*** ▲*** ▼*** Operating income or (loss)/sales (fn1).... *** *** *** *** *** ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** ▲*** Net income or (loss)/sales (fn1).............. *** *** *** *** *** ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** ▲*** Capital expenditures................................ *** *** *** *** *** ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** *** Research and development expenses... *** *** *** *** *** ▲*** ▲*** ▼*** ▼*** Net assets................................................ *** *** *** *** *** ▼*** ▲*** ▼*** *** Table continued. Calendar year Jan-Jun Comparison years Quantity=short tons; Value=1,000 dollars; Unit values, unit labor costs, and unit expenses=dollars per short ton; Productivity=short tons per 1,000 hours; Period changes=percent--exceptions noted Reported data Period changes C-7 Table C-2 continued OCTG: Summary data concerning the U.S. market excluding two U.S. producers ***, 2018-20, January to June 2020, and January to June 2021 Jan-Jun 2018 2019 2020 2020 2021 2018-20 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 Included U.S. toll processors': Net tolling: Quantity............................................... *** *** *** *** *** ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** ▲*** Value................................................... *** *** *** *** *** ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** ▲*** Unit value............................................. *** *** *** *** *** ▲*** ▲*** ▲*** ▲*** Total cost of tolling services (COTS)....... *** *** *** *** *** ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** ▲*** Gross profit or (loss) (fn3)........................ *** *** *** *** *** ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** ▲*** G&A expenses......................................... *** *** *** *** *** ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** ▲*** Operating income or (loss) (fn3).............. *** *** *** *** *** ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** ▲*** Unit COTS................................................ *** *** *** *** *** ▲*** ▲*** ▲*** ▼*** Unit G&A expenses................................. *** *** *** *** *** ▲*** ▲*** ▲*** ▼*** Unit operating income or (loss) (fn3)....... *** *** *** *** *** ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** ▲*** COTS/sales (fn1)..................................... *** *** *** *** *** ▲*** ▲*** ▲*** ▼*** Operating income or (loss)/sales (fn1).... *** *** *** *** *** ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** ▲*** Capital expenditures................................ *** *** *** *** *** ▼*** ▲*** ▼*** ▲*** Research and development expenses... *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Net assets................................................ *** *** *** *** *** ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** *** fn1.--Reported data are in percent and period changes are in percentage points. Quantity=short tons; Value=1,000 dollars; Unit values, unit labor costs, and unit expenses=dollars per short ton; Productivity=short tons per 1,000 hours; Period changes=percent--exceptions noted Reported data Period changes Calendar year Jan-Jun Comparison years Note.--Shares and ratios shown as “0.0” percent represent non-zero values less than “0.05” percent (if positive) and greater than “(0.05)” percent (if negative). Zeroes, null values, and undefined calculations are suppressed and shown as “---“. Period changes preceded by a “▲” represent an increase, while period changes preceded by a “▼” represent a decrease. fn2.--Quantity for U.S. producers' U.S. shipments reflects mill's U.S. shipment quantities. Value for U.S. producers' U.S. shipments reflects OCTG products sold in the United States from domestically manufactured OCTG (including the incremental value added by U.S. processors to domestic OCTG), as well as the incremental value added by U.S. processors to imported OCTG. In measuring consumption and market share this methodology avoids reclassifying and/or double counting merchandise already reported as an import. Unit values are based on the fully domestic value. fn3.--Percent changes only calculated when both comparison values represent profits; The directional change in profitability provided when one or both comparison values represent a loss. Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires and from official U.S. import statistics of the U.S. Department of Commerce Census Bureau using HTS statistical reporting numbers 7304.29.1010, 7304.29.1020, 7304.29.1030, 7304.29.1040, 7304.29.1050, 7304.29.1060, 7304.29.1080, 7304.29.2010, 7304.29.2020, 7304.29.2030, 7304.29.2040, 7304.29.2050, 7304.29.2060, 7304.29.2080, 7304.29.3110, 7304.29.3120, 7304.29.3130, 7304.29.3140, 7304.29.3150, 7304.29.3160, 7304.29.3180, 7304.29.4110, 7304.29.4120, 7304.29.4130, 7304.29.4140, 7304.29.4150, 7304.29.4160, 7304.29.4180, 7304.29.5015, 7304.29.5030, 7304.29.5045, 7304.29.5060, 7304.29.5075, 7304.29.6115, 7304.29.6130, 7304.29.6145, 7304.29.6160, 7304.29.6175, 7305.20.2000, 7305.20.4000, 7305.20.6000, 7305.20.8000, 7306.29.1030, 7306.29.1090, 7306.29.2000, 7306.29.3100, 7306.29.4100, 7306.29.6010, 7306.29.6050, 7306.29.8110, and 7306.29.8150, accessed November 9, 2021. Imports quantities are based on the imports for consumption data series and value data reflect landed duty-paid values. C-8 Table C-3 OCTG: Summary data concerning the U.S. market excluding one U.S. producer ***, 2018-20, January to June 2020, and January to June 2021 Jan-Jun 2018 2019 2020 2020 2021 2018-20 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 U.S. consumption quantity: Amount..................................................... *** *** *** *** *** ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** Producers' share (fn1): Included producers............................. *** *** *** *** *** ▲*** ▲*** ▲*** ▲*** Excluded producers............................ *** *** *** *** *** ▲*** ▲*** ▲*** ▼*** All producers................................... *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Importers' share (fn1): Argentina............................................. *** *** *** *** *** ▼*** ▲*** ▼*** ▲*** Mexico................................................. *** *** *** *** *** ▼*** ▼*** ▲*** ▲*** Russia.................................................. *** *** *** *** *** ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** ▲*** South Korea........................................ *** *** *** *** *** ▲*** ▼*** ▲*** ▲*** Subject sources.............................. *** *** *** *** *** ▼*** ▼*** ▲*** ▲*** Nonsubject sources........................ *** *** *** *** *** ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** All import sources....................... *** *** *** *** *** ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** ▲*** U.S. consumption value: Amount..................................................... *** *** *** *** *** ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** Producers' share (fn1): Included producers............................. *** *** *** *** *** ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** Excluded producers............................ *** *** *** *** *** ▲*** ▲*** ▲*** ▲*** All producers................................... *** *** *** *** *** ▲*** ▲*** ▲*** ▼*** Importers' share (fn1): Argentina............................................. *** *** *** *** *** ▼*** ▲*** ▼*** ▲*** Mexico................................................. *** *** *** *** *** ▼*** ▼*** ▲*** ▲*** Russia.................................................. *** *** *** *** *** ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** ▲*** South Korea........................................ *** *** *** *** *** ▲*** ▲*** ▲*** ▲*** Subject sources.............................. *** *** *** *** *** ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** ▲*** Nonsubject sources........................ *** *** *** *** *** ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** All import sources....................... *** *** *** *** *** ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** ▲*** U.S. imports from: Argentina: Quantity............................................... 161,851 162,875 16,735 10,515 81,015 ▼(89.7) ▲0.6 ▼(89.7) ▲670.5 Value................................................... 197,616 216,803 20,331 13,553 79,842 ▼(89.7) ▲9.7 ▼(90.6) ▲489.1 Unit value............................................. $1,221 $1,331 $1,215 $1,289 $986 ▼(0.5) ▲9.0 ▼(8.7) ▼(23.5) Ending inventory quantity.................... *** *** *** *** *** ▼*** ▲*** ▼*** ▲*** Mexico: Quantity............................................... 423,173 214,197 164,874 109,672 127,771 ▼(61.0) ▼(49.4) ▼(23.0) ▲16.5 Value................................................... 625,650 350,487 222,982 157,807 153,229 ▼(64.4) ▼(44.0) ▼(36.4) ▼(2.9) Unit value............................................. $1,478 $1,636 $1,352 $1,439 $1,199 ▼(8.5) ▲10.7 ▼(17.3) ▼(16.7) Ending inventory quantity.................... *** *** *** *** *** ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** ▲*** Russia: Quantity............................................... 263,730 215,339 49,340 45,203 58,081 ▼(81.3) ▼(18.3) ▼(77.1) ▲28.5 Value................................................... 280,683 230,773 40,376 37,078 42,669 ▼(85.6) ▼(17.8) ▼(82.5) ▲15.1 Unit value............................................. $1,064 $1,072 $818 $820 $735 ▼(23.1) ▲0.7 ▼(23.6) ▼(10.4) Ending inventory quantity.................... *** *** *** *** *** ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** South Korea: Quantity............................................... 504,216 450,082 301,347 166,422 217,666 ▼(40.2) ▼(10.7) ▼(33.0) ▲30.8 Value................................................... 428,053 398,171 209,346 115,045 178,149 ▼(51.1) ▼(7.0) ▼(47.4) ▲54.9 Unit value............................................. $849 $885 $695 $691 $818 ▼(18.2) ▲4.2 ▼(21.5) ▲18.4 Ending inventory quantity.................... *** *** *** *** *** ▼*** ▲*** ▼*** ▼*** Subject sources: Quantity............................................... 1,352,970 1,042,492 532,296 331,812 484,533 ▼(60.7) ▼(22.9) ▼(48.9) ▲46.0 Value................................................... 1,532,002 1,196,233 493,035 323,483 453,889 ▼(67.8) ▼(21.9) ▼(58.8) ▲40.3 Unit value............................................. $1,132 $1,147 $926 $975 $937 ▼(18.2) ▲1.3 ▼(19.3) ▼(3.9) Ending inventory quantity.................... *** *** *** *** *** ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** Nonsubject sources: Quantity............................................... 1,377,308 1,238,082 517,473 405,848 216,536 ▼(62.4) ▼(10.1) ▼(58.2) ▼(46.6) Value................................................... 1,654,526 1,442,969 555,606 423,668 261,120 ▼(66.4) ▼(12.8) ▼(61.5) ▼(38.4) Unit value............................................. $1,201 $1,165 $1,074 $1,044 $1,206 ▼(10.6) ▼(3.0) ▼(7.9) ▲15.5 Ending inventory quantity.................... *** *** *** *** *** ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** All import sources: Quantity............................................... 2,730,277 2,280,575 1,049,769 737,660 701,068 ▼(61.6) ▼(16.5) ▼(54.0) ▼(5.0) Value................................................... 3,186,528 2,639,202 1,048,641 747,151 715,010 ▼(67.1) ▼(17.2) ▼(60.3) ▼(4.3) Unit value............................................. $1,167 $1,157 $999 $1,013 $1,020 ▼(14.4) ▼(0.8) ▼(13.7) ▲0.7 Ending inventory quantity.................... *** *** *** *** *** ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** Table continued. Quantity=short tons; Value=1,000 dollars; Unit values, unit labor costs, and unit expenses=dollars per short ton; Productivity=short tons per 1,000 hours; Period changes=percent--exceptions noted Reported data Period changes Calendar year Jan-Jun Comparison years C-9 Related party exclusion: One producer Table C-3 continued OCTG: Summary data concerning the U.S. market excluding one U.S. producer ***, 2018-20, January to June 2020, and January to June 2021 Jan-Jun 2018 2019 2020 2020 2021 2018-20 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 Included U.S. mills' and U.S. processors': Mills: Average capacity quantity.............. *** *** *** *** *** ▼*** ▲*** ▼*** ▲*** Mills: Production quantity......................... *** *** *** *** *** ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** Mills: Capacity utilization (fn1).................. *** *** *** *** *** ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** Processors: Average capacity quantity... *** *** *** *** *** ▲*** ▲*** ▲*** ▼*** Processors: Production quantity.............. *** *** *** *** *** ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** ▲*** Processors: Capacity utilization (fn1)...... *** *** *** *** *** ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** ▲*** U.S. shipments (fn2): Quantity............................................... *** *** *** *** *** ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** Value................................................... *** *** *** *** *** ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** Unit value............................................. *** *** *** *** *** ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** ▲*** Export shipments: Quantity............................................... *** *** *** *** *** ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** Value................................................... *** *** *** *** *** ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** ▲*** Unit value............................................. *** *** *** *** *** ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** ▲*** Mills: Ending inventory quantity............... *** *** *** *** *** ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** Mills: Inv./total shipments (fn1)................ *** *** *** *** *** ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** ▲*** Processors: Ending inventory quantity.... *** *** *** *** *** ▲*** ▲*** ▼*** ▼*** Processors: Inv./total shipments (fn1)..... *** *** *** *** *** ▲*** ▲*** ▲*** ▼*** Production workers.................................. *** *** *** *** *** ▼*** ▲*** ▼*** ▼*** Hours worked (1,000s)............................ *** *** *** *** *** ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** Wages paid ($1,000)............................... *** *** *** *** *** ▼*** ▲*** ▼*** ▼*** Hourly wages (dollars per hour).............. *** *** *** *** *** ▲*** ▲*** ▲*** ▼*** Mills: Productivity..................................... *** *** *** *** *** ▼*** ▼*** ▲*** ▼*** Mills: Unit labor costs............................... *** *** *** *** *** ▲*** ▲*** ▲*** ▲*** Non-toll processors: Productivity............. *** *** *** *** *** ▲*** ▼*** ▲*** ▲*** Non-toll processors: Unit labor costs....... *** *** *** *** *** ▼*** ▲*** ▼*** ▼*** Toll processors: Productivity.................... *** *** *** *** *** ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** ▲*** Toll processors: Unit labor costs............. *** *** *** *** *** ▲*** ▲*** ▲*** ▼*** Included U.S. mills' and non-toll processors': Net sales: Quantity............................................... *** *** *** *** *** ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** Value................................................... *** *** *** *** *** ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** Unit value............................................. *** *** *** *** *** ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** ▲*** Cost of goods sold (COGS)..................... *** *** *** *** *** ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** Gross profit or (loss) (fn3)........................ *** *** *** *** *** ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** ▲*** SG&A expenses...................................... *** *** *** *** *** ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** Operating income or (loss) (fn3).............. *** *** *** *** *** ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** ▲*** Net income or (loss) (fn3)........................ *** *** *** *** *** ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** ▲*** Unit COGS............................................... *** *** *** *** *** ▲*** ▲*** ▲*** ▲*** Unit SG&A expenses............................... *** *** *** *** *** ▲*** ▼*** ▲*** ▲*** Unit operating income or (loss) (fn3)....... *** *** *** *** *** ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** Unit net income or (loss) (fn3)................. *** *** *** *** *** ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** ▲*** COGS/sales (fn1).................................... *** *** *** *** *** ▲*** ▲*** ▲*** ▼*** Operating income or (loss)/sales (fn1).... *** *** *** *** *** ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** ▲*** Net income or (loss)/sales (fn1).............. *** *** *** *** *** ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** ▲*** Capital expenditures................................ *** *** *** *** *** ▼*** ▲*** ▼*** ▼*** Research and development expenses... *** *** *** *** *** ▼*** ▲*** ▼*** ▼*** Net assets................................................ *** *** *** *** *** ▲*** ▲*** ▼*** *** Table continued. Quantity=short tons; Value=1,000 dollars; Unit values, unit labor costs, and unit expenses=dollars per short ton; Productivity=short tons per 1,000 hours; Period changes=percent--exceptions noted Reported data Period changes Calendar year Jan-Jun Comparison years C-10 Table C-3 continued OCTG: Summary data concerning the U.S. market excluding one U.S. producer ***, 2018-20, January to June 2020, and January to June 2021 Jan-Jun 2018 2019 2020 2020 2021 2018-20 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 Included U.S. toll processors': Net tolling: Quantity............................................... *** *** *** *** *** ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** ▲*** Value................................................... *** *** *** *** *** ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** ▲*** Unit value............................................. *** *** *** *** *** ▲*** ▲*** ▲*** ▲*** Total cost of tolling services (COTS)....... *** *** *** *** *** ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** ▲*** Gross profit or (loss) (fn3)........................ *** *** *** *** *** ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** ▲*** G&A expenses......................................... *** *** *** *** *** ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** ▲*** Operating income or (loss) (fn3).............. *** *** *** *** *** ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** ▲*** Unit COTS................................................ *** *** *** *** *** ▲*** ▲*** ▲*** ▼*** Unit G&A expenses................................. *** *** *** *** *** ▲*** ▲*** ▲*** ▼*** Unit operating income or (loss) (fn3)....... *** *** *** *** *** ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** ▲*** COTS/sales (fn1)..................................... *** *** *** *** *** ▲*** ▲*** ▲*** ▼*** Operating income or (loss)/sales (fn1).... *** *** *** *** *** ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** ▲*** Capital expenditures................................ *** *** *** *** *** ▼*** ▲*** ▼*** ▲*** Research and development expenses... *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Net assets................................................ *** *** *** *** *** ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** *** fn1.--Reported data are in percent and period changes are in percentage points. Calendar year Jan-Jun Comparison years Quantity=short tons; Value=1,000 dollars; Unit values, unit labor costs, and unit expenses=dollars per short ton; Productivity=short tons per 1,000 hours; Period changes=percent--exceptions noted Reported data Period changes Note.--Shares and ratios shown as “0.0” percent represent non-zero values less than “0.05” percent (if positive) and greater than “(0.05)” percent (if negative). Zeroes, null values, and undefined calculations are suppressed and shown as “---“. Period changes preceded by a “▲” represent an increase, while period changes preceded by a “▼” represent a decrease. fn2.--Quantity for U.S. producers' U.S. shipments reflects mill's U.S. shipment quantities. Value for U.S. producers' U.S. shipments reflects OCTG products sold in the United States from domestically manufactured OCTG (including the incremental value added by U.S. processors to domestic OCTG), as well as the incremental value added by U.S. processors to imported OCTG. In measuring consumption and market share this methodology avoids reclassifying and/or double counting merchandise already reported as an import. Unit values are based on the fully domestic value. fn3.--Percent changes only calculated when both comparison values represent profits; The directional change in profitability provided when one or both comparison values represent a loss. Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires and from official U.S. import statistics of the U.S. Department of Commerce Census Bureau using HTS statistical reporting numbers 7304.29.1010, 7304.29.1020, 7304.29.1030, 7304.29.1040, 7304.29.1050, 7304.29.1060, 7304.29.1080, 7304.29.2010, 7304.29.2020, 7304.29.2030, 7304.29.2040, 7304.29.2050, 7304.29.2060, 7304.29.2080, 7304.29.3110, 7304.29.3120, 7304.29.3130, 7304.29.3140, 7304.29.3150, 7304.29.3160, 7304.29.3180, 7304.29.4110, 7304.29.4120, 7304.29.4130, 7304.29.4140, 7304.29.4150, 7304.29.4160, 7304.29.4180, 7304.29.5015, 7304.29.5030, 7304.29.5045, 7304.29.5060, 7304.29.5075, 7304.29.6115, 7304.29.6130, 7304.29.6145, 7304.29.6160, 7304.29.6175, 7305.20.2000, 7305.20.4000, 7305.20.6000, 7305.20.8000, 7306.29.1030, 7306.29.1090, 7306.29.2000, 7306.29.3100, 7306.29.4100, 7306.29.6010, 7306.29.6050, 7306.29.8110, and 7306.29.8150, accessed November 9, 2021. Imports quantities are based on the imports for consumption data series and value data reflect landed duty-paid values. C-11 D-1 APPENDIX D SECTION 232 PROCLAMATIONS D-3 Table D-1 Section 232 actions: Presidential proclamations, 2017 to present Effective date Action April 19, 2017 The Department of Commerce announced the institution of an investigation, by its U.S. Bureau of Industry and Security (“BIS”) into the potential impact of imported steel mill products on national security (82 FR 19205). January 11, 2018 The Secretary of Commerce submitted the BIS Section 232 steel imports report to the President. March 23, 2018 The President announced the imposition of 25 percent ad valorem national- security duties on U.S. steel imports. Initially exempted— Canada and Mexico (83 FR 11625). March 23 through May 1, 2018 Adjustment: Exempted— Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, the European Union (“EU”) member states, Korea, and Mexico (83 FR 13361). May 1 through June 1, 2018 Adjustment: Exemptions continued with annual quota limits— Argentina, Brazil, and Korea. Exemptions not continued— Canada, Mexico, and EU member states (83 FR 20683, 83 FR 25857). August 13, 2018 Adjustment: Exemptions continued— Argentina, Australia, Brazil, and Korea. Duty rate doubled to 50 percent ad valorem— Turkey (83 FR 40429). May 20, 2019 Adjustment: Exemptions reinstated— Canada and Mexico (84 FR 23987). May 21, 2019 Adjustment: Duty rate reduced from 50 percent back to 25 percent ad valorem— Turkey (84 FR 23421). October 31, 2021 Adjustment: The Office of the United States Trade Representative announced that effective January 1, 2022, Section 232 duties for EU member states will be replaced with a tariff-rate quota. Imports from EU member states of steel products subject to section 232 steel tariffs that are within the quota will enter free of any Section 232 duty. Imports from EU member states of steel products subject to section 232 steel tariffs that exceed the quota will continue to be subject to a Section 232 duty of 25 percent Sources: Notice Request for Public Comments and Public Hearing on Section 232 National Security Investigation of Imports of Steel, April 17, 2017, 82 FR 19205, April 26, 2017. “Statement from the Department of Commerce on Submission of Steel Section 232 Report to the President,” News Release January 11, 2018, https://2017-2021.commerce.gov/index.php/news/press-releases/2018/01/statement- department-commerce-submission-steel-section-232-report.html. Adjusting Imports of Steel Into the United States, Presidential Proclamation 9705, March 8, 2018, 83 FR 11625, March 15, 2018. Adjusting Imports of Steel Into the United States, Presidential Proclamation 9711, March 22, 2018, 83 FR 13361, March 28, 2018. Adjusting Imports of Steel Into the United States, Presidential Proclamation 9740, April 30, 2018, 83 FR 20683, May 7, 2018; Adjusting Imports of Steel Into the United States, Presidential Proclamation 9759, May 31, 2018, 83 FR 25857, June 5, 2018. Continuation of the exemption for Australia, as of June 1, 2018, was included in subsequent Presidential Proclamation 9772, August 10, 2018. Adjusting Imports of Steel Into the United States, Presidential Proclamation 9772, August 10, 2018, 83 FR 40429, August 15, 2018. Adjusting Imports of Steel Into the United States, Presidential Proclamation 9894, May 19, 2019, 84 FR 23987, May 23, 2019. Adjusting Imports of Steel Into the United States, Presidential Proclamation 9886, May 16, 2019, 84 FR 23421, May 21, 2019. Office of the United States Trade Representative, “Announcement of Actions on EU Imports Under Section 232,” October 31, 2021, https://ustr.gov/sites/default/files/files/Statements/US%20232%20EU%20Statement.pdf. E-1 APPENDIX E SEMI-FINISHED PRODUCT ANALYSIS E-3 Table E-1 OCTG: U.S. producers’ responses to the semi-finished product questions Semi finished factor No Yes Other uses 12 0 Separate market 12 1 Difference in characteristics 1 12 Difference in cost 0 13 Transformation intensive 1 12 Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. E-4 Table E-2 OCTG: U.S. producers’ narrative responses to semi-finished product analysis, by firm Producer name Comparison factor Narrative explanation on semi-finished like product factor *** Other uses *** *** Separate market *** *** Differences in characteristics *** *** Differences in characteristics *** *** Differences in characteristics *** *** Differences in characteristics *** *** Differences in characteristics *** *** Differences in characteristics *** *** Differences in characteristics *** *** Differences in characteristics *** *** Differences in characteristics *** *** Differences in characteristics *** *** Differences in characteristics *** *** Differences in characteristics *** *** Differences in cost *** *** Differences in cost *** *** Differences in cost *** *** Differences in cost *** *** Differences in cost *** *** Differences in cost *** *** Differences in cost *** *** Differences in cost *** *** Differences in cost *** E-5 Producer name Comparison factor Narrative explanation on semi-finished like product factor *** Differences in cost *** *** Differences in cost *** *** Differences in cost *** *** Differences in cost *** *** Transformation intensive *** *** Transformation intensive *** *** Transformation intensive *** *** Transformation intensive *** *** Transformation intensive *** *** Transformation intensive *** *** Transformation intensive *** *** Transformation intensive *** *** Transformation intensive *** *** Transformation intensive *** *** Transformation intensive *** *** Transformation intensive *** Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. E-1 APPENDIX F OIL AND NATURAL GAS PRICES E-3 Table E-1 Crude oil: Price in USD per barrel of WTI spot f.o.b. Cushing OK, by month, January 2018-June 2020 Price in dollars per barrel Year Month Cushing, OK WTI Spot Price FOB 2018 January 63.70 2018 February 62.23 2018 March 62.73 2018 April 66.25 2018 May 69.98 2018 June 67.87 2018 July 70.98 2018 August 68.06 2018 September 70.23 2018 October 70.75 2018 November 56.96 2018 December 49.52 2019 January 51.38 2019 February 54.95 2019 March 58.15 2019 April 63.86 2019 May 60.83 2019 June 54.66 2019 July 57.35 2019 August 54.81 2019 September 56.95 2019 October 53.96 2019 November 57.03 2019 December 59.88 2020 January 57.52 2020 February 50.54 2020 March 29.21 2020 April 16.55 2020 May 28.56 2020 June 38.31 2020 July 40.71 2020 August 42.34 2020 September 39.63 2020 October 39.40 2020 November 40.94 2020 December 47.02 2021 January 52.00 2021 February 59.04 2021 March 62.33 2021 April 61.72 2021 May 65.17 2021 June 71.38 2021 July 72.49 2021 August 67.73 2021 September 71.65 Source: EIA: https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/steo/data/browser/#?v=8 (accessed Oct 13. 2021) E-3 Table E-2 Natural gas: Price in USD per million Btu of natural gas (Henry Hub spot price), by month, January 2018-June 2020 Price in dollars per million Btu Year Month Henry Hub Natural Gas Spot Price 2018 January 3.87 2018 February 2.67 2018 March 2.69 2018 April 2.8 2018 May 2.8 2018 June 2.97 2018 July 2.83 2018 August 2.96 2018 September 3.00 2018 October 3.28 2018 November 4.09 2018 December 4.04 2019 January 3.11 2019 February 2.69 2019 March 2.95 2019 April 2.65 2019 May 2.64 2019 June 2.40 2019 July 2.37 2019 August 2.22 2019 September 2.56 2019 October 2.33 2019 November 2.65 2019 December 2.22 2020 January 2.02 2020 February 1.91 2020 March 1.79 2020 April 1.74 2020 May 1.75 2020 June 1.63 2020 July 1.77 2020 August 2.30 2020 September 1.92 2020 October 2.39 2020 November 2.61 2020 December 2.59 2021 January 2.71 2021 February 5.35 2021 March 2.62 2021 April 2.66 2021 May 2.91 2021 June 3.26 2021 July 3.84 2021 August 4.07 2021 September 5.16 Source: EIA: https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/steo/data/browser/#?v=8 (accessed Oct 13. 2021) G-1 APPENDIX G PRODUCTION-RELATED ACTIVITIES BY U.S. PROCESSORS G-3 Table G-1 OCTG: U.S. mill and processor *** narrative explanations relating to its overall domestic production activities and to the sufficient production-related activity factors as they relate to production or processing operations Factor Narrative responses Domestic production activities description *** Capital investments *** Technical expertise *** Value added *** Employment *** Quantity, type and source of parts *** Costs and activities *** Rating of complexity *** Narrative on complexity *** Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. G-4 Table G-2 OCTG: U.S. mill and processor *** narrative explanations relating to its overall domestic production activities and to the sufficient production-related activity factors as they relate to production or processing operations Factor Narrative responses Domestic production activities description *** Capital investments *** Technical expertise *** Value added *** Employment *** Quantity, type and source of parts *** Costs and activities *** Rating of complexity *** Narrative on complexity *** Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. G-5 Table G-3 OCTG: U.S. mill and processor *** narrative explanations relating to its overall domestic production activities and to the sufficient production-related activity factors as they relate to production or processing operations Factor Narrative responses Domestic production activities description *** Capital investments *** Technical expertise *** Value added *** Employment *** Quantity, type and source of parts *** Costs and activities *** Rating of complexity *** Narrative on complexity *** Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. G-6 Table G-4 OCTG: U.S. mill and processor *** narrative explanations relating to its overall domestic production activities and to the sufficient production-related activity factors as they relate to production or processing operations Factor Narrative responses Domestic production activities description *** Capital investments *** Technical expertise *** Value added *** Employment *** Quantity, type and source of parts *** Costs and activities *** Rating of complexity *** Narrative on complexity *** Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. G-7 Table G-5 OCTG: U.S. processor *** narrative explanations relating to its overall domestic production activities and to the sufficient production-related activity factors as they relate to production or processing operations Factor Narrative responses Domestic production activities description *** Capital investments *** Technical expertise *** Value added *** Employment *** Quantity, type and source of parts *** Costs and activities *** Rating of complexity *** Narrative on complexity *** Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. G-8 Table G-6 OCTG: U.S. mill and processor *** narrative explanations relating to its overall domestic production activities and to the sufficient production-related activity factors as they relate to production or processing operations Factor Narrative responses Domestic production activities description *** Capital investments *** Technical expertise *** Value added *** Employment *** Quantity, type and source of parts *** Costs and activities *** Rating of complexity *** Narrative on complexity *** Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. G-9 Table G-7 OCTG: U.S. processor *** narrative explanations relating to its overall domestic production activities and to the sufficient production-related activity factors as they relate to production or processing operations Factor Narrative responses Domestic production activities description *** Capital investments *** Technical expertise *** Value added *** Employment *** Quantity, type and source of parts *** Costs and activities *** Rating of complexity *** Narrative on complexity *** Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. G-10 Table G-8 OCTG: U.S. mill and processor *** narrative explanations relating to its overall domestic production activities and to the sufficient production-related activity factors as they relate to production or processing operations Factor Narrative responses Domestic production activities description *** Capital investments *** Technical expertise *** Value added *** Employment *** Quantity, type and source of parts *** Costs and activities *** Rating of complexity *** Narrative on complexity *** Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. G-11 Table G-9 OCTG: U.S. processor *** narrative explanations relating to its overall domestic production activities and to the sufficient production-related activity factors as they relate to production or processing operations Factor Narrative responses Domestic production activities description *** Capital investments *** Technical expertise *** Value added *** Employment *** Quantity, type and source of parts *** Costs and activities *** Rating of complexity *** Narrative on complexity *** Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. G-12 Table G-10 OCTG: U.S. processor *** narrative explanations relating to its overall domestic production activities and to the sufficient production-related activity factors as they relate to production or processing operations Factor Narrative responses Domestic production activities description *** Capital investments *** Technical expertise *** Value added *** Employment *** Quantity, type and source of parts *** Costs and activities *** Rating of complexity *** Narrative on complexity *** Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. G-13 Table G-11 OCTG: U.S. mill and processor *** narrative explanations relating to its overall domestic production activities and to the sufficient production-related activity factors as they relate to production or processing operations Factor Narrative responses Domestic production activities description *** Capital investments *** Technical expertise *** Value added *** Employment *** Quantity, type and source of parts *** Costs and activities *** Rating of complexity *** Narrative on complexity *** Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. G-14 Table G-12 OCTG: U.S. mill and processor *** narrative explanations relating to its overall domestic production activities and to the sufficient production-related activity factors as they relate to production or processing operations Factor Narrative responses Domestic production activities description *** Capital investments *** Technical expertise *** Value added *** Employment *** Quantity, type and source of parts *** Costs and activities *** Rating of complexity *** Narrative on complexity *** Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.